Ecological Assessment Report on the potential for ecological impacts of the proposed Lough Ennell abstraction supply to the Royal Canal (PW 3005 / JA 0030) Report to An Bord Pleanála 28th August 2012 Dr Evelyn Moorkens, Signed: 53, Charleville Square, Date: Butterfield Avenue, Rathfarnham, Dublin 14, Ireland. Tel. +353 1 4948500 Mob. +353 86 8211385 E-mail: [email protected] 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 3 2. Methodology 4 3. Ecological interests 5 4. Information deficits, further information response (written and at oral 8 hearing) and conclusions drawn 5. Conclusions 21 6. References 24 2 1. INTRODUCTION This report constitutes the assessment and recommendations from an ecological perspective of the potential impacts, mitigations and overall assessment post mitigation of the proposed Lough Ennell abstraction supply to the Royal Canal. The proposal for abstraction has the potential to negatively impact the Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection areas and proposed Natural Heritage Areas within the zone of influence of the movement of water from the lake to the canal. This report is intended to aid An Bord Pleanala in their Appropriate Assessment under Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitat Directive 92/43/EEC, which require an Appropriate Assessment of plans to prevent significant adverse effects on Natura 2000 sites. Article 6(3) Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect there on either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public. Article 6(4) If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of the Nature 2000 site is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted. This report also aims to assist the Board in its assessment of the potential wider ecological impacts that may arise from the proposed project. 3 2 METHODOLOGY A desktop review was carried out of all information relative to the file for the project and the proposed abstraction licence file. The information included the Environmental Impact Statement written by RPS, the Natura Impact Statement to aid the Appropriate Assessment, all objections and communications. Two site visits were made to the proposed works areas, on 9 th May and 21 st May, in the company of Mairead Kenny and Pamela Bartley. Meetings and discussions in person and by telephone aided the assessment of the documentation. From the documentation and discussions it was considered that further information was required, and two written responses to the further information (10th April and 30 th April) were reviewed. I attended the oral hearing that took place on 22 nd and 23 rd May in the Mullingar Park hotel, and asked a number of questions of the applicant’s consultants and the statutory bodies in order to aid the consideration of the assessment. 4 3 ECOLOGICAL INTERESTS The Appropriate Assessment of a project takes into consideration any European Designated Sites (Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) or Special Protection Areas for birds (SPAs)). In addition the protection of the national resource of Annex IV and Annex II species outside of SACs is also considered, as is the protection of proposed nationally important sites (proposed Natural Heritage Areas (pNHAs)) and legally protected species (protected under the Wildlife Act). These are summarised in Table 1. The main introduction risk is the zebra mussel ( Dreissena polymorpha ) which is found in Lough Ennell, and the consequences of this introduction to the Royal Canal must also be considered. Table 1 Ecological interests with potential to be affected by the proposal Interest Name Code Potential Impact Category SAC Lough Ennell SAC 000685 Direct impact from abstraction and construction. Of particular interest are Charophyte habitat, fen habitats, open water habitats, all Chara species, curlew, kingfisher and all resident and wintering birds. SPA Lough Ennell SPA 004044 Direct impact from abstraction and construction. Of particular interest are Charophyte habitats, fen habitats, open water habitats, all Chara species, curlew, kingfisher and all resident and wintering birds. SAC Lough Owel SAC 000688 Hydrological connection to species and habitats. SPA Lough Owel SPA 004047 Hydrological connection to species and habitats. 5 SAC River Boyne and River 002299 Hydrological connection to Blackwater SAC species and habitats. SPA River Boyne and River 004232 Hydrological connection to Blackwater SPA species and habitats. SAC Rye Water Valley / Carton 001398 Hydrological connection to SAC species and habitats. SAC Lough Forbes Complex SAC 001818 Hydrological connection to species and habitats. SPA Ballykenny – Fisherstown Bog 004101 Hydrological connection to SPA species and habitats. SAC Lough Ree SAC 000440 Hydrological connection to species and habitats. SPA Lough Ree SPA 004064 Hydrological connection to species and habitats. pNHA Royal Canal pNHA 002013 Direct impact from input of Lough Ennell water and potential construction impacts on habitats and species. Annex IV Any bat species 1309, Disturbance during species 1314, construction, potential loss of 1317, habitat. 1320, 1330, 1322, 1326, 1331, 5009 Annex II Desmoulin’s whorl snail 1016 Hydrological connection with species (Vertigo moulinsiana) habitat in Lough Owel and Royal Canal environs. Annex II White clawed crayfish 1092 Hydrological connection with species (Austropotamobius pallipes) habitat in Royal Canal and Brosna River. 6 Annex IV Brook lamprey ( Lampetra 1096 Hydrological connection with species planeri ) habitat in Royal Canal and Brosna River. Annex II Otter ( Lutra lutra) 1355 Hydrological connection with species habitat in Royal Canal and Brosna River. Flora Opposite leaved pondweed (Curtis & Hydrological connection with McGough, protection (Groenlandia densa) 1988) habitat in Royal Canal. order Red list The glutinous snail (Myxas (Byrne et Hydrological connection with al. , 2009) endangered glutinosa) habitat in Royal Canal. species 7 4 INFORMATION DEFICITS, FURTHER INFORMATION RESPONSE (WRITTEN AND AT ORAL HEARING) AND CONCLUSIONS DRAWN 4.1 Lough Ennell SAC and SPA The SAC is designated for hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara species (Annex I habitat 3140)(Charophyte bed habitats), alkialine fens (Annex I habitat 7230), brook lamprey ( Lampetra planeri ) and otter ( Lutra lutra ). The SPA is designated for pochard ( Aythya ferina ), tufted Duck ( Aythya fuligula ), coot ( Fulica atra ) and for wetlands & waterbirds (Annex I habitat A999). Of key importance to the scheme are the Chara beds, which require high quality calcareous water and an even hydrology without too many rapid fluctuations in water level. Any scheme proposed would need to prove beyond scientific doubt that it would not increase or concentrate nutrients within the lake, and would not result in more fluctuating water levels. In evidence, Dr Ryan of NPWS gave his opinion that the Lough Ennell Chara beds are in unfavourable condition due to reduced water quality from historically inadequate municipal sewage treatment, and through the lowering of lake levels from their historical past due to large scale deepening of the River Brosna in the 1950s by OPW, without adequate weir control at the exit from the lake. The combination of these two factors has resulted in a much reduced cover of Chara on the bed of Lough Ennell, the low water quality has reduced the cover of Chara in the deeper areas by blocking sunlight from the lake bed, and the stronger fluctuations of flow caused by the OPW works on the Brosna has reduced Chara cover in shallow edge areas as the species likes an even hydrology. The written information presented within the EIS and the NIS did not present enough information to be able to fully assess the potential impacts on ecology in Lough Ennell SAC and SPA from the proposed scheme. The information presented clearly identified the ongoing problem in lake levels that has ensued since the arterial drainage scheme significantly lowered the River Brosna downstream of the lake and resulted in a more erratic regime of high and low water in Lough Ennell. The Chara beds, while extensive, are not in as widespread and are in poorer condition than those in the neighbouring Lough Owel, and compared with those Chara beds in the western Irish lakes. Dr James Ryan of NPWS acknowledged in the oral hearing that the condition of the Lough Ennell habitat is in unfavourable condition and that this has contributed to the habitat being reported to the EU as being in Unfavourable-Bad condition. Under the Habitats Directive, the habitat must be returned to Favourable condition. The reason why the lough Ennell SAC is in unfavourable condition is