PROPOSED CORRIB ONSHORE PIPELINE
ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EcIA)
APPENDIX J(1)
TECHNICAL REPORT
Terrestrial Flora and Fauna
prepared for
Shell E & P Ireland Ltd.
by
Ecological Advisory and Consultancy Services (EACS)
and
Specialist associates
May 2010 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Ecological Advisory and Consultancy Services (EACS):
Jenny Neff BSc.(Hons). MSc (Ecol). Dip. Bus. Stud. CEnv. FIEEM Director and Principal Consultant EACS
Associate specialists:
Vegetation and botanical: Dr. John Conaghan Dr. Janice Fuller MIEEM
Fauna: Dr. Chris Smal MIEEM (Ecological Solutions) Bastian Egeter BA (Ecological Solutions) Conor Kelleher AIEEM (Bat specialist) Ger Stanton BSc
Birds: (Fehily Timoney & Company Ltd.) Dr. Gavin Fennessy MIEEM Dr. Katherine Kelleher AIEEM Dr. David Rees Dr. Daphne Roycroft
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 2 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project details 1.2 Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Introduction 2.2 Habitats and vegetation 2.2.1 Field surveys 2.2.2 Survey constraints 2.3 Fauna (non-avian) 2.3.1 Introduction 2.3.2 Fauna survey 2.3.2.1 2002 to 2005 surveys 2.3.2.2 2007 and 2008 surveys 2.3.2.3 Otter and mammal surveys February and March 2010 2.3.3 Survey constraints 2.3.3.1 Access 2.3.3.2 Dense vegetation 2.3.3.3 Seasonal 2.4 Birds 2.4.1 Introduction 2.4.2 Aquatic surveys 2.4.2.1 Post breeding aquatic bird survey 2007 2.4.2.2 Winter season aquatic bird surveys 2007 to 2010 2.4.3 Post breeding terrestrial bird survey 2007 2.4.4 Sand Martin monitoring 2.4.5 Desk top review 2.4.6 2008 Walkover surveys 2.4.7 Bird survey constraints
3 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Introduction 3.2 Habitats and vegetation 3.2.1 Route description 3.3 Fauna (non-avian) 3.3.1 Otters 3.3.1.1 Surveys 2002 to 2005 3.3.1.2 Survey 2007 and 2008 3.3.1.3 Survey 2010 3.3.1.4 Otter holts and resting places 3.3.1.5 Spraint surveys and otter numbers 3.3.2 Badgers 3.3.3 Other mammalian species 3.3.3.1 Bats 3.3.4 Amphibians and reptiles 3.4 Birds 3.4.1 Aquatic bird surveys 3.4.1.1 Post breeding bird activity 2007 3.4.1.2 Winter season aquatic bird activity 2007/2008 3.4.1.3 Winter season aquatic bird activity 2008/2009 3.4.1.4 Preliminary winter season aquatic bird activity 2009/2010 3.4.2 Post terrestrial bird survey 2007 3.4.3 Sand Martin monitoring 2008 and 2009 3.4.4 Bird activity recorded in the Aghoos walkover, 2008 3.4.5 Desktop review 3.4.5.1 Aquatic bird studies 3.4.5.2 Terrestrial bird studies
4 EVALUATION OF SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
4.1 Legislative context 4.1.1 Current Irish Wildlife Legislation 4.1.2 EU Directives and Designated conservation sites 4.1.2.1 The Habitats Directive and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) 4.1.2.2 The Birds Directive and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) 4.1.2.3 Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) 4.1.3 International designations and convention – Ramsar 4.1.4 Designated conservation sites within 5km of the proposed route 4.1.4.1 Glenamoy Bog Complex cSAC EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 3 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
4.1.4.2 Carrowmore Lake Complex cSAC 4.1.4.3 Slieve Fyagh Bog cSAC 4.1.4.4 Broadhaven Bay cSAC 4.1.4.5 Blacksod Bay/Broadhaven pSPA 4.1.4.6 Carrowmore Lake SPA 4.1.4.7 Pollatomish Bog NHA 4.1.4.8 Glenturk More Bog NHA 4.1.4.9 Ederglen Bog NHA 4.1.4.10 Ramsar site 844: Blacksod Bay and Broadhaven 4.2 Habitats and vegetation 4.2.1 Assessment of the scientific interest of the area 4.2.2 Evaluation of habitats 4.2.2.1 Low sedimentary sea cliff at the Glengad landfall 4.2.2.2 Improved. Wet and marshy grassland, and marsh 4.2.2.3 Salt marsh 4.2.2.4 Scrub 4.2.2.5 Field boundaries 4.2.2.6 Blanket bog 4.2.2.7 Estuary and intertidal 4.2.2.8 Conifer plantations 4.2.2.9 Freshwater streams 4.2.3 Plant species and the Flora Protection Order 4.3 Non-avian fauna 4.3.1 Overall assessment of the area in terms of fauna 4.3.2 Faunal species of conservation interest 4.3.2.1 Mammals 4.3.2.2 Reptiles and amphibians 4.4 Birds 4.4.1 Wildlife Acts 4.4.2 Overall assessment of the area in terms of birds 4.4.3 Aquatic bird studies 4.4.4 Terrestrial bird studies 4.4.5 Limitations in this bird evaluation
5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS
5.1 'Do nothing’ scenario 5.2 Potential impacts during construction & commissioning stages 5.2.1 Potential impacts on habitats 5.2.1.1 Landfall and Glengad terrestrial section 5.2.1.2 Recovering eroded blanket bog - undesignated – at chainages 89.350 to 89.540 5.2.1.3 Eroding blanket bog (undesignated) 5.2.1.4 Cutover blanket bog (undesignated) 5.2.1.5 Salt marsh 5.2.1.6 Intertidal habitats 5.2.1.7 Sod (earthen) bank boundaries 5.2.1.8 Scrub (Gorse and Willow) 5.2.1.9 Conifer plantation 5.2.1.10 EU Annex habitats - general 5.2.1.11 Soft coastal habitats – sediment movement 5.2.2 Potential impacts on non-avian fauna 5.2.2.1 Habitat loss, fragmentation and disturbance 5.2.2.2 Specific potential impacts on fauna 5.2.2.3 Potential impacts on surrounding areas 5.2.3 Potential impacts on birds 5.2.3.1 Terrestrial bird habitats 5.2.3.2 Lighting 5.2.3.3 Noise 5.2.3.4 Noise and vibration associated with the tunneling operation 5.2.3.5 Other sources of disturbance 5.2.3.6 Potential impacts on designated sites and bird species of conservation interest 5.2.3.7 Mortality 5.2.3.8 Impacts on birds in the wider locality 5.2.4 Potential impacts associated with construction of the Landfall valve installation (LVI) 5.2.4.1 Sand Martin Colony 5.2.5 Potential impacts on surrounding areas 5.2.5.1 General 5.2.5.2 Potential impacts resulting from road maintenance works 5.2.5.3 Potential impacts resulting from the spread of invasive species 5.3 Potential impacts during the operational stage 5.3.1 Pipeline 5.3.2 Landfall valve installation (LVI) 5.4 Potential impacts during the decommissioning stage 5.4.1 Pipeline 5.4.2 Landfall valve installation (LVI) EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 4 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
6 MITIGATION
6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 Monitoring programme 6.1.2 Temporary fencing for working area 6.1.3 Method statements 6.2 Habitats and vegetation 6.2.1 Habitat protection and reinstatement 6.2.1.1 Improved grassland and wet, rushy grassland (including cSAC habitats at Glengad) 6.2.1.2 Recovering eroded blanket bog (chainages 89.350 to 89.540) (undesignated) 6.2.1.3 Eroding and Cutover blanket bog (undesignated) 6.2.1.4 Salt marsh 6.2.1.5 Intertidal habitats 6.2.1.6 Sod (earthen) bank boundaries 6.2.1.7 Scrub 6.2.1.8 Conifer plantation 6.2.1.9 Construction areas and protection of habitats 6.2.1.10 Road maintenance works 6.2.1.11 Invasive plant species 6.3 Non-avian fauna 6.3.1 Habitat reinstatement. 6.3.2 Protection of badgers 6.3.2.1 Pre-construction survey and monitoring 6.3.2.2 Protection of setts 6.3.2.3 Permanent exclusion from impacted setts 6.3.2.4 Open trenches during construction 6.3.2.5 Fencing 6.3.2.6 Post-construction monitoring and mitigation 6.3.3 Protection of otters 6.3.3.1 Pre-construction survey and monitoring 6.3.3.2 Protection of holts 6.3.3.3 Permanent exclusion from affected holts 6.3.3.4 Open trenches during construction 6.3.3.5 Fencing 6.3.3.6 Screening to reduce disturbance 6.3.3.7 Monitoring during construction 6.3.3.8 Post-construction monitoring and additional studies 6.3.4 Protection of bats 6.3.5 Protection of amphibians: common frogs and newts 6.3.6 Pollution hazards: construction and operation phase 6.3.7 Works on site: construction and operation phase 6.3.8 Habitat retention, replacement and landscaping 6.3.9 Detailed recommendations at pre-construction survey stage 6.3.10 Post-construction monitoring – fauna 6.4 Birds 6.5 Landfall valve installation 6.5.1 Protection of the sand martin colony 6.5.2 Landscaping and revegetation
7 RESIDUAL IMPACTS
7.1 Habitats 7.1.1 Landfall and Glengad terrestrial section (improved agricultural grassland and wet, rushy improved grassland) 7.1.2 Blanket bog habitats at Aghoos (undesignated) 7.1.3 Salt marsh 7.1.4 Intertidal habitats 7.1.5 Earthen (sod) bank boundaries 7.1.6 Scrub 7.1.7 Conifer plantation 7.2 Fauna 7.2.1 Habitat loss, fragmentation and disturbance 7.2.2 Species 7.3 Birds 7.4 Landfall valve installation
8 WORST CASE SCENARIO
9 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
10 BIBLIOGRAPHY
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 5 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
APPENDICES:
Appendix 1: Habitat mapping target notes Appendix 2: List of vertebrates and adjudged status Appendix 3: Badger setts identified within the study area Appendix 4: Otter Holts/Resting Places Identified Within The Study Area (Survey February To March 2010) Appendix 5: Otter holts/resting places identified within the study area surveys from 2002 to 2008 Appendix 6: Details of otter spraints identified within the study area (2002 to 2010) Appendix 7: Notes on otter survey methodology Appendix 8: Otter diet, holts and sprainting Appendix 9: Bat ecology – general Appendix 10: Description of bat species known or expected on site Appendix 11: List of birds referred to in the text Appendix 12: Site synopses for designated conservation sites within 5 km of the proposed pipeline Appendix 13: Bird counts and summary tables Appendix 14: Field Schedule for Bird Surveys; 2007 Post-breeding aquatic bird survey peak counts Appendix 15: Photographic record (plates listed below) Appendix 16: Vegetation survey quadrat data Appendix 17: Noise and light contours for the pSPA
FIGURES
Figure 1 Habitat mapping: oveview and sheets 1 to 3 Figure 2 Fauna: Figure 2.0 Key to signs of faunal species (2002 – 2010) Figure 2.1 Fauna overview map: Signs observed during surveys (2002 to 2008) Figure 2.2 Signs of protected fauna species observed during 2002 to 2008 surveys – sheet 1 Figure 2.3 Signs of protected fauna species observed during 2002 to 2008 surveys – sheet 2 Figure 2.4 Signs of protected fauna species observed during 2002 to 2008 surveys – sheet 3 Figure 2.5 Signs of protected fauna species observed during 2002 to 2008 surveys – sheet 4 Figure 2.6 Signs of protected fauna species observed during 2002 to 2008 surveys – sheet 5 Figure 2.7 Signs of protected fauna species observed during 2002 to 2008 surveys – sheet 6 Figure 2.8 Fauna overview map: Signs observed during surveys (2010) Figure 2.9 Signs of protected fauna species observed during 2010 survey – sheet 1 Figure 2.10 Signs of protected fauna species observed during 2010 survey – sheet 2 Figure 2.11 Signs of protected fauna species observed during 2010 survey – sheet 3 Figure 2.12 Signs of protected fauna species observed during 2010 survey – sheet 4 Figure 2.13 Signs of protected fauna species observed during 2010 survey – sheet 5 Figure 2.14 Signs of protected fauna species observed during 2010 survey – sheet 6 Figure 3 Birds: Figure 3.1: Aquatic Survey Areas & Terrestrial Bird Point Counts Figure 3.2: Count Sections used for Desktop Terrestrial Bird Review Figure 3.3: Indicative map of bird usage at Low Tide Figure 3.4: Indicative map of bird usage at low tide, including areas used by key species Figure 3.5: Low Tide Concentrations of Brent Goose from Recent Survey Data 2007 – 2010 Figure 3.6: Low Tide Concentrations of Dunlin and Ringed Plover from Recent Survey Data 2007 - 2010 Figure 3.7: Indicative map of concentrations of birds at High Tide Figure 3.8: Location of Sand Martin Colonies at Glengad and Rinroe Figure 3.9: Key to bird usage areas (Figures 3.3, 3.4 and 3.7) Figure 4: Designated sites: Figure 4.1: Map showing Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) - within 5km of the proposed pipeline Figure 4.2: Map showing Special Protection Area (SPA) sites in the wider locality Figure 4.3: Map showing Special Area of Conservation (SAC) sites in the wider locality
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 6 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
List of plates in Appendix 15
Plates - Habitats Plate 1: Aerial view of part of the reinstated area at Glengad (September 2009) Plate 2: Reinstated area at Glengad, looking towards Broadhaven Bay (January 2010) Plate 3: Reinstated area in 2004, showing the recovery by natural regeneration, less than 2 years after reinstatement in 2002 Plate 4: Dune grassland and sand dunes to the north of the proposed route Plate 5: Old rubbish dump exposed by erosion of dune grassland in the cSAC at Glengad Plate 6: Mosaic of wet, rushy grassland and Iris pseudacorus dominated marsh at Glengad. (The tunnel will pass underneath here) Plate 7: Development of new salt marsh on sand (N7 on habitat mapping, Figure 1 sheet 1) Plate 8: Southern side of Sruwaddacon Bay with Pollatomish village in background, lower salt marsh (CM1) in foreground Plate 9: Heavily eroded blanket bog at Aghoos Plate 10: Severely eroded blanket bog at Aghoos Plate 11: Wet, rushy grassland to west of the Leenamore River Plate 12: Looking eastwards across a field of wet, rushy grassland, sloping down towards the Leenamore River inlet Plate 13: Aerial photograph of the Leenamore River inlet, showing salt marsh area; and Gorse scrub on the margins (September 2009) Plate 14: Leenamore River inlet Plate 15: Wet, rushy grassland on both sides of the Leenamore River inlet, with Gorse scrub (viewed from the east) Plate 16: Recovering eroded blanket bog to the east of the Leenamore River Plate 17: View of a ride in coniferous plantation along southern portion of pipeline route Plate 18: Interior of conifer plantation east of Aghoos Plate 19: View along the bog mat road on the pipeline route near the northern boundary of the Bellanaboy Bridge Gas Terminal site Plate 20: The cliff at the Glengad landfall - prior to excavation in 2002
Plates - Fauna Plate 21: Cave resting place (CV9) with bedding at the entrance (south side of Sruwaddacon Bay) Plate 22: Cave resting place (CV18) with 2 entrances, a strong mammal path leading to it, and otter spraints present within. South side of Sruwaddacon Bay Plate 23: Otter holt (H3) at the east end of the Bay next to the Glenamoy River Plate 24: Otter sprainting site on grassy hummock next to shoreline (north side of Sruwaddacon Bay) Plate 25: Typical otter sprainting site; spraints with fish remains Plate 26: Fresh spraint on sandbank beside the Aghoos River Plate 27: Significant spraints on a small boulder within a cave site (CV48) on the north side of Sruwaddacon Bay; there were also spraints on a plastic bottle within this small shoreline cave Plate 28: A significant otter ’wallow’ area in coniferous plantation beside the Glenamoy River. Area is marked with spraints and otter footprints. Area is marked with spraints and otter footprints. Muddy at time of survey, this is a small pool that appears to be used by otters for washing off this is a small pool that appears to be used by otters for washing off salt water. (Next to sprainting site S51, 2007) Plate 29: Fresh otter prints in soft sand – on the shore below the dunes at Glengad (2010) Plate 30: Potential frog breeding site at Aghoos Plate 31: Pine Marten at Bellanaboy, close to the southern end of the route (Photo courtesy of A. Lewis, 2007)
Plates - Birds Plate 32: View north from the landfall at Glengad showing the Brent Goose feeding area at low tide (to show the extent of the algal beds) Plate 33: Young Sand Martins in a burrow at Glengad Plate 34: A section of the Sand Martin Colony A in the 2009 breeding season, showing its proximity to the site compound fencing Plate 35: Northern section of the cliff prior to excavation in 2002 (The cliff cut did not include the slumped cliff-top vegetation on the left of the photograph) Plate 36: Southern section of cliff prior to excavation in 2002
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 7 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project details
The proposed onshore pipeline will connect the landfall of the offshore pipeline to the Bellanaboy Bridge Gas Terminal, where the gas will be treated before it is exported into the Bord Gaís Éireann (BGE) network.
The development comprises the onshore pipeline, with the associated umbilicals, services and outfall pipe all of which will be buried throughout; and a landfall valve installation (LVI) which will be situated at Glengad close to the landfall. The LVI will be located within a compound with dimensions approximately 20m x 22m. This installation will remain in place for the lifetime of the project (approximately 15-20 years).
Please refer to the EIS for a full project description.
In view of the nature of the proposed development and that the pipeline is buried throughout its length, the majority of potential impacts on terrestrial ecology are associated with the construction of the proposed development.
1.2 Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
This report assesses the likely impacts of the proposed development on the ecology of the route, including the site of the LVI, from the landfall to the Bellanaboy Bridge Terminal in terms of the habitats present and their constituent terrestrial plant and vertebrate faunal species. The construction of the development will give rise to the highest potential for impact on ecology. Details of construction have been examined. In addition, ecological input was given to the design team during the planning and development of construction methodologies. Ecological interactions between terrestrial, marine and freshwater environments have been considered. (See also Marine and Freshwater Ecology reports). The approach and methodology is in accordance with the EPA Advice Notes on Current Practice (2003); and Guidelines for ecological evaluation and impact assessment (“In Practice” IEEM - Regini, 2000 & 2002 and IEEM, 2006); and with regard to other documents referred to below in the appropriate sections. Due regard is paid to the provisions of Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive.
The ecological assessment was undertaken by Ecological Consultancy and Advisory Services (EACS) and associates. A list of personnel is given above.
The scope of the assessment was:
x to carry out an ecological evaluation of the route in terms of habitats and species present; x to assess the likely impact of the proposed development on habitats and their constituent plant and animal species; x to recommend suitable and appropriate mitigation measures to ameliorate any negative impacts; and x to propose any proactive measures to enhance the biodiversity along the route.
Further assessments and monitoring are also recommended where appropriate.
The habitats present are described along with their current status and an evaluation of their conservation value. Vegetation and faunal surveys were carried out, subject to the constraints listed below, in order to establish if any sensitive or protected species were present. Potential impacts on adjoining areas are also evaluated.
These findings have been used to identify mitigating measures to reduce the impacts and appropriate mitigation or remedial measures are recommended.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 8 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Introduction
The following were undertaken: x habitat mapping; x collection of data on presence of, and/or potential habitats for, protected plant species; x collection of data on the presence of, and/or potential habitats for, protected species of fauna; x collection of data on the presence of birds, particularly breeding and migratory species.
In terms of vegetation surveys, the study area comprises approximately 50m either side of the centre line however in terms of mobile species of fauna, both avian and non-avian, the study area generally extends to 100m either side of the centre line, depending upon the nature of the habitats. Faunal activity in the wider vicinity is also considered.
A large body of data has been accumulated during previous, and ongoing, studies in connection with the Corrib Gas project, these include: baseline surveys, monitoring surveys etc. Where appropriate, the reports from these earlier studies are cited in 10 Bibliography.
In addition, information was sought and collated from statutory (NPWS) and non-statutory (BirdWatch Ireland and the Irish Peatland Conservation Council - IPCC) consultees over a number of years. This has included assimilating information on nearby designated conservation sites, and protected species.
Other data has also been taken into consideration and, where possible, further information has been sought in order to bring the knowledge base up to date. These data sets include:
- Relevant scientific literature, books, reports, papers etc.
- Information available from National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) on designated sites, individual protected species (plant and animal) sites, blanket bog surveys, local knowledge, bird counts etc.
- Information from non-governmental organisations such as BirdWatch Ireland
- Accumulated knowledge from unrelated previous work in North Mayo relating to vegetation, including: Vegetation surveys of coastal and blanket bog sites during the National Vegetation Survey 1970 to 1982 (Neff, pers.); The Mayo National Park Feasibility Study 1994/95 (O’Muire Smyth/OPW (1996); and A study of impacts on coastal designated conservation areas (Neff, 1998).
This information helped define the development and ensure that the design and construction of the proposed development avoids or minimises adverse impacts.
2.2 Habitats and vegetation
During this impact study particular attention was paid to the possible occurrence of plant species and habitats which are considered to be rare or scarce in both a national and local context, with particular emphasis on those species listed in:
x the current Flora Protection Order (FPO SI No. 94 1999) under the Wildlife and Amendment Acts 1976 and 2000; x the Irish Red Data Book for vascular plants (Curtis and McGough,1988); x listed scarce species (Neff, 2000).
NPWS has been consulted regarding the Rare Plant Database records and rare species of
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 9 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) plant listed on the current Flora (Protection) Order 1999 (SI No. 94 of 1999) under the Wildlife and Amendment Acts, 1976 and 2000. Particular attention was also paid to the likely occurrence of habitats listed in Annex 1 of the EU Habitats Directive (EU 1992).
Habitat and vegetation type mapping is shown in Ecology Figure 1. Target note numbers shown on the habitat mapping are listed and explained in Appendix 1. Habitat mapping is based on: field surveys in 2007, 2008 and 2010; field surveys undertaken in previous years (2001 to 2006); and with the assistance of vantage point and recent high resolution colour vertical and oblique aerial photography.
2.2.1 Field surveys
Field surveys comprised a walk over during which habitats and vegetation features were noted; as were the plant species present. Areas which had previously been subject to baseline surveys were verified in 2007 and 2008 where access was available. Parts of the route at Glengad (Ecology Figure 1, habitat map 1) have been subject to regular monitoring inspections and botanical surveys since 2002.
The methodology to be used for baseline vegetation survey was discussed and agreed with NPWS personnel early in the consultation process, and follows the standard approach for ecological evaluation and impact assessment. The method used for quadrat1 description , the ‘Domin’ method, follows that of the Zurich-Montpellier approach (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg, 1974). In addition to species presence and cover, other parameters were also noted for each quadrat, including:
x quadrat size; x total percentage cover of vegetation, bare soil, bare peat, water and rock. x percentage cover and height of the vegetation layers, i.e. shrub, herb and bryophyte. x GPS position x slope and aspect. x additional details such as: the composition of the surrounding vegetation, current and past management practices (eg. levels of grazing and disturbance) etc.
The main purpose of these quadrats is to provide a baseline description of the vegetation which can then be used as a monitoring tool in the future. The Domin method of species frequency assessment was used during baseline surveys in 2001; again to check the situation in 2007; and it was also used to describe quadrats during the 2008 vegetation surveys in salt marsh at the Leenamore River inlet, and in blanket bog vegetation to the east of the inlet. (See Appendix 16 for details and location of quadrats)
2.2.2 Survey constraints
There were no access constraints in respect of habitat surveys.
As there was a seasonal constraint for part of the Aghoos section of the route, a pre- construction survey will be carried out to confirm plant species composition at the appropriate time of year. Notwithstanding this, the walkover surveys have provided sufficient information to enable an evaluation of habitat type and quality.
2.3 Non-avian vertebrate fauna
2.3.1 Introduction
The general format of this section is in accordance with guidelines recommended by the EPA (2002) - Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements. Recommendations and evaluation techniques utilised are in general accordance with Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment (Institute of Environmental Assessment, UK, 1995), Wildlife Impact: the treatment of nature conservation in environmental assessment
1 A quadrat is a defined sample area, usually square, and in this case generally 2m x 2m. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 10 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
(RSPB, 1995) and Guidelines for ecological evaluation and impact assessment (Regini, M. 2000). NRA Ecology Guidelines (2004) and the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Highways Agency [UK], 2001) have been referred to also.
The NRA has produced a series of Guidelines which have been referred to: Guidelines for assessment of ecological impacts of National road schemes (2004), Guidelines for the crossing of watercourses during the construction of National road schemes (2005), Guidelines for the treatment of badgers prior to the construction of national roads schemes (2005), Guidelines for the treatment of otters prior to the construction of national roads schemes (2006), Best Practice Guidelines for the Conservation of Bats in the Planning of National Road Schemes (2006a) and Guidelines for the Treatment of Bats During the Construction of National Road Schemes (2006b).
Various faunal studies have been undertaken in the area since 2002, including surveys of the proposed route and a re-assessment of otter activity in the Sruwaddacon Bay area in February and March 2010.
2.3.2 Fauna survey
The presence of mammals is indicated principally by their signs, such as dwellings, feeding signs, or droppings - though direct observations are also occasionally made. Surveys also included search for habitats suitable for amphibians and reptiles. Observations made during other surveys are included in the results. Notes on Details of otter survey methodology are included in Appendix 7.the Appendices.
2.3.2.1 2002 to 2005 surveys
A faunal survey of portions of the original approved route, including: Glengad, the western section on the Rossport side of Sruwaddacon Bay, and from upper crossing to the Terminal site, was conducted in April and May 2002 in good weather conditions. Relevant findings from that survey are included in this report.
Survey for mammals (in 2002) was carried out by means of search along the original approved pipeline route. The survey area varied, but generally a width of approximately 100m was surveyed although this could not be maintained throughout dense coniferous plantation. The field survey was supplemented by evaluation of relevant literature and existing information, and contact was made with Dr. K. McAney (Field Officer, The Vincent Wildlife Trust) and also Mr. T. Murray (NPWS).
Subsequently, an otter survey of Sruwaddacon Bay and vicinity was undertaken in July 2002, and this was followed by a more detailed examination of the areas close to the original approved route’s upper and estuary crossings in February 2003. A survey of much of the coastline at Sruwaddacon Bay was carried out over 2.5 days from 19th to 21st July 2002. Weather conditions were fair to excellent, with overcast conditions and drizzle initially, followed by sunshine over most of the following two days. Some sections of the middle portion of the Bay (on both sides) were not searched – with emphasis being placed on stretches of coast closer to the two original approved pipeline crossings of the Bay.
On the 19th July 2002, a brief survey was also undertaken of otter activity along rivers and streams near the Bay - including the Glenamoy, Muingnabo, and Gweedaney Rivers as well as a number of their small tributary streams. These locations were accessed from main roads and short off-road examinations. Otters often spraint at bridges, so these locations were generally inspected first. The observations situated within the areas mapped in this report have been included. A later, winter, survey took place over 2.5 days from 12th to 14th February 2003 and concentrated on the areas of the landfall and the two crossings, with intensive search for otter holts within the vicinity of these crossings or nearby portions of the proposed pipeline. Weather conditions were favourable – generally cold, sunny and breezy.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 11 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Mr. James Kilroy (NPWS) and Jenny Neff (EACS) were present during part of the survey on 12th and 13th February 2003. Previously known or suspected holts were revisited. On the evening of the 13th, the area of the Bay at the lower crossing was watched with binoculars and telescope for several hours but no otters were seen.
A faunal survey of the northern portion of the Bay area (in relation to the originally proposed route) was undertaken on 16th December 2004. Weather conditions throughout the survey period were poor with strong winds, rain, sleet, snow, and hail. A follow-up survey was conducted on the 12th and 13th of February 2005 in good weather conditions. Additional observations made in March 2005 have been included in this report. Several portions of the original route were inaccessible due to landowner objections.
2.3.2.2 2007 and 2008 surveys
Field surveys for mammals and other vertebrates were undertaken over seven days (between 30th of August and the 8th of September 2007, and on the 12th and 13th of October 2007). Weather conditions were generally clear and bright with good visibility but with periods of overcast skies, moderate winds and light rain. An additional survey to the south of Sruwaddacon Bay was undertaken in February 2008.
Survey for mammals was carried out by means of thorough search along the entire shoreline of Sruwaddacon Bay within the intertidal zone along the pipeline route. The use of a 6.3m rigid inflatable boat (RIB) from Ballyglass Pier enabled access to otherwise inaccessible sections of the shoreline of Sruwaddacon Bay in 2007.
Surveys of previously inaccessible portions of the route were conducted between August and December 2008. These included:
x A bat survey was carried out on the 6th and 7th September 2007. Study included a detector survey undertaken at dusk and into the hours of darkness with the use of two heterodyne bat detectors (BatBox Duet and Pettersson D200). Weather conditions were good, with mild temperatures, light winds, and no rainfall. Accessible structures adjacent to the proposed route which showed potential as roosting sites were surveyed during daylight hours. A survey for potential bat roosts in trees along or adjacent to the proposed route was also undertaken. The presence of bats is indicated principally by their signs, such as staining, feeding signs, or droppings - though direct observations are also occasionally made. An additional bat survey was conducted at locations at the north side of the Bay in August 2008.
x A faunal survey was conducted along the pipeline route to the east of Aghoos village on the 11th of December 2008. This covered most of the area from the southern shore of Sruwaddacon Bay to the Leenamore River. (The area between the Leenamore River and the forestry area had been included in previous surveys.) Weather conditions were variable but poor in most part, with strong winds and heavy rain at times.
2.3.2.3 Otter and mammal surveys February and March 2010
A survey to re-assess otter and mammal activity along the entire shoreline of Sruwaddacon Bay was conducted in February and March 2010. A rigid inflatable boat (RIB) was used employed to access portions of the shores of Sruwaddacon Bay in March 2010.
x Otter and other mammal surveys were conducted on the 3rd, 4th and 5th of February 2010 in very good weather conditions: sunny but with occasional showers. The area covered was much of the south side of the Bay from the Leenamore River to Pollatomish, a portion of cliffs west of Pollatomish, the Glengad landfall site and vicinity and pipeline route through much of its length at Glengad, the shore and dunes at Glengad, and the southern shore to the east of the Leenamore River. Also
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 12 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
included in surveys was the north side of the Bay from approximately its mid-point westwards to west of Rossport pier.
x The area of the pipeline route and proposed works compound area at Aghoos was surveyed on the 24th of February 2010 in fair weather conditions.
x The remainder of the Bay shoreline area was surveyed on the 3rd of March 2010 in good weather conditions: overcast but dull, with occasional drizzle. This included the shoreline on the north side of the Bay from the confluence of the Glenamoy and Muingnabo Rivers westwards to the midpoint of the Bay, and also the shoreline west of Pollatomish through to the rear of dune area at Glengad.
Faunal signs found during the various surveys are mapped on Figure 2, Fauna.
The nature and type of habitats present are also indicative of the species likely to be present; the habitats present were assessed in general accordance with techniques adopted for the Badger & Habitat Survey of Ireland (Smal, 1995); habitats listed by Fossitt (2000) and by JNCC (1990) were referred to. Please refer to Ecology Figure 1: Habitat mapping.
The field survey was supplemented by evaluation of relevant literature and existing information.
2.3.3 Survey constraints
2.3.3.1 Access:
There were no difficulties regarding as to access along the pipeline route at Aghoos, or for access to the shores of Sruwaddacon Bay. Some fields along the pipeline route at the eastern end of the Glengad section were not accessible during the surveys conducted in 2010.
2.3.3.2 Dense vegetation
Dense vegetation cover, such as found within areas of coniferous plantation and gorse scrub, places a constraint on survey for badger setts, holts, etc. at any season. Additional pre- construction surveys and monitoring procedures will be necessary in these areas.
Otherwise, there were no seasonal constraints e.g. high vegetation cover (which can obscure setts, holts and other mammal signs). Survey for otter signs in 2010 was to some extent affected by recent high tides that almost certainly washed away spraint sites at regular known sprainting sites. This is not considered as a significant constraint given the knowledge gained of otter activity at these sites from previous surveys.
2.3.3.3 Seasonal
Surveys undertaken in early and late 2008, and in 2010 were not subject to seasonal constraints. As stated above, dense vegetation cover such as gorse scrub and areas of coniferous plantation place a constraint on survey for badger setts, holts, etc. - irrespective of season.
Bat surveys were undertaken within the active bat season in optimum weather conditions in 2007 and 2008.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 13 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
2.4 Birds
2.4.1 Introduction
This study consisted of: field surveys conducted between 2007 and 2010; and a review of previous bird surveys of the area (2002 to 2007). The surveys comprised a series of aquatic surveys, including a post breeding season survey (2007) and several winter season surveys (2007-2010), as well as a post breeding terrestrial bird survey and dedicated Sand Martin surveys at Glengad (2008 & 2009).
While this report is primarily concerned with bird activity along the proposed route, the field surveys were undertaken in conjunction with field investigations of bird activity in the wider locality. The aims of this study were:
x To describe bird usage along the proposed route from direct observation
x To examine available bird records from Sruwaddacon Bay and its environs
x To generate an overall picture of bird usage of the area in which the route is proposed.
2.4.2 Aquatic Surveys
The aquatic bird surveys followed a similar methodology to previous aquatic bird surveys in the surrounding area (e.g. Woodrow 2006, Fehily Timoney & Co. 2007b). Standard bird census techniques and survey protocol were used (Institute of Environmental Assessment 1995, Sutherland 1996, Bibby et al. 2000). Appropriate optics were used throughout the survey. Field surveys were undertaken when weather conditions were suitable for such work (i.e. no rain, light winds (< Beaufort Force 4) and good visibility). A summary of the survey schedules and weather is shown in Appendix 14 of this report.
For the purposes of this study, the Sruwaddacon Bay area was divided into discrete count sections (see Figure 3.1). The surveys were conducted at low and high tides so that bird observations were undertaken across the full tidal cycle. For each survey, bird species were counted and recorded according to their occurrence at each count section. In addition, terrestrial species occurring near the vantage points were also recorded.
Bird counts were made at appropriate vantage points overlooking the count sections of the Bay. Peak count data from all count sections (1 - 6) are used in the analysis. Peak count data are grouped into Outer (sections 1 & 2), Middle (section 3 & 4) and Inner (sections 5 & 6) regions in order to better assess bird activity in different portions of the Bay.
The conservation status of each species is considered as part of the analysis of this study. Species that are cited on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) are identified. In addition, birds listed as Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland (BoCCI) (after Lynas et al.2007; Newton et al. 1999) are reviewed. The BoCCI listing categorises birds as Red listed (i.e. species of high conservation concern), Amber listed (i.e. species of medium conservation concern) and Green listed (i.e. species of no particular conservation concern). The BoCCI list was first published by Newton et al. (1999) and was recently revised by Lynas et al. (2007). For the purposes of this study the revised BoCCI list (after Lynas et al. 2007) is mainly used (except where stated).
The criteria used by Lynas et al. (2007) to include species on the latest BoCCI listing are as follows:
¾ Global Conservation Status (IUCN): Qualification: IUCN Globally Threatened; Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable = Red list. This criterion uses the most recent IUCN Red list to identify species of global conservation concern in Ireland. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 14 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
¾ European Conservation Status (SPEC): Qualification: SPEC 1 = Red list; SPEC 2 and 3 = Amber list (except species that do not breed in Ireland). This criterion places the status in Ireland into a European context as assessed in ‘Birds in Europe’ (BirdLife International, 2004). SPEC 1 species are of global conservation concern, SPEC 2 species are of unfavourable status and concentrated in Europe, and SPEC 3 species are of unfavourable status but not concentrated in Europe.
¾ Decline in Breeding Population (BDp, BDMp): Qualification: Population Decline 50% over 25 years = Red list; 25-50% over 25 years = Amber list (range: 7-33 years). This criterion is based on the best available data for trends in breeding bird populations including Countryside Bird Survey (CBS), Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), Seabird 2000 (Mitchell et al. 2000) and other species specific surveys.
¾ Decline in Breeding Range (BDr, BDMr): Qualification: Range Decline 70% over 25 years = Red list; 35-70% over 25 years = Amber list (range: 20-28 years). This criterion is based on data from the two Breeding Atlases of Britain and Ireland (Sharrock 1976, Gibbons et al. 1993).
¾ Decline in Population during the Non-breeding Season (WDp, WDMp): Qualification: Population Decline 50% over 25 years (range 15-25 years) = Red list; 25-49% over 25 years = Amber list. This criterion is based on data from IWeBS and WeBS.
¾ Historical Decline in Breeding Population (HD): Qualification: Severe Historical Population Decline during 1800-1995 = Red list. This criterion is based on data presented by various studies, predominantly Holloway (1996) and Gibbons et al. (1993).
¾ Breeding Rarity (BR): Qualification: Less than 100 pairs = Amber list. This criterion is based on data collated by the Irish Rare Breeding Birds from 2000 - 2006.
¾ Localised Breeding (BL) and non-breeding (WL) species: Qualification: at least 50% of the breeding or non-breeding population occurs at ten or fewer sites = Amber list. This criterion is based on data from Seabird 2000 (Mitchell et al. 2000), IWeBS and WeBS.
¾ International Importance during the Breeding (BI) or non-breeding season (WI): Qualification: at least 20% of the European breeding or non-breeding population occurs in Ireland = Amber list. This criterion is based on data from various sources such as BirdLife International (2004), Seabird 2000 (Mitchell et al. 2000).
2.4.2.1 Post Breeding Aquatic Bird Survey 2007
Post Breeding bird surveys of Sruwaddacon Bay were conducted from 1st August until the 13th September, 2007. A total of five bird counts were carried out as part of this survey, two at low water (ie. 3 hours either side of low tide) and three at high water (i.e. 3 hours either side of high tide). The results of this survey are presented in section 3.4.1.1.
2.4.2.2 Winter Season Aquatic Bird Surveys 2007-2010
A series of winter season aquatic surveys have been carried out to monitor the birds in the Sruwaddacon Bay area. Surveys were completed in the 2007/08 and 2008/09 winter season and these surveys are ongoing in the 2009/10 winter season. Surveys were carried out from vantage points 1 to 6 (see Figure 3.1) during both low and high tides.
The 2007/08 field surveys were carried out approximately every two weeks between the 25th of October 2007 and the 9th April 2008. An additional Light-bellied Brent Goose survey visit was made at low water on the 24th April 2008 in order to determine whether this species was
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 15 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) still present on the site or had migrated to breeding grounds. The survey schedule for this work is available in Appendix 14.5.
The 2008/09 winter season field surveys were carried out between October 29th, 2008 and April 27th, 2009. Weekly surveys were undertaken at the start of the wintering period when wintering bird numbers (particularly Light-bellied Brent Geese) were expected to be building up (i.e. during late October and November, 2008) and again at the end of the winter period when bird numbers were anticipated to fall (i.e. March and April, 2009). During the middle section of the winter period, visits were made approximately every two weeks. The survey schedule for this work is available in Appendix 14.6.
The 2009/10 winter season surveys are ongoing, however preliminary results will be discussed in section 3.4.1.4.
2.4.3 Post Breeding Terrestrial Bird Survey 2007
Terrestrial bird surveys were conducted on the 30th August and 13th September, 2007. A series of five-minute point counts were undertaken in the vicinity of the proposed route (see Figure 3.1). A total of three point count locations (i.e. 1, 2 and 3) were used for this study. These locations represent the forested section of the proposed route as it passes from Sruwaddacon Bay to the Bellanaboy Terminal. The surveys were conducted in the morning (08.30 - 09.30 hours), when terrestrial bird activity is generally at its highest during daylight hours. Bird species were counted and recorded at each point count survey.
Peak count data are used in the analysis of the data, where peak counts from each point count are pooled together. As above for the aquatic bird survey, the conservation status of each species is considered.
2.4.4 Sand Martin Monitoring
Sand Martin activity at Glengad was monitored during the 2008 and 2009 breeding seasons. Monitoring in 2008 was completed approximately every two weeks between the 18th of May and 16th of August 2008. Monitoring in 2009 was completed on a weekly basis between the 1st April and the 26th of August 2009. Full survey schedules are provided in Appendices 14.7 and 14.8. Construction works for the pipeline landfall were underway during part of both the 2008 and 2009 breeding seasons. Two colonies were present at Glengad in both seasons, and a third colony was present in the Rinroe area in 2009.
All Sand Martin burrows were photographed each season and a photographic catalogue was created. At the beginning of each survey visit the colony was checked for any newly excavated burrows or collapsed burrows using the photographic catalogue. Each colony was monitored for a minimum of 45 minutes (or until such time as no new active burrows were identified). During this time, the number of Sand Martin visits to each burrow was recorded together with any records of chicks at the burrow entrances. The surveys were carried out using suitable optical equipment (e.g. binoculars, digital cameras). Surveyors were positioned at a safe distance (50 m), so as not to interfere with the natural behaviour of the Sand Martins. Surveys were continued until all breeding activity had ceased at the colonies. This follows a similar approach to previous surveys at the colony.
2.4.5 Desk top review
A review was conducted of bird data previously collected within the general area of the proposed route. These data were taken from various sources including:
x The following reports, which provide additional information on Bird Data in relation to the Blacksod Bay/Broadhaven pSPA are provided in Appendix J(2).
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 16 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
- FTC Sand Martin Monitoring at Glengad in 2009 (FTC, 2010) - FTC Winter survey of Sruwaddacon Bay 2008/09 (FTC, 2010) - FTC Sand Martin Monitoring at Glengad in 2008 (FTC, 2009) - FTC Winter Survey of Sruwaddacon Bay 2007/08 (FTC, 2009) - FTC Brent Goose survey of North Rossport Bay 2006/07 (FTC, 2007) - SEPIL Brent Goose Survey 2005 to 2006 (Woodrow, W) - SEPIL Winter Low Tide Bird Surveys 2005 2006 (Woodrow, W) - Brent Goose Survey Report winters 2002 & 2003 (Arnold, L.) - Final Report Winter High Tide Bird Surveys 2002 & 2003 Arnold, L) - Winter Low Tide Usage Surveys Sruwaddacon Bay 2002 to 2003 (Arnold, L) - Bird survey 26th July 2002 with figs & plates (Heffernan, M-L.) - Bird survey south of the Bay May 2002 (Heffernan, M-L.) - Onshore pipeline bird reports spring & summer 2005 (3 reports - Arnold & Woodrow) - Onshore Pipeline Breeding Bird Report 2004 (Arnold, L) - Sand Martin Report 2004 (Arnold, L) - Bird Survey 3rd July 2002 (Heffernan, M-L.) - Corncrake report 2004 (Arnold, L)
It is important to note that the above reports were prepared as baseline reports in order to a gain a greater understanding of the bird species present and to collate scientific data against which to monitor change (if any) following construction. The studies were not undertaken as part of any impact assessment and did not therefore address impacts. In accordance with best practice, the reports do, on occasion make recommendations for mitigation measures for species protection. The above were not undertaken as part of the EIS process for the proposed development.
For clarification, it should be noted that in the FTC Winter Season Report (2007) the ‘Sandy Point’ feeding area for Brent Geese lies to the north of the sand dunes and equates to the main ‘Glengad’ feeding area referred to in the Woodrow report.
x Other bird surveys undertaken within the general area on behalf of Shell Exploration and Production Ireland Ltd. in relation to the Bellanaboy Terminal site and surrounding area. x Published data and other data sources including the following (see Bibliography for full reference):
National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) site synopsis and mapping data (www.npws.ie) Barton, C., Pollock, C., Norriss, D.W., Nagle, T., Oliver, G.A. and Newton S. 2006 Crowe 2005 Gibbons, D.W., Reid, J.B. and Chapman, R.A. 1993 Mitchell, P.I., Newton, S.F., Ratcliffe, N. and Dunn, T.E. 2000 Lack, P. 1986 The Atlas of Wintering Birds in Britain and Ireland
Only bird data from previous aquatic and terrestrial studies that are relevant to the proposed route were reviewed. For the purposes of this study, bird data from previous aquatic bird studies were grouped according to the discrete count sections outlined in Figure 3.1 and only waterbird species were dealt with.
Bird counts from previous terrestrial bird studies were grouped into two discrete count sections to correspond with the two pipeline areas at Glengad and south east of Aghoos. The study areas are indicated in Figure 3.2. Only terrestrial species were dealt with for this aspect of the study. The two count sections are as follows:
Outer area – from the landfall of pipeline to the estuary “narrows” to the east of Glengad.
Terminal area –- area west of the confluence of Rivers Muingnabo and Glenamoy (inner section of Sruwaddacon Bay) south to Bellanaboy Terminal
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 17 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
2.4.6 2008 walkover surveys
A section of the pipeline route south of the Bay was walked to record the birds using this area on 11th November 2008. Two ornithologists walked a parallel transect along the proposed route in the Aghoos/Leenamore inlet area recording any calls, sightings or signs of birds. Birds were recorded as occurring on, or overflying, the transect.
2.4.7 Bird survey constraints
As a consequence of restricted land access during the 2007 terrestrial surveys, the number of survey sites used as part of the post breeding bird terrestrial survey was limited mainly to public access points. However, from knowledge and experience of the habitat types in question and their potential bird species complement, it is considered that the lack of access has not prevented the assessment of potential impact. Also, as is best practice with all linear projects, a pre-construction (pre-entry) survey will be required for the full length of the pipeline route to check for the presence of bird species, and to target mitigation measures.
This limitation did not apply to the aquatic component, as good vantage points overlooking Sruwaddacon Bay were available (Figure 3.1).
Access restrictions also affected the Sand Martin monitoring work in 2008 and 2009, where on occasion it was not possible to access the shoreline. The access restrictions only occurred in the early breeding season and did not significantly affect the overall survey results.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 18 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
3 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Introduction
This section describes the habitats and species present and adjacent to the route of the proposed pipeline.
3.2 Habitats and vegetation
The main habitats which occur in the area, either along or near to the proposed pipeline route are outlined below. Habitats occurring along the pipeline route are summarised in Table 1 and mapped in Ecology Figure 1. Habitats are classified in accordance with the scheme outlined in the Guide to Habitats in Ireland (Fossitt, 2000) and the Joint Nature Conservancy Council Phase 1 habitat survey methodology (JNCC, 1993). Plant nomenclature in this report follows: Stace (1995 and 2010) for most vascular plants, Cope and Gray (2009) for grasses; common names are also after Scannell and Synnott (1987) and Webb (1996); Smith (2004) for mosses, Smith (1991) and Paton (1999) for liverworts and Dahl (1968) for lichens. Their affinity to EU Annex habitats is also shown. (See below)
No Flora Protection Order (FPO, 1999) species were found during the surveys carried out from 2001 to 2010. Consultations and desk top study have shown that there are no known records of FPO species occurring along the proposed route.
Sedimentary sea cliffs (CS3) (Fossitt 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – corresponds “loosely” to Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts (1230) Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code - Soft cliff (H8,2) The sedimentary west facing cliff at the landfall at Glengad does not conform to the Annex 1 Habitat.
Improved agricultural grassland (GA1) (Fossitt 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – none Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code - Improved grassland (B4) Improved grassland is occasional along the proposed route. In this part of County Mayo much of the agricultural grassland has been reclaimed from areas of shallow blanket bog and thus a high degree of maintenance is required to preserve a high quality pasture. If not, these areas invariably revert to wet, rushy grassland over time. Characteristic species of agricultural grassland include Lolium perenne, Holcus lanatus, Poa pratensis, Plantago lanceolata, Cirsium arvense and Trifolium repens.
At Glengad the dominant species are Perennial rye grass (Lolium perenne), Red fescue (Festuca rubra), Crested dogstail (Cynosurus cristatus), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), Daisy (Bellis perennis), Long-leaved plantain (Plantago lanceolata), Red clover (Trifolium pratense), White clover (T. repens), Selfheal (Prunella vulgaris), Black knapweed (Centaurea nigra), Creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Yarrow (Achillea millefolium).
Wet grassland (GS4) (Fossitt 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – None for wet grassland dominated by Juncus effusus Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code - Marsh/marshy grassland (B5) Wet grassland is a commonly encountered habitat. The habitat is easily identified by the presence of the dominant species Juncus effusus. Frequently wet grassland is found to dominate in blanket bog areas which have been recently reclaimed for agriculture. Wet grassland is also found along the narrow flood zones of upland/rivers/streams where Iris pseudacorus, Angelica sylvestris and Agrostis stolonifera are also conspicuous.
The vegetation composition varies considerably depending on the moisture content of the substrate. Species were most commonly recorded at Glengad included: Soft rush EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 19 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
(Juncus effusus), Jointed rush (J. articulatus), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), Creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera) and Buttercups (Ranunculus spp.). The dominant moss species are Drepanocladus revolvens and Calliergon cuspidatum.
Where the land has been improved, or is subject to higher levels of grazing, then Perennial rye grass (Lolium perenne) and Red fescue (Festuca rubra), Mouse-eared chickweed (Cerastium fontanum), Field buttercup (Ranunculus acris), White clover (Trifolium repens), Broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius), Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Daisy (Bellis perennis), and Greater plantain (Plantago major) are more common.
The abundance of species characteristic of marsh habitat indicates the wet nature of the substrate.
Marsh (GM1) (Fossitt, 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – none Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code - Marsh/marshy grassland (B.5)
As the soil moisture content increases, Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Silverweed (Potentilla anserina), rush species (Juncus spp.) and moisture–loving herbs such as, Cuckoo flower (Cardamine pratensis), Marsh pennywort (Hydrocotyle vulgaris), Yellow flag (Iris pseudacorus), Marsh horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), Marsh marigold (Caltha palustris), Purple moorgrass (Molinia caerulea) and Marsh ragwort (Senecio aquaticus) become more frequent. Close to the streams, Common reed (Phragmites australis) occurs and Yellow flag (Iris pseudacorus) is locally abundant.
Lowland blanket bog (PB3) (Fossitt, 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – Blanket bog (7130) and Depressions on peat surfaces of the Rhynchosporion (7150) Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code – Blanket bog (E1.6.1) Lowland blanket bog is one of the most common habitat types occurring in the wider locality. The habitat comprises peats which are generally greater than two metres deep and the typical prominent vascular plant species are Molinia caerulea, Schoenus nigricans, Erica tetralix, Trichophorum cespitosum, Calluna vulgaris, Eriophorum vaginatum, Narthecium ossifragum and Rhynchospora alba. In intact blanket bog the moss cover is generally high with Racomitrium lanuginosum, Sphagnum capillifolium and Sphagnum papillosum providing the bulk of the cover. Active lowland blanket bog, is a priority Annex 1 habitat, and is not present along the proposed route. Habitats derived from lowland blanket bog include cutover bog (PB4) and eroding blanket bog (PB5) both of which occur near / or on the route. It must also be noted that most of the conifer plantation within the locality is planted on blanket peat. The vegetation of lowland blanket bog is described by Doyle (1982) and White and Doyle (1982); and in Otte (Ed. 2003)
Cutover bog (PB4) (Fossitt, 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – Depressions on peat surfaces of the Rhynchosporion (7150) Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code – Wet modified bog (E1.7) Cutover blanket bog is a frequently encountered habitat throughout the wider locality and tends to be most frequent along roads where access is easier. The flora of such areas is generally similar to that of intact blanket bog however it is often much poorer in species due to the effects of disturbance and drainage. The most frequent plant species of cutover areas are generally Eriophorum angustifolium, Molinia caerulea, Calluna vulgaris and the moss Hypnum cupressiforme. These species can tolerate a degree of habitat drainage and indeed their cover tends to increase as drainage progresses. In older cutover areas, which have not been disturbed for some time, wet cutaway pools can occur and these can have high cover of Sphagnum species.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 20 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Eroding blanket bog (PB5) (Fossitt, 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – None Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code – Wet modified bog (E1.7) Eroding blanket bog is characterised by a high cover of bare peat surface and the increased presence of certain bog plant species, most notably Trichophorum cespitosum, Juncus bulbosus and, in places, Nardus stricta. The habitat appears to be most frequently encountered on areas of blanket bog where there is a history of intensive livestock grazing. The combination of heavy grazing and the high annual rainfall experienced in north-west Mayo leads to the further washing away of peat which ultimately results in a very hummocky peat surface and low floristic diversity, as is present at Aghoos.
Scrub (WS1) (Fossitt, 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – None for Ulex europaeus scrub Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code – Scrub (A2) A few small areas of scrub occur at Aghoos, near the Leenamore River inlet. These are typically dominated by Gorse (Ulex europaeus).
Conifer plantation (WD4) (Fossitt 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – None Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code – Coniferous plantation (A1.2.2) Coniferous plantation is a commonly occurring habitat and is quite extensive to the north of the Bellanaboy Bridge Gas Terminal. The plantations comprise extensive areas of Pinus contorta and Picea sitchensis which have been planted on blanket peat over a number of decades. When the conifer crops have grown well the shading effects and deposited pine needle litter kills off much of the native bog flora apart from Molinia caerulea and the mosses Hypnum cupressiforme and Sphagnum capillifolium. In areas where the plantation is young or poorly grown however a modified bog flora still persists. The dominant blanket bog plant species in such situations are often Calluna vulgaris, Molinia caerulea and the moss Sphagnum capillifolium, which produces large hummocks in drained areas.
Recently felled woodland (WS5) (Fossitt, 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – None Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code – Recently-felled coniferous woodland (A4.2) Recently felled coniferous plantation is found occasionally within larger areas of coniferous plantation to the north of the terminal site. The resulting ground surface is dominated by cut tree stumps and a disturbed flora which includes Dryopteris dilatata, Epilobium angustifolium, Calluna vulgaris, Molinia caerulea, Juncus effusus, Rubus fruticosus and the mosses Hypnum cupressiforme and Rhytidiadelphus loreus.
Earth banks (BL2) (Fossitt, 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – None Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code – Earth bank (J2.8) Earthen (sod) banks are a type of field boundary encountered on the Glengad section of the route; usually with a post and wire fence on top, and generally between 1 and 1.5 metres tall.
Eroding/upland rivers (FW1) (Fossitt 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation (3260) Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code – Oligotrophic running water (G2.3) This is the closest habitat type to the small streams found in the study area. The vegetation of stream channels is sparse, with the aquatic species Potamogeton natans and Juncus bulbosus typically present. In suitable areas along the margins, where periodic flooding occurs, a zone of wet grassland typically develops. This grassland vegetation is typically quite species-poor and dominated by Juncus effusus. Other frequent species include Anthoxanthum odoratum, Polytrichum commune, Holcus lanatus and various Sphagnum species. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 21 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Drainage ditches (FW4) (Fossitt 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – None Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code – Mesotrophic running water (G2.2) Drainage ditches are generally not a prominent feature of the survey area and, because of their relatively small size, were not mapped. They tend to be most frequent along the edges of coniferous plantations and roads where drainage is required. The vegetation of such ditches reflects the dominant adjoining habitat
Estuaries (MW4) (Fossitt, 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – Estuaries (1130) Sruwaddacon Bay is an example of estuarine habitat. At low tide, large areas of sand flats are exposed throughout the length of the estuary and these provide feeding grounds for a range of wading bird species. The estuary receives most of its freshwater input from the Glenamoy and Muingnabo rivers which enter at the eastern end of the bay.
Muddy sand shores (LS3) (Fossitt, 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code: Mudflats and sand flats not covered by sea water at low tide (1140). Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code: Mud/sand (H1.1) This habitat usually occurs in sheltered areas and occurs at the western side of the lower estuary crossing and in Sruwaddacon Bay.
Tidal rivers (CW2) (Fossitt, 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – Estuaries (1130) Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code – Brackish running water (G2.6) The Glenamoy River is tidal where it flows into Sruwaddacon Bay. At this location the banks of the river are fringed by salt marsh vegetation, which is particularly extensive along its eastern bank.
Lower salt marsh (CM1) (Fossitt, 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco- Puccinellietalia maritimae) (1330) Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code – Saltmarsh (H2) Lower salt marsh occurs close to the high water mark along the shores of Sruwaddacon bay. At the mouth of the bay, lower salt marsh occurs on wet sand while further up the estuary it tends to occur on a firm silt/sand mixture. The vegetation is typically species-poor, low growing and is generally dominated by varying mixtures of Juncus gerardii, Puccinellia maritima and Glaux maritima. Other frequent plant species include Armeria maritima, Plantago maritima and Festuca rubra. In general, lower salt marsh occurs lower down the shore than the following habitat - upper salt marsh, and thus is inundated by sea water for longer periods of the time. The fringe saltmarsh encountered on the proposed route is largely Lower Saltmarsh.The vegetation of salt marshes is described by Curtis and Skeffington (1998)
Upper salt marsh (CM2) (Fossitt, 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) (1410) and Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) (1330) Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code – Saltmarsh (H2) In common with most types of salt marsh habitat in Ireland the vegetation is typically species-poor, tending to be dominated by swards of the tall rush Juncus maritimus with other associated plant species, e.g. Plantago maritima, Festuca rubra and Triglochin maritimum, having a low cover. The occurrence of upper salt marsh further up the shore viz-a-viz lower salt marsh means it is inundated by sea water for relatively short periods of time. The best example of this habitat, within the wider study area, was identified along the eastern banks of the Glenamoy River, and the upper reaches of Sruwaddacon Bay, with patches present at the Leenamore River inlet and also in places along the southern shore of the Bay.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 22 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Embryonic dunes (CD1) (Fossitt, 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – Embryonic shifting dunes (2110) Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code – Open dune (H6.8) Embryonic dunes are present at the Glengad sand dune system at the mouth of Sruwaddacon Bay, including to the east of the sand dune system where small areas of flat sand are also colonised by sparse growths of Elymus farctus (formerly ‘juncea’). Such areas probably represent one of the earliest stages of dune formation, however it is not known if such features are long-lived. This habitat type does not occur on or immediately adjacent to the proposed route.
Fixed dunes (CD3) (Fossitt, 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”) (2130) which is listed as a Priority Habitat under the Habitats Directive. Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code – Dune grassland (H6.5) Fixed dune grassland lies to the north of the proposed route at Glengad. Species include: Perennial rye grass, Lolium perenne and Sand sedge, Carex arenaria as dominants with Annual meadow grass, Poa annua in the more open, disturbed portions. Other species include Common bird’s foot trefoil, Lotus corniculatus, Yarrow, Achillea millefolium, White clover, Trifolium repens, Lady’s bedstraw, Galium verum and Ribwort plantain, Plantago lanceolata. In the past this area of dune grassland has been subject to intensive livestock grazing which would account for the high cover of agricultural grassland species such as Lolium perenne and Cirsium spp. A number of conspicuous bare sand areas also occur to the north of the proposed route and these are clearly visible on the aerial photograph. The vegetation of dune systems and associated habitats is described by Curtis (1991a and 1991b), also by Gaynor (2006).
Buildings and artificial surfaces (BL3) (Fossitt, 2000) Equivalent EU Annex 1 habitat and code – None Equivalent Phase 1 survey habitat and code – J3.6 The main type of artificial surface encountered within this survey is tarmac road with un-metalled bog turbary roads also occasional. The bog mat road and stone road to the north of the Terminal at Bellanaboy are both included in this classification.
3.2.1 Route description
Habitat mapping is shown in Ecology Figure 1, habitat sheets 1 to 3. Habitat classification follows that set out in the Heritage Council’s Guide to Irish Habitats (Fossitt, 2000). The route is summarised in habitat terms in Table 1. Approximate chainages are given below, and in Table 2, as an indication of location rather than an exact line of definition between habitat types. This is because the interface between most habitat types is generally a gradual one, with one vegetation type merging into another.
The following is a description of the habitats along and adjacent to the proposed route, incuding includes those habitats under which the proposed tunnel will pass.
Glengad (83.400 to 84.050)
The landfall is on the westerly shore at Glengad where the low cliff is of glacial till. Part of the cliff here comprises the section which has been cut several times and reinstated once the offshore pipeline had been installed in 2009. (Plate 1, Appendix 15)
A Sand Martin colony is located in the soft cliffs to the north and north east of the landfall at Glengad.
This area has been subject to topsoil stripping several times between 2002 and 2009, and was fully reinstated following the completion of offshore pipeline works in autumn 2009. Currently, this area area comprises mostly bare soil, but the vegetation is starting to EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 23 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) regenerate. It is in this area that the proposed landfall valve installation and its associated site compound (SC1) will be located. (Plates 1 and 2, and 3, Appendix 15).
Continuing eastwards, the pipeline route lies in improved agricultural grassland, which is regularly grazed by sheep. Some of this area now also comprises bare soil with regenerating vegetation following the offshore pipeline works in 2008 and 2009 (Plate 2, Appendix 15). The improved and semi-improved grassland through which the route passes is located at the south-western boundary of Glenamoy Bog Complex cSAC 500, within the cSAC buffer zone, but the route avoids the highly mobile dune system and associated fixed dune grasslands to the north. (Plate 4, Appendix 15).
The area to the south of the dunes has in the past, and is still, subject to intensive grazing by cattle and sheep. Gaynor (2001) noted that this has led to the development of “dry” grassland which, although it maintains floristic elements of its ‘dune’ origins, it is essentially an enriched (improved) grassland community (GA1). The dominant species are Perennial rye grass (Lolium perenne), Red fescue (Festuca rubra), Crested dogstail (Cynosurus cristatus), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), Daisy (Bellis perennis), Ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), Red clover (Trifolium pratense), White clover (T. repens), Selfheal (Prunella vulgaris), Black knapweed (Centaurea nigra), Creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Yarrow (Achillea millefolium). Ecology Figure 1, habitat sheet 1, shows that improved/semi-improved grassland (GA1) is dominant, particularly in those sections through which the proposed pipeline route runs.
To the north of the route there is evidence of rubbish having been dumped in the dune grasslands in the past: the remains of a car were noted in 2001 to 2003, and currently an old (apparently domestic) rubbish dump is being exposed by erosion. (Plate 5, Appendix 15).
The agricultural lands become wetter towards the eastern half of the Glengad section. The vegetation here is a mosaic of wet, rushy, improved grassland, dominated by Juncus effusus (Soft rush) and Juncus articulatus (Jointed rush); and some marshy areas associated with a small stream which flows in a north easterly direction. Gaynor (2001) noted that “The vegetation varies considerably depending on the moisture content of the substrate. … Where the land has been improved, or is subject to higher levels of grazing, then perennial rye grass (Lolium perenne) and creeping fescue (Festuca rubra), mouse-eared chickweed (Cerastium fontanum), field buttercup (Ranunculus acris), white clover (Trifolium repens), broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), daisy (Bellis perennis), and greater plantain (Plantago major), are more common”.
The site compound (SC2) for the tunnel reception pit will be located in an area dominated by wet rushy, improved grassland, part of which is within the cSAC. Most field boundaries along this part of the route comprise post and wire fences, with earthen (sod) banks in places.
The marshy area was described in 2001 as follows: “The dominants include soft rush (Juncus effusus), compact rush (J. conglomeratus), jointed rush (J. articulatus), common sedge (Carex nigra) and star sedge (Carex echinata). Locally the moss species Rhytidiadelphus sqarrosus ad Calliergon cuspidatum can be abundant. A high proportion of wetland herbs are found, including water horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), yellow flag (Iris pseudacorus), marsh ragwort (Senecio aquaticus), marsh marigold (Caltha palustris), marsh willowherb (Epilobium palustre) and bog pimpernel (Anagallis tenella).” (Plate 6, Appendix 15)
Progressive degradation of the wet grassland and marshy area has been noted from observations since 2002. This may be a result of grazing and trampling by cattle, or tracking by farm vehicles. Rushes, particularly Juncus effusus (Soft rush), are far more abundant now than in 2001.
The Juncus and Iris - dominated areas merge into the small area of salt marsh at the Glengad side of the lower crossing. Since 2005 this area of salt marsh has become degraded from run off from above and in places deeply rutted from tracking vehicles. This has led to the encroachment by Juncus effusus. There is no longer a defined boundary to the landward side
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 24 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) of the salt marsh which is species poor and dominated at the estuarine edge by Glaux maritima (Sea milkwort) and Puccinellia maritima (Common saltmarsh-grass).
Sruwaddacon Bay (84.050 to 88.640)
The intertidal sand and mud flats within the route at the Glengad side of the estuary have little vegetation, though to the north of the route is an area of accretion upon which salt marsh vegetation is becoming established. (Plate 7, Appendix 15 and Ecology Figure 1 Habitat sheet 1, N7) Occasional rounded hard “pebbles” of peat occur; these are the eroded remnants of peat brought down by the Pollatomish landslide in 2003. They have been noted with Enteromorpha and - to a lesser extent Zostera (Eel grass) - attached.
The estuarine and intertidal habitats of Sruwaddacon Bay are described in Chapter 14, Marine Environment.
South of Sruwaddacon Bay (88.640 to 91.720)
Continuing under the southern shore of Sruwaddacon Bay the tunnel passes beneath a narrow fringe of salt marsh (Ch. 88.640 to 88.645), and a short section of undesignated blanket bog which is showing signs of recovering from apparently past overgrazing.
From chainage 88.690, the pipeline route is under - then from chainage 88.770 through - an area of undesignated blanket bog. This is heavily eroded in places and is subject to ongoing active erosion, as was noted during three site visits in early 2010. Old cutover – almost cutaway - is present in this area towards the road. The Aghoos tunnelling compound (SC3) will be in this location. (Plate 9, Appendix 15)
The peat erosion is particularly severe between chainages 88.850 to 89.110 with 50 to 70% bare peat surface evident in places. The surface here is very fragmented and uneven, with deep peat hags (erosion channels) and exposed pine stumps. The surface vegetation is dominated by grass species such as Nardus stricta (Matt grass), a species which is characteristic of heavily overgrazed areas on acid substrates (Plate 10, appendix 15).. Pockets of dense Gorse (Ulex europeaus) scrub are present here. The pipeline stringing area will be located in this area.
Near the road, are sections of old cutover which have been almost completely cutaway in the past, resulting in shallow peat and modified vegetation. The pipeline stringing area will extend into wet, agricultural grassland - dominated by rushes - which slopes down towards the Leenamore River. (Plates 11 and 12, Appendix 15)
The route then crosses the Leenamore River, a small tidal inlet with an intact fringe salt marsh, mainly on its eastern shore (Plates 13 and 14, Appendix 15). The salt marsh comprises small areas of two types of salt-marsh vegetation namely tall vegetation, dominated by the rush Juncus maritimus and tightly grazed vegetation dominated by the salt marsh grass Puccinellia maritima. The adjacent bed of Sruwaddacon bay is quite stony and is dominated by a variety of brown seaweeds (Fucus sp.).
Gorse scrub is present on either side of the inlet (Plates 13 – 15, Appendix 15). Wet, rushy, grassland habitat along the proposed route dominates two small sloping fields on either side of the Leenamore inlet. (Plate 15, Appendix 15) The vegetation is dominated by the rush Juncus effusus and the moss Calliergonella cuspidata. Other conspicuous species in the vegetation include Cynosurus cristatus, Trifolium repens, Cardamine pratensis and Galium palustre. These small fields of wet grassland are grazed tightly by livestock.
Between chainages 89.350 to 89.540 there is a short section of approximately 190 metres of undesignated, formerly somewhat eroded from past overgrazing, but which is continuing to recover, so is now classified as more or less intact (PB5/PB3). However, erosion is continuing
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 25 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) in places, especially towards the shore of the Bay, to the north of the route. The blanket bog vegetation at this location is described in more detail in Appendix 16 (Plate 16, Appendix 15)
The pipeline route then enters a coniferous plantation, crosses the L1202, and skirts a small area of non-designated blanket bog which occupies a triangle between the south side of the road and the forest edge. There is a short section of more or less intact, though eroding, non- designated blanket bog before entering coniferous plantation (Plates 17 and 18, Appendix 15). The pipeline route crosses the Glenamoy to Pollatomish road and skirts a small area of non-designated, formerly a high quality intact lowland blanket bog habitat, this has been subject to recent mechanical peat cutting. It occupies a triangle between the south side of the road and the forest edge at Bellagelly South.
The route then passes along a section of bog mat and the stone road through the clear-felled conifer plantation to the Bellanaboy Bridge Gas Terminal (Plate 19, Appendix 15).
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 26 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Table 1: Summary of habitat types occurring on and near the proposed route, showing their affinities to EU Annex habitats and the JNCC Phase 1 classification
Guide to Habitats in Ireland Equivalent EU Annex 1 Habitat Equivalent JNCC Habitat and (Fossitt, 2000) Habitat (code) and (code no.) (code)
Improved agricultural None Improved grassland (B4) grassland(GA1) Wet grassland (GS4) None for wet grassland Marsh/marshy grassland (B5) dominated by Juncus effusus Marsh (GM1) None Marsh/marshy grassland (B5) Lowland blanket bog (PB3)§ Blanket bog* (7130) and Blanket bog (E1.6.1) Depressions on peat surfaces of the Rhynchosporion (7150) Cutover bog (PB4) Depressions on peat surfaces of Wet modified bog (E1.7) the Rhynchosporion (7150) Eroding blanket bog (PB5) None Wet modified bog (E1.7) Scrub (WS1) None for Ulex europaeus scrub Scrub (A2) Conifer plantation (WD4) None Coniferous plantation (A1.2.2) Recently felled woodland (WS5) None Recently-felled coniferous woodland (A4.2) Earth banks (BL2) None Earth bank (J2.8) Eroding/upland rivers (FW1) Water courses of plain to Oligotrophic running water (G2.3) montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation (3260) Drainage ditches (FW4) None Mesotrophic running water (G2.2) Estuaries (MW4) Estuaries (1130) Brackish running water (G2.6) Muddy sand shores (LS3) Mudflats and sand flats not Mud/sand (H1.1) covered by sea water at low tide (1140). Tidal rivers (CW2) Estuaries (1130) Brackish running water (G2.6) Lower salt marsh (CM1) Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco- Saltmarsh (H2) Puccinellietalia maritimae) (1330) Upper salt marsh (CM2) Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco- Saltmarsh (H2) Puccinellietalia maritimae) (1330) Sedimentary sea cliffs (CS3) None Soft cliff (H8,2) At landfall† Sedimentary sea cliffs (CS3) – † Corresponds “loosely” to Soft cliff (H8,2) (north-facing to the north of the Vegetated sea cliffs of the landfall †) Atlantic and Baltic Coasts (1230)
Embryonic dunes (CD1) Embryonic shifting dunes (2110) Open dune (H6.8) Fixed dunes (CD3) Fixed coastal dunes with Dune grassland (H6.5) herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”) (2130)* Buildings and artificial surfaces None Built up areas (J3.6) (BL3) ‡ * indicates EU Annex 1 priority habitat; § in this case, formerly heavily grazed lowland blanket bog which shows signs of good recovery ( PB5/PB3). † Refer to habitat evaluation in Appendix J section 4; ‡ this includes man made surfaces including the bog mat and stone roads at the Bellanaboy end of the route.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 27 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Table 2: Habitats present along the proposed route showing approximate chainages
Chainage Main habitat(s) Comment Route Sections From To Landfall and 83.38 83.40 Upper shore line and reinstated The landfall. Onshore habitats sedimentary cliff at Glengad 83.400 83.825 Improved agricultural grassland Immediately to the east of the landfall soft cliff lies (prior to the offshore pipeline an area of formerly relatively species poor landfall works in 2008 and improved grassland. Lies within the cSAC. 2009) Reinstated in September 2009, this area comprises mostly bare soil and the vegetation is starting to regenerate. The LVI and LVI site compound (SC1) will be located in this area.
83.825 83.900 Improved agricultural grassland A mosaic dominated by wet, rushy grassland. and wet, rushy grassland. Boundaries of these vegetation types merge and so are not well-defined. Some of this section of the route lies within the cSAC. Site compound SC3 will be located in an area of wet, rushy / improved grassland. Tunnel 83.900 88.770 The tunnel will pass underneath the following habitats
83.900 84.025 Improved agricultural A mosaic of improved grassland, wet, rushy grassland; wet, rushy grassland grassland and marshy areas dominated by Iris and marsh pseudacorus (Yellow Flag). Boundaries of these vegetation types merge and so are not well- defined. Some of this section of the route lies within the cSAC.
84.025 84.050 Lower salt marsh The boundary between the marshy areas and the salt marsh is not clearly defined. Part of the cSAC, the salt marsh is very species poor, with increased growth of rushes in recent years.
84.050 88.640 Estuary and intertidal Sruwaddacon Bay (cSAC/pSPA)
88.640 88.645 Salt marsh Narrow fringe on southern shoreline
88.645 88.690 Recovering lowland blanket Formerly eroding blanket bog. bog (undesignated)
88.690 88.770 Heavily Eroded blanket bog Aghoos tunnelling compound (SC3) in this location (undesignated)
Onshore habitats 88.770 91.720 from Aghoos to Bellanaboy 88.770 88. 850 Heavily Eroded blanket bog (undesignated) Aghoos tunnelling compound (SC3) in this location 88.850 89.110 Severely eroded blanket bog Heavily grazed in the past, the surface is broken with some old cutover by deep erosion channels Some old cutover (undesignated) present at the extreme SE of the pipe stringing area in this location. Occasional small patches of Gorse scrub and along sides of drains in places. 89.110 89.200 Wet grassland Scrub Gorse scrub along lower field boundary 89.200 89.260 Inlet and Salt marsh Salt marsh occurs as a narrow fringe along the shore of the inlet. Leenamore River crossing Scrub Small patches of Gorse scrub 89.260 89.350 Wet grassland 89.350 89.540 Recovering eroded blanket bog Formerly eroding blanket bog with a cover of bare (undesignated) peat generally between 10 and 20%
89.540 91.720 Coniferous forestry This includes the route section through the clear- (of varying age class, including felled conifer plantation to the north of the clear felled; and also includes terminal. artificial surfaces (public road, bog mat and stone roads etc.) Ends at Bellanaboy Gas terminal
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 28 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
3.3 Fauna (non-avian)
The coastal and estuarine portions of the area provide the principal faunal habitats of interest. The proposed route includes areas of blanket bog habitat, coniferous plantation, improved grassland, wet, rushy, grassland, and also small pockets of scrub habitat.
A list of Irish mammalian, amphibian and reptilian species is included in Appendix 2 of this report, along with their adjudged status in the area. Signs of mammal species of interest observed during the present study are indicated on the accompanying Figures. Signs noted during previous surveys are also included and these have been mapped separately. Observations of fauna of interest from surveys at the Bellanaboy Bridge Gas Terminal site and similar related surveys are not included in present mapping but are referred to in the text.
3.3.1 Otters
Otters are a protected species under Annex II and IV of the EU Habitats Directive and are also protected under the Irish Wildlife Acts. The various faunal surveys since 2002 have paid particular attention to this species. The surveys serve as a baseline study of otter activity in the Bay area. Otter signs are mapped in Ecology Figure 2, Fauna In the mapping of earlier surveys, ‘H’ indicates a potential holt or resting place and ‘S’ indicates a sprainting site. In 2010, the shoreline caves that are used by otters or potentially used by otters have been separated and are mapped with a CV prefix, whilst otter holts are mapped with a H prefix. (refer to the appendices for details).
3.3.1.1 Surveys 2002 to 2005
Otter surveys from 2002 have revealed otter signs along all coastal and estuarine portions of Sruwaddacon Bay and also along the adjacent freshwater reaches of the Glenamoy and Muingnabo Rivers to the east. Otters will travel inland up smaller drains and streams from the coast to take advantage of frogs and other prey within bog habitats.
Most otter signs at the west were concentrated along the shores at the estuary’s mouth, where there are low cliffs on both sides. There was an abundance of fresh and older spraints along these shores and many feeding sites. Crabs and crayfish are a favourite prey of otters and numerous feeding and sprainting sites were found along the rocky shores on both sides of the Bay. Spraints with fish remains were also frequent.
Otters have large ranges. It is certain that the same individuals also forage along at the dune system and at the landfall area of Glengad. Several otter spraints were observed along the low cliffs of glacial tills at the landfall (adjacent to the sand martin colony there) and an otter has been observed feeding off-shore in this area also.
Few fresh signs were found along the northern shoreline to the south east of Rossport pier. Information from NPWS had suggested that an otter holt might be present in that area; several burrows were found there (H6 and H7), one with a small fresh water channel (often a requirement for holt locations); neither were large but may have been occasional holts. H1 and H5 were small dens created by rabbits or foxes and also may serve as occasional otter resting places. A small cave at shore level (H2) had fresh spraints in it at time of summer survey in 2002 and appeared to have a tunnel system behind; this is a certain resting place for otters.
On the southern side of the Bay, a pronounced path led from a major and fresh sprainting site on rocks by the shore and a holt was suspected there (H9). However, despite intensive search through dense scrub, no holt could be found. Near the landfall, two small burrow systems (H4 and H11) were identified as potential occasional otter resting places, one with spraints at the entrance (H11) – but this burrow system had also been used by foxes (in 2007 survey also).
In previous surveys, otter spraints were found at most streams or small rivers entering the Bay. Overall, signs of otter activity were fewer along the shores of the main body of EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 29 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Sruwaddacon Bay whilst not all these areas had been searched in earlier surveys. Survey in 2007 revealed substantial otter activity along some southern portions of the central part of the Bay, principally where there are some low cliffs.
At the eastern end of the bay, otter activity was significant with numerous sprainting signs, occasional feeding stations, and well marked otter paths along the salt marshes. This is a secluded and quiet section of the Bay, with semi-mature coniferous plantation along the southern shore and younger plantation along portions of the northern shore. Most of the inlet has a narrow fringe of salt marsh along both shores; although this is inundated during spring tides or when strong winds lash the shores, otters and other mammals frequent these salt marsh flats. There are strong mammal paths on both shores, especially on the south side, and otter spraints were found at prominent promontory positions.
A series of fresh footprints were found near the confluence of the estuary with the Glenamoy River and it is likely that a holt is located in that area; most of the coniferous woodland is impenetrable and difficult to search. The deep peats of the former blanket bog extend to the shores, where they have been eroded by the river and tides, often forming high banks up to 3m in height. Within these banks are many hollows and tunnels, any of which might be used as resting places by otters on occasion, but only one was identified as a potential otter holt (H10).
The range of otters at the eastern end of the Bay certainly extends to the central portion of the Bay also, and an otter was seen foraging in daylight hours at the river inlet east of Aghoos village. There were further occasional spraints, some fresh and some old, along the low peaty banks along the south shore near there. As usual, small streams entering the bay were marked by otters.
On the north shore of the central Bay area, however, sprainting signs were very few and none at all were found along a considerable stretch of the shoreline there. The reason for this partly appears to be the lack of suitable sprainting sites: poor stony soils of adjoining grasslands extend down to the beach, with few notable promontories or other large features or tributary streams. Larger features, such as the small inlet on the north shore, were marked (e.g. spraint site S12). The shorelines along the central part of Sruwaddacon Bay are mostly of marginal or semi-improved, wet, grassland. The landscape is relatively open and provides little cover for foraging animals.
A survey was conducted of rivers and streams entering the Bay. Sprainting sites were found at most suitable locations searched along various watercourses close to roads: on the Glenamoy River, the Muingnabo River and, to the north, the Gweedaney River, and their tributaries. This is entirely to be expected as otters are present on most river systems in Ireland. For example, survey of otter presence on all larger streams and rivers crossed by the proposed Mayo-Galway gas pipeline (from Terminal to Craughwell, Co. Galway) revealed positive signs at all but one watercourse along the c. 150km route (Smal, pers. obs.).
Otter signs were also found on the Aghoos River (2002-2005), west of the Gas Terminal site, and further signs were found on this River south of Bellanaboy Bridge.
An otter holt and fresh spraints were found within the edge of the Gas Terminal site – at a distance of c. 80m from the Aghoos River; the burrows there did not always appear to be active (various inspections from 2002 to 2009) but with the subterranean stream and numerous entrances, the holt has all the characteristics of a principal holt. No other holts were known from the Terminal site but the cover within young coniferous plantation ruled out intensive search (in related surveys). Otters may use above ground couches (similar to badger day-nests) within the area.
The abundance of frogs Rana temporaria at the Gas Terminal site has been noted in related reports and they are a seasonal prey of otters. Otters may forage over the site from the direction of the otter holt found there. Otters may also enter the Gas Terminal site from the Muingingaun tributary of the Aghoos River (confluence with the Aghoos River just south of Bellanaboy Bridge) or from a small tributary of the Glenamoy River at the east (Bellagelly EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 30 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
South); this tributary joins the Glenamoy River immediately south of the Glenamoy Bridge across the R314 and the only significant stream on the Gas Terminal site flows to this tributary.
Sightings of otters noted during bird surveys are included in the Figures. One adult male otter was found dead as a result of collision with vehicles (in 2005) on the Glenamoy-Carrowteige road, close to a larger tributary of the Glenamoy River.
3.3.1.2 Survey 2007 and 2008
As in previous surveys, otter signs were found at many locations along the shoreline of Sruwaddacon Bay and also along the adjacent reaches of the Glenamoy River at the east.
It was noted, as per earlier surveys, that otter activity was concentrated at the western and eastern ends of the Bay on both the north2 and south shores. The present study revealed otter signs along the central portion on the southern side of the Bay also. As before, few signs were present on the northern side of the central portion of the Bay. Again, it was observed that crabs are a favourite prey of otters and numerous feeding and sprainting sites containing crab remains were found along the rocky shores on both sides of the bay in the vicinity of both crossings of Sruwaddacon Bay. Spraints with fish remains were also frequent.
As in earlier surveys, otter spraints were found at most streams or small rivers entering the Bay and well used otter paths that stretched along much of the south side of the Bay were also identified – more so than in earlier surveys. To the east of the Bay, beside the Glenamoy River, an interesting otter site was identified: this appeared to be an unusual otter ‘wallow’ – this was a pool (rather muddy at time of survey after a period of dry weather) that would contain clean fresh water much of the year. It was situated within coniferous plantation (away from the river, which is tidal at that location and therefore brackish). A strong otter and fox path is present there and the edge of the pool/wallow was heavily marked with fresh and old spraints (spraint site S51). It seems likely that otters are using the pool to wash off excess salt accumulated on their coats from swimming in salt water. Fresh otter footprints were observed there also.
The survey conducted to the east of Aghoos village in December 2008 identified four otter sprainting sites. Two of these were at or close to previously reported sprainting sites, and two were new locations. In addition, an otter was observed just off-shore. This adult otter was foraging c. 30m offshore west of the Leenamore River and it continued to forage offshore to the east of the River within the tidal area of Sruwaddacon Bay.
Signs of otters were also noted on the western side of Broadhaven Bay, opposite Sruwaddacon Bay, near Ballyglass Pier, indicating their presence in the greater area.
The survey area in 2007 included a significant stretch of the Aghoos River. One potential otter holt and a number of otter sprainting sites, including fresh spraints and an otter smear were identified along the River here. In July 2008 an adult otter was observed crossing the local road just north of Gate 2 at the Bellanaboy Gas Terminal, moving in an easterly direction away from the Aghoos River.
3.3.1.3 Survey 2010
A re-assessment of otter and other mammal activity within the Bay area was undertaken in February and March 2010. The results are mapped on Figures 2.8 to 2.14. The survey area extended from the confluence of the Muingnabo and Glenamoy Rivers at the east, to the coastal dunes at Glengad; and included survey of coastal areas at Glengad; and an area west of Rossport pier.
2 Fresh otter tracks and feeding signs were noted in the intertidal zone near the northern shore of the Bay by surveyors during marine surveys in December 2007
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 31 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
This survey revealed use of all the Bay area by otters, much as had been identified in previous surveys. Survey of the Bay area west of Rossport pier in 2010 identified considerable otter activity in that area. Footprints and other signs clearly indicated active otter activity in the Glengad area and also at the Leenamore River. Two otters were seen by bird surveyors to the rear of dunes (on 26th February 2010), confirming earlier observations of fresh tracks there. An otter has also been sighted several times in the Bay in the vicinity of the Leenamore River inlet. Of interest was a small stream on the north side of the Bay which was clearly used by otters as a place for washing their fur (coastal otters need to wash saltwater from their fur to maintain its insulation). Undoubtedly, otters use many of the small streams and rivers that enter the Bay for washing also.
An occasional holt is present to the south west of the landfall at Glengad. Signs noted during survey in 2010 indicated use of this burrow by otters. However, the burrow also shows signs of occasional use by foxes - as was found to be the case in previous surveys. This burrow was subsequently checked for otter activity in April 2010, during a period of settled weather, and no otter signs were present at that time. Fox signs were present as before
An active holt is present at the confluence of the rivers at the eastern end of the Bay.
In 2010, considerable otter activity was observed to the west of Rossport pier (north side of the Bay), an area not included in previous surveys. Other otter holts are certain to be present in the area - outside those areas surveyed to date. Natal holts are usually well away from main watercourses and shorelines.
Consideration of otter numbers in the Bay is given in a later section.
3.3.1.4 Otter holts and resting places
In surveys prior to 2010 survey, many shoreline caves used by otters were identified as resting places or as potential holts (and included on accompanying mapping). Otter use of many such shoreline caves was confirmed in 2010 survey. However, in 2010 surveys, shoreline caves were distinguished from otter holts in labelling on accompanying mapping (see Appendices for detail).
In 2010, 52 shoreline caves were noted, many of which served as occasional otter resting places (with bedding and/or spraints present within or just outside the entrances). These small caves situated along the coastline have been formed by coastal erosion. Only 3 holts were identified, two of which were considered to be active (of these two, the one at Glengad was considered to be an occasional holt, with some evidence of use of this burrow by foxes also). . None of the three holts identified could be confirmed as active breeding holts at time of survey in early 2010.
Despite intensive searches close to the shore, with some searches into the adjoining hinterland, no certain principal, or natal, otter holts have been found. The holt at Glengad is in use by otters on occasion; it has some potential as a breeding holt; though it is in an unusually exposed location for a breeding holt. The holt will be monitored prior to, during, and post- construction.
In Great Britain, Kruuk (1995) searched a 100m wide corridor adjacent to the shoreline to find as many holts as possible; apparently, this was a straightforward procedure in the bare, exposed, peats of Shetland – but such search was not feasible at Sruwaddacon Bay.
Certainly, no large constructions such as those found on Shetland were found in the various surveys at the Sruwaddacon Bay area – though the burrow system at the Terminal site comes closest to this, with several entrances, pools, and freshwater running in subterranean channels below the burrows.
Holts identified and other signs of otter activity have been mapped in ecology Figure 2, Fauna. These include spraints, feeding signs, footprints and paths. Details of all holts, resting EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 32 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) places, and spraints are given in the Appendices 4 to 6. Further information on otter diet, and holts is also given in Appendix 8. (see also Plates 21 to 29, Appendix 15)
3.3.1.5 Spraint surveys and otter numbers
The latest study (2010) and previous studies have assessed otter activity in the vicinity of Sruwaddacon Bay and on lands adjoining the pipeline route. The results have confirmed that otters range over most of the Bay with concentrations of activity particularly at the west and east. At the Aghoos River, spraints were identified at fairly regular intervals along a section of the River signifying their presence along the entire watercourse.
The surveys and otter observations in 2010 indicate that two otters (probably a female - as adjudged by footprint size - and large cub) are present at Glengad and in the dunes area; and a larger otter (probably a male) is present at the east of Sruwaddacon Bay. The nature of surveys conducted to date cannot provide more definite appreciation of otter numbers using Sruwaddacon Bay. It is considered unlikely that the number of otters using the Bay is more than about 4 in total, and there may only be two breeding adults present.
Further information on sprainting evidence as an indication of otter numbers is given in the Appendices.
3.3.2 Badgers
Badgers are known to be present at the Terminal site and in the Bay area generally. The location of a main (breeding) sett is not known, but several badger setts have been identified in the area. These are marked on the fauna mapping in Figure 2 with a BS prefix. Previously, a main sett was present at the north-west of the Terminal area, but this has been inactive in recent years. Several badgers have been killed (road traffic casualties) on the R314 and another was found in early 2009 along the Pollatomish road. These casualties may account for the relative lack of badger activity during recent surveys on the south side of the Bay. However, a recent faunal survey (2010) to the south of the R314 in connection with the Bord Gáis Mayo to Galway pipeline revealed considerable badger activity continuing in that area.
An active badger sett is known on the north side of the Bay also, whilst signs of badgers foraging along the coast on the north side of the Bay were few.
On the south side of the Bay, badger footprints and foraging signs were observed in earlier surveys. Foraging signs were found at the edge of the coniferous plantation (east of Aghoos). More recently, in December 2008, badger rooting was identified at Aghoos just west of the Leenamore River, with badgers foraging on the improved pasture field there. No signs of badger feeding were found within the degraded bog habitats present along this portion of the route. A badger sett had previously been found closer to Aghoos village also. In February 2010, badger foraging signs were found next to the shore between Aghoos and Pollatomish. The strong mammal paths observed along many parts of the shore have been created by otters and foxes in the main, but badgers are probably using these paths also.
Setts identified and other signs of badger activity have been mapped on the accompanying Figures. These include feeding signs, latrines, and paths. Details of all setts found in the Bay area are included in Appendix 3.
3.3.3 Other mammalian species
Signs of brown rats Rattus norvegicus and long-tailed fieldmouse Apodemus sylvaticus were noted on occasion along the surveyed areas. The house mouse Mus musculus domesticus might be present at dwellings and farmsteads in the area but is likely to be scarce or perhaps absent in this locality Also present is the pygmy shrew Sorex minutus - observed during a
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 33 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) previous survey (May 2002) on the south side of the Bay; this a widespread and common species.
No signs of hedgehog Erinaceous europaeus were noted but this species is wide-ranging and is certain to be present (it has been observed by local people south of Bellanaboy).
Fox Vulpes vulpes signs are present and frequent in the area. The mammal paths observed along the coast have been created principally by otters, foxes and in some cases sheep. Some human movements along the shoreline also contribute to the observed paths. Interestingly, fox droppings at various locations (mainly at the east of the Bay) revealed that their diet includes crabs, indicating that they regularly forage along the shoreline. A fox carcase was found along the saltmarsh to the east of Aghoos near the formerly consented upper crossing (2002). No fox signs were found during the 2008 commonage surveys, however this species is known to occur in the area and will be present on occasion
The Irish stoat Mustela erminea hibernica is wide-ranging and may occur in the area, but no evidence was noted in surveys carried out for this assessment.
Active rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus signs were infrequent or absent in most of the Bay area. Active rabbit burrows are present (and frequent) within and adjacent to the sand dune system to the north of the route at Glengad.
The Irish hare Lepus timidus hibernicus is present in the area and signs of this species were observed both within the Sruwaddacon Bay area and north of the Bellanaboy Bridge Gas Terminal site. Numerous hare droppings have been observed on paths and conifer plantation rides at the south-east of the Bay and also at the Gas Terminal site. This species is widespread in Ireland and is common on pastureland and on blanket bog habitats.
No signs of either the grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis or the red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris were observed either in this or in previous studies in the area. Both species appear to absent from the large coniferous plantations in north and west Co. Mayo (Teangana et al., 2000). Neither species are expected to occur on site.
The pine marten Martes martes has increased its range across Ireland and is now known to be present in north Co. Mayo (O’Mahony et al., 2005). Presence of this species has been confirmed (sightings and droppings) in various surveys at the Terminal site and they are expected to be present within the coniferous plantation along the route. No signs were found during the 2007 survey, however the most recent sighting - which was photographed, (Plate 31, Appendix 15) - was adjacent to the previously approved pipeline route in an area of felled conifer plantation at Bellanaboy (pers. comm. to J.Neff, 2007). A male pine marten was killed on the R314 in February 2010 (reported by the Terminal’s environmental staff)
American mink Mustela vison are known to have spread to Co. Mayo in recent years and although no signs were found in the area surveyed, one individual was observed (in September 2007) near to Bangor Erris town c. 10km from the Gas Terminal site. This is expected to be a scarce species within the survey area.
One individual red deer Cervus cervus was observed crossing the R314 from the Terminal site in 2005. Deer are, therefore, occasionally likely to be present within coniferous woodland and adjacent areas along the pipeline route. Information received from NPWS (pers. comm. to J.Neff), showed that red deer were introduced to the Altnobrockey area of the Nephin range several years ago and have subsequently spread into other parts of north Co. Mayo since their release. Previous surveys have revealed some deer droppings, but none were found in surveys from 2007 to 2010. It is known from the BGE Mayo to Galway gas pipeline corridor surveys that red deer are frequent in this part of Co. Mayo, as near Bellacorick.
The Common (Harbour) seal Phoca vitulina was recorded (CMRC,2005) during the marine mammal surveys in 2005; and during monitoring in 2007 (Collins, C., 2007) in the estuarine approaches, on sandbanks and shorelines at estuary mouth, in the estuarine channel and on shore line opposite Rossport pier. The nearest noted location in the same report for Grey EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 34 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) seal Halochoerus grypus was near Rinroe, while in 2007 this species was observed in the estuarine channel to the west of Rossport pier During the 2009/2010 winter bird surveys Common seal were noted hauled out on the shore and on sand banks at the western end, and towards the mouth, of Sruwaddacon Bay.
3.3.3.1 Bats
During the bat detector survey in 2007, three bat species were observed. However, only a few individual bats were encountered during the study. No potential bat roosts were identified and the lack of mature trees in the area means that there are few opportunities for tree roost sites.
The soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus was detected foraging along hedgerows near Aghoos Church and at Bellanaboy. Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus was was recorded in the area of Bellanaboy during a previous study at the Terminal site. Whilst no detections were made during survey in 2007, two individuals were detected on the north side of the Bay in August 2008.
Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri, which forages over agricultural landscapes, scrub and woodland was detected foraging over the Bay from various locations. It was also recorded south of Bellanaboy along the main R314 road.
Although not encountered during the 2007 survey, brown long-eared bats Plecotus auritus roost in trees and larger roof spaces. It is a very quiet species which sometimes hunts without using echolocation and so can be missed by detector. The habitats in the area are not ideal for this species, but a single individual brown long-eared bat was recorded on the north side of the Bay in 2008.
A single Myotis sp. bat was heard briefly between Aghoos and Pollatomish. This short encounter was too brief to identify the bat to species level. However, due to the absence of woodland cover which is favoured by the other three Myotis species in Ireland, it can be surmised that this was a distant Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii, which forages over open water and may have been feeding over the Bay. This species travels over considerable distances along watercourses and is also found on smaller water bodies such as ponds and pools.
Natterer’s bat M. nattereri and whiskered/Brandt’s bats M. mystacinus/M. brandtii are not expected to be in the area due to the absence of deciduous woodland and scrub and they were not encountered. Likewise, the lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros is presumed absent as the habitat is not favourable and the nearest known population is in the south of the county in the Castlebar area.
Another scarce bat is Nathusius’s pipistrelle P. nathusii, which may occur in the area occasionally. Its known roosts to date are restricted to north-east Ireland but it is being recorded more often and this may be as a result of climate change with more animals arriving from the continent.
It was concluded in general that bats are not common in the Sruwaddacon Bay area. To some extent, this was not surprising in view of the poor foraging habitats present over most of the area: e.g. bog habitats, coniferous plantations, and agricultural grasslands with few mature hedgerows. Weather conditions for survey were favourable during all bat surveys and it was expected that more Daubenton’s bats would have been heard or seen foraging over the rivers at the east of the Bay. Bats in the locality may also be hampered by relatively few roosting sites (mature trees etc.) and limited shelter (significant vegetation cover) over much of the study area.
A list of bat species is included in the Appendix 2 along with their adjudged status in the area; and further information on bat ecology and species descriptions is provided in Appendices 9 and 10. Bat detector “sightings” are mapped in Ecology Figure 2, Fauna.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 35 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
3.3.4 Amphibians and reptiles
The common frog Rana temporaria was observed at several locations along the route. Frogs are a protected species but common and widespread in the Irish countryside. Frogs are believed to be in decline in western Europe.
There are no large ponds or pools along the route but several drains were confirmed frog breeding sites. These are mapped on Ecology Figure 2, Fauna.
The species is remarkably abundant within the area of the Gas Terminal site, possibly as a result of the extent of rush-dominated wet grassland which provides good foraging habitat. It is a common prey of otters, pine martens, foxes, possibly badgers also, as well as other predators.
The common newt Triturus vulgaris is not expected in the area and no suitable ponds or pools were found. The species is relatively widespread in Ireland but it is of conservation interest (Marnell, 1994, 1998).
The common lizard Lacerta vivipara is a common species and difficult to observe; it commonly occurs on heather-dominated moors and is a frequent prey of the kestrel (Smal, unpublished). It also occurs within woodlands and in agricultural areas. It is reported locally in the area, especially on the drier, heather - dominated sections of cutover bog although no observations were made.
3.4 Birds
3.4.1 Aquatic Bird Surveys
The results of the winter season aquatic bird surveys are described below in sections 3.4.1.1 – 3.4.1.3. Indicative maps to show bird usage, and concentrations in the study area at Low Tide and High Tide, are provided in Figures 3.3 to 3.7. Explanatory notes to accompany Figures 3.3, 3.4 and 3.7 are provided in Figure 3.9.
3.4.1.1 Post Breeding Bird Activity 2007
A total of 29 species were recorded during low and high water at the outer (i.e. Sections 1 & 2), middle (i.e. Section 3) and inner sections (i.e. Sections 5 & 6) of Sruwaddacon Bay in the 2007 post breeding surveys. The outer sections of the Bay consistently had higher peak numbers and species than the middle and inner sections.
Given the time of year of this study, the species recorded were predominantly resident populations (e.g. Black-headed Gull) of Sruwaddacon Bay, with some summer migrants (e.g. Swallow) also present. Overall, bird diversity and abundance was relatively poor. Peak counts per section are available in Appendix 14. Scientific names of all species recorded are available in Appendix 13.
A total of 20 species were recorded at the outer, middle and inner sections of Sruwaddacon Bay at low water (see Appendix 13.1). A greater diversity of species was associated with the sections of the outer bay than those in the middle and inner bays. Black-headed Gull dominated all sections of the bay, followed by Oystercatcher.
A total of 24 species were recorded at the outer, middle and inner sections of Sruwaddacon Bay at high water (see Appendix 13.2). A greater diversity of species was associated with the sections of the outer bay than those of the middle and inner bays. Black-headed Gull dominated across all sections of the bay, although Black-tailed Godwit was at similar numbers in the inner section. Ringed Plover, Lesser Black-backed Gull and Oystercatcher had the next highest peak counts, but their numbers were predominately associated with the outer section.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 36 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
3.4.1.2 Winter Season Aquatic Bird activity 2007/08
A total of 43 species were recorded during bird surveys of Sruwaddacon Bay between October 2007 and April 2008. The survey results are presented in Appendices 13.3 and 13.4. Overall species diversity and abundance appeared to be similar at high water and at low water with 35 species recorded at high water and 32 at low water. A number of species were exclusively recorded during only one part of the tidal cycle, however these were mainly terrestrial species which were variable in distribution and typically occurred in low numbers.
The outer sections of Sruwaddacon Bay (i.e. Sections 1 & 2) consistently had higher peak numbers than the middle (i.e. Sections 3 & 4) and inner (i.e. Sections 5 & 6) sections of the bay during the survey period.
Given the time of year of this study, the species recorded were predominantly wintering populations (e.g. Black-headed Gull) of Sruwaddacon Bay, with some summer migrants also present late in the season (e.g. Sand Martin). A number of terrestrial species were also recorded where they occurred in close proximity to the shore (e.g. Hooded Crow and Stonechat). Overall, bird diversity and abundance was relatively poor.
Brent Geese were never recorded in the inner portion of Sruwaddacon Bay and only small numbers (maximum 9) were recorded in the middle bay. Most birds recorded during this survey of Sruwaddacon Bay were recorded foraging on the stoney/shingle ridge west of Glengad. Peak counts of Light-bellied Brent Geese were recorded in late March and early April (maximum 156) at high tide and it is possible that some additional birds from neighbouring sites converged here prior to migration. All birds had migrated from Sruwaddacon Bay by 24th of April 2008.
3.4.1.3 Winter Season Aquatic Bird activity 2008/09
A total of 52 species were recorded during bird surveys of Sruwaddacon Bay between October 2008 and April 2009. The survey results are presented in Appendices 13.5 and 13.6. Overall species diversity and abundance appeared to be similar at high water and at low water with 45 species recorded at high water and 38 at low water. A number of species were exclusively recorded during only one part of the tidal cycle; however these were mainly terrestrial species which were variable in distribution and typically occurred in low numbers.
The outer sections of Sruwaddacon Bay (i.e. Sections 1 & 2) generally had higher peak numbers than the middle (i.e. Sections 3 & 4) and inner (i.e. Sections 5 & 6) sections of the bay during the high water survey periods. During low water surveys, the middle section held higher peak numbers of birds with the notable exception of Light-bellied Brent Geese where peak numbers occurred in the outer bay area. Overall, bird diversity and abundance was relatively poor.
Light-bellied Brent Geese were recorded in all sections of Sruwaddacon Bay, although they were only recorded in the inner bay on one occasion on 27th April, 2009. The Geese were recorded within the middle section on nine separate occasions, mostly at high water, including a peak count of 147 birds on March 25th, 2009. Most birds recorded during this survey of Sruwaddacon Bay were recorded foraging on the stony/shingle ridge west of Glengad. Peak counts of Light-bellied Brent Geese were recorded in late March and April 2009 (maximum 377) and it is possible that some additional birds from neighbouring sites converged here prior to migration. Brent Geese were still present in Sruwaddacon Bay on the last survey date of April 27th, 2009.
3.4.1.4 Preliminary Winter Season Aquatic Bird activity 2009/10
Winter bird surveys are ongoing at Sruwaddacon Bay in the 2009/10 winter season. Bird distribution and abundance appears to be generally similar to previous years, however a slight shift in Brent Goose distribution is apparent at high tide. Brent Goose flocks were more regularly recorded in North Rossport Bay at high tide in the 2009/10 season than in previous seasons. Furthermore, more consistency in Brent Goose numbers at low water was found in EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 37 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) the 2009/10 winter season than in previous winters, with between 100 and 130 birds recorded throughout December, January and February. Brent Goose numbers increased from in early March, with a and the peak Brent Goose count of recorded in this season to date was 426 in mid-April (14th April 2010)., 2009).
3.4.2 Post Breeding Terrestrial Bird Survey 2007
A total of 19 species with a total peak count of 74 birds were recorded during this study (Appendix 13.7). A similar number of species was recorded at the three point counts. The Goldcrest had the highest total peak count followed by Chaffinch and Wren. Scientific names of all species recorded are available in Appendices 11 and 13.
3.4.3 Sand Martin monitoring 2008 and 2009
In total 48 active Sand Martin burrows were recorded at Glengad in the 2008 breeding season during seven survey visits. These burrows were located in the two separate sub-colonies, with 33 active burrows in Colony A 15 active burrows in Colony B. Colony A (the “original colony”) is located 30 m north of the landfall at Glengad, while Colony B is located some two hundred metres to the south west of the landfall. Colony A was active from early May to mid- August, while Colony B was active from early June to mid/late August.
Sand Martin activity was sporadic in many of these burrows, with some evidence of a proportion of the population producing multiple broods judging from the activity observed at individual burrows over an extended series of site visits, It was judged that for at least 30- 50% of the active burrows may have had more than one nesting attempt during the 2008 breeding season. The month where highest Sand Martin activity was recorded was June.
There was no evidence to suggest that the construction activities in the vicinity of the colonies had any significant impact on Sand Martin breeding activity. This was confirmed by NPWS Conservation Rangers who visited the site on a number of occasions during the 2008 landfall construction period, most notably on 14th August when they observed late season Sand Martin activity, including fledging of young. Previous Sand Martin surveys carried out in the 2005 breeding season recorded 37 apparently occupied nests (3 more than was recorded in 2004). These active burrows were located in Colony A, i.e. the original colony. This would indicate that Sand Martin breeding activity in Colony A is within the normal range of activity for this area. Colony B appears to be a relatively newly established colony and represents an increase in Sand Martin breeding activity at Glengad from previously known levels.
In the 2009 breeding season, a total of three Sand Martin Colonies were identified (Figure 3.8). Colony A and Colony B were existing colonies located at Glengad, while Colony C was located at Rinroe Strand and was substantially larger in size than had been observed in this area in 2008.
A total of 67 viable Sand Martin burrows were recorded during the 2009 breeding season surveys at Glengad. Colony monitoring showed that 35 of these burrows were active on at least one of the survey visits. That indicates an overall burrow occupancy rate of 52% of available burrows. A total of 51 viable burrows were recorded in Colony A, 16 viable burrows were available in Colony B and 56 viable burrows were available in Colony C in the 2009 breeding season. Burrow occupancy (i.e. percentage of viable burrows that were occupied) at Colony A was 65% and burrow occupancy in Colony B was 25%.
There is no evidence to suggest that the local Sand Martin breeding population in this area has declined. Conversely, it would appear that this Sand Martin population has expanded, taking advantage of larger expanses of suitable nesting habitat for colony development. At the end of the 2009 breeding season a total of 118 viable burrows were available to Sand Martins in the outer Sruwaddacon Bay area, compared to 80 (68 at Glengad and 12 at Rinroe) in the 2008 season (FTC, 2009). Furthermore, breeding success appeared to be relatively high at Glengad – at least in the latter half of the breeding season – with chicks/fledglings recorded at many of the burrows in both Colony A and Colony B, and high EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 38 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) activity levels (indicating chick provisioning) at many other burrows. This would indicate that the Sand Martins which chose to nest at these locations were successful, and did not appear to be affected by the landfall construction activities in 2009.
3.4.4 Bird activity recorded in the Aghoos walkover, 2008
A section of the route south of the Bay was walked to record the birds using this area (11th November 2008). Two ornithologists walked a parallel transect along the proposed route in the Aghoos/Leenamore area recording any calls, sightings or signs of birds. Birds were recorded as occurring on, or overflying, the transect. The small onshore section of the pSPA to the west of the Leenamore River which comprises agriculturally improved wet, rushy grassland, was included in this walkover.
Previously, on 24th June 2008 the shoreline at Aghoos was walked by two ornithologists to assess the habitats present and their value for birds.
Overall, bird species diversity was found to be low as was overall avian abundance along this section of the pipeline route. This is not particularly surprising given, in particular, the lack of 'woody' vegetative cover and poor feeding opportunities afforded by the habitats present. Sections of the cutover bog showed signs of overgrazing and these areas are typically impoverished in terms of bird species diversity and abundance. The wildfowl and wading birds that are present in this part of the bay are rarely observed at roost or feeding on land adjacent to the bay. In total only five species were recorded along the transect in November: Meadow Pipit, Hooded Crow, Skylark, Black-headed Gull (flying over) and Mallard (flying over). None of these species were recorded in significant numbers. On the shoreline itself there were few additional bird records to be added from the immediate vicinity with only single records of Redshank, Curlew and Grey Heron recorded within c. 100m of the crossing point.
There was a substantially greater diversity of birds recorded within the coniferous plantation at the end of the transect. These species included, Great Tit, Goldcrest, Coal Tit, Blue Tit, Robin and Chaffinch - all species typical of woodland edge. It is likely that the conifers supports a typical assemblage of woodland birds, although given the relatively enclosed nature of this coniferous patch these birds probably occur in relatively small numbers and mostly along the woodland edge.
3.4.5 Desk top review
3.4.5.1 Aquatic bird studies
A summary of the bird species recorded by previous aquatic bird studies, their occurrence and conservation status is available in Appendix 13.8. A total of 32 species were recorded by previous aquatic bird studies. A total of 29 of the 32 species recorded occurred in the outer Bay (count sections 1 & 2 as per Figure 3.1) with 21 in the middle Bay (count sections 3 & 4) and 23 in the inner Bay (count sections 5 & 6) were recorded in both the middle and inner bay count sections.
A survey of waterbirds (Particularly Brent Geese) in North Rossport Bay and outer/middle Sruwaddacon Bay (count sections 1 to 3) was carried out in the winter of 2006/07 (FTC, 2007b). A total of 15 waterbird species were recorded in outer/middle Sruwaddacon Bay (count sections 1 to 3), with Light-bellied Brent Goose, Oystercatcher and Ringed Plover being the most abundant species recorded.
Previous surveys of Sruwaddacon Bay carried out in the winter of 2005/06 recorded 30 waterbird species in the vicinity of the proposed route (i.e. count sections 1 to 6). The most abundant species recorded in these sections (combined) were Light-bellied Brent Goose (peak count 362), Dunlin and Curlew. Light-bellied Brent Geese were only recorded in the outer Bay (count sections 1 and 2) (Plate 32, Appendix 15), while Dunlin and Curlew were most abundant in count sections 3 to 5 inclusive.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 39 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Low-tide bird surveys of Sruwaddacon Bay were carried out in the winter of 2002/2003. Of the 27 species recorded Dunlin were the most abundant (peak count 384), followed by Ringed Plover (365), Light-bellied Brent Goose (224) and Black-headed Gull (209). In general, the areas of highest usage by waders were middle and inner sections of the bay, particularly count sections 4 and 5, while gull and waterfowl species were more cosmopolitan in distribution. One American Golden Plover (Pluvialis dominica) was recorded by Arnold (2005d), this species is not typically found in Ireland and therefore considered a vagrant in this case.
The waterbirds occurring at two study sites along the previously approved pipeline route were surveyed in May 2002. These study sites encompassed the outer pipeline landfall and Sruwaddacon Bay crossing point (i.e. Count Sections 1 & 2) as well as the river Gweedaney crossing point (i.e. Count Section 6). This survey noted the presence of breeding Ringed Plover on the beach in the outer bay (i.e. Count Sections 1 & 2). Comic Terns (i.e. Common and or Arctic Terns) and Sandwich Tern were also noted in the outer Bay, however no evidence of breeding was found for these species. Dedicated Little Tern surveys were carried out, but no records of this species were found during this survey. Later surveys of the landfall and Sruwaddacon Bay crossing point (i.e. Count Sections 1 & 2), carried out in July 2002, recorded 1 Little Tern flying in the area.
Surveys of breeding birds along the previously approved pipeline route were also carried out in the Summer of 2004. Although this survey focused on breeding terrestrial species, the presence of Little Egret was noted in the inner estuary.
A dedicated Heronry survey of upper Sruwaddacon Bay was carried out in Spring 2005 and at least two active Grey Heron nests were found. These were located in the forestry bordering the Glenamoy River Estuary. It was considered likely that at least one other pair were breeding in the area due to the level of feeding activity in the estuary. However this was not confirmed.
Other aquatic species not recorded in recent field surveys or previous reports, but which are known to occur in the wider area include Barnacle Goose, Branta leucopsis; Greenland White-fronted Goose, Anser albifrons flavirostris; Common Scoter, Melanitta nigra, Common Guillemot, Uria aalge and Razorbill, Alca torda. (Gibbons et al.,1993; Mitchell et al., 2000 and Crowe, 2005).
3.4.5.2 Terrestrial Bird Studies
A summary of the bird species recorded during previous terrestrial bird studies and their occurrence is available in Appendix 13.9. A total of 46 species were recorded during previous terrestrial bird studies, with the most numerous being Wren, Goldcrest, Willow Warbler and Robin. Nearly all of the bird species recorded in the terrestrial studies were found in the vicinity of the Gas Terminal site (as per Figure 3.2).
Surveys of breeding birds along the previously approved pipeline route were carried out in the summer of 2004. A total of 30 breeding species were recorded, the most numerous being Skylark, Meadow Pipit, and Wren. The breeding bird community recorded in 2004 is likely to be similar to that which exists on the proposed route. This appears to be reflected by the fact that Skylark and Meadow Pipit were amongst the most numerous species found along the original pipeline route and these species are typically found (and dominant) on bog habitats.
Terrestrial bird species were surveyed in the Outer section and Gas Terminal count area along the original approved pipeline route in May 2002. A total of 10 species were recorded in the Outer Area and five were recorded in the Terminal Area. The presence of breeding Sand Martin was noted adjacent to the pipeline landfall in the Outer Area. Further spring/summer studies of this colony in 2002 and 2005 revealed the presence of c. 37 apparently occupied burrows. (Plate 33, Appendix 15).
Breeding bird surveys of the Gas terminal site at Bellanaboy (i.e. Terminal Count Area) were carried out prior to construction in summer 2004, and during construction in summer 2005. A EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 40 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) total of 30 breeding species were recorded overall (21 species in 2004 and 27 in 2005). The most abundant species there in 2004 were Wren, Willow Warbler and Robin, while in 2005 the most abundant species recorded were Wren, Goldcrest and Chaffinch. The presence of a pair of Sparrowhawk (possibly breeding), Water Rail, Goldfinch and Snipe was of particular note as these species were not previously recorded at this site.
A single male Hen Harrier, Circus cyaneus, was recorded flying over the inner bay and forestry north of the Terminal Area during winter low tide surveys in 2003. The Hen Harrier was specifically looked for in summer 2004 and spring 2005, but no evidence of this species or of suitable breeding habitat was found at (or in the vicinity of) Bellanaboy Bridge Gas Terminal or Srahmore deposition site. It is unlikely therefore that this species breeds in the area, but it may make occasional foraging visits in winter.
A dedicated Corncrake, Crex crex, survey of the southern Rossport peninsula (Middle Area Count Section) was carried out in June 2005. This complimented earlier Corncrake surveys carried out in 2002. No Corncrakes were recorded during either of these surveys, although suitable habitat was noted in the west of the study site (i.e. the south-western section of the Rossport Peninsula). The presence of one singing Corncrake near Rossport village was noted in 2005. The proposed pipeline route does not cross the Rossport Peninsula however and will not potentially impact on any Corncrakes in this area. Known historical records are summarized in Table 3 (data from BirdWatch Ireland and NPWS). The Corncrake is known to breed on the Blacksod peninsula and a total of five Corncrake breeding pairs were recorded in the Blacksod / Broadhaven Bay / Tullaghan Bay Ramsar site in 1996 (www.birdlife.org/datazone).
From recent consultations with BirdWatch Ireland it is known that there are no recent records for Corncrakes near or in the wider locality of the proposed pipeline route.
Table 3 Known location of calling corncrakes in the wider locality 1994 – 20053
Year Location
1994 2 records: south-west of Gortbrack North and south of Gortmellia 1995 none 1996 a calling male was recorded just north of Rossport. It then moved south of the Bay and was heard just south of Muingerroon North – no nest was found. 1997 nest site immediately north west of Aghoos 1999 nest recorded at Carn Hill near Pollatomish 2000 none 2001 - 2005 calling male near Rossport (north west of the cross-roads)
The Chough was recorded on several occasions during winter surveys of Sruwaddacon Bay in 2002 & 2003. These sightings took place in the outer bay and along the southern shores of the middle and inner bay.
3 Data from BirdWatch Ireland and NPWS. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 41 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
4 EVALUATION OF SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
4.1 Legislative context
4.1.1 Current Irish Wildlife Legislation
Irish legislation relevant to an ecological assessment is: ¾ European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997 (S.I. No. 94 of 1997); ¾ European Communities (Natural Habitats) (Amendment) Regulations, 1998 (SI 233 of 1998) and 2005 (S.I. 378 of 2005); ¾ Wildlife Act, 1976; and ¾ Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000 ¾ Flora Protection Order 1999 (SI No. 94 of 1999) The Wildlife and Amendment Acts, 1976 and 2000, their associated statutory instruments (including the Flora Protection Order) and Natural Habitat Regulations (for Special Areas of Conservation, SACs) are implemented and controlled by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG). NPWS is also responsible for the designation of sites.
4.1.2 EU Directives and Designated conservation sites
4.1.2.1 The Habitats Directive and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)
EU Directive 92/43/EEC of 21st May 1992 , on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive), was transposed into Irish law by means of the Natural Habitat Regulations, 1997 and (Amendment) Regulations, 1998 and 2005. This enabled the designation of candidate Special Areas of Conservation (cSACs) under Article 3 of the directive as part of the Natura 2000 network. This network comprises Annex I habitats - “natural habitat types of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation” and the habitats of Annex II species - “animal and plant species of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation”. In addition, the Directive states that: “The Natura 2000 network shall include the special protection areas classified by the Member States pursuant to Directive 79/409/EEC.”.
4.1.2.2 The Birds Directive and Special Protection Areas (SPAs)
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are designated under Directive 79/409/EEC of 2nd April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (the Birds Directive). Under the Directive, Ireland is obliged to protect the habitats of birds, which are vulnerable to habitat change or to low population numbers. Aspects of habitat protection are in the context of pollution, deterioration of habitat and disturbance. This Directive is implemented in Ireland under Statutory Instrument (1985) and is encompassed by the Wildlife and Amendment Acts, 1976 and 2000. Once designated, measures will be taken to preserve, maintain and restore biodiversity and an area necessary for birds listed in Annex I of the Directive.
4.1.2.3 Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs)
Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) are designated under the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 whereby it is considered an area is worthy of conservation for one or more species, communities, habitats, landforms or geological or geomorphological features, or for its diversity of natural attributes.
4.1.3 International designations and convention - Ramsar
“Ramsar” refers to an international convention in relation to wetland sites which was ratified by Ireland in 1985. The Convention has its roots in the protection of wetland wildfowl and for EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 42 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) many sites it is species-associated. More recently Ramsar has taken on the more all- encompassing wetland habitat approach which in the context of the EU falls in line with site protection under the Habitats Directive.
The Ramsar convention has no statutory basis itself, but it is operated through either EU or national legislation. In this case the EU Birds Directive and EU Habitats Directive through the Wildlife and Amendments Acts (1976 and 2000). There is a reporting requirement (by the statutory agency – in this case NPWS, DoEHLG): x Ramsar requires that “wise- use” is carried out throughout. Part of this is the EIS/EIA process. x If at the end of that process it was considered that there would be significant damage then NPWS has to report same to the Ramsar Convention Bureau. x Essentially Ramsar is in line with the concept of sustainable development rather than absolute protection.
Regarding the protection of Ramsar sites – international conventions such as Ramsar are effectively recommendations to countries to implement certain protection measures. In comparison with national and EU legislation these conventions might be thought of as “soft” legislation. (Way et al 1993)
4.1.4 Designated conservation sites within 5km of the proposed route
Designated conservation sites located within 5 kilometres of the proposed route are described briefly below and are listed in Table 4 together with their site codes and approximate distance from the nearest point on the proposed route. These are shown on the maps in Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. NPWS site synopses for the designated sites are given in Appendix 12. Some sections of the proposed pipeline route lie with the Glenamoy Bog Complex cSAC. The tunnel will go beneath Sruwaddacon Bay which is part of the cSAC, the Blacksod Bay /Broadhaven pSPA, and the Ramsar Blacksod Bay and Broadhaven site.
4.1.4.1 Glenamoy Bog Complex cSAC
This is a very large, extensive and complex site, comprising a wide range of habitats including blanket bog; hard and soft coastal habitats. Lowland atlantic blanket bog dominates the site. It is internationally important in terms of its vegetation composition and is a listed Annex I habitat under the EU Habitats Directive; intact, active growing blanket bog is a priority Annex I habitat. Some areas of cSAC blanket bog are of lesser quality in habitat terms, as a result of afforestation, turf cutting - manual and mechanical and their associated management practices which often result in drainage and “edge” effects. The more floristically important and intact areas occur in the north east of the cSAC, in some of the less accessible area of the complex where Drepanocladus vernicosus (a moss) and Saxifraga hirculus (Marsh saxifrage) occur. Petalophyllum ralfsii (Petalwort) is present at Garter Hill. These three species are listed in Annex II of the E.U. Habitats Directive and are also on the Flora Protection Order (SI 94 of 1999). The nationally rare moss Homalothecium nitens also occurs in this site. cSAC 500 also supports Annex species of birds (EU Birds Directive) and mammals as well as nationally important populations of other sea birds.
The NPWS site synopsis concludes: “This site is of immense ecological importance because of the presence of a number of EU Annex I habitats, including two priority habitats - blanket bog and machair. It supports populations of an Annex II species, Annex II plant species and six Annex I Birds Directive species. It also has nationally important populations of other seabirds. Despite serious damage to parts of the site in recent years, large areas remain in good condition”. This site also includes Sruwaddacon Bay and the small bay north of Rossport; both are included within the Blacksod Bay / Broadhaven pSPA. It is a shallow tidal inlet off Broadhaven Bay Marine cSAC 472 and is of special importance for its wintering wildfowl populations, which feed on the intertidal sand/mud flats. It forms an integral part of the Glenamoy River salmonid fishery. The cSAC has recently been extended to include the Glenamoy and Muingnabo Rivers and many of their tributary streams.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 43 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
The qualifying EU habitats and species for the Glenamoy Bog Complex cSAC, as listed on the site Natura 2000 Standard Data Form, are:
Annex I Habitat types:
x 7130 Blanket bog (* active only) x 4010 Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix x 1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts x 5130 Juniper communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands x 7150 Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion x 7140 Transition mires and quaking bogs x 3160 Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds x 21A0 Machair (* in Ireland)
Birds listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive:
x Branta leucopsis – Barnacle Goose x Hydrobates pelagicus – Storm Petrel x Falco columbarius – Merlin x Falco peregrinus – Peregrine Falcon x Pluvialis apricaria – Golden Plover x Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocarax - Chough
Fish listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive:
x Salmo salar - Salmon
Plants listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive:
x Petalophylum ralfsii – a bryophyte x Drepanoclados vernicosus – a moss x Saxifraga hirculus – Marsh Saxifrage
4.1.4.2 Carrowmore Lake Complex cSAC
The site comprises Carrowmore Lake itself, a large, shallow oligotrophic/mesotrophic lake, and extensive tracts of blanket bog. “This site is of considerable ecological value, primarily for its extensive, intact blanket bog, which has a typical range of good quality habitats, but also as a site for the very rare Marsh Saxifrage. The north-western part of the site supports a number of Greenland White-fronted Geese, while other important bird species which occur are Golden Plover, Merlin, Sandwich Tern and Arctic Tern”.(NPWS). See also Carrowmore Lake SPA below.
4.1.4.3 Slieve Fyagh Bog cSAC
Slieve Fyagh is a large site. The site’s boundary lies in close proximity with the Glenamoy Bog Complex cSAC 500 on the southern side of the Glenamoy River. The presence of mountain blanket bog on the upper slopes and summit plateau appears to be the main reason for the designation of this site. Mountain blanket bog is characterised by the absence of Schoenus nigricans (Black Bog Rush) and other lowland blanket bog character species; and by the presence of Empetrum nigrum (Crowberry), Vaccinium myrtillus (Bilberry) and Diplophyllum albicans. Lowland blanket bog is present on the lower slopes of Slieve Fyagh but it has suffered from overgrazing and turf cutting, resulting in degradation of the habitat.
4.1.4.4 Broadhaven Bay cSAC
The site was known as the Blacksod/Broadhaven SPA prior to the site review during the 1990s and subsequent SAC designation. Sections of these sites are now incorporated into three cSACs, namely Mullet/Blacksod Complex cSAC, Broadhaven Bay cSAC and the Glenamoy Bog Complex cSAC.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 44 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
This site is of high conservation importance owing to the presence of several habitats that are listed on Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive: large shallow bays; intertidal sand flats, reefs, marine caves and salt marshes. In addition it has ornithological importance for breeding and wintering birds.
4.1.4.5 Blacksod Bay / Broadhaven pSPA
This site is of high ornithological importance for its excellent diversity of wintering waterfowl and for the nationally important populations of five species that it supports. Of particular note is the usage of the site by over 3% of the national Ringed Plover population. It is also of importance as a breeding site for terns and gulls, especially the localised Sandwich Tern. It is of note that seven of the species that occur regularly are listed on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive, ie. Great Northern Diver, Red-throated Diver, Golden Plover, Bar-tailed Godwit, Sandwich Tern, Common Tern and Arctic Tern. Sruwaddacon Bay is part of this large SPA.
Unlike more recently designated SPAs there is no formal site citation – ie. the “Intention to designate” notice which lists the species for which the site was designated. However the site synopsis lists species for the site as a whole and includes numbers of birds of international and national importance.
From information received from NPWS, it is understood that this site is to be re-designated “As part of this process the special conservation interests of the site have been provisionally identified using (a) the 4-year mean peak counts from the period 1995/96 - 1998/99 for wintering water-birds and (b) the 1995 all-Ireland tern survey along with the Seabird 2000 census for breeding seabird interests”(NPWS, 2008 onwards). In addition, it is understood that, as a result of recently recorded numbers of Light-bellied Brent Goose (ie. from Corrib Brent Goose surveys) that it “should be regarded as a special conservation interest for this site”. From recent consultations with NPWS (2010), it is understood that, as part of the redesignation process, pSPA boundaries are being re-defined. Whereas formerly the Mean High Water Mark was taken to be the boundary, the proposed new mapping will be to the nearest definable land feature and will include any wetland habitat, (eg. salt marsh). It is further understood that non-wetland areas will only be included if there is a site specific reason to do so.
The currently proposed interests for the redesignated SPA, as understood for NPWS, may be summarised as follows4:
x The site qualifies for designation as an pSPA for: Ringed Plover, Bar-tailed Godwit and Sandwich Tern;
x Great Northern Diver, Common Scoter, Dunlin and Light-bellied Brent Goose are all to be listed as species of special conservation interest for the site.
4.1.4.6 Carrowmore Lake SPA
Carrowmore Lake is of high ornithological importance on account of the nationally important gull colony and, in the past, the nesting terns. The occurrence of Greenland White-fronted Goose is of note as this species is listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive (as are the tern species).
The Notice of Intention to Designate the SPA states: that “The site is being proposed as a SPA under Article 4(1) of the Birds Directive in respect of the following bird species: SANDWICH TERN”
4.1.4.7 Pollatomish Bog NHA 1548 Pollatomish Bog is situated to the north of the R314 Glenamoy - Belmullet road, west of Bellanaboy Bridge. “It is an area of uniform blanket bog with a steep slope reaching up to
4 At April 2010, but subject to change prior to final redesignation EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 45 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
100m in the centre of the site, is a typical Atlantic Blanket Bog area - it is quite wet with species-rich moss (Sphagnum spp.) lawns. Tussocks with Deergrass (Scirpus caespitosus) and Bog-myrtle (Myrica gale) are common, while pools with Bog Bean (Menyanthes trifolium), Bladdwort (Ultricularia minor) and mosses (Sphagnum spp.) are also found. Higher up the slopes the habitat is “drier and heathy with Ling Heather (Calluna vulgaris) becoming dominant” (NPWS site synopsis). The site is grazed by sheep and cattle and has been drained in places. Turf cutting has been carried on peripherally in the past. Now somewhat diminished in size, the site generally remains as a good example of atlantic blanket bog, though in parts it has become very degraded as a result of severe overgrazing (NPWS pers. comm. 2007).
4.1.4.8 Glenturk More Bog NHA
Glenturk More Bog NHA lies to the east of Bangor Erris to Bellanaboy Bridge road. It includes a good example of a relatively extensive, lowland blanket bog with occasional flush areas.
4.1.4.9 Ederglen Bog NHA
Ederglen Bog NHA is located adjacent to the south west of Carrowmore Lake. It lies 10km to the east of Belmullet and 5km west of Bangor Erris. It is designated for both upland and lowland blanket bog. It is however located further than 5km from the nearest point of the proposed pipeline but is included here for completeness
4.1.4.10 Ramsar site 844: Blacksod Bay and Broadhaven.
Designated in 1996 the site covers 683 ha. and is a “composite of diverse marine and coastal habitats that includes vast dune systems and extensive areas of dune grassland with saltmarshes occurring in sheltered bays and inlets. The grasslands are of considerable botanical importance. The site also includes several brackish lakes important to various species of breeding waders, large numbers of wintering waterbirds of various species, and internationally important numbers of Brent geese”. (www.ramsar.org) Sruwaddacon Bay is part of this site.
Table 4: Designated conservation sites located within 5km of the proposed pipeline
Distance (km) from the nearest Designation Site Name Site code point on the pipeline route Glenamoy Bog Complex 500 0 Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Carrowmore Lake Complex 476 1.7 Slieve Fyagh Bog 542 2.7 Broadhaven Bay 472 200m west of landfall Special Protection Areas (SPA) Blacksod Bay/Broadhaven 4037 0 Carrowmore Lake 4052 3.0 Glenturk More Bog 2419 3.5 Natural Heritage Area (NHA) Pollatomish Bog 1548 1.8 Ederglen Bog 2446 In excess of 5km Ramsar site Blacksod Bay and Broadhaven 844 0
4.2 Habitats and vegetation
4.2.1 Assessment of the scientific interest of the area
Evaluation has been undertaken with due regard to the revised EPA Advice Notes on Current Practice (2003); EPA Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements (2002); the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Guidelines for
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 46 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Ecological Impact Assessment (IEEM, 2006); and with reference to the National Road’s Authority Guidelines for ecological impact assessment (NRA 2009, Revision 2) (See Table 5). Due regard is also paid to the provisions of Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive.
Habitat evaluation is considered in terms of extent, diversity, naturalness, rarity, fragility, typicalness, recorded history, position, potential value and intrinsic appeal. Field survey data was supplemented by relevant literature and other existing information when carrying out the assessment. An evaluation of the habitat types encountered on the route is summarised in general terms in Table 6. Habitat frequency of occurrence is indicated by percentage with the exception of earthen (sod) banks, streams, drainage channels and man made surfaces such as roads etc.
TABLE 5: Ecological Site Evaluation Criteria
Ecological value Criteria Internationally important EU Annex habitat in an internationally designated conservation area (or (A sites) qualifying site; or site with a proposed designation)
A viable area of a habitat type listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive, or smaller areas of such habitat which are essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole.
Non-designated high quality habitat which equates to an EU Annex I priority habitat
A regularly occurring, nationally significant population / number of any internationally important species.
Nationally important EU Annex habitat in a designated (or proposed) NHA. (B sites) Non-designated good example of Annex I habitat (Under EU habitats Directive) Any habitat which may have been formerly classified as EU Annex I quality, but which has been subsequently highly modified as a result of change in the physical environment or damaged. Such a habitat may be still be classified as an Annex habitat on the basis of the presence of one or more character plant species, but can no longer be considered a good example of that habitat type
Locally High value Sites containing semi-natural habitat types with high biodiversity in a local important (C sites) context, with high degree of intrinsic naturalness. Locally rare habitats or species
Moderate value Sites containing some semi-natural habitat or locally important for wildlife (D sites) Low value Highly modified or artificial habitats with low intrinsic ecological value in (E sites) terms of biodiversity
Artificial habitats which provide some secondary wildlife habitat of local value
EU Annex Habitats
The habitat type descriptions in section 3 above indicate which is an EU Habitats Directive Annex I habitat. When evaluating the habitats present along the proposed route where an Annex I habitat is present within a designated areas it is given a value of international ecological importance under the NRA Guidelines method of evaluation of sites. However, it is considered that habitat quality should also be taken into consideration, as is done under other methods of evaluation. Where a habitat has been degraded or modified, resulting in vegetation change, the evaluation reflects this. Thus, in the case of the salt marsh at the
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 47 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) eastern side of Glengad where physical changes have resulted in vegetation change to an extent where the habitat classification is marginal, it is evaluated as being of national/International rather than simply ‘international’.
Where an EU Annex I non-priority habitat type occurs outside a designated site it is ranked as being of national importance; for example, the 190 metres of recovering eroded blanket bog at Aghoos which is classified as PB5/PB3. It is proposed that this habitat will be treated as though it were designated and legally protected. (This is already accepted best practice as practiced and advised by EACS.)
4.2.2 Evaluation of habitats
Habitat evaluation is in accordance with the IEEM (2006) and broadly follows the NRA Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts (2004 - 2009). It is based on the level of designation, presence of Annex habitats and the following criteria: extent, diversity, naturalness, rarity, fragility, typicalness, recorded history, position, potential value and intrinsic appeal. The frequency of occurrence and ecological value of the habitats present along the route are summarised in Table 6. The chainages for the habitats present are given in Table 2 above.
4.2.2.1 Low sedimentary cliff at the Glengad landfall
In 2008 surveys were undertaken in order to establish the status of the cliff at Glengad.
The exposed west facing cliff at Glengad supports little vegetation, large sections being completely devoid of plants. Where present, vegetation mostly comprises individual plant or clumps of a single species, for example a group of individual plants of Plantago maritima. The central section of the area studied comprised the section which was reinstated following excavation in 2002. It had a less steep slope than the remaining original parts of the cliff on either side, having been reinstated in that manner in order to maintain stability. The cliff prior to excavation in 2002 is shown in Plates 20, 35 and 36, Appendix 15. This section of cliff was reinstated in 2009 following the installation of the offshore pipeline - Plate 1, Appendix 15 photographed in September 2009.
In June 2008 the section of cliff to the north of the landfall was surveyed. The June 2008 survey did not examine the west facing cliff (ie. the zone of impact) because of the lack of vegetation on that section. The west facing section within, and on either side of, the zone of impact (reinstated cliff) - was subsequently surveyed prior to landfall construction for the offshore pipeline in 2008.
With regard to the EU Annex habitat 1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts, the EU Manual states: “On soft coasts with much active movement, complex assemblages of maritime and non-maritime vegetation occur”. It is noted that no such complex assemblages occur on the cliff at Glengad.
In assessing the north-facing cliffs, the June 2008 survey found that: the cliffs present at Glengad are relatively low and sparsely vegetated. This paucity of vegetation simply reflects the fact that the cliff face is being continuously eroded by the sea. This section was considered to be, at best, a very poor example of the EU Annex 1 habitat, only one of the 16 character species of the habitat being present.
The west facing cliff, (including the area that was excavated and reinstated in 2002 and excavated in 2008 and 2009) has been shown to have little vegetation and where present, it mostly comprises individual plant or clumps of a single species. It does not show the characteristic species and complex vegetation assemblage of the Annex I habitat as set out in the Interpretation Manual for EU habitats (2003). It was therefore found not to be ascribable to the Annex I habitat because:
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 48 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
x The vegetation present does not belong to the Order of the Crithmo-Armerietalia (of Gehu, 1964) which is the vegetation category described in Annex I for vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts (1230); x One of the character species Armeria maritima (Sea pink) is present on the foreshore bedrock (on the northern side of the headland in an area not to be impacted) and not on the cliff face itself - as noted by the June 2008 survey. x The rest of the character species, of which there are sixteen others, are absent. x The cliff top grassland in, and on either side of, the zone of impact is improved agricultural grassland and not maritime grassland.
Prior to excavation in 2002, the cliff was a vertical stony cliff more or less devoid of vegetation, topped by improved agricultural grassland of low ecological value and would not have been ascribable to the Annex I habitat Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts. (Plates 20, 35 and 36, Appendix 15)
4.2.2.2 Improved, wet and marshy grasslands and marsh
Improved agricultural grassland is a commonly occurring habitat and is of low ecological value. Although much of the improved agricultural grassland on the Glengad section of the route lies within the cSAC it is nonetheless of low ecological value in terms of vegetation and constituent species. In the wetter areas, wet, rushy, grassland and marshy grassland occur but are species poor. While they contribute to the local biodiversity, these habitat types are commonly occurring, widespread and frequent and are considered to be of low ecological value. Their main value lies in areas for foraging faunal species (avian and non-avian.
4.2.2.3 Salt marsh
The salt marsh present is typical of fringe salt marshes which occur around many estuaries and inlets in the west of Ireland. They are generally species poor and mainly fulfill a function of providing faunal commuting corridors around the shorelines of the Bay. The saltmarsh on the eastern side of the Glengad headland has been damaged in recent years from vehicle tracks, this has resulted in waterlogging from rain, and the saline influence has diminished. The vegetation character has been altered and rushes are now prevalent in large areas, but as salt marsh species (eg. Glaux and Puccinellia) are also present it is considered that the habitat type should be classified as salt marsh, albeit marginal.
The salt marsh fringe in the vicinity of Aghoos on, the southern shore of Sruwaddacon Bay, is more typical of the salt marsh frequently encountered around western coasts. A good example of this type of salt marsh is present at the Leenamore River inlet. (Appendix 15, Plate 14).
Salt marsh is an EU Annex I habitat and as such should be afforded International importance, however where it is modified in vegetation terms - as is the case at the eastern side of the Glengad section, and consequently marginally classified - then its value is considered to be of National or International Importance.
4.2.2.4 Scrub
Gorse scrub occurs at Aghoos, in association with field boundaries and drain edges, and also in pockets near the Leenamore River. This habitat type commonly occurs throughout the area, region and nationally. The main interest is in providing cover for fauna. The scrub occurring along the route is therefore considered to be of Low local Importance.
Rhododendron also occurs in places. In ecological terms it is an invasive pest species with no ecological value other than to afford shelter to fauna.
4.2.2.5 Field boundaries
There are no developed semi-natural hedgerows as such along the route. Field boundaries comprise mainly post and wire fences, sometimes in combination with low earthen (sod) EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 49 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) banks. These are considered to be of Low Local importance in terms of their contribution to local biodiversity.
4.2.2.6 Blanket bog
None of the blanket bog habitats at Aghoos are subject to any designation, national or international.
Recovering eroded blanket bog
Two areas at Aghoos have been identified as recovering from former grazing effects. These are: the area to the west of the tunnelling compound (SC3), under which the tunnel will pass for a short distance; and the 190 metre section to the east of the Leenamore River. Although the surveys in 2008 classified much of this as being eroding blanket bog (PB5) the recovery of surface vegetation is visible and, while there is still a notable amount of bare peat cover, it is considered that this area should be classified as PB5/PB3 - Annex I equivalent. It is not however considered to be equivalent to priority habitat.
As stated above, where an EU Annex I non-priority habitat type occurs outside a designated site it is ranked as being of national importance. Thus these two areas, chainage 88.645 to 88.690 and 89.350 to 89.540 are ranked as being of national importance (Table 6).
Eroding blanket bog
This category includes areas which have been adversely affected by overgrazing and subsequent erosion, and where erosion is active and ongoing. At Aghoos, two types of eroding bog have been identified: heavily eroded and severely eroded.
Where surface erosion has occurred to the extent that surface vegetation is either absent or atypical then the ecological value is deemed to be diminished. The heavily eroded and eroding habitat is therefore considered to be of Moderate to High local importance; while the severely eroded areas are considered to be of Low to Moderate Local Importance.
Cutover blanket bog
Near the road at Aghoos, are sections of cutover, which have been almost completely cutaway in the past, resulting in shallow peat and modified vegetation. The ecological value of the habitat is considered to be Low to Moderate Locally Important because of the highly modified, i.e. drained, shallow, nature of the peat present.
A small triangular area of non-designated blanket bog at Bellagelly, adjacent to the Glenamoy to Pollatomish local road is avoided by the proposed route. This area of blanket bog was identified during baseline vegetation studies as being a sensitive area of high quality and high local biodiversity value, but has been subject to recent mechanical peat cutting.
4.2.2.7 Estuary and intertidal
The estuarine habitats, beneath which the tunnel will pass, are EU Annex habitats and comprise part of the pSPA and cSAC; as such they are of International importance. They are of significance mainly in terms of the species which they support, namely waders, otter and salmonids. The aquatic and marine aspects of Sruwaddacon Bay are considered elsewhere in the EIS and relevant technical reports (See Chapter 14).
4.2.2.8 Conifer plantation
Conifer plantations are transient, man-made habitats which are commonly occurring throughout the region and nationally. Conifer plantations are of Low Local Importance, their ecological value lies mainly in the provision of refuge for fauna.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 50 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
4.2.2.9 Freshwater streams
These are considered to be of Low local importance in terms of terrestrial vegetation (bankside vegetation) and vertebrate fauna. (See also Chapter 13)
Table 6: Summary of habitats showing their ecological significance, frequency of occurrence
Habitat Approximate Ecological value Percentage occurrence Low cliff at landfall 0.1 Low, locally important Improved grassland 5.1 Low, locally important Mosaic of improved grassland Low, locally important 3.1 and wet, rushy grasland Mosaic of: improved; wet, rushy Low to Moderate Locally important 1.5 grassland and marsh (tunnel) Salt marsh Nationally/Internationally important (includes Leenamore River inlet and 0.5 that tunnelled underneath at Glengad) Estuary and intertidal (tunnel) 55.5 Internationally important
Scrub <0.1 Low, locally important Heavily Eroded blanket bog Moderate to High, Locally Important 1.9 (undesignated) Severely eroded blanket bog and Low to Moderate Locally important 3.1 old cutover (undesignated) Recovering eroded blanket bog Nationally important 2.8 (undesignated) Conifer plantation (including Low, locally important recently felled areas, and artificial 26.2 surfaces) Sod bank boundaries - Low, locally important Freshwater streams - Low, locally important
4.2.3 Plant species and the Flora Protection Order
Desk study and consultations confirmed that no rare species of plant, including those on the current Flora Protection Order 1999 (SI No 94 of 1999) are known to occur along the route of the proposed development at present. Neither was any FPO species found during the surveys carried out from 2001 to 2008.
Furthermore, it is considered that the habitats present on the proposed route at Glengad are not suitable for any of the protected species listed as occurring within the Glenamoy Bog Complex cSAC.
4.3 Non-avian fauna
4.3.1 Overall assessment of the area in terms of fauna
The potential of the habitats present to support species of fauna may be summarised as follows:
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 51 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
x Sruwaddacon Bay is utilised by otters, an EU Annex II and IV (Habitats Directive) species. The Glenamoy River supports salmonid populations which are listed on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive (see also Chapter 13 of EIS).
x A number of small streams flow in to Sruwaddacon Bay, including via the Glenamoy River. These provide corridors for otter movements and may also serve an important role as washing places for otters. Almost all streams and larger watercourses were found to be marked by otters where they entered the Bay. The Aghoos River is a river that feeds directly into the Carrowmore Lake cSAC; it is used by otters on a regular basis. The various watercourses contribute to the flora and fauna of the area and may be considered as varying in value from Low Local Importance to High Local Importance.
x Improved grasslands provide forage for common species, such as badger, fox, small mammals etc.
x Wet grasslands provide foraging areas for frogs and breeding sites in drains occasionally.
x Blanket bog habitats provide occasional breeding habitat for frogs.
x Coniferous plantation offers cover but provides very poor foraging habitat for faunal species. They do not offer many roosting opportunities for bats.
x Field boundaries (scrub and earthen banks) are usually dominated by gorse or bramble. They provide minor wildlife corridors and foraging grounds in the area for common faunal species and breeding and nesting habitat for some mammalian and avian species. Few mature deciduous trees are present; the largest extent of deciduous woodland in the area is present along the cliffs to the west of Pollatomish village.
x There are some small pockets of scrub in the locality. Scrub provides cover and foraging habitat for mammalian and avian species and is generally of Low Local importance
4.3.2 Faunal species of conservation interest
4.3.2.1 Mammals
A number of mammalian species are protected under the Wildlife Act and Amendment Acts (1976 and 2000), some of which are known to be present or may be expected to occur occasionally. These include: otter, badger, pine marten, Irish stoat, pygmy shrew, hedgehog, and Irish hare. Most of these species may be considered as common species and ubiquitous through much of the Irish countryside. Once relatively scarce, the pine marten has become widespread over much of Ireland. Red deer are occasional in the area (and known to be frequent in the general locality, such as near Bellacorick).
The following are considered as species of conservation interest (Red Data Book; Whilde, 1993): otter, badger, pine marten, Irish hare, pipistrelle bats, Daubenton’s bat, Leisler’s bat, and brown long-eared bat. Threatened species include the whiskered bat and Natterer’s bat (not expected on site). The otter is listed under Annex II and IV of the EU Habitats Directive and all bat species are listed under Annex IV.
It is an offence to wilfully interfere with or destroy the breeding or resting place of these species under the Wildlife Act and Amendment Acts (1976 and 2000); though there are exemptions for certain kinds of infrastructure development. Other species would be affected principally by loss of habitat. The Irish hare would be expected to relocate during construction works, as would pine marten, Irish stoat etc.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 52 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Common and Grey Seal are also protected under the Wildlife Acts and both are listed on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive. They are referred to here for completeness but were not included in terrestrial faunal surveys.
Badgers
Badgers are common in Ireland, with an average density nationwide of c. 0.5 social groups per km2 (Smal, 1995). Badgers would have far lower densities in upland and blanket bog dominated areas such as in the vicinity of the proposed route.
Badgers are protected under the Wildlife Act and Amendment Acts (1976 and 2000).
Badgers are of particular concern because of their size and habit of constructing large permanent dwelling burrows known as setts; best practice requires provision for the humanitarian removal of this species if necessitated, or for the conservation of the species on site. The Wildlife (Amendment) Act (2000) protects all types of badger setts also their resting places
Otters
Otters are a high priority species. The Wildlife (Amendment) Act (2000) protects all types of otter holts and also their resting places.
Whilst otters are relatively common in Ireland, and they do occur on most rivers and coasts, maintenance of their numbers along Ireland’s coasts is one of substantial interest. The otter is a protected species under the Wildlife Act (1976, and Wildlife [Amendment] Act, 2000) and is also listed in Annex II and Annex IV of the EU Habitats Directive. This species is also listed as requiring strict protection in Appendix II of the Bern Convention. Ireland is a European stronghold for the species.
The otter surveys reported here were undertaken primarily as baseline surveys to ensure the welfare of otters utilising the Sruwaddacon Bay area and to provide advice and recommendations for measures to be adopted during the construction in the vicinity of the Bay.
The detailed study of otters is both difficult and time-consuming. Studies in Shetland (Kruuk, 1995) were conducted over several years by a team of researchers and provide invaluable information on the nature of otter behaviour, sprainting activity, and holt use. In Ireland, O’Sullivan (1991; 1993a, 1993b) conducted studies on the Blackwater River system in Co. Cork, whilst Kyne et al (1989) investigated diet of otters at locations in the Irish Midlands.
Otters are widespread in Ireland and their presence can be confirmed on most watercourses in the country (Smal, pers. obs.) but little is known of their densities either on freshwater systems or coastal habitats. A study of the distribution of feral American mink in Ireland also included observations of otter distribution (Smal, 1988, 1991) and a national otter survey was conducted by Chapman & Chapman (1982). There has been a more recent study of the distribution of otters in Ireland also (Bailey & Rochford, 2006).
No confirmed breeding holts could be found within the study area, whilst these are, of course, present. The holt at Glengad has some potential as a breeding holt, though it is also used by foxes on occasion; however, it is considered more likely that breeding holts in the Bay area will be situated in more remote, and concealed locations further away from the coastline than this holt which is in an exposed location.
Bats
All Irish bat species are protected under the Wildlife Act (1976) and Wildlife Amendment Act (2000). Also, the EC Directive on The Conservation of Natural habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats Directive 1992), seeks to protect rare species, including bats, and their habitats and requires that appropriate monitoring of populations be undertaken. Across EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 53 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Europe, they are further protected under the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention 1982), which, in relation to bats, exists to conserve all species and their habitats. The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention 1979, enacted 1983) was instigated to protect migrant species across all European boundaries. The Irish government has ratified both these conventions.
All bats are listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive, and the lesser horseshoe (not present or expected in the area) is also an Annex II species.
Bats are not numerous in the Sruwaddacon Bay area - due to the relatively poor foraging habitats in the area and lack of shelter and vegetation cover in the locality.
4.3.2.2 Reptiles and amphibians
The common lizard, common frog, and the smooth newt are all protected species under the Wildlife Acts.
The common frog is a Red Data Book species, but it is common in most Irish habitats. Common frogs are common in the locality, especially so near wetter habitats particularly wet grasslands, rushy fields, also bog habitats.
As for mammals, it is necessary to ensure protection of breeding sites and good practice to make provision for maintenance of the species if possible.
4.4 Birds
4.4.1 Wildlife Acts
Most bird species are protected under the Wildlife Acts, barring those regarded as pest species, and for those considered as game species (where they may be hunted under conditions). Under the Wildlife and Amendment Acts 1976 and 2000 it is an offence to disturb the breeding place of protected species, with exemptions for certain developments.
In practice, for the generally common species, provision is made to limit season of removal of vegetation and destruction of nesting habitat.
4.4.2 Overall assessment of the area in terms of birds
The area under consideration is made up of open water within Sruwaddacon Bay, some areas of open habitat, with few trees and hedgerows, and closed habitat from the conifer plantations. The overall bird community is typical of the habitats present.
The post breeding bird and winter season studies show that bird diversity and numbers in the vicinity of the proposed route are low. The relatively low bird diversity and numbers are also reflected in previous bird studies of the general area. Species that were recorded in highest numbers in these and previous studies were flocking species such as Light-bellied Brent Goose, Black-headed Gull, Common Gull and Oystercatcher.
It is interesting to note that all the studies show a general trend of the ‘outer section’ of Sruwaddacon Bay holding the highest number of bird species in comparison to the middle and inner sections.
A comparison of the terrestrial bird species carried out in the vicinity of the pipeline route was difficult owing to the restriction of land access available in the 2007 field study. However the results of surveys conducted in 2008 were in line with earlier assessments. The point count locations used in the 2007 field study are largely representative of the area in the vicinity of the Gas Terminal (ie. conifer plantation and blanket bog habitats. It is worth noting that
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 54 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) previous terrestrial bird studies recorded the vast majority of terrestrial bird species in the vicinity of Bellanaboy Terminal.
Breeding Sand Martins at Glengad appear to have expanded their range during the 2008 and 2009 breeding seasons, with two sub-colonies now located at Glengad and one colony located at Rinroe Strand. At least 35 Sand Martin burrows were recorded as active in the 2009 breeding season.
Several species of high conservation concern (i.e. Annex I and/or Red listed species) were recorded by the field studies in the vicinity of the route; Bar-tailed Godwit, Chough, Curlew, Common / Arctic Tern, Golden Plover, Great-northern Diver, Hen Harrier, Little Tern, Lapwing, Shoveler, Red-throated Diver, Sandwich Tern, Little Egret, Black-headed Gull, Herring Gull, Redshank, Whooper Swan and Peregrine Falcon. Most of these species normally occurred in very low numbers (i.e. <10) and only from time to time. Common /Arctic Tern and Sandwich Tern have occurred occasionally in small numbers, with the former observed in 2002 and the latter in 2002 and 2007. Of all the high priority species, only Curlew and Black-headed Gull are present in any numbers throughout the year. Both species can be found widely both in the aquatic and adjoining terrestrial habitats throughout the year with peak numbers typically occurring in the winter.
Other bird species recorded by all studies are either of medium conservation concern or of no particular conservation concern at present in Ireland.
4.4.3 Aquatic bird studies
Appendix 13, Table 13.10 summarises all bird species that were found to occur in the vicinity of the proposed route by aquatic bird studies undertaken in the area (i.e. 2007 post breeding study; winter bird surveys in 2007/08 and 2008/09). A total of 66 bird species have been recorded in the vicinity of the proposed route. Only one species, Light-bellied Brent Goose has been found to occur in nationally and internationally important numbers (1% of the estimated National and International Population). None of the other waterbird species recorded by the post breeding study exceeded the threshold of nationally important numbers (i.e. 1% of the estimated National Population).
It should be noted that recent apparent increases in Light-bellied Brent Goose numbers in Ireland (40,000 from 20,000 - per. com. K. Colhoun and www.irishbrentgoose.org) indicate that the threshold for internationally important numbers may increase from 200 to 400 (1% of the International Population). However, recent consultations with BirdWatch Ireland indicate that the next revision is likely to be in 2012, with a mean peak of 350.
Overall bird diversity and abundance is relatively poor, with peak counts of most species in the the Sruwaddacon Bay area seldom exceeding 100 birds. Indicative maps to show bird usage and concentrations in the study area at Low Tide and High Tide, as recorded since 2007, are provided in Figures 3.3 to 3.7. Explanatory notes to accompany Figures 3.3, 3.4 and 3.7 are provided in Figure 3.9.
Several species of conservation concern were recorded. A total of eleven Annex I species have been recorded, with seven species currently of high conservation concern (i.e. Red listed) in Ireland. Furthermore, 33 species identified are currently considered of medium conservation concern (i.e. Amber listed) in Ireland. The reasons for the inclusion of species as Red-listed or Amber-listed (after Lynas et al. 2007) is given in Appendix 13, Table 13.10. The seven Red-listed species recorded were Black-headed Gull, Curlew, Golden Plover, Herring Gull, Lapwing, Redshank and Shoveler. Of these species only Curlew and Lapwing were included in the last published Red-list in 1999 (by Newton et al 1999). Herring Gull have experienced a major population crash since the 1980’s in Ireland and this has widely been linked with outbreaks of botulism among gulls scavenging at waste facilities. Although still Green-listed at the time of the publication of the 1999 BoCCI there has been continuing evidence of a wide scale and dramatic population crash that has contributed to this species’ inclusion on the Red-list. Golden Plover, a common bird in Irish estuaries during the over- wintering period has declined as a breeding species in Irish upland and this is certainly the EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 55 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) reason why the species is of elevated conservation concern. Similar to the Herring Gull, the decline in Golden Plover breeding population merits its inclusion on the current Red-list. Black-headed Gulls have moved from the Amber to the Red-list in the latest BoCCI. This species is believed to have declined in breeding population and range, and is a localized breeder – hence its inclusion in the current Red-list. Shoveler were previously green-listed butand now qualify for the Red-list because their wintering populations have declined by over 50% in the last 25-30 years. Lapwing are Red-listed as they have experienced a decline in breeding population of over 50% in over the last 25 years. The Curlew is now Red-listed due to various reasons including a decline in its breeding population, its inclusion on SPEC 2 list, a decline of its population during the non-breeding season and the fact that it’s a localised non-breeding species. Redshank have declined across much of their range and are considered of wider concern. The Redshank is on the revised BoCCI Red-list as it has experienced a decline in its breeding population, it is included on the SPEC 2 list and it’s a localised non-breeding species.
Of these seven species only Curlew and Black-headed Gull are present in any numbers throughout the year. Both species can be found widely both in the aquatic and adjoining terrestrial habitats throughout the year with peak numbers typically occurring in the winter. Flocks of Black-headed Gulls commonly occur on the beach at Glengad or on the exposed sand banks within Sruwaddacon Bay (see Figure 3.4). During the winter survey 2002/2003 approximately 80 Golden Plover were recorded on one survey visit but this species has been extremely infrequent in the recent winter counts. The peak counts of Redshank and Herring Gull have been small. Redshank appear to feed in greatest numbers in the middle sections of Sruwaddacon Bay but typical peak counts are less than 40 individuals during the winter surveys.
The additional Annex I species (not already discussed) were Bar-tailed Godwit, Chough, Common /Arctic Tern, Great Northern Diver, Little Egret, Little Tern, Peregrine Falcon, Red- throated Diver, Sandwich Tern and Whooper Swan. These species are irregular and uncommon within the study area.
The Divers are both pelagic species (largely) and are rarely found within the bay. These species have only been recorded in the outer bay. All of the Tern species recorded in the area are known to have bred in North Mayo in recent times (T. Murray pers. comm.) even though Seabird 2000 did not record any Tern colony of note in the greater Broadhaven/Mullet area (Mitchell et al. 2000). Between 1984-2000 there were Little Terns nesting on the shingle beach at Pollatomish with a peak of 6 nesting pairs recorded in 1984 (T. Murray pers. comm.). This tiny colony has not re-established in the intervening period. The Inishkea islands SPA (Site Code 4034) and Inishderry Island in Broadhaven Bay have had breeding tern colonies (Comic, Little and Sandwich) in the recent past although little is known as to the current status of these colonies. Given the amount of survey effort in recent years it is reasonable to assume that none of the locally occurring tern species have bred in or adjacent to the bay in recent years – certainly not in any significant numbers. The area under consideration for the proposed route is not likely to be of high resource value for any of the tern species. Bar-tailed Godwits are winter visitors to the area and occur in extremely low numbers (typically <10) relative to the threshold for a site to be considered on national importance (180 individuals). Little Egret, although still listed as Annex I species under the Birds Directive have experienced a period of substantial population growth and a northwards extension of their breeding range. Little Egret first bred in Ireland in 1997 and since then have extended across much of the south coast of Ireland. Indeed there are also small breeding colonies much further north and the Irish population of egrets continues to expand in number and distribution with each passing year. The non-breeding birds are distributed even more widely and it is no longer unusual to record this species in virtually any part of Ireland. Indeed a recent assessment of the current status of species included in the original list of ‘Annex I’ species by BirdLife International (2004) considered that the Little Egret had a favourable conservation status across its European range.
Sruwaddacon Bay and the aquatic count areas 1-6 form a small part of the Blacksod/Broadhaven Bay pSPA (Site Code: 4037). The entire Blacksod/Broadhaven Bay pSPA is approximately 74.0 square kilometres in area, whereas count sections 1-6 of EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 56 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Sruwaddacon Bay amount to only 5.3 square kilometres (or 7%). Table 10 shows the occurrence of key species (recorded from 2007 to 2009) in relation to the percentage of the pSPA flock as a whole.
4.4.4 Terrestrial bird studies
Appendix 13, Table 13.11 summarises bird species that have been recorded in the vicinity of the proposed route by terrestrial bird studies undertaken in the area (i.e. the 2007 post breeding study and previous studies). A total of 47 species have been found in the area of the proposed route. Overall, bird diversity and abundance is considered to be low.
The lack of mature ‘woody’ vegetation – outside of the coniferous plantation - characterises the coastal nature of the terrestrial parts of the study area. It also explains the lack or scarcity of many nationally common terrestrial bird species.
Several species of conservation concern were recorded. Two Annex I species have been recorded (Chough and Hen Harrier) with no Red-listed species of high conservation concern in Ireland. A total of eight Amber-listed species of medium conservation concern in Ireland were noted.
The Amber-listed BoCCI species recorded were: Chough, Grasshopper Warbler, Hen Harrier, House Sparrow, Linnet, Sand Martin, Skylark, Snipe, Stonechat, Swallow, Water Rail and Wheatear. Choughs were Red-listed in the previous BoCCI listing (Newton et al. 1999) as their breeding numbers had declined markedly in recent decades. However an extensive All- Ireland Chough Survey carried out in 2002-2003 reported a healthier status than was previously believed (Gray et al. 2003). The Irish coastline is one of the European strongholds for this species and several SPA’s have been designated for their protection. Several of the other species are typical of marginal and/or coastal habitats e.g. Skylark, Wheatear and Linnet, and their conservation status is linked to the threats facing these habitats such as a changing pattern of land use. The Wheatear has experienced a 32% drop in its breeding population in the last seven years and its conservation status has been upgraded from Green to Amber. House Sparrows too have experienced declines in breeding numbers and have become somewhat more patchily distributed in recent times. Sand Martins have an unfavourable status outside their European range, with declines in numbers attributed mainly to drought in winter quarters, ie. African Sahel zone and East Africa (Lynas, 2007). Neither Grasshopper Warbler (a migrant passerine) nor Water Rail are nationally common birds and both are generally found in a narrow range of habitat types. It is doubtful whether these latter species are present in the area more than sporadically – certainly they were only intermittently recorded during the terrestrial surveys conducted in the area over the past number of years. It should be noted that these two species are difficult to detect in the field however.
Choughs are also included in Annex I of the Birds Directive due mainly to their unfavourable conservation status across other parts of the species’ European range. Hen Harriers as shown earlier have been recorded historically in the vicinity of the terminal site. These are large and highly mobile birds that may move towards the coast during the non-breeding season (Lack, 1986).
4.4.5 Limitations in this bird evaluation
The desktop review involved examining multiple studies that were previously conducted within the general area of the proposed route. These studies involved different observers, tidal cycles, survey effort and times of the year. Therefore unknown biases are likely to have been encountered in the assessment of these studies.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 57 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS
The following sections address the potential impacts during the construction, commissioning and the operational phases of the proposed development. In addition the ‘do nothing’ and ‘worst case’ scenarios are also addressed.
Mitigation measures and residual impacts, together with their predicted significance levels and duration are discussed in Sections 6 and 7.
Impact assessment has been undertaken with due regard to the revised EPA Advice Notes on Current Practice (2003); the EPA Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements (2003); and with reference to the discipline-specific Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (IEEM, 2006) and the National Roads Authority’s Guidelines (NRA, for ecological impact assessment.
Criteria for assessing impact level have been derived from those set out in Appendix 4 of the NRA discipline-specific EcIA Guidelines (2004), but expanded in order to be able to address issues such as habitat quality and are shown in Table 7. Terminology for impact significance and duration follows that set out by the EPA (2003) in its generic guidelines.
For the purposes of the ecology impact assessment, potential impacts associated with the LVI are addressed separately at the end of this section. Indirect impacts of road maintenance works are also considered.
Potential impacts on habitats and species are summarised below and in Table 9.
5.1 'Do nothing’ scenario
The proposed pipeline development is situated in a relatively remote area of north-west Co. Mayo where landuse is mainly forestry and agricultural.
If the development were not to proceed, the habitats crossed by the proposed route would remain as they are, with current landuse practices continuing.
There is little pressure on land for development in the area apart from some pressure for one- off housing in the countryside. There are no expected large-scale changes in the area.
Thus, it would be expected that the area would undergo only minor changes in a ‘do-nothing’ scenario.
In a ‘do nothing’ scenario, the local fauna and bird communities will continue to be subject to disturbance, displacement and habitat loss impacts through land use activities including: agriculture, commercial forestry, turf cutting; and natural sediment movements within the dynamic intertidal and marine environment.
5.2 Potential impacts during construction and commissioning stages
In order to be able to assess the potential impacts of the proposed development, the construction plan, which shows the extent of the development including proposed key construction areas, has been examined along with construction methodologies outlined in Chapter 5. As discussed above, construction methodologies have been developed in consultation with ecological experts to avoid and/or minimise potential impacts (see Chapter 5). Therefore the description of potential impacts in the following sub-sections relate to those potential impacts resulting from the proposed construction methods. Construction phase impacts are those associated with all stages of construction, including: fencing, construction activities – including associated construction compounds, pipe stringing areas etc; and reinstatement activities. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 58 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
The method of construction onshore will vary according to the ground conditions and habitat type. The principal construction method for terrestrial habitats will be conventional pipelaying techniques i.e. top soil stripping, though treatment of the surface vegetation will vary. In the highly unlikely event of problems being encountered during tunnelling underneath Sruwaddacon Bay, or in the case of an emergency, an intervention pit may be required. Other crossings such as those for streams and the Leenamore River (inlet on the southern shore of Sruwaddacon Bay) will be open cut.
Potential impacts on habitats and species are considered in more detail below. Table 9 summarises the potential and predicted impact levels for habitat types and species which occur along the proposed route.
Table 7: Impact magnitude matrix
Impact Magnitude Internationally Nationally High value, Moderate Low value, important important locally value, locally (A sites) (B sites) important locally important (C sites) important (E sites) (D sites)
Profound negative Any permanent Permanent impacts impacts on a large part of a site Significant negative Temporary Permanent Permanent impacts on a impacts on a impacts on a large part of a site small part of a large part of a site site Moderate Temporary Temporary Permanent Permanent Permanent Negative impacts on a impacts on a impacts on a impacts on impact on a site small part of a site large part of a small part of a a small part if part of a site site of a site designated site Slight Temporary Temporary Permanent Permanent Negative impacts on a impacts on a impacts on impacts on a small part of a large part of a a small part large part of a site site of a site site Imperceptible Temporary Temporary Permanent Negative impacts on a impacts on impacts on a small part of a small part small part of a the site of the site site Neutral No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts
Slight Positve Permanent Permanent beneficial beneficial impacts on impacts on a a small part large part of a of a site site * For ecological evaluation criteria see Table 5 above
5.2.1 Potential impacts on habitats
In addition to the information provided in the following sections on individual habitats, Table 8 below outlines the extent of habitat loss or disturbance, both temporary and permanent resulting from the proposed development. The extent of habitat loss has been estimated on the basis of the information provided by the Habitat Mapping (Figure 1, sheets 1 to 3) and the area to be disturbed within the temporary working areas, pipeline stringing areas, site compounds and temporary access roads.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 59 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
In most cases part of the temporary site compounds lie within the temporary working area so therefore only that part of the compound that lies outside the temporary working area has been quantified in Table 8
5.2.1.1 Landfall and Glengad terrestrial section
There will be no impact on the previously undisturbed sections on either side of the reinstated cliff section.
Improved grassland, wet grassland and marshy grassland (including cSAC Habitats at Glengad)
Improved grassland and wet, rushy, improved grassland will be subject to conventional pipelaying techniques i.e. top soil stripping, excavation, backfilling, etc within temporary working area. The larger, Iris - dominated marshy area to the east and salt marsh will not be subject to impact because the pipeline tunnel will pass beneath them. Consequently, impacts will be confined to improved grassland, and wet, rushy improved grassland. Impacts will include temporary loss of habitat, and habitat disruption during construction. Impacts associated with site compound, SC1 and SC2 are expected to be temporary / short term.
Impacts are expected to be direct, localised and moderate during construction. See below for impacts associated with the LVI itself.
The landfall valve installation (LVI) is considered separately below at 5.2.4 below.
5.2.1.2 Recovering eroded blanket bog - undesignated (Ch. 89.350 to 89.540)
Recovering eroded blanket bog is considered to be an EU Annex I habitat (PB5/PB3). It is nevertheless modified to some degree and is valued as being of National importance. The main impacts on blanket bog are associated with compaction and hydrology (see also Chapter 15 of EIS).
The most critical effect of compaction is on the roots of the vegetation. Compaction can cause an oxygen deficit around the roots which in turn leads to die back and surface vegetation change. Compaction is also associated with surface water-logging which also results in species change, often resulting in dominance by rush species and a loss of typical blanket bog species.
The potential impact of hydrological change is a concern, especially in the context of a linear feature such as a pipeline. Without mitigation, a buried pipeline might effectively function as a field drain, resulting in water egress from the bog, drying and long term permanent change in habitat. For this reason precaution against sub-bog drainage will be put in place (see 6 Mitigation below. (See also Chapter 15, Soils and Geology).
Another potential impact is interference with chemical balance, for example as a result of the importation of non-chemically compatible materials such as stone. This could result in permanent vegetation change.
Specialised construction methods have been developed with ecological input for construction in blanket bog habitats in order to minimise any potential impact, but at the same time to ensure the effective construction and safety of personnel during construction. The proposed methodology includes the installation of a stone road and the need for turving in the 190 metre section of recovering blanket bog at Aghoos (ch. 89.350 to 89.540). Turving involves removal of the upper active vegetation layer in the form of large turves, approximately 2m x 1m x 0.5m deep, which will then stored within the temporary working area. At the end of construction the bog surface will be carefully reinstated with these turves. Full details of the proposed methodology are provided in Chapter 5.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 60 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Potential impacts resulting from the proposed construction methodologies on recovering eroded blanket bog traversed by the proposed route are expected to be temporary, direct, localised and moderate.
5.2.1.3 Eroding Blanket bog (undesignated)
Construction methodology in these areas will be conventional techniques without the removal of the vegetation layer as turves. The surface layer of peat, including the vegetation will be removed and stored pending reinstatement. An outline of the proposed methodology to enable vegetation regeneration and restoration is set out under Section 6, Mitigation below.
Construction phase impact levels are expected to be short term, direct, localised and moderate.
5.2.1.4 Cutover Blanket bog (undesignated)
Cutover is present on a small part of the pipeline stringing area. Other areas of cutover will be used as storage areas for surface layer peat removed from the construction compound, where construction methodology in these areas will be standard spread techniques without the removal of the vegetation layer as turves.
Construction phase impact levels are expected to be short term, direct, localised and moderate
5.2.1.5 Salt marsh
Construction of the Leenamore River crossing will disturb some salt marsh. At this location a turving technique similar to that described for blanket bog will be employed. This type of habitat is vulnerable particularly because of the friable nature of the substrate and relatively low coherence of the vegetative layer.
Salt marsh is an EU Annex 1 habitat and it has to be evaluated according to its Annex status, with impact level assessed accordingly. The salt marsh at Glengad will not be subject to impact because the pipeline tunnel will pass underneath it.
The potential impact level on salt marsh affected during construction is expected to be direct, temporary, localised and moderate.
5.2.1.6 Intertidal habitats
The use of the tunnel between Glengad and Aghoos will avoid impacts to intertidal habitats. The potential impacts on intertidal habitats of an intervention pit, if required in a worst case scenario, are described in Chapter 14 of EIS.
In the unlikely event that an intervention pit were to be required at the western end of the Bay in the intertidal zone, any access to the foreshore will avoid the developing salt marsh (see Note 7 on Figure 1, Habitat map sheet 1), and the occasional bird feeding and loafing area near that location.
Potential impacts on species of fauna using the intertidal habitats are discussed below.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 61 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Table 8: Quantification of temporary and permanent habitat disturbance resulting from the Corrib Onshore Pipeline development
Habitat description Area (m2) Description of Comment works Reinstated sedimentary cliff and 400 LVI drainage outfall Temporary disturbance foreshore (is within the cSAC) Improved agricultural grassland 440 LVI footprint Permanent change (is within the cSAC) 894 LVI side slopes Temporary disturbance (is within the cSAC) 629 LVI hard standing Temporary disturbance (is within the cSAC) 4,500 TWA/SC1 Temporary disturbance (is within the cSAC) 2,190 Access road to LVI Permanent change (1,177m2 is within the cSAC) 11,400 TWA between SC1 Temporary disturbance and SC2 (9,995 m2 is within the cSAC) Mosaic of improved agricultural 3500 TWA/SC2 Temporary disturbance grassland and wet ,rushy, grassland (626m2 is within the cSAC) Wet grassland, marsh, salt marsh and n/a Tunnel Temporary disturbance only if estuarine habitats an emergency intervention pit is required Lower salt marsh and intertidal 2,026.87 TWA Temporary disturbance estuarine at Leenamore River Scrub (mostly Gorse) 400 TWA Some permanent loss of Gorse scrub within 14m permanent wayleave Wet, rushy, grassland at 7, 200 TWA Temporary disturbance Aghoos/Leenamore Heavily eroded blanket bog 23,964 TWA/SC3 Short term disturbance Old cutover 27,012 Peat storage areas Short term disturbance Severely eroding blanket bog with wet 20,643 TWA/Pipeline Temporary disturbance acid grassland (Nardus – dominated) stringing area (PSA includes some wet, rushy grassland) Eroding upland rivers (freshwater - TWA Temporary disturbance streams) Recovering eroded blanket bog 7,600 TWA Temporary disturbance Conifer plantation 30,091.93 TWA Permanent change of habitat Recently felled woodland (conifer 53,860.57 TWA Temporary disturbance plantation) including artificial surfaces 4,000 SC4 Temporary disturbance Buildings and artificial surface 10,000 SC5 Short term disturbance
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 62 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
5.2.1.7 Earthen (Sod) bank boundaries
Some earthen (sod) bank field boundaries may need to be dismantled during construction. Such impacts are expected to be temporary, localised Slight Negative
5.2.1.8 Scrub (Gorse)
During construction the removal of scrub will result in short term loss of habitat. In habitat terms the potential impact is considered to be temporary, localised and Slight Negative. The potential impact of this is mainly associated with faunal species and is considered below.
5.2.1.9 Conifer plantations
The loss of habitat as a result of tree felling within the working width of the proposed pipeline will result in a localised Slight Negative impact in habitat terms. The main impact is that associated with habitat loss for fauna and is considered below.
5.2.1.10 EU Annex habitats - general
The area of Glenamoy Bog Complex cSAC EU Annex habitats to be disturbed during construction of the pipeline will be confined to a 40 metre wide working area for the approximately 50 metre crossing of the Leenamore River inlet and is extremely localised in the context of the area of the designated site as a whole and the Annex habitat types present therein.
Disturbance to the undesignated recovering Annex I blanket bog habitat at Aghoos will also be confined to a 40 metre working width for the 190m stretch of pipeline through this area.
No impact on annexed habitats outside the immediate area of construction activities is anticipated.
Recommendations for mitigation, including habitat reinstatement for the various habitat types, are set out under Mitigation in section 6 below.
5.2.1.11 Soft coastal habitats – sediment movements
As shown on Pipeline Alignment Sheet 1 of 6 (See Appendix A) the LVI site compound (SC1) and the tunnel reception compound (SC2) do not impact directly upon either the salt marsh or the dune system at Glengad. The proposed development will have no impact upon sediment movement in and around the existing or developing dune and salt marsh habitats.
In the unlikely event of an intervention pit being required, any access required to the foreshore will avoid the developing salt marsh and the dune system. Therefore, the proposed development will have no impact on the rates of sedimentation and erosion.
It should be noted as outlined in Chapter 14, that Sruwaddacon Bay is a dynamic system providing a transitional zone between the freshwater riverine flow and the fully marine environment of Broadhaven Bay. The entire estuary is continuously swept by semi-diurnal tides. Given the natural variability and dynamic nature of the estuary, constantly changing patterns of sedimentation and erosion are expected – as have been observed in recent years for example, with sand accretion leading to the developing foredunes on the northern side of the main dune system; and the developing salt marsh to the north of the wayleave (Refer to Habitat sheet 1, Note 7).
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 63 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
5.2.2 Potential impacts on non-avian fauna
Wildlife within the proposed pipeline route are expected to be affected during the construction of the proposed development across the existing open countryside and within Sruwaddacon Bay. Loss of foraging areas and breeding habitat may displace certain species. Mitigation measures are recommended to ameliorate these impacts. Potential impact levels are summarised in Table 9.
5.2.2.1 Habitat loss, fragmentation and disturbance
Along the proposed route, the affected habitats may be considered within the context of the principal habitat types referred to earlier.
x Intertidal sands and mudflats; and salt marsh provide foraging habitat for otters, foxes, and avian species. Foraging of some species will be affected in the vicinity of construction. Salt marsh also serves as a wildlife corridor for the movement of mammals along the shore. Construction impacts are expected to be localised, temporary Slight to Moderate5 Negative, depending upon the species.
x No significant impacts are expected on the fauna of the dune system and associated habitats at Glengad. Foraging of some species will be affected in the immediate vicinity of construction works. This will result in potentially temporary localised Slight Negative impacts during construction,
x Loss of habitats and associated disturbance within the agricultural grassland areas are expected to have a temporary/short term, localised Imperceptible or Slight negative impact. There will be impacts on common and ubiquitous species. There will also be loss of foraging habitat for species such as badgers and other common species. These agricultural habitats are common in the area, and there are expected to be Imperceptible to Slight Negative impacts on fauna.
x Loss of scrub and earthen bank boundaries will affect both birds and mammals as a result of some loss of foraging habitat and also through loss of commuting routes. During construction these are expected to be localised, temporary and Slight Negative.
x The coniferous plantations provide limited foraging and breeding habitat for a number of mammalian and avian species. Foraging of some species will be affected in the vicinity of pipeline construction. During construction these are expected to be localised, temporary and Slight Negative.
x Blanket bog habitats provide breeding habitat for amphibian species and foraging habitat for some mammalian and avian species. During construction impacts would be expected to be localised temporary and Slight Negative.
5.2.2.2 Specific potential impacts on fauna
Mammals
Common species
There may be some mortality of small, common species during construction. Protected species such as pygmy shrew and hedgehog may be directly impacted. There are limited ways to protect such species and they are common in Ireland. Potential impacts may be considered as Imperceptible Negative or Neutral.
5 The equivalent impact magnitude under EPA Guidelines is SlIght. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 64 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Many species will move away from the areas of disturbance, returning after habitat re- instatement to use the affected areas much as before. These species would include red deer, Irish hare, Pine marten, Irish stoat etc., as well as non-protected species such as fox.
Seals
For consideration of potential impacts on seals and other marine mammals, please see Chapter 14 of EIS.
Badgers
Badgers are active on both sides of Sruwaddacon Bay, but appear to be localised. Badger activity was noted between the Terminal site and the southern side of the Bay; also between the Leenamore River and Pollatomish, and on the north side of the Bay (roughly at the Bay’s midpoint). No badger signs were found at Glengad. No badger setts were found within the corridor of the pipeline route.
The proposed development will entail minor loss of foraging habitat for this species for a short period only. There are not expected to be any long-term significant impacts on badgers present in the general locality. Badgers are expected to persist in the locality in numbers as at present. However, badgers are at some risk of falling into open trenches during construction.
Potential impacts on badgers during construction are expected to be temporary and Slight Negative.
Pre-construction surveys will be completed to check for further badger setts that may be impacted on by the proposed development.
Otters
Short-term impacts on otters are to be expected. Otters use all of the Bay area as foraging habitat and there are numerous resting places along the shores of the Bay. One occasional holt is present to the south west of the Glengad landfall. No confirmed breeding holts could be found within the study area, whilst these are, of course, present in the locality.
The foraging range of individual otters will undoubtedly be affected to some extent during construction works. Machinery and disturbance could reduce otter access to some portions of their range, which may have implications for food availability for otters during this period, which may be more critical for female otters with young. Otters may attempt to cross open pipeline trenches. Such impacts are expected to be Slight to Moderate6 Negative, with otters returning to utilise their ranges as before once construction operations are concluded.
Any construction within 150 - 200m of active principal holts will be considered as having potential impact. Loud noises such as pile driving may have impacts on otters over a similar radius. Otters can be relatively tolerant of disturbance, but will undoubtedly be affected by the construction of the pipeline in the short term – mainly through disturbance. Otters occur on watercourses in urban areas and become tolerant of human activity. Given the nature of the development, there is considered to be no expectation that otter populations and their use of the Bay area will be affected in the long-term, provided that any holts with otters present are not directly impacted.
The Bay area is likely to return to existing condition after works are completed and habitat reinstatement has restored the affected shorelines and habitats to much as before. The food supply of otters is also likely to return to existing conditions over a relatively short period of
6 The equivalent impact magnitude under EPA Guidelines is SlIght. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 65 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) time. Impacts on otters are therefore expected to be temporary Slight Negative to potentially Moderate7 Negative during construction.
Bats
Few bats were recorded in the study area.
Bat species within the survey area are not expected to be affected by either the construction phase or subsequent existence of the proposed pipeline across the existing landscape. Loss of vegetation and temporary loss of habitat during construction will not affect bat populations to any measurable extent. Construction works will have little or no impact on bat movements in the Bay area and will not affect foraging habitats for bats in the area to any measurable extent.
Potential impacts on bats during construction are expected to be temporary Neutral or Imperceptible Negative.
Amphibians and reptiles
Frogs are present and common in some localities in the study area, notably in bog habitats at the south-east of the pipeline route. There are several, confirmed frog breeding sites as well as additional potential frog breeding sites. Some of these will be directly impacted by the development. Mitigation measures will be required in these areas to ameliorate impacts on amphibians.
Potential impact levels on amphibians are will be temporary and Slight Negative during construction.
Impacts on the common lizard may be Slight Negative; and some mortality may occur during construction works.
5.2.2.3 Potential impacts on wildlife in surrounding areas
The proposed development is expected to have imperceptible impact on the wildlife in surrounding areas. The pipeline temporary working area is narrow and impacts will be limited to those addressed above. There is no indication that impacts on fauna will extend beyond the vicinity of the pipeline and the Bay area. Impacts would not be expected to be of any higher magnitude than those discussed above.
5.2.3 Potential impacts on birds
It should be noted that, when assessing impact levels on qualifying bird species and species of special conservation interest for the cSAC and pSPA, the impact magnitude on a designated site of international importance and the species of importance to that site cannot be given a value lower than Moderate when following discipline –specific guidelines (ie. EcIA guidance, NRA and IEEM), even though the likelihood for disturbance may be extremely low, and the corresponding potential impact of a highly localised and temporary - even transient - nature. (see Table 7). For comparison, under the EPA impact assessment guidelines however, such an impact would be classified as imperceptible or slight.
Potential impacts on birds include habitat loss or degradation; and disturbance as result of the presence, movement and noise generated by personnel and machinery associated with the construction works.
It must be noted that, with the exception of site compounds, the temporary working area in terrestrial habitats is narrow and the nature of pipeline construction, with habitat reinstatement, ensures that the impacts will be highly localised both spatially and temporally.
7 The equivalent impact magnitude under EPA Guidelines is SlIght. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 66 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
As the proposed tunnelling methodology avoids surface intervention, it minimises potential disruption to the important estuarine habitats for birds.
Potential impacts on birds are summarised in Table 9, and are considered below in more detail. They include:
x Habitat loss and degradation x Disturbance – lighting, construction noise and vibration x Indirect sources of disturbance – interaction of various impacts; increased human activity; traffic movements; risk of collision from cranes, light arrays, fencing etc.
In the following sections the potential impacts, without mitigation, of the proposed development are considered. The effects are described under various headings including: the source of the impact; potential effect on the bird species known to occur in this locality; and the possible impact on the key resources for birds feeding, roosting and breeding in the area. Impacts are also considered in the context of the designated sites, qualifying species and species of special conservation interest.
The proposed pipeline development is situated in a rural area of north-west Co. Mayo where landuse is mainly forestry and agricultural, with some non-commercial harvesting of natural shellfish beds.
5.2.3.1 Terrestrial bird habitats
There is the potential for the construction of the proposed pipeline onshore to disturb and degrade habitats for birds, either temporarily or in the short term. On land there is potential for earthworks for pipeline construction could result in habitat damage and indirect impacts in the wider area, such as those caused by run-off, hydrological changes and sedimentation.
The bird community in the vicinity of the pipeline will be subject to habitat changes as a result of the construction works. These changes could potentially lead to a loss or deterioration of some roosting, nesting and/or feeding habitat for the local bird community. In the overland areas of the proposed pipeline, there is the potential for loss or degradation of feeding and roosting areas for birds. However, the habitats present along and in the vicinity of the overland portions of this route are commonly occurring throughout the locality so that affected birds may be able to successfully nest and/or forage in these nearby locations.
Any habitat changes leading to a loss or deterioration of nesting and/or feeding habitat will result in a temporary (short term in the case of SC3), slight negative impact.
The area within the working width will potentially be degraded as a resource for birds, especially during the construction period. The duration of this impact on birds will vary from temporary to short-term – the latter in the case of habitats where site compounds are in place for extended periods. There will be a small permanent loss of habitat at the LVI footprint. Inadequate or unsuccessful mitigation could also result in habitat loss or degradation.
During construction, in addition to a small loss of habitat at the footprint of the landfall valve installation, there will be also be temporary loss of habitat in areas adjacent to the landfall valve installation, including the access road. These works will also be located in areas of improved agricultural grassland of low ecological value – some of which are currently bare soil as a result of habitat reinstatement after the landfall works for the offshore pipeline in 2008 and 2009.
Construction impacts are expected to be localised, direct, moderate, and temporary or short term (SC3) in all but the footprint area of the LVI. Other potential impacts related to bird usage of terrestrial habitats are:
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 67 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
x The presence of the compounds along the route of the pipeline will lead to a temporary loss or degradation of habitat for locally occurring birds.
x The overland laying of pipe has the potential (without mitigation) to increase the risk of run-off to waterways and to impact on the local hydrology.
x The operation of machinery etc. has the potential to introduce polluting compounds into the habitats around the working area and if run-off were not controlled there would be a potential risk of pollution events
x The prolonged presence of personnel in the working areas, particularly at Aghoos has the potential to increase edible wastes into the area. This has the potential to attract concentrations of scavenging species which could disrupt the balance of the local avian community
x The removal and reuse of excavate and tunnel arisings could have a negative impact on birds if it were to be spread or stockpiled in an area which degraded or excluded birds from a habitat of importance
Habitats of Importance to birds along the pipeline route
The onshore sections of the route of the pipeline from the landfall valve at Glengad to the terminal site at Bellanaboy crosses a variety of habitat types. These are relatively species poor and typically hold a low density overall of birds. The open nature of the habitats and lack of deciduous trees and woodland is significant in determining the species of bird that breed or forage along the terrestrial route. Species such as Meadow Pipit and Skylark are typical of improved agricultural lands and the modified /degraded bog habitats present.
The absence of improved grassland habitats along much of the route decreases the potential resource value for waterfowl or field-feeding waders.
Estuarine and intertidal habitats
The habitats of greatest importance traversed by the pipeline route are within the Natura 2000 designated intertidal areas of Sruwaddacon Bay. The use of a segment lined tunnel will avoid impacts to intertidal habitats. The potential impacts on intertidal habitats of an emergency intervention pit, if required in a worst case scenario, are described in Chapter 14 of EIS.
The construction, operation and decommissioning of such a pit would, depending upon its location, have the potential to cause loss of / disturbance to food sources for aquatic birds; contamination of estuarine waters / sediments (see Chapter 14 of EIS); disturbance to sedimentation patterns; and potential for disturbance and/or displacement, habitat degradation; and local disturbance to feeding or roosting birds in the immediate vicinity of the pit. In a worst case scenario, if an intervention pit were to be required, the potential impacts on birds, might be expected to be temporary, slight/moderate (depending upon location) and localised.
5.2.3.2 Lighting
It is accepted that artificial light can disturb activity patterns, phenology, and hormone regulated processes of many animal species (e.g. Longcore & Rich, 2004; Navara & Nelson, 2007; Rich & Longcore, 2006). The impact of artificial light on birds has been the subject of research for behavioural ecologists in terms of inappropriate night-time singing in birds (e.g. Miller, 2006) and disorientation in nocturnal migrants (e.g. Poot et al., 2008). The foraging success of several wading bird species is known to be related to light level indicating that visual cues are important in the detection of their benthic prey (e.g. Evans 1987). Many of the wading bird and wildfowl species overwintering in the Sruwaddacon Bay area also forage at
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 68 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) night to meet their energetic requirements. There is virtually no light pollution present and nights, except for moonlit nights with clear skies, are dark.
Artificial light at Aghoos (SC3) during the construction of the pipeline
The Aghoos tunnelling site compound (SC3) will require lighting for health, safety and security reasons. It is in relatively close proximity to the southern shore of Sruwaddacon Bay. Details of the proposed lighting régime for compound SC3 are given in Chapter 10. The compound lighting and the lighting of structures such as cranes has the potential to impact on birds in the vicinity of the compound – both terrestrial and waterbird species.
The lighting arrays at SC3 will be present for a prolonged period and the poles upon which the downward facing white lights will be secured will be up to 8m in height. These brightly lit areas could impact on birds within the zone of influence in a number of ways:
x Birds could choose to avoid well lit areas. This would be significant if the avoidance area was extensive, and if it coincided with important resources (e.g. feeding, roosting, commuting routes) of the affected birds.
x Birds could be attracted towards the light and increase their energy expenditure in approaching the lit area. The lighting arrays and above ground structures could pose a collision risk in these circumstances. This impact would be most serious if it were to impact on migrating birds and or typically pelagic species.
x Birds could be more watchful (of predators) feeding in areas on the foreshore that had light trespass from the compound at Aghoos. Restlessness and increased physiological stress would be a potentially negative impact if preferred roosts and feeding areas were to be exposed to considerably increased light intensity during the nocturnal period.
x The lighting could cause inappropriate nocturnal singing and territorial disputes in terrestrial bird species.
x Artificial lighting could increase predator activity, and capture success, of roosting and feeding birds within its zone of influence.
x Artificial lighting might impact upon the prey availability and foraging success of birds through disorientation, glare, also changes in the behaviour of prey, etc.
Lighting and known concentrations of birds
The position of site compound SC3 at Aghoos is set back a short distance from the southern shore line of Sruwaddacon Bay which gives rise to a risk of light spillage onto the foreshore area. The indicative bird usage mapping at low and high tide (Figures 3.3 and 3.7) illustrate clearly the concentrations of birds within the bay in relation to the proposed compound.
Aghoos is several kilometres from the open water of Broadhaven Bay and the north coast, and would not be expected to be a significant attractant of pelagic or coastally migrating birds at night. However, birds feeding or roosting close to the mouth of the Leenamore River could be at risk of the light disturbance effects described earlier. The results of the breeding and non-breeding season surveys indicate that the area around Aghoos does not support many feeding birds of any species, and there have been no records on birds using this area as a high-water roost. A walkover of the site of the pipe-stringing area (PSA), site compound area (SC3) indicated that these habitats support a very poor diversity and overall abundance of bird species. Therefore the risk of lighting as a potential cause of significant disturbance to birds in the zone of influence of the compounds would be considered low. Appendix J1, Appendix 17 Figure 17.3 shows the proposed lighting régime at SC3 and light levels in the intertidal zone.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 69 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Lighting of the compounds at Glengad (SC1 and SC2) will not be required for general works, but may be required occasionally. The provision for lighting will be the same as that used in 2008 and 2009 during the landfall works for the offshore pipeline, and not of the same height or intensity as that required at Aghoos SC3. If the Glengad compounds do need to be lit for any reason, then there would be some potential for light spillage resulting in temporary impacts on birds in the immediate vicinity. Potential impacts resulting from light emissions are expected to be temporary or short term (SC3), and localised slight to moderate (depending upon location) negative.
5.2.3.3 Noise Impacts
The potential for noise disturbance is obvious to anyone that has observed a flock of birds take flight in response to a sudden loud noise. Hearing in birds and the potential for noise to cause disturbance in various circumstances and species has been discussed at length in the scientific literature (e.g. Dooling 2002). In recent years it has been found that, apart from loud intermittent noise and its “scaring” effect, that ongoing noise “pollution” can have subtle but biologically significant impacts on birds. For instance, it has been discovered that in urban environments that songbirds sing louder and with a depleted repertoire when compared to rural conspecifics (Yong, 2008). Noise pollution has been shown to have a negative impact on species diversity in certain circumstances and that nest productivity can vary significantly between noisy and quiet areas (Science Daily, 2009).
However, although pyrotechnics and acoustic bird scarers are still marketed as effective bird deterrents it is now known that the “banger” type devices are of limited effectiveness due to rapid habituation of resident birds (Bishop et al. 2003). Similarly, it is observed that many birds can habituate to road traffic noise, industrial noise etc. Ultrasonic devices marketed as bird scarers are likely to be completely ineffective as it is known that most bird species are less sensitive than humans above 15kHz (Dooling, 2002).
Noise during the construction of the pipeline
There will be several sources of potential noise disturbance to birds during the construction of the onshore pipeline. The machinery concentrated at Aghoos tunnelling compound will be the most significant source of potential noise disturbance. Generators, operation of heavy plant, the separation plant, assembly of machinery, traffic, general construction noise, erection of fencing and other structures, human vocalisations etc. all have the potential to be disruptive to birds within range of these noise sources. Details of noise emissions are given in Chapter 9.
The noise impacts on birds may be separated into:
x those resulting from ongoing background noise features from general construction activity and operation of generators etc.; and x those which are “unexpected” peaks in noise levels that could startle birds within close proximity of the noise source.
During compound installation and decommissioning phases the likely noise levels and sudden peaks are more likely as the activities are different than ongoing works, and less amenable to attenuation by acoustic screening.
During the terrestrial phases of pipe laying the noise of the construction activities and reinstatement has the potential to affect terrestrial as well as waterbirds – though this noise is more akin to the noise emanating from machinery involved in normal agricultural land management practices.
A range of variables will determine how increases in noise level are transmitted to birds in the proximity of the works – e.g. prevailing winds, wind speed, precipitation, cloud base/cover, tidal state, time of day, background noise from other sources. The potential impacts caused by noise associated with the construction activities might include:
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 70 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
x Avoidance of affected areas by certain bird species or individuals
x Increasing the difficulty of normal vocal interaction between birds in the vicinity of noise sources
x Increase in restlessness or physiological stress of birds feeding, nesting or roosting in the affected areas
x Change in the pattern of usage of impacted areas as a result of differences in tolerance of certain species to increases in noise levels
Noise sources and known concentrations of birds
The area with the most persistent and noise- causing activities will be the tunnelling compound at Aghoos (SC3). The construction of the compound, its operation and eventual decommissioning, all have the potential to disturb the local bird community. The noise sources are described in Chapter 9, and include the various activities associated with the tunnelling operation. Other potentially noisy activities include the unloading and loading of materials, and general construction traffic.
The area where site compound SC3 is to be located is unimportant for terrestrial birds and is not situated close to any areas of high waterbird concentration. (Figures 3.3 and 3.7) Without mitigation there would be potential for greater impact on those birds that choose to stay in the area around the works.
At Glengad the noise associated with the construction of the LVI; the operation of the LVI site compound (SC1), and tunnel reception compound (SC2) has less potential to negatively impact upon nearby concentrations of terrestrial and waterbirds. The duration during which these compounds will be fully operational is significantly shorter than the works area at Aghoos and there will significantly less noise generating activity in the two Glengad works areas. However, given the proximity of the Glengad compound to sensitive areas for birds it is likely that noise impacts could (without mitigation) lead to a diminished usage of the nearby parts of the estuary at certain times by key species.
However, it must be noted that the recent experience of the operation of a construction compound at Glengad (landfall works for the offshore pipeline) has provided evidence of the continued usage of nearby areas by Brent Geese and Sand Martin, also usage of the high water roost area to the east of the proposed works area. The landfall works in 2009 were closer to the sensitive area for both of those key species than SC2 will be (Plate 34, Appendix 15),, and no discernable avoidance or diminished resource usage was recorded during the period when the landfall works were taking place.
Potential impacts on birds from noise emissions are expected to be temporary to short term (depending upon location), localised, moderate negative.
5.2.3.4 Noise and vibration associated with the tunnelling operation
The construction of a segment-lined tunnel under the Bay from Aghoos to Glengad will involve the operation of a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM). Details of this construction methodology are given in Chapter 5.
It is not predicted that noise impacts from the operation of the TBM will increase the audible noise at the surface of the bay under which it is passing. The overburden will attenuate the noise from the rotation of the TBM and lining of the tunnel.
The indicative areas of high bird usage maps (Figures 3.3 and 3.7) illustrate the areas where bird concentrations occur at low tide and high tide. The tunnel is generally located mid-bay apart from the launch and reception ends. The route does not pass under any of the areas of high bird concentration. The high water roost on the sandbank near the Glengad end is of
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 71 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) importance for a range of species however, the proposed route passes the extreme southernmost of the roost area. This area is large and elevated and space is not at a premium for birds roosting at this location. In the unlikely event of a portion of the roost area being disturbed for the short period when the TBM would be passing under this area there is no shortage of alternative high-water roosting areas in the immediate locality.
The TBM will move forwards very slowly, with an average horizontal progress 11m per day. It will rotate at a very low frequency of 6 rotations per minute, and operates intermittently – approximately 15 minutes in each hour, there being no vibrations produced during the remainder of each hour. As a result, no high frequency vibrations or noise are produced during this operation.
The vibration levels that will be felt at or near the surface of the substrate over the actively rotating boring head will be, at worst, 0.16 mm/second (160 micrometres per second) r.m.s. broadband value (ie. total vibration between 1 Hz and 100 Hz), a PPV equivalent of 0.5 mm/second. The highest predicted velocity is 0.16 mm/second r.m.s. at 31.5 Hz. This level might be expected to be just perceptible at the onset. Vibration velocities typically halve with each doubling of distance from the TBM, reducing to 0.035 mm/s at 80m distance from the TBM at which distance it will not be perceptible. mms-1 RMS. See Chapter 9 for further details.
It is noted that it is the rotation of the cutting face of the TBM which will produce the vibration. Noise and vibrations from other processes within the tunnel such as logistics and placement of the segment lining will be negligible. The gradual forwards movement of the TBM, means that the potential impact on birds feeding on the surface will be highly localised and temporary, lasting for one or two days - at most - in any one location.
Given the low level of the worst case scenario for vibration caused by the TBM, the potential for disturbance of birds or their benthic prey would appear to be highly localised (spatially and temporally) in extent, and moderate8 negative at most. If there were to be perceptible impacts associated with the passage of the TBM under any area of the Bay the chances of the potential impacts on birds or their prey are unlikely to be anything other than highly localised and temporary. Impacts on benthic fauna are discussed in Chapter 14.
5.2.3.5 Other sources of Disturbance
There is the potential for different sources of disturbance to have an additive or synergetic impact e.g. noise and light disturbance. There are other potential sources of disturbance that may transmit multiple possible stimuli to birds and their environment. For instance, the movement of vehicles and personnel can have multiple potential impacts on birds and their environment.
Traffic to and from the construction footprint, especially the compounds, has the potential to disturb birds in the wider area. Erection of fences, gantry cranes, etc. could increase the risk of collision by birds commuting during period of low visibility (fog, low light).
Such impacts would be expected to be temporary, slight to moderate and highly localised.
5.2.3.6 Potential impacts on the designated sites and bird species of conservation interest
As stated above, it should be noted that, in accordance with EcIA guidance (NRA and IEEM) when assessing impact levels on qualifying bird species and species of special conservation interest for the cSAC and pSPA, the impact magnitude on a designated site of international importance and the species of importance to that site cannot be given a value lower than Moderate even though the likelihood for disturbance may be extremely low and the potential impact of a highly localised and temporary - even transient - nature. (See Table 7). Under the
8 Impact magnitude level is ‘moderate’ because of its being within a site of International importance; if it were not in an SPA or equivalent the impact level would be considered ‘imperceptible’ as would be the case if using the EPA impact magnitude criteria. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 72 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
EPA impact assessment guidelines however, such an impact would be classified as imperceptible or slight.
In order to assess the potential impact on the qualifying species for the pSPA and cSAC, it is necessary to put the numbers of any of these species, which have been recorded in the area in recent years, in the context of the pSPA flock as a whole. The qualifying and special interest bird species for the cSAC and pSPA, which have been recorded in the Sruwaddacon Bay area in recent years, are shown in Table 10, along with the percentage of the known pSPA flock9 for each species.
None of these species, with the exception of Brent Goose, are present in the wider Bay area in significant numbers at any time. Brent Geese usage is concentrated in the outer sections of the study area (see Figure 3.5) and not within Sruwaddacon Bay itself.
Table 10: Species of conservation interest: percentage of the cSAC and pSPA flock recorded in the Sruwaddacon Bay area (2007 to 2009). Figures in brackets refer to (LW) peak counts and percentage based on (LW) peak counts.
Species pSPA/cSAC Average HW (LW) Mean HW % of pSPA Peak HW % of pSPA status peak counts 2007 Peak count flock at HW count figures flock at to 2009 during 1995 to 2000 (LW) for pSPA HW (LW) Corrib surveys of for pSPA (NPWS May the wider (Crowe, Based on 2009) † Based on Sruwaddacon Bay 2005) Crowe (2005) NPWS area (2009)
Golden Qualifying 1 (0) 849 0.12 - - Plover species for cSAC
Ringed Qualifying 14.5 (103) 417 3.48 (24.7) 379 3.8 (27.2) Plover species for pSPA
Bar-tailed Qualifying 1 (5) 506 0.2 (0.98) 476 0.2 (1) Godwit species for pSPA
Sandwich Qualifying 44 (0) - - [81 pairs at 25 (0) Tern species for Inishderry] pSPA In outer and middle Bay areas
Great Special 2 (2) 54 3.7 41 4.9 (4.9) Northern conservation Diver interest for the pSPA
Common Special 0 (0) 449 0 561 0 Scoter conservation interest for the pSPA
Dunlin Special 2.5 (64) 1663 0.15 (3.8) 2003 0.12 (3.2) conservation interest for the pSPA
Light-bellied Special 250 (230)§ 195 128.2 (118) § - - Brent Goose conservation interest for the pSPA † - in submission to Án Bord Pleanála with regard to re-designation of the pSPA (May, 2009) § - In line with count areas throughout Ireland, peak counts of Brent Geese in recent years have exceeded the high water peak counts referred to by Crowe (2005). The national flock has substantially increased in number.
9 This is based on two sources (Crowe, 2005) and information received from NPWS in 2009 in relation to the proposed redesignation of the pSPA. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 73 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Avian Species of special Conservation Interest
x The Golden Plover is the only qualifying bird species for the cSAC, which could potentially be impacted by the construction of the proposed pipeline development. Historically, Golden Plover were noted to occur, on occasion, in the inner bay in considerable numbers, but this has not been the case in 2007-2010. Indeed, this species has been very rarely recorded in recent winters despite the intensive survey schedule. It is a dynamic feeder, with a requirement for an abundant food supply near the surface, and the current condition of Sruwaddacon Bay in terms of available food supply appears not to meet this species requirements. Neither has it been present at high water roosts except as a very occasional individual. Based on the recent survey data and information on the paucity of benthic fauna (Chapter 14), no impact on the species is anticipated.
x The other qualifying species for the cSAC are Barnacle Goose, Storm Petrel, Merlin, Peregrine Falcon and Chough.
The Barnacle Goose is not known to occur in the Sruwaddacon Bay area, and it has not been recorded, even as a casual sighting, during surveys, therefore no impact on this species is expected.
Storm Petrel, Merlin, Peregrine Falcon and Chough
These species have been noted, on occasion, flying over the Bay area. No nesting sites are known in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route, and no impact is anticipated on either their food (prey) or their foraging areas.
x Qualifying species for the pSPA are: Ringed Plover, Bar-tailed Godwit and Sandwich Tern.
x Only Ringed Plover are frequently recorded in appreciable numbers within or close to the mouth of Sruwaddacon Bay. The feeding flocks of Ringed Plover during the winter months are typically concentrated in the mid-inner bay (Figure 3.6). Numbers fluctuate greatly between survey visits and the use of the Sruwaddacon areas in which they are recorded are probably part of a range of feeding patches used by these species in the wider locality. Their distribution in the Bay may be described as scattered with occasional concentrations, and typically highly mobile. The area of concentration, as shown in the figures (3.4 and 3.6), are only occasionally used. The highest numbers of Ringed Plover recorded respresent a small proportion of the pSPA flock. Given the distance of their main concentration from the route of the tunnel and the Aghoos construction compounds, the likelihood that there will be any visible change in behaviour patterns is extremely low. There may be some temporary displacement, but with only a very low risk of disturbance (because of their highly mobile behaviour patterns). Any impacts on Ringed Plover as a result of the construction of the proposed development are expected to be temporary, highly localised and moderate, No impact on the flock in the wider pSPA is anticipated.
x Bar-tailed Godwits have not been recorded within Sruwaddacon Bay over the past two winter survey seasons. No impact on Bar-talied Godwit is expected.
x Sandwich Terns are recorded feeding within inner Broadhaven Bay, on occasion, during the summer months, and the approaches to the mouth of Sruwaddacon Bay, but they rarely are encountered in any numbers within Sruwaddacon Bay itself (also see below: Tern species). No impact on Sandwich Terns is expected.
x Additional species listed as special conservation concern for the site are Great Northern Diver, Common Scoter and Dunlin. Although not currently listed Brent Goose would also appear to meet qualifying interests and is considered below.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 74 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
x Great Northern Divers are frequently recorded in Inner Broadhaven Bay and the outer sections of Sruwaddacon Bay over the winter period. However, their numbers are typically extremely low in the study area (<5 per survey visit). Owing to the low numbers of this species, even at High Water, any impact on this species is considered to be highly unlikely.
x Common Scoter is a more pelagic species and has not been recorded near shore or within Sruwaddacon Bay in recent survey seasons. No impact on this species is expected.
x Dunlin numbers within Sruwaddacon Bay fluctuate considerably during the winter months but the flocks, while highly mobile, are normally concentrated some distance to the west of the Aghoos compound (Figure 3.6). There is a small risk of temporary disturbance, though the area in which most Dunlin have been recorded is within sight and hearing distance of the local road, with exposure to traffic and its traffic and human activity. Given the small proportion of the pSPA flock, and its occasional usage of Sruwaddacon Bay, together with the fact that it does not lie directly over the route of the proposed tunnel, the potential impact level on Dunlin is considered to be temporary, highly localised and moderate. No impact on the flock in the wider pSPA is anticipated.
x Light-bellied Brent Goose
Brent Geese as already discussed are found in the area from Rinroe pier, along Rinroe strand, feeding off Glengad strand and roosting and feeding near the mouth and in the outer sections of Sruwaddacon Bay and North Rossport Bay. For much of the winter this local flock is stable and in numbers a good deal below nationally or important thresholds. However, from late February to April the numbers may exceed the current threshold for international importance. The April 2010 peak of 426 individuals is the peak number recorded for this local flock over the past decade and reflects a general increase in the population of this species during this period. The population may currently stand at over 35,000 individuals (Merne pers. comm.). The intensive studies of the local Brent flock have given an excellent understanding of their preferred feeding and roost sites during differing weather conditions.
The most important areas for Brent Geese are indicated in Figure 3.5.
The mainly algal beds, with some Zostera (Eel Grass), on which the over wintering Light-bellied Brent Geese feed are located to the west and north of the landfall at Glengad. The main Brent Goose feeding grounds at Glengad and Rinroe are far enough away to be unaffected. by construction activities.
The algal beds were observed prior to, and throughout the 2008 and 2009 construction periods at Glengad. It was very noticeable that, when the Brent geese left on migration in April, there was an almost immediate “greening up” of the area. Not only did the growth on the algal beds recover very quickly - more so than had been noted in previous years, but also the area of algae has increased significantly.
During these construction periods there was no noticeable reduction in the extent of the algal beds. Indeed, the extent and obvious growth in the algal beds continued throughout and there is no question that the amount of available food crop at Glengad appeared greater in the last two years. The area also appears to be extending even further eastwards - along the southern edge of the channel.
With regard to the area to the north of the route at the Glengad end of Sruwaddacon Bay, the usage of this area is entirely predictable in that the Brent geese use it for occasional roosting in bad weather ie. during westerlies, or north westerlies as it is sheltered from the west. Owing to the accretion of sediments since the mid-2000s the former feeding ground’s algal beds have significantly reduced in size resulting in little available food for the geese in terms of algae with little Zostera now present. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 75 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
The use of segment-lined tunnelling means that this occasional (bad weather) roost will not be impacted upon by construction. The reception pit compound (SC2) at Glengad will be set well back from the shoreline. An intervention pit will only be used in a worst case scenario.
In addition, it is noted that in 2008 the geese returned from migration earlier than in previous years such that the landfall works for the offshore pipeline coincided with the presence of these birds. On 27th October 2008 the peak count was 19, at which time Brent geese were observed feeding normally and apparently - undisturbed by the noisy dismantling of the causeway on the foreshore (movement of heavy plant etc.) - within 200-300m of the peak activity.
Furthermore, from consultations with experts such as Mr. Oscar Merne (personal communication, September 2008) it is known that Brent Geese in Ireland are unique in their rapid habituation to noise and distance. Brent Geese which return to Broadhaven are likely to have come from other areas such as Strangford where they will have become accustomed to human activity, and it is the considered that they will quickly habituate to any activities at Glengad.
Finally, it is noted that, unlike flocks in some other locations in the country, the birds in Broadhaven have a number of other feeding grounds available to them - in addition to the Glengad area - for example at Rinroe, north Rossport Bay and other areas further afield in the wider locality.
No impacts on the Brent Geese feeding grounds are expected during the construction works for the LVI outfall as this will take place outside the overwintering period.
No impact, other than a possible minor disturbance, on the Brent Goose flock is anticipated during the construction of the onshore pipeline because of the location of their main areas of usage in relation to the areas of construction.
Impacts during construction are expected to be, at most, localised temporary Moderate Negative. (The EPA guidance equivalent impact magnitude would be imperceptible to slight).
x Tern species – an historical note
The sand bank at the mouth of Sruwaddacon Bay on which Little Tern nested in the past (prior to 2002) has been subject to natural wave erosion and no longer exists. Inishderry is a small island at the southern end of Broadhaven Bay, near Belmullet. (see location map below) It is a known breeding colony for a number of species including Sandwich (a qualifying species for the pSPA), Common and Arctic Terns. Little Tern have bred there in the past. It is located over 7 km from the nearest point of the pipeline (offshore). The nearest point of the onshore pipeline is 9km distant. In the past birds commuted between Inishderry and Derreens Island (Carrowmore Lake) via Barnatra, nesting in alternate years on either one or the other of these islands.
The four Annex 1 tern species – Sandwich, Common, Arctic and Little Terns – have nested in the past at various sites in north-west Mayo. Quite large colonies (up to 200 pairs) of Sandwich Terns have nested on Inishderry and on islands in Carrowmore Lake in the past, but none was recorded during the Seabird 2000 survey in 1998- 2002 (Mitchell et al. 2004). Little Terns now seem to be confined mainly to the Inishkea Islands, where there are also colonies of Common and Arctic Terns (Mitchell et al. 2004).
It is considered that there will be no likely significant short term or long term impact on tern species, including Sandwich Tern. There will be no impacts on Inishderry from the construction of the pipeline neither can it be considered to be within the zone of influence. This was confirmed in consultations with NPWS in August 2008.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 76 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Figure i .Location of Inishderry in relation to the offshore pipeline and landfall
5.2.3.7 Mortality
Without mitigation, construction of the proposed works could cause direct or indirect bird mortality. Direct mortality could occur where active nests were destroyed by activities associated with the project (e.g. by machinery movements or trampling), thereby leading to mortality of eggs or chicks. Indirect mortality could occur where breeding birds abandon an active nest as a result of being disturbed by on-site activities. However, most of these potential impacts can be addressed by pre-construction mitigation.
Given the low numbers of birds and species recorded in the general area and the types of habitats traversed by the route, mortality effects are unlikely to be significant.
5.2.3.8 Impacts on birds in the wider locality
The temporary working width will be narrow and impacts will be limited to those addressed above. There is no indication that impacts will extend beyond the vicinity of the pipeline and the Bay area. In general, wider impacts on the bird community are expected to be temporary Slight Negative during the construction period with impacts becoming imperceptible with the increase in distance (and time) from the construction phase.
5.2.4 Potential impacts associated with construction of the Landfall valve installation (LVI)
During construction, there will be temporary loss of habitat in areas adjacent to the landfall valve installation, including the side slopes and site compound SC1. In addition, there will be permanent loss of habitat at the small footprint of the landfall valve installation (approximately 20m x 22m), and along the access road (2190m2).
These works will all be located in areas of improved agricultural grassland of low ecological value, though much of this area is currently bare soil - having been reinstated in 2009.
An excavation will be necessary in the reinstated cliff to enable construction of the drainage outfall. Construction impacts are expected to be localised, direct, moderate, and temporary in all but the footprint area of the LVI and the access road where it will be permanent. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 77 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
5.2.4.1 Sand Martin colony
The landfall valve installation is located immediately to the south of an active Sand Martin colony (Colony A) at Glengad and within 200m of another, smaller Sand Martin colony (Colony B). Studies since 2002 have shown that the birds return each year and use the same burrows for breeding. They usually arrive in late April/early May and depart in September. The LVI is not expected to impact on Sand Martin feeding behaviour as they forage over a wide area in the locality.
It should be noted that construction activities on the cliff and causeway in 2002, 2008 and 2009 did not appear to interfere with the Sand Martins and they appeared to feed (on the wing) normally and undisturbed, and bred successfully. At that time a foreshore exclusion zone was also set up such that no personnel or vehicles were allowed on the foreshore directly below the colony. (Plate 34, Appendix 15; see Mitigation measures).
Potential impacts associated with disturbance by human presence might be expected, however Sand Martins are a species which is extremely tolerant of noisy activities and is known to nest in noisy sand quarries. Impacts on the sand martin colony are therefore expected to be temporary Imperceptible to Slight Negative and Neutral in the long term.
5.2.5 Potential impacts on surrounding areas
5.2.5.1 General
No impact on habitats within designated conservation sites outside the immediate area of construction activities is anticipated.
5.2.5.2 Potential impacts resulting from road maintenance works
No impacts are anticipated as a result of local road maintenance.
5.2.5.3 Potential impacts resulting from the spread of invasive species
While there is some potential for the spread and establishment of invasive plant species such as Rhodendron ponticum after reinstatement, it is considered unlikely that the pipeline works per se would result in encroachment by this species. However Rhododendron does occur widely throughout the area, including at Aghoos and Bellagelly, and exposed drying peat areas offer colonising opportunities.
The likely impact as a result of pipeline works is considered to be neutral/ minor negative.
Gunnera tinctoria is another species which is spreading rapidly in the west of Ireland.
Should either species be present within or adjacent to the working areas then mitigation measures for dealing with them would be required..
The potential impact from the spread of zebra mussels is considered in Chapter 13.
5.3 Potential impacts during the operational stage
5.3.1 Pipeline
No impacts are anticipated during the operational phase in connection with the onshore pipeline.
After construction, and application of reinstatement and other mitigation measures the level of ‘traffic’ at the temporary working area will be restricted to occasional routine walkover
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 78 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
inspections. These will not be expected to have any significant impacts on habitats present or local fauna
5.3.2 Landfall valve installation (LVI)
As stated above, there will be a permanent loss of habitat at the footprint of the LVI and along the access road. These will be located in an area of improved agricultural grassland of low ecological value. Impacts are expected to be long term, localised, direct, and slight to moderate (EPA equivalent is Slight).
Normal operation of the LVI is not expected to have any impact upon wildlife using the area, including the occasional otter holt to the south west, and the sand martin colony to the north. The facility will not require illumination during night time. In the event of night-time intrusion infra red lighting will be used, which will not interfere with nocturnal species and nesting birds.
Regular monitoring checks at the LVI will involve one or two individuals with a small vehicle or jeep and are not expected to impact on species using the site any more than current agricultural activities impact on the area.
If works or servicing is required at the LVI at any stage, then this may temporarily disturb faunal species for the duration of the work, but no lasting impact is expected.
5.4 Potential impacts during the decommissioning stage
5.4.1 Pipeline
Decommissioning will be undertaken in accordance with Best Available Technology at the time of project completion.
5.4.2 Landfall valve installation (LVI)
Impacts would be expected to be similar to those associated with construction. The lands would be levelled and returned to agricultural use. No long term impact would be expected.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 79 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
6 MITIGATION
The following sections provide details on the main mitigation measures proposed to ameliorate against those potential impacts outlined in Section 5 above.
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 Monitoring programme
A monitoring programme will be devised by the project ecologist in consultation with NPWS to address all issues associated with habitats and species. This will include pre-construction, during construction and post construction monitoring. The contractor will be made aware of the programme and schedule for mitigation.
The project ecologist will work closely with the Contractor to ensure that any changes in the construction schedule or methodology which might effect proposed mitigation and monitoring programmes are considered.
Prior to the works, detailed drawings will be prepared showing sensitive habitats and species issues where additional care will be required.
Where sensitive and /or designated habitats have been reinstated, monitoring will be necessary. The intervals and duration of monitoring will be agreed in consultation with NPWS. Route sections which require habitat monitoring post construction include:
x the landfall, LVI and tunnelling compound areas at Glengad; x other cSAC sections of the route at Glengad; and the nearby sand dune system Annex I habitats which lie outside the working area; including the developing salt marsh and embryonic dunes. x the shore lines, salt marsh and intertidal zones at, and in the vicinity of, the Leenamore inlet; x non-designated blanket bog habitats at Aghoos; x areas of biodiversity enhancement at Aghoos.
The purpose of monitoring is to assess the recovery of the habitat after reinstatement. It is particularly important in the early stages post reinstatement so that, in the event that habitat recovery is not progressing as expected, early indicators can be picked up and remedial action taken. In such a scenario the initial response to any such adverse indication would be to consult with NPWS - in the case of a designated site or Annex habitat - and other relevant experts as necessary. The situation would be assessed and a recovery programme devised and implemented. Such action cannot be prescriptive but would be dealt with on a case by case basis.
In addition to the above, regular monitoring of the route in general will be required to check for the presence of colonising invasive plant species such as Rhododendron ponticum.
The extent and details of the faunal (avian and non-avian) monitoring will be included in the monitoring programme to be drawn up by the project ecologist in consultation with NPWS.
Post-construction monitoring recommendations in relation to otters, badgers and frogs are set out below. Post-construction monitoring of other non-avian faunal species in the area may be included at the time of the above monitoring, providing additional information on wildlife use of the Bay area and the pipeline route. Requirements for bird monitoring are summarised above.
The purpose of the post-construction monitoring for fauna is to assess the activity of vertebrates of conservation interest in relation to the base-line (and pre-construction) surveys, to report on possible negative or positive impacts, and to recommend additional mitigation or ameliorative measures that would restore or enhance the habitat quality for these species within the area of the development site.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 80 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
6.1.2 Temporary fencing for working area
Method statements will be set out for the temporary working area fencing in sensitive habitats and where species mitigation measures are required. Fencing will be carried out in accordance with mitigation set out for habitats and species. Fencing shall not proceed until pre-construction mitigation measures are in place where required.
6.1.3 Method statements
Method statements for construction will include details of mitigation and reinstatement in relation to sensitive habitats and protected species. They will be drawn up in consultation with NPWS through the project ecologist.
The project ecologist will be advised of any changes in construction schedule or methodology which might affect proposed mitigation and the monitoring programme.
6.2 Habitats and vegetation
6.2.1 Habitat protection and reinstatement
Measures for the various habitat types are set out in the following sections.
6.2.1.1Improved grassland and wet, rushy grassland (including cSAC Habitats at Glengad)
The following mitigation measures will be implemented:
x Fencing will be put in place to prevent encroachment onto the Annex 1 dune grassland adjacent to the temporary working area. x The topsoil removed will be carefully stored (separately from the sub-soil). It may be necessary to net these top soil heaps to prevent Sand Martins from making burrows in them. x While the fields are agriculturally improved they are nevertheless within the cSAC and in order to prevent the pollution of the native gene pool by alien genotypes no imported seeds will be used. x There is a sufficient seed bank within the top soil and it will be allowed to re-vegetate naturally as previously. x Simple, surface gravel drains will be put in place at the time of reinstatement to prevent water logging where appropriate. x Post construction monitoring will be carried out for as long as deemed necessary by the project ecologist in consultation with NPWS. The duration of monitoring will depend upon the speed of recovery.
See below at 6.4 for special measures to protect the Sand Martin colony during construction of the landfall valve facility and the landfall.
6.2.1.2 Recovering Eroded Blanket Bog at Aghoos (Ch. 89.350 to 89.540) (undesignated)
The 190m section of undesignated recovering eroded blanket bog (PB5/PB3) at Aghoos will be treated as though it were designated. (See Chapter 5 for full details of proposed construction methodologies, and Chapter 15 Peatland Hydrology, and Appendix M). The following measures will apply:
x The top vegetated sod (ie. living layer of the bog) will be excavated to a depth of at least 50 cm, thus allowing for full protection of the roots. This layer should be kept viable by irrigation if necessary because blanket peat is prone to shrinkage and drying. The longer the period of storage (ie. time between excavation and
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 81 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
reinstatement), the higher the likelihood of damage and less successful reinstatement. x The turves (vegetated sod-peat) will be stored separately from the amorphous humified peat and in a single layer. x There will be provision for the continual monitoring of turve storage during construction. x There will be minimal delay between construction and reinstatement of this route section and every effort will be made to minimise the length of time. x The replacement of turves (vegetated sod-peat) is the final stage of construction. They will be packed firmly over a regulation layer of peat. Any gaps will be as small as possible, and hand packed with peat scraw as the process is being done. x Peat plugs will be placed at intervals within the stone road and in the trench to prevent the pipeline acting as a large field drain and having adverse effects on the hydrology of the bog (see Chapter 15) x Where the stone road is installed, enough peat will be left in place over the mineral layer into which the stone can be pressed thus reducing the potential for lateral and lengthways water flow (a measure requested by NPWS for the Bord Gaís Mayo to Galway gas pipeline construction in blanket peat at Upper Glencullin in 2006. x Measures to avoid compaction: - Reduce vehicle movement to a minimum - Low ground pressure vehicles will be used when setting out the site prior to the haul road (floating or stone) being put in place. - Fencing will be put in place to prevent encroachment and damage to the bog outside the working width. x To avoid chemical change, any imported stone will be sourced locally. x Following reinstatement, a fence will be maintained to protect the reinstated section until there is strong vegetation growth and the turves have “knitted” together properly. x A ““no grazing” régime will be in place over the initial post-reinstatement period and for a minimum period of three years thereafter. x Post construction monitoring will be carried under the post construction monitoring programme for as long as deemed necessary by the project ecologist, in consultation with other peatland experts. The duration of monitoring will ultimately depend upon the speed of reinstatement.
As a result of experience on the Bord Gaís Mayo to Galway gas pipeline at Upper Glencullin, the following are known to be key to successful reinstatement:
x Utmost care will be taken to ensure that turving is done slowly in order to maintain the integrity of the turves, as far as is practically possible. If due care is exercised at the turving stage, then there is greater potential for a good reinstatement.
x Storage, care and meticulous reinstatement of turves is key to the success or otherwise of habitat recovery.
x Measures to restore natural drainage and surface water flows will be implemented. (See Chaper 15 and Appendix M).
Anderson (200310) notes that sand mixed with peat is sometimes packed between turves in order to promote plant growth between the turves. However, from experience at Upper Glencullin it would appear that where mineral “soil” from broken rock exists, then Juncus effusus will take hold (increasingly so in 2008 at the eastern upper end of Glencullin where there were no turves for reinstatement). The introduction of sand into any gaps is not therefore recommended.
10 Anderson, P. 2003 Habitat translocation – a best practice guide. CIRIA for the Highways Agency London; and Anderson, P. 2003 A review of habitat translocation CIRIA
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 82 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Depth of turves
The depth of turves proposed for this section of the Corrib onshore pipeline, is in line with practice elsewhere (Anderson, 2003) where depths vary from 4 -5 cms (ie. seed bank layer only on poor heath) to 100cm. on rich organic soils. Anderson reports on turves in peat habitats (heaths and moors) being generally in the order of 15 to 25 cm. and she notes that in a wetland situation (sedges and rushes) the turf depth was between 50 and 80cms, depending upon rooting depth. The deeper the turves, the greater likelihood of vegetation recovery, especially in a blanket bog situation where water retention is vital.
6.2.1.3 Eroded /Eroding and Cutover blanket bog (undesignated)
There is no requirement to lift turves in the heavily and severely eroded or cutover areas; nor would it be feasible because of the extremely uneven surface. However, in the interest of local biodiversity, the aim in reinstatement is to maintain an undulating profile to provide varying micro-habitats for colonising plant species.
Habitat reinstatement and vegetation restoration following construction in the eroded and cutover areas at Aghoos (SC3 and pipeline stringing area) has been discussed in consultations with the Irish Peatland Conservation Council (IPCC), and Bord ná Mona’s specialist peatland ecologist. The methodology will be based on work carried out by IPCC on Sphagnum restoration (Malone and O’Connell, 2009); and by Dr. Catherine Farrell at Bellacorick (Bord ná Mona). It will also broadly follow the Canadian peatland vegetation restoration guidance (Quinty and Rochefort, 2003). It is envisaged that measures will include:
x Provision to harvest Sphagnum from areas to be impacted during construction, prior to commencement of works, and translocate it to suitable drains and pools at Srahmore for propagation in readiness for reinstatement.
x Storage of surface layer of peat (including the (vegetation / scraw) on site within red line boundary, within old deep cutover areas at south end of site. This will be stored to a depth of at least 1m in order to retain enough in situ for spreading during reinstatement.
x Consideration will be given to cover stored peat with Geo-jute to stabilise it and to encourage vegetation growth following storage. The stored peat will be a valuable seed source.
x During re-instatement, the area will be covered with a layer of peat. For it to be considered a peatland there must be a layer of 30cm peat present.
x A phased re-instatement programme will be undertaken over 1 to 5 years, with monitoring throughout.
x Pool creation and Sphagnum innoculation to create peat forming conditions is envisaged once there is peat stabilisation.
6.2.1.4 Salt marsh
The following measures will be implemented at the crossing of the Leenamore River inlet:
x Large turves will be taken and stored carefully. x Turves will be stored in a single layer (either on bog mats or at the edge of the shoreline); they will be protected and, if stored on bog mats, will be watered regularly with sea water. x The salt marsh will be reinstated by carefully replacing the turves evenly. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 83 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
x At the eastern end of the Bay where the peat bank/salt marsh interface is steep, it will be re-profiled x Post construction monitoring will be carried out for as long as deemed necessary by the project ecologist in consultation with NPWS. The duration of monitoring will depend upon the speed of recovery.
The proposed methodology will not only enable habitat reinstatement but will conserve the flora and invertebrate fauna species on and in the turves. It must be remembered this is a habitat subject to constant erosion on the seaward and inlet edge from the river water and the tides. Because of the harsh intertidal environment, especially at the Leenamore inlet where it is subject to fluctuations in salinity – being washed by fresh and sea water - salt marsh species are extremely robust. Many are also opportunist and colonising species, thus even if some turf is lost as a result of fragmentation during removal or reinstatement it is considered that they will re-establish on any disturbed substrate. This is evidenced by the range of ground conditions which they can tolerate, ie. from stony shores (as in many parts of Sruwaddacon Bay), on peat and sand, even on new blown sand as is occurring at the eastern side of the dunes at Glengad where a new salt marsh is developing. Trafficking and surface damage such as wheel ruts is far more damaging – as seen at the western side of the estuary (lower) crossing where the small area of salt marsh has been colonised by rushes as a result of such surface damage.
6.2.1.5 Intertidal habitats
Protection of the algal, shingle and gravel beds
In the unlikely event that a temporary intervention pit is required in the intertidal zone at the western end of the Bay, the following measures will be implemented to protect the intertidal areas to the north of the route at the western side of the estuary - ie. south - east of the dune system at Glengad. This area is an occasional feeding ground for waders and is used as an occasional roost by over-wintering Light-bellied Brent Geese, particularly in strong westerly gales.
x There will be a specific commitment to avoiding as much of this as possible, keeping the width to a minimum, x Any excavated shingle or gravel must be stored separately and replaced/reprofiled as soon as possible. x If disturbed, it will be reinstated (as near as is practically possible) and re-profiling the gravel/shingle ridges where the algal beds are located. x This intertidal area will be fenced off. x The working area will be as small as far is practical for construction purposes and there will be no storage of material in this zone. x Construction activity/vehicle movement etc. will be restricted to the working width. x Clearance to work on the estuary intertidal zone will be given by the site environmental officer in consultation with the Project Ecologist. x Post construction monitoring shall be carried out for as long as deemed necessary by the project ecologist in consultation with NPWS.
Protection of the developing new salt marsh (approximately north of chainage 84.00)
Sediment accretion is resulting in the development of a new salt marsh and embryonic sand dunes (Habitat mapping, Notes 7 and 8), both Annex habitats under the EU habitats Directive, at the eastern side of the Glengad dune system north of the proposed route. In the event that a temporary intervention pit is required at the western end of the Bay no vehicular movements in the intertidal zones outside the working width will be permitted.
Please see Chapter 14 for intertidal habitats at the Leenamore River inlet crossing.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 84 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
6.2.1.6 Earthen (Sod) bank boundaries
Earthen (sod) banks, will be carefully dismantled with the surface sods being stored separately and fully reinstated manually post construction. Those earthen (sod) banks which do not require to be dismantled within the temporary working area will be fenced off to protect them from construction traffic.
Post construction monitoring will be undertaken as part of the ecological monitoring programme to monitor the recovery of the reinstated sod banks. The duration of monitoring will depend upon the speed of their recovery.
6.2.1.7 Scrub
As a biodiversity enhancement measure it is proposed to plant native scrub species at Aghoos in order to increase habitat and species diversity. In due course such planting will provide faunal refuge and food (insects) for bird and non-avian faunal species. Species which would be appropriate, and have been recorded in the wider area on peaty substrates include: Salix aurita (Eared willow); Salix caprea (Goat Willow) and Salix cinerea sub.sp. oleifolia (Grey willow).
The native gorse species on site is Ulex europeaus (European Gorse) and is recommended for planting in places, for example at road margins. This species had been present on road margins in the areas prior to recent road widening. See also Chapter 10, Landscape and Visual Assessment.
6.2.1.8 Conifer plantation
Where feasible native willow species will be planted at the edges of the wayleave through areas of conifer plantation. It is noted that no tree or scrub planting is possible in the 14m wide wayleave over the pipeline itself.
6.2.1.9 Construction areas and protection of habitats
No works will be undertaken outside of the temporary working area (see Chapter 5 of EIS) without prior consultation with the Project Ecologist.
6.2.1.10 Road maintenance works
Should any road maintenance works be required, road margins will be inspected prior to maintenance works commencing in order to target appropriate mitigation measures if necessary.
6.2.1.11 Invasive plant species
In the event that invasive plant species (eg. Rhododendron ponticum) are found to be present within the reinstated area then necessary measures will be taken to remove them, in accordance with accepted best practice appropriate to the habitat on which they are present.
If such species are found to occur within the working area prior to construction, they will be removed and destroyed in accordance with accepted best practice for the particular species involved.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 85 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
6.3 Non-avian fauna
Standard mitigation measures, as would apply to any large-scale development, shall be adopted in the construction of the proposed development. These include limiting season of disturbance to trees and vegetation (see also under birds at 6.4) and in order to reduce impacts on breeding species, to provide for habitat replacement, and measures to reduce pollution and sedimentation into waterbodies and watercourses during the construction phase.
Best practice will be adhered to throughout. Specific measures are required, principally to protect otters, badgers and frogs on site. These are described below and are summarised in Tables 11a and 11b.
6.3.1 Habitat reinstatement
Habitat reinstatement will provide breeding and foraging habitat for fauna.
6.3.2 Protection of badgers
Measures for the protection of badgers are as follows:
6.3.2.1 Pre-construction survey and monitoring
A detailed pre-construction survey within the working width and to approximately 30m either side of it will be undertaken immediately prior to construction (1 to 3 months), to identify any new setts etc. and to target detailed methodology of evacuation and mitigation for each affected sett.
All areas will be surveyed for badgers prior to any vegetation clearance or construction work commencing. Monitoring of vegetation clearance will also be required in the coniferous plantation route sections south of the Bay and at dense gorse scrub by the Leenamore River inlet.
Pre-construction surveys for badger setts should preferably be carried out in winter (December to April), when vegetation cover is low; otherwise, setts present may be obscured and not found.
6.3.2.2 Protection of setts
Any setts located within or close to the pipeline route will be protected from interference or disturbance by an exclusion zone of c. 30m within which no machinery or removal of vegetation takes place – until such time as affected setts can be evacuated and destroyed by experts under licence from NPWS. Sett tunnels can extend for over 15m from sett entrances and use of any vehicles, digging, or heavy machinery can cause collapse of tunnels and cause mortality of badgers. Light work, such as hand digging or scrub clearance shall not take place within 10m of sett entrances.
Any breeding setts will not be disturbed and an exclusion zone for machinery should be increased to 50m during the breeding season, which is from December to June inclusive. If a particularly noisy construction activity such as pile driving is necessary, it may disturb badgers during the breeding season at distances of 150m or more, and should not therefore be conducted in the vicinity of main active setts during the breeding season, unless additional mitigation measures are taken.
Affected setts will be clearly marked and the extent of bounds prohibited for vehicles clearly marked by fencing or adequate physical boundary. Protective fencing will be established at the outset of works to afford adequate protection to these setts and their surrounding habitats during construction operations. The extent of fencing will be determined during a site visit by a project engineer and a qualified ecologist. Temporary fencing will be sufficiently durable and robust to cover the period of construction. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 86 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
6.3.2.3 Permanent exclusion from impacted setts
Badgers will need to be evacuated from any affected setts by zoological experts prior to construction taking place - for humanitarian consideration. Such evacuation may not take place during the badger breeding season which is from December to June (inclusive). The setts will then be destroyed under supervision by qualified experts. These operations must be carried out by personnel licensed to do so by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
The manner of exclusion for each sett will be determined by a qualified badger expert or experienced ecologist. Most active setts require closure by means of one-way gates placed over sett entrances, and left in place for 21 days, with regular monitoring to check activity at the sett. Larger setts may require evacuation by means of badger-proof fencing erected onto timber post and rail fencing and provided with badger gates. This exclusion must take place over a minimum of 21 days with regular monitoring to check activity at the sett. Inactive setts (deemed inactive after 5 days of monitoring) may be evacuated by means of light blocking with soil and then hard blocked after a further monitoring period.
6.3.2.4 Open trenches during construction
During construction, open trenches will incorporate facilities for badgers (and other wildlife, such as otters, foxes, hedgehogs etc.) to escape, by means of:
x gently sloping earth/peat incline to be left at the end of each day’s operation – at each end of open trenches. x timber escape planks at c. 50m intervals along the trench should be left in place at the end of each day’s operations; these should usually be placed at right-angles to the trench. x occasional earth/peat bridges to allow badgers to cross the pipeline trench during construction – or wooden boards may be used to similar effect. Where badger activity is high, it is a preferred option that such bridges be created at most hedgerow/treeline boundaries along the route (or at appropriate locations suggested by a wildlife expert). x it is a general recommendation that works be limited to daylight hours where feasible to allow badgers to forage at dawn, dusk, and at night. x night caps will be placed over all pipe ends every night. x trenches will, preferably, not be kept open for more than 2-3 days. x the badger specialist should be on call throughout the project. The specialist’s contact number shall be held in the Site Office.
6.3.2.5 Fencing
At known badger crossing points, gaps will be left at the base of any fencing (sheep, or similar wire fencing etc.) to allow free access across the working width (pre-construction, during construction and post-construction).
At the site compounds (SC2 and SC3 - tunnel compounds), fencing should be fully wildlife proofed so as to prevent larger mammals from entering these compounds and then not able to exit. Badger-resistant fencing is recommended to be attached to any security fencing or erected in addition to security fencing. Note that badger-resistant fencing will be effective for all larger mammals but needs to be buried. Specifications for badger-resistant fencing may be found at nra.ie website or in National Roads Authority Guidelines for the Treatment of Badgers on National Road Schemes (NRA, 2005).
6.3.2.6 Post-construction monitoring and mitigation
The success of the mitigation measures for badgers will be monitored for a period of 2 years after construction as part of the monitoring programme. If the badger specialist determines
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 87 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
that no active setts have required removal and that badger movements have not been impaired, this provision may be reduced.
6.3.3 Protection of otters
Measures for the protection of otters are as follows:
6.3.3.1 Pre-construction survey and monitoring
A detailed pre-construction survey within the working width and including an area to approximately 200m, as far as is feasible, either side of the centre line will be undertaken immediately prior to construction in order to: identify any new holts and active resting sites; and to consider detailed methodology of evacuation and/or mitigation for each affected holt or otter resting place as, and / or if, required..
Monitoring of vegetation clearance will also be necessary on the southern side of the Bay in the area of coniferous plantation.
Surveys for holts should be carried out in winter, when vegetation cover is low (December through to April); otherwise, holts may be obscured and not found. To determine the status of known holts (or any additional holts identified in pre-construction surveys), all holts will also be re-inspected at other seasons also, when such could be in use by otters as breeding holts. Otter breeding is apparently aseasonal in the British Isles (Harris & Yalden, 2008). Most cubs are born May-August (Scottish studies) so the appropriate season for additional inspections of known holts at Sruwaddacon Bay would be from April through to September/October. Only holts potentially to be affected by disturbance by the proposed works will need to be inspected on a regular basis prior to construction, and mitigation for any identified active breeding holts will then be required and adopted in consultation with NPWS
Surveys for holts should be preferably be carried out in winter, when vegetation cover is low; (December through to April); otherwise, holts may be obscured and not found.
6.3.3.2 Protection of holts
Any holts located within or close to the working width will be protected from interference or disturbance by an exclusion zone of c. 25m within which no machinery operates or removal of vegetation takes place – until such time as affected holts can be evacuated by experts under licence from NPWS. Light work, such as hand digging or scrub clearance shall not take place within 15m of holt entrances.
Affected holts will be clearly marked and the extent of bounds prohibited for vehicles clearly marked by fencing or adequate physical boundary prior to any works commencing in the vicinity of the holts.
The status of any holts within this distance from construction works should be determined and additional measures taken in consultation with NPWS in order to ensure no significant impacts on breeding females and cubs (see further below). A detailed set of provisions for otters will be prepared after pre-construction surveys, detailing measures in relation to each holt identified within c. 100m - 150m of the pipeline.
6.3.3.3 Permanent exclusion from affected holts
Otters will need to be evacuated from any affected holts by zoological experts prior to vegetation clearance operations commencing - for humanitarian consideration. The holts will then be destroyed under supervision by qualified experts. These operations must be carried out by personnel licensed to do so by NPWS, Dept. of the Environment. The manner of exclusion for each holt will be determined by an experienced otter expert.
Inactive holts, deemed inactive after 5 days of monitoring, will be evacuated by means of light blocking with soil and then hard blocked after a further monitoring period. This may be EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 88 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
carried out during any season. Consideration may be given to temporary closure of (non- breeding) otter holts to ensure that holts near the works are not utilised by otters during the construction period.
Where a holt is found to be active, but not in use as a breeding holt – to be determined by qualified personnel during monitoring operations – it will be necessary to close the holt by means of one-way gates placed over the holt entrances, and left in place for 21 days, with regular monitoring to check activity at the holt.
Where a holt is found to be in use as a breeding holt, it is imperative that no evacuation procedures of any kind should be undertaken until the otters have vacated the holt of their own accord. Otter breeding may take place at any time of year so breeding activity at holts will need to be determined on a case by case basis. When it is evident that otters have vacated the holt, evacuation procedures as outlined above may be carried out.
6.3.3.4 Open trenches during construction
As for badgers, open trenches during construction should allow facilities for otters and other wildlife to escape: see full details above (for badgers) which should apply. Recommendations include: (a) gently sloping earth/peat incline left at the end of each day’s operation – at each end of open trenches, (b) timber planks at c. 50m intervals along the trench left in place at the end of each day’s operations (usually placed at right-angles to the trench), (c) occasional temporary earth/peat bridges constructed to allow otters to cross the pipeline trench during works (wooden boards may be used to similar effect).
An otter specialist should be on call throughout the project. The specialist’s contact number should be held in the Site Office.
6.3.3.5 Fencing
At known otter crossing points, gaps will be left at the base of any fencing to allow free access across the pipeline route (pre-construction, during construction and post-construction).
Refer to recommendations above as to badger-resistant fencing required at site compound areas. This will serve as otter fencing also.
6.3.3.6 Screening to reduce disturbance
At the Glengad and Aghoos site compounds non-transparent acoustic screening on fences will provide visual screening and serve as additional mitigation to reduce impacts on otter activity. Mitigation aims to reduce the impacts (on otters) of construction of the pipeline.
6.3.3.7 Monitoring during construction
Otter use of the area will be monitored during the construction period. Measures such as additional screening may be considered appropriate by otter experts as a result of such monitoring.
x survey of otter activity and inspection of holts and resting places close to pipeline route and site compounds during construction. x monitoring schedule to be determined after pre-construction surveys and assessment of mitigation required for active holts in particular. x monitoring to ensure that mitigation measures for otters as advised earlier are being complied with during the construction phase.
6.3.3.8 Post-construction monitoring and additional studies
The success of the mitigation measures for otters will be monitored for a minimum period of 3 years after construction is completed. This is to ensure that otter presence in the Bay area
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 89 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
and on adjacent streams and rivers remains similar to the baseline otter studies reported here. Additional mitigation measures may be required as a result of these monitoring surveys.
The following are recommended for monitoring:
x Survey of otter activity and inspection of holts and resting places close to pipeline 3 months after construction; x Full post-construction survey of otter activity and holts and resting places within the entire Bay area on a bi-annual basis for 3 years after construction; x Full post-construction otter surveys should be at least equivalent to the otter studies conducted in 2010. x Reports to compare findings with present base-line survey and any pre-construction surveys. x The need for further monitoring after the initial three years will be decided in consultation with NPWS.
The status of otters in the Bay is of substantial interest. Any reduction in the usage of the Bay area by otters could be considered as an indicator of short-term to long-term impacts. The causes of such reduction in otter activity would then be of interest.
6.3.4 Protection of bats
Pre-construction surveys will include an inspection of the route for potential bat roosts such as any mature trees along or close to the route.
6.3.5 Protection of amphibians: common frogs and newts
Measures for the protection of frogs are:
x Pre-construction study will be conducted along the route. x Amphibians present within affected portions of the route options will be removed prior to construction proceeding and placed into alternative suitable habitats in the locality. These operations need to be conducted by experienced ecologists under licence from NPWS. These operations will allow for frogs and spawn to be translocated from breeding sites to nearby unaffected suitable breeding sites. Frogs and spawn should be moved from any standing water affected by sedimentation or pollution caused by construction works. Spawn and tadpoles shall be placed in suitable habitat nearby (preferably where frogs are already spawning – indicating good habitat) but in which the additional spawn would not cause overcrowding. x Where practical in the context of construction, water levels will be maintained in the drains (used by frogs). This process should maintain frog breeding sites in drains along the route during and after construction. x Where practical, artificial breeding pools will be created within unaffected areas of wetland habitats adjacent to the route. x Habitat reinstatement will re-create the former channel and drain systems so that frogs may use these post-construction. x Post-construction monitoring is recommended to ensure that frog breeding sites have been restored and continue to serve as breeding sites; some habitat improvement may be entailed to ensure this.
6.3.6 Pollution hazards: construction and operation phase
Contamination incidents and run-off of sediments into the Bay and local watercourses could affect the marine habitats as well as the stream and river habitats on, around and downstream of the construction areas. Contamination incidents and run-off could impact on protected species and habitats. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 90 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Construction works should limit entry of sediments, and avoid entry of pollutants, into the drainage system and natural watercourses or water bodies in the area (See Chapter 13 of the EIS).
A protocol to deal with the threat from the zebra mussel will be put in place similar to that adhered to during the construction of the Bord Gaís Mayo to Galway gas pipeline.
Strict guidelines for safe use of fuels, lubricants (and disposal of same) must be provided and adhered to.
Disposal facilities must be provided for all other wastes including non-hazardous wastes in order to limit littering and contamination incidents.
6.3.7 Works on site: construction and operation phase
All construction compounds and storage areas will be located away from the immediate shore line of Sruwaddacon Bay and any watercourses in order to limit potential impacts and pollution hazards etc. Adequate precautions need to be taken to ensure that any pollution hazards are reduced to negligible hazard.
No site works outside of the working area shall be placed on habitats of wildlife/ecological interest.
6.3.8 Habitat retention, replacement and landscaping
Habitat reinstatement is referred to above. In general, best practice design for fauna will aim to: x retain the quality of the landscape where possible, and ensure its protection within the reinstatement programme x retain existing scrub and treelines where possible x retain habitats of conservation interest x ensure protection of marine, freshwater, and wetland areas of interest, and take measures to ensure the hydrology of these ecosystems.
The overall design of the project may also include habitat enhancement, such as:
x Provision of scrub for faunal habitat on site, by means of planting native species along the route. Native species should be chosen in all landscaping schemes – advice to be sought from the project ecologist. Planting schemes should attempt to link in with existing wildlife corridors (scrub and treelines) to provide continuity of wildlife corridors.
6.3.9 Detailed recommendations at pre-construction survey stage
x Following approval of the scheme, pre-construction surveys will be necessary as advised above.
x In order to facilitate the orderly compliance with the faunal recommendations, the pre- construction survey reports will prepare detailed procedures for all species of ecological interest according to each section of the pipeline route.
x A detailed timetable/schedule of procedures will be necessary so as to allow for compliance with each recommendation for faunal species.
x Construction staff will adhere to the detailed procedures and to the related schedule of procedures.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 91 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
x Proposed mitigation measures for protected species will be discussed with NPWS in advance of implementation
6.3.10 Post-construction monitoring – fauna
The extent and details of the faunal post construction monitoring will be included in the monitoring programme to be drawn up by the project ecologist in consultation with NPWS.
Post-construction monitoring recommendations have been made earlier in relation to badger, otters and frogs. Post-construction monitoring of other faunal species in the area may be included at the time of the above monitoring.
The purpose of the post-construction monitoring is to assess the activity of vertebrates of conservation interest in relation to the base-line (and pre-construction) surveys, to report on possible negative or positive impacts, and to recommend additional mitigation or ameliorative measures that would restore or enhance the habitat quality for these species within the area of the development site.
6.4 Birds
Potential impacts of the pipeline project on the local birds will be minimised by the implementation of the following mitigation measures.
x Acoustic screening barriers will be installed on the boundary of the site compounds at Aghoos and Glengad. Noise monitoring will be carried out throughout the construction process and take into account the bird usage areas as sensitive noise receptors. Noise contours are shown in Appendix 17, Figures 17.1 and 17.2.
x Lighting in site compounds will be directed downwards and be designed to minimise light leakage outside the working area. Lighting will be designed in such a manner that only areas crucial for works and security purposes will be lit. At SC3 the light level reaching the foreshore will be no more than the light intensity of the order of a full moon (0.3 lux). The finish of all structures and materials will be designed to minimise reflected glare. Large structures and uprights will have green lighting designed to minimise impact on birds while reducing collision risk with these structures (Poot et al, 2008). See Appendix 17.3 for light contours and Chapter 10 for details of the lighting design proposals for SC3.
x The acoustic screening barriers at Aghoos and Glengad will also provide additional mitigation against light spillage outside the compound.
x Intensive bird monitoring will be continued throughout the construction period and regular reports will be submitted to NPWS detailing the bird community present and contrasting findings with recent pre-construction survey results. In addition, the feasibility of monitoring nocturnal bird distribution and abundance during the period of tunnelling operations, and while the Aghoos compound (SC3) is in place, will be investigated. x Good working practices will prevail throughout construction and post construction monitoring of the route. For example, machinery, equipment, fuel and other materials associated with the development will be stored appropriately (e.g. bunded fuel tanks).
x Litter and other waste material will also be stored and disposed of appropriately. This will minimise the potential risk of damage or pollution to birds and their habitats.
x Any environmentally hazardous material used during construction works will be carefully stored. An environmental management plan will be fully implemented that applies best practice on minimising the risk of pollution of soils, surface or ground- waters. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 92 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
x The tunnel arisings will only be spread or stored in areas where there will be no degradation of existing habitats for birds. In the event of surplus excavate, the feasibility of constructing a suitable sand-bank for nesting Sand Martin at a suitable location in the locality will be explored.
x The greatest numbers and diversity of species of elevated conservation importance occur in the vicinity of the development from October to April. Therefore in the very unlikely event that an intervention pit is required within the Bay during this time, detailed method statements will be prepared, which will outline measures to avoid and minimise the potential impact on birds. Pre-construction monitoring will be undertaken immediately prior to works to inform these method statements. Such works will only be undertaken with prior agreement with NPWS.
x Where feasible, vegetation clearance will be undertaken outside the breeding bird season which extends approximately from March to August inclusive.
x Measures for the protection of the Sand Martin colony are described below in connection with construction of the landfall valve installation.
x Where feasible, the construction activity and movement of vehicles in the vicinity of the compounds will be minimised during night-time hours. Construction of the compounds, until the acoustic screening is in place will take place during daylight hours only.
x The settlement ponds at Aghoos will be covered by wire or firm plastic mesh of small enough mesh size to prevent access to birds.
x A walkover of the on-land portions of the route will be undertaken prior to construction in order to survey the birds. This will ensure that any site specific issues in relation to avifauna will be highlighted before construction. It will also allow tailored mitigation measures to be undertaken in light of any new issues which may have arisen in the interim. This walkover will be undertaken by a suitably qualified expert. Following the field visit, and prior to construction, the grassland areas in the temporary working area will be mown, if deemed appropriate, in order to discourage ground nesting birds from attempting to breed on the temporary working area.
x In order to minimise the impact of habitat loss and deterioration on the local birds, appropriate habitat reinstatement (re-vegetation and planting of native scrub species) will be undertaken as part of the development. The need and design of such a programme will be assessed by a suitably qualified expert in consultation with the project ecologist.
During and post construction monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the monitoring programme to be drawn up by the project ecologist in consultation with NPWS and will include a biennial survey of the temporary working area and surrounding habitats to assess the bird population.
6.5 Landfall valve installation
6.5.1 Protection of the Sand Martin colony
The following measures will be implemented:
x An exclusion zone will be defined above and behind the colony such that no construction activities affect the existing burrows or threaten the stability of the cliff in which the burrow are situated.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 93 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
x No personnel, traffic and construction activities will be permitted between the LVI footprint boundary and the cliff-top directly above the colony.
x Protection fencing will be in place prior to commencement of works.
x A wide foreshore exclusion zone will be set out to prevent any activity on the foreshore below and in front of the burrows which may deter normal behaviour and could result in lowered breeding success.
x Any stock-piled soil will be covered with netting to prevent birds from making nest burrows therein.
x The width of exclusion zones will be decided in consultation with NPWS.
6.5.2 Landscaping and revegetation
The following measures are proposed and will be incorporated into the construction and landscaping plan:
x The top soil removed from the footprint will be carefully stored (separately from the sub-soil). Any soil heaps with netting to prevent sand martins from making burrows in them.
x Following construction this topsoil will then be used on the slopes of the facility which should then be left to revegetate naturally. There is an excellent seedbank in the top soil at Glengad as evidenced by previous successful reinstatement allowing natural regeneration.
x The side slopes will be reinstated with 200mm depth of topsoil from the stored excavated material. It will be allowed to revegetate naturally from the seedbank within the topsoil. If, after initial monitoring, it is considered that natural regeneration is slower than anticipated then further options will be discussed with NPWS.
x No seed or top soil will be imported in order to prevent the introduction of non-native genotypes which could result in the genetic pollution of the local plant populations, also to protect against the introduction of pest species
x To aid topsoil stability and grass growth, a geotextile membrane will be laid on the slopes of the facility.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 94 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
7 RESIDUAL IMPACTS
Residual impacts are summarised in Table 9. The terminology for impact duration is in accordance with the EPA Guidelines (2003). Long term significant impacts are not expected because of the nature of pipeline construction and the fact that, with the exception of the landfall valve installation footprint and the LVI access road, habitats can be reinstated.
7.1 Habitats
7.1.1 Landfall and Glengad terrestrial section - Improved agricultural grassland and wet, rushy improved grassland
Predicted impacts are expected to be slight in the short term and neutral in the long term.
The landfall valve installation (LVI) is considered separately below at 7. 4.
7.1.2 Blanket bog habitats at Aghoos (undesignated)
Blanket bog habitats are expected to take longer than others to recover, and so a short to medium term, moderate impact magnitude is expected. However, from experience with intact cSAC blanket bog reinstatement using turves and subsequent post construction monitoring on the Bord Gáis Mayo to Galway Gas Pipeline, given careful reinstatement and the application of best practice throughout the construction phase, it is considered that blanket bog vegetation should recover after a few years; possibly in the short term rather than medium term.
With successful reinstatement the impacts are therefore predicted to be slight to moderate in the medium term, reducing to neutral or imperceptible in the long term.
In the eroded and cutover areas, where the vegetation layer will not be removed as turves, restoration of vegetation cover might be expected to take longer than in the turved areas. With successful management of vegetation restoration, the impacts are predicted to be moderate in the short term, reducing to imperceptible in the long term.
7.1.3 Salt marsh
With successful reinstatement the impact level is expected to be Slight to Moderate Negative in the short term, and becoming Neutral or Imperceptible in the long term.
7.1.4 Intertidal habitats
Residual impacts on intertidal habitats, other than salt marsh, at the Leenamore River inlet are described in Chapter 14.
With appropriate mitigation and best practice in construction, residual impacts from a temporary intervention pit are likely to be Neutral as the tidal regime is expected restore the marine habitats within a fairly short period (see Chapter 14 of EIS).
7.1.5 Earthen (sod) bank boundaries
Careful dismantling and reinstatement should result in the impact on sod banks being Slight Negative in the short term and Neutral in the long term.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 95 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
7.1.6 Scrub
With some habitat restoration the impact on scrub is expected to be moderate in the short term and neutral to slight in the long term. The planting of native scrub, including gorse will result in an overall neutral, or slight positive, impact in the long term.
7.1.7 Conifer plantations
The duration of this impact will be permanent where trees are required to be felled and no re- planting permitted over the centreline of the pipeline. However this must be put in the context of local forest management which has seen extensive clear-felling of large areas of mature conifer plantation in recent years. By its nature it is a transient man-made habitat. The clearance of trees for the pipeline development could be viewed as an extension of the forest management in the area, as the mature trees would be due for felling in rotation.
The planting of native scrub species such as willow, and gorse as referred to above will compensate for the loss of tree cover to some extent, and should offset the loss of habitat by increasing local biodiversity, resulting in a neutral, possibly slight positive, impact in the long term
7.2 Fauna
The proposed development will incur short-term impacts various faunal species. Most of these can be considered as Neutral, Imperceptible or Slight Negative. Impacts on otters in the Bay area are likely to be measurable in the short to medium term (impact potentially localised Moderate Negative). There are not expected to be long-term significant impacts on species of conservation interest present on site such as otters, badgers, bats, frogs etc. provided that mitigation measures are implemented as recommended.
Given best practice design and operation of the proposed development, without pollution incidents, with recommendations included within this report incorporated, and with accompanying mitigation and remedial measures included, the Residual impact of the development on fauna are expected to be Neutral or Imperceptible.
7.2.1 Habitat loss, fragmentation and disturbance
x Intertidal sands, mudflats and salt marsh: Medium to Long term impacts are expected to be Neutral.
x No significant impacts are expected on the fauna of the dune system and associated habitats at Glengad. Medium to Long term impacts expected – Neutral.
x Loss of habitats and associated disturbance within the agricultural grassland areas: Medium to Long-term impacts given adequate habitat reinstatement are expected to be Neutral.
x Loss of scrub and earthen bank boundaries: given adequate habitat reinstatement medium and long term impacts are expected to be Neutral.
x The coniferous plantations: Medium and long term impacts are expected to be Neutral.
x Sections of the proposed route through areas of blanket bog habitat: Long term impacts on fauna given adequate habitat reinstatement - Neutral or at worst Slight Negative.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 96 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
7.2.2 Species
Residual impacts on species are expected to be as follows:
x Common mammal species, including protected species such as otter, badger and bats, are expected to be Neutral in the Medium to Long-term.
x Amphibians and reptiles: Neutral, or potentially Slight Positive in the long term if habitat enhancement can be provided in the locality as part of the reinstatement programme. Such artificial ponds could create suitable habitat for the smooth newt also, which might be present in the general locality.
7.3 Birds
For birds, post construction, with the successful implementation of mitigating measures, the residual impacts are expected to be generally Neutral.
Habitat reinstatement and enhancement would potentially lead to an increase in the quality of certain terrestrial habitats as a resource for nesting and feeding birds in the medium term, resulting in a possible Slight Positive residual impact.
Overall, given the narrow width of the working area, the proposed mitigation measures and the availability of similar habitats to those that will be directly affected, it is unlikely that there will be any significant effects on the wider local avian community.
Overall the potential residual impacts on birds would be Slight Negative or Imperceptible in the short term, Neutral in the long term. There would be no long terms impacts on the wider local avian community.
7.4 Landfall valve installation
The construction of the LVI will result in a permanent loss of habitat on the footprint of the facility itself, and the access road for duration of the operational phase. Prior to landfall construction works for the offshore pipeline, the habitat present was improved agricultural grassland of low ecological value - a commonly occurring habitat both adjacent to the working area and in the wider locality. Although there will be slight loss of feeding habitat for birds and small mammals, it is expected that in the long term - with likely further agricultural improvement in the locality - the residual impact will be slight.
The provision for naturally regenerated grassland on the slopes of the facility will compensate, to some extent, for the loss of the pre-existing grassland. The residual impact in vegetation and faunal terms; and also in the context of the present function of this area as a buffer zone within the cSAC, is expected to be slight.
In the short term impact level is expected to be Moderate Negative for the footprint of the LVI, but Imperceptible to Slight Negative for other areas associated with the LVI. Long term impacts are expected to be Slight to Moderate Negative (LVI footprint) and Imperceptible to Slight Negative for reinstated areas.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 97 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
8 WORST CASE SCENARIO
Worst case impacts arise in the event of failure of mitigation measures.
In the event that mitigation measures fail it is possible that a pollution incident could have significant negative impacts on terrestrial habitats. However, such impacts would be localised spatially.
In the event that reinstatement of habitats is unsuccessful, this would lead to vegetation change and likely indirect affects on dependent faunal species however, such impacts would be localised to the temporary working area and at worst immediately adjacent habitats.
An exceptional pollution event as a result of sediment run off or chemical pollutants into aquatic or wetland (peatland) habitats could result in significant impacts on wildlife therein, or downstream.
The implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in Section 6 will ensure that such worst case impacts are avoided.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 98 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
9 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
The proposed route retains the original landfall at Glengad, and follows the previously consented route through improved agricultural lands as far as the tunnel reception pit. The tunnel will go underneath marsh, salt marsh, and the estuarine habitats of Sruwaddacon Bay. At Aghoos the route traverses heavily and severely eroded blanket bog habitats; and then improved agricultural lands on either side of the Leenamore River. It then crosses a short stretch of recovering eroded blanket bog before entering conifer plantations at Bellagelly South, after which it rejoins the originally consented route to the Bellanaboy Bridge Terminal.
The existing environment is described in the context of habitats present and their constituent species.
Habitats are described in accordance with the Heritage Council’s Guide to Irish Habitats (Fossitt, 2000) and with reference to other classifications. Special attention was paid to the likely occurrence of EU Annex habitats and rare, protected and scare plant species. No Flora protection order species were found during surveys, neither are there any known records for this route.
The main habitats to occur along the route are: coniferous forestry and agriculturally improved grassland. The ecological value of habitats lying within the route is variable. Whilst the areas of agricultural grassland and coniferous plantations encountered are of relatively low ecological value; others such as the designated EU Annex I intertidal and salt marsh habitats at the Leenamore River inlet are of international importance. Blanket bog habitats present are not within the cSAC and range from being of Low, Local ecological importance to Nationally important. Much of the route section at Glengad is within the Glenamoy Bog Complex candidate Special Area of Conservation; and the estuarine and intertidal habitats of Sruwaddacon Bay lie within both the cSAC and Blacksod Bay/ Broadhaven proposed Special Protection Area.
Habitats and species are evaluated in the context of current Irish Wildlife legislation and European legislation. Impacts are assessed with due regard to the EPA Guidelines and Advice notes (2002 and 2003); also in accordance with guidelines of The Institute of Environmental Impact Assessment and the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) and with reference to the NRA Guidelines (2009). Due regard is paid to the provisions of Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive.
The area of Glenamoy Bog Complex cSAC Annex I habitats to be disturbed during construction of the pipeline is confined to the temporary working area at the Leenamore River crossing and is very localised in the context of the overall area of the designated site and the Annex habitat types present therein. Residual impacts on qualifying species and species of special conservation interest (flora and fauna) for the Glenamoy Bog Complex cSAC and the Blacksod Bay/Broadhaven pSPA are not anticipated. No significant impact on the integrity of the Natura sites is anticipated.
Other habitats will be impacted during construction of the pipeline but with successful reinstatement there should be no long term impacts. Past landfall construction in 2002 has shown that agricultural grassland habitats responded well to reinstatement techniques, with vegetation cover establishing naturally and quickly. Construction phase impacts on improved grassland and wet, rushy grassland grassland are expected to be temporary or short term, localised Slight to Moderate Negative, reducing in the long term to Neutral. Duration of impacts on blanket bog habitats will vary depending upon the construction and reinstatement methodology employed. With successful reinstatement, the impacts on the turved section of recovering eroded blanket bog area expected to be slight to moderate in the medium term, reducing to neutral or imperceptible in the long term. Impacts on areas of modified blanket bog habitat (heavily and severely eroded; and cutover) are predicted to be moderate in the short term, reducing to imperceptible in the long term, with successful management of vegetation restoration.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 99 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
There will be some loss of habitat on the footprint of the landfall valve installation, but this will be located in an area of formerly improved agricultural grassland of low ecological value and so the impact is expected to be Slight to Moderate Negative in the long term.
Recommendations for mitigation, including habitat reinstatement for the various habitat types, are set out under Mitigation.
Non-avian fauna
Various faunal studies have been undertaken by in the area since 2002 and this report details the results of these surveys carried out at Sruwaddacon Bay and along the proposed route. The most recent surveys were conducted In February and March 2010.
The vertebrate fauna of the area may be summarised as being typical of the various habitats, with a good representation of common and ubiquitous species. Of the mammals, the otter is of particular note (an Annex II listed species (EU Habitats Directive, and also Red Data Book species. Otters and other mammals can be relatively tolerant of disturbance, but will undoubtedly be affected to some extent by the construction of the pipeline scheme in the short term. Badger activity was noted within the survey area. Pine martens are present and have been observed in the area. Irish hares were observed in the area. Hedgehog, wood mouse, pygmy shrew and Irish stoat are certain to be present in the area. American mink are also present, but infrequent, in the Bay area. Signs of brown rat were noted. Foxes are common throughout.
Habitats on site offer few roosting sites for bats (mature trees etc.), and do not provide good foraging areas for bat species (all bats are protected species, and several are Red Data Book species). Impacts on bats are considered to be Negligible (or Neutral).
The common frog (a Red Data species) was noted on site and a number of confirmed frog breeding sites will be directly impacted by the proposed development.
In order to ameliorate impacts on protected species, specific mitigation measures are recommended in this report – in particular, in relation to otters, badgers and frogs in the area.
Mitigation measures are required in order to ensure that any active otter holts (or otter resting places)/badger setts directly impacted by the scheme are evacuated or removed prior to construction or vegetation clearance operations commencing or alternative mitigation measures adopted. Mitigation measures for frogs are also included.
A monitoring program has been recommended that includes pre-construction surveys, during construction surveys, and post-construction surveys. Additional mitigation measures may be required as a result of these surveys.
Avian fauna (birds)
A total of 66 bird species have been recorded by aquatic studies in the vicinity of the proposed route. Only one species, Light-bellied Brent Goose, exceeded the threshold of nationally important numbers (i.e. 1% of the estimated National Population). In recent winters peak counts of over-wintering Light bellied Brent Geese have on occasion exceeded internationally important numbers (>200 individuals). It should be noted that recent apparent increases in Light-bellied Brent Goose numbers in Ireland (40,000 from 20,000 - per. com. K. Colhoun) indicate that the threshold for internationally important numbers may increase from 200 to 400 (1% of the International Population). However, recent consultation with BirdWatch Ireland (O. Crowe, personal communication, April 2010) indicates that the next revision is likely to be in 2012, with a mean peak of 350.
A total of 47 species have been found by terrestrial based studies in the area of the proposed route. Overall, bird diversity and abundance is considered relatively low. The lack of mature EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 100 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
‘woody’ vegetation – outside of the coniferous plantation - characterises the coastal nature of the terrestrial parts of the study area. It also explains the lack or scarcity of many nationally common terrestrial bird species.
Several species of high conservation concern (i.e. Annex I and/or Red listed species) were recorded by the current field study and previous field studies in the vicinity of the route; Bar- tailed Godwit, Chough, Curlew, Common /Arctic Tern, Golden Plover, Great-northern Diver, Hen Harrier, Little Tern, Peregrine Falcon, Red-throated Diver, Sandwich Tern, Little Egret, Black-headed Gull, Herring Gull, Whooper Swan and Redshank. Most of these species normally occurred in very low numbers (i.e. <10) and only from time to time. Of all the high priority species, only Curlew and Black-headed Gull are present in any significant numbers throughout the year. Both species can be found widely both in the aquatic and adjoining terrestrial habitats throughout the year with peak numbers typically occurring in the winter.
Overall, given the localised nature of the temporary working area, the proposed mitigation measures, and the availability of similar habitats to those that will be directly affected, it is anticipated that there will be no significant effects on the pSPA or on the wider local avian community.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 101 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
10 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ainmneacha Plandaí agus Ainmhithe, An Chéad Chló, Rialtais na hÉireann, 1978
Altringham, J. D. 1996 Bats: Biology and Behaviour. Oxford University Press.
Altringham, J. D. 2003 British Bats. Harper Collins Publishers.
Anderson, P. 2003 Habitat translocation – a best practice guide. CIRIA for the Highways Agency London; and Anderson, P. 2003 A review of habitat translocation CIRIA
Bailey, M. & Rochford, J. 2006 Otter survey of Ireland 2004/2005. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 23. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland.
Barratt, E. M., Deauville, R., Burland, T. M., Bruford, M. W., Jones, G., Racey, P. A., & Wayne, R. K. 1997 DNA answers the call of pipistrelle bat species. Nature 387: 138 - 139.
Barton, C., Pollock, C., Norriss, D.W., Nagle, T., Oliver, G.A. and Newton S. 2006 The Second National Survey of Breeding Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in Ireland 2005. Irish Birds 8: 1-20.
Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A. & Mustoe, S. 2000. Bird Census Techniques, 2nd edition. Elsevier.
BirdLife International. 2004. Birds in Europe, Population Estimates, Trends and Conservation Status. BirdLife International, Cambridge.
Bishop, J., McKay, H., Parrott, D. & Allan, J. (2003). Review of international research literature regarding the effectiveness of auditory bird scaring techniques and potential alternatives. Report of Central Sciences Laboratories to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.
BWPi Birds of the Western Palearctic interactive. 2004. Birds of the Western Palearctic Interactive. DVD-Rom. BirdGuides Ltd. & Oxford University Press.
Blackith, R.M. & Speight, M.C.D. 1974 Food and feeding habits of the frog Rana temporaria in bogland habitats in the west of Ireland. J. Zool., Lond. 172: 67-79.
Blake, D., Hutson, A. M., Racey, P. A., Rydell, J. & Speakman, J. R., 1994 Use of lamplit roads by foraging bats in Southern England. J. Zool. Lond. 234: 453 - 462.
Boyd, I. & Stebbings, R. E. 1989 Population changes in brown long-eared bats (Plecotus auritus) in bat boxes at Thetford Forest. J. Appl. Ecol. 26: 101 - 112.
Braun-Blanquet, J. & Tüxen, R. 1952 Irische Pflanzengesellschaften. Veröff. geobot. Inst. Zürich 25, 224-415.
Breathnach, S. & Fairley, J.S. 1993 The diet of otters Lutra lutra (L.) in the Clare River system. Biol. Envir., Proc. R. Ir. Acad. 93B: 151 – 158.
Cabot, D, 2004 Irish Birds Collins
Carey, M., Hamilton, G., Poole, A. & Lawton, C. 2007 The Irish Squirrel Survey 2007. COFORD, Dublin
Chapman, P.J. & Chapman, L.L. 1982 Otter survey of Ireland 1980-81. Vincent Wildlife Trust, London.
Collins, C 2007 Marine mammal observer report, August 2007 – Broadhaven bay, Co. Mayo, Ireland. Report to RSK Environment Ltd.
Cope, Tom and Gray, Alan 2009 Grasses of the British Isles. BSBI Handbook No.13. Botanical Society of the British Isles, London.
Corbet, G.B. & Harris, S. 1991 The handbook of British Mammals. 3rd edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
Cox, P.R. 1993 Badgers on site: a guide for developers and planners. Berkshire County Council.
Crichton, M. 1974 Provisional distribution maps of amphibians, reptiles and mammals in Ireland. An Foras Forbartha, Dublin.
Crowe, O. 2005. Ireland's Wetlands and their Waterbirds: Status and Distribution. Birdwatch Ireland. pp 400.
Curtis, T.G.F. 1991a A site inventory of the sandy coasts of Ireland. In M.B. Quigley (ed) A guide to the sand dunes of Ireland. Galway. European Union for Dune Conservation and Coastal Management.
Curtis, T.G.F. 1991b The flora and vegetation of sand dunes in Ireland. In M.B. Quigley (ed) A guide to the sand dunes of Ireland. Galway. European Union for Dune Conservation and Coastal Management.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 102 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Curtis, T.G.F. and Sheehy Skeffington, M.J. 1998 The Salt Marshes of Ireland: An inventory and account of their geographical variation Biology and Environment: Proc .Roy. Ir. Acad. Vol. 98B, No. 2, 87–104
Curtis, T.G.F. & McGough, H.N. (1988). The Irish Red Data Book. 1: Vascular Plants. The Stationery Office, Dublin.
Dahl, E. (1968). Analytical Key to British Macrolichens (2nd ed.). British Lichen Society, London.
Dempsey E. & O’Cleary M. 1995. Pocket Guide to the Common Birds of Ireland. Gill & MacMillan. Dublin.
Dempsey, E. & O’Clery, M. 2002 The Complete Guide to Ireland’s Birds Second Edition Gill & Macmillan
Dooling, R. (2002). Avian hearing and the avoidance of wind turbines. Report for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Report No. NREL/TP-500-30844.
Doyle, G.J. 1982 The vegetation, ecology and productivity of Atlantic Blanket Bog in Mayo and Galway, Western Ireland. Studies on Irish Vegetation. Journal of Life Sciences, Royal Dublin Society. Parts 1 and 2. Vol. 3 pp. 147 - 164
EC Directive on The Conservation of Natural habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats Directive) 1992.
English Nature. 2002 Badgers and development. English Nature, Peterborough, UK.
Englund, A.,Coleman, M. and Collins, C. (2006). Marine mammal monitoring in Broadhaven Bay: June – September 2005. Project report to RSKENSR Group Plc. Coastal and Marine Resources Centre, University College Cork, Cork
Environmental Protection Agency 2003 Advice notes on current practice in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements. EPA, Wexford, Ireland.
Environmental Protection Agency 2002 Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements. EPA, Wexford, Ireland.
European Commission 1992 Council Directive No. 92/43/EEC of May 21, 1992 (The Habitats Directive).
Evans, A. (1987). Relative availability of the prey of wading birds by day and by night, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 37 pp. 103–107.
Fairley, J. 2001 A basket of weasels. Belfast
Fairley J.S. & Smal C.M. 1987 Feral house mice in Ireland. Ir. Nat. J. 22 (7): 284-290.
Fairley, J.S. 1984 Otters feeding on breeding frogs. Ir. Nat. J. 21: 372.
Fossitt, J. 2000 A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council, Kilkenny.
Gaynor, K. 2006 The vegetation of Irish machair. Biology and Environment: Special Issue; European Vegetation in the 21st century.Proc. Roy. Ir. Acad. 106B No.3 311 – 321.
Gent, T. & Gibson, S. (eds.) 1998 Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Gibbons D.W., Reid J.B. & Chapman R.A. 1993. The new atlas of breeding birds in Britain and Ireland: 1988-1991. T. & A.D. Poyser Ltd., UK.
Gray N., Thomas G., Trewby M. and Newton S. 2003. The Status and Distrubution of Choughs (Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax) in the Republic of Ireland. 2002/03. Irish Birds, 7: 147-156.
Harris, S., Jeffries, D., Cheeseman, C. & Booty, C. 1994 Problems with badgers? 3rd edition. RSPCA, UK.
Harris, S. & Yalden, D.W. 2008 Mammals of the British Isles. Handbook. 4th edition. The Mammal Society, UK.
Hayden, T. & Harrington, R. 2000 Exploring Irish mammals. Dúchas. Town House Dublin.
Highways Agency 2001 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Vol. 10 Environmental design and management. Section 4. Nature Conservation. Part 2. Mitigating against effects on badgers; HA 59/92.
Highways Agency 2001 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Vol. 10 Environmental design and management. Section 4. Nature Conservation. Part 2. Nature conservation advice in relation to otters. HA 81/99.
Hockin, D., Ounsted, M. Gorman, M., Hill, D., Keller, V. & Barker, M.A. (1992) Examination of the effects of disturbance on birds with reference to its importance in ecological assessments. Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages 253-286
IEEM 2006 Guidelines For Ecological Impact Assessment The Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Environmental Assessment. 1995. Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. E & FN Spon, London. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 103 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Malone, S. and O’Connell, C. 2009 Ireland’s Peatland Conservation Action Plan 2020 Halting the loss of peatland biodiversity. Irish Peatland Conservation Council
Jefferies, D. J. 1972. Organochlorine insecticide residues in British bats and their significance. J. Zool. Lond. 166: 245 - 263.
JNCC, 1990. Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a Technique for Environmental Audit. Nature Conservancy Council, UK.
Kruuk, H. 1989 The social badger. Oxford University Press.
Kruuk, H. 1995 Wild otters. Oxford University Press.
Kruuk, H., Conroy, J.W.H., Glimmerveen, U. & Ouwerkerk, E. 1986 The use of spraints to survey populations of otters (Lutra lutra). Biological Conservation 35: 187-194.
Kyne M.E., Smal C.M. & Fairley J.S. 1989 The food of otters Lutra lutra in the Irish Midlands and a comparison with that of mink Mustela vison in the same region. Proc. R. Ir. Acad. 89B(3): 33 - 46.
Lack P. 1986. The Atlas of Wintering Birds in Britain and Ireland. T. & A.D. Poyser Ltd., UK.
Limpens, H. J. G. A., Twist, P., & Veenbaas, G. 2005 Bats and road construction. Brochure about bats and the ways in which practical measures can be taken to observe the legal duty of care for bats in planning, constructing, reconstructing and managing roads. Rijkwaterstaat, Dienst Weg-en Waterbouwkunde, Delft, the Netherlands and the Vereniging voor Zoogdierkunde en Zoogdierbescherming, Arnhem, The Netherlands. 24 pages. DWW-2005-033.
Lynas P., Newton S.F. & Robinson J.A. 2007. The Status of Birds in Ireland: An Analysis of Conservation Concern 2008-2013. Irish Birds, 8: 149-167.
Longcore, T and Rich, C. (2004). "Ecological light pollution". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(4): 191–198.
Marnell, F. 1988 Discriminant analysis of the terrestrial and aquatic habitat determinants of the smooth newt (Triturus vulgaris) and the common frog (Rana temporaria) in Ireland. J. Zool., Lond. 244: 1-6.
Marnell, F. 1994 The distribution and habitat of the smooth newt (Triturus vulgaris L.) in Ireland. Report to OPW, Dublin, September 1994.
Macdonald, S.M., Mason, C.F. & Coghill, I.S. 1978 The otter and its conservation in the River Teme catchment. J. Appl. Ecol. 15: 373-384.
Mason, C.F. & Macdonald, S.M. 1980 The winter diet of otters (Lutra lutra) on a Scottish seas loch. J. Zool., Lond. 192: 558-61.
Mason, C.F. & Macdonald, S.M. 1987. The use of spraints for surveying otter Lutra lutra populations: an evaluation. Biological Conservation 41: 167-177.
McFadden, Y.M.T. & Fairley, J.S. 1984 Food of otters Lutra lutra (L.) in an Irish limestone river system with special reference to the crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes (Lereboulet). Journal of Life Sciences, Royal Dublin Society 5: 65-76.
Miller, M.W. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins. Condor.2006;108:130–139.
Milsom, T. P. (1984). Diurnal behaviour of lapwings in relation to moon phase during winter. Bird Study 31: 117-12
Mitchell, P.I., Newton, S.F., Ratcliffe, N. and Dunn, T.E. 2000. Seabird Populations of Britain and Ireland. T. & D. Poyser, London.
Moorhouse, A. 1988 Distribution of holts and their utilisation by the European otter (Lutra lutra L.) in a marine environment. M.Sc. thesis University of Aberdeen.
Mueller-Dombois, D. & Ellenberg, H. 1974 Aims and Methods in Vegetation Ecology. Wiley, New York.
National Parks & Wildlife Service. 2008. Species Action Plan (Otters) January 2008. NPWS, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin. www.npws.ie.
NPWS 2009 Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland - Guidance for Planning Authorities Revised February 2010 Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government
National Roads Authority. 2004 Guidelines for assessment of ecological impacts of National road schemes. NRA, Dublin.
National Roads Authority. 2009 Guidelines for assessment of ecological impacts of National road schemes. Revision 2. NRA, Dublin.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 104 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
National Roads Authority. 2005 Guidelines for the treatment of badgers prior to the construction of national roads schemes. NRA, Dublin.
National Roads Authority. 2005 Guidelines for the crossing of watercourses during the construction of National road schemes. NRA, Dublin. www.nra.ie
National Roads Authority. 2006a Best Practice Guidelines for the Conservation of Bats in the Planning of National Road Schemes. National Roads Authority. www.nra.ie
National Roads Authority. 2006b Guidelines for the Treatment of Bats During the Construction of National Road Schemes. National Roads Authority. www.nra.ie
Navara, K.J., Nelson, R. (2007) The dark side of light light at night: physiological, epidemiological, and ecological consequences. J. Pineal Res. 2007; 43:215–224
Neff, J. A. (1998) Irish Coastal Habitats: a study of impacts on designated conservation areas.Heritage Council, Kilkenny.
Neff, J.A. 1996 – 2000 Irish Scarce Plants. Unpublished Internal Reports. NPW - Dúchas.
Newton S., Donaghy A., Allen D. & Gibbons D. 1999. Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland. Irish Birds, 6: 333- 342.
Ní Lamnha, E. 1979 Provisional distribution atlas of amphibians, reptiles and mammals in Ireland. 2nd edition. An Foras Forbartha.
O’Mahony, D. et al. 2005 National Pine Marten Survey of Ireland 2005. COFORD, Dublin 18.
O’Muire - Smyth Architects (with Jenny Neff; CHL Consulting; Brian Meehan) 1996 The Conservation of the Natural Heritage of North-West Mayo. A Study for the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Mayo County Council. (Mayo National Park Feasibility Study)
O’Sullivan, P. 1994 Bats in Ireland. Special supplement to the Irish Naturalists’ Journal.
O’Sullivan, W.M. 1991 The distribution of otters Lutra lutra within a major Irish river system, the Munster Blackwater catchment, 1988-90. Ir. Nat. J. 23(11): 442-446.
O’Sullivan, W.M. 1993 Efficiency and limitations of the standard otter (Lutra lutra) survey technique in Ireland. Proc. R. Ir. Acad. 93B(1): 49-53.
O’Sullivan, W.M. 1993b The nature and distribution of otter resting sites on part of the River Blackwater catchment, southern Ireland. Proc. R. Ir. Acad. 93B(3): 159-162.
O’Sullivan, W.M. 1994 Summer diet of otters on part of the River Blackwater catchment. Ir. Nat. J. 24(9): 349-354.
Otte, M. L. (Ed) 2003 Wetlands of Ireland: Distribution, ecology uses and economic value. University College Dublin Press
Paton, Jean A. 1999 The Liverwort Flora of the British Isles. Harley Books
Poot, H., B. J. Ens, H. de Vries, M. A. H. Donners, M. R. Wernand, and J. M. Marquenie. 2008. Green light for nocturnallymigratingbirds. Ecology and Society 13(2): 47. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art47/
Preston, C., Pearman, D. & Dines, T. 2002 New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora Oxford Univ. Press
Quinty, F. and Rochefort, L. 2003 Peatland Restoration Guide second edition. Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss Association and new Brunswick Department of Natural Resources and Energy, Québec.
Racey, P. A. & Swift, S. M. 1986 The residual effects of remedial timber treatments on bats. Biol. Cons. 35: 205 - 214.
Regini, K. 2000 Guidelines for ecological evaluation and impact assessment. In Practice, Bulletin of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management no. 29: 1-7.
Rich, C., & Longcore, T. (2006). Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Richardson, P 2000 Distribution atlas of bats in Britain and Ireland 1980 - 1999. The Bat Conservation Trust, London, UK.
Rodwell, J.S. (1991). British Plant Communities: Volume 2. Mires and Heath. University Press, Cambridge.
RSPB. 1995 Wildlife impact: the treatment of nature conservation in environmental assessment. The RSPB, Sandy, UK.
Rydell, J. 1992 Exploitation of insects around street lamps by bats in Sweden. Functional Ecol. 6: 744 - 750. EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 105 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Scannell, M.J.P. and Synott, D.M. (1987) Census catalogue of the flora of Ireland. (2nd ed.)The Stationery Office, Dublin.
ScienceDaily (2009) Noise Pollution Negatively Affects Woodland Bird Communities. Science Daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090723142050.htm
Sharrock J.T.R. 1976. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland. British Trust for Ornithology, England.
Smal, C.M. 1988 The American mink in Ireland. Mammal Rev. 18(4): 201-208.
Smal, C.M. 1991 Feral American Mink in Ireland. Occ. publication, Wildlife Service, Office of Public Works.
Smal, C.M. 1995. The Badger & Habitat Survey of Ireland. The Stationery Office, Dawson St. Dublin 2.
Smal, C.M. & Fairley, J.S. 1978 The spread of the bank vole since 1970. Ir. Nat. J. 19: 237-239.
Smal, C.M. & Fairley, J.S. 1984 The spread of the bank vole Clethrionomys glareolus in Ireland. Mammal Review 14: 71-78.
Smith, A.J.E. (1990). The Liverworts of Britain and Ireland. University Press, Cambridge.
Smith, A.J.E. (2004) The Moss Flora of Britain and Ireland Second Edition. University Press, Cambridge.
Stace, C. (1997). New Flora of the British Isles (2nd edition). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Stace, C. 2010 New Flora of the British Isles (3rd edition). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Stebbings, R. E. and Walsh, S. T. 1991 Bat Boxes: A guide to the history, function, construction and use in the conservation of bats. The Bat Conservation Trust.
Sutherland W.J (Ed.) 2006 (2nd Edition). Ecological census techniques, a handbook. Cambridge University Press, UK.
Synnott, D.M. (1986). An outline of the flora of Mayo. Glasra, 9, 13-117.
Tangney, D.E. & Fairley, J.S. 1994 Otter signs and diet in Connemara National Park and its environs. Ir. Nat. J. 24(11): 434-440.
Taylor, R.H. 1948 Distribution of reptiles and amphibians in the British Isles. Br. J. Herpetology 1: 1-38.
Teangana, D.O., Reilly, S., Montgomery, W.I. & Rochford, J. 2000 Distribution and status of the red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) and grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) in Ireland. Mammal Rev. 30(1): 45-56.
Ward D., Smal C.M. & Fairley J.S. 1986 The food of mink Mustela vison in the Irish Midlands. Proc. R. Ir. Acad. 86B (7): 169 - 182.
Watson, H. Coastal otters in Shetland. Vincent Wildlife Trust, London.
Way, L.S. Grice, P. et al 1993 Ireland’s Internationally Important Bird Areas: a review for the EC Special Protection Area network JNCC, DoENI, NPWS.
Webb,D.A., Parnell, J. and Doogue D. (1996). An Irish Flora (7th edition) Dundalgan Press (W. Tempest) Ltd., Dundalk.
Webb, J.B. 1975 Food of the otter (Lutra lutra) on the Somerset levels. J. Zool., Lond. 177: 486-91.
Weber, J.M. 1990 Seasonal exploitation of amphibians by otters (Lutra lutra) in north-east Scotland. J. Zool., Lond. 220: 641-651.
Wernham, C.V., Toms, M.P., Marchant, J.H., Clark, J.A., Siriwardena, G.M. and Baillie, S.R. (eds). 2002. The Migration Atlas: movements of the birds of Britain and Ireland. T. & A.D. Poyser, London. Pp 884.
Whilde, T. 1993 Threatened mammals, birds, amphibians and fish in Ireland. Irish Red Data Book 2: Vertebrates. HMSO, Belfast.
White, J. and Doyle, G. (1982). The vegetation of Ireland. A catalogue raisonné. Journal of Life Sciences, Royal Dublin Society, 3, 289-368.
Wildlife Act 1976 and Wildlife Amendment Act 2000. The Stationery Office, Government of Ireland.
Yong, E. (2008). City songbirds change their tune. The New Scientist, Volume 197, Issue 2649, 29 March 2008, Pages 33-35
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 106 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Table 9 Summary of expected impacts on habitats and species Notes: Impact duration is in accordance with the EPA (2003); † The equivalent EPA Guidance impact magnitude would be Imperceptible to Slight.
Potential and Predicted impacts and impact magnitude
Habitat and / or location / Predicted Residual Impacts species Predicted Short Term Impact Potential During construction (assuming the successful implementation of (assuming the successful implementation of mitigation mitigation measures set out in Section 6 measures set out in Section 6 Mitigation of this report) Mitigation of this report)
HABITATS
Sedimentary cliff Minor temporary disturbance to a section of the Slight to Moderate Neutral to imperceptible reinstated sedimentary cliff during LVI outfall construction Impact level: † Temporary, localised direct Moderate negative Landfall valve installation site Habitat loss, habitat disruption and disturbance to Some loss of grassland habitat on the footprint of the LVI and Loss of improved grassland habitat on the † faunal species which forage in the agricultural the access road: Impact level: localised Moderate negative footprint of the LVI and the access road. grassland. impact. Impact level at footprint and access road: † localised Slight to Moderate † Impact level: localised direct negative Moderate LVI areas outside the footprint and access road: Impact level: Slight to Moderate Other areas of LVI: Imperceptible to slight
† Improved agricultural grassland Temporary habitat loss. Slight to Moderate negative Neutral (SC1 and pipeline TWA) Impact level: Temporary to short term, localised, † direct Moderate negative † Improved agricultural grassland Temporary to short term habitat loss. Slight to Moderate negative Neutral and wet, rushy grassland (SC2) Impact level: Temporary/ short term, localised, † direct Moderate negative Tunnel None anticipated on habitats None anticipated on habitats Neutral (birds) In worst case scenario, if an emergency Imperceptible to Slight Neutral intervention pit is required. Impact level: † Temporary, localised direct Moderate negative Cutover and eroding blanket Short term loss of vegetation cover Moderate negative in the short to medium term Imperceptible bog (undesignated ) vegetation Impact level: Short term, localised Moderate negative † Salt marsh at the Leenamore Impact level: Temporary, localised direct Slight to Moderate negative Neutral or Imperceptible negative † River inlet (Annex I) Moderate negative (See Chapter 14 for intertidal habitats)
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 107 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Potential and Predicted impacts and impact magnitude
Habitat and / or location / Predicted Residual Impacts species Predicted Short Term Impact Potential During construction (assuming the successful implementation of (assuming the successful implementation of mitigation mitigation measures set out in Section 6 measures set out in Section 6 Mitigation of this report) Mitigation of this report) Recovering eroded blanket bog – Disturbance to vegetation (turving) Slight to Moderate negative in the short to medium term Neutral or Imperceptible negative undesignated (190m) Impact level: Temporary, direct, localised and (Annex I equivalent) moderate
Scrub Some permanent loss of gorse scrub within the Moderate negative (fauna) Neutral to Slight Positive 14m. permanent wayleave. Temporary habitat loss elsewhere. Impact level: Temporary, localised Slight negative Earthen (Sod) bank boundaries Temporary habitat loss. Slight negative Neutral Impact level: Temporary, localised Slight negative Conifer plantation Impact level: Permanent, localised Slight Negative Slight Negative Neutral impact Protected Flora Species None expected None expected None expected
NON - AVIAN FAUNA
Badger Minor disturbance and loss of foraging habitat for Slight negative Neutral the period of construction. No known badger setts within, or close to, the temporary working area. Impact level: local, potentially slight to moderate negative † Otter (Annex II and IV) - general Disturbance during construction stage will affect Potential for localised Slight to Moderate Negative Neutral the foraging range of otters in the area. Impact level: temporary to short term, localised † Moderate negative Irish Hare, Stoat, and Pine marten Temporary disturbance Slight Neutral Impact level – potentially Slight negative Small mammals (eg. hedgehog, Direct impacts, loss of habitat, foraging and Slight Neutral pygmy shrew etc) possible mortality Impact level – potentially Slight negative Bats (Annex IV) Bat species within the survey area are not Imperceptible or Neutral Imperceptible or Neutral , but with habitat expected to be affected, to any measurable extent, enhancement could lead to a Slight positive either by the construction phase, the operation overall impact phase, or the loss of habitat in the area
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 108 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Potential and Predicted impacts and impact magnitude
Habitat and / or location / Predicted Residual Impacts species Predicted Short Term Impact Potential During construction (assuming the successful implementation of (assuming the successful implementation of mitigation mitigation measures set out in Section 6 measures set out in Section 6 Mitigation of this report) Mitigation of this report) Impact level – Imperceptible negative or Neutral Frog Potential frog breeding sites will be directly Slight Negative Neutral or Imperceptible, but with habitat impacted by the proposed development. enhancement during reinstatement could Impact level – potentially Slight negative lead to a Slight positive overall impact Common lizard Temporary disturbance Imperceptible to Slight negative Neutral Impact level – potentially Slight negative Grey seal - Halochoerus grypus None expected Neutral Neutral (Annex II) See also Chapter 14 Common (Harbour) seal – Phoca None expected Neutral Neutral vitulina (Annex II) See also Chapter 14
BIRDS
pSPA bird species in general Light Neutral Neutral (Resident and over wintering) Impact level: temporary or short term (SC3), and † highly localised slight to moderate negative (depending upon location) pSPA bird species in general Noise (SC3) Neutral Neutral (Resident and over wintering) Impact level: temporary to short term (SC3), highly † localised, moderate negative (depending upon location) pSPA bird species in general Tunnelling (TBM vibrations) Neutral Neutral (Resident and over wintering) Impact level: Highly localised (spatially and † temporally) in extent, and moderate (at most ) negative pSPA bird species in general Worst case scenario – intervention pit Imperceptible to Slight Neutral † (Resident and over wintering) Impact level: slight/moderate negative (depending upon location) and highly localised cSAC qualifying species: None expected None expected None expected Golden Plover Other cSAC qualifying species: No impact is anticipated on either their food (prey) None expected None expected Barnacle Goose, Storm Petrel, or their foraging areas. Merlin, Peregrine Falcon and Chough EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 109 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Potential and Predicted impacts and impact magnitude
Habitat and / or location / Predicted Residual Impacts species Predicted Short Term Impact Potential During construction (assuming the successful implementation of (assuming the successful implementation of mitigation mitigation measures set out in Section 6 measures set out in Section 6 Mitigation of this report) Mitigation of this report) pSPA qualifying species: Impact level: Temporary, highly localised, Neutral Neutral † Ringed Plover moderate negative No impact on the Ringed Plover flock in the wider pSPA is anticipated pSPA qualifying species: None expected None expected None expected Bar-tailed Godwit pSPA qualifying species: None expected None expected None expected Sandwich Tern pSPA species of special Any impact on this species is considered to be None expected None expected conservation interest: highly unlikely Great Northern Diver pSPA species of special None expected None expected None expected conservation interest: Common Scoter pSPA species of special Impact level: Temporary, highly localised and Neutral Neutral † conservation interest: moderate negative Dunlin No impact on the Dunlin flock in the wider pSPA is anticipated pSPA species of special During the construction works for the LVI outfall – Neutral Neutral conservation interest: no impact because it will be outside the Light-bellied Brent Goose overwintering period. During construction for the pipeline: possible minor temporary disturbance. Tunnelling reception compound: none expected as this is set well back from the shore lines. Impact level: (at most and if any) temporary, † localised and moderate negative. Birds (Terrestrial) Disturbance; and onshore habitat changes leading Neutral Neutral , but with habitat enhancement to a loss or deterioration of nesting and/or feeding during reinstatement could lead to a Slight habitat. positive overall impact Impact level: Temporary highly localised, Slight to † Moderate negative Brent goose None expected Neutral Neutral Sand martin colony Impact level: Temporary Imperceptible to Slight Neutral Neutral Negative Corncrake and other Annex I spp. Non expected Neutral Neutral EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 110 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Table 11a: Protected fauna: Summary of recommended mitigation measures – Otter (Annex II and IV) Species Concerns Activity / Mitigation Season of vulnerability / Criteria considered Comment on impact Otter 1 Holts and Carry out full pre- 1 Detailed pre-construction survey within the temporary working area and up to c. 200m either side will be undertaken Principal breeding season resting places construction survey in immediately prior to construction; April to September, but present in vicinity the vicinity of the 2 Detailed recommended methodology of evacuation and mitigation for each affected holt or resting place present within 200m of variable. of pipeline works. the pipeline will be provided for the consideration of NPWS after such pre-construction survey, and additional measures taken in consultation with the NPWS in order to ensure that no significant impacts on breeding females and cubs will be incurred; No holts anticipated at 3 Pre-construction surveys for holts will be carried out in winter, when vegetation cover is low; otherwise, holts may be obscured present within pipeline and not found. takeline, others present 4. All known holts that could be potentially affected by the proposed development, and also any additional holts identified at pre- nearby. construction survey stage, will be re-inspected on a regular basis (every c. 4 weeks during potential breeding season) prior to construction works commencing in the vicinity of these holts – so as to ensure that no active breeding holts will be affected by works (holts present within 150 – 200 metres of the working width or within 150 - 200m of construction or any related project It is considered that there works site).site). will be no likely significant short term or long term 2 Principal If an inactive holt is 1 Contact NPWS; impact on the population in concern: found on route or 2 A licence for activities impacting on holts will be required from NPWS; the Bay area. interference with within c. 25m metres 3 Use of any vehicles, digging, or heavy machinery in the vicinity of any holt can cause collapse of tunnels and potentially or disturbance to of working width, mortality of otters and will not take place within 25m of holt entrances; otter breeding implement detailed 4 Light work, such as hand digging or scrub clearance will not take place within at least 15m of holt entrances; sites (holts). mitigation. 5 Affected holts will be clearly marked and the extent of bounds prohibited for vehicles clearly marked by fencing or adequate physical boundary prior to any works commencing in the vicinity of the holts; 6 Inactive holts in way of development may be removed by otter specialists after consideration of options, then consultation with NPWS, and under licence and conditions as issued by NPWS.
If an active non- 1 Contact NPWS; breeding holt is found 2 Consider route adjustment if considered necessary by otter specialist; consult with NPWS; on route or within c. 3 A licence for activities impacting on holts will be required from NPWS; 40-50m metres of 4 Where construction works are required in the vicinity of active holts (40-50m), these operations should be limited in duration working width, allowing otters to forage during dawn and dusk and at night; screening may be required; implement detailed 5 Temporary prevention of otter access to (non-breeding) holts may be considered appropriate (NPWS licence required); mitigation. 6 Active holts in way of development may be removed by otter specialists (under licence) after consideration of options and consultation with NPWS; 7 Affected holts will be clearly marked and the extent of bounds prohibited for vehicles clearly marked by fencing or adequate physical boundary prior to any works commencing in the vicinity of the holts.
If an active breeding 1 Consult with NPWS; holt is found on route 2 Where construction works are required in the vicinity of holts (150-200m), these operations should be limited in duration allowing or within 150-200 otters to forage during dawn and dusk and at night; screening may be required, or postponement of works if a breeding meters of the working holt is found; width, implement 3 Active breeding holts in way of development could be removed by otter specialists after consideration of options, then detailed mitigation. consultation with and approval of NPWS, and under licence and conditions as issued by NPWS; 4 The construction of artificial holts will usually be a recommendation in the instance of the required removal of a breeding holt; 5 A breeding holt will not be removed until such time as the adult female and cubs have vacated the holt of their own accord and have ceased using it; 6 The zone of protection for affected breeding holts should be clearly marked and the extent of bounds prohibited for vehicles clearly marked by fencing or adequate physical boundary prior to any works commencing in the vicinity of the holts. The extent of this zone will be determined in consultation with NPWS.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 111 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Species Concerns Activity / Mitigation Season of vulnerability / Criteria considered Comment on impact Methodology of holt 1 Otters will need to be evacuated from any holts that will be directly impacted by the scheme (refer exclusion zone evacuation and of c. 25m referred to above) by zoological experts prior to vegetation clearance operations commencing – for removal (if required): humanitarian consideration. The holts will then be evacuated (prior to construction) and thereafter destroyed Permanent exclusion (where necessary) undersupervision by qualified experts. Any evacuated holts (not requiring removal) will be re- from holts that may opened after construction works have been completed. These operations must be carried out by personnel be directly impacted licensed to do so by National Parks and Wildlife Service, DoEHLG. The manner of exclusion (and if necessary by the scheme destruction) of each holt will be determined by an experienced otter expert in consultation with NPWS.
2 Inactive holts, deemed inactive after 5 days of monitoring, will be evacuated by means of light blocking with soil and then hard blocked after a further monitoring period (again, after consultation with NPWS and under licence from NPWS). This may be carried out during any season. Consideration may be given to temporary closure of (non- breeding) otter holts to ensure that such holts near the works are not utilised by otters during the construction period. Any evacuated holts (not requiring removal) will be re-opened after construction works have been completed.
3 Where a holt is found to be active within the vicinity of the scheme, but not one in use as a breeding holt [and where works would require removal for the scheme (i.e. directly impacted)] – as determined by qualified personnel at pre-construction survey stage – it may be necessary to close such active holt by means of one-way gates placed over the holt entrances, to be left in place for 21 days, with regular monitoring to check activity at the holt. Consideration will be given to temporary closure of active (non-breeding) otter holts to ensure that holts near the works are not utilised by otters during the construction period. Any evacuated holts (not requiring removal) will be re - opened after construction works have been completed.
4 Where a holt is found to be in use as a breeding holt, and that would require removal for the scheme (i.e. directly impacted) it is imperative that no evacuation procedures of any kind will be undertaken until the otters have vacated the holt of their own accord. Otter breeding may take place at any time of year so breeding activity at holts will need to be determined on a case by case basis. When it is evident that otters have vacated the holt, evacuation procedures as outlined above may be carried out. Route adjustment is a recommended option in the instance of a breeding holt being directly or indirectly impacted (to any significant extent) by the scheme. Any required interference with the holt will require permission from NPWS with mitigation and amelioration measures taken as required by NPWS.
3 Secondary On the basis of 1 Otters forage over much of the Bay area. Where construction works are required in the vicinity of principal areas ofof otter see above concern: general detailed survey and activity that might be affected by the scheme, operations should be limited in duration (i.e. daylight hours, excluding dawn and disturbance to consultation with dusk hours) as far as is practicable - allowing otters to forage during dawn and dusk and at night. Locations specifically meriting local population NPWS, implement attention in this regard include the Leenamore River crossing and the shoreline at the landfall area at Glengad. whilst works are detailed mitigation in progress 2 Additional measures, such as provision of screening from construction works may be required in the vicinity of active holts.
3 At known or suspected crossing points, gaps will be left at the base of sheep wire or other fencing to allow free access.
4 Potential Implement detailed 1 During construction of the pipeline, open trenches will allow for otters (and other wildlife) to escape by means mortality within mitigation of: open trenches (a) gently sloping earth/peat incline left at the end of each day’s operation – at each end of open trenches, (b) timber escape planks at c. 50m intervals along the trench left in place at the end of each day’s operations, (c) occasional temporary earth/peat bridges constructed to allow mammalian species to cross the pipeline trench during works (wooden boards may be used to similar effect). EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 112 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Species Concerns Activity / Mitigation Season of vulnerability / Criteria considered Comment on impact These provisions are not required throughout the route.
2 Night caps will be placed over all pipe ends every night. 3 Trenches will, preferably, not be kept open for more than 2-3 days. 4 Otter specialist will be on call throughout the project. The specialist’s contact number should be held in the Site Office. 5 Habitat and Re-instatement and 1 Habitats will be reinstated as soon as possible after placement of the pipeline at each section. post-construction monitoring impacts 2 Reinstatement and landscaping activities after the pipeline construction can also impact on otter holts, and care must be taken to ensure that setts safeguarded near the site are not interfered with at this stage. Exclusion zones may be required similar to those adopted for construction phase.
3 Post-construction monitoring of otter activity will be required. Such will be conducted by inspection of activity at all known holts 3 months after construction and 3 months after habitat reinstatement. In addition, full post- construction survey of otter activity within the vicinity of the pipeline route and also within the Sruwaddacon Bay area will be conducted on a bi-annual basis for a period of at least 3 years, and on a regular basis for the duration of operation of the scheme.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 113 Corrib Onshore Pipeline Terrestrial Ecology / Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
Table 11b: Protected fauna: Summary of recommended mitigation measures – other species
Species Mitigation measures
Badger 1. A pre-construction survey within the temporary working area and up to approximately 30 either side of the centre line will be undertaken immediately prior to construction.
2. Areas of dense vegetation affected by the development which could not be thoroughly searched will require monitoring by experts during vegetation clearance.
3. Any setts to be directly impacted will require evacuation / removal prior to construction commencing.
4. During construction, open trenches will provide ramps for badgers and other wildlife to escape. 5. At known badger crossing points, gaps will be left at the base of any fencing to allow access for wildlife species across the pipeline route. 6. The success of the mitigation measures for badgers should be monitored for a period of 2 years after construction. Bats 1. A preconstruction bat survey will be conducted to determine if there any bat roots, or potential bat roosts, present within affected portions of the route, with emphasis on any mature trees or coniferous plantation present along the route; and also at bridges or other structures near to the route that might harbour bats at roosts that could be potentially affected by the project. Frogs 1. Amphibians present within all of the affected portions of the route will be removed prior to construction proceeding and placed into alternative suitable habitats in the locality.
2. Where practical in the context of construction, water levels will be maintained in any drains used, or potentially used, by frogs.
3. Artificial breeding pools will be created within unaffected portions of wetland habitats adjacent to the route where practicable
4. Habitat reinstatement will re-create, as far as is practicable, the former channels and drain systems so that frogs may use these post-construction.
5. Post-construction monitoring will be conducted to ensure that identified frog breeding sites have been satisfactorily restored and continue to serve as breeding sites.
Other species There are no specific mitigation measures recommended for other faunal species.
EACS/EcIA Report / May 2010 114
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Habitat mapping: Overview and sheets 1 to 3
FIGURE 2
Fauna
CORRIB ONSHORE PIPELINE Key to signs of faunal species (2002 - 2010) File Ref: MDR0470Gr\EIS\Fig2.0. RevA03 Date: May 2010
Figure 2.0 Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3 Fauna overview map: Signs observed during surveys (2002 to 2008) Figure 2.4
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.7 File Ref: MDR0470Gr\EIS\Fig2.1 RevA03 Date: May 2010
CORRIB ONSHORE PIPELINE
Figure 2.5 Figure 2.6 CORRIB ONSHORE PIPELINE Signs of protected fauna species observed during File Ref: MDR0470Gr\EIS\Fig2.2 RevA03 2002 to 2008 surveys Date: May 2010
Sheet 1
Figure 2.2 CORRIB ONSHORE PIPELINE Signs of protected fauna species observed during File Ref: MDR0470Gr\EIS\Fig2.3 RevA03 2002 to 2008 surveys Date: May 2010
Sheet 2
Figure 2.3 Signs of protected fauna species observed during 2002 to 2008 surveys
Sheet 3
Figure 2.4
File Ref: MDR0470Gr\EIS\Fig2.4 RevA03 Date: May 2010
CORRIB ONSHORE PIPELINE CORRIB ONSHORE PIPELINE Signs of protected fauna species observed during File Ref: MDR0470Gr\EIS\Fig2.5 RevA03 2002 to 2008 surveys Date: May 2010
Sheet 4
Figure 2.5 CORRIB ONSHORE PIPELINE Signs of protected fauna species observed during File Ref: MDR0470Gr\EIS\Fig2.6 RevA03 2002 to 2008 surveys Date: May 2010
Sheet 5
Figure 2.6 CORRIB ONSHORE PIPELINE Signs of protected fauna species observed during File Ref: MDR0470Gr\EIS\Fig2.7 RevA03 2002 to 2008 surveys Date: May 2010
Sheet 6
Figure 2.7 Figure 2.9 Figure 2.10
Fauna overview map: Signs observed during surveys (2010)
Figure 2.11 Figure 2.12 Figure 2.8
File Ref: MDR0470Gr\EIS\Fig2.8 RevA03 Date: May 2010
CORRIB ONSHORE PIPELINE
Figure 2.14
Figure 2.13 CORRIB ONSHORE PIPELINE Signs of protected fauna species observed during File Ref: MDR0470Gr\EIS\Fig2.9 RevA03 2010 survey Date: May 2010
Sheet 1
Figure 2.9 CORRIB ONSHORE PIPELINE Signs of protected fauna species observed during File Ref: MDR0470Gr\EIS\Fig2.10 RevA03 2010 survey Date: May 2010
Sheet 2
Figure 2.10 Signs of protected fauna species observed during 2010 survey
Sheet 3
Figure 2.11
File Ref: MDR0470Gr\EIS\Fig2.11 RevA03 Date: May 2010
CORRIB ONSHORE PIPELINE Signs of protected fauna species observed during 2010 survey
Sheet 4
Figure 2.12
File Ref: MDR0470Gr\EIS\Fig2.11 RevA03 Date: May 2010
CORRIB ONSHORE PIPELINE CORRIB ONSHORE PIPELINE Signs of protected fauna species observed during File Ref: MDR0470Gr\EIS\Fig2.13 RevA03 2010 survey Date: May 2010
Sheet 5
Figure 2.13 CORRIB ONSHORE PIPELINE Signs of protected fauna species observed during File Ref: MDR0470Gr\EIS\Fig2.14 RevA03 2010 survey Date: May 2010
Sheet 6
Figure 2.14