Project 3 - University College Cork€¦ · Web viewThe application form allows a Yes or No box...

Biodiversity Assessment in Preparation for Afforestation:

A Review of Existing Practice in Ireland and Best Practice Overseas

Tom Gittings1, Anne-Marie McKee2, Saoirse O’Donoghue2, Josephine Pithon1, Mark Wilson1, Paul Giller1, Daniel Kelly2, John O’Halloran1,

Fraser Mitchell2 and Susan Iremonger2

1 BIOFOREST Project, Department of Zoology and Animal Ecology, University College Cork

2 BIOFOREST Project, Department of Botany, Trinity College Dublin

University College, Cork University of Dublin, Trinity College

Report Number: 3.1.1/1/1Revision: Final revised 2Circulation: EPA and COFORDApproved by: BIOFOREST Research

GroupDate: 08 December 2004

Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation

CONTENTS1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................1

1.1 OBJECTIVE.....................................................................................................11.2 SCOPE..........................................................................................................1

1.2.1 Biodiversity Assessment.......................................................................11.2.2 Geographical Scope..............................................................................1

1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT............................................................................11.4 PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT..........................................................................21.5 TERMINOLOGY................................................................................................2

1.5.1 Environmental Impact Assessment......................................................21.5.2 Scientific Names...................................................................................21.5.3 Abbreviations.......................................................................................21.5.4 Glossary................................................................................................2

1.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................22 CONTEXT.......................................................................................3

2.1 SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT..................................................................32.1.1 Background to Policy Development......................................................32.1.2 Adoption of Sustainable Forest Management.......................................3

2.2 TRENDS IN IRISH FORESTRY..............................................................................42.3 BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT...............................................................................7

2.3.1 Definitions of Biodiversity.....................................................................72.3.2 Methodologies......................................................................................82.3.3 The Use of Indicators..........................................................................10

3 METHODS....................................................................................113.1 RATIONALE..................................................................................................113.2 EXISTING PRACTICE IN IRELAND.......................................................................11

3.2.1 Information Sources...........................................................................113.2.2 Environmental Impact Statement Review..........................................11

3.3 EXISTING PRACTICE OVERSEAS........................................................................123.3.1 Information Sources...........................................................................123.3.2 UK Environmental Statements Review...............................................14

3.4 EVALUATION................................................................................................144 EXISTING PRACTICE IN IRELAND....................................................15

4.1 LEGISLATION................................................................................................154.1.1 European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations, 2001 (S.I. No. 538 of 2001).................................154.1.2 European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997 (S.I. No. 94 of 1997)....................................................................................................164.1.3 Wildlife Act, 1976 and Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000.....................164.1.4 Evaluation...........................................................................................16

4.2 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT................................................................................174.2.1 National..............................................................................................174.2.2 Regional.............................................................................................184.2.3 Evaluation...........................................................................................19

4.3 SITE ASSESSMENT.........................................................................................204.3.1 Afforestation Grant and Premium Scheme.........................................204.3.2 Rural Environment Protection Scheme...............................................234.3.3 Evaluation...........................................................................................24

4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT..............................................................26

BIOFOREST PROJECT/tt/file_convert/5f0295547e708231d404fc70/document.docLast saved on 8/12/04 6:59 PM

i


4.4.1 Procedure...........................................................................................264.4.2 Guidelines...........................................................................................264.4.3 Preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement.........................284.4.4 Assessment of the Environmental Impact Statement.........................314.4.5 Evaluation of system effectiveness....................................................31

5 EXISTING PRACTICE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM...............................335.1 LEGISLATION................................................................................................335.2 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT................................................................................33

5.2.1 Indicative Forestry Strategies.............................................................335.2.2 Local Forestry Frameworks.................................................................355.2.3 Other Examples..................................................................................365.2.4 Evaluation...........................................................................................36

5.3 SITE ASSESSMENT.........................................................................................375.3.1 Woodland Grant Scheme....................................................................375.3.2 Other Examples..................................................................................385.3.3 Evaluation...........................................................................................39

5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT..............................................................395.4.1 Procedure...........................................................................................405.4.2 Guidelines...........................................................................................405.4.3 Preparation of the Environmental Statement.....................................435.4.4 Assessment by Forestry Commission.................................................465.4.5 Evaluation of system effectiveness....................................................465.4.6 Examples of Best Practice..................................................................48

5.5 EFFECTIVENESS OF UK PRACTICE.....................................................................496 EXISTING PRACTICE OVERSEAS.....................................................51

6.1 LEGISLATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT.....................................516.1.1 Evaluation...........................................................................................51

6.2 BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT METHODS..............................................................516.3 EVALUATION................................................................................................52

7 EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS..................................................537.1 IRISH PRACTICE............................................................................................53

7.1.1 Legislation..........................................................................................537.1.2 Strategic Assessment.........................................................................537.1.3 Site Assessment.................................................................................537.1.4 Environmental Impact Assessment....................................................537.1.5 Conclusion..........................................................................................54

7.2 UNITED KINGDOM PRACTICE...........................................................................547.2.1 Legislation..........................................................................................547.2.2 Strategic Assessment.........................................................................547.2.3 Site Assessment.................................................................................547.2.4 Environmental Impact Assessment....................................................547.2.5 Conclusion..........................................................................................55

7.3 OVERSEAS PRACTICE.....................................................................................557.3.1 Strategic Assessment.........................................................................557.3.2 Environmental Impact Assessment....................................................55

7.4 IDENTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE BEST PRACTICE FOR IRELAND.............................557.4.1 Context...............................................................................................557.4.2 Legislation..........................................................................................567.4.3 Strategic Assessment.........................................................................567.4.4 Non–EIA Site Assessment...................................................................577.4.5 Environmental Impact Assessment....................................................58


ii


7.4.6 An Alternative to EIA..........................................................................607.5 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................60

7.5.1 Specific Recommendations................................................................607.5.2 Broader Objectives.............................................................................62

REFERENCES....................................................................................63

APPENDIX 1 SCIENTIFIC NAMES.........................................................71

APPENDIX 2 GLOSSARY....................................................................72

APPENDIX 3 ORGANISATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED.............75A3.1 IRELAND...................................................................................................75A3.2 UNITED KINGDOM......................................................................................75A3.3 OTHER COUNTRIES.....................................................................................77

APPENDIX 4 REVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENTS IN IRISH EISs. . .79A4.1 GENERAL..................................................................................................80A4.2 VEGETATION.............................................................................................83A4.3 INVERTEBRATES.........................................................................................85A4.4 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES..........................................................................86A4.5 BIRDS......................................................................................................87A4.6 MAMMALS.................................................................................................88

APPENDIX 5 REVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENTS IN SCOTTISH ESs89

A5.1 GENERAL..................................................................................................90A5.2 VEGETATION.............................................................................................93A5.3 INVERTEBRATES.........................................................................................96A5.4 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES..........................................................................98A5.5 BIRDS....................................................................................................100A5.6 MAMMALS...............................................................................................102

APPENDIX 6 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES FROM OVERSEAS CONTACTS. 103A6.1 QUESTIONS ASKED...................................................................................103A6.2 AUSTRIA.................................................................................................103

A6.2.1 Response to Question 6 and 7.......................................................103A6.3 CZECH REPUBLIC.....................................................................................103

A6.3.1 Response to Questions 2, 4 and 5.................................................103A6.4 DENMARK...............................................................................................104

A6.4.1 Response to Questions 1, 2 and 5.................................................104A6.4.2 Response to Questions 3 and 4.....................................................104

A6.5 FINLAND.................................................................................................105A6.5.1 Response to Questions 1, 2, 4 and 5.............................................105

A6.6 FRANCE..................................................................................................105A6.6.1 Response to Questions 1, 3 and 4.................................................105A6.6.2 Response to Question 1.................................................................106A6.6.3 Response to Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4.............................................108

A6.7 GERMANY...............................................................................................108A6.7.1 Response to Question 4.................................................................108

A6.8 GREECE.................................................................................................108A6.8.1 Response to Question 6.................................................................109

A6.9 THE NETHERLANDS..................................................................................109A6.9.1 Response to Questions 1 and 2.....................................................109


iii


A6.10 NEW ZEALAND........................................................................................109A6.10.1 Response to Question 1.................................................................109

7.6 PORTUGAL.................................................................................................110A6.10.2 Response to Questions 1, 3 and 6.................................................110

A6.11 SWEDEN.................................................................................................110A6.11.1 Response to Questions 1, 2 and 4.................................................110

A6.12 SWITZERLAND.........................................................................................111A6.12.1 Response to Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4.............................................111


iv


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVE

The objective of this report is to review different pre-planting habitat biodiversity assessment methods used overseas and highlight those that would be most suitable for integrating into the methodologies used in Ireland.

1.2 SCOPE

1.2.1 Biodiversity AssessmentFor the purposes of this review, biodiversity assessment has been defined as comprising the description and evaluation of the existing biodiversity of an area: Description can include describing habitat and vegetation types, species

composition, species abundances and assemblages. Evaluation is restricted to evaluation of importance for biodiversity

conservation. Biodiversity evaluation for other purposes (e.g. suitability for establishment of particular types of woodland) is not included in the scope of the review.

The assessment of the impact of changes caused by afforestation to existing biodiversity is not included in the scope of this review. The focus of this review is on the assessment of terrestrial and wetland biodiversity (i.e. largely excluding aquatic biodiversity). Afforestation impacts to aquatic systems arise mainly from secondary impacts (e.g. water quality impacts, changes in light regime, etc.) rather than as a result of direct habitat removal, and there is already a substantial body of work on afforestation and aquatic systems in Ireland (e.g. Kelly-Quinn et al., 1997; Giller et al., 1997).

1.2.2 Geographical ScopeThe geographical scope of biodiversity assessment included in the review comprises two levels: Strategic assessments, where assessments are carried out of large

geographical regions such as administrative regions, in order to identify areas suitable for afforestation.

Site assessments, where assessments are carried out of individual sites for which afforestation is proposed.

The assessment of the impacts of policies and plans (such as national afforestation policies) on biodiversity is outside the scope of this review.

1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT

Section 2 reviews the context in which this study has been carried out: the principles of Sustainable Forest Management which underpin Irish forestry policy (Forest Service, 2000e), the current trends in afforestation which will result in widespread afforestation over the next few decades and the science of biodiversity assessment. Section 3 describes the rationale and methods used in this study. Section 4 provides a review of existing practice in Ireland divided into the legislative requirements for biodiversity assessment, strategic assessment, non-EIA site assessments, and Environmental Impact Assessments. In each case, descriptions of existing practice are followed by evaluation to identify any deficiencies. Section 5 provides a review of existing practice in the United Kingdom following a similar structure to Section 4, but the evaluations are focused on identifying examples of best practice. Section 6 provides a review of


1


existing practice in other overseas countries. Little relevant information was obtained; thus this section is necessarily brief. Section 7 provides a synopsis of the evaluations of deficiencies in Irish practice and best UK practice contained in Sections 4 and 5, identifies appropriate best practice which could be integrated into Irish practice and identifies specific recommendations for action.

1.4 PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT

The research for this report was carried out between March and December 2001, following which a draft report was submitted to the BIOFOREST project steering group and the Forest Service for review. The final report was prepared in October 2004. During preparation of the final report, we updated information on existing practice in Ireland. However, we have not updated information on best practice overseas

1.5 TERMINOLOGY

1.5.1 Environmental Impact AssessmentIt is important to appreciate the distinction between the terms Environmental (Impact) Assessment and Environmental (Impact) Statement. An Environmental (Impact) Statement is a report prepared by a developer describing the likely significant environmental effects of a proposed development. Environmental (Impact) Assessment is a process that includes submission of the Environmental (Impact) Statement to the competent authority, statutory public consultation, review of the EIS and any submissions made by the competent authority, and issuing of a decision by the competent authority. Ireland and the UK use different terminology: In Ireland the process is called Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and

the report is called an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In the UK the process is called Environmental Assessment (EA) and the report

is called an Environmental Statement (ES). This terminology is used in this report when references are made to the UK.

1.5.2 Scientific NamesScientific names of plants and animals mentioned in the text are listed in Appendix 1.

1.5.3 AbbreviationsAbbreviations used in the text are defined on their first occurrence, and in the glossary in Appendix 2.

1.5.4 GlossaryDefinitions of abbreviations and terminology used in the text are provided in Appendix 2

1.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The assistance of all those who responded to our information requests and queries is gratefully acknowledged. A full list of all these respondents is included in Appendix 3.


2


2 CONTEXT

2.1 SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT

2.1.1 Background to Policy DevelopmentFollowing the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992 and the acceptance of the Forest Principles, the concept of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) was developed as part of the Helsinki Pan-European Process in 1993 for the protection of Europe’s forests. The aim was to ensure that Europe’s forests were managed in accordance with best forest practices under relevant legislation and regulations. The full range of forest functions were addressed, that is, economic, environmental, ecological and social functions, to an acceptable standard on a worldwide basis. SFM is defined as:

“The stewardship and use of forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems.”

The principles developed during the Helsinki Process were formally adopted at the Third Ministerial Conference of Forests in Lisbon in 1998 with the aid of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF), which was set up in 1995, to ensure that the goal of SFM was implemented successfully on a global basis.

2.1.2 Adoption of Sustainable Forest ManagementThere are currently thirty-nine countries including the EU member states, which are signed up to the principles of SFM and have adopted the various criteria and indicators into their own strategic forestry development goals and policies (Forest Service, 2000e). In Ireland, the SFM principles are being implemented in the development of both public and private-sector forestry through the adherence to various guidelines and regulations controlled by the Forest Service (FS) of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, which take account of the Irish National Forest Standard, Code of Best Forest Practice and Forestry Guidelines (Forest Service, 2000b, c, e). The Pan European Forest Certification Programme (PEFCP) (1999) indicates the intention to increase SFM practices across Europe. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is one of the approved authorities responsible for the certification of forestry to ensure SFM is implemented successfully, and Coillte has been awarded FSC certification. It should be noted that the FSC certification of small private forestry developers is not necessarily an attractive option for the private developers due to the expenses incurred to undergo the process.In order to implement SFM successfully, six criteria for sustainable management and twenty policy indicators were developed to aid in the formation of policy development in this regard. The European Sustainable Forest Management Criteria are defined in Table 1 below.


3


Table 1. European Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Criteria. Adapted from the Irish National Forest Standard (Forest Service, 2000e).

Criterion 1: Maintenance and appropriate enhancement of forest resources and their contribution to the global carbon cycles.

Criterion 2: Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality.

Criterion 3: Maintenance and encouragement of productive functions of forests

Criterion 4: Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of biological diversity in forest ecosystems.

Criterion 5: Maintenance and appropriate enhancement of protective functions in forest management

Criterion 6: Maintenance of other socio-economic and cultural functions and conditions

2.2 TRENDS IN IRISH FORESTRY

The total area of land under forest cover in Ireland has increased over six-fold from 100,000ha in 1900 to 649,812ha in 2000 (Forest Service, 2001d). Figure 1 illustrates the total forest cover in Ireland and also the breakdown of conifer and broadleaf dominated sectors of the forest estate. At present, forestry covers 9.6% of Ireland and this is expected to rise to 17% by the year 2035 (Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry, 1996). The state forestry programme began in 1903. Before that, all forestry was privately owned. Today, 61% of forestry in Ireland is public (state-owned) and is managed by Coillte (Forest Service, 2001a) (see Figure 2). The species composition in Ireland’s forests has changed over the last century. In 1900, 65% of the woodland estate was broadleaf. By 2000, broadleaves comprised 12% of the forest estate and conifers dominated 78% of plantations (see Figure 3). The ratio of broadleaf to conifer planting for Europe as a whole was 60% broadleaf (including mixed plantations) and 40% conifer-dominated plantation (Commission of the European Communities, 1999). These figures are summarised in Table 2. The most important trends in Irish forestry are: The introduction of improved grant-aid in the form of afforestation grants and

forestry premiums in the late 1980s (Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry, 1996).

The predominant forestry activities in the public sector are 2nd or 3rd

generation reforestation developments whereas the private sector is concentrating on 1st generation afforestation. Coillte is currently reforesting approximately 5,000-6,000 ha/year. The FSs target rate of afforestation from the year 2000-2030 is 20,000 ha/year, most of which is likely to be on marginal agricultural land.

A recent study sponsored by COFORD suggests that in the North West of Ireland, the Forest Grant schemes are primarily taken up by full-time farmers, planting on peatland or on land previously used for rough grazing (Kearney, 2001).

The projected age structure for the future forest estate suggests that at any one time 12.5% of the forest will be clear-felled, 12.5% under establishment and 75% as closed canopy (Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry, 1996; Environmental Resources Management, 1998).

Afforestation significantly increases the forested area of Ireland. Forests in the afforestation phase account for 16% of total forest cover in Ireland, compared with about 2% each in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain


4


and Portugal. This must be seen in light of the fact that, in 2000, Ireland had the lowest forest cover in Europe of the then 15 member nations. The average for the European Union was 44% in 2000 (then 15 nations) (European Commission, 2002).

Forest felling rates in Ireland will change dramatically according to the proposed strategy to meet market demands (Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry, 1996). At present it has a total allowable cut of 2.7 million m3. This is set to rise to 10 million m3 by 2035 (McAree, 2001).

The target rate for afforestation over the next 30 years is 20,000 ha per year. While areas subject to nature conservation designations will be largely excluded from commercial afforestation, some of the areas that have been afforested in the past include habitats of nature conservation value (Hickie et al., 1993). It is predicted that 66% of all new afforestation will take place through private grant applications. The target species composition of new forests comprises 30% broadleaf, 20% diverse conifer and 50% Sitka spruce. In light of this vast increase in afforestation, as well as the SFM principles, the importance of site assessment before afforestation takes on a new significance.Table 2. Summary of trends in Irish Forestry (Sources: Kearney, 2001; Forest

Service, 2001)Past (1900) 1950 Present (2000) Future (2035)

AreaSee Figure 1

100,000 ha 1.4% land cover

132,935 haApprox. 2% land cover

649,812 ha 9.6% land cover

1,175,000 ha 17% land cover

Public vs. private OwnershipSee Figure 2

0% public100% private(State afforestation began 1906)

40% public60% private

61% public 39% private

No data

CompositionSee Figure 3

65% broadleaf3% conifer30% other2% mixed

28%broadleaf39% conifer29% other4% mixed

12% broadleaf78% conifer6% other4% mixed

30% broadleaf20% diverse conifer50% Sitka spruce

Public vs. private rate of afforestation

100% private <2% private afforestation

10% public 90% private(total of 15,695 ha afforested in 2000)

33% public66% private


5


Figure 1. Total Forest Cover in Ireland between 1900-2000. Source: Forestry Statistics, Department of Marine and Natural Resources, (Forest Service, 2001a).

Figure 2. Comparison of public and private sector forest cover from 1900-2000. Source: Forestry Statistics, Department of Marine and Natural Resources (Forest Service, 2001a).


6

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

1900 1920 1950 1970 1980 1990 2000

hect

ares

Predominantly Coniferous Predominantly Broadleaved Mixed Forest Other Wooded Land

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

1900 1920 1950 1970 1980 1990 2000

hect

ares

Public Wooded Land Private wooded land


Figure 3. Breakdown of Forest Cover in 1900, 1950 and 2000. Source: Forestry Statistics, Department of Marine and Natural Resources, (Forest Service, 2001a).

2.3 BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT

2.3.1 Definitions of BiodiversityThe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was originally adopted by 154 countries following the Earth Summit in 1992. The four main themes of this convention are: Conservation of biodiversity Sustainable development Education and research Mutual sharing of the benefits of genetic resourcesBiodiversity is defined as: “The variability among living organisms from all sources…and the ecological complexes of which they are a part, this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems” (UNEP, 1992).


7

1900

3%

65%

2%

30%

1950

39%

28%

4%

29%

2000

78%

12%

4%6%

Predominantly Coniferous

Predominantly Broadleaved

Mixed Forest

Other Wooded Land


Therefore, biodiversity may be considered at three different levels: species, genetic and ecosystem levels and the assessment of biodiversity should pertain to these levels to obtain a representative and holistic account of the biodiversity within a site.

2.3.2 MethodologiesNo single standardised protocol for the assessment of biodiversity in afforestation sites exists. The following sections outline various methods used either alone or together, for the assessment of biodiversity. These methods may be broadly categorised, according to the level of assessment required, as follows (Burley & Gauld, 1994): Species biodiversity: Traditional inventory and biota analysis. Genetic biodiversity: Molecular methods. Landscape biodiversity: Remote sensing & Geographic Information Systems

(GIS).Species-level assessments require traditional methods of inventory and analysis and this may be extended to the genetic-level using molecular methods, which remain limited in application, often prohibitively expensive, and in their infancy at present. In order to assess biodiversity at an ecosystem and landscape level, remote sensing and geographic information systems can be used which may be extended to a global level and these methods are gaining in popularity.2.3.2.1Species Biodiversity Assessment Using Traditional Inventory and

Biota AnalysisData obtained from inventories of biota are important in the estimation of species diversity, population densities and geographical distribution, and to provide baselines as an aid in the prediction of changes in biodiversity as an integral part of monitoring programmes. Inventories help to develop strategies for the management and conservation of species and habitats (Stork & Samways, 1995).Methods of inventory and biodiversity analysis vary on a global scale. There is no single protocol for the standardisation of assessment techniques in relation to afforestation sites. However, each assessment should use the minimum amount of proven collecting methods for each taxon and allow variation to be estimated and analysed (Coddington et al., 1991). Ideally, surveys of biodiversity should be carried out on different occasions at different times of the year (Harris & Harris, 1997) in order to obtain representative data.Species richness is used, together with diversity indices, as a measure of the species diversity and the evenness of spread in ecosystems (Myers et al., 1994). Two of the most common indices of diversity in vegetation surveys are the Simpson index and the Shannon-Weiner index. Indices are regularly used to provide quantitative estimates of biodiversity using figures for species diversity and relative abundance but many of the indices do not value rarity and thus may have less significance for conservation (Burley & Gauld, 1994). Additionally, when the absolute abundance of a species is changed, without changing the relative abundance, indices may not show this change (Myers et al., 1994). It has been suggested that the use of species diversity measures such as the Williams index (Williams, 1964) should be used instead of the Shannon index for species diversity measurement, to improve biodiversity assessments for the purposes of conservation (Cousins, 1995). Indices of biodiversity are frequently used for different purposes. In Denmark indices are used to determine areas of species endemism, whereas the National Heritage Program of the United States Nature


8


Conservancy identifies areas of vulnerable species to conserve on an International scale (Burley & Gauld, 1994). The general advantages and disadvantages associated with different indices are discussed at length by Magurran (Magurran, 1988). In order to assess independently complimentary levels of biodiversity, methods for monitoring management impacts should be developed (Cousins, 1995).2.3.2.2Genetic Biodiversity Assessment Using Molecular MethodsMolecular methods of biodiversity assessment are expensive to use and in general would not be considered as viable methods for use in afforestation sites for the purposes of biodiversity evaluation. The methods available for the assessment of biodiversity are also limited and in the early stages of development. Some developments in molecular ecology in relation to vegetation include germ-plasm and chloroplast DNA assessment to establish diversity and the use of microsatellites to determine population genetic diversity and dispersal of plants (Douglas, 1999; Dumolin-Lapegue et al., 1997; Kelleher & Hodkinson, in press; Martin et al., 1999; Ouborg et al., 1999; Streiff et al., 1998). Much research has been carried out into conservation of endangered species and molecular methods for assessment of gene pool diversity are used in captive breeding programmes in zoos around the world. For example the Arabian Oryx has been reintroduced into the wild using these captive breeding programmes by manipulating a small gene pool to maximise population diversity.2.3.2.3Landscape Biodiversity Assessment Using Remote Sensing &

Geographic Information Systems The use of GIS facilitates the examination of landscape-scale biodiversity and gives an insight into pattern and process. It can aid in the assessment and mapping of biodiversity in different habitats and the identification of areas of high conservation status. In forestry terms, GIS may yield results about the best patterns of clearfelling and afforestation, in terms of patch size and location.Remote sensing, either with the aid of aerial photography or satellite imagery and accompanied by ground-truthing, is a useful tool in the assessment of habitat types and broad vegetation classifications. The Corine land cover project (O'Sullivan, 1994) is one such example. Its accuracy in identifying habitat types has been criticised and therefore its use in conjunction with other methodologies is recommended for more accurate results. The FS uses the Forest Inventory Planning System (FIPS), a database with a GIS component, developed by layering information from various sources including remote sensing data from the Landsat TM satellite and aerial photography. This system is used in forest inventory and planning and will permit more sustainable forest development in the future by providing key environmental information (Forest Service, 2000e) (see Section 4.2.1). Other countries also use databases with a GIS component to aid forest planning and management. The US Nature Conservancy has developed the Biological and Conservation Database (BCD) which has all the habitats and biota of high conservation value mapped out (Burley & Gauld, 1994). The “Froggie” is used in Ghana to identify the location of different species present and has been found to be very useful to forest managers (Burley & Gauld, 1994). Part of the forest strategy for European Union includes the development of a European Forest Information and Communication System (EFICS). This will gather and analyse information on the development of the EU forest sector in relation to policies and programmes for forestry development in the EU member states and, using GIS, will improve the quality of national forest inventories to help monitor the


9


implementation of SFM in the EU (Forestry Authority & Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, 1998).2.3.2.4Vegetation Classification SystemsMethodologies used in vegetation classification are broad, though the most commonly used system in Ireland and Germany is the Montpellier/Braun-Blanquet phytosociological designation (Braun-Blanquet & Tüxen, 1952; Kent & Coker, 1992; Reif, 2001; White & Doyle, 1982). This system uses associations as the working unit of phytosociological grouping, which are grouped together, to form alliances, orders and classes in a hierarchical system. This differs from the UK National Vegetation Classification (NVC) which defines communities as the working units and terms communities using the two or three most dominant species present in a non-hierarchical system (Rodwell, 1991a, b, 1992, 1995, 2000). The NVC used in the UK is very useful in aiding the identification of various phytosociological communities and software packages including TABLEFIT (Hill, 1993) and MATCH (Malloch, 1991) may be used to assign NVC communities to species lists. However, the application of the NVC to Irish conditions is questionable for several reasons including geographic and climatic variation between the countries and also due to differences in phytosociological classifications and a lack of Irish data. There are also problems in determining which NVC community is applicable in transitional and disturbed habitats (Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1995).The Heritage Council recently published A Guide to Habitats in Ireland (Fossitt, 2000) which should be used in the future on a national basis to aid in the classification of habitats as it is the first overview of Irish habitat diversity. There is no biological records centre in Ireland but the SAC/NHA database in National Parks and Wildlife Service is a useful source of information on Irish habitats and biodiversity and would be important in the formation of native species records.

2.3.3 The Use of IndicatorsIndicators of biodiversity provide quantitative values, which aid in the prediction of the impacts of changing management practices and ecological trends in the future (Ferris & Humphrey, 1999; Keddy & Drummond, 1996). Indicators of biodiversity may be divided into three hierarchical categories for the purposes of SFM: compositional; structural and functional (Schulze & Mooney, 1994), and these may be used at different levels to ensure that SFM criteria are met. Compositional indicators are related to species at an ecosystem level or allelic diversity at a genetic level for example. Structural indicators are related to spatial distribution (Hansson, 2000). Functional indicators relate to processes in ecosystems (Hansson, 2000). A suite of indicators has been developed by the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe for the assessment of forest biodiversity at a regional scale (The Third Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, 1998).


10


3 METHODS

3.1 RATIONALE

In order to fulfil the objectives of this review, it was necessary to:1. Establish the existing practice in Ireland and identify any deficiencies in this

practice;2. Obtain information on existing practice overseas from as many countries as

possible, and evaluate this information to identify examples of best practice;3. Compare existing practice in Ireland with the examples of best practice

overseas, and identify elements of the best practice overseas, which could be practicably integrated with existing practice in Ireland.

3.2 EXISTING PRACTICE IN IRELAND

3.2.1 Information SourcesPublished documents reviewed included C.A.A.S. (Environmental Services) Ltd. (2002; 2003), Cork County Council (1997), Department of Agriculture (1996), Department of Agriculture and Food (2004), Department of Agriculture Food and Rural Development (2000; 2001), Department of Arts Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands (2002), Department of the Environment (1997), Environmental Protection Agency (1995a; 1995b), Environmental Resources Management (1998), Forest Service (2000a; 2000b; 2000c; 2000d; 2000e; 2001a; 2001b; 2001c; 2001d; 2002a; 2002b; 2003a; 2003b; 2003c; 2004), Iremonger (1999), Meath County Council (2001), Sligo County Council (2000), Waterford County Council (1999), and Wicklow County Council (2002). In addition, personnel in the FS, National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and various local authorities were consulted (see Appendix A3.1). We reviewed all EISs submitted in relation to afforestation projects held in the ENFO library. We requested information from the relevant planning authorities about the assessment of these EISs.

3.2.2 Environmental Impact Statement ReviewCopies of all EISs submitted to planning authorities are filed in the ENFO library in Dublin. A total of nine EISs held in this library refer to afforestation projects. As EISs are often not forwarded to this library until completion of the assessment process, it is possible that there are very recent EISs relating to afforestation which were not available for review.We reviewed all of the above nine EISs in the ENFO library, using separate review forms (see Appendix 4) for general information about the EIS, vegetation, invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles, birds and mammals. We selected the categories on the review form (see Table 3) to cover the components which would be expected to be included in a comprehensive biodiversity assessment carried out for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), based upon best practice guidelines (Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1995) and the professional consultancy experience of one (TG) of the present authors. Under each category we summarised the extent of information included in the EIS and, where appropriate, the methods used to collect the information. Note that standard EIS review methodologies (e.g. Lee et al., 1999) were not used because they focus more on assessing the quality of the EIS, whereas the focus of this review was to establish what information was contained in the EIS, and how was it collected.


11


Table 3. Categories used for EIS review.General Information

General Methods

Vegetation Invertebrates Vertebrates

EIA title;Size;Competent Authority;Year;Organisation;Outcome;Date resolved.

Assessment of designated sites;Consultations;Habitat map;Scoping;Taxonomic groups covered;Contents and sources of information.

Literature Review;Field survey-habitat inventory;Field survey -species inventory1;Field survey – methodology;Phytosociological assessment;Evaluation of conservation significance.

Taxa covered;Literature Review;Field survey -species inventory1;Field survey -species abundance;Evaluation of conservation significance.

Literature Review;Field survey -species inventory1;Field survey -species abundance;Evaluation of conservation significance.

1 the completeness of the species inventory was broadly assessed based upon the number and identity of species recorded and the habitat types present.

3.3 EXISTING PRACTICE OVERSEAS

3.3.1 Information Sources3.3.1.1Initial ApproachWe carried out an initial literature review by keyword searches of the Web of Science (http://wos.heanet.ie/). We only found one paper relating to biodiversity assessment of afforestation in a temperate country (Gray & Edwards-Jones, 1999) and another three in a sub-tropical country (Armstrong & van Hensbergen, 1997a; Armstrong & van Hensbergen, 1997b; Armstrong & van Hensbergen, 1999). Therefore, we had to focus on contacting individuals and institutions that might have relevant information.We identified contacts from a variety of sources including information provided by national embassies, web searches, lists of participants in forest biodiversity research projects, and personal contacts. Contacts included the state agencies responsible for afforestation and nature conservation, forest research institutes, non-governmental nature conservation bodies and individual academics. A full list of these contacts is included in Appendix 3, Section A3.3.As an initial approach, we sent a standard letter to as many potential contacts as could be identified, requesting information on the following topics:1. The legislative requirements (if any) for the consideration of biodiversity

impacts in the selection of sites for afforestation2. The role that (the statutory Nature Conservation Agency in your country)

plays in the assessment of biodiversity of sites to be afforested.3. The methods used to assess biodiversity in the strategic assessment of areas

for afforestation at the national or regional level4. The methods used for biodiversity assessment of individual sites to be

afforested 5. The use (if any) of biological indicators in biodiversity assessment of

afforestation sitesAs a follow-up approach, we sent a second letter requesting information on procedures for EIA in relation to afforestation projects. This letter was sent to contacts listed as being the Ministries responsible for EIA legislation identified on the website:


12

http://wos.heanet.ie/


http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/contacts3.htm,and requested the following information:1. What is the procedure adopted in your country for applying Article 4 of the

EIA Directive (97/11/EC) to Annex II, 1d projects (Initial afforestation and deforestation for the purposes of conversion to another type of land use)?

2. How many EIAs have been prepared in your country for Annex II, 1d projects?Letters to French and German language contacts were sent in their native language. All other letters were sent in English. We made additional efforts to locate relevant information by web searches, focusing on websites of the relevant national agencies in each country, and websites of forest research organisations. We also reviewed information contained in Impact of Current Policy on Aspects of Ireland’s Heritage (Environmental Resources Management, 1998) and Code of Best Forest Practice – Ireland (Forest Service, 2000b).3.3.1.2United KingdomFrom a preliminary review of responses, the United Kingdom was the only country where we found evidence that a significant body of relevant information existed: Information received indicated that Environmental Assessment (EA) is

routinely required for new afforestation projects and 86 EAs for afforestation projects had been completed by 1996 in Scotland (Gray & Edwards-Jones, 1999).

In the European Union, the countries with the highest rates of grant-aided (under the Common Agricultural Policy; CAP) afforestation between 1992 and 1997 were Spain, Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom (European Commission, 1997). No information was available for Spain, but in Portugal only 15 EIAs have been carried out for afforestation projects.

Local authorities routinely prepare Indicative Forestry Strategies (IFS).Therefore, a more detailed information search was focused on the United Kingdom. This involved four principal efforts:1. Consultations with a number of FC personnel.2. Review of a sample of Environmental Statements (ESs) submitted for

afforestation projects in Scotland.3. Sending information requests to 121 members of the Institute of Ecology and

Environmental Management (IEEM). The IEEM is the professional accreditation body for UK ecologists. The members contacted were selected mainly as those which listed experience in either EIA or Forestry in the IEEM Members Handbook (Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, 2001). Initial responses resulted in follow-up contacts.

4. Web searches for information on IFSs and Local Forestry Frameworks (LFFs), and follow-up information requests to listed contacts.

In total, we contacted over 200 individuals and organizations. A list of contacts from which responses were received is included in Appendix 3, Section A3.2. In addition, we reviewed relevant general publications (Department of the Environment, 1995; Department of the Environment & Welsh Office, 1992; Environmental Resources Management, 1998; Forestry Authority, 1997; Forestry Authority & Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, 1998; Forestry Commission, 1990, undated-a, b; Gray, 1996; Gray & Edwards-Jones, 1999; Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1995; Lowden, 2000; Scottish Executive, 1999; Sidway & Turbull Jeffrey Partnership Landscape Architects, 1997; The Scottish Office, 1998).


13


We obtained evidence on the actual effectiveness of UK practice in preventing damage to sites of high biodiversity importance from published reports (Avery et al., 2001; Review Steering Group Secretariat Scottish Executive, 2002) and by contacting the following non-governmental nature conservation organisations: Butterfly Conservation, Friends of the Earth, Plantlife, the RSPB, the Scottish Wildlife Trust , the Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK.

3.3.2 UK Environmental Statements ReviewThere is no central repository for UK afforestation ESs. Instead the ESs are held in the Conservancy offices which administer the area in which the proposed projects are located. As the Highland Region office in Scotland holds the most (44%), we visited this office over a two day period in order to review the ESs held there. On arrival, we consulted copies of the records submitted by Highland Conservancy to FC Scottish HQ in Edinburgh in order to identify recent proposals for which an ES had been submitted, and to find out where these ESs were filed. With the assistance of the FC staff, we selected 17 ESs for review on the basis of quality and accessibility. We then reviewed the ecological content of these statements, extracting the same information from each ES as was extracted for the review of Irish EISs (see Table 3).

We also reviewed two ESs submitted for afforestation projects in Northern Ireland. These generally contained similar methodologies to the Irish EISs, and did not contain significant examples of best practice. The results of this review are, therefore, not presented in this report.

3.4 EVALUATION

We used the criterion of the effectiveness of the existing practices in protecting sites of high biodiversity importance from damage resulting from afforestation, to evaluate existing practices. We defined best practice as that which was most likely to identify these sites, thereby having greatest potential for prevention of damage to the site biodiversity. It should be noted that the best practices identified are the best practices of the examples reviewed, not necessarily the best conceivable practices.


14


4 EXISTING PRACTICE IN IRELANDThis section reviews existing practice in Ireland in relation to biodiversity assessment of afforestation sites.

4.1 LEGISLATION

The provisions in Irish legislation that relate to biodiversity assessment of afforestation are described below.

4.1.1 European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations, 2001 (S.I. No. 538 of 2001)

4.1.1.1Consent ProceduresAll initial afforestation (excluding planting of trees within the curtilage of a house) requires the approval of the Minister for Agriculture and Food (referred to as “the Minister” in the remainder of this section. Where the Minister considers that the proposed planting might have significant effects in relation to specific environmental issues, the Minister will send notice of the application to certain prescribed bodies. In the case of nature conservation, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is the prescribed body. In these circumstances, the Minister will publish notice of the application in a local newspaper, and the application and site map will be available for inspection and purchase by the public. Prescribed bodies will have four weeks to make submissions, or observations while the public will have three weeks.The Minister is responsible for deciding whether or not to grant approval and, if approval is granted, whether to make this approval subject to any conditions. In making this decision, the Minister will take into consideration the application and any additional information furnished by the applicant, any submissions or observations made by third parties in compliance with these regulations, the Irish National Forestry Standard (Forest Service, 2000e), the Code of Best Forest Practice – Ireland (Forest Service, 2000b), any environmental guidelines issued by the minister (including the Forest Biodiversity Guidelines (Forest Service, 2000c)), any standards and procedures manuals issued by the Minister, Government policy, and any other relevant provision. The decision will be notified to the applicant and any third party that made a submission or observation (subject to certain restrictions).4.1.1.2Environmental Impact AssessmentAn EIA1 is required to be carried out for any initial afforestation project, which would involve an area of 50 hectares or more. The Minister may also require EIA in the case of sub-threshold (i.e. less than 50 hectares) applications, where he or she considers that the proposed afforestation would be likely to have significant effects on the environment. All applications located in a NHA (formally notified or designated), SAC, SPA, Nature Reserve, and Refuge for Fauna or Refuge for Flora will be subject to screening for sub-threshold EIA. In determining whether sub-threshold EIA is required, the Minister will have regard to the criteria specified in Article 27 of the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations, 1999 (S.I. No. 93 of 1999); these criteria are summarised in Table 4. As part of the EIA process, the developer is required to submit an EIS. The EIS is required to contain “a description of the aspects of the

1 See Section 1.5.1 for an explanation of the distinction between the terms Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Assessment.


15


environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed development, including in particular…fauna and flora…”.Table 4. Screening criteria for sub-threshold EIAIssue Specific criteriaCharacteristics of development

Size, use of natural resources, production of waste, pollution and nuisances, risk of accidents

Location of development Existing land useAbundance, quality and regenerative capacity of the natural resourcesAbsorption capacity of the natural environment, in particular: wetlands, coastal zones, mountain and forest areas, SPAs and SACs, areas in which environmental quality standards have been exceeded, densely populated areas, significant landscapes

Characteristics of impacts Extent, transfrontier nature, magnitude and complexity, probability, duration, frequency and reversibility

These provisions require that a biodiversity assessment be carried out for any proposed afforestation that requires an EIA.

4.1.2 European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997 (S.I. No. 94 of 1997)

These regulations implement the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), and also contain provisions relating to the protection of sites designated under the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC). The regulations require that any proposed development that may have a significant adverse impact on a Special Protection Area (SPA) or Special Area of Conservation (SAC) should be subject to an “appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives”. An EIA is considered to be an “appropriate assessment”.This provision would require a biodiversity assessment to be carried out for any proposed afforestation that might adversely affect the integrity of a SAC or SPA.

4.1.3 Wildlife Act, 1976 and Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000These acts prohibit actions which “wilfully alter, damage, destroy or interfere with the habitat or environment” of any protected plant species. Protected plant species are scheduled by ministerial order. Under the most recent order (S.I. No. 94 of 1999), 68 vascular plants, 14 mosses, 4 liverworts, 1 lichen and 2 stonewort species are protected.The Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000 requires that any potentially damaging works which might affect a designated Natural Heritage Area (NHA) can only be carried out with the consent of the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, and define statutory procedures for notification, consultation and approval, or otherwise of such works. In sites where the intention to designate a NHA has been formally notified to the landowner, potentially damaging works can only be carried out after a three month notification period, but there are no requirements to obtain consent.These provisions do not explicitly require that biodiversity assessments be carried out. However, the process by which NPWS identified sites as NHAs or as holding protected plant species constitutes a form of biodiversity assessment which can be taken into account in the approval process for afforestation projects.


16


4.1.4 EvaluationThe recent introduction of statutory consent procedures for all afforestation, and new procedures for EIA of afforestation has addressed the major deficiencies that previously existed in the legislative control of afforestation in Ireland. In particular: statutory consent is now required for all afforestation (not just grant-aided

afforestation and afforestation of sites greater than 70 ha, as was previously the case);

biodiversity considerations (in the form of the Forest Biodiversity Guidelines) must be taken into account in the consent procedure;

public consultation will include availability of full details about applications; and

procedures for sub-threshold EIA have been introduced.The screening procedures for sub-threshold EIA are, with the exception of criteria relating to designated sites, not very specific, but this mirrors the procedures in other Irish EIA legislation. This means that, to ensure that screening for sub-threshold EIA provides an effective mechanism for control of small-scale afforestation of ecologically important sites, it will be necessary for the FS to develop specific criteria for implementing the screening procedures. For example, the new regulations have removed the thresholds relating to cumulative afforestation. This is, presumably, on the basis that cumulative afforestation can be dealt with by the screening procedures for sub-threshold EIA. However, in the absence of legislative requirements the FS will need to develop specific screening criteria for cumulative afforestation.The new regulations have lowered the threshold for EIA for afforestation from 70 ha to 50 ha. Between 1997 and 2000, there were 62 afforestation plantings of 50-100 ha (Forest Service, 2001a), which were presumably all between 50 and 70 ha (as none of them were subject to EIA). However, previous experience does not necessarily indicate that lowering the EIA threshold will increase the number of afforestation projects requiring EIA. The threshold for requiring EIA for afforestation was lowered from 200 ha to 70 ha in 1996. At that time, it was anticipated that EIA would be required for up to 20 new projects per year accounting for 12% of all afforestation (Department of the Environment, 1997). In fact, only one EIA appears to have been completed since 1997. A review of FIPS data (Forest Service, 2001d) shows that between 1990 and 1996, grant aid was paid for 36 new afforestation plantings of greater than 100 ha. After the reduction of the EIA threshold, there was a sharp reduction in the numbers of large plantings with grant aid paid for only two plantings of greater than 100 ha between 1997 and 2000.

4.2 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT

4.2.1 NationalGrowing for the Future: A Strategic Plan for the Development of the Forestry Sector in Ireland (Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry, 1996) includes, as a specific policy, “to develop a comprehensive inventory and planning system to provide forest resource, geographical and environmental data for management, control and planning purposes”. The FS through the development of the Forest Inventory and Planning System (FIPS) database is implementing this policy. One of the uses of the FIPS database will be to aid in the formation of IFSs which will guide forest development by identifying the optimum areas for future


17


planting so that economic, social and environmental benefits can be optimised (Forest Service, 2001d). An IFS is defined by the FS as being:

…a planning tool used to assess opportunities for new forest planting in a given area. The objective of an IFS is to identify the potential that future afforestation can make towards the establishment of high quality forests serving a variety of purposes including timber production, forest industry development, off-farm incomes, tourism, amenity and the enhancement of the environment. (Forest Service, 2004b).

The FIPS database includes details of NHAs, SACs and SPAs that can be used to provide a minimal level of biodiversity information in the planning of new afforestation. Other datasets included in the database (aerial photography, soils, geology, landcover, etc.) could also provide information relevant to biodiversity assessment but would require expert interpretation to be of use. The landcover information in the FIPS database is being produced by the Irish Forest Soils project (Loftus et al., 2002) from satellite imagery (resolution 1-5 ha) of Ireland, using broad habitat categories which are related to the habitat classification system of Fossitt (2000). Additional data is being collected from sample areas, by interpretation of aerial photography and from field surveys, for validation of the classification of the satellite imagery. Use of FIPS for the “conservation and enhancement of forest biodiversity” and development of an “Indicative Forestry Strategy approach…to match the ‘right tree in the right place’” are specific actions identified by the National Biodiversity Plan (Department of Arts Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands, 2002).

4.2.2 RegionalThe Department of the Environment has produced guidelines for planning authorities (Department of the Environment, 1997), which include guidance on their role in the strategic assessment of afforestation. These state that:1. All planning authorities should produce a map showing “areas sensitive to

afforestation”.2. Planning authorities should consider preparing an IFS.The only type of biodiversity assessment that these guidelines recommend is the identification of NHAs, SACs and SPAs.The Forest Service introduced new management and environmental procedures in relation to forestry in October 2001, following agreement with the European Commission and the Department of the Environment. These new procedures provide for the development of plans on a meaningful geographic basis. The Forest Service is, therefore, in the process of developing IFS for each county, in partnership with the local authorities. The first of these has been published in draft status (Forest Service, 2003c) and discussion papers have been published to aid in the preparation of IFSs for Cos. Limerick, Monaghan, Waterford and Wexford (Forest Service, 2002a, 2003a, b, 2004a).Examples of strategic assessments by various planning authorities are discussed below.4.2.2.1County ClareA pilot study was carried out in Co. Clare in 1996 to test the appropriateness of GIS as a platform for doing an IFS. It involved the accumulation of individual datasets with little integration or evaluation. The only biodiversity information incorporated was details of NHAs (Bulfin, 2001; Coggins, 2001).


18


4.2.2.2County CorkCork County Council produced a map showing areas sensitive to afforestation in November 1997 (Cork County Council, 1997). Natural heritage designations (NHAs, SACs and SPAs) are the only biodiversity factors that the report explicitly mentions as being taken into account in the preparation of the map. The map identifies 16 broad areas, but does not identify any natural heritage designations outside these broad areas. One of these areas (the Bride River valley) is described as “requiring protection from a scenic and ecological perspective”, even though it had not been previously designated; the criteria used to determine this requirement for protection are not stated.4.2.2.3County MayoA draft IFS has been prepared for Co. Mayo (Forest Service, 2003c). This IFS maps land into three categories that indicate the potential for forestry: Preferred Areas, Potential Areas and Sensitive Areas. Potential Areas include “REPS Areas”, and Sensitive Areas include NHAs, SACs, SPAs and National Parks.4.2.2.4County MeathMeath County Council includes in its Development Plan (Meath County Council, 2001) a section entitled “An Indicative Forestry Strategy for Meath”. This recommends that the Landscape Classification of the county, also included in the Development Plan, should be consulted for “guidance on areas which contain opportunities for the creation of new woodland and areas which might be sensitive to new forestry proposals”. The Landscape Classification divides the rural areas of County Meath into eleven Visual Quality Groups. Based on the information in the Development Plan, the Landscape Classification refers primarily to visual quality, with some references also to cultural heritage, but no explicit references to biodiversity considerations.4.2.2.5County SligoSligo County Council states in its Development Plan (Sligo County Council, 2000) that “it is considered generally that future forestry development may not be sustainable in proposed Natural Heritage Areas…”.4.2.2.6Co. WicklowWicklow County Council has recently prepared a IFS (Wicklow County Council, 2002). This IFS includes a map showing areas sensitive to afforestation. The map was based upon a landscape character assessment, and also included, among other things, natural heritage designations (NHAs, SACs and SPAs) and 10 m buffer zones along rivers. One of the recommendations for future revisions of the IFS is that a detailed habitat survey should be carried out (Murphy, 2001; O'Neill, 2001).

4.2.3 EvaluationThe strategic assessments that have been carried out in Ireland appear to generally contain more detailed considerations of landscape character than of biodiversity. Notably, the Co. Meath IFS refers solely to landscape character. Where biodiversity is considered, the emphasis is on identifying natural heritage designations. There has been little attempt to take account of potential biodiversity constraints outside designated areas, although the potential significance of non-designated sites of biodiversity importance is acknowledged in the Wicklow IFS and in the Monaghan, Wexford and Waterford discussion


19


papers. While information on such constraints is not as readily available, it is possible to obtain and there are potential models available in the form of the Ecological Constraints studies which are carried out as a matter of course for all new major road projects (National Roads Authority, 2003). In addition, the Irish Forest Soils project (Loftus et al., 2002) will produce a large amount of landcover information, at various levels of resolution, which, with interpretation, could provide valuable information on potential biodiversity constraints.It is widely acknowledged that the existing nature conservation designations do not include all sites of national importance (e.g. Irish Peatland Conservation Council, 2001) and are not, in any case, intended to cover sites of regional or local importance. Therefore, if strategic assessment is based on designated sites, then comprehensive methods for biodiversity assessment at the site assessment stage are required. If site assessments do not adequately take account of biodiversity, they may fail to safeguard sites of high biodiversity importance from negative impacts of afforestation.

4.3 SITE ASSESSMENT

Most afforestation in Ireland is grant-aided through the Afforestation Grant and Premium Scheme. The agri-environmental support scheme (REPS) also has implications for approval of afforestation. The requirements for biodiversity assessment under these two schemes are discussed below. The special case of afforestation where EIA is required is discussed in Section 4.4 below. Non grant-aided afforestation requires consent from the Minister for the Agriculture and Food (see Section 4.1.1 above) and, if it is likely to affect a SAC or SPA, from the Minister for the Environment Heritage and Local Government (see Section 4.1.2 above). In addition, afforestation of proposed NHAs that have been notified to landowners and designated NHAs will require consent procedures (see Section 4.1.3), but many NHAs have not been notified.Another newly launched scheme, the Native Woodland Scheme (Forest Service, 2001c), may play a significant role in grant-aiding of afforestation in the future, although current levels of afforestation under this scheme are very low. The NWS is designed primarily to enhance native woodland biodiversity and includes the preparation of a detailed ecological survey and management plan (Forest Service, 2002b).

4.3.1 Afforestation Grant and Premium SchemeThis section describes the standard procedures for assessment of applications for afforestation grants, identifies the stages within this procedure where there is provision for biodiversity assessment to be carried out and reviews the available information about the methods used for these biodiversity assessments.4.3.1.1General ProcedureThe FS procedure for assessing applications for afforestation grants is described in Afforestation grant and premium schemes (Forest Service, 2000a).. This procedure involves the applicant submitting details of their application using a standard form (Form 1). A Competent Forester (a forester approved by the Forest Service) is required to complete pages 3-5 of this form. Following receipt of the completed form, an FS Inspector will then assess the application, inspect the site and complete a Certification Form. Under certain circumstances, consultation with various bodies will be carried out (see Section 4.3.1.5). All applications for afforestation grants must comply with the Code of Best Forest Practice – Ireland (Forest Service, 2000b) and the Forest Biodiversity Guidelines (Forest Service,


20


2000c). The Forest Biodiversity Guidelines (referred to as Guidelines from here except where this is ambiguous) have introduced new requirements for biodiversity assessment.4.3.1.2Forest Biodiversity GuidelinesThe recently-published Guidelines were prepared by the FS from a commissioned report (Iremonger, 1999). Although many points raised in the latter report were brought into the published Guidelines, many were also lost, such as the importance of microbiota to forest biodiversity. The Guidelines require that biodiversity considerations be incorporated into the initial site development plan that is included with the grant application and assessed by the FS Inspector. The biodiversity considerations must include:1. Identification of SACs, SPAs or pNHAs in or adjoining the site;2. Identification of important woodland and non-woodland habitats present on

the site, including non-designated habitats of local significance. These habitats can include: “hedgerows, areas of scrub, pockets of native broadleaf cover and individual old trees; aquatic zones (rivers, streams and lakes shown on an Ordnance Survey 6 inch map) and wetlands such as ponds, old drainage ditches, reedbeds, swamps, marshes, turloughs, and peaty hollows; woodland glades, unimproved grassland and wildflower meadows; caves and rocky outcrops; and features such as old quarries, sand pits and old stone walls”.

3. Identification of fauna of particular interest, such as: “birds of prey (buzzard, eagle, falcon, harrier, hawk, kite, osprey and owl), and important mammals such as badger, bat species, red deer, hare, hedgehog, otter, pine marten and red squirrel” and “ “location of features such as badger setts and heronries”.

4.3.1.3Application FormThe application form includes a section on “Environmental Considerations”. This contains a list of questions, of which the following relate to biodiversity:Is the area within a pNHA, SAC, SPA or National Park?Is the area within 3 km upstream of a pNHA, SAC, SPA or National Park?Does the area contain a current REPS plan habitat?Other Environmental ConsiderationsThe application form allows a Yes or No box to be ticked for each of these questions with a third box to be ticked if a separate report is attached. Therefore, the application form allows for the possibility of a biodiversity assessment report being submitted. However, such reports are rarely, if ever, submitted (Foley, 2001).4.3.1.4Site Development PlanThe FS (Foley, 2001) has provided the following information about the requirements for biodiversity assessment by the Competent Forester, in preparing the Site Development Plan:1. Identify important woodland and non-woodland habitats and fauna present on

site. Examples of such habitats and fauna are listed in the Guidelines (referred to from here as Guidelines Habitats). They are not expected to evaluate the quality of any of the habitats in the list that are encountered. There is no guidance given to help them identify these habitats.


21


2. Map the 15% of the site identified as the Area for Biodiversity Enhancement (ABE) and maybe the broad habitat type. The site development plan is also required to map areas of Guidelines habitats outside the ABE.

3. The Competent Forester is not normally expected to submit information on flora or fauna.

It should be noted, however, that the Information Note: Forest Biodiversity Guidelines and Afforestation Grant Aid and Premium Payment (Forest Service, 2001b) issued by the FS does not state any requirement to identify Guidelines habitats outside the ABE.4.3.1.5ConsultationsAll grant applications for sites greater than 25 ha, or within areas identified by the local authorities as sensitive to forestry are referred to the local authorities for comment (Department of the Environment, 1997). For all grant applications for sites greater than 2.5 ha notices of the County, District Electoral Division and Townland are published in a locally circulated provincial newspaper and posted on the FS website. All grant applications for sites in NHAs and sites adjoining or within 3 km upstream of NHAs, SACs and SPAs are referred to NPWS for comment (Foley, 2001). These procedures provide the opportunity for local authorities, the public and NPWS to raise biodiversity considerations. NPWS did not respond to our requests for information on this subject, but according to the FS (Foley, 2001), they would normally object to applications for grants in NHAs unless they coincide with conservation objectives (e.g. planting of woodland to reinforce existing woodland). The official guidelines for planning authorities (Department of the Environment, 1997) state, in relation to consultation about grant applications, the planning authority should not “concern itself with…nature conservation issues” unless requested to do so by NPWS. In general, local authorities have not had in-house technical expertise available. However, the appointments of Heritage Officers on a rolling programme over the past few years have begun to remedy this deficiency. In December 2001, Heritage Officers with ecological experience had been appointed to eleven local authorities, of which seven provided information for this study. By February, the number of Heritage Officers with ecological experience had increased to thirteen.In one case (Cork County Council), the local authority has not commented in the past on biodiversity issues, due to lack of relevant expertise, but may do so in the future following the appointment of a Heritage Officer with ecological expertise (Casey, 2001; Kelleher, 2001).In Cos. Carlow and Westmeath, no applications have been forwarded to the local authority for comment in recent years (Clabby, 2002; Scott, 2002). In the case of Co. Carlow, if any were received, the Heritage Officer would review them in relation to biodiversity issues.In Co. Clare, the Heritage Officer frequently submits comments on biodiversity issues relating to non-designated sites (McGuire, 2001). The officer assesses the biodiversity importance of sites using existing knowledge of the site, information that can be gleaned from maps, and, in some cases, site visits. The number of site visits is restricted by time availability. The evaluation of biodiversity importance is not based upon any formal criteria, but uses the officer’s professional judgement as an ecologist.In Co. Limerick, the Heritage Officer visits all sites and evaluates their biodiversity importance using phase 1 habitat survey (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 1993) methods, the Heritage Council habitat classification (Fossitt, 2000) and Department of Agriculture Northern Ireland indicator species for


22


unimproved grasslands (O'Neill, 2001). From this evaluation, the officer specifies particular features that should be included in the ABE.In Co. Leitrim, the Heritage Officer does not have any involvement in assessment of afforestation grant applications (Guest, 2001).In Co. Roscommon, most of the applications dealt with are for felling and replanting rather than for new forestry. Biodiversity considerations are limited to agreeing a percentage of native hardwoods and planting or retention of a native boundary to the site (McKeon, 2001).4.3.1.6Assessment by Forest Service InspectorThe assessment by the FS Inspector includes a site inspection, review of the documentation submitted by the applicant and review of any consultations carried out. In the past, FS Inspectors would have had no formal training in ecological assessment, although, recently, a proportion have begun a training course, run by University College Cork, in basic ecological assessment. The FS (Foley, 2001) provided the following information in relation to the biodiversity assessment carried out by the Inspector.1. Approximately 70% of applications are by Self-assessment Companies; all of

these are desk checked by the FS Inspectors and a minimum of 20% of these are inspected by FS Inspectors. FS Inspectors inspect all the remaining 30%.

2. The Inspector will check if the ABE has been correctly designated.3. If additional areas of Guidelines habitats (i.e. exceeding the ABE) have been

mapped, then the site would be inspected by the FS Inspector. Following this inspection, if the Guidelines habitats were found to exceed the 15% ABE, if the applicant wished to proceed with afforestation in that part of the site, and if deemed necessary by the Inspector, the application would be referred to the FS ecologist for appraisal. The issue to be resolved is as follows: Approximately 15% of the site can receive grant aid and premium payment as an unplanted ABE. Any area of Guidelines habitats in addition to that c. 15% does not receive those payments. A decision must then be made whether to approve the additional area of Guidelines habitats for afforestation or to exclude it from the scheme.

4. If the inspector feels that a site is of high biodiversity importance and should not be afforested, even if it is not a designated site, the application will be referred to NPWS for comment. This happens very rarely. There are no formal guidelines for the Inspector to help decide when to do this.

5. Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) habitats (habitats identified on a REPS plan of a farm) will not be considered for afforestation grant aid unless they are cleared by a qualified ecologist.

The Certification form allows the inspector to take account of biodiversity considerations by:1. excluding a section of the site from the proposed plantation; or2. issuing conditions for approval of the application; or3. rejecting the application.Decisions on grant applications in SACs, SPAs and NHAs and sites adjoining or within 3 km upstream of NHAs, SACs and SPAs are made on the basis of advice from NPWS (see Section 4.3.1.5).

4.3.2 Rural Environment Protection SchemeREPS is an agri-environmental measure included in the CAP Rural Development Plan. One of the objectives of REPS is: “to protect wildlife habitats and endangered species of flora and fauna”. Applicants for REPS have to submit an


23


agri-environmental plan prepared by an approved REPS planner. Over 70% of REPS planners have a background in agricultural science rather than ecology (Heritage Council, 1999), and the training course that REPS planners have to complete does not include any specific training in habitat survey and assessment. The specifications for REPS (Department of Agriculture and Food, 2004) include guidance on the integration of forestry and REPS. These require planners to:“identify areas of the farm appropriate for afforestation based on environmental, agricultural, forestry and socio-economic grounds. Any afforestation of land should be designed to provide additional environmental benefits, to offer greater habitat area overall, and to enhance biodiversity.”One of the listed criteria for identifying such areas is “existing habitats”.As part of Measure 4 of REPS, planners are required to map the habitats to be retained on the REPS plan. These habitats are specifically excluded from afforestation. These habitats include: “callows; turloughs and other seasonally flooded areas; marshes and swamps; peatlands (including raised bog, cut-over bog, blanket bog, or moors and fens); sand-dunes, foreshore and sea shore; machairs; eskers; natural or semi-natural vegetation; woodlands and groves of trees; scrubland; lakes, ponds, rivers, streams and watercourses; field boundaries/margins, hedgerows and stonewalls; old buildings inhabited by protected species such as barn owls and bats; disused quarries and such workings that have become habitats; and commonages and habitats designated as SPAs, SACs, NHAs, subject to the conditions of Measure A”. The REPS planner is required to “consider” the “quality of these habitats”, but no guidance is given as to how these habitats are defined, or how to evaluate the quality of any habitats encountered.

4.3.3 EvaluationCurrent procedures appear to provide an adequate framework for preventing afforestation damage to designated sites. However, there are clear deficiencies in the provisions for biodiversity assessment of non-designated sites within these procedures, and these are discussed below.Information on assessment procedures by NPWS was not made available for review and the adequacy of these procedures cannot, therefore, be evaluated.4.3.3.1Non Grant-aided AfforestationThe new consent procedures for afforestation (see Section 4.1.1), require that all afforestation comply with the Guidelines. Therefore, assessment of non grant-aided afforestation is likely to be similar to assessment of grant-aided afforestation, and subject to similar deficiencies, as discussed in Section 4.3.3.2. In theory, afforestation of sites with protected plant species also requires separate consent from the Minister for the Envronment Heritage and Local Government, but there are no mechanisms in place for monitoring compliance with this requirement. Furthermore, it is not clear whether all landowners are aware of the presence of a protected plant species on their land, as there is no legal requirement to notify landowners of the presence of a protected plant species on their land.4.3.3.2Afforestation Grant and Premium Scheme4.3.3.2.1Assessment by Competent Forester


24


Under the Afforestation Grant and Premium Scheme, biodiversity assessment is carried out by the Competent Forester through identification of important habitats and notable fauna on the Site Development Plan. The only guidance provided as to what types of habitats and species may qualify is the listing of habitat types and species of fauna in the Guidelines. As the assessment will usually be carried out by foresters who do not have detailed ecological training or expertise, it seems unreasonable to expect them to extrapolate from these lists to identify additional non-listed habitats or species. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the listings of habitats and species in the Guidelines will be interpreted as a more or less definitive list. The Guidelines habitats are not defined using any recognised habitat classification scheme, and do not include some habitat types of high biodiversity importance (e.g. blanket and raised bog, wet and dry heath). The list of notable fauna in the Guidelines includes only birds of prey (some of which are only rare migrants in Ireland) and mammals. There are notable omissions of fauna, such as breeding waders, which are often adversely affected by afforestation, and there is no mention of invertebrates. Even if the habitats and species listed in the Guidelines are only interpreted as indicative examples, the lack of clear definitions of habitat types, and the eccentric selection of habitats and species, do not provide a useful basis for guiding non-specialists in how to “identify habitats and species of particular interest”. Competent Foresters would generally have no specific training or expertise in ecological assessment. The requirement to identify habitats of biodiversity importance on the Site Development Plan outside the 15% ABE is not clearly stated in any guidance given to Competent Foresters. These deficiencies indicate that: Certain habitat types and biota of high biodiversity importance will be

systematically omitted from consideration in the approval of afforestation grants.

Criteria used to identify the Guidelines habitats will vary from site to site. Information on the full extent of habitats of biodiversity importance within a

site will not necessarily be recorded on the Site Development Plan.Because over 50% of sites are not inspected by FS Inspectors, deficiencies in the biodiversity assessment by Competent Foresters is likely to cause a significant risk of damage to sites of biodiversity importance.4.3.3.2.2Assessment by Local AuthoritiesThe local authorities only receive opportunities to comment on grant applications when they are for sites greater than 25 ha or when they are in areas identified as sensitive (see Section 4.3.1.5). Deficiencies in strategic assessment by local authorities (see Section 4.2.3) will, therefore, result in them not receiving applications for sites less than 25 ha in areas which are sensitive, but which have not been identified as such.The degree to which comments by local authorities include biodiversity considerations depends upon the availability of in-house expertise in ecological assessment. The official guidelines (Department of the Environment, 1997)discourage local authorities from making any input along these lines. At present, only thirteen local authorities have Heritage Officers with ecological expertise; other local authorities have Heritage Officers with experience in other aspects of heritage such as archaeology and architecture. Because only a single Heritage Officer is being appointed to each local authority, the Heritage Officer programme will not be sufficient to result in provision of ecological expertise to every local authority. At present, several local authorities where large amounts of afforestation is occurring (notably Kerry, Donegal, and Mayo which account for


25


27% of private planting over the period 1995-2000), do not have Heritage Officers with ecological expertise. Even where local authorities do have Heritage Officers with ecological expertise, assessment of afforestation grants is only one potential aspect of a very wide-ranging role. In some cases (as appears to be the case in Leitrim; see Section 4.3.1.5) local authorities may decide that the limited resource of ecological expertise offered by the Heritage Officer is better focused elsewhere.Where Heritage Officers with ecological expertise are involved in assessment of grant applications, it is likely that they will be able to identify the majority of sites of high biodiversity importance that they inspect. Nevertheless, there is no clear guidance for these Heritage Officers in how to identify these sites.4.3.3.2.3Assessment by Forest Service InspectorsUnder the Afforestation Grant and Premium Scheme, the procedure for assessment by the FS Inspectors is based largely on review of information submitted by the Competent Forester with site inspections by the Inspector of slightly less than half of the sites. The deficiencies identified above (Section 4.3.3.2.1), will, therefore, result in the Inspector frequently receiving inadequate information on biodiversity importance. Furthermore, Inspectors have no formal guidance on how to identify Guidelines habitats, or on how to identify when a non-designated site is of sufficient biodiversity importance that it should be referred to NPWS. At present, only a proportion of FS Inspectors has any formal training in ecological assessment. Again, these deficiencies indicate a significant risk of sites of high biodiversity importance being damaged, either as a result of inadequate self-assessment by Competent Foresters, or because the Inspectors lack sufficient guidance and training.4.3.3.2.4SummaryThe main personnel involved in biodiversity assessment of afforestation are Competent Foresters and FS Inspectors. Their understandable lack of sufficient experience, training and guidance in ecological assessment and evaluation, given the nature of their current role, is likely to result in a significant risk of damage to sites of high biodiversity importance. In this context it is interesting to note that the NWS requires site assessments by ecologists whereas normal afforestation grants do not, despite the fact that NWS plantings are less likely to result in adverse impacts to biodiversity.Where Heritage Officers with ecological experience are involved in assessment of grant applications, better identification of such sites is likely but this resource will not be available in all local authorities, will be subject to competing demands where they are available, and, in any case their assessment has no statutory role in decisions about grant applications.4.3.3.3Rural Environment Protection SchemeUnder REPS, biodiversity assessment is carried out by the REPS planner through identification of habitats listed under Measure 4 of REPS. Again, these habitats are not defined using any recognised habitat classification scheme, although the range of habitats listed is more comprehensive than the Guidelines habitats. Furthermore many REPS planners do not have adequate training or experience for ecological assessment (see Heritage Council, 1999).


26


4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

This section describes the procedures for formal EIA of afforestation projects, and reviews the biodiversity assessments contained in EISs submitted as part of this EIA process.

4.4.1 ProcedureWhere an EIA is required for an afforestation project (see Section 4.1.1 above), the developer is required to submit an EIS to the planning authority. In the past, the planning authority was the relevant County Council, or other local authority. However, the new regulations (see Section 4.1.1) have changed the relevant authority to the Minister for Agriculture and Food (which, in practice, will presumably mean submission to the FS). The developer can request advice on scoping requirements for the EIS from the planning authority, in which case, the planning authority will consult with certain prescribed bodies, including NPWS. Following submission of the EIS, there is a statutory period of at least one month during which the EIS is available for public inspection and during which submissions can be made to the planning authority. Copies of the EIS are also sent to various statutory consultees, including NPWS and An Taisce. The planning authority will then make an assessment as to:1. Does the EIS contain adequate information to determine the likely significant

effects of the proposal on the environment; and, if it does2. Decide whether to grant permission, having “regard to the statement, any

supplementary information furnished relating to the statement and any submissions or observations furnished concerning the effects on the environment of the proposed development”.

4.4.2 GuidelinesThe Forest Service will produce Guidelines for the preparation of EIS shortly. They were subject of widespread consultation in their preparation, including consultation with academic institutions.The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements (C.A.A.S. Environmental Services Ltd., 2002) (referred to hereafter as the EPA Guidelines) and Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements) (C.A.A.S. Environmental Services Ltd., 2003) (referred to hereafter as the EPA Advice Notes). The EPA Guidelines provide advice on the general principles and procedures involved in preparing an EIS, while the EPA Advice Notes provide advice on each specified environmental topic which has to be covered in an EIS, and on each specified project type for which EIA is required.The EPA Guidelines emphasise that scoping is one of the most important parts of EIA. The document makes three main points regarding the scoping process:1. It is important that the range of participants (e.g. personnel and agents of the

applicant, competent authorities, other specialist agencies and members of the public), included in the scoping process is sufficient to ensure that the EIA is focussed on the aspects of the environment that are likely to be of most relevance to the proposed development.

2. The nature and detail of the EIA must be kept as tightly focussed as possible, in order to minimise the time and expense that is spent in the ensuing stages of the process.

3. Where similar projects have been the subject of a satisfactory EIS, these may be used as guide, on which the scoping of the EIA in hand can be based. The


27


word “satisfactory” is not defined, and so could equally be taken to refer to EISs for developments that were subsequently approved, or to EISs for which the likely environmental impacts of the development were adequately assessed and reported. This is an important point in the context of EIAs for afforestation projects in Ireland. Of nine such projects that were reviewed in this report (Section 4.4.3) six were approved, although the scoping of all these was certainly insufficient to ensure adequate coverage of ecological impacts.

The EPA Guidelines recommend that the description of the existing environment (including flora and fauna) should: Describe the context (location and extent or magnitude) of the environmental

feature; Indicate the character (the distinguishing aspects) of the environment under

consideration; Describe the significance (the quality value or designation) assigned to the

aspect of the environment under consideration; Describe the sensitivities (the changes which could significantly alter) the

character of this aspect of the environment; and Include references to recognised standards in order to facilitate evaluation of

the EIS.The EPA Guidelines recommend that the evaluation of the sufficiency of the data contained in the EIS should use the following criteria: Is the information necessary for identification of the main effects available? Is the information necessary for assessment of the main effects available? Is the information focused on effects that are likely and significant?The EPA Advice Notes recommend that the description of the existing flora should describe the vegetation of the habitats and not just list the species present, should refer to any published botanical information on the site and use data that are collected by standard and reproducible methods. The report should include the following: A plan showing the context including existing plant communities (including

those outside but adjacent to the development site), locations of rare or sensitive species, and significant natural features (e.g. rock outcrops).

A description of the character, including types of plant community, and, if relevant, stability/change, dependence on particular environmental features, and existing management.

An assessment of the significance of the existing flora including distribution at a local and national level, occurrence of “significant” communities or species (the term “significant” is not defined), use made of plants by “significant” fauna or people, and existing/pending formal designations for species or habitats. The EPA Advice Notes state that “an evaluation scheme such as international, national, county and local may be appropriate but should only be used for plant groups/habitats that are well known”.

A description of the sensitivity including aspects of the existing site on which the plant communities depend and which could change.

The EPA Advice Notes recommend that the description of the existing fauna should normally include birds, fish and mammals and reference “to invertebrates and the state of knowledge of these groups”, with invertebrates being investigated in detail where habitat conditions suggest that unusual invertebrate communities are likely. The fauna should be described by reference to its habitat, any seasonal limitations in the survey should be explicitly


28


acknowledged, and all published zoological information on the site should be reviewed. The report should include the following: A description and plan of the context including the principal habitats,

locations of areas used by fauna, survey/trapping sites, numbers of species using the site and seasonality, and numbers of vertebrate species, and existing or proposed protected sites.

A description of the character including species diversity, occurrence of rare species, activities for which species use the site, and special requirements of the species present such as territory size, habitat quality, current management, lack of disturbance.

An assessment of the significance of the existing fauna including status at a national and European level, existing/pending formal designations for species or habitats, native status, population stability, and significance of fauna as prey for species which occur off-site, or game, or commercial assets, or tourism resources, or modifiers of vegetation. The EPA Advice Notes state that “the use of rating systems to define the importance of some groups may be useful but should be fully explained”.

A description of the sensitivity including aspects of the existing site on which species depend.

Finally, in Section 5, which deals with common problems encountered during the EIA process, the EPA Advice Notes advises that ecological component of the report is often too descriptive. The document warns that, in combination with a lack of analysis, an over-emphasis on description can obscure the sensitivity and significance of the fauna and flora on the site.

4.4.3 Preparation of the Environmental Impact StatementThis section presents the results of our review of Irish EISs. Full details of the survey methods used and the analyses to determine the conservation significance of flora and fauna are presented in Appendix 4.4.4.3.1General DetailsThere are currently nine Irish EISs concerning forestry developments available to the public in ENFO, Ireland. Seven of these EISs were prepared in 1991-1992, one in 1995 and one in 1997. Therefore, only one or two of these EISs had the opportunity to take into account the EPA Guidelines and EPA Advice Notes (the first versions of these were published in 1995), and none could refer to the new publications from the FS (Forest Service, 2000b, 2000c, 2000e). The EISs are mainly from counties along the western seaboard (Cork (2), Galway, Mayo, Sligo (2) and Donegal (2)) with one from the midlands (Laois). The size of the sites ranged from 220-809 ha. Six of the EISs were prepared by Coillte, one by an international environmental consultancy, one by an agricultural co-operative and one by a private individual (possibly an independent consultant). All the EISs were submitted for commercial afforestation projects involving non-native conifers. For three of the EISs, the competent authority requested further information. In each case, the revised EIS included an aquatic survey comprising ecological information, including species diversity; these aquatic surveys are not discussed below because they are outside the scope of this review (see Section 1.2.1).4.4.3.2ScopingNone of the EISs reviewed included any information on scoping.


29


4.4.3.3ConsultationsFive of the nine EISs referred to consultations with groups or individuals other than the author(s) of the EIS. Of these, three referred to consultation with the Office of Public Works, which, at the time these EISs were prepared, included the statutory nature conservation and archaeological agencies. Three referred to consultation with the relevant fisheries board.4.4.3.4DesignationsFive of the EISs referred to either the presence of designated areas in or nearby the sites, or their absence.4.4.3.5Habitat and VegetationVegetation data for eight of the EISs were collected in the field; the remaining one appears to be mainly a desktop study (see Appendix 4). One EIS used a standard relevé method. Another five referred to the use of “plots” or “sample points” but without any details. The number of relevé/plots/sample points per site varied from 5-12. Only one of the EISs included a habitat map. This used broad habitat types, which were defined in the text, but did not correspond to any recognised habitat classification. Another seven of the EISs included maps showing some limited information on habitats (e.g. location of vegetation plots, soil types, etc.). Three of the EISs classified the habitat/vegetation types present on the site, although none used a recognised classification scheme. Another EIS included a good ecological description of the vegetation of the site.All the EISs, except for the presumed desk study, included species lists of vascular plants. One EIS had the most comprehensive botanical survey: sedges, ferns and rushes, which are more difficult to identify, were well covered, indicating an experienced botanist carried out the survey. Two more EISs were less satisfactory but still seem reasonably complete. The others were less well covered, but there is no indication if the sites were degraded through turf-cutting or over-grazing, which would in some cases explain a species-poor habitat. The species list for one EIS repeated species erroneously, that for another is particularly scanty on vascular plants. Seven of the EISs included species lists of non-vascular plants. Again, only one EIS had a complete and creditable moss list. Four Sphagnum taxa were identified to species level, and this indicates an experienced botanist carried out the survey. All the other EISs included only one or two moss species, and Sphagnum was left at genus level. One EIS mentioned “bryophytes” but did not specify even genera. Liverworts (Hepaticae) were only surveyed in one EIS, and these are always present in vegetation. Also, fungi are never mentioned, let alone surveyed. Only one EIS included data on cover/abundance. Two EISs made comments on the conservation importance (or lack of) of habitats/vegetation present on the site but without referring to any explicit criteria used to assess this. From the information presented in the EISs, six of the sites involved may have corresponded to Habitats Directive Annex 1 habitat types. However, it should be noted that the EISs involved were all published in 1991-1992, while the EU only adopted the Habitats Directive in 1992. None of the EISs referred to specific criteria used to evaluate the conservation importance of the plant species present. One EIS referred to the potential presence of three notable species, which could not be confirmed due to survey work being carried out in winter. Another EIS referred to the site not containing any “rare” species.


30


4.4.3.6InvertebratesEight of the nine EISs contained information on invertebrates (Appendix 4). One EIS contained a survey of lepidoptera. This is known to have been carried out by an expert, although this is not stated in the EIS. The survey was carried out in winter and only three species were recorded, but a broad assessment of the overall lepidopteran diversity was assessed from the habitat quality. This EIS also reviewed distribution data on butterflies in the region to indicate the possibility of two rare species occurring on the site. The EIS did not refer to any explicit criteria used to assess the conservation importance of the site for invertebrates.Seven of the remaining eight EISs included species lists of invertebrates without any details of survey methods. These were all rather arbitrary listings of species, mainly lepidoptera but also including a variety of other groups. In fact, all the species listed are illustrated in a popular field guide (Chinery, 1986) indicating that these surveys were carried out by non-specialists. None of the EISs contain any evaluation of the conservation importance of the site for invertebrates.4.4.3.7Reptiles and AmphibiansSeven of the nine EISs contained information on reptiles and amphibians (see Appendix 4). In each case, this comprised lists of species recorded with no details of survey methods and no evaluation of the conservation importance of the site for reptiles and amphibians.4.4.3.8BirdsAll the EISs contained information on birds (see Appendix 4). In one EIS, the coverage of birds is reasonably comprehensive. This EIS included a site survey (carried out in winter) with data on abundances of species in each habitat type (but no details of methodology). In addition, buildings and trees were examined for signs of roosting corvids, raptors or owls and the potential occurrence of breeding species was assessed from habitat characteristics and the known distribution of species. The potential for occurrence of Annex 1 species, and "rare and conservationally important" (term not defined) species was discussed in this EIS.Seven of the remaining eight EISs included species lists of birds without any details of survey methods and little or no information on abundance and distribution within the site and no evaluation of the conservation importance of the site for birds. The remaining EIS included general comments on the birds of the local area without any site specific details.4.4.3.9MammalsAll the EISs included information on mammals (see Appendix 4). In one EIS, the coverage of mammals was reasonably comprehensive. This EIS included a site survey (carried out in winter) with information on the habitat association of species and the occurrence of Otter sprainting sites and signs of Irish Hare and Red Fox listed (but no details of methodology). The EIS also included estimates of population size based on habitat quality and literature and an assessment of habitat quality to determine potential for occurrence of other species (including bats). The conservation evaluation was limited to the protection status of species.Seven of the remaining eight EISs included species lists of mammals without any details of survey methods and little or no information on abundance and distribution within the site and no evaluation of the conservation importance of


31


the site for mammals. The remaining EIS included general comments on the mammals of the local area without any site specific details.4.4.3.10 Biodiversity Indicators None of the EISs make any reference to the use of structural, functional or compositional biodiversity indicators.

4.4.4 Assessment of the Environmental Impact StatementSpecific information on the extent to which biodiversity considerations were taken into account in the assessment of the EIS by the planning authority is not available. In the case of the two EISs for County Cork, it is known that the planning authority did not have the relevant in-house technical expertise to assess the adequacy of the biodiversity assessment (Kelleher, 2001).

4.4.5 Evaluation of system effectivenessIn evaluating the adequacy of the EISs, it should be acknowledged that most of the relevant EISs to date were submitted in 1991-1992, only two-three years after the introduction of EIA procedures in Ireland, and before the publication of the EPA Advice Notes and EPA Guidelines. It is likely that, if a more recent sample were available, a distinct improvement in standards would be evident. In fact, the only EIS to be prepared after the EPA Advice Notes and EPA Guidelines were published, did have a significantly better vegetation assessment than the remainder.4.4.5.1GuidelinesThe EPA Guidelines contain a reasonable summary of the general requirements for description and evaluation of the existing environment in an EIS. The revised EPA Advice Notes are intended to provide more specific guidance on the individual components of an EIS. While the sections on flora and fauna provide reasonable guidance on the general treatments of the attributes that should be covered (context, character, significance and sensitivities), the specific guidance on issues such as scope, survey methods and evaluation is limited. Particular deficiencies are:1. No guidance on criteria to determine when more detailed surveys of specific

groups are required.2. No recommendation that recognised habitat/vegetation classification systems

should be used.3. Vague and ill-defined guidance on how to assess invertebrate fauna in a

consistent manner.4. Poor guidance on evaluation of conservation significance, in particular, at the

regional and local level.4.4.5.2Preparation of the EISNone of the EISs reviewed were considered to contain adequate overall biodiversity assessments. One EIS contained a reasonably adequate vegetation assessment. Another EIS contained a reasonably adequate assessment of fauna, given the seasonal constraints under which it was carried out (but the constraints imposed, themselves, indicate deficiencies in the EIA procedure). The principal deficiencies in the EISs were:1. No evidence of adequate scoping procedures.2. Generally poor survey effort, often carried out by non-specialists with lack of

standardised methodologies, and restricted seasonally.


32


3. Lack of a habitat map and no reference to recognised habitat/vegetation classifications.

4. Incomplete species lists of vascular plants and very poor coverage of non-vascular plants (also dubious identification in some cases). The poor coverage of non-vascular plants is notable given that in a survey of Brackloon Wood, (Fox et al., 2001), lower plants made up 79% of the 755 plant taxa recorded (although this example comes from semi-natural woodland).

5. Arbitrary coverage of invertebrates.6. Information on vertebrates comprised species lists with little or no

information on abundance or distribution within site.7. Little or no evaluation of the conservation importance of the site.None of the EISs could be considered to meet the requirements of the EPA’s Advice Notes and EPA Guidelines. The deficiencies in these EISs mean that the planning authorities did not have adequate information to evaluate the existing biodiversity importance of the sites.4.4.5.3Assessment of the EISSix of the nine afforestation projects, for which the EISs were submitted, were approved. This indicates that, given the serious deficiencies in the description and evaluation of flora and fauna contained within these EISs, the assessment by the planning authorities was deficient. The principal deficiencies in the planning authorities assessments are likely to arise from the lack of in-house technical expertise. The relevant local authority assessed the EISs reviewed. However, under the new regulations (see Section 4.1.1), future EISs will be assessed by the FS.


33


5 EXISTING PRACTICE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

5.1 LEGISLATION

Afforestation in the United Kingdom is controlled by the following legislation: The Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) (England and Wales)

Regulations 1999 [SI 1999/2228]; The Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) (Scotland) Regulations 1999

[SI 1999/43]; and The Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) Regulations (Northern

Ireland) [SR 2000/84].These three regulations each contain the same provisions.The regulations require that anyone who wishes to carry out a “relevant” afforestation project must obtain consent for the work from the competent authority (the FC in England, Scotland and Wales or the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland). If consent for the work is required, the applicant must submit an Environmental Statement 2(ES) in support of the application. A “relevant” afforestation project is defined as a project which is likely to have significant effects on the environment, and: the project exceeds specified thresholds of area and environmental

sensitivity; or there are exceptional circumstances which, taking account of the

characteristics of the project, the location of the project and the characteristics of the potential impact mean that the effects on the environment of the project may be unacceptable even though the project does not exceed the specified thresholds.

The specified thresholds are exceeded where: any part of the land is in a Nature Reserve, Site of Special Scientific Interest

(SSSI), The Broads, World Heritage Site (WHS), Scheduled Ancient Monument, designated or identified cSAC, classified or proposed SPA, the New Forest Heritage Area.

the area to be afforested is 2 ha or more, where any part of the land is in a National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or NSA (National Scenic Area).

the area to be afforested is 5 ha or more, where no part of the land is any of the sensitive areas defined above.

The ES is required to contain “a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed development, including in particular…fauna and flora…”

5.2 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT

5.2.1 Indicative Forestry StrategiesThe government recommends that all regional planning authorities should prepare IFSs. Guidance on the preparation of IFSs are provided jointly by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office (1992) and also by the Scottish Executive (1999). The main purposes of an IFS are:

2 In the UK, the terms “Environmental Statement” and “Environmental Assessment” replace the terms “Environmental Impact Statement” and “Environmental Impact Assessment” (see Section 1.5.1).


34


to provide a focus for local authority responses to consultations on grant scheme proposals; and

to inform forestry developers of possible sensitivities when considering options for planting.

The principal elements of an IFS are a concise strategic policy statement, with reasoned justification and an IFS diagram.5.2.1.1Guidance on Biodiversity Assessment in IFSThe Scottish National Planning Policy Guidelines. NPPG 14: Natural Heritage (The Scottish Office, 1998) state that:“Indicative forestry strategies assist in the identification of suitable areas for new forestry planting, identify environmental sensitivities which may impose constraints on new planting, and provide a framework for local authority responses to consultations on forestry grant scheme proposals. Authorities should ensure that indicative forestry strategies seek to safeguard and enhance landscape character; protect existing woodlands and other areas of natural heritage value; and identify opportunities to extend native woodland cover, particularly where this creates or reinforces links between wooded areas.”The Scottish Circular 9/1999 Indicative Forestry Strategies (Scottish Executive, 1999) states that:“Planning authorities should work closely with SNH [Scottish Natural Heritage] in preparing an IFS. The effects of land use changes on the natural heritage are of major interest to SNH. Its contribution will be of value on recreation and public access issues as well as landscape and biodiversity. There will be many areas where further woodland expansion will be of benefit for habitat creation or landscape enhancement. There will be other places, however, where the existing habitat or landscape should remain as it is and only specialised, restricted planting, if any, will be acceptable. Any forestry proposals that may affect Natura 2000 sites (SACs and SPAs) must be assessed very carefully under procedures set out in SOAEFD Circular 6/1995 covering the Natural Habitats Regulations. The work SNH has undertaken across Scotland on Landscape Character Assessment should be of great value in preparing an IFS. In addition, both national and local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) will be important as well as initiatives arising from implementation of Article 10 of the Habitats Directive for conservation of species and habitats of European importance in the wider countryside.”5.2.1.2ExamplesThe Lancashire IFS (Lancashire County Council, 1994) included all statutory designated sites (59 SSSIs, two NNRs and nine LNRs) as areas “unlikely to be available” for planting in its IFS map. A “Phase 1” habitat survey which covers the entire county had previously been completed and is being used to identify non-statutory wildlife sites worthy of special protection (Biological Heritage Sites). The IFS states that it is intended that, while not included on the IFS maps for technical reasons, maps identifying the Biological Heritage Sites will be prepared and passed onto the Forestry Authority to provide further guidance on grant applications. A landscape assessment was also prepared as part of the IFS. This assessment made use of a “Phase 1” habitat survey that covers the entire county. The assessment identified ten landscape character areas and general recommendations as to the extent and type of planting appropriate for each character area are included in the IFS. The IFS has now been largely superseded at a local level wherever more detailed mapping work has been done, although it is still useful for large scale planting proposals (Brackley, 2001).


35


The Moray IFS (Moray Council, 2001) was prepared by Moray Council, FC, Forest Enterprise and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) with assistance from a number of other organisations including the North East Local BAP Co-ordinator and North East Native Woodlands. The IFS includes two maps, one showing sensitivity to afforestation, and the other showing opportunities for woodland extension. All areas with natural heritage designations were classified under one of the three categories which indicates sensitivity to afforestation. In addition, areas of heather moorland, and raised and blanket bogs are classified in one of these categories. The IFS also included a specific examination of the issue of maintaining an adequate balance between forestry and heather moorland in the Moray Moorlands. A Local BAP has also been prepared and its results are described as forming an important part of the IFS. The map showing opportunities for woodland expansion was prepared using SNH’s Native Woodland Model. This map does not take account of sensitivity to afforestation.

5.2.2 Local Forestry FrameworksThe Scottish Circular 9/1999 Indicative Forestry Strategies (Scottish Executive, 1999) identifies LFFs as being appropriate for areas which the IFS process identifies as requiring a more detailed forestry strategy. These may include areas known to be particularly sensitive, where there is widespread local concern, or where the issues surrounding forestry are complex.5.2.2.1Langholm/Lockerbie Local Forestry FrameworksThe Langholm/Lockerbie LFF (Environmental Resources Management, 2000) was agreed by a partnership of the FC, SNH and Dumfries & Galloway Council following research work by consultants. The methodology used to prepare the LFF involved the following stages: data collection; community workshops; categorisation of land into five categories based upon sensitivity to

afforestation; and presentation of the data by division of the LFF into water catchments.The data collection was based on existing information (i.e. no new surveys were carried out for the LFF) and included the following aspects relevant to biodiversity assessment: nature conservation designations; ancient woodland sites; priority habitats and species defined in the Dumfries and Galloway Local BAP; relevant action plans included in the Dumfries and Galloway Local BAP.The report refers to a GIS containing the mapped distribution of Local BAP habitats although it is not clear from the report as to whether this GIS was used in the development of the LFF.The categorisation was based upon: existing land use; the number and relative significance of sensitivities identified from analysis of the baseline data; and a review of public opinion. The definitions of the categories only include one explicit reference to biodiversity considerations; namely that areas with statutory nature conservation designations are defined as Category A (Very high sensitivity). However, the guidance provided on the actual categorisations make many references to biodiversity considerations, indicating that evaluation of the biodiversity assessment data was an integral part of the categorisation process at all levels.


36


5.2.2.2Cairngorms Forest and Woodland FrameworkThe Cairngorms Forest and Woodland Framework (CFWF) (Towers, 2001; Towers et al., 2001) was prepared on behalf of the Cairngorms Partnership, FC and SNH by consultants (MRCS and The Ross Partnership). The Framework is focused on identifying opportunities for expansion of native and non-native woodland, although the former is the main priority. The Macaulay Land Use Research Institute (MLURI) Native Woodland Model was used to identify the most appropriate woodland type for different sites, by linking site characteristics (geology, terrain, land cover, etc.) to the biophysical requirements for different types of woodland. The model output was then refined by taking account of potential for natural regeneration (proximity to existing woodland, identification of linkages between existing woodlands and consideration of site capability for non-native species) to produce maps showing the maximum woodland potential of the area. The maps do not include biodiversity constraints (areas of existing biodiversity importance that should not be afforested). Instead the CFWF provides broad guidance on the relevant issues which should be assessed in planning individual woodlands. This guidance is based mainly on consideration of habitats and species that are listed in the UK BAP and the Local BAP for the Cairngorms Partnership Area. The main points of the guidance can be summarised as follows: Specific habitats are identified which should not and could not be planted

under any circumstances. Where other listed open ground habitats are present, the implications of any

planting should be considered in relation to the objectives of the relevant Action Plan.

Guidelines are included for assessing minimum acceptable areas of open moorland, produced by SNH, which synthesise the requirements of four open country bird species.

5.2.3 Other Examples5.2.3.1North Yorkshire Moors Upland Land Management InitiativeThe North Yorkshire Moors Upland Land Management Initiative is a pilot project being carried out by the North Yorkshire National Park Authority and the Countryside Agency to identify Integrated Local Management Objectives (which can include woodland creation). As part of this project, Land Use Consultants carried out an ecological character assessment of the study area (Land Use Consultants, 2000b). This assessment was based upon the following existing data: “Phase 1” habitat survey maps and target notes, phase 2 woodland and moorland surveys, farm survey data, rare plant data, SSSI citations, Natural Area profile, Local Environment Agency Plans, River Habitat Survey data, Freshwater Pearl Mussel survey data, macro-invertebrate survey data. These data were used to identify broad ecological-landscape zones where similar patterns of habitat occur (ecological character types). These were then sub-divided into components broadly similar to Phase 1 habitat types (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 1993) and UK BAP habitat types, and linked, where possible, to NVC types. A short field survey was then carried out to confirm character assessments and mapped boundaries. Each component habitat was mapped using GIS and the conservation importance of component vegetation types and species classified as International, National or Regional. The species selected are described as representative examples which could be used as indicator species and comprise three mammal species, eleven bird species, three fish species, three butterfly species, two aquatic invertebrates and thirteen plants. Designated sites were


37


also mapped. This study was then integrated with studies of landscape character and historical landscape character to produce an Integrated Character Assessment. An Environment Capital assessment was then carried out to develop Integrated Environmental Management Objectives (Land Use Consultants, 2000a).

5.2.4 EvaluationThe strategic assessments reviewed were, in the main, prepared in the context of encouraging expansion of native and amenity woodlands, as well as identifying constraints to the expansion of commercial non-native afforestation. In one case, little detailed assessment of existing biodiversity is included in the strategic mapping, with reliance on site-based assessment. A common theme in these assessments is the use of a local biodiversity action plan to provide a coherent method of identifying priority habitats and species. Information on biodiversity constraints outside designated sites is incorporated to varying degrees. The availability of phase 1 habitat surveys clearly provides a very valuable resource, although, as the Lancashire IFS example shows, the survey results require evaluation and interpretation before they can be integrated into a strategic assessment. The North Yorkshire Moors Upland Land Management Initiative has the most detailed biodiversity assessment with a wide range of data being collected, supplemented by ground-truthing, and ecological character areas being identified.

5.3 SITE ASSESSMENT

This section describes the standard procedures for assessment of applications for afforestation grants, identifies the stages within this procedure where there is provision for biodiversity assessment to be carried out and reviews the available information about the methods used for these biodiversity assessments. The special case of afforestation where EA is required is discussed in Section 5.4 below.

5.3.1 Woodland Grant SchemeThe Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS) is one of the main mechanisms for grant-aiding of afforestation in the UK. Applicants have to fill in a standard application form. Following receipt of the application form, a Woodland Officer will visit the site to assess whether the application meets the requirements of the WGS. Details of all applications will be placed in a Public Register and for certain types of applications local authorities and other statutory bodies are consulted. All applications must comply with Guidelines published by the FC.5.3.1.1Application FormThe only specific information required on the application form relating to biodiversity assessment is whether any of the land is covered by a nature conservation designation, including the following: National Nature Reserve (NNR), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Proposed SSSI, Local Authority Conservation Area, Other Conservation Area, Tree Preservation Order, Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland, Other Semi-Natural Woodland, and Ancient Woodland Site.Other information required on the application form which is of some relevance to biodiversity assessment are: Under the section on objectives, one of the possible objectives listed is

“Maintaining and creating new wildlife habitats”.


38


In the guidance notes for completing the description of the proposal, one of the items that are listed for consideration is “safeguarding environmental features”.

The above would require some type of biodiversity assessment of the afforestation site to be carried out to identify existing features of biodiversity importance.5.3.1.2Better Land Supplement (BLS)Certain types of agricultural land are eligible for increased levels of grant aid. These include arable land, other cropped land and improved grassland. The FC has developed a specific methodology (Forestry Authority, 1997) to identify improved and unimproved grassland, in order to determine whether land qualifies for this supplement. The methodology involves two stages:1. Ten points are chosen at random, and at each point the vegetation is

examined in a circle of 1m diameter for four species: rye-grass, timothy, cocksfoot and white clover. If six or more of the test circles have 50% or greater coverage of one, or more, of these species then the land will be classified as improved grassland and eligible for the BLS.

2. If stage 1 does not classify the land as improved grassland, then a test for unimproved grassland will be carried out. This involves examining the test circles for species listed as indicating unimproved grassland. If six or more of the test circles contain five or more of the listed species then the land will be classified as unimproved grassland and ineligible for the BLS. The listed species comprise eleven species of grasses, 31 species of herbs, three species of dwarf shrubs and all sedges, wood-rushes and cottongrasses.

5.3.1.3GuidelinesThe FC has published Forest Nature Conservation Guidelines (Forestry Commission, 1990) which all WGS applications must comply with. In addition, there is a booklet (Forestry Commission, undated-a) which provides a synopsis of the relevant guidelines for WGS applicants. The guidelines require that, when planning new planting, the area be surveyed “carefully to establish the presence of communities or habitats of special conservation value and retain those as open ground within the forest”.5.3.1.4ConsultationsSummary details of all applications are placed in a Public Register which is located on the FC website. These details include the site location (including location map), planting area, planting type and a broad classification of the land (improved agricultural, unimproved agricultural or non-farmland). The full application can be viewed at FC offices. The Public Register is updated weekly and circulated to local authorities and environmental agencies. In addition certain applications are sent to these organisations for specific comment.5.3.1.5Assessment by Woodland OfficerA Woodland Officer, who has received training in order to be able to identify semi-natural habitats, will usually visit the site on which an afforestation project has been proposed. If the Woodland Officer finds habitats that he or she considers to be semi-natural, the statutory conservation body will usually be consulted. Depending on the public interest in the area there may also be a community consultation. On the basis of these consultations, the information collected on the site visit, and any relevant information that was given in the


39


WGS application form, the Woodland Officer will make an assessment as to whether an EA is required.

5.3.2 Other Examples5.3.2.1JIGSAW ChallengeThe JIGSAW (Joining & Increasing Grant Scheme for Ancient Woodlands) Challenge is a grant scheme to help owners of land in selected areas of England with the costs of establishing new woodland between or alongside existing semi-natural woodlands. In the West Midlands area, the FC decided to pay ecologists to carry out site inspections prior to approving applications. The ecologists used a standard three page survey form and a standard species list. The survey form comprises one page of general site data, one page for a photographic record and one page for site description and evaluation. The notes for the site description and evaluation state: Describe the site, its landscape setting, its plant communities, floral and

faunal interest, management etc. List and map NVC types. Summarise the conservation value of the site, how it compares with other

sites within the area. If there are marked differences within the site, note these and mark them on the map.

The evaluation by the FC was based on the ecologist's recommendations and took account of the species richness of existing flora (including fungi if appropriate - waxcaps were of particular note in the area) in a local, regional or national context. The BLS guidance on what constitutes improved grassland (Forestry Authority, 1997) was also taken into account (Scott, 2001).5.3.2.2Tilhill Economic ForestryTilhill Economic Forestry is a private forestry company with a major role in new planting. They employ a forest ecologist who has developed an in-house procedure for preliminary biodiversity assessment where the sensitivity of the site may require a full EA (Gallacher, 2001b). This Initial Site Assessment (ISA) summarises the range of sensitivities on the site and the predicted impacts of afforestation on the aspects of the site deemed to be most sensitive. The report accompanies the formal WGS application. If an EA is required, then the ISA can be expanded upon to form the basis of an Environmental Statement. An example of an ISA for one particular project was supplied (Gallacher, 2001a). This included a NVC survey of the site and review of records held by SNH and Fife Nature (the local biological records centre).5.3.2.3The National ForestThe National Forest is intended to convert 200 square miles of the landscape in the counties of Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Staffordshire into a blend of wooded areas, open country, farmland and settlements. Most planting is achieved via the WGS and the National Forest’s own tender scheme. When applications are submitted, they are reviewed by a staff ecologist, and there is also consultation with local authority ecological staff to identify any potential biodiversity concerns (Evans, 2001).5.3.2.4East Lancashire Woodlands Project (Elwood)Elwood is a proposal to create a new forest in part of East Lancashire. All new planting in this project is subject to ecological assessment carried out by the Lancashire Wildlife Trust (Brackley, 2001).


40


5.3.3 EvaluationThe low threshold for EA, and the provisions for sub-threshold EA, mean that the need for an EA is routinely considered in the afforestation consent procedure. The wide availability and accessibility of baseline ecological data for non-designated sites helps in determining whether an EA is required. In practice, the request for an EA often results in the withdrawal of an application, and acts as a default control of afforestation. Specific procedures for non-EA biodiversity assessment have also been developed for special grant schemes and private forestry companies, and are carried out by ecologists. The assessment process for the BLS includes a specific methodology to identify whether land should be categorised as improved grassland or unimproved grassland, although this methodology was not developed specifically for the purposes of biodiversity assessment.

5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Between the implementation of the EIA Directive (97/11/EC) in the UK and October 2001, the FC requested ESs for 273 afforestation proposals, of which ESs were submitted for 179 of these proposals. The remainder include 39 that were withdrawn by the applicant, and in 12 cases the ES requirement was withdrawn by the FC following a scooping meeting and/or modifications of the proposals. Most proposals for which ESs were requested are large: only 14 were below 50 ha (of which ESs were submitted for six), and 36 were between 50 and 100 ha (of which ESs were submitted for 19).

The ESs are held at the Conservancy offices that administer the area in which the proposed projects are located. Table 5 shows the distribution of ESs between the different Conservancies. The six Scottish offices hold nearly all of the statements for the UK, and the Highland Conservancy in Dingwall, Inverness, holds 77 statements, which is far more than any other.

Table 5. The distribution of Environmental Statements completed and submitted for afforestation projects between FC Conservancy offices in the UK (as of November 2001).

FC Conservancy Number of ESs received

Highland 77Grampian 18Perth 25Strathclyde 30Lothian and Borders 6SW Scotland 14England & Wales 9

5.4.1 ProcedureDevelopers of afforestation projects that are above the relevant thresholds (see Section 5.1) are required to provide a map showing the extent of the proposal, a description of the proposed work and its possible significant effects on the environment and any other relevant information to the FC. The FC will then make a determination as to whether an EA is required. In making this determination, the FC will consider whether the proposals are likely to have a significant effect on the environment, taking account advice from other bodies, as well as the UK Forestry Standard, the UK BAP and published guidelines.


41


Where the project requires an EA, the developer will be required to submit an Environmental Statement (ES) to the FC. The FC will then make an assessment as to: 1. whether the ES contain adequate information to determine the likely

significant effects of the proposal on the environment; and, if it does2. whether to grant permission, taking into consideration the environmental

information supplied by the developer, any representations from third parties, and the FC’s own assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the proposal on the specified environmental factors.

5.4.2 Guidelines5.4.2.1GeneralThe UK Department of the Environment has published generic guidance on good practice in the preparation of ESs (Department of the Environment, 1995). These guidelines include a section on ecological assessment. The main recommendations relating to biodiversity assessment are: A habitat survey and review of existing information should be carried out as

part of the scoping exercise. Botanical surveys should include all plant groups that form a significant part

of the vegetation, not just higher plants. Some indication of the value of a site for fauna can be gained from the

vegetation survey, but where a full site assessment is required, a detailed survey is necessary. The Common Bird Census is quoted as an example of a suitable survey methodology.

Seasonal timing of surveys is a critical factor and should be taken into account at an early stage.

Consideration should be given to possible long-term population fluctuations. The importance of habitats and species likely to be affected should be

evaluated in a local-regional-national context. The evaluation should focus on those areas that have not already been

accorded any status by statutory bodies, and comparing them with those which have.

Common attributes included in evaluation criteria include size, species richness and diversity, typicality and naturalness (or ancientness). Indicator species can be used to identify ancient woodland.

5.4.2.2Forestry Commission GuidelinesThe FC has published specific guidelines on the preparation of ESs for afforestation projects (Forestry Commission, undated-b). These guidelines include the following requirements relevant to biodiversity assessment: The ES should include details of the methodology used in the surveys. Bird surveys should usually be done between March and May for breeding

species and between October and March for wintering species. Vegetation surveys should be carried out “in the growing season”. Most ESs will require special input for the flora and fauna assessments. The NVC should be used to describe vegetation. Local knowledge from countryside bodies, gamekeepers, farmers, foresters,

local nature clubs and wildlife trusts may be helpful in assessing the use of a site for foraging by animals and birds.

The status of each habitat type should be recorded by reference to national statutory designations and national biodiversity action plans.


42


The regional and local importance of habitats should also be described, with reference to local biodiversity action plans, local views and designations, as appropriate.

The importance of species identified should also be described. The guidelines give an example of a suitable approach for birds which uses the abundance of the species at local, regional and national level, its status (protected, Birds Directive listing, Red Data listing) and significance (High – not defined; Medium – project may need to take presence of species into account; and Low – unlikely to need further consideration).

Where habitats are considered to be of importance, the ES should include information on the surrounding habitats, such as amounts within radii of 5, 10 and 15 km from the site).

5.4.2.3Ecological Assessment GuidelinesThe Institute of Environmental Assessment has published Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment (Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1995) (referred to from here as IEA Guidelines). The Department of the Environment and the FC guidelines (Department of the Environment, 1995; Forestry Commission, undated-b) include this publication in their reference lists, but do not specifically recommend its use. The IEA Guidelines provide guidance on the general procedure for carrying out a baseline ecological assessment, and specific guidance on the requirements for surveys of particular groups. These guidelines contain detailed information relating to biodiversity assessment and only a short summary of the key points is presented below. Note that where publications referred to in the guidelines have been superseded by more recent editions, the most recent edition is referenced here.The general procedure recommended is as follows:Stage 1: consultation and data collection to gather all relevant existing

ecological information for the affected site and its surrounds.Stage 2: a site visit and preparation of a Phase 1 habitat map (Joint Nature

Conservation Committee, 1993) identifying any areas of ecological importance (in some circumstances other habitat survey methods are required).

Stage 3: identification of potential ecological impacts.Stage 4: production of scope for the ecological assessment identifying the

requirements for further collection of ecological baseline data.Stage 5: carrying out more detailed (Phase 2) surveys of particular groups as

determined by the scoping exercise in Stage 4.Stage 6: preparation of Baseline Ecological Report.The specific guidance on survey requirements for particular groups describe: Criteria to determine when more detailed (Phase 2) surveys are required.

These criteria are largely specific criteria, such as the occurrence of Red Data or protected species, but, for most groups, also include a more loosely defined criterion such as the occurrence of “vegetation types of potential, regional or local importance”.

Appropriate survey methods. The principal methods specified are:- NVC survey methods (including taking quadrats) for vascular plants.- For scarce breeding birds, appropriate survey methods should be used

based on guidance given by Bibby et al. (2000). For locally or regionally important assemblages of breeding birds, breeding behaviour should be


43


identified by walking the site, following methodology described by Gibbons et al. (1994). Territory mapping methods are only required where the location of territories within the site is important.

- For wintering waterbirds, existing data on the peak usage of impacted areas over the past five years should be used, where available. Where this is not available, then monthly count data should be collected for the seasons of importance for birds in the impacted areas.

- For invertebrates, target groups should be selected which are characteristic of the site and for which good ecological information and identification keys are available. Surveys should normally be carried out between May and September with, optimally, three sampling periods in early, mid and late season. Appropriate survey methods should be selected based on guidance given by Southwood (2000) and Brooks (1993).

Factors to be considered in the evaluation of baseline data, including:- Assessing the size/status of impacted populations in relation to size/status

at local, regional and national scales.- Applying criteria specified by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee

(JNCC) to determine whether the site is of SSSI quality; the JNCC have published very detailed Guidelines for Selection of Biological SSSIs (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 1995).

- Assessing the conservation importance of habitats by reference to published data on the distribution and rarity of vegetation types (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 1995; Rodwell, 1991a, b, 1992, 1995, 2000).

5.4.3 Preparation of the Environmental StatementThis section presents the results of our review of Scottish ESs. Full details of the survey methods used and the analyses to determine the conservation significance of flora and fauna are presented in Appendix 5.5.4.3.1General DetailsThe publication dates of the selected ESs ranged from 1994 to 2000 (median date was 1998). The scale of the proposed afforestation projects which the ESs were assessing ranged from 80ha to over 4000ha (mean size was 937ha). Sixteen of the 17 proposals were for projects on privately owned land. The ESs for these proposals were prepared by the forest contractor in 5 cases, by a professionally accredited private consultant in 10 cases, and in one case by the owner of the site. The remaining proposal was for a project on FC land. The ES for this proposal was prepared by CEH (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology), the state body for ecological research.All bar two of the ESs were for the development of non-commercial native woodland, by planting, natural regeneration, or by a mixture of these two strategies. For all such schemes the proposers requested grant aid as well as permission for the scheme to go ahead. Of the remaining two ESs, one was for a grant-aided proposal to plant approximately half of the proposal site with native species and to afforest the rest with exotic trees to be harvested for timber. The other dealt with a small-scale (80ha) scheme to grow lodgepole pines as Christmas trees, and was to be financed entirely by the owner. 5.4.3.2ScopingNone of the eight ESs prepared prior to 1998 made reference to a scoping process. In contrast, seven of the nine ESs produced subsequent to this time


44


either described a formal meeting with consultees at which the scope of the EA was decided, or else referred to informal discussions which determined the focus of the EA. For six of these projects an outline of the main concerns raised during the scoping process was included in the ES. In all but one case these concerns extended to the impact of the project on aspects of the site’s ecology. However, the detail in which the relevant ecological issues were described varied greatly. At one end of the spectrum was an ES which made a general statement of concern about the ecology, nature conservation, flora and fauna of the site. The other ESs highlighted the potential of the project to impact on a specific habitat, and voiced concerns that the project might compromise certain species that occurred on the site. Whenever individual species were mentioned these always included birds, with one mention each being given to reptiles, mammals and invertebrates.5.4.3.3ConsultationsConservation-related consultation with groups or individuals other than the authors of the ES was described in 14 of the 17 ESs examined. Of these 14 ESs, nine referred to a consultation with the statutory conservation body (SNH), and seven to a consultation with a conservation NGO (in all EAs for which one or more conservation NGOs was a consulted, these included the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Other consulted NGOs were the Game Conservancy, Wildlife Link, and Wester Ross Fisheries Trust). Of the two other ESs which made reference to a consultation process, only one identified the consultees. As the most frequently consulted conservation organisations, SNH and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) contributed data from previous surveys on the proposals sites, the local knowledge of their staff (which sometimes identified conservation interests that the surveys had missed) and advice on ways in which to minimise the negative impacts on the site’s fauna and flora.5.4.3.4DesignationsAll ESs drew attention to any confirmed or proposed conservation designations that applied to the proposed site of afforestation or sites which the proposal might be expected to affect (such designations applied in 11 of the 17 cases). Relevant designations included national designations such as ESAs (Environmentally Sensitive Areas), NNRs, National Parks and SSSIs; European designations such as SPAs, SACs, and Ramsar sites; and the global designation of WHSs. In addition, six of the proposals mentioned the status of the site according to Highland Regional Council’s IFS (1993). In four cases the sites are located in the IFS “sensitive” zone, and of the remaining two sites, one is classified as “suitable”, the other as “preferred”.5.4.3.5Habitat and VegetationVegetation data for seven of the ESs were collected in the field, surveying within quadrats in three cases, and compiling simple species lists in the remaining four (see Appendix 5). Data for the ten other ESs were gathered from existing reports based on previous surveys on the site of the proposed scheme. All but two ESs included a habitat map (in most cases 1:10,000), and the vegetation communities occurring on the site were well defined in fifteen ESs (one of which was unmapped). Twelve of these used NVC classifications to distinguish between the different communities. Another ES used an older classification system specific to the Scottish Highlands (McVean & Ratcliffe, 1962), and the other two used a purely descriptive classification. Only four ESs omitted to name any of the plant species that occurred on the site of the proposal, but the quality of species inventories among the other 13 ESs was very variable. Eleven of these proposals


45


included non-vascular plant species among those described as occurring on site. Six proposals named only those species that were notable either due to their abundance within a particular vegetation community, or because of their rarity. The remaining seven all included species lists, but only in three of these did the lists seem reasonably complete. For the three ESs that presented data collected from quadrats, cover/abundance of the plant species detected was expressed using the Domin scale in two cases, and simple percentage cover and frequency of occurrence within quadrats in the other. Habitat conservation value was explicitly considered in fourteen of the ESs. Only two of these mentioned the occurrence of national or international designations, many drawing attention to the importance of the habitat found within the site on a local scale. In nine cases alterations to the scheme were proposed to ameliorate its impact on habitats of conservation interest. The conservation value of individual plant species was dealt with in only four ESs, all of which found plants of sufficient conservation importance to warrant protection within the framework of the proposal. One ES identified a provisional Red Data Book (RDB) lichen and several other plants (mostly bryophytes and lichens) which it described as being indicators of ancient woodland. The other three merely described certain species as being “noteworthy” or “unusual”. 5.4.3.6InvertebratesTen of the ESs made reference to the invertebrate fauna of the site (see Appendix 5). In no case were the data supporting this reference collected by systematic survey during the EA process. Eight of the statements used data taken from existing reports or related to the authors as a personal communication. In the remaining two, only the presence of those invertebrates that were recorded during the surveys of other taxa was noted. Two ESs reported the results of quite detailed insect surveys which had been conducted on the site of the proposal, one of which had found over 400 species of beetle on the site, the other of which mentioned only the 15 most unusual species found during a survey of Lepidoptera. Typically, however, fewer than 10 invertebrate species from 1-3 insect orders were mentioned, the orders most frequently included being Lepidoptera, Odonata and Coleoptera, in that order. Only two ESs referred explicitly to a non-insect invertebrate, in both cases this was the Freshwater Pearl Mussel. The selection of invertebrates included in the report appeared to consist entirely of species which could be easily found and identified by the authors, or which had been found on the site by previous studies. In no instance was the population size of an invertebrate species discussed. In five ESs the conservation importance of the invertebrate fauna found on the site is discussed, and in all five cases it is found to be important, with the occurrence of RDB invertebrate species on the site. The ES which cited the most thorough survey of invertebrates, which identified more than 400 species of beetles in the area, also noted that fifteen of these were grade 1 indicators of ancient woodland.5.4.3.7Reptiles and AmphibiansThe occurrence of between one and five reptile and amphibian species on the site was mentioned in seven ESs (see Appendix 5). The presence of these species was in no instance detected by the authors of the ES assessment process, but was inferred from literature and anecdotal evidence. In no instance was the density or population size of a reptile or amphibian species estimated. One ES mentioned that it was illegal to harm or disturb adders, but beyond this statement, no consideration was given to the conservation importance of reptiles or amphibians found on the site.


46


5.4.3.8BirdsAlthough only six ESs presented bird data that had been collected by the authors in the field, coverage of birds was generally to a high standard (see Appendix 5). Most of the field surveys were carried out according to standard transect method such as described by Bibby et al. (2000); or else using the modified transect method described by Brown and Shepherd (1993). All but two of the ESs included information on birds which had been gathered from non-field sources, and only one ES omitted to make any reference to the birds on the proposal site. Six ESs (all of which lacked any field data) mentioned only the most notable species present on the site. The remainder presented species inventories which, for the most part, seemed to be fairly complete (apart from one ES from which the species inventory was referred to in the text, but appeared to be missing from the relevant appendix). The status of bird species within the site was considered by only six ESs. Three of these reported the exact numbers of each species; for all birds detected in the survey in the case of two ESs, and for the two rarest species in the other. One ES defined the likelihood that each species detected was breeding on the site. The remaining two took abundance estimates from existing reports. The conservation value of the avifauna was taken into account by all but two of the ESs. Ten of the ESs mentioned birds protected by national and international conservation legislation, though only five of these identified the designated status of the relevant species (and only one ES referred to the RDB status of birds present on the site). Ten ESs proposed alterations to the scheme in order to ameliorate the impact of the project on bird species of conservation interest, and the other five concluded that there would be little or no negative impact of the project on the local avifauna.5.4.3.9MammalsEvery ES bar one made reference to the occurrence of mammals on the proposal site (see Appendix 5). In most cases, the greatest emphasis was given to deer populations, to the impact which these were likely to have on the success of the proposal, and to the measures which would have to be taken (either fencing or culling) to mitigate this impact. Four of the five ESs that estimated mammal densities on the proposal site did so only for deer (the fifth included an estimate of the size of herd of feral goats present on the estate). The number of non-deer mammal species mentioned in the ESs ranged from one or none (in eight ESs) to sixteen. In all cases, mammal information was entirely from people with previous knowledge of the estate and from the literature. No ES considered the conservation value of the mammal species it might affect.

5.4.4 Assessment by Forestry CommissionAfter an ES is received by the FC, the author of the ES must publish a notice in at least two newspapers the identity of which has been agreed with the FC. This notice must state: that an application for planting consent has been made; a location and time at which copies of the application (including the ES) may

be inspected, and give an address from which copies may be obtained (with details of any charges made for the cost of supplying these copies);

that comments pertaining to the application must be made to the relevant FC Conservator within 28 days of the date of notice.

The application and ES are also reviewed by an appropriate countryside body (in cases where there is perceived to be a significant conservation interest, this will usually be the statutory conservation body) and the relevant local authority. Any comments from either of these two organisations must be made within 28 days


47


from the date on which they receive these details. After the period for public and statutory consultation has expired, the FC determine whether or not to consent to the proposal, on the basis of the information in the environmental statement, and any representations which were made during the consultation period.In the event that consent is sought but not granted, the applicant may submit an appeal against this decision to the Ministers of the appropriate national parliament (in Scotland and Wales) or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (in England). This appeal must be made within 28 days of the applicant being notified about the FC’s decision.

5.4.5 Evaluation of system effectivenessThere did not appear to be any consistent differences in quality between ESs produced by forestry contractors and those produced by independent consultants. There was a difference in the relevant land area, however, as the four ESs compiled by forest contractors applied to an area between 150ha and 400ha, whereas eight of the nine ESs written by independent consultants were for schemes ranging between 500ha and 4200ha. Only one ES was prepared by an individual on whose land the proposed scheme was to take place. This ES was considerably less detailed than the others, and although this might, to some extent, be excused by the relatively narrow scope which had been defined for the project, many of the conclusions regarding the ecological impacts of the project were not well supported by data.Existing knowledge, whether it is taken from designations, previous survey work or consultation, can be used to ensure that important elements of a site’s ecology are not over-looked during the scoping process. However, there is a danger that attention focused on well-known taxa or habitats may be at the expense of aspects of a site about which the authors of the ES are relatively ignorant, but which are nevertheless of conservation value. The scoping process should therefore be used to highlight those areas about which too little is known to make an accurate assessment of the likely ecological impacts. When the ecology of the site in question is well-known by the staff of conservation organisations or even amateur ecologists, their involvement in the EA process can be of great value in directing investigations towards areas which it is in danger of neglecting. After the information has been gathered, they may also be able to fill in any important gaps in the findings of the EA, and give advice on which aspects of the site’s biota are of greatest conservation importance, and how to avoid impacting negatively on them. In most cases, all parties from which such advice was sought were listed at the outset of the ES, and were also referenced wherever the information they had provided was presented or cited. Such explicit identification of consultees makes it much easier to assess both the completeness and the quality of information on which the EA has been based.Concerning the provision of useful information about the biodiversity of a site proposed for afforestation, some taxa proved to be less informative than others. Although many of the ESs referred to the mammals or herpetofauna of the proposal site, in no case was the impact of the project on these taxa considered to be of ecological significance. This is due to a combination of the absence of any particularly rare species that could be considered vulnerable to forestry from the proposed sites, and the fact that these groups are relatively species poor (and so are not well-suited to providing information on biodiversity). Moreover, these taxa are sufficiently well studied that in areas likely to hold a mammal, reptile or amphibian of conservation interest, the importance of this species could be highlighted during the scoping process. Attention could then be focused


48


on the assessment of one or two species, rather than on a general review of these groups.The use of standard surveying methodologies and classification systems greatly facilitates the interpretation of an EA’s findings. Nearly all ESs made use of the NVC classification system when identifying habitats. Among the advantages of this system are that it can be used to accurately describe habitats anywhere in the UK, and NVC classifications can be cross-referenced with several other older systems in order to compare the results of recent surveys with pre-NVC habitat studies. At least as important as the application of adequate survey methodologies is that the methods are described in sufficient detail for the surveys to be replicated. For instance, surprisingly few reports quantified the effort that had gone into collecting data. Only when a species list is accompanied by such details is it possible to distinguish between a thorough inventory of an area with few plant species and a hasty survey of a botanically rich area.None of the ESs made reference to invertebrate abundances. This might be seen as a deficit of the surveys and reviews that generated the invertebrate data, but it did not greatly affect the quality of the conclusions that could be drawn from these data. If an invertebrate species is detected in an area of suitable habitat, this is, generally speaking, enough information to infer that the species has a population in the area. Moreover, it takes considerably more time and effort to collect abundance data for these species than it does to detect the presence of that species. This means that for a given amount of invertebrate survey work, more complete species lists can be compiled if abundance data are not recorded than if they are.As regards vegetation, those ESs which include abundance data collected using quadrat sampling recorded less species than those that did not. No ES used non-quadrat abundance estimates for plants, although these are quick and easy to make, and very much enhance a species list (e.g., the DAFOR system: D=dominant, A=abundant, F=frequent, O=occasional, R=rare). The three surveys that used relevés found 141, 73 and 32 vascular and non-vascular species in 400, 30 and 16 quadrats respectively. By contrast, the two most thorough studies in which quadrat data were not collected both generated species lists of well over 200 species. A third ES reports that 135 plant species were found in just 6 hours of non-quadrat survey work. Exact plant abundance data, collected using relevé methods, can be useful if it is necessary to define vegetation communities very precisely: however, a more subjective general estimate would suffice for most purposes. Payments received under the WGS on improved grassland sites can depend on the percentage of certain species present within the sward (Forestry Authority, 1997). However, when identifying habitats in an EA, most vegetation communities can be identified precisely enough by a trained ecologist using less rigorous abundance estimates, without the need for time-intensive quadrat work.

5.4.6 Examples of Best Practice5.4.6.1Dunrobin Glen (661ha) – best practice in vegetation assessmentBell Ingram Rural, property consultants (1995). Outcome: approved in 1996.No conservation designations apply to the proposal site, which is located in Highland IFS’ “preferred zone” for forestry. No scoping process was mentioned, but RSPB gave advice on the area’s bird interest.Vegetation was surveyed in August 1994, with all plant species within 400 relevés (1.5m × 1.5m) identified and given percentage cover scores. One


49


hundred and forty one species of vascular and non-vascular plants were recorded, and abundance measures (average percentage cover and frequency of occurrence within quadrats) calculated for the species found in each vegetation community. Communities were identified by eye and classified according to NVC. There was no formal evaluation of plant conservation significance, though the proposal stated that vulnerable species and habitats would be taken into account.No bird survey was done for project, but data from a NCC survey carried out in 1986 were used to identify six Annex 1 species, as well as several others of local conservation interest, that used the site. Advice given by RSPB was to be followed in order to ensure minimal disturbance to breeding waders and raptors. Coverage of invertebrates was poor. Although the ES did refer to some insect species that were encountered during botanical survey work, no effort was made to collect systematic data on invertebrate populations, or to evaluate their conservation significance.5.4.6.2Inveroykel (834ha) – best practice for vegetation and birdsFPD Savills, property consultants (1999). Outcome: approved in 1999.Although the estate was not statutorily designated, it did contain areas of priority habitat under the EC habitats directive. The scope of the EA was decided at a meeting, but the parties attending this meeting were not identified in the ES. Expert advice was sought from three individuals on plants, birds and fish. An extensive vegetation survey was conducted over 23 days in September 1997 and July 1998. Two hundred and fifty kilometres were walked and 179 vascular plants and 92 non-vascular plants were recorded. Although abundances were not estimated for plant species, the percentage cover of each habitat type was estimated. Seventeen natural and semi-natural communities were described according to NVC classifications. Although the conservation importance of the estate’s vegetation was not well defined (e.g. by reference to conservation legislation, RDB status etc.), areas with interesting plant species and habitats were highlighted for protection.The bird survey was conducted over four person-days in late June and early July 1998. Forty-four species (or evidence of their presence) were recorded, and knowledge of the area was used to identify a further 25 probable and 20 possible species that may have used the site. For those species detected, the number of pairs, single birds and broods recorded during the survey were noted. Again, conservation status of the species on the site was not well defined, but the bird report concluded that so long as certain open areas were safeguarded from planting, the project had the potential to be beneficial to the birds of the area. A few notable invertebrate species observed during the bird and plant surveys were mentioned, but no consideration was given to their conservation significance.5.4.6.3Phones (542ha) – best practice for invertebratesFinlayson Hughes, rural property consultants (1996). Outcome: approved in 1996.The designations that applied to the site included ESA and SSSI; although the whole area was designated by Highland IFS as suitable for "significant commercial afforestation". No consultations or scoping were mentioned.A list of the notable species (numbering 15) of Lepidoptera associated with bearberry was taken from a survey conducted between 1950 and 1978 (no


50


methodological details were given). Of these, three were RDB species and one was a candidate RDB species, while the rest were restricted to bearberry heath, which is a very localised habitat in the UK. The local conservation importance of several of the species was also considered. Seven NVC vegetation communities were identified though the vegetation survey methodology was not specified. Only those plant species that were considered to be important components of these communities were identified. The only consideration given to plant conservation was directed at the bearberry habitat, which the ES recommended be safeguarded because of the rare insects it supported.The status within the site of the most interesting bird species that occur in the area was considered, on the basis of data taken mostly from RSPB reports and consultation. While the conservation significance of individual species was not well defined, the impact of afforestation on almost twenty species was briefly considered. It was concluded that in no case was the impact of forestry likely to be important.

5.5 EFFECTIVENESS OF UK PRACTICE

In the past, afforestation in the UK was widely acknowledged to have caused significant adverse impacts on biodiversity. Primary among these was the impact of forestry on peatland areas of high conservation importance during the 1970s and 80s (reviewed in Avery and Leslie, 1990). Developments in machinery and planting techniques allowed the establishment of forests on areas of peatland that had previously been considered unsuitable for forestry. The conservation importance of these areas was yet to achieve widespread recognition, and the profit that could be generated through alternative activities such as grazing was often negligible. Tens of thousands of hectares of conifer plantations were planted on peatlands of international conservation importance during this period. An intense campaign by organisations such as the RSPB and NCC brought the destruction of peatland habitats by forestry to the attention of the government and the public (Stroud et al., 1987), with the result that the afforestation of such habitats ceased during the late 1980s. Recent work has shown that existing forests are still having an adverse impact on the biodiversity of some UK upland areas, both through the continued maturation of stands (e.g. Whitfield et al., 2001) and the operation of “edge effects” on open habitats situated in close proximity to plantations (e.g. Lavers and Haines-Young 1997).Partly as a result of the campaigns to safeguard peatland from conifer planting, and partly in response to directives from the EU, the last decade or so has seen major changes to consent procedures for forestry. The FC believes (Johnston, 2002) that, with the various procedures now in place, current afforestation in the UK is not harming biodiversity. We have not been able to find any recent studies explicitly examining the current effect of afforestation on biodiversity in the UK. None of the five major non-governmental nature conservation organisations that responded to our queries (see Section 3.3.1.2) expressed any explicit concerns about impacts of afforestation on biodiversity. Their responses were either to the effect that afforestation was not an issue that they were campaigning about, or provision of general policy statements that were focused on opportunities for biodiversity enhancement, such as planting new native woods. There are, however, some indications that problems still exist. A review of progress in implementation of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan

(UKBAP) identified afforestation as a threat to 13 habitats and 28 species covered by action plans within the UKBAP (Avery et al., 2001). However, these figures were obtained by simply tabulating threats identified in


51


individual action plans, and these latter documents do not contain any supporting data.

A review of the WGS/FWPS schemes in Scotland, refers to “some evidence” of afforestation causing damage to designated nature conservation sites (Review Steering Group Secretariat Scottish Executive, 2002).

The opinion of an independent consultant is that “there are still localised problems with forestry”, including planting of species rich grasslands (Everett, 2002).

Overall the available evidence is limited, but does not indicate that current afforestation is a major cause for concern in relation to biodiversity conservation in the UK. Indeed, given the amount of documentation relating to biodiversity conservation in the UK, the lack of information is an indication that afforestation is not perceived to be a significant issue.


52


6 EXISTING PRACTICE OVERSEASThis section reviews the information obtained on biodiversity assessment for afforestation from other countries, excluding the United Kingdom. A full summary of all responses received is included in Appendix 6.

6.1 LEGISLATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

In none of the twelve countries that responded to our questionnaire is there a legal requirement for assessment of the biodiversity of all afforestation sites. However, in several countries, if planned planting exceeds a certain area threshold, there is a requirement for a closer examination of the site or possibly an EIA. For example, in Portugal, where large-scale afforestation with eucalyptus is currently occurring, if the area to be planted exceeds 350ha in non-sensitive areas (including areas already planted within 1km of the site), or as little as 30ha in sensitive areas, an EIA must be undertaken. The effectiveness of such EIAs are ensured by an Assessment Committee: i.e. a group of scientists representing the public EIA authority. In Sweden, landowners planning large-scale afforestation are required to liase with the regional nature conservation authority, whose responsibility is to ensure protection of important habitats. Other northern European countries have strong habitat protection laws; in Denmark the only habitats that may be afforested are ‘agricultural lands under plough’. In Finland, nowadays most planting is reforestation and for the rare cases of initial afforestation, EIAs are recommended on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, in the Netherlands, most on-going afforestation is on abandoned farmland and afforestation of better quality habitats (for biodiversity) is prohibited.In some other parts of Europe, the only sites requiring careful examination prior to afforestation are those already protected. In Austria, only projects over 15ha in area, in a protected area must undergo an examination by a competent authority, which may decide that an EIA is necessary. To date, no EIAs of afforestation projects have been undertaken. In Switzerland, theoretically only protected areas are excluded from afforestation. However, since in practice the only planting occurring is reforestation and small-scale private planting on previously agricultural land, there is no perceived need for legislation. In France, local authorities (prefectures) may prohibit or regulate new plantings in special protected areas, but there is no legal basis to the regulations. French governmental grant aid for forestry should not be given to projects threatening valuable habitats like wetland and dry grassland and it is categorically forbidden to allocate state funding to afforestation projects on peat bogs. In the Czech Republic afforestation projects on protected sites are forbidden by the nature conservation authority, which must approve each new forest plan.

6.1.1 EvaluationIn most of the countries for which information was obtained, afforestation does not appear to be perceived as a significant threat to biodiversity, although there are often still regulatory procedures for the rare cases where there may be a conflict. In Portugal, a procedure has been established (an EIA Assessment Committee) which allows quality control of biodiversity assessments.

6.2 BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT METHODS

The methods used for assessing biodiversity in the countries consulted are usually not specific to the practical assessment of pre-afforestation sites but are general ecological sampling methods, often requiring specialist ecological


53


knowledge. Respondents from Switzerland, Finland and France pointed out that little afforestation is happening in their countries and that as such research into biodiversity of pre-afforestation sites is not a current priority. In South Africa, the situation is rather different, because conversion of ecologically important montane grassland into commercial pine forestry is an on-going process. There has therefore been a recent development of methods for assessing biodiversity of this habitat in order to measure the impact of afforestation. Though the ecological system studied could not be further removed from Irish pre-afforestation habitats, the biodiversity assessment approach taken is of interest and relevance. Three taxa were chosen as potential indicators of overall biodiversity: grasshoppers, butterflies and birds. Survey methods (ten minute counts for butterflies and birds and two minute counts for grasshoppers) were designed for rapid assessment. The taxa chosen all conformed to the following criteria: 1. Relatively high species richness and percentage endemism2. Importance in grassland ecosystem functioning3. Occurrence in most or all habitats4. Wide range of spatial requirements5. Amenability to simple sampling methods6. Taxonomically well-known and easy to identify (Armstrong & van Hensbergen, 1997b)Ten land types, defined in terms of geology, altitude and rainfall were sampled for the above groups. It was found that by preserving areas of each of five land types, all endemic species of the groups sampled would be able to persist, while if a sixth type is included, 93.8% of all the taxa considered would be able to persist (Armstrong & van Hensbergen, 1999). The research culminated in the design of a protocol for wildlife conservation planning at a regional level (Armstrong & van Hensbergen, 1997a).

6.3 EVALUATION

The protocol developed for strategic assessment of afforestation in South Africa is based upon habitat stratified sampling of taxa selected as indicators of biodiversity. The stratification of sampling by clearly defined habitat classes allows the results to be used as predictors of biodiversity in those habitat classes. However, the indicator taxa appear to have been selected a priori and partly on the basis of ease of sampling. Therefore, the representativeness of the selected indicator taxa for the biodiversity of other taxa has not been established.


54


7 EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1 IRISH PRACTICE

The key deficiencies in current Irish practice identified during this study are briefly summarised below. These are discussed in more detail in Sections 4.1.4, 4.2.3, 4.3.3 and 4.4.5.

7.1.1 LegislationThe recent introduction of statutory consent procedures for all afforestation, and new procedures for EIA of afforestation has addressed the major deficiencies that previously existed in the legislative control of afforestation in Ireland. The legislative procedures for screening for sub-threshold EIA are, with the exception of criteria relating to designated sites, not very specific. This means that, to ensure that screening for sub-threshold EIA provides an effective mechanism for control of small-scale afforestation of ecologically important sites, it will be necessary for the FS to develop specific criteria for implementing the screening procedures.

7.1.2 Strategic AssessmentStrategic assessments have made little attempt to take account of potential biodiversity constraints outside designated areas.

7.1.3 Site AssessmentThe main personnel involved in biodiversity assessment of afforestation are Competent Foresters and FS Inspectors who generally do not have specific expertise in ecological assessment and evaluation. The recent employment of an ecologist by the FS is a welcome development although the FS have recently employed an ecologist. The guidance in the Forest Biodiversity Guidelines (Forest Service, 2000c) on identifying habitats, fauna and flora of biodiversity importance is poor, although the supporting technical document (Iremonger, 1999) does give some details. There was no accessible list of Irish habitats until 2000 (Fossitt, 2000), and the UK system (NVC, Rodwell, 1991a, b, 1992, 1995, 2000) is not applicable in all cases because of the differences in UK and Irish flora. As the assessment will usually be carried out by foresters who do not have detailed ecological training or expertise, it seems unreasonable to expect them to extrapolate from these lists to identify additional non-listed habitats or species. Most local authorities do not have in-house technical expertise to comment on biodiversity issues when consulted about grant applications, while NPWS are only consulted about grant applications in, or adjacent to, or within 3 km upstream of designated sites.

7.1.4 Environmental Impact AssessmentThe specific guidance in the EPA Advice Notes on issues such as scope, survey methods and evaluation is limited. None of the EISs reviewed were considered to contain adequate overall biodiversity assessments. The main deficiencies were failure to use recognised habitat/vegetation classifications, reliance on incomplete lists of species with little or no information on abundance or distribution within the site, and little or no evaluation of the conservation importance of the site. There is no evidence of adequate scoping procedures. Approval was granted to six of the nine afforestation projects for which an EIS was submitted, despite serious deficiencies in the description and evaluation of flora and fauna contained within these EISs. This indicates that the assessment


55


by the planning authorities was deficient. The principal deficiencies in the planning authorities’ assessments are likely to arise from the lack of in-house technical expertise.

7.1.5 ConclusionAdequate implementation of screening procedures for sub-threshold EIA requires sufficient knowledge of the biodiversity importance of a potential afforestation site to determine whether EIA is necessary. This requirement, and the deficiencies in strategic assessments, means that effective biodiversity assessment would have to be carried out as part of the normal (non-EIA) consent process for afforestation, in order to avoid damage to sites of high biodiversity importance. However, the current methods and procedures for biodiversity assessment in the normal consent process for afforestation have serious deficiencies. Therefore there is a significant risk of damage to sites of high biodiversity importance. The previous EIAs that were conducted for afforestation projects in Ireland did not include adequate assessments of biodiversity, although standards of biodiversity assessment may be expected to improve subsequent to the recent revision of the EPA Guidelines and the FS publications (Forest Service, 2000b, 2000c, 2000e).

7.2 UNITED KINGDOM PRACTICE

7.2.1 LegislationThe low thresholds for EA of afforestation projects (see Section 5.4.1) and the provisions for sub-threshold EA provide a legislative framework that results in a relatively large number of EAs being carried out for afforestation projects. However, the majority of these EAs are for large projects (see Section 5.4.3.1).

7.2.2 Strategic AssessmentLocal biodiversity action plans are used to provide a coherent method of identifying priority habitats and species. Strategic assessments often include information on biodiversity constraints outside designated sites, with county-wide “Phase 1” habitat surveys providing a valuable resource. The North Yorkshire Moors Upland Land Management Initiative is an example of best practice with a wide range of data being collected, supplemented by ground-truthing, and ecological character areas being identified.

7.2.3 Site AssessmentThe low threshold for EA, and the provisions for sub-threshold EA, mean that the need for an EA is routinely considered in the afforestation consent procedure. Specific procedures for non-EA biodiversity assessment have also been developed for special grant schemes and private forestry companies, and are carried out by ecologists and include a specific methodology for classifying land as improved or unimproved grassland.

7.2.4 Environmental Impact AssessmentThe FC requires all forestry proposals that are either grant-aided or greater than 5ha (with lower thresholds applying in designated areas) to carry out an EA if it is thought that they might involve a significant impact on the environment. The scope of the EA is guided by findings of initial surveys or consultation with statutory and non-statutory conservation bodies. More detailed information is then gathered on those aspects of the site’s ecology that were targeted for


56


further investigation. Habitats are most frequently mapped and identified in the field using NVC classifications. Standard survey methodologies are used to collect data on plant and bird species, and the survey effort and methods used are clearly stated in the ES. Data are also taken from previous surveys, and in consultation with local experts (these include the staff of statutory and non-statutory conservation organisations, amateur ecologists, and people who live or work within the proposal site). When particular species or habitats of conservation importance are known to occur on the site, research efforts are directed towards providing information on these. The findings of the EA are then made available to the public and to an appropriate countryside body for a period of two weeks. The FC decide whether or not to approve the proposal on the basis of the information contained in the ES, and in conjunction with any representations made during the consultation period.

7.2.5 ConclusionThe ecological information which is available through strategic assessments, conservation designations and consultation with both statutory and non-statutory conservation organisations means that, for most forestry proposals, the FC appears to be able to make well-informed decisions about whether an EA is necessary and what its scope should be. Where best practice is achieved, EAs are successful in identifying much of the biodiversity held by a site, either through field surveys or through reviews of existing knowledge. Two areas in which assessments could be improved are in the selection of taxa (especially invertebrate fauna) to be included in the EA, and in the description of research methods and effort in the ES. Generally, however, assessment procedures are such that the risk of afforestation resulting in significant damage to conservation interests in the UK is low.

7.3 OVERSEAS PRACTICE

7.3.1 Strategic AssessmentA protocol involving habitat-stratified sampling of selected taxa has been developed for strategic assessment in South Africa. This protocol is relevant to a situation where there are large areas of semi-natural habitats with little known about the biodiversity of these habitats and relies on the use of selected taxa as indicators of overall biodiversity. These two factors distinguish the protocol from biodiversity assessment methods normally used in western Europe, as the latter tend to focus on specific assessments of individual sites (usually islands of semi-natural habitats) and are carried out in a framework where the conservation importance of various habitat types and taxa being assessed have already been evaluated. Therefore, in an Irish context, the protocol might be superfluous for relatively well studied taxa such as plants and birds. However, this type of biodiversity assessment protocol would significantly improve the currently poor state of knowledge of Ireland’s invertebrate fauna, and might assist in identifying suitable indicator taxa for particular habitats. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how such a protocol could be integrated with established regulatory and procedural requirements for biodiversity assessment in Ireland.

7.3.2 Environmental Impact AssessmentIn Portugal, the adequacy of EIAs carried out for afforestation projects are evaluated by an Assessment Committee: i.e. a group of scientists representing the public EIA authority.


57


7.4 IDENTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE BEST PRACTICE FOR IRELAND

7.4.1 ContextThere are four major differences between Ireland and the UK in the context in which biodiversity assessment for afforestation takes place:1. The current trend of afforestation in Ireland (planting of non-native conifers)

is more likely to result in adverse impacts on biodiversity than the current trend in the UK (planting/regeneration of native woodlands).

2. In the UK the background information on biodiversity is very comprehensive (e.g. county-wide phase 1 habitat surveys, biological records centres, biodiversity action plans) so that, for most sites with semi-natural habitat (whether or not they are formslly designated), some evaluation of their biodiversity importance will be possible from existing data. By contrast in Ireland, there are virtually no accessible data available for evaluation of biodiversity importance outside of designated sites.

3. Although there is little difference in the average size of afforestation projects between Ireland and the UK (European Commission, 1997), there appears to be a greater frequency of large afforestation projects in the UK.

4. In Ireland, the maximum size of afforestation projects closely tracks the changes in the EIA threshold, suggesting that the requirement to carry out an EIA amounts to a de facto refusal of consent because of implications for the economic viability of the project. While the same may be true in certain cases in the UK, the large number of afforestation EAs carried out indicates a difference in the socio-economic context. This suggests that, in the UK, an EA requirement appears to have a less serious effect on the economic viability of afforestation proposals.

7.4.2 LegislationThe legislative thresholds for EA/EIA of afforestation are much lower in the UK than in Ireland. However, the UK thresholds are screening thresholds (i.e., all projects exceeding the threshold require screening for EA) while the Irish thresholds are EIA thresholds (i.e., all projects exceeding the thresholds require mandatory EIA). The new Irish regulations make provision for screening of any afforestation project, but do not provide specific criteria, save for designated sites. Further legislation may not be necessary, but clear screening criteria are required to ensure that every afforestation project which would involve planting semi-natural habitat should be subject to a screening process to determine whether an EIA is required (Recommendation 1).

7.4.3 Strategic AssessmentThe availability of much more detailed background information on biodiversity in the UK compared to Ireland allows more comprehensive identification of biodiversity constraints in strategic assessments. The type of information that appears to be most widely used are “Phase 1” habitat surveys and local BAPs (the latter is a specific action identified by the National Biodiversity Plan; Department of Arts Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands, 2002 ). Therefore, completion of habitat surveys and BAPs in Ireland should be a long-term objective, and would have far wider benefits than just the specific context considered here (Objective 1). A pilot habitat survey of County Carlow is currently being carried out by Carlow County Council and the Heritage Council (Hickey, 2002). The National Biodiversity Plan, provides a general strategic approach for the protection of biodiversity, but does not identify specific priorities, in terms of species and habitats. To ensure that local BAPs provide an


58


effective framework for the protection of biodiversity in Ireland would require the establishment of an effective biological recording system; this too is a specific objective of the National Biodiversity Plan.The lack of detailed knowledge of Ireland’s invertebrate fauna will limit the extent to which BAPs can adequately assess conservation priorities for Irish invertebrates. A systematic habitat-stratified invertebrate survey methodology of the type developed in South Africa (see Section 6.2) would greatly assist in this context, and might also help in identifying suitable indicator taxa for particular habitats (Objective 2). However, the rapid assessment methodology used in South Africa would only be feasible for invertebrate taxa that are generally well studied and species poor (e.g. butterflies, dragonflies, damselflies and grasshoppers) and, therefore, not particularly relevant to the objectives discussed above. Instead, more intensive surveys of species-rich taxa would be required.In the short term, there is a need to prepare IFSs using the best available information. Designated sites are already adequately covered by consultation procedures (see Section 4.3.1.5). This means that if, as is the case at present, biodiversity considerations in strategic assessments are restricted to designated sites, strategic assessments will not add anything to the existing level of control of afforestation impact on biodiversity. Instead strategic assessments need to make a greater effort to source dispersed information on biodiversity constraints (Recommendation 2). Examples could include: records of rare and scarce plants held by NPWS, records of scarce butterflies, damselflies and dragonflies from atlas projects (Asher et al., 2001; Thompson, 2000) and bird records from the Countryside Bird Survey (Coombes et al., 2001). In addition, interpretation of land cover data collected by the Irish Forest soils project (Loftus et al., 2002) could provide an important additional source of information. An appropriate model for this type of data collection would be the Environmental Constraints studies that are carried out as a matter of course for all new road projects (although the quality of these studies varies considerably). Compilation of this type of study would probably require commissioning specialist consultants: these data are kept in a variety of formats, and integration and interpretation would require specialist knowledge.

7.4.4 Non–EIA Site AssessmentIn the UK, the combination of low EA thresholds and provision for sub-threshold EA mean that most non-native afforestation of semi-natural habitat will be subject to EA. It appears that it is usually possible for the FC to identify afforestation projects that might impact sites of biodiversity importance, from existing information, due to the availability of comprehensive background information on biodiversity. In Ireland, the current practice relies almost exclusively on non-EIA site assessment. Implementation of the recommendation in Section 7.4.2 would reduce this reliance. However, due to the general absence of background information on biodiversity, it would still be necessary to improve the non-EIA site assessment procedures so that adequate information is available to allow determination as to whether an EIA is required. Due to the differences discussed above, analysis of non-EA site assessment procedures in the UK is of limited use in identifying best practices relevant to Ireland. Therefore, the following recommendations are based upon general principles of best practice in ecological assessment (Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1995), as well as analysis of UK practice.


59


The principal deficiency in existing practice in Ireland is that the quality of the information submitted to the FS is likely to be poor, due toa. deficiencies in the specified requirements in the Forest Biodiversity Guidelines

(Forest Service, 2000c); andb. the lack of training/experience of the Competent Foresters who collect this

information.Additionally, the FS inspectors who evaluate it are not likely to have ecological expertise. The recent employment of an ecologist by the FS is a welcome development, although more ecologists may be needed to adequately cover the whole country (Recommendation 3). The Forest Biodiversity Guidelines should be revised to require mapping of the whole sites (not just the 15% Area for Biodiversity Enhancement) using the habitat classification defined by Fossitt (2000) (Recommendation 4). The latter should be elaborated to include provision for differentiating species-poor/semi-improved from species rich/unimproved grasslands; the methodology developed for the BLS grants in the UK (Forestry Authority, 1997) might provide a useful model. Habitats of conservation importance should be highlighted and the ABE clearly marked. The Guidelines should also contain more precise definitions of fauna that should be recorded. The Competent Foresters should be required to complete training courses in basic ecological assessment, or employ qualified ecologists to carry out the assessment (Recommendation 5). The FS ecologist should inspect a sample of applications from each self-assessment company to monitor the adequacy of their ecological assessments (Recommendation 6).The above recommendations would result in a substantial improvement in a. the quality of biodiversity information submitted to the FS, and b. the ability of the FS to assess this. Nevertheless, there may be biodiversity features that are not easily detected by that level of assessment, such as the occurrence of rare plants or invertebrates. Furthermore, the current situation whereby NPWS are usually only consulted on applications in, or near designated sites, while the official guidance to local authorities (Department of the Environment, 1997) recommends that they do not comment on nature conservation issues, means that there is a consultation gap in relation to non-designated sites. Therefore, improved consultation procedures are also required to ensure that where information is available, it is taken into account by the FS in its determinations (Recommendation 7). The UK procedures provide a good model (see Section 5.3.1.4) and similar procedures should be implemented in Ireland. The official guidance to local authorities (Department of the Environment, 1997) should be revised to encourage comment on nature conservation issues (Recommendation 8). A broader issue is the availability of ecological expertise within planning authorities. The Heritage Officers programme is addressing this situation to a limited extent, but a long term objective should be the establishment of ecological units within each planning authority (as is standard practice in the UK) (Objective 3). The designation of Natural Heritage Officers in each local authority is a specific objective of the National Biodiversity Plan (Department of Arts Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands, 2002).The current assessment procedures by the FS are based upon using the criterion that if the extent of Guidelines habitats in a site exceed 15%, further consideration of biodiversity issues may be required. This decision is left to the discretion of the individual Inspectors who have varying levels of ecological training. These procedures are rather vague and are likely to result in differences in standards between Inspectors, but do form a basis which can be formalised


60


and strengthened. Therefore, it is recommended that the 15% criterion should be used as a formal mechanism, so that any application which exceeded this should be referred to the FS ecologist for assessment as to whether EIA is required (Recommendation 9). In addition, any applications for which consultations raise potential issues of biodiversity concern should also be referred to the ecologist for assessment. It may be necessary to draw up guidelines for Inspectors so that they can identify spurious objections that are designed to hold up applications.

7.4.5 Environmental Impact AssessmentEIS review need to be developed to require that the biodiversity assessment contained in EISs submitted for afforestation projects contains adequate information for the Minister to make an informed decision, taking into account the likely biodiversity impact (Recommendation 10 and Objective 5).It is important that EIAs are thoroughly scoped in order that all likely ecological impacts are investigated. The scoping process should also be thoroughly described in the EIS as this will allow an assessment of whether the EIA has covered all appropriate avenues of research. Care must be taken that the scoping process does not bias the EIS towards areas which are well known at the expense of aspects of a site’s ecology about which the scoping parties are relatively ignorant but which may nevertheless be important.More use should be made of non-statutory consultees. The extent to which non-statutory conservation organisations will be able to provide detailed advice about proposal sites is far less than in the UK, where the RSPB alone has staff with local knowledge in most areas of the country which are of high conservation importance. However, staff from National Universities and members of organisations such as Birdwatch Ireland, Irish Peatland Conservation Council, Botanical Society of the British Isles, etc. may be able to advise on the ecological issues relevant to particular areas or habitats. It is also important that all consultees are identified in the EIS, as this will allow an evaluation of whether the EIA has covered all appropriate avenues of research.The ecological sections of several of the Irish EISs were researched and written by persons whose only stated qualification was a Bachelor’s degree. The lack of any external means of reviewing and controlling the research of these apparently unqualified consultants resulted in the quality of surveys being very variable but generally poor. A system of professional accreditation for ecological consultants (such as that run by IEEM in the UK) should be established in Ireland, as this would provide a means of distinguishing between qualified and unqualified consultants. Moreover, once such a system was in place, EIA guidelines should be changed to encourage the use of accredited consultants.From the 17 UK ESs examined, it was apparent that mammals and herpetofauna were not very useful for biodiversity assessment. This was partly because these taxa are relatively species poor, and partly because most mammal, reptile and amphibian populations are not particularly sensitive to habitat loss caused by afforestation. In Ireland several terrestrial members of these taxa are listed in Annex 2 (Natterjack Toad, Otter and Lesser Horseshoe Bat) or (as threatened) in the RDB (Whiskered Bat and Natterer’s Bat). Of these, direct habitat loss to afforestation is only very relevant to the Natterjack, whose distribution in Ireland is fairly well known. For proposals that are likely to impact on Natterjack Toads, an assessment of this species can therefore be made a specific objective of the EIA. Otherwise, it is better to focus the attention of the biodiversity assessment on vegetation, birds and invertebrates.


61


At present, although the IEA Guidelines (Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1995) provide advice on the factors that should be taken into account when selecting invertebrate taxa for ecological surveys, there is no detailed guidance concerning the taxa that are suitable for biodiversity assessment of particular habitats in Ireland (Objective 6). The situation in the UK is no better, and there is a need for the development of a system by which invertebrate taxa can be selected for EIA. Until such guidelines exist, as much background information as possible should be taken into account when evaluating the results of invertebrate surveys. Potential evaluation criteria include the diversity of habitat specialists, expert advice, databases such as already exist for European syrphids and gastropods (Falkner et al., 2001; Speight, 2000), and cautious reference to UK RDBs.During surveys aimed at providing data for EIAs time should not be spent collecting abundance data for invertebrates. For plants a subjective approximate abundance for each species is worth the very little extra time required, but detailed quadrat sampling may not be worth the extra effort. The use of a standard system for vegetation classification would enable much easier interpretation of the habitat analysis provided by Irish EISs. The classification system produced by the Heritage Council does not identify plant communities to a high level of resolution, but does have the advantage of being the system that is likely to become the standard used for ecological assessment in Ireland. This should be used until more detailed classifications are synthesised to produce a system more similar to the UK’s NVC (Objective 7).Surveys for EIA should be conducted in accordance with standard ecological assessment methodologies, as these will allow the findings of the survey to be compared with existing information to arrive at a better appreciation of the conservation significance of a site’s biota. Equally important is that all EISs include a description of the methods and effort involved in survey work, and references all sources of information used during their compilation. If these criteria are not strictly adhered to, the results of the most rigorous survey or comprehensive literature review are impossible to evaluate, and therefore much less meaningful.The assessment of the EIS by the planning authority is an important component of the EIA process, as this allows the adequacy of the information in the EIS to be evaluated. If this step is not carried out properly then the adequacy of the entire EIA process is compromised. In the UK, ESs are reviewed by the statutory conservation body where there is a significant conservation interest, while local authorities, who also have in-house ecological expertise, review all ESs. In Portugal, adequacy of EIAs carried out for afforestation projects are evaluated by an Assessment Committee: i.e. a group of scientists representing the public EIA authority. In Ireland, NPWS rarely comment on an EIS unless a designated site is involved and the public EIA authority (the EPA) does not play a significant role in ecological assessment. Future EISs for afforestation projects will be reviewed by the FS. The biodiversity component of such EISs should be reviewed by the FS ecologist(s). If the FS ecologist is not available, then consultants should be commissioned to carry out this review (Recommendation 11). In the latter case, it would be important to implement a system of professional accreditation for ecological consultants, in order to ensure that the consultants used were sufficiently well qualified (Objective 4).


62


7.4.6 An Alternative to EIAWhere biodiversity is the only issue of environmental concern, then there is a case for considering whether the full EIA process is required. Instead, an Ecological Assessment report could be required (i.e. a report which just contains the flora, fauna and habitat component of an EIS). This would have advantages in reducing costs, and allowing the developer and the assessing authority to focus on the key issue. However, there are no statutory procedures specifying the quality requirements for Ecological Assessment reports, and this is a serious weakness of this approach compared to the EIA process: in the event of a sub-standard Ecological Assessment report being approved there would be no opportunity for legal redress. Therefore, in this report, our recommendations are based upon using the EIA process wherever there are significant biodiversity issues involved. However, we do recognise that EA reports might provide an acceptable alternative in certain cases, as long as adequate procedures were in place to guarantee quality. For example, the FS could specify that Ecological Assessment reports be required to satisfy the same review criteria as that which we propose should apply to the biodiversity components of EISs (see Section 7.4.5).

7.5 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.5.1 Specific RecommendationsThis section presents a list of specific recommendations. These are all derived from the analysis and discussion presented above in Sections 7.1, Error:Reference source not found and 7.3. The bodies responsible for action to implement these recommendations are identified, using the following abbreviations:DEHLG Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentFS Forest ServiceRecommendation 1. Detailed screening criteria should be developed to

ensure that every afforestation project which would involve planting of semi-natural habitat is subject to a screening process to determine whether an EIA is required. (Action: FS).

Recommendation 2. As part of the preparation of IFSs, specialist reports identifying biodiversity constraints (outside of designated sites) should be compiled. (Action: FS).

Recommendation 3. The requirements for additional FS ecologists should be considered in the light of Recommendation 6, Recommendation 9 and Recommendation 11. (Action: FS).

Recommendation 4. The Forest Biodiversity Guidelines should be revised to contain precise definitions (based upon the Heritage Council classification; Fossit, 2000) of the habitats which are required to be mapped, the fauna and flora which should be recorded and to explicitly specify that the total extent of these habitats within a site should be mapped, not just the 15% Area for Biodiversity Enhancement. (Action: FS).

Recommendation 5. The Competent Foresters should be required to complete accredited training courses in basic ecological assessment, or employ qualified ecologists to carry out the assessment. (Action: FS).

Recommendation 6. The FS ecologist should inspect a sample of applications from each self-assessment company to monitor the adequacy of their ecological assessments. (Action: FS).


63


Recommendation 7. The consultation procedures for all grant applications should be amended to include posting of fuller details of applications on the FS website, circulation of weekly lists of applications to local authorities, NPWS and any other bodies on request, and availability of full details of all applications for inspection in the local FS office or other suitable venue (Action: FS).

Recommendation 8. The official guidance to local authorities (Department of the Environment, 1997) should be revised to encourage comment on nature conservation issues. (Action: DEHLG).

Recommendation 9. Any application which contains more than 15% Guidelines habitats should be referred to the FS ecologist for assessment as to whether EIA is required. In addition, any applications for which consultations raise potential issues of biodiversity concern should also be referred to the ecologist for assessment. (Action: FS).

Recommendation 10. EIS review criteria should be developed to require that the biodiversity assessment contained in EISs submitted for afforestation projects conforms to the following standards. EISs that do not conform to these standards should be considered inadequate. (Action: FS). EIAs should be thoroughly scoped, and a description of the scoping

process (consulted bodies and decisions of scoping meeting) included in the EIS.

Background ecological information should be sought wherever possible. In particular, advice from a broad range of consultees (e.g. non-statutory conservation organisations, locally-based professional/academic and amateur ecologists) should be sought during the scoping process, and a wide variety of information sources (e.g. published databases, expert advice, UK and Irish Red Data Books) consulted in the interpretation of species survey results.

EIAs should place greater emphasis on vascularplants and bryophytes, birds and invertebrates than on mammals or herpetofauna, except in areas where one or more members of these taxa are of conservation interest AND might be compromised by the project.

During surveys aimed at providing data for EIAs, the trade-off between completeness of species list and abundance data should be considered before deciding to collect abundance data for invertebrates or plants.

For habitat recording in EISs, vegetation communities should be classified according to the Heritage Council classification (Fossitt, 2000), until such time as a more thorough classification of vegetation communities, along the same lines as the NVC, is drawn up for Ireland.

All EISs should include a description of the methods and effort involved in survey work, and should reference all sources (published and grey literature, as well as personal communications) from which information is taken or conclusions are derived.

Recommendation 11. The biodiversity assessment contained in EISs should be reviewed by either the FS ecologist, or by an accredited (see Objective 4) external ecologist. (Action: FS).

7.5.2 Broader ObjectivesThe following are a list of broad objectives which would have significant benefits to biodiversity assessment of afforestation, but which relate to issues that are not specific to forestry. These are all derived from the analysis and discussion presented above in Sections 7.1, Error: Reference source not found and 7.3. Objective 1 and Objective 3 contain specific actions identified by the National Biodiversity Plan (Department of Arts Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands, 2002).


64


Objective 1. Completion of county-wide habitat surveys, biodiversity action plans and establishment of a biological records centre.

Objective 2. Habitat-stratified sampling of invertebrate biodiversity in the major semi-natural habitats of conservation importance.

Objective 3. Establishment of ecological advisory units in each local authority.

Objective 4. Establishment of a system of professional accreditation for ecological consultants in Ireland with the ecological components of all EIAs carried out only by professionally accredited consultants.

Objective 5. Revision of the EIA Advice Notes to incorporate the requirements for biodiversity assessment contained in Recommendation10.

Objective 6. Development of guidelines for the choice of invertebrate taxa suitable for EIAs.

Objective 7. Development of a more thorough classification of vegetation communities, along the same lines as the NVC, for Ireland.


65


REFERENCES

Armstrong, A.J. & van Hensbergen, H.J. (1997a) Evaluation of afforestable montane grasslands for wildlife conservation in the north-eastern Cape, South Africa. Biological Conservation, 81, 179-190.Armstrong, A.J. & van Hensbergen, H.J. (1997b) A protocol for wildlife conservation planning in an afforestable montane grassland region. Southern African Forestry Journal, 179, 29-34.Armstrong, A.J. & van Hensbergen, H.J. (1999) Identification of priority regions for animal conservation in afforestable montane grasslands of the northern Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Biological Conservation, 87, 93-103.Asher, J., Warren, M., Fox, R., Harding, P., Jeffcoate, G., & Jeffcoate, S. (2001) The Millennium Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Avery, M., Bourn, N., Davis, R., Everitt, J., Halahan, R., Harper, M., Parsons, M., Phillips, M., Sands, T., Williams, G., & Wynde, R. (2001) Biodiversity Counts: delivering a better quality of life. Biodiversity Challenge: Butterfly Conservation, Friends of the Earth, Plantlife, The RSPB, The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK.Avery, M. & Leslie, R. (1990) Birds and Forestry. T. & A.D.Poyser, London.Bibby, C., Hill, D., Burgess, N.D., & Mustoe, S. (2000) Bird Census Techniques. Poyser.Brackley, D. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Lancashire County Council.Braun-Blanquet, J. & Tüxen, R. (1952) Irische Pflanzengesellschaften. Veroff geobot, 25, 224-415.Brooks, S.J. (1993) Joint Committee for the Conservation of British Invertebrates: Guidelines for invertebrate site surveys. British Wildlife, 4, 283-286.Brown, A.F. & Shepherd, K.B. (1993) A method for censusing upland breeding waders. Bird Study, 40, 189-195.Buckley, P. (2000) National Action Plan for Biodiversity, Ireland. Presentation to the ESAI conference: Biodiversity - a natural national resource. Dublin.Bulfin, M. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Teagasc, Dublin.Burley, J. & Gauld, I. (1994). Measuring and monitoring forest biodiversity. In Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity in Tropical and Temperate Forests (eds T.J.B. Boyle & B. Bootawee). CIFOR, IUFRO, Indonesia.C.A.A.S. Environmental Services Ltd. (2002) Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements. The Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.C.A.A.S. Environmental Services Ltd. (2003) Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements). The Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.Casey, S. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Cork County Council, Cork.Chinery, M. (1986) Collins Guide to the Insects of Britain and Western Europe. Wm Collins Sons & Co. Ltd., London.


66


Clabby, G. (2002) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Westmeath County Council, Mullingar.Coddington, J.A., Griswold, C.E., Silva, D., Penaranda, E., & Larcher, S.F. (1991). Designing and testing sampling protocols to estimate biodiversity in tropical ecosystems. In The Unity of Evolutionary Biology: Proceedings of the fourth International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ed E.C. Dudley), pp. 44-60. Dioscorides Press, Portland, Oregon.Coggins, K. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Forest Service, Wexford.Coillte (2001) Environmental Impact Appraisal, Protection & Enhancement: A training course manual for the appraisal of environmental impacts on forestry operations sites. Coillte.Commission of the European Communities (1999). Agriculture, Environment, Rural Development: Facts and figures: a challenge for agriculture. Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg.Coombes, D., O'Halloran, J., O'Sullivan, O., Lysaght, L., & Wilson, J. (2001) 2001 Countryside Bird Survey: First report and analysis. Bird Watch Ireland, Dublin.Cork County Council (1997) Draft Areas Sensitive to Forestry Map. Planning Department, Cork County Council, Cork.Cousins, S. (1995). Biodiversity measurement. In Managing Forests for Biodiversity (ed R. Ferris-Kaan), Edinburgh.Department of Agriculture and Food (2004) The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS): Specification for REPS Planners in the Preparation of REPS 3 Plans. Department of Agriculture and Food, Dublin.Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry (1996) Growing For the Future: A strategic plan for the development of the forestry sector in Ireland. The Stationery Office, Dublin.Department of Agriculture Food and Rural Development (2000) Agri-Environmental Specifications for REPS 2000. Department of Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Dublin.Department of Agriculture Food and Rural Development (2001) Circular to REPS planners dated 24/8/01. Department of Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Dublin.Department of Arts Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands (2002) National Biodiversity Plan. Government of Ireland, Dublin.Department of the Environment (1995) Preparation of Environmental Statements for Planning Projects That Require Environmental Assessment: A good practice guide. The Stationery Office, London.Department of the Environment (1997) Forestry Development: Consultation draft of guidelines for planning authorities. Department of the Environment, Dublin.Department of the Environment & Welsh Office (1992) Indicative Forestry Strategies. (Joint Circular from the Department of the Environment (1992/29) and the Welsh Office (1992/61)). HMSO, London.Douglas, G.C., ed. (1999) Strategies for Improvement of Forest Trees, Dublin.


67


Dumolin-Lapegue, S., Demesure, B., Fineschi, S., Le Corre, V., & Petit, R.J. (1997) Phylogeographic structure of white oaks throughout the european continent. Genetics, 146, 1475-1487.Environmental Protection Agency (1995a) Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements). The Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.Environmental Protection Agency (1995b) Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements. The Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.Environmental Resources Management (1998). Impact of Current Forestry Policy on Aspects of Ireland's Heritage. The Heritage Council, Kilkenny.Environmental Resources Management (2000) Langholm/Lockerbie Local Forestry Frameworks. Environmental Resources Management, Edinburgh.European Commission (1997) Report to Parliament and the Council on the Application of Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 Instituting a Community Aid Scheme for Forestry Measures in Agriculture. European Commission.European Commission (2002) Agriculture in the European Union - Statistical and economic information 2001. European Commission.Evans, S. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). The National Forest Company.Everett, S. (2002) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings), Thatcham.Falkner, G., Obrdlik, P., Castella, E., & Speight, M.C.D. (2001) Shelled Gastropoda of Western Europe. Friedrich Held Gesellschaft, Munchen.Ferris, R. & Humphrey, J.W. (1999) A review of potential biodiversity indicators for application in British forests. Forestry, 72, 313-328.Foley, N. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Forest Service, Letterkenny.Forest Service (2000a) Afforestation Grant and Premium Schemes. Forest Service, Department of the Marine and Natural Resources.Forest Service (2000b) Code of Best Forest Practice - Ireland. Forest Service, Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Dublin.Forest Service (2000c) Forest Biodiversity Guidelines. Forest Service, Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Dublin.Forest Service (2000d) Forestry Schemes: Procedures and standards manual. The Stationery Office, Dublin.Forest Service (2000e). The Irish National Forestry Standard. Forest Service, Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Dublin.Forest Service (2001a). Forestry Statistics. Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Dublin.Forest Service (2001b) Information Note: Forest biodiversity guidelines and afforestation grant aid and premium payment (Draft). Forest Service, Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Dublin.Forest Service (2001c) Native Woodland Scheme. Forest Service, Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford.Forest Service (2001d) www.marine.gov.ie/


68


http://193.120.211.94/display.asp?action=sitetext&id=473, Vol. 2001. Forest Service, Department of Marine and Natural Resources, Ireland.Forest Service (2002a) County Waterford Discussion Paper to aid in the preparation of an Indicative Forest Strategy (IFS). Forest Service, Dublin.Forest Service (2002b) Native Woodland Manual: Procedures, standards and decision support for the Native Woodland Scheme. Forest Service, Dublin.Forest Service (2003a) County Monaghan Draft Discussion Paper to aid in the preparation of an Indicative Forest Strategy (IFS). Forest Service, Dublin.Forest Service (2003b) County Wexford Discussion Paper to aid in the preparation of an Indicative Forest Strategy (IFS). Forest Service, Dublin.Forest Service (2003c) Draft Indicative Forest Strategy for County Mayo. Forest Service, Dublin.Forest Service (2004a) Draft Discussion Paper to aid in the preparation of an Indicative Forestry Strategy for County Limerick. Forest Service, Dublin.Forest Service (2004b). http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/index.jsp?file=forestry/pages/indicative_forest_strategy.xml. Accessed November 2004.Forestry Authority (1997) Land Eligible for the Better Land Supplement. Forestry Commission.Forestry Authority & Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland (1998). The UK Forest Standard: The UK Government's approach to sustainable forestry. DANI Forest Service, Belfast.Forestry Commission (1990) Forest Nature Conservation Guidelines. HMSO, London.Forestry Commission (undated-a) The Forest Environment: a brief guide to conserving and improving the forest environment. Forestry Commission.Forestry Commission (undated-b) Undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment in Forestry and Preparing an Environmental Statement. Forestry Commission.Fossitt, J.A. (2000) A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council, Kilkenny.Fox, H., Cullen, M., Little, D.J., Ciaurriz, P., Ryan, D., Dwyer, R., & Boyle, G.M. (2001) Vegetation monitoring and botanical survey of Brackloon Wood, Westport, County Mayo. Forest Ecosystem Research Group Report number 31. Department of Environmental Resource Management, University College, Dublin, Dublin.Gallacher, J. (2001a) Glenduckie Proposed Woodland Grant Scheme: Initial site assessment. Tilhill Economic Forestry.Gallacher, J. (2001b) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Tilhill Economic Forestry.Gibbons, D.W., Reid, J.B., & Chapman, R.A. (1994) The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland: 1988-1991. Poyser.Giller, P., O'Halloran, J., Kiely, G., Evans, J., Clenaghan, C., Hernan, R., Roche, N., & Morris, P. (1997) A Study of the Effects of Stream Hydrology and Water Quality in Forested Catchments on Fish and Invertebrates. An evaluation of the effects of forestry on surface water quality and ecology in Munster. AQUAFOR Report 2. University College, Cork.


69


Gray, I.M. (1996) Environmnetal Impact Assessment in the UK Forestry Sector. MSc, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.Gray, I.M. & Edwards-Jones, G. (1999) A review of the quality of environmental impact assessments in the Scottish forest sector. Forestry, 72, 1-10.Guest, B. (2001) Personal communication (ed A.-M. McKee). Leitrim County Council.Hansson, L. (2000). Indicators of Biodiversity: recent approaches and some general suggestions, Rep. No. 1. BEAR.Harris, E. & Harris, J. (1997) Guidelines for Wildlife Conservation Within Productive Woodlands. Research Studies Press Ltd., Somerset.Heritage Council (1999) Impact of Agriculture Schemes and Payments on Aspects of Ireland's Heritage. Heritage Council, Kilkenny.Hickie, D., Turner, R., Mellon, C. And Coveney, J. (1993) Ireland's Forested Future: A Plan for Forestry and the Environment. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, An Taisce and the Irish Wildbird Conservancy.Hickey, B. (2002) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Carlow County Council, Carlow.Hill, M.O. (1993). TABLEFIT Version 0.0 - For identification of vegetation types. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Huntingdon, UK.Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2001) Directory of Ecologists and Environmental Managers: The IEEM membership directory 2000-2001. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995) Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. E & FN Spon, London.Iremonger, S. (1999) Guidelines for Forestry and Biodiversity. Forest Service, Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Dublin.Irish Peatland Conservation Council (2001) Bogs & Fens of Ireland Conservation Plan 2005. Irish Peatland Conservation Council, Dublin.Johnston, P. (2002) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Forestry Commission.Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1993) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: a technique for environmental audit. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1995) Guidelines for Selection of Biological SSSI's. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.Kearney, B. (2001) A Review of Relevant Studies Concerning Farm Forestry Trends and Farmer's Attitudes to Forestry. COFORD, Dublin.Keddy, P.A. & Drummond, C.G. (1996) Ecological properties for the evaluation, management and restoration of temperate deciduous forest ecosystems. Ecological Applications, 6, 748-762.Kelleher, B. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Cork County Council, Cork.Kelleher, C.T. & Hodkinson, T.R. (in press) Chloroplast haplotypes reveal the genetic structure and post glacial colonisation routes of oak in Ireland. Molecular Ecology.


70


Kelly-Quinn, M., Tierney, D., Coyle, S., & Bracken, J.J. (1997) A Study of the Effects of Stream Hydrology and Water Quality in Forested Catchments on Fish and Invertebrates. Stream chemistry, hydrology and biota, Wicklow region. AQUAFOR Report 3. COFORD, Dublin.Kent, M. & Coker, P. (1992) Vegetation Description and Analysis - A practical approach. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Lancashire County Council (1994) An Indicative Forestry Strategy for Lancashire. Lancashire County Council.Land Use Consultants (2000a) North Yorkshire Moors Upland Land Management Initiative. Integrated characterisation and environmental capital assessment. Land Use Consultants.Land Use Consultants (2000b) North Yorkshire Moors Upland Land Management Initiative. Study 3: Ecological character assessment. Land Use Consultants.Lavers, C.P. & Haines-Young, R.H. (1997) Displacement of dunlin Calidris alpina schinzii by forestry in the flow country and an estimate of the value of moorland adjacent to plantations. Biological Conservation, 79, 87-90.Lee, N., Colley, R., Bonde, J., & Simpson, J. (1999). Reviewing the Quality of Environmental Statements and Environmental Appraisals (Occasional Paper No. 55). School of Planning & Landscape, University of Manchester, Manchester.Loftus, M., Bulfin, M., Farrelly, N., Fealy, R., Green, S., Meehan, R., & Radford, T. (2002) The Irish forest soils project and its potential contribution to the assessment of biodiversity. Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, in press.Lowden, F. (2000) An Evaluation of the Changing Approach to Environmental Impact Assessment in the UK Forestry Sector, With Particular Regard to Ecological Issues. MA, The University of Manchester, Manchester.Magurran, A.E. (1988) Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Chapman and Hall, London.Malloch, A.J.C. (1991). MATCH Version1.3 - A computer program to aid the assignment of vegetation data to the communities and sub-communities of the National Vegetation Classification. University of Lancaster, Lancaster.Martin, J., Douglas, G., Hodkinson, T.R., Kelleher, C., & Kelly, D.L. (1999) Investigating Irish oaks by chloroplast DNA analysis. In Proceedings of Applications of Biotechnology to Forest Genetics.McAree, D. (2001) Presentation to stakeholders on Coillte's progress towards FSC certification. In Proceedings of the conference, Managing Biodiversity of Forests and Forest Water Ecosystems: The Irish approach, Sigtuna.McGuire, C. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Clare County Council, Ennis.McKeon, N. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Roscommon County Council, Roscommon.McVean, D.N. & Ratcliffe, D.A. (1962) Plant Communities of the Scottish Highlands. HMSO, London.Meath County Council (2001) County Development Plan 2001. Volume One: Objectives for the County at Large. Meath County Council, Navan.Moray Council (2001) Moray Indicative Forestry Strategy. Moray Council, Elgin.


71


Murphy, M. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings), Enniscorthy.Myers, W.L., Patil, G.P., & Taillie, C. (1994). Comparative paradigms for biodiversity assessment. In Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity in Tropical and Temperate Forests (eds T.J.B. Boyle & B. Bootawee), pp. 67-87. CIFOR, IUFRO, Indonesia.National Roads Authority (2003) Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes. National Roads Authority, Dublin.O'Neill, T. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Limerick County Council, Limerick.O'Sullivan, G., ed. (1994) Final Report, CORINE Land Cover Project (Ireland). Ordnance Survey of Ireland, Dublin.Ouborg, N.J., Piquot, Y., & Van Groenendael, J.M. (1999) Population genetics, molecular markers and the study of dispersal in plants. Ecology, 87, 551-568.Reif, A. (2001) Personal communication. Germany.Review Steering Group Secretariat Scottish Executive (2002) WGS/FWPS Review: Report of the Review Steering Group. Scottish Executive.Rodwell, J.S., ed. (1991a) British Plant Communities. Volume 1. Woodlands and scrub. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Rodwell, J.S., ed. (1991b) British Plant Communities. Volume 2. Mires and heaths. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Rodwell, J.S., ed. (1992) British Plant Communities. Volume 3. Grasslands and montane communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Rodwell, J.S., ed. (1995) British Plant Communities. Volume 4. Aquatic communities, swamps and tall-herb fens. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Rodwell, J.S., ed. (2000) British Plant Communities. Volume 5. Maritime communities and vegetation of open habitats. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Schulze, E.D. & Mooney, H.A. (1994). Ecosystem function of biodiversity: a summary. In Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function (eds E.D. Schulze & H.A. Mooney), pp. 497-510. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Scott, L. (2002) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Carlow County Council, Carlow.Scott, S. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Forestry Commission, Brandon.Scottish Executive (1999) Circular 9/1999 Indicative Forestry Strategies. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.Sidway, R. & Turbull Jeffrey Partnership Landscape Architects (1997) Evaluation of Indicative Forestry Strategies in Scotland. The Scottish Office Central Research Unit, Edinburgh.Sligo County Council (2000) Sligo County Development Plan 1999-2000. Sligo County Council, Sligo.Southwood, T.R.E. (2000) Ecological Methods with Particular Reference to the Study of Insect Populations. Blackwell Science.


72


Speight, M.C.D. (2000). Syrph the Net: a database of biological information about European Syrphidae (Diptera) and its use in relation to the conservation of biodiversity. In Biodiversity: the Irish dimension (ed B.S. Rushton), pp. 156-171. Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.Stork, N.E. & Samways, M., eds. (1995) Inventorying and Monitoring of Biodiversity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Streiff, R., Labbe, T., Bacilieri, R., Steinkellner, H., Glossl, J., & Kremer, A. (1998) Within-population genetic structure in Quercus robur L. and Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. assessed with isozymes and microsatellites. Molecular Ecology, 7, 317-328.Stroud, D.A., Reed, T.M., Pienkowski, M.W., & Lindsay, R.A. (1987). Birds, bogs and forestry: the peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.The Scottish Office (1998) National Planning Policy Guidelines. NPPG 14: Natural Heritage. The Scottish Office.The Third Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (1998) Resolution L2. Pan-European Criteria, Indicators and Operational Level Guidelines for Sustainable Forest Management. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Vienna.Thompson, R. (2000) Dragonflies: Ireland. British Wildlife, 12, 131-132.Towers, W. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). The Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen.Towers, W., Malcolm, A., Hester, A., Ross, I., & Baird, E. (2001) Cairngorm Forest and Woodland Framework. Forestry Commission.UNEP (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations Environmental Programme, Nairobi.Waterford County Council (1999) 1999 Waterford County Development Plan. Waterford County Council, Dungarvan.White, J. & Doyle, G.J. (1982) The vegetation of Ireland: A catalogue raisonné. Journal of Life Sciences, Royal Dublin Society, 3, 289-368.Whitfield, D.P., Mcleod, D.R.A., Fielding, A.H., Broad, R.A., Evans, R.J., & Haworth, P.F. (2001) The effects of forestry on golden eagles on the island of Mull, western Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 38, 1208-1220.Wicklow County Council (2002) Wicklow Indicative Forestry Strategy. Wicklow County Council, Wicklow.Williams, C.B. (1964) Patterns in the Balance of Nature. Academic Press, London.


73


APPENDIX 1 SCIENTIFIC NAMESPlantsCommon Name Scientific Namebearberry Arctostaphylos uva-ursicock’s-foot Dactylis glomeratacottongrass Eriophorum sp.rye-grass Lolium sp.sedge Carex sp.timothy Phleum pratensewhite clover Trifolium repenswood-rush Luzula sp.lodgepole pine Pinus contorta

FungiCommon Name Scientific Namewaxcap Hygrophoracae

AnimalsCommon Name Scientific NameBarn Owl Tyto albaFreshwater Pearl Mussel Margaritifera margaritiferaIrish Hare Lepus timidusLesser Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus hipposiderosNatterer’s Bat Myotis natteriNatterjack Toad Bufo calamitaRed Fox Vulpes vulpesWhiskered Bat Myotis mystacinus


74


APPENDIX 2 GLOSSARY

Definitions of abbreviations and terminology used in the text are provided below. Where relevant, the geographical scope of the term is indicated in parentheses.

ABE Area for Biodiversity Enhancement (Ireland): The 15% of the forest area which must be managed for biodiversity in order to comply with the requirements for grant aid (Forest Service, 2000c).

Annex 1 species (European Union): Bird species listed on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC).

ASI Area of Scientific Interest (Ireland): A former system for designating sites of nature conservation and geological heritage importance, now superseded by the NHA designation.

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan (Ireland and the UK): Action Plans that set priorities for nationally important and locally important habitats and wildlife. Three types of plans have been developed in the UK - Species Action Plans, Habitat Action Plans and Local Biodiversity Action Plans (see http://www.ukbap.org.uk/Plans/index.htm). Ireland is currently preparing a national Biodiversity Action Plan (Buckley, 2000).

BLS Better Land Supplement (UK): A grant supplement to the WGS which provides higher rates of payment for afforestation of arable land, other cropped land and improved grassland (Forestry Authority, 1997).

Biodiversity Features (Ireland): A classification of habitats and species developed by Coillte as part of its site assessment procedures (Coillte, 2001).

CAP Common Agricultural Policy (European Union): The Treaty of Rome creating the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957 contained provision for a "common agricultural policy" (the CAP). This policy sought to increase the productivity of European agriculture, ensure reasonable living standards for farmers, stabilise farm produce markets and guarantee a stable food supply at fair prices for consumers (see http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/agriculture/hist_en.htm).

CEH Centre for Ecology and Hydrology: Part of the UK Natural Environment Research Council and responsible for research into all aspects of the terrestrial environment and its resources (see http://www.ceh.ac.uk/).

CFWF Cairngorms Forest and Woodland Framework (Scotland): See Section 5.2.2.2.

Coillte (Ireland): Coillte Teoranta was established under the Forestry Act 1988 to manage State owned forests commercially (see http://www.coillte.ie/).

Competent Forester (Ireland): A forester approved by the Forest Service.NPWS National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the

Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Ireland): The statutory agency responsible for the conservation of Ireland’s natural heritage.

EA Environmental Assessment (UK): See Section 1.5.1.EIA Environmental Impact Assessment (Ireland): See Section 1.5.1.EIS Environmental Impact Statement (Ireland): See Section 1.5.1.Environmental Constraints studies (Ireland): Studies prepared to identify significant

environmental constraints as part of the first stage of planning a new road development project.

EPA Environmental Protection Agency (Ireland): the statutory agency responsible for promotion and implementation of the highest practicable standards of environmental protection and management that embrace the principles of sustainable and balanced development (see http://www.epa.ie/). The EPA has no regulatory role in relation to afforestation, but is responsible for the preparation of guidelines for EIA.

ES Environmental Statement (UK): See Section 1.5.1.


75

http://www.epa.ie/

http://www.coillte.ie/

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/)

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/agriculture/hist_en.htm

http://www.ukbap.org.uk/Plans/index.htm


ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area (UK): Areas designated to conserve areas of high landscape, wildlife or historic values through voluntary participation by farmers in special grant schemes.

FC Forestry Commission (England, Scotland and Wales): The government’s forestry department responsible for promoting sustainable forest management, the administration of incentives and the regulation of forestry (see http://www.forestry.gov.uk/).

FIPS Forest Inventory and Planning System (Ireland): A GIS being developed by the Forest Service provide forest inventory data and to assist in forest planning and the administration of forestry grants and premiums (see: http://193.120.211.94/display.asp?action=sitetext&id=473).

FS Inspector Forest Service Inspector (Ireland): The officers of the FS responsible for certification of grant applications.

FS Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Food (Ireland): The statutory agency responsible for responsible for ensuring the development of forestry within Ireland in a manner and to a scale that maximises its contribution to national socio-economic well-being on a sustainable basis that is compatible with the protection of the environment.

GIS Geographical Information System: A multi-layer computer-based system for efficient input, storage and retrieval of geographic and land attribute data.

Guidelines habitats: Forest Biodiversity Guidelines habitats (Ireland): Habitats listed in the box on page 3 of the Forest Biodiversity Guidelines (Forest Service, 2000c).

IEEM Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (UK): The professional accreditation body for ecologists in the UK (see http://www.ieem.org.uk/).

IFS Indicative Forestry Strategies (Ireland and the UK): A strategy produced by local authorities following government guidance (Department of the Environment, 1997; Department of the Environment & Welsh Office, 1992; Scottish Executive, 1999), as frameworks within which new forestry proposals can be considered, and as a guide to potential forestry developers.

ISA Initial Site Assessment (UK): See Section 5.3.2.2.JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee (UK): The UK Government's

wildlife adviser, undertaking national and international conservation work on behalf of the three country nature conservation agencies English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Council for Wales (see http://www.jncc.gov.uk/).

LFF Local Forestry Framework (UK): A more detailed forestry strategy (compared to an IFS) for areas known to be particularly sensitive, where there is widespread local concern, or where the issues surrounding forestry are complex.

LNR Local Nature Reserve (UK): Nature reserves designated by a regional or local planning authority.

MLURI Macaulay Land Use Research Institute (Scotland): Now the Macaulay Institute (see http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/index.html).

NHA Natural Heritage Area (Ireland): A site statutorily designated by NPWS, under the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 as being of national nature conservation importance. As of yet, no NHAs have been designated. Sites that have been identified as proposed NHAs are referred to as pNHAs.

NNR National Nature Reserve (UK): Statutory nature reserves designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

NSA National Scenic Area (Scotland): Areas of national scenic importance in Scotland, defined by the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1980 under the statutory basis of the Town and County Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.

NVC National Vegetation Classification (England, Scotland and Wales): A systematic and comprehensive classification of the vegetation types of all natural, semi-natural and major artificial habitats of Great Britain. The


76

http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/index.html)

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/

http://www.ieem.org.uk/)

http://193.120.211.94/display.asp?action=sitetext&id=473)

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/


published descriptions (Rodwell, 1991a, b, 1992, 1995, 2000) include detailed information on the ecological characteristics and distribution of each vegetation community.

NWS Native Woodland Scheme (Ireland): A scheme to provide grant-aid for the planting and management of native woodlands (Forest Service, 2001c).

PBA Potential Biodiversity Area (Ireland): A classification developed by Coillte to identify parts of the Coillte estate that are of potential importance for biodiversity (Coillte, 2001).

Ramsar site (International): Wetland sites of nature conservation importance statutorily designated under the Ramsar Convention.

Qualified Ecologist (Ireland): An ecologist approved by the FS for the purposes of preparing an application for a NWS grant.

RDB Red Data Book (International): A listing of species that are rare or threatened or of international importance. RDBs exist at a range of geographical scales including global, continental, national and regional.

RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (UK): The largest UK nature conservation NGO, and is involved in conservation, management, research and campaigning (see http://www.rspb.co.uk/).

REPS Rural Environment Protection Scheme (Ireland): An agri-environment scheme, funded under the CAP, designed to encourage sustainable farming practices, protect wildlife habitats and endangered species, and produce quality food in an extensive and environmentally friendly manner (Department of Agriculture Food and Rural Development, 2000).

SAC Special Area of Conservation (European Union): Areas of nature conservation importance designated under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). A candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) is a site which has been notified to the European Commission, but has not yet been designated.

Self-assessment Company (Ireland): A forestry company which is approved by the FS to carry out certification of grant applications.

SFM Sustainable Forest Management (International): The stewardship and use of forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems.

Shannon-Weiner Index: An index of species diversity.Simpson Index: An index of species diversity.SNH Scottish Natural Heritage (Scotland): The statutory agency with

responsibility for the care of Scotland’s natural heritage.SOAEFD Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

(Scotland)SPA Special Protection Area (European Union): Areas of bird conservation

importance designated under the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC).SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest (UK): A site statutorily designated by

English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales, SNH or the Environment and Heritage Service as being of national importance for wildlife, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

WGS Woodland Grant Scheme (UK): A scheme, administered by the FC, for grant-aiding the creation of new woodlands and the management of existing woodlands, according to environmental guidelines.

WHS World Heritage Site (International)Williams Index: An index of species diversity S = log e (1 + N/).


77

http://www.rspb.co.uk/)


APPENDIX 3 ORGANISATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED

A3.1IRELAND

All individuals and organisations contacted are listed. Respondents are shown in bold type.Organisation ContactsCarlow County Council Lorcan Scott (Heritage Officer), Betsy Hickey

(Botanist)Clare County Council Congella McGuire (Heritage Officer)Coillte Kevin Donnellan; Aileen O’SullivanCork County Council Sharon Casey (Heritage Officer); Brendan Kelleher

(Chief Planning Officer), Patricia PowerDepartment of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development

REPS Section, Agricultural Structures Division II

Donegal County Council Planning SectionNational Parks and Wildlife Service

Philip Buckley; John Cross; Neil Lockhart; Michael Wyse-Jackson

Forest Service Gerry Cody, Karl Coggins, Kevin Collins, Eamonn Cunningham, Noel Foley

Galway County Council Planning Section, Marie Mannion (Heritage Officer)Heritage Council Liam ScottIndependent Consultant Ute BohnsackLaois County Council Planning SectionLeitrim County Council Bernadette Guest (Heritage Officer)Limerick County Council Tom O’Neill (Heritage Officer)Mayo County Council Planning SectionRoscommon County Council

Nollaig McKeon (Heritage Officer)

Sligo County Council Siobhán Ryan (Heritage Officer)Teagasc Michael Bulfin (Head, Forestry Research)Tipperary N.R. County Council

Siobhan Geraghty (Heritage Officer)

Westmeath County Council

Gerry Clabby (Heritage Officer)

Wicklow County Council Moira Murphy (ex- Acting Heritage Officer), Deidre Burns (Heritage Officer)

A3.2UNITED KINGDOM

Over 200 individuals and organisations were contacted. Only those which responded with information are listedOrganisation ContactsAberdeenshire Council Emma ParkesADAS Boxworth Rossy McLaren (Senior Consultant Ecologist)ADAS Consulting Ltd. Chris Britt (Senior Research Scientist), Capreolus Wildlife Consultancy

Peter Reynolds (Principal)

Cardiff University, Llysdinam Field Centre

Fred Slater (Director)

Community Forestry Partnership

Valerie Denly (Secretariat)

Countryside Council for Wales

Jim Latham


78


Cumbria County Council Edward Mills (Project Manager – Cumbria Broadleaves)Ecoscope Applied Ecologists

Deborah Patterson (Consultant Ecologist)

ENTEC Richard Knightbridge (Principal)Environment Agency Wales

Jon Gulson (Cardiff Bay Project Team Co-ordinator)

Environmental Resources Management

Guy Duke (Technical Director & Practice Leader – London office)

Forest of Avon Mark Durk (Director)Forestry Commission Bob Dunsmore (Highland Region Conservator), Ian

Collier (Highland Biodiversity Officer), Dinah Beattie (Highland Region Conservancy), Alistair Hendry (Dumfries and Galloway Conservator), Steve Scott (East England Conservator), Nicholas Shepherd (Landscape Architect – National Office for Scotland), Alistair Jones (Scottish National Office), Ruth Jenkins (Welsh National Office), Fred Currie (English National Office), Gordon Patterson (Head of Policy and Practice), Maureen Edwards, Gordon Inglis, Alex Dale (UK National Office) and Paul Johnston (Operations Manager)

Forest Service (Northern Ireland)

John Griffin

Friends of the Earth Stuart CroftGreen Environmental Consultants

Jacqui Green (Principal)

Independent Consultant Penny Cresswell LewnsInstitute of Ecology and Environmental Management

Jim Thompson

Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Marcus Yeo (Advisor – Habitat)

Lancashire County Council

David Brackley (Specialist Advisor – Forestry), Richard Thompson (Ecologist)

Land Use Consultants Robert Edmonds (Land Use Consultants)Loch Lomond and the Trossachs Interim Committee

David Harrison

Lockhart Garrat Ltd. Graham Garrett (Director)Maculay Institute Ann Malcolm (GIS and Data Services), Willie Towers

(Soil Quality and Protection)National Museum of Wales

Tim Rich

Natural Environment Consultants

Karl Partridge (Principal)

Nature Bureau Sue EverettNorthern Ecological Services

Katherine Dale (Senior Ecological Consultant)

Plantlife Sara Ames (Conservation Administrator)RLE Micheal Hall (Ecology Manager)RSK Environment Ltd. Anne Pritchard (Senior Consultant – Ecology)RSPB Sacha Cleminson, Ian Peters (Wildlife Advisor)Scottish Natural Heritage Dominic Sargent, Catriona GallTerence O’Rourke plc Andrew Mahon (Technical Director – Environment)Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

Darren Tower (Senior Conservation and Heritage Scientist)

The Countryside Agency Rob Green (Enterprise, Land Management & Tourism Branch)


79


The Forest of Avon Mark Durk (Director)The National Forest Company

Simon Evans

The Natural Resource Consultancy

Carol Crawford (Principal)

The Ross Partnership Irvine RossThe Wildlife Trusts John Everitt (Director of Conservation)The Woodland Trust Nick Collinson (Conservation Policy Advisor), Jeremy

Langford (Operations Director)Tilhill Economic Forestry John GallacherUniversity of Newcastle John Benson (Centre for Research in Environmental

Appraisal & Management, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape)

Worldwide Fund for Nature - UK

Hannah Marshall (Supporter Care Coordinator)

A3.3OTHER COUNTRIES

All individuals and organisations contacted are listed. Respondents are shown in bold type.Country ContactsAustria Austrian Nematode Biodiversity Research; Department Of Animal Ecology,

Justus Liebig University, Giessen; Institute of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Vienna; Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management

Belgium Christian Laurent, DNF–DGRNE, Wallonie; KBIN – Royal Belgian Institute of Sciences; Mr Marc de Win, Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Social Affairs, Public Health and Environment; Dr Machtald Gryseels, Brussels Institute for the management of the environment; Dr ir Koen De Smet, Environment, Land and Water Management, Nature Division (Flemish region); Jacques Stein, DGRNE; D.Devuyst, EIA Centre, Brussels University; D. Van Straaten, Institute of Nature Conservation; Michel Delcorps, Institut bruxellois pour la gestion de l’environnement; Ministry of Flemish Community; Alain Bozet, Ministère de la Région wallonne; Belgian Biodiversity Platform

Canada Canadian Forest ServiceCzech Republic

Faculty of Forestry, Czech University of Agriculture; Forestry and Game Management Research Institute; Ministry of Agriculture; Forestry Development Department; State Institute of Forest Management

Denmark The Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute; National Environmental Research Institute; The Danish Forest and Nature Agency; Gert Johansen

Finland Finnish Forest Research Institute; Finnish Society of Forest Science; Society of Forestry in Finland; Finnish Forest & Park Service; Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry, University of Helsinki, Department of Ecology & Systematics; Biodiversity Research Programme, Academy of Finland; Finnish Biodiversity Research Programme (FIBRE); Dr. Alex Komarov

France Jean Poiret, Département Santé des Forets; Daniel Vallauri, WWF; Francois LeTacon, INRA; Frédéric Gosselin, Unité Ecosystèmes et Paysages, CEMAGREF; Robin Rolland, Monique Turlin and Georges Guignabel, Ministry for the Environment; Colette Carichiopulo, LPO; P. Lequenne, Ecole Supérieure d’Agriculture, Angers; French Institute of Biodiversity; Department of Forest Health; Nicolas Drapier, Office National des Forets – Direction technique – Département aménagement, sylvicultures, espaces naturels; Pierre Touzac, Project Officer for the ‘Forest Network’, France Nature


80


EnvironnementEstonia Estonian Centre for Forest Protection & Silviculture; Estonian Forest

Department; Estonian Institute of Forestry & Nature ConservationE.U. DG Environment; DG Research; European Environment Agency; DG

AgricultureGermany Federal Agency for Nature Conservation; Universitat Freiburg,

Forstwissenschaftliche Fakultat Waldbau-Institut, Standorts und Vegetationskunde; University of Göttingen; German Council of Environmental Advisors (SRU), Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety; Federal Research Centre for Forestry and Forest Products (BFH), Institute for Forest Ecology and Forest AssessmentKlaus Halbritter; Prof. Dr. Hermann Ellenberg, University of Hamburg; Prof. Dr. Albert Reif, University of Freiburg; Richard Fischer, PCC of ICP Forests, Institute for World Forestry

Greece BirdLife (HOS); Angelica PSAILA, Ministry of Environment, Planning and Public Works; Professor Costas Cassios, National Technical University of Athens

Hungary Forest Management Planning Service; Department of Landscape Protection, Forestry and Management of Protected Areas, Ministry for Environment; Department of Forestry, ministry of Agriculture; National Authority for Nature Conservation

Italy Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forest Resources, National Forest Service; Italian Ministry for the Environment

Latvia State Forest Service; Latvian Forest Research InstituteLithuania Institute of EcologyNetherlands

ALTERRA; National Reference Centre for Nature management (ECLNV)Netherlands Embassy Dublin; Gijs van Tol; [email protected]; G.M.J. (Frits) Mohren, [email protected]; Rienk-Jan Bijlsma; [email protected]; Dr. Ir. Jan den Ouden, Silviculture and Forest Ecology Group, Wageningen University; Matthias Schoutens; Jan Jaap De Boer, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment; M. Odijk, Commission for EIA; Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserj; B. Tencate, Natuurplanbureau

New Zealand

New Zealand Forest Service; New Zealand Forest Research Institute, Ministry of Forestry

Norway Norwegian Forest Research Institute; Forestry Department, Ministry of Agriculture; Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA NIKU)

Poland Hanna Rachwald, Birdlife (OTOP); Generalna Dyrekcja Lasow Panstwowych; Andrezj Bobiec; Dept. Of Forestry, Nature, Conservation and Landscape @mos.gov.pl; The Commission for Environmental Impact Assessment, Warsawa; Forest Research Institute, Department of Forest Management Planning and Monitoring, Warsaw

Portugal Julieta Macedo, Direcçáo-Geral do Ambiente; L. Canelas, Portuguese EIA Centre; P.Pinho, Secçao de Planeamento do Territorio e Ambiente Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto; Maria Rosario Partidario, CEPGA-Centro de Estudos de Planeamento e Gestão do Ambiente, Centro de Excelência p/o Ambiente, Quinta da Torre Monte da Caparica; Jan Jansen, Experimental Plant Ecology, University of Nijmegen; Henrique Pereira dos Santos and Gustavo Vicente, Instituto de Conservação da Natureza.

Russia Institute of Mathematical Problems of Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences

Slovenia Department of Ecology, Slovak Agricultural University; Institute of Landscape Ecology

Spain Birdlife (SEO); Emilio Herranz, Ministerio del Medio Ambiente; SG Alonso Spanish EIA Centre; Ministry of Environment, Government of Catalonia

Sweden National Board of Forestry; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Silviculture; National Board of Forestry, Swedish Scientific Board of Biological Diversity; Swedish Biodiversity Centre


81


Switzerland

Swiss embassy, Dublin; Peter Brang, Schweizerische Forstverein, Zurich; Dr. Christoph Scheidegger, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest,Snow and Landscape Research, Birmensdorf;

USA Forest Health Monitoring Programme, Forest Sciences Laboratory, NC; Harvard Forest Group; Department of Forestry, VA; USDA Forest Service, Washington DC; USDA Forest Service, Atlanta GA; Texas Forest Service, US Forest Service, CO; US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, MD; US Forest Service, Washington DC; Jim Jeffords, Congressional Representative, State of Vermont


82

Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestationAPPENDIX 4 REVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENTS IN

IRISH EISs


83


A4.1GENERALEIA size Competent

AuthorityYear Organisation Assessment of

designated sitesConsultations Habitat map Scoping Taxonomic groups covered contents and sources of information Outcome3

Lough Atorick & Derrygoolin, Woodford, Co. Galway

809 ha Galway County Council

1991 Coilllte none evident none evident none none reported

vascular plants;limited bryophytes;limited lichens; invertebrates; amphibians; birds; mammals

The EIS states that information for the EIS was gathered from the applicant, Coillte Teo, Statutory bodies and third parties. The impacts and mitigation measures in the following areas were covered: flora; fauna; soils; water; air; landscape; archaeology. Surveys were carried out in August 1990 with a bird survey in January 1991.

s

Ummerantarry, Crossmolina Forest, Co. Mayo

368.2ha Mayo County Council

1991 Coillte ASI on adjacent river, outside of propsed afforestation site

none evident map showing location of ASI and map showing location of different vegetation plots. No habitat classification used

none reported

vascular plants;limited bryophytes;limited lichens; invertebrates; amphibians; birds; mammals

The EIS states that information for the EIS was gathered from the applicant, Coillte Teo, Statutory bodies and third parties. The impacts and mitigation measures in the following areas were covered: flora; fauna; soils; water; air; landscape; archaeology; climate. Surveys were carried out in August 1990 with a bird survey in January 1991.

s

Gweebarra Estuary, Co. Donegal

426ha Donegal County Council

1991 RPS Group, Ltd.

no designated areas present

yes with Donegal County Council

very good map provided showing mammal habitat, field surveys and ecology maps and 5 major habitats distinguishable

none reported

vascular plants; invertebrates; birds; mammals

The impacts and mitigation measures in the following areas were covered: flora; fauna; water; landscape; traffic and roads. Survey period December to January 1991 - 1992

s

Fidaunderry, Lough Talt, Co. Sligo

445ha Sligo County Council

19924 Coillte site is adjacent to ASI of regional importance

yes, consultations held with the O.P.W.; Central Fisheries Board

map showing location of different vegetation plots using no vegetation/habitat classification. There is also a map of soils present and a description of the vegetation associated with different soil types

vascular plants; limited bryophytes; limited lichens; invertebrates; amphibians; birds; mammals

The EIS states that information for the EIS was gathered from the applicant, Coillte Teo, Statutory bodies and third parties. The impacts and mitigation measures in the following areas were covered: flora; fauna; soils; water; air; landscape; archaeology. Surveys were carried out in August 1990 with a bird survey in January 1991.

r

3 o=ongoing, s=successful, approved after initial objection (following is objecting body(ies), r=rejected, w=withdrawn4 The Fiddandarry EIS was originally submitted in September 1991 and consisted of 35 pages. The competent authority requested further information and this was received in the form of a substantially expanded EIS in July 1992, consisting of 74 pages, including a biological survey of the Gowlan River by W.S.T. Champ on behalf of the Central Fisheries Board.


84


EIA size Competent Authority

Year Organisation Assessment of designated sites

Consultations Habitat map Scoping Taxonomic groups covered contents and sources of information Outcome

Meentygrennagh, Meeniroy Forest, Fintown, Co. Donegal

337ha Donegal County Council

1992 Coillte no designated areas present

yes, consultations held with the applicant; Coillte Teo; Donegal County Council; Northern Republic Fisheries Board; Foyle Fisheries Commission; Curator of the County Museum, Letterkenny

map showing the location of different vegetation plots though no vegetation/habitat classification presented

none reported


information for the EIS was gathered from the applicant, Coillte Teo, Statutory bodies and third parties. The impacts and mitigation measures in the following areas were covered: flora; fauna; soils; water; air; landscape; archaeology; climate. Surveys were carried out in August 1991 with a bird survey in January 1992.

r

Crowagh & Tawnadremira, Lough Talt, Co. Sligo

401ha Sligo County Council

19925 Coillte ASI present but of no value due to cultivation by previous landowner

yes with the O.P.W. map showing the location of different vegetation/habitat plots though no vegetation classification presented

none reported

vascular plants; limited bryophytes;limited lichens; invertebrates; amphibians; birds; mammals

The EIS states that information for the EIS was gathered from the applicant, Coillte Teo, Statutory bodies and third parties. The impacts and mitigation measures in the following areas were covered: flora; fauna; soils; water; air; landscape; archaeology; climate. Surveys were carried out in August 1990 with a bird survey in January 1991.

s

Coomacheo, Ballyvourney , Co. Cork

278ha Cork County Council

19926 Coillte none evident none evident map showing location of plots sampled and soils described with associated flora

none reported


The EIS states that information for the EIS was gathered from the applicant, Coillte Teo, Statutory bodies and third parties. The impacts and mitigation measures in the following areas were covered: flora; fauna; soils; water; air; landscape; archaeology; climate. Surveys carried out August 1990 and winter bird count 1991

a

5 The Crowagh and Tawnadremira EIS was originally submitted in September 1991 and consists of a total of 25 pages. The competent authority requested further information and this was received in the form of a substantially expanded EIS in July 1992. This revised EIS consists of a total of 77 pages and includes an aquatic survey of Lough Talt, Co. Sligo, researched and written by W.S.T. Champ on behalf of the Central Fisheries Board.6 The Coomacheo EIS was originally submitted in June 1991 and consists of a total of 41 pages. The competent authority requested further information and this was received in the form of a substantially expanded EIS in May 1992. This revised EIS consists of 77 pages and includes a biological survey of part of the Clydagh River carried out by UCC


85


EIA size Competent Authority

Year Organisation Assessment of designated sites

Consultations Habitat map Scoping Taxonomic groups covered contents and sources of information Outcome

Tinnahinch Mountain, Clonaslee, Co. Laois

280ha Laois County Council

1996 Andrew Dunne, MSc. Agr.

this area is included in the areas of outstanding natural landscape, though it's not an NHA

yes with Laois County Council; Slieve Bloom Association, local development group; Western Fisheries Board; Shannon Regional Fisheries Board; SE Regional Fisheries Board; O.P.W.; Woodland Contracts Ltd.

There is a map showing drainage, scub woodland and quarries but not specifically habitats and no vegetation/habitat classification used

yes, with matrix showing scoping results in appendix.

vascular plants;limited bryophytes; limited lichens; invertebrates; birds; mammals

The impacts and mitigation measures in the following areas were covered: flora; fauna; soils; ; geology; water; air; noise; visual and landscape; material assets. Alternatives were also presented

r

Curraglass & Cappaboy Beg, Kealkil, Co. Cork

220ha Cork County Council

1997 Southwestern Services, Bandon, Ltd.

none evident none evident map showing sample points with description of habitat types at those points only usng broad habitat classification

none reported

vascular plants;comprehensive bryophyte coverage including Sphagna sp.;lichens; invertebrates; amphibians; birds; mammals

The impacts and mitigation measures in the following areas were covered: flora; fauna; soils; water; air; landscape and visual; archaeological and cultural heritage; noise; traffic and roads. Flora and fauna surveys were carried out in July 1997. Alternatives were also presented

s


86


A4.2VEGETATIONEIA Year Organisation Literature Review Field survey-habitat inventory Field survey -species

inventoryField survey - methodology Phytosociological

assessmentEvaluation of conservation significance


1991 Coilllte none reported No habitats identifed Species list of 29 vascular species with 1 bryophyte and 1 lichen sp recorded to genus level

11 plots used, no abundance measure given, no plot size given and no details of survey timing. Not clear if standard relevé method was used.

none reported None reported


1991 Coillte none reported Seven vegetation types mentioned but not named. Six are very similar variations of bog/wet heath vegetation with Erica tetralix. Two have identical species lists, so there may be a grazing differential here but this is not alluded to.

Field survey carried out, species lists given of 32 sp., including 2 identified bryophytes, unidentified bryophytes and 1 lichen sp. recorded

Although species are listed, no methodology, plot size or survey effort is described. Not clear if standard relevé method was used.

A table with a schematic view of the vegetation types is presented in the appendix and species lists for each are provided. No phytosociological assessment provided

None reported. However, it must be noted that "Northern Atlantic wet heath with Erica tetralix" is listed in Annex 1 of EU Habitats directive (Natura code 4010). Wet heath with Erica tetralix, is mentioned in this site survey, but no mention is made of the site integrity or whether site is of conservation importance.


1991 RPS Group, Ltd. none reported Five major habitats are distinguished and described. One habitat contains wet heath with "Erica tetralix"

Species list of 25 vascular sp provided excluding bryophytes and lichens. Three notable species of local rarity were expected and searched for but not found

Not clear if standard relevé method was used, survey carried out in winter

none reported This report mentions the potential occurrence of 3 notable plant species within the proposed site. The presence of these species was not confirmed in this report.The survey was carried out in winter. Also, the dominant habitat is moorland which includes wet heath with Erica tetralix. It should be noted that "Northern Atlantic wet heath with Erica tetralix" is listed in Annex 1 of EU Habitats directive (Natura code 4010).


1992 Coillte none reported One broad habitat type (blanket bog) with four sub-habitats based on soil type are described with % area ascribed to each. Dominant species and pH values are given for each soil type.

45 species mentioned including 2 moss species and 1 lichen.

10 plots used, no abundance measure given.It is not clear if standard relevé method was used. Vegetation survey carried out in August 1990.

none reported None stated.This report should have said that the presence of Vaccinium oxycoccus is notable on western blanket bog.

Meentygrennagh, Meeniroy Forest, Co. Donegal

1992 Coillte none reported No habitat inventory undertaken. No habitat map produced. The document refers to the site as moorland.

List of 30 species including 3 mosses and 2 lichens from 12 moorland plots. Additional species lists provided for"near house ruin" (8 species) and "along river" (13 species) and "remainder of site" (7 species)

12 plots used, no abundance measure given, no plot size given and no details of survey effort or timing

none reported None reported. It is interesting that the Impacts on flora (section 4.2) is almost word-for-word identical to Potential impacts on Environment section 5.5 of Bishop's Road EIS in Northern Ireland (see EIS number 11). Also, species of wet heath and blanket bog vegetation vegetation are described in the list of flora. These are notable habitats of conservation importance. "Northern Atlantic wet heath with Erica tetralix" is listed in Annex 1 of EU Habitats directive (Natura code 4010). "Active blanket bog" is a priority habitat listed in Annex 1 of EU Habitats Directive. However, there is no indication of whether this site is degraded or intact.


1992 Coillte none reported No habitats identified List of 33 species including 2 mosses and 1 lichen (identified to genus level) from 5 plots

5 sampling points, no abundance measure given, no plot size given and no details of survey effort or timing

none None reported, but from the presence of Huperzia selago, the vegetation is upland blanket bog with pool systems (indicated by presence of Lobelia dortmanna). Upland blanket bog is a habitat of conservation importance, but in this report, there is no indication of whether this site is of conservation importance or is degraded.


87


EIA Year Organisation Literature Review Field survey-habitat inventory Field survey -species inventory

Field survey - methodology Phytosociological assessment

Evaluation of conservation significance

Coomacheo, Ballyvourney, Co. Cork

1992 Coillte none reported No habitats identified in report but map is included showing soils and associated vegetation.

List of 33 species including 1 species of moss. 27 of these species are found in only one sample. Two samples comprise only three species and three samples comprise four species.

7 sample points, no methodologies given and no details of survey effort or timing

none reported none reported



information on regional flora provided from other sources

Moorland, woodland and aquatic habitats identified. Map included shows drainage, scrub woodland and quarries but not specifically habitats.

This report is possibly a desktop study with major characteristic species mentioned for each habitat

Methodology of survey not clearly stated. Probably a combination of desk survey and author's own experience but it is unclear whether fieldwork was carried out for this report. Cover/abundance values not mentioned for species.

none reported In this report, oak woodland is described as "high quality habitat area" and "may be a remnant of native woodland". Also a "quality aquatic habitat" exists on the site.



none reported Vegetation is described from 9 areas. Habitats are not specifically identified but good ecological descriptions are given of each area in relation to vegetation, drainage, past and present management.

Comprehensive species lists provided, 61 vascular species identified, also 16 mosses identified to species level (including 4 species of Sphagnum) . Species outside sample plots also noted.

Standard relevé method used for ten quadrats of 5x5m. Cover/abundance of species measured using the Domin scale. Survey carried out in summer

none reported It was reported that no rare species were recorded and no endangered habitats occur. It was noted that the vegetation has already been modified by human activities such as peat cutting, burning, reclamation and grazing.


88


A4.3INVERTEBRATESEIA Year Organisation Taxa covered Literature Review Field survey -species inventory Field survey -species abundance Evaluation of conservation significance


1991 Coilllte Lepidoptera None reported List given of 4 taxa recorded; arbitrary selection of taxa; no details of survey effort or timing

None reported None reported


1991 Coillte Lepidoptera None reported List given of 5 taxa recorded; arbitrary selection of taxa; no details of survey effort or timing


Gweebarra Estuary, Co. Donegal 1991 RPS Group, Ltd. Lepidoptera Recent distribution maps reviewed Annotated list given of 3 species recorded; overall lepidopteran diversity assessed from habitat quality; survey carried out in winter; no other details given of survey effort or timing

None reported Potential occurrence of 2 "scarce and declining, local Irish species" noted


1992 Coillte Miscellaneous None reported List given of 3 taxa recorded; arbitrary selection of taxa; no details of survey effort or timing









1992 Coillte Odonata None reported One species listed; arbitrary selection of taxa; no details of survey effort or timing



1996 Andrew Dunne, MSc. Agr. Miscellaneous General comment on invertebrate fauna None reported None reported None reported



Miscellaneous None reported List given of 7 taxa recorded (1 probably erroneous); arbitrary selection of taxa; no details of survey effort or timing


Note: the above review does not include surveys of aquatic invertebrates (see Section 1.2.1).


89


A4.4AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILESEIA Year Organisation Literature Review Field survey -species inventory Field survey -species abundance Evaluation of conservation

significance


1991 Coilllte None reported List given of 1 species recorded; no details of survey effort or timing



1991 Coillte None reported List given of 1 species recorded; no details of survey effort or timing



1991 RPS Group, Ltd.

Amphibians not covered















Amphibians not covered



None reported List given of 2 species recorded; no details of survey effort or timing



90


A4.5BIRDSEIA Year Organisation Literature Review Field survey -species inventory Field survey -species

abundanceEvaluation of conservation significance


1991 Coilllte None List of 3 species recorded (in summer?) and 1 species in winter; no details of survey effort or timing

None None


1991 Coillte None 10 species recorded (in summer?) and none in winter; table listing species omitted in error?; no details of survey effort or timing

Number of pairs of Skylarks and Meadow Pipits given; no details of methodology used to assess abundance

None


1991 RPS Group, Ltd. Standard sources for bird distribution data referenced

5 species recorded in winter plus signs of 2 or 3 more, during 3 day survey; buildings and trees examined for signs of roosting corvids, raptors or owls; dates of survey not given; potential occurrence of breeding species assessed from habitat characteristics and known distribution of species

Numbers given of each of the 5 species recorded in each of the major habitat types; no details of methodology used to assess abundance

Potential for occurrence of Annex 1 species, and "rare and conservationally important" (term not defined) species discussed


1992 Coillte None List given of 10 species recorded in August. No birds recorded on the site in January. No details of survey effort.

Statement that “density of bird life was low”; no other details.

None


1992 Coillte None Lists given of 7 species recorded in August (with notes on breeding for 2 species) and 9 species recorded in January; no details given of survey effort

None None


1992 Coillte None List given of 10 species recorded (in summer?) and statement that no species were recorded in January; no details given of survey effort

None None


1992 Coillte List given of 8 species recorded (in summer?). No birds recorded on the site in January. No details of survey effort.

Statement that “density of bird life was low”; no other details.

None



One source referred to None? Statement that "grouse numbers on the mountain are low"

Three species listed as "more important" (term not defined)



None List given of 9 species recorded; brief comments on occurrence within site; potential occurrence of 3 other species mentioned; no details of survey effort or timing

None None


91


A4.6MAMMALSEIA Year Organisation Literature Review Field survey -species inventory Field survey -species abundance Evaluation of

conservation significance


1991 Coilllte None reported List given of 2 species recorded; no details or survey effort or timing



1991 Coillte None reported List given of 4 species recorded; no details or survey effort or timing



1991 RPS Group, Ltd. 2 sources referred to in assessment of habitat quality

Species recorded listed in text; assessment of habitat quality to determine potential for occurrence of other species (including bats); no details of survey effort or timing (but Otter survey results indicate intensive effort)

Number of Otter sprainting sites and spraints listed by watercourse and level of marking intensity assessed; number of signs of Irish Hare and Red Fox listed and population size estimated based on habitat quality and literature

Protection status of species (under Wildlife Act?) given; no other evaluation reported.





1992 Coillte None reported List given of 2 species recorded; occurrence within site described; no details or survey effort or timing










Discussion of species present in general area and population densities of hares

None reported None reported None reported



None reported List given of 3 species recorded and 3 other species likely to occur (2 erroneous); no details or survey effort or timing



92


APPENDIX 5 REVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENTS IN SCOTTISH ESs


93


A5.1GENERALEIA Size (ha) Year Organisation Assessment of designated sites Consultations Habitat map Scoping Taxonomic groups

coveredOutcome7 date

resolved

1Glen Scaddle, Ardgour Estate

319.2 (originally 644ha)

1995 Tilhill Economic Forestry none present none mentioned approx. 1:10,000; distinguishes veg types even more thoroughly than NVC types do (I think)

none mentioned plants, birds, mammals, reptiles, invertebrates

o

2The Biallaid 292.6 1995 David Hawker Environmental Consultancy

FA called for EA because the proposal lies within an SSSI, and ESA and the Sensitive zone of the Highland Region's Indicative Forestry Strategy

SNH, Game Conservancy, Red Deer Commission

approx. 1:10,000; distinguishes veg types according to NVC classifications

none mentioned plants, birds, mammals, invertebrates

w 1996

3Dorback Estate, Braes of Abernethy Woodland Grant Scheme - proposal is for natural regen

302.3 (revised to 280ha)

1994 Finlayson Hughes, Inverness

SSSI (as native pinewood), SPA and ESA. Also classed as "sensitive" in Higland Region's IFS, and lies within the area identified by the Cairngorm working party as being a priority zone for expansion of the Caledonian Forest

SNH, Highland Regional Coucil Planning Department, RSPB, Red Deer Commission, Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department, Regional Archaeologist, Spey District Fishery Board, North-East River Purification Board

1:10,000; distinguishes habitats according to broad types (e.g. valley mire, swamp, wet dwarf shrub heath, dry dwarf shrub heath etc.)

none mentioned plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates

a (HRC and SNH)

1996

4Dunrobin Glen 660.7 1995 Bell Ingram rural none present, Highland Region IFS "preferred zone"

RSPB on bird interest on areas covered by the proposal

approx. 1:10,000; distinguishes veg types according to NVC classifications

none mentioned plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates

s

5Druim Dubh, Kinlochdamph 162.3 (originally 181.3)

1996 probably Scottish Woodlands (for Strath Discretionary Trust)

National Scenic Area, site is close to Rassal SSSI

Highland Regional Coucil (Planning Dept and Dept of Libraries and Leisure), Red Deer Commission, SNH, Highland River Purification Board, Kinloch Damph Ltd., Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Dept, FA and RSPB

1:10,000; distinguishes blanket bog from rocky outcrops and "wet heath/acid grassland mosaic"

none mentioned plants, mammals, birds, amphibians, insects (coverage of fauna takes approx. 2 sentences of whole report)

o

6Glen Uig, Moidart 530 1996 Baxter Cooper, MSc, MIBiol, MIEEM

National Scenic Area, part of site designated as an SSSI

SOAFD, Highland River Purification Board, Red Deer Commission, Regional Archaeologist, SNH

Map shows location and NVC classifications of mire patches of habitat only

none mentioned plants, birds, mammals, fish

o

7Phones and Etteridge Estate (Ordan Shuas)

542 (originally 602)

1996 Finlayson Hughes, Perth ESA, SSSI, Cairngorms partnership area; but whole area designated by Highland IFS as suitable for "significant commercial afforestation"

none mentioned 1:11600; habitats classified as broad types (e.g. grassland, trees, wet heath and mire, dry heath)

none mentioned plants, mammals, birds, fish, invertebrates

s 1996

8Couldoran Estate (Allt an t-Sidhean)

393.5 1997 Scottish Woodlands (double as contractor)

NSA SNH, RDC 1:10,000 with communities described according to NVC

none mentioned plants, birds, mammals

s 2000

9Cul Dhoire Loch Mullardoch 235 1998 Fountain Forestry (MIEA) SSSI, cSAC (due to morainic hummocks, low-altitude montane habitat and peatland vegetation)

SEPA, SNH, FC 1:10,000 homogenous stands of vegetation located and classified according to NVC survey methods

decided at meeting with consultees in January 1998

plants, mammals w 2000

7 o=ongoing, s=successful, approved after initial objection (following is objecting body(ies), r=rejected, w=withdrawn


94


EIA Size (ha) Year Organisation Assessment of designated sites Consultations Habitat map Scoping Taxonomic groups covered

Outcome date resolved

10Inveroykel 834 (reduced from 3033)

1999 FPD Savills, international property consultants

no statutorily designated areas, though estate does hold areas of priority habitat under EC habitats directive

on ecology side of things 3 separate experts consulted on: plants & insects; birds; and fish

1:10,000 digitised maps incorporating target notes and NVC classifications

decided at scoping meeting (attendees not identified in ES)

plants, insects fish and birds

s 2000

11Torridon Estate Woodland Grant Scheme

328 1999 Scottish Woodlands (double as contractor)

cSAC, SSSI, NSA; NB// proposal put forward by NTS, owners of site and charity for conservation

RSPB on bird interest on areas covered by the proposal

1:10,000 using NVC classification, from field surveys in Nov 1998

meeting held after initial surveys to determine likely impacts and focus of ES

plants, birds, mammals and invertebrates

s 2000

12Broubster Leans 80 2000 CW Sutherland (individual owner of croft)

site is within 500m of SPA, SSSI, RAMSAR site

SNH, FC none decided at a meeting with FC, at which information provided by SEPA, RSPB and SNH was considered

birds o

13Glen Coe Woodland Grant Scheme (natural regen)

881.5 2000 West Highland Estates Office

NSA, SSSI, cSAC; NB// proposal put forward by NTS, owners of site and charity for conservation

RSPB (to develop survey method for birds), none others mentioned

1:25,000 uses NVC classifications not mentioned plants, birds, mammals

o

14Glenfeshie Estate (natural regen)

3500 2000 West Highland Estates Office, Scott Wilson Resource Consultants

NNR, Highland Regional Council IFS "Sensitive zone"

FC, SNH, Deer Commission for Scotland, Cairngorms Partnership Board, Kincraig Community Council, SEPA, Highland Council Planning Dept. and Libraries and Leisure Services Dept., Wildlife Link, Deer Management Group, Adjoining neighbours, RSPB

not included as part of statement, but detailed vegetation maps produced by NCC and defining vegetation blocks according to NVC classification were used in development of proposal

discussions held with consultees to determinekey issues to be addressed by EA

plants, birds, mammals, invertebrates, retiles and amphibians, fish

o

15Glenmore 930 2000 CEH World Heritage Site, pSPA, pSAC, SSSI, proposed National Park, NSA, Highland Regional Council IFS "Sensitive zone"

obviously happened (see "Scoping" section), but consulting bodies not identified

1:10,000, vegetation classified to below NVC standard

discussions held with "interested parties and organisations " to identify issues and concerns

plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and invertebrates

o

16Kinlochleven 1778 2000 Bidwell Property Consultants, Fort William

SSSI none mentioned 3 maps at 1:10,000 scale; 1 recording woodland communities, 1 classifying all communities according to Highland-specific McVean and Ratcliffe (1962); 1 giving v. broad (much coarser than NVC) classifications

not mentioned plants, mammals, birds (insects, fungi)

o

17Gairloch Estates (Coille a’Bhaile Mhôir)

4164.6 2000 BOWLTS chartered surveyors

SSSI, SAC, NSA SEPA, Deer Commission for Scotland, SNH, Highland Council (Planning and Archaeology Depts), SOAEFD, RSPB, FC, North of Scotland Water Authority, Wester Ross Fisheries Trust

1:10,000 communities classified to NVC standard (2 days in January and February)

based on meeting with all bar the last two of the organisations consulted, to raise areas of concern

plants, mammals, invertebrates, fish, birds

o


95


A5.2VEGETATIONEIA Year Organisation Literature Review Field survey -species inventory Field survey - réléves Phytosociological assessment Evaluation of conservation

significance


1995 Tilhill Economic Forestry veg data taken from a previous survey carried out by NCC

species lists given for whole area for bryophytes; for more or less homogenous areas of vegetation for vascular plants

survey method not given in EIA, but probably no relevés taken

different habitat types distinguished according to NVC classification

not considered beyond statement that plant communities not "nationally important"; mitigation measures include leaving old woodland unplanted

2The Biallaid 1995 David Hawker Environmental Consultancy

veg data taken from SSSI reports and NCC surveys

plant data taken from several reports which mention notable (i.e. abundant or interesting) species. No comprehensive species lists or details of survey methodologies

probably none different habitat types distinguished according to NVC classification

several of the plant communities and species present are of conservation interest at local and national levels. The proposal states these will be protected or enhanced


1994 Finlayson Hughes, Inverness veg data taken from NCC survey done in 1986

dominant species in each assemblage are mentioned. Survey details not given here

almost certainly none plant assemblages mapped and described according to NCC study in 1986 (predates NVC)

asserts that area is of conservation significance, but supports this statement with designations pertaining to site rather than with details of vegetation

4Dunrobin Glen 1995 Bell Ingram rural none 141 species of vascular and non-vascular plants over 16 communities; listed by community

all plants within 1.5m by 1.5m quadrats identified. At least 1 quadrat was done per vegetation community. Abundances recorded as percentage cover in each community, and as a frequency score (% quadrats it occurred in? If so, 25 quadrats per community, as lowest frequency score is 4%)

communities identified by eye and classified according to NVC. Percentage land covered by each community is estimated

no formal evaluation of conservation significance. Claims that vulnerable species and habitats will be taken into account in layout and management of proposed forest, but no details given

5Druim Dubh, Kinlochdamph 1996 probably Scottish Woodlands (for Strath Discretionary Trust)

none no species inventory none survey carried out "in accordance with NCC phase 1 vegetation survey". The results of this survey are summarised on a map which distinguishes only three habitat types, and includes just one NVC code

none, though claims "the areas of bog wil be left undisturbed"

6Glen Uig, Moidart 1996 Baxter Cooper, MSc, MIBiol, MIEEM none notable spp mentioned in SSSI report which is included in appendix, no inventory as such

none seven "distinct zones" described according to NVC classifications; though area hasn't been mapped to NVC standard

some areas on the site (especially mires) were identified as holding spp of which were decreasing locally and were of high conservation value


96


EIA Year Organisation Literature Review Field survey -species inventory Field survey - réléves Phytosociological assessment Evaluation of conservation significance


1996 Finlayson Hughes, Perth none only spp considered to be important components of habitat are mentioned. Two references to non-vascular plants - Sphagnum species and Cladonia arbuscula

none seven NVC communities identified, methodology not stated

a broad assessment is given of how plant communities may be expected to change subsequent to affor, but no mitigation measures beyond retaining areas of Arctostaphylos uva-ursi dominated habitat (deemed inmportant for inverts)


1997 Scottish Woodlands (double as contractor)

none area surveyed in April 1997; notable species mentioned in text description of each community (20-40 vascular and non-vascular species per community); no systematic lists. Latin names poorly written

none communities classified according to NVC, probably by eye

?

9Cul Dhoire Loch Mullardoch 1998 Fountain Forestry (MIEA) none 35 vascular plants and 28 ferns, mosses and lichens listed

five 4×4m quadrats in each homogenous stand surveyed for species, cover-abundance measured using Domin-scale

survey information from relevés used to identify NVC communities

proposes to leave blanket bog unplanted and replace heath with native pinewood

10Inveroykel 1999 FPD Savills, international property consultants

none approximately 250 km walked over a total of 23 days. 179 spp vasc plants and 92 non-vasc plants recorded over the whole (almost 7000ha) estate

no measure of species abundance, though percentage cover of broad habitat types is estimated

seventeen natural and semi-natural communities described according to NVC, as well as the plants of a few artificial habitats. These identified on the ground

areas with interesting/ protected spp and habitats are identified and highlighted for protection in the proposal



none NVC survey on open areas in 1998 to determine extent of dry heath. Total for dry heath, 14 vascular and 18 non-vascular plants, total for wet heath/bog 18 vascular and 21 non-vascular plants

sixteen 1.5×1.5 quadrats in five communities and six sub-communities, cover-abundance of species in each quadrat ranked according to Domin scale

phase 1 vegetation survey carried out in 1992

individual plant species not considered. Value of dry heath relative to habitat outside of planting area is considered, effect of proposal on dry heath in the area is deemed to be insignificant

12Broubster Leans 2000 CW Sutherland (individual owner of croft)

none none none consultation with SNH identified a locally rare fen/transition-mire in the site, and stated that the close proximity between this and the area of peatland within the SSSI meant that the habitat between the two was also of ecological interest

the owner argues that the loss of fen type habitat should be weighed against the economic advantages (no application for a grant, only for planting permission) and the fact that many less env-friendly land-uses do not require prior consent


2000 West Highland Estates Office four site-specific refs cited in description of habitats, most appear to be NCC or NTS reports

no species inventory (only a few plant species mentioned, mostly tree species and a few dominant ground species)

none phase 1 vegetation survey carried out, some small patches of habitat missed by this survey filled in using information from previous surveys

four habitats are of primary importance in European context ("qualifying" annex 1), five others are of secondary importance ("occurring"). Where the proposal might impact negatively on any of these habitats, it is modified in order to avoid such an impact


97


EIA Year Organisation Literature Review Field survey -species inventory Field survey - réléves Phytosociological assessment Evaluation of conservation significance


2000 West Highland Estates Office, Scott Wilson Resource Consultants

most of vegetation descriptions taken from previous studies; one in '60s, the others in '80s/'90s

vegetation described by type, individual species not really given mention

none presence of five NVC vegetation types found by NCC survey (aerial photos and fieldwork) is mentioned. Whole estate described to level of broad habitat blocks

none

15Glenmore 2000 CEH map compiled from two references, an additional three used to provide information for the text

vegetation described by type, individual species not really given mention

none most habitat types not referred to by their NVC classifications (names taken from Phase 1 Habitat Survey, 1987)

conservation importance of the heath habitats likely to become afforested is weighed up against that of Caledonian Pine and montane shrub heath. On balance, the authors reason that the positive impacts of the proposal outweigh the negative

16Kinlochleven 2000 Bidwell Property Consultants, Fort William

vegetation data and maps taken from four references (NCC and SNH reports)

included in appendix are the results of a survey which generated species lists only for the wooded areas (135 spp recorded in six hours from 22.4ha of the site). Only two species of conservation interest singled out for mention in the open habitats (Schoenus nigricans and Saxifraga aizoides)

none detailed NVC classification for patches of woodland habitat, all other communities described according to McVean and Ratcliffe (1962) classification (from 1989 report) and broader classification highlighting occurrence of two rare open habitat spp)

in general, loss of open habitat considered to be compensated for by expansion of native woodland. Sensitive plant spp and important habitats will be protected from planting


2000 BOWLTS chartered surveyors none interesting spp found during habitat survey mentioned in target notes but no systematic list of species. Noted that many flowering species would have gone undetected in the present survey due to timing (two days in Jan & Feb)

none NVC communities determined in the field

proposed that flora of high botanical interest will be protected with appropriate buffer zones. Areas of mire excluded from planting, and existing trees retained with areas surrounding them left to natural regeneration


98


A5.3INVERTEBRATESEIA Year Organisation Taxa covered Literature Review Field survey -species inventory Field survey -species abundance Evaluation of conservation significance

1Glen Scaddle, Ardgour Estate 1995 Tilhill Economic Forestry Lepidoptera, Odonata, Coleoptera

no specific literature sources quoted, though it is acknowledged that most data on fauna is derived from published sources

2 species of moth, 1 species of dragonfly, 1 species of beetle and "spiders" noted as being present. No survey details

no mention none


Lepidoptera and Coleoptera coverage of invertebrates taken (at least in part) from SSSI citation, not attributed

3 species named, and "site is entomologically rich" with a wide variety of moths, butterflies and beetles. No survey details

no mention 2 red data book moths, 5 other species with restricted ranges. No mention is made whether and in what way the proposal might impact on these species.



Coleoptera, Diptera, Arachnidae, Hymenoptera, Odonata and Lepidoptera

coverage of invertebrates taken entirely from SSSI citation

over 400 spp of beetle are present. 2 spp of butterfly and 1 dragonfly are named. Other groups covered in statement: "[the site] supports rare spp of beetle, fly, spider, ant, dragonfly and moth"

none area has 3rd highest number of red data spp for any Scottish site; 15 beetle spp which are grade 1 indicators of ancient woodland. No mention made of effect of proposal on specific spp or groups

4Dunrobin Glen 1995 Bell Ingram rural Odonata, Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera

none a few insect species mentioned in results of vegetation survey, other mentions of invertebrates groups (not species) is anecdotal and sketchy

none none


Insects (mentioned as being present - dragonflies given specific mention)

none none none none

6Glen Uig, Moidart 1996 Baxter Cooper, MSc, MIBiol, MIEEM

none none none none none


1996 Finlayson Hughes, Perth Mollusca (fresh-water pearl mussel) and Lepidoptera

refers to RDB an "assessment" of the Lepidoptera associated with Bearberry (Arctostaphylos) was conducted by Dr Martin Harper 1950-1978. A list of the notable spp (numbering fifteen) is included in an appendix

no data on abundance is given, though several spp are described as being confined to Bearberry (so their range might be deduced from the habitat map)

several of the Lepidopterans are RDB status - their presence leads the consultant to recommend that substantial areas of Bearberry habitat are left unplanted




9Cul Dhoire Loch Mullardoch 1998 Fountain Forestry (MIEA) none none none none none


Diptera, Lepidotera and Odontata

none no survey, observations of a few notable spp recorded

none none



none none none none states: "to the applicant's knowledge there are no insect or spider species within the proposed WGS which are known to be protected"




2000 West Highland Estates Office




Lepidoptera and Odonata mentioned

several reports by NCC and SNH mentioned, but their results are left largely unmentioned

from reports, 7 butterflies, 4 dragonflies and perhaps 100 benthic macroinvert taxa recorded from site, no survey done for project

none none (states: "analysis of impacts is based upon data contained in…". So far as I can see, no such analysis follows)


99


EIA Year Organisation Taxa covered Literature Review Field survey -species inventory Field survey -species abundance Evaluation of conservation significance

15Glenmore 2000 CEH Hymenoptera one reference (detailing habitat requirements of a threatened spp)

no survey, woodland ant species present in the area are identified by personal communication

personal communication informs that there are about 500 nests of the most threatened ant over the an large area including the proposal site

as the only invertebrates considered are wood ants, and these are of conservation interest, effects of proposal on inverts are predicted to be beneficial


none none the presence of some insect groups and species mentioned anecdotally in notes of vegetation survey, included in the appendix

none none


2000 BOWLTS chartered surveyors

Mollusca (pearl mussels) and Lepidoptera

none SNH confirmed presence of pearl mussel populations in the site, and two species of butterfly mentioned. No survey done

none pearl mussels (a BAP species) are the reason for the SSSI designation; measures to ensure protection of the mussels are proposed


100


A5.4AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILESEIA Year Organisation Literature Review Field survey -species inventory Field survey -species abundance Evaluation of conservation significance

1Glen Scaddle, Ardgour Estate 1995 Tilhill Economic Forestry none mentioned, data almost certainly obtained from a previous (probably NCC) survey

presence of adders in general area mentioned, apparently no adders seen on site. Presence of frogs mentioned (as otter prey). No surveys

none speculation that north-facing aspect of site is unlikely to provide good adder habitat


none none none none



none "frog, toad, common lizzard(sic) and newts are believed to be present in the area"

none none

4Dunrobin Glen 1995 Bell Ingram rural none occurrence of common frogs, palmate newts, common lizards and adders is mentioned. No survey

lizards and adders are described as being common in some areas. No survey mentioned

states that it is illegal to intentionally kill or disturb adders


none none (frogs mentioned as being present) none none


none none none none

7Phones and Etteridge Estate (Ordan Shuas) 1996 Finlayson Hughes, Perth none none none none

8Couldoran Estate (Allt an t-Sidhean) 1997 Scottish Woodlands (double as contractor)

none none none none

9Cul Dhoire Loch Mullardoch 1998 Fountain Forestry (MIEA)none none none none


none none none none

11Torridon Estate Woodland Grant Scheme 1999 Scottish Woodlands (double as contractor)

none none none states: "to the applicant's knowledge there are no reptile species within the proposed WGS which are known to be protected"


none none none none

13Glen Coe Woodland Grant Scheme (natural regen) 2000 West Highland Estates Office

none none none none

14Glenfeshie Estate (natural regen) 2000 West Highland Estates Office, Scott Wilson Resource Consultants

one published reference from which data is used

adder, common lizard, common frog, palmate newt. No survey done for this project

none none

15Glenmore 2000 CEH none presence of adders and slow worms in general area mentioned, no surveys

none none


none none none none

17Gairloch Estates (Coille a’Bhaile Mhôir) 2000 BOWLTS chartered surveyors

none presence of amphibians mentioned in SNH survey, details in appendix

none none


101


A5.5BIRDSEIA Year Organisation Literature Review Field survey -species inventory Field survey -species abundance Evaluation of conservation significance

1Glen Scaddle, Ardgour Estate 1995 Tilhill Economic Forestry

SNH data used but not referenced information collected on site visits and from SNH data. Details of survey not given, and data from survey apparently missing from report!

none site supports three Annex 1 raptors, report concludes that effect of afforestation is likely to be mixed. No coherent conclusion


information is provided by SNH, but not referenced

states that information provided by SNH indicates an impressive range of breeding bird species. No mention of survey methods or of systematic list

none six schedule 1 species, seven Annex 1 and Annex 2 species, and four candidate RDB species. Measures proposed to mitigate effect of fencing on black grouse populations, but effects on other species only briefly considered



ornithological data based on survey done by SNH in 1986

a few species mentioned by name, but no indication of numbers of species present

none six Annex 1 species use the area, as well as other species of interest. Considerable attention given to ameliorating the impact of fencing on blackgame (capercaillie and blackcock)

4Dunrobin Glen 1995 Bell Ingram rural none mentioned several spp mentioned (in association with different habitats), based on guesswork, casual observation and some expert advice

none state that it is illegal to kill or disturb hen harriers and merlins. RSPB appear to have guided conclusions on whether areas have high or low bird conservation interest. Operations will minimise disturbance to breeding waders and raptors


none none none none explicitly, though statement that golden plover and greenshank populations will be monitored in association with RSPB (esp. to see what effectiveness of RSPB-suggested fence marking is)


none apparently no systematic survey - information on species present got from RSPB and SNH (by consultation or through published reports) five species of raptor present plus raven

again information on abundance got from RSPB and SNH

two of the raptors present on the site are listed species in Annex 1, Appendix III (of Berne convention) and Schedule 1 (Wildlife and Countryside Act) and are of national importance. It is suggested that negative impacts to these species will be acceptably small


1996 Finlayson Hughes, Perth

none mentioned RSPB Greenshank survey 1994-1995. Rest of data based on observations of writer and reserve staff, and on other RSPB data

no precise abundances, more like presence/absence

concludes that there are unlikely to be any important impacts on birds



none surveyed June 1996 by Roy Dennis, report based on two person days plus existing knowledge. All notable species present discussed, and possible importance for species not found during survey discussed

abundances given only for 2 spp - 2 pairs of Greenshank and 1 pair of Whinchat

greenshank breeding areas to be avoided and bog-forest boundary planted with willow/alder. Importance of some habitats deemed to be low due to presence of better quality habitat outwith site

9Cul Dhoire Loch Mullardoch 1998 Fountain Forestry (MIEA)

none none none none


none four person days in late June, early July 1998. 44 species (or evidence of their presence) detected. From knowledge of site and of surrounding area, a further 25 species postulated as probably occurring there, and a further 20 as possibles

for species detected, exacted numbers of singles, pairs and broods as well as their locations recorded

ornithological report recommends that so long as certain open areas (used by breeding waders and wintering wildfowl) are safe-guarded, the proposal would result in a benefit for birds and biodiversity



none breeding bird survey in 1995 generated list of probable breeding spp - approx 25

none proposal will incorporate RSPB's suggestions. Overall, RSPB conclude impact of the proposal on birds will be positive


one reference dealing with effects of afforestation on use of loch roosts by greenland white-fronted geese

none - the only species considered are geese no numbers of geese are mentioned, though the SPA of which Broubster Leans is part holds a nationally important number of Greenland-white fronts (site is especially important for maintaining UK range of this bird)

proposed forestry deemed not to have a negative effect on the geese, due to distance between the site and the area used by geese



bird data taken from survey by NTS in 1998 (seems to have been conducted with a view to the proposed scheme)

31 species found on three sites within the proposal area. A few species not recorded during survey but probably present in the area are discussed

status of each species recorded as certainly, probably or possibly breeding, or merely present

only one "locally rare" sp (stonechat) is expected to be negatively affected by extensive natural regeneration; mitigation measures for this spp are discussed

14Glenfeshie Estate (natural regen) 2000 West Highland Estates Office, Scott Wilson Resource

all data taken from previous surveys; at least 3 surveys in the '90s as well as some earlier surveys

list of species recorded on estate from previous surveys = 66 species. No survey for this project

none some consideration of danger of bird strike on grouse populations (but these are largely projected - is hoped they will colonise after woodland has established)


102


EIA Year Organisation Literature Review Field survey -species inventory Field survey -species abundance Evaluation of conservation significance

Consultants15Glenmore 2000 CEH 2 references cited to provide data on

interesting bird speciesthe most interesting birds which either occur in, or could occur in the area are discussed (n=14); no survey

the following estimates taken from ITE report. Densities in the general area estimated for capercaillie and crossbill spp. Number of black grouse leks estimated

as for vegetation, positive impacts are predicted to outweigh negatives


7 references referred to in interpretation of the results of the bird survey

two site visits in April and May-June made to each of three sites over four working days, resulted in a list of 13 species (five of these recorded on land adjacent to the site)

numbers and locations of each sp were recorded.

advises open ground where planting would impact negatively on interesting birds (ring ouzel, whinchat and stonechat - latter locally rare)



none consultation with RSPB identified two species of major conservation concern (black-throated divers and golden eagles), along with a few others of lesser significance (red-throated divers, merlin, greenshank and golden plovers)

none proposals will take into account the habitat requirements of both divers and eagles, and minimise disturbance in the vicinity of their breeding sites during the breeding season. Other species not explicitly considered


103


A5.6MAMMALSEIA Year Organisation Literature Review Field survey -species inventory Field survey -species

abundanceEvaluation of conservation significance


1995 Tilhill Economic Forestry none mentioned, though implication that data are obtained from published source

red deer, roe deer, foxes, wildcats, pine martens and otters present. No survey

none none (states that large mammal populations will probably increase and will have to be controlled)


none mentioned, though implication that data are obtained from published source

sika deer, roe deer, red deer, feral goats, rabbits and domestic stock present. No surveys done

around 100 goats. Details of methodology not provided

none. Need for culling of deer mentioned, but has no conservation implications



none nine terrestrial mammals and "bats" are mentioned as being present in the area. No survey methodology given.

none none

4Dunrobin Glen 1995 Bell Ingram rural none only mammals mentioned are field voles and red deer

none none

5Druim Dubh, Kinlochdamph

1996 probably Scottish Woodlands (for Strath Discretionary Trust)

none only mammals mentioned are field voles, red deer and stock

none none


none no survey, mention that foxes, red deer and roe deer are present, and that wild cat, otter and pine marten are believed to be present

abundance is given only for red deer, which were last counted in 1994

impact on red deer population considered to be small - no other conservation implications considered


1996 Finlayson Hughes, Perth none fourteen species mentioned but no survey done (observations of writer and of estate staff)

none changes in mammal populations predicted by conservation implications of such changes not considered



none none April 1997 count by RDC of red deer (gives numbers of stags, hinds and calves)

consultation with SNH officer who informed that area probably not important for non red deer mammals

9Cul Dhoire Loch Mullardoch

1998 Fountain Forestry (MIEA)none none, the only species considered are badgers, whose presence seems to have been detected anecdotally

none attention drawn to presence of badger sett in site, no other vertebrates mentioned save for deer, which will be culled


none only red deer discussed state that after consultation with Deer Commission for Scotland cull will be needed



none only red deer discussed 1996 Deer Commission for Scotland quoted for numbers of stags hinds and calves. Winter density also estimated

none (consider only that planting may impact on deer population)


none none none none



none only red deer discussed 1996 Deer Commission for Scotland quoted for numbers of stags hinds and calves. Winter density also estimated

need for a cull is discussed, as well as movement of deer herds between Glencoe and neighbouring estates



two published references referred to and a personal communication

from literature sixteen species recorded

none a detailed deer management plan is presented for management purposes. Nothing of conservation significance mentioned explicitly

15Glenmore 2000 CEH none no survey, presence of five mammals (red squirrel, pine marten, mountain hare, otter and water vole) mentioned

none deer will have to be controlled, proposal will broadly be of benefit to mammal conservation


none lists nine mammal species none none



none likely mammals present are listed DCS counts have generated relible numbers for red deer

deer will be culled as necessary


104


APPENDIX 6 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES FROM OVERSEAS CONTACTS

A6.1QUESTIONS ASKED

1. The legislative requirements (if any) for the consideration of biodiversity impacts in the selection of sites for afforestation

2. The role that (the statutory Nature Conservation Agency in your country) plays in the assessment of biodiversity of sites to be afforested.

3. The methods used to assess biodiversity in the strategic assessment of areas for afforestation at the national or regional level

4. The methods used for biodiversity assessment of individual sites to be afforested

5. The use (if any) of biological indicators in biodiversity assessment of afforestation sites

6. What is the procedure adopted in your country for applying Article 4 of the EIA Directive to projects corresponding to Annex II, 1d projects (Initial afforestation and deforestation for the purposes of conversion to another type of land use)?

7. How many EIAs have been prepared in your country for Annex II, 1d projects?

A6.2AUSTRIA

A6.2.1 Response to Question 6 and 7Regional (province) level: initial afforestation requires a permit according to specific province laws. Federal level: Every initial afforestation with tree species not suitable for the site on an area of 15 ha or more in special protected areas (national parks, nature conservation areas etc.) has to undergo a case to case examination. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required when the competent authority decides in this case to case examination that the project is likely to have significant effects on the environment. To date there have been no EIAs of afforestation projects.

Respondent: Susanna Eberhartinger, Div. I/1 U Pollution Prevention and Control of Installations, Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Stubenbastei 5, A-1010 Vienna, Austria, e-mail: [email protected].

A6.3CZECH REPUBLIC

A6.3.1 Response to Questions 2, 4 and 5The statutory nature conservation agency is involved in forest plan approval and prohibits afforestation in any protected sitesBiodiversity assessment methods: Changes in population size are monitored for different biota using sample plots or transects in large populations or total


105

mailto:[email protected]


population counts in small populations (not necessarily afforestation methods). Pitfall traps are used to sample carabid beetles. Vegetation quadrats, line transect and frequency rectangles and micromapping (for vegetation structure analysis) and monitoring of heavy metals in mosses are used to assess vegetation (not necessarily afforestation methods).Use of Indicator species: Carabid beetles are used (not necessarily afforestation methods)

Respondent: Vilém Podrázský, Faculty of Forestry, Czech University of Agriculture, Prague [email protected] Salek & Lucie Jerabkova, State Institute of Forest Management, Kromeriz, [email protected] Vancura, Forestry Development Department, Kromeriz, [email protected]

A6.4DENMARK

A6.4.1 Response to Questions 1, 2 and 5The nature protection act covers the protection of any valuable habitats in relation to afforestation developments such that the only habitats eligible for afforestation are agricultural lands "under plough". Also Planning Acts are used to protect valuable areas by zoning lands into protected habitats, lands eligible for afforestation and grant aid and other areas where afforestation is possible but not eligible for grant aid. EIA is generally not used but required in cases of afforestation on land defined as protected under regional planning and greater than 30Ha and all other afforestation is taken on a case by case basis for EIA screening. The statutory nature conservation agency must ensure the legislation to protect valuable habitats and biodiversity is implemented. The Forest and Nature agency is responsible for administering grant aid for afforestation. As it the grant-aid is oversubscribed, a point system is used to assess applications which encourages nature conservation. Ground beetles are used as indicator species to estimate how long it takes to colonise new forests. Research is ongoing to develop indices of biodiversity.

Respondent: Anna Thormann, Danish Forests and Nature Agency, Department of Forestry Policies, [email protected] Rauland Rasmussen, The Danish Forest and Landscape Institute, [email protected] Kirkebæk, The Danish Forest and Landscape Institute, [email protected] Johansen, [email protected] Kvist Johansen, Danish Center for Forest Landscape and Planning, [email protected]


106










A6.4.2 Response to Questions 3 and 4Strategic assessment: Areas appointed for possible afforestation are selected on the basis of 3 main criteria: Protection of ground water; Increase in urban forests - for recreational purposes; and Creation of natural corridors - (Natura 2000, Habitat directive).Site assessment: No assessment is performedRespondent: Vivian Kvist Johannsen, Danish Center for Forest, Landscape and Planning, Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, [email protected].

A6.5FINLAND

A6.5.1 Response to Questions 1, 2, 4 and 5General forestry legislation to ensure that forestry has as little impact on biodiversity as possible and key habitats are protected within managed forests. Projects are screened case by case to determine the need for EIA as Finland does not have Annex 2 and no afforestation projects have yet warranted an EIA. In Finland, most planting is reforestation after harvest and minimal afforestation takes place with no research into biodiversity in afforestation sites. Therefore all information relates to reforestationThis agency must ensure the legislation to protect key habitats and biodiversity is implemented.Several methods used for biodiversity assessment in forests (not necessarily afforestation), the Finnish Forest and Park Services use biodiversity variables include: amount and quality of deadwood; area; key habitats; remote sensing data used in landscape ecological planning and analysis to map valuable sites. Private owners and forest companies use different methods.Landscape ecological planning is probably the best method used but several methods exist.Carabids are used as indicators in plantation forestry.

Respondent: Dr. Alex Komarov, [email protected] Aarnio, Finnish Forest Research Institute, [email protected]. Erkki Tomppo, Finnish National Forest Inventory, Finnish National Forest Research Institute, [email protected] Walls, Finnish Biodiversity Research Programme, Programme Director, FIBRE Project, [email protected] Saaristo, Department of Ecology and Systematics, University of Helsinki, [email protected]. Jari Niemelä, Steering Committee, Bioforest Project & Department of Ecology & Systematics, University, Helsinki, [email protected]

A6.6FRANCE


107









A6.6.1 Response to Questions 1, 3 and 4Unless I am mistaken, in France there is no obligation to undertake a biodiversity impact assessment prior to afforestation. The prefecture (local authority) has the authority (under the Code Rural – article 52-1) to prohibit or regulate new planting, for example in order to protect species or habitats of interest (see circulars received from MATE – Robin Rolland). This requires that the prefecture be informed of the natural value of the sites to be afforested, as happens when the site has been designated as a ZNIEFF (French equivalent of SSSI), as a protected area, or as a proposed SAC under the Habitats Directive (regarding the latter, the French justice system has already had occasion to apply Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, in order to prevent planned developments which would have damaged areas which had been assessed during the course of applying the directive, without having yet being proposed as SACs). It is worth recalling that Espaces Naturels de France recently took action against state afforestation grants which were assisting afforestation projects in important wetland habitats. Their suggestions have now been included in revamped Regional Forest Planning Guidelines. I do not know of any specific methods for assessing biodiversity in pre-afforestation sites (ONF - the French Coillte – are not undertaking very much new planting). I therefore suggest that you should concentrate your research on biodiversity assessment methods currently used in open habitats and on investigating the impact of new plantings. In reality, I think that the surveys being carried out in the name of the Habitats Directive currently constitute the main ‘alarm bell’ when afforestation projects risk damaging habitats or species of special interest. But this safety net applies only to proposed SACs and to habitats and species listed in the Directive.

Respondent: Nicolas Drapier, Office National des Forets – Direction technique – Département aménagement, sylvicultures, espaces naturels, e-mail : [email protected], i.e. the governmental organisation responsible for managing France’s forests.

A6.6.2 Response to Question 1Two circular letters sent to local authorities (préfets) at departmental (i.e. county) and regional levels to explain afforestation regulations. Translation of key paragraphs:

Circular : Regulations for afforestation projects : putting into practise new objectives outlined by décret number 99-112 (18th February 1999)Objective to protect natural habitats and landscapes of interestThose objectives concern:Damage caused by afforestation to the special quality of landscapes, especially those defined by some type of classification, listing, protection or identificationDamage caused to natural or special habitats and to balanced water management, as defined by article 2 of law 92.3 of January 1992The types of site which should be the subject of possible limitations on afforestation are as follows:-listed or classed sites


108



zones de pre-emption des espaces naturels sensibles\protected coastal heritage sitesbiotope protection sitesnational parksnational nature reservesSPAs (Birds Directive)SACs (Habitats Directive)Natural regional parksYou (local authorities at ‘departement’ (county) and regional levels) should examine the relevance of a prohibition or regulation of afforestation in such areas, taking into consideration the aims of the established protection and should implement such measures only in cases where the special character of the habitat or landscape is incontestable.

Circular : Updating of the conditions for funding, by the general State budget, of afforestation or reafforestation, conversion, improvement, equipment in commercial forests and of management assistance tools.18th August 2000Conditions relating to Environmental AspectsBiodiversityprotection of areas of great ecological interestAfforestation in habitats which are ecologically rich and disappearing, such as wetlands and dry grassland, should be the subject of a very close examination in order to ensure that no project helped by public funding contributes to the damage of such habitat types.You are reminded that afforestation in peat bogs cannot benefit from State funding.maintenance of certain parts of the existing vegetation and of open spaces, creation of patches or strips of diverse species.A certain number of improvements (environmental), within the area to be forested may be included : maintenance of open spaces, planting of diverse species (a list of which will be established at regional level) in patches or borders. Also, use of existing vegetation such as hedges and riparian vegetation (possible corridors) or of clumps of trees (landscape role or old wood). In total, the maximum percentage of the area of the project given over to maintaining diversity is fixed at 20%, on condition that these areas are well managed; their maintenance is included in the 15-year agreement signed between the beneficiary and the State.RecommendationsBiodiversityYou are recommendedNot to systematically replant when natural disasters leave enough of the original plantation, in terms of quality and quantity


109


To favour, wherever possible, the use or retention of species present during clearing work (recommendations for each type of plantation and each forest region are to be established at regional level)To encourage, in plantations which are not too dense, the use and control of natural dead wood Otherwise to keep a few dying or dead trees as long as they do not pose any danger to persons using paths and tracksThese recommendations should be adapted at regional level depending on the initial density of a plantation, and the minimum yield required.

Respondent: Robin Rolland and Claire-Eliane Petit of the Direction de la Nature et des Paysages, Sous-Direction des Espaces Naturels, Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire et de l’Environnment, 20 avenue de Ségur, 75302 Paris, e-mail : [email protected]

A6.6.3 Response to Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4

According to French law, there is no obligation to assess the impact of afforestation on the biodiversity of the habitat. Only a few recommendations exist, in particular where changes are planned in wetland areas (bogs), special habitats and sites classified at prefectural level (protect woodland areas), but these have no legal basis. The French Ministry for the Environment plays no role in the development of specific regulations, legislation or methods for assessing biodiversity on pre-afforestation sites, except for its contribution via European LIFE projects or SSSI surveys. As far as we know, no specific methods exist for evaluating biodiversity of pre-afforestation sites and the methods used must be “classic” biodiversity assessment methods.

Respondent: Pierre Touzac, Project Officer for the ‘Forest Network’, France Nature Environnement, e-mail [email protected] (A national federation of non-governmental nature conservation organisations).

A6.7GERMANY

A6.7.1 Response to Question 4Variable approaches used including plots and the Braun-Blanquet scale of vegetation analysis (not necessarily afforestation methods).

Respondent: Prof. Dr. Hermann Ellenberg, University of Hamburg, [email protected]. Dr. Albert Reif, University of Freiburg, [email protected] Fischer, PCC of ICP Forests, Institute for World Forestry, [email protected]


110







A6.8GREECE

A6.8.1 Response to Question 6As far as I know, the article 4 and the corresponding to annex II ,1d projects has not been applied by the Greek Forest Service . I am interested to hear on your research, since I was one among other experts in the EU -EIA committee during the revision time of the 337/85 directive to include reforestation projects into this revision. Reason for that was that in the past 1967-1970 in Greece as a young Forest Engineer I remember that extensive mountainous areas were reforested by introducing foreign species such as Eucalyptus, Pinus Radiata .and other quick growing species for timber production ( it was an FAO program) without prior investigation on the impact which such programs could have caused upon the habitats.

Respondent: Professor Costas Cassios, National Technical University of Athens, e-mail [email protected].

A6.9THE NETHERLANDS

A6.9.1 Response to Questions 1 and 2All afforestation developments are subject to planning laws. Lands converted to forestry must remain that way unless planning permission is sought to revert back to agriculture. The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries provides guidelines, training and advice on forest management. The only legislative restriction concerning biodiversity on approval of an afforestation proposal would be if there were endangered species growing or living on a site. In practice, however, these sites would never be considered for afforestation. Afforestation in the Netherlands is mainly concentrated on abandoned farm lands. Nature reserves (esp. heathlands and flower-rich meadows) are actively managed as to prevent natural establishment of trees. In the cases where natural reforestation is allowed, this is allowed to increase actual (local or regional) biodiversity.

Respondent: Dr. Ir. Jan den Ouden ([email protected]), Silviculture and Forest Ecology Group, Wageningen UniversityDr. H. Siepel, ALTERRA, [email protected]

A6.10NEW ZEALAND

A6.10.1 Response to Question 1Afforestation is subject to the Resource Management Act under which regional and district plans are prepared to ensure sustainable development. The New


111




Zealand Forest Accord was signed by the conservation bodies and forest companies to ensure native forests are protected.

Respondent: (Forest Service, 2000b).

7.6 PORTUGAL

A6.10.2 Response to Questions 1, 3 and 6.According to the portuguese transposition of the EIA Directive 97/11/EC (Law-Decree nº69/2000, 3th of May) Annex II, 1d projects must submit EIS when they apply to an area greater than or equal to 350 ha. This threshold is reduced to 140 ha if, in conjunction with other forested areas of the same kind within a 1Km radius, the total area forested exceeds 350 ha.. In areas deemed to be sensitive, these thresholds are reduced to 70ha and 30ha, respectively. Since 1997, in areas which have been given Natura 2000 designations (amounting to over 20% of the country), every project of changing land use above 5ha must be granted conservation approval if it is to go ahead. This may require an EIA to be conducted if significant negative impacts are expected.Don't know the methods used to asses biodiversity, although at present, surveys for establishing Natura 2000 are widely used in the approval of forest projects.There isn't in Portugal any formal strategic environmental assessment of areas for afforestation, although the government has published a Plan for the Sustainable Development of the Portuguese Forest which defines the protection of biological diversity and landscape as a strategic objective. Also, the Institute for the Conservation of Nature (ICN), which is responsible for matters related to the assessment and protection of biodiversity recently developed a Strategy for the Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity. The strategy, adopted until 2010, aims to conserve nature and biological diversity; promote the sustainable use of biological resources; and contribute to carrying out the objectives defined by the international processes of cooperation in which Portugal is involved. Neither of these publications make specific reference to biodiversity assessment for new afforestation.Respondents: Henrique Pereira dos Santos ([email protected]) and Gustavo Vicente ([email protected]), both of ICN.

A6.11SWEDEN

A6.11.1 Response to Questions 1, 2 and 4

New forestry policy came into effect in 1994. It encompasses habitat protection and nature conservation and subsidies for habitat protection.Afforestation in larger areas necessitates collaboration between the landowner and the nature conservation authority. There are almost 100 local forestry districts throughout the country and the Forestry Act, which covers valuable


112

mailto:[email protected])



habitat protection is implemented locally by the relevant district forest administration as the nature conservation authority is only distributed on a regional basis.The afforestation site is located on a map and compared with existing data and local knowledge with a possible field visit. The national Board of Forestry and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency continuously evaluate the impact of forest policy on biodiversity in the SMILE project

Respondent: Erik Sandström, National Board of Forestry, [email protected]

A6.12SWITZERLAND

A6.12.1 Response to Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4.The only cases where afforestation is currently occurring are - replacement for permanent conversion of forests into other land uses (legal requirement: 100% replacement in the same region) - afforestation of slopes for protection against natural hazards - afforestation on private land, mostly on agricultural land. However, the area planted is negligible. Conversely, there is a strong increase of forests by natural succession on former agricultural land mostly in mountainous terrain. This situation explains why there are no particular legislative requirements for the consideration of biodiversity impacts in the selection of sites for afforestation. However, if such a site is protected by other legislation, e.g. designated as a nature reserve, an afforestation is illegal.The role of the statutory nature conservation agency in assessment of biodiversity of afforestation sites: "None, to my knowledge. Moreover, there is such an organisation in every Canton. This means that we have about 25 ways how the national legislation is put into practice."As far as methods for assessing biodiversity are concerned, these are not relevant in terms of strategic assessment at the regional or national level. There are no specific protocols in place for biodiversity assessment of individual sites to be forested, though methods have been developed for national biodiversity assessments.

Respondent: Peter Brang ([email protected]), Schweizerische Forstverein, Zurich


113



Project 3 - University College Cork€¦ · Web viewThe application form allows a Yes or No box...

Documents

Transcript of Project 3 - University College Cork€¦ · Web viewThe application form allows a Yes or No box...