THE KILDARE BY-PASS AND POLLARDSTOWN FEN

This project examines the controversy surrounding the design and construction of Kildare Bypass and the associated potential damage to

Pollardstown Fen. It traces the history of the project, the efforts of various groups to raise the issue of the threat to the fen, its habitats and species. It indicates instances where there was an opportunity to move in different ways which may have avoided delays. The project also considers lessons

which have been learned from the saga.

Catherine O Donnell January 2006

With the original letter of complaint to the European Commission and

a Bibliography of the studies relating to the protection of the Pollardstown Fen

1. Introduction 1.1 On 8th December, 2003 Transport Minister, Seamus Brennan, T.D. opened the Kildare Town bypass, relieving one of the worst bottlenecks in the country. The by-pass extends from the western end of the Curragh dual-carriageway, (which became a motorway) to the eastern side of Monasterevin. At the opening the Minister stated “I am also pleased by the sensitivity shown to the environment of the Curragh, the environs of Kildare Town and special habitat areas including Pollardstown Fen during the design and construction of the motorway.1” This statement conjures up a vision of Kildare County Council, the National Roads Authory, the Office of Public Works and various environmental groups working together to design a bypass which would solve the traffic problems of Kildare town while at the same time protecting the unique area that is Pollardstown Fen. The reality was very far from that vision. 1.2 This project examines the controversy surrounding the design and construction of Kildare Bypass and the associated potential damage to Pollardstown Fen. It traces the history of the project, the efforts of various groups to raise the issue of the threat to the fen, its habitats and species. It indicates instances where there was an opportunity to move in different ways which may have avoided delays. The project also considers lessons which have been learned from the saga. 2. Kildare Bypass - Chronology of important events 1982 Kildare County Council initially proposed the motorway route.. 1985 EC Directive 85/337/EEC on Environmental Impact Assessment of 5 July 1985.2

1992 Habitats Directive (92/43/ECC) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora.3 1993 July 1993, Environmental Impact Study was completed by Kildare Co. Council. 1993 The Office of Public Works (OPW) completed their assessment of the E.I.S. in November. 1993 Public enquiry held. 1994 Deadline for transposing Habitats Directive (92/43/ECC) of 21 May 1992 into national legislation was May 1994.

1 Press Release 8th December, 2003 National Roads Authority Website. www.nra.ie/news/PressReleases/2003html 2 OJ No L 175, 5 July 1985. 3 OJ L206/7, 22 July 1992 amended by Council Directive 97/62/EC, OJ L305/42, 8 November 1997.

1994 Section 50 the the Roads Act 19934 which confers a duty on a road authority to prepare a statement of the likely effects on the environment, of any proposed road development consisting of the construction of a motorway comes into operation on 1st July 1994.5

1996 The planned route was approved by the then minister for the environment, Mr Brendan Howlin, on 22 January, 1996. The approval included a requirement to immediately design and implement a monitoring programme that would allow for proper evaluation ground water conditions and dependent flora and fauna in the area that may be affected by the proposed cut through the Curragh Aquifer and to implement any remedial measures shown to be necessary, particular attention being paid to Pollardstown Fen. The approval was also conditional on the road level being raised by 2 metres. However this still left the road below the water level of the aquifer.6 1997 On 1st February, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna was formally adopted into Irish law by European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1992.7 1997 Groundwater Monitoring Programme requested by the Minister was put in place.8 1998 An Taisce submitted copies of the OPW and Chief Planner's reports to the E.U. Commission on 20th April9. 1998 E.U. stopped further work on the motorway pending their investigation.10 1999 Report by independent hydrogeologist, Professor Ken Rushden was completed in April.11

1999 Letter sent from Irish authorities to EU Directorate-General re the complaint P98/4307 concerning Pollardstown fen.12 1999 Letter from EU Directorate- General requesting further information from the Irish Government.13 2000 Ministerial approval received by the National Roads Authority (NRA) to proceed with the project and to complete the tendering process.14

4 S.I. 406/1993 Section 16 of the Road Act 1993 ‘Establishment of National Roads Authority’ came into operation on 23 December 1993. 5 S.I. 118/1994 Roads Act, 1993 (Commencement) Order 1994. 6 Irish Times 5 July 1998. Also Newsletter of the Inland Waterways of Ireland, Summer 2000. 7 S.I. No. 94 of 1997. 8 “EC defers approval for section of Kildare Bypass.” Irish Times 15 July 1998. 9 Copy of letter dated 20 April 1998 from an Taisce to The European Commission is at Appendix 1 10 Inland Waterway Association of Ireland. www.iwai.ie/releases/pollardstown.fen. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid.

2000 Contract for construction of the bypass signed in November. 2003 Kildare Bypass officially opened on 8th December.15

2006 Report by the monitoring committee on Pollardstown Fen should be published this year.16

3.1 The Curragh (or Mid-Kildare) Aquifer 3.1 The Curragh is a unique semi-natural, acid grassland on shallow soils over an extensive glacial outwash plain. There are extensive deposits of sand and gravels beneath the Curragh and surrounding areas. Within these gravels there are huge quantities of water which constitute an aquifer. It covers an area of approximately 200 square km. The gravels of the plain reach a depth of 75m in places. The gravel aquifer has a large catchment area. Its hydrogeology is significant as it is an important source of baseflow for rivers and streams, it influences the ecology of a number of interesting habitats and it is the source of water for Pollardstown Fen. Water movements within the aquifer are extremely complex and there is even evidence of movements of water between the Liffey and Barrow via the aquifer. Experts agree that much of the groundwater movement is still unknown17. 4. Pollardstown Fen and the Grand Canal 4.1 Pollardstown Fen is situated on the northern margin of the Curragh, approximately 3km north-west of Newbridge town, Co. Kildare. It is located some 4.5 kilometres from the in-cut section of Kildare bypass. It is a spring-fed, post-glacial fen occupying an area of 220ha (550 acres). The origins of the fen can be traced back to the end of the last Ice Age, approximately 12,000 years ago. Because of the rarity of the habitat and the number of rare plant and animal species, the site is rated as being of international importance. The Fen lies in a shallow depression and is maintained by groundwater which continuously flows into it from approximately 40 springs and seepage zones. Most of the springs arise around the margins of the depression above the level of the fen and carry groundwater from the Curragh Aquifer. It is drained by the Milltown Feeder which flows into the Grand Canal. Undisturbed fens are rare in

14 Press Release 6 January, 2000 National Roads Authority. www.nra.ie/News/PressReleases/2000 15 Press Release 8th December, 2003 National Roads Authority Website. www.nra.ie/news/PressReleases/2 16 Per J. Coppinger, Kildare County Council, National Roads Office. 16 “Environmental Concerns lead to unnecessary controversy” The late Dr Anne Behan, Leinster Leader 22 July 1999 17 “Environmental Concerns lead to unnecessary controversy” The late Dr Anne Behan, Leinster Leader 22 July 1999

Ireland and Europe as their evolution into bogs is a natural progression. The constant inflow of calcium-rich water to Pollardstown did not allow acid-peat to develop (small patches exist on the margins), and the fen, therefore, has remained unchanged for thousands of years. Today, it represents an example of ancient landscape. The Curragh-Pollardstown system has existed and has reached equilibrium over the last 12,000 years. Its undisturbed, slow development has allowed its unique ecology to develop and its many rare habitats and rare species of flora and fauna to survive 18 4.2 Most Irish fens have been drained and developed for agriculture. This appeared to be the fate of Pollardstown when drainage work was undertaken during the 1960s to turn the fen into agricultural land. However, in 1970, to mark European Conservation Year, two areas of intact fen were purchased by Bord na Móna. In 1981 Bord na Móna donated this conserved fenland to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Other sections of the fen were purchased by the State and the fen was declared a National Nature Reserve in 198619. 4.3 The outflow from the Pollardstown fen supplies water to the Grand Canal. The Office of Public Works has been developing and upgrading the Grand Canal as a public amenity since 1986. Apart from its use by local people, it is a tourist attraction for boating, fishing and walking holidays. A crucial feature of the canal is the supply an uninterrupted flow of clean water from the fen.of clean water from the fen. 5. Pollardstown Fen Environmental Designations 5.1 The national and international significance of Pollardstown Fen is reflected in its inclusion in protective legislation and conventions. The fen has been given the following designations : Statutory Nature Reserve since 1986 under Wildlife Act 1976 which provides for conservation of Irish plants, animals and wildlife habitats.20

5.2 Natural Heritage Area under Wildlife Amendment Act 2000. 5.3 Candidate for Special Area of Conservation under Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. Protected habitats and species are listed in Annexes 1 - 5 of the Directive which provides for the conservation of plants, animals and wildlife habitats of European Union importance.

18 The inland Waterways Association of Ireland. Letter to members regarding the impact of the Kildare Bypass on Pollardstown Fen. 19 Bord na Mona Website 20 Wildlife Act 1976 brought into operation on 1 June 1977 by S.I. No. 154/1977.

Three habitats in Annex 1 have been identified at Pollardstown Fen i.e. alkaline fen, calcareous fen and petrifying springs with tufa formation. Annex 11 species which are a priority for conservation also occur at the site. They are Drepanocladus vernicosus, Lutra lutra (Otter), and Brook Lamprey (Lampetra planeri). Of particular conservation importance, is the occurrence of all three of the Whorl Snails (Vertigo spp.) that are listed on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive. Pollardstown is the only known site in Ireland (or Europe) to support all three species (Vertigo geyeri, V. angustior, V. moulinsiana) and thus provides a unique opportunity to study their different habitat and hydrological requirements21. 5.4 The EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)22 was transposed into Irish law in the European Union (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 199723. However the Directive dated 22 May 1992 states that Member States shall bring into force the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions within two years.24 Therefore by May 1994, since Irish Regulations had not been implemented it is probable that the directive had direct effect.25 Also The European Court of Justice has developed the doctrine of indirect effect26, by which if a provision of a directive is not adequately implemented by the regulations of a State, there is an obligation on the State, and emanations of the State including government ministers, the local authorities and the courts, to construe existing provisions of national law, e.g. in this case the Wildlife Act 1976, to remedy the deficiency. In any event Regulation 1 of the Habitats Regulations states that the Regulations and the Wildlife Act, 1976 are to be construed as one. 5.5 Ramsar site No. 474 designated under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (the Ramsar Convention). As a signatory to Ramsar, Ireland is required to honour certain commitments including a general obligation to include wetland conservation considerations in national land-use planning. Countries must undertake to formulate and implement this planning so as to promote, as far as possible, "the wise use of wetlands in their

21 National Parks and Wildlife Service Website. www.npws.ie/en/Conservationsites/SpecialAreasofConservationSACs/SiteSynopsis. 22 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora, OJ L206/7, 22 July 1992 amended by Council Directive 97/62/EC, OJ L305/42, 8 November 1997. 23 S.I. 94/1997 24 Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. Section 23 25 Van Gend en Loos v. Netherlands Administratie der Belastingen (Case 26/62) ECR 1; Costa v ENEL (Case 6/64)[1964] ECR 585; [1964] CMLR 425. Van Duyn v Home Office Case 41/74) [1974] ECR 1337; [1975] 1 CMLR 1. 26 Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Case 14/83)[1984] ECR 1891; [1986] 2 CMLR 430. Marleasing S.A. v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion S.A. (Case 106/89) [1990] ECR 1-4135; [1992] 1 CMLR 305

territory". Particular protection measures must be applied to Ramsar listed sites. However governments cannot be rosecuted for lack of implementation27 5.6 Designated by the Council of Europe as a Biogenetic Reserve as part of the European Network of Biogenetic Reserves28. This designation provides for the protection of natural habitats which are representative examples of natural European Heritage of use for scientific research and exchange of information. 6.Legal Requirements for Environmental Impact Assessment 6.1 The environmental Impact study was prepared by Kildare County Council in November 1993.29 The Environmental Impact Assessment process is based on Council Directive 85/337/EEC30. Article 2.1 of EC Directive 85/337/EEC requires that:

Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects.

These projects are defined under Section 4 which also states that EIA is mandatory for projects of the classes listed in Annex 1. Kildare bypass is classed as a project requiring mandatory EIS under Appex 1 .7 which covers construction of motorways and express roads. It is now more or less accepted that articles 2(1) and 4 of this directive have direct effects. Consequently, it is not enough for a competent regulatory authority to comply with national requirements on EIA, it must also comply with the directive even if it has not been properly implemented in Irish law31

6.2 Under the Roads Act 199332 a road authority has a duty to prepare a statement of the likely effects on the environment , of any proposed road development consisting of the construction of a motorway.33 However this section of the act did not come into operation until 1st July 1994.34

27 Ramsar website. www.ramsar.org 28 Heritage Council website www.heritagecouncil.ie 29 Available from ENFO public information service on environmental matters, 17 St Andrew Street, Dublin 2. 30 OJ No. L 175, 5 july 1985 31 “Observations on Environmental Impact Assessment” Scannell DULJ Vol 24 2002 at 130. 32 S.I. 406/1993 Section 16 of the Road Act 1993 ‘Establishment of National Roads Authority’ came into operation on 23 December 1993. 33 Roads Act, 1993 Section 50 34 S.I. 118/1994 Roads Act, 1993 (Commencement) Order 1994.

6.3 Article 6 (3) of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) of 21 May 1992 (to be transposed into Irish Law within 2 years35) states:

Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.

Article 4 states: If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted. Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

For an example of Article 6 in action see “Commission Opinion on the Construction of the A20 motorway in Germany” at Appendix 2.36 It must be remembered however that the directive does not prohibit significant environmental impacts, it requires that they be assessed before consent is given. As can be seen above in the case of an area such as Pollardstown Fen which hosts priority habitats and species, there are very limited circumstances where consent should be given. While the Directive was not transposed into Irish Law until 199737 it probably had direct effect since May 1994 as which was the deadline in the Directive for its transposition.38

35 92/43/EEC, Article 23. 36 From European Commission DG X!’s Nature Newsletter. Issue 2 December 1996. www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/news/natura/nat2_en.htm 37 S.I. 94/1997. 38 Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. Article 23

6.4 Since the Waddenzee39 judgement it is unlikely that a Minister would approve a project where there was any potential for endangering a Candidate Special Area of Conservation. In that case the Court ruled that “it is clear that the authorization criterion laid down in the second sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive integrates the precautionary principle.40” This means that all aspects of the project which could affect the site’s conservation objectives must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field and that there must be no reasonable scientific doubt as to the absence of adverse effects.41 In this case the Court concluded that the competent national authorities could authorise cockle extraction in an SAC, but only if they have made certain it would not adversely affect the integrity of the site. 6.5Article 5(1)(b) of EC Directive 85/337/EEC on Environmental Impact Assessment recognises that a developer may not be able to provide all the information which would be available in ideal circumstances because it may be unreasonable to require such information having regard “inter alia to current knowledge and methods of assessment”. The use of the words “inter alia” suggests that other reasons may exist for not making unreasonable requirements for information. Scannell suggests that these might include cost considerations, the time frame for the commencement of the development, and the amount of information on the local environment already available42. Lord Coulsfield stated in Kincardine and Deeside D.C. v Forestry Commissioners43 that the developer’s obligation to supply information specified in Annex 111 of Directive 85/337/EEC was “subject to certain limitations as to practicality”. When considering reports on the potential impact on fen it is important to bear in mind that current knowledge and methods of assessing and quantifying the risks involved may be superior. However this does not explain the divergence between the findings of the Office of Public Works (OPW) in their report of November 1993, and the Environmental Impact Study of Kildare Co. Council of July 1993. 6.6Article 5(2) specifies that at least the following information is required:-

• a description of the project comprising information on the site, design and size of the project,

39 Case 127/02, Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee, Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuureeheer en visserij [2005] C.M.L.R. 31. 40 Paras 58,44. 41 Environmental and Land Use Law, Scannell Thompson Round Hall (2006) at 258. 42 “Observations on Environment Impact Assessment” Scannell DULJ Vol 24 2002 at 163. 43 [1994] 2 C.M.L.R. 869 at 882

• a description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects,

• the data required to identify and assess the main effects which the project is likely to have on the environment,

• a non-technical summary of the information mentioned in indents 1 to 3. 3. Where they consider it necessary, Member States shall ensure that any authorities with relevant information in their possession make this information available to the developer.

6.7 The EPA Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements state:- “The consideration of alternative routes, sites, alignments, layouts, processes, designs or strategies, is the single most effective means of avoiding environmental impacts. The acceptability and credibility of EIA findings can be significantly affected by the extent to which this issue is addressed. For linear projects, such as roads and power lines, alternative routes may be the most important and effective mitigation strategy while for major infrastructure projects the intrinsic suitability of the site is the principal amelioration strategy. However, it is important, from the outset, to acknowledge the existence of difficulties and limitations when considering alternatives44. “

While the guidelines above were issued 9 years after the EIA for the Kildare bypass, they illustrate a sensible approach to the supply of information on alternative sites. However the courts at the time may not have considered it as relevant. In R v Secretary of State for the

Environment Ex p. Challanger45 the English High Court held that the requirement to state the main reasons and alternatives was satisfied when alternative routes for a rail scheme were indicated, although the main reasons for rejecting them and preferring the promoted route, taking into account the environmental effects, were not given. As Scannell states it is difficult to see how the decision to prefer a chosen site be justified where the reasons for rejecting the alternatives are not adequately explained46.

44 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements 2002. 45 Q.B.D., June 15, 2000: (2000) Vol 13 (2) Journal of Environmental Law at 268. 46 “Observations on Environment Impact Assessment” Scannell DULJ Vol 24 2002 at 165.

7. Environmental Impact Study prepared by Kildare Co. Council dated July 1993.

7.1 The Non Technical Summary should be capable of being understood by ordinary people, with its rationale being to redress the imbalance in resources between developers and those concerned on behalf of individual or community interests as stated by Lord Steyn in R. v Hammersmith and Fulham L.B.C.., Ex p. Burkett.47 The non technical summary in the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for Kildare Bypass is brief. It lists the main environmental impacts without any reference to Pollardstown Fen apart from stating that it was the subject of a special study. Key parameters were identified which formed the basis for appraisal and comparison of the alternative corridors based on the general guidence on the selection of parameters from EC Directive 85/337/EC48 One of the key parameters identified was flora and fauna.

7.2 It is worth noting that when listing the Planning Parameters of the alternative routes Pollardstown Fen is not considered other than perhaps as part of (ix) i.e. “compliance with the policies and objectives of the County Development Plan.49” The County Development Plan for Kildare (1985) states with regard to Pollardstown fen “the Council will assist in the preparation and implementation of a management plan which will recognise the amenity, ecological and educational value of the Pollardstown Fen Area while at the same time ensuring the conservation of its fauna and flora. The Plan should also ensure the source and quality of the water supply to the Fen from the Curragh aquifer. All applications for development in this area and its immediate environs will be considered taking into account the policies stated above.” The plan also states that it is the Council’s policy to “co-operate with the Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and the Wildlife Advisory Council in securing the conservation of Wildlife in the County in accordance with the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1976.”50 51

7.3 The council proposed 3 “families” of options and decided to concentrate on the options “B”, “B1” and “B2” because with routes “A” and “C” they had identified problems on traffic

47 [2002] 3 All E.R. 97 48 Environmental Study dated July 1993 at 31. 49 Ibid at 56 50 National Parks and Wildlife. Conservation Plan for Natura 2000 Site for the period 2000-2004. 51 Environmental Study dated July 1993 page 58.

grounds.52 They state that “Basically the only real reservation one could have with any of the B options is that there are potential environmental problems. Since these sort of problems can be significantly reduced with careful design it is unlikely that all of the three options will be found to be unsatisfactory.” It would appear that problems associated with Pollardstown Fen where not considered at that stage and that the Council’s plan to cut into the aquifer was made without taking into account the potential damage the dewatering of the aquifer would cause to the fen. The Council stated in their report that the main concern relating to Route “B” (the line on which the bypass was constructed), was its effect on the National Stud, Grey Abbey and the Japanese Gardens. It goes on to state that the Bloodstock Industry enjoys a special position in the County Development Plan, while apparently ignoring the status of Pollardstown Fen in the plan. The assessment states that the effect of this route on the Stud is minimised by the proposed design, whereby most of the line will be in cut. From reading the report by Dr Eric Farrell on geotechnical aspics of the project it appears that the Council could be confident that cuttings within the aquifer would pose minor construction difficulties which would not affect the feasibility of construction.53 It should be remembered that at that stage it was proposed to cut into the aquifer and dewater it without providing the tanking solution used after the EU stopped the project. 7.4 Building the bypass on Route B without cutting into the aquifer does not appear to have been considered as an option despite the report included in the EIS of Kildare County Council’s Senior Executive Planner, Mr Philip Jones, which is highly critical of the proposed route and the cut through the Curragh Plains. He states “In particular, the ‘cut’ on the Curragh Plains will seriously affect it’s amenity in visual terms, as well as affecting Pollardstown Fen – an area of National amenity importance. Ameliorative measures will not be sufficient to prevent this, and a redesign of this part of the scheme is recommended”54 7.5 An analysis of the impact of each of each of the proposed routes on various locations considers The Curragh, Kildare town, the National Stud, agricultural holdings etc but once again Pollardstown Fen is not listed in the seven pages of locations that would be subject to impact from any of the routes55. It is considered that this was a fatal flaw in the study. 7.6 The Groundwater report states that a 4.5 km section of the Kildare-Monasterevin By-Pass would be located in a cutting of varying thickness through the Curragh heathland. As 3.5km of 52 Ibid at 43. 53 Ibid 59 and 60. 54 Ibid at 99-101. 55Environmental Study dated July 1993 at 76-82.

this cutting will be below the permanent water table, the maintenance of dry conditions along this stretch of the motorway will involve the continuous drainage of groundwater from the underlying Curragh gravel aquifer. The report states that this would result in a reduction of flows towards the Pollardstown area. A model of the system with no leakage indicates that dewatering could reach Pollardstown Fen after 6 years of dewatering and with leakage this period would be shorter. The report suggested that this be compensated by injection wells56. 7.7 Ove Arup and Partners, Consulting Engineers, carried out an ecological appraisal of Pollardstown Fen which is included in the EIS. They used the findings of the groundwater study already carried out and concluded that the proposed road construction had the potential to affect the baseflow of water towards Pollardstown Fen. However as the hydrogeological model indicated that the baseflow to the fen area would be reduced by between 1.5 and 4.0%. and that this reduction would take place gradually over a number of years, they did not envisage that it would give rise to a significant change in species composition or habitat distribution and that therefore the ecological value of the fen would remain unimpaired57 However they recommended the implementation of a monitoring system at the earliest opportunity. A report by D. Doogue on the effects of the bypass on flora and fauna in the Kildare-Monasterevin Area does not mention Pollardstown Fen58

7.8 There was a notable difference in the way Kildare County Council dealt with the Irish National Stud (INS), a statutory body59 and the Office of Public Works (OPW), which is an Office of State. Council Engineers met with the Board of Directors of the (INS) and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State Sponsored Bodies. In addition the Project Engineer for Kildare Bypass met informally with the management of INS in order to ascertain their proposals and the Co Council retained the services of an expert on stud management and bloodstock to advise them on related aspects of the design of the bypass and in particular the impact on the INS. In contrast OPW were not informed until March 1993 of the potential damage to Pollardstown Fen.60

7.9 It is submitted that a desire on the part of the Council to avoid claims for compensation by INS may have been the reason why the INS was consulted and included at the planning stage. The council’s consultation with the INS is admirable but it is submitted that it should have been

56 Ibid 120-123. 57 Environmental Study dated July 1993 at 124 and 125. 58 Ibid at 141 and 142. 59 National Stud Act 1945. 60 Office of Public Works report of November 1993 on the impact of the proposed bypass on Pollardstown Fen and the Grand Canal.

inclusive of other bodies with an interest in the project e.g. OPW and Duchas. If this had been the case the potential impact on the fen and the inappropriateness of the proposal to recharge the fen by injection would have been discussed at a much earlier date. If it was still decided that the bypass had to be in a cutting the tanking procedure used after EU Commission stopped the original plan, could have been considered before the 1993 report, thus saving years of delay and the associated costs. If there are lessons to be learned from the construction of Kildare bypass, one must be that communication with all bodies concerned at an early stage is vital with such major projects.61 7.10 Item 12 of the report on the INS states following a preliminary examination, the Council’s technical officers have concluded that it is desirable that the lands own by the Stud which have been severed from it by the bypass, be zoned for development. The report also states that “if such a policy were to be adopted by the Council it would have the effect of significantly enhancing the value of those lands owned by INS north of the proposed line.62 It is submitted that it was inappropriate for the significant enhancement of the value of land belonging to the INS to be taken into account in the EIS. 8. Office of Public Works Report dated November 1993 on the Environmental Impact Study 8.1 The Office of Public Works issued a forthright report on the Environmental Impact Study63 and in essence refused to accept much of its findings. They listed 35 areas with which they had serious concerns. A copy of the list is at appendix 3. They were concerned that Kildare County Council selected the route without having first taken full account of the relative impacts of the alternatives on Pollardstown Fen and the Grand Canal. OPW found it unacceptable that the project would drain large volumes of water from the Curragh Aquifer permanently and that this would have a serious impact on the groundwater that sustains Pollardstown Fen and the Grand Canal supply. They feared that this would upset the delicate balance which enabled the Pollardstown fen to support species not found elsewhere in Europe. 8.2 They also criticised the Council for appearing “ to have focussed on negotiating the route with the National Stud" and agreeing to a wide range of mitigating measures and trade offs including the cutting to reduce the visual and noise impact . It should be noted that this cutting 61 Environmental Study dated July 1993. Report on the Irish National Stud 136-140. 62 Ibid at 140 53 Office of Public Works Assessment of the County Council’s Proposal to Dewater the Mid Kildare Aquifer and the Impact on Pollardstown Fen and the Grand Canal. November, 1993

was agreed despite the Councils statement in the EIS that “previous experience by the Council indicates that noise levels, air quality and lighting do not cause any significant problems to blookstock using lands adjacent to motorways such as that proposed.”64 If this is the case there seemed to be no compelling reason for excavating below the water table. The OPW report also notes that it was agreed with INS that the parcel of land separated from the main body of the Stud would be rezoned for development which would be of financial benefit to the Stud. OPW state their disquiet that from the conception of the project in 1982 the INS had been included in discussions regarding any impacts on their property but OPW had first been informed of possible adverse effects on the fen and the Grand Canal water supply in March 1993, just three months before the publication of the Environmental Impact Study.65 8.3 They were extremely critical of the proposal that groundwater could be taken from the cutting and pumped to injection wells situated near Pollardstown Fen. They state that this has not been inadequately researched, and designed and that a permanent groundwater injection or recharge scheme of this scale and precision has not been attempted in Ireland before and that experience elsewhere suggested that such a scheme would be expensive and fraught with technical difficulties.66 8.4 Their conclusion is that they recognise that there is a need for a By-Pass around Kildare Town but the EIS and supporting documentation on groundwater and ecological impacts were inadequate and made predictions unreliable. The risks of the EIS predictions being wrong were high and the risks to Pollardsown Fem and the Grand Canal supply were correspondingly significant. The many technical, ecological, organisational and financial uncertainties associated with the proposed amelioration measures raised major concerns about their feasibility. They recommended withdrawing the EIS , rescoping the groundwater, geotechnical and ecological investigations, and carrying out a new comprehensive EIS which they estimated would take several years, or retaining the preferred route but changing the design so that no significant groundwater dewatering was required.67

8.5 It is submitted that even at this stage had all parties involved co-operated and looked afresh at the proposals and obtained reports on more sophisticated methods of preventing the dewatering of the aquifer, the tanking method with an agreement to strictly monitor any

64 Environmental Impact Study, Irish National Stud at point 6.12.3.4 65 Office of Public Works report, November 1993 on the Kildare Bypass Environmental Impact Study at Part 1, Introduction. 66 Ibid. Executive Summary at 3. 67 Office of Public Works report, November 1993 on the Kildare Bypass Environmental Impact Study at Conclusions and Recommendations.

changes in Pollardstown Fen may have been accepted and the objections of an Taisce to the European Commission may not have materialised. In addition no logical explanation appears to have been given at any stage for not changing at this period to construction of the bypass above the groundwater level. 9 Ministerial Approval for the Bypass On 22 January, 1996 the Minister for the Environment authorised the Order for the Kildare Town By-Pass Motorway Scheme with modifications. The modifications included the requirement to immediately design and implement a monitoring programme that would allow them to properly evaluate the existing ground water conditions and dependent flora and fauna in the area that may be affected by the proposed cut through the Curragh Aquifer and to implement any remedial measures shown to be necessary, particular attention being paid to Pollardstown Fen. The approval also required that the cutting be raised by two metres but this did not raise it above the ground water level.68

10 An Taisce Complaint to the EU Commission 10.1 In a letter from Tony Lowes, Chairman of the Natural Environmental Committee of an Taisce, dated 20 April 1998, An Taisce urged the Commission to investigate this matter and ensure that the protection offered sites under the Habitats Directive was given to Pollardstown Fen and that no community funding be used for the construction of Kildare bypass unless the design of the motorway was changed or the full and comprehensive studies recommended by the Office or Public Works was completed completed69. On foot of this complaint the Commission ordered that all work cease on the bypass pending investigation. A copy of the letter from an Taisce is at Appendix 4. 10.2 The Minister’s consent for the Kildare Bypass project provided for a number of post-development studies and the adoption of mitigation measures devised in the light of the results of those studies. One of the reasons that the Commission upheld this complaint was that the Commission takes the view that the Directive does not permit a competent authority to defer a thorough examination of the impacts of a project until after the development consent has been

68 Inland Waterways Assoc. of Ireland www.iwai.ie/releases/pollardstown.fen.phtml “Kildare town by-pass to open this year” Irish Times 30 July 2003. 69 Letter dated 20 April 1998 from An Taisce to the European Commission is atAppendix 1.

granted.70 The Commission considered that, although the EIA was “deficient in terms of the information provided under Article 5 … compliance with the Impact Assessment Directive should have resulted either in the deficiencies being addressed as part of the EIA or the refusal of consent”.71 Scannell submits that although that view might have been justified in the Kildare Bypass case, it is generally totally impractical, and that it would be a huge burden on the taxpayer to provide the amount of information which the Commission apparently required for large-scale projects72. However this has to be weighed against the danger of allowing projects to start subject to further monitoring and then being left in limbo if the monitoring indicates that the mitigation measures will not be sufficient to ameliorate the problem. Scannell suggests that perhaps such a scenario could be avoided by the developer providing a worst case scenario as well as the expected one and describing environmental impacts and mitigation measures for both.73 11 Tanking Method 11.1 A Ministerial Monitoring Committee was established in August 1998 on the basis of the 1996 Ministerial Order giving consent to proceed. The committee comprised of representatives of Kildare Co. Council, Duchas, the Irish Farmers Association, the Irish National Stud and the National Roads Authority.74 In the same month Professor K. R. Rushton was appointed to advise the Committee. A large number of reports were commissioned by the Ministerial Committee in an effort to find alternative mitigation measures. These were reviewed by Professor Rushton, who gave his ‘Final Recommendation’ in a covering letter of 27 November, 1999. These reports are listed in Appendix 5.75 The preferred alternative solution was the “tanking” alternative. This involved placing an impermeable liner along the section of the road in the cutting. The lining was be supplemented by a layer of impermeable boulder-clay which according to the National Roads Authority (NRA) would guarantee the long-term effectiveness of the approach.

70 See letter dated Sept 13 2001 from Ms Margot Wallstom to an objector. The Commission did not

initiate enforcement proceedings in this case because of a two year gap between the development

consent and the first complaints. Environment and Land Use, Scannell Thompson Roundhall (2006) at

401. 71 “Observations on Environmental Impact Assessment” Scannell, DULJ Vol 24 at 145. 72 Ibid 73 “Observations on Environmental Impact Assessment” Scannell, DULJ Vol 24 at 148. 74 Information on the monitoring committee from John Coppinger, Kildare Co. Council. 75 List of Reports on the problems surrounding Kildare Bypass and Pollardstown Fen at Appendix 4.

The NRA stated that the tanking method avoided the need for significant on-going de-watering of the aquifer in the vicinity of the road and would as a result minimise changes in groundwater levels at Pollardstown Fen. The (NRA) reported that the tanking approach had been extensively and rigorously evaluated from engineering, ecological and hydrogeological perspectives. These assessments confirmed the engineering and environmental viability of the revised proposal. They stated that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government had determined that the revised project would not adversely affect the integrity of the fen site and therefore the way was cleared for the tendering process to begin. The NRA expected work to start in 2000 and be completed in 2002.76. 11.2Towards the end of 1999 the Department of the Environment and Kildare County Council sent reports to Europe in support of this proposal. There was still some danger of negative effects on Pollardstown Fen. Their expert's opinion was that the expected change in water level in the fen would be a decrease of between 20 cm and 30 cm. It was of concern that at a fall of 50 cm in Holland had resulted in permanent acidification of a fen there. If a similar significant drop in Pollardstown Fens water table occurred, this would be detrimental to the habitats and species of the fen. A further concern was that the proposed design while used successfully in Holland had not been tried in an area with similar geology to Pollardstown Fen. The general belief among environmentalists was that building the bypass on the surface so as to have as little impact as possible on the fen and the surrounding area was still the best solution.77 11.4 Following negotiations with the Commission, the then minister for the environment, Mr Noel Dempsey, granted clearance for the tendering process to go ahead in 200078. Conditions imposed by Mr Dempsey in granting permission for the project included measures for the enhanced protection of the ecology of the area. NRA said the saga had added €6.35 million to the cost of the road .79 11.5 It had been envisaged that Kildare Bypass would be financed by the Cohesion fund. While the design of the bypass was co-financed by the Cohesion Fund, the delay in commencing construction meant that the cohesion fund assistance had to be diverted to other

76 Press release National Roads Authority, 6th January 2000. www.nra.ie/news/PressReleases/2000html 77 “Ireland’s Environmental NGOs support Pollardstown Fen concerns.” Irish Peatland Conservation Council. www.ipcc.ie/prpollardstown2001.html 78 Irish Times 8th December 2003 79 Irish Times 30 July 2003

projects. The loss of this fund to the construction of the bypass is dealt with in The Department of Finance Paper “The Cohesion Fund in Ireland”. 80 12 Pollardstown Snail 12.1 When the letter from an Taisce to the EU Commission halted the road, the snail, the angistora vertiego, was suddenly thrown into the limelight and blamed for the halting of the bypass.81 As an SAC Pollardstown Fen has three priority habitats and at least six protected specied (see 5.3). It is submitted that to pick out one of these species, a small snail, and suggest that it alone was the reason for environmentalists’ objections was an attempt to trivialise the issue and to ridicule the views of those opposed to the plans, in an effort to gain public support for the road as originally designed. It was the loss of water quantity and quality and the repercussions of that loss which worried environmentalists. The truth of the matter was that EU money was used for the implementation of the Habitats Directive, and EU money was required to build the road. To make both expenditures compatible it was necessary to find a way to build the road without impacting on the water resource.82 However the misconception that a species of snail threatened the motorway still persists83

13 Conclusion 13.1 Ten years after the oral hearing closed in 1993 and twenty one years since the Kildare Bypass was initially proposed, the new bypass was opened to the public.84 13.2 Water levels in the fen are dropping but the cause has not been established. The work of the monitoring committee is ongoing until 2008. A Report on the effect of the construction of Kildare Bypass on Pollardstown Fen is due to be published this year. 85 13.3 At the time the EIS for the Kildare Bypass was being prepared there was and in fact there still is a lack of collective information on sites of environmental importance in Ireland. The

80 “The Cohesion Fund in Ireland” Prepared by the Institute of Public Administration and co-ordinated by NDP/CSF Information Office for the Department of Finance. www.ndp.ie/newndp/r/NDP_Cohesion. 81 Irish Peatland Conservancy Council letter to the editor, re Pollardstown Fen, Irish Farmer’s Journal

28th April 1999. 82 Letter from Peter Foss, Chairman, Irish Peatland Conservation Council to Irish Farmer’s Journal 28th April 1999. 83 Martin Mansergh, Irish Times 13 March 2004. 84 Irish Times 8 December 2003. 85 Per J. Coppinger, Kildare County Council, National Roads Office.

present monitoring of Pollardstown Fen is one of the projects which will add to our store of such information. However, according to the Heritage Council a lack of knowledge is obstructing "proper development" in heritage preservation. The council - a statutory body appointed by the Minister for the Environment - criticised a "poor level of survey work" in relation to planning. It said that much confrontation over major infrastructural projects could be avoided if the State had readily accessible information on heritage issues, area by area. The council said the establishment of a national biological records centre, would help to tackle many of the problems impeding development. A spokesman for the Heritage Council has stated that recent surveys had shown that Irish levels of knowledge about heritage and the environment lag behind those of other EU countries and that issues like the Pollardstown Fen could have been avoided if the State had a central information unit which could advise on issues of biological importance.86

13.4 As signatories to the Aarhus Convention, Ireland must take steps to established progressively a coherent, nationwide system of pollution inventories or registers on a structured, computerized and publicly assessable database compiled through standardized reporting. This should be of benefit to developers and competent authorities in the future.87 13.5 It is suggested that in planning the Kildare Bypass project, Kildare Co. Council did not make proper use of official advice available to it from the Office of Public Works and did not seek input from OPW at a sufficiently early stage. This was a mistake that cost dearly in time and money. The bypass was initially estimated to cost €55million and the tanking system was estimated to cost 6.35.88 The final cost was €160million.89 Presumably much of the increase in cost is accounted for by the delays involved in finding a solution to the potential damage the project may have caused to Pollardstown Fen. 13.6 The saga of the Kildare bypass and Pollardstown fen is a cautionary tale of how not to deal with a project. It would appear that Ministerial approval in 1996 was made without sufficient assessment of the likely impacts on Pollardstown Fen, an error that cost dearly in time, money and controversy. It was one of the first indications for Ireland that the EU Commission means to enforce implementation of the Habitats Directive and that its contents cannot be could not be ignored. 86 Irish Times –“ Heritage Council wants habitat records centre” Irish Times 6 September 2003. 87 UNECE Convention on access to information, public participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters was adopted on 25th June 1998. 88 Irish Times 30 July 2003. 89 NRA Website www.nra.ie/News/DownloadableDocumentation/htmltext

13.7 The following principles of environmental policy are taken from eleven which were enunciated by the first EC Action Programme on the environment and which have been repeated in subsequent programmes:- 1. prevention is better than cure 2. environmental effects should be taken into account at the earliest possible stage in all decision-making processes 3. Exploitation of nature or of natural resources causing significant damage to the ecological balance must be avoided. The natural environment may be used but not abused 90. Kildare Co. Council would have been well advised to adhere to those principles at the outset. 13.8 Part of the reasons why Kildare Co. Council did not place adequate importance on the potential damage to Pollardstown Fen, may have been that damage to the environment unlike other damage has never been costed and so it does not require compensation. It may have been a reason why the environmental considerations regarding Pollardstown Fen did not seem to be given the same attention as what appeared to be the competing considerations of potential damage to the Irish National Stud. This may be about to change. The Heritage Council has just invited tenders for “a survey to ascertain the financial value placed on Ireland’s Heritage by the general public, using proven methodology such as Contingent Valuation Methodology” It wants to find out the value placed on individual aspects of heritage, as well as the value of sites that combine a number of aspects such as archaeology, wildlife and landscape.91

90 Environmental and Planning Law in Ireland. Scannell. Round Hall Press 1995, at page 3. 91 “Survey on the Economic Value of Heritage” Irish Heritage Council website. www.heritagecouncil.ie/tenders/eco_value_heritage.html

Letter to the European Commission

An Taisce, The National Trust for Ireland c/o Tony Lowes, Chairman, Natural Environment Group Allihies, County Cork Tel 353 +27 + 73025 Fax 353 + 27 + 73131

Mr. G. Kremlis, European Commission, Directorate General XI B.3 Legal Affairs, Rue de la Loi 200, B-1049 Bruxelles, BELGIUM 20 April, 1998

Re: De-watering of the mid-Kildare Aquifer and its effects on Pollardstown Fen, a proposed Irish Special Area of Conservation (Site Code 000396)

Dear Sir;

The Commission has been notified of the Irish Government's designation of Pollardstown Fen in County Kildare as a Special Area of Conservation.

The integrity of this site is threatened by the design of the Kildare By-Pass, approved by the Minister for the Environment on 22 January, 1996, as this involves a three kilometer cutting into the mid-Kildare aquifer, the largest and most important gravel aquifer in Ireland and the major source of water for Pollardstown Fen.

The Environmental Impact Assessment prepared for this development did not properly assess the impact on the aquifer of this de-watering and was inadequate in considering the problems involved in mitigating proposals.

These contentions are more than substantiated in the report from the Office of Public Works we have sent you.

You will have received two documents from our organization to substantiate the fact that community funding is to be used to the detriment of the natural environment at a site now protected under the Habitats Directive as well as the Ramsar Convention.

1) Assessment of the Environmental Impact Study on the Kildare By-Pass, in particular an Assessment of the County Council's Proposal to De-water the Mid-Kildare Aquifer and the impact on the Pollardstown Fen and the Grand Canal, David Ball and others, Office of Public Works, November, 1993. [By registered post.]

2) Environmental Impact Assessment - Kildare By-Pass Motorway: Town Planning Aspects by Philip Jones, Kildare Senior Planner. See: Amenity, 3.A Impact on the

Curragh. [By fax with the Government Order of 19 January and the letter of authorization to Kildare County Council of 23 January, 1996]

It is alleged in these documents that the design of the proposed motorway was cut into the mid-Kildare aquifer to ensure the amenities of private interests at the expense of the environmental balance and we found nothing to disprove this contention. However, we feel obliged to bring to the attention of the Commission that our own investigations lead us to believe that a further imperative in the proposed excavation was the desire of the Irish authorities to obtain sufficient aggregate without further expense to provide material to raise the road over the national railway line south of Kildare as the right to tunnel under the line was refused by the national railway on the grounds of safety and disruption.

(1) Office of Public Works Report

The simple cross section drawing prepared by the Office of Public works and included in their Report as part of Section 2.7 shows clearly the effects of the lowering of the water table consequent on the proposed development and its effect on the fen. It further indicates the insignificance of the Minister's decision to lessen the depth of the cut by two meters.

There will be both a diminution in the supply of water and a lowering of the water level. This is because the gradient of flow has been reduced and because the groundwater divide would be moved 2 to 3 kilometers closer to the Fen, severely reducing the catchment zone supplying the fen.

The scope of the EIA which was completed was restricted to determination of the impact of the proposed preferred route and design. And even given that potentially fatal limitation, the Terms of Reference were not met by the work programme and insufficient work was done to obtain the necessary data.

S.I. No. 221 of 1988 European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Motorways) Regulations, Regulation 4 subsection 3A states: An environmental impact study under section 3 shall contain "an outline of the main alternative motorway alignments (if any) studied and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the proposed alignment, taking into account the environmental effects." This does not appear to have been done in relation to groundwater.

Further, the volume of water which will be extracted is given as 5,500,000 gallons per day (mgd). This would be sufficient for a town of 126,000 people at 200 liters per day per person. Under Irish SI 349 1989 Schedule 1 if this was a proposed drilled water supply the EIA threshold would be 1,100,000 gallons per day (mgd). As the OPW Report notes: "the proposed rate of groundwater removal from the aquifer to keep the cutting dry is five times the threshold above which an EIS is required for a public water supply."

The OPW did not have confidence that "the drilling and testing programme that has been carried out provides sufficient or adequate information to formulate the conceptual model and provide an input into the mathematical model used to predict the impact of the proposed de-watering on the groundwater flow feeding Pollardstown Fen."

The authors of the report suggest that the mathematical model itself contains a fundamental fatal flaw that renders it invalid regardless of the research undertaken. They point out that the model was designed to prevent any serious impact on Pollardstown bring derived from running the model. The design of the

model creates a 'No Flow' boundary along the fen's perimeter, in effect isolating the fen from the model. By mathematically fixing this boundary the edge of the fen acts like a hinge in the model: no matter how much water is drained from the Curragh aquifer the water level in this model of the fen will not be affected. Water levels elsewhere can go up or down but the water table remains at a predetermined fixed level along the edge of the fen. This fails to reflect the realities of the hydrology of the aquifer.

In regard to the mitigation measures proposed the Report notes that a permanent groundwater injection or recharge scheme of this scale and precision has not been attempted in Ireland before, and experience elsewhere suggests such a scheme will be expensive and fraught with technical difficulties. No attempt has been made to assess the environmental impact of such amelioration measures on either the Fen or the Curragh. The Report calls these proposals "inadequate in terms of concept, design, construction, maintenance, monitoring, management, and costs".

Their Report concluded that it would be "imprudent to base a mathematical model on such sparse and inadequately supported aquifer discharge data - particularly when the predictions of this model are used to give assurances about only small changes in the groundwater flow to a Fen of International importance."

"The OPW, whilst sympathetic to the need for a By-Pass and the predicament in which the Kildare County Council now find themselves, never the less cannot accept the EIS because its predictions about the impact on Pollardstown Fen, are in our view, unreliable."

The OPW Report Conclusions & Recommendations offers two alternative solutions:

1. Withdraw the EIS, rescope the groundwater, geotechnical and ecological investigations and carry out new, comprehensive environmental impact studies. These would take several years.

2 Retain the preferred route but change the design so that no significant groundwater de-watering is required.

(2) Kildare Senior Planners report

In the words of the Kildare Senior Planner:

"The necessity to de-water part of the Curragh Aquifer as a result of making this cut could seriously effect Pollardstown Fen, an Area of National Amenity Importance and listed for protection in the County Development Plan.

"Serious consideration should be given to the redesign option. If the redesign is not favored solely because of the fact that the motorway would be less in cut as it traverses the National Stud and the South of the town, then the balance as between this and the amenity of the Curragh (and the Fen) should be weighed. It this regard, it can be stated that the Curragh and the Fen (both of which are unique and can not be replicated) must be regarded as of much greater importance than the stud (which is man made, and could be relocated)."

Conclusion

An Taisce urges your Department to investigate this matter and assure that the protection offered sites under the Habitats Directive is given to Pollardstown Fen and that no community funding is used for this proposal unless the design of the motorway is changed or the full and comprehensive studies recommended by the Office or Public Works are completed.

Yours, etc.,

Tony Lowes

References added by Tony Lowes TANKING OF THE KILDARE BY-PASS REPORTS Review of Three Reports and subsequent documents concerning the proposal for Tanking the Kildare By-pass Final report November 1999 Professor K R Rushton Kildare Aquifer Study Supplementary Report on the Results of Modelling Studies of Impact of Tanked Road Construction on Pollardstown Fen 26 November 1999 Kildare County Council Entec UK Limited A Risk Analysis Concerning Ecological Impacts of a Tanked Construction of the Kildare By-Pass Dr. Geert van Wirdum November 1999 Netherlands Institute of Applied Geoscience TNO Kildare Aquifer Study Impact on Pollardstown Fen Caused by the Tanking Approach. 31 August, 1999 Kildare County Council Entec UK Limited. Review Tanking Construction Kildare By-Pass final BO-39480/21 version August 1999 GeoDelft For Kildare County Council Kildare Aquifer Study Long term Impacts of Bypass on Pollardstown Fen Kildare County Council Technical Report 19 July, 1999 Entec UK Limited Analysis of Proposal for Tanking the Kildare Town Bypass through the Mid-Kildare Aquifer Dr. Eric R. Farrell, BA, BAI, MS, PhD, CEng, FIEI, MICE, FGS July 16, 1999 Ecological risks for Pollardstown Fen associated with the proposed construction of the Kildare Motorway Bypass. Dr. Geert van Wirdum

June 1999 Netherlands Institute of Applied Geoscience TNO Completion Report Reports of Documents prepared for Kildare Aquifer Study 1998-99 March 1999 Professor K. R. Rushton Baseline Invertebrate Survey of Pollardstown Fen 1998 [Draft] Evelyn A. Moorkens & Jervis Good Natural Environmental Consultants For Kildare County Council An Inventory of Mollusca in Potential SAC Sites, with special reference to Vertigo angustior, V. moulinsina and V. geyeri, 1998 Survey, Evelyn A. Moorkens Duchas, the Heritage Service, November 1998. [Marked ‘confidential’.]