SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-1
5. BIODIVERSITY, FLORA & FAUNA
5.1 Introduction This chapter assesses the likely significant effects that the proposed development may have on
Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna and mitigates any potential effects that are identified. Particular attention
has been paid to species and habitats of ecological importance. These include species and habitats with
national and international protection under the Wildlife Acts 1976-2017, EU Habitats Directive and the
EU Birds Directive among other relevant legislation. Where potential effects are identified, mitigation is
prescribed and residual impacts on flora and fauna are assessed.
The ecological assessment considers potential impact of the proposed development on biodiversity. In
summary, planning permission is sought by Castlestar (Athlone) Limited for a 5-year permission for
development on a site which extends to 16.615 ha in the townlands of Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and
Coosan, Athlone, Co. Westmeath. The proposed development is for the construction of 426 no.
residential units, development of a crèche facility, the construction of a 430m section of a new distributor
road linking Coosan and Cornamaddy as well as the provision of shared communal and private open
space, car and bicycle parking, site landscaping and public lighting, services, access with the Coosan Road
and new distributor road, and all associated site development works.
The aim of this ecological impact assessment is to ensure that elements of the proposed project that may
potentially affect biodiversity, habitats or species are adequately assessed. This assessment quantifies any
potential impacts relating to biodiversity and identifies the mitigation or design measures required to
avoid, reduce and mitigate any potential effect. Where potential for impact was identified at an early
stage in the project, alterations to the project layout have been incorporated. Mitigation has been derived
following a collaborative approach working with a multi-disciplinary team including project engineers,
landscape architects, hydrologists and ecologists.
The assessment of the development site began with a desk study of available published data on sites
designated for nature conservation, other ecologically sensitive sites, habitats and species of interest in the
vicinity of the proposed development. A review of OSI mapping, online environmental web-mappers
and ortho-photography was also undertaken. The baseline information obtained from the desk study was
the first stage in defining a zone of influence of the proposed development.
Following the desk studies, including review of previously completed ecological surveys, a multi-
disciplinary ecological walkover survey (as per Section 4.2 of Ecological Survey Techniques for Protected
Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National Schemes’ (NRA, 2009)) and a separate dusk bat survey
was conducted for the development site. A multi-disciplinary survey aims to undertake habitat assessment
through classification, mapping and compilation of flora species lists and habitat suitability assessments for
faunal species. The ecological surveys undertaken provided vital baseline information regarding the
existing ecology of development site.
The information provided in this assessment, accurately and comprehensively describes the baseline
ecological environment; provides an accurate prediction of the likely ecological impacts of the proposed
development; prescribes mitigation as necessary; and, describes the residual ecological impacts. The
specialist studies, analysis and reporting have been undertaken in accordance with the appropriate
guidelines as fully described in the methodology section of this report.
5.1.1 Requirements for Ecological Impact Assessment
National Legislation
The Wildlife Act, 1976–2017 (S.I. No. 166 of 2017), is the principle mechanism for the legislative
protection of wildlife in Ireland. The Wildlife Act provides strict protection for species of conservation
value. The Wildlife Act protects species from injury, disturbance and damage to breeding and resting
sites. These species are therefore considered in this report as ecological receptors. Natural Heritage
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-2
Areas (NHAs) and Proposed Natural Heritage Areas (pNHAs) are heritage sites that are designated for
the protection of flora, fauna, habitats and geological sites. Only NHAs are designated under the Wildlife
(Amendment) Act 2017. These sites do not form part of the Natura 2000 network of European sites and
the AA process, or screening for same, does not apply to NHAs or pNHAs. Proposed Natural Heritage
Areas (pNHAs) were published on a non-statutory basis and have no statutory protection. However, these
sites are considered to be of significance for wildlife and habitats as they may form statutory designated
sites in the future (NPWS, 2018).
The Flora (Protection) Order, 2015 provides protection to a wide variety of protected plant species in
Ireland including vascular plants, mosses, liverworts, lichens and stoneworts. Under the Flora Protection
Order, it is illegal to cut, uproot or damage species listed in any way or to alter, damage or interfere in any
way with their habitats.
National Policy
The National Biodiversity Action Plan 2017-2021 is a framework for the conservation and protection of
biodiversity in Ireland. The main objective of the plan is to conserve and restore biodiversity and
ecosystem services. Objective 1 of the National Biodiversity Action Plan identifies the following relevant
measures in relation to future developments:
“Mainstreaming biodiversity into decision-making across all sectors”.
“All Public Authorities and private sector bodies move towards no net loss of
biodiversity through strategies, planning, mitigation measures, appropriate offsetting
and/or investment in Blue-Green infrastructure”.
Such policies have informed the evaluation of ecological features recorded within the study area and the
ecological assessment process.
European Legislation
The Habitats Directive (together with the Birds Directive) forms the cornerstone of Europe's nature
conservation within the EU. It is built around two pillars: the Natura 2000 network of protected sites and
the strict system of species protection. The directive protects over 1,000 animal and plant species and
over 200 "habitat types" (e.g. special types of forests, meadows, wetlands, etc.), which are of European
importance. The EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), which were
transposed into Irish law as S.I. No. 94/1997 European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats)
Regulations 1997, recognise the significance of protecting rare and endangered species of flora and fauna,
and more importantly, their habitats. The 1997 Regulations and their amendments were subsequently
revised and consolidated in S.I. No. 477/2011- European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats)
Regulations 2011. This legislation requires the establishment and conservation of a network of sites of
particular conservation value that are to be termed ‘European Sites’.
Annex I of the Habitats Directive lists habitat types whose conservation requires the designation of
Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). Priority habitats, such as Turloughs, which are in danger of
disappearing within the EU territory are also listed in Annex I. Annex II of the Directive lists animal and
plant species (e.g. marsh fritillary, Atlantic salmon, and Killarney fern) whose conservation also requires
the designation of SAC. Annex IV lists animal and plant species in need of strict protection such as lesser
horseshoe bat and otter, and Annex V lists animal and plant species whose taking in the wild and
exploitation may be subject to management measures. In Ireland, species listed under Annex V include
Irish hare, common frog and pine marten. Species can be listed in more than one Annex, as is the case
with otter and lesser horseshoe bat which are listed on both Annex II and Annex IV.
Council Directive 2009/147/EC (the Birds Directive) on the conservation of wild birds instructs Member
States to take measures to maintain populations of all bird species naturally occurring in the wild state in
the EU (Article 2). Such measures may include the maintenance and/or re-establishment of habitats in
order to sustain these bird populations (Article 3). A subset of bird species have been identified in the
Directive and are listed in Annex I as requiring special conservation measures in relation to their habitats.
These species have been listed on account of inter alia: their risk of extinction; vulnerability to specific
changes in their habitat; and/or due to their relatively small population size or restricted distribution.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-3
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are to be identified and classified for these Annex I listed species and for
regularly occurring migratory species, paying particular attention to the protection of wetlands (Article 4).
In summary, the species and habitats provided National and International protection under these
legislative and policy documents have been considered in this Ecological Impact Assessment.
This assessment has been carried out in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive
(2014/52/EU) and the European Union (Planning and Development) (Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations 2018 [S.I. no 296 of 2018].
5.1.2 Legislation, Guidance and Policy Context
The following legislation applies with respect to habitats, fauna and water quality in Ireland:
Irish Wildlife Acts 1976 to 2017
The European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011
(transposes EU Birds Directive2009/147/EC and EU Habitats Directive 2009/147/EC,
92/43/EC)
The International Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 1971.
S.I. No. 272 of 2009: European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface
Waters) Regulations 2009 and S.I. No. 722 of 2003 European Communities (Water
Policy) Regulations which implement EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
and provide for implementation of ‘daughter’ Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC).
The following legislation applies with respect to invasive alien species:
Regulation 49 and 50 of European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats)
Regulations 2011 (SI 477 of 2011).
The assessment methodology is based primarily upon 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) as well as the National Road Authority
(NRA)’s Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes Rev 2 (NRA,
2009). The survey methodology is primarily based on the NRA Guidelines on Ecological Surveying
Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna on National Road Schemes (NRA, 2009). The guidelines
listed below were consulted in the preparation of this document to inform the scope, structure and
content of the assessment. They are among the recognised guidance in Environmental Impact
Assessment and National Road Scheme assessments.
Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements
(EPA, 2002).
Environmental Assessment and Construction Guidelines (NRA, 2006).
Guidelines for assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes, (NRA,
2009). (referred to hereafter as the NRA Ecological Impact Assessment Guidelines)
Environmental Impact Assessment of National Road Schemes –A Practical Guide
(NRA, 2009).
Draft Revised guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact
Statements (EPA, 2017).
Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects, Guidance on the preparation of the
Environmental Impact Assessment Report (European Commission, 2017)
Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland. Terrestrial,
Freshwater, Coastal and Marine (CIEEM, 2018).
This assessment has been prepared with respect to the various planning policies and strategy
guidance documents listed below:
Planning and Development Acts 2000 - 2015
Westmeath County Development Plan 2014-2020.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-4
DoHPLG (2018). Guidelines for Planning Authorities and An Bord Pleanála on
Carrying out Environmental Impact Assessment. Department of Housing, Planning
and Local Government.
EPA (2003). Advice notes on current practice (in the preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements).
European Commission (2002). Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting
Natura 2000 sites.
5.1.3 Statement of Authority
A field assessment was undertaken by David McNicholas (B.Sc., M.Sc., MCIEEM) on the 16th
November 2018 and by Julie O’Sullivan on the 14th of May 2019. This report has been prepared by
David McNicholas who is a full member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental
Management (CIEEM) and has over 9 years professional ecological consultancy experience. Julie is an
experienced ecological consultant with over 6 years professional experience. This report has been
reviewed by Pat Roberts (B.Sc., MCIEEM) who has over 15 years’ experience in ecological assessment
and management.
5.2 Methodology Assessing the impacts of any project and associated activities requires an understanding of the ecological
baseline conditions prior to and at the time of the project proceeding. Ecological Baseline conditions are
those existing in the absence of proposed activities (CIEEM, 2018).
The following sections outline the methodologies utilised to establish the baseline ecological condition of
the proposed development site.
5.2.1 Desk Study
The desk study undertaken for this assessment included a thorough review of available ecological data
including the following:
Review of online web-mappers: National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS),
Teagasc, EPA (Envision), Water Framework Directive (WFD), Geological Survey of
Ireland (GSI) & Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI).
Review of Bird Atlases: (Sharrock, 1976; Lack, 1986; Gibbons et al., 1993; Balmer et
al., 2013).
Review of the Bat Conservation Ireland (BCI) Private Database.
Review of the publicly available National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) web-
mapper.
Data on potential occurrence of protected bryophytes in the NPWS; recently launched
Flora Protection Order Map Viewer – Bryophytes
Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) Reports.
Records from the National Parks and Wildlife Services (‘NPWS’) WS web-mapper
and review of specially requested records from the NPWS Rare and Protected Species
Database for the hectad in which the Proposed Development is located.
Review of NPWS Article 17 Metadata and GIS Database Files
A data request was sent to the NPWS scientific data unit on the 19 November 2018 for
additional information on rare and protected species or habitats. Data was received on
the 29/11/2018.
A consultation request was sent to the NPWS Development Application Unit (DAU)
on the 05 February 2019. An acknowledgment response was received, reference
number G Pre00041/2019, however no ecological constraints were identified.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-5
5.2.2 Identification of Target Receptors and Key Ecological Receptors
The methodology for assessment followed a precautionary screening approach with regard to the
identification of Key Ecological Receptors (KERs). Following a comprehensive desk study, initial site
visits and stakeholder consultation; “Target receptors” likely to occur in the zone of influence of the
development were identified. Potential target receptors include habitats and species that are protected
under the following legislation:
Annexes of the EU Habitats Directive.
Qualifying Interests (QI) of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) within the Zone of
Influence.
Species protected under the Wildlife Acts 1976-2012.
Species protected under the Flora Protection Order 2015.
5.2.3 Field Surveys
Multidisciplinary ecological walkover surveys of the development site were undertaken on the 16th
November 2018 and 14th of May 2019. Surveys were undertaken by both David McNicholas (B.Sc.,
M.Sc., MCIEEM) and Julie O’Sullivan (B.Sc., M.Sc.) respectively.
5.2.3.1 Multi-disciplinary Walkover Surveys (as per NRA Guidelines, 2009)
The surveys were undertaken at different times of the year and therefore cover the optimal survey periods
for different ecological receptors. The survey undertaken in May falls within the recognised optimum
period for vegetation surveys/habitat mapping, i.e. April to September (Smith et al., 2011). A
comprehensive walkover of the entire site was completed.
The walkover surveys were also designed to detect the presence, or likely presence, of a range of
protected species. The survey included a search for badger setts and areas of suitable habitat, potential
features likely to be of significance to bats and additional habitat features for the full range of other
protected species that are likely to occur in the vicinity of the proposed development (e.g. otter etc.). In
addition, an inventory of other species of local biodiversity interest was compiled including invertebrates
(butterflies, dragonflies, damselflies, beetles), plants, fungi etc.
During the walkover surveys of the site, vegetation was visually assessed for potential to support roosting
bats using a protocol set out in BCT Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: good practice Guidelines (3rd
edn) (Collins, J (ed.), 2016). Table 4-1 of the 2016 Guidelines identifies a grading protocol for assessing
structures, trees and commuting/foraging habitat for bats. The protocol is divided into four Suitability
Categories: High, Moderate, Low and Negligible.
The multi-disciplinary walkover surveys comprehensively covered the entire study area and based on the
survey findings, further detailed targeted surveys were carried out for features and locations of ecological
significance. These surveys were carried out in accordance with NRA Guidelines on Ecological Surveying
Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna on National Road Schemes (NRA, 2009).
During the multidisciplinary surveys, a search for Invasive Alien Species (IAS) listed under the Third
Schedule of the European Communities Regulations 2011 (S.I. 477 of 2015) was conducted.
Other targeted survey methodologies undertaken at the site are described in the following subsections.
5.2.3.2 Dedicated Habitat and Vegetation Composition Surveys
Habitats within the site were classified according to the guidelines set out in ‘A Guide to Habitats in
Ireland’’ (Fossitt, 2000), which classifies habitats based on the vegetation present and management
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-6
history. Vegetation was sampled by taking botanical quadrats/Relevés within representative habitat areas
of the site. This allowed for accurate habitat classification. The location of each of the quadrats and the
quadrat data is provided in Appendix 5-1. The extent of each habitat on site was mapped on site using
aerial photograph, hand held GPS and smartphone technology.
The habitat assessment surveys described in this report have been undertaken with reference to the
following guidelines and interpretation documents:
O’Neill, F.H., Martin, J.R., Devaney, F.M. & Perrin, P.M. (2013) The Irish semi-
natural grasslands survey 2007-2012. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 78. National Parks
and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Ireland.
Martin, J.R., O’Neill, F.H. & Daly, O.H. (2018) The monitoring and assessment of
three EU Habitats Directive Annex I grassland habitats. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No.
102. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Culture, Heritage and the
Gaeltacht, Ireland.
NPWS (2013) The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland. Habitat
Assessments Volume 2. Version 1.1. Unpublished Report, National Parks & Wildlife
Services. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland.
Commission of the European Communities (2007) Interpretation manual of European
Union habitats. Eur 27. European Commission DG Environment.
Habitats considered to be of ecological significance and in particular having the potential to correspond to
those listed in Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC were identified and classified as KERs.
Plant nomenclature for vascular plants follows ‘New Flora of the British Isles’ (Stace, 2010), while mosses
and liverworts nomenclature follows ‘Mosses and Liverworts of Britain and Ireland - a field guide’ (British
Bryological Society, 2010).
5.2.3.3 Terrestrial Fauna Surveys
Dedicated surveys for bats, otter and badger were undertaken. The survey methodology for each are
outlined in the following paragraphs. During the multidisciplinary walkover surveys, records of
invertebrates including butterflies, damselflies, dragonflies, moths, beetles etc. were recorded. The
walkover survey was designed to detect the presence, or likely presence, of a range of protected habitats
and species. Incidental sighting/observations of birds and additional fauna were noted during the site visit.
Badger Survey
Dedicated badger surveys were conducted on the 16th November 2018 and 14th of May 2019. The
badger surveys covered the entire development footprint and surrounding boundary hedgerows/treelines.
The site was systematically searched for signs of badger, incidental setts, prints, latrines, foraging signs or
sightings. Setts were classified as per the convention set out in NRA (2009) (i.e. main, annexe, subsidiary,
outlier). The badger survey was not constrained by vegetation given the nature of the habitats within the
site and the timing of the surveys (NRA 2006a).
The badger survey was conducted adhering to best practice guidance (NRA, 2009) and followed the
‘Guidelines for the Treatment of Badger Prior to the Construction of National Roads Schemes’ (NRA,
2006a) and following CIEEM best practice competencies for species surveys (CIEEM, 20131
).
Otter Survey
Areas identified as providing potential habitat for otter, including the drainage ditch within the site, was
subject to specialist targeted survey. Surveys were conducted on the 16th November 2018 and 14th of
May 2019.
1 CIEEM, 2013, Technical Guidance Series – Competencies for Species Survey, Online, Available at: https://cieem.net/resource/competencies-for-species-survey-css, Accessed: 20.06.2019
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-7
Otter surveys were conducted as per NRA (2009) guidelines (Ecological Surveying Techniques for
Protected Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National Road Schemes). This involved a search for all
otter signs e.g. spraints, scat, prints, slides, trails, couches and holts. The dedicated otter survey also
followed the guidance as set out in NRA (2008) ‘Guidelines for the Treatment of Otters Prior to the
Construction of National Roads Schemes’ and following CIEEM best practice competencies for species
surveys (CIEEM, 2013).
Bats
A bat activity survey was undertaken on 14th of May 2019 with reference to BCT guidelines (Collins,
2016). The objective was to identify and assess bat species composition and activity within the site. During
the manual survey, transects were walked, recording bats in real time. Surveyors were equipped with an
active full spectrum bat detector, a BatLogger M (Elekon AG, Lucerne, Switzerland). Where possible,
species identification was made in the field and any other relevant information was also noted, e.g.
numbers, behaviour, features used, etc. All bat echolocation was recorded for subsequent analysis to
confirm species identifications.
Dusk surveys commenced 30 minutes before sunset and concluded 2.5 hours after sunset. Conditions
were warm, dry and calm (optimal for bat survey). Survey conditions were good during the survey with no
constraints to the such as persistent rain or strong winds.
All recordings were analysed using bat call analysis software, BatSound (Pettersson Elektronik AB,
Uppsala, Sweden), Kaleidoscope Converter and Viewer, v.5.1.3 (Wildlife Acoustics, Maynard, MA,
USA) or AnalookW 4.1 (Titley Scientific, Brendale, Australia). Bat species were identified using
established call parameters, to identify individual species or genera. In addition, any information on bat
behavior contained within echolocation calls, e.g. social calls, feeding buzzes, were noted.
Other species
Seasonal factors that affect distribution patterns and habits of species were taken into account when
conducting the surveys. The potential of the site to support certain populations (in particular those of
conservation importance that may not have been recorded during the field survey due to their seasonal
absence or nocturnal/cryptic nature) was assessed.
During the multi-disciplinary walkover survey a search for non-native invasive species was undertaken.
The survey focused on the identification of invasive species listed under the Third Schedule of the
European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (As Amended) (S.I. 477 of 2015).
5.2.4 Methodology for Assessment of Effects
The ecological impact assessment undertaken within this EIAR follows best practice guidelines listed
below. They are among the recognised guidance in Environmental Impact Assessment and National
Road Scheme assessments.
Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland. Terrestrial,
Freshwater, Coastal and Marine (CIEEM, 2018).
Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements
(EPA, 2002).
Environmental Assessment and Construction Guidelines (NRA, 2006).
Guidelines for assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes, (NRA,
2009). (referred to hereafter as the NRA Ecological Impact Assessment Guidelines)
Environmental Impact Assessment of National Road Schemes –A Practical Guide
(NRA, 2009).
Draft Revised guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact
Statements (EPA, 2017).
Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects, Guidance on the preparation of the
Environmental Impact Assessment Report (European Commission, 2017)
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-8
5.2.4.1 Geographical Framework and Ecological Evaluation
Guidance on Ecological Impact Assessment (CIEEM, 2018) recommends categories of nature
conservation value that relate to a geographical framework (e.g. international, through to local). This
assessment utilises the geographical framework described in Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological
Impact of National Road Schemes (NRA 2009). The guidelines provide a basis for determination of
whether any particular site is of importance on the following scales:
International
National
County
Local Importance (Higher Value)
Local Importance (Lower Value)
Locally Important (lower value) receptors include habitats and species that are widespread and of low
ecological significance only in the local area. Internationally Important sites are designated for
conservation as part of the Natura 2000 Network (SAC or SPA) or provide the best examples of habitats
or internationally important populations of protected flora and fauna.
5.2.4.2 Characterising Ecological Impacts and Effects
Effects identified have been described in accordance with (EPA, 2017) impact assessment criteria
presented in Table 5-1. The criteria for characterising magnitude and scale of ecological impacts are
further contextualised based on CIEEM guidelines (CIEEM, 2018) in Table 5-2.
The following terms were utilised when quantifying duration:
Temporary – up to 1 year
Short-term – 1 to 7 years
Medium term – 7 to 15 years
Long term – 15 to 60 years
Permanent – over 60 years Table 5-1: Criteria for assessing impact quality based on (EPA, 2017)
Effect Type Criteria
Positive
A change which improves the quality of the
environment e.g. increasing species diversity, improving
reproductive capacity of an ecosystem or removing
nuisances.
Neutral
No effects or effects that are imperceptible, within
normal bounds of variation or within the margin of
forecasting error.
Negative
A change which reduces the quality of the environment
e.g. lessening species diversity or reducing the
reproductive capacity of an ecosystem or by causing
nuisance.
Table 5-2: Criteria for characterising magnitude and scale of ecological impacts (CIEEM, 2018)
Characteristic Definition
Positive or Negative
Positive impact – a change that improves the quality of
the environment e.g. by increasing species diversity,
extending habitat or improving water quality. This may
also include halting or slowing an existing decline in the
quality of the environment.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-9
Characteristic Definition
Negative impact – a change which reduces the quality
of the environment e.g. destruction of habitat, removal
of foraging habitat, habitat fragmentation, pollution.
Extent
The spatial or geographical area over which the
impact/effect may occur under a suitably representative
range of conditions.
Magnitude
Magnitude refers to size, amount, intensity and volume.
It should be quantified if possible and expressed in
absolute or relative terms e.g. the amount of habitat
lost, percentage change to habitat area, percentage
decline in a species population.
Duration
Impacts and effects may be described as short, medium
or long-term and permanent or temporary and are
defined in months/years. Duration is defined in
relation to ecological characteristics.
Frequency and Timing
The number of times an activity occurs will influence
the resulting effect. The timing of an activity or change
may result in an impact if it coincides with critical life-
stages or seasons.
Reversibility
An irreversible effect is one from which recovery is not
possible within a reasonable timescale or there is no
reasonable chance of action being taken to reverse it. A
reversible effect is one from which spontaneous
recovery is possible or which may be counteracted by
mitigation.
5.2.4.3 Significance of Effect
The criteria for assessing impact significance based on EPA guidelines is outlined in Table 5-3 (EPA,
2017). Table 5-3: Criteria for assessing impact significance based on (EPA, 2017)
Effect Magnitude Definition
No change No discernible change in the ecology of the
affected feature.
Imperceptible Effect An effect capable of measurement but without
noticeable consequences.
Not Significant
An effect which causes noticeable changes in the
character of the environment but without
significant consequences.
Slight Effect
An effect which causes noticeable changes in the
character of the environment without affecting its
sensitivities.
Moderate Effect
An effect that alters the character of the
environment that is consistent with existing and
emerging trends.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-10
Effect Magnitude Definition
Significant Effect
An effect which, by its character, its magnitude,
duration or intensity alters a sensitive aspect of
the environment.
Very Significant
An effect which, by its character, magnitude,
duration or intensity significantly alters most of a
sensitive aspect of the environment.
Profound Effect An effect which obliterates sensitive
characteristics.
As per TII (NRA, 2009) and CIEEM (2018) best practice guidelines the following key elements should
also be examined when determining the significance of effects:
The likely effects on ‘integrity’ should be used as a measure to determine whether an
impact on a site is likely to be significant (NRA, 2009)
A ‘significant effect’ is an effect that either supports or undermines biodiversity
conservation objectives (CIEEM, 2018)
Integrity
In the context of ecological impact assessments, ‘integrity’ refers to the coherence of the ecological
structure and function, across the entirety of a site, that enables it to sustain all of the ecological resources
for which it has been valued. Impacts resulting in adverse changes to the nature, extent, structure and
function of component habitats and effects on the average population size and viability of component
species, would affect the integrity of a site, if it changes the condition of the ecosystem to unfavourable.
Conservation status
An impact on the conservation status of a habitat or species is considered to be significant if it will result
in a change in conservation status. According to CIEEM (2018) guidelines the definition for conservation
status in relation to habitats and species are as follows:
Habitats – conservation status is determined by the sum of the influences acting on the
habitat that may affect its extent, structure and functions as well as its distribution and
its typical species within a given geographical area
Species – conservation status is determined by the sum of influences acting on the
species concerned that may affect its abundance and distribution within a given
geographical area.
As defined in the EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, the conservation of a habitat is favourable when:
Its natural range, and areas it covers within that range, are stable or increasing
The specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance
exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future
The conservation status of its typical species is favourable.
The conservation of a species is favourable when:
Population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself
on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats
The natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for
the foreseeable future
There is and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its
population on a long-term basis.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-11
According to the NRA/CIEEM methodology, if it is determined that the integrity and/or conservation
status of an ecological feature will be impacted on, then the level of significance of that impact is related to
the geographical scale at which the impact will occur (i.e. local, county, national, international).
5.2.5 Incorporation of Mitigation
Section 5.5 of this EIAR assesses the potential effects of the proposed development to ensure that all
effects on sensitive ecological receptors are adequately addressed. Where significant effects on sensitive
ecological receptors are predicted, mitigation is incorporated into the project design or layout to address
such impacts. The implemented mitigation measures avoid potential for significant residual effects, post
mitigation.
5.2.6 Limitations
The information provided in this ecological impact assessment accurately and comprehensively describes
the baseline ecological environment; provides an accurate prediction of the likely ecological effects of the
proposed development; prescribes best practice and mitigation as necessary; and, describes the residual
ecological impacts. The specialist studies, analysis and reporting have been undertaken in accordance
with the appropriate guidelines. The habitats and species on the site were readily identifiable and
comprehensive assessments were made during the field visit. No significant limitations in the scope, scale
or context of the assessment have been identified.
5.3 Establishing the Ecological Baseline
5.3.1 Desk Study
The following sections describe the results of a survey of published material that was consulted as part of
the desk study for the purposes of the ecological assessment. It provides a baseline for the of the ecology
of the existing environment. Material reviewed includes the Site Synopses for Designated Sites for their
conservation importance compiled by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) of the
Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (DAHRRGA), bird and plant
distribution atlases and other research publications.
5.3.2 Designated Sites
Using the GIS software, MapInfo (Version 10.0), designated sites within a radius of 15 kilometres of the
proposed development were identified. The designated sites are listed in Table 5-4. The location of all
EU Designated Sites are displayed in Figure 5-1, with all Nationally designated sites displayed in Figure 5-
2. The location of nearby Designated Sites is provided in Figure 5-3. Table 5-4 Designated sites in the Zone of Influence
Designated Site Distance from Proposed Development (km)
Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)
Lough Ree SAC [000440] 1.0
River Shannon Callows SAC [000216] 2.0
Crosswood Bog SAC [002337] 3.4
Carn Park Bog SAC [002336] 5.4
Ballynamona Bog And Corkip Lough SAC
[002339]
9.6
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-12
Designated Site Distance from Proposed Development (km)
Castlesampson Esker SAC [001625] 9.7
Pilgrim's Road Esker SAC [001776] 10.9
Mongan Bog SAC [000580] 11.3
Lough Funshinagh SAC [000611] 12.1
Fin Lough (Offaly) SAC [000576] 12.9
Special Protection Area (SPA)
Lough Ree SPA [004064] 1.0
Middle Shannon Callows SPA [004096] 2.0
Mongan Bog SPA [004017] 11.5
Natural Heritage Areas (NHA)
Carrickynaghtan Bog NHA [001623] 4.2
Clonydonnin Bog NHA [000565] 10.7
Ballynagrenia And Ballinderry Bog NHA
[000674]
14.3
Proposed Natural Heritage Areas (pNHA)
Lough Ree [000440] 1.0
River Shannon Callows [000216] 1.9
Crosswood Bog [000678] 3.4
Waterstown Lake [001732] 5.0
Carn Park Bog [000676] 5.4
Castlesampson Esker [001625] 9.3
Mongan Bog [000580] 11.3
Pilgrim's Road Esker [001776] 11.4
Fin Lough (Offaly) [000576] 12.8
Doon Esker Wood [001830] 12
Lough Funshinagh [000611] 12.1
Ballynagarbry [001713] 12.6
Clonfinlough Esker [000892] 12.7
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-13
Designated Site Distance from Proposed Development (km)
Feacle Turlough [001634] 13.1
Lough Nanag Esker [000910] 14.1
Lough Slawn [001443] 14.2
Clonlyon Glebe Bog [000893] 14.5
Potential for effects on European sites is summarised in this report and is fully addressed in the Natura
Impact Statement submitted as part of the statutory consent process.
Where a nationally designated site, such as Lough Ree NHA, overlaps with the boundary of a European
designated site, i.e. Lough Ree SAC, the potential for impacts has been considered under the European
designation.
5.3.3 Annex I Habitats
In a search of the NPWS Article 17 datasets, including results of the Irish Semi-Natural Grasslands
Survey (O’Neill, et al. 2013), found no mapped Annex I habitats within the site. A small area of ‘Festuco-
Brometalia calcareous grassland [6210]’ and Molinia meadows [6410] were recorded in excess of 1km to
the north of the proposed development site, along the shores of Cloosana Lough. These were recorded
in 2011 and 2012 as part of the grassland monitoring project (O’Neill, et al. 2013).
Detailed mapping of the habitats within and surrounding Athlone has been undertaken by Maher and
Hamilton (2012); ‘Report on the Survey and Mapping of Habitats within Athlone Town’. This survey
had mapped the site as Improved agricultural grassland (GA1), as per Plate 2, Appendix IV of the Maher
and Hamilton (2012) document.
No Annex I habitats were recorded within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development site.
5.3.4 Bryophytes
A search of the NPWS online data map for bryophytes (NPWS, 2020) was also undertaken with no
protected bryophytes recorded within or adjacent to the proposed development.
5.3.5 Breeding and Wintering Bird Atlases
A number of sources were assessed to determine the likely usage of the site by both breeding and
wintering bird species, including Bird Atlases, National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC), BirdWatch
Ireland and Conservation Objectives Supporting Documents from the National Parks and Wildlife
Service (NPWS) for nearby Special Protection Areas (SPAs). The following sub sections provide a
breakdown of the sources used and results obtained.
The Bird Atlas 2007-11: The breeding and wintering birds of Britain and Ireland (Balmer et al., 2013)
provides the most up-to-date information regarding the distribution and relative abundance of bird
species in Britain and Ireland, based on surveys carried out between 2007 and 2011.
The atlases show data for breeding and wintering birds respectively in individual 10 km by 10 km squares
(hectads). Table 5-5 shows species that have been recorded within the relevant hectad (N04) on National
Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) datasets that are listed in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive or on the
BoCCI Red List. In addition, Table 5.5 shows those species found in the relevant hectad (N04), which
are recorded as breeding in the most recent atlas. Birds listed under Annex I are offered special
protection by the EU Birds Directive. Those listed on the Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland
(BoCCI) Red List meet one or more of the following criteria:
Fig 5-1
MKO Tuam Road, Galway, Ireland, H91 VW84. +353 (0) 91 735611 www.mkoireland.ie
MAP TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
DRAWING BY: CHECKED BY:
MAP NO.:
ISSUE NO.:
SCALE:
DATE:
Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence No. AR 0021819 © Ordnance Survey Ireland/Government of Ireland
David McNicholas Pat Roberts09-09-2019
1:180,000
180816a-2019.09.09-D
Figure 5-1Site in Relation to EU Designated Sites180816a - Castlestar Athlone SHD
Map Legend
Special Protection Area (SPA)
Special Area of Conservation (SAC)
15km Buffer
Site Boundary
MKO Tuam Road, Galway, Ireland, H91 VW84. +353 (0) 91 735611 www.mkoireland.ie
MAP TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
DRAWING BY: CHECKED BY:
MAP NO.:
ISSUE NO.:
SCALE:
DATE:
Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence No. AR 0021819 © Ordnance Survey Ireland/Government of Ireland
David McNicholas Pat Roberts09-09-2019
1:180,000
180816a-2019.09.09-D
Figure 5-2Site in relation to Nationally designated sites180816a - Castlestar Athlone SHD
Map Legend
Proposed Natural Heritage Area (pNHA)
Natural Heritage Area (NHA)
15km Buffer
Site Boundary
MKO Tuam Road, Galway, Ireland, H91 VW84. +353 (0) 91 735611 www.mkoireland.ie
MAP TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
DRAWING BY: CHECKED BY:
MAP NO.:
ISSUE NO.:
SCALE:
DATE:
Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence No. AR 0021819 © Ordnance Survey Ireland/Government of Ireland
David McNicholas Pat Roberts09-09-2019
1:100,000
180816a-2019.09.09-D
Figure 5-3Site in relation to nearby designated sites180816a - Castlestar Athlone SHD
Map Legend
Special Area of Conservation (SAC)
Special Protection Area (SPA)
Connectivity to downstream designated sites
Proposed Natural Heritage Area (pNHA)
Natural Heritage Area (NHA)
Site Boundary
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-16
IUCN: Global conservation status (Critically Endangered (CE), Endangered (E) or
Vulnerable (V), but not Near Threatened. These species are recognised as the highest
priorities for action at a global scale and are thus priorities at an all-Ireland level
European conservation status. The conservation status of all European species was
assessed most recently by Birdlife International (2004), one of the main changes in the
revision being to include the IUCN criteria. These species are those of global
conservation concern (including those classified as Near Threatened) and are Red-
listed.
The Irish breeding population has undergone significant historical decline since 1800.
The Irish breeding population or range has declined by 50% or more in the thirteen
years from 1998-2011 (BDp1) or the 25 years from 1980-2013 (BDp2).
The Irish non-breeding population has undergone a significant decline of 50% in the
last 25 years.
The Irish breeding range has undergone a decline of 70% or more in the last 25 years.
Four species listed under Annex I of the EU Birds Directive have been recorded within the relevant
hectad (N04). A further 10 red-listed birds of conservation concern have been recorded breeding within
the relevant hectad (Table 5-5). Table 5-5 - Bird Atlas and NBDC Bird Data (Hectad N04)
Common name Scientific name Designation
Corn crake Crex crex Protected EU Birds Directive
Annex I Bird Species
Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria
Common kingfisher Alcedo atthis
Merlin Falco columbarius
Snowy owl Bubo scandiaca
Whooper swan Cygnus
Little egret Egretta garzetta
Common tern Sterna hirundo
Northern pintail Anas acuta
Common redshank Tringa totanus
Northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus
Eurasian curlew Numenius arquata Birds of Conservation Concern –
Red list
Herring gull Larus argentatus
Hen harrier Circus cyaneus
Black-headed gull Larus ridibundus
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-17
Common name Scientific name Designation
Red grouse Lagopus lagopus
Barn owl Tyto alba
5.3.6 National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) Records
A search of the National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) records for the relevant hectad, N04,
provided records on a number of fauna species of conservation concern, excluding marine species and
bird species. These are provided in Table 5-6. Records on species of conservation concern recorded
from the area are also provided and outlined in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6 NBDC Records for Species of Conservation Interest in hectad N04
Species Scientific Name Red List Status Habitats Directive
Smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris LC WA
Common frog Rana temporaria LC Annex V
Viviparous lizard Zootoca viviparia LC WA
Badger Meles meles LC WA
Eurasian Pygmy Shrew Sorex minutus LC WA
Red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris LC WA
Otter Lutra lutra NT Annex II and Annex
IV
Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus LC WA
Freshwater White-
clawed Crayfish
Austropotamobius
pallipes
- Annex II, Annex V,
WA
Marsh Fritillary Euphydryas aurinia VU Annex II, WA
Desmoulin's Whorl
Snail
Vertigo (Vertigo)
moulinsiana
EN Annex II
Geyer's Whorl Snail Vertigo (Vertigo) geyeri VU Annex II
Large White-moss Leucobryum glaucum - Annex IV
Brown Long-eared Bat Plecotus auritus LC Annex IV
Daubenton's Bat Myotis daubentonii LC Annex IV
Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri NT Annex IV
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-18
Species Scientific Name Red List Status Habitats Directive
Pine marten Martes martes LC Annex V
Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus
sensu lato
LC Annex IV
Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus LC Annex IV Annex II, Annex IV, Annex V – Of EU Habitats Directive, Wildlife Acts – Irish Wildlife Acts (1976, 2017).
5.3.7 National Parks and Wildlife Service - Protected Species Records
National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) online records were searched to see if any rare or protected
species of flora or fauna have been recorded from hectad N04. An information request was also sent to
the NPWS requesting records from the Rare and Protected Species Database. Table 5-7 lists rare and
protected species records obtained from NPWS, as received on the 4th July 2019, as well as those
recorded available through the online NPWS map viewer.
Table 5-7 - National Parks and Wildlife Service Map Viewer Records
Scientific name Common name Red List Status Flora Protection
Order/Red List
Habitats
Directive/Birds
Directive/Wildlife
Act
Austropotamobius
pallipes
Freshwater
Crayfish
- - Annex II, V, WA
Cladonia ciliata Cladonia ciliata - - Annex V
Cladonia
portentosa
Reindeer Moss - - Annex V
Clinopodium
acinos
Basil Thyme - FPO; NT -
Dicranella
cerviculata
Red-neck Forklet-
moss
- NT -
Erigeron acer Blue Fleabane - V -
Erinaceus
europaeus
West European
Hedgehog
LC - WA
Frangula alnus Alder Buckthorn - R -
Lacerta vivipara Viviparous Lizard LC - WA
Lepus timidus
subsp. hibernicus
Irish Hare LC - Annex V, WA
Lissotriton
vulgaris
Smooth Newt LC - WA
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-19
Scientific name Common name Red List Status Flora Protection
Order/Red List
Habitats
Directive/Birds
Directive/Wildlife
Act
Lutra lutra Otter NT - Annex II, Annex
IV
Martes martes Pine Marten LC - Annex V
Meles meles Badger LC - WA
Mustela erminea
subsp. hibernica
Irish Stoat LC - WA
5.3.8 Bat Records
A search of the Bat Conservation Ireland (BCI) Database for all bat records for the area within and
surrounding the proposed development was conducted on the 16th of May 2019. The BCI database can
be searched in relation to identified Roosts, Survey Transects and Other Observations. Searches can be
conducted for refined areas e.g. 1km buffer of a specific location or for wider areas including hectads and
entire grid squares. Roost data details identified roosts and bat species recorded utilising the roost sites.
Transect survey data include results of the BCI Car Based Bat Monitoring Scheme, All Ireland
Daubenton’s Bat Waterways Survey and additional surveys completed by private organisations and
individuals.
A search of a 1km and a 10km buffer from the proposed development site returned a number of
transects records and ad-hoc records for bat species, however, no roosts records were identified, see
Table 5-8.
Table 5-8 – Bat Conservation Ireland Records
Tra
nse
cts
Name Grid ref start
easting
Grid ref start
northing
Species
Big Meadow
Athlone Transect 203917 240202 Myotis daubentonii;
Unidentified bat
Burgess Park
Transect spot 1 203917 240202 Unidentified bat
Burgess Park
Transect spot 10 204009 241049 Myotis daubentonii;
Unidentified bat
Burgess Park
Transect spot 2 203987 240289 Myotis daubentonii;
Unidentified bat
Burgess Park
Transect spot 3 204036 240377 Myotis daubentonii;
Unidentified bat
Burgess Park
Transect spot 4 204047 240479 Myotis daubentonii;
Unidentified bat
Burgess Park
Transect spot 5 204057 240582 Myotis daubentonii;
Unidentified bat
Burgess Park
Transect spot 6 204086 240675 Myotis daubentonii;
Unidentified bat
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-20
Burgess Park
Transect spot 7 204090 240768 Myotis daubentonii;
Unidentified bat
Burgess Park
Transect spot 8 204069 240864 Myotis daubentonii;
Unidentified bat
Burgess Park
Transect spot 9 204035 240941 Myotis daubentonii;
Unidentified bat
Kilgarvan Glebe
Townland Transect 208300 234900 Myotis daubentonii;
Unidentified bat
Railway Bridge;
Athlone Transect
203617 241906 Myotis
daubentonii;
Unidentified bat
Ad
-ho
c
BATLAS 2010 207300 235300 Pipistrellus
pygmaeus
BATLAS 2010 205600 240700 Pipistrellus
pygmaeus
BATLAS 2010 207200 244400 Myotis
daubentonii;
Pipistrellus
pipistrellus
(45kHz);
Pipistrellus
pygmaeus
BATLAS 2010 214800 242100 Nyctalus leisleri;
Pipistrellus
pygmaeus
BATLAS 2010 207500 237600 Pipistrellus
pygmaeus
BATLAS 2010 207600 246100 Nyctalus leisleri;
Pipistrellus
pygmaeus;
Pipistrellus spp.
(45kHz/55kHz)
BATLAS 2010 212200 250800 Pipistrellus
pygmaeus;
Unidentified bat
EIA survey- Paul
Scott (Scott
Cawley)
200232 240761 Pipistrellus
pipistrellus
(45kHz);
Pipistrellus
pygmaeus
EIS and Road
Surveys - Conor
Kelleher
199000 246000 Pipistrellus
pipistrellus
(45kHz)
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-21
The information provides for a baseline understanding of bat species in the area and indicates that the
region has been previously surveyed for bats. The records identify the wider area of the proposed
development as being used by foraging and commuting bat species.
5.3.9 Other Taxa
The proposed development site does not fall within any sensitivity area for freshwater pearl mussel
(Margaritifera margaritifera) or other protected species, based on a review of the most up to date available
data. The data provided in the previous sections provides a comprehensive study of the records for
species of conservation concern and therefore provided a comprehensive understanding of the baseline
environment.
5.3.10 Invasive Species
The NBDC database also contains records of invasive species identified within the relevant hectad.
Records of ‘high impact’ invasive species for hectad N04 are provided in Table 5-9.
Table 5-9. NBDC records for Invasive Species
Common Name Scientific Name
Canadian waterweed Elodea canadensis
Indian balsam Impatiens glandulifera
Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica
Rhododendron Rhododendron ponticum
Zebra Mussel Dreissena (Dreissena) polymorpha
American Mink Mustela vison
EIS and Road
Surveys - Conor
Kelleher
202000 240000 Pipistrellus
pipistrellus
(45kHz);
Pipistrellus
pygmaeus;
Plecotus auritus
EIS and Road
Surveys - Conor
Kelleher
195000 247000 Pipistrellus
pipistrellus
(45kHz);
Pipistrellus
pygmaeus
EIS and Road
Surveys - Conor
Kelleher
202000 241000 Pipistrellus
pipistrellus
(45kHz);
Pipistrellus
pygmaeus;
Plecotus auritus
EIS surveys -
Brian Keeley
214150 237500 Pipistrellus
pygmaeus
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-22
Common Name Scientific Name
Grey Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
5.3.11 Local Hydrology and Hydrogeology
The following information is based on a detailed Hydrological Assessment undertaken for the proposed
development as fully described in Chapter 7 of this EIAR.
On a regional scale, the site is located within Hydrometric Area 26. The site is located between the 26E
Upper Shannon catchment and the 26G Upper Shannon catchment. It is located between the Shannon
[Upper]_SC_090 and the Shannon [Lower]_SC_010 sub-catchment under the Water Framework
Directive (WFD). A regional hydrology map is shown as Figure 7-1, Chapter 7 of the EIAR, of the
hydrological assessment.
An unnamed stream flows north from the northwestern corner of the proposed site boundary, and
continues north, discharging into Coosan Lough ~1.3km downstream. This is connected to Lough Ree
and the River Shannon. The proposed development site contains a single drainage ditch that flows in a
general southeast to northwest direction. These discharge to the above-mentioned unnamed stream to the
northwest of the site. A local hydrology map is shown as Figure 7-2, Chapter 7 of the EIAR and the on-
site drainage ditch has been mapped in the detailed site habitat map, see Figure 5-4.
The Athlone Gravels groundwater body which underlies the site is classified by the GSI (www.gsi.ie) as a
Locally Important Aquifer, which is Moderately Productive only in Local Zones. This gravel is thought to
be approximately 10-20 metres deep in the area (GSI, 2004). Massive unbedded lime-mudstones also
underlie the site. A bedrock aquifer map is shown as Figure 7-3, Chapter 7 of the EIAR.
This aquifer has expected transmissivity in the range of 200-1500m2/d) and high storativity (approx. 10%).
Groundwater here should be unconfined (GSI, 2004). Groundwater flow paths are expected to be diffuse
and relatively short (i.e. up to several hundred metres), with flow direction being mainly to the west,
driven by topography (GSI, 2004).
5.3.12 Conclusions of the Desk Study
The desktop study has provided information about the existing environment in hectad N04, within which
the proposed development is located. The mammal species recorded within the relevant hectad have
widespread range and distributions in Ireland and are likely to be recorded frequently throughout Ireland
(Marnell et al, 20092
). Bat records within 10km of the proposed development site revealed that the wider
area has been studied for bats. This suggests that the area offers potential for foraging and commuting bat
species. A number of protected bird species have been previously recorded within the hectad N04. The
site does not offer any significant habitat for bird species.
The desk study has identified a small watercourse occurring along the northwest of the site boundary that
provides connectivity to the downstream Coosan Lough to the north of the site, located in excess of 1km
from the site boundary. Coosan Lough is connected to the River Shannon via a small channel. Although
the watercourse occurring within the site boundary is not designated for nature conservation, it does
provide connectivity to downstream designated sites. For this reason, further assessment will be required
in order to avoid any potential for impact on downstream water quality associated with the proposed
development.
No Habitats Directive Annex I habitats have been recorded within the proposed development site
boundary, as per NPWS records consulted or other ecology survey reports reviewed.
2Marnell, F., Kingston, N. & Looney, D. (2009) Ireland Red List No. 3: Terrestrial Mammals, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-23
5.4 Description of the Existing Environment
5.4.1 Description of Habitats
This section of the EIAR provides a detailed description of the findings of a multidisciplinary walkover
survey conducted on the 16th November 2018 and 14th of May 2019. All habitats within and adjacent to
the site of the proposed development were readily identifiable during the site visit. A total of eight habitats
were recorded within the development site (Table 5-10). The habitat classifications and codes correspond
to those described in ‘A Guide to Habitats in Ireland’ (Fossitt 2000). Vegetation was sampled by taking
botanical quadrats/Relevés within representative habitat areas of the site. This allowed for accurate habitat
classification. The location of each of the quadrats and the quadrat data is provided in Appendix 5-1 of
this report. A habitat map of the site is provided in Figure 5-4. The habitat map is also provided with the
proposed infrastructure footprint overlain in Figure 5-5.
Table 5-10 - Habitats recorded on the proposed development
Habitat Name Fossitt Code
Dry meadows and grassy verges (GS2)
Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1)
Wet grassland (GS4)
Bog woodland (WN7)
Drainage ditch (FW4)
Hedgerow (WL1)
Treeline (WL2)
Buildings and artificial surfaces (BL3)
Dry Meadows and Grassy Verges (GS2)
A large proportion of the study area, 11.28 hectares - including three of the four agricultural fields on the
site, have been classified as Dry meadows and grassy verges (GS2), see Plate 5-1 and Figure 5-4. The
vegetation within these fields is dominated by Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), red fescue (Festuca rubra)
and some meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), with ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata) also
abundant. Other species recorded within these fields included meadow buttercup (Ranunculus acris),
creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius), sweet-vernal grass
(Anthoxanthum odoratum) and occasional ragweed (Senecio jacobaea), hogweed (Heracleum
sphondylium), meadowsweet (filipendula ulmaria) and creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense). Quadrat data
for these locations is provided in Appendix 5-1 of this report. The composition and abundance of species
recorded indicate that the field corresponds to the Irish Vegetation Classification (IVC) habitat Festuca
rubra – Plantago lanceolata grassland (GL3C) (Perrin, 2016).
MKO Tuam Road, Galway, Ireland, H91 VW84. +353 (0) 91 735611 www.mkoireland.ie
MAP TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
DRAWING BY: CHECKED BY:
MAP NO.:
ISSUE NO.:
SCALE:
DATE:
Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence No. AR 0021819 © Ordnance Survey Ireland/Government of Ireland
David McNicholas Pat Roberts11-09-2019
1:3,400
180816-2019.09.11-D
Figure 5.4Habitat Map180816 - Cornamagh SHD
Habitat legend
Buildings and artificial surfaces (BL3)
Dry Calcareous and Neutral Grassland (GS1)
Dry Meadows and Grassy Verges (GS2)
Wet Grassland (GS4)
Scrub (WS1)
Linear habitatsBuildings and Artificial Surfaces (BL3)Drainage Ditches (FW4)Hedgerows (WL1)Treelines (WL2)
Map LegendSite boundary
MKO Tuam Road, Galway, Ireland, H91 VW84. +353 (0) 91 735611 www.mkoireland.ie
MAP TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
DRAWING BY: CHECKED BY:
MAP NO.:
ISSUE NO.:
SCALE:
DATE:
Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence No. AR 0021819 © Ordnance Survey Ireland/Government of Ireland
David McNicholas Pat Roberts11-09-2019
1:3,400
180816-2019.09.11-D
Figure 5.5Habitat map with proposal layout overlain180816 - Cornamagh SHD
Habitat legend
Buildings and artificial surfaces (BL3)
Dry Calcareous and Neutral Grassland (GS1)
Dry Meadows and Grassy Verges (GS2)
Wet Grassland (GS4)
Scrub (WS1)
Linear habitatsBuildings and Artificial Surfaces (BL3)Drainage Ditches (FW4)Hedgerows (WL1)Treelines (WL2)
Map LegendSite boundary
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-26
Plate 5-1: Dry Meadows and Grassy Verges (GS2) within the central and north of the site
Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1)
The southern field within the site, comprising 2.95 hectares, has been identified as Dry calcareous and
neutral grassland (GS1) as it had a slightly different species composition, see Plates 5-2 and 5-3. The area
of this habitat is shown in Figure 5-4. The management regime on site comprises of regularly grazing by
livestock and all of the lands within the site are managed by grazing (by horses at the time of the site visit).
This resulted in a short sward during the initial site visit. The vegetation composition within this
calcareous grassland is dominated by sweet vernal-grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), Yorkshire fog
(Holcus lanatus), red clover (Trifolium pratense), white clover (Trifolium repens), common sorrel
(Rumex acetosa), meadow buttercup (Ranunculus acris), red fescue (Festuca rubra), crested dog’s-tail
(Cynosurus cristatus) and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). The edges of the field support a more
improved grassland with abundant creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), as shown in Plate 5-3. Detailed
quadrat data for this area is provided in Appendix 5-1 of this EIAR. The composition and abundance of
species recorded indicate that the field corresponds to the Irish Vegetation Classification (IVC) habitat
Red Fescue – Yellow Rattle grassland (GL3E).
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-27
Plate 5-2 Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1) within the southern section of the site.
Plate 5-3 Rank boundary areas of Dry calcareous and neutral grassland comprising of creeping thistle and ragwort.
Wet grassland (GS4)
Wet grassland (GS4) habitat occurs within the north-western part of the site, see Figure 5-4,
where the land is low-lying and waterlogged, due to poor drainage as a result of low flowing
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-28
drainage ditches to the northwest of the site, see Plate 5-4. Species recorded within this part of
the site were typical of wet ground and was dominated by meadow sweet (Filipendula ulmaria),
silverweed (Potentilla anserina), creeping buttercup, purple moor-grass (Molinia caerulea),
creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera) and creeping thistle. This area of wet grassland is also
becoming encroached by gorse (Ulex europaeus), birch (Betula pubescens) and willow (Salix
spp.) scrub.
Plate 5-4 Wet grassland (GS4) located within the northwest of the site
Bog woodland (WN7)
A small area of Bog woodland (WN7) habitat, comprising approximately 0.3 ha, is located within
the northwestern boundary of the site and is dominated predominantly by birch (Betula
pubescens) and willow (Salix spp.) with some gorse on the peripheries, see Plate 5.5. The
understory comprises predominantly of bramble and nettle with bryophytes comprising of
Mnium hornum and Polytrichum formosum, and Rhytidiadelphus sp. Although this area of
woodland does not occur on a bog/peatland, the vegetation composition and the wet nature of
this part of the site has resulted in the woodland conforming to this habitat type. This habitat
corresponds to the IVC community type Downy Birch – Bramble woodland (WL4D).
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-29
Plate 5-5 Bog woodland WN7 located within the northwest of the site.
Hedgerows (WL1)
Hedgerows (WL1) form much of the site boundaries and comprise predominantly of hawthorn
(Crataegus monogyna) dominated hedgerows to the east and north as well as many of the internal
field boundaries, see Figure 5-4 and Plate 5-6. The understory vegetation generally consists of
nettle (Urtica dioica), ivy (Hedera helix), broadleaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius), cow parsley
(Anthriscus sylvestris), common vetch (Vicia sativa), Hart’s tongue fern (Asoplenium
scolopendrium), lesser celandine (Ficaria verna) and primrose (Primula vulgaris) and goose-grass
(Galium aparine).
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-30
Plate 5-6 Hedgerow (WL1) along the site
Treeline (WL2)
A Treeline (WL2) divides the most southerly field was dominated by beech (Fagus sylvatica) and
ash (Fraxinus excelsior) with some sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), holly (Ilex aquifolium) and
a small number of individual hazel trees (Corylus avellana), see Figure 5-4 and Plate 5-7. This
treeline has also been identified as a townland boundary using Ordinance Survey of Ireland
(OSI) maps. The treeline on the north-western boundary of the site is dominated by willow (Salix
spp.), downy birch (Betula pubescens) with some ash (Fraxinus excelsior), elder (Sambucus
nigra) and hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna). The understory of the treelines also includes
ground-ivy (Glechoma hederacea), bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), ivy (Hedera hibernica),
bramble (Rubus fructicosus), nettle (Urtica dioica), dandelion (Taraxacum agg.), mouse-ear
(Cerastium fontanum), common dog-violet (Viola riviniana) and primrose (Primula vulgaris).
A tree survey has been prepared for the proposed development that assesses the quality of the
trees occurring within the proposed development boundary as well as identifying those that will
be retained and those that will be removed. The tree survey has been submitted as part of the
planning application documentation (Cunnane Stratton Reynolds, 2019).
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-31
Plate 5-7 Treeline (WL2) within the site boundary
Drainage ditch (FW4)
A Drainage ditch (FW4) traverses’ part of the site and the existing site drainage layout is shown
in Figure 5-4 and Plate 5-8. The drainage ditch within the site occurs along a hedgerow
dominated by hawthorn and bramble and was observed to have a low flow. Other species
recorded growing on the margins of or within the drain include floating sweet-grass (Glyceria
fluitans), bramble, nettle and broad-leaved dock.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-32
Plate 5-8 Drainage ditch (FW4) along the north western site boundary
Built concrete block walls form part of the western boundary of the site and have been assessed as
Buildings and artificial surfaces (BL3), see Plate 5-9.
Plate 5-9 Boundary wall (BL3) located within the west of the site
5.4.2 Protected Flora
No rare and protected plant species recorded in the desk study, including those obtained from NPWS
data request (see Table 5-7), were recorded within the study area.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-33
5.4.3 Invasive species
No invasive species were recorded within the area of the proposed development during any of the site
visits.
5.4.4 Significance of Habitats
The field surveys found no evidence of botanical species protected under the Flora (protection) Order
(1999, as amended 2015), listed in the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) or listed in the Irish Red Data
Books. All plant species recorded are common in the Irish landscape and no invasive species were
recorded on the site. This section attributes the significance of each of the habitats recorded within the
site of the proposed development in accordance with best practice guidance (NRA, 2009). None of the
habitats recorded on site were found to correspond to those listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive.
Dry meadows and grassy verges (GS2) - local importance (lower value)
Dry meadows and grassy verges (GS2) have been assessed as of Local importance (lower value) as it
contains areas of agricultural habitat that is widespread in the wider landscape, although of some local
importance to wildlife. The area is also subject to agricultural management and is common in the wider
landscape. The composition and abundance of species recorded indicate that the field corresponds to the
Irish Vegetation Classification (IVC) habitat Festuca rubra – Plantago lanceolata grassland (GL3C)
(Perrin, 2016).
Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1) - local importance (higher value)
The composition and abundance of species recorded within the area of Dry calcareous and neutral
grassland (GS1) indicate that the field corresponds to the Irish Vegetation Classification (IVC) habitat Red
Fescue – Yellow Rattle grassland (GL3E)3
. It does not contain the nature and diversity of species to
conform to Annex I habitats. The grazing of this habitat by livestock has resulted in an increase in species
such as creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and ragwort (Senecio jacobea) becoming dominant, particularly
around the edges of the field, as shown in Plate 5.3. It has a higher diversity of species than the Dry
Meadows and Grassy Verges habitat and as such has been assigned Local Importance (Higher Value).
Wet grassland (GS4) - local importance (higher value)
The Wet grassland (GS4) has been assessed as of local importance (higher value) as it comprises a small
area of seminatural grassland within the site. The habitat corresponds to the IVC classification Creeping
Bent – Creeping Buttercup marsh-grassland (GL2A)4
. The habitat does not conform to any EU Habitats
Directive Annex I habitat.
Bog woodland (WN7) - local importance (higher value)
This Bog woodland (WN7) habitat corresponds to the IVC community type Downy Birch – Bramble
woodland (WL4D) but does not correspond to the EU Annex I habitat 91D0 Bog Woodland as it lacks
the ground flora of Sphagnum mosses. It does not correspond to 91E0 Alluvial forests with Alnus
glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior as it lacks the species diversity and is not associated with rivers or lakes
that cause seasonal inundation (Perrin et al. 20085
, NPWS, 2019, Cross, et al. 20136
).
Hedgerows (WL1) & Treelines (WL2) - local importance (higher value)
3 Perrin (2019) Irish Vegetation Classification: Community synopsis Festuca rubra – Rhinanthus minor grassland. http://www.biodiversityireland.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/GL3E.pdf. Accessed 04 July 2019. 4 Perrin, 2017, Irish Vegetation Classification (IVC), Creeping Bent – Creeping Buttercup marsh-grassland (GL2A), V1.1, Online, Available at: http://www.biodiversityireland.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/GL2Ai.pdf, Accessed: 10.09.2019 5 Perrin, P., Martin, M., Barron, S., O’Neill, F., McNutt, K. and Delaney, A. 2008. National Survey of Native
Woodlands 2003-2008. Unpublished report to the National Parks & Wildlife Service. Dublin. www.npws.ie 6 Cross, J. & Lynn, D. (2013) Results of a monitoring survey of bog woodland. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 69.
National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-34
Hedgerows (WL1), Treelines (WL2) are assessed as of local importance (higher value), as they are semi-
natural habitats and provide cover and commuting corridors for a variety of local flora and fauna.
Drainage ditches (FW4) - local importance (lower value)
Drainage ditches (FW4) have been assessed as of local importance (lower value) as they are small in size
and do not support suitable foraging or commuting habitat for species such as salmonids or otter.
However, the drainage ditches on site do provide connectivity to larger watercourses downstream of the
proposed development site, including Lough Ree SAC and SPA.
Built concrete block walls (BL3) - local importance (lower value)
Built concrete block walls (BL3) form part of the western boundary of the site and have been assessed as
of local importance (lower value) as they provide limited value to local wildlife.
An assessment of likely impacts as a result of habitat loss/disturbance is considered in Section 5.5 of this
Ecological Impact Assessment from a precautionary point of view.
5.4.5 Fauna in the Existing Environment
The walkover survey was designed to detect the presence, or likely presence, of a range of protected
species, including birds, bats, otter and badger. Potential suitable habitats were investigated for signs of
animal presence. The following subsections provide a breakdown of the species recorded within the
proposed development boundary during the site visit and assessment.
5.4.5.1 Birds
A total of 13 bird species were recorded within or immediately adjacent to the site on the 16th November
2018 and 14th of May 2019 (Table 5-11). Bird species recorded within the site boundaries during the site
visit were an assemblage of common birds that are typical of the agricultural and wet grassland habitats on
the site. Ten of the bird species observed are green-listed and are common in Ireland. Three of the
species observed are amber listed. No bird species of conservation concern were recorded within the or
adjacent to the study area during the site visit.
Table 5-11 Bird species observed during the field visit, and current conservation status
Common Name Scientific Name BoCCI Status
Robin Erithacus rubecula Amber (breeding)
Snipe Gallinago gallinago Amber
Willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus Amber
Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Green
Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs Green
Hooded crow Corvus cornix Green
Great tit Parus major Green
Blue tit Parus caeruleus Green
Blackbird Turdus merula Green
Magpie Pica pica Green
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-35
Common Name Scientific Name BoCCI Status
Rook Corvus frugilegus Green
Woodpigeon Columba palumbus Green
Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla Green
5.4.5.2 Bats During a dedicated bat survey of the site on the 14th of May 2019 an emergence survey was undertaken
by two surveyors, positioned at a mature oak tree within the northwest of the site identified as having
potential to support roosting bats. No bats were recorded emerging from this tree. Following the
emergence survey, a walked transect of the entire site was undertaken, covering representative habitats
and linear features. The walked transect route is provided in Figure 5-6. Bats were recorded feeding along
treelines and hedgerows for much of the dusk survey. Species recorded included Leisler’s bat, common
and soprano pipistrelle as well as a possible brown long-eared bat. Bat numbers within the site comprised
on small numbers of individual bats with a maximum of two bats recorded at any one time. The treelines
and hedgerows within and surrounding the site provide connectivity to the wider landscape surrounding
the site for bat species.
The habitats within and adjacent to the site were assessed for suitability for bats during the survey. There
were no buildings on site that had suitability for roosting bats. Trees identified as having potential to
support roosting bats were examined for cavities or crevices which could be suitable roost sites for bats. A
single oak tree was identified as having the potential to support small numbers of individual bats, see
Figure 5-6. Plate 4-10 provides an example of potentially suitable cavities identified within an oak tree
within the northwest of the site. This tree has been assessed as of low-moderate suitability, as per Collins,
2016 ‘Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists Good Practice Guidelines’.
The site does provide suitable habitat for feeding and commuting bat species with hedgerows and
treelines providing connectivity to the surrounding landscape.
MKO Tuam Road, Galway, Ireland, H91 VW84. +353 (0) 91 735611 www.mkoireland.ie
MAP TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
DRAWING BY: CHECKED BY:
MAP NO.:
ISSUE NO.:
SCALE:
DATE:
Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence No. AR 0021819 © Ordnance Survey Ireland/Government of Ireland
DMN PR09-09-2019
1:3,500
180816a-2019.09.09-D
Figure 5.6Bat transect and potential tree roost180816 Barrett - Cornamagh Athlone
Map LegendSite boundary
Bat Transect Route
Tree with some potential to supportroosting bats
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-37
Plate 5-10 Oak tree within the northwest of the site providing potentially suitable roosting cavities for bat species.
5.4.5.3 Badger
The site was searched for signs of badger (Meles meles) during the walk over survey. Evidence of badger
was recorded during the walkover survey including a badger sett (comprising of a three active entrances),
foraging signs, prints and the presence of runs between hedgerows.
The badger sett was recorded within a mature treeline within the central section of the site (Plate 5-11).
The location of the sett is shown in Confidential Appendix 5-27
. The sett had three entrances and lacked
defined paths connecting it to a main sett. A small spoil heap was noted outside the entrances and the
entrance was clear of debris suggesting that the sett is in regular use. The surrounding hedgerows and bog
woodland was searched for the presence of other setts although no other setts were recorded.
The sett has been classified as an outlier sett, as per guidance in Small, 1995. The sett entrance and
surrounding habitat is likely to be used by the local badger population as a non-primary area with a main
sett located elsewhere in the surrounding area. No main sett was recorded within the study area despite a
thorough search of the site. As the site of the proposed development is located at the edge of the urban
area of Athlone, with the built environment located to the east, south and west, it is highly likely that the
sett is an outlier at the edge of a wider Badger territory that is centred in the area of farmland to the north.
Plate 5.11: Outlier badger sett recorded within the site.
5.4.5.4 Otter
A comprehensive search of the drainage ditch located within the site and along the site boundaries was
undertaken for otter. No signs of otter, including holts, slides, prints or spraints were recorded. The
drainage ditch located within the site is not of ecological value to a local otter population as it is shallow
with minimal flow. However, the drainage ditch on site does provide surface water connectivity to
7 The location is confidential to ensure the protection of the species and this process is in accordance with standard best practice.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-38
downstream watercourses likely to be used by otter, including Lough Ree SAC located approximately
1.2km (surface water distance) downstream.
5.4.5.5 Other fauna
Although no signs of other mammal species were recorded, species such as fox (Vulpes vulpes) and
pygmy shrew (Sorex minutus) are likely to utilise the site, at least on occasion.
No significant areas of suitable habitat for other taxa including invertebrates or amphibians, species listed
in Annex II or IV of the EU Habitats Directive, or other species of conservation concern was identified
within the boundaries of the proposed development site. The drainage ditch recorded to the northwest of
the site does not provide significant areas of suitable breeding sites for amphibious species such as
common frog. For this reason, no other mammal, invertebrate or amphibian species have been
considered as a sensitive ecological receptor.
5.4.6 Significance of the Fauna
The field surveys carried out on the 16th November 2018 and 14th of May 2019 found that badger and
bat species were the only protected species recorded within the site boundary. No evidence of any other
protected faunal species or other species of conservation concern was recorded within the site boundary.
No rare species recorded in the desk study, including those obtained from NPWS data request (see
Table 5-7), were recorded within the study area. This section attributes the significance of each of the
species recorded within the site of the proposed development in accordance with best practice guidance
(NRA, 2009).
Based on the findings of the desk study and the site visit surveys, the species recorded within the site and
the nature of the habitats recorded on site, the development boundary does not provide significant
suitable habitat for protected species other than badger, with an active sett recorded within the site
boundary. Due to the occurrence of a badger sett within the site, badger have been of local importance
(higher value) as the species is protected under the Wildlife Act. However, the species is considered as
common and widespread in Ireland and are of ‘Least concern’ in terms of their conservation status
(Marnell et al, 2009).
Based on the absence of otter records for the site and the low suitability of the aquatic habitats to support
fish species, otter has been assessed as of local importance (lower value) and has not been identified as a
sensitive ecological receptor within the site. However, potential for water pollution, downstream of the
site, has the potential to impact this species. For this reason, further consideration has been given to the
protection of watercourses both within and downstream of the proposed development site.
Bat species have been assessed as of Local importance (higher value) as they are of high local biodiversity
value. Although no roosts were recorded within the site during the survey, a mature oak tree was
identified as having the potential to support small numbers of roosting bats. From a precautionary
perspective, and due to the nature of the proposed development involving some treeline and hedgerow
removal, potential for impacts on bat species is the subject of assessment in Section 5.5 from a
precautionary perspective.
None of the bird species recorded within the site during the site visit are Red listed under the Birds of
Conservation Concern in Ireland (BoCCI) or in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive and habitat on site
comprises semi-improved agricultural grassland, which is common in the surrounding area. However,
there is a network of tree lines and hedgerows that provide suitable habitat for a range of common
passerine species with a high biodiversity value in a local context. Bird species have been identified as of
local importance (Higher value) on this basis although the species recorded are common and widespread.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-39
5.5 Ecological Impact Assessment Following the desk study and detailed ecological surveys undertaken on site, this section of the report
considers the potential for impact on the sensitive ecological receptors that were identified and that will be
subject to impact as a result of the proposed development. The impacts on each sensitive ecological
receptor is considered during all stages of the proposed development, namely; construction, operation
and decommissioning. The do-nothing scenario – i.e. the existing trends of the receiving environment in
the absence of the proposed housing development is also considered.
5.5.1 Do Nothing Impact
If the proposed development were not to go ahead, it is likely that the site would remain in its current use;
an operational agricultural grassland grazed by livestock.
5.5.2 Impacts During Construction Phase
5.5.2.1 Impacts on Habitats
The development footprint, associated landscaping and amenity areas will affect the majority of the lands
within the red line boundary, see Figure 5-5. There will be a loss of 11.28 ha of Dry meadows and grassy
verges (GS2), assessed as of local importance (lower value). The loss of this habitat to the footprint of the
proposed development is assessed as a permanent negative effect and is not significant at any geographic
scale as the habitat has a relatively low biodiversity value and is widespread in the local and wider area.
Potential for impact on these habitats of local importance (lower value) have therefore not been identified
as Key Ecological Receptors (KERs) and are thus not considered further in this report. The loss of these
habitats is considered to be a long-term not significant negative impact at any geographic scale.
The development footprint is situated within habitats dominated by Dry meadows and grassy verges
(GS2) and Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1), a small area of Bog woodland and linear strips of
Hedgerows (WL1) and Treelines (WL2) of local importance (higher value). Potential for impact on these
habitats is considered further in the following subsections.
These habitats of local importance (higher value) have been identified as Key Ecological Receptors
(KERs) as the loss of habitat has been identified as a long-term negative impact at a local (higher)
geographic scale. The following subsections consider potential for impact on these habitats during the
construction phase of the proposed development.
Assessment of Potential Impacts on Treeline and Hedgerow Habitat Table 5-12. Assessment of Impact on Treeline and Hedgerow Habitat
Description of
Effect
The site, including site boundaries, contains approximately 1,400 metres of hedgerow
habitat. Approximately 500 metres of hedgerows habitat occurring within the centre of the
site will be lost to facilitate the proposed project footprint. The remainder of the hedgerow
habitat within the site will be retained and enhanced.
The site, including site boundaries, contains approximately 540 metres of treeline habitat.
Approximately 300 metres of treeline habitat, located within the south of the site and
identified as a townland boundary, will be removed to facilitate the proposed development.
Characterisation
of unmitigated
effect
The loss of 500m of hedgerow would constitute a permanent negative effect on
approximately 35% of the hedgerow habitat within the site/site boundary. This would not be
reversible as it is within the construction footprint.
The removal of 300 metres of treeline would constitute a negative effect on approximately
55% of the tree line habitat on the site. This effect is reversible as although the tree line will
be lost, this is only to facilitate a change in levels on the site and it can be replaced in its
original location.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-40
Assessment of Potential Impacts on Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1) Habitat Table 5-13. Loss of Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1) Habitat
Assessment of
Significance
prior to
mitigation
The loss of 500m of hedgerow habitat and approximately 300 metres of treeline habitat
represents a loss of approximately 41% of this locally important habitat within the site.
This is not considered to be a significant effect at anything other than local geographic scale
as the habitat is widespread and common in the wider area outside the site.
Mitigation The tree line to be lost will be replaced in full in the same location following the alteration to
ground levels necessary to prepare the site for development. Native tree species will be
planted in this tree line.
It is proposed to plant an additional 220 metres of new native hedgerow habitat along the
western boundary of the site currently comprising of block wall, dividing the site from
neighbouring housing estates to the west, see drawing 19143-1-100 ‘Landscape Master Plan’.
There will therefore reduce the net loss of hedgerow habitat associated with the proposed
project to approximately 280 metres and will improve habitat connectivity at the perimeter of
the site.
The design of the proposed project has resulted in the retention of the existing hedgerow and
treeline habitat occurring along the site boundary. These boundary hedgerows will be
enhanced using supplementary planting of native Irish species as part of the Landscape
Management Plan, (Cunnane Stratton Reynolds, 2019). The Landscape Master Plan also
provides details on the composition and management of the proposed tree species.
Approximately 300 metres of treeline habitat located within the south of the site, identified as
a townland boundary, will be lost during the site regrading works due to the undulating
topography on site. However, this will be immediately reinstated using a mix of similar native
tree species, as described in the Landscape Management Plan (see drawing 19143-1-100).
This was incorporated into the proposed development in consideration of the Westmeath
County Development Plan policy P-TWH5 which promotes the retention of townland
boundaries. Drawing 19143-1-100 ‘Landscape Master Plan’ also shows tree root protection
areas. This will ensure that any trees or tree lines that are to be retained within the site are
fully protected in accordance with the British Standard BS 5837: Trees in Relation to
Construction.
Residual Effect
following
Mitigation
Following the implementation of the mitigation as described above, there will be a permanent
residual loss of 280m of hedgerow habitat, with no net loss of tree line. The enhancement of
the perimeter hedgerows and tree lines will improve habitat connectivity around the site.
There is no significant residual effect on hedgerows and treelines resulting from the
proposed development.
Potential for
Cumulative
Effect
The proposed development will not result in any significant effect on hedgerows or treelines
and will result in improved habitat connectivity surrounding the site. It therefore cannot
contribute to any cumulative effect in this regard.
Description of
Effect
There will be a loss of 2.9 ha of Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1), assessed as of
local importance (higher value). Due to the layout of the proposed development, all of this
habitat within the site boundary will be lost to the development footprint.
Characterisation
of unmitigated
effect
The loss of 2.9ha of Dry calcareous and neutral grassland (GS1) would constitute a
permanent negative effect on the habitat within the site boundary. This would not be
reversible as it is within the construction footprint.
Assessment of
Significance
prior to
mitigation
The loss of this small area of grassland habitat will not affect the conservation status of this
habitat is widespread and common the wider landscape. However, it is considered locally
significant in the context of biodiversity within the site. The loss of this semi-improved
agricultural grassland is not significant at other geographic scale.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-41
Assessment of Potential Impacts on Bog Woodland Table 5-14 Loss of Bog Woodland Habitat
8 OCSC, 2020, Engineering Services Report, Residential Development at Coosan, Athlone
Mitigation The proposed development has been designed to include approximately three hectares of
green open space providing a linear strip throughout the centre of the site. This green area
includes the planting of clumps of native trees, the provision of wetlands (including wet
grassland) and the planting of native wildflower meadows scattered throughout the amenity
space. Drawing B907-OCSC-XX-XX-DR-C-0522, of the Engineering Services Report
(OCSC, 20208
), submitted as part of the planning application documentation, provides the
design cross section details of this wetland. The proposed feature wetland has been designed
in accordance with the requirements of CIRIA C753 (SuDS. Manual) included in Appendix
I of the OCSC (2020) engineering services report.
Plate 5-1 Cross Section of Wetland (Excerpt from Design Drawing B907-OCSC-XX-XX-DR-C-0522)
In order to create wildflower meadows within the site, top soil stripped from the most
southerly field within the site (comprising Dry calcareous and neutral grassland) will be stored
on site for reuse in the site landscaping of the site, particularly the areas identified for semi-
natural grassland creation, see drawing 19143-1-100. This will contain a natural seedbank
facilitating a natural revegetation of local plant assemblages. If additional seeding is required
for revegetation of grassland habitats within the site, the recommended species mix to be
sown is “Native Origin Irish Wildflower Seed Mixture: Range: Meadow Mixtures (Code
MM)” (Wildflowers, 2020). This will ensure higher biodiversity value of the semi-natural and
amenity grasslands within the site. Detailed measures for the establishment and long-term
management of this semi-natural grassland meadow and wet grassland habitat is described in
Section 2 of the Landscape Master Plan.
A biodiversity management plan will be developed for the management of the created
wetlands, trees and grasslands throughout the site. This will include details of the associated
roles and responsibilities for the management and monitoring of the biodiversity within the
site.
Residual Effect
following
Mitigation
Following the implementation of the mitigation as described above, there will be no
significant effect on the biodiversity value of the semi- natural habitats within the site at any
geographic scale.
Potential for
Cumulative
Effect
The proposed development will not result in any significant effect on the semi-natural
habitats within the site. It therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect in this regard.
Description of
Effect
There will be a loss of 0.19 ha of Bog woodland (WN7) habitat identified as of local
importance (higher value). This habitat is located within the northwest of the site and will be
lost as a result of the installation of the proposed site access road.
Characterisation
of unmitigated
effect
The loss of this habitat has been assessed as a permanent slight negative effect. This would
not be reversible as it is within the construction footprint.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-42
5.5.2.2 Impacts on Fauna
Faunal species recorded within the proposed development boundary have widespread and favourable
ranges in Ireland and alternative suitable habitat is widespread in the wider area. Therefore, impacts on
fauna as a result of disturbance/ displacement are short-term not significant negative impacts.
No suitable breeding or foraging habitats for mammal species of conservation concern such as otter were
identified within the proposed development site.
Supplementary hedgerows and treeline planting as well as the creation of areas of semi-natural grassland
habitat as part of the proposed landscape management plan (see drawing 18223-3-100) will ensure that
connectivity is maintained for a variety of commuting and feeding faunal species of local (lower)
biodiversity value. Therefore, impacts on faunal species of local importance (lower value) are not
identified as Key Ecological Receptors (KERs). No significant effects on these species are anticipated.
The following faunal species have been identified as KERs for further assessment in the following
subsections: Badger
Bats
Birds
Assessment of Potential Impacts on Badger Table 5-15 Assessment of Potential Impacts on Badger
Assessment of
Significance
prior to
mitigation
The unmitigated impact resulting in the loss of this habitat is a permanent slight negative
impact and is not considered to be a significant negative effect as the habitat is widespread
and common in the wider landscape.
Mitigation As described above, the proposed development has been designed to include approximately
3 hectares of green space. This includes the retention of 0.1ha of this bog woodland and the
creation of wetland habitats surrounding the woodland and the planting of groups of native
trees and hedges around the site. The area of woodland to be retained will also be subject to
a specific maintenance measures outlined in Section 2.8 of the Landscape Management Plan
(Cunnane Stratton Reynolds, 2019). This will also form part of the biodiversity management
plan.
Residual Effect
following
Mitigation
Following the mitigation described above, the loss of a small area of bog woodland associated
with the construction phase of the proposed project is not considered to be significant at any
geographic scale and the development of surrounding wetlands has the potential to result in a
positive effect on biodiversity. There will be no significant residual effect on this habitat at any
greater than a very local (higher) geographic scale as a result of this development.
Potential for
Cumulative
Effect
The proposed development will not result in any significant effect on biodiversity associated
with the bog woodland. It therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect in this regard.
Description of
Effect
Habitat Loss
The footprint of the proposal will result in the loss of a known outlier badger sett
comprising three entrances and associated foraging habitat.
Habitat Fragmentation
As the proposed project is bordered to the south and west by existing housing estates on
two sides (south and west) and a sports ground to the southeast. It is highly likely that this
outlier badger sett is located at the very edge of a badger territory that is located in the
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-43
agricultural fields to the north. As such, it is highly unlikely that there will be any
significant fragmentation of habitat associated with the proposed development.
Disturbance/Displacement
The loss of an outlier badger sett to the footprint of the proposed project may result in
the displacement of badgers from this sett and could result in direct mortality in the
absence of mitigation.
Characterisation
of unmitigated
effect
Habitat Loss
The loss of a badger sett and associated foraging habitat to the footprint of the proposed
development constitutes a permanent slight negative effect on the local badger population
given that the sett has been identified as an outlier sett and is likely to be located at the
edge of a territory given the close proximity to the surrounding urban developments to
the south, east and west. This would not be reversible as it is within the construction
footprint.
Fragmentation
As there will be no significant fragmentation of badger foraging habitat, given the
developed nature of the southern and western boundaries of the site, impacts associated
with the development are thereby restricted to habitat loss.
Disturbance/Displacement
If the identified outlier badger sett were to be closed in the absence of mitigation, this
could result in mortality. This could constitute a permanent negative effect on a small
number of individuals using the site. In addition, construction works in close proximity to
the sett could prevent badgers from occupying the sett.
Assessment of
Significance
prior to
mitigation
Habitat Loss
The loss of an outlier badger sett and associated foraging habitat is not significant at a
county, national or international scale as it will not affect the conservation status of this
species, which is widespread and common in the wider area outside the site. However, it
could result in a slight effect on the local badger population through the loss of an outlier
sett and associated habitat.
Fragmentation
Habitat fragmentation is not considered significant at any geographic scale given the
location of the proposed development at the very edge of a potential badger territory,
close to nearby existing housing estates to the south and west of the site.
Disturbance/Displacement
The loss of this outlier badger sett is not significant at a county, national or international
scale as it will not affect the conservation status of this species, which is widespread and
common in the wider area outside the site. However, it is considered significant at a local
geographic scale and could result in the mortality of individuals in the absence of
mitigation.
Mitigation Habitat Loss
No mitigation is proposed for the loss of the outlier sett. However, the proposed
development includes the provision of approximately 3 three hectares of green space
with the planting of native tree species and wildflower meadows. This area will provide a
connection to the farm lands to the north and access by badger for foraging will be
retained.
Fragmentation
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-44
No specific mitigation is proposed in relation to fragmentation as no potential for
significant effect was identified.
Disturbance/Displacement
Due to the occurrence of an outlier badger sett within the proposed development
footprint, in the absence of mitigation, there is potential for direct mortality of badger
during the construction phase of the proposed development. The following approach for
the avoidance of disturbance/ mortality will be implemented: Prior to the commencement of any site works, a badger sett closure licence will be
sought from the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
A period of sett monitoring will be undertaken at all sett entrances by remote infra-red
cameras for a period of 2 weeks (minimum) to determine if the sett is active and the
number of individuals present.
An exclusion zone around the sett will be maintained until the sett is closed. No heavy
machinery will be used within 30m of the sett and no light machinery within 20m.
Following best practice, the closure of badger sett entrances will be undertaken outside of
the badger breeding season (December to June). Works may proceed during the
breeding season following the successful closure of the sett entrances.
In order to close each sett entrance, a one-way badger gate (or a similar device) will be
installed at each sett entrance (TII, 2005). The gates will be soft blocked with stones after
their installation and will be monitored for a 21-day period for signs of activity. Where
no activity take place, further stones or similar materials will be used to reinforce the
closure of the sett entrance.
.
All of the above works will be undertaken or supervised by an appropriately qualified
ecologist.
In addition to the above, to protect individual badgers during the construction phase of
the proposed development, all open excavations on site will be covered when not in use
and backfilled as soon as possible. Excavations will also be covered at night and any deep
excavations left open will have appropriate egress ramps in place to allow mammals to
safely exit excavations should they fall in.
Residual Effect
following
Mitigation
Habitat Loss
The loss of an outlier badger sett and associated foraging habitat at the edge of the
territory of the local badger population is not considered significant at anything other
than the local scale. It has the potential to have a slight effect on the local population but
will not affect the conservation status of this species, which is widespread and common in
the wider area outside the site.
Fragmentation
As there will be no significant fragmentation of badger foraging habitat, given the
developed nature of the southern and western boundaries of the site, impacts associated
with the development are thereby restricted to habitat loss. There is therefore no
potential for significant effect at any geographic scale as a result of habitat fragmentation.
Disturbance
Following the implementation of the mitigation as described above, there is no potential
for any significant effect on badger as a result of disturbance, displacement or mortality.
Potential for
Cumulative
Effect
Habitat Loss
As habitat loss has been identified as a slight effect at a local geographic scale, it therefore
could potentially contribute to a cumulative effect in this regard and is considered further
in Section 5.6.
Fragmentation
As no potential for significant effect has been identified at any geographic scale as a result
of habitat fragmentation, it therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect in this
regard.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-45
Assessment of Potential Impacts on Bats Table 5-16 Assessment of Potential Impacts on Bats
Disturbance
There will be no significant residual effect at any geographic scale, it therefore cannot
contribute to any potential cumulative effect in this regard.
Description of
Effect
Habitat Loss
The proposed development will result in the loss of hedgerow and tree line habitat that is used
by foraging bats. It will also result in the loss of a single tree with the potential to support a bat
roost. The site, including site boundaries, contains approximately 540 metres of treeline
habitat. Approximately 300 metres of treeline habitat located within the south of the site,
identified as a townland boundary, will be lost during the site regrading works due to the
undulating topography on site. Such loss of linear habitats, in the absence of mitigation, has
the potential to impact commuting and foraging bat species locally.
Habitat Fragmentation
The loss of hedgerows and tree line habitat has the potential to fragment bat foraging habitat
and to reduce connectivity to such habitat in the wider area
Disturbance/Displacement
The proposed development has the potential to result in disturbance and displacement
effects on bats in the form of lighting of tree lines. Whilst no bat roosts were recorded, there
is also the potential for displacement of bats from suitable habitat in a single oak tree that will
be lost in the north western section of the site. The felling of this tree could potentially lead
to direct mortality of bats
Characterisation
of unmitigated
effect
Habitat Loss
Given the low levels of activity recorded and that the majority of foraging habitat on the site
will be retained, the potential for effects on bats is considered to be slight.
No bat roosts were recorded on the site and only one tree was considered to have potential
to support roosting bats. However, the features identified within the tree are unlikely to
support significant numbers of bats and the likelihood of there being a roost present at all is
slight. The proposed development will also result in the loss of a mature oak tree identified
as having potential to support rousing bats (although none were recorded during a dedicated
roost emergence survey of this tree on the 14th of May 2019). The unmitigated impact of this
feature could result in a permanent slight negative impact.
Fragmentation
The proposed development has been designed to retain as much hedgerow and tree line
habitat as possible and will retain the majority of the perimeter habitats, thus ensuring that
any loss of habitat connectivity associated with areas outside the site is minimised. The effect
of losing linear features within the interior of the site will be minimal as connectivity will be
retained at the edges of the site.
Disturbance/Displacement
The proposed development will provide external lighting that could potentially lead to some
low-level disturbance of bat species. However, imperceptible disturbance of bats is
anticipated.
The loss of a mature oak tree with the potential to support small numbers of roosting bats
locally (although none were recorded using the tree during a dedicated roost emergence
survey of this tree on the 14th of May 2019) could result in mortality associated with the
construction phase of the proposed project, due to the felling of this tree.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-46
Assessment of
Significance
prior to
mitigation
Habitat Loss
No significant loss of bat roosting or foraging habitat is anticipated at any geographic scale.
Fragmentation
No significant fragmentation of bat roosting, commuting or foraging habitat is anticipated at
any geographic scale.
Disturbance/Displacement
No significant disturbance to bats is anticipated at any geographic scale. The potential for
direct mortality of bats following the felling of the single tree with the potential to support
roosting bats would be significant at the local scale but is highly unlikely to occur.
Mitigation Habitat Loss
Habitat loss has been identified as a not significant impact. This has been minimised through
the design phase of the project in consultation with the project ecologist and landscape
architect. This has resulted in the retention of hedgerow and treeline features including the
enhancement, replacement and establishment of new linear features and the provision of a
large area of greenspace with created wetlands, woodlands, wildflower meadows and tree
lines and clumps of trees. These are shown in the landscaping master plan, see drawing
19143-1-100 ‘Landscape Master Plan’ (Cunnane Stratton Reynolds, 2019). This will ensure
that feeding and commuting habitat is maintained for bat species locally. Bat boxes will be
erected on the trees to be retained to enhance roosting habitats on the site.
Fragmentation
Habitat fragmentation has been identified as a not significant impact. As described above, the
proposed project has been designed to maintain linear treeline and hedgerow features
surrounding perimeter of the site. These are shown in the landscaping master plan, see
drawing 19143-1-100 ‘Landscape Master Plan’ (Cunnane Stratton Reynolds, 2019). This will
ensure connectivity is maintained to the wider environment for commuting bats locally, both
through and around the proposed development. In addition, habitat connectivity throughout
the centre of the site will be enhanced through tree planting, wetland creation and the
planting of wild flower meadows.
Disturbance/Displacement
A mature oak tree to be removed as part of the proposed project was identified as having
potential to support small numbers of individual roosting bats. Following the precautionary
principle this tree will be inspected prior to the commencement of construction works to
identify if a roost is present.
If no bats are recorded within the tree, it will be left undisturbed for a period of 24 hours,
and preferably 48 hours. This will allow any bats that may be present to escape. In the
unlikely event that bats are recorded roosting within this tree, there may be a requirement for
a derogation licence from the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).
The lighting associated with the proposed development is designed to avoid light spillage and
will not be focussed onto areas of ecological sensitivity such as the hedgerows, treelines,
wetlands or tree planting areas.
Residual Effect
following
Mitigation
Habitat Loss
Following the incorporation of mitigation measures described above, no significant loss of bat
habitat is identified.
Fragmentation
Following the incorporation of mitigation measures described above, no significant
fragmentation of bat habitat is identified.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-47
Assessment of Potential Impacts on Birds Table 5-17. Assessment of impacts on birds associated with the construction phase of the proposed project.
Disturbance/Displacement
Following the incorporation of mitigation measures described above, no significant
disturbance/displacement of bats is identified
Potential for
Cumulative
Effect
Habitat Loss
There is no significant loss of bat habitat associated with the proposed development. It
therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect in this regard.
Fragmentation
There is no significant effect as a result of the fragmentation of bat habitat associated with the
proposed development. It therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect in this regard.
Disturbance
There will be no significant disturbance to bat species as a result of the proposed
development. It therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect in this regard.
Description of
Effect
Habitat Loss/fragmentation
The footprint of the proposal will result in the loss of agricultural grassland, tree lines
hedgerows that provide habitat for a range of common and widespread bird species.
Disturbance/Displacement
The construction phase of the proposed project has the potential to cause disturbance to
local bird species, potentially leading to avoidance of the area. In addition, if site clearance is
undertaken during the bird nesting season, it could lead to the destruction or disturbance of
nests.
Characterisation
of unmitigated
effect
Habitat Loss/fragmentation
The loss of bird nesting habitat constitutes a permanent slight negative effect as these habitats
are common and widespread in the wider area.
Disturbance/Displacement
In the absence of mitigation, there is potential for slight temporary negative effect on local
bird species associated with the construction phase of the proposed development as the site
does not provide significant habitat for bird species of conservation concern.
Assessment of
Significance
prior to
mitigation
Habitat Loss
The unmitigated impact resulting in the loss of foraging and commuting habitat for bird
species is not significant as the habitats to be lost are common and widespread in the local
area and do not support significant habitat for protected bird species.
Disturbance/Displacement
In the absence of mitigation, there is potential for loss individual birds nests within the site of
the proposed development. Whilst this would be a significant effect on the individual nests
involved, it would not result on a significant effect on the populations of the species involved
in terms of their conservation status.
Habitat Loss
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-48
5.5.2.3 Assessment of Impacts on Water Quality Table 5-18 Consideration of impacts on water quality
Mitigation The design of the proposed development includes measures to replant and enhance tree line
and hedgerow habitat on the site along with wetlands, wild flower meadows and planted trees.
A biodiversity management plan will be provided and will include the provision, maintenance
and monitoring of bird boxes throughout the site.
Disturbance/Displacement
Site clearance will be undertaken outside of the nesting bird season (1st
March – 31st
August)
to ensure compliance with the Wildlife Act. If vegetation clearance is required during the
nesting bird season, this will be preceded by a nesting bird survey and all clearance works
supervised by an appropriately qualified ecologist. isturbance/Displacement
Residual Effect
following
Mitigation
Habitat Loss
Following the incorporation of mitigation listed above, habitat loss is not considered to be
significant at any geographic scale. There is potential for biodiversity net gain in relation to
birds.
Disturbance/Displacement
Following the implementation of the mitigation as described above, there will be no
significant residual effect at any geographic scale. Disturbance/Displacement
Potential for
Cumulative
Effect
Habitat Loss
The proposed development has the potential to result in a positive effect on bird species
through biodiversity management. It therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect in
this regard.
Disturbance/Displacement
No significant effects as a result of habitat disturbance/displacement associated with the
proposed development are predicted. It therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect
in this regard. sturbance/ displacement
Description of
Effect
The construction of the development will involve earth moving and levelling operations
which create the potential for pollution in various forms and there is therefore potential for
impact on downstream water quality. The development will also include the culverting of an
existing drain within the site and the construction of a surface water outfall to a drain that is
located at the north western boundary of the site.
Characterisation
of unmitigated
effect
The deterioration in downstream surface water quality would constitute a reversible negative
effect. Given the small scale of the existing drainage ditch occurring on site, impacts on water
quality are unlikely to result in anything other than slight effects on sensitive ecological
receptors downstream such as Lough Ree and ultimately the River Shannon.
Assessment of
Significance
prior to
mitigation
There is unlikely to be any significant negative effects on any sensitive ecological receptors
given the nature of the drainage ditch, the nature of the works and the location of the site
(removed from ecologically sensitive waterbodies).
Mitigation A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been prepared for the
proposed development (MKO, 2020) and has been submitted as part of the planning
application documentation. This CEMP includes best practice environmental control
measures for the avoidance of deterioration in water quality and will be implemented in full
during the construction phase of the proposed development. In addition, Section 7.4.2 of the
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-49
5.5.3 Impacts During the Operational Phase
5.5.3.1 Impacts on Habitats
There will be no loss or fragmentation of habitats during the operational phase of the proposed
development. All habitat loss will occur during construction. As such, no negative effects on habitats are
predicted during the operation of this residential development.
The proposed development has been designed to include approximately three hectares of green open
space providing a linear strip throughout the centre of the site. This green area includes the planting of
clumps of native trees, the provision of wetlands (including wet grassland) and the planting of native wild
flower meadows scattered throughout the amenity space.
hydrology chapter (Chapter 7 of the EIAR) prescribes standard best practice mitigation
measures for the avoidance of impact on water quality. Together with the CEMP, the
following is a summary of the measures incorporated into the construction phase of the
proposed development for the avoidance of water pollution:
Management of surface water runoff and subsequent treatment prior to release off-site will be
undertaken during construction work as follows:
At the outset of construction, the existing drain within the site will be culverted.
This will be undertaken during low flow and any flows within the channel will be
overpumped from upstream to downstream, leaving the work area dry. The
pumped water will be released into a silt bag within the drain.
The construction of the surface water discharge point will similarly be undertaken
in dry conditions with damming and overpumping employed as necessary.
As construction advances there may be a small requirement to collect and treat
surface water within the site. This will be completed using perimeter swales at low
points around the construction areas, and if required water will be pumped from
the swales into sediment bags prior to overland discharge allowing water to
percolate naturally to ground or disperse by diffuse flow into local drainage ditches;
Discharge onto ground will be via a silt bag which will filter any remaining sediment
from the pumped water. The entire discharge area from silt bags will be enclosed
by a perimeter of double silt fencing;
Any proposed discharge area will avoid potential surface water ponding areas, and
will only be located where suitable subsoils are present;
No pumped construction water will be discharged directly into any local
watercourse;
Daily monitoring and inspections of site drainage during construction will be
completed;
Earthworks will take place during periods of low rainfall to reduce run-off and
potential siltation of watercourses;
Good construction practices such wheel washers and dust suppression on site
roads, and regular plant maintenance will ensure minimal risk. The Construction
Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) provide guidance on the
control and management of water pollution from construction sites ('Control of
Water Pollution from Construction Sites, guidance for consultants and
contractors', CIRlA, 2001), which provides information on these issues. This will
ensure that surface water arising during the course of construction activities will
contain minimum sediment.
Residual Effect
following
Mitigation
As described in Section 7.4.2.1, Chapter 7 of the EIAR, ‘No significant impacts on surface water quality are expected due to site excavation work. There is limited hydraulic connectivity
between the site and watercourses and mitigation measures will be employed on a precautionary basis’. Subject to the implementation of the measures described in the
hydrological report and the CEMP, blocking all pollution pathways, impacts on downstream
ecologically sensitive receptors is not anticipated. There will therefore be no significant
impact on water quality as a result of the proposed development at any geographic scale.
Potential for
Cumulative
Effect
The proposed development will not result in any permanent or long-term deterioration in
water quality and it is not considered significant at any geographic scale. It therefore cannot
contribute to any cumulative effect in this regard.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-50
A biodiversity management plan will be developed for the management of the created wetlands, trees and
grasslands throughout the site. This will include details of the associated roles and responsibilities for the
management and monitoring of the biodiversity within the site. There is the potential for the proposed
development to result in a positive effect on habitats on site.
5.5.3.2 Impacts on Faunal Species
As the operation of the proposed development will not result in any additional loss of habitat and will
actually include measures to improve the biodiversity value of the site (as described in the previous
section). No significant effects in terms of habitat loss and fragmentation are anticipated. The biodiversity
management plan provides for additional habitat for bird and bat species in the form of bird and bat
boxes along with the planting of trees and creation of wetland habitats.
The proposed development will include some external lighting. However, this will be designed to avoid
light spillage and will be focussed away from areas of ecological sensitivity such as the tree lines,
hedgerows and the wetlands within the site.
No significant negative effects on any faunal receptors are anticipated as a result of this development.
5.5.3.3 Impacts on Water quality Table 5-19. Consideration of impacts on water quality during the operational phase of the proposed project
5.5.4 Decommissioning Phase
The proposed development is considered to be permanent and thus there will be no decommissioning
works associated with the proposed development. Any demolition or maintenance works on the site
Description of
Effect
In the absence of best practice design measures, surface water and wastewater generated on
site has the potential to result in water pollution of downstream surface water receptors.
Surface water generated on the site will be discharged to the drainage ditch that is located at
the northwest corner of the site. Foul water will be connected to the public sewer network.
Characterisation
of unmitigated
effect
The deterioration in downstream surface water quality would constitute a long term,
reversible negative effect on downstream water quality. Given the nature of the development,
the small size of the receiving watercourse and the location of the sensitive ecological
waterbodies downstream, any potential effect is likely to be slight in magnitude.
Assessment of
Significance
prior to
mitigation
No significant effects on receptors of international (Lough Ree SAC), national or county
importance that may be located downstream are anticipated. Any effect on the watercourses
in the local area is likely to be slight and potentially significant at the local scale only.
Mitigation As described in Section 2.2, all foul water will be connected to the public foul water sewer.
All freshwater will be connected to the public water mains infrastructure as detailed in
drawing 10402-2000. Surface water runoff from the proposed development will be directed
to an appropriately designed water attenuation ponds and attenuation tanks (see Section 2.1).
All surface water runoff from the trafficked areas will pass through a petrol interceptor prior
to discharge (see drawing 10402-1000). Given the absence of pollution pathways impacts on
ecologically sensitive receptors are not anticipated.
Residual Effect
following
Mitigation
The proposed development will not affect the hydrological regime within the area. As fully
described in Section 7.4.3, Chapter 7 of the EIAR, ‘No significant impacts in terms of
flooding or water quality are expected due to the proposed development’. Following the
incorporation of the above mitigation/design, there will be no significant impact on water
quality as a result of the proposed development at any geographic scale.
Potential for
Cumulative
Effect
The proposed development will not result in any significant water quality impacts and is not
significant at any geographic scale. It therefore cannot contribute to any cumulative effect in
this regard.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-51
would be likely to have similar impacts in terms of disturbance to those associated with the construction
phase of the project as detailed in previous sections.
5.5.5 Impacts on Designated Sites
5.5.5.1 European Sites
Potential impacts on European Designated Sites (SACs and SPAs) are assessed within a separate
Screening for Appropriate Assessment report and Natura Impact Statement. The NIS states that:
“it can be objectively concluded that the Proposed Development, individually or in combination
with other plans or projects, will not adversely affect the integrity of any European Site”.
5.5.5.2 Nationally Designated Sites
All nationally designated sites were considered in this assessment. Any NHAs or pNHAs that were also
designated as SACs/SPAs were considered and assessed under that designation. There was no identified
pathway for effect on any nationally designated site that was not also designated as a European Site. The
closest site of nature conservation value to the proposed development is the Lough Ree pNHA, located
to the north of the proposed development site. A small drainage ditch located within the site of the
proposed development provides surface water connectivity with the pNHA in excess of 1.2km
downstream. As described above, impact on this site is considered and assessed under Lough Ree SAC.
The nearest NHA, Carrickynaghtan Bog NHA, is situated 4.2km to the southwest of the site. However,
no surface water connectivity has been identified between the proposed development and any NHAs
within the likely zone of influence.
5.6 Cumulative Impacts
5.6.1 Other Projects
The proposed development was considered in combination with other plans and projects in the area that
could result in cumulative impacts on European Sites, Nationally designated sites and protected species.
Existing trends in the surrounding environment have been considered following a review of historic maps
and orthophotography. The surrounding environment has been subject to significant housing
development including nearby housing estates; Churchfields, The Glen, Church Hills Cresent, Coolevin
Park, Coosan Heath and Churchwood all constructed since 1995. In addition, there has been associated
road development, including the N6 to the south of the site. The agricultural landscape in the wider area
also appears to have continued to be subject to agricultural improvement, and in a small number of cases
abandonment. There is little data to establish trends for faunal and protected plant species locally.
However, the loss of semi-natural habitats locally is likely to have had some effects on biodiversity locally.
The online planning system for Westmeath County Council, was consulted on the 06/06/2020. Projects
Considered in the Cumulative Assessment are described below. The comprehensive review of the
Westmeath County Council planning register documented relevant general development planning
applications within the vicinity of the proposed works, most of which relate to the provision and/or
alteration of dwelling units. The following developments have been included in the context of the
cumulative assessment.
Residential Development – Clonbrusk, Coosan, Athlone – Pl. Ref 01811164
Kevin King applied to Westmeath County Council for planning permission for development of 31 no.
dwelling houses, connecting to public services, providing new site entrance and access roads including all
ancillary site works. Permission was granted by Westmeath County Council on the 30/12/2002 subject to
42 no. conditions. A third party appeal was lodged with An Bord Pleanála on the 02/09/2002 however
this was withdrawn on the 30/12/2002. The development commenced on the 14/07/2003. The site
adjoins the proposed development to the west.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
5-52
Residential Development – Clonbrusk, Coosan, Athlone – Pl. Ref 03811290
Regional Developments Ltd. applied to Westmeath County Council for planning permission for
development of 50 no. dwellings, 2 no. apartments and 1 no. creche including service roads, parking,
public open space and all associated site works. Permission was granted on the 15/07/2004 subject to 26
no. conditions. This development did not commence. The site adjoins the proposed development to
west.
Residential Development – Drumacon, Cornamaddy, Athlone– Pl. Ref 147103
Parana Properties Ltd. applied to Westmeath County Council for planning permission for 98 no. new
dwellings to include 11 4/5 bedroom detached houses, 28 no. 4/5 bed semi-detached houses, 8 no. 3
bedroom detached houses, 34 no. 3 bedroom semi-detached houses, 8 no. 2/3 bedroom terraced houses,
3 no. 2 bedroom houses and 6 no. 2 bedroom bungalow houses. The development is to include the
provision of all associated site development works including road networks, services, landscaping and
boundary treatments. Permission was granted on the 02/04/2015 subject to 17 no. conditions. A third
party appeal was submiited to An Bord Pleanála. Permission was granted on the 20/12/2002 subject to 9
no. amended conditions. The site is located approximately 600m to the east of the proposed
development.
Residential/Mixed use Development – Cornamaddy, Athlone – Pl. Ref 073123
McInerney Homes Ltd. applied to Westmeath County Council for 1 primary school, 184 no. residential
units, associated site works and landscaping to circa 10.4 ha. Permission was granted on the on the
01/05/2008 subject to 17 no. conditions. The site is located approximately 550m to the east of the
proposed site
Residential Development – Cornamaddy, Athlone – Pl. Ref 063087
McInerney Homes Ltd. applied to Westmeath County Council for 94 residential units, associated site
works and landscaping to circa 4.71 ha. Permission was granted on the on the 27/09/2006 subject to 35
no. conditions. A third party submission lodged with An Bord Pleanála was withdrawn on the
23/11/2006. The site is located approximately 540m north east from the proposed site.
Residential Development – Clonbrusk, Coosan Link Road, Athlone – Pl. Ref 073067
Mr. Ollie Kenny applied to Westmeath County Council to construct 83 no. residential units ancillary site
works and all associated site works. Permission was granted on the 24/01/2008 subject to 18 no.
conditions. A third party appeal was lodged and subsequently withdrawn with An Bord Pleanála on the
30/05/2008. The site is located approximately 520m south west of the proposed site.
5.6.2 County Development Plan
The following development plan has been reviewed and taken into consideration as part of this
assessment:
Westmeath County Development Plan 2014-2020
River Basin Management Plan for Ireland 2018–2021
The review focused on policies and objectives that relate to Natura 2000 sites. Policies and objectives
relating to the conservation of grasslands, waterbodies, sustainable land use were also reviewed,
particularly where the policies relate to the preservation of surface water quality. The results of this search
with regard to plans is provided in Table 5.24.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
53
Table 5.24 Assessment of Plans
Plans Key Policies/Issues/Objectives Directly Related to European Sites in The Zone of Influence Assessment of Potential Effects on
European Sites
Westmeath County
Development Plan
2014-2020
P-NH2 To ensure as far as possible that development does not impact adversely on wildlife habitats and species. In
the interests of sustainability, biodiversity should be conserved for the benefit of future generations.
P-NH9 To consult with the National Parks and Wildlife Service in regard to any developments (those requiring
permission and those not requiring planning permission) which the Council propose to carry out within pNHAs,
NHAs, SACs, SPAs, and other important ecological sites.
P-NAT1 To protect and conserve wild bird species and their habitats, especially rare or vulnerable species and
regularly occurring migratory species.
P-NAT2 To protect and conserve Special Areas of Conservation, candidate Special Areas of Conservation, Special
Protection Areas and candidate Special Protection Areas, designated by the National Parks and Wildlife Service of
the Department of the Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives respectively.
P-NAT4 To assess any plan or project in accordance with Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, and assess whether the
Plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on the site either individually or cumulatively upon the integrity,
conservation objectives and qualifying interest of any Natura 2000 site.
P-TWH5 To protect hedgerows in all new developments, particularly species rich roadside and townland boundary
hedgerows.
The Development plan was comprehensively
reviewed, with particular reference to Policies and
Objectives that relate to the Natura 2000 network
and other natural heritage interests. No potential
for cumulative effects, considered in conjunction
with the proposed drainage, were identified.
Detailed ecological surveys have been
undertaken within the study area to provide
robust scientific data on which the findings of this
report rely.
The proposed onsite drainage has been designed
in order to avoid any potential for direct or
indirect impact on downstream sensitive
ecological receptors, EU or Nationally
Designated sites.
River Basin
Management Plan
for Ireland 2018 -
20219
The River Basin Management Plan for Ireland 2018-2021 sets out the actions that Ireland will take to improve water
quality and achieve ‘good’ ecological status in water bodies (rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters) by 2027. The
RBMP has been prepared under the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
The proposed onsite drainage has been designed
in order to avoid any potential for direct or
indirect impact on downstream waterbodies,
sensitive ecological receptors, EU or Nationally
Designated sites.
9 Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (2018), River Basin Management Plan for Ireland 2018-2021 [Online], Available at:
https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/rbmp_report_english_web_version_final_0.pdf, Accessed 03/06/2020.
SHD – Cornamagh, Clonbrusk and Coosan, Athlone – EIAR
180816a – EIAR – 2020.06.22 – F
54
5.6.3 Conclusion of in-combination/cumulative assessment
Section 5.5.2.2.1 of the EIAR identified that the loss of an outlier badger sett and associated foraging
habitat could result in a slight residual effect that is significant at a local geographic scale only. Therefore,
the loss of this outlier badger sett and associated foraging habitat could potentially contribute to a
cumulative effect in combination with other projects. Following a review of the most recent developments
in the wider landscape and the Westmeath County Development Plan 2014-2020, the majority of
greenfield sites loss to development in the surrounding area has been associated with the infilling of gaps
among existing developments. This has also been restricted to the lands located to the south and west of
the site on the outskirts of Athlone town and in close proximity to existing housing developments. The
Athlone Town Development Plan 2014-2020 does not provide for further development to the north of
the proposed development site. It can therefore be concluded that there will be no significant in-
combination impact at any geographic scale as a result of habitat loss/displacement of badger associated
with the proposed development.
The proposed development will not result in any significant residual effects on any ecological receptors,
with the implementation of mitigation measures described in Section 5.5 of this EIAR. Therefore, there
is no potential for the proposed development to contribute to any potential for cumulative impacts in this
regard when considered in-combination with other plans and projects.
The potential for impacts to result in significant cumulative effects when considered in-combination with
other plans and projects was assessed. Taking into consideration the reported residual effects from other
plans and projects in the area and the predicted effects with the current proposal, no significant residual
cumulative effects have been identified with regard to any ecological receptors.
5.7 Conclusion The proposed development site is dominated by agricultural grassland grazed by horses comprising
predominantly of Dry meadows and grassy verges (GS2) and some Dry calcareous and neutral grassland
(GS1). The fields within the site are divided by Hedgerows (WL1) and Treelines (WL2). Habitats
recorded on site were assessed as being of no greater than local importance (higher value). No habitats
listed in Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive were recorded within the site boundary and no protected
plant species were recorded, as described in Section 5.4.1.
The proposed development has been designed in order to retain existing mature treelines and hedgerows
features both within the site and along the site boundary and minimise the loss of such linear landscape
features. This will retain connectivity to the wider landscape for species such as commuting and foraging
bats and birds. In addition, the Landscape Master Plan for the site provides for supplementary planting
of native tree and shrub species that will create and enhance hedgerows and treelines. It also provides for
the creation of wildflower meadows and wetlands, which will enhance the overall biodiversity within the
site.
Following the implementation of mitigation and best practice measures, no significant negative effects on
faunal species including badger, bats or bird species are predicted during either construction, operation or
decommissioning (not anticipated). The proposed measures have the potential to lead to an increase in
biodiversity within the site.
The proposed development has been designed to protect water quality in downstream waterbodies and
measures are included to ensure that there is no significant effect on any watercourse during any phase of
the development.
A comprehensive assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development on biodiversity has
been undertaken and it is concluded that provided that the proposed development is constructed and
operated in accordance with the design, best practice and mitigation that is described within this
application, significant effects on biodiversity are not anticipated at any geographic scale.