Nicholas 0' Dwyer Ltd.

Portarlington Wastewater Treatment Works Upgrade

River Barrow and River Nore Candidate Special Area of Conservation, Report to Inform an Appropriate Assessment

June 2010

Entec UK Limited

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:55

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:55

_ _

Report for Nicholas O'Dwyer Ltd.

Portarlington Wastewater Treatment Works Upgrade

Issued by

M a i n Con t ri h U t o rs

Appruvcd by

/ *

\ t i "

Eiitec UK Limited

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:55

Document Revisions

No. Details Date

0 Draft

1 Update to Include Stage 3 08109 ~~

2 Update to Include SW Regs 10109

3 Update to reflect changes to EIS O W 1 0

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:55

Contents

1. Background to this Appropriate Assessment Report 1.1 This Document 1.2 Portarlington WwTW Upgrade 1.3 Regulatory Context 1.4 Habitats Regulations

2. The Proposed Scheme 2.1

2.2 Proposed New Infrastructure

2.3 Outfall

Site Description and Existing Treatment Plant

3. Special Area of Conservation 3.1 Location 3.2 Habitats and Species 3.3

3.4

Existing Environment - Habitats and Species

Existing Environment - Water Quality

4. Potential Effects and Mitigation 4.1 Likelihood of Significant Effects

4.2 Construction Effects 4.3 Operational Effects 4.4

4.5 In-combination Effects

Summary of Mitigation and Predicted Residual Effects

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

7 7

7

9

11 11

11

17

19

25 25

25

28

35

37

43

Table 3 1 Table 3.2

Table 3.4

cSAC features not included in Habitat Regulations Assessment UWWTR Effluent Concentrations (Second Schedule, Part 1 , S.1 25412001)

12 21

Table 3.3 Nutrient Inputs from the River Barrow 22 Laois County Council Water Quality Monitoring Results for the River Barrow (June 2007 to June 2008) 23

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:55

Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6

Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 Table 5.1

Comparison of Predicted in River Concentrations with Target Concentrations Stage 3 Comparison of Predicted in River Concentrations with Target Concentrations Stage 2 Comparison of Predicted in River Concentrations with Target Concentrations Stage 1 Phosphorus Loadings Proposed Discharge standards Comparison of Existing Downstream Concentrations (Table 3.4) to Predicted Concentrations on the River Barrow Downstream of the Discharge Point Following Stage 3 Summary of Required Mitigation Projects, Plans or Permissions - Summary of Responses from Consultees Other Waste Water Discharge Applications and Licences Summary of significant effects on cSAC features

Appendix A Photographs Appendix B River Barrow and River Nore cSAC Synopsis Appendix C River Corridor Survey Map Appendix D Phase 1 Habitat Map Appendix E Waste Water Treatment Works in the River Barrow Catchment

Figure 1 .1 Figure 1.2 Appropriate Assessment Process Figure 2.1 Figure 3.1

Location of WwTW in relation to cSAC

Existing and Proposed Indicative WwTW Layout Water Quality Monitoring Locations

29 30 30 32 33

34 35 37 39 41

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:55

1. Background to this Appropriate Assessment Report

1.1 This Document This document is a report t o inform an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 29 o f the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997 (S.I. No. 94 of 1997) for the capacity upgrade of Portarlington Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) in County Lnois. It reports upon the potential effects on the River Barrow and River Nore candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) o f the proposed upgrade.

The document has been prepared by the Nicholas O'Ihvyer and Entec project team.

1.2 Portarlington W w l W Upgrade The WwTW serving Portarlington Town, Bnllybrittas and Killenard is owned and operated by 1,nois County Council. I t was constructed in 1986 and has been operating for approximately 23 years. The existing WwTW is located on the east edge o f Portarlington Town, just south of the River Barrow.

The plant is ;in extended aeration plant consisting of preliniinary treatment, biological treatment of the wastewater i n an extended aeration tank, secondary clarification and sludge treatment. There is no stonn water storage at the WwTW and ;is ;I consequence, untreated effluent is often dischiirgecl into the River Bxrow during storm events.

Due to rapid development i n Portarlington over recent years, the load from the catchment is approaching the capacity o f the plant. Laois County Council recently commissioned a Contractor to itistall 2 No. sequence batch reactors and a balancing tank as an interim solution to cater for this increase i n load.

'The treated eftluent discharges via a single outfall i n t o the River Barrow (Photo A.1, Appendix A ) which flows in a west-east direction. approximntely 3OOm north of the WwTW. The River Barrow is part of the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC, the location of which, i n relation t o the WcvTW, i s shown i n Figure 1.1.

I n addition to waste water from the Portarlington, Ballybrittas ancl Killenard catchment areas, i t is proposed to treat the wastewater iron^ Emo here in the future, and as such the objective of the capacity upgrade is to ensure that the WwTW is capable of meeting the projected demands of Portarlington. Killenard, Emo and Ballybrittas u p t o 2028.

To date, there is i n excess of 14,000 population equivalent (p.e.) ' committed to the plant through planning applications that have been granted. Stage I o f the WwTW capacity upgrade will increase

' Population equivalent is ;I standard term ~ i s e d to descrihe the size of ;I WwTW ancl may not reflect the actual sixc of the community associated with the discharge a s i t also includes conirnercinl and industrial effluents arriving ;it the WwTW for treatment.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:55

2

its capacity to 15,000 p.e. in order to cope with these immediate needs and ensure the continued protection o f the River Barrow.

The design philosophy for the Stage 1 capacity upgrade to 15,000 p.e. is to update the existing secondary treatment plant, i n particular the existing niechanical and electrical equipment, i n order to maximise the efficiency of the existing tanks and process units. Stage 1 will incoi-pot-ate the sequencing batch reactor tanks being provided as an interim solution to increase the capacity of the WwTW. Tertiary treatment will also be required to enable compliance with the European Communities Environrnental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations which were adopted in J illy 2009. The new infrastructure required during Stage I will be constructed entirely within the existing WwTW site and will require approximately 0.1 ha of land.

In future years, as development takes place in Poi-tarlington, Killenard, Etno and Ballybt-ittas, the existing Ireatnient system will not be able to cope with an increase in influent flows. Thus additional capacity is required to ensure the water quality ancl ecological interests of the River Barrow are adequately protected. Stage 2 of the Ww'I'W capacity upgrade will increase capacity to 20,000 p.e. and Stage 3 will increase capacity to 35,000 p.e. i n order to cope with the future development of the towns and villages above. If this inct-eased capacity is not provided, then the developinetit of Port ar l i n gt o t i . K i I I e nard. Enio and B ;I I 1 y b r i t t ;is w i 1 I be c o t i \ t rai tied i t i f i i t ure years.

I he Stage 2 capacity upgrade to 20,000 p.e. will require appi-oxiniately 0.3 ha of additional land Lvithin the existing WwTW site whilst the Stage 3 (ultimate) capacity upgrade will require app to xi mi te 1 y 0.3 ha of addition a I I a t i d with i t i the cx is t i ti g W w l W si tc . TI1 e new i t i fras t riic t i t re required during Stages 2 and 3 will doublc/cluadruple the existing secondary treatinetit infrastructure and be similar i n scale to the existing tanks ancl process units.

I hc transfer of sewage froni the catchment will continue via the upgt-aded se~ver network, pumping stations and pipelines. The main catchment puniping station is located close to the centre of the town. I t is proposed that this pumping station will be t-eplwxl with a new pumping station ancl ;I storm tank to reduce the volume of overflows during extreme Lveather events. These works will be considered under a separate planning process.

The WwTW will continue to discharge to the River Barrow via the existing outfall. Separate studies are currently being undertaken l o assess the condition o f the main inlet s e~ve r system to the WwTW and the outfall, the results of these studies will establi4i what wot-ks are required on the inlet sewers and 0 u t fill I .

_ 1

r 7

1.3 Regulatory Context

1.3.1 Discharge Licence Under the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisations) Regulations 2007 all discharges to the aquatic environment from sewerage systems owned, managed and operated by Water Service Authorities will require a waste water tlischurge licence or certificate of authorisation from the Iinvironniental Protection Agency (EPA). The Water Service Authorities are required to apply to the EPA for a licence by set dates depending on the population equivalent o f the area served by the sewer network. The authorisation process provides for the EPA to place stringent conditions on the operation of such discharges to ensure that potential effects on the receiving water bodiec: are strictly limited and cot1 t 1-01 1 ed .

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:55

3

1.3.2 Planning Approval Planning approval will need to be granted for the Poi-tarlington WwTW upgrade. In support of the application for planning approval an Environmental Inipact Assessment (EIA) has been carried out i n accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 to 2008' (the Planning Regulations) and the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1989 to 2006'.

In addition, An B o d Pleanrila (as the competent authority) must take into account Regulation 29 of the EC (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997 in determining planning approval for tlie Portarlington WM.TW upgrade. Regulation 29 outline5 tlie obligations of the competent authority to undertake an Appropriate Assessment where ;i development is likely to have potentially significant effects, either individually or i n combination with other developments. on a Ekopean designated site.

Furthermore, the EPA Circular LX/OX' includes a screening methodology i n the form o f a flow ti i agra m for de t e rni i i i i ng whet her a t i A p pro pri ;I t e As se s c nien t s h o 11 Id be u nde r t ake t i fo I- works involving water services solutions. As the proposed upgrade involves a siirfuce water discharge within the catchment of a European site, and as some of the qualifying features are water-tlependeiit, i n accordance with the flow di:igram, an Appropriate Assessment is required.

1.4 Habitats Regulations The River R;II-~OLV arid its tributaries are desigtiated as a cSAC (site code 0021 02, Appendix U ) under the Conservation of Natural Habitats and o f Wild Fauna and Flora Directive 92/4.3/EEC (Habitats Directive) which is tran\posed into Irish law by the IiC (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1097 (S.I. 93 of 1997).

The Habitats Directive aims to protect biodiversity by maintaining and restoring natural habitats and species and by providing robust protection fo r those habitats and species of European importance. A key element o f tlie Habitats Directive is the clesignation and protection of representative sites by Menibei- States. The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) manage the Irish State's nature conservation responsibilities under national and European law and have designated these rivers because they contain Annex I habitats and Anncx I I species that the Member States ;ire obliged to protect.

Regulation 29 of the EC (Natural Habitats) Regulations outlines the obligations o f the competent authority' to unclertiike an Appropriate Assessment (also referred to as a Habitat Regulations Assessment) where a development is likely to have potentially significant effects, either intiividually o r i t i coni b i n a t i o ti with o t h er deve I op tile n t s , on a Eu ro pe ;in des ig ti ;I ted si te . A pp ro pri ate As se ssnie n t is undertaken of the implications of the developmelit on the European designated sites in view o f their conservation objectives. The conservation objectives for the River Rat-row and liiver Nore cSAC are:

S.I. No. 600 of 2001 as amended

' S . I . No. 349 o f 1989; S.I. N o . 83 of I99 No. 93 o f 1999; S.I. No. 538 of 2001 ; and S.I. No. 659 of 2006

-'Water Services Investment and Rural Prograirimes ~ Protection of Natural Heritage and National Montiments. EI'A Circular LX/O8 2"" Septeinber 2008.

' I n this instance the EPA for operational impacts and An Rorrl Pleanfila for ConstrLictioii impacts are the "competent authority".

, I . No. 101 of 1996; S.I. No. 351 of I99X: S.I. No. 92 of I999: S.I.

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:55

4

to maintain Annex 1 habitats at favourable conservation 5tatus";

Figure 1.2 shows the key stages i n the Appropriate Assessment proce Firstly there is a need to determine if a development is likely t o have potentially significant effects, either individually or i n coinbination with other developments. on a European designated site. If a development is likely to have potentially significant effects, there is a strict requirement to establish that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the Eiiropean designated site. The burden of proof therefore lies with the developer t o demonstrate that tticre will be no adverse effect on desiynated features of the cSAC'.

The Appropriate Assessment must also consider i n combination effects with other plans, projects o r permissions including those being progressed by other competent authorities as defined by the Habitats Directive. I n the event of any conclusion where there is doubt tibout the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of the site, there is also a need t o detnonstrate that there are no alternative solutions that will not have adverse effects on site integrity. Where no alternatives can be formulated, but there are imperative reasons o f overriding public i nterest that justify the project going ahead, co mpe n sat ory me a s U res ti avc to be take 11.

to maintain Annex I1 species as favourable conservation status;

to maintain the extent, species richness and biodiversity of the entire site, a n c l

to establish liaison and co-operation with landowners, legal users and relevant authorities.

'' The EC' Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) states that i f ;I species is includcd under the Habitats Directive, it requires measures to be taken by incliviciual member states t o maintain o r restore them to favourable conservation status in their natt iral range. I'avourahle conservation status is achieved for a species if:

The popillation dynamics data on the species concerned indicatc that i t is maintaining itself 011 a long-term basis as a viable coniponent of its natural habitats: The natural range o f the species is ncither being reduced nor is likely t o be reduced for the foreseeable future: and There is, and will probably continue to be, ;I sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on ;I

long-term basis.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:55

~

Y t :>

r i o YES

M 0

Figure 1.2 - Appropriate Assessnient Process'

European Conimission (2000) Managing Natura 2000 Sites. The Provision of Article 6 of the Habitats I n line with this guidance, mitigation IiieasLires anc l alternative solutions have been Directive 92/33/CEE.

consitlered in order t o ascertain if there will he an adverse affect o n the integrity of the site.

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:55

6

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:55

7

2. The Proposed Scheme

2.1 Site Description and Existing Treatment Plant The existing WwTW is located to the east of Portarlington, as shown i n Figure 1.1. The site of the WwTW consists of well-maintained areas of niowti grass and managed shrubs around the buildings and infrastructure, with areas o f young plantation u.oodland, scrub, marshy and semi-improved grassland and bracken in the northern part of the site. The River Bal-row flows in a west - east direction approximately 300tn north of the WwTW and the surrounding landscape is of an agricultural t1;l t Lire.

The layout of the existing Ww'IW is presented i n Figure 2. I m d comprises the following elements:

Preliminary Treat men t:

- Mechanical Screening :

- Handraked Screen;

- Macerator;

- Grit Trap; and

- blectromagnetic Flownicter.

Secondary Treatment:

- 2 No. I3xtended Aeration Tank\. 2, 178in' in volume; and

- 1 No. Clarifier, 18111 in diameter.

Sludge Dewatering:

-

- Single belt hydropress.

4111 diameter sludge holding tank with picket fence thickener; and

Outfall Pipe - 300m long open ended outfall.

2 No. sequence batch reactors and a balancing tank as an interim solution to cater for the increased load to the plant are currently under construction.

2.2 Proposed New Infrastructure At this stage, the genet-al design philosophy for the Portarlington WwTW capacity upgrade has been defermined but the detailed design has yet to be finalised. The final detailed designs will be developed on behalf of L o i s County Council at the tender stage of the scheme. However, feasibility design work has shown that suitable wastewater treatment infrastructure can be accoininodated on the extended site.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:55

X

For the purpose o f this Appropriate Assessment it is assumed that a conventional activated sludge plant plus phosphorus removal will be constructed.

The design philosophy for the Stage 1 capacity upgrade to 15.000 p.e. is to update the existing secondary treatment plant. in particular the existing tnechanical anti electrical equipment, in order to maximise the efficiency o f the existing tanks and process units. Stage 1 will also incorporate the sequencing batch reactor tanks being provided as an interim solution to increase the capacity of the WwTW. Tertiary treatment will be provided to enable conipliance with the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations. The new infrastructure required during Stage I will be constructed entirely within the existing WwTW site as presented in the indicative layout shown i n Figure 2.1 and require approximately 0.1 ha of land. The new infrastructure to be installed during Stage I is likely to include the following:

Provision of new inlet works:

Upgrading of existing aeration tanks;

I No. clarifier:

Pho5phoru5 removal;

Sand filters for tertiary treatment; and

Upgrade of sludge ti-catincnt facilities.

The Stage 2 capacity upgrade to 20,000 p.e. will require 0.3ha of additional land take within the existing WwTW site as presented i n the indicative layout shown in Figure 2.1. The new infrastructure required during Stage 2 will double up on the existing secondary treatment infrastructure and be similar i n scale to the existing tanks and process units, i t is likely to include:

Expanded inlet work<.

S ec o ndar y t reti t me 11 t fac i 1 it ie s :

- Anoxic / anaei-obic /one\:

- 2 No . extended aeration tanks; and

- 2 No. clarifiers.

Phosphoru5 removal.

Sand filter5 for tertiary treatment.

Sludge dewatering facilities:

- New 5ludg.e dewatering equipnient;

- Sludge holding tank with picket fence thickener;

- Sludge return pumping station; and

Internal modifications to the existing sludgc dewatering building. -

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:55

9

p 7 I he Stage 3 (ultimate) capacity upgrade will require 0.3ha of additional land within the existing WwTW site as presented in the indicative layout shown in Figure 2.1. The new infrastntcture required to meet the ultimate catchment development is likely to include:

Seco ti dar y treat me tit fac i 1 it ie s :

- Anoxic / anaerobic zone5;

- 2 No. extended aeration tanks;

- 2 No. clarifier\: and

- Sludge return pumping station.

2.3 Outfall The transfer of sewage from the catchment will continue via the upgraded sewer network. pumping stations and pipelines. The main catchment pumping station is located close t o the centre of the town. I t i \ proposed that this pumping station will be replaced with a new puniping station and storm tank t o reduce the volume of overflows during extreme weathcr events. These works will be procured under a separate planning proce

The WwTW will continue to discharge to the River Barrow via the existing outfall. Separate studies are currently being tindertaken to assess the condition of the r n n i n inlet sewer system to the WwTW and the outfall, the results o f these studies will establish what works are required on the inlet sewers atid outfall. For the purpose of this Appropriate Assessment i t is assumed that a new outfall will need to be constructed on the same stretch of river. the Southern Regional Fisheries Board h a s reconimended that this should be a bankside out fu l l .

ind are not within the scope o f this Appropriate Assessment.

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:55

I O

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:55

3. Special Area of Conservation

3.1 Location The River Barrow and River Nore cSAC spans a wide area of central and eastern Ireland, passing through eight counties in all (Offaly. Kildare, Laois, Carlow, Kilkenny, Tipperary, Wexford and Waterford). l h e designation covers the river channels and some adjacent terrestrial habitat from their upstream catchments in the Slieve Bloom mountains to the estuary of the River Barrow at Creadun Head, Waterford. Tributaries of both rivers are also incliicted in the designation. An overview of the cSAC in proximity to Poi-tarlington is given in Figiire 1.1.

3.2 Habitats and Species

3.2.1 Designated Features The River Barrow and River Nore cSAC is designated for both Annex I habitats and Annex I 1 species. The full site synopsis is appended in Appendix 13 and a sunimary o f the key features is provided b e I o w.

The site is selected for its alluvial wet woodlands and petrifying springs, both Annex I priority habitats. The site is also a cSAC for a further nine Annex I habitats: old oak woodlands, fl oati 11 g ri ver vege t at i o t i , estuary , ti da 1 mud fl a t s, Sulirw I X irr ti1 udfl at s, At I antic sa It me adow s, Mediterranean salt meadows. dry heath and eutrophic tall herbs.

The site is ;dso designated for eleven Annex I 1 species: sea lariiprey ( / ' ~ / I Y I / I I ~ : ~ / I / i Iuri / I / / . s ) , river lainprey ( L ~ r ~ n p r ~ ~ r u , j ! ~ / i ~ i r i f i / i . s ) , freshwater pearl mussel (Mrirgurif~fcro ~ i / ~ / ~ - ~ y r / / - i ~ ; ~ ~ . ~ ~ ) , N o re fre s 11 water pear 1 in 11 s s e I (Mu ~ - ~ q r / rir @ rri / I I L I r,yr/ rif(P U / clr I r i a I >r> I I .Y is), w h i t e-c I aw e d c ra y f i s h (A1/.stro/,ofori1~~l7ir/,~ iml/ipo.s), twaite shad (Alo.str ,ji/llu.~), Atlantic salmon ( S u l ~ ~ r o s ~ l u t - ) , otter (Lritrtr lr/tl-L/). Killarney fen1 ( ~ I . i ~ , / I ( ~ / ~ I ~ r I ~ ~ ~ . s . s / i c J c . i o s / u i i ) and Desmoulin's Whorl Snail ( Vcrfi,qo / / I ~ ~ l / l i I z s ~ ~ / / l ~ / 1.

As the designation covers such a wide area, the characteristics of the site vary consiclerably along its length. as does the distribution of these key habitats and species; for example the rare Nore freshwater pearl mussel is restricted t o ;I 10krn stretch o f the River Nore, while the Atlantic and Mediterranean salt meadows are restricted to the brackish waters o f the estuary. An assessinetit under the Habitats Regulations must be q y ~ r o p r i u f c to the potential level of impact and the likely receptors. Therefore designated cSAC features which have no potential of being impacted by the proposed upgrade, either because they do not occur within the area likely t o be affected o r because they are not sensitive t o changes in water quality, are excluded from this iissessiiient.

The status of protected species within the catchment was obtained from recent reports, NPWS publications atid interrogation of the NPWS website. These sources were confirmed by NPWS a s the most up-to-date information available (C. Flynii, p t x C O I ~ / I I ~ . 23 January 2009).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

12

Fur the purpose of clarity, Table 3.1 lists those habitats and species which are nor considered further in this assessment, along with reasons for this decision.

Table 3.1 cSAC features not included in Habitat Regulations Assessment

cSAC Feature Reason for exclusion

Old oak woodlands

Estuary

Tidal mudflats

Atlantic salt meadows

Mediterranean salt meadows

Eutrophic tall herb

Nore freshwater pearl mussel

Sea lamprey

Freshwater pearl mussel

The survey area is outside the range for old oak woodlands within Ireland'

There is no estuarine habitat within the survey area and the nearest estuary is over IOOkm downstream and therefore outside the zone of influence of the proposed works.

There is no tidal habitat within the survey area and the nearest tidal reaches are over 1 OOkm downstream and therefore outside the zone of influence of the proposed works.

This is an estuarine habitat of which there is none within the survey area as the nearest estuary is over 1 OOkm downstream and therefore outside the zone of influence of the proposed works.

This is an estuarine habitat of which there is none within the survey area as the nearest estuary is over 1 OOkm downstream and therefore outside the zone of influence of the proposed works.

This is an estuarine habitat of which there is none within the survey area as the nearest estuary is over 1 OOkm downstream and therefore outside the zone of influence of the proposed works

This habitat is associated with the margins and floodplains of large slow-flowing rivers The survey area is outside the known range for this habitat within Ireland'.

This species is restricted to a 1 Okm stretch of the River Norep

This species does not occur within the upper reaches of the River Barrow and hence is highly unlikely to occur in the stretch alongside the WWTW'~'~.

This species occurs in the catchments of three tributaries of the River Barrow (Aughavard River, Mountain River and Ballymurphy River in the southeast of Ireland but not in or downstream of the Barrow at Portarltngton 1 1 L .

xNPWS ( 2 0 0 8 ) 7110 . s t t r r m . s oj"l:'U p r o t t ~ / t ~ / / 7 d 1 ; t ~ r f , s t r r d .spct.ic.s in / r ~ d t r / d . NPWS. Dublin

King. J . J . (3006) The statu\ and distribution of lamprey in the River Barrow SAC. /ri.di Wi/tl/ifi Mtrriricrl.~, N o . 2 I . National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department o f Environnient, Heritage and Local Government. Dublin, Ircland.

K ~ i r t ~ , I. Xr Costello, M.J. ( 1999) An outline of the biology, distribution and conservation of lampreys in Ireland. /r.i.dr \Vildl(k Mo/iwl.v, No. 5. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Dublin, Ireland.

" illoorkens, E A . , Costello, M.J. Kr Speight, M.C.D. (1992) Status of the l'reshuater pearl mussels Mrrrg(rrit(fi r(r 1/10 rg(r r i /( / i , /u and M. / I / . tlr r rro ~ ~ c ~ r i . s i . s i 11 the Nore, H arrow and S U i r river t r i bu tarie east Ireland. / / i s h Ntr/rrrrrli.sts . / o ~ r r m / 21, 127- I3 1 ,

I O

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

cSAC Feature Reason for exclusion

Twaite shad An anadromous species which breeds in the lowest reaches of rivers. therefore restricted to lowest reaches of the River Barrow only.

Killarney fern The survey area is outside the range for the Killarney fern in Ireland'

An overview of those habitats atid species pertinent to this assessment is given below. This overview ol' the ecology and known occui-rctice of these species and habitat? is important in informing the Appropriate Assessment. Particular focus is given to floating river vegetation as this is a very variable coininunity of species, and although all are dependent on good water quality, the various groups have different tolerancec to specific parameters, notably phosphorus.

3.2.2 Floating River Vegetation The official Annex I habitat description is: Water courses of plain to montane le\,els with i2rrnrinciilion ,f l iri frri i fCs and C~/ll i fr . i(~/io-H~/r/-(/(~/i i~)/z vegetation. The definition of such aquatic communities is wide and enconip;isses ;I range of different watercoiirscs. Ki/n / i / i cu /m species are often the dominant vegetative component of th i \ habitat, but ;I wide range of other cpccies is usually present including Ci/lIifric/ic. Potr/ir7ogrioi7 and Myr iop / iy l l / i / / i species.

Work conducted as part of the Life i n U K Rivers project' ' suggests that K ~ I I ~ I I I I C I I I ~ O I ~ Jliiiririiri.~

and Cr/llifr.ir,/i~)-/~~/tr.i/i ,/ii~)ii vegetation can be subdivided into six community types (known as CB 1 to CB6) on the basis of the niacropliyte assemblage present. This research is basecl on data from U K rivers (excluding Northern Ireland), but its findings are applicable to ;I certain extent to other ;ireas of Eui-opc. As no equivalent ~ v o r k has been undertaken i n Ireland, these coin m i ti i ty c lassi ficat i o i l s ;ire refei-red to fo r the purpose of t h is asse ssnient .

The principal determinmts of a river's ahility to support ;I particular plant community arc geology and flow. Geology largely determines the bed slopc and thus stream power. and is also largely responsible for the pH of water draining the catclinient. I:low affects the degree of e I-osi o ti , oxygen at i o t i , physical 21 bras i o ti and po I I ut a ti t d i 1 uti o ti with i t i :I w a tercou rse . A I 1 the se effects will influence the type of plant community which develops i n ii particular watercourse. I t is difficult to generalise with respect to the ecological requireinents of floating river vegetation o f the Kr/niinc,irlio/i J//itiin/i.s and Cirllifi.ic./io~f~u/r.t/(./iioii type as it encoinpiisses such ;I diverse range o f vegetation. However, the Life i n U K Rivers pi-o.ject suggests that rivers supporting Rruziozcitliorz jliiifiiiifis and Ci/llitr.ic~/~o-Ht/t,.Il(.lii~~/~ vegetation are generally physically heterogenous, have a substrate which incluclcs cobbles, pebbles and gravel with little or no silt, have a reasonably stable flow dominated by runs, riffles or glides, (i.e. not subject to low flow) and often, although not always, have little evidence o f modification.

I2 Lucey, J . (1998) The Burrow, the Nore and the Suir. In: Studies o f Irish Rivers arid 1,ahes. E?d. Christopher Moriarty. Essays on the occasion of the X X V l I Congress o f Socieitrs I r z ~ c r . r i t r f i 0 i 2 [ 1 / i . s

Lir~irw/oLyim (SIL). Marine Institute, Dublin.

Hatton-Ellis 'IW Rr Grieve N (2003) Ecology of Watercourses Characterised by Ratitinculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batraclii~ii Vegetation. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series N o . 1 I . English Nature, Peterborough.

I I

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

14

Floating river vegetation is well represented in the River Barrow and its tributaries, as found by a vegetation survey carried out by the Environment Protection Agency i n 1996, referred to in the CSAC site synopsisI4. Plant species present include water starworts (CLrllirr-ic,hr spp.). milfoils (Myriop/iylli//iz spp.) crowfoots ( K L I I I I I I ~ C I I I I I S spp.), fennel pondweed ( f 'o / i i / i IoSc tor i p c w i / z r r t r r . s ) , broad-leaved pondweed (~'ofirnio,~c'ron / iu f ( r i i . s ) , perfoliate pondweed (Po/ t iniogPfo/ i

p / : f i ) l i cr fu . s ) , Poftuno,qefori x t i i for i s , bulbous rush (Jirnc.ir.r hir /hos i~ .s ) , and Canadian pondweed (Eloclrrr c~r rn r r t i c~ /7 .s i . s ) . The synopsis states that the water quality of the River Barrow is known to have improved since this survey was undertaken. This is likely to have influenced the species composition of the river vegetation present.

From the geology of the area (carboniferous limestone in the vicinity of Portarlington, red

sandstone closer t o the river's source), the river's position within the catchinent, and the species known to be present, the communities which the vegctation is most likely to resemble are CB4 (smaller meso-euti-opliic rivers) and CBS (Atlantic bryophyte rivers), both foiincl in mid-altitude watercourses o n hard substrates.

3.2.3 Alluvial Wet Woodlands This habitat is found in areas sub.@ t o flooding along watercourses and uatcr bodies where species tolerant of periodic water-logging such as alder (A/rz~r.s glir/iizosrr), ash (F1-cr.~i17u.s CJ.U Y J ~ .sior), w i 1 1 ow ( S r r l i . ~ s p . ) and occas i onal I y oak ( Qr/crrx.s r.oh I r ) are fou 11 d. A ch arac t e ri s t ic understorey o f wetland vegetation is often associated with these woodlands including species such as reed canary-grass (P / iu / r r r i . s L I I . / I I Z ~ ~ ~ I I L I C . I ~ ~ I ) , sedges ( c ' r r i ~ ~ . ~ sp.) and meadowsweet (Filipcmi/I/ri i i lmrr iu) .

This habitat is widespread across Ireland and although the cSAC synopsis refers principally to alluvial forest within the Kivei- Norc catchment, i t may be found within the Barrow catchmelit. Woodland stands are often sinal1 atid may be isolated depending on the extent of the floodplain.

3.2.4 Petrifying Springs These springs occur i n a variety of habitats and are l id by upwelling ground water, seepages or geo-thermal sources. They are characterized by their calcareous and oligotrophic (nutrient- poor) water supply which leads to the precipitation of a calcium bicarbonate marl or tufa. S p ring vege t at i on i s do mi nated by t i 10s se s, i t i part ic u 1 ;I r the d i ag n c) s t i c spec i es Crrr toiw ir 1.017

com/ri/rfufu/// var. c ' o 1 r 7 r r r i r f r r t u n r and EiIclrrdirIm i~cr f i c i l /~ r f r r / t i which may often be coated with a deposited layer of lime.

Petrifying springs are known to occur in northern County I ~ o i s ' , although the cSAC synopsis refers only to those within the Norc catchment.

3.2.5 Dry Heath Dry heath can take a variety of forms, the most common of which is dominated by ericaceous dwarf shrubs including ling (Crrlliiiirr tv~/guri,s), bell heather (Er-icu C ~ I I P ~ L I ) and gorse ( U l e . ~ spp.). I t generally occurs on freely draining nutrient-poor acidic soils associated with slopes

Site synopsis for River Barrow and River Nore cSAC, site code 002162 available from: I 4

h t tp : / /www.npws . i c / en / i i i e~ i~~ /~e~ i i~ i ,7 1 67,en.pdf

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

with an angle of between 5 and 20 degrees but niay also be found on base-rich soils which have txen subject to leachingx.

Dry heath is widespread across Ireland and its range includes the whole o f County Laois. I t is present in pockets along steep-sided river valleys, particularly in the Barrow valley and its tributaries. The cSAC synopsis refers to tributaries in the foothills o f the Blackstairs Mountains which lie far downstream along thc borders of Counties Carlow and Wexford but its presence within the Barrow valley is unknown.

3.2.6 Salmon Although salmon is still fished commercially i n Ireland, i t is considered to be endangered o r locally threatened elseuhere in Europe, hence its inclusion on Annex I . Salmon have different habitat requirements according t o life stage. but all stages arc dependent upon very good water quality.

Adult salmon require clean gravels fo r spawning with an adequate flow of water through the interstices to facilitate successful incubation of eggs. The preferrcd location for spawning is the transitional area between pool and riffle where flow is increasing and depth is decreasing". Salmon fry16 and parr" require shallow, fast-flowing water with areas of cover such as overhanging trees, rocks, undercut banks and woody debris. The preferred substrate s i x and water depth and flow generally increases as the fry mature.

As salinon are aiiadr(~iii(~LisIS, i t is critical that their migration routes between freshwater ancl marine habitats are free of barriers. Juxtaposition of deep pools f o r holding pre-spawning adults. spawning gravels and ,juvenile habitat is also key to the suitability of a river system foi- sa l iiiu n .

As highlighted i n the River Barrow and River Nore Site Synopsis, the upper stretches of the l i i ve r 13arro w are pait ic ti larl y important for s d mon spawning and t here fore, the r e x h ad,j acent to the WwTW is important for salmon passage and potentially spawning.

3.2.7 River and Brook Lamprey There is a paucity of data concerning the water quality requirements of lamprey, although i t is generally assumed that quality should correspond t o at least U K Water Quality Class RI') (based o n the measured parameters, this is assuinetl to equate to Q3 under the EPA water qiiality

Hendry K Rr Cragg-Hine D (2003) Ecology of tlrc Atlrirific Solniorz. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers I i

Ecology Series N o . 7. English Nature. Peterhorough.

Juvenile salmon i n its tint year

Juvenile salmon in its second o r third year i n freshwater

Anadronious fish species spend niost of their adult life at sea but return to freshwater to spawn

Maitland PS (2003) G d o , y j ' of flic k'iwr, BwoX cozd S c ~ r Ltrniprc,y. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 5. English Nature, I'eterhorough. http://www.englisli-natLire,~rg.Lik/lifiiiiihrivers/ publications/ lamprey.pdf

I 6

I7

I X

I

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

16

classification system”’). Brook lamprey is a pitrely freshwater species while river lamprey are generally anaclt-omous, migrating between spawning grounds and juvenile habitat in freshwater, and adult feeding habitat in the lower reaches of the river or estuary. Spawning of both species takes place amongst gravels in gently flowing water with preferred habitat being at the lower end of pools. Developing larvae (ammocoetes) need areas of sandy silt i n slow-flowing reaches downstream of their spawning gravels where they continue developing in burrows until their metamorphosis into adults. Adult brook lamprey then migrate back upstream to spawn. As with salmon, i t is therefore critical that the migration routes of lamprey are free fi-om obstacles to allow free passage.

According t o research reported in two Irish Wildlife Manuals”.’”, although sea lainprey are not found in the upper reaches of the River Barrow and hence are likely t o absent from the stretch adjacent to Portarlington WwTW, the ammocoetes of Lu/tzpc~fm spp. (i.e. river or brook lamprey) have been recorded i n the upper tributaries. Distribution within the main channel is unknown due to inherent difficulties i n surveying these reaches. However. their presence is assume d.

3.2.8 Otter Otters will use a wide variety of rivers, streams. e$tuaries and coastal reaches. occupying home ranges from a few kilometres to over forty kilometres i n length. depending on their population density, food availability and habitat qwlity. Water quality generally has an indirect effect on otters by intluencing prey availability rather than affecting the otters theinselves (except i n cases of toxic pollution)”. Ottcrs use ;I number of resting sites throughout their home ranges known ;IS holts (covered sites such a s cavities behind riparian ash or sycamore roots) and couches (uncovered sites such a s above-ground covet- ;uiiongst bramblc. or reeds). Traditionally the presence of riparian trees and scrub has beeti vicwed ;IS :in important habitat requirement for otters although recent research has suggested that otters are quite tolerant of inore open habitats a ncl I e s s s usce p t i ble to no 11-CO ti fron t ;I t i o ti al di s t it r bance t h a I 1 previous 1 y thought ’ . Ireland has long been considered ;I stronghold for otter, and although recent national surveys have reported a decline in positive records, 7 0 q ’ of sites still showed evidence of use by otter i n the 2003/5 national survey”. However, the south eastern river basin district was found to have experienced the least decline with 72.97% of survey sites showing signs of otter. More specifically, out of the fifty-five sites surveyed within the River Barrow and River Not-e cSAC, forty-one showed signs of otter (i.e. 74.55%).

Kiver water qLiality is graded by the EPA from Q 1 (seriously polluted) through t o (25 (Linpolluted) 211

based o n the presence or absence of ni;icro invertebrate commLinities.

? I Chanin P (2003) ECdogy o$ / l i e Eirropcwri O[/(,r. Conserving Nattrra 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. I O . English Nature, Peterborough.

-- Bailey, M 6( Rochford J ( 2 0 0 6 ) Otter Survey of Ireland 20042005 . Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 23. National Par ha and W i Id I i fe Serv ice, Depart men t of En v iron I nen t . Heritage and IAC al G ovenmen t, Ilt~blin, Irelund.

7 7

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

17

3.2.9 W h i te-cl awed Crayfish Optimum white-clawed crayfish habitat comprises shallow riftley streams and rivers with a rocky substrate providing plenty o f niches for cover and soft banks for burrowing. Good water qu;ility and specifically mitieral-rich waters on calcareous rocks are a major determinant of crayfish distribution”. They are also found in still waters of good water quality, particularly in Ireland where linie-rich lakes are plentiful”. Unlike most of the rest of Europe, there are no known non-native crayfish species in Ireland making it something of a stronghold for the white- clawed crayfish (N. Kingston, p r s . co~wn. 6th November 2007).

The River Nore and Rivet- Barrow cSAC Site Synopsis gives no detail on the distribution of crayfish within the river systems but lists crayfish ;is one of the Annex I 1 species for which the site is very itnportant.

3.2.10 Desmoulin’s Whorl Snail Desmoulin’s whorl snail lives on the skins and leaves of tall plants in damp or wet habilat. principal 1 y calcareous low I and wet lands in Ireland i tic I ud i tig swa trips, fens anti mars lie s bordering rivers as well as lakes and ponds. I r is very sensitive to changes i n water level.

Its distribution within the cSAC is not referred to within the site synopsis but i t is known t o have a sinall fragmented range. However it has been previoudy recorded from sites within northern County Laois’.

3.3 Existing Environment - Habitats and Species

3.3.1 River Barrow and Adjacent Land

Overview A site visit was made to the River Barrow by Entec Senior Ecologist. J o Moslcy on IS‘” August 2008. However, the river had overtopped its banks and (lie floodplain was under several centimetres of water making a River Corridor Survey unfeasible.

A second site visit \vas niade o n 20‘” January 2009 and although flows were high, tlie river had not overtoppcd, enabling the survey to be carried out. An appraisal of the habitat from approxiniately 1 O0m upstream o f tlie WwTW to approximately S00m downstream was riiade using the River Corridor Survey” methodology. This involved mapping the river habitat and dominant or notable species present within four zones (aquatic, marginal, bank and adjacent land as shown in Figure C.1, Appendix C. The resulting site map is appended as Figure C.2,

’’ Holdich D (2003) E c d o g y o / / / l e IV/ii/e-r./trii.c,t/ Crq;fi’.sh. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 1 . English Nature, Peterborough.

Reynolds, J . (1998) Conservation management o f the white-clawed crayfish, Air.s/,.o/jotrr,irc,bilr.v

/ w / / i / m . Part I . / ) i s h CVi/t//i/i, Mmu(//.s, N o . 1. National Parks and Wilcllife Service. Department of Environnient, Heritage and L,ocal Government, Dublin, Ireland.

En vi ronme n t Age tic y ( 1 9 92) K i i v r (’or.r-it/or ,Sir ~ ~ Y J J . \ -

?-I

Mc//ioi/.r trud Procw/urc.c.. CO nser v a t ion li

Technical Handbook No. 1. Environment Agency, Bristol.

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

Appendix C. The terrestrial habitat within and beyond the WwTW site boundary was also mapped according t o Phase I habitat

I t should be noted that although the river had not overtopped on the second site visit, recent heavy rain limited the degree to which normal flow patterns could be recorded. The timing was also sub-optimal for the observation of aquatic vegetation and i t is likely that wine species were not apparent due to the time of year, in addition to observational difficulties due to high Ilows.

The WwTW is located on the ea\tern edge of the town of Portarlington, approximately 300m south of the Kiver Barrow. After passing north of the town, the river flows in an easterly direction through an agricultural landscape o f grazed fields.

This n i ap is appended in Appendix D.

Aquatic Zone Along the survey length, both upsti-earn and tlownstream of the WwTW outfall, the river channel has a resectioncd trapezoidal appearance, being iinifornn. deep and predominantly steep- sided. The channel is approximately 12m wide, and had ;in elevated water depth at the time of survey reflecting the recent high rainfall. Due to the high flows and coloured water it was not possible to observe the channel substrate or aquatic channcl vegetation. The flow pattern along the stretch comprised ;I series o f fast runs. although again, the unusually high flow masked any other flow type.

Marginal Zone There is very little inarginal zone along much o f the stretch due to the steep nature of the banks, but a t1;irrow fringe of reed canary-grass is present along most o f the channel margins.

Bank Zone The banks and bank tops themsclves are generally vegetated with grasses and ruderals. mainly great willowherh (E/ii(ohiwri /iir.s//rr///i). Occasional young alder, willow, hawthorn (Crrrrrrcglr.v ~ioirogyirrr) and bramble ( R / i / i i c . c sp.) are present along the bank but river corridor lacks any mature trees o f dense vegetation. Both bank tops are fenced with post and wire fencing.

Adjacent Land Zone Land immediately adjacent to the river channel forms ;I grassed undulating bank between 0.5 and 1 ni in height, possibly derived from old river dredgings. South of the bank, land comprises marshy grassland dominated by hard rush ( . / ~ u i c / / . s i / ! f / c .m~) . Other species present include incadowsweet (F i / ip~ i zdu /o i / / / u u r i l / ) and purple-loosesti.ife (Ly f / i r r / i~ i .su/icuric/). Pools of standing water also occur throughout the area.

A narrow tree-lined stream discharges lo the River Barrow approxirnately 20111 upstream of the WwTW outfall. A small footbridge crosses the stream parallel with thc Kiver Barrow.

Land adjacent to the north river bank is dominated by grazed improved grassland with occasional hedgerows.

Joint Nature Conservation Committcc (JNCC) (2007) Htuitlhook , jhr I'litrse / f Iu/ i i t i i / SU/IYJJ. JNCC. Peterborough.

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

IC)

SAC features The river corridor offers suitable habitat for foraging otter. However, no habitat suitable to provide resting sites was observed due to the open nature of the river corridor and lack of bank side cover such as dense scrub. The reach inay offer suitable habilat for white-clawed crayfish, lamprey and salmon in view of their inclusion within the cSAC designation, but this could not be confirmed during the site visit due to the high flows. Nor could the presence or absence of floating river vegetation coniniunities be confirmed.

No areas o f alluvial wet woodland, dry heath, petrifying springs or habitat suitable to support Desmoulin’s whorl snail were recorded.

In view of the above, this assessment will focus on the Annex 11 species: Atlantic salmon. brook and river lamprey, white-clawed crayfish and otter and ;IS a precautionary measure will also assume the presence o f flouting river vegetation coinmunities. I t will not consider other cSAC Annex I habitats or other species due to their absence from the h00tn survey reach. Any effects of the proposed discharge would not influence beyond this reach and therefore the discharge has no potential to affect other cSAC features.

3.4 Existing Environment -Water Quality The e x i s t i ng W wT W 011 t fa1 I disc h arge s treated e ffl ue ti t into the Ri ve r €3 arrow approximate 1y 300m to the north of the WwTW site as shown i n Figure 1 . 1 .

The soiirce of the River Barrow is the northern slopes of the Slieve Bloom Mountains, North West of the Ridge of Capmi , over 20km e a t o f Portarlington. The river flows i n an easterly direct i c) t i north o f M oit 11 t me I 1 i c k ;I t i d t hc n t ti roug h Portar l i 11 g t on, he ad i 11 g cast towards Monasterevin where i t is joined by the Black River. At Monasterevin the River Barrow heads south through County Kildare. County Carlow and County Wexford. where the river eventually drains into Waterford Harbour.

The River Barrow is around IC)3ktii i n length and one o f t h e Three Sisters; the other two being the River Suir and the River Norc which together make 111) the South Eastern River Basin District.

As part o f the Appropriate Assessment, i t is important to identify what water quality designations are enforced on the River Barrow and which require compliance with standards driven by national and European legislation.

3.4.1 South Eastern River Basin District December 2000 saw the introduction of one of the rnost significant pieces of water-related legislation in E~irope to date, the EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) which fill 1 y embraces c ertiii n key en v i ro time ti tal ma t i age men t pri nc i ple s. Fi r s t 1 y , it adopts a h o 1 i s t ic approach covering all waters - rivers, lakes, transitional waters/estuaries, coastal waters and groundwater as well as their dependant wetlands. Secondly, i t recognises that water systems do not stop at administrative boundaries, such as county boundaries, requiring waters to be managed at a catchment or River Basin District (RBD) level. The targets set in the WFD are ambitious and by 201 5 all waters should have ‘good status’ (unless classified as heavily modified in which case they must achieve ‘good ecological potential’ by 20 IS) and deterioration in existing water quality status is not acceptable. The WFD is an iimbrella

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

20

directive in that it incorporates the requirements o f some other earlier pieces o f European legis 1 ;I ti o ti.

Ireland completed the first step in impleineiiting the WIT) in December 2003 by passing the European Coinmission (Water Policy) Regulations (S.1. No. 722 of 2003) which transposed tlie WFD in to Irish law. Eight RBDs have been identified within the island o f Ireland with Portarlington and its environs situated in the South Eastern RBD.

The draft River Basin Management Plan for tlie South Eastern RBD sets o u t a number of 1iie;isures to achieve 'good status' including the following actions:

" CVLi.rrcnwter. d i .sc~ l i i i i~ges \i,ill hc sir1,jrc.t to ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i r ~ ~ l P r o r r c , t i o l l Agelicy ~ ~ i i r l i o ~ ~ i ~ s ~ i r i o ~ i cilicl

n~ i l l l io\v f o c o i i i p l y r i7 i t l i t l ir (J i - l x i i i Wuster iw tPr . 7 ' w r i t i i i c l i t D i l - e c t i i , e . 12/Li.strrt~r1tr i-~f irc. i( i t ic.s i i , i l l hr iipgrxclccl o ~ i pt - io r i t i . sc~d hmis. 1 tz j i i ) tw i i t io i i rt.ill hc grithrr.rrl o i i r l lc kn i te l . q i i ~ i l i t y i r i i p ~ i c t of 11 rIxi11 ri i i i o f j ' r i r i d o rf!o IL>S t i rid c o d ~ . s of <yoocl pu ic / iw j i l t . . s m v r o p o t ~ i f i o ~ i riiicl 111 LI i l l te11m7 e ' c I v i 11 hc clc L Y ~ lop cd ( i t i d i l l 117 IC I I I O 11 r d . ''

Basic ineastires within tlie draft RBMP include tlic introduction of surface water and gro U nd wa t er En vi ro 11 men t ;I I 0 bj ect i ves Iiegu I at i o n s by Dece in her 2009 to pro vi de tlie bas i s for deciding on tlie :ippi-opi-i;ite wastewater treatment required in order to enable necessary infrastructure and operational improvements to be prioi-itisetl in line with WI;D objectives.

The European Communities Environinental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regul, 'I t ' ions were adopted in J u I ~ 2009 and establish the following environrnental objectives for sui-face waters:

" ( 0 ) (1 .s l l l : f i l t~c I t ' ( / / ( ' / . 1?011\. l l ~ l ? o . s r . S f ( i f l i . S is c l r ~ e r l l l i l l r d to hc liigli 0 1 ' <pood (01.

good rcologicYrl p 0 t " i t i r i l CIIld cyoo r l .si1l:fil(Y~ lt'Llf<Jt~ c ~ l l r l l l i c - r l l S f L / t l l . S (1,s tl1r ~ ~ L i . Y c ~

111 L I ~ hc ) 11 7 1 1 r l i 1 ~ I ~ i . s s ( f i ~ ~ d I I J rlir Agr111 ,J, ilr L I ~ ~ c ~ w ( l ( t r 1 1 Y 11 Ytlr r l i r .sc K c g i I lrrtiol IS

s l i L i l l I i o t r l c tc t . io l . ( r t~~ iii .rt(itii.r.

3.4.2 River Barrow Salmon water quality requirements are stringent. ;IS reflected i n the EU Fresh Water Fish Directive." The River Barrow is no t designated under the European Communities (Quality of

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

21

Salmonid Waters) Regulations 1988 (S.I. No. 293 o f 1998) airnecl at protecting and improving waters capable of supporting fish life”. However, i t is known to support Atlantic salmon.

Thc final effluent discharged from the WwTW must be compliant with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (S.I. 200 I of 254) (UWWTR) which require secondary treatment for all dixhargcs to freshwaters from towns with a population equivalent of between 2.000 and 10,000 by 3 I’‘ December 2005 and the provision of appropriate treatment for towns with a p.e. less than 2,000 by 3 I Ilecernber 2005’”. The concentration standards and percentage removal standards set o u t in the UWWTR are shown in Table 3.2 but the approach adopted in Ireland is based on the use of concentration standards for compliance assesstlieill.

The purpose of the UWWTR, which implements the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive”’, is t o prevent the environnient from being adversely affected by the disposal of inadequately treated urban waste water, and discharges to ‘sensitive areas’ are subject to more stringent treatment, nmiely nutrient reduction. Under the UWWTR the River Barrow downstream of Portarlington WwTW has been classified as a ‘Sensitive Area’ because there is a risk of cxcesc nutrient concentrations (in particular nitrogen and phosphorus) leading t o unacceptable algal grow t li a tic1 d 0111 i nan c e by nut r i e t i t to I era tit spec i e s (de ve 1 olmc ti t of eutrophic conditio tis ) i f special iiieasures arc not taken. Phosphorus is generally considered t o be the bio-limiting element i n freshwaters. This imhalance in the aquatic ecojystem can ciiusc adverse effects on the fish populntion. due to fluctuations i n dissolved oxygen concenti-ations, and the excessive growth o f plants c m a150 caiise physical alterations to river channels and increased ;tccu111uliiti<)tl of silt.

Table 3.2 UWWTR Effluent Concentrations (Second Schedule, Part 1, S.I. 25412001)

Parameter Maximum concentration Minimum % Reduction permitted in final effluent (mgN effluent*

required for final

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODs)

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

Total Phosphorus

Total Nitrogen

25

35

125

2

15

70-90

75

90

80

70-80

‘Percentage reduction to be achieved in final effluent based on the influent concentration

I’erniitteci iii;ixiiiiiiiii conccn~r-ation\ I‘w \almonid water\ ;IK 4 5 nigh o l \u\pcntlcd \(>lids ai, :in avcragc. <i mg/I ol 1 x

BOD a h a 9SVile. <0.02 mg/I NH: a\ a 9Sfkile and 4 mg/l NH, as ;I 9S(hile.

”’ Compliance with the emission control standards set hy the UWWTR is identified within the WFD as one o f the “basic nieasures” to be included i n the river hasin m;inagcment process. Conseqtiently i t remains valid to assess the effluent standarcis in relation to the UWWTR.

I ( ’ Directice 91/27 I/EEC, miended by 98/1 YEC

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

The River Barrow is estimated to contribute S 6 X ) tonnes of nitrogen per annum and 294 tonnes of phosphorus per annum to the catchment covered by the South Eastern River Basin District, Table 3.3. WwTW discharges account for 14% of phosphorus inputs coinpared to agriculture which accounts for 7S.3c%, of inputs. A similar trend can be seen for the South Eastern River Basin District as a whole. Here WwTW comprise approximately 16.6q of the phosphorus load. However, by far the greatest contributor to phosphorus load is again agriculture at 62.3%. There is currently no plan in place to reduce background phosphorus levels i n the River Barrow catchment.

Table 3.3 Nutrient Inputs from the River Barrow

Sector N Load Sectoral P Load Sector

(kglyr) % N Load (kglyr) Yo P Load

WWTW 4201 0.7 2.0 10838 14.0

Unsewered Industries 0 0.0 103 0.1

Agriculture

Forestry

Peatlands

1961 587 3 93 4 58486 7 75 3

28856 0 1 4 2720 0 3 5

6780 0 0 3 1101 8 1 4

2200.0 0.1 425.2 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

59638.5 2.8 3975.9 5.1

Urban Areas

Unsewered Population

Background Losses

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) carries out water quality monitoring on the River Barrow. River water qunlity is graded by the EPA from QI (seriously polluted) through to Q5 (unpolluted) based o n the presence or absence o f macro invertebrate conimunities. In accord an ce w i t h the Eli ropea t i C o tri m i t i i t i ec En vi ro t i tile t i tal 0 bj ect i ve s (S ~i rface Waters) Regulations 2009 ’good ecological status’ i n respect o f macro-invertehrntea is considered to be equivalent to Q4 or above.

The latest biological quality rating (2000) at Station No . 0760, Barrow Bridge in Portarlington Town (around 2.4km upstreatii o f the WwTW outfall) was Q3. The more recent (2009) rating at Station No . 0780, Spa Bridge (downstream of Barrow Bridge) i n Portarlington was Q3. The latest biological quality rating (2009) at Station No. 0900, the Ford south of Trascan (around 2km downstream of the WwTW outfall) was Q3-Q3:” The locations of the monitoring stations are shown o n Figure 3.1.

The 03-4 EPA rating detnonstrates that the River Barrow is not currently achieving ‘good ecological status’ and so must be restored to this status. The European Communities Environinental Ob-jectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009 set out target coricentrations to be

The Q.3-4 (slightly polluted) rating means that the diversity 01‘ macro invertebrates at the monitoring 31

station is slightly reduced from that expected in an unpolluted river with similar characteristics.

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

23

niet for this to be achieved. These are 2.61ngA O2 for Rioctieniical Oxygen Demand (ROD) ;is ;I

95% ile, 0.14nig/l ammonia as a 9S%ile and.O.O3Smg/I for phosphorus as a mean.

The EPA Interim Report on the 13iological Survey of River Quality (2003) highlights that there has been an overall improvement in the River Barrow since 2000, despite water levels generally being low thus providing less dilution capacity for wastes. However, the EPA notecl that eutrophication was still widespread, on the upper river this W;IS attributed to “sr i . sp~ct~~t l i igricxlti/rc” related discharges atid downstream to “ s i i . s p r c ~ t ~ c l .sc~n~ige a i d otliclr rlisc./i(it;yo.s ” including from Portarlington (Station No. 0900).

Following the latest water quality monitoring result\ (2009) the W A noted that ;I “ c ~ ) i l 7 / ) / e f ( ~

1cic.k of .setisitii~e i r i e i ~ ~ r ~ i r ~ i ~ e r t ~ / ~ i ~ ~ i t ~ f i i i i i i u itidic.uttld poor rc~ologicwl cwz0i t iot i .s t i t Spu Hrid,yc i r i

Port i i r l i t igtot i . A r t~c~ lc .o i i i r iiiiproiwiiciit l i o ~ t ~ ( w t ~ , II’I~.Y riotrrl in tlir i i i r i c ~ i ~ o i i z i ~ ~ ~ i ~ t ~ / ~ i ~ ~ i t c ~ f i i i i i z r i r i t

PLI.S.T BI-icl~yr iiz Mor7ci.stci.ri~itz. ”

The Environment Section of Laois County Council also monitors the quality of surface waters within County Laois. Samples are taken from fixed locations on a monthly ba\is. ‘Table 3.4 details the latest inonitoring results held by Laois County Council for stretches of the River ups t rea in and dow t i s t rea I 11 of the W wT W out fril I.

Table 3.4 Laois County Council Water Quality Monitoring Results for the River Barrow (June 2007 to June 2008)

Upstream of WwTW outfall Downstream of W w l W outfall

pH3’ (pH value)

Minimum 7.68

Maximum 8.25

7 80

8 19

Median 2.00

Minimum 1 .oo

Maximum 6.00

1 .oo 1 0 0

2 00

Nitrated4 (rng/l N)

Minimum 0.04 1.41

pH is ;I measure of the acidity/alkalinity of a river x i c l normally varies in inp polluted waters between 6.0 and 9.0 depending o n the geology of the river catchinent. 1 BOD is a measure of the aniount of dissolved oxygen that is u\ed LIP by the micro-organisms i n the water. Unpolluted river haters are likely to have ;I BOD value of <3mg/l 02, High flows o r floods may also affect the BOD value i n rivers.

Nitrate in surface waters comes either directly l‘r-om waste discharges or from run-off from land treated with artificial fertilisers. Nitrate levels i n rivei- waters vary on an annual basis and are generally lowest i n July/August and highest in January/February (when river tlows are normally higher).

34

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

~

Upstream of WwTW outfall Downstream of WwTW outfall

Maximum 3 50 4.27

Ortho-Ph~sphate~~ (mgil P)

Median

Minimum

Maximum

0 05

0.03

0.08

0.09

0.04

0.19

Dissolved Oxygen36 (mgilO2)

Minimum a 37

Maximum 1 1 22

8.37

12 01

Suspended Sediment (mgil)

Minimum 6.00

Maximum 57.00

0.00

16.00

Ammonia3' (mgil N)

Median 0.08

Minimum 0.01

Maximum 0.21

0 06

0 02

0.43

Ortho-phosphate occurs naturally i n plants arid micro-oryanisnis. It is present in animal wastes, agricultural fertilisers and in detergents. Run-off from agricultiiral land and sewage and agricultural discharges are the main contributors of phosphorus to surface waters.

'' Dissolved Oxygen (DO) is the amount of oxygen in the water. The DO test is one of the niost important indicators of pollution in rivers. Polluting iiiatter can cau\e the levels of oxygen in the water to decrease. Excessive plant growth can caiise diurnal variations and dangcrously low night time DO levels. I f the levels fall too low a fish kill may occur.

35

Ammonia is naturally present at I O W levels (<O. 1 mg/l N ) i n all surface waters. Some polluting matter, for example, domestic sewage and animal slurries are high in aiiinionia, a s are solile industrial eftluents. The un-ionised fcmn of ainnionia (i.e. NH, as distinct from NH,+) is very toxic to fish.

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

4. Potential Effects and Mitigation

4.1 Likelihood of Significant Effects

4.1.1 Non-implementation of Scheme I t is predicted that any changes to the water qtiality of the River Barrow will stem from increased human populations in Portarlington, Ballybrittas and Killenard. The WwTW currently has a treatment capacity of 8.000 p.c. The ciirrent plant loading is approximately 7,000 p.e.

To date, thcre is in excess o f 14,000 p.e committed to the plant through planning applications that have been granted. I n future years, if rcsidcntial development and commercial activity expands in these towns at the same p c e ;IS at present, the existing treatment system will not be able to cope with tlie inci-ease i n influent flows. If increased capacity and storm water storage is not provided, a s dcvelopment takes place within Portarlington, the effluent is likely to cause ;I

se ri o ti s de t er iora t i o 11 i n water quality .

The decline i n water quality within the River Barrow could have ;I significant impact on populations of salmon, laniprey and otter using the river, in view of thcir high water quality rcquii-ements. For example, nutrient enrichinent could lead to eutrophication, 21 high organic loading could lead t o oxygen depletion. excessive aintiionia concentrations could lead to toxic effects o n aquatic biota and high sediment loads could cause a reduction in light penetration and smothering o f the river hed.

4.1.2 Implementation of Scheme The design capacity of the WwTW would increase to 35,000 p.e. with the actual p.e. being treated increasing in the long term a s local development occurs within Portarlington, Ballybrittas and Killcnard. In future i t is proposed to treat wastewater from tlie Emo catchment here a s well. If appropriate effluent standards are not set this may affect the total loading of critical pollutants entering the River Bari-ow ancl cause ;I degree of water quality deterioration in the receiving watercourse.

The following section identifies potentially significant effects on the sensitive interest features of the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC which may arise from the Portarlington WwTW upgrade, along with appropriate mitigation measures which, i f adopted, would minimise any significant adverse effects. The residual effects after mitigation are detailed in Table 4.6 and i t is these which should inform the Appropriate Assessment.

4.2 Construction Effects

4.2.1 Potential Pollution-Related Adverse Effects and Mitigation Mobilisation of silt and sediment is one of the nwst likely pollutant pathways during any construction works. The proposed Portarlington WwTW upgrade will involve movement of

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

26

plant and materials within the development footprint. Although this is over 300111 south of the River Barrow, there is a sinall watercourse which runs fi-om the westeni boundary of the WwTW to the Barrow which provides ecological continuity with the river and is therefore a potential route by which pollutants could enter the River Barrow.

Studies are currently being undertaken to assess the condition of the outfall. The results o f these studies will establish what works arc required on the outfall but for the purpose of this Appropriate Assessment i t is assumed that a new outfall will need to be constructed involving in-stream works. The Southern Regional Fisheries Board (SRFB) has recommended that this should be a bankside outfall.

The co n s t ruc t i o 11 wor issociated with the WwTW upgrade could result in increased suspended solids and sediinentation within the River Barrow. Suspended solids have the potential to damage the gills of aquatic fauna including salmon, Inmprey and white-clawed crayfish for which the cSAC is clesignated. Deposition of silt can smother fish eggs, fry and benthic i 11 vert e brat e c o inniu n i t i es (food source for fi s h and c ra y fi s h ) causing as ph y x i at i o 11 .

Accidental release of fuel. oils o r lubricants during construction also has the potential t o impact o n water quality and consequently aquatic ecology causing ;I variety o f efl’ects depending o n the natlll-e of the pollutant.

Under the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act I977 (as amcndcd) there is a general prohibition on entry of polluting matter to waters. There is a range of appropriate guidance detailing best practice iiieasurc\ to mininiizc the risk of construction-rel~ited pollution. I n order to mitigate potentially significant effects. adoption 01‘ measures to protect fresh water systems detailed in the follo\i.ing publications is requirtxl:

Section 3 cif the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act. 1977:

Southern liegionul 12isheries Board giiidnnce on the Maintenance and Protection of the I n 1 a n d Fi s h e r i e s Re COLI rcc I l u ri ng lioad Con st ruc t i on ;I 11 ci I mlirove iiie 11 t Works ; ;in cl

Eastern Region Fisheries Board (ER]-H) F’ishcries Protection Guidelines.

Key mitigation measures with respect to miniinising the risk of construction-related pollutioii include:

In-stream inachine works should be miniinised (machines working in the w‘ J t ’ . t icourse 1 must be protected against leakages of oils, fuels etc.);

All plant Lvorking i n or near the river must be re-fuelled away from the I-ivcr banks (an exclusion zone for re-fuelling of 2Sm from the river hank should be employed) in a bunded area of 1 10% volume by means of a bunded fuel tanker;

Fuels, oils, greases and other potentially polluting chemicals must be stored i n bunded compounds at least SOim away froin the river. Any fuels, oils o r chemical\ wo~ild be stored o n impervious bases and adequately bunded to 1 10% o f the total volume stored;

Spill kits and method statements f o r dealing with accidental spillages would need to be provided;

A site induction would be required to brief’ contractors on the need for environmentally responsible working practices prior to any site work. l h e site induction would include

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

27

appropriate training f o r construction staff on how to respond to accidental spillages o f chemicals or oils on site: and

Construction works, especially involving the pouring of concrete, must be conducted in the dry. Care must be taken to avoid spillage of concrete or grout. Cement mixers would not be permitted to wash or discharge any material into the river.

Mitigation of particular relevance to the pi-oposed outfall upgrade works lies in the fundamental method of working which should involve the use of a coffer dam (installed i n a manner which minimises disturbance o f the river bed) to enable works to be conducted in the dry and to minirnise the release of cuspended sedirnent downstream. I n addition, during dewatering all water is to be subject to appropriate treatment for the t-cnioval of sediment (e.g. use of settlement tanks) prior to being discharged back into the River Harrow to minimise the potential for discharging suspended solids to the watercourse.

I n view o f the cSAC's designation for lamprey, saltlion and white-clawed crayfish. a precautionary approach is advocated t o avoid impact on these species. In-channel works should be restricted to the period Iuly to September inclusive, thereby avoiding the sensitive spawning and early development stages of salmon. This would also avoid the prime spawning period for h i p r e y and the breeding and dormant periods for crayfish.

To ensure all mitigation iiieasiires are followed. the contractor woulcl be required to produce a Method Statement for approval by the EPA, NPWS and the SKFB which should detail working methods including mitigation measures to be adopted. Site pcrsonnel should be fully briefed on the Method Statement and the importance of the cSAC prior t o commencement of works.

4.2.2 Potential Disturbance/lnjury/Killing of cSAC Species and Mitigation Due to the small size of the required working ;II'C;L relative to the size of the cSAC, i t is highly i t 111 ikel y that c o t i s tr iic t i on-re I a terl ac t i vi tics (;is i cle from se I-i o u s po I1 u t i on) w oit 1 d d i rcc t I y injure/kill cSAC species to an extent which affects the conservation objectives of the site, i.e. the inaintenance o f Annex I1 species at favourable coliservation status (see Section 1.4). However, there is some potential for iinniitigated works to affect ;I small number of individuals. There fore, in line with best practice the follow i tig mi ti gat ion is recoin mended .

During the dewatering operation carried o u t tis part of the outfall itpgrade (see Section 4.2. I ) , it is possible that crayfish. juvenile salmonids and lainprcy may be present within the dammed arca. To avoid any direct inipact, an ecologist should be present during the initial dewatering works t o reiiiove any trapped animals to alternative suitable habitat well away f rom the working area. The risk o f trapping crayfish can be further reduced by reinoval of potential crayfish refuges (e.g. boulders, woody debris) the day before works cointiience in order to encourage animals to move to alternative habitat themselves. I n addition, niaintaining ;I passable flow through the channel at all times and timing in-stream works to avoid sensitive periods (as described in Section 4.2.1) would mitigate potential disturbance to these species.

With respect to otter, restriction of any works at the outfall to daylight hours would also ensure potential disturbance to nocturnal otter activity is minimised.

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

28

4.3 Operational Effects The increase in design capacity may affect the total loading of critical pollutants and cause a degrec of water quality deterioration i n the receiving watercourse. This could have a direct effect on the cSAC species themselves, in view of their high water quality requirements. Alternatively damage could be caused indirectly through alteration of their habitat, including increased macrophytic and algal growth, or an alteration in the invertebrate and/or fish populations which form their food source.

4.3.1 Effluent Standards In view of the high water quality requirements of the Annex I habitats and Annex I1 species ;IS described in Section 3.2 a serious deterioration in water quality could have an adverse effect on them.

I o tiiitigate potentially significant effects arising from the discharge of final treated effluent i t will be necessary t o set effluent standardc reflecting (i) the legislative water quality requirements of this watercourse atid ( i i ) the water quality requirements of the cSAC habitats and species i t supports. The main mechanisms employed i n setting environmentally protective eftluent standards are the UWW'I'R. the Eui-opean Communities 13nvironniiental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009 atid the Waste Assimilative Capacity ( WAC)'s of' the receiving water as follows.

The WAC of the receiving water of the River Barrow has been examined to determine if there are any specil'ic environrncntal needs that are more stringent than the generic standards from the UWWI'K.

The results o f water quality monitoring iipstrcarn of the WwTW in 2007-2008 as presented i n Table 3.4 have been u\ed to provide hackground concentrations for use in this assesstinetit. 951% ile flows have been u\ed to calculate downstream BOD'" and ;iniiiioni;i concentrations. Averagc flows have been used to calculate the downstream MliP concentration in accordunce with EPA guidance - Wastewater Dischnrge Application Guidance Notes Version 7/09 available from w\vw.epa.ie.

'' Waste Assimilative Capacity (WAC) i s the capacity of receiving waters to accept the discharge o f final effluent. It i s ;I general approach based on river f low and background pollutant concentrations which is used to calculate the maximum fin;il effluent discharge loads which cotild be ;iccomniodated while still achieving compliance with in-river water quality standards. 311 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is a measure of the organic matter i n a water suimple and utilixes measurement of the amotint of oxygen that is t i d up hy niicro-organisms in the sample as they degrade the organic matter present.

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

29

The target concentrations in Tables 4.1 to 4.3 ;ire based on the following legislative water qual i t y reclu i rein en t s :

Under the European Communities Environnieiital 0b.jectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009 a concentration o f 2.6mg/l of BOD ;IS a 955&ileand 0.14mg/I ammonia as a 9Sq.ile must be met to enable ‘good ecological status’ to be achieved.

Although the River Barrow is not designated as a salinonid water under the European Communities (Quality of Salmonid Waters) Regulations 1988 it is known to support Atlantic salmon.

Since the water quality requirements of the European Comiiiunities Environmental Objective5 (Surface Waters) Kegulations 2009 are more onerous than the water quality requirements set out in the salmonid regulations (5mg/l of ROD for 95% of tlie time and I mg/l of ammonia for 9574 of the tinie) compliance would ensure the watcr quality requirements o f salmon are met.

Since the water quality requirements of Atlantic salmon are iiiorc oiieruus than the water qiiality requirements of lamprey and brown trout. compli;ince would also eiiwrc tlie water qwlity requirements of all fish species supported by the liivcr Barrow are met.

Under tlic European Comniunities Lnvirotimental Objectives (Surface Waters) Kegulations 2009 a mean value of 0.035 ing ortho-P per 1 must he achie\wl. Since the w a tc I ’ clu al i t y req LI ire I nen t s of t hc Euro pea n CO m ni u n i t i e s En\.i ro n nic 11 t a 1 0b.jectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009 are iiioi-e onerous than tlie \vater qua 1 i t y re c1 LI i re me 11 t s for float i rig r i ve r ve ge t a t io i i ( 0.06 nig/l target c o lice n t ra t i o i l 1 compliance would ensure the water qu;iIity rccluii-einents of this cSAC feature are met.

-I( 1

Table 4.1 Comparison of Predicted in River Concentrations with Target Concentrations Stage 3

BOD Ammonia Orthophosphate

Median upstream concentration mgll 2.00

95%ile upstream flow m’ls 0.56

Average annual flow m3/s nIa

Current upstream load kg/d 96.77

Predicted effluent flow’ m3/s 0.09

Effluent concentration mgil 4.90

0.08

0 56

nla

3.87

0.09

0 51

0.05

nla

6.41

27.67

0.09

0.23

For mid-altitude watei-courses on hard substrates (CH4/CBS vegetation communities), the Life i n U K Rivers project suggests ;i target concentration of O.O(lmg/l soluble reactive phos p horo LI s t o ensure t tie protect io 11 of the float i ng river vege t a t i on corn m un i t y .

4 1

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

3 0

BOD Ammonia Orthophosphate

Predicted effluent load kg/d 6 29

Predicted downstream flow m‘is 49 53

mgll 2.60 Predicted downstream concentration

4.02

0.65

0.1 4

181

6 50

0.05

Target concentration mgll 2.60 0.14 0.035

* Values are based on design p.e. of 35,000 for Stage 3

Table 4.2 Comparison of Predicted in River Concentrations with Target Concentrations Stage 2

BOD Ammonia Orthophosphate

Median upstream concentration

95%ile upstream flow

Average annual flow

Current upstream load

Predicted effluent flow*

Effluent concentration

Predicted effluent load

Predicted downstream flow

Predicted downstream concentration

mg’l

m3/s

rn ‘1s

kg’d

m3/s

mgll

kg ’d

m ’1s

mgil

2.00

0.35

nla

60.48

0.05

9.05

40.73

0.61

2.60

0.08

0.35

n/a

2.42

0.05

0.79

3.56

0.61

0.1 4

0 05

nla

6.41

27.67

0 05

0.34

1.53

6.46

0.05

Target concentration mgil 2 60 0.14 0.035

* Values are based on design p e of 20,000 for Stage 2

Table 4.3 Comparison of Predicted in River Concentrations with Target Concentrations Stage 1

.-

BOD Ammonia Orthophosphate

Median upstream concentration mgil 2.00

95%ile upstream flow m3/s 0.35

Average annual flow m’is n/a

Current upstrearn load kg/d 60.48

Predicted effluent flow’ m3/s 0.04

Effluent concentration mgll 11.20

Predicted effluent load kg/d 37.80

0.08

0.35

nla

2.42

0.04

1 .00

3.38

0.050

nla

6.405

27.670

0.039

0.43

1.45

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

31

BOD Ammonia Orthophosphate

Predicted downstream flow m3/s 0 60 0.60 6.44

mg/l 2.60 0.1 4 0.04 Predicted downstream concentration

Target concentration mgil 2.60 0.14 0.035

* Values are based on design p e. of 15,000 for Stage 1

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) BOD is a measure of the organic matter in ;I water sample and utilises measurement of the amount of oxygen that is u\ed up by micro-organistiis in tlie sample L I S they degrade the organic matter present. Within the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009, the oxygenation condition for ’good status’ of less than or equal to 2.6 tng 02/1 BOD for 95% o f the time is an appropriate target concentration to mitigate potentially significant effects on the cSAC.

I t c;in be seen fi-om ’I’ables 4.1 to 4.3 that ;I discharge standard of 11.2 mg/l for Stage 1, 9.05 mg/l for Stage 2 and 6.29 mg/l for Stage 3 of the capacity upgrade will ensure that adequate protection of aquatic receptors is provicled. ‘l’ertiary treatment will be required to meet these d i sc 11 ;I rge s 1 and ard\. l i e s i du ;I 1 su s pen ded s 01 i tis h aye an ;is w c i a tcd B OD 1 oad , t e it i aty tre ;I t nie tit results i n a further reduction i n suspended wlids within the final effluent and thus tlie BOD concentration is also reduced.

Ammonia

2009, the nutrient condition for ’good status’ of less than or equal to 0. I4 mg N/I of total amtnonium (NH:) for 95% of the time is ; in appropriate targct concentration to mitigate potentially significant effects on tlie cSAC.

With respect t o un-ionised ammonia (NH1) this most toxic fraction of the total ammonia is dependant on pH, salinity and temperature. pH has the greatest influence on the proportion of ammonia that is uti-ionised, with the proportion rising ( i n a non-linear fasliion) with increasing pH. Under the European Comniunitics (Quality of Salmonid Waters) Regulations 1988 a standard of 20 pg/l NHI alongside a p H of between 6 and 9 is set.

I t can be seen from Tables 4.1 to 4.3 that a discharge standard o f I .OO mg/I for Stage I , 0.79 mg/l for Stage 2 and 0.5 1 nig/l for Stage 3 o f the capacity upgt-ade will ensure that adequate protection of aquatic receptors is provided.

Within the European Communities I;,nvit-onmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regul, ‘I 1’ tons

Ortho-Phosphate Within the European Communities Environriiental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009, the nutrient condition for ‘good status’ of less than or equal to 0.035 riig ortho-€‘/I of MRP

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

32

as a Itieaii value i5 an uppropriate target concenlration to mitigate potentially significant erfects on the cSAC. ”

F;o r mi d-al t i tu de wat el-co u r se s on hard s U b s t ra te s ( C B4 and C B 5 vegetation co in mu n i t ie s) , the Life in U K Rivers project suggests a target concentration of 0.06mg/l soluble reactive phosphorous to ensure the protection of the floating river vegetation community. This target value is more stringent than for CB 1 and CB3 communities whose targets are 0.2 and 0.1 mg/l respectively. Although the site visit could not confirni whether floating river vegetation is present downstream of the WwTW. a precautionary approach has been taken and its presence assu me d.

As discussed in Section 3.2.2, based on knowledge of the geology, the river characteristics and tlic species listed CIII the Site Synopsis. any floating river vegetation cominunity present is most likely to resemble a CB4 or CI3S community. Therefore. O.Ohmg/l phosphorus is an appropriate target t o mi t i gat e pot e nt i all y si gii i fi ca n t e ffec t s on t he f I oa t i n g r i ve r vcg e t a t i on .

There is currcntly no assimilative capacity within the River Harrow as upstrcani concentrations are already at O.OSmg/l, exceeding the iiiean target concentration by 0.0 I Smg/l. ‘I’ahles 4.1 to 4.3 demonstrate that unless other measures are taken upstream of the discharge i t will not be po s s i b le fo I- the R i ve r Barrow to c o nip I y wit I1 t lie E U rope an CO in rnu 11 i t i e s E ii vi ron men t 21 1 0 bj ec t i ves ( S iir face W nters ) Regu 1 at i oils 2009 (;IS bnckgrou rid conccn t rat ion s a I ready exceed the 35 pg P per 1 target). However, the provision of additional capacity and a lighter discharge consent will eii\iii-e that thc phosphorus loading from this particular source will be significantly reduced as demonstrated i n Table 4.4. The EPA attributed eutrophication on the upper river to “.v ir . spc~c~tc i l c / , ~ ~ . i ~ , ~ / / ~ / / ~ . c ~ ” related dicharges; therefore i t must be assumed that under the RBMP measures will be inipleinented to reduce the background level of phosphoru on the river ups tre ;I r i i o f Port a r I i n gt o n to an accep tab 1 e 1 e ve I i n order t (1 ;icc o iii 11 1 oda t e w;t\ te water discharges.

If an effluent standard of 0.43 mg/l is adopted i n respect of Stage I , 0.34 ing/l i n respect of Stage 2 and 0.23 mg/l i n respect of Stage 3 this will result i n virtually no chmge to the background concentration of 0.05 mg/l. The EU Fresh Water Fish Directive states that ;I limit value of 0.2mg/l phosphate for salmonid waters c;in be regarded as indicative i n order to reduce eutrophication. This and the target phosphorus concentration for floating river vegetation (0.06rng/1) will be coinplied with so whilst the Portarlington WwTW upgrade niay not enable compliance with the European Coinminities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Reg ul at i on s 2009 si g n i fic ai1 t effects o n sal 111 on an cl float i 11 g ri ve r vege t a t i o i i and con sec1 ueii t I y the cSAC are unlikely.

There are ;t number of existing methods to remove phosphorus from the effluent, chemical dosing with ferric or aluminium salts being the most reliable; using ferric dosing i t is not currently practical to reduce phosphorus levels in eflluent to less than O.Smg/l. However, a new filtration system called “Blue PRO” that enables phosphorus levels as low as 0. I mg/l to be attained has been piloted at Irish WwTW with ;I similar p.e. to Portarlington and could be adopted.

If the C)S%ile approach is used. to comply with the target of 0.06mg/l ortho-P (as the target for floating river vegetation) a n effluent standard of 0.2 I , 0.17 ancl 0.12riig/l ortho-P will he required for Stages 1 2 arid 3 respectively. This will no t require any additional infrastructure to he installed.

41

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

Even if only a discharge standard of ().51iig/l can be achieved, whilst this may not enable c o nip 1 i an c e with the Euro pea 11 Corn mu n i t i e s ( S U r face W a te r s ) Reg LI 1 at i o 11 s 2009. i t w i 1 1 o n I y increase the background concentration by O.O6ing/l to 0.056mg/l following Stage 3 . However. the target phosphorus concentration for floating river vegetation (O.O6mg/I) will still be complied with thus ensuring there will be n o change to the current level of pollution risk presented by the Wu.TW.to this SAC feature.

Table 4.4 Phosphorus Loadings

Stage Phosphorus Load kgiday Change in Load with Proposed Discharge Standard

EPA Discharge Proposed Discharge Standard* Standard kglday

Current 4.85

Stage 1 6.75

Stage 2 9.0

Stage 3 15.75

n/a

1.45

1.53

1.81

nia

- 5 30

- 7.47

- 13.94

* standard for phosphorus is 2mgil in accordance with the UWWTR

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) The European Communities Environinental Objectives (Surl.ace Waters) Regulations 2009 oxygenation condition i'or 'good status' is greater than XO'X saturation for 95% of the time. This alongside the European Conimuniries (Quality of Salnionid Waters) Regulations 19XX guideline for compliance, of' more than or equal to 9 mg/l O2 for 50% of the time, and not falling below 6 mg/l, is ;in appropriate target concentrntion to mitigatc potentially significant effects on the cSAC.

I-'ollowing the completion of Stage 3 the effluent would iepiesent approximately 20% of the 95% ile flow in the River Rari-ow down\tream of the WwTW.

l h a l Effluent Standards The final effluent standards summarised in T;ihle 4.5 should provide adequate protection of aquatic receptors mitigating potentially significant effects when the WwTW is fully operational at 35,000 p.c.

Phosphorus reinoval and tertiary ti-eatment will be required for these discharge standards to be met.

Once granted the Wastewater Discharge Licence for Portarlington WwTW will need to be reviewed by the EPA on a regular basis at which point the WAC calculation\ will need t o be revisited to take into account the latest EPA water quality monitoring data.

Entec .l1111c 701l1

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

34

Table 4.5 Proposed Discharge Standards

Stage BOD mgil Ammonia mgil Phosphorus mgll Review Date

Stage 1 11.2 1 0 0 0 43

Stage 2 9 05 0 79 0 34 2020

Stage 3 6 29 0 51 0 23 2020

4.3.2 Outfall Operation There would be no change to the existing maintenance regime to tlie outfall. 'Therefore no operational effects would arise. However, any significunt maintenance operations (except for

) should be carried out ciuring the period Iuly to September.

Anadromous species must be able to reach suitable spawning areas tipstrearn and even ;I small stretch o f poor water quality can hlock o r interfere with migration. However, although there uould be ;I limited area around the di\chargc point where initial dilution of eflluent takes place given the presence of an existing outf'all there is unlikely to be ;I significant effect on migration patterns.

I n the long term. as development takes place within Poi-t~ulington, although there will be ;I slight reduction i n background water quality as shown in Table 4.6, tlic availability of additional treatitlent capacity and the provision of storm water storage (off-site) will have a beneficial effect by ensuring that tlie water quality of the River 13arrow is Lvithin en\,ironment~illy protective limits for Atlantic salnton and hence tlie other qualifying featiirej oil the cSAC. s o n o adverse affect on the integrity of tlic Etiropean site ~vould result.

Table 4.6 Comparison of Existing Downstream Concentrations (Table 3.4) to Predicted Concentrations on the River Barrow Downstream of the Discharge Point Following Stage 3

Parameter Downstream Current (mgll) Predicted (mgil) Change (mg/l)

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 1 .oo (BOD4

Ortho Phosohorus 0.09

Total Ammonia 0.06

2.60

0.05

0.14

+ I .60

-0.04

+0.08

4.3.3 Storm Flows The upgraded WwTW would be designed to treat 3DWF-" and a storm water tank installed (off- site) so that storm \vater would only be discharged during large storm events. I t is normal

Dry Weather Flow -12

Entec J u t u 2ll10

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

operational procedure for WwTWs to discharge storm water direct to rivers, i n the event o f long duration/high inten\ity storm events, to ensure that the treatment processes do not become overloaded o r a high concentration o f solids are washed out of the plant into the watercourse.

I t is proposed that storm water discharges will be screened and sufficient stoini water storage will be provided (off-site) to etistire ;L minitnum retention titine o f 2 hours for peak flows prior to discharge. Effluent discharged under storm conditions would he diluted by the storm water component in the watercourse, so no adverse affect on the integrity of the European site would result.

The main catchment pumping station is located close to the centre of the town. I t is proposed that this pumping station will be replaced with a new pumping station atid storm tank to reduce the volume o f overflows during extreme weather events. These works will be pi-ocured under ;I

separate planning process and their construction is no t within the scope o f this Appropriale Asse ssnieti t .

4.4 Summary of Mitigation and Predicted Residual Effects

A sutiitii;u-y of the above mitigation tneasures is provided in 'I'ahle 4.7 along with the significance o f any predicted residual effects aftcr mitigation has heen implemented.

Table 4.7 Summary of Required Mitigation

Potentially Significant Mitigation,Enhancement Effect on cSAC

Residual Ad verse Affect on Integrity of cSAC?

Rat ion a I e

Construction

Contractor to produce a Method Statement which should be approved by the EPA. NPWS and SRFB. Method Statement should includeirefer to the following measures:

A coffer dam to be used during in-channel works.

Use of settlement tanks (or other appropriate treatment) for dewatering prior

In-channel work to be carried out during the period July to September.

Work to avoid wet weather conditions.

Adoption of additional pollution prevention measures outlined in relevant guidance.

Site briefing to be held with site personnel prior to commencement of works.

Release of sediments resulting in negative effects on cSAC species. to discharge to the river. No

Risk has been minimised as far as possible. Despite a high level of mitigation there remains an extremely small possibility of an unforeseen event (e.g. sudden extreme weather conditions). However the risk of this is considered to be so low as to be negligible.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

36

Res id ua I Potentially Significant Mitigation,Enhancement Adverse Affect Effect on cSAC on Integrity of

cSAC?

Discharge of chemicals to cSAC (e.g. fuels, oils) resulting in negative effects on cSAC species.

Chemicals stored in bunded areas away from the river and securediremoved overnight.

Adoption of pollution prevention measures outlined in relevant guidance.

Any refuelling must be carried out in bunded areas of 1 1 0% volume at least 25m away from banks.

Contractors to have an appropriate emergency response plan in place in the event of spillages

Adoption of additional pollution prevention measures outlined in relevant guidance.

Site briefing to be held with site personnel prior to commencement of works.

No

Risk has been minimised as far as possible. Despite a high level of mitigation there remains an extremely small possibility of an unforeseen event (e.g. failure of machinery/ equipment). However the risk of this is considered to be so low as to be negligible.

Damageidisturbance to

bank side habitat Minimal vegetation clearance on banks. No in negative effects on cSAC species.

Low potential to affect small area therefore no significant effect on populations of Annex II species predicted.

River to be passable to fish at all times No Restriction of passage of migratory cSAC species during works salmonilamprey.

River would be passable therefore no effect on passage of migratory salmonilamprey.

River corridor to be passable by otter at all times

All works to be carried out during daylight hours

No Disturbance to cSAC species otter.

River would be passable to otter and disturbance negligible.

I f necessary a crayfish rescue to be performed by an ecologist during initial dewatering of working area

Fish rescue to be performed by an ecologist during initial dewatering of working area.

Incidental killingiinjury of cSAC species within No working area

Low potential to affect small area therefore no significant effect on populations of Annex II species predicted.

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

37

Residual Potentially Significant Mitigation,Enhancement Effect on cSAC

Adverse Affect Rationale on Integrity of cSAC?

Operation

Discharges of inadequately treated sewage to the cSAC resulting in a reduction in water quality and negative effects on cSAC features

The WwTW would be designed and operated to ensure that the effluent standards specified in Table 4.5 would be complied with.

Water quality around the discharge point would be slightly reduced from background levels however the effluent standards specified in Table 4.5 would enable the passage of migratory fish.

Sufficient storm water storage to be provided off-site to ensure a minimum retention time of 2 hours for peak flows

SFRB recommend a bankside outfall be constructed.

N O

Risk has been minimised as far as possible. Despite a high level of mitigation there ,

remains an extremely small possibility of an unforeseen event (e.g. failure of treatment plant). However the risk of this is considered to be so low as to be negligible.

Alteration of river flow pattern around River Barrow outfall affecting quality of river habitat for cSAC species.

Discharge rate would be controlled to ensure effluent flow does not disrupt the natural river flow pattern

SFRB recommend a bankside outfall be constructed

No

Low potential to affect small area therefore no significant effect on populations of Annex II species predicted.

Low potential to affect small area avoiding mos t sensitive t ime

No therefore no significant effect on populations of Annex I1 species predicted.

Disturbance of cSAC species’ habitat during ou tfa II maintenance operations. September

Schedule any significant maintenance operations (except for emergency works) to be carried out during the period July to

As shown i n Table 4.7, effective mitigation tiicawres would reniove the potential for the majority o f activities associated with the proposed developnient t o have ;I significant effect alone (rather than in-conihhtrrioii - Section 4.5) on the River Bnrrow and River Nore cSAC. The only exceptions where i t is not considered possible to entirely remove the risk o f a si gni fi ca t i t effect are i n s t ances o f c o ti s t ruc t i o t i - re I at ed a n d oper;i t i o iia I po 1 1 LI t i on. I t i s i m po s s i b le to entirely remove the risk of pollution-related effects in any works involving constmction, ;IS

there is always an extremely small possibility o f unforeseen events/emergency situations. Similarly for the WwTW discharge, there would remain an extremely small possibility of e x t reme/un foreseen events , as cur re tit 1 y e x i s t s with re spec t to the Port ;ir I in g t on W wT W a1 ready being operational. However, by employing the mitigation measures detailed above. the risk o f such events occurring has been reduced to the lowest possible level (negligiblc risk) and thus the integrity of the cSAC would not be adversely affected.

4.5 In-combination Effects There i 4 the potential f-or in-combination eIfect$ on the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC due to cumulative effect\ cauwd by the WwTW capacity upgrade and any exi\ting/propo\ed

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

38

projects, plans or permissions. The Habitats Regulations thus require that the Appropriate Assessment takes account of potentially significant effects i n combination with those of other projects. plans or permissions including those being progressed by other competent authorities and i n light of the prevailing background conditions.

'The following bodies were cvnsulted to determine whether they were aware of any projects, plans or permissions that may act in-combination with the WwTW capacity upgrade:

Southern Regional Fisheries Board (SRFB);

Laoia County Council (LCC);

NPWS:

EPA;

Office of Public Works (OPW) (Engineering Section); and

Barrow Drainage Board (BDB).

A summary of the responses received froni the con<ultees is presented in Table 4.8

Table 4.8 Projects, Plans or Permissions - Summary of Responses from Consultees

Consultee Nature of Response

SRFB Not aware of any projects or plans in the vicinity of Portarlington which may affect the cSAC. Suggested that there are many buildings which may have permission but are not yet built.

Recommended contacting BDB and Laois CC andior Laois CC website

LCC Advised to look at the Portarlington Local Plan.

NPWS No response received.

E PA Not aware of any projects, plans or permissions which may affect the cSAC, but should assume each town along the river has a WwTW

OPW A flood study has been completed but aims have since changed and i t is currently on hold for the foreseeable future due to economic climate.

BDB BDB will be carrying out maintenance works on the Barrow in Portarlington (downstream of the swimming pool] in 2009 Plans for a large supermarket on the banks of the Barrow in Portarlington have been shelved.

4.5.1 Portarlington Building Works I t is known that plans to build ;I large supermarket on the banks of the River Barrow have been rejected, and there is a presumption against building within the floodplain i n line with emerging policy. Building wor ire likely to have decreased in light of the current economic slow down, nevertheless, some ongoing building works are to be expected within any town and it is likely that a number of building projects are planned within the River Barrow catchment. However, the upgrade of the WwTW will reflect positively upon development proposals within Portarlington, as the increased capacity will accommodate expansion and population growth. 'Therefore, no impacts acting in-combination with the proposed WwTW upgrade are predicted.

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

39

4.5.2 Other WwTW Upgrades At lea\t one other WwTW upgrade (Mountmellicl\) i \ known t o be propwed within the River Barrow catchment.

Mountmellick WwTW is located acijacent t o the Owenass River, :ipproximately 16km upstream from the Portarlington WwTW and its upgrade i \ also subject t o Appropriate Assessment. Due to the distance between the sites and the mitigation employed at both during the construction phase, no in-combination effects are likely during the construction works. Once operational, the availability of additional treatment capacity will have a beneficial effect by ensuring that the \vater quality of the Rivet- Barrow is protected from the expansion of residential development and commercial activity in the town. An EPA discharge licence will need to be granted for the upgrade taking in to account ( i ) the legislative water quality requirements o f the Owenass River and ( i i ) the water quality t-equirements of the cSAC habitats and species i t supports. As such no operational impacts acting in-combination with the proposed Ww'I'W upgrade are predicted.

The consultces are not aware o f any plans to upgrade other Ww'l'Ws along the river.

4.5.3 Portarlington Flood Study A flood study has been completed for the Portarlington area, the initial aims ot' which were to look at protecting existing development atid enabling future clevelopment. The latter aim is now redunclant due to a change i n approach to development within floodplains, environmental issues coining to the fore and legal rulings within the last eighteen months. There arc no plans t o progress the study i n the foreseeable future (at Ic;t\t five years) due to tlic curt-ent economic climate. Should the study be revisitcd in the longer term, new flood risk tiianagetnent guidelines will be followed which move away from encouraging and protecting new development within floodplains. As such tio iinpncts acting in-combination with the proposed WwTW upgrade are predicted.

4.5.4 The BDB are planning to carry out maintenance u.orks along up t o 1 .2km o f the river downstream of the scvimniing pool in Portarlington. Maintenance is carried out at regular intervals comprising a variety of management works to maintain drainage e.g. silt removal, niarginal reed cutting and repair o f any bank breaches. The County Council arc consulted on all proposed tnaintetiance works and if necessary reporls are completed to ensure no impact on the c SAC and b i od i ve rs i t y i 11 general . The re f o re tio i ti-c o in b i t i ;I t i o n effects are p t-edi c t e d.

Maintenance Works on the River Barrow

4.5.5 The EPA holds 11 database of waste water discharge applications and licences. Table 4.9 sumniarises the discharge applications and licences held by the EPA for the River Barrow and its tributaries, from the S O L I I - C ~ o f the Barrow in the Slieve Bloom Mountains North West of Capard, located around 30km south west of Portarlington, to Carlow Town i n County Carlow, around 3Skm south east o f Portarlington. A list of WwTW within the River Barrow catchment is provided in Appendix E.

All these WwTW are cur-rently operational. For most, an EPA discharge licence will need to be granted for the upgrade taking into account ( i ) the legislative water quality requirements of the receiving watercourse and ( i i ) the water quality requireinents o f the cSAC habitats and species i t supports. EPA discharge licenses will need to be regularly reviewed taking into account the

Other Waste Water Discharge Applications and Licences

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

late\t upstream GPA hater quality monitoring data." As such no impact< acting in-combination with the propowd WwTW upgrade are predicted.

Table 4.9 Other Waste Water Discharge Applications and Licences

Town / County Discharge River Approx. distance Application Existing load Status Council from the WwTW Reg No. expressed in

(following river population route) equivalent

(p.e.1

Mountmellick. County Laois

Owenass River ( 1 3km to the River Barrow)

Trilogue River (12 5km to the River Barrow)

Unknown

Confluence with River Barrow 8.7km (upstream)

Confluence with River Barrow 7.5km (upstream)

nla

DO1 52-01

DO001 -01

nla

nla

n/a

nla

DO1 75-01

DO1 77-01

n/a

nia

D0003-01

D0028-01

5.970 Applied

Portlaoise, County Laois

23,000 Applied

Emo, County Laois 69 It is proposed to connect Emo to the

J Portarlington W w l

Clonygowan, County Offaly

Unnamed tributary of the River Barrow (5km to the River Barrow)

Figile River ( 1 7km to the River Barrow)

Confluence with River Barrow 9km (upstream)

Discharge licence not required at present (< 500p e

450

450

400

Discharge licence not required at present (< 500p.e.)

Discharge licence not required at present (< 500p.e.)

Clonbulloge, County Offaly

Confluence with the River barrow 6km (downstream)

Confluence with the River Barrow 6km (downstream)

Confluence with River Barrow 6km (downstream)

7.5km (downstream)

Bracknagh, County Offaly

Figile River (9km to the River Barrow)

Rathangan, County Kildare

Slate River (13km to the River Barrow)

2,000 Applied

Monasterevin, County Kildare

Kildangan, County Kildare

River Barrow 9,000 Applied

Unknown nia 88 Discharge licence not required at present (< 500p.e.)

Kilberry, County Kildare

River Barrow (assumed)

26km (downstream) 450 Discharge licence not required at present (< 500p.e.)

Athy. County Kildare

Carlow, County Carlow

River Barrow

River Barrow

30km (downstream)

43km (downstream)

15,000 A p p I i e d

33,500 Applied

43 It will also he nccc\wi-y lor t he EPA to take into account the t;irgct concentrations b e t out in the Eurolxxn C'ommtinitie\ E n \ ironmental Ohject i ics (Surflicc Waters) Regul:itions once (hi< legislation i s cnactcd.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

41

4.5.6 Based on the responses from the consultees detailed in above, n o projects, plans or permissions could be identified that would have a n adverse irz-c.onzhirzatio~i affect with the Portarlington WwTW capacity upgrade.

Summary of Predicted In-Combination Effects

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

43

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

I t has been concluded t h a t effective mitigation measures would remove the potential for the majority of activitie$ associated with the WwTW capacity upgrade to have a significant effect alone (or in-cornbination) on the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC.

The only exceptions where i t is not considered possible to entirely rerriove the risk of a significant effect on the cSAC are instances of construction and operational pollution, ;IS there would always reniain an extremely small possibility of extrenielunforeseen events, as currently exists with respect t o the Portarlington WwTW already being operational. However, by employing the specified mitigation measures and enforcing the effluent standards i n Table 4.5, i t is considered tha t the risk of such events occurring has been reduced to the lowest possible level (negligible risk) and thus the integrity of the cSAC would not be advet-sely affected.

Overall. slight heneficial effects on the cSAC species are likely to result as the improved water quality downstream of the WwTW i $ likely to increase the amount of available habitat of suitable water quality for these species to colonise.

Table 5.1 below sunini;irises the effects on the cSAC features.

Table 5.1 Summary of significant effects on cSAC features

cSAC Feature Significant effect?

Old oak woodlands

Estuary

Tidal mudflats

Salicornia mudflats

Atlantic salt meadows

Mediterranean salt meadows

No

The survey area is outside the range for old oak woodlands within Ireland'.

No

There is no estuarine habitat within the survey area and the nearest estuary is over 1 OOkm downstream and therefore outside the zone of influence of the proposed works.

No

There is no tidal habitat within the survey area and the nearest tidal reaches are over 1 OOkm downstream and therefore outside the zone of influence of the proposed works.

No

This is an estuarine habitat of which there is none within the survey area as the nearest estuary is over 1 OOkm downstream and therefore outside the zone of influence of the proposed works.

No

This is an estuarine habitat of which there is none within the survey area as the nearest estuary is over 1 OOkm downstream and therefore outside the zone of influence of the proposed works.

No

This is an estuarine habitat of which there is none within the survey area as the nearest estuary is over 1 OOkm downstream and therefore outside the zone of influence of the proposed works.

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

cSAC Feature Significant effect?

Eutrophic tall herb

Nore freshwater pearl mussel

Sea lamprey

Freshwater pearl mussel

Twaite shad

Killarney fern

Alluvial wet woodland

Petrifying springs

Dry heaths

Floating river vegetation

Salmon

River lamprey

No

This habitat is associated with the margins and floodplains of large slow-flowing rivers. The survey area is outside the known range for this habitat within Ireland".

No

This species is restricted to a 1 Okm stretch of the River Nore'.

No

This species does not occur within the upper reaches of the River Barrow and hence is highly unlikely to occur in the stretch alongside the WwTW9 Io.

No

This species occurs in the catchments of three tributaries of the River Barrow (Aughavard River, Mountain River and Ballymurphy River in the southeast of Ireland but not in or downstream of the Barrow at Portarlington" ''1 No

An anadromous species which breeds in the lowest reaches of rivers, therefore restricted to lowest reaches of the River Barrow only.

No

The survey area is outside the range for the Killarney fern in Ireland6.

No

No alluvial west woodland present within survey area

No

No petrifying springs recorded during site survey.

No

No areas of dry heath recorded during site survey

No

Mitigation in place during construction phase to riinimise risk of sediment release, discharge of chemicals, bankside damageidisturbance.

During operational phase effluent standards will be complied with

No

Mitigation in place during construction phase to minimise risk of sediment release, discharge of chemicals, bankside damage/disturbance. Working methods will ensure that the river is passable to fish at all times and a fish rescue will be carried out during iriitial dewatering of working area

During operational phase effluent standards will be complied with, the SRFB recommend a bankside outfall be constructed to enable continued passage. Maintenance operations scheduled for period July to September to avoid sensitive spawning period.

No

Mitigation in place during construction phase to minimise risk of sediment release, discharge of chemicals, bankside damageidisturbance. Working methods will ensure that the river is passable to fish at all times and a fish rescue will be carried out during initial dewatering of working area.

During operational phase effluent standards will be complied with, the SRFB recommend a bankside outfall be constructed to enable continued passage Maintenance operations scheduled for period July to September to avoid sensitive spawning period.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

45

cSAC Feature Significant effect?

Brook lamprey

Otter

No

Mitigation in place during construction phase to minimise risk of sediment release, discharge of chemicals, bankside damageidisturbance. Working methods will ensure that the river is passable to fish at all times and a fish rescue will be carried out during initial dewatering of working area.

During operational phase effluent standards will be complied with, the SRFB recommend a bankside outfall be constructed to enable continued passage Maintenance operations scheduled for period July to September to avoid sensitive spawning period.

No

River suitable for otter but no resting sites within present within survey area. Mitigation in place during construction phase to minimise risk of sediment release, discharge of chemicals, bankside damageidisturbance. Working methods to ensure river passable to otter at all times and all works to be carried out during daylight hours

During operational phase effluent standards will be complied with

White-clawed crayfish No

Mitigation in place during construction phase to minimise risk of sediment release, discharge of chemicals, bankside damageidisturbance. If necessary a crayfish rescue will be carried out during initial dewatering of working area.

During operational phase effluent standards will be complied with. Maintenance operations scheduled for period July to September to avoid sensitive breeding period

Desmoulin's whorl snail No

No Desmoulin's whorl snail habitat to be affected.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

46

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

Appendix 8 River Barrow and River Nore cSAC Synopsis

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

Appendix C River Corridor Survey Map

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

Appendix D Phase 1 Habitat Map

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

Entec

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:56

Appendix E Waste Water Treatment Works in the River Barrow Catchment

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:57

SITE SYNOPSIS

SITE NAME: MOUNTMELLICK

SITE CODE: 002141

This site comprises a disused stretch of the Grand Canal between Dangan’s Bridge and Sheagh Bridge, approximately 3 kni east of Mountmellick i n Co. Laois.

The habitat is fen type vegetation. including Bulrush ( T ~ p l z t r leztifoliti), Reed Sweet- grass (Gljreriti rimrimer) and Yellow Flag (Zris f’.~~~iicl~iL.orii,s). The area west of the bridge has been drained extensively and is now grassland.

The rare snail Vertigo /noi~/iti.sicit7~ was recorded along here in 197 1. The site was visited again in I997 and the species was refound.

Vcrtigo riioi/lirz.sictnci is a glacial relict with a disjunct European population that is considered Vulnerable due to loss of habitat, i n particular, chinage of wetlands. For this reason i t is listed on Annex I1 of the EU Habitats Directive.

I n Ireland, the species is sparsely distributed i n the central lowlands. I t generally lives i t i c al c areou s w c t 1 and s. oft en le tis. Vc rt ig o 117 0 1 / 1 ii I S icir I 11 was form e rl y in (3 re widespread i n the canal area but has disappeared froin most of its recorded sitcs with the dredging and reopening o f canal navigation channels. Restoration of disused sections of canal is ;I threat.

The Mountmellick site is important as i t provides useful habitat for a rclict population of V P r - t ig o 17 1 o i i 1 ir I s itr r ici.

16.9.1999

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:57

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:57

5

I

t 4

.n

t i

\ U

I

t i

-3

r I

"I

. , I '

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:57

I

Y U

, '

,

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:57

T T T T

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:57

T U

1 cn 0

a N

Lc! 0 C

c T

f 2 .2 rr

a C

ul m W

.- CI

CI

C 3

8

s CI E

3

3

- ul z Y C

m

I- a

2 L

Y

(U

ul Y

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 18-05-2012:04:26:57