HomeMy WebLinkAbout2660018 - F.I. Received Doc. - EIAR - Chapter 10 Water (Hydrology & Hydrogeology)
VOLUME II
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
CHAPTER 10
WATER
(HYDROLOGY & HYDROGEOLOGY)
AUGUST 2026
Stream BioEnergy Ireland Limited RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-1
Table of Contents
10 Water (Hydrology & Hydrogeology)...................................................................................... 10-4
10.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 10-4
10.2 Expertise & Qualifications ..................................................................................................... 10-4
10.3 Proposed Project ................................................................................................................... 10-5
10.3.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site ................................................................................................. 10-5
10.3.2 Linear Gas Grid Connection................................................................................................... 10-8
10.3.3 Aspects Relevant to this Assessment .................................................................................... 10-9
10.4 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 10-9
10.4.1 Criteria for Rating Effects ...................................................................................................... 10-9
10.4.2 Relevant Legislation & Guidance ........................................................................................ 10-10
10.4.3 Sources of Information ....................................................................................................... 10-11
10.4.4 Site Surveys ......................................................................................................................... 10-12
10.4.5 Study Area (Zone of Influence) ........................................................................................... 10-12
10.4.6 Consultation ........................................................................................................................ 10-12
10.5 Difficulties Encountered ...................................................................................................... 10-12
10.6 Baseline Environment ......................................................................................................... 10-13
10.6.1 Application Area .................................................................................................................. 10-13
10.6.2 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ 10-14
10.6.3 Hydrogeology ...................................................................................................................... 10-21
10.7 The ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario .................................................................................................. 10-28
10.7.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site ............................................................................................... 10-28
10.7.2 Linear Gas Grid Connection................................................................................................. 10-29
10.8 Potential Significant Effects ................................................................................................ 10-29
10.8.1 Construction Phase ............................................................................................................. 10-29
10.8.2 Operational Phase ............................................................................................................... 10-31
10.8.3 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 10-34
10.8.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 10-37
10.9 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................... 10-39
10.9.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site ............................................................................................... 10-39
10.9.2 Gas Grid Connection ........................................................................................................... 10-45
10.10 Residual Impact Assessment ............................................................................................... 10-45
10.10.1 Construction Phase ............................................................................................................. 10-45
10.10.2 Operational Phase ............................................................................................................... 10-46
10.10.3 Summary of Post-mitigation Effects ................................................................................... 10-47
10.10.4 Cumulative Residual Effects ................................................................................................ 10-48
10.11 Risk of Major Accidents or Disasters ................................................................................... 10-49 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-2
10.12 Worst Case Scenario ........................................................................................................... 10-49
10.13 Interactions ......................................................................................................................... 10-49
10.14 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 10-50
10.14.1 Construction Stage .............................................................................................................. 10-50
10.14.2 Operational Stage ............................................................................................................... 10-50
10.15 Summary of Mitigation and Monitoring ............................................................................. 10-50
10.16 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 10-55
10.17 References and Sources ...................................................................................................... 10-56
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-3
Table of Figures
Figure 10-1. Proposed Development Site Location ......................................................................... 10-13
Figure 10-2. Drainage Ditches and Flow Directions (McAdam, 2025) ............................................. 10-14
Figure 10-3. Regional Hydrological Environment ............................................................................ 10-15
Figure 10-4. WFD Surface Waterbody Quality Status 2019-2024 ................................................... 10-17
Figure 10-5 Flooding Probability (CFRAM, 2026) ............................................................................. 10-19
Figure 10-6. Designated Sites and Hydrological Connectivity ......................................................... 10-20
Figure 10-7. Aquifer Classification ................................................................................................... 10-22
Figure 10-8. Groundwater Vulnerability Rating ............................................................................... 10-24
Figure 10-9. GSI Groundwater Wells ............................................................................................... 10-26
Figure 10-10. WFD Ground Waterbody Quality Status 2019-2024 ................................................. 10-27
Table of Tables
Table 10-1. Monitoring Quality Classifications ................................................................................ 10-16
Table 10-2 Vulnerability Mapping Guidelines .................................................................................. 10-24
Table 10-3. Groundwater Wells within 1km of the Site .................................................................. 10-25
Table 10-4. Cumulative Residual Effects .......................................................................................... 10-34
Table 10-5 Summary of Construction Phase Likely Significant Effects in the absence of mitigation .. 10-
37
Table 10-6 Summary of Operational Phase Likely Significant Effects in the absence of mitigation 10-39
Table 10-7 Summary of Construction Phase Effects Post Mitigation .............................................. 10-47
Table 10-8 Summary of Operational Phase Effects Post Mitigation ................................................ 10-48
Table 10-9 Summary of Construction Phase Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................ 10-50
Table 10-10 Summary of Operational Phase Mitigation and Monitoring ....................................... 10-54
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-4
10 Water (Hydrology & Hydrogeology)
10.1 Introduction
This chapter of the EIAR evaluates the likely significant effects, if any, which the Proposed Project will
have on hydrology (surface water) and hydrogeology (groundwater). This chapter contains necessary
information as defined in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ‘Guidelines on the Information
to be contained in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports’ (EPA, 2023).
The chapter initially provides a description of the receiving environment of the site and the potential
impacts of the development. When assessing the potential impacts, this assessment considers the
significance of the environmental attributes, and the predicted scale, and duration of the likely effects.
The chapter also outlines the proposed mitigation measures that will reduce or eliminate the
identified potential impacts and defines the residual effects of the Proposed Project (the effect after
the implementation of mitigation measures). Monitoring measures are proposed where necessary.
This chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapter 2 “Project Description”, Chapter 9 “Land and
Soils” also contained within this EIAR, Volume II and Appendix 10.2 (Flood Risk Assessment), Appendix
10.3 (Water Framework Directive Screening) and Appendix 10.4 (Groundwater Abstraction Feasibility
Report) contained in volume III of the EIAR.
10.2 Expertise & Qualifications
This chapter of the EIAR has been prepared by Rashaqat Ali Siddiqui and Marcelo Allende in the Water
section of AWN Consulting Ltd.
Rashaqat Ali Siddiqui (BSc, Msc, MIT). Ali is a hydrogeologist with over 7 years’ experience in water
resource management and impact assessment. He has a Masters in Hydrogeology and is a former
Education Secretary of the Irish chapter for the Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH). Ali’s specialist
area of expertise is water resource management, Site investigation and monitoring, Contaminated
land Assessment, hydrological assessment and environmental impact assessment.
Marcelo Allende (BSc, BEng) is a Principal Environmental Consultant (Hydrologist) at AWN with over
20 years of experience water resources technical studies, conceptual and numerical modelling and
environmental consultancy. Marcelo holds a degree in Water Resource Civil Engineering (BEng, Hons)
from the University of Chile and a Bachelor of Science in Engineering (BSc, Hons). He has worked on a
wide of range of projects including multi-aspect environmental investigations, geo-environmental
impact assessments, surface and groundwater resource management, hydrological and
hydrogeological conceptual and numerical modelling, strategic and site specific flood risk assessments
(Stage 1,2 and 3), Due Diligence reporting, baselines studies, soils, surface water and groundwater
monitoring and field sampling programmes on a variety of brownfield and greenfield sites throughout
Ireland as well as overseas in Chile, Argentina, Peru and Panama. He also has detailed knowledge of
environmental guidance, legislation, regulations & standards and expertise in GIS (expert level) and
MATTE studies at COMAH establishments. He is currently a member of the International Association
of Hydrogeologists (IAH, Irish Group) and a member of Engineers Ireland (MIEI). RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-5
10.3 Proposed Project
The “Proposed Development” for which the Applicant seeks planning permission comprises the
Renewable Biogas Plant and associated works, including alterations to the local road to facilitate
access.
The overall “Proposed Project” subject to Environmental Impact Assessment also includes the Linear
Gas Grid Connection. The Linear Gas Grid Connection does not form part of the planning application
for the Renewable Biogas Plant and will be delivered separately by Gas Networks Ireland under the
applicable statutory consenting process. However, it forms part of the overall Proposed Project for
the purposes of EIA and is therefore assessed in this chapter.
The following is a summary of the Proposed Project. Please refer to Chapter 2 of this EIAR for the
detailed description.
10.3.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site
The project consists of the construction and operation of a Renewable Biogas Plant and associated
infrastructure. The principal elements of the plant comprise a main process building where the
feedstock for the anaerobic digestion (AD) process is received. An odour control system with a
dispersion stack will treat the air from the building. The feedstock passes to the AD tanks located
within a bunded tank farm. There is a combined heat and power (CHP) building within which a gas
fired CHP engine will generate electricity for the plant's energy needs. A Biogas Upgrade and
Treatment Plant will be installed to produce biomethane (a renewable natural gas) that will be
exported via a Gas Grid Entry Unit to the national gas grid. A CO2 Liquefaction plant will be installed to
capture the carbon dioxide in the biogas, turning it into liquid CO₂. A Dryer Building is proposed, where
the digestate will be dried, and a Pellet Hall will be constructed, where the digestate pellets will be
stored prior to removal from the site for use as a natural fertiliser product. Ancillary elements include
a gas dome, tanks to store incoming liquid feedstock, freshwater, firewater, and fuel, a backup gas
flare, a backup generator, a plant building, and a control building. Widening of the local road, berms,
a new site entrance, weighbridges, wheel washes, parking, lighting and all ancillary development
works and services also form part of the development.
A high-level process flow follows. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-6
10.3.1.1 Construction Phase
The Proposed Development characteristics which relate to the hydrological and hydrogeological
environment during construction are summarised below.
No demolition is required during construction phase. The activities required for the construction
phase of the Proposed Development represents the greatest risk of potential impact on the
hydrological and hydrogeological environment. These activities primarily pertain to the site
preparation, excavation and infilling activities required to facilitate construction of the Proposed
Development.
10.3.1.1.1 Site Levelling and Excavated Soil Management
The Proposed Development requires excavation of soil and stone to facilitate site preparation and
levelling, construction of foundations and installation of underground services. The earthworks model
prepared by McAdam identifies approximately 98,420 m³ of excavated material, of which
approximately 79,900 m³ of suitable excavated soil and stone will be reused within the Renewable
Biogas Plant site for engineering fill, landscaping and screening berms. This results in a net surplus of
approximately 18,520 m³. For the purposes of the environmental assessments, this quantity has been
conservatively rounded to approximately 18,600 m³ of surplus excavated soil and stone requiring
removal from the site.
The surplus material will be removed by suitably authorised contractors for appropriate reuse,
recovery or disposal at an appropriately authorised receiving facility or facilities. Soil handling,
excavation and stockpiling will be managed in accordance with the CEMP and Soil and Surface Water
Management Plan to minimise the potential for sediment-laden runoff to adjacent drainage features.
. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-7
10.3.1.1.2 Storage of Fuel
Temporary storage of fuel will be required for on site for construction traffic. Liquid materials i.e., fuel
storage will be located within the site compound in temporary designated bunded areas, doubled
skinned tanks or bunded containers (all bunds will conform to standard bunding specifications -
BS8007-1987) to prevent spillage.
Construction activities will necessitate storage of cement and concrete materials, temporary oils, and
fuels on the main site. Small localised accidental releases of contaminating substances including
hydrocarbons have the potential to occur from construction traffic and vehicles operating on site.
10.3.1.1.3 Foul water
All foul water generated from welfare facilities during construction will be tankered off site for disposal
to McBreen Environmental facility, Lismagratty, Cootehill Road, Co. Cavan (WFP-CN-21-003-01)
located c.20km southwest of the site during construction phase, or similar appropriately licensed
facility nearby.
10.3.1.2 Operational Phase
The Proposed Development characteristics which relate to the hydrological and hydrogeological
environment during operation are summarised below.
10.3.1.2.1 Surface Water Drainage Strategy
The drainage strategy for the Proposed Development consists of a number of surface water drainage
networks that collect run-off from the proposed building and plant roofs, and external hardstanding
areas, provides appropriate levels of attenuation, with an objective to reuse within the process the
maximum amount of surface water generated from the operational extents of the site as possible. A
full description of drainage is included in (Monaghan AD-Engineering Service Report, McAdam 2025).
Stormwater run-off will discharge into an existing culvert which directs flows to a ditch located on the
opposite side of the R189 to the site (on the north-east site boundary). Commencement of discharge
is subject to gaining the necessary discharge consent/approvals. This ditch conveys water to the
nearest watercourse (Coolkill Lough Stream), located c.350m to the east of the site/395m from the
point of discharge.
Attenuation will be provided on site for flows up to and including the 100-year plus 30% climate
change allowance and discharge surface water to the downstream network is managed with a
restricted flowrate.
A water treatment system comprising of SDS Aquaswirl Vortex Pollutant Separation System Chambers
and SDS AquaFilter Surface Water Filtration Units will be installed on the inlet pipework to the
attenuation tanks, to reduce the overall amount of total suspended solids, heavy metals, and
hydrocarbons within surface water run-off generated on the site. Any harvested surface water used
in the plant process or discharged from the site will have undergone treatment via these units.
The Proposed Development will utilise rainwater within the AD process as part of daily operations.
This will significantly reduce the volume of water that would potentially be discharged from the site.
As a result, the run-off rate will generally be less that the greenfield run-off rates that would typically RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-8
be generated from the site. As a worst-case scenario, should onsite water re-use be halted, the
proposal development will discharge water at a rate equivalent to the greenfield run-off currently
experienced with attenuation being provided. The maximum design discharge flow from the site will
be 83.5l/s which is the calculated greenfield runoff rate for the site for a 1-in-100-year event. It is
noted that the Proposed Development site does include large permeable areas that are typically
associated with landscaping (i.e. earthworks berm). In general, any run-off from these areas shall
follow the existing drainage regime, directed to and utilising existing drainage ditches that shall remain
along the boundary of the site, with flow directed to the existing discharge point on the north-east
site boundary.
Surface water from the widened section of the L2280 (Drumcall Road) will continue to be managed by
the current land drain arrangement, with new drainage ditches constructed along the upgraded road
section that will connect into the existing ditch conveying water to the Coolkill Lough Stream.
10.3.1.2.2 Bulk Fuel Storage
The development includes a fuel storage tank for backup generator and operational site vehicles,
c.6m3. This is fully bunded. All other chemical storage is within the main AD building.
10.3.1.2.3 Foul Water
Foul water flows generated from the Proposed Development will be directed to an onsite foul water
treatment plant via a network of pipes and manholes.
The plant will treat the foul water and discharge the treated water to a Foul Water Pumping Station.
Occasional removal of solids from the treatment plant off-site to an appropriate facility will be
required.
The Foul Water Pumping Station will pump the treated effluent to be used on site as part of the AD
process. As such, there will be no trade effluent (waste waters) or domestic type wastewater
discharging from the Proposed Development.
The Foul Water Pumping Station will be sized to provide 24 hours of storage for the foul flows
generated by the site as a contingency should there be a pump or power failure. It will also afford
some flexibility to the plant operator with respect to sending the treated water to the AD process.
10.3.1.2.4 Ground Water Supply
Water supply will be provided primarily from stormwater harvesting. During dry periods, additional
water supply will be provided from a combination of supply from the nearby Group Water scheme
(surface water source) and an onsite groundwater abstraction (pumped to storage). The water
demand for potable / sanitary purposes for on-site staff during operation is estimated to be
approximately 2m3/day and the maximum demand for AD process is 45m3. Refer to groundwater
abstraction feasibility assessment in appendix 10.4.
10.3.2 Linear Gas Grid Connection
A gas transmission pipeline will provide a physical connection between the Renewable Biogas Plant
and the existing national gas network in Dromore West. Co. Monaghan. While the development of the
gas grid is not part of the planning application, as Gas Networks Ireland will deliver it, it is included in
the EIAR for assessment purposes, as it forms part of the overall project for the EIA Directive. The RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-9
works comprise the laying of an underground pipeline over approximately 3.5km within the public
road corridor.
As the construction is a shallow trench in a roadway there is minimal potential for impact on receiving
waters. The design will be required to ensure the contractor manages collection and disposal of water
during open trench cuts and soil disposal in an environmentally responsible manner. There are 3no.
water crossing associated with the installation of the pipeline. However, it is proposed that horizontal
directional drilling methodology will be implemented at all water crossing. Hence eliminating any
interaction with the stream. During operation there is no potential for impact on receiving waterways.
10.3.3 Aspects Relevant to this Assessment
The Chapter will assess the potential effects (as described above) on the Surface water Quality and
Quantity, any likely impact on water dependent habitats, Groundwater Quality and Quantity,
interaction between subsurface geology and groundwater, water resources and flood risk assessment.
The potential effects will be assessed during construction and operation of the Proposed
Development. These aspects will be considered together with the Proposed Development use. This
section should be read in conjunction with the design drawings and reports which accompany this
planning application.
10.4 Methodology
10.4.1 Criteria for Rating Effects
This section establishes the criteria, and guidance used to rate the significance of the potential impacts
of the Proposed Development project on the Hydrology and Hydrogeology aspects of the site and
surrounding area.
This chapter is prepared in line with the ‘Guidelines on the Information to be contained in
Environmental Impact Assessment Reports’ (EPA, 2022) and due consideration is also given to the
guidelines provided by the Institute of Geologists of Ireland (IGI) in the document entitled ‘Guidelines
for the Preparation of Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology Chapters of Environmental Impact Statements’
(IGI 2013).
The document entitled ‘Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology,
Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes’ by the Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII)
formerly National Roads Authority (NRA) (TII, 2009) is referenced where the methodology for
assessment of impact is appropriate. Furthermore, in line with the TII Guidelines, an assessment of
the attribute importance has been undertaken in order to provide a basis for the assessment of impact
provided. The attribute importance considers the potential as well as the existing use of the surface
water features as a water resource i.e., water supply, fisheries and other uses, as well as ecological
habitat requirements.
The quality, significance, and duration of the potential impacts, residual effects, and cumulative
effects are described using standard EIA descriptive terminology, included in Chapter 1 of this EIAR. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-10
The principal attributes (and effects) to be assessed include the following:
• Water Framework Directive (WFD) Status and potential for increased risk of deterioration of
this status due to the activities of the site.
• River and stream water quality in the vicinity of the site (where available).
• Surface, transitional and coastal watercourses near the site and potential impact on surface
water quality arising from Proposed Development related works including any discharge of
surface water run-off.
• Localised flooding (potential increase or reduction) and floodplains including benefitting lands
and drainage districts (if any); and
• Surface water features within the area of the site.
• High-yielding water supply wells/ springs in the vicinity of/ within the site boundary to within
a 2km radius and the potential for increased risk presented by the Proposed Development;
• Classification (regionally important, locally important etc.) and extent of aquifers underlying
the site boundary area;
• Increased risks presented to the groundwater bodies by the Proposed Development
associated with aspects such as, for example, the removal of subsoil cover, removal of aquifer
(in whole or part thereof), spatial drawdown in water levels, alteration in established flow
regimes, and changes in local/ regional groundwater quality;
• Natural hydrogeological/ karst features in the area and potential for increased risk presented
by the activities at the site; and
• Groundwater-fed ecosystems and the increased risk presented by operations both spatially
and temporally.
10.4.2 Relevant Legislation & Guidance
This impact assessment was undertaken having regard to the following legislation and guidance:
• EPA Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Assessment
Reports (2022).
• Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and
Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes (TII, 2009, previously NRA). The TII criteria for rating
the hydrogeological and hydrological related attributes are presented in Appendix 10.1 of this
EIAR.
• Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC.
The strategies and objectives of the WFD in Ireland have influenced a range of national legislation,
regulations and guidelines. These include the following:
• European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations, 2003 (S.I. No. 722 of 2003);
• European Communities (Drinking Water) Regulations 2014 (S.I. 122 of 2014);
• European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters); Regulations,
2009 (S.I. No. 272 of 2009 as amended SI No. 77 of 2019)
• European Communities Environmental Objectives (Groundwater) Regulations, 2010
(S.I. No. 9 of 2010 S.I. No. 366 of 2016);
• European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters)
Regulations, 2010 (S.I. No. 610 of 2010);
• European Communities (Technical Specifications for the Chemical Analysis and
Monitoring of Water Status) Regulations, 2011 (S.I. No. 489 of 2011); RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-11
• Statutory Instrument (SI) No. 293 of 1988 European Communities (Quality of Salmonid
Waters) Regulations 1988
• Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts 1977-1990
• SI No. 258 of 1988 Water Quality Standards for Phosphorus Regulations 1998
• Water Services Guidelines for Planning Authorities Draft (Department of Housing,
Planning and Local Government, 2018).
• Water Environment (Abstractions and Associated Impoundments) Act 2022
• Water Environment (Abstractions and Associated Impoundments) Regulations 2024
(S.I. No. 419/2024)
• Requirements for the Protection of Fisheries Habitat during Construction and
Development Works at River Sites (Eastern Regional Fisheries Board);
• Central Fisheries Board Channels and Challenges – The enhancement of Salmonid
Rivers;
• CIRIA C532 Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites Guidance for
Consultants and Contractors;
• CIRIA C648 Control of Water Pollution from Constructional Sites; and
• Guidelines for the Crossing of Watercourses during the Construction of National Road
Schemes (NRA/TII, 2006).
10.4.3 Sources of Information
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – website mapping and database information.
Envision water quality monitoring data for watercourses in the area;
• Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) - on-line mapping, Geo-hazard Database, Geological
Heritage Sites & Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Bedrock Memoirs and 1:100,000
mapping;
• River Basin Management Plan for Ireland 2018-2021.
• River Basin Management Plan for Ireland 2022-2027.
• Water Action Plan 2024 - A River Basin Management Plan for Ireland, (Department of
Housing Local Government & Heritage, Sept 2024).
• Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031.
• The Planning System and Flood Risk Management, Guidelines for Planning Authorities
(Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG) and the
Office of Public Works (OPW);
• Office of Public Works (OPW) flood mapping data (www.floodmaps.ie)
• Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites, Guidance for Consultants and
Contractors’ (CIRIA 532, 2001); and
• Catchment Reports on water quality and status (Catchments.ie)
• National Parks and Wildlife Services (NPWS) – Protected Site Register.
• Hydrometric data (www.floodinfo.ie/map/floodmaps/), OPW Catchment Flood Risk
Assessment and Management (CFRAM ) Flood Risk Mapping, www.epa.ie/hydronet.
Site specific data was derived from the following sources:
• Monaghan- County Geological Site Report (GSI, 2025)
• Engineering Services Report -Proposed Renewable Biogas Plant Maghernakelly, Drum, County
Monaghan (McAdam, 2025)
• Cavan Groundwater Body Report (GSI, 2004)
• Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (Stream Bioenergy, 2025) RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-12
• Soil and Surface Water Management Plan (SSWMP) (Stream Bioenergy, 2025)
10.4.4 Site Surveys
A site walkover was carried out on 1st October 2024 by AWN Hydrogeologist to establish site
conditions of the Renewable Biogas site. During the walkover it was identified that the site elevation
substantially decreases from south to north. Two field drains were noted along the western and
eastern boundary flowing in a northernly direction and discharging into an existing drain on the
northern boundary of the site parallel to L2280 flowing in an easterly direction. No flooding was
identified on site during the walkover. No hydrological and hydrogeological constraints were identified
on the site.
10.4.5 Study Area (Zone of Influence)
For the purposes of this assessment, the project (Renewable Biogas Site and Gas Grid) has generally
been assessed using a buffer distance of 250m from Proposed Development site including (i.e. overall
width of 500m) as per relevant guidelines (TII, 2009). However professional judgement has also been
applied to this assessment during the evaluation of potential risks posed to the receiving Hydrology
and Hydrogeology environment. Accordingly, where relevant, search criteria have been applied
beyond the stated buffer distance. The depth of subsoils, bedrock and aquifer classification has been
taken into consideration to incorporate appropriate zone of influence.
10.4.6 Consultation
A Section 247 consultation meeting was held with representatives of Monaghan County Council in
advance of submitting this planning application. The Proposed Development has been designed taking
into account the specific requirements raised by the Council. No material issues in relation to water
were raised during the consultation. Further detail is provided in the Planning Statement which is
submitted under separate cover.
10.5 Difficulties Encountered
There were no significant difficulties encountered in compiling the specified information for this EIAR
chapter. It should be noted that no ground investigation has been carried for the project. However,
the development site is located in a greenfield with no history of any industrial or commercial use. No
known contamination is present on site and the likelihood of encountering any contamination is very
low. While intrusive Site Investigation (SI) works have not yet been completed, this approach is
considered appropriate at this stage of the planning process for a greenfield rural site and established
road corridor. This assessment is based on desktop study of published information from relevant
bodies to inform the existing hydrological and hydrogeological regime. Importantly, all hydrological
and hydrogeological risk pathways have been assessed using precautionary assumptions. Any future
SI results will serve to refine, rather than alter, the conclusions of this assessment.
A site-specific groundwater assessment has not been established for the facility to determine
sustainable yield available. However, data is derived from a desktop assessment of expected yields as RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-13
presented in appendix 10.4. Based on the short term pumping required and characteristics of the
aquifer, there is short-term impacts on the water body status of the aquifer.
10.6 Baseline Environment
Figure 10-1. Proposed Development Site Location
10.6.1 Application Area
10.6.1.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site
The site of the Proposed Development is located in Maghernakelly, Drum, Co. Monaghan, covering a
total area of approximately 6.2 hectares as shown in Figure 10.1. It is c.4km north of Cootehill and
17.5km southwest of Monaghan town. The site is comprised of two fields which are divided by tree
lined hedgerows. It is bounded to the north by L2280 Drumcall Road, to the east by the R189 regional
road, and to the west by Maghernakelly Road. To the south, the site adjoins a farmyard and an existing
residential property. The site is undulating with substantial elevation change from approximately
109mOD in the southern section to around 93mOD at the northern boundary. As shown in Figure 10.2
below, the site is bound by drainage ditches which flow in a north-northeast direction and discharges
runoff via a culvert under the R189 into another land drain along the northern boundary of the field
to the east of the site, which is hydrologically connected to the Coolkill Lough Stream, which rises
c.175m to the northeast of the L2320. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-14
10.6.1.2 Linear Gas Grid Connection
The proposed pipeline is not part of the Proposed Development, however, it is assessed solely because
it is functionally related infrastructure, as required under the EIA Directive. The proposed route is
approximately 3.5km in length and is located along the R189 and R188. The route is entirely within
the existing public road corridor. Shallow excavations are required for the installation of the pipeline.
There are 3no. of water crossings on Crosslea 36 Stream along the pipeline route. It is recommended
that directional drilling (trenchless drilling) methodology will be implemented along these water
crossings.
Figure 10-2. Drainage Ditches and Flow Directions (McAdam, 2025)
10.6.2 Hydrology
10.6.2.1 Regional Hydrological Environment
The Renewable Biogas Site is located within the Erne WFD Catchment (Catchment ID: 36) and the
Dromore_sc_20 WFD sub-catchment (Dromore 70 WFD River Sub Basin; EPA, 2026). As stated above
field drains run along the perimeter of the renewable biogas site. A site walkover was carried out on
1st October 2024 by AWN to establish site conditions of the Renewable Biogas site. During the
walkover it was identified that the Renewable Biogas site elevation substantially decreases from south RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-15
to north. Two field drains were noted along the western and eastern boundary flowing in a northernly
direction and discharging into an existing drain on the northern boundary of the site parallel to L2280.
The drain was observed to have very low volume with areas of dry drain, making it difficult to confirm
flow direction. However, based on the local topography and on site observations it was determined
that the drainage ditch discharges via a culvert under the R189 into another drainage ditch, which is
hydrologically connected to the Coolkill Lough Stream (EPA Code: IE_NW_36D020700), located
approximately 350 metres east of the renewable biogas site (395m from the point of discharge) which
subsequently discharges into Coolkill Lough.
The Rockcorry Stream (EPA Code: IE_NW_36D020700) originates from Coolkill Lough and flows in a
north westerly direction before passing through Drumgole Lough (EPA Code: IE_NW_36_415). It then
continues in a southerly direction before ultimately discharging into the Dromore River (EPA Code:
IE_NW_36D020900), approximately 3 km from the Proposed Development site. According to EPA
mapping (see Figure 10.3), no watercourses traverse the Proposed Development site.
Figure 10-3. Regional Hydrological Environment
10.6.2.2 Surface Water Quality
Surface water quality is monitored periodically by the EPA at various regional locations along with
principal and other smaller watercourses. The EPA assess the water quality of rivers and streams
across Ireland using a biological assessment method, which is regarded as a representative indicator
of the status of such waters and reflects the overall trend in conditions of the watercourse. The
biological indicators range from Q5 - Q1, see Table 10-1. Level Q5 denotes a watercourse with good RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-16
water quality and high community diversity, whereas Level Q1 denotes very low community diversity
and bad water quality.
Table 10-1. Monitoring Quality Classifications
Q Value WFD Status Pollution Status Condition
Q5, Q4-5 High Unpolluted Satisfactory
Q4 Good Unpolluted Satisfactory
Q3-4 Moderate Slightly polluted Unsatisfactory
Q3, Q2-3 Poor Moderately polluted Unsatisfactory
Q2, Q1-2 Bad Seriously polluted Unsatisfactory
In relation to the Proposed Development site the nearest (active) surface waterbody EPA monitoring
station is:
‘Br.W. of Clementstown’ (StationCode: RS36D020700) which is located in the DROMORE_070
waterbody adjacent to Cootehill town c. 3.5km linear distance of the Proposed Development site.
The most recent water quality status recorded by the EPA (2022) at this monitoring station (EPA Code:
RS36D020700) is classified as Q3 Poor, which denotes moderately polluted waterbody. This value is
based primarily on the relative proportions of pollution sensitive to tolerant macroinvertebrates (the
young stages of insects primarily but also snails, worms, shrimps etc.) resident at a river site. The EPA
has confirmed that the significant pressures for this waterbody are associated with agriculture,
anthropogenic, and urban wastewater.
In addition to the biological assessment method outlined above the EPA also classified water bodies
in accordance with the WFD water quality status. Rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters can be
awarded one of five statuses: High, Good, Moderate, Poor, Bad. Groundwater has just two statuses –
Good and Poor.
According to EPA (2026), Coolkill Lough stream has a WFD status (2019-2024) of ‘Poor’ as shown in
Figure 10.4 and a WFD risk score of ‘Not achieving Good Status’ by 2027. This ‘Poor’ status assigned
to the Coolkill Lough stream is due to its poor biological (invertebrate) status or potential.
DROMORE_070 waterbody (EPA Code: IE_NW_36D020900) is currently classified a by the EPA as
having ‘Poor’ WFD water quality status (2019-2024 period) and is WFD risk score of ‘Not achieving
Good Status’ by 2027. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-17
Figure 10-4. WFD Surface Waterbody Quality Status 2019-2024
10.6.2.3 Surface Water Flows and Levels
There are no gauging stations in the Dromore catchment. The HydroNet developed by the EPA
includes information on river flow for water bodies in Ireland.
In addition, the EPA Hydrotool was created for estimating flow gauged and ungauged watercourses.
The flow estimates represent flows that could be expected in rivers under naturalised conditions and
do not take account of artificial influences of any kind such as water supply abstractions or wastewater
discharges. No flow rate information is available for Coolkill stream.
10.6.2.4 Bathing Waters and Recreational Waterbodies
The local environment also includes areas of natural resources that relate to populations and human
health that may be impacted by the Proposed Development, this includes economic resources,
recreational and bathing waters, and drinking water resources.
A review of Environmental Sensitivity Mapping online maps that includes the Register of Protected
Areas (RPA) under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) has shown that there are no Recreational
Waters, Bathing Waterbodies, or Surface Water Drinking RPA, within the Proposed Development or
located near the Coolkill Lough Stream, the Rockcorry Stream or downstream in the Dromore River. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-18
10.6.2.5 Water Supplies
A review of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) online mapping, which includes the Register
of Protected Areas (RPA) established under the Water Framework Directive (WFD), indicates that
there are no nearby streams or loughs, classified as a Nutrient Sensitive Areas. These areas are
designated in accordance with the Urban Wastewater Treatment (UWWT) Directive (91/271/EEC) and
relevant national legislation, including S.I. 254/2001, S.I. 440/2004, and S.I. 48/2010. In this context,
the identified waterbody is used to define the extent of the nutrient-sensitive designation. However,
there is one known reported abstraction from surface water in the vicinity of the Proposed
Development (Monaghan County Council, 2025). The area is supplied by Drumgole Group Water
Scheme which abstract water from Annaghmakerig Lough located c.1.9km north of the Proposed
Development. However, no hydrological connection is identified between the site and Annaghmakerig
lough.
10.6.2.6 Existing Water and Wastewater Utilities
Records received show existing watermains installed on the roads which surround the Proposed
Development site on the northern, eastern and western boundaries. These watermains are part of the
Drumgole Group Water Scheme and are not owned or maintained by Uisce Éireann. Uisce Éireann do
not have any water network assets in the local area.
No known existing foul wastewater / drainage infrastructure is located within or in close proximity to
the site.
10.6.2.7 Surface Water Abstraction
There is one known reported abstraction from surface water in the vicinity of the Proposed
Development (Monaghan County Council and GSI, 2025). The area is supplied by Drumgole Group
Water Scheme which abstract water from Annaghmakerig Lough located c.1.9km north of the
Proposed Development. However, no hydrological connection is identified between the site and the
lough.
10.6.2.8 Flood Risk
The EU Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) required Member States to undertake a national preliminary
flood risk assessment (PFRA) by 2011 to identify areas where significant flood risk exists or might be
considered likely to occur. Members States were also required to prepare catchment-based Flood Risk
Management Plans by 2018 that will set out flood risk management objectives, actions and measures.
The OPW in co-operation with various Local Authorities produced a number of PFRAs which aimed to
map out current and possible future flood risk areas and develop risk assessment plans. As part of the
CFRAM programme provisional flood maps had been produced by the OPW which have been used in
this assessment.
A site-specific Flood Risk Assessment has been prepared by AWN and is contained within Volume III
of this EIAR as Appendix 10.2.
There are no recorded past flood events along Coolkill Stream. The closest area prone to reoccurring
flood events have been identified along the Drumgole Lough located c. 980m north of the Proposed
Development. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-19
According to Flood maps available online (OPW, 2026), there is no probability of flooding along the
Coolkill Lough Stream. The recorded flooding probability has been identified along the Rockcorry
Stream and Dromore River.
• Low Probability are defined as a flood event that have approximately a 1-in-a-1000 chance of
occurring or being exceeded in any given year. This is also referred to as an Annual Exceedance
Probability (AEP) of 0.1%.
• Medium Probability are defined as a flood event that have approximately a 1-in-a-100 chance
of occurring or being exceeded in any given year. This is also referred to as an Annual
Exceedance Probability (AEP) of 1%.
• High Probability are defined as a flood event that have approximately a 1-in-a-10 chance of
occurring or being exceeded in any given year. This is also referred to as an Annual Exceedance
Probability (AEP) of 10%.
The probability of flooding along the Rockcorry Stream and Dromore River are presented in Figure 10-
5 below.
Figure 10-5 Flooding Probability (CFRAM, 2026)
10.6.2.9 Designated Areas
The NPWS (2026) on-line database have been reviewed to determine the location of areas of
conservation within the Proposed Development site and proposed gas pipeline, and there are no
Special Protected Areas (SPA) established under the EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), or Special Areas
of Conservation (SAC) established under the Habitats Directive within the boundary of the Proposed
Development site. Furthermore, there are no Natural Heritage Areas (NHA), or proposed Natural
Heritage Areas (pNHA) established under the Wildlife Acts, 1976 and 2000 (as amended) within the RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-20
boundary of the Proposed Development site. The European sites and pNHA in closest proximity to the
renewable biogas plant is as follows:
• Drumgole Lough pNHA ((Site Code 001601) c. 930m North
• Dromore Lakes pNHA (Site Code 000001) c.2km south;
• Kilroosky Lough Cluster SAC (Site Code 001786) c.12km north west;
• Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC (Site Code: 000007) c.14km west.
The nearest Natura 2000 Site is Kilroosky Lough Cluster SAC (Site code: 001786) located circa 12km
north of the Proposed Development as shown in Figure 10.6. The development site has no hydrological
connection with this SAC.
The site does have an indirect hydrological connection to the Drumgole pNHA (c. 9km Hydrological
distance and Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC (c. 38km hydrological distance). However, the
connection is a long hydrological pathway allowing significant time for settlement and dilution and as
such there is no potential for change in water quality of this receiving habitat.
The European sites and pNHA in closest proximity to the gas grid connection are as follows:
• Drumgole Lough pNHA ((Site Code 001601) c. 1km north
• Dromore Lakes pNHA (Site Code 000001) c.0m;
• Kilroosky Lough Cluster SAC (Site Code 001786) c.12km north west;
• Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC (Site Code: 000007) c.14km west.
Figure 10-6. Designated Sites and Hydrological Connectivity
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-21
10.6.2.10 Hydrological and Hydrogeological Assessment
A further information was requested by Monaghan County Council as part of the RFI issued for
Proposed Development. As per Item 2 (C) which reads as follows.
“In the interests of environmental protection, the applicant is requested to provide the following
information……….
(c) A hydrogeological risk assessment to demonstrate how the hydrological balance of surrounding,
higher-quality intact bog areas may, or may not be affected. The submitted assessment shall have
particular regard to areas of cutover peat at the soil relocation site.”
In response to this query, a Hydrological and Hydrogeological Risk Assessment has been undertaken
by Hydro Environmental Services which is being submitted as part of the responses prepared for the
RFI.
10.6.2.11 Rating of Importance of Hydrological Attributes
Based on the TII methodology (2009) (See Appendix 10.1) the importance of the hydrological features
at this site is rated as ‘Low’ importance based on the assessment that the attribute has a low-quality
significance or value on a local scale, based on the fact that it is not an area of water supply (surface
water abstraction), within a flood zone or an amenity area (bathing and recreational area). The
Drumgole pNHA is located 9km downstream of the site (hydrological distance). Hence the potential
for any impact is low.
10.6.3 Hydrogeology
10.6.3.1 Aquifer Classification
The GSI has devised a system for classifying the bedrock aquifers in Ireland. The aquifer classification
for bedrock depends on a number of parameters including, the area extent of the aquifer (km 2), well
yield (m3/d), specific capacity (m3/d/m) and groundwater transmissivity (m2/d). There are three main
classifications: regionally important, locally important and poor aquifers. Where an aquifer has been
classified as regionally important, it is further subdivided according to the main groundwater flow
regime within it. This sub-division includes regionally important fissured aquifers (Rf) and regionally
important karstified aquifers (Rk). Locally important aquifers are sub-divided into those that are
generally moderately productive (Lm) and those that are generally moderately productive only in local
zones (Ll). Similarly, poor aquifers are classed as either generally unproductive except for local zones
(Pl) or generally unproductive (Pu).
The GSI (2026) classifies the principal aquifer types in Ireland as:
Bedrock Aquifer
• Rkc – Regionally Important Aquifer – Karstified (conduit)
• Rkd – Regionally Important Aquifer – Karstified (diffuse)
• RK – Regionally Important Aquifer – Karstified
• Rf – Regionally Important Aquifer – Fissured bedrock
• Lm – Locally Important Aquifer – Bedrock which is Generally Moderately Productive
• Lk – Locally Important Aquifer – Karstified RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-22
• LI – Locally Important Aquifer – Bedrock which is Moderately Productive only in Local Zones
• PI – Poor Aquifer – Bedrock which is Generally Unproductive except for Local Zones
• PU – Poor Aquifer – Bedrock which is Generally Unproductive
Gravel Aquifer
• Lg - Locally Important Aquifer - Sand & Gravel
• Rg - Regionally Important Aquifer - Sand & Gravel
According to GSI (2026), the bedrock aquifer underlying the Renewable Biogas Site and Gas Grid is
classified as a Poor Aquifer (PI), i.e. Bedrock which is Generally Unproductive except for Local Zones
as presented in Figure 10.7. The potential for vertical or horizontal migration within this type of aquifer
is poor as fractures will be disconnected. As such the aquifer is not a significant pathway for off-site
migration.
Figure 10-7. Aquifer Classification
The Renewable Biogas Site and Gas Grid is underlain by the Cavan groundwater body (GWB) (European
Code: IE_NW_G_061), which has been investigated by the GSI and is described as a ‘Poor Aquifer -
Bedrock which is Generally Unproductive except for Local Zones’ as shown in Figure 6.7. Based on the
most recent data (www.epa.ie), the Cavan GWB for which the site is located entirely within, has a WFD
status of “Good” (WFD Period: 2019-2024) and a WFD risk score (3rd Cycle) of “Not at Risk” of not
achieving good status. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-23
The Cavan Groundwater Body (GWB) is predominantly composed of bedrock with low transmissivity.
It is effectively divided along a southwest to northeast axis (northeast is where the proposed site is
located), with Ordovician-age metasedimentary rocks dominating the northern section. These rocks
have undergone significant structural deformation, resulting in numerous faults aligned southwest to
northeast, as well as intersecting faults oriented perpendicularly. The subsoil cover in the area is
mostly glacial till (around 71%), with smaller areas of peat (approximately 9%) and exposed rock or
shallow subsoil making up about 10% of the land surface.
Recharge of groundwater primarily occurs through rainwater infiltration in areas where the subsoil is
thin or permeable, as well as through exposed rock surfaces. However, recharge potential is limited in
locations where thicker deposits of low-permeability subsoil such as till and peat are present. As a
result, much of the rainwater runs off to surface water features rather than infiltrating to the aquifer.
The main groundwater movement in this category of aquifer occurs in the upper 10 m, comprising a
weathered zone of a few metres and a connected fractured zone below this. There are observed
deeper water strikes, indicating that there is a component of deep groundwater flow, however
shallow groundwater flow is dominant. Groundwater movement is generally short-range, typically
over distances of 30 to 300 metres, and tends to emerge quickly into nearby streams, lakes, or springs.
The main groundwater discharge points are surface water bodies that intersect the groundwater
body, reflecting these short flow paths. Groundwater flow direction is largely influenced by surface
topography, with an overall trend towards the north and east (GSI, 2004).
In addition, there are no groundwater source protection zones, which are zones defined by the GSI
within which development is limited in order to protect drinking water supplies from potential
pollution, located within the Proposed Development site or in the immediate vicinity.
10.6.3.2 Aquifer Vulnerability
Aquifer vulnerability is a term used to represent the intrinsic geological and hydrogeological
characteristics that determine the ease with which groundwater may be contaminated generally by
human activities. Due to the nature of the flow of groundwater through bedrock in Ireland, which is
almost completely through fissures/ fractures, the main feature that protects groundwater from
potential contamination, and therefore the most important feature in the protection of groundwater,
is the subsoil (which can consist solely of or of mixtures of peat, sand, gravel, glacial till, clays or silts).
Groundwater vulnerability is an indication of how easily the aquifer can become contaminated by
human activity. It is dependent on the thickness and permeability of the overlying soils and depth to
the water table. For example, a bedrock aquifer with minimal thickness of overburden or with a thin
layer of permeable overburden will be more vulnerable to contamination than a bedrock aquifer
which has a thick layer of low permeability overburden. Extreme groundwater vulnerability is also
associated with karst landforms as these are a direct pathway for water and contaminants to enter
the aquifer from the surface.
According to GSI regional mapping, the groundwater vulnerability rating is classified as ‘Low’ for the
Renewable Biogas Site and Gas Grid as shown in Figure 10.8 (GSI, 2026). RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-24
Figure 10-8. Groundwater Vulnerability Rating
Aquifer vulnerability classifications are primarily based on the permeability and thickness of subsoils.
Refer to Table 10.2 below.
Table 10-2 Vulnerability Mapping Guidelines
10.6.3.3 Groundwater Wells
The GSI Well Card Index is a record of wells drilled in Ireland, water supply and site investigation
boreholes. It is noted that this record is not comprehensive, however, under the European Union
(Water Policy) (Abstractions Registration) Regulations 2018 (S.I. No. 261 of 2018), Water Environment RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-25
(Abstractions and Associated Impoundments) Act 2022 and S.I. No. 419/2024 - Water Environment
(Abstractions and Associated Impoundments) Regulations 2024 registration requirements, wells with
abstraction volumes of 25m3/day and above are obligated to register with EPA. There is no
groundwater wells registered with EPA within a 1km radius of the Proposed Development. The current
GSI well index shows there are no wells are located within the boundary of the Proposed Development
site. There are 8 no. wells mapped in the wider study area within a 1km radius of the Proposed
Development site.
There are no recorded Public Supply Source Protection Area or Group Scheme Preliminary Source
Protection Areas in the vicinity of the Proposed Development site.
The nearest groundwater Group Scheme Preliminary Source Protection Area is Templeport
(IE_GSI_ZOC_161) located c. 35.3km west of the site. The nearest Public Supply Source Protection area
is Clones Scotshouse PWS (IE_GSI_SPA_90) located c. 10km west of the site. Neither of these areas
share a hydrological or hydrogeological connection to the site based on the short groundwater flow
paths of 30 to 300m.
A search of the GSI groundwater well database was conducted to identify registered wells in the
vicinity of the Proposed Development. It should be noted that not all wells are registered in Ireland.
There are 8 registered wells within 1km radius of the Development site (Table 10.3), also presented in
Figure 10.9. The closest well is located c. 130m south of the Proposed Development site and the
following uses are reported.
• Unknown / other use – 8no.
Table 10-3. Groundwater Wells within 1km of the Site
GSI Reference Source Type Hole Depth
(m) Accuracy Source Use Yield Class
2331SEW020 Borehole 53 to within 20m Unknown Failure
2331SEW021 Borehole 37 to within 20m Unknown Poor
2331SEW035 Dug well 2.4 to within 1km Unknown Moderate
2331SEW036 Dug well 2.4 to within 500m Unknown Moderate
2331SEW029 Borehole 46 to within 20m Unknown Poor
2631SWW015 Dug well 3.1 to within 1km Unknown Poor
2631SWW016 Borehole 27.4 to within 1km Unknown Poor
2331SEW022 Borehole 81 to within 20m Unknown Failure
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-26
Figure 10-9. GSI Groundwater Wells
10.6.3.4 Baseline Groundwater Quality
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC was adopted in 2000 as a single piece of legislation
covering rivers, lakes, groundwater, transitional (estuarine) and coastal waters. In addition to
protecting said waters, its objectives include the attainment of ‘Good Status’ in water bodies that are
of lesser status at present and retaining ‘Good Status’ or better where such status exists at present.
The EPA co-ordinates the activities of the River Basin Districts, local authorities and state agencies in
implementing the Directive, and operates a groundwater quality monitoring programme undertaking
surveys and studies across the Republic of Ireland.
Presently, the groundwater body in the region of the site (Cavan GWB - European Code:
IE_NW_G_061) for which the site is located entirely within, has a WFD status of “Good” (WFD Period:
2019-2024) and a WFD risk score (3rd Cycle) of “Not at Risk” of not achieving good status. The objective
is to protect the “Good status” and “not at risk” score by recognising that the quality of the
groundwater could be at risk in the future due to point and diffuse sources of pollution. (Figure 10.10). RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-27
Figure 10-10. WFD Ground Waterbody Quality Status 2019-2024
10.6.3.5 Rating of Importance of Hydrogeological Attributes
Based on the TII methodology (2009) (See Appendix 10.1) the importance of the hydrogeological
features at this site is rated as ‘Low’ importance based on the assessment that the attribute has a low-
quality significance or value on a local scale, based on the fact that the aquifer beneath the site being
classified as a “Poor Aquifer - Bedrock which is Generally Unproductive except for Local Zones” and
contributes to the baseflow of local streams and lough (Coolkill Stream, Rockcorry Stream and
Drumgole Lough).
10.6.3.5.1 Conceptual Site Model
• The bedrock aquifer is classified as a “Poor Aquifer - Bedrock which is Generally Unproductive
except for Local Zones”. The main groundwater movement in this category of aquifer occurs
in the upper 10 m, comprising a weathered zone of a few metres and a connected fractured
zone below this. There are observed deeper water strikes, indicating that there is a
component of deep groundwater flow, however shallow groundwater flow is dominant. As a
result, flow paths are short between 30 to 300 metres minimising the potential a source
pathway linkage in the bedrock aquifer.
• The aquifer underlying the Proposed Development has a ‘Low’ vulnerability following GSI
classification for aquifer vulnerability.
• Regional groundwater flow direction is north and east depending on topography.
• The Proposed Development is outside the zone of contribution for any public or group
groundwater supplies or groundwater dependent wetlands. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-28
• The Proposed Development site has a hydrological connection/pathway with Drumgole Lough
pNHA ((Site Code 001601) and located c.930m north (linear distance).
• The Proposed Development also has a hydrological connection with Lough Oughter and
Associated Loughs SAC (Site Code: 000007) which lie approximately 14km west (Linear
Distance) from the Proposed Development. However, the connection is a long hydrological
pathway allowing significant time for settlement and dilution and as such there is no potential
for change in water quality of this receiving habitat.
• There are no discharges to the underlying soil or groundwater and only stormwater discharges
to the receiving streams. All storm water will be treated on site prior to reuse and discharge.
The discharge is associated with surplus water as majority of the water will be reused in the
AD process.
• During construction phase all foul water will be tankered off site to the McBreen
Environmental Licenced Facility or similar appropriately licensed facility nearby. During
operational phase all foul water will be treated on site through separation. All solids will be
disposed off-site at the McBreen Environmental Licenced Facility or similarly licensed facility
nearby and liquid will be reintroduced in the AD process. There will be no trade effluent (waste
waters) or domestic type wastewater discharging from the Proposed Development.
• There is no evidence of historical soil contamination since the site is greenfield as discussed in
section 9.6 of chapter 9 of this EIAR.
Overall, there is no likely source pathway linkage to any receptor through the underlying aquifer or
off site through groundwater. There is a pathway off site through the adjacent streams (Coolkill and
Rockcorry) and there is a source pathway linkage to Drumgole pNHA through the Coolkill and
Rockcorry stream should an unlicenced discharge occur to stormwater discharging form the Proposed
Development area. A temporary unmitigated discharge during construction will not impact the habitat
requirements for Drumgole pNHA.
10.7 The ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario
If the Proposed Development was not to go ahead (i.e. in a Do-Nothing scenario) the baseline
environment in terms of hydrology and hydrogeology would remain unchanged as there would be no
excavations or construction. However, it should be noted that there is substantial evidence that
nutrient loading, particularly from poultry manure, is a significant issue in the region. A “do nothing”
scenario without a management solution would risk further deterioration in water quality. The
proposed biogas facility represents the only proven large-scale solution for poultry manure
management in Ireland, providing a beneficial outlet for this material and reducing diffuse nutrient
pressures. Therefore, in a “Do Nothing” scenario, there would likely continue to be a negative effect
on the hydrological and hydrogeological environment in a broader water quality context as a result of
agricultural run-off to surface waters.
10.7.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site
In the do-nothing scenario, there will be no disturbance to the existing surface water drainage and no
changes in aquifer permeability due to increase in hard standing area. The hydrological and RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-29
hydrogeological regime of the area will remain largely unchanged either with or without the
development.
10.7.2 Linear Gas Grid Connection
No gas grid installation over approximately 3 km road would occur under the “Do Nothing” scenario.
Consequently, there would be no disruption to the road corridor, and no temporary disturbance
associated with construction activities such as earthworks. No potential of any accidental discharges
of contaminants during construction stage. The hydrological and hydrogeological regime of the area
will remain largely unchanged wither with or without the development.
10.8 Potential Significant Effects
An analysis of the potential effects of the Proposed Development on the hydrological and
hydrogeological environment during the construction and operational phases are outlined below. Due
to the inter-relationship between land, soils, geology, hydrogeology and surface water (hydrology) the
following effects discussed will be considered applicable to of the Land and Soils chapter (9) of the EIA
Report. Remediation and mitigation measures included in the design of this project to address these
potential impacts are presented in Section 10.9.
10.8.1 Construction Phase
10.8.1.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site
10.8.1.1.1 Potential Impacts on Surface Water and Groundwater Quality
There is potential for the surface water quality to become contaminated with pollutants associated
with construction activity. If a spill occurs, contaminated water and collected surface water run-off
which arises from construction sites can pose a short-term risk to nearby watercourses. This potential
contaminated run-off may enter indirectly into Coolkill stream via on site drainage ditches or through
the Cavan ground waterbody beneath the site through lateral migration into the underlying aquifer
(low potential based on low aquifer vulnerability). A maximum excavation depth of 10m is proposed
at the location of the tank farms. However, based on GSI Groundwater wells (GSI well Name:
2331SEW021) located c. 100m south of the proposed development, the depth of bedrock is 30mBGL.
This indicates that the depth of soil overlying the bedrock is 30m and the excavation will not have any
impact on the existing groundwater vulnerability. Mitigation and avoidance measures will be put in
place to manage run-off during the construction phase. The potential of contamination is associated
with the following sources:
• Suspended solids (muddy water with increased turbidity (measure of the degree to which the
water loses its transparency due to the presence of suspended particulates) – arising from
dewatering, excavation and ground disturbance.
• Hydrocarbons and other construction chemicals (ecotoxic) – accidental spillages from
construction plant or stored fuels, oils, and materials.
• Cement/concrete (increase turbidity and pH) – arising from construction materials. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-30
• Wastewater (nutrient and microbial rich) – arising from accidental discharge from on-site
toilets and washrooms.
In the absence of mitigation, rainfall run-off and potential dewatering during the construction phase
may contain increased silt levels or otherwise become polluted from construction activities.
Suspended solids in runoff water may result in an increase in suspended sediment load, resulting in
increased turbidity, which may in turn impact on local infiltration capacity, or downstream
infrastructure or watercourses. There is also the potential risk of unintentional discharge from
construction traffic or stored materials like fuels and oils which could have negative impacts on both
surface water and the underlying groundwater. Moreover, construction activities often involve the
use of chemicals, such as paints, adhesives, solvents, and pesticides, which can also pose a risk of
contamination if not handled and disposed of properly. These chemicals can seep into the soil or be
carried by rainwater or other runoff, ultimately contaminating surface water. Concreting operations
carried out near surface water drainage points during construction activities could lead to discharges
to a watercourse. Concrete (specifically, the cement component) is highly alkaline and any spillage to
a local watercourse would be detrimental to water quality and local fauna and flora. It is necessary for
the mitigation measures (set out in Section 10.9) to be implemented to reduce and prevent accidental
discharges from occurring during construction, including the implementation of effective containment
and monitoring procedures.
Accidental discharges can also occur from welfare facilities during construction activities. Wastewater
can contain high levels of bacteria, chemicals and organic matter, which could contaminate nearby
water sources if discharged incorrectly. It is proposed that all foul water will be stored on site and then
tanker off to McBreen Environmental Licenced Facility or similar facility. The establishment and use
of welfare facilities and use of sealed containment, ensures that there are no potential significant
impacts therefore, no additional mitigation is required.
In the absence of mitigation measures the potential impacts during the construction phase on surface
water and groundwater quality are negative, moderate and short-term.
10.8.1.2 Potential Impacts on Surface Water and Groundwater Flow
The gradual introduction of impermeable surfaces and the compaction of soils across the construction
site as a result of the land clearing and earthworks will reduce the infiltration capacity and increase
the rate and volume of direct surface run-off. The potential impact of this is a possible increase in
surface water run-off along with sediment loading, which could potentially impact local drainage if
not adequately mitigated. This increase in the rate and volume of direct surface run-off can result in
increased sediment loading, scouring impacts on local drainage and watercourses, and downstream
impacts.
No dewatering of groundwater is required during construction. Drainage ditches along widened
section of L2280 will be re-located in line with the new road extent. However, the design will address
and incorporate mitigation measures so there is no impact on the water quality and flows.
In the absence of mitigation measures the potential impacts during the construction phase on surface
water and groundwater quantity and flow are negative, slight and short term. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-31
10.8.1.3 Potential Impacts on Human Health and Populations
There are no recorded recreational waters, bathing waterbodies, surface water abstraction points
located downstream of the Proposed Development site.
In addition, there are no recorded Public Supply Source Protection Area or Group Scheme Preliminary
Source Protection Areas defined by the GSI within which development is limited in order to protect
drinking water supplies from potential pollution located in the vicinity of the Proposed Development
site. A surface water Group water Scheme identified as Drumgole GWS supplies the region, however,
there is no hydrological connection between the group water scheme and the Proposed Development.
In the absence of mitigation measures the potential impacts during the construction phase on surface
water and groundwater quantity and flow are negative, not significant and short-term.
10.8.1.4 Potential Impacts on Water Framework Directive Status
There is a potential of minor accidental discharges during the construction phase (as set out in Section
10.8.1). However, these are temporary short-lived events that will not impact on the long term status
of the Coolkill Lough and Rockcorry Stream, the Dromore River or the underlying Cavan groundwater
body (GWB) as mitigation will be in place and dilution and attenuation will result in no measurable
increase at these downgradient receptors. As such the Proposed Development will not cause any
significant deterioration or change in water quality status or prevent attainment, or potential to
achieve the WFD objectives or to meet the requirements and/or objectives in the third cycle river
basin management plan (2022-2027) i.e. Water Action Plan 2024 - A River Basin Management Plan for
Ireland. Please refer to WFD assessment which is contained in volume III of this EIAR as appendix 10.3.
In the absence of mitigation measures the potential impacts during the construction phase on the
Water Framework Directive (WFD) status due to changes to the hydrological environment are neutral,
imperceptible and short-term.
10.8.1.5 Gas Grid Connection
During construction, the potential for impact is minimal as the pipeline will be installed along the
existing road. However, there is a potential for accidental leaks of fuel from construction plants.
There is a potential for surface water runoff containing contamination and heavy silts to enter
excavation trenches.
In the absence of mitigation measures the potential impacts during the construction phase on surface
water and groundwater quantity and flow are negative, slight and short term.
10.8.2 Operational Phase
10.8.2.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site
10.8.2.1.1 Potential Impacts on Surface Water and Groundwater Quality
As stated in Section 10.6.1.2 above, there is a hydrological connection to the Coolkill Lough and
Rockcorry Streams during the operational phase. Surface water runoff from roads, car parking, and RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-32
hardstanding areas, can potentially contain minor levels of contaminants such as hydrocarbons from
trafficked areas.
As the site includes stormwater infrastructure, any potential run-off with contaminants will discharge
more easily to stormwater rather than infiltrate to ground. As such there is no likely impact on the
water quality of Coolkill Lough, Rockcorry Streams, Drumgole Lough, the Dromore River and Cavan
GWB underlying the site, due to the hardstand, natural soil protection and drainage infrastructure
proposed.
The surface water drainage strategy includes the Proposed Development to be served by a SuDS that
is to be integrated with the developments landscaping features and is typically to comprise a
combination of multiple measures. The SuDS proposals within the Proposed Development will be
designed to treat the anticipated surface water runoff contamination to a safe level before discharge
into the environment. All surface water run-off treatment shall be provided using proprietary
products. All captured surface water within the site will pass through a sequence of Aqua Swirl Vortex
and Aqua Filter Unit at least once before reaching Surface Water Pumping Station. From here the
harvested surface water will either be pumped to the plant process, or discharge from the site via a
headwall to the existing drainage ditch in the north-east corner of the site. A significant proportion of
harvested rainwater will be captured and used in the process, meaning discharge of surface water will
only take place under abnormal conditions.
The foul water drainage strategy for the Proposed Development includes the installation of a
dedicated private foul water treatment plant. This facility will treat all foul water generated on site,
with the resulting treated effluent to be reused within the Anaerobic Digestion (AD) process. Solid
residues will be periodically removed off-site for appropriate disposal at McBreen Environmental
Licensed Facility or similar facility. As a result, no trade effluent or domestic-type wastewater will be
discharged from the Proposed Development to the surrounding environment.
Chapter 16 (Major Accidents and Disasters) includes a risk assessment for potential impact to surface
water and groundwater due to a major release of organic material from the site. The assessment
concluded that in the event of a major spill, release of organic material would be contained within a
bund.
In the absence of mitigation measures (or design measures) the potential impacts during the
operational phase on surface water and groundwater flow and quantity are negative, slight, and long-
term.
10.8.2.2 Potential Impacts on Surface Water and Groundwater Flow
The proposed incorporation of hardstand area and the use of SuDS design measures will have a minor
effect on local recharge to ground and has the potential to result in increased run-off from the site if
not adequately mitigated.
However, the impact on the overall groundwater regime will be insignificant considering the site area
relative to the size of the groundwater body.
As described above, the maximum temporary demand from groundwater abstraction is 45m3. No site-
specific data is available in relation to groundwater yields within the underlying aquifer. However, a RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-33
desk-based study was carried out to identify potential yields based on the expected zone of
contribution and recharge potential. Refer to Appendix 10.4. As the abstraction will only be for a
temporary period during the year, there is no long-term potential for over abstraction of the aquifer
as it will be recharged during the year and a dual well pumping to storage system is planned which
will facilitate individual well recovery. Prior to construction, pump testing will be undertaken to
confirm the safe sustainable yield to ensure no long term over abstraction can occur.
As described in Section 10.6.2.8 above, there are no recorded past flood events along Coolkill Stream.
The closest area prone to reoccurring flood events have been identified along the Drumgole Lough
located c. 980m north of the Proposed Development. Therefore, there is a low flood risk associated
with the Proposed Development site.
The design of the Proposed Development and drainage infrastructure proposed will ensure that the
run-off rate is restricted to greenfield run-off. The development includes the implementation of SuDS
and an attenuation system. The design includes for a 100-year plus climate change allowance and
discharge surface water to the downstream network at an appropriately determined rate. There are
no surface water abstractions proposed, therefore no potential impacts on the quantity of surface
water or groundwater.
The proposed measures ensures that the Proposed Development will not be impacted by predicted
flood events.
In the absence of mitigation measures (or design measures) the potential impacts during the
operational phase on surface water and groundwater flow and quantity are negative, slight, and long-
term.
10.8.2.3 Potential Impacts on Human Health and Populations
The site will be served by an attenuation system which will allow the majority of surface water
captured to be used in the AD process (with remainder discharged to local drainage during abnormal
conditions) and all wastewater to be reintroduced into the AD process. The likelihood of the Proposed
Development adversely affecting the public drainage system or contributing to downstream flooding
is mitigated. Any discharges from site will be at a greenfield rate and therefore no potential flooding
will occur due to surface water discharge from site.
There are no recorded recreational waters, bathing waterbodies, surface water abstraction points
(refer to Section 10.6.2) located hydrologically downstream of the Proposed Development site. The
Drumgole group water scheme is located c.1.9 km north from the Proposed Development and
abstracts water from the Annaghmakerig Lough. No hydrological connectivity exists between the
Proposed Development and the Lough.
In addition, there are no recorded Public Supply Source Protection Area or Group Scheme Preliminary
Source Protection Areas defined by the GSI within which development is limited in order to protect
drinking water supplies from potential pollution located in the vicinity of the Proposed Development
site.
In the absence of mitigation measures the potential impacts during the operational phase on surface
water and groundwater quality are neutral, imperceptible, and long-term. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-34
10.8.2.4 Potential Impacts on Water Framework Directive Status
There are limited discharges of surface water during the operational phase to the receiving
environment. However, these discharges will be adequately attenuated via SuDS measures and
treated on site for reuse. Any surface water flows from the Proposed Development will be directed to
an attenuation tank. A smart attenuation system will be incorporated to facilitate the reuse of
rainwater and all surface water collected on site as part of the Anaerobic Digestion (AD) process—an
integral component of the facility’s design and operational strategy. This approach will significantly
minimise the volume of surface water discharged from the site. These proposed design measures
ensure there is no long-term negative impact to the WFD water quality status of the Coolkill Lough
and Rockcorry Stream, the Dromore River or the underlying Cavan groundwater body (GWB).
In the scenario of an accidental release of organic material or unmitigated leak of fuel from car park
areas and roads, the surface water strategy includes secondary containment for all liquid storage and
all collected storm water from car park and internal roads will be treated with an oil interceptor prior
to any discharge. As a result there is no potential for impact on the status of the Coolkill Lough and
Rockcorry Stream, the Dromore River or the underlying Cavan groundwater body (GWB) in the long-
term. As such the Proposed Development will not cause any significant deterioration or change in
water quality status or prevent attainment, or potential to achieve the WFD objectives or to meet the
requirements and/or objectives in the third cycle river basin management plan (2022-2027) i.e. Water
Action Plan 2025 - A River Basin Management Plan for Ireland.
In the absence of mitigation measures, the potential impacts during the operation phase on the Water
Framework Directive (WFD) status due to changes to the hydrological environment are neutral
imperceptible and long term.
10.8.2.5 Linear Gas Grid Connection
Once the gas connection pipeline is installed. No potential effects are foreseen during the operation
phase since there is no interaction with any waterways. Hence no mitigation is required.
10.8.3 Cumulative Effects
The following projects are located within the local area of the proposed project.
Table 10-4. Cumulative Residual Effects
Plan Ref Description Decision Type
14207 Change existing finish and carry out elevational alterations
to existing dwelling
Granted with
Conditions dwelling
16203
Permission to 1. change existing finish, 2. carry out
elevational alterations, 3. construct a two storey extension
to rear (incorporating car-port with living accommodation
over), all to existing dwelling, with associated ancillary site
works
Granted with
Conditions dwelling
20354
Permission to construct a two storey dwelling house, with
proprietary waste water treatment system along with other
associated ancillary site works (using existing site entrance
& access lane)
Granted with
Conditions dwelling RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-35
Plan Ref Description Decision Type
16308
Permission for the construction of a two storey style
dwelling house and domestic garage, with access via
existing field entrance, the construction of a sewerage
treatment unit and percolation area and all associated site
works
Granted with
Conditions dwelling
20263
Permission for a development consisting of (1) construction
of an agricultural slatted shed to incorporate slatted area,
external feed passage and underground slurry storage tank,
(2) completion of all associated and ancillary site works
Granted with
Conditions agri shed
19123 Permission to construct a silage base, along with associated
ancillary site works.
Granted with
Conditions silage base
2039
Permission to construct a slatted livestock shed with
underground waste storage tanks, concrete apron and
drains
Granted with
Conditions agri shed
177
permission to construct 1 No. poultry house together with
all ancillary structures (to include meal bin(s) and soiled
water tank(s) and site works associated with the above
development on an existing poultry farm. This application
relates to a development
Granted with
Conditions poultry
16476
permission to demolish derelict house and erect a two
storey dwelling with attached sun-room, carport and
domestic garage, sewerage treatment unit, percolation
area, new entrance and all associated site works
Granted with
Conditions dwelling
19180
permission to construct a broiler type poultry house,
together with all ancillary structures including vertical meal
bin and underground washings tank, together with all
ancillary site works, using existing site access.
Granted with
Conditions poultry
2460274
permission to construct a calf rearing livestock unit
complete with concrete apron and drains. Significant
Further Information received relates to a revised Site Layout
Plan, a Nutrient Management Plan, Nitrogen Loading Details
and other documents.
Granted with
Conditions livestock
07585
1) replacing a wind damage, dormant slatted cubicle shed
with a loose house and handling facility. 2) a silo pit with
retaining walls, working aprons and all ancillary site works
Granted Farm
There are existing residential and commercial developments close by, along with the multiple
permissions remaining in place in the area. Multiple developments in the area (as outlined above)
could potentially be developed concurrently or overlap during the construction and operational
phases. There are no significant Proposed Developments which could have a significant cumulative
impact on the groundwater or surface water regime.
The proposed livestock and poultry facilities have potential to impact on local water quality if
accidental discharge occurs. However, all developments will have to adhere surface water quality
objectives as outlined in S.I. No. 272 of 2009, S.I. No. 386 of 2015 and S.I. No. 77 of 2019 and
groundwater quality objectives as outlined in S.I. No. 366 of 2016 to protect surface water and RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-36
groundwater quality. There will be no effects on hydrology and hydrogeology as each development
will adhere to their own CEMP, OEMP and mitigation plan.
The broader poultry industry in County Monaghan, including both existing operations and any planned
or new developments together with other agricultural pressures, is resulting in ongoing nutrient
pressures on surface and groundwater as outlined by the EPA monitoring programme. The proposed
biogas facility provides a large-scale, practical solution, reducing diffuse nutrient loading to
watercourses and mitigating potential impacts from both current and future poultry operations.
Including this context ensures that the cumulative effects assessment reflects not only potential
pressures but also the positive contribution of the development to water quality management in the
region.
The cumulative effect on the local and regional environment is likely to be neutral, imperceptible and
long term.
While the proposed development does not include the land spreading of digestate, land spreading of
digestate produced at the proposed development is considered a reasonably foreseeable indirect
activity associated with the future operation of the facility and has been considered accordingly within
this chapter of the EIAR.
Digestate from the proposed development will be rich in organic matter and nutrients . When applied
by third party landowners and occupiers in line with Good Agricultural Practice, any risk of nutrient
run-off, leaching to groundwater, or surface water contamination is avoided or minimised.
The Good Agricultural Practice framework (as defined at Chapter 2) includes as key controls to protect
water quality inter alia:
• Maximum nitrogen and phosphorus application rates;
• Prohibited spreading periods (e.g. during winter months);
• Minimum buffer distances from watercourses, wells, and karst features;
• The use of low emission spreading techniques,
• Requirements for soil condition and weather suitability;
• Record-keeping and nutrient management planning; and
• Additional environmental protection for aquatic ecosystems, particularly in proximity to
sensitive surface water bodies.
However, there is potential for environmental impacts on water quality if land is mismanaged,
contrary to Good Agricultural Practice. However, the use of digestate from the plant represents an
environmental betterment over the use of artificial fertilisers as use of digestate will enable better
nutrient uptake (allowing nutrients to be more readily transferred into the crops rather than being
lost to watercourses) thereby resulting in improvements to water quality.
For reasons already explained at Chapter 2, it is not feasible to identify the specific locations,
quantities, and land parcels on which digestate will be applied by third party landowners and RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-37
occupiers. As such, it is not possible to undertake a site-specific quantitative assessment of any impact
on the aquatic environment from land spreading of digestate at any particular landholding.
It is reasonable to assume, however, that digestate will only be applied to land in compliance with the
applicable Good Agricultural Practice at the relevant time, including in accordance with any site
specific nutrient management plan that has been approved by DAFM for the relevant land at the
relevant time. Combined with the additional regulatory controls on spreading practices and buffer
zones, it is considered that such measures overseen by DAFM and the EPA will avoid or minimise the
risk of significant impacts on both surface water and groundwater quality.
In a cumulative context, the addition of digestate to the nutrient load within a catchment must be
considered alongside other agricultural inputs. However, this is precisely the role of the Nitrates
Directive, which aims to manage nutrient loading at a catchment scale. Provided that all digestate
applications are carried out in accordance with Good Agricultural Practice as is applicable at the
relevant time, no significant adverse cumulative or indirect impacts on water quality are anticipated.
10.8.4 Summary
The following Table summarises the identified likely significant effects during the construction phase
of the Proposed Development before mitigation measures are applied.
Table 10-5 Summary of Construction Phase Likely Significant Effects in the absence of
mitigation
Aspect Likely
Significant
Effect
Quality Significance Extent Probability Duration Type
Biogas
Plant and
Gas Grid
Accidental
Spills, Leaks
and
Discharges
Negative Moderate Local Likely Short Term Direct
Increased
Sediment Run
Off during
excavation
works carrying
Sediment and
Pollutants into
surface water
drainage and
groundwater.
Negative Moderate Local Likely Short-Term Direct
Groundwater
Contamination
through lateral
migration from
improper
management
of
Construction
Negative Moderate Local Likely Short-Term Direct &
Indirect RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-38
Aspect Likely
Significant
Effect
Quality Significance Extent Probability Duration Type
Waste,
Materials &
Chemicals
Table below summarises the identified likely significant effects during the operational phase of the
Proposed Development before mitigation measures are applied.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-39
Table 10-6 Summary of Operational Phase Likely Significant Effects in the absence of
mitigation
Aspect Likely
Significant
Effect
Quality Significance Extent Probability Duration Type
Biogas
Plant
Accidental
Spills, Leaks
and
Discharges
Negative Moderate Local Likely Long- Term Direct
Increased
Sediment Run
Off operation
phase carrying
Sediment and
Pollutants into
surface water
drainage and
groundwater.
Negative Moderate Local Likely Long- Term Direct &
Indirect
Gas Grid No impact NA NA NA NA NA NA
10.9 Mitigation Measures
10.9.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site
10.9.1.1 Incorporated Design Mitigation
This section outlines the measures that will be employed in order to ensure the project has minimal
adverse effects on the surrounding environment, in this case hydrogeology and hydrology. These
measures include appropriate design measures such as the proper storage and containment of
hazardous substances and proper drainage systems in line with best practice, standard details, policies
and guidelines. For further information on this please refer to Chapter 2 of this EIAR and to the
Engineering Services Report -(McAdam, 2025) included with this application.
10.9.1.2 Construction Phase Mitigation
10.9.1.2.1 Construction & Environmental Management Plan
The CEMP outlines and explains the construction techniques and methodologies which will be
implemented during construction of the Proposed Development. It includes a Soil & Surface Water
Management Plan (SSWMP) as an appendix which further details methods to be employed by the
appointed Contractor as required to prevent impact to surface water.
Construction works and the proposed mitigation measures are informed by best practice guidance on
the prevention of pollution during development projects including but not limited to:
• Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), Control of Water
Pollution from Construction Sites, Guidance for Consultants and Contractors (C532); RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-40
• Guidelines on Protection of Fisheries During Construction Works in and Adjacent to Waters
(2016);
• Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) Environmental Good
Practice on Site (4th edition), (C741);
• Enterprise Ireland Best Practice Guide, Oil Storage Guidelines (BPGCS005).
• Requirements for the Protection of Fisheries Habitat during Construction and Development
Works at River Sites (Eastern Regional Fisheries Board);
• Central Fisheries Board Channels and Challenges – The enhancement of Salmonid Rivers;
• CIRIA C532 Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites Guidance for Consultants and
Contractors;
• CIRIA C648 Control of Water Pollution from Constructional Sites;
• Guidelines for the Crossing of Watercourses during the Construction of National Road
Schemes (NRA 2008); and
• Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) – A Guideline on Planning for Watercourses in the Urban
Environment.
The CEMP and SSWMP set out the proposed procedures and operations to be utilised on the proposed
construction site to protect water quality. These plans will be implemented and adhered to by the
construction contractor and will be overseen and updated as required if site conditions change by the
Project Manager and Environmental Manager where relevant. All personnel working on the site will
be trained in the implementation of the procedures. All relevant personnel will be fully trained in the
use of this equipment. Guidelines such as “Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites,
Guidance for Consultants and Contractors” (CIRIA 532, 2001) will be complied with.
All mitigation measures outlined here, and within the CEMP / SSWMP will be implemented during the
construction phase, as well as any additional measures required pursuant to planning conditions
which may be imposed.
10.9.1.2.2 Suspended solids
As there is potential for run-off to indirectly discharge to a watercourse (Coolkill Lough and Rockcorry
Streams and eventually to the Dromore River), in order to manage the potential impact associated
with sediment and sediment runoff the following mitigation measures will be implemented during the
construction phase.
• During earthworks and excavation works care will be taken to ensure that exposed soil
surfaces are stable to minimise erosion. All exposed soil surfaces will be within the excavation
site which limits the potential for any offsite impacts.
• Silt reduction measures on site will include a combination of silt traps and hydrobrakes
measures.
• Any hard surface site roads will be swept to remove mud and aggregate materials from their
surface while any unsurfaced roads shall be restricted to essential site traffic only.
• Aggregate materials such as sands and gravels will be stored in clearly marked receptacles
within a secure compound area to prevent contamination.
• Movement of material will be minimised to reduce the degradation of soil structure and
generation of dust. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-41
• Excavations will remain open for as little time as possible before the placement of fill. This will
help to minimise the potential for water ingress into excavations.
• Weather conditions will be considered when planning construction activities to minimise the
risk of run-off from the site.
10.9.1.2.3 Cement/concrete works
Where feasible all ready-mixed concrete will be brought to site by truck. A suitable risk assessment
for wet concreting will be completed prior to works being carried out which will include measures to
prevent discharge of alkaline wastewaters or contaminated storm water to the underlying subsoil and
aquifer.
Wash-outs will only be allowed to take place in designated areas with an impervious surface where all
wash water is contained and removed from site by road tanker.
The construction contractor will be required to implement emergency response procedures, and these
will be in line with industry guidance. Relevant personnel working on the site will be suitably trained
in the implementation of the procedures.
10.9.1.2.4 Hydrocarbons and other construction chemicals
The following mitigation measures will be implemented during the construction phase in order to
prevent any spillages to ground of fuels and other construction chemicals and prevent any resulting
to surface water (and groundwater) systems:
• Designation of bunded refuelling areas on the site;
• Provision of spill kit facilities across the site;
• Where mobile fuel bowsers are used, the following measures will be taken:
o Any flexible pipe, tap or valve will be fitted with a lock and will be secured when not
in use;
o The pump or valve will be fitted with a lock and will be secured when not in use;
o All bowsers to carry a spill kit and relevant operatives must have spill response
training;
o Portable generators or similar fuel containing equipment will be placed on suitable
drip trays.
In the case of drummed fuel or other potentially polluting substances which may be used during the
construction phase, the following measures will be adopted:
• Secure storage of all containers that contain potential polluting substances in a dedicated
internally bunded chemical storage cabinet unit or inside a concrete bunded area;
• Oil and fuel storage tanks shall be stored in designated areas, and these areas shall be stored
within temporary bunded areas, doubled skinned tanks or bunded containers to a volume of
110% of the capacity of the largest tank/container. Drainage from the bunded area(s) shall be
diverted for collection and safe disposal.
• Clear labelling of containers so that appropriate remedial measures can be taken in the event
of a spillage;
• All drums to be quality approved and manufactured to a recognised standard; RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-42
• If drums are to be moved around the Site, they will be secured and on spill pallets; and
• Drums will be loaded and unloaded by competent and trained personnel using appropriate
equipment.
In addition to the measures above, all excavated materials will be visually assessed by suitably
qualified persons for signs of possible contamination such as staining or strong odours. Should any
unusual staining or odour be noticed, samples of this soil will be analysed for the presence of potential
contaminants to ensure that historical pollution of the soil has not occurred. Should it be determined
that any of the soil excavated is contaminated, this will be segregated and appropriately disposed of
by a suitably permitted/licensed waste disposal contractor.
Refuelling of construction vehicles and the addition of hydraulic oils or lubricants to vehicles will take
place in designated bunded refuelling areas, which will be away from surface water gulleys or drains.
In the event of a machine requiring refuelling outside of this area, fuel will be transported in a mobile
double skinned tank. An adequate supply of spill kits and hydrocarbon adsorbent packs will be stored
in this area. All relevant personnel will be fully trained in the use of this equipment. Guidelines such
as “Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites, Guidance for Consultants and Contractors”
(CIRIA 532, 2001) will be complied with.
The construction contractor will be required to implement emergency response procedures, and these
will be in line with industry guidance. All personnel working on the Site will be suitably trained in the
implementation of the procedures.
10.9.1.2.5 Wastewater Management
Foul wastewater arising from the site will be managed and controlled for the duration of the
construction works.
Foul water from the offices and welfare facilities on the site will be collected in portable sanitary
facilities and disposed of site at the McBreen Environmental facility, Lismagratty, Cootehill Road, Co.
Cavan located c.20km southwest of the site, or similar licensed facility.
The construction contractor will implement emergency response procedures, and these will be in line
with industry guidance. All personnel working on the site will be suitably trained in the
implementation of the procedures.
10.9.1.2.6 Human Health and Populations
It has been established that there are no recorded Recreational Waters, Bathing Waterbodies or
Surface Water Drinking RPA located downstream of the proposed site development. In addition, there
are no recorded Public Supply Source Protection Area or Group Scheme Preliminary Source Protection
Areas defined by the GSI within which development is limited in order to protect drinking water
supplies from potential pollution located in the vicinity of the Proposed Development site. The
Drumgole Group Water Scheme is located c.1.9 km north from the Proposed Development and
abstracts water from the Annaghmakerig Lough. No hydrological connectivity exists between the
Proposed Development and the Lough.
As there is no source pathway linkage, no mitigation is required. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-43
10.9.1.2.7 Water Framework Directive Status
It has been established (refer to Section 10.8.1.4 above) that there is a potential of accidental
discharges during the construction phase. However, these are temporary short-lived events that will
not impact on the status of Coolkill Lough and Rockcorry Streams, the Dromore River or the underlying
Cavan groundwater body (GWB) in the permanent. As such the Proposed Development will not cause
any significant deterioration or change in water quality status or prevent attainment, or potential to
achieve the WFD objectives or to meet the requirements and/or objectives in the third cycle river
basin management plan (2022-2027) i.e. Water Action Plan 2024 - A River Basin Management Plan for
Ireland.
On a precautionary basis, the mitigation measures set out in Section 10.9.1 will be implemented during
the construction works for the protection of surface water and groundwater quality.
10.9.1.3 Operational Phase Mitigation
10.9.1.3.1 Surface Water and Groundwater and Quantity
The design has taken account of the potential impacts of the development on surface water quality;
measures have been incorporated in the design to mitigate these potential impacts.
The proposed surface water management design establishes an indirect hydrological connection to
the Coolkill Lough and Rockcorry Streams, the Dromore River, located near the site, during the
operational phase.
To mitigate potential contamination from surface water runoff, which may originate from roads and
hardstanding areas, a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) will be implemented. This system is
designed to minimize the risk of contaminants, such as hydrocarbons, entering the stormwater
drainage network and subsequently impacting surface water bodies like the Coolkill Lough and
Rockcorry Streams, the Dromore River, as well as groundwater bodies, including the Cavan GWB
underlying the site.
The surface water drainage strategy integrates various measures, including attenuation tanks and
harvesting storage connected to hydrocarbon interceptor, silt trap and hydrobrake to control
greenfield run off rate of discharge to local watercourse/drainage ditches. These features will
effectively manage surface water flows, directing them to an underground attenuation tank to
maximize their storage potential. Flow control devices will be installed downstream of the pond outlet
pipes to ensure that surface water runoff is stored efficiently before entering the receiving
environment.
A water treatment system comprising SDS Aquaswirl Vortex Pollutant Separation System Chambers
and SDS Aquafilter Surface Water Filtration Units will be installed on the inlet pipework to the
attenuation tanks, to reduce the overall amount of total suspended solids, heavy metals, and
hydrocarbons within the surface water run-off. Any harvested surface water used in the plant process
or discharged from the site will have undergone treatment via these units. Hence mitigating the risk
of any potential contamination being discharged from site and affecting the water quality of the
Coolkill Lough, Rockcorry Streams, Drumgole Lough and the Dromore River. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-44
Refer to the Engineering Services Report, prepared by McAdam Design Ltd submitted separately as
part of the planning application for further information on the proposed storm water management
and design.
10.9.1.3.2 Surface Water and Groundwater Flow and Quantity
The proposed incorporation of hardstand areas and SuDS design measures may slightly reduce local
groundwater recharge and increase runoff if not properly managed, potentially causing flooding and
affecting downstream environments. The proposed discharged is at greenfield rates with a maximum
discharge rate of 83.5l/s, the calculated greenfield runoff rate for the site for a 1-in-100-year event.
However, the overall impact on the groundwater regime is expected to be insignificant due to the
site's small area relative to the total aquifer, and construction will avoid areas with localized flooding
to mitigate flood risks.
To mitigate these risks, the design of the development and its drainage infrastructure will ensure that
runoff rates are restricted to those of greenfield conditions. The development will incorporate SuDS
and an underground attenuation system, with a design that up to and including the 100-year plus 30%
climate change allowance and discharge surface water to the downstream network at greenfield rates.
Furthermore, there are no proposed surface water abstraction, eliminating potential impacts on the
quantity of surface water resources. However, there is a proposed groundwater abstraction on site to
fulfil the demand, refer to appendix 10.4 for groundwater abstraction feasibility report.
10.9.1.3.3 Human Health and Populations
As stated in section 10.9.2.1.6, there is no source pathway linkage, no mitigation is required.
10.9.1.3.4 Potential Impacts on Water Framework Directive Status
The water framework directive (WFD) assessment is included in Appendix 10.3. Even in the absence
of the mitigation measures detailed above, there will be no predicted degradation on the status of the
Coolkill Lough, Rockcorry Stream, Drumgole Lough and the Dromore River or the underlying Cavan
groundwater body (GWB) (chemically, ecological and quantity) or any impact on its potential to meet
the requirements and/or objectives in the third cycle river basin management plan (2022-2027) i.e.
Water Action Plan 2024 - A River Basin Management Plan for Ireland.
There are appropriately designed mitigation measures which will be implemented during the
operational phase to protect the hydrological environment. There is a potential of accidental
discharges during the operational phase, however these are temporary short-lived events that will not
impact on the water status of waterbodies permanent and as such will not impact on trends in water
quality and over all status assessment.
There are no untreated discharges of wastewater during the operational phase to any open waterbody
/ watercourse. The discharge to surface water sewer will be adequately treated via SuDS measures,
hydro-brake (or equivalent) and oil/water interceptor / separator to ensure there is no permanent
negative impact to the WFD water quality status of the receiving watercourse. The SuDS and proposed
measures have been designed in detail with the ultimate aim of protecting the hydrological (&
hydrogeological) environment. The SuDS and project design measures will be maintained correctly as
per specifications to ensure permanent / on-going integrity of same. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-45
10.9.2 Gas Grid Connection
These works are outside the control of the applicant, and any mitigation is presented as recommended
rather than committed.
10.9.2.1 Construction Phase Recommendations
As stated above in section 10.6.1.3, these works are outside the applicant’s control as the grid
connection will be delivered by Gas Networks Ireland. However, the recommended mitigations
measures are as follows.
• management of excavated soils,
• use of bunded refuelling areas,
• provision of spill kits,
• management of surface water runoff in excavations,
• management and disposal of silt laden runoff from excavations,
• temporary silt and sediment controls
10.9.2.2 Operational Phase Recommendations
During the operational phase, there will be no impact on the hydrological and hydrogeological regime,
hence no mitigation is recommended.
10.10 Residual Impact Assessment
This section assesses potential significant environmental impacts which remain after mitigation
measures are implemented. The implementation of mitigation measures outlined in Section 10.9 will
ensure that the potential impacts on the hydrogeological and hydrological environment do not occur
during the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development. Due to the inter-
relationship between land, soils, geology, hydrogeology and surface water the following impacts
discussed will be considered applicable to both Chapter 9 (Land, Soils and Geology) & Chapter 10
(Hydrology and Hydrogeology) of the EIAR.
10.10.1 Construction Phase
10.10.1.1 Renewable Biogas Site
10.10.1.1.1 Surface Water Quality
The implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures detailed in Section 10.9.1.2
associated with the potential impacts from discharge of heavily silted water, accidental hydrocarbon
release, cement works and accidental waste water discharge will ensure that the potential impacts on
the hydrogeological and hydrological environment during the construction phase are adequately
mitigated. The residual effect on surface water quality during the construction phase is considered to
be neutral, imperceptible and short-term. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-46
10.10.1.1.2 Human Health and Populations
As stated in section 10.9.1.2, there is no source pathway linkage. Hence there is no impact on human
health and population with regards to the hydrogeological and hydrological environment during
construction phase.
10.10.1.1.3 Water Framework Directive Status
Even in the absence of the mitigation and monitoring measures detailed in Section 10.9.1.2, there will
be no predicted degradation on the status of the Coolkill Lough, Rockcorry Stream, Drumgole Lough
and the Dromore River or the underlying Cavan groundwater body (GWB) (chemically, ecological and
quantity) or any impact on its potential to meet the requirements and/or objectives in third cycle river
basin management plan (2022-2027) i.e. Water Action Plan 2024 - A River Basin Management Plan for
Ireland.
There are appropriately designed mitigation measures which will be implemented during the
construction phase to protect the hydrological environment. There is a potential of accidental
discharges during the construction phase, however these are temporary short-lived events that will
not impact on the water status of waterbodies permanent and as such will not impact on trends in
water quality and over all status assessment.
The residual effect on Water Framework Directive Status during the construction phase is considered
to be neutral, imperceptible and short-term.
10.10.1.2 Gas Grid Connection
Although the gas grid connection will be delivered by a third party. The works associated with
trenching for pipeline installation pose minimal risk. The recommendations detailed in Section
10.9.3.1 will ensure that the potential impacts on the hydrogeological and hydrological environment
during the operation phase are adequately mitigated. The residual effect during the operation phase
is considered to be neutral, imperceptible and short term.
10.10.2 Operational Phase
10.10.2.1 Renewable Biogas Site
10.10.2.1.1 Surface Water Quality
The implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures detailed in Section 10.9.1.2
associated with potential impacts from storm water discharge and any accidental release of stored
fuel and other chemicals will ensure that the potential impacts on the hydrogeological and
hydrological environment during the operation phase are adequately mitigated. The residual effect
on surface water quality during the operation phase is considered to be neutral, imperceptible and
long-term.
10.10.2.1.2 Human Health and Populations
As stated in section 10.9.1.2, there is no source pathway linkage. Hence there is no impact on human
health and population with regards to the hydrogeological and hydrological environment during
operational phase. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-47
10.10.2.1.3 Water Framework Directive Status
Even in the absence of the mitigation and monitoring measures detailed in Section 10.9.1.2, there will
be no predicted degradation on the status of the Coolkill Lough and Rockcorry Stream, the Dromore
River or the underlying Cavan groundwater body (GWB) (chemically, ecological and quantity) or any
impact on its potential to meet the requirements and/or objectives in third cycle river basin
management plan (2022-2027) i.e. Water Action Plan 2024 - A River Basin Management Plan for
Ireland.
There are appropriately designed mitigation measures which will be implemented during the
construction phase to protect the hydrological environment. There is a potential of accidental
discharges during the construction phase, however these are temporary short-lived events that will
not impact on the water status of waterbodies permanent and as such will not impact on trends in
water quality and over all status assessment.
The residual effect on Water Framework Directive Status during the operation phase is considered to
be neutral, imperceptible and long-term.
10.10.2.2 Gas Grid Connection
There is no interaction of the gas grid connection to the hydrological environment. Hence, there are
no residual effects.
10.10.3 Summary of Post-mitigation Effects
The implementation of mitigation measures outlined in Section 6.10 will ensure that the potential
impacts on the hydrogeological and hydrological environment do not occur during the construction
and operational phases of the Proposed Development. Due to the inter-relationship between land,
soils, geology, hydrogeology and surface water the following impacts discussed will be considered
applicable to both Chapter 9 (Land, Soils and Geology) & Chapter 10 (Hydrology and Hydrogeology) of
the EIAR.
The following Table summarises the identified likely significant residual effects during the construction
phase of the Proposed Development following the application of mitigation measures.
Table 10-7 Summary of Construction Phase Effects Post Mitigation
Aspect Likely Significant
Effect
Quality Significance Extent Probability Duration Type
Biogas
Plant and
Gas Grid
Accidental Spills,
Leaks and
Discharges
Neutral Imperceptible Local Unlikely Short-Term Direct
Increased
Sediment Run Off
carrying Sediment
and Pollutants
Neutral Imperceptible Local Unlikely Short-Term Direct
Surface Water and
Groundwater
Contamination from
Construction
Neutral Imperceptible Local Unlikely Short-Term Direct RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-48
Aspect Likely Significant
Effect
Quality Significance Extent Probability Duration Type
Waste, Materials &
Chemicals
The following Table summarises the identified likely residual significant effects during the operational
phase of the Proposed Development post mitigation.
Table 10-8 Summary of Operational Phase Effects Post Mitigation
Aspect Likely
Significant
Effect
Quality Significance Extent Probability Duration Type
Biogas
Plant
Accidental
Spills, Leaks
and
Discharges
Neutral Imperceptible Local Unlikely Long-Term Direct
Increased
Sediment Run
Off operation
phase carrying
Sediment and
Pollutants into
surface water
drainage and
groundwater.
Neutral Imperceptible Local Unlikely Long-Term
Gas Grid No impact NA NA NA NA NA NA
10.10.4 Cumulative Residual Effects
There are existing residential and commercial developments close by, along with the multiple
permissions remaining in place in the area. Multiple developments in the area could potentially be
developed concurrently or overlap during the construction and operational phases.
10.10.4.1 Construction Phase
The implementation of mitigation measures outlined in Section 10.9.1.2 and the mitigation measures
which will be implemented by other approved Proposed Developments will ensure the residual
cumulative effect on the hydrological and hydrogeological environment during the construction phase
detailed in Section 10.8.1 will be short-term-imperceptible-neutral.
Following the TII criteria for rating the magnitude and significance of impacts on the geological related
attributes, the magnitude of impact is considered negligible.
10.10.4.2 Operational Phase
The implementation of mitigation measures highlighted in Section 10.9.1.3 and the mitigation
measures which will be implemented by other approved Proposed Developments will ensure that the
potential effects detailed in Section 10.8.2 on the hydrological and hydrogeological environment do RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-49
not occur during the operational phase and that the residual effect will be long-term-imperceptible-
neutral.
Following the TII criteria (Appendix 9.1) for rating the magnitude and significance of impacts on the
geological attributes, the magnitude of impact is considered negligible.
10.11 Risk of Major Accidents or Disasters
The vulnerability of the Proposed Development to major accidents or disasters with potential impacts
on surface water and groundwater has been considered. There are no likely risks of major accidents
and disasters in relation to water quality associated with the proposed development. The risk
assessment for the operational phase of the development presented in Chapter 16 (Major Accidents
and Disasters) assessed the potential for impact to surface water and groundwater from a major spill
of organic material (e.g. due to failure of a digester tank). This assessment concluded that
containment systems on site (e.g. tank farm bund) have been designed to manage worst-case credible
events, and any potential major spills would be contained.
Other potential risks identified include accidental spillages of fuels, oils, or chemicals during
construction or operation, and extreme flood events that could mobilise contaminants. The likelihood
of such events is considered low since no flooding has been identified within the vicinity of the site.
The surface water drainage strategy utilises SuDS measures which will ensure contaminated water is
not discharged off site prior to treatment.
10.12 Worst Case Scenario
In a worst-case scenario, if the mitigation measures are not fully implemented, there is a potential for
adverse effects on surface water and groundwater particularly during construction phases of the
Proposed Development i.e. prior to design measures being in place.
This could happen through a hydrocarbon leak form a construction vehicle/ oil tank and/or run-off
with silt laden water to adjacent ditches.
Even under this worst-case scenario, any impacts would be temporary and short-lived with a local
impact on water quality in drainage ditches only due to the likely volume of a release and the drainage
patter of interconnected drainage resulting in natural attenuation and dilution. There would be no
potential for impact on an SAC or PNHA with no permanent degradation predicted for local water
body status of the Coolkill Lough, Rockcorry Streams, Dromore River. There is no potential for impact
on or the underlying Cavan groundwater body (GWB due to the natural soil cover present protecting
the underlying aquifer. This approach ensures compliance with the Water Framework Directive and
aligns with the residual impact assessment presented in Section 10.10.
10.13 Interactions
Please refer to Chapter 18. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-50
10.14 Monitoring
10.14.1 Construction Stage
During construction phase the following monitoring measures will be considered for the Renewable
Biogas site and the gas grid connection:
• Weekly checks will be carried out to ensure surface water drains are not blocked by silt, or
other items, and that all storage is located at least 10 m from surface water receptors.
• Regular inspection of surface water run-off and sediments controls will be implemented
throughout the construction phase and full adherence to the Outline Construction
Environmental Plan and Soil and Surface Water Management Plan will be maintained.
• Runoff diversion channels/bunds need regular maintenance to keep functioning throughout
their life.
• Soil sampling to confirm disposal options for excavated soils in order to avoid contaminated
run-off; and
• Regular inspection of construction / mitigation measures (e.g., concrete pouring, refuelling,
etc).
• Monitoring will be adopted to ensure that the water is of sufficient quality to discharge to the
stormwater network.
10.14.2 Operational Stage
10.14.2.1 Renewable Biogas Site
During operational phase the following monitoring measures will be considered.
• Oil separators will be maintained and cleaned out in accordance with the manufacturer’s
instructions.
• Maintenance of the surface water drainage system, On site surface water treatment system
and foul treatment system is recommended to minimise any accidental discharges to surface
water.
10.14.2.2 Gas Grid Connection
There is no interaction identified with the hydrological environment during the operation phase. No
monitoring is required.
10.15 Summary of Mitigation and Monitoring
The following Table summarises the Construction Phase mitigation and monitoring measures.
Table 10-9 Summary of Construction Phase Mitigation and Monitoring
Aspect Likely Significant Effect Mitigation Monitoring
Biogas Plant and Gas
Grid
Accidental Spills, Leaks
and Discharges
Regular inspection of
surface water run-off and
Continuous implementation
of the mitigation measures RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-51
Aspect Likely Significant Effect Mitigation Monitoring
sediments controls (e.g., silt
traps).
Inspection and maintenance
of the silt fences.
Runoff diversion
channels/bunds need
regular maintenance to
keep functioning throughout
their life.
Soil sampling to confirm
disposal options for
excavated soils in order to
avoid contaminated run-off.
Regular inspection of
construction / mitigation
measures (e.g., concrete
pouring, refuelling, etc).
Monitoring will be adopted
to ensure that the water is of
sufficient quality to
discharge to the stormwater
network.
Full adherence to and
implementation of the
CEMP / SSWMP.
outlined in the EIAR in
accordance with best
practice guidelines
throughout the course of
the construction phase of
the Proposed Development.
Soil Erosion & Compaction Regular inspection of
surface water run-off and
sediments controls (e.g., silt
traps).
Inspection and maintenance
of the silt fences.
Runoff diversion
channels/bunds need
regular maintenance to
keep functioning throughout
their life.
Soil sampling to confirm
disposal options for
excavated soils in order to
avoid contaminated run-off.
Regular inspection of
construction / mitigation
measures (e.g., concrete
pouring, refuelling, etc).
Monitoring will be adopted
to ensure that the water is of
sufficient quality to
Continuous implementation
of the mitigation measures
outlined in the EIAR in
accordance with best
practice guidelines
throughout the course of
the construction phase of
the Proposed Development. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-52
Aspect Likely Significant Effect Mitigation Monitoring
discharge to the stormwater
network.
Full adherence to and
implementation of the
CEMP / SSWMP.
Increased Sediment Run
Off carrying Sediment and
Pollutants
Regular inspection of
surface water run-off and
sediments controls (e.g., silt
traps).
Inspection and maintenance
of the silt fences.
Runoff diversion
channels/bunds need
regular maintenance to
keep functioning throughout
their life.
Soil sampling to confirm
disposal options for
excavated soils in order to
avoid contaminated run-off.
Regular inspection of
construction / mitigation
measures (e.g., concrete
pouring, refuelling, etc).
Monitoring will be adopted
to ensure that the water is of
sufficient quality to
discharge to the stormwater
network.
Full adherence to and
implementation of the
CEMP / SSWMP.
Continuous implementation
of the mitigation measures
outlined in the EIAR in
accordance with best
practice guidelines
throughout the course of
the construction phase of
the Proposed Development.
Surface Water and
Groundwater
Contamination from
Construction Waste,
Materials & Chemicals
Regular inspection of
surface water run-off and
sediments controls (e.g., silt
traps).
Inspection and maintenance
of the silt fences.
Runoff diversion
channels/bunds need
regular maintenance to
keep functioning throughout
their life.
Soil sampling to confirm
disposal options for
excavated soils in order to
avoid contaminated run-off.
Continuous implementation
of the mitigation measures
outlined in the EIAR in
accordance with best
practice guidelines
throughout the course of
the construction phase of
the Proposed Development. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-53
Aspect Likely Significant Effect Mitigation Monitoring
Regular inspection of
construction / mitigation
measures (e.g., concrete
pouring, refuelling, etc).
Monitoring will be adopted
to ensure that the water is of
sufficient quality to
discharge to the stormwater
network.
Full adherence to and
implementation of the
CEMP / SSWMP.
The following Table summarises the Operational Phase mitigation and monitoring measures.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-54
Table 10-10 Summary of Operational Phase Mitigation and Monitoring
Aspect Likely Significant Effect Mitigation Monitoring
Biogas Plant Accidental Spills, Leaks and
Discharges
Implementation of a number of
Sustainable Urban Drainage
Systems (SuDS) measures
such as , rainwater harvesting
and attenuation systems.
Regular inspection of surface
water run-off and sediments
controls (e.g., silt traps).
Runoff diversion
channels/bunds need regular
maintenance to keep
functioning throughout their life.
Monitoring will be adopted to
ensure that the water is of
sufficient quality to discharge to
the stormwater network.
Full adherence to and
implementation of the SSWMP.
Continuous implementation
of the mitigation measures
outlined in the EIAR in
accordance with best
practice guidelines
throughout the course of
the operational phase of the
Proposed Development.
Routine inspection and
maintenance of the
operational surface water
drainage and treatment
systems in accordance with
the manufacturer's
requirements and
applicable operational/IE
Licence requirements.
Surface Water discharge to
Surface and Ground
Waterbodies carrying
Potential Contaminants /
Pollutants
Implementation of a number of
Sustainable Urban Drainage
Systems (SuDS) measures
such as, rainwater harvesting
and attenuation systems.
Regular inspection of surface
water run-off and sediments
controls (e.g., silt traps).
Runoff diversion
channels/bunds need regular
maintenance to keep
functioning throughout their life.
Monitoring will be adopted to
ensure that the water is of
sufficient quality to discharge to
the stormwater network.
Full adherence to and
implementation of the SSWMP.
Continuous implementation
of the mitigation measures
outlined in the EIAR in
accordance with best
practice guidelines
throughout the course of
the operational phase of the
Proposed Development.
Routine inspection and
maintenance of the
operational surface water
drainage and treatment
systems in accordance with
the manufacturer's
requirements and
applicable operational/IE
Licence requirements.
Gas Grid No impact Not Required Not Required RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-55
10.16 Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed and analysed the potential and the predicted impacts of the Proposed
Development on the Hydrogeological and hydrological environment (Hydrology and Hydrogeology).
Section 10.6 highlights the baseline environment of the Proposed Development site.
• The chapter has established an indirect hydrological connection from the Proposed
Development to the Coolkill Lough stream, the rockcorry stream, Drumgole lough and the
Dromore river.
• There is an indirect connection to the Drumgole pNHA (hydrological distance c. 9km) and the
Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC (linear distance c 14km).
• The underlying aquifer is classified is Poor Aquifer (PI), i.e. Bedrock which is Generally
Unproductive except for Local Zones.
• The vulnerability is classified as low across the site.
• The maximum depth of excavation is 14m.
• CEMP will be implemented during construction stage to ensure protection of hydrological
hydrogeological environment in compliance with Water framework directive and EPA
guidance.
• Majority of storm water will be collected and reutilised in AD process and storm water will be
treated on site prior to discharge.
• SSWMP will be implemented for the protection of any receiving water courses.
• The proposed monitoring and maintenance will ensure long-term effectiveness of the water
management measures, supporting the sustainability and integrity of the facility over its
operational life.
These effects have been considered for the construction and operational phases in section 10.8 of the
Proposed Development. The cumulative impact of the Proposed Development and surrounding
developments have also been considered.
Provided all mitigation measures set out in section 10.9 in this chapter are adhered to in full
throughout all phases, the overall predicted impact of the Proposed Development is long-term,
imperceptible and neutral.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 10-56
10.17 References and Sources
• CIRIA (2001). Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites, Guidance for Consultants
and Contractors.
• CIRIA (2005). Environmental Good Practice on Site (C650).
• CIRIA (2007). CIRIA 697: The SUDS Manual.
• Department of Housing, Planning & Local Government (2018). River Basin Management Plan
for Ireland 2018 – 2021.
• Water Action Plan 2024 - A River Basin Management Plan for Ireland, (Department of Housing
Local Government & Heritage, Sept 2024).
• Eastern Regional Fisheries Board (2006). Fisheries Protection Guidelines: Requirements for the
Protection of Fisheries Habitat during Construction and Development Works at River Sites.
• Enterprise Ireland (n.d.). Best Practice Guide BPGCS005: Oil Storage Guidelines.
• EPA (2023a). Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact
Assessment Reports.
• EPA (2025). EPA Maps.
• GSI (2025). GSI Map Viewer.
• Institute of Geologists of Ireland (2013). Guidelines for the Preparation of Soils, Geology and
Hydrogeology Chapters of Environmental Impact Statements.
• NPWS (2025). Designations Viewer.
• NRA (2009). Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology
and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes.
• OPW (2025). Flood Maps.
• OPW (2009). The Planning System and Flood Risk Management: Guidelines for Planning
Authorities.
• Teagasc (2025). Teagasc Map Viewer.
• National Roads Authority (NRA) (2009). Guidelines on Procedures for the Assessment and
Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes.
• Engineering service Report (McAdam, 2025)
• Ordinance Survey of Ireland (2024) GeoHive online mapping
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
VOLUME II
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
CHAPTER 11
BIODIVERSITY
AUGUST 2026
Stream BioEnergy Ireland Limited RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-1
Table of Contents
11 Biodiversity ............................................................................................................................ 11-1
11.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.1.1 Expertise & Qualifications ..................................................................................................... 11-2
11.1.2 Proposed Project ................................................................................................................... 11-2
11.1.3 Aspects Relevant to this Assessment .................................................................................... 11-4
11.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 11-4
11.2.1 Relevant Legislation & Guidance .......................................................................................... 11-4
11.2.2 Zone of Influence .................................................................................................................. 11-5
11.2.3 Desktop Review ..................................................................................................................... 11-6
11.2.4 Field Study ............................................................................................................................. 11-7
11.2.5 Data Analysis and Impact Assessment .................................................................................. 11-7
11.2.6 Additional Survey Context..................................................................................................... 11-8
11.2.7 Mammals (non-volant) .......................................................................................................... 11-9
11.2.8 Bats ........................................................................................................................................ 11-9
11.2.9 Birds/Avifauna ..................................................................................................................... 11-10
11.2.10 Other Taxa ........................................................................................................................... 11-11
11.2.11 Ecological Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................................. 11-11
11.2.12 Impact Assessment Criteria................................................................................................. 11-13
11.2.13 Impact Significance ............................................................................................................. 11-14
11.2.14 Connectivity Analysis .......................................................................................................... 11-16
11.3 Baseline Environment ......................................................................................................... 11-18
11.3.1 Topography & Drainage ...................................................................................................... 11-20
11.3.2 Designated Sites .................................................................................................................. 11-22
11.3.3 Habitats and Flora ............................................................................................................... 11-24
11.3.4 Fauna ................................................................................................................................... 11-31
11.3.5 Site Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 11-36
11.4 The ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario .................................................................................................. 11-38
11.5 Potential Significant Effects ................................................................................................ 11-39
11.5.1 Potential Impacts on Flora and Habitats ............................................................................. 11-40
11.5.2 Potential impacts on Fauna................................................................................................. 11-41
11.5.3 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 11-46
11.5.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 11-58
11.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................... 11-59
11.6.1 Incorporated Design Phase Mitigation ............................................................................... 11-60
11.6.2 Construction Phase Mitigation ............................................................................................ 11-61 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-2
11.6.3 Operational Phase Mitigation ............................................................................................. 11-63
11.7 Residual Impact Assessment ............................................................................................... 11-63
11.8 Risk of Major Accidents or Disasters ................................................................................... 11-69
11.9 Worst Case Scenario ........................................................................................................... 11-70
11.10 Interactions ......................................................................................................................... 11-70
11.11 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 11-70
11.12 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 11-71
11.13 References and Sources ...................................................................................................... 11-73
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-3
Table of Figures
Figure 11-1: Hydrological Connectivity with Designated Sites ........................................................ 11-17
Figure 11-2: Proposed Development Site ....................................................................................... 11-18
Figure 11-3: Proposed Development Site and the Gas Pipeline Route ........................................... 11-19
Figure 11-4: Land Drains & Flow Direction within the Redline Boundary ....................................... 11-22
Figure 11-5: Habitats Recorded within the Redline Boundary ........................................................ 11-26
Figure 11-6: Habitats identified along the northern section of the Gas Pipeline Route ...................... 29
Figure 11-7: Habitats identified along the southern section of the Gas Pipeline ............................ 11-30
Table of Tables
Table 11-1: Surveys completed along with Qualifications of the Surveyor ....................................... 11-2
Table 11-2 Ecological Evaluation Scheme (Adapted from TII, 2009, per CIEEM, 2024) .................. 11-12
Table 11-3: Characteristics used in Describing Impacts on Ecosystem Structure and Function ..... 11-13
Table 11-4: Criteria for Assessing Impact Significance (adapted from TII, 2009) ........................... 11-15
Table 11-5: Plant Species Records within the H51X, H51Y and H51Z in the NBDC Dataset ............ 11-25
Table 11-6: Mammal (Non-Volant) records within the H51Y, H51X and H51Z in the NBDC dataset .. 11-
31
Table 11-7: Bat Suitability Index Surrounding the Proposed Development Site and Gas Pipeline . 11-31
Table 11-8: Bird species observed and recorded during the Phase 1 habitat survey site visit. ...... 11-33
Table 11-9: Target species recorded during winter bird survey ..................................................... 11-34
Table 11-10: Breeding Bird Target species recorded within the Proposed Development site ........ 11-35
Table 11-11: Habitat Evaluation....................................................................................................... 11-36
Table 11-12: Species Evaluation. ..................................................................................................... 11-37
Table 11-13: Impact Source – Pathway and ZoI for the Proposed Project ...................................... 11-39
Table 11-14: Planning Applications Assessed as part of the Cumulative Impact Assessment ........ 11-47
Table 11-15 Summary of Residual Effects – Biodiversity ................................................................. 11-68
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-1
11 Biodiversity
11.1 Introduction
This chapter assesses the potential ecological impacts of the Proposed Development and the
associated Project elements. The Proposed Development for which planning permission is sought
from Monaghan County Council comprises the renewable biogas facility and all associated on-site
infrastructure and the widening of a local road over approximately 200m and junction improvement
works. The wider Project also includes the off-site gas grid connection infrastructure, which is assessed
in this chapter as it forms an integral component of the overall scheme.
This chapter evaluates and assesses the likely significant effects on biodiversity (flora and fauna) and
potential impacts arising from all components of the Project. It proposes measures to avoid, minimise,
or offset adverse effects on biodiversity, where necessary. The objectives were to:
• Conduct a desktop review of ecological data for the study area (e.g., National Biodiversity Data
Centre (NBDC) 2025, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maps);
• Establish baseline ecological conditions through desk study and field survey;
• Evaluate the ecological value of identified ecological features (e.g., habitats, species);
• Assess potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed development on
biodiversity;
• Propose measures to avoid or reduce adverse ecological effects, where necessary;
• Recommend mitigation and enhancement measures where avoidance is not feasible; and
• Identify residual effects post-mitigation and any monitoring requirements.
The chapter characterises both positive and negative impacts on ecological features and, where
necessary, sets out appropriate and proportionate avoidance, mitigation, and compensation
measures. The significance of any residual effects, post-mitigation, has been assessed, and monitoring
requirements are identified to ensure effectiveness of these measures.
This chapter should be read in conjunction with the description of the project provided in Chapter 2
and should also be read with respect to the following chapters, due to common receptors and overlap
or relationship between the assessment of effects.
• Chapter 6 Material Assets – Traffic & Transport: potential disturbance or displacement of
fauna due to traffic movements;
• Chapter 9 Land & Soils: potential disturbance or displacement of fauna due to changes to
land and soils;
• Chapter 10 Water & Hydrology: potential disturbance or displacement of aquatic and
riparian fauna due to effects on water quality;
• Chapter 12 Noise & Vibration: potential disturbance or displacement of fauna due to noise
and vibration; and
• Chapter 13 Air Quality: potential effects of emissions and dust on habitats, flora, and fauna. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-2
11.1.1 Expertise & Qualifications
This chapter has been prepared by Anna Paula Moreira, Ecologist with Veon Ecology, who holds a B.Sc.
(Hons) in Environmental Science from the University of Galway. Anna has experience in ecological
impact assessment, habitat classification, protected species surveys, and the preparation of Ecological
Impact Assessments (EcIA), Appropriate Assessment (AA) Screening Reports, Natura Impact
Statements (NIS), and Biodiversity Management Plans (BMP) for a range of renewable energy and
infrastructure projects.
The chapter has been technically reviewed by Pascal McKenna, B.Sc. (Hons) Ecology and
Environmental Biology, MSIF, James Glackin, B.Sc. Environmental Science, ACIEEM, and Dr Amy Haigh,
PhD in Mammal Ecology, B.Sc. (Hons) Environmental Biology, MCIEEM, Head of Division for Veon
Ecology. The reviewers have extensive experience in ecological survey, habitat assessment, protected
species assessment, ecological impact assessment, and the preparation of Biodiversity Chapters for
Environmental Impact Assessment Reports (EIARs), Appropriate Assessment Screening Reports and
Natura Impact Statements.
The ecological field surveys undertaken in support of this assessment were completed by suitably
qualified and experienced ecologists with expertise in their respective disciplines. Details of the survey
personnel and their relevant qualifications are provided in Table 11-1.
Table 11-1: Surveys completed along with Qualifications of the Surveyor
Surveyor Survey Qualifications
Aine O’Sullivan • Breeding Birds
• Mammals
• Winter Birds
B.Sc. (Hons) in Ecology and
Environmental Biology University
College Cork (UCC), QCIEEM.
Dr Amy Haigh • Mammals B.Sc. (Hons) in Environmental Biology,
PhD in Mammal Ecology, UCC,
MCIEEM
Ilan Farrell • Breeding Birds
• Walkover Survey of the Gas
Pipeline Route
B.Sc. (Hons) in Wildlife Biology
Munster Technological University
Kerry
Pascal McKenna • Bats B.Sc. (Hons) in Ecology and
Environmental Biology; Member of the
Society of Irish Foresters (MSIF)
11.1.2 Proposed Project
The “proposed development” for which the Applicant seeks planning permission comprises the
development of a Renewable Biogas Plant and alterations to the local road to facilitate access.
The overall “project” subject to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) also includes the Linear Gas
Grid Connection, which forms part of the wider development but lies outside the planning application
boundary.
The following is a summary of the Proposed Project. Please refer to Chapter 2 of this EIAR for the
detailed description. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-3
11.1.2.1 Proposed development site
The project consists of the construction and operation of a Renewable Biogas Plant and associated
infrastructure. The principal elements of the plant comprise a main process building where the
feedstock for the anaerobic digestion (AD) process is received. An odour control system with a
dispersion stack will treat the air from the building. The feedstock passes to the AD tanks located
within a bunded tank farm. There is a combined heat and power (CHP) building within which gas fired
CHP engines will generate electricity for the plant's energy needs. A Biogas Upgrade and Treatment
Plant will be installed to produce biomethane (a renewable natural gas) that will be exported via a Gas
Grid Entry Unit to the national gas grid. A CO2 Liquefaction plant will be installed to capture the carbon
dioxide in the biogas, turning it into liquid CO₂. A Dryer Building is proposed, where the digestate will
be dried, and a Pellet Hall will be constructed, where the digestate pellets will be stored prior to
removal from the site for use as a natural fertiliser product. Ancillary elements include a gas dome,
tanks to store incoming liquid feedstock, freshwater, firewater, and fuel, a backup gas flare, a backup
generator, a plant building, and a control building. Widening of the local road, berms, a new site
entrance, weighbridges, wheel washes, parking, lighting and all ancillary development works and
services also form part of the development.
A high-level process flow follows.
11.1.2.2 Linear Gas Grid Connection
A gas transmission pipeline will provide a physical connection between the Renewable Biogas Plant
and the existing national gas network in Dromore West. Co. Monaghan. While the development of the
gas grid is not part of the planning application, as Gas Networks Ireland will deliver it, it is included in
the EIAR for assessment purposes, as it forms part of the overall project for the EIA Directive. The RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-4
works comprise the laying of an underground pipeline over approximately 3.5km within the public
road corridor.
11.1.3 Aspects Relevant to this Assessment
The aspects of the project that are relevant to this assessment include:
• Site clearance, habitat loss and vegetation removal;
• Surface water management and drainage;
• Emissions to air and dust generation;
• Materials management;
• Construction activities and temporary works;
• Traffic and access;
• Artificial lighting;
• Landscaping and habitat establishment; and
• Operational activities associated with the Renewable Biogas Plant.
11.2 Methodology
This chapter integrates desktop reviews and baseline field surveys, following the ‘Guidelines for
Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine’
(CIEEM, 2024). The methodology identifies ecological features (habitats, species, and ecosystems)
within the project’s Zone of Influence (ZoI), evaluates potential impacts, and informs mitigation
measures. It combines desktop data, standardised survey techniques, and consultation with ecological
datasets and planning documents, as detailed below.
Desk studies and appropriately timed field surveys established the ecological baseline of the site
through a Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Fossitt, 2000), mammal surveys (e.g., for badger [Meles meles] and
bats), and breeding bird/wintering bird surveys to identify habitats and protected species presence
within the area.
11.2.1 Relevant Legislation & Guidance
Ireland’s 4th National Biodiversity Action Plan (NBAP) 2023–2030, aligned with the Convention on
Biological Diversity, targets halting biodiversity loss, restoring ecosystems, and promoting sustainable
use by 2030. Enforced through the Planning and Development Acts 2000–2023 and the European
Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1989–2023 (as amended), the NBAP
mandates biodiversity considerations in development planning. Key legislative frameworks include:
• Wildlife Acts 1976–2023: These protect wildlife, prohibiting injury, disturbance, or damage to
breeding / resting sites of protected species such as badger and bats, which are material
considerations in planning decisions.
• Flora (Protection) Order 2021 (S.I. No. 235/2021): This prohibits damage to listed plant
species (e.g., vascular plants, bryophytes) and their habitats, applicable wherever such species
occur. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-5
• European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011–2021 (S.I. No.
477/2011, as amended): These transpose EU Directives 2009/147/EC (Birds) and 92/43/EEC
(Habitats), safeguarding Annex I habitats, Annex I/II/IV species, and Natura 2000 sites (SACs
and SPAs). Article 27(4)(b) obliges public authorities to prevent habitat deterioration or
species disturbance. Under Article 42(1) of the European Communities (Birds and Natural
Habitats) Regulations 2011, AA screening evaluates significant effects on European sites. If
significant effects cannot be excluded, a full AA and Natura Impact Statement (NIS) are
required (Article 42(9)). The AA Screening (Veon Ecology, 2026), submitted with the
application under separate cover, concluded that the Proposed Project, either alone or in
combination with other plans or projects, would not give rise to likely significant effects on
any European Site.
• At a national level, Designated and Proposed NHAs are protected under the Wildlife Acts and
planning policy, such as the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025 - 2031.
• The Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland (BoCCI) lists (Green, Amber and Red), which
reflect the conservation status of bird populations in Ireland.
11.2.2 Zone of Influence
The ZoI for the proposed development and the associated gas pipeline was determined following the
‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal
and Marine’ (CIEEM, 2024), supplemented by the ‘Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of
National Road Schemes’ (TII, 2009). The ZoI delineates the spatial extent within which ecological
features (habitats, flora, and fauna) may be affected by the proposed development and gas pipeline’s
potential impact pathways, including direct habitat loss, noise, dust, light disturbance, and
hydrological changes.
11.2.2.1 Terrestrial Habitats and Species
The ZoI for terrestrial habitats and species encompasses the footprint of the proposed development
and the gas pipeline plus a 50 m buffer around the red line boundary and the gas pipeline. This buffer
accounts for adjacent habitats (e.g., hedgerows [WL1], treelines [WL2]) and species usage (e.g.,
foraging bats, breeding birds), capturing potential indirect effects such as noise, dust, and light
disturbance during construction and operation. The 50 m extent was considered appropriate having
regard to the scale of the Proposed Project, surrounding land uses and the ecological receptors
present.
11.2.2.2 Hydrological and Aquatic Features
Hydrological linkages were assessed using a precautionary approach, consistent with TII (2009) and
CIEEM (2024) guidelines. The ZoI for surface water impacts includes the Proposed Development site
’s drainage pathways and extends downstream along receiving watercourses (e.g., Coolkill Lough
Stream to the east). The Proposed Development site does have an indirect hydrological connection to
the Drumgole pNHA and Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC (000007). This SAC forms part of
a larger SAC network, whereby it connects with Upper Lough Erne SAC (UK0016614). Lough Oughter
and Associated Loughs SAC and any connected waterbodies have been assessed as part of this
chapter, however, the hydrological pathway is sufficiently long that no likely significant effects on RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-6
downstream designated sites are predicted (See Appendix 10-3). Based on this, the wider hydrological
system downstream is reasonably concluded to be outside the ZoI for this project.
Groundwater movement was considered for groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems (e.g.,
wet grassland) within 250 m of the site and the Gas Pipeline, informed by local hydrogeological data
from the Geological Survey Ireland (GSI). According to the GSI (2025), the bedrock aquifer underlying
the Proposed Development site and Gas Grid is classified as a Poor Aquifer (PI) and the aquifer
vulnerability is assessed as ‘low’ (See Chapter 10: Water (Hydrology & Hydrogeology) and Appendix
10-3 for further details). Aquatic species (e.g., otter [Lutra lutra], fish) were evaluated within this
downstream ZoI, with impact significance varying based on water quality sensitivity and potential
effects (e.g., siltation, nutrient runoff).
11.2.3 Desktop Review
A comprehensive desktop study established the ecological baseline and identified potential receptors
within the ZoI of the proposed development. The following sources were consulted:
• National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS): Identification of European sites (SACs, SPAs),
national sites (NHAs, pNHAs), and locally important ecological features within the ZoI,
assessing potential source-pathway-receptor (S-P-R) links (e.g., hydrological connectivity via
Coolkill Lough Stream). Online mapping and data on protected sites (SACs, SPAs, NHAs, and
pNHAs) extended to 23 km to capture hydrologically connected sites. Site synopses, Natura
2000 data forms, and Conservation Objectives for European sites, accessed via https:
//www.npws.ie/protected-sites.
• National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC): Species and habitat data, including Qualifying
Interests (QIs), Special Conservation Interests (SCIs), and Invasive Alien Species (IAS) within
the 10 km grid square H51 (e.g., bats, badgers, birds) and Invasive Alien Species (IAS) listings.
Post-July 2024, data were reviewed to incorporate the European Union (Invasive Alien Species)
Regulations 2024 (S.I. No. 374/2024), enacted July 2024, updating IAS of Union and National
Concern (First and Third Schedules) per EU Regulation 1143/2014. Accessed via
https://maps.biodiversityireland.ie.
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Water quality data for the Dromore Catchment (ID
6), DROMORE_070 sub-basin (IE_NW_36D020700), and flood risk mapping. Accessed via
https://gis.epa.ie/EPAMaps.
• Planning Documents: Supporting drawings and reports that accompany the planning
application were reviewed for ecological implications.
o With a specific focus on the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Appendix 10-3)
prepared by AWN.
• Additional Resources: Ordnance Survey Ireland (OSI) mapping, aerial photography, and GSI
data on topography (drumlin landscape) and soils (gley soils) to characterise non-designated
habitats (e.g., hedgerows, treelines, grassland) and site topography (drumlin landscape, gley
soils).
Information obtained during the course of a desk study is dependent upon people and organisations
having made and submitted records for the area of interest. As such, a lack of records for a particular
habitat or species does not necessarily mean that the habitat or species do not occur in the study area. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-7
Likewise, the presence of records for particular habitats and species does not automatically mean that
these still occur within the area of interest or are relevant in the context of the proposed development.
An ecological survey represents a ‘snapshot’ in time of the ecological condition of a site. The ecological
character of a site can change substantially throughout both the course of a year, and from year to
year impacting on the extent and quality of habitats potential to support protected species.
11.2.4 Field Study
Baseline field surveys were conducted July 2024 to September 2025 under suitable weather conditions
(dry, mild) within the optimal survey season. Surveys employed standardised methodologies to assess
the site:
• Habitat Survey: A Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Fossitt, 2000) mapped habitats occurred within the
Proposed Development site during 15–16 July, 20–21 August 2024—including improved
agricultural grassland (GA1), hedgerows (WL1), treelines (WL2), and drainage ditches (FW4)
within the redline boundary. Habitat surveys were also completed along the Gas Pipeline
route during the 11th June 2025 which had identified habitats located along the road corridor.
• Bird (Breeding and Wintering) Survey: Walkover surveys assessed breeding and foraging
activity, targeting Annex I species (EU Birds Directive 2009/147/EC) and red/amber-listed
species (Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland 2020–2026). Two visits captured late
summer activity (e.g., Meadow Pipit [Anthus pratensis]). Moreover, a wintering bird survey
was conducted on the Proposed Development site monthly and inspected the behaviour of
the wintering bird species (i.e. feeding or flying over). These surveys also focused on target
species which included Annex I species (EU Birds Directive 2009/147/EC) and red/amber-listed
species (Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland 2020–2026).
• Mammal Survey: Visual searches identified signs of badger (Meles meles) activity (e.g., setts,
latrines, paths) and assessed bat habitat suitability (Collins, 2016) in hedgerows and treelines.
• Bat Surveys: Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines 4th edition
(Colin., 2024) informed the potential bat roost assessments and the bat activity surveys.
Survey timing aligned with ecological cycles, including the breeding bird season (March–August) and
year-round badger activity, per CIEEM (2024). References for identification and nomenclature
included:
• Habitats: Fossitt, J. (2000). A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council.
• Plants: Parnell, J., & Curtis, T. (2012). Webb’s An Irish Flora (updated from Webb et al., 1996).
• Mammals: Hayden, T., & Harrington, R. (2000). Exploring Irish Mammals. Town House.
• Birds: Cleave, A. (2021). Birds of Ireland: A Field Guide (updated from 1995).
• Invasive Species: European Union (Invasive Alien Species) Regulations 2024 (S.I. No.
374/2024), First and Third Schedules; European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats)
Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 477/2011), Third Schedule.
11.2.5 Data Analysis and Impact Assessment
Desktop and field data were analysed to identify Important Ecological Features (IEFs) per CIEEM
(2024), encompassing protected sites, habitats, and species under: RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-8
• EU Directives: Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and Birds Directive (2009/147/EC).
• National Legislation: Wildlife Acts 1976–2023, Flora (Protection) Order 2021 (S.I. No.
235/2021), and European Union (Invasive Alien Species) Regulations 2024 (S.I. No.
374/2024)—enacted July 2024, supplementing S.I. No. 477/2011 with First Schedule IAS of
National Concern.
The impact assessment follows CIEEM (2024) methodology, supplemented by Transport Infrastructure
Ireland (TII) criteria (Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes, TII,
2009), evaluating:
• Direct Effects: e.g., habitat loss within the Proposed Development site.
• Indirect Effects: e.g., disturbance from light, noise, runoff etc. beyond the Proposed
Development site boundary.
• Cumulative Effects: e.g., combined impacts with nearby agricultural activities or
developments within the ZoI.
Impacts are characterised by magnitude, extent, duration, reversibility, and significance, with
mitigation measures proposed to avoid, reduce, or offset significant effects.
11.2.6 Additional Survey Context
Historical field surveys in the vicinity by Wildlife Surveys Ireland (date unspecified) followed Ecological
Survey Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna (NRA, 2009) and Best Practice Guidance for Habitat
Survey and Mapping (Heritage Council, 2011). These provided supplementary baseline data, though
the assessment primarily relies on 2024 and 2025 surveys conducted by Veon Ecology. The subsections
below detail specific survey methodologies for key ecological receptors within the ZoI of the proposed
development.
11.2.6.1 Flora and Habitats
This subsection outlines the methodology for assessing flora and habitats within the Zol of the
proposed development.
11.2.6.1.1 Desktop Review
Botanical baseline data were reviewed, consulting the NBDC and Botanical Society of Britain and
Ireland (BSBI) databases for rare or protected species within the three-no. 2 km² grid square H51X
H51Y and H51Z. Records were cross-referenced with the Irish Red Data Book for Vascular Plants (Wyse
Jackson et al., 2016), Flora (Protection) Order 2021 (S.I. No. 235/2021), and Annex I habitats/Annex II
species of the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC).
11.2.6.1.2 Field Surveys
Surveys occurred on 15–16 July, 20–21 August 2024 and 11 June 2025, within the optimal period
(April–September), under dry, mild conditions. Methods followed Best Practice Guidance for Habitat
Survey and Mapping (Smith et al., 2011):
• Habitat Classification: A Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Fossitt, 2000) classified habitats within the
red line boundary to Level 3 (e.g., GA1: improved agricultural grassland, WL1: hedgerows, RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-9
WL2: treelines, FW4: drainage ditches). Dominant species and abundance were recorded via
the DAFOR scale (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional, Rare).
• Invasive Species: Surveys targeted IAS listed in the Third Schedule of S.I. No. 477/2011 and
the First and Third Schedules of S.I. No. 374/2024, per Regulation 17 requirements.
11.2.7 Mammals (non-volant)
This subsection details the field survey methodology for non-volant mammals (e.g., badger, otter)
within the Zol of the proposed development.
11.2.7.1 Desktop Review
Mammal data were reviewed, consulting the NBDC database for records within the three-no. 2 km²
grid square H51X, H51Y and H51Z.
11.2.7.2 Field Surveys
Surveys occurred on 15–16 July, 20–21 August 2024 and 11 June 2025, under dry, mild conditions,
following Exploring Irish Mammals (Hayden & Harrington, 2000) and CIEEM (2024):
• Walkover Survey: A systematic walkover of the site and adjacent areas (within 50 m, where
accessible) searched for signs (e.g., tracks, scat, spraints, setts, latrines).
• Trail Cameras: Two Bushnell trail cameras were deployed at hedgerow-treeline intersections
for 48 hours per visit (15–16 July, 20–21 August), targeting nocturnal activity (e.g., badger
[Meles meles], otter [Lutra lutra]).
• Supplementary Data: Historical Wildlife Surveys Ireland data provided context, though
undated.
Target species included those protected under the Wildlife Acts 1976–2023 and Annex II/IV of the EU
Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), prioritising badger and otter due to habitat suitability (hedgerows,
proximity to Coolkill Lough Stream).
11.2.8 Bats
This subsection outlines the field survey methodology for assessing bat presence and habitat
suitability within the Zol of the proposed development.
11.2.8.1 Desktop Review
Bat data were reviewed, consulting the NBDC database for records within the 2 km² grid square H51X,
H51Y and H51Z. Moreover, a review of the NBDC’s ‘Model of Bat Landscapes for Ireland was consulted
to receive greater insight. This tool assesses the relative importance of landscape and habitat
associations for bat species across Ireland (Lundy, Montogomery, Roche, & Aughney, 2011). This
model further evaluates the landscape resource value for bats within the corresponding national grid
square overlapping the Investigation Works site. The scores are divided into 5 no. qualitative
categories of suitability, namely:
• 13.000000: Low
• 13.000001 - 21.333300: Low – Medium RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-10
• 21.333301 - 28.111099: Medium
• 28.111100 - 36.444401: Medium – High
• 36.444402 - 58.555599: High
11.2.8.2 Field Surveys
Surveys occurred on 15–16 July and 20–21 August 2024, under suitable conditions (dry, mild, >10°C),
within the optimal season (April–September), following Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good
Practice Guidelines (Collins, 2016):
• Visual Roost Assessments (VRAs): A daylight walkover (08:00–11:00) inspected trees within
the site and adjacent areas (within 50 m, where accessible) for Potential Roost Features (PRFs)
using binoculars, PRFs (e.g., rot holes, cracks, ivy >50 mm stem diameter) and signs (e.g.,
droppings, staining) were recorded.
• Acoustic Monitoring: Elekon Batlogger M detectors recorded calls during dusk transects
(21:00–23:00) along two 500 m linear routes (hedgerows, treelines). Calls were analysed with
BatExplorer software to identify species (e.g., Pipistrellus spp., Myotis spp.).
No buildings or structures were present, so surveys focused on trees and linear features.
11.2.9 Birds/Avifauna
This subsection outlines the methodology for assessing bird species within the Zol of the proposed
development.
11.2.9.1 Desktop Review
Bird data were reviewed, consulting the NBDC database for records within the 10 km² grid square H51.
Conservation statuses were assessed using Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland 2020–2026
(Gilbert et al., 2021), screening for Annex I species under the EU Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and
SPA qualifying species (e.g., Whooper Swan [Cygnus cygnus] from Upper Lough Erne SPA).
11.2.9.2 Field Surveys
Wintering bird surveys occurred one day every month from October 2024 to February 2025 and
breeding bird surveys were conducted one day every month between March 2025 to September 2025.
These surveys were completed under suitable conditions (dry, mild, within the breeding season
(March–August), following Bird Survey Techniques (Gilbert et al., 1998), CIEEM (2024), and NPWS
Guidance for Planning Authorities (DoEHLG, 2010):
• Vantage Point Surveys: A surveyor remained in a fixed position and identified any bird species
flying over or feeding within or adjacent to the redline boundary for both wintering and
breeding bird surveys. The vantage point survey lasted up to three hours.
• Transect Surveys: A walkover around and within the redline boundary was conducted. The
main purpose of this survey was to identify any bird species that could not be identified from
the vantage point location.
Data inform habitat use, population estimates, and identification of significant ecological features,
ensuring compliance with the EU Birds Directive (2009/147/EC). RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-11
11.2.10 Other Taxa
This subsection outlines the methodology for assessing other taxa (e.g., amphibians, invertebrates)
within the ZoI of the proposed development.
11.2.10.1 Desktop Review
Data on species of conservation interest were reviewed, consulting the NBDC database for records
within the 10 km² grid square H51. Conservation statuses were assessed using the Irish Red Data Book
for Vascular Plants (Wyse Jackson et al., 2016), Irish Red Data Book for Invertebrates (Regan et al.,
2010), and Irish Red Data Book for Amphibians, Reptiles and Freshwater Fish (King et al., 2011).
Screening targeted Annex II/IV species under the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), such as the
common frog (Rana temporaria) and smooth newt (Lissotriton vulgaris), alongside notable
invertebrates (e.g., marsh fritillary [Euphydryas aurinia]).
11.2.10.2 Field Surveys
Surveys were conducted on 15–16 July and 20–21 August 2024, concurrent with habitat, mammal,
and bird surveys, under suitable conditions (dry, mild, 12–15°C, within the optimal activity season
(April–September). Methods followed CIEEM (2024) and taxon-specific guidance:
• Amphibians: Visual Encounter Surveys (VES) searched potential habitats (e.g., dry drainage
ditches [FW4], hedgerows [WL1]) within the site and adjacent areas (within 50 m, where
accessible) for common frog (Rana temporaria) and smooth newt (Lissotriton vulgaris).
Surveys included checks for spawn, tadpoles, or adults, conducted from 08:00–11:00 using a
handheld torch in shaded areas. Identification followed Amphibians and Reptiles of Britain
and Ireland (Inns, 2018).
• Invertebrates: Sweep netting (10 sweeps per habitat, targeting GA1: improved agricultural
grassland and WL1: hedgerows) and visual searches) recorded butterflies,
dragonflies/damselflies, and bees. Surveys occurred from 10:00–12:00 under dry, calm
conditions (>12°C, no rain). Species were identified in-field using Field Guide to the Butterflies
of Britain and Ireland (Lewington, 2020) and Field Guide to the Dragonflies and Damselflies of
Great Britain and Ireland (Brooks & Lewington, 2018), with photographs taken for later
verification.
11.2.10.2.1 Survey Window Optimality
The July–August 2024 window aligns with peak post-breeding activity for amphibians (e.g., tadpoles,
juveniles dispersing) and adult flight periods for invertebrates (e.g., butterflies, bees), per Nelson et
al. (2011) and Regan et al. (2010). No permanent waterbodies are present on-site, limiting amphibian
breeding habitat; however, dry ditches were surveyed precautionarily for terrestrial phases.
Invertebrate surveys captured summer-active species (e.g., meadow brown [Maniola jurtina],
common carder bee [Bombus pascuorum]), though early-season species (e.g., spring-emerging bees
like Andrena spp.)
11.2.11 Ecological Evaluation Criteria
Ecological receptors (habitats, species, and ecosystems) within the project’s ZoI were evaluated in
accordance with the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-12
Freshwater, Coastal and Marine (CIEEM, 2024), the current industry standard for ecological
assessment. The Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes (TII, 2009)
provided supplementary guidance, adapted to suit this non-road project.
The ecological value of receptors was assessed based on their geographic frame of reference (e.g.,
international, national, county, local) within the ZoI. CIEEM (2024) criteria (biodiversity value, rarity,
naturalness, extent, connectivity, and conservation status) were tailored to site-specific features (e.g.,
agricultural grassland, hedgerows). Where applicable, TII (2009) criteria, such as the A–E site rating
scale, were adapted to align with CIEEM (2024) terminology (e.g., “International Importance” to
“Negligible”) and incorporated aquatic ecological components per Nairn & Fossitt (2004). The adapted
evaluation scheme is presented in Table 11-2.
Table 11-2 Ecological Evaluation Scheme (Adapted from TII, 2009, per CIEEM, 2024)
Rating Qualifying Criteria
A Internationally important
Sites designated (or qualifying for designation) as SAC or SPA under the EU Habitats or Birds
Directives. Undesignated sites containing good examples of Annex I priority habitats under the EU
Habitats Directive.
Major salmon river fisheries.
Major salmonid (salmon, trout or char) lake fisheries.
B Nationally important
Sites or waters designated or proposed as an NHA or statutory Nature Reserves.
Undesignated sites containing good examples of Annex I habitats (under EU Habitats Directive).
Undesignated sites containing significant numbers of resident or regularly occurring populations of
Annex II species under the EU Habitats Directive or Annex I species under the EU Birds Directive or
species protected under the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000.
Major trout river fisheries.
Water bodies with major amenity fishery value.
Commercially important coarse fisheries.
C High value, locally important
Sites containing semi‐natural habitat types with high biodiversity in a local context and a high degree
of naturalness, or significant populations of locally rare species.
Small water bodies with known salmonid populations or with good potential salmonid habitat.
Sites containing any resident or regularly occurring populations of Annex II species under the EU
Habitats Directive or Annex I species under the EU Birds Directive.
Large water bodies with some coarse fisheries value.
D Moderate value, locally important
Sites containing some semi‐natural habitat or locally important for wildlife.
Small water bodies with some coarse fisheries value or some potential salmonid habitat.
Any water body with unpolluted water (Q‐value rating 4‐5).
E Low value, locally important
Artificial or highly modified habitats with low species diversity and low wildlife value.
Water bodies with no current fisheries value and no significant potential fisheries value. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-13
11.2.12 Impact Assessment Criteria
The impact assessment evaluates potential effects of the proposed development, on ecological
receptors (habitats, species, and ecosystems) within the ZoI. This assessment follows the CIEEM
Guidelines (2024), the current standard for EcIA. Supplementary guidance from the Guidelines for
Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes (TII, 2009) was adapted to align with
CIEEM (2024) terminology and principles, updating outdated terms (e.g., “severe negative” to
“significant negative”) to reflect best practice.
11.2.12.1 Impact Characteristics
Potential impacts on ecosystem structure and function are characterised using parameters defined in
the CIEEM guidelines (2024), which describe the nature, extent, magnitude, duration, frequency,
timing, reversibility, and significance of ecological effects. These parameters integrate the ecological
value of receptors with anticipated impacts from the proposed development, providing the
foundation for assessing significance (See Table 11-3).
Table 11-3: Characteristics used in Describing Impacts on Ecosystem Structure and Function
Characteristics Definition of Impact Characteristics1
Positive or negative Positive: Enhances environmental quality or supports conservation
objectives (e.g., habitat creation, increased biodiversity). Negative:
Reduces environmental quality or conflicts with conservation goals (e.g.,
habitat loss, pollution).
Extent The spatial area affected (e.g. grassland loss on-site; downstream
watercourses impacted by runoff).
Magnitude The size or intensity of the impact, in absolute terms (e.g., 2 ha of hedgerow
removed) or relative terms (e.g., 20% reduction in bat foraging habitat).
Duration The temporal scale: Short-term: <1 year (e.g., construction noise). Medium-
term: 1–5 years (e.g., runoff during site establishment). Long-term: >5 years
(e.g., permanent habitat alteration). Impacts may be permanent or
temporary, with ecological sensitivity considered (e.g., short-term
disturbance during bird breeding may have long-term effects).
Frequency and timing Frequency: How often the impact occurs (e.g., daily vehicle traffic vs.
occasional maintenance). Timing: Alignment with ecologically sensitive
periods (e.g., bird nesting season, bat activity peaks), which may amplify
significance.
Reversibility Reversible: Recovery is feasible naturally or via mitigation within a
reasonable timeframe (e.g., recolonization of disturbed grassland).
Irreversible: Recovery is not possible (e.g., loss of mature hedgerows).
Example: Siltation from earthworks may be reversible; loss of ancient soils
is not.
1 CIEEM (2018) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater,
Coastal and Marine version 1.1. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-14
Characteristics Definition of Impact Characteristics1
Cumulative impacts and effects Combined effects with other activities in the ZoI: Additive: Multiple minor
impacts accumulate (e.g., nutrient runoff from nearby farms). Synergistic:
Combined effects exceed the sum of individual impacts (e.g., noise and
habitat loss impacting bird breeding). Associated Projects: Impacts from
linked developments (e.g., future infrastructure) are assessed holistically.
Residual Impacts Impacts remaining after mitigation measures (e.g., SuDS, buffer zones, silt
traps) are implemented, evaluated for significance (e.g., minor post-
mitigation water quality effects).
11.2.13 Impact Significance
Impact significance is determined by combining receptor importance (Ratings A–E, Table 11-2) with
the scale and nature of effects characterised above. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-15
Table 11-4 categorises significance levels, ensuring a context-sensitive and proportionate assessment
compliant with CIEEM guidelines (2024).
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-16
Table 11-4: Criteria for Assessing Impact Significance (adapted from TII, 2009)
Category A Sites
(Internationally
important, e.g.,
SACs, SPAs)
B Sites
(Nationally
important, e.g.,
NHAs)
C Sites
(High value,
locally important,
e.g., species-rich
habitats)
D Sites
(Moderate value,
locally important,
e.g., common
woodlands)
E Sites
(Low value,
locally important,
e.g., improved
grassland)
Impact
Level
Significant
Negative
Any permanent
adverse impacts
on site integrity or
key features
Permanent
adverse impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Permanent
adverse impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Permanent
adverse impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Permanent
adverse impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Major
Negative
Temporary
adverse impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Permanent
adverse impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Permanent
adverse impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Permanent
adverse impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Permanent
adverse impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Moderate
negative
Temporary
adverse impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Temporary
adverse impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Temporary
adverse impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Temporary
adverse impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Temporary
adverse impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Minor
negative
No detectable
adverse impacts,
or very localized
temporary effects
Temporary
adverse impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Temporary
adverse impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Temporary
adverse impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Temporary
adverse impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Neutral No impacts on site
structure or
function
No impacts on site
structure or
function
No impacts on site
structure or
function
No impacts on site
structure or
function
No impacts, or
permanent
adverse impacts
on a very small
part (<10%) of the
site
Minor
positive
Temporary
beneficial impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Temporary
beneficial impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Temporary
beneficial impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Permanent
beneficial impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Permanent
beneficial impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Moderate
positive
Temporary
beneficial impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Temporary
beneficial impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Permanent
beneficial impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Permanent
beneficial impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Permanent
beneficial impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Major
positive
Permanent
beneficial impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Permanent
beneficial impacts
on a small part
(<50%) of the site
Permanent
beneficial impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Permanent
beneficial impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Permanent
beneficial impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Significant
Positive
Permanent
beneficial impacts
enhancing site
integrity or key
features
Permanent
beneficial impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Permanent
beneficial impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Permanent
beneficial impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site
Permanent
beneficial impacts
on a large part
(>50%) of the site RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-17
11.2.14 Connectivity Analysis
The Proposed Development site has no on-site surface waterbodies. The nearest mapped EPA Water
Framework Directive (WFD) river waterbody is the Coolkill Lough Stream (Waterbody Code
IE_NW_36D020700), located approximately 350 m north-east of the Proposed Development/395m
from the point of discharge. Although the mapped EPA river line commences at this location, field
surveys confirmed that upstream headwater channels and agricultural drainage ditches extend closer
to the Proposed Development. These drainage features are hydrologically connected to, and form part
of, the Coolkill Lough Stream catchment but are not separately represented within the EPA WFD
mapping.
The Proposed Development site is bounded by drainage ditches where they flow in a northerly
direction, feeding into a drainage ditch which flows in a west to eastern direction where it is
hydrologically connected with the Coolkill Lough Stream. As shown on Figure 11-1, designated sites
which share a hydrological connection to the Proposed Development site include the following:
• Drumgole Lough pNHA ((Site Code 001601) is located approximately 930 m north (as the crow
flies).
• The Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC (Site Code: 000007), located approximately
14.8 km south-west (as the crow flies) and shares an approximate 38 km hydrological
connection.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-18
Figure 11-1: Hydrological Connectivity with Designated Sites RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-19
11.3 Baseline Environment
The Proposed Development site lies approximately 4 km northwest of Cootehill, 11.2 km southeast of
Clones, and 17.5 km south of Monaghan Town. It is accessible via the R189 regional road.
Figure 11-2: Proposed Development Site
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-20
Figure 11-3: Proposed Development Site and the Gas Pipeline Route
As shown on Figure 11-2, the Proposed Development site spans approximately 6.2 hectares (ha) and
is located across two separate fields, which are predominantly covered by improved grassland (GA1)
and bordered by maintained hedgerows (WL1) with gorse (Ulex europaeus), hawthorn (Crataegus
monogyna), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), holly (Ilex aquifolium), and bramble (Rubus fructicosus agg.).
The actively grazed and cut for silage grassland features perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), Yorkshire
fog (Holcus lanatus), and weeds such as nettle (Urtica dioica), dock (Rumex obtusifolius), and creeping
buttercup (Ranunculus repens). RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-21
The fields are separated by an overgrown hedgerow, interspersed with a mix of tree species (WL2),
such as hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), holly (Ilex aquifolium), goat willow (Salix caprea), gorse
(Ulex europaeus) and beech (Fagus sylvatica). The site is bordered on three sides by maintained
hedgerow, with gated access from the adjacent public roads, which create disturbance in terms of
severance, noise, threat, etc, potentially limiting ecological value. These roads are:
• R189 which contains the eastern boundary of the Proposed Development site;
• L2280 Drumcall Road which contains the northern boundary of the Proposed Development
site; and
• L22802 (McKeever’s Road) which contains the western boundary of the Proposed
Development site.
Immediately south of the Proposed Development site is an adjacent farmyard/farmhouse and
residential property (classified as built land (BL3)) separated by ditches and hedgerow, interspersed
with a number of mature trees. The site forms part of an agri-business unit associated with this farm
and residential property, all forming part of the same overall land holding.
Given the topography and earthworks requirements of the Proposed Development, excavation will
generate surplus soil and stone. The earthworks model identifies approximately 98,420 m³ of
excavated material, of which approximately 79,900 m³ will be reused within the Renewable Biogas
Plant site for engineering fill, landscaping and screening berms. This results in a net surplus of
approximately 18,520 m³, conservatively rounded to approximately 18,600 m³ for environmental
assessment purposes. The surplus material will be removed from the site by suitably authorised
contractors for appropriate reuse, recovery or disposal at an appropriately authorised receiving facility
or facilities, as described in Chapter 2.
The wider area is generally characterised by farmland consisting of improved agricultural grassland
separated by hedgerows and interspersed with lakes, drumlin terrain, low-lying areas of poor
drainage, individual residences and farm properties and small woodland copses. Larger forestry
plantation can be found further to the east.
11.3.1 Topography & Drainage
The topography of the Proposed Development site slopes gradually from the adjacent local roads to
the northeast and west, then rises steeply towards a high point to the south (close to the adjacent
farm property). The highest elevation is in the south-west at 111.75m Above Ordnance Datum (mAOD)
and lowest elevation in the north-east at 90.00 mAOD.
The topographical data indicates natural drainage towards the north-east. As shown on Figure 11-4,
a land drain along the northern field boundary of the site conveys surface water runoff via a culvert
under the R189 into another land drain, which as mentioned previously is hydrologically connected
to, and form part of, the Coolkill Lough Stream catchment. Field observations confirmed that the
culvert outlet is perched, with the invert level raised above the bed level of the downstream ditch,
creating a vertical step between the culvert and the receiving channel. The combination of the
relatively small culvert diameter and the perched outlet substantially limits its function as a wildlife
passage. While small amphibians or other fauna may occasionally traverse the structure under RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-22
favourable conditions, it is not considered to provide effective connectivity for larger terrestrial or
semi-aquatic mammals, including otter (Lutra lutra), hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus), rabbit
(Oryctolagus cuniculus), fox (Vulpes vulpes), or badger (Meles meles). Consequently, the culvert is
considered to present a partial barrier to local wildlife movement along the drainage corridor.
The configuration of the culvert also creates a vertical discontinuity in the watercourse and is
considered likely to impede upstream fish passage. The relatively small culvert diameter, together
with the perched outlet and associated hydraulic conditions, substantially reduces the ability of fish
to access upstream habitats. Consequently, the culvert represents an existing barrier, or partial barrier
depending on flow conditions, to fish movement within the drainage network.
Notwithstanding the above, the upstream drainage ditch is a highly modified agricultural drain with
limited habitat suitability for fish. Accordingly, while the culvert is considered to represent an existing
constraint to fish passage, its ecological significance in terms of fisheries connectivity is considered to
be low.
There are no natural watercourses on the Proposed Development site. Drainage is provided by a series
of artificial agricultural drainage ditches which discharge to the Coolkill Lough Stream catchment.
Within the Proposed Development site, a number of land drains (FW4) are aligned along the eastern
and western field boundaries which largely separate these sites from the adjacent local road network.
A ditch also runs through the central hedgerow on the Proposed Development site, connecting with
the land drain aligned along the eastern field boundary. As such, all land drains convey field drainage
/ surface run-off to the land drain running to the north of the Proposed Development site.
The floodmaps.ie web portal indicates that neither the Proposed Development site nor any of the
surrounding area are at risk of flooding in any of the available modelled scenarios. This is the
conclusion of the Flood Risk Assessment which accompanies this application and can be found in
Volume III of this EIAR. Given the localised topography, it is very unlikely any flooding at present is
experienced within the ZoI. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-23
Figure 11-4: Land Drains & Flow Direction within the Redline Boundary
11.3.2 Designated Sites
A comprehensive desk study was undertaken to identify Natura 2000 sites within the Zone of Influence
(ZoI) of the proposed development. The ZoI was initially considered in terms of sites potentially
affected by surface water pathways. Three SACs and one SPA were identified within a reasonable
distance where effects could occur. Although there is an indirect hydrological connection to Lough
Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC (Site Code: 000007), the long hydrological pathway provides
substantial opportunity for settlement, attenuation and dilution such that no likely significant effects
are predicted. Therefore, the ZoI is not extended beyond this SAC, as the assessment reasonably
concludes that no effects on the wider connected hydrological system occur.
In general, the site is neither within, adjacent, or close to any Natura 2000 sites. In terms of SAC’s,
those nearest to the site by way of straight-line distance are as follows:
• Kilroosky Lough Cluster SAC (001786): 12.2 km north-west;
• Magheraveely Marl Loughs SAC (UK0016621): 13 km north-west; and RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-24
• Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC (000007), 14.8 km south-west (note the
hydrological pathway distance referred to below).
In terms of SPA’s, those nearest to the site by way of straight-line distance are as follows:
• Upper Lough Erne SPA (UK9020071): 11.4 km west; and
• Lough Oughter Complex SPA (004049): 20.6 km to the south-west.
No source-pathway-receptor linkage exists between the Proposed Development and Lough Oughter
Complex SPA and it was therefore screened out from further ecological assessment.
It is noted that since 1 January 2021 nature conservation areas in the UK (including Northern Ireland)
are no longer part of the Natura 2000 network (Office of the planning regulator, 2021).
A review of OSPAR Ramsar sites within 15 km of the redline boundary was completed. The following
Ramsar Sites were identified to be within 15 km from the redline boundary:
• Upper Lough Erne Ramsar site (UK12024): 11.3 km west; and
• Magheraveely Marl Loughs Ramsar Site (UK12017): 13 km north-west
The Proposed Development site is located within the upper part of the Coolkill Lough Stream
Waterbody (EU Code: IE_NW_36D020700) and is hydrologically connected to this waterbody via a
network of drainage ditches that surround the site.
The Coolkill Lough Stream is hydrologically connected to a number of downstream waterbodies which
provide eventual connection to the ANNALEE_090 Waterbody in Ballyhaise, where water that rises in
the vicinity of the site eventually reaches the nearest hydrologically connected Natura 2000 site
(Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC).
Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC constitutes a vast array of loughs which occupy much of
the lowland drumlin belt in north and central Cavan between Upper Lough Erne, Killeshandra and
Cavan town. The site is a maze of waterways, islands, small lakes and peninsulas including some 90
inter-drumlin lakes and 14 basins in the course of the Erne River. Geographically, the closest
designated lough associated with this SAC to the site is approximately 14.8 km to the south-west,
however there is no hydrological pathway to that particular lough. As detailed above, the designated
area associated with the SAC at Ballyhaise is approximately 15.6 km south-west of the site, however
geographically this is a straight-line distance. The hydrological distance from the site is considerably
greater at approximately 38 km, with a vast array of feeder tributaries, lakes and rivers draining
towards into it from within the wider County Monaghan and Cavan areas.
Based on the Source-Pathway-Receptor (S-P-R) model, the Appropriate Assessment screening
(included with this application under separate cover) concluded that the proposed development,
individually or in combination with other plans or projects, is not likely to have a significant effect on
any of the aforementioned Natura 2000 sites. Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC and any
connected waterbodies have been assessed as part of this chapter, however the long hydrological
pathway provides substantial opportunity for settlement, attenuation and dilution such that no
measurable deterioration in water quality or likely significant effects are predicted (See Appendix 10-
3 and the AA Screening Report). Based on this, the wider hydrological system downstream is RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-25
reasonably concluded to be outside the ZoI for this project. (See Section 11.2.2). Therefore, a Stage 2
Appropriate Assessment is not required.
No statutorily designated NHAs lie within 15 km of the Proposed Development site. Seven proposed
NHAs (pNHAs) are within the 23 km ZoI with Drumgole Lough pNHA (approximately 900 m north of
the red line boundary) being closest to the Proposed Development site. It has an 8.6 km indirect
hydrological link (drainage ditches outfall into the Coolkill Lough Stream). The Gas Pipeline traverses
through a small section to the west of the Dromore Lakes pNHA.
One of the most striking features of Drumgole is the presence of large areas of reedswamp dominated
by Common (Phragmites communis). In addition to reedswamp there are small areas of wet grassland
dominated by Soft Rush (Juncus effusus) and Creeping Buttercup (Ranunculus repens). Although
birdlife on the lake is limited, Whooper Swans frequent the site during the winter months. According
to the site synopsis for this pNHA, the lake is not of outstanding ecological interest and is mainly used
for grazing.
11.3.3 Habitats and Flora
11.3.3.1 Desk Based Survey
11.3.3.1.1 Habitats
A desk study was completed for wetland habitats within and adjacent to the proposed development
site and the gas pipeline2, it was identified that there was a wetland located approximately 230 m
north-east of the proposed development site, where the EPA map the rising headwaters of the Coolkill
Lough Stream. The hydrological connection to this wetland is indirect via the drainage ditches that
surround the site. As per the Map of Irish Wetlands’ site evaluation rating, the wetland was assessed
as an F Rating (Unknown Value – Survey Required). Moreover, the main wetland type associated with
this wetland is Fen, Reed Swamp, Scrub and wet grassland.
11.3.3.1.2 Flora Species
A desk-based study was conducted which lists the protected, rare and Invasive Alien Plant Species
identified within H51X, H51Y and H51Z (See
2 Available at:
https://wetland.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=e13b75c3bcab4932b992aa0169aa4a32&exten
t=-12.6266,51.3236,-3.2168,55.4102 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-26
Table 11-5).
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-27
Table 11-5: Plant Species Records within the H51X, H51Y and H51Z in the NBDC Dataset
Species Name Record
Count
Date of Last
Record
Square
Grid
Designation
Invasive Alien Plant Species
Black Currant
(Ribes nigrum)
1 29/08/2015 H51X Invasive Species: Medium Risk Invasive Species (2013
Report)
Canadian
Waterweed
(Elodea
canadensis)
1 20/09/2007 H51X Invasive Species: Regulation S.I. 477/2011 (Ireland) ||
Invasive Species: High Risk Invasive Species (2013 Report)
|| Invasive Species: The Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order
1985
Cherry Laurel
(Prunus
laurocerasus)
1 29/08/2015 H51X Invasive Species: High Risk Invasive Species (2013 Report)
Nuttall's
Waterweed
(Elodea nuttallii)
2 29/08/2015 H51X Invasive Species: EU Invasive Alien Species Regulation No.
1143/2014 || Invasive Species: Regulation S.I. 477/2011
(Ireland) || Invasive Species: High Risk Invasive Species
(2013 Report) || Invasive Species: Regulation S.I. 374/2024
(Ireland)
Rhododendron
ponticum
1 29/08/2015 H51X Invasive Species: Regulation S.I. 477/2011 (Ireland) ||
Invasive Species: Detailed Risk Assessment || Invasive
Species: High Risk Invasive Species (2013 Report) || Invasive
Species: Regulation S.I. 374/2024 (Ireland) || Invasive
Species: Detailed Risk Assessment >> High Risk
Sycamore (Acer
pseudoplatanus)
1 29/08/2015 H51X Invasive Species: Medium Risk Invasive Species (2013
Report)
11.3.3.2 Field Survey
11.3.3.2.1 Proposed Development Site:
The Proposed Development site comprises the following habitats and flora within the red line
boundary, classified per Fossitt (2000) as shown on Figure 11-5. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-28
Figure 11-5: Habitats Recorded within the Redline Boundary
11.3.3.2.1.1 Drainage ditches (FW4)
Observed dry during surveys completed in July–August 2024, these ditches run along hedgerows,
separating the site from the adjacent local roads. Vegetation includes spillover species (Lolium
perenne, Holcus lanatus, Urtica dioica, Rumex obtusifolius, Pteridium aquilinum) plus great hairy
willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum) and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus). Their exposed, dry state and
proximity to traffic limit biodiversity value to low (Rating E,).
11.3.3.2.1.2 Hedgerows (WL1) and Treelines (WL2)
Boundary hedgerows (WL1) contain the Proposed Development site with a central tree lined
hedgerow (WL2) transecting the Proposed Development site. These hedgerows connect to
surrounding agricultural lands. Species include hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), blackthorn (Prunus
spinosa), gorse (Ulex europaeus), holly (Ilex aquifolium), bramble (Rubus fructicosus), ivy (Hedera
helix), bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), common knapweed (Centaurea nigra), and bindweed
(Calystegia sepium), with ash (Fraxinus excelsior), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), and hazel (Corylus RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-29
avellana) in the treeline. Maintained and regionally abundant, these features offer moderate
ecological value (Rating D,) due to nesting, roosting, and connectivity potential.
With reference to the Arboriculture Report (Veon, April 2025), the tree survey area focused on the
Proposed Development site only due to the potential for tree loss in this area. It was undertaken in
accordance with BS 5837:2012 ‘Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction –
Recommendations’. The tree survey area (See Appendix 11-1) consisted of three fields separated from
each other and the surrounding public road network by eight hedgerows, some of which are more
dominated by trees than others. The tree and hedge survey recorded 47 individual trees, one tree line
and eight hedgerows within or in close proximity to the red line area. The vast majority of these trees
are classified according to BS 5837:2012 as Category U (poor quality unsuitable for retention). The
tree/hedgerow to be lost is of local importance (low significance) due to their poor condition,
replaceability, and abundance locally. The majority of Category U trees (20) suffer from ash dieback
disease, with three of these located within the red line area.
Species recorded as part of the survey include cherry (Prunus avium), sycamore (Acer
pseudoplatanus), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), beech (Fagus sylvatica), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna),
oak (Quercus robur) and elder (Sambucus nigra).
11.3.3.2.1.3 Improved agricultural grassland (GA1)
Dominating the Proposed Development site, GA1 consists of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and
Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), with frequent weeds including nettle (Urtica dioica), broad-leaved dock
(Rumex obtusifolius), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). Field centres exhibit low
biodiversity due to intensive grazing, while margins near hedgerows support a richer herbaceous layer
with common vetch (Vicia sativa), red clover (Trifolium pratense), and ribwort plantain (Plantago
lanceolata), indicating higher ecological value at edges. Assessed as low value, locally important
(Rating E,).
11.3.3.2.1.4 Buildings and artificial surfaces (BL3)
A small section of a paved local road (L2280) is located to the north of the Proposed Development site.
This area is entirely covered in artificial surface where there are no flora species associated with it.
This habitat has no ecological value.
11.3.3.2.2 Gas Pipeline
The gas pipeline will be delivered within the bed of the public road or where this is not possible, it
shall be laid under the road verge. The road verge comprises the following habitats and flora as
classified as per Fossitt (2000) as shown on Figure 11-6 and Figure 11-7. Full details of this survey is
outlined in Appendix 11-2.
11.3.3.2.2.1 GS2 – Dry meadows and grassy verges
This was the dominant habitat along the gas pipeline route and made up the majority of the road
verge on both sides of the road. Common grass species recorded within the habitat included Orchard
grass (Dactylis glomerata), Tufted grass (Lolium spp.), Yorkshire- fog (Holcus lanatus), and Sweet
vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum). Sward height varied throughout the habitat due to some
sections of the road verge having been mowed, however, the species composition remained similar
throughout. Bramble (Rubus spp.), Bush vetch (Vicia sepium), Meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria), RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-30
Buttercup (Ranunculus pp.), Dock (Rumex spp.), and Hogweed (Heracleum spp.) were dominant
species in this habitat.
This habitat was species rich and had the following species scattered throughout; Sedge (Carex spp.),
Fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), Heath groundsel (Senecio sylvaticus), Hedge woundwort (Stachys
sylvatica), Coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara), Welted thistle (Carduus acanthoides), Wild morning-glory
(Calystegia sepium), Great bindweed (Calystegia sylvatica), Zig-Zag clover (Trifolium medium),
Meadow vetchling (Lathyrus pratensis), Cleavers (Galium aparine), Small-flower sweetbriar (Rosa
micrantha), and Common horsetail (Equisetum arvense). Tree saplings recorded within this habitat
include hazel (Corylus avellana), Oak (Quercus spp), Willow (Salix spp.), Ash (Fraxinus spp.), and
Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna).
11.3.3.2.2.2 GA2 – Amenity grassland (improved)
This habitat was scarce and only recorded in areas near residential buildings and a factory. It was well
maintained and included species such as Meadow-grasses (Poa spp.), White clover (Trifolium repens),
Golden ragwort (Senecio doria), and Annual daisy (Bellis annua).
11.3.3.2.2.3 ED3 – Recolonising bare ground
This habitat was recorded in a small area on the road verge. It is evident that this part of the road
verge has had some ground works carried out on it in recent years. Species included Colt’s Foot
(Tussilago farfara), Dandelion (Taraxacum spp.), Willow-herbs (Epilobium spp.) and Ragworts (Senecio
spp.).
11.3.3.2.2.4 BL3 – Buildings and artificial surfaces
This habitat consisted primarily of tarmacadam driveways and artificial entrances to agricultural fields.
11.3.3.2.2.5 BL1 – Stone walls and other stonework
This habitat made up the border of a significant section of the road verge. It was examined during the
survey for potential bird nests, none were observed. However, much of it is covered with Ivy (Hedera
helix) which made this observation difficult. This habitat also supported abundant mosses and lichens.
11.3.3.2.2.6 FS1 – Reed and large sedge swamps
This habitat was located outside of the road verge; however, it is approximately 4-5 metres from the
road verge. This is a wet habitat and was dominated by Water horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), followed
by Yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus), which is characteristic of this habitat type.
11.3.3.2.2.7 FW4 – Drainage ditch
Drainage ditches were recorded both inside and outside the road verge. The drainage ditch outside
the road verge had significantly more water than the drainage ditch recorded within the road verge.
There was no frog spawn observed in either drainage ditch, however, some sections were difficult to
observe due to obstructions. The drainage ditch recorded within the road verge had a low level of
water flowing.RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-31
Figure 11-6: Habitats identified along the northern section of the Gas Pipeline Route RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-32
Figure 11-7: Habitats identified along the southern section of the Gas Pipeline RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-33
11.3.4 Fauna
This subsection summarises fauna recorded historically within the 2 km grid squares H51Y, H51X and
H51Z, survey findings from July 2024 to September 2025, and the site’s potential to support protected
species.
11.3.4.1 Mammals (non-volant)
11.3.4.1.1 Desk Based Survey
A desk-based study was completed; a list of protected, rare and invasive mammal species (excluding
bat species) have been listed under Table 11-6.
Table 11-6: Mammal (Non-Volant) records within the H51Y, H51X and H51Z in the NBDC
dataset
Species Name Record Count Date of Last Record Square Grid Designation
Badger (Meles meles) 2 31/12/2012 H51X, H51Y &
H51Z
Protected Species: Wildlife
Acts
Hedgehog (Erinaceus
europaeus)
1 02/08/2022 H51X Protected Species: Wildlife
Acts
11.3.4.1.2 Field Work
Surveys covered the Proposed Development site and a 50 m buffer using walkover and trail cameras.
Other than the drainage ditches, no watercourses occur on-site. The Coolkill Lough Stream was not
surveyed, noting that due to accessibility issues and lack of flow within the drainage ditches, fisheries
potential is extremely limited within the study area.
One no. Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) was recorded on trail cameras (15 July–15 August 2024, hedgerow
locations) over 30 days, indicating occasional use. There was no other mammal species identified
during the field surveys. The details of the mammal survey can be found in Appendix 11-3.
11.3.4.2 Bats
11.3.4.2.1 Desk Based Survey
No bat species were recorded as per the desk-based review of the NBDC Database.
In conjunction with this species record search, the bat landscape suitability had been assessed which
suggests that the surrounding landscape around the Proposed Development site and the gas pipeline
route had medium to high suitability for bats (See Table 11-7 ).
Table 11-7: Bat Suitability Index Surrounding the Proposed Development Site and Gas Pipeline
Suitability index for different bat species:
Common Name Scientific Name Suitability Score
Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus 48
Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus 42
Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus 51
Nathusius' pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii 3 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-34
Suitability index for different bat species:
Lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros 47
Leisler's bat Nyctalus leisleri 26
Daubenton's bat Myotis daubentonii 39
Whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus 5
Natterer's bat Myotis nattereri 48
Total Score for All Bat Species 34.33
11.3.4.2.2 Field Work
Hedgerows (WL1) and treelines (WL2) within and adjoining the Proposed Development site provide
moderate potential for bat commuting and foraging. However, very limited bat activity was recorded
within the Proposed Development site during the survey (14 August 2024), with the majority of
recorded activity associated with hedgerows beyond the development footprint, See Appendix 11-4
and Figure 11-5). . Accordingly, while suitable commuting and foraging habitat is present, the level of
bat activity recorded within the Proposed Development site was very low.
Very limited bat activity was recorded within the site, with the majority of activity associated with
hedgerows beyond the development footprint. This suggests that although the wider landscape
supports bat individuals, the redline boundary provides negligible suitability for bat individuals.
11.3.4.3 Birds/Avifauna
11.3.4.3.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey Visit
Bird surveys conducted on 15–16 July and 20–21 August 2024 at the Proposed Development site,
indicate a community dominated by small passerines and corvids, typical of open farmland with
adjoining hedgerows (WL1) and treelines (WL2) (See RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-35
Table 11-8 for the results to this survey).
Most recorded species are common passerines characteristic of this habitat, with no Annex I species
(EU Birds Directive 2009/147/EC) observed during surveys. One red-listed species, meadow pipit
(Anthus pratensis), per Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland 2020–2026 (Gilbert et al., 2021), was
recorded foraging, but no nesting evidence (e.g., territorial behaviour, nests) was noted. Given the
prevalence of similar habitats locally, the site is of low importance to this species (Rating E for avian
fauna.). Species observed are listed below, with conservation statuses per Gilbert et al. (2021):
Surveys occurred outside the peak breeding season (March–June), limiting detection of nesting
activity. To overcome this a thorough breeding bird survey was completed between March to
September 2025 which captured the peak breed season (See 11.3.4.3.3 for the results to this). The
site’s avian ecological value remains low due to the widespread availability of similar farmland habitats
in the region.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-36
Table 11-8: Bird species observed and recorded during the Phase 1 habitat survey site visit.
Bird species recorded during the Phase 1 habitat survey
Common Name Scientific Name Birds of Conservation Concern
in Ireland (Gilbert et al., (2021))
Eurasian Wren (Trogoldytes troglodytes) Green List
Blue Tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) Green List
Great Tit (Parus major) Green List
Blackbird (Turdus merula) Green List
Pied Wagtail (Motacilla alba) Green List
Hooded crow (Corvus cornix) Green List
Goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis) Green List
Wood pigeon (Columba palumbus) Green List
Common Blackbird (Turdus merula) Green List
Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs) Green List
Magpie (Pica pica) Green List
Lesser Redpole (Acanthis cabaret) Green List
House Martin (Delichon urbicum) Amber List
Swallow (Hirundo rustica) Amber List
Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) Amber List
Skylark (Alauda arvensis), (Alauda arvensis) Amber List
Robin (Erithacus rubecula) Green List
Meadow Pipit (Anthus pratensis) Red List
Buzzard (Buteo buteo) Green List
Common Gull (Larus canus) Green List
Linnet (Carduelis cannabina) Red List
11.3.4.3.2 Wintering Bird Surveys
Overwintering Bird Surveys were undertaken once a month between October 2024 and February
2025. The majority of the winter bird species found on site were passerine bird species typical of the
environment. Of these, none were Annex I species recorded under the EU habitats directive. There
were four red listed BoCCI species seen flying over the site, however, no signs of nesting (behaviours
and/or dwellings) or feeding was observed on site. As such the site can be considered as one of little
importance to the red listed species.
Three-hour vantage point surveys were conducted on each site visit.
Table 11-9 shows the results of these surveys. Target species for this survey included all BoCCI red-
listed bird species, all waterbird species, all waders and all raptors. The full details of the survey can
be found in Appendix 11-5.
Table 11-9: Target species recorded during winter bird survey
Species No. Activity (average) Height Band (m) (average) BoCCI
Redwing 108 Flying 20-40 Red RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-37
Species No. Activity (average) Height Band (m) (average) BoCCI
Buzzard 2 Flying 0-20/20-40 Green
Black
headed Gull
1 Flying 20-40 Red
Grey wagtail 1 Flying 0-20 Red
Meadow
Pipit
5 Flying 0-20 Red
Cormorant 2 Flying 20-40 Amber
From all of the species outlined above in
Table 11-9, Redwing, Grey wagtail and Meadow pipit were the only target species recorded actively
within the survey area. All other recorded target species were recorded within the surrounding
landscape (within 2 km of the site). Redwing is by far the dominant species from the Phase 1 Habitat
Survey with a total of 108 individuals being recorded. Redwing were only recorded flying over the site
with no active foraging being observed within the site. This transitory nature is further highlighted by
the average height band ranging from 20-40 metres. The following lists set out the species that were
observed on site or within the surrounding area.
11.3.4.3.2.1 Non-BoCCI Species observed on site
Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), Robin (Erithacus rubecula), Blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus), Great Tit
(Parus major), Blackbird (Turdus merula), Pied wagtail (Motacilla alba), Goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis),
Hooded crow (Corvus cornix), Wood pigeon (Columba palumbus), Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs), Magpie
(Pica pica), Black cap (Sylvia atricapilla), Coal tit (Periparus ater), Dunnock (Prunella modularis),
Jackdaw (Coloeus monedula), Long tailed tit (Aegithalos caudatus), and Reed bunting (Emberiza
schoeniclus).
11.3.4.3.2.2 BoCCI Listed Species Observed on Site
Amber – Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Goldcrest (Regulus regulus), House sparrow (Passer domesticus),
Stonechat (Saxicola rubicola), Sedge warbler (Acrocephalus schoenobaenus), Mistle thrush (Turdus
visvivorus).
11.3.4.3.3 Breeding Bird Surveys
The Proposed Development site was surveyed for one day every month between March and
September 2025 (See
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-38
Table 11-10 for the results of this survey). See Appendix 11-6 for full details of the breeding bird
surveys.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-39
Table 11-10: Breeding Bird Target species recorded within the Proposed Development site
Species Maximum
no.
recorded in
a Day
Number of
days
Recorded
Total
Counts
Activity
Habitats
BoCCI3
Annex4
Buzzard (Buteo buteo)
2 4 5 Flyover GA1 Green
Herring gull (Larus
argentatus)
110 2 113 Flyover GA1 Amber
Meadow Pipit (Anthus
pratensis)
7 3 13 Feeding
and
Flyover
GA1 Red
A total of three target species were identified within the Proposed Development site throughout the
survey period. All of the sightings were flyovers whereby the meadow pipit was the only species
identified as feeding within the improved agricultural grassland. Moreover, no nest sites of target
species were recorded at the site
No buzzards recorded were observed to be engaging in breeding behaviour. Likewise, meadow pipit
was observed several times between June to August, however there was no breeding behaviour
observed through the surveying period.
Although, the herring gull was the most regular species recorded within the Proposed Development
site, it is unlikely that they breed here as they characteristically breed along coasts of Ireland and
inland in County Donegal and County Galway. Based on the location of the Proposed Development
site, it is likely that this species was flying from the east coast to County Donegal5. The group of 110
herring gulls recorded in the month of June flew over the site and landed in an agricultural field across
from the proposed development and remained perched there for the remainder of the survey.
Non-target species recorded within this surveying period included chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs), wren
(Troglodytes troglodytes), dunnock (Prunella modularis), blackbird (Turdus merula), robin (Erithacus
rubecula), Rook (Corvus frugilegus), Hooded Crow (Corvus cornix), Wood Pigeon (Columba palumbus),
blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus), jackdaw (Coloeus monedula), Eurasian magpie (Pica pica), great tit
3 BoCCI: Red (high concern), Amber (medium concern), Green (least concern), reflecting the species’
status in the UK or Europe.
4 Birds Directive Annex: "I" and "II" refer to the European Union’s Birds Directive, with Annex I for
species in need of special conservation measures, and Annex II for species that may be hunted under
regulation.
5 This information was obtained from the Birdwatch Ireland website, available at:
https://birdwatchireland.ie/birds/herring-gull/ RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-40
(Parus major), goldcrest (Regulus regulus), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), coal tit (Periparus ater), mistle
thrush (Turdus viscivorus), stonechat (Saxicola spp.), carrion crow (Corvus corone), swallow (Hirundo
rustica.), linnet (Linaria cannabina), skylark (Alauda arvensis) and Eurasian Blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla).
11.3.4.4 Amphibians
11.3.4.4.1 Desk Based Survey
There was no amphibian species identified within the H51X, H51Y and H51Z square grids under the
NBDC database.
11.3.4.4.2 Field Surveys
Walkover surveys were completed on the 15–16 July 2024, 20–21 August 2024 and 11th June 2025.
These surveys had assessed signs of amphibian species using Visual Encounter Surveys (VES),
examining suitable habitat assemblages such as the along the drainage ditches (FW4) traversing
through the site, WL1 for field signs, usage patterns, and evidence of resting or breeding sites. No
amphibian species were recorded during optimal breeding conditions.
Historical NBDC records within the 10 km grid square H51 document the common frog (Rana
temporaria) and smooth newt (Lissotriton vulgaris), both protected under the Wildlife Acts 1976–
2023. Surveys on 15–16 July and 20–21 August 2024 and 11th of June 2025 found no incidental signs
(e.g., adults, spawn, tadpoles) within the red line boundary or 50 m buffer. Dry drainage ditches (FW4)
and the absence of permanent waterbodies on-site (See the AA Screening Report associated with this
planning application) suggest low suitability for breeding, though terrestrial phases (e.g., foraging,
hibernation) may occur near ditches or hedgerows. Proximity to Coolkill Lough Stream indicates
potential occasional use by dispersing individuals.
11.3.5 Site Evaluation
Habitats and species within the Proposed Development site were evaluated using the methodology
outlined in Section 11.2, adhering to the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and
Ireland (CIEEM, 2024). Ecological value is assigned on an A–E scale (See Table 11-2), where A
represents international importance and E denotes low local importance, based on criteria such as
biodiversity, rarity, naturalness, extent, connectivity, and conservation status. Results are presented
in
Table 11-11 and Table 11-12 below, reflecting site-specific observations from surveys completed from
July 2024 to September 2025 and desktop data.
Table 11-11: Habitat Evaluation.
Habitat Code Evaluation Rating Site-Specific Basis for Evaluation
Treelines WL2 D - Moderate Value,
Locally Important
Provides foraging and commuting opportunities for bats (e.g.,
Pipistrellus pipistrellus,) and connectivity between habitats. Value is
limited by managed, semi-mature state and fragmentation.
Hedgerows WL1 D - Moderate Value,
Locally Important
Managed hedgerows providing moderate biodiversity value and
landscape connectivity, though common locally. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-41
Built land BL3 N/A A local road (L2280) traverses along the northern section of the
Proposed Development site. This habitat does not support any flora
species and is entirely paved over. Due to there not being any ecological
value, the evaluation rating has been set as N/A.
Drainage
Ditches
FW4 E - Low Value, Locally
Important
Dry during surveys (July–August 2024 and 11th of June 2025), with low
biodiversity (e.g., Epilobium hirsutum). No amphibian evidence;
proximity to R189 road limits ecological value.
Improved
agricultural
grassland
GA1 E - Low Value, Locally
Important
Species-poor due to intensive grazing (Section 11.3.3.2.1.3), with higher
diversity at margins (e.g., Vicia sativa). Widespread locally, reducing
ecological significance.
Table 11-12: Species Evaluation.
Species Evaluation Rating Rationale
Amphibians &
Reptiles
E - Low Value, Locally Important No signs of common frog (Rana temporaria) or smooth newt
(Lissotriton vulgaris) in dry ditches. NBDC records (H51) suggest
regional presence, but on-site suitability is low due to lack of
waterbodies.
Wintering and
Breeding
Birds
E - Low Value, Locally Important Supports common passerines (e.g., Turdus merula) and one red-
listed meadow pipit (Anthus pratensis), but no Annex I species.
Abundant similar habitats locally reduce importance.
Based on the breeding bird survey, there was little use of the site
beyond occasional use by meadow pipit, which was the only
target species recorded feeding within the Proposed
Development site. Winter bird surveys similarly recorded limited
use, with most target species recorded as flyovers or transitory
movements
Bats D - Moderate Value, Locally
Important
Hedgerows and treelines provide moderate potential for bat
foraging and commuting within the wider landscape. Although
common pipistrelle activity was recorded outside the red line
boundary, no bat activity or roosts were recorded within the
Proposed Development site. No roosts or Annex II species (e.g.,
Rhinolophus hipposideros) confirmed.
Badger E - Low Value, Locally Important No setts or signs of badger (Meles meles) despite NBDC records
in H51. Hedgerows and field margins provide suitable commuting
habitats, but no evidence observed.
Other Species E - Low Value, Locally Important No evidence of protected species (e.g., Annex II/IV, Wildlife Acts
1976–2023) such as Irish hare (Lepus timidus hibernicus) or pine
marten (Martes martes) on-site. Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)
recorded occasionally.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-42
11.4 The ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario
The county faces a critical poultry waste management challenge, with high concentrations of
production that cannot be addressed at scale by small, dispersed measures alone. The proposed
development represents the only proven large-scale solution currently implemented in the country.
The gas grid in Co. Monaghan is extremely limited. While this particular site may remain undeveloped,
it is reasonably foreseeable that alternative treatment infrastructure may be brought forward
elsewhere in the region to address these existing waste management requirements to ensure a viable
poultry industry, protect water quality, and manage environmental pressures.
Under the “Do Nothing” scenario, the proposed biogas facility and gas pipeline would not proceed.
The biogas plant site would remain in agricultural use (GA1 – Improved Agricultural Grassland) with
existing boundary features such as hedgerows (WL1) and treelines (WL2) retained in their current
form. As identified in the ecological baseline, the treeline (WL2) and the hedgerows (WL1) are of
Moderate Value, Locally Important (Rating D). In the absence of the Proposed Development, these
features would continue to be managed as part of the existing agricultural holding and would broadly
remain in their current ecological condition.
The biodiversity value of the site would persist. Habitat structure and species assemblages would
remain characteristic of an intensively managed agricultural landscape.
Nutrient inputs associated with the existing agricultural regime would continue. While this does not
represent a change from baseline conditions at the site, it reflects the ongoing wider water-quality
pressures in the region, including within the upper catchment of the Coolkill Lough Stream. The “Do
Nothing” scenario therefore maintains the current low-level risk of nutrient mobilisation associated
with agricultural practice.
No gas grid infrastructure would be installed along the public road corridor; therefore, no temporary
construction-related disturbance (e.g., noise, dust, short-term habitat disturbance within the roadside
verge) would arise.
Overall, under the “Do Nothing” scenario, ecological conditions remain unchanged, and existing
anthropogenic pressures associated with agricultural land use continue at their current level.
While not an ecological impact of the “Do Nothing” scenario, it is noted that County Monaghan
continues to face a broader poultry-waste management challenge due to the high concentration of
intensive agricultural production in the region. At present, only limited large-scale treatment options
exist nationally, and the local gas grid has restricted capacity and spatial extent.
If the proposed development were not to proceed at this location, it is possible that a similar project
may be brought forward elsewhere in the county in order to address these existing sectoral and
environmental pressures. This contextual information does not alter the ecological baseline at the site
but provides background to the likely evolution of the receiving environment in the absence of the
proposed development. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-43
11.5 Potential Significant Effects
This section identifies elements of the project (development of renewable biogas plant and installation
of gas grid pipeline) that may potentially impact ecological receptors, based on the project description
and ecological baseline.
The ZoI is defined by terrestrial pathways (500 m for birds, 150 m for mammals, 5 km for bats) and
hydrological pathways via the Coolkill Lough Stream waterbody (IE_NW_36D020700), extending
downstream. Table 11-13 outlines sources, pathways, and the ZoI.
Table 11-13: Impact Source – Pathway and ZoI for the Proposed Project
Source of Potential Impact Description of Pathway Potential ZoI of the Impact
Construction Phase
Noise, vibration, lighting, human
presence, and vehicle movements
(e.g., earthworks, equipment
installation)
Terrestrial – direct contact (e.g.,
machinery), airborne (e.g., noise),
visibility (e.g., lighting affecting fauna
behaviour)
Within 500 m for birds (Madsen, 1985; Smit
& Visser, 1993; Rees et al., 2005); 150 m
for otter (Lutra lutra) resting sites, though
none recorded (TII, 2008); greater
distances for bats (e.g., Nyctalus leisleri)
due to noise/light sensitivity (Collins, 2016).
Earthworks (e.g., digging,
levelling); stockpiling (e.g., sand,
aggregates); contaminants (e.g.,
hydrocarbons, cement)
Hydrological – drainage ditches (FW4)
connecting via culvert under R189 to
Coolkill Lough Stream (IE_NW_
36D020700) - DROMORE_070);
surface runoff; spills
The Proposed Development site is bound
by drainage ditches to the north of their
boundary and discharges into the Coolkill
Lough Stream (EPA Code: IE_NW_
36D020700), which is located
approximately 350 m north-east of the
Proposed Development site/395m from the
point of discharge. The site does have an
indirect hydrological connection to the
Drumgole pNHA and Lough Oughter and
Associated Loughs SAC, however, the long
hydrological pathway provides substantial
opportunity for settlement, attenuation and
dilution such that no measurable
deterioration in water quality or likely
significant effects are predicted.
Operational Phase
Movement of people, vehicles
(e.g., HGVs for feedstock), facility
lighting
Terrestrial – direct contact (e.g.,
vehicles), airborne (e.g., CHP noise),
visibility (e.g., lighting affecting
nocturnal species)
Within 500 m for birds (Madsen et al.); 150
m for otter (none recorded, TII, 2008);
greater distances for bats due to
lighting/noise sensitivity (Collins, 2016).
Contaminants (e.g.,
hydrocarbons, lubricants,
digestate leaks)
Hydrological – drainage ditches (FW4)
to Coolkill Lough Stream (IE_NW_
36D020700) - DROMORE_070);
runoff; spills from tanks or digestate
processing
Extends to DROMORE_070 and
downstream to Lough Oughter and
Associated Loughs SAC (14.8 km SW). RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-44
11.5.1 Potential Impacts on Flora and Habitats
11.5.1.1 Habitat loss, disturbance and fragmentation
11.5.1.1.1 Renewable Biogas-Site – Construction Phase
Construction will result in the long-term loss of areas of improved agricultural grassland (GA1),
together with the removal of the tree-lined hedgerow (WL2) running through the centre of the
Proposed Development site. Sections of hedgerow (WL1) along the L2280 will also be removed to
accommodate the partial realignment of the road and the required visibility splays from the proposed
development junction, together with a section of hedgerow along the R189 to facilitate the visibility
splay from the modified junction. The improved agricultural grassland is of low ecological value, while
the affected hedgerow and treeline are of moderate local ecological value. The long-term habitat loss
is assessed as a negative, minor, local and long-term effect and is not significant.
Construction activity will also give rise to temporary disturbance of retained habitats within and
adjacent to the works area. This effect is assessed as negative, minor, local and short-term and is not
significant.
11.5.1.1.1.1 Renewable Biogas-Site - Operational Phase
No additional habitat loss will arise during the operational phase beyond the long-term habitat loss
occurring as a consequence of construction. The long-term loss of GA1 and affected sections of WL1
and WL2 will therefore persist throughout operation. The effects of the proposed landscape and
habitat planting are considered as incorporated mitigation and are addressed in Sections 11.6 and
11.7
11.5.1.1.2 Gas Pipeline Route – Construction Phase
Gas Networks Ireland have advised that the gas pipeline shall be laid under the bed of the existing
road corridor. Dry meadows and grassy verges (GS2) is the most likely species that will be impacted in
the road verge which contains pollinator friendly wildflower species such as common hogweed. Based
on the above, in the worst-case scenario, habitat loss impacts associated with the pipeline during the
construction phase shall be minor adverse.
11.5.1.1.2.1 Gas Pipeline Route Operational Phase
The pipeline route shall not result in any habitat loss, disturbance or fragmentation during the
operational phase, and the impact is therefore neutral, and no likely significant effect would occur.
11.5.1.2 Spread of Invasive Alien Plant Species
11.5.1.2.1 Renewable Biogas-Site – Construction Phase
There was no Invasive Alien Plant Species (IAPS) identified within the Proposed Development site,
thus, there is unlikely potential for spread of IAPS. Despite this, there is still potential for IAPS
fragments to be present within the soil lying dormant. The excavation works associated with the
proposed development may unearth these and result in a spread of these IAPS. Given the low
biodiversity value of the improved agricultural grassland (GA1) and that no IAPS were identified within
the Proposed development site, these impacts would largely be neutral. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-45
11.5.1.2.1.1 Renewable Biogas-Site – Operational Phase
There was no IAPS identified within the Proposed Development site, thus, there is unlikely potential
for spread of IAPS. Despite this, there is still potential for IAPS fragments to be present within the soil
lying dormant. The IAPS fragments that may have been disturbed during the construction phase may
establish during the operational phase, however, given the low biodiversity value of the improved
agricultural grassland (GA1) and that no IAPS were identified, these impacts would largely be neutral.
11.5.1.2.2 Gas Pipeline Route – Construction Phase
Along the southern boundary of the gas pipeline alignment, there are stands of common
rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum) and Cherry Laurel (Prunus laurocerasus). During the
construction there will be excavation works associated with open trench or for the send and receive
pits associated with horizontal drilling. The send and receive pits can be up to 200 m spaced apart6,
thus any IAPS flagged in Figure 11-7, shall be avoided. As there is not a significant infestation of IAPS
along the route, this will be avoided and will not result in any negative impacts, largely neutral.
11.5.1.2.3 Gas Pipeline - Operational Phase
Due to the nature of the gas pipeline, there is no potential to result in a spread of IAPS, thus the
impacts shall be neutral.
11.5.2 Potential impacts on Fauna
11.5.2.1 Avifauna
11.5.2.1.1 Renewable Biogas-Site – Construction Phase
Birds (include but are not limited to Redwing (Turdus iliacus), Buzzard (Buteo buteo), Black headed
Gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus), Grey wagtail (Motacilla cinerea), Cormorant (Phalacrocorax
aristotelis) and meadow pipit (Anthus pratensis) which are target species) face short-term
construction disturbance within 500 m. As per the Breeding and Wintering Bird Surveys (See
Appendix 11-5 and Appendix 11-6), with the exception of meadow pipit, which was recorded feeding
within improved agricultural grassland, birds primarily used the site as flyover habitat and shall have
low levels of disturbance. The impacts associated with the construction phase shall be minor negative,
imperceptible and short-term.
11.5.2.1.2 Renewable Biogas-Site – Operational Phase
During the operational phase of the proposed development, there will be a removal of the tree lined
hedgerow located through the centre of the Proposed Development site, the hedgerow along the
L2280 to accommodate the partial realignment of this road and visibility splays from the proposed
development junction onto the L2280 and a section of hedgerow along the R189 to accommodate the
visibility splay from the modified junction. Due to limited ecological use of the Proposed Development
site by bat, badger and bird, the impact shall be minor adverse and permanent.
6 It is unlikely that spacing will be this large, however, this can be achieved to avoid significant constraints. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-46
11.5.2.1.3 Gas Pipeline Construction Phase
The gas pipeline shall not result in significant losses in suitable bird habitats. The gas pipeline shall
take place in short durations. The noisiest plant noise source shall be the mini tracked excavator with
Rock Breakers which can result in noise levels of 83 dB LAeq,T. (See Chapter 12: Noise and Vibration)
This may result in temporary displacement of some bird species, however, due to the high abundance
of similar habitats, the impact shall be negligible. Based on the above, it is anticipated that this shall
have minor adverse, temporary impacts to the bird species.
11.5.2.1.4 Gas Pipeline Operational Phase
Due to the subterranean nature of the gas pipeline and the absence of activities that would generate
noise disturbance, there is no potential for adverse effects on bird species during operation.
Consequently, impacts upon bird species shall be neutral during the operational phase.
11.5.2.2 Bats
11.5.2.2.1 Renewable Biogas-Site – Construction Phase
No bat roosts were identified within the Proposed Development site, and surveys recorded no bat
activity within the red line boundary. Hedgerows and treelines (WL1/WL2) provide moderate foraging
and commuting habitat, and their removal may result in minor habitat loss. During the construction
phase, minor adverse, short-term impacts on foraging and commuting bats may occur. However, given
the absence of roosts and the limited scale of habitat loss, no significant impact upon on bats is
predicted.
11.5.2.2.2 Renewable Biogas-Site – Operational Phase
During the operational phase, the main potential impacts on bats relate to the long-term loss of
hedgerow and treeline habitat within the Proposed Development site, as well as potential disturbance
from artificial lighting (See Section 11.5.2.3.2). Hedgerows and treelines (WL1/WL2) provide moderate
foraging and commuting habitat for bats (e.g., Pipistrellus pygmaeus). In the absence of mitigation,
the loss or modification of these features could result in minor, long-termnegative impacts on local
bat foraging and commuting activity. No significant adverse impacts on the overall bat population are
anticipated, given the limited scale of habitat loss and the absence of roosts on-site.
11.5.2.2.3 Gas Pipeline Route – Construction Phase
The gas pipeline route shall be laid under the bed of the road or where this is not possible within the
road verge. This may have a minor adverse, short-term impact in terms of removal of any suitable
habitat.
11.5.2.2.4 Gas Pipeline Route - Operational Phase
The gas pipeline is entirely subterranean within the road corridor, with no above-ground
infrastructure requiring tree or hedgerow removal during the operational phase. As such, there will
be no direct loss of bat roosts or foraging habitat associated with the operational phase. Therefore,
the impact shall be neutral during operational phase. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-47
11.5.2.3 Lighting
11.5.2.3.1 Renewable Biogas-Site – Construction Phase
Construction work hours shall be restricted from 7am to 7pm (Monday to Friday) and 8am to 2pm
(Saturdays). This is deemed acceptable to avoid light pollution effects associated with the proposed
development during the construction phase as it will avoid dark periods during the time that bats are
active. During autumn and winter, bats are less active and may enter hibernation, so the risk of
disturbance is further reduced (Woodland Trust, 2018)7. It is envisaged that these effects shall be
minor negative and short-term in duration.
11.5.2.3.2 Renewable Biogas-Site – Operational Phase
During the operational phase of the proposed development, artificial lighting shall be introduced into
the red line boundary. The only area of the facility to require full lighting outside of normal hours of
operation would be the main process building (a 24hr operation) which will limit the amount of
lighting. In the event whereby maintenance works are required, plant/facility mounted lighting will be
required. There is potential for overspill onto the retained hedgerow and treelines that bats may use
for commuting and foraging. As it was identified that the Proposed Development site supports
negligible bat activity, the site is not considered sensitive. Based on the above, the potential effects
shall be minor adverse and permanent.
11.5.2.3.2.1 Gas Pipeline Route - Construction Phase
Construction work hours shall be restricted from 7am to 7pm (Monday to Friday) and 8am to 2pm
(Saturdays). This is deemed acceptable to avoid light pollution effects associated with the Gas Pipeline
Route during the construction phase as it will avoid dark periods during the time that bats are active.
During autumn and winter, bats are less active and may enter hibernation, so the risk of disturbance
is further reduced for (Woodland Trust, 2018). Moreover, due to the nature of a linear development,
construction works will not stay in one location for a significant period. It is envisaged that these
effects shall be minor negative and short-term in duration.
11.5.2.3.2.1.1 Gas Pipeline Route - Operational Phase
There will not be any light associated with the gas pipeline route during the operational phase; thus,
the impact shall be neutral.
11.5.2.4 Badgers
11.5.2.4.1 Renewable Biogas-Site
11.5.2.4.1.1 Construction Phase
No badger setts, latrines, footprints or other evidence of badger activity were recorded within the
Proposed Development site or the surveyed buffer. While the improved agricultural grassland (GA1)
provides limited foraging habitat due to its intensive management, the boundary hedgerows (WL1)
and treeline (WL2) offer potential commuting habitat and landscape connectivity for badgers moving
through the wider agricultural landscape.
7 Bats enter hibernation from November to mid-May. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-48
Construction will result in the temporary disturbance of these habitats and the long-term loss of
sections of hedgerow and treeline. However, given the absence of evidence that badgers currently
utilise the site and the availability of extensive comparable habitats within the surrounding farmland,
the construction phase is predicted to result in a minor adverse, temporary impact on badgers.
11.5.2.4.1.2 Operational Phase
During operation, improved agricultural grassland (GA1) will be replaced by built development, with
the loss of sections of hedgerow (WL1) and treeline (WL2). Although these linear habitats provide
potential commuting habitat for badgers, no evidence of badger activity, including setts or field signs,
was recorded during surveys.
The loss of habitat is limited in extent and is set within a wider agricultural landscape containing an
extensive network of hedgerows and field boundaries capable of continuing to support badger
movement and foraging. Consequently, the operational phase is predicted to result in a minor
adverse, long-term impact on badgers.
11.5.2.4.2 Gas Pipeline Route
11.5.2.4.2.1 Construction Phase
Temporary construction activity will be localised and short-term within an existing road corridor that
is already subject to regular traffic movements. Consequently, any temporary disturbance to badgers
would be limited in magnitude and duration, and the construction phase is predicted to result in a
neutral to minor adverse, temporary effect.
11.5.2.4.2.2 Operational Phase
The operational gas pipeline will be located entirely below ground and will not give rise to ongoing
habitat loss, habitat fragmentation or barriers to badger movement. No operational noise, artificial
lighting or routine human activity will be associated with the buried pipeline (refer to Chapter 12:
Noise and Vibration).
The existing public road corridor already represents the principal source of disturbance within this
part of the landscape through routine traffic movements and associated vehicle headlights during
periods of darkness. The underground gas pipeline will not alter these baseline conditions or introduce
any additional sources of disturbance.
Accordingly, the operational phase is predicted to result in a neutral, long-term effect on badgers.
11.5.2.5 Surface Waters
11.5.2.5.1 Renewable Biogas Plant site
11.5.2.5.1.1 Construction Phase
There are no surface waterbodies within the Proposed Development site. The nearest EPA Water
Framework Directive (WFD) mapped waterbody is the Coolkill Lough Stream (IE_NW_36D020700),
located approximately 350 m north-east of the Proposed Development site/395m from the point of
discharge. Field surveys confirmed that agricultural drainage ditches and ephemeral headwater
channels extend closer to the site than indicated by the EPA mapping. These drainage features are RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-49
hydrologically connected to, and form part of, the Coolkill Lough Stream catchment, although they are
not separately represented within the EPA WFD mapping.
During construction there is potential for temporary impacts to surface water quality arising from
accidental hydrocarbon spills, sediment-laden runoff associated with vegetation clearance and
earthworks, stockpile erosion and disturbance of exposed soils. These pollutants could enter the
surrounding agricultural drainage ditch network, which is hydrologically connected to the Coolkill
Lough Stream catchment. In addition, construction traffic has the potential to generate track-out of
soils and fine sediments onto the public road network, with subsequent wash-off to roadside drainage
during rainfall events.
The nearest wetland habitat is located approximately 230 m north-east of the Proposed Development
site. This wetland is hydrologically connected to the surrounding drainage network, and in the absence
of appropriate pollution control measures, there is potential for a deterioration in water quality to
adversely affect this habitat.
Although the underlying soils are predominantly fine loamy tills with localised peat deposits and are
not considered highly susceptible to dust generation, earthworks have the potential to generate
sediment-laden runoff during periods of rainfall. Taking account of the temporary nature of the
construction works, the existing source-pathway-receptor relationship, and the absence of on-site
watercourses, the unmitigated construction phase is predicted to result in a minor adverse, short-
term impact on surface water quality.
11.5.2.5.1.2 Operational Phase
During operation, the Proposed Development will introduce areas of hardstanding and buildings,
increasing impermeable surface coverage and surface water runoff. However, process feedstocks,
digestate and other process liquors will be handled within enclosed buildings, sealed process
infrastructure or bunded containment areas. Accordingly, there are no routine operational discharges
of process waters to the surrounding drainage network.
The principal potential source of impact would arise from accidental spillages associated with vehicle
movements or equipment failure. Such events are considered low-probability and are assessed
separately within Chapter 19: Risks of Major Accidents and Disasters.
In the absence of mitigation, accidental releases could have the potential to affect local drainage
ditches and downstream surface waters. Consequently, the unmitigated operational phase is
predicted to result in a minor adverse, long-term impact on surface water quality.
11.5.2.5.2 Gas Pipeline
11.5.2.5.2.1 Construction Phase
No in-stream works are proposed as part of the gas pipeline installation. The pipeline will be installed
predominantly within the existing road carriageway and verge. Where the route crosses watercourses,
these crossings will likely be undertaken using Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) beneath the
watercourse, thereby avoiding direct disturbance of the channel bed and banks.
Construction activities have the potential to generate temporary sediment-laden runoff, dust and
accidental hydrocarbon spills associated with excavation works, plant and construction traffic. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-50
However, these activities will be localised, temporary in nature and confined principally to the existing
road corridor. As there will be no direct interaction with surface watercourses during HDD crossings,
the potential for adverse effects on surface water quality is limited.
Accordingly, the unmitigated construction phase is predicted to result in a minor adverse, short-term
impact on surface water quality.
11.5.2.5.2.2 Operational Phase
The operational gas pipeline will be located entirely below ground and will not alter existing drainage
patterns, increase surface water runoff or give rise to routine emissions or discharges to surface
waters. No operational activities associated with the buried pipeline have the potential to adversely
affect surface water quality.
Accordingly, the operational phase is predicted to result in a neutral, long-term impact on surface
waters.
11.5.3 Cumulative Effects
In-combination and cumulative impacts of the project and plans within the project ZoI are considered
below. The proposed development was considered in combination with other plans and projects in
the locality that could result in cumulative / in-combination effects on ecological receptors.
11.5.3.1 Cumulative Projects Impact Assessment
The proposed development was considered in combination with other projects in the locality that
could result in cumulative/in-combination effects on the relevant European Site(s). Cumulative effects
can result from individually insignificant but collectively significant actions taking place over a period
of time or concentrated within an area or location.
Cumulative effects can occur where a proposed development results in impacts that when considered
in-combination with other proposed or permitted projects may result in a cumulative effect.
A search of the Monaghan County Council planning portal system (https://www.eplanning.ie) and the
An Coimisiún Pleanála database
(https://www.geohive.ie/datasets/f16825677990483d9a12796c7e104622_3/about), was carried out
on the 17th August 2026.
Planning applications lodged within the vicinity of the proposed development within the last 5 years
were examined. Planning applications within the last 5 years in the locality of the Proposed
Development site consisted primarily of applications for alterations and extensions to existing
buildings, along with the rehabilitation of a windfarm development and other related solar projects.
In-combination and cumulative impacts of the project and plans within the project ZoI are
considered below. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-51
Table 11-14: Planning Applications Assessed as part of the Cumulative Impact Assessment
Planning
Authority
Application
Reference
Number
Development Description Distance
from the
Red Line
Boundary
(km)
Potential for Significant Cumulative
Effect
Monaghan
County
Council
2460274 Permission to construct a calf
rearing livestock unit complete with
concrete apron and drains.
Significant Further Information
received relates to a revised Site
Layout Plan, a Nutrient Management
Plan, Nitrogen Loading Details and
other documents.
0.6 Although, this planning application is 0.6
km away from the redline boundary, the
planning application is approximately
0.2 km away from the gas pipeline. There
is potential for an in-combination noise
effect between the gas pipeline and the
planning application. Given the linear
nature of the of works associated with
laying the gas pipeline the time at any one
location is short, combined with the
relatively minor scale of the works in
planning application, this shall not result in
any significant noise effects.
Monaghan
County
Council
22229 Permission to erect a two-storey
dwelling house, insert a filter unit and
percolation area and exit on to public
road by way of existing entrance
1.3 There is no pathway for a significant
negative cumulative effect to occur to any
ecological receptor between the Proposed
Development and this planning
application. This Planning Application is
not adjacent to any water body thus there
is no hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover,
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
Monaghan
County
Council
22312 Permission consisting of erection of
1,300m2 or 250.24kWP of
photovoltaic panels on the roofs of
our existing manufacturing buildings,
in the factory; with all associated site
works
1.4 Although, this planning application is 1.4
km away from the redline boundary, it is
adjacent to the gas pipeline. This planning
application shall not result in any habitat
loss. The planning application is
approximately 950 m south of the
Crosslea (IE_NW_36D020600)
waterbody. Given the nature of the
planning application, this is deemed a
sufficient setback zone as to not result in
any cumulative impact between the
proposed development and the gas
pipeline. Moreover, Given the linear nature
of the of works associated with laying the
gas pipeline the time at any one location is
short, combined with the relatively minor RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-52
Planning
Authority
Application
Reference
Number
Development Description Distance
from the
Red Line
Boundary
(km)
Potential for Significant Cumulative
Effect
scale of the works in planning application,
this shall not result in any significant noise
effects.
Monaghan
County
Council
21178 Permission for a development
consisting of the decommissioning
of existing septic tank and provision
of a new wastewater treatment
system and percolation area
together with all associated site
development works
2 There is no pathway for a significant
negative cumulative effect to occur to any
ecological receptor between the Proposed
Development and this planning
application. This Planning Application is
not adjacent to any water body thus there
is no hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover,
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
Monaghan
County
Council
21189 Permission to construct a two-storey
style dwelling house & detached
domestic garage, install new
mechanical effluent treatment
system, raised/mounded soil-based
percolation area, new domestic
entrance onto existing public road
together with all ancillary site works
2 There is no pathway for a significant
negative cumulative effect to occur to any
ecological receptor between the Proposed
Development and this planning
application. This Planning Application is
not adjacent to any water body thus there
is no hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover,
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
Monaghan
County
Council
21177 Permission for a development
consisting of a new two-storey
dwelling, associated detached
external store, opening of a new
vehicular entrance to site and
wastewater treatment system and
percolation area together with all
associated site development works.
2 There is no pathway for a significant
negative cumulative effect to occur to any
ecological receptor between the Proposed
Development and this planning
application. This Planning Application is
not adjacent to any water body thus there
is no hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover, RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-53
Planning
Authority
Application
Reference
Number
Development Description Distance
from the
Red Line
Boundary
(km)
Potential for Significant Cumulative
Effect
Significant further information
relates to revised drawings.
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
Monaghan
County
Council
2491 Permission to construct a new
poultry unit together with new
agricultural entrance, hardened
areas, vertical meal bins,
underground washings tanks and all
ancillary site works
2.2 There is no pathway for a significant
negative cumulative effect to occur to any
ecological receptor between the Proposed
Development and this planning
application. This Planning Application is
not adjacent to any water body thus there
is no hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover,
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
Monaghan
County
Council
21506 Permission that consists of
construction of a slatted cubicle
house with underground slurry
storage tank together with all
ancillary site development works
2.3 There is no pathway for a significant
negative cumulative effect to occur to any
ecological receptor between the Proposed
Development and this planning
application. This Planning Application is
not adjacent to any water body thus there
is no hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover,
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
Monaghan
County
Council
21272 Permission for a development
consisting of a new single storey
extension to front and side of
existing school, alterations to
elevations, toilet facilities,
multipurpose room, signage,
connection to on site services and
associated works
2.5 This Planning Application is not adjacent
to any water body thus there is no
hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover,
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-54
Planning
Authority
Application
Reference
Number
Development Description Distance
from the
Red Line
Boundary
(km)
Potential for Significant Cumulative
Effect
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
Monaghan
County
Council
2560449 Permission for the proposed works
will comprise of alterations to
existing Potting Sheds and change
of use to Artist's Studios (previously
approved PL 19/574). Works will
include an increase in floor area,
alterations to the floor plan and
elevations, development of a ramp
access, canopy and alterations to
the external staircase to the tower.
Also, pergola/ramp link between
Potting Sheds and Dance Studio
and internal alterations to Dance
Studio. All to include external works
and connections/alterations to site
services and all associated site
works. All within the curtilage of a
Recorded Protected Structure, ref
No. 41401716.
2.5 This Planning Application is not adjacent
to any water body thus there is no
hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover,
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
There is no pathway for a significant
negative cumulative effect to occur to any
ecological receptor between the Proposed
Development and this planning
application.
Monaghan
County
Council
239013 Permission to revise the proposed
development granted permission
Planning Ref: 18/57, by providing
for: a) extensions to the 2 No.
Proposed poultry houses, and, b) a
supplementary extension to the
existing poultry house (in addition to
the extension previously approved)
together with all ancillary structures
and ancillary site works on, and or,
adjacent to an existing poultry farm.
This application relates to a
development, which is for the
purposes of an activity (Licensing)
Regulation 1994 to 2013. An
Environmental Impact Assessment
Report (EIAR) will be submitted with
this planning application
2.6 This planning application is approximately
100m north of the Rockcorry stream
(IE_NW_36D020700), however, given the
scale of the planning application, it is not
anticipated that this planning application
will result in significant surface water
runoff. Moreover, the Rockerry Stream
has a hydrological length of approximately
10 km before it converges with the
Dromore 36 ((IE_NW_36D020700)
waterbody downstream of the Proposed
Development Site and the Gas Pipeline).
Moreover, due to the distance between the
Gas Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
Monaghan
County
Council
22479 Permission to construct a new single
storey art studio and use existing site
entrance together with all ancillary
site works
2.8 This Planning Application is not adjacent
to any water body thus there is no
hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover, RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-55
Planning
Authority
Application
Reference
Number
Development Description Distance
from the
Red Line
Boundary
(km)
Potential for Significant Cumulative
Effect
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
There is no pathway for a significant
negative cumulative effect to occur to any
ecological receptor between the Proposed
Development and this planning
application.
Monaghan
County
Council
2460027 Permission for development
consisting of the extension and
renovation of existing terrace of 5
houses comprising of: 04 No. 02
storey, 03-bedroom houses and 01
No. 03 storey 04-bedroom house,
upgrade existing foul and surface
water connections to public sewers,
together with all associated site
works.
2.8 This Planning Application is not adjacent
to any water body thus there is no
hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover,
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
There is no pathway for a significant
negative cumulative effect to occur to any
ecological receptor between the Proposed
Development and this planning
application.
Cavan
County
Council
2560192 to carry out the following alterations
& works to an existing dwelling
house. (1) To construct a new single
storey extension to side of existing
dwelling house building, and (2) To
upgrade existing septic tank system
to a new approved proprietary
wastewater treatment system &
percolation area, together with all
associated site development works
2.8 This Planning Application is not adjacent
to any water body thus there is no
hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover,
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
There is no pathway for a significant
negative cumulative effect to occur to any
ecological receptor between the Proposed
Development and this planning
application. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-56
Planning
Authority
Application
Reference
Number
Development Description Distance
from the
Red Line
Boundary
(km)
Potential for Significant Cumulative
Effect
Monaghan
County
Council
2560015 Permission for the extension and
renovation of the existing house,
shop and the adjoining Gospel Hall
comprising of: Provision of a new
conference room and WC facilities
on the ground floor with 1 no 3
bedroom apartment over, an
additional detached Pastoral Hub to
the rear, improved access and toilet
facilities to the Gospel Hall and
permanent retention of a storage
shed and a car parking area,
Significant Further Information
relates to submitted, revised
drawings
2.8 This Planning Application is not adjacent
to any water body thus there is no
hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover,
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
There is no pathway for a significant
negative cumulative effect to occur to any
ecological receptor between the Proposed
Development and this planning
application.
Monaghan
County
Council
21223 Permission for development at this
site at the building known as
Anderson's Pub, Drum, Co.
Monaghan. The building is as a
protected structure of local
importance in the Monaghan County
Development Plan 2019-2025 under
the title 'Anderson's Pub' (ref. no.:
Local 80). The development will
consist of works including (i)
alterations to the internal layouts of
the previously approved planning
application ref. 19/575 (ii)
conversion of existing stores at
ground floor level to guest
accommodation with annex and the
addition of new external steps to
provide access, (iii) conversion of an
alterations to 2 no. stables at lower
ground floor to create guest
accommodation, (iv) repair and
thermal upgrade of the external
fabric of the property including repair
works to the existing windows, (v)
refurbishment of glazing and shop
front to front façade and (vi) all
associated site works
2.9 This Planning Application is not adjacent
to any water body thus there is no
hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover,
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
There is no pathway for a significant
negative cumulative effect to occur to any
ecological receptor between the Proposed
Development and this planning
application. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-57
Planning
Authority
Application
Reference
Number
Development Description Distance
from the
Red Line
Boundary
(km)
Potential for Significant Cumulative
Effect
Monaghan
County
Council
22497;
20433
Permission for development
consisting of: Expansion to existing
facility to provide additional
warehouse capacity of 443.50sqm,
laboratory area of 327.2sqm,
ancillary office & staff facilities of
951.10sqm over 4 storeys, with an
overall height of 15.8m from ground
level. The change of use of existing
warehouse area to accommodate a
tower which will facilitate ingredient
storage & blending with a floor area
of 2134.2sqm with an overall height
22.7m from ground level. This tower
expansion will be positioned
alongside existing towers. The
associated internal service and
ancillary floorspace extends to 6
storeys that will include 87.3sqm
associated office space and
1115.3sqm storage space.
Expansion to rear of existing facility
to accommodate 4no.powder silos
with floor area of 776.1sqm over 5
storeys. Overall height 20.8 metres
from ground level. Additional first
floor office of 42.8sq.m within
existing warehouse. First floor 4.2
metres above ground floor, overall
height 7m from ground level.
Demolition and removal of existing
prefabricated office building. Overall
height 3m from ground level, floor
area of 274.7sqm. New standalone
water treatment plant, floor area of
463.6sqm and associated
equipment, plant, yard & the height
of highest tank is 15.4m from ground
level. 3no. existing water tanks to be
relocated from within existing facility
& incorporated within new water
treatment plant. 3no. existing water
tanks and existing water treatment
equipment to be removed off site.
Installation of new 250mm diameter
2.9 This planning application had been
appealed to An Coimisiún Pleanála
whereby the latest appeal had a decision
of ‘Application for leave refused.’ Thus,
there is no potential for a cumulative effect
between the proposed development and
this planning application. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-58
Planning
Authority
Application
Reference
Number
Development Description Distance
from the
Red Line
Boundary
(km)
Potential for Significant Cumulative
Effect
water ring main around the north and
east of the existing facility building.
Provision of a temporary
construction compound to the north
of existing car parks comprising a
total of 1750sqm. Ancillary works will
also include for; relocation of staff
shelter, removal of existing bicycle
shelter & provision of new bicycle
shelter, realigning existing kerbing,
relocation of underground surface
water sampling points, associated
car parking spaces which
incorporates 10no. electric vehicle
charge spaces along with
associated ducting and services
within the proposed car parks. All
associated site
development/construction works
required to facilitate the proposal
along with connection to existing foul
water, storm water & service
networks. The Abbott Ireland
Cootehill site operates in compliance
with a licence issued under Part IV of
the Environmental Protection
Agency Act 1992 (as amended by
the Protection of the Environment
Act,2003)
An
Coimisiún
Pleanála
(ACP)
ACP
309119-21
110kV loop-in/loop-out substation
including substation compound,
associated electrical plant and
apparatus
3.1 This Planning Application is not adjacent
to any water body thus there is no
hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover,
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
There is no pathway for a significant
negative cumulative effect to occur to any
ecological receptor between the Proposed
Development and this planning
application. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-59
Planning
Authority
Application
Reference
Number
Development Description Distance
from the
Red Line
Boundary
(km)
Potential for Significant Cumulative
Effect
Monaghan
County
Council
19486 A ten-year permission for the
development of 8 no. wind turbines,
each with a maximum tip height of up
to 180 metres; and all associated
site development, reinstatement,
temporary and ancillary works
including turbine foundations, crane
hardstands
5 This Planning Application is not adjacent
to any water body thus there is no
hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover,
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
There is no pathway for a significant
negative cumulative effect to occur to any
ecological receptor between the Proposed
Development and this planning
application.
Monaghan
County
Council
21510 To amend the approved
development (Planning Reference:
16/507) of a temporary (25 years)
solar farm to include photovoltaic
panels with mounting frames on
screw pile foundations, inverters,
transformers, substation, DNO
building, communications build
5.2 This Planning Application is adjacent to a
river water body, however, there is no
hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover,
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
Monaghan
County
Council
21136 Permission to consist of a minor
amendment to the development
permitted under Monaghan County
Council Planning Register
Reference 19/486 to revise the
alignment of the permitted access
track between wind turbines T2 and
T3.
5.5 This Planning Application is adjacent to a
river water body, however, there is no
hydrological connection between the
planning application and the Proposed
Development and Gas Pipeline. Moreover,
due to the distance between the Gas
Pipeline, there is no potential for the
Proposed Development, the Gas Pipeline
and this planning application to give rise to
cumulative effects to habitat loss, noise
disturbance and air quality effects.
There is no pathway for a significant
negative cumulative effect to occur to any
ecological receptor between the Proposed
Development and this planning
application.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-60
Based on review of relevant planned developments within the local area, no other projects are
predicted to interact with the habitats and species present within or adjacent to the site in a manner
that would generate significant cumulative impacts. The improved agricultural grassland (GA1),
hedgerows, and treelines present on-site are common in the surrounding landscape, and no
overlapping pressures have been identified that would exacerbate the effects of the proposed
development. Consequently, the cumulative effects on local biodiversity are assessed as not
significant.
11.5.3.2 Cumulative Plans Impact Assessment
This section considers the potential cumulative effects arising when the Project is viewed in the
context of other land-use changes and developments envisaged under the Monaghan County
Development Plan 2025–2031, particularly those matters addressed in Chapter 6 (Heritage,
Conservation and Landscape).
Chapter 6 of the MCDP recognises natural heritage broadly, including fauna, flora, habitats, landscape,
wetlands, watercourses, woodlands, hedgerows, and other ecological and landscape features as
assets that should be preserved, protected and enhanced.
The plan acknowledges that only a limited portion of County Monaghan is covered by European or
national-level designations, and promotes a green infrastructure approach including ecological
corridors, connectivity, and protection of local biodiversity sites and habitat networks beyond
statutory conservation sites.
As such, development within the county should consider not only direct effects on designated sites
but also impacts on non-designated but ecologically valuable land and landscape elements (e.g.
hedgerows, field boundaries, minor watercourses, semi-natural habitats) that contribute to ecological
connectivity and biodiversity at a local level.
When the Project is considered alongside other developments and land-use changes envisaged under
the MCDP (e.g. agricultural intensification, forestry, renewable-energy or infrastructure
developments, rural enterprise, and general development pressures), there is potential for cumulative
effects on ecological receptors, including:
• Incremental loss or fragmentation of non-designated habitats (hedgerows, treelines, small
field-boundary features) across the landscape;
• Reduction in ecological connectivity and disruption to ecological corridors, potentially
affecting species movement and habitat resilience;
• Increased pressure on watercourses, wetlands and drainage networks from multiple
developments, contributing to hydrological alteration or cumulative nutrient / sediment
loading;
In view of the local baseline conditions (improved agricultural grassland and hedgerows of low to
moderate ecological value) and the absence of statutory designated habitats on-site, the incremental
contribution of the proposed development to biodiversity pressures associated with the County-wide
plan is low. There are no overlapping developments known within the immediate vicinity that would
amplify habitat loss or fragmentation from this project. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-61
Therefore, whilst the broader county-level context underlines the importance of maintaining
ecological networks, the proposed project’s additional effect on those networks is assessed as not
significant, provided the development is implemented with standard good practice.
It is also relevant that the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025–2031 includes policies aimed at
reducing nutrient pressures on biodiversity, particularly those arising from agriculture and manure
management. These policies promote improved nutrient efficiency, protection of watercourses,
sustainable land management, and reductions in diffuse pollution. When considered in this context,
the proposed development may contribute positively to wider ecological objectives by supporting
more controlled and regulated handling of organic materials, thereby reducing the potential for
unmanaged nutrient release to soils and water bodies. As a result, at a plan-level scale, the project
aligns with and may reinforce County-wide measures intended to lessen nutrient and manure-related
pressures on habitats, offering the potential for a positive cumulative interaction with the
Development Plan’s biodiversity and water-quality goals.
The All-Ireland Pollinator Plan (2021–2025) sets out national objectives to protect and enhance
habitats for pollinating insects through measures such as reducing habitat loss, improving flower-rich
foraging areas, and supporting integrated land-management practices. Elements of the proposed
development, particularly the landscape planting, creation of vegetated margins, and provision of
managed areas with native shrub and tree species are consistent with these national objectives and
have the potential to contribute to improved foraging and shelter opportunities at the local scale.
When viewed cumulatively with the implementation of the Pollinator Plan across the wider region,
the project may offer a modest positive contribution to pollinator-supporting habitat availability.
11.5.3.3 Digestate
While the proposed development does not include the land spreading of digestate, land spreading of
digestate produced at the proposed development is considered a reasonably foreseeable indirect
activity associated with the future operation of the facility and has been considered accordingly within
this chapter of the EIAR.
The use of digestate as an organic fertiliser may give rise to potential indirect effects on local
biodiversity. These include:
• Nutrient Enrichment of Habitats
Over-application or misapplication of digestate may lead to nutrient enrichment
(eutrophication) of adjacent terrestrial habitats such as unimproved grasslands, and
wetlands, potentially leading to a loss of biodiversity.
• Runoff to Aquatic Habitats
Nutrient-rich runoff may affect water quality in ditches, streams, ponds, and rivers, resulting
in ecological changes such as algal blooms, and impacts to fish populations.
• Soil Biological Health
While digestate can enhance soil organic content and microbial activity when applied
correctly, excessive or repeated applications may lead to temporary imbalances in soil
invertebrate and microbial communities. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-62
• Disturbance to Terrestrial Fauna
Spreading operations can cause short-term disturbance to ground-nesting birds, small
mammals, or invertebrates in and around application areas, especially if digestate is applied
during sensitive breeding or nesting periods.
To mitigate this risk:
• The anaerobic digestion process will meet relevant stabilisation and pathogen reduction
standards through pasteurisation as is proposed;
• Landowners and occupiers proposing to use the digestate produced by the proposed
facility will be required to apply it in accordance with certified nutrient management plans
and avoid application near sensitive or unmanaged ecological margins, in accordance with
Good Agricultural Practice (see below);
Provided the land spreading activity is undertaken in accordance with the Good Agricultural Practice
framework the following will avoid control and minimise the risk to biodiversity arising from such
activity:
• Maximum nitrogen and phosphorus application rates;
• Prohibited spreading periods (e.g. during winter months);
• Minimum buffer (set-back) distances from watercourses, wells, and karst features;
• The use of low emission spreading techniques,
• Requirements for soil condition and weather suitability (e.g. avoiding wet and frozen
conditions);
• Record-keeping and nutrient management planning;
• Exclusion of areas that could result in run-off to sensitive aquatic habitats;
• Requirement to obtain a relevant consent for any plan, project or activity likely to have a
significant effect on a European site (within the meaning of the Habitats Regulations),
including activities requiring the consent of the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local
Government (NPWS);
• Prohibition of activities that could cause or permit the spread of specified invasive plants or
animals, per the Habitats Regulations and Wildlife Acts.
Provided that third party landowners and occupiers comply with their obligations under the Good
Agricultural Practice framework and with the Habitats Regulations and Wildlife Acts, no significant
indirect or cumulative impacts on general biodiversity are anticipated.
11.5.4 Summary
No Annex I habitats or Annex II species (EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC) were recorded. The nearest
EPA mapped watercourse (IE_NW_36D020700) lies approximately 350 m north-east of the Proposed RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-63
Development site (395m from the point of discharge) connecting downstream to Natura 2000 sites
(via a significant hydrological distance >38 km).
• Habitat Loss and Fragmentation: Construction will result in the long-term loss of areas of
improved agricultural grassland (GA1), the central treeline (WL2) and sections of hedgerow
(WL1) along the northern and eastern boundaries. The affected habitats are of low to
moderate local ecological value. The long-term habitat loss is assessed as negative, minor and
local and is not significant.
• Disturbance: Construction-related noise, vibration, lighting, vehicle movements and general
activity may result in temporary disturbance to birds, bats and other fauna using retained or
adjoining habitats. These effects will be localised and short-term.
• Water Quality: Earthworks and spills could introduce silt or pollutants into local land drains,
reaching Coolkill Lough Stream (IE_NW_ 36D020700) - DROMORE_070).
• Broader Connectivity: DROMORE_070 links to Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC
(14.8 km SW) and Upper Lough Erne SPA (23 km W) via the River Erne system, but not
Magheraveely SAC (14.5 km NW) or Kilroosky SAC (12.2 km W) in the Finn River catchment.
Appropriate Assessment (AA) Screening concludes no significant effects due to distance and
dilution.
The principal potential ecological effects of the Proposed Development comprise permanent, localised
habitat loss; short-term construction-related disturbance; and a limited risk of surface-water
contamination affecting drainage features that ultimately connect with the DROMORE_070
waterbody. These effects are confined to low and moderate value habitats (GA1, WL1, WL2, FW4) and
common, widespread fauna. No Annex I habitats, Annex II species, or SCI species occur within the ZoI,
and there is no functional linkage between the Proposed Development site or the gas pipeline and any
Natura 2000 site.
There is an indirect hydrological pathway between the Proposed Development site and Lough Oughter
and Associated Loughs SAC. However, having regard to the approximately 38 km hydrological
distance, the intervening drainage network and catchment characteristics, no likely significant effects
on the European site are predicted, as set out in the AA Screening Report.
The Linear Gas Grid Connection is predominantly confined to the existing roadbed and verge. The
route-specific ecological survey identified roadside drainage features and adjacent wet habitats,
which have been considered in the assessment. Subject to the applicable construction and
environmental protection measures, no significant effects on these features are predicted.
11.6 Mitigation Measures
This section outlines mitigation measures to be implemented during the construction and operation
of the proposed development to avoid or minimise ecological impacts. The Proposed Development
site comprises improved agricultural grassland (GA1), well-managed hedgerows (WL1), a central
treeline (WL2), and dry drainage ditches (FW4), with no other on-site watercourses. Mitigation targets
potential impacts on local biodiversity and downstream receptors, including Coolkill Lough Stream.
Measures align with best practice (CIRIA C532, 2023; EPA Guidelines, 2022; IFI Guidelines, 2021) and RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-64
are detailed in a site-specific outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (oCEMP)
submitted with the planning application.
The gas pipeline forms part of the overall Project assessed within this EIAR but will be delivered
separately by Gas Networks Ireland under the relevant statutory consenting process. Accordingly,
mitigation measures relating to the gas pipeline are provided as recommended measures to inform
the detailed design and construction of those works
11.6.1 Incorporated Design Phase Mitigation
The proposed development has been designed to incorporate environmental best practices and
features that minimise potential impacts on the surrounding environment, in line with Irish and EU
environmental standards. These design elements are principally inherent to the project (incorporated)
though would provide protection of the ecological environment. The facility will be a state-of-the-art,
highly regulated plant incorporating best available technologies (BAT) and operating systems to
ensure environmental protection and operational efficiency. It will include the following key
components:
• Surface Water Management:
- An engineered stormwater drainage system will collect and manage surface water
run-off, directing it to designated attenuation and storage areas principally for
rainwater harvesting. This system is designed to comply with Sustainable Drainage
Systems (SuDS) principles, reducing the risk of sediment or pollutant transport and
will be designed and developed in accordance with CIRIA C753 ‘SuDS Manual’
(December 2015).
- Indoor delivery and handling of feedstock and its processing in an enclosed and sealed
system, with all handling of feedstock and other materials carried out indoors.
- Operational areas of the site will benefit from an engineered containment system
comprising impermeable surfaces. Bunds and other means of containment (designed
to meet CIRIA standards) will be provided for all tanks and pipework containing liquids
whose spillage could be harmful to the environment. This shall be designed in
accordance with CIRIA C736 ‘Containment systems for the prevention of pollution -
Secondary, tertiary and other measures for industrial and commercial premises’ (June
2014).
- Surface water run-off from the tank farm bund area will utilise a pump chamber
outfall, with a pumping station conveying surface water collected within this area into
the main AD process. In the biogas plant software controls, this area will be set as a
priority water source for reuse over any other water sources.
- As referred to above, rainwater harvesting will be employed on site, comprising a
drainage system designed to collect stormwater run-off from all impermeable
surfaces. Captured stormwater will be diverted to the AD process and will only be
discharged from site when all stormwater storage capacity is full and there is no
requirement for this water in the process. In the event that stormwater run-off does
require discharge, the drainage system will be designed to discharge water at a rate
equivalent to the greenfield runoff, with attenuation being provided to accommodate
this worst-case scenario up to and including the 1 in 100-year event plus an allowance
for climate change. Therefore, stormwater discharge from the site will not result in
any quantity increase within the existing water environment. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-65
- Stormwater run-off will enter the drainage network via system of traditional channel
drains and pipes before entering into various attenuation tanks (with a range of
proprietary treatment measures in place). Run-off from internal roads will enter the
drainage network via gullies and proposed conveyance swales where the water will
be slowed and partially treated before entering the wider drainage system. Oil water
interceptor units (or similar) will be installed on the inlets and outlet pipework
downstream from the tanks, to provide a final treatment stage prior to surface water
being diverted back into the AD process or being discharged from the site.
- All process effluent associated with incoming feedstock together with any floor wash
down in the process building will be contained. This will be drained to a central sump
inside the building from where it will be recycled to the AD process.
• Emissions Control:
- A robust multi-stage odour control system will be installed to manage odour
emissions from the AD process, ensuring compliance with EPA air quality standards
(Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992, as amended) in respect of odour. A
backup gas flare is included to safely combust excess biomethane, minimising
greenhouse gas emissions, though this will experience minimal operational usage. The
CHP units, boiler and dryer stack will be designed to comply with the relevant Emission
Limit Values (ELVs) and shall be regulated by the EPA in accordance with the IEL.
• Materials Management:
- All raw material, fuel, fire water, and liquid waste storage tanks will be bunded with
secondary containment systems to prevent spills or leaks, adhering to best practices
for pollution.
• Traffic and Access:
- The new site entrance on the L2280 Drumcall Road includes road widening and partial
realignment to ensure safe access for site vehicles, whilst minimising traffic-related
disturbance to the surrounding area. Wheel washes will be installed to prevent the
transfer of soil, debris and contaminants onto the public road, reducing dust and
sediment impacts.
• Landscaping and Biodiversity:
- The proposed development will retain existing hedgerows (WL1) and treelines (WL2)
where possible. Hedgerows and trees that have been lost will be replaced and a
comprehensive landscape mitigation plan implemented, with extensive areas of
planting. As part of this landscape management plan, native hedgerows and
woodland tree species comprising of a mix of high, low and understorey species shall
be planted. A proposed wildflower mix shall be sown along the northern boundary of
the Proposed Development site. Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) (shall be the main
hedgerow species planted.
These design features ensure that the proposed development aligns with environmental best
practices, reducing the likelihood of impacts on potential environmental receptors.
11.6.2 Construction Phase Mitigation
All mitigation measures described in the outline Construction Environmental Management Plan
(oCEMP) included with this application, as well as those described in the Air Quality, Landscape, Land
& Soils, Noise & Vibration, and Hydrology chapters of this EIAR, are deemed adopted for the purposes
of ecological protection. Unless specifically noted otherwise in this chapter, the biodiversity chapter RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-66
does not repeat these measures. Readers are directed to the Summary of Mitigation chapter and the
relevant EIAR chapters for detailed mitigation measures.
11.6.2.1 Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)
An oCEMP and Soil & Surface Water Management Plan (SSWMP) are included with the application
documents which set out further measures for managing construction activities, environmental risks,
and mitigation actions.
11.6.2.1.1 Flora and Fauna
An Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW - or someone with similar responsibilities) will oversee all
necessary hedgerow habitat clearance work within the Proposed Development site. They will ensure
that all mitigation is followed, that all necessary measures to avoid impacts on nesting birds and other
wildlife are carried out and that all replanting is also undertaken. Hedgerows will be enhanced through
supplementary planting of native species and a sensitive management regime used to enhance
existing hedgerows for wildlife. Existing gaps will be closed. This includes the rotational cutting of the
hedgerows to ensure a diversity of habitats on the sites each year, and the maintenance of hedgerows
at a minimum height of 2 m to promote hedgerow biodiversity value. Please refer to the Landscape
Management Plan prepared by Macro Works.
Root protection zones of hedgerows and trees to be retained within the Proposed Development site
will be protected in order to maintain any bat foraging and commuting potential.
Where hedgerows and trees are to be removed, these will be cut to a minimum of 30 cm above ground
level
Prior to tree and hedgerow removal, the ECoW shall undertake a pre-clearance survey to identify any
active bird nests within vegetation proposed for removal. If an active nest is identified, works capable
of affecting the nest will cease and an appropriate exclusion zone and/or timing restriction wi ll be
established by the ECoW. Any requirement for licensing will be determined in consultation with NPWS
and in accordance with the applicable statutory requirements.
Although Meadow Pipit, Linnet, Redwing, black headed gull, grey wagtail (red listed species) was
identified within the Proposed development site, species specific mitigation measures have not been
proposed as there was no breeding or nesting behaviour identified within the Proposed Development
site. All records identified these bird species as flying over the Proposed Development site. Meadow
pipit was the only species identified as feeding on the site. As assessed in Section 11.5.2.1, the
proposed works may result in low levels of disturbance, resulting in short-term displacement which
will not negatively affect the population due to the abundance of agricultural grasslands within the
vicinity, thus, species specific mitigation measures are not required.
Prior to removal of trees or hedgerows with potential to support roosting bats, an appropriate pre-
clearance assessment will be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist. If a potential or confirmed
bat roost is identified, the relevant works will cease pending further assessment by a suitably qualified
bat ecologist and implementation of any additional avoidance, mitigation or licensing requirements
identified as necessary. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-67
11.6.3 Operational Phase Mitigation
A Light Impact Assessment Report has been undertaken in relation to proposed development, within
which lighting utilises an anti-glare optic design and is International Dark Sky Association approved,
which minimises upward light spill and onto boundary vegetation. Furthermore, lighting is in
compliance with the Lighting Professionals ILP Guidance note for the reduction of Obtrusive Light and
utilises timeclock controls to turn off lighting after 21:00 in order to minimise impacts to foraging and
commuting bats. The lighting scheme is based on 8m high free standing light columns fitted with cut
off horizontal cowls to minimise light spill and direct light downwards. This shall prevent overspill into
more ecologically sensitive locations such as the new woodland planting and hedgerows. Bat / bird
boxes can also be provided at suitable locations throughout the site to enhance habitat provision.
The layout of the plant has been designed so that potentially noise generating equipment is located
within buildings or acoustic containers. Potential noise sources (such as CHP engines, dryer, pumps,
fans and agitators) have been identified and engineered with acoustic containment measures (as
required) to prevent potential impacts to fauna from noise emissions. Operational areas of the site
will benefit from an engineered site drainage containment system comprising an impermeable
surface. Bunds and other means of containment (designed to meet CIRIA standards) will be provided
for all tanks and pipework containing liquids whose spillage could be harmful to the environment and
downstream receptors such as the Coolkill Lough Stream.
All process effluent associated with incoming feedstock together with any floor wash down in the
process building will be contained. This will be drained to a central sump inside the building from
where it will be recycled to the AD process. Therefore, in the unlikely event of a spill or in the event of
an extreme rainfall event or flooding on the site, this site-wide fully contained engineered process
water system is designed to prevent the release of potentially polluting materials to local drains.
It is proposed that SuDS measures will manage and control surface water runoff from the site.
Rainwater harvesting is a key measure that will be included in the management of surface water for
the plant. Harvested rainwater will be used in the process and any excess runoff will be discharged
from the site to existing surface water drainage via an attenuation storage system. Oil water
separators and silt traps will contain any potential contaminants within the areas subject to surface
water drainage.
Foul drainage collected from the on-site welfare facilities will pass through a package treatment plant
prior to the treated liquid being recirculated for use in the AD process.
11.7 Residual Impact Assessment
This section assesses potential significant environmental impacts which remain after mitigation
measures are implemented. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-68
11.7.1.1 Habitat loss, disturbance and fragmentation
11.7.1.1.1 Renewable Biogas-Site
11.7.1.1.1.1 Construction Phase
The oCEMP and ecological protection measures set out in this chapter will minimise disturbance to
retained habitats during construction. Following implementation of these measures, the residual
effect associated with temporary disturbance of retained habitats is assessed as negative, minor, local
and short-term, and is not significant.
The long-term loss of areas of improved agricultural grassland (GA1) and affected sections of
hedgerow (WL1) and treeline (WL2) within the development footprint cannot be mitigated through
construction management measures. Having regard to the low to moderate local ecological value of
the affected habitats, the limited extent of the loss and the availability of similar habitats within the
surrounding agricultural landscape, the residual effect associated with habitat loss is assessed as
negative, minor, local and permanent, and is not significant.
11.7.1.1.1.2 Operational Phase
The Landscape Management Plan provides for new native woodland, hedgerow and other habitat
planting within the Proposed Development site. As this planting establishes, it will provide additional
habitat and contribute to ecological connectivity within the site. The residual effect associated with
the proposed habitat creation and enhancement is assessed as beneficial, minor and permanent, and
is not significant.
11.7.1.1.2 Proposed Pipeline Route
11.7.1.1.2.1 Construction Phase
The gas pipeline will be constructed within the roadbed or verge of the R189/R188, significantly
minimising the potential for habitat disturbance and fragmentation. Whilst there may be scope for
some roadside habitat loss (dry meadows and grassy verges (GS2)), the associated residual impact
during the construction phase shall be largely neutral and shall not be significant.
11.7.1.1.2.2 Operational Phase
The proposed pipeline route shall not result in any habitat loss, disturbance or fragmentation during
the operational phase. The residual impact is neutral and shall not be significant.
11.7.1.2 Spread of Invasive Alien Plant Species
11.7.1.2.1 Renewable Biogas-Site
11.7.1.2.1.1 Construction Phase
No IAPS were recorded within the Proposed Development site and the likelihood of encountering
invasive plant material is therefore considered low. Nevertheless, appropriate biosecurity and soil-
handling measures will be implemented during construction to minimise the potential for the
introduction or spread of invasive species. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-69
11.7.1.2.1.2 Operational Phase
There were no IAPS identified within the Proposed development site; thus, it is very unlikely for there
to be potential for spread of IAPS. Moreover, as the proposed development shall not be introducing
additional soil into the Proposed Development site, the potential to introduce IAPS is greatly limited.
As such the residual effect is neutral.
11.7.1.2.2 Proposed Pipeline Route
11.7.1.2.2.1 Construction Phase
Along the southern boundary of the gas pipeline, there are stands of Common Rhododendron
(Rhododendron ponticum) and Cherry Laurel (Prunus laurocerasus). The contractor engaged by Gas
Networks Ireland shall be provided with this information and can plan and implement their working
practices appropriately so that potential for spread of IAPS is avoided. As there is not a significant
infestation of IAPS along the route, this will be avoided and will not result in any negative effects, thus,
the residual impact shall be neutral and shall not be significant.
11.7.1.2.2.2 Operational Phase
Due to the nature of the gas pipeline, there is no potential to result in a spread of IAPS, thus the
residual impact shall be neutral and shall not be significant.
11.7.1.3 Potential impacts on Fauna - Avifauna
11.7.1.3.1 Renewable Biogas-Site
11.7.1.3.1.1 Construction Phase
For all species, nest avoidance procedures during the construction phase will ensure that direct
impacts on birds and their nesting habitat will be minimised to neutral and these effects shall not be
significant. These provisions are detailed within the oCEMP.
11.7.1.3.1.2 Operational Phase
During the operational phase of the proposed development, there will be tree planting of 17 native
tree and shrub species. This will provide additional nesting and foraging habitat for common woodland
and farmland bird species. This will result in a beneficial, minor, long-term residual impacts associated
with the proposed development. These effects shall not be significant.
11.7.1.3.2 Gas Pipeline
11.7.1.3.2.1 Construction Phase
The low to medium increases in noise disturbances associated with works to the proposed pipeline
shall be mitigated with implementation of best working practices as part of a CEMP. As such, residual
impacts to bird species will be minimised to neutral and shall not be significant.
11.7.1.3.2.2 Operational Phase
Due to the nature of the gas pipeline, there is no potential for the gas pipeline to cause any disturbance
to bird species. Thus, there shall not be any negative effects associated with the gas pipeline for bird
species during the operational phase. As such, residual impacts to bird species will be minimised to
neutral and will not be significant. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-70
11.7.1.4 Bats
11.7.1.4.1 Renewable Biogas-Site
11.7.1.4.1.1 Construction Phase
With the implementation of a lighting strategy sympathetic to nocturnal fauna and maintenance of
root protection zones, there will be a neutral residual impact on bats during the construction phase.
These are not significant. These provisions are detailed within the oCEMP.
11.7.1.4.1.2 Operational Phase
With the implementation of a lighting strategy sympathetic to nocturnal fauna, there will be a neutral
effect on bats during the operational phase. Furthermore, hedgerow, broadleaved tree and woodland
creation is proposed within the site, predominantly between the proposed biogas plant and the
eastern boundary. This shall result in beneficial, minor, long-term residual impact on the bat
population as a result of the vegetation planting. These effects shall not be significant.
11.7.1.4.2 Gas Pipeline Route
11.7.1.4.2.1 Construction Phase
No mitigation measures are proposed along the gas pipeline route as the construction shall not result
in significant negative effects to bats or their habitats, thus, the gas pipeline route shall have an
imperceptible and short-term effect.
11.7.1.4.2.2 Operational Phase
The operational gas pipeline will be located entirely below ground and will not introduce operational
lighting, noise, habitat loss or barriers to bat commuting or foraging. No additional disturbance to bats
or their habitats will arise during operation and the existing roadside habitat will continue to function
as part of the wider landscape. Accordingly, the operational phase will have a neutral, long-term
residual effect on bats. These effects are not significant.
11.7.1.5 Badgers
11.7.1.5.1 Renewable Biogas-Site
11.7.1.5.1.1 Construction Phase
Even though no setts were recorded, and no badger prints were identified within the red line
boundary, measures shall still be implemented as part of the oCEMP to prevent adverse impacts to
badgers. As such, the residual impact is neutral.
11.7.1.5.1.2 Operational Phase
During the operational phase, the proposed woodland to be planted to the east of the Main Process
Building in conjunction with the bolstering of hedgerows and new planting shall provide improved
foraging and commuting habitat for badgers compared with intensively managed improved
agricultural grassland (GA1). Based on the above, the proposed development shall have a beneficial,
minor, long-term residual impact. The effect is not significant. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-71
11.7.1.5.2 Gas Pipeline Route
11.7.1.5.2.1 Construction Phase
As no setts were identified along the gas pipeline route and there is no potential for the gas pipeline
to negatively affect any suitable habitats associated with badgers, no mitigation measures have been
proposed specifically within this chapter. The mitigation measures associated with the noise and
vibration, air quality chapter, shall further reduce any potential to negatively affect badgers. As such,
the effects on the gas pipeline route shall be imperceptible and short-term.
11.7.1.5.2.2 Operational Phase
The operational gas pipeline is located entirely below ground and will not introduce any disturbance
or habitat loss. Accordingly, the residual impact is neutral and not significant.
11.7.1.6 Surface Waters
11.7.1.6.1 Renewable Biogas-Site
11.7.1.6.1.1 Construction Phase
The oCEMP includes a suite of measures that will manage materials in accordance with Construction
Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites and in accordance with the suite
of CIRIA documents that address the issue of water management on construction sites (see the soil
and surface water management plan included as an appendix to the oCEMP). On this basis, the
residual impact upon surface waters during construction will be imperceptible and short term.
11.7.1.6.1.2 Operational Phase
The residual impact upon surface waters would be neutral and not significant due to the suite of
incorporated (embedded) mitigation design measures such as:
• the engineered stormwater drainage system;
• indoor delivery and handling of feedstock and its processing in an enclosed and sealed system;
• engineered containment system comprising impermeable surfaces (designed to meet CIRIA
standards);
• reutilisation of surface water within the process / rainwater harvesting;
• SUDS proprietary treatment systems;
• maintenance of exclusion zones around field drains; and
• materials management (i.e. all chemical, fuel, fire water, and liquid waste storage tanks will
be bunded with secondary containment systems).
As such, based on the mitigation measures associated, the effects shall be imperceptible and not
significant.
11.7.1.6.2 Gas Pipeline
11.7.1.6.2.1 Construction Phase
The Linear Gas Grid Connection will be delivered by Gas Networks Ireland in accordance with the
applicable statutory consenting process and GNI's technical, environmental and construction
management requirements. Ecological protection measures applicable to the works will include RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-72
measures for the protection of roadside habitats, drainage features and surface waters, together with
appropriate invasive species management and reinstatement measures.
11.7.1.6.2.2 Operational Phase
The gas pipeline has no potential to increase surface water runoff or to generate likely sources of
pollution. As such, the residual impact shall be neutral and not significant.
11.7.1.7 Summary Table
Table 11-15 Summary of Residual Effects – Biodiversity
Aspect Project
Element
Construction Phase
Residual Effect
Operational Phase
Residual Effect
Significance
Habitats – Loss,
Disturbance,
Fragmentation
Renewable
Biogas-Site
Temporary disturbance to
retained habitats
Negative, minor,
local, short-term.
Not
Significant
Renewable
Biogas-Site
Long-term loss of GA1 and
affected sections of
WL1/WL2
Negative, minor,
local, permanent.
Not
Significant
Gas Pipeline
Route
Neutral (works confined to
road corridor; minor GS2
loss)
Neutral Not
Significant
Invasive Alien Plant
Species (IAPS)
Renewable
Biogas-Site
Neutral (no IAPS present;
best practice in oCEMP)
Neutral Not
Significant
Gas Pipeline
Route
Neutral (localised
Rhododendron/Cherry
Laurel avoided)
Neutral Not
Significant
Birds (Avifauna) Renewable
Biogas-Site
Neutral (nesting avoidance
measures)
Beneficial, minor,
Long-term (new
tree/shrub habitat)
Not
Significant
Gas Pipeline
Route
Neutral (minor noise
disturbance mitigated)
Neutral Not
Significant
Bats Renewable
Biogas-Site
Neutral (lighting & root
protection in oCEMP)
Beneficial, minor,
Long-term (new
woodland &
hedgerows)
Not
Significant
Gas Pipeline
Route
Neutral Neutral Not
Significant
Badgers Renewable
Biogas-Site
Neutral (no setts;
precautionary measures)
Beneficial, minor,
Long-term (improved
foraging habitat)
Not
Significant
Gas Pipeline
Route
Neutral Neutral Not
Significant
Surface Waters Renewable
Biogas-Site
Neutral (oCEMP & water
management measures)
Neutral (engineered
drainage, bunding,
SUDS)
Not
Significant
Gas Pipeline
Route
Neutral (oCEMP) Neutral Not
Significant RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-73
11.8 Risk of Major Accidents or Disasters
Major accidents and disasters are events which can result in immediate or delayed significant harm to
the environment. In the context of this assessment, major accidents are typically anthropogenic
(caused by humans or their activities) and include for example the accidental loss of containment of
dangerous substances, leading to fires and/or explosions. Disasters are typically naturally occurring
phenomena, such as earthquakes, landslides and flooding. They can also be man-made / external
hazards such as an act of terrorism.
With regards to major accidents, loss of containment of dangerous substances, leading to fires and/or
explosions, or release of hazardous substances into the water environment presents the most
plausible risk of adverse impact upon biodiversity as a result of a major accident. The Renewable
Biogas Plant will be a state-of-the-art development utilising best available technologies and operating
systems, with several abatement systems incorporated into the plant design to mitigate the potential
for adverse impacts on the environment. In particular, an engineered site drainage containment
system and bunding designed to meet CIRIA standards would significantly limit the potential for
impact beyond the confines of the proposed renewable biogas plant if such a an event occurred. Fires
or explosions could also have an impact upon flora and fauna within confines the proposed renewable
biogas plant though these impacts would be localised and not significant. As such, it is anticipated that
there would be no likely significant effects on biodiversity after embedded mitigation as a result of
major accidents.
The potential for extreme flood events to impact upon the proposed renewable biogas plant has been
appropriately considered within Section 10.11 of the Water and Hydrology chapter, concluding that
the risk of such an event occurring is low. Furthermore, the risk of major accidents and disasters
associated with climate change has been appropriately considered within Section 14.12 of the Climate
chapter which concludes that all climate change-related risks were categorised as ‘low’.
A further relevant construction-phase risk relates to potential ground instability or localised failure of
earthwork berms, which could result in the release of sediment to adjacent surface waters. A ground
investigation with appropriate testing will be carried out prior to construction to understand the
potential risks and inform methods to be used, if required. The construction of the proposed
development will be completed in accordance with best practice. To reduce risks associated with
ground instability, industry standard construction methods / design features appropriate to the
context of the proposed development will be used. The use of suitably experienced contractors, risk
assessments, method statements and operating procedures will minimise the risk of this scenario
occurring during construction of the proposed development. Thorough structural engineering design
of new structures and temporary structures, such as excavations, will be in accordance with industry
codes and standards. A Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be in place
to control potential impacts of construction works including the development of a construction traffic
management plan at the proposed development. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-74
In conclusion, no likely significant effects on biodiversity as a result of major accidents and disasters
are anticipated.
11.9 Worst Case Scenario
The biodiversity assessment assesses credible, worst-case risk events. The worst-case scenario would
relate to the failure of embedded or proposed mitigation measures to manage environmental risk that
would perhaps be associated with an event described in Section 11.8. From a biodiversity perspective,
this would most likely manifest in acute and chronic water quality impacts that could affect
downstream conditions and associated habitats.
Nevertheless, as set out above, the mitigation associated with the proposed development is
multifaceted and designed to manage such events. Furthermore, all activities on site will be
undertaken in compliance with applicable health & safety and environmental requirements. The plant
will be stringently regulated with standards and controls applied by the relevant authorities including
the Health and Safety Authority (HSA), Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of
Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM). All operational mitigation measures set out in this EIAR will
be adhered to.
The proposed development cannot operate without an Industrial Emissions (IE) Licence, which is
issued and regulated by the EPA. Under the EPA Act, 1992, the EPA issues licences that contain strict
conditions on how an activity must operate so as to protect the environment. The EPA grants and
enforces IE licences for specified industrial and agricultural activities including AD as listed in the First
Schedule to the EPA Act, as amended (11.4 (b) and (c)). This will help minimise the likelihood of these
issues occurring and protect the surrounding environment.
11.10 Interactions
Please refer to Chapter 18.
11.11 Monitoring
The proposed development cannot operate without an Industrial Emissions (IE) Licence issued and
regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The IE Licence will include monitoring,
inspection and reporting requirements to ensure the facility operates in accordance with
environmental protection standards.
During the construction phase, ecological protection measures will be implemented through the
Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The Construction Environmental
Management Organisation (CEMO) Coordinator will undertake regular inspections to verify that
ecological protection measures are being implemented, including the protection of retained
vegetation, pollution prevention measures, and the prompt identification of any unforeseen
ecological issues requiring corrective action.
Following construction, the Contractor shall prepare and implement a Landscape and Ecology
Aftercare Plan for a minimum period of three full growing seasons following completion of planting, RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-75
or three years following completion of the development, whichever is the longer. The Aftercare Plan
shall include, as a minimum:
• inspection and maintenance of retained trees, hedgerows and treelines;
• replacement of failed trees, shrubs and hedgerow planting to maintain the approved planting
scheme;
• management and maintenance of new woodland, hedgerow and grassland planting to
encourage successful establishment;
• monitoring for the establishment and spread of invasive species, with appropriate control
measures where required; and
• inspection of habitat creation areas to confirm successful establishment and implementation
of any necessary remedial measures.
The implementation of these measures will ensure that the proposed mitigation and biodiversity
enhancement measures establish successfully and continue to provide the intended ecological
function over the long term.
The Linear Gas Grid Connection will be delivered separately by Gas Networks Ireland. Ecological
protection, biosecurity and reinstatement measures associated with construction of the Linear Gas
Grid Connection will be implemented and verified in accordance with GNI's applicable construction
and environmental management procedures.
11.12 Conclusion
The Proposed Development occupies an approximately 6.2 ha site comprising predominantly
improved agricultural grassland (GA1), bordered by hedgerows (WL1) and a central treeline (WL2),
together with agricultural drainage ditches (FW4). These habitats are generally of low ecological value,
with the boundary hedgerows and central treeline assessed as being of moderate local ecological
value due principally to their role in habitat connectivity and their potential to support common fauna.
Ecological surveys recorded limited use of the Proposed Development site by mammals and birds.
Meadow pipit was recorded foraging within the site, but no breeding activity was identified.
Hedgerows and treelines provide potential commuting and foraging habitat for bats, although only
very limited bat activity was recorded. No Annex I habitats, Annex II species or Annex I bird species
were recorded within the Proposed Development site.
Construction of the Renewable Biogas Plant will result in the long-term loss of areas of species-poor
improved agricultural grassland and sections of hedgerow and treeline, together with temporary
disturbance associated with construction activity. Potential indirect effects may also arise through
sediment-laden runoff, accidental pollution, dust, noise and artificial lighting. These effects are
localised and, following implementation of the embedded design measures and mitigation measures
set out in this chapter and the CEMP, no significant adverse residual effects on biodiversity are
predicted. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-76
The Linear Gas Grid Connection comprises approximately 3.5 km of underground pipeline located
predominantly within the existing public road corridor and associated road verges. Habitats recorded
along the route include dry meadow and grassy verge (GS2), amenity grassland, recolonising bare
ground, artificial surfaces, stone walls, drainage ditches and locally occurring wet habitats. Stands of
Rhododendron and Cherry Laurel were also identified along the southern part of the route and have
been taken into account in the assessment.
Construction of the Linear Gas Grid Connection will give rise to temporary and localised disturbance
within the road corridor, including limited disturbance or loss of roadside vegetation, temporary noise
and activity and the potential for interaction with roadside drainage features and invasive plant
species. These effects are limited by the linear and temporary nature of the works. The pipeline will
be delivered by Gas Networks Ireland in accordance with the applicable statutory consenting process
and GNI's technical, environmental and construction management requirements. Following
implementation of the applicable ecological protection, biosecurity, pollution prevention and
reinstatement measures, no significant residual construction effects on habitats, birds, bats, badgers,
surface waters or other ecological receptors are predicted. During operation, the buried pipeline will
not introduce ongoing lighting, noise, habitat fragmentation or material disturbance, and no
significant operational effects on biodiversity are predicted.
The Proposed Development site is hydrologically connected through the surrounding agricultural
drainage network to the Coolkill Lough Stream and ultimately to Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs
SAC. This indirect hydrological pathway has been considered in this chapter, Chapter 10: Water and
the AA Screening Report. Having regard to the approximately 38 km hydrological distance, the
intervening drainage network and catchment characteristics, no likely significant effects on any
European site are predicted.
The Proposed Development also incorporates new native woodland, hedgerow and other landscape
planting which will provide additional habitat and strengthen ecological connectivity as the planting
establishes. Construction-phase ecological supervision and subsequent landscape and ecological
aftercare will provide for the protection of retained habitats and the successful establishment of
proposed planting.
Taking account of the ecological baseline, embedded design measures, identified mitigation and
monitoring commitments, no significant adverse effects on biodiversity are predicted as a result of
either the Renewable Biogas Plant or the Linear Gas Grid Connection. Accordingly, no significant
adverse effects on biodiversity are predicted because of the Proposed Project, either alone or in
combination with other plans or projects.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-77
11.13 References and Sources
Scientific Publications and Reports
1. Bailey, M. & Rochford, J. (2006)
o Otter Survey of Ireland 2004/2005. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 23. National Parks and
Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government,
Dublin, Ireland.
o Otter distribution data (Section 4.2.2).
2. Balmer, D.E., Gillings, S., Caffrey, B.J., Swann, R.L., Downie, I.S., & Fuller, R.J. (2013)
o Bird Atlas 2007–11: The Breeding and Wintering Birds of Britain and Ireland. BTO
Books, Thetford, UK.
o Bird population context (Section 4.2.2).
3. Bardonnet, A. & Baglinière, J.L. (2000)
o “Freshwater Habitat of Atlantic Salmon.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 57(3), 497–506.
4. Byrne, A., Moorkens, E.A., Anderson, R., Killeen, I.J., & Regan, E.C. (2009)
o Ireland Red List No. 2 – Non-Marine Molluscs. National Parks and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland.
o Mollusc conservation status (Section 4.2.2).
5. Chanin, P. (2003)
o Ecology of the European Otter. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 10.
English Nature, Peterborough, UK.
o Otter ecology (Section 4.2.2).
6. Chilibeck, B., Chislett, G., & Norris, G. (1992)
o Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat. Department of
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Habitat Management Division, and Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks, Integrated Management Branch, Canada.
7. Crisp, D.T. (1996)
o “Environmental Requirements of Common Riverine European Salmonid Fish Species
in Freshwater with Particular Reference to Physical and Chemical Aspects.”
Hydrobiologia, 323(3), 201–221.
8. Cross, J., Perrin, P., & Little, D. (2010)
o The Classification of Native Woodlands and Its Application to Native Woodland
Management. Native Woodland Information Note 6. Woodlands of Ireland.
o Woodland classification (Section 3.3).
9. Curtis, T., Downes, S., & Ní Chatháin, B. (2009)
o “The Ecological Requirements of Water-Dependent Habitats and Species Designated
under the Habitats Directive.” Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish
Academy, 109B(3), 261–319.
o Water-dependent species ecology (Section 5.7).
10. Demers, A., Lucey, J., McGarrigle, M., & Reynolds, J. (2005) RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-78
o “The Distribution of the White-Clawed Crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes) in
Ireland.” Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 105B(2),
65–69.
o Crayfish distribution (Section 4.2.2).
11. Doherty, D., O’Maoiléidigh, N., & McCarthy, T.K. (2004)
o “The Biology, Ecology and Future Conservation of the Twaite Shad (Alosa fallax), Allis
Shad (Alosa alosa), and Killarney Shad (Alosa fallax killarniensis) in Ireland.” Biology
and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 104B(2), 93–102.
o Shad ecology (Section 4.2.2).
12. Escauriaza, C., Paola, C., & Voller, V.R. (2017)
o “Computational Models of Flow, Sediment Transport and Morphodynamics in Rivers.”
In Gravel Bed Rivers: Processes and Disasters, edited by Tsutsumi, D. & Laronne, J.B.,
231–260. Wiley Blackwell.
13. Fitter, R., Fitter, A., & Blamey, M. (1985)
o Wild Flowers of Britain and Northern Europe. Collins, London, UK.
o Plant identification (Section 3).
14. Fitter, R., Fitter, A., & Farrer, A. (1984)
o Grasses, Sedges, Rushes and Ferns of Britain and Northern Europe. Harper Collins,
London, UK.
o Grass identification (Section 3).
15. Fitzpatrick, Ú., Murray, T.E., Byrne, A., Paxton, R.J., & Brown, M.J.F. (2006)
o Regional Red List of Irish Bees. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Dublin, Ireland.
o Bee conservation status (Section 4.2.2).
16. Fossitt, J.A. (2000)
o A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council, Kilkenny, Ireland.
17. Gilbert, G., Stanbury, A., & Lewis, L. (2021)
o “Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland 4: 2020–2026.” Irish Birds, 9(4), 523–544.
18. Gurnell, J. (1987)
o The Natural History of Squirrels. Christopher Helm, London, UK.
o Squirrel ecology (Section 4.2.2).
19. Holdich, D. (2003)
o Ecology of the White-Clawed Crayfish. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring
Series No. 1. English Nature, Peterborough, UK. Available at: www.riverlife.org.uk.
o Crayfish ecology (Section 4.2.2).
20. Hubbard, C.E. (1992)
o Grasses: A Guide to Their Structure, Identification, Uses and Distribution in the British
Isles. Penguin Books, Middlesex, UK.
o Grass species identification (Section 3).
21. Jermy, A.C., Chater, A.O., & David, R.W. (1982)
o Sedges of the British Isles: BSBI Handbook No. 1. Botanical Society of Britain and
Ireland, London, UK.
o Sedge identification (Section 3).
22. Johns, M. (2002) RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-79
o “Lampreys: Relicts from the Past.” British Wildlife, 13(6), 381–388.
o Lamprey ecology (Section 4.2.2).
23. Kruuk, H. & Parish, T. (1982)
o “Factors Affecting Population Density, Group Size and Territory Size of the European
Badger, Meles meles.” Journal of Zoology, 196(1), 31–39.
o Badger ecology (Section 4.2.2).
24. Lawrence, M. & Browne, R. (1974)
o Mammals of Britain: Their Tracks, Trails and Signs. 2nd Edition. Blandford Press,
London, UK.
o Mammal sign identification (Section 4.2.2).
25. Lundy, M.G., Aughney, T., Montgomery, W.I., & Roche, N. (2011)
o Landscape Conservation for Irish Bats & Species-Specific Roosting Characteristics. Bat
Conservation Ireland.
o Bat ecology and conservation (Section 4.2.2).
26. Marnell, F., Kingston, N., & Looney, D. (2009)
o Ireland Red List No. 3: Terrestrial Mammals. National Parks and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland.
Available at: https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/RL3.pdf.
o Mammal conservation status (Section 4.2.2).
27. Morrison, P. (1989)
o Bird Habitats of Great Britain and Ireland. Mermaid Books, London, UK.
o Bird habitat context (Section 4.2.2).
28. Nelson, B., Ronayne, C., & Thompson, R. (2011)
o Ireland Red List No. 6: Damselflies & Dragonflies (Odonata). National Parks and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government,
Dublin, Ireland.
o Odonata conservation status (Section 4.2.2).
29. O’Grady, M.F. (2006)
o Channels and Challenges: The Enhancement of Salmonid Rivers. Irish Freshwater
Fisheries Ecology and Management Series, No. 3. Central Fisheries Board, Dublin,
Ireland.
30. O'Reilly, P. (2002)
o Rivers of Ireland: A Flyfisher’s Guide. 5th Edition. Merlin Unwin Books, Ludlow, UK.
31. Regan, E.C., Nelson, B., Aldwell, B., Bertrand, C., Bond, K., Harding, J., Nash, D., Nixon, D., &
Wilson, C.J. (2010)
o Ireland Red List No. 4 – Butterflies. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of
the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland.
o Butterfly conservation status (Section 4.2.2).
32. Savage, M. (1962)
o The Ecology and Life History of the Common Frog (Rana temporaria). Hafner
Publishing Co., New York, USA.
o Frog ecology (Section 4.2.2).
33. Scholefield, D. & Stone, A.C. (1995) RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-80
o “Nutrient Losses in Runoff Water Following Application of Different Fertilisers to
Grassland Cut for Silage.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 55(3), 181–191.
o Nutrient runoff impacts (Section 5.7).
34. Skinner, A., Young, M., & Hastie, L. (2003)
o Ecology of the Freshwater Pearl Mussel. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series
No. 2. English Nature, Peterborough, UK.
o Mussel ecology (Section 4.2.2).
35. Smith, A.J.E. (2004)
o The Moss Flora of Britain & Ireland. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
o Moss identification (Section 3).
36. Smith, G.F., O’Donoghue, P., O’Hora, K., & Delaney, E. (2011)
o Best Practice Guidance for Habitat Survey and Mapping. The Heritage Council,
Kilkenny, Ireland.
37. Solbe, J. (1988)
o Water Quality for Salmon and Trout. Atlantic Salmon Trust, Pitlochry, UK.
38. Stace, C.A. (1991)
o New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. [Note:
Updated to 3rd Edition, 2010, where applicable in revisions.]
o Flora identification (Section 3).
39. Svobodová, Z., Lloyd, R., Máchová, J., & Vykusová, B. (1993)
o Water Quality and Fish Health. EIFAC Technical Paper 54. European Inland Fisheries
Advisory Commission, FAO, Rome, Italy.
40. Webb, D.A., Parnell, J., & Doogue, D. (1996)
o An Irish Flora. Dundalgan Press, Dundalk, Ireland.
o Irish plant identification (Section 3).
Guidance and Policy Documents
41. CIEEM (2018)
o Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland. Chartered Institute
of Ecology and Environmental Management. [Note: Superseded by CIEEM (2024) in
revisions.]
o Ecological impact assessment framework (Sections 5, 7).
42. Environment Agency UK (2011)
o Managing Concrete Wash Waters on Rehabilitation Sites: Good Practice and
Temporary Discharges to Ground or to Surface Waters. Regulatory Position
Statement.
43. EPA (2018)
o Standard Operating Procedure for River Biological Monitoring Field Sampling Surveys
(Version 1.7). Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland. Internal publication.
44. MONAGHAN BIODIVERSITY AND HERITAGE STRATEGIC PLAN 2020–2025
o Monaghan County Council.
o Local biodiversity context (Section 6). RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 11-81
45. NPWS (2021)
o Conservation Objectives: Kilroosky Lough Cluster SAC 001786. Version 1. National
Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage,
Ireland.
o SAC conservation objectives (Section 3.5).
46. NPWS (2021)
o Conservation Objectives: Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs SAC 000007. Version
1. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Housing, Local Government and
Heritage, Ireland.
o SAC conservation objectives (Section 3.5).
47. NRA (2009)
o Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes. Revision
2. National Roads Authority (now Transport Infrastructure Ireland). Available at:
http://www.tii.ie/technical-services/environment/planning/.
48. Office of the Planning Regulator (OPR) (2021)
o Appropriate Assessment Screening for Development Management. Office of the
Planning Regulator, Ireland.
o AA screening guidance (Section 3.5).
49. Red List No. 5: Amphibians, Reptiles & Freshwater Fish (2011)
o National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht,
Dublin, Ireland.
o Amphibian and fish conservation status (Section 4.2.2).
Legislation
50. Council Directive 92/43/EEC
o On the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (EU Habitats
Directive).
51. Directive 2009/147/EC
o On the Conservation of Wild Birds (EU Birds Directive).
Data Sources
52. EPA Maps
o Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland. Available at: https://gis.epa.ie/EPAMaps/.
53. NBDC (2022)
o National Biodiversity Data Centre – Biodiversity Maps. Available at:
https://maps.biodiversityireland.ie/Map. [Note: Updated to June 2024 access in
revisions.]
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
Stream BioEnergy Ireland Limited
VOLUME II
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
CHAPTER 12
NOISE & VIBRATION
AUGUST 2026
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-1
Table of Contents
12 Noise & Vibration .................................................................................................................. 12-4
12.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 12-4
12.2 Expertise & Qualifications ..................................................................................................... 12-4
12.3 Proposed Project ................................................................................................................... 12-4
12.3.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site ................................................................................................. 12-5
12.3.2 Linear Gas Grid Connection................................................................................................... 12-6
12.3.3 Aspects Relevant to this Assessment .................................................................................... 12-6
12.3.4 Operational Phase ................................................................................................................. 12-6
12.4 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 12-7
12.4.1 Outline Methodology Approach ........................................................................................... 12-7
12.4.2 Fundamentals of Acoustics ................................................................................................... 12-7
12.4.3 Relevant Legislation & Guidance – General .......................................................................... 12-9
12.4.4 Site Surveys/Investigations ................................................................................................. 12-20
12.4.5 Study Area (Zone of Influence) ........................................................................................... 12-20
12.5 Difficulties Encountered ...................................................................................................... 12-21
12.6 Baseline Environment ......................................................................................................... 12-21
12.6.1 Application Area .................................................................................................................. 12-21
12.6.2 Baseline Survey ................................................................................................................... 12-23
12.6.3 Vibration .............................................................................................................................. 12-28
12.7 The ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario .................................................................................................. 12-28
12.7.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site ............................................................................................... 12-28
12.7.2 Linear Gas Grid Connection................................................................................................. 12-29
12.8 Potential Significant Effects ................................................................................................ 12-29
12.8.1 Construction Phase ............................................................................................................. 12-29
12.8.2 Operational Phase ............................................................................................................... 12-39
12.8.3 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 12-46
12.8.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 12-48
12.9 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................... 12-50
12.9.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site ............................................................................................... 12-50
12.9.2 Linear Gas Grid Connection................................................................................................. 12-53
12.10 Residual Impact Assessment ............................................................................................... 12-53
12.10.1 Construction Phase ............................................................................................................. 12-53
12.10.2 Operational Phase ............................................................................................................... 12-53
12.10.3 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 12-54
12.10.4 Summary of Post-mitigation Effects ................................................................................... 12-54
12.11 Risk of Major Accidents or Disasters ................................................................................... 12-56 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-2
12.12 Worst Case Scenario ........................................................................................................... 12-56
12.13 Interactions ......................................................................................................................... 12-56
12.14 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 12-57
12.14.1 Construction Phase ............................................................................................................. 12-57
12.14.2 Operational Phase ............................................................................................................... 12-57
12.15 Summary of Mitigation and Monitoring ............................................................................. 12-57
12.16 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 12-57
12.17 References and Sources ...................................................................................................... 12-58
Table of Figures
Figure 12.1 dB(A) Scale and Indicative Noise Levels .......................................................................... 12-8
Figure 12.2 Distribution of Identified NSLs in Study Area ............................................................... 12-23
Figure 12.3 Baseline Noise Monitoring Locations ........................................................................... 12-24
Figure 12.4 Operational Noise Levels – Noise Contour Plot Daytime ............................................. 12-41
Figure 12.5 Operational Noise Levels – Noise Contour Plot Evening and Night-time .................... 12-43
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-3
Table of Tables
Table 12-1 Threshold of Potential Significant Effects for Construction Phase .......................... 12-11
Table 12-2 Construction Noise Significance Ratings .................................................................. 12-13
Table 12-3 Classification of Magnitude of Traffic Noise Changes in the Short-Term ................ 12-13
Table 12-4 Recommend Construction Vibration Thresholds for Buildings ................................ 12-14
Table 12-5 Guidance on effects of human response to PPV magnitudes.................................. 12-15
Table 12-6 EPA NG4 – Quiet Area Screening ............................................................................. 12-16
Table 12-7 EPA NG4 – Measured Ambient Noise Levels for Quiet Area Screening ................... 12-19
Table 12-8 EPA NG4 – Operational Noise Criteria for LBN ........................................................ 12-19
Table 12-9 Guidance on Indoor Ambient Noise Levels for Dwellings ........................................ 12-20
Table 12-10 Noise Survey Results Measured at UN1 – October 2024 ..................................... 12-25
Table 12-11 Noise Survey Results Measured at UN1 – October 2025 ..................................... 12-27
Table 12-12 Noise Survey Results Measured at AT1 – AT3 (October 2024) ............................ 12-28
Table 12-13 Indicative Construction Noise Levels during Utility Diversions............................ 12-31
Table 12-14 Indicative Construction Noise Levels during Site clearance and Earthworks ...... 12-32
Table 12-15 Indicative Construction Noise Levels during Foundations, Piling and Structural works
12-33
Table 12-16 Indicative Construction Noise Levels during Superstructure, Hardstanding and Fit out
Works 12-34
Table 12-17 Construction Traffic Noise Levels ............................................................................. 12-35
Table 12-18 Construction Plant Noise Source Levels for Gas Pipeline Route .......................... 12-36
Table 12-19 Indicative Noise Levels from Construction for Gas Pipeline Route ......................... 12-37
Table 12-20 Operational Noise Levels – Daytime Period ............................................................. 12-40
Table 12-21 Operational Noise Levels – Evening and Night-time Period .................................... 12-42
Table 12-22 Operational Traffic Noise Levels .............................................................................. 12-45
Table 12-23 Review of Potential Cumulative Impacts from Surrounding Developments ....... 12-46
Table 12-24 Summary of Construction Phase Likely Significant Effects in the absence of mitigation
12-48
Table 12-25 Summary of Operational Phase Likely Significant Effects in the absence of mitigation
12-50
Table 12-26 Summary of Construction Phase Effects Post Mitigation .................................... 12-54
Table 12-27 Summary of Operational Phase Effects Post Mitigation ...................................... 12-55
Table 12-28 Summary of Construction Phase Mitigation and Monitoring .............................. 12-57
Table 12-29 Summary of Operational Phase Mitigation and Monitoring ............................... 12-57
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-4
12 Noise & Vibration
12.1 Introduction
This chapter of the EIAR evaluates the likely significant effects, if any, which the project will have on
noise and vibration. This chapter contains necessary information as defined in the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) ‘Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact
Assessment Reports’ (EPA, 2022).
The chapter initially provides a characterisation of the receiving environment of the site from a noise
perspective and the potential impacts of the development (in terms of construction and operation).
When assessing potential impacts, this assessment considers the significance of the environmental
attributes, and the predicted scale, and duration of the likely effects.
The chapter also outlines the proposed mitigation measures that will reduce or eliminate the
identified potential impacts and defines the residual effects of the proposed project (the effect after
the implementation of mitigation measures and recommendations). Monitoring measures are
proposed where necessary.
This chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapter 2 (The Proposed Development) and Chapter
6 (Material Assets - Traffic and Transport) also contained within Volume II of this EIAR and the outline
Construction Environmental Management Plan (oCEMP) contained within Appendix 2-1 in Volume III
of this EIAR.
12.2 Expertise & Qualifications
This chapter of the EIAR has been prepared by Jennifer Harmon. Jennifer holds a BSc in Environmental
Science and a Diploma in Acoustics and Noise Control and has over 24 years’ experience in acoustic
consultancy. She is a member of the Institute of Acoustics (MIOA) and has extensive knowledge in the
field of environmental noise and vibration impact assessment, building acoustics and inward impact
assessments. She has prepared environmental noise and vibration impact assessments for numerous
major industrial, residential, commercial and infrastructural projects throughout the country, with
examples including:
• Industry: Pfizer DS2, Indaver Ringaskiddy, Dublin and Carranstown; and
• Transport: Metro Link, Bus Connects, N6 GCRR, N69 and Adare Bypass,
12.3 Proposed Project
The “Proposed Development” for which the Applicant seeks planning permission comprises the
Renewable Biogas Plant and associated works.
The overall “Proposed Project” subject to Environmental Impact Assessment also includes the Linear
Gas Grid Connection. The Linear Gas Grid Connection does not form part of the planning application
for the Renewable Biogas Plant and will be delivered separately by Gas Networks Ireland under the RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-5
applicable statutory consenting process. However, it forms part of the overall Proposed Project for
the purposes of EIA and its noise and vibration effects are therefore assessed within this chapter.
A detailed description of the Proposed Project is provided in Chapter 2 of this EIAR.
12.3.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site
The Proposed Development consists of the construction and operation of a Renewable Biogas Plant
and associated infrastructure. The principal elements of the plant comprise a main process building
where the feedstock for the anaerobic digestion (AD) process is received. An odour control system
with a dispersion stack will treat the air from the building. The feedstock passes to the AD tanks
located within a bunded tank farm. There is a combined heat and power (CHP) building within which
a gas fired CHP engine will generate electricity for the plant's energy needs. A Biogas Upgrade and
Treatment Plant will be installed to produce biomethane (a renewable natural gas) that will be
exported via a Gas Grid Entry Unit to the national gas grid. A CO2 Liquefaction plant will be installed to
capture the carbon dioxide in the biogas, turning it into liquid CO₂. A Dryer Building is proposed, where
the digestate will be dried, and a Pellet Hall will be constructed, where the digestate pellets will be
stored prior to removal from the site for use as a natural fertiliser product. Ancillary elements include
a gas dome, tanks to store incoming liquid feedstock, freshwater, firewater, and fuel, a backup gas
flare, a backup generator, a plant building, and a control building. Widening of the local road, berms,
a new site entrance, weighbridges, wheel washes, parking, lighting and all ancillary development
works and services also form part of the development.
A high-level process flow follows.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-6
12.3.2 Linear Gas Grid Connection
A gas transmission pipeline will provide a physical connection between the Renewable Biogas Plant
and the existing national gas network in Dromore West. Co. Monaghan. While the development of the
gas grid is not part of the planning application, as Gas Networks Ireland will deliver it, it is included in
this assessment as it constitutes a linked part of the project under the EIA Directive. The works are
expected to comprise the installation of an underground pipeline over approximately 3.5 km within
the existing public road corridor.
12.3.3 Aspects Relevant to this Assessment
When considering a development of this nature, the potential noise and vibration impacts on the
surrounding environment are considered for each of two distinct stages:
• Construction Phase; and
• Operational Phase
12.3.3.1 Construction Phase
During the temporary to short-term construction phase, works will involve site clearance and
earthworks, foundation and concrete works, steel works, construction of the superstructure, utility
areas, landscaping berms and fit out works. In addition to the construction activities on site, the
construction of the underground pipeline will be required to connect the proposed development to
the existing national gas network along the local road network. There will also be construction traffic
including movement of machinery and materials within and to and from the construction site.
A variety of plant items will be in use during works, all of which have the potential to generate noise
and potential levels of perceptible vibration. These will include breakers, excavators, loaders, dozers,
cranes and static plant such as generators, compressors and pumps.
Construction work will take place during normal working hours (7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Friday
and Saturday 8.00am to 2pm). However, the Contractor may need to work outside these hours,
particularly for setting-up traffic management arrangements associated with works to the
L2280/R189. Such occurrences will be kept to a minimum and take place over a short timeframe and
as such are unlikely to cause excessive disturbance.
Construction works within enclosed structures may be carried out outside these hours. This would
include installation and commissioning of plant and equipment.
12.3.4 Operational Phase
Once operational, the potential noise sources associated with the proposed development relate to
the operation of the various items of external plant and equipment, breakout noise from internal
buildings from the various areas of the site described in Section 12.3.1 and in more detail within
Chapter 2.
The Renewable Biogas Plant will operate on a 24/7 basis and hence all plant and equipment will
operate continually with the exception of traffic entering and exiting the site. The location of external
plant items with potential to emit noise to the surrounding environment are located across the site RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-7
but primarily located within the southwest quadrant in a utility area. These are all potential sources
of noise to the surrounding environment with potential for significant effects.
Traffic flows to and from the development via public roads have the potential to increase the
surrounding noise environment. Access to the proposed development site for the operational phase
is the same as the construction phase, i.e. from the L2280 approximately 200m west of the R189.
12.4 Methodology
12.4.1 Outline Methodology Approach
The methodology adopted for the assessment of noise and vibration is summarised below:
• Baseline noise monitoring has been carried out in the vicinity of the proposed development
and sensitive receptors in order to characterise the existing noise environment;
• A review of the most applicable standards and guidelines has been conducted in order to set
a range of acceptable noise and vibration criteria for the construction and operational
phases of the proposed development;
• Predictive calculations have been performed to assess the potential impacts associated with
the construction of the development at the most sensitive locations surrounding the
proposed development site;
• Predictive calculations have been performed to assess the potential impacts associated with
the operation of the development at the most sensitive locations surrounding the proposed
development site;
• A schedule of mitigation measures has been proposed to reduce, where necessary, the
identified potential outward impacts relating to noise and vibration from the proposed
development.
The potential cumulative impacts of the proposed development and surrounding permitted or
planned developments has been assessed for noise and vibration impacts. Appendix 12.1 in Volume
III presents a glossary of the acoustic terminology used throughout this Chapter. In the first instance,
some basic fundamentals of acoustics are reviewed to provide a broader understanding of the
technical discussion in this Chapter. Section 12.4.2 provides a brief overview of the fundamentals of
acoustics and the basis for the preparation of this noise and vibration assessment.
12.4.2 Fundamentals of Acoustics
A sound wave travelling through the air is a regular disturbance of the atmospheric pressure. These
pressure fluctuations are detected by the human ear, producing the sensation of hearing. In order to
take account of the vast range of pressure where levels that can be detected by the ear, it is convenient
to measure sound in terms of a logarithmic ratio of sound pressures. These values are expressed as
Sound Pressure Levels (SPL) in decibels (dB).
The audible range of sounds expressed in terms of Sound Pressure Levels is 0 dB (for the threshold of
hearing) to 120 dB (for the threshold of pain). In general, a subjective impression of doubling of
loudness corresponds to a tenfold increase in sound energy which conveniently equates to a 10 dB RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-8
increase in SPL. It should be noted that a doubling in sound energy (such as may be caused by a
doubling of traffic flows) increases the SPL by 3 dB.
The frequency of sound is the rate at which a sound wave oscillates and is expressed in Hertz (Hz). The
sensitivity of the human ear to different frequencies in the audible range is not uniform. For example,
hearing sensitivity decreases markedly as frequency falls below 250 Hz. In order to rank the SPL of
various noise sources, the measured level has to be adjusted to give comparatively more weight to
the frequencies that are readily detected by the human ear. Several weighting mechanisms have been
proposed but the ‘A-weighting’ system has been found to provide one of the best correlations with
perceived loudness. SPLs measured using ‘A-weighting’ are expressed in terms of dB(A). An indication
of the level of some common sounds on the dB(A) scale is presented in Figure 12.1.
The ‘A’ subscript denotes that the sound levels have been A-weighted. The established prediction and
measurement techniques for this parameter are well developed and widely applied. For a more
detailed introduction to the basic principles of acoustics, reference should be made to an appropriate
standard text.
Figure 12.1 dB(A) Scale and Indicative Noise Levels RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-9
12.4.3 Relevant Legislation & Guidance – General
12.4.3.1 National Guidelines
There are no statutory standards in Ireland relating to noise and vibration for construction works or
for environmental noise relating to the operational phase. In the absence of specific statutory Irish
guidelines, the assessment has referred to non-statutory national guidelines, where available, in
addition to the most appropriate and commonly used international standards and guidelines relating
to environmental noise and vibration which are best practice for environmental noise assessments in
Ireland. These are set out in the following sections.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in
Environmental Impact Assessment Reports (EPA 2022), hereafter referred to as EPA EIAR Guidelines
(2022) were considered and consulted in the preparation of this Chapter.
The significance of noise and vibration effects associated with the Proposed Development has been
described in accordance with the EPA 2022 Guidelines. With regard to the quality of the effect, ratings
may have positive, neutral or negative applications.
12.4.3.2 Local Guidelines and Policies
The Monaghan County Development Plan (2025 – 2031), sets out the following aims and objectives
relating to noise:
“The impact of noise pollution is an important consideration in assessing all development
proposals as it can impact on people’s quality of life and health. The Environmental Noise
Regulations 2018 (as amended 2021) give reference to the EU Directive 2002/49/EC relating to
the assessment and management of noise pollution. A Noise Action Plan is in place by the
Council for major roads within County Monaghan carrying more than 3,000,000 vehicles per
year. Using the provisions of the development management process, the Planning Authority
will aim to take account of and mitigate noise and/or vibration at site boundaries or adjacent
to noise sensitive locations, in particular residential properties with reference to layout, design
and/or noise attenuation measures”
N01: To promote the implementation of the Noise Directive 2002/49/EC and associated
Environmental Noise Regulations 2006.
NO2: To ensure development design considers noise alleviation measures, where appropriate, to
reduce noise and vibration impacts on surrounding amenities, particularly residential amenity and
other noise sensitive locations (e.g., places of worship, healthcare facilities).
The plan notes in Section 15.12.2 Industrial and Commercial Development Outside Settlements that
“It is accepted that there may be circumstances where it is not possible or appropriate to
locate a commercial or industrial development within a settlement. This may be due to
matters such as a lack of suitable lands or infrastructure, the need to locate beside an existing
development to benefit from synergies, or the need to locate beside a fixed resource. In these
circumstances, industrial and commercial developments may be considered acceptable where RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-10
it can be justified to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in accordance with the criteria
detailed below. Generally, sites adjacent to settlement envelopes shall be given preference
over those located in the wider rural area.
Proposals for industrial/commercial development or the expansion of an existing business
outside settlements, shall generally comply with the following:
d) There is no significant adverse impact on the amenity of occupants of nearby properties
as a result of the proposed development such as noise, light and/or odours.
Section 15.17 Renewable Energy Development, states:
“Proposals for renewable energy development, including associated infrastructure and
connection to the grid, shall not have any adverse impacts upon:
i) Existing or permitted land uses in the area due to noise disturbance generated by the proposal
or cumulatively generated by other similar proposals within the area.
Within the above policies and objectives there are no noise criteria outlined relating to acceptable
levels of noise or noise assessments. The following sections therefore set out the most appropriate
guidance documents relating to environmental noise and vibration to control noise impacts from the
development, based to the most appropriate and commonly used international standards and
guidelines relating to environmental noise and vibration which are best practice for environmental
noise assessments in Ireland.
12.4.3.3 Construction Phase Relevant Guidelines and Standards
Reference is made to the following guidelines and standards to inform the most appropriate
construction noise and vibration significance thresholds and assessment methodologies:
• British Standard Institute (BSI) British Standard (BS) 5228-1:2009 +A1 2014 Code of Practice
for noise and vibration control of construction and open sites - Part 1: Noise (hereafter
referred to as BS 5228–1) (BSI 2014);
• BS 5228-2:2009+A1:2014 Code of Practice for noise and vibration control of construction and
open sites - Part 2: Vibration (hereafter referred to as BS 5228 – 2) (BSI 2014);
• BS 7385: 1993 Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings Part 2: Guide to damage
levels from ground borne vibration (hereafter referred to as BS 7385–2). (BSI 1993);
• BS 6472-1: 2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings, Part 1
Vibration sources other than blasting (hereafter referred to as BS 6472–1) (BSI 2008);
• UK Highways Agency (UKHA) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) LA 111
Sustainability and Environmental Appraisal LA 111 Noise and Vibration Revision 2 (hereafter
referred to as DMRB Noise and Vibration) (UKHE 2020)
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9613-2:2024 Acoustics – Attenuation of
sound during propagation outdoors - Part 2: Engineering method for the prediction of sound
pressure levels outdoors (hereafter referred to as ISO 9613 – 2); and
• Transport Infrastructure Ireland (formerly NRA) (TII) Good Practice Guidance for the
Treatment of Noise during the Planning of National Road Schemes (TII, 2014). hereafter
referred to as TII 2014 Noise Document). RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-11
12.4.3.3.1 Construction Noise Criteria – Proposed Development Fixed Site
Construction noise sources include construction plant and machinery that will operate over the course
of the construction phase. Appropriate criteria relating to construction noise levels for the proposed
development is taken from British Standard BS 5228-1 (BSI 2014) is the most widely accepted standard
for this purpose in Ireland.
The ‘ABC’ methodology adopted from BS 5228-1 (BSI 2014) designates a Noise Sensitive Location (NSL)
into a specific category (A, B or C) based on existing ambient noise levels in the absence of construction
noise. For the appropriate assessment period (e.g. daytime) the ambient noise level is determined and
rounded to the nearest 5 dB. This then sets a Construction Noise Threshold (CNT) that, if exceeded at
this location, indicates a potential significant noise effect is associated with the construction activities,
depending on context. Note that, in accordance with the BS 5228-1 guidance, this assessment criterion
is only applicable to residential receptors.
Table 12-1 sets out the threshold values which, when exceeded, signify a potential significant effect
at the facades of residential receptors.
Table 12-1 Threshold of Potential Significant Effects for Construction Phase
Assessment category
and threshold value per
period (LAeq)
Threshold Value dB(A) For residential Receptors
Category A Note A Category B Note B Category C Note C
Night-time (23:00 to
07:00hrs) 45 50 55
Evenings and weekends
Note D 55 60 65
Daytime (07:00 – 19:00)
and Saturdays (07:00 –
13:00)
65 70 75
Note A) Category A: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5dB) are less than these
values.
Note B) Category B: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5dB) are the same as category
A values.
Note C) Category C: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5dB) are higher than category
A values.
Note D) 19:00 – 23:00 weekdays, 13:00 – 23:00 Saturdays and 07:00 – 23:00 Sundays.
12.4.3.3.2 Construction Noise Criteria – Linear Works
Due to the linear progressive nature of the construction works associated with the proposed gas grid
pipeline connection route, a fixed noise limit is proposed. This is deemed appropriate in that noise
from associated construction activities is variable and typically occurs for a short period of time only
and is at its highest when closest to the NSL. As the works progress, construction noise levels at the
NSL will reduce due to the works taking place at greater distances, resulting overall in shorter periods
of exposure to noise impacts.
In relation to an appropriate fixed noise limit value, BS 5228-1 paragraph E.2 states: RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-12
“Noise from construction and demolition sites should not exceed the level at which
conversation in the nearest building would be difficult with the windows shut.”
BS 5228—1 (BSI 2014) gives several examples of acceptable limits for construction noise, the most
simplistic being based upon the exceedance of fixed noise limits. Section E.2 notes
“Noise levels, between say 07.00 and 19.00 hours, outside the nearest window of the
occupied room closest to the site boundary should not exceed:
70 decibels (dBA) in rural, suburban areas away from main road traffic and industrial
noise;
75 decibels (dBA) in urban areas near main roads in heavy industrial areas”.
Transport Infrastructure Ireland (formerly NRA) (TII) Good Practice Guidance for the Treatment of
Noise during the Planning of National Road Schemes (TII, 2014)
The TII 2014 Noise document proposes daytime period (Monday to Friday 0700 – 1900 hrs)
construction noise limits of 70 dB LAeq,1hr and 65 dB LAeq,1hr for Saturdays between 0800 – 16:30hrs.
Considering the above guidance, a construction noise threshold of 70 dB LAeq,1hr is proposed for linear
construction activities on weekdays (i.e. Proposed Grid Connection). Noise levels above 70 dB L Aeq,1hr
would indicate a potential significant impact depending on the duration and frequency of occurrence
(Section 12.4.3.3.4 below).
12.4.3.3.3 Proposed Construction Noise Thresholds
Reference to the above criteria, proposed working hours and the baseline noise levels measured at
various locations around the site (Refer to Section 12.6.2), a ‘Category A’ threshold has been adopted
at all residential locations surrounding the site.
On this basis, the following CNTs are proposed, in line with the time periods in Table 12-1 for the
construction stage of this development:
• Residential NSLs daytime periods and Saturday mornings: 65 dB LAeq,T
• Residential NSLs evenings / Sundays: 55 dB LAeq,T
• Linear Construction Works 70 dB LAeq,T
12.4.3.3.4 Significance Ratings for Construction Noise Levels
In order to assist with interpretation of significance, Table 12-2 includes guidance as to the likely
magnitude of noise impact associated with Construction Noise Levels (CNL), relative to the CNT. This
guidance is derived from the DMRB Noise and Vibration (2020) document and adapted to include the
relevant significance effects from the EPA EIAR Guidelines (2022) using professional expertise and
judgment.
In accordance with the DMRB Noise and Vibration (2020) document, construction noise and
construction traffic noise impacts shall constitute a significant effect where it is determined that a
major or moderate magnitude of impact will occur for a duration exceeding:
• Ten or more days or night in any 15 consecutive day or nights; and
• A total number of days exceeding 40 in any six consecutive months. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-13
Table 12-2 Construction Noise Significance Ratings
CNL per period Classification of Impact
DMRB Classification of Impact EPA EIAR Guidelines Determination
Below or equal to baseline
noise level
Negligible Not Significant
Depending on range of CNT and
baseline noise level
Above baseline and below
or equal to CNT
Minor Slight to Moderate Note
A
Above CNT and Below or
equal to CNT +5 dB
Moderate Moderate to
Significant
Above CNT +5 dB and
below or equal to CNT
+15dB Note B
Major Significant to Very
Significant
Above +15dB
Note A: CNLs at the upper end of this range will result in higher potential impacts, therefore this range is `categorised as slight to
moderate, acknowledging that values approaching the CNT are greater than slight. In accordance with DMRB, noise levels
below the CNT are deemed ‘Not Significant’.
Note B: The DMRB does not distinguish beyond a ‘Major’ impact. For the purposes of distinguishing a Very Significant and Profound
Impact, CNLs exceeding the CNT by +20dB are categorised as Profound.
12.4.3.3.5 Construction Phase Traffic Noise Criteria
Vehicular movement to and from the construction site for the proposed development will make use
of the existing road network. In order to assess the potential impact of additional traffic on the human
perception of noise, the following two guidelines are referenced: DMRB Noise and Vibration (UKHE
2020) and the EPA EIAR Guidelines (EPA, 2022). For construction traffic, due to the short-term period
over which this impact occurs, the magnitude of impacts is assessed against the ‘short term’ period in
accordance with the DMRB document. Table 12-3 sets out the classification of changes in noise level
to impact on human perception based on the guidance contained in these documents.
Table 12-3 Classification of Magnitude of Traffic Noise Changes in the Short-Term
Change in Sound Level
(dB)
Subjective Reaction DMRB Magnitude of
Impact (Short-term)
EPA Significance of Effect
Less than 1 dB Inaudible Negligible Imperceptible
1 – 2.9 Barely Perceptible Minor Not Significant to Slight
3 – 4.9 Perceptible Moderate Moderate
≥ 5 Up to a doubling of loudness Major Significant
12.4.3.3.6 Construction Phase Vibration Criteria
There are two aspects to the issue of vibration that are addressed in the standards and guidelines: the
risk of cosmetic or structural damage to buildings; and human perception of vibration. In the case of
this development, vibration levels used for the purposes of evaluating building protection and human
comfort are expressed in terms of Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) in mm/s. There is no published statutory
Irish guidance relating to the maximum permissible vibration levels.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-14
12.4.3.3.6.1 Building Damage
BS 7385 – 2 (BSI 1993) gives guidance regarding acceptable vibration in order to avoid damage to
buildings. BS 5228 – 2 (BSI 2014) reproduces these same guidance values.
These standards differentiate between transient and continuous vibration. Surface construction
activities are transient because they occur for a limited period of time at a given location. Both
documents recommend that, for soundly constructed residential property and similar light framed
structures that are generally in good repair, a threshold for minor or cosmetic damage (i.e. non-
structural damage) should be taken as a PPV (in frequency range of predominant pulse) of 15mm/s
(millimetres per second) at 4 Hertz (Hz) increasing to 20mm/s at 15 Hz and 50mm/s at 40 Hz and
above. The standard also notes that below 12.5mm/s PPV the risk of damage tends to zero. Where
the dynamic loading caused by continuous vibration is such as to give rise to dynamic magnification
due to resonance, especially at the lower frequencies where lower guide values apply, then the guide
values in Table B.2 of BS 5228 – 2 (BSI 2014b) might need to be reduced by up to 50%. On a cautious
basis, therefore, continuous vibration limits are set as 50% of those for transient vibration across all
frequency ranges. Historically important buildings that are difficult to repair might require special
consideration on a case by case basis, but buildings of historical importance should not be assumed
to be more sensitive unless they are structurally unsound.
If a building is in an unstable state, then it will tend to be more vulnerable to the possibility of damage
arising from vibration or any other ground borne disturbance. The vibration limit range for protected
and historical buildings are equal to or up to 50% of those for light framed buildings, depending on
their structural integrity. Where no structural defects are noted, the same limit to those for light
framed buildings apply. For other structures and buildings that are determined to be potentially
vulnerable to vibration due to significant structural defects, a further stringent criterion has been
applied for transient vibration.
Table 12.4 sets out the limits as they apply to vibration frequencies at 4 Hz where the most
conservative limits are required. At higher frequencies, the relevant limit values for transient vibration
within Table B.2 and Figure B.1 of BS5228-2 (BSI 2014) will apply, with similar reductions applied for
continuous vibration and those for protected structures. For line 2 of Figure B.1. at frequencies below
4 Hz, a maximum displacement of 0.6mm (zero to peak) should not be exceeded. Taking the above
into consideration the vibration criteria for building response is set out in Table 12-4.
Table 12-4 Recommend Construction Vibration Thresholds for Buildings
Vibration Limits for Buildings (PPV) at the Closest Part of the Building to the Source of Vibration, at a Frequency
of 4 Hz
Building Type Transient Vibration Continuous Vibration
Reinforced or framed structures. Industrial and heavy
commercial buildings
50 mm/s 25 mm/s
Unreinforced or light framed structures. Residential or light
commercial-type buildings
15 mm/s 7.5 mm/s
Protected and Historic Buildings *Note A 6 mm/s – 15 mm/s 3 mm/s – 7 mm/s
Identified Potentially Vulnerable Structures and Buildings with
Low Vibration Threshold
3 mm/s RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-15
Vibration Limits for Buildings (PPV) at the Closest Part of the Building to the Source of Vibration, at a Frequency
of 4 Hz
Note A: The relevant threshold value to be determined on a case by case basis.
12.4.3.3.6.2 Human Perception
It is acknowledged that humans are particularly sensitive to vibration stimuli and that any perception
of vibration may lead to concern. BS 5228-2 (BSI 2014) notes that vibration typically becomes
perceptible at around 0.15 to 0.3 mm/s and may become disturbing or annoying at higher magnitudes.
Higher levels of vibration are typically tolerated for single events or events of short -term duration,
particularly during construction projects and when the origin of vibration is known.
Higher levels of vibration, however, are typically tolerated for single events or events of short
duration. For example, during piling vibration levels may typically be tolerated at up to 2.5mm/s during
daytime periods.
Table 12-5 presents the significance relating to potential effects to building occupants during
construction based on guidance from BS 5228-2 (BSI 2014) the DMRB Noise and Vibration (UKHE 2020)
document and the associated EPA EIAR (2022) significance ratings.
Table 12-5 Guidance on effects of human response to PPV magnitudes
PPV Range Description of Effect DMRB Magnitude of
Impact
EPA
Significance
Rating
≥10 mm/s PPV
Vibration is likely to be intolerable for
any more than a very brief exposure to
this level in most building
environments.
Major Very Significant
≥1 to <10 mm/s mm/s
Increasing likelihood of perceptible
vibration in residential environments
but can be tolerated at the lower end
of the scale if prior warning and
explanation has been given to
residents
Moderate Moderate to
Significant
≥0.3 to <1 mm/s Increasing likelihood of perceptible
vibration in residential environments Minor Slight
<0.3 mm/s PPV
Vibration is unlikely to be perceptible
in even the most sensitive situations
for most vibration frequencies
associated with construction
Negligible Not Significant
Single or infrequent occurrences of these levels do not necessarily correspond to the stated effect in
every case. The values are provided to give an initial indication of potential effects. Construction
vibration shall constitute a likely significant effect where it is determined that a major or moderate
magnitude of impact will occur for a duration exceeding: 1) 10 or more days or nights in any 15
consecutive days or nights; or 2) a total number of days exceeding 40 in any 6 consecutive months. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-16
12.4.3.4 Operational Phase Relevant Guidelines and Standards
The main potential sources of noise from the Proposed Development relates to process and building
services plant items, internal traffic movements within the site and additional traffic along the
surrounding road network. The relevant guidance documents used to assess potential operational
noise and vibration impacts on the surrounding environment are summarised below.
• BS 8233:2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings (hereafter
referred to as BS 8233) (BSI 2014c);
• BS 4142: 2014 +A1 2019 Methods for Rating and Assessing Industrial and Commercial Sound
(hereafter referred to as BS 4142) (BSI 2019);
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Guidance Note for Noise: Licence Application,
Surveys and Assessment in Relation to Schedules Activities (NG4) (January 2016) (hereafter
referred as EPA NG4 (2016)
• Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Guidelines for Environmental
Noise Impact Assessment (2014) (hereafter referred to as IEMA Noise Assessment Guidelines)
• ISO 1996-1:2016 Acoustics - Description, measurement and assessment of environmental
noise. Part 1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures (hereafter referred to as ISO 1996
– 1) (ISO 2016);
• The UK Department of Transport Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (hereafter referred to as
the CRTN) (UK Department of Transport 1988).
• UK Highways Agency (UKHA) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) LA 111
Sustainability and Environmental Appraisal LA 111 Noise and Vibration Revision 2 (hereafter
referred to as DMRB Noise and Vibration) (UKHA 2020);
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9613-2:2024 Acoustics – Attenuation of
sound during propagation outdoors - Part 2: Engineering method for the prediction of sound
pressure levels outdoors (hereafter referred to as ISO 9613 – 2);
• Monaghan County Council Development Plan 2025 – 2031 (May 2025)
12.4.3.4.1 EPA Guidance Noise for Nosie – NG4 (2016)
The site operations will be subject to an Industrial Emissions (IE) licence issued by the EPA and
therefore the guidance in this document has been used to review appropriate limit values relating to
the facilities operational phase. This approach is summarised below in accordance with guidance
detailed in Section 4 of the EPA NG4 (2016) document.
12.4.3.4.1.1 Quiet Area Screening
The Proposed Development is not considered a Quiet Area in this instance as it fails to meet all the
criteria outlined in EPA’s Guidance. The relevant test criteria are detailed below.
Table 12-6 EPA NG4 – Quiet Area Screening
Quiet Area Test Criteria Yes / No Comment
Is the site at least 3 km from urban areas with a
population >1,000 people Yes Facility is set back >3 km from an urban
area with a population of >1k
Is the site at least 10 km from any urban areas with a
population >5,000 people Yes Facility is set back >10 km from an
urban area with a population >5k RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-17
Quiet Area Test Criteria Yes / No Comment
Is the site at least 15 km from any urban areas with a
population >10,000 people Yes Facility is set back >15 km from an
urban area with a population >15k
Is the site at least 3 km from any local industry Note A No
There are several local industries
located within 3 km of the site,
predominantly poultry farms and the
Carlteon Cakes factory
Is the site at least 10 km from any major industry centre No
There are industries located within
10km of the site, specifically within
Cootehill ~ 4.5km
Is the site at least 5 km from any National Primary Route Yes Site is set back from the N53 and N54
by >5km
Is the site at least 7.5 km from any Motorway or Dual
Carriageway Yes Site is set back from the N2 and N1/M1
>7.5km
Quiet Area? No
EPA NG4 – It is noted the proposed site
is located in a rural setting with a low
density of residential and commercial
facilities and road traffic. There are a
range of existing local industries in the
surrounding area however, notably
poultry and farm enterprises which the
EPA NG4 document define as local
industry. The definition of a quiet area
has therefore not been applied here.
Note A Local industry is taken to include all sources of noise that may be considered industrial in nature, for example: grain drying
facilities, creameries and small factories.
The Monaghan Noise Action Plan (2024 – 2028) (NAP 2024) also set out a range of criteria relating to
the designation of a “quiet area” or “candidate quiet area” that are taken from the EPAs guidance for
Noise Action plans and prepared in accordance with the (Environmental Noise) Regulations 2018, S.I.
No. 549 of 2018 and the (Environmental Noise) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. No. 663/2021 ).
The NAP 2024 document notes that the EPA Quiet Area Screening Method for noise action plans could
not be used by MCC Planning Department for future developments and proposals to designate Quiet
Areas would be discussed with the EPA for approval. There are therefore no designated quiet areas
defined within the Noise Action Plan by MCC and the above criteria from the NG4 (2016) document
has not been met.
12.4.3.4.1.2 Low Background Noise Screening
In order to establish whether the NSLs in the Study Area would be considered an area of ‘low
background noise’ (LBN), the noise levels measured during the environmental noise survey need to
satisfy all three of the following criteria: RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-18
• Arithmetic Average of LA90 During Daytime Period ≤40 dB LA901, and;
• Arithmetic Average of LA90 During Evening Period ≤35 dB LA90, and;
• Arithmetic Average of LA90 During Night-time Period ≤30 dB LA90.
1 LA90 is the sound level that is exceeded for 90% of the sample period. It is typically used as a descriptor for
background noise. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-19
Table 12-7 presents an assessment of the measured background noise levels against the NG4 (2016)
screening requirement. The baseline survey details and results are set out in full in Section 12.6 and
the measurement locations are presented in Figure 12.4.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-20
Table 12-7 EPA NG4 – Measured Ambient Noise Levels for Quiet Area Screening
Location Period LA90,T (dB) NG4 Screening
(dB LA90)
Satisfies Criteria for Low
Background Noise Area?
UN1
October 2024 Daytime 40 ≤40 Yes
October 2024 Evening 34 ≤35 Yes
October 2024
Night-time 32 Note 1 ≤30 No
UN1
October 2025 Daytime 31 ≤40 Yes
October 2025 Evening 25 ≤35 Yes
October 2025 Night-
time 22 ≤30 Yes
Area of Low Background Noise? Yes
Note 1: During the night-time survey in October 2024, average night-time background noise levels ranged between 26 and
37 dB LA90. In order to further verify the prevailing background noise environment over a longer term period, a 7 day
monitoring period in calm conditions was undertaken in October 2025 which confirms the night-time background noise
levels are consistently below 30 dB LA90 during calm weather periods.
Based on the results of the baseline noise survey over a longer period during calm conditions, (see
Section 12.6), the Study Area is considered to be an ‘area of low background noise’. Table 12-8 outlines
the noise emission limit criteria detailed in the EPA NG4 document.
Table 12-8 EPA NG4 – Operational Noise Criteria for LBN
Scenario Daytime Noise Criterion,
dB LAr,T (07:00 to 19:00hrs)
Evening Noise Criterion,
dB LAr,T (19:00 to 23:00hrs)
Night Noise Criterion, dB
LAeq (23:00 to 07:00hrs)
Areas of Low
Background Noise 45 dB 40 dB 35 dB
In this instance the following noise limits would apply under EPA NG4 Guidance:
• Daytime periods: 45 dB LAr,T;
• Evening periods: 40 dB LAr,T; and
• Night-time periods: 35 dB LAeq,T.
Given the facility will operate on a 24/7 basis, the night-time criterion is the ultimate design criteria
as it reflects the lowest operational noise limit for the facility at the closest NSLs. An absolute
threshold of 35 dB LAeq is therefore proposed for all operational plant.
It is noted the EPA NG4 (2016) document does not permit a rated (LAr,T) operational noise level during
night-time periods (i.e. no tonal or impulsive characteristics associated within the development
operational noise). It assumed, therefore for the purpose of impact assessment these features do not
form part of the operational plant items.
During the detailed design, acoustic features such as tonality, impulsivity and intermittency, will be
considered in the context of the character assessment framework contained in BS 4142 which is RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-21
recommended within EPA NG4 (2016). Where these acoustic features are potentially present, the
operational levels will be controlled to avoid adverse impacts at NSLs in accordance with BS 4142.
12.4.3.4.2 BS 8233
Acceptable noise levels both internally and externally, can be determined by referring to the British
Standard BS 8233 (BSI 2014). Table 12-9 summarises the internal ambient noise levels for residential
dwellings from this guidance.
The derived external levels are based on the approximate attenuation provided by a partially open
window of 10 dB. BS 8233 (BSI 2014) suggest a value of 15 dB is reasonable for an open window
correction, however a conservative estimate of 10 dB is used here to represent the appropriate noise
level at the external façade of the relevant building.
Table 12-9 Guidance on Indoor Ambient Noise Levels for Dwellings
Activity Location Daytime (07:00 to
23:00hrs)
Night (23:00 to
07:00hrs)
Derived External
Levels (across an
open window)
Residential Resting Living room 35 dB LAeq, 16hr - 45 - 50dB LAeq, 16hr
Residential Dining Dining room 40 dB LAeq, 16hr - 50 – 55 dB LAeq, 16hr
Residential Sleeping
(or daytime resting) Bedroom 35 dB LAeq, 16hr 30 dB LAeq, 8hr
45 - 50dB LAeq, 16hr /
day
40 -45 dB LAeq, 8hr
night
The values set out in Table 12-9 indicate that external noise levels of 40 to 45 dB LAeq at night will
achieve the recommended internal noise level of 30 dB within a bedroom.
Using the NG4 external night-time limits of 35 dB set out in Table 12-8, an internal noise level of 20 to
25 dB can be achieved within a bedroom across an open window which is deemed an acceptable
internal noise level at night for sleeping.
12.4.3.4.3 Operational Phase Traffic Noise Criteria
Vehicular movement to and from the operational site for the Proposed Development will make use of
the existing road network, please refer to the Traffic and Transport chapter. For operational traffic
during the opening year, up to 15 years post is assessed using the magnitude of impacts from the
‘short term’ period in accordance with the DMRB document as per Table 12-3.
12.4.4 Site Surveys/Investigations
Baseline noise surveys have been undertaken at the closest NSLs to define the baseline noise
environment. The details of the surveys are set out in Section 12.6.2.
12.4.5 Study Area (Zone of Influence)
The Proposed Development is located at Maghernakelly and Dernamoyle, County Monaghan. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-22
The proposed development site lies approximately 4.2 km northwest of Cootehill, 11.2 km southeast
of Clones, and 17.5 km south of Monaghan Town. It is accessible via the R189 regional road, which
connects to the N54 at Monaghan Town (to the north) and the R188 at Dawson Grove Demesne near
Cootehill (to the south).
In terms of residential properties, there are relatively few in close proximity to the proposed
development site, with 27 properties identified within 1km of the site, illustrated in Figure 12.2.
The study area for the operational phase relates to the closest NSLs within the vicinity of the Proposed
Development and those with potential for noise effects. The results of the noise modelling exercise
have confirmed that NSLs within 300m are all below the operational noise criteria for day and night-
time periods. For the purpose of impact assessment, the study area has however extended the noise
modelling study area out to 1km to determine the operational noise levels in the wider study area.
During the construction phases, noise could occur at any location within the proposed development
site, along the gas grid pipeline route and along public roads where there are increases in traffic
associated with the works.
NSLs in proximity to specific construction sites and those situated along the gas grid pipeline route
have the most potential to experience noise and vibration impacts. Taking account of the typical works
associated with the construction phase, the study area is based on the nearest NSLs to the working
areas, these distances are confirmed in the relevant sections and are typically representative of the
closest identified NSL or at defined set back distances from proposed activity.
The study area assessment of construction traffic noise aligns with the routes assessed in Chapter 6
(Material Assets - Traffic and Transport).
12.5 Difficulties Encountered
The key limitations at EIAR stage for assessing noise and vibration impacts relates to the detail
available relating to noise sources at the operational stage as the procurement stage is yet to happen.
The various noise sources used in this assessment are based on data provided by the design team
based on operational noise data from other facilities operated by the Applicant and from technical
specification sheets that provide noise specific information for the range of plant and materials that
shall be utilised on site. For the operational phase noise modelling exercise, all data is modelled at the
mid frequency octave band (500 Hz). During the detailed design, the specific items of plant will be
updated to include the specific octave band data.
12.6 Baseline Environment
12.6.1 Application Area
The baseline noise and vibration environment relevant to both components of the Proposed Project
is described below. The proposed development site lies approximately 4.2 km northwest of Cootehill,
11.2 km southeast of Clones, and 17.5 km south of Monaghan Town and is in a rural setting. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-23
In the first instance it is considered appropriate to define an NSL. In this context, it is considered
prudent to adopt the definition supplied by the EPA which states the following in EPA NG4 (2016)
Appendix I:
NSL – any dwelling house, hotel or hostel, health building, educational establishment, place
of worship or entertainment, or any other facility or other area of high amenity which for its
proper enjoyment requires the absence of noise at nuisance levels.
Figure 12.2 presents each NSL within 1km of the Proposed Development. All the identified locations
are residential dwellings either located off a local access road or within farm holdings. There are no
other identified NSL types in the area.
The two closest NSLs R01 and R02 located to the south of the proposed Renewable Biogas Plant are
within 15 to 80m respectively from the red line boundary (RLB) and approximately 80m to 120m from
the on-site building and processes. These two NSLs are within the ownership of the involved
landowner.
To the east of the site, the closest NSL (R04) is located approximately 220m from the proposed
Renewable Biogas Plant RLB. To the southeast of the site, the closest NSL (R03) is located
approximately 205m from the proposed Renewable Biogas Plant RLB (earth berm) and >300m from
the onsite building and processes.
To the northeast of the site, the closest NSL (R05) is located approximately 250m from the Renewable
Biogas Plant. To the northwest of the site, the closest NSL (R06) is located approximately 420m from
the proposed Renewable Biogas Plant.
Along the grid connection route, there are a number of NSLs located off the R189 Road that are within
1km of the main site boundary (R11, R12, R25 and R26). There are four additional NSLs located to the
south of the Proposed Development within 100m of the grid connection route along the R188,
illustrated in Figure 12.2. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-24
Figure 12.2 Distribution of Identified NSLs in Study Area
12.6.2 Baseline Survey
An environmental noise survey has been conducted at the proposed development site in order to
quantify the existing noise environment. The survey was conducted in general accordance with ISO
1996: 2017: Acoustics – Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise.
12.6.2.1 Survey Locations
Baseline noise monitoring has been completed at a number of representative locations in the vicinity
of the proposed development. An unattended noise survey was undertaken over two separate periods
at one location to obtain a long term measurements of day, evening and night-time noise levels in the
area. Due to the rural nature of the surrounding environment and the absence of any significant noise
sources, the noise levels measured at the unattended survey location (UN1) is deemed fully
representative of the prevailing background noise environment at the closest NSLs surrounding the
site. These were supplemented by attended surveys at locations in public areas in proximity to
residential dwellings.
The survey locations are described below and illustrated in Figure 12.3.
Location UN1 Located to the immediate southeast of the site boundary within the rear garden of a
residential dwelling. This monitoring location is representative of the closest RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-25
residential noise sensitive locations (NSL) to the proposed development over day,
evening and night-time periods.
Location AT1 Located to the north of the site, off the R189 road. The survey position was chosen as
a representative environment for the closest NSLs to the north of the site.
Location AT2 Located to the southwest of the site, this survey position was chosen as a
representative environment for the closest NSLs to the southwest of the site.
Location AT3 Located to the east of the site, this survey position was chosen as a representative
environment for the closest NSLs to the east of the site.
Figure 12.3 Baseline Noise Monitoring Locations
12.6.2.2 Survey Periods and Instrumentation
AWN staff installed and collected the noise and vibration monitoring equipment.
The unattended noise meter at UN1 was installed during the following periods:
• 12:00 hrs on 2 October 2024 to 11:22 hrs on 4 October 2024.
• 14:15 hrs on 8 October 2025 to 16:30 hrs on 15 October 2025
The survey was undertaken using a RION NL 52 sound level meter and protective environmental case. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-26
Noise measurements were set to log over 5 minute intervals on a continuous basis over day, evening
and night-time periods. The results were saved to the instrument memory for later analysis. Survey
personnel noted the primary noise sources contributing to noise build-up while installing and
removing the equipment from site. The measurement instrument was check calibrated using a Brüel
& Kjær Type 4231 Sound Level Calibrator.
An attended daytime survey was completed at AT1, AT2 and AT3 during the following periods:
• 12:12 hrs to 15:04 hrs on 2 October 2024
Measurements were conducted at the locations noted above. Sample periods for the attended noise
measurements were 15 minutes. The results were noted onto a Survey Record Sheet immediately
following each sample and were also saved to the instrument memory for later analysis if required.
Survey personnel noted the primary noise sources contributing to noise build-up. The measurement
instrument was check calibrated using a Brüel & Kjær Type 4231 Sound Level Calibrator.
Weather conditions were dry and calm during all periods.
12.6.2.3 Measurement Parameters
The noise survey results are presented in terms of the following parameters:
LAeq is the equivalent continuous sound level. It is a type of average and is used to describe a
fluctuating noise in terms of a single noise level over the sample period.
LA90 is the sound level that is exceeded for 90% of the sample period. It is typically used as a
descriptor for background noise.
The “A” suffix denotes the fact that the sound levels have been “A-weighted” to account for the non-
linear nature of human hearing. All sound levels in this report are expressed in terms of decibels (dB)
relative to 2x10-5 Pa.
12.6.2.4 Survey Results
12.6.2.4.1 Location UN1
The survey results for UN1 during the October 2024 survey are summarised in Table 12-10. The results
are presented for the daytime period (07:00 to 19:00hrs), the evening period (19:00 to 23:00hrs), and
night-time period (23:00 to 07:00hrs) periods for the survey dates.
The full set of measured data is presented in Appendix 12.2
Table 12-10 Noise Survey Results Measured at UN1 – October 2024
Date Period Measured Noise Level, dB
LAeq LA90
2 Oct 2024 Day 52 38
Evening 49 29
Night 44 26
3 Oct 2024 Day 54 41 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-27
Date Period Measured Noise Level, dB
LAeq LA90
Evening 49 38
Night 46 37
Day 54 40
4 Oct 2024 Day 52 38
Average Day 54 40
Average Evening 49 34
Average Night 45 32
The measured noise levels at UN1 during the 2024 survey are low and reflect the rural setting of the
area. The main noise contributors noted during the survey set up and collection was leaf rustle, bird
song and surrounding agricultural activities.
The survey results for UN1 during the October 2025 survey are summarised in RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-28
Table 12-11. The full set of measured data is presented in Appendix 12.2.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-29
Table 12-11 Noise Survey Results Measured at UN1 – October 2025
Date Period Measured Noise Level, dB
LAeq LA90
8 Oct 2025 Day 48 36
Evening 43 27
Night 39 24
9 Oct 2025 Day 47 34
Evening 43 24
Night 38 20
10 Oct 2025 Day 49 31
Evening 47 25
Night 40 19
11 Oct 2025 Day 46 28
Evening 43 22
Night 35 20
12 Oct 2025 Day 46 28
Evening 44 27
Night 40 23
13 Oct 2025 Day 48 32
Evening 42 25
Night 39 21
14 Oct 2025 Day 48 30
Evening 44 22
Night 39 21
15 Oct 2025 Day 48 31
Average Day 48 31
Average Evening 44 25
Average Night 39 22
The measured noise levels at UN1 are low and reflect the rural setting of the area. During the 2025
survey, weather conditions were calm and dry resulting in a consistent low level of ambient and
background noise levels recorded at this monitoring position which was set back from road traffic. The
main noise contributors noted during the survey set up and collection was leaf rustle, bird song and
surrounding agricultural activities. The noise levels recorded at this monitoring location has been used
to set the operational criteria for all NSLs in the surrounding area given the absence of any other
significant sources of noise at the other adjacent NSLs that would result in any significant variation in
the baseline noise environment.
12.6.2.4.2 Attended Locations AT1 – AT3
The survey results measured at Locations AT1 to AT3 are presented in RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-30
Table 12-12.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-31
Table 12-12 Noise Survey Results Measured at AT1 – AT3 (October 2024)
Location Start Time (hrs)
Measured Noise Level, dB
LAeq,15mins LA90,15mins
AT1
12:12 63 33
13:14 64 36
14:11 68 36
AT2
12:31 47 40
13:34 43 35
14:30 43 36
AT3
12:51 55 35
13:53 54 34
14:49 57 32
At monitoring location AT1, noise levels were in the range 63 to 68 dB LAeq,15min and 33 to 36 dB LA90,15min.
At monitoring location AT2, noise levels were in the range 43 to 47 dB LAeq,15min and 35 to 40 dB LA90,15min.
At monitoring location AT3, Noise levels were in the range 54 to 57 dB LAeq,15min and 32 to 35 dB
LA90,15min.
At all locations, road traffic was infrequent, but a dominant source when passing. Other noise sources
included agricultural sources including cows lowing, bird song and leaf rustle sources as AT01 were
noted here.
12.6.3 Vibration
There are no sources of vibration in the surrounding area and hence vibration was not measured as
part of the baseline surveys. Is it assumed that the baseline vibration environment is negligible.
12.7 The ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario
12.7.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site
Under the “Do Nothing” scenario, no industrial-scale anaerobic digestion (AD) facility is developed on
the Renewable Biogas Plant Site and the existing and the prevailing ambient and background noise
environment would remain largely unchanged. There are no known planned transport or other
industrial facilities in the immediate surroundings that would alter the ambient and background noise
environment as part of the “Do Nothing” scenario. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-32
12.7.2 Linear Gas Grid Connection
Under the “Do Nothing” scenario, no gas grid installation over the 3.5 km road would occur.
Consequently, there would be no disruption to the road corridor, and no temporary disturbance
associated with construction activities such as earthworks (Noise and Vibrations).
There are no known planned transport or other industrial facilities in the immediate surroundings that
would alter the ambient and background noise environment as part of the Do Nothing scenario.
12.8 Potential Significant Effects
12.8.1 Construction Phase
The highest potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the Proposed Development will
occur during the construction phase due to the different phases of work requiring a range of
construction plant and equipment with high noise levels.
The impact at nearby NSLs will depend upon a number of variables, the most notable of which are:
• the amount of noise generated by plant and equipment being used at any one time, expressed
in terms of sound pressure or sound power;
• the periods of operation of the plant at the development site over the working day, known as
the “on-time”;
• the distance between the noise source and the receptor; and
• the attenuation due to ground absorption or barrier screening effects from walls, buildings,
site hoarding etc.
12.8.1.1 Noise – Renewable Biogas Plant Site
The construction programme will last approximately two years and will be undertaken over a number
of phases from site clearance through to fit out and commissioning works. The key phases of work will
involve:
• Utility diversions;
• Site establishment, site clearance and fencing (topsoil stripping of grassland and hedgerow
removal);
• Earthworks and site levelling;
• Foundations;
• Superstructure works;
• Internal roads and hardstanding laying; and
• Finishing, fit out and commissioning.
Typically, the final items to be constructed will include hardstanding surfaces, landscaping, fencing
and gates, though there will be an emphasis on establishing the landscaping within the site as soon as
possible where feasible and not constrained by the works. This shall be identified as a priority on and
adjacent to the site boundary and along the earth berm to the east of the site. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-33
The nearest NSLs to the proposed renewable biogas development site are existing residential
dwellings that are set back from the south, east and northern boundaries as illustrated in Figure 12.2.
As the construction phase involves several stages which will encompass a range of different activities
on a day to day and week to week basis it is not possible to calculate the specific levels of noise
associated with each stage that is representative of each potential scenario. It is possible to calculate,
however, construction noise levels that are representative of the key phases of work based on the
most significant periods of potential construction noise or vibration.
Indicative ranges of noise levels associated with construction may be calculated in accordance with
the methodology set out in BS 5228-1 (BSI 2019). This standard sets out sound power / sound pressure
levels for plant items normally encountered on construction sites, which in turn enables the prediction
of noise levels. These have been used to derive typical construction noise levels associated with
different phases of work based on the main construction works and methods to be employed at the
site.
12.8.1.1.1 Advanced Works / Utility Diversions
Advanced works include utility diversions of the overhead electricity lines that pass through the site
and telegraph lines that pass along the boundary. Some utilities/services diversionary works will also
likely be necessary during the main contract, such as those located in the roadbed of the L2280 and
at the R189 junction. These will likely be moved when the works to partially realign the L2280 and
construct a new junction are undertaken.
For construction works associated in any one work area, the typical plant required is likely to include
wheeled loaders, excavators and breakers. Noise levels are typically in the range of 80 to 90 dB LAeq
at 10m within BS 5228-1 from these activities, depending on the on-time over any one day.
A total construction noise level of 92 dB LAeq at 10m has been used for the purposes of indicative
calculations for these activities representing a variety of plant items and activities over this stage. This
would include, for example two items of plant at 80 dB LAeq, one item of plant at 85 dB LAeq and one
item of plant at 90 dB LAeq operating simultaneously within one work area resulting in a total noise
level of 92 dB LAeq.
Using the above combined construction noise level for this stage, indicative construction noise levels
have been calculated the closest NSLs within 300m of the site RLB as per Figure 12.2. The calculations
are based on the closest distance the NSLs are from the RLB itself which is highly conservative. The
calculations do not include any screening.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-34
Table 12-13 Indicative Construction Noise Levels during Utility Diversions
Assessment Location
Predicted Construction
Noise Level (dB LAeq,T) EPA Significance Rating
Utility diversions Significance Rating Potential Effect
R01 – Southeast 75 Significant to Very
Significant
Negative, Significant to
Very Significant, and
temporary
R02 – Southwest 71 Significant to Very
Significant
Negative, Significant to
Very Significant, and
temporary
R03 – Southeast 64 Slight to Moderate Negative, slight to
moderate and temporary
R04 - Northeast 64 Slight to Moderate Negative, slight to
moderate and temporary
R05 - North 62 Slight to Moderate Negative, slight to
moderate and temporary
R23 – Southwest 61 Slight to Moderate Negative, slight to
moderate and temporary
During the initial advanced works where above and underground utility diversions are required, there
is potential for a negative, significant to very significant and temporary effect to occur at the closest
NSLs without mitigation measures. It is noted that these are dwellings of the involved landowner.
Highest noise levels will occur during periods when breakers are used for digging out made ground
for trench excavation which will only occur for underground utility diversions and will only occur for
small portions of time during the advanced work phase. There will be extended periods during this
phase of works when these items of plant (i.e. breakers) will not be in operation and will be at much
greater distances than those used in the calculations, hence the calculated noise levels in Table 12-13
represents a conservative assessment representing the potential highest noise levels likely to occur
during these phases. At NSLs set back from the immediate works area, noise impacts are reduced to
negative, slight to moderate and temporary.
12.8.1.1.2 Site Clearance, Earthworks and Levelling
These early phases of the site works involve establishing the site (i.e. materials/plant compounds), site
clearance works, erection of fencing, and undertaking the earthworks on site. Site clearance would
primarily involve removal of grassland, hedgerow and trees to facilitate construction of the site access.
The earthworks for the proposed development would follow the topsoil strip, with project
construction activities resulting in the requirement for fill (primarily sourced from site), excavations
and generation of soils and rock which if not utilised on-site, would require off-site disposal to the soil
relocation area, or potentially elsewhere.
The typical equipment that will be required for the works described include excavators, loaders,
dozers, generators, etc. Noise levels are typically in the range of 70 to 80 dB LAeq at 10m (BS 5228-1).
For ongoing construction activity associated with the above activities, a total construction noise level RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-35
of 85 dB LAeq at 10m has been used for the purposes of indicative calculations representing a variety
of plant items and activities over this stage. This would include, for example two items of plant at 80
dB LAeq and three items of plant at 75 dB LAeq operating simultaneously within one work area resulting
in a total noise level of 85 dB LAeq.
Using the above combined construction noise level, indicative construction noise levels have been
calculated the closest NSLs within 300m of the site RLB as per Figure 12.2. The calculations are based
on the closest NSLs from the RLB. The calculations include a 5 dB screening from a standard 2.4m site
hoarding surrounding the site.
Table 12-14 Indicative Construction Noise Levels during Site clearance and Earthworks
Assessment Location
Predicted Construction
Noise Level (dB LAeq,T) EPA Significance Rating
Site clearance and
earthworks Significance Rating Potential Effect
R01 – Southeast 70 Moderate to Significant
Negative, moderate to
significant and temporary
to short-term
R02 – Southwest 59 Slight to Moderate Negative, slight to
moderate and short-term
R03 – Southeast 52 Slight to Moderate Negative, slight to
moderate and short-term
R04- Northeast 52 Slight to Moderate Negative, slight to
moderate and short-term
R05 - North 50 Slight to Moderate Negative, slight to
moderate and short-term
R23 – Southwest 49 Slight to Moderate Negative, slight to
moderate and short-term
During the site clearance and earthworks phases there is potential for a negative, moderate to
significant and temporary to short term effect at the closest NSL to the southeast where a large earth
berm will be constructed. It is noted that this is the dwelling of the involved landowner. Highest noise
levels will be experienced when plant and equipment are active in this area.
For the remaining NSLs, there is potential for a slight to moderate and short-term effect. Due to the
dynamic nature of construction activities, there may be periods where higher noise levels occur due
to the requirement for higher numbers of plant operating within a working area, however due to the
footprint of the site, the distance between the nearest NSLs are likely to be further than those
assessed above. The assessment above therefore represents a conservative assessment representing
the potential typical noise levels likely to occur.
Due to the bedrock level being in excess of 10m below ground level, rock breaking is not expected at
the site as standard. In the unlikely event that rock is encountered where deeper excavations are
required at the tank farm area, noise levels associated with breaking activities set out in Table 12-13
may be experienced. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-36
12.8.1.1.3 Foundations, Piling and Structural Works
For construction works associated with activities such as tank and building foundation construction,
retaining walls and structural works including excavators, loaders, dozers, cranes, generators, and
concreting works etc. noise levels are typically in the range of 70 to 80 dB LAeq at 10m. There may also
be a requirement for piling during this phase for building foundations. This activity is not yet confirmed
as a likely requirement but is assessed as a conservative worst-case to ensure construction noise
impacts are not understated.
A total conservative construction noise level of 90 dB LAeq at 10m has been used for the purposes of
indicative calculations for these activities representing a variety of plant items and activities over this
stage. This would include, for example three items of plant at 75 dB LAeq, two items of plant at 85 dB
LAeq and two items of plant at 80 dB LAeq operating simultaneously within one work area resulting in a
total noise level of 90 dB LAeq. Multiple other combination of higher or lower noise emission plant
items with various “on-times” would result in this noise emission which is considered a robust value
to use for this phase.
Using the above combined construction noise level, indicative construction noise levels have been
calculated at the closest NSLs within 300m of the site RLB as per Figure 12.2. The calculations include
a 5 dB screening from a standard 2.4m site hoarding surrounding the site.
Table 12-15 Indicative Construction Noise Levels during Foundations, Piling and Structural
works
Assessment Location
Predicted Construction
Noise Level (dB LAeq,T) EPA Significance Rating
Foundations, Piling and
Structures Significance Rating Potential Effect
R01 – Southeast 68 Moderate to Significant Negative, moderate to
significant and short-term
R02 – Southwest 64 Slight to Moderate Negative, slight to
moderate and short-term
R03 – Southeast 57 Slight to Moderate Negative, slight to
moderate and short-term
R04- Northeast 57 Slight to Moderate Negative, slight to
moderate and short-term
R05 - North 55 Slight to Moderate Negative, slight to
moderate and short-term
R23 – Southwest 54 Slight to Moderate Negative, slight to
moderate and short-term
During construction stages involving the foundations, piling and structural works there is potential for
a negative, moderate to significant and short-term effect to occur at the closest NSL to the southeast
(R01). In reality, construction activities (specifically piling, if required) will occur at greater distances
than those assumed in the Table 12-15 any one time. There will be extended periods during this phase
of works when these items of plant will not be in operation or will be in use only for a portion of any RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-37
one period. The assessment above therefore represents a conservative assessment representing the
potential highest noise levels likely to occur.
12.8.1.1.4 Superstructure Works, Hardstanding and Fit out Works
For construction work areas with lower noise levels such as those associated with superstructure
works including site compounds (for storage, offices and material handling, generators etc.), building
elements with smaller items of mobile plant (excavators, cranes, dozers) and landscaping /
hardstanding with lower noise emissions, a total construction noise level of 78 dB LAeq at 10m has been
used for the purposes of indicative calculations. This would include, for example one item of plant at
75 dB LAeq and three items of plant at 70 dB LAeq operating simultaneously within a work area.
Using the above combined construction noise level, indicative construction noise levels have been
calculated at the closest NSLs within 300m of the proposed renewable bioenergy site boundaries as
per Figure 12.2. The calculations include a 5 dB screening from a standard 2.4m site hoarding
surrounding the site.
Table 12-16 Indicative Construction Noise Levels during Superstructure, Hardstanding and
Fit out Works
Assessment Location
Predicted Construction
Noise Level (dB LAeq,T) EPA Significance Rating
Superstructure,
hardstanding and fit out Significance Rating Potential Effect
R01 – Southeast 55 Slight to Moderate Negative, slight to
moderate and short-term
R02 – Southwest 51 Slight to Moderate Negative, slight to
moderate and short-term
R03 – Southeast 45 Not Significant Negative, not significant
and short-term
R04- Northeast 45 Not Significant Negative, not significant
and short-term
R05 - North 43 Not Significant Negative, not significant
and short-term
R23 – Southwest 42 Not Significant Negative, not significant
and short-term
12.8.1.1.5 Construction Traffic
For the purposes of assessing the potential noise impact, it is appropriate to consider the relative
increase in noise level associated with additional traffic movements on the surrounding road network
with and without the proposed development, given that traffic from the development will make use
of the existing road network.
Access to the proposed development site is proposed from the Local Road L2280, which forms part of
the local road network serving Drum village. It is proposed to provide a direct access from the
development lands onto the southern side of the L2280 approximately 200m west of the R189. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-38
The current proposal is for HGV traffic to come and go from the east using Regional Road R189 and
the easternmost 200m of Local Road L2280. A detailed assessment of traffic volumes associated with
the proposed development is set out in Chapter 6 (Material Assets - Traffic and Transport).
The results of this assessment have been reviewed to predict any impact of the proposed development
on traffic flows in the area. The results are summarised in Table 12-17
Table 12-17 Construction Traffic Noise Levels
Road
Existing Traffic Network –
AADT (Do Nothing)
Construction Generated Flow +
Existing Traffic – AADT (Do
Something)
Change
in noise
level (all
vehicles)
Significance of
effect
Total flows HGVs Total flows HGVs
R188 South of
R189 Junction 3,862 467 3,922 493 +0.2
Neutral,
imperceptible
and short-term
R188 North of
R189 Junction
(Rockcorry) 2,744 339 2,804 365 +0.3
Negative,
imperceptible
and short-term
R189 North of
R188 (Site 2
Data) 1,370 162 1,490 214 +1.0
Negative, not
significant to
slight and short-
term
R189 South of
L2280 Junction
(Site 1 Data) 960 113 1,080 165 +1.3
Negative, not
significant to
slight and short-
term
R189 North of
L2280 Junction
(Newbliss) 993 117 1,013 125 +0.2
Negative,
imperceptible
and short-term
L2280
(Between
Access and
R189) 176 26 316 86 +4.6
Negative,
moderate and
short-term – see
discussion
L2280 West of
Access 176 29 176 29 0.0
Neutral,
imperceptible
and short-term
L2320 230 26 230 26 0.0
Neutral,
imperceptible
and short-term
The assessment has determined that along the majority of roads surrounding the proposed
development, a change in traffic noise of less than 1 dB(A) will occur. Reference to Table 12-3 confirms
a change in traffic noise of this magnitude in the short-term period is imperceptible and the overall
impact is negative, imperceptible and short term.
Along the R189, an increase in traffic noise between 1 and 1.3 dB is calculated. The resulting impact is
defined as negative, not significant to slight and short-term. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-39
Along the L2280 (Between the proposed access and R189), an increase in traffic noise of 4.6 dB is
calculated. There are no NSLs along this section of road between the site entrance and the R189. The
closest NSLs are some 250m from this section of road. Taking account of the distance to the nearest
NSLs, the contribution from traffic along this section of road is less than 45 dB LAeq and hence is within
the adopted daytime construction limit for the proposed development. The overall impact is
determined to be negative, not significant to slight and short-term.
12.8.1.2 Noise – Linear Gas Grid Connection
The underground pipeline will be constructed from the site to the gas grid located c.3.5 km south of
the site near Cootehill. A gas grid entry unit at the plant will connect to the gas network via a new
underground pipe aligned within the existing road corridor . The route is shown in Chapter 2 (Project
Description) and also illustrated in Figure 12.2.
The associated construction works will occur for short durations (rolling construction method, typically
using a construction rate of approximately 24 m per day) at varying distances from NSLs. As the
underground gas pipeline route is approximately 3.5km in length, it will take an estimated 4 months
to construct the full length of the route. Review of the pipeline has identified the nearest NSLs are at
distances between 50 and 100m from the edge of the pipeline.
Table 12-18 outlines the noise levels associated with typical construction noise sources along with
typical sound pressure levels from BS 5228 – 1 at 10m from these works.
Table 12-18 Construction Plant Noise Source Levels for Gas Pipeline Route
Item (BS 5228 Ref) Plant Noise Level at 10m Distance (dB LAeq,T)
Mini Tracked Excavator with Rock Breaker (C5.2) 83
Dumper Truck (C.4.4) 76
Wheeled Loader Lorry (C.2.28) 76
Asphalt Spreader (C5.30) 75
Vibrating Rollers (C.5.30) 75
Generator (C.2.44) 77
HGV Movement (C.2.30) 79
Table 12-18 presents noise levels from the plant listed in Table 12-18 at various distances from these
works.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-40
Table 12-19 Indicative Noise Levels from Construction for Gas Pipeline Route
Item (BS 5228 Ref) Highest Predicted Noise Level at Stated Distance from Edge of Works
(dB LAeq,1hr)
50m 60 m 70 m 80 m 100
Mini Tracked Excavator with Rock
Breaker (C5.2) 67 65 64 63 61
Dumper Truck (C.4.4) 60 58 57 56 54
Wheeled Loader Lorry (C.2.28) 60 58 57 56 54
Asphalt Spreader (C5.30) 59 57 56 55 53
Vibrating Rollers (C.5.30) 59 57 56 55 53
Generator (C.2.44) 61 59 58 57 55
HGV Movement (C.2.30) 63 61 60 59 57
Total Construction noise Level 71 69 68 67 65
The closest NSLs are at distances of between 50 to 100m from the edge of the pipeline construction
boundary and hence all calculated noise levels at these distances are below the adopted fixed limit of
70 dB LAeq,1hr assuming all the above plant items are operating simultaneously.
The overall impact is determined to be negative, slight to moderate and brief to temporary.
12.8.1.3 Vibration - Renewable Biogas Plant Site
The key potential sources of vibration relate to the periods where breaking of made ground or rock is
required (for utility works and in unlikely event of rock extraction at lower ground levels). There may
also be a requirement for piling for the main structures depending on the final detailed design.
Whilst the need piling has not been confirmed and may ultimately not be required, it is included in
the assessment to ensure that potential vibration impacts are not underestimated.
12.8.1.3.1 Rock Breaking / Ground Breaking
Empirical data for breaking activity is not provided in the BS 5228-2 (BSI 2014) standard, however the
likely levels of vibration from this activity will be significantly below the vibration criteria for any form
of cosmetic building damage on experience from other sites. AWN Consulting have previously
conducted vibration measurements under controlled conditions, during trial construction works on a
sample site where concrete slab breaking was carried out. The trial construction works consisted of
the use of the following plant and equipment when measured at various distances:
• 3 tonne hydraulic breaker on small CAT tracked excavator
• 6 tonne hydraulic breaker on large Liebherr tracked excavator
Vibration measurements were conducted during various staged activities and at various distances.
Peak vibration levels during staged activities using the 3 Tonne Breaker ranged from 0.48 to 0.25 PPV
(mm/s) at distances of 10 to 50m respectively from the breaking activities. Using a 6 Tonne Breaker,
measured vibration levels ranged between 1.49 to 0.24 PPV (mm/s) at distances of 10 to 50m
respectively. Whilst these measurements relate to a solid concrete slab, the range of values recorded RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-41
provides some context in relation typical ranges of vibration generated by construction breaking
activity.
12.8.1.3.1.1 Residential and other Light Framed Structures
Considering the vibration levels at very close distances to breaking activity itself, vibration levels at
the surrounding buildings (>50m from any breaking works) will be below those associated with
cosmetic or structural damage to any of the buildings in proximity to the development works or any
of the other nearby buildings. The impact is negative, not significant and temporary to short-term in
a worst case scenario.
12.8.1.3.1.2 Building Occupants – Human Response
The closest occupied NSLs relate to the residential properties to the southwest and east. Vibration
levels will be below 1mm/s at these distances and hence the potential impacts are negative, not
significant and temporary to short-term in a worst case scenario.
12.8.1.3.2 Piling
Bored piling may be required for the main building foundations. The expected vibration levels during
piling using bored piles, have been determined through reference to published empirical data. The
British Standard BS 5228 – 2 (BS1 2019), publishes the measured magnitude of vibration of rotary
bored piling using a 600 mm pile diameter for bored piling into soft ground over rock in line with the
site conditions experienced at the proposed development site:
• 0.54 mm/s at a distance of 5 m, for auguring;
• 0.22 mm/s at a distance of 5 m, for twisting in casing;
• 0.42 mm/s at a distance of 5 m, for spinning off; and
• 0.43 mm/s at a distance of 5 m, for boring with rock auger.
12.8.1.3.2.1 Residential and other Light Framed Structures
The closest off-site sensitive buildings to piling works are the residential dwelling and farm buildings
to the southeast and southwest, located at least 50m from any piling works and which are owned by
the landowner. Referring to the vibration magnitudes above during bored piling, vibration levels
relating to building response will be well below those set in Table 12-5 for residential and light-framed
buildings (15mm/s). The impact to adjacent buildings is negative, not significant and short-term.
12.8.1.3.2.2 Building Occupants – Human Response
The closest occupied NSLs relate to residential dwellings located at least 50m to the southeast and
southwest of the site from any potential piling works. Considering the low vibration levels at very close
distances to the piling rigs (5m), vibration levels at these building will be below 0.5mm/s and below
those associated with significant effects to building occupants. The potential vibration effects relating
to human response is negative, not significant and short-term.
12.8.1.4 Vibration - Linear Gas Grid Connection
The closest occupied NSLs relate to the residential properties located between 60m and 100m from
the edge of the pipeline. There will be breaking activity required into the road surface during the
trench excavation phases. Based on the measured vibration levels for breaking of made ground RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-42
discussed in 12.8.1.3.1, vibration levels at the closest NSLs to the works will below a threshold for any
building response to vibration and below a level that would cause a significant effect in terms of
human response. The potential impacts are negative, not significant and temporary to short-term.
12.8.2 Operational Phase
The following section discusses the key noise sources associated with the operational phase as follows:
• process and building services plant (fixed installations);
• vehicle movements on site (mobile plant);
• additional vehicles on public roads.
The following sections address the predicted noise effects relating to these key sources from the
operation of the facility.
12.8.2.1 Noise - Renewable Biogas Plant Site
12.8.2.1.1 Process and Building Services Plant and On-Site Vehicle Movements
A detailed description of the various on-site processes, buildings and structures is set out in Chapter
2. In terms of potential noise impacts there are a variety of plant and equipment located around the
site both internally within the various buildings and structures and externally around the utility areas.
The Renewable Biogas Plant will operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, however all deliveries to
the plant via the public road network will be confined to the hours between 7am and 7pm Monday to
Saturday.
A detailed 3D noise model of the proposed developed has been undertaken to calculate the
operational plant scenarios to its surrounding environment. The model was developed using
information provided by the design team and modelled using DGMR iNoise in accordance with ISO
9613 – 2 (2024). The various input data, calculation settings and assessment assumptions are provided
in Appendix 12.3.
12.8.2.1.1.1 Source Noise Data
The noise modelling was undertaken using the sound power noise emissions levels which are listed in
full in Appendix 12.3. Plant items were selected in order to not exceed the stated noise levels and /or
appropriate attenuation was incorporated into the design of the plant units in order that the plant
noise emission levels are achieved on site.
12.8.2.1.1.2 Potential Impact Assessment
For the purposes of this assessment, noise levels have been predicted at the nearest 27 residential
properties within 1km of the Renewable Biogas Plant as illustrated in Figure 12.2. For the two closest
receptor locations R01 and R02 to the southwest and southeast of the site, a number of modelled
points are included around the residential buildings to obtain a calculated noise levels around the
most exposed building facades of each. The calculated noise levels are also presented across a noise
contour grid for an approximate 1km distance from the site, calculated to a height of 4m. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-43
12.8.2.1.1.2.1 Daytime Period
The results of the modelled operational scenario during daytime periods (07:00 – 19:00hrs) are
included in Table 12-20 and compared against the operational criteria adopted for an area of low
background noise. It is noted that traffic movements (HGV and LGV vehicles) accessing the site are
included in the daytime noise model. The results are also presented in Figure 12.4 for the daytime
period.
Table 12-20 Operational Noise Levels – Daytime Period
Location
Predicted Daytime Noise Levels and Comparison against Adopted Criteria
Daytime, dB LAeq,T Relevant Criteria, dB
LAeq,T Complies?
R01a (north façade) 30 45 Yes
R01b (west façade) 31 45 Yes
R02a (north façade) 36 45 Yes
R02b (east façade) 35 45 Yes
R02c (west façade) 36 45 Yes
R03 28 45 Yes
R04 30 45 Yes
R05 37 45 Yes
R06 32 45 Yes
R07 28 45 Yes
R08 24 45 Yes
R09 23 45 Yes
R10 20 45 Yes
R11 20 45 Yes
R12 24 45 Yes
R13 20 45 Yes
R14 30 45 Yes
R15 29 45 Yes
R16 30 45 Yes
R17 29 45 Yes
R18 35 45 Yes
R19 28 45 Yes
R20 27 45 Yes
R21 26 45 Yes
R22 22 45 Yes
R23 30 45 Yes
R24 19 45 Yes
R25 25 45 Yes
R26 22 45 Yes
R27 23 45 Yes
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-44
The results of the assessment have determined the proposed Renewable Biogas Plant site can operate
within the daytime criteria of 45 dB LAeq,T adopted for an area of low background noise.
Figure 12.4 Operational Noise Levels – Noise Contour Plot Daytime
12.8.2.1.1.2.2 Evening and Night-time Periods
The results of the modelled operational scenario during evening period (19:00 – 23:00hrs) and the
night-time period (23:00 to 07:00hrs) are included in RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-45
Table 12-21 and compared against the operational criteria adopted for an area of low background
noise. It is noted that traffic movements (HGV and LGV vehicles) will not access the site during evening
or night-time periods and hence are not modelled for these time periods. Given the site will operate
on a 24/7 period, all other sources will operate over the same scenario for evening and night-time
periods and hence calculate noise levels for these periods are the same.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-46
Table 12-21 Operational Noise Levels – Evening and Night-time Period
Location
Predicted Evening and Night-time Noise Levels and Comparison against Adopted Criteria
Evening Relevant
Criteria Complies Night-time Relevant
Criteria Complies?
R01a 30 40 Yes 30 35 Yes
R01b 31 40 Yes 31 35 Yes
R02a 35 40 Yes 35 35 Yes
R02b 35 40 Yes 35 35 Yes
R02c 35 40 Yes 35 35 Yes
R03 28 40 Yes 28 35 Yes
R04 29 40 Yes 29 35 Yes
R05 34 40 Yes 34 35 Yes
R06 32 40 Yes 32 35 Yes
R07 28 40 Yes 28 35 Yes
R08 24 40 Yes 24 35 Yes
R09 23 40 Yes 23 35 Yes
R10 19 40 Yes 19 35 Yes
R11 20 40 Yes 20 35 Yes
R12 23 40 Yes 23 35 Yes
R13 20 40 Yes 20 35 Yes
R14 29 40 Yes 29 35 Yes
R15 28 40 Yes 28 35 Yes
R16 29 40 Yes 29 35 Yes
R17 28 40 Yes 28 35 Yes
R18 33 40 Yes 33 35 Yes
R19 28 40 Yes 28 35 Yes
R20 26 40 Yes 26 35 Yes
R21 26 40 Yes 26 35 Yes
R22 21 40 Yes 21 35 Yes
R23 29 40 Yes 29 35 Yes
R24 19 40 Yes 19 35 Yes
R25 25 40 Yes 25 35 Yes
R26 21 40 Yes 21 35 Yes
R27 23 40 Yes 23 35 Yes
The results of the assessment have determined the proposed Renewable Biogas Plant site can operate
within the evening criteria of 40 dB LAeq,T and the night-time criteria of 35 dB LAeq,T adopted for an area
of low background noise. The results are presented in Figure 12.5.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-47
Figure 12.5 Operational Noise Levels – Noise Contour Plot Evening and Night-time
12.8.2.1.1.3 Assessment of Significance
It is noted the proposed Renewable Biogas Plant development will introduce a new noise source to a
rural location and will alter the character of the background noise environment. There will be an
increase in the background noise levels by the order of 1 to 13 dB at the closest NSLs, with highest
increases experienced at noise receptor locations R01 and R02 immediately to the south of the site.
Both of these properties are within the ownership of the applicant.
The NSLs outside the site ownership with similar increase in background noise levels are located to
the north of the site (R05, R06, R07 and R18) which have a direct line of sight to the facility due to the
higher ground levels further north. Whilst there will be an increase in the background noise levels in
the area as a result of the proposed operational facility, the absolute noise level the site has been
designed to avoid the potential for significant effects.
As discussed in Section 12.4.3.4.1.2, the absolute operational noise limits are set specifically for areas
of low background noise. Whilst an increase in the background noise levels at NSLs will occur, the
absolute level of ≤ 35 dB LAeq is considered sufficiently low to avoid a significant impact, irrespective
of the increase in the background noise levels.
The ANC document BS 4142: 2014 +A1 2109 – Technical Noise (March 2020, Version 1.0) discusses a
proposed approach for where the application of “context” is appropriate for assessing the ultimate
definition of impact when considering a new noise source and using BS 4142 (2014 +A1 2109). RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-48
It notes that BS 4142 (2014 +A1 2109) includes a paragraph that notes that absolute levels may be as,
or more, important than relative outcomes where background and rating levels are low. The technical
note, states the following:
“It is important to note that both background and rating levels would need to be low for this
particular caveat to apply. BS 4142 does not indicate how the initial estimate of impact should
be adjusted when background and rating levels are low, only that the absolute levels may be
more important than the difference between the two values. It is likely that where the
background and rating levels are low, the absolute levels might suggest a more acceptable
outcome than would otherwise be suggested by the difference between the values. For
example a situation might be considered acceptable where a rating level of 30dB is 10dB above
a background sound level of 20dB, i.e. an initial estimate of a significant adverse impact is
modified by the low rating and background sound levels. There may be situations where the
opposite is true, and it is for the assessor to justify any modifications to the initial estimate of
impact. BS 4142 does not define ‘low’ in the context of background sound levels nor rating
levels. The note to the Scope of the 1997 version of BS 4142 defined very low background sound
levels as being less than about 30 dB LA90, and low rating levels as being less than about 35 dB
LAr,Tr. The WG suggest that similar values would not be unreasonable in the context of BS 4142,
but that the assessor should make a judgement and justify it where appropriate.”
Having regard to the above and to the absolute noise levels taken from EPA NG4 (2016) for areas
defined low background noise, it is considered once the operational noise from the proposed
development does not exceed a fixed absolute noise level of 35 dB LAeq,T at night, significant impacts
will be avoided.
The range of calculated noise levels from the operation of the proposed Renewable Biogas Plant
development are between 19 and 35 dB LAeq,T at the NSLs within 1km of the site and hence all are at
or below the adopted fixed limit.
Having regard to the recognised change in the noise environment but the overall low absolute
operational noise levels that are within the design criteria at all NSLs, the operational noise effects are
deemed to be negative, slight and long term.
12.8.2.2 Noise – Linear Gas Grid Connection
Once the site becomes operational, there are no active sources of noise associated with the
underground pipeline connection. The effect is neutral, imperceptible and Long-term.
12.8.2.3 Noise – Additional Traffic on Surrounding Road Network
For the purposes of assessing the potential noise impact, it is appropriate to consider the relative
increase in noise level associated with traffic movements on the surrounding road network with and
without the proposed development, given that traffic from the development will make use of the
existing and proposed future road network.
Access to the proposed development site for the operational phase is the same as the construction
phase, i.e. from the L2280 approximately 200m west of the R189. The proposal is for site traffic to
come and go from the east using Regional Road R189 and the easternmost 200m of Local Road L2280. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-49
A detailed assessment of traffic volumes associated with the proposed development is set out in
Chapter 6 (Material Assets - Traffic and Transport). The construction traffic flows assessed include
HGV movements associated with the off-site removal of approximately 18,600 m³ of surplus excavated
soil and stone from the Renewable Biogas Plant site.
For the purposes of determining the magnitude of the change in traffic noise, the DMRB short-term
change criteria have been applied. As operational traffic will occur throughout the operational life of
the Renewable Biogas Plant, the EIA duration of the resulting operational traffic noise effects is long-
term. The results are summarised in Table 12-22
Table 12-22 Operational Traffic Noise Levels
Road
Existing Traffic Network –
07:00 – 19:00hrs (Do Nothing)
Plant Generated Flow +
Existing Traffic - 07:00 –
19:00hrs (Do Something)
Change in
noise level
(all
vehicles)
Significance
of effect
Total flows HGVs Total flows HGVs
R188 South of
R189 Junction 3,034 367 2,988 341 -0.2
Neutral,
imperceptible
and long-term
R188 North of
R189 Junction
(Rockcorry) 2,156 266 2,194 288 +0.3
Negative,
imperceptible
and long-term
R189 North of
R188 (Site 2
Data) 1,076 127 1,152 167 +0.9
Negative,
imperceptible
and long-term
R189 South of
L2280 Junction
(Site 1 Data) 834 98 910 138 +1.2
Negative, not
significant to
slight and
long-term
R189 North of
R2280 Junction
(Newbliss) 863 102 879 110 +0.3
Negative,
imperceptible
and long-term
L2280
(Between
Access and
R189) 153 23 277 87 +5.1
Negative, not
significant
long-term –
see discussion
L2280 West of
Access 153 25 153 25 0.0
Neutral,
imperceptible
and long-term
L2320 200 23 200 23 0.0
Neutral,
imperceptible
and long-term
The assessment has determined that along the majority of roads surrounding the proposed biogas
site, a change in traffic noise of less than 1 dB(A) will occur. Reference to Table 12-3 confirms a change
in traffic noise of this magnitude in the short-term period is imperceptible and the overall impact is
negative, imperceptible and long term. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-50
Along the R189 South of L2280 Junction, an increase in traffic noise of 1.2 dB over a typical 12hr day
will occur. The resulting effect is defined as negative, not significant to slight and long term.
Along the L2280 (Between Access and R189), an increase in traffic noise of 5.1 dB over a typical 12hr
day will occur. There are no NSLs along this section of road between the site entrance and the R189.
The closest NSLs are located approximately 250m east and north. Taking account of the distance to
the nearest house, the contribution from traffic along this section of road is less than 45 dB LAeq and
hence is comfortably within the adopted daytime limit for the proposed development. On this basis,
the overall effect is determined to be negative, not significant to slight and long term.
12.8.2.4 Vibration – all areas
There are no sources of vibration associated with the operational phase of the proposed development
within the proposed Renewable Biogas Plant. The same is true for the linear gas grid connection.
12.8.3 Cumulative Effects
In terms of potential cumulative effects, a review of all planned or proposed projects within 1km of
the proposed development boundary has been undertaken. Beyond this distance, there are no
potential for any significant cumulative noise impact to occur. The potential for cumulative noise
effects from each is discussed in Table 12-23. The assessment has concluded that due to the nature,
scale and location of the surrounding developments, there are no potential for any significant
cumulative noise or vibration impacts.
Table 12-23 Review of Potential Cumulative Impacts from Surrounding Developments
Planning Ref Address Description Potential for cumulative Noise Effects
14207 Maghernakelly, Drum,
Co. Monaghan.
Change existing finish and carry
out elevational alterations to
existing dwelling
None - the planned project will not
generate any operational noise levels
and hence will not add to the cumulative
noise level from the proposed
development
16203 Maghernakelly, Drum,
Co. Monaghan
Permission to 1. change existing
finish, 2. carry out elevational
alterations, 3. construct a two
storey extension to rear
(incorporating car-port with living
accommodation over), all to
existing dwelling, with associated
ancillary site works
None - the planned project will not
generate any operational noise levels
and hence will not add to the cumulative
noise level from the proposed
development
20354 Dernamoyle, Dartrey,
Co Monaghan
Permission to construct a two
storey dwelling house, with
proprietary waste water treatment
system along with other
associated ancillary site works
(using existing site entrance &
access lane)
None - the planned project will not
generate any operational noise levels
and hence will not add to the cumulative
noise level from the proposed
development RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-51
Planning Ref Address Description Potential for cumulative Noise Effects
16308 Drumanny, Drum, Co.
Monaghan
permission for the construction of
a two storey style dwelling house
and domestic garage, with access
via existing field entrance, the
construction of a sewerage
treatment unit and percolation
area and all associated site works
None - the planned project will not
generate any operational noise levels
and hence will not add to the cumulative
noise level from the proposed
development
20263 Drumanny, Drum, Co.
Monaghan
permission for a development
consisting of (1) construction of an
agricultural slatted shed to
incorporate slatted area, external
feed passage and underground
slurry storage tank, (2) completion
of all associated and ancillary site
works
None - the planned project will not
generate any operational noise levels
and hence will not add to the cumulative
noise level from the proposed
development
19123
Cordressigo,
Rockcorry, Co.
Monaghan
Permission to construct a silage
base, along with associated
ancillary site works.
None - the planned project is located just
over 1km from the proposed
development and cumulative impacts
will be negligible. The planned project
will not generate any significant
operational noise levels and hence will
not add to the cumulative noise level
from the proposed development.
2039 Dernamoyle, Dartrey,
Cootehill
permission to construct a slatted
livestock shed with underground
waste storage tanks, concrete
apron and drains
None - the planned project will not
generate any significant operational
noise levels over those in the existing
agricultural area from livestock and
hence will not add to the cumulative
noise level from the proposed
development.
177
Dernamoyle, Dartrey
(via Cootehill), Co.
Monaghan
permission to construct 1 No.
poultry house together with all
ancillary structures (to include
meal bin(s) and soiled water
tank(s) and site works associated
with the above development on an
existing poultry farm. T
None - the planned project will not
generate any significant operational
noise levels over those in the existing
agricultural area from poultry farms and
hence will not add to the cumulative
noise level from the proposed
development.
16476 Drumanny, Drum, Co.
Monaghan
permission to demolish derelict
house and erect a two storey
dwelling with attached sun-room,
carport and domestic garage,
sewerage treatment unit,
percolation area, new entrance
and all associated site works
None - the planned project will not
generate any operational noise levels
and hence will not add to the cumulative
noise level from the proposed
development RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-52
Planning Ref Address Description Potential for cumulative Noise Effects
19180 Tattygare, Rockcorry,
Co. Monaghan
permission to construct a broiler
type poultry house, together with
all ancillary structures including
vertical meal bin and underground
washings tank, together with all
ancillary site works, using existing
site access.
None - the planned project will not
generate any significant operational
noise levels over those in the existing
agricultural area from poultry farms and
hence will not add to the cumulative
noise level from the proposed
development.
2460274
Dernamoyle, Dartrey,
Cootehill Co.
Monaghan
permission to construct a calf
rearing livestock unit complete
with concrete apron and drains.
Significant Further Information
received relates to a revised Site
Layout Plan, a Nutrient
Management Plan, Nitrogen
Loading Details and other
documents.
None - the planned project will not
generate any significant operational
noise levels over those in the existing
agricultural area from livestock and
hence will not add to the cumulative
noise level from the proposed
development.
12.8.4 Summary
The following table summarises the identified likely significant effects during the construction phase
of the proposed development before mitigation measures are applied.
Table 12-24 Summary of Construction Phase Likely Significant Effects in the absence of
mitigation
Aspect Likely
Significant
Effect
Quality Significance Extent Probability Duration Type
Biogas Plant –
Advanced
works / Utility
diversions
Increased
noise levels to
surrounding
NSLs
Negative Slight to very
significant
Localised
– within
300m of
site
boundary
Likely Temporary Direct
Biogas Plant –
Site clearance,
earthworks
and levelling
Increased
noise levels to
surrounding
NSLs
Negative Slight to
significant
Localised
– within
300m of
site
boundary
Likely Temporary
to short-
term
Direct
Biogas Plant –
Foundations,
Piling and
Structural
works
Increased
noise levels to
surrounding
NSLs
Negative Slight to
significant
Localised
– within
300m of
site
boundary
Likely Temporary
to short-
term
Direct
Biogas Plant –
Superstructure
, hard standing
and fit out
Increased
noise levels to
surrounding
NSLs
Negative Not
significant to
moderate
Localised
– within
300m of
Likely Temporary
to short-
term
Direct RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-53
Aspect Likely
Significant
Effect
Quality Significance Extent Probability Duration Type
site
boundary
Biogas Plant –
Construction
Traffic
Increased
noise levels on
surrounding
road network
Negative Imperceptible
to slight
Localised
– within
300m of
site
boundary
Likely Temporary
to short-
term
Direct
Biogas Plant –
Vibration
Potential
sources of
vibration
during
breaking and
piling
Negative Not
significant
Localised
– within
300m of
site
boundary
Likely Temporary
to short-
term
Direct
Gas Grid –
construction
noise
Increased
noise levels to
surrounding
NSLs
Negative Slight to
moderate
Localised
– within
100m of
site
boundary
Likely Temporary Direct
Gas Grid–
construction
vibration
Potential
sources of
vibration
during
breaking
Negative Not
significant
Localised
– within
100m of
site
boundary
Likely Temporary
to short-
term
Direct
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-54
The following Table summarises the identified likely significant effects during the operational phase
of the proposed development before mitigation measures are applied.
Table 12-25 Summary of Operational Phase Likely Significant Effects in the absence of
mitigation
Aspect Likely
Significant
Effect
Quality Significance Extent Probability Duration Type
Biogas
Plant
Impact of
operational
phase
emissions
from proposed
development
on
surrounding
noise
Negative Slight Localised
within 1km
of study
area
Likely Long-term Direct
Operational
traffic
Increased
traffic along
surrounding
road network
Neutral
Negative
Imperceptible
Not significant
Along
surrounding
road
network
Likely Long-term Direct
Gas Grid Not significant Neutral Imperceptible Localised Likely Long-term Direct
12.9 Mitigation Measures
12.9.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site
12.9.1.1 Incorporated Design Mitigation
The proposed Renewable Biogas Plant incorporates noise control measures through the following:
• The site layout incorporates a significant amount of screening arounds its southern and
eastern boundaries through the use of earth berms which will be developed during the initial
stages of the earthworks to control noise emissions from the site.
• All site processes will be undertaken within the main process building which will fully enclose
site activities (tipper areas, pre-treatment areas, processing areas). All HGV entry points to
buildings have fast acting roller shutter doors to maintain the building closed at all times.
• All plant and equipment proposed in the external utility areas are subject to noise-level
specifications to ensure compliance with the operational noise limits.
12.9.1.2 Construction Phase Mitigation
• The construction phase appraisal has indicated that, during the various key activities
proposed as part of this development, construction activities have the potential to generate
noise levels in excess of the construction noise thresholds at the closest NSLs, particularly
during the early stage construction phases where heavy plant and equipment will be used.
During all construction phases best practice noise and vibration control measures will be
employed by the contractor in order to avoid significant effects at the nearest sensitive RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-55
buildings. The best practice measures set out in BS 5228 (2009 +A1 2014) Parts 1 and 2 will
be complied with. This includes guidance on several aspects of construction site mitigation
measures, including, but not limited to:
• Selection of quiet plant;
• Noise control at source;
• Screening;
• Liaison with the public, and;
• Monitoring.
Details in relation to these mitigation measures is set out in the following paragraphs. Noise control
measures that will be considered include the selection of quiet plant, enclosures and screens around
noise sources, limiting the hours of work and noise and vibration monitoring.
An oCEMP has been prepared prior to construction commencing, refer to Appendix 2-1 in Volume III
of this EIAR.
12.9.1.2.1 Selection of Quiet Plant
This practice will relate to static plant, such as compressors and generators. Units will be supplied with
manufacturers’ proprietary acoustic enclosures. The potential for any item of plant to generate noise
will be assessed prior to the item being brought onto the site. The least noisy item should be selected.
Should a particular item of plant already on the site be found to generate high noise levels, the first
action should be to identify whether or not said item can be replaced with a quieter alternative.
12.9.1.2.2 Noise Control at Source
If required, consideration will be given to noise control “at source”. This refers to the modification of
an item of plant or the application of improved sound reduction methods in consultation with the
supplier. For example, resonance effects in panel work or cover plates can be reduced through
stiffening or application of damping compounds; rattling and grinding noises can often be controlled
by fixing resilient materials in between the surfaces in contact.
• For mobile plant items such as cranes, dump trucks, excavators and loaders, the installation
of an acoustic exhaust and or maintaining enclosure panels closed during operation can
reduce noise levels by up to 10dB. Mobile plant will be switched off when not in use and not
left idling;
• For piling plant, if required, noise reduction will be achieved by enclosing the driving system
in an acoustic shroud, where necessary. For steady continuous noise, such as that generated
by diesel engines, it is possible to reduce the noise emitted by fitting a more effective exhaust
silencer system or utilising an acoustic canopy to replace the normal engine cover;
• For percussive tools such as pneumatic concrete breakers, rock drills and tools a number of
noise control measures include fitting muffler or sound reducing equipment to the breaker
‘tool’ and ensure any leaks in the air lines are sealed. Further reductions in noise levels will be
achieved by erecting localised screens around breakers or drill bits when in operation in close
proximity to noise sensitive boundaries;
• For concrete mixers, control measures will be employed during cleaning to ensure no
impulsive hammering is undertaken at the mixer drum;
• For all materials handling, materials will not be dropped from excessive heights. Drops chutes
and dump trucks will be lined with resilient materials; RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-56
• For compressors, generators and pumps, these will be surrounded by acoustic lagging or
enclosed within acoustic enclosures providing air ventilation, where required, and;
• All items of plant will be subject to regular maintenance. Such maintenance can prevent
unnecessary increases in plant noise and can serve to prolong the effectiveness of noise
control measures.
12.9.1.2.3 Screening
Screening is an effective method of reducing the noise level at a receiver location and can be used
successfully as an additional measure to all other forms of noise control. It has been assumed for the
purposes of this assessment that a standard construction site hoarding will be erected around the site
boundaries of the main building works. The site hoarding will be constructed of a material with a mass
per unit of surface area greater than 7 kg/m2 to provide adequate sound insulation.
In addition, careful planning of the site layout will also be considered. Where feasible, site buildings
such as offices and stores will be placed between the source and receiver to provide noise screening.
12.9.1.2.4 Liaison with the Public
The CEMP will include a strategy for proactive engagement with the local community and businesses
throughout the construction phase. This will include clear communication channels, points of contact,
advance notification of potentially disruptive works, and a procedure for addressing any concerns
residents or stakeholders raise.
Any noise complaints should be logged and followed up in a prompt fashion by the sites environmental
officer. In addition, as part of the communication strategy for the project, prior to particularly noisy
construction activity or those with potential for perceptible vibration levels, e.g. rock breaking, piling,
etc., the liaison team will inform the nearest noise sensitive locations of the time and expected
duration of the noisy works.
12.9.1.2.5 Monitoring
Prior to the construction works commencing on site, environmental noise monitors will be installed at
selected monitoring locations. The CEMP Coordinator will be responsible for ensuring all monitoring
is set up in a timely manner and the results are reviewed on an ongoing basis for compliance.
Noise monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the International Standard ISO 1996: 2017:
Acoustics – Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise.
12.9.1.2.6 Project Programme
The construction programme will be arranged so as to control the amount of disturbance in noise and
vibration sensitive areas at times that are considered of greatest sensitivity. If piling or rock breaking
works are in progress on a site at the same time as other works of construction that themselves may
generate significant noise and vibration, the working programme will be phased so as to prevent
unacceptable disturbance.
12.9.1.3 Operational Phase Mitigation
Practicable noise control measures will be employed to ensure that noise from process and building
services plant do not exceed the operational noise limits set out in Table 12-8. The various operational RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-57
noise source data used for the development of the site models are deemed to be the maximum
operational noise levels for each. (Refer to Appendix 12.3).
All plant will be selected to not generate audible tonal emissions. During the detailed design, acoustic
features such as tonality, impulsivity and intermittency, will be considered in the context of the
character assessment framework contained in BS 4142 which is recommended within NG4 (2016).
Where these acoustic features are potentially present, the operational levels will be controlled to
avoid adverse impacts at NSLs in accordance with BS 4142.
12.9.2 Linear Gas Grid Connection
The Linear Gas Grid Connection will be delivered by Gas Networks Ireland under the applicable
statutory consenting process and in accordance with GNI's applicable construction and environmental
management requirements. Having regard to the progressive and temporary nature of the works, no
specific additional noise or vibration mitigation is identified beyond the standard best-practice
construction noise and vibration controls applicable to linear gas pipeline installation works, including
the principles set out in BS 5228.
12.10 Residual Impact Assessment
This section assesses potential significant environmental impacts which remain after mitigation
measures are implemented.
12.10.1 Construction Phase
12.10.1.1 Noise
During the construction phase of the project, with mitigation, construction noise levels at the closest
NSLs could be reduced by up to 5 dB using the suite of mitigation measures set out in Section 12.9.1.2.
Residual construction noise effects range from negative, not significant and temporary to short-term,
to negative, significant and temporary, with the higher effects associated with advanced works and
utility diversions at the closest noise-sensitive locations.
Construction traffic impacts are determined to be negative, imperceptible to slight and temporary to
short-term.
12.10.1.2 Vibration
Vibration effects during this phase are determined to be negative, not significant and temporary to
short term.
12.10.2 Operational Phase
12.10.2.1 Noise
During the operational phase of the proposed development, the predicted noise impacts are negative,
slight to moderate and long term. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-58
12.10.2.2 Vibration
During the operational phase of the proposed development, there are no significant source of
vibration. Predicted impacts are neutral, not significant and long term.
12.10.3 Cumulative Effects
12.10.3.1 Renewable Biogas Plant
The residual cumulative construction noise effects are negative, not significant and temporary to short
term to negative, moderate and temporary to short term at nearby noise sensitive properties. All
impacts will remain dominated by the proposed development.
The residual cumulative operational noise effects are negative, slight to moderate and long term at
nearby noise sensitive properties. All impacts will remain dominated by the proposed development.
12.10.3.2 Gas Grid Connection
The residual cumulative effects associated with the operational phase are neutral, imperceptible and
long-term.
12.10.4 Summary of Post-mitigation Effects
The following Table summarises the identified likely significant residual effects during the construction
phase of the proposed development following the application of mitigation measures.
Table 12-26 Summary of Construction Phase Effects Post Mitigation
Aspect Likely
Significant
Effect
Quality Significance Extent Probability Duration Type
Biogas Plant –
Advanced
works / Utility
diversions
Increased
noise levels to
surrounding
NSLs
Negative Slight to
significant
Localised –
within 300m of
site boundary
Likely Temporary Direct
Biogas Plant –
Site clearance,
earthworks
and levelling
Increased
noise levels to
surrounding
NSLs
Negative Not significant
to moderate
Localised –
within 300m of
site boundary
Likely Temporary
to short-
term
Direct
Biogas Plant –
Foundations,
Piling and
Structural
works
Increased
noise levels to
surrounding
NSLs
Negative Slight to
moderate
Localised –
within 300m of
site boundary
Likely Temporary
to short-
term
Direct
Biogas Plant –
Superstructure
, hard standing
and fit out
Increased
noise levels to
surrounding
NSLs
Negative Not significant
to moderate
Localised –
within 300m of
site boundary
Likely Temporary
to short-
term
Direct RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-59
Aspect Likely
Significant
Effect
Quality Significance Extent Probability Duration Type
Biogas Plant –
Construction
Traffic
Increased
noise levels
on
surrounding
road network
Negative Imperceptible
to slight
Localised –
within 300m of
site boundary
Likely Temporary
to short-
term
Direct
Biogas Plant –
Vibration
Potential
sources of
vibration
during
breaking and
piling
Negative Not significant Localised –
within 300m of
site boundary
Likely Temporary
to short-
term
Direct
Gas Grid –
construction
noise
Increased
noise levels to
surrounding
NSLs
Negative Slight to
moderate
Localised –
within 100m of
site boundary
Likely Temporary Direct
Gas Grid–
construction
vibration
Potential
sources of
vibration
during
breaking
Negative Not significant Localised –
within 100m of
site boundary
Likely Temporary
to short-
term
Direct
The following Table summarises the identified likely significant residual effects during the operational
phase of the proposed development following the application of mitigation measures.
Table 12-27 Summary of Operational Phase Effects Post Mitigation
Aspect Likely
Significant
Effect
Quality Significance Extent Probability Duration Type
Biogas
Plant
Impact of
operational
phase
emissions
from proposed
development
on
surrounding
noise
negative Slight Localised
within 1km
of study
area
Likely Long-term Direct
Operational
traffic
Increased
traffic along
surrounding
road network
Neutral
Negative
Imperceptible
Not significant
Along
surrounding
road
network
Likely Long-term Direct
Gas Grid Not significant neutral Imperceptible Localised Likely Long-term Direct
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-60
12.11 Risk of Major Accidents or Disasters
There are no likely risks of major accidents and disasters in relation to noise and vibration associated
with the proposed development. The facility will operate under an EPA Industrial Emissions Licence,
which imposes strict limits on emissions, monitoring requirements, and incident reporting obligations.
To manage risk, the following control and prevention measures will be implemented:
• Engineered safety systems, including appropriately designed storage tanks, lightning
protection, and gas-detection and alarm systems.
• Process safety measures, such as automatic shutdown procedures, emergency venting, and
pressure-relief valves to prevent uncontrolled releases.
• Operational controls, including rigorous standard operating procedures (SOPs), regular
maintenance inspections, and operator training to ensure safe handling of gases and
feedstock.
• Emergency preparedness, with a comprehensive emergency response plan, incident
investigation procedures, and coordination with local emergency services.
• Continuous monitoring of emissions, as required by the EPA licence, to ensure all discharges
remain within permitted concentrations.
Because of these engineered and operational controls together with the regulatory oversight
provided by the EPA licence the risk of a major accident leading to significant noise impacts is
considered negligible.
12.12 Worst Case Scenario
A worst-case assessment has been undertaken to evaluate the maximum credible effects of the
proposed development. This considers the full extent, scale, and all operational elements.
The assessment focuses on effects under normal operational conditions and excludes low-probability
events, such as major accidents or disasters, as set out above.
The impacts assessed during the construction phase assume all plant and equipment for each phase
of works are occurring at the closest boundary of the site to the nearest NSL. In reality construction
activities will occur across the full extent of the site and at greater distances than those assumed in
the calculations.
During the operational phase of the proposed development, all plant items and site traffic are
modelled to operate on a continual basis and at full load. Therefore, the residual effects assessment
is representative of the worst case scenario.
12.13 Interactions
Please refer to Chapter 18. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-61
12.14 Monitoring
12.14.1 Construction Phase
Noise monitoring is recommended during the construction phase in line with Section 12.9.1.2.5.
12.14.2 Operational Phase
Monitoring of operational phase noise emissions as per the conditions of the future required IE
Licence for the site will be undertaken in line with the EPA requirements. It is envisioned this will be
undertaken on an annual basis once operational.
12.15 Summary of Mitigation and Monitoring
The following Table summarises the Construction Phase mitigation and monitoring measures.
Table 12-28 Summary of Construction Phase Mitigation and Monitoring
Aspect Likely Significant Effect Mitigation Monitoring
Biogas Plant Construction noise impacts
on surrounding NSLs
Best practice control
measures from BS 5228-1
Noise monitoring at site
boundary
Gas Grid Construction noise impacts
on surrounding NSLs
during grid connection
pipeline construction
Recommendation: Best
practice control measures
from BS 5228-1
Not required.
The following Table summarises the Operational Phase mitigation and monitoring measures.
Table 12-29 Summary of Operational Phase Mitigation and Monitoring
Aspect Likely Significant Effect Mitigation Monitoring
Biogas Plant Impact of operational phase
emissions from proposed
development on
surrounding noise
environment.
Plant noise limits, site
vehicle restricted hours
during daytime.
annual noise monitoring
requirements associated
with IE licence from EPA
Gas Grid None None None
12.16 Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed and analysed the potential impacts of the proposed development on noise
and vibration during both the construction and operational phases, including cumulative effects with
surrounding developments. The assessment has applied conservative assumptions and worst-case
scenarios. Provided that all mitigation measures outlined in this chapter are implemented, the overall
predicted construction noise effects of the proposed development is negative, not significant to
moderate and temporary to short-term. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 12-62
During the operational phase, whilst it is acknowledged there will be a change in the background noise
level in the area, the operational noise levels at all NSLs are calculated to be within or below the
adopted night-time design limit of 35 dB LAeq,T which is set for areas of low background noise. The
overall effect is determined to be negative, slight and Long-term.
12.17 References and Sources
• Acoustics and Noise Consultants (ANC) – BS 4142: 2014+A1: 2019 Technical Note. Version 1.0
(March 2020)
• BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction
and open sites – Part 1 – Noise (2014);
• BS 5228-2:2009+A1:2014 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction
and open sites – Part 2 – Vibration (2014);
• BS 7385-2:1993 Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings. Guide to damage
levels from groundborne vibration (1993);
• BS 6472-1: 2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings, Part 1
Vibration sources other than blasting (hereafter referred to as BS 6472–1) (BSI 2008);
• BS 4142: 2014+A1:2019: Methods for Rating and Assessing Industrial and Commercial Sound
(2019);
• EPA Guidelines on Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements (2022).
• Environmental Protection Agencies Guidance Note for Noise: Licence Applications, Surveys
and Assessments in Relation to Scheduled Activities (NG4) (2016);
• ISO 9613: Acoustics – Attenuation of sound outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation
(2024);
• ISO 1996-2:2017 Acoustics - Description, measurement and assessment of environmental
noise – Part 2: Determination of environmental noise levels (2017);
• Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Guidelines for Environmental
Noise Impact Assessment (2014);
• Monaghan County Council Development Plan 2025 – 2031 (May 2025)
• Transport Infrastructure Ireland (formerly NRA) (TII) Good Practice Guidance for the
Treatment of Noise during the Planning of National Road Schemes (TII, 2014). hereafter
referred to as TII 2014 Noise Document)
• The UK Department of Transport Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (hereafter referred to as
the CRTN) (UK Department of Transport 1988).
• United Kingdom Highways England (now Standards for Highways) (UKHE) Design Manual for
Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Sustainability & Environment Appraisal LA 111 Noise and Vibration
Revision 2 (UKHE, 2020);
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
Stream BioEnergy Ireland Limited
VOLUME II
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
CHAPTER 13
AIR QUALITY
AUGUST 2026
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-1
Table of Contents
13 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 13-5
13.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 13-5
13.2 Expertise & Qualifications .................................................................................................... 13-5
13.3 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................. 13-5
13.3.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site ................................................................................................ 13-5
13.3.2 Linear Gas Grid Connection .................................................................................................. 13-6
13.4 Aspects Relevant to this Assessment ................................................................................... 13-7
13.4.1 Construction Phase ............................................................................................................... 13-7
13.4.2 Operational Phase ................................................................................................................ 13-7
13.4.3 Scoped Out Impacts .............................................................................................................. 13-9
13.5 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 13-9
13.5.1 Relevant Legislation & Guidance .......................................................................................... 13-9
13.5.2 Criteria for Rating of Impacts ............................................................................................. 13-10
13.5.3 Construction Phase ............................................................................................................. 13-14
13.5.4 Operational Phase .............................................................................................................. 13-17
13.6 Consultation ....................................................................................................................... 13-26
13.7 Difficulties Encountered ..................................................................................................... 13-26
13.8 Baseline Environment ......................................................................................................... 13-27
13.8.1 Meteorological Data ........................................................................................................... 13-27
13.8.2 Baseline Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 13-28
13.8.3 Sensitivity of the Receiving Environment ........................................................................... 13-34
13.9 The ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario .................................................................................................. 13-37
13.9.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site .............................................................................................. 13-37
13.9.2 Linear Gas Grid Connection ................................................................................................ 13-38
13.10 Potential Significant Effects ................................................................................................ 13-38
13.10.1 Construction Phase ............................................................................................................. 13-38
13.10.2 Operational Phase .............................................................................................................. 13-40
13.10.3 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 13-58
13.10.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 13-62
13.11 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 13-63
13.11.1 Construction Phase Mitigation ........................................................................................... 13-63
13.11.2 Operational Phase Mitigation ............................................................................................ 13-65
13.12 Residual Impact Assessment .............................................................................................. 13-66 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-2
13.12.1 Construction Phase ............................................................................................................. 13-66
13.12.2 Operational Phase .............................................................................................................. 13-66
13.12.3 Summary of Post-mitigation Effects ................................................................................... 13-66
13.12.4 Cumulative Residual Effects ............................................................................................... 13-67
13.13 Risk of Major Accidents or Disasters .................................................................................. 13-67
13.14 Worst Case Scenario ........................................................................................................... 13-68
13.15 Interactions ......................................................................................................................... 13-68
13.16 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 13-68
13.16.1 Construction Phase ............................................................................................................. 13-68
13.16.2 Operational Phase .............................................................................................................. 13-68
13.17 Summary of Mitigation and Monitoring ............................................................................. 13-69
13.18 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 13-69
13.19 References and Sources ..................................................................................................... 13-70
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-3
Table of Figures
Figure 13-1 Example of building downwash for Selected Emission Point (Odour Control Stack) ... 13-23
Figure 13-2 Wind Roses for Ballyhaise Meteorological Station ....................................................... 13-28
Figure 13-3 Construction Dust Assessment – Sensitive Receptors within 250 m of the Project ..... 13-36
Figure 13-4 Sensitive Receptors Included in Operational Phase Air Dispersion Modelling Assessment
.......................................................................................................................................................... 13-37
Figure 13-5 Proposed Operations Scenario – Maximum Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations .......... 13-42
Figure 13-6 Proposed Operations Scenario - Maximum 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations (as 99.97th%ile) 13-
43
Figure 13-7 Proposed Operations Scenario - Maximum 24-Hour NO2 Concentrations (as 95.1st%ile) 13-
44
Figure 13-8 Proposed Operations Scenario - Maximum Annual Mean PM10 Concentrations ......... 13-46
Figure 13-9 Proposed Operations Scenario - Maximum 24-Hour Mean PM10 Concentrations (as
95.1st%ile) ......................................................................................................................................... 13-47
Figure 13-10 Proposed Operations Scenario - Maximum Annual Mean SO2 Concentrations ......... 13-51
Figure 13-11 Proposed Operations Scenario - Maximum 1-Hour Mean SO2 Concentrations (as 99.97th
%ile) .................................................................................................................................................. 13-52
Figure 13-12 Proposed Operations Scenario - Maximum 24-Hour Mean SO2 Concentrations (as
95.1st%ile) ......................................................................................................................................... 13-53
Figure 13-13 Proposed Operations Scenario – Annual Mean NH3 Concentrations ......................... 13-55
Figure 13-14 Proposed Operations Scenario - Maximum 1-Hour NH3 Concentrations ................... 13-56
Figure 13-15 Proposed Operations Scenario - 1-Hour Mean Odour Concentrations (as 98th%ile).. 13-57
Figure 13-16 Cumulative Assessment – Annual Mean NH3 Concentrations .................................... 13-60
Figure 13-17 Cumulative Assessment - Maximum 1-Hour NH3 Concentrations .............................. 13-61
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-4
Table of Tables
Table 13-1 Ambient Air Quality Limit Values ................................................................................... 13-11
Table 13-2 WHO Air Quality Guidelines 2021 .................................................................................. 13-13
Table 13-3 Ammonia Ambient Air Quality Standards ...................................................................... 13-13
Table 13-4 IAQM Criteria to Determine Dust Emissions Magnitude ............................................... 13-15
Table 13-5 IAQM Criteria to Determine Risk of Dust Impacts ......................................................... 13-16
Table 13-6 Summary of Process Emissions Information for Proposed Development ..................... 13-25
Table 13-7 Summary of Process Emissions Information for Cumulative Assessment ..................... 13-25
Table 13-8 Background NO2 Concentrations .................................................................................... 13-29
Table 13-9 Background PM10 Concentrations .................................................................................. 13-30
Table 13-10 Background PM2.5 Concentrations ............................................................................... 13-31
Table 13-11 Background SO2 Concentrations (µg/m3) ..................................................................... 13-32
Table 13-12 Criteria for Determining the Sensitivity of the Area Update ........................................ 13-34
Table 13-13 Risk of Dust Impacts used to Define Site-Specific Mitigation ...................................... 13-40
Table 13-14 Proposed Operations – Dispersion Model Results for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) ........... 13-41
Table 13-15 Proposed Operations – Dispersion Model Results for Particulate Matter (PM10) ....... 13-45
Table 13-16 Proposed Operations – Dispersion Model Results for Particulate Matter (PM2.5) ...... 13-48
Table 13-17 Proposed Operations – Dispersion Model Results for Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) .............. 13-50
Table 13-18 Proposed Operations – Dispersion Model Results for Ammonia (NH3) ....................... 13-54
Table 13-19 Proposed Operations – Dispersion Model Results for Odour ...................................... 13-57
Table 13-20 Cumulative Assessment – Dispersion Model Results for Ammonia (NH3) ................... 13-59
Table 13-21 Summary of Construction Phase Likely Significant Effects in the absence of mitigation 13-
62
Table 13-22 Summary of Operational Phase Likely Significant Effects in the absence of mitigation .. 13-
63
Table 13-23 Standard Construction Dust Management Measures .................................................. 13-63
Table 13-24 Summary of Construction Phase Effects Post Mitigation............................................. 13-66
Table 13-25 Summary of Operational Phase Effects Post Mitigation .............................................. 13-67
Table 13-26 Summary of Construction Phase Mitigation and Monitoring ...................................... 13-69
Table 13-27 Summary of Operational Phase Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................ 13-69 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-5
13 Air Quality
13.1 Introduction
This chapter of the EIAR was prepared to assess the potential significant effects of the proposed project
on air quality. A full description of the project is available in Chapter 2 Project Description.
It should be read in conjunction with Chapter 6 Material Assets: Traffic and Transport.
13.2 Expertise & Qualifications
This chapter of the EIAR has been prepared by Dr. Jovanna Arndt of AWN Consulting, a Trinity
Consultants Company.
Dr. Jovanna Arndt holds a BSc. in Environmental Science and a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Chemistry from
University College Cork. She is an Associate Member of both the Institute of Air Quality Management
and the Institute of Environmental Sciences. She has carried out air quality and climate assessment for
over 8 years and been involved in the preparation of EIARs for the following shortlist of relevant
renewable energy projects:
• Codling Wind - Park Offshore Wind Farm (Planning ref. 320768)
• Bord Na Móna - Cúil Na Móna Anaerobic Digestion Facility (Planning ref. 309293)
• Nua Bioenergy - Lisheen Mine Site biomethane and bio-based fertiliser production facility
(Planning ref. 2460936)
• Stream BioEnergy Ireland Ltd. - renewable biogas plant Little Island, Co. Cork (Planning ref.
255034)
13.3 Proposed Project
The “proposed development” for which the Applicant seeks planning permission comprises the
development of a Renewable Biogas Plant and alterations to the local road to facilitate access.
The overall “project” subject to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) also includes the Linear Gas
Grid Connection, which forms part of the wider development but lies outside the planning application
boundary.
The following is a summary of the Proposed Project. Please refer to Chapter 2 of this EIAR for the
detailed description.
13.3.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site
The project consists of the construction and operation of a Renewable Biogas Plant and associated
infrastructure. The principal elements of the plant comprise a main process building where the RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-6
feedstock for the anaerobic digestion (AD) process is received. An odour control system with a
dispersion stack will treat the air from the building. The feedstock passes to the AD tanks located within
a bunded tank farm. There is a combined heat and power (CHP) building within which a gas fired CHP
engine will generate electricity for the plant's energy needs. A Biogas Upgrade and Treatment Plant
will be installed to produce biomethane (a renewable natural gas) that will be exported via a Gas Grid
Entry Unit to the national gas grid. A CO2 Liquefaction plant will be installed to capture the carbon
dioxide in the biogas, turning it into liquid CO₂. A Dryer Building is proposed, where the digestate will
be dried, and a Pellet Hall will be constructed, where the digestate pellets will be stored prior to
removal from the site for use as a natural fertiliser product. Ancillary elements include a gas dome,
tanks to store incoming liquid feedstock, freshwater, firewater, and fuel, a backup gas flare, a backup
generator, a plant building, and a control building. Widening of the local road, berms, a new site
entrance, weighbridges, wheel washes, parking, lighting and all ancillary development works and
services also form part of the development.
A high-level process flow follows.
13.3.2 Linear Gas Grid Connection
A gas transmission pipeline will provide a physical connection between the Renewable Biogas Plant
and the existing national gas network in Dromore West. Co. Monaghan. While the development of the
gas grid is not part of the planning application, as Gas Networks Ireland will deliver it, it is included in
the EIAR for assessment purposes, as it forms part of the overall project for the EIA Directive. The RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-7
works comprise the laying of an underground pipeline over approximately 3.5km within the public
road corridor.
13.4 Aspects Relevant to this Assessment
13.4.1 Construction Phase
The assessment of construction phase effects considers the combined effects of the renewable biogas
plant site and the gas grid connection elements of the proposed development.
During the construction phase construction dust emissions have the potential to impact air quality.
Dust emissions will primarily occur as a result of excavation, infilling, temporary stockpiles of materials,
construction and the movement of trucks on site and exiting the site.
Construction phase impacts will be short-term in duration, as per the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) guidelines (EPA, 2022).
13.4.2 Operational Phase
The following process emissions from the renewable biogas plant site have the potential to affect air
quality during the operational phase of the development:
• nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) from the 2 no.
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generators, 1 no. boiler and 1 no. dryer
• particulate matter (as PM10 and PM2.5) from the 1 no. dryer
The following measures have been included to minimise impacts as a result of process emissions:
• The CHP units and the dryer have been designed to best practice and will comply with required
emission limit values
• An appropriate stack height of 20m has been selected in order to provide effective dilution
and dispersion of emissions
In relation to odour, the following emissions have the potential to affect air quality during the
operational phase of the development:
• ammonia (NH3) emissions from the 1 no. odour control stack
• odour emissions from the 1 no. odour control stack and dryer
The proposed development has a number of design features that inherently control odour. These
include:
• Feedstock will be delivered to the site in covered / sealed HGVs and deposited in the enclosed
main process building RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-8
• All feedstock and digestate processing activities will be undertaken within enclosed buildings
which will be maintained under negative pressure, with fast acting roller shutter doors to
prevent fugitive odour emissions from building entry points.
• Air extracted from buildings held under negative pressure will be directed to the Odour Control
System (OCS) for treatment (see details below) prior to discharge to atmosphere via an
emission stack sufficiently high to ensure adequate dispersion
The OCS will be based on principles of good odour management including:
• Odour containment
• Odour capture and extraction
• Odour treatment
In terms of odour containment, all process buildings will be sealed with a near 100% leak proof building
fabric. All process stages external to the building fabric will be enclosed and in sealed pipes and tanks
with negative extraction applied to ensure no fugitive emissions of odours during operation. The
building will be placed under negative pressure. All processing of materials will be undertaken indoors
with containment measures fitted at entry points to maintain good building integrity in terms of odour
containment.
In terms of odour capture and extraction, a network of extraction pipework will be fitted throughout
the process buildings and process equipment so as to provide negative pressure extraction to all odour
generation areas located within the facility boundary. This will be ducted to the OCS for treatment.
The OCS will consist of three stages of treatment including:
• Scrubber stage
• Biofilter stage
• Carbon treatment stage
The odour treatment process will comprise the following:
• Centrifuge variable speed drive (VSD) controlled fans which will be connected to the ductwork
whereby odourous air will be extracted and diverted to the OCS
• The air will firstly be treated in scrubbers to remove ammonia and other compounds from the
incoming air stream
• The air will then pass to a biofilter. The filtration bed will consist of an inorganic media upon
which micro-organisms can grow that will degrade any malodorous compounds within air that
is passed through the filter, thus removing any potential odour
• Following biofiltration, the air will pass through a vane eliminator capable of removing greater
than 99.5% of water droplets. Air will then be passed to a carbon filtration vessel as a polishing
stage to remove any remaining residual odours
• All treated air will exhaust through a 40 m high stack, which has been designed to be
sufficiently tall to ensure there will be no ground level impact RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-9
• The overall system will be monitored by a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
system and alarmed to ensure consistent performance of the OCS
The proposed development will be subject to an Industrial Emissions (IE) licence from the EPA, if
planning is granted, which will regulate all process emissions from the development.
There are no significant operational phase emissions from the gas grid connection elements of the
proposed development. The operational phase assessment will therefore focus on the effects of the
renewable biogas plant site.
Operational phase effects will be long-term in duration, as per the EPA guidelines (EPA, 2022).
13.4.3 Scoped Out Impacts
A number of impacts have been scoped out of this assessment, summarised as follows:
• Engine emissions nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (as PM10 and PM2.5) from site
vehicles and machinery – see Section 13.5.3.2 for details.
• Engine emissions nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (as PM10 and PM2.5) from
vehicles accessing the site curing the operational phase – see Section 13.5.4.1 for details.
• Emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) may occur from the CHPs, boiler and dryer have been
screened out of detailed assessment, as these are likely to be negligible relative to the ambient
air quality standard (i.e. the CO emission level is likely to be of a similar magnitude to nitrogen
oxide (NOX) emissions from the process whilst the CO ambient air quality standard is 10,000
µg/m3 compared to the NO2 limit of 200 µg/m3). There is no risk to human health predicted
from CO emissions from the process.
• Impacts of operational phase emissions of NOX, NH3, SO2, nutrient deposition and acid
deposition on sensitive ecological designated habitat receptors – see Section 13.5.4.2 for
details.
13.5 Methodology
13.5.1 Relevant Legislation & Guidance
The principal guidance and best practice documents used to inform the assessment of potential
impacts on air quality are summarised below.
• Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction v2.2 (Institute of Air
Quality Management [IAQM] (hereafter referred to as the IAQM Guidelines) (IAQM, 2024);
• A Guide To The Assessment Of Air Quality Impacts On Designated Nature Conservation Sites
(Version 1.1) (IAQM, 2020);
• Odour Emissions Guidance Note (AG9) (EPA, 2019);
• Air Dispersion Modelling from Industrial Installations Guidance Note (AG4) (EPA, 2020); and RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-10
• PE-ENV-01106: Air Quality Assessment of Specified Infrastructure Projects (Transport
Infrastructure Ireland [TII], 2022).
In addition to specific air quality guidance documents, the following guidelines were considered and
consulted in the preparation of this chapter:
• Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports
(hereafter referred to as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines) (EPA, 2022);
• Guidelines for Planning Authorities and An Bord Pleanála on carrying out Environmental
Impact Assessment (Department of Housing, Planning & Local Government, 2018); and
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive Guidance on the Preparation of the
Environmental Impact Assessment Report (European Commission, 2017).
13.5.2 Criteria for Rating of Impacts
13.5.2.1 Ambient Air Quality Standards
In order to reduce the risk to health from poor air quality, national and European statutory bodies have
set limit values in ambient air for a range of air pollutants. These limit values or “Air Quality Standards”
(AQS) are health or environmental-based levels for which additional factors may be considered. For
example, natural background levels, environmental conditions and socio-economic factors may all play
a part in the limit value which is set.
Air quality significance criteria are assessed on the basis of compliance with the appropriate standards
or limit values. The applicable standards in Ireland are set out in Directive (EU) 2024/2881 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for
Europe (recast). This directive supersedes EU Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (CAFE Directive). Directive
(EU) 2024/2881 sets out air quality standards for pollutants to be reached by 2026 and by 2030 which
are more closely aligned with the World Health Organisation (WHO) air quality guidelines.
The ambient air quality limit values for pollutants are set out in Annex I of Directive (EU) 2024/2881.
Table 1 of Annex I in Directive (EU) 2024/2881 sets out the updated air quality limit values for
pollutants to be achieved by 1 January 2030, which are more closely aligned with the WHO air quality
guidelines. Table 2 of Annex I in Directive (EU) 2024/2881 sets out the limit values for air pollutants
which are to be achieved by 11 December 2026 and are also applicable up to 2030. The limit values in
Table 2 of Annex I are the same as the limits set under Directive 2008/50/EC and the Air Quality
Standards Regulations 2022.
The Ambient Air Quality Standards Regulations 2022 (S.I. 739 of 2022) (the Air Quality Standards
Regulations 2022) further transposed the CAFE Directive and revoked the Air Quality Standards
Regulations 2011, as amended. With the adoption of Directive (EU) 2024/2881, Ireland must transpose
this directive into national law, i.e. update the Air Quality Standards Regulations, before December
2026. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-11
Ambient air quality legislation designed to protect human health and the environment is generally
based on assessing ambient air quality at locations where the exposure of the population is significant
relevant to the averaging time of the pollutant. However, in the current assessment, ambient air
quality legislation has been applied to all locations within 10 km of the Installation regardless of
whether any sensitive receptors (such as residential locations) are present. This represents a worst -
case approach and an examination of the corresponding concentrations at the nearest sensitive
receptors relative to the actual quoted maximum concentration indicates that these receptors
generally experience ambient concentrations significantly lower than that reported for the worst-case
location.
The ambient Air Quality Standards (AQS) applicable for the current assessment to determine the
potential impact of NO2, PM10, PM2.5 and SO2 emissions from the Installation on ambient air quality for
protection of human health, and for the protection of vegetation and natural ecosystems in general
are outlined in Table 13-1. These pollutants are of relevance to the proposed development.
The limit values set out in Directive (EU) 2024/2881 will need to be achieved by 2030, with the limit
values set out in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2022 (and future updated regulations)
applicable until 2030. The limit values stipulated by Directive (EU) 2024/2881 Annex I Table 1 are
applicable for the opening year of the proposed development as it will be in operation post 2030.
Table 13-1 Ambient Air Quality Limit Values
Pollutant
Directive (EU) 2024/2881 Annex I Table 2 Directive (EU) 2024/2881 Annex I Table 1
Limit Type
Limit Value
(to be
attained by
2026 and
applicable
until 2030)
Limit Type
Limit Value
(to be attained
by 2030)
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
Hourly limit for protection of
human health - not to be
exceeded more than 18
times/year
200 μg/m3
Hourly limit for protection of
human health - not to be
exceeded more than 3
times/year
200 μg/m3
N/A N/A
24-hour limit for protection of
human health - not to be
exceeded more than 18
times/year
50 μg/m3
Annual limit for protection of
human health 40 μg/m3 Annual limit for protection of
human health 20 μg/m3
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOX)
Critical level for protection of
vegetation (Annual) 30 μg/m3 Critical level for protection of
vegetation (Annual) 30 μg/m3
Particulate
Matter (as
PM10)
24-hour limit for protection of
human health - not to be
exceeded more than 35
times/year
50 μg/m3
24-hour limit for protection of
human health - not to be
exceeded more than 18
times/year
45 μg/m3 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-12
Pollutant
Directive (EU) 2024/2881 Annex I Table 2 Directive (EU) 2024/2881 Annex I Table 1
Limit Type
Limit Value
(to be
attained by
2026 and
applicable
until 2030)
Limit Type
Limit Value
(to be attained
by 2030)
Annual limit for protection of
human health 40 μg/m3 Annual limit for protection of
human health 20 μg/m3
Particulate
Matter
(as PM2.5)
N/A N/A
24-hour limit for protection of
human health - not to be
exceeded more than 18
times/year
25 μg/m3
Annual limit for protection of
human health 25 μg/m3 Annual limit for protection of
human health 10 μg/m3
Sulphur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Hourly limit for protection of
human health - not to be
exceeded more than 24
times/year
350 μg/m3
Hourly limit for protection of
human health - not to be
exceeded more than 3
times/year
350 μg/m3
24-hour limit for protection of
human health - not to be
exceeded more than 3
times/year
125 μg/m3
24-hour limit for protection of
human health - not to be
exceeded more than 18
times/year
50 μg/m3
n/a n/a Annual limit for protection of
human health 20 μg/m3
Annual limit value for the
protection of vegetation 20 μg/m3 Annual limit value for the
protection of vegetation 20 μg/m3
13.5.2.2 WHO Air Quality Guidelines & Clean Air Strategy
In April 2023, the Government of Ireland published the Clean Air Strategy for Ireland (Government of
Ireland, 2023), which provides a high-level strategic policy framework needed to reduce air pollution.
The strategy commits Ireland to achieving the 2021 WHO Air Quality Guidelines Interim Target 3 (IT3)
by 2026 (Table 13-2), the IT4 targets by 2030 and the final targets by 2040 (Table 13-2). The strategy
notes that a significant number of EPA monitoring stations observed air pollution levels in 2021 above
the WHO targets; 80% of these stations would fail to meet the final PM2.5 target of 5 μg/m3. The
strategy also acknowledges that “meeting the WHO targets will be challenging and will require
legislative and societal change, especially with regard to both PM2.5 and NO2”.
Annex II of Directive (EU) 2024/2881 gives assessment thresholds which align with the clean air
strategy final 2040 WHO targets. Directive (EU) 2024/2881 states that “Member States shall endeavour
to achieve and preserve the best ambient air quality and a high level of protection of human health and
the environment, with the aim of achieving a zero-pollution objective as referred to in Article 1(1), in
line with WHO recommendations, and below the assessment thresholds laid down in Annex II.” RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-13
These assessment thresholds relate to monitoring of ambient air quality by Member States, where
“exceedances of the assessment thresholds specified in Annex II shall be determined on the basis of
concentrations during the previous 5 years where sufficient data are available. An assessment
threshold shall be deemed to have been exceeded if it has been exceeded during at least 3 separate
years out of those previous 5 years.”
Table 13-2 WHO Air Quality Guidelines 2021
Pollutant Limit Type IT3 (2026) IT4 (2030) Final Target
(2040)
NO2
24-hour limit for protection of
human health - - 25 μg/m3
Annual limit for protection of
human health 20 μg/m3 - 10 μg/m3
PM
(as PM10)
24-hour limit for protection of
human health 75 μg/m3 50 μg/m3 45 μg/m3
Annual limit for protection of
human health 30 μg/m3 20 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
PM
(as PM2.5)
24-hour limit for protection of
human health 37.5 μg/m3 25 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
Annual limit for protection of
human health 15 μg/m3 10 μg/m3 5 μg/m3
The applicable air quality limit values for the purposes of this assessment are those set out in Table
13-1. The limit values stipulated under Directive 2008/50/EC and the Air Quality Standards Regulations
2022 are applicable for the proposed development as it will be constructed and operational prior to
2030.
13.5.2.3 Ammonia
There are no specific EU or Irish regulatory standards for ammonia (NH₃) emissions in relation to
human health. In the absence of such standards, this assessment has adopted the Environmental
Assessment Levels (EALs) set out by the United Kingdom Environment Agency (UKEA) in Table 13-3.
These EALs are set out in the UKEA publication entitled “IPPC Environmental Assessment and Appraisal
of BAT” (UKEA, 2003) and include both short-term and long-term environmental assessment levels
(EAL) for ammonia for the protection of human health.
Table 13-3 Ammonia Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Guidelines Guideline Value Value
Ammonia (NH3) UK Environment
Agency (2003)
Annual guideline for protection of human
health 180 μg/m3
Hourly guideline for protection of human
health 2,500 μg/m3 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-14
13.5.2.4 Dust Deposition Guidelines
The concern from a health perspective is focused on particles of dust that are less than 10 microns
(PM10) and less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The EU ambient air quality standards outlined in Table 13-1
have set ambient air quality limit values for PM10 and PM2.5.
With regards to larger dust particles that can give rise to nuisance dust, there are no statutory
guidelines regarding the maximum dust deposition levels that may be generated during the
construction phase of a development in Ireland. Furthermore, no criteria have been stipulated for
nuisance dust for this specific type of proposed development.
With regard to dust deposition, the German TA-Luft standard for dust deposition (non-hazardous dust)
(German VDI, 2002) sets a maximum permissible emission level for dust deposition of 350 mg/m2/day
averaged over a one-year period at any receptors outside the site boundary. The TA-Luft standard has
been applied for the purpose of this assessment based on recommendations from the EPA in Ireland
in the document titled Environmental Management Guidelines - Environmental Management in the
Extractive Industry (Non-Scheduled Minerals) (EPA, 2006). The document recommends that the TA-
Luft limit of 350 mg/m2/day be applied to the site boundary of quarries. This limit value can be
implemented with regard to dust impacts from construction of the proposed development.
13.5.3 Construction Phase
The assessment of construction phase effects considers the combined effects of the renewable biogas
plant site and the gas grid connection elements of the proposed development.
13.5.3.1 Construction Dust Assessment
The Institute of Air Quality Management in the UK (IAQM) guidance document ‘Guidance on the
Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction’ (IAQM, 2024) outlines an assessment method
for predicting the impact of dust emissions from construction activities based on the scale and nature
of the works and the sensitivity of the area to dust impacts. The IAQM methodology has been applied
to the construction phase of this development to predict the likely risk of dust impacts in the absence
of mitigation measures and to determine the level of site-specific mitigation required. The use of UK
guidance is recommended by Transport Infrastructure Ireland in their guidance document Air Quality
Assessment of Specified Infrastructure Projects – PE-ENV-01106 (TII, 2022).
The IAQM states that as assessment of construction dust impacts is normally required where there is
a human or ecological receptor within 250m of the boundary of the site (this should consider offsite
construction compounds) and/or within 50 m of the route(s) used by construction vehicles on the
public road network (on roads up to 250 m from the site entrance). This constitutes the Zone of
Influence (ZoI) for the construction dust assessment.
The major dust generating activities are divided into four types within the IAQM guidance (IAQM, 2024)
to reflect their different potential impacts. These are: RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-15
• Demolition;
• Earthworks;
• Construction; and
• Trackout (transport of dust and dirt from the construction site onto the public road network).
The magnitude of each of the four categories is divided into Large, Medium or Small scale depending
on the nature of the activities involved. The criteria for determining the category for the works involved
are outlined in Table 13-4, these are based on the IAQM guidance (IAQM, 2024). The magnitude of
each activity is combined with the overall sensitivity of the area to determine the risk of dust impacts
from site activities. This allows the level of site-specific mitigation to be determined. The magnitude of
each dust generating activity is established in Section 13.10.1.1 as part of the impact assessment.
Table 13-4 IAQM Criteria to Determine Dust Emissions Magnitude
Dust Emission Magnitude
Small Medium Large
Demolition
• Total building volume
<12,000 m3
• Construction material with
low potential for dust
release (e.g. metal cladding
or timber)
• Demolition activities <6 m
above ground
• Demolition during wetter
months
• Total building volume 12,000
- 75,000 m3
• Potentially dusty
construction material
• Demolition activities 6 – 12
m above ground level
• Total building volume
>75,000 m3
• Potentially dusty construction
material (e.g. concrete)
• On-site crushing and
screening
• Demolition activities >12 m
above ground level
Earthworks
• Total site area <18,000 m2
• Soil type with large grain
size (e.g. sand)
• <5 heavy earth moving
vehicles active at any one
time
• Formation of bunds <3 m in
height
• Earthworks during wetter
months
• Total site area 18,000 m2 -
110,000 m2
• Moderately dusty soil type
(e.g. silt)
• 5 – 10 heavy earth moving
vehicles active at any one
time
• Formation of bunds 3 – 6 m
in height
• Total site area >110,000 m2
• Potentially dusty soil type
(e.g. clay, which will be
prone to suspension when
dry due to small particle size)
• >10 heavy earth moving
vehicles active at any one
time
• Formation of bunds >6 m in
height
Construction
• Total building volume
<12,000 m3
• Construction material with
low potential for dust
release (e.g. metal cladding
or timber)
• Total building volume 12,000
- 75,000 m3
• Potentially dusty
construction material (e.g.
concrete)
• On-site concrete batching
• Total building volume
>75,000 m3
• On-site concrete batching
• Sandblasting
Trackout (Truck Movements) RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-16
Dust Emission Magnitude
Small Medium Large
• <20 HDV (>3.5 t) outward
movements in any one day
• Surface material with low
potential for dust release
• Unpaved road length <50
m
• 20 – 50 HDV (>3.5 t)
outward movements in any
one day
• Moderately dusty surface
material (e.g. high clay
content)
• Unpaved road length 50 –
100 m
• >50 HDV (>3.5 t) outward
movements in any one day
• Potentially dusty surface
material (e.g. high clay
content)
• Unpaved road length >100 m
Once the dust emission magnitude has been determined the next step, according to the IAQM
guidance (IAQM, 2024), is to establish the level of risk by combining the magnitude with the overall
sensitivity of the area to dust soiling, human health and ecological effects. The level of risk associated
with each activity is determined using the criteria in Table 13-5. The level of risk of each dust generating
activity is established in Section 13.10.1.1 as part of the impact assessment.
Table 13-5 IAQM Criteria to Determine Risk of Dust Impacts
Sensitivity of Area Dust Emission Magnitude
Large Medium Small
Demolition
High High risk Medium risk Medium risk
Medium High risk Medium risk Low risk
Low Medium risk Low risk Negligible
Earthworks
High High risk Medium risk Low risk
Medium Medium risk Medium risk Low risk
Low Low risk Low risk Negligible
Construction
High High risk Medium risk Low risk
Medium Medium risk Medium risk Low risk
Low Low risk Low risk Negligible
Trackout
High High risk Medium risk Low risk
Medium Medium risk Medium risk Low risk
Low Low risk Low risk Negligible
13.5.3.2 Construction Phase Traffic Assessment
Construction phase traffic also has the potential to impact air quality. The TII guidance Air Quality
Assessment of Specified Infrastructure Projects – PE-ENV-01106 (TII, 2022), states that road links
meeting one or more of the following criteria can be defined as being ‘affected’ by a proposed
development and should be included in the local air quality assessment. While the guidance is specific RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-17
to infrastructure projects, the approach can be applied to any development that causes a change in
traffic.
• Annual average daily traffic (AADT) changes by 1,000 or more;
• Heavy duty vehicle (HDV) AADT changes by 200 or more;
• Daily average speed change by 10 kph or more;
• Peak hour speed change by 20 kph or more;
• A change in road alignment by 5m or greater.
As set out in Chapter 6 Material Assets: Traffic and Transport, the revised construction traffic
assessment, including HGV movements associated with the off-site removal of approximately 18,600
m³ of surplus excavated soil and stone, predicts a maximum inc rease of approximately 140 total daily
vehicle movements and 60 HGV movements on the affected road network. These increases are below
the TII screening criteria of 1,000 AADT and 200 HDV AADT. Accordingly, a detailed assessment of
construction traffic emissions is not required and no significant effects on local air quality are
predicted.
13.5.4 Operational Phase
13.5.4.1 Operational Phase Traffic Assessment
Operational phase traffic has the potential to impact local air quality as a result of increased vehicle
movements associated with the proposed development. The TII scoping criteria detailed in Section
13.5.3.2 were used to determine if any road links are affected by the proposed development and
require inclusion in a detailed air dispersion modelling assessment.
The proposed development (includes the renewable biogas plant site and the gas grid connection) will
not result in the operational phase traffic increasing by more than 1,000 AADT or 200 HDV AADT. In
addition, there are no significant proposed changes to the traffic speeds or local road alignment.
Therefore, no road links impacted by the proposed development satisfy the screening criteria (Section
13.5.3.2). A quantitative assessment of the impact of traffic emissions on ambient air quality is not
necessary as there is no potential for significant impacts to local air quality.
13.5.4.2 Operational Phase Ecological Assessment
Ecology Receptors
As per Irish (EPA, 2020; EPA, 2024) and UK (IAQM, 2020; UKEA, 2025) guidance, the impact of emissions
of NOX, NH3, SO2 and nutrient and acid deposition from the proposed Biogas Plant on internationally
and nationally designated conservation areas such as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special
Protection Areas (SPAs), and Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) was considered.
SACs and SPAs are protected under the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), and EU Birds Directive
(2009/147/EC) respectively, and are also known as Natura 2000 sites. NHAs are designated under the
Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. Proposed NHAs were identified as sites of conservation interest in the RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-18
1990s but have not since been statutorily proposed or designated and are therefore screened out of
this assessment.
A geospatial search was conducted (NPWS, 2025) to identify the nearest Natura 2000 receptors within
10 km of the facility and the nearest national site (NHA) within 2 km of the facility, based on the
methodology recommended by the UK Environment Agency in their guidance Air emissions risk
assessment for your environmental permit (UKEA, 2025), which establishes the ZoI for ecological
impacts. Beyond these distances, the effects on ecology due to emissions from the facility are expected
to be imperceptible.
There are no SACs or SPAs within 10 km or NHAs within 2 km of the proposed Biogas Plant. Therefore,
no significant effects of NOX, NH3, SO2 and nutrient and acid deposition from the proposed Biogas Plant
on internationally and nationally designated conservation areas are predicted, and a detailed
ecological assessment has been scoped out.
13.5.4.3 Air Dispersion Modelling
The renewable biogas plant element of the proposed development will include two combined heat
and power (CHP) units, a boiler, a dryer and an odour control stack which will result in emissions to air.
The process emissions details for these are detailed in Section 13.5.4.3.6.
Additional emission points associated with the proposed development include a flare. The flare will
only operate during scheduled downtime with a maximum operational time of 2% of the year and
therefore emissions from this point has been scoped out of the assessment and are predicted to have
an imperceptible impact on air quality.
The modelling assessment has been undertaken at the licenced maximum emission limits. The
modelling assessment was undertaken using the AERMOD dispersion model (Version 24124) which has
been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (USEPA, 2024) and following
guidance issued by the EPA (EPA, 2020).
The model is a steady-state Gaussian plume model used to assess pollutant concentrations associated
with industrial sources and has replaced ISCST3 (USEPA, 1995) as the regulatory model by the USEPA
for modelling emissions from industrial sources in both flat and rolling terrain (USEPA, 1998; USEPA,
2000; USEPA, 2005). The model has more advanced algorithms and gives better agreement with
monitoring data in extensive validation studies (USEPA, 1998; USEPA, 1999; Paine 1997a; Paine 1997b;
Schulman, 2000). An overview of the AERMOD dispersion model is outlined in Appendix 13.1.
The air dispersion modelling input data consisted of information on the physical environment
(including building dimensions and terrain features), design details from all emission points on-site and
five years of appropriate hourly meteorological data. Using this input data the model predicted
ambient ground level concentrations beyond the site boundary for each hour of the modelled
meteorological years. The model post-processed the data to identify the location and maximum of the
worst-case ground level concentration. This worst-case concentration was then added to the
background concentration to give the worst-case predicted environmental concentration (PEC). The RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-19
PEC was then compared with the relevant ambient air quality standard to assess the significance of
the releases from the site.
The modelling aims to achieve compliance with the guidance outlined within the EPA document AG4
Guidance for Air Dispersion Modelling (EPA, 2020) for the maximum permissible process contribution:
“When modelling a facility, the uncertainty in the model should be considered. If the facility is operated
continually at close to the maximum licenced mass emission rate (i.e. maximum concentration and
maximum volume flow) the process contribution (PC) should be less than 75% of the ambient air quality
standard and less than this where background levels account for a significant fraction of the ambient
air quality standard.”
This approach allows for inherent uncertainty in air dispersion modelling to be taken into account in
order to avoid a risk of exceeding the air quality standards. The modelling assessment has aimed to
achieve a process contribution that is less than 75% of the ambient air quality standard under the
Proposed Development scenario modelled (see Section 13.5.4.3.6 for details on modelling scenarios).
Throughout this study a conservative approach was taken. This will most likely lead to an over-
estimation of the levels that will arise in practice. The conservative assumptions are outlined below:
• Maximum predicted concentrations were reported in this study, and take into account
boundary, gridded and discrete sensitive receptors. Maximum predicted concentrations are
often reported at the site boundary or nearby offsite (gridded) receptors i.e. residential
receptors were not near the location of this maximum. The model results are therefore
considered conservative;
• The maximum predicted concentration is derived from models run with five years of
meteorological data from a representative meteorological station (Ballyhaise, Co. Cavan 2020
– 2024), to ensure recent trends in weather have been taken into account;
• Conservative background concentrations were used in the assessment;
• The effects of building downwash, due to on-site buildings, has been included in the model;
and
• The main emission points (CHP / boiler and odour control stack) were assumed to operate
continuously for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year in all scenarios.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approved AERMOD dispersion model has
been used to predict the ground level concentrations [GLC] of compounds emitted from the principal
emission sources on-site.
The modelling incorporated the following features:
• Modelled receptors included the proposed development boundary, gridded receptors and
discrete sensitive receptors. These are described in more detail in Section 13.8.3.2;
• The renewable biogas plant site boundary is relevant for the purposes of assessing the impact
of the proposed development. There are no significant operational phase emissions from the RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-20
gas grid connection elements of the proposed development, and therefore the boundary of
this element is not considered a sensitive receptor;
• All on-site buildings and significant process structures were mapped into the computer to
create a three-dimensional visualisation of the site and its emission points. Buildings and
process structures can influence the passage of airflow over the emission stacks and draw
plumes down towards the ground (termed building downwash). The stacks themselves can
influence airflow in the same way as buildings by causing low pressure regions behind them
(termed stack tip downwash). Both building and stack tip downwash were incorporated into
the modelling.
• Detailed terrain has been mapped into the model using SRTM data with 30m resolution. The
renewable biogas plant site is located in an area of drumlin landscape, which is characterised
by frequent, undulating topographic variation rather than a flat or uniformly sloped landform.
All terrain features have been mapped in detail into the model using the terrain pre-processor
AERMAP (USEPA, 2017).
• Hourly-sequenced meteorological information has been used in the model. Meteorological
data over a five year period at a representative meteorological station (Ballyhaise, Co. Cavan
2020 – 2024) was used in the model (see Figure 13-2 and Appendix 13.1).
• The source and emissions data, including stack dimensions, gas volumes and emission
temperatures have been incorporated into the model (see Section 13.5.4.3.6).
13.5.4.3.1 Methodology for NOX to NO2 Conversion
The Plume Volume Molar Ratio Method (PVMRM) was used to model NO2 concentrations. The PVMRM
is currently a non-regulatory option in AERMOD which assumes that the amount of NO converted to
NO2 is proportional to the ambient ozone concentration (Hanrahan, 1999a; Hanrahan, 1999b). The
PVMRM uses both plume size and O3 concentration to derive the amount of O3 available for the
reaction between NO and O3. NOX moles are determined by emission rate and travel time through the
plume segment. The concentration is usually limited by the amount of ambient O3 that is entrained in
the plume. Thus, the ratio of the moles of O3 to the moles of NOX gives the ratio of NO2/NOX that is
formed after the NOX leaves the stack. In addition, it has been assumed that 20% of the NO X in the
stack gas is already in the form of NO2 before the gas leaves the stack (in reality the levels are usually
closer to 5% (Hanrahan, 1999a; Hanrahan, 1999b)). The model has also assumed a final equilibrium
ratio for NO2/NOX of 0.90 which again is pessimistic and more likely to be in the range 0.7 – 0.8
(Hanrahan, 1999a; Hanrahan, 1999b). The equation used in the algorithm to derive the ratio of
NO2/NOX gas combustion is:
NO2/NOX = (moles O3/ moles NOX) + 0.20
A background ozone concentration of 54 µg/m3 was used in the modelling assessment, based on a
review of 5-year average background ozone data for Zone D sites (further detail on background
concentrations given in Section 13.8.2)) (EPA, 2025). RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-21
13.5.4.3.2 Terrain
The AERMOD air dispersion model has a terrain pre-processor AERMAP (USEPA, 2017) which was used
to map the physical environment in detail over the receptor grid. The digital terrain input data used in
the AERMAP pre-processor was obtained from SRTM. This data was run to obtain for each receptor
point the terrain height and the terrain height scale. The terrain height scale is used in AERMOD to
calculate the critical dividing streamline height, Hcrit, for each receptor. The terrain height scale is
derived from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) files in AERMAP by computing the relief height of the
DEM point relative to the height of the receptor and determining the slope. If the slope is less than
10%, the program goes to the next DEM point. If the slope is 10% or greater, the controlling hill height
is updated if it is higher than the stored hill height.
In areas of complex terrain, AERMOD models the impact of terrain using the concept of the dividing
streamline (Hc). As outlined in the AERMOD model formulation (USEPA, 2022) a plume embedded in
the flow below Hc tends to remain horizontal; it might go around the hill or impact on it. A plume above
Hc will ride over the hill. Associated with this is a tendency for the plume to be depressed toward the
terrain surface, for the flow to speed up, and for vertical turbulent intensities to increase. AERMOD
model formulation states that the model:
“captures the effect of flow above and below the dividing streamline by weighting the plume
concentration associated with two possible extreme states of the boundary layer (horizontal plume and
terrain-following). The relative weighting of the two states depends on: 1) the degree of atmospheric
stability; 2) the wind speed; and 3) the plume height relative to terrain. In stable conditions, the
horizontal plume "dominates" and is given greater weight while in neutral and unstable conditions, the
plume traveling over the terrain is more heavily weighted.” (USEPA, 2005).
13.5.4.3.3 Geophysical Considerations
AERMOD simulates the dispersion process using planetary boundary layer (PBL) scaling theory (USEPA,
2022). PBL depth and the dispersion of pollutants within this layer are influenced by specific surface
characteristics such as surface roughness, albedo and the availability of surface moisture. Surface
roughness is a measure of the aerodynamic roughness of the surface and is related to the height of
the roughness element. Albedo is a measure of the reflectivity of the surface whilst the Bowen ratio is
a measure of the availability of surface moisture.
AERMOD incorporates a meteorological pre-processor AERMET (USEPA, 2018) to enable the
calculation of the appropriate parameters. The AERMET meteorological pre-processor requires the
input of surface characteristics, including surface roughness (z0), Bowen Ratio and albedo by sector
and season, as well as hourly observations of wind speed, wind direction, cloud cover, and
temperature. The values of albedo, Bowen Ratio and surface roughness depend on land-use type (e.g.,
urban, cultivated land etc) and vary with seasons and wind direction. The assessment of appropriate
land-use type was carried out to a distance of 10 km from the meteorological station for Bowen Ratio
and albedo and to a distance of 1 km for surface roughness in line with USEPA recommendations
(USEPA, 2008; USEPA, 2018) as outlined in Appendix 13.1. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-22
In relation to AERMOD, detailed guidance for calculating the relevant surface parameters has been
published (USEPA, 2018). The most pertinent features are:
• The surface characteristics should be those of the meteorological site (Ballyhaise) rather than
the installation;
• Surface roughness should use a default 1 km radius upwind of the meteorological tower and
should be based on an inverse-distance weighted geometric mean. If land use varies around
the site, the land use should be sub-divided by sectors with a minimum sector size of 30º;
• Bowen ratio and albedo should be based on a 10 km grid. The Bowen ratio should be based on
an un-weighted geometric mean. The albedo should be based on a simple un-weighted
arithmetic mean.
AERMOD has an associated pre-processor, AERSURFACE (USEPA, 2008) which has representative
values for these parameters depending on land use type. The AERSURFACE pre -processor currently
only accepts NLCD92 land use data which covers the USA. Thus, manual input of surface parameters is
necessary when modelling in Ireland. Ordnance survey discovery maps (1:50,000) and digital maps
such as those provided by the EPA, National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and Google Earth® are
useful in determining the relevant land use in the region of the meteorological station. The Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation has issued a guidance note for the manual calculation of
geometric mean for surface roughness and Bowen ratio for use in AERMET (ADEC, 2008). This approach
has been applied to the current site with full details provided in Appendix 13.1.
13.5.4.3.4 Building Downwash
When modelling emissions from an industrial installation, stacks which are relatively short can be
subjected to additional turbulence due to the presence of nearby buildings. Buildings are considered
nearby if they are within five times the lesser of the building height or maximum projected building
width (but not greater than 800 m).
The USEPA has defined the “Good Engineering Practice” (GEP) stack height as the building height plus
1.5 times the lesser of the building height or maximum projected building width. It is generally
considered unlikely that building downwash will occur when stacks are at or greater than GEP (USEPA,
1985).
When stacks are less than this height, building downwash will tend to occur. As the wind approaches
a building it is forced upwards and around the building leading to the formation of turbulent eddies.
In the lee of the building these eddies will lead to downward mixing (reduced plume centreline and
reduced plume rise) and the creation of a cavity zone (near wake) where re-circulation of the air can
occur. Plumes released from short stacks may be entrained in this airflow leading to higher ground
level concentrations than in the absence of the building.
The Plume Rise Model Enhancements (PRIME) (Paine, 1997a; Paine, 1997b) plume rise and building
downwash algorithms, which calculates the impact of buildings on plume rise and dispersion, have
been incorporated into AERMOD. The building input processor BPIP-PRIME produces the parameters RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-23
which are required in order to run PRIME. The model takes into account the position of each stack
relative to each relevant building and the projected shape of each building for 36 wind directions (at
10º intervals). The model determines the change in plume centreline location with downwind distance
based on the slope of the mean streamlines and coupled to a numerical plume rise model (Paine,
1997a).
Given that the proposed stacks are less than 2.5 times the lesser of the building height or maximum
projected building width, building downwash will need to be taken into account and the PRIME
algorithm run prior to modelling with AERMOD. The dominant building for each relevant stack will vary
as a function of wind direction and relative building heights (see Figure 13-1).
Figure 13-1 Example of building downwash for Selected Emission Point (Odour Control Stack)
13.5.4.3.5 Concentration Contours
Modelled predicted ambient ground level concentrations beyond the site boundary are presented as
concentration contours in Section 13.10.2.1. The purpose of the concentration contour plots is to show
the direction and extent of the emission plume.
The air dispersion model (AERMOD) produces numerical output files which contain predicted pollutant
concentrations at a large number of discrete receptor points across the modelling domain (defined by
the gridded receptors discussed in Section 13.8.3.2). These results are typically exported in tabular RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-24
format, listing the predicted value (e.g. annual mean of pollutant in µg/m³) for each receptor location
defined by its X and Y coordinates.
To aid interpretation, these tabular results can be imported into contouring software (e.g. Breeze 3D
Analyst, Surfer, ArcGIS or QGIS) where an interpolation algorithm is applied. The software estimates
values between the discrete receptor points, allowing for the creation of concentration contours.
These are graphical representations that join locations of equal concentration with smooth lines, giving
a clear picture of concentration gradients and the spatial extent of impact.
The primary differences between concentration contours and tabular results are:
• Tabular results provide the exact model predictions at defined receptor points and identify the
receptor where the maximum model concentration is predicted. These are the values to be
relied upon for compliance assessment and reporting against air quality standards or
guidelines.
• Contours provide a visual interpretation of how pollutant concentrations vary across the site
and surrounding area. They are useful for communicating results, identifying zones of higher
or lower impact, and for inclusion in planning documents. However, since contours involve
interpolation between points over a large study area (defined by the gridded receptors
discussed in Section 13.8.3.2, they are approximate representations and should not be used in
place of the tabulated receptor results for regulatory comparison. The maximum model
concentration presented by concentration contours will always be less than the maximum
concentration predicted at an individual receptor, due to the interpolation process of
concentrations over a larger area.
13.5.4.3.6 Process Emissions
Proposed Operations
The proposed development will include 2 no. CHP units, 1 no. boiler and 1 no. dryer (with common
stack), and 1 no. odour control stack. The site will require an IE Licence with the EPA, if planning
permission is granted. This modelling assessment has been undertaken at the proposed licensed
conditions for the main emission points.
The Proposed Operations scenario consists of the following types of emissions:
• 1 no. flue per 2 no. CHP, 1 no. boiler and 1 no. dryer (1 no. stack housing all 4 no. flues), and
the odour control stack have been modelled as operating 24 hours per day, 365 days per year,
i.e. continuous operations, to ensure a worst-case conservative assessment.
• The model input information for this scenario is detailed in Table 13-6. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-25
Table 13-6 Summary of Process Emissions Information for Proposed Development
Parameter CHP 1 & CHP 2 Boiler Dryer Odour Control
Stack
Coordinates E624187,
N5997582
E624187,
N5997582
E624187,
N5997582
E624273,
N5997601
Stack Height above ground level (m) 20 20 20 40
Stack Diameter (m) 0.7 0.7 0.7 2
Stack Exit Temperature (degC) 341 300 131 Ambient
Volume Flow Rate (Nm3/hr) 10,500 4,000 9,350 299,066
Stack Exit Velocity (m/s actual) 7.98 7.75 9.99 27.9
NO2 Concentration (mg/m3) 190 200 200 n/a
Emission Rate (g/s) 0.554 0.222 0.519 n/a
NH3 Concentration (mg/m3) n/a n/a n/a 5
Emission Rate (g/s) n/a n/a n/a 0.415
SO2 Concentration (mg/m3) 40 100 100 n/a
Emission Rate (g/s) 0.117 0.111 0.260 n/a
PM10 Concentration (mg/m3) n/a n/a 5 n/a
Emission Rate (g/s) n/a n/a 0.013 n/a
Odour Concentration (OUE/m3) n/a n/a 1,000 1,000
Emission Rate (OUE/s) n/a n/a 2.597 83,074
Cumulative Assessment
The cumulative impact scenario assessed the combined impact of the emissions from the facility as
follows:
• Facility emissions as outlined in the Proposed Operation scenario above.
• Nearby IE licenced main emission points (Carleton Poultry Limited, see Figure 13-4).
• The process emissions used in the cumulative assessment are outlined in Table 13-7.
Emissions from facilities included in the cumulative assessment are as per the relevant IE licence
application, IE final determination or planning permission.
Table 13-7 Summary of Process Emissions Information for Cumulative Assessment
Installation Emission
Source
Type of
Operations
Height
Above
Ground
Level (m)
Exit
Diameter
(m)
Temp (K)
Exit Velocity
(m/sec
actual)
NH3 Mass
Emission
(g/s)
IE Reg. No.
P1128-01
(Carleton
Poultry
Limited)
Vent Continuous 6.5 0.4 ambient 8.14 0.0000014
Vent Continuous 6.5 0.4 ambient 8.14 0.0000014
Vent Continuous 6.5 0.4 ambient 8.14 0.0000014
Vent Continuous 6.5 0.4 ambient 8.14 0.0000014 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-26
Installation Emission
Source
Type of
Operations
Height
Above
Ground
Level (m)
Exit
Diameter
(m)
Temp (K)
Exit Velocity
(m/sec
actual)
NH3 Mass
Emission
(g/s)
Vent Continuous 6.5 0.4 ambient 8.14 0.0000014
Vent Continuous 6.5 0.4 ambient 8.14 0.0000014
Vent Continuous 6.5 0.4 ambient 8.14 0.0000014
Vent Continuous 6.5 0.4 ambient 8.14 0.0000014
Vent Continuous 6.5 0.4 ambient 8.14 0.0000014
Vent Continuous 6.5 0.4 ambient 8.14 0.0000014
Vent Continuous 6.5 0.4 ambient 8.14 0.0000014
Vent Continuous 6.5 0.4 ambient 8.14 0.0000014
Vent Continuous 6.5 0.4 ambient 8.14 0.0000014
Vent Continuous 6.5 0.4 ambient 8.14 0.0000014
13.6 Consultation
A pre-planning meeting was held with Monaghan County Council in advance of lodging the planning
application. During this consultation, the Planning Authority indicated in-principal support for the
proposed development.
It was also acknowledged that the proposed facility will require an Industrial Emissions (IE) Licence
from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As such, operational emissions, including air, will fall
within the remit of the EPA for regulation and control. This regulatory context was noted by the
Planning Authority and is of direct relevance to this assessment. In particular, for this assessment the
EPA licensing process has been actively consulted to ensure that all environmental and operational
standards applicable to the development are fully understood and that the project’s design is capable
of achieving relevant emission limit values.
Further details of the meeting and the issues discussed are set out in the Planning Statement submitted
under separate cover.
13.7 Difficulties Encountered
There were no difficulties encountered when compiling this assessment. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-27
13.8 Baseline Environment
13.8.1 Meteorological Data
A key factor in assessing temporal and spatial variations in air quality is the prevailing meteorological
conditions. Depending on wind speed and direction, individual receptors may experience very
significant variations in pollutant levels under the same source strength (i.e. traffic levels) (WHO, 2006).
Wind is of key importance in dispersing air pollutants and for ground level sources, such as traffic
emissions, pollutant concentrations are generally inversely related to wind speed. Thus,
concentrations of pollutants derived from traffic sources will generally be greatest under very calm
conditions and low wind speeds when the movement of air is restricted. In relation to PM10, the
situation is more complex due to the range of sources of this pollutant. Smaller particles (less than
PM2.5) from traffic sources will be dispersed more rapidly at higher wind speeds. However, fugitive
emissions of coarse particles (PM2.5 - PM10) will actually increase at higher wind speeds. Thus,
measured levels of PM10 will be a non-linear function of wind speed.
The nearest representative weather station collating detailed weather records is Ballyhaise
meteorological station, which is located approximately 15 km north-east of the site. Ballyhaise
meteorological data has been examined to identify the prevailing wind direction and average wind
speeds over a five-year period (Figure 13-2). For data collated during five representative years (2020 –
2024), the predominant wind direction is westerly to south-westerly with generally moderate wind
speeds (Met Éireann, 2025). RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-28
Figure 13-2 Wind Roses for Ballyhaise Meteorological Station
13.8.2 Baseline Air Quality
Air quality monitoring programs have been undertaken in recent years by the EPA. The most recent
annual report on air quality in Ireland is ’Air Quality in Ireland 2024’ (EPA, 2025). The EPA website
details the range and scope of monitoring undertaken throughout Ireland and provides both
monitoring data and the results of previous air quality assessments.
As part of the implementation of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2022 (S.I. No. 739 of 2022), as
amended, four air quality zones have been defined in Ireland for air quality management and
assessment purposes (EPA, 2025). Dublin is defined as Zone A and Cork as Zone B. Zone C is composed
of 23 towns with a population of greater than 15,000. The remainder of the country, which represents
rural Ireland but also includes all towns with a population of less than 15,000, is defined as Zone D.
In terms of air monitoring and assessment, the proposed development site with the gas grid route is
within Zone D (EPA, 2025). The long-term monitoring data has been used to determine background
concentrations for the key pollutants in the region of the proposed development. The background
concentration accounts for all non-traffic derived emissions (e.g. natural sources, industry, home
heating etc.). RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-29
13.8.2.1 NO2
Long-term NO2 monitoring was carried out at the representative Zone D rural background location of
Emo Court, Co. Laois and Killkitt, Co. Monaghan for the period 2020 – 2024 (Table 13-8) (EPA, 2025).
Long-term average concentrations are significantly below the annual average limits of 40 µg/m3 and
20 µg/m3. Average results range from 2 – 4 µg/m3. The overall annual average concentration for this
5-year period is 3 μg/m3. Additionally, there were no exceedances of the hourly limit value of 200
µg/m3.
Based on the above information a conservative estimate of the current background NO2 concentration
for the region of the proposed development is 3 µg/m3.
For the modelling assessment as per Section 13.5.4.2, the modelled process concentration is added to
the background concentration to give the worst-case predicted environmental concentration (PEC).
The PEC is then compared with the relevant ambient air quality standard to assess the significance of
the releases from the site. NO2 has ambient air quality standards for both annual mean and hourly
concentrations that must be complied with (see Table 13-1). In relation to the annual average
background, the ambient background concentration was added directly to the process concentration
with the short-term (hourly) peaks assumed to have an ambient background concentration of twice
the annual mean background concentration.
Table 13-8 Background NO2 Concentrations
Station Averaging Period Year
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Emo Court, Co. Laois Annual Mean NO2 (µg/m3) 3 4 3 2 3
1-hr Mean > 200 μg/m3 (days) 0 0 0 0 0
Kilkitt, Co. Monaghan Annual Mean NO2 (µg/m3) 2 2 2 2 2
1-hr Mean > 200 μg/m3 (days) 0 0 0 0 0
Annual Mean NO2 (µg/m3)
Directive EU 2024/2881
Limit Value (to be attained by 2026) 40
Directive EU 2024/2881
Limit Value (to be attained by 2030) 20
1-hr Mean NO2 (as
99.7th%ile) (µg/m3) Directive EU 2024/2881
Limit Value (to be attained by 2026)
200
1-hr Mean NO2 values >200
µg/m3 No more than 18 exceedances
1-hr Mean NO2 (as
99.97th%ile) (µg/m3) Directive EU 2024/2881
Limit Value (to be attained by 2030)
200
1-hr Mean NO2 values >200
µg/m3 No more than 3 exceedances
13.8.2.2 PM10
Continuous PM10 monitoring was carried out at two representative Zone D locations from 2020 – 2024;
Claremorris, Co. Mayo and Kilkitt, Co. Monaghan. Annual average PM10 concentrations across the sites RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-30
ranged from 7 – 10 µg/m3 over the 2020 – 2024 period (Table 13-9). The overall annual average
concentration for this 5-year period is 8 μg/m3. There were at most two exceedances of the daily limit
of 50 µg/m3 in 2020 (at Heatherton Park). However, 35 exceedances are permitted per year currently
(EPA, 2025).
Based on the EPA data, a conservative estimate of the current background PM10 concentration in the
region of the proposed development is 8 µg/m3.
In relation to the annual averages, the ambient background concentration is added directly to the
process concentration. However, in relation to the short-term peak concentration, concentrations due
to emissions from elevated sources cannot be combined in the same way. Guidance from the UK
DEFRA (UK DEFRA, 2022) and the EPA (EPA, 2020) advises that for PM10 an estimate of the maximum
combined pollutant concentration can be obtained as shown below:
PM10 - The 90.4th %ile of total 24-hour mean PM10 is equal to the maximum of either A or B below:
a) 90.4th %ile of 24-hour mean background PM10 + annual mean process contribution PM10
b) 90.4th %ile 24-hour mean process contribution PM10 + annual mean background PM10
This approach can also be applied to the 24-hr mean PM10 concentration as a 95.1st percentile. A 95.1st
percentile 24-hour background concentration of 12 μg/m3 was used in the assessment, based on the
overall 5-year average concentrations for the monitoring locations (Table 13-9) over the period 2020
– 2024.
Table 13-9 Background PM10 Concentrations
Station Averaging Period Year
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Claremorris
Annual Mean PM10 (µg/m3) 10 10 8 8 8
24 hr Mean PM10 (as 90.4th%ile)
(µg/m3)
16 13 13 -
24-hr Mean > 50 μg/m3 (days) 0 0 0 0 0
Kilkitt
Annual Mean PM10 (µg/m3) 8 8 9 7 7
24 hr Mean PM10 (as 90.4th%ile)
(µg/m3) 14 - 14 -
24-hr Mean > 50 μg/m3 (days) 0 - 0 0 0
Annual Mean PM10 (µg/m3)
Directive EU 2024/2881
Limit Value (to be attained by 2026) 40
Directive EU 2024/2881
Limit Value (to be attained by 2030) 20
24-hr Mean PM10 (as
90.4th%ile) (µg/m3) Directive EU 2024/2881
Limit Value (to be attained by 2026)
50
24-hr Mean PM10 values >
50 µg/m3 35 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-31
Station Averaging Period Year
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
24-hr Mean PM10 (as
95.1st%ile) (µg/m3) Directive EU 2024/2881
Limit Value (to be attained by 2030)
45
24-hr Mean PM10 values >
45 µg/m3 No more than 18 exceedances
13.8.2.3 PM2.5
Average PM2.5 levels in Claremorris, Co. Mayo and Shannon Estuary/Askeaton, Co. Limerick over the
period 2020 - 2024 ranged from 4 - 8 μg/m3 (EPA, 2024a). The maximum annual average concentration
for this 5-year period is 6 μg/m3 (Table 13-10).
Based on this information, an estimate of the background PM2.5 concentration in the region of the
proposed development is 6 μg/m3.
Table 13-10 Background PM2.5 Concentrations
Station Averaging Period Year
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Claremorris Annual Mean PM2.5 (µg/m3) 5 8 6 5 5
Shannon Estuary/Askeaton Annual Mean PM2.5 (µg/m3) 4 6 5 5 5
Annual Mean PM2.5 (µg/m3)
Directive EU 2024/2881
Limit Value (to be attained by 2026) 25
Directive EU 2024/2881
Limit Value (to be attained by 2030) 10
24-hr Mean PM2.5 (as 95.1st%ile) (µg/m3) Directive EU 2024/2881
Limit Value (to be attained by 2030)
25
24-hr Mean PM2.5 values >25 µg/m3 No more than 18 exceedances
13.8.2.4 SO2
Continuous SO2 monitoring carried out at the Zone D rural background location of Kilkitt, Co.
Monaghan and Shannon Estuary/Askeaton, Co. Limerick over a period of 2020-2024 (see Table 13-11).
The 5-year average data for this site for the period 2020 – 2024 was used to estimate the current
annual mean background SO2 concentration in the region of the facility. Over the period 2020 – 2024
annual mean SO2 concentrations at the selected site ranged from 1 – 6 µg/m3 with an overall 5-year
average of 2 µg/m3.
Based on these results, a reasonably conservative estimate of the annual mean background SO2
concentration in the region of the proposed development is 2 µg/m3.
When calculating the short-term peak results, concentrations due to emissions from stacks cannot be
combined by directly adding the annual background level to the modelling results. Guidance from the
UK DEFRA (UK DEFRA, 2022) and the EPA (EPA, 2020) advises that for SO2 an estimate of the maximum
combined pollutant concentrations can be obtained as shown below: RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-32
SO2 - The 99.2th%ile of total 24-hour SO2 is equal to the maximum of either A or B below:
a) 99.2th%ile of 24-hour mean background SO2 + (2 x annual mean process contribution
SO2)
b) 99.2th%ile 24-hour mean process contribution SO2 + (2 x annual mean background
contribution SO2)
SO2 - The 99.7th%ile of total 1-hour SO2 is equal to the maximum of either A or B below:
a) 99.7th%ile hourly background SO2 + (2 x annual mean process contribution SO2)
b) 99.7th%ile hourly process contribution SO2 + (2 x annual mean background
contribution SO2)
This approach can also be applied to the 24-hr mean SO2 concentration as a 95.1st percentile and to
the 1-hr mean SO2 concentration as a 99.97th percentile.
A 99.97th percentile 1-hour background concentration of 7 μg/m3 was used in the assessment, based
on the overall 5-year average concentrations for the monitoring location (Table 13-11) over the period
2020 – 2024.
A 95.1st percentile 24-hour background concentration of 2 μg/m3 was used in the assessment, based
on the overall 5-year average concentrations for the monitoring location (Table 13-11) over the period
2020 – 2024.
Table 13-11 Background SO2 Concentrations (µg/m3)
Station Averaging Period Year
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Kilkitt
Annual Mean SO2 (µg/m3) 1 2 2 2 1.7
1 hr Mean SO2 (as 99.97th%ile)
(µg/m3) 5 - 7 - -
1-hr Mean SO2 values >350 µg/m3 0 - 0 - 0
24 hr Mean SO2 (as 95.1st%ile)
(µg/m3) 0 5 0 -
24-hr Mean SO2 values > 125 µg/m3 0 0 0 -
Shannon Estuary/Askeaton
Annual Mean SO2 (µg/m3) 2 2 6 3 2.0
1 hr Mean SO2 (as 99.97th%ile)
(µg/m3) 5 - 21 -
1-hr Mean SO2 values >350 µg/m3 0 - 0 - 0
24 hr Mean SO2 (as 95.1st%ile)
(µg/m3) 0 3 0 - -
24-hr Mean SO2 values > 125 µg/m3 0 0 0 - 0
Annual Mean SO2 (µg/m3) Directive EU 2024/2881
Limit Value (to be attained by 2026) n/a RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-33
Station Averaging Period Year
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Directive EU 2024/2881
Limit Value (to be attained by 2030) 20
1-hr Mean SO2 (as 99.7th%ile)
(µg/m3)
Directive EU 2024/2881
Limit Value (to be attained by 2026)
350
1-hr Mean SO2 values >350 µg/m3 No more than 24 exceedances
24-hr Mean SO2 (as 99.2nd%ile)
(µg/m3) 125
24-hr Mean SO2 values > 125 µg/m3 No more than 3 exceedances
1-hr Mean SO2 (as 99.97th%ile)
(µg/m3)
Directive EU 2024/2881
Limit Value (to be attained by 2030)
350
1-hr Mean SO2 values >350 µg/m3 No more than 3 exceedances
24-hr Mean SO2 (as 95.1st%ile)
(µg/m3) 50
24-hr Mean SO2 values > 50 µg/m3 No more than 18 exceedances
13.8.2.5 NH3
Background concentrations for NH3 were derived from the 1 km grid square concentrations provided
on the Air Pollution Information System (APIS) website (APIS, 2025). The modelling results were
reviewed and the areas of maximum process contributions were identified (shown in the results tables
and concentration contour figures in Section 13.10.2.1.5). The corresponding APIS 1 km grid squares
were then identified and a maximum background NH3 concentration of 3.3 µg/m3 determined. This
background concentration was added directly to the modelled process contributions to give a total
predicted environmental concentration.
13.8.2.6 Odour
No background concentration of odour has been added to the modelled process contributions to give
a total predicted environmental concentration. As per AG9 (EPA, 2019), when modelling odour, the
measurement of ambient levels of odour and the incorporation of these levels into the modelling
results is not a valid approach as odours are not generally additive due to synergistic and non-linear
effects of multiple odorous compounds in the ambient environment.
13.8.2.7 Summary
In summary the long-term monitoring data demonstrate that existing NO₂, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 and NH3
levels in the region are very low and below all current and future EU limit values and relevant guidelines
for the protection of human health. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-34
13.8.3 Sensitivity of the Receiving Environment
13.8.3.1 Construction Phase
In line with the UK Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance document ‘Guidance on the
Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction’ (IAQM, 2024) prior to assessing the impact of
dust from a proposed development, the sensitivity of the area must first be assessed as outlined below.
Both receptor sensitivity and proximity to proposed works areas (ZoI previously defined in Section
13.5.3.1) are taken into consideration.
The type of receptors and their sensitivity to dust soiling, human health effects of PM10 and ecological
effects are defined in the IAQM guidance (IAQM, 2024). High sensitivity receptors are regarded as
residential properties, hospitals, schools and residential care homes where people are likely to spend
the majority of their time. Commercial properties and places of work are regarded as medium
sensitivity while low sensitivity receptors are places where people are present for short periods (such
as public footpaths or parks) or do not expect a high level of amenity. Table 13-12 outlines the criteria
for determining the sensitivity of the area to dust soiling and dust-related human health effects as per
the IAQM guidance (IAQM, 2024).
Table 13-12 Criteria for Determining the Sensitivity of the Area Update
Sensitivity of the Area to Dust Soiling Effects on People and Property
Receptor Sensitivity Number of Receptors Distance from Source (m)
<20 <50 <100 <250
High
>100 High High Medium Low
10 - 100 High Medium Low Low
1 - 10 Medium Low Low Low
Medium >1 Medium Low Low Low
Low >1 Low Low Low Low
Sensitivity of the Area to Human Health Impacts
Receptor Sensitivity
Annual Mean
PM10
Concentration
Number of
Receptors
Distance from Source (m)
<20 <50 <100 <250
High < 24 µg/m3
>100 Medium Low Low Low
10 - 100 Low Low Low Low
1 - 10 Low Low Low Low
Medium < 24 µg/m3 >10 Low Low Low Low
1 - 10 Low Low Low Low
Low < 24 µg/m3 >1 Low Low Low Low
Sensitivity of the Area to Ecological Impacts
Receptor Sensitivity Distance from Source (m)
<20 <50
High High Medium
Medium Medium Low RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-35
Sensitivity of the Area to Dust Soiling Effects on People and Property
Receptor Sensitivity Number of Receptors Distance from Source (m)
<20 <50 <100 <250
Low Low Low
Dust Soiling
In terms of receptor sensitivity to dust soiling, there are between 1 and 10 high sensitivity residential
properties within 20m of the overall proposed project boundary (see Figure 13-3) i.e. including the gas
grid route. Based on these receptor numbers and using the IAQM criteria in Table 13-12, the sensitivity
of the area to dust soiling impacts from the proposed development is medium.
Human Health
In addition to sensitivity to dust soiling, the IAQM guidelines also outline the assessment criteria for
determining the sensitivity of the area to human health impacts. The criteria take into consideration
the current annual mean PM10 concentration, receptor sensitivity based on type (residential receptors
are classified as high sensitivity) and the number of receptors affected within various distance bands
from the construction works. A conservative estimate of the current annual mean PM10 concentration
in the vicinity of the proposed development is 10 µg/m3. There are between 1 and 10 high sensitivity
residential properties within 20m of the overall project boundary (see Figure 13-3Figure 13-3). Based
on the IAQM criteria outlined in Table 13-12 the worst-case sensitivity of the area to dust-related
human health effects is low.
Ecology
The IAQM guidelines also outline the assessment criteria for determining the sensitivity of the area to
dust-related ecological impacts. Dust emissions can coat vegetation leading to a reduction in the
photosynthesising ability of the plant, as well as other effects. The guidance states that dust impacts
to vegetation can occur up to 50 m from the site, and 50 m from site access roads, up to 250 m f rom
the site entrance. The sensitivity of the area is determined based on the distance to the source, the
designation of the site, (European, National or local designation) and the potential dust sensitivity of
the ecologically important species present. The Dromore Lakes pNHA is within 20 m of the overall
project boundary (see Figure 13-3). This ecological receptor is considered to have medium sensitivity
to construction dust impacts, according to the IAQM guidance. Based on the IAQM criteria outlined in
Table 13-12 the worst-case sensitivity of the area to dust-related ecological effects is medium. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-36
Figure 13-3 Construction Dust Assessment – Sensitive Receptors within 250 m of the Project
13.8.3.2 Operational Phase
The dispersion modelling has incorporated a variety of receptors, including a gridded receptor
network, site boundary receptors, and individual discrete receptors representing specific residential
properties or sensitive ecological sites. Ecological sites were modelled 0 m above ground, while all
other receptors were modelled at 1.5 m to represent breathing height.
The Zone of Influence (ZoI) for the human health effects of the operational phase emissions of the
proposed development was modelled as follows, and determined in line with AG4 guidance (EPA,
2020).
Three receptor grids were created at which concentrations would be modelled. Receptors were
mapped with sufficient resolution to ensure all localised “hot-spots” were identified without adding
unduly to processing time. The receptor grids were based on a Cartesian grid with the site at the centre.
An outer grid measured 10 x 10 km with the site at the centre and with concentrations calculated at
200 m intervals. A medium density grid measured 3 x 3 km with the site at the centre and with
concentrations calculated at 50 m intervals. A smaller, denser grid measured 1 x 1 km with
concentrations calculated at 25 m intervals. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-37
Boundary receptor locations were also placed along the ownership boundary of the renewable biogas
plant site at 25 m intervals giving a total of 4,090 calculation points for the model.
The impact of the emission sources was also measured at nearby residential receptors (AQ) (identified
via a combination of satellite imagery and Eircode search) which were added to the model as discrete
receptors (shown in Figure 13-4; 1 km buffer for scale purposes, ZoI as per above).
Figure 13-4 Sensitive Receptors Included in Operational Phase Air Dispersion Modelling
Assessment
13.9 The ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario
13.9.1 Renewable Biogas Plant Site
Under the “Do Nothing” scenario, no industrial-scale anaerobic digestion (AD) facility is developed on
the Renewable Biogas Plant Site and there are therefore no process emissions from the proposed AD
facility and no changes in traffic emissions associated with the development which could impact local
air quality. The existing use of land for agriculture will remain unchanged. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-38
Without an AD facility, in the Do-Nothing scenario, ambient air quality at the whole project site will
remain as per the baseline and will change in accordance with trends within the wider area (including
influences from potential new developments in the surrounding area, changes in road traffic, etc).
However, the county faces a critical poultry waste management challenge, with high concentrations
of production that cannot be addressed at scale by small, dispersed measures alone. The proposed
development represents the only proven large-scale solution currently implemented in the country.
The gas grid in Co. Monaghan is extremely limited. While this particular site may remain undeveloped,
it is very likely that a facility of similar scale will be developed locally, as the waste issue must be
addressed to ensure a viable poultry industry, protect water quality, and manage environmental
pressures. Such a facility would be expected to generate comparable types of emissions and therefore
similar categories of air quality impacts. With a similar AD facility in place in the Do-Nothing scenario,
the effects on local air quality are expected to be similar in type and magnitude to those of the
proposed Renewable Biogas Plant Site, described in Section 13.10.2.1 .
13.9.2 Linear Gas Grid Connection
No gas grid installation over the 3.5 km road would occur under the “Do Nothing” scenario.
Consequently, there would be no disruption to the road corridor, and no temporary disturbance
associated with construction activities such as earthworks.
In the Do-Nothing scenario, ambient air quality at the whole project site will remain as per the baseline
and will change in accordance with trends within the wider area (including influences from potential
new developments in the surrounding area, changes in road traffic, etc).
13.10 Potential Significant Effects
13.10.1 Construction Phase
13.10.1.1 Construction Dust Assessment
The greatest potential impact on air quality during the construction phase of the proposed
development is from construction dust emissions and the potential for nuisance dust. While
construction dust tends to be deposited within 250 m of a construction site, the majority of the
deposition occurs within the first 50 m (IAQM, 2024). The extent of any dust generation depends on
the nature of the dust (soils, peat, sands, gravels, silts etc.) and the nature of the construction activity.
In addition, the potential for dust dispersion and deposition depends on local meteorological factors
such as rainfall, wind speed and wind direction. A review of Ballyhaise meteorological data indicates
that the prevailing wind direction is westerly to south-westerly and wind speeds are generally
moderate in nature (Section 13.8.1). In addition, dust generation is considered negligible on days
where rainfall is greater than 0.2 mm. A review of historical 30-year average data for Dublin Airport
meteorological station (site closest to Proposed Development with 30 -year average data available) RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-39
indicates that, on average, 200 days per year have rainfall over 0.2 mm (Met Eireann, 2025). Therefore,
it can be determined that over 55% of the time dust generation will be reduced due to natural
meteorological conditions. To determine the level of dust mitigation required during the proposed
works, the potential dust emission magnitude for each dust generating activity needs to be taken into
account, in conjunction with the previously established sensitivity of the area (Section 13.8.3.1). The
major dust generating activities are divided into four types within the IAQM (IAQM, 2024) guidance to
reflect their different potential impacts. These are: demolition, earthworks, construction and trackout
(movement of heavy vehicles).
13.10.1.1.1 Determining the Potential Dust Emission Magnitude
The magnitude of the works under each category can be classified as either small, medium or large
depending on the scale of the works involved. The magnitude of each activity has been determined
below for the proposed development using the criteria in Table 13-4.
• Demolition: There is no demolition required as part of the proposed development.
• Earthworks: The dust emission magnitude for the proposed earthwork activities can be
classified as medium as the total project area is between 18,000 m2 and 110,000 m2.
• Construction: The total volume of structures with dust generating potential during their
construction will be greater than 75,000 m3, however the structures will be largely metal in
composition and dust generation due to the nature of the building materials is considered
low. Overall, the dust emission magnitude for the proposed construction activities can be
classified as medium.
• Trackout: The dust emission magnitude for the proposed trackout can be classified as medium,
as there will be between 20 and 50 outward HGV movements per day at peak times during the
construction phase of the proposed development.
13.10.1.1.2 Determining the Risk of Dust Impacts
Once the dust emission magnitude has been determined the next step, according to the IAQM
guidance (IAQM, 2024), is to establish the level of risk by combining the magnitude with the overall
sensitivity of the area to dust soiling and dust-related human health effects (Section 13.8.3.1). The
level of risk associated with each activity is determined using the criteria in Table 13-5. The overall risk
of dust impacts from the construction works is shown in Table 13-13 for each category.
There is at most a medium risk of dust soiling impacts, a low risk of dust-related human health impacts
and a medium risk of ecological impacts associated with the proposed construction works. As a result,
best practice dust mitigation measures associated with medium risk works will be implemented to
ensure there are no significant impacts at nearby sensitive receptors. In the absence of mitigation, the
likely effect of the dust impacts within the ZoI are predicted to be direct, short-term, negative and
slight.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-40
Table 13-13 Risk of Dust Impacts used to Define Site-Specific Mitigation
Receptor Receptor Sensitivity Dust Emission Magnitude Risk of Dust-Related
Impacts
Demolition
Dust Soiling n/a
n/a
n/a
Human Health n/a n/a
Ecology n/a n/a
Earthworks
Dust Soiling Medium
Medium
Medium Risk
Human Health Low Low Risk
Ecology Medium Medium Risk
Construction
Dust Soiling Medium
Medium
Medium Risk
Human Health Low Low Risk
Ecology Medium Medium Risk
Trackout
Dust Soiling Medium
Medium
Medium Risk
Human Health Low Low Risk
Ecology Medium Medium Risk
13.10.1.2 Construction Phase Traffic Assessment
A detailed air quality assessment of construction-stage traffic emissions was scoped out in accordance
with the TII screening criteria set out in Section 13.5.3.2. No significant construction-stage traffic-
related effects on air quality are predicted.
13.10.2 Operational Phase
13.10.2.1 Air Dispersion Modelling Assessment
13.10.2.1.1 NO2
The results indicate that ambient ground level concentrations of NO2, detailed in Table 13-14, are in
compliance with the relevant air quality standards for all modelled years at the worst -case receptor
(considers boundary, gridded and sensitive receptors).
For the worst-case year, emissions from the site lead to an ambient NO2 concentration (including
background) at the worst-case receptor which are at most:
• 37% of the annual limit value
• 50% of the maximum ambient 1-hour limit value (measured as a 99.97th percentile)
• 45% of the maximum ambient 24-hour limit value (measured as a 95.1st percentile) RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-41
The geographical variations in ground level NO2 predicted environmental concentrations (PEC) beyond
the facility boundary for the worst-case year modelled are illustrated as concentration contours in
Figure 13-5 (annual mean), Figure 13-6 (1-hr mean, as 99.97th%ile) and Figure 13-7 (24-hr mean, as
95.1st%ile), to demonstrate the direction and extent of the emission plume. The locations of the
maximum concentrations for NO2 are also shown in these figures and are close to the boundary of the
Biogas site with concentrations decreasing with distance from the facility.
Overall, the effect of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) due to emissions from the facility’s emissions on sensitive
human health receptors is considered to be direct, long-term, negative and slight, which is overall not
significant in EIA terms.
Table 13-14 Proposed Operations – Dispersion Model Results for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Pollutant
/ Year Averaging Period
Worst Case Receptor Concentrations (µg/m3) PEC
as %
of
Limit
Type X,Y (UTM Zone
29 N) PC Back-
ground PEC Limit
Value
NO₂ /
2020
Annual Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 4.3 3 7.3 20 37%
1-hr Mean (as
99.97th%ile) Boundary 624154,
5997551 90.2 6 96.2 200 48%
24-hr Mean (as
95.1st%ile) Grid 624325,
5997734 16.5 6 22.5 50 45%
NO₂ /
2021
Annual Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 3.0 3 6.0 20 30%
1-hr Mean (as
99.97th%ile) Grid 624075,
5997734 80.2 6 86.2 200 43%
24-hr Mean (as
95.1st%ile) Boundary 624325,
5997725 13.5 6 19.5 50 39%
NO₂ /
2022
Annual Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 3.9 3 6.9 20 35%
1-hr Mean (as
99.97th%ile) Grid 624125,
5997584 84.6 6 90.6 200 45%
24-hr Mean (as
95.1st%ile) Boundary 624325,
5997725 15.6 6 21.6 50 43%
NO₂ /
2023
Annual Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 3.6 3 6.6 20 33%
1-hr Mean (as
99.97th%ile) Grid 624125,
5997584 93.4 6 99.4 200 50%
24-hr Mean (as
95.1st%ile) Boundary 624325,
5997725 15.7 6 21.7 50 43%
NO₂ /
2024
Annual Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 3.6 3 6.6 20 33%
1-hr Mean (as
99.97th%ile) Grid 624125,
5997584 91.9 6 97.9 200 49%
24-hr Mean (as
95.1st%ile) Boundary 624325,
5997725 16.2 6 22.2 50 44%
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-42
Figure 13-5 Proposed Operations Scenario – Maximum Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-43
Figure 13-6 Proposed Operations Scenario - Maximum 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations (as
99.97th%ile) RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-44
Figure 13-7 Proposed Operations Scenario - Maximum 24-Hour NO2 Concentrations (as
95.1st%ile)
13.10.2.1.2 Particulate Matter (PM10)
The results indicate that ambient ground level concentrations of PM10, detailed in Table 13-15, are in
compliance with the relevant air quality standards for all modelled years at the worst -case receptor
(considers boundary, gridded and sensitive receptors).
For the worst-case year, emissions from the site lead to an ambient PM10 concentration (including
background) at the worst-case receptor which are at most:
• 40% of the annual limit value
• 22% of the maximum ambient 24-hour limit value (measured as a 95.1st percentile)
Calculating the maximum 24-hour mean PM10 (95.1st%ile) PEC is not a simple addition of background
concentration to process contribution but is instead calculated in line with guidance from the UK
DEFRA (UK DEFRA, 2022) and the EPA (EPA, 2020), as explained in Section 13.8.2.2, which states that
for PM10 an estimate of the maximum PEC can be obtained from the methods shown below:
PM10 - The 95.1st%ile of total 24-hour mean PM10 is equal to the maximum of either A or B below:
a) Annual mean process contribution PM10 + 95.1st%ile of 24-hour mean background PM10 RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-45
b) 95.1st%ile 24-hour mean process contribution PM10 + annual mean background PM10
The results of this calculation process are highlighted (bold, underlined) and shown in Table 13-15 as
“PEC A” and “PEC B”, and determined that the maximum 24-hour mean PM10 (95.1st%ile) PEC is based
on method A (“PEC A”).
The geographical variations in ground level PM10 process contribution (PC) concentrations beyond the
Biogas plant boundary for the worst-case years modelled are illustrated as concentration contours in
Figure 13-8 (annual mean) and Figure 13-9 (24-hr mean, as 95.1st%ile), to demonstrate the direction
and extent of the emission plume. The locations of the maximum concentrations for PM 10 are also
shown in these figures and are close to the boundary of the site with concentrations decreasing with
distance from the facility.
Overall, the effect of particulate matter (PM10) due to emissions from the facility’s emissions on
sensitive human health receptors is considered to be direct, long-term, negative and slight, which is
overall not significant in EIA terms.
Table 13-15 Proposed Operations – Dispersion Model Results for Particulate Matter (PM10)
Pollutant
/ Year
Averaging
Period
Worst Case Receptor Concentrations (µg/m3) PEC
as %
of
Limit Type X,Y (UTM
Zone 29 N) PC Back-
ground
PEC
A
PEC
B
Limit
Value
PM10 /
2020
Annual Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.09 8 8.09 8.09 20 40%
24-hr Mean (as
95.1st%ile) Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.35 10 10.09 8.35 45 22%
PM10 /
2021
Annual Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.07 8 8.07 8.07 20 40%
24-hr Mean (as
95.1st%ile) Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.30 10 10.07 8.30 45 22%
PM10 /
2022
Annual Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.09 8 8.09 8.09 20 40%
24-hr Mean (as
95.1st%ile) Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.32 10 10.09 8.32 45 22%
PM10 /
2023
Annual Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.08 8 8.08 8.08 20 40%
24-hr Mean (as
95.1st%ile) Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.35 10 10.08 8.35 45 22%
PM10 /
2024
Annual Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.08 8 8.08 8.08 20 40%
24-hr Mean (as
95.1st%ile) Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.32 10 10.08 8.32 45 22% RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-46
Figure 13-8 Proposed Operations Scenario - Maximum Annual Mean PM10 Concentrations RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-47
Figure 13-9 Proposed Operations Scenario - Maximum 24-Hour Mean PM10 Concentrations (as
95.1st%ile)
13.10.2.1.3 Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
The results indicate that ambient ground level concentrations of PM2.5, detailed in Table 13-16, are in
compliance with the relevant air quality standards for all modelled years at the worst -case receptor
(considers boundary, gridded and sensitive receptors).
The modelled concentrations are derived from a worst-case assumption that all PM10 emissions from
the proposed development are of a particle size of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). This assumption is
necessitated due to the lack of availability of PM2.5 emission concentration data for emission sources
and therefore PM2.5 emissions could not be directly modelled. In reality, particles greater than 2.5
microns will also be present and thus the mass of PM2.5 released has been overestimated.
For the worst-case year, emissions from the site lead to an ambient PM2.5 concentration (including
background) at the worst-case receptor which are at most:
• 61% of the annual limit value
• 36% of the maximum ambient 24-hour limit value (measured as a 95.1st percentile)
Calculating the maximum 24-hour mean PM2.5 (95.1st%ile) PEC is not a simple addition of background
concentration to process contribution but is instead calculated in line with guidance from the UK RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-48
DEFRA (UK DEFRA, 2022) and the EPA (EPA, 2020), as explained in Section 13.8.2.2, which states that
for PM2.5 an estimate of the maximum PEC can be obtained from the methods shown below:
PM10 - The 95.1st%ile of total 24-hour mean PM2.5 is equal to the maximum of either A or B below:
c) Annual mean process contribution PM2.5 + 95.1st%ile of 24-hour mean background PM2.5
d) 95.1st%ile 24-hour mean process contribution PM2.5 + annual mean background PM2.5
The results of this calculation process are highlighted (bold, underlined) and shown in Table 13-16 as
“PEC A” and “PEC B”, and determined that the maximum 24-hour mean PM2.5 (95.1st%ile) PEC is based
on method A (“PEC A”).
As the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations have been conservatively assumed equal to the modelled
PM10 concentrations, the direction and extent of the emission plume is identical to that shown in
Figure 13-8 (annual mean) and Figure 13-9 (24-hr mean, as 95.1st%ile).
Overall, the effect of particulate matter (PM2.5) due to emissions from the facility’s emissions on
sensitive human health receptors is considered to be direct, long-term, negative and slight, which is
overall not significant in EIA terms.
Table 13-16 Proposed Operations – Dispersion Model Results for Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Pollutant
/ Year
Averaging
Period
Worst Case Receptor Concentrations (µg/m3) PEC
as %
of
Limit Type X,Y (UTM
Zone 29 N) PC Back-
ground
PEC
A PEC B Limit
Value
PM2.5 /
2020
Annual Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.07 6 6.07 6.07 10 61%
24-hr Mean (as
95.1st%ile) Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.26 9 9.07 6.26 25 36%
PM2.5 /
2021
Annual Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.05 6 6.05 6.05 10 61%
24-hr Mean (as
95.1st%ile) Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.23 9 9.05 6.23 25 36%
PM2.5 /
2022
Annual Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.07 6 6.07 6.07 10 61%
24-hr Mean (as
95.1st%ile) Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.24 9 9.07 6.24 25 36%
PM2.5 /
2023
Annual Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.06 6 6.06 6.06 10 61%
24-hr Mean (as
95.1st%ile) Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.26 9 9.06 6.26 25 36%
PM2.5 /
2024
Annual Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.06 6 6.06 6.06 10 61%
24-hr Mean (as
95.1st%ile) Boundary 624325,
5997725 0.24 9 9.06 6.24 25 36% RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-49
13.10.2.1.4 Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
The results indicate that ambient ground level concentrations of SO2, detailed in Table 13-17, are in
compliance with the relevant air quality standards for all modelled years at the worst -case receptor
(considers boundary, gridded and sensitive receptors).
For the worst-case year, emissions from the site lead to an ambient SO2 concentration (including
background) at the worst-case receptor which are at most:
• 29% of the annual limit value
• 24% of the maximum ambient 1-hour limit value (measured as a 99.97th percentile)
• 42% of the maximum ambient 24-hour limit value (measured as a 95.1st percentile)
Calculating the maximum 1-hour mean SO2 (99.97th%ile) and 24-hour mean SO2 (95.1st%ile) PEC is not
a simple addition of background concentration to process contribution but is instead calculated in line
with guidance from the UK DEFRA (UK DEFRA, 2022) and the EPA (EPA, 2020), as explained in Section
13.8.2.4, which states that for SO2 an estimate of the maximum PEC can be obtained from the methods
shown below:
95.1st%ile of total 24-hour SO2 is equal to the maximum of either A or B below:
a) 95.1st%ile of 24-hour mean background SO2 + (2 x annual mean process contribution SO2)
b) 95.1st%ile 24-hour mean process contribution SO2 + (2 x annual mean background contribution
SO2)
99.97th%ile of total 1-hour SO2 is equal to the maximum of either A or B below:
a) 99.97th%ile hourly background SO2 + (2 x annual mean process contribution SO2)
b) 99.97th%ile hourly process contribution SO2 + (2 x annual mean background contribution SO2)
The results of this calculation process are highlighted (bold, underlined) and shown in Table 13-17 as
“PEC A” and “PEC B”, and determined that the maximum 1-hour mean SO2 (99.97th%ile) PEC is based
on method B (“PEC B”), while the maximum 24-hour mean SO2 (95.1st%ile) PEC is based on method B
(“PEC B”).
The geographical variations in ground level SO2 process contribution (PC) concentrations beyond the
facility boundary for the worst-case years modelled are illustrated as concentration contours in Figure
13-10 (annual mean), Figure 13-11 (1-hr mean, as 99.97th%ile) and Figure 13-12 (24-hr mean, as
95.1st%ile), to demonstrate the direction and extent of the emission plume. The locations of the
maximum concentrations for SO2 are also shown in these figures and are close to the boundary of the
site with concentrations decreasing with distance from the facility.
Overall, the effect of sulphur dioxide (SO2) due to emissions from the facility’s emissions on sensitive
human health receptors is considered to be direct, long-term, negative and slight, which is overall not
significant in EIA terms. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-50
Table 13-17 Proposed Operations – Dispersion Model Results for Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)
Pollutant
/ Year
Averaging
Period
Worst Case Receptor Concentrations (µg/m3) PEC
as %
of
Limit Type X,Y (UTM Zone
29 N) PC Back-
ground
PEC
A
PEC
B
Limit
Value
SO₂ /
2020
Annual
Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 3.82 2 5.82 5.82 20 29%
1-hr Mean
(as
99.97th%ile)
Boundary 624154,
5997551 39.32 7 14.64 43.32 350 12%
24-hr Mean
(as
95.1st%ile)
Boundary 624147,
5997567 16.54 2 9.64 20.54 50 41%
SO₂ /
2021
Annual
Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 2.94 2 4.94 4.94 20 25%
1-hr Mean
(as
99.97th%ile)
Boundary 624154,
5997551 76.78 7 12.88 80.78 350 23%
24-hr Mean
(as
95.1st%ile)
Boundary 624325,
5997725 12.85 2 7.88 16.85 50 34%
SO₂ /
2022
Annual
Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 3.74 2 5.74 5.74 20 29%
1-hr Mean
(as
99.97th%ile)
Boundary 624154,
5997551 79.31 7 14.47 83.31 350 24%
24-hr Mean
(as
95.1st%ile)
Boundary 624325,
5997725 14.29 2 9.47 18.29 50 37%
SO₂ /
2023
Annual
Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 3.52 2 5.52 5.52 20 28%
1-hr Mean
(as
99.97th%ile)
Boundary 624147,
5997567 76.71 7 14.04 80.71 350 23%
24-hr Mean
(as
95.1st%ile)
Boundary 624147,
5997567 17.00 2 9.04 21.00 50 42%
SO₂ /
2024
Annual
Mean Boundary 624325,
5997725 3.52 2 5.52 5.52 20 28%
1-hr Mean
(as
99.97th%ile)
Boundary 624147,
5997567 76.71 7 14.04 80.71 350 23%
24-hr Mean
(as
95.1st%ile)
Boundary 624147,
5997567 17.00 2 9.04 21.00 50 42%
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-51
Figure 13-10 Proposed Operations Scenario - Maximum Annual Mean SO2 Concentrations RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-52
Figure 13-11 Proposed Operations Scenario - Maximum 1-Hour Mean SO2 Concentrations (as
99.97th %ile)
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-53
Figure 13-12 Proposed Operations Scenario - Maximum 24-Hour Mean SO2 Concentrations (as
95.1st%ile)
13.10.2.1.5 Ammonia (NH3)
The results indicate that ambient ground level concentrations of NH3, detailed in Table 13-18, are in
compliance with the relevant air quality standards for all modelled years at the worst -case receptor
(considers boundary, gridded and sensitive receptors).
For the worst-case year, emissions from the site lead to an ambient NH3 concentration (including
background) at the worst-case receptor which are at most:
• 2% of the annual limit value
• 1% of the maximum ambient 1-hour limit value
The geographical variations in ground level NH3 predicted environmental concentrations (PEC) beyond
the facility boundary for the worst-case year modelled are illustrated as concentration contours in
Figure 13-13 (annual mean) and Figure 13-14 (1-hr mean), to demonstrate the direction and extent of
the emission plume. The locations of the maximum concentrations for NH3 are also shown in these
figures and are close to the boundary of the site with concentrations decreasing with distance from
the facility. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-54
Overall, the effect of ammonia (NH3) due to emissions from the facility’s emissions on sensitive human
health receptors is considered to be direct, long-term, negative and slight, which is overall not
significant in EIA terms.
Table 13-18 Proposed Operations – Dispersion Model Results for Ammonia (NH3)
Pollutant /
Year
Averaging
Period
Worst Case Receptor Concentrations (µg/m3) PEC
as %
of
Limit
Type X,Y (UTM Zone 29
N) PC Back-
ground PEC Limit
Value
NH3 / 2020
Annual Mean Boundary 624175, 5997934 0.4 3.4 3.77 180 2%
Maximum 1-
Hour Boundary 623575, 5999283 18.0 6.8 24.77 2500 1%
NH3 / 2021
Annual Mean Boundary 624175, 5997934 0.4 3.4 3.81 180 2%
Maximum 1-
Hour Boundary 623575, 5999283 17.3 6.8 24.06 2500 1%
NH3 / 2022
Annual Mean Boundary 624176, 5997884 0.5 3.4 3.86 180 2%
Maximum 1-
Hour Boundary 623575, 5999283 18.0 6.8 24.76 2500 1%
NH3 / 2023
Annual Mean Boundary 624176, 5997884 0.4 3.4 3.79 180 2%
Maximum 1-
Hour Boundary 623575, 5999283 18.8 6.8 25.57 2500 1%
NH3 / 2024
Annual Mean Boundary 624175, 5997934 0.4 3.4 3.75 180 2%
Maximum 1-
Hour Boundary 624175, 5997284 19.8 6.8 26.64 2500 1% RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-55
Figure 13-13 Proposed Operations Scenario – Annual Mean NH3 Concentrations RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-56
Figure 13-14 Proposed Operations Scenario - Maximum 1-Hour NH3 Concentrations
13.10.2.1.6 Odour
The predicted odour concentration is the maximum concentration predicted at the nearest odour
sensitive residential receptor.
The odour modelling results with the proposed residential development in place are detailed in Table
13-19. The results indicate that the predicted ground level concentrations are below the relevant
odour guideline value of 1.5 OUE/m3. The 98th%ile of mean hourly odour concentrations from the
facility range from 0.9 – 1.0 OUE/m3 at the worst-case sensitive receptor. For the worst-case year,
emissions from the facility lead to predicted ambient hourly mean (measured as a 98 th percentile)
odour concentrations which are at most 68% of the of the relevant odour guideline value at the worst-
case receptor (location shown in Figure 13-15).
Therefore, the impact of the proposed development in terms of odour can be considered direct,
negative, long-term and slight, which is overall not significant in EIA terms.
The geographical variations in ambient ground level odour concentrations beyond the facility for the
worst-case year modelled are illustrated as concentration contours in Figure 13-15, to demonstrate
the direction and extent of the emission plume. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-57
Table 13-19 Proposed Operations – Dispersion Model Results for Odour
Pollutant
/ Year
Averaging
Period
Worst Case Receptor Concentrations (OUE/m3)
Type X,Y (UTM Zone 29
N) PC PEC Guideline
Value
PEC as % of
Guideline
Value
Odour /
2020
98th %ile of 1-
hr means Discrete 624168, 5997964 0.9 0.9 1.5 60%
Odour /
2021
98th %ile of 1-
hr means Discrete 623826, 5997901 1.0 1.0 1.5 67%
Odour /
2022
98th %ile of 1-
hr means Discrete 623826, 5997901 1.0 1.0 1.5 68%
Odour /
2023
98th %ile of 1-
hr means Discrete 623826, 5997901 1.0 1.0 1.5 67%
Odour /
2024
98th %ile of 1-
hr means Discrete 623826, 5997901 0.9 0.9 1.5 62%
Note: PEC is the Predicted Emission Concentration which includes the predicted contribution from the proposed
development as well as the background concentration. As there is no relevant background level for odour EPA,
2019), the PEC is the same as the Process Contribution.
Figure 13-15 Proposed Operations Scenario - 1-Hour Mean Odour Concentrations (as 98th%ile)
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-58
13.10.2.2 Operational Phase Traffic Impact Assessment
A detailed air quality assessment was scoped out for the operational stage of the development as per
the TII screening criteria (see Section 13.5.4.1). No significant operational stage effects of traffic on air
quality are therefore predicted.
13.10.3 Cumulative Effects
13.10.3.1 Construction Phase
Cumulative construction dust impacts may occur if developments with significant dust generating
potential within 500 m of the site are under construction simultaneously.
A review of the planned and permitted projects within the vicinity of the site was undertaken (full list
presented in Chapter 2 Development Description) in order to identify developments within 500 m of
the overall proposed development boundary with the potential for cumulative construction phase
impacts. The overall proposed development boundary includes the renewable biogas plant site and
the gas grid connection elements.
There are no permitted developments within 500 m of the proposed development which will involve
a construction phase with significant dust generation potential. No significant cumulative impacts to
air quality predicted for the construction phase.
13.10.3.2 Operational Phase
A cumulative air dispersion modelling assessment of operational phase emissions from the proposed
development and other nearby industrial sites with relevant air emissions and an IE licence (as
described in Section 13.5.4.3.6) was undertaken, the results of which are detailed in the following
sections.
13.10.3.2.1 Air Dispersion Modelling Assessment
13.10.3.2.1.1 NH3
The results indicate that ambient ground level concentrations of NH3, detailed in Table 13-20, are in
compliance with the relevant air quality standards for all modelled years at the worst-case receptor
(considers boundary, gridded and sensitive receptors).
For the worst-case year, emissions from the site lead to an ambient NH3 concentration (including
background) at the worst-case receptor which are at most:
• 2% of the annual limit value
• 1% of the maximum ambient 1-hour limit value
The geographical variations in ground level NH3 predicted environmental concentrations (PEC) beyond
the facility boundary for the worst-case year modelled are illustrated as concentration contours in
Figure 13-13 (annual mean) and Figure 13-14 (1-hr mean), to demonstrate the direction and extent of
the emission plume. The locations of the maximum concentrations for NH3 are also shown in these RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-59
figures and are close to the boundary of the site with concentrations decreasing with distance from
the facility.
The predicted ambient concentrations of NH3 at the worst-case receptor are very low relative to the
relevant air quality limit values. Accordingly, based on EPA (2022) guidelines, the effect of ammonia
(NH3) due to emissions from cumulative emissions on sensitive human health receptors is considered
to be direct, long-term, negative and slight, which is overall not significant in EIA terms.
Table 13-20 Cumulative Assessment – Dispersion Model Results for Ammonia (NH3)
Pollutant
/ Year Averaging Period
Worst Case Receptor Concentrations (µg/m3) PEC
as %
of
Limit
Type X,Y (UTM Zone
29 N) PC Back-
ground PEC Limit
Value
NH3 /
2020
Annual Mean Boundary 624175,
5997934 0.37 3.3 3.67 180 2%
Maximum 1-Hour Boundary 623575,
5999283 17.97 6.6 24.57 2500 1%
NH3 /
2021
Annual Mean Boundary 624175,
5997934 0.41 3.3 3.71 180 2%
Maximum 1-Hour Boundary 623575,
5999283 17.26 6.6 23.86 2500 1%
NH3 /
2022
Annual Mean Boundary 624176,
5997884 0.46 3.3 3.76 180 2%
Maximum 1-Hour Boundary 623575,
5999283 17.96 6.6 24.56 2500 1%
NH3 /
2023
Annual Mean Boundary 624176,
5997884 0.39 3.3 3.69 180 2%
Maximum 1-Hour Boundary 623575,
5999283 18.77 6.6 25.37 2500 1%
NH3 /
2024
Annual Mean Boundary 624175,
5997934 0.35 3.3 3.65 180 2%
Maximum 1-Hour Boundary 624175,
5997284 19.84 6.6 26.44 2500 1%
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-60
Figure 13-16 Cumulative Assessment – Annual Mean NH3 Concentrations
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-61
Figure 13-17 Cumulative Assessment - Maximum 1-Hour NH3 Concentrations
13.10.3.3 Digestate
While the proposed development does not include the land spreading of digestate, land spreading of
digestate produced at the proposed development is considered a reasonably foreseeable indirect
activity associated with the future operation of the facility and has been considered accordingly within
this chapter of the EIAR.
The land spreading of digestate from the proposed development could potentially result in emissions
of ammonia (NH₃), odour, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). However, the use of digestate from
the plant represents an environmental betterment over the use of artificial fertilisers as use of
digestate will enable better nutrient uptake (allowing nutrients to be more readily transferred into the
crops rather than being lost to air) thereby resulting in improvements to air quality.
For reasons already explained at Chapter 2, it is not feasible to identify the specific locations, timing,
method, frequency, quantities, and characteristics of individual third-party land parcels on which
digestate will be applied by third party landowners and occupiers. As such, it is not possible to
undertake a site-specific quantitative assessment of any emissions to air from land spreading of
digestate at any particular landholding. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-62
In particular, the application of digestate could occur at varying distances from the proposed
development, across a broad and indeterminate geographic area.
However, it is noted that significant adverse air quality impacts are unlikely, provided the activity is
conducted in accordance with the Good Agricultural Practice framework (as defined at Chapter 2 which
includes as key controls to protect air quality, atmospheric emissions and odours inter alia:
• Maximum fertiliser application rates;
• The use of low emission spreading techniques,
• Requirements for soil condition and weather suitability; and
• Record-keeping and nutrient management planning.
In a cumulative context, the application of digestate to agricultural lands must be considered alongside
other agricultural land use practices, including the current established use of fertilisers (both organic
and artificial).
The indirect and cumulative effects on air quality arising from the use of digestate as a biofertiliser,
have been considered in accordance with the precautionary and proportionality principles
underpinning EIA practice. The assessment concludes that, provided land spreading of digestate is
undertaken in accordance with Good Agricultural Practice as is applicable at the relevant time, the
proposed development is not likely to give rise to significant cumulative or indirect environmental
impacts on air quality from digestate spreading.
13.10.4 Summary
The following table summarises the identified likely significant effects during the construction phase
of the proposed development before mitigation measures are applied.
Table 13-21 Summary of Construction Phase Likely Significant Effects in the absence of
mitigation
Likely
Significant
Effect
Quality Significance Extent Probability Duration Type
Impact of
construction
dust from
construction and
trackout in terms
of dust soiling,
and human
health
Negative Slight
Study area as
per Section
13.8.3.1.
Likely Short-term Direct
The following table summarises the identified likely significant effects during the operational phase of
the proposed development before mitigation measures are applied. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-63
Table 13-22 Summary of Operational Phase Likely Significant Effects in the absence of
mitigation
Likely
Significant
Effect
Quality Significance Extent Probability Duration Type
Impact of
operational
phase
emissions from
proposed
development on
air quality
Negative Not significant
Dispersion
model study
area as per
Section
13.8.3.2.
Likely Long-term Direct
13.11 Mitigation Measures
13.11.1 Construction Phase Mitigation
The proposed development has been assessed as having a medium risk of dust soiling impacts, a low
risk of dust-related human health impacts and a medium risk of ecological impacts during the
construction phase as a result of construction activities (see Section 13.10.1.1). Therefore, the
following dust mitigation measures (Table 13-21) shall be implemented during the construction phase
of the proposed development.
These measures are appropriate for the construction phase activities for the renewable biogas plant
site and the gas grid connection elements of the proposed development.
These measures are appropriate for sites with a medium risk of dust impacts and aim to ensure that
no significant nuisance occurs at nearby sensitive receptors. The mitigation measures draw on best
practice guidance from Ireland (DCC (2018), DLRCC (2022)), the UK (IAQM (2024), BRE (2003), The
Scottish Office (1996), UK ODPM (2002)) and the USA (USEPA, 1997). These measures will be
incorporated into the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) prepared for the site.
The measures are divided into different categories for different activities.
Table 13-23 Standard Construction Dust Management Measures
Dust Mitigation Measure Action
Communications
Develop and implement a stakeholder communications plan that includes community engagement
before work commences on site. Required
The name and contact details of a person to contact regarding air quality and dust issues shall be
displayed on the site boundary, this notice board should also include head/regional office contact details. Required
Site Management
Record all dust and air quality complaints, identify cause(s), take appropriate measures to reduce
emissions in a timely manner, and record the measures taken. Required
Make the complaints log available to the local authority when asked. Required RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-64
Dust Mitigation Measure Action
Dry and windy conditions (when rainfall is less than 0.2 mm/day and at wind speeds of greater than 10
m/s) are favourable to dust suspension therefore the work programme will be reviewed and work that
would generate dust will be limited in so far as is practicable during these weather conditions
Required
Monitoring
To determine if any short-term dust impacts will occur, undertaking daily on-site and off-site inspections
where receptors (including roads) are nearby is highly recommended by the IAQM guidance. Inspection
results should be recorded in the site inspection log. This should include regular dust soiling checks of
surfaces such as street furniture, cars and windowsills within 100 m of site boundary, with cleaning to be
provided if necessary
Required
Carry out regular site inspections to monitor compliance with the CEMP, record inspection results, and
make an inspection log available to the local authority when asked Required
Increase the frequency of site inspections by the person accountable for air quality and dust issues on
site when activities with a high potential to produce dust are being carried out and during prolonged dry
or windy conditions. The potential for dust generation increases when rainfall is less than 0.2 mm/day
and at wind speeds of greater than 10 m/s. To determine if these conditions are likely to affect the site,
the weather forecast should be consulted daily, specifically the hourly forecasts for wind speeds as well
as 12 hour rainfall radar showing anticipated amounts of precipitation in mm
Required
Preparing and Maintaining the Site
Plan site layout so that machinery and dust causing activities are located away from receptors, as far as
is possible. Remove materials that have a potential to produce dust from site as soon as possible,
unless being re-used on site. If they are being re-used on-site cover as described below
Required
Avoid site runoff of water or mud. Required
Keep site fencing, barriers and scaffolding clean using wet methods. Required
Remove materials that have a potential to produce dust from site as soon as possible, unless being re-
used on site. If they are being re-used on-site cover as described below. Required
Cover, seed or fence stockpiles to prevent wind whipping. Required
Operating vehicle/machinery and sustainable travel
Ensure all vehicles switch off engines when stationary – no idling vehicles. Required
Avoid the use of diesel- or petrol-powered generators and use mains electricity or battery powered
equipment where practicable. Required
Impose and signpost a maximum-speed-limit of 15 mph on surfaced and 10 mph on unsurfaced haul
roads and work areas (if long haul routes are required these speeds may be increased with suitable
additional control measures provided, subject to the approval of the nominated undertaker and with the
agreement of the local authority, where appropriate)
Required
Operations
Only use cutting, grinding or sawing equipment fitted or in conjunction with suitable dust suppression
techniques such as water sprays or local extraction, e.g. suitable local exhaust ventilation systems Required
Ensure an adequate water supply on the site for effective dust/particulate matter suppression/mitigation,
using non-potable water where possible and appropriate Required
Use enclosed chutes and conveyors and covered skips. Required
Minimise drop heights from conveyors, loading shovels, hoppers and other loading or handling
equipment and use fine water sprays on such equipment wherever appropriate. Required
Ensure equipment is readily available on site to clean any dry spillages and clean up spillages as soon
as reasonably practicable after the event using wet cleaning methods. Required
Waste management
Bonfires and burning of waste materials is legally prohibited. Required RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-65
Dust Mitigation Measure Action
Measures Specific to Earthworks
Re-vegetate earthworks and exposed areas/soil stockpiles to stabilise surfaces as soon as practicable Required
Use Hessian, mulches or trackifiers where it is not possible to re-vegetate or cover with topsoil, as soon
as is practicable. Required
Only remove the cover in small areas during work and not all at once. Required
Measures Specific to Construction
Avoid scabbling (roughening of concrete surfaces) if possible. Required
Ensure sand and other aggregates are stored in bunded areas and are not allowed to dry out, unless
this is required for a particular process, in which case ensure that appropriate additional control
measures are in place.
Required
Ensure bulk cement and other fine powder materials are delivered in enclosed tankers and stored in
silos with suitable emission control systems to prevent escape of material and overfilling during delivery. Required
For smaller supplies of fine powder materials, ensure bags are sealed after use and stored appropriately
to prevent dust. Required
Measures Specific to Trackout
Use water-assisted dust sweeper(s) on the access and local roads, to remove, as necessary, any
material tracked out of the site. This may require the sweeper being continuously in use. Required
Avoid dry sweeping of large areas. Required
Ensure vehicles entering and leaving sites are covered to prevent escape of materials during transport. Required
Inspect on-site haul routes for integrity and instigate necessary repairs to the surface as soon as
reasonably practicable. Required
Record all inspections of haul routes and any subsequent action in a site log book. Required
Install hard surfaced haul routes, which are regularly damped down with fixed or mobile sprinkler
systems, or mobile water bowsers and regularly cleaned. Required
Implement a wheel washing system (with rumble grids to dislodge accumulated dust and mud prior to
leaving the site where reasonably practicable). Required
Ensure there is an adequate area of hard surfaced road between the wheel wash facility and the site
exit, wherever site size and layout permits. Required
Construction of the Linear Gas Grid Connection will be undertaken by Gas Networks Ireland in
accordance with its applicable construction and environmental management requirements, including
appropriate dust suppression, vehicle and trackout controls, good housekeeping and visual inspection
of works in proximity to sensitive receptors.
13.11.2 Operational Phase Mitigation
The integrated design and operational mitigation measures detailed in Section 13.4.2 mean that no
additional site-specific mitigation measures are proposed for the operational phase as impacts are
predicted to be not significant. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-66
13.12 Residual Impact Assessment
13.12.1 Construction Phase
To minimise dust emissions during construction, a series of mitigation measures have been prepared
as outlined in Section 13.11.1. Provided the dust minimisation measures are adhered to, the predicted
residual air quality impacts during the construction phase are short-term, direct, negative, localised
and not significant.
Best practice mitigation measures are proposed for the construction phase of the proposed
development, which will focus on the proactive control of dust and other air pollutants, to minimise
generation of emissions at source. The mitigation measures implemented during construction will
minimise emissions at source and ensure that construction activities do not result in exceedance of
the relevant ambient air quality limit values identified in Table 13-1. Therefore, the predicted residual,
dust-related, human health impact of the construction phase of the proposed development is short-
term, direct, negative, localised and not significant.
13.12.2 Operational Phase
Detailed air dispersion modelling of emissions from the proposed development determined that
pollutant concentrations will be in compliance with the relevant limit values set out in Table 13-1.
Therefore, emissions from the proposed development will have a direct, long-term, negative and not
significant impact on air quality.
13.12.3 Summary of Post-mitigation Effects
The following table summarises the identified likely significant residual effects during the construction
phase of the proposed development following the application of mitigation measures.
Table 13-24 Summary of Construction Phase Effects Post Mitigation
Likely
Significant
Effect
Quality Significance Extent Probability Duration Type
Impact of
construction
dust from
proposed
development in
terms of dust
soiling, and
human health
Negative Not significant
Study area as
per Section
13.8.3.1.
Likely Short-term Direct
The following table summarises the identified likely residual significant effects during the operational
phase of the proposed development post mitigation.
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-67
Table 13-25 Summary of Operational Phase Effects Post Mitigation
Likely
Significant
Effect
Quality Significance Extent Probability Duration Type
Impact of
operational
phase emissions
from proposed
development on
air quality
Negative Not significant
Dispersion
model study
area as per
Section
13.8.3.2.
Likely Long-term Direct
13.12.4 Cumulative Residual Effects
The primary potential cumulative residual effect relates to construction dust emissions. According to
the IAQM guidance (IAQM, 2024), if the construction phase of the proposed development coincides
with the construction phase of any other large scale permitted projects within 500m of the site, there
is a possibility of cumulative residual dust effects occurring at any nearby sensitive receptors. Should
simultaneous construction phases occur, it would lead to cumulative residual dust soiling and dust-
related effects on human health, specifically localised to the works area associated with the proposed
works.
However, should the construction phases of the development and any localised permitted
developments coincide, it is predicted that once the mitigation measures outlined in Section 13.11.1
are put in place impacts will not be significant. Impacts will be short-term, direct, localised, negative
and not significant. No significant cumulative adverse impacts to air quality are predicted for the
construction or operational phases.
13.13 Risk of Major Accidents or Disasters
There are no likely risks of major accidents and disasters in relation to air quality associated with the
proposed development. The facility will operate under an EPA Industrial Emissions Licence, which
imposes strict limits on emissions, monitoring requirements, and incident reporting obligations.
To manage risk, the following control and prevention measures will be implemented:
• Engineered safety systems, including appropriately designed storage tanks, lightning
protection, and gas‑detection and alarm systems.
• Process safety measures, such as automatic shutdown procedures, emergency venting, and
pressure-relief valves to prevent uncontrolled releases.
• Operational controls, including rigorous standard operating procedures (SOPs), regular
maintenance inspections, and operator training to ensure safe handling of gases and
feedstock.
• Emergency preparedness, with a comprehensive emergency response plan, incident
investigation procedures, and coordination with local emergency services. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-68
• Continuous monitoring of emissions, as required by the EPA licence, to ensure all discharges
remain within permitted concentrations.
Because of these engineered and operational controls together with the regulatory oversight
provided by the EPA licence the risk of a major accident leading to significant air‑quality impacts is
considered negligible.
13.14 Worst Case Scenario
Reasonable worst case estimates have been used as part of this assessment. As a result, Section 13.10
details the worst-case residual effect of the proposed development.
13.15 Interactions
Please refer to Chapter 18.
13.16 Monitoring
13.16.1 Construction Phase
The following monitoring measures are proposed (as stated in Table 13-23) to ensure the dust
mitigation measures are working satisfactorily:
• To determine if any short-term dust impacts will occur, undertaking daily on-site and off-site
inspections where receptors (including roads) are nearby is highly recommended by the IAQM
guidance. Inspection results should be recorded in the site inspection log. This should include
regular dust soiling checks of surfaces such as street furniture, cars and windowsills within 100
m of site boundary, with cleaning to be provided if necessary
• Carry out regular site inspections to monitor compliance with the CEMP, record inspection
results, and make an inspection log available to the local authority when asked
• Increase the frequency of site inspections by the person accountable for air quality and dust
issues on site when activities with a high potential to produce dust are being carried out and
during prolonged dry or windy conditions. The potential for dust generation increases when
rainfall is less than 0.2 mm/day and at wind speeds of greater than 10 m/s. To determine if
these conditions are likely to affect the site, the weather forecast should be consulted daily,
specifically the hourly forecasts for wind speeds as well as 12 hour rainfall radar showing
anticipated amounts of precipitation in mm
13.16.2 Operational Phase
Monitoring of operational phase emissions as per the conditions of the future required IE Licence for
the site will be undertaken in line with the EPA requirements. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-69
13.17 Summary of Mitigation and Monitoring
The following table summarises the Construction Phase mitigation and monitoring measures.
Table 13-26 Summary of Construction Phase Mitigation and Monitoring
Likely Significant Effect Quality Significance
Impact of construction dust from
construction and trackout in terms of dust
soiling and human health
Dust control measures as per IAQM
Guidance (IAQM, 2024) and Section
13.11.1.
Monitoring of construction dust
deposition as per Section 13.16.1.
The following table summarises the Operational Phase mitigation and monitoring measures.
Table 13-27 Summary of Operational Phase Mitigation and Monitoring
Likely Significant Effect Quality Significance
Impact of operational phase process
emissions in terms of human health and
ecology
Monitoring of emissions under
future IE licence conditions.
Monitoring of operational phase
emissions as per Section 13.16.2.
13.18 Conclusion
This chapter has assessed the potential effects of the Proposed Project on air quality during
construction and operation.
Construction of the Renewable Biogas Plant and Linear Gas Grid Connection has the potential to
generate dust through earthworks, construction activities, vehicle movements and trackout. Subject
to implementation of the construction dust management measures identified in this chapter, residual
construction-phase air-quality effects are assessed as negative, localised, short-term and not
significant.
Construction traffic emissions have been screened against the applicable TII criteria and are not
predicted to result in significant effects on local air quality.
During operation of the Renewable Biogas Plant, emissions from the principal process emission points
have been assessed through detailed air dispersion modelling. Predicted concentrations of NO₂,
particulate matter, SO₂ and NH₃ are within the relevant ambient air-quality standards, while predicted
odour concentrations at sensitive receptors are below the applicable odour guideline value.
Operational air-quality effects are therefore not significant.
The buried Linear Gas Grid Connection will not give rise to significant operational air emissions.
Accordingly, taking account of the incorporated design measures, identified mitigation and applicable
operational controls, no significant adverse effects on air quality are predicted as a result of the
Proposed Project, either alone or in combination with other relevant plans or projects.. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-70
13.19 References and Sources
Air Pollution Information System (APIS) (2025) GIS map tool https://www.apis.ac.uk/app
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) (2008) ADEC Guidance re AERMET
Geometric Means (http://dec.alaska.gov/air/ap/modeling.htm)
BRE (2003) Controlling Particles, Vapours & Noise Pollution from Construction Sites
Danish Environmental Guidelines (2002) Guidelines for Air Emission Regulation “C”
Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) (2004) Quarries and Ancillary
Activities, Guidelines for Planning Authorities
Department of Housing, Local Government, and Heritage (2025) National Planning Application
Database.
https://housinggovie.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9cf2a09799d74d8e9316a
3d3a4d3a8de [Date accessed: November 2025]
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2006) Environmental Management Guidelines -
Environmental Management in the Extractive Industry (Non-Scheduled Minerals)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and University College Dublin (UCD) (2017) Ambient
Atmospheric Ammonia in Ireland, 2013-2014
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2019) Odour Emissions Guidance Note (AG9)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2020) Air Dispersion Modelling from Industrial Installations
Guidance Note (AG4)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2022) Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in
Environmental Impact Assessment Reports
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2023) Licence Application Instruction Note 1 (IN1) Assessment
of the Impact of Ammonia and Nitrogen on Natura 2000 Sites from Intensive Agriculture Installations
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2024) Licence Application Instruct ion Note 2 (IN2) (DRAFT)
Assessing the Impact of Ammonia Emissions to Air and Nitrogen Deposition from EPA licensable
activities on European Sites)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2025) Air Quality in Ireland 2024 (& previous annual reports)
German VDI (2002) Technical Guidelines on Air Quality Control – TA Luft
Government of Ireland (2023) Clean Air Strategy for Ireland
Hanrahan, P (1999a) The Plume Volume Molar Ratio Method for Determining NO2/NOX Ratios in
Modelling – Part 1: Methodology J. Air & Waste Management Assoc. 49 1324-1331. RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-71
Hanrahan, P (1999b) The Plume Volume Molar Ratio Method for Determining NO2/NOX Ratios in
Modelling – Part 21: Evaluation Studies J. Air & Waste Management Assoc. 49 1332-1338.
Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) (2020) A Guide to The Assessment of Air Quality Impacts
on Designated Nature Conservation Sites (Version 1.1)
Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) (2024) Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from
Demolition and Construction (Version 2.2)
Met Éireann (2025) Met Éireann website: https://www.met.ie/
National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (2025). NPWS Designations Viewer. Available online at:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/edf34d92e28040fd87d3d14f55d8d95f
Paine, R & Lew, F. (1997a) “Consequence Analysis for Adoption of PRIME: an Advanced Building
Downwash Model” Prepared for the EPRI, ENSR Document No. 2460-026-450.
Paine, R & Lew, F. (1997b) “Results of the Independent Evaluation of ISCST3 and ISC-PRIME” Prepared
for the EPRI, ENSR Document No. 2460-026-3527-02.
Schulman, L.L; Strimaitis, D.G.; Scire, J.S. (2000) Development and evaluation of the PRIME plume rise
and building downwash model. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 50, 378-390.
The Scottish Office (1996) Planning Advice Note PAN50 Annex B: Controlling the Environmental Effects
Of Surface Mineral Workings Annex B: The Control of Dust at Surface Mineral Workings
Transport Infrastructure Ireland (2022) Air Quality Assessment of Specified Infrastructure Projects –
PE-ENV-01106
UK DEFRA (2022) Part IV of the Environment Act 1995: Local Air Quality Management, LAQM. TG(22)
UK Environment Agency (UKEA) (2002) IPPC Draft Horizontal Guidance for Odour Part 1- Regulation
and Permitting.
UK Environment Agency (UKEA) (2003) IPPC Draft Horizontal Guidance for Odour Part 2 – Assessment
and Control.
UK Environment Agency (2003) IPPC Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BAT
UK Environment Agency (UKEA) (2011) H4 – Odour Management
UK Environment Agency (2014) AGTAG06 – Technical Guidance on Detailed Modelling Approach for
An Appropriate Assessment for Emissions to Air
UK Environment Agency (2025) Air emissions risk assessment for your environmental permit. Available
online at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/air-emissions-risk-assessment-for-your-environmental-
permit#screening-for-protected-conservation-areas
UK Office of Deputy Prime Minister (2002) Controlling the Environmental Effects of Recycled and
Secondary Aggregates Production Good Practice Guidance RECEIVED: 28/08/2026
August 2026 | 13-72
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2003). Critical Loads for Nitrogen Expert
Workshop 2002
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and German Environment Agency (GEA)
(2022) Review of Internationally Proposed Critical Levels for Ammonia Proceedings of an Expert
Workshop held in Dessau and online on 28/29 March 2022
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1985) Good Engineering Practice Stack Height
(Technical Support Document for The Stack Height Regulations) (Revised)
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1995) User’s Guide for the Industrial Source Complex
(ISC3) Dispersion Model Vol I & II
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1997) Fugitive Dust Technical Information Document
for the Best Available Control Measures
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1998) Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol, Chapter
3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modelling, Region 6 Centre for Combustion Science and Engineering
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1999) Comparison of Regulatory Design Concentrations:
AERMOD vs. ISCST3 vs. CTDM PLUS
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2000) Seventh Conference on Air Quality Modelling
(June 2000) Vol I & II
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2005) Guidelines on Air Quality Models, Appendix W to
Part 51, 40 CFR Ch.1
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2008) AERSURFACE User’s Guide
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2017) AERMAP Users Guide
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2018) User’s Guide to the AERMOD Meteorological
Preprocessor (AERMET)
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2022) AERMOD Description of Model Formulation and
Evaluation
World Health Organisation (2021) Air Quality Guidelines (and previous Air Quality Guideline Reports
1999 & 2000 & 2006)
RECEIVED: 28/08/2026