Ecological Impact Assessment & provision of information for Appropriate Assessment Screening & Natura Impact Statement Re: a proposed housing ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Ecological Impact Assessment
& provision of information for
Appropriate Assessment Screening
&
Natura Impact Statement
Re: a proposed housing development at
Ballyleary, Great Island, Cobh, Co Cork.
For
Mr Seamus Geaney
May 2018
Revision Report Reference Description Author(s) Checked Date
by
A RP17-GW123-09-A EcIA & AA L. J. Lewis & R. LJL November
Screening - Draft Macklin 2017
B RP18-GW123-07 EcIA & Natura L. J. Lewis & R. LJL May 2018
Impact Statement - Macklin
Draft
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
2.0 METHODS ...............................................................................................................................2
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT..................................................................9
3.1 Site location ....................................................................................................................9
3.2 Project details ...............................................................................................................10
3.3 Measures to protect surface waters from contamination ...........................................11
4.0 BASELINE ECOLOGY ..............................................................................................................14
4.1 Identification of Natura 2000 sites ..........................................................................14
4.1.1 Cork Harbour SPA (4030) – designation details .......................................................14
4.1.2 Cork Harbour SPA (4030) – conservation objectives ...............................................16
4.1.3 Great Island Channel SAC (1058) – designation details ...........................................17
4.1.4 Great Island Channel SAC (1058) – conservation objectives ...................................19
4.2 Baseline ecology of the proposed development site ..............................................20
4.2.1 Habitats ....................................................................................................................20
4.2.2 Birds .........................................................................................................................22
4.2.3 Mammals .................................................................................................................23
4.2.4 Aquatic ecology of the stream/drainage ditch ........................................................25
4.2.5 Alien, Invasive species..............................................................................................27
4.2.6 Ecological evaluation of on-site ecology ..................................................................28
4.2.7 Key Ecological Features............................................................................................30
5.0 ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT .....................................................................................31
5.1 Potential impacts of the proposed development ....................................................31
5.1.1 Potential impacts upon designated sites .................................................................31
5.1.2 Potential impacts .....................................................................................................31
5.1.3 Cumulative impacts .................................................................................................32
5.1.4 The ‘do-nothing’ impact...........................................................................................32
5.2 Mitigation measures and recommendations...........................................................33
6.0 AA SCREENING ASSESSMENT................................................................................................35
7.0 PROVISION OF INFORMATION FOR STAGE 2 APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT...........................41
7.1 Assessment of potential impacts and identification of mitigation measures .........41
7.2 AA Stage 2 Conclusions ............................................................................................44
8.0 REFERENCES & LITERATURE CONSULTED .................................................................................48
APPENDIX 1 ...........................................................................................................................51
APPENDIX 2 ...........................................................................................................................54
APPENDIX 3 ...........................................................................................................................55
Figures
Figure 1 Site location map
Figure 2 Site boundary map
Figure 3 Proposed site layout
Figure 4 Cork Harbour Special Protection Area
Figure 5 Great Island Channel Special Area of Conservation
Figure 6 Habitat map
Note that this report contains figures based on Ordnance Survey Ireland data. This report is intended for use by
An Bord Pleanála and Cork County Council only and cannot be reproduced or published without an appropriate
OSI Licence number. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Ordnance Survey Ireland and Government of Ireland
copyright.
Limosa Environmental
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Limosa Environmental was commissioned to undertake Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)
and to prepare information that is required by the competent authority (in this case Cork
County Council) in order to undertake Appropriate Assessment, for a proposed housing
development at Ballyleary, Great Island, Cobh, Co. Cork.
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) is the process of identifying, quantifying and evaluating
the potential effects of developments upon habitats, flora and fauna (CIEEM, 2016). The
obligation to undertake Appropriate Assessment arises from Articles 6 (3) and (4) of European
Union (EU) Council Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive) and transposed into Irish law by
the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations S.I. No 477 of 2011.
Screening is the first stage of an Appropriate Assessment (AA) and aims to establish whether
a proposed plan or project (in this case a project) either alone or in combination with other
plans or projects, could have significant negative effects on a Natura 2000 site in view of the
site’s conservation objectives. At Stage 2 (Appropriate Assessment), the impact of a project
or plan alone and in combination with other projects or plans on the integrity of the Natura
2000 site is considered with respect to the conservation objectives of the site and to its
structure and function (DoEHLG, 2009).
Natura 2000 sites are Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated under the EU Habitats
Directive,1 and Special Protection Areas (SPAs), designated under the EU Birds Directive.2 As
signatories to these Directives, Ireland like other EU Member states, has designated prime
areas of ecological importance as SACs and SPAs and these are part of a network of sites of
‘community importance’ for biodiversity across the EU called the ‘Natura 2000’ network.
The proposed site lies close to the Cork Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA Site Code 4030).
The information in this report forms part of, and should be read in conjunction with, the
documentation being submitted to the competent authority in connection with the proposed
development.
1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and wild flora and fauna, as amended by
Council Directive 97/62/EC. The Directive was transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Natural
Habitats) Regulations, SI 94/1997 which were amended and later consolidated by the European Communities (Birds
and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 – 2015 (S.I. 355/2015).
2 Directive 2009/147/EC (Birds Directive) on the conservation of wild birds (the codified version of Council Directive
79/409/EEC as amended).
RP18-GW123-07 1 May 2018
Limosa Environmental
2.0 METHODS
This study involved undertaking a desktop review and a baseline field assessment, which are
described in the relevant sections below. AA Screening methodology is described separately.
Identification of Natura 2000 sites
Natura 2000 sites within a 5km radius of the proposed development site were identified.
Desk top Study
A desk top study was undertaken and sources of information included the following:
- online data held by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS)
(www.npws.ie) including locations and boundaries of Natura 2000 sites;
- Data from the Irish Wetland Bird Survey (I-WeBS);
- South Western River Basin District Management Plans (SWRBD, 2010a,b);
- National Biodiversity Data Centre (www.nbdc.ie);
- Cork County Biodiversity Action Plan (Cork County Council, 2009);
- County Cork Development Plan (Cork County Council, 2014, 2014b).
Consultation
Consultation was undertaken with the NPWS (Development Applications Unit) and Cork
County Council Heritage Unit.
Site visits
1. A habitat/botanical survey site carried out on 16th June 2017. Habitats within the
proposed site were identified, classified and mapped according to ‘A guide to habitats
in Ireland’ (Fossitt, 2000). Particular attention was directed at identifying the
presence of Invasive Alien Species (IAS) and where found these were recorded as
follows:
- Species present;
- Central grid reference (hand-held GPS);
- Habitat occupied by IAS, and adjacent habitats;
- Habitat quality of IAS stand (e.g. healthy and thriving, recently cut,
trampled);
- A photographic record was made of each observation.
The conservation status of habitats and flora was also considered. The conservation
status of habitats and flora within Ireland and Europe is indicated by inclusion in one
or more of the following: Irish Red Data Book for Vascular Plants (Curtis & McGough
1988); Flora Protection Order (1999; as amended (2015); the EU Habitats Directive
(92/43/EEC).
2. A breeding bird survey was undertaken on 16th June 2017 (0900-1000 hrs). As the site
is large and open, with many of the birds likely to be associated with site boundaries,
a transect method was considered unsuitable as birds on the site boundaries may be
RP18-GW123-07 2 May 2018
Limosa Environmental
missed. Instead a method used for parks was followed (set out by Chamberlain et al.
(2007). During the visit, the observer (LJL) walked along a survey route that took her
to within 20m of every point of the site. All bird species seen and heard were
recorded. Birds flying over and obviously not interacting with the site were recorded
separately. This survey methodology is now used widely and has been used previously
at St Stephen’s Green (McAvoy & Crowe, 2012; Lewis & Whelan, 2016) and the
Phoenix Park (Crowe, 2011).
3. During the habitat survey on 16th June 2017, all lands within the site were assessed
for their use by mammal species. This included looking for dens, burrows, tracks,
droppings and feeding signs.
4. An aquatic survey was undertaken by Ross Macklin (Aquatic/Fisheries Ecologist) on
27th June 2017 in order to appraise a drainage channel/ stream habitat bordering the
north western boundary of the site and running parallel to the local road.
Ecological Impact Assessment
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) process has three main steps:
1. Ecological evaluation – this step consists of evaluating each ecological resource (e.g.
habitat, population, or species) within the zone of influence (area to be affected)
using the criteria outlined in Table 1a (based on a geographic hierarchy of
importance). Each ecological resource is given an evaluation value (ranking) as
described in Table 1b.
2. Impact (Affect) prediction - based on information provided on the proposed
project/development, this step aims to identify all direct and indirect impacts that
may affect the ecological features in the zone of influence, and wider area. Table 1c
gives impact terminology as per the EPA (2017).
3. Assessment of the magnitude of impact - impact magnitude refers to the ‘size’ or
‘amount’ of an impact/ affect (IEEM, 2006; EPA, 2017). The magnitude of an impact
will depend on the nature and sensitivity of the ecological features and will be
influenced by intensity, duration (temporary/permanent), timing, frequency and
reversibility of the potential impact (CIEEM 2016). Levels of impact magnitude are
given in Table 1d. Magnitude terminology is based on EPA (2003) while the rationale
for assigning level of significant impact follows CIEEM (2016). Importantly, this step
aims to identify the impacts which may be significant upon ‘important ecological
features’ (CIEEM, 2016).
RP18-GW123-07 3 May 2018
Limosa Environmental
Table 1a. Criteria for ecological evaluation
Evaluation criteria Definitions and Notes
Site designations Designated areas for conservation are areas that are
designated under national and/or European laws in order to
conserve habitats and species of national or international
conservation importance. These include:
Natural Heritage Areas (NHA): a national designation
given legal status by the Wildlife Amendment (2000)
Act.
Special Areas of Conservation (SAC): areas considered
of European and national importance whose legal basis
is the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), transposed
into Irish law through the European Union (Natural
Habitats) Regulations, 1997.
Special Protection Areas (SPA): sites of conservation
importance for birds whose legal basis is the EU Birds
Directive (209/147/EC).
Wildfowl Sanctuary: designated under the 1976
Wildlife Act.
Ramsar Site: European designation based on the
Ramsar Convention, 1984.
Species designations/criteria Certain legislation refers directly to species/populations (e.g.
annexed species):
Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of
Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora.
Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of
Wild Birds (‘Birds Directive’).
Bern Convention on the Conservation of European
Wildlife and Natural Habitats.
The Wildlife Act (1976) and the Wildlife (Amendment)
Act (2000).
Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland (Colhoun &
Cummins, 2013).
Red Data Books (e.g. Wyse-Jackson et al. 2016)
Flora (Protection) Order, 2015.
Size Includes both size of habitats (area) and population size of
individual species and is intrinsically linked to other criteria such
as rarity and fragility (below).
Habitats: considers minimum viable size of habitats, habitat
heterogeneity, species/area relationships, home-range size.
Populations: considers concept of minimum viable population
size (population viability), national and local population trends,
extinction risk.
Diversity / Biodiversity At a minimum species richness (number of species).
RP18-GW123-07 4 May 2018Limosa Environmental
Biodiversity defined as ‘the variability among living organisms
from all sources including, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic
ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part
(Convention on Biological Diversity, 1993). Must be considered
in terms of the habitat type - some habitats have low species
diversity by nature.
Keystone species deserve special attention – defined as a
species whose removal would induce significant changes within
the food web (Begon et al., 1996).
Rarity Applies to habitats and to species. The degree to which a
habitat or community approximates a natural state. The
degree to which the site is a good example of the habitat types.
National, county, local scales e.g. within 10-km2 squares.
Naturalness The degree of modification by human intervention. Habitats
that are least modified are generally regarded more highly
(Treweek, 1999). Also considers the extent to which the habitat
is free of alien species.
Representativeness/ Typicalness How well the area represents habitats or vegetation types on a
wider scale (Treweek, 1999); ‘degree of representivity of the
natural habitat type on the area’ (Council Directive 92/43/EEC;
Habitats Directive).
Fragility The degree of sensitivity of habitats, communities and species
to environmental change.
Stability/Resistance/Resilience Habitats and species. Stability refers to the ability of an
ecosystem to maintain some form of equilibrium in the presence
of a disturbance. Resilience is defined as the ability and speed
with which a community returns to its former state following a
disturbance. Resistance is defined as the ability of a community
to avoid displacement by a disturbance (Begon et al., 1996).
Other criteria include:
Recorded history (scientific value), Potential value, Educational value, Amenity value.
Table 1b. Ecological Evaluation
Ecological value Examples
A International Sites designated as Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special Areas of
Conservation (SAC), Ramsar Sites.
Sites meeting criteria for international designation.
B National Sites designated as Natural Heritage Areas (NHA) or sites qualifying for
designation.
Undesignated sites containing good examples of Annex I habitats.
Undesignated sites containing significant numbers of resident or regularly
occurring populations of Annex II species under the EU Habitats Directive or
Annex I species under the EU Birds Directive or species protected under the
Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000.
Sites supporting viable populations of Red Data Book species (nationally
rare species).
C Regional Undesignated sites that are prime examples of the habitat (natural or semi-
natural) type, exhibit high biodiversity or support important
communities/assemblages of species within the region.
Sites exhibiting habitats that are scarce within the region.
RP18-GW123-07 5 May 2018Limosa Environmental
Sites that support nationally scarce plant species (recorded from less than
65 10-km2 squares, unless they are locally abundant).
Sites that hold regionally scarce vertebrate species.
D High Local Sites that are prime examples of the habitat type, exhibit high biodiversity
or important communities/assemblages of species within the local area.
Habitats that are considered important in a local context – e.g. semi-natural
habitats within an urban setting, hedgerows and treelines that serve as
important ecological corridors within an otherwise modified landscapes.
Sites exhibiting habitats/species that are generally scarce within the local
area.
E Moderate Local Sites that exhibit good quality semi-natural habitats. Hedgerows and
treelines.
F Low Local Artificial or modified habitats considered of low value for wildlife.
Adapted from CIEEM, 2016; IEEM, 2005; NRA, 2004; Regini, 2000.
Table 1c. Description of effects as per the EPA (2017):
Positive Impact A change which improves the quality of the environment.
Negative Impact A change which reduces the quality of the environment.
Neutral Impact A change that falls within typical bounds of variation within the study
area.
Indirect Effects/ Impacts not directly associated with the project, often produced away
Secondary Effects from the project site or because of a complex pathway.
Cumulative Effects The addition of many small impacts to create one larger, more
significant, impact.
Do-Nothing Effects The environment as it would be in the future if no development was
carried out.
Worst-Case Effects Impacts arising from a development in the case where mitigation
measures substantially fail.
Indeterminable Effects When the full consequences of a change in the environment cannot be
described.
Irreversible Effects When the character, distinctiveness, diversity or reproductive capacity of
an environment is permanently lost.
Residual Effects The degree of environmental change that will occur after the proposed
mitigation measures have taken effect.
Synergistic Effects Where the resultant impact is of greater significance than the sum of its
constituents.
Table 1d. Significance of Effects (terminology based on EPA 2017; CIEEM 2016).
Impact Magnitude Definition / Rationale
Imperceptible An effect capable of measurement but without noticeable
consequences.
Not Significant An effect that causes noticeable changes in the character of the
environment but without significant consequences.
Slight Effects An effect that has noticeable consequences without affecting its
sensitivities.
Moderate Effects An effect that alters the character of the environment in a manner that
is consistent with existing and emerging baseline trends.
Significant Effects A significant effect is one which undermines the conservation objectives
for ‘important ecological features’ (CIEEM, 2016). In broad terms,
significant effects encompass impacts upon the structure and function
of a defined site, its habitats and species and their conservation status;
or in other words on site integrity**. The EPA (2017) measure these
RP18-GW123-07 6 May 2018Limosa Environmental
effects as those that significantly alter a sensitive aspect of the
environment.
Very Significant Effects An effect which, by its character, magnitude, duration or intensity
significantly alters most of a sensitive aspect of the environment.
Profound Effects An effect that obliterates sensitive characteristics.
** Integrity is defined as ‘the integrity of a site is the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its
whole area, that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of the
species for which it was classified.'
Table 1e. Quality of Effects (terminology based on EPA, 2017)
Impact Magnitude Definition / Rationale
Positive Effects A change which improves the quality of the environment (e.g. increasing
species diversity, improving reproduction capacity or by removing
nuisances).
Neutral Effects No effects or effects that are imperceptible, within normal bounds of
variation or within the margin of forecasting error.
Negative Adverse Effects A change which reduces the quality of the environment (for example,
lessening species diversity or diminishing the reproductive capacity of an
ecosystem; damaging health or property or by causing nuisance).
Appropriate Assessment
There are 4 stages in an Appropriate Assessment as outlined in the European Commission
Guidance document (EU Commission, 2001). The following is a brief summary of these steps.
Stage 1 - Screening: This stage examines the likely effects of a project/plan either alone or in
combination with other projects/plan upon a Natura 2000 site and considers whether it can
be objectively concluded that these effects will not be significant. The assessment of
significance is carried out in consultation with the relevant nature conservation agencies.
Stage 2 - Appropriate Assessment: In this stage, the impact of the project on the integrity of
the Natura 2000 site is considered with respect to the conservation objectives in place for site.
Stage 3 - Assessment of Alternative Solutions: Should the Appropriate Assessment determine
that adverse impacts are likely upon a Natura 2000 site, this stage examines alternative ways
of implementing the project that, where possible, avoid these adverse impacts.
In the absence of any reasonable alternatives for a project/plan that would be less damaging
to the integrity of a Natura 2000 site, it is then necessary to proceed to Stage 4.
RP18-GW123-07 7 May 2018Limosa Environmental
Stage 4 - Where imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) exist, an assessment
to consider whether compensatory measures will or will not effectively offset the damage to
the Natura site will be necessary.
Methodological guidance for Appropriate Assessment is provided in the following documents:
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 (EU Commission, 2001);
‘Appropriate Assessment of plans and projects in Ireland: Guidance for planning
authorities (DoEHLG, 2009).
The statutory agency responsible for designated areas in Ireland is the National Parks &
Wildlife Service of the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.
RP18-GW123-07 8 May 2018Limosa Environmental
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
3.1 Site location
The proposed development site is located at Ballyleary, Great Island, Cobh, Co Cork (Grid Ref:
W 785 678) (Figure 1; Figure 2); some 15km southeast of Cork City.
Figure 1. Location of proposed development site
Figure 2. Proposed site boundary
RP18-GW123-07 9 May 2018Limosa Environmental
3.2 Project details
Project Title: Ten-year permission, for the construction of 311 residential units, a creche
facility and all associated infrastructural and site development works at Ballyleary, Great
Island, Cobh, Co. Cork.
Full details of the project can be viewed in Walsh Design Group (2018) while a summary is
provided below.
The site area for the proposed residential development covers 34 acres (13.8ha) and consists
of the construction of 311 houses, comprising a mixture of two to four/five bedroomed
houses. The development also comprises the building of a crèche, an esb substation, and all
associated roads, footpaths, services, drainage and water supply infrastructure.
The housing development will be set into a landscaped area with several areas of native
woodland planting to link in with existing treelines to provide wildlife corridors. The majority
of internal and boundary treelines are to be retained as part of the development (Figure 3).
The houses will be serviced by mains water supply and the drinking water supply is considered
sufficient to meet the needs of Cobh (Cork CoCo, 2015). Foul water from the proposed
development will enter the Cobh Sewage Network. Whilst this is currently over-capacity, the
completion of the Cork Lower Harbour Scheme will provide adequate waste water treatment
capacity for the town of Cobh, and its anticipated growth in level of housing in future years
(Cork CoCo, 2015). Details of foul sewer connection are given in Walsh Design Group (2018)
as are details of the storm sewer collection system. This latter system includes a network in
the north of the site that will discharge into the existing stream/drainage ditch along the site
boundary. The outfall from this network will be limited to the permitted flow (QBAR) and
during storm events, excess surface water will be attenuated in underground attenuation
tanks (Further details in Walsh Design Group, 2018).
A large inner part of the site will be retained as a landscaped open parkland. The proposed
site layout is shown in Figure 3 below.
The construction phase is expected to commence in late 2018 and extend for 3-5 years.
RP18-GW123-07 10 May 2018Limosa Environmental
Figure 3. Proposed site layout
3.3 Measures to protect surface waters from contamination
Construction Phase (as per Walsh Design Group, 2017/2018)
It is expected that surface water run‐off from site activities will be controlled by limiting the
site top soil strip to individual phases as the construction phases progress. All site runoff
associated with the construction stage will generally be directed to settlement ponds or
percolate to ground during each of the construction phases. However, where construction
works take place near surface water gullies in the existing surface water network, standard
environmental controls will be implemented by the building contractor and overseen by WDG.
These controls will follow best practice as recommended by CIRIA 2010 and ISO 14001:2004
– Environmental Management Systems.
The proposed measures include the following:
RP18-GW123-07 11 May 2018Limosa Environmental
To ensure that there will be no contamination of surface water, any excess excavated
material will be immediately removed (i.e. either used within the development for
landscaping or removed to a licensed fill facility) and the excavated material (e.g. top
soil) will be stored adjacent to the excavated hole so that it can be reused to backfill
and finish around the sides of the tank and associated sewer trenches once the tank
and sewers have been installed;
The short term storage and removal/disposal of excavated material will be planned
and managed such that the risk of pollution from these activities is minimised;
Silt fencing will be erected and maintained in place during the construction phase and
until such time as the integrity of the re‐instated ground/material has been fully
established;
The silt fencing will be checked twice daily during construction and once per day
thereafter to ensure that it is working satisfactorily until such time as the re‐instated
ground/material has been fully established;
Works associated with the attenuation tanks will be completed as expeditiously as
possible and during dry weather conditions to mitigate any risk of discharge(s) to
nearby watercourses;
Sediment traps (such as earthen berms and/or settlement ponds) and/or silt fences
will be provided to prevent run‐off from the site;
Drainage channels beside construction roads will flow into settlement ponds or swales
in series to allow primary and secondary settlement of sediment. Each swale series
will have an outfall manhole directly downstream in which final settlement can take
place and the outflow to the existing network can be monitored. Outfall manholes will
be regularly emptied of sediment during periods of heavy rainfall. These measures will
prevent run‐off from the site and total suspended solid levels in all discharge shall be
in compliance with the Quality of Salmonid Water Regulations (SI293:1988);
Through all stages of the construction phase the contractor will ensure that good
housekeeping is maintained at all times and that all site personnel are made aware of
the importance of the freshwater environments and the requirement to avoid
pollution of all types;
The storage of oils, hydraulic fluids etc. will be in a bunded facility with filling and take
off points within the bunded area in accordance with current best practice;
The pouring of concrete, sealing of joints, application of water proofing paint etc. will
be completed in the dry to avoid pollution of the freshwater environment. As grout /
cementitious materials are highly toxic to aquatic life all such works must be contained
in complete isolation of all waters and storm water systems.
Operation Phase (as per Walsh Design Group, 2017/2018)
During the operational phase, surface water run‐off at the site will be collected by a new
surface water sewer network. This network will connect to the main sewer network at six
points. The entire sewer network will discharge into the Cork Lower Harbour Main Drainage
Scheme which will include a new wastewater treatment plant at Shanbally. When complete
the project will also serve the Cobh area.
The following measures will be put in place to ensure the protection of surface waters from
contamination:
RP18-GW123-07 12 May 2018Limosa Environmental
The storm drainage calculations shall ensure that the proposed storm drainage system
(i.e. storm drainage network, attenuation tank and hydro‐brake) are appropriately
sized to serve the new development as proposed;
A cleaning and maintenance schedule will be implemented for the proposed storm
drainage system and tanks during the operation phase. Each gully and each man hole
fitted with a hydro‐brake will be fitted with silt traps to be emptied as part of the silt
management and maintenance schedule;
The proposed storm network will be inspected following construction to ensure that
no cross connection between the proposed foul and storm network exists;
The storm drainage system will be cleaned appropriately and inspected prior to being
fully commissioned i.e. before being allowed to discharge to receiving waters. Water
sampling of the receiving waters upstream and downstream of the proposed outfall
will be undertaken before construction commences and for a period of 6 months
following the completion of the development to ensure that the proposed water
quality controls (both for the construction and operational phases) are appropriate
and operating satisfactorily;
There will be bunding of any domestic heating oil tanks to prevent possible spillage
runoff.
RP18-GW123-07 13 May 2018Limosa Environmental
4.0 BASELINE ECOLOGY
4.1 Identification of Natura 2000 sites
Natura 2000 sites within a 5 km radius of the proposed development are:
- Cork Harbour SPA (Site Code 4030) – situated c.2.5 km to the northwest.
- Great Island Channel Special Area of Conservation (SAC Site Code 1058) –
situated c.2.5 km to the northwest.
4.1.1 Cork Harbour SPA (4030) – designation details
Cork Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA) (Figure 4) is a large, sheltered bay system, which
stretches from the two main estuaries of the River Lee, near Cork City in the northwest, and
the Owenacurra River, near Midleton, in the northeast, southwards as far as Roches Point
(Figure 4). It is a complex site and encompasses many other estuaries and inlets including the
North Channel, the Douglas River Estuary, inner Lough Mahon, Monkstown Creek, Lough Beg,
the Owenboy River Estuary, Whitegate Bay and the Rostellan and Poulnabibe inlets.
Cork Harbour is an internationally important wetland site, regularly supporting in excess of
20,000 wintering waterfowl, for which it is amongst the top ten sites in the country. Of
particular note is that the site supports internationally important populations of Black-tailed
Godwit Limosa limosa islandica, and Redshank Tringa totanus, while a further 20 non-
breeding (wintering) waterbird species occur in numbers of national importance. The Annex
I species Common Tern Sterna hirundo has a breeding population at the site (NPWS, 2014d).
The Waterbird Special Conservation Interest (SCI) species for Cork Harbour SPA are listed in
Table 2 together with their baseline data3 and conservation importance, in terms of All-Ireland
importance or International importance, based on standard thresholds (Crowe et al. 2008 and
Wetlands International, 2002 respectively). The NPWS Site Synopsis is given in Appendix 1.
3 Baseline data based on the Irish Wetland Bird Survey (I-WeBS).
RP18-GW123-07 14 May 2018Limosa Environmental
Figure 4. Cork Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA site code 4030) © National Parks &
Wildlife Service, OSI, and esri Ireland. The proposed development site is marked by a red dot.
Table 2. Waterbird Special Conservation Interest (SCI) species for Cork Harbour SPA
(* denotes an Annex I species)
Baseline Data Conservation Status
(Mean peak 1995/96 – during baseline period
Special Conservation Interest Species 1999/00 I-WeBS) (Source: NPWS, 2014e)
(Source: NPWS, 2014e)
Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) 2,009 All-Ireland Importance
Wigeon (Anas penelope) 1,791 All-Ireland Importance
Teal (Anas crecca) 1,065 All-Ireland Importance
Pintail (Anas acuta) 57 All-Ireland Importance
Shoveler (Anas clypeata) 103 All-Ireland Importance
Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator) 121 All-Ireland Importance
Little Grebe (Tachybaptus ruficollis) 57 All-Ireland Importance
Great Crested Grebe (Podiceps cristatus) 253 All-Ireland Importance
Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) 521 All-Ireland Importance
Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea) 80 All-Ireland Importance
Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) 1,809 All-Ireland Importance
Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria)* 3,342 All-Ireland Importance
Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) 95 All-Ireland Importance
Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) 7,569 All-Ireland Importance
Dunlin (Calidris alpina) 9,621 All-Ireland Importance
Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa) 1,896 International Importance
Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica)* 233 All-Ireland Importance
Curlew (Numenius arquata) 2,237 All-Ireland Importance
Redshank (Tringa totanus) 2,149 International Importance
Black-headed Gull (Chroicocephalus 3,640 All-Ireland Importance
ridibundus)
Common Gull (Larus canus) 1,562 All-Ireland Importance
Lesser Black-backed Gull (Larus fuscus) 783 All-Ireland Importance
Common Tern (Sterna hirundo)* 102 breeding pairs All-Ireland Importance
RP18-GW123-07 15 May 2018Limosa Environmental
4.1.2 Cork Harbour SPA (4030) – conservation objectives
For coastal SPA sites, conservation objectives are defined for attributes relating to waterbird
species populations, and for attributes related to the maintenance and protection of habitats
that support them. These attributes are (1) population trend; (2) population distribution, and
(3) habitat range and area.
Site-specific conservation objectives for Cork Harbour SPA were published in 2014 and are
shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Conservation Objectives – Cork Harbour SPA (after NPWS, 2014d, 2014e)
(a) To be favourable, the long term population trend
for each waterbird Special Conservation Interest
Objective 1 species should be stable or increasing. Waterbird
populations are deemed to be unfavourable when
To maintain the favourable they have declined by 25% or more, as assessed by
conservation condition of the the most recent population trend analysis.
waterbird Special Conservation (b) To be favourable, there should be no significant
Interest species listed for the SPA. decrease in the range, timing or intensity of use of
areas by the waterbird species of Special
Conservation Interest, other than that occurring
from natural patterns of variation.
Objective 2 To be favourable, the permanent area occupied by the
wetland habitat (2587 ha) should be stable and not
To maintain the favourable significantly less than the measured area, other than that
conservation condition of the wetland occurring from natural patterns of variation.
habitat at the SPA as a resource for the
regularly-occurring migratory
waterbirds that use it.
Conservation Status
The conservation status of non-breeding4 waterbird species of Cork Harbour SPA in relation
to Objective 1a (population trend) is provided in the Conservation Objectives supporting
document (NPWS, 2014e) and shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Waterbird Special Conservation Interest (SCI) species for Cork Harbour SPA and
current conservation status (condition)
Conservation status (condition) ~ SCI Species
population trend
Highly Unfavourable Pintail, Shoveler, Red-breasted Merganser, Cormorant, Grey
>50% decline Plover, Lapwing, Black-headed Gull, Common Gull and
Lesser Black-backed Gull.
Unfavourable Shelduck, Wigeon, Great Crested Grebe, Dunlin, Curlew and
Redshank.
Decline of 25% – 49.9%
(Intermediate) Unfavourable Teal, Grey Heron and Oystercatcher.
4 Conservation status is not given for the breeding population of Common Tern.
RP18-GW123-07 16 May 2018Limosa Environmental
Decline 1% to 24.9%
Favourable Little Grebe, Golden Plover, Black-tailed Godwit and Bar-
tailed Godwit.
Stable/increasing
4.1.3 Great Island Channel SAC (1058) – designation details
The Great Island Channel SAC (Figure 5) stretches from Little Island to Midleton, with its
southern boundary being formed by Great Island. It is an integral part of Cork Harbour which
contains several other sites of conservation interest. Within the site is the estuary of the
Owennacurra and Dungourney Rivers and these rivers, which flow through Midleton, provide
the main source of freshwater to the North Channel. The site has been selected as a Special
Area of Conservation (SAC) selected for the following habitats that are listed on Annex I of the
E.U. Habitats Directive:
Tidal Mudflats and Sandflats (1140)
Atlantic Salt Meadows (1330)
A summary of qualifying interests is given in Table 5. The NPWS Site Synopsis is given in
Appendix 1.
Figure 5. Great Island Channel Special Area of Conservation (SAC site code 001058). The
proposed development site is marked by a red dot.
RP18-GW123-07 17 May 2018Limosa Environmental
Table 5. Summary of Qualifying Interests for the Great Island Channel SAC
Description Site-specific details
(after NPWS, 2008)
HABITATS LISTED IN ANNEX I OF THE EU HABITATS DIRECTIVE
Tidal Mudflats and Sandflats (1140)* Intertidal mudflats and sandflats are submerged at high tide and Owing to the sheltered conditions, the intertidal
exposed at low tide and are normally associated with inlets, flats are composed mainly of soft muds. These
estuaries or shallow bays. The physical structure of these muds support a range of macro-invertebrates,
intertidal flats ranges from mobile, coarse-sand beaches on notably Macoma balthica, Scrobicularia plana,
wave exposed coasts to stable, fine-sediment mudflats in Hydrobia ulvae, Nepthys hombergi, Hediste
estuaries and other marine inlets. They can support diverse (Nereis) diversicolor and Corophium volutator.
communities of invertebrates. Green algal species occur on the flats, especially
Ulva spp. Cordgrass (Spartina spp.) has colonised
the intertidal flats in places and especially at
Rossleague and Belvelly.
Atlantic Salt Meadows (1330)* Atlantic salt meadows generally occupy the widest part of the The saltmarshes are scattered through this site
saltmarsh gradient. They also contain a distinctive topography and are all of the estuarine type (mud substrate).
with an intricate network of creeks and salt pans occurring on Species present include Sea Purslane (Halimione
medium to large sized saltmarshes. Atlantic salt meadows portulacoides), Sea Aster (Aster tripolium), Thrift
contain several distinctive zones that are related to elevation (Armeria maritima), Common Saltmarsh-grass
and frequency of submergence. Lower saltmarsh is generally (Puccinellia maritima), Sea Plantain (Plantago
dominated by the most halophytic (salt-tolerant) species maritima), Greater Sea-spurrey (Spergularia
including common saltmarsh-grass (Puccinellia maritima) and media), Lax-flowered Sea-lavender (Limonium
species more usually associated with Salicornia muds. The mid- humile), Sea Arrowgrass (Triglochin maritimum),
marsh zone is generally characterised by sea thrift (Armeria Sea Mayweed (Matricaria maritima) and Red
maritima), sea plantain (Plantago maritima) and sea aster (Aster Fescue (Festuca rubra).
tripolium), while sea purslane (Atriplex portulacoides) can
dominate at some sites. This mid-zone vegetation generally
grades into an herbaceous community in the upper marsh,
dominated by red fescue (Festuca rubra), sea milkwort (Glaux
maritima), saltmarsh rush (Juncus gerardii) and creeping bent
(Agrostis stolonifera).
*
represents species which are listed as ‘species of special conservation significance within the County Cork Biodiversity Action Plan 2009-2013 (Cork County
Council, 2009).
RP18-GW123-07 18 May 2018Limosa Environmental
4.1.4 Great Island Channel SAC (1058) – conservation objectives
Site-specific conservation objectives for Great Island Channel SAC were published in 2014
NPWS (2014a). NPWS (2014b) provides supporting information for coastal habitats (Atlantic
salt meadows) while NPWS (2014c) provides supporting information for the marine habitat
that is a qualifying interests for the site, namely ‘mudflats and sandflats not covered by sea
water at low tide’. These are detailed objectives, and several attributes are used to define the
features that should be preserved or restored to favourable conservation condition. Example
of attributes used include habitat area, physical structure (flooding regime) and vegetation
zonation (pertinent to saltmarshes) and benthic community composition (pertinent to
mudflats and sandflats not covered by sea water at low tide). The conservation objectives
documents are freely available on www.npws.ie and will be examined as part of the ecological
assessment reported here.
Conservation Status
Nationally, Ireland, like other EU member states, is required to report on the conservation
status of habitats and species listed on the annexes of the Habitats Directive (Article 17
reporting) at six-yearly intervals. In December 2007, Ireland submitted its first baseline
assessments of conservation status for all 59 habitats and c.100 species that occur in Ireland
(NPWS, 2008). This assessment was updated in 2013 (NPWS, 2013a, b).
Conservation status for habitats is based on the attributes of Range, Area, Structure &
Functions and Future Prospects, and for species is based on the attributes of Range,
Population, Area of suitable habitat and Future Prospects. Parameters are classified as being
“favourable”, “inadequate”, “bad” or “unknown”. The current status of the Annex I habitats
listed for Great Island Channel SAC, based on national assessments, are given in Table 6 below.
Table 6. Conservation status of qualifying interest habitats and species of the Great Island
Channel SAC (after NPWS 2013a, b).
HABITATS & SPECIES OF QUALIFYING INTEREST ~ conservation status
Range Area Structure & Future Overall
HABITATS OF Function Prospects
QUALIFYING
INTEREST
Tidal Mudflats and
Sandflats (1140) Favourable Favourable Inadequate Favourable Inadequate
Atlantic Salt
Meadows (1330) Favourable Favourable Unfavourable Inadequate Inadequate
/ inadequate
RP18-GW123-07 19 May 2018Limosa Environmental
4.2 Baseline ecology of the proposed development site
4.2.1 Habitats
Habitats within the site
Habitats within the proposed development site were identified as follows (Figure 6).
Arable crops (BC1)
Arable crops dominate the site area. Corn is currently planted within the site and is of little
ecological interest. Common ruderal herb species occur in some patches.
Spoil and bare ground/recolonising bare ground (ED2/ED3) and dry grassland (GS2)
In the north of the site and close to the northern entrance the land has been disturbed in
recent times and patches of bare and recolonising land occurs. These merge into areas that
have vegetated over, largely with grasses (presumably once arable land), and is now best
described as ‘dry meadows and grassy verges (GS2). Species recorded:
Meadow Fescue (Festuca pratensis) Sweet Vernal-grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum)
Annual meadow grass (Poa annua) Yorkshire Fog (Holcus lanatus)
White Clover (Trifolium repens) Red Clover (Trifolium pratense)
Ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata) Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens)
Herb Robert (Geranium robertianum) Black medic (Medicago lupulina)
Ragged Robin (Silene flos-cuculi) Wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa)
Hedge woundwort (Stachys sylvatica) Daisy (Bellis perennis)
Cinquefoil spp. Winter heliotrope Petasites fragrans
Scrub and Wet Scrub (WS1)
Scrub occurs in a few places within the northern part of the site. The central areas of scrub
(Figure 6) are dominated by Gorse (Ulex europaeus), Willow (Salix spp.), Nettle (Urtica dioica)
and Broad-leaved Dock (Rumex obtusofolius) although various annual herbs as found in
ED2/ED3 (above) can also be found inter-mixed. The non-native Buddleja (Butterfly Bush) was
recorded in small amounts.
In the north of the site is an area best described as wet scrub. The vegetation is dominated
by Willow, Gorse and Rush species (Juncus spp.). Ragged Robin, Curled dock (Rumex crispus),
False Oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius) and Marsh Thistle (Cirsium palustre) also occur as well
as one stand of Bulrush (Typha latifolia). However the land was not waterlogged or wet
despite recent weeks of rain, and was therefore not considered to be marsh habitat. This
habitat is perhaps a remnant of a former marsh/wetland that once occurred in association
with a stream that runs parallel to the northern boundary of the site.
RP18-GW123-07 20 May 2018Limosa Environmental
Habitats on the site boundaries
Stream/drainage ditch
The northern boundary of the site comprises an earthbank overgrown with scrub and a linear
stream/drainage ditch that is also completely overgrown. Vegetation along this boundary
comprises largely Gorse, Bramble and Willow scrub with herb species recorded under
ED2/ED3/GS2 above, plus the following: Dog Rose (Rosa canina), Meadowsweet (Filipendula
ulmaria), Wood Sage (Teucrium scorodonia), Common Figwort (Schrophularia nodosa) and
Hogweed (heracleum mantegazzianum). The aquatic habitat of the stream/drainage ditch is
considered in more detail below.
Hedgerows (WL1), treelines (WL2) and associated Scrub (WS1).
The site is entirely bordered by treelines and hedgerows with associated scrub (WS1). These
linear features are shown by green lines on the habitat map and are labelled to coincide with
the descriptions below (Figure 6).
A – This roadside boundary comprises a dense layer of linear scrub and associated treeline;
the latter containing Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), Willow and Elder (Sambucus nigra).
The scrub layer comprises Bramble (Rubus fructicosus), Nettle, Willow and Spear Thistle
(Cirsium vulgare).
B – This roadside treeline is dominated by Hawthorn, Hazel (Corylus avellana) and Blackthorn
(Prunus spinosa). A shrub layer of Nettle, Bracken (Pteridum aquilinum), Gorse, Bramble,
Broad-leaved Dock, Ivy (Hedera helix), Foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), Cleavers (Gallium
aparine) and Rosebay Willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium) occurs. Part of this boundary
has a fence with overgrown scrub. In the southern corner are four Spruce (Picea spp.) trees
in association with an adjacent property.
C – This boundary carries on the same as previously described and merges into dense Willow
scrub/woodland that lies to the south of the site.
D – A treeline with mature Sycamore, Willow, Oak (Quercus spp.), and Ash (Fraxinus excelsior).
A dense scrub layer occurs and also patches of dense bracken (HD1). Ecologically connected
(as C above) with woodland/scrub habitat to the south of the site.
E – This interior treeline/hedgerow is dominated by Hawthorn, Sycamore, Ash, Willow and
Elder. The dense ‘scrubby’ understorey comprises Bracken, Bramble, Sycamore saplings, Ash
saplings, Rosebay Willowherb, Cleavers, Hogweed, Dog Rose, Foxglove, Honeysuckle (Lonicera
periclymenum). In patches Gorse scrub dominates. This dense hedgerow is ecologically
connected to habitats beyond the site by its connection with hedgerows C and D (above) and
to woodland/scrub habitat that occurs to the south of the site.
RP18-GW123-07 21 May 2018Limosa Environmental
A
E
B
E
D C
Figure 6. Habitats within the site boundary.
4.2.2 Birds
A total of 19 bird species was recorded during the bird survey (Table 7) including six species
that were recorded flying over only and not interacting with the site.
Of the remaining 13 species, four are listed as species of conservation concern (Colhoun &
Cummins, 2013), including one, Yellowhammer, that is red-listed.
Based on the recording of song (territory holding) the following eight species are likely to
breed within the site or within the site boundaries: Wren, Dunnock, Robin (Amber-listed),
Stonechat (Amber-listed), Chiffchaff, Willow Warbler, Sedge Warbler and Yellowhammer
(Red-listed).
RP18-GW123-07 22 May 2018Limosa Environmental
Table 7. Bird species recorded during the bird survey and they habitat they were recorded in,
together with their status (Resident, Summer migrant) plus an indication of conservation
concern in Ireland (BoCCI, Red or Amber-listed) (after Colhoun and Cummins, 2013).
Common name Latin name Status BoCCI Number Habitat
recorded
Pheasant Phasianus colchicus R 2 ED2/ED3 (2)
Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus R A 1 Flying over
Woodpigeon Columba palumbus R 2 Arable crops (2)
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica S A 6 Flying over
Pied Wagtail Motacilla alba R 1 Flying over
Wren Troglodytes troglodytes R 4 Internal scrub (2) Boundary
hedgerow (2)
Dunnock Prunella modularis R 2 Internal scrub (1); Boundary
scrub (1)
Robin Erithacus rubecula R A 1 Boundary hedgerow (1)
Stonechat Saxicola rubicola R A 2 Internal scrub (2)
Blackbird Turdus merula R 1 Boundary hedgerow (1)
Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita S 1 Boundary hedgerow (1)
Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus S 1 Internal scrub (1)
Boundary scrub (1)
Sedge Warbler Acrocephalus S 1 Boundary scrub (1)
schoenobaenus
Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus R 1 Interior hedgerow (1)
Rook Corvus frugilegus R 1 Flying over
Hooded Crow Corvus corone cornix R 2 Flying over
Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis R 2 Flying over
Linnet Carduelis cannabina R A 4 Internal scrub (4) + Flying
over (6)
Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella R R 1 Internal treeline/hedgerow
(1)
4.2.3 Mammals
Only signs of Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) (holes and droppings) were observed within the
site during the survey.
The potential for other mammal species to occur was assessed by reference to online data
and maps produced by the National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) (Table 8)
(maps.biodiversityireland.ie). Data relate to the 10km square W76.
RP18-GW123-07 23 May 2018Limosa Environmental
Table 8. The potential for terrestrial mammals to occur within the site (recorded presence
within 10km square W76) (data extracted from the NBDC database, October 2017)
Mammals Status
Insectivora
Hedgehog Erinaceous europaeus Potential
Pygmy shrew Sorex minutus Potential
Chiroptera
Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus Potential
Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus Potential
Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus Potential
Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri Potential
Natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri Potential
Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii Potential
Brandt’s bat Myotis brandtii
Lagomorpha
Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus Certain
Irish hare Lepus timidus hibernicus Potential
Rodentia
Red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris Unlikely
Bank vole Myodes glareolus Potential
Wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus Potential
House mouse Mus domesticus Potential
Brown rat Rattus norvegicus Potential
Black rat Rattus rattus
Carnivora
Fox Vulpes vulpes Likely
Badger Meles meles Potential
Irish stoat Mustela erminea hibernica Potential
American mink Neovison vison Some potential
Artiodactyla
Red deer Cervus elaphus Unlikely
Sika deer Cervus nippon Unlikely
Fallow deer Dama dama Unlikely
RP18-GW123-07 24 May 2018Limosa Environmental
4.2.4 Aquatic ecology of the stream/drainage ditch
The north western perimeter of the proposed housing development site is a drainage
channel/stream. Present on early OS maps as a stream but absent from recent maps, suggests
that the stream has been heavily modified by agricultural practices during the past 100 years,
and is now probably best classified as a drainage channel. At the time of survey the drainage
ditch was 1m wide and had less than 5cm depth of water, with a matrix of soft silt and localised
gravel pockets.
The channel contained the macrophyte plant species Lesser Water-parsnip (Berula erecta) and
Water cress (Naturtium officinale) with more localised common water starwort (Callitriche
stagnalis). The former two species covered 95% by surface area of the channel.
The main feature of interest within the channel was the presence of the fish species three-
spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) that was recorded present during sweep nets of
the channel.
The channel was bordered by dense scrub vegetation gorse, bramble and willow scrub as
previously described.
Plate 4.1. Dense growth of Water Parsnip in the drainage channel at Ballynoe (upstream)
Downstream of the site (near the crossroads along the northern boundary of the proposed
site), the channel flows northwards along a treeline of Willow (Salix cinerea), Ash (Fraxinus
excelsior) and occasional Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa). The channel becomes more stream like
with more open water and slightly improved flows despite remaining very shallowLimosa Environmental
habitat for both species. Furthermore, the low dissolved oxygen levels would only support
gasterostid fish (i.e. stickleback). Physiochemical characteristics of the drainage channel and
macro-invertebrates are discussed below.
Plate 4.2. The more open stoney channel of the drainage channel downstream of the
crossroads
Biological and Physiochemical Water Quality
The drainage channel was sampled upstream and downstream of the proposed development
to investigate the biological water quality of the site and to establish whether any rarities
existed. Both sites upstream and downstream of the proposed development had poor water
quality estimated at Q2-3 (poor quality, poor status water) as exhibited by the presence of
abundant bloodworm (Chironomus riparius), Freshwater Hoglouse (Asellus aquaticus),
Tubficid worms (Limnodrilus species) and Gammarid shrimp (Gammarus duebenii) (Table 9).
The physiochemical water quality recorded would be in agreement with the Q samples (i.e.
indicative of poorer water quality) given the very low dissolved oxygen levels recorded
(4.7mg/l upstream and 4.9mg/l downstream respectively) and also moderately high
conductivity readings for a moderate alkalinity stream with pH recorded between 7.61 and
7.67 and conductivities of 356us upstream and 336us downstream.
Table 9. Physiochemical & Biological Water Quality Summary
Dissolved Conductivity Dissolved pH Q Rating
Oxygen (mg/l) (us) solids (ppm)
Site 1
(upstream) 4.7 356 178 7.61 Q2-3
Site 2
(downstream) 4.9 336 167 7.67 Q2-3
RP18-GW123-07 26 May 2018You can also read
