An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

File Reference: 19.PW 3004.

Re: Application by Offaly County Council to An Bord Pleanala under Section 8 of the Water Supplies Act 1942 as amended for a Provisional Order for the Abstraction of a supply of water from the Camcor River at Springfield Bridge in the townland of Clonoghil Upper, Birr, up to a maximum of 5,258 cubic metres of water in any 24 hour continuous period.

Local Authority Offaly County Council

Objectors (1) Rosalind and Derek Fanning. (2) Inland Fisheries . (3) Jack Feehan. (4) John Barnwell.

Inspector Derek Daly

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction.

2.0 Existing overall water supply position.

3.0 Description of proposal.

4.0 Objectors’ submissions.

5.0 Responses of Offaly County Council to submissions.

6.0 Further information submitted by Offaly County Council.

7.0 Oral Hearing.

7.1 Appearances and introduction.

7.2 Direct Evidence of Offaly County Council.

7.3 Questions and issues arising from the Offaly County Council submission.

7.4 Submission of Inland Fisheries Ireland.

7.5 Further questions arising from submission of Inland Fisheries Ireland.

7.6 Closing Submission by Local Authority.

8.0 Statutory Provisions and Policy Context.

9.0 Assessment

10.0 Conclusion

11.0 Recommendation.

2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Offaly County Council, on the 6 th of July 2011, made a proposal, under the Water Supplies Act 1942 for the taking of a supply of water from the Camcor River at Springfield Bridge in the townland of Clonoghil Upper, Birr. A Book of Reference of those persons likely to be affected as required by the Act was prepared and the persons concerned were notified.

1.2 On the 7th of July 2011 a notice was published in the Midland Tribune newspaper giving details of the proposal referred to as the Birr Water Supply Scheme Abstraction Order and giving information to the effect that “should an objection not be withdrawn, Offaly County Council will apply to An Bord Pleánala for a provisional order which will state that the aforementioned Proposal may come into force”. In the event 4 objections were made and not withdrawn.

1.3 Offaly County Council applied to the Board for approval of the Provisional Order on 23 rd of August 2011.

1.4 An Bord Pleánala, as required by legislation, arranged for an oral hearing into all matters relating to the Provisional Order and I was appointed to conduct it. The hearing took place in the County Arms, Birr, on the 7th March 2012.

1.5 Issues relating to the existing supply arrangements and more particularly the estimate of future demands and alternative solutions were raised and discussed at the oral hearing.

1.6 The existing balance between supply or capacity and demand and alternative possible sources for abstraction was also raised at the hearing.

1.7 I carried out an inspection of the site on the 24 th of February 2012 and also during the course of the oral hearing.

1.8 This report is in accordance with the warrant appointing me and reflects the proceedings of the oral hearing.

2.0 EXISTING OVERALL WATER SUPPLY POSITION.

2.1 The existing Birr Water Supply Scheme (BWSS) is supplied from two separate surface water abstraction points on the Camcor River. On abstraction point close to Kinnity supplies 763 cubic metres of water per day and the other at Springfield Bridge supplies a maximum of 2,273 cubic metres per day. There is an existing abstraction licence for the Springfield Bridge abstraction point since 1970 for provision of a water supply for the town of Birr. The abstracted water is treated in the town treatment works treating a maximum of 2,273/m3/day which have been upgraded over the years. The BWSS has storage for approximately 24 hours of existing demand.

2.2 The Camcor River rises near Kinnity in the Slieve Bloom Mountains and flows in a westerly direction to join the to the west of Birr town. The river has a total channel length of approximately 29 kilometres with a catchment area of 160 km 2.

3

2.3 It is proposed that the existing Kinnity abstraction point will be made redundant due to low levels during dry periods and increase the existing abstraction licence at Springfield Bridge to a maximum of 5,258 cubic metres.

2.4 The existing scheme in addition to supplying Birr town also supplies the Crinkill area and two group water supply schemes.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

3.1 The application by Offaly County Council is for a Provisional Order in respect of the abstraction of a maximum of 5,258 cubic metres of water per day from the Camcor, adjacent to Springfield Bridge in the townland of Clonoghil Upper, Birr under Section 8 of the Water Supplies Act, 1942.

3.2 It is indicated that following a detailed assessment the figure of 5,238 m 3 is projected as the future design requirement for the Birr Water Supply Scheme to the year 2029 and a new license will permit abstraction as demand requires it. As part of the service of supplying water ongoing water conservation and rehabilitation works will occur and significant conservation has been achieved. The existing scheme not withstanding these measures is near capacity and a secure source of water supply is required to ensure continuity of supply and to allow for future growth in the town.

3.3 The initial documentation submitted to the Board included

(1) A copy of the newspaper notice in relation Abstraction Order. (2) A book of Reference in relation to Riparian Owners and notification of parties. (3) A report on the location of the Abstraction Point. (4) A technical report in relation to water supply. (5) A report in relation to the Abstraction Order proposal. (6) An interim impact assessment by Enviroco Management Ltd in relation to environmental impacts arising from the proposed abstraction. (7) Objectors to the scheme. (8) Responses to objectors to the scheme by Offaly County Council. (9) A copy of the Manager’s Order in relation to the proposal.

3.4 The documentation as referred to outlines the following information.

3.5 Water analysis indicates unpolluted water at the Springfield Bridge abstraction location.

3.6 The proposed increase in water abstraction is 2,985 cubic metres of water per day (0.035/m3/s). The 95 percentile flow for the Camcor River downstream of the Springsfield Bridge is indicated as 0.67m3s and the Dry Weather Flow (DWF) minimum flow rate in 50 years is indicated as 0.3/m3/s. The proposed abstraction rate represents 9.1% of the DWF and it is considered that the increase in abstraction is not expected to have any adverse impacts on the downstream reach of the river.

3.7 There is an analysis in relation potential impacts arising from leachate and other discharge from the Clonbrone Landfill.

4

3.8 The confluence of the Little Brosna River and the Camcor River is approximately 3 kilometres from the proposed abstraction point. The DWF in the Little Brosna River at Croghan Bridge just downstream of the confluence is 77,760m 3 per day is three times the daily Camcor River DWF of 25,920m 3.

3.9 Existing and future water demand requirements are outlined indicating a water requirement of 5,258m 3/d for 2029.

3.10 The little Brosna River was considered as a possible future source of water for Birr and although it has an adequate flow rate it is noted it is slightly polluted and the topography and levels would incur greater pumping costs. The Rath GWS supplied from a groundwater source was also examined but it was recommended that this source be retained a water source for areas to the north and north east of Birr.

3.11 The option of increasing the existing water source on the Camcor River was considered the best option as part of an overall improvement of the existing scheme to meet projected future demands and addressing existing deficiencies in the BWSS.

3.12 The interim impact assessment by Enviroco Management Ltd refers to objections received relating to impact on fish life in the river with particular reference to the Croneen Trout and ongoing decline in the volume of the river and the need for further work and assessment.

4.0 OBJECTORS SUBMISSIONS.

4.1 Rosalind and Derek Fanning in a submission to Offaly County Council refers to concerns in relation to the impact of increased abstraction on the Croneen Trout species, to lowering volumes in the river and increased risks of pollution in the river. Reference is also made to conservation of water addressing future needs.

4.2 Inland Fisheries Ireland in a submission to Offaly County Council refers to the importance of the Camcor River as a fishery for salmon and trout, to works to develop the fishery and there is particular reference to the importance of the river as a habitat for the Croneen trout. Concern is raised in relation to lowering of water levels and its impact on fish life. It is indicated that other sources be examined further in particular additional capacity at the Rath groundwater source and the Little Brosna River, which has higher capacity flows.

4.3 Jack Feehan in a submission to Offaly County Council refers to absence of future growth in population, that existing problems in the water scheme be addressed before increasing abstraction, lowering water levels, concerns relating to the Croneen trout and risks of pollution arising from the old landfill site.

4.4 John J. Reedy and Co Solicitors on behalf of John Barnwell indicates Mr Barnwell is a riparian owner and refers to the importance of the Camcor River and the Croneen trout. Reference is made falling levels in the river and further abstraction will have devastating effects on the river and fish life. Photographs are submitted in support of the objection. Further submissions restating these objections were made to Offaly County Council.

5

5.0 RESPONSES OF OFFALY COUNTY COUNCIL TO SUBMISSIONS.

5.1 Offaly County Council in response to the submission of Rosalind and Derek Fanning refers to the need for the scheme, to provide for future needs and that further assessment of impacts will be undertaken by consultants.

5.2 Offaly County Council in response to the submission of Inland Fisheries Ireland refers to a further assessment of impacts will be undertaken by consultants, the Rath source of water supply was assessed and considered necessary for meeting other water demand needs in the area and the Little Brosna River was also examined but would involve increased construction and pumping costs. Reference was also made to discharge location of the Birr WWTP to the Little Brosna River.

5.3 Offaly County Council in response to the submission of Jack Feehan refers to the need for the scheme, to provide for future needs, conservation measures will continue in relation to the existing scheme, an assessment of the impact on the landfill site was undertaken and that further assessment of impacts will be undertaken by consultants.

5.4 Offaly County Council in response to the submission of John Barnwell refers to the need for the scheme, to provide for future needs, conservation measures will continue in relation to the existing scheme and that further assessment of impacts will be undertaken by consultants.

6.0 FURTHER INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY OFFALY COUNTY COUNCIL.

6.1 In response to a request from the Board after consideration of the initial documentation and submissions received from observers Offaly County Council submitted firstly a report on alternative sources considered in relation to augmenting the water supply and secondly an environmental report.

6.2 In relation to alternatives considered a preliminary report was prepared for the BWSS, which included a review of groundwater and surface water resources in the area for the future requirements of Birr.

6.3 The report also refers to the needs for an additional treatment works and storage reservoirs including a new storage reservoir at Lisduff with 5,300m 3 to meet 25 year demands.

6.4 In relation to the Rath GWS source the estimated yield after tests would not meet future requirements of the BWSS and abstraction on the Camcor River would have to continue, that it would result in a need for different treatment requirements for two separate sources, which is not an economical or efficient solution.

6.5 In relation to the Little Brosna River it is indicated that the river has an adequate flow rate but the water quality is of a lower quality than the Camcor River. The river is also the source of discharge from the and Birr WWTPs. Due to levels higher pumping costs would also occur in pumping water abstracted from the Little Brosna River.

6

6.6 The environmental report indicates there is no evidence to suggest that the Camcor River is a losing stream as a result of investigations using historical data, field surveys and modelling (ISIS) and the modelling also examined flows including flows assessed with the level of abstraction proposed which predicts the river does no run dry as a result of increasing abstraction.

6.7 Decommissioning the abstraction point at Kinnity will increase flows in the river upstream of Springfield Bridge

6.8 Mitigation measures are proposed to reinforce banks to prevent further widening of the channel in sections identified as a most risk and further appraisal is needed to facilitate the fish pass at Oxmanstown Weir which is identified as an existing barrier to migratory fish. In this regard a suitably designed fish pass would address the issue as has occurred on other rivers where this has occurred.

6.9 The environment report identifies no significant impact on conservation sites applying the criteria of the Appropriate Assessment Guidelines.

7.0 SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS OF ORAL HEARING.

7.1 Appearances and introduction .

7.1.1 Offaly County Council. Mr Tom Shanaghan Senior Engineer Water Services. Ms Jean Ryan Project Engineer. Ms Anne Healy Mr Thomas Byrne Mr Andrew Murray Dr Niamh Ni Bhriain Ecologist Enviroco Management. Dr Colin O’Reilly Hydrologist Enviroco Management. Mr Niall Murray Enviroco Management.

7.1.2 Objectors / Observers. Mr John Reedy Solicitor John J. Reedy and Co. Mr John Barnwell. Representing Little Brosna and Camcor Fishing Club. Mr Jack Feehan Mr Brendan Mc Garry. Representing Little Brosna and Camcor Fishing Club.

7.1.3 Mr Mike Fitzsimons Inland Fisheries Ireland Limerick.

7.1.4 In the opening remarks on the hearing the inspector indicated that the file and submissions received were read and need not be restated in the course of the hearing.

He then outlined a number of comments in relation to the scheme as presented as a means to inform the issues to be addressed during the hearing and that these were matters pertinent to an assessment of the proposal under consideration. In outlining these considerations this did not preclude parties raising other matters.

The considerations included;

7

1. Whether justification of an increased abstraction of water is demonstrated by Offaly County Council in relation to the Birr Water Supply Scheme. 2. If the need for increased water abstraction and water supply demand is established for the Birr Water Supply Scheme is the level of abstraction proposed appropriate and necessary. 3. Is the scheme as presented the appropriate location and source of water supply in the context of other possible locations for sourcing future water supply demand for the Birr Water Supply Scheme? 4. If the location and level of abstraction is appropriate is it considered appropriate in the context of ecological impacts and other impacts?

7.2 Submissions of Offaly County Council .

7.2.1 Jean Ryan project manager and an engineer in water services of Offaly County Council gave a presentation. Initially she outlined the history of water supply in Birr and improvements to the scheme over the years. She outlined reports carried out in recent years and the aim of the proposal is to provide a secure and safe supply for Birr water supply, which is at capacity. There is a need to look at future demands and how they can be met.

7.2.2 Options were looked at including upgrading the Rath GWS which is based on springs. Trials wells indicated Rath GWS could not meet the needs of Birr and was best suited to serving its existing areas in relation to sustainability and economics. Abstraction from the Little Brosna River downstream of its confluence with the Camcor River was also examined. It is downstream of the town and the Birr WWTP. There are also issues of surface water flows from the town entering the river and was more susceptible to pollution. There are also costs of additional pumping. The Camcor River it was indicated offers a clean reliable source and relatively good economic costs and is the most sustainable option.

7.2.3 Ms Ryan then addressed objections indicating the existing scheme is at capacity, there is a need to look at a 25 year horizon and the need to meet future demands. Water conservation measures have been put in place and there is still a need to provide greater capacity of water. The potential impacts arising from an old landfill site was also assessed and ongoing tests and monitoring on water quality indicate no adverse effects arise from the landfill on the river and groundwaters.

7.2.4 In relation to fishery and aquatic concerns, consultants were engaged to look at effects of the abstraction on the fish life of the river and flows in the river. Modelling was carried out and the hydraulic model assessing 95 percentile rates indicate no effects and this also applied to 98 percentile flows. At lower DWF flows slight impacts were measured and assessed as low but mitigation measures can address this including remedial works at Oxmanstown Weir.

7.2.5 It was also noted that the river has a deep thalweg with constant flows but is a need to address the fish pass at the weir. The increased flow on the river arising from closing the abstraction at Kinnity would also be an important factor increasing flows upstream of Springfield Bridge. It was also indicated that low flow depth monitoring would be carried out and improvements to the river can address potential adverse impacts on trout and other fish species.

8

7.3 Questions and issues arising from the Offaly County Council submission .

7.3.1 Mr Feehan raised the question that OCC wanted a new treatment plant for the town and that is the reason for the abstraction order. Ms Ryan indicated that irrespective of the capacity of the treatment plant there is a need for an increased abstraction and Mr Shanaghan also agreed with this position.

7.3.2 Inspector raised the issue of links of Rath GWS system and Birr and was informed that there is a 6 inch connection that can be used for emergency purposes to supply Birr but it not a sustainable long term option. It was also indicated that the reservoir has 24 hour storage but effectively it is water in and water out and no storage occurs such is the demands on the current supply. Inspector raised the issue of the WWTP and the abstraction will not affect the assimilative capacity of the river in this regard.

7.3.3 Mr Reedy raised the question of maintaining the Kinnity abstraction and using Rath GWS but Ms Ryan indicated based on well tests there was insufficient supply. It would also give rise to treating two different water supplies and ongoing technical difficulties in carrying this out. If the Rath scheme was used it would effect areas which it is proposed the Rath scheme would serve in the future such as Kilcormac. It would also be very reliant on ground water and this is not as safe and secure a supply as the Camcor.

7.3.4 Mr Reedy raised whether more springs could be used and Ms Ryan indicated tests indicated that drawing water from the bore holes effected and drew down from existing wells as they feed from the same aquifer.

7.3.5 In response to questions from Mr Reedy, Ms Ryan indicated leakage / unaccounted water in Birr is current approximately 33% and the aim is a target of 25% which is the recognised target and this factored into the future demand needs for the water supply demand. Getting to this figure will involve ongoing rehabilitation of the scheme and factors in metering in the future. The Birr scheme was undergoing rehabilitation works to upgrade the network and these works would continue. Mr Fitzsimons also raised issues relating to leakage.

7.3.6 Inspector raised the issue of level of abstraction in future years and Ms Ryan indicated a slow rise in abstraction was envisaged over the years and it will depend on growth rates. It was impossible to predict when the maximum abstraction rate would occur. It is also necessary to provide for any unforeseen additional demand which could arise and cannot be met with the current scheme. 160 litres per head per day factored in as the rate of consumption and this is unlikely to change and the main change will occur in the lowering of unaccounted water.

7.3.7 Ms Ryan noted that photographs showed low flows but some of these photographs are upstream of Springfield Bridge and this flow will increase with the closing of the Kinnity abstraction point.

7.3.8 Mr John Barnwell raised the issue of alternatives and the question of the proposed future abstraction of water from the for Dublin and that this supply could be used as it will have pipes which will come close to Birr. Offaly County

9

Council indicated that this proposal could be up to 20 years away in terms of possible completion, that it at an early stage of planning and does not address current needs in relation to meeting Birr’s needs in the foreseeable period. Mr Barnwell indicated that in summer the volume of water is not in the river and is decreasing over a period of time and this occurs downstream of the Springfield River. The issue is the summer level of the river and the pools in the river have shrunk.

7.3.9 Inspector raised this matter with Offaly County Council and Dr O’Reilly acknowledged that surveys were carried out since August 2011 when they carried out the survey work for the ecological report, which were then used to prepare the cross sections and other material presented in the report. The survey for the report was not therefore carried out during in the summer period but he referred to the use of historical flow data measured at the gauging station at Springfield and which was used in the preparation of the hydrological model. Based on this information modelling was carried out and the model indicates the 95% flow in the river has not been exceeded except on one day and is generally above the 98% flow rate. The river is fast flowing and a changing river irrespective of abstraction. Dr O’Reilly also indicated that statistically there is no information to indicate decreasing flow over time. Dr O’Reilly did indicate flow reduction will occur in the 95% percentile of 4% and of the DWF a reduction of 9%.

7.3.10 Mr Reedy asked in relation to flows recorded since 2005 and Dr O’Reilly indicated that no public data is available from that date and the model is based on published data available from 1995 to 2005 and the figures used in the model are conservative figures in relation to flows. There were no low flows during the survey period and there is reliance on historic data.

7.3.11 Inspector questioned Dr O’Reilly in relation to DWF issues and in response it was indicated there is a lead time into a sustained dry period and contingencies can be made such as using alternative sources or applying other measures to reduce demand. He alluded to the historical data relating to flows in the river and the relative low incidence of 95% flow in the river in the river already referred to. Dr Ni Bhroin also stated in relation to a sustained DWF it is important to maintain a river channel but that there is sufficient flow in the channel to sustain the river ecologically and also there is sufficient headroom and depth to allow fish to move up the river.

7.3.12 Mr Barnwell raised the issue of the Camcor River’s importance in the overall river system and the importance of the river for the Croneen trout. The weir was raised and Dr Ni Bhroin considered that the weir as currently presented is a problem and the optimum situation is that there is a safe passage for fish and they use the fish pass without injury. Mr Barnwell considered that the weir works well and there is no need to fix or change something that is not broken. Dr Ni Bhroin did indicate any measures would be addressed in consultation with fishery interests.

7.3.13 Inspector raised the issue of who can carry out these works on the river and who would be responsible for carrying out any mitigation measures.

7.3.14 Mr Fitzsimons of Inland Fisheries Ireland indicated that weirs should be lowered or removed. The fish pass is nor ideal and should be changed. Rock ramps are now the preferred option if a weir of some form is to be retained to enable fish to move up the

10

river. Fisheries would work to address the problem and there are better ways to solve the problem currently arising for fish at the weir. There is a need for proper funding for these works but there is also a need to address any potential loss of habitat arising from lowering the river. Biodiversity is important for preserving the Croneen trout. Mr Fitzsimons indicated that Camcor is a spatey river. There are changes in the general area of the river catchment and the effects of loss of peat uplands. Extensive afforestation is occurring and there is quick flooding giving rise to erosion of the river.

7.3.15 Mr Fitzsimons also made reference to the modelling carried out and in relation to table 7 of the ecological report there are low depths indicated and there is loss of habitat. It is more than the thalweg which is needed and balanced habitats are necessary. Temperatures are rising in rivers and trout have a tolerance to 23C. The issue is potential loss of habitat and loss of nursery areas with feeding areas lost. There will be a need for more baseline data to ascertain any potential loss of habitat and put measures in place. A reduction of 9% in DWF can be crucial and should if possible be avoided and this will occur at the period of greatest potential pollution from farm runoff.

7.3.16 Mr Fitzsimons indicated that Fisheries would prefer to see the Little Brosna River being used for abstraction given the level of flow in the river irrespective of the issue of additional pumping and maintaining the Camcor. The Q value of the Little Brosna to 3-4 which is not in his estimation a bad standard. The main concern is dilution of the Camcor River.

7.3.17 Mr Mc Garry on behalf of anglers raised their concern for streams where spawning occurred and Dr Ni Bhroin indicated that the flows will increase downstream of Kinnity, spawning areas are not affected by the abstraction proposed but the weir needs to be addressed to enable fish to move upstream. Mr Fitzsimons noted there are problems arising from afforestation and spates arising from this which affects spawning

7.4 Fisheries Submission .

7.4.1 Mr Fitzsimmons then read from a submission commenting on the level of abstraction and the need to conserve water and to address water loss and unaccountable water. Metering should be conditioned in any abstraction order. There is a general need to protect water sources.

7.4.2 In relation to alternatives the Little Brosna River with three times the DWF of the Camcor is Fisheries consider a more secure and safe option. The Camcor is much more spatey and prone to erosion. There are options also to use the use the Rath complex. A blend of sources he contended would be a better option and eliminate risk from a single source.

7.4.3 There are concerns relating to the Croneen trout. There is a need to ensure biodiversity measures for the Camcor to ensure biodiversity and to ensure proper water temperature. Maintaining water depth is necessary to retain nursery areas. Instream measures are necessary and baseline data is necessary to inform any measure and development. Measures carried out should be between May and September. There

11

is no need to retain or lower the weir whether abstraction occurs or not but these needs further study to maintain gravels and an optimum river bed.

7.4.4 Fishery rights need to be maintained. Wetted areas need to be maintained and the fisheries board involved in any works carried out. There is a need to protect against use of pollutants and chemicals entering the river.

7.5 Further questions arising from submission .

7.5.1 Inspector raised issues relating to lowering the weir with Mr Fitzsimons and in response creating a rock ramp and other measures would assist than the use of the fish pass. Removing the weir would remove a barrier but there may be times when the thalweg will not exist and other measures are necessary. Mr Shanaghan indicated Offaly County Council would work with fisheries. It was clarified that the metering would be welcomed by the County Council.

7.5.2 Mr Barnwell did not accept the position regarding the lowering or removal of the weir but Mr Fitzsimons indicated where weirs were removed there were improvements in fish movement. There is no reason why trout would not move up the river without the river as they did prior to the construction to the weir.

7.5.3 In relation to alternatives the inspector raised the issue of the Little Brosna River and the matter of costs. Ms Ryan said the three fold increase in DWF is downstream of the confluence of the Camcor and Little Brosna rivers. The construction of a new extraction point on the Little Brosna would cost in excess of one million euro in additional capital costs and there would be ongoing costs of pumping and maintaining two different intake points. The Little Brosna River Ms Ryan indicated has a water quality issue compared to the Camcor. Ms Ryan also indicated that there is not significant increase in flow upstream of the confluence on the Little Brosna and downstream of the confluence has issues with a WWTP. There is no justification for an abstraction upstream of the confluence.

7.5.4 Mr Fitzsimons did not accept that the Little Brosna River upstream of the confluence does not offer a better flow. Dr O’Reilly indicated that the Little Brosna River has a different character and flows through a flatter terrain having a larger catchment. The size of catchment however he indicated is not representative and proportionate to flow rate and with the Little Brosna the DWF is only 0.4 m 3 per second and the Camcor 0.3 m3 based on data and records.

7.5.5 Mr Reedy refers to the Croghan Bridge location as a possible abstraction but both Ms Ryan and Mr Shanaghan indicated concerns in relation to locating a drinking water abstraction point in what could be considered an urban environment and which is a short distance to the WWTP. Mr Reedy did not accept position presented by Offaly County Council.

7.5.6 Mr Fitzsimons indicated that WWTP is not seen as a barrier in other areas and in response Mr Shanaghan indicated even with upgrading the WWTP it is not good practice to locate an abstraction in an urban area. The Little Brosna River also has other WWTPs and flows through an area of intensive agriculture and is a more vulnerable river and this is the reason for considering the Camcor.

12

7.5.7 Mr Barnwell indicated that the cost factor is not sufficient in selecting the source and other factors need to be considered such as protecting the fishery. In response Mr Shanaghan indicated that there is no desire of the County Council to adversely impact on the river and the fishery.

7.5.8 Inspector raised the issue of maximum level abstraction rates and limiting the level of abstraction in the context of DWF. In response Dr O’Reilly indicated a 10mm and 20mm drop in the event of abstraction and it really is an issue of the level river bed that is exposed by a drop in level and this currently occurs on the river. Mr Fitzsimons reiterated his view of the loss of water and the consequent impact on habitat and the need for measures such as low flow weirs to be provided to hold the fish but these could be addressed in consultation with fisheries.

7.6 Closing submissions .

7.6.1 Mr Reedy fisheries preference is the Little Brosna River. Croghan Bridge as a point of abstraction is now dismissed as it is an urban area and new issues raised. Cost appears to be the main factor. Fisheries interests have worked hard to retain the fish stocks. There are concerns in relation to aquatic life and Offaly County Council has only recently addressed this concern. Local knowledge has noted decreasing levels of the river.

7.6.2 Mr Fitzsimons referred to the unique species in the river the Croneen trout and the need to preserve it and protect it and there is a need to apply the precautionary principle. There is a changing environment causing problems for the river and the Camcor River needs protection and biodiversity needs to be protected and the habitat improved. The Little is favoured for this reason.

7.6.3 Mr Shanaghan referred to ongoing water conservation, the issues of alternatives was examined and above and below the confluence and Rath system are not viable for reasons outlined in their submissions. Cost is a factor for a public authority. There is however awareness of the environment and there will ongoing discussions with parties in the future to address issues.

7.6.4 Mr Barnwell referred to the storm water issue and one pipe was diverted the issue above the confluence would be addressed.

The inspector formally closed the hearing.

8. Relevant Statutory Provisions and policies.

8.1 In considering this report I have had regard to the following.

8.2 The Shannon International River Basin Management Plan (2009-2015).

8.2.1 The plan establishes four core environmental objectives to be achieved generally by 2015, prevent deterioration; restore good status; reduce chemical pollution and achieve water related protected areas objectives.

13

8.2.1 In relation to landfills the management plan refers to the Waste Management (Certification of Historic Unlicensed Waste Disposal and Recovery Activity) Regulations 2008 (SI 524 of 2008) which introduced a statutory requirement for local authorities to register all closed landfills, as defined under the regulations, by the 30th June 2009.. All sites must be authorised by the EPA. The authorisation, called a Certificate of Authorisation (COA), will specify the appropriate management measures to be applied at each site on a case by case basis. The EPA will be required to have regard to the environmental quality standards established by the 2009 Surface Waters regulations and the 2010 Groundwater regulations when undertaking its investigations and specifying the appropriate management measures for the purposes of these regulations. This requirement would apply in relation to the Clonbrone Landfill which served Birr.

8.2.3 Given the extent of the more detailed information is also set out in a series of water management unit (WMU) action plans. WMUs are at a smaller geographical scale than river basin districts, and allow for more focused planning and implementation. There are seventeen water management units for the rivers and lakes in the Shannon IRBD plus action plans focusing on groundwaters and estuary and coastal waters.

8.3 The Little Brosna Water Management Unit Action Plan is the relevant management units relating to Birr serving the Little Brosna Catchment which includes the Camcor as a tributary of the Little Brosna. Among the main matters referred to in this unit management plan are • There is one protected area in the catchment relating to drinking water which is the Camcor River. • The Little Brosna River was unsatisfactory ecological condition in 2008. Further improvements are required in order for ecological status to reach a satisfactory level as required by the Water Framework Directive. • Ecological quality continues to be at a highly satisfactory standard in the upper reaches (0100) of the Camcor River in 2008. However excessive siltation and bank erosion were noted. Forestry works in the catchment and unrestricted livestock access could be contributing to the silt loadings. This site has remained at high status since 1981 when first surveyed and warrants special protection. In the lower reaches of the Camcor the paucity of sensitive macroinvertebrate fauna indicated unsatisfactory ecological conditions at Drumcullen Bridge (0300) below Kinnity and Elmgrove Bridge (0700) in Birr. Excessive siltation and increased compaction of the river bed substrate was noted at all locations surveyed in the lower reaches reducing habitat availability for sensitive macroinvertebrate species. • In relation to Pressures/Risks the WWTPs at Birr downstream of the confluence of the Little Brosna and Camcor Rivers, Kinnity upstream on the Camcor River, and Roscrea on the Little Brosna River upstream of Birr are identified as pressure points. • The Following WWTPs are at risk: Birr, Kinnity, Shinrone, Rathcabin and Roscrea.

8.4 Offaly County Development plan 2009-2015.

8.4.1 The plan in relation to water services refers to the Shannon International River Basin Management Plan (2009-2015) and that policies and objectives as set out will be

14

adhered to. Reference is also made to improving water services throughout the county.

8.5 Birr Town and Environs Development Plan 2010-2016.

Chapter 10 refers to water services and in relation to Proposed Upgrades to Public Water Supply Scheme Offaly County Council’s Assessment of Needs has identified Birr for inclusion in the Water Services Investment Programme (WSIP) for the period 2007- 2014. Birr is also included in a list of the Council’s public water supply schemes, which are approved in the WSIP 2007-2009 for improvements/upgrading works

8.6 The Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) .

8.6.1 The WFD was adopted in 2000. It requires governments to take a new approach to managing all their waters: rivers, canals, lakes, reservoirs, groundwaters, protected areas (including wetlands and other water-dependent ecosystems), estuaries (transitional) and coastal waters. Member states must ensure that their waters achieve at least good status, generally by 2027 at the latest, and that status doesn’t deteriorate in any waters.

8.7 S.I. No. 272 of 2009 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES (SURFACE WATERS) REGULATIONS 2009.

8.7.1 These Regulations apply to all surface waters and are made to give effect to the measures needed to achieve the environmental objectives established for bodies of surface water by Directive 2000/60/EC and provide for measures required to implement Community legislation for the protection of surface water.

8.7.2 Article 4 outlines requirements for a public authority shall ensure, in so far as its functions allow, that surface water bodies comply with the relevant environmental quality standards specified in the Schedules contained in the Regulations, a requirement that protected areas achieve compliance with any standards and objectives laid down for such areas, establish or make operational such measures appropriate to its functions as are necessary to achieve the environmental objectives and quality standards established.

8.7.3 Article 5 requires that a public authority shall not, in the performance of its functions, undertake those functions in a manner that knowingly causes or allows deterioration in the chemical status or ecological status of a body of surface water.

8.7.4 Part III of the regulations set out requirements in relation to Environmental objectives setting out deadlines in relation to acquiring standards and status

8.7.4 Part V defines the role of the EPA in relation to the determining of status of surface waters.

8.7.5 Schedule 1 of the Regulations defines relevant public bodies to which these Regulations apply including An Bord Pleanála.

15

8.7.6 Schedule 2 defines measures for the purpose of the regulations including 5 measures to control the abstraction and the impoundment of fresh surface water, including a register or registers of water abstractions and a requirement of prior authorisation for abstraction and impoundment. Abstractions or impoundments that have no significant impact on water status can be exempted from these controls.

8.7.7 Schedules 3 and 4 define how monitoring of results and classification of surface water should be presented in relation to matters such as status etc.

8.7.8 Schedule 5 sets out the criteria for calculating surface water ecological status and ecological potential outlining biological quality elements, physico-chemical conditions supporting the biological elements including thermal, acidification, oxygenation, nutrients and identity of pollutants

8.7.9 Schedule 6 outlines the environmental quality standards for priority substances and certain other pollutants to apply for the purpose of assigning chemical status.

8.8 S.I. No. 477 of 2011 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (BIRDS AND NATURAL HABITATS) REGULATIONS 2011.

8.8.1 Part 3 of the Regulations relates to conservation of Natural Habitats and Habitats of Species and sets out priorities for the designation of sites in the light of the importance of the sites for the maintenance or restoration at a favourable conservation status of a natural habitat type or types in Annex I to the Habitats Directive, a species in Annex II to the Habitats Directive, the conservation status of natural habitat types and or priority species, the coherence of Natura 2000, and the threats of degradation or destruction to which those sites are exposed.

8.8.2 There is provisions stated in relation to designation, amendment and de-designation of these sites and the procedures are set out in the Regulations.

8.8.3 There is provision for in Article 24 for management plans and agreements to establish the necessary conservation measures or contractual measures which correspond with the ecological requirements of those species and habitats in respect of which the site is included as a European Site or that are subject to the conservation objectives of the site.

8.8.4 Part 4 relates to activities, plans or projects affecting European Sites and to exercising functions relating to nature conservation so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive.

8.8.5 Article 27 relates to duties of public authorities relating to nature conservation and subsection (2) indicates “ any public authority having or exercising functions, including consent functions, which may have implications for or effects on nature conservation shall exercise those functions in compliance with and, as appropriate, so as to secure compliance with, the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive and these Regulations” and subsection (3) “public authorities, in the exercise of their functions, including consent functions, insofar as the requirements of the Habitats Directive are relevant to those functions, shall take the appropriate steps to avoid, in European Sites, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of

16

species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of the Habitats Directive”.

8.8.6 Part 5 of the regulations relate to Appropriate Assessment and Article 42.(1) “a screening for Appropriate Assessment of a plan or project for which an application for consent is received, or which a public authority wishes to undertake or adopt, and which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site as a European Site, shall be carried out by the public authority to assess, in view of best scientific knowledge and in view of the conservation objectives of the site, if that plan or project, individually or in combination with other plans or projects is likely to have a significant effect on the European site” and (2) indicates “a public authority shall carry out a screening for Appropriate Assessment under paragraph (1) before consent for a plan or project is given, or a decision to undertake or adopt a plan or project is taken”.

8.8.7 For the purpose of the regulations public authority includes An Bord Pleanála,

8.8.8 The First Schedule relating to Flora and Fauna in Part 1 refers to all species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive and Part 2 to all species listed in Annex V of the Habitats Directive

8.8.9 The Second Schedule refers to qualifying statutes in relation to this regulation and Water Supplies Act, 1942 is cited.

9.0 Assessment.

9.1 During the oral Hearing I outlined the main considerations arising in relation to the proposed scheme (please refer to section 7.1 of this report) and I proposed to assess the scheme applying those considerations. Prior to considering these matters the question of Appropriate Assessment requires to be addressed.

9.1.1 The site does not lie within a Natura 2000 site or adjacent to such a site. Within the Little Brosna Water Management Unit Action Plan area which includes the Camcor River there are 9 Special Areas of Conservation including the River Shannon Callows, Slieve Bloom Mountains, All Saints Bog And Esker, Bog, Ballyduff/Clonfinane Bog, Ridge Road, SW Of Rapemills, Lisduff Fen, Island Fen and Redwood Bog and 4 Special Protection Areas including All Saints Bog, Dovegrove Callows, Middle Shannon Callows, and River Little Brosna Callows. All of these sites are a considerable distance of the project under consideration.

9.1.2 The Board requested that an ecological report be submitted by Offaly County Council details of which are referred to in section 6 of this report The environment report identifies no significant impact on conservation sites applying the criteria of the Appropriate Assessment Guidelines.

9.1.3 A study of the site also indicated no protected species. Screening of the proposed development for likely impacts direct and / or indirect does not I consider indicate that any significant impacts are likely to occur on any European sites; hence the integrity of any European sites are not likely to be adversely affected. Appropriate Assessment

17

does not therefore I consider arise in relation to this project under consideration. Given the scale of the development EIS does not arise in the context of the statutory regulations and based on the information submitted NIS also does not arise.

9.1.4 The scheme under consideration is for the increased abstraction of water using an existing abstraction point on the river. The increased abstraction is part of ongoing proposals to upgrade the existing Birr Water Supply Scheme which will include upgrading the pipe network, conservation measures to reduce unaccounted water and increased reservoir capacity at Lisduff and other possible infrastructural works, which are not part of the current proposed scheme and which may require future consents and possibly further applications for approval to the Board under other statutory requirements.

9.2 Has justification of an increased abstraction of water been demonstrated by Offaly County Council in relation to the Birr Water Supply Scheme?

9.2.1 In submissions prior to the hearing and during the course of the hearing Offaly County Council presented the case for additional water for the town of Birr in the context of the current supply position and this as the selected option necessitates an increased abstraction of water from the Camcor River. Essentially the position outlined was that the existing scheme had reached a finite balance between supply and demand with a minimum margin of surplus capacity.

9.2.2 The additional abstraction is part of an overall scheme of works to meet future water needs including storage (a new storage reservoir at Lisduff with 5,300m 3 capacity) and network improvement and this requires looking at a 25 years horizon. Currently there are provisions in the event of a breakdown and emergency in the current supply to divert water from another scheme, the Rath GWS, but ongoing use of this supply was not considered to be a viable long term solution to meeting future water demands for the town as these schemes and supplies were required to meet existing and future demands in the wider rural area.

9.2.3 In presenting the case Offaly County Council indicated that irrespective of ongoing improvements to the network to address unaccountable water and there was an ongoing programme of works to address this and the future likelihood of metering these measures would not eliminate a need to augment the water supply to meet future demands given the current margin between supply and demand.

9.2.4 In considering the submissions made, Offaly County have presented and demonstrated a need to increase the supply capacity for the Birr Water Supply Scheme. The scheme currently operates at capacity and it is prudent to make provision for increased future demands. Although current growth had declined and consequential additional demand for water in the current economic has declined it is necessary make provision for future needs. I am satisfied that the case has been demonstrated and that improvements to the existing scheme and other initiatives in reducing levels of unaccountable water and metering does not satisfactorily address this.

18

9.3 If the need for increased water abstraction and water supply demand is established for the Birr Water Supply Scheme is the level of abstraction proposed appropriate and necessary.

9.3.1 This issue is not as simply defined as the level of usage of water will be largely defined by demand. In the current economic climate the rates of growth anticipated in the initial studies will not occur but over a twenty five year cycle and horizon circumstances and demand levels and requirements can and will change. In defining and permitting an abstraction order it is reasonable to assume that abstraction will increase gradually over this period to the level applied for. Therefore any abstraction order will define a maximum level and this level may not occur for a long period.

9.3.2 In the case of Birr indicating a water requirement of 5,258m 3/d is based on estimates calculated in the studies examining future needs for the BWSS and these would indicate that the maximum abstraction level may not occur for up to 25 years as the level of water abstracted will relate to demand levels and the capacity of other constituent parts of the water supply network.

9.3.3 Investment in infrastructure requires making provision to meet future needs and thresholds with a long term overall benefit and short term incremental improvements to infrastructure is not necessarily an appropriate response to meeting future needs. Given that investment in water infrastructure for Birr requires other provision of infrastructure including the provision of a new storage reservoir at Lisduff with a capacity of 5,300m 3, equating a maximum abstraction order to other intended proposed and related infrastructure and a provision of 24 hour storage is reasonable.

9.3.4 In this context the level of abstraction proposed is I consider appropriate and necessary but as already indicated it is a maximum level, it is unlikely that the maximum level will occur for some period of time but in permitting this it does provide a level of certainty for any investment considerations for the Birr area.

9.4 Is the scheme as presented the appropriate location and source of water supply in the context of other possible locations for sourcing future water supply demand for the Birr Water Supply Scheme?

9.4.1 The objectors to the Abstraction Order generally submitted that there are other sources which would be as reliable and more environmentally acceptable. While regard can be taken of all these objections, fundamentally, the scope of this report is to assess the acceptability of the proposal with regard to the provisions of the 1942 Water Supplies Act and as amended by subsequent statutes and statutory instruments. In relation to this matter of alternatives however further information was requested in relation to the alternatives considered and these were submitted by Offaly County Council and circulated to all parties in advance of the oral hearing and were further considered in the course of the oral hearing. Offaly County Council had indicated that other sources of water were examined prior to the selection of the current proposal.

9.4.2 Essentially three sources of water were examined, the increase of abstraction from the Camcor River, abstraction from the Little Brosna River and use of groundwater sources.

19

9.4.3 In relation to groundwater sources bore and yield tests were carried out and Offaly County Council concluded that this source would not meet anticipated future demands. The tests indicated that the water would be sourced from the same aquifer which serves as the water source of the Rath GWS. The studies concluded that a draw down of this source would potentially occur and when considered in its totality the overall yield from the groundwater would not meet the future requirements and needs of both Rath GWS and Birr WSS in the long term. It would also be prudent to maintain the Rath GWS to supply rural areas of south Offaly.

9.4.4 Other factors militating against the use of a groundwater source include increased risk to contamination of a groundwater source and that if it were contaminated there is a longer period of rehabilitating groundwater sources to restore to potable requirement. There are also the ongoing costs of maintaining two different intake supplies with different requirements in relation to treatment and in the overall context of supplying water to the general south Offaly area increased demands in the rural areas of south Offaly could be met by increasing abstraction from the Rath source rather than using the Rath source to supply the town of Birr.

9.4.5 In relation to the using alternative ground water sources to meet future needs of Birr on the basis of the information submitted I am not satisfied that this source would provide a prudent and viable source to meet future needs. The information as submitted does not satisfactorily demonstrate that sufficient levels of water can be provided to meet the needs and demands of both Birr and the wider south Offaly area. Of equal importance the retention to both sources Birr and Rath as separate systems would serve to provide a back up to both water schemes in the event of an unexpected disruption or closure of either supply as there is currently a 150mm connection between both schemes, which can enable some degree of emergency supply to be obtained if necessary.

9.4.6 In relation to the Little Brosna River as a source of water the contention of Offaly County Council is that the Little Brosna has certain disadvantages over the Camcor. The first matter is that the Camcor has a consistently higher water quality than the Little Brosna where a Q value of 3-4 (slightly polluted) has been tested and its quality is below the Camcor which is 4-5. The Little Brosna is also considered to hold a greater risk of pollution as its catchment is mainly though areas of more intensive agriculture with the attendant higher risk of accidental discharge and also that three WWTPs discharge to the Brosna two of which are upstream of Birr.

9.4.7 The Shannon International River Basin Management Plan (2009-2015) and in particular The Little Brosna Water Management Unit Action Plan within the river basin it is noted refers to the Little Brosna River as having unsatisfactory ecological condition in 2008 and that further improvements are required in order for ecological status to reach a satisfactory level as required by the Water Framework Directive.

9.4.8 In contrast Offaly County Council contends that the Camcor rising in the Slieve Blooms does not carry the same level of risk and it has proven to provide a safe, good quality and reliable source of water.

9.4.9 In this regard the Little Brosna Water Management Unit Action Plan in relation to the Camcor River indicates that ecological quality continues to be at a highly satisfactory

20

standard in the upper reaches of the Camcor River in 2008 however excessive siltation and bank erosion were noted and forestry works in the catchment and unrestricted livestock access could be contributing to the silt loadings a matter alluded to by Mr Fitzsimons at the oral hearing.

9.4.10 The Little Brosna it is to be noted however has a greater drainage catchment and consequently has increased flow rates and therefore maximum abstraction of the levels proposed will potentially impact on balance less on the river in particular in periods of dry weather and low flows such as Dry Weather Flows (DWF).

9.4.11 To put this in context both the Camcor and Little Brosna flow through Birr and there is a confluence of both rivers downstream of the town of Birr where the Camcor becomes a tributary of the Little Brosna and the Little Brosna then flows into the River Shannon. The confluence of the Little Brosna and Camcor occurs in close proximity to and slightly upstream of Croghan Bridge to the west of the town of Birr. Therefore downstream of the confluence there is an increased flow and in this section of the river downstream of Croghan Bridge approximately 600 metres downstream of the confluence the Birr WWTP under licence discharges to the river. Please refer to maps in appendix 1 of my report indicating the overall context. Issues relating to any potential impact on the assimilative capacity of the WWTP do not appear to be an issue whether abstraction occurs on the Camcor or the Little Brosna upstream of the confluence based on the data presented. In effect the river has 77,760m 3 per day DWF and the flows are going to be well in excess of this.

9.4.12 Consideration of the Little Brosna as a source of water supply would therefore concentrate upstream of the confluence to the west or southwest of the town of Birr with the likelihood that an area to the southwest of the sown would be preferable to avoid any surface water discharges from the town.

9.4.13 As a source of water supply the Little Brosna upstream of the confluence offers increased flow rates both in relation to Average Daily Flow (ADF) and Dry Water Flow (DWF) though the rates are not significantly greater if transfer of abstraction occurred from the Camcor to the Little Brosna. The location of an abstraction point on the Little Brosna to the southwest of the town would it is noted necessitate additional construction and pumping costs to connect into the existing and water infrastructure.

9.4.14 In an overall context however the Little Brosna upstream and downstream of the confluence with the Camcor does offer an alternative sustainable source of water supply and can supply the volume of water required for the future.

9.4.15 Offaly County Council in considering both rivers have stated a preference to abstract water from the Camcor primarily on the basis of the proven quality of the water on the Camcor for a water supply, the higher potential risk factors of pollution on the Little Brosna and the additional capital and ongoing costs associated with sourcing from the Little Brosna. The issue of costs of treating two separate sources of water supply at their intake points is also indicated. The latter point is made in the context not only of initial capital costs but also ongoing running costs.

9.4.16 To conclude both rivers the Camcor and Little Brosna have the flow capacity to meet the long term needs of the Birr WSS and the rate of abstraction requested. The

21

Camcor has distinct advantages in terms of water quality based on surveys over a number of years; there is an existing intake infrastructure in place at Springfield Bridge and an associated pipe network which can be utilised reducing capital costs.

9.4.17 Using the Little Brosna as a source raises issues of capital costs as a new rising main will have to be constructed from any intake point to a storage reservoir and will necessitate duplication of water treatment of two separate water sources which is not a desirable in terms of cost but does provide two alternative water sources in the event of an emergency or pollution incident on either river. This however would be negated by the provision of increased reservoir storage as part of the overall improvements envisaged in the BWSS.

9.4.18 In relation to the quality level of the Little Brosna water it has a lower Q rating and a level of higher risk but the water can be treated to meet the required standard. I would in this regard note that the requirements of Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC where member states must ensure that their waters achieve at least good status, generally by 2027 at the latest, and also the provisions of the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009 which set out the ratings and standards required to meet this status but the river has a higher level of pressure points and risks and this is a relevant consideration.

9.4.19 On balance I conclude the Camcor provides the optimal solution to meets the future needs of the BWSS in relation to efficiency and a proven standard of water and that not issues arise contrary to the provisions of the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009 or the WFD in relation to status or standards.

9.5 If the location and level of abstraction is appropriate is it considered appropriate in the context of ecological impacts and other impacts?

9.5.1 The primary objection to increased abstraction from the Camcor arises from potential impacts on aquatic life arising from reduced flows on the river. This issue formed the basis of submissions from observers in relation to this proposal.

9.5.2 To put in context the Camcor River is currently used as a source of water abstraction and existing Birr Water Supply Scheme is supplied from two separate surface water abstraction points on the Camcor River. There is an abstraction point close to Kinnity supplies 763 cubic metres of water per day and the other at Springfield Bridge supplies a maximum of 2,273 cubic metres per day.

9.5.3 It is proposed that the existing Kinnity abstraction point will be made redundant and to increase the existing abstraction licence at Springfield Bridge to a maximum of 5,258 cubic metres per day.

9.5.4 As a result of the current proposal there will therefore be increased flows on the Camcor downstream of Kinnity to Springfield Bridge an increase of 763 m3/day. The proposed increased abstraction to a maximum of 5,258 m 3/day increases the abstraction daily rate by an additional 2.985m3/day at Springfield Bridge. As a result the flows on the Camcor river upstream of Springfield Bridge will be increased but will reduce downstream of Springfield Bridge.

22

9.5.5 The character and morphology of the Camcor upstream of Springfield Bridge is a river typical of a rural area. Its characteristics are, however, changing due to increased afforestation in its headwaters in the Slieve Blooms with faster runoff and siltation. In contrast the Camcor downstream of Springfield Bridge flows through an urban area and is significantly modified in relation to its course, the nature of its banks and its overall context.

9.5.6 The section of river affected by a reduction of flow therefore is the section of the river between Springfield Bridge and the confluence with the Little Brosna River and this section of the river in effect is an urban section of the river flowing through Birr. This section of the river has been modified through intervention in particular by the construction of a weir at Oxmanstown Bridge originally as part of a mill race and its original function is long disused at Elmgrove Bridge. The weir and other man made interventions have however significantly changed the characteristic of the river.

9.5.7 In relation to aquatic life the Camcor River is an established fishing river in particular in relation to trout stock. There is a specific species of trout the Croneen trout associated the Camcor. The Croneen spawns in the upper section of the river and travels down the Camcor into the Little Brosna and onto the River Shannon and Lough Derg. It returns to the upper reaches of the Camcor to spawn and does not remain in the Little Brosna entering the Camcor at the confluence. The main concerns of fishery interests raised in relation to the proposed increase in abstraction levels on the Camcor relate to the potential impact of the reduction of water flow and levels on the Croneen trout species. It is noted that this species is not a protected species.

9.5.8 The submissions made by Inland Fisheries Ireland prior to and in the course of the oral hearing is that the Little Brosna River is the preferred option for additional abstraction on the basis that that it has a higher level of flow in particular DWF than the Camcor and using the Little Brosna would assist in maintaining current flows on the Camcor. Other objectors associated with angling also support this position and referred to on their observation to an ongoing decline in water levels on the river and further abstraction would exacerbate this level of decrease. Reference was also made to the concerns in relation to spawning areas though in relation to this matter the abstraction will not impact on these areas which are upstream of the proposed intake point and water levels upstream will increase by the closure of the Kinnity abstraction / intake.

9.5.9 Offaly County Council commissioned a report on hydrology and ecology which was presented in advance of the oral hearing. In essence modelling was carried out in relation to the river examining flow data and the hydraulic model assessed 95 percentile, 98 percentile and DWF flows. Cross sections were also prepared in relation to the river. The model then examined the rates in the context of the maximum rate of abstraction proposed.

9.5.10 Essentially at the maximum level of abstraction the 95 percentile rates would reduce by up to 4% and DWF flows by 9%. The model also noted that the river has a deep centre channel (thalweg) with constant flows and that at DWF a headroom depth of 0.3 metres would be retained at maximum extraction rate. This retained depth would

23

in the view of the ecologist Dr O’Bhriain enable fish to migrate up the river at low flows but it was also indicated that this was an extreme situation.

9.5.11 The hydrologist Dr O’Reilly, having examined flows measured at the gauging station at Springfield Bridge and the subsequent modelling which was carried out, indicated that the 95% flow in the river has not been exceeded except on one day and is generally above the 98% flow rate emphasising that DWF was an extremely rare situation in the context of data available. It was indicated that the river is fast flowing and a changing river irrespective of abstraction. Dr O’Reilly also indicated at the hearing that statistically there is no information to demonstrate decreasing flows over time as suggested by the anglers.

9.5.12 Based on the model notwithstanding the reduction in flow arising from the increased abstraction it is the contention of Offaly County Council that there would be no adverse impacts on fish in the river. It was however acknowledged that mitigation measures were necessary in relation to the river to assist aquatic conservation. It was indicated that in its current state there a need to address the fish pass at the weir which does not operate effectively and fish encounter currently difficulties in negotiating this pass incurring injury and stress. This and other mitigation measures are necessary to preserve fish stocks in the river.

9.5.13 In this regard it is noted a common classification methodology, which is used indicates that an abstraction above 40% of the 95-percentile flow would put the water body in the “at significant risk” category. The percentage of the 95% flow is estimated as approximately 7% in relation to this proposal.

9.5.14 There was divided opinion from the observers in relation to the weir and its function with anglers of the view that the weir in its current state presents no issues of concern to the passage of fish but Inland Fisheries Ireland did tend to agree with the County Council on the need to address problems presented by the weir and associated fish pass on the movement of fish favouring its lowering or removal, the creation of a rock ramp to facilitate fish passage and its replacement by a series of mitigation measures.

9.5.15 Inland Fisheries Ireland’s position is in the evidence presented prior to and in the course of the oral hearing is clearly stated as favouring an alternative source of abstraction to the Camcor. Their submissions prior to and in the course of the hearing present a position of the Camcor River as in a constantly evolving state. Arising from increased afforestation near its source the river is now an increasingly spatey river with increased bank erosion in particular upstream of Springfield Bridge. The necessity is to provide not just a constant and deep thalweg as stated by the County Council and agreed with but also in providing increased water cover over a wider section of the river maintaining deep pools for fish to rest and maintaining wetted areas for biodiversity and feeding, the retention of gravels and where possible an optimum river bed.

9.5.16 In overall terms the IFI contend it is not just a question of maintaining a depth of water as important as that is but an appropriate level of mitigation responses. These mitigation responses should be part of an overall comprehensive assessment of the river to identify the appropriate responses and structures necessary to achieve this and IFI should be liaised with in relation to this. It was also important that measures

24

carried out should be between May and September. Any proposal therefore would I consider require to viewed in the overall context of the river basin management plan and complying with the objectives as set out in the plan. In the context of this proposal there is nothing to suggest it would be contrary to the objectives outlined

9.5.17 In relation to potential impacts on fish stocks and in particular the Croneen trout a species of trout unique to the Camcor a reduction in flow levels has I consider the potential to impact on fish stocks in the river and it is acknowledged that a reduction will occur. This is of particular importance in periods of low flow when fish species could be in distress and when water temperatures are highest. As already indicated the species does not carry any specific conservation designation but the absence does not in itself infer that it does not warrant protection.

9.5.18 It is important however to consider that the level of abstraction will increase over a period of time possible up 25 years and mitigation measures can be put in place to ameliorate potential adverse impacts arising from a reduction in flow rates in the section of the Camcor downstream of Springfield Bridge to the Little Brosna River confluence. It is important to consider that the characteristic of this section of the river will change irrespective of the level of abstraction being altered as the requirements of the Water Framework Directive will require the current Oxmanstown weir and other interventions to be addressed either by modification or removal and this will have implications for the river flow and morphology. Equally changes upstream in the river catchment may and would currently appear to affect the river further downstream in particular if run off rates into the river increase and spate occurrences increase. Remedial works on the river will occur over a period of time and there is no timescale in relation to when any works will occur but there is an appropriate period of time available to plan and implements measures to address current and future changes which will occur to the river in relation its characteristics and morphology.

9.5.19 In effect the river is dynamic and changing and this will continue. Increased rates of runoff may not affect overall flow but it may through erosion alter depth in areas as observed by objectors.

9.5.20 Based on the information submitted there is a potential risk to fish species and stocks but the risks are not insurmountable by the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and there is a timeframe to implement mitigation measures to address this. These measures must be based on an appropriate fisheries assessment of the river morphology to ensure that appropriate instream measures be they rock ramps, pools river bank protection etc. are put in place in the appropriate locations to maintain and enhance the fishery capability of the Camcor and these measures may be required over the overall stretch of the river.

9.5.21 In this regard it is noted that works are ongoing on the river in enhancing fishery interests. The statutory authority responsible for the river is the ESB as part of the Shannon catchment. Requirements of the WFD will require further works to be carried out on the river in particular in relation to the two weirs on the Camcor and remedial works will be required after their removal / alteration. Given that river dynamics change and evolve over time the time period by which the maximum abstraction allows this change to be included in ongoing assessment of fishery interests. These works carried out on the river are not however within the remit of the

25

applicant Offaly County Council to carry out and a condition relating to requiring mitigation measures be carried out is not therefore appropriate.

9.5.22 The information submitted has indicated that a DWF of 0.3 m 3/sec has rarely been observed however it is equally imperative I consider that abstraction should not cause flow to drop below 0.3 m 3/sec at minimum as this is a tight margin for aquatic species particularly in the context of possible high temperatures occurring. Based on avoidance of any perceived impact on aquatic life and applying the precautionary principle, it is considered that flow should not be allowed to drop below 0.35 m 3/sec as a result of any water abstraction.

10. Conclusion.

10.1 In relation to the Water Supplies Act 1942, it is noted that the provisions of Section 9 of the Act relating to the functions of the Minister (Now An Bord Pleanála) in subsection (c) provides for the possibility of reducing the rate of abstraction or of inserting restrictions or conditions on the taking of supply or the ancillary operations specified.

10.2 The Water Demand as set out by Offaly County Council is considered reasonable and justified on the basis of the information presented. It is most important that the issue of security of supply or excess of capacity is addressed as the current scheme has too fine a balance between demand and capacity and therefore security of supply should be a matter of concern. It can also be justified based on a long-term approach and the need for appropriate security of supply.

10.3 Having a capacity or production capability in excess of the demand for water should not lessen the importance given to leakage control and the reduction of Unaccounted for Water (UFW) to its lowest possible level.

10.4 Based on the submission received and in particular that of Inland Fisheries Ireland, abstraction should not cause flow to drop below 0.3 m 3/sec as an absolute minimum. Based on avoidance of any perceived impact on aquatic life, it is considered that flow should not be allowed to drop below 0.35 m 3/sec. as a result of water abstraction.

10.5 The increased abstraction will be incrementally increased over a period of time permitting mitigation measures to be put in place to offset any potential adverse impacts and these mitigation measures should part of an overall scheme to enhance fishery interests

11 RECOMMENDATION

Having examined the proposal for Water Abstraction Order, inspected the site and studied the submissions both written and oral of the Offaly County Council and of the observers / objectors, and taking into account the provisions and objectives of the Water supplies Act and the EU Water Framework Directive, I recommend that the Board confirm the Provisional Order for the proposed abstraction of to a maximum of 5,258 cubic metres of water in any 24 hour continuous period from the subject to a provision order as set out

26

Reasons and Considerations

AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála gave consideration to the following: (a) the submissions and objections made in respect of the proposal, (b) the report and recommendation of the person appointed to conduct an oral hearing into the matter, (c) the current and projected demand for public water supply to serve the town of Birr and its general environs, and the need to improve the treatment standards of potable water in the area, (d) the projected and likely impacts of the proposal on the water regime of the water bodies concerned, on riparian properties and on other associated interests, (e) the provisions of the Water Supplies Act, 1942, and the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and (f) reports and environmental studies carried out on behalf of the applicant in relation to the proposed abstraction,

AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála concluded that the proposal to abstract up to a maximum of 5,258 cubic metres of water in any 24 hour continuous period from the Camcor River at Springfield Bridge at Clonoghill Upper is reasonable and necessary and, subject to compliance with the alterations to the Provisional Order set out below, including a condition further curtailing abstraction at times of low river flow, would not have significant effects on the environment and would not be detrimental to the ecology or to any protected species and would be necessary and acceptable.

NOW THEREFORE In exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 214 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and section 9 of the Water Supplies Act, 1942, the Board decided to make the Provisional Order, subject to alterations, as set out in the Conditions hereunder.

Conditions

1 That flow on the River Camcor should not be allowed to drop below 0.35 m3/sec. as a result of water abstraction.

Reason: In the interest of protecting the ecological integrity of the river and the water features therein.

2 An integrated and automated monitoring system shall be established to combine information on: (a) flow in the Camcor River. (b) the rate of water abstraction from the river. The system shall be maintained for the period of operation of the abstraction scheme, and the information shall be made available for public inspection.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development and to enable active monitoring of the scheme operation.

27

3. This order may be cited as the Birr Water Supply Scheme (Water Abstraction Proposal) Provisional Order 2012.

______Derek Daly

31 st April 2012

Inspectorate

28