Shannon Foynes Port Company Land Reclamation Project Environmental Impact Statement

IBE0215.00/September 2011

rpsgroup.com/ireland

Shannon Foynes Port Company - Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement

CHAPTER LIST

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Consultations Chapter 3 Site Description Chapter 4 Project Description Chapter 5 Cetaceans Chapter 6 Terrestrial Mammals, Inter-tidal and Sub-Tidal Flora and Fauna Chapter 7 Birds Chapter 8 Air Quality Chapter 9 Coastal Processes & Water Quality Chapter 10 Sediment Quality Chapter 11 Noise & Vibration Chapter 12 Material Assets Chapter 13 Archaeology & Cultural Heritage Chapter 14 Human Beings Chapter 15 Landscape and Visual Chapter 16 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Bibliography

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Consultation Process Appendix 2 Terrestrial Mammals, Inter-tidal, sub-tidal flora and fauna Appendix 3 Birds Appendix 4 Air Quality Appendix 5 Coastal Processes & Water Quality Appendix 6 Sediment Analysis –RPII correspondence Appendix 7 Noise & Vibration Appendix 8 Material Assets – Traffic Flows Appendix 9 Archaeology Appendix 10 Landscape and Visual

0215.00/EIS01/September 11

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1

1.1 FOYNES PORT ...... 1-1

1.2 PORT FACILITIES ...... 1-1

1.3 LOCATION AND WATER DEPTH ...... 1-2

1.4 CURRENT TRADE AT FOYNES PORT ...... 1-4

1.5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY AND THE ECONOMY...... 1-5

1.6 PROJECT JUSTIFICATION ...... 1-6 1.6.1 Background ...... 1-6 1.6.2 Physical and Operational Constraints on the East Jetty ...... 1-7 1.6.3 Future Strategic Needs ...... 1-8

1.7 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES...... 1-9 1.7.1 The “Do Nothing” Scenario...... 1-9 1.7.2 Alternative Locations/Options Considered ...... 1-9

1.8 FOYNES PORT MASTER PLAN...... 1-9

1.9 STRATEGIC POLICY DRIVERS...... 1-10 1.9.1 National Spatial Strategy 2002 - 2020 ...... 1-10 1.9.2 National Development Plan 2007-2013 ...... 1-11 1.9.3 Mid-West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022...... 1-11 1.9.4 Limerick County Development Plan 2010 - 2016...... 1-12

1.10 THE PLANNING PROCESS ...... 1-13 1.10.1 Planning Permission...... 1-13 1.10.2 Other Required Permissions ...... 1-15

1.11 SCOPE AND FORMAT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ...... 1-17 1.11.1 Scope of the EIS ...... 1-17 1.11.2 Format of the EIS ...... 1-18 2.0 CONSULTATION PROCESS ...... 2-1

2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 2-1

2.2 STATUTORY AND RELEVANT BODIES CONSULTATION...... 2-1

2.3 PUBLIC CONSULTATION...... 2-5 2.3.1 Questionnaire ...... 2-6

2.4 FURTHER PUBLIC CONSULTATION...... 2-8

2.5 PHASE TWO OF OPEN PUBLIC CONSULTATION DAYS ...... 2-11

2.6 MEDIA COVERAGE OF PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS ...... 2-12

2.7 RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION PROCESS ...... 2-12

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 i

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2.7.1 Dust and the Movement of Lorries Through the Village of Foynes...... 2-12 2.7.2 Speed Ramps and Transit Through Village ...... 2-13 2.7.3 Quarterly Meetings Between PortUusers, SFPC and Foynes Community Forum ...... 2-13 2.7.4 Planting of Trees in the Vicinity of the Port ...... 2-13 2.7.5 Construction Traffic Through Village...... 2-14 2.7.6 Flooding...... 2-15 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION...... 3-1

3.1 SITE LOCATION...... 3-1

3.2 SITE CONTEXT AND LAND USE ...... 3-2

3.3 GEOLOGY...... 3-5 3.3.1 Sources of information and Methodology...... 3-6

3.4 SOLID GEOLOGY...... 3-6 3.4.1 Regional Geology...... 3-6 3.4.2 Local Geology...... 3-8

3.5 EVAULATION OF IMPACTS...... 3-10 3.5.1 Ground Stability...... 3-10 3.5.2 Topography and Landform Features...... 3-10 3.5.3 Superficial Deposits (Drift)...... 3-10

3.6 SOILS...... 3-11

3.7 HYDROGEOLOGY ...... 3-12 3.7.1 Potential Impacts to Groundwater...... 3-13

3.8 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF IMPACTS ...... 3-13 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4-1

4.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WORKS ...... 4-1 4.2.1 General Construction Sequence ...... 4-4 4.2.2 Retaining Structure...... 4-1 4.2.3 Dredging...... 4-5 4.2.4 Reclamation and Shore Protection ...... 4-6 4.2.5 Demolitions...... 4-7 4.2.6 Services and Security...... 4-7

4.3 PORT OPERATIONS...... 4-8 4.3.1 Use of the Reclaimed Area ...... 4-8 4.3.2 Port Equipment...... 4-8 4.3.3 Access ...... 4-10

4.4 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES...... 4-10 4.4.1 Programme...... 4-10

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 ii

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4.4.2 Site Access...... 4-10 4.4.3 Pollution Control ...... 4-10 4.4.4 Site Safety ...... 4-11 4.4.5 Waste Disposal...... 4-11

4.5 OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES ...... 4-12 4.5.1 Maintenance...... 4-12 4.5.2 Pollution Control ...... 4-12 5.0 CETACEANS ...... 5-1

5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 5-1

5.2 MARINE MAMMAL SURVEY...... 5-1

5.3 RESULTS...... 5-3

5.4 DIEL ACTIVITY ...... 5-3

5.5 SUMMARY ...... 5-6

5.6 MITIGATION ...... 5-6 6.0 TERRESTRAIL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA & FAUNA...... 6-1

6.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 6-1

6.2 INTER-TIDAL HABITATS ...... 6-2 6.2.1 Fauna ...... 6-2 6.2.2 Flora ...... 6-4 6.2.3 Impact of Foraging Birds ...... 6-6

6.3 SUB-TIDAL HABITATS ...... 6-7 6.3.1 Fisheries (Commercial and Recreational)...... 6-8

6.4 SUMMARY ...... 6-8

6.5 MITIGATION ...... 6-9 7.0 BIRDS ...... 7-1

7.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 7-1

7.2 METHODOLOGY ...... 7-1 7.2.1 Desk Review and Consultation ...... 7-1 7.2.2 Intertidal Bird Surveys ...... 7-1

7.3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ...... 7-2 7.3.1 General Description of the Study Area...... 7-2 7.3.2 Designated areas (Natura 2000 Sites)...... 7-3 7.3.3 Habitats Within the Study Area ...... 7-6 7.3.4 Bird Usage of Area Within 1km of Proposed Reclamation Site ...... 7-7

7.4 BIRD POPULATIONS OF THE ENTIRE SHANNON AND FERGUS ESTUARIES ...... 7-9

7.5 BIRD USAGE OF THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION SITE...... 7-10

7.6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON BIRDS ...... 7-12 7.6.1 Disturbance ...... 7-12

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 iii

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7.6.2 Indirect Effects of Sediment Redistribution ...... 7-12 7.6.3 Habitat Loss...... 7-13

7.7 MITIGATION MEASURES...... 7-13

7.8 RESIDUAL IMPACTS...... 7-14 8.0 AIR QUALITY...... 8-1 8.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 8-1 8.2 LEGISLATION AND POLICY ...... 8-1 8.3 METHODOLOGY AND GUIDANCE...... 8-3 8.4 BASELINE CONDITIONS...... 8-3 8.4.1 Climate ...... 8-3 8.4.2 Landscape...... 8-4 8.4.3 Sensitive Environments and Local Receptors...... 8-4 8.4.4 Background Air Pollution...... 8-5 8.4.5 Dust ...... 8-10 8.5 ROAD TRAFFIC ...... 8-12 8.5.1 Construction Road Traffic...... 8-12 8.5.2 Operational Road Traffic ...... 8-16 8.6 PORT ACTIVITIES ...... 8-16 8.6.1 Construction Activities ...... 8-16 8.6.2 Operational Activities...... 8-16 8.7 CLIMATE AND CLIMATIC CHANGE ...... 8-17 8.7.1 Construction Phase Carbon Calculation ...... 8-18 8.8 8.8 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ...... 8-20 8.9 MITIGATION MEASURES...... 8-22 8.10 RESIDUAL IMPACTS...... 8-23 8.11 CONCLUSIONS ...... 8-23 9.0 COASTAL PROCESSES...... 9-1

9.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 9-1

9.2 MODELLING SYSTEM ...... 9-1 9.2.1 Tidal Model...... 9-1 9.2.2 Sediment Dispersion Model ...... 9-2

9.3 TIDAL MODELLING SIMULATIONS...... 9-3 9.3.1 Irish Coastal Waters Model ...... 9-3 9.3.2 Shannon Estuary Base Model...... 9-4 9.3.3 Impact of the Proposed Development on the Tidal Flows ...... 9-10

9.4 MODEL VERIFICATION ...... 9-12 9.4.1 Model Verification Data ...... 9-12 9.4.2 Model Verification Results...... 9-14

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 iv

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9.5 MODELLING THE IMPACT OF DREDGING OPERATIONS ...... 9-22 9.5.1 Modelling Foynes Harbour Dredging ...... 9-22 9.5.2 Impact of the Proposed Dredging...... 9-23

9.6 MODELLING CONCLUSIONS ...... 9-35

9.7 WATER QUALITY...... 9-36

9.8 DESIGNATIONS ...... 9-37 9.8.1 Protected Areas...... 9-37 9.8.2 Other Designations...... 9-38

9.9 SOURCES OF WATER QUALITY INFORMATION ...... 9-39 9.9.1 Water Framework Directive Status Classifications ...... 9-39 9.9.2 EPA Water Quality Information ...... 9-40

9.10 EXISTING WATER QUALITY ...... 9-41 9.10.1 Water Framework Directive Status...... 9-41

9.11 CONCLUSIONS IN RELATION TO WATER QUALITY IMPACT ...... 9-47 9.11.1 Sedimentation and Water Quality Impacts...... 9-47 9.11.2 Suspended Solids and Water Quality Impacts...... 9-47 10.0 SEDIMENT QUALITY ...... 10-1

10.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 10-1

10.2 MARINE INSTITUTE DREDGE SAMPLING PROGRAMME ...... 10-1

10.3 DREDGE SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS...... 10-5 10.3.1 Sediment Sampling Methodology...... 10-5 10.3.2 Guideline Values for the Assessment of Dredge Material ...... 10-6 10.3.3 Sediment Sampling Results ...... 10-7 10.3.4 Sediment Quality ...... 10-8

10.4 RADIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS ...... 10-8

10.5 ALTERNATIVE USES ...... 10-9

10.6 CONCLUSION ...... 10-11 11.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION...... 11-1

11.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 11-1

11.2 METHODOLOGY ...... 11-1 11.2.1 Relevant Noise Guidance Documents ...... 11-1 11.2.2 Consultation...... 11-4 11.2.3 Vibration ...... 11-5 11.2.4 Methodology for Noise Monitoring ...... 11-6

11.3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ...... 11-7

11.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 11-11 11.4.1 Construction Phase ...... 11-11 11.4.2 Operational Phase...... 11-15

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 v

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

11.5 MITIGATION ...... 11-18 11.5.1 Construction Phase ...... 11-18 11.5.2 Operational Phase...... 11-21

11.6 RESIDUAL IMPACT...... 11-21 12.0 MATERIAL ASSETS...... 12-1 12.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 12-1 12.2 INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 12-1 12.2.1 Water Supply...... 12-1 12.2.2 Sewerage Infrastructure ...... 12-1 12.2.3 Mechanical and Electrical Services...... 12-2 12.3 ROADS AND TRAFFIC ...... 12-2 12.3.1 Existing Transport Network ...... 12-2 12.3.2 Traffic Generation Due to the Proposed Works ...... 12-5 12.3.3 Traffic Generated By Employees ...... 12-9 12.4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 12-10 12.4.1 Introduction...... 12-10 12.4.2 Existing Conditions...... 12-1- 12.4.3 NRA Future Road Growth and Factored Traffic Flows ...... 12-11 12.4.4 Committed Development and Base Traffic Flows...... 12-12 12.4.5 Generated Traffic and Traffic Distribution ...... 12-12 12.4.6 Proposed Traffic Flows...... 12-13 12.4.7 Assessment of Generated Traffic...... 12-13 12.5 MITIGATION MEASURES...... 12-14 12.5.1 Proposals to Improve Access to Harbour...... 12-14 12.6 CONCLUSIONS ...... 12-15 13.0 ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURAL HERITAGE ...... 13-1 13.1 FOYNES PORT ...... 13-1 13.2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 13-1 13.3 THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT...... 13-1 13.4 MARINE GEOPHYSICAL DATA...... 13-9 13.5 GEOTECHNICAL DATA REVIEW ...... 13-11 13.6 ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT...... 13-12 13.7 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE ASSESSMENT...... 13-13 13.8 PROPOSED IMPACTS ...... 13-15 13.9 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 13-16 13.9.1 Pre-Construction Measures...... 13-16 13.9.2 Construction Phase Measures ...... 13-16 14.0 HUMAN BEINGS ...... 14-1

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 vi

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

14.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 14-1 14.2 BASELINE INFORMATION...... 14-1 14.2.1 Population and Demographics ...... 14-1 14.2.2 Employment...... 14-3 14.2.3 Community Aspects ...... 14-5 14.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL...... 14-6 14.3.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE...... 14-6 14.3.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE...... 14-6 14.4 MITIGATION MEASURES...... 14-7 15.0 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ...... 15-1 15.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 15-1 15.2 METHODOLOGY ...... 15-2 15.2.1 Introduction...... 15-2 15.2.2 Landscape Assessment Criteria and Terminology...... 15-2 15.2.3 Visual Assessment Criteria and Terminology ...... 15-4 15.3 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT...... 15-7 15.3.1 Scale and Character...... 15-7 15.3.2 Planning Designations...... 15-9 15.4 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS ...... 15-11 15.4.1 Landscape Character Area Impacts...... 15-11 15.4.2 Planning Policy Designation Impacts ...... 15-12 15.4.3 Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI)...... 15-14 15.4.4 Visual Impacts on Residential Properties...... 15-15 15.4.5 Viewpoint Assessment ...... 15-15 15.4.6 Construction Phase Impacts ...... 15-22 15.5 MITIGATION MEASURES...... 15-22 15.6 CONCLUSION ...... 15-23 16.0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES...... 16-1

16.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 16-1

16.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES...... 16-1 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ...... 1

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 vii

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Bulk Traffic (000 Tonnes) by Port, Year and Type of Traffic...... 1-5 Table 3.1 Scoping Matrix ...... 1-19 Table 2.1 Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees Contacted During the ... Environmental Scoping Study...... 21 Table 2.2 Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees who Responded to Scoping Exercise...... 2-2 Table 2.3 Summary of Written Responses from Consultees ...... 2-2 Table 2.4 Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees Contacted During Second Round of Public Consultation...... 2-8 Table 2.5 Reponses from Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees during Second Rounds of Public Consultation...... 2-9 Table 4.1 Typical Wastes Generated by the Construction Works...... 4-12 Table 5.1 Results of Calibration Rrials for C-PODs C172 and C167 ...... 5-4 Table 5.2 Results of Calibration Trials for C-PODs C172 and C488...... 5-4 Table 5.3 Summary of Results from Acoustic Monitoring Using CPODS ...... 5-5 Table 6.1 Wet Weight of Marine Invertebrates Along Two Transects at Foynes Port, Co Limerick ...... 6-2 Table 6.2 Estimated Total Biomass of Invertebrates Available to Feeding Waders in Each Area...... 6-7 Table 7.1 Designated Areas within the Proposed Reclamation Site...... 7-3 Table 7.2 List of Qualifying Interests and Special Conservation Interests for the Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries Special Protection Area...... 7-6 Table 7.3 Summary of Peak and Mean Numbers of Water Birds Within 1km of the Proposed Reclamation Area Over Months, March 2010-Febraury 2011...... 7-8 Table 7.4 Summary of entire Shannon & Fergus Estuary mean of peak numbers for those species recorded within the proposed reclamation area over the 5-year period, 2004/05 to 2008/09...... 7-10 Table 7.5 Summary of peak and mean numbers of water birds using the proposed reclamation .... area over months, March 2010-Febraury 2011...... 7-10 Table 7.6 Peak numbers of birds recorded within the reclamation area as a percentage of the peak number of birds in the wider study area and entire Shannon and Fergus Estuaries ...... 7-11 Table 8.1 Limit Values and Alert Thresholds of CAFE Directive 2008/50/EC...... 8-3 Table 8.2 Foynes Nitrogen Dioxide Sampling Results ...... 8-11 Table 8.3 Annual Mean Recorded Dust Levels at Foynes ...... 8-14

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 viii

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 8.4 Road Traffic Used in DMRB Screening Models ...... 8-15 Table 8.5 Background Pollution Levels ...... 8-16 Table 8.6 DMRB Screening Model Output Comparisons ...... 8-17 Table 8.7 Carbon Calculation Summary in Tonnes Fossil CO2...... 8-21 Table 8.8 Carbon Calculation Summary in Tonnes Fossil CO2...... 8-22 Table 8.9 Assessment Criteria for the Impact of Dust from Construction, with Standard Mitigation in Place, NRA 2006 ...... 8-23 Table 9.1 Sediment Grading of Dredged Material ...... 9-25 Table 9.2 Water Framework Directive Status Elements...... 9-45 Table 9.3 EPA Water Quality 2007 to 2009...... 9-46 Table 9.4 Shellfish Directive Mandatory and Guideline Values...... 9-50 Table 10.1 Recommendations from Marine Institute on Particular Parameters for Each Sample ...... 10-2 Table 10.2 Required Minimum Detection Limits for the Various Determinants...... 10-3 Table 11.1 Internal Ambient Noise Levels for Bedrooms and Living Rooms ...... 11-3 Table 11.2 Transient Vibration Guide Values for Cosmetic Damage (Ref BS5228- 2:2009)...... 11-5 Table 11.3 Threshold Values for the Evaluation of Disturbance Due to Vibration ...... 11-6 Table 11.4 Summary of Daytime and Night-time Noise Monitoring ...... 11-8 Table 11.5 Subjective Noisy Events Recorded During Noise Monitoring Surveys...... 11-9 Table 11.6 Noise Levels for Construction Plant (Ref: BS 5228:2009) ...... 11-12 Table 11.7 Worst-Case Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Noise Sensitive Properties...... 11-14 Table 11.8 Additional Operational Plant to be Used at the Proposed Reclaimed Area ...... 11-17 Table 11.9 Worst-Case Operational Noise from Proposed Plant at Nearest Noise Sensitive Properties ...... 11-17 Table 12.1 Traffic Generated by Proposed Operations...... 12-6 Table 12.2 Traffic Distribution Generated by Proposed Operations...... 12-8 Table 12.3 Traffic Survey Details...... 12-10 Table 12.4 NRA Future Road Growth Forecasts...... 12-11 Table 12.5 Generated Vehicle Trips...... 12-12 Table 12.6 Junction Capacity Analysis – Proposed Site Access ...... 12-14 Table 13.1 Entries in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage located in close proximity to thearea under assessment...... 13-5 Table 14.1 Population Figures and Growth Rate ...... 14-2 Table 14.2 Growth Rate of Population Figures (%)...... 14-2 Table 14.3 Population of each catchment categorised into independent, dependent and childbearing cohorts 2006 ...... 14-2 Table 14.4 Age Cohorts 2006...... 14-3

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 ix

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 14.5 Total Number of Persons at Work 2006 ...... 14-4 Table 14.6 Unemployment Rates 2006 (%)...... 14-4 Table 14.7 Economic Status of Persons over 15 years of age - 2006 (%)...... 14-4 Table 15.1 Significance of Landscape Impact...... 15-4 Table 15.2 Significance of Visual Impact...... 15-6 Table 16.1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 16-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Location of Shannon Foynes Port – Regional Context ...... 1-1 Figure 1.2 Shannon Foynes Port Company Facilities in the Shannon Estuary ...... 1-2 Figure 1.3 Extract from Admiralty Chart 1549 ...... 1-3 Figure 1.4 General Aerial View of Foynes Port ...... 1-4 Figure 1.5 Existing Layout at Foynes Port East Jetty...... 1-7 Figure 1.6 Extent of Proposed Reclamation...... 1-8 Figure 1.7 Foynes Port Master Plan for Future Development...... 1-10 Figure 2.1 Visitors to the Public Consultation Sessions Viewing the Display Material...... 2-6 Figure 2.2 Key Issues Raised in June 2010 Public Consultation Questionnaire ...... 2-7 Figure 2.2 Planting Along Western Entrance to Port Boundary ...... 3-13 Figure 2.3 Planting Along Eastern Entrance at the Side of Port ...... 2-14 Figure 2.4 Planting Along Western Entrance to Port...... 2-14 Figure 3.1 Foynes Port in the Context of the Shannon Estuary...... 3-1 Figure 3.2 Existing East Jetty Pier Arrangement Outlined in Red Oval ...... 3-2 Figure 3.3 Aerial Photograph showing Current Site Layout and Proposed...... 3-3 Figure 3.4 Overview of Foynes Port Adjacent to Foynes Village ...... 3-5 Figure 3.5 Simplified Geology Map of Foynes Region ...... 3-6 Figure 3.6 Simplified Geology Map of Foynes Port Area ...... 3-9 Figure 3.7 Soils Map of Foynes Area ...... 3-11 Figure 3.8 Aquifer Classification of Foynes Area ...... 3-12 Figure 4.1 Proposed General Arrangements...... 4-2 Figure 4.2 Phased Implementation of Works ...... 4-3 Figure 4.3 Typical Combi-Wall Form of Construction...... 4-4 Figure 5.1 Mooring System Used to Deploy C-PODs of the Quay Wall at Foynes Port...... 5-3 Figure 5.2 Calibration Results DPM per Day from Shannon Estuary Trials...... 5-4 Figure 5.3 Number of DPMs Per Day from February to October 2010 from Foynes Jetty ...... 5-5 Figure 6.1 Crab Remains Located Above High Water at Study Site...... 6-1

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 x

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 6.2 Division of Jetty where transects were taken ...... 6-2 Figure 6.3 Image of Each Sampling Site Along Transect 1. (Note Increased Surface Activity in Samples 1 and 2) ...... 6-3 Figure 6.4 Length Frequency Distribution of Scrobilcularia at Foynes...... 6-4 Figure 6.5 Clumps of Fucus vesiculosis Growing on Boulders in the Mud in Both Sections ..... 6-5 Figure 6.6 Inter-Tidal Flora in Western and Eastern Ends Respectively ...... 6-5 Figure 6.7 This was a Combination of Fucus vesiculosis and Ascophyllum nodosum ...... 6-6 Figure 6.8 & 6.9 SAC and SPA Boundaries in area proposed for mitigation measures ...... 6-12 Figure 6.10 Habitat Map Indicating the Areas Covered by Spartina Swards from MCorry & Ryle .. 2009 Within the SAC Boundary...... 6-14 Figure 6.11 Areas for Implementing Initial Mitigation Measures ...... 6-16 Figure 7.1 Location of Vantage Points VP1 to VP4 within Shannon Foynes Port...... 7-2 Figure 7.2 Location of Designated Areas for Nature Conservation Within the Study Area ...... 7-4 Figure 8.1 Port of Foynes Wind Roses – 2005 to 2009 ...... 8-4 Figure 8.2 Foynes Nitrogen Dioxide Sampling Locations ...... 8-6 Figure 8.3 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 1 ...... 8-7 Figure 8.4 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 2 ...... 8-7 Figure 8.5 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 3 ...... 8-7 Figure 8.6 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 4 ...... 8-8 Figure 8.7 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 5 ...... 8-8 Figure 8.8 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 6 ...... 8-8 Figure 8.9 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 7 ...... 8-9 Figure 8.10 Port of Foynes Dust Sampling Locations ...... 8-10 Figure 9.1 Extent of Irish Coastal Waters Model...... 9-3 Figure 9.2 Base model extent (135m grid) for the Shannon Estuary Tidal Model ...... 9-6 Figure 9.3 Tidal model domain 45m grid with nested 15m section (MSL) ...... 9-6 Figure 9.4 15m grid bathymetry (MSL) for the Foynes area ...... 9-6 Figure 9.5 Flood tide pattern 45m grid extent – Spring Tide...... 9-7 Figure 9.6 Flood tide pattern for 15m grid extent – Spring Tide...... 9-7 Figure 9.7 Flood tide pattern for area of interest – Spring Tide...... 9-8 Figure 9.8 Ebb tide pattern 45m grid extent – Spring Tide...... 9-8 Figure 9.9 Ebb tide pattern for 15m grid extent – Spring Tide ...... 9-9 Figure 9.10 Ebb tide pattern for area of interest – Spring Tide ...... 9-9 Figure 9.11 Typical spring flood flow pattern – Before Development...... 9-10 Figure 9.12 Difference in peak spring flood current velocity – Proposed development minus existing ...... 9-11 Figure 9.13 Typical spring ebb flow pattern – Before Development...... 9-11

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 xi

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.14 Difference in peak spring ebb current velocity – Proposed development minus existing ...... 9-12 Figure 9.15 Predicted and Simulated Tidal Elevations at Carrigaholt...... 9-13 Figure 9.16 Predicted and Simulated Tidal Elevations at Tarbert...... 9-13 Figure 9.17 Location of Tidal Current Monitoring Points ...... 9-14 Figure 9.18 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation (bottom) at CO1 – Spring Tide ...... 9-15 Figure 9.19 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation (bottom) at CO1 - Neap Tide...... 9-16 Figure 9.20 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation (bottom) at CO2 – Spring Tide ...... 9-17 Figure 9.21 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation (bottom) at CO2 - Neap Tide...... 9-18 Figure 9.22 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation (bottom) at CO3 - Spring Tide...... 9-19 Figure 9.23 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation (bottom) at CO3 - Neap Tide...... 9-20 Figure 9.24 Sedimentation on completion of proposed dredging works ...... 9-24 Figure 9.25 Sedimentation on completion of proposed dredging works in local area...... 9-25 Figure 9.26 Maximum sedimentation during proposed dredging works...... 9-25 Figure 9.27 Maximum sedimentation during proposed dredging works in local area ...... 9-26 Figure 9.28 Location of Water Sampling Points ...... 9-27 Figure 9.29 Typical suspended solids concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging – Spring Flood tide ...... 9-28 Figure 9.30 Typical suspended solids concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging – Spring Ebb tide...... 9-28 Figure 9.31 Typical suspended solids concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging – Neap Flood tide ...... 9-29 Figure 9.32 Typical suspended solids concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging – Neap Ebb tide...... 9-29 Figure 9.33 Typical bed concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging – Spring Flood tide...... 9-30 Figure 9.34 Typical bed concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging – Spring Ebb .... tide...... 9-30 Figure 9.35 Typical bed concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging – Neap Flood tide ...... 9-31 Figure 9.36 Typical bed concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging – Neap Ebb tide ...... 9-31

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 xii

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.37 Average suspended solids concentration (above background) during dredging cycle ...... 9-32 Figure 9.38 Average suspended solids concentration (above background) during dredging cycle in local area ...... 9-33 Figure 9.39 Average bed concentration (above background) during dredging cycle...... 9-33 Figure 9.40 Average bed concentration (above background) during dredging cycle in local area ...... 9-34 Figure 9.41 Maximum suspended solids concentration (above background) during dredging cycle ...... 9-35 Figure 9.42 Maximum bed concentration (above background) during dredging cycle...... 9-35 Figure 9.43 Foynes Harbour and Lower Shannon Estuary water bodies ...... 9-37 Figure 9.44 Protected areas ...... 9-38 Figure 9.45 Foynes Harbour and Lower Shannon Estuary WFD water body status ...... 9-42 Figure 9.46 Location of Water Sampling Points ...... 9-49 Figure 10.1 Sediment Sample Locations Behind the East Jetty at Foynes Port...... 10-5 Figure 12.1 Map of Critical Delivery Routes ...... 12-3 Figure 12.2 Route of Limerick to Foynes Railway Line ...... 12-4 Figure 12.3 Preliminary Programme for Proposed Operations ...... 12-7 Figure 14.1 Limerick Electoral Division Catchments ...... 14-1

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 xiii

Shannon Foynes Port Company- Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Foynes Port

Foynes Port is situated on the southern shores of the Shannon Estuary and west of Limerick City. It is a major deepwater facility capable of accommodating ships up to 198m in length, and a draft up to 10.5m. Foynes Port caters for most cargo types including liquid bulk, dry bulk, break bulk, liquid and project cargoes. It is the principle general purpose terminal on the Estuary.

1.2 Current Trade at Foynes Port

Foynes Port is the principle general purpose terminal on the Estuary and caters for a wide variety of modes of trade including;

. dry bulk including fertilizers, animal feeds, salt, coal and alumina hydrate . break bulk including, timber, construction materials, machinery and materials for the offshore industry . liquids- primarily oils but also chemicals . project cargoes including materials for the renewable wind energy industry . cruise vessels

The total tonnage of cargo handled in 2010 was in the order of 1,433,000 tonnes.

Due to its favourable location on the west coast of Ireland and its modern deepwater facilities, Foynes Port is ideally positioned for additional European trading as well as for further increases in ocean energy resources.

1.3 Shannon Foynes Port Company and the Economy

Shannon Foynes Port Company facilitates trade from many industrial sectors critical to the ongoing sustainability and competitiveness of the region. This includes staple traditional heavy industrial use to modern and emerging industries such as the energy, renewable, agricultural, tourism and manufacturing sectors.

The volume of trade handled by the port in comparison to other Irish ports is summarised in Table 1.1.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10 Shannon Foynes Port Company- Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary

2009 2008 2007 Brea Bulk Bulk k Liquid Dry Break Liquid Dry Bulk Bulk Dry Break s Bulks Bulks s Bulks s Liquids Bulks Bulks 10,92 All Irish ports 11,800 7 848 13,749 15,496 2,91514,490 15,861 2,241 Shannon Foynes 1,036 6,398 146 1,482 9,089 247 1,519 9,086 379 Cork 5,012 1,188 303 6,020 1,445 581 6,381 1,578 593 Dublin 4,051 1,583 102 4,077 2,428 164 4,075 2,503 70 Bantry Bay 911 22 0 785 225 0 1,347 56 0 Galway 661 52 10 737 15 23 857 63 25 Waterford 17 643 69 25 699 177 14 770 155 Drogheda 35 390 75 70 360 178 126 418 292 New Ross 77 314 16 138 520 37 166 563 0 Greenore 0 317 73 0 528 172 0 595 190 Dundalk 0 0 0 0 148 77 5 229 156 Wicklow 0 20 54 0 0 84 0 0 221 Youghal 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 141 Tralee Fenit 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 19

Table 1.1 Bulk Traffic (000 Tonnes) by Port, Year and Type of Traffic Source: IMDO All-Ireland Port & Shipping Statistics Database

SFPC direct expenditure is of the order of €7.5 million per annum (2009). Using methodology developed by Indecon (2006), this has an overall net economic impact of some €10.7 million, which in turn sustains some 114 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions. Adding in indirect and induced impacts using the same methodology, the overall impact is €19 million and some 400 FTEs. Information is not available on the equivalent figures for the service providers based in Foynes Port, but based on average data, the figures are likely to be some 20 times higher. This highlights the important employment impact of the port’s activities, and the wider contribution to the regional economy.

These figures do not include the impact of the other facilities supported by SFPC operations – the terminals and related activities at five other locations on the estuary. Nearby Rusal Aluminum (Aughinish Alumina), which has in excess of 400 FTEs, with up to 200 permanent contractors on site, depends on SFPC for ensuring safe and efficient ship movements to service its core importing and exporting operations. Similar services are provided to the important facilities at Money point, Tarbert and Shannon, and will also be used to facilitate the proposed LNG facility at Ballylongford.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11 Shannon Foynes Port Company- Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary fuel facilities at Foynes Port have the ability to handle up to 20% of national requirements; animal feed and fertilisers are imported, processed and distributed to various cooperatives and agri-business firms, and are crucial to the continued success of this sector.

1.4 Future strategic needs

Being based on the West coast of Ireland, SFPC has identified the offshore renewable energy sector as a potential source of business in the future. It is anticipated that developers engaging in this sector are likely to have a requirement for large areas for heavy duty port storage immediately adjacent to quays for the marshalling and out loading of offshore energy devices and foundation structures. The availability of such quayside storage facilities at Foynes Port is limited and SFPC has identified a need to provide further such facilities if the potential opportunities from offshore renewable energy are to be capitilised upon.

1.5 Project Justification

Shannon Foynes Port Company currently carries out bulk handling operations at the East Jetty in Foynes Port.

The East Jetty comprises an open piled structure with an overall length of 296m and a width of 18.2m. The structure is reached from land via an 82m long access viaduct with a width of 10m.

The arrangement of the jetty is illustrated in Figure 1.5

Figure 1.5 Jetty Arrangement The current arrangement at the East Jetty imposes significant constraints on efficient harbour operations.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12 Shannon Foynes Port Company- Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary

The limited working width of the jetty structure The existing jetty structure is 18 m in width but the useable width is narrower due to the presence of infrastructure on the jetty surface (such as mooring bollards and lighting columns). This imposes a constraint on the storage and handling of cargo on the jetty deck whilst still allowing access by road vehicles. This is particularly the case when hoppers are being used for the unloading of bulk cargo.

Single Vehicle Access There is only one vehicle access serving the full 290m jetty length. Harbour operations would be much improved if access could be gained from the hinterland to the quayside at any location along the length of the jetty.

Operational Berthing Restrictions There is an operational limit on the size of vessels which can currently berth at the eastern end of the Jetty due to the lateral load carrying capacity of that section of the structure.

Lack of Storage Space There is currently no facility for the storage or handling of cargo in the immediate vicinity of the operational jetty meaning that all cargo must be transported to a secondary location, even if it is not intended that the cargo be immediately transhipped onwards by road. There is also no facility for the pre-storage of export cargo in close proximity to the jetty to facilitate efficient loading operations.

In order to address the issues stated above SFPC intend to reclaim the area of foreshore between the jetty structure and the shoreline behind. Such works will allow the provision of access to all areas of the jetty by trucks and other port vehicles and provide much needed quayside storage and handling capability.

1.6 Consideration of alternatives

1.6.1 The “do nothing” scenario

The do nothing Scenario would mean that SFPC will continue to experience the current constraints to efficient harbour operations as described in section 1.5. This will hamper the ports ability to make most efficient use of the facilities at Foynes Port or to attract customers for future business.

Such a scenario will severely constrain the port’s potential to support growth in the Mid-West’s economy.

1.6.2 Alternative locations/options considered

Due to the particular drivers for the proposed development there are limited alternatives that might be considered.

As the works are proposed to facilitate improvements in current harbour operations, sites outside of the immediate port area are considered to be unrealistic and have not been considered.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13 Shannon Foynes Port Company- Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary

Within the immediate port area there is limited space available for development that is not the subject of current lease agreements. The nearest available development land is over 700m away from the east jetty. Even if such an area was available its development would not substantially address the operational issues at the jetty which are the main drivers for the proposed development works. The lateral load restriction is the key issue and driver for this reclamation project. Without the development larger vessels will be diverted to alternative Ports such as Cork, Dublin or Belfast.

1.7 STRATEGIC POLICY DRIVERS

The proposed reclamation project at Foynes Port is entirely consistent with the strategic objectives at national, regional, county and local level as outlined in the review of the following strategic policy drivers:

 National Spatial Strategy 2002 -2020  National Development Plan 2007 -2013  Mid-West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022  Limerick County Development Plan 2010-2016

1.8 The Planning Process

Shannon Foynes Port Company is seeking planning permission from Limerick County Council under the Planning and Development Regulations, 1990-2010, as amended for the proposed land reclamation project at Foynes Port, County Limerick. The proposed development will require planning consent under the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (S.I No 600 of 2001) for the elements of the work which will be carried out above the high water mark.

The Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1990 which came into effect on the 1st of February 1990, set out the detailed requirements for EIA in respect of applications for planning permission and planning appeals and also established procedures for EIA with regard to developments by or on behalf of local authorities. The First Schedule of the 1989 Regulations specifies which projects require an EIS and relates to Annexes I and II of the EC Directive. All projects listed in Parts I and II of the First Schedule to the 1989 Regulations require an EIS and thresholds are included that relate to site areas or quantities which reflect the scale of development involved.

The proposal at Foynes Port involves the reclamation of 2.49 hectares of land. This is below the EIA threshold of 5 hectares as stated in Schedule 5 of the planning regulations. However, there are other factors to consider in deciding if an EIA is required. The Local Government (Planning and Development Regulations) 1990 incorporate an additional provision that, at the discretion of the relevant local planning authority, an EIS may be required for projects which are less than the specified thresholds, in terms of quantity, area or other limit. This is a most significant provision, the guiding principle being the extent to which the planning authority considers that the development would be likely to have significant effects on the environment.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14 Shannon Foynes Port Company- Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997. In Part IV (Planning and Development Matters) of these Regulations under Article 27.(1) it is stated “A local authority when duly considering an application for planning permission, or the Board when duly considering an appeal on a application for planning permissions, in respect of a proposed development that is not directly connected with, or necessary to the management of, a European site but likely to have a significant effect thereon either individually or in combination with other developments, shall ensure that an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives is undertaken”.

In Article 27.(2) it also states that “An environmental impact assessment in respect of a proposed development prepared in accordance with a requirement of or under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994 (S.I. No. 86 of 1994), shall be an appropriate assessment for the purposes of paragraph (1).

The proposed development at Foynes Port therefore requires an EIA to be undertaken to satisfy the requirements of the Habitats Directive. This requirement for an EIA was outlined in an Environmental Scoping Study undertaken for the proposal on behalf of Shannon Foynes Port Company. Therefore, this EIS has been prepared to accompany the Planning Application to Limerick County Council. The EIA was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 as outlined in Schedule 6 (Information to be contained in an EIS).

In addition, this EIS has been prepared to comply with the Limerick County Council planning policy set out in the County Development Plan (2010-2016) as well as separate Limerick County Council planning documents in relation to the impacts on Objectives & Zoning. In Chapter 9 of the Limerick County Development Plan 2005 – 2011, Section 9.3 addresses Ports in the Shannon Estuary. In this section of the Plan, Policy SE 2: on Port Facilities states “The Council will support efforts to expand and upgrade the port facilities available in the Foyne’s Harbour”. In addition, in this section of the Plan, Policy SE 4: on Harbours states “The Council will support the provision of harbours along the estuary, subject to the proper planning and sustainable development, while respecting the constraints of the Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area designations”.

2.0 CONSULTATION PROCESS

The consultation phase of an Environmental Impact Assessment is of utmost importance, as it enables all concerned and interested parties to voice their opinions on the development during the initial stages of the project. This enables changes to be made during the design stage of the development, utilising comments and ideas from the consultation process.

Statutory and Relevant Bodies Consultation Consultation meetings were held with the principal statutory consultees such as Inland Fisheries Ireland and the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht at the outset of the project. This consultation with statutory bodies continued throughout the Environmental Impact Assessment and particularly when potential issues were arising during the impact assessment phase.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15 Shannon Foynes Port Company- Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary

Letters were sent out to all relevant statutory and non-statutory consultees, informing them of the extent of the proposed development and inviting their comments on the scheme.

Public Consultation The public consultation phase began early in the EIA process following the initial scoping exercise and in order to inform the EIA process. The first major public consultation event was held on the 22nd of June 2010. The event involved closed one to one and open afternoon/evening sessions in Foynes Community Centre, located in the centre of Foynes village where information on the proposed development and the environmental studies being undertaken was presented on display boards.

The public consultation sessions were advertised in local newspapers, on local radio stations together with notices placed in local shops and general community areas

Following the initial public consultations in July 2010, the scheme was refined and the individual impact assessments for the EIS were undertaken. A second round of public consultation letters were issued on the 30th of July 2010 outlining the EIA process and requesting comments from all relevant statutory and non-statutory consultees. Further details in relation to the reclamation works were provided to each consultee with a request for comments and/or suggestions in relation to issues which should be addressed in the EIA. As a consequence, another open consultation session was held on the 4th April 2011 in Foynes.

The issues raised during both phases of public consultation and the stakeholder consultation period have been addressed and, where possible, mitigated for to reduce the environmental impact of the development.

The various submissions and comments made in relation to the proposed land reclamation project at Foynes Port, have been fully considered by the consultants in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement and in the design of the scheme. Every effort has been made to address all concerns raised and, where possible, mitigation measures have been proposed to minimise the environmental impact of the proposed development.

3.0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

The impact of the proposed development on all aspects of the environment was assessed as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment. The key impacts and mitigation measures identified during the Environmental Impact Assessment are presented in Table 2.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16 Shannon Foynes Port Company- Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary

Table 2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation

Cetaceans (Chapter 5)

 Site of the proposed reclamation works was found to have no  Visual and noise disturbance to significant ecological value. Lower River Lower River Shannon during  In order to ensure no dolphins are Shannon cSAC construction affected by the proposed land reclamation a Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) should be used during activities which might disturb dolphins.

Terrestrial Mammals, Inter-tidal and Sub-Tidal Flora and Fauna (Chapter 6)

 Permanent loss of 1.5ha of inter-tidal  The findings of the site habitat investigations have shown the area of the proposed land reclamation is of no significant ecological value. The site largely comprises inter-tidal mud and is greatly disturbed by human activity and ship berthing. The total area which SFPC are proposing to reclaim is approximately 2.5ha, however only 1.5ha of this is inter-tidal. While this Lower River will mean some loss of the Annex 1 Shannon cSAC Saltmarsh Habitat based on the & River results of the field assessments it is Shannon and apparent that the loss will have no Fergus cSPA significant impact on the overall integrity of the Lower Shannon SAC or SPA.  Nonetheless appropriate mitigation measures under Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive will be undertaken by SFPC to offset any perceived loss of habitat and potential foraging areas for birds.  Mitigation Measures proposed include the enhancement of an adjacent SAC/SPA at Barrigone

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 17 Shannon Foynes Port Company- Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary

through the Identification of areas of inter-tidal mudflats which have become encroached and invaded by Spartinia anglica swards. Steps will be undertaken in consultation with NPWS and IFI to enhance this area in order to restore the natural habitat and provide feeding areas for birds.  There was no evidence of  The following mitigation measures commercial fishing in the area but have been incorporated into the recreational fishing is promoted design of the dredging works: outside of the immediate Port area. Lower River  The extent of this fishing is not  The dredging operations will use Shannon cSAC known but it seems to concentrate Best Available Technology. No on the deep water off the jetties and overspill of material from the barges Impact on not the shallow inter or sub-tidal will be permitted. Commercial areas. Whereas some fish feeding and areas will be removed following  The dredging will take place outside Recreational reclamation, direct access, by the the salmon season of May – July. Fisheries public, to the shore at the site is restricted and discouraged as it is a working jetty, thus any impact on recreational fishing will not be significant.  Loss of benthic communities within reclamation footprint.  Currently this area is extremely Loss of benthic impoverished with very low biomass communities and availability of fauna. No mitigation required.

Birds (Chapter 7)

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 18 Shannon Foynes Port Company- Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary

Habitats Directive will be undertaken by SFPC to offset any perceived loss of habitat and potential foraging areas for birds.  Mitigation Measures proposed include the enhancement of an adjacent SAC/SPA at Barrigone through the Identification of areas of inter-tidal mudflats which have become encroached and invaded by Spartinia anglica swards. Steps will be undertaken in consultation with NPWS and IFI to enhance this area in order to restore the natural habitat and provide feeding areas for birds.

Air Quality (Chapter 8)

 Site roads will be regularly cleaned and maintained as appropriate. Hard surface roads will be swept to remove mud and aggregate materials from their surface while any  Nuisance dust and Particulate un-surfaced roads will be restricted Matter (PM10) from construction to essential site traffic only; activities.  Any site roads with the potential to give rise to dust will be regularly  Traffic-derived air pollution and dust watered, as appropriate, during dry from transport during construction. and/or windy conditions (also applies to vehicles delivering material with Impact of  Increased dust and traffic-derived Construction dust potential); pollutions can negatively impact on Traffic  All vehicles exiting the site should amenity, visual and health aspects make use of a wheel wash facility of local receptors during the prior to entering onto public roads, to construction period. ensure mud and other wastes are not tracked onto public roads. Wheel

washes will be self-contained systems that do not require discharge of wastewater to water bodies;  The contractor will be required to ensure that all vehicles are suitably maintained to ensure that emissions

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 19 Shannon Foynes Port Company- Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary

of engine generated pollutants is kept to a minimum;  Public roads outside the site will be regularly inspected for cleanliness, and cleaned as necessary;  The site should be adequately screened with suitable barriers to reduce the potential for dust dispersion;  Material handling systems and site stockpiling of materials will be designed and laid out to minimise exposure to wind and will be located as far from receptors as possible;  Minimise drop-heights to control the fall of materials;  The transport of topsoil, rock, aggregate, and any other fill materials should be undertaken in tarpaulin-covered vehicles;  The number of material handling operations should be minimised to ensure that dusty material is not handled unnecessarily;  Any material on made ground should be kept damp and not allowed to dry out;  Hard surfacing of made ground will take place as soon as is operationally feasible;  Continued dust monitoring in the vicinity of the port;  Adherence to the Ports management document Procedures for Handling Dusty Product.

Impact of  No increase in operational traffic Operational  No mitigation measures required. associated with the works Traffic

Coastal Processes (Chapter 9)

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 20 Shannon Foynes Port Company- Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary

 Computational modelling of the proposed dredging works and the creation of a reclamation area confirmed that:

The dredging operation, using Best  Impact of the reclamation area and Available Technology, would have no dredged area on the tidal flow and significant impact on the marine sediment transport regime. ecology outside the immediate area Impact on to be reclaimed as a result of a coastal  Impact of the dredging operations sediment plume arising from the processes as a result of the sediment plume dredging activity or from re-

arising from the dredging activity settlement of material brought into and from settlement of material suspension. brought into suspension. The creation of the reclamation area and dredged area would have no significant impact on the tidal flow and sediment transport regime of the Lower Shannon Estuary.

Sediment Quality (Chapter 10)

 Dredged material unsuitable for re- use within the reclamation area will be disposed of at sea at a licensed disposal site located within the Lower Shannon estuary. Chemical analysis of the material has indicated that it is suitable for disposal at sea without causing a  A separate Dumping at Sea Permit Dumping at Sea significant impact on marine will be applied for. ecology. A separate Dumping at Sea Permit will be applied for which will include modelling to determine the ‘footprint’ of impact caused by the disposal operation and an Impact Hypothesis to assess the impact of the disposal operations on the marine ecology.

Noise & Vibration (Chapter 11)

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 21 Shannon Foynes Port Company- Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary

worst-case noise levels are emitted activities nearest to the closest noise at the boundary of the proposed site sensitive properties. and if no mitigating measures are  A detailed construction plan will be put in place. prepared and will include a range of measures aimed at reducing the potential construction noise impact on the nearest properties to the proposed development site.  This plan will also address the issues relating to collaboration with the local community in order to reduce as much as possible the potential impact from construction noise.  A range of measures will be taken to ensure that the quietest machinery is used or that the use of machinery is such as to be sensitive to the residents at the nearest properties. This will be detailed in the construction plan mentioned above.  British Standard BS5228:2009 – Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites outlines a range of measures that can be used to reduce the impact of construction phase noise on the nearest noise sensitive receptors. These measures will be applied by the contractor where appropriate during the constriction phase of the proposed development.  It is not expected that the operational  No mitigation measures required phase of the proposed development will result in any significant noise impacts at the nearest noise sensitive properties.

Material Assets (Chapter 12)

o Through the detailed traffic assessment it has been demonstrated and concluded that Traffic  Construction and Operational the combined traffic impact of the proposed development to and from the site will not have a significant impact on the surrounding road

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 22 Shannon Foynes Port Company- Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary

network. It is noted that the proposed development gives support to building and working towards the sustainable objectives within the region. o To help improve access to the Harbour, it is proposed to install warning signage in advance of both junctions to raise awareness of the increase in construction traffic associated with the works. o Skid resistant surfacing will be laid 100m in advance of both east and west harbour accesses given the increased risk of skidding given the heavy loads involved. o Maximum visibility from the minor arm of the junction is to be provided by cutting back and maintaining the grass verges along the N69. o The current exclusion of HGVs through Foynes Village is to be maintained to prohibit disruption through the village.

Archaeology & Cultural Heritage (Chapter 13)

Intertidal/  The development will require the  A suitably qualified archaeologist will Underwater reclamation of an intertidal and monitor the dredging works and an Archaeology subtidal area and dredging works. archaeological plan will be There are no recorded shipwrecks in implemented in order to deal with the vicinity of the proposed potential finds during the development and geophysical construction phase of the project. surveys did not show any items of  If it is not possible to avoid impacting archaeological potential. However, the key stones of interest, then they there is potential for items to be should be recovered for re-use in an buried in the soft sediment fraction in appropriate location in future the proposed development area. development within the Port.  Key stones of architectural interest Consideration might be given to their were identified during the site extraction from the quay walls and

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 23 Shannon Foynes Port Company- Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary

investigations. featured in the new revetments which will be built around the infilled area. Human Beings (Chapter 14)

o The construction associated with the infilling of the foreshore behind the jetty will use local services, such as catering and plant hire. Temporary local employment may be created from the construction stage of the project but this will be dependent on  The well-being of the local the contractors appointed. No community and the wider significant socio-cultural impacts are community within the Foynes area predicted arising from the temporary has been comprehensively local increase in noise associated addressed within the EIS: with construction. Once the jetty is operational it will be strategically  Impact on air quality – Chapter valuable to the local and national 8 economy.  Impact on material assets o Therefore, no mitigation measures including traffic – Chapter 12 are proposed as the assessment has  Impact on landscape and visual not identified potential negative – Chapter 15 impact on the general amenity of the locality.

Landscape and Visual (Chapter 15)

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 24 Shannon Foynes Port Company- Land Reclamation Environmental Impact Statement Non-Technical Summary

relevant landscape designations due to the separation distance between the proposals and designations.  Overall, therefore, when the landscape and visual impacts are considered the proposal is acceptable and the surrounding landscape and its visual resources have the ability to accommodate the changes of the type associated with this development.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 25

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 FOYNES PORT

Foynes Harbour is situated on the southern shores of the Shannon Estuary and west of Limerick City (Figure 1.1). Foynes Port is a major deepwater facility capable of accommodating ships up to 198m in length, and a draft up to 10.5m. The Port caters for most cargo types including liquid bulk, dry bulk, break bulk, liquid and project cargoes. Foynes Port is the principle general purpose terminal on the Estuary.

Figure 1.1 Location of Shannon Foynes Port – Regional Context

1.2 PORT FACILITIES

Shannon Foynes Port Company has statutory jurisdiction over all marine activities on a 500km2 area on the Shannon Estuary, stretching from Kerry and Loop Head on the Clare side to Limerick City. The strategic location of SFPC terminals offers access to the vibrant economy and population of not only the immediate Limerick and Mid West region, but also a large part of Ireland.

Shannon Foynes Port Company services six dedicated facilities on the Shannon Estuary as follows;

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-1 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

. Moneypoint – coal imports for electricity generation . Tarbert – heavy fuel oil (HFO) imports for electricity generation . Aughinish Aluminia – Bauxite imports for manufacture and export of Alumina . Foynes Port – All cargo types including cruise passengers . Shannon Airport – aviation fuel . Limerick – General cargoes including bulk break, bulk, special liquids and cargoes

Figure 1.2 Shannon Foynes Port Company Facilities in the Shannon Estuary

1.3 LOCATION AND WATER DEPTH

Foynes Port is located on the southern shore of the Shannon Estuary and can be reached in less than two hours from the mouth of the Estuary. The current multi-modal facility offers deep-water berths with alongside depths of at least 10.5 meters. It can accommodate vessels to 198 meters long and up to 40 thousand DWT. An extract from Admiralty Chart 1549 is shown in Figure 1.3.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-2 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 1.3 Extract from Admiralty Chart 1549

There are three jetties at Foynes Port with a total length of 757 meters. The West jetty is 271 meters long, the East jetty 295 meters long, and the Tanker jetty is 91 meters long. The Tanker Jetty has a design depth of 9.2 metres. Landside facilities include 12.1 thousand square meters of warehousing, including almost 7 thousand square meters of new bulk storage.

Additional storage for cargo through Foynes Port is available through Argosea Services (3.7 thousand square meters) and Foynes Engineering Ltd. (3.7 thousand square meters). Doyle Shipping Group also offers more than 18.5 thousand square meters of warehouse and four hectares of yard storage.

A general view of the port is shown in Figure 1.4.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-3 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 1.4 General Aerial View of Foynes Port

1.4 CURRENT TRADE AT FOYNES PORT

Foynes Port is the principle general purpose terminal on the Estuary and caters for a wide variety of modes of trade including; . dry bulk including fertilizers, animal feeds, salt, coal and alumina hydrate . break bulk including, timber, construction materials, machinery and materials for the offshore industry . liquids- primarily oils but also chemicals . project cargoes including materials for the renewable wind energy industry . cruise vessels

The total tonnage of cargo handled in 2010 was in the order of 1,433,000 tonnes.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-4 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1.5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY AND THE ECONOMY

The volume of trade handled by the port in comparison to other Irish ports is summarised in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Bulk Traffic (000 Tonnes) by Port, Year and Type of Traffic Source: IMDO All-Ireland Port & Shipping Statistics Database

2009 2008 2007 Bulk Dry Break Bulk Dry Break Bulk Dry Break Liquids Bulks Bulks Liquids Bulks Bulks Liquids Bulks Bulks 10,92 15,49 All Irish ports 11,800 7 848 13,749 6 2,915 14,490 15,861 2,241 Shannon Foynes 1,036 6,398 146 1,482 9,089 247 1,519 9,086 379 Cork 5,012 1,188 303 6,020 1,445 581 6,381 1,578 593 Dublin 4,051 1,583 102 4,077 2,428 164 4,075 2,503 70 Bantry Bay 911 22 0 785 225 0 1,347 56 0 Galway 661 52 10 737 15 23 857 63 25 Waterford 17 643 69 25 699 177 14 770 155 Drogheda 35 390 75 70 360 178 126 418 292 New Ross 77 314 16 138 520 37 166 563 0 Greenore 0 317 73 0 528 172 0 595 190 Dundalk 0 0 0 0 148 77 5 229 156 Wicklow 0 20 54 0 0 84 0 0 221 Youghal 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 141 Tralee Fenit 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 19

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The mean value of trade handled by SFPC is over €6 billion (Indecon 2006, based on 2004 data which, given recent trade downturn, is a reasonable proxy for current levels). Critical components for many local and regional businesses and consumers are traded via the port. For example, the liquid fuel facilities at Foynes Port have the ability to handle up to 20% of national requirements; animal feed and fertilisers are imported, processed and distributed to various cooperatives and agri-business firms, and are crucial to the continued success of this sector.

1.6 PROJECT JUSTIFICATION

1.6.1 Background Shannon Foynes Port Company currently carries out bulk handling operations at the East Jetty in Foynes Port.

The East Jetty comprises an open piled structure with an overall length of 296m and a width of 18.2m. The structure is reached from land via an 82m long access viaduct with a width of 10m.

The arrangement of the jetty is illustrated in Figure 1.5

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-6 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 1.5 Existing Layout at Foynes Port East Jetty

1.6.2 Physical and Operational Constraints on the East Jetty The current arrangement at the East Jetty imposes significant constraints on efficient harbour operations.

The limited Working Width of the Jetty Sstructure The existing jetty structure is 18 m in width but the useable width is narrower due to the presence of infrastructure on the jetty surface (such as mooring bollards and lighting columns). This imposes a constraint on the storage and handling of cargo on the jetty deck whilst still allowing access by road vehicles. This is particularly the case when hoppers are being used for the unloading of bulk cargo.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-7 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

is not intended that the cargo be immediately transhipped onwards by road. There is also no facility for the pre-storage of export cargo in close proximity to the jetty to facilitate efficient loading operations.

The area of intended reclamation is illustrated in Figure 1.6

Figure 1.6 Extent of Proposed Reclamation

1.6.3 Future Strategic Needs Being based on the West coast of Ireland, SFPC has identified the offshore renewable energy sector as a potential source of business in the future. It is anticipated that developers engaging in this sector are likely to have a requirement for large areas for heavy duty port storage immediately adjacent to quays for the marshalling and out loading of offshore energy devices and foundation structures. The availability of such quayside storage facilities at Foynes Port is limited and SFPC has identified a need to provide further such facilities if the potential opportunities from offshore renewable energy are to be capitilised upon.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-8 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1.7 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES

1.7.1 The “Do Nothing” Scenario The do nothing Scenario would mean that SFPC will continue to experience the current constraints to efficient harbour operations as described in section 1.6.2. This will hamper the ports ability to make most efficient use of the facilities at Foynes Port or to attract customers for future business.

Such a scenario will severely constrain the port’s potential to support growth in the Mid-West’s economy.

1.7.2 Alternative Locations/Options Considered Due to the particular drivers for the proposed development there are limited alternatives that might be considered.

As the works are proposed to facilitate improvements in current harbour operations, sites outside of the immediate port area are considered to be unrealistic and have not been considered.

1.8 FOYNES PORT MASTER PLAN

SFPC has a detailed roadmap for the development of its facilities to cater for anticipated growth in the coming decades. A modular approach is envisaged which would allow the port to add capacity as required while ensuring seamless integration with existing facilities.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-9 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 1.7 Foynes Port Master Plan for Future Development

The proposed reclamation is being undertaken within the context of this overall master plan as a first phase of potential development. Further improvements may be undertaken in the future on an as required basis and such schemes may include further reclamation works. Any such proposals will be the subject of a separate planning application

1.9 STRATEGIC POLICY DRIVERS

. National Spatial Strategy 2002 -2020 . National Development Plan 2007 -2013 . Mid-West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022 . Limerick County Development Plan 2010-2016

1.9.1 National Spatial Strategy 2002 - 2020 The National Spatial Strategy (NSS) is predicated on the contention that the coordinated development of Cork, Limerick/Shannon, Galway, and Waterford has the potential to offer a counterweight to the pull of the Dublin Region. A key component of the NSS is the further development of these key existing gateways.

Limerick has been identified as an existing gateway with considerable potential for further development and expansion to achieve more balanced regional development. ‘There is evidence of growing interaction between Cork and Limerick and also between Waterford and Cork and between Limerick and Galway. This interaction suggests future possibilities for combining the complementary strengths of these cities and expanding such interaction to achieve a critical mass strong enough to balance the type of critical mass that has been achieved by Dublin.’

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-10 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Achieving spatial balance will depend on enhancing capacity for the movement of people, goods, energy and information. On this basis, it is recognised that if Ireland is to have a globally completive and regionally integrated economy, then it needs good seaports and associated shipping services. ‘The export-oriented nature of the Irish economy is highly dependent on effective access to foreign markets. Therefore it is important to maintain a wider international perspective in order to identify critical interventions abroad that would improve Ireland’s onward connections ‘.

In the Mid-West, Limerick/Shannon needs to be strengthened — within the terms of the Land Use and Transportation Strategy now being developed. This will provide a platform for capitalising on the strategic location of this gateway, where a number of road and rail transport corridors converge; there is an international airport at Shannon and ports in the Shannon estuary. The NSS wants see ‘Strategic Radial Corridors’ developed with emphasis placed on the Shannon Estuary Ports. ‘Corridor to the Mid West – good quality road and public transport connections between Dublin and Limerick (including access to Shannon Airport) and to the Shannon Estuary Ports.’

1.9.2 National Development Plan 2007-2013 An economic priority of the National Development Plan (NDP) is to better equip the port sector to meet national and regional capacity and services needs. In order to do this the Plan acknowledges that ‘good transport infrastructure is crucial to the promotion of national competitiveness and sustainable development’. It is a fundamental requirement ‘that enterprises are able to efficiently move goods both internally and to and from external markets’. According to the NDP Ports Sub-Programme the projects being progressed by the ports sector have the potential to deliver adequate capacity for the island going forward.

1.9.3 Mid-West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022 The task of the Guidelines is to provide a broad canvas to steer the growth and prosperity of the Mid-West region to 2022. The guidelines recognise Foynes Port as a major port within the Shannon Estuary and the importance of protecting its capacity and improving access to it.

It identified the need to upgrade “The N69 road link between Askeaton and Adare to provide effective access to road freight traffic from Foynes to the N20/21 (linking Limerick with Cork and Tralee)” and the need to improve the “The condition and standard of the N69 between Foynes and Limerick City to provide efficient access to the ports.

It also points out that “Local authority development plans must be directed to contain specific economic development objectives which seek to harness the economic potential of the estuary and capitalise on its natural deepwater characteristics for enhanced maritime activity. Economic growth must be promoted along the shores of the estuary, even outside existing

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-11 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

settlements, in order to harness the true natural assets of the estuary and its potential economic benefits to the Region.”

As is highlighted throughout this EIS, SFPC would encourage the reinstatement of the Limerick-Foynes rail link, the regional planning guidelines also highlight the upgrading of this rail link as a future investment priority within the guidelines for 2010-2022

The guidelines also highlight the need for “Protection of the role and location of Shannon Airport, Foynes and Limerick Docks so that they can continue and enhance their current and future functions”

A key indicator of the success of the strategy or guidelines will include the “Freight tonnage through Foynes and Limerick Docks”

1.9.4 Limerick County Development Plan 2010 - 2016 The recently published Limerick County Development Plan (December 2010) recognises Foynes Port as a “significant core asset for economic development in the region” whilst the Estuary provides a strategic transit gateway the “port facilitates trade from many industrial sectors critical to the ongoing sustainability and competitiveness of the region. The existing deep water facility at the Port and existing logistical operations provide a transit hub for a diversity of industries in the region including traditional manufacturing, extractive industries, general cargo, and emerging renewable energies”

Through consultations with the forward planning section of Limerick County Council they have advised that the strategic nature of the port and its activities has been recognised both in policy terms through the identification of the expansion of the port;

“Support the expansion of the Port at Foynes and promote the economic and industrial development of the Shannon Estuary as a strategic transport, energy and logistics Hub serving the County and wider region by utilising naturally occurring deep water characteristics and by identifying and safeguarding existing and future strategic transportation links, subject to fulfilling the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the conservation objectives of the Lower River Shannon SAC site”

as detailed in the County Development plan and also the fact that Foynes Port itself has been included as one of the settlements with zoning, due in great part to the presence of the port and its importance as a transport hub.

Under Industrial and Enterprise Policies objective ED O5 on the appropriate industrial development of Foynes it states “It is the objective of the Council to ensure that the industrial

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-12 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

zoned land in Foynes is safeguarded for the accommodation of port related uses and other industrial activities”

Similar to the Mid-West Regional Plan the Limerick County Development plan also recognises the importance of the Foynes–Limerick rail link stating that “the council will ensure that no development or activities which would interfere with the possible re-use of the Foynes Limerick rail link will be permitted”

Similarly, the County Development Plan recognises the need to improve the N69 Limerick to Foynes road. “It is an objective of the Council to promote the strategic improvement of the N69 between Limerick City and Foynes to facilitate traffic by heavy goods vehicles into this important port from an easterly direction.”

1.10 THE PLANNING PROCESS

1.10.1 Planning Permission Shannon Foynes Port Company is seeking planning permission from Limerick County Council under the Planning and Development Regulations, 1990-2010, as amended for the proposed land reclamation project at Foynes Port, County Limerick. The proposed development will require planning consent under the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (S.I No 600 of 2001) for the elements of the work which will be carried out above the high water mark.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-13 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The proposed development at Foynes Port lies within a candidate Special Area of Conservation (SAC). A Special Area of Conservation is a designated site under Council Directive 92/43/EEC otherwise known as the Habitats Directive. The Habitats Directive was given force under Irish law by the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997. In Part IV (Planning and Development Matters) of these Regulations under Article 27.(1) it is stated “A local authority when duly considering an application for planning permission, or the Board when duly considering an appeal on a application for planning permissions, in respect of a proposed development that is not directly connected with, or necessary to the management of, a European site but likely to have a significant effect thereon either individually or in combination with other developments, shall ensure that an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives is undertaken”.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-14 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1.10.2 Other Required Permissions

Foreshore Licence The Foreshore Acts (1933 to 2003) require that before the commencement of any works or activity (including the erection of any structures) on State-owned foreshore a licence or lease must be obtained from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Such a lease or licence is subject to an annual rental payable to the Exchequer. Foreshore is the land and seabed between the high water of ordinary or medium tides (shown HWM on Ordnance Survey Maps) and the twelve-mile limit (twelve nautical miles is approximately 22.24 kilometres).The proposed land reclamation will require a foreshore lease or license in accordance with the requirements set out in the Foreshore Acts.

Developments on the foreshore require planning permission in addition to a Foreshore Lease/Licence/Permission. An application for a Foreshore Licence accompanied by this EIS will be lodged with DoEHLG.

Dumping at Sea Permit It is envisaged that dredge spoil which is unsuitable for land reclamation (silt, clay) will be disposed of at sea, providing the dredged material is suitable to do so, by obtaining a Dumping at Sea Permit.

Prior to 15th February 2010, dumping at sea was regulated under the Dumping at Sea Acts, 1996 and 2006. The Coastal Zone Management Division (CZMD) of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was charged with implementing the provisions of these Acts i.e., permitting of dumping at sea operations. The Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Act, 2009, transferred the responsibilities for controlling dumping at sea from the CZMD to the EPA. All permit applications are now processed by the Environmental Licensing Programme of the Agency.

The purpose of a Dumping at Sea permit is to regulate the dumping of material at sea. The Dumping at Sea Acts, 1996 to 2009, provide for the implementation of the requirements of international Conventions regulating the disposal of dredged materials at sea: the London Convention of 1972 (including the 1996 Protocol) and the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic), adopted in 1992. The aforementioned Acts prohibit the dumping at sea of a substance or material unless permitted by the Agency.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-15 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Assessment of applications for dumping at sea licences In accordance with the requirements of the Dumping at Sea Acts, 1996 to 2009, the Agency must consider the following before deciding to grant or refuse a permit for the dumping of a substance or material at sea: . The criteria governing the granting of a permit for dumping which are set out in the First Schedule to the Acts, and . The exceptions to the prohibition on dumping as contained in the extracts from Annex II to the OSPAR Convention, as set out in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Acts, and . The exceptions to the prohibition on dumping as set out in Part 2 of the Second Schedule and permitted under Annex III to the OSPAR Convention, and . Any submissions or observations made to the Agency by a third party in relation to an application, and any comments made by an applicant.

The Agency must also consult with the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and such other Minister of the Government as the Agency considers necessary before granting, or refusing to grant, a permit.

The previous Marine Licence Vetting Committee (MLVC) of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government now makes up the advisory committee and is comprised of technical, scientific and engineering specialists. The committee has expertise in fisheries, biology, chemistry, oceanography, navigation and engineering disciplines and assesses in detail all permit applications prior to making a recommendation to the Minister.

Other Statutory Organisations which are consulted include the division of Inland Fisheries Ireland responsible for the area and the relevant local authority. Those organisations may require certain surveys to be carried out. All surveys carried out will be at the expense of the applicant. The assessment of applications to dump at sea is carried out under the strict criteria laid down under the OSPAR Convention as set out in the First Schedule to the Dumping at Sea Act, 1996. Briefly, those criteria are: . the availability, or otherwise, of suitable land-based alternative disposal options or there being other possible beneficial uses of the material (e.g. land reclamation, beach nourishment, etc.); . the characteristics and composition of the material to be dumped; . the characteristics of the dumping site and method of disposal; . potential interference with other legitimate uses of the area including fisheries, aquaculture, areas of special scientific importance, areas of wildlife importance, recreation, navigation and shipping both from the dumping and dredging aspects of the proposed project;

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-16 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

. proper certification of the disposal vessel and crew; and . potential impact on the marine ecosystem.

An application for a Dumping at Sea Permit accompanied by a separate Impact Hypothesis will be lodged with DCENR.

1.11 SCOPE AND FORMAT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1.11.1 Scope of the EIS Prior to work commencing on an Environmental Impact Statement, it is important that the scope is effectively defined. The scoping exercise will confirm the nature of the development, the breadth of the environmental assessment, the range of key issues and the extent to which each environmental issue needs to be addressed.

A scoping exercise was carried out at the outset of the project to determine the issues that needed to be addressed. The scoping exercise involved the following main elements: . Preliminary consultation with the principal statutory consultees and key interested parties; . Preliminary site visits to assess the likely environmental impacts at first hand; . A desktop study where information about the site from a number of sources was examined. . A summary of the potential impacts identified during the scoping study is presented in Table 1.7.

Once the key issues were identified, baseline studies/surveys were carried out. The studies enabled the prediction of the likely environmental impacts arising from the proposed development. These impacts were then evaluated in terms of their significance, nature and magnitude.

A fundamental aim of the environmental assessment as part of the design process is to ensure that any potentially damaging effects are avoided or minimised and that the beneficial aspects of the project are enhanced. The most satisfactory means of impact mitigation is to avoid it at source, either through site selection or re-design. Reduction involves lessening the degree of an impact which cannot be entirely avoided. Reduction acknowledges that some degree of adverse impact will arise, but provides the means by which the conditions can be improved or compensated for.

Although the scoping exercise was carried out at the beginning of the Environmental Impact Assessment, the scoping continued throughout the project and in particular during the main consultation phase of the study, as outlined in Chapter 2 of the EIS.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-17 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1.11.2 Format of the EIS The EPA has produced guidelines on the production of a statutory Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in line with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and these guidelines have been followed in the production of this EIS. The report has been structured in what the EPA term a “Grouped Format Structure”, which examines each topic as a separate section referring to the existing environment, the proposed development, impacts and mitigation measures.

The EIS is divided into four Parts as follows:

Part I provides the background information on the project, including the need for the project, the alternatives considered and the policy background.

Part II describes the project, from site development through to site operations.

Part III describes the existing environment, the predicted impact of the proposed development proposed and puts forward mitigation measures to lessen the degree of the impacts.

Part IV provides a summary of impacts and mitigation measures.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1-18 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3.1 Scoping Matrix

Environmental Potential Impacts Topic Construction Phase Operational Phase (Ref: EIA Degree of Description Degree of Description Regulations) Potential Potential Impact Impact Human Beings - General disturbance from construction activities e.g. + Provision of a modern new hardstanding area which will noise, dust, traffic etc. assist port operations.

+ Creation of employment through construction work and therefore increase in local spending in the area - to 0 General disturbance from operational activities e.g. noise and traffic Flora and Fauna - to 0 Loss and disturbance to habitats during construction - to + Potential for pollution from operational activities (including fisheries) activities Re-colonisation of new habitiats - Potential negative impact of construction activities on 0 -+ Potential to create new habitats for birds by providing birds and other mammals in terms of disturbance from nesting boxes in port area noise and physical interference. - to 0 Permanent loss of intertidal habitat within designated EU site, i.e. the SAC. Soils (and Geology) - to 0 Infilling of area of natural foreshore which will result in 0 No impact loss of this type of geological feature from area. Water (including - Potential for sediment plume during dredging and - to 0 Impact on coastal processes within the harbour. coastal processes) construction activities - to 0 Potential for negative impact on water quality from spillages.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 19 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Environmental Potential Impacts Topic Construction Phase Operational Phase (Ref: EIA Degree of Description Degree of Description Regulations) Potential Potential Impact Impact Air and Climate - to 0 Noise impact during construction phase. - to 0 Potential for noise impact from increase in traffic and - Potential for dust arising from construction activities. operation of the new port area. The Landscape - to 0 Negative visual impact of construction activities. - to 0 Extension of port like landscape into area which is partially natural in appearance.

Material Assets - Increase in HGV traffic during construction phase arising - to 0 Increase in traffic as a result of the new port facility. from importing and exporting of materials and workers from site.

Cultural Heritage - to 0 Potential to disturb cover previous un-recorded 0 No impact. (including archaeological artefacts during construction phase. Archaeology)

Key

0 No Impact - Negative Potential Impact + Positive Potential Impact

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 20 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 2.0: CONSULTANATS PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2.0 CONSULTATION PROCESS

2.1 INTRODUCTION

2.2 STATUTORY AND RELEVANT BODIES CONSULTATION

Letters, together with an information leaflet containing details on the proposed development at Shannon Foynes Port were sent out to all relevant statutory and non-statutory consultees, inviting them to identify any issues which their organisation may have with the proposed reclamation works. This initial consultation process was carried out as part of the Environmental Scoping Study which is conducted in order to identify the key environmental issues relevant to this particular development and the level of investigation that will be required to enable an assessment of the likely significant impacts and mitigation measures required to ensure that any potentially damaging effects are avoided or minimised. The scoping study was based on information gathered from a site visit, a desk top study, including relevant mapping and reports, and through preliminary consultations with key statutory and non-statutory consultees.

The statutory and non-statutory consultees who were contacted about the proposed development are listed below in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees Contacted During the Environmental Scoping Study Coastal Zone Administration Division, Royal National Lifeboat Institution Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Development Applications Section, Office of Public Works Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government Limerick County Council Birdwatch Ireland Marine Institute Irish Whale and Dolphin Group Central Fisheries Board Environmental Protection Agency Shannon Regional Fisheries Board Shannon Development Department of Enterprise, Trade and Commissioners of Irish Lights Employment Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2-1 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 2.0: CONSULTANATS PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The organisations which responded are listed in Table 2.2 below and their responses are provided in full in Appendix 1.

Table 2.2 Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees who Responded to Scoping Exercise

Development Applications Section, Department of Office of Public Works Environment, Heritage and Local Government Limerick County Council Birdwatch Ireland Commissioners of Irish Lights Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

Table 2.3 Summary of Written Responses from Consultees

Date Reply Format Consultee Date Sent Comments Reply    . CIL’s main concerns are the leading lights which guide vessels into the harbour. Existing front light is on the existing jetty. Any alteration to these lights even on temporary Commissioners of basis would require sanction 25.11.08 03.12.08 X Irish Lights from CIL. . CIL ask that consideration is given to existing vessel movements within the harbour and any impact on these during and after construction.

. Department acknowledge receipt of letter. . They have no information to offer that would facilitate the production of the EIS . They did suggest the following Department of areas should be considered as Agriculture, 25.11.08 23.12.08 X part of the overall assessment Fisheries and Food process; Impacts on water quality during the construction phase, risk of contamination of animal feedstuffs discharged/stored at the port, safety impacts (traffic) . Of particular concern to Bird Watch Ireland are the potential impacts on;

 Species listed on Annex 1 BirdWatch Ireland 25.11.08 03.02.09 X of the EU Birds Directive and migratory wetland bird species.  Red listed and amber listed bird species as

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2-2 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 2.0: CONSULTANATS PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Date Reply Format Consultee Date Sent Comments Reply    identified in “Birds of Conservation Concern”  Priority habitats for wild birds including uplands, wetlands, hedgerows, machair, coastal habitats, semi-natural woodlands and riparian habitats in addition to those habitats specified under Annex 1 of the EU Habitats Directive. OPW acknowledge receipt of letter.  Proposed development is not discharging directly in an OPW maintained channel and therefore they do not have a direct role.  Care should be taken to Office of Public ensure the finished floor level 25.11.08 20.01.09 X Works is sufficiently high to avoid any flood risk.  All existing surface water drainage in the vicinity of the proposed development should be maintained.  Historic flood events in the area should be reviewed through www.floodmaps.ie The Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government provided a detailed response with regards “architectural heritage” and how it should be assessed within the EIA.  The maritime archaeological impact assessment will be carried out in line with the specifications set out in the Department of the response from the Environment, archaeological section of Heritage and Local DoEHLG which is presented in Government 25.11.08 21.01.09 X Appendix 1 of this report. Development  The baseline assessment Applications Unit carried out for the maritime (Architectural archaeology will also cover the Heritage) terrestrial aspects of the project in terms of desktop study etc.  The site of any of the proposed onshore works will be walked over by an archaeologist to look for any previously unrecorded archaeological sites.  An impact assessment of the

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2-3 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 2.0: CONSULTANATS PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Date Reply Format Consultee Date Sent Comments Reply    proposed development on terrestrial archaeology will be carried out.  An impact assessment of the proposed development on architectural heritage will be carried out in line with the letter from DoEHLG presented in Appendix 1 of this report.  Development is located within the Lower Shannon SAC and therefore an Appropriate Assessment will need to be considered together with Limerick County serious consideration of Council alternatives. 25.11.08 17.02.09 X (Environment  Environmental Issues which will need to be addressed; type Section) and source of fill material, haul routes, dust control, emissions to the estuary during construction, traffic and noise generation during construction. Department of the  A development of this nature may require an Environmental Environment, Impact Statement. Heritage and Local  As per Article 6 (3) of the 25.11.08 11.02.09 Government Habitats Directive an Development Appropriate Assessment of the proposed development should Applications Unit also be undertaken. Marine Institute 25.11.08 No Response

Inland Fisheries 25.11.08 Ireland (Formerly No Response Central Fisheries Board) Inland Fisheries 25.11.08 Ireland (Formerly No Response Shannon Regional Fisheries Board Shannon 25.11.08 Development No Response

Department of 25.11.08 Enterprise, Trade No Response and Employment Environmental 25.11.08 Protection Agency No Response

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2-4 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 2.0: CONSULTANATS PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Date Reply Format Consultee Date Sent Comments Reply    Irish Whale and 25.11.08 Dolphin Group No Response

2.3 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The public consultation phase began early in the EIA process. The first major public consultation event was held on the 22nd of June 2010. The event involved closed one to one and open afternoon/evening sessions in Foynes Community Centre, located in the centre of Foynes village where information on the proposed development and the environmental studies being undertaken was presented on display boards.

The public consultation sessions were advertised in local newspapers, on local radio stations together with notices placed in local shops and general community areas. (Copies of notices are contained in Appendix 1)

One-to-one meetings were held on the morning of 22nd of June 2010 with: . Foynes Port Users Group (09:00-10:00) . Foynes Community Council (10:00-11:00) . Limerick County Council Planning and Environment Departments (11:30-12:30)

The one-to-one meetings enabled full attention to be given to the views of those stakeholders who would have a particular interest in or impact from the scheme.

. Public Information sessions were held on the afternoon and evening of 22nd of June 2010 from 14:00 – 16:00 and 18:30 – 20:30. This enabled members of the public from Foynes and its environs to view the design options and discuss the project with the design team.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2-5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 2.0: CONSULTANATS PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 2.1 Visitors to the Public Consultation Sessions Viewing the Display Material

2.3.1 Questionnaire The questionnaire (as presented in Appendix 1) was found to be a useful method of consultation as it offered people the opportunity to put their views in writing. A number of submissions were received from the general public as a result of the public information sessions and provision of the questionnaire. This showed the local interest in this proposed development and the eagerness of the general public to participate fully in the EIA process. Respondents consisted of Residents (21%), Commercial (21%) and Residents who also use the area for recreation (29%). 29% of attendees had “Other” connections to Foynes Port.

A summary of the Key Issues raised in the questionnaires returned is provided in Figure 2.2 below. A summary of the responses to the questionnaires submitted at the consultation sessions is also presented below. Full copies of all questionnaires received can be found in Appendix 1.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2-6 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 2.0: CONSULTANATS PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Key Issues Raised in Questionnaire

Existing issues with Other Flooding Quality of life for dust 2% 2% residents 2% Air Quality 2% 14% Traffic Coastal processes 19% 7%

Archaeology 7% Leisure/sailing

Marine Ecology 13%

7% Environmental Noise

Designations 9%

7% Visual Impact

Figure 2.2 Key Issues Raised in June 2010 Public Consultation Questionnaire

As can be seen in Figure 2.2 above, the four main issues of greatest concern were: . Traffic; . Air Quality; . Noise; and . Leisure/Sailing.

These and other impacts such as “Coastal processes/Marine Ecology”, “Visual Impact”, “Flooding”, “Archaeology” and “Environmental Designations” are key issues that had already been identified for inclusion in the EIS from the Environmental Scoping Study and other previous studies. “Existing issues with dust” rose frequently in conversation at the public consultation session appeared in the Questionnaire and was highlighted by the community forum during their one to one session. The traffic going through the village is a current issue where bulk may be spilled and loads may be uncovered which as a result has led to the build up of dust on cars and houses on a regular basis. The responsibility of the haulers lies with the Port Users and not the Port. The Port has instructed the Port Users in the past to direct the haulers through the exit to the east of the village. Through the public consultation process it was agreed the Port would facilitate a meeting between the community forum and the Port Users to discuss this issue further and come to a resolution.

Comments included in the “Other” portion of the pie chart in Figure 2.2 include the respondents who were in favour of the proposed development as well as issues with the sale

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2-7 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 2.0: CONSULTANATS PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

of lands owned by Foynes Port in the past. Some visitors to the consultation sessions also expressed interest in future job prospects as a result of the development together with concerns over Foynes Port potential future plan to develop the Port.

The questionnaire was seen to be very successful in gauging the main areas to focus on in the EIS and it enabled the design team to mitigate, where possible, against any negative impacts of the scheme.

For example: . Assessing historical flooding events in the area of Foynes and ensuring the mathematical modelling (Tidal flow and Sediment transport monitoring) would be undertaken before and after the construction work as part of the EIA process to demonstrate no change.

2.4 FURTHER PUBLIC CONSULTATION

A second round of public consultation letters were issued on the 30th of July 2010 outlining the EIA process and requesting comments from all relevant statutory and non-statutory consultees. Further details in relation to the reclamation works were provided to each consultee with a request for comments and/or suggestions in relation to issues which should be addressed in the EIA.

The statutory and non-statutory consultees who were contacted about the proposed development are listed below in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees Contacted During Second Round of Public Consultation

Coastal Zone Administration Division, Department Royal National Lifeboat Institution of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Development Applications Section, Department of Department of Enterprise, Trade and Environment, Heritage and Local Government Employment Limerick County Council Birdwatch Ireland Marine Institute Irish Whale and Dolphin Group Inland Fisheries Ireland (Head Office and Environmental Protection Agency Shannon Regional Office) Commissioners of Irish Lights Shannon Development Foreshore Applications Unit, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government

The organisations which responded are listed in Table 2.5 below and their responses are provided in full in Appendix 1

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2-8 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 2.0: CONSULTANATS PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 2.5 Reponses from Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees during Second Rounds of Public Consultation

Date Reply Format Consultee Date Sent Comments Reply    . CIL’s confirmed they have no Commissioners of further comment to make on 30.07.10 05.08.10 X Irish Lights the proposed development.

. The unit advised that our correspondence was forwarded to the Engineering Foreshore Unit of Division for their observations the Department of 06.08.10 X . Courtesy letter from the the Environment, 30.07.10 26.11.10 X foreshore unit indicating that Heritage and Local they have sent a reminder to Government the Engineering Division looking for their observations

Points of information noted ;

 Proposed development lies within and adjacent to Lower River Shannon cSAC and is adjacent to River Shannon and Fergus Estuaries Special Protection Area.  Under EC EIA regulations 1989 and amendments, Department of the developments of this nature Environment, may require an EIA. Heritage and Local  According to Article 6(3) of the Government 30.07.10 16.08.10 X Council Directive Development (92/43/EEC)(the Habitats Applications Unit Directive) any plan or project (Marine Research not directly connected with or Observations) necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications. The full list of details to be included can be seen in the written response in Appendix 1. Department of  Acknowledged receipt of letter Enterprise, Trade and advised it would be and Employment 30.07.10 10.08.10 X brought to the minister’s attention at the earliest opportunity. Limerick County No response however one to one Council consultation meeting was held 30.07.10 with Limerick County Council (Environment Environment Section on the 22nd Section) of June as outlined above to

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2-9 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 2.0: CONSULTANATS PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Date Reply Format Consultee Date Sent Comments Reply    discuss the implications of the works.

Environmental 30.07.10 No Response however a one to one meeting was held on the 27th Protection Agency of January 2011 between SFPC and the EPA's Environmental Licensing Programme to discuss requirements for the Dumping at Sea permit application. Irish Whale and 30.07.10 No Response however Dr. Simon Berrow of the IWDG is engaged in Dolphin Group marine survey work for SFPC in his capacity as project manager of

the Shannon Dolphin and Wildlife Foundation as such all issues in relation to cetaceans are being addressed by him. Birdwatch Ireland 30.07.10 No Response but lengthy, detailed response received at scoping stage. Marine Institute 30.07.10 No Response

Inland Fisheries 30.07.10 Initial correspondence was received from IFI Limerick which Ireland, Limerick was followed up by a one to one (Formerly Shannon consultation meeting. Issues Regional Fisheries raised were as follows; Board  Historically a weir operated near Durnish which would have indicated salmon use along the inner channel however this weir has been redundant for many years.  No detailed information exists in relation to commercial fishing within the area. Small scale potting may be 04.02.11 X undertaken up-stream and downstream of Foynes.  The existing pipes which run along the shoreline of the east jetty should be re-constructed to allow easier inspection.  The port should be cognisant to the risk of invasive species which can be transferred via bilge discharge and ballast water transfer. Possible Mitigation Measures  The use of silt curtains should be investigated during the dredging process.  Monitoring of turbidity and

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2-10 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 2.0: CONSULTANATS PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Date Reply Format Consultee Date Sent Comments Reply    sedimentation should be investigated during the dredging process.

Shannon 30.07.10 Development No Response

RNLI 30.07.10 No Response

2.5 PHASE TWO OF OPEN PUBLIC CONSULTATION DAYS

A second public consultation event took place on the 4th of April 2011. Again, as per the first consultation event held in June 2010 it involved closed one to one and open afternoon/evening sessions in Foynes Community Centre, located in the centre of Foynes village where information on the final design of the development together with the findings of the environmental studies and investigations which were undertaken over the past 12 months were presented on display boards.

The public consultation sessions were advertised in local newspapers, on local radio stations, read out at church together with notices placed in local shops and general community areas. (Copies of notices are contained in Appendix 1)

One-to-one meetings were held on the morning of 4th April 2011 with: . Foynes Port Users Group (09:00-10:00) . Foynes Community Council (10:00-11:00) . Limerick County Council Environment Department (11:30-12:30)

The one-to-one meetings enabled full attention to be given to the views of those stakeholders who would have a particular interest in or impact from the scheme. The planning department of Limerick County Council was also invited for a one to one meeting however; it was felt that sufficient discussion had already taken place through meetings with the forward planning section of Limerick County Council. As such, a pre-planning meeting was arranged instead. The Divisional Ecologist from NPWS was also invited for a one to one meeting however he was not available on this date. As an alternative the Port met separately with NPWS on the 14th of April to discuss the project.

. Public Information sessions were held on the afternoon and evening of the 4th of April 2011 from 14:00 – 16:00 and 18:30 – 20:30. This enabled members of the public from

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2-11 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 2.0: CONSULTANATS PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Foynes and its environs to view the design options and discuss the project with the design team.

No additional concerns to those raised in the June 2010 were brought up at the consultations in April 2011. The main concerns from the Port Users group was in relation to disruption to operations during construction and how this would be minimised together with questions relating to the actual type, method and form of construction which would be undertaken.

Overall the results of the public consultation indicated that the public together with the main interest groups did not have any serious concerns with the project.

2.6 MEDIA COVERAGE OF PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

Coverage of the public consultation day was picked up by both the Irish Examiner and the Irish Independent on June 24th 2010. Both articles spoke positively in relation to the proposals to reclaim the area inside the east jetty and highlighted the importance of expanding the port in order to “pave the way for green energy expansion” in the west of Ireland. Business and finance magazine also carried an article on the proposed expansion again outlining the positives from such a project. Limerick’s Live 95Fm interviewed SFPC CEO Pat Keating on the 4th of April 2011 in relation to the second round of public consultations.

2.7 RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION PROCESS

Many of the issues which arose during the first round of public consultations were addressed prior to the second round of consultations in April 2011. The main issues which arose during the one to one meetings, questionnaire responses and also through the consultation letters were dealt with as follows;

2.7.1 Dust and the Movement of Lorries Through the Village of Foynes This issue was brought up on a number of occasions throughout the consultation process in particular from local interest groups. Subsequent to the public consultations SFPC held discussions with the port users and hauliers. A warning letter was then issued to all port users/customers and hauliers outlining the appropriate use of the Eastern and Western gateways at Foynes Port. A copy of this letter can be found in Appendix 1. The situation at the port has improved since this action was under taken and will continue to be monitored. Standard operating procedures have been in place for a number of years in order to deal with dust cargoes a copy of this procedure can be found in Appendix 1. At present SFPC does not have an Environmental Management Plan in place. However, on foot of the public consultation meeting in 2010 SFPC have now included as a strategic objective to develop an

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2-12 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 2.0: CONSULTANATS PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Environmental Management System (EMS) in line with ECOports. This process has commenced and it is planned to have the new EMS in place in last quarter of 2011.

2.7.2 Speed Ramps and Transit Through Village Questions arose as to whether ramps could be lowered on the new road (eastern entrance) to the port. In relation to this SFPC will consider lowering the height of the speed ramps to try and encourage use of the eastern entrance thereby removing traffic from the village. SFPC will consider these works as and when the internal port roads are resurfaced in 2012 and 2013 as part of our road drainage upgrade.

2.7.3 Quarterly Meetings Between PortUusers, SFPC and Foynes Community Forum Quarterly meetings were established and commenced on the 13th of September and 15th of December 2010. The last meeting was held in March 2011.

2.7.4 Planting of Trees in the Vicinity of the Port The first schedule of tree planting took place in April 2011 with the planting of approximately 500 Leylandii everygreen conifer trees within the Port.

Figure 2.2 Planting Along Western Entrance to Port Boundary

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2-13 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 2.0: CONSULTANATS PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 2.3 Planting Along Eastern Entrance at the Side of Port

Figure 2.4 Planting Along Western Entrance to Port

2.7.5 Construction Traffic Through Village Under the construction contract restrictions will be imposed on haulers not to travel through the village outlining that they can be struck off if caught doing so.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2-14 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 2.0: CONSULTANATS PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2.7.6 Flooding Members of the community forum highlighted the issue of flooding in the vicinity of Foynes and in particular the flood events from 2002 and 2005. While these flood events resulted due to the combination of exceedingly high tides and unprecedented rainfall in the days prior to the events SFPC will undertake mathematical modelling to include tidal flow and sediment transport modelling before and after construction as part of the EIA process in order to demonstrate that no change will occur as a result of the reclamation works. The OPW have also been consulted in relation to the proposed works and provided a response as outlined in Table 2.3 above.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2-15 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 3.0: SITE DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 SITE LOCATION

The proposed reclamation area inside the East Jetty is located at Foynes Port, Co. Limerick centrally located within the Shannon Estuary (Figure 3.1) which is the largest estuary in Ireland.

The site and Foynes Port itself is located circa 38km west of Limerick city on the N69 Limerick / Tralee road. Foynes is fast becoming a commuter town of Limerick city and is connected to the city of Limerick by a national road, the N69 via Askeaton.

Figure 3.1 Foynes Port in the Context of the Shannon Estuary

The proposed area to be reclaimed is an area of foreshore located behind the existing east jetty. This is an isolated jetty structure (The East Jetty) which has limited access to adequate handling and storage areas and as such all imports need to be transported to remote storage facilities. The reclamation works will be undertaken to the level of the existing structure at Foynes.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 3-1 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 3.0: SITE DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The proposed port development will therefore help to facilitate more flexible and efficient operations, improve operator safety and remove the bottle neck which is created on the viaduct during loading and off-loading. The reclaimed area will be surfaced and used for normal harbour operations and storage. Some dredging will be required prior to infilling the reclaimed area. The material used to infill the reclamation area will be imported. Material may be sourced from local quarries but may also be imported by sea from sources further afield. The area to be infilled is outlined in red on the Admiralty chart in Figure 3.2.

Reproduced from Admiralty Chart 2424 and Chart 1777 © UKHO. Not for navigational use

Figure 3.2 Existing East Jetty Pier Arrangement Outlined in Red Oval

3.2 SITE CONTEXT AND LAND USE

The proposed foreshore reclamation at the existing east jetty (Figure 3.3) will require the reclamation of circa 2.4 ha of foreshore (outlined in red on Figure 3.2 and 3.3). At present this area is covered by sea at High Water (Plate 3.1). The site comprises mainly inter-tidal mud which can be seen at low water (Plate 3.2) with some hard substrates such as concrete beams and rock mainly at the western portion of east jetty (West End).

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 3-2 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 3.0: SITE DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

West Jetty

East Jetty Proposed area to be

reclaimed

Existing viaduct

Proposed

area to be reclaimed

Figure 3.3 Aerial Photograph showing Current Site Layout and Proposed

Plate 3.1 East Jetty at High Water Plate 3.2 East Jetty at Low Water

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 3-3 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 3.0: SITE DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The landward side of the proposed development area abuts the internal port road beyond which is an area comprising existing port facilities including bulk storage, oil, coal and warehousing facilities. The total land area owned by the port is c. 45.8 ha. An oil delivery jetty with associated mooring dolphins lies to the east of the main jetty as shown in Plate 3.3. Aughinish Alumina lies to the east of Foynes Port with a dedicated terminal for the import of bauxite and export of alumina (Plate 3.4 & 3.5)

Plate 3.3 Oil Dolphins to the east of the East Jetty

Plate 3.4 & 3.5 Aughinish alumina adjacent to Foynes Port

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 3-4 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 3.0: SITE DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 3.4 Overview of Foynes Port Adjacent to Foynes Village

Foynes Port backs onto the residential village of Foynes (Population 606, Census 2006) which is separated from the port related lands by the old railway line. The railway line has been in existence since 1858 and ran as a passenger line from Limerick City terminating at Foynes. The line was closed to passengers in 1963 and used by Iarnród Eireann as a freight line until 2000, when it was closed and has not been used since then.

The village lies at the base of Ballynagragga North on the southern shore of the Shannon Estuary. During the 1930s and early 1940s, Foynes Port was the fulcrum point for air traffic between the United States and Europe. The terminal building at Foynes Airport 1939–1945 was formally the Monteagle Arms Hotel. It presently houses the Flying Boat Museum and was the headquarters for the Foynes Port Company. http://www.flyingboatmuseum.com/foynes.html

3.3 GEOLOGY

This section of the EIS describes the natural characteristics of the site in terms of geology and the hydrogeology of the area. While adhering generally to the guidelines for EIS preparation published by the EPA (EPA 2002), this section also followed the guidance document “geology in environmental impact statements” prepared by the Institute of Geologists of Ireland (IGI 2002).

The geological regime has been established by a review of geological mapping records and walkover surveys of the site, supported by results of ground investigations. The potential

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 3-5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 3.0: SITE DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

impacts during the construction phase and during the operational phase were considered and an assessment is made of the likely impact of the proposed scheme on these natural resources and, where necessary, mitigating measures are put forward to reduce the impact of the proposed development.

3.3.1 Sources of Information and Methodology The desk study has included the examination of geological maps, and information derived from a number of different sources, including: . Published geological and soils maps obtained from the Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI); . Published material providing information on the site area geology; . Project-specific site investigations carried out in 2009 by Priority Drilling, PDL, for the purpose of obtaining sufficient geotechnical information for the preliminary design of the proposed East Jetty development. The survey comprised nine cable percussion boreholes extending by rotary coring into the underlying bedrock.

This information was compiled into a desk-based conceptual geological model for the site to help determine the present geological description. The desk-study considered the geology on both a regional and local scale as the geological processes that created the geological characteristics of the area operated at a large scale, well beyond that of the actual site at Foynes Port. For the purpose of the EIS, the geology has been divided into ‘solid’ (or bedrock) and ‘superficial deposits’ (which includes glacial and post-glacial soil materials). The information contained within this section is based, primarily, on a detailed desk study of the Foynes area.

3.4 SOLID GEOLOGY

3.4.1 Regional Geology The Geological Survey of Ireland, 1:100,000 mapping indicates the geology of the area is characterised by the Clare Shale Formation (CS), which is described as mudstone, which is cherty at the base, and the Parsonage and Corgrig Lodge Formations (PA), which are described as fine laminated and muddy Limestone and Shale.

The mudstone bedrock as part of the Clare Shale Formation was encountered and is thought to represent inter-beds present within the fault bound sedimentary basis that is called the Shannon Trough, which exhibited persistent subsidence during early Namurian times. These mudstone beds represent the produce of intervening periods of quiet water pelagic deposition during the geological process. The mudstone because of its lower erosion-resistance (compared to the adjacent sandstone) does not outcrop in the area. . An outline of the regional geology around Foynes is illustrated in Figure 3.5.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 3-6 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 3.0: SITE DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 3.5 Simplified Geology Map of Foynes Region

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 3-7 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 3.0: SITE DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.4.2 Local Geology The proposed development area around the jetty lies above two different bedrock formations.

The most recent published geological map identifies the bedrock occurring beneath the site as being of Upper Carboniferous Namurian Mustones and Shales, and Dinantian limestones. In addition, bedrock exposed in the cliffs along the coast road west of Foynes village (behind the Foynes Port Offices) were observed to comprise medium and thick-bedded Namurian sandstones. Boreholes drilled on the jetty indicate that the bedrock under the West end of the Jetty is composed of mudstones and the East end of the jetty includes an area of Dinantian limestones, dark muddy limestones and shaly mudstones (impure limestones). The limestone rocks have undergone broad folding and faulting. An outline of the local geology around Foynes is illustrated in Figure 3.6.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 3-8 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 3.0: SITE DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 3.6 Simplified Geology Map of Foynes Port Area

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 3-9 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 3.0: SITE DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Within the site, the bedrock is overlain to varying thicknesses by marine silt and boulder clay. As a significant proportion of the Port is built on reclaimed land, there is no outcropping bedrock around the site. In this area the bedrock is generally present at a relatively deep depth due to the presence of layers of silt, mud, sand and gravel associated with the alluvium build up in the estuary.

3.5 EVAULATION OF IMPACTS

Geological impacts, as evaluated, can comprise either the impact of construction on the geological environment, or the impact of the geological environment on the construction.

3.5.1 Ground Stability Stratigraphically, the rocks occurring in Foynes belong to the Clare Shale Formation and the Parsonage & Corgrig Lodge Formation. There are no limestones occurring within the Namurian succession at the location of the jetty that could provide a basis for karstification or karst-induced instability. All of the rock types occurring along the route are essentially inert. The jetty is located in an area which is seismically very stable so the risk of earthquakes causing ground instability is very low and there is no record of underground mining that could cause instability.

3.5.2 Topography and Landform Features The area of the estuary selected for infill, is part of the Shannon Estuary and therefore, construction and reinstatement will be straightforward and there will be no environmental impacts to topography or landform.

3.5.3 Superficial Deposits (Drift) As the jetty is located within the Shannon Estuary, the relevant superficial deposits occurring in the area are alluvium, fine sands and silts. It is appropriate to consider environmental impacts associated with these in terms of excavatability, trench stability, and reinstatement. The fluvial environment also means that consideration needs to be given to the potential for downstream suspension transport of fine-grained soils exposed during excavation. Loose water-logged fine sands and silts, in particular, can develop a running condition, whereby the material flows with the water that is seeping out. So-called ‘running sands’ may require dewatering prior to construction. Since pockets and lenses of fine sand can occur in boulder clay as well as in sands and gravels, it is often very difficult to anticipate where running sand conditions might occur.

However, the method statement of works include: . 321m earth retaining structure; . dredging of the underlying soft sediments immediately behind the proposed retaining wall structure;

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 3-10 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 3.0: SITE DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

approx 2.52ha of reclamation and associated revetments using imported materials to provide a general port working area, and; associated surfacing, services and drainage of the reclamation area.

Therefore, alluvium as a geological material, where it occurs is not anticipated to pose a significant environmental impact during construction as there will be an earth retaining structure put in place followed by removal of only soft sediments such a silt. Superficial deposits, where they may occur, beneath the soft sediment will be undisturbed.

3.6 SOILS

The overburden soils in the Foynes area comprise stony clays with a high proportion of limestone rock fragments such as shallow and deep well drained mineral soils. There is also a significant area of “made ground” associated with Foynes village and Port and to the east of Foynes village there is an area of soil derived from marine/estuarine sediment.

Overburden deposits at Foynes Port Jetty include made ground (made) and marine/ esturine silts and clays (Mesc), as indicated by subsoil mapping (Teagasc) in Figure 3.7.

Figure 3.7 Soils Map of Foynes Area

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 3-11 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 3.0: SITE DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

As the current jetty is an open piled suspended structure and the proposed infill area is estuarine, the proposed works will not have a significant impact on soils in the area.

3.7 HYDROGEOLOGY

Groundwater is water found below the surface of the earth, often occurring in natural reservoirs in permeable rock layers. Bedrock formations or sand and gravel deposits which yield significant quantities of water are called aquifers. The type of rock affects the volume and chemistry of the water. The dominant shales and limestone rock types around Foynes are classified as aquifers but vary significantly in productivity. Figure 3.8 shows aquifer classification in and around Foynes.

Figure 3.8 Aquifer Classification of Foynes Area

The mudstone bedrock comprising the Clare Shale Formation that underlies most of Foynes Port area is classified as a poor aquifer and the limestone bedrock to the east of the jetty comprising the parsonage limestone formation is classified only as locally important aquifer. This means that where groundwater is present it will be present in low volumes with slow recharge if removed. Therefore it is not expected that significant quantities of groundwater will be encountered within the depth required for socketing of jetty piles. The groundwater table

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 3-12 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 3.0: SITE DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

was encountered during borehole drilling at the site during sit investigation works, at a level of 3.0m bgl rising to a depth of 2.2m bgl.

3.7.1 Potential Impacts to Groundwater A number of activities can have an impact on groundwater resources including: . Excessive pumping e.g. from wells for water supply . Saline intrusion (risk of over-abstraction in coastal areas pulling sea water into the groundwater body . Pollution from nutrients, e.g. nitrates and phosphates . Pollution from chemicals

The proposed development is not anticipated to have an impact to the groundwater as it will not involve any abstraction of water and all surface runoff will be collected and discharged to the estuary waters via suitable interceptors. . Clean imported fill material will be used in the reclamation area therefore aquifer protection zones do not need to be specified. Day to day operation of the Port will not involve the use of chemicals; however contingency measures are in place in the unlikely event of any oil spills as is best practice in all harbour developments.

3.8 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

The development will not impact on the bedrock, soils or hydrogeology which occur in the Foynes area. This is because the development will not make contact with any area of rock outcrop, soils or groundwater. In addition, the development will not involve the removal or depletion of any bedrock resources underground. In general, the bedrock is expected to impact favorably on the development. This is because in the area of the jetty, the bedrock will contribute to a competent foundation for construction of jetty piles which can be socketed directly into the rock.

The results of the assessment indicate that there is no requirements for mitigation measures above and beyond what is already stated in the method statement for the proposed construction works, in relation to soils, geology and hydrogeology.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 3-13 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 4.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter of the Environmental Impact Statement describes the main components of the proposed reclamation works at Foynes Port, Co Limerick. Consideration is also given to construction activities associated with the works and operation and maintenance of the completed facilities.

The proposed development is located between the rear of the existing Port East Jetty and the adjacent shoreline at Foynes Harbour. The existing jetty structure is retained, however the existing access structure from the jetty to the shoreline will be demolished during the reclamation works.

4.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WORKS

The proposed reclamation works comprise the following main construction elements, full details of which are included on the planning application drawings: . 361m earth retaining structure . Dredging of the underlying soft sediments immediately behind the proposed retaining wall structure . Approx 2.5ha of reclamation and associated revetments using imported materials to provide a general port working area . Associated surfacing, services and drainage of the reclamation area

The proposed general arrangement is shown in Figure 4.1. This proposed arrangement is based on all works being implemented in a single phase. Implementation may also be phased, as is illustrated in Figure 4.2, whereby the reclamation area may be split into two separate areas and filled at separate times.

It is the intention that planning approval be sought for both the single and phased construction options, with an envelope of impacts being considered in the EIS. In each case the final total footprint of the proposed reclamation works is identical.

The proposed works do not include for the construction of any buildings or other structures on the proposed reclamation area. Should any such infrastructure be considered in the future then these will be the subject of a separate planning application.

The existing jetty structure will be retained during the works and will continue to be used for berthing, unloading and loading of mooring vessels.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 4-1 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 4.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4.1 Proposed General Arrangements

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 4-2 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 4.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4.2 Phased Implementation of Works

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 4-3 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 4.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4.2.1 General Construction Sequence The general sequence of the construction works will be as set out below;

1. Install retaining wall structure working from the existing jetty deck

2. Removal of bed material behind the retaining wall by dredging

3. Filling behind retaining wall with imported rock fill to specified intermediate level

4. Installation of anchor wall and tie rods

5. Completion of reclamation using imported rock fill to final level

6. Structural connection between new retaining wall and existing jetty structure

7. Surfacing and services

4.2.2 Retaining Structure The proposed retaining structures will be constructed along the rear face of the existing jetty structure with return walls at each end. The retaining structure will comprise a main vertical retaining wall which will be tied back to an anchor wall which will be installed within the reclaimed area.

The main wall will be a solid structure and given ground conditions this is anticipated to comprise a combi-wall type form of construction, although the final choice of the form of individual structural elements will be subject to detailed design.

A combi-wall comprises tubular steel piles installed at intervals with traditional steel sheet piles filling the space between. The tubular piles will be drilled and driven or grouted into the bedrock. The sheet piles will be installed by driving with the connection to the tubular piles being effected by providing a clutch welded to the side of the pile. The quay wall will be tied to a sheet piled anchor wall installed in an imported rockfill core.

A typical combi-wall form of construction is illustrated in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3 Typical Combi-Wall Form of Construction

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 4-4 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 4.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

It is anticipated that piling operations will be able to take place from deck level on the existing jetty, however a floating pontoon may be used for the installation of the return walls at either end of the proposed reclamation area.

The steel retaining wall will be provided with a reinforced concrete capping beam which will also be tied to the existing jetty structure.

The anchor wall will comprise traditional sheet piles which will be installed in the existing bed material behind the jetty. A bund will be required to be constructed on the existing foreshore to facilitate placement of the anchor wall and associated tie rods.

4.2.3 Dredging Dredging at the site will be carried out to depths down to -19.3m Ordnance Datum Poolbeg to allow soft sediments to be replaced with rockfill in order to improve the structural performance of the proposed retaining wall.

Consideration was also given to a alternatives to dredging including ground improvement, in order to try to avoid the need to dispose of dredged material at sea. However these were deemed not to be practical in this particular case.

Bed conditions comprise uncompacted clays and silts overlying sands and gravels, which then overlies limestone, depending on location. Dredging will be required in these uncompacted clays and silts, and it is not anticipated that rock dredging, i.e. dredging of limestone, will be required during the works.

The soft overlying silt material is unsuitable for use in the works and therefore this will be removed, most likely by the use of a submersible dredge pump, and disposed of at a suitable sea disposal site. A typical submersible dredge pump is illustrated in Figure 4.4. The quantity of material to be removed is approximately 150,000m³. The disposal of the dredged material will require application for a Dumping at Sea Permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (Ireland).

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 4-5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 4.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 4.4 Typical Submersible Dredge Pump

Dredging will take place along the rear of the existing jetty after the main retaining wall has been installed. Various types of dredging technique can be used to remove the overlying silts however restrictions with available access and reach of feasible dredging equipment mean that dredging will most likely be carried out from above the existing jetty structure using a submersible dredge pump, suspended from crane machinery operating from on top of the existing jetty.

Material arising from the dredging operations will be transferred via barges to the proposed disposal site.

4.2.4 Reclamation and Shore Protection After dredging the main working area will be reclaimed by the importation of aggregates, most likely from terrestrial quarry sources, although other sources may be available depending on the timing of construction.

The main bulk of filling will most likely be progressed from the land moving seawards, although localised deeper filling behind the retaining wall will likely be carried out from the existing jetty structure immediately after dredging. Geogrid and geotextile will be placed on the seabed prior to importation of aggregate. Band drains may be installed in the underlying sediments prior or during reclamation to accelerate consolidation.

Along the eastern and western edges of the reclaimed area rock armour revetment structures will be provided to retain imported rock fill materials. These will comprise a rock core with larger rock armour on the outer face.

Should the works be phased, then temporary rock armour revetment structures will also be required along the western edge of the Phase 1 reclamation works until such time as phase 2 is implemented.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 4-6 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 4.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4.2.5 Demolitions The existing jetty will be retained in use, however the existing jetty approach structure will be demolished and be replaced with the reclaimed area. The deck structure will be removed and piles will be cut down to an appropriate level where they will not have an impact on the surfacing and services above.

Any concrete arising from demolitions will be crushed and re-used on site, where appropriate.

4.2.6 Services and Security

Surfacing The reclaimed working area will be surfaced using a combination of bituminous surfacing or block paving for trafficked areas.

Foul and Storm Water Drainage Storm water runoff from the site will be collected in a dedicated storm water drainage system. The storm water drainage system will collect rainwater incident upon the site for discharge to the harbour waters via a series of full retention class 1 interceptors. A readily and safely accessible monitoring chamber will be provided on the storm water pipeline to allow for inspection and sampling of the storm water being discharged.

As this planning application does not include for the construction of any building structures, no foul sewerage infrastructure will be provided.

Mechanical and Electrical Services The proposed lighting for the general working areas will comprise 30 metre high, base hinged raising and lowering masts with multiple floodlight arrangements comprising 8 – 9 luminaire units and light cowls for light pollution control. Lighting has been designed to provide an average lighting level of 50 lux for storage and circulation areas. The lighting will be designed to prevent direct glare into surrounding properties and illumination of the night sky.

Power supply will be by connection to the local electricity grid system.

Water supply will be by connection to the local mains system within the existing port area.

Fencing and Security The site is wholly contained within the existing port operational (ISPS) area and as such no additional security fencing will be required.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 4-7 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 4.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Safety Equipment Fire hydrants will be provided at regular intervals in all working and storage areas.

4.3 PORT OPERATIONS

4.3.1 Use of the Reclaimed Area Port operations on the existing jetty will not change as a result of the proposed works and will generally comprise the loading and unloading of vessels using Harbour Mobile Cranes.

The proposed reclaimed area will be used primarily for the handling and storage of general cargo and for providing more flexible access to the berths. Materials handled will vary depending on trade requirements but the following is anticipated; . construction materials including timber, steel sections reinforcement etc . project cargoes such as wind turbine components, steel pipes etc . containers with stacking approx 3 high

Loose bulk materials will not be stored in the open but will be transported from the jetty area in covered trucks as is the current practice.

Currently hours of operations on the East jetty are generally restricted to 06:00 to 24:00, although working outside of these hours may occasionally be necessary for operational or safety reasons. It is intended that hours of operation on the proposed reclaimed harbour working area will be similar.

4.3.2 Port Equipment Handling operations on the existing jetty will continue as is the current practice with vessels generally being loaded or unloaded by the use of the Port’s existing harbour mobile cranes.

Handling operations in the new reclaimed port working area will be dependant on the type of cargo which is to be accommodated at any given time. However the equipment will likely comprise some or all of those described in the following sections on an as required basis. The details and dimensions of particular types of equipment will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer and final dimensions will only be determined when the supplier of the equipment has been identified. Dimensions considered in preparation of this EIS are based on typical dimensions of equipment currently available in the marketplace. Some variation may occur in the final items of equipment provided.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 4-8 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 4.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Mobile Cranes It is likely that the reclaimed working area will not be provided with any fixed terminal equipment and that mobile equipment such as harbour mobile cranes will be used for handling cargoes. This type of crane is currently in use at the East and West Jetties at Foynes and typical cranes are illustrated in Plate 4.1.

Plate 4.1 Typical Harbour Mobile Crane

Other Handling Equipment Other types of port handling equipment such as front loaders, mast lift truck, or similar will be used as and when required. Plates showing these types of handling equipment are shown overleaf on Plates 4.2 and 4.3.

Plate 4.2 Typical Reach Stacker Plate 4.3 Typical Mast Lift Truck

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 4-9 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 4.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

4.3.3 Access Access to the reclamation area will primarily be via the existing entrance onto the jetty access structure, however several further points of access may be created off the internal port road depending on the level of activity taking place. No major upgrades are anticipated to the Foynes Port Access Road running adjacent to the proposed reclamation area.

4.4 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

4.4.1 Programme It is estimated that the proposed construction works will be undertaken during a construction period of approximately 16 months.

An area will be required for the establishment of the Contractor’s site compound. The site compound will be used for the Contractor’s site office accommodation and facilities and will include an area for temporary storage of construction materials.

A suitable area will be made available on existing port lands close to the site of the proposed works at the East Jetty.

Once the reclamation works have been commenced further areas will be available to the Contractor.

4.4.2 Site Access Existing port operations will continue as normal during the construction period.

Access to the site will be via the Foynes Port Access Road which can be accessed via two entrances to the port from the adjacent N69 trunk road. In general all construction related traffic will use the port entrance to the east of Foynes village in order to avoid traffic passing through the village.

Suitable traffic management and other systems will be put in place as required to minimise disruption to existing activities during the construction period. These will include; . Suitable restrictions on timing of deliveries to avoid peak traffic periods . Preparation of a detailed traffic management plan for the construction phase

4.4.3 Pollution Control The construction works will involve Civil and Marine Engineering works and Mechanical and Electrical works.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 4-10 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 4.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

All machinery used during the construction phase of the works will be required to be in good working order and free from oil and hydraulic fluid leakages. If machinery maintenance has to take place, it will be carried out at the allocated Contractor’s compound which will be located away from the adjacent harbour waters. Fuel for machinery will be required to be stored in a secure and bunded area.

Certain elements of the works may be constructed using reinforced in-situ concrete. No losses of concrete (cement) to the harbour waters will be permitted during this phase of the works.

As the return walls will be installed before the dredging works, the spread of soils outside of the footprint of the proposed reclamation area during dredging, will be to a large extent contained thereby minimising the amount of suspended solids loading within the water column.

4.4.4 Site Safety Safety will be of prime importance during the construction works. The works will be subject to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations, 2006. All aspects of design construction will be reviewed with regard to health and safety and a risk assessment will be carried out. A project supervisor (design phase) will be appointed to produce a pre-tender Health and Safety Plan for the project. The principal contractor will be responsible for the control and co-ordination of health and safety during the works and will be appointed as the project supervisor (construction stage).

4.4.5 Waste Disposal Contractors working on site during the works will be responsible for the collection, control and disposal of all wastes generated by the works. An indication of the types of waste likely to be generated by the works and the most appropriate method of disposal are presented in Table 4.1.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 4-11 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 4.0: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4.1 Typical Wastes Generated by the Construction Works

Activity Waste Generated Disposal/Treatment Recommendations General Construction Waste Waste oils Collected by waste recycling contractor.

Other waste Collected in skips for disposal by licensed waste contractor. General Office/Messing Paper, packaging, Collected in covered skips/large bins for canteen etc. disposal by a licensed waste contractor.

Temporary Site Toilets Sewage Emptied under contract for disposal at an appropriate facility.

4.5 OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES

4.5.1 Maintenance When construction work has been completed, the retaining structures and revetments will require little by way of maintenance.

4.5.2 Pollution Control Surface water from the new working area will be collected by a system of drainage channels and gullies. The surface water will be discharged to sea via full retention class 1 interceptors to ensure that no pollution is released into the harbour or surrounding waters.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 4-12 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 5.0: CETACEANS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.0 CETACEANS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the findings of the Cetacean survey. The Shannon Dolphin and Wildlife Foundation (SDWF) carried out inter-tidal and sub-tidal flora and fauna surveys, marine and terrestrial mammal surveys and explored the commercial and recreational fisheries at the site. The site is part of the Lower River Shannon candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) (Site code 01265) which is designated for six species (including otter, bottlenose dolphin, salmon and three species of lamprey) and fourteen habitats (including mudflats and sandflats and shingle beach), including one priority habitat (lagoon). The Shannon and Fergus Special Protection Area (Site Code 4077) is adjacent to the site but the site is not within its boundary.

The results of these investigations are presented in Chapter 5 – Cetaceans and Chapter 6 - Terrestrial Mammals, Inter-tidal and Sub-Tidal Flora and Fauna.

5.2 MARINE MAMMAL SURVEY

The main marine mammal of interest is the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), which is resident in the Shannon Estuary. The Lower River Shannon is a candidate Special Area of Conservation for this species and thus any activity which may disturb the dolphins or degrade their habitat must be fully assessed. In order to provide high quality data on the presence of bottlenose dolphins in the vicinity of Foynes, Static Acoustic Monitoring (SAM) was used to monitor the site acoustically.

Static acoustic monitoring (SAM) can be achieved with the use of devices called C-PODs. C- PODs are self contained click detectors which log the echolocation clicks of porpoises and dolphins. Once deployed at sea, the C-POD operates in a passive mode and is constantly listening for tonal clicks within a frequency range of 20kHz to 160kHz. When a tonal click is detected, the C-POD records the time of occurrence, centre frequency, intensity, duration, bandwidth and frequency of the click. Internally, the C-POD is equipped with a Secure Digital (SD) flash card, and all data are stored on this card. Dedicated software, CPOD.exe, provided by the manufacturer, is used to process the data from the SD card when connected to a PC via a card-reader. This allows for the extraction of data files under pre-determined parameters as set by the user. Additionally, the C-POD also records temperature over its deployment duration. It must be noted that the C-POD does not record actual sound files, only information about the tonal clicks it detects. SAM can be carried out independent of weather conditions once deployed and thus ensures high quality data is collected but only at a small spatial scale (typically around 800m radius for dolphins).

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 5-1 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 5.0: CETACEANS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

A detection range of up to 1250m for bottlenose dolphins was estimated in the Shannon Estuary by Philpott et al. (2007) using Version 3 T-PODs (the C-PODs predecessor), but the majority of detections occurred within 500m. T-POD detection distances of 200m for the harbour porpoise were estimated by Tougaard et al. (2006) and 300m to 500m by Villadsgaard et al. (2007). As C-PODs are only available since September 2008, there is no published material yet available on the detection range of these devices. Trials were carried out in 2009 in the Shannon Estuary to estimate a detection distance of C-PODs for dolphins. Preliminary results suggest a detection range of between 500 and 800m for bottlenose dolphins (O’Brien et al. in prep). Trials carried out in Cardigan Bay suggest a detection distance of over 500m for bottlenose dolphins (Peter Evans pers. comms). Further theoretical testing of C-PODs in control tanks has been carried out by Line Kyhn and colleagues at the National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark and they suggest C-PODs should have a detection distance of about 250m for harbour porpoises in the field, while field trials carried out by O’Brien et al. (in prep) reported similar detection distances.

Two individual C-POD units were deployed singularly at one location between 23 February and 25 October 2010. Calibration of equipment was essential in order to compare results between units. Chelonia Ltd, the manufacturers of C-PODs, calibrate all units in the lab under controlled conditions to a standard prior to dispatch but Chelonia highly recommend that further calibrations are carried out in the field if used in monitoring programmes (Nick Tregenza pers comms). Field calibrations aim to assess differences in sensitivity between units (O’Brien 2009), and also facilitate comparisons between datasets collected in different areas using multiple loggers (Dähne et al. 2006). This is especially important where projects employ several units aimed at comparing detections across a number of sites. If units of differing sensitivities are used, then these data do not truly reflect the activity at a site. For example, a low detection rate may be attributed to a less sensitive POD, with a lower detection threshold, which in turn leads to a lower detection range, while the opposite holds for a very sensitive unit. It is fundamental that differences between units are determined prior to their deployment as part of any project, to allow for the generation of correction factors which can be applied to the resulting data. Field trials are carried out in high density areas in order to determine the detection function (O’Brien et al. in prep). The field calibration of new units should be carried out in conjunction with a reference C-POD, where a single unit is used solely for calibrations and is deemed a reference. This allows for the incidence where new units are acquired over the course of a project to be calibrated with the reference.

The mooring line consisted of a single rope suspended from the quay wall, with a line running to a free hanging weight (20kg). At approximately mid-water a loop was etched in the line and the C-POD units were shackled secure. The units are positively buoyant, but salmon float are attached to them to ensure they stay upright even in heavy seas and strong currents.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 5-2 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 5.0: CETACEANS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 5.1 Mooring System Used to Deploy C-PODs of the Quay Wall at Foynes Port

C-POD.exe, the dedicated software V1.054 (latest version, May 2010) provided by the manufacturer was used to process all C-POD data files (cp.1files processed to output cp.3 files). Only dolphin click trains in the train filters “High” and “Mod” were used for analyses. These options included a combination of clicks classed as being of high probability cetacean origin and clicks classed of lower probability cetacean origin. Dolphin detections were extracted as detection positive minutes per day and per hour. Although some dolphin clicks could be detected in the porpoise channels, the setting of the click bandwidth used should have greatly reduced this incidence. The term DPM represents the number of minutes in a day or an hour that dolphins were acoustically detected.

5.3 RESULTS

A total of two calibration trials were carried out in the Shannon Estuary over the duration of this study. This was due to the acquisition of new equipment over the duration. Firstly, two units were calibrated in the Shannon Estuary prior to their deployment in February 2010. This calibration trial was carried out in June 2009 for 24 days. Results from this trial showed that the application of a correction factor was not necessary for these two units as their total Detection Positive Minutes per day (DPM) and mean DPM/hr-1 were so similar, showing there was little variation in sensitivities between units (Figure 5.2, Table 5.1). A second trial on C488 was carried out in March 2010, against C172. Again results were found to be very

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 5-3 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 5.0: CETACEANS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

similar and hence removed the necessity to apply a correction factor to the resulting data (Table 5.2).

Table 5.1 Results of Calibration Rrials for C-PODs C172 and C167

C-POD Total deployment Total DPM Mean No. of DPM/hr-1 Number days 167 24 548 0.95 172* 24 662 1.14 *reference unit

Table 5.2 Results of Calibration Trials for C-PODs C172 and C488

C-POD Total deployment Total DPM Mean No. of DPM/hr-1 Number days 488 28 117 0.17 172* 28 108 0.16 *(reference unit)

Figure 5.2 Calibration Results DPM per Day from Shannon Estuary Trials

A total of 176 days were monitored at Foynes Port Jetty for bottlenose dolphins during three periods of monitoring using two different CPODs. COD 167 was deployed from 23 February to 9 April (45 days), CPOD 488from 9 April to 3 June (55 days) and CPOD 167 again from 10 August to 25 October (76 days). The CPOD failed to log between 3 June to 10 August (67 days).

Over the monitoring period dolphins were detected on from 27 to 47% of days (mean = 34% of days). A total of 162 DPM were recorded with a mean on 0.87 DPM per day (Table 3). When recorded, there was only one encounter per day and the duration of encounters were short with only 6 (3.4%) greater than 4 minutes (Figure 5.3).

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 5-4 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 5.0: CETACEANS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 5.3 Summary of Results from Acoustic Monitoring Using CPODS

POD CF Deployment No. of % of days Detection Mean No. No. Monitoring with Positive DPM/day days detections Minutes (DPM)

167 N/A 1 45 29 42 0.94 488 N/A 2 55 27 31 0.55 167 N/A 3 76 47 89 1.17

NA - Not Applicable

Figure 5.3 Number of DPMs Per Day from February to October 2010 from Foynes Jetty

5.4 DIEL ACTIVITY

C-POD data files in the format of Detection Positive Minutes per hour (DPM/h-1) were divided into day and night-time using local times of sunrise and sunset times, obtained from the U.S. Naval Observatory (www.aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS). Results showed that of the 176 DPM recorded, 135 DPM (76%) were detected at night, with only 41 DPM (24%) of the detections during daylight hours, suggesting that dolphins are using this upriver site more frequently at night, maybe as there is less human activity and thus are rarely observed.

Bottlenose dolphins were frequently recorded acoustically in the vicinity of Foynes. Recent trials in the Shannon Estuary suggest a detection distance of around 800m for bottlenose dolphin so we should detect any dolphins entering the harbour or occurring at the harbour entrances. With this range, dolphins may have been in the area to the east or west of the harbour and would still have been detected.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 5-5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 5.0: CETACEANS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

5.5 SUMMARY

In summary, the site of the proposed land reclamation is of no significant ecological value. The site largely comprises inter-tidal mud and is greatly disturbed by human activity and ship berthing. While bottlenose dolphins were frequently detected acoustically in general bottlenose dolphins are very rarely recorded in Foynes harbour. With an estimated detection distance of around 800-1000m, dolphins may be detected in the approaches to the harbour in either the west or east channels without dolphins actually entering the harbour area. Loss of inter or sub-tidal habitat is not thought to have any effect on the dolphins. However as dolphins were recorded frequently during the survey period they should be taken into account during construction.

5.6 MITIGATION

In order to ensure no dolphins are affected by the proposed land reclamation a Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) should be used during activities which might disturb dolphins. This includes dredging and dumping of spoil or activities such as pile driving which may create sound pressure waves. Bottlenose dolphins have been shown to be capable of detecting noise from this activity up to 10-15km away (David, 2006). The buffer zone to be monitored should be agreed with NPWS but we recommend 500-1000m. This is in line with current NPWS guidance “Code of Practice for the Protection of Marine Mammals during Acoustic Seafloor Surveys in Irish Waters”. The surveys should be carried out by a suitably qualified Marine Mammal Observer and Marine Mammal Recording Forms should be returned to NPWS following the completion of works.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 5-6 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

6.0 TERRESTRAIL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA & FAUNA

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the findings of the Survey of Terrestrial Mammals, Inter-tidal and Sub- tidal Flora & Fauna. An initial site visit on 23 February 2010 suggested there is very little habitat at, or adjacent to, the site suitable for terrestrial mammals. Brown rat (Rattus norvegicus) probably occurs, but more importantly otters may utilize the site. Otters are on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive and the Lower River Shannon cSAC is designated for this species thus it is entitled to strict protection, including its habitat.

The survey work concentrated on determining the presence of otters (Lutra lutra) at the site. This was established by searching for the presence of spraints and/or other signs of otter activity, which is consistent with the methodology described in Bailey and Rochford (2006). An otter survey of the area was carried out on 26 April and 3 June 2010. No spraints were recorded and only two middens with remains of shore crabs (Figure 6.1) recorded on 26 April. These could have been created by otters but were more likely from gull predation. No middens were recorded on 3 June 2010

Figure 6.1 Crab Remains Located Above High Water at Study Site (Thought to be remains of gull predation rather than otter)

The area immediately adjacent to the proposed reclamation site was surveyed thoroughly on two occasions for the presence of otters. No presence was found. This does not mean that otters are entirely absent from the site but are not regularly using it, especially during the spring and summer. The site is not considered a potential habitat due to the high level of disturbance. Interestingly Bailey and Rochford (2006) also failed to record otters in the 10km square (R25) ion their survey of Ireland in 2004/05.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-1 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

6.2 INTER-TIDAL HABITATS

6.2.1 Fauna The site consists mainly of inter-tidal mud with some hard substrates such as concrete beams and rock mainly at the western portion of east jetty (West End). Four samples were taken at low water on 26 April 2010, along two transects from high to low water: one each in site A (East End) and B (West End). Samples were taken 25m apart in all samples in transect 1 and samples 1 and 2 in transect 2. Sample 3 was 50m further down the shore and no sample was taken at the site closest to the water as the mud was so soft as to be dangerous to walk on.

All mud was removed from a surface area of 300x300mm and to a depth of 300mm, which gives a total of 0.27m2. All samples were washed and sieved through a 1mm sieve and all marine invertebrates collected. They were divided into worms (all Nereis diversicolour) and mollusks (All Scobicularia plana) and weighed (wet weight, to within 0.1g). All bivalves were measured along their greatest length. The results are shown in Table 6.1.

Site A. West End Site B. East End Figure 6.2 Division of Jetty where transects were taken

Table 6.1 Wet Weight of Marine Invertebrates Along Two Transects at Foynes Port, Co Limerick Transect 1 (east) Transect 2 (west) Worms Bivalves Worms Bivalves Sample 1 19.2 9.4 (n=1) 2.3 5.3 (n=5) Sample 2 11.8 11.4 (n=16) 0.5 0.8 (n=1) Sample 3 4.2 3.2 (n=1) 0.3 0.2 (n=1) Sample 4 None None No No sample sample Mean 8.8 6.0 1.0 2.1

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-2 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

Densities of marine worms varied between sampling sites and transects. The density decreased towards the sea with highest biomass at the upper shore. This difference can be seen in Figure 5 where the tracks on the surface caused by invertebrate activity decreases further down the shore. This difference was consistent between sites, however the biomass at site B (West End) was considerable less than site A (East End). The relative biomass of worms in the total was even greater than suggested in Table 6.1 as the wet weight of bivalves includes the shell which is not digestible by predators.

Transect 1 Sample 1 Transect 1 Sample 2

Transect 1 Sample 3 Transect 1 Sample 4

Figure 6.3 Image of Each Sampling Site Along Transect 1. (Note Increased Surface Activity in Samples 1 and 2)

The ragworm Nereis diversicolor is abundant in the Shannon Estuary and one of the most abundant worms in inter-tidal and sub-tidal habitats. O’Sullivan (1983) recorded a maximum density of 800 m2 at Aughinish to the east of Foynes. They are a major prey for estuarine wader species throughout its range on the intertidal mudflats along the coast of Europe and

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-3 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

NW Africa. Most worms recorded at Foynes Port were small <30-40mm) although it is possible very large worms avoided being sampled.

The bivalve mollusc Scrobiularia plana or Peppery furrow shell is abundant in the Shannon Estuary (O’Sullivan 1983) and commonly found on sandy or muddy sea coasts and estuaries in northern Europe, the Mediterranean and West Africa and may be found at quite high densities. It is a filter feeder, with long siphons, burying itself up to 200mm deep in sand or mud.

The length frequency distribution of Scrobiularia from Foynes Port is shown in Figure 6.4. Most individuals were less than 20mm in length and there was a peak in size at 5-10mm. The maximum size recorded 42.4mm shell length. The larger the individual the deeper the shell will be in the mud. Thus the larger individuals are only accessible to birds with long beaks.

25 Transect 1

20 Transect 2 Sub-tidal 15 Numbers All present 10

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Length (mm)

Figure 6.4 Length Frequency Distribution of Scrobilcularia at Foynes

However most Scobicularia sampled were small (peak 5-10mm) and thus accessible to most waders foraging in the area.

6.2.2 Flora There was very little flora on the mud in either sections apart from a few clumps of Fucus vesiculosis attached to rocks and boulders (Figure 6.5). There was 100% cover on the concrete structures in the Western End and along the lower part of the revetments (Figure 6.5 & 6.7).

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-4 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

Figure 6.5 Clumps of Fucus vesiculosis Growing on Boulders in the Mud in Both Sections

Figure 6.6 Inter-Tidal Flora in Western and Eastern Ends Respectively

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

The flora was zoned with Pelvetia canuliculata occurring on the upper shore, Fucus spiralis (39% cover) and Fucus vesiculosis occurring in the mid-shore and Ascophyllum nodosum (10% cover) in mid to lower shore. This is typical of sheltered locations on the west coast of Ireland. Associated fauna was limited to small numbers of Gammaridae and Littorina rudis. Small Carcinus maenas were also found under the seaweed and on the mud. This site is typical of sheltered rocky shores in the Shannon Estuary and along the Irish coast.

Figure 6.7 This was a Combination of Fucus vesiculosis and Ascophyllum nodosum

6.2.3 Impact of Foraging Birds One of the biggest potential impacts of the proposed land reclamation could be on foraging waders and waterfowl. In order to asses this we have attempted to quantify the loss of potential prey to these birds. We have attempted to calculate the potential biomass of prey present at the site by extrapolating the biomass within the samples to the entire site. The area of the eastern portion of the site was estimated as 11,453 m2 and western section at 11,068m2. If we divide each section into four equal parts, corresponding with each sample along the transect. The total biomass of worms available in the top 300mm in the East End was 373 kg (wet weight) and West End 32kg making a total of 405 kg (Table 6.2). Equivalent wet weight of bivalves was 319 kg but most of this was shell.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-6 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

Table 6.2 Estimated Total Biomass of Invertebrates Available to Feeding Waders in Each Area

Area Transect 1 (east) Area (m2) Transect 2 (west) (m2) Worms Bivalves Worms Bivalves Area 1 2863 203 100 Area 1 2767 24 54 Area 2 2863 125 121 Area 2 2767 5 8 Area 3 2863 45 34 Area 3 2767 3 2 Area 4 2863 0 0 Area 4 2767 0 0

Total 373 255 32 64

Estimating prey accessibility to waders is an unsolved problem (Leyrer and Exo 2001). Zwarts and Wanink (1993) showed that the overall biomass of the macrobenthos in winter was half of that in summer, and the burying depth varies per species: Scrobicularia plana and Nereis diversicolor bury more deeply in the winter and the majority of these prey live out of reach of the bird's bill. Thus it is not easy to determine how much of the potential biomass is available to waders.

6.3 SUB-TIDAL HABITATS

Sub-tidal habitats were sampled with a van Veem grab deployed from the edge of the berthing jetty. Four samples were taken on 3 June 2010 from west to east. Each grab has a sample area of 0.1 m2 (360 x 280 mm) and its long lever arms and sharp cutting edges on the bottom of the scoops allow it to cut deep into softer bottoms. Each sample was treated the same as the sub-tidal mud samples and washed through a 1mm sieve and all marine invertebrates collected.

No fauna were recovered from three of the four grab samples. Two small (shell length 11.6 and 8.7mm) specimens of Scrobicularia plana but no worms were recovered in grab sample 1 which was at the eastern end of the jetty. This low recovery was thought to be representative as there was no surface activity visible in the samples. The highly disturbed nature of the sediment due to regular ship activity was though to mitigate against colonization by in-fauna at the site.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-7 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

6.3.1 Fisheries (Commercial and Recreational) In order to record the commercial and recreational fisheries in the area an internet search was carried out and consultation letters sent to Foynes Angling and Yacht Clubs and Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) Limerick) on the 4th July 2010 requesting any relevant information. To date no response has been received from Foynes Angling and Yacht Club. Following further communication with Inland Fisheries Ireland a one to one consultation meeting was held. IFI confirmed that commercial fishing activity is limited within Foynes Harbour with only occasional potting taking place at the approaches to Foynes Harbour. Historically a weir operated near Durnish which would have indicated salmon use along the inner channel however this weir has been redundant for many years. As discussed with IFI, modelling and monitoring of sedimentation together with the development of mitigation measures should be considered both within the EIS and during the dredging process. The impacts of sedimentation together with the modelling results are presented in Chapter 9 of the EIS.

An internet search suggested that shore angling is popular, where visitors are advised that you can fish the pier side of the marina fence where very deep water is accessible but during the evenings small boats are coming in and out until past dusk. Immediately below the car park is the main shipping channel which is some 60 feet deep. Catches in deep water include thornback ray (Raja clavata), conger (Conger conger), dogfish (Scyliorhinus canicula) and codling (Gadus morhua). The ray fishing is considered particularly good with fish to 4.5kg regularly taken. Local anglers frequently take flounder (Platichthys flesus) and whiting (Merlangius merlangus) off the main piers and some of the cod caught here have exceeded 3kg. The flooding tide is the most productive period and the majority of the larger conger, are taken during the hours of darkness.

In summary, there was no evidence of commercial fishing in the area but recreational fishing is promoted outside of the immediate Port area. The extent of this fishing is not known but it seems to concentrate on the deep water off the jetties and not the shallow inter or sub-tidal areas. Whereas some fish feeding areas will be removed following reclamation, direct access, by the public, to the shore at the site is restricted and discouraged as it is a working jetty, thus any impact on recreational fishing will not be significant.

6.4 SUMMARY

In summary, the site of the proposed land reclamation is of no significant ecological value. The site largely comprises inter-tidal mud and is greatly disturbed by human activity and ship berthing. The total area which SFPC are proposing to reclaim is approximately 2.5ha, however only 1.5ha of this is inter-tidal. While this will mean some loss of the Annex 1 Saltmarsh Habitat based on the results of our field assessments as outlined in this chapter it is apparent that the loss will have no significant impact on the overall integrity of the Lower Shannon SAC

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-8 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

or SPA. This is further compounded by the findings of our avian assessments which are detailed in Chapter 7 where extremely low bird numbers were recorded utilising the area. Furthermore the very low biomass and availability of prey items to the qualifying interest features of the SPA clearly indicate that this is a very poor example of this habitat due to the poor structure and function of it. The area behind the existing east jetty is a poor example of this important habitat due to the very low biomass of polychaete worms and bivalve molluscs recorded in the area during the field assessments. The typical polychaete worms which this habitat support include Tubificoides spp., Capitella spp., and Malacoceros spp.together with the molluscs Abra alba and Mytilus edulis together with algae and plants were not found to be present within the study area as can seen from the surveys results.

6.5 MITIGATION

Nonetheless appropriate mitigation measures under Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive will be undertaken by SFPC to offset any perceived loss of habitat and potential foraging areas for birds. A consultation process to identify the most appropriate steps and mitigation was undertaken in consultation with NPWS. Initial site visits within the Lower Shannon SAC and SPA were undertaken to identify potential areas for mitigation measures on the 26th of May 2011 with Stefan Jones (District Conservation Officer) and Liam Lenihan (Conservation Ranger) of NPWS. Following this field investigation more appropriate options were identified and discussed with NPWS. These included;

1. Identification of areas of inter-tidal mudflats which have become encroached and invaded by Spartinia anglica swards. 2. Identification of areas which have been subject to historical reclamation or in-filling which would previously have contained inter-tidal mudflats. 3. Habitat enhancement measures on Sturamus Island

Option 3 was subsequently dis-counted due to the already intact and pristine nature of the habitats on Sturamus Island. It was felt that no further steps could be taken there to enhance an area further to satisfy these requirements. Option 2 was also discounted due to issues with naturalisation, establishment of landowners and costs associated the removal of such infill together with associated negative environmental impacts from large scale removal if infill in an aquatic environment.

Option 3 has been progressed further with an assessment of its suitability for this project undertaken in association with the Appropriate Assessment.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-9 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

Identification of areas of inter-tidal mudflats which have become encroached and invaded by Spartinia anglica swards

Spartina anglica is considered to be an invasive alien species in Ireland (McCorry et al. 2003); even though Preston et al. (2002) classes it as a native endemic species in Britain. Stands of S. anglica have been considered of low intrinsic value to wildlife and as a threat to mudflats used as feeding grounds by wintering waders and wildfowl (Nairn 1986). Many NPWS conservation plans of SACs containing Spartina swards list the monitoring and control of S. anglica as one of the primary objectives to maintain the conservation status of other species and habitats of conservation importance. The spread of S. anglica is likely to have significantly reduced the area of the Annex I habitat Salicornia and other annuals on mud and sand (1310) in Ireland (McCorry 2007). Spartina swards have mainly developed in Ireland at the expense of intertidal mud and sandflats (also an Annex I habitat - 1140) (McCorry et al. 2003).

Irish Spartina swards are generally made up of S. anglica (McCorry et al. 2003). This is a non- native species in Ireland. Spartina was planted in the early 20th century at locations in Cork Harbour and Fergus Estuary, Co. Clare for the purposes of land reclamation. It was subsequently planted at other locations in Co. Dublin, Co. Donegal and Co Mayo. It has since spread naturally (or with the help of some further planting) to many other locations along the coast. It has mainly spread on unvegetated mudflats seaward of previously established saltmarsh, but has also spread on previously established Atlantic salt meadows, areas formerly vegetated by Salicornia flats (1310) and areas formerly vegetated by Zostera spp. (NPWS, 2007).

In order to mitigate against the loss of inter-tidal habitat and potential feeding area (c. 1.4ha) at the east jetty in Foynes Port it is proposed to enhance an area of inter-tidal habitat through the removal or control of Spartina anglica swards. Thus enhancing the area and mitigating against the small loss of habitat and bird foraging area within the SAC and proposed SPA. The overall outcome will mean no net loss to the SAC or pSPA of the Lower Shannon and Lower Shannon and Fergus Estuaries respectively.

Environmental Impact of Spartina

Some of the very traits that make Spartina valued are also the greatest causes for concern. In the introduced range, the greatest concern is the species’ ability to trap large amounts of sediment. The stout stems and leaves of Spartina slow tidal water, thus trapping sediment (mostly in the leaf axes). As portions of the plant age and fall off, the sediment is deposited at the base of the plant and then bound by the extensive rhizomes (Thompson 1991). Spartina sediment accretion rates are higher than those of other salt marsh vegetation and other Spartina species (Lee and Partridge 1983). As a result, Spartina causes tidelands to rise more

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-10 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

than they would if they were unvegetated or vegetated by other species (Thompson 1991). In Europe, sedimentation rates of 20 to 200 mm/yr. are reported (Ranwell, 1967; Lee & Partridge, 1983; Thompson, 1991), and as much as six feet of accreted sediment occurs under some British Spartina marshes (Ranwell, 1967; Gray et al., 1991).

A secondary impact of increased sediment accretion may be changes in water circulation patterns. Sediment accretion associated with Spartina infestations in England has been known to reduce tidal flow. In New Zealand, where Spartina was intentionally introduced, it has trapped so much sediment that the previously existing salt marshes behind the Spartina have become slight depressions (Hubbard, 1981). By this process, Spartina impedes drainage, resulting in flooding from trapped, backed up water (Partridge, 1987). Large, dense populations at or in river mouths may cause particular problems by decreasing flow and leading to increased flooding, especially during periods of heavy precipitation and/or above normal tides (Ebasco Environmental, 1993). Detrimental effects of Spartina infestations extend beyond increases in sedimentation. Doody (1990 cited in Gray et al., 1991) summarized the negative impacts of Spartina in Britain as follows: 1. Invades mudflats rich in invertebrates and used by overwintering shorebirds and waterfowl; 2. Replaces more diverse plant communities; 3. Produces dense, monotypic stands that alter succession and are replaced in ungrazed areas by equally species-poor communities.

In Britain, the spread of Spartina has been associated with the decline of some bird populations by as much as 50 percent in affected areas. Birds most affected were those that prefer to feed on open mud. Studies of the Dunlin (Calidris alpina) found that populations declined most in estuaries where Spartina had spread the most, while population numbers remained unchanged where Spartina populations were static. Control and removal of Spartina infestations resulted in the return of the Dunlin (Gray et al., 1991). The exact cause of these patterns has not been investigated thoroughly, but Spartina may remove feeding areas and reduce feeding time, resulting in increased emigration and mortality (Gray et al. 1991).

In conjunction with the Environmental Impact Statement an Appropriate Assessment of Natura 2000 sites has also been undertaken. Within the associated Natura Impact Statement details in relation to the proposed mitigation measures at Barrigone SAC & SPA which is adjacent to Foynes Port have been outlined. These measures will offset any perceived loss of inter-tidal habitat and potential feeding areas for birds through the enhancement and remediation of the site.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-11 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

Mitigation Measures - Environmental Management Plan Site Name Barrigone, Aughinish Site Access/ This site is located along the south side of the River Shannon Estuary, near the Location village of Barrigone. It is located approximately 25 kilometres north-west of Limerick City along the N69 road approximately 6km from Foynes. Designation SPA – the selected areas are totally within the current SPA Boundary: 4077 SAC - the selected areas are totally within the current cSAC Boundary: 2165 pNHA - the selected areas are totally within the current pNHA Boundary: 0435 Figure 6.8 & 6.9 SAC and SPA Boundaries in area proposed for mitigation measures

Figure 6.8

Figure 6.9

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-12 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

Site suitability Barrigone contains three Annex I Habitats currently listed as qualifying interests for the Lower Shannon cSAC.

H1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand H1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritime) H1410 Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritime)

The close proximity to the site where the loss of habitat will occur coupled with the suitability of the site in terms of similar habitat types (inter-tidal mudflats) makes this a suitable area to implement appropriate mitigation measures. The site was previously surveyed as part of the McCorry & Ryle 2009 saltmarsh survey for the research branch of NPWS. McCorry and Ryle found extensive areas of Spartina anglica swards both as pure swards and as a mosaic with three of the Annex I habitats. Background to Large tracts of the mudflats within this area have been colonised by Common identified Cordgrass (Spartina anglica) and the majority of this habitat occurs as pure sward. mitigation measures Since the publication of the 2nd edition 6 inch maps there is an indication of an overall increase in the area of saltmarsh vegetation at this site over the past century mainly as a result of the development of Spartina swards. (See Figure 6.9 for a habitat map indicating the areas covered by Spartina swards from MCorry & Ryle 2009) While Spartina is listed as an Annex 1 species it is considered to be a non-native invasive alien species in Ireland according to Invasive Species Ireland. http://invasivespeciesireland.com/most-unwanted- species/established/marine/smooth-cord-grass The Article 17 Conservation Status report states that as Spartina is considered to be an invasive alien species in Ireland and therefore it is assessed in a different way to other habitats. Increases in the area and extent of Spartina swards are actually considered to be unfavourable and as future expansion is considered likely, the overall conservation status of this habitat is rated as poor.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-13 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

Figure 6.10 Habitat Map Indicating the Areas Covered by Spartina Swards from MCorry & Ryle 2009 Within the SAC Boundary

Removal, Key features of Spartina Control or • Robust grass with shoots 0.4m - 1.3m. Containment of • Spread by both seed and vegetatively. Spartina • Yellowish green in Spring / summer. • Light brown in Autumn / winter.

Impacts • Produces dense monoswards slowing the movement of water and increasing the rate of silt deposition. • Raises the general level of the marsh. • Excludes native species. • Reduces the available food resources for wildfowl and wading birds. • Reduces the area of eel-grass beds and invertebrates.

Management information

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-14 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

Physical: Smothering with plastic sheeting, burying and repetitive burning have achieved kill rates of over 90%. They however, are more costly than herbicides and have practical problems e.g. sheeting may become dislodged by tidal currents. These methods are therefore only suitable for use on small areas. Seedlings or young plants can also be dug out. In Northern Ireland the largest plant to be dug out successfully was 50cm in diameter. Attempts to dig up larger clumps have been unsuccessful. Other possible control methods being researched include steam treatment.

Biological: Other possible control methods being researched include biological control using an insect (Prokelisia spp.)

Chemical (Preferred Option): Herbicide application is the most frequently used control method due to its practical ease of use and cost effectiveness. The herbicides Fluazifop (Fusilade) and Haloxyfop (Gallant) both regularly achieve over 90% kill after one application. A study in Northern Ireland has also found that Dalapon achieved over 90% success rate with Glyphosate achieving 75%. Complete eradication requires repeated treatment application.

It is recommended that use of herbicides in cSACs and SPAs follows guidelines from the Herbicide Handbook: Guidance on the use of herbicides on nature conservation sites (English Nature, 2003)

The handbook recommends the use of Glyphosate (e.g. Rival or Roundup Pro Biactive) on Spartina anglica in aquatic situations. The application method proposed is foliar spray or weed-wipe in Spring/Summer, when grass is actively growing. Grass with at least 4-5 new leaves and at least 10cm tall is recommended. Livestock should be excluded from the treated fields and may not graze or be fed the treated forage, nor may it be used for hay, silage or bedding.

The herbicide Handbook contains herbicide information summary sheets which should be referred to prior to carrying out any chemical treatment. The sheets do not replace the product label, or the approval, which remains the final authoritative legal instrument for the provision of usage instructions. The Glyphosate sheet from the handbook is contained in Appendix 2. Figure 6.10 outlines the initial area where Spartina control may be undertaken. The area outlined in red if left un-checked may close in and lead to the infill and further development of a Spartina monosward to the determent of the other Annex habitats in the western inlet.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-15 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

Figure 6.11 Areas for Implementing Initial Mitigation Measures

Benefits of Through the implementation of such measures as Spartina control it will enhance proposed the overall integrity of the SAC/SPA at Barrigone. It will halt the further degradation measures of the Annex I habitats from the spread of Spartina and it will further ensure the qualifying interest features of the SAC/SPA are maintained. While the proposed reclamation project will see the loss of some Annex I habitat and potential feeding area for birds the mitigation measures proposed under this Environmental Management Plan for the Barrigone site will ensure the loss will be negated through the further enhancement of an area within the Barrigone SAC/SPA. By preventing the further erosion of saltmarsh habitats in this area it will allow for rehabilitation and for the continued security of the site as a high tide waterbird roost within the existing SPA Boundary. Key Stages in The full implementation of an Environmental Management Plan within Barrigone the proposed should involve the development of a detailed programme of works and conservation Environmental plan for the area together with detailed method statements and programme of works Management in terms of stage treatment of Spartina swards throughout the site. Plan for the site All programmes of works should be designed in close consultation with the NPWS

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-16 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA

and IFI and should incorporate a monitoring programme over the coming years. On approval of Planning Permission SFPC will undertake the development of a detailed Environmental Management Plan for the area which will incorporate an ongoing monitoring programme and programme of measures for the site.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-17 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7.0 BIRDS

7.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the findings of the winter 2010/11 and summer/autumn 2010 surveys of water birds in the vicinity of Foynes Port. It describes the potential impacts of the proposed reclamation on birds and recommends mitigation measures, where deemed appropriate.

Natura Environmental Consultants Ltd was commissioned by RPS Group, to undertake baseline surveys, from March 2010 to February 2011 inclusive in order to assess and monitor birds likely to be affected by the proposed land reclamation at Foynes Port. The site of the proposed land reclamation, at East Jetty, is located within the boundaries of the Lower River Shannon cSAC and Inner Shannon Estuary pNHA, and approximately 700m from the River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA. The objective of the survey was to provide an up- to-date assessment of the importance of the subject area for birds.

7.2 METHODOLOGY

7.2.1 Desk Review and Consultation A desk study was carried out to collate the available information on bird populations within the study area and surroundings. The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government were consulted in relation to the conservation objectives of the designated areas within the study area and the proposed extension of the River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA boundary. The local NPWS Conservation Ranger was also consulted. A consultation meeting was held with NPWS personnel on the 8th March 2011. Previous winter counts of non-breeding birds in the entire Shannon/Fergus Estuary and adjacent intertidal areas (IWeBS data) were provided by BirdWatch Ireland. These results cover the most recent 5-year period, 2003/04 to 2007/08. Local ornithologists also provided data on previous wintering bird counts in the Shannon Estuary. A previous survey of wintering birds within Shannon Foynes Port (OES Consulting, 2008) commissioned by Shannon Foynes Port Company was also reviewed.

7.2.2 Intertidal Bird Surveys The methodology for the field surveys was as follows. The area of the proposed reclamation area and all intertidal and tidal areas within 1km of the reclamation area were surveyed at monthly intervals from March 2010 to February 2011 inclusive. Sturamus Island is outside of the 1km study area (approx. 1.5km north east), however, where visibility allowed, birds on the Island were also counted as it is occupied in summer by a Common Tern colony.

On each visit counts were conducted at low tide when the mudflats within the proposed reclamation area were exposed. High Tide roost surveys were also undertaken in the peak

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-1 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

winter period in order to establish the locations of significant roost sites. Four vantage points were selected in order to observe all areas within 1km of the East Jetty, from Colleen Point to the inner channel of the Robertstown River (see Figure 7.1 for locations). Vantage point details area as follows:

VP1 (grid ref R 124664 151941) – west of proposed reclamation area VP2 (grid ref R 124664 151941) - adjacent to proposed reclamation area VP3 (grid ref R 124664 151941) – east of reclamation area VP4 (grid ref R 124664 151941) – east of reclamation area See Appendix 3 Plates 1-9 for photographs taken from Vantage Points. All counts were undertaken in reasonable to good visibility using a 34x telescope.

Figure 7.1 Location of Vantage Points VP1 to VP4 within Shannon Foynes Port

7.3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

7.3.1 General Description of the Study Area Shannon Foynes Port is situated on the southern shores of the Shannon Estuary within the largest estuarine complex in Ireland. The proposed reclamation site is an area of soft mudflats behind the East Jetty within the port. The wider study area extends 1km west from the East Jetty as far as Colleen Point and 1km east as far as the inner channel of the Robertstown River. It also includes the southern shores of Foynes Island, which are directly opposite the East Jetty. This wider area was included to assess the possibility of indirect effects on birds in the estuarine area surrounding the Port. Sturamus Island is situated approximately 1.5km north east of the East Jetty.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-2 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7.3.2 Designated areas (Natura 2000 Sites) The proposed reclamation area is covered by two areas designated for nature conservation and situated approximately 700m from another (see Figure 7.2 for location map). Two of the designated areas are Natura 2000 sites (cSAC and SPA) and one is a proposed Natural Heritage Area (pNHA) (see Table 7.1). The EIS has been completed in the knowledge that the foreshore to be reclaimed is being considered for inclusion within an expansion of the existing SPA within the Shannon Estuary. The extension of the boundary has not yet been formally proposed by the Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government.

Table 7.1 Designated Areas within the Proposed Reclamation Site

Approx. distance from Site Name Status Code proposed reclamation site

Lower River Shannon cSAC 002165 Within Shannon and River Fergus SPA 004077 Presently 700m Estuaries Proposed extension to cover study area. Inner Shannon Estuary pNHA 000435 Within

cSAC = candidate Special Areas of Conservation; SPA = Special Protection Areas; pNHA = proposed Natural Heritage Area

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-3 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 7.2 Location of Designated Areas for Nature Conservation Within the Study Area

Lower River Shannon cSAC (002165) The full extent of the cSAC is of great ecological interest as it contains a high number of habitats and species listed on Annexes I and II of the E.U. Habitats Directive, including the priority habitat lagoon. Most of the estuarine part of the site has been designated a Special Protection Area (SPA), under the E.U. Birds Directive, primarily to protect the large numbers of migratory birds present in winter. The qualifying interests (habitats) of the candidate SAC are as follows:  Estuaries  Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide  Coastal lagoons  Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts  Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand  Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)  Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi)  Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation  Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time  Large shallow inlets and bays  Reefs

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-4 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 Perennial vegetation of stony banks  Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae)  Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clavey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae)  Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)

The qualifying interests (species) of the candidate SAC are as follows:  River lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis)  Brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri)  Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus)  Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)  Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates)  Otter (Lutra lutra)  Freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera)

Shannon & River Fergus Estuaries SPA (site code 004077) The entire area of the SPA is of great ornithological interest, being of international importance on account of the numbers of wintering birds it supports. It also supports internationally important numbers of Whooper Swan and ten other species that have populations of national importance (Boland et al 2010). For several of the bird species, it is one of the most important sites in the country. Also of note is that three of the species which occur regularly here are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive, i.e. Whooper Swan, Golden Plover and Bar-tailed Godwit. The Conservation objective for the Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA, as published by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, is: To maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the bird species listed as Qualifying Interests and Special Conservation Interests for this SPA (NPWS, 2009).

The favourable conservation status of a species is achieved when:  population data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself, and  the natural range of the species is neither being reduced or likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and  there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis.

The Qualifying Interests and Special Conservation Interests for the Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA are given in Table 7.2.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 7.2 List of Qualifying Interests and Special Conservation Interests for the Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries Special Protection Area Common name Scientific name Annex of EU Birds Directive Qualifying Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo n/a interests Light-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota n/a Shelduck Tadorna tadorna n/a Wigeon Anas penelope n/a Teal Anas crecca n/a Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula n/a Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria Annex 1 Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola n/a Lapwing Vanellus vanellus n/a Knot Calidris canuta n/a Dunlin Calidris alpine n/a Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa n/a Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica n/a Curlew Numenius arquata n/a Redshank Tringa totanus n/a Greenshank Tringa nebularia n/a Special Whooper Swan Cygnus olor Annex 1 Conservation Pintail Anas acuta n/a Interests Shoveler Anas clypeata n/a Scaup Aythya marila n/a Black-headed gull Larus ribundus n/a

7.3.3 Habitats Within the Study Area The proposed reclamation site consists mainly of inter-tidal mud with some hard substrates such as concrete beams and rock, mainly at the western portion of East Jetty (West End). There is very little flora on the mud in either sections apart from a few clumps of bladder wrack (Fucus vesiculosis) attached to rocks and boulders. Sub-tidal habitats have been sampled with no fauna recovered from three of the four grab samples. Two small (shell length 11.6 and 8.7mm) specimens of Scrobicularia plana but no worms were recovered in grab sample 1 which was at the eastern end of the jetty. This low recovery was thought to be representative as there was no surface activity visible in the samples (Berrow and O’Brien, 2010).

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-6 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7.3.4 Bird Usage of Area Within 1km of Proposed Reclamation Site

Non-Breeding Birds Intertidal areas within 1km of the proposed reclamation area, including the channel between the port area and Foynes Island, as far west as Colleen Point and as far east as the inner channel of the Roberstown River were included in the regular monthly counts carried out from March 2010 to February 2011. This area was included to enable assessment of possible indirect effects of dredging on the birds using these areas during construction of the new jetty area.

The main feeding areas for waders and gulls were between Foynes Port and Aughinish Island to the east of the East Jetty, and on the east side of Foynes Island, where extensive intertidal mudflats are exposed at low tide. Most wildfowl species including Mallard, Teal and Shelduck were recorded along the shores of Foynes Island, in particular around Gammarel Point and also along the Robertstown River channel to the west. Oystercatcher, Curlew and Black- headed Gull were recorded feeding in most intertidal areas. The main channel between the East Jetty and Foynes Island is relatively deep and is never exposed at low tide. Some of the intertidal areas along the southern and eastern shores of Foynes Island are exposed at low tide, including a number of small inlets. The southern shore directly opposite the Jetty is only ever used by a small number of birds including mostly gulls and some duck species. The eastern side of the Island is used more extensively by other species including Shelduck, Wigeon, Teal and Mallard.

There are only small high tide roosts within 1km of the East Jetty. Small numbers of wildfowl including Mallard, Wigeon and Teal roost at Gammarel Point on the shoreline of Foynes Island. A small area of mudflat east of the Jetty remains exposed during certain high tides. This area is used by gull species including Black-headed Gull, Common Gull and Herring Gull and a number of waders including Bar-tailed Godwit, Curlew, Knot, Redshank and Oystercatcher. The most significant high tide roosts close to the study area occur along the shore of the Robertstown River and on the small Islands located north of Aughinish Island (more than 1km from the East Jetty).

A total of 21 species of water birds was recorded within this count area over the period of March 2010 to February 2011. This includes five species of wildfowl (and allies), seven species of wader, four species of gull, one species of tern, together with Cormorant, Great Crested Grebe, Grey Heron and Little Egret. Appendix 3 gives the full counts for this area while Table 7.3 gives a summary of the mean and peak numbers of each species occurring at low tide. The peak figure represents the maximum number of birds recorded at any one time during the winter counts. The peak counts for each species occurred on different dates. The highest total count of all species at low tide was 753, recorded in January 2011.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-7 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

For most species of wildfowl and waders, numbers are greater at low tide as more of the intertidal area is exposed. At high tide the birds move to a few key roost sites and some leave the study area completely. For diving species such as Cormorant, Red-breasted Merganser and Great Crested Grebe, some birds were present on all states of the tide as they are mainly confined to the channel.

A full list of species is presented in Appendix 3. Overall the number of species of water birds was considered to be low, especially within the proposed reclamation area.

Table 7.3 Summary of Peak and Mean Numbers of Water Birds Within 1km of the Proposed Reclamation Area Over Months, March 2010-Febraury 2011 Low tide Number of Species SPA status* counts = 10 Peak Mean Shelduck QI 386.8 Wigeon QI 154.2 Teal QI 143 46.9 Mallard Not listed 49 16.6 Red-breasted Not listed 1 0.1 Merganser Great Crested Grebe Not listed 4 0.9 Cormorant QI 10.3 Little Egret Not listed 1 0.2 Grey Heron Not listed 7 1.8 Oystercatcher Not listed 47 9.1 Knot QI 48 4.3 Black-tailed Godwit QI 73 12.6 Bar-tailed Godwit QI 27 4.8 Curlew QI 29 12.2 Redshank QI 22 6.5 Greenshank QI 2 0.2 Black-headed Gull SCI 309 94.3 Herring Gull Not listed 23 3.0 Common Gull Not listed 132 20.8 Great Black-backed Gull QI 2 3.0 Common Tern QI 6 0.5 *Shannon/Fergus Estuary Special Protection Area: QI = Qualifying Interest; SCI = Special Conservation Interest; Shannon/Fergus Estuary Special Protection Area.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-8 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Breeding Birds A breeding colony of herons was recorded in the large conifer trees in the southeast corner of Foynes Island. Approximately four nests were recorded. Numbers were difficult to count, due to the dense foliage, but some chicks were seen in the nests. None of these birds were seen to feed within the proposed reclamation area.

Common Terns were recorded nesting on Sturamus Island (north east of Foynes Island) between May to July. Numbers were difficult to count due to the distance from the vantage points but approximately 20-25 birds, possibly terns and Black-Headed Gulls, were recorded in flight over the Island in 2010. Common Terns feeding in the Foynes Channel (north of the jetty) are probably from the breeding colony at Sturamus Island. A survey of the Island in June 2011 by the National Parks and Wildlife Service recorded 6 Common Tern nests and 31 Black-Headed Gull nests (NPWS Consultation 2011).

No terns were recorded feeding within the proposed reclamation site.

A roost of approximately 14 cormorants was also recorded on Sturamus Island. None of these birds were seen to feed within the proposed reclamation area.

7.4 BIRD POPULATIONS OF THE ENTIRE SHANNON AND FERGUS ESTUARIES

The best available information on the bird populations of the entire area of the Shannon and Fergus Estuaries is provided by the Irish Wetland Bird Survey (IWeBS), organised by BirdWatch Ireland. Table 7.4 gives the mean of peak counts, for the five species recorded within the proposed reclamation site, for a series of five winters (2003/04 to 2007/08), the latest complete information available. The Shannon/Fergus Estuary is of international importance for Light-bellied Brent Goose, Black-tailed Godwit and Redshank and of national importance for a further 19 species (Crowe 2005). The entire estuary held a mean of 18,782 birds over the five winters 2004/05 to 2008/09 (Boland et al. 2010). Appendix 3 provides the entire winter counts for all species recorded within the Shannon and Fergus Estuaries over the five year period (2003/04 to 2007/08),

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-9 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 7.4 Summary of entire Shannon & Fergus Estuary mean of peak numbers for those species recorded within the proposed reclamation area over the 5-year period, 2004/05 to 2008/09 Entire Shannon/Fergus Species SPA status* Estuary Mean of peaks 2004/05- 2008/09 Oystercatcher Not listed 195 Redshank QI 589 Black-headed Gull SCI 1,349 Common Gull Not listed 93 Lesser Black-backed Not listed 2 Gull *Shannon/Fergus Estuary Special Protection Area: QI = Qualifying Interest; SCI = Special Conservation Interest; Shannon/Fergus Estuary Special Protection Area.

7.5 BIRD USAGE OF THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION SITE

A total of five species of water birds was recorded within the proposed reclamation area over the period March 2010 to February 2011. This included three species of gull and two species of wader. Appendix 3 gives the full counts of this area while Table 7.5 gives a summary of the mean and peak numbers of each species occurring at low and high tide.

Table 7.5 Summary of peak and mean numbers of water birds using the proposed reclamation area over months, March 2010-Febraury 2011 Number of Species SPA status* counts = 10 Peak Mean Oystercatcher Not listed 5 0.8 Redshank QI 20.1 Black-headed Gull SCI 7 2.0 Common Gull Not listed 2 0.2 Lesser Black-backed Not listed Gull 30.2 *Shannon/Fergus Estuary Special Protection Area: QI = Qualifying Interest; SCI = Special Conservation Interest; Shannon/Fergus Estuary Special Protection Area.

Table 7.6 below shows the peak number of birds recorded within the proposed reclamation area over the winter period 2010/2011 (10 counts in total) as percentages of the total number

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-10 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

of birds for the same species recorded within the entire Shannon and Fergus Estuaries over a series of five winters (2004/05 to 2008/09.) (IWeBS data). It should be noted that the methodology used to count the Shannon and Fergus Estuaries as part of IWeBS involves a single aerial count per winter, taken from an aeroplane. A survey of this kind is inevitably less accurate than one involving an intensive and regularly repeated survey by an observer on the ground. A detailed count, such as that used for this survey, using a telescope over an area of 1km2 gives a much higher population estimate for the same area. For example, in Table 7.6 below, it is most likely that the number of Lesser Black-backed Gulls in the entire estuary has been grossly under estimated during the IWeBS counts.

Table 7.6 Peak numbers of birds recorded within the reclamation area as a percentage of the peak number of birds in the wider study area and entire Shannon and Fergus Estuaries

Reclamation Area

Peak no. Peak as % of Peak as %

within mean peaks in of peaks Species reclamation Shannon/Fergus in 1km

area during Estuary study

2010/2011 (IWeBS data) area

Oystercatcher 5 2.6 10.6

Redshank 2 0.3 9.1 Black-headed Gull 7 0.5 2.3 Common Gull 2 2.2 1.5 Lesser Black-backed *N/D Gull 3 150 *N/D no data

Table 6 also shows the peak number of birds recorded within the proposed reclamation area over the winter period 2010/2011 (10 counts in total) as percentages of the peak number of the same species recorded within the 1km study area surrounding the development site over the same winter period 2010/2011 (10 counts in total). This is a much more accurate representation and demonstrates that overall the percentage of those species recorded within the reclamation area is relatively insignificant.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-11 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7.6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON BIRDS

7.6.1 Disturbance Disturbance during construction works within the proposed reclamation area, including dredging activities, is not expected to have any significant impact on birds feeding and roosting within the channel or intertidal areas surrounding the East Jetty. The East Jetty experiences constant high levels of activity due to existing port facilities. Very small numbers of water birds were recorded using the reclamation site during the survey period. The proximity of the reclamation site to the East Jetty and the fact that it is surrounded by existing structures would deter most water birds from using this area. The most significant bird feeding and roosting areas are at a sufficient distance from the reclamation area not to be disturbed during construction. A study of waders roosting within 150 to 200m of a major construction site in Galway Bay found that most species had either increased or remained relatively stable during the period of construction (Nairn, 2005).

7.6.2 Indirect Effects of Sediment Redistribution The disturbance of sediment during dredging of the proposed development area could potentially cause some sediment to be redistributed in surrounding areas of intertidal flats, indirectly affecting the rate of sedimentation and the invertebrate prey of some of the bird species. The Coastal Processes Chapter of this EIS has investigated the potential effects of the proposed jetty development and associated dredging programme on sediment transport, using numerical models.

The results from the modelling indicate that, on completion of the dredging, it is anticipated that sedimentation will occur to a level of 100mm at the west side of Foynes Port western jetty or between 5- 40mm at the western sides of Aughinish Island along the drying banks (see Figures 9.20-9.23 in Coastal Processes Chapter). Greater levels of sedimentation will occur at the dredge site itself, but it is expected that this should be removed following completion of the dredging operation. The intertidal areas in the vicinity of both the West and East Jetties have been shown to be of limited value for foraging birds and therefore any temporary increase in sediment at these locations will not have an impact on birds using the estuary. The banks west of Aughinish Island are used at high tide by roosting Curlew and Redshank, however feeding is limited here also. The predominant feeding area at low tide for the estuarine birds at Foynes Port is the large expanse of mudflat east of the East Jetty as far east as Aughinish Island. Other isolated areas in the inter-tidal zone may also undergo limited sedimentation; however this should be reduced by the presence of wave-induced dispersion, which was not included within the model (RPS, 2011).

During the course of the dredging programme, average suspended solid concentrations are predicted to remain largely below 70-80mg/l, with affected areas ranging between Coalhill

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-12 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Point and western Aughinish Island. Bed concentrations should remain below 50mg/l throughout the course of the dredging.

A study of annual maintenance dredging, as well as occasional capital dredging for new installations in the Tamar Estuary, southern England, concluded that there was no evidence of ecological changes related to the dredging activity. There were significant changes in the number of over-wintering Teal and Wigeon, over many decades but these changes were related to large-scale climatic events rather than anthropogenic factors such as dredging within the Tamar Estuary (Widdows et al., 2007).

Overall the temporary increase in sediment and suspended solids within Foynes Estuary as a result of dredging activities is not expected to have a significant impact on birds using the estuary.

7.6.3 Habitat Loss The proposed land reclamation south of the East Jetty will result in a loss of less than 2.4ha of intertidal mudflat (Appendix 3 (I), Plates 2 and 3). This area of mudflat is considered of negligible importance to estuarine birds in the breeding season. Very small numbers (<10) of Oystercatcher, Black-headed Gull, Common Gull, Redshank and Lesser Black-backed Gull were recorded here in the non-breeding season at low tide (see Table 7.3-4). The proximity of the site to the working area of the port and the fact that it is surrounded by existing structures would deter most water birds from using this area.

Substrate samples were taken within the proposed reclamation area in order to assess the biomass of potential prey species for birds. This assessment was based on extrapolating the biomass within the samples to the entire site. The results showed very low densities of prey species for birds within the site to be developed (Berrow and O’Brien, 2010). Therefore the site is not considered to be an important feeding area for birds, regardless of disturbance from existing port activities.

Overall, the impact on water birds associated with the loss of habitat within the proposed reclamation area is considered to be imperceptible.

7.7 MITIGATION MEASURES

The loss of 1.4ha of intertidal mudflat south of the East Jetty will not have a significant impact on any water birds using the Shannon/Fergus Estuaries. The proposed reclamation area is being considered for inclusion within an extension of the Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA and therefore is treated as a proposed Special Protection Area for the purpose of this study. Details in relation to the proposed mitigation measures to off-set any perceived loss of potential feeding area for birds is detailed in Chapter 6 Section 6.5.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-13 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7.8 RESIDUAL IMPACTS

The residual impact of the proposed land reclamation at the East Jetty in Foynes Port on birds will be imperceptible.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-14 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

8.0 AIR QUALITY

8.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter forms the Air Quality and Climate section of the Environmental Impact Statement. This Section should be read in conjunction with the site layout plans for the site and project description Chapter of the EIS.

8.2 LEGISLATION AND POLICY

Air quality legislation in Ireland is derived from the EU Directive on air quality (and its Daughter Directives) called the Air Quality Framework Directive 96/92/EC. This was transposed into Irish law through the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 (Ambient Air Quality Assessment and Management) Regulations 1999 (SI 33 of 1999). The four Daughter Directives establish the limits for specific pollutants. The first two Daughter Directives which cover sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead; then carbon monoxide and benzene, are enacted into Irish Law by as the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002. The following two Daughter Directives were enacted into Irish Law by the Ozone in Ambient Air Regulations 2004 and the Arsenic, Cadmium, Mercury, Nickel and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Ambient Air Regulations 2009.

The Clean Air For Europe (CAFÉ) Directive (2008/50/EC) was published in May 2008, and is now entered into force and replaces the Framework Directive and the first, second and third Daughter Directives. The fourth Daughter Directive (2004/107EC) will be included in CAFE at a later stage. Table 8.1 gives the limit values of CAFE Directive 2008/50/EC (EPA, 2010). These limits for specific pollutants are defined in order to protect our health, vegetation and ecosystems.

Table 8.1 Limit Values and Alert Thresholds of CAFE Directive 2008/50/EC Limit Limit Limit Value Limit Value Averaging Basis of Application Pollutant Value Value Attainment Objective Period of the Limit Value ug/m3 ppb Date Not to be exceeded Protection of SO2 1 hour 350 132 more than 24 times in a 1 Jan 2005 human health calendar year Not to be exceeded Protection of SO2 24 hours 125 47 more than 3 times in a 1 Jan 2005 human health calendar year Protection of Calendar 19 July SO2 20 7.5 Annual mean vegetation year 2001

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-1

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Limit Limit Limit Value Limit Value Averaging Basis of Application Pollutant Value Value Attainment Objective Period of the Limit Value ug/m3 ppb Date Protection of 1 Oct to 31 19 July SO2 20 7.5 Winter mean vegetation Mar 2001 Public to be informed if Alert SO2 1 hour 500 - threshold exceeded for - Threshold 3 consecutive hours Not to be exceeded Protection of NO2 1 hour 200 105 more than 18 times in a 1 Jan 2010 human health calendar year Protection of Calendar NO2 40 21 Annual mean 1 Jan 2010 human health year Protection of Calendar 19 July NO + NO2 30 16 Annual mean ecosystems year 2001 Public to be informed if Alert NO2 1 hour 400 - threshold exceeded for - Threshold 3 consecutive hours Not to be exceeded Protection of PM10 24 hours 50 - more than 35 times in a 1 Jan 2005 human health calendar year Protection of Calendar PM10 40 - Annual mean 1 Jan 2005 human health year

PM2.5 - Protection of Calendar 25 - Annual mean 1 Jan 2015 Stage 1 human health year

PM2.5 - Protection of Calendar 20 - Annual mean 1 Jan 2020 Stage 2 human health year Protection of Calendar Lead 0.5 - Annual mean 1 Jan 2005 human health year Carbon Protection of 8 hours 10000 8620 - 1 Jan 2005 Monoxide human health Protection of Calendar Benzene 5 1.5 - 1 Jan 2010 human health year

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-2

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

8.3 METHODOLOGY AND GUIDANCE

This air quality assessment is prepared using the advice in the “Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements” (EPA, 2002) and the “Advice Notes on Current Practice” Project Type 10– New or Extended Harbours (EPA, 2003).

8.4 BASELINE CONDITIONS

The following sections summarise the local and regional climatic conditions and landscape, and the main environmental designations, sensitive receptors and background air pollution levels within the vicinity of the port.

8.4.1 Climate The climate of Ireland can be defined as being a Temperate Oceanic or Temperate Maritime Climate, which is similar to that of most of north west Europe. Foynes is in the south west of Ireland on the Shannon estuary and hence could be more exposed to southerly, westerly and south westerly Atlantic weather. The annual average temperature is about 10°C, with monthly averages of about 15.6°C in July and August and 5.5°C in January and February. The area receives on average 926mm of rainfall a year, which is below that of the far west and south west coasts, but above that of the east coast of Ireland. Mean annual wind speeds in the region are of the order of 5-6m/s and would predominantly come from the west and south west, however as shown in Figure 8.1 the wind conditions recorded at the port itself are mainly westerlies.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-3

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

2005 2006 2007

2008 2009 Figure 8.1 Port of Foynes Wind Roses – 2005 to 2009

8.4.2 Landscape The terrain in the region would protect Foynes from much of the worst of the Atlantic weather with the Mullaghareirk Mountains to the south west and Slievecallan and the Burren to the north west in County Clare shielding the low lying estuarine area of Foynes. However there is predominance at the port for a westerly and west north westerly wind as it travels from the Atlantic up the Shannon estuary, as demonstrated by the wind roses in Figure 8.3.

8.4.3 Sensitive Environments and Local Receptors The Port of Foynes is located on the Lower River Shannon and the south shore of the Shannon Estuary which is a designated Natura 2000 site Special Area of Conservation (SAC – 002165), for protection of internationally rare and / or vulnerable habitats, and is also a proposed Natural Heritage Area (pNHA - 000435), for protection of nationally important habitats and species. Approximately 500m to the north east of the site the area is a designated Natura 2000 Special Protection Area (SPA) for protection of internationally rare and / or vulnerable birds, the River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA (004077).

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-4

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The main receptors in the vicinity of the Port activities would be the workers within the Port and the residents of Foynes village. Outside the port and village of Foynes the area is mostly agricultural land with low density rural housing. They are more industrial operations occurring to the north east of Foynes at Aughinish Island. There have been no serious issues raised in relation to air quality pollution emanating from the port, however in the past there have been comments raised to the port on dust originating from port activities depositing in the village area. Previous EPA and Limerick County Council studies and monitoring throughout the 1990s were conducted regarding the potential for emissions from local and regional industry to contaminate the soil and water resources in the region, which were thought to be affecting human and livestock health. The main industries in the area investigated were the alumina production plant at Aughinish Island and the power stations at Moneypoint in County Clare, and Tarbert in County Kerry. The outcomes of the investigations were that the levels of the potential pollutants in the area were below those likely to cause harm to the environment generally, to livestock or to humans (EPA, 2000).

8.4.4 Background Air Pollution The EU Air Framework Directive deals with each EU Member State in terms of Zones and Agglomerations. For Ireland, four zones, A, B, C and D are defined in the Air Quality Standards (AQS) Regulations (SI No 271 of 2002). The main areas defined in each zone are: Zone A: Dublin Conurbation. Zone B: Cork Conurbation. Zone C: 15 urban areas with populations greater than 15,000. Includes Galway, Limerick, Waterford, Clonmel, Kilkenny, Sligo, Drogheda, Wexford, Athlone, Ennis, Bray, Naas, Carlow, Tralee and Dundalk. Zone D: Rural Ireland, i.e. the remainder of the State excluding Zones A, B and C.

Foynes and the surrounding area lies in Zone D in relation to the EU Air Framework Directive and EPA Air Quality Zones. The index calculation is based on the latest

available measurements of ozone, nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and sulphur dioxide in Zone D. The current air quality within the Shannon region and Zone D as a whole is GOOD, with air pollution levels falling within the following bands: 3  SO2 (1 hour average) – 50 – 129 μg/m . 3  NO2 (1 hour average) – 37 – 94 μg/m 3  O3 (1 hour average) – 40 – 119 μg/m 3  PM10 (24 hour average) – 20 – 49 μg/m

The Shannon air quality monitoring site is located on raised ground on a farm near Askeaton in County Limerick, downwind of the major sulphur dioxide sources in the Shannon estuary. Monitoring is done by a continuous monitor for sulphur dioxide.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-5

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

RPS carried out on-site Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Monitoring at the Port and Foynes village between 8th September 2010 and the 8th December 2010. This monitoring involved the

placement of 7 no. NO2 diffusion tubes for 1 month at a time in the locations as shown in Figure 8.2. A description of these diffusion tube locations and their recorded results are given in Table 8.2. The diffusion tubes were put up for a month at a time, then sent to the Gradko

Laboratories for analysis of NO2 by U.V. Spectrophotometry. Pictures of these sampling locations are shown in Figures 8.2 – 8.9. Results at all locations, both on average and individually for each monitoring period, were well within the limit values for human health of 40 3 3 μg/m and the limit values for protection of ecosystems of 30 μg/m . The highest NO2 levels were recorded at the roadside locations of the Port Inner Road / Port Access Road (Location 7) and on the N69 at the junction for the East Link Road (Location 5). These monitoring

locations recorded generally higher NO2 levels than the other sample locations due to their

close proximity to busier roads. Emissions from traffic are the main source of NO2 in Ireland, along with power stations and other industries that involve combustion.

Figure 8.2 Foynes Nitrogen Dioxide Sampling Locations

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-6

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 8.3 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 1

Figure 8.4 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 2

Figure 8.5 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 3

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-7

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 8.6 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 4

Figure 8.7 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 5

Figure 8.8 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 6

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-8

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 8.9 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 7

Table 8.2 Foynes Nitrogen Dioxide Sampling Results 08/09/2010 08/10/2010 08/11/2010 Tube - - - Raw Mean Location No. 08/10/2010 08/11/2010 08/12/2010 μg/m3 μg/m3 μg/m3 μg/m3

1 Port Site (opposite main office) 2.81 8.10 13.15 8.0

2 Housing Estate above village 9.71 7.79 12.34 9.9

3 Church (opposite hotel) 7.68 13.39 17.16 12.7

4 Close to Garage on Main St 4.40 15.70 19.53 13.2

5 Approach to Foynes 14.18 19.38 22.80 18.8

6 Opposite BNM site 5.98 10.26 20.54 12.3

7 Port Inner road 14.18 19.07 14.26 15.8

8 Test Blank 0.02 - - -

0 Lab Blank 0.11 0.17 0.19 -

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-9

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

8.4.5 Dust Large fraction particulate matter (>10µm) may be classed as a nuisance and are principally caused by construction works, road traffic and natural processes. There are no Irish limit values for ambient dust deposition of nuisance dust, however internationally there are a number of guidelines used, such as the German TA Luft Guidelines (2002), which gives a mass deposition value of 350mg/m²/day (annual average) for Possible Nuisance, while in the UK there is a general “unofficial” guideline of Nuisance Dust of 200mg/m²/day (annual average) used, whereas levels above this should trigger an action by the operator to mitigate the dust source.

Dust issues at the Port of Foynes have been linked to the unloading, handling and transporting of dusty cargo in dry and breezy conditions. Complaints in relation to dust issues have been raised infrequently over the past number of years and also at the public consultations which took place in June 2010. Following these complaints SFPC implemented a new set of procedures for handling dusty cargo which included mitigation measures such as wind speed and direction monitoring, the use of water curtains, in store loading and vehicle washing. SFPC has also been proactively monitoring dust levels in the vicinity of the Port since 2005. These dust sampling locations can be seen in Figure 8.10. Annual means of the dust sampling results can be seen in Table 8.3.

Figure 8.10 Port of Foynes Dust Sampling Locations

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-10

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

No sample locations in the area of the port have exceeded the TA Luft Possible Nuisance guideline concentrations or the UK unofficial Nuisance dust guidelines since 2008. The SFPC dust monitoring site at Askeaton is over 8kms to the east of Foynes and it is unlikely that direct port activities would influence dust levels at a monitoring site that far away. Large dust particles (>30 microns) will tend to deposit within 100m of the source, while intermediate sized particles (10 – 30 microns) can travel 200 – 500m (BGS, 2010). Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) from the Port and other nearby industry may influence the dust levels at the monitoring site in Askeaton if loads are uncovered, if the vehicle is dirty and if they are travelling at higher speeds. The port now requests that any loads be covered prior to departure from the store apron.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-11

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 8.3 Annual Mean Recorded Dust Levels at Foynes

Annual Mean mg/m3 Year Pet Coke Outdoor Peris Yard Foynes Island Askeaton Yard Garage

2005 233.51 270.20 100.15 55.74 -

2006 139.48 113.85 228.28 52.12 -

2007 57.43 122.19 138.83 41.28 -

2008 336.52 5269.79 622.16 149.04 184.68

2009 86.80 108.72 131.51 98.35 177.37

2010 85.78 51.55 82.32 45.32 129.48

8.5 ROAD TRAFFIC

RPS carried out a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) to assess the impact on the local road network of the reclamation project at the east jetty of Foynes Port. Traffic has the potential to negatively impact upon air quality through exhaust emissions and the loads that it may be carrying. There is the potential for effects on air quality if the traffic composition changes, there are average road speed changes, there are alterations to road layouts, or most importantly if there are changes in traffic numbers.

8.5.1 Construction Road Traffic Ideally there would be alternative methods of material transport to the construction site, such as by sea or by rail, which produce less emissions per tonne of material transported than road transport. However to take the worst case scenario for this assessment it is assumed that all construction traffic will be coming by road. This construction traffic will be accessing Foynes Port east jetty area to deliver the retaining structures (e.g. concrete and steel) reclamation material (e.g. rockfill and rock armour) and surfacing material (e.g. bituminous wearing course and stone) required to implement the proposed reclamation. All traffic will access the port via the N69 using either the western or eastern port entrances then the R521 East Link Road, thus avoiding the Main Street of Foynes. It has been estimated within the TIA that the reclamation works planned will require a total of 21,005 vehicle trips over a 16 month period. The majority of these vehicle trips (19,783) will be Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDVs) importing fill material.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-12

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

There is the potential for an increase of more than 10% in Annual Average Dailly Traffic (AADT) and a change of more than 10% in the number of Heavy Duty Vehicles during the 16 month construction period on the Port Access Road / Harbour Road / R521 East Link Road. A series of Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB v1.03c) Screening Models were carried to assess the impact of this traffic increase for the following years: . 2010 – Baseline year; . 2013 – 1st Year of construction; . 2014 – 2nd Year of construction; . 2015 – 1st Year of operation. . The years used in the screening model are the anticipated years of construction and operation. Three receptor locations were chosen for the screening models, which were to tie

in with the previous NO2 monitoring locations. The only true “receptor” location is that of the Church on Foynes Main Street (Diffusion Tube Location 3), as this has the potential for public exposure to pollutants. The other two receptor locations for the model were chosen as had

the highest monitored NO2 exposures. These model receptors were the roadside monitoring locations at the N69/Link Road junction (at the location of Diffusion Tube 5) and the Port Inner Road (at the location of Diffusion Tube 7). Traffic information was sourced from the RPS Traffic Impact Assessment data and is shown in Table 8.4. The traffic figures include yearly factored growth, which is taken from the NRA Future Road Growth Forecasts for Ireland 2002 – 2040. The roads were given the following average speeds, Harbour Road - 30km/hr, Foynes Village Road - 30km/hr and N69 to Limerick - 80km/hr.

Table 8.4 Road Traffic Used in DMRB Screening Models

2010 2013 2014 2015 Road AADT % LDV % HDV AADT % LDV % HDV AADT % LDV % HDV AADT % LDV % HDV

Habour Rd 192 25.0 75.0 516 9.9 90.1 519 10.0 90.0 210 25.2 74.8

Foynes Village Road 2622 94.4 5.6 2771 94.1 5.9 2815 94.0 6.0 2859 94.0 6.0

N69 to Limerick 2490 88.9 11.1 2944 79.5 20.5 2986 79.6 20.4 2714 88.9 11.1 LDV – Light Duty Vehicle. HDV – Heavy Duty Vehicle

Background pollutant levels had to be derived from a variety of sources for the DMRB assessments. Table 8.2 details the background pollutant levels used in the DMRB models and their sources. These background pollutants levels were selected as there is no site specific background data available for Foynes, other than that monitored by RPS. All pollutant levels were converted to the desired year of modelling using the NETCEN conversion calculators (versions 1.1. and 2.2a). Only the Benzene and 1,3-Budadiene concentrations could be considered as background levels, as the other pollutants would be including inputs from traffic emission, therefore representing a worst case scenario approach. DMRB model

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-13

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

results of the three future years, 2013, 2014 and 2015 were compared to the results from the baseline model of 2010. The outputs of this comparison are given in Table 8.5. Full results from the DMRB models are given in Appendix 4.

Table 8.5 Background Pollution Levels Source Pollutant Units Source & Year 2010 2013 2014 2015 Value Cork Harbour (Zone CO mg/m3 0.26 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.21 D) 2008* Belfast Harbour Benzene µg/m3 1.08 0.76 0.73 0.73 0.73 2001** 1,3- Belfast Harbour µg/m3 0.25 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 Butadiene 2001

3 DEFRA NOX to NO2 NOx µg/m 22.20 22.20 20.48 20.11 19.86 calculation 2010***

3 NO2 µg/m Monitored 2010 13.00 13.00 12.41 12.30 12.23

3 Cork Harbour (Zone PM10 µg/m 16.70 16.07 15.57 15.49 15.46 D) 2008* * EPA, 2008. Ambient Air Monitoring at Cork Harbour. ** DEFRA, 2001. UK background air quality mapping.

*** DEFRA, 2010. NOx to NO2 calculator v2.1.

The results comparison in Table 8.6 shows how an increase in construction traffic will only have a localised temporary effect on the port access road and should have no affect on the receptors within the town itself. During the construction period any increases in pollutant concentrations due to traffic on the N69 / East Link Road Junction and the Port Inner Road can be classified mostly as being extremely small (<1%) or very small (1-5%), with the one exception of a small increase (5-10%), even under these worst case scenario conditions (NSCA, 2006). For all pollutants modelled at all roadside locations the results were well within all Limit Values and Alert Thresholds. Following completion of the reclamation project the traffic should revert to its pre-construction levels, including yearly factored growth. Traffic emissions in general are expected to improve in the future with new developments in fuel and engine technology and with stricter air quality legislation and enforcement, hence the DMRB screening models predictions of continuing improvements in air quality.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-14

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 8.6 DMRB Screening Model Output Comparisons

Pollutant Concentrations at Receptor 1,3-

CO Benzene butadien NOx NO2 PM10 Receptor Year Year Description e Location Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual mean mean mean mean mean mean mg/m3 μg/m3 μg/m3 μg/m3 μg/m3 μg/m3 2010 Baseline Year 0.24 0.78 0.14 24.08 13.59 16.33 1st Year 2013 0.22 0.75 0.13 21.65 12.78 15.78 Construction % Difference to Baseline - -8.17% -3.82% -8.00% -5.92% -3.40% Year 10.10% Church, 2nd Year Main 2014 0.22 0.75 0.13 21.28 12.67 15.69 Construction Street % Difference to Baseline - -8.13% -3.80% -7.91% -6.73% -3.91% Year 11.65% 2015 1st Year Operation 0.23 0.75 0.13 21.48 12.75 15.68 % Difference to Baseline - -7.96% -3.77% -6.77% -6.18% -4.01% Year 10.81% 2010 Baseline Year 0.26 0.79 0.16 30.63 15.49 16.85 1st Year 2013 0.24 0.76 0.17 32.22 15.84 16.46 Construction % Difference to Baseline -6.58% -3.67% 3.74% 5.21% 2.26% -2.31% Year Junction 2nd Year 2014 0.24 0.76 0.17 31.22 15.57 16.32 N69 Construction % Difference to Baseline -6.55% -3.65% 3.60% 1.94% 0.51% -3.12% Year 2015 1st Year Operation 0.24 0.76 0.15 26.60 14.29 16.06 % Difference to Baseline - -7.49% -3.65% -6.23% -7.77% -4.69% Year 13.15% Port 2010 Baseline Year 0.23 0.75 0.13 22.00 12.94 16.02 Access 1st Year 2013 0.21 0.72 0.13 22.12 12.93 15.64 Construction % Difference to Baseline -8.31% -3.97% -1.41% 0.58% -0.02% -2.40% Year

2014 2nd Year 0.21 0.72 0.13 21.58 12.77 15.54

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-15

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Construction % Difference to Baseline -8.34% -3.98% -1.57% -1.90% -1.28% -3.01% Year 2015 1st Year Operation 0.21 0.72 0.12 19.55 12.13 15.40 % Difference to Baseline - -8.95% -4.01% -7.88% -6.24% -3.90% Year 11.13%

With the large amount of rockfill requiring to be imported and deposited on site there is however the potential of impacts from dust generation from construction traffic. Much like the operational traffic at Foynes Port this can be managed by strict adherence to the Ports Standard Operating Procedures. A Dust Minimisation Plan should be implemented throughout the construction phase of the project. Details of specific dust mitigation measures are presented later in this chapter.

8.5.2 Operational Road Traffic Following completion of the reclamation project there will be improvements in port operations at the east jetty, however there are no planned or anticipated significant changes in traffic numbers or traffic composition from the current port operations as a result of the proposed project. There is therefore not expected to be any changes in traffic emissions in the area due to this project.

It should be noted that following project completion the operational traffic from the port will still need to adhere to the existing management plans for site traffic and handling dusty product, with the R521 Harbour Road / East Link Road being used at all times, the regular cleaning of vehicles, adherence to speed limits and the covering of loads prior to departure from the Port.

8.6 PORT ACTIVITIES

8.6.1 Construction Activities Emissions from plant and other mechanical equipment on-site during construction should only have short term and very localised impacts on air quality. Provided the on-site plant and equipment is modern and maintained, there should be no significant negative impacts on air quality from their exhaust gases. Dust and emissions from construction activities can be avoided or managed through adherence to the dust mitigation measures presented later in this chapter, which should form part of a Dust Minimisation Plan that should be implemented throughout the construction phase of the project.

8.6.2 Operational Activities There are no planned or anticipated significant changes to occur with regard to vessel numbers and sizes, or cargo types and tonnages following completion of the reclamation

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-16

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

project. There are currently no air quality issues with regards to air quality and emissions from ships or equipment at the port. The UK Guidance on Local Air Quality Management LAQM TG (09) (DEFRA, 2009) recommends that detailed assessment of air quality impacts from ports is required only for large ports with more than 5,000 shipping movements per year which have a relevant public exposure within 1km of berthing and manoeuvring areas, and therefore no more detailed assessment is required at the Port of Foynes as it would generally have less than 900 shipping movements per year.

In the long term there should be continuing improvements in the quality of air emissions from shipping traffic at the port. International regulations have been implemented within recent years to reduce these emissions from shipping such as the International Maritime Organisations (IMO) International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and the European Commissions EU Shipping Strategy. Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention sets limits on the sulphur content of marine fuel oils and on the emissions of

oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from new ship engines. The IMO has also been assessing the

application of limits for Particulate Matter (PM10) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Compliance with the emission controls is mandatory for ship owners and operators. The Annex VI regulations and the amendments contained in the Sea Pollution Miscellaneous Pollution Act, 2006 should reduce the potential for noxious emissions at ports.

Any issues regarding management of dusty cargo at the port or transport of dusty product from the port by road can be mitigated for with adherence to the Ports management document Procedures for Handling Dusty Product. This procedure document can be found in Appendix 4.

8.7 CLIMATE AND CLIMATIC CHANGE

The burning of fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases (GHG) which have been recognised to contribute to climate change. The proposed development will produce GHG during the construction and operational phases. Construction emissions will be from direct emissions of construction plant, vehicles and staff and also embodied emissions from the material utilised. Operational GHG emissions will be the same direct and indirect emissions that currently occur at the Port. Direct emissions will include port equipment emissions, ship emissions while in port and general fuel related emissions for operations at the facility. Indirect emissions will result mostly from the transport of goods to and from the port by road transport.

Ireland is required to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol to 13% above 1990 levels by the first commitment period 2008-2012. The measures being undertaken to tackle this are detailed in the National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012. Following this Strategy the Government has looked to adopt the Climate Change Bill 2010

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-17

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

which has the main purpose of adopting a national policy for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; This is planned to be supported through the making of mitigation and adaptation action plans; and to make provision for emission reduction targets to support the objective of transition to a low carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy. There are no specific climate change policies relating to Ports and shipping.

The IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) has given extensive consideration to control of GHG emissions from ships and finalized a package of specific technical and operational reduction measures in July 2009. In March 2010 MEPC started the consideration of making the technical and operational measures mandatory for all ships irrespective of flag and ownership, a work that is expected to be completed by July 2011.

In order to quantify the impact of the Port of Foynes harbour extension on climate, a construction phase carbon footprint calculation was undertaken.

8.7.1 Construction Phase Carbon Calculation A carbon calculation assessment has been carried out to give approximate total GHG emissions generated from the relevant activities that will take place during the construction phases of the port extension. This carbon calculation assesses the main areas of construction phase GHG emissions as follows: . Embodied GHG emissions associated with the construction materials. . Emissions from deliveries of these construction materials, . Emissions from plant and machinery; . Emissions associated with waste disposal during construction phase; . Emissions from site construction staff.

The methodology employed was the UK Environment Agency Carbon Calculator for Construction Projects, which is an Excel based calculator that requires project specific inputs for the construction phase of the project. Where details are not available for certain aspects of the project, generic data has been used or assumptions have been made based on previous experience. The input data has been sourced from the project construction plan and further discussions with the project engineers. It is not always possible to give exact quantities of all materials and plant but the estimates used are considered relatively accurate. Some assumptions that have been made for this calculation are that all quarried material is coming via road from the nearest available and viable quarry (5kms), the metal used in construction has come from mainland Europe by sea, any waste material from the reclamation can be dumped at sea, the project will involve 30 men for the full 16 months of construction and the project value is over £10 million.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-18

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 8.7 gives a summary of outputs from the carbon calculation of the proposed harbour extension at the Port of Foynes.

Table 8.7 Carbon Calculation Summary in Tonnes Fossil CO2

Category Tonnes CO2 Percentage of Total

Quarried Material 2,617 15%

Concrete, Mortar and Cement 477 3%

Metals (Steel) 13,688 77%

Plant Emissions 400 2%

Waste Removal 10 0%

Portable Site Accommodation 20 0%

Material Transport 388 2%

Personnel Travel 144 1%

Totals 17, 744 100%

The above table demonstrates that the vast majority of Tonnes of Fossil CO2 produced in the construction of the proposed port extension is due to the production of the large quantities of steel required. Although the quarried material is also producing a large proportion of the

percentage total CO2 produced there is less input required in its extraction and the material is coming from a nearby source. There is limited scope on influencing the energy and emissions required to produce these materials from the Port of Foynes perspective, however the Tonnes

of Fossil CO2 produced in the transport of these materials can be influenced by the port through the method of transport and the source of material. If a more distant aggregate supplier is chosen for the source of quarried material there can be large impacts on the carbon footprint and costs of the development, as demonstrated in Table 11.8 which gives a summary of outputs from the carbon calculation if a quarry 25kms away is chosen as the main source of rock and other aggregate. This gives a total difference of over 1,000 Tonnes Fossil

CO2. It would therefore be in the ports interest for both carbon footprint and most likely in economic terms to select material sources that are closer to the port and can be delivered to the site in the most sustainable manner, although final choice of source will be made by the construction contractor.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-19

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 8.8 Carbon Calculation Summary in Tonnes Fossil CO2

Category Tonnes CO2 Percentage of Total

Quarried Material 2,617 14%

Concrete, Mortar and Cement 477 3%

Metals (Steel) 13,688 73%

Plant Emissions 400 2%

Waste Removal 10 0%

Portable Site Accommodation 20 0%

Material Transport 1472 8%

Personnel Travel 144 1%

Totals 18, 828 100%

This carbon calculation is a simplified estimate of construction related greenhouse gas

emissions based on available data and represented by tonnes of fossil CO2 produced. There are likely to be changes to the data throughout the planning and construction stage of the project. The carbon calculation can be adjusted to reflect any significant changes in material use and / or construction practices. Carbon emissions from the construction phase are a once off occurrence and should not be significant in the context of national emissions.

8.8 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

The potential air quality issues associated with the proposed development include:

. Nuisance dust and Particulate Matter (PM10) from construction activities. . Traffic-derived air pollution and dust from transport during construction.

The potential consequences of these issues are: . Increased dust and traffic-derived pollutions can negatively impact on amenity, visual and health aspects of local receptors during the construction period.

Quantities of dust will be generated during construction of the jetty. Most nuisance dust generated will be deposited close to the source, however smaller dust particles may disperse further from the site. The distances where likely impacts are expected from construction sites are outlined in Table 8.9. The risk of dust impacts occurring during construction can be reduced quite simply with good site management practices.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-20

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 8.9 Assessment Criteria for the Impact of Dust from Construction, with Standard Mitigation in Place, NRA 2006

Potential distance for significant effects Source (distance from source)

Vegetation Scale Description Soiling PM10* effects

Large construction Major sites, with high use 100m 25m 25m of haul roads Moderate sized construction sites, Moderate 50m 15m 15m with moderate use of haul roads Minor construction Minor sites, with limited 25m 10m 10m use of haul roads

*Significance based on the PM10 Limit Values specified in S.I. 271 of 2002, which allows 35 daily exceedances/year of 50 μg/m3

The increase in construction traffic at the Port during the proposed reclamation will only have a localised temporary effect on the port access road and should have no affect on air quality within the town itself. During the construction period any increases in pollutant concentrations on the N69 / East Link Road Junction and the Port Inner Road due to traffic should be extremely small (<1%) or very small (1-5%). All pollutants modelled at all roadside locations within this assessment were well within all Limit Values and Alert Thresholds. Following completion of the reclamation project the traffic should revert to its pre-construction levels, including yearly factored growth.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-21

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

8.9 MITIGATION MEASURES

Quantities of nuisance dust may be generated during construction, with most of this being deposited close to the source. The smaller the dust particle the more likely it is to disperse further from the site. However the risk of nuisance dust impacts from construction of the proposed reclamation can be quite simply reduced with good site management practices. A Dust Minimisation Plan should be formulated for the Construction Phase of the project. This construction Dust Minimisation Plan should include the following general dust and emission mitigation measures: . Site roads will be regularly cleaned and maintained as appropriate. Hard surface roads will be swept to remove mud and aggregate materials from their surface while any un- surfaced roads will be restricted to essential site traffic only; . Any site roads with the potential to give rise to dust will be regularly watered, as appropriate, during dry and/or windy conditions (also applies to vehicles delivering material with dust potential); . All vehicles exiting the site should make use of a wheel wash facility prior to entering onto public roads, to ensure mud and other wastes are not tracked onto public roads. Wheel washes will be self-contained systems that do not require discharge of wastewater to water bodies; . The contractor will be required to ensure that all vehicles are suitably maintained to ensure that emissions of engine generated pollutants is kept to a minimum; . Public roads outside the site will be regularly inspected for cleanliness, and cleaned as necessary; . The site should be adequately screened with suitable barriers to reduce the potential for dust dispersion; . Material handling systems and site stockpiling of materials will be designed and laid out to minimise exposure to wind and will be located as far from receptors as possible; . Minimise drop-heights to control the fall of materials; . The transport of topsoil, rock, aggregate, and any other fill materials should be undertaken in tarpaulin-covered vehicles; . The number of material handling operations should be minimised to ensure that dusty material is not handled unnecessarily; . Any material on made ground should be kept damp and not allowed to dry out; . Hard surfacing of made ground will take place as soon as is operationally feasible; . Continued dust monitoring in the vicinity of the port; . Adherence to the Ports management document Procedures for Handling Dusty Product.

On-going review of the Dust Minimisation Plan will be necessary throughout the construction phase of the project. Responsibility for dust management should be assigned to a specific member of the project team who will liaise with contractors, suppliers, local residents and the

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-22

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

local authority. A complaints procedure should be designed and made available to stakeholders.

The UK Building Research Establishment (BRE), the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM, 2005) and the London Councils (2006) have produced best practice guidance documents for dust minimisation plans and dust minimisation from construction and demolition projects.

8.10 RESIDUAL IMPACTS

Following the implementation of appropriate environmental management controls, only minor, localised and temporary adverse effects are anticipated from construction related dust during dry and breezy conditions. Appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize the generation of nuisance dust. Particular care will be taken during land reclamation works to ensure that dust generation is minimised. The predicted increase in traffic-derived pollutant concentrations during construction is extremely small to very small and all predicted concentrations are well within current air quality limit values.

8.11 CONCLUSIONS

The reclamation of land behind the east jetty at the Port of Foynes has the potential to have temporary impacts on air quality through increased traffic and plant emissions, and the creation of nuisance dust during the construction phase. Through adequate site management these potential negative impacts can be minimised or mitigated for completely.

The future operations at Foynes Port following completion of the east jetty reclamation should remain the same as they are currently. There are no planned or anticipated changes in vessel and road traffic numbers, sizes or cargos. Emissions to air from port activities are therefore not expected to change from the existing emissions to air. With no significant change to port activity, continuing improvements in fuel and engine quality, and increasing environmental legislation and guidelines, it is anticipated that air quality at Foynes Port should improve with time, provided the port operations occur within the guidelines of their management plans and operating procedures.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-23

SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9.0 COASTAL PROCESSES

9.1 INTRODUCTION

The proposed east jetty development at Foynes Port will have potential sedimentation effects due to the dredging associated with its construction; therefore an assessment was carried out to address this concern. The impact of the proposed dredging was assessed using computational modelling techniques based on the MIKE 21 suite of coastal process modelling software developed by the Danish Hydraulics Institute.

The proposed dredging will use a submersible pump to extract material and deposit it into a nearby barge. Thus, the main concern for this environmental impact assessment is the overspill of sediment from the barge. The extent, concentration and duration of the resulting sediment plume were investigated along with the associated sedimentation to assess the impact of the dredging process.

The following sections detail the model development and the predicted impact of the dredging.

9.2 MODELLING SYSTEM

9.2.1 Tidal Model The tidal flow simulations which form the basis for the sediment dispersion simulations were undertaken using the MIKE21 HD and NHD flow model. The HD Module (MIKE21 HD) is the principal module in the MIKE21 package and provides the hydrodynamic basis for the computations performed in the modules for Sediment Dispersion and Environmental Hydraulics.

The HD Module is a 2-dimensional, depth averaged hydrodynamic model which simulates the water level variations and flows in response to a variety of forcing functions in lakes, estuaries and coastal areas. The water levels and flows are resolved on a rectangular grid covering the area of interest when provided with bathymetry, bed resistance coefficient, wind field, hydrodynamic boundary conditions, etc.

The system solves the full time-dependent non-linear equations of continuity and conservation of momentum using an implicit ADI finite difference scheme of second-order accuracy.

The effects and facilities incorporated within the model include: . Convective and cross momentum; . Bottom shear stress; . Wind shear stress at the surface;

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-1 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

. Barometric pressure gradients; . Coriollis forces; . Momentum dispersion (e.g. through the Smagorinsky formulation); . Wave-induced currents; . Sources and sinks (mass and momentum); . Evaporation; . Flooding and drying.

Facilities for focussing on specific areas within the computational domain through the use of transfer boundary data are also included within MIKE21 HD.

The NHD Module is an extension to the standard HD Module, which has the capability to simulate consecutively finer nested grids which are dynamically linked together. The use of nested grids allows computationally efficient modelling to take place with the dynamic linking ensuring that there is the correct transfer of momentum across the patch boundaries. This eliminates possible inaccuracies associated with extracting boundary conditions for transfer boundaries and allows a larger region to be modelled using fewer cells. A description of the development and validation of the Shannon model is given Section 9.3.

9.2.2 Sediment Dispersion Model For the sediment dispersion simulations, RPS used the MIKE321 NPA model which describes the transport and fate of solutes or suspended matter and uses data from the hydrodynamic model to provide information on the general movement of the water body.

Within MIKE 321 NPA the sediment is considered as a series of discrete particles being advected with the surrounding water body and dispersed as a result of random processes in a 2-Dimensional or 3-Dimensional regime using the Lagrangian approach. Hence, the resolution of the sediment plume is not restricted by the grid size of the current field.

The model can be used to determine the fate of suspended or dissolved matter that is discharged or accidentally spilled in lakes, estuaries, coastal areas or the open sea. The model simulates the effects of wind driven currents, including a mechanism for dealing with the overturning currents at the shoreline. The loss of active material from the water column through either settling or decay can also be included within the model simulations.

Although the model can use data from 2-Dimensional depth averaged hydrodynamic flow models; in such cases the MIKE321 NPA model applies a logarithmic vertical velocity profile to the tidal current component to provide a more accurate assessment of the displacement of particles located at different depths in the water column. This facility provides a more realistic representation of the situation at full scale.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-2 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9.3 TIDAL MODELLING SIMULATIONS

9.3.1 Irish Coastal Waters Model The tidal flow around Foynes was simulated by a series of sub-models driven by RPS’ Irish Coastal Waters model, which provided boundary data for the detailed models. The Irish Coastal Waters model stretches from the North-western end of France including the English Channel as far as Dover out into the Atlantic to 16° west, including the Porcupine Bank and Rockall. In the other direction it stretches from the Northern part of the Bay of Biscay to just south of the Faeroes Bank. Overall the model covers the Northern Atlantic Ocean and UK continental shelf up to a distance of 600km from the Irish Coast as illustrated in Figure 9.1.

Figure 9.1 Extent of Irish Coastal Waters Model

This model was constructed using flexible mesh technology allowing the size of the computational cells to vary depending on user requirements. Along the Atlantic boundary the model features a mesh size of 13.125’ (24km). The Irish Atlantic coast has been described using cells of on average 3km size while in the Irish Sea, the maximum cell size is limited to 3.5 km.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-3 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The bathymetry was generated from a number of different sources. Large parts of the bathymetric information were obtained from Admiralty Charts, as produced digitally by C-MAP of Norway. Recent surveys of several banks and coastal areas have also been included covering in part or all of: . Wexford and approaches; . Blackwater bank; . Arklow bank; . Codling bank; . Carlingford Lough; . Dublin Bay; . Malahide Estuary; . Rogerstown Estuary; . Greystones.

Both survey data commissioned by RPS and the digitised charts were quality checked by RPS engineers and compared with Admiralty data and known benchmarks. Recent surveys carried out by Geological Survey Ireland (GSI) as part of the Irish National Seabed Survey (INSS) were also incorporated into the model. The datum of the various bathymetry sources was adjusted to mean sea level using over 350 reference levels to obtain a consistent dataset. A custom made routine was used to interpolate the mean sea level corrections for the relevant survey area and adjust the bathymetry values accordingly before incorporation into the overall model.

The simulation of the astronomic tides in the model area is mainly driven by the oscillation of water levels along the open boundaries. The Irish Coastal Waters model has six open boundaries, five in the Atlantic and one in the English Channel. The time series of tidal elevations along these boundaries were generated using a global tidal model designed by a team at the Danish National Survey and Cadastre Department (KMS). The KMS global tidal model is based on the prediction of tidal elevations using 8 semidiurnal and diurnal tidal constants (as opposed to the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office approach which uses 4-6 constants). These constants were derived through the simulation of the effect of astronomic forces due to the sun and moon on the water surfaces. The model output was further refined with the use of satellite derived altimetry data.

9.3.2 Shannon Estuary Base Model The extent of the base model for the Foynes Port study included the Shannon Estuary and the nearby Atlantic Ocean, as illustrated in Figure 9.2. The bathymetry for this base model was taken from the same sources as the Irish Coastal Waters model, as detailed in Section 9.3.1, although this was supplemented with the results of a bathymetric survey carried out as part of

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-4 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

the INFOMAR project, a joint venture between the Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) and the Marine Institute (MI).

The northern and western boundary conditions were defined using the Irish Coastal Waters model.

Figure 9.2 Base model extent (135m grid) for the Shannon Estuary Tidal Model

A series of sub-models were developed from the base model in order to focus and refine the modelling area. At each stage of refinement the model predictions were validated against Admiralty tidal predictions before transfer boundary data was extracted.

The Foynes modelling was finally undertaken on a 45m / 15m nested grid, with boundary data supplied from the 135m base model.

The bathymetry for the 45m model region is shown in Figure 9.3, with the finer (15m) nested grid region shown by the black outline, and in detail in Figure 9.4. Bathymetry is given relative to mean sea level which varies with chart datum depending on the location. At Foynes mean sea level is 2.83m above chart datum (LAT).

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-5 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.3 Tidal model domain 45m grid with nested 15m section (MSL)

Figure 9.4 15m grid bathymetry (MSL) for the Foynes area

This final model was used to simulate tidal flow patterns for a period of one month, to include both neap and spring tides. Typical spring tidal flow patterns are presented in Figure 9.5 to Figure 9.10. Figure 9.5 and Figure 9.6 show the flood tidal flow patterns for the 45m and 15m grid model areas respectively, while Figure 9.7 shows the flood tidal flow pattern in the area of principal interest. Similarly Figure 9.8 and Figure 9.9 show the corresponding ebb tidal flow patterns for the 45m and 15m model domains while Figure 9.10 shows the ebb tidal flow through the main area of interest.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-6 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.5 Flood tide pattern 45m grid extent – Spring Tide

Figure 9.6 Flood tide pattern for 15m grid extent – Spring Tide

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-7 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.7 Flood tide pattern for area of interest – Spring Tide

Figure 9.8 Ebb tide pattern 45m grid extent – Spring Tide

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-8 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.9 Ebb tide pattern for 15m grid extent – Spring Tide

Figure 9.10 Ebb tide pattern for area of interest – Spring Tide

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-9 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The detailed plots given in Figure 9.7 and Figure 9.10 demonstrate the complexity of the tidal flows in the nearshore area; with a number of areas in which tidal eddies occur due to the presence of partially submerged rock outcrops and plateaux.

9.3.3 Impact of the Proposed Development on the Tidal Flows The impact of the proposed development was simulated by altering the tidal model bathymetry to include the east jetty. Comparisons of the tidal flow conditions throughout the area were then made to assess the impact of the development. Figure 9.11 and Figure 9.13 show the typical spring flood and ebb patterns respectively prior to development works, with Figure 9.12 and Figure 9.14 showing the difference in spring flood and ebb velocities between the simulation with the development having been undertaken and the same simulation for the existing seabed bathymetry.

From these tidal speed difference plots it can be seen that on the flood tide, there are small changes in the current velocity in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development, with very minor changes along the northern drying bank of Aughinish Island. A small change occurs on the ebb tide in the area of the proposed development only. The maximum differences in the peak velocities beyond the immediate vicinity of the construction are of the order of ±0.1m/s, but only exist in very small areas, due to a minor change in tidal regime along the drying banks. This was the anticipated outcome, and is considered to have no significant impact.

Figure 9.11 Typical spring flood flow pattern – Before Development

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-10 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.12 Difference in peak spring flood current velocity – Proposed development minus existing

Figure 9.13 Typical spring ebb flow pattern – Before Development

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-11 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.14 Difference in peak spring ebb current velocity – Proposed development minus existing

9.4 MODEL VERIFICATION

9.4.1 Model Verification Data The hydrodynamic model was verified using field data collected specifically for this study. It should be noted that the model simulation period was not the same as the monitoring period and therefore data was compared in terms of the occurrence of similar tidal ranges, making use of Admiralty predicted tides. When the model is compared with the time series of predicted tides at Carrigaholt and Tarbert over the actual simulation period as shown by Figure 9.15 and Figure 9.16, it can be seen to give a good representation of the tidal levels experienced in this area at this time. Further to this, when comparing spring or neap tidal ranges simulated by the model at Carrigaholt, Tarbert, Foynes and Mellon Point with those values indicated in the Admiralty tide tables, a good correlation was also found.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-12 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.15: Predicted and Simulated Tidal Elevations at Carrigaholt

Figure 9.16 Predicted and Simulated Tidal Elevations at Tarbert

The model calibration process was focused on ensuring that the observed tidal flow regime in the Foynes area was adequately simulated within the model. Figure 9.17 shows the location of the principal monitoring sites for which data is presented in this report.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-13 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.17 Location of Tidal Current Monitoring Points

9.4.2 Model Verification Results Figure 9.18 to Figure 9.23 show the comparison between the measured data and the model data at each of the monitoring locations shown in Figure 9.17 for both spring and neap tides. The measured data for current velocity and direction are shown as a series of points (as they are discrete measurements). At each location surface, middle and bed measurements were provided representing the water column, however for the purposes of this calibration, the readings from the middle of the water column were considered the most representative to be compared with the model results.

The simulated data is presented as a continuous trace which presents the depth averaged value of either current speed or direction at the corresponding location within the model domain. The surface elevations taken from the model at the corresponding times are also shown for clarity.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-14 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.18 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation (bottom) at CO1 – Spring Tide

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-15 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.19 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation (bottom) at CO1 - Neap Tide

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-16 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.20 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation (bottom) at CO2 – Spring Tide

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-17 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.21 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation (bottom) at CO2 - Neap Tide

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-18 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.22 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation (bottom) at CO3 - Spring Tide

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-19 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.23 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation (bottom) at CO3 - Neap Tide

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-20 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Location CO1 This point was located at the north west of Foynes Island in around 23m of water. Both spring and neap flows, shown in Figure 9.18 and Figure 9.19 respectively, show similar flow patterns. There are clearly defined south westerly tidal currents on the ebb tide and north easterly tidal currents on the flood tide. In both cases a good correlation has been achieved between the measured and simulated data, with the predicted current speed and directions falling within the range of those measured, although current speeds are possibly slightly under-predicted on the spring ebb tide.

Location CO2 CO2 is located at the north east of Foynes Island, close to Sturamus Island in a water depth of circa 10m. Shallower water along with drying banks to the north east and south west of this site gives rise to eddying in the vicinity of CO2. Figure 9.20 and Figure 9.21 show the measured and simulated data for this site during spring and neap tides. In both cases, the tidal flow runs in a north westerly direction on the ebb tide and a south easterly direction on the flood tide, however much higher current velocities occur on the ebb tide than the flood tide. Agreement between the modelled and observed data is good indicating that this tidal asymmetry is well represented within the model.

Location CO3 Figure 9.22 shows the spring tide and Figure 9.23 the neap tide currents for site CO3 to the north east of the site of the proposed jetty expansion, close to Durnish Point. This meter was sited in around 8m of water. The tidal currents flow in a north easterly direction on the flood tide and a south easterly direction on the ebb tide. The model shows good correlation in current speed at this location on both the spring and neap tides.

Overall The model verification results discussed above indicate that the spatial distribution of the tidal flow is generally being well represented in the model simulations. The nearshore flow is complex with some level of circulation to the north east and south west of the island due to shallow/drying areas. Across the area over which the dispersion modelling will take place the model is considered suitably well verified to give a good prediction of sediment concentration and excursion for the dredging scenario to be investigated.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-21 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9.5 MODELLING THE IMPACT OF DREDGING OPERATIONS

The process of submersible suction pump dredging will unavoidably cause a discharge of material through the water column due to washout from the barges. These losses may have potential impacts on marine life in the form of a sediment plume within the water column and the following sedimentation may impact on the seabed flora and fauna or accumulate in navigation channels. These losses were modelled as part of the study to quantify the impact on the local environment during the dredging processes.

The tidal models, discussed in Section 9.2 were coupled with the MIKE 321 NPA particle modelling module to carry out the assessment. The affect of the sources on the seabed and through the water column was modelled by releasing discrete particles during the dredging cycle and tracking their progress to produce sedimentation patterns and concentration plots of the subsequent sediment plumes.

9.5.1 Modelling Foynes Harbour Dredging

Flow Model Data The tidal model domain shown in Figure 9.3 was used as the basis for the particle tracking model, where particles released into the water column during the course of dredging are tracked precisely and independently of grid spacing. The processes simulated during the course of the modelling included dredging taking place across the site for a period which included both spring and neap tide conditions.

Sediment Source Borehole logs taken in the area of the proposed dredging were used to determine the nature and grading of the sediment. The total losses to the water column are often assumed to be 2% of the dredged volume, however given the fine grading of the dredged material, 5% loss was assumed in order to be conservative, in line with industry practice; “Scoping the Assessment of Sediment Plumes from Dredging” CIRIA 547..This was represented in the model by a source at the water surface, indicating the washout from the barges.

The Mike 321 NPA model simulated the fate of the loss of material from the barges by releasing particles into the water column and tracking each particle throughout the simulation process. A range of grain sizes has been used in the model, in order to cater for the sediment grading of the dredged material. The source to be released to the water surface had the distribution of grain size shown in Table 9.1. This represents the finest material within the sediment as settlement will take place within the barge before washout occurs.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-22 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 9.1 Sediment Grading of Dredged Material

Grain Diameter % Occurrence mm

0.05 71 0.105 23 0.18 1 0.255 1 0.45 1 0.89 1 1.59 1 2.675 1

Dredging Simulations The dredging simulations were carried out over a period of 22 days, representing the anticipated dredge time and allowing adequate time to assess the dredging process under both spring and neap tides. This ensured that both the largest amount of sedimentation, occurring during neap tide, and the widest sediment plume, occurring at spring tide, were modelled. For the simulations it was assumed that 150,000m3 of dredging material was extracted over the 22 day period. The intended method of dredging to be used at Foynes Port East jetty is by submersible pump, with deposition into two alternating barges. This will involve a 2.5 hour dredging cycle, including a 0.5 hour offload time.

During the course of the simulation the barges were positioned at both the eastern and western ends of the jetty in such a way as to ensure that each part of the site was modelled over the full range of tidal conditions. Washout from the barges was taken to be 5% at the water surface.

9.5.2 Impact of the Proposed Dredging The impact of the dredging and the associated sediment sources may be evaluated by considering two aspects: . sedimentation and any potential impact on the existing seabed flora and fauna or potential accumulation in navigation channels; and . the concentration of sediment within the water column prior to settlement or due to subsequent re-suspension, which may potentially impact upon marine life.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-23 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Sedimentation Impacts

The sediment transport modelling extended throughout the Foynes region, within the Shannon Estuary as shown in Figure 9.24. Evaluation of the results showed that any sedimentation of significance on completion of the works was limited to the immediate vicinity of the dredging and is shown in more detail in Figure 9.25. Apart from the immediate dredging vicinity, the greatest predicted sedimentation depth on completion of the works was circa 100mm at the west side of Foynes Port western jetty, or between 5- 40mm at the western sides of Aughinish Island along the drying banks. However, sedimentation is often over-predicted for drying areas within the modelling process due to shallow water inaccuracies. Greater levels of sedimentation occurred at the dredge site itself, but it is expected that this would be removed as part of the dredging operation. Much smaller levels of deposition are also predicted at shoreline locations where the tidal currents are much reduced. It should be noted that this modelling approach does not include the effect of waves and that many of these inter-tidal locations would experience some level of sediment dispersion leading to lower levels of sedimentation than predicted within the model.

The maximum sedimentation expected to occur over the course of the dredging is shown in Figure 9.26 and in more detail in Figure 9.27. This is the maximum depth experienced in each model cell over the course of the simulation, but some material may be subsequently re- suspended. The maximum sedimentation plots show similar results to the final sedimentation plots shown above. On completion of the dredging, the sediment is predicted to remain on the drying banks; however it will be re-suspended in the channel areas.

Figure 9.24 Sedimentation on completion of proposed dredging works

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-24 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.25 Sedimentation on completion of proposed dredging works in local area

Figure 9.26 Maximum sedimentation during proposed dredging works

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-25 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.27 Maximum sedimentation during proposed dredging works in local area

The concentration of sediment above background values within the water column during the course of the dredging was examined by investigating the average concentration through the water column and also in the 0.5m thick layer adjacent to the bed. The former is of importance in general water quality turbidity whilst the latter will relate to seabed fauna such as mussel beds.

In order to gain an understanding of typical background values, RPS reviewed the available water sampling data from four locations around Foynes Island, as shown in Figure 9.. At Point SSO1, average background values through the water column ranged from 20-35mg/l, while at points SSO2, SSO3 and SSO4, the range was between 35-75mg/l, 15-35mg/l and 15-25mg/l respectively.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-26 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.28 Location of Water Sampling Points

The plume generated, as sediment is released into the water column, is shown for typical flood and ebb scenarios for both spring and neap tides in Figure 9.29Error! Reference source not found. to Figure 9.32. As anticipated, the spring tide plots show a much greater dispersion extent, with highest concentrations found on the flood tide of circa 200mg/l above background to the east of the dredging site and at the west of Aughinish Island. Figure 9.33 to Figure 9.36 show the concentration of particles at the bed during spring and neap tides, for both flood and ebb scenarios. As before the worst case scenario is the spring flood tide, yielding concentrations of up to circa 150mg/l above background in the bed layer.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-27 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.29 Typical suspended solids concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging – Spring Flood tide

Figure 9.30 Typical suspended solids concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging – Spring Ebb tide

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-28 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.31 Typical suspended solids concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging – Neap Flood tide

Figure 9.32 Typical suspended solids concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging – Neap Ebb tide

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-29 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.33 Typical bed concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging – Spring Flood tide

Figure 9.34 Typical bed concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging – Spring Ebb tide

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-30 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.35 Typical bed concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging – Neap Flood tide

Figure 9.36 Typical bed concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging – Neap Ebb tide

The concentrations shown in the previous plume plots give a ‘snapshot’ and therefore present levels which may only occur for a limited period during the dredging cycle as Figure 9.37 to Figure 9.40 illustrates. Figure 9.37 shows the average suspended solids over the duration of the dredging period, with Figure 9.38 showing a more detailed view of the dredging area. Apart from the immediate vicinity of the dredging, an average of less than 60-70mg/l of solids (above background) are suspended through the water column. This area extends from the west of Aughinish Island as far east as Coalhill Point. Bed concentrations are further reduced,

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-31 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

as can be seen in Figure 9.39 and Figure 9.40, with values ranging up to 40-50mg/l above background.

When analysing data from the water sampling locations as depicted in Figure 9., some understanding of percentage values of concentration above background level can be gained. For example at Point SSO1, the average value of suspended solids in the water column determined by the model over the dredging period is less than 5% of the average measured background value. At Points SSO2 and SSO4, the average suspended solids concentration found within the water column during the dredging simulations is less than 10% and 65% of the average measured background value respectively. As was expected, at Point SSO3 directly adjacent to the dredging site, the concentrations above background were subject to the most significant increase, with average concentration values up to 1.5 times greater than the average background. Despite these increases, the average suspended solid concentrations derived from the model at the four sampling locations are less than the natural variation in suspended solid concentrations shown in the measured data.

In each of the following plots, the plume of dredging material extending from the site is clearly visible with reduced concentration at increased distance from the dredging site. In some isolated inter-tidal regions concentrations are increased due to re-suspension of deposited material, however as discussed earlier, this sedimentation is likely to be over-predicted due to the wave induced dispersion which would occur but is not included within the model.

Figure 9.37 Average suspended solids concentration (above background) during dredging cycle

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-32 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.38 Average suspended solids concentration (above background) during dredging cycle in local area

Figure 9.39 Average bed concentration (above background) during dredging cycle

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-33 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.40 Average bed concentration (above background) during dredging cycle in local area

Maximum suspended solid concentrations for the water column and bed layer are shown in Figure 9.41 and Figure 9.42 respectively; these represent the highest concentrations experienced over the entire simulation for each grid cell. It should be noted that these maximum values may occur for a period of time as short as 15 minutes and are therefore not a representation of a true plume, but are included to provide information on the upper bound concentrations.

Outside the immediate dredging vicinity, the maximum suspended solid concentrations at any point in time over the dredging period generally fall below 600mg/l above background, but more commonly only reach maximums in the region of 100-200mg/l above background. Likewise, the maximum bed layer concentrations at any point in time over the dredging period generally fall below 500mg/l, but are much lower in most other areas.

The aforementioned average concentration plots provide a more realistic representation of the dispersion. However the maximum plots prove that even the upper bounds of the potential concentration are still relatively low.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-34 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.41 Maximum suspended solids concentration (above background) during dredging cycle

Figure 9.42 Maximum bed concentration (above background) during dredging cycle

9.6 MODELLING CONCLUSIONS

The potential effects of the proposed jetty development and associated dredging programme on sediment transport have been investigated using numerical models. On completion of the dredging, it is anticipated that sedimentation will occur to a level of 100mm at the west side of Foynes Port western jetty or between 5- 40mm at the western sides of Aughinish Island along the drying banks. Greater levels of sedimentation occurred at the dredge site itself, but it is expected that this should be removed following completion of the dredging operation. Other isolated areas in the inter-tidal zone may also undergo limited sedimentation. However this should be reduced by the presence of wave induced dispersion which was not included within the model.

During the course of the dredging programme, average suspended solid concentrations are predicted to remain largely less than 60-70mg/l above the background value, with affected

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-35 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

areas ranging between Coalhill Point and western Aughinish Island. Bed concentrations should remain less than 50mg/l above background, throughout the course of the dredging.

The impact of the tidal flow patterns, following the development works on the jetty was also assessed. Comparisons of the tidal flow conditions throughout the area before and after the development were carried out, concluding that only small changes in the current velocity in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development will occur, along with very minor changes along the northern drying bank of Aughinish Island. The maximum differences in the peak velocities beyond the immediate vicinity of the construction are of the order of ±0.1m/s, due to minor flow realignment.

9.7 WATER QUALITY

The proposed reclamation area is within Foynes Harbour transitional water body (water body code: IE_SH_060_0350) and is immediately adjacent to the Lower Shannon Estuary transitional water body (water body code: IE_SH_060_0300) (Figure 9.43).

The Lower Shannon Estuary is a large water body at 123 km2 in area and extending from Ballinvoher village in County Limerick to Ballylongford village in County Kerry (insert in Figure 9.43).

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-36 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.43 Foynes Harbour and Lower Shannon Estuary water bodies

9.8 DESIGNATIONS

9.8.1 Protected Areas The works area is located within a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and is also adjacent to a Special Protection Area (SPA): . SAC – Lower River Shannon SAC (SAC site code: 002165); . SPA – River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA (SPA side code: 004077).

Foynes Harbour and the Lower Shannon Estuary water bodies must achieve the water quality standards for these areas in accordance with the Habitats and Birds Directives.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-37 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The closest shellfish waters are West Shannon Ballylongford1 and West Shannon Poulnasharry Bay2, however, both are located more than 20 kilometres downstream of the works area. There are no nutrient sensitive areas or designated bathing waters in the vicinity of the works area.

Figure 9.44 Protected areas

9.8.2 Other Designations Foynes Harbour has been designated as a heavily modified water body due to the hard defences and the port activities within the water body. Therefore, this water body is subject to alternative Water Framework Directive (WFD) objectives. These objectives take account of the current modifications of the water body but also take account of new modifications which will take place in the future including future flood relief measures which will be undertaken by the EPA in accordance with the Floods Directive but particularly the planned expansion and development of the port.

1http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Water/PublicConsultations- ShellfishWatersDirective/FileDownLoad,22102,en.pdf 2http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Water/PublicConsultations- ShellfishWatersDirective/FileDownLoad,22106,en.pdf

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-38 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

9.9 SOURCES OF WATER QUALITY INFORMATION

This section presents surface water quality information for the waters in the vicinity of Foynes Harbour where the land reclamation work is proposed. The sources of the water quality information summarised in this chapter are: . Water body status information arising from the Water Framework Directive monitoring programme and outlined in the Shannon International River Basin Management Plan (2009-2015) (ShIRBD, 2010). . Water quality information outlined in the EPA’s most recent water quality report, Water Quality in Ireland 2007-2009 (EPA, 2010).

9.9.1 Water Framework Directive Status Classifications Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (the Water Framework Directive), was adopted by the European Parliament and Council in 2000. It was transposed into Irish law via the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations, 2003 (S.I. No. 722 of 2003), as amended by the European Communities (Water Policy) (Amendment) Regulations, 2005.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) establishes a legal framework for the protection, improvement and sustainable management of rivers, lakes, transitional waters (estuaries), coastal waters and groundwater. It is an over-arching piece of legislation, superseding and updating existing legislation, and will be the most significant piece of legislation governing the water environment for the foreseeable future.

The aim of the WFD is to prevent deterioration of the existing status of waters and to ensure that all waters are classified as at least ‘good’ status (by 2015 in most cases, with all waters achieving good status by 2027 at the latest). A water body must achieve both good ‘ecological status’ and good ‘chemical status’ before it can be considered to be at good overall status.

Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) for classifying surface water status are established in the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations, 2009 (S.I. 272 of 2009). These regulations set standards for biological quality elements, physico- chemical conditions supporting biological elements (including general conditions and specific pollutants), priority substances and priority hazardous substances.

The ‘ecological status’ of a water body is established according to compliance with the EQSs for biological quality elements, physico-chemical conditions supporting biological elements and relevant pollutants.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-39 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The ‘chemical status’ of a water body is established according to compliance with the EQSs for priority substances and priority hazardous substances. In the case of transitional and coastal waters, the establishment of chemical status is incomplete due to a lack of monitoring data. However, an initial indication of the chemical status of some transitional and coastal water bodies was made using existing data sources such as the National Dangerous Substances Screening Exercise and the Marine Institute’s shellfish waters monitoring programme.

As well as achieving good ecological and chemical status, a water body must achieve compliance with standards and objectives specified for protected areas, which include areas designated by the Bathing Water, Urban Waste Water Treatment, Shellfish Waters, Habitats and Birds Directives. Waters bodies that are compliant with WFD standards, but that contain protected areas that are non-compliant with protected area standards, are downgraded to ‘less than good’ status.

In order to establish the WFD status of water bodies, the EPA developed a new, WFD- compliant monitoring programme which began in 2006. It builds on previous monitoring programmes and provides a comprehensive assessment of water quality and quantity.

WFD status classifications apply at the water body scale and are based on several samples/surveys targeting the variety of parameters, including biological, physico-chemical, chemical and hydromorphological elements, required to establish WFD status. The current status classification is an interim classification and is based on monitoring information collected between 2006 and 2008. Final status classifications, based on the results of a complete monitoring cycle, i.e. 2007 to 2009, will be reported in 2011.

The interim status classification of transitional and coastal water bodies is primarily based on information and data collected by the EPA, Marine Institute and Central Fisheries Board (now Inland Fisheries Ireland) between 2006 and 2008. In addition, assessments of the conservation status of protected areas carried out by NPWS were also taken into account.

9.9.2 EPA Water Quality Information The EPA Water Quality Report 2007-2009 was published in 2010 and presents a review of Irish ambient water quality for the years 2007 to 2009. The water quality information is presented on a water body scale in line with the WFD and with comparisons with the WFD. EQSs. However, it is also presented in the manner of previous EPA reports so that trends over time can be seen.

The water quality information in relation to transitional and coastal waters outlined in the report was generated by the EPA as well as other organisations including:

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-40 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

. Central and Regional Fisheries Boards (now Inland Fisheries Ireland); . Marine Institute; . Sea Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA); . National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS); . Waterways Ireland; and . Irish Coast Guard.

9.10 EXISTING WATER QUALITY

9.10.1 Water Framework Directive Status The Foynes Harbour water body is not monitored in the WFD monitoring programme and therefore the WFD status assigned to it is extrapolated based on that status of other water bodies with similar physical characteristic and with similar risks to water status (in this case the Lower Shannon Estuary which is a monitored water body in the WFD monitoring programme).

Both water bodies are classified as being at ‘moderate’ status (Figure 9.45). The results in relation to the individual status elements are presented in Table 9.2

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-41 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.45 Foynes Harbour and Lower Shannon Estuary WFD water body status

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-42 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 9.2 Water Framework Directive Status Elements Status Element Foynes Harbour Lower Shannon Estuary Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen status - Good Molybdate Reactive Phosphorus status - Good Dissolved oxygen as per cent saturation status - High Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-days) status - High Macroalgae - phytobiomass status - High Macroalgae - opportunistic algae status - - Macroalgae - reduced species list status - - Angiosperms - Seagrass and Saltmarsh status - - Benthic Invertebrates status - - Fish status - High Hydrology status - - Morphology status - Good Specific Pollutant Status - Fail Overall protected area status - At least good Ecological Status Moderate Moderate Chemical Status Fail Surface Water Status - Confidence level in status High Monitored / Extrapolated Extrapolated Monitored Donor water bodies Lower Shannon - Estuary

A water body must achieve both good ‘ecological status’ and good ‘chemical status’ before it can be considered to be at good overall status. It must also be compliant with standards for protected areas in the vicinity.

The Lower Shannon Estuary water body achieved ‘high’ or ‘good’ status in relation to all of the physico-chemical and biological parameters and is compliant with the standards established in the Habitats and Birds Directives. However, it failed chemical status, and therefore its status was downgraded to ‘moderate’.

The chemical failures were in relation to specific pollutants status (WFD Annex XIII specific pollutants) and chemical status (WFD Annex X priority substances). There is currently no dedicated WFD monitoring programme in relation to specific pollutants and priority substances. Therefore, data from other monitoring programmes was used to assign status. Other monitoring programmes included the National Dangerous Substances Screening Exercise and Marine Institute monitoring programmes. In the case of the Lower Shannon

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-43 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Estuary, data from the shellfish waters monitoring programme was used to assign specific pollutant and chemical status. Therefore, the failure in relation to specific pollutant status is due to elevated levels of zinc within West Shannon Ballylongford shellfish area while the failure in relation to chemical status is due to elevated levels of lead within West Shannon Ballylongford shellfish area. It should be noted that these failures take place more than 20 kilometres downstream of the proposed works area.

The objective for the Lower Shannon Estuary water body as outlined in the Shannon International River Basin Management Plan is to achieve at least good status by 2015 and measures are outlined in the Shannon International River Basin Management Plan and the Shannon Transitional and Coastal Water Management Unit Action Plan to ensure that this is achieved.

As the Foynes Harbour water body is heavily modified, it has an alternative objective to achieve at least ‘good ecological potential’ by 2021. Measures to achieve this objective are outlined in the Shannon International River Basin Management Plan3 and the Shannon Transitional and Coastal Water Management Unit Action Plan.

Table 9.3 EPA Water Quality 2007 to 2009 Relevant Quality Indicators Lower Shannon Estuary 2007-2009 2007-2008 2004-2006 Trophic status Unpolluted Unpolluted Unpolluted Nitrogen levels Salinity-related thresholds Compliant Compliant Compliant WFD EQS Compliant - - Phosphorus levels Salinity-related assessment levels Compliant Compliant Compliant WFD EQS Compliant - - DO levels Sufficient - Sufficient BOD levels (WFD EQS) - WFD EQS Compliant - - Assessment levels - - Acceptable Oil pollution incidents None - -

Trophic Status The trophic status of transitional and coastal water bodies is assessed using the EPA’s Trophic Status Assessment Scheme (TSAS). This assessment is required for the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and Nitrates Directive. The scheme compares the

3http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/1_River%20Basin%20Management%20Plans%202009%20- %202015/ShIRBD%20RBMP%202010/

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-44 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

compliance of individual parameters against a set of criteria indicative of trophic state (DIN, MRP, chlorophyll, macroalgae, dissolved oxygen). These criteria fall into three different categories which broadly capture the cause-effect relationship of the eutrophication process, namely nutrient enrichment, accelerated plant growth, and disturbance to the level of dissolved oxygen normally present;

. Eutrophic water bodies are those in which criteria in each of the categories are breached, i.e. where elevated nutrient concentrations, accelerated growth of plants and undesirable water quality disturbance occur simultaneously; . Potentially Eutrophic water bodies are those in which criteria in two of the categories are breached and the third falls within 15 per cent of the relevant threshold value; . Intermediate status water bodies are those which breach one or two of the criteria; . Unpolluted water bodies are those which do not breach any of the criteria in any category.

The Lower Shannon Estuary water body is classed as unpolluted in the most recent water quality report and was also unpolluted in the previous two reports dating back to 2004.

Nitrogen levels Levels of Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) are monitored in winter, when levels are expected to be at their seasonal maximum due to the absence of any significant plant or algal growth, and in the summer, to capture the potential effect of seasonal changes in river flow which can have an effect on concentrations.

Each water body is assessed against salinity-related thresholds and the WFD EQS for DIN. The Lower Shannon Estuary water body was compliant with both.

Phosphorus levels Levels of Molybdate Reactive Phosphorus (MRP) are monitored in winter, when levels are expected to be at their seasonal maximum due to the absence of any significant plant or algal growth, and in the summer, to capture the potential effect of seasonal changes in river flow which can result in higher phosphate concentrations in some estuaries.

Each water body is assessed against salinity-related assessment levels and the WFD EQS for MRP. The Lower Shannon Estuary water body was compliant with both.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-45 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Dissolved Oxygen Levels Low levels of Dissolved Oxygen (DO) can have adverse effects on aquatic organisms including slower growth rates, impaired immune response and, in severe cases, mortality. DO levels are classified as follows: . Anoxic (0 - 0.5 mg l-1) . Hypoxic (0.5 – 2.0 mg l-1) . Deficient (2.0 – 6.0 mg l-1) . Sufficient (6.0 – 10.0 mg l-1)

The Lower Shannon Estuary water body is classified as sufficient.

Biological Oxygen Demand Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) was compared with the WFD EQS for BOD. The Lower Shannon Estuary water body was compliant with the EQS.

Oil Pollution Incidents There was no oil pollution incidents recorded in the Lower Shannon Estuary during the most recent monitoring cycle.

Shannon Estuary Anti-Pollution Team (SEA-PT) Shannon Foynes Port Company are part of a consortium consisting of the Port Company, Local Authorities and oil importers and was initiated to form a unified coordinated response to pollution incidents on the Shannon Estuary. Each member contributed initially to provide pollution response equipment and support tools. This equipment is available to respond to any pollution incident or threat. Members contribute annually to maintain equipment, carry out exercises and training and purchase new and replacement equipment. A full inventory of the equipment held in storage by SFPC on behalf of SEA-PT is contained in Appendix 5.

The group has been in operation for the past 10 years under a committee of pollution officers representing the members. The aim of the group is to provide a unified response to oil pollution within the region, even though each member has individual responsibility for their own area. An Oil Spill Tracking Model, Geographic Information System, Environmental Atlas, Sensitivity Study, Oil Spill Response Strategy, Hydrocarbon Baseline Study and Emergency Response Plans have been developed for the region and updated.

The Pollution Control Plan is provided to assist the Shannon Estuary Ports Anti-Pollution Team (SEA-PT) in dealing with an accidental discharge of oil. Its primary purpose is to set in motion the necessary actions to stop or minimise the discharge and to mitigate its effects. Effective planning ensures that the necessary actions are taken in a structured, logical and timely manner. This plan guides the Coordinator and On Scene Commander and other

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-46 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

involved personnel through the decisions, which will be required in an incident response. The tables, figures and checklists provide a visible form of information, thus reducing the chance of oversight or error during the early stages of dealing with an emergency situation. For the plan to be effective, it must be:

. familiar to those with key response functions in the ports . regularly exercised; and, . reviewed and updated on a regular basis.

9.11 CONCLUSIONS IN RELATION TO WATER QUALITY IMPACT

The likely impact on water quality of the sedimentation and suspended solids effects predicted by the modelling is discussed in this section.

9.11.1 Sedimentation and Water Quality Impacts As the dredged material is not contaminated, the sedimentation which will result from the dredging works will not affect water quality in the area.

9.11.2 Suspended Solids and Water Quality Impacts Short term increases in suspended sediment levels associated with the dredging activity can give rise to short term changes in water quality, specifically increased turbidity (which in turn can impact on habitat diversity and species diversity and abundance as described in chapters 5-7). The modelling results and plume plots show the extent of the increased turbidity likely to arise from the proposed dredging activities at Foynes Port.

In order to determine whether the suspended solid concentrations predicted by the modelling to arise from the dredging activities is likely to have an adverse effect on water quality in the area, the concentrations can be compared with available environmental quality standards for transitional waters.

Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) for certain pollutants in surface waters in Ireland are outlined in the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations, 2009 (S.I. No. 272 of 2009). The purpose of the EQSs is to limit the quantity of certain pollutants in surface waters in order to achieve the environmental objectives established for waters by Directive 2000/60/EC, the Water Framework Directive (WFD). However, an EQS is not established in these Regulations for suspended solids.

Article 5 of the Shellfish Directive (2006/113/EC) and section 6 of the Quality of Shellfish Waters Regulations, 2006 (S.I. No. 268 of 2006) require the development of Pollution Reduction Plans (PRPs) for designated shellfish areas in order to improve water quality in

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-47 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

designated shellfish areas and to achieve compliance with water quality parameter values outlined in Annex I of the Directive and Schedules 2 and 4 of the Regulations. Imperative (I) values must be fully achieved while it must be endeavoured to achieve guideline values (G). Table 9.4 outlines the mandatory value for suspended solids established in the Regulations. This standard can be used as a measure of whether the suspended solid levels which would arise from the proposed dredging is likely to have an adverse effect on water quality. This measure can be considered conservative as it is designed to protect shellfish life and growth and shellfish are sensitive to suspended solids as shellfish species are generally bottom dwellers and/or filter feeders.

Table 9.4 Shellfish Directive Mandatory and Guideline Values Parameter Guideline Mandatory Value (I) Value (G) Suspended n/a A discharge affecting shellfish waters must not Solids cause the suspended solid content of the waters (mg/l) to exceed the content in unaffected waters by more than 30%

In order to be compliant with the shellfish mandatory value for suspended solids, suspended solid concentrations much not be raised more than 30% above background concentration. This standard is expressed as a 75-percentile, i.e. the value below which 75 percent of the observations may be found.

Available suspended solid monitoring results from four monitoring locations around Foynes Island (Figure 9.46) show that background levels through the water column vary significantly as follows:

 SSO1 - 20-35mg/l;  SSO3 - 15-35mg/l;

 SSO2 - 35-75mg/l;  SSO4 - 15-25mg/l.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-48 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 9.46 Location of Water Sampling Points

For the purposes of this assessment, average suspended solid concentrations arising from dredging works were compared with average background concentrations in order to calculate the percentage increase arising from the dredging works for comparison with the shellfish mandatory value.

. At point SSO1, the average suspended solids concentration within the water column predicted by the model over the dredging period is less than 5% of the average measured background value. Therefore, the proposed dredging works will not cause water quality issues in this area to an extent that would constitute a non-compliance with the Shellfish Regulations.

. At point SSO2, the average suspended solids concentration within the water column predicted by the model over the dredging period is less than 10% of the average measured background value. Therefore, the proposed dredging works will not cause water quality issues in this area to an extent that would constitute a non-compliance with the Shellfish Regulations.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-49 SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

. At point SSO4, the average suspended solids concentration within the water column predicted by the model over the dredging period is approximately 65% of the average measured background value. This monitoring point is much closer to the proposed dredge area.

. At point SSO3, directly adjacent to the dredging site, the average suspended solids concentration within the water column predicted by the model over the dredging period is approximately 1.5 times the average measured background value. This monitoring point is adjacent to the proposed dredge area.

The average suspended solid concentrations modelled at SS03 and SS04 are greater than 30% of the average background value. However, the average suspended solid concentrations derived from the model at these locations are less than the maximum measured concentration at these locations. The simulated peak concentrations are also below the measured peak at site SS04. Only at site SSO3, which is directly adjacent to the dredge site, are the simulated peak concentrations greater than the measured peak concentrations and these simulated peak values may occur for a very small space of time. In general, it can be concluded that the effects of suspended sediments on water quality (i.e. turbidity) will be quite localised and will be limited to the duration of the dredging activity and shortly thereafter.

IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-50 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

10.0 SEDIMENT QUALITY

10.1 INTRODUCTION

Sedimentation in the marine environment is a natural phenomenon, occurring by rivers eroding material in upstream areas and settling suspended matter when the current becomes slower, runoff by lowland rivers or by currents, coming from the sea, transporting and settling material in protected areas such as ports.

Contamination of these sediments occurs when natural or human activity results in the introduction of contaminants that can cause undesirable impacts on the environment. Many of these introductions take the form of waste discharges that are mixed with the sediments when they settle.

Contaminants in sediments can act as a source of long-term environmental pollution. Certain substances can be bio accumulated in benthic organisms resulting in biomagnifications at higher levels in the food chain. Some widespread pollutants e.g. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are no longer in use but due to their extreme persistence they can still be detected in marine sediments and are therefore included for analysis.

10.2 MARINE INSTITUTE DREDGE SAMPLING PROGRAMME

The Marine Institute (MI) were consulted in regards to the requirements for a dredge sampling programme both in terms of sample location and parameters for analysis. A Sampling Analysis Plan was provided by the Marine Institute which was issued as part of the tender specification documents to all interested parties for the Grab Sampling & Contamination Testing contract in order to ensure compliance with the MI requirements.

The MI advised on the particular substances which should be analysed for. They recommended substances that are considered of most concern for the marine environment, those which have combined properties of persistence, toxicity and liability to bio accumulate. Typically, the most important contaminants associated with dredged material include organotin compounds, heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and oils (OSPAR, 2004).

Table 10.1 outlines the recommendations from the Marine Institute on the number sites and the particular parameters which needed to be analysed for at each site.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-1 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 10.1 Recommendations from Marine Institute on Particular Parameters for Each Sample Sample Sample Easting Northing Parameters for analysis No. depth

1 Surface 125220 151857 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f, 4g.

2 Surface 125329 151871 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f, 4g.

3 Surface 125321 151908 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f, 4g.

4 Surface 125362 151926 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4e, 4f.

5 Surface 125376 151894 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f, 4g.

6 Surface 125409 151931 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4e, 4f.

7 Surface 125439 151962 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4e, 4f.

8 Surface 125490 151967 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f, 4g.

9 Surface 125432 151912 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4e, 4f.

10 Surface 125273 151885 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4e, 4f.

11 Surface 125257 151837 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4e, 4f, 4g.

Parameter Code: 1. Visual inspection, to include colour, texture, odour, presence of animals etc 2. Water content, density (taking into account sample collection and handling) 3. Granulometry including % gravel (> 2mm fraction), % sand (< 2mm fraction) and % mud (< 63m fraction). 3. The following determinants in the sand-mud (< 2mm) fraction * : a) total organic carbon b) carbonate c) mercury, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, chromium, nickel, lithium, aluminium. d) organochlorines including -HCH (Lindane), and PCBs (to be reported as the 7 individual CB congeners: 28, 52, 101, 118, 138, 153, 180). e) total extractable hydrocarbons. f) tributyltin (TBT) and dibutyltin (DBT) g) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) - Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benzo (a) anthracene, Benzo (a) pyrene, Benzo (b) fluoranthene, Benzo (ghi) perylene, Benzo (k) fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz (a,h) anthracene, Flourene, Fluoranthene, Indeno 1,2,3 – cd pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-2 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

h) Toxicity tests (Microtox or whole sediment bioassay) using appropriate representative aquatic species. (This requirement will depend on the results of the chemical analyses.)

As part of the plan MI also recommended the following: . Where the gravel fraction (> 2mm) constitutes a significant part of the total sediment, this should be taken into account in the calculation of the concentrations. . Collection of sufficient samples to allow all the toxicity testing to be carried out on the material. . Brief details of the methodologies should be supplied with the results. This should include sampling, sub sampling and analytical methods used for each determinant. . Appropriate marine Certified References Materials (CRM) are to be analysed during each batch of analyses and the results to be reported along with sample results.

The MI also outlined the required minimum detection limits for the various determinants. These are given in table 10.2 below.

Table 10.2 Required Minimum Detection Limits for the Various Determinants Contaminant Concentration Units (dry wt) Mercury 0.05 mg kg-1 Arsenic 1.0 mg kg-1 Cadmium 0.1 mg kg-1 Copper 5.0 mg kg-1 Lead 5.0 mg kg-1 Zinc 10 mg kg-1 Chromium 5.0 mg kg-1 Nickel 15 mg kg-1 Total extractable hydrocarbons 10.0 mg kg-1 TBT and DBT (not organotin) 0.01 mg kg-1 CB28 1.0 g kg-1 CB52 1.0 g kg-1 CB101 1.0 g kg-1 CB118 1.0 g kg-1 CB138+163 1.0 g kg-1 CB153 1.0 g kg-1 CB180 1.0 g kg-1 HCB 1.0 g kg-1 PAH Acenaphthene 20 g kg-1

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-3 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Contaminant Concentration Units (dry wt) Benzo (a) anthracene 20 g kg-1 Benzo (a) pyrene 20 g kg-1 Benzo (b) fluoranthene 20 g kg-1 Benzo (ghi) perylene 20 g kg-1 Benzo (k) fluoranthene 20 g kg-1 Chrysene 20 g kg-1 Fluoranthene 20 g kg-1 Indeno (1,2,3 – cd) pyrene 20 g kg-1 Naphthalene 20 g kg-1 Phenanthrene 20 g kg-1 Pyrene 20 g kg-1

The Marine Institute also required that the reports be submitted in a pre supplied excel file and should include the following information;

 Date of sampling

 Treatment of samples and indication of sub-sampling, compositing etc.

 Tabulated geophysical and chemical test results

 Summary method details

 Method performance specifications: Limit of detection, Precision, Bias

 Batch QC (CRM) results

 If determinant is not detected, report less than values, and indicate LoD/ LoQ used.

 Clear expression of units and indication of wet weight or dry weight basis

 Other quality assurance information (e.g. accreditation status)

The MI stated that the analysing laboratory should be experienced in analysing marine sediments, and should participate in recognised proficiency testing schemes. The laboratory should also have submitted a completed QA questionnaire to the MI in order to ensure that quality standards can be met. All of the Sampling Analysis Plan requirements were met by Hydrographic Surveys Ltd together with National Laboratory Service (NLS) whom were sub- contracted by Hydrographic Surveys Ltd.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-4 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

10.3 DREDGE SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

Hydrographic Surveys Ltd was appointed to carry out the sediment sampling and analysis at Foynes Port East Jetty. Eleven separate sample locations in and around the jetty were selected for monitoring in consultation with Marine Institute.

Figure 10.1 Sediment Sample Locations Behind the East Jetty at Foynes Port

The background details in terms of the dredging methodology which will be utilised in Foynes Port is outlined in Chapter 4 and the dumping at sea of the dredged material will be the subject of a separate application for a dump at sea permit to the EPA.

10.3.1 Sediment Sampling Methodology The dredge sampling and collection was carried out on the 10th February 2011 by Mr Colin Johnston, a surveyor from Hydrographic Surveys Ltd, who has many years of experience in this type of sample recovery.

The taking of, recovery and submission of marine samples was carried out using the Shannon Foynes Port Company survey launch, at a suitable high tide to enable access to all the locations specified by the Marine Institute in Table 10.1.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Prior to the recovery exercise the launch was fitted with a differential Global Positioning System (GPS), positioned directly above the on board recovery point. The launch was then easily navigated to the various points as specified in Table 10.1. At each point a stainless steel grab was lowered onto the river bed. Once the grab made contact with the bed, the recovery line was tightened and the grab sealed the sample. The actual co-ordinated recovery position was then recorded and logged.

The grab was then recovered on board and the sample transferred to suitable prepared containers, sealed, annotated and packed in preparation for shipping. The grab was then cleaned prior to the taking of the next sample; this procedure was continued until a sample was recovered from all of the required locations. The samples were then couriered to the National Laboratory Service in the U.K. for analysis.

10.3.2 Guideline Values for the Assessment of Dredge Material All samples which were analysed by the National Laboratory Service were compared against the proposed guidance values for sediment quality guidelines from the “Guidelines for the Assessment of Dredge Material for Disposal in Irish Waters”.

There are two sets of guidance values (upper and lower) used in these guidelines. According to the guidance the lower level values correspond to contaminant concentrations below which the sediment, if disposed of at sea, is assumed to have a physical impact only. The upper level guidance values are set at concentrations above which adverse effects might be expected. Lower level guidance values represent concentrations that are either a) at the upper end of the no-effect range or, b) at background concentrations.

Upper level guidance values are set at the lower end of the known range of effective concentrations i.e. lowest concentrations shown to have adverse effects on marine organisms. The proposed parameter guidelines as given the guidance are listed in Table 10.3.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-6 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 10.3 Parameters and Proposed Guidelines for Sediment Quality

Parameters Units Units (dry wta) Lower level Upper Level b Arsenic mg kg¹ 9c 70* Cadmium mg kg¹ 0.7 4.2 Chromium mg kg¹ 120 370 Copper mg kg¹ 40 110d Lead mg kg¹ 60 218 Mercury mg kg¹ 0.2 0.7 Nickel mg kg¹ 21 60 Zinc mg kg¹ 160 410 Σ TBT & DBT mg kg¹ 0.1 0.5 γ – HCH (Lindane) µg kg¹ 0.1 0.5 HCB μg kg-1 0.3 1 µg kg¹ 0.3 1 PCB (individual congeners of ICES 7) µg kg¹ 1 180 PCB (Σ ICES 7) μg kg-1 7 1260 µg kg¹ 7 1260 PAH (Σ 16) µg kg¹ 4000

Total extractable hydrcarbons µg kg¹ 1 a- total sediment <2mm b- ERM (rounded up) c- ERL (rounded up) – No background Irish data available d PEL as ERM considered high * In some locations natural levels of arsenic will exceed this value and in such instances this guidance value will not be appropriate

10.3.3 Sediment Sampling Results The analysis of the samples was sub-contracted to National Laboratory Service (NLS) laboratories in the UK, and included the following determinants for each sample:

- Ecotoxicology (30 minute EC50) - Carbon Content - Gran Size fractions - Hydrocarbons - Metals - PAHs - TBT and DBT - Dry Solids

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-7 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The detailed results and analytical reports from NLS laboratories are outlined in Appendix 6 with summary results discussed in this section. All sample results were below the upper level guideline concentration.

In addition, the vast majority of parameters for each of the sediment samples from each of the 11 sites were determined to be below the lower level concentrations for sediment quality, as listed in Table 10.3. Ten of the 11 samples exceeded the guideline lower level concentration for Nickel (21 mg kg¹). Nickel concentrations are likely to be due to background concentrations, which are naturally occurring in slate, sandstone, clay minerals and basalt geologies that occur within in the River Shannon catchment. One sediment sample had levels of Copper exceeding the lower limits (40 mg kg¹), and two sediment samples exceeded the lower limits (9 mg kg¹) for Arsenic. None of the 11 sediment samples exceeded any of the guideline upper level concentrations listed in Table 10.3 and therefore the sediment is considered suitable for disposal at sea.

10.3.4 Sediment Quality All monitoring results together with the certified values for the CRM’s and a map of the survey locations were submitted to the Marine Institute for review. Following further consultation and response to queries made by the Marine Institute all samples were found to be in compliance with the upper level guideline concentrations and therefore the sediments were considered suitable for disposal at sea.

10.4 RADIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

Radioactivity monitoring of the Irish marine environment is carried out by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII). The primary focus of its marine monitoring programme is to assess the radiation doses to the Irish population arising from discharges from the Sellafield reprocessing plant and temporal distribution of artificial radionuclides in the marine environments.

The Radiological Protection Institute Ireland was also consulted in regards the requirements for radiological sampling at the East Jetty.

RPII did not require sampling on this occasion as Radiological analysis was carried out on this site in 2008 where the samples analysed were found to be de minimise.

However, should the radiological conditions in the vicinity of the proposed dredging site change significantly; they may request samples for analysis. A copy of the response received from the RPII can be found in Appendix 6.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-8 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

10.5 ALTERNATIVE USES

The overall site was characterised by deposits of slightly sandy clay, slightly sandy slightly gravelly clay, slightly sandy silt, sandy silt, slightly sandy slightly gravelly silt, slightly sandy organic silt, very silty very gravelly sand, and silty sandy gravel from the boreholes which were dug as part of the site investigations at depths of 24.0m to 41.9m with one borehole at 42.3m below existing ground level (bgl). Based on the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N values, the cohesive soils were of variable strength and described as very soft to stiff with N values ranging from 0 to 35. Shear strength data indicated very soft to soft deposits. The shear vane test indicated very soft sediments. Based on the SPT N values the sand deposits were of variable relative density and were described as being very loose to dense, with N values of 0 to 34. The gravels were typically medium dense to dense with N values of 11 to 50. However, the dredge material will only form a fraction of this material and will largely comprise of the very soft upper sediments which will have a direct bearing on the potential re-use.

The volume of material to be dredged is in the region of 150,000m3, in carrying out this assessment a number of possible options/reuse for the dredged material were addressed.

These options include; . Land Incineration . Spreading on agricultural land . Beneficial reuse e.g. beach nourishment . Disposal in licensed land fill sites . Reclamation . Disposal at sea

All of the above options are briefly discussed below, where an option is considered impracticable, the reason is given and the option discounted from further discussion.

Land Incineration Incineration would not be possible in Ireland, as facilities do not currently exist. Although this is a possible option if shipment to the UK was considered however, it is perhaps not the most viable or economical option and therefore is discounted.

Spreading on Agricultural Land The expected spoil is not suitable for soil conditioning or spreading on agricultural lands, this option is therefore discounted.

In terms of options 1 & 2 a suitable area of the existing jetty would be required which would accommodate likely vessels and which would allow for landing of the material by crane or

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-9 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

grab, most likely to a temporary stockpile area where the material would be allowed to dewater. From here the spoil would be loaded onto lorries for transport to the incinerator or lands. Material would most likely be transported by tipper lorry, probably with a capacity of between 18-20 tonnes. These options in combination with the import of rock to the site would place extreme pressure on the N69 and therefore both options are not considered viable.

Beneficial Reuse e.g. Beach Nourishment The sand element of the dredged material may be suitable for beach nourishment, however the silt would not. Given the practicable difficulties of separation of these two materials the dredged material is not considered suitable for beach nourishment. This option is therefore discounted.

Landfill The dredge spoil generated from the proposed harbour development is a saturated silt and has no beneficial re-use either as a construction material or as a capping material for a landfill. The Dredge spoil from the site, if brought ashore, will therefore be classified as a waste.

Landfill operators are reluctant to accept large quantities of dredge spoil because of its wetness and salt content. The closest landfill to the site is at Gortadroma. The operators of this site have confirmed that they would not be able to accommodate the quantities of dredge spoil arising from the site. Alternative landfills at much greater distances from the site would therefore be required.

The dredge spoil would need to be de-watered on site to enable the material to be transported by road to a suitably licensed landfill. This would require the dredge spoil to be temporarily stockpiled within the harbour area whilst preventing the uncontrolled washout of fine material back into the Shannon estuary. No such hardstanding can be made available within the harbour area without severely impacting existing port operations.

The latent water arising from the dredge spoil would also need to be treated before either being discharged back into the Shannon Estuary or tankered offsite to a suitable Wastewater Treatment facility.

Transporting the dredge spoil to and from a landfill would also require over 50,000 HGV movements. This would have a negative environmental impact with respect to the road infrastructure and emissions to air, notably CO2.

The waste will be subject to Landfill Tax. The landfill tax as of September 2011 is €50 per tonne. This will increase to €65 per tonne from July 2012 and €75 per tonne from July 2013.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-10 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The volume of dredge spoil is 150,000 cubic metres which equates to circa 210,000 tonnes. The landfill tax alone will therefore be in the range € 13.6 – 15.7 million.

The above serves to illustrate that disposal at a suitably licensed landfill is not a viable option and can be discounted as an alternative option to disposal at sea.

Reclamation The expected spoil is of relatively poor quality in engineering terms and may not be suitable for land reclamation projects except in specific circumstances where the poor properties of the material would not be considered a significant constraint. However, to date no such projects have been identified within close proximity to the site. The spoil would need to be de-watered before it could be re-used. There would also be implications in terms of its use due to the saline nature of the material. The chosen site would need to have some saline intrusion in order for it to be considered suitable for use. Therefore, this option may not be economically viable or technically feasible and therefore this option is discounted.

Dumping at Sea The material which is proposed for dredging behind the east jetty is generally suitable for dispoal at sea based on the results of sediment analysis carried out by the Radiological Protection Institute and the Marine Institute (See section 10.2 – 10.4). Based on the findings from the sediment analysis, the marine institute review and the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment the dumping of the dredge spoil will not have significant negative impacts on the Water Quality within the Shannon Estuary. While costs will be incurred in the capture of the material and the transport of the material to the selected dump site it will be considerably less than the costs which would be incurred if transferred to land for re-use, landfill or incineration. Therefore, this option is considered the most viable from both an economic and ecological perspective. The dumping of any dredge spoil at sea would be subject to a separate assessment under the Dumping at Sea permit application to the EPA.

10.6 CONCLUSION

From the assessment of the various options together with the sediment analysis and subsequent review, it was concluded that sediment from Foynes Port were considered suitable for disposal at sea.

Within the vicinity of Foynes Port there exists an approved dump site which has previously been used for the deposition of dredge spoil and has no know public health implications associated with it. In terms of the ecological implications the dumpsite has a history of dumping with further dumping of material unlikely to have a significant impact given the recent history of similar dumping operations. Overall, in environmental terms this option will have

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-11 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

negligible impacts on the proposed dumpsite as it has been used in the past for dumping of material

This will form part of a separate dumping at sea application to the EPA. Approvals for dumping at sea are based on the advice of the Marine Licence Vetting Committee (MLVC). This is an inter agency group, which manages the application and vetting process for dumping at sea.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-12 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

11.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION

11.1 INTRODUCTION

This section of the EIS includes an assessment of the potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed port reclamation works at Shannon Foynes Port.

The likely noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed development have been assessed in the context of the following:

. Noise and vibration impact associated with construction phase activities at the port; . Noise and vibration impact associated with construction phase deliveries to and from the proposed site; . Noise and vibration impact at the nearest noise sensitive receptors from noise generated by the operation of the site (e.g. plant & equipment operating on-site etc.); . Noise and vibration impact associated with alterations to operational phase traffic movements to and from the proposed site.

This section should be read in conjunction with Figure 11.1 contained in Appendix 7.

11.2 METHODOLOGY

11.2.1 Relevant Noise Guidance Documents

Guidance Note for Noise in Relation to Schedules Activities, 2nd Edition (EPA, 2006) This EPA noise guidance document is intended to provide information, advice and guidance on noise from activities licenced by the EPA under the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) and waste licensing systems in Ireland.

The guidance document sets out basic noise and vibration concepts and provides a variety of practical techniques and measures for controlling noise. The document has been used as a reference document for completing the noise and vibration assessment for the proposed development.

Environmental Noise Survey Guidance Document (EPA, 2003) This guidance document was created to provide acoustic guidelines to the operators of activities which are listed in the First Schedule of the EPA Act 1992, activities which are normally subject to IPC regime. The guidelines provide guidelines for conducting and completing Annual Noise Surveys.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-1 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

While not specifically related to the completion of noise surveys for the planning process, the guidelines provide useful reference material for general noise surveys. It is in this context that these guidelines have been used as reference guidelines for the noise surveys completed as part of the proposed development.

Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements) (EPA, 2003)

This guidance document along with the EPA Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Statements (2002) provides the guidelines on current practice for the structure and content of Environmental Impact Statements in Ireland.

While the guidelines relate to all of the significant environmental issues that generally are of interest for EIA projects, it also gives specific guidance relating to noise and vibration.

Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes (NRA, 2004) These guidelines provide specific and detailed guidance on all aspects of the survey and assessment of noise and vibration for road schemes in Ireland. While the guidance document relates specifically to noise and vibration from road schemes, it provides useful reference material that can be used for noise and vibration assessments such as the proposed Shannon Foynes Port development.

World Health Organisation (WHO) – Guidelines for Community Noise (1999) In 1999, the World Health Organisation (WHO) proposed guidelines for community noise. In

this guidance, a LAeq threshold daytime noise limit of 55 dB is suggested for outdoor living areas in order to protect the majority of people from being seriously annoyed. A second daytime limit of 50 dB is also given as a threshold limit for moderate annoyance.

The guidelines suggest that an internal LAeq not greater than 30 dB for continuous noise is

needed to prevent negative effects on sleep. This is equivalent to a façade level of 45 dB LAeq,

assuming open windows or a free-field level of about 42 dB LAeq. If the noise is not

continuous, then the internal level required to prevent negative effects on sleep is an LAmax,fast of 45 dB. Therefore, for sleep disturbance, the continuous level as well as the number of noisy events should be considered.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-2 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

World Health Organisation (WHO) – Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise (2011) This recent WHO document was prepared by experts in working groups convened by the WHO Regional Office for Europe to provide technical support to policy-makers and their advisors in the quantitative risk assessment of environmental noise, using evidence and data available in Europe.

The document presents the most updated views on the relationship between environmental noise and specific health effects, including cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment, sleep disturbance and tinnitus. The document is used as a useful reference document in determining the likely noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed development.

British Standard 8233: 1999 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings – Code of Practice BS8233:1999 provides guidance values for a range of ambient noise levels within residential properties as shown in Table 11.1 below.

Table 11.1 Internal Ambient Noise Levels for Bedrooms and Living Rooms

Design Range dB LAeq,t Citation Typical Situation Good Reasonable Reasonable resting/ Living rooms 30 40 sleeping conditions Bedrooms 30 35

British Standard BS4142: 1997 – Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas BS4142: 1997 describes a method of determining the level of a noise of an industrial nature, together with procedures for assessing whether the noise in question is likely to give rise to complaints from persons living in the vicinity. In general, the likelihood of complaint in response to a noise depends on factors including the margin by which it exceeds the background noise level, its absolute level, time of day, change in noise environment etc., as well as local attitudes to the premises and the nature of the neighbourhood.

The standard has been used in this assessment in order to characterise whether the noise generated from the proposed development is likely to give rise to complaints in the residential units nearest the proposed development.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-3 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) – Department of Transport (Welsh Office) This Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) guidance document outlines the procedures to be applied for calculating noise from road traffic. These procedures provide guidance appropriate to the calculation of traffic noise for general applications e.g. environmental appraisal of road schemes, highway design and land use planning.

The document consists of three different sections, covering a general method for predicting noise levels at a distance from a highway, additional procedures for more specific situations and a measurement method for situations where the prediction method is not suitable. The prediction method constitutes the preferred calculation technique but in a small number of cases, traffic conditions may fall outside the scope of the prediction method and it will then be necessary to resort to measurement. The prediction method has been used in this instance to determine the likely noise impact from traffic flow increases as a result of the proposed development.

British Standard BS 5228:2009 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites This British standard consists of two parts and covers the need for protection against noise and vibration of persons living and working in the vicinity of construction and open sites. The standard recommends procedures for noise and vibration control in respect of construction operations and aims to assist architects, contractors and site operatives, designers, developers, engineers, local authority environmental health officers and planners.

Part 1 of the standard provides a method of calculating noise from construction plant, including: . Tables of source noise levels . Methods for summing up contributions from intermittently operating plant . A procedure for calculating noise propagation . A method for calculating noise screening effects . A way of predicting noise from mobile plant, such as haul roads.

The standard also provides guidance on legislative background, community relations, training, nuisance, project supervision and control of noise and vibration.

11.2.2 Consultation As part of the preparation for survey and assessment of noise and vibration issues associated with the proposed development, a consultation exercise was undertaken with the environmental health officers in Limerick County Council.

The proposed survey and assessment methodology was discussed with the council with a view to gaining general approval with regard to the approach to be adopted for the noise and

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-4 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

vibration assessment. The EHO was invited to forward any comments or information that may supplement the survey and assessment work completed as part of the proposed development.

11.2.3 Vibration Any potential vibration impacts associated with the proposed development will be associated with the construction phase. Vibration threshold values discussed below are presented in the context of potential vibration effects from the construction phase. Any plant/equipment associated with the operational phase will be sufficiently distant so as not to present any potential vibration impacts at the nearest noise sensitive properties.

Limits of transient vibration, above which cosmetic damage could occur, are given numerically in Table 11.2 (Ref: BS5228-2:2009). Minor damage is possible at vibration magnitudes which are greater than twice those given in Table 11.2, and major damage to a building structure can occur at values greater than four times the tabulated values (definitions of the damage categories are presented in BS7385-1:1990).

Table 11.2 Transient Vibration Guide Values for Cosmetic Damage (Ref BS5228- 2:2009) Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) (mm/s) in Frequency Type of Building Range of Predominant Pulse 4 Hz to 15 Hz 15 Hz and above Reinforced or framed structures. 50 mm/s at 4 Hz and 50 mm/s at 4 Hz and above Industrial and heavy commercial above buildings. Unreinforced or light framed 15 mm/s at 4 Hz 20 mm/s at 15 Hz structures. increasing to 20 mm/S at increasing to 50 mm/s at 40 Residential or light commercial 15 Hz Hz and above. buildings.

British Standard BS 7385 (1993) Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings Part 2: Guide to damage levels from ground borne vibration indicates that cosmetic damage should not occur to property if transient vibration does not exceed 15mm/s at low frequencies rising to 20mm/s at 15Hz and 50mm/s at 40Hz. These guidelines refer to relatively modern buildings and therefore, these values should be reduced to 50% or less for more sensitive buildings.

The human body is an excellent detector of vibration, which can become perceptible at levels which are substantially lower than those required to cause building damage. The human body is most sensitive to vibration in the vertical direction (foot to head). The effect of vibration on humans is guided by British Standard 6472:1992. This standard does not give guidance on

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

the limit of perceptibility, but it is generally accepted that vibration becomes perceptible at levels of approximately 0.15 to 0.3 mm/s.

BS 6472 defines base curves, in terms of root mean square (rms) acceleration, which are used to assess continuous vibration. Table 5 of the Standard states that in residential buildings, the base curve should be multiplied by 1.4 at night and by 2 to 4 during the daytime to provide magnitudes at which the probability of adverse comment is low.

In order to assess human exposure to vibration, ideally, measurements need to be undertaken at the point at which the vibration enters the body, i.e. measurements would need to be taken inside properties. However, various conversion factors have been established to convert vibration levels measured at a foundation to levels inside buildings, depending on the structure of the building.

Where vibration is intermittent or occurs as a series of events, the use of Vibration Dose Values (VDVs) is recommended in BS 6472 for the assessment of subjective response to vibration. The VDVs at which it is considered there will be a low probability of adverse comment are drawn from BS 6472 and presented in Table 11.3.

Table 11.3 Threshold Values for the Evaluation of Disturbance Due to Vibration Place Daytime 16 Hour VDV (ms-1.75) Night-time 8 Hour VDV (ms-1.75) Critical working Area 0.11 0.09 Residential 0.22 – 0.43 0.13 Office 0.43 0.361 Workshops 0.87 0.73

These VDV thresholds do not apply unless night-time work was a regular activity at these premises.

11.2.4 Methodology for Noise Monitoring Baseline noise monitoring was conducted in the vicinity of the proposed development site in order to characterise the noise environment in the vicinity of the nearest noise sensitive properties to the proposed development. A total of 5 locations were selected to represent the nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed development. The noise monitoring locations are illustrated in Figure 11.1.

At the nearest noise sensitive property to the existing Shannon Foynes Port, daytime monitoring was carried out for two separate one-hour periods. Daytime noise monitoring was also completed for 15 minutes at four other locations at varying distance from the existing port. Six measurements of five minutes duration were undertaken at location 1 during the night-time

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-6 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

period. Night-time monitoring was also undertaken at each of the 4 other locations for a period of five minutes. Subjective noisy events were recorded during each logging period.

Noise monitoring was carried out on-site using a Bruël & Kjær 2250 Hand Held Analyzer and a Bruël & Kjær Type 4231 Sound Level Calibrator. This instrumentation conforms to the requirements for integrating averaging sound level meters (Type 1) as specified in BS EN 60804. The sound level meter was accurately calibrated before use.

Measurements were made at a height of 1.2 – 1.5m above ground level. The weather conditions were in accordance with the requirements of BS7445: Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise.

The following parameters were recorded during each monitoring period:

LAeq The continuous equivalent A-weighted sound pressure level. This is an “average” of the sound pressure level.

L Amax This is the maximum A-weighed sound level measured during the sample period.

LAmin This is the minimum A-weighted sound level measured during the sample period.

LA10 This is the A-weighted sound level that is exceeded for noise for 10% of the sample period.

LA90 This is the A-weighted sound level that is exceeded for 90% of the sample period.

11.3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Noise monitoring was carried out at the proposed development site on 16/08/10 and 17/08/10. The noise monitoring locations are illustrated in Figure 11.1. The noise measurements attained during daytime and night-time monitoring surveys are displayed in Table 11.4 below and subjective noisy events are described in Table 11.5.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-7 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 11.4 Summary of Daytime and Night-time Noise Monitoring Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured

Monitoring Time Period LAeq LAmax LAmin LA10 LA90 dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)

Daytime

Noise Monitoring Location 1 49.8 72.3 42.8 51.4 45.6 (L1) 14:05 – 15:05 (16/08/10) Noise Monitoring Location 1 51.9 69.0 45.8 53.7 49.4 (L1) 11:45– 12:45 (17/08/10) Cumulative L1 51.0 72.3 42.8 52.6 47.5

Noise Monitoring Location 2 57.3 84.6 42.6 60.3 46.1 (L2) 15:40– 15:55 (16/08/10) Noise Monitoring Location 3 69.7 84.9 41.9 74.1 49.8 (L3) 16:06– 16:16 (16/08/10) Noise Monitoring Location 4 47.9 65.4 33.4 50.6 38.9 (L4) 16:21 – 16:36 (16/08/10) Noise Monitoring Location 5 43.5 56.4 36.6 45.8 40.0 (L5) 16:42 – 16:57 (16/08/10)

Night time

Noise Monitoring Location 1 50.3 65.0 42.6 51.7 44.1 (L1) M1: 23:04 – 23:09 (16/08/10) L1 – Measurement 2 49.8 75.8 47.8 48.5 44.1 23:11 – 23:16 (16/08/10) L1 – Measurement 3 45.9 64.6 43.0 46.9 44.0 23:17 – 23:22(16/08/10) L1 – Measurement 4 45.8 61.0 42.7 47.0 43.8 23:22 – 23:27 (16/08/11) L1 – Measurement 5 46.7 68.4 42.2 48.0 44.3 23:28 – 23:33 (16/08/10) L1 – Measurement 6 48.2 73.0 43.4 49.9 44.5 23:34 – 23:39 (16/08/10) Cumulative L1 48.2 75.8 42.2 48.7 44.1

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-8 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured

Monitoring Time Period LAeq LAmax LAmin LA10 LA90 dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) Noise Monitoring Location 2 49.1 71.3 41.7 48.7 43.1 (L2) 23:43 – 23:48 (16/08/10) Noise Monitoring Location 3 63.8 84.1 33.1 65.1 36.4 (L3) 23:52 – 23:57 (16/08/10) Noise Monitoring Location 4 50.0 65.9 30.8 53.7 32.7 (L4) 00:00 – 00:05 (16/08/10) Noise Monitoring Location 5 38.0 52.4 30.7 42.0 32.1 (L5) 00:09– 00:14 (16/08/10) Noise Monitoring Location 1 51.9 69.0 45.8 53.7 49.4 (L1) 11:45– 12:45 (17/08/10)

Table 11.5 Subjective Noisy Events Recorded During Noise Monitoring Surveys Monitoring Time Period Subjective Noisy Event

Daytime

Noise Monitoring Location 1 Dominant road traffic noise, bird noise and noise from the port*. Also (L1) 14:05 – 15:05 (16/08/10) a sewage pump was operating for 10minutes during the recording, approximately 12 meters from the noise meter. A dog was barking and there was general people activity. Noise Monitoring Location 1 Dominant noise from port*. Dog barking. Church bells. (L1) 11:45– 12:45 (17/08/10) Noise Monitoring Location 2 Dominant road traffic noise, bird noise and noise from port*. People (L2) 15:40– 15:55 (16/08/10) activity.

Noise Monitoring Location 3 Dominant road traffic noise and bird noise. Drone from generator (L3) 16:06– 16:16 (16/08/10) inside garage and car idling at garage. Noise Monitoring Location 4 Dominant road traffic noise and bird noise. Faint hum from port. (L4) 16:21 – 16:36 (16/08/10)

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-9 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Monitoring Time Period Subjective Noisy Event Noise Monitoring Location 5 Dominant road traffic noise and bird noise. Reversing siren at the (L5) 16:42 – 16:57 (16/08/10) port. People activity.

Night time

Noise Monitoring Location 1 Dominant noise from port*. Dog barking. (L1) M1: 23:04 – 23:09 (16/08/10) L1 – Measurement 2 Dominant noise from port*. Car door closing. Car starting up. Dog 23:11 – 23:16 (16/08/10) barking. L1 – Measurement 3 Dominant noise from port*. 23:17 – 23:22(16/08/10) L1 – Measurement 4 Dominant road traffic noise. 23:22 – 23:27 (16/08/11) L1 – Measurement 5 Dominant road traffic noise and noise from port*. Car door closing. 23:28 – 23:33 (16/08/10) L1 – Measurement 6 Dominant road traffic noise. 23:34 – 23:39 (16/08/10) Noise Monitoring Location 2 Dominant road traffic noise. Car door closing. Car horn in distance. (L2) 23:43 – 23:48 (16/08/10) Noise Monitoring Location 3 Dominant noise from port*. (L3) 23:52 – 23:57 (16/08/10) Noise Monitoring Location 4 Dominant road traffic noise. Car door closing. (L4) 00:00 – 00:05 (16/08/10) Noise Monitoring Location 5 Dominant road traffic noise. (L5) 00:09– 00:14 (16/08/10) Noise Monitoring Location 1 Dominant noise from port*. Dog barking. (L1) 11:45– 12:45 (17/08/10) * Port noise included HGVs, reversing siren, occasional loud bangs resulting from the movement of large containers, men shouting, the dumping of large quantities of coal and grain and a continuous hum.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-10 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

11.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

11.4.1 Construction Phase

Construction Phase – General Description Chapter 4 of the EIS outlines a general description of the proposed development, which also includes a description of the construction phase. In general terms, a number of retaining structures will be required in order to carry out the reclamation works, namely a combi wall, an anchor wall structure and the excavation and replacement of soft soil deposits with imported rockfill.

The combi-wall structure will comprise tubular steel piles installed at intervals with traditional steel sheet piles filling the spaces between. It is envisaged that this activity will take place over a period of approximately 5-6 months.

Existing deposits of soft clays will be excavated and replaced with rockfill from quarried sources. In the course of replacing the clay deposits, bunds will be formed using rockfill to facilitate the installation of the anchor wall structure.

Dredging will be required to provide sufficient water depths for vessels at all stages of the tide. Dredging will entail excavation of uncompacted clays and silts, but no rock dredging is anticipated. Dredged material will be dumped at sea (subject of a separate application to the EPA).

Typical noise levels from various relevant construction plant are displayed in Table 11.6. The plant shown in Table 11.6 is representative of the type of plant that will be in use for the construction phase of the proposed development.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-11 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 11.6 Noise Levels for Construction Plant (Ref: BS 5228:2009) Power Rating Equipme Activity Activity / Plant (kW) nt Size, Equivalent (Reference from BS5228:2009, table reference Weight Continuous indicated in brackets) (Mass), Sound Capacity Pressure

Level LAeq at 10m (dB) Sheet Steel Piling [D4, Ref 13] 220,00kg/pile 78 Tubular Steel Casting / pile cast in place [D4, Ref 19] 4t 1m drop 87 Impact bored / pile cast in place [D4, Ref 26] 2 x 16kW 83 Digging out river - tracted Excavator & Water Pump* 46 85 [D12, Ref 2]** 6 Clearing river bank (tracked loader) [D12, Ref 3]** 37 80 Trench Filling (wheeled excavator/loader) [D3, Ref 46 82 107] Dump truck [D3, Ref 60] 450 50t 82

Combined Noise Level of All Above Equipment 92

* submersible pump will be used for dredging rather than dredging using ship chain bucket ** Reference to ‘river’ is direct quote from BS5228:2009, obviously this applies to the sea in this instance

The above table gives a combined worst-case noise level for construction phase activities at the proposed development site. This combined predicted noise level has been used for the purposes of making worst-case construction phase noise predictions at the nearest noise sensitive properties to the proposed development.

Predicted Impact of Construction Noise from Proposed Development Construction activity for the proposed development will generally operate between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 on Monday to Fridays, between 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and there will be no activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There may be a requirement for certain activities to be undertaken outside these hours, especially where tidal influences have critical impacts on the works to be undertaken. Any such activities will not be undertaken without prior agreement with the local authority and liaison with the local community.

The sequence of construction phase activities required as part of the proposed development is detailed below:

. Carry out enabling works;

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-12 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

. Installation of combi wall from deck level of existing jetty structure; . Excavation of overlying silts behind installed combi wall; . Fill in wedge of excavated soil with rockfill material; . Formation of bund structure; . Installation of capping beam above new combi wall structure; . Installation of anchor wall and tie rods; . Completion of filling operations; . Installation of rock armour revetments at ends of reclaimed areas; . Installation of transfer slab between rear of existing jetty and reclaimed area; . Installation of drainage and surfacing.

The precise construction strategy to be adopted will be a matter for the contractor and it is likely that construction noise levels experienced during the construction phase will vary over the duration of the construction phase depending on the nature and extent of the activities taking place.

In order to assess the worst-case construction noise level from the proposed development, a worst-case noise level of 92 dB(A) at 10m (see combined noise level from Table 11.6) has been used. This combined noise level assumes all activities listed in Table 11.6 will be taking place simultaneously and continuously at the nearest point of the construction phase activities to the nearest noise sensitive properties. This worst-case combined noise level would be expected to be in excess of what would be experienced in reality during the construction phase.

Table 11.7 below includes worst-case construction noise level predictions at a selection of the nearest noise sensitive properties to the proposed development. The hard ground distance attenuation equation from BS5228:2009 (Equation F1, Annex F) has been assumed for all of the noise level predictions included in this table in order to ensure a worst-case scenario is assessed. The location of these properties is illustrated in Figure 11.1.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-13 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 11.7 Worst-Case Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Noise Sensitive Properties Noise Sensitive Worst-Case Distance from Distance Building/ Predicted

Receptor LAeq @ 10m Construction Attenuation Barrier Worst-Case (See Fig 11.1) (dBA) Boundary (m) (dBA) Attenuation Construction (dBA) Noise (dBA) 1 92 290 -29 -10 53 2 92 221 -27 -5 60 3 92 189 -26 -5 61 4 92 181 -25 -5 62 5 92 217 -27 -5 60 6 92 298 -29 -10 53 7 92 291 -29 -10 53 8 92 226 -27 -10 55 9 92 237 -27 -5 60 10 92 417 -32 -10 50 11 92 502 -34 -10 48 12 92 641 -36 -10 46

Table 11.7 demonstrates that there is potential for construction noise impacts at the nearest noise sensitive properties if worst-case construction activities take place at the boundary of the proposed development site. There is potential for worst-case construction noise levels up to the low 60s dB(A) at the nearest properties if the combined construction phase activities were undertaken at the boundary of the proposed development site with the nearest properties.

Table 11.4 presents the noise levels recorded at a number of the nearest noise sensitive properties to the proposed development. The predicted construction phase noise levels included in Table 11.7 illustrate that there is potential for construction phase noise levels marginally above the existing ambient noise levels at a number of the nearest noise sensitive properties.

On the basis of the predicted worst-case construction noise levels from the proposed development, there will be a requirement for mitigation measures to be put in place in order to ensure that construction noise levels are reduced as much as practicable. Noise mitigation measures for construction activities are outlined in Section 11.5 below.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-14 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Construction Traffic on the Road Network A Transport Assessment (TA) has been completed for the proposed development. The assessment of traffic movements associated with the construction phase of the proposed development indicated that there would be 21,005 vehicle movements in total associated with the proposed reclamation works. The most rigorous demand in terms of traffic movements will be during the 10th and 11th months of the construction phase with 4,954 traffic movements accessing the site each month. This equates to 21 vehicle movements per hour on the basis of a 10-hour day.

On the basis of the factored 18-hour AADT traffic flows for the main port entrance road and the East Link Road, the HGV traffic movements associated with the worst-case construction phase periods (i.e. months 10 and 11) will result in an increase in traffic flows along these routes. If it were assumed that all of this HGV construction traffic were to use one or the other of the routes, the increase would be 50% in the case of the main port entrance or 47% increase in the case of the East Link Road. However, it must be acknowledged that this proportional increase is significant only on account of the existing flows on these routes being so low. Even with the worst-case construction phase traffic flows using these roads, the AADT traffic flow will be very low (i.e. less than 500 vehicle movements per day). These flows are too low for accurate traffic noise level predictions to be made in accordance with the CRTN. As the traffic flows will be so low, any potential noise impact associated with the construction phase HGV movements will be minor.

The most significant increase in traffic flows along the N69 route as a result of construction phase HGV movements will be a 12% increase along a portion of the N69 West during the worst-case construction phase months (i.e. months 10 and 11). It takes a 25% increase in traffic flows to result in a 1dB(A) increase in traffic noise levels. On account of this, construction phase traffic along this portion of the N69 West will result in a noise level increase significantly less than 1 dB(A), which would be imperceptible and hence of negligible impact.

11.4.2 Operational Phase The potential noise impact resulting from the operational phase of the proposed development has been assessed to determine effects on the nearest sensitive receptors.

Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) Assessment A Transport Assessment (TA) has been undertaken for the proposed development and is submitted as part of the planning application for the proposed development. The TA states that only traffic movements associated with the delivery of materials during the construction phase are included in the assessment. The TA confirms that there are no proposals to increase the final traffic flows once the harbour extension has been completed. On this basis,

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-15 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

there will be no operational phase traffic noise increases associated with the proposed development.

Operational Phase Noise from Proposed Development Site The proposed development will result in the addition of an area of reclaimed land to the existing port facilities. The proposal is for the area between the East Jetty and the foreshore to be infilled and maintained as a storage area for the port activities. The reclaimed area will be used for storage in a manner not dissimilar to the existing use of the West Jetty. See Figure 11.1 for the locations of the East and West Jetties.

It is not intended that the proposed additional storage area will increase the throughput of the port activities; the intention is that it will improve the operation of the port activities in the context of its existing operations. Therefore, while there will be an additional storage area at the port, the overall activities of the port will not necessarily increase.

The new storage area will require the presence of some additional plant, which is characterised in Table 11.8 below.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-16 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 11.8 Additional Operational Plant to be Used at the Proposed Reclaimed Area Power Equipment Activity Equivalent Activity / Plant Rating Size, Continuous Sound (Reference from BS5228:2009, table reference (kW) Weight Pressure Level

indicated in brackets) (Mass), LAeq at 10m (dB) Capacity Site fork lift trucks [D7, Ref 93] 32 - 76 Diesel Hoist [D7, Ref 97] 6 - 73 Harbour Mobile Crane* 73

Combined Noise Level of All Above Equipment 79

* Average SPL @ 10m derived from literature research from numerous sources

For the purposes of assessment, some noise level predictions have been undertaken to determine the worst-case noise levels from the proposed plant at the nearest noise sensitive properties. These predictions assume that all of the specified plant is operating simultaneously, continuously and at the nearest point on the proposed reclaimed area to the relevant property.

Table 11.9 Worst-Case Operational Noise from Proposed Plant at Nearest Noise sensitive Properties Noise Sensitive Worst-Case Distance from Distance Building/ Predicted

Receptor LAeq @ 10m Construction Attenuation Barrier Worst-Case (See Fig 11.1) (dBA) Boundary (m) (dBA) Attenuation Noise Level dB(A) (dBA) 1 79 290 -29 -10 40 2 79 221 -27 -5 47 3 79 189 -26 -5 48 4 79 181 -25 -5 49 5 79 217 -27 -5 47 6 79 298 -29 -10 40 7 79 291 -29 -10 40 8 79 226 -27 -10 42 9 79 237 -27 -5 47 10 79 417 -32 -10 37 11 79 502 -34 -10 35 12 79 641 -36 -10 33

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-17 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The predicted worst-case noise levels illustrated in Table 11.9 are at worst similar to the

background daytime noise levels (LA90) recorded in the vicinity of the relevant property as presented in Table 11.4. On the basis of a BS4142 assessment, such predicted noise levels would not result in a strong likelihood of complaint even assuming a tonal penalty of 5dB(A).

The predicted noise levels would be below the WHO guideline thresholds for moderate and serious annoyance and would not present any difficulties in terms of the BS8233 internal thresholds for speech intelligibility and sleep disturbance being achieved.

The above predictions assume continuous, simultaneous activity from all of the plant at the nearest point of the reclaimed land to the nearest properties. This will not be the case in reality. The proposed development will result in no nett increase in overall activity at the port.

Overall, there will be no significant operational noise impact associated with the proposed development.

11.5 MITIGATION

11.5.1 Construction Phase It has been proposed at the outset that the hours of operation for construction works will be between 08:00 and 18:00 from Monday to Friday, between 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and no activities on Sundays and Bank Holidays. There may be a requirement for certain activities to be undertaken outside these hours, especially where tidal influences have critical impacts on the works to be undertaken. Any such activites will not be undertaken without prior agreement with the local authority and liaison with the local community.

A detailed programme for the construction phase will be prepared as part of the detailed design phase and will include information such as notifications, contact numbers, method of appointing contractor, monitoring, contractual conditions and timescales. The programme of works will be agreed with Limerick County Council and the successful contractor will be obliged to comply with the information therein.

Piling As outlined in Section 11.4.1, there will be a requirement for tubular steel piles to be installed at intervals with traditional steel sheet piles filling the space between. The noise impact associated with the piling operations has been included in the cumulative predicted noise level included in Table 11.6.

The standard to be achieved during piling operations and the selection criteria for contractors will be agreed with Limerick County Council prior to works commencing. This operation

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-18 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

should be carried out using recognised noise reducing systems and only during specified working hours. The activity will be confined to specific locations and will be of limited duration.

Vibration Subject to vibration at sensitive locations not exceeding 5mm/s during general construction works and 10mm/s during piling, structural damage to buildings is highly unlikely.

Monitoring It may be necessary to conduct noise monitoring of construction works during noisy or extensive works at locations close to the nearest residential properties. Noise levels limits set down by Limerick County Council should be adhered to. In the absence of specific noise thresholds specified by the council, the contractor should abide by recognised standard noise guidelines such as the ABC Method described in Section E3, Annex E, BS5228:2009.

Specific Mitigating Measures for Construction Phase As described in Section 11.4, there is potential for construction noise levels from the proposed development site to reach up to the high 50s dB(A) at some properties if worst-case noise levels are emitted at the boundary of the proposed site and if no mitigating measures are put in place.

Table 11.4 presents the noise levels recorded in the vicinity of those properties nearest to the

proposed development site. The ambient noise level (i.e. LAeq) in the vicinity of the nearest properties (i.e. those characterised by noise monitoring locations L1 and L2) are in the low to low 60s dB(A). Table 11.7 illustrates that there is potential for worst-case noise levels to reach the low 60s dB(A) with no mitigation measures in place.

It is recommended that a robust temporary barrier (minimum of 3m height) is put up along the boundary of the proposed construction activities nearest to the closest noise sensitive properties. On account of the location of construction activities in the vicinity of the water, careful thought and planning must go into the design and placement of such a barrier. The barrier would be located at the boundary between the foreshore and sea as illustrated in Figure 11.1. The exact dimensions for the barrier would be worked out as part of the detailed construction plan for the proposed works. Such a barrier, if constructed in accordance with sound acoustic principles, should offer a minimum of 10dBA attenuation on ground based activities in close proximity to the boundary barrier.

In addition to this, a detailed construction plan will be prepared and will include a range of measures aimed at reducing the potential construction noise impact on the nearest properties to the proposed development site. This plan will address the mode and timing of construction activity during the construction phase, aiming to reduce the noisiest activities in the vicinity of

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-19 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

the boundary of the proposed site. The plan will set out modes of operation that will ensure that construction plant will not all be operating simultaneously close to the boundary that is nearest to the closest noise sensitive properties (i.e. the worst-case noise levels specified in Table 11.7 will not be realised). This plan will also address the issues relating to collaboration with the local community in order to reduce as much as possible the potential impact from construction noise.

A range of measures will be taken to ensure that the quietest machinery is used or that the use of machinery is such as to be sensitive to the residents at the nearest properties. This will be detailed in the construction plan mentioned above.

British Standard BS5228:2009 – Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites outlines a range of measures that can be used to reduce the impact of construction phase noise on the nearest noise sensitive receptors. These measures will be applied by the contractor where appropriate during the constriction phase of the proposed development. Examples of some of the best practice measures included in BS5228 are listed below:

. ensuring that mechanical plant and equipment used for the purpose of the works are fitted with effective exhaust silencers and are maintained in good working order; . careful selection of quiet plant and machinery to undertake the required work where available; . all major compressors should be ‘sound reduced’ models fitted with properly lined and sealed acoustic covers which should be kept closed whenever the machines are in use; . any ancillary pneumatic percussive tools should be fitted with mufflers or silencers of the type recommended by the manufacturers; . machines in intermittent use should be shut down in the intervening periods between work; . ancillary plant such as generators, compressors and pumps should be placed behind existing physical barriers, and the direction of noise emissions from plant including exhausts or engines should be placed away from sensitive locations, in order to cause minimum noise disturbance. Where possible, in potentially sensitive areas, acoustic barriers of enclosures should be utilised around noisy plant and equipment. . Handling of all materials should take place in a manner which minimises noise emissions;

. Audible warning systems should be switched to the minimum setting required by the Health & Safety Executive;

In order to minimise the likelihood of complaints, Limerick County Council and affected residents should be kept informed of the works to be carried out and of any proposals for work

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-20 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

outside normal hours. A complaints procedure will be operated by the Contractor throughout the construction phase.

11.5.2 Operational Phase It is not expected that the operational phase of the proposed development will result in any significant noise impacts at the nearest noise sensitive properties.

11.6 RESIDUAL IMPACT

The proposed development will result in minor to moderate noise impacts throughout the duration of the construction phase of the proposed development. The operational phase of the proposed development will not result in any significant increase in noise generating activity at the port and therefore there will not be any significant long term increase in noise levels as a result of the proposed development.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-21 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

12.0 MATERIAL ASSETS

12.1 INTRODUCTION

This Chapter discusses the Material Assets within the Foynes area. Material Assets are generally considered to be the physical resources in the environment which may be either of human or natural origin. The object of the assessment of these resources is to identify the impact of the development on individual enterprises or properties and to ensure that natural resources are used in a sustainable manner in order to ensure availability for future generations.

12.2 INFRASTRUCTURE

12.2.1 Water Supply Foynes is serviced by Limerick County Council Foynes/Shannon Estuary Public Drinking Water Supply Scheme which serves circa. 1480 people. The proposed jetty development will not result in a substantial increase in water demand from the water supply and therefore the existing water supply to Foynes will be capable of servicing the new port jetty without causing any disruption to the village’s water supply

12.2.2 Sewerage Infrastructure At present sewage from Foynes village is collected in a combined sewer and is discharged untreated directly into the harbour. A new waste water treatment works has been proposed as part of the Askeaton Sewerage Scheme (Formerly Athea Askeaton Foynes Shanagolden Glin grouped sewerage scheme). The Askeaton Sewerage Scheme is included in the 2010-2012 Water Services Investment Programme by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Currently the sewerage facilities in the town are inadequate and as part of the scheme the towns are to be provided with wastewater facilities to serve their existing and future requirements. The overall scheme will cater for a future population loading of 11000PE in 20 years time. The preliminary report for the project was submitted to the department in September 2008 and Limerick County Council are awaiting approval to proceed to the detailed design stage.

The storm water drainage system will collect rainwater incident upon the site for discharge to the harbour waters via a series of full retention silt traps and oil interceptors. There will be no increased demand on the existing collection system to convey either sewage or storm water from the proposed development. Therefore there will be no impact to the existing infrastructure.

0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-1 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

12.2.3 Mechanical and Electrical Services The proposed expansion of the jetty will continue to be supplied with electricity from the local network from a high voltage ring main distribution system. There is adequate provision within the local electricity infrastructure to accommodate the power needs of the proposed development without causing any impact on Foynes village or the wider supply area.

12.3 ROADS AND TRAFFIC

12.3.1 Existing Transport Network

Introduction The nature of this particular proposal is such that generated flows will be mostly associated with the delivery of construction materials. The traffic impact will therefore arise from the construction phase and this requires an assessment of the delivery options as well as a review of sustainable travel options for staff working at the site.

Road Access There are good road linkages provided at both the eastern and western access to the port, which means that private vehicle access is currently the most popular method of delivery to and from the site. The eastern access contains a right turning lane for traffic turning onto the port access road and a dedicated left turning lane for traffic turning out of the access road. Current arrangements specify that any Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) must not travel through Foynes Village so that any vehicles approaching from the Tralee direction must access the port at the western entrance and traffic travelling from the Limerick direction must access the port via the eastern access. The same system is used for traffic leaving the port. These accesses are identified in Figure 12-2. These allow the Goods Vehicles to access the Port without the need to drive along Main Street or the village centre.

0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-2 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 12.1 Map of Critical Delivery Routes

Rail Access A railway line has been in existence since 1858 and ran as a passenger line from Limerick City terminating at Foynes. The line was closed to passengers in 1963 and used by Iarnród Eireann as a freight line until 2000, when it was closed and has not been used since then. Despite the Shannon Foynes Port Company’s desire to reinstate the line, Iarnród Eireann currently has no intentions to upgrade. The route of the existing line is shown below in Figure 12.1.

0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-3 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Courtesy of Foynes Heritage Railway Group Figure 12.2 Route of Limerick to Foynes Railway Line

The feasibility of using the existing rail link will be largely influenced by its location relative to the source and destination of the construction materials required to be transported to the site. The largest element of material to be brought to site is the import of rockfill which accounts for over 94% of the material which will be delivered to site, and is considered to be the critical trip generator. This will likely be procured from local quarry sources although the final choice of source will be by the chosen contractor and as such, it is not guaranteed that the source will be located as to be feasible for delivery by rail. Even if access to the rail line was feasible it will still be necessary to transport the material from the identified source to the nearest rail link point, unload, the vehicles and load the rail carriages. After transport to the site this process will need to be repeated to unload the carriages and move the material to its final destination. The impact of the additional loading and unloading would make this an unviable option over such a short distance.

Accessibility on Foot/Bicycle The port currently has two accesses; one to the east of Foynes village and one to the west. The junction for the eastern access road is located outside the main confines of the village but within the 50kph limit. The footpath does not extend to this junction nor does it continue along the eastern access to the port entrance. Indeed there is limited verge provision along these roads, preventing access on foot. The western access is located on the edge of Foynes village within the 50 kph limit and is served by the village’s footpath network. Within the confines of the port estate itself, there is a limited footpath network so all things considered access on foot does not prove suitable even for normal access on foot or by bike.

0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-4 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Summary Ideally a range of sustainable travel modes should be introduced; however due to the nature of the traffic that will be generated during construction and the lack of sustainable facilities available, it is suitable to assume that individual construction vehicles will deliver all materials to the site. This will provide for a robust assessment as the use of sea transport or the reinstatement of the rail line would result in a lower generation than that considered in this assessment.

12.3.2 Traffic Generation Due to the Proposed Works

Proposed Development The proposed land reclamation will involve installation of two combi wall structures; one along back of the jetty and the other between jetty and dock allowing infilling of the area behind to reclaim the foreshore.

Construction Traffic In assessing the number of vehicle movements associated with the proposed construction works a conservative assumption has been made that all construction materials will be transported to the site by road. Should some materials be delivered by sea or by rail then In assessing the number of vehicle movements associated with the proposed construction traffic impacts will be less than those presented in this assessment

The various tasks associated with the construction works and the amount of associated materials have been estimated as per table 12.1. The number of vehicles required to transport the materials to the site have been estimated based on the quantity of material required and the capacities of plant machinery that will be used to transport the material. This table offers a clear indication of the total number of vehicles needed to complete the project; however it is how they are distributed that will influence the traffic impact. Using an indicative construction programme for the scheme (Figure 12.3), we can allocate resources and establish when the site will experience the most construction traffic.

0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 12.1 Traffic Generated by Proposed Operations

Operation Unit Quantity Density (t/m³) Total Weight (t) Weight per Vehicle (t) No. of Vehicles

Retaining Structures

Tubular Piles t 2758 2758 20 138

Sheet Piles t 752 752 20 38

Capping Beam Concrete m³ 1238 2.4 2971.2 20 149

Capping Beam Re-bar t 371.4 371.4 20 19

Transfer Slab Concrete m³ 360 2.4 864 20 44

Transfer Slab Re-bar t 72 72 20 4

Connection to Structure m³ 145 2.4 348 20 18

Anchor Wall t 1008 1008 20 51

Tie Rods t 98 98 20 5

Wailers t 39 39 20 2

Reclamation

Imported Rockfill m³ 216384 1.8 3894914.2 20 19475

Rock Armour m³ 2564 2.4 6153.6 20 308

Surfacing

Wearing Course m³ 1057 2.35 2484 20 125

Base Course m³ 1295 2.35 3035 20 153

DBM Sub-base m³ 5284 1.8 9511 20 476

TOTAL 21005

0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-6

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 12.3 Preliminary Programme for Proposed Operations

0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-7

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 12.2 Traffic Distribution Generated by Proposed Operations Retaining Structures Reclamation Surfacing Demand Frequency

Month (24 DAY MONTH) TOTAL VEHICLES/HOUR DAY) (10HR TOTAL VEHICLES/HOUR (8 HOUR DAY) Transfer Slab Concrete Concrete Slab Transfer Re-bar Slab Transfer Connection to Structure Anchor Wall Tie Rods Wailers Imported Rockfill Armour Rock Wearing Course Base Course DBM Sub-base TOTAL VEHCILES/MONTH TOTAL VEHICLES/DAY Tubular Piles Tubular Sheet Piles Capping Beam Concrete Re-bar Beam Capping 1 0 0 0 0 2 23 7 30 1.25 0.13 0.16 3 23 7 30 1.25 0.13 0.16 4 23 7 30 1.25 0.13 0.16 5 23 7 30 1.25 0.13 0.16 6 23 7 30 1.25 0.13 0.16 7 23 7 30 1.25 0.13 0.16 8 4869 4869 202.88 20.29 25.36 9 4869 4869 202.88 20.29 25.36 10 75 10 4869 4954 206.42 20.64 25.80 11 75 10 4869 4954 206.42 20.64 25.80 12 22 2 9 26 3 1 63 2.63 0.26 0.33 13 22 2 9 26 3 1 103 166 6.92 0.69 0.86 14 103 159 262 10.92 1.09 1.36 15 103 63 77 159 402 16.75 1.68 2.09 16 63 77 159 299 12.4 1.24 1.55

0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-8

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 12.1 shows us that the reclamation works will require a total of 21005 vehicles to complete and that 19783 of these vehicles will import fill associated with land reclamation. Using the programme in Figure 12-3, we can see that this aspect of the works will take place over 5 months and will run simultaneously with the construction of the capping beam for the combi wall structures. Table 12.2 breaks this programme down further and shows how the traffic is distributed over this period. It shows that the most rigorous demand occurs during months 10 and 11 with 3978 vehicles accessing the site for each month, resulting in an average of 20.7 vehicles/hour.

12.3.3 Traffic Generated By Employees On-site shift working hours will be between the hours of 07:00-16:00 hours (8 hr day), 6 days a week. Peak on-site employment is expected to be up to 25-30 persons. It is envisaged that all employees would travel to and from site by car or light commercial vehicles, at average vehicles occupancy of 1.3 persons per vehicles.

The peak on-site employment would generate a total of approximately 23 light vehicles inbound in the AM and approximately 23 vehicles light vehicles outbound in the PM. All peak traffic generated by on-site employment would occur before the local morning peak period and overall daily peak hour period, and after the evening peak hour.

Operational Traffic As the proposed works are intended to improve the flexibility and efficiency of existing harbour operations there is not expected to be a significant increase in road traffic during the operational phase.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-9 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

12.4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

12.4.1 Introduction While the aim is to encourage sustainable methods to deliver materials to East Jetty, it is more than likely that most deliveries will be carried out using individual HGVs and this assessment has been carried out on the conservative assumption that all materials will be delivered by road. This section provides additional information on the impacts of the generated traffic relating to the proposed deliveries. It is anticipated that the works will be completed within two years of the counts being taken; however for the purposes of this study we have also considered the impact a further 10 and 15 years in the future.

12.4.2 Existing Conditions In order to determine existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed site, traffic surveys were undertaken at various junctions adjacent to the site: at both accesses to the port and the junction of N69 and R521. Surveys were undertaken in AM (0700-0930) and PM (1600-1830) peak periods. The East Jetty is the junction with slightly higher traffic flows and as such this is the access that will be tested for capacity issues. The information collated from the traffic surveys will allow for the determination of a two-way traffic flow and this will be used to assess the capacity impact for the possible arrival of delivery materials to the site via the East Jetty. Table 12.3 below summarises the times and locations of the surveys.

Table 12.3 Traffic Survey Details Location Date Survey Time

Eastern Access to 26/10/10 0700-0930 Shannon Foynes 26/10/10 1630-1830 Port Western Access to 26/10/10 0700-0930 Shannon Foynes 26/10/10 1630-1830 Port

Junction of N69 & 26/10/10 0700-0930 R521 26/10/10 1630-1830

Surveyors noted the weather was sunny and dry during the survey period and no major incidents occurred during the traffic survey periods. Traffic flow sheets are included in Appendix 8 (I). Observed traffic flows on the network are illustrated in the flow diagrams in Appendix 8 (II). Existing percentage of HGV traffic is illustrated on flow diagrams in Appendix 8 (III).

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-10 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The surveys indicated that both accesses to the port had peak hour periods of 0730-0830 in the AM and 1630-1730 in the PM. The junction of the N69 and R521 had peak periods of 0745-0845 in the AM and 1630-1730 in the PM.

Due to the relatively low number of turning movements recorded at the junction, no queuing was observed.

12.4.3 NRA Future Road Growth and Factored Traffic Flows Existing traffic flows in Appendix 8 have been factored using NRA Future Road Growth Forecasts for Ireland 2002-2040. These are widely accepted as standard for the estimation of future year existing network traffic. Table 12.4 overleaf details the percentage growth for the future design years of the development extrapolated from Table 13 of the NRA document.

Table 12.4 NRA Future Road Growth Forecasts

Year Forecasted Number of Registered Cars Percentage Increase

2006 1661655

2007 1704558

2008 1747460

2009 1790363

2010 (Traffic Survey) 1833265

2011 1876168

2012 (Year of Completion) 1906581 3.999%

2013 1936995

2014 1967408

2015 1997822

2016 2028235

2017 2054729

2018 2081223

2019 2107716

2020 2134210

2021 2160704

2022 (Year of Completion +10) 2181072 18.972%

2023 2201440

2024 2221808

2025 2242176

2026 2262544

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-11 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Year Forecasted Number of Registered Cars Percentage Increase

2027 (Year of Completion +15) 2276988 24.204%

2028 2291432

2029 2305877

2030 2320321

2031 2334765

Factored existing traffic flow diagrams for design years 2012, 2022 and 2027 are provided in Appendix 8 (IV).

12.4.4 Committed Development and Base Traffic Flows As outlined in the scoping study, Limerick County Council’s online planning database has been consulted in relation to any significant developments that have approval in the surrounding area. The search indicated that no significant approvals existed and therefore no committed development has been included in this assessment. Therefore base traffic flows remain the same as the factored traffic flows provided previously.

12.4.5 Generated Traffic and Traffic Distribution Vehicle traffic generation associated with the proposed development have been calculated previously in Chapter 3 and is summarised in Table 12.5 below.

Table 12.5 Generated Vehicle Trips AM Peak Period PM Peak Period

Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Generated Trips 26 26 26 26

In relation to traffic distribution, the potential rockfill source will be subject to future tender; however it will either approach from the West and enter via the western access, or will approach from the east and enter the site via the eastern access. As the traffic flows are slightly higher at the eastern access it has been considered for modelling and capacity analysis to ensure a robust test. In using the eastern access traffic will avoid Main Street and the village centre. If the approach route is taken as from the west, then construction traffic will use the western access to deliver and return from the site, again avoiding the village centre.

For the purpose of testing the capacity of the network the arrivals and departures to/from the proposed site have been distributed from the site access along the N69. Generated traffic flow diagrams have been included in Appendix 8 (V).

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-12 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

12.4.6 Proposed Traffic Flows Generated traffic flows (Appendix 8 (V)) have been added to the factored/base traffic flows (Appendix IV) to give proposed design year traffic flows. Proposed design year traffic flow diagrams have been included in Appendix 8 (VI).

12.4.7 Assessment of Generated Traffic The Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT) have published guidelines for undertaking Traffic Impact Assessments. These guidelines have been used as a basis for the assessment of the traffic generated by the proposed development.

Guidelines recommend that a TIA should be produced when one or other of the following thresholds are exceeded: . Traffic to and from the development exceeds 10% of the existing two-way flow on the adjoining highway. . Traffic to and from the development exceeds 5% of the existing two-way flow on the adjoining highway, where traffic congestion exists or will exist within the assessment period, or in other sensitive locations.

Percentage Impact diagrams are included in Appendix 8 (VII). The flow diagrams detail two- way percentage impacts and percentage impacts on individual movements. Since the surrounding highway network experiences no notable congestion the 10% threshold is applicable in this instance. The percentage impact diagrams indicate that only the minor arm (Harbour Access) on the eastern junction exceeds this threshold. Based on relatively low existing two way flows (94 in the AM peak and 34 in the PM peak), it experiences an increase of 28% in the AM peak and 68% in the PM peak. This increase is due to the low base flow and the impact is tested below.

Junction Modelling – Junction of Eastern Access Road and N69 The impacted junction has been assessed using the PICADY (Priority Intersection Capacity and Delay) modelling package. This package enables the user to predict the capacity, queues and delays at junctions based on geometric and traffic flow inputs. PICADY is an NRA approved assessment tool.

The outputs from PICADY present Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) and Queue Lengths (Q) as indicators of the operational efficiency of a junction. An RFC would indicate that a junction is operating at its theoretical maximum capacity, however, a value of approximately 0.85 is considered to be the optimum operational RFC value for a traffic movement at a junction. The queue length indicated the number of vehicles queuing during the assessment period, typically the peak hour.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-13 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The junction under study is of a high standard and includes dedicated left and right exiting lanes onto the N69, and a right turning lane for vehicles wishing to access the port. The dimensions of this junction have been measured for input into the PICADY model, which has been built for a number of study years. The most onerous of these is 15 years after completion and Table 12.6 below summarises the output of the PICADY analysis for year of completion (2012) and 15 years after completion (2027).

Table 12.6 Junction Capacity Analysis – Proposed Site Access AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour MVT RFC Queue RFC Queue B-A 0.016 1 0.018 1 2012 Proposed B-C 0.060 1 0.046 1 Flows C-B 0.133 1 0.067 1 B-A 0.019 1 0.021 1 2027 Proposed B-C 0.066 1 0.047 1 Flows C-B 0.154 2 0.072 1

The analysis shows that the junction operates within capacity for proposed design flows in year 2027. The maximum RFC in the AM peak period is 15.4% with a maximum queue of 2vehicles and the maximum RFC in the PM peak period is 7.2% with no more than 1 vehicle queuing. As such the analysis indicates that there is ample capacity to accommodate the expected level of traffic even if all the vehicles approach from one side of the village.

12.5 MITIGATION MEASURES

12.5.1 Proposals to Improve Access to Harbour To help improve access to the Harbour, it is proposed to install warning signage in advance of both junctions to raise awareness of the increase in construction traffic associated with the works. Skid resistant surfacing will be laid 100m in advance of both east and west harbour accesses given the increased risk of skidding given the heavy loads involved. Maximum visibility from the minor arm of the junction is to be provided by cutting back and maintaining the grass verges along the N69. The current exclusion of HGVs through Foynes Village is to be maintained to prohibit disruption through the village.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-14 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

12.6 CONCLUSIONS

The proposal is to reclaim lands at Shannon Foynes Port to extend the harbour at the East Jetty, providing an increased area for storage and manoeuvre of large vehicles. Under this scope of study, there are no proposals to increase the final traffic flows once the harbour extension has been completed, therefore this assessment studies the impact of vehicles delivering materials during construction work.

While pedestrian, cycling and public transport facilities have been discussed in detail in the Transport Assessment, the nature of the traffic generated by the land reclamation operation will be individual HGVs.

During construction, access to the site will be provided via the existing eastern or western access to Shannon Foynes Port from the N69. The existing eastern access includes a right turning lane onto the port access road and also a dedicated left turning lane for traffic turning left out of the port. It has been agreed with Limerick County Council that HGVs through traffic relating to the construction activities at the proposed site will be directed to use the access either side of the village and the use of access through the village will be discouraged.

A person trip model has been produced for the proposed development and outlines the likely levels of walking, cycling, public transport and vehicular trips to the site. The peak traffic flows occur over a four month period when the rockfill and capping beam are constructed simultaneously. This results in a peak hourly flow of 20 goods vehicles at the port.

RPS is in possession of traffic surveys undertaken at the both accesses to the Port and also the junction of the N69 and R521, which are included in Appendix 8 (I). The surveyed traffic flows have been factored by NRA Traffic Forecasts rates to form factored future year existing flows. An extensive search showed no committed development was approved for the area. Generated traffic was added to the future/base traffic flows to give proposed design year flows for the proposed development.

Distribution of construction traffic will be influenced by the delivery route of the rockfill. It is assumed that all rockfill material will be sourced from local quarries and delivered to site via the existing road network. The eastern access currently carries slightly more traffic than the western access and as such is the junction likely to experience capacity issues first. For the purpose of this assessment a potential delivery route has been taken along the N69 and to the eastern access road. This means that 100% of the construction traffic has been assessed as using this access to test a robust situation. A similar situation would occur if the rockfill was delivered from the West. In this case the approach route would be along the N69 and would use the western access. The modelling has taken the junction with the highest flows to test the

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-15 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

capacity, and the results indicates that adequate capacity exists to accommodate the expected level of traffic , if road transport is used as the delivery method of rockfill to the site.

Percentage impact diagrams have been established comparing base traffic flows of opening year 2012 and proposed traffic flows of 2012. These flows indicate that the increase in traffic on the minor arm of the eastern junction exceeds the 10% threshold stipulated in the NRA Guidelines for both the AM and PM peaks.

Results of the PICADY modelling show that even for the most onerous study year of 2027, the capacity of the access junction is not compromised. The most critical movement from N69 Eastbound/Rock Stockpile to the Harbour Road experiences an RFC of 15.4% in the AM peak with an 2 cars queuing, while in the PM peak it experiences an RFC of 7.2% with 1 car queuing. The normal level that notable queuing starts to occur is when the model predicts an RFC of 85%. Therefore the assessment indicates that the proposed traffic flows during the construction phase are unlikely to cause any capacity issues on route to the port.

On the basis of this assessment it has been demonstrated and concluded that the combined traffic impact of the proposed development to and from the site will not have a significant impact on the surrounding road network. It is noted that the proposed development gives support to building and working towards the sustainable objectives within the region.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-16 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

13.0 ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURAL HERITAGE

13.1 FOYNES PORT

This chapter addresses the known and potential archaeological environment; assesses the actual and proposed impacts on that environment from the works programme; and makes recommendations to resolve any further archaeological requirements prior to the works programme commencing.

The Archaeological Diving Company Ltd (ADCO) was appointed by RPS Group Ltd., on behalf of Shannon Foynes Port Company (SFPC), to undertake a non-disturbance archaeological and architectural assessment of an area of inter-tidal/ sub-tidal foreshore at Shannon Foynes Port, as an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Cultural Heritage and Architectural Heritage section of the project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The archaeological and architectural assessment is based on a desktop review of existing archival and published information; an interpretation of the results of a marine geophysical survey commissioned specifically by the SFPC for the present project; and an on-site inspection of the foreshore, quayside and underwater area.

The on-site work was carried out under licence from the DoEHLG on 23rd February 2011; license numbers 10D033, 10R092.

13.2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

A desk study of cartographic and archival information was conducted as a preliminary stage of archaeological assessment for the project; . Topographical files in the National Museum of Ireland; . Register of Monuments and Places in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG); . National Inventory of Architectural Heritage; . Ordnance Survey mapping for the area since the First Edition six-inch series in 1844; . Admiralty Charts; . Other historic mapping; . Inventory of Historic Shipwrecks and the Ports and Harbours record at the DoEHLG; . the record of licensed archaeological work; . relevant published sources were reviewed.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-1 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The following legislation, standards and guidelines were considered and consulted for the purposes of this evaluation: . Advice Notes on Current Practice (in preparation of Environmental Impact Statements), 2003, EPA; . Architectural Heritage (National Inventory) and Historic Monuments (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2000 and the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 2000; . Frameworks and Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, 1999, (formerly) Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and Islands; . Guidelines for the Assessment of Archaeological Heritage Impacts of National Road Schemes, NRA; . Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements, 2002, EPA; . Heritage Act, 1995; . National Monuments Acts, 1930-2004; . Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill, 2006; . Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Pack, 2010 EPA; . In the absence of a specific Code of Practice between the Marine Industry and the Minister of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the following Codes of Practice that exist between industry and the Minister were consulted: Bord Gáis Éireann (2002); .Coillte (no date); EirGrid (2009); ESB Networks (2009), Irish Concrete Federation (2009), National Roads Authority (no date), Railway Procurement Agency (2007).

The following county and local development plans were considered and consulted for the purposes of this evaluation: . Limerick County Heritage Plan 2005-2011.

On-site archaeological and architectural fieldwork has been carried out as part of the present report.

Limitations No limitations were encountered during the desk study.

Classification of Impacts/Effects Impact/effect categories will typically have regard to those set out in the ‘Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements’, 2002, EPA; ‘Advice notes on Current Practice (in preparation of Environmental Impact Statements), 2003, EPA; Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), 2010; and Guidelines for the Assessment of Archaeological Heritage Impacts of National Road Schemes, no date, National Roads

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-2 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Authority. Impacts/effects are generally categorised as either being a direct impact, an indirect impact or as having no predicted impact.

13.3 THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

The specific details of individual observations are set out in Appendix 9. A general overview of what the sum of these observations implies is presented below, and this is followed with individual presentations of the relevant source material.

Overview Foynes Port lies on the south side of the Shannon estuary, west of Aughinish (Appendix 9, Figure 1). The presence of Foynes Island, some 330m to the North presents a wide channel and a most suitable anchorage with protection from the winds, but with a strong ebb flow. A range of archaeological sites are identified on Foynes Island (Appendix 9) The presence of six fualchta fiadha or spreads of burned stone material, indicate a distinct prehistoric horizon of activity that is concentrated in the centre and along the north shore of the Island. These are a commonly occurring site and represent cooking and related activities, which are often associated with nearby settlements but can also occur in isolation, suggesting the re-use of more general hunting or fishing sites. The clustering of fulachta fiafha on Foynes Island carries the attention westwards along the estuary for prehistoric activity that has been identified on the tidal mudflats to the east at Carrigdirty and to the north along the Fergus estuary.1 There is however an absence of known archaeological sites at Foynes Port itself. This is a low-lying area on which tidal mudflats developed to the west of the Robertstown River and Aughinish, which lie c. 150m east of the present Port. In many respects, the landscape presents an ideal environment for early prehistoric activity similar to that which has been identified further east, focused on the exploitation of marine resources through the use of fishtraps and other shore-based activities. However the presence the pier and later port will have removed and/or buried such remains. The survival of a medieval tower house to the south in Corgrig townland (RMP LI 010-007) indicates the presence of settlement in the more recent past, but it is the Napoleonic era battery on Foynes Island that most clearly reflects the degree to which the landing place of Foynes was regarded with some importance in the past. The battery site (LI 010-001) was an earthwork construction that held six 24-pounders, and was part of the wider defences along the estuary constructed against the threat of invasion.2 It was considered capable of commanding the full width of the river at this point, which is a mile wide from Battery Point across to the Co. Clare shore.

1 Aidan O’Sullivan, Foragers, farmers and fishers in a coastal landscape: an intertidal archaeological survey of the Shannon estuary, Discovery Programme Monograph 5., (Dublin 2002), pp55, 93 2 Paul Kerrigan, Castles and fortifications in Ireland, 1485-1945 (Collins Press, Cork 1995), p. 211.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-3 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Topographic files, National Museum of Ireland The National Museum of Ireland’s Topographical Files is the national archive of all known objects reported to the National Museum. These files relate primarily to artefacts but also include references to monuments and also contain a unique archive of records of previous archaeological excavations. The Museum's files present an accurate catalogue of objects reported to that institution from 1928. There is a computerised database of finds from the 1980s onwards. The find-spots of artefacts can also be an important indication of the archaeological potential of the related or surrounding area. The information is ordered according to townland. In assessing the information for Foynes, the following townlands were considered: Foynes Island; Durnish, Corgrig, Ballynacragga North.

A single object is noted in the records of the National Museum of Ireland under these townlands. A long narrow axehead made from silicified black mudstone, typical of the ‘Clare Shales’ of Cos. Clare and Limerick, and which outcrop at the east end of Foynes Island was recorded from the central area of Foynes Island. The axe head is 17.7cm long, 5cm wide at its blade, and up to 2.3cm thick. It is in private possession and represents a typical tool for cutting wood during early prehistory.

Record of Monuments and Places3 The Record of Monuments & Places (RMP) is a list of archaeological sites known to the National Monuments Service with accompanying RMP Maps, based on OS 6” Sheets, which indicate the location of each recorded site. The RMP list is based on The Sites and Monuments Record files housed in the National Monuments Services offices. The Sites and Monuments Records (SMR) are lists with accompanying maps and files of all known or possible archaeological sites and monuments, predominately pre-1700AD in date, for all counties. These lists were, in many cases, initially based on cartographic, documentary and aerial photographic sources. The SMR (as revised in the light of available fieldwork) form the basis of the statutory RMP. The record is updated on a constant basis and focuses on monuments that predate 1700AD. Buildings belonging to the seventeenth-century and later are not well represented in their archive, although they are considered as archaeological sites today.

While no sites are listed in the RMP for the area under investigation, a number of sites are listed for the wider area (Appendix 9)

National Inventory of Architectural Heritage The National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) is a county by county database that identifies, records, and evaluates the post-1700 architectural heritage of Ireland, uniformly and

3 The RMP is maintained by the National Monument Section, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-4 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

consistently as an aid to the protection and conservation of the nations built heritage. The NIAH surveys provide the basis for the recommendations of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the planning authorities for the inclusion of particular structures in their Record of Protected Structures (RPS).

Two sites, located in close proximity to the area under assessment, are listed in the inventory and include a late eighteenth-century mill house (currently the SFPC office) and adjacent T- shaped, limestone constructed, pier built in 1847 (Table 13.1, Appendix 9). These structures are listed as retaining architectural and technical interest.

Table 13.1 Entries in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage located in close proximity to the area under assessment. NIAH Reg. No. Categories Rating Original Description of Special Use Interest 21829003: Architectural Regional Miller’s Detached four-bay two- SFPC Office Artistic House storey with dormer attic. Former saw mill and mill house, built in 1863 21829004: Architectural Regional Dock/ T-plan limestone pier with Dock/ harbour Technical harbour harbour, built in 1847.

Cartographic Sources and the development of Foynes Port The OS First Edition mapping of 1844 provides the most direct record of development within the survey area at Foynes. A village is already established on the shoreline to the south, and it is indicated as a linear development of detached and semi-detached dwellings located on either side of a roadway (now part of the N69) which runs close to the upper foreshore on the south side of the River Shannon (Appendix 9). A post office is depicted to the west of the settlement and a National School is shown 200m to the southwest. A small quay structure is shown, located on the upper foreshore, between the main street and the aforementioned post office.

Work began on redeveloping the port in the 1840s, and records relate the progress and list of implements used during 1847-49 relative to sinking foundations and costs of completion.4 Further improvement occurred in the 1880s, possibly reflecting the expansion of mackerel fishing. A new jetty was built and further dredging took place in 1915.

4 National Archives, reference OPW8/. See also Colin Breen and Claire Callaghan, ‘Post-medieval shipwrecks, harbours and lighthouses’, in O’Sullivan, Foragers, farmers and fishers, pp 233-251, at p. 249.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The 1844 map also depicts the nature of the shoreline (Appendix 9). In contrast to the rocky foreshore that is shown to form the southern side of Foynes Island, the inter-tidal zone adjacent to Foynes village was composed of estuarine mud-flats that extedended in length between 121m and 350m. Flood embankments were located along the upper foreshore, placed to protect farmland to the southeast of Foynes, fields to the north of Durnish townland.

A fishtrap or ‘Weir’ is shown running roughly north-south from the LWM, parallel (west) to a small river that has cut a channel through the inter-tidal zone (Appendix 9). This structure measured approximately 170m in length and had two equidistant arms that protruded from the structure at right angles along its western side (c.25m length). The tidal fish-trap represents a sizable endeavour and highlights the exploitation of the estuarine environment as a natural resource in the nineteenth-century, and is one of many such sites observed along the Shannon estuary, continuing an age-old tradition of exploiting the seasonal migrations. The site of this weir is located approximately 148m east of the proposed development area.

The OS Third Edition Mapping of 1923 depicts a much more developed Foynes, reflected in the establishment of a harbour to the northwest (1853), the construction of a railway line (1858) to facilitate the port facilities, and an extended settlement eastwards (Appendix 9). Two photographs of Foynes from the early 1900s record the railway station, goods shed, and turntable tract adjacent to the south Pier of Foynes’s historic harbour (Appendix 9 Plates 2-3). A sizeable flood embankment, as noted on the First Edition Map, is visible running along the upper foreshore, to the left-hand side of both pictures.

The OS Third Edition map also records a second fishtrap site; this time a staggered ‘Salmon Weir’ is indicated off Durnish Point, 350m east of the proposed reclamation area (Appendix 9). It is orientated NNW to SSE and the mapping indicates that the structure measured up to 124m in length.

A deep-water quay was added to the port in 1936 and for the next decade the harbour provided the European base for a transatlantic flying-boat service.

Another photograph from the 1960s provides an aerial view of Foynes subsequent to the construction of an oil terminal, an ore unloading plant, and the newly constructed East Jetty (Plate 4). It also, shows sizeable reclamation of the foreshore was undertaken as part of the above development, approximately 153m (max.) north-south x 800m east-west area being reclaimed. The original shoreline is denoted by the aforementioned floodwater embankments which are still in situ.

Today the Shannon Foynes Port Company operates a general purpose terminal, catering for dry bulk, break bulk, liquid, and project cargoes. The port comprises of the west jetty (271m

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-6 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

length), east jetty (295m length), and Oil Dolphins located to the east of the site (Appendix 9 Plates 5-7).

Shipwreck Inventory The Shipwreck Inventory in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government’s archive is a list of recorded instances of wrecking since 1750. The details provided describe the type of vessel, the journey it foundered on, and information on the ultimate plight of the vessel and its crew, where possible. In describing the wrecking event, the records will locate the incident in relation to the nearest headland or other topographic marker where known. This is not however a record of where the wreckage lies, since the historic records generally only deal with the vessel before it sunk. Such finer details emerge from other sources, such as fishermens’ records of snag points and diver records of sites located underwater. These are included in the Inventory wherever possible but it is true to say that most entries lack this final level of data. Finally, it should be pointed out that while the Inventory provides a record of wrecking incidents since 1750, it does not claim to be a comprehensive record for earlier events, and therefore the medieval and prehistoric periods are not represented in this archive.

The shipwrecks recorded for the Shannon estuary have been examined.5 Where it is possible to approximate the location of ship-wrecking events, one observes a fairly even distribution along both north and south shores of the estuary, with a particular concentration at Kilrush, no doubt because of the extensive fishing port that Kilrush represents. In assessing the pattern of wrecking at Foynes, the following topographical markers were noted: Durnish Point, Gammarel Point, Foynes Rock, Poultallin Point.

There are only two references to wrecking events at or close to Foynes. A sailing boat whose name was not recorded was reported as having wrecked ‘near Foynes Island’ on 12th August 1788. The boat was carrying three men form Limerick when it overturned in a squall. Two of the men drowned. The Castleragget was a turf boat journeying from Limerick in Octboer 1833 when she was hit by a brig near Foynes Island. Nine people died.

One must conclude from this that the potential for observing wrecksites dating from c. 1750 AD is low.

Licensed archaeological work The excavations bulletin publishes annual summary accounts of licensed archaeological excavations undertaken throughout Ireland.6 Summaries may also be submitted for inter-tidal

5 Breen and Callaghan, ‘Post-medieval Shipwrecks’. 6 Isabel Bennett (ed.) Excavations Bulletin: summary accounts of archaeological excavations in Ireland, Wordwell Ltd.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-7 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

survey, underwater assessments, and the archaeological monitoring of marine dredging works. Appendix 9 lists the entries relating to the townlands surrounding Foynes, comprising: Aughinish Island, Aughinish West, Ballynacragga, Durnish, Leahys and Foynes Harbour. Eight sites of archaeological significance are listed and include: a Bronze Age stone fort (entry: 1975-0025), a Medieval Tower House and Bawn (entry: 1974-0028), an Enclosure site (entry: 1996: 0232, RMP: 10-14), an Early Christian Ringfort (entry: 2004-0975, RMP 10:82), and a series of Fulacht Fiadh and associated burnt mounds that were encountered as part of archaeological investigations carried for the Bord Gais Eireann Pipeline to the West. These latter observations complement the series of burned stone spreads observed on Foynes Island, and serve to highlight further the prehistoric dimension that exists along this wider shoreline.

Two entries relate to archaeological monitoring that has taken place within estuary at or close to Foynes, but in neither instance have materials of interest been observed. One entry (02E0469) refers to monitoring of backhoe dredging associated with the laying of a section of gas pipeline across the River Shannon between Leahys townland, Co. Limerick, and Shanakea townland, Co. Clare. The second entry (02E1767) relates to archaeological monitoring of maintenance dredging works at Foynes Port, and is the only reference to licensed archaeological work occurring close to the development area to date. The project noted a series of previous dredging projects, including capital dredging within the port area but these projects took place before the need to archaeologically monitor such work, and no materials of archaeological significance were reported.

Conclusion Maritime activity within the Shannon Estuary is documented from early prehistoric times. The study of the wider estuary indicates that the location of Shannon Foynes Port within a low- lying sheltered shoreline is an ideal situation for early human activities. The presence of remains on Foynes Island to the north and Aughinish to the east, as well as former fish weirs close by at Durnish Point, reinforces this observation, but it is clear that the construction of the nineteenth-century pier and later port with its attendant development and reclamation works will have reduced the potential for archaeological recovery. There is, however, an inherent potential for foreshore archaeology to be revealed during new construction projects that are associated with fresh disturbance activities, where the ground surfaces are impacted directly. In such instances, there is a need for archaeological resolution strategies, to mitigate the possibility for new discoveries.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-8 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

13.4 MARINE GEOPHYSICAL DATA

Marine geophysical survey was conducted as part of the wider EIA. The parameters of the survey were to meet the requirements set by the DoEHLG for marine geophysical survey for archaeological purposes. The work was conducted by Hydrographic Surveys for SFPC in January 2011, and the primary data and associated mapping were made available to ADCO for review.

Nature of record The record is comprehensive. Side-scan sonar and magnetometer survey was conducted over a survey area that measures c. 600m East-West along the shoreline and c. 320m across the channel from the existing shore (Figure 5). The area surveyed is greater than the area being developed, and the larger survey footprint provides a necessary context in which to understand the seabed within the East Jetty area.

Survey Grid The side-scan sonar survey was conducted on a series of eighteen separate survey lines. A series of East-West lines were extended on the seaward side of the East Jetty, and a sequence of shorter East-West lines was run within the enclosed spaces inside the East Jetty. Shorter cross lines were extended at right angles, to provide an overall project grid. Line- spacing reached 50m, but was frequently less than this, and averaged 30m apart. Within the interior of the East Jetty, the survey line overlap was still more instense. The survey has provided ample overlap and the ability to view the same areas of seabed from different directions.

Side-scan Sonar Survey The seabed is indicated as a relatively uniform sandy/silty surface. Sand rippling/waves are evident in the NE sector outside the East Jetty, where the ripples are aligned NE-SW. The criss-crossed nature of the gridded beams which make up the East jetty are also clearly visible, as is the rock armouring of the current reclaimed shoreline inside the jetty.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-9 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Images of seabed as shown on side-scan sonar traces. The upper image shows the sand waves which form off the NE sector in the channel outside the East Jetty between Foynes Port and Foynes Island. The lower image shows the seabed within the East Jetty on its western side, indicating the jetty on the left side of the screen and the rock-armoured reclaimed shoreline of the present port on the right. This space between the jetty and the shore is to be filled in as part of the current development proposal.

A number of anomalies were identified throughout the area surveyed and these are highlighted in Hydrographic Surveys’ report. A small number of additional features were indicated within the East Jetty area, and these have focussed the archaeological inspection (Appendix 9). Anomalies 18, 20_01, 20_03 and 20_24 were considered.

Anomaly 18 is represented as a series of small circular anomalies forming two parallel rows next to the shoreline in the eastern section inside the East Jetty. The rows lie c. 4m apart, and the individual anomalies are c. 3m apart. The feature is aligned East-West. Examination of site

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-10 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

maps and consultation with the port revealed no evidence to suggest what this feature might represent, and no material indication of this feature was observed during the underwater inspection (see below).

Anomaly 20_01 (ss8) was irregular in shape, measuring approximately 4.9m by 3m in size, 1.1m high. It was observed just beside the East Jetty on its downstream side. Dive inspection did not identify any material of archaeological interest in this location, and the anomaly may represent a natural localized variation in the seabed.

Anomaly 20_03 was represented by a short linear anomaly beneath the viaduct that joins the East Jetty with the shore. Dive inspection did not identify any feature in this location.

Anomaly 20_04 observed as a short anomaly on the next to the shoreline rock armour was revealed as a kelp-covered tyre.

Magnetometer Survey The magnetometer survey revealed a natural variation in background magnetic levels. Certain limitation was experienced with the magnetometer because of the presence of berthing vessels along the East Jetty. However the survey did not highlight the presence of any particular anomalies suggestive of localized debris or other archaeological indicators.

Conclusion The area surveyed included the development area and the channel to the North of the jetties. Side-scan sonar and magnetometer surveys were conducted within the specifications for marine geophysical surveys as defined by the DoEHLG. No material of obvious archaeological interest was identified, but a number of anomalies were highlighted. Those which occur within the development area were subsequently inspected and are reported below.

13.5 GEOTECHNICAL DATA REVIEW

Geotechnical ground investigations were undertaken at the proposed Reclamation Area in March 2009 by Priority Geotechnical Drilling Ltd.7 This investigation comprised of the gathering of data from nine cable percussive boreholes and nine rotary core boreholes, the samples from which underwent subsequent analysis in the laboratory (Appendix 9). The boreholes data from this investigation was assessed from an archaeological perspective by ADCO. The borehole data sheets did not reveal any indicators to suggest the presence of submerged landscapes or buried peat horizons at this location.

7 Foynes East Jetty Site Investigation, Report on Ground Investigation, Factual Report No.: PC9031, Priorty Geotechnical Drilling Ltd., October 2009.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-11 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

13.6 ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

An assessment of various documentation relating to the shore has been undertaken using first editions of the National Ordnance Survey maps, subsequent editions and aerial photography available online. In addition, site visits were made on separate occasions by Brian F O’Carroll, B Arch FRIAI RIBA Minst RA, and Santiago Marinas, COAATM (Spain), of O’Carroll Associates Architects Ltd, Conservation Architects. It is clear that there are no known archaeological sites or features in the development area. However, more recent structures, particularly the existing quay walls contain some worked stones which are worthy of conservation.

The built environment to the South of the East Jetty, consists of industrial type stores, warehouses, pipelines, mass concrete walls and miscellaneous pavings. None of these late 19th and 20th century buildings has any particular architectural qualities despite the fact that they are in the Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). It is the entire group of buildings, rather than any individual building, which creates an industrial heritage with a variety of structures typical of that period, particularly oil storage facilities and prominent pipelines.

However, none of these industrial structures within the Natural Heritage Area (NHA) or the SAC will in any way be affected by the infill proposed as part of the general developments being anticipated by the Shannon Foynes Port Company Limited.

There is almost no structure in the area which will be impacted by the proposed infilling. The only possible exception to this comment relates to some stones, which are built into the quay walls and which are illustrated in Appendix 9. In turn, none of the stone structures is in any way unusual or of merit but again, similar to the structures within the SAC, it is a group of feature stones within the rough setting that has some merit.

The quay walls or revetments were constructed in the late 1920s and further extended at the time the railway line was closed after World War II. Available images indicate that the two water towers and the signal box were demolished and the remains are now built into the revetments. From examination of the stones on the quay wall it is clear that they came from demolished portions of other structures and consist of saddle stones, door jambs, door cases and similar features of passing interest only. The carving of these dressed stones would possibly have been in the latter part of the 19th century and are the only remains of buildings of no real significance. However these stones could be built into new structures to illustrate the quality and standards of stone masonry in the latter part of the 19th century.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-12 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

13.7 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE ASSESSMENT

Methodology Archaeological site work took place on 23rd February 2011, and included a terrestrial and intertidal inspection of the foreshore, and an underwater inspection of the sub-tidal portions of the development area inside the East Jetty.

No limitations were experienced, and full access to the development area was possible. Much of the proposed reclamation area was accessible at Low Water (LW). The sub-tidal portion consisted of a 10m wide x 290m long section of riverbed/ seabed, and water depths of 0.5m were experienced.

A Topcon differential GMS2 unit was used to position-fix any observations/ plate locations taken and to locate the coordinates for those anomalies identified for visual inspection. A finds retrieval strategy dealing with conservation issues, cataloguing, and locational recording was in place to deal with any artefacts that might be recovered during the survey.

The site was accessed from a dive vessel with VHF communications to shore and relevant port authorities. This boat acted as a support vessel for those archaeologists undertaking the inter- tidal field-walking. All water-based operations were undertaken in accordance with HSE Diving at Work regulations 1998. A notification to dive was submitted to the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) in advance of the dive work commencing.

Visual Survey and Assessment The assessment concentrated on the immediate impact zone and extended across a 75m (max.) x 290m area of inter-tidal foreshore and 10m x 290m area of sub-tidal seabed (Figure 7). The locations of side-scan sonar anomalies SS20_01, SS20_03, SS20_04, and SS18_1 to SS18_17 were inspected. In addition, two areas of archaeological potential (AP1 and AP2) identified from cartographic sources were visually assessed (Figure 8).

Intertidal Foreshore The inter-tidal zone extends between 46m and 75m from the High Water mark to the Low Water mark (Appendix 9 Plates 8-11). It is characterized by a deposit of sandy-silt that ranges from very a soft composition (sediment penetration 1m+), along the western half of the survey area, to a moderately stiff composition across the eastern half (sediment penetration 0.45m+). Occasional gravel and fragmented shell inclusions were noted, with infrequent sub-rounded cobbles and boulders being scattered across its expanse. These cobbles and boulders area more concentrated across the upper reaches of the foreshore (c.5m wide section), where seaweed (bladderwack species) has used these inclusions as anchored points (Appendix 9 Plate 12). The upper foreshore is delineated by a twentieth-century masonry revetment that

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-13 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

slopes from a low-slung retaining wall to the foreshore at a c.30° angle (Appendix 9, Plates 13-14). Rock armour has been placed along the upper foreshore to the west of the survey area, running between the East Jetty and West Pier locations (Appendix 9 Plates 15-16). A stream is located to the east of the site, beneath the upstanding structure for the mooring dolphins. This waterway has cut a narrow channel through the inter-tidal zone as it discharges into the Shannon (Appendix 9 Plate 19-20). The waterway was inspected to see if any archaeological material had been exposed by the natural erosion of the foreshore at this location.

A number of modern debris features capable of casting a side-scan sonar shadow were encountered and recorded as part of the survey (Figure 6). These include: an iron table frame or similar (D01), a cast-iron machine bucket (D02), a 1m diameter concrete pipe-cap/ diffuser (D03), and a series of concrete beams and pipe sections (D04). The latter being situated on the upper foreshore, immediately west of the viaduct (Appendix 9, Plates 19-22). No material, structures, or deposits of archaeological or historic significance were encountered as part of the foreshore survey.

Sub-tidal Foreshore A 10m wide section of seabed was inspected along the northernmost extent of the proposed reclamation area. This zone is composed of a soft sandy-silt with a penetration depth of 0.75m+. Occasional cobble and shell inclusions were noted. No material, structures, or deposits of archaeological significance were encountered as part of underwater survey.

Side-scan Sonar Anomalies Visual inspection at the anomaly locations for SS20_1 and SS20_03 did not reveal a positive target; and no object capable of casting a side-scan shadow was present (Appendix 9 Plate 23). Likewise, no objects that would account for the parallel run of anomalies shown on the side scan imaging for SS_1 to SS18_17 were present (Appendix 9 Plates 24). Only one object, a cast-iron machine bucket (D02), was located at the target location for one of these anomalies (SS_18_04, Plate 20). A positive target was achieved for SS20_04, where a seaweed-covered car tyre was present (Appendix 9 Plates 25-26).

Areas of Archaeological Potential (AP1 and AP2) As previously discussed, two fish weirs were recorded on early Ordance Survey six-inch maps (Appendix 9 Figures 3-4). AP1 is located 148m east of the proposed reclamation area and AP2 is located 350m to the east (Appendix 9 Figure 7). These sites were categorized as areas of foreshore retaining archaeological potential, and an on-site visual inspection was undertaken at both locations. No above-surface indicators relating to these sites remain (Appendix 9 Plates 27-28). However, it is possible that in-situ elements of these structures lie

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-14 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

buried below the surface, within the estuarine mudflats that form the foreshore at both locations.

A small stream discharges into the Shannon 17m East of the location of AP2 (Appendix 9 Plate 29-30). This waterway was also inspected for any sub-surface archaeological material that may be exposed across its extent. However no material, structures, or deposits of archaeological of historic interest were encountered as part of this endeavour.

Conclusion The on-site assessment was comprehensive and extended outside the confines of the proposed reclamation impact zone. While there is an inherent archaeological potential associated with the foreshore areas surrounding the River Shannon Estuary, this potential has been limited for the section of foreshore under assessment. It is clear that extensive foreshore reclamation undertaken at Foynes Port in the 1960s has served to remove much of the potential historical and archaeological material that may have been present along the original shoreline. In addition, the data review and interpretation of both the geophysical and geotechnical investigations did not yield any evidence to suggest the presence of archaeological horizons lying exposed within the proposed reclamation area. Despite this, the possibility of buried in situ archaeologically does remain. Therefore, it is recommended that the removal of any foreshore or seabed deposits as part of the proposed project be archaeologically monitored to mitigate for this potential.

13.8 PROPOSED IMPACTS

The port proposes to reclaim the area of foreshore behind the East Jetty to provide more immediate storage and handling facilities for the bulks operations. The reclamation will be constructed to the level of the existing structure. Engineering works will be required along either the front or rear face of the existing jetty to retain the fill. The reclaimed area will be surfaced and used for normal harbour operations and storage. Some dredging will be required. The material used to infill the reclamation area will be imported and transported to the site either by land or sea.

The works proposed in the development area will effectively seal the existing seabed with fill material and represents a direct permanent impact on the existing surfaces. Dredging activity represents a direct impact on the buried sediments of the foreshore, which has the potential to expose previously unseen material of archaeological significance.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-15 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

13.9 RECOMMENDATIONS

13.9.1 Pre-Construction Measures No further ameliorative measures are recommended in advance of the reclamation works commencing within the area of foreshore/ seabed located south of the East Jetty structure.

13.9.2 Construction Phase Measures It is understood that some dredging works will be necessary to facilitate the proposed reclamation works. ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING, licensed to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is recommended during all works where foreshore or seabed deposits will undergo removal. A suitably qualified competent maritime archaeologist with experience in riverine/ marine dredging environments should undertake the archaeological monitoring. The archaeological monitoring should be undertaken with the proviso for full excavation of any archaeologically significant material uncovered as part of the operation.

This report recommends that the key stones of architectural interest identified in this report are avoided during construction. However, if it is not possible to avoid impacting these features, the key stones of interest should be recovered for re-use in an appropriate location in future development within the Port. Consideration might be given to their extraction from the quay walls and featured in the new revetments which will be built around the infilled area.

Archaeological/Cultural Heritage Management RETAINING AN ARCHAEOLOGIST/S. A competent maritime archaeologist should be retained for the duration of the relevant works.

THE TIME SCALE for the construction phase should be made available to the archaeologist, with information on where and when ground disturbances and dredging will take place.

SUFFICIENT NOTICE. It is essential for the developer to give sufficient notice to the archaeologist/s in advance of the construction works commencing. This will allow for prompt arrival on site to monitor the ground disturbances. As often happens, intervals may occur during the construction phase. In this case, it is also necessary to inform the archaeologist/s as to when ground disturbance works will recommence.

DISCOVERY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL. In the event of archaeological features or material being uncovered during the construction phase, it is crucial that any machine work cease in the immediate area to allow the archaeologist/s to inspect any such material.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL. Once the presence of archaeologically significant material is established, full archaeological recording of such material is recommended. If it is not

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-16 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

possible for the construction works to avoid the material, full excavation would be recommended. The extent and duration of excavation would be a matter for discussion between the client and the licensing authorities.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEAM. It is recommended that the core of a suitable archaeological team be on standby to deal with any such rescue excavation. This would be complimented in the event of a full excavation.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIVE TEAM. It is recommended that an archaeological dive team be on standby to deal with any underwater rescue excavation. This team will carry the necessary commercial dive insurance, be fully certified to HSE/ HSA requirements, and will conduct its work according to Safety in Industry (Diving Operations) Regulations 1981, SI 422.

SECURE WET STORAGE facilities should be provided for the storage of archaeological material derived from the marine environment within the project works compound.

SECURE SITE OFFICES and facilities should be provided on or near those sites where excavation is required.

FENCING/BUOYING of any such areas would be necessary once discovered and during excavation.

ADEQUATE FUNDS to cover excavation, post-excavation analysis, and any testing or conservation work required should be made available.

MACHINERY TRAFFIC during construction must be restricted as to avoid any of the selected sites and their environs.

SPOIL should not be dumped on any of the selected sites or their environs.

Recommendations are subject to the approval of The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (formerly Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government).

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-17 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 14.0: HUMAN BEINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

14.0 HUMAN BEINGS

14.1 INTRODUCTION

The well-being of the local and wider community within the Foynes area has been comprehensively addressed throughout this EIS. This chapter of the EIS details the human ‘environment’ of the hinterland surrounding the East Jetty and Foynes Port in terms of population profile and trends, employment and community aspects. It also discusses the impact of the proposed jetty development on the overall amenity of the area.

14.2 BASELINE INFORMATION

14.2.1 Population and Demographics The immediate area surrounding Foynes comprises the Shanagolden Electoral Division (ED), while the Limerick Electoral Areas (County and City) constitutes 173 other Electoral Divisions (see Figure 14.1).

Figure 14.1 Limerick Electoral Division Catchments

Baseline information with respect to the demographic and employment characteristics of the resident population within the catchment area was sourced from Census of Population 2002 & 2006 (where available). The data included information on population, structure, age profile, household size, number of persons at work and unemployment profile. Table 14.1 outlines

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14-1 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 14.0: HUMAN BEINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

the population change between 2002 and 2006, whilst Table 14.2 outlines the growth rate of these population figures.

Table 14.1 Population Figures and Growth Rate

2002 2006 State 3,917,203 4,239,848 County Limerick 141,281 131,516 Limerick City 54,023 52,539 Shanagolden ED 981 1,004 Source: Census of Population 2002 and 2006

Table 14.2 Growth Rate of Population Figures (%)

2002-2006 State 8.2% County Limerick 8.4% Limerick City -2.7% Shanagolden ED 2.3% Source: Census of Population 2002 and 2006

Foynes town recorded a population of 491 persons in the 2002 census and 606 persons in the 2006 census, reflecting a 23.4% increase in population in the period 2002 -2006. As Foynes has a population of less than 1,500 persons, the town is contained in an electoral division with the neighbouring village of Shanagolden called Shanagolden ED.

Age Profile Table 14.3 below outlines the age profile of the population in terms of dependent age cohorts (0-14 and 65+) and working age cohorts (15-64) in 2006. The actual age cohorts of the population are then outlined in Table 14.4. The age structure is important to examine as this will have implications for housing demand, schools and health care services. This assessment indicates a youthful population residing in both the Rural Limerick Area and the Shanagolden E.D. with a significant percentage of the population falling within the childbearing age group.

Table 14.3 Population of each catchment categorised into independent, dependent and childbearing cohorts 2006

15-64 years 0-14 and 65+ years 15-44 years Area Independent dependent Child-bearing State 2006 68.6% 31.4% 46.6% Limerick County 2006 69.3% 30.7% 46.6% Limerick City 2006 70.1% 30.4% 49.2% Shanagolden ED 2006 72.3% 27.6% 43.8% Source: Census of Population 2006

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14-2 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 14.0: HUMAN BEINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 14.4 Age Cohorts 2006

Age Cohort 0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+ TOTAL State 2006 20.4% 15% 31.7% 21.9% 11% 4,239,848 Limerick County 2006 20.2 % 16.4% 30.2% 22.7% 10.5% 131,516 Limerick City 2006 17.9% 18.6% 30.6% 20.9% 14.5% 52,239 Shanagolden ED 2006 16.1% 13.7% 30.1% 28.5% 11.5% 1,004 Source: Census of Population 2006

Summary In summary, from an analysis of the Census of Population 2006, it is apparent that the Shanagolden ED has a growing middle-age (45-64 years old) population, well above the National County average. There is a below average proportion of people within the dependant age groups (i.e. low numbers of children 0-14 years old) and there is also a below average proportion of people within the working and childbearing age groups.

14.2.2 Employment

Receiving Environment

ESRI Economic Commentary, for 2011 The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Economic Commentary for summer 2011 summarises the outlook for the economy for the State in 2011 and beyond as follows:

The ESRI Economic Commentary for, 2011 addresses some key issues concerning Ireland's situation.

The ESRI expects that: 1. GNP will contract by 1½ per cent this year. GDP will decline by ¼ per cent. 2. For 2011 GNP will grow by 2 per cent and GDP will grow by 2¼ per cent 3. Employment will average 1.86 million this year, down 68,000 from 2009, a fall of 3½ per cent. The rate of unemployment will average 13¼ per cent. 4. For 2011, the number employed will average 1.85 million and the rate of unemployment will average 13½ per cent.

Trends in Numbers of Persons at Work An assessment of the number of persons at work and unemployment rates could only be carried out using 2006 as the baseline. However, the current situation is thought to be considerably different but unfortunately employment statistics from 2011 will not become available until the results of Census 2011 have been collated. The 2006 census indicates that the Shanagolden ED has a similar proportion of the population at work to the State and County averages. Shanagolden ED had a lower unemployment rate (circa 3%) indicating a healthy local economy in 2006.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14-3 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 14.0: HUMAN BEINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 14.5 Total Number of Persons at Work 2006

2006 STATE 1,930,042 County Limerick 53,718 Limerick City 23,488 Shanagolden ED 530 Source: Census of Population 2006

Table 14.6 Unemployment Rates 2006 (%)

2006 Total Unemployed 2006 STATE 8.5% 179,456 County Limerick 5.9% 10,485 Shanagolden ED 3.1% 26 Source: Census of Population 2006

The following are the main important employment statistics regarding Shanagolden Electoral Division. The electoral division had a combined population of 1,004 persons in 2006 of which 842 are aged 15 years or over. The table below highlights the economic status of persons over 15 years of age in the electoral division.

Table 14.7 Economic Status of Persons over 15 years of age - 2006 (%)

Sex Male Female Total At Work 343 187 530 Looking for first regular job 1 3 4 Unemployed having lost of given up 11 15 26 previous job Student 31 30 61 Looking after family home 3 88 91 Retired 51 42 93 Unable to work due to permanent 17 16 33 sickness or disability Other 2 2 4 Total Aged 15 years or over 459 383 842 Source: Census of Population 2006

Based on the 2006 census 530 persons are employed with less than 10% of persons in the electoral division retired and less than 10% looking after the home/family. Approximately 3% of persons are unemployed with 4% unable to work due to sickness or disability. However, it is expected that these figures do not reflect the current situation in 2011 due to a rapid change in the economic climate since 2006.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14-4 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 14.0: HUMAN BEINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Sectoral Composition of Employment In 2006, the key sectoral employment areas for people at work in Shanagolden ED Area were manufacturing industries (101), transport industry (81) and service industry (57). The large numbers of people working in the manufacturing sector is to be expected given the strong presence of pharmaceutical industries in the vicinity of Askeaton and Limerick City. However, employment forecasts nationally for 2011 indicate unemployment levels circa 15%. Updated statistics from the 2011 census for Foynes area or for the Shanagolden ED are not currently available.

14.2.3 Community Aspects The smallest geographical units distinguished by the CSO are Electoral Divisions. The East Jetty at Foynes Harbour is located in Foynes within the Shanagolden Electoral Division. There are three principle elements of the community in the study area. These can be considered as: . The resident community . The working community . The visiting community

Resident Community The growth and expansion of the Greater Limerick Area over the past 20 years has resulted in an increased number of households within Limerick County, including the wider vicinity of Foynes within County Limerick.

Foynes village and area is characterised by a mixed range of land uses including industrial and residential areas. The harbour and associated lands are industrial use whereas, the areas South and East of Foynes Harbour is Foynes village centre where the majority of residential development is based. In the rural catchment of Foynes, the housing stock comprises generally low-density housing made up of detached dwelling units.

Working Community Between 2002 and 2006 the population of Shanagolden ED increased by 2.3% from 981 to 1004. There are numerous well-established sources of employment situated close to Foynes Port such as Aughinish Alumina and Pfizer in Askeaton. The established location of the deepwater port at Foynes also provides local employment which it is hoped will be enhanced and expanded on through the current project and over the lifetime of the Port Master Plan.

Visiting Community The main attraction for visitors to the general area of Foynes is the Flying Boat Museum which houses a full size replica Boeing B314, exhibitions and coffee dock. There are many scenic walks around Foynes with the N69 a designated scenic route between Limerick and Kerry.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14-5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 14.0: HUMAN BEINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Leisure and Recreational Uses Foynes Yacht Club lies to the east of Foynes Port. The club has just over 130 members with a pontoon which can accommodate a range of club vessels together with swinging moorings. Additional there is a wintering compound for approximately 25 yachts and a launching slip. A variety of sailing classes are offered at the Yacht Club from junior to adult sailing lessons, motor boat handling lessons to a variety of VHF and Emergency Care courses.

14.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL

14.3.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE A development of the nature and scale proposed in this location would potentially have the following temporary affects during the construction phase, which would affect the residential, working and visiting communities:

Potential negative impacts; . Increase in HGV traffic transporting construction materials to site . Increase in noise and dust generated as a result of the construction works

Potential positive impacts; . Increase in construction employment and related businesses . Increased trade within local shops, pubs and restaurants from construction workers

Whilst temporary nuisances may be caused to the existing communities in the area, these impacts will be limited to the construction phase. The construction phase is therefore considered to only have a moderate short-term impact on the residential and working communities in the area.

The potential temporary impacts associated with increased traffic and noise & dust during the construction phase of the development are described in detail in Chapters 11, and 12 respectively of this EIS. Appropriate mitigation measures are also presented within these Chapters.

14.3.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE The operation of the proposed reclaimed harbour working area could potentially impact on the community in the Shanagolden Electoral Division and the wider Rural Limerick Area in the following ways:

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14-6 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 14.0: HUMAN BEINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Potential positive impacts;

. Possible future increase in employment within the new port facilities . Possible future increase in employment in other port and logistics related businesses . Slight increase in trade within local shops, pubs and restaurants from employees at the port facility and other port related businesses . General support to local and regional businesses dependent on trade that passes through the port . Future business opportunities associated with improvement facilities

14.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

The construction associated with the infilling of the foreshore behind the jetty will use local services, such as catering and plant hire. Temporary local employment may be created from the construction stage of the project but this will be dependent on the contractors appointed. No significant socio-cultural impacts are predicted arising from the temporary local increase in noise associated with construction. Once the jetty is operational it will be strategically valuable to the local and national economy.

Therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed as the assessment has not identified potential negative impact on the general amenity of the locality.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14-7 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

15.0 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL

15.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter examines the potential landscape and visual impact of the proposed reclamation works on: . The landscape and visual resources of the wider Foynes area along the southern bank of the Shannon River; and . The landscape and visual resources of relevant areas along the northern Shannon embankment in County Clare.

This report seeks to:

a) Establish the baseline conditions -

Record and analyse the existing character, quality and sensitivity of the landscape and visual resource. This should include elements of the landscape such as; . Landform; . Land cover including the vegetation, the slopes, drainage, etc; . Landscape character; . Current landscape designations and planning policies; and . Site visibility, comprising short, medium and long distance views.

b) Analyse baseline conditions -

Comment on the scale, character, condition and the importance of the baseline landscape, its sensitivity to change and the enhancement potential where possible.

A visual analysis (illustrated by photographic material) describing characteristics which may be of relevance to the impact of the design and to the method of mitigation.

c) Describe the development

d) Identify the Impacts of the Development on the Landscape and Visual

Resource -

Identify the landscape and visual impacts of the development at different stages of its life cycle, including:

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-1 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

. Direct & indirect landscape impacts of the development on the landscape of the site and the surrounding area; and . Visual impacts including: the extent of potential visibility; the view and viewers affected; the degree of visual intrusion; the distance of views; and resultant impacts upon the character and quality of views.

e) Assess the significance of the landscape and visual impacts in terms of the sensitivity of the landscape and visual resource, including the nature and magnitude of the impact.

f) Detail measures proposed to mitigate significant residual detrimental landscape and visual impacts and assess their effectiveness.

g) Assess the ability of the landscape and visual resource to absorb the proposed development.

15.2 METHODOLOGY

15.2.1 Introduction Methods used in this assessment have been developed by RPS Planning & Environment and are derived from the DoEHLG “Landscape and Landscape Assessment” (June 2000) and ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (GLVIA) by The Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002). These documents recommend baseline studies to describe, classify and evaluate the existing landscape and visual resource focusing on its sensitivity and ability to accommodate change. The guidelines are not intended as a prescriptive set of rules but rather offer best practice methods and techniques of LVIA. The existing landscape and visual context of the study area was established through a process of desktop study, site survey work (March 2011) and photographic surveys. The proposal was then applied to the baseline conditions to allow the identification of potential impacts, prediction of their magnitude and assessment of their significance. Mitigation can then be identified to reduce as far as possible any residual potential landscape and visual impacts.

15.2.2 Landscape Assessment Criteria and Terminology The following section describes the criteria and terminology used for during the landscape assessment: -

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-2 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Landscape Quality For the purpose of this assessment, landscape quality is categorised as:

. Exceptional Quality - Areas of especially high quality acknowledged through designation as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or other landscape based sensitive areas. A landscape that is significant within the wider region or at a national level; . High Quality - Areas that have a very strong positive character with valued and consistent distinctive features that gives the landscape unity, richness and harmony. A landscape that is significant within the district; . Medium Quality - Areas that exhibit positive character but which may have evidence of alteration/degradation or erosion of features resulting in a less distinctive landscape. May be of some local landscape significance with some positive recognisable structure; and . Low Quality - Areas that are generally negative in character, degraded and in poor condition. No distinctive positive characteristics and with little or no structure. Scope for positive enhancement.

Landscape Sensitivity Landscape sensitivity to the type of development proposed is defined as follows:

. High Sensitivity: High visual quality landscape with highly valued or unique characteristics susceptible to relatively small changes. . Medium Sensitivity: Medium visual quality landscape with moderately valued characteristics reasonably tolerant of changes. . Low Sensitivity: Low visual quality landscape with common characteristics capable of absorbing substantial change.

Magnitude of Landscape Resource Change Direct resource changes on the landscape character of the study area are brought about by the introduction of the proposal and its effects on the key landscape characteristics. The following categories and criteria have been used:

. High magnitude: Total loss or alteration to key elements of the landscape character which result in fundamental and / or permanent long-term change. . Medium magnitude: Partial or noticeable loss of elements of the landscape character and / or medium-term change. . Low magnitude: Minor alteration to elements of the landscape character and / or short- term/ temporary change. . No Change: No change to landscape character.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-3 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Significance of Landscape Impact The level of significance of effect on landscape is a product of landscape sensitivity and the magnitude of alteration in landscape resource. Where landscape sensitivity has been predicted as high and the magnitude of change as high or medium the resultant impact will be significant in terms of EIA Regulations. This is illustrated in Table 15.1 below.

Table 15.1 Significance of Landscape Impact Magnitude of Landscape Sensitivity

Landscape resource Low Medium High change

No change No change No change No change Low Slight Slight / moderate Moderate Medium Slight / moderate Moderate Moderate / Substantial High Moderate Moderate Substantial /Substantial

Landscape Assessment Definitions . Landscape Resource: The combination of elements that contribute to landscape context, character and value. . Landscape Value: The relative value or importance attached to a landscape that expresses national or local consensus because of intrinsic characteristics. . Landscape Character: The distinct and homogenous pattern that occurs in the landscape reflecting geology, landform, soils, vegetation and man’s impact

15.2.3 Visual Assessment Criteria and Terminology The following text describes the key criteria and terminology used in the visual assessment.

Viewer Sensitivity Viewer sensitivity is a combination of the sensitivity of the human receptor (i.e. resident; commuter, tourist; walker; recreationist, or worker) and viewpoint type or location (i.e. house, workplace, leisure venue, local beauty spot, scenic viewpoint, commuter route, tourist route or walkers’ route). Sensitivity can be defined as follows:

. High sensitivity: e.g. users of an outdoor recreation feature which focuses on the landscape; valued views enjoyed by the community; tourist visitors to scenic viewpoint. . Medium sensitivity: e.g. users of outdoor sport or recreation which does not offer or focus attention on landscape; tourist travellers. . Low sensitivity: e.g. regular commuters, people at place of work (excluding outdoor recreation).

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-4 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Magnitude of Visual Resource Change The magnitude of alteration in visual resource or amenity results from the scale of change in the view with respect to the loss or addition of features in the view and changes in the view composition, including proportion of the view occupied by the proposed development. Distance and duration of view must be considered. Other vertical features in the landscape and the backdrop to the development will all influence the magnitude of visual resource change. This can be defined as follows:

. High magnitude: Where changes to the view significantly alter (negative or beneficial) the overall scene or cause some alteration to the view for a significant length of time. . Medium magnitude: Where some changes occur (negative or beneficial) in the view, but not for a substantial part of the view amd/or for a substantial length of time. . Low magnitude: Where only a minor alteration to the view occurs (negative or beneficial) and/or not for a significant length of time. . No change: No discernible deterioration or improvement in the existing view.

Significance of Visual Impact Significance of visual impact is defined on a project by project basis. The principal criteria for determining significance are magnitude and sensitivity of the receptor. A higher level of significance is generally attached to large scale or substantial effects on sensitive receptors.

Where visual sensitivity has been predicted as high or medium, and the magnitude of change as high, the resultant impact will be significant. Where the magnitude of change has been predicted as high and the visual sensitivity has been predicted as high or medium then the resultant impact will be significant in terms of EIA Regulations.

Table 15.2 illustrates significance of visual impact as a correlation between viewer sensitivity and visual resource change magnitude.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 15.2 Significance of Visual Impact Visual Resource Visual Sensitivity

Change Magnitude Low Medium High

No change No change No change No change Low Slight Slight / moderate Moderate Medium Slight / Moderate Moderate / Substantial moderate High Moderate Moderate/Substa Substantial ntial

Positive effects upon receptors may also result from a change to the view. These may be through the removal of negative features or visual detractors, or through the addition of well designed elements, which add to the visual experience in a complementary, positive and stimulating manner.

Visual Assessment Definitions Visual Quality: Although the interpretation of viewers’ experience can have preferential and subjective components, there is generally clear public agreement that the visual resources of certain landscapes have high visual quality. The visual quality of a landscape will reflect the physical state of the repair of individual features or elements.

Visual Resources: The visual resources of the landscape are the stimuli upon which actual visual experience is based. They are a combination of visual character and visual quality.

Visual Character: When a viewer experiences the visual environment, it is not observed as one aspect at a time, but rather as an integrated whole. The viewer’s visual understanding of an area is based on the visual character of elements and aspects and the relationships between them.

Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) The ZVI is the area within which views of the site and/or the development can be obtained. The extent of the ZVI is determined primarily by the topography of the area. The ZVI is then refined by field studies to indicate where relevant forestry, woodlands, hedges or other local features obscure visibility from the main roads, local viewpoints/landmarks and/or significant settlements.

Using terrain-modelling techniques combined with the proposed development specification, a map is created to show areas from where the proposed development would theoretically be seen. A worst case scenario is taken in line with Landscape Institute guidelines.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-6 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The actual visual impacts within the ZVI have been described in later sections of this report. The ZVI for the proposal is illustrated in Figure15.1 in Appendix 10.

Photographs Photographs have been prepared for selected representative viewpoints throughout the study area as indicated in Figure 15.2 in Appendix 10.

Viewpoints are chosen to give a typical representative sample of views of the proposal within the landscape using the parameters of distance and direction of view. Viewpoints frequented by members of the public such as public rights of way, car parks and popular viewpoints are usually chosen, along with views from nearby settlements.

Photographs from each viewpoint location are taken covering an arc of view matching that of the visual extent of the development.

15.3 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

15.3.1 Scale and Character Landscape is generally characterised by physical factors such as landform and land cover including topography, water, vegetation and settlements.

This site constitutes a defined area of water within the River Shannon Estuary, located between the southern shore of the river and East Jetty – an open piled structure 290 metres long and accessed via an 82 metre long viaduct, within Foynes Port.

The Shannon Estuary and its coastline is the dominant feature of the landscape within the study area. Scattered rural housing located along the existing road network is designed to take advantage of existing views. Across the expanse of the Shannon to the north, the coastline of Clare is sporadically visible, however at this location views to the Port and village are largely obscured by the tree covered banks of Foynes Island.

Foynes Village is a significant feature in the landscape. This is a model estate town with historic associations to trans-Atlantic transportation in the 19th and 20th Century. Today there is a growing tourist industry linked with this history, although the town continues to be recognised mainly for its Port facilities which are a core asset for the economic development of the region. The area surrounding the site is zoned industrial land and the landscape is accordingly dominated by warehousing and associated infrastructure. Crane structures, many of which are moveable/temporary represent significant vertical elements along the Shoreline. South of the railway line that dissects the zoned development limit of Foynes; an Architectural Conservation Area is located on both sides of the N69 Road. This ACA is established to protect features including frequent buildings constructed of ashlar and rustic limestone, natural

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-7 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

slate roofing and timber windows, some with cast iron sashes and a significant number of houses are lime rendered.

The landscape character of the study area can be described by use of the following distinctive landscape character areas:

1. Foynes Port and Urban Landscape: The proposal is located on the eastern side of Foynes village within the existing Foynes Port. The harbour industry has grown significantly in modern times and Foynes Port is one of the most important ports on the western coast. This is exhibited visually by the large ships and boats that use the port as well as by the support services necessary for the port housed in large industrial style units. The harbour has a busy (working) appearance constantly on the move. Tall mast lighting and cranes are prominent and visible from the wider landscape. A large number of HGV’s and transport containers use the port and are visually prominent on local roads. Commercial and industrial buildings related to the Port extend east towards the N69. The village is centred on Main Street that consists of two storey buildings. The topography rises to the west of the village where residential development is prominent at Marine Cove.

The Foynes Port and Urban Landscape Character Area has a low sensitivity to change.

2. Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland This LCA is comprised of a fairly refined portion of land to the south, east and west of the urban footprint of Foynes. The landscape is dominated by the southern shore of the Shannon River which is also the defining characteristic of the wider region as well as a somewhat unique natural asset in an Irish context. To the south of the N69 Road shallow tracts of forestry and occasionally steep landscape tracts partially obscure long distance views within the LCA. These natural features are notable in the landscape surrounding Foynes Village. Further south the landscape gradually rises into agricultural lands which in turn lead to the western hills of south-west Limerick. Field patterns, close to the estuary, are more irregular and less dominated by hedgerows than those located further south. The landscape of the estuary is unique in character in that it possesses both agricultural and maritime characteristics.

Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland is assessed as a landscape with a high sensitivity to change.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-8 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

15.3.2 Planning Designations

Limerick County Development Plan 2010 – 2016 Limerick County Development Plan 2010 – 2016 came into effect on 29th November 2010 with the purpose of setting out the County Council’s overall strategy for planning and development within the County until 2016 and beyond. This document has been reviewed to ascertain relevant land use designations to assist in the appraisal of important landscape and visual features and landscape quality. It should be noted that not all policies relevant to Foynes, the Port or the Shannon Estuary are listed as a fully comprehensive planning review is included in Chapter 1 – Introduction of the EIS.

Views and Prospects The importance of landscape and visual amenity and the fact that this may conflict with other roles of planning is recognised in the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2010. Accordingly, preservation of the character of the landscape, including the preservation of views and prospects and the amenities of places and features of natural beauty or interest is listed as a mandatory objective of the Plan.

Map 7.61 of the Development Plan sets out protected views and prospects within the Plan Area. The only view/prospect of relevance to the study area is:

. located along the N69 adjacent to the Shannon Estuary from Foynes to Glin. This is incorporated into the Shannon Estuary Integrated Coastal Management Zone.

Regarding the area between Foynes and Glin, Section 9.41 of the Plan states that the extreme sensitivity from a visual and environmental perspective should be borne in mind when considering any new development proposals.

1http://www.lcc.ie/NR/rdonlyres/98B6FBFC-A88E-4ADD-9E7B 4663058E8A33/0/Volume1WrittenStatementWebversion.pdf

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-9 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Landscape Character Areas Chapter 71 and Map 7.4 of the County Development Plan 2010-2016 sets out Landscape Character Areas within the Plan Area. On this basis the study area for this LVIA is entirely located within the Shannon Estuary Integrated Coastal Management Zone. The Plan states that this zone comprises a large area of the northern part of the County bounded by the Shannon Estuary with rising ground leading into an agricultural zone and western hills to the south. The estuary is stated as the main feature of the LCA and is of regional importance. The landscape is said to be enclosed farmland dominated by hedgerows with field patterns being less regular than elsewhere in the County.

The Shannon Integrated Coastal Management Zone as described in the Development Plan is consistent with the Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland LCA identified by this landscape and visual impact assessment in Section 15.3.1 - above.

Clare County Development Plan 2011 – 2017 Given the relative proximity to County Clare and in the interest of thoroughness a review has taken place of the Clare County Development Plan 2011-2017 to establish if there is any relevant landscape and visual related designations that may influence the assessment within the study area. Chapter 162 and Map 16a of the Development Plan set out a range of landscape zonings for the County summarised below.

Landscape Character Areas Appendix 7 in the County Development Plan 2011-2017 sets out the relevant landscape character areas within the study area as follows;

LCA 18 Shannon Estuary Farmlands:- The Landscape Character Assessment of Clare County states that the key characteristics of this LCA are; prominent ridged landscape with linear hills; secluded areas interspersed with open views across the estuary; flatter coastal fringe; Scattery Island important focal point; and complex patterns of farmland.

The Shannon Estuary Farmlands (LCA18) described in the County Clare Development Plan is consistent with the Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland LCA identified by this landscape and visual impact assessment in Section 15.3.1 - above.

2 http://www.clarecoco.ie/planning/publications/clare-county-development-plan-2011-2017-volume-1- written-statement-9107.pdf

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-10 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Seascape Character Areas The Landscape Character Assessment of County Clare identified 12 Seascape Character Areas. The relevant area for the proposal is Seascape Character Area 11 - River Shannon, which runs tight to the coastline and is illustrated in Chapter 16 - Figure 16.3 of the Plan.

Living Landscape Types The Plan has developed objectives for future planning of rural areas of County Clare by considering the County to consist of three types of areas; Settled Landscapes – where people work and live comprising the network of farmland, villages and towns in the County; Working Landscapes – intensively settled and developed areas within Settled Landscapes or areas with a unique natural resource comprising two areas, The Western Corridor between Ennis, Limerick and the Shannon Estuary between Moneypoint and Ballynacragga Point excluding Clonderalaw Bay; Heritage Landscapes – where natural and cultural heritage are given priority including Clonderalaw Bay. Each area is outlined in Map 16a of the Plan. The Plan sets out a series of objectives for new development within these areas.

Scenic Routes Appendix 7 of the Development Plan set out protected views and prospects from Scenic Routes within the study area. There are number of such designations in the study area as follows; Scenic Route SR 18 – Along coast road from Carrigaholt to Doonaha; Scenic Route SR 19 – Coast road south east of Cappagh to Carrowdotia South; and SR 20 – R473 from outside Labasheeda to T junction before Killadysert.

15.4 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS

15.4.1 Landscape Character Area Impacts As identified in the baseline assessment above the study area incorporates two landscape character areas: . Foynes Port and Urban Landscape; and . Shannon Estuary and Rounded Farmland.

The landscape impacts of the proposed development is summarised in the following text.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-11 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Foynes Port and Urban Landscape The development proposed is located between the existing Foynes Port Shoreline and the southern edge of the East Jetty. The length of the existing jetty will not increase, rather, the land reclamation will occur within a narrow expanse of water between the jetty and shore. The proposal is consistent with the character of Foynes Port and Urban Landscape and the facility will blend in seamlessly with existing infrastructure. Additionally, the low lying nature of the proposal will render it invisible throughout the majority of the Foynes urban area.

The landscape at this location is identified as medium quality with a low sensitivity to change. The predicted magnitude of change in landscape resource is low and the significance of the landscape impact is assessed as slight /negative.

Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland The proposal will be an insignificant development within the wider Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland Landscape Character Area. The proposal is located among existing port facilities and will not be visible, blending into a backdrop of a busy port and existing fixed and movable plant and infrastructures.

The Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland landscape is identified as high quality with a high sensitivity to change. Due to the lack of influence over this landscape the proposal is predicted to have a magnitude of change in the landscape resource of no change and therefore the predicted significance of landscape impact for this LCA is no change.

15.4.2 Planning Policy Designation Impacts Impacts on relevant designations contained within the Limerick and Clare County Development Plans – as referred to above in Section 15.3.2 – are assessed below.

Limerick County Development Plan 2010 – 2016

Views and Prospects: The proposal will have no impact on the majority of the protected views and prospects along the N69 east of Tarbert to Foynes due to the distance of view and intervening topography. A brief glimpse view is available from the N69 when travelling east and approaching Foynes in closer proximity to the proposed site where the existing context of the Port will provide a common backdrop to the proposal ensuring that there will be no significant visual impacts along the N69 (see Viewpoint 1 below).

Landscape Character: Chapter 7 and Map 7.4 in the County Development Plan 2010-2016 sets out the relevant landscape character areas within the study area. LCA 2 Shannon Integrated Coastal Management Zone described in the Development Plan is consistent with

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-12 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

the Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland LCA identified by this landscape and visual impact assessment and predicted landscape impacts are described fully in Section 15.4.1 - above.

Clare County Development Plan 2011 – 2017

Landscape Character Areas: There is only one specific objective set out in the Plan for landscape character areas - to encourage the use of the Landscape Character Assessment of County Clare as an excellent resource and extremely useful tool during the preparation of planning applications. The Shannon Estuary Farmlands (LCA18) described in the Clare County Development Plan is consistent with the Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland LCA identified by this landscape and visual impact assessment in section 15.3.1 – above. Consistent with 15.4.1 no significant landscape impacts have been predicted for this LCA due to distance from the proposal.

Seascape Character Areas: There are no specific objectives set out in the Plan for seascape character areas. The nearest area identified in the Plan to the proposal is Seascape Character Area 11 - River Shannon - that runs tight to the coastline and is illustrated in Map 16.3 of the Plan. Due to the distance of the proposal from this defined area there will be no direct impacts on the River Shannon Seascape Character Area on the Clare County coast.

Living Landscape Types: The nearest Living Landscape Type to the proposed scheme is the Working Landscape known as Shannon Estuary located between Moneypoint and Ballynacragga Point excluding Clonderalaw Bay as outlined in Map 16a of the Plan. The objectives set out in the Plan for this landscape type are focused on development within these areas when the proposal is located very remote form the area set out in Map 16a. A Heritage Landscape extends around Clonderalaw Bay east of Killimer that is even further from the proposal. The Tarbert Power Plant is a much more prominent landscape feature than the proposals in views from County Clare at this location. Consequently as with the Landscape Character Area above due to the distance of the proposal no significant impacts are predicted for these designations.

Scenic Routes: There are number of such designations in the study area with potential for visual impact as follows; Scenic Route SR 18 – Along coast road from Carrigaholt to Doonaha; Scenic Route SR 19 – Coast road south east of Cappagh to Carrowdotia South; and SR 20 – R473 from outside Labasheeda to T junction before Killadysert. Site survey and assessment has established that due to distance and intervening topography it will not be possible to view the proposals from SR18 and SR19. Long distance views (5-6km) will be possible from SR20 between Labasheeda and Killadysert. As illustrated by Viewpoint 6 below a combination of the distance of views and the intervening topography of Foynes Island

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-13 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

prevents views from this scenic route. Overall no significant visual impacts are predicted for Scenic Routes designated in the Clare County Development Plan.

15.4.3 Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) The ZVI for the proposed scheme is illustrated in Figure 15.1. As viewer distance from the proposed site and existing port facility increases, the level of visibility decreases significantly. This is contributed to by the low lying nature of the coastal landscape within the study area. As referred to previously, the nature of the development – land reclamation to existing ground level – the context of the site, and the relatively refined size of the area will all combine to further negate potential views.

As stated in Section 15.2.3, the delineation of the ZVI is dictated based on a worst case scenario. In reality, views of the site will be entirely obscured from a number of locations within this area such as from within the urban Foynes area. At most locations within Foynes, the enclosed nature of the existing streetscape will render views to the site either impossible or - where available – insignificant.

The ZVI has been used to identify the locations where potential visual impacts may occur. The following text describes the predicted visual impacts on visual receptors within the ZVI.

Within the study area the landscape is generally well enclosed. The existing urban fabric of Foynes and the Port facilities also helps offset the potential visual impact where views are occasionally available. In these instances it will be difficult to discern the location of the site given the type of development proposed and the context within which it will be located.

To the west of the site there will be occasional open and expansive views along the N69 Coast Road, as it rises gently along the southern banks of the Shannon. Further south the landscape becomes more elevated however views are restricted by existing roadside vegetation as well as a band of forestry surrounding the southern outskirts of Foynes. Any open views from this direction are long distance in nature and proposed scheme will be insignificant as it merges within the settlement and port.

East of the site the landscape is low lying and flat, obscuring views in the direction of the site. Views along the Shannon Estuary from the east are further obscured by the headlands and existing development present on Aughinish Island. Potential views across the Shannon from County Clare will be insignificant given the separation distance and backdrop to the site. Often these will be entirely obscured by the intervening land mass of Foynes Island.

Existing clusters of housing within Foynes constitute the nearest residential structures to the site. These are located along and adjacent to Main Street/N69. The low lying topography

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-14 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

throughout the village prevents long term views to the site from these residential areas. In addition those along the Main Street and to the south at Woodvale are generally orientated to face away from direction of the site. Where the topography and townscape allows the Shannon to become the focus of views, for example at Marine Cove in Foynes, the existing Port facilities are prominent in views and will combine with the distance of such views to restrict the significance of any visual impact associated with the proposal.

15.4.4 Visual Impacts on Residential Properties An assessment has been completed within the ZVI to determine the magnitude of visual impact of the scheme on potential views from sensitive visual receptors including residential properties.

The majority of dwellings within the study area are located within the development limit of Foynes. Because of the built up nature of the townscape and low lying topography throughout most of the village, views within Foynes will be severely restricted. Views of the proposal to linear housing development to the southeast along the N69 for example – will be completely obscured. Dwellings are often grouped together in terraces – such as Main Street - or housing estates, and front onto the existing road network away from the site. Where the topography and townscape allows views towards the proposals at Marine Cove, the existing Port facilities will restrict the significance of any visual impact associated with the proposal.

Scattered sporadic dwellings are located within the study area beyond Foynes to the south and to the west. Views from individual dwellings will vary with the specific characteristics of each site. Where available from the elevated lands to the south however, the separation distance together with the intervening townscape of Foynes combines to mitigate the impact of the proposal. To the west, a number of dwellings front onto the N69. The orientation of the road and intervening landscape features including topography and vegetation combine to obscure views from dwellings in this direction.

No residential properties within the ZVI will have been predicted as having significant visual impacts

15.4.5 Viewpoint Assessment A series of representative viewpoints have been selected from locations throughout the study area and subjected to specific assessment below. The location of all viewpoints can be cross referenced using Figure 15.2.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-15 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Viewpoint 1 – N69 Coast Road –North of Foynes

Type and Sensitivity of receptor: This view is available from the N69 on a Scenic Route designated in the Limerick Development Plan and is predominantly available to the local community, tourists and day-trippers. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing view: The N69 coastal route dominates the scene as it rises westwards away from Foynes. The southern edge of Foynes Island is visible in the River as are the tops of masts of boats moored along the River’s southern banks. Steep roadside embankments define the right of the view. In the middle distance portside infrastructure and ships are visible at a lower elevation. Occasional cranes, the tops of ship masts and roadside telegraph poles are further vertical elements in the view.

Predicted view: The proposal will be located in the centre of this view. However, only a very small portion of the proposal will be visible and it will be extremely difficult to discern from the rest of the Port facilities.

Magnitude of visual resource change: There will be no change to the visual resource available at this location.

Significance of visual impact: The predicted significance of visual impact is no change.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-16 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Viewpoint 2 – Main Street, Foynes

Type and Sensitivity of receptor: This view is available to local traffic on the N69 as well as day trippers and tourists visiting Foynes. The viewer sensitivity is medium.

Existing view: This view is available along Main Street, Foynes at the entrance to the Flying Boat Museum. The scene is dominated by the roadway including pavements, walls, signage, telegraph pole, and a telephone kiosk. Variety in the scene is increased by the visibility of trees and areas of open space along both road sides. Two storey terraced roadside development is visible in the middle distance on the northern side of the Main Street. The view is enclosed.

Predicted view: The majority of the proposal will not be visible from this location due to its low lying nature and the intervening development and landscape features. The upper portions of cranes and lighting masts will be partially visible especially in winter months. The partially visible features will not be overly prominent and read with the streetscape in the foreground.

Magnitude of visual resource change: The magnitude of change to the visual resource will be low.

Significance of visual impact: The predicted significance of visual impact is slight/moderate.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-17 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Viewpoint 3 – Foynes Port Access Road

Type and Sensitivity of receptor: This view is predominantly available to local work traffic and those accessing/leaving Foynes Port on business purposes. The viewer sensitivity is assessed as low.

Existing view: This view is available along the access road to Foynes Port across a low lying and flat landscape. The entrance gates are visible in the centre of the scene, bisecting the road itself which is lined by large grass verges. A single vertical pole acting as a lighting/surveillance stanchion is an obvious feature in the scene along with large tanks and tall buildings. Vegetation obscures views towards the northwest.

Predicted view: Given the low lying nature of the proposal, it will not be visible from this location as it will be entirely obscured by intervening vegetation and existing development.

Magnitude of visual resource change: There will be no change to the visual resource available at this location.

Significance of visual impact: The predicted significance of visual impact is no change.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-18 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Viewpoint 4 – Marine Cove Housing Development, Foynes

Type and Sensitivity of receptor: This view is predominantly available to the local community (residents of the Marine Cove housing estate) on a cul-de-sac. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing view: The elevated location of viewpoint means there are quite open and expansive views towards the Shannon Estuary to the northeast. The southern shores of Foynes Island are visible in the River, to the extreme right of the view. The roofs of lower lying housing in the Marine Cove development are visible across the foreground of the view. The tops of cranes and boat masts are visible in the direction of the docks that break the skyline.

Predicted view: The proposals will be partly located within this view including cranes and mast lighting but will be impossible to discern from the existing port facilities.

Magnitude of visual resource change: There will be no change to the visual resource available at this location.

Significance of visual impact The predicted significance of visual impact is no change.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-19 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Viewpoint 5 – N69 –East of Foynes

Type and Sensitivity of receptor: This view is available along the N69 east of Foynes and is predominantly available to the local community including works traffic to Foynes Port as well as tourists, day trippers and through traffic along the N69. The viewer sensitivity is medium.

Existing view: The view is dominated by four lanes of the N69, two of which are facilitate access to and from Foynes Port. The N69 is defined on both sides by narrow grass verges and stone walls. In the distance towards Foynes, large trees also define the roadside. Buildings at Foynes are partially visible but hard to discern. There are also partial views to taller infrastructure at the Port.

Predicted view: The proposal will not be visible due to the low lying nature of the proposed land reclamation, the separation distance and intervening landscape features.

Magnitude of visual resource change: There will be no change to the visual resource available at this location.

Significance of visual impact: The predicted significance of visual impact is no change.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-20 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Viewpoint 6 – Cahercon County Clare

Type and Sensitivity of receptor: This view is predominantly available to the local community, tourists and day trippers from the R473 road that is designated as a Scenic Route. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing view: The view is available to the northwest of the site across the expanse of the Shannon Estuary and at a distance of approximately 5km. Rural and agricultural in nature, the foreground of the view is dominated by large fields defined by well trimmed hedgerows and stone walls. The Shannon is visible in the middle distance, beyond the Limerick Coastline and Foynes Island are visible.

Predicted view: The proposal will not be visible due to the separation distance and the intervening landmass of Foynes Island.

Magnitude of visual resource change: There will be no change to the visual resource available at this location.

Significance of visual impact: The predicted significance of visual impact is no change.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-21 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

15.4.6 Construction Phase Impacts

Construction Phase Impacts

During the construction phase potential impacts include: (i) Site preparation/enabling works and operations; (ii) Site infrastructure and access; (iii) Vehicular and plant movements including dredging; and (iv) Dust emissions

The construction phase is likely to be in the order of 16 months and therefore visual impacts during the construction phase will be of a temporary nature. Works will be visible from within the ZVI during this location to a varied extent that will be related to the construction activity at any given time.

Due to distance and the broad scale of the landscape within which the works are located the change in landscape and visual resource will be low therefore the significance of landscape and visual impacts during the construction stage will be slight. There are no residential dwellings in close proximity to the construction works and no significant visual impacts are predicted at this stage as a result.

15.5 MITIGATION MEASURES

The visual impact of the proposal is caused by the appearance of a reclaimed portion of land to the rear of the East Jetty at Foynes Port, on the southern bank of the Shannon and its associated operational features such as cranes and light masts.

The design evolution of the proposed project has undertaken to enable incorporation of the following mitigation measures; i) sensitive use of local materials for constructed elements; ii) careful integration of constructed elements with existing elements such as existing jetties; iii) general site housekeeping designed to minimise visual impact during construction stage; iv) use of directional lighting.

Good site design, use of an environmental management plan during the construction phase and incorporation of mitigation measures identified above will effectively mitigate the impact of ancillary works.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-22 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

15.6 CONCLUSION

The proposed scheme is located to the rear of the existing east jetty within the Port of Foynes, on the southern bank of the Shannon. In landscape character terms the wider study area has been classified as:

. Foynes Port and Urban Landscape; and . Shannon Estuary and Rounded Farmland.

The proposal is located within the former of these LCA and because of the context within which the proposal will be located – Foynes Port - and its low lying nature, there will be no significant landscape impacts on either of the Landscape Character Areas identified. The proposals are consistent with this LCA.

The theoretical ZVI has been established for the proposed development. The extent of the visibility of the proposal is limited by existing built development at Foynes and the topography of Foynes Island. A series of six viewpoints have been assessed to give an accurate reflection of views to the site from throughout the study area. No significant impacts are predicted for any viewpoints.

Existing clusters of housing within Foynes constitute the nearest residential structures to the site although further scattered sporadic dwellings are located within the study area beyond Foynes to the south and to the west especially. The low lying nature of the proposal, existing port facilities located in views, intervening features, separation distances and orientation of distance combine to ensure there are no residential dwellings within the ZVI predicted as being significantly impacted.

The current Limerick and Clare County Development Plans have been examined. The proposal will have no significant impact on any relevant landscape designations due to the separation distance between the proposals and designations.

Overall, therefore, when the landscape and visual impacts are considered the proposal is acceptable and the surrounding landscape and its visual resources have the ability to accommodate the changes of the type associated with this development.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-23 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

CHAPTER 5.0 MARINE MAMMALS

Bailey, M. and Rochford J. (2006) Otter Survey of Ireland 2004/2005. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 23. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland.

Dähne, M., U.K. Verfuß, Diederics, A., Meding, A. and Benke, H. (2006) T-POD test tank calibration and field calibration. Static Acoustic Monitoring of Cetaceans, European Cetacean Society, Gydnia, 2006. ECS newsletter no.43-Sepcial Issue, July 2006, 1-55.

David, J.A. (2006) Likely sensitivity of bottlenose dolphins to pile-driving. Water and Environment 20, 48-54.

Leyrer, J. and Exo, K-M. (2001) Estimating prey accessibility for waders: a problem still to be solved. Wader Study Bulletin 96, 60-63.

O’Brien, J. (2009) The Inshore Distribution and Abundance of Small Cetaceans on the West Coast of Ireland: Site Assessment for SAC Designation and an Evaluation of Monitoring Techniques. Ph.D Thesis submitted to the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, pp1-226.

O’Brien, J., Berrow, S.D., McGrath, D., and O’Connor, I. (in Prep) First results from long-term static acoustic monitoring of small cetaceans on the west coast of Ireland using C-PODs. Biology and Environment, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy.

O’Sullivan, G. (1983) The intertidal fauna of Aughinish Island, Shannon, Co Limerick. Irish Naturalists Journal 21(2), 62-69.

Philpott, E., Englund, A., Ingram, S. and Rogan, E. (2007) Using T-PODs to investigate the echolocation of coastal bottlenose dolphins. Journal of Marine Biological Association, 87, 11-17.

Tougaard, J., Poulsen, L.R., Amundin, M., Larsen, F., Rye, J. and Teilmann, J. (2006) Detection function of T-PODs and estimation of porpoise densities. Proceedings of the workshop Static Acoustic Monitoring of Cetaceans, held at the 20th Annual meeting of the European Cetacean Society, Gydinia, Poland, April, 2006.

Villadsgaard, A., Wahlberg, M. and Tougaard, J. (2007) Echolocation signals of wild harbour porpoises, Phocoena phocoena. Journal of Experimental Biology, 210, 56-64.

Zwarts, L. and Wanink, J.H.(1993) How the Food Supply Harvestable by Waders in the Wadden Sea Depends on the Variation in Energy Density, Body Weight, Biomass, Burying Depth and Behaviour of Tidal-Flat Invertebrates. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 31 (4): 44 1-476.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

CHAPTER 7 BIRDS

Berrow, S. and O’Brien, J. (2010). Shannon Foynes Port Company Land Reclamation Survey Marine Investigations: Draft Final Report. Unpublished report.

Boland, H., Walsh, A. and Crowe, O. (2010) Irish Wetland Bird Survey: results of waterbird monitoring in Ireland in 2008/09. Irish Birds 9: 55-66.

Crowe, O. (2005) Ireland’s Wetlands and their Water Birds: Status and Distribution. BirdWatch Ireland. Newcastle.

EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), (1979). Council Directive 79/209/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.

Lynas, P., Newton, S.F. and Robinson, J.A. (2007). The status of birds in Ireland: an analysis of conservation concern 2008-2013. Irish Birds 8: 149-166.

Svenson, L., Mullarney, K.and Zetterstom, D. (2009) Collins Bird Guide. Second Edition. Harper Collins Publishers.

Nairn, R.G.W. (2005). Use of a high tide roost by waders during engineering work in Galway Bay, Ireland. Irish Birds 7: 489-496.

NPWS 2009. Conservation objectives for Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA [site code 004077]. Department of the Environment Heritage & Local Government.

Widdows, J., Bale, A. J., Brinsley, M. D., Somerfield, P. and Uncles, R.J. (2007) An assessment of the potential impact of dredging activity on the Tamar Estuary over the last century: II. Ecological changes and potential drivers. Hydrobiologia 588, 97-108.

CHAPTER 9 COASTAL PROCESSES

European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, S.I. 94 of 1997, as amended by S.I. 233 of 1998 and S.I. 378 of 2005. Stationery Office, Dublin.

European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations, S.I. 722 of 2003. Stationery Office, Dublin.

European Communities (Assessment and Management of Flood Risks) Regulations, S.I. 122 of 2010. Under S.I. 94 of 1997, as amended and the forthcoming European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations, 2010. Stationery Office, Dublin.

Environmental Protection Agency (Licensing) Regulations, S.I. 85 of 1994 as amended in 1995, 1996, 2004 and 2008. Stationery Office, Dublin.

Shannon International River Basin District River Basin Management Plan 2010

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

CHAPTER 8 AIR QUALITY

BGS, 2010. Planning 4 Minerals. http://www.bgs.ac.uk/Planning4Minerals. British Geological Survey, 2010.

DEFRA, 2001. Local Air Quality Management. UK background air quality mapping. http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/?tool=background08. DEFRA, 2001

DEFRA, 2009. Local Air Quality Management. Technical Guidance LAQM.TG (09). DEFRA, February 2009.

DEFRA, 2010. Local Air Quality Management. NOx to NO2 calculator v2.1. http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/tools-monitoring-data/no-calculator.html . DEFRA, January 2010.

EPA, 2000. Investigations of Animal health Problems at Askeaton, Co. Limerick. Main Report. EPA. January 2000.

London Councils 2006. The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition – London Councils 2006.

NRA, 2006. Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes. National Roads Authority, 2006.

NSCA, 2006. Development Control: Planning for Air Quality. September 2006

ODPM, 2005. Minerals Policy Statement 2. Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Mineral Extraction in England. Annex 1 – Dust – Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, March 2005.

TA Luft, 2002. Technical Instructions on Air Quality Control. Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. July 2002.

CHAPTER 13 ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURAL HERITAGE

Bennett, Isabel (ed.), Excavations Bulletin: summary accounts of archaeological excavations in Ireland (Wordwell, Bray).

Breen, Colin and Callaghan, Claire, ‘Post-medieval shipwrecks, harbours and lighthouses’, in O’Sullivan, Foragers, farmers and fishers, pp 233-251.

Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Code of Practice between Bord Gáis Éireann and the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, 2002.

Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Code of Practice between the National Roads Authority and the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, no date.

Department of the Environment and Local Government, Code of Practice between Coillte and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, no date.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 3 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government, Code of Practice between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Railway Procurement Agency, 2007.

Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government, Code of Practice between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Irish Concrete Federation, 2009.

Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government, Code of Practice between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and ESB Networks, 2009.

Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government, Code of Practice between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and EirGrid, 2009.

Environmental Protection Agency, ‘Advice notes on Current Practice (in preparation of Environmental Impact Statements), 2003.

Environmental Protection Agency, ‘Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements’, 2002.

Kerrigan, Paul, Castles and fortifications in Ireland, 1485-1945 (Collins Press, Cork 1995). O’Sullivan, Aidan, Foragers, farmers and fishers in a coastal landscape: an intertidal archaeological survey of the Shannon estuary, Discovery Programme Monograph 5, (Royal Irish Academy, Dublin 2002).

Priorty Geotechnical Drilling, Foynes East Jetty Site Investigation, Report on Ground Investigation, Factual Report No. PC9031, Priorty Geotechnical Drilling Ltd., October 2009.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 4 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS PREPARED BY:

RPS Consulting Engineers Elmwood House 74 Boucher Road Belfast BT12 6RZ

Telephone 048 90 667 914 Facsimile 048 90 668 286 email [email protected] web www.rpsgroup.com/ireland

RPS Consulting Engineers Mulkear House Newtown Centre Annacotty Co.Limerick

Telephone 061-337914 Facsimile 061-337920 Email [email protected] Web www.rpsgroup.com/ireland

On behalf of:

Shannon Foynes Port Company Foynes Limerick Ireland

Telephone 069 73100 Facsimile 069 73140 email [email protected] web www.sfpc.ie

The following sub-consultants carried out specialist studies

Natura Environmental Consultants The Archaeological Diving Company Ltd Broomhall Business Park, Brehon House Rathnew, Kilkenny Road Co. Wicklow Castlecomer Ireland Co. Kilkenny ADCO Ireland

SDWF Shannon Dolphin & Wildlife Foundation Merchants Quay Kilrush Co.clare Ireland

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES

16.0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

16.1 INTRODUCTION

Chapters 5.0 to 15.0 of this EIS assess the likely significant impacts arising from the proposed development. This section summarises the impacts identified and the mitigation measures required, where necessary.

16.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Table 16.1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation

Cetaceans (Chapter 5)

Terrestrial Mammals, Inter-tidal and Sub-Tidal Flora and Fauna (Chapter 6)

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-1 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES

Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation

apparent that the loss will have no significant impact on the overall integrity of the Lower Shannon SAC or SPA.  Nonetheless appropriate mitigation measures under Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive will be undertaken by SFPC to offset any perceived loss of habitat and potential foraging areas for birds.  Mitigation Measures proposed include the enhancement of an adjacent SAC/SPA at Barrigone through the Identification of areas of inter-tidal mudflats which have become encroached and invaded by Spartinia anglica swards. Steps will be undertaken in consultation with NPWS and IFI to enhance this area in order to restore the natural habitat and provide feeding areas for birds.  There was no evidence of  The following mitigation measures commercial fishing in the area but have been incorporated into the recreational fishing is promoted design of the dredging works: outside of the immediate Port area. Lower River  The extent of this fishing is not  The dredging operations will use Shannon cSAC known but it seems to concentrate Best Available Technology. No on the deep water off the jetties and overspill of material from the barges Impact on not the shallow inter or sub-tidal will be permitted. Commercial areas. Whereas some fish feeding and areas will be removed following  The dredging will take place outside Recreational reclamation, direct access, by the the salmon season of May – July. Fisheries public, to the shore at the site is restricted and discouraged as it is a working jetty, thus any impact on recreational fishing will not be significant.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-2 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES

Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation

 Loss of benthic communities within reclamation footprint.  Currently this area is extremely Loss of benthic impoverished with very low biomass communities and availability of fauna. No mitigation required.

Birds (Chapter 7)

River Shannon  Disturbance  Disturbance during construction and River works within the proposed Fergus cSPA reclamation area, including dredging activities, is not expected to have any significant impact on birds feeding and roosting within the channel or intertidal areas  Loss of Habitat surrounding the East Jetty.  The loss of 1.4ha of intertidal mudflat south of the East Jetty will not have a significant impact on any water birds using the Shannon/Fergus Estuaries.  Nonetheless appropriate mitigation measures under Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive will be undertaken by SFPC to offset any perceived loss of habitat and potential foraging areas for birds.  Mitigation Measures proposed include the enhancement of an adjacent SAC/SPA at Barrigone through the Identification of areas of inter-tidal mudflats which have become encroached and invaded by Spartinia anglica swards. Steps will be undertaken in consultation with NPWS and IFI to enhance this area in order to restore the natural habitat and provide feeding areas for birds.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-3 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES

Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation

Air Quality (Chapter 8)

 Site roads will be regularly cleaned and maintained as appropriate. Hard surface roads will be swept to remove mud and aggregate materials from their surface while any un-surfaced roads will be restricted to essential site traffic only;  Any site roads with the potential to give rise to dust will be regularly watered, as appropriate, during dry and/or windy conditions (also applies to vehicles delivering material with  Nuisance dust and Particulate dust potential);

Matter (PM10) from construction  All vehicles exiting the site should activities. make use of a wheel wash facility  Traffic-derived air pollution and dust prior to entering onto public roads, to from transport during construction. ensure mud and other wastes are Impact of  Increased dust and traffic-derived not tracked onto public roads. Wheel Construction pollutions can negatively impact on washes will be self-contained Traffic amenity, visual and health aspects systems that do not require of local receptors during the discharge of wastewater to water construction period. bodies;  The contractor will be required to ensure that all vehicles are suitably maintained to ensure that emissions of engine generated pollutants is kept to a minimum;  Public roads outside the site will be regularly inspected for cleanliness, and cleaned as necessary;  The site should be adequately screened with suitable barriers to reduce the potential for dust dispersion;  Material handling systems and site stockpiling of materials will be

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-4 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES

Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation

designed and laid out to minimise exposure to wind and will be located as far from receptors as possible;  Minimise drop-heights to control the fall of materials;  The transport of topsoil, rock, aggregate, and any other fill materials should be undertaken in tarpaulin-covered vehicles;  The number of material handling operations should be minimised to ensure that dusty material is not handled unnecessarily;  Any material on made ground should be kept damp and not allowed to dry out;  Hard surfacing of made ground will take place as soon as is operationally feasible;  Continued dust monitoring in the vicinity of the port;  Adherence to the Ports management document Procedures for Handling Dusty Product. Impact of  No increase in operational traffic Operational  No mitigation measures required. associated with the works Traffic

Coastal Processes (Chapter 9)

 Impact of the reclamation area and  Computational modelling of the dredged area on the tidal flow and proposed dredging works and the sediment transport regime. creation of a reclamation area Impact on confirmed that: coastal  Impact of the dredging operations processes as a result of the sediment plume The dredging operation, using Best

arising from the dredging activity Available Technology, would have no and from settlement of material significant impact on the marine brought into suspension. ecology outside the immediate area

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-5 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES

Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation

to be reclaimed as a result of a sediment plume arising from the dredging activity or from re- settlement of material brought into suspension.

The creation of the reclamation area and dredged area would have no significant impact on the tidal flow and sediment transport regime of the Lower Shannon Estuary.

Sediment Quality (Chapter 10)

Noise & Vibration (Chapter 11)

Construction  There is potential for construction  It is recommended that a robust Phase noise levels from the proposed temporary barrier (minimum of 3m development site to reach up to the height) is put up along the boundary high 50s dB(A) at some properties if of the proposed construction worst-case noise levels are emitted activities nearest to the closest noise at the boundary of the proposed site sensitive properties.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-6 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES

Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation

and if no mitigating measures are  A detailed construction plan will be put in place. prepared and will include a range of measures aimed at reducing the potential construction noise impact on the nearest properties to the proposed development site.  This plan will also address the issues relating to collaboration with the local community in order to reduce as much as possible the potential impact from construction noise.  A range of measures will be taken to ensure that the quietest machinery is used or that the use of machinery is such as to be sensitive to the residents at the nearest properties. This will be detailed in the construction plan mentioned above.  British Standard BS5228:2009 – Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites outlines a range of measures that can be used to reduce the impact of construction phase noise on the nearest noise sensitive receptors. These measures will be applied by the contractor where appropriate during the constriction phase of the proposed development.  It is not expected that the operational  No mitigation measures required phase of the proposed development will result in any significant noise impacts at the nearest noise sensitive properties.

Material Assets (Chapter 12)

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-7 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES

Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation

 Through the detailed traffic assessment it has been demonstrated and concluded that the combined traffic impact of the proposed development to and from the site will not have a significant impact on the surrounding road network. It is noted that the proposed development gives support to building and working towards the sustainable objectives within the region.  To help improve access to the Harbour, it is proposed to install warning signage in advance of both junctions to raise awareness of the increase in construction traffic associated with the works.  Skid resistant surfacing will be laid Traffic  Construction and Operational 100m in advance of both east and west harbour accesses given the increased risk of skidding given the heavy loads involved.  Maximum visibility from the minor arm of the junction is to be provided by cutting back and maintaining the grass verges along the N69.  The current exclusion of HGVs through Foynes Village is to be maintained to prohibit disruption through the village.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-8 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES

Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation

Archaeology & Cultural Heritage (Chapter 13)

 The construction associated with the infilling of the foreshore behind the jetty will use local services, such as  The well-being of the local catering and plant hire. Temporary community and the wider local employment may be created community within the Foynes area from the construction stage of the has been comprehensively project but this will be dependent on addressed within the EIS: the contractors appointed. No

significant socio-cultural impacts are  Impact on air quality – Chapter predicted arising from the temporary 8 local increase in noise associated  Impact on material assets with construction. Once the jetty is including traffic – Chapter 12 operational it will be strategically  Impact on landscape and visual valuable to the local and national – Chapter 15 economy.

 Therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed as the assessment has not identified potential negative

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-9 SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES

Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation

impact on the general amenity of the locality.

Landscape and Visual (Chapter 15)

 The low lying nature of the  No mitigation measures proposal, existing port facilities required located in views, intervening features, separation distances and orientation of distance combine to ensure there are no residential dwellings within the ZVI predicted as being significantly impacted.  The current Limerick and Clare Landscape County Development Plans have and Visual been examined. The proposal will Impact have no significant impact on any relevant landscape designations due to the separation distance between the proposals and designations.  Overall, therefore, when the landscape and visual impacts are considered the proposal is acceptable and the surrounding landscape and its visual resources have the ability to accommodate the changes of the type associated with this development.

0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-10

Appendices

Appendix 1 Consultation Process

SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY LAND RECLAMATION

PUBLIC CONSULTATION QUESTIONNAIRE

We would appreciate if you could take a few moments to fill in our questionnaire, which will help us to better understand the issues which you feel are important surrounding the proposals for land reclamation behind the East Jetty.

Association with the harbour: Commercial Residential Recreation

Other (Please Specify) ______

Out of the issues listed below, please rank 1-3 those issues which you feel are the most significant (1 = highest importance, 3 = lowest importance)

Environmental Noise Air Quality Designations

Traffic Marine Ecology Leisure/Sailing

Visual Impact Archaeology Other

Traffic Coastal Processes

If you ticked “Other” or wish to expand on any of your choices, please provide details below:

Do you have any information or comments you feel would be relevant to include within the Environmental Impact Statement?

Please use this space for any additional comments that you have on the proposed development.

If you wish to be kept updated about the project, provide your contact details below:

NAME ORGANISATION ADDRESS

TELEPHONE NUMBER E-MAIL ADDRESS

Thank you for your co-operation

Procedures for Handling Dusty Product

Comment: As it is Shannon Foynes Port Company that has been served notice under section 26 of the Air Pollution act 1987, this puts the greater responsibility on the company to control the activity.

It is in this context that the following procedures are written.

Areas of Control: 1. Berthing of ships- Port company I Marine Ops. 2. Decision to commence discharge- Port company I Terminal Ops. 3. Standards of transport- Port company I PFSO/Marine Ops 4. Provision of Crane I Hopper- Port company I Terminal Ops. 5. Discharge of vessels- Stevedore. 6. Decision to start loading ex store- Port company I Terminal Ops. 7. Maintenance of water curtain- Port company I Terminal Ops. 8. Provision of weather forecast- Port company I Marine Ops.

Procedure No. 1 (Pro I) - Ship to Store.

1. Agent to establish vessels Eta & pass to SFPC. 2. SFPC to allocate berth & berthing time (berth 6 only) 3. SFPC (Terminal Ops) to confirm and allocate discharge equipment, 4. Analysis of weather report to determine whether discharge will commence is the responsibility of Terminal operations. 5. SFPC (Terminal Ops) to test water curtain to ensure it is operational. 6. Agent to make ready store to receive product. 7. Following analysis of weather report & agreement that discharge can commence; agent can book labour. 8. Agent to order only transport that meets ports criteria. 9. Agent to arrange necessary equipment to handle product in store. 10. Agent to ensure store doors are closed during breaks and slack periods. 11. SFPC (Terminal Ops) to continually monitor wind direction & strength during discharge for the purpose of determining whether operations are to continue following weather changes. 12. Agent to provide car wash tokens, to those persons whose vehicles are dirtied with product. Procedure No. 2 (Pro 11)- Ship to Factory

1. Agent to establish vessels Eta & pass to SFPC. 2. SFPC to allocate berth & berthing time (berth 6 only) 3. SFPC (Terminal Ops) to confirm and allocate discharge equipment, 4. Analysis of weather report to determine weather discharge will commence is the responsibility of SFPC (Terminal operations.) 5. SFPC (Terminal Ops) to test water curtain to ensure it is operational. 6. Agent to make ready store to receive product. 7. Following analysis of weather report & agreement that discharge can commence; agent can book labour. 8. Agent to order only transport that meets ports criteria. 9. Agent to arrange necessary equipment to handle product in store. 10. Agent to ensure store doors are closed during breaks and slack periods. 11. SFPC (Terminal Ops) to continually monitor wind direction & strength during discharge for the purpose of determining whether operations are to continue following weather changes. 12.Agent to provide car wash tokens, to those persons whose vehicles are dirtied with product.

Procedure No. 3 (Pro Ill) ex Store to factory.

1. Agent to establish with factory amount required from store. 2. Agent to ensure that product is the correct type. 3. SFPC (Terminal Ops) to analyse weather report & decide if operation can commence. 4. Agent to employ only transport that meet SFPC criteria. 5. Agent to check weighing system. 6. All trucks to be loaded in store. 7. Windscreen wash system to be provided by agent. 8. All loads to be covered prior to departure from store apron. 9. SFPC (Terminal Ops) to continually monitor weather conditions to ensure operation can continue. Parameters for dusty cargo operations:

- Operations may commence except under the following conditions:

Wind Direction Strength

Northerly Force 3 North-easterly Force 4 North-westerly Force 5 South-easterly Force 4 Beaufort scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 2 of 4

wind Wave Wind speed speed height Beaufort Land Sea state (ktl Description Sea conditions number conditions photo kt km/h mph m/s km/hl m ft mph)

Calm. Smoke 0 0 0 0 0-0.2 0 I 0 1 0 Calm 0 0 Flat. rises vertically.

Wind motion 0.3- Ripples without 1 1-3 1-6 1-3 2 I 4 1 2 Light air 0.1 0.33 visible in 1.5 crests. smoke. Small wavelets. Wind felt on 1.6- Light Crests of glassy 2 4-6 7-11 4-7 5/9/6 0.2 0.66 exposed skin. 3.3 breeze appearance, not Leaves rustle. breaking Large wavelets. Leaves and 7- 12- 3.4- 91 17 1 Gentle Crests begin to smaller twigs in 3 8-12 0.6 2 10 19 5.4 11 breeze break; scattered constant whitecaps motion. Dust and loose 11- 20- 13- 5.5- 131 Moderate paper raised. 4 3.3 Small waves. 15 29 18 7.9 24/15 breeze Small branches begin to move. Moderate (1.2 m) 16- 30- 19- 8.0- 191 Fresh longer waves. Smaller trees 5 2 6.6 21 39 24 10.7 35/22 breeze Some foam and sway. spray. Large branches in motion. Large waves Whistling heard 22- 40- 25- 10.8- 241 Strong 6 3 9.9 with foam crests in overhead 27 50 31 13.8 44/27 breeze and some spray. wires. Umbrella use becomes difficult. Whole trees in Sea heaps up and motion. Effort 28- 51- 32- 13.9- 30 I Moderate 7 4 13.1 foam begins to needed to walk 33 62 38 17.1 56/35 gale streak. against the wind. Moderately high waves with Twigs broken 34- 63- 39- 17.2- 371 breaking crests 8 Fresh Gale 5.5 18 from trees. Cars 40 75 46 20.7 68/42 forming veer on road. spindrift. Streaks of foam. High waves (6-7 m) with dense 9 Strong gale 7 23 foam. Wave 41- 76- 47- 20.8- 441 crests start to roll Light structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilBeaufort_scale 20111/2007 Be ufort scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 3 of 4 \k~~1kr 47 87 54 24.4 81 150 over. damage. Considerable spray.

Very high waves. The sea surface . hit d th Trees uprooted. IS wean ere . 48- 88- 55- 24.5- 52 I . 'd bl Considerable 10 9 29.5 IS consi era e t tu I 55 102 63 28.4 96 I 60 Storm bli s rue ra tum mg. d V·ISI ibili 1 rty IS amage, reduced.

Widespread 56- 103- 64- ?85 60 I Violent y 11 - . - 112 I 11.5 37.7 El?,-cleptionall structural 63 119 73 storm ugn waves. 32.6 70 damage. Huge waves. Air filled with foam Considerable 73 I and spray. Sea 74- and widespread 12 64- 120 32.7- 148 I Hurricane 14+ 46+ completely white 80 95 damage to 40.8 90 with driving structures. spray. Visibility greatly reduced.

The scale is used in, and may be most recognizable to some from, the Shipping Forecasts broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in the United Kingdom.

This scale is also widely used in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau, however with some differences between them. Taiwan uses the Beaufort scale with the extension to 17 noted above. China also switched to this extended version without prior notice on the morning of May 15,2006[3], and the extended scale was immediately put to use for Typhoon Chanchu. Hong Kong and Macau however keep using Force 12 as the maximum.

In the United States, winds of Beaufort 6 or 7 result in the issuance of a small craft advisory, with force 8 or 9 winds bringing about a gale warning, 10 or 11 a storm warning (or "tropical storm warning" for 8 to 11 if related to a tropical cyclone), and anything to 12 a hurricane warning.

References

• Huler, Scott (2004). Defining the Wind: The Beaufort Scale, and How a 19th-Century Admiral Turned Science into Poetry. Crown. ISBN 1-4000-4884-2.

1. 1\ http://www .bbc.co. uk/weather/features/understandinglbeaufort _scale.shtml

2. 1\ http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/educationlsecondary/students/beaufort.html 3. 1\ http://news.sina.com.cnlo/2006-05-16/06518935033s.shtml