Cork County Council · Web viewThis assessment was informed by habitat and protected species surveys carried out on the Proposed Development site by a member of the AECOM Ecology

R572 – Castletownbere Gateway, Pedestrian Enhancement and Management Proposal

Appropriate Assessment Screening Report

Cork County Council

Project Number: 60535188

JULY 2019

Quality information

(Approved verbally)Prepared byChecked byVerified byApproved by

(Report to Inform Screening for Appropriate Assessment Castletownbere R-572 upgrade)

Alison Donnelly Graduate Ecologist

Nick Dadds Senior Ecologist

James Riley

Technical Director (Ecology)

Robert Fennelly Principal Ecologist

Revision History

RevisionRevision dateDetailsAuthorizedNamePosition

022 March 2019Planning IssueYesRobert FennellyPrincipal Ecologist A15 July 2019Planning IssueYesMichael CondonPrincipal Engineer

Distribution List

# Hard CopiesPDF RequiredAssociation / Company Name

Prepared for:

Cork County Council

Prepared by:

Alison Donnelly Graduate Ecologist

T: +353-(0)1-238-3181

E: [email protected]

AECOM Ireland Limited 4th Floor

Adelphi Plaza Georges Street Upper Dun Laoghaire

Co. Dublin A96 T927 Ireland

T: +353 1 238 3100

aecom.com

© 2019 AECOM Ireland Limited. All Rights Reserved.

This document has been prepared by AECOM Ireland Limited (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.

Table of Contents

Introduction1Overview of Proposed Development and Site1Legal and Planning Context1Appropriate Assessment1European Sites1Project Description3Summary of the proposed project3Construction Programme3Lighting3Surface Water Management3Existing3Proposed3Methodology4European Guidance4National Guidance4Desktop Study4Field Surveys5Steps in Screening5Links with European Sites5Zones of Influence and Proximity to Identify Relevant Sites6The Precautionary Principle10Baseline Description11Overview of Proposed Development Site11European Sites11Habitats13Terrestrial Habitats and Invasive Species13Aquatic Habitats13Mobile Species.14Qualifying Interest Otter14Qualifying Interest Lesser Horseshoe Bat14Special Conservation Interest Birds14Qualifying Interest Invertebrates15Screening Assessment16Management of European Sites16Summary of Information Required16Assessment of Source-Pathway-Receptor Links17Noise, Vibration, Lighting and Human Presence17Pollution from Surface Water Runoff17Disturbance/Spread of Invasive Species17Changes of Yield or Quality of Groundwater Associated with Earthworks during Construction18Summary Findings18In-combination Effects18Introduction18Planning Application Search18Plans20In-combination Conclusion21Screening Conclusion22References23Appendix A Figures25

(ii)

Tables

Table 1. Zones of Influence Estimated for Potential Effects from the Proposed Development site8

Table 2. Conservation Objectives for Special Areas of Conservation Referenced in AA Screening Report11

Table 3. Conservation Objectives for Special Protection Areas Referenced in AA Screening Report13

Table 4. Summary of Information Required to Complete Screening Assessment16

1. Introduction

AECOM Ireland Limited (hereafter referred to as AECOM) was commissioned by Cork County Council to produce this Report to Inform Screening for Appropriate Assessment (AA) in relation to the R572 – Castletownbere Gateway, Pedestrian Enhancement and Management Proposal, in coastal west Cork (hereafter ‘the Proposed Development’).

1.1 Overview of Proposed Development and Site

The Proposed Development site (Figure 1) is located between Castletownbere, Bearhaven town, and Millcove. The Proposed Development site is bounded to the south by Bantry Bay and nearby Dinish Island, and to the north by residential housing and farmland.

Broadly, the Proposed Development would result in an upgrade of the R-572 on approach to Castletownbere. The purpose of the project is to improve the road on approach to Castletownbere, including pedestrian and cycle facilities, junction improvements, localised on street parking, drainage, landscaping, signage and road markings.

1.2 Legal and Planning Context

This AA Screening Report will be provided by AECOM to Cork County Council (CCC), as the competent authority for making determinations in relation to Screening for AA under the legislation set out in Section 1.2.

The European Communities Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (“the Habitats Directive”) provides, in Article 6 (3), the legal basis for AA (and by proxy the legal basis for Screening for AA1) at European level. In the context of the Proposed Development’, the requirement (to screen) for AA under the Habitats Directive is transposed by the Planning and Development Acts (2010 to 2017 as amended); ‘the Planning Acts’, and the Planning and Development Regulations (2010 to 2018, as amended).

Under Section 177U (1) of the Planning Acts, a Screening for AA of the Proposed Development shall be carried out by the competent authority (in this case, CCC) to assess in view of best scientific knowledge, if the Proposed Development’, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, is likely to have a significant effect

(s) on any European sites. The term ‘European site’ is defined in Section1.3.

Under Section 177U (5) of the Planning Acts, the competent authority shall determine that an AA of a Proposed Development is required if it cannot be excluded [emphasis added] that the Proposed Development will have a significant effect on a European site(s), on the basis of objective information, individually or in combination with other plans or projects2.

1.2.1 Appropriate Assessment

An AA is triggered by an AA Screening determination that concludes significant effects on European sites are likely (or more specifically ‘cannot be excluded on the basis of objective information’). If triggered, the competent authority must complete an AA to determine whether the project will adversely affect the integrity of any European site, in light of the site’s Conservation Objectives. The competent authority’s AA is typically informed by a Natura Impact Statement prepared by a technical expert.

1.3European Sites

In the Republic of Ireland, European sites3 comprise:

· Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated for habitats, plants, and non-bird species;

· Special Protection Areas (SPAs) designated for bird species and their habitats; and,

· Candidate sites including ‘cSACs’.

1 It is noted that there is, strictly speaking, no stated requirement to conduct Screening for AA in the Habitats Directive. The requirement for Screening arose from guidance issued by the European Commission (EC, 2001), and was subsequently made a statutory requirement in Irish law.

2 The’ Waddenzee’ ruling (C-127/02) is an influential judgement of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which has clarified what "likely to have a significant effect" means; specifically that, "if it cannot be excluded on the basis of objective information, that it will have a significant effect on the site" and that unless a significant effect can be objectively ruled-out with certainty, then it is 'likely'.

3 “European site” replaced the term “Natura 2000 site” under the EU (Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats) Regulations 2011 S.I. No. 473 of 2011.

(1)

The process of designating cSACs as SACs is ongoing in Ireland. The term SAC is used throughout this AA Screening Report for both SACs and cSACs, given they are subject to equal protection.

2. Project Description

2.1 Summary of the proposed project

The Proposed Development involves upgrades over a distance of 5km to the R-572 on approach to Castletownbere. The purpose of the Proposed Development is to improve pedestrian and cycle facilities on approach to Castletownbere; it includes two gateway features to reduce traffic speed on approach to the town.

The upgrades include: a shared 3.0m wide shared use footway/cycleway, 2m wide footways, narrowing the carriageway to 6.5m throughout, junction improvements (including a right hand turning lane at the R-572 /Dinish Bridge junction), pedestrian crossings, localised on-street parking, drainage, landscaping, signage and road markings.

2.2 Construction Programme

Subject to the relevant planning approvals, and allowing for procurement, construction could commence in August 2019, with an estimated construction programme of 4 months.

2.3 Lighting

The existing lighting columns along the R-572 will remain in place (without modification) along the majority of the Proposed Development. New lighting columns will be installed along the eastern-most 320m portion of the Proposed Development.

2.4 Surface Water Management

2.4.1 Existing

Presently there is no attenuation or treatment of surface water from the existing site within the footprint of the Proposed Development. Surface water currently is a combination of ‘over the edge’ with gullies located at various locations along the existing R-572 road, which discharge into Bantry Bay downstream of the Proposed Development via the Derrymihin River and/or other local watercourses. The design team has advised that the locations of the existing surface water drainage outfalls from the R-572 are not known. However the design team has confirmed there is indirect hydrological connectivity to Bantry Bay from the Proposed Development via outfalls to existing watercourses nearby and and/or directly to Bantry Bay (e.g. via existing road gullies).

2.4.2 Proposed

The design team has confirmed that the preliminary drainage design will include Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) comprising a sealed positive drainage system for the Proposed Development, which passes through petrol interceptors before outfall via the existing outfalls.

The SuDs measures have been devised to comply with drainage policy including that specified in the Cork County Development Plan 2014 as varied4 (County Development Plan Objective WS 5-1: Surface Water and SuDS) and have not been introduced to avoid or reduce effects on European sites.

4 Available online from http://corkcocodevplan.com/ . Accessed March 2019.

3. Methodology

3.1 European Guidance

The methodology employed in this AA Screening has drawn on AA guidance published by the European Commission, which has recently published updated guidance on the provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, including AA Screening and AA (EC, 2018). This replaces the original EC guidance on Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (EC, 2000), but should be read with other EC guidance available online5.

As stated in EC (2018), the updated guidance “incorporates the large body of rulings that have been issued by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) over the years on Article 6”.6 One recent and significant CJEU ruling not expressly accounted for in EC (2018), dates from November 2018, and relates to the Kilkenny Northern Ring Road in Ireland (‘Holohan; C-461/177). In ‘Holohan’, the CJEU found, that among other points:

· “AA must examine the implications of the proposed project [for species and habitats for which] the European site has not been listed...provided that those implications are liable to affect the conservation objectives of the [European] site”; and,

· “the competent authority is permitted to grant to a plan or project consent which leaves the developer free to determine subsequently certain parameters relating to the construction phase (e.g. location of the construction compound and haul routes etc..), only if that authority is certain that the development consent granted establishes conditions that are strict enough to guarantee that those parameters will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site”.

The methodology used also draws on, and has evolved from guidance and recommendations from, international AA practitioners (see Levett-Therivel, 2009; Chvojková et al., 2013). For instance, in accordance with guidance from international AA practitioners, “the Precautionary Principle should be used within reason and should be commensurate with the level of risk and the level of uncertainty concerned [and as such] Time-consuming and costly ecological research should be required only in rare circumstances” (Levett-Therivel, 2009).

Mitigation is not considered at AA Screening Stage, in accordance with the recent ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) 8 that “it is not appropriate, at the Screening stage, to take account of the measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on [a European site]”.

3.2 National Guidance

There have been significant changes to AA practice since the last published Irish governmental guidance on AA (Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government DoEHLG, 2010) arising from rulings in European, and Irish courts, and associated changes in statute. The updated EC (2018) guidance is therefore followed in lieu of DoEHLG guidance in this AA Screening Report, as supplemented by the unpublished’ (online) guidance from the National Parks and Wildlife Services (NPWS)9 (updated to August 2018, at the time of writing) which covers regulatory scenarios related to AA.

3.3 Desktop Study

A desktop study was carried out by AECOM in March 2019, with particular regard for the following sources:

· Information on the proposed project provided by AECOM’s Engineering and Transportation team;

· Tabulated lists for all European sites in Ireland of Special Conservation Interests (SCIs) and Qualifying Interests (QIs), obtained through a data request to the NPWS;

· Information on ranges of mobile QI populations in Volume 1 of NPWS’ Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland (NPWS, 2013a), and associated digital shapefiles obtained from the NPWS Research Branch;

5Available from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm . Accessed March 2019.

6 Including, but not limited to Case C-323/17 ‘People Over Wind’, C-258/11 ‘Galway City Outer Bypass’; Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta.

7 Case C 461/17 ‘Holohan.

8 Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) 12 April 2018: Case C ‑323/17, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the High Court (Ireland), made by decision of 10 May 2017, received at the Court on 30 May 2017, in the proceedings People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta,

9 Available online at https://www.npws.ie/development%20consultations . Accessed March 2019.

· Information on ranges of mobile SCIs bird populations from Bird Atlas 2007–11 (Balmer et al., 2013), excluding birds of prey whose ranges were determined with reference to Hardey et al. (2013);

· Mapping of European site boundaries and Conservation Objectives for relevant sites in County Cork and beyond, as relevant, available online from the NPWS10;

· Distribution records for flora and fauna within 5 km of the Proposed Development, and mobile populations of distant European sites held online by the National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC)11;

· Details of QIs/SCIs of European sites within the County Cork Biodiversity Action Plan 2009-2014 (CCC, 2014a), which had not been updated at the time of writing; and,

· Data including surface water quality (including transitional waters) and groundwater quality status, and river catchment boundaries available from the online database of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)12; and,

· Boundaries for catchments with confirmed or potential freshwater pearl mussel (FWPM) Margaritifera margaritifera populations in GIS format available online from the NPWS10; and,

3.4 Field Surveys

This assessment was informed by habitat and protected species surveys carried out on the Proposed Development site by a member of the AECOM Ecology Team, on 6 March 2019.

The survey assessed the potential for all QIs/SCIs of European sites to occur, given their ecological requirements identified by Balmer et al. (2013) for birds, and the NPWS for all other species/habitats (NPWS, 2013a,b). The survey included checks of suitable habitats for all highly mobile QI/SCI species potentially occurring. Numerous non-breeding SCI bird species travel many kilometres from their core areas, and surveys also assessed potential presence of roosting or feeding sites of such species. Species survey guidance had regard for sources including the National Roads Authority (NRA, 2009).

3.5 Steps in Screening

Irish departmental guidance states that “Screening is an iterative process that involves consideration of the plan or project and its likely effects and of the European sites and their ecological sensitivities, and the likely interaction between these” (DoEHLG, 2010). In summary, the steps for the Screening follow a protocol to:

1) Determine if the project is directly connected with or necessary to the management of a European site.

2) Describe the project.

3) Assess potential source-pathway-receptor models to determine relevant zones of influence.

4) Describe the baseline environment within relevant zones of influence.

5) Identify any links with European sites (defined as ‘relevant’ European sites) having regard for their Conservation Objectives.

6) Where links are identified, determine if Likely Significant Effects (LSEs) could arise due to the links with European sites having regard for:

· Source-pathway-receptor models and zones of influence;

· Known distribution and ranges of QI;

· Likely ranging behaviours of mobile QIs and SCIs beyond their European sites; and,

· Potential in-combination effects with other plans or projects.

7) Conclude the assessment with a Screening Statement.

A summary of the key information required to complete the above steps is tabulated later in this AA Screening Report.

3.5.1 Links with European Sites

The ‘source-pathway-receptor’ conceptual model is a standard tool in environmental assessment to determine links between sensitive features and sources of effects. In order for an effect to occur, all three elements of this

10 Available from https://www.npws.ie/maps-and-data Accessed March 2019. 11 Available from http://maps.biodiversityireland.ie/# Accessed March 2019. 12 Available from http://gis.epa.ie/Envision Accessed March 2019.

mechanism must be in place. The absence or removal of one of the elements of the mechanism means there is no likelihood for the effect to occur. An example of this model is provided below:

· Source (s); e.g. Piling;

· Pathway (s); e.g. Vibration; and,

· Receptor (s); e.g. Underground otter resting site at risk of disturbance and/or collapse.

The model is focused solely on relevant QIs/SCIs for which European sites are designated. Any Conservation Objectives referred to in this AA Screening Report are referenced to identify the date of publication and version number (See Appendix B).

3.5.2 Zones of Influence and Proximity to Identify Relevant Sites

The construction and operation of the Proposed Development has the potential to result in a number of environmental effects. The analysis of these effects, using ‘best available’ scientific knowledge and professional judgement, leads to the identification of Zones of Influence (ZoIs). The proximity of the Proposed Development to European sites, and more importantly their QIs/SCIs, can be of importance in identifying source-pathway- receptor models which could result in significant effects. Irish departmental guidance on AA states:

“For projects, the distance could be much less than 15 km, and in some cases less than 100 m, but this must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with reference to the nature, size and location of the project, and the sensitivities of the ecological receptors, and the potential for in combination effects” (DoEHLG, 2010; p.32, para 1).

In this AA Screening Report, a conservative approach has been used which minimises the risk of overlooking distant or obscure effect pathways, while also avoiding non-scientific and arbitrary buffer zones (e.g. 15 km), within which all European sites should be considered. The starting point for this approach is to assess the complete list of all QIs/SCIs of European sites in Ireland (i.e. potential receptors), obtained in digital format from the NPWS, instead of listing European sites within arbitrary buffer zones.

Habitats and plants are not mobile; however, fauna species are and their predicted mobility outside European sites (i.e. range) will affect whether they occur within the ZoI. The range of fauna species varies considerably, from a maximum of several metres (e.g. in the case of whorl snails Vertigo spp.), to hundreds of kilometres (in the case of migratory wetland birds). Whilst habitats and plants are not mobile, these features can still be significantly affected at considerable distances from an effect source; for instance, where an instream habitat is located many kilometres downstream from a pollution source.

This difference in determining the ZoI for (mobile) fauna versus (non-mobile) habitats has been illustrated in Graphic 1 and Graphic 2.

Graphic 1. Relationship between Zone of Influence and QI habitats and plants which are not mobile

Graphic 2. Relationship between Zone of Influence and QI fauna species which are mobile

In response to DoEHLG (2010) guidance, ZoIs were estimated for potentially relevant effects from the Proposed Development based on the “the nature size and location of the project”. These ZoIs are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Zones of Influence Estimated for Potential Effects from the Proposed Development site


(13 Wintering birds collectively considered at risk of disturbance at up to 500 m based on compilation of data from Madsen (1985); Smit & Visser (1993) and Rees14 In accordance with guidance on road construction-related disturbance of underground sites from the National Roads Authority (NRA, 2006).15 Hen harrier flush or ‘flight initiation distance’ of 750 m from Whitfield et al. (2008).) (et al., (2005).) (8)

PhaseSource of Potential

Effect

Description of Effect PathwayPotential Zone of Influence of Effect (References Footnoted for Brevity)

Potential Relevance of Effect to AA Screening

Construction

Noise, vibration, lighting and human presence during movements of vehicles and staff associated with construction activities.

During construction, noise or other construction- related disturbance could reduce the ability of populations of QI/SCI species to forage, roost or breed (if QI/SCI species are present within the estimated Zone of Influence).

Varies by species. Generally assessed within 500 m of the Proposed Development footprint for wintering birds13. However, distance can be significantly lower (e.g. 150 m for otter underground sites14, or higher (e.g. some breeding birds of prey may take flight when nesting at up to 750 m from disturbance15).

Potential relevance to SCI fauna and QI habitats/species of European sites, if present.

Surface water run-off carrying suspended silt or contaminants into local watercourses.

Silt, hydrocarbons, and/or other contaminants (oils, fuels, etc.) may enter the Abbotstown Stream and/or the River Tolka downstream via the existing drainage network which does not include silt traps or petrol interceptors.

The Zone of Influence of effects from contaminated surface water is difficult to accurately estimate as it will depend on numerous factors including the type and concentration of pollutants, assimilative capacity of receiving waters, time of year (related to water levels), and (in coastal areas), tidal and mixing regime.

Having regard for the “unpolluted” status of coastal receiving waters in Bantry Bay, and the SUDS measures inherent in the Proposed Development, a reasonable worst-case Zone of Influence for water pollution from the Proposed Development site is considered to include the coastal waters of Bantry Bay within c. 1 km of the proposed development site

Coastal and marine areas beyond this distance are considered to fall outside the potential Zone of Influence of adverse pollution effects, having regard for the relatively small scale of the proposed local road improvement (and relatively non-toxic pollutants potentially generated during construction, compared for instance to industrial developments who process hazardous chemicals).


Disturbance of invasive species during the construction of the Proposed Development.

If invasive species are present, construction activities could lead to the dispersal of invasive species and/or material within and beyond the Proposed Development site; either via machinery, clothing or wild animals including birds, depending on the species concerned.

The Zone of Influence of effects for spread of terrestrial invasive species is difficult to accurately estimate, as plant fragments may be spread on tyre treads to distant unrelated sites. In relation to water-borne spread of vegetation, the Zone of Influence generally is restricted to the surface water Catchment Management Unit. In coastal areas, invasive plant material is unlikely to establish (e.g. if washed downstream onto shingle or mudflat habitats), due to the saline conditions


(16 Wintering birds collectively considered at risk of disturbance at up to 500 m based on compilation of data from Madsen (1985); Smit & Visser (1993) and Rees17 In accordance with guidance on road construction-related disturbance of underground sites from the National Roads Authority (NRA, 2006).18 Hen harrier flush or ‘flight initiation distance’ of 750 m from Whitfield et al., (2008).) (et al., (2005).) (9)

PhaseSource of Potential

Effect

Description of Effect PathwayPotential Zone of Influence of Effect (References Footnoted for Brevity)

Potential Relevance of Effect to AA Screening

Changes to flow or

Earthworks could interfere with groundwater flow

The potential Zone of Influence of effects from earthworks to ground water flow or yield

Potential relevance to QI

yield of groundwater

paths, potentially affecting the quality or

is difficult to accurately estimate as it will depend on factors including the depth and

groundwater dependant

associated with

distribution of habitats dependent on groundwater

intrusion of excavations, and time of year (related to water levels). As a precautionary

habitats of European sites,

earthworks during

supply, if such habitats are present.

measure, a reasonable worst-case spatial Zone of Influence is considered to be 500 m

if present.

construction.

from the point of excavation; which is a precautionary doubling of the 250 m stated as

the potential Zone of Influence from intrusive excavations to sensitive upland peatland

sites (SEPA, 2014).

Construction

Changes to quality of groundwater arising from with earthworks during construction.

Earthworks could lead to contamination of groundwater, affecting the quality or distribution of habitats dependent on groundwater supply, if such habitats are present.

The potential Zone of Influence of effects from ground water pollution is difficult to accurately estimate as it will depend on factors including the type and volumes of contaminations concerned, the depth and intrusion of excavations, and time of year (related to water levels). As a precautionary measure, a reasonable worst-case spatial Zone of Influence is considered to be the extent of the bedrock aquifer, as shown on the Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) digital mapper, having regard for GSI Groundwater vulnerability mapping (reflecting type and thickness of soils, and presence of karst features), and potential interactions with surface water features.

Potential relevance to QI groundwater dependant habitats of European sites, if present.

Operation

Noise, lighting and human presence during movements of vehicles and staff associated with operational activities.

During operation, noise or other disturbance could reduce the ability of populations of QI/SCI species to forage, roost or breed (if QI/SCI species are present within the estimated Zone of Influence).

Varies by species. Generally assessed within 500 m of the Proposed Development footprint for wintering birds16. However, distance can be significantly lower (e.g. 150 m for otter underground sites17, or higher (e.g. hen harriers may take flight when nesting at up to 750 m from disturbance18).


Surface water run-off carrying suspended silt or contaminants into local watercourses.

The design team has confirmed that the preliminary drainage design will include Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) comprising a sealed positive drainage system for the Proposed Development, which passes through petrol interceptors before outfall via the existing outfalls.

Not Applicable.

Not relevant

As such, there is not potential for significant pollution to enter the local drainage network during the operation of the Proposed Development.

3.6 The Precautionary Principle

The Precautionary Principle, which is referenced in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, has been defined by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO, 2005) as:

“When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm [to the environment] that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm. The judgement of plausibility should be grounded in scientific analysis”.

Reasoned application of the ‘Precautionary Principle’ is fundamental to all stages of Screening for AA. In this AA Screening Report, significant effects would be presumed without evidence to the contrary, where there was evidence of possible effects on European site(s) from the Proposed Development, but uncertainty remained.


(10)

4. Baseline Description

This section details desktop and field survey results, in order to describe the relevant baseline environment to the Proposed Development. The relevant baseline environment relates to anything that may be directly or indirectly related to the QIs/SCIs of European sites.

4.1 Overview of Proposed Development Site

The Proposed Development site is located along the existing R-572 (Figures 1 and 2) on the Bantry Bay coastline. At the time of survey, the Proposed Development site consisted of small areas of amenity grassland and shrubberies on roadside verges, and occasional immature native and non-native street trees on either side of the road in residential properties. All habitat features within the Proposed Development site are heavily influenced by management and are of relatively low ecological value, relative to semi-natural habitats in undisturbed areas.

The Derrymihin West River is located just west of the Derrymihin junction and flows southwards under the Proposed Development site, entering Bantry Bay downstream. Several other smaller watercourses are also currently culverted under the existing R-572 within the proposed development. A more detailed description of relevant habitats, including those in the wider area is provided in Section 4.3.

4.2 European Sites

All relevant European sites identified in this report are illustrated in Figure 1 (Appendix A).

There are no European sites located within the Proposed Development site, or within 3 km of the Proposed Development site. The nearest European site is the Beara Peninsula SPA (site code 4155), which is solely designated for breeding Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax and Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis. The Beara Peninsula is located 3.6 km south of the Proposed Development, across the open coastal waters, and further south to the southern side of Beara Island.

The next nearest European site is Kenmare River SAC (site code 2158) which is located 5.7 km northwest along the coast from the development site. This is designated for a number of QI mobile species including the lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros, otter Lutra lutra and harbour seal Phoca vitulina and is designated for QI marine and coastal habitats.

The Glenmore Bog SAC (site code 1879) is designated for a number of habitats including wetland habitats and also for freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera. This SAC is located 5.7 km upstream from the Proposed Development site and in a different sub-catchment area with no groundwater connectivity.

Other European sites include Sheep’s Head to Toe Head SPA (site code 4156), which is designated for the same two breeding bird species as mentioned above (the Beara Peninsula SPA), and Sheep’s Head SAC (site code 0102) designated for both wet and dry heath habitats as well as the Kerry slug Geomalacus maculosus. Both these European sites are located at closest approximately 11.8 km south from the Proposed Development site on the opposite side of Bantry Bay.

There are no other European sites within the ZoI of the Proposed Development site, or within the surface water catchment in which the Proposed Development is located.

The Conservation Objectives of relevant nearby SACs are detailed in Table 2.

.

Table 2. Conservation Objectives for Special Areas of Conservation Referenced in AA Screening Report

Site (Code) and distance (as the crow flies) from Proposed Development

Qualifying Interest(s)Conservation Objective

Kenmare River SAC (2158);

5.7 km

Lesser Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros) Otter (Lutra lutra)

Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina) Large shallow inlets and bays Reefs

Perennial vegetation of stony banks

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) Mediterranean salt meadows

Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria

(white dunes)

Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes) European dry heaths

Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands

Calaminarian grasslands of the Violetalia calaminariae

Submerged or partially submerged sea caves Narrow-mouthed Whorl Snail (Vertigo angustior)

ToMaintainFavourable Conservation Condition

Sheep’s Head SAC (0102);

11.8 km

Kerry Slug Geomalacus maculosus

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix

European dry heaths


Glenmore Bog SAC (1879);

5.7 km

Freshwater Pearl Mussel Margaritifera margaritifera

Killarney Fern Trichomanes speciosum

Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix

Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on siliceous substrates in mountain areas (and submountain areas, in Continental Europe)

Blanket bogs


The Conservation Objectives of relevant nearby SACs are detailed in Table 3.

Table 3. Conservation Objectives for Special Protection Areas Referenced in AA Screening Report

Site (Code), distance from Proposed Development and Conservation Objectives reference

Special Conservation Interests

Scientific Name

PopulationConservation Objective

Beara Peninsula SPA (4155) ; 3.6 km; Conservation Objectives: NPWS (201b)

Fulmar

Fulmarus glacialis

Breeding/passage


Chough

Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax

Breeding


Sheep’s Head to Toe Head SPA (4156) ; 11.8 km; Conservation Objectives: NPWS (201b)

Fulmar

Fulmarus glacialis

Breeding/passage


Chough

Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax

Breeding


4.3 Habitats

4.3.1 Terrestrial Habitats and Invasive Species

An overview of the terrestrial habitats present within the Proposed Development site has been provided in Section 4.1. Adjacent the Proposed Development Site, some semi-natural habitats do occur, including grazed pasture (in mosaic with scrub in unmanaged areas) on higher ground to the north of the Proposed Development Site, and shoreline land parcels to the south. These scrub/grassland mosaics are likely to be calcareous in nature due to the coastal location. The wider area also includes a series of scrub and scrub woodland copses, on shorelines to the south, and rolling farmland to the north. Many of these include a mix of non-native conifers (planted as screening and shelterbelts, amongst native scrub and tree species.

Two invasive alien plants, on the third schedule to the European Communities (Bird and Natural Habitat Regulations) 2011 S.I 477 of 2011 as amended, were noted during the field survey. These were Rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum) and Three-cornered garlic Allium triquetrum and were located at various locations along the edge of the existing R-572 (see figure 2, Appendix A). Four species of non-scheduled invasive alien species were also identified during the field survey, comprising winter heliotrope Petasites fragrans, Montbretia Crocosma x crocosmiflora, fuchsia Fuchsia magellanica and garden yellow archangel Lamiastrum galeobdolon subsp. montanum.

In addition, records for two other invasive alien plant species were returned within 5 km of the Proposed Development during the desk study. These were Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica and giant rhubarb Gunnera tinctoria, both perennial species. However, they are considered to be absent from the Proposed Development site and environs, based on conditions at the time of survey in March 2019 when above-ground woody material or foliage would have been present and visible.

4.3.2 Aquatic Habitats

Freshwater Habitats

Site walkovers confirmed three watercourses which are currently culverted beneath the existing R-572, and are located within the Proposed Development site. Only the largest of these watercourses (the Derrymihin West River) is identified on the EPA’s online mapper12. The Derrymihin West River, which is located west of the Derrymihin junction, flows southwards, under the Proposed Development site downstream where it enters Bantry Bay. The two other watercourses identified during the field survey are not identified on the EPA’s online mapper12 The first watercourse is located opposite the Dinish Island Bridge and the second watercourse is located at the eastern end of the Proposed Development site. Both streams flow south downstream, under the existing R-572 and enter Bantry Bay. There were no other freshwater habitats identified within the Proposed Development site or environs.

Coastal Habitats

The nearest coastal QI habitats to the Proposed Development site are located within the Kenmare River SAC (NPWS; 2013), approximately 5.7 km to the north-east, at their closest point. These comprise: Perennial vegetation of stony banks, Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts, Atlantic salt meadows, Mediterranean salt meadows, Shifting dunes along the shoreline with white dune, Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes), European dry heaths, Juniperus formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands, and Calaminarian grasslands of the Violetalia calaminariae.

The nearest marine QI habitats to the Proposed Development comprise Large shallow inlets and bays, Reefs, and Submerged or partially submerged sea caves (NPWS, 2013a) within the Kenmare River SAC. These are all upstream of the Proposed Development site.

Groundwater

The Proposed Development is within the Beara Sneem groundwater body (classified as ‘good’ status, for the period 2010-201512) in which the Glenmore Bog SAC is located. However the Glenmore SAC is located more than 5 km upstream from the Proposed Development and is not designated for any groundwater-dependent features.

4.4 Mobile Species

4.4.1 Qualifying Interest Otter

The field survey carried out on 6 March 2019 found no confirmed or potential otter resting sites or holts within the footprint of the Proposed Development, or environs.

In Ireland, the mean territory of otters (at least in freshwater environments) does not exceed 15 km (Reid et al., 2013)). There are no SACs designated for otter within 18 km of the Proposed Development site, or within the CMU in which the Proposed Development is located. The nearest designed site with QI otter is the Killarney National Park, Macgillycuddy's Reeks and Caragh River Catchment SAC (site code 0365) (NPWS, 2017b), approximately 18 km north of the Proposed Development at closest.. As such, it is unlikely that any commuting or feeding otters that may occur in the Derrymihin West River or nearby coastal areas would be part of any SAC population.

4.4.2 Qualifying Interest Lesser Horseshoe Bat

Desktop records from the NBDC online found there to be relatively recent records of lesser horseshoe bats (dating to 2005) within c. 3.3 km of the Proposed Development. The maximum foraging ranges for this species have approached 6 km in Ireland, which Bat Conservation Ireland have recommended as a precautionary distance for considering effects (BCI, 2012; e.g. 5.2km in Galway; Rush and Billington, 2014). However no studies have found core foraging range in excess of 4 km (Schofield, 1996; Bontadina et al., 2002; Rush and Billington, 2014).

The Kenmare River SAC, located 5.7 km from the Proposed Development site, is the nearest SAC designated for lesser horseshoe bats to the Proposed Development site. As such, even if lesser horseshoe bats do occur, these are not likely to be part of any SAC population. Furthermore, the majority of the existing R-572 is lit, and would be unsuitable to lesser horseshoe bats, whose avoidance of street lights (and even Light Emitting Diodes or relatively low light levels) is widely reported in the literature (see review by Stone, 2013).

4.4.3 Special Conservation Interest Birds

The nearest known roosting or nesting SCI birds are located south of the Proposed Development site in Bantry Bay is the Beara Peninsula SPA, c. 3.6 km to the south, which is designated for breeding chough and fulmar. There is no potential for optimal roosting or nesting habitat for chough or fulmar (i.e. cliffs, or stone buildings near cliffs) within the ZoI of the Proposed Development.

Fulmars are seabirds, which feed in open water and would not feed locally within the ZoI of disturbance from construction or operation of the Proposed Development. There are no records of Chough within the footprint or environs of the Proposed Development site. However it is possible this species could occasionally feed on some of the less disturbed grasslands in the environs of the Proposed Development site. Specifically, Chough could potentially feed on shoreline pasture along the southern side of the Proposed Development site at its eastern end, which lack the residences generally lining both sides of the R-572. Whilst chough could occasionally feed in

these areas, these are unlikely to be optimal feeding areas where birds regularly feed due to the disturbance from the adjacent (busy) coastal R-572. Road.

4.4.4 Qualifying Interest Invertebrates

There are no suitable (freshwater) habitats for QI freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera within the ZoI of the Proposed Development. The habitat of freshwater pearl mussel in Ireland is restricted to near natural, clean flowing fresh waters, often downstream of ultra-oligotrophic lakes (NS2, 2010). The nearest known population of freshwater pearl mussel to the Proposed Development is within the Ownagappul catchment, approximately 6 km north from the development site. The Ownagappul flows into Kenmare Bay on the northern side of the Beara Peninsula, and is in a different river sub-catchment, and is therefore not hydrologically connected to the Proposed Development.

Freshwater pearl mussels depend on salmonids (both Atlantic salmon and brown trout Salmo trutta) for dispersal, because freshwater pearl mussel eggs (glochidia) are carried both upstream and downstream by salmonid movements between feeding, nursery and/or coastal areas. However, there are no QI freshwater pearl mussels upstream of the proposed development site, and therefore any fish present in watercourses by the Proposed Development site are not connected with freshwater pearl mussel populations.

The nearest European site for QI Kerry slug is the Sheep’s Head SAC, located c. 11.8 km south of the Proposed Development. There are historical desktop records from the NBDC online (“1910-1965”) for Kerry slug within the 10 km square in which the Proposed Development site is located. However, there is no suitable habitat for Kerry slug within the footprint of the Proposed Development site (i.e. deciduous woodland usually dominated by oak Quercus sp., or blanket bog or unimproved oligotrophic open moor or lake shores (Mc Donnell and Gormally, (2011)). There is some potential for Kerry slug to occur in the locality of the Proposed Development in scrub/ woodland habitats, but none of these habitats are within the footprint of the Proposed Development site. Furthermore, given the “apparent low mobility of the species in woodlands and blanket bogs” (Mc Donnell and Gormally, (2011), it is highly unlikely that any Kerry slugs potentially occurring locally form part of the nearest SAC population located 11. 8 km distant.

5. Screening Assessment

5.1 Management of European Sites

AA Screening is not required where the Proposed Development is connected with, or necessary to the management of any European site. In this case, the Proposed Development is not connected to the management of any such site. The competent authority is therefore required to make an AA Screening determination.

5.2 Summary of Information Required

The detailed methodology underpinning this AA Screening Report has been set out in Section 3. A summary table of the specific information required is presented in Table 4, for the benefit of the reader, in advance of presenting the Screening assessment.

Table 4. Summary of Information Required to Complete Screening Assessment

BestAvailableScientific Evidence Required

QI/SCI Fauna Species (Mobile)QI Habitats/Plants (Not Mobile)

Zones of Influence for different effects from Proposed Development

Refer to Table 1Refer to Table 1

Distribution of QI/SCI relative to ZoI

I. Presence/absence of SPAs/SACs designated for QI/SCI species within relevant ZoIs

II. Habitat requirements of QI/SCI fauna species (see footnote)

III. Presence of habitat for QI/SCI fauna within ZoI from field and desk studies

IV. Range of QI/SCI species beyond their designated sites (see footnote)

V. Seasonality of QI/SCI usage of habitats relative to programme for Proposed Development

I. Presence/absence of SAC(s) designated for QI habitat/species within relevant ZoI

II. Distribution of QI habitat/plants within relevant SAC(s) from field and desktop data

Analyses required to inform the Screening assessment

I. Could the range of the QI/SCI fauna species overlap with the ZoI of the Proposed Development?

II. If yes, is suitable habitat present?

III. If suitable habitat is present, will LSEs arise?

I. Do any SAC(s) designated for the QI habitat/plants occur within the ZoI of the Proposed Development?

II. If yes, what are the specific locations of QI habitats/plants within the relevant SAC(s)?

III. Are the locations of QI habitats/plants within the ZoI of LSE?

Footnotes:

ZoI: Zone of Influence QI: Qualifying Interest

SCI: Special Conservation Interest LSE: Likely Significant Effect

Range data and habitat requirements for QI/SCI fauna species primarily from Balmer et al. (2013) for birds, and NPWS (2013) for other species.

5.3 Assessment of Source-Pathway-Receptor Links

As explained in the detailed methodology (Section 3.5.1), this AA Screening Report assessment adopts a comprehensive and precautionary approach for which the starting point is a complete list of all QIs/SCIs of European sites in Ireland, obtained in digital format from the NPWS.

5.3.1 Noise, Vibration, Lighting and Human Presence

The effects of noise, vibration, lighting, and human presence on SCI fauna species and/or QI habitats and species, during construction and operation of the Proposed Development, have been assessed. There are no QI habitats within the footprint of the Proposed Development site, or downstream of it.

Chough was the only mobile SCI species whose potential presence to feed on roadside grassland areas to the east of the Proposed Development site within the potential ZoI of disturbance could not be excluded. These potential Chough grassland feeding areas are not likely to be core feeding areas for the populations for which the Beara SPA is designated, due to the distance of this SPA from the areas in question (3.6 km). Chough are likely to feed preferentially on the abundant offshore feeding pasture on Bear Island, adjacent to the Beara SPA, in instead of the relatively disturbed roadside of the Proposed Development site. Chough potentially feeding on the roadside of the Proposed Development site could (if Chough do indeed occasionally feed there) be disturbed during construction and/or operation of the proposed development. However, any such disturbance would lead to temporary displacement, which would not affect the population trend, or distribution of Chough populations within the distant Beara SPA.

There are no other populations of QI or SCI species within the ZoI of construction or operation of the Proposed Development. Populations of three species for which distant SACs are designated could potentially occur (otter whose nearest SAC is 18 km distant; lesser horseshoe whose nearest SAC is 5.7 km distant, and Kerry slug whose nearest SAC is 11.8 km distant). However, an objective analysis of best available scientific knowledge on the potential foraging/dispersal ranges of these species has excluded the potential for any populations potentially occurring within the ZoI of construction or operation of the Proposed Development, to be associated with SAC populations.

5.3.2 Pollution from Surface Water Runoff

Having regard for the SuDS measures inherent in the proposed development, and the “unpolluted” status of the receiving waters of Bantry Bay, LSE on European sites (including any to the Kenmare River SAC), arising from pollution of surface waters during construction and operation of the Proposed Development have been scoped out.

The SUDs measures have been devised to comply with drainage policy including that specified in the Cork County Development Plan 2014 as varied19 (County Development Plan Objective WS 5-1: Surface Water and SuDS) and have not been introduced to avoid or reduce effects on European sites.

5.3.3 Disturbance/Spread of Invasive Species

The potential for LSE on European sites to arise from disturbance of invasive species during construction and operation of the Proposed Development have been assessed. The design team has confirmed that CCC is already, and will continue to carry out appropriate invasive species control within their administrative area.

The existing and ongoing control measures being implemented to CCC to control invasive species, as for the pollution prevention measures discussed above, have been devised to comply with other requirements and have not been introduced to avoid or reduce effects on European sites. Specifically, invasive species control is required, to comply with:

· The European Communities (Bird and Natural Habitat Regulations) 2011 as amended (i.e. several regulations making it an offence to allow the dispersal, establishment or spread of the species under Schedule 3); and,

· Environmental Protection Objectives of the Cork County Development Plan 2014 as varied (including Objective HE 2-7 requiring control of invasive plants and animals); and,

· The County Cork Biodiversity Action Plan 2009-201420, which had not been updated at the time of

writing; (including Action 3.1 requiring control of invasive species).

19 Available online from http://corkcocodevplan.com/ . Accessed March 2019.

Having regard for the objective evidence above, the potential for LSE on European sites has been excluded.

5.3.4 Changes of Yield or Quality of Groundwater Associated with Earthworks during Construction

The effects of changes of yield of groundwater associated with earthworks on SCI fauna species and/or QI habitats and species during construction and operation of the Proposed Development have been assessed and scoped out from further assessment. This is because there are no groundwater dependant QIs or SCIs within (at least 5 km of or within) the ZoI of the Proposed Development,

5.3.5 Summary Findings

No QIs or SCIs of European sites were identified within the Zone of Influence of LSE from the construction or operation of the Proposed Development site, having regard for best available scientific knowledge, and objective evidence. LSE on European sites were excluded from the Proposed Development alone. In-combination effects are assessed in Section 5.4 below.

5.4 In-combination Effects

5.4.1 Introduction

This assessment has taken account of developments with potential to cause cumulative effects on the QIs/SCIs of European sites.

5.4.2 Planning Application Search

A search was conducted of planning applications within the vicinity of the Proposed Development, using the National Planning Application Map Viewer hosted by the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, and the Planning Enquiry system hosted by CCC21.

Retention applications (i.e. typically local-scale residential or commercial developments where an impact has already occurred) and withdrawn and refused applications were excluded.

Summary Results of Planning Application Search

Planning Application Reference Number

Location NameBrief Development DescriptionApplication

Status/ Outcome

Approximate distance and direction from Proposed Development

Date Planning Application Granted

18786Drinagh CoOp Castletownbere Derrymihan West Castletownbere, Co. Cork

072135Derrymihin West Castletownbere

18767Derrymihin West Castletownbere Co. Cork

Demolition of existing warehouse stores (2 no. to the east and west of principal retail unit) and construction of new warehouse store, together with associated site services, car parking / offloading set down area and associated site development work

Erection of 74no. dwellings, consisting of 15no. terrace, 48no. semi-detached dwellings, 11no. detached dwellings, (b) erection of creche facility, (c) construction of 2no. vehicular entrances, (d) construction of amenity walkway,

(e) installation of temporary foul effluent treatment plant systems and, (f) carry out all associated site works

To construct a dwelling house and domestic garage and undertake all associated site works

Conditional 20m south

west

Not given25m north

east

Not given62m south

west

20/02/2019

Not given (submission 13/09/2007)

Not given (Due date 18/03/2019)

16580Derrymihan West Castletownbere Co Cork

Permission for: (i) demolition of existing side garage/store annex and demolition of front sunroom annex to dwelling house, (ii) construction of new first floor extension including raising of roof level, fenestration changes and installation of balcony to front, (iii)

Conditional 26m north29/11/2016

20 Available from http://www.globalislands.net/greenislands/docs/ireland_734358998.pdf Accessed March 2019.

21 Available from https://www.corkcoco.ie/planning/planning-enquiry-online-submissions Accessed March 2019.

Planning Application Reference Number

Location NameBrief Development DescriptionApplication

Status/ Outcome

construction of attached granny-flat extension

(iii) installation of new wastewater treatment system and (iv) all associated site works.

Approximate distance and direction from Proposed Development

Date Planning Application Granted

15238Derrymihin West Castletownbere Beara

Co. Cork

17114Derrymihin West Castletownbere Co. Cork

Construction of a domestic boathouse for the storage of boats and associated water sports equipment and all associated site works

Permission for the importation of soil and stone and concrete to raise the level of the agricultural field to improve the agricultural output of the field

Conditional 75 m north27/20/2015

Conditional 86m north29/04/2017

081415Cametringane Castletownbere

Development of marina to provide approximately 100 berths, dredging of marina basin and associated infrastructure

Not given536m south

west

02/09/2008

17637Dinish Island Castletownbere Co. Cork

A wharf extension and associated ancillary development at Dinish Island. All on a site of approximately 10.1 ha.

Conditional 690m south26/03/2018

The planning portal of An Bord Pleanála22 and lists of Strategic Housing Developments (SHD)23 were also consulted to identify any relevant applications near the Proposed Development. There were at the time of writing three SHD applications in Cork, none of which are located near the proposed site.

Results of An Bord Plean la Planning Search

ABP Planning Reference Number

Brief Development DescriptionApplication Status/ Outcome

303098098 251 no. residential units (176 no. dwellings houses & 75 no. apartments/duplexes) Cooney's Lane, Graigue (townland), Grange, Co. Cork.

Due to be decided by 27/03/2019

303437419 no. student bedspaces, road improvements and all associated site works. O'Riordan's Joinery, Bandon Road and portion of the Church of the Immaculate Conception, Lough Road, Cork.


303137240 no. residential units (154 no. houses and 86 no. apartments) and associated site works. Ardarostig. Bishopstown, Cork.


22 Available online at http://www.pleanala.ie Accessed March 2019.

23 Available online at http://www.pleanala.ie/shd/applications/CurrentApplications/ Accessed March 2019.

5.4.3 Plans

The Project Ireland 2040 National Planning Framework (Department of Housing Planning and Local Government, 2018b) is the overarching policy and planning framework for the social, economic and cultural development of Ireland. It includes a detailed capital investment plan for the period 2018 to 2027, the National Development Plan 2018-2027, and the 20-year National Planning Framework 2040. Castletownbere is specifically mentioned in the National Development Plan 2018-202724 under the heading Fishery Harbour Centres. There is no mention of specific projects within the National Development Plan 2018-2027. Castletownbere is noted as major development projects will be undertaken in 2018 and 2019, with a total of 180 million Euros forecast to be spent across all six Fishery Harbour Centres.

The South-West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-202225 are set to be succeeded by the adoption of the RSES (Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy) in 2019. The Proposed Development is not identified within the South-West Regional Planning Guidelines.

Chapter 6 of the South-West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022 (Environment and Amenities Strategy) includes environmental protection policies 6.3 Natural Heritage – Ecological Integrity REAS -03 Management of Natural Heritage which sets out a framework that local authorities are required to follow relating to potential ecological impact from proposed projects to Natura 2000 and European Sites.

The South-West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022 set a framework for water quality involving river basin management overseeing protected areas, shellfish waters and objectives to ensure water meets and maintains high standards.

The Cork 2050 plan26 is a submission by Cork County Council and Cork City Council to the National Planning Framework. In support of the Cork 2050 submission a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Appropriate Assessment (AA) Pre-Screening Exercise were carried out. The assessment focused on statutory environmental requirements such as the Habitats Directive and National Biodiversity Action Plan.

Cork City Development Plan 2015-2021

The West Cork Municipal District Local Area Plan 201727 sets out proposals for population growth and other developments for the six main towns within the municipal district of which Castletownbere is one. The Local Area Plan contains Environmental Protection Objectives (EPOs) which hold relevance to the proposed site such as EPO 3, 4, ad 5.

8) EPO 3 Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna (BFF) “Throughout the county, conserve and restore ecosystems, habitats and species in their natural surroundings, and ensure their sustainable management, including the ecological corridors between them”.

9) EPO 4 Soil “Protect the function and quality of the soil resource in the West Cork Municipal District”.

EPO 5 Water “Maintain and improve the quality of water resources and improve the management and sustainable use of these resources to comply with the requirements of the WFD

5.4.3.1 Pollution and Water Quality

The Proposed Development occurs within the WFD Catchment no. 010; Fanahy. The coastal waterbody in proximity to the Proposed Development is in Bantry Bay and is known as Berehaven, which is considered to have a ‘good’ WFD status28 and has ‘Unpolluted’ transitional water quality28.

The WFD provides a framework for the protection and improvement of rivers, lakes, marine and groundwaters, in addition to water-dependent habitats. The aim of the WFD is to prevent any deterioration in the existing status of water quality, including the protection of good and high-water quality status where it exists28.

There are binding obligations on all Irish local authorities including Cork County Council to achieve good status of surface waters, under the terms of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC, and in related policies

24 Available from: https://www.corkcity.ie/en/media-folder/planning/national-development-plan-2018-2027.pdf Accessed March 2019.

25 Available online at https://www.corkcity.ie/en/media-folder/planning/swra_planning_guidelines.pdf Accessed March 2019.

26 Available online at https://www.corkcity.ie/en/media-folder/planning/170322_npf-submission-main-report-reduced.pdf

27 Available online at http://corklocalareaplans.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/West-Cork-Environmental-Report-MD-LAP.pdf Accessed March 2019.

28 Available online at http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/waterqua/wqr20102012/ Accessed March 2019.

in applicable county development plans. Furthermore, Irish Water, who has national statutory remit for wastewater and drinking water services, has committed to a 25-year programme of improvements to wastewater impacts on surface waters in their Water Services Strategic Plan (WSSP) (Irish Water, 2015).

5.4.4In-combination Conclusion

No likely significant in-combination effects are predicted, having regard for the inherent policy protections in plans at national and county level outlined above, and the planning applications reviewed within the ZoI of the Proposed Development.

6. Screening Conclusion

Following analysis of the effects of the Proposed Development on European sites, AECOM advises the competent authority, CCC, that an Appropriate Assessment of the Proposed Development is not required, as this AA Screening Report concludes that there is no potential for Likely Significant Effects on European sites.

In the legally-accurate language of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it can be excluded [emphasis added], on the basis of objective scientific information, and in light of the Conservation Objectives of relevant sites, that the Proposed Development, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, would have LSE on any European sites.

References

Balmer, D. E., Gillings, S., Caffrey, B., Swann, R. L., Downie, I. S., & Fuller, R. J. (2013). Bird Atlas 2007-11: the breeding and wintering birds of Britain and Ireland. Thetford: BTO.

Bat Conservation Ireland (2012) Bats and Appropriate Assessment Guidelines, Version 1, December 2012. Bat Conservation Ireland, www.batconservationireland.org.

Bright, J., Langston, R., Bullman, R., Evans, R., Gardner, S. and Pearce-Higgins, J., 2008. Map of bird sensitivities to wind farms in Scotland: a tool to aid planning and conservation. Biological Conservation, 141(9), pp.2342-2356.

Cabot, D. (2004) Irish Birds. HarperCollins Publishing Ltd: London.

CCC (2014a) County Cork Biodiversity Action Plan 2009-2014. Cork County Council.

CCC (2014b) Cork County Development Plan, Volume 1, Main Policy Material and Variation No. 1 (March 2019).

Chvojková, E., Roth, P., Volf, O. (2013) Conclusions of the International Workshop on Appropriate Assessment held in Mikulov, Czech Republic, 4th October 2013.

DoEHLG (2010) Appropriate Assessment of plans and projects in Ireland. Guidance for Planning Authorities. Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government: Ireland.

DoHPLG (2018) River Basin Management Plan for Ireland 2018-2021. Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government.

EC (2001) Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting European sites: Methodological Guidance on the Provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (European Commission Environment Directorate-General).

Hardey, J., Crick, H., Wernham, C., Riley, H., Etheridge, B., Thompson, D. (2013) Raptors: a field guide for surveys and monitoring, Third edition.

Irish Water (2015) Water Services Strategic Plan: a plan for the future of water services. Irish Water.

Madsen, J. (1985) Impact of disturbance on field utilisation of pink-footed geese in West Jutland, Denmark.

Biological Conservation 33: 53-63.

Mc Donnell, R.J. and Gormally, M.J. (2011). Distribution and population dynamics of the Kerry Slug, Geomalacus maculosus (Arionidae). Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 54. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland

NPWS (2013a) The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland. Habitat Assessments Volume 1. Version 1.1. 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. Habitat Assessments Volume 2. Version 1.1. Unpublished Report, National Parks & Wildlife Services. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland.

NPWS (2013a) Conservation Objectives: Kenmare River SAC 002158. Version 1. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

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) Conservation Objectives: Kenmare River SAC 002158. Version 1. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

NPWS (2017) Conservation Objectives: Glanmore Bog SAC [001879]. Version 1. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs

NPWS (2017b) Conservation Objectives: Killarney National Park, Macgillycuddy's Reeks and Caragh River Catchment SAC 000365. Version 1. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

NPWS (2018a) Conservation objectives for Sheep's Head SAC [000102]. Generic Version 6.0.Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

NPWS (2018b) Conservation objectives for Beara Peninsula SPA [004155]. Generic Version6.0. Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

NPWS (2018c) Conservation objectives for Sheep's Head to Toe Head SPA [004156]. Generic Version 6.0. Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

NRA (2006) Guidelines for the Treatment of Otters Prior to the Construction of National Road Schemes. National Roads Authority.

NRA (2009) Ecological Surveying Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National Road Schemes. National Roads Authority.

NS2 (2010). Freshwater Pearl Mussel Second Cloon (Shannon Estuary) Sub-Basin Management Plan.

Rees, E. C., Bruce, J. H., & White, G. T. (2005) Factors affecting the behavioural responses of whooper swans (Cygnus c. cygnus) to various human activities. Biological conservation, 121(3), 369-382.

Reid, N., Hayden, B., Lundy, M.G., Pietravalle, S., McDonald, R.A. & Montgomery, W.I. (2013) National Otter Survey of Ireland 2010/12. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 76. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland.

Rush, T., Billington, G. (2014) Galway bat radio-tracking project. Radio tracking studies of lesser horseshoe and vesper bat species, August and September 2014. Greena Ecological Consultancy. Witham Friary, 2014. Available online at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1LMEoWDgp3UJ:w ww.n6galwaycity.ie/wp- content/uploads/2015/Volume%25203A%2520%2520Appendices%2520Part%25201/A.4.2%2520Ecological%25 20Constrai nts%2520Report%2520- %2520Appendix%2520E.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

Smit, C. J., & Visser, G. J. (1993) Effects of disturbance on shorebirds: a summary of existing knowledge from the Dutch Wadden Sea and Delta. Wader Study Group Bulletin. 68: 6-19.

Stone, E.L. (2013) Bats and lighting: Overview of current evidence and mitigation guidance. Bats and Lighting Research Project, University of Bristol www.batsandlighting.co.uk

Thaxter, C. B., Lascelles, B., Sugar, K., Cook, A. S., Roos, S., Bolton, M., & Burton, N. H. (2012) Seabird foraging ranges as a preliminary tool for identifying candidate Marine Protected Areas. Biological Conservation, 156, 53-61.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (2005) The Precautionary Principle. World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology, UNESCO.

Whitfield, D. P., Ruddock, M., & Bullman, R. (2008) Expert opinion as a tool for quantifying bird tolerance to human disturbance. Biological Conservation, 141(11), 2708-2717.

Appendix A Figures

Figure 1: European Sites Discussed in AA Screening Report Figure 2: Locations Invasive Species Subject to Control by CCCC

(G) (Caha Mountains SAC DROMh g a h snaakoarrpCan a p p aCsteWCOOMGIRA) (±)Adelphi Plaza George's Street Upper Dun Laoghaire

Co. Dublin A96 T927

Project Title:

Tel +353 (1) 238 3100

Fax +353 (1) 238 3199

www.aecom.com

Kenmare River SAC

Beara Peninsula SPA

Glanmore Bog SAC Glanmore Bog SAC

R572 - Castletownbere Gateway, Pedestrian Enhancement and Management Proposal

Client:

LEGEND

Proposed

Development Site

(Curryglass)Watercourses

Special Protection Areas (SPAs)

Special Areas of Conservation

(SACs)

Beara Peninsula SPA

(Filename: X:\Ecology Projects\Castletownbere\GIS\07_Working\20190307_Fig1_Designated_Sites.v3.mxd) (Cloghane [Allihies])Beara Peninsula SPA

Beara Peninsula SPA

Notes:

XXX

Beara Peninsula SPA

Sheep's Head SAC Sheep's Head to Toe Head SPA

AECOM Internal Project No:

60535188

Drawing Title:

(Glanroon)FIG. 1. DESIGNATED SITES AS DISCUSSED IN AA SCREENING REPORT

Scale at A3: 1:60,000

Drawing No:

FIGURE 1. DESIGNATED SITES

01.25

2.55 Km

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri

Drawn:

Chk'd:

App'd:

Date:

(This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client. It may not be used, modified, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM or as required by law. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that uses or relies on this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. Do not scale this document. All measurements must be obtained from the stated dimensions.)(Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

SWRFRF

08/03/19

(±)Adelphi Plaza George's Street Upper Dun Laoghaire

Co. Dublin A96 T927

Project Title:

Tel +353 (1) 238 3100

Fax +353 (1) 238 3199

www.aecom.com

R572 - Castletownbere Gateway, Pedestrian Enhancement and Management Proposal

Client:

LEGEND

Proposed Development Site

Watercourses

Invasive Species

Rhododendron

Three-cornered garlic

Notes:

XXX

(Filename: X:\Ecology Projects\Castletownbere\GIS\07_Working\201903011_Fig2_Invasive_Species.v2.mxd)AECOM Internal Project No:

60535188

Drawing Title:

FIG. 2. KNOWN LOCATIONS OF SCHEDULED INVASIVE SPECIES

Scale at A3: 1:6,000

Drawing No:

FIGURE 2. INVASIVE SPECIES

0125

250500 Metres

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

Drawn:

Chk'd:

App'd:

Date:

(This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's client. It may not be used, modified, reproduced or relied upon by third parties, except as agreed by AECOM or as required by law. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that uses or relies on this drawing without AECOM's express written consent. Do not scale this document. All measurements must be obtained from the stated dimensions.)Community

SWRFRF

11/03/19

Documents

Cork County Council · Web viewThis assessment was informed by habitat and protected species surveys carried out on the Proposed Development site by a member of the AECOM Ecology