7.0 BIODIVERSITY / FLORA & FAUNA 7.1 INTRODUCTION This Chapter

FLORA & FAUNA AWN Consulting Limited ______

7.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides an assessment of the impacts of the proposed development in question on the ecological environment, i.e. flora and fauna. It has been compiled in compliance with the European Communities Legal requirements and follows Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements (Environmental Protection Agency, 2002) and Advice Notes on Current Practice in the preparation of EIS (2003) as well as Revised Guidance and Advice (Draft - 2015). This section was compiled by Ger O’Donohoe M.Sc. of Moore Group (Environmental Services).

7.2 METHODOLOGY

This section of the EIS concentrates on ecological features within the development area of particular significance, primarily designated habitats and species. This includes habitats/species listed in Annex I, II and IV of the EU Habitats Directive, rare plants listed in the Flora Protection Order and other semi-natural habitats of conservation value.

The European Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (Article 6) indicates the need for plans and projects to be subject to Habitats Directive Assessment (also known as Appropriate Assessment) if the plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a Natura 2000 site (which includes SACs and SPAs) but which has the potential to have implications on a site’s conservation objectives. These implications can be significant effects either individually or in combination with other plans or projects.

An Appropriate Assessment Screening Report was undertaken by Moore Group for the proposed development which is presented as Appendix 7.1 to this chapter.

7.2.1 Policy & Guidance For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. 7.2.1.1 EU Habitats Directive The “Habitats Directive” (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna) is the main legislative instrument for the protection and conservation of biodiversity within the European Union and lists certain habitats and species that must be protected within wildlife conservation areas, considered to be important at a European as well as at a national level. A “Special Conservation Area” or SAC is a designation under the Habitats Directive. The Habitats Directive sets out the protocol for the protection and management of SACs.

The Directive sets out key elements of the system of protection including the requirement for “Appropriate Assessment” of plans and projects. The requirements for an Appropriate Assessment are set out in the EU Habitats Directive. Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Directive

7.2.1.2 Birds Directive The “Birds Directive” (Council Directive 79/409/EEC as codified by Directive 2009/147/EC) provides for a network of sites in all member states to protect birds at their breeding, feeding, roosting and wintering areas. This directive identifies species

______

ABP Clones WWTP Alterations EIS Chapter 7, Page 1

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 FLORA & FAUNA AWN Consulting Limited ______

that are rare, in danger of extinction or vulnerable to changes in habitat and which need protection (Annex I species). Appendix I indicates Annex I bird species as listed on the Birds Directive. A “Special Protection Area” or SPA, is a designation under The Birds Directive.

Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas form a pan-European network of protected sites known as Natura 2000 sites and any plan or project that has the potential to impact upon a Natura 2000 site requires appropriate assessment.

7.2.1.3 Wildlife Acts (1976 - 2012) The primary domestic legislation providing for the protection of wildlife in general, and the control of some activities adversely impacting upon wildlife is the Wildlife Act of 1976. The aims of the wildlife act according to the National Parks and Wildlife Service are “... to provide for the protection and conservation of wild fauna and flora, to conserve a representative sample of important ecosystems, to provide for the development and protection of game resources and to regulate their exploitation, and to provide the services necessary to accomplish such aims.” All bird species are protected under the act. The Wildlife (Amendment) Act of 2000 amended the original Act to improve the effectiveness of the Act to achieve its aims. The Wildlife (Amendment) Act of 2000 amended the original Act to improve the effectiveness of the Act in order to achieve its aims.

7.2.2 Habitat Assessment

The assessment was carried out in three stages, firstly through desktop assessment to determine existing records in relation to habitats and species present in the study area. This included research on the NPWS metadata website and a literature review of published information on flora and fauna occurring in the development area.

The second phase of the assessment involved a site visit to establish the existing environment in the footprint of the proposed development. Areas which were highlighted during desktop assessment were investigated in closer detail according to the Heritage Council Best Practice Guidance for Habitat Survey and Mapping (Smith For inspection purposes only. et al., 2011). Habitats inConsent the ofproposed copyright owner development required for any other areasuse. were classified according to the Heritage Council publication “A Guide to Habitats in Ireland” (Fossitt, 2000). This publication sets out a standard scheme for identifying, describing and classifying wildlife habitats in Ireland. This form of classification uses codes to classify different habitats based on the plant species present. Species recorded in this report are given in both their Latin and English names. Latin names for plant species follow the nomenclature of “An Irish Flora” (Parnell & Curtis, 2012).

Habitats were surveyed on the 14th February 2017 by conducting a site walkover covering the areas under the footprint of the proposed development. The survey date is outside the optimal botanical survey period, however, given the predominantly improved grassland habitats present, it is considered appropriate for the purposes of this assessment. The timing is optimal for surveying badgers and otters.

Signs of mammals were searched while surveying the study area noting any sights, signs or any activity in the vicinity especially along adjacent boundaries.

______

ABP Clones WWTP Alterations EIS Chapter 7, Page 2

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 FLORA & FAUNA AWN Consulting Limited ______

A survey for otters was completed by examining the river bank for a distance of 150m either side of a proposed discharge point on the River Finn. Signs looked for include holts, resting places, spraints and slides.

Evidence of bird nesting or potential for nesting was recorded. A photographic record was made of the main features of interest.

The third stage of the assessment involves an evaluation of the development area and determination of the potential impacts on the flora and fauna of the area and is based on the following guidelines and publications:

 Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements (Environmental Protection Agency, 2015a);  EPA Advice Notes on Current Practice (EPA, 2015b);  Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites (EC, 2002);  Managing Natura 2000 Sites (EC, 2000) Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (EC, 2007);  Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland - Guidance for Planning Authorities (DEHLG, Rev. Feb. 2010).

The following resources assisted in the production of this section of the report:

 Ordnance Survey Ireland maps;  OSI, Google and Bing Aerial photography;  National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) Mapviewer: http://www.npws.ie/en/MapsData/;  Designated sites (SACs, SPAs, NHAs);  Records of protected species from 10km squares;  National Biodiversity Data Centre Records and Maps.

Other environmental information for the area was reviewed, e.g. in relation to soils, geology, hydrology and hydrogeology. For inspection purposes Interactions only. in terms of the chapters on these Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. topics presented in this EIS were important in the determination of source vector pathways and links with potentially hydrogeologically connected areas outside the proposed development site.

7.2.3 Consultations

The Development Applications Unit of the Department of the Arts, Heritage & Gaeltacht was contacted in a non-statutory context in relation to the natural heritage aspects of the development.

A response from the NPWS will be attached to the planning file when received.

7.3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The following is a description of the flora and fauna of the existing environment in the study area.

______

ABP Clones WWTP Alterations EIS Chapter 7, Page 3

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 FLORA & FAUNA AWN Consulting Limited ______

7.3.1 Designated Conservation Areas

Departmental guidance suggests an assessment of Natura 2000 sites within a zone of influence of 15 km which can be revised down depending on the proposed development and location of Natura 2000 sites. There are no environmental designations on the subject lands. Environmental Designated sites within a standard 15-kilometre potential zone of influence were considered and include:

 IE0001786 Kilroosky Lough Cluster SAC c. 1.7 km  IE0000007 Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC c.15km  UK0016614 Upper Lough Erne SAC c.15km  UK9020071 Upper Lough Erne SPA c.4.5km The project site has no hydrological connectivity and no relevant biological connectivity to the Kilroosky Lough Cluster SAC and it was screened out of the assessment at the pre-screening stage.

Kilroosky Lough Cluster SAC (IE)

ABP Location

Upper Lough Erne SAC & SPA (UK) Outfall

Upper Lough Erne SPA (UK)

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

Lough Oughter & Assoc. Loughs SAC (IE)

Figure 7.1 Site Location in relation to nearby European sites.

7.3.2 Non-Designated Areas

The development can be divided in three main areas; the connection of the outfall leaving the treatment system to the rear of the ABP facility; the in-road section leading to the River Finn and; the access to and head-wall at the River Finn. The overall pipeline route is presented in Figure 7.2 and proposed development areas are presented in greater detail in Figures 7.3 and 7.4.

______

ABP Clones WWTP Alterations EIS Chapter 7, Page 4

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 FLORA & FAUNA AWN Consulting Limited ______

The fields in which the pipeline exits the wastewater treatment system to the south of the ABP facility are comprised of heavily grazed Improved agricultural grassland (GA1). The pipeline route crosses a site drainage ditch (FW4) which was created during the development of the ABP facility. It is overgrown and stagnant with Duckweed (Lemna major) present with Fools water-cress (Apium nodiflorum). This drainage ditch is joined by a deeper ditch which drains the adjacent improved grazing grassland.

The ditch is more open and while shallow and marshy at its commencement further uphill and to the south, it broadens into a large deep ditch behind or the east of the ABP facility. At the start of the ditch to the south, the ground is wet and colonised with Rush (Juncus spp.), Willowherb (Eplilobium hirsutum), Cuckoo flower (Cardamine pratensis) and Ragwort (Senecio jacobaea). A broken line of trees comprised of Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) stands over the ditch which contains Rosebay willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium), Lesser celandine (Ficaria verna), Common polypody (Polypodium vulgare) in shaded areas and Fools water- cress (Apium nodiflorum) and abundant Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) in wetter areas in the ditch.

The discharge pipeline will be placed in the roadside verge (BL3) for a distance of c. 3 km before veering off road toward the River Finn (FW2). This section of artificial habitat is not shown on the habitat maps.

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

______

ABP Clones WWTP Alterations EIS Chapter 7, Page 5

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 FLORA & FAUNA AWN Consulting Limited ______

ABP Site

GA1 Drainage Ditches

In-road Section (BL3)

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

River Finn (FW2)

GA1

Figure 7.2 Showing habitats in the development areas outlined in red.

______

ABP Clones WWTP Alterations EIS Chapter 7, Page 6

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 FLORA & FAUNA AWN Consulting Limited ______

ABP Site BL3

GA1 Drainage Ditches FW4

Pipeline Route

Figure 7.3 Detail of habitats in the development area to the south of the ABP facility.

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

______

ABP Clones WWTP Alterations EIS Chapter 7, Page 7

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 FLORA & FAUNA AWN Consulting Limited ______

River Finn FW2

GA1 WL1 GA1 Pipeline Route

Figure 7.4 Detail of habitats in the development area at the River Finn.

Access to the River Finn will be through two fields of improved agricultural grassland divided by a thin low hedgerow (WL1) of Hawthorn. The grassland is intensively grazed and animals have access to the River Finn bank in several places.

The right bank on which a discharge head-wall will be constructed is comprised of an earth bank which is colonised by Reed Canary-grass (Phalaris arundinaceae).

There is a small area of mixed woodland/scrub located upstream near the bridge and For inspection purposes only. this extends along an oldConsent mill ofrace copyright on owner the required upstream for any other side use. of the river. The woodland is predominantly made up of Ash, Willows (Salix fragilis, Salix spp.), Beech (Fagus sylvatica) and Bramble scrub (Rubus fruticosus agg.).

7.3.3 Mammals

7.3.3.1 Otters The nearest record for otter in the study area from the National Biodiversity Data Centre is a record of a spraint from 2010 from Crannagh Bridge c. 3 km upstream from Cumber Bridge on the River Finn.

The area immediately upstream of Cumber Bridge presents suitable foraging and resting potential for otters. However, no signs were recorded during fieldwork. The riverbank downstream of Cumber Bridge is lower and the river is more open and less suitable for resting potential. No signs of otter were recorded in the area of the proposed discharge headwall.

______

ABP Clones WWTP Alterations EIS Chapter 7, Page 8

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 FLORA & FAUNA AWN Consulting Limited ______

The Lough Oughter and Associated Lough SAC is designated for the presence of otters and as such only downstream impacts in terms of water quality are of concern with regard to the project.

7.3.3.2 Badgers There are no badger setts along field boundaries which would be disturbed and no signs of badgers in the study area.

7.3.3.3 Bats There is limited potential for bats and bat habitats in the footprint of the proposed development.

7.3.4 Birds

There is limited potential for bird habitats in the footprint of the proposed development. Small passerines such as Great tit (Parus major) and Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) were observed along with Wood pigeon (Palumba columbus).

7.3.5 Fish

7.3.5.1 Salmon The River Finn is not a designated salmonid river and is at the upper reaches of the Lough Oughter and Lough Erne systems. It is possible that salmon migrate along the River Finn. In terms of spawning potential the area immediately upstream of Cumber Bridge has a moderate spawning potential with a high gravel substrate component. The riverbed downstream has a lower gravel substrate component and is wider and slower and therefore more depositional in nature with less spawning potential.

7.3.6 Habitat Evaluation

The ecological value of the sites was assessed following the guidelines set out in the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (2006) according to the Natura Scheme for evaluating ecological For inspection purposes only. sites (after Nairn & Fossitt,Consent 2004). of copyright Judgements owner required for any on other the use. evaluation were made using geographic frames of reference, e.g. European, National, Regional or Local.

There are no rare or protected habitats recorded in the study area.

The habitats under the footprint of the proposed development are of low ecological value.

The main concern is with regard to water quality during the construction of the discharge headwall and during the operational phase in terms of discharge quality.

7.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

At present treated effluent discharges from an emission point (WEP1) to a relatively small tributary of the River Finn. The River Finn itself is located c. 3km from the site and crosses into Northern Ireland. Process and sanitary effluent are treated at the existing WWTP which consists of preliminary treatment (dissolved air flotation, balancing, and screening), secondary treatment (aeration basin) and tertiary treatment (sand filters). Nitrogen is removed via denitrification through the WWTP and

______

ABP Clones WWTP Alterations EIS Chapter 7, Page 9

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 FLORA & FAUNA AWN Consulting Limited ______

phosphorus is removed by chemical precipitation. The wastewater stream currently discharging is high in chloride with some levels in excess of current licensed limits. As such, the proposed development will involve the relocation of the point of discharge from the local tributary to the River Finn to allow for greater dilution. The development will involve c.3km of pipeline to the river. No additional expansion or increase in production is proposed.

7.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

7.5.1 Impact on Habitats

There would be no significant impacts as a result of the proposed development on the Natura 2000 sites considered in the Appropriate Assessment Screening Report.

There are no rare or protected species under the footprint of the proposed development areas. There would be no significant impacts as a result of the proposed development on the local ecology.

7.5.2 Impacts on Fauna

There would be no significant impacts as a result of the proposed development on fauna. None of the qualifying habitats or species of the European sites occur under the footprint of the proposed works areas. There were no signs of otters or badgers under the footprint of the proposed development areas.

A worst case scenario could be considered whereby the project could result in a significant detrimental change in water quality in the area either alone or in combination with other projects or plans as a result of indirect pollution of surface water. The effect would have to be considered in terms of changes in water quality which would affect the habitats and species for which the downstream SAC and SPA are designated. Aquatic species such as Otters require high quality water quality with relatively high oxygen levels and low suspended solids content.

For inspection purposes only. However, the potential forConsent such of copyright an event owner required to occur for any otheris unlikely use. given the small scale of works involved at the construction of the discharge headwall and the inclusion of best practice construction management where the contactor will submit a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to include measures such silt control by sand bagging at the headwall construction area and silt curtain trapping.

There are no potential impacts from the operation phase as the wastewater treatment will ensure that only clean unpolluted water is discharged to the River Finn.

7.6 CONSTRUCTION CONTROL MEASURES

As a precaution, a silt barrier will be erected at the site of the headwall construction area during the construction phase to prevent runoff to the River Finn. The barrier will consist of the appropriate number and size of sand bags to form a temporary dammed working area in which the headwall can be constructed. A silt curtain surrounding the sand bags will prevent silt runoff to the river. The temporary dam can then be removed after construction is complete. This best practice construction management measure will be included in the development Construction Management Plan along with standard best practice measures for construction works as per CIRIA Guidance ‘C532:

______

ABP Clones WWTP Alterations EIS Chapter 7, Page 10

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 FLORA & FAUNA AWN Consulting Limited ______

Control of water pollution from construction sites’. The CMP will be submitted to Inland Fisheries Ireland for review prior to construction for any comments or direction.

The following construction management will be included as a minimum:

General Prior to any works, all personnel involved will receive an on-site induction relating to operations within and adjacent to watercourses and the environmentally sensitive nature of the proximity of the Natura 2000 sites and re-emphasise the precautions that are required as well as the construction management measures to be implemented.

The project proponent will ensure that the engineer setting out the works is fully aware of the ecological constraints and construction management requirements.

Any incident or observation of anything that may be considered as causing or likely to cause disturbance or damage to European Sites will be reported to the Local Authority immediately. The Local Authority will take immediate action to prevent or limit the impact and will notify the project proponent contact of the incident and the actions taken.

Pollution of watercourses  The Contractor will prevent any silting/erosion of water courses and pollution of the water that may adversely affect the quality or appearance of the water or cause obstruction or interference with the flow.  The works area will be fenced with Terram or equivalent geo-textile fencing, secured to the ground to prevent the wash-out of suspended solids from the site to adjacent watercourses. Where possible, this will be set back from the riparian corridor of the watercourse to allow the retention of a buffer-zone of riparian vegetation along the drainage channels.  The Contractor will establish site boundary markings to safeguard features of interest/value.  Tools and equipment are not to be cleaned in watercourses.  Chemicals used will be stored in sealed containers. For inspection purposes only.  Chemicals used shallConsent be applied of copyright inowner such required a forway any otheras touse. avoid any spillage or leakage.

 Any and all excavated material is NOT to be temporarily stored adjacent to watercourses.

Fuel/Lubricant spillage from equipment  All refuelling, oiling and greasing will take place above drip trays or on an impermeable surface which provides protection to underground strata and watercourses and away from drains and watercourses as far as reasonably practicable. Vehicles will not be left unattended during refuelling.  Storage areas, machinery depots and site offices will be located at least 10m from any watercourse.  Spill kits will be made available close to streams and all staff will be properly trained on correct use.  All fuels, lubricants and hydraulic fluids required to be stored on site will be kept in secure bunded areas at a minimum of 10m from all watercourses. The bunded area will accommodate 110% of the total capacity of the containers within it.  Containers will be properly secured to prevent unauthorised access and misuse. An effective spillage procedure will be put in place with all staff properly briefed.

______

ABP Clones WWTP Alterations EIS Chapter 7, Page 11

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 FLORA & FAUNA AWN Consulting Limited ______

Any waste oils or hydraulic fluids will be collected, stored in appropriate containers and disposed of offsite in an appropriate manner.  All plant shall be well maintained with any fuel or oil drips attended to on an ongoing basis.  Any minor spillage during this process will be cleaned up immediately.  Should any incident occur, the situation will be dealt with and coordinated by the nearest supervisor who will be responsible for instructions by the Local Authority.

Concrete  Wet concrete and cement are very alkaline and corrosive and can cause serious pollution to watercourses.  Disposal of raw or uncured waste concrete will be controlled to ensure that watercourses will not be impacted.  Best practice in bulk-liquid concrete management addressing pouring and handling, secure shuttering / form-work, adequate curing times.  Wash water from cleaning ready mix concrete lorries and mixers may be contaminated with cement and is therefore highly alkaline. Due to the size of the site and the proximity of sensitive watercourses, it is recommended that lorries and mixers are washed out of off-site.

7.7 PREDICTED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The development is located in an area of low ecological value and as such will not have significant impacts on the local ecology.

The proposed development will not have significant effects on designated sites within 15 km of the development site.

7.8 RESIDUAL IMPACT AND PROPOSED MONITORING

The development is located in an area of low ecological value and as such will not have significant impacts on the local ecology.

For inspection purposes only. There will be no requirementConsent forof copyright monitoring owner required. for any other use.

7.9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts or effects are changes in the environment that result from numerous human-induced, small-scale alterations. Cumulative impacts can be thought of as occurring through two main pathways: first, through persistent additions or losses of the same materials or resource, and second, through the compounding effects as a result of the coming together of two or more effects.

As part of the Screening for an Appropriate Assessment, in addition to the proposed works, other relevant projects and plans in the region must also be considered at this stage. This step aims to identify at this early stage any possible significant in- combination or cumulative effects / impacts of the proposed development with other such plans and projects on the Natura 2000 sites.

______

ABP Clones WWTP Alterations EIS Chapter 7, Page 12

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 FLORA & FAUNA AWN Consulting Limited ______

A search of the Monaghan County Council Planning webpage revealed that there have been no other planning applications in the past three years for the development areas in the study area.

The Monaghan County Development Plan in complying with the requirements of the Habitats Directive requires that all Projects and Plans that could affect the Natura 2000 sites in the same zone of influence of the project site would be initially screened for Appropriate Assessment and if requiring Stage 2 AA, that appropriate employable mitigation measures would be put in place to avoid, reduce or ameliorate negative impacts. In this way, any in-combination impacts with Plans or Projects for the areas in which the development site is located, would be avoided.

Any new applications for the project area will be assessed on a case by case basis by Monaghan County Council which will determine the requirement for AA Screening as per the requirements of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

______

ABP Clones WWTP Alterations EIS Chapter 7, Page 13

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 FLORA & FAUNA AWN Consulting Limited ______

7.10 REFERENCES

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (2010) Guidance on Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland (as amended February 2010).

EC (2000) Managing Natura 2000 sites: the provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC.

EC (2001) Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites: Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43EEC. European Commission, Brussels.

EC (2007) Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the 'Habitats Directive '92/43/EEC: Clarification of the concepts of: alternative solutions, imperative reasons of overriding public interests, compensatory measures, overall coherence and opinion of the Commission. European Commission, Brussels.

EPA (2015a) Revised Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements Draft September 2015.

EPA (2015b) Advice Notes on for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements Draft September 2015. Fossitt, J. (2000) A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council.

Fossitt, J. (2000) A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council.

IEEM (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.

Nairn, R. and J. Fossitt (2004) The Ecological Impacts of Roads, and an Approach to their Assessment for National Road Schemes. In: J. Davenport and J.L Davenport (eds) The Effects of Human Transport on Ecosystems: Cars and Planes, Boats and Trains, 98-114. Dublin. Royal Irish Academy. For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. Parnell, J. and T. Curtis (2012) Webb’s An Irish Flora. Cork University Press. Smith, G.F., O’Donoghue, P., O’Hora, K. and E. Delaney (2011) Best Practice Guidance for Habitat Survey and Mapping. The Heritage Council.

______

ABP Clones WWTP Alterations EIS Chapter 7, Page 14

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 FLORA & FAUNA AWN Consulting Limited ______

APPENDIX 7.1

APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT SCREENING (MOORE GROUP)

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

______

ABP Clones WWTP Alterations EIS Chapter 7, Page 15

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

Report for the purposes of Appropriate Assessment Screening

as required under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC)

ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge to the River Finn

Prepared by: Moore Group – Environmental Services

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

20th March 2017

On behalf of the EPA

All maps produced under licence from Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence No. EN 002008© Ordnance Survey Ireland Government of Ireland

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected])

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

Client ABP Clones Project ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge to the River Finn Report for the purposes of Appropriate Assessment Screening, Title ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge to the River Finn

Project Number 17024 Document Reference 17024 ABP Clones AAS1 Rev0.doc For inspection purposes only. Revision Description Consent of copyright ownerAuthor required for any other use. Date

G. O’Donohoe Rev0 Issued for Client Review 20th March 2017

Moore Archaeological and Environmental Services Limited

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected])

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION 4

1.1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 4 1.2. LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND - THE HABITATS AND BIRDS DIRECTIVES 5

2. METHODOLOGY 6

2.1. GUIDANCE 7 2.2. DATA SOURCES 7

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 8

4. IDENTIFICATION OF NATURA 2000 SITES 10

4.1. DESCRIPTION OF NATURA SITES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 10 4.2. CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES OF THE NATURA 2000 SITES 12 4.3. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 13 4.3.1. EXAMPLES OF DIRECT, INDIRECT OR SECONDARY IMPACTS 13 4.3.2. ECOLOGICAL NETWORK SUPPORTING NATURA 2000 SITES 14

5. IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS & ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 15

5.1. POTENTIAL IMPACTS 15 5.2. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 16 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

6. SCREENING STATEMENT 17

7. REFERENCES 18

Appendix A: Finding Of No Significant Effects Report

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected])

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

1. Introduction

1.1. General Introduction

This report contains information required for the competent authority to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) process on the effects of the proposed Amendment of the ABP Clones WWTP & Discharge to the River Finn.

Screening is the process that addresses and records the reasoning and conclusions in relation to the first two tests of Article 6(3): I. whether a plan or project is directly connected to or necessary for the management of the site, and II. whether a plan or project, alone or in combination with other plans and projects, is likely to have significant effects on a Natura 2000 site in view of its conservation objectives.

If the effects are deemed to be significant, potentially significant, or uncertain, or the screening process becomes overly complicated, then the process must proceed to Stage 2 (AA). Screening should be undertaken without the inclusion of mitigation, unless potential impacts clearly can be avoided through the modification or redesign of the plan or project, in which case the screening process is repeated on the altered plan or project.

When screening the project there are two possible outcomes: For inspection purposes only. • the project poses no riskConsent of ofa copyrightsignificant owner effect required andfor any as other such use. requires no further assessment;

and • the project has potential to have a significant effect (or this is uncertain) and AA of the project is necessary.

The report has been prepared by Moore Group – Environmental Services on behalf of ABP Clones and the EPA and assesses the potential for the proposed development to impact on sites of European-scale ecological importance in accordance with Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive. The report was compiled by Ger O’Donohoe (B.Sc. Applied Aquatic Sciences (GMIT, 1993) & M.Sc. Environmental Sciences (TCD, 1999)) who has over 20 years’ experience in environmental impact assessment and has completed numerous Appropriate Assessment Screening Reports and Natura Impact Statements in terrestrial and aquatic habitats.

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 4

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

The report assesses the potential for the proposed development to impact on sites of European-scale ecological importance. It is necessary that the Project has regard to Article 6 of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (as amended) (referred to as the Habitats Directive). This is transposed into Irish Law by the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations, 2011 (S.I. 477) (referred to as the Habitats Regulations).

1.2. Legislative Background - The Habitats and Birds Directives

The Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) is the main legislative instrument for the protection and conservation of biodiversity in the EU. Under the Directive Member States are obliged to designate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) which contain habitats or species considered important for protection and conservation in a European Union context.

The Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC as codified by Directive 2009/147/EC), is concerned with the long-term protection and management of all wild bird species and their habitats in the EU. Among other things, the Directive requires that Special Protection Areas (SPAs) be established to protect migratory species and species which are rare, vulnerable, in danger of extinction, or otherwise require special attention.

Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated under the Habitats Directive and Special Protection Areas, designated under the Birds Directive, form a pan-European network of protected sites known as Natura For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. 2000. The Habitats Directive sets out a unified system for the protection and management of SACs and SPAs.

Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive set out the requirement for an assessment of proposed plans and projects likely to affect Natura 2000 sites.

Article 6(3) establishes the requirement to screen all plans and projects and to carry out a further assessment if required (Appropriate Assessment (AA)):

Article 6(3): “Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subjected to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 5

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024 subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.”

Article 6(4): “If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, Member States shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted. Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to the beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.”

This Screening Report is a documentary record of the Appropriate Assessment process on the effects of the Amendment of the ABP Clones WWTP & Discharge to the River Finn, referred to in this case as the Project.

2. Methodology

The Commission’s methodological guidance (EC, 2002) promotes a four-stage process to complete the AA, and outlines the issues and tests at each stage. An important aspect of the process is that the outcome at each successive stage determines whether For a furinspectionther stagepurposes in only. the process is required. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

Stages 1-2 deal with the main requirements for assessment under Article 6(3). Stage 3 may be part of Article 6(3) or may be a necessary precursor to Stage 4. Stage 4 is the main derogation step of Article 6(4).

Stage 1 Screening: This stage examines the likely effects of a project either alone or in-combination with other projects upon a Natura 2000 site and considers whether it can be objectively concluded that these effects will not be significant.

Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment: In this stage, the impact of the project is considered on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site with respect to the conservation objectives of the site and to its structure and function.

Stage 3 Assessment of Alternative Solutions: This stage examines alternative ways of implementing the project that, where possible, avoid any adverse impacts on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site.

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 6

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

Stage 4 Assessment where no alternative solutions exist and where adverse impacts remain: Where imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) exist, an assessment to consider whether compensatory measures will or will not effectively offset the damage to the sites will be necessary.

In order to ensure that the Project complies fully with the requirements of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive and all relevant Irish transposing legislation, Moore Group compiled this screening report on the Project on behalf of the EPA to determine if Stage 2 AA is required.

2.1. Guidance

The AA has been compiled in accordance with guidance contained in the following documents:

 Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland - Guidance for Planning Authorities. (Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 2010 rev.).  Appropriate Assessment under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive: Guidance for Planning Authorities. Circular NPWS 1/10 & PSSP 2/10.  Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 sites: Methodological Guidance on the Provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (European Commission Environment Directorate-General, 2001); hereafter referred to as the EC Article Guidance Document.  Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The ForProvisions inspection purposesof Article only. 6 of the Habitat’s Directive 92/43/EEC (EC Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. Environment Directorate-General, 2000); hereafter referred to as MN2000.

2.2. Data Sources

Sources of information that were used to collect data on the Natura 2000 network of sites are listed below:  Ordnance Survey of Ireland mapping and aerial photography available from www.osi.ie and Google Earth and Bing aerial photography (2017).  Online data available on Natura 2000 sites as held by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) from www.npws.ie (June 2016) including; the Natura 2000 network Data Form; Site Synopsis; Generic Conservation Objective data o Online database of rare, threatened and protected species o Publicly accessible biodiversity datasets.  Status of EU Protected Habitats in Ireland. (National Parks & Wildlife Service, 2013)

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 7

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

 Relevant Development Plans and Local Area Plans in neighbouring areas.

3. Description of the Project

This report presents a screening assessment on the effects of the proposed Amendment of the ABP Clones WWTP & Discharge to the River Finn. At present treated effluent discharges from an emission point (WEP1) to a relatively small tributary of the River Finn. The River Finn itself is located c. 3km from the site and crosses into Northern Ireland. Process and sanitary effluent are treated at the existing WWTP which consists of preliminary treatment (dissolved air flotation, balancing, screening), secondary treatment (aeration basin) and tertiary treatment (sand filters). Nitrogen is removed via denitrification through the WWTP and phosphorus is removed by chemical precipitation. The wastewater stream currently discharging is high in chloride with some levels in excess of current licensed limits. As such, the proposed development will involve relocation of the point of discharge from the local tributary to the River Finn to allow for greater dilution. The development will involve c.3km of pipeline to the river. No additional expansion or increase in production is proposed. The site location is presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Northern Ireland

For inspection purposes only. ABP Clones Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

Discharge Pt.

Figure 1. Site location showing the ABP Clones facility and proposed discharge point on the River Finn.

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 8

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

Figure 2. Detail of the ABP Clones facility and proposed pipeline to the River Finn.

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 9

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

4. Identification of Natura 2000 Sites

4.1. Description of Natura Sites Potentially Affected

 IE0001786 Kilroosky Lough Cluster SAC c. 1.7 km  IE0000007 Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC c.15km  UK0016614 Upper Lough Erne SAC c.15km  UK9020071 Upper Lough Erne SPA c.4.5km

The project site has no hydrological connectivity and no relevant biological connectivity to the Kilroosky Lough Cluster SAC and it is screened out of the assessment at this pre-screening stage.

In support of trans-boundary assessment, those sites located downstream in Northern Ireland were considered and include a section of the River Finn 4.5 km downstream which is designated as part of the Upper Lough Erne SPA. The Upper Lough Erne proposed SAC is considered as part of the Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC.

For inspection purposes only. Details of the qualifying interests ofConsent the ofNatura copyright 2000owner required sites forare any listed other use. in Table 1 and Site Synopses are available from the NPWS metadata website. Spatial boundary data on the Natura 2000 network was extracted from the NPWS website on 20th February 2017. The location of the development site is presented in Figure 3 in relation to the adjacent European site.

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 10

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

Kilroosky Lough Cluster SAC (IE)

ABP Location

Upper Lough Erne pSAC & SPA (UK) Outfall

Upper Lough Erne SPA (UK)

Lough Oughter & Assoc. Loughs SAC (IE)

Figure 3. Site Location in relation to nearby European sites.

Table 1. European sites located downstream of the Project (*indicates priority habitat). Site Code Site Name Qualifying Habitats Qualifying Species

IE000007 Lough Oughter 3150 Natural For eutrophic inspection purposes lakes with only. Magnopotamion or 1355 Lutra lutra Otter Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. and Hydrocharition - type vegetation Associated 91D0 Bog woodland* Loughs SAC UK0016614 Upper Lough 3150 Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or 1355 Lutra lutra Otter Erne SAC Hydrocharition - type vegetation 91A0 Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles 91E0 Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)* UK9020071 Upper Lough Wetland Habitats A038 Cygnus cygnus Erne SPA Whooper Swan

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 11

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

4.2. Conservation Objectives of the Natura 2000 Sites

The following Conservation Objectives, available from the NPWS (Generic Version; 15th August 2016), are set out for the Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC (000007):

The overall aim of the Habitats Directive is to maintain or restore the favourable conservation status of habitats and species of community interest. These habitats and species are listed in the Habitats and Birds Directives and Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas are designated to afford protection to the most vulnerable of them. These two designations are collectively known as the Natura 2000 network. European and national legislation places a collective obligation on Ireland and its citizens to maintain habitats and species in the Natura 2000 network at favourable conservation condition. The Government and its agencies are responsible for the implementation and enforcement of regulations that will ensure the ecological integrity of these sites.

The maintenance of habitats and species within Natura 2000 sites at favourable conservation condition will contribute to the overall maintenance of favourable conservation status of those habitats and species at a national level.

Favourable conservation status of a habitat is achieved when: • its natural range, and area it covers within that range, are stable or increasing, and • the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance exist and are likely For inspection purposes only. to continue to exist for the foreseeableConsent future, of copyright and owner required for any other use.

• the conservation status of its typical species is favourable.

The favourable conservation status of a species is achieved when: • population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, and • the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and • there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long- term basis.

Objective: To maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the Annex I habitat(s) and/or the Annex II species for which the SAC has been selected.

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 12

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

The following Conservation Objectives, available from the DOENI (Version; 01/04/2015), are set out for the Upper Lough Erne SAC (UK0016614):

The Conservation Objective for this site is: To maintain (or restore where appropriate) the  Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition-type vegetation  Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles  Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion alvae)  Otter Lutra lutra to favourable condition.

The following Conservation Objectives, available from the DOENI (Version; 01/04/2015), are set out for the Upper Lough Erne SPA (UK9020071):

The Conservation Objective for this site is: To maintain each feature in favourable condition: Whooper Swan wintering population - No significant decrease in population against national trends. Habitat - Maintain the extent of main habitat components used by or potentially usable by the feature species subject to natural processes.

4.3. Assessment Criteria

4.3.1. Examples of Direct, Indirect or Secondary Impacts

For inspection purposes only. In order to identify those sites that couldConsent be of copyrightpotentially owner affected,required for anyit is other necessary use. to describe the Natura 2000 site in the context of why it has been designated i.e. in terms of its Qualifying Interests and the environmental and ecological conditions that maintain the condition of these features. The underpinning conditions that are required to maintain the ‘health’ of these features are listed in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Qualifying Interests and Key environmental conditions supporting site integrity. Qualifying Interests Key environmental conditions supporting Current Threats to Qualifying Interests site integrity Alluvial forests with Alnus Riparian/lacustrine habitat prone to Grazing, Invasive Species, Drainage, glutinosa and Fraxinus flooding. Planting of nonnative conifers, felling of excelsior (Alno-Padion, native tree species. Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)* Bog woodland* Surface and groundwater dependent. Drainage, peat cutting, burning and Highly sensitive to hydrological changes. development. Inappropriate management.

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 13

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

Natural eutrophic lakes Surface and groundwater dependent. Nutrient enrichment arising from with Magnopotamion or Highly sensitive to hydrological changes. intensification of agriculture and urban Hydrocharition - type Highly sensitive to pollution. developments. vegetation Otter (Lutra lutra) Prey availability. Water Quality. Riparian Decrease in water quality: Use of vegetation for breeding sites. Unhindered pesticides; fertilization; vegetation passage along waterways. removal; professional fishing (including lobster pots and fyke nets); hunting; poisoning; sand and gravel extraction; mechanical removal of peat; urbanized areas; human habitation; continuous urbanization; drainage; management of aquatic and bank vegetation for drainage purposes; and canalization or modifying structures of inland water course. Wetlands & Waterbirds Highly sensitive to hydrological changes A number of pressures have been and loss of wetland habitat. Sensitive to identified by Crowe (2005). These disturbance. pressures include: the modification of wetland sites, particularly for industry or housing and increased levels of disturbance, largely related to recreational activity. Eutrophication at a number of wetland sites as a result of nutrient inputs from a range of polluting activities were also identified as a potential pressure. However, this latter pressure is now being alleviated through stricter control of activities associated with water discharge/runoff etc. Climate change was also noted as a significant factor underlying changes in trends of wintering waterbirds in Ireland.

4.3.2. Ecological Network Supporting Natura 2000 Sites For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. An analysis of the proposed Natural Heritage Areas and designated Natural Heritage Areas in terms of their role in supporting the species using Natura 2000 sites was undertaken. It was assumed that these supporting roles mainly related to mobile fauna such as mammals and birds which may use pNHAs and NHAs as “stepping stones” between Natura 2000 sites.

Article 10 of the Habitats Directive and the Habitats Regulations 2011 place a high degree of importance on such non-Natura 2000 areas as features that connect the Natura 2000 network. Features such as ponds, woodlands and important hedgerows were taken into account during the rest of the AA process.

There are no other conservation sites with biological connectivity to the subject site that would be affected by the proposed project.

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 14

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

5. Identification of Potential Impacts & Assessment of Significance

The project is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the sites considered in the assessment and therefore potential impacts must be identified and considered.

5.1. Potential Impacts

This section uses the information collected on the sensitivity of the Natura 2000 sites considered and describes any likely significant effects of implementation of the Project. This assumes the absence of any controls, conditions or assumption mitigation measures.

The likely significant effects of the Project are presented in Table 3 below both in isolation and potentially in combination with other plans and projects.

There would be no direct impacts and no habitat fragmentation in the Natura 2000 sites considered in this assessment. None of the qualifying habitats or species occur under the footprint of the proposed works areas. Having considered direct impacts and ruling them out, indirect impacts are then considered.

A worst-case scenario would occur whereby the project would result in a significant detrimental change in water quality in the Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs over 15 km downstream, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans as a result of indirect pollution of surface water. The effect would For inspection purposes only. have to be considered in terms of changesConsent of copyrightin water owner quality required which for any wouldother use. affect the habitats or species for which the SAC is designated. Aquatic species such as Otters require high quality water quality with relatively high oxygen levels and low suspended solids content.

However, the potential for such an event to occur is unlikely given the small scale of works involved at the construction of the discharge headwall and the inclusion of best practice construction management where the contactor will submit a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to include measures such silt control by sand bagging at the headwall construction area and silt curtain trapping.

There are no predicted impacts from the operation phase as the wastewater treatment will ensure that only clean unpolluted water is discharged to the River Finn. Therefore, there would be no indirect impacts on the adjacent European site.

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 15

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

5.2. Assessment of Potential Cumulative Effects

As part of the Screening for an Appropriate Assessment, in addition to the proposed works, other relevant projects and plans in the region must also be considered at this stage. This step aims to identify at this early stage any possible significant in-combination or cumulative effects / impacts of the proposed development with other such plans and projects on the Natura 2000 sites.

A search of the Monaghan County Council Planning webpage revealed that there have been no other planning applications in the past three years for the development areas in the study area.

For inspection purposes only. Any new applications for the projectConsent area of willcopyright be ownerassessed required on for a any case other by use. case basis by Monaghan County

Council which will determine the requirement for AA Screening as per the requirements of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 16

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

Table 3. Outlining the predicted impacts of the Project. Site Distance Potential Potential Surface or Disturbance to Stage 2 AA from Direct Indirect Impacts Groundwater Protected Required Project Impacts e.g. alteration Contamination Species e.g. Habitat to hydrological (Habitats Loss regime Directive Annex II & IV) Lough >15 km None None None No No Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC IE000007 Upper Lough >15 km None None None No No Erne SAC UK0016614 Upper Lough c. 4.5 km None None None No No Erne SPA UK9020071

6. Screening Statement For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

It has been objectively concluded by Moore Group Environmental Services that:

1. The project is not directly connected with, or necessary to the conservation management of the European sites considered in this assessment. 2. The project, alone or in combination with other projects, is not likely to have significant effects on the European sites considered in this assessment in view of their conservation objectives. 3. It has been determined by Moore Group Environmental Services that it is possible to rule out likely significant impacts on any European sites considered in the assessment. 4. It is possible to conclude that there would be no adverse effects on site integrity resulting from the project and that there would be no significant effects, no potentially significant effects and no uncertain effects if the project were to proceed.

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 17

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

It is the view of Moore Group Environmental Services that it is not necessary to undertake any further stage of the Appropriate Assessment process.

A finding of no significant effects report is presented in Appendix A in accordance with the EU Commission’s methodological guidance (European Commission, 2001).

7. References

Crowe, O. (2005) Ireland’s Wetlands and their Waterbirds; Status and Distribution. BirdWatch Ireland.

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (2010) Guidance on Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland (as amended February 2010).

DOENI (2015) Conservation Objectives (Version; 01/04/2015) Upper Lough Erne SAC (UK0016614).

DOENI (2015) Conservation Objectives (Version; 01/04/2015) Upper Lough Erne SPA (UK9020071).

European Commission (2000) Managing Natura 2000 sites: the provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC.

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. European Commission Environment DG (2001) Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites: Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43EEC. European Commission, Brussels.

European Commission (2007) Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the 'Habitats Directive '92/43/EEC: Clarification of the concepts of: alternative solutions, imperative reasons of overriding public interests, compensatory measures, overall coherence and opinion of the Commission. European Commission, Brussels.

NPWS (2013) The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin.

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 18

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

NPWS (2013) Site Synopsis: Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC 000007. Version date: 20.06.2013_000007_Rev13.Doc. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

NPWS (2016) Conservation objectives for Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC [000007]. Generic Version 5.0. Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.

For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 19

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

Appendix A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS REPORT Finding no significant effects report matrix

Name of project or plan

ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge to the River Finn.

Name and location of the Natura 2000 site(s)

 IE0001786 Kilroosky Lough Cluster SAC c. 1.7 km  IE0000007 Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC c.15km  UK0016614 Upper Lough Erne SAC c.15km  UK9020071 Upper Lough Erne SPA c.4.5km

The project site has no hydrological connectivity and no relevant biological connectivity to the Kilroosky Lough Cluster SAC and it is screened out of the assessment at this pre-screening stage.

Description of the project or plan For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. This report presents a screening assessment on the effects of the proposed Amendment of the ABP Clones WWTP & Discharge to the River Finn. At present treated effluent discharges from an emission point (WEP1) to a relatively small tributary of the River Finn. The River Finn itself is located c. 3km from the site and crosses into Northern Ireland. Process and sanitary effluent are treated at the existing WWTP which consists of preliminary treatment (dissolved air flotation, balancing, screening), secondary treatment (aeration basin) and tertiary treatment (sand filters). Nitrogen is removed via denitrification through the WWTP and phosphorus is removed by chemical precipitation. The wastewater stream currently discharging is high in chloride with some levels in excess of current licensed limits. As such, the proposed development will involve amendments to the operation of the existing onsite WWTP (reducing chloride discharges) and relocation of the point of discharge from the local tributary to the River Finn to allow for greater dilution. The development will involve c.3km of pipeline to the river. No additional expansion or increase in production is proposed.

Is the project or plan directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site(s)

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 20

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

Are there other projects or plans that together with the projects or plan being assessed could affect the site

A search of the Monaghan County Council Planning webpage revealed that there have been no other planning applications in the past three years for the development areas in the study area.

The assessment of significance of effects

Describe how the project or plan (alone or in combination) is likely to affect the Natura 2000 site.

There would be no direct impacts on the Natura 2000 sites considered in this assessment. None of the qualifying habitats or species occur under the footprint of the proposed works areas. Having considered direct impacts and ruling them out, indirect impacts are then considered.

A worst-case scenario would occur whereby the project would result in a significant detrimental change in water quality in the Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs over 15 km downstream, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans as a result of indirect pollution of surface water. The effect would have to be considered in terms of changes in water quality which would affect the habitats or species for which the SAC is designated. Aquatic species such as Otters require high quality water quality with relatively high oxygen levels and low suspended solids content. For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use.

Explain why these effects are not considered significant.

The potential for such an event to occur is unlikely given the small scale of works involved at the construction of the discharge headwall and the inclusion of best practice construction management where the contactor will submit a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to include measures such silt control by sand bagging at the headwall construction area and silt curtain trapping.

List of agencies consulted: provide contact name and telephone or e-mail address

The requirement for AA Screening was determined through consultation with the EPA.

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 21

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19 ABP Clones WWTP Amendment & Discharge Report for Appropriate Assessment Screening 17024

Response to consultation

The requirement for AA Screening was determined through consultation with the EPA.

Data collected to carry out the assessment

Who carried out the assessment

Moore Group Environmental Services.

Sources of data NPWS database of designated sites at www.npws.ie National Biodiversity Data Centre database http://maps.biodiversityireland.ie

Level of assessment completed Desktop Assessment and EcIA providing information on footprint areas.

Where can the full results of the assessment be accessed and viewed EPA Website.

Overall Conclusions

It has been objectively concluded by Moore Group Environmental Services that:

1. The project is not directly connected with, or necessary to the conservation management of the European sites considered in this assessment. 2. The project, alone or in combination with other projects, is not likely to have significant effects on the European sites considered in thisFor inspection assessment purposes in only. view of their conservation objectives. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. 3. It has been determined by Moore Group Environmental Services that it is possible to rule out likely significant impacts on any European sites considered in the assessment. 4. It is possible to conclude that there would be no adverse effects on site integrity resulting from the project and that there would be no significant effects, no potentially significant effects and no uncertain effects if the project were to proceed.

It is the view of Moore Group Environmental Services that it is not necessary to undertake any further stage of the Appropriate Assessment process.

Moore Group Environmental Services ([email protected]) 22

EPA Export 03-05-2017:03:10:19