the eis is set out in the following parts; part 1 : table of … · 2012. 2. 16. · part 1 : table...

LAYOUT OF EIS The EIS is set out in the following parts;

PART 1 : Table of Contents (TOC) and Non Technical Summary (NTS).

PART 2 : Main body of the EIS report with 12 sections. Section 12 contains the

drawings for the proposed development.

PART 3 : There are 2 appendices;

• Appendix 1 - Fertiliser plan with farm maps

• Appendix 2 - Land Assessment Report.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24

PROPOSED EXTENSION TO MUACKALEE PIG FARM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

&

NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY (NTS)

Prepared by

Curtin Agricultural Consultants Ltd, 12 The Paddocks, Kells Road, Kilkenny

February 1st 2012

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24

Signed by;

Curtin Agricultural Consultants Ltd

12 The Paddocks

Kells Road

Kilkenny

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24

PART 1 – MUCKALEE PIG FARM - TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NTS AND EIA REPORTS Page i LAYOUT OF EIS The EIS is set out in the following parts;

PART 1 : Table of contents and Non Technical Summary (NTS).

PART 2 : Main body of the EIS report with 12 sections. Section 12 contains the drawings for the

proposed development.

SECTION TITLE

1 Introduction And Description Of Existing & Proposed Development

2 Human Beings (Section 2)

3 Flora and Fauna (Section 3)

4 Soils and Hydrology (Section 4)

5 Water (Section 5)

6 Air (Section 6)

7 Noise (Section 7)

8 Traffic (Section 8)

9 Landscape (Section 9)

10 Cultural Heritage (Section 10)

11 Summary of Impacts (Section 11)

12 Site Layout Drawings & Maps (Section 12)

PART 3 : There are 2 appendices;

• Appendix 1 - Fertiliser plan with farm maps

• Appendix 2 - Land Assessment Report.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24

PART 1 – MUCKALEE PIG FARM - TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NTS AND EIA REPORTS Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Sections of EIS Title / Topic Page

Number(s)

PART 1 OF EIS TABLE OF CONTENTS -

PART 1 OF EIS NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY -

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND DISCRIPTION OF EXISTING & PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1

SECTION 2 HUMAN BEINGS 4

SECTION 3 FLORA AND FAUNA 4

SECTION 4 SOILS & BEDROCK, LAND ASSESSMENT AND FERTILISER PLAN 9

SECTION 5 WATER 11

SECTION 6 AIR 13

SECTION 7 NOISE 16

SECTION 8 TRAFFIC 17

SECTION 9 LANDSCAPE & VISUAL 17

SECTION 10 ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURAL HERITAGE 18

SECTION 11 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 19

SECTION 12 SITE LAYOUT DRAWINGS & MAPS 19

PART 2 OF EIS MAIN BODY OF REPORT -

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND DISCRIPTION OF EXISTING & PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

1

1.1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.2 OVERVIEW OF PIG PRODUCTION SECTOR IN IRELAND

3

1.3 LOCAL ENVIRONS 4

1.4 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PIG FARM 4

1.4.1 Structures List of the Existing Pig Farm 5

1.4.2 Details of Feed Usage of the Existing Pig Farm 6

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24

PART 1 – MUCKALEE PIG FARM - TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NTS AND EIA REPORTS Page iii Sections of EIS Title / Topic Page

Number(s)

1.4.3 Water Usage in the Existing Pig Farm 8

1.4.4 Waste Production & Management in the Existing Pig Farm

8

1.4.4.1 Pig Slurry Production 8

1.4.4.2 Septic Tank Waste production in the Existing Pig Farm 8

1.4.4.3 Storm Water production in the Existing Pig Farm. 8

1.5 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 8

1.5.1 Description of proposed buildings 9

1.6 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 10

1.6.1 Alternative Scale of Production 10

1.6.2 Alternative Site 10

1.6.3 Alternative Pig Slurry Application Techniques 11

1.6.4 Alternative Pig Slurry Treatment Techniques 11

1.6.5 Alternative Building Design 11

1.6.6 Alternative Feed regime 11

1.6.7 Alternative Employment 11

SECTION 2 HUMAN BEINGS 12

2.1 IMPACT ON MATERIAL ASSETS 12

2.1.1 Agricultural Land 12

2.1.2 Development and Commercial Land 12

2.1.3 Demolition of Property 12

2.1.4 Impact on Private and Public Water Sources 12

2.2 IMPACT ON ECONOMIC ASSETS. 12

2.3 IMPACTS ON HUMAN BEINGS 13

2.3.1 Malodour 13

2.3.2 Noise 13

2.3.3 Visual Impact 13

2.3.4 Traffic 13

2.3.5 Vermin 14

2.4 HUMAN HEALTH 14

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24

PART 1 – MUCKALEE PIG FARM - TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NTS AND EIA REPORTS Page iv Sections of EIS Title / Topic Page

Number(s)

2.5 MITIGATING MEASURES 14

2.6 CONCLUSION ON IMPACTS TO HUMANS 14

SECTION 3 FLORA AND FAUNA 16

3.1 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT AT SITE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

16

3.1.1 INTRODUCTION 16

3.1.1.1 Background 16

3.1.1.2 Methodology 16

3.1.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 17

3.1.2.1 General Description of the Existing Environment 17

3.1.2.2 Designated Conservation Areas 17

3.1.2.3 Rare and Protected Species 17

3.1.2.4 Ecological Sites and Habitats 17

3.1.2.5 Fauna 18

3.1.3 DESCRIPTION OF LIKELY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 18

3.1.3.1 Proposed Development 18



3.1.3.4 Fauna 19

3.1.3.5 Aquatic Environment/Watercourses 19

3.1.4 MITIGATION MEASURES 20



3.1.4.3 Fauna 20

3.1.4.4 Aquatic Environment/Watercourses 20

3.1.5 CONCLUSION 20

3.1.5.1 Residual Impacts 20

REFERENCES 21

3.2 FLORA AND FAUNA ASSESSMENT OF THE SPREADLANDS

22

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24

PART 1 – MUCKALEE PIG FARM - TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NTS AND EIA REPORTS Page v Sections of EIS Title / Topic Page

Number(s)

3.2.1 INTENSIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND (HABITAT TYPE 7.1 AS PER NPWS CLASSIFICATION)

22

3.2.1.1 Notifiable actions (habitat type 7.1) 23

3.2.2 SAC / NHA HABITATS (habitat type 6.1) 23

Description of River Nore and River Barrow SAC (2160) 24

3.2.2.1 Notifiable actions (Habitat 6.1 – Wetlands) 25

3.2.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS 25

3.2.3.1 Intensive agricultural land 26

3.2.3.2 Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Habitats 26

3.2.4 MITIGATION MEASURES 27

3.2.5 CONCLUSIONS 27

SECTION 4 SOILS & BEDROCK, LAND ASSESSMENT AND FERTILISER PLAN

29

4.1 SOILS AND BEDROCK OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 29

4.1.1 Pig Farm Site 29

4.1.2 Soils and Bedrock of Spread-lands 29

4.2 LAND ASSESSMENT 29

4.3 FERTILISER PLAN FOR PIG SLURRY 30

4.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SOILS 32

4.5

MITIGATING MEASURES TO PREVENT IMPACT OF AQUIFERS, EXCESSIVE NUTRIENT BUILD UP IN SOILS AND DAMAGE TO SOIL STRUCTURE

32

4.6 CONCLUSIONS 33

SECTION 5 WATER 34

5.1 GROUND WATER / AQUIFERS 34

5.1.1 Beneficial Uses and Legislative Requirements for Ground Waters

35

5.2 SURFACE WATER 35

5.2.1 Beneficial Uses and Legislative Requirements for Surface Waters

37

5.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS 37

5.3.1 Ground Water 37

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24

PART 1 – MUCKALEE PIG FARM - TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NTS AND EIA REPORTS Page vi Sections of EIS Title / Topic Page

Number(s)

5.3.2 Surface Water 38

5.4 MITIGATION MEASURES 39

5.4.1 Ground water 39

5.4.2 Surface water 39

5.5 CONCLUSION 39

SECTION 6 AIR 41

6.1 GASEOUS EMISSIONS FROM THE PIG FARM 41

6.1.1 Malodour Substances. 42

6.1.2 Ammonia (NH3) 43

6.1.3 Methane (CH4) 43

6.1.4 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 43

6.1.5 Dust 43

6.2 GASEOUS EMISSIONS FROM LAND-SPREADING OF PIG SLURRY

43

6.2.1 Malodours from Land-spreading 44

6.2.2 Ammonia Emissions from Land-spreading. 44

6.2.3 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Emissions 45


6.4 CONCLUSIONS 45

SECTION 7 NOISE 47

7.1 INTRODUCTION 47

7.2 NOISE SOURCES 47

7.3 MITIGATING MEASURES. 48

7.4 CONCLUSIONS 48

SECTION 8 TRAFFIC 49

8.1 INTRODUCTION 49

8.1.1 The existing site. 49

8.2 METHODOLOGY 49

8.3 RESULTS 50

8.4 OVERALL IMPACT 51

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24

PART 1 – MUCKALEE PIG FARM - TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NTS AND EIA REPORTS Page vii Sections of EIS Title / Topic Page

Number(s)


8.6 SUMMARY 51

8.7 CONCLUSIONS 52

SECTION 9 LANDSCAPE & VISUAL 53

9.1 INTRODUCTION. 53

9.2 VISUAL IMPACT FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 53


9.4 CONCLUSION 58

SECTION 10 ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURAL HERITAGE 59

10.1 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT AT SITE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 59

10.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF LAND-SPREADING PIG SLURRY 61

10.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS 61


10.5 CONCLUSIONS 62

SECTION 11 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 63

11.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 63

SECTION 12 SITE LAYOUT DRAWINGS & MAPS 65 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Number Title / Topic Page

Number

1

FERTILISER PLAN, CODE OF PRACTICE AND FARM MAPS & DETAILS

-

2 LAND ASSESSMENT REPORT

-

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24

PART 1 – MUCKALEE PIG FARM - TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NTS AND EIA REPORTS Page viii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Number Title / Topic Section Page No

1 Location of Pig Unit 1 4

2 Site layout plan 1 5

3 Muckalee Pig Farm Habitat Map 3 21

4 Location of SAC / NHA 3 24

5 Aquifer and Vulnerability at Pig Unit Site 5 34

6 Location of Aquifers on Land-Spreading farms 5 35

7 Location of River Catchments and land-spreading Farms 5 36

8 Dwellings within 400 meters 6 42

9 Typical rates of decline of Odour and Ammonia after Land-Spreading 6 44

10 Road network in vicinity of the pig farm. 8 49

11 Location of High Amenity Areas 9 53

12 Location of views around the pig farm 10 54

13 6 inch map 1st edition and current 1:5,000 scale map 10 59

14 Aerial Photo showing areas with Ground Disturbance on the Existing Site 10 60

15 Location of Registered Monuments 10 61

16 Site Layout Plan (not to scale) 12 66

17 Plans of Proposed Buildings (not to scale) 12 67

18 Side Elevations of Proposed Buildings (not to scale) 12 68

19 End Elevations of Proposed Buildings (not to scale) 12 69

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24

PART 1 – MUCKALEE PIG FARM - TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NTS AND EIA REPORTS Page ix LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Table Number Title / Topic Section Page No

1 Sections of the E.I.S 1 1

2 List of Buildings (2011) 1 6

3 List of materials used in the Process 1 6

4 Pig slurry analysis results for copper and zinc. 1 8

5 Pig Accommodation in the Proposed Development 1 9

6 Proposed Pig Numbers and Proposed Slurry Production 4 30

7 Aquifer Status of Land-Spreading Farms 5 35

8 River Catchment Attributes 5 37

9 Annual Average Daily Traffic Count 8 50

10 Registered National Monuments in Proximity to Pig Farm 10 60

11 Summary of Impacts 11 63

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24

PART 1 – MUCKALEE PIG FARM - TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NTS AND EIA REPORTS Page x

REFERENCES

Table Number Title / Topic Section Page No

1 P1 – Views from North of the Pig Farm 9 54

2 P2 – Views from West of the Pig Farm 9 55

3 P3 – Views from South of the Pig Farm 9 56

4 P4 – Views from East of the Pig Farm 9 56

5 P5 – Views from East of the Pig Farm 9 57

6 P6 – Views from entrance to the Pig Farm 9 57

Reference Number Reference Page

No(s)

1

ODERNET UK LTD report - Odour Impacts and Odour Emission

Control Measures for Intensive Agriculture - 3.1 Overview of the

pig production sector and its economics 42

2

Soils : Chemical Loading from Fertilisers and Wastes - Section

6.1. Owen Carton, Marie Sherwood and Vera Power, Teagasc.(

Proceedings from Environmental Impact Conference - September

11 - 12 1991 )

44, 45, 47

3 Introduction to Pig Production in Ireland, Michael A Martin,

Teagasc, Athenry, Banks Seminar, January 12th, 2011 3

4 Agricultural Statistic for 2010 as published on the Department of

Agriculture Website 3, 46

5

Ammonia monitoring in Ireland A full year of ammonia monitoring;

set-up and results Forest Ecosystem Research Group Report

Number 56 - Y. de Kluizenaar and E. P. Farrell

January 2000

27

6 Ammonia in the UK, DEFRA Publications 2002 27, 44, 47

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24

PART 1 – MUCKALEE PIG FARM NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY OF EIA REPORT Page 1

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING &

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The current pig farm is a 160 integrated sow unit with all progeny reared on site. The proposed

development when completed will expand the existing farm to 500 sows and their progeny will be

reared on site. The proposed development is required to facilitate compliance with European

Communities Regulations for animal welfare which require pregnant sows to be loose housed

before 2013 and to allow the pig farm to expand to meet increased demand for pedigree breeding

stock.

The format of the E.I.A. report is set out in the table of contents. Part 1 is the Table of Contents

and Non Technical Summary and Part 2 is the main body of the report. Part 3 contains the

appendices. There are 12 sections in the main body of the Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA) report and these are set out in table 1 P.1 of the report. The E.I.A report was compiled by

Con Curtin of Curtin Agricultural Consultants Ltd and Matthew Hague, Ecological and

Environmental Consultant. The design drawings and planning application was compiled by Mark

Kelly of MK Architectural Services, 22 Upper Patrick Street, Kilkenny.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF PIG PRODUCTION SECTOR IN IRELAND

The pig production sector in Ireland employs an estimated 7500 jobs directly and indirectly and as

such is an important economic sector. Hermitage Pigs Ltd is a world leader in the production and

marketing of pig genetics and breeding stock at home and abroad and while the scale of the

proposed development is small in terms of numbers of pigs, the national importance of Hermitage

Pigs Ltd is reflected by the quality and value of their livestock.

1.3 LOCAL ENVIRONS

The site of the pig farm (as shown in figure 1 P.4) is located in the townland of Muckalee in a rural

setting 11.5 km north east of Kilkenny City, 5.5 km south east of Castlecomer and 1.25 km west of

the village of Clogharinka, at an altitude of 150 m. The Barrow / Nore SAC (Code 2162) is located

1.6 km south, 2.2 km east and 1.7 km north east of the pig farm.

1.4 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PIG FARM

Figure 2 page 5 shows the site layout. The site consists of 2.9 hectares, 1.4 hectares of which is

commercial forestry. There are approximately 3100 sq. meters of buildings (table 2) on the site

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


and 3500 sq. meters of associated clean yards and concrete surfaces. The pedigree breeding

stock offspring are mainly sold as breeding stock for use on other farms or in some cases they

may be sold to the factory as fat pigs for slaughter.

1.4.1 Structures List of the Existing Pig Farm

Table 2 P.6 of EIS gives a detailed break-down of buildings and pig slurry storage. The pig houses

are primarily pre-cast concrete panel with insulated core construction above ground level and

mass concrete below ground level. The roofing material is insulated steel cladding, asbestos and

galvanized sheeting (with insulation underneath) supported on steel and timber roof members.

The roof colour is brown / dark grey.

1.4.2 Details of Feed Usage of the Existing Pig Farm and other outputs

The typical inputs on this pig farm are shown in table 3 P.6 of EIS. The main input is feed which is

based on cereals, soyabean and maize. The estimated water usage for the pig farm is 10,000 m3

per annum. This is used for drinking, feeding and power washing. Approximately 2,500 m3 of

slurry is produced every year by the existing 160 sows and progeny. This is applied as fertilizer

replacement on farm land in the locality. The slurry storage capacity of the existing pig unit is

2,442 m3. There is a septic tank and soak-way south west of office (see figure 2). Approximately

7,000 m3 / annum of clean storm water is discharged directly to adjoining watercourse. 1.5 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The scale of the development is small in the context of pig farms in general and will not increase

significantly the scale agriculture in the general area. The proposed pig numbers are shown in

table 5 P.9. Additional space will be allocated to dry sows and gilts to comply with EU regulations

which make it mandatory in 2013 to house dry sows in un-tethered accommodation. The two new

pig houses will accommodate the fat pigs in slatted accommodation. Detailed design drawings of

new buildings is shown in figures 17 & 18 P. 67 & 68. The new pig houses will be a steel framed

structure with grey concrete paneled walls to 2.4 meters. The roof will consist of dark green

cladding material supported on timber and metal members. There will be mechanical ventilation in

new houses. The existing floor area of structures on the pig farm is shown in table 2 - section

1.4.2 of the EIS. The over ground slurry store will be de-assembled (and may be sold or re-used)

and the new buildings will be built partly on the location of this slurry store. A covered circular over

ground slurry store (similar in size to the existing) will be constructed directly west of the new pig

house Ref No 23. The construction of new slurry tanks will ensure that overall slurry storage will

exceed 26 weeks.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


1.6 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Section 1.6 looks at alternatives that there considered.

• In considering alternatives it is necessary to consider whether the proposed development is

necessary. It is necessary for the following reasons;

o The proposed development is necessary to facilitate compliance with European

Communities (Welfare of Calves and Pigs) Regulations.

o This expansion is necessary for Hermitage Pigs Ltd to supply an increasing demand

abroad for it’s breeding stock. Failure to meet this demand would damage it’s existing

business.

o The proposed development will allow for necessary refurbishment of existing buildings

in need of upgrading and repair.

o A larger scale is necessary to maintain viability in an increasingly competitive market

place.

• Alternatives to proposed location were considered. The existing site is a more viable option for

the following reasons;

o In order to maximize efficiency of existing resources.

o There is adequate owned land on the existing site for the expansion, moving to a new

site would require additional capital expenditure.

o The demand by local farmers for the pig slurry produced by the existing pig farm is

higher than its availability.

o To maintain low environmental impacts the existing site has advantages. It is secluded

and screened by a tree plantation. It is located in a quiet predominantly agricultural

area where the traffic activity from tractors and slurry tankers are the norm. The

existing site is not located near a SAC.

o The existing pig farm has been located at this site for 50 years. An expansion of an

existing pig farm is generally more acceptable to local residents than the building of a

new pig farm on a new site.

• The choice of pig slurry spreading equipment is dictated by local farmers who use their own

slurry spreading equipment.

• Alternative pig slurry treatment techniques were considered. Land spreading organic

wastes/slurry is a recognized and approved disposal technique with many benefits and is

currently the most efficient means of recycling the nutrients contained in pig slurry.

• The alternatives in pig house design were carefully considered. In considering what type of pig

house to use the developer has chosen an industry standard pig house design to maximize

efficiency of production and health of the pigs. Mechanical ventilation is chosen to maximize

the welfare and efficiency of production. Under slat and covered over ground is the chosen

method of slurry storage due to it’s efficiency in terms of pig welfare and production and it

tends to have lower emissions of ammonia than solid floors.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


• While there are cheaper alternative sources of feed (eg by products such as whey) it is

proposed that the fattening pigs will be fed a mainly barley/wheat/soya diet that is

supplemented with minerals. By-products will not be fed which results in lower odour from the

site and less slurry being produced.

• There is no alternative employment in the direct locality for the workers in the pig farm.

SECTION 2 - HUMAN BEINGS

This section considers potential impacts on material assets, economic assets and human beings.

The potential impacts from odour, noise and traffic are dealt with in sections 6, 7 and 8. The loss

of 0.13 ha of agricultural land (rough area around existing pig houses) and 0.35 ha of forestry land

under the proposed buildings is the main impact on material assets. This is not significant on a

local or national scale. There is no impact on commercial or habitable property. There is no

impact on private or public water sources. There is a positive impact on economic assets in the

local and regional area through the large financial investment in construction of new buildings and

the production of €46,800 worth of organic fertiliser each year for local farmers to avail of. The

potential impacts from odour, noise, visual impact, traffic and vermin are not significant. There will

be no significant risk to human health resulting from the spreading of slurry from the proposed

development.

SECTION 3 - FLORA AND FAUNA

The Flora and Fauna assessment consisted of;

A. An assessment carried out at site of the proposed development by Matt Hague, Environmental

Consultant.

B. An assessment carried out of the potential impacts of the proposed development on habitats in

the spread-land farms carried out by Curtin Agricultural Consultants Ltd.

A. Site assessment of the proposed development by Matt Hague, Environmental Consultant

Methodology

A desk study was carried out to collate the available information from various sources on the local

ecological environment. The site was surveyed on the 15th of November 2011 to identify, describe,

map and evaluate habitats. Habitats were classified using A Guide to Habitats in Ireland (Fossitt,

2000) and the dominant plant species were recorded. Mammals and birds were also assessed in

the course of the main habitat surveys.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


General Description of the Existing Environment The general area comprises hilly agricultural land, most of which is under pasture. There are

occasional areas of scrub. Hedgerows and mature tree lines are common in the area. Numerous

small streams and drainage ditches can be found adjacent to the field boundaries. No designated

conservation areas occur within the area of the proposed development. The Douglas River, which

is located approximately 2km south of the proposed development site, is part of the River Barrow

and River Nore Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and would not be directly affected by the

proposed development. The NPWS database was consulted with regard to rare species (Curtis &

McGough 1988) and species protected under the Flora Protection Order (1999). There are no

known records of rare or protected plant species within the vicinity of the proposed development.

There are records of otter and pygmy shrew within the wider local area, however neither species

is known to occur at the proposed development site.

All habitats present on the proposed development site and in the immediate vicinity are described

are shown in Figure 3. The site itself mainly consists of a mix of bare ground, recolonising bare

ground and buildings & artificial surfaces. Approximately half of the site itself contains a Norway

spruce plantation planted in 1995. Surrounding the site itself is a relatively unbroken tree line,

comprising mainly semi-mature ash. In the northern part of the site this tree line is dominated by

hawthorn and blackthorn. In parallel with the tree lines on both the southern and northern

boundaries of the site are small streams/drainage ditches. These streams are reasonably clean

and have a gravel/stone substrate. These streams eventually join the River Dinan, part of the

River Barrow and River Nore SAC. The land surrounding the proposed site comprises intensively

managed agricultural fields, with well managed and trimmed hawthorn hedgerows (with occasional

trees) serving as field boundaries. Overall, the site is very highly modified and is only of low local

ecological value for the habitats it contains.

No signs of badger activity or otters were identified during the habitat survey. There are no natural

features present on the site that are likely to be used by bats as potential roosting places. Three

rabbit burrows were noted in the earth bank underneath the tree line on the western perimeter of

the site. Other mammal species likely to occur in the vicinity of the site include fox, hedgehog,

stoat, pygmy shrew, brown rat and field mouse. A range of common bird species was observed

during the site visit including blackbird, robin, wren, song thrush, blue tit and chaffinch. Other birds

noted were rook, magpie and jackdaw. All of these species are common and widespread in

farmland.

DESCRIPTION OF LIKELY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

The proposed development will involve the construction of a pair of slatted sheds, with concrete

tanks underneath. The sheds are designed to be completely self-contained units. The tanks

underneath the slatted sheds are designed according to industry best practice and will have six

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


months storage capacity. The slatted slurry extraction area will be surrounded by a concrete apron

which will slope back to the tank. The proposed development at this site will therefore have no

direct impacts on any designated areas. An area (3,750m2) of the existing coniferous plantation

will be removed. However, given the fact that this woodland is of very limited ecological value, the

impact of this will be negligible. The ash tree line surrounding the site will be retained. There will

be no impact on any habitats of ecological value as a result of the proposed development. Given

the proposed tank design it is not envisaged that there will be any impacts on otters (due to impact

on water quality). No trees or buildings with bat roosting potential will be removed, and there will

be no impact on bat species as a result of the proposed development. There will be no impacts on

other mammals or birds as a result of the proposed development. Provided the existing circular

tank is empty prior to its decommissioning and removal, no impacts are envisaged on the

aquatic/watercourse environment.

MITIGATION MEASURES

• Mitigation measures for watercourses (ie adequate slurry storage and design of slurry tanks)

will ensure that the River Barrow and River Nore SAC will not be negatively impacted on.

• As the site is of low ecological value, no special mitigation measures are required for the

removal of the disturbed/bare ground. However, all site clearance works will comply with

current legislative requirements.

• Where programmed construction activities permit, there will be no removal of the coniferous

plantation during the peak bird breeding season of March to August inclusive.

• Clearing of the trees should not take place during this time unless otherwise agreed with the

National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).

• Although not specifically required, new hedgerows and trees (of native species) will be planted

in appropriate locations, as part of the landscaping plan for the site.

• No mitigation is required for Fauna.

• No unique mitigation measures are required for watercourses, other than to strictly adhere to

best practice during the construction and operation of the proposed development.

CONCLUSION

Provided the works are undertaken in an appropriate manner, in accordance with industry best

practice, and the site is operated following approved procedures, no long-term negative impacts

on flora and fauna are expected to be associated with the proposed development.

B. An assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed development on habitats in the spread-land farms carried out by Curtin Agricultural Consultants Ltd.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


EXISTING ENVIRONMENT - INTENSIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND (HABITAT TYPE 7.1 AS PER

NPWS CLASSIFICATION)

The flora and fauna assessment of spread lands involved a desktop study of sources of

information on the NPWS website and a visual assessment of land-bank. Land not suitable for

slurry spreading was excluded so that only improved grassland habitat and tillage land will be

directly impacted by slurry spreading. The following areas are avoided and excluded from the land

bank and will not be affected by land spreading of pig slurry;

1. Rough grazing areas.

2. Semi natural areas in field corners and along banks of rivers and field margins.

3. River banks and edges of watercourses.

4. Hedgerows (within 1.5 meters of hedges or drains).

5. Areas of scrub and wood land.

6. Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs).

Therefore the flora and fauna, including avian fauna expected throughout the land-bank will be

similar in nature and characteristic to intensive agricultural land (habitat type 7.1 as per NPWS

classification). Fields are large in size and the vegetation noted is characteristic of heavily fertilised

grassland and tillage fields. The principal habitat type can be described as improved grassland,

which is distinctive by its even appearance and bright green colour. The altitude of the grassland

habitats vary from 70 – 80 m in Grange, Rathbeg and Conaghy to 290 m in Knockmajor. The

variation in altitude causes a variation in climate (particularly rainfall) and therefore the more

elevated grassland habitats are less productive from an agricultural point of view and therefore will

experience higher amounts of rain (possibly +20%) and later spring growth. Tillage fields are

located in low lying areas in Conahy, Grange and Rathbeg (Farm 22 and 24). These are poorly

diverse habitats. The most ecologically sensitive parts of improved agricultural land habitat are the

field boundaries and margins. The Code of Practice in the fertilizer plan attached to this report

specifies not to apply slurry within 1.5 meters of hedgerows. Section 3.2.1.1 lists the notifiable

actions as per the NPWS website on Intense Agricultural Land. None of these actions will be

carried when pig slurry is being land-spread.

EXISTING ENVIRONMENT - SAC / NHA HABITATS (habitat type 6.1)

There are three NHA sites near the spread-land farms, Coan Bogs (2382), Esker Pits and

Dunmore Cave in Dunmore. There is no potential impact on these NHA sites. Many of the spread-

lands included in the land-bank are adjacent to the River Nore and River Barrow Special Area of

Conservation (SAC) (Site Code 2160). These include parts of farms 1, 5, 6, 9, 12, 17, 18 and 24

as shown in figure 4 P.24. A detailed description of this SAC is given in page 24 and the list of

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


notifiable actions, as per NPWS website, are listed in section 3.2.2.1. None of these actions will be

carried when pig slurry is being land-spread.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON INTENSIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND

• It is not expected that these agricultural grassland habitats and their associated flora and

fauna will be affected by the continued application of pig slurry (provided necessary mitigation

measures are adopted).

• The application of pig slurry onto hedgerows would lead to suffocation of floral species and

destruction and disturbance of fauna species.

• Physical damage can occur to the ground vegetation if the application of pig slurry occurs

during unfavorable climatic conditions.

• Ammonia may be deposited on to watercourses.

• None of the actions in the notifiable actions list in section 3.2.1.1 will occur as a result of

spreading pig slurry.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SPECIAL AREAS OF CONSERVATION (SAC) HABITATS

• The application of pig slurry to these very sensitive habitats would have seriously detrimental

consequences for the ecological balance, which exists at present and could alter the existing

floral colonies.

• The application of pig slurry in close proximity to watercourses could pose a risk to the water

quality of the area.

• There are potential indirect impacts through enriched waters entering the ecosystem from

adjoining farm land.

• Ammonia N could be deposited on to SAC habitats.

• None of the actions in the notifiable actions list in section 3.2.2.1 will occur as a result of

spreading pig slurry.

MITIGATION MEASURES

• To avoid contamination of the local watercourses minimum buffer zones of 20m for main river

channels and 10m for small watercourses should be adhered to at all times during the

application of pig slurry. Buffer zones have been increased depending on gradient.

• The guidelines in the “Code of Practice for Slurry Spreading” issued with the fertilizer plan

should be adhered to.

• A code of practice for handling pig slurry on the pig farm will be adhered to.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


• A minimum buffer zone of 20m should be put in place and adhered to for areas which are

adjacent to Special Areas of Conservation (SAC).

• Slurry will not be applied within 1.5 meters of hedgerows and field margins

• Fields adjoining the Nore, Dinan and Douglas rivers are excluded from the land-spreading

area.

• The guidelines for spreading state that spreading should only take place when suitable climatic

and environmental conditions exist and to avoid spreading on:

o wet or waterlogged soils

o land sloping steeply towards water courses

o frozen or snow covered soils

CONCLUSIONS

There will be no direct impact on the Nore/barrow SAC and Intense Agricultural Habitats and

adherence to specified mitigation will mean an imperceptible impact due to indirect impacts. All

agricultural land within SACs is excluded from land-spreading. All fields adjoining Nore, Douglas

and Dinan rivers are excluded from land-spreading. The pig farm slurry ammonia nitrogen and

ammonia nitrogen from pig houses will not increase the overall back ground levels. Care must be

exercised when spreading pig slurry to avoid contamination of local watercourses, but adherence

to the code of practice and the legal obligations of the Nitrate Directive will ensure that that this

care is exercised.

SECTION 4 - SOILS & BEDROCK, LAND ASSESSMENT AND

FERTILISER PLAN

This section addresses the soils and bedrock types at the site of the pig farm and on the farms

selected for land spreading pig slurry. It also addresses the fertiliser plan for pig slurry.

4.1 SOILS AND BEDROCK OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The topography of the site is flat. The top soil (EPA Code 31) on the site is deep poorly drained

and derived from acidic parent material - Namurian Shale and Sandstone Till. It has a clayey

texture and a depth exceeding 2m.

The predominant soil in the land-spread farms is a heavy deep moderately well drained clay loam

soil. The dominant subsoil of the area east of the N78 Castlecomer road is a Shale and Sandstone

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


Till (Namurian) while in Conahy and Grange the dominant subsoil is a Limestone Till. The

Vulnerability of over-burden on aquifers is classified as Extreme in the majority of farms.

4.2 LAND ASSESSMENT

To ensure selection of suitable lands and to comply with the conditions of the Nitrates Directive,

potential land-spread farms were assessed for their suitability for slurry spreading - the results of

this assessment are presented in appendix 2. The assessment consisted of both a desktop study

of GSI data and EPA data and an on farm visual assessment. The areas unsuitable for land-

spreading pig slurry are shown in the farm maps in appendix 2 figures 2.1 - 2.16 and in the farm

maps in appendix 1. To protect the water and ecology on the spread-lands a code of practice is

attached to the fertiliser plan and the following lands are excluded;

1. Buffer zones within 100 m of dwellings to avoid nuisance and to avoid impact on private wells.

2. Buffer strips within 10 meters of minor watercourses, 20 meters of major watercourses and

rivers.

3. Buffer zones within 300 meters of public water off-take points.

4. Fields adjoining Nore, Douglas River and Dinan.

5. All SAC/NHA areas.

6. Steep slopes.

7. Wet poorly drained fields often indicated by Rushes.

8. Non-improved grassland areas including woodlands, hedgerows and field margins, habitats,

natural vegetation areas.

9. Hedgerows and field margins within 1.5 m of hedges/ditches.

4.3 FERTILISER PLAN FOR PIG SLURRY

The current fertiliser plan dated November 2011 is attached in appendix 1. The plan is compliant

with the current Nitrates Regulations. Adhering to the fertiliser plan ensures that only

recommended levels of nutrients are applied to suitable soils. The land bank comprising of 1,465

hectares (gross) has the capacity to take approximately 11,000 m3 of pig slurry. The pig farm will

produce approximately 7,800 m3 per annum as shown in table 6 P.30. The maps and

recommendations for pig slurry are supplied in appendix 1.

4.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SOILS

The application of pig slurry to soils can potentially increase the nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P) and

potassium (K) levels in the soil. Minor elements such as copper and zinc are also applied in the

pig slurry but at such low levels as to not have a significant impact. There can be negative impacts

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


(compaction and rutting) where slurry spreading takes place when ground conditions are

unsuitable.

4.5 MITIGATING MEASURES

• Land suitability is carefully assessed before land is used for land-spreading pig slurry.

Selecting soils with continuous soil cover for the application of pig slurry prevents leaching to

bed rock.

• Adequate storage (minimum 6 months) is in place to ensure that pig slurry is not applied

during winter months.

• Code of good practice for applying pig slurry will be implemented (see appendix 1).

• Maximum application rate is 50 m3 / ha but in practice the actual average rate of application is

approximately 12 m3 / ha and this will supply 50 kgs of N and 9.6 kgs of P per hectare which is

a relatively small amount.

• Timing pig slurry applications for the growing season maximizes the uptake by crops and

minimises the risk of residual N in the soil. It is important therefore to have at least 6 months

slurry storage.

• Avoid traveling on wet soils to avoid damage to soil structure.

4.6 CONCLUSIONS

The soils have been selected to ensure that impact on water and ecology is minimised. Nutrient

Management Planning is about replacing artificial fertiliser with organic slurry fertilizer at rates

which do not exceed crop requirements (ie P index 3). This ensures that soil N and P do not

increase. SECTION 5 - WATER

This section addresses potential impacts on ground and surface water quality.

5.1 GROUND WATER / AQUIFERS

The site of the pig farm is located on an aquifer classified as “Pl” which is a poor aquifer which is

generally unproductive except in local zones. The vulnerability of the soils / subsoils at the site is

generally classified as high and extreme however there is a continuous deep soil cover through

the site.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


A detailed assessment of the land-spreading farms is presented in appendix 2 which shows the

aquifer classification of each of the land-spread farms. Figure 6 P.35 of EIS shows the location of

aquifers relative to the land-spreading farms. The regionally important aquifer(s) are located in the

west of the land-spreading area. Public ground water sources exist in Dunmore which is over 3

kilometers from the nearest land-spreading farm. Table 7 P.35 of EIS shows that 84% of the land-

spread area over-lies aquifers classified as poor.

5.2 SURFACE WATER

Typical rainfall for the region is approximately 1100 mm. However considerable variation is

expected in the spread-land area due to differences in altitude. The existing spread-lands are

located within 6 river catchment areas as shown in figure 7 P.36 of EIS.

5.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS

5.3.1 Ground Water

• Leaching / percolation of slurry

• Leaching and drainage of Soil N and P

5.3.2 Surface Water

• Slurry Run-off

• Leaching and drainage of Soil N and P

• Deposition of Atmospheric N

5.4 MITIGATION MEASURES 5.4.1 Ground water

• Pig slurry storage tanks will be built to specifications 123 of the Department of Agriculture.

• Pig slurry tankers will extract slurry over a sloped concrete area so that any potential

drips/spills will drain back to the slurry tank.

• A buffer strip of at least 50 m will be allowed around all private wells.

• A buffer strip of at least 300 m will be allowed around all public water source wells.

• An approved fertilizer plan will be implemented to ensure that pig slurry nutrients will not be

applied in excess crop requirement.

• Soils with adequate continuous soil cover will be selected for application of pig slurry.

5.4.2 Surface water

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


• Buffer strips of at least 10 m are allowed along watercourses.

• Buffer strips of at least 20 m are allowed along major watercourses.

• All fields adjoining Nore, Dinan and Douglas rivers are excluded from land spreading pig

slurry.

• There is a code of practice for handling pig slurry on site (appendix 1). This will prevent

contamination of storm water discharge from the pig farm site.

• There will be at least 6 months slurry storage on site. This will facilitate application of pig slurry

only during suitable weather and growing conditions.

• Slurry will not be applied from October 15th to January 12th.

5.5 CONCLUSION

It is recognized that agriculture in general has a negative impact on water quality. In the context of

local agriculture the proposed development will produce an amount of organic nitrogen equivalent

to a farm with 230 dairy cows and progeny reared to 2 years – ie equivalent to 2 large dairy farms.

This scale of production is in keeping with local agriculture and given that the slurry can be land-

spread on 24 farms the potential for impact is greatly reduced. Atmospheric deposition of N is

random and spread out over a wide area. The back ground rate is expected to be 10 kgs N / Ha

per annum. The pig farm will not have a significant impact on this. Eighty per cent of the spread-

lands are located over poor aquifers and these lands are selected so that soil cover is continuous

thereby minimizing risk to ground water. Therefore the proposed development will not have a

significant impact on water quality in the land-spreading area, provided the slurry storage,

handling on site and application to land is as specified in this document.

SECTION 6 - AIR

This section addresses the potential impacts of air emissions at the site of the pig farm and over

the wider area where pig slurry is being spread.

SECTION 6.1 GASEOUS EMISSIONS FROM THE PIG BUILDINGS

6.1.1 Malodour Substances.

Although not the principal gaseous emission malodour is rated and perceived as the most

important gaseous emission from pig farms. Experience with Irish pig farms would suggest that

operating pig farms are seldom as strong a focus for odour complaints as planned pig farms i.e.

that the general perception may be worse than the actual impact. The existing pig farm is in situ

for over 50 years. There have been no complaints since Hermitage Pedigree Pigs Ltd took over

the farm in 2001. The residents within 400 m of the site were visited by the developer and none

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


objected to the proposed development. The location of 6 dwellings within 400 meters of the pig

farm is shown in figure 8 P.42 of EIS. It is expected that these residents will not notice any

additional odours from the pig farm as a result of reducing stocking rate in older buildings, having

high ventilation rates in the new pig houses and covering the over ground circular tank.

6.1.2 Ammonia (NH3)

Ammonia is highly volatile and is emitted when the slurry is in contact with air during storage. It

disperses rapidly in the atmosphere. Agriculture is the largest contributor of NH3 emissions to

atmosphere in Ireland and typical atmospheric deposition would be expected to be 10 kgs / ha of

N. Ammonia is generally dispersed and deposited locally. Covering over ground tanks and under

slat storage reduce ammonia emissions.

Other Air Emmisions

According to the EPA calculator the proposed development will produce 67 tonnes of CH4 per

annum which will be widely dispersed into the atmosphere. This is an insignificant portion of total

CH4 emissions. Agriculture contributes less than 3% of all C02 emissions and extrapolating from

this the impact from CO2 emissions from this pig farm would be negligible. Dust will arise from

feeding pigs and potentially when constructing the new buildings but will not impact on the

surrounding environment.

6.2 GASEOUS EMISSIONS FROM LAND-SPREADING OF PIG SLURRY

Air quality in this region is generally good and reflective of the rural climate in Ireland with pollution

sources of a minor nature. Local emissions from agricultural sources are a common occurrence in

all rural communities, particularly when slurry is being land-spread, and are generally insignificant.

6.2.1 Malodours from Land-spreading

The average rate of application of pig slurry is 12 m3 / hectare which is low and therefore the time

required for the odour to decay after land spreading should be short eg a few hours. Pig slurry will

be ploughed in on tillage land thus eliminating odour.

6.2.2 Ammonia Emissions from Land-spreading.

Approximately 50% of the nitrogen in pig slurry is ammonia which is either taken up by plants as

ammonia, converted to nitrates by soil microbes or is lost to the atmosphere by volatilization.

While volatilization reduces the potential for nitrates to be formed (and possibly leached) it also

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


increases the indiscriminate deposition of N in the environment. The total background level of

deposition of ammonia in this part Ireland is equivalent to approximately 10 kgs N / ha / annum –

this is the expected rate of deposition in the land-spread area.

6.2.3 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Emissions

Nationally approximately 80% of nitrous oxide emissions come from agriculture. They are mainly

released from agricultural soils due to the breakdown of chemical and organic nitrogen in the soil.

Once released into the atmosphere it contributes to the Green House effect. The main source of

N2O is chemical nitrogenous fertiliser used on agricultural lands and to a lesser extent organic

slurry applied to agricultural lands. This gas dissipates rapidly into the atmosphere. According to

the EPA calculation tool the proposed development will produce 64 kgs of N2O per annum.

However this will be balanced by the reduction in chemical nitrogen fertiliser used in the spread-

lands.


• An Approved Code of Good Practice is contained in the fertiliser plan for pig slurry (appendix

1). This code will be implemented.

• Pig slurry will replace chemical fertiliser applications.

• Buffer zones of 100 metres around residences are allowed to reduce impact of odour.

• A high level of cleanliness is maintained at the site to reduce emissions.

• The pig farm will use slurry additives from time to time in sensitive situations.

• Most of the conifer trees will be retained as these act as a barrier to odour.

• Lower stocking rate in older houses will reduce odour.

• Covering over ground tank will reduce odour and NH3 emissions.

6.4 CONCLUSIONS

Odour

The potential of having increased odour from increasing pig numbers will be balanced by reducing

the stocking rate in the older existing buildings and covering over ground circular tank. The odour

emissions from new sheds will be lower than that of older houses. Land-spreading of cattle slurry

in the spread-lands causes odour but this is not a significant problem within a few hours after

spreading. Allowing 100 m buffer strips around dwelling houses will minimise impacts on rural

dwellings.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


Green House Gases

Ammonia (NH3)

Since 2000 national cattle and pig numbers have declined and therefore the overall production of

ammonia from agriculture is in decline and will continue to decline when the proposed

development is built. Ammonia emissions from the pig unit will be deposited on agricultural

grassland. There are no habitats around the pig farm and therefore the impact will not be

significant. The deposition of NH3 to a relatively short part of the adjoining watercourse will not

affect the nutrient status of this stream. The ammonia emissions from the pig farm will not

contribute significantly to the back ground level of NH3 deposition which is expected to be 10 kgs

N / ha / annum. The impact on humans will not be significant.

Land-spreading of any slurry will release ammonia into the atmosphere - this is a normal

occurrence in a rural environment. The pig slurry will be spread on farms scattered over a 90 Km2

area of Co Kilkenny. The pig slurry ammonia will not be a significant contributor to the back

ground rate of atmospheric deposition and therefore will not have an impact on habitats such as

SACs.

Other gases

In the context of a decline of 6%, 38% and 13.7% in the national cattle, sheep and pig herd in the

past 10 years, the proposed development will not reverse the national trend of lower agricultural

green house gas emissions. Because pig slurry will replace chemical fertiliser nitrogen the net

contribution to the Nitrous Oxide (N20) release from land-spread farms will not be significant.

SECTION 7 - NOISE

This addresses the potential impact of noise emanating from the proposed development. Various

noise surveys conducted on pig farms ranging in size from 500 sows (integrated) to 2000 sows

(integrated) indicate no impact on adjoining properties from noise emanating from pig farms. Noise

sources on the proposed development will be similar, if not less than those on conventional cattle

farms and will include noises from livestock (particularly sows at feeding time), noise from lorries

delivering feed and slurry tankers pumping slurry. There will be additional noise during the

construction of the new buildings. The pig farm will generally be silent at night. Confining

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


operational activities to normal day time work hours and implementing safe work practices to

protect workers on site is the required mitigation. There is no significant impact from noise on

targets outside of the site of the pig farm due to the proposed development.

SECTION 8 - TRAFFIC

This section addresses potential traffic impacts due to the proposed development. The layout of

the local road network is shown in figure 10 P.49 of the EIS. A traffic survey was carried out on

22/11/2011 by Hermitage Pedigree Pigs Ltd employee at the entrance to the pig farm. The traffic

count was recorded between 9 am and 5 pm when personnel attend the site. Outside of these

hours there is virtually no traffic to the site. Two adjustments were made to the traffic count to

take into account that the slurry spreading season was closed in November and to take into

account that although not recorded there would be regular journeys to the site by heavy goods

vehicles. The results of the traffic survey are shown in table 9 P.50 of the EIS. The existing Annual

Average Daily Traffic (AADT) count is 28 of which 45% goes to the pig farm. Due to the proposed

development staff traffic will increase by 4 journeys per day, feed deliveries will increase by two

journeys per week (0.3 / day) and tractor journeys by 3 per day. Therefore the proposed AADT will

be approximately 38. This is a very low AADT count and the impact on receiving environment will

not be significant.

SECTION 9 – LANDSCAPE & VISUAL

This section addresses the visual impact of the two new sheds and over ground slurry tank (there

will be no visual impact from the land-spreading of pig slurry).

9.1 INTRODUCTION.

Figure 11 shows that there are 2 areas designated as High Amenity Areas in this part of north

Kilkenny. These are areas frequented by day trippers and tourists and any development in these

areas must sit comfortably with the general landscape features. The proposed development

consists of agricultural buildings in an existing farm yard and as such is an embedded feature of

this landscape. In addition to this the site is secluded and surrounded by trees on all sides.

9.2 VISUAL IMPACT FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The photos (P1-P6) in section 9.1.1 show the potential visual impact of the proposed

development. The proposed development will not be visible from the west, east or north east of

the site where there are dwellings located. It may be possible to see the new buildings through a

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


mature hedge of ash and hawthorns/blackthorns from the north of the site during the winter

months when foliage is at it’s minimum, but even then, the screening is almost complete from the

north. The land at the south of the pig unit rises to a small hill. From the field adjoining the south

side of the pig unit it will be possible to see the roofs of the new buildings and part of the over

ground tank. There are no dwellings to the south of the pig farm.


• The trees on the boundary of the site will not be disturbed. These consist of mature ash trees,

hawthorn and black thorn trees.

• Most of the conifer plantation will be retained for screening purposes (see figure 12 P.54 of

EIS).

• The colour scheme of the proposed buildings will consist of a dark green (or dark brown) roof

over a lighter grey wall. This two tone effect tends to minimise the visual impact of agricultural

buildings and will be in keeping with existing buildings.

• Additional landscaping will be under-taken to enhance the visual appearance the site

particularly on the northern part of the site.

9.4 CONCLUSION

The surrounding land is undulating in nature with well developed hedgerows. The proposed

development consists of agricultural buildings located in an existing farm yard which is naturally

well screened off with mature hedgerows and a conifer plantation. Therefore the development is in

keeping with the local landscape. The pig buildings will not break the sky line from any of the

surrounding view points. There will be no impact on high amenity areas (nearest is 1 km to south

east). The visual impact overall is imperceptible.

SECTION 10 - ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

This section addresses the potential impact on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. The

assessment involved a desktop assessment and on site visual assessment. Information sources

referred to were the National Monuments Register and 6 inch first edition maps. The 6 inch map

(dated 1830s) in figure 13 P.59 shows that there were no internal hedges or buildings in the

1830s. The northern map boundary shows a tree line which indicates that the plot may have been

part of a substantial farmstead at this time. The western, southern and eastern boundaries of the

site have been modified. The top soil of the interior of the site has been almost completely

disturbed due to constructing existing buildings and planting the conifer plantation. The area north

and west of the existing pig houses (0.42 hectares) is a rough area into which some spoil from the

construction of the existing pig houses was heaped. This area was disturbed by heavy machinery

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24


traffic during the construction of the existing pig houses. There is a small field at the back of the

office consisting of 0.2 hectares. This field appears in the 6 inch map of the 1830s. The western,

eastern and northern boundaries of this field have been removed and there is a well and a septic

tank now located in this field. Therefore there has been considerable disturbance in this field also.

The proposed development will be located on areas that are planted with conifers (0.375 ha), a

rough area of disturbed top soil (0.1 ha) west of existing building Ref No 19 and a small area

which has been built on (site of existing round tank). Any potential archaeology has been

destroyed in these areas.

Figure 15 P.61 of EIS shows the location of the nearest registered monuments which are located

at located at 360 meters (north east), 512 meters (north), 550 meters (north west) and 550 meters

(south) of the existing pig buildings. There will be no impact on these monuments. In the spread-

lands many of the sites are earth work sites below ground level which have already been impacted

upon by ploughing, field drainage and reclamation of agricultural land. Provided that the ground is

not disturbed (i.e. poached due to traffic in poor weather conditions or ploughed) there should be

no significant impact from spreading pig slurry over these sites. The enclosures and Cashel/Raths

are located outside the spread lands. These occur in wooded circles or rough ground and in most

situations they are inaccessible to agricultural machines. Based on a desk top assessment the

proposed development will not impact on archaeology. The land spreading of pig slurry from the

proposed development will not have a significant effect on archaeology.

SECTION 11 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

The impacts of the proposed development are summarized in table 11 P.63 of EIS. There are no

significant impacts due to the proposed development provided the mitigation measures specified

in this document are adhered to.

SECTION 12 – SITE LAYOUT DRAWINGS & MAPS

The following figures/diagrams are included section 12;

• Figure 16 – Site Layout showing Existing and Proposed Buildings

• Figure 17 – Plan of Proposed Buildings at approximately 1:250 when printed on A3

• Figure 18 – Proposed Building Elevations at approximately 1:210 when printed on A3

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 16-02-2012:04:03:24

the eis is set out in the following parts; part 1 : table of … · 2012. 2. 16. · part 1 : table...

Documents