Appropriate Assessment Screening Report for a Residential Development at the Wonderful Barn, Leixlip, Co

Appropriate Assessment Screening Report for a residential development at The Wonderful Barn, Leixlip, Co. Kildare

Compiled by OPENFIELD Ecological Services

Pádraic Fogarty, MSc MIEMA

for Ardstone Capital ltd.

www.openfield.ie

December 2017

Introduction

Biodiversity is a contraction of the words ‘biological diversity’ and describes the enormous variability in species, habitats and genes that exist on Earth. It provides food, building materials, fuel and clothing while maintaining clean air, water, soil fertility and the pollination of crops. A study by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government placed the economic value of biodiversity to Ireland at €2.6 billion annually (Bullock et al., 2008) for these ‘ecosystem services’.

All life depends on biodiversity and its current global decline is a major challenge facing humanity. In 1992, at the Rio Earth Summit, this challenge was recognised by the United Nations through the Convention on Biological Diversity which has since been ratified by 193 countries, including Ireland. Its goal to significantly slow down the rate of biodiversity loss on Earth has been echoed by the European Union, which set a target date of 2010 for halting the decline. This target was not met but in 2010 in Nagoya, Japan, governments from around the world set about redoubling their efforts and issued a strategy for 2020 called ‘Living in Harmony with Nature’. In 2011 the Irish Government incorporated the goals set out in this strategy, along with its commitments to the conservation of biodiversity under national and EU law, in the second national biodiversity action plan (Dept. of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, 2011).

The main policy instruments for conserving biodiversity in Ireland have been the Birds Directive of 1979 and the Habitats Directive of 1992. Among other things, these require member states to designate areas of their territory that contain important bird populations in the case of the former; or a representative sample of important or endangered habitats and species in the case of the latter. These areas are known as Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) respectively. Collectively they form a network of sites across the European Union known as Natura 2000. A recent report into the economic benefits of the Natura 2000 network concluded that “there is a new evidence base that conserving and investing in our biodiversity makes sense for climate challenges, for saving money, for jobs, for food, water and physical security, for cultural identity, health, science and learning, and of course for biodiversity itself” (EC, 2013).

Unlike traditional nature reserves or national parks, Natura 2000 sites are not ‘fenced-off’ from human activity and are frequently in private ownership. It is the responsibility of the competent national authority to ensure that ‘good conservation status’ exists for their SPAs and SACs and specifically that Article 6(3) of the Directive is met. Article 6(3) requires that an ‘appropriate assessment’ (AA) be carried out for these sites where projects, plans or proposals are likely to have an effect. In some cases this is obvious from the start, for instance where a road is to pass through a designated site. However, where this is not the case, a preliminary screening must first be carried out to determine whether or not a full AA is required.

The Purpose of this document

This document provides for the assessment of a proposed residential development at The Wonderful Barn, Leixlip, Co. Kildare. The development comprises site clearance and levelling; the construction of 394 dwellings and creche, together with the provision of parking, open space, landscaping and infrastructure works.

This document will assess whether effects to the Natura 2000 network are likely to occur as a result of this project in accordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive and the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, 2010. It does not necessarily assess impacts to biodiversity in general. It will conclude whether or not a ‘full appropriate assessment’ is required and may recommend mitigation to be undertaken. It should be noted that the screening for Appropriate Assessment, or full AA if required, is undertaken by the competent authority, in this case Kildare County Council.

About OPENFIELD Ecological Services

OPENFIELD Ecological Services is headed by Pádraic Fogarty who has worked for over 20 years in the environmental field and in 2007 was awarded an MSc from Sligo Institute of Technology for research into Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) in Ireland. Since its inception in 2007 OPENFIELD has carried out numerous EcIAs for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Appropriate Assessment in accordance with the EU Habitats Directive, as well as individual planning applications. Pádraic is a full member of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA).

Methodology

The methodology for this AA screening statement is clearly set out in a document prepared for the Environment DG of the European Commission entitled ‘Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites ‘Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC’ (Oxford Brookes University, 2001). Chapter 3, part 1, of this document deals specifically with screening while Annex 2 provides the template for the screening/finding of no significant effects report matrices to be used.

Guidance from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government ‘Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland’ (2009) is also referred to.

In accordance with this guidance, the following methodology has been used to produce this screening statement:

Step 1: Management of the Natura 2000 site This determines whether the project is necessary for the conservation management of the site in question.

Step 2: Description of the Project This step describes the aspects of the project that may have an impact on the Natura 2000 site.

Step 3: Characteristics of the Natura 2000 Sites This process identifies the conservation aspects of the Natura 2000 site and determines whether negative impacts can be expected as a result of the project. This is done through a literature survey and consultation with relevant stakeholders – particularly the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). All potential effects are identified including those that may act alone or in combination with other projects or plans.

Using the precautionary principle, and through consultation and a review of published data, it is normally possible to conclude at this point whether potential effects are likely to occur. Deficiencies in available data are also highlighted at this stage.

Step 4: Assessment of Significance Assessing whether an effect is significant or not must be measured against the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 site in question.

If this analysis shows that significant effects are likely then a full AA will be required.

A full list of literature sources that have been consulted for this study is given in the References section to this report while individual references are cited within the text where relevant.

Screening Template as per Annex 2 of EU methodology:

This plan is not necessary for the management of any SAC or SPA and so Step 1 as outlined above is not relevant.

Brief description of the proposed project

Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence no.: EN0053917 © Ordnance Survey Ireland Government of Ireland

Figure 1 – Site location. Note the boundary of the SAC is shown diagonal red lines. There is no SPA in this view (from www.npws.ie )

The subject site is located to the south-west of the town of Leixlip which is located in the northern portion of County Kildare and close to the border with Dublin. These lands are currently occupied by open amenity space, formerly agricultural fields, and are bounded to the north by housing estates and to the south by open land – beyond which lies that M4 motorway. Historic mapping shows that these lands have been open or agricultural land for many years although built development has expanded in the surrounds in more recent times (www.osi.ie ). This includes the motorway to the south and residential development which has accompanied the expansion of Leixlip town.

Mapping from the OSI and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) show a small (unnamed) water courses running along the western site boundary. According to www.wfdireland.net the lands lie within the catchment of the Rye Water Lower water unit, however the stream as indicated flows to the east, entering the River Liffey. This is shown in figure 2, and would indicate that the land is actually within the catchment of the Liffey.

Figure 2 – Indicative site boundary (in white line) (from www.epa.ie) showing that the site is in the catchment of the River Liffey.

The lands were visited as part of this study on September 27th 2016. September lies within the optimal period for general habitat survey and all habitats were identifiable to Fossitt level 3. Of key importance is that linkages between the site and Natura 2000 areas be identified and in this regard a full assessment was possible. The site was surveyed in accordance with best practice standards (Smith et al., 2010) and habitats were classified in accordance with standard methodology (Fossitt, 2000).

The site is composed of large fields of dry meadow – GS2 divided by linear woodlands. These meadows were formerly in agricultural use but are now mowed rather than grazed. They are species poor expanses, dominated by grasses such as Annual Meadow Grass Poa annua, Cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata, and False Oat Arrhenatherum elatius. Broad-leaved species are poorly represented and are typically composed of Thistles Cirsium sp., Clovers Trifolium sp, Chickweed Stellaria media etc. It is a habitat of low biodiversity value.

Field boundaries are characterised by hedgerows – WL1 and treelines – WL2. Treelines are on average composed of tall trees over 5m in height although the species composition of these habitats can be similar. These are mostly composed of Ash Fraxinus excelsior along with Blackthorn Prunus spinosa, Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna Ivy Hedera helix, and Holly Ilex aquifolium. Along one treeline there is a drainage ditch – FW4 although this had very little water and no typical wetland plants. Another stretch of ditch along a hedgerow to the east had a dense mat of Water-cress Nasturtium officinale. The north-eastern and north-western boundaries, and some of the internal treelines are shown on historic mapping and so are at least over 100

7 years old. The boundary along the north-west is part of a former townland boundary, albeit a number of sections have been removed. Townland boundaries may be of great age. Methodology is available from the Heritage Council for evaluating the ecological and heritage value of these field boundaries (Foulkes et al., 2013). This is based on a scoring system, taking into account the likely age, species diversity and structure (having an accompanying drainage ditch increases the score). Under this system boundary hedgerows and treelines are considered to be of ‘higher significance’.

There has been significant planting of trees in more recent times and these are represented as patches of immature woodland – WS2. There are a variety of native and non-native trees which are maturing well but lack the structure and diversity of older woodland features. Meanwhile, due to lack of grazing management scrub – WS1 is encroaching from the edges of treelines and hedgerows in places. These are dominant stands of Brambles Rubus fruticosus agg. or Blackthorn. Scrub provides good cover for nesting birds and can, along with areas of immature woodland, be considered to be of low local value to biodiversity. These are shown on the habitat map in figure 3.

There are no plant species on the site that are considered rare or endangered. There are no alien invasive species on the site1. The drainage ditches are the only bodies of open or running water and there are no habitats which could be considered wetlands. The stream shown on OSI maps did not appear on the ground. This location is very overgrown with scrub vegetation and so may have been obscured, or it may have dried out due to the lack of significant rainfall around the time of survey.

Project description

The subject proposal is for the construction and operation of a residential housing development on this site with all associated services including road access, drainage infrastructure and open space. In total 450 homes are to be constructed along with open space and car parking.

The construction phase will see extensive earth works and the movement of heavy machinery. This will see the removal of lower value habitats although much of the higher value hedgerow and treeline are to be retained. The site will be levelled and any construction and demolition waste will be removed by a licenced contractor. The construction phase will use standard building materials. This will see the presence of potentially toxic or polluting substances such as oils, fuels and concrete on the site.

Foul wastewater from the development will connect to the mains sewer and will be treated in the Leixlip municipal wastewater treatment plant. The plant is licenced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (reference number D0004-02) and discharges treated effluent into the River Liffey. The Annual Environmental Report (AER) from 2016, the most recent available, indicated

1 Listed on Schedule 3 of SI 477 of 2011

8 compliance with the emission limit values (ELV) set under its licence and in accordance with the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. The plant is operating within its design capacity of 150,000 population equivalent (P.E.). Impacts to the receiving water during this time were ‘not observable’. This project will result in an increase in the loading on the Leixlip treatment plant.

Surface water will be separated from the foul sewer. On site attenuation will include an open attenuation/storage pond, and permeable paving to maximise passive infiltration. Surface water will ultimately drain to the River Liffey via an existing surface water sewer.

Fresh water supply for the development will be via a mains supply which originates from a reservoir along the River Liffey, upstream of Leixlip.

Post construction there will be landscaping of communal areas. The proposed site layout is given in figure 4.

This site is not located within any Natura 2000 area (SAC or SPA). The lands lie approximately 700m to the south of the boundary of the Rye Water Carton SAC. There are no other SACs within 2km of the site and there are no SPAs within this radius. While 2km is an arbitrary distance it is commonly used for non-linear projects such as this (IEA, 1955). Impacts can occur at distances greater than this however in this case it is not considered that the zone of influence includes any other Natura 2000 areas. Wastewater discharges to the River Liffey, which is downstream of the SAC. Similarly, the abstraction point for freshwater, and the discharge point for surface water are downstream of the SAC.

This development occurs in a region that has seen significant land use change in recent years. Although the lands themselves are open with some semi-natural habitat, activities in the locality are associated with residential and transport land uses. These developments are associated with noise and artificial lighting. There are no habitats on the site that are associated with habitats or species for which SACs or SPAs are generally designated. There are no water courses on the site that may be of fisheries value. The Rye Water and River Liffey are of significant fisheries value however, supporting a run of Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar and Brown Trout S. trutta according to Inland Fisheries Ireland.

During the construction phase, there will be use of concrete (which is highly toxic to aquatic life) as well as the release of sediment. However as there are no open waterways on the site there are no direct pathways for such pollutants to reach the Rye Water. The land is believed to lie in the catchment of the River Liffey but it is likely that the vast majority of surface water will percolate to ground prior to entering any water course.

Pollution will be managed during the construction using best site management practices and following guidance from Inland Fisheries Ireland (2016) which are considered intrinsic to the project design. This will include not pouring concrete in wet weather and storing all hazardous materials in bunded areas.

During the operation phase surface water run-off is to be maintained at a ‘greenfield’ rate. It will result in additional noise and lighting however this will be in the context of an already built up area. The Lower Liffey Valley Regional Sewerage Scheme (which serves Leixlip) was compliant with its discharge licence in 2015. There are no potential emissions of wastewater that could affect Natura 2000 areas downstream of the site during the operation phase.

Figure 3 – Habitat map of the subject lands

Figure 4 – Layout of the proposed scheme

Brief description of Natura 2000 sites

In assessing the zone of influence of this project upon Natura 2000 sites the following factors must be considered:

 Potential impacts arising from the project  The location and nature of Natura 2000 sites  Pathways between the development and the Natura 2000 network

It has already been stated that the site is not located within or directly adjacent to any Natura 2000 area. At a distance of approximately 700m, there is one such location however this is in a separate hydrological catchment to the site, and so is not connected to the development via the flow of surface water during the construction phase. It is considered to be the only Natura 2000 area that lies within the zone of influence of this project.

Rye Water Valley/Carton SAC (site code: 1398) The Rye Water is a tributary of the Liffey and the SAC boundary stretches from east of Maynooth as far as Leixlip village. It flows through the Carton demesne which is wooded with specimen native and non-native trees. The river is dammed in a number of locations and this has created a series of small lakes. The SAC covers an area of nearly 73 ha.

Table 1 – Qualifying interests for the Rye Water/Carton SAC 2 Code Habitats/Species Status 7220 Petrifying springs with Tufa formation Intermediate 1014 Narrow-mouthed whorl snail Vertigo angustior Intermediate 1016 Desmoulin’s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana Intermediate

The reasons why this area falls under the SAC designation are set out in the qualifying interests. They are either habitat types listed in Annex I or species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive. This information is provided by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and is shown in table 1 below. The status provided refers to the status of the habitat or species at a national level and not necessarily within the SAC.

 Petrifying Springs (7220 – priority habitat): These are very localised habitats that arise from the precipitation of excess calcium carbonate in supersaturated running water. They are associated with characteristic bryophytes. They are vulnerable to changes in water quality, flow regime and intensification of land use practices.  Narrow-mouthed Whorl Snail (1014). This whorl snail is present in a wide variety of habitats from dunes and coastal grasslands, to fens, salt- marshes and floodplains. The principle threats to its habitat derives from undergrazing and overgrazing.

2 NPWS (2013) The Status of Protected EU Habitats and Species in Ireland. Overview Volume 1. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

 Desmoulin’s Whorl Snail (1016) is a tiny mollusc that is particularly sensitive to changes in water level. It occurs in swamps, fens and marshes. The greatest threats have been drainage of wetlands and riparian management of canals.

Whether the integrity the SAC is likely to be significantly affected must be measured against its ‘conservation objectives’. However, to-date, specific conservation objectives have not been set. Generic conservation objectives have been published by the NPWS and are stated as:

To maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the Annexed habitats/species for which the SAC has been selected. (NPWS, 2016).

In a generic sense ‘favourable conservation status’ of a habitat is achieved when: • its natural range, and area it covers within that range, are stable or increasing, and • the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long‐term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and • the conservation status of its typical species is favourable.

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

Specific conservation objectives for Desmoulin’s whorl snail have been set within the River Barrow and River Nore SAC (NPWS, 2011). These relate to distribution (number of occupied sites), population size, population density, area of occupancy, habitat quality (vegetation and, separately, moisture levels).

Specific conservation objectives for the Narrow-mouthed Whorl Snail have been set within the Ballysadare SAC (NPWS, 2013d). These relate to distribution (number of occupied sites), presence on transect, habitat quality, and habitat extent.

Specific conservation objectives for the priority Petrifying Springs habitat have been set within the Black Head-Poulsallagh SAC (NPWS, 2014). These relate to habitat area, habitat distribution, maintenance of the local hydrological regime (height of water table and flow), water quality (specifically maintaining oligotrophic and calcareous conditions), and vegetation composition.

In addition to the features in table 1 the Rye Water is known for its run of Trout Salmo trutta and Atlantic salmon S. salar, as well as the Freshwater crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes (listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive) and Kingfisher Alcedo atthis (listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive).

Data collected to carry out the assessment

A site visit found that the habitats on the site are not associated with either habitats or species listed in table 1.

Water quality along the River Rye is routinely assessed by the EPA. At Kildare Bridge, near Maynooth the status in 2013 was ‘poor’. Water quality at the bridge in Leixlip village was also assessed as ‘poor’ and this is unchanged since 2007. The Rye Water is a part of the Rye Water Water Management Unit and 100% of this river length is unsatisfactory (poor or bad) according to the Programme of Measures in the ERBD Management Plan. This report suggests that much of the pressure on water quality is from agriculture, abstractions and physical modifications with municipal wastewater treatment plants a less significant contributor. Overall the river has been classified as ‘poor’ under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) reporting period 2010-12 (from www.epa.ie ). These assessments are ‘unsatisfactory’ and so remedial measures will be required to restore ‘good ecological status’, something that was due by 2015.

Although the aforementioned Programme of Measures highlights abstraction as a pressure on 100% of the catchment, there are no further data on how abstractions are affecting ecological parameters or how this is to be addressed.

The area of the Rye Water/Carton SAC at Louisa Bridge, and which lies along the banks of the Royal Canal closest to the subject lands, is known from personal experience to be an area of wet grassland. The National Biodiversity Data Centre shows that there are records of both V. angustior and V. moulinsiana from this location. These snails are listed as qualifying interests of the SAC (www.biodiversityireland.ie) .

All qualifying interests for which the SAC has been designated have been assessed nationally as ‘intermediate’ (NPWS, 2013). This is an unsatisfactory status under the Habitats Directive, which requires ‘favourable conservation status’. The snails V. angustior and V. moulinsiana have been listed as ‘vulnerable’ and ‘endangered’ respectively in the Red Data Book (Byrne et al., 2009). However the status of these features within the Rye Water Valley/Carton SAC is unknown as no data have been published. Specific conservation objectives for this SAC have not been published although these are available for other SACs and are used for this analysis.

Data from the NPWS indicates that petrifying spring habitat is present in the N93 10km square. This suggests that this priority habitat is located in the vicinity of Louisa Bridge (NPWS, 2013).

The Assessment of Significance of Effects

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

In order for an effect to occur there must be a pathway between the source (the development site) and the receptor (the SAC or SPA). Where a pathway does not exist, an impact cannot occur.

The proposed development is not located within, or directly adjacent to, any SAC or SPA.

Habitat loss The site is 700m from the nearest SAC boundary (Rye Water Valley/Carton SAC). There are no other SACs or SPAs within the zone of influence of this project. Because of the distance separating the site and the SAC there is no pathway for direct loss or disturbance of habitats or species listed as qualifying interests or other semi-natural habitats that may act as ecological corridors for important species associated with them.

Pollution during construction During construction, there will be a loss of sediment from the land although there are no direct pathways to open water courses. The land is believed to lie within the catchment of the River Liffey, as the EPA marks a small water course flowing past the site towards the Parsonstown Reservoir. The ingress of small quantities of artificial sediment to this artificial lake are unlikely to impact fish habitat as it may in a natural river system. This pathway is nevertheless outside the catchment of the Rye Water/Carton SAC and so impacts to this area cannot occur.

Pollution arising from surface water during operation As surface water discharges to the River Liffey, there is no pathway from this source to the Rye Water/Carton SAC.

Changes to hydrology The Vertigo snails are sensitive to changes in hydrology (particularly water levels). Such changes could occur were water to be abstracted from within the zone of influence or were streams entering the wetland to be diverted. No such changes are likely to arise from either the construction or operation phases of this project.

Pollution arising from wastewater discharge Wastewater is discharged to the River Liffey downstream of the Rye Water Valley/Carton SAC and so there is no pathway from this source to the qualifying interests. No non-compliance issues were experienced at the Leixlip plant in 2015. There is ample capacity to treat the expected additional loading from this development. This impact therefore is not significant.

Abstraction The Rye Water WMU states that 100% of its catchment is affected by abstraction. However, there are no data on where this is occurring and what impact it is having on the ecological status of the river. Freshwater for this development originates from the reservoirs along the River Liffey in Co. Kildare, which are also located at Leixlip. As such water that is abstracted for this plant cannot impact upon the Rye River. This impact is therefore not significant.

Light and noise The project will result in no additional noise or artificial lighting and given the significant distance to the river’s edge, this impact can be considered to be not significant.

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

Individual impacts from one-off developments or plans may not in themselves be significant. However, these may become significant when combined with similar, multiple impacts elsewhere. These are sometimes known as cumulative impacts but in AA terminology are referred to as ‘in combination’ effects.

The Kildare County Development Plan 2011 – 2017 emphasises the importance of biodiversity and the conservation of designated areas, as well as the need to fully assess potential impacts from plans or proposals that may result in negative impacts thereon.

The Leixlip Local Area Plan (LAP) 2010 was screened for AA and this found that significant effects were not likely to arise to the Natura 2000 network from its implementation. This plan has zoned the subject lands for ‘new residential’.

The EU’s Water Framework Directive requires that all water bodies must attain ‘good ecological status’ by 2015. In 2010 a management plan was published for the ERBD and this sets out a ‘Programme of Measures’ that will address water quality issues in order to meet these high standards. The status of the Rye Water is currently unsatisfactory and a target of 2027 has been set to achieve good status.

The Lower Liffey Valley Regional Sewerage Scheme has recently been upgraded from a design capacity of 80,000 p.e. (population equivalent) to 150,000 p.e.

Rainwater run-off from paved and impermeable surfaces can carry hydrocarbons and particulate matter into surface waters. These features can also accelerate the discharge of rainwater off land and so accentuate the effects of flash flooding (Mason, 1996). This impact is particularly pronounced in urban locations where significant areas can be paved or built on. As such,

17 incremental increases in hard surfaces, such as when land use changes from agriculture to housing, can result in cumulative effects to water quality. .

This development will contribute to a greater level of urbanisation of the Leixlip environs. In combination effects from this include pollution from wastewater and surface water, and disturbance from human activity. These issues have been discussed in this analysis and it is considered that they are not likely to result in negative impacts to the Rye Water/Carton SAC.

On September 9th 2016 the website of Kildare County Council detailed 38 planning applications which have been received since January of that year. The current application was the only one of a large residential style nature. Other projects were predominantly home extensions (23) along with a change of use (1), revision to permitted plans (1), continuation of use (1), mixed use development (1), new dwelling homes (5), an electricity substation and a switch room at an industrial facility.

It is not considered that this project can act in combination with other project to result in significant effects to the Rye Water SAC.

List of agencies consulted

The Development Applications Unit (DAU) of the Department of the Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht was contacted for nature conservation observations by Kildare County Council (reference no. GPre00331/2016). A response was not received.

Conclusion and Finding of No Significant Effects

This project has been screened for AA under the appropriate methodology. It has found that significant effects are not likely to arise, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects to Natura 2000 areas in its zone of influence. This is in light of the conservation objectives of these areas.

References

Bullock C., Kretch C. & Candon E. 2008. The Economic and Social Aspects of Biodiversity. Stationary Office.

Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds.

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

Council Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy – more commonly known as the Water Framework Directive

Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. 2011. Actions for Biodiversity 2011 – 2016. Ireland’s National Biodiversity Plan.

Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. 2009. Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland. Guidance for Planning Authorities’

Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Water Quality in Ireland 2010-2012.

European Commission. 2013. The Economic Benefits of the Natura 2000 Network. Publications Office of the European Union.

Fossitt J. 2000. A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. Heritage Council.

Hundt L. 2012. Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines. 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust.

Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1995. Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment’

Mason C.F. 1996. Biology of Freshwater Pollution. Longman.

NPWS. 2011. Conservation Objectives: River Barrow and River Nore SAC 002162. Version 1. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

NPWS. 2013a. The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland. Habitat Assessments Volume 2. Version 1.0. Unpublished Report, National Parks & Wildlife Services. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland.

NPWS. 2013b. The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland. Species Assessments Volume 3, Version 1.0. Unpublished Report, National

Parks & Wildlife Services. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland.

NPWS. 2013c. The Rye Water Valley/Carton Special Area of Conservation. Site Synopsis. Version date: 11.10.2013. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

NPWS. 2013d. Conservation Objectives: Ballysadare SAC. 000622. Version 1. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

NPWS. 2014. Conservation Objectives: Black Head-Poulsallagh SAC 00020. Version 1. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

NPWS. 2016. Conservation objectives for Rye Water Valley/Carton SAC [001398]. Generic Version 5.0. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

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

Smith G. F., O’Donoghue P., O’Hora K. and Delaney E. 2010. Best Practice Guidance for Habitat Survey and Mapping. Heritage Council.