Upper m y Valley Sewerage Scheme Ertensinn to Osberstorm WMF - Stage 3

Enviromntal Impact Statement Prellmlnary Report for Public Consultation

PART B

Atmraisal of Environmental Effects

MCOS/207501-001/ Rp008 21 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper Liwey Valley Sewerage Scheme Extension to O s k r s t m W P - stage 3

Environmental Impact Statement Preliminary Report for Public Consultation

3. WATER QUALITY - RIVER LIFFEY

3.q. GENERAL

The water quality information presented here is derived from the project report "Receiving Water Study" (December 2000). The only significant change from this report is the inclusion of the year 2000 biological water quallty ratings that were not available at the time of writing of the original report.

3.2. THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

3.2.1. The River Llffey

The River t i e y rises near the Sally Gap in Co. Wicklow and the upper catchment drains a high mountainous area in west Wicklow. The catchment arfa extends as far as Islandbridge (freshwater limit) encompassing an area of approximately 1185 km . Figure 3.1 shows the general land-use and river systems in the atchment.

sp " '

.&.,

At present, Poulaphuca reservoir supports daily abstractions in the order of 240 million litres per day and Dublin Corporation has permission to abstract up to 320 million litres per day for the Dublin region. The reservoirs are managed by the E.S.B. who are responsible for balancing abstraction, power generation, fishery and other interests. The reservoir also supports significant hating and other amenity activities.

The upper Lifley and Kings River catchments were impounded by a dam at Poulaphuca in the 1940's to form a major reservoir {the Blessington LakeslPoulaphuca reservoir) that now services hydroelectric generation by the E.S.B. and major water abstraction by Dublin Corporation for the Dubtin region. The Golden Falls reservoir is a smaller balancing reservoir downstream, which limits the maximum discharge (apart from overflow spills), to 30 rnk, with a continuous compensation flow release of 1.5 m3/s. The major town in the upper catchment is Blessington, the effluent from which is treated and discharged downstream of Poulaphuca to Golden Falls reservoir.

I I.

MCOS1207-501-0011 RpOO8 22 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

I81 E

%i

0 1 m N

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper LMey Valley *rage Seheme Extension to Osberstmn WWTP - Stage 3

Environmental Impact Statement Prellmlnary Report for Publlc Consultation

Downstream of Golden Falls, the River Liffey flows in a westerly direction to Kilcullen and then northwesterly through the Curragh to Newbridge 6etween Golden Falls and Kitcullen, the natural channel flow is effectively regulated by the impoundment discharge, with base flows equivalent to the compensation release. In summertime, following fishery representations, the E.S.B. discharge freshets in order to improve water quality and fishery conditions. Notable tributaries in this section include the Lemonstown and Kilcullen streams that flow northward to join the main channel near Kilcullen. The Lemonstown and Kilcullen stream5 drain a predominately agricultural area composed mainly of pasture and silage land-uses. After Newbridge it turns northeasterly towards Naas and

Osberstown, incorporating the Awillyinish stream from the Caragh area, and the Naas stream just downstream of the WWTP discharge. The middle LifFey catchment between Golden Falls and Leixlip comprises a flat, fertile plain with deep glacial deposits overlying limestone rock generally. The area has substantial groundwater storage (Curragh Aquifer) with significant exchange between groundwater and river flows. tt has relatively low r u n 4 response to rainfall due to the gravel aquifers in central Kildare. 1 The river continues to Celbridge and Leixlip and thereafter flows in a generally easterly direction to Islandbridge, from where it is tidal through Dublin, discharging to Dublin Bay. The river is impounded at Leixlip, though storage volume is small, and the E.S.B. also

manage a hydropower station at this site. Since the 19608, Leixlip has been developed a3 a substantial source of water abstraction, notably for north Kildare, Fingal and the northern environs of Dublin City. At present, the abstraction rate at Leixlip is in the order of 140 million litres per day and a maximum figure of 175 million litredday can be achieved.

: I

3.2.2. Evaluation of water quality

This section presents the biological and physico-chemical water quality characteristics of the L i e y in the area upstream and downstream of the Ost>erstwvn discharge, using results available to December 2000.

The EPA carried out biological monitoring of the River Liffey in 199518 and 1998. In 1999 and 2000 biological monitoring was carried out on behalf of the Three Rivers Project by Conservation Services Ud. at selected sites throughout the catchment. Physico-chemical water quality data has been analysed for the years 1998-2000 for a number of monitoring stations upstream and downstream of the outfall at Osberstown. The water quality data used was provided by Dublin Corporation Central Laboratory on behalf of Fingal County Council (FCC), and also by the Three Rivers Project.

The monitoring stations in the vicinity of the outfall are shown in

MCOS1207-501-0011 Rp008 24 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper LHfey Valley Sewrage Scheme Extension to O B k r s M M P - Stage 3

Environmental lmpad Statement Preliminary Report for Public Consultatlm

Figure 3.2 . The stations considered are (upstream and downstream of the efftuent discharge);

Upstream sites: Victoria Bridge (Liffey main channel), Awillyinish (Caragh) Stream (tributary), FCC Upstream {Liffey)

Downstream sites: Castlekeely Ford (Liffey), Naas Stream (tributary), Leinster Aquaduct (Liffey), and Millicent Bridge (Lfiey).

MCOs1207-501-0011 RpOO8 25 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper LWy Valley -rage Scheme E&n6h to O S b e M m WMP * S w 3

Environmental Impact Statement Preliminary Report for Public Consultation

Figure 3.2 Water quality monitoring stations in the vicinity of the WWTP dfscharge

Key: Three Rivers Project monitoring site $ Fingal monitoring site + Presummer 2000 WWrP pipeoutfall 4- Post-summer 2000 WWTP diffuserdischarge

The two main water quality standards considered are the EPA1 limits (detailed in Appendix A, Table A3) and the Salmonid Regulations (Appendix A, Table A2). These standards are the most restrictive in terms of limits, and are consistent with preserving good ecological status in the river, and hence protect at1 other interests and uses. The standards for bathing waters are used for assessing faed coliforms limits.

3.2.3.

Table 3.1 below shows the biological assessment Q-rating for the various sites.

Biological water quality in the Llffey In the vicinity of Osberstown

Key: [Q5, Q4-5, Q4J = unpolluted, 1Q3-41 = slightly polluted, IQ3, Q2-31 = moderately pduted, fless than or equal to Q2] = seriously polluted Key: [Q5, Q4-5, Q4J = unpolluted, 1Q3-41 = slightly polluted, IQ3, Q2-31 = moderately pduted, fless than or equal to Q2] = seriously polluted

Threshold limits used by the EPA in assessing impaired water quality in Irish rivers

MCOS207-501-0011 Rp008 26 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper Liffey Valley Sewrage Seherne Extension to Osberstwvn M P - Stage 3

Environmental Impact Statement Preliminary Reporl f o r Public Consultation

The Q-values show that Victoria Bridge is currently classed as unpolluted (upstream of the Osberstown discharge), but this quality declines to slightly polluted at Castlekeely Ford (downstream of the Osberstown discharge). The rating at Castlekeely Ford has been improving over the fast three years from seriousty polluted during 1998 to moderately polluted in 1999 and the current slight pollution rating. Millicent Bridge (further downstream) was classed as moderately polluted during 1998. Both of the sites downstream of the Osberstown discharge have shown significant decline in water quality from the 951% survey to 1998 and 1999 values. The two tributaries Awillyinish and Naas streams both show moderately polluted ratings during 1999 and 2000.

3.2.4. Physicochemical water quality of the Liffey in the vicinity of Osberstown

Fingal County Council monitoring data at 'FCC Upstream" and Leinster Aquaduct are assessed for the period January 1998-July 2000. Grab samples were taken at varying frequency from daily to weekly. For the period midJuly to November 1999 there are no results available for the site at Leinster Aquaduct. The samples were analysed for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Molybate Reactive Phosphorus (MRP), Ammonia, Total Oxidised Nitrogen (TON), Suspended Solids, Dissolved Oxygen (DO % saturation), Faecal colifoms, Nitrite and Nitrate.

Data was available from January to September 2000 for the five Three Rivers Project sites. Grab samples were generally taken weekly. The following parameters were analysed: DO (% saturation), MRP, Ammonia and TON. It should be noted that BOD is not measured as part of the Three Rivers Project, as it is a nutrient focussed prqect with a primary interest in eutrophication.

Table 3.2 presents statistical characteristics of the water quality at the sites in relation to water quality standards. Figures 3.3-3.6 graph the parameters MRP and ammonia during 2000 for the sites.

Upstream of the WWTP, the Liffey main channel shows characteristics of an unpolluted water, consistent with the biological Q-rating results. All parameters except nitrite are within median standard limits, and values are also generally within maximum standard limits. Nitrite limits set in the Salmonid Regulations were exceeded during 1998 and 1999 at FCC Upstream, and were exceeded five times during 2000. However, nitrite levels higher than the specified standard are common in Irish rivers, and are not necessarily an indication of poor water quality.

MCOS1207-501-001 I Rp008 27 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

P

0 I lz

U

PD N

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upwr Lifky Valley Sewrage Scheme Extension to Osberstown WAW - Stage 3

Environmental tmpaet Statement Preliminary Report for PuMic Consultation

hlotes (for Table 3.2) -1. Sifes have a varying number of samples from month to month and in each year 2. Data in ZOO0 spans either January to JuIy (FCC sites) or January to September (Three Rivers Project sites) 3. The maximum limits for BOD and Nitrite are taken from "Standards for Salmonid Waters', S.I. No. 293 of 199B (Appendix A, Table A2). Conformance to standard is defined by maximum allowable concentration at either 95 or 100 percentiles (depending on sample frequency). 4. The median BOD limit Is also taken from the above reference, but considers that the (therein stated) €.U. Guidance limit can be used as an indicative median. 5. Parameters Nitrate, #itrite, Ammonia, TON] are in mgn of hi, [MRP] is in mgA of P 6. '3s" = suspended solids, *F. Coli" = faecal cdirormms (No. per 1 OUml) 7. BOD values CwId not be detected when less than 2 I@, hence the actual median values would likely be less than shown above 8. The "No. samples max limit 2 W " fw DO refers to values below the 711% satumtfon standard limit 9. Values exceeding prescribed ltmh are shown in bold

The tributary Awillyinish Stream (or Caragh Stream) shows water quality characteristics indicative of moderate to serious pollution. The ammonia load from this stream would appear likely to be the cause of the increase in ammonia levels at the FCC Upstream site on the Liffey, just before the WWrP (the ammonia levels double in the L f f e y after the Awillyinish enters).

The parameters nitrate, TON, DO, and SS are all within standard limits (where available), and do not change significantly from upstream to downstream of the WWTP. BOD was not measured during 2000 due to the difficulties in measuring BOD values below 2.0 mgll. A value of less than 2.0 mg/l is also consistent with the decreasing trend evident from the previous years. Thus both 1999 and 2000 median values for BOD at Leinster Aquaduct of 2.0 mgA are within standard limits. There is little differenoe between nitrite values upstream and downstream of the plant, although it must be pointed out that the median value increases from slightly below to slightly above standard limits. It is also noteworthy that nitrite values increase significantly from Castlekeely Ford to Leinster Aquaduct, most likely due to the conversion of ammonia to nitrite over this stretch of river. The faecal coliform count increases significantly from upstream to downstream of the plant. The bathing waters standard maximum limit was exceeded in two thirds of samples taken downstream of the plant (at Leinster Aquaduct} during 2000, although it must be recognised that whilst the waters in this area are used for bathing and water-contact sports, they are not designated bathing waters.

The evaluation of water quality monitoring results will concentrate on MRP and ammonia as the critical parameters. The median MRP value for the period upstream of the plant discharge (FCC Upstream) is 0.01 mg/l, increasing to 0.125 mgll downstream of the plant discharge (Castlekeely Ford). The median ammonia value for the period is 0.03 mgll upstream, and 0.152 mg/l downstream of the plant discharge.

These downstream values are indicative of polluted waters, consistent with the biological Grating results. However, the effluent characteristics changed significantly from July onwards in 2000, with lower MRP and ammonia discharge levels.

Figures 3.3 and 3.4 shows the water quality values for MRP and ammonia upstream and downstream of the plant discharge for the period January 2000 to October 2000. This clearly shows the significant decrease in ammonia discharge during the period July 2000 onwards. The MRP values for Castlekeely Ford decrease signikantly during the last three samples from mid-September to Early October 2000, suggesting a possible effect of the tower effluent load combined with increased Row in the river (post summer low flows).

MCOS1207-601-0011 Rp008 29 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper LiWey Valley Sewerage Scheme Extension to Osberstown W P - Stage 3

Environmental Impact Statement Preliminary Report for Public Consultatian

Figure 3.3 MRP levels upsbeam and downstream of Werstown

0.5 0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3 F E 0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

--5 FCC Upstream

31-Dec-9~ 19-FeMO 09-Apr-00 2SMay-00 18Jul-OO WSepOO 26-Oct-00

month

Figure 3.4 Ammonla levels upsbeam and downmam of -&own

+ FCC upstream

WDec-99 25Jak00 15-Mar-00 WMay-00 23-Jun-00 12-AugoO 01-oct-00 20-NoUOO

month

3.2.5.

Both physicochemical and biological monitoring results indicate that the River Liffey upstream of the Osberstown outfall is unpolluted.

With regard to achieving the objectives of the Phosphorus Regulations downstream of the effluent discharge, the target quality index for 2007 at Castlekeely Ford is Q4 (from Q34 during 1995/96). The current water quality in the Liffey downstream of the plant shows nutrient levels that are either within specified limits or consistent with the values in the Liffey upstream of the plant, except for MRP and ammonia values. The decrease in effluent ammonia values post-July 2000 has lead to a significant decrease in river ammonia levels, to acceptable values. The decrease in MRP effluent loads may also result in a decrease in river MRP levels, but there was no firm evidence of this at the time of writing this report.

Conclusions on the water quality of the Liffey in the vicinity of Osberstown

MCOS1207-501-0011 R m 8 30 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper uffey Valley Sewwage Scheme Extension to Osberstown WWlF - Stage 3

Environmental Impact Statement Preliminary Report for PuMlc Consultation

3.3. LtKELY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

The water quality impacts of the proposed new extension were evaluated in assimilative capacity terms, considered for the parameters BOO, MRP, ammonia, suspended solids (SS) and TON. There are no standard limits for nitrate, and nitrite values indicate very little difference between upstream and downstream values, rendering it difficult to recommend effluent nitrite limits. Oaytime DO levels are considered a poor indication of river ecological status. Compliance with the parameters listed above is considered a M t e r target than daytime DO compliance.

The baseline conditions in regad to water quality have been described. Table 3.3 below shows the current assimilative capacity of the L i y , calculated by conformance with standards and targets. Two scenarios with respect to assimilative capacity are considered. The first scenario is where a median target standard is applicable, and is calculated using median flows (50-percentile). The second scenario occurs at the low flow 95-percentile in the river, where effluent loads must not Cause exceedance of the assimilative capacity of the river as calculated using the upper-end standard limits (EPA maximum limits and Salmonid Regulations 95% conformance limit). In this case, analysis of influent Rows indicate that high effluent flow values (in excess of 80-percentile), which only tend to occur during rainfall events, are extremely unlikely to occur simultaneously with the low flow 95- percentile in the river. Together, the probability that a low flow 95-percentile in the river occurs at the same time as an 80-percentile effluent flow is estimated at 1 %.

Conformance to a standard (limit) is thus taken as follows:

1. Median effluent load [parameter] at 50-percentile river flow must not exceed the median concentration standard (e.g. €PA standards), and must not exceed the Salmonid Regulations 95% conformance limit.

2. 8@perCenfd8 sfflusnt load [parameter] at 95percentile river flow must not exceed the maximum concentration standard (e.g. EPA standards), and must not exceed the Salmonid Regulations 95% conformance limit.

The formulae used are thus:

[parameter] Assimilative capacity - at Median (kgld) = (S, - C,) x 50-percentile Row

[parameter] Assimilative capacity - at maximum (kgld) = (Smm - CuJ x 95-percentile flow

where: Sm = median limit standard for that parameter (concentration) S, = maximum limit standard for that parameter (concentration) C., = concentration upstream of effluent discharge

Table 3.3 Assimilative capacity of the Liffey at Oskrstown

. -immonia SS TOW . - ,

t-1 w (WdI (Wd) (btW sCelKtri6

Median load limit 390 7.8 27 5830 1575

Maximum load 620 29.0 56 3100 1165

-

3.3.1.

The current treatment plant design and EIS were carried out prior to the 1998 phosphorus regulations and the effluent standards and water quality objectives were somewhat different from those used in this assessment. The current plant was therefore examined in relation to this new standard and particularly in relation to the 'good ecological quality" aspect of current water quality objectives. Table 3.4 shows a comparison of assimilative capacity against the design effluent loads from the WWTP at the current 60,000 PE, and at the design 80,000 PE.

tmpact of the current WWTP

MCOS1207-501-0011 R p W 32

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper LiWey Valley Sewrage Scheme Extension to O s h r s t m M P - Stage 3

Environmental Impact Statement Preliminary Report for Public Consultatim

3.2.6. Rlver L i y flow at Osberstown

There is very scant flow data available for the Middle Liffey catchment area. Kildare County Council are in the prmess of commissioning a flow station at Osberstown. Nonetheless, there is currently no hydrometric station with a good rating between Golden Falls and Leixlip. Therefore, the estimation of flow5 at Osberstown used the available information in ESBl's "River Lifky Water Supply Model Studym2, and the Li-fky Water Quallty Management Plan3 (WQMP). Reference is also made to the analysis carried out as part of the design of the current (Stage 2) plant4.

Baseflows in the middle Liffey are effectively determined by the releases at Golden Falls dam. The minimum (compensation) Roy released at Golden Falls is 1 .5m3/s. The ESB generator at Golden Falls releases a fixed flow of 30m Is during generation. The generation duration is approximately 7-8 hours at a time with an interval of 5 8 hoursFetween runs, to prevent sudden flooding downstream. In the summer, the normal discharge of 1.5m Is is occasionally supplemented by short high flow discharges or freshets. These are usually released by ESB in liaison with the Marine Institute and Eastern Region Fisheries Board and are designed to protect fishery conditions in the river.

Data from the WQMP at Newbridge and Clane hydrometric stations imply flows at Osberstown of 4.7, 3.3, and 2.2 m3/s for the 50-percentile, 70-percentile, and gfr-percentile flows, respectively (including compensation flows). Analysis in the WWTP Stags II EtS report indicates a %-percentile flow of 2.42 m3/s (also derived from WQMP data). These figures suggest that the low flows in the middle catchment are very small when compensation flow is excluded. The ESBl derivd flows at Osberstown were calculated from the Pollaphuca infbyhufflow data, proportioned by area only. The derived ESBl data gives flows of 4.3 m3/s and 1.2 m /s for the 50-percentile and 70-percentile flows (the 95- percentile could not be calculated). The ESBl derived low flows at Osberstown would not seem to be accurate, as flows at and below the 70-percentile are less than the known compensation flow of 1.5 rn3ts.

The abstraction licenses at Pollaphuca and Leixtip allow for a further BO ML and 35 ML, respectively, over current abstraction rates. Given the expansion and demand for water in the Dublin and outlying regions, it is foreseeable that low flows in the middle Lfley will continue to be dominated by the compensation flow discharged at Pollaphuca. The ESBI report outlines that abstractions at these license limits would necessitate special discharges from Pollaphuca to augment Leixlip inflows (on average every fwe days), and would place restrictions on power generation at Pollaphuca. It is thus concluded that dry-season discharges (other than compensation flow) will be further restricted and sporadic, and cannot be included in any assessment of low flows.

3.2.7. Flows at Osberstown - Concluslons

The figures adopted for the purpose of this study are the average of the ES8l and WQMP flows for the 50-percentile, and the figures derived from WQMP values for the 70-percentile and 95-prc;entile flows, as follows:

50-percenti1e flow: 4.5 mz/s 70-percentile flow: 3.7 m Is 95-percentile flow: 2.4 m3/s

River Liffey Water Supply Model Study, July 1996, ESB International. Draft Water Qualrty Management Plan - The Liffey Catchment, May 1993 Update (ERU), An Foras

Osberstown Waste Water Treatment Works. Preliminary Report and Estimate. Volume 1, September

3

Forbartha.

1995. John B. Barry and Partners Limited, Dublin.

4

31 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper LiWey Valley Sewrage Scheme Extension to Oskrstown WWTP - Stage 3

Envimnmental Impact Statement Preliminary Report for Public Consultation.

Table 3.4 Assimilative capacity versus WWTP load

Current Plant 80k PE -at 80% flow I 402 1 20 1 I 18.1* I 937 I 549 I Notes: 1. The upstream BOD for median and maximum is assumed to be 2 0 mgA 2. All other upstream values am based on year 2000 water qual@ data 3. The load from the current plant at dwf (dry weather #ow) IS calculated at the destgn specificatmn

standard (concentration} for that parameter, or for MRP at 84% of the specrlied standard for TP (based on the observed 8ffluenf MRP/TP relattmship) "80%" refem to the 8&psrcentI/8 #ow at the current plant of 17,844 ms/d at 60k PE, estimated 26,800 m3/d at &Ok PE * ammom IS nol a design eft7uent standard for the cumnt plant, current plant (June to Oct 2000) has a median ammonia value of 0. I mg7 and a normal maximum value of 0.6 tr&M

4

5

The effluent loads are generally M o w assimilative capacity for both 60,000 and 80,000 PE loads, with the exception of phosphorus, which is significantly in excess of the assimilative capacity at both PE loads. It must be noted, however, that loads during the assessment (July to October 2000) were signifEantly below the effluent design limits. The median MRP effluent concentration was 0.33 mgll during the process functioning period in SepternberlOctober 2000, which would equate to approximately 77% of the available assimilative capacity. The daily MRP load was less than the assimilative capacity for 60% of the time. The condition where the plant discharges into low flow in the Liffey (95-percentile) is within limits for MRP.

It is therefore concluded that the current plant will not be consistent with the water quality objectives for the Liffey unless median MRP effluent discharge loads remain significantly below the allowable design limits. The current plant at 80,000 PE would have to achieve a median MRP effluent concentration of approximately 0.39 mgll to be within the assimilative capacity of the L e y .

3.3.2.

Table 3.5 shows the capacity remaining in terms of PE under current treatment standards, and for the conditions specified in the accompanying notes. The critical (limiting) parameter is phosphorus. Under the current effluent standard for phosphorus, there is no scope to increase the WWrP load.

Scope for increasing the WWTP load

MCOSIZ07-501-0011 Rp008 33 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper Ldfey Valley Sewerage Scheme Extension to Osberstm WWTP - Stage 3

Enviromntal Impact Statement Preliminary Report for Public COnSUbtaCOn

BOD MRP Ammonia SS TON ? . WE)- (PE) - (PE) (PE) 1 (PE) -i

Lapacity remaining abwe 80k PE - dwf flowlload, current treatment 32k 0 nlr nlr nlr standard Capacity remaining above 80k PE - 80% flowhad, current treatment 59k 30k nlr 250k 123k standard

- --

2. Capacw remaining (PE) is based on new connections at f70 M d dwf; existing connectims have an existing dwF of 227 PM, all new connections are assumed to be restricted to a maximum IIow of 225 W m , all existing and new PE aSSumed t0 be treafed to the same eft%~ent concentr8tions as the CufEnt design standads

Any increase in PE load to the WWTP would have to meet one of the following criteria:

1. A decrease in effluent standard limits for phosphorus, and the setting of both median and 95- percentile limits for TP and BOD.

2. Influent TP and MRP load reduction - urban phosphorus reduction strategies

3. A combination of both the above.

It rney also be noted that the current treatment standards would limit capacity to 112,000 PE under BOD load conditions. However, it must again k considered that the median effluent load is much less than that calculated at the design effluent standard limit.

State of the art effluent standards State of the art BATNEEC technology can currently achieve TP effluent concentrations of 0.3 mgll and 0.4 mgll at median and maximum levels, respectively. This technology would allow an estimated maximum of 134,000 PE.

Recommended phosphorus effluent standards and design PE It is recommended that a more conservative effluent standard for phosphorus is adopted for an upgraded plant at Osberstown, of 0.35 mgll and 0.9 mgA TP at median and 95 percentile maximum. These TP values are consistent with achieving target standards for MRP based on the obsewed average relationship where MRP equals 84% of TP. These effluent standards allow an increased factor of safety, and correspond to a plant mpacity of 130,000 PE.

Influent TP and MRP load reduction The phosphorus load to the plant could be reduced by implementing urban phosphorus reduction strategies. A single effective strategy could be to prohibit the sale and use of detergents containing phosphates. It is presently unclear what reduction in load is achievable using this strategy.

3.3.3. Water qualm impact - conclusion

It is concluded that the assimilated capacity of the Liffey is restricted by allowable phosphorus concentrations in the river, and that the maximum safe capacity of an upgraded WWTP plant is 130,000 PE under the recommended limits for phosphorus discharge.

The setting of appropriate effluent qualrty standards derived from the most restrictive receiving water quality standards and directives will ensure that the River Liffey is protected. The improved effluent standards will have a positive impact on the river water quality. These improved conditions should assist towards meeting the Phosphorus Regulations targets in 2007, but would be dependent on when

MCOS1207-501 -MI11 RpO08 34 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper Liffey Valley Sewerage Scheme Extension to Osberstom W P - Stage 3

Environmental Impact Statement Preliminary Report for Public Consultation

the extension is commissioned, and maintaining the current unpolluted characteristics upstream of the plant.

3.4. MITIGAllONAND RESIDUAL IMPACTS - RECOMMENDED PARAMETERS FOR EFFLUENT STANDARDS

The adoption of design standard limits for median load as well as the normal %-percentile load is recommended. It is important that river water quality is protected both by limiting the median level of a nutrient or other substance, which protects the overall ecological health of the river, and by limiting the maximum level of a nutrient or other substanm, a breach of which could cause a pollution incident (e.g. BOD or ammonia).

It is thus recommended that the effluent concentration limits detailed Table 3.6 are adopted in the design of a new treatment plant. The recommendations either use the assimilative capacity basis, or the design limits for the current plant, whichever is the lesser. These are general recommendations covering concentration only, and must be specified in more detail to set actual effluent standards for a new plant (depending on agreed DWFlstorm flows and conditions).

An additional parameter that should be considered is faecal colifoms, particularly to protect the major water abstraction at Leixlip. There is no data available on faecal coliforms in the current plant effluent. It is recommended that this effluent parameter be measured, and consideration given to appropriate measures to ensure that this parameter falls within acceptable standards. This would also protect the amenity value of this stretch of river.

The residual impact of these measures wilt arise from a relatwely constent source of pollutants discharged as effluent from the plant. The impact is predicted to be an improvement over the current (Stage 11) plant and is predicted to be mnsistent with water quality targets for the Liffey.

rds (concentrations) Table 3.6 Recommended parameters for effluent stand

I Current Phase II Plant- 95-percentlle limlt

tw - 15 BOD I 10 15

COD 125

0.9

125

TP 0.35 0.9

Ammonia 0.9 1.5 none

35

20

25

35

20.05

25

4.95

ss

TON

I TN

Kjeldahl N 5

MCOS1207-~1-0011 R@D8 35

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper Liffgr Valley -rage Scheme Extension to h&rstow W P - Stage 3

Environmental Impact Statement Preliminary Report for Public Consultation

4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

4.1. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

There has been unprecedented devetopment pressure on all the counties surroundina the Dublin area

#

I

in the past 6 years. The deklopment of the national road network, availability of high quali train sewice5 and zoning of land for industrial and commercial development to provide sustainable employment for new populations in the county, has resulted in a significantly increased demand for sewerage facilities. This development is consistent with the Strategic Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin region.

Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of this repoFt presented the existing and future population estimates for Kildare as a whole and the Osberstown catchment. The population of Kildare has increased from approximately 86,000 in 1966 to an estimated 155,000 by 2001, i.e. and increase of 135% or 2.5% per annum.

Figure 4.1 Kildare Population

200000

150000 C 0 ; 1M3000 n 0 0 50000

0

. -

1 - 1 - 1 - 1 I

t966 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021

Year

There was particularly significant growth during the periods 1966-1988 (3.8% p.a.) and 1996-2001 (3% p.a.). Forecasts to 2021 predict growth of 1% p.a. to a total of 186,000.

The Oskstown catchment currently includes Naas, Newbridge, Kilcullen, Walshestmvn, Kill, Johnstown, Clane, Prosperous, and parts of Athgarvan and Caragh. The population was an estimated 45,500 during 2000. The projected new connection and new development would result in approximately one-third of the county being connected to Osberstown. These urban centres therefore represent a significant portion of the urban population, industrial activity, and commercial aspects of the county.

MCOS1207-501-0011 Rp008 36 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper Ldfey Valley Sewerage Scheme Extension to Osberstwvn M P - Stage 3

Environmental Impact Statement Prellrnlnary Report for Public Consultstion

There is significant industry in the catchment, equivalent to some 15,000 population in terms of effluent load, and including a wide range of industries from food (e.g. QK Cold Stores) to metal working (e.g. Newbridge Cutlery). The majority of these industries discharge their effluent to the Osbemtown plant.

Kildare is the main area in Iretand for the bloodstock industry, including three major racecourses - the Curragh, Naas, and Punchestown, and also contains a significant number of stud farms. The industry supports both direct employment and tourismlcommercial activity.

4.2. LIKELY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

The proposed new extension is designed to cater for the wastewater treatment needs of the Upper Lrffey Valley area in County Kildare for the period to at least the year 201 8. The increased capacity of an upgraded plant will allow sustainable socio-economic development in regard to population growth and commercial and industnal development in both the two main centres of Naas and Newbridge, and aid the continued prosperity and development of the smaller towns and villages of Kilcullen, Walshestown, Athgawan, Caragh, Kill, Johnstown, Sallins, Clane, Prosperous, and the greater Curragh area.

This area has good infrastructure with the N7 dual-camageway and M71M9 motorway providing high capaclty routes. This will be further augmented by the proposed new M7 extension towards Dublin, and various improvement schemes throughout the area, such as the Clane bypass. This infrastructure is essential in the dective development of the area, particularly with regard to industrial and commercial transport issues.

Section 2.4 details projected growth in the catchment from the current 45,500 population, 7,500 commercial PE, and 15,000 industrial PE, towards a total of between 111,000 and 135.000 PE by 2021 (IOW and high envelopes). This would comprise an increase in population to between 77,000 and 82,500 with corresponding increases in commercial activity, and an increase in industrial activities to between 34,500 and 52,500 PE. The current WWTP is expected to be at design capacity between 2003 and 2005. Therefore, sustainable growth in the catchment is dependant on increased wastewater treatment capacity.

In summary, the proposed extension to the treatment works is a key component in the continued sustainable development of the Lower LifFey Valley area. This development will comprise increased populations in all the towns and villages in the area, related commercial and industrial activity, and increased employment and prosperity. It is concluded that the proposed extended plant will have a significant positive impact on the sociseconomics of the area.

4.3. MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS There are no mitigation measures required in this regard, nor any residual impacts predicted

___ _"

MCOS1207-501-001 I Rp008 37 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper L i y Valley Sewerage Scheme Extendon to Osberstown Wwm - Stage 3

Environmental Impact Statement Preliminary Report for Public Consultation

5. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT

6.1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to appraise the existing landscape of the application site and its wider setting, to assess the likely impacts arising from the proposed development and describe the proposed mitigation measures

6.2. METHODOLOGY

5.2.1. Introduction

The basis of the assessment follows the DraR Guidelines on the infomatbn to be contained in Envirvnmntal impact Statemenfs (Environmental Protection Agency, 1995) and the assessment itself entailed: -

W

5.2.2.

Visiting the area during September and preparing a photographic record of views and landscape features.

Undertaking a desk study of the site in relation to its local and regional significance.

Studying aerial photography (vertical and oblique) and 1:50,000 and 1:10,560 (6") scale 03. maps of the area, and topographical maps of the application site.

Reviewing the detailed plans, elevations, sections and photomontages of the various options proposed for the scheme.

Preparing cross sections through key areas of the site and its surroundings and reviewing site photography to determine the zone of visual influence of the proposals

Predicting winter screening conditions based upon prior knowledge of the locality

Aspects of Impact

Impact on the landscape arising from development has two distinct but closely related aspects. This first is impact in the form of change to the character of the landscape and the consequential responses which may be felt towards the combined effects of the new development. The significance of these will partially depend on how people perceive a particular landscape and how much the changes wifl matter in relation to other senses i.e. sound, feelings etc. as experienced and valued by those concerned. The second aspect, visual impact, in contrast to character impact is less subjective. Visual impact occurs by means of intrusion andlor obstruction, where visual intrusion is impact within a view without blocking it, and visual obstruction is impact on a view involving full or substantial blocking thereof.

5.2.3. Significance Criteria

Whenever appropriate the following terms are used to describe the degree, quality and duration of an impact: -

a Imperceptible/No Impact - arises where the development proposal is either distant or adequately screened by existing landform, vegetation or built environment.

MCM07-501-0011 Rp008 38 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper Why Valley Sawrage Scheme Extension to O s k m t m WVP - Staae 3

Enviromntal Impact Slatemenl Preliminary Report for Public Consultation

Slight Impact - arises where views affected by the proposal form onty a small element in the overall panorama, or where there is a small change in the character of the area.

a Moderate lmpacl - arises where an appreciable segment of the panorama is affected, where there is an intrusion in the foreground or where there is a noticeable change in the character of the area.

a Significant impact - arises where the views are affected, obstructed or dominated to such a degree that the proposal becomes the focus of the viewer's attention. A significant impact on character arises where there I5 a substantial alteration in the character of an area but the essential experience of the original character remains.

+ Profound Impad - arises where a significant view is completely obscured or altered or where the character of an area has been completely changed.

Note: Adoderate impacts have been included in the scale of impacts to cover the substantial gap between slight and sunificant impacts as they relate to landscape assessment.

Moderate impacts are not included in fhe EPA Glossary of Impacts.

Terms used to describe the quality of change: -

Negative Impact - A change which reduces the quatrty of the visual environment OF adversely affects the character of the landscape.

0 Neutral lmpact- A change which does not effect the quality of the landscape.

Positive Impact - A change which improves the quality of the environment.

Terms used to describe the duration of impact : - a Temporary Impact - Impact lasting for one year or less.

Short Term Impact - Impact lasting for one to seven years.

Medium Term impact - Impact lasting for seven to twenty years

w Long Term Impact - Impact lasting twenty to fifty years

a Permanent Impact - Impact lasting over fifty years

5.3.

5.3.1.

EXISTING LANDSCAPE

Site Context

The site is just over 1 kilometre north-west of Naas in the townland of Osberstown, County Kildare (Sea Site Context - Fig. 5.3) It is ImaW between the Sailins to Halverstown Road and the Naas By- pass section of the M7 Dublin to Limerick Road. The River Liffey flows eastwards past the site, less than 75 metres from the north-west boundary.

The site is presently the location of the Osberstown Waste Water Treatment Plant, which was significantly upgraded in 2000 incorporating four large capacity CASS treatment basins and an enclosed sludge treatment system. Further devetopments over the past number of years include an upgraded enclosed sludge removal system and the installation of four large capacity CASS treatment basins. The site has an area of some 12.5 hectares. The site, though locally variable, is generally flat and lies between 70 and 90 rn. O.D. in elevation.

Locally, the site is conspicuous within this relatively level, undramatic landscap because of the presence of the existing Osberstown Treatment Plant, its proximity to the M7 and because of its

MCOS1.207-501-0011 Rp008 39 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

U p p r Mey Valley Sewerage Scheme Exknsion to Osberataw WYYTP - Stage 3

Enviromntal lmpad Statement Preliminary Report for Public Consultation

association with the nearby River Ltffey. The Naas By-pass section of the Dublin-Limerick Motorway (M7) is the dominant feature of the surrounding landscape with its vehicular traffrc particularly noticeable within this relatively flat landscape.

Sixty two residential propedies are located within I krn of the site boundary. The majority of these properties are clustered on either side of a cut de sac north of the site and along the Sallins to Halverstown Road

Though impacted by the Motonrvay, the prevailing rural character is due in large part to the expansive flat agricultural landscape and the added diversity of hedgerow and tree groups and the River Liffey. This rural character is however, compromised by the presence of the M7, the existing Osberstown Treatment Plant and the increasing development of scattered residential property in the wider area. The commencement of the construction of the Millenium Park development across the M7 to the east of the site will eventually be a dominant feature of the landscape in the medium term.

5.3.2. Significance

The current Kildare County Development Plan (1999) does not designate any specific visual - landscape status to the area of the proposed development. However, the Development Plan indicates that the Liiey at Osberstown (Site Ccde 01305) is a Proposed National Heritage Area and that Kildare Co. Co. has an objective . . .Yo ensure the protection of this type of area fo exclude from them any fype of development thet would be inimica/ to the preservatbn of their sssentid characteristics”.

The potential negative visual impact of the proposed development on the River Liffey is minimized by the existing strong intervening roadside hedgerow and the planted berm. In the future the negative impact will be further reduced by the proposal for increased mixed planting on the open land between the berm and the new site installations. Also included in this development are measures which will lead to further improvements in the quallty of the water of the River Liffey.

The Development Plan also classifies major areas of High Amenity (Sec. 2.23) and this includes the Valley of the River Liffey. “The council recognises the great amenity and recreational value of the River m y to the county and #?e re~b~, and also its functions in relation to electrical power genetation and as a clean water source for development areas. The river valley is cnnsidered an important tourist attraction, the mein recreational uses being fishing, earning, swimming and picnicking.

The I999 Development Plan list Views and Prospects which are to be preserved and they include views of the River Lfiey from all relevant bridges in Co. Kildare. Carragh Bridge is 1.5kms. from the site and there is no visual connedion between the site and the bridge and therefore the site will not impact on views from this bridge.

6.4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5.4.1. Impacting Features

The proposed development is described fully in Section 2. The design of the proposed plant to be constructed will likely be based on a ‘design and build” or ‘design and build and operate” tendering process. There are four separate options proposed and there are some similarities between the various options. (Plans for the four options are contained in the Appendix - Figs. 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7).

All four options include the construction of Sand Filten. These are approximately 5m tall, similar in height to the existing 5m high CASS Basins on the site. If a continuous sand filter system is u d it could result in a building height of 10m high. Options 1 and 4 specify CASS Basins similar to those existing on site. Option 3 using Bio-Filters would result in a building height of 7m tall.

0

M C O ~ M - ~ I -MI/ RpW8 40 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper LMey Valley Sewerage Scheme Extenslon to Oaberstown W P - Staae 3

EnvironmenEal Impact Statement Pretiminarv Rewrt fw Public Consultation

In summary the four options would not result in the construction of structures that were any higher than those within the existing plant.

5.4.2. Impacting Features - TemporarylShort Term

The construction of the proposed development over an approximate period of twelve months will also give rise to impacts relating to:-

* The creation of a construction compound and associated site offices close to the existing site entrance.

0 The perimeter fences of the enclosures will provide screening to the materials storage and activities within. The impact of the fences will be slight - moderate within the overall context of the wider construction site.

The movement of up to 50 vehicles per day and construction activity. It is estimated that up to 75% of movements will be heavy g o d s vehicles. These, together with general construction activity will have a signikant, negative visual impact on the Satlins I Halvefitown Road to the junction with the Carragh I Naas Rd. and the Carragh I Naas Rd. into Naas

5.4.3.

In landscape terms the proposed development will impact in varying degrees upon three inter-related aspects, namely:

Likely Effects of the P r o p a l

e

a the existing views, and; rts recreational amenity.

the perceived character of the area;

5.4.3.1 Impact on Landscape Character The most appreciable impact of the upgrading of the treatment plant on the surrounding character will be the further addition of 'industrial style' building units into a more rural setting (Photos 1 & 3 - Fig. 5.8). However, given the existing treatment plant on the site, the relatively short range of visibility in this flat and strongly 'vegetated' landscape and the presence of various other industrial buildings further east along the M7, the development will only have a sight or impeqtible, long term negative impact on the character of the wider scale landscape and the site itself.

5.4.3.2 tmpact on Views - Public Roads The surrounding roads tend to be bounded by managed hedgerows on low banks and views are generally restricted to road comdors. Along the Sallins to Halverstown Road, a slight/signiricant and negative visual impact will arise from a 200 metre length west of the site where eastwards travel focuses views into the site (Photo 7 - Fig. 5.9). Furthermore, views into the site from here will tend to be focused on the new devetopment area. The open entrance area will facilitate views into the site from the road (Photo 6 - Fig. 5.9). The realignment of the road to the west of the plant has opened up views of the site but the planted berm limits views into the site and these views will be almost eliminated when tree growth develops further (Photo 6 - Fig. 5.9). Furthermore a slight and negative impact will arise north-west of the site in the vicinity of the upgraded entrance as the land rises towards the treatment basins. However, in this area the retained section of the existing hedgerow will screen the majority of views into the proposed development area (Photo 8 - Fig 5.10).

There wit1 be no appreciable visual irnpad horn the new development from the M7 due to location of the proposed construction, intervening buildings and plant and the existence of a 3m high planted berm and maturing existing roadside planting (Photo 11 - Fig. 5.10). This will also be the case with respect to views from the Carragh to Naas overbridge towards the site.

MCQS1207-501-0011 RpOOB 41 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper Liffey Valley -rage Scheme Extension to Oskmtom M P - Stage 3

Environmental Impact Statement Preliminary Report for Public ConsultataSon

There is no appreciable visual impact from the railway some 1 kilometre to the north.

5.4.3.3 Impact on Views - Property Some 11 residential properties, fall within the zone of visual influence. A further 51 residential properties within 1 .O kilometres of the site boundary, are adequately screened by existing topography, vegetation or a combination of same {Figure 5.3).

Wfihin the 11 properties only one location will have a signifkant and perceived negative level of visual intrusion and a slight / sgnrficant level of visual obstruction. This recently constructed property is l0C;ated within 50 metres of the northern boundary but due to vigorously growing existing evergreen boundary planting and densely planted berm screen planting, views of the development site will be restricted to the upper rear windows.

Of the remaining properties, 10 will have a slight / significant and negative / neutral impact through visual intrusion (highest in winter months). These properties are located along the Sallins to Halverstown Road, both northeast and south-west of the site boundary. The developing screen planting on the berm has already begun to reduce the visual impact of the site in general for these properties and the screening effect will increase over time. For the proposed development, planting at the western end of the site, close to the entrance area, will further reduce the visual impact for these houses. A further I 1 properties will have a slight visual impad, though because of the existing perceived landuse of the site and their distance from it, the nature of the impact will be neutral.

6.4.3.4 Impact on Archaeological Monuments - Archltectural Heritage There are no Archaeological Monuments on or close to the site which could be impacted by the proposed development. The nearest, Osberstown House is of regional heritage interest and is over 1.5 kilometres to the north of the site. Due to topography and intervening hedgerow vegetation there is no visual connection between the site and the House (Figure 5.3).

5.4.3.5 Impact on Recmational Amenity The River Liffey is the nearest recreational amenity to the proposed site. The river flows through private lands close to the site and therefore there is little opportunity for public access to the river in this general area. Fishing and canoeing are the primary amenity uses of this stretch of river. The fact that the river is significantly below the surrounding land form and that there is dense screening along the adjacent river banks means that views towards the site from the river are very limited and will be practically eliminated in the near future with the existing and proposed on site screen and berm planting.

MCOS1207-501-001 I RpO08 42 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper Liffey Valley Sewrage Schem Extension to Oskrstown WWTP - Stage 5

Environmental Impact Statement Preliminary Report for Public Consultation

5.5. MITIGATION MEASURES

5.5.1. Design Development

During the design and layout of the proposal, likely significant negative impacts were considered and a number of preliminary assessments including engineering, residential amenity and property aspects were undertaken. These were carried out both prior to and during the Environmental Impact Assessment and the information was utilised in the detailed design and layout. As such, the development as proposed reflects the following considerations:

siting of the CASS Basins close to the existing units and maintaining a wide resenration from the northern boundary, the M7 and the Sallins I Halverstown Road (Figure 5.3).

enclosing the majority of the roof top plant in either plant mms or screens.

maintaining a 50 metre building setback line from both the M7 motorway and the north-eastern site boundary.

Further to the above, the appearance of the development can be both mitigated and enhanced through a series of landscape proposals consisting of mass screen planting and general structural planting. These proposals are detailed in the following sections and will ensure the visual integration of the development within its landscape setting.

5.5.2. Landscape Planting

Landscape treatment to further ameliorate visuat impact and enhance the overatl development is also incorporated within the layout as indicated in Figures 5.1 and 5.2. Its principal objectives are to:-

* screen andlor 'filter' low-level views from the Sallins / Halverstown Road and from the direction of the River Liffey with groups of internal deciduous and evergreen planting.

- reflect the character of local planting and the river corridor by primarily selecting native and indigenous tree, shrub and ground flora species.

e soften the engineered land forms and the 'harsh' nature of the built form

6.6.3. Replantlng Specles

The principal species selected include the following:- - Trees

Atder Ash Birch Bird cherry Oak Pinus sylvestris Willow White wiltow

Ahus glutinma Fraxinus exmisior Betula pendula Prunus padus Quemus robur Scots Pine Salix cinerea S d i X db8

MCOS1207-501-0011 Rp008 43 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Upper Liffey Valley -rage Scheme Extension to Osberstom W P - Stage 3

Environmental Impact statement Preliminarj Report for Public Consultati@4I

Minor TreesRlnderstorev

Elder Guelder rose Hawthorn Blackthorn Hazel Rowan

Sambucus ngra Viburnum opulus Crataegus monogym Prunus spinosa Corylus avellana SO&US aucuparia

5.5.4. Monitoring

The proposed landscape treatment - mitigation measures will be the subject of continuing maintenance and monitoring as part of the Kildare County Council’s well established grounds management programme.

5.6. CONCLUSIONS

5.6.1. Context

Although the character of the general area would be described as rural, this character is being significantly altered by scattered housing, the adjaoent busy M7 Motorway and the extensive developments at Milennium Park on the other side of the Motorway. The proposed extention to the Waste Treatment Works is beside the existing treatment plant and the scale of the proposed development will be perceived as relatively minor addition to the existing plant and buildings.

5.6.2. Residual Effects

The proposed development will only have a slight impact on views from one of the adjaoent public roads and from the some of the houses close to the proposed development site. The impact of the development on the surrounding landscape wilt be greatly ameliorated in the medium term by the presence of a densely planted perimeter berm and developing evergreen perimeter screen planting. Proposed on-site group planting will, in the Longer term, obscure all views into the development site.

MCOS1207-501-0011 R m 8 44 F

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

,:.,.. >:.:.. . ;.,:I ..... ........ .:.,.: .: -,. ....... :: .. ...... .... I .... .... :<.::. ....... i .; - . . . ::::.: :. .'.',' ........ ,,. . . . .j:*:, ....

I

i

" i

A

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

14f \ I f f i ai f

a

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

-----

I \ -L -- ..

I ’ 1

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

. ,.

I

r

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

f

- r-

1 I - t \ ' 1

1-4 H u u li H

------

' 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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

Iii H

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

* - ' .

I F

R V z

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

e L- 3 m

1

U 3

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39

I- -

J

t 2

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 25-07-2013:22:42:39