rural development programme 2014-2020 · rural development programme 2014-2020. blackthorn ecology...

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 2014-2020

APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

DRAFT - MAY 2014

RDP 2014-2020 AA Blackthorn

Ecology

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ii

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Legislative Context 1

2 Methods 3

2.1 Overview 3

2.2 Assessment 3

3 Rural Development Plan 2014-2020 Measures 6

3.1 Overview 6

3.2 RDP Measures 6

3.3 Plan Context 13

4 Natura 2000 Sites 23

5 AA Screening 24

5.1 Connection to Conservation Management 24

5.2 Potential Impacts of RDP Measures 24

5.3 Assessing Significance of Potential Impacts on Qualifying Interests 28

5.5 Screening Conclusions 35

6 Appropriate Assessment 36

6.1 Predicting Impacts 36

6.2 Assessing Significance of Potential Impacts 49

6.3 Mitigation 72

7 Conclusion Statement 76

8 References 77

APPENDIX A Natura 2000 Sites and Qualifying Interests 80


Ecology

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Under the Habitats Directive as transposed into Irish law, the potential impacts of any

plan or project on Natura 2000 sites, including SACs and SPAs, are to be assessed by

means of Appropriate Assessment (AA). Therefore, AA of the Rural Development Plan

(RDP) 2014-2020 has been carried out according to European and Irish best practice.

The RDP 2014-2020 consists of 15 measures that aim to promote economic

development, competitiveness and social inclusion in rural areas and to conserve and

enhance ecosystems. These are:

GLAS and GLAS+ – the proposed new agri-environmental scheme (AES).

Organic Farming Scheme.

Locally Led Agri-Environment Schemes – a new targeted, output-driven and

locally led AES.

Areas of Natural Constraint (ANC) Scheme – a continuation of the

Disadvantaged Area Scheme.

TAMS II – on-farm capital investments.

Bioenergy Scheme.

Knowledge Transfer Groups.

EIP Operational Groups – research and innovation themes to link researchers,

farmers and other agri-business and environmental stakeholders.

CPD for Advisors – to upskill agricultural advisors.

Targeted Advisory Service on Animal Health and Welfare.

Support for Collaborative Farming – to support new farm partnerships.

Artisan Food Cooperation Measure.

Regional Product Development Support.

Beef Genomics and Data Programme – to foster genetic improvement of the

beef cattle herd.

LEADER

A Stage 1 screening assessment found that the RDP 2014-2020 could result in a

number of changes to farm management that could impact on Natura 2000 sites in a

number of ways, including over- or under grazing, land abandonment, land-use change

or intensification, direct or indirect water pollution, nitrogen deposition, building or

tourism developments, inappropriate conservation works or fragmentation of the

landscape around Natura 2000 sites. With the exception of some mainly marine

habitats and species, the majority of the qualifying interests of Natura 2000 sites could

potentially be affected. Stage 2 AA of the significance of potential impacts on Natura

2000 site conservation objectives was then carried out.


Ecology

iii

Stage 2 AA assessed each measure in detail and identified several potentially significant

impacts. The GLAS scheme had the potential to impact on a wide range of terrestrial

and aquatic habitats and species in Natura 2000 sites as a result of inappropriate

management prescriptions. Minimum stocking rates under the ANC scheme could

lead to overgrazing of sensitive habitats and dependent species. Abandonment of

uneconomic habitats was a potential impact of farm restructuring under the Organic

Farming, TAMS II and Support for Collaborative Farming schemes. TAMS II and the

Support for Collaborative Farming schemes could support intensification, leading to

water quality impacts on aquatic qualifying interests and nitrogen deposition impacts

on sensitive habitats, such as bogs and orchid-rich grassland. Building and tourism

developments under LEADER or TAMS II had the potential for a wide range of impacts

on Natura 2000 site conservation objectives. Planning permission for developments is

predicted to mitigate this. Competition with afforestation schemes by a number of

measures had the potential to negatively affect Natura 2000 woodland habitats by

promoting fragmentation. Knowledge transfer measures, especially CPD for

agricultural advisors, served to eliminate or minimise the risk of significant impacts

arising from other measures, such as GLAS.

Mitigation that will be implemented includes AA of individual building, tourism, or

agricultural reclamation projects, consultations with key stakeholders during detailed

measure development, and site-based monitoring of the effects of RDP measures.

When these mitigation measures are fully implemented, there will be no significant

impacts on Natura 2000 sites.

It is objectively concluded that the RDP 2014-2020 as adopted will not have any

significant impacts on the integrity of any Natura 2000 sites, alone or in combination

with other plans or policies.


Ecology

1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) have appointed a team

of consultants led by Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants to carry out Ex Ante

Evaluation, Strategic Environmental Assessment, and Appropriate Assessment of the

Rural Development Programme 2014-2020. Blackthorn Ecology has been tasked with

completing the Appropriate Assessment on behalf of DAFM.

This Appropriate Assessment has been prepared by Dr George F Smith of Blackthorn

Ecology. Dr Smith has extensive experience in preparing Natura Impact Statements

and in the field of ecology and land-use policy. He is a Chartered Ecologist and a full

member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

(CIEEM), the chief professional society in Ireland for ecological professionals, and as

such, he is bound by their Code of Professional Conduct.

1.2 Legislative Context

In accordance with Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), the potential

impacts of any plan or project on the conservation objectives of a Natura 2000 site of

European conservation importance, including Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and

Special Protection Areas for birds (SPAs), are to be assessed by means of Appropriate

Assessment (AA). The Habitats Directive is implemented in Irish law by the European

Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (SI No. 477 of 2011), which

supersede the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997 and

amendments. The purpose of AA is to assess the impacts of plans or projects in

combination with the effects of other plans and projects against the conservation

objectives of a Natura 2000 site and to ascertain whether they would adversely affect

the integrity of that site.

The AA process begins with Stage 1 - Screening to determine if a plan or project is

likely to have an impact on a Natura 2000 site. If impacts are likely or uncertain, Stage

2 – Appropriate Assessment is required (European Commission, 2002, Department of

the Environment, 2009a).

Under Regulation 42 of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats)

Regulations 2011, AA is to be carried out by a public authority for a plan it wishes to

adopt, which is not directly connected with the management of a Natura 2000 site.

DAFM is the competent public authority with responsibility of carrying out AA of the

Rural Development Programme 2014-2020.

According to the Regulations, plan can be adopted by a public authority only after

having determined that it will not adversely affect the integrity of a Natura 2000 site.


Ecology

2

The sole exception would be in the case of imperative reasons of overriding public

interest. In this case, the plan could be adopted if several conditions were met,

including measures to compensate for damage to Natura 2000 sites and to ensure the

coherence of the Natura 2000 network.

This AA report also includes a Natura Impact Statement as defined by the European

Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011.


Ecology

3

2 METHODS

2.1 Overview

This AA has been prepared in accordance with:

The provisions of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats)

Regulations 2011.

The European Commission’s Methodological Guidance (2002).

DEHLG’s Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland (2009a).

AA is concerned with the assessment of impacts to Natura 2000 sites. In most cases,

the plan or project to be assessed is spatially explicit, such as Local Authority

Development Plans. The Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 (RDP) is different

in that it is a national plan encompassing the entire territory of the State. Assessing

each Natura 2000 site in Ireland individually would not be appropriate to the high-

level, strategic nature of the RDP. Therefore, the approach taken here was to assess

potential impacts of the RDP on the habitats and species that comprise the qualifying

interests of the Natura 2000 sites.

2.2 Assessment

The assessment followed the steps below, in accordance with the Methodological

Guidance (European Commission, 2002) for AA:

1) Description of the RDP measures.

2) Review Natura 2000 sites and qualifying interests.

3) Stage 1 Screening assessment of the significance of the RDP on qualifying

interests.

4) Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment of the impacts of each RDP measure on

qualifying interests.

5) AA conclusion statement.

2.2.1 Description of RDP Measures

The RDP measures are briefly described in Section 3, focusing on the aspects of

greatest relevance to Natura 2000 sites. As it is critical to assess the effects of a plan

in combination with other plans, the policy and operational framework in which the

RDP will operate are also reviewed. The main areas of interaction between RDP

measures and other plans, strategies and frameworks are highlighted.

This AA is an iterative process. As RDP measures are refined and finalised, the assessment

will be returned to and revised as required.


Ecology

4

2.2.2 Natura 2000 Sites and Qualifying Interests

Natura 2000 sites in Ireland and their qualifying interests are introduced in Section 4

and are detailed in the Appendices.

2.2.3 Stage 1 Screening

A draft AA screening was prepared, based on the RDP 2014-2020 Draft Consultation

Paper issued in January 2014. A consultation meeting on the draft screening was held

on 13th March 2014 between representatives of the National Parks and Wildlife Service

(NPWS), the consultants and DAFM. NPWS are the State agency with statutory

responsibility for nature conservation, including the Natura 2000 network.

The results of the AA screening assessment are detailed in Section 5. These take

account of the outcomes of the consultation meeting.

Screening of the RDP as a whole was carried out rather than a measure-by-measure

assessment, due to the potential for cumulative impacts with other policies and plans.

This would introduce a degree of complexity best addressed in full AA. Individual

qualifying interests were screened out, however, where the screening assessment

concluded that there was no potential that a qualifying interest would be significantly

affected by the RDP alone or in combination with other policies and plans.

Where the assessment concluded that there would be the potential for significant

impacts or where the potential is uncertain, the qualifying interests were taken forward

to Stage 2 (full) AA.

2.2.4 Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment

The Stage 2 AA of the RDP followed on from Stage 1 screening and is provided in

Section 1. At this stage, the potential impacts of individual measures on the integrity

of Natura 2000 sites were examined in detail.

The assessment then focused on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000 sites.

Although site-specific conservation objectives have not yet been finalised for all Natura

2000 sites, they will depend on the qualifying interests present. Where the same

qualifying interest is present in different sites, the same attributes, such as distribution,

habitat area, population structure and vegetation structure, are used to define

conservation objectives; site specific targets will differ (NPWS, pers. comm.). Where

significant impacts of a measure on the conservation attributes of a qualifying interest

are likely, significant impacts on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000 sites, and

therefore site integrity, that contain the qualifying interest are indicated.

Section 6.3 covers mitigation measures that will address negative impacts on Natura

2000 sites. Where Stage 2 AA has determined that the effects of a measure on one or

more qualifying interests would lead to impacts on the integrity of Natura 2000 sites,


Ecology

5

mitigation measures have been detailed. The effectiveness of mitigation measures was

assessed.

The AA was informed by scientific research on agroecology and the ecology and

conservation status of Natura 2000 habitats and species. Particular attention was paid

to the most recent assessment of the conservation status of Habitats Directive habitats

(National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013b) and species (National Parks and Wildlife

Service, 2013c). Literature referred to is cited in Section 8. The AA was also informed

by submissions from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) on

the structure and content of the RDP and also on the Strategic Environmental

Assessment (SEA) of the RDP.

2.2.5 Conclusion Statement

The AA Conclusion Statement is in Section 7.


Ecology

6

3 RURAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2014-2020 MEASURES

3.1 Overview

A total of €4,007 million has been allocated to the RDP 2014-2020, which includes EU funding

under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and contributions from

the National Exchequer. Of this, the total funding for LEADER amounts to €250 million.

The RDP is based on six EU priority areas for rural development:

Fostering knowledge transfer and innovation,

Enhancing competitiveness,

Promoting food chain organisation and risk management in agriculture,

Restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems,

Promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards a low carbon and

climate resilient economy,

Promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural

areas.

In line with this framework, a total of fifteen (15) measures in seven themes have been

proposed for the RDP 2014-2020. At the time this assessment was prepared, many of the

measure details remained to be fully fleshed out. Furthermore, these may change slightly as

part of the RDP development process and consultations. There was enough detail, however,

to allow a suitably strategic-level AA of the plan.

3.2 RDP Measures

Agri-Environment and Climate Measures

GLAS (Green Low-Carbon Agri-Environment Scheme) and GLAS+

The objectives of the measure are:

To promote ways of using agricultural land compatible with

the protection and improvement of the environment and achieving water

quality, climate change and biodiversity objectives

the conservation of high nature value farmed environments both within and

outside of designated Natura 2000 sites

the use of nutrient management planning in farming practice.

To foster knowledge transfer in the area of sustainable environmental farming systems

GLAS is the proposed new agri-environmental scheme (AES) to replace the preceding schemes

(AEOS and REPS). Payment is on an action basis and the scheme is targeted to farms where it

will be most effective by three-tiered entry criteria. All farmers with Priority Environmental

Assets (PEAs) will get first priority access to the scheme. The PEAs are:


Ecology

7

Natura 2000 sites (privately owned)

Farmland birds of high conservation concern (e.g. Twite, Curlew, Corncrake, Grey

Partridge, Hen Harrier)

Commonages where 80% of the commonage participates

High Status water areas

Rare breeds

Actions related to the PEAs are mandatory where they applicable to a farm, i.e. all farms with

Natura 2000 sites would be required to take up the appropriate action. Farms without PEAs

but with whole-farm stocking rates of greater than 140 kg Livestock Manure Nitrogen per

hectare or greater than 30 ha of arable crops may also apply for Tier 1 access to GLAS if they

undertake one of the following actions:

Low emission slurry spreading

Minimum tillage

Green cover establishment from a sown crop

Wild bird cover (grassland farms only)

Organic farmers may also apply for Tier 1 access by selecting actions appropriate to the

environmental priorities on their farms. Actions related to PEAs must be selected first,

however, if these apply. Entry is not guaranteed to all eligible Tier 1 applicants, as this will be

subject to scheme capacity.

After Tier 1 has been filled, additional capacity in the scheme can then be filled by farmers with

Tier 2 Environmental Assets and Actions. These include commonages with 50-79%

participation in GLAS and Vulnerable water areas. Thereafter, if take-up of Tiers 1 and 2 falls

short of capacity, a selection process will be used to allow farmers access to GLAS via a Tier 3

list of General Actions. Depending on the available budget, more precise targeting of the

scheme may be needed, for example to farms with habitats in poor or bad status or with highly

threatened species.

A GLAS contract will last for 5 years. Participants must have their application prepared by an

approved agricultural planner, must have a Nutrient Management Plan, must attend training

courses tailored to their specific actions, and must keep accurate records.

Payment rates per action are yet to be finalised. Farmers may take on additional actions if

they wish to maximise their payments, subject to the scheme ceiling. The maximum proposed

payment per farmer is €5000 with a proposal for a GLAS+ payment of an additional €2000 for

farmers that take on particularly challenging actions which deliver an exceptional level of

environmental benefit. GLAS+ payments will be initially targeted at farmers that must

undertake a high number of mandatory actions under the Tier 1 priority environmental assets

and actions.


Ecology

8

Detailed targets relative to output indicators have not yet been finalised. An indicative target

has been set of 40% of the scheme funds invested in Natura 2000 sites and other PEAs. The

target for water quality actions is 30% of scheme funds, with 30% targeted towards general

environmental and climate change actions .

Organic Farming Scheme

The objective of this measure is:

to deliver enhanced environmental and animal welfare benefits and

to encourage producers to respond to the market demand for organically produced

food.

This measure will continue the general structure and implementation of the current Organic

Farming Scheme. The scheme provides grant-aid for farmland with full organic status and in

conversion. An area based payment will be made for a 5 year period plus a higher payment

for an initial 2 year conversion period. Increasing the payment rates is being considered to

incentivise new entrants and increase the low level of organic production in Ireland relative to

other EU states. An alternative structure with a basic payment and a menu of incentivised

options is also being considered.

Organic status must be certified by one of five recognised certification bodies. A five year

business plan will also be required of applicants and will be used to select entrants.

Completion of an introductory training course is also required.

Locally Led Agri-Environment Schemes

The objective of the measure is:

to provide a complementary approach to the overall agri-environmental effort, one

which encourages the development of unique projects designed to respond to specific

environmental challenges.

This measure aims to provide a complementary agri-environmental scheme to the broad-scale

GLAS scheme, where GLAS is not the most appropriate method for addressing specific issues.

The methodology for this measure is to extend the concept of the locally-based, output-

specific Burren Farming for Conservation Programme (BFCP) model. In the case of the BFCP,

High Nature Value Farming in the Burren is funded by awarding payments based on the quality

of species-rich grassland produced, rather than by prescribed actions. Capital works to

improve farm management and conservation, such as stone wall restoration, provision of

watering facilities and installation or upgrading access tracks, are also co-funded.

Under this measure, it is proposed that the BFCP be continued and expanded. It is also

planned to develop a similar scheme for nine freshwater pearl mussel catchments. A

competitive fund is also planned to select a number of other priority projects on foot of a call

for proposals.


Ecology

9

Areas of Natural Constraint

Areas of Natural Constraint Scheme (ANCs)

The objectives of this measure are to:

Ensure continued agricultural land use, thereby contributing to the maintenance of a

viable rural society

Maintain the countryside

Maintain and promoting sustainable farming systems, which in particular take account

of environmental protection requirements.

The Areas of Natural Constraint (ANC) scheme is a continuation of the former Less Favoured

Areas Scheme. It is envisaged that the scheme will operate in much the same way as in the

2007-2013 RDP. Under this scheme, payment rates are linked to disadvantage category: more

severely handicapped, less severely handicapped or mountain sheep grazing. Disadvantaged

Areas are to be redesignated as ANCs strictly according to biophysical criteria by 2018. This

may change the designation of areas and the structure of the ANC scheme in ways yet to be

determined. Scheme participants will be required to comply with minimum stocking rates,

subject to AES or Commonage Framework Plan requirements.

On Farm Capital Investments

Targeted Agricultural Modernisation Schemes II (TAMS II)


to encourage investment in a number of particular target areas which will promote, in

particular, increased competitiveness in those sectors in which grant-aid will be made

available and

to support young farmers wishing to enter the sector or improve their holdings by way

of higher aid levels.

The Targeted Agricultural Modernisation Schemes II (TAMS II) are proposed to operate in the

same way as the current TAMS, with separate schemes for each group of investment items

insofar as possible. The scheme is proposed to fund capital investments in a number of priority

areas. Proposed initial priority areas are: dairy equipment, slurry storage, low-emission

spreading equipment, animal housing, and pig and poultry investment in energy, water meters

and medicine dispensers.

Grant aid will be 40%, but will be increased to 60% for young farmers. Young farmers may

also avail of grant aid for dairy buildings. Selection and eligibility criteria, including minimum

and maximum levels of farming enterprise, will apply and are currently being developed.

Bioenergy Scheme

The objective of this measure is to:

support the development of additional areas of energy crops.


Ecology

10

This measure is proposed to encourage the indigenous energy crop sector, which is

developing at a slower rate than is required to meet renewable energy targets.

The measure would support establishment of a bioenergy crop (€2,600 per ha), with a possible

income forgone element to be determined. Applicants must provide contractual evidence that

the harvested crop will be used for renewable energy purposes within a defined minimum

distance from where the crop is grown. Site suitability would also form part of the application

criteria.

Knowledge Transfer Measures

Knowledge Transfer Groups

The objective for this measure is:

to contribute to knowledge acquisition and the adoption of best practice in the sector.

Knowledge Transfer Groups will be collaborative groups established to develop the knowledge

base and foster innovation and best practice. These Groups will build on the current

Discussion Groups model, but will incorporate a more output-focused approach concentrating

on priority areas. . Groups will be set up following structured calls for proposals and will

incorporate clear selection criteria. Group facilitators will be assessed and selected based on

eligibility criteria that may include qualifications, participation in Continuing Professional

Development (CPD), record with DAFM relating to SPS, REPS, AEOS, etc. and diversity in group

composition.

Proposed priority Knowledge Transfer Groups are mainly envisaged along sectoral lines (e.g.

dairy, beef and sheep, etc.). It is proposed that groups may be linked to other RDP measures,

e.g. participation in a relevant Group may be a requirement of another measure.

EIP – Operational Groups

The objectives of this measure are:

To promote the sustainable development of agriculture and help the Irish agricultural

sector to become more productive and efficient by:

supporting operational groups to address issues in areas such as environment

and climate change, biodiversity and sustainable production.

bringing together farmers, NGOs, private sector bodies, research institutions

and advisors in a partnership type approach to address challenges identified,

disseminating information through appropriate channels including the EIP

Network.

European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs) are a research and innovation approach that are

focused on particular challenges and aim to bring together all players across the entire

research and innovation chain in a given area. In particular, the measure is anticipated to fill


Ecology

11

the gap between farmers, rural enterprises and advisors on the one hand, and researchers on

the other. EIP operational groups provide a method to link, for example, farmers, researchers,

advisors, agri-business or NGOs. The aim is to develop innovative solutions to sustainable

agricultural development using a partnership type approach that will result in practical

application.

A target of ten EIP groups over the lifetime of the RDP 2014-2020 is proposed. It is anticipated

that funding for new EIP groups will be made available via a competitive fund.

Continued Professional Development for Advisors


to enhance the skills of advisors through delivery of targeted training courses across a

range of measures and therefore to:

Improve their technical skills,

Enhance their regulatory knowledge, and

Develop their client facing skills.

This measure will provide CPD for farm advisors and will ensure that they are properly trained

in priority areas identified by DAFM, such as climate change mitigation and biodiversity

management. CPD will particularly target advisors engaged in delivery of GLAS and

Knowledge Transfer Groups; the latter two measures will use appropriately qualified advisors

for their implementation. DAFM will identify appropriate areas for skills training. CPD

provision will be implemented by issuing structured calls for training proposals by

appropriately qualified professionals. Clearly defined selection criteria will be implemented.

CPD for agricultural advisors in environmental and climate change issues is proposed,

including biodiversity management, water management, renewable energy, climate change

and mitigation.

Targeted Advisory Service on Animal Health and Welfare


to support national animal health priorities, as articulated in Food Harvest 2020, by the

provision of targeted on farm animal health and welfare advice.

Targeted advisory services for individual farmers on animal health and welfare are proposed,

in addition to knowledge transfer facilitated by Knowledge Transfer Groups. The service

outputs will include farm action plans for targeting and controlling animal disease. The

measure will be implemented following public procurement procedures to select the most

appropriate provider. Advice will be delivered on a request basis at the individual farm level.

Collaborative and Quality Focused Measures

Support for Collaborative Farming



Ecology

12

to encourage greater engagement by the farming community with the concept of

collaborative farming, and in particular farm partnerships

It is anticipated that this measure will increase capacity, competitiveness and profitability of

farms by providing economies of scale, improving land access for young, female or expanding

farmers, encouraging skill sharing, and enhancing social benefits. This measure will provide

up to 50% grant aid to farmers setting up as a partnership or other approved collaborative

farming arrangement. Grant aid will cover initial legal and administrative start-up costs.

Artisan Food Cooperation Measure

The objective of this measure is to support improved marketing of local food.

This measure will provide annual grant support for collaborative actions to improve marketing

of local food products, product quality and business skills. Grant aid will be focused on

improving and validating production quality and improving marketability of niche category

products.

Support for this measure will be delivered via the LEADER programme.

Regional Product Development Support

The objective of this measure is to address challenges for primary producers in developing

group proposals for marketing distinctive local agricultural produces.

This measure will provide grant support for developing producer groups and promotion

through EU Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI),

and Traditional Specialties Guaranteed (TSG) schemes. Grants will cover the development of

group proposals, defining product control specification, organisation and promotion.

Support for this measure will be delivered via the LEADER programme.

Targeted Support

Beef Genomics and Data Programme

This scheme aims to improve breed quality through increasing genetic improvement of the

beef cattle herd. It will assist farmers to increase the economic sustainability of beef

production from suckler herds, including in marginal farmland, which is a major land type for

suckler farming.

The measure will help to mitigate climate change by increasing stock efficiency rather than

numbers. The scheme will build on the 2014 Beef Data Programme and Beef Genomics

Scheme. Participants will be required to collect tissue samples from their suckler herds for

genotyping, record life stage data for calves, select stock bulls and high genetic quality

replacement heifers, and dispose of calves persistently infected by BVD.


Ecology

13

LEADER

LEADER

The objective of the LEADER programme is:

to support the sustainable economic and social development of rural Ireland.

LEADER will be implemented through the production of Local Development Strategies under

a partnership approach combining the expertise of local public and private stakeholders. Local

Development Strategy design will be guided by indicative LEADER Themes. Each Strategy will

be required to examine the potential of these themes in the context of local planning and

development. The indicative LEADER Themes are:

Rural Economic / Enterprise Development and Job Creation

Rural tourism

Enterprise development

Broadband

Rural towns

Social Inclusion

Basic services for hard to reach communities

Rural youth

Rural environment

The Local Development Strategy design process will contain criteria to ensure that all

Strategies address each of the three main cross-cutting issues: innovation, climate change and

environment.

3.3 Plan Context

AA must take into account the effects of a plan in combination with other plans relevant to

Natura 2000 sites. Different plans operating in combination may result in cumulative impacts

on Natura 2000 sites that are not apparent when considered individually. It should be noted

that the term “plan” as used in the Habitats Directive is undefined, but is interpreted as being

quite broad and including a wide range of land-use plans and sectoral plans, policies and

frameworks (European Commission, 2000). The European Communities (Birds and Natural

Habitats) Regulations 2011 reflect this broad interpretation and define “plan” as “any plan,

programme or scheme, statutory or non-statutory, that establishes public policy in relation to

land use and infrastructural development in one or more specified locations or regions…”.

Plans, policies and strategic frameworks with the greatest for interaction with RDP 2014-2020

and Natura 2000 sites are listed in Table 1. Key EU level policy that will interact with the RDP

includes the other elements of the post-2013 CAP, the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, and

the Water Framework Directive. Broad-based national policies and strategic frameworks

include Food Harvest 2020, an industry led vision for the Irish agri-food sector up to 2020, the


Ecology

14

National Biodiversity Plan, the Prioritised Action Framework for Natura 2000, and national

sustainable development policy. Sectoral or topical plans and policies include national forestry

policy and the Commonage Framework Plans.


Ecology

15

Table 1. Primary plans, policies and strategic frameworks potentially operating in

combination with RDP 2014-2020 and Natura 2000

Plan / Policy / Strategic Framework Objectives

European Union

Post-2013 CAP Single Payment System

Support viable food production, promote

sustainable management of natural resources

and climate action, and support balanced

territorial development.

EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

Six targets in line with the Convention on

Biological Diversity 2011-2020 strategic plan

Aichi Targets, including more sustainable

agriculture.

Water Framework Directive

Protect and enhance quality of all waters,

achieve good status for all waters by end 2015,

manage water bodies by river basins.

National

Food Harvest 2020

Significant increase in agricultural productivity

by 2020, mainly in beef, dairy and pig meat

sectors.

National Biodiversity Plan 2011-2016

Reduce biodiversity loss and ecosystem

degradation by 2016 and make progress to

substantial recovery by 2020.

Prioritised Action Framework for Natura 2000

Identify strategic conservation priorities for the

Natura 2000 network during the 2014-2020

period and identify key measures for achieving

them.

Our Sustainable Future

Framework for sustainable development

through 2020, including specific measure on

supporting sustainable agriculture and

biodiversity protection.

Sectoral

Forestry Policy

Develop forestry to a scale and in a manner

which maximises its contribution to national

economic and social well-being on a sustainable

basis and which is compatible with the

protection of the environment.

Commonage Framework Plans Implement sustainable grazing regimes and

other management measures on commonages.

National Peatlands Strategy

Sustainable management of peatlands, including

specific actions for agriculture to safeguard

biodiversity and ecosystem services

CFRAM Programme

Reduction and management of flood risk via risk

assessment, flood hazard mapping and flood

risk management plans.


Ecology

16

3.3.1 European Union

Post-2013 CAP Single Payment System

Greening, cross compliance and other elements of the Single Payment System (SPS) of the

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) must be considered when assessing the potential for RDP

impacts on Natura 2000 sites. In order to be eligible for the basic Single Farm Payment, farms

must meet the requirements of cross compliance. Under the new CAP, these will include 13

Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs) and 7 standards for Good Agricultural and

Environmental Condition (GAEC) of land. Of most direct relevance, SMR2 (Birds Directive) and

SMR3 (Habitats Directive) require compliance with the provisions of the Birds and Habitats

Directives, including notifiable actions of Natura 2000 sites on farm holdings. In addition,

SMR1 requires compliance with the provisions of the Nitrates Directive, including requirements

on the storage and application of slurry and other organic and chemical fertilisers.

GAEC standards include conservation of landscape features, such as hedges, ponds and field

margins, in addition to other standards on soil erosion, burning and watercourse protection.

GAEC standards also exclude agriculturally unproductive land from SPS eligibility. Ineligible

land includes lakes, watercourses, woodland, rock, scrub, and land not being farmed. These

GAEC standards also apply to lands within Natura 2000 sites and render certain Habitats

Directive habitat types, e.g. limestone pavement, ineligible for the SPS or other area-based

payments.

The post-2013 CAP has introduced an additional “green” direct payment comprising 30% of

the direct payments budget that requires farmers to maintain permanent pasture, to diversify

tillage crops, and to conserve ecological focus areas. The latter are areas that must be

conserved to enhance biodiversity and provide climate change mitigation; their exact nature

is yet to be determined, but may include features such as hedgerows, uncultivated field

margins, agroforestry or fallow land. The requirement for ecological focus areas applies only

to tillage farms larger than 15 ha or grassland farms greater than 30 ha. On these farms,

ecological focus areas must comprise 5% of the farm area.

EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 relies in part on the provisions of the post-2013 CAP to

achieve its target of ensuring the sustainability of agriculture, forestry and fisheries. The

specific strategy target regarding agriculture is to maximise the area under biodiversity-related

CAP measures so as to bring about a measurable improvement in the conservation of habitats

and species that depend on or are affected by agriculture. Measurable improvements in the

ecosystem services provided by these habitats and species are also called for. Improvements

are to be measured against whole-strategy targets of: 1) 100% more Habitats Directive habitat


Ecology

17

assessments and 50% more species assessments under the Habitats or Birds Directives show

improved conservation status, and 2) restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems.

Water Framework Directive

The primary objective of the Water Framework Directive is to achieve good status for all waters

by the end of 2015. One of the main tools for achieving this is the implementation of River

Basin Management Plans for each of the eight River Basin Districts in the island of Ireland.

Each River Basin Management Plan contains a set of objectives and a programme of measures,

including measures designed to control agricultural sources of pollution. These measures rely

heavily on the Nitrates Regulations and DAFM cross compliance inspections.

The current Nitrates Regulations – the European Union (Good Agricultural Practice from the

Protection of Waters) Regulations 2014 (S.I. 31 of 2014) – implement the work of the Third

Nitrates Action Programme under the EU Nitrates Directive. The Nitrates Regulations contain

several detailed requirements for farmers on minimising soiled water, storing and spreading

livestock manure, other organic fertilisers and soiled water, nutrient management and water

body buffer zones. Amendments made to the current Nitrates Regulations generally

strengthen water quality protection compared to previous Regulations. In particular, the SEA

screening for the Third Nitrates Action Programme predicted that new, lower phosphorus

application limits for extensive grassland systems would contribute positively to protecting

vulnerable habitats and species in Natura 2000 sites.

Under the Water Framework Directive, sub-basin management plans have been prepared for

freshwater pearl mussel catchments. These include proposals for an AES tailored toward

improving water quality within pearl mussel catchments. Other detailed agricultural measures

are proposed to be implemented where required, such as siting of feeding stations and sheep

dipping stations, avoiding drain maintenance impacts, and increasing awareness.

3.3.2 National

Food Harvest 2020

The chief strategic framework that AA screening of the RDP 2014-2020 must take into account

is Food Harvest 2020 (FH2020). FH2020 sets out the industry’s vision of ambitious targets for

growth of the agri-food sector over the operating period of the RDP. The smart green growth

targets are to increase the value of primary production by 33%, increase value-added outputs

by 40% and increase exports by 42% relative to the averaged 2007-2009 baseline. This

programme forms the primary context for agricultural production for the RDP 2014-2020

period, and many of the proposed measures in the RDP respond to issues raised in the FH2020

Environmental Report (Farrelly et al., 2014).

The main sectoral targets of FH2020, relative to the 2007-2009 baseline, are:

Increase milk production volume by 50%

Increase beef production value by 20%


Ecology

18

Increase pig meat production value by 50%

Increase sheep meat production value by 20%

Increase poultry production value by 10%

In addition, FH2020 views organic production as an opportunity and supports a target of

increasing organic production to 5% of land use. FH2020 recommends the extension of the

Organic Farming Scheme to support the sector.

FH2020 also recognises the importance of environmental sustainability, including biodiversity

conservation, at least in part as a factor in marketing Irish produce as “green”. FH2020 also

recognises that agricultural production can lead to negative impacts on biodiversity. The

strategy states that better biodiversity monitoring is required to assess and legitimise “green

product claims”.

The Food Harvest 2020 Environmental Analysis Report (Farrelly et al., 2014) provides an

independent external assessment of the likely environmental impacts of a number of

production and land-use scenarios under FH2020. This found that there was the potential for

significant negative impacts on some of the Annex habitats and species that form qualifying

interests of Natura 2000 sites. In most cases, the potential was uncertain or unquantifiable.

The assessment did find, however, a definite potential for negative impacts on four habitats

and eleven species (Table 2). The main potential impacts highlighted were the potential for

eutrophication to impact on hard water lakes and aquatic fauna and also potential changes to

grazing regimes or land management to affect some grasslands and limestone pavement.

Impacts to Annex I birds from FH2020 growth targets were considered to be not possible or

uncertain in all cases (Farrelly et al., 2014).

Table 2. Qualifying interests of Natura 2000 sites assessed as having definite

potential for negative impacts arising from FH2020 (Farrelly et al., 2014)

Qualifying

Interest Rationale

Hard water lakes

(3140) Potential for increased eutrophication from agricultural intensification

Orchid-rich

calcareous

grassland (6210)

Change in stocking density and livestock type may occur; changes in land

management techniques possible; however largest areas outside of the

potential primary areas of dairy expansion, but potential for impact on some

sites supporting this habitat type.

Molinia meadows

(6410)

Change in stocking density and livestock type may occur; changes in land

management techniques possible

Limestone

pavement (8240)

Intensification of grazing and changes in management practices may occur

under FH2020, but extent and of changes are unknown.

White-clawed

crayfish (1092)

Agricultural intensification along watercourse catchments has potential to

increase nutrient loads and could cause negative impacts on crayfish in slight

to moderate polluted waters.


Ecology

19

Qualifying

Interest Rationale

Freshwater pearl

mussel (1029)

Potential impacts may arise from increase in nutrients within sensitive

catchments. They key issue is potential for increases in sediment loading of

water bodies, as this species is particularly vulnerable to even temporary

increases in sedimentation.

Nore freshwater

pearl mussel

(1990)

Potential impacts may arise from increase in nutrient loading along the River

Nore catchment. They key issue is potential for increases in sediment loading

of the Nore and its tributaries, as this species is particularly vulnerable to even

temporary increases in sedimentation.

Sea lamprey

(1095) Potential impacts may arise from increases in nutrient loads and fine sediment

loads within sensitive river catchments; decreases in water quality may impact

on lamprey, although the level of water quality which is optimal for lamprey is

not yet quantified.

Brook lamprey

(1096)

River lamprey

(1099)

Twaite shad

(1103)

Spawning activity has only been recorded in five large rivers in the south-east:

the Barrow, Munster Blackwater, Suir, Nore and Slaney, within catchments

where dairy expansion may occur. Potential impacts may arise from increase in

nutrient loads within sensitive river catchments in south-east.

Atlantic salmon

(1106)

Potential increase in diffuse pollution from agricultural intensification,

particularly phosphorus, within sensitive catchments could lead to excessive

plant growth and impact on salmon.

Otter (1355)

Direct impacts on otter are unlikely from FH2020; however potential impacts

could occur where increases in nutrient loading result in adverse impacts on

stocks of prey fish.

Marsh fritillary

(1065)

Where agricultural intensification occurs within suitable areas for marsh

fritillary, it could result in fragmentation of breeding sites with resultant loss of

integrity of metapopulation; changes in grazing density or stock types could

alter habitat suitability and abundance of the foodplant, devil’s-bit scabious.

Lesser horseshoe

bat (1303)

Direct impacts to bat are unlikely, but could occur at local level though loss of

roosting opportunities. Indirect impacts may arise from the loss of linear

commuting features such as hedgerows and from lowered prey populations

where agricultural intensification occurs.

The FH2020 environmental assessment concludes that implementing mitigation and

monitoring measures recommended in the report will help avoid or reduce impacts on Natura

2000 sites. These include provision of targeted AESs and knowledge transfer measures to

improve the biodiversity management skills and awareness of agricultural advisors. These

recommendations have been explicitly considered when developing the RDP 2014-2020.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the RDP in mitigating any negative impacts of FH2020 is

outside the scope of this assessment, which is concerned with the impacts of the RDP itself.


Ecology

20

National Biodiversity Plan

The importance of the agricultural sector, including funding under the CAP and RDP, is

emphasised throughout the National Biodiversity Plan. In particular, Target 5 is to “optimise

use of opportunities under agricultural, rural development and forest policy to benefit

biodiversity”. Nine specific Actions to reach this target are detailed, including Action 5.1,

“develop measures in future rural development programmes for the protection and

enhancement of ecosystem services and biodiversity”. The “number and effectiveness of

measures” in the RDP for biodiversity conservation is given as a key indicator of a successful

outcome. Target 15 is concerned with safeguarding the Natura 2000 network, and includes

Action 15.4 to “ensure that agri-environmental schemes provide targeted and costed

prescriptions that will contribute to favourable conservation status in farmed designated sites”.

Prioritised Action Framework for Natura 2000

Ireland’s Prioritised Action Framework (PAF) for the Natura 2000 network over the 2014-2020

period focuses on improving the conservation status of habitats and species that are currently

in bad status or are in inadequate and declining status. These include 10 priority habitats, 20

non-priority habitats, 8 Habitats Directive species and 17 Birds Directive species. Priority

actions under the PAF include developing targeted AES measures to improve the conservation

status of peatlands, uplands, limestone pavement, species-rich calcareous grassland, fixed

dunes, machair, turloughs and species-rich Nardus grasslands. The PAF also identifies the

need to develop targeted AES measures for corncrake, breeding waders, wintering gees and

wintering swans. Improving the status of freshwater pearl mussel is also a priority, and the

implementation of sub-basin management plans under the Water Framework Directive is a

key element.

Our Sustainable Future

Published in 2012, Our Sustainable Future is Ireland’s sustainable development framework.

The sustainable agricultural development measures in the framework include a commitment

to pursue implementation of environmental policies as they relate to those envisaged under

FH2020. Additional commitments include support for farmers to remain in farming and to

increase productivity, efforts to maximise active farming through rural development supports,

and ensuring research outputs are adopted at farm level.

3.3.3 Sectoral

Forestry Policy

Under the 1996 strategic plan for the sector, Growing for the Future, the national target was

to increase the area under productive forestry to 17% of the land area of the State, c. 1.2 million

ha by 2030. A draft revised forest policy was prepared in 2013 by the Forest Policy Review

Group. This document targets an increase in forestry to 18% of the State by 2046. As forestry

will not be funded under the RDP 2014-2020, a separate Forestry Programme 2014-2020 has


Ecology

21

been drafted and is currently at the consultation stage. The Forestry Programme includes a

number of measures, including funding for afforestation in order to achieve the 18% forest

cover by 2046 target.

Forestry is the main alternative land use to agriculture, and most existing plantations and

afforestation grants are for agriculturally marginal land. Afforestation is grant-aided by the

State, and farmers receive a higher rate of annual premia for a longer term than do non-

farmers. Grant aid is also available for establishing new native woodlands under the Native

Woodland Scheme. All grant applications must be approved by the Forest Service.

Applications within or adjacent to Natura 2000 sites are subject to AA and are forwarded to

NPWS for comment.

The Irish National Forest Standard is a framework designing Ireland’s approach to sustainable

forest management. A series of guidelines have been issued to implement sustainable forest

management, including the Code of Best Forest Management, the Forest Biodiversity

Guidelines and the Forestry and Water Quality Guidelines. Under these guidelines, a minimum

of 15% of a forest must be managed primarily for open space or for biodiversity conservation.

There are additional, more detailed guidelines on forest management in freshwater pearl

mussel catchments and guidelines on protecting the Habitats Directive species otter, Kerry

slug and bats during forestry operations.

Commonage Framework Plans

Commonage framework plans were drawn up for all commonage areasin the State, many of

which are Natura 2000 sites, during the late 1990s and early 2000s. These plans aim to

establish sustainable stocking rates in commonages and were produced in response to the

severe overgrazing that took place in many commonages as a result of headage payments.

The plans prescribe levels of destocking required by each commonage shareholder based on

the condition of the land, number of shareholders and the size of the shares. At present,

monitoring surveys show that commonages are now a complex mixture of overgrazed,

undergrazed and adequately grazed land. DAFM and DAHG have carried out reviews of

commonage framework plans, and work is underway on revised commonage management

plans to take into account changes in the condition of commonages, land-use patterns, and

agri-environmental policy.

National Peatlands Strategy

The National Peatlands Strategy was being finalised at the time of writing. This Strategy sets

out a number of principles and actions to encourage the sustainable management of the

national peatlands resource. The Strategy highlights the ecosystem services that peatland

biodiversity provides, including water quality, climate change mitigation, amenity and others.

The draft Strategy contains four actions specific to the agricultural sector:

Continue cross compliance GAEC standards and SMRs to ensure sustainable

management


Ecology

22

Finalise the review of commonage management plans

Explore the possibility of introducing a peatlands measure under the RDP 2014-2020

to encourage enhanced peatlands management

Support farmers in Natura 2000 sites with RDP measures designed for site protection

Regarding the third action, enhanced peatlands management is potentially the topic of an EIP

– Operational Group. The fourth action is implemented via the GLAS and GLAS+ measure.

CFRAM Programme

The Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management (CFRAM) Programme is a strategy

delivering on the National Flood Policy and the EU Floods Directive. The Office of Public Works

(OPW) is the lead agency for the Programme in partnership with local authorities. The

Programme and the National Flood Policy aim to manage flood risk at the catchment basis.

Preparation of flood maps and flood risk management plans are central to meeting these

objectives. These are being implemented at a catchment basis via a series of CFRAM studies

based on review of historical flood risk, hydraulic modelling and flood mapping. Management

options are subject to SEA and AA prior to the completion of a catchment flood risk

management plan.


Ecology

23

4 NATURA 2000 SITES

There are 423 SACs in Ireland designated for 59 Annex I habitat types and 24 Annex II species.

The current list of Irish SACs (National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2011b) is given in Table 25

in Appendix A. The Annex I habitats for which Irish SACs are designated are detailed in Table

27 in Appendix A, including habitat code and habitat name, according to the Interpretation

Manual (European Commission, 2013), and the shortened version of the habitat name as

frequently used in Ireland. The Annex II species for which Irish SACs are listed in Table 28 in

Appendix A.

There are 165 SPAs in Ireland designated for the conservation of 68 bird species. The current

list of Irish SPAs (National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013a) is given in Table 26 in Appendix

A. The bird species that form the Special Conservation Interests of Irish SPAs are listed in Table

29 in Appendix A. Not all of these species are listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive, as several

species are regularly occurring migratory species for which Ireland has a special responsibility.

Natura 2000 sites in Northern Ireland that are situated in catchments downstream of farmland

in the Republic of Ireland also fall within the scope of this assessment. Their qualifying interests

would reflect those listed in Appendix A.


Ecology

24

5 AA SCREENING

5.1 Connection to Conservation Management

Under the Habitats Directive, a plan that is directly connected with or necessary to the

conservation management of Natura 2000 site(s) does not require AA (European Commission,

2000). As the primary aims of the RDP are much wider in scope than the conservation

management of Natura 2000 sites, this is not the case. Therefore AA screening is required.

5.2 Potential Impacts of RDP Measures

The potential impacts that the measures in the RDP 2014-2020 may have on the qualifying

interests of Natura 2000 sites are outlined in Table 3 and are briefly discussed below. Further

details are provided under the full AA in Section 1. The standard reference list of threats,

pressures and activities that can influence Natura 2000 sites (DG Environment, 2011) assisted

in identifying potential impact mechanisms.

Although AA is not concerned with identifying positive impacts, their inclusion in Table 3

provides a greater degree of context to how RDP measures may interact with Natura 2000

sites.

Where potential impacts are identified, this does not necessarily mean that they are

likely to occur or will significantly affect Natura 2000 sites. The potential for impacts only

recognises the possibility of an impacts arising from the measure in at least one Natura 2000

site. The potential impacts identified take into account impacts in combination with other

plans, policies and strategic frameworks. Potential impacts do not take into account

mitigation, which is discussed in Section 6.3.

Table 3. Potential impact mechanisms of RDP measures on Natura 2000 sites

RDP Measure Potential Negative

Impacts

Potential Positive

Impacts


GLAS (Green Low-Carbon Agri-

Environment Scheme) and GLAS+

Overgrazing

Undergrazing

Abandonment

Habitat loss

Water pollution

Inappropriate conservation

work

Conserve/enhance

biodiversity

Replace grassland with tillage

Maintain extensive agriculture

Water pollution mitigation

Climate change mitigation

Organic Farming Scheme Abandonment

Fragmentation

Conserve/enhance

biodiversity

Crop change





Ecology

25


Impacts

Potential Positive

Impacts

Locally Led Agri-Environment

Schemes

Overgrazing

Undergrazing

Abandonment

Habitat loss

Water pollution


work

Conserve/enhance

biodiversity







Scheme (ANCs)

Overgrazing

Water pollution



Targeted Agricultural

Modernisation Schemes II (TAMS

II)

Overgrazing

Undergrazing

Replace tillage with grassland

Abandonment

Intensification

Building development

Water pollution

Fragmentation


Replace tillage with grassland


Bioenergy Scheme Crop change

Fragmentation

Crop change





In combination impacts In combination impacts


Continued Professional

Development for Advisors

Targeted Advisory Service on

Animal Health and Welfare



Overgrazing

Undergrazing

Abandonment

Intensification

Water pollution

Fragmentation


Artisan Food Cooperation

Measure In combination impacts

In combination impacts

Regional Product Development

Support In combination impacts


Targeted Support

Beef Genomics and Data

Programme In combination impacts



LEADER


Ecology

26


Impacts

Potential Positive

Impacts

LEADER

Improved site access

Building developments

Water pollution

Hydrology changes


work

Improved site access


Invasive species control

Conservation projects


Many of the RDP measures would have the positive impact of maintaining extensive

agriculture, especially livestock grazing, in Natura 2000 sites. Many habitats and species that

are qualifying interests of Natura 2000 sites would require extensive grazing to maintain or

achieve good conservation status. When considering screening impacts from the RDP in

combination with forestry policy, it is likely that maintaining extensive agriculture would tend

to reduce afforestation. This could have positive or negative impacts depending on the

habitats that would have been afforested, the characteristics of the forestry plantation (e.g.

size, location, connectivity to native woodlands), and the landscape setting (e.g. many or few

forests).

The GLAS, Organic Farming Scheme and Locally Led Agri-Environment Schemes measures

have the potential to conserve/enhance biodiversity. This positive outcome is a key

objective of GLAS and the Locally Led Agri-Environment Schemes. Organic farming, with low

chemical inputs, supports greater biodiversity of farmland species sensitive to such inputs.

Overgrazing and undergrazing may occur in Natura 2000 sites as a result of inappropriate

stocking levels prescribed by measures (e.g. ANC scheme or GLAS). Some measures (e.g.

TAMS II or Organic Farming Scheme) may facilitate fundamental changes to the farm

enterprise, leading to shifts in grazing patterns across the farm holding. Expansion of farming

activities may be encouraged in combination with FH2020 expansion targets. Inappropriate

grazing regimes outside of Natura 2000 sites may impact on habitats and species within

Natura 2000 sites by changing the habitat matrix and connectivity of the landscape. The same

factors may also lead to abandonment of grazing or mowing inside or outside Natura 2000

sites. For example, a GLAS prescription may incorrectly recommend exclusion of livestock from

a habitat, which may then result in biodiversity loss due to undergrazing. Abandoning

management of some areas may be encouraged by GAEC standards that may make certain

habitats ineligible for the SPS.

If farm enterprises are restructured with support under the RDP (e.g. Support for Collaborative

Farming), this may lead to intensification or habitat loss. FH2020 targets would encourage

such activity, and GAEC standards would encourage some types of habitat removal.

Intensification or habitat removal would not generally be allowed within Natura 2000 sites, but

may impact on habitats and species within Natura 2000 sites by changing the habitat matrix

and increasing the fragmentation of semi-natural habitats across the landscape. Habitat loss


Ecology

27

may also come about where GLAS prescriptions are based on a poor understanding of Natura

2000 habitats and species.

The GLAS, Organic Farming Scheme and Locally Led Agri-Environment Schemes measures

would have positive impacts arising from water pollution mitigation, including reduced

sedimentation, lower levels of organic and inorganic fertiliser runoff, and lower levels of

pesticide use. The provisions of the Water Framework Directive would act in combination.

TAMS II can be used to invest in slurry storage facilities. The Bioenergy Scheme would also be

expected to have mainly positive impacts on water quality, due to lower levels of ground

disturbance than tillage and lower chemical inputs. Measures that may encourage

intensification or overgrazing upstream of Natura 2000 sites could have negative impacts

arising from increased water pollution. Depending on the type of projects funded, the

LEADER measure may have positive impacts (e.g. river restoration works) or negative impacts

(e.g. building development adjacent to watercourses). Negative (and positive) impacts on

water quality may result in transboundary impacts where catchments are located upstream

of Natura 2000 sites in Northern Ireland.

The TAMS II and LEADER measures may fund building developments or other infrastructural

development, which may result in water pollution or habitat loss impacts. LEADER funding

could also be used to support flood control measures or other hydrology changes that could

impact negatively on downstream Natura 2000 sites.

Replacement of grassland with tillage (including horticulture) at the scales encouraged by

the wild bird cover action under GLAS and possibly also the Organic Farming Scheme are likely

result in positive impacts on Natura 2000 sites, especially for birds. Replacing tillage with

grassland to expand dairy farming under FH2020 sectors could be encouraged by the TAMS

II schemes. Depending on the landscape setting, this could be a positive or negative impact.

Tillage or horticultural crop change could be encouraged by the Organic Farming Scheme,

which would be expected to be a positive impact, given the low intensity nature of organic

farming. The Bioenergy Scheme would require a different type of crop change. The impacts

of this scheme would depend greatly on the habitat to be replaced and the landscape setting.

Inappropriate conservation work may be carried out under AESs or as part of LEADER

projects in the absence of suitable mitigation. This may include habitat removal or lead to

an increased risk of water pollution inside or outside Natura 2000 sites. On the other hand,

LEADER may fund positive conservation projects in or near Natura 2000 sites. LEADER

projects may also facilitate improved site access to Natura 2000 sites. This may have negative

disturbance impacts on sensitive habitats, flora or fauna (e.g. breeding waders). Alternatively,

improved access may increase visitor understanding and appreciation of the site, and lead to

positive conservation works in the future.

LEADER projects may include invasive species control, a positive impact.


Ecology

28

Many habitats and species that are qualifying interests of Natura 2000 sites are at risk from

climate change. Several RDP measures are aimed at providing climate change mitigation.

The Beef Genomics and Data Programme will produce climate change mitigation over the

medium to long term by increasing beef cattle productivity without increasing numbers.

Knowledge Transfer measures would not have any potential impacts in and of themselves.

They would, however, operate in combination with other measures and affect how potential

impacts manifest. As these measures are contained within the RDP, their effects in

combination with other RDP measures are assessed in Section 6.1. The Artisan Food

Cooperation, Regional Product Development Support, and Beef Genomics and Data

Programme measures would also have no direct impacts on Natura 2000 sites. These

measures provide direct or indirect support to local agricultural enterprises. Therefore, this

measure would act in combination with other measures providing income support to farms.

5.3 Assessing Significance of Potential Impacts on Qualifying Interests

The significance of the potential impacts of the RDP on the qualifying interests of SACs in

Ireland are summarised in Table 4. The significance of the potential impacts of the RDP on the

qualifying interests of SPAs in Ireland are summarised in the matrix in Table 5. Where there is

the potential for a significant impact or where the impact significance is uncertain, this is

indicated with a “”. Where there is no potential for a significant impact, this is indicated with

an “”.

The assessment considered pressures and threats to Annex I habitats and Annex II species

highlighted in the recent Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species reports (National Parks

and Wildlife Service, 2013b, c). Particular attention was paid when potential impact

mechanisms were reported as pressures of medium or high importance, such as “intensive

cattle grazing” (A04.01.01), “abandonment of pastoral systems, lack of grazing” (A04.03), or

“diffuse pollution to surface waters due to agricultural and forestry activities” (H01.05). For

birds that are qualifying interests of SPAs, potential impact factors reported in BirdWatch

Ireland’s Group Action Plans for Irish Birds and the Bird Atlas 2007-2011 (Balmer et al., 2013)

were considered when assessing impact significance.

Marine Qualifying Interests

As the RDP is concerned solely with agriculture and not aquaculture or fisheries, there are few

sources of potential impacts on marine habitats and species. The most important potential

impact source is water pollution arising from terrestrial runoff. The water pollution threat

posed to large shallow inlets and bays and sea caves is low (National Parks and Wildlife Service,

2013b), but nutrients, especially nitrogen, from terrestrial runoff have resulted in

eutrophication of some Irish coastal waters (O'Boyle et al., 2010). Water pollution impacts also

have the potential to negatively affect nearby Natura 2000 sites in Northern Ireland. Habitats

and species screened out due to absence of agriculture-related water pollution threats,


Ecology

29

according to the National Parks and Wildlife Service (2013b, c), are sand banks, bottlenose

dolphin and harbour porpoise. Although organochlorine compounds from pesticides have

been identified as a threat to the health of cetaceans (Department of the Environment, 2009b),

these compound are now no longer used in Irish agriculture. Colonial, cliff-dwelling seabirds,

such as Gannets, Kittiwakes and Puffins, are highly unlikely to be impacted by terrestrial

agriculture, and therefore most of the RDP measures. LEADER projects aimed at enhancing

tourism in coastal communities, such as boating enterprises or cliff walks, may result in

significant human disturbance of nesting seabirds, depending on the project and time of year

(BirdWatch Ireland, 2011c). Seals may also be disturbed by humans at their haul-out sites.

Coastal Qualifying Interests

Some coastal waters, such as lagoons and estuaries, are sensitive to water quality impacts.

Coastal land habitats, including salt marshes and most dune systems, are often grazed by

livestock at least on occasion (McCorry and Ryle, 2009, National Parks and Wildlife Service,

2013b). Inappropriate management prescriptions under an AES that results in undergrazing

or overgrazing may significantly impact on these habitats. Undergrazing of fixed dunes, for

example, is a pressure of high importance, according to recent habitat monitoring data

(National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013b). Intensification of adjacent land facilitated by on-

farm capital investments (e.g. TAMS II) may result in knock-on changes to management to

coastal habitats within Natura 2000 sites.

Spartina swards are currently listed as qualifying interests for some Natura 2000 sites. Most

Spartina swards are composed of the invasive, non-native Spartina anglica, and their spread is

an indicator of poor conservation condition for other salt marsh habitats. No conservation

objectives for Spartina swards have been listed for any Natura 2000 sites. Therefore, Spartina

swards have been screened out.

As with marine habitats and species, impacts of LEADER projects are particularly difficult to

identify due to their broad scope, which includes rural tourism and recreation. Coastal

recreation projects may include developing seaside walks or amenities. Therefore, potentially

significant impacts on some wintering or breeding coastal birds, such as Knot, Turnstone and

Ringed Plover, or habitats, like embryonic dunes, cannot be screened out.

Freshwater Qualifying Interests

All freshwater habitats are sensitive to potential water pollution impacts (National Parks and

Wildlife Service, 2013b). Aquatic species, such as lamprey, Atlantic salmon and slender naiad,

are also sensitive (National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013c). Other species dependent on

freshwater habitats, such as otter and waterfowl, may be significantly impacted by the loss of

prey or habitat structure arising from pollution impacts. Freshwater habitats and species

situated in downstream catchments in Northern Ireland may also be significantly impacted.


Ecology

30

Grassland and Heath Qualifying Interests

Grassland and heath habitats may suffer from inappropriate livestock grazing regimes

(National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013b). As with coastal habitats, these may arise under

the RDP under an AES where an advisor or farmer has insufficient understanding of the

habitats or species in a Natura 2000 site. On-farm capital investments may result in

intensification (e.g. conversion of a suckler farm to a higher-input, higher stocked dairy farm)

of land outside Natura 2000 sites that may in turn result in undergrazing or abandonment of

the Natura 2000 site. Investments that support new pig or poultry enterprises may result in

ammonia deposition and fertilisation of nearby orchid-rich calcareous grassland or heath.

Species that are dependent on these habitats or other grassland habitats may also be

significantly impacted by changes to grazing regime or vegetation structure. These include

marsh fritillary and a wide range of birds, including Corncrake, Redshank, Curlew, Lapwing,

Bewick’s Swan and Whooper Swan (BirdWatch Ireland, 2011b).

Peatland Qualifying Interests

Fens, transition mires and petrifying springs are sensitive to water pollution impacts and

inappropriate grazing levels (National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013b). Blanket bogs and

Rhynchosporion depressions associated with blanket bogs have suffered significant impacts

from overgrazing in the past and may do so in the future (National Parks and Wildlife Service,

2013b). Raised bogs are not typically used for grazing or other agricultural uses, but may be

impacted by ammonia deposition from pig or poultry enterprises, as noted above. LEADER

projects may involve peatland restoration, but may also result in significant damage if

recreational access, such as boardwalks, are managed inappropriately.

The peatland plant species shining sickle moss and marsh saxifrage are both species of flushes

in blanket bogs. The former is vulnerable to groundwater eutrophication (Lockhart et al., 2012)

and the latter is sensitive to overgrazing and undergrazing (C. Muldoon, pers. comm.).

Upland Qualifying Interests

Among the upland habitats not already considered, scree slope habitats and calcareous rocky

slopes, but not siliceous rocky slopes, are reported to be threatened by inappropriate grazing

levels (National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013b). Siliceous rocky slopes would be sensitive

to development for rock-climbing tourism with LEADER funding. Limestone pavement and

juniper scrub are also sensitive to livestock management. Hen Harrier, a ground-nesting

species, requires appropriate rough grassland structure for nesting and hunting.

Woodland Qualifying Interests

Old oak woodland is significantly affected by both overgrazing and undergrazing. Deer are

the typical grazing animals, although livestock are also often present. Yew woodland is

frequently overgrazed as well. Bog woodland is not an agricultural habitat, while grazing and

water quality issues are not reported as being significant factors in the conservation of residual


Ecology

31

alluvial woodland (National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013b). These woodland types could,

however, be impacted by developments under the LEADER programme.

Killarney fern is a plant of rocky habitats in woodlands that are not under agricultural

management. As with woodlands, however, LEADER-funded developments could result in

recreational or other disturbances. On the other hand, Kerry slug has been screened out. It is

a woodland and heath species in favourable conservation condition that does not appear to

be sensitive to grazing or disturbance (Moorkens, 2006, Byrne et al., 2009, National Parks and

Wildlife Service, 2013c).


Ecology

32

Table 4. Screening the RDP against Annex I habitat types and Annex II species that are

qualifying interests for Irish SACs

Qualifying Interest

Potentially

Significant

?

Sandbanks

Estuaries

Tidal mudflats

Lagoons

Large shallow inlets and bays

Reefs

Annual vegetation of drift

lines

Perennial vegetation of stony

banks

Sea cliffs

Salicornia mud

Spartina swards

Atlantic salt meadows

Mediterranean salt meadows

Halophilous scrub

Embryonic shifting dunes

Marram dunes (white dunes)

Fixed dunes (grey dunes)

Decalcified Empetrum dunes

Decalcified dune heath

Dunes with creeping willow

Dune slack

Machair

Lowland oligotrophic lakes

Upland oligotrophic lakes

Hard water lakes

Natural eutrophic lakes

Dystrophic lakes

Turloughs

Floating river vegetation

Chenopodium rubri

Wet heath

Dry heaths

Alpine and subalpine heath

Juniper scrub

Calaminarian grassland

Qualifying Interest

Potentially

Significant

?

Orchid-rich calcareous

grassland

Species-rich Nardus upland

grassland

Molinia meadows

Hydrophilous tall herb

Lowland hay meadows

Raised bog

Degraded raised bogs

Blanket bog

Transition mires

Rhynchosporion

depressions

Cladium fen

Petrifying springs

Alkaline fens

Siliceous scree

Calcareous scree

Calcareous rocky slopes

Siliceous rocky slopes

Limestone pavement

Caves

Sea caves

Old oak woodlands

Bog woodland

Residual alluvial forests

Yew woods

Vertigo geyeri

Vertigo angustior

Vertigo moulinsiana

Geomalacus maculosus

Margaritifera margaritifera

Euphydryas aurinia

Austropotamobius pallipes

Petromyzon marinus

Lampetra planeri

Lampetra fluviatilis

Alosa fallax


Ecology

33

Qualifying Interest

Potentially

Significant

?

Salmo salar

Rhinolophus hipposideros

Tursiops truncatus

Phocoena phocoena

Lutra lutra

Halichoerus grypus

Phoca vitulina

Drepanocladus vernicosus

Petalophyllum ralfsii

Trichomanes speciosum

Saxifraga hirculus

Najas flexilis

Margaritifera durrovensis


Ecology

34

Table 5. Screening the RDP against Special Conservation Interests of Irish SPAs

Qualifying Interest Potentially

Significant?

Arctic Tern

Barnacle Goose

Bar-tailed Godwit

Bewick's Swan

Black-headed Gull

Black-tailed Godwit

Chough

Common Gull

Common Scoter

Common Tern

Coot

Cormorant

Corncrake

Curlew

Dunlin

Eider

Fulmar

Gadwall

Gannet

Golden Plover

Goldeneye

Great Crested Grebe

Great Northern Diver

Greenland White-

fronted goose

Greenshank

Grey Heron

Grey Plover

Greylag Goose

Guillemot

Hen Harrier

Herring Gull

Kingfisher

Kittiwake

Knot

Lapwing

Qualifying Interest Potentially

Significant?

Leach's Petrel

Lesser Black-backed

Gull

Light-bellied Brent

Goose

Little Grebe

Little Tern

Mallard

Manx Shearwater

Merlin

Oystercatcher

Peregrine

Pintail

Pochard

Puffin

Purple Sandpiper

Razorbill

Red-breasted

Merganser

Redshank

Red-throated Diver

Ringed Plover

Roseate Tern

Sanderling

Sandwich Tern

Scaup

Shag

Shelduck

Shoveler

Storm Petrel

Teal

Tufted Duck

Turnstone

Whooper Swan

Wigeon


Ecology

35

5.5 Screening Conclusions

The AA screening has found that the RDP 2014-2020 could potentially impact on most of the

qualifying interests for which Natura 2000 sites are designated, in the absence of mitigation,

or that significant impacts cannot be ruled out. A few habitats and species that are qualifying

interests have been screened out (Table 4 and Table 5). Natura 2000 sites with qualifying

interests that are restricted to these will not be significantly impacted by the RDP 2014-2020

measures. These habitats and species are:

Sandbanks

Spartina swards

Kerry slug

Bottlenose dolphin

Harbour porpoise

As a result of Stage 1 Screening, Stage 2 (full) Appropriate Assessment has been carried out

to determine if the RDP 2014-2020 will have significant impacts on the integrity of Natura 2000

sites (Section 1). The Appropriate Assessment takes the same approach as the screening by

focusing on the qualifying interests rather than the Natura 2000 sites directly. This approach

allows qualifying interests and sites to be cross-referenced to determine which sites may be

impacted.


Ecology

36

6 APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

In line with AA guidelines (European Commission, 2002, Department of the Environment,

2009a), the AA of the RDP 2014-2020 follows these steps:

Predicting impacts of each of the measures

Assessing impact significance relative to the conservation objectives of Natura 2000

sites

Identifying mitigation measures required and reviewing impacts post-mitigation

6.1 Predicting Impacts

Predicted (or uncertain) impacts in the absence of mitigation are discussed below and are

summarised in Table 6. Mitigation measures are discussed in Section 6.3.

It should be noted that predicting positive impacts is outside the scope of AA and are not

discussed here.

As AA is site-based, predicted impacts must be highlighted where there is the potential for

significant negative effects on one or more Natura 2000 sites.

6.1.1 Agri-Environment and Climate Measures

GLAS (Green Low-Carbon Agri-Environment Scheme) and GLAS+

The screening assessment has identified overgrazing, undergrazing, abandonment of grazing

or mowing, habitat removal, water pollution and inappropriate conservation work as potential

impacts on Natura 2000 sites (Table 3). Although the GLAS scheme is designed to conserve

and enhance biodiversity, there are a number of ways in which it could achieve the opposite

effect in Natura 2000 sites:

Management prescriptions not appropriate to particular habitats and species

Incorrect or inadequate advice from farm advisor

Inadequate understanding of management prescriptions by farmer

In combination impacts with other plans, policies or strategies

Management Prescriptions

Management prescriptions for GLAS measures must take into account the varying

management requirements for Natura 2000 habitats and species. Otherwise, unintentional

damage may occur. For example, if management prescriptions under GLAS are provided for

a broad range of habitats, they may be inappropriate for a particular habitat or its conservation

condition. They could also be inflexible with respect to different seasonal weather from year

to year. Some habitats that should be grazed may be excluded from grazing under scheme

requirements that are too rigid to cater for special cases. General prescriptions for certain

habitat types may be unsuitable for Natura 2000 species, such as breeding waders or hen


Ecology

37

harrier. Breeding waders, for example, have specific vegetation structure requirements, plus

the requirement for shallow water and mud habitats for feeding (BirdWatch Ireland, 2011b,

Balmer et al., 2013).

DAFM will develop the management prescriptions for GLAS measures during the measure

design process. Consultations with stakeholders, including NPWS and conservation NGOs, will

inform the measure design process. The management prescriptions will build on those used

in REPS, AEOS and NPWS farm plans and also on past experience of how those schemes

functioned. The results of some pilot management projects are also available for some

habitats and species. For most, however, there has been little or no monitoring or assessment

of the effects of AESs on biodiversity (Finn and Ó hUallacháin, 2012). Therefore, potential

impacts of inappropriate GLAS scheme prescriptions on many Natura 2000 habitats and

species cannot be ruled out in the absence of mitigation.

Farm Advisors

Agricultural advisors will have the responsibility of developing management plans in

conjunction with farmers. Their role will be critical where GLAS scheme management

prescriptions leave important decisions, such as stocking rates, to the advisor. Where an

advisor has insufficient understanding of the habitats or species of a site or their management

requirements, inappropriate grazing levels or other incorrect measures may be incorporated

into the farm management plan. An advisor may not be aware of the presence of a particular

species, such as breeding waders, wintering waterfowl or freshwater pearl mussel. In this case,

inappropriate measures may be included in the farm plan. In an extreme case, inappropriate

advice could lead to the removal or replacement of habitats of conservation value. Hazel

woodland could be removed as “scrub” for example. In most cases, removal of habitats within

Natura 2000 sites would be a Notifiable Action, but habitat loss near but outside sites could

still have negative landscape-scale impacts on site qualifying interests.

As the role of an advisor is inbuilt into the GLAS measure, errors made by advisors in preparing

farm management plans can be considered to be the result of the measure, rather than simple

human error. This would be the case if the GLAS scheme were not structured in a way to detect

and minimise such errors.

Where the Natura 2000 site is commonage, stocking levels will be determined by Commonage

Framework Plans or their successors, which will reduce the risk of over- or undergrazing in

these sites. The risk of advisors giving incorrect advice on GLAS management plans is further

significantly reduced by the Continued Professional Development for Advisors measure. CPD

in biodiversity management and other environmental areas will be required for advisors

providing planning services under the GLAS scheme. CPD for GLAS advisors will be provided

by appropriately qualified professionals. The need for such a measure was also highlighted in

the FH2020 environmental report (Farrelly et al., 2014), and the general need for greater

ecological advice has been highlighted by other studies (Finn and Ó hUallacháin, 2012). When


Ecology

38

CPD for advisors is fully implemented and encompasses all the elements of the GLAS and

GLAS+ schemes, there will be no impacts arising from this source.

Farm Management

Similar to agricultural advisors, where the farmer has inadequate understanding, management

may not be inappropriately implemented. If the GLAS scheme structure did not aim to ensure

farmers understand their management plans, then management errors that would arise would

flow from the measure, rather than simple human error.

As GLAS actions will be based on management prescriptions and farmers will have the advice

of a trained advisor, this will help minimise incorrect implementation of actions. In addition,

all farmers in Natura 2000 sites will have been advised of Notifiable Actions on those lands,

which will also reduce inappropriate management. All farmers who participate in GLAS will be

required to participate in training courses for specific actions complemented by on-line

demonstrations and advice on good environmental practices. The need for these knowledge

transfer initiatives was also highlighted in the FH2020 environmental report (Farrelly et al.,

2014) and by other studies (Van Rensburg et al., 2008, Finn and Ó hUallacháin, 2012). When

these safeguards arising from statutory requirements, other policies and knowledge transfer

are implemented, there will be no impacts arising from inadequate understanding of the

scheme’s requirements.

Other In Combination Impacts

Member States are obliged to implement AESs under the RDP regulations. There are also

several other policy instruments that generally support AESs and promote the development

of a well-designed scheme that will benefit Natura 2000 sites (Table 1). These in-combination

effects will tend to reduce the likelihood of significant impacts arising from this measure. In

particular, the objective of National Biodiversity Plan Action 15.4 is to “ensure that agri-

environmental schemes provide targeted and costed prescriptions that will contribute to

favourable conservation status in farmed designated sites”.

Cross compliance requirements will also apply to land in the GLAS scheme. The SMRs to abide

by the provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directives will reinforce the protection given to

Natura 2000 sites by the Notifiable Action system. Carrying out a Notifiable Action without

permission from DAHG would result in SPS penalties in addition to whatever penalties that

might arise under GLAS. In this way, cross compliance will reduce the likelihood of significant

impacts arising from incorrect implementation of the GLAS scheme by advisors or farmers.

On the other hand, GAEC standards exclude agriculturally unproductive land from eligibility

under SPS or GLAS. These GAEC standards also apply to lands within Natura 2000 sites and

render certain Habitats Directive habitat types, e.g. limestone pavement, ineligible for GLAS or

other area-based payments. Other habitat types, such as scrub and certain types of wetlands,

would also be ineligible for GLAS. Outside of Natura 2000 sites, these habitats could be subject

to clearance, drainage and other work to put them into good agricultural condition, possibly


Ecology

39

with negative consequences for nearby Natura 2000 sites. Within Natura 2000 sites, these

works would normally not be permitted (although scrub cutting could be permitted as a

Notifiable Action if allowed to regrow). Ineligible lands within Natura 2000 sites that could

not be made to meet GAEC standards would then be at risk of abandonment, with significant

impacts on such habitats as limestone pavement, fens, salt marshes, etc. These negative

impacts, however, would arise from the operation of cross compliance independently, and not

in combination with the GLAS scheme.

The 2013 Forestry Policy Review has identified competition with AESs as a factor in the failure

to reach previous afforestation targets. GLAS participation could discourage farmers from

planting forests or woodlands, either inside or outside Natura 2000 sites, in landscapes where

these would be a net biodiversity benefit. Within Natura 2000 sites, however, afforestation

would generally result in the loss of open habitats of biodiversity interest (and would require

AA prior to grant aid approval).

There are three LIFE+ projects operating in Natura 2000 sites that include agricultural

elements: AranLIFE, MulkearLIFE and the IRD Duhallow LIFE project in the Blackwater River

SAC. Operation of the GLAS scheme in these areas has the potential to disrupt LIFE project

actions by offering a competing scheme with contrasting management measures. Careful

integration of GLAS with these projects will be undertaken at the detailed measure design

stage to avoid significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites.


In Natura 2000 sites, the Organic Farming Scheme will have mainly positive impacts, such as

maintaining management practices involved in extensive farming (Bengtsson et al., 2005, Hole

et al., 2005). The low levels or absence of chemical inputs allowed under the Organic Farming

Scheme could benefit water-dependent qualifying interests located in the downstream

catchment of participating farms (Stolze et al., 2000, Hole et al., 2005). Regarding potential

negative impacts, the screening assessment has found that the measure presents a risk of

abandonment of agricultural management or fragmentation due to habitat loss outside

Natura 2000 sites (Table 3).

Abandonment

Conversion to organic farming involves significant changes in farm management that

payments received under the Organic Farming Scheme are designed to support. These

changes could include restructuring the farm enterprise, including abandoning or reducing

management on land that is no longer economic to farm. This may occur if the additional

income from organic farming means that less farming activity is required on parts of the

holding to maintain a comparable income. Land abandonment could also arise if more effort

is needed to farm parts of the holding organically and other parts were abandoned or under-

managed. Complete or partial abandonment within Natura 2000 sites could lead to significant

impacts on habitats and species dependent on extensive agriculture. Similar changes outside


Ecology

40

of Natura 2000 sites could also lead to significant impacts due to changes in landscape

connectivity and loss of supplementary habitat.

GAEC standards will reduce the likelihood of land abandonment, as agricultural activity must

be maintained if land is to be eligible for SPS payments. Nevertheless, land that is

economically marginal to farm may still be abandoned, which could lead to significant impacts

on Natura 2000 sites, depending on the nature and location of abandoned farmland.

Fragmentation

Changes in farming enterprise under the Organic Farming Scheme, e.g. conversion of

grassland to horticulture, could lead to negative impacts on Natura 2000 sites arising from

loss of valuable wildlife habitat. Similarly, organic farming supports could encourage farmers

to reclaim scrub or wetlands for organic production. Cross compliance requirements would

operate in combination with the Organic Farming Scheme in a similar way to the GLAS scheme.

Habitat loss within Natura 2000 sites is therefore unlikely due to the requirement to abide by

SMRs. Habitat loss outside Natura 2000 sites, however, could result in significant impacts due

to changes in landscape connectivity and loss of supplementary habitat.

Conversion of grassland on farms over 30 ha would make the land ineligible for Pillar I

greening payments, which would also reduce the likelihood of species-rich grassland loss to

non-grassland organic farming.


Interactions with Commonage Framework Plans will be few, as grazing commonage with

organic certified or in conversion livestock is not permitted under certification schemes unless

certain strict requirements are met.

As with the GLAS scheme, supports under the Organic Farming Scheme will tend to discourage

afforestation, which may have positive or negative impacts.


Similar to GLAS, the Locally Led Agri-Environment Schemes measure may result in overgrazing,

undergrazing, abandonment of grazing or mowing, fragmentation, water pollution and

inappropriate conservation work as potential impacts on Natura 2000 sites (Table 3). The key

differences are that GLAS is a prescription-based scheme and the Locally Led Agri-

Environment Schemes measure is output-driven. Therefore, inappropriate management

prescriptions in scheme design are not a potential risk factor. Potential impacts could arise

from:

Inadequate knowledge base

Inadequate understanding of management needs by farmer

In combination impacts with other plans, policies or strategies


Ecology

41

Knowledge Base

Farm plans under the Burren Farming for Conservation Project (BFCP) are developed by the

farmer in conjunction with local, dedicated scheme advisors to meet specific scheme

objectives. It is anticipated that other projects under this measure will follow a similar model.

Developing farm plans that will deliver biodiversity benefits and avoid negative impacts

depends on a good knowledge base put into operation by scheme advisors. Otherwise,

inappropriate grazing levels or other incorrect actions are likely to be incorporated into the

farm plan. This may lead to habitat damage or negative impacts on species from over- or

undergrazing or water pollution. Inappropriate farm conservation projects, such as changing

access routes, providing drinking water, etc., may also arise if the project knowledge base is

inadequate.

This measure will provide additional funding for the BFCP, which has a solid knowledge base

of baseline research into the ecology of the Burren and applied biodiversity and agricultural

management research from the BurrenLIFE project. Additional projects to be funded will

include freshwater pearl mussel schemes and three others to be determined on a competitive

basis. There is a good understanding of the ecology of freshwater pearl mussel and

agricultural management methods that are required for their conservation (e.g. Moorkens,

1999, 2000, WFD sub-basin management plans). Demonstrating a good knowledge base to

deliver promised biodiversity objectives will be a requirement of additional projects chosen

following a competitive call.

The EIP – Operational Groups measure may include one or more projects to provide applied

research and implementation support for future Locally Led Agri-Environment Schemes.

Each project will include its own locally-based, specialist advisors to help develop farm plans

and to evaluate project outputs. The skills and understanding of the project advisors will be

ensured by competitive appointments, as has been done in the BFCP. Monitoring of project

outputs is in-built into the project, which will allow projects to be readily adapted if targets are

not being met or circumstances require.

There will be no impacts on Natura 2000 sites arising from an inadequate knowledge base for

this measure.

Farm Management

Where the participating farmer has inadequate understanding of Natura 2000 habitats and

species on his farm and their management needs, agricultural management may not be

inappropriately implemented. Farm plans under the BFCP rely less on detailed prescriptions

and allow more decision-making latitude for farmers, and other Locally Led Agri-Environment

Schemes are likely to follow the same model. Therefore, there is greater potential for

inappropriate management choices to be made. Farm plans will be prepared with the

guidance of the specialist scheme advisor, however, which will reduce this risk. In addition, all

farmers who participate in Locally Led Agri-Environment Schemes will be required to


Ecology

42

participate in regular training. Finally, all farmers in Natura 2000 sites will have been advised

of Notifiable Actions on those lands, which will also reduce inappropriate management.

When these safeguards arising from statutory requirements, other policies and knowledge

transfer are implemented, there will be no impacts arising from inadequate understanding of

the scheme’s requirements.


The same impacts in combination with other plans, policies and strategies that apply to the

GLAS scheme would also apply to the Locally Led Agri-Environment Schemes measure.

6.1.2 Areas of Natural Constraint

Areas of Natural Constraint Scheme

The ANC scheme will require specific minimum stocking rates and durations, which may not

be appropriate for some habitats, depending on their conservation condition, within or

upstream of Natura 2000 sites. Minimum stocking rates or durations that are too high for a

habitat in a given condition may result in damage due to overgrazing. Overgrazing can also

lead to water pollution arising from siltation of watercourses. Where land is part of a

Commonage Framework Plan or an AES, those stocking rate requirements will supersede those

specified by the ANC scheme. These exceptions will ensure that sensitive sites are not

overgrazed under the ANC scheme on the majority of farms. Significant impacts on Natura

2000 sites arising from overgrazing under the ANC scheme, however, cannot be ruled out in

the absence of mitigation where land is not in commonage or in an AES. It should also be

noted that minimum stocking rates may also conflict with GAEC standards if minimum rates

lead to excessive poaching or peat erosion.

GAEC standards exclude agriculturally unproductive land from eligibility under SPS or the ANC

scheme. These GAEC standards also apply to lands within Natura 2000 sites and make certain

Habitats Directive habitat types, e.g. limestone pavement, ineligible for ANC scheme

payments. Other habitat types, such as scrub and certain types of wetlands, would also be

ineligible for the ANC scheme. Outside of Natura 2000 sites, these habitats could be subject

to clearance, drainage and other work to put them into good agricultural condition, possibly

with negative consequences for nearby Natura 2000 sites. Within Natura 2000 sites, these

works would normally not be permitted (although scrub cutting could be permitted as a

Notifiable Action if allowed to regrow). Ineligible lands within Natura 2000 sites that could

not be made to meet GAEC standards would then be at risk of abandonment. These negative

impacts, however, would arise from the operation of cross compliance alone, and not in

combination with the ANC scheme.

ANC scheme participation could discourage farmers from planting forests or woodlands, which

may result in positive or negative impacts, depending on the land to be planted and its

landscape setting.


Ecology

43

6.1.3 On Farm Capital Investments

Targeted Agricultural Modernisation Schemes II (TAMS II)

The TAMS II scheme has the potential for a wide range of direct or indirect impacts on Natura

2000 habitats and species in the absence of mitigation (Table 1). These arise from:

Intensification of the farm enterprise

Restructuring the farm holdings

Building developments

Intensification

Investments funded by TAMS II could be used to support intensification of farm management.

In this situation, more intensive land use would follow on from farm infrastructure investment,

such as animal housing or dairy equipment. This could also include a change of enterprise,

such as from suckler farming to dairy production. As TAMS II is livestock-oriented, change of

enterprise from tillage to dairy, for example, may also be facilitated. Intensification would

include greater inputs of fertilisers (organic and inorganic) and pesticides, in addition to

reseeding, drainage, vegetation control and other work. These would constitute Notifiable

Actions in Natura 2000 grasslands, and carrying out such work without approval would be a

breach of cross compliance. Intensification within Natura 2000 sites is therefore unlikely.

Intensification of the landscape surrounding Natura 2000 sites, however, could result in

fragmentation and loss of supplementary habitat: potentially negative impacts on Natura 2000

habitats and species within sites. Intensification could also result in water quality impacts that

may impact downstream sites. The Nitrates Regulations (SMR1) and Water Framework

Directive policies, however, would reduce impacts of intensification on watercourses.

Capital investments in the pig and poultry sectors are limited to energy, water meters and

medicine dispensers and therefore will not constitute support for the expansion of intensive

enterprises.

Restructuring

Investments under the TAMS II scheme could support the restructuring of farm holdings.

Restructuring may come about as a result of new animal housing changing patterns of land

use or because certain parts of the farm are now less profitable to farm. These changes may

result in undergrazing or abandonment of marginally economic parts of the farm. Other parts

of the farm holding may then be overgrazed or intensified as a result of concentrating effort

on a smaller part of the farm. Complete or partial abandonment within Natura 2000 sites

could lead to significant impacts on habitats and species dependent on extensive agriculture.

Similar changes outside of Natura 2000 sites could also lead to significant impacts due to

changes in landscape connectivity and loss of supplementary habitat.

GAEC standards will reduce the likelihood of over/undergrazing and land abandonment, as

agricultural activity must be maintained if land is to be eligible for SPS and other payments.


Ecology

44

Participation in an AES or a Commonage Framework Plan would also reduce grazing and

abandonment impacts. Nevertheless, land outside these schemes that is economically

marginal to farm may still be abandoned, which could lead to significant impacts on Natura

2000 sites, depending on the nature and location of abandoned farmland.

Building Developments

Building developments may impact on Natura 2000 sites through direct or indirect habitat

loss, water quality impact or disturbances to sensitive fauna. Most on-farm developments

would require planning permission prior to grant-aid approval, in which case planning

authorities are obliged to carry out AA. Very small developments would not require planning

permission, and thus potential impacts may be overlooked. These may arise where a small

building is erected in a Natura 2000 site that results in disturbance and loss of a highly sensitive

or spatially restricted qualifying interest. Water pollution, such as from spilled concrete, could

also be the source of direct or upstream impacts. The activity associated with farm buildings

may cause disturbance impacts if sited near breeding sites of sensitive birds or other fauna.

Bioenergy Scheme

The primary effect of the Bioenergy Scheme would be a change of crop from grassland or

tillage to a bioenergy crop: Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) willow or Miscanthus. Bioenergy

crop establishment within Natura 2000 sites would be a Notifiable Action and is therefore

unlikely to take place. Within the wider landscape, establishment of bioenergy crops in a

predominantly intensive agricultural landscape would probably benefit nearby Natura 2000

sites (Dauber et al., 2010, Stout et al., 2012). Landscape heterogeneity would increase, and

bioenergy crops could act as stepping stones habitats for species that do not use improved

grassland or tillage habitats. In a landscape dominated by semi-natural habitats, bioenergy

crop establishment could result in habitat fragmentation and significant impacts due to

changes in landscape connectivity and loss of supplementary habitat. Given the low levels of

biomass production to be supported by the scheme (10,000 ha or less than 0.2% of land area),

significant fragmentation impacts would be unlikely.

Conversion of grassland on farms over 30 ha would make the land ineligible for Pillar I

greening payments, which would reduce the likelihood of species-rich grassland loss.

Approval from DAFM and NPWS for establishing biomass crops within Natura 2000 sites was

a requirement of the previous bioenergy scheme, and will also be a feature of the present

scheme. Furthermore, conversion of semi-natural habitats for biomass would be subject to

AA screening and possibly full AA under the European Communities (Environmental Impact

Assessment) (Agriculture) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 456 of 2011), where this may significantly

impact on Natura 2000 sites. Therefore, there is no significant risk of impacts arising from

conversion to biomass crops and fragmentation.

The species grant-aided under the Bioenergy Scheme are SRC willow, mostly Salix viminalis

clones, and Miscanthus. These species have been planted frequently in the past and have not


Ecology

45

shown any invasive traits. Salix viminalis and other willows used as biomass crops have been

naturalised in Ireland for centuries. Extensive research has been carried out on Miscanthus in

Ireland. Therefore, there is no risk of significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites from these

species.

Perennial biomass crops require fewer interventions than that pose siltation or chemical

pollution risks to the aquatic environment tillage or most grassland systems (Caslin et al.,

2010a, Caslin et al., 2010b). Perennial biomass crops only require cultivation at establishment

of the crop, which lasts for c. 15 year (Miscanthus) or c. 30 year (SRC willow). Herbicide use is

only required in the first year or two of establishment, after which the crop shades out

competitive weeds. Furthermore, perennial biomass crops may serve as a buffer along

watercourses, intercepting silt or nutrient-rich water flow. Significant impacts on Natura 2000

sites are not predicted from water pollution.

Considering impacts in combination with forestry policy, supports under this measure would

discourage conventional afforestation, which may be positive or negative for Natura 2000 sites,

depending on landscape context. The areas involved, however, would not be significant.

6.1.4 Knowledge Transfer Measures

Knowledge transfer in itself would have no impacts on Natura 2000 sites, but would operate

in combination with other measures. Knowledge transfer measures will eliminate or reduce

some of the impacts of other RDP measures. For example, CPD for agricultural advisors will

ensure that the GLAS scheme will be well implemented and will not result in significant impacts

on Natura 2000 sites. EIP – Operational Groups will contribute to the evidence base for Locally

Led Agri-Environment Schemes. Knowledge Transfer Groups will improve farmers’

understanding of sustainable farming practices. Effective knowledge transfer has been linked

to better outcomes for AESs (Gabbett and Finn, 2005, Finn and Ó hUallacháin, 2012). In

combination impacts of Knowledge Transfer Measures are considered further with other

measures where appropriate.

6.1.5 Collaborative and Quality Focused Measures


Collaborative farming can increase farming activity by providing access to land for young and

expanding farmers. Skills synergies can also lead to increases and changes in farming activity.

In a farm holding that had been managed at a low level, such as by an elderly farmer, the

Support for Collaborative Farming Measure could result in intensification or restructuring,

including change of farming enterprise.

Intensification

Intensification could include greater inputs of fertilisers (organic and inorganic) and pesticides,

reseeding, drainage, vegetation control and other work. These would constitute Notifiable

Actions in Natura 2000 sites, and carrying out such work without approval would be a breach


Ecology

46

of cross compliance. Intensification within Natura 2000 sites is therefore unlikely.

Intensification of the landscape surrounding Natura 2000 sites, however, could result in

fragmentation and loss of supplementary habitat. These could potentially manifest as negative

impacts on Natura 2000 habitats and species within sites. Intensification could also result in

water quality impacts that may impact downstream sites. The Nitrates Regulations (SMR1)

and Water Framework Directive policies, however, would reduce impacts of intensification on

watercourses. Significant impacts on highly sensitive Natura 2000 sites may remain, however.

Restructuring

Reorganisation and restructuring of farm management may result in undergrazing or

abandonment of marginally economic parts of the farm. On the other hand, other parts of the

farm holding may be overgrazed or intensified if management is focused on a smaller part of

the farm. Complete or partial abandonment within Natura 2000 sites could lead to significant

impacts on habitats and species dependent on extensive agriculture. Similar changes outside

of Natura 2000 sites could also lead to significant impacts due to changes in landscape

connectivity and loss of supplementary habitat.

GAEC standards would reduce the risk of over/undergrazing and land abandonment.

Participation in an AES or a Commonage Framework Plan would also reduce grazing and

abandonment impacts. If the land is still considered economically marginal, land outside these

schemes may still be abandoned, which could lead to significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites,

depending on the nature and location of abandoned farmland.


Supports under this measure may encourage or discourage afforestation, depending on the

skill sets and interests in the new farm partnership. The impacts of afforestation on Natura

2000 sites would depend on the site, the landscape context and the nature of the plantation.

Artisan Food Cooperation Measure

The Artisan Food Cooperation Measure provides only indirect support under the LEADER

programme to farming through grant aid for marketing and quality of local food. This measure

would act in combination with other measures by maintaining local agricultural activity and

maintaining whatever positive or negative effects presently occur in the area.

Regional Product Development Support

The Regional Product Development Support measure provides support to primary producers

for developing and promoting local agricultural products under the LEADER programme. The

additional income arising from successful marketing and promotion could be used by farmers

in several ways that may or may not have impacts on Natura 2000 sites. The nature and

direction of any impacts would be determined primarily by other factors that the scheme

would operate in combination with, including other plans, policies and strategies as well as

local economic and social factors and individual preference. FH2020 targets may encourage


Ecology

47

increasing farming activity; however, targets for some sectors, such as beef, are focused on

productivity rather than output, which can also be met through Quality Schemes. Quality

Schemes may be more attractive for farmers in extensive areas, as sustainability could be a

component of the quality brand. In this situation, Quality Scheme participants are also likely

to be AES participants with less incentives to intensify farming activities. Stocking rates of

lamb producers in commonage would be set by Commonage Framework Plans. In summary,

the Regional Product Development Support measure would not have any impacts on Natura

2000 sites on its own, and any in combination impacts would arise from the independent

operation of other plans or socioeconomic factors without any significant contribution from

the measure.

6.1.6 Targeted Support

Beef Genomics and Data Programme

Similar to the Regional Product Development Support measure, the Beef Genomics and Data

Programme will provide support for primary producers. This scheme is targeted towards the

suckler farm sector, which a major farming activity in more extensively farmed landscapes

where Natura 2000 sites are frequently situated. As with the Regional Product Development

Support measure, the additional income could be used to support a range of farming activities.

The nature and direction of these activities and their potential impacts on Natura 2000 sites

would be determined by other factors, plans, policies and strategies that the Beef Genomics

and Data Programme would interact with.

6.1.7 LEADER

LEADER

LEADER projects have the potential to impact on Natura 2000 sites in a number of ways that

are difficult to predict at the strategic level, due to the diversity of projects that can be funded.

LEADER projects often have a building or other development component. These types of

projects can impact directly on Natura 2000 sites through habitat loss, water pollution or

changes in hydrology. Tourism-focused projects may include improving access to Natura 2000

sites through construction of cycle paths or developing walking routes. In addition to potential

impacts from the development, improving access can lead to increased disturbance of

sensitive species, such as breeding waders or wintering waterfowl. Many LEADER projects are

directly aimed at improving the conservation management of Natura 2000 sites. If these

projects include inappropriate elements or are incorrectly executed, negative impacts could

result.


Ecology

48

Table 6. Predicted impacts of RDP measures on Natura 2000 sites prior to mitigation

RDP Measure Impacts


GLAS (Green Low-Carbon Agri-

Environment Scheme) and

GLAS+

Inappropriate management prescriptions leading to

over/undergrazing, abandonment of habitats or unsuitable

conservation measures

Discourage afforestation


Restructuring leading to abandonment of uneconomic farmland

Conversion/reclamation of habitats outside Natura 2000 sites

leading to landscape fragmentation



Schemes Discourage afforestation



Scheme (ANCs)

Minimum stocking rates leading to overgrazing in sensitive

habitats and water quality impacts

Change in ANC criteria leading to unpredictable impacts



Targeted Agricultural

Modernisation Schemes II (TAMS

II)

Intensification outside Natura 2000 sites leading to landscape

fragmentation and/or reductions in water quality

Expansion of intensive pig and poultry units leading to nitrogen

deposition


Building developments directly or indirectly impacting Natura

2000 sites

Bioenergy Scheme No significant impacts





Continued Professional

Development for Advisors

Targeted Advisory Service on

Animal Health and Welfare


Support for Collaborative

Farming

Intensification outside Natura 2000 sites leading to landscape

fragmentation and/or reductions in water quality


Artisan Food Cooperation

Measure In combination impacts

Regional Product Development

Support In combination impacts

Targeted Support

Beef Genomics and Data

Programme In combination impacts

LEADER


Ecology

49

RDP Measure Impacts

LEADER

Building developments directly or indirectly impacting Natura

2000 sites

Improved access to Natura 2000 sites leading to disturbance to

sensitive species

Inappropriate conservation measures

6.2 Assessing Significance of Potential Impacts

In AA, the significance of impacts is assessed with respect to the conservation objectives of

Natura 2000 sites that may be affected. Natura 2000 site-specific conservation objectives have

been prepared by NPWS for some sites. These have been defined for each qualifying interest

by defining targets for a number of attributes. If these targets are met, then the qualifying

interest is in favourable conservation condition, and the site’s conservation objective for that

habitat or species has been met. The attributes are the same for each habitat or species across

sites, but the targets may be site-specific. Where available, the attributes for each qualifying

interest have been summarised in tables in the following sections.

Where detailed attributes have not yet been prepared by NPWS, the generic conservation

objectives are to maintain or restore favourable conservation condition of qualifying interests.

In the case of habitats, favourable conservation condition is achieved when:

Area and range are stable or increasing

Ecological factors necessary for long-term maintenance will exist for the foreseeable

future

Conservation status of typical species is favourable

Favourable conservation status of species is achieved when:

Species population is maintaining itself

Range is stable and is unlikely to be reduced for the foreseeable future

A sufficiently large habitat exists to maintain its populations on a long-term basis

The potential impacts identified in the previous section have been assessed against

conservation objective attributes. If it is considered that an attribute for a qualifying interest

may be significantly affected, then a significant impact on that qualifying interest, and the

Natura 2000 sites in which it is found, cannot be ruled out. The results of the assessment are

summarised in a table. Where there is the potential for a significant impact or where the

impact significance is uncertain, this is indicated with a “”. (In AA, the precautionary principle

applies. A plan may not be implemented where significant impacts are likely or uncertain.)

Where there is no potential for a significant impact, this is indicated with an “”.

Where no impacts or only in combination impacts are predicted for measures (Table 6), those

measures are not assessed further below.


Ecology

50

It should be noted that this assessment does not assess the effects of mitigation that will

be implemented, i.e. impact significance is considered under a “no mitigation” scenario.

Mitigation and impacts after implementation of mitigation is addressed in the following

section.

6.2.1 Marine Qualifying Interests

Detailed conservation objective attributes for marine habitats and species of SACs that have

not been screened out are in Table 7 Conservation attributes of colonial breeding seabirds

are:

Breeding population abundance

Productivity rate

Distribution of breeding colonies

Prey biomass availability

Barriers to connectivity

Disturbance

Conservation attributes for other birds are population trend and distribution.

The assessment of impact significance is summarised in Table 8 and Table 9.

Table 7. Attributes of conservation objectives for marine qualifying interests of SACs

Code Qualifying Interests Conservation Objective Attributes

1140 Tidal mudflats Habitat area

Community distribution

1160 Large shallow inlets and

bays

Habitat area


1170 Reefs

Habitat distribution

Habitat area


8330 Sea caves Distribution

Community structure

1364 Halichoerus grypus

Access to suitable habitat

Breeding behaviour

Moulting behaviour

Resting behaviour

Population composition

Disturbance

1365 Phoca vitulina

Access to suitable habitat

Breeding behaviour

Moulting behaviour

Resting behaviour

Disturbance


Ecology

51

Table 8. Significance of impacts on marine qualifying interests of SACs

RDP Measure

Tid

al m

ud

flats

Larg

e s

hallo

w in

lets

an

d

bays

Reefs

Sea c

aves

Halich

oeru

s g

ryp

us

Ph

oca

vit

ulin

a


GLAS Scheme




ANC Scheme


TAMS II Scheme



LEADER

LEADER

Table 9. Significance of impacts on marine qualifying interests of SPAs

RDP

Measure

Arc

tic

Tern

Bla

ck-h

ead

ed

Gu

ll

Co

mm

on

Gu

ll

Co

mm

on

Tern

Co

rmo

ran

t

Eid

er

Fu

lmar

Gan

net

Gre

at

No

rth

ern

Div

er

Gu

ille

mo

t

Herr

ing

Gu

ll

Kit

tiw

ake

Leach

's P

etr

el

Less

er

Bla

ck-b

ack

ed

Gu

ll

Lit

tle T

ern

Man

x Sh

earw

ate

r

Pu

ffin

Razo

rbill

Ro

seate

Tern

San

dw

ich

Tern

Sh

ag

Sto

rm P

etr

el


GLAS Scheme

Organic

Farming

Scheme

Locally Led

Agri-

Environment

Schemes


ANC Scheme


Ecology

52

RDP

Measure

Arc

tic

Tern

Bla

ck-h

ead

ed

Gu

ll

Co

mm

on

Gu

ll

Co

mm

on

Tern

Co

rmo

ran

t

Eid

er

Fu

lmar

Gan

net

Gre

at

No

rth

ern

Div

er

Gu

ille

mo

t

Herr

ing

Gu

ll

Kit

tiw

ake

Leach

's P

etr

el

Less

er

Bla

ck-b

ack

ed

Gu

ll

Lit

tle T

ern

Man

x Sh

earw

ate

r

Pu

ffin

Razo

rbill

Ro

seate

Tern

San

dw

ich

Tern

Sh

ag

Sto

rm P

etr

el


TAMS II

Scheme


Support for

Collaborative

Farming

LEADER

LEADER

Grazing impacts of AESs are restricted to terrestrial habitats and species and will not affect

marine qualifying interests.

Measures with the potential to impact on water quality through nutrient loading as a result of

intensification can also significantly impact on tidal mudflats, large shallow inlets and bays,

reefs and sea caves (O'Boyle et al., 2010). The potential for nitrogen pollution impacting on

benthic community distribution or structure of these habitats cannot be ruled out. Pollution

that may affect invertebrate or fish prey abundance has the potential to impact on population

densities or productivity rates of seabirds. The ANC Scheme and AESs are excluded, as water

quality impacts that may result from that measure arise from siltation caused by overgrazing,

which is not a factor in marine environments.

Building or tourism developments have the potential to significantly impact on any of the

habitats or species in Table 8. Increased access near grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) or harbour

seal (Phoca vitulina) haul-out points (National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2011a) or near

seabird breeding colonies (BirdWatch Ireland, 2011c) could cause significant disturbance.

Qualifying interests in Northern Ireland marine sites near the border may be subject to similar

impacts.

6.2.2 Coastal Qualifying Interests

Detailed conservation objective attributes for coastal habitats and species of SACs are in Table

10. Conservation attributes for birds (SPAs) are population trend and distribution. Detailed

attributes are not available for halophilous scrub, decalcified Empetrum dunes, decalcified

dune heath or machair.


Ecology

53

The assessment of impact significance is summarised in Table 11 and Table 12. Note that birds

of coastal grassland habitats are considered in Section 6.2.4 below.

Table 10. Attributes of conservation objectives for coastal qualifying interests of

SACs


1130 Estuaries

Habitat area


Community extent

1150 Lagoons

Habitat area


Salinity regime

Hydrological regime

Connectivity between lagoon and sea

Water quality

Depth of macrophyte colonisation

Typical plant species

Typical animal species

Negative indicator species

1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines

Habitat area


Physical structure

Vegetation structure

Vegetation composition

1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks

Habitat area


Physical structure



1230 Sea cliffs

Habitat length


Physical structure



1310 Salicornia mud

Habitat area


Physical structure



1330 Atlantic salt meadows

Habitat area


Physical structure



1410 Mediterranean salt meadows

Habitat area


Physical structure




Ecology

54


2110 Embryonic shifting dunes

Habitat area


Physical structure



2120 Marram dunes (white dunes)

Habitat area


Physical structure



2130 Fixed dunes (grey dunes)

Habitat area


Physical structure



2170 Dunes with creeping willow

Habitat area


Physical structure



2190 Dune slack

Habitat area


Physical structure



1103 Alosa fallax

Distribution

Population structure

Water quality

Spawning habitat quality

1395 Petalophyllum ralfsii

Distribution

Population size

Area occupied by habitat

1014 Vertigo angustior

Distribution

Frequency

Abundance

Habitat quality

Optimal wetness

Habitat area


Ecology

55

Table 11. Significance of impacts on coastal qualifying interests of SPAs

RDP Measure

Bar-

tailed

Go

dw

it

Gre

en

shan

k

Gre

y P

lover

Kn

ot

Oyst

erc

atc

her

Pu

rple

San

dp

iper

Red

-bre

ast

ed

Merg

an

ser

Rin

ged

Plo

ver

San

derl

ing

Sh

eld

uck

Tu

rnst

on

e


GLAS Scheme




ANC Scheme


TAMS II Scheme



LEADER

LEADER

Most terrestrial habitats are susceptible to overgrazing as a result of inappropriate GLAS

management prescriptions or intensification. These measures have the potential for significant

impacts on vegetation structure and composition and physical structure (e.g. poaching).

Habitats that are seldom grazed and for which overgrazing is not a significant threat include

annual vegetation of drift lines, perennial vegetation of stony banks, sea cliffs and embryonic

shifting dunes (McCorry and Ryle, 2009, National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013b).

Overgrazing in salt marsh habitats may impact on food resources for coastal birds and thus

their population trends.

The vegetation structure and composition of saltmarsh habitats and marram dunes are not

sensitive to undergrazing or abandonment (McCorry and Ryle, 2009, National Parks and

Wildlife Service, 2013b), and would thus not be impacted by such changes arising from the

Organic Farming Scheme. Most dune habitats, however, would experience impacts on

vegetation structure and composition, and perhaps eventually reductions in habitat area and

distribution.

Over/undergrazing or abandonment would also reduce the habitat quality and availability for

petalwort (Petalophyllum ralfsii) and narrow-mouthed whorl snail (Vertigo angustior)

(Moorkens, 2006, Lockhart et al., 2012, National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013c).


Ecology

56

Most terrestrial habitats and narrow-mouthed whorl snail (Vertigo angustior) could be

significantly impacted by fragmentation and loss of connectivity in the wider landscape. This

factor could alter vegetation and physical structure by reducing the permeability of the

landscape for characteristic flora and fauna moving to and from Natura 2000 sites. This factor

would not impact on habitats not amenable to agricultural improvement, including annual

vegetation of drift lines, perennial vegetation of stony banks, sea cliffs, salt marshes and

embryonic shifting dunes.

RDP 2014-2020 AA Blackthorn Ecology

57

Table 12. Significance of impacts on coastal qualifying interests of SACs

RDP Measure

Est

uari

es

Lag

oo

ns

An

nu

al veg

eta

tio

n o

f d

rift

lin

es

Pere

nn

ial veg

eta

tio

n o

f

sto

ny b

an

ks

Sea c

liff

s

Salico

rnia

mu

d

Atl

an

tic

salt

mead

ow

s

Med

iterr

an

ean

salt

mead

ow

s H

alo

ph

ilo

us

scru

b

Em

bry

on

ic s

hif

tin

g d

un

es

Marr

am

du

nes

(wh

ite

du

nes)

Fix

ed

du

nes

(gre

y d

un

es)

Deca

lcif

ied

Em

petr

um

du

nes

Deca

lcif

ied

du

ne h

eath

Du

nes

wit

h c

reep

ing

willo

w

Du

ne s

lack

Mach

air

Alo

sa f

allax

Peta

loph

yllu

m r

alf

sii

Vert

igo a

ngu

stio

r

Agri-Environment and Climate

Measures

GLAS Scheme




ANC Scheme


TAMS II Scheme



LEADER

LEADER


Ecology

58

Measures with the potential to reduce water quality through nutrient loading as a result of

intensification can significantly impact on estuaries, lagoons and salt marsh habitats (McCorry

and Ryle, 2009, National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013b). Excessive nutrients can negatively

impact on the attributes benthic and emergent community distribution and extent for

estuaries; water quality, macrophyte colonisation and species composition of lagoons; and

vegetation structure and composition of salt marsh habitats. Conversely, organic pollution

can lead to increased food supplies for coastal birds rather than negative impacts (BirdWatch

Ireland, 2011e). GLAS and the ANC Scheme would not be sources of significant nutrient

pollution impacts, as water quality impacts that may result from those measures arise from

siltation caused by overgrazing. As estuaries, lagoons and salt marsh habitats are naturally

silty habitats, the contributions of these measures would not be significant.

Discouraging afforestation would not constitute a negative impact, as none of the habitats in

this group would significantly benefit from increased woodland cover in the landscape.

Building or tourism developments have the potential to significantly impact on any of the

habitats or species in Table 12. Disturbances associated with the use of buildings or tourism

developments may impact significantly on coastal birds, affecting distribution or breeding

success (population trends) (BirdWatch Ireland, 2011e).

6.2.3 Freshwater Qualifying Interests

Detailed conservation objective attributes for freshwater habitats and species of SACs are in

Table 13. Conservation attributes for birds (SPAs) are population trend and distribution. No

detailed attributes have been specified for Geyer’s whorl snail (Vertigo geyeri), slender naiad

(Najas flexilis), Chenopodium rubri vegetation or any permanent lake habitats. The assessment

of impact significance is summarised in Table 14 and Table 15.

Table 13. Attributes of conservation objectives for freshwater qualifying interests of

SACs


3180 Turloughs

Habitat area


Hydrological regime

Soil type

Soil nutrient status

Physical structure

Chemical processes

Water quality

Active peat formation



Typical species

Fringing habitats


Ecology

59


3260 Floating river vegetation


Habitat area

Hydrological regime

Substratum composition

Water chemistry

Water quality


Floodplain connectivity

6430 Hydrophilous tall herb


Habitat area

Hydrological regime



7220 Petrifying springs

Habitat area


Hydrological regime

Water quality


1016 Vertigo moulinsiana

Distribution

Population size

Population density

Area of occupancy

Habitat quality

1029 Margaritifera margaritifera

Distribution

Population size


Habitat extent

Water quality

Substratum quality

Hydrological regime

Host fish

1092 Austropotamobius pallipes

Distribution


Negative indicator species

Disease

Water quality

Habitat quality

1095 Petromyzon marinus

Distribution


Juvenile density

Spawning habitat extent and distribution

Juvenile habitat availability

1096 Lampetra planeri

Distribution


Juvenile density



1099 Lampetra fluviatilis

Distribution


Juvenile density


Ecology

60




1106 Salmo salar

Distribution

Adult spawning fish

Salmon fry abundance

Out-migrating smolt abundance

Number and distribution of redds

Water quality

1355 Lutra lutra

Distribution

Extent of terrestrial habitat

Extent of marine habitat

Extent of freshwater (river) habitat

Extent of freshwater (lake) habitat

Couching sites and holts

Fish biomass available

1990 Margaritifera durrovensis

Distribution

Population size


Habitat extent

Water quality

Substratum quality

Hydrological regime

Host fish


Ecology

61

Table 14. Significance of impacts on freshwater qualifying interests of SPAs

RDP Measure

Co

mm

on

Sco

ter

Co

ot

Gad

wall

Go

lden

eye

Gre

at

Cre

sted

Gre

be

Gre

y H

ero

n

Kin

gfi

sher

Lit

tle G

reb

e

Mallard

Pin

tail

Po

chard

Sca

up

Sh

ovele

r

Teal

Tu

fted

Du

ck

Wig

eo

n


GLAS Scheme

Organic Farming

Scheme

Locally Led Agri-

Environment Schemes


ANC Scheme


TAMS II Scheme


Support for

Collaborative Farming

LEADER

LEADER

All freshwater habitats and species are susceptible to water pollution impacts arising from

overgrazing and siltation or from excess nutrient runoff (BirdWatch Ireland, 2011a, d, National

Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013b, c). For petrifying springs, water quality of groundwater

would be expected to be a more important attribute than surface water quality. Freshwater

qualifying interests in Northern Ireland Natura 2000 sites in downstream catchments may be

subject to similar impacts.

Turloughs are susceptible to over/undergrazing or abandonment due to potential significant

impacts on soil nutrient status, vegetation structure and composition, physical structure (e.g.

poaching), and potentially negative impacts on fringing habitats (Sheehy Skeffington et al.,

2006, Sharkey, 2012, National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013b). Geyer’s whorl snail (Vertigo

geyeri) and petrifying springs are similarly vulnerable to changes in grazing levels (Moorkens,

2006, National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013b, c).

Turloughs and hydrophilous tall herb swamps could also be significantly impacted by habitat

fragmentation and loss of connectivity in the wider landscape. This factor could alter

vegetation composition and structure by reducing the permeability of the landscape for


Ecology

62

characteristic flora and fauna moving to and from Natura 2000 sites. Fragmentation and

landscape-scale habitat loss has the potential to impact on the extent of terrestrial habitat and

the couching sites and holts available to otter (Lutra lutra) (Bailey and Rochford, 2006, Lundy

and Montgomery, 2010). Otter habitat may also be negatively affected by schemes that

compete with afforestation projects, especially riparian woodland establishment under the

Native Woodland Scheme (National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2009).

Building developments, including tourism infrastructure, have the potential to significantly

impact on any of the habitats or species in Table 14 or Table 15. This includes impacts from

improved access to waterbird breeding or resting sites (BirdWatch Ireland, 2011a, d).

Freshwater habitats and species are also frequent subjects for conservation projects (e.g. river

restoration work) and could be susceptible to inappropriate conservation measures.

RDP 2014-2020 AA Blackthorn Ecology

63

Table 15. Significance of impacts on freshwater qualifying interests of SACs

RDP Measure

Lo

wla

nd

olig

otr

op

hic

lakes

Up

lan

d o

lig

otr

op

hic

lakes

Hard

wate

r la

kes

Natu

ral eu

tro

ph

ic lakes

Dyst

rop

hic

lakes

Tu

rlo

ug

hs

Flo

ati

ng

riv

er

veg

eta

tio

n

Ch

en

op

od

ium

ru

bri

Hyd

rop

hilo

us

tall h

erb

Petr

ifyin

g s

pri

ng

s

Vert

igo g

eyeri

Vert

igo m

ou

lin

sian

a

Marg

ari

tife

ra m

arg

ari

tife

ra

Au

stro

pota

mobiu

s p

allip

es

Petr

om

yzo

n m

ari

nu

s

Lam

petr

a p

lan

eri

Lam

petr

a f

luvia

tilis

Salm

o s

ala

r

Lutr

a lu

tra

Naja

s fl

exi

lis

Marg

ari

tife

ra d

urr

oven

sis

Agri-Environment and Climate

Measures

GLAS Scheme




ANC Scheme


TAMS II Scheme

Collaborative and Quality Focused

Measures


LEADER

LEADER


Ecology

64

6.2.4 Grassland and Heath Qualifying Interests

Detailed conservation objective attributes for grassland and heath habitats and species of

SACs are in Table 16. Conservation attributes for birds (SPAs) are population trend and

distribution. Detailed attributes are not available for wet heath, alpine and subalpine heath,

species-rich Nardus grassland, lowland hay meadows, limestone pavement or marsh fritillary

(Euphydryas aurinia). The assessment of impact significance is summarised in Table 17 and

Table 18.

Table 16. Attributes of conservation objectives for grassland and heath qualifying

interests of SACs


4030 Dry heaths


Habitat area

Physical structure



5130 Juniper scrub

Habitat area


Juniper population size

Formation structure


6130 Calaminarian grassland

Habitat area

Distribution

Physical structure

Soil toxicity



6210 Orchid-rich calcareous grassland

Habitat area




Physical structure

6410 Molinia meadows

Habitat area




Physical structure


Ecology

65

Table 17. Significance of impacts on grassland and heath qualifying interests of SACs

RDP Measure

Wet

heath

Dry

heath

s

Alp

ine a

nd

su

balp

ine h

eath

Jun

iper

scru

b

Cala

min

ari

an

gra

ssla

nd

Orc

hid

-ric

h c

alc

are

ou

s

gra

ssla

nd

Sp

eci

es-

rich

Na

rdu

s u

pla

nd

gra

ssla

nd

M

olin

ia m

ead

ow

s

Lo

wla

nd

hay m

ead

ow

s

Lim

est

on

e p

avem

en

t

Eu

ph

yd

ryas

au

rin

ia


GLAS Scheme




ANC Scheme


TAMS II Scheme



LEADER

LEADER

Table 18. Significance of impacts on grassland and heath qualifying interests of SPAs

RDP Measure

Barn

acl

e G

oo

se

Bew

ick's

Sw

an

Bla

ck-t

ailed

Go

dw

it

Ch

ou

gh

Co

rncr

ake

Cu

rlew

Gre

en

lan

d W

hit

e-f

ron

ted

go

ose

G

reyla

g G

oo

se

Lap

win

g

Lig

ht-

bellie

d B

ren

t G

oo

se

Red

shan

k

Wh

oo

per

Sw

an


GLAS Scheme



Schemes


ANC Scheme

On Farm Capital

Investments

TAMS II Scheme


Ecology

66

RDP Measure

Barn

acl

e G

oo

se

Bew

ick's

Sw

an

Bla

ck-t

ailed

Go

dw

it

Ch

ou

gh

Co

rncr

ake

Cu

rlew

Gre

en

lan

d W

hit

e-f

ron

ted

go

ose

G

reyla

g G

oo

se

Lap

win

g

Lig

ht-

bellie

d B

ren

t G

oo

se

Red

shan

k

Wh

oo

per

Sw

an



Farming

LEADER

LEADER

All habitats are susceptible to over/undergrazing or abandonment due to potential significant

impacts on vegetation structure and composition and physical structure (e.g. poaching)

(O'Neill et al., 2013). Abandonment may lead to reductions in habitat area and distribution

within Natura 2000 sites. Population trends of bird species dependent on grassland habitats

would also be negatively impacted by changes to their habitats (BirdWatch Ireland, 2011b).

Almost all habitats could be significantly impacted by fragmentation and loss of connectivity

in the wider landscape. This factor could alter vegetation and physical structure by changing

connectivity for characteristic flora and fauna, including birds (BirdWatch Ireland, 2011b),

moving to and from Natura 2000 sites. Calaminarian grasslands would not be vulnerable to

landscape fragmentation, as these habitats are restricted to small, frequently isolated sites (old

mine spoils), and their characteristic species are easily dispersed bryophytes.

Marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia) is particularly vulnerable to loss of habitat connectivity

outside Natura 2000 sites (National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013c), due to its

metapopulation structure. Metapopulations occupy a subset of suitable habitats within a

landscape in a shifting pattern, colonising suitable habitats and disappearing from others.

Marsh fritillary is also susceptible to changes in grazing patterns that might impact on

vegetation structure.

Waterbirds listed in Table 18 would be susceptible to water pollution impacts arising from

overgrazing and siltation or from excess nutrient runoff (BirdWatch Ireland, 2011a, d).



Building developments or disturbance from improved access for tourism have the potential to

significantly impact on any of the habitats or species in Table 17 or Table 18.


Ecology

67

6.2.5 Peatland and Upland Qualifying Interests

Detailed conservation objective attributes are not available for most peatland and upland

habitats and species. Conservation attributes for birds (SPAs) are population trend and

distribution. Detailed attributes are available for Cladium fens and alkaline fens in Table 19.

The assessment of impact significance is summarised in Table 20 and Table 21.

Table 19. Attributes of conservation objectives for peatland and upland qualifying

interests for SACs


7210 Cladium fen

Habitat area


Hydrological regime

Peat formation

Water quality


Physical structure

7230 Alkaline fens

Habitat area


Hydrological regime

Peat formation

Water quality


Physical structure


Ecology

68

Table 20. Significance of impacts on peatland and upland qualifying interests for SACs

RDP Measure

Rais

ed

bo

g

Deg

rad

ed

rais

ed

bo

gs

Bla

nket

bo

g

Tra

nsi

tio

n m

ires

Rh

yn

cho

spo

rio

n

dep

ress

ion

s C

ladiu

m f

en

Alk

alin

e f

en

s

Silic

eo

us

scre

e

Calc

are

ou

s sc

ree

Calc

are

ou

s ro

cky s

lop

es

Silic

eo

us

rock

y s

lop

es

Dre

pan

ocl

adu

s

vern

icosu

s Saxi

fraga h

ircu

lus


GLAS Scheme



Schemes

Areas of Natural

Constraint

ANC Scheme


TAMS II Scheme



Farming

LEADER

LEADER


Ecology

69

Table 21. Significance of impacts on peatland and upland qualifying interests for SPAs

RDP Measure

Du

nlin

Go

lden

Plo

ver

Hen

Harr

ier

Merl

in

Pere

gri

ne

Red

-th

roate

d D

iver


GLAS Scheme




ANC Scheme


TAMS II Scheme



LEADER

LEADER

Most peatland and upland habitats are susceptible to overgrazing due to potential significant

impacts on vegetation structure and composition and physical structure (e.g. poaching) (Perrin

et al., 2009, National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013b). Some habitats may also be sensitive

to undergrazing or abandonment, although for many their agricultural importance is limited.

Raised bogs and degraded raised bogs are seldom grazed by livestock to any extent. Siliceous

rocky slopes are defined as vertical or near vertical habitats, and as such are nearly inaccessible

to most grazing animals (National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013b). Grazing is a more

important factor for calcareous rocky slopes (National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013b).

Shining sickle-moss (Drepanocladus vernicosus) and marsh saxifrage (Saxifraga hirculus) are

also sensitive to changes in grazing intensity (Lockhart et al., 2012, National Parks and Wildlife

Service, 2013c, C. Muldoon, pers. comm.). Over/undergrazing or abandonment of uplands

leading to vegetation change has the potential to impact on the nesting or foraging habitat

of upland birds (BirdWatch Ireland, 2011f).

Peatlands with strong dependence on groundwater are susceptible to water pollution impacts

arising from overgrazing and siltation or from excess nutrient runoff. These habitats are

transition mire, Cladium fen and alkaline fen (Kilroy et al., 2008, National Parks and Wildlife

Service, 2013b). Shining sickle-moss (Drepanocladus vernicosus) is also vulnerable to


Ecology

70

groundwater eutrophication (Lockhart et al., 2012). Red-throated Diver would be susceptible

to water quality impacts on upland breeding lakes.

Fragmentation impacts on Natura 2000 sites resulting from agricultural intensification or

improvement of habitats in the wider landscape would not apply to most peatland or upland

habitats, as they are generally not amenable to intensification. Exceptions are the fen habitats,

alkaline fens, Cladium fens and transition mires, which are vulnerable to drainage and

agricultural reclamation (National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2013b).



Building or tourism developments or inappropriate conservation measures under the LEADER

project have the potential to significantly impact on any of the habitats or species in Table 20

or Table 21.

6.2.6 Woodland Qualifying Interests

Detailed conservation objective attributes for woodland habitats and species are in Table 22.

Detailed attributes are not available for caves, bog woodland or yew woods. (Caves are

included in the woodland group as their major conservation interest in Ireland is lesser

horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros), which mainly forages in woodland.) The assessment

of impact significance is summarised in Table 23.

Table 22. Attributes of conservation objectives for woodland qualifying interests


91A0 Old oak woodlands

Habitat area


Woodland size

Woodland structure


91E0 Residual alluvial forests

Habitat area


Woodland size

Woodland structure

Hydrological regime


1303 Rhinolophus hipposideros

Population per roost

Winter roosts

Summer roosts

Number of auxillary roosts

Extent of potential foraging habitat

Linear features

Light pollution

1421 Trichomanes speciosum

Distribution

Population size


Habitat extent


Ecology

71


Hydrological conditions

Light levels

Invasive species

Table 23. Significance of impacts on woodland qualifying interests

RDP Measure

Caves

Old

oak w

oo

dla

nd

s

Bo

g w

oo

dla

nd

Resi

du

al allu

via

l fo

rest

s

Yew

wo

od

s

Rh

inolo

ph

us

hip

posi

dero

s

Tri

chom

an

es

speci

osu

m


GLAS Scheme




ANC Scheme


TAMS II Scheme



LEADER

LEADER

Woodland habitats are susceptible to overgrazing or undergrazing due to potential significant

impacts on woodland structure, particularly tree regeneration, and vegetation composition

(Perrin et al., 2008).

No woodland habitats would be significantly impacted by fragmentation and loss of

connectivity arising from agricultural intensification. Clearance of mature woodland is not a

predicted impact of intensification under any RDP measure. Similarly, the woodland species

lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros) and Killarney fern (Trichomanes speciosum)

would not be affected.

Alluvial forests are not especially susceptible to water pollution, as they are naturally silt- and

nutrient-rich habitats (O'Neill and Barron, 2013). Bog woodlands have little or no surface or

groundwater connectivity.


Ecology

72

Schemes that compete with afforestation, especially the Native Woodland Scheme, have the

potential to maintain landscape-scale woodland fragmentation, reducing connectivity and

refugia for woodland species. Over the very long term, reduced connectivity may impact on

the extent of potential foraging habitat for lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros).

Such effects, however, would be slight and not significant over the span of the 2014-2020 RDP.

Building developments under TAMS II have limited potential for impacts on woodland

habitats. The scope of building and tourism developments under LEADER is wider, and has

the potential to significantly impact on any of the habitats or species in Table 23.

6.3 Mitigation

Mitigation measures for predicted impacts of the RDP 2014-2020, summarised in Table 6, are

specified in Table 24. These measures operate in addition to cross compliance requirements

and in-combination effects contained within the RDP, such as provision of CPD to agricultural

advisors.

Table 24. Mitigation measures for predicted impacts

Impacts Mitigation Measures

Building developments directly or indirectly impacting

Natura 2000 sites

Appropriate Assessment of individual

projects

Conversion/reclamation of habitats outside Natura

2000 sites leading to landscape fragmentation

Appropriate Assessment of reclamation

projects

Discourage afforestation CPD for agricultural advisors in forestry

schemes

Improved access to Natura 2000 sites leading to

disturbance to sensitive species


projects

Inappropriate conservation measures


projects

Consultations with key stakeholders

during GLAS measure development

Inappropriate GLAS management prescriptions

leading to over/undergrazing, abandonment of

habitats or unsuitable conservation measures

Consultations with key stakeholders

during GLAS measure development

Monitoring

Intensification outside Natura 2000 sites leading to

landscape fragmentation and/or reductions in water

quality

Appropriate Assessment of reclamation

projects

Monitoring

Minimum stocking rates leading to overgrazing in

sensitive habitats and water quality impacts Monitoring

6.3.1 Building Developments

Most building developments under LEADER and under the TAMS II scheme will be subject to

planning permission and therefore AA screening under the Planning and Development Acts


Ecology

73

2000 to 2010. This process will ensure that significant impacts do not arise for these

developments.

6.3.2 Conversion of Habitats Outside Natura 2000

Converting semi-natural habitats for organic production, where this may significantly impact

on Natura 2000 sites, would be subject to AA screening and possibly full AA under the

European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Agriculture) Regulations 2011

(S.I. No. 456 of 2011). This regulation applies whether the land in question is within a Natura

2000 site or not, as long as there is the risk of a significant impact on the site. Conversion

works included in the regulation include improving semi-natural habitats, hedgerow clearance

and land drainage. Therefore, there is no significant risk of impacts arising from conversion of

semi-natural habitats to organic farming or similar activities.

6.3.3 Discourage Afforestation

The design of the specific content of the CPD for ag advisors is currently being finalised. This

process will take cognisance of the potential to include a familiarisation of forestry schemes in

tandem with ongoing developments in relation to training in the forestry sector. In this regard,

issues in relation to awareness of opportunities for sustainable forestry among advisors and

their clients, appropriate sites and landscapes for afforestation, and the most suitable schemes,

including the Native Woodland Scheme, in or near Natura 2000 sites will be considered. When

this mitigation is implemented, the impacts of scheme competition on wooded Natura 2000

sites will be non-significant.

6.3.4 Disturbance from Improved Access

Tourism developments within Natura 2000 sites, such as walking or cycling routes, will be

subject to planning permission and therefore AA screening under the Planning and

Development Acts 2000 to 2010. This process will ensure that significant impacts do not arise

for these developments.

6.3.5 Inappropriate Conservation Measures

Conservation measures in or near Natura 2000 sites that are to be undertaken as part of a

LEADER project will be subject to planning permission or approval from NPWS as a Notifiable

Action and possibly approval from Inland Fisheries Ireland in the case of riparian projects.

Where the works are not directly related to managing Natura 2000 sites, screening for AA may

be required. When the appropriate consultations and any AA screening that may be required

are carried out, significant impacts will not arise from this source.

GLAS and GLAS+ measures will be designed following a review of management prescriptions

under REPS and AEOS. Detailed measure design will be done in consultation with key

stakeholders, including NPWS, to ensure that no conservation works prescribed or supported

under GLAS and GLAS+ will result in significant impacts to Natura 2000 sites.


Ecology

74

6.3.6 Inappropriate GLAS Prescriptions

As stated above, GLAS and GLAS+ measures will be designed following a review of

management prescriptions under REPS and AEOS and also DAHG Farm Plans. The review and

design process will assess the suitability of management prescriptions for Natura 2000 site

habitats and species. Detailed measure design will also be done by DAFM in consultation with

key stakeholders, including NPWS. This approach will ensure that there will be no significant

impacts to Natura 2000 sites from management practices prescribed or supported under GLAS

and GLAS+.

Monitoring and evaluation systems are being put in place for the whole RDP, including an RDP

Evaluation Plan. In addition, a robust system of administrative and on the spot checks will be

established. When robust monitoring protocols are in place, this will ensure that any negative

impacts from the scheme will be detected and remedied before they result in significant

impacts on Natura 2000 sites.

6.3.7 Intensification Outside Natura 2000 Sites

As noted above, certain agricultural intensification work, including improving semi-natural

habitats, hedgerow clearance and land drainage, would be subject to AA screening and

possibly full AA under the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment)

(Agriculture) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 456 of 2011). This regulation applies whether the land

in question is within a Natura 2000 site or not, as long as there is the risk of a significant impact

on the site. With respect to nutrient inputs and water quality, the Nitrates Regulations specify

maximum allowable inputs, buffer strips and additional safeguards. Together, these statutory

requirements will greatly reduce the risk posed by intensification of agricultural activities

outside Natura 2000 sites.

EPA water quality monitoring under the Water Framework Directive and Natura 2000 site

monitoring undertaken by NPWS will add further safeguards. Water monitoring data will

highlight rivers where water quality is being negatively affected, despite the Nitrates

Regulations. Regular Natura 2000 site monitoring by NPWS local conservation staff will also

identify any sites being affected by intensification. Monitoring will allow detection of negative

impacts from the scheme before thy result in significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites.

Statutory requirements and monitoring will ensure that there will be no significant impacts on

Natura 2000 sites arising from this factor.

6.3.8 Minimum Stocking Rates

Minimum stocking rates and durations for when the land is stocked required under the ANC

scheme may be too high for some sensitive habitats or species. Prescriptions under

Commonage Framework Plans or AESs will supersede ANC requirements. There remains a risk,

however, that outside these schemes, sensitive habitats or species within Natura 2000 sites

could experience significant impacts. The degree of risk is unclear.. DAFM cross compliance


Ecology

75

inspections will detect farms where overgrazing and poaching leads to non-compliance under

GAEC. This evaluation system will clarify if the risk is significant. Regular monitoring of Natura

2000 sites by NPWS local conservation staff will also raise issues before they become

significant. When these monitoring systems are operating, there will be no risk of significant

impacts on Natura 2000 sites from ANC scheme minimum stocking rates.


Ecology

76

7 CONCLUSION STATEMENT

The AA of the RDP 2014-2020 has identified a number of elements within the plan that could

result in potentially significant negative impacts on the qualifying interests of Natura 2000

sites in the absence of mitigation. Several measures for mitigating potential negative impacts

have been specified. When these mitigation measures are in place, the risk of impacts will be

not significant.

The RDP 2014-2020 as adopted will not have any significant impacts on the integrity of any

Natura 2000 sites.


Ecology

77

8 REFERENCES

Bailey, M. & Rochford, J. (2006) Otter Survey of Ireland 2004/2005. Irish Wildlife Manuals No.

23. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Dublin.

Balmer, D. E., Gillings, S., Caffrey, B. J., Swann, R. L., Downie, I. S. & Fuller, R. J. (2013) Bird Atlas

2007-2011: the Breeding and Wintering Birds of Britain and Ireland. BTO Books,

Thetford.

Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J. & Weibull, A.-C. (2005) The effects of organic agriculture on

biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 261-269.

BirdWatch Ireland (2011a) Action Plan for Lake, Fen and Turlough Birds in Ireland 2011-2020.

BirdWatch Ireland’s Group Action Plans for Irish Birds. BirdWatch Ireland, Kilcoole.

BirdWatch Ireland (2011b) Action Plan for Lowland Farmland Birds in Ireland 2011-2020.

BirdWatch Ireland's Group Action Plans for Irish Birds. BirdWatch Ireland, Kilcoole.

BirdWatch Ireland (2011c) Action Plan for Marine & Sea Cliff Birds in Ireland 2011-2020.


BirdWatch Ireland (2011d) Action Plan for Riparian Birds in Ireland 2011-2020. BirdWatch

Ireland’s Group Action Plans for Irish Birds. BirdWatch Ireland, Kilcoole.

BirdWatch Ireland (2011e) Action Plan for Shore & Lagoon Birds in Ireland 2011-2020.


BirdWatch Ireland (2011f) Action Plan for Upland Birds in Ireland 2011-2020. BirdWatch

Ireland’s Group Action Plans for Irish Birds. BirdWatch Ireland, Kilcoole.

Byrne, A., Moorkens, E. A., Anderson, R., Killeen, I. J. & Regan, E. C. (2009) Ireland Red List No.

2: Non-Marine Molluscs. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Dublin.

Caslin, B., Finnan, J. & Easson, L. (eds.) (2010a) Miscanthus Best Practice Guidelines. Teagasc and

Agri-Food and Bioscience Institute, Johnstown Castle and Belfast.

Caslin, B., Finnan, J. & McCracken, A. (eds.) (2010b) Short Rotation Coppice Willow Best Practice

Guidelines. Teagasc and Agri-Food and Bioscience Institute, Johnstown Castle and

Belfast.

Dauber, J., Jones, M. B. & Stout, J. C. (2010) The impact of biomass crop cultivation on

temperate biodiversity. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 2, 289-309.

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (2009a) Appropriate

Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland: Guidance for Planning Authorities. DEHLG,

Dublin.

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (2009b) Conservation Plan

for Cetaceans in Irish Waters. DEHLG, Dublin.

DG Environment (2011) Reference List: Threats, Pressures and Activities. Eionet.

http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Natura_2000/Folder_Reference_Portal/R

ef_threats_pressures_FINAL_20110330.xls.

European Commission (2000) Managing Natura 2000 Sites: the Provisions of Article 6 of the

‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC. European Communities, Luxembourg.

European Commission (2002) Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura

2000 Sites: Methodological Guidance on the Provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the

Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. European Communities, Luxembourg.

http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Natura_2000/Folder_Reference_Portal/Ref_threats_pressures_FINAL_20110330.xls

http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Natura_2000/Folder_Reference_Portal/Ref_threats_pressures_FINAL_20110330.xls


Ecology

78

European Commission (2013) Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats. EUR 28. DG

Environment.

Farrelly, P., Crosse, S., O'Donoghue, P., Whyte, S., Farrelly, P. B., Burns, T., Byrne, D., Holmes, O.,

Macklin, R., McKearney, J. J. & Salley, F. (2014) Food Harvest 2020 Environmental

Analysis Report. Report prepared for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the

Marine.

Finn, J. A. & Ó hUallacháin, D. (2012) A review of evidence on the environmental impact of

Ireland's Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS). Biology and Environment, 112B,

1-24.

Gabbett, M. & Finn, J. (2005) The Farmland Wildlife Survey: raising awareness of wildlife

habitats. End of Project Report RMIS 5190. Teagasc, Johnstown Castle.

Hole, D. G., Perkins, A. J., Wilson, J. D., Alexander, I. H., Grice, P. V. & Evans, A. D. (2005) Does

organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biological Conservation, 122, 113-130.

Kilroy, G., Dunne, F., Ryan, J., O'Connor, Á., Daly, D., Craig, M., Coxon, C., Johnston, P. & Moe,

H. (2008) A Framework for the Assessment of Groundwater-Dependent Terrestrial

Ecosystems Under the Water Framework Directive. Environmental Research Centre

Report Series No. 12. EPA, Johnstown Castle.

Lockhart, N., Hodgetts, N. & Holyoak, D. (2012) Rare and Threatened Bryophytes of Ireland.

National Museums Northern Ireland, Holywood.

Lundy, M. G. & Montgomery, W. I. (2010) A multi-scale analysis of the habitat associations of

European otter and American mink and the implications for farm scale conservation

schemes. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 3849-3859.

McCorry, M. & Ryle, T. (2009) Saltmarsh Monitoring Project 2007-2008. Volume 3. Report

prepared for NPWS.

Moorkens, E. A. (1999) Conservation management of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera

margaritifera. Part 1: Biology of the species and its present situation in Ireland. Irish

Wildlife Manuals No. 8. Dúchas, Dublin.

Moorkens, E. A. (2000) Conservation management of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera

margaritifera. Part 2: Water quality Requirements. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 9. Dúchas,

Dublin.

Moorkens, E. A. (2006) Irish non-marine molluscs - an evaluation of species threat status.

Bulletin of the Irish Biogeographical Society, 30, 348-371.

National Parks and Wildlife Service (2009) Threat Response Plan: Otter (2009-2011). NPWS,

Dublin.

National Parks and Wildlife Service (2011a) Harbour seal pilot monitoring project, 2010.

Unpublished report. NPWS, Dublin.

National Parks and Wildlife Service (2011b) Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) datasheets.

NPWS, Dublin.

http://www.npws.ie/media/npwsie/content/files/SAC_datasheets_Sept_11.xls. Last

updated September 2011. Accessed 11/12/2013.

National Parks and Wildlife Service (2013a) SPA List of SCIs. SPA_list_of_SCIs_Dec_2013.xls.

NPWS, Dublin. Last updated 19/12/2013.

http://www.npws.ie/media/npwsie/content/files/SAC_datasheets_Sept_11.xls


Ecology

79

National Parks and Wildlife Service (2013b) The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species

in Ireland. Habitats Assessments Volume 2, Version 1.0. Unpublished Report. NPWS,

Dublin.

National Parks and Wildlife Service (2013c) The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in

Ireland. Species Assessments Volume 3, Version 1.0. Unpublished Report. NPWS,

Dublin.

O'Boyle, S., Wilkes, R., McDermott, G. & Noklegaard, T. (2010) Quality of estuarine and coastal

waters. Water Quality in Ireland 2007-2009 (eds. M. McGarrigle, J. Lucey & M. Ó.

Cinnéide). EPA, Johnstown Castle, Wexford.

O'Neill, F. H. & Barron, S. J. (2013) Results of Monitoring Survey of Old Sessile Oak Woods and

Alluvial Forests. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 71. NPWS, Dublin.

O'Neill, F. H., Martin, J. R., Devaney, F. M. & Perrin, P. M. (2013) The Irish Semi-Natural

Grasslands Survey 2007-2012. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 78. National Parks and Wildlife

Service, Dublin.

Perrin, P., Martin, J., Barron, S., O'Neill, F., McNutt, K. & Delaney, A. (2008) National Survey of

Native Woodlands 2003-2008. Volume I: Main Report. National Parks and Wildlife

Service, Dublin.

Perrin, P. M., O'Hanrahan, B., Roche, J. R. & Barron, S. J. (2009) Scoping study and pilot survey

for a national survey and conservation assessment of upland habitats and vegetation

in Ireland. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Dublin.

Sharkey, N. (2012) Turlough Vegetation Communities - Links with Hydrology, Hydrochemistry,

Soils and Management. PhD Thesis, Trinity College Dublin.

Sheehy Skeffington, M., Moran, J., O Connor, Á., Regan, E., Coxon, C. E., Scott, N. E. & Gormally,

M. (2006) Turloughs - Ireland's unique wetland habitat. Biological Conservation, 133,

265-290.

Stolze, M., Piorr, A., Häring, A. & Dabbert, S. (2000) The Environmental Impacts of Organic

Farming in Europe. Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, Vol. 6. University

of Hohenheim / Department of Farm Economics, Stuttgart-Hohenheim.

Stout, J. C., Bourke, D., Callier, M., Carnus, T., Crowe, T. P., Dauber, J., Dolan, L., Emmerson, M.,

Green, D., Jones, M. B., Kochmann, J., Mina-Vargas, A., O'Rourke, E., Sharkey, N.,

Spillane, C., Stanley, D., Thompson, R., Tuteja, R., Whelan, P. & Zimmermann, J. (2012)

SIMBIOSYS: Sectoral Impacts on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. STRIVE Report

Series No. 115. Environmental Protection Agency, Johnstown Castle.

Van Rensburg, T. M., Murphy, E. & Rocks, P. (2008) Commonage land and farmer uptake of the

rural environment protection scheme in Ireland. Land Use Policy, 26, 345-355.


Ecology

80

APPENDIX A NATURA 2000 SITES AND QUALIFYING INTERESTS

Table 25. SACs in Ireland

Site Code Site Name

000006 Killyconny Bog (Cloghbally)

000007 Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs

000014 Ballyallia Lake

000016 Ballycullinan Lake

000019 Ballyogan Lough

000020 Black Head-Poulsallagh Complex

000030 Danes Hole, Poulnalecka

000032 Dromore Woods and Loughs

000036 Inagh River Estuary

000037 Pouladatig Cave

000051 Lough Gash Turlough

000054 Moneen Mountain

000057 Moyree River System

000064 Poulnagordon Cave (Quin)

000077 Ballymacoda (Clonpriest and Pillmore)

000090 Glengarriff Harbour and Woodland

000091 Clonakilty Bay

000093 Caha Mountains

000097 Lough Hyne Nature Reserve and Environs

000101 Roaringwater Bay and Islands

000102 Sheep's Head

000106 St. Gobnet's Wood

000108 The Gearagh

000109 Three Castle Head to Mizen Head

000111 Aran Island (Donegal) Cliffs

000115 Ballintra

000116 Ballyarr Wood

000129 Croaghonagh Bog

000133 Donegal Bay (Murvagh)

000138 Durnesh Lough

000140 Fawnboy Bog/Lough Nacung

000142 Gannivegil Bog

000147 Horn Head and Rinclevan

000154 Inishtrahull

000163 Lough Eske and Ardnamona Wood

000164 Lough Nagreany Dunes

000165 Lough Nillan Bog (Carrickatlieve)

000168 Magheradrumman Bog


Ecology

81

Site Code Site Name

000172 Meenaguse/Ardbane Bog

000173 Meentygrannagh Bog

000174 Curraghchase Woods

000181 Rathlin O'Birne Island

000185 Sessiagh Lough

000189 Slieve League

000190 Slieve Tooey/Tormore Island/Loughros Beg Bay

000191 St. John's Point

000194 Tranarossan and Melmore Lough

000197 West of Ardara/Maas Road

000199 Baldoyle Bay

000202 Howth Head

000204 Lambay Island

000205 Malahide Estuary

000206 North Dublin Bay

000208 Rogerstown Estuary

000210 South Dublin Bay

000212 Inishmaan Island

000213 Inishmore Island

000216 River Shannon Callows

000218 Coolcam Turlough

000231 Barroughter Bog

000238 Caherglassaun Turlough

000242 Castletaylor Complex

000248 Cloonmoylan Bog

000252 Coole-Garryland Complex

000255 Croaghill Turlough

000261 Derrycrag Wood Nature Reserve

000268 Galway Bay Complex

000278 Inishbofin and Inishshark

000285 Kilsallagh Bog

000286 Kiltartan Cave (Coole)

000295 Levally Lough

000296 Lisnageeragh Bog and Ballinastack Turlough

000297 Lough Corrib

000299 Lough Cutra

000301 Lough Lurgeen Bog/Glenamaddy Turlough

000304 Lough Rea

000308 Loughatorick South Bog

000318 Peterswell Turlough

000319 Pollnaknockaun Wood Nature Reserve

000322 Rahasane Turlough


Ecology

82

Site Code Site Name

000324 Rosroe Bog

000326 Shankill West Bog

000328 Slyne Head Islands

000330 Tully Mountain

000332 Akeragh, Banna and Barrow Harbour

000335 Ballinskelligs Bay and Inny Estuary

000343 Castlemaine Harbour

000353 Old Domestic Building, Dromore Wood

000364 Kilgarvan Ice House

000365 Killarney National Park, Macgillycuddy's Reeks and Caragh River Catchment

000370 Lough Yganavan and Lough Nambrackdarrig

000375 Mount Brandon

000382 Sheheree (Ardagh) Bog

000391 Ballynafagh Bog

000396 Pollardstown Fen

000397 Red Bog, Kildare

000404 Hugginstown Fen

000407 The Loughans

000412 Slieve Bloom Mountains

000428 Lough Melvin

000432 Barrigone

000439 Tory Hill

000440 Lough Ree

000448 Fortwilliam Turlough

000453 Carlingford Mountain

000455 Dundalk Bay

000458 Killala Bay/Moy Estuary

000461 Ardkill Turlough

000463 Balla Turlough

000466 Bellacorick Iron Flush

000470 Mullet/Blacksod Bay Complex

000471 Brackloon Woods

000472 Broadhaven Bay

000474 Ballymaglancy Cave, Cong

000475 Carrowkeel Turlough

000476 Carrowmore Lake Complex

000479 Cloughmoyne

000480 Clyard Kettle-holes

000484 Cross Lough (Killadoon)

000485 Corraun Plateau

000492 Doocastle Turlough

000495 Duvillaun Islands


Ecology

83

Site Code Site Name

000497 Flughany Bog

000500 Glenamoy Bog Complex

000503 Greaghans Turlough

000504 Kilglassan/Caheravoostia Turlough Complex

000507 Inishkea Islands

000516 Lackan Saltmarsh and Kilcummin Head

000522 Lough Gall Bog

000525 Shrule Turlough

000527 Moore Hall (Lough Carra)

000532 Oldhead Wood

000534 Owenduff/Nephin Complex

000541 Skealoghan Turlough

000542 Slieve Fyagh Bog

000566 All Saints Bog and Esker

000571 Charleville Wood

000572 Clara Bog

000575 Ferbane Bog

000576 Fin Lough (Offaly)

000580 Mongan Bog

000581 Moyclare Bog

000582 Raheenmore Bog

000584 Cuilcagh - Anierin Uplands

000585 Sharavogue Bog

000588 Ballinturly Turlough

000592 Bellanagare Bog

000595 Callow Bog

000597 Carrowbehy/Caher Bog

000600 Cloonchambers Bog

000604 Derrinea Bog

000606 Lough Fingall Complex

000607 Errit Lough

000609 Lisduff Turlough

000610 Lough Croan Turlough

000611 Lough Funshinagh

000612 Mullygollan Turlough

000614 Cloonshanville Bog

000622 Ballysadare Bay

000623 Ben Bulben, Gleniff and Glenade Complex

000625 Bunduff Lough and Machair/Trawalua/Mullaghmore

000627 Cummeen Strand/Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay)

000633 Lough Hoe Bog

000634 Lough Nabrickkeagh Bog


Ecology

84

Site Code Site Name

000636 Templehouse and Cloonacleigha Loughs

000637 Turloughmore (Sligo)

000638 Union Wood

000641 Ballyduff/Clonfinane Bog

000646 Galtee Mountains

000647 Kilcarren-Firville Bog

000665 Helvick Head

000668 Nier Valley Woodlands

000671 Tramore Dunes and Backstrand

000679 Garriskil Bog

000685 Lough Ennell

000688 Lough Owel

000692 Scragh Bog

000696 Ballyteige Burrow

000697 Bannow Bay

000700 Cahore Polders and Dunes

000704 Lady's Island Lake

000707 Saltee Islands

000708 Screen Hills

000709 Tacumshin Lake

000710 Raven Point Nature Reserve

000713 Ballyman Glen

000714 Bray Head

000716 Carriggower Bog

000717 Deputy's Pass Nature Reserve

000719 Glen of the Downs

000725 Knocksink Wood

000729 Buckroney-Brittas Dunes and Fen

000733 Vale of Clara (Rathdrum Wood)

000764 Hook Head

000770 Blackstairs Mountains

000781 Slaney River Valley

000831 Cullahill Mountain

000849 Spahill and Clomantagh Hill

000859 Clonaslee Eskers and Derry Bog

000869 Lisbigney Bog

000919 Ridge Road, SW of Rapemills

000925 The Long Derries, Edenderry

000930 Clare Glen

000934 Kilduff, Devilsbit Mountain

000939 Silvermine Mountains

000979 Corratirrim


Ecology

85

Site Code Site Name

000994 Ballyteige (Clare)

000996 Ballyvaughan Turlough

001013 Glenomra Wood

001021 Carrowmore Point to Spanish Point and Islands

001040 Barley Cove to Ballyrisode Point

001043 Cleanderry Wood

001058 Great Island Channel

001061 Kilkeran Lake and Castlefreke Dunes

001070 Myross Wood

001090 Ballyness Bay

001107 Coolvoy Bog

001125 Dunragh Loughs/Pettigo Plateau

001141 Gweedore Bay and Islands

001151 Kindrum Lough

001179 Muckish Mountain

001190 Sheephaven

001195 Termon Strand

001197 Keeper Hill

001209 Glenasmole Valley

001228 Aughrusbeg Machair and Lake

001230 Courtmacsherry Estuary

001242 Carrownagappul Bog

001251 Cregduff Lough

001257 Dog's Bay

001271 Gortnandarragh Limestone Pavement

001275 Inisheer Island

001285 Kiltiernan Turlough

001309 Omey Island Machair

001311 Rusheenduff Lough

001312 Ross Lake and Woods

001313 Rosturra Wood

001321 Termon Lough

001342 Cloonee and Inchiquin Loughs, Uragh Wood

001371 Mucksna Wood

001387 Ballynafagh Lake

001398 Rye Water Valley/Carton

001403 Arroo Mountain

001430 Glen Bog

001432 Glenstal Wood

001459 Clogher Head

001482 Clew Bay Complex

001497 Doogort Machair/Lough Doo


Ecology

86

Site Code Site Name

001501 Erris Head

001513 Keel Machair/Menaun Cliffs

001529 Lough Cahasy, Lough Baun and Roonah Lough

001536 Mocorha Lough

001547 Castletownshend

001571 Urlaur Lakes

001625 Castlesampson Esker

001626 Annaghmore Lough (Roscommon)

001637 Four Roads Turlough

001656 Bricklieve Mountains & Keishcorran

001669 Knockalongy and Knockachree Cliffs

001673 Lough Arrow

001680 Streedagh Point Dunes

001683 Liskeenan Fen

001741 Kilmuckridge-Tinnaberna Sandhills

001742 Kilpatrick Sandhills

001757 Holdenstown Bog

001766 Magherabeg Dunes

001774 Lough Carra/Mask Complex

001776 Pilgrim's Road Esker

001786 Kilroosky Lough Cluster

001810 White Lough, Ben Loughs and Lough Doo

001818 Lough Forbes Complex

001831 Split Hills and Long Hill Esker

001847 Philipston Marsh

001858 Galmoy Fen

001873 Derryclogher (Knockboy) Bog

001879 Glanmore Bog

001880 Meenaguse Scragh

001881 Maulagowna Bog

001890 Mullaghanish Bog

001898 Unshin River

001899 Cloonakillina Lough

001912 Glendree Bog

001913 Sonnagh Bog

001919 Glenade Lough

001922 Bellacorick Bog Complex

001926 East Burren Complex

001932 Mweelrea/Sheeffry/Erriff Complex

001952 Comeragh Mountains

001955 Croaghaun/Slievemore

001957 Boyne Coast and Estuary


Ecology

87

Site Code Site Name

001975 Ballyhoorisky Point to Fanad Head

001976 Lough Gill

001992 Tamur Bog

002005 Bellacragher Saltmarsh

002006 Ox Mountains Bogs

002008 Maumturk Mountains

002010 Old Domestic Building (Keevagh)

002012 North Inishowen Coast

002031 The Twelve Bens/Garraun Complex

002032 Boleybrack Mountain

002034 Connemara Bog Complex

002036 Ballyhoura Mountains

002037 Carrigeenamronety Hill

002041 Old Domestic Building, Curraglass Wood

002047 Cloghernagore Bog and Glenveagh National Park

002070 Tralee Bay and Magharees Peninsula, West to Cloghane

002074 Slyne Head Peninsula

002081 Ballinafad

002091 Newhall and Edenvale Complex

002098 Old Domestic Building, Askive Wood

002110 Corliskea/Trien/Cloonfelliv Bog

002111 Kilkieran Bay and Islands

002112 Ballyseedy Wood

002117 Lough Coy

002118 Barnahallia Lough

002119 Lough Nageeron

002120 Lough Bane and Lough Glass

002121 Lough Lene

002122 Wicklow Mountains

002123 Ardmore Head

002124 Bolingbrook Hill

002125 Anglesey Road

002126 Pollagoona Bog

002129 Murvey Machair

002130 Tully Lough

002135 Lough Nageage

002137 Lower River Suir

002141 Mountmellick

002144 Newport River

002147 Lisduff Fen

002157 Newgrove House

002158 Kenmare River


Ecology

88

Site Code Site Name

002159 Mulroy Bay

002161 Long Bank

002162 River Barrow and River Nore

002164 Lough Golagh and Breesy Hill

002165 Lower River Shannon

002170 Blackwater River (Cork/Waterford)

002171 Bandon River

002172 Blasket Islands

002173 Blackwater River (Kerry)

002176 Leannan River

002177 Lough Dahybaun

002179 Towerhill House

002180 Gortacarnaun Wood

002181 Drummin Wood

002185 Slieve Mish Mountains

002187 Drongawn Lough

002189 Farranamanagh Lough

002193 Ireland's Eye

002213 Glenloughaun Esker

002214 Killeglan Grassland

002236 Island Fen

002241 Lough Derg, North-East Shore

002243 Clare Island Cliffs

002244 Ardrahan Grassland

002245 Old Farm Buildings, Ballymacrogan

002246 Ballycullinan, Old Domestic Building

002247 Toonagh Estate

002249 The Murrough Wetlands

002250 Carrowmore Dunes

002252 Thomastown Quarry

002256 Ballyprior Grassland

002257 Moanour Mountain

002258 Silvermines Mountains West

002259 Tory Island Coast

002261 Magharee Islands

002262 Valencia Harbour/Portmagee Channel

002263 Kerry Head Shoal

002264 Kilkee Reefs

002265 Kingstown Bay

002268 Achill Head

002269 Carnsore Point

002274 Wicklow Reef


Ecology

89

Site Code Site Name

002279 Askeaton Fen Complex

002280 Dunbeacon Shingle

002281 Reen Point Shingle

002283 Rutland Island and Sound

002287 Lough Swilly

002293 Carrowbaun, Newhall and Ballylee Turloughs

002294 Cahermore Turlough

002295 Ballinduff Turlough

002296 Williamstown Turloughs

002298 River Moy

002299 River Boyne and River Blackwater

002301 River Finn

002303 Dunmuckrum Turloughs

002306 Carlingford Shore

002312 Slieve Bernagh Bog

002313 Ballymore Fen

002314 Old Domestic Buildings, Rylane

002315 Glanlough Woods

002316 Ratty River Cave

002317 Cregg House Stables, Crusheen

002318 Knockanira House

002319 Kilkishen House

002320 Kildun Souterrain

002324 Glendine Wood

002327 Belgica Mound Province

002328 Hovland Mound Province

002329 South-West Porcupine Bank

002330 North-West Porcupine Bank

002331 Mouds Bog

002332 Coolrain Bog

002333 Knockacoller Bog

002336 Carn Park Bog

002337 Crosswood Bog

002338 Drumalough Bog

002339 Ballynamona Bog and Corkip Lough

002340 Moneybeg and Clareisland Bogs

002341 Ardagullion Bog

002342 Mount Hevey Bog

002343 Tullaher Lough and Bog

002346 Brown Bog

002347 Camderry Bog

002348 Clooneen Bog


Ecology

90

Site Code Site Name

002349 Corbo Bog

002350 Curraghlehanagh Bog

002351 Moanveanlagh Bog

002352 Monivea Bog

002353 Redwood Bog

002354 Tullaghanrock Bog

002356 Ardgraigue Bog


Ecology

91

Table 26. SPAs in Ireland

Site code Site name

004002 Saltee Islands

004003 Puffin Island

004004 Inishkea Islands

004005 Cliffs of Moher

004006 North Bull Island

004007 Skelligs

004008 Blasket Islands

004009 Lady's Island Lake

004013 Drumcliff Bay

004014 Rockabill

004015 Rogerstown Estuary

004016 Baldoyle Bay

004017 Mongan Bog

004019 The Raven

004020 Ballyteigue Burrow

004021 Old Head of Kinsale

004022 Ballycotton Bay

004023 Ballymacoda Bay

004024 South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary

004025 Malahide Estuary

004026 Dundalk Bay

004027 Tramore Back Strand

004028 Blackwater Estuary

004029 Castlemaine Harbour

004030 Cork Harbour

004031 Inner Galway Bay

004032 Dungarvan Harbour

004033 Bannow Bay

004034 Trawbreaga Bay

004035 Cummeen Strand

004036 Killala Bay/Moy Estuary

004037 Blacksod Bay / Broadhaven

004038 Killarney National Park

004039 Derryveagh and Glendowan Mountains SPA

004040 Wicklow Mountains

004041 Ballyallia Lough

004042 Lough Corrib

004043 Lough Derravaragh

004044 Lough Ennell

004045 Glen Lough

004046 Lough Iron


Ecology

92

Site code Site name

004047 Lough Owel

004048 Lough Gara

004049 Lough Oughter Complex

004050 Lough Arrow

004051 Lough Carra

004052 Carrowmore Lake

004056 Lough Cutra

004057 Lough Derg (Donegal)

004058 Lough Derg (Shannon)

004060 Lough Fern

004061 Lough Kinale & Derragh Lough

004062 Lough Mask

004063 Poulaphouca Reservoir

004064 Lough Ree

004065 Lough Sheelin

004066 The Bull & Cow Rock

004068 Inishmurray

004069 Lambay Island

004072 Stags of Broadhaven

004073 Tory Island SPA

004074 Illanmaster

004075 Lough Swilly

004076 Wexford Harbour & Slobs

004077 River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries

004078 Carlingford Lough (cross border)

004080 Boyne Estuary

004081 Clonakilty Bay

004082 Greers Isle

004083 Inishboffin, Inishdooey & Inishbeg SPA

004084 Inishglora & Inishkeeragh

004086 River Little Brosna Callows

004087 Lough Foyle (cross border)

004089 Rahasane Turlough

004090 Sheskinmore Lough

004091 Stabannan - Braganstown

004092 Tacumshin Lake

004093 Termoncarragh Lough & Annagh Machair

004094 Blackwater Callows

004095 Kilcolman Bog

004096 Middle Shannon Callows

004097 River Suck Callows

004098 Owenduff/Nephin Complex


Ecology

93

Site code Site name

004099 Pettigo Plateau Nature Reserve

004100 Inishtrahull

004101 Ballykenny-Fishertown Bog

004102 Garriskil Bog

004103 All-Saints Bog

004105 Bellangare bog

004107 Coole-Garryland

004108 Eirk Bog

004109 The Gearagh

004110 Lough Nillan

004111 Duvillaun Islands

004113 Howth Head Coast

004114 Illaunonearaun

004115 Inishduff

004116 Inishkeel

004117 Ireland's Eye

004118 Keeragh Islands

004119 Loop Head

004120 Rathlin O'Birne Island

004121 Roaninish

004122 Skerries Islands

004124 Sovereign Islands

004125 Magharee Islands

004127 Wicklow Head

004129 Ballysadare Bay

004132 Illancrone & Inishkeeragh

004133 Aughris Head

004134 Lough Rea

004135 Ardbolin Island & Horse Island

004136 Clare Island

004137 Dovegrove Callows

004139 Lough Croan Turlough

004140 Four Roads Turlough

004142 Cregganna Marsh

004143 Cahore Marshes

004144 High Island, Inishshark & Davillaun

004145 Durnesh Lough

004146 Malin Head SPA

004148 Fanad Head SPA

004149 Falcarragh to Meenlaragh

004150 West Donegal Coast

004151 Donegal Bay


Ecology

94

Site code Site name

004152 Inishmore

004153 Dingle Peninsula

004154 Iveragh Penninsula

004155 Beara Peninsula

004156 Sheep's Head to Toe Head

004158 River Nanny Estuary & Shore

004159 Slyne Head to Ardmore Point Islands

004160 Slieve Bloom Mountains

004161 Stack's to Mullaghareirk Mountains, West Limrick Hills and Mount Eagle

004162 Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains

004165 Slievefelim to Silvermines Mountains

004167 Slieve Beagh

004168 Slieve Aughty Mountains

004170 Cruagh Island

004172 Dalkey Island

004175 Deenish Island & Scariff Island

004177 Bills Rocks

004181 Connemara Bog Complex

004182 Mid-Clare Coast

004186 The Murrough

004187 Sligo/Leitrim Uplands

004188 Tralee Bay Complex

004189 Kerry Head

004190 Galley Head to Duneen Point

004191 Seven Heads

004192 Helvick Head to Ballyquinn

004193 Mid-Waterford Coast

004194 Horn Head to Fanad Head

004212 Cross Lough (Killadoon)

004219 Courtmacsherry Bay

004220 Corofin Wetlands

004221 Illaunnanoon

004227 Mullet Peninsula SPA

004228 Lough Conn and Lough Cullin SPA

004230 West Donegal Islands SPA

004231 Inishbofin, Omey Island and Turbot Island SPA

004232 River Boyne and River Blackwater

004233 River Nore

004234 Ballintemple and Ballygiligan

004235 Doogort Machair


Ecology

95

Table 27. Annex I habitats that form Special Conservation Interests for SACs in

Ireland


Ecology

96

Habitat

Code Full Name Short Title

1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by

sea water all the time Sandbanks

1130 Estuaries Estuaries

1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by

seawater at low tide Tidal mudflats

1150 Coastal lagoons Lagoons

1160 Large shallow inlets and bays Large shallow inlets and

bays

1170 Reefs Reefs

1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines Annual vegetation of drift

lines

1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks Perennial vegetation of

stony banks

1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and

Baltic coasts Sea cliffs

1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonizing

mud and sand Salicornia mud

1320 Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae) Spartina swards

1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-

Puccinellietalia maritimae) Atlantic salt meadows

1410 Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia

maritimi)

Mediterranean salt

meadows

1420

Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic

halophilous scrubs (Sarcocornetea

fruticosi)

Halophilous scrub

2110 Embryonic shifting dunes Embryonic shifting dunes

2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with

Ammophila arenaria (white dunes)

Marram dunes (white

dunes)

2130 Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous

vegetation (grey dunes) Fixed dunes (grey dunes)

2140 Decalcified fixed dunes with Empetrum

nigrum

Decalcified Empetrum

dunes

2150 Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-

Ulicetea) Decalcified dune heath

2170 Dunes with Salix repens ssp.argentea

(Salix arenariae) Dunes with creeping willow

2190 Humid dune slacks Dune slack

21a0 Machairs (* in Ireland) Machair

3110

Oligotrophic waters containing very few

minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia

uniflorae)

Lowland oligotrophic lakes

3130

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing

waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea

uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-

Nanojuncetea

Upland oligotrophic lakes


Ecology

97

Habitat


3140 Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with

benthic vegetation of Chara spp. Hard water lakes

3150

Natural euthrophic lakes with

Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition-type

vegetation

Natural eutrophic lakes

3160 Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds Dystrophic lakes

3180 Turloughs Turloughs

3260

Water courses of plain to montane levels

with the Ranunculion fluitantis and

Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation

Floating river vegetation

3270

Rivers with muddy banks with

Chenopodion rubri p.p. and Bidention

p.p. vegetation

Chenopodium rubri

4010 Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica

tetralix Wet heath

4030 European dry heaths Dry heaths

4060 Alpine and Boreal heaths Alpine and subalpine heath

5130 Juniperus communis formations on

heaths or calcareous grasslands Juniper scrub

6130 Calaminarian grasslands of the Violetalia

calaminariae Calaminarian grassland

6210

Semi-natural dry grasslands and

scrubland facies on calcareous substrates

(Festuco Brometalia)(*important orchid

sites)

Orchid-rich calcareous

grassland

6230

Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on

siliceous substrates in mountain areas

(and submountain areas, in Continental

Europe)

Species-rich Nardus upland

grassland

6410

Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or

clavey-silt-laden soils (Molinion

caeruleae)

Molinia meadows

6430

Hydrophilous tall herb fringe

communities of plains and of the

montane to alpine levels

Hydrophilous tall herb

6510 Lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus

pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis) Lowland hay meadows

7110 Active raised bogs Raised bog

7120 Degraded raised bogs still capable of

natural regeneration Degraded raised boggs

7130 Blanket bog (*active only) Blanket bog

7140 Transition mires and quaking bogs Transition mires

7150 Depressions on peat substrates of the

Rhynchosporion

Rhynchosporion

depressions

7210 Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus

and species of the Caricion davallianae Cladium fen


Ecology

98

Habitat


7220 Petrifying springs with tufa formation

(Cratoneurion) Petrifying springs

7230 Alkaline fens Alkaline fens

8110

Siliceous scree of the montane to snow

levels (Androsacetalia alpinae and

Galeopsietalia ladani)

Siliceous scree

8120

Calcareous and calcshist screes of the

montane to alpine levels (Thlaspietea

rotundifolii)

Calcareous scree

8210 Calcareous rocky slopes with

chasmophytic vegetation Calcareous rocky slopes

8220 Siliceous rocky slopes with chasmophytic

vegetation Siliceous rocky slopes

8240 Limestone pavements Limestone pavement

8310 Caves not open to the public Caves

8330 Submerged or partly submerged sea

caves Sea caves

91A0 Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and

Blechnum in British Isles Old oak woodlands

91D0 Bog woodland Bog woodland

91E0

Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and

Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion

incanae, Salicion albae)

Residual alluvial forests

91J0 Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles Yew woods


Ecology

99

Table 28. Annex II species that form Special Conservation Interests for SACs in

Ireland

Species Code Scientific Name Common Name

1013 Vertigo geyeri Geyer’s whorl snail

1014 Vertigo angustior Narrow-mouthed whorl

snail

1016 Vertigo moulinsiana Desmoulin’s whorl snail

1024 Geomalacus maculosus Kerry slug

1029 Margaritifera

margaritifera

Freshwater pearl mussel

1065 Euphydryas aurinia Marsh fritillary

1092 Austropotamobius

pallipes

White-clawed crayfish

1095 Petromyzon marinus Sea lamprey

1096 Lampetra planeri River lamprey

1099 Lampetra fluviatilis Brook lamprey

1103 Alosa fallax Twaite shad

1106 Salmo salar Atlantic salmon

1303 Rhinolophus hipposideros Lesser horseshoe bat

1349 Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin

1351 Phocoena phocoena Harbour porpoise

1355 Lutra lutra Otter

1364 Halichoerus grypus Grey seal

1365 Phoca vitulina Harbour seal

1393 Drepanocladus vernicosus Shining sickle-moss

1395 Petalophyllum ralfsii Petalwort

1421 Trichomanes speciosum Killarney fern

1528 Saxifraga hirculus Marsh saxifrage

1833 Najas flexilis Slender naiad

1990 Margaritifera durrovensis Nore freshwater pearl

mussel


Ecology

100

Table 29. Bird species that form Special Conservation Interests for SPAs in

Ireland

Common Name Scientific Name

Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea

Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica

Bewick's Swan Cygnus columbianus

Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa

Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax

Common Gull Larus canus

Common Scoter Melanitta nigra

Common Tern Sterna hirundo

Coot Fulica atra

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo

Corncrake Crex crex

Curlew Numenius arquata

Dunlin Calidris alpina

Eider Somateria mollissima

Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis

Gadwall Anas strepera

Gannet Morus bassanus

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria

Goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus

Great Northern Diver Gavia immer

Greenland White-fronted

goose Anser albifrons flavirostris

Greenshank Tringa nebularia

Grey Heron Ardea cinerea

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola

Greylag Goose Anser anser

Guillemot Uria aalge

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus

Herring Gull Larus argentatus


Ecology

101


Kingfisher Alcedo atthis

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla

Knot Calidris canutus

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus

Leach's Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa

Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus

Light-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota

Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis

Little Tern Sterna albifrons

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Manx Shearwater Puffinus puffinus

Merlin Falco columbarius

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus

Peregrine Falco peregrinus

Pintail Anas acuta

Pochard Aythya ferina

Puffin Fratercula arctica

Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritima

Razorbill Alca torda

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator

Redshank Tringa totanus

Red-throated Diver Gavia stellata

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula

Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii

Sanderling Calidris alba

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis

Scaup Aythya marila

Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna

Shoveler Anas clypeata

Storm Petrel Hydrobates pelagicus

Teal Anas crecca

Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula

Turnstone Arenaria interpres


Ecology

102


Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus

Wigeon Anas penelope

rural development programme 2014-2020 · rural development programme 2014-2020. blackthorn ecology...

Documents