ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT August 2013 Report No. 11507150226.R01.A1 Record of Issue Company Client Contact Version Date Issued Method of Delivery

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

August 2013 Report No. 11507150226.R01.A1

Record of Issue

Company Client Contact Version Date Issued Method of Delivery

NTCC Nuala O’Connell A.1 08/08/13 Hand delivery



Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 HUMAN BEINGS ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

4.0 ECOLOGY & APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................... 4

5.0 SOILS AND GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 5

6.0 WATER ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6

7.0 CLIMATE ................................................................................................................................................................... 7

8.0 AIR ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8

9.0 NOISE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9

10.0 LANDSCAPE ........................................................................................................................................................... 10

11.0 MATERIAL ASSETS: ARCHAEOLOGY & UTILITIES............................................................................................ 11

12.0 CLOSURE, RESTORATION & AFTERCARE ......................................................................................................... 12

13.0 INTER-RELATIONSHIPS ........................................................................................................................................ 13

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: EIS Team Members

Table 1.2: Consultee List

Table 1.3: Assessment of alternatives and estimation of magnitude of impact

Table 2.1: Storage and Construction Volumes of Permitted Water impoundment Facility

Table 2.2: Type B Material

Table 2.3: Type C Material

Table 2.4: Type D Material (Road surfacing material)

Table 2.5: HDPE Properties

Table 2.6: GCL Properties

Table 2.7: Non-Woven Geotextile Properties

Table 2.8: Material Quantities for Permitted Water Impoundment Facility

Table 3.1: Population Statistics for Moyne DED

Table 3.2 Previous Planning Applications for Lisheen Mine with an EIS

Table 3.3: Employment Structure Classified by Broad Occupational Group for the Moyne DED



Table 3.4: Journey Times

Table 3.5: Details of local suppliers benefiting from Lisheen Mine continued operations

Table 4.1: Criteria for establishing receptor sensitivity/importance

Table 4.2: Criteria for Assessing Significance of Predicted Impacts

Table 4.3: Designated nature conservation sites within a 15 km radius of the proposed Site

Table 4.4: Main habitats recorded in the Study Area (Fossitt, 2000)

Table 4.5: Breeding Bird Survey Data

Table 4.6: Q-values Recorded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Envision)

Table 4.7: Predicted Impacts of proposed works before mitigation

Table 4.8: Residual Impacts

Table 5.1: Importance of Geological Attributes in Vicinity of the Application Site

Table 5.2: Significance of Impacts on Soil and Geology

Table 5.3: Geotechnical Parameters for Stability Analysis

Table 5.4: Stability Modelling Results

Table 7.1: Monthly, annual means and extreme values from Lisheen Mine weather station (2008 – 2012) (Source:

Lisheen Mine)

Table 7.2: Dominant wind direction at Lisheen Mine over five years, (2008 - 2012).

Table 8.1: Particulate Limit Values of CAFE Directive 2008/50/EC & S.I. 58 of 2009

Table 8.2: Ambient Air Limits in former IPC Reg. No. 550

Table 8.3: Dust Deposition Limits in former IPC Reg. No. 550

Table 8.4: Ambient Air Limits in current IPPCL Reg. No. P0088-03

Table 8.5: Dust Deposition Limits in current IPPCL Reg. No. P0088-03

Table 8.6: Summary of air quality compared to current IPPCL Limit (2008 to 2012 inclusive)

Table 8.7: Summary of PM10 monitoring for assessment period 2010 to 2013

Table 8.8: Summary of general particulates at downwind receptors for the assessment period 2008 to 2012

Table 9.1: Noise Limits Set Out Under IPPC Licence

Table 9.2: Summary of noise results at Lisheen Mine for assessment period 2008 to 2012

Table 9.3: Published Sound Power Levels of Operational/capping plant

Table 13.1: Interactions

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Site Location Map (Regional)

Figure 1.2: Site Location Map (Local)





Figure 2.3: Site layout plan for permitted water impoundment facility

Figure 2.4: Site layout plan for modification to store tailings

Figure 2.5: Sections A-A` & B-B` (See Figure 2.3 for section locations)

Figure 2.6: Sections C-C` & D-D` (See Figure 2.4 for section locations)

Figure 2.7: Typical sections & details of permitted water impoundment facility

Figure 2.8: Final closure plan (conceptual)

Figure 2.9: Plan & section showing instrumentation

Figure 2.10: Instrumentation details

Figure 4.1: EU and National Designations within 15 km of Lisheen Mine

Figure 4.2: Habitat Map

Figure 4.3: Sampling locations. (Sweeney, 2013)

Figure 5.1: Soil Classification (Source: GSI)

Figure 5.2: Sub-soil Classification (Source: GSI)

Figure 5.3: Bedrock Classification (Source: GSI)

Figure 7.1: Average monthly rainfall at Lisheen Mine for five years, (2008 - 2012)

Figure 7.2: Dominant wind direction at Lisheen Mine over five years, (Assessment Period 2008 to 2012)

Figure 8.1: Ambient Air Monitoring Locations

Figure 8.2: Dust Deposition Monitoring Locations

Figure 9.1: Noise Sensitive Locations, Noise Monitoring Locations and On-Site Noise Sources

Figure 12.1: Final Closure Plan (Conceptual)

Figure 12.2: Volume C of CRAMP (2013) - Details of wetland (Pg. 45)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1.1: Review of relevant plans and policies

Appendix 4.1: NPWS Site Synopsis

Appendix 4.2: Water Quality Reports – Q values

Appendix 5.1: Stability Analysis

Appendix 6.1: SWS Water Impact Assessment

Appendix 9.1: BS 5228 Part 1 2009 Site Noise Calculation Methodology

Appendix 10.1: Landscape and Visual Impact Screening Letter

CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION

August 2013 Report No. 11507150226.R01.1.A1

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Overview of Proposed Development ............................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Structure of the EIS ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.5 Structure ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.6 Team ............................................................................................................................................................ 3

1.7 Consultation .................................................................................................................................................. 3

1.8 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 4

1.8.2 Summary of alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 4

1.8.3 Assessment of alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 5

1.9 Plans and Policies Assessment .................................................................................................................... 5

1.10 Difficulties in Compiling the Specified Information ........................................................................................ 5

1.11 References ................................................................................................................................................... 6

TABLES

Table 1.1: EIS Team Members ................................................................................................................................. 3

Table 1.2: Consultee List........................................................................................................................................... 3

Table 1.3: Assessment of alternatives and estimation of magnitude of impact ......................................................... 5

FIGURES



APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1.1 Review of relevant plans and policies


August 2013 Report No. 11507150226.R01.1.A1 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

This document comprises an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), prepared in support of an application

made by Lisheen Milling Ltd. (Applicant/Lisheen Mine/Lisheen) to North Tipperary County Council (NTCC)

for permission to modify the use of a permitted water impoundment facility to store mine tailings at Lisheen

Mine, Killoran, County Tipperary. Regional and local site location maps have been provided in Figures 1.1

and 1.2, respectively. The EIS has been compiled in accordance with statutory requirements and non-

statutory guidance on EIS preparation for development projects.

The prime purpose of this EIS is to assist NTCC in determination of this ‘modification’ planning application.

To this end, the EIS provides information on the extent to which the proposed ‘modification’ activities have

the potential to result in any significant effects on the human and biophysical environment, and where this

potential is identified, to describe measures that would be undertaken where possible to avoid these effects

from arising. The consideration of this information in the form of an EIS is a requirement of the process for

determination of a planning application by NTCC described within the Planning and Development Acts, 2000

– 2012 and the associated Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 to 2012.

This EIS has been prepared by Golder Associates Ireland Ltd, (Golder), with the support of other

consultancy advisors and Lisheen Mine staff as necessary. A list of the main contributors to this EIS is

provided in Section 1.6 below. Consultations have been held with NTCC to confirm the scope of the

assessment required to support the content of the EIS and associated planning application.

Key areas of information presented within this EIS concern the nature and extent of the Proposed

Development, the character of the receiving environment and likely interactions between the two that could

result in significant environmental impacts. Information presented on the receiving environment identifies the

intrinsic value and importance of potential impact receptors.

1.2 Overview of Proposed Development

The proposed development, which is the subject of this planning application and associated EIS is

summarised as follows:

The development will consist of modification of the permitted water impoundment facility (permitted

under An Bord Pleanála Ref. No. PL22.100093 (North Tipperary County Council Reg. Ref.

PLC17663)) including use of the facility to provide for the storage and management of mine tailings

within the same structure (for the purposes of extending life of mine), and associated capping and

reinstatement activities. The proposed development also includes: the installation of spigots and

reclaim pumps; and all other ancillary site development works.

It is noted that any water displaced as a result of the proposed development, which cannot be accommodated in the permitted water impoundment facility/tailings structure as the mine nears closure, will be managed in the existing TMF, or in a wetland feature located downstream of the structure. This wetland feature already forms part of the Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan (CRAMP) (Volume C), and is in accordance with IPPC Licence Ref. No. P0088-03 and Planning Permission Ref. No. PL22.100093. Further details on this wetland feature are provided in Chapters 4.0 (Flora and Fauna), 6.0 (Water) and 12.0 (Closure).

1.3 Structure of the EIS

The EIS is made up of 13 no. chapters including this Chapter 1.0 – Introduction, with tables within each

chapter, and figures at the end of each chapter where relevant. The Non-Technical Summary appears as a

separate document.



1.4 Methodology

The methods of assessment have regard to guidance documents published by the Environmental Protection

Agency and other relevant statutory bodies, namely:

Guidelines for Planning Authorities and An Bord Pleanála on carrying out Environmental Impact

Assessment (Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, 2013);

Advice Notes on Current Practice in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements

(Environmental Protection Agency, 2003); and

Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements

(Environmental Protection Agency, 2002).

Each of the 13 no. chapters of the EIS follows the same general format, as follows:

An Introduction describing the purpose of the chapter;

A description of the Methodology used in the chapter;

A description of the aspects of the Existing Environment relevant to the environmental topic

under consideration;

An assessment of the Impact resulting from the proposed activities at the Application Site;

Recommendations for Mitigation measures to avoid, reduce, and where possible remedy any

significant negative impacts identified; and

An assessment of the Residual/Likely Significant Effects which will remain assuming that the

recommended mitigation measures are fully successfully implemented.

1.5 Structure

The EIS is structured under the following subject headings:

Chapter 1.0 Introduction;

Chapter 2.0 Project Description;

Chapter 3.0 Human Beings and Traffic;

Chapter 4.0 Flora and Fauna;

Chapter 5.0 Soils and Geology;

Chapter 6.0 Water;

Chapter 7.0 Climate;

Chapter 8.0 Air;

Chapter 9.0 Noise;

Chapter 10.0 Landscape;

Chapter 11.0 Material Assets: Archaeology and Utilities;

Chapter 12.0 Closure, Restoration and Aftercare; and

Chapter 13.0 Inter-relationships.



1.6 Team

The following team members were involved in the preparation of this EIS and are included in Table 1.1

below:

Table 1.1: EIS Team Members

Chapter Team Member

Introduction

Golder

Project Description

Human Beings and Traffic

Flora and Fauna

Soils and Geology

Water Schlumberger Water Services

Climate

Golder and Lisheen Milling Ltd. Air Quality

Noise

Landscape and Visual MosArt Landscape Architects

Material Assets: Archaeology and Utilities Irish Archaeology Consultancy, Golder

Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Golder and Lisheen Milling Ltd.

Inter-relationships Golder

Planning matters Tom Philips & Associates

1.7 Consultation

In preparation for this EIS and Planning Application, a number of consultation meetings and written

communications have been undertaken by Lisheen and Golder. Table 1.2 below summarises the consultee

list contacted in preparation of this EIS.

Table 1.2: Consultee List

North Tipperary Co. Council Planning Offices,

Nenagh Co. Tipperary (Meeting)

National Monuments Dun Sceine,

Harcourt Lane, Dublin 2 (Correspondence)

EPA Headquarters PO Box 3000,

Johnstown Castle Estate, Co. Wexford (Meeting)

Bord Gáis Energy 3

rd floor, City Quarter,

Lapps Quay, Cork (Meeting)

Lisheen Mine Community Forum Moyne,

Co. Tipperary (Meetings)



1.8 Alternatives

1.8.1 Introduction

In order to consider possible alternatives to the proposed development, the key principles of sustainable

development have been incorporated into this alternatives assessment, namely the consideration of social,

environmental and economic factors. This provides a systematic approach to evaluate project alternatives in

a robust manner, with the strengths and weaknesses of each option discussed under these principles of

sustainability.

1.8.2 Summary of alternatives

The following alternatives were considered as part of this alternatives assessment:

Alternative A - Construct a new tailings management facility (TMF) in an alternative location,

and not make use of the permitted water impoundment structure to store tailings. Due to

planning timelines and the potential of seasonal restrictions, construction would not commence

until spring 2014. The earliest this new TMF would be available for tailings storage would be

approximately Autumn/Winter 2014. Additional capacity to store tailings at Lisheen is required

in advance of this timeline;

Alternative B – Do nothing scenario. If additional tailings capacity is not made available, this

would result in the closure of the mine prematurely;

Alternative C – Planning application for modification of the permitted water impoundment to

store mine tailings. This would facilitate the additional capacity that Lisheen Mine requires for

tailings storage, and within the appropriate timeline. This would also allow for the continued

management of surface water (during operation) and through a permitted wetland feature (post

closure) (Volume C of current CRAMP for Lisheen). This alternative also facilitates the

progressive capping of the main TMF, as requested by the local community forum; and

Alternative D – Raising the existing TMF from 136.5mOD to 137.5mOD over an area of

approximately 40 ha. Following consultation with the local community, this alternative was

considered to be unfavourable based on social grounds, as the local community were very

much in favour of continued progressive restoration of the main TMF.

Each alternative is considered below with regard to the principles of sustainability (Social, Environmental and

Economic considerations).

Social considerations

Prior to the preparation of this EIS, Lisheen Mine has consulted with the local community representative

forum on a number of occasions. During these meetings, it was evident that the local community were very

much in favour of progressive capping of the main TMF, and that this should remain a priority of the

Applicant in the run up to mine closure. As such, the proposed modification of the permitted water

impoundment facility to store tailings (Alternative C) will facilitate such progressive capping works on the

main TMF by providing the additional tailings capacity required, and also allowing advanced capping

activities to continue uninterrupted. Alternatives A, B and D are less desirable from a social point of view, for

the following reasons:

Additional structure to be built in an alternative (greenfield) location thus presenting potentially

new social concerns e.g. landscape impact (Alternative A);

Significant loss of earnings in the local community due to closure of the mine prematurely

(Alternative B); and

Possible slowdown of capping operations due to raising of the existing TMF across 40 ha. area.

(Alternative D).



Environmental considerations

Alternative A is much less desirable than Alternative C from an environmental viewpoint, given that the

modification of the permitted water impoundment facility (Alternative C) is essentially the re-use of a

permitted structure, rather than the construction of a new facility in another greenfield location (Alternative

A). A new structure would result in additional land-take, and possibly give rise to fresh

planning/environmental concerns, in particular archaeology, landscape and traffic impacts as a minimum.

It is notable that the water that was to be stored in the permitted water impoundment structure will otherwise

be suitably managed during operation of the mine through the existing TMF and modified structure (in the

freeboard above tailings), and following capping and restoration, in a constructed wetland which already

forms part of the permitted CRAMP. This element of Alternative C is thus neutral in terms of environmental

impact. From the environmental perspective therefore, Alternative C is again most desirable.

Regarding, Alternative D, this option is favourable from an environmental viewpoint, however social concerns

were the over-riding consideration for this option (progressive restoration of main TMF).

Economic considerations

The re-use of the permitted water impoundment facility to store tailings is again most desirable from the

economic viewpoint, given that Alternative A (new TMF structure) would incur significant cost, and

Alternative B (closure prematurely), would be a cost of much greater significance to the operator and the

local community/people employed by the mine. Chapter 3.0 highlights the number of local businesses that

benefit from Lisheen Mine, which is quite significant.

From the economic perspective, Alternative D was also less desirable than Alternative C, given that an

upstream raise of 1.0 metre over an area of 40 ha. would be required.

1.8.3 Assessment of alternatives

Table 1.3 below provides a summary of the alternatives assessment:

Table 1.3: Assessment of alternatives and estimation of magnitude of impact

Description of Alternatives Social

Considerations Environmental Considerations

Economic Considerations

Alternative A - Construct new tailings management facility in alternative location

Moderate adverse

Moderate adverse

Significant adverse

Alternative B - Do nothing scenario - result in the closure of the mine prematurely

Significant adverse

Negligible Significant adverse

Alternative C - Planning application for modification of water impoundment to store mine tailings

Significant beneficial

Moderate beneficial

Significant beneficial

Alternative D - Raising the existing TMF from 136.5mOD to 137.5mOD over an area of approximately 40ha.

Significant adverse

Moderate beneficial

Slight beneficial

1.9 Plans and Policies Assessment

A review of plans and policies considered relevant to this application for proposed modification of the water

impoundment facility is included in Appendix 1.1 attached.

1.10 Difficulties in Compiling the Specified Information

No difficulties were encountered in the preparation of the EIS and planning application.



1.11 References

1) Guidelines for Planning Authorities and An Bord Pleanála on carrying out Environmental Impact

Assessment (Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, 2013);

2) Advice Notes on Current Practice in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements

(Environmental Protection Agency, 2003); and

3) Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements (Environmental

Protection Agency, 2002).



FIGURES

0 1,000 2,000500Meters

1.1 V.1Golder Associates (IRL) Ltd

Town Centre HouseDublin Road

NaasCo. Kildare

Tel: 045 874411

Drawing No. Rev

Size Scale Status

OS Licence No. Project No.

Created by DateRequested by Approved by

Title

Project

Client

Lisheen Milling Ltd.

KMG CW CW AUGUST 2013

AR0056013 11 5071 5 0226

A4 A.01:50,000

Planning Application

Site Location Map (Regional)

2N

LegendApplication Site BoundaryLands Under Control of the Applicant

0 500 1,000250Meters



NaasCo. Kildare

Tel: 045 874411

Drawing No. Rev

Size Scale Status



Title

Project

Client


AR0056013 11 5071 5 0226

A4 A.01:25,000

OSI Tile Purchased - 04/04/2013Discovery Series 60



Site Location Map (Local)

2N




APPENDIX 1.1 Review of relevant plans and policies

APPENDIX 1.1 - PLANS AND POLICIES REVIEW

August 2013 Report No. 11507150226.R01.1.1.A1

Table of Contents

1.0 PLANS AND POLICIES REVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Broad Planning Context ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 NTCC County Development Plan 2010-2016 ............................................................................................... 2

TABLES

Table 1: Chapter 4 - Environment ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Table 2: Chapter 6 - Economic Activity ............................................................................................................................... 4

Table 3: Chapter 8 - Built and Natural Heritage .................................................................................................................. 5


August 2013 Report No. 11507150226.R01.1.1.A1 1

1.0 PLANS AND POLICIES REVIEW

1.1 Introduction

This document reviews the principal development control policies of particular relevance to the Application

Site. In particular, situations are identified where key policy objectives are supported or contravened by the

proposals.

Section 1.2 of this chapter reviews the broad planning context to development control decisions within North

Tipperary County Council (NTCC).

Development control decisions within NTCC are made largely within the context of the County Development

Plan. The Plan sets out the development control policy framework against which the planning application

would be determined. This is described in the Section 1.3.

1.2 Broad Planning Context

The broad planning context to development control decisions within NTCC includes the National Spatial

Strategy, Regional and National Planning Guidelines, the Water Framework Directive, the County

Landscape Assessment, Flood Guidelines and adjoining local Authority Development Plans. The following

sections provide an overview of these aspects of the NTCC broad planning context.

The National Spatial Strategy (2002) is a 20-year planning framework that aims to achieve a better balance

of social, economic and physical development across the Country supported by more effective planning.

Core messages from the National Spatial Strategy include:

A wider range of work opportunities;

A better quality of life for all; and

Effective urban and rural planning leading to an environment of the highest quality.

Regional Authorities have an important role in the implementation of the National Spatial Strategy through

the preparation and implementation of regional socioeconomic strategies and regional planning guidelines.

The North Tipperary County Development Plan is fully supportive of strategic policy guidelines set out in the

Mid-West Regional Economic Strategy and Regional Planning Guidelines (2010 to 2022).

The Water Framework Directive (2000) describes a framework for comprehensive water resource

management within the European Community. The fundamental objective of the Water Framework Directive

concerns the maintenance of “high status” water resources and the prevention of deterioration in the existing

status of water resources. This is addressed in Chapter 4.0 and 6.0 of the EIS.

The County Landscape Character Assessment provides the basis for assessment and classification of

landscape for the County to inform planning decisions that concern the potential for a change in landscape

character.

Flood Guidelines (2009) introduce comprehensive mechanisms for the incorporation of flood risk

identification, assessment and management into the planning process.

The County Development Plan has been prepared with regard to Development Plan Guidelines (2007),

guidelines and circular documents published by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local

Government (DoEHLG) as they relate to land use planning. Relevant guidelines and circulars are referenced

against specific County Development Plan policies as appropriate.



1.3 NTCC County Development Plan 2010-2016

The NTCC County Development Plan (CDP) has been prepared in accordance with the Planning and

Development Act 2000 (as amended) and sets out the Council’s Strategy, vision and objectives for planning

and sustainable development within the County. The CDP draws upon relevant National and Regional

Plans, Policies and Strategies that concern planning and sustainable development.

Of particular relevance to the Application Site, the CDP sets out objectives for:

Environmental protection;

Economic activity; and

Built and natural heritage.

The following sections of this appendix provide a synopsis of key policy implications of the Proposed

Development for the above NTCC CDP development control considerations.

CDP Chapter 4 - Environment

Policies concerning environmental protection aspects of development control within NTCC are presented

within Chapter 4 of the CDP. A brief assessment of the policies is undertaken in the context of the proposed

application.

Table 1: Chapter 4 - Environment

Policy Assessment

Policy ENV 1: General Policy

It is the policy of the Council to implement the

Habitats Directive and that where relevant, projects

will be screened by the Council for the need to

undertake a Habitats Directive Assessment under

Article 6 of the Habitats Directive.

A Habitats Directive Assessment is required

for the Application Site and a Natura Impact

Statement has been prepared accordingly,

which concludes that no significant effect on

the receiving waters will occur following the

introduction of mitigation measures. Final

details of which are to be agreed with the

regulators.

Policy ENV 2: Landscape Protection

It is the policy of the Council in assessing

applications for development that would impact on

landscape to balance the need to protect landscape

character against the requirement for socio-

economic development in accordance with value

assessment and sensitivity as identified in the

County Landscape Character Assessment 2009.

The assessment presented in this EIS

concludes that no aspect of the proposed

modification from permitted water

impoundment to a tailings storage facility will

result in any significant adverse effects on

landscape conservation priorities within North

Tipperary.

Policy ENV 3: Vulnerable Landscapes

It is the policy of the Council to resist development

that would:

(d) Materially impact upon the character, integrity or

uniformity of a vulnerable landscape or scenic area

when viewed from scenic routes and the environs of

archaeological or historic sites.

This policy identifies the protection of vulnerable

As Chapter 10 of this EIS screens out the need for visual impact assessment, this Policy is not considered to be relevant for this planning application



Policy Assessment

landscapes or scenic areas, views from scenic

routes and landscapes in proximity to historic sites

as priority objectives.

Policy ENV 4: Views and Prospects

It is the policy of the Council to protect views and

prospects of special amenity value or special

interest.

As Chapter 10 of this EIS screens out the need

for visual impact assessment, this Policy is not

considered to be relevant for this planning

application.

Policy ENV 5, ENV 7, ENV 17, ENV 18

Policy ENV 5: Water Framework Directive

It is Council policy to implement the provisions of any

water quality management plans prepared at a

national, regional or local level. These policies

concern the protection of surface and groundwater

resources from adverse effects of development

projects.

A detailed water impact assessment (Chapter

6.0) has been prepared by Schlumberger

Water Services (SWS) to address these

policies. As concluded by SWS, there will be

no significant impact on water quality of the

receiving waters (surface and groundwater),

including the Drish and Rossestown Rivers, as

a result of the proposed activities.

Policy ENV 7: Groundwater Protection

It is the Council’s policy to protect groundwater

resources and drinking water catchments.

Policy ENV 17 Water Protection

Land uses shall not give rise to the pollution of

ground or surface waters.

Policy ENV 18: Flooding

It is the policy of the Council to implement the

recommendations of the DoEHLG Guidelines entitled

‘The Planning System and Flood Risk Management’

in the management of development within the

County.

Policy ENV 20: Agriculture

It is the policy of the Council to protect the viability of

farms and best quality land for agriculture and

related uses. Proposals that are considered to have

a negative impact on the viability of existing farms

will not be favourably considered.

With regard to the proposed tailings facility,

local farmland is vulnerable to loss of value

through changes in groundwater quality that

could arise from contamination associated with

a failure of the TMF liner. The proposed

facility is adjacent to the existing TMF and will

be engineered to address any potential

seepage impacts. In addition a significant

monitoring network will be established similar

to that of the existing TMF and will act as a

warning system for potential contamination

issues. As described in subsequent sections

of this EIS, in particular Chapter 6.0 (Water),

significant adverse effects of the Proposed



Policy Assessment

Development on groundwater and surface

water are considered unlikely to occur. As a

consequence, the proposals will not to

contravene this policy.

Policy ENV 43: Noise and Dust

It is the policy of the Council to seek to minimise the

noise through the planning process by ensuring that

the design of future developments incorporates

measures to prevent or mitigate the transmission of

noise and vibration where appropriate.

As described later in this EIS (Chapter 9.0),

management controls are in place to mitigate

potential impacts associated with noise or

dust. As a consequence, the proposed

modification from permitted water

impoundment to tailings facility would not

contravene objectives of Policy ENV 43 that

seek the avoidance of vibration associated

with development projects.

CDP Chapter 6 – Economic Activity

Policies relating to aspects of development control decisions that concern economic activity within NTCC are

presented within Chapter 6 of the CDP. Policies of particular relevance to determination of the planning

application, are considered below.

Table 2: Chapter 6 - Economic Activity

Policy Assessment

Policy ECON 1

Policy ECON 1: Employment Growth and Promotion

It is the policy of the Council to promote, encourage

and facilitate enterprise and employment throughout

the County.

Modifying the use of the permitted water

impoundment to a tailings facility supports continued

mining activities and as such consolidation of

employment prospects. It is therefore considered

that the proposed activities support the objective of

Policy ECON 1.

Policy ECON 4: Masterplan for Lisheen Mine Site,

Moyne Templetouhy, Thurles

It is a policy of the Council to co-operate with the

owners/operators of the Lisheen Mine site in the

promotion and the development of lands situated at

Moyne Templetouhy to provide for proper planning

and sustainable development of the area. The

Council will promote development which will provide

for the following:

(e) Reuse of existing infrastructure within the mine

complex wherever possible.

Re-using the permitted water impoundment as a

tailings facility reduces potential for impact on land if

a new tailings facility were to be sited elsewhere. As

such the proposed activities are considered to

support the objective of Policy ECON 4, given that

this application is proposing to reuse a water

impoundment facility currently permitted under An

Bord Pleanála Ref. No. PL22.100093 (North

Tipperary County Council Reg. Ref. PLC17663).



Policies relating to aspects of development control decisions that concern built and natural heritage within

NTCC are presented within Chapter 8 of the CDP. Policies concerning this planning application are

considered below.

Table 3: Chapter 8 - Built and Natural Heritage

Policy Assessment

Policy HERT 25/26 – Historically Important Sites

It is the policy of the Council to:

(iii) Preserve, protect and where necessary enhance

significant heritage objects such as mass rocks and holy

wells and/or other significant cultural features that form part

of the cultural heritage of the County. Chapter 11.0 of the EIS addresses

archaeology and cultural heritage. The

proposed activities will not impact on any

archaeological features, therefore an

archaeological assessment was screened

out.

Policy HERT 26: Archaeology

It is the policy of the Council to protect all monuments

included in the Record of Monuments and Places. The

Council will also seek to protect, where practicable, the

setting of and access to sites, views and prospects of the

sites and will ensure sympathetic development adjoining and

in the vicinity of sites.

Policy HERT 27: Tree Preservation

It is the policy of the Council to seek the protection of mature

trees and hedgerows that contribute to amenities of the area.

No trees or hedgerows will be removed as a

result of this proposed application, therefore

this policy is not considered to be relevant to

this application.

Policy HERT 29: Designated Environmental Sites

It is the policy of the Council to maintain the quality and

conservation value of designated environmental sites,

including SACs, cSACs, SPAs, cSPAs, NHAs and pNHAs,

and when assessing development proposals to provide for

the protection, conservation and enhancement of wildlife

habitats and designated sites.

Chapters 4.0 (Flora and Fauna), 6.0 (Water)

and 12.0 (Closure) are intended to address

these policies, to ensure that all designated

environmental sites will be protected during

any proposed activities in this planning

application.

Policy HERT 29a: Protection of Designated Environmental

Sites

It is the policy of the Council to restrict any development

which would be harmful to or that would result in a significant

deterioration of habitats and/or disturbance of species in a

SAC, cSAC, SPA, cSPA, NHA or pNHA.

Policy HERT 30: Protection of Areas of Nature Conservation

It is the policy of the Council in Areas of Nature Conservation

that proposals for development will only be permitted where

it can be clearly demonstrated there is no direct or indirect

adverse effect on:

(i) areas designated as sites or candidate or potential sites of

national or international importance for wildlife;



Policy Assessment

(ii) protected species and their habitats;

(iii) features of major importance to wild flora and fauna;

(iv) important features of geological or geomorphological

importance; and

(v) local biodiversity.

CHAPTER 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT


2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 Introduction

This chapter of the EIS provides details of the main features of the permitted water impoundment facility,

which is currently permitted under Planning Permission Ref. No. PLC17663 and ABP Ref. No.

PL22.100093. It is proposed to modify use of this facility to accept tailings, therefore a detailed description of

this facility is considered relevant to set out the baseline conditions, into which mine tailings will be placed

over a c. 12 month period.

As the proposed development is an extension to current operations at Lisheen Mine, an outline of the main

components and mining activities currently under way at Lisheen is also provided. Where appropriate,

specific design features necessary to enable the permitted water impoundment facility to store tailings are

identified.

2.2 Current Operation

Lisheen Mine has been operational since 1997, with production underway since 1999. The mine is located

c. 12 km north east of Thurles and c. 4 km south west of Templetouhy, County Tipperary. The general

location of the current operation at Lisheen Mine is shown in Figure 2.1.

The current mining operation at Lisheen comprises the following principal facilities:

A 1.5 km long main decline, providing primary access to four key mining zones;

A mine ventilation system with above ground vent raise structures;

Underground primary crushing plant and conveyor system for transport of mined rock above ground;

Surface ore stockpile and ore processing mill;

Paste backfill plant, operational since 2005;

Tailings Management Facility (c. 68 ha.), with approximately 10 ha. capped in 2010, and Phase 2

capping currently being undertaken as of May 2013. Progressive capping is expected to continue in the

next 2 years;

Minewater treatment plants, conditioning ponds and infrastructure for discharge of treated mine-water to

the Drish and Rossestown Rivers; and

Site offices, maintenance shops, weighbridge, access roads and associated facilities.

The mine currently produces c. 7,000 tonnes of Zinc and Lead ore per day, with extraction taking place from

several ore bodies within an extensive area of Carboniferous Waulsortian Limestone. Excavated rock is sent

to a primary underground crusher, with crushed ore transferred by covered conveyor along the main decline

to an above ground covered stockpile.

The ore is then transferred by covered conveyor to the processing plant where it is crushed to a powder by

sag and ball mills. Recycled water is then used to convert crushed ore to a slurry that is passed to floatation

cells for separation of Zinc and Lead. These are then thickened and filtered to form a stable concentrate.

This is then transferred by road to a coastal transfer facility where the concentrate is loaded to ships for

distribution to countries around the world.

Lisheen Mine currently operates four principal mining areas with an average ore depth of c. 170 m below

ground surface:

Main Zone – the largest mining area and the first to be developed;



Derryville Zone – also mined from the outset at Lisheen;

Bog Zone – three separate ore bodies that have been mined since 2007; and

Derryville Island pod – mined since 2012.

Much of the ore deposit has been mined from the full area of each mining zone. With the exception of Bog

Zone, Derryville Island pod and a small area of the Main Zone, the footprint of the mine has not been

significantly extended since around 2007. Mining operations are programmed to cease at Lisheen in spring

2015. Provisions for progressive closure, decommissioning, monitoring and aftercare at Lisheen are

reviewed within Chapter 12.0 of this EIS.

2.3 Need for the Development

The following section highlights the need for this proposal to modify use of the permitted water impoundment

facility to accept tailings:

As the mine approaches the end of its life it becomes increasingly difficult to predict the extent of

tailings likely to be ultimately produced due to a variety of factors including;

Mine plan optimisation – the Lisheen Mine is required to maximise the national resource under the

terms of the mine lease. To achieve this annual reviews of the mine plan are carried out to extract

as much economic ore as technically possible. This is influenced strongly by the markets e.g. metal

price, exchange rates etc.;

Increased ore reserve as a result of developing the mine; and

Increased ore tonnage reserve from the Derryville Island ore body (Permission granted in 2012).

These changing circumstances are constantly under review with the mine planners and geologists as

the extraction of the tail of the mine project is maximised, and therefore makes it very difficult to

accurately predict the final tailings quantum for storage at surface. In this regard, the final exact

quantum of tailings is currently unknown. Current indications however predict additional storage is

required;

Through careful design, the quantum of storage in the existing TMF may be further maximised. This

too is an evolving process. As with the mine, when the TMF is reaching capacity, accurately predicting

its final capacity is also difficult. The ability to manage storm water surges is another consideration. In

this regard, the proposed modification of the permitted water impoundment facility will still allow for the

ancillary use of the structure for surface water management purposes as part of the site’s overall water

management system;

At current estimates, it is predicted that it may be necessary to provide for an additional storage of

approximately 390,000 m3 void for tailings in order to maximise the mine life through the exploitation of

the ore in the mine (as is required, by the Department under its mining lease);

In order to minimise the footprint of the residual development following closure, and facilitate

progressive capping of the main TMF, the ideal location for this contingency tailings storage is in the

permitted water impoundment structure located adjoining the existing TMF; and

The design of the permitted water impoundment facility is identical in engineering terms to a structure

required for the storage of tailings.



2.4 Site Conditions

The following sections describe the site conditions under the permitted water impoundment facility, providing

background to the receiving environmental setting of the facility to accept tailings.

2.4.1 General

Site investigation work was undertaken at the location of the permitted water impoundment facility from

previous studies and the following text is based on data obtained from this and construction records relating

to the removal of peat during the raising of the main Tailings Management Facility (TMF), (Planning Study

Technical Report, 1995).

2.4.2 Bedrock

The bedrock underlying the permitted water impoundment facility comprises a thin layer of Waulsortian

Limestone some 30 m to 80 m thick with the upper section dolomitised. This overlies the argillaceous

limestone of the Ballysteen Limestone Formation.

The dolomitised Waulsortian Limestone can contain paleokarst features particularly when faulted. However,

the permitted water impoundment facility is located on the footwall side of the ore zones within an area of low

fault incidence, and therefore, the paleokarstic potential of the site is low as previously indicated for the

existing TMF (Planning Study Technical Report, 1995).

2.4.3 Hydrology

The existing TMF and adjoining permitted water impoundment facility is located in the Suir River catchment,

between the Rossestown River and the Drish River (Planning Study Technical Report, 1995). The Drish

River flows northwards around the southern edge of the site, then deviates south westwards to join the Suir

River south of Thurles. A small tributary of the Drish River rises in the Derryville Bog and flows across farm

land to join the Drish River 3 km south of the orebodies. The Rossestown River rises 1.5 km east of

Templetouhy and initially flows through the bog, then farmland to the Suir River.

Rainfall data at Lisheen has been collected since 1991 and indicates the mean annual rainfall between

840 mm and 900 mm. The mean potential evapotranspiration at Lisheen has been estimated to be

approximately 450 mm (GAUK, 1997, Report No. 96512126). The dry periods correspond to the summer

months when evaporation is at a maximum. The wet periods are late autumn and winter.

2.4.4 Groundwater

The peat aquifer in the vicinity of the permitted water impoundment facility is connected to the regional

groundwater regime by the relatively low permeability glacial till which occurs beneath the peat. During

mining, the major dewatering activities have had an impact on the groundwater levels beneath the existing

TMF and adjoining permitted water impoundment facility. The maximum drawdown is between 3 m and 10

m from the existing water levels which equates to between 0 m and 6 m into the bedrock.

2.4.5 Seismicity

A peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.16 g, representing a 1 in 10,000 year event (Maximum Credible

Earthquake, MCE) has been used in stability calculations (Planning Study Technical Report, 1995).

2.5 Design details of the Permitted Water Impoundment Facility

The proposed development that is the subject of this EIS comprises a modification from water storage to the

storage of tailings at a permitted water impoundment facility adjoining the main TMF. The general location of

the permitted water impoundment facility is depicted in Figures 2.1 and 2.2.

The following sections describe the permitted water impoundment facility in detail. It is noted that the

permitted impoundment facility was originally designed to accept both water, and if the need arose, to also

store tailings as a contingency measure. Its design is similar to the existing main TMF facility, previously



approved under Planning Reference No. PLC17663/ABP Ref. No. PL22.100093, and IPPC Licence Reg.

no. P0088-03.

2.5.1 General

The location of the permitted water impoundment facility is along the northern sector of the north-west wall

(Figures 2.1 and 2.2.) and confined between the mine site boundary and a nearby wind turbine, and provides

a potential water storage of 390,000 m3 at a maximum water elevation of 130.5 metres above Ordnance

Datum (mOD) and embankment crest elevation of 131.5 mOD. The storage and construction volumes of the

permitted water impoundment facility are presented in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1: Storage and Construction Volumes of Permitted Water impoundment Facility

Final water elevation mOD

Crest Elevation mOD Water and/or Tailings Storage Volumes m

3

Cumulative Months Storage for tailings

130.5 131.5 c. 390,000 10.7 months

The plan area of the permitted water impoundment facility at a crest elevation of 131.5 mOD is presented in

Figure 2.3. Figure 2.4 depicts the structure once modification activities commence. Sections and details

through the structure permitted to store water and accept tailings are presented in Figures 2.5 and 2.6

respectively.

The shape of the permitted water impoundment facility is a truncated triangle with a footprint area of

approximately 9.0 ha. at a crest elevation of 131.5 mOD. The dam wall is designed in a similar manner to

the original main TMF design (GAUK, 2011, Report No. 1051415188).

2.5.2 Dam wall sections

Design details of the dam walls are further presented in Figure 2.7. A perimeter roadway is located at an

approximate elevation of 126 m and merges with the perimeter road around the existing TMF, with a crest

width of c. 6.0 m.

The adjoining wall of the permitted water impoundment facility to the existing TMF is already at an elevation

of 136.5 m. A bench is located to an elevation of 131.5 mOD. This bench supports a road that provides

access around the perimeter of the permitted water impoundment facility, and in which the anchor trench for

the lining system is located.

2.5.3 Permitted water impoundment construction materials

The bulk of the permitted water impoundment dam wall is made up of rockfill termed Type B material,

primarily limestone or shaley limestone with a maximum particle size of 300 mm. A 300 mm layer of

screened rockfill Type C material is placed over the Type B on the upstream side of the dam walls to provide

protection for the lining system. The maximum particle size of the Type C is 20 mm and the material is well

graded.

A 1,000 grm/m2 non-woven geotextile is placed on top of the Type C material prior to placement of the lining

system. The adjoining TMF wall is cleaned of vegetation, trimmed to receive the 300 mm layer of Type C

followed by 1,000 grm/m2 non-woven geotextile. The Type C on the dam walls is connected with the 100

mm layer of Type C placed on the basal construction platform formed underneath the footprint of the basin

area. When these materials are placed, the composite lining is formed along the base, up the slope and

anchored on the crest.

The grading sizes for the various materials in the construction of the permitted water impoundment facility

are summarised in Tables 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 below.



Table 2.2: Type B Material

Sieve Size (mm) % Passing

300 100

75 50-100

20 30-65

2 0-30

0.600 0-10

Table 2.3: Type C Material


20 100

6.3 65-90

1.18 30-60

0.300 15-30

0.075 0-20

Table 2.4: Type D Material (Road surfacing material)


37.5 100

20 85-100

10 70-100

6.3 60-90

1.18 15-30

0.300 5-20

0.075 0-10

2.5.4 Composite lining

The permitted water impoundment facility incorporates a composite lining system specifically designed to

store both water and tailings, which consists of high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane over a

geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) as shown in section in Figure 2.7.

High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)

The HDPE is 2 mm thick, double textured and is placed directly over GCL on the 2H:1V upstream slopes of

the dam wall. In the basin area the HDPE is smooth and is placed directly over the GCL. The HDPE and

GCL are anchored along the dam crest.

The geomembrane materials consist of high density polyethylene, produced from new resins and containing

no fillers, plasticisers or additives of any kind with the exception of carbon black.

The geomembrane complies with the requirements set out in the Table 2.5 below for 2.0 mm double textured

and smooth geomembrane.



Table 2.5: HDPE Properties

Parameters Properties

Material Double Textured 2 mm Smooth 2 mm

Thickness (minimum average) nom. (mil)

lowest individual of 10 values -10% -10%

Density mg/l (minimum.) 0.940 g/cc 0.940 g/cc

Tensile Properties (minimum average)

yield strength 29 kN/m 29 kN/m

break strength 21 kN/m 53 kN/m

yield elongation >12% >12%

break elongation >100% >700%

Tear Resistance (minimum average) 250 N 249 N

Puncture Resistance (minimum average) 500 N 640 N

Stress Crack Resistance 300 hr. 300 hr.

Carbon Black Content (range) 2.0-3.0% 2.0-3.0%

The geomembrane installation is independently supervised and subjected to a strict CQA procedure, in

accordance with EPA and IPPC Licence requirements.

Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL)

The GCL is placed beneath the HDPE geomembrane and over the Type C sub-base material on the

upstream dam slopes and basin area of the permitted water impoundment facility.

The GCL is Bentofix/approved equivalent and the grade is 3600 g/m2 dry weight with a maximum

permeability of 5E-11 m/s. The GCL consists of a layer of natural sodium bentonite clay encapsulated

between two polypropylene textiles (geotextile), the properties of which are displayed in Table 2.6 below.

Table 2.6: GCL Properties

Parameter Properties

Bentonite Layer

Swell Index, Minimum 24 ml/2g

Fluid Loss, Maximum 18 ml

Sodium Bentonite, Minimum 3600 g/m2

Geotextile Mass (Minimum Average Roll Value)

Slit-Film Woven 105 g/m2

Nonwoven Needle Punched 200 g/m2

Index Flux (Maximum) 8x10-9

m3/m

2/s

Hydraulic Conductivity (Maximum) 5x10-11

m/s

Peel Strength (Minimum) 240 N/m

Strip Tensile Strength (Minimum)

Machine Tensile Strength 8 kN/m

Elongation 8%

Across Tensile Strength 8 kN/m

Elongation 8%

Hydrated Internal Shear Strength (Minimum) 24 kPa

For purposes of strength, performance, and integrity, the GCL is manufactured by mechanically bonding the

geotextile using a needle-punching process. Needle-punched GCLs are those which, by the use of a



needling board, have fibres of the non-woven geotextile pushed through the bentonite clay layer and

integrated into a woven or non-woven geotextile.

The bentonite sealing compound or bentonite granules used to seal penetrations and make repairs are made

of the same natural sodium bentonite as the GCL and are as recommended by the GCL manufacturer.

The GCL installation is independently supervised and subjected to a strict CQA procedure, again in

accordance with EPA and IPPC Licence requirements.

2.5.5 Geotextile

General

Three types of geotextile material are used, a 1000 grms non-woven needle punched to protect the lining

system from underneath, a carbon rich 500 grms non-woven needle punched to protect the lining system

from above on the slope and a Terram 1000 or equivalent as a separation material.

500 grms and 1000 grms/m2 Non-Woven Geotextile

A 1000 grm/m2 non-woven needle punched geotextile is required to protect the GCL and HDPE

geomembrane from the underlying Type C material which in turn is placed on top of the Type B material. A

carbon rich 500 grm/m2 non-woven needle punched geotextile is required in the anchor trench and on the

surface of the HDPE to protect this material from the surcharge and movement of pipe work.

The physical and mechanical properties of the 1000 grm/m2 and 500 grm/m

2 non-woven needle punched

geotextile are given in Table 2.7 below.

Table 2.7: Non-Woven Geotextile Properties

Parameter Specification 1000 grms/m2 Specification 500 grms/m

2

CBR Puncture Resistance Minimum 10,000 N Minimum 5,000 N

Wide Width Tensile Strength Minimum 75 kN/m Minimum 40 kN/m

Elongation at break Minimum 50% Minimum 50%

Thickness Minimum 8.0 mm Minimum 5.0 mm

Mass per unit area Minimum 1000 g/m2 Minimum 500 g/m

2

2.5.6 Anchor trench

The geo fabrics are fixed in an anchor trench excavated along the crest of the dam wall as shown in Figure

2.7. The trenches are excavated with rounded shoulders where the geotextile and geomembrane lining

adjoin the trench in order to avoid sharp curvatures in the membrane material. The trench is then backfilled

with screened Type C material and compacted in layers not exceeding 150 mm deep.

2.5.7 Permanent surcharge

A permanent surcharge is used on the exposed geomembrane to prevent the HDPE from being lifted and

damaged by wind action and minimise damage from pipe movements. It also acts as a ladder if someone

accidently falls into the facility. The surcharge consists of car tyres in-filled with Type C material and placed

on the carbon rich 500 grms/m2 non-woven needle punched geotextile. Each line of surcharge has a

maximum of 2 m centres longitudinally and anchored on the crest and the weights consisting of car tyres are

a maximum of 1.5 m apart down slope, and where applicable on the lining placed on the floor of the tailings

and a minimum distance of 1 tyre width beyond the downstream toe. The two tyres at the toe of the slope

and 1 tyre width beyond are tied together. The tyres are also attached by suitable rope with a minimum life

of 4 years.

2.5.8 Material quantities

The volumes of material that make up the permitted water impoundment facility are listed in Table 2.8 below.



Table 2.8: Material Quantities for Permitted Water Impoundment Facility

Description Crest Elevation 131.5 mOD

Volume m3

Volume of impoundment facility 390,000

Type B Wall construction 149,000

Type B Platform construction (basin) 23,500

Type B to Existing Embankment 5,200

Type C Wall construction 3,000

Type C Platform construction (basin) 4,500

Type C Existing Embankment 2,100

Type D Road surfacing 1,600

Area m2

1000 grms/m2 geotextile 63,500

500 grms/m2

geotextile 16,500

Terram 1000 23,500

GCL 63,500

HDPE 63,500

2.5.9 Seepage

Seepage from the permitted water impoundment facility is controlled by the low permeability composite lining

system, and the level of stored material within the basin. Experience of a large number of quality assured

and controlled geomembrane installations indicates (Proposed Construction Quality Assurance and Control

Plan for the TMF Construction at Lisheen Mine, 1997) the presence of between 2 and 5 leaks per ha. and

these are generally less than 10 mm2 in size.

Seepage calculations have been based on the design equations given in Giroud, et al. (1989 and 1992) and

for the worst case, when the facility is filled with tailings.

The volume of seepage flowing laterally through the dam wall via the GCL and geomembrane would be in

the range of <2 m3/day to <3 m

3/day at the final condition. After 30 years some deterioration of the

geomembrane can be expected and seepage through the dam wall could increase to the order of <2 m3/day

to <5 m3/day through the total area of the structure.

2.5.10 Perimeter interceptor channel

Seepage passing through any potential defects in the lining system from the walls of the dam will

theoretically discharge into the perimeter interceptor channel.

2.5.11 Embankment stability modelling

The stability analysis for the water impoundment facility was carried out using commercially available limit-

equilibrium slope stability software, SLOPE/W version 7.15. Further details on this modelling are included in

Chapter 5.0 (Soils and Geology).



2.6 Proposed Operations – Storage of Tailings

2.6.1 Operation phase

The new tailings facility will be operated similarly to the existing TMF by discharging the tailings from spigots

on the dam crest. The spigots will be opened sequentially and the tailings will be discharged uniformly over

the new TMF. Because of the limited perimeter length, consideration is given to discharge points every 50 m

and two tailings lines will be operated around the facility in opposite directions. Unlike the main TMF, there

will be a significant depth between the crest and the basin floor and the system currently used on the main

TMF is not well suited to cope with such a depth as that found in the new facility. A slotted discharge pipe

from the valve to the floor of the basin is therefore proposed. The slotted discharge pipe will be anchored on

top of the tyre surcharge which is placed directly on the lining. Alternatively, the end of the pipe could be cut

off as the tailings rises although this will require further consideration if it is to be utilised.

It is anticipated that tailings deposition will be alternated between the main TMF and the new facility to

optimise the filling of both facilities. As part of the current closure plan the tailings is progressively capped

with 700 mm of limestone once the tailings beach is at its final height and has reached sufficient strength

through drainage. Operationally it is difficult to ensure that the rate of tailings beach formation matches the

rate at which they become ready for capping once the facility gets close to full capacity. Being able to switch

the tailings deposition between the two facilities will thus assist progressive restoration and ensure tight filling

of the main facility.

When tailings are deposited in the new facility it will be done at a rate of about 3,500 tonnes/day. The

tailings will have a consolidated density of about 1.9 t/m3

and will thus be filling the facility at a rate of about

1,850 m3/day.

Once modification activities commence, sufficient water will remain in the structure to provide a 0.5-1 metre

water buffer and to provide a suction head for the reclaim pumps.

The tailings will be placed to an elevation of 130.5 mOD and it is expected that the tailings will beach at a

slope gradient of 0.4% towards the pumps.

The reclaim pumps on the new facility will immediately return tailings water to the reclaim pumps on the main

TMF. The pumps will be located in the southern corner of the facility. The main TMF will provide the

required retention time for the settling of any dirty tailings water pumped from the adjoining new TMF cell

following modification of use.

Sufficient water storage will also be retained in the main TMF to allow for flexibility in the operation and

management of surface waters.

2.6.2 Closure Phase

Closures activities are described in detail in Chapter 12.0 of the EIS.

2.7 Surface Water Management

2.7.1 Operational phase

During operation as a tailings facility, the structure will retain an ancillary use for surface water management

as described above. When required, the existing TMF will also facilitate the storage of ‘dirty’ tailings water in

combination with the new facility, which would otherwise have been managed if the structure had remained

as a water impoundment facility only. This type of perimeter rockfill dam, which has no external catchment

area, is operated without spillways. There is always adequate control on the tailings water level which can

be achieved by adjusting the recharge and discharges into the facility.

As the new structure begins to fill progressively following permission for modification activities, any water

freeboard up to 131.5 mOD will continue to act as additional water storage capacity in combination with the

existing TMF, thus managing waters in accordance with IPPCL P0088-03.



2.7.2 Closure phase (Spillway)

Following capping, the surface water runoff will subsequently be channelled via a spillway to the permitted

wetland system that currently forms part of the CRAMP (Chapters 6.0 Water and 12.0 Closure).

The spillway will be constructed prior to closure of the facility when filled with tailings to 130.5 mOD (Figures

2.4 and 2.8). The level of the tailings water in the TMF will be dependent on the discharge from the mill into

the facility, water reclaim from the facility and the effective rainfall. Both the discharge and reclaim are

controlled by the mill operators and can be adjusted at short notice. The probable maximum precipitation

(PMP) for this area will be of the order of 250 mm over 24 hours which is readily retained within the

freeboard of the facility.

The spillway will be located and designed in detail after filling of the existing TMF is completed and agreed

with the regulatory authorities, in accordance with the CRAMP (Figure 2.8). Further details are provided in

the Water Chapter of this EIS (Chapter 6.0).

2.7.3 Groundwater monitoring

The monitoring system for the new TMF following modification is presented in Figures 2.9 and 2.10 and

indicates monitoring wells at c. 250 m spacing around the new cell and one piezometer in each of the new

dam wall sections.

The water level and quality of the groundwater in and beneath the dam wall of the new TMF cell will be

monitored from the piezometers installed immediately above and below the base of the dam and the

monitoring wells installed into the bedrock at the downstream dam toe. The construction of the piezometers

and wells are shown in Figures 2.9 and 2.10.

The water level and water quality sampling will be undertaken in accordance with the IPPC Reg. No. P0088-

03.

2.8 Closure

The new cell will be capped with approximately 700 mm of Type B material as constructed on the existing

TMF together with 300 mm of growing material consisting of 50% peat and 50% soil. The procedure would

be the same as currently undertaken on the existing facility.

The key to long term closure will be the requirement to maintain the cap in a saturated condition. The cap

will be initially placed on top of the tailings, expected to finish at 130.5 mOD and the top of the growing

medium is at approximately 131.5 mOD, at the crest elevation. If the mine closes before the tailings reach

130.5 mOD, then the cap will be lower than the crest accordingly.

The spillway arrangements will be engineered once the facility is approaching closure. Further details on

closure are provided in Chapter 12.0 (Closure). Figure 2.8 provides further details on the closure plan.



2.9 References

Planning Study, Tailings Management Facility, Technical Report. December 1995.

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. Report No. 96512126 Lisheen TMF Detailed Design. November 1997.

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. Report No. 01121529. TMF Stage 2 Detailed Design Lisheen Mining Limited.

December 2001.

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. Report No. 10514150188. TMF Stage 2 Detailed Design of the Stage 2 Raise.

April 2011.

Proposed Construction Quality Assurance and Control Plan for the TMF Construction at Lisheen Mine.

March 1997.

Leakage through Liners Constructed with Geomembranes. Part II. Composite Liners. J. P. Giroud, et al.,

Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 8(4) pp71-111 1989.

Rate of Leakage through a Composite Liner due to Geomembrane Defects. J. P. Giroud, et al., Geotextiles

and Geomembranes, 11(1) pp1-28 1992.



FIGURES

MOYNE VILLAGE

COOLEENY FARM

TAILINGS

MANAGEMENT

FACILITY

PERMITTED WATER

IMPOUNDMENT

FACILITY

SITE NOTICE

SITE

NOTICE

SITE

NOTICE

SITE

NOTICE

Client:

Project:

Location:

Title:

1:37,500 A4

Scale

11.5071.5.0226

Fig 2.1

ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND LICENCE NUMBER

AR0056013

Issue to

Date

July '13ATo Lisheen Mine

DrawingProject number

File Location

Reviewed by

Checked by

Created By

Version

CW

CW

POB

SITE LOCATION MAP

(Regional)

Killoran, Thurles, Co Tipperary.

P:\PROJECTS\MINING\LISHEEN\13 5071 5 0032 - Wetland

Construction....\Graphics\8. Planning\01\PA-01revB

NOTE:

COORDINATES ARE IN METRES RELATIVE TO

IRISH NATIONAL GRID.

O.S. MAPS - TIPPERARY SHEETS 30 & 36 (parts)



Aug. '13

BTo North Tipperary County Council

LEGEND:

APPLICATION SITE BOUNDARY

LANDS UNDER CONTROL

OF APPLICANT

1:12,500

500 1,000 1,500m0

1:37,500

TAILINGS

MANAGEMENT

FACILITY

PERMITTED WATER

IMPOUNDMENT

FACILITY

Mine Site Boundary

VR 8-Intake & alimak raise

Turbine FND base

3

3

m

9

7

m

8

1

m

SITE

NOTICE

Client:

Project:

Location:

Title:

1:3,750 A4

Scale

11.5071.5.0226

Fig 2.2


AR0056013

Issue to

Date


File Location

Reviewed by

Checked by

Created By

Version

CW

CW

POB

SITE LOCATION MAP

(Local)






NOTE:





Aug. '13


LEGEND:


LANDS UNDER CONTROL

OF APPLICANT

1:1,250

50 100 150m0

1:3,750

TAILINGS

MANAGEMENT

FACILITY

B B'

PERMITTED WATER

IMPOUNDMENT

FACILITY


Turbine FND base

1

2

0

120

120

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

1

121

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

122

1

2

2

1

2

2

122

1

2

2

122

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

123

1

2

3

123

123

123

123

1

2

3

1

2

4

1

2

4

124

124

1

2

4

124

1

2

4

1

2

4

124

1

2

4

1

2

4

1

2

4

124

1

2

4

124

1

2

4

1

2

4

1

2

5

1

2

5

125

1

2

5

1

2

5

1

2

5

125

125

1

2

5

1

2

5

1

2

5

1

2

5

1

2

5

1

2

5

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

126

1

2

6

126

126

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

127

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

127

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

8

1

2

8

1

2

8

1

2

8

1

2

8

1

2

8

128

1

2

8

128

1

2

8

1

2

8

128

1

2

8

1

2

8

1

2

8

1

2

8

128

1

2

9

1

2

9

129

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

2

9

129

1

2

9

129

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

0

130

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

0

130

1

3

0

130

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

0

130

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

1

131

131

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

131

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

131

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

1

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

134

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

5

1

3

5

1

3

5

1

3

5

1

3

5

1

3

5

1

3

5

1

3

5

1

3

6

1

3

6

1

3

6

1

3

6

1

3

6

1

3

6

1

3

6

1

3

6

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

4

1

3

2

1

3

3

1

3

5

1

3

2

1

3

5

1

3

3

1

3

4

1

3

6

1

3

6

1

2

7

1

2

8

1

2

9

1

2

9

130

131

1

3

2

128

1

2

2

1

2

3

1

2

4

1

2

5

1

2

6

1

2

7

1

2

8

1

2

9

1

3

0

1

3

1

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

1

2

2

1

2

9

126.0

Existing embankment crest

(Elevation 136.5)

Crest

(Elevation 131.5)

Service road

Ramp

Mine Site Boundary

Perimeter Interceptor Channel

Ramp

136.5

136.5

Crest

(Elevation 131.5)

1

3

2

1

3

0

1

3

4

3

3

m

9

7

m

8

1

m

Site

Notice

Approximate location of spillway

- subject to detailed design upon closure

Water Reclamation Pump & Pipework

from Permitted Water Impoundment

Facility connects to main TMF

Client:

Project:

Location:

Title:

1:3,000 A4

Scale

11.5071.5.0226

Fig 2.3


AR0056013

Issue to

Date


File Location

Reviewed by

Checked by

Created By

Version

CW

CW

POB

SITE LAYOUT PLAN FOR PERMITTED

WATER IMPOUNDMENT FACILITY






NOTES:



LEVELS ARE IN METRES RELATIVE TO O.S.

DATUM MALIN HEAD.

REFER TO FIG 2.5 FOR CROSS SECTION

DETAILS



Aug. '13


LEGEND:


LANDS UNDER CONTROL OF APPLICANT

GROUND LEVEL CONTOUR

EXISTING WIND TURBINE

1:1,000

40 80 120m0

1:3,000

TAILINGS

MANAGEMENT

FACILITY

C C'

PERMITTED WATER

IMPOUNDMENT FACILITY

TO BE USED AS TAILINGS

STORAGE FACILITY


Turbine FND base

1

2

0

120

120

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

1

121

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

122

1

2

2

1

2

2

122

1

2

2

122

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

123

1

2

3

123

123

123

123

1

2

3

1

2

4

1

2

4

124

124

1

2

4

124

1

2

4

1

2

4

124

1

2

4

1

2

4

1

2

4

124

1

2

4

124

1

2

4

1

2

4

1

2

5

1

2

5

125

1

2

5

1

2

5

1

2

5

125

125

1

2

5

1

2

5

1

2

5

1

2

5

1

2

5

1

2

5

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

126

1

2

6

126

126

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

6

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

127

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

7

127

1

2

7

1

2

7

1

2

8

1

2

8

1

2

8

1

2

8

1

2

8

1

2

8

128

1

2

8

128

1

2

8

1

2

8

128

1

2

8

1

2

8

1

2

8

1

2

8

128

1

2

9

1

2

9

129

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

2

9

129

1

2

9

129

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

0

130

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

0

130

1

3

0

130

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

0

130

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

0

1

3

1

131

131

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

131

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

1

131

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

3

1

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

134

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

3

5

1

3

5

1

3

5

1

3

5

1

3

5

1

3

5

1

3

5

1

3

5

1

3

6

1

3

6

1

3

6

1

3

6

1

3

6

1

3

6

1

3

6

1

3

6

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

7

1

3

4

1

3

2

1

3

3

1

3

5

1

3

2

1

3

5

1

3

3

1

3

4

1

3

6

1

3

6

1

2

7

1

2

8

1

2

9

1

2

9

130

131

1

3

2

128

1

2

2

1

2

3

1

2

4

1

2

5

1

2

6

1

2

7

1

2

8

1

2

9

1

3

0

1

3

1

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

1

2

2

1

2

9

126.0


(Elevation 136.5)

Crest Elevation 131.5 with

final tailings level 130.5

Service road

Ramp

Mine Site Boundary

Ramp

136.5

1

3

2

1

3

0

1

3

4


Tailings Discharge points

Tailings Discharge Pipeline

3

3

m

9

7

m

8

1

m

Site

Notice

Crest Elevation 131.5 with

final tailings level 130.5

Approximate location of spillway

- subject to detailed design upon closure

Tailings Discharge Pipeline connects

to main TMF Discharge Pipeline

136.5

Client:

Project:

Location:

Title:

1:3,000 A4

Scale

11.5071.5.0226

Fig 2.4


AR0056013

Issue to

Date


File Location

Reviewed by

Checked by

Created By

Version

CW

CW

POB

SITE LAYOUT PLAN FOR

MODIFICATION TO STORE TAILINGS






NOTES:




DATUM MALIN HEAD.

REFER TO FIG 2.6 FOR CROSS SECTION

DETAILS



Aug. '13


LEGEND:


LANDS UNDER CONTROL OF APPLICANT

GROUND LEVEL CONTOUR


1:1,000

40 80 120m0

1:3,000

Datum 100.00mAOD

Datum 180.00mAOD

Datum 100.00mAOD

Datum 180.00mAOD

Datum 140.00mAOD Datum 140.00mAOD

Section A-A'

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

North

400m

South

Datum 100.00mAOD

Datum 180.00mAOD

Datum 100.00mAOD

Datum 180.00mAOD


Section B-B'

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

West

400m

East

450

131.50m131.50m

136.50m

130.50m (Water Level)

136.50m

131.50m131.50m

130.50m (Water Level)

Client:

Project:

Location:

Title:

1:3,000 A4

Scale

11.5071.5.0226

Fig 2.5


AR0056013

Issue to

Date


File Location

Reviewed by

Checked by

Created By

Version

CW

CW

POB

SECTIONS A-A' & B-B'

(See Fig 2.3 for section locations)





Construction....\Graphics\8. Planning\01\PA05 & PA06revB

NOTES:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES.


DATUM MALIN HEAD.


Aug. '13


1:1,000

40 80 120m0

1:3,000

Datum 100.00mAOD

Datum 180.00mAOD

Datum 100.00mAOD

Datum 180.00mAOD


Section C-C'

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

North

400m

South

Datum 100.00mAOD

Datum 180.00mAOD

Datum 100.00mAOD

Datum 180.00mAOD


Section D-D'

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

West

400m

East

450

131.50m 131.50m

136.50m

136.50m

131.50m131.50m

130.50m (Tailings Level)

130.50m (Tailings Level)

Client:

Project:

Location:

Title:

1:3,000 A4

Scale

11.5071.5.0226

Fig 2.6


AR0056013

Issue to

Date


File Location

Reviewed by

Checked by

Created By

Version

CW

CW

POB

SECTIONS C-C' & D-D'

(See Fig 2.4 for section locations)



Construction....\Graphics\8. Planning\01\PA05 & PA06revB

NOTES:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES.


DATUM MALIN HEAD.




Aug. '13


1:1,000

40 80 120m0

1:3,000

Downstream Upstream

Downstream Upstream

EXISTING EMBANKMENT

TYPICAL SECTION OF PERMITTED WATER IMPOUNDMENT FACILITY EMBANKMENT

DOWNSTREAM TOE DETAIL

DETAIL 1

DETAIL 2

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION PLATFORM SECTION

NTS

11.5071.5.0226

Fig 2.7


AR0056013

CW

CW

POB

TYPICAL SECTIONS & DETAILS OF

PERMITTED WATER IMPOUNDMENT FACILITY






NOTES:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETRES.


DATUM MALIN HEAD.

TYPE B MATERIAL:

BULK OF EMBANKMENTS FOR THE WATER IMPOUNDMENT FACILITY

ARE EITHER LIMESTONE OR SHALEY LIMESTONE WITH A

MAXIMUM PARTICLE SIZE OF 300mm

TYPE D MATERIAL:

ROAD SURFACING MATERIAL c.200mm THICK PLACED AT THE TOP OF

THE DAM CREST AND THE LOWER PERIMETER ROAD, PASSING A SIEVE

SIZE OF 37.5mm

TYPE C MATERIAL:

SCREENED ROCKFILL MATERIAL WITH MAXIMUM PARTICLE SIZE OF 20mm

(PROVIDES PROTECTION FOR THE LINING SYSTEM WITHIN THE

WATER IMPOUNDMENT FACILITY)

TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH EXISTING TMF EMBANKMENT SHOWING

TIE-IN WITH PERMITTED WATER IMPOUNDMENT FACILITY

July '13

ATo Lisheen Mine

Aug. '13


Spillway

Open channel with

gravel base

Outflow

Open channel

with gravel base

Open channel

with gravel base

Permitted wetland system

under CRAMP (Final

design to be agreed with

relevant authorities)

Discharge

Small pool

Willow edge linking

wetland

Surface

drainage

channel

Surface

drainage

channel

Surface

drainage

channel

Surface

drainage

pond

Phase 3

(~6ha)

Phase 2 North

(~24ha)

Phase 1

(~9ha)

Phase 2 South

(~33ha)

Outflow

Spillway

Spillway

Restoration Surface (conceptual)

Final details to be included in CRAMP

Restoration Surface (conceptual)

Final details to be included in CRAMP

Client:

Project:

Location:

Title:

1:9,000 A4

Scale

11.5071.5.0226

Fig 2.8


AR0056013

Issue to

Date


File Location

Reviewed by

Checked by

Created By

Version

CW

CW

POB

FINAL CLOSURE PLAN

(Conceptual)






Works formation

level

Rock fill

Growth media

Geotextile

Tailings

Finished level

Proposed TMF Capping Detail

(Schematic only)

Agricultural grass

NOTE:





Aug. '13


LEGEND:


LANDS UNDER CONTROL

OF APPLICANT

1:6,000

0 120 240 360m


Turbine FND base

126.0


(Elevation 136.5)

Crest

(Elevation 131.5)

Service road

Ramp

Mine Site Boundary


Ramp

136.5

136.5

Crest

(Elevation 131.5)

TAILINGS

MANAGEMENT

FACILITY

PERMITTED WATER

IMPOUNDMENT FACILITY

TO BE USED AS TAILINGS

STORAGE FACILITY

SITE

NOTICE

9

7

m

8

1

m

3

3

m

TYPICAL SECTION SHOWING INSTRUMENTATION INSTALLATION DETAILS

Downstream

500

GLACIAL

TILL

2000

4000

Upstream

GLACIAL

TILL

6000

Client:

Project:

Location:

Title:

1:2,500 A3 or as shown

Scale

11.5071.5.0226

Fig 2.9


AR0056013

Issue to

Date


File Location

Reviewed by

Checked by

Created By

Version

CW

CW

POB

PLAN & SECTION SHOWING

INSTRUMENTATION





LEGEND:


LANDS UNDER CONTROL OF

APPLICANT


PIEZOMETER

MONITORING WELL

1:2,500

0 50 100 150m

NOTES:



DATUM MALIN HEAD.


NOTE:




July '13ATo North Tipperary County Council

July '13BTo North Tipperary County Council

MONITORING WELL PEIZOMETER

11.5071.5.0226


AR0056013

INSTRUMENTATION DETAILS






NOTE:


CHAPTER 3.0 HUMAN BEINGS


Table of Contents

3.0 HUMAN BEINGS ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1

3.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 1

3.3 Existing Environment .................................................................................................................................... 1

3.3.1 Land-use and social consideration .......................................................................................................... 1

3.3.2 Populations ............................................................................................................................................. 2

3.3.3 Traffic ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.3.4 Economic activity .................................................................................................................................... 3

3.3.5 Tourism and recreation ........................................................................................................................... 4

3.3.6 Health and safety .................................................................................................................................... 5

3.3.7 Subsidence ............................................................................................................................................. 5

3.4 Assessment .................................................................................................................................................. 6

3.4.1 Land-use and social considerations ........................................................................................................ 6

3.4.2 Economic activity .................................................................................................................................... 6

3.4.3 Tourism and recreation ........................................................................................................................... 7

3.4.4 Traffic ...................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.4.5 Subsidence ............................................................................................................................................. 7

3.5 Mitigation ...................................................................................................................................................... 8

3.6 Residual / Likely Significant Effects .............................................................................................................. 8

3.7 References ................................................................................................................................................... 9

TABLES

Table 3.1: Population Statistics for Moyne DED .................................................................................................................. 3

Table 3.2 Previous Planning Applications for Lisheen Mine with an EIS ............................................................................. 3

Table 3.3: Employment Structure Classified by Broad Occupational Group for the Moyne DED ........................................ 4

Table 3.4: Journey Times .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Table 3.5: Details of local suppliers benefiting from Lisheen Mine continued operations .................................................... 6



3.0 HUMAN BEINGS

3.1 Introduction

This chapter of the EIS describes the human environment and identifies and assesses any impacts from the

proposed modification from a permitted water impoundment facility to store tailings at the Application Site.

The human environment is discussed under the following headings:

Land-use and social considerations;

Populations;

Economic Activity;

Tourism and Recreation;

Traffic; and

Health and Safety.

Interactions between humans and other facets of the environment are discussed under relevant sections of

this EIS, including:

Air (Chapter 8.0)

Noise (Chapter 9.0)

Landscape (Chapter 10.0)

3.2 Methodology

Information for the assessment of potential impacts on human beings was obtained by means of a desk-

based review, and included the following sources:

Census Returns (Central Statistics Office (CSO) 1996, 2002, 2006 and 2011 Census);

North Tipperary Development Plan (2010-2016);

Kilkenny County Council Development Plan (2008 – 2014); and

Aerial and ordnance survey maps of the area.

In addition, the following also informed the preparation of this Chapter:

Field surveys of the Application Site; and

Site visits and drive by surveys of residences and local facilities.

The existing/past environment is described. Any potential significant impacts from the proposed tailings

storage activities at the site are identified and assessed, and where possible mitigation measures are

proposed.

3.3 Existing Environment

3.3.1 Land-use and social consideration

The Application Site comprises c. 9.0 ha. and is located in the town land of Killoran, Moyne, County

Tipperary. The location of the Application Site in a regional context is depicted in Figure 1.1. The village of



Killoran is located approximately 1.5 km west of the Site and is accessed via the Ballyduff Road. The

Application Site comprises land associated with mining activities and this EIS has been prepared to support

an application for planning permission to modify the use of a permitted water impoundment facility to store

tailings at the Lisheen Mine site.

The land surrounding the Application Site is currently an active mine site with a TMF to the south and mine

surface operations to the northwest and west. A number of wind turbines are also located within lands under

the control of the Applicant, owned and operated by Bord Gáis. To the north there is Templetouhy bog

which is operated by Bord Na Móna and local turf/peat operators, and to the east there is agricultural use

which is mainly grazed pastureland consisting of several intensively managed agricultural fields bordered by

hedgerows.

The Application Site is within Moyne Electoral Division at the border with County Kilkenny to the east. The

neighbouring Electoral Division in Kilkenny is Baunmore. The nearest residential property to the site is

located in Baunmore Electoral Division along the R502 approximately 650 m to the northeast. There are

residential properties in the vicinity of the mine site, primarily concentrated in ribbon form development on

the Cooleeny road where access is gained to the Mine Site as depicted in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2. These

properties are located at a distance of 1,200 m to 1,700 m from the Application Site. The Application Site

can only be accessed via private roads within the Mine Site.

While there are a number of agricultural uses for land in the vicinity of the Application Site, it is understood

that water is sourced via the Moyne Group Water Scheme which has been operating to compensate for cone

of drawdown associated with Mine operations. As such it is considered unlikely that local land use will be

affected by the modification of the Application Site from a permitted water impoundment facility to a storage

facility for tailings, in particular as the TMF structure will be fully lined and capped in accordance with best

international practice (Chapter 2.0, Project Description).

There are no proposed National Heritage Areas (pNHA) located within 5 km of the Application Site. The

following conservation sites have been noted in the wider area:

Galmoy Fen, pNHA/SAC, 9.6 km northeast;

The Loughans, pNHA/SAC, 10 km east, southeast;

Spahill and Clonmantagh Hill, pNHA, SAC, 11 km east;

Cabragh Wetlands, pNHA, 11 km southwest;

Kilcooley Abbey Lake, pNHA, 11.5 km southeast;

Templemore Wood pNHA, 12 km, northwest;

Cullahill Mountain, pNHA, SAC, 13 km, northeast; and

Lower River Suir SAC, c. 13 km southwest.

Further details regarding these ecological designations are included in Chapter 4.0 of this EIS. A Natura

Impact Assessment also accompanies this Application / EIS submission.

3.3.2 Populations

The census reports for 1996, 2002, 2006 and 2011 produced by the Central Statistics Office details

population figures in terms of district electoral divisions and their respective populations. The Application

Site is located within the District Electoral Division (DED) of Moyne, which includes the following town lands:

Moyne, Lisheen, Lisdonowley, Moynetemple, Moyneard, Shanballyduff, Cooleeny, Killoran, Deryville,

Bernalisheen, Boolaree, and Ballyerk.



Population statistics for Moyne are depicted in Table 3.1. The figures indicate Moyne DED has seen an

increase in population in the last ten years. In 2011 the Moyne DED had a population of 532 persons, an

increase of 7.1% on the 2006 population.

Table 3.1: Population Statistics for Moyne DED

No. Persons Actual Increase Percentage Increase

1996 492 -

2002 484 -8 -1.6

2006 494 10 2.0

2011 532 38 7.1

3.3.3 Traffic

The proposed development, which is the subject of this EIS, is to modify the use of a permitted water

impoundment facility to store mine tailings. It is proposed to place tailings in the impoundment over a c. 12

month period. All tailings will be transported to the site via pipeline from the concentrator located in the main

mine plant facility, using existing surface mine infrastructure. As such, no additional traffic will be generated

as a result of this ‘modification’ application to place tailings in the permitted water impoundment facility

during the operation phase. In addition, once modification of the permitted water impoundment facility

occurs, no additional traffic will result during management of surface water at the site.

In addition, all employee traffic on the public road network relating to the management of tailings at the

Application Site, and associated ancillary activities will remain unchanged from the current situation. The

traffic impact of the existing Lisheen Mine has been assessed under a number of previous applications as

outlined in Table 3.2 below.

Table 3.2 Previous Planning Applications for Lisheen Mine with an EIS

Planning Ref. No.

ABP Ref. No.

Date Description of Application EIS Prepared

17663 22.100093 1997 Parent application to development the Lisheen Mine.

Yes

4511667 22.212637 2007 Extension to existing mine and construction of 3 No. ventilation shafts.

Yes

12510034 n/a 2012

Develop the Derryville Island Ore Deposit underground workings as an extension to the existing Lisheen Mine and the construction of 1 No. ventilation shaft.

Yes

Based on the above, a Traffic and Transport Assessment is screened out of this Application/Environmental

Impact Assessment (EIA) process.

3.3.4 Economic activity

The Village of Moyne, c. 3.7 km to the west is the nearest centre of economic activity to the Application Site,

with Lisheen, Templetouhy and other towns such as Urlingford, Templemore and Johnstown also acting as

employment centres within 5 km of the Site (Figure 1.1 for locations). Census 2011 statistics show that

23.6% of the workforce in the Moyne DED is employed in the Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry indicating

they may work locally. The next highest employment sector is Professional Services at 21.5% as shown in

Table 3.3. It is likely that the majority of these workers travel to population centres stated previously, or

Lisheen Mine. The next highest employment sector is Commerce and Trade at 19.7 %. Table 3.3 below

outlines the employment structure classified by broad occupational group for the Moyne DED as reported

from Census 2011.



Table 3.3: Employment Structure Classified by Broad Occupational Group for the Moyne DED

Occupational Group No. of Persons Employed 2006

No. of Persons Employed 2011

% of Total 2006 % of Total 2011

Agricultural, Fishing and Forestry

50 55 20.7 23.61

Manufacturing Workers 29 5 12 2.15

Building and construction workers

15 40 6.2 17.17

Commerce and Trade 46 46 19 19.74

Public Administration 18 7 7.44 3.00

Transport and Communications

17 7 7.02 3.00

Professional services 38 50 15.7 21.46

Others 29 23 12 9.87

Total in Labour Force 242 233 100 100

Table 3.4 below outlines the time travelled by the population of Moyne to school, college or work, obtained

from the Central Statistics Office from Census 2011.

Table 3.4: Journey Times

Population aged five years and over by journey time to work, school or college

Under 15 minutes 132

1/4 hour - under 1/2 hour 103

1/2 hour - under 3/4 hour 26

3/4 hour - under 1 hour 15

1 hour - under 1 1/2 hours 10

1 1/2 hours and over 6

Not stated 28

As highlighted previously, the main economic activity in the vicinity of the Application Site is located in Moyne

c. 3.7 km west of the Site. There are several small businesses in the village including public houses, shops,

and a garage. In the immediate vicinity of the village are cheese manufacturers, building contractors,

transport and haulage business, agriculture and construction plant hire and sales, quarrying (ready mix

concrete) and carpet cleaning businesses.

The Application Site forms part of the larger Lisheen Site and will be managed by full time employees of the

Mine. No additional staff are proposed to be employed as a result of this Application. In addition, the end of

life of mine remains on schedule to close by Quarter 1 2015 which is the current projection.

3.3.5 Tourism and recreation

As outlined in Section 6 of the North Tipperary County Development Plan 2010 – 2016 tourism in North

Tipperary generated only 42,000 visitors in 2000 which increased to 68,000 by 2006. However this equates

to only 5.4% of people visiting the broader Shannon Region of North Tipperary, Clare, Limerick and South

Offaly.

The North Tipperary County Development Plan indicates that the council will support the development of

eco-tourism and other tourist activities that promote the natural and cultural assets of the county. These



include and are not limited to walking, cycling, nature trails, green, eco, geo and agri-tourism farmhouse

accommodation, open farms, water sports and archaeological guided walks. The specific objectives

frequently focus on regions in the north and eastern parts of North Tipperary such as Nenagh, Lough Derg,

Roscrea and Templemore. There are no major tourist facilities within a 10 km radius of the Application Site.

However it is noted that some activities such as cycling, walking and horse riding may occur within a smaller

radius. The Application Site itself is not accessible and is surrounded on all sides by private property e.g.

Lisheen Mine, Agricultural land, Bord Na Móna Operations.

The Kilkenny County Development Plan 2008 to 2014 indicates that Tourism is a dominant industry in the

county. However, there are no major tourist attractions within the Baunmore DED. In addition the 2011

census indicates the population was generally employed in areas of skilled trades and professional

occupations. Four people indicated they were employed in the area of caring leisure and other services.

Tourist and Recreational Amenities located in the wider area include:

Templemore, Thurles and Rathdowney Golf Clubs;

Lough Derg and associated water activities;

Cycling, walking and equestrian facilities;

Heritage areas including:

Roscrea Castle and Fancroft Mill and Gardens, 20 km to the north;

Caragh Wetland Trust, Thurles, 15 km south west; and

Farney Castle, Holycross, 20 km

The nearest population centres provide a variety of restaurants, pubs, hotels and B&Bs.

3.3.6 Health and safety

The safety of the Applicant’s employees, contractors and the communities in which it operates is an integral

part of their business. Lisheen Mine’s goal is zero harm. Decision making and thinking for safety is directed

by the Lisheen Safety Policy which sets the minimum safety standards for The Lisheen Mine as an

organisation.

Lisheen Mine seeks to create a mind-set and an environment where people believe it is possible to work

injury free, regardless of what role they undertake.

The Applicant’s approach to safety is incorporated in their policy which states that they will:

Hold all managers and supervisors accountable for safety, occupational health and environmental

issues; and

Prevent or control risks, personal injury and illness, property and environmental damage, by

implementing The Lisheen Mine vision and principles of zero harm as well as through appropriate

planning, design, investment, management and workplace procedures.

Across the organisation Lisheen Mine manages safety through their risk-based safety management system

and procedures. The line managers are accountable for the implementation of these procedures and are

responsible for ensuring that support systems are in place.

3.3.7 Subsidence

At the outset of the Lisheen Mine project, in the early 1990’s, the risk of subsidence or ground settlement

was recognised. The two mechanisms that may give rise to settlement are the mining process itself,

whereby voids are excavated underground, and dewatering. Section 3.4.5 provides an assessment of the

potential for subsidence effects as a result of the proposed modification activities.



3.4 Assessment

3.4.1 Land-use and social considerations

Mining and related surface ancillary activities have been undertaken at the property since the late 1990’s,

and there will be no change to the land use at this location as a result of the proposed modification of the

permitted water impoundment facility to store tailings at the Application Site. With respect to social

considerations, the modification of the permitted water impoundment facility will result in a positive social

outcome, given that the mine will operate for an additional 12 months, which results in extended employment

at the mine facility. It is noted that the parent permission is for 30 years (c. 2027).

In addition, and as outlined in Chapter 2.0, the modification application will facilitate progressive capping

works on the main TMF, which again result in a positive outcome from the social viewpoint. This positive

outcome has been communicated to Lisheen Mine during recent public forum meetings.

3.4.2 Economic activity

As a result of this proposed development, there will be a direct positive knock on effect to the wider economy

in the vicinity of Lisheen Mine. As this proposal will result in an extended c. 12 months of operation,

Table 3.5 provides details of the following local businesses that will benefit.

Table 3.5: Details of local suppliers benefiting from Lisheen Mine continued operations

Supplier Name Goods Service Description

SANDVIK MINING CONSTRUCTION Trackless Mining Equipment

NOEL O'BRIEN CEMENT Bulk Materials

MAHER QUARRIES Bulk Materials

ATLAS COPCO CONSTRUCTION MINING Trackless Mining Equipment

CLOGRENNANE LIME LTD. Process Chemicals, Industrial Gases

LYONS TYRES & BATTERIES Tyres & Tubes

VALE OIL COMPANY LTD Fuel and Lubes

P O DWYER ELECTRICAL SERVICES LT Temporary Personnel Services

KILKENNY VAN & TRUCK LTD Mining Support Vehicles

E.BUTTIMER & CO LTD Temporary Personnel Services

TEMPLEMORE MOTOR WORKS Mining Support Vehicles

JOHN BOURKE ENGINEERING LTD. Industrial Machinery & Supplies

HANLEY CONTROLS CLONMEL LTD Electronic Components & Supplies

GLENNON PLANT HIRE LIMITED Site Services

AYLWARD HEAVY HAULAGE LTD Temporary Personnel Services

GLEESON STEEL ENG LTD Fabricated Steel/Plate Work

ALPHA DRIVES LTD Industrial Pumps & Compressors

GMC CLEANERS Industrial Cleaning Services

SISTER ITA LTD T/A DORAN OIL Fuel and Lubes

LIAM YOUNG PLANT SALES LTD Industrial Machinery & Supplies

STAKELUMS HARDWARE LTD Industrial Machinery & Supplies

TEMPLETUOHY MEDICAL CENTRE Health Services

M WALSH HIRE LIMITED Industrial Machinery & Supplies

IMTECH SUIR ENGINEERING Temporary Personnel Services

AIR-IMPACT LTD PPE

E K FABRICATIONS Temporary Personnel Services



Supplier Name Goods Service Description

J. L. BRADSHAW & CO. LTD. Industrial Machinery & Supplies

ELECTRICAL GENERATOR & PUMP SERV Electronic Equipment & Supplies

BLS BULK LIQUID STORAGE CORK Transport & Logistics

KILKENNY WELDING SUPPLIES LTD Industrial Machinery & Supplies

CAFE MHR ltd Mitchel House Corporate

G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS LTD Security services

JOHN.J.RONAYNE LTD Industrial Machinery & Supplies

SKYLINE SCAFFOLDING LTD Temporary Personnel Services

SUIRWAY AUTOMATION Industrial Machinery & Supplies

Approximately 400 employees will maintain employment for an additional 12 months, resulting in continued

significant contributions to the public exchequer through tax and universal social payments. In addition,

royalties of 3.5% of revenues will also be contributed to the Dept. of Communications, Energy and Natural

Resources.

3.4.3 Tourism and recreation

Given that any existing tourism/recreation businesses in the vicinity of the Site have developed since

commencement of mining activities in the mid 1990’s, it is unlikely that the proposed modification of the

permitted water impoundment will impact on the tourist potential of the local area. Local roads are

considered an amenity to residents in the vicinity of the Site. Existing traffic volumes on local roads will not

increase as a result of this development as all tailings will be transported to the Application Site via pipeline,

and therefore, it is considered the amenity value of the local road network will not been affected by proposed

use. In addition once modification of the permitted water impoundment facility occurs, no additional traffic

will result during management of surface water at the site.

Local residents or other receptors are not likely to observe any alterations to the facility as the mine tailings

will be placed within the permitted water impoundment structure (Chapter 10.0, Landscape). In summary,

the proposed modification of the permitted water impoundment facility to store tailings is not considered likely

to impact on tourism or recreational potential.

3.4.4 Traffic

As highlighted in Section 3.3.3 above, the proposed modification activities will not give rise to any additional

traffic movements during the operation phase, as all tailings will be pumped via pipeline to the permitted

water impoundment facility/new TMF cell. Ancillary traffic relating to closure activities will not impact the

public road network. Therefore no impacts from traffic activities will occur. A Traffic and Transport

Assessment was screened out for this reason.

3.4.5 Subsidence

The risk of settlement due to the mining process at Lisheen Mine is mitigated by the ongoing placement of

backfill (a mixture of cemented tailings) into selected voids underground to provide support. A series of

monitoring stations has been established and maintained, on surface, over the underground workings in

order to ascertain what degree, if any, of settlement has occurred. Measurements from these monitoring

stations are taken on a regular basis. While measurements do indicate that some settlement has occurred, it

is within the range that was predicted at the time of the original mine planning application.

The vast majority of mining at Lisheen is complete and as such the extent of void space will not increase

significantly during the remaining months of mining (c. 20 months). As part of the mine closure planning,

particular attention is placed on backfilling at this time to ensure adequate underground support is in place as

the mine is essentially in ‘retreat mining’, moving from the extremities back towards the centre of the mine.



The water table at Lisheen Mine was lowered over a period of time from 1998. Other than some seasonal

variation, the footprint affected by dewatering has been essentially at steady state for over ten years. In

those ten years there has been no settlement attributed to dewatering from Lisheen Mine. There was a

slight increase in catchment and the dewatering footprint associated with extension into the Bog Zone ore

body and the Derryville Island ore body, but again, there has been no settlement attributed to mining

activities as a result. At this time there are no other new ore bodies into which Lisheen is planning to mine

and as such the dewatering footprint is expected to remain static.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the additional mining (c. 12 months) that will be facilitated

by the proposed modification of the permitted water management facility for use for tailings storage activities,

will not have any significant impacts on ground subsidence. In any event, the existing monitoring

programme will continue for the remaining period of mining operations.

3.5 Mitigation

Given the Site will operate for an additional 12 months as a result of this application, this will allow Lisheen

Mine some additional time to prepare for mine closure. As with any mine closure, there will be negative

impacts on the socio-economic environment as production ceases. Whilst this application is concerned with

keeping the facility open for an extended period, the following activities are being undertaken by Lisheen

Mine in the run up to closure (which is supported by this Application), to mitigate against such negative

impacts of the overall facility closure:

Discussions with industrial operators to re-use the plant footprint, surface infrastructure and workforce;

Capping activities on the main TMF;

Fisheries / hatchery operations; and

Playing / leisure facilities post closure.

3.6 Residual / Likely Significant Effects

Potential/residual emissions arising from the placement of tailings in the permitted water impoundment cell,

relating to dust, water and noise, are dealt with in the relevant chapters of the EIS. It is notable that the

IPPC Licence Reg. No. P0088-03 and associated emission limit values will be adhered to for the duration of

tailings placement and subsequent closure works, as proposed in this planning application and EIS.



3.7 References

Central Statistics office - www.cso.ie

Kilkenny County Council Development Plan. 2008 - 2014 -

http://www.kilkennycoco.ie/eng/Services/Planning/Development_Plans_2008-2014/ - Accessed 17 May

2013.

North Tipperary Development Plan 2010 – 2016 -

http://www.tipperarynorth.ie/planning/plan_County_Development_Plan_2010_2016.html - Accessed 17 May

2013

Central Statistics Office. Census Returns 1996, 2002, 2006 and 2011 – http://www.cso.ie/en/census/ -

Accessed: 11 February 2013

National Roads Authority. 2007. Traffic and Transport Assessment Guidelines. National Roads Authority, St.

Martin’s House, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4.

CHAPTER 4.0 FLORA AND FAUNA


4.0 FLORA AND FAUNA

4.1 Introduction

The flora and fauna impact assessment describes the baseline ecology of the Site, an evaluation of the

ecological features of the Site and surrounding area and following on from this an impact assessment to

establish potential impacts of the proposed development on habitats, flora and fauna. This assessment was

conducted in accordance with ‘EPA Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact

Statements’ (EPA, 2002), ‘EPA Advice Notes on Current Practice’ (EPA, 2003), and with reference to the

‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom’ (IEEM, 2006, reviewed 2011).

A separate Natura Impact Statement (NIS) for Appropriate Assessment Stage 2 has been carried out for the

Lower River Suir SAC (Golder Report Ref: 13 5071 5 0046 R.2 V.0). The study area for this assessment

encompasses the permitted water impoundment facility, adjacent lands and the receiving waters of the

discharges associated with the proposed modification development.

There is a number of National and International nature conservation sites within a 15 km radius of Lisheen

Mine and these are detailed in Section 4.3 below and shown in Figure 4.1 at the end of the document.

4.2 Methodology

4.2.1 Desktop survey and consultations

A desktop review was conducted of available published and unpublished information, including existing

Lisheen reports together with informal consultation with Inland Fisheries. The National Parks and Wildlife

Service (NPWS) wish to comment when the application is submitted to the Development Applications Unit.

A review of data available on the NPWS http://www.npws.ie/en/ and National Biodiversity (NBDC)

http://maps.biodiversityireland.ie/ web-based databases was also carried out. The review aimed to identify

key sites, habitats and species that may be present in the study area, particularly those protected by

legislation.

4.2.2 Phase I habitat survey

A walkover survey of the Site and adjacent lands (Phase I Survey) was conducted on 19 April 2013 to record

the habitats of the Site and surrounding area, however it is not a suitable time of year to carry out a flora

survey. Given that the area was largely cutaway peat and peat stockpiles, the area is not considered to be

of importance for flora. The area is now under preparation for the construction of the permitted water

impoundment facility and the habitats surrounding this are described.

Ecological Survey methods were in general accordance with those outlined in the following documents;

Heritage Council (2011). Best Practice Guidance for Habitat Survey and Mapping;

Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology (Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), 1990, revised

2003) and;

Ecological Surveying Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National Road

Schemes (NRA, 2009).

Aerial photographs and site maps assisted the habitat survey. Mammals and birds were surveyed based

upon sightings and signs of mammal activity during the habitat survey and also the identification of possible

suitable habitats.

Habitats have been named and described following Fossitt (2000), and are depicted in the attached Figure

4.2 (Habitat map, attached at end of document).



4.2.3 Breeding bird survey

This survey was carried out using a modified version of the Countryside Bird Survey. Surveys were timed to

coincide with the main period of activity of breeding birds in the study area. The survey took place between

07.00h and 13.00h on 19 April 2013.

All birds heard or seen within the Application Site and adjacent areas (100 m buffer) were recorded. The

position of the bird (seen or heard) relative to the observer was recorded, as was any specific activity such

as display or nesting behaviour. The habitats used by the birds were also noted.

Emphasis was placed on mapping the locations of birds exhibiting breeding behaviour, that is:

Birds observed displaying or singing;

Nests, eggs or young;

Adults repeatedly alarm call;

Birds are seen carrying food to nest or young;

Distraction displays are seen; and

Territorial disputes are seen.

Following completion of the survey, registrations were mapped showing the location and density of breeding

territories or breeding pairs estimated within the open areas.

Records of non-breeding species were also made; including flying birds (a note of the species, height and

direction was noted).

The mapped results of the visits were combined. The total number of pairs and their exact location (where

possible) was recorded for each field and on a 1:10,000 scale map of the study area.

4.2.4 Impact assessment methods

Habitats were assessed in accordance with the guidance contained in the document Guidelines for

Ecological Impact Assessment for the United Kingdom and Ireland (IEEM, 2006 - Draft Review 2011), with

reference to Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Roads Schemes (NRA, 2009).

The evaluation, impact and significance criteria used in this Impact Assessment are given in Table 4.1

overleaf.



Evaluation criteria

Table 4.1: Criteria for establishing receptor sensitivity/importance

Importance Ecological Valuation

International

Sites, habitats or species protected under international legislation e.g. Habitats and Species Directive. These include, amongst others: SAC’s, SPA’s, Ramsar Sites, Biosphere Reserves, including sites proposed for designation, plus undesignated sites that support populations of internationally important species.

National

Sites, habitats or species protected under national legislation e.g. Wildlife Act 1976 and amendments. Sites include designated and proposed NHAs, Statutory Nature Reserves, National Parks, plus areas supporting resident or regularly occurring populations of species of national importance (e.g. 1% national population) protected under the Wildlife Acts, and rare (Red Data List) species.

Regional Sites, habitats or species which may have regional importance, but which are not protected under legislation (although Local Plans may specifically identify them) e.g. viable areas or populations of Regional Biodiversity Action Plan habitats or species.

High Local/County

Areas supporting resident or regularly occurring populations of protected and red data listed-species of county importance (e.g. 1% of county population), Areas containing Annex I habitats not of international/national importance, County important populations of species of habitats identified in county plans, Areas of special amenity or subject to a Tree Preservation Order.

Moderate Local

Areas supporting resident or regularly occurring populations of protected and red data listed-species of local importance (e.g. 1% of local population), Undesignated sites or features which enhance or enrich the local area, Sites containing viable area or populations of local Biodiversity Plan habitats or species, local Red Data List species etc.

Low Local Undesignated sites or features, which enhance or enrich the wildlife resource at a Parish or neighbourhood level.

Significance Criteria

An impact’s significance is measured bearing in mind the site’s evaluation for nature conservation. An impact

of severe significance is one which is likely to cause a considerable drop in the biodiversity value of a site

that is extremely important for nature conservation. An impact of major significance will also impinge on an

important nature conservation site or species but the impact will be less marked. An impact of moderate

significance will cause a significant loss in biodiversity on a site but is unlikely to impinge on statutory sites or

species. A minor impact will have only a very limited impact on biodiversity whereas an impact that is termed

negligible/not significant is one that is most unlikely to impact in any way on biodiversity.

IEEM (2006, Draft Review 2011) define an ecologically significant impact as an impact (negative or positive)

on the integrity of a defined site or ecosystem and/or the conservation status of habitats or species within a

given geographic area.

The integrity of a site is the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, which

enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of the species for which

it was classified (IEEM, 2006, Draft Review 2011).

Best scientific professional judgement has been used in some cases, to assess the significance of predicted

effects. The significance criteria are expressed on a six point scale, including both adverse and beneficial

effects, as follows in Table 4.2.



Table 4.2: Criteria for Assessing Significance of Predicted Impacts

Impact Level Description

Severe Impact

Ecological effects of a scale or magnitude which would result in permanent, total loss of an irreplaceable species or habitat of international or national importance (occasionally of local importance), or which would result in the substantial loss of a protected/rare habitat or a population of a protected/rare species. They represent key factors in the decision-making process. Typically, mitigation measures would be unlikely to remove such effects.

Major Impact

These effects are likely to relate to permanent impacts at a regional or local level, or temporary impacts at an international or national level, and could be potential concerns to the project depending upon the relative importance attached to the issue during the decision making process. The effects are likely to be large in scale or magnitude, and result in substantial medium term loss of protected/rare species or habitats. Mitigation and detailed design work are unlikely to entirely eliminate all ecological effects.

Moderate Impact

These effects are usually only at local or regional level, and may be short or medium term only, or temporary impacts on a small part of an international site. However, the cumulative effects of such issues may lead to an increase in the overall effect on ecological features. They represent issues where effects will be experienced, but mitigation measures and detailed design work may ameliorate/enhance some of the consequences upon affected interests, but some residual effects will still arise.

Minor Impact

These effects are likely to be local issues only; or small magnitude impacts at the regional and national level, they are usually temporary, and are unlikely to be of importance in the decision making process. However, they are of relevance in enhancing the subsequent design of the development and consideration of mitigation measures.

Not Significant / No Impact

No perceivable impacts on ecological features (habitat or species). Impacts may be beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of variation, within the margin of forecasting error, or impacting on exceptionally poor baseline conditions.

Beneficial / Positive Impact

These effects are those, which through implementation, would be anticipated to benefit the ecology of the Site. They may advance the objectives of local, national or international species or habitats.

Impact Characteristics

Direct and Indirect Impacts - An impact can be caused either as a direct or as an indirect consequence of

a proposed development.

Magnitude - Magnitude measures the size of an impact, which is described as high, medium, low or very

low.

Extent - The area of which the impact occurs, where the receptor is a habitat, magnitude and extent may

become synonymous.

Level - An impact is assessed based on whether it is of international, national, regional or local importance

(Refer to Table 4.2). This has a direct bearing on its magnitude and significance.



Duration - The time for which the impact is expected to last prior to recovery or replacement of the resource

or feature.

Short Term: The effects would be of short duration and would not last more than 2-5 years from the

commencement of development;

Medium Term: The effects would take 5-15 years to be mitigated; and

Long Term: The effects would be reasonably mitigated over a long period of time (15 years or more).

Reversibility – An irreversible / permanent impact is one from which recovery is not possible within a

reasonable timescale, while a reversible/temporary impact is one from which spontaneous recovery is

possible.

Likelihood

Near Certain: >95% chance of occurring as predicted;

Probable: 50-95% chance as occurring as predicted;

Unlikely: 5-50% chance as occurring as predicted; and

Extremely Unlikely: <5% chance as occurring as predicted.

4.3 Protected Sites

There are eight designated sites within a 15 km radius of the Site, these include five EU Natura 2000 sites

and eight nationally proposed Natural Heritage Areas. These are given in Table 4.3 and Figure 4.1.

Table 4.3: Designated nature conservation sites within a 15 km radius of the proposed Site

Site Name EU Natura 2000 site National Designation Site Code

Galmoy Fen SAC pNHA 001858

Culahill Mountain SAC pNHA 000831

Spahill and Clonmantagh Hill

SAC pNHA 000849

The Loughans SAC pNHA 000407

Lower River Suir SAC pNHA 002137

Kilcooley Abbey Lake pNHA 000958

Cabragh Wetlands pNHA 001934

Templemore Woods pNHA 000942

Cullahill Mountain SAC and Spahill / Clonmangagh Hill SAC are not considered further in this assessment as

the designated features of semi natural grasslands are not impacted by Lisheen Mine. Galmoy Fen SAC

and Loughlans SAC are also not considered further as although the fen and turlough are groundwater

dependent terrestrial habitats, they do not lie within the Lisheen Groundwater Body (GWB)

(www.wfdireland.ie).

With regard to the remaining national designations, Kilcooley Abbey Lake pNHA, and Templemore Woods

pNHA are not affected by Lisheen Mine and are not considered further.



Lisheen mine discharges to both the Rossestown River and Drish River and these rivers occur within 15 km

upstream of the Lower River Suir SAC – an EU designated Natura 2000 site and also Cabragh Wetlands

pNHA.

Therefore, the Lower River Suir and Cabragh Wetlands pNHA, Rossestown River and the Drish River are

included in the Ecological Impact Assessment. A Natura Impact Statement has also been prepared for the

Lower River Suir SAC and accompanies the EIS.

4.4 Lower River Suir SAC and Cabragh Wetlands pNHA

The Lower River Suir SAC (Site code: 002137) and Cabragh Wetlands pNHA (Site code: 001934) are

located southwest of Lisheen c.13 km downstream of the Site.

The Lower Suir SAC consists of the freshwater stretches of the River Suir immediately south of Thurles,

the tidal stretches as far as the confluence with the Barrow/Nore immediately east of Cheekpoint in

Co. Waterford and many tributaries including the Clodiagh in Co. Waterford, the Lingaun, Anner, Nier, Tar,

Aherlow, Multeen and Clodiagh in Co. Tipperary.

A list of the features of interest of the Lower Suir SAC follows:

Features of Interest:

Freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) [1029];

White-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes) [1092];

Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) [1095];

Brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri) [1096];

River lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) [1099];

Allis shad (Alosa alosa) [1102];

Twaite shad (Alosa fallax fallax) [1103];

Salmon (Salmo salar) [1106];

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) [1330];

Otter (Lutra lutra) [1355];

Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) [1410];

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion

vegetation [3260];

Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels [6430];

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in British Isles [91A0;]

Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion

albae) [91E0]; and

Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles [91J0].

The above list was taken from NPWS Conservation Objectives for this SAC (www.npws.ie, 2011). The

NPWS site synopsis is given in Appendix 4.1.



4.4.1 Cabragh Wetlands pNHA

Cabragh Wetlands pNHA overlaps with the River Suir SAC. This summary site synopsis is from old records

for the pNHA.

There are two parts to this site, both situated close to the River Suir near Thurles. The largest section is the

Cabragh marshes which lie in a low-lying tributary valley into which the main river floods in winter. Here

there is an extensive area of Common Reed (Phragmites australis) with associated marshland and peaty

fen. The transition between vegetation types is often well displayed. A number of wetland plants of interest

occur, in particular the Narrow-leaved Bulrush (Typha angustifolia), Bottle Sedge (Carex vesicaria) and

Blunt-flowered Rush (Juncus subnodulosus). The site is naturally eutrophic, but it has also the nutritional

legacy of the former sugar factory which discharged into it through a number of holding lagoons, now

removed. Production is high which is seen in the size of such species as Celery-leaved Buttercup

(Ranunculus sceleratus) as well as in the reeds themselves. There is abundant food for surface feeding

wildfowl which total at 1,000 or so in winter. Widgeon, teal and mallard are numerous and the latter has a

large breeding population- with up to 400 in summer. In addition, less frequent species like shoveler and

pintail occur and there are records for both whooper and Bewick's swans.

The second site is the Tank wetland in Ardbaun, north of the town. This is higher up a tributary valley than

Cabragh and is mainly fed by springs of lime-rich groundwater.

4.5 Flora – Species of Conservation Importance

In addition to the important flora within Lower River Suir SAC and Cabragh Wetlands, records of important

plant species held on the NPWS database for the 10 K square S26 in which the study area is located include

Opposite-leaved pondweed Groenlandia densa at Urlingford (most likely in the River Goul), a species that is

legally protected under the Flora Protection Order, 1999. It occurs in lakes, rivers, canals and ditches with clear

base-rich water. However, more recent data for the area indicate that it occurs further north at Durrow in the

River Goul (NBDC). The River Drish and Rossestown do not occur in the River Goul catchment and

therefore this species is not considered further in this assessment.

4.6 Fauna – Species of Conservation Importance

The white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes is noted throughout the River Suir catchment (NBDC)

and is listed on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive. This species is still widespread in lakes and rivers

over much of Ireland, but it is becoming increasingly restricted to headwater streams elsewhere in Europe.

Lamprey another Annex II species is also noted in the river catchment of the River Drish.

Electrofishing carried out on behalf of Lisheen in 2006 recorded a number of native fish species including

European eel Anguilla anguilla, Salmon Salmo Salar and Brown trout Salmo trutta in the River Drish with the

latter dominating and Brown trout in the Rossestown River. The conservation status of Brown trout is

currently of Least Concern (NPWS, 2012). However, both the former two species are now on the Red list of

endangered species in Ireland. Salmon is a species listed on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive. Currently

the conservation status of this species is considered Vulnerable (NPWS, 2011). The European eel is a fish

of significant ecological importance. In recent decades, this species has undergone a dramatic decline

throughout its range. The conservation status of this species is considered Critically Endangered.

Otter is protected under Wildlife Act 1976/2000, the EU Habitats Directive 92/43 Annex II, Annex IV and the

Bern Convention Appendix III. Currently the conservation status of this species is Amber –

Unfavourable / Inadequate. Otter is noted further downstream at the Suir / Rossestown confluence at

Thurles (NBDC).

Kingfisher, an Annex I Bird species under the EU Birds Directive, is noted throughout the catchment (NBDC).

Kingfisher is Amber-listed in Ireland. BirdLife International has evaluated the European population as

Depleted, due to a moderate historical decline (BWI).



Both Otter and Kingfisher are species that use the Suir catchment and rely on the aquatic species as prey

items.


The Site comprises the permitted water impoundment facility that is surrounded by cutover bog with some

scrub and bog woodland. A large stockpile of peat and some highly disturbed amenity grassland occurs on

the western edge of the Site. The Lisheen Mine Tailings Management Facility (TMF) is to the east and

hardstanding areas such as buildings, car parks and roads to the south.

Habitats and some associated flora are described below.

4.8 Habitats

4.8.1 Other artificial lakes and ponds FL8

The main area of the assessment is the permitted water impoundment facility under construction which will

be modified to a tailings storage area. The permitted water impoundment facility replaces a small area of

milled peat and has low ecological value that has limited time for any development of natural habitat or

colonisation before its use as a water impoundment / tailings storage facility.

4.8.2 Habitats surrounding the Site

Habitats surrounding the Site in a 200 m buffer zone are discussed below, (Table 4.4).

Table 4.4: Main habitats recorded in the Study Area (Fossitt, 2000)

Habitat Habitat code

Cutover Bog PB4

Bog Woodland WN7

Spoil and Bare Ground ED2

Amenity Grassland GA2

Scrub WS1

Buildings and Artificial Surfaces BL3

Other Artificial Lakes and Ponds FL8

Cutover Bog PB4

This habitat dominates the northern area surrounding the Site and comprises an area of bare exposed peat

that has been cut and drained with no intact vegetation remaining.

Bog Woodland WN7

A remaining small patch of bog woodland habitat characterised by deciduous woodland species edges the

Application Site. This patch contains downy birch Betula pubescens and willow Salix spp, with some Rowan.

The understorey is mainly thick bramble with, patches of heather.

Spoil and Bare Ground ED2

A stockpile of peat is located adjacent to the Application Site which is not vegetated.

Scrub WS1

Patches of scrub occur in the area of amenity grassland along the edge of the cutover bog. The scrub

consists of gorse Ulex europaeus, bramble Rubus fruticosus agg., silver birch Betula pendula and willow

Salix spp.



Amenity Grassland GA2

The grass areas to the west of the cutover bog are highly disturbed and are defined as amenity grassland.

The species include perennial rye grass Lolium perenne, Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus, dandelion

Taraxacum agg., creeping buttercup Rannunculus repens and common nettle Urtica dioica. Colt’s-foot

Tussilago farfara dominates some of the disturbed areas along with some patches of soft rush Juncus

effusus.

Buildings and Artificial Surfaces BL3

Wind turbines occur to the west of the Site along with the buildings, roads and car park to the south.

Other Artificial Lakes and Ponds FL8

This habitat comprises the existing TMF and the adjacent complex of conditioning ponds. In addition, a

variety of other artificial ponds and lagoons are present elsewhere within the mine site that form components

of the mine water treatment and discharge infrastructure. The TMF has been partially restored to agricultural

pasture currently grazed by cattle.

4.9 Fauna

It is unlikely that the proposed Site is used regularly by fauna given potential disturbance to the area from

ongoing construction activities.

Fauna of the adjacent area include common mammal species fox, rabbit, rat, wood mouse and also Irish

Hare which are all protected under the Irish Wildlife Act 1976 (Amended 2000). Irish Hare use the area

around the wind turbines adjacent to the Site as resting area during the day and this will be avoided. As the

area is largely cutaway bog, hardstanding areas and buildings, there is very little valuable habitat for

important fauna species. Amphibians including frog Rana temporaria may use some of the drains and

ditches of the cutaway areas for breeding and for wildlife corridors in heavily disturbed areas. The Common

Lizard lacerta vivipara is often found on bogs including cutaway areas.

Given the lack of diversity of habitats, offering little potential suitable habitat for various stages of the life

cycles of invertebrates other than some drains, a limited diversity of invertebrates is likely to occur in the

area. There was no suitable habitat for bats on the Site and the surrounding mine buildings will not be

affected by the proposed modifications to the permitted water impoundment facility.



4.9.1 Bird surveys

Breeding bird surveys were carried out in April and May 2013. The results are summarised in the following

section and Table 4.5.

Table 4.5: Breeding Bird Survey Data

All of the bird species noted on the Site are common in Ireland and are not of conservation concern. The

Black-headed Gull noted on the adjacent TMF but not on the Site is a Red listed species due to its rapidly

declining and localised breeding population. The European population is regarded as Secure, despite

declines in several countries. Snipe an Amber listed species feeds in the rushy area next to the Site.

All birds, nests, eggs and nestlings are fully protected under law in Ireland Wildlife Act (1976) as amended

2000. The bird nesting season is from the 1 March to the 31 September in Ireland. The cutting of trees,

bushes and hedgerows is restricted during this period and care should be taken to ensure that any such

activities do not result in an offence being committed under the Wildlife Act (1976) or the Wildlife Amendment

Act (2000).

4.10 Water Quality

4.10.1 Water Framework Directive

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) provides the basis for future EU water legislation for many years to

come (European Commission, 2000a). The Directive aims to ensure the quality of EU waters and takes a

holistic approach to water management. It updates existing water legislation through the introduction of a

statutory system of analysis and planning based upon the river basin, the use of ecological as well as

chemical standards and objectives, the integrated consideration of groundwater and surface water quality and

quantity, the introduction of some new regulatory factors, and the phased repeal of several older European

Directives.

Species Conservation Status

Breeding Pairs (possible / probable /

confirmed)

Location Present (no. individuals)

Other Activities (no. individuals)

Blackbird Green 1 Nesting in Bog woodland

2 1

Chaffinch Green 1 Nesting in trees of Bog woodland

2 -

Wren Green 1 Nesting in scrub 2 -

Willow Warbler

Green 1 Singing from willow tree

1 -

Dunnock Green 1 Nesting in scrub 2 -

Black Headed Gull

Red listed - - - 5 from TMF. Nesting pairs likely in TMF area.

Meadow Pipit

Green listed - - - 1 flying towards windturbine area to west.

Snipe Amber Listed - - - 3 Feeding on disturbed

ground in rushes next to

the Site.



Item 7 of Article 16 (strategies against pollution water) of the WFD, states that the Commission shall submit

proposals for quality standards applicable to the concentrations of the priority substances surface water,

sediments or biota. Item 35 of Article 2 defines an Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) as the

concentration of a particular pollutant or group of pollutants in water, sediment or biota that should not be

exceeded in order to protect human health and the environment. Finally, in Annex 5 of the Directive, the

procedure described for setting these EQSs by Member States.

The use of EQSs is currently under constant review and scientific study. Bioavailability corrections through

the use of biotic ligand models (BLMs) allow a more accurate assessment to be made of potential metal

toxicity. The Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) concentrations are particularly important in defining the

bioavailability of copper and zinc and of other metals, such as nickel (EA, 2012, www.wfd.uk.org). Other

parameters such as pH and calcium conditions may also affect bioavailability of metals.

For many substances, the main risk to plants and animals is through direct toxicity in water → water column

EQS. But for lipophilic substances that bioaccumulate, the main risk is to predators exposed to the chemical

via the food chain → biota EQS. The biota EQS is expressed as a concentration in body tissue of prey

organism. Using bioaccumulation data, it can be converted to corresponding concentration in water. Biota

standards potentially offer a more reliable measure of environmental exposure than water samples for

substances that bioaccumulate. Biota can act as a composite sample. However, biota standards require

serious attention before we can use them to assess waterbody status with confidence (EA, 2012).

Therefore this report relies upon a combination of Q values and the water column EQS described in the

water impact assessment (Chapter 6).

4.10.2 WFD water quality reports

Lisheen mine discharges to both the Rossestown River and Drish River. These rivers occur upstream of the

River Suir SAC – an EU Natura 2000 site. The current WFD reports for these rivers are summarised below:

Rossestown River, a tributary of the River Suir, occurs in the South Eastern River Basin District within

the Upper Suir Water Management Unit (WFD Reports). The water quality of Rossestown is

considered Poor under the WFD. It is described as uunsatisfactory throughout with poor ecological

quality at all locations;

The Drish, a tributary of the River Suir, is considered Poor under the WFD. In particular, the ecological

status of the Drish is considered Poor which gives the overall rating. The physio-chemical rating is

Moderate; and

The EPA River Water Quality Report (2011) indicates that both the Rossestown and Drish rivers are

seriously polluted at times with water quality poor downstream of Lisheen with elevated levels of

ammonia and nitrite. Toxic effects are indicated downstream of Lisheen on the Drish. Cumulative

impacts of discharges from Lisheen Mine, Templetouhy WWTP and Derryfada Bog are indicated for the

Rossestown River in the report.

4.11 Rossestown River at Lisheen

4.11.1 Biological monitoring

Biological Monitoring of the Rossestown River has been carried out in April 2013, in order to establish the Q

values1 upstream and downstream of the Lisheen discharge. The survey is designed to assess the current

biological water quality, based on macroinvertebrate communities. There was no suitable sampling location

upstream of the discharge (and below the WWTP) therefore the EPA station upstream of the WWTP at the

Bridge NW of Derryville was sampled. The report is given in Appendix 4.2. Sampling locations of this 2013

biological monitoring are depicted on Figure 4.3 at the end of the document.

1 The Q-scheme values range from Q1 (grossly polluted) to Q5 (pristine), with the suffix /0 indicating a suspected toxic effect.



The EPA Station upstream of both the Lisheen discharge point and the WWTP is Q3-4* which indicates

Moderate Ecological Quality, with a siltation effect. The sample taken downstream of Lisheen discharge and

Templetouhy WWTP is rated as Q3 which indicates Poor Ecological Quality.

4.12 Drish River at Lisheen

4.12.1 Biological monitoring

Biological monitoring of the River Drish has been undertaken by the EPA and Lisheen Mine over the past 20

years. A yearly sampling programme has been undertaken on behalf of Lisheen Mine since 2004. This

entails three sampling events for aquatic invertebrates (Q values), macrophytes and diatoms. The river is

sampled upstream and downstream of the Lisheen Mine discharge point. Figure 4.3 (attached at the back of

this document) depicts locations of surface water sampling locations referred to in Table 4.6. Site 1 and

Stretch A are upstream of the discharge. Sites 2 and 3 and Stretch B are downstream of the discharge. In

2012, water quality of Q3-4 at Site 1 is seen to decline to Q3 at Site 2, with a toxic impact evident at Site 2

since 1999. In May 2013, a water quality of Q3 with no toxic effect is recorded at all Sites in the first round of

3 sampling rounds for the year. The report is given in Appendix 4.2.



Table 4.6: Q-values Recorded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Envision)

Year 1992 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011

Month July Aug May July

Survey EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA

Site

1

EPA 0040 (u/s of discharge)

- - 3-4 3-4 3 3 3-4

2

EPA (d/S of discharge) 0070

4-5 3-4 2/0 2-3/0 3/0 3/0 3/0

3

EPA No Code (ds/ of discharge)

Lisheen data

-

- - - - - -

/0 = possible toxic effect

*= siltation



4.13 Impact Assessment

4.13.1 Water quality

A detailed water impact assessment for the proposed development and associated activities is given in

Chapter 6.0 of the EIS. The cumulative impacts of water quality from the proposed development are the

main potential source of impact on the Rossestown and Drish rivers and the ecological species/habitats

associated with the rivers. Therefore, this assessment relies upon the water impact assessment in order to

establish if the proposed development will impact significantly on water quality and therefore affect the

ecology of the receiving surface waters.

4.13.2 Predicted impacts of proposed works

The main impacts under consideration in this report include;

Disturbance to habitats and species;

Habitat loss;

Species loss; and

Impacts on water quality.

Potential direct and indirect impacts from water quality are as follows:

Effects on important aquatic species such as salmon and eel;

Effects on SAC and pNHA habitats due to water quality impacts and possible indirect impacts resulting

in changes in the vegetation community of rivers;

Otter prey species have specific water quality requirements and any decline in water quality in the rivers

could have indirect impacts on the otter populations using the area; and

Increased macrophyte and algal growth – oxygen depletion, alteration of invertebrate/fish populations

which serve as food sources, vegetation changes causing alterations to fish habitats.

4.13.3 Evaluation

Terrestrial Habitats and Flora

Habitats and flora within the study area comprising the Site and surrounding area are all of Low ecological

value following criteria described in Table 4.2.

Surface Receiving Waters

The receiving waters of the Rossestown River and Drish River are considered of High local value and further

downstream the Lower River Suir is considered of International value as it is a European Natura 2000 site.

The Lower River Suir pNHA is also a national designation and is considered to be of ecological value for the

diversity of species it supports along its linear habitats.

Aquatic Fauna

The Rossestown and Drish support populations of protected species namely white-clawed crayfish, eel,

salmon and trout.

Eel is currently Critically Endangered and the EU requires management plans from Member States deal with

this population decline, therefore this species is considered of importance at International level, as a

precautionary approach.



Salmon are currently Vulnerable, and as population data is not available for the study area it must be

assumed that the local populations are potentially important at a county level (e.g. 1% of county population),

and are therefore considered of importance at County level.

Otter

Signs of otter were recorded south of the study area and in the Suir catchment. Therefore it is possible that

they utilise the Rossestown or Drish rivers. As population data is not available for the study area it must be

assumed that the local population is potentially important at a county level (e.g. 1% of county population),

and as otter species are protected under EU legislation and in Ireland, they are considered to be of high local

value following criteria described in Table 4.2.

Other Terrestrial Fauna

There were eight bird species recorded in the study area during the bird surveys (Section 4.3) and four of

these believed to be breeding. All birds noted were common species and mainly associated with the

patches scrub and trees/woodland.

Other fauna such as mammals recorded in the study area include common mammal species; fox, rabbit, rat,

wood mouse and Irish Hare. The area is not likely to support a diversity of invertebrates given the low value

of habitats present on the Site and surrounding area. Amphibian species – newt and frogs may use the

study area along with lizard however there is little available habitat for them.

Given the low diversity of fauna and habitats, these are therefore considered to be of low local value

following criteria described in Table 4.2 as their presence enhances and enriches the local neighbourhood

area.

4.13.4 Impacts of proposed works

As highlighted in the Schlumberger Water Services (SWS) water impact assessment (Chapter 6.0), there is

no significant impact on the water quality of the Drish and Rossestown or on the groundwater at the various

stages of the mine closure, either alone or cumulatively. It is considered in the water impact assessment,

that the current water treatment processes in place at Lisheen are sufficient to treat the water discharge to

surface water quality standards and salmonid standards with some exceptions. Given the effects of other

parameters on EQS values, such as pH and DOC, it is the condition of the receiving waters and the Q values

(with siltation or toxic effects) that are taken as the indicators of the potential cumulative impacts of Lisheen

discharges and other diffuse/point discharges on ecological receptors.

Given that the overall status of both receiving waters (rivers) is considered Poor and that the Q rating for

ecological status is considered Poor, it would be important to ensure that the current mine water treatment is

in place and operating at full capacity at all stages of the proposed development for current and future

discharges.

In order to improve and protect the ecological status downstream of Lisheen in both rivers, optimisation of

the existing treatment of the water discharging from Lisheen Mine is required and additional treatment is

recommended as a precautionary measure, specifically in relation to the post closure water discharge.

Lisheen Mine have put in place treatment systems for the discharge which have succeeded in reducing

some of the water quality parameters, in particular for ammonia. This demonstrates that a wetland system

can achieve improvements in water quality for some parameters. The monitoring data for the current

treatment system can be used to determine the design of the wetland system proposed for post closure.

Direct and Indirect impacts that may be caused by the proposed works are summarised in Table 4.7 below,

and described in more detail in the following paragraphs.



Table 4.7: Predicted Impacts of proposed works before mitigation

Description of Impact Direct/Indirect Magnitude/Size of Impact

Level (Evaluation of Feature)

Duration and reversibility

Likelihood Significance

Remaining Operational Period

Impacts from discharges on water quality and on aquatic species of the Rossestown and Drish rivers e.g. salmon and eel.

Direct Unquantified International/County Level

Medium term, Temporary Near Certain Moderate Negative

Impacts from discharges on water quality and on

Otter and Kingfisher

Indirect Unquantified International Medium term, Temporary Near Certain Moderate Negative

Active Mine Closure

Disturbance of habitats

during capping/closure activities

Direct Low Low Local Short-term, Temporary Near Certain Minor Negative

Disturbance to birds during

capping/closure activities Direct Low High local Short-term, Temporary Near Certain Minor Negative

Impacts from discharges on water quality and on important aquatic species e.g. salmon and eel.


Medium term, Temporary Near Certain Moderate Negative


Otter and Kingfisher.

Indirect Unquantified International Medium term, Temporary Near Certain Moderate Negative

Long term post closure



Description of Impact Direct/Indirect Magnitude/Size of Impact

Level (Evaluation of Feature)

Duration and reversibility

Likelihood Significance

Impacts from discharges on water quality and on aquatic species of the Rossestown and Drish rivers e.g salmon and eel.


Long term, Permanent Near Certain Moderate Negative



Indirect Unquantified International Long term, Permanent Near Certain Moderate Negative



4.13.5 Discussion of predicted impacts

Following on from Table 4.7, predicted impacts prior to mitigation are described in more detail below.

4.13.5.1 Disturbance to habitats and species

Disturbance during capping and closure to habitats and species of the TMF and surrounding area is

considered Minor negative. Disturbance may occur due to adjacent areas due to increased presence of

humans and machinery during closure activities for example during the bird breeding season and works may

require screening from the surrounding area. Disturbance to Snipe feeding in adjacent areas may also be

addressed through screening. An ecological survey and recommendations at the appropriate time will be

needed to review and update any potential impacts during closure.

4.13.5.2 Loss habitats and species due to runoff to surface and ground water systems

The risk of runoff from the proposed works to ground and surface water systems can affect a number of

habitats and species. For example groundwater impacts may affect groundwater dependent terrestrial

ecosystems such as the Rossestown and Drish. Runoff may also affect the surface waters of both the

Rossestown and Drish rivers and associated important species such as crayfish, salmon, eel etc.

The cumulative impact of water quality on habitats and species is considered of moderate negative

significance, given the presence of important species. As the magnitude of the impact on these species is

unknown and given the ecological status of both rivers is Poor, mitigation as a precautionary measure is

therefore required to reduce the level of this potential impact.

Therefore, mitigation is required.

4.13.5.3 Impacts on otter and kingfisher

Indirect impacts of water quality may affect Otter and Kingfisher in the catchment, as they rely on the river for

prey species such as fish and aquatic invertebrates. The impact is considered moderate negative.

Therefore, mitigation is required.

4.14 Mitigation Measures

The principal objectives of ecological mitigation are to take measures to minimise adverse impacts of the

proposed project upon the existing nature conservation value of the study area. The output of the

assessment is to determine the significance of residual effects on the various ecological features.

4.14.1 Habitats and species disturbance

An ecological survey will be required immediately prior to closure to ascertain mitigation measures, if any

required during capping and closure.

4.14.2 Water quality

Although there are currently water treatment processes at Lisheen, the receiving waters are in Poor

ecological condition. Reductions to certain parameters of water quality have been achieved such as

ammonia through the addition of treatment wetlands and sediment traps at Lisheen. However, in order to

address the cumulative impact in the catchment and given the potential for impact on sensitive ecological

receptors such as salmon and eel, it is prudent for a precautionary approach to be taken and mitigation is

therefore recommended. The main mitigation measure to reduce the potential impacts on water quality, to

no significance, is the provision of a wetland treatment system which will be agreed with Inland Fisheries, in

terms of detailed design and implementation, once formal closure activities commence. The monitoring data

from the current wetland treatment system can be used to design the wetland system for closure.



The proposed Biodiversity Action Plan by Lisheen Mine (2009) provides details of opportunities to enhance

biodiversity. An update of the proposed Lisheen BAP aimed at improving the riparian habitats and habitats

of the Rossestown and Drish Rivers, where possible, at Lisheen would further protect the rivers.

4.15 Residual Impacts

Residual cumulative impacts to features following mitigation are presented below. The conclusions of the

SWS Water Section are used to assess the residual impacts on water quality and therefore to some extent,

on aquatic habitats and species of the Rossestown and Drish rivers and also potential downstream impacts

on the Suir and Cabragh wetlands.

Table 4.8: Residual Impacts

Description of Impact Significance before mitigation

Mitigation Significance post mitigation

Remaining Operational Period

Impacts from discharges on water quality and on aquatic species of the Rossestown and Drish rivers e.g. salmon and eel.

Moderate Negative See long-term closure below



Moderate Negative See long-term closure below

Active Mine Closure

Disturbance of habitats

during capping/closure activities Minor Negative

Ecological Surveys and Recommendations

Minor Negative or less

Disturbance to birds during

capping/closure activities Minor Negative

Ecological Surveys

and

Recommendations

Minor Negative or less

Impacts from discharges on water quality and on aquatic species especially salmon and eel.

Moderate Negative

Design and Installation of a wetland system with consultation with Inland Fisheries

No significant impact


Otter and Kingfisher.

Moderate Negative

Design and Installation of a wetland system in consultation with Inland Fisheries


Long term post closure

Impacts from discharges on water quality and on aquatic species of the Rossestown and Drish rivers especially salmon and eel.

Moderate Negative

Design and Installation of a wetland system in consultation with Inland Fisheries




Moderate Negative

Design and Installation of a wetland system with consultation with Inland Fisheries




4.16 Conclusions

Based upon the water impact assessment by SWS in Chapter 6.0, and once the wetland system is designed

and implemented in consultation with Inland Fisheries, no significant impacts are considered likely on

ecological features, in particular the Rossestown and Drish rivers and also the River Suir (SAC) and Cabragh

wetlands (pNHA) downstream.



4.17 References

European Communities (2000). Managing NATURA 2000 sites: the provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats

Directive ‘92/43/EC.

Environmental Agency (2012) Environmental Quality Standards for trace metals in the aquatic ., EA Bristol

European Communities (2001). Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites:

Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.

European Union Habitats Directive (1992) Council Directives 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation

of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

Flora (Protection) Order (1999). Statutory Instrument, S.I. No. 94 of 1999. Published by the Stationery

Office, Dublin.

Fossitt, J.A. (2000). A guide to habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council.

Heritage Council (2011). Best Practice Guidance for Habitat Survey and Mapping.

IEEM (2006). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (version 7 July 2006).

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.

Igoe, F., Quigley D.T.G., Marnell, F., Meskell, E., O’Connor W. and Byrne, C. (2004). The sea lamprey

Petromyzon marinus (L.), river lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis (L.) and brook lamprey Lampetra planeri (Bloch) in

Ireland: General biology, ecology, distribution and status with recommendations for conservation. Biology

and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 104b (3): 43-56.

JNCC (1990, Revised 2003). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey – a technique for environmental audit.

Joint Nature Conservancy Committee, Peterborough.

Kelly, F. L. and King, J. J. 2001 A review of the ecology and distribution of three lamprey species, Lampetra

fluviatilis (L.), Lampetra planeri (Bloch) and Petromyzon marinus (L.): a context for conservation and

biodiversity considerations in Ireland. Biology and Environment : Proc. R. Ir. Acad. 101B, 165-185.

King J.J., Lordan M., & Wightman G.D. (2008) Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) of The Effects of

Statutory Arterial Drainage Maintenance Activities on Whiteclawed Crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes).

Series of Ecological Assessments on Arterial Drainage Maintenance No 10 Environment Section, Office of

Public Works, Headford, Co. Galway.

Lynas, P. Newton, S.F., Robinson, J.A. 2007. The status of birds in Ireland: an analysis of conservation

concern 2008- 2013. Irish Birds. Vol.8, No.3.

Maitland, P. S. 2003. Ecology of the River, Brook and Sea Lamprey. Conserving Natura 2000, Rivers

Ecology Series No. 5. English Nature, Peterborough.

NPWS (2009). Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland. Guidance for Planning Authorities.

NRA (2009). Guidelines for the Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Roads Schemes. National

Roads Authority, Ireland.

NRA (2008). Ecological Surveying Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National

Road Schemes. National Roads Authority, Ireland.

NRA (2005). Guidelines for the Treatment of Otters Prior to the Construction of National Road Schemes.

National Roads Authority, Ireland.

OPW (2006). Series of Ecological Assessments on Arterial Drainage Maintenance No. 4: Ecological Impact

Assessments (EcIA) of the Effects of Statutory Arterial Drainage Maintenance Activities on the Otter (Lutra

lutra). Office of Public Works, November 2006.

Webb, D.A., Parnell, J., Doogue, D. (1996). An Irish Flora. Dundalgan press. Dundalk.



Wildlife Act (1976) Wildlife Act, Ireland, 22 December 1976: An act for the conservation of wildlife (including

game).

Wildlife Amendment Act (2000) Wildlife Amendment Act, Ireland, 18 December 2000, No. 38 of 200.



FIGURES



Figure 4.1: EU and National Designations within 15 km of Lisheen Mine

4.2 V.10 100 20050

Meters



Habitat MapKMG CW CW AUGUST 2013

AR0056013 11 5071 5 0226

A4 A.0

LegendApplication Site Boundary200m Buffer of Application Site BoundaryLands Under Control of Lisheen MineFL8 - Other Artificial Lakes and PondsED2 - Spoil and Bare GroundWN7 - Bog Woodland (Remnant)WS1 - ScrubBL3 - Buildings and Artificial SurfacesGA2 - Amenity GrasslandPB4 - Cutover Bog

Note 1 - Highly Disturbed

1:4,500

Constructed Area

Golder Associates (IRL) LtdTown Centre House

Dublin RoadNaas

Co. KildareTel: 045 874411

Drawing No. Rev

Size Scale Status



Title

Project

Client

Note1

2N



Figure 4.3: Sampling locations. (Sweeney, 2013)



APPENDIX 4.1 NPWS Site Synopsis

SITE SYNOPSIS

SITE NAME : LOWER RIVER SUIR

SITE CODE : 002137

This site consists of the freshwater stretches of the River Suir immediately south ofThurles, the tidal stretches as far as the confluence with the Barrow/Nore immediatelyeast of Cheekpoint in Co. Waterford and many tributaries including the Clodiagh in Co.Waterford, the Lingaun, Anner, Nier, Tar, Aherlow, Multeen and Clodiagh in Co.Tipperary. The Suir and its tributaries flows through the counties of Tipperary, Kilkennyand Waterford. Upstream of Waterford city, the swinging meanders of the Suir criss-cross the Devonian sandstone rim of hard rocks no less than three times as they leave thelimestone-floored downfold below Carrick In the vicinity of Carrick-on-Suir the riverfollows the limestone floor of the Carrick Syncline. Upstream of Clonmel the river andits tributaries traverse Upper Palaeozoic Rocks, mainly the Lower Carboniferous Viseanand Tournaisian. The freshwater stretches of the Clodiagh River in Co. Waterfordtraverse Silurian rocks, through narrow bands of Old Red Sandstone and Lower AvonianShales before reaching the carboniferous limestone close to its confluence with the Suir.The Aherlow River flows through a Carboniferous limestone valley, with outcrops of OldRed Sandstone forming the Galtee Mountains to the south and the Slievenamuck range tothe north. Glacial deposits of sands and gravels are common along the valley bottom,flanking the present-day river course.

The site is a candidate SAC selected for the presence of the priority habitats on Annex I ofthe E.U. Habitats Directive - alluvial wet woodlands and Yew Wood. The site is alsoselected as a candidate SAC for floating river vegetation, Atlantic salt meadows,Mediterranean salt meadows, old oak woodlands and eutrophic tall herbs, all habitatslisted on Annex I of the E.U. Habitats Directive. The site is also selected for the followingspecies listed on Annex II of the same directive - Sea Lamprey, River Lamprey, BrookLamprey, Freshwater Pearl Mussel, Crayfish, Twaite Shad, Atlantic Salmon and Otter.

Alluvial wet woodland is declining habitat in Europe as a result of drainage andreclamation. The best examples of this type of woodland in the site are found on theislands just below Carrick-on-Suir and at Fiddown Island. Species occurring hereinclude Almond Willow (Salix triandra), White Willow (S. alba), Grey Willow (S.cinerea), Osier (S. viminalis), with Iris (Iris pseudacorus), Hemlock Water-dropwort(Oenanthe crocata), Angelica (Angelica sylvestris), Pendulus Sedge (Carex pendula),Meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria) and Valerian (Valeriana officinalis). The terrainis littered with dead trunks and branches and intersected with small channels whichcarry small streams to the river. The bryophyte and lichen floras appear to be rich andrequire further investigation. A small plot is currently being coppiced and managedby National Parks and Wildlife. In the drier areas the wet woodland species mergewith other tree and shrub species including Ash (Fraxinus excelsior), Hazel (Corylusavellana), Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa). Thisadds further to the ecological interest of this site.

Eutrophic tall herb vegetation occurs in association with the various areas of alluvialforest and elsewhere where the flood-plain of the river is intact. Characteristic species ofthe habitat include Meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria), Purple Loosestrife (Lythrumsalicaria), Marsh Ragwort (Senecio aquaticus), Ground Ivy (Glechoma hederacea) andHedge Bindweed (Calystegia sepium).

Old oak woodlands are also of importance at the site. The best examples are seen inPortlaw Wood which lies on both sides of the Clodiagh River. On the south-facingside the stand is more open and the Oaks (mainly Quercus robur) are well grown andspreading. Ivy (Hedera helix) and Bramble (Rubus fruticosus) are common on theground, indicating relatively high light conditions. Oak regeneration is dense, varyingin age from 0-40 years and Holly (Ilex aquifolium) is fairly common but mostly quiteyoung. Across the valley, by contrast, the trees are much more closely spaced andthough taller are poorly grown on average. There are no clearings; large Oaks extendto the boundary wall. In the darker conditions, Ivy is much rarer and Holly muchmore frequent, forming a closed canopy in places. Oak regeneration is uncommonsince there are as yet few natural clearings. The shallowness of the soil on the north-facing slope probably contributes to the poor tree growth there. The acid nature of thesubstrate has induced a “mountain” type Oakwood community to develop. There is anextensive species list present throughout including an abundance of mosses, liverwortsand lichens. The rare lichen Lobaria pulmonaria, an indicator of ancient woodlands,is found.

Inchinsquillib Wood consists of three small separate sloping blocks of woodland in avalley cut by the young Multeen River and its tributaries through acidic Old RedSandstone, and Silurian rocks. Two blocks, both with an eastern aspect, located to thenorth of the road, are predominantly of Sessile oak (Quercus petraea) and Hazel, withDowny Birch (Betula pubescens), Ash and Holly. The ground flora is quite mixed withfor example Wood sedge (Carex sylvatica), Bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scriptus),Primrose (Primula vulgaris), Wood-sorrel (Oxalis acetosella), Pignut (Conopodiummajus) and Hard fern (Blechnum spicant). The base poor nature of the underlying rock is,to some extent masked by the overlying drift. The third block, to the south of the road,and with a northern aspect, is a similar although less mature mixture of Sessile Oak, Birchand Holly, the influence of the drift is more marked, with the occurrence of Woodanemone (Anemone nemorosa) amongst the ground flora.

Floating river vegetation is evident in the freshwater stretches of the River Suir andalong many of its tributaries. Typical species found include Canadian Pondweed(Elodea canadensis), Milfoil (Myriophyllum spp.), Fennel Pondweed (Potamogetonpectinatus), Curled Pondweed (P. crispus), Perfoliate Pondweed (P. perfoliatus), PondWater-crowfoot (Ranunculus peltatus), other Crowfoots (Ranunculus spp.) and themoss Fontinalis antipyretica. At a couple of locations along the river, Opposite-leaved Pondweed (Groenlandia densa) occurs. This species is protected under theFlora (Protection) Order, 1999.

The Aherlow River is fast-flowing and mostly follows a natural unmodified river channel.Submerged vegetation includes the aquatic moss Fontinalis antipyretica and StreamWater-crowfoot (Ranunculus pencillatus), while shallow areas support species such asReed Canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea), Brooklime (Veronica beccabunga) and Water

Mint (Mentha aquatica). The river bank is fringed in places with Alder (Alnus glutinosa)and Willows (Salix spp.).

The Multeen River is fast flowing, mostly gravel-bottomed and appears to follow anatural unmodified river channel. Water Crowfoots occur in abundance and the aquaticmoss Fontinalis antipyretica is also common. In sheltered shallows, species such asWater-cress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum) and Water-starworts (Callitriche spp.)occur. The river channel is fringed for most of its length with Alder, Willow and anarrow strip of marshy vegetation.

Salt meadows occur below Waterford City in old meadows where the embankment isabsent, or has been breached, and along the tidal stretches of some of the in-flowingrivers below Little Island. There are very narrow, non-continuous bands of thishabitat along both banks. More extensive areas are also seen along the south bank atBallynakill, the east side of Little Island, and in three large salt meadows betweenBallynakill and Cheekpoint. The Atlantic and Mediterranean sub types are generallyintermixed. The species list is extensive and includes Red Fescue (Festuca rubra),Oraches (Atriplex spp.), Sea Aster (Aster tripolium), Sea Couch Grass (Elymuspycnanthus), frequent Sea Milkwort (Glaux maritima), occasional Wild Celery (Apiumgraveolens), Parsley Water-dropwort (Oenanthe lachenalii), English Scurvygrass(Cochlearia anglica) and Sea Arrowgrass (Triglochin maritima). These species aremore representative of the Atlantic sub-type of the habitat. Common Cord-grass(Spartina anglica), is rather frequent along the main channel edge and up the internalchannels. The legally protected (Flora (Protection) Order, 1999) Meadow Barley(Hordeum secalinum) grows at the landward transition of the saltmarsh. Sea Rush(Juncus maritimus), an indicator of the Mediterranean salt meadows, also occurs.

Other habitats at the site include wet and dry grassland, marsh, reed swamp, improvedgrassland, coniferous plantations, deciduous woodland, scrub, tidal river, stony shore andmudflats. The most dominant habitat adjoining the river is improved grassland, althoughthere are wet fields with species such as Yellow Flag (Iris pseudacorus), Meadow Sweet(Filipendula ulmaria), Rushes (Juncus spp.), Meadow Buttercup (Ranunculus acris) andCuckoo Flower (Cardamine pratensis).

Cabragh marshes, just below Thurles, lie in a low-lying tributary valley into which themain river floods in winter. Here there is an extensive area of Common Reed(Phragmites australis) with associated marshland and peaty fen. The transition betweenvegetation types is often well displayed. A number of wetland plants of interest occur, inparticular the Narrow-leaved Bulrush (Typha angustifolia), Bottle Sedge (Carexrostrata) and Blunt-flowered Rush (Juncus subnodulosus). The marsh is naturallyeutrophic but it has also the nutritional legacy of the former sugar factory whichdischarged into it through a number of holding lagoons, now removed. Production is highwhich is seen in the size of such species as Celery-leaved Buttercup (Ranunculussceleratus) as well as in the reeds themselves.

Throughout the Lower River Suir site are small areas of woodland other than thosedescribed above. These tend to be a mixture of native and non-native species, althoughthere are some areas of semi-natural wet woodland with species such as Ash and Willow.Cahir Park Woodlands is a narrow tract of mixed deciduous woodland lying on the flat-lying floodplain of the River Suir. This estate woodland was planted over one hundred

years ago and it contains a large component of exotic tree species. However, due tooriginal planting and natural regeneration there is now a good mix of native and exoticspecies. About 5km north west of Cashel, Ardmayle pond is a long, possibly artificialwater body running parallel to the River Suir. It is partly shaded by planted Lime (Tiliahybrids), Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) and the native Alder. Growing beneath thetrees are shade tolerant species such as Remote sedge (Carex remota).

The site is of particular conservation interest for the presence of a number of Annex IIanimal species, including Freshwater Pearl Mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera andM. m. durrovensis), Freshwater Crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes), Salmon (Salmosalar), Twaite Shad (Alosa fallax fallax), three species of Lampreys - Sea Lamprey(Petromyzon marinus), Brook Lamprey (Lampetra planeri) and River Lamprey(Lampetra fluviatilis) and Otter (Lutra lutra). This is one of only three knownspawning grounds in the country for Twaite Shad.

The site also supports populations of several other animal species. Those which are listedin the Irish Red Data Book include Daubenton’s Bat (Myotis daubentoni), Nattererer’sBat (M. nattereri), Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), Pine Marten (Martes martes),Badger (Meles meles), the Irish Hare (Lepus timidus hibernicus), Smelt (Osmeruseperlanus) and the Frog (Rana temporaria). Breeding stocks of Carp are found inKilsheelan Lake. This is one of only two lakes in the country which is known to havesupported breeding Carp. Carp require unusually high summer water temperatures tobreed in Ireland and the site may therefore support interesting invertebrate populations.

Parts of the site have also been identified as of ornithological importance for a number ofAnnex I (EU Birds Directive) bird species, including Greenland White-fronted Goose(10), Golden Plover (1490), Whooper Swan (7) and Kingfisher. Figures given in bracketsare the average maximum counts from 4 count areas within the site for the three wintersbetween 1994 and 1997. Wintering populations of migratory birds use the site. Flocksare seen in Coolfinn Marsh and also along the reedbeds and saltmarsh areas of the Suir.Coolfinn supports nationally important numbers of Greylag Geese on a regular basis.Numbers between 600 and 700 are recorded. Other species occurring include Mallard(21), Teal (159), Wigeon (26), Tufted Duck (60), Pintail (4), Pochard (2), Little Grebe(2), Black-tailed Godwit (20), Oystercatcher (16), Lapwing (993), Dunlin (101), Curlew(195), Redshank (28), Greenshank (4) and Green Sandpiper (1). Nationally importantnumbers of Lapwing (2750) were recorded at Faithlegg in the winter of 1996/97. InCabragh marshes there is abundant food for surface feeding wildfowl which total at 1,000or so in winter. Widgeon, Teal and Mallard are numerous and the latter has a largebreeding population - with up to 400 in summer. In addition, less frequent species likeShoveler and Pintail occur and there are records for both Whooper and Bewick's swans. Kingfisher, a species that is listed on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive, occurs alongsome of the many tributaries throughout the site.

Landuse at the site consists mainly of agricultural activities including grazing, silageproduction, fertilising and land reclamation. The grassland is intensively managed andthe rivers are therefore vulnerable to pollution from run-off of fertilisers and slurry.Arable crops are also grown. Fishing is a main tourist attraction on stretches of the Suirand some of its tributaries and there are a number of Angler Associations, some with anumber of beats. Fishing stands and styles have been erected in places. Both commercialand leisure fishing takes place on the rivers. The Aherlow River is a designated Salmonid

Water under the EU Freshwater Fish Directive. Other recreational activities such asboating, golfing and walking are also popular. Several industrial developments, whichdischarge into the river, border the site including three dairy related operations and atannery.

The Lower River Suir contains excellent examples of a number of Annex I habitats,including the priority habitat Alluvial Forest. The site also supports populations ofseveral Annex II animal species and a number of Red Data Book animal species. Thepresence of two legally protected plants (Flora (Protection) Order, 1999) and theornithological importance of the river adds further to the ecological interest of this site.

6.10.2006



APPENDIX 4.2 Water Quality Reports – Q values

Lisheen Mine

Receiving Water Monitoring – Biological.

Invertebrates, Diatoms, Macrophytes

Licence Reg. No. P0088-03

May 2013

Prepared by:

Pascal Sweeney M.Sc., MIEEM

& Niamh Sweeney M.Sc.,

Sweeney Consultancy,

Rahan,

Mallow

Co. Cork.

Tel. 022/26780

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 3.

SECTION 2 INVERTEBRATES 4.

SECTION 3 DIATOMS 7.

SECTION 4 MACROPHYTES 9.

SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS 10.

APPENDIX 1 SAMPLING SITE LOCATIONS 11.

APPENDIX 2 SAMPLING SITE DETAILS 12.

APPENDIX 3 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SAMPLING SITES 17.

APPENDIX 4 INVERTEBRATE FAUNAL RESULTS 21.

APPENDIX 5 DIATOM SPECIES RECORDED 22.

APPENDIX 6 REFERENCES 23.

3

1. INTRODUCTION

Monitoring of the receiving water for the IPPC Licence (Reg No. P0088-03) of the Lisheen

Mine includes the following biological parameters: Invertebrates, Diatoms and Macrophytes.

Assessments are to be carried out upstream and downstream of the groundwater discharge to

the River Drish. Sampling locations for these biological parameters are shown in Appendix

1. Site details are presented in Appendix 2.

Invertebrate monitoring (Q-value) sites. One upstream and two downstream:

Site 1. 2nd

bridge upstream of Longfordpass Bridge (EPA Site 16/D02/0040). This is the

nearest EPA site upstream of the discharge. It is also the first upstream location properly

suited to the Q-scheme methodology. Although it is over 5.5km upstream, results from this

site give information on the water quality of the upstream catchment which can be directly

compared with EPA data.

Site 2. Bridge NE of Castletown (EPA Site 16/D02/0070). This is the nearest EPA site

downstream of the discharge. Results from this site can be directly compared with EPA data

and give information on changes occurring in the stretch of river within 300m of the

discharge. However, because of the depth and physical conditions, sampling opportunities at

this site can be limited in periods of high flow. Sampling at Site 3 is therefore also

undertaken, so that a downstream sample will be obtainable on every occasion.

Site 3. Bridge NW of Castletown. Results from this site give information on the condition

of the river c. 1.8km downstream of the discharge.

Diatom monitoring (TDI) sites. Two of the same sites as for invertebrate monitoring are

used:

Site 1. 2nd

bridge upstream of Longfordpass Bridge (EPA Site 16/D02/0040). This site is

the nearest location site upstream of the discharge suitable for standard TDI methodology.

Because of the depth and physical conditions, Site 2 is not suited to the TDI methodology.

Site 3. Bridge NW of Castletown. Results from this site give information on the condition

of the river c. 1.8km downstream of the discharge.

4

Macrophyte monitoring (MTR) sites. Macrophyte sites are not the same as those used for

monitoring invertebrates and diatoms, but rather are two 100m stretches of river, upstream

and downstream of the groundwater discharge:

Stretch A: 100m stretch directly upstream of the discharge point.

Stretch B: 100m stretch directly upstream of EPA Site 0070 (starting c. 200m downstream

of the discharge point.

All field work was carried out by Pascal Sweeney on 16 May, 2013. Most of the section of

river surveyed had been dredged late summer/autumn 2012. Only Site 1 (EPA Site

16/D02/0040) was unaffected by dredging.

2. INVERTEBRATES

2.1 Methodology.

The procedure of assessment of biological water quality using invertebrates in this survey is

the Q-Rating System used by the Environmental Protection Agency (Toner et al., 2005).

2.2 Field and Laboratory Procedures

Field work was carried out by Pascal Sweeney on 16 May, 2013. At each sampling site, a

general assessment of the relevant physical conditions was made prior to macroinvertebrate

sampling. Physical conditions recorded are presented in Appendix 2 and photographs are

presented in Appendix 3. A five-minute kick and stone wash sample was taken. Following

sieving, each sample was live sorted for 30 minutes under laboratory conditions.

Macroinvertebrates were preserved in 70% alcohol, examined microscopically and identified

to the taxonomic level required to calculate Q-ratings by the EPA methodology. A list of

taxonomic keys used to identify macroinvertebrates is presented in Appendix 4. Based on the

abundance of indicator groups and other relevant environmental data, a Q-value was

determined for each site in accordance with the biological assessment procedures used by the

EPA.

5

2.3 Invertebrate Results

The list of macroinvertebrate taxa identified to the level required for the Q-scheme and

numbers recorded in 30 minutes sorting at each site are presented in Appendix 4.

The Q-scheme values range from Q1 (grossly polluted) to Q5 (pristine). Suffixes of /0,

indicating a suspected toxic effect, and *, indicating a siltation effect may be added.

Macroinvertebrate Community Analysis by Site.

Site 1. The fauna of this eroding site is dominated by the freshwater shrimp, Gammarus

duebeni, which is in EPA Indicator Group C (Relatively Pollution Tolerant). No Group A

(Very Pollution Sensitive) were found. Group B (Relatively Pollution Sensitive) is

represented by two specimens of Glossosomatidae and three of Limnephilidae. Group D

(Very Pollution Tolerant) is represented by two specimens of the water slater, Asellus

aquaticus. Group E (Most Pollution Tolerant) is absent.

The absence of Groups A taxa in a fauna dominated by Group C, with very little

representation of Group D and no Group E representation, indicates a Q-value of Q3.

Site 2. While the invertebrate faunal diversity is low, with 9 taxa identified, abundance is

good, with 157 individuals found in 30 minutes sorting. Groups C is dominant, while

Groups A and E are absent.

Because the expected invertebrate groups are represented and the freshwater shrimp,

Gammarus duebeni, which was absent from this site throughout 2011 and in May and July

2012, is present in good numbers, a toxic effect is not evident here on this occasion. The Q-

value ascribed is therefore Q3.

Site 3. Over half the invertebrates found at this site were non-biting midge larvae

(Chironomidae, GroupC). No Group A or Group Btaxa were found. Asellus aquaticus

(Group D) is the second most abundant invertebrate at this site. No Group E taxa were found.

6

The dominance of non-biting midge larvae indicates that the invertebrate fauna of this site is

in recovery from a recent perturbation, which depleted the fauna, allowing re-colonisation by

the multi-voltine midge larvae. This could have been caused by the dredging in late

summer/autumn 2012. The absence of Groups A, B and E indicates a Q-value of Q3.

7

3. DIATOMS

3.1 Methodology.

The procedure of assessment of biological water quality using diatoms in this survey is the

Trophic Diatom Index (TDI) (Kelly et al., 2008).


Field work was carried out by Pascal Sweeney on 16 May, 2013. At each sampling site, a

general assessment of the relevant physical conditions was made prior to diatom sampling.

Physical conditions recorded are presented in Appendix 2 and photographs are presented in

Appendix 3. Sampling was conducted according to the guidelines outlined in European

Committee for Standardisation EN 13946 (2003). Five cobbles, preferably free from silt and

filamentous algae, were randomly selected along a stretch of approximately 10m. Loosely

attached organic debris was removed by gentle agitation in stream water. Diatom

assemblages were removed by placing the cobbles in a basin containing 100ml of river water

and brushing the upper surface of each cobble with a stiff toothbrush. The sample at each site

was pooled, transferred to a polyethylene bottle and preserved with Lugo’s iodine. Samples

were stored under refrigerated conditions to prevent the sublimation of iodine.

Samples were processed by Niamh Sweeney. For the preparation of permanent slides, 15 ml

of sample was pipetted into a beaker and 20-30 ml of 30% hydrogen peroxide was added to

each beaker to oxidise organic material and the cell contents in order to observe the

ornamentation on the frustules. The beakers were placed in a water bath at 90°C for 3-4

hours until oxidised. Three drops of 1 M hydrochloric acid were added to remove carbonates.

Each sample was rinsed with distilled water at least four times at the end of the treatment to

neutralise the sample. One ml of sample was pipetted onto 20 mm square, 0 thickness

coverslips and left to air-dry. Coverslips were mounted on glass slides using Naphrax®

diatom mountant for microscopic observation at x1000 magnification. A diatom valve was

used as the count unit and valves were counted according to the guidance standard BS EN

14407 (2004). Full valves and broken valves, where approximately three-quarters of the

valve was present, were counted. All diatoms visible in a field of view were counted and

identified before moving vertically to the next field of view. Diatom species were identified

using Krammer & Lange-Bertalot (1986, 1988, 1991a, 1991b) and Kelly (2000). Valve

8

counts per slide were in the range of 300-350 valves. Using species sensitivity values,

assigned according to their tolerance to nutrients, ranging from 1 (low tolerance) to 5 (high

tolerance) (Kelly et al., 2001), the TDI for the site is calculated.

3.3 Diatom Results

Lists of diatom species identified at each site are presented in Appendix 5.

TDI values are most significantly correlated with nutrients, in particular soluble reactive

phosphorus (Kelly et al., 2008). The scoring system runs from 0-100 with low scores

reflecting oligotrophic waters and high scores indicating eutrophic conditions. The index may

also be influenced by non-nutrient factors such as siltation (Kelly, 2003).

Diatom Analysis by Site.

Site 1. 26 species of diatom were identified. The TDI value calculated is 83.25

Site 3. 15 species of diatom were identified. The TDI value calculated is 26.76

9

4. MACROPHYTES

4.1 Methodology.

The procedure of assessment of biological water quality using macrophytes in this

monitoring programme is the Mean Trophic Rank (MTR) (Holmes et al., 1999). According

to the EPA website, while the MTR method is not yet included in EPA ecological status

assessments, it is the macrophyte assessment method which they are in the process of

intercalibrating. As the MTR method should ideally be carried out from mid-June to mid-

September, results from outside this period might not be reliable. The raw data collected

could also be used in some other assessment methodology, in the future.


While the two assessment stretches were surveyed, because the dredging in 2012 removed

practically all the macrophytes, they have not recovered sufficiently to make a MTR

calculation meaningful. Lemna minor, Sparganium erectum, Sparganium emersum, Apium

nodiflorum, potamogeton natans and Nuphar lutea were present, but at less than 3%

occurrence each. Photographs of the stretches are presented in Appendix 3.

10

5. CONCLUSIONS

At Site 1, approximately 5.5km upstream of the Lisheen Mine discharge, the

macroinvertebrate and diatom communities indicate that the Drish River is affected by

eutrophication. This site is half a Q-value lower than was the case in both May 2011 and May

2012, indicating a decrease in dissolved oxygen. The Trophic Diatom Index is higher than in

May of the two previous years, indicating more nutrient enriched conditions.

As Q3 was also recorded at Sites 2 and 3 and as a toxic effect is not evident in the faunal

composition and abundance, the Lisheen Mine discharge is not seen to be currently affecting

the macroinvertebrate fauna. However Q3 is defined as Poor Ecological Status in accordance

with the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations

2009.

The diatom results do not show any negative impact of the discharge from Lisheen Mine.

Indeed, the TDI indicates better biological water quality at Site 3 than at Site 1. However, it

must be borne in mind that this index is designed on a scale of nutrient enrichment, rather

than on other factors affecting water quality.

11

APPENDIX 1

SAMPLING SITE LOCATIONS

12

APPENDIX 2

RIVER DRISH SAMPLING SITE DETAILS

Macroinvertebrate &

Diatom Site Code

1

GPS Reading S2518 5992

EPA Site 0040

Location 2nd

br. u/s of Longfordpass Br.

Photograph No. 1

Wet Width (m) 3.5

Sampling depth (m) 0.25

Flow Glide/Run: 100%

Substrate 1. Cobble

2. Gravel

3. Sand

Instream Vegetation Apium nodiflorum 10%

Ranunculus sp. 10%

Shade Light

13

Macroinvertebrate Site

Code

2


EPA Site 0070

Location Br. NE of Castletown

Photograph No. 2

Wet Width (m) 12


Flow Riffle: 100%

Substrate 1. Cobble

2. Gravel

3. Silt

Instream Vegetation Sparganium emersum <5%

Ranunculus sp. <5%

Shade Medium

14

Macroinvertebrate &

Diatom Site Code

3


EPA Site N/A

Location Br. NW of Castletown

Photograph No. 3

Wet Width (m) 7


Flow Glide/Run: 100%

Substrate 1. Cobble

2. Gravel

3. Silt

4. Large rocks

Instream Vegetation Filamentous algae 10%

Ranunculus sp. 10%

Potamogeton natans 5%

Apium nodiflorum <5%

Callitriche sp. <5%

Shade Light

15

Macrophyte Stretch A

Length of stretch (m) 100

Upstream end location and

GPS Reading

At last 2 hawthorns on bank u/s of discharge

S22118 63670

Upstream end photo 4

Downstream end location and

GPS Reading

At intake pipe and buoy

S22045 63621

Downstream end photo 5

Wet Width (m) >5-10

Average depth (m) >1.0

Substrate Peaty silt: 100%

Flow Habitat Slack: 100%

Shading None: 100%

Water Clarity Clear: 100%

Bed Stability Soft/Sinking: 100%

16

Macrophyte Stretch B

Length of stretch (m) 100

Upstream end location and

GPS Reading

13m d/s ESB pole stay wire

S21819 63492

Upstream end photo 6

Downstream end location and

GPS Reading

Bridge

S21744 63523

Downstream end photo 7

Wet Width (m) 10 – 20

Average depth (m) >0.5 – 1.0

Substrate Silt: 50%

Gravel: 40%

Cobble: 10%

Flow Habitat Run: 100%

Shading None: 100%

Water Clarity Turbid: 100%

Bed Stability Stable: 50%

Unstable: 50%

17

APPENDIX 3

PHOTOGRAPHS OF SAMPLING SITES Photo 1: Site 1

Photo 2: Site 2

18

Photo 3: Site 3

Photo 4: Macrophyte Stretch A, Upstream end

19

Photo 5: Macrophyte Stretch A, Downstream end

Photo 6: Macrophyte Stretch B, Upstream end

20

Photo 7: Macrophyte Stretch B, Downstream end

21

APPENDIX 4

INVERTEBRATES RESULTS

Numbers presented are the numbers of specimens sorted per sample in 30 minutes.

TAXON SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE 3

Group A (Sensitive)

None recorded

Group B (Less Sensitive)

Glossosomatidae 2 1

Limnephilidae 6 1

Group C (Relatively Tolerant)

Hydracarina 2

Bithynia tentaculata 5

Gammarus sp. 86 92 2

Baetis rhodani 1

Ephemerellidae 1

Hydropsychidae 3 1

Polycentropodidae 4 4

Elmidae 136 2 17

Hygrobiidae 3

Simuliidae 1 5

Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus) 6 103

Group D (Very Tolerant)

Asellus aquaticus 2 47 46

Group E (Most Tolerant)

None recorded

APPENDIX 5

Diatom Species Identified at Sites 1 and 3

Site 1

TDI=83.25

Achnanthes hungarica

Achnanthidium minutissimum

Amphora pediculus

Fragilaria capucina

Gomphonema angustatum

Gomphonema minutum

Gomphonema olivaceum

Gomphonema parvulum

Gyrosigma acuminatum

Meridion circulare

Navicula atomus

Navicula cryptocephala

Navicula cryptotenella

Navicula gregaria

Navicula lanceolata

Navicula menisculus

22

Navicula minima

Navicula slesvicensis

Navicula tenelloides

Navicula tripunctata

Nitzschia linearis

Nitzschia palea

Planothidium lanceolatum

Reimeria sinuata

Rhoicosphenia abbreviata

Surirella brebissonii

Site 3

TDI=26.76

Achnanthidium minutissimum

Diatoma tenue

Encyonema silesiacum

Fallacia tenera

Fragilaria capucina

Gomphonema parvulum

Navicula cryptocephala

Nitzschia gracilis

Nitzschia linearis

Nitzschia palea

Nitzschia pusilla

Planothidium lanceolatum

Surirella brebissonii

Surirella minuta

23

APPENDIX 8

REFERENCES

European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Water) Regulations 2009, S.I.

No. 272 of 2009, Dublin: Stationary Office.

Haslam SM, Sinker CS & Wolsey PA (1982). British Water Plants. Field Studies Council,

Nettlecombe, Taunton, Somerset.

Holmes, N., Newman, J., Chadd, S., Rouen, K., Saint, L. and Dawson, F. (1999). Mean

Trophic Rank: A User ’s Manual. R&D Technical Report E38. Environment Agency, UK.

Kelly, M.G. (2000). Identification of common benthic diatoms in rivers. Field Studies. 9,

583-700.

Kelly, M.G. (2003). Short term dynamics of diatoms in an upland stream and implications

for monitoring eutrophication. Environmental Pollution. 125, 117-122.

Kelly, M.G., Adams, C., Graves, A.C., Jamieson, J., Krokowski, J., Lycett, E.B., Murray-

Bligh, J., Pritchard, S. and Wilkins, C. (2001). The Trophic Diatom Index: A user’s manual,

Revised ed., Bristol, U.K.: Environmental Agency.

Kelly, M.G., Juggins, S., Guthrie, R., Pritchard, S., Jamieson, J., Rippey, B., Hirst, H. and

Yallop, M. (2008). Assessment of ecological status in U.K. rivers using diatoms. Freshwater

Biology. 53, 403-422.

Kelly-Quinn, M., Bradley, C., Dodkins, I., Harrington, T.J., Ní Chathain, B., O’Connor, M.,

Rippey, B., and Trigg, D. (2005) Water Framework Directive- Characterisation of reference

conditions and testing of typology of rivers (2002-W-LS-7). Wexford, Ireland: Environmental

Protection Agency.

Toner, P., Bowman, J., Clabby, K., Lucey, J., McGarrigle, M., Concannon, C., Clenaghan,

C., Cunningham, P., Delaney, J., O’Boyle, S., MacCárthaigh, M., Craig M. and Quinn, R.

(2005). Water Quality in Ireland 2001-2003. EPA.

Taxonomic Keys used for Macroinvertebrate Identification:

Chironomidae: Wiederholm, T. (1983). Chironomidae of the Holarctic Region.

Ent. Scan. Suppl. 19

Coleoptera, Larvae: Richoux, P. (1982). Introduction Pratique a la Systematique des

Organismes des eaux continentales Françaises. Bull. Soc. Linné.

Lyon 51; 114-128

Coleoptera, Adults: Friday, L.E. (1988). A Key to the Adults of British Water Beetles.

Field Studies Council Publication 189.

24

Ephemeroptera: Elliott, J.M., Humpesch, U.H. and Macan, T.T. (1988). Larvae of

the British species of Ephemeroptera. Sci. Publ. Freshwat. Biol.

Assoc. 49.

Gastropoda: Macan, T.T. (1977). British fresh- and brackish- water gastropods.

Sci. Publ. Freshwat. Biol. Assoc. 13

Bivalvia Killeen, I., Aldridge, D. and Oliver, G. (2004) Freshwater bivalves

of Britain and Ireland. Field Studies Council Occasional

Publication 82.

Hirudinae: Mann, K.H. (1964). A Key to the British freshwater leeches. Sci.

Publ.Freshwat. Biol Assoc. 14

Malacostraca: Glendhill, T., Sutcliffe, D.W. and Williams, W.D. (1993). British

Freshwater Crustacea Malacostraca: A Key with Ecological Notes.

Sci. Publ. Freshwat. Biol Assoc. 52

Oligochaeta: Brinkhurst, R.O. (1971). A guide to the identification of aquatic

oligochaetae. Sci. Publ. Freshwat. Biol Assoc. 22

Plecoptera: Hynes, H.B.N. (1977). A key to the adults and nymphs of the

British stoneflies (Plecoptera). Sci. Publ. Freshwat. Biol. Assoc. 17

3rd ed.

Trichoptera: 1. Edington, J.M. and Hildrew, A.G. (1995). A key to the caseless

caddis larvae of the British Isles. Sci. Publ. Freshwat Biol Ass. 53

2. Wallace, I.D., Wallace, B. and Philipson, G.N. (2003). Keys to

the case-bearing caddis larvae of Britain and Ireland. Sci Publ.

Freshwat. Biol. Assoc. 61

Biological Water Quality Assessment of the Rossestown

Stream Upstream and Downstream of a Discharge from

Lisheen Mine

April 2013

Prepared by:

Pascal Sweeney M.Sc., MCIEEM,

Consultant Ecologist

Rahan,

Mallow

Co. Cork. Tel. 022/26780

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 3.

SECTION 2 METHODOLOGY 3.

SECTION 3 RESULTS 5.

SECTION 4 CONCLUSIONS 8.

SECTION 5 REFERENCES 8.

Appendix 1 PHOTOGRAPHS 9.

3

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the present report by Pascal Sweeney, Consultant Ecologist, is the biological

assessment of water quality in the Rossestown Stream upstream and downstream of a discharge

from Lisheen Mine that enters this watercourse at ING S2020 6926. The survey is designed to

assess the current biological water quality, based on macroinvertebrate communities.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Choice of Sampling sites.

Field work was carried out on 26th

April, 2013. The stream was first surveyed to establish the

most appropriate locations with instream habitat suitable for the application of the Q-scheme

methodology. Two biological sampling sites were chosen, one upstream and one downstream of

the Lisheen Mine discharge.

2.2 Habitat Assessment.

Habitat assessment was carried out at each of the sites in terms of:

Stream width and depth.

Substrate type, listing substrate fractions in order of dominance.

Flow type, listing percentage of riffle, glide and pool in the sampling area.

Instream vegetation, listing plant species occurring and their percentage coverage of the

stream bottom at the sampling site.

4

Dominant bankside vegetation, listing the main species overhanging the stream.

Estimated summer cover by bankside vegetation.

Grid references were recorded at all sites using a GARMIN GPS 12 handset.

To illustrate habitat quality, photographs were taken using an Olympus µ300 digital camera.

2.3 Invertebrate Sampling and Biological Water Quality Assessment.

A pond net invertebrate sample was taken at each site using standard methodology employed by

EPA. Samples were retained in plastic containers at the sampling site. Sample processing and

preservation was carried out under laboratory conditions within 24 hours of sampling. Silt was

removed from each sample by sieving under running water through a 500μ sieve. Sieved samples

were then live sorted for 30 minutes in a white plastic sorting tray under a bench lamp.

Macroinvertebrates were stored in 70% alcohol. Preserved invertebrates were identified to the

level required for the EPA Q-rating method (Toner et al, 2005) using dissecting and compound

binocular microscopes, as necessary. The Q-scheme biological assessment procedure used by the

Environmental Protection Agency was then applied to the results.

5

3. RESULTS

3.1 Physical Data

The physical data recorded at each site are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Site 1 Site 2

Location Rossestown Stream, c. 600m

upstream of discharge.

Rossestown Stream, c. 80m

downstream of discharge.

Grid Reference S2080 6925 S7143 2212

Nearest EPA

Sampling Site

At 16/R01/0020 Just downstream of

16/R01/0040

Photograph No. 1 2

Width (m.) 2-4m 3m

Sampling Depth (cm.) 30 40

Substrate

Composition (in order

of occurrence)

1. Peat silt

2. Cobble

3. Gravel

1. Gravel

2. Silt

3. Cobble

Flow Type Fast Glide: 100% Fast Glide: 100%

Summer shade Light Moderate

Dominant Bankside

Vegetation

Alder, grasses, sedges,

reedmace.

Willow, alder

3.2 Instream plants

Percentage cover of the substratum by plants at each site is given in Table 2.

TABLE 2

Site 1 Site 2

Filamentous algae <5% <5%

Sparganium erectum 5%

6

3.3 Macroinvertebrate Community Analysis by Site.

The numbers of individuals of each macroinvertebrate taxon sorted in 30 minutes from samples

taken at the two sites are given in Tables 3 and 4.

TABLE 3

SITE 1

INDICATOR GROUP

POLLUTION SENSITIVITY/TOLERANCE

TAXON NUMBER

A Very Pollution Sensitive None Recorded

B Moderately Pollution Sensitive

Leuctra sp. 2

Sericostomatidae 7

Lepidostomatidae 1

Goeridae 1

Limnephilidae 27

Phrygaenidae 1

C Moderately Pollution Tolerant Hydracarina 2

Gammarus duebeni 52

Baetis rhodani 2

Tipulidae 3

Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus)

1

D Very Pollution Tolerant Pisidium sp. 23

Asellus sp. 19

E Most Pollution Tolerant None recorded

Taking the physical habitat into account, the good representation of Group B taxa, including one

stonefly species, combined with the absence of Group E and Group D not excessive, this fauna

warrants a Q-value of Q3-4. Heavy siltation with fine peat material undoubtedly limits the

presence of mayfly and stonefly nymphs. Therefore the suffix * is added.

Q3-4* indicates Moderate Ecological Quality, with a siltation effect.

7

TABLE 4

SITE 2

INDICATOR GROUP

POLLUTION SENSITIVITY/TOLERANCE

TAXON NUMBER

A Very Pollution Sensitive None Recorded

B Moderately Pollution Sensitive

Sericostomatidae 13

Limnephilidae 2

Glossosomatidae 1

C Moderately Pollution Tolerant Hydracarina 7

Gammarus duebeni 50

Hydropsychidae 3

Polycentropodidae 1

Elmidae 25

Gyrinidae 4

Tipulidae 7

Chironomidae (ex. Chironomus)

2

D Very Pollution Tolerant Pisidium sp. 109

Asellus sp. 12

E Most Pollution Tolerant Tubificidae 2

The instream habitat at Site 2 is better suited to the Q-scheme methodology than that at Site 1.

However, it is still not an eroding riffle site and allowance must be made for this when analysing

the faunal composition.

As at Site 1, Group A is absent. Group B is less well represented, with no stonefly nymphs. The

fauna is dominated by Group D and Group E has a low representation. Q3 is therefore ascribed.

Q3 indicates Poor Ecological Quality.

8

4. CONCLUSIONS

From Site 1 to Site 2, the invertebrate fauna of the Rossestown Stream currently shows a slight

drop in biological water quality, by half a Q-value.

5. REFERENCES

Toner et al (2005) Water quality in Ireland 2001 – 20003. Environmental Protection Agency.

APPENDIX I

Photo 1: Site 1, upstream.

Photo 2: Site 2, downstream.

CHAPTER 5.0 SOILS AND GEOLOGY


Table of Contents

5.0 SOILS AND GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 1

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1

5.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 1

5.3 Previous work ............................................................................................................................................... 1

5.4 Existing Environment .................................................................................................................................... 2

5.4.1 Topography ............................................................................................................................................. 2

5.4.2 Overburden ............................................................................................................................................. 2

5.4.3 Bedrock geology ..................................................................................................................................... 2

5.4.4 Structural geology ................................................................................................................................... 2

5.4.5 Seismicity ................................................................................................................................................ 2

5.4.6 Description of geological attributes ......................................................................................................... 3

5.5 Assessment .................................................................................................................................................. 3

5.5.1 Embankment stability modelling .............................................................................................................. 4

5.6 Mitigation ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

5.7 Residual Effects ............................................................................................................................................ 6

5.8 References ................................................................................................................................................... 7

TABLES

Table 5.1: Importance of Geological Attributes in Vicinity of the Application Site ................................................................ 3

Table 5.2: Significance of Impacts on Soil and Geology ..................................................................................................... 4

Table 5.3: Geotechnical Parameters for Stability Analysis .................................................................................................. 5

Table 5.4: Stability Modelling Results ................................................................................................................................. 5

FIGURES

Figure 5.1: Soil Classification (Source: GSI)

Figure 5.2: Sub-soil Classification (Source: GSI)

Figure 5.3: Bedrock Classification (Source: GSI)

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 5.1 Stability Analysis



5.0 SOILS AND GEOLOGY

5.1 Introduction

This Chapter of the Environmental Impact Statement considers and assesses any potential impact resulting

from the proposed modification of the permitted water impoundment facility on the surrounding soils and

geology environment. It is noted that the proposed activity at the Application Site will involve a modification

from storage of water only, to storage of tailings and water, resulting in an extension to the existing tailings

management facility (TMF).

The proposed modification activities to provide an extension of the existing tailings facility will consist of two

main phases:

Operational Phase - this will involve the placement of tailings over a c. 12 month period to a final

level of c. 130.5 mOD. Tailings are placed via a spigot pump as is the case in the existing TMF.

The spigots will be opened sequentially and the tailings will be discharged uniformly over the new

TMF cell; and

Closure Phase – The cell will then be capped with approximately 700 mm of Type B material as

constructed on the existing TMF together with 300 mm of growing material consisting of 50% peat

and 50% soil. The procedure will be the same as currently undertaken on the existing TMF facility

(see Chapters 2.0 and 12.0).

The most likely emission to the soils and geology environment is the potential for release of contamination

into the underlying subsurface, through the base or sides of the permitted impoundment facility, once storage

of tailings commences. Other potential impacts include effects on the soils and geology environment during

capping activities. The following Chapter provides details on the baseline environment, an assessment of

potential impacts, and mitigation measures to address identified impacts. It is noted that further details on

the proposed modification activities are included in Chapter 2.0, and potential water impacts are addressed

in Chapter 6.0 of this EIS. Closure activities are detailed in Chapter 12.0 of this EIS.

5.2 Methodology

The geological information described in this Chapter is based on data gleaned from the Geological Survey of

Ireland (GSI) publication entitled Geology of Tipperary, and its accompanying map (Sheet 18) (GSI, 1996).

Additional data has been taken from other works previously undertaken at, and in the vicinity of the Site. A

site walkover was completed by a senior Golder geologist, and discussions were undertaken with the

Lisheen Mine geology department. Additional detailed information has also been taken from online data

(www.gsi.ie).

In order to assess impacts on the soil and geology, ‘Guidelines for the Assessment of Geology, Hydrology

and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes’ published by the National Roads Authority (2009) has been

referenced.

5.3 Previous work

Previous studies have been prepared for the existing TMF (Planning Study, 1995; Golder Associates (UK)

Ltd., 1997, Report No. 96512126), and additional site investigation work was also undertaken at the location

of the permitted water impoundment facility in advance of construction activities to confirm ground

conditions.




5.4.1 Topography

The Application Site is approximately 2 km east-south-east of the Lisheen Mine orebodies, and 12 km

northeast of Thurles, Co. Tipperary. The general area around the application site is underlain by peat

deposits, with agricultural farmland to the south west. The footprint of the permitted cell is c. 9 ha. in area,

with an internal storage area of c. 6.15 ha. and a capacity of 390,000 m3.

5.4.2 Overburden

The Quaternary deposits of the regional area were described by Coxon and Delaney (1991) as:

– “very variable over the whole area but nowhere does it appear to be extensive or thick except

possibly below some of the poorly drained zones occupied either by marginal (in places reclaimed)

land or bog. Till cover is uniformly thin on higher ground with only 1 or 2 metres of sandy diamicton

containing predominantly local clasts (i.e. >80% limestone). Over much of the area till forms only the

basal part of the rich brown earth soil of the region.”

General details of the soils and sub-soils in the vicinity of the Application Site are included in Figures 5.1 and

5.2 attached. Within the vicinity of the Application Site, above the bedrock is a thin layer of glacial till

generally varying in thickness from 0.5 m to 3.0 m (Planning Study, 1995; Golder Associates (UK) Ltd., 1997,

Report No. 96512126), typically consisting of clayey silty sands and gravels and gravelly sandy silts.

5.4.3 Bedrock geology

The GSI publication (Geology of Tipperary) and its accompanying geological map, Sheet 18, indicate that

the Lisheen Mine site falls within Waulsortian Limestones of Lower Carboniferous age. These rocks are

common throughout Ireland, and the general description of the Formation is of pale-grey, sparry, fossiliferous

(bryozoan) poly-mud micritic limestones, often massive knoll forms, with cinoidal or pale cherty shaly

interbeds, frequently dolomitised.

However, the rocks in the vicinity of the Application Site are at or close to the base of Waulsortian Limestone

Formation and are dolomitised. These limestones are reported to range from 30 to 80 m in thickness at the

Application Site, with an upper dolomitised section.

Rocks of the Ballysteen Formation underlie the Waulsortian Limestones. This formation consists of dark

grey bioclastic, wackstone, packstone and grainstone, shale-parted limestones, and the formation becomes

increasingly muddy upwards. The bedrock geology is shown in Figure 5.3.

5.4.4 Structural geology

The major structural elements of the regional sub-surface geology are shown in Figure 5.3.

The mining area is located on the Rathdowney Trend, which is a 40 km belt of Lower Carboniferous

limestones and dolostones stretching between Thurles and Abbeyleix (Robertson and Kirsten, 1995). Within

this trend, close to Lisheen, a major fault zone known as the Killoran-Derryville Fault is present.

A series of north-south trending faults offset the Waulsortian Limestones with the Crosspatrick Formation,

and to the south of the Site, a series of East-west trending faults offset the Waulsortian Limestones and the

Ballysteen Formation.

5.4.5 Seismicity

Ireland has low level seismic activity, and there have been no known occurrences of severe earthquakes

over the past 1,000 years. The largest earthquake in recent times was the magnitude 5.4 earthquake in

Wales in 1984, which is approximately 400 km from the Application Site. A peak horizontal ground

acceleration of 0.16 g, representing a 1 in 10,000 year event (Maximum Credible Earthquake, MCE) has

been used in stability calculations, as per the original TMF (Robertson & Kirsten, 1995).



5.4.6 Description of geological attributes

The evaluation of impacts on the soil and geology at and in the vicinity of the Application Site is based on a

methodology similar to that outlined in the ‘Guidelines for the Assessment of Geology, Hydrology and

Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes’ published by the National Roads Authority (2009).

The importance of existing soil and geology attributes identified above is assessed in Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1: Importance of Geological Attributes in Vicinity of the Application Site

Attribute Status Occurrence

Geohazards/Geotechnical The Application Site is located in an area of low seismic activity.

Low

Geological Heritage

The application site is located within Derryville Bog, which is part of the Erill-Urlingford Bog (Steffen, Robertson & Kirsten (Canada Inc), 1995).

High

Economic Geology

The Application Site is located within an area of high economic geology, however it is noted that the 4 main Lisheen ore bodies are located some distance away from the Application Site.

Low

Agricultural Soils The Application Site is a permitted water impoundment facility, with no presence of agricultural soils within the structure.

Low

Made Ground The Application Site is a permitted water impoundment facility, with made-ground making up the majority of the structure.

High

5.5 Assessment

The significance of potential impacts on the receiving soil and geology environment as a result of this

proposed modification application are summarised in Table 5.2 below. Further details are then provided on

embankment stability of the structure.



Table 5.2: Significance of Impacts on Soil and Geology

Attribute Status Magnitude of Impact

Geohazards/Geotechnical

The design of the permitted structure incorporates a composite liner, comprising rockfill and a high density polyethylene liner (Section 2.0).

Regarding integrity of the structure’s embankments, an analysis on slope stability has been undertaken. Details are provided in Section 5.5.1 and Appendix 5.1 attached.

Small adverse

Geological Heritage

The permitted water impoundment facility proposed for modification is previously permitted under Ref. No. PLC17663 and ABP No. PL22.100093.The proposed modification application from storage of water to storage of tailings and water will not have an impact on the integrity of the Derryville Bog complex.

Negligible

Economic Geology

The proposed modification activities will facilitate the continued extraction of ore from the Lisheen Mine for an additional 12 months.

Major beneficial

Agricultural Soils

The capping materials proposed for restoration of the new cell will consist of the re-use of excavated peat and glacial till, sourced from stockpiles on the Lisheen Mine site (previously permitted activities under Ref. No. PLC17663 and ABP No. PL22.100093). This will result in an additional c. 6.15 ha. of agricultural farmland (or other use as agreed and adopted in the CRAMP) upon restoration and closure (Chapter 12.0).

Minor beneficial

Made Ground

The proposed modification application will have no impact on the made ground status of the permitted water impoundment facility.

Rockfill for the cap will be sourced from the Carrick Hill borrow source (previously permitted under Ref. No. PLC17663 and ABP No. PL22.100093).

Negligible

5.5.1 Embankment stability modelling

A stability analysis for the permitted water impoundment facility was carried out using commercially available

limit-equilibrium slope stability software, SLOPE/W version 7.15. The analytical method used was the

Morgenstern and Price Method of Slices, which satisfies both force and moment equilibrium. The stability

analysis indicates that the Factor of Safety (FoS) for the dam walls is adequate under the modelled

conditions. Details of the modelling approach and the results are presented below.

Model Geometry

The model geometry is shown in Appendix 5.1 and is based on a typical cross-section of perimeter wall for

the facility. The permitted water impoundment facility embankment height is approximately 11.5 m above the



glacial till foundation level. The modelled sub-surface conditions are based on the geotechnical investigation

information at the site.

Geotechnical Parameters

The geotechnical strength parameters adopted in the stability modelling are presented in the following

Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Geotechnical Parameters for Stability Analysis

Material Type Unit Weight (kN/m3)

Effective Strength

c' (kPa) ø' (deg)

Type B 21 0 35

Type C 21 0 33

Tailings 18 0 32

Glacial Till 20 5 30

Limestone* - - -

*Limestone was considered bedrock and impenetrable by slope failure.

Effective strength parameters are typically used to assess long-term stability (after closure), whereby the

excess pore pressures developed in any fine grained soils have dissipated.

Stability Modelling

The stability of the permitted water impoundment facility wall for each case scenario was considered under

the following conditions:

Case 1: Long-term downstream embankment stability, with tailings level 1 m below the crest. The

HDPE liner was assumed to be intact and an assumed phreatic surface was drawn down through the

embankment by the free draining rockfill;

Case 2: Long-term downstream embankment stability, with tailings level 1 m below the crest. The

HDPE liner was considered to undergo complete failure and the rockfill was no longer free draining and

the phreatic surface exits the dam wall in the slope at one third of its height. This is a very extreme

scenario which is unlikely to develop; and

Case 3: Further analyses were undertaken using pseudo static conditions corresponding to 0.16 g

acceleration for Case 1.

Results of Stability Modelling

The results of the stability analyses are presented in Table 5.3 below in the form of the FoS for the most

critical slip surface. The required minimum FoS was exceeded under all conditions analysed. The stability

models are as presented in Appendix 5.1.

Table 5.4: Stability Modelling Results

Case Condition Location FoS

1 Long-term, tailings 1 m below crest, liner intact. Static condition. Downstream 1.9

2 Long-term, tailings 1 m below crest, complete failure of liner system, phreatic surface exits 1/3 dam height. Static condition.

Downstream 1.4

3 Long-term, tailings 1m below crest. Ground Acceleration 0.16 g. Pseudo static condition.

Downstream 1.4

The factor of safety for the static and pseudo static cases are satisfactory. Because the dam wall is

constructed of rockfill, then there is no detrimental effect on stability by failure of the lining.



5.6 Mitigation

The following mitigation measures have been adopted for the proposed modification activities, to reduce and

mitigate potential impacts of the receiving soils and geology environment:

Growth media proposed for the final cap is reuse material, sourced from on-site peat and glacial till

stockpiles resulting from previously permitted activities at the Lisheen Mine site;

Construction materials for the rockfill cap upon closure will be sourced from an existing borrow source;

Embankment stability modelling has been undertaken on the permitted water impoundment structure to

ensure it will perform within satisfactory factors of safety, with the results being equally applicable for

the storage of tailings; and

The TMF will be returned to productive agricultural grassland or other use as agreed and adopted in the

Closure, Restoration and Aftercare Management Plan (further details in Chapter 12.0).

In addition, the following mitigation measures have and will continue to be employed during the

capping/restoration activities at the Application Site:

All refuelling of mobile plant to be undertaken with care on designated fuelling areas;

Any processing plant and/or mobile plant on the Site be regularly maintained, and where plant is

damaged or leaking, this will be dealt with as part of on-going operational management of the Site;

Maximise non-economic materials in restoration and closure activities;

Lisheen Mine will ensure compliance with relevant safety and statutory legislation and best practices

recommended by the EPA and other statutory bodies during the proposed placement of tailings and

subsequent capping operations to mitigate any potential impacts on the soils and geology receiving

environment; and

All proposed modification activities will be undertaken in compliance with the IPPC Licence Ref. No.

P0088-03, and extant planning permissions.

5.7 Residual Effects

The construction of a new tailings cell will provide additional storage for the tailings being produced at the

Lisheen Mine, until its proposed closure date in spring 2015. The lead and zinc ore extracted from Lisheen

has been used as raw materials worldwide which is considered an acceptable use of the resource. The

additional tailings storage will allow the remaining underground ore to be recovered, and will provide

additional tailings storage capacity while the existing TMF is progressively restored. The new extension cell

will then itself be capped and restored in a similar fashion (Chapter 12.0).

In the long term, no deleterious effects on the remaining overburden or bedrock caused by the proposed

modification activities on-site are expected, once the restoration and closure activities proposed in Chapters

4.0 (Flora and Fauna), 6.0 (Water) and 12.0 (Closure) are undertaken.



5.8 References

Geological Survey of Ireland website, www.gsi.ie; online mapping services.

Geological Survey of Ireland (1996). The Geology of Tipperary: A Geological Description, with

accompanying Geology 1:100,000 Scale Map, Sheet 18 Geology of Tipperary. GSI Publications.

Planning Study, Tailings Management Facility, Technical Report. December 1995.

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd. Report No. 96512126 Lisheen TMF Detailed Design. November 1997.

Steffen, Robertson & Kirsten (Canada Inc). 1995. Lisheen Project, Ireland – Planning Study, Tailings

Management Facility Technical Report.

National Roads Authority (2009). Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology,

Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes.

Golder 1998b, Report No. 97512347 – Volume 5.



FIGURES

TLs Cut

A

GLs

RckCa

LMade

BasEsk

Mrl

0 1,000 2,000500Meters



NaasCo. Kildare

Tel: 045 874411

Drawing No. Rev

Size Scale Status



Title

Project

Client

KMG CWAR0056013 11 5071 5 0226

A4 1:50,000

CW AUGUST 2013


A.0

A

BasEsk

Cut

FenPt

GLs

L

Made

Mrl

RckCa

TLs


2N



Soil Classification (Source: GSI)

TLs

Cut

A

GLs

Mrl

L

Rck

Made

BasEsk



NaasCo. Kildare

Tel: 045 874411

Drawing No. Rev

Size Scale Status



Title

Project

Client


AR0056013 11 5071 5 0226

A4 1:50,000



A

BasEsk

Cut

FenPt

GLs

L

Made

Mrl

Rck

TLs



Sub-soil Classification (Source: GSI)

0 1,000 2,000500Meters

2N

A.0

CDWAULdo

CDCROS

CDWAUL

CDBALL

CDAGHM

CDBALLO

0 1,000 2,000500Meters



NaasCo. Kildare

Tel: 045 874411

Drawing No. Rev

Size Scale Status



Title

Project

Client


AR0056013 11 5071 5 0226

A4 1:50,000

CDAGHM - Darh shaly micrite, peloidal limestoneCDBALL - Dark muddy limestone, shaleCDBALLO - Oolitic limestonesCDCROS - Pale-grey crinoidal limestoneCDWAULdo - Dolomitised massive fine grained limestone


A.0




Bedrock Classification (Source: GSI)

2N





August 2013 Project No. 11507150226.R01.5.1.A1 1/2

1.9

Material Properties

#1Type B 21 kN/m³0 kPa37 °

#2Glacial Till 20 kN/m³5 kPa35 °

#1

Lisheen Adjoining CellStage 1 Stability Analysis

Case 1:Long-term Downstream Embankment StabilityHDPE Liner Intact

#3Tailings 18 kN/m³0 kPa32 °

#4Type C 21 kN/m³0 kPa35 °

#2

#3

#4

1.4

Material Properties

#1

Type B

21 kN/m³

0 kPa

37 °

#2

Glacial Till

20 kN/m³

5 kPa

35 °

#1


Case 2:Long-term Downstream Embankment StabilityHDPE Liner Failure

#3

Tailings

18 kN/m³

0 kPa

32 °

#4

Type C

21 kN/m³

0 kPa

35 °

#2

#3

#4


August 2013 Project No. 11507150226.R01.5.1.A1 2/2

1.4Material Properties

#1

Type B

21 kN/m³

0 kPa

37 °

#2

Glacial Till

20 kN/m³

5 kPa

35 °

#1


Case 3:Long-term Downstream Embankment StabilityPseudo-Static - 0.16g Ground Acceleration

#3

Tailings

18 kN/m³

0 kPa

32 °

#4

Type C

21 kN/m³

0 kPa

35 °

#2

#3

#4

Documents

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT August 2013 Report No. 11507150226.R01.A1 Record of Issue Company Client Contact Version Date Issued Method of Delivery