D.J Fitzgibbon & Company

Schull Harbour Development

Environmental Impact Statement

June 2006 Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

SCHULL COMMUNITY HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD

Schull Harbour Development

Environmental Impact Assessment

Notice

This document has been produced by ATKINS for Schull Community Harbour Development Company Ltd solely for the purpose of the Environmental Impact Statement for Schull Harbour Development. It may not be used by any person for any other purpose other than that specified without the express written permission of ATKINS. Any liability arising out of use by a third party of this document for purposes not wholly connected with the above shall be the responsibility of that party who shall indemnify ATKINS against all claims costs damages and losses arising out of such use.

Document History JOB NUMBER: RK2421 DOCUMENT REF: Z: 2421/30/32/RK2421DG02_EIS

Purpose and Revision Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Description

2 FINAL L.Collier P.O’Donoghue B. O’Connell K.Murray June 2006

1 REVISED DRAFT L.Collier P.O’Donoghue B. O’Connell K.Murray 07.04.06

0 DRAFT TO CLIENT L.Collier P.O’Donoghue B. O’Connell K.Murray 27.03.06

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

CONTENTS

Non Technical Summary i

1. Introduction 1

2. Project Description 5

3. Planning Context and Human Beings 26

4. Traffic 36

5. Flora and Fauna 52

6. Marine Ecology 67

7. Geology & Hydrogeology 94

8. Coastal Processes 106

9. Landscape and Visual 116

10. Archaeology & Cultural Heritage 140

11. Air Quality 159

12. Noise & Vibration 173

13. Material Assets 184

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

14. Fluvial Processes 195

15. Interaction between Environmental Factors 204

References 209

List of Tables

Table 2.1 – Summary of Requirements for Schull Harbour 7 Table 2.2 – Scoring of Sites for location of harbour development* 9 Table 2.3 - Statutory Consultation 18 Table 3.1 - CSO Population Figures (2002) 27 Table 3.2 - Projected Future Population and Household (H/H) Formation Trends 28 Table 3.3 - CSO Employment Figures for Persons Aged 15 years & Over Classified by Principal Economic Status within Schull Area (2002) 28 Table 3.4 - Regional Distribution of Tourism Revenue 30 Table 4.1 - Forecast 2011 and 2021 AADTs on Local Road Network 41 Table 4.2- Assumed Trip Generation Rates and Resulting Trips - Saturday 42 Table 4.3 - Predicted 2011 Peak Hour 2-way Traffic Flows (vehs) 45 Table 4.4 - Results of Junction Analyses for Opening Year (2011) 45 Table 4.5 - Predicted 2021 Peak Hour 2-way Traffic Flows (vehs) 45 Table 4.6 - Results of Junction Analyses for Plan Year (2021) 46 Table 4.7 - Estimated HGV Loads During Construction Stage 47 Table 5.1 Sites of international and national importance within 10 km of the proposed development site. 56 Table 6-1 Glossary of Impacts (extracted from EPA, 2003) 69 Table 6.2 – Location of Littoral and Sublittoral Sample locations (Refer to Figures 6.1 & 6.2) 69 Table 6.3 – Important marine aquatic species within Roaringwater Bay & Islands SAC 71 Table 6.6 – Littoral Habitat Loss to Foreshore Reclamation as part of proposed harbour development 81 Table 6.7 – Summary of Residual Impacts 93 Table 7.1 - GSI Groundwater Vulnerability Ratings. 98 Table 9.1 - Significance of Impacts on Landscape character 117 Table 9.2 - Significance of Visual Impacts 119 Table 11.1 - EU Daughter Directive Limit Values 162 Table 11.2 - Background Concentrations 166 Table 11.3 - Estimated Existing Air Quality 167 Table 11.4 - Estimated Annual Mean Concentrations for the Do-Nothing Situation 168

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Table 11.5 - Estimated Annual Mean Concentrations for Selected Receptors with the Development 169 Table 12.2 - Estimated HGV loads during construction 177 Table 12.3 - Construction Noise Emissions for Stage 1. 178 Table 12.4 - Construction Noise Emissions for Stage 2 179 Table 12.5 - Construction Noise Emissions for Stage 3. 179 Table 12.7 - Change in Traffic Noise Levels with and without development 2021 (18 hour). 181

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 – Site Context and Location of Proposed Harbour Development. 4 Figure 2.1 – Location of alternative sites considered as part of the 1999 Scoping Study 10 Figure 2.2 - Overall Harbour Development Layout Plan 24 Figure 2.3 - Proposed Pier Layout and Extension 25 Figure 4.1 – Proposed Harbour Development in the context of the existing road network. 38 Figure 4.2 - Base Year (2003) PM Peak Hourly Traffic Flows – Main St/Pier Road 40 Figure 4.3 - Forecast 2011 PM Peak Hourly Traffic Flows – Main St/Pier Road 41 Figure 4.4 - Forecast 2021 PM Peak Hourly Traffic Flows – Main St/Pier Road 42 Figure 4.5 - Distribution of Traffic Generated by Marina Development at Proposed Access Junction 44 Figure 4.6 - Distribution of Traffic Generated by Pier Extension at Main St Junction 44 Figure 4.7 - Distribution of Traffic Generated by Construction Phase at Marina Access Junction 49 Figure 4.8 - Distribution of Traffic Generated by Construction Phase at Marina Access Junction 49 Figure 4.9 - Distribution of Traffic Generated by Construction Phase at Main Street/Pier Road Junction 49 Figure 4.10 - Distribution of Traffic Generated by Construction Phase at Main Street/Pier Road Junction 50 Figure 5.1 – Candidate Special Areas of Conservation. 64 Figure 5.2 – Proposed Natural Heritage Areas 65 Figure 5.3 – Habitat Map 66 Figure 6.1 – Littoral Habitats within Schull Harbour. 75 Figure 6.2 – Location of Sublittoral Sampling Sites. 76 Figure 6.3 - Species Dominance at sub-littoral sites. 77 Figure 6.4 - All cetacean sightings from 1. Roaringwater Bay 2. Castle point and 3. Crookhaven (source IWDG) 78 Figure 7.1 - Soil Types in the site area. 102 Figure 7.2 - Bedrock Geology in the site area. 102 Figure 7.3 - Aquifer Classification Map for the site area. 103 Figure 7.4 - Groundwater flow directions in the Mount Gabriel area. 104

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 7.5 - Groundwater flow directions in the site area. 105 Figure 8.1(a) S Wave Heights 112 Figure 8.1(b) S Wave Directions 112

Figure 8.2(a) Hs = 1m, Tp = 12s Dir = 160deg 113

Figure 8.2(b) Hs = 1m, Tp = 12s Dir = 160deg 113 Figure 8.3(a) and (b) Measured Flow Velocities 114

Figure 8.4 Model Output Plots for input Hs = 1.3m and Tp = 16sec 115

Figure 8.5 Model Output Plots for input Hs = 1.3m and Tp = 14sec 115

Figure 8.6 Model Output Plots for input Hs = 1.3m and Tp = 16sec 115 Figure 9.1 – Location of Site. 127 Figure 9.2 – Heritage & Scenic Amenity. 128 Figure 9.3 – Site Analysis. 129 Figure 9.4 – Landscape Character of Site. 130 Figure 9.5 – Location of Photographs and Plate Numbers 131 Figure 9.6 – Zone of Visual Influence. 132 Figure 9.7 – Visual Impacts 133 Figure 9.8 – Visual Impacts 134 Figure 9.9 – Landscape Masterplan 135 Figure 9.10 – Photomontage view number 1. 136 Figure 9.11 – Photomontage view number 2. 137 Figure 9.12 – Photomontage view number 3. 138 Figure 9.13 – Photomontage view number 4. 139 Figure 10.1 - Location Map (extract from OS Discovery Series 1:50,000, Sheet 88). 155 Figure 10.2 - Proposed development site. Areas 1 to 2 are part of the terrestrial development. 155 Figure 10.3 - Extract of the 3rd edition OS map (1950) with RMP detail within a 2km radius of the site. This area covers 4 OS sheets 139, 140, 148 and 149. 156 Figure 10.4 - Extract of 2nd edition OS map (1902). Green line indicates the route of the ‘Pier Extension’ of the Schull and Skibbereen Tramway and Light Railway 157 Figure 10.5 - Extract of 1st edition OS map (1842). Post Medieval sites are numbered on the map (see Appendix H3). 158 Figure 11.1 – Air Quality Receptors. 172 Figure 12.1 – Noise monitoring locations. 183 Figure 13.1 – Utilities 193 Figure 13.2 – Water Supply to Schull. 194 Figure 14.1 - Location of point sources of sediment in Schull Catchment. Refer to Table 1 for descriptions of the sediment sources. 199

Note: All Figures were produced under Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence No. AR 0082506.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Background Information / Consultation Letters Appendix B. Traffic Appendix C. Terrestrial Flora and Fauna Appendix D. Marine Ecology Appendix E. Geology and Hydrogeology Appendix F. Coastal Processes Appendix G. Landscape and Visual Appendix H. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Appendix I. Air Quality Appendix J. Noise and Vibration Appendix K. Material Assets

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Non Technical Summary

Introduction Over the past number of years members of Schull Development Association, Schull Fishermen’s Organisation, and Schull Harbour Sailing Club, and others in the community have come together with a common objective.

• To develop Schull harbour as safe all weather port for fishing boats, ferryboats and other workboats, and to develop a separate area to cater for leisure craft to enhance the local tourist and leisure industry.

An informal group, the Schull Harbour Users’ Group, was formed by the local interested bodies. Following a number events and consultation with local groups, County Council planners and engineers, and both local and national politicians, a plan has evolved to include the following:

- Extending the existing pier to the east and northeast to allow for permanent berths for the trawlers in all weathers and provide much improved facilities for the inshore fishing boats and the Ferry Operators.

- The provision of a breakwater running from the north shore to meet the extended pier, with a narrow harbour mouth, which would give protection to an inner harbour making it safe in all weathers.

- The provision of a marina and ancillary facilities for leisure craft within this inner harbour which would be accessed from the north shore (with car parking) to allow local boat owners and visiting craft safe and secure berths.

A significant degree of internal consultation within the Schull community has taken place, in the definition of requirements for the Harbour Development.

Project Description The Schull Harbour Users’ Group has formed the Schull Community Harbour Development Company Ltd, which is the body promoting the Harbour Development Plan. The Schull Community Harbour Development Company Ltd proposes to extend the existing pier to accommodate inshore fisheries and ferry operators, to provide breakwaters for increased protection to the inner harbour, and to construct a marina for leisure craft within the inner harbour at Schull, located approximately 8km southwest of Ballydehob, within Roaringwater Bay, West Cork as indicated on Figure 1.1.

The proposed development will consist of a pier extension of 100m, 2 nr. armoured breakwaters of 150m and 212m, and a 225-berth marina. An area of approximately 1.05 hectare will be reclaimed from the foreshore along the north shore of the harbour, as part of the development. In this area, the following will be constructed: Public waterside promenade, open space and walkways, both new and retaining the existing routes; Car park for 130 spaces approx.; Leisure craft slipway 10m wide; Dinghy parking area; Utility buildings. The buildings will accommodate: Administration offices; meeting rooms; shower and changing

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page i

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

rooms; and a storage building for 4 no. boats. The marina will be constructed, operated and maintained with a view to obtaining the An Taisce Marina Blue Flag Status.

Planning Context and Socio-Economic

This Human Beings section of the EIS describes the existing human environment within the immediate locality of the proposed Schull Harbour development and assesses the possible impacts of the proposed development on the existence, activities and well being of groups of people in Schull. This is undertaken under the following headings:

• Population, Employment and Economic Activity, • Land Use; • Tourism and Recreation; and • Health & Safety.

The assessment concludes that no significant negative impacts are anticipated in terms of population, employment and economic activity during the operational stage of the proposed development. Also, the impacts forecast with regard to land use and tourism in the operational stage are generally positive. One negative impact that may result from the increased tourism potential created by the proposed development, a positive impact in itself, is the potential pressure to allow holiday home developments in the lands zoned residential in the CDP. This would be a consideration for Cork County Council when assessing future planning applications in the area. With regard to Health and Safety, all works during the construction stage of the development should be in compliance with the relevant health and safety regulations, and it is recommended that a Construction Management Plan be drawn up and implemented. Residual impacts of the proposed development with regard to the human environment include the permanent loss of some amenity walkway near the foreshore of the harbour (however it proposed to offset this by providing a replacement amenity as part of the proposed marina development) and the permanent loss of views of the rugged foreshore resulting in a negative impact on the visual amenity of the harbour.

Traffic and Transport

The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) provides a detailed investigation into the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent road network and establishes current and future traffic flow levels.

Operational Phase: It concludes that the traffic flows and impacts generated by the proposed development in its operational phase would be relatively small, compared to background traffic levels. A significant local redistribution of traffic is expected at the existing pier in the operational phase, due to the separation of the leisure uses from work-related uses in the harbour. The present heavy traffic generated by leisure users at the pier, particularly in peak summer months, will be located to the new facilities on the north shore.

Construction Phase: Junction analysis carried out for the proposed access to the marina development on the R592 and for the junction of Main Street with Pier Road indicated that the surrounding road system would have sufficient capacity to accommodate predicted traffic levels associated with the proposed development. The TIA recommends that consideration be given to reducing construction traffic generation in the peak hour by minimising the volume of plant and material to be transported by road (e.g. by transporting material and plant by

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page ii

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

water) and by phasing movements to avoid peaks on the road network, and that a detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan be prepared and implemented.

General: It is also recommended that improvements to the Pier Road be undertaken for the benefit of traffic generated by the proposed development during the construction and operational stages as well as for the benefit of local road users.

Terrestrial Ecology A desktop review was carried out to identify features of ecological importance within the study area and environs. Sites designated as being of conservation importance were reviewed in the immediate environs of the proposed development site. A Phase 1 habitat survey was conducted in November 2005. Any birds or mammals noted during the survey were also recorded and the suitability of habitats on site for species of conservation concern was assessed. Particular attention was paid to habitats and species for which Roaringwater Bay cSAC has been designated. It should be noted that this assessment deals largely with terrestrial habitats and species; a marine ecological assessment, which also considers marine mammals such as Grey Seal and Harbour Porpoise, is presented in Chapter 7.

The terrestrial habitats within the proposed development site are not located within Roaringwater Bay cSAC. Terrestrial habitats within the site are of no more than Local Value; those which would be impacted by the proposed development include amenity grassland (GA2), two short sections of treeline, some small scrub patches (WS1; some of which are dominated by the invasive alien Japanese Knotweed) and a bed of New Zealand flax (BC4). Thus impacts on terrestrial habitats due to the proposed development are likely to be Imperceptible; i.e. a change in the ecology of the affected site, the consequences of which are strictly limited to within the development boundaries.

No designated sites or other sites of ecological value will be impacted by the proposed development. No rare or protected vascular plant species were recorded within the proposed development site. While the habitat survey was undertaken in November, it is not considered likely that any occur (based upon the habitats recorded and rare plants known from this part of West Cork).

The mammal and bird fauna of terrestrial habitats along the northern shore are likely to be of only Local Value; the proposed development is therefore not likely to have any significant direct impacts. Habitats within the site are not of importance for bird species of conservation concern, such as Chough or Peregrine falcon. Thus these species will not be negatively impacted.

Due to the scale of the proposed reclamation of foreshore a large volume of fill material will be required on site. Both this and associated construction works will result in a temporary (defined by the EPA as lasting 1 year or less) increase in levels of noise and disturbance, which in turn may result in temporary negative impact through avoidance of the area by animals.

Following implementation of mitigation measures, such as landscaping, controlled removal of Knotweed, prevention of negative impacts from dust etc., it is predicted that the impacts the proposed development on terrestrial habitats, flora and fauna are likely to be Imperceptible; i.e. A change in the ecology of the affected site, the consequences of which are strictly limited to within the development boundaries.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page iii

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Water Quality / Marine Ecology The proposed harbour development is located within the Roaringwater Bay and Islands candidate Special Area of Conservation. A littoral and sublittoral survey was undertaken of the study area. The Irish Whale and Dolphin Group undertook a desktop assessment of cetacean (i.e. whale and dolphins) and seal activity in the area.

Littoral habitats consisted predominantly of shingle and gravel shores and kelp seaweed on rocky shores. All species and habitats are considered common and widespread and no sensitive species were found. The sublittoral environment consisted of mud with common polychaete and mollusc species. The area is not considered of high ecological importance as species and habitats present are considered common and widespread, while diversity indices show that the marine benthic community has a low to moderate diversity and evenness. None of the species for which the SAC is designated were found in the study area. A number of cetacean species are regularly sighted within Roaringwater Bay, although none of these have been within Schull harbour itself, i.e. north of Schull Point / Cooshenn Point. There are no designated shellfish beds or designated bathing waters close to the site.

Key potential impacts of the proposed development are the permanent loss of littoral and sublittoral habitats, sedimentation and pollution, particularly during construction, and waste management issues within the harbour. Once mitigation measures are undertaken, impacts will be slight to neutral in general, although littoral habitat loss is considered moderate permanent.

Geology and Hydrogeology The proposed development is sited on the foreshore in Schull Harbour. The Schull area is underlain by a thin cover of glacial till overlying sandstone rocks. These rocks have been classified as a locally important aquifer; however due to their proximity to the sea the groundwater underlying in the site is most likely brackish. The groundwater resources in the Schull region are poor and no water abstractions have been recorded in the site area during this study. The proposed development will involve the reclamation of part of the foreshore and the only potential impacts are that soil or groundwater could be contaminated by hydrocarbons during the construction or operational phase of the development. However these risk are easily mitigated with good design and work practices and the development should not have a negative impact on the geological and hydrogeological environment.

Coastal Processes Coastal processes in Schull Harbour (with particular emphasis on wave action) were examined as part of a study undertaken by the Hydraulics and Maritime Research Centre of University College Cork. The study involved extreme wave analysis, field measurements and numerical modelling. The magnitudes of waves and currents were determined and the layout of the development was optimised in terms of satisfying the design criteria and minimising environmental impact.

It was found that the location of the development is advantageous as environmental loading is low as compared to open coast Atlantic shorelines. Tidal currents were measured for a 2- month period and generally had magnitudes of less than 0.05m/s. Such low current velocities are an indication that sediment transport is also low. Wave conditions in the harbour area were greatly reduced from offshore values and a design significant wave height of 1.3m was determined. This wave would approach the development from a SSE direction and could

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page iv

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

have a peak period ranging from 10-20 seconds. The design wave, whilst not large, still required the construction of breakwater structures to protect the marina.

The numerical modelling undertaken as part of the UCC study involved the study of more than ten different layout configurations. The chosen layout satisfied all the design criteria as well as militated against such negative impacts as wave reflections and harbour resonance.

Landscape and Visual

The landscape and visual assessment appraised the existing landscape character and visual amenity of the development site and its wider setting, assessed the likely impacts arising from the proposed development and described proposed mitigation measures.

The impact of the proposed harbour development on the landscape was arrived at by a combined measurement or synthesis of both the sensitivity of the landscape and the magnitude of the proposed development. The sensitivity of the landscape was assessed as high, the magnitude of the development was assessed as medium and the impact on landscape elements that carry a statutory designation was low. Overall the combined impact on landscape character from the development was judged as moderate adverse.

Of the residential properties in the detailed study area the highest levels of visual intrusion will be experienced from those within 500 metres of the development, however residents on the eastern shore of Schull Harbour, although located further from the development (500-1500m approximately), will experience proportionally higher levels of adverse visual impacts than those on the western shore, this is due in part to the fact that properties on the foreshore will have clear unobstructed views of the pier extension, rubble break water and new yacht marina. Residents of twenty-one properties will experience high visual impacts as a result of the development and residents of forty-two properties will experience a moderate impact. Whilst the numbers of receptors affected in terms of moderate and high visual impacts seems high, it is worth noting that the majority of these properties have no natural screening along their boundaries and as such any development would affect their visual amenity and intrude upon their views. The most visible elements of the development i.e. the breakwater and the pier extension cannot by their nature be hidden. The provision of offsite planting within private properties to screen these elements will obstruct the wide views of the harbour and cause increased visual impact. However a degree of mitigation of the long term landscape and visual impacts can be provided within the boundary of the development. Mitigation measure include; the retention of existing vegetation on site, implementation of high quality landscape design proposals within the development, directional lighting for car parks and the architectural treatment to the boat house in the form of colours and finishes to reduce reflection and blend with the surrounding countryside where possible. The effect of the mitigation measures will be to reduce the potential long-term negative landscape and visual impacts particularly to residential properties near to the site. However, some residual negative impacts will remain.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

Following a desktop survey, site inspection and a marine geo-archaeological survey, it was established that there were no surface-level sites of archaeological/cultural heritage significance that would be impacted by the proposed development.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page v

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Although previous developments have impacted on all three areas of the proposed development site (terrestrial, inter-tidal and underwater), is still possible that archaeological/cultural heritage remains lie intact below the surface.

The following proposals are made to mitigate the impact of the development on any potential cultural heritage;

• Archaeological monitoring will be carried out in advance of construction of the access road to ascertain if any archaeological remains exist below ground level. This will be agreed with the National Monuments Service at the DoEHLG.

• Procedures for archaeological monitoring of the excavation and/or dredging phase of the development will be agreed with the Maritime Unit of the DoEHLG prior to the start of engineering works.

• In the event of archaeological material being uncovered such material will be fully resolved to professional standards of archaeological practice (Policy Guidelines on Archaeological Excavation – Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands). This work will be funded by the developer.

Air Quality An air quality assessment for the Scheme has been carried out in accordance with the United Kingdom Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). There are no equivalent Irish assessment tools. Four traffic-derived pollutant species were included in the assessment:

nitrogen dioxide (NO2); fine particles (PM10); carbon monoxide (CO) and benzene. The concentrations of these pollutants at selected representative properties were calculated using data on traffic flow rates and compositions, and the emissions factors contained in the DMRB spreadsheet.

It is forecast that there will be no exceedences of the statutory Irish air quality criteria as a result of this scheme. The proposed harbour development is predicted to have a negligible impact on local air quality.

Noise & Vibration The noise chapter assesses the construction and operational noise and vibration impacts from the Schull Harbour Development. The noise assessment involved determining the existing ambient noise climate within the local area by a noise survey, quantifying the noise emissions during construction phase, and identifying the future operational noise levels.

Temporary adverse impacts through noise generated during the construction phase are predicted, particularly during land reclamation and piling. However noise levels are likely to be acceptable provided the contractor adopts good site practice and works are confined to the normal working day when noise-sensitivity is at a lower level. Piling activities are recommended outside the holiday season. Consideration should also be given to limiting construction works for the access road close to the Coastguard Apartments during the holiday season.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page vi

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

The noise chapter contains an assessment of the operational noise impact from the proposed Marina development. During both the construction and operational phase, there will be an increase in traffic volumes to the site. The increase in traffic on the Pier Road and R592 East of Schull will potentially affect residential properties closest to the road. However, as the growth in traffic noise levels at this location will be minor and unnoticeable, no mitigation measures are required. The proposed facilities are unlikely to generate significant noise emissions when in use.

Material Assets Material Assets of human origin that would be impacted by the proposed development consist of transport infrastructure, recreational facilities / amenities and public utilities. Impacts will be slightly negative during the construction phase due to increased traffic from construction activities, and disruption to recreational activities during this period. Existing telecommunications, electricity, water supply and sewerage services are available within Schull village. Adequate capacity is available to link up the proposed development to these existing services as the proposed harbour development will not be complete before the current water and sewerage services are upgraded. Long-term impacts will be positive, through enhancing the existing amenity resource.

Material assets of natural origin that would be impacted by the proposed development are undeveloped land resources, geological resources and natural amenities. Impacts are considered neutral so that no mitigation measures are required.

Fluvial Processes

A rapid geomorphological assessment was conducted of Schull Stream during March 2006 to make a preliminary assessment of the issues of sediment delivery from Schull Stream to Schull Harbour.

The geomorphological assessment found that due to the incised nature of Schull Stream in the mid to lower catchment, the absence of floodplain and the steep bed gradient, a high proportion of sediment delivered to the stream is prone to be transported downstream and deposited in the harbour. The assessment identified a number of different sources of sediment in the catchment with the majority of sources located in the headwaters.

The sediment loadings observed during the field reconnaissance were indicative of a typical upland stream. While there was no evidence of excessive sedimentation within the channel, it is possible that high sediment loadings do occur and are only discernable during high rainfall and flow events.

Despite potential high sediment loadings of Schull Stream during flood events, fluvial sediment input to the harbour is likely to be insignificant in terms of the overall coastal sediment budget in the harbour. Analysis of photographs taken during low tide indicate that local fluvial sediment deposition at the discharge point into the harbour is not excessive (i.e. no evidence of a large delta) suggesting that fluvial sediments deposited at the river mouth become resuspended during subsequent tidal cycles and are transported further into the harbour.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page vii

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

However, the implications for fluvial sediment deposition in the harbour could become significant under the proposed marina design. If the existing threshold velocity for sediment deposition and resuspension by tidal action is considerably reduced by the new shelter provided by the marina development, the risk of increasing local bed levels becomes more likely. However, three key questions need to be answered before a thorough assessment can be made regarding the likelihood of increased sedimentation of the marina;

1) How much sediment is delivered to the harbour annually?

2) What proportion of sediment is likely to be deposited and what proportion transported out of the existing harbour layout?

3) What proportion of sediment is likely to be resuspended and transported out of the harbour under the proposed marina design?

Further investigation is required to answer these questions. This would involve sediment monitoring to provide sediment load data and modelling using MIKE21 or LITPACK to predict sediment movement and deposition within the proposed marina. Without this data it is not possible to provide an informed opinion on the likelihood of sedimentation occurring in the vicinity of Schull Stream discharge location.

Despite the uncertainty relating to the likelihood of sedimentation in the harbour, a number of mitigation options have been suggested to reduce sediment input into the harbour.

Interaction between environmental factors There are interactions between many of the environmental factors described above, for example between noise impacts on marine ecology (i.e. primarily on cetaceans). These interactions are covered within the individual disciplines.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page viii

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

1. Introduction

1.1 This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared in association with the planning application to Cork County Council for a proposed harbour development at Schull, located approximately 8km southwest of Ballydehob, within Roaringwater Bay, West Cork as indicated on Figure 1.1

The Proposal Over the past number of years members of Schull Development Association, Schull Fishermen’s Organisation, and Schull Harbour Sailing Club, and others in the community have come together with a common objective.

- The provision of a breakwater running from the north shore to meet the extended pier, with a narrow harbour mouth, which would give protection to an inner harbour making it safe in all weathers.

1.2 A significant degree of internal consultation within the Schull community has taken place, in the definition of requirements for the Harbour Development.

1.3 Further details of the proposed development are included in Chapter 2 of this EIS.

Legislative Requirement

1.4 The need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is set out in the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 (S.I. 600 of 2001). The requirement for an EIS is governed primarily by the size and type of the development or whether it is located within a sensitive area. Schedule 5 of the Regulations specifies those projects, which require an EIS.

Part 2 Item 10(e) (Infrastructure Projects) relates to “New or extended harbours and port installations, including fishing harbours, not included in Part 1 of this Schedule, where the

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 1

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

area, or additional area, of water enclosed would be 20 hectares or more, or which would involve the reclamation of 5 hectares or more of land, or which would involve the construction of additional quays exceeding 500 metres in length.”

Part 2 Item 11 Item 12(b) (Tourism and Leisure) relates to “Sea water marinas where the number of berths would exceed 300 and fresh water marinas where the number of berths would exceed 100”.

1.5 The proposed development is below the threshold for an EIS in each respect, as follows: Seawater marina: 225 berths; Harbour area enclosed: 6.0 hectares; Reclaimed area: 1.05 hectares. However, from consultations with Cork County Council and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, it was decided that an Environmental Impact Assessment should be undertaken due to the scale of the development relative the size of Schull, and a number of key environmental issues were identified, as follows:

a) Location of the site within a designated candidate Special Area of Conservation;

b) Potential importance of the site for underwater archaeology;

c) Potential visual Impact and location of many scenic routes in the area;

d) Local traffic and access issues within Schull;

e) Socio-Economic issues

Structure of this Report

1.7 The following chapters include information required as specified in the Draft Advice Notes to Guidelines for Information to be Contained in an EIS (EPA, 2002). The structure of this report is as follows: -

Chapter 2 – Description of the project, associated developments and alternatives considered. It also outlines the consultation process undertaken in preparing this EIS;

Chapter 3 – Planning Context and Socio-Economic Impacts;

Chapter 4 Traffic and Transport Impact Assessment;

Chapter 5 – Terrestrial Flora & Fauna;

Chapter 6 – Water Quality / Marine Ecology

Chapter 7 – Geology and Hydrogeology

Chapter 8 – Coastal Processes

Chapter 9 – Landscape and Visual;

Chapter 10 _ Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 2

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Chapter 11 – Air Quality

Chapter 12 – Noise & Vibration

Chapter 13 – Material Assets

Chapter 14 – Interaction between environmental factors

1.8 For each environmental topic a description is provided on the methodology used in the assessment, the receiving or existing environment without the development, the predicted impacts from the development and details of the mitigation measures are then outlined. Finally a description of the residual impact when all mitigation measures are implemented is given.

Contributors

1.9 This Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared by Atkins with contributions from the following consultants: -

• EcoServe, Unit B19, KCR Industrial Estate, Kimmage, Dublin 12 – Sublittoral Ecology Survey

• Limosa Environmental, 2 The Youghals, Clonakilty, Co. Cork – Littoral Ecology Survey

• Simon Berrow, Irish Whale and Dolphin Group, Merchants Quay, Kilrush, Co. Clare – Cetacean Assessment

• Kevin Motherway, TES Ltd., North Point Business Park, Mallow Road, Cork – Hydrogeology/Geology

• Shelia Lane & Associates in conjunction with Donal Boland, Deanrock Business Park, Togher, Cork – Archaeology and Underwater Archaeology

• Jimmy Murphy, HMRC, Youngline Business Park, Pouladuff Road, Cork – Coastal Processes.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 3

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

00 11 22 kilometers

SITE CONTEXT AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 1.1

2421DG02_fig1_1.pdf ©©ORDNANCEORDNANCE SURVEYSURVEY IRELANDIRELAND LICENCELICENCE No.No. ARAR 0082506008250008250600825066 ORDNANCEORDNANCE SURVEYSURVEY IRELANDIRELAND && GOVERNMENTGOVERNMENT OFOF IRELANDIRELAND Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

2. Project Description

Background to the Project Over the past number of years members of Schull Development Association, Schull Fishermen’s Organisation, and Schull Harbour Sailing Club, and others in the community have come together with a common objective.

- The provision of a breakwater running from the north shore to meet the extended pier, with a narrow harbour mouth, which would give protection to an inner harbour making it safe in all weathers.

A significant degree of internal consultation within the Schull community has taken place, in the definition of requirements for the Harbour Development.

2.1 In 1999 a Scoping Study was undertaken to assess various potential sites around Schull Harbour for development of a marina. Further details of these studies are presented below and in Appendix A1. The conclusion of the Scoping Study was that the area between the existing pier and the north shore (the ‘North Schull’ site, or ‘Schull Harbour North’ site) was the most suitable, on a weighted-scoring assessment method using a number of key factors.

2.2 In 2001, the Schull Harbour Users Group undertook an assessment of the wider needs and potential solutions for the development of Schull Harbour relative to the North Schull site, and to address the needs of all harbour users. The outcome of these consultations was a preliminary Harbour Development Layout, which included a marina at the North Schull site. Beginning in 2002, a number of consultation meetings were undertaken with Cork County Council to agree on a suitable feasibility study into the preferred site option (see section below on Consultation).

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 5

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

2.3 This feasibility study was undertaken By DJ Fitzgibbon and Company Ltd in 2003/2004. The primary objectives of the Study were to:

• Accurately establish the wave conditions in the existing pier area;

• Evaluate the Preliminary Harbour Layout with respect to wave conditions; and

• Prepare and evaluate variations on the Preliminary Layout, so as to optimise the design of the development.

2.4 The study consisted of: design of alternative harbour layouts; gathering field data on wave climate; wave modelling studies within Schull Harbour for existing and a number of possible layouts; and a topopgraphic survey.

2.5 Consultations with Cork County Council, National Parks and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources indicated that an Environmental Impact Assessment must be undertaken for the proposed development, which has been designed on the basis of the needs identified, and based on the results of the feasibility study (further details on consultation are provided below).

Need for the development

2.6 The existing pier is being used beyond its capacity, and facilities in general were considered insufficient by the Schull Harbour Users Group (based on consultations undertaken within the community) for both commercial fishing and marine tourism.

2.7 The original pier was extended in 1986 by 150ft in order to cater for the then perceived future requirements of the fishing and leisure industry. Within a few years it was operating at full capacity and has since been overwhelmed by increasing demand. The total number of registered fishing boats operating out of Schull has grown from 11 to 33 and is forecast to increase further. Boat sizes have also increased. Schull acts as an important access point for servicing the offshore islands. In recent years there has been an upsurge in interest in improving the facilities provided to Islanders, resulting in increased traffic of people, goods and plant using the pier.

2.8 The development of Schull as a significant holiday destination has resulted in the number of ferries operating out of the village to increase from a single vessel running one trip per day to 4 boats each running multiple daily trips. Boat charter for angling, diving and whale watching trips has also increased. The economic boom of the last 10 years has created a significant increase in the number of privately owned boats kept in the harbour, visiting cruising boats and boats towed in Schull for the holiday period.

2.9 The facilities currently in place are inadequate for the current activity. And there is no capacity to accommodate any future growth, despite strong projected increase in demand. A small pontoon attached to the pier in July 2000 was immediately swamped by the huge demand, indicating the size of the problem to be faced. A significant development is required to provide Schull with the harbour infrastructure it needs for the next 25 years.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 6

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

2.10 A summary of the requirements of different sectors is provided in Table 2.1 below:

Table 2.1 – Summary of Requirements for Schull Harbour

Sector Current Problems Requirements

Fishing Fleet − Not enough space for local fishing boats to tie up without − No. berths for fishing boats should be ‘rafting up’. Subsequent problems with safety, unloading fish, increased from 5 to 14 with adequate water taking on ice and performing maintenance. depth available. − Larger boats need deeper berths than currently available. − The harbour should be protected by − Structural problems with existing pier, dangerous to use the breakwaters, to allow boats to shelter safely southern berths. in all weather. − Insufficient shelter for boats in stormy weather, − A section of the pier should be set aside for the sole use of the small boat fishing fleet − No facilities provided for smaller boats engaged in potting and with better facilities for manhandling the crabbing, who have to attempt to land catches and load catch and loading gear. strings of lobster pots on board from steps that are − The 1986 extension should be repaired and overcrowded by non-commercial leisure boats. enclosed on the north side as should a new extension. − The emergency ‘dry dock’ area should be concreted. Ferry − Ferry traffic has increased dramatically since 1986 with − Reduced congestion on the pier. Operations / passenger numbers increasing from 4,000 to 10,000 per Chartered summer and there are no real facilities in place. − Dedicated landing place reserved for ferries. boats − Difficulty of approach to the steps when all the fishing boats − Floating pontoon berth, with ramp access are ‘rafted up’. from main pier giving open, clear and safe access to ferry entry point. − Only one set of steps has to cater for picking up and dropping off of passengers from the ferries, charter boats and leisure − Separation of fishing maintenance and ferry boats. passenger access on pier, with ticket booth on pontoon. − Access for passengers from the steps is difficult and potentially unsafe as mooring lines from the fishing boats − Safe berthing allowing year round service to often have to cross the steps. Access is impossible by Cape Clear. wheelchair.

− Lack of ‘ticket office’ facilities leading to queues of passengers mixed up with fishing maintenance activities on the pier, which can be hazardous.

− Lack of safe berthing restricts service to summer months only preventing people from Cape Clear Island the benefit of year round access to the facilities in Schull.

Access for − Cape Clear Island - At present year round access is from − Provide year round berthing for ferries Islanders Baltimore where there is safer berthing. However, Schull is allowing Cape Clear residents access to the closer to the island and has better facilities and services for superior facilities and services in Schull. the benefit of the 150 Islanders, e.g. doctors clinic, Secondary School, bank are all unavailable in Baltimore. − Reduce congestion at the pier for small boats to allow safe and convenient berthing − Long Island - While Colla Pier has been upgraded as the main for boats from Long Island. access point for the island, many islanders come direct to Schull pier where there are more services in the village. − Create a sheltered harbour clear of small Insufficient capacity and congestion at Schull pier. boat moorings to allow safe loading of materials and plant onto barges destined for − Road Maintenance and House Building - Schull is the main the islands. supply point for materials and plant going to the islands by front loading barges. Access is hampered by excessive ‘rafting up’ at the pier and by small boat moorings in the inner harbour. Loading is not possible in rough weather leading to delays and increased costs.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 7

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Sector Current Problems Requirements

Privately − Access to boats on moorings is by small tender, which is − Adequate shelter from a south-easterly owned boats difficult, uncomfortable and potentially dangerous, especially storm required as this creates a large swell after dark. in the harbour and requires a significant breakwater to avoid severe damage to − Storage of tenders difficult at pier due to congestion. boats in a marina.

− The only steps available to collect crew have to be shared − Large leisure boats should be kept on a with ferries and charter boats and is very congested. purpose built marina, protected by a adequate breakwater thus separating the − Access across the deck of a fishing boat when not at the industrial nature of fishing and the leisure mooring is unsatisfactory and unsafe. activities of visitors.

− Loss of economic benefits as boats use alternative marinas − Shore based facilities should be provided due to insufficient facilities at Schull. with toilets, pump-out station, showers and changing room.

− Adequate car parking to be provided reducing the traffic congestion in the village and on the pier in particular.

Visiting − Adequate facilities needed to attract visitors from other − Provide a minimum of 25 berths in a marina Cruising countries A dinghy pontoon installed in July 2000 is obviously specifically for visiting boats. Boats too small. − Provide adequate tender berthing for boats on moorings.

Smaller − While launching facilities are sufficient, commercial boats − Concrete over ‘dry dock’ area for boat boats towed undergoing essential maintenance work often block the maintenance so that the slipway can be kept to Schull slipway. clear at all times. during the holiday − The recently installed dinghy pontoon is too small, causing − Provide larger lightweight pontoon for period congestion and damage to boats. casual use by smaller boats and relocate away from commercial pier.

Smaller − During the summer, congestion at the pier means boats get − Provide lightweight pontoon for local small boats owned damaged. boats and free up the inner harbour by by local removing moorings. residences − Small boat moorings close to the pier make access difficult for fishing boats and ferries in northeasterly winds and would need to be removed in a future pier development.

Outline of Alternatives Considered

2.11 With respect to a marina, initial attention prior to 1999 focussed on an area to the south of the present pier, immediately south of the Fastnet International Marine Outdoor Education Centre, which is referred to in this document as the ‘Original Site’. Seawork International was commissioned in September 1999 to undertake a short investigation of this primary site, and five other secondary sites elsewhere within Schull Harbour. The investigation also makes reference to a further site, just to the North of Coosheen Point, giving a total of 7 alternative sites that were considered for a marina development. A copy of the report produced by Seawork International is included in Appendix A of this EIS. A short summary of the sites investigated is presented below.

2.12 The Seawork Intl. scoping study looked at 7 sites as indicated in Table 2.2 and Figure 2.1 below.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 8

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

2.13 The study assessed Met Eireann Offshore, deepwater wave data for the Schull area. It also examined the limited wave modelling undertaken by Irish Hydro Data in 1984. The study concentrated on the depths of water available at each site, and the wave climate in relation to a floating breakwater, which was recommended, as it would reduce capital costs, as well as reducing the scenic and environmental impact of the development. From an engineering point of view, and given the lack of knowledge of the actual storm wave climate (see Appendix A for detailed explanation), the North Schull site was recommended as the preferred site, depending on the construction of an extension to the Main Schull Pier. The proposed development in this EIS is based on development of the North Schull Site. A summary of the scoping assessment is presented in Table 2.2 below.

Table 2.2 – Scoring of Sites for location of harbour development*

Site Site Name Waves Depth Breakwater Access Dredge Costs Area Score

Period (sec) / Storm Heights (m) Min depth (m) / Max depth (m) Floating ok (Yes or No) / Max depth (m) Road Access (yes or no) / to Proximity Shll(k) Necessary (Yes or No) Relative % of cost = breakwater/ dredge costs Number of boats / Area for 2.5m +

0 Schull Harbour >5/1.4 2.0/3.0 Y/3.0 Y/0.5 N 100 88/20 18 South

1 Cosheen Golf >5/1.5 0.5/3.0 Y/3.0 Y/5 Y 150 40/05 10 Course

2 West Reenrue >5/1.5 0.2/1.8 Y/2.0 Y/2 Y 180 40/00 8

3a Bay View West >5/1.5 0.2/2.0 Y/2.0 Y/1 Y 180 50/00 11

3b Bay View East >5/1.5 1.0/3.0 Y/3.0 Y/1 N 120 60/30 17

4 Schull Harbour <5/1.5 2.0/2.8 Y/3.0 Y/0 N 070 80/60 20 North

5 Cosheen Point <5/1.0 1.5/4.0 Y/4.0 N/8 N 080 80/70 17

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 9

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 2.1 – Location of alternative sites considered as part of the 1999 Scoping Study

Details of the Development SITE LOCATION

2.14 Schull harbour is located in Roaringwater Bay, approximately 23km southwest of Skibbereen in West Cork (see Figure 1.1). The main approach road into Schull is the R592 Regional Road from Ballydehob to the East, which connects the N71 National Primary Route at Skibbereen. Further details of the road network are provided in Chapter 4 on Traffic Impacts, and Figure 4.1 included within Chapter 4.

2.15 Schull Village lies on the northwestern shore of Schull Harbour, where the land rises from sea level, to a peak of 364m elevation at Mount Gabriel, about 2.6kn north of Schull. The main street of Schull lies between about 10m and 30m elevation. The whole of Schull Harbour is designated as a Scenic Landscape under the Cork County Development Plan 2003 and there are a number of Scenic Routes located directly adjacent to the proposed development. Further details of landscape and visual designations are provided in Chapter 9 below.

EXISTING SITE

2.16 The existing pier is illustrated in the drawings accompanying the EIS (ref. Figures 2.2 and 2.3) and the planning application. The pier has a deck level of approx 5.6m OD Poolbeg, is 122m long and is approx. 14m wide at its outer end. The pier is served by steps, a floating pontoon

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 10

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

for small craft that bottoms out at low tides, an ice plant for the trawlers, electric power, water lamp standards, bollards, mooring rings, ladders and miscellaneous other deck furniture. The area around the existing slipway is generally used for storing fishing gear in an informal manner.

2.17 The existing north shore site is a roughly grassed area sloping from the road to the shoreline, with some trees and 2 tennis courts. The existing Schull town Septic Tank is located at the eastern end of the shoreline, and it discharges directly to the harbour. Cork County Council proposes to replace this tank with a wastewater treatment plant, and the procurement process is at an advanced stage. There are no other services at the shoreline in this area. There are a number a public amenity walkways crossing this area, along the shoreline and returning to the road above the site.

DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT - EXISTING PIER

2.18 The overall layout of the proposed development and in the pier area are shown on Figures 2.2 and 2.3. The development at the existing pier consists of the following principal elements:

1) Upgrade the existing pier, by raising the deck by 0.4m – 0.5m, extending the steps, removing the existing pontoon, raising the seawall to a height of 1.5m above the new deck level, and upgrading the deck furniture as appropriate. Services will retained or replaced, including power, water and lighting. The ice plant would be relocated off the existing pier. A winch will be provided for small fishing boats to land catches. The area at the head of the existing slipway would be formally demarcated for parking and storage of gear.

2) Extend the pier by 100m, to a similar width as at present, to cater for fishing trawlers using Schull Harbour. Provide appropriate deck furniture such as handrails, kerb rails, ladders, bollards, steps, lamp standards, water points, relocated ice plant, power control unit with swipe-card system, power points, etc. A retaining wall will be required where the breakwater meets the pier, to a height of 7.7m OD, and of a length so as to discourage casual access from the pier onto the armoured face by pedestrians. The pier will have concrete berthing faces on both sides. It will extend to seabed level on the southern (seaward) side, so as to prevent transmission of long-period wave energy under the pier into the harbour. On the northern face it will extend down to 0.0 mOD PB, which is about 0.3m below Lowest Astronomical Tide. The structure will be suspended on approximately 130 nr. piles driven to a set into the seabed, of diameter 450mm – 600mm.

3) Pontoons: Provide 2.4m wide small boat pontoons, total length 96m, to be accessed from existing steps or a new gangway, to cater for small fishing boats, ferries and other small craft. These pontoons will be anchored by a combination of piles and vertical rails on the pier face.

4) Breakwater Nr. 1: A rubble-core armoured breakwater will be constructed from the end of the pier extension, for a length of about 150m measured along its crest, as part of the development, to provide protection from waves approaching the harbour from the southerly quarter, i.e. the open ocean. The length of the breakwater has been determined so as to provide for a marina of at least 200 berths (225 berths are proposed) in the harbour. The breakwater will have a crest height of 7.5m OD PB, be

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 11

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

4m wide at its crest, and will have side-slopes of 1 in 1.5. The toes of the breakwater will be set into the seabed to provide anchoring for the side-slopes. The core of the breakwater will be crushed stone to a specified grading of sizes; there will be a Rock Filter layer of at least 2 courses of selected size stones on the core; and there will be an Armour layer of at least 2 courses of amour units, most likely of rock. The armour and filter layer rocks will be sized to resist the design wave conditions, as identified in the site studies. There will be a navigation light at the end of the breakwater, which will be solar-powered.

DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT - NORTH SHORE

2.19 The overall layout of the proposed development is shown on Figure 2.2. The development on the north shore consists of the following principal elements:

1) An access road from the R592, at gradient 1 in 20, with 1 in 50 at the junction with the road.

2) Foreshore reclamation 1.05 ha, with vertical concrete retaining walls containing stone fill to achieve required levels. Finished deck level approx. 6.0m OD PB, with a mix of surfacing to reflect the Landscaping Master plan. Public walkways and amenities will be provided, including a 5m wide promenade along the shore side, and existing walkways will be either retained or improved. Car parking for 130 cars will be provided as part of the development in this area. A dinghy parking area will be provided. Area and walkway / feature lighting will be designed to minimise light nuisance and to provide a high quality finished effect. Deck furniture will be to a high standard, and generally of polished metal finish, Services will include a refuelling point and a sewage removal system for boats on the adjacent marina. Steps will be provided onto the shore at the western end. Surface water drainage will be discharged to the harbour via gullies, to trap grit.

3) Utility Building, with a ground floor level of 6.9m OD, accommodating offices on 2 storeys, meeting rooms, shower and changing facilities and a multi-purpose room. The building has been designed as a contemporary focal point for the harbour, with separate areas around the core functions, linked by a common lobby / foyer area. The intention with this building is to cater for marina users, and for water sports clubs for meetings, event organising, etc. It will become the centre for the sailing festivals in Schull e.g. Calves Week in August. The Marina Manager would be based in this building. It will not contain any commercial activities such as bars, restaurants, etc. The materials will include curtain-walled glazing, stone and rendered walls, set off by selected use of metal-profiled cladding and roofing. The building is illustrated in the planning drawings accompanying the EIS. Services will be provided from mains laid from the R592 under the access road. Foul sewage will discharge to the adjacent proposed wastewater treatment plant. Appropriate waste disposal facilities, e.g. for refuse from marina users, will be provided.

4) Boat Building: complementing the Utility building, but with a floor level of 6.15m OD. It will contain separate halls for 4 nr. boats and crew gear storage, for the like of the marina workboat, sailing club boat, etc. The building is illustrated in the drawings accompanying the EIS.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 12

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

5) Slipway: A 10m wide slipway will be provided, at a grade of about 1 in 7, for small craft, at the eastern end of the reclaimed area. A wave-dissipation zone consisting of rock armour will be incorporated alongside the slipway, to minimise wave reflection across the slipway, which oriented so as to face the prevailing direction of incoming long- period waves.

6) Breakwater Nr. 2: A rubble-core armoured breakwater will be constructed from the north shore, for a length of about 212m measured along its crest, as part of the development, to complete the enclosure of the harbour. The breakwater will be of similar profile to Breakwater Nr.1 as described above. The need for this breakwater has been demonstrated by wave modelling, which identified an unacceptable degree of wave resonance within the harbour otherwise. In particular, it has been shown that a floating breakwater will not provide the degree of wave attenuation that would be required for the proposed marina in the harbour. The harbour mouth thus formed will have a clear width of 43m measured from toe-to-toe.

7) Marina: A marina to accommodate 225 yachts will be constructed, consisting of 5 nr. main pontoon walkways 2.4m wide; all accessed from a spine walkway of 3.0m wide and a gangway 18m long by 1.5m wide. The spine will be offset from the reclaimed area by 2.5m for safety and security. Services on the marina will include: potable water, single phase 220v electric power, and low-level walkway lighting. A dedicated service berth will be provided for refuelling and sewage removal. The marina will be anchored using piles driven into the seabed, approx. 52 nr. and c. 457mm diameter. The piles will extend to c. 7.2m OD elevation, to allow for extreme high tides. No part of the marina will be closer than 60m to the existing / proposed pier; or closer than 33m to the proposed small boat pontoons.

CONSTRUCTION STAGE

2.20 The works will be carried out in a number of stages. The extension of the pier must be the first phase, since no marina will be secure without protection from incoming waves; and since land reclamation without the pier extension and Breakwater Nr 1 would result in very significant wave resonance in the inner harbour, up to 2.6m standing-wave height. The second phase will involve Breakwater Nr. 1, Land Reclamation, and Breakwater Nr. 2, since both breakwaters are required to provide sheltered conditions in the inner harbour. The final phase would be construction of buildings and marina, surfacing and landscaping.

2.21 Phase 1: Pier works: This phase would involve the elements listed in 2.17 - 1) to 3) inclusive above, and would take an estimated 12 months. The small boat pontoons would be replaced as an upfront item, to allow existing moorings to be removed, and the relevant craft to be accommodated. The existing pontoon will also be removed at this point. Access to the site will be via the Main Street in Schull and the Pier Road. The Pier will be substantially out of commission for the duration of the works, and will be fenced off, at a point on the existing pier that remains to be defined. There may well be scope for flexibility on the extent of the contractor’s compound on the pier, depending on the degree of completion of the works, and the contractor’s method, all consistent with protecting members of the public from risk of accidents, and a safe method of work. The pier raising will require removal of deck furniture and relocating of ice plant, and will render the pier unusable; it is likely that the pier extension will be carried out before the upgrading of the existing pier, with the final lift of concrete to form the deck slab being done from the outer end landwards.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 13

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

2.22 Phase 2: Breakwaters and Reclamation: This phase will consist of items 2.18 - 2), 5) and 6) above. It is envisaged that the contractor will be given possession of part of the land at the north shore, by agreement with Cork County Council, for a site compound. The access road would be constructed early in this phase. Breakwater Nr. 1 will also be commenced, as soon as the pier extension reaches a stage to allow it. As the works on the pier advance, the land reclamation can commence, probably at the eastern end. Once the eastern end of the quay wall is completed, Breakwater Nr. 2 can be commenced, while the quay wall progresses westwards. In this way, the harbour will become sheltered as quickly as possible, minimising the potential exposure time to destructive waves during construction.

2.23 Phase 3: Buildings, Surfacing and Marina: The final phase will comprise items 2.18 – 3), 4) & 7) above. These elements can only be advanced once the earlier phases are substantially complete. The marina in particular would be very exposed to damage if sheltered conditions are not provided by constructing the breakwaters beforehand. The reclaimed area would act as the site compound for this phase, accessed from the R592 east of Schull i.e. the new access road.

2.24 The above sequencing and overlapping of phases is dependant on a number of factors, including, inter alia: provision of adequate funds to advance the works as a single contract; contractor’s particular method of work proposed; restrictions dictated by recommendations in this EIS relative to the Conditions of Contract and the timing of commencement; any conditions that may be laid down by the Planning Authority as part of a planning permission.

2.25 Likely methods of construction include the following, with some of the implications identified.

2.26 Pier Extension:

Formation of bund or sheet-pile cofferdam (single or double-walled) around the pier extension site, so as to work in the dry. Implications include: a certain footprint around the pier being affected during construction, larger if a rubble-mound bund is formed (although the latter option is considered less likely given the extent of material required, and the duration of temporary works and associated maintenance required); pumping of water to maintain dry conditions, with associated noise (although this will be mitigated to a large extent by the depth of the cofferdam at c. 9m below deck level); potential for noise impact during construction of the sheet-pile cofferdam (which can be mitigated by vibration-driving methods). It is likely that sheet piles as well as the main tubular steel structural piles will be imported by sea to the site, as they will have to be driven from floating plant i.e. a barge or jack-up pontoon. The sheet piles would be withdrawn after completion of the pier extension, up to a comfortable level above high tide relative to the contractor’s method.

Construction using cast-insitu concrete. Implications include the need for large numbers of HGVs to draw in the concrete required from ready-mix suppliers. The alternative would be a concrete batching plant established purposely for the project, on a site that would be sourced by the Contractor and resulting in a shorter distances to draw the concrete.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 14

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

2.27 Land Reclamation:

Formation of bund or sheet-pile cofferdam around the reclamation / quay wall site, so as to work in the dry. Implications include: a certain footprint outside the quay wall being affected during construction. In this case, it is envisaged that a rubble / stone bund may well be the more appropriate method, particularly if the bund is moved along in stages as the wall is built. This would limit the amount of material required for the bund, and would allow the eastern section to be built first, which in turn would allow Breakwater Nr. 2 to be started as soon into the programme as possible. It is likely that a temporary working platform of stone (or possible a low-level roadway along the foreshore) will be formed on the foreshore at an early stage, to allow plant and equipment to access the site. This platform would require periodic maintenance by the contractor, especially after adverse weather. The stone will be imported to the site from quarries in the area.

2.28 Breakwaters

Importation and placing of material: There are 2 options for importing the material for the breakwaters – by road or by sea. The former is the worst-case scenario for traffic generation, and so is considered in the relevant section of this EIS. But this method would imply a need to reverse trucks out along the breakwater to dump material, which could be undesirable for a contractor. Therefore, sea transport is viable in this case. A self-propelled split-bottom barge would be ideal for transporting the large quantities of material required; a separate pontoon with a crane / excavator would then form the core and place the filter layer and armour units.

Operation

2.29 It is envisaged that the pier will be managed by Cork County Council, aided by relevant Bye- laws. The Marina and Utility Buildings will be managed by a licensed operator, who will enter into a contract to provide services to Schull Harbour Community Development Association.

Environmental Performance

2.30 The proposed harbour development shall aim to achieve An Taisce's ‘Blue Flag Status’ for Marinas. A Blue Flag marina must be a marina with pontoons or piers for pleasure boats. It can be part of a larger harbour with other activities, if the Blue Flag marina is clearly separated from harbour activities. The marina can be located in marine or inland waters. The marina must have the necessary facilities to comply with the Blue Flag criteria. A responsible person in the marina must be appointed to deal with the relations to the Blue Flag Campaign. The marina must be accessible for unannounced inspection by the Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE).

2.31 A summary of the requirements for achieving Blue Flag Status are listed below. A copy of An Taisce's Guidance Notes are included in Appendix A7.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 15

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Environmental Education & Information:

1) Provision of information about natural sensitive nearby land and marine areas to marina users;

2) Posting of Code of environmental conduct at Marina;

3) Information about the Blue Flag Marina Campaign & criteria are posted in the marina;

4) The marina should be able to demonstrate that at least 3 environmental education activities are offered to the users and staff of the marina;

5) The individual Blue Flag for boat owners is offered through the marina.

Environmental Management:

6) Production of an environmental policy and plan at the marina;

7) Provision of adequate & properly identified and segregated containers for the storage of hazardous wastes & disposal and handling of same by licensed contractor/facility;

8) Provision of adequate and well managed litterbins and/or garbage containers. The wastes should be handled by a licensed contractor and disposed of at a licensed facility

9) Provision of recycling facilities;

10) Provision of Bilge water pumping facilities;

11) Provision of toilet pumping facilities;

12) Compliance of buildings and equipment with national legislation and integration with surrounding environment;

13) Adequate, clean and well sign-posted sanitary facilities; Controlled sewage disposal to a licensed sewage treatment;

14) If the marina has boat repairing and washing areas, no pollution must enter the sewage system, marina land and water or the natural surroundings;

15) Promotion of sustainable transportation;

16) No parking/driving in the marina, unless in specific designated areas;

Safety & Services

17) Adequate and well signposted lifesaving, first-aid equipment and fire-fighting equipment. Equipment must be approved by national authorities;

18) Emergency plan in case of pollution, fire or other accidents must be produced for the marina, and safety precautions must be posted at the marina;

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 16

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

19) Electricity and water is available at the berths, installations must be approved according to national legislation;

20) Facilities for disabled people;

21) Map indicating the location of the different facilities is posted at the marina;

Water Quality

22) Visually clean water and marina (no oil, litter, sewage or other evidence of pollution)

Consultation Process INTRODUCTION

2.32 The EPA of Guidelines on the Information to be contained in EIS (EPA, 2002) state that ‘Consultation forms a key element of any EIA process’. For EIA purposes most consultation takes place with the competent authority, specialist agencies and those parties that are most likely to be directly affected. Public consultation is used principally where the affected population is likely to be very large and/or difficult to identify. To be of value such consultation must have a sufficient time allocation and be expertly structured to ensure clarity and consistency. This can allow changes to be made during the design stage of the development, taking on-board comments and ideas from the consultation process. A comprehensive consultation phase was conducted as part of the EIS for the Schull Harbour Development. This section of the EIS reports on the various stages and findings of the consultation process.

STATUTORY AND RELEVANT BODIES CONSULTATIONS

2.33 Consultation meetings were held with the principal statutory consultees such as Cork County Council, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (DCMNR) at the pre-planning stages of the project. This consultation with statutory bodies continued throughout the EIA and particularly when potential issues were arising during the impact assessment phase. Key meetings which were held with statutory bodies during both the pre-planning stage and during EIS compilation as follows:

10th May 2005: Meeting with Cork County Council (Roads, Coastal & Islands Western Division) and DCMNR (Regional Engineer);

19th May 2005: Meeting with Cork County Council (Heritage Officer), National Parks and Wildlife (District Conservation Officer, West Cork Conservation Ranger);

26th May 2005 & 16th June 2005: Meeting with Cork County Council (Planning Section; Local Area Engineer; County Architect; Roads, Coastal & Islands Western Division; Assistant County Manager). DCMNR representative unable to attend;

10th June 2005: Meeting with National Parks and Wildlife Service (Regional Marine Ecologist & District Conservation Officer) and Cork County Council (Assistant County Manager, Director of Service, Senior Engineer, County Architect, Planner, Heritage Officer, Executive Engineer).

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 17

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

22nd July 2005: Meeting with Cork County Council (Assistant County Manager; Roads, Coastal & Islands Western Division; Planner). DCMNR representative unable to attend;

28th October 2005: Meeting with Cork County Council (Roads, Coastal & Islands Western Division);

28th March 2006: Meeting with Cork County Council (Roads, Coastal & Islands Western Division).

6th April 2006: Submission of Draft EIS for Review

2.34 In addition to the above meetings, consultation letters and a draft layout of the proposed development was sent out to all relevant statutory and non-statutory consultees expected to have an interest in the proposed harbour development. Key consultees and a summary of their responses are provided in Table 2.3 below. A copy of their response is included within Appendix A2. In addition, consultation letters were sent to 15 local fishermen in Schull, and other interested individuals, not listed below.

Table 2.3 - Statutory Consultation

Organisation Response

Frank Mooney, Department Reply received on 3rd February 2006 with map of aquaculture-licensed beds of Communications, Marine in Roaringwater Bay. and Natural Resources, [email protected]

Emer Corcoran, Central Site Received map & response from Fergus Grimes on 11/01/06. ESB Networks, Osprey House, Lower Grand Canal Street, Dublin 2.

Mr. Tom Cooney, Irish Response received on 18th January 2005. They have no comments to make. Aviation Authority, Aviation House, Hawkins Street, Dublin 3.

Mr Ian Lumley, Heritage Reply received from Siobhan McManus on 3rd February 2006. Concerns with Officer, An Taisce, Tailors respect to effluent discharges, retention of public walkway, and impacts on Hall, Back Lane, Dublin 8. SAC.

Mr. Seamus Doyle, Chief No reply. Engineer, Commissioners of Irish lights, 16 Lower Pembroke Street, Dublin 2.

Mairead O’Boyle, Acknowledgement of receipt of letter received on 17th January 2006, Ref No. Development Application G2006/24. No further comments received. Unit, Dept. of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dun Sceine, Harcourt Lane, Dublin 2.

Ms Olivia Crowe, No reply. Conservation Officer, Bird Watch Ireland, Rockingham House, Newcastle, Co. Wicklow.

Ms Louise Harrington, No reply received.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 18

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Organisation Response Conservation Officer, Cork County Council, Planning Dept., Model Business Park, Model Farm Rd, Bishopstown, Cork.

Ms Catherine Power, Letter received on 14th February 2006. She said an archaeological Archaeologist, Cork County assessment including intertidal/underwater survey will be required as part of Council, Planning Dept., EIS. Model Business Park, Model Farm Rd, Bishopstown, Cork.

Ms. Sharon Casey, Heritage Reply received 24th January. Issued concern about species within the SAC. Officer, Cork County Council, We must look at impacts on sediment & water movements, management of Planning Dept., Model facilities, impacts of increased usage of bay. Must look at cumulative impact Business Park, Model Farm of other developments in West Cork. Rd, Bishopstown, Cork.

Mr. Michael McCarthy, Telecon received from Tom Conlon on the 13th February 2006 and letter Environment Section, Dept. received on 15th February 2006. They have no comment on the proposed of Agriculture and Food, development. Johnstown Castle Estate, Co. Wexford.

Declan O’Donnell, Local Pre-consultation Letter received in May 2005 requested impact assessment Conservation Ranger, as part of development to encompass an assessment of impacts on National Parks and Wildlife biological communities, changes in hydrodynamics and management of Service, Corragurtween, fuesl, bilge water, antifoulants during operation. Ballydehob, Schull, Co. Cork.

Eugene Curran, Forest Telecon received on 30th January 2006. The Forest Service has no Service, 2 Townsend Street, objections if no trees are to be removed. A license would be required for any Skibbereen, Co. Cork tree felling.

IFA West Cork, Ballynakilla, No reply. Bere Island, Co. Cork.

John Nolan, Irish South & No reply. West Fishermen’s Organisation, The Pier, Castletownbere, Co. Cork.

Marine Institute, 80 Harcourt No reply received. Street, Dublin 2.

South-West Cork No reply. Fishermen’s Co-Op, Kilmoon, Sherkin Island, Skibbereen, Co. Cork.

Mr. Bob Cooke, Area Officer, No reply. Bord Iascaigh Mhara, P.O. Box 12, Crofton Rd, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin.

The EPA, Johnstown Castle No reply. Estate, Co. Wexford.

Mr. Dave Doyle, Irish Surfing No reply. Association, Environment Officer, 10 Print House, Market Yard, Sligo.

Ms Sarah Fields, Irish No reply. Wildlife Trust, Sigmund Business Centre, 93A Lagan

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 19

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Organisation Response Road, Dublin Industrial Estate, Glasnevin, Dublin 11.

Micheal McPartland, South Response received on 7th February 2006. EIS must address impacts on West Fisheries Board, 1 fishermen during construction and operation, wastewater treatment. Detailed Nevilles Terrace, ecological study on aquatic species should be undertaken. Masseytown, Macroom, Co. Cork.

Dr David Lyons, Regional Involved in pre-consultation meetings outlining EIS requirements. Marine Ecologist, Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government, Government Buildings, Sullivans Quay,

Cork, Co. Cork

Mr Donal Guilfoyle, Regional No reply. Development Manager, Failte Ireland, Baggot Street Bridge, Dublin 2.

Liam Nolan, Human No reply. Resources Section, Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, 23-28 Kildare Street, Dublin 2.

Seamus Jackson, Corporate Telecon received from Gabriel Martin on 20th January & letter of 23rd January Development Section, 2006. He said they have no comments on the proposed development. Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Dún Aimhirgin, 43-49 Mespil Road, Dublin 4.

Alison Harvey, Planning and No reply. Development Officer, The Heritage Council, Rothe House, Kilkenny.

Padraig Whooley, Irish Telecon & email received on 18th January 2006. Agreed to undertake Whale & Dolphin Group, cetacean assessment as part of this EIS. Gortagrenane, Castlefreke, Clonakilty, Co. Cork.

Michael Manning, Tourism Telecon received on 19th January 2006 saying he is having a meeting with Officer (West Cork), Cork Cork County Council next week on a Marine Leisure Steering Committee and Kerry Tourism, Town Hall, will contact me following this. Response received on 6th February 2006. Skibbereen, Co. Cork. Considers the development important for the local area. 2004 Annual Report for SW Regional Tourism Authority included with letter.

Patricia Power, Environment Reply received from Jacinta Reynolds on 3rd February 2006. She said it Section, Cork County important for EIS to consider bathing amenities (even if not designated), Council, Floor 3, County Hall, management to prevent contamination of water, and impact of discharge of Cork. treated effluent on receiving waters.

Dervla Murphy, Schull Michael Murphy was at last progress meeting and agreed to provide Harbour Sailing Club, information on users of the area. Response received from Michael Murphy Vermont, Grange, Douglas, on the 16th February 2006. This included register of craft owned by club Cork. presently. Issued concern about loss of existing moorings, possible smell from WWTP, security within the marina, provision of fuel, storage area for trailers, pump out system for holding tanks, and the number of berths available for visitors.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 20

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Organisation Response

Frankie Griffin, Schull Attended Progress Meeting on 30th January 2006. Email received on 14th Fishermens Organisation, February providing information on trawlers in the area. Ardmanagh, Schull, Co. Cork

Timothy O’Connor, The Reply received on the 25th January 2006. They support the development, Principal, Schull Community once a clearway extending north and south of the college slipway is College, Colla Road, Schull, maintained as per drawing. Co. Cork.

Tim O'Connor, Fastnet As per above. Marine Outdoor Education Centre, C/O Schull Community College, Colla Road, Schull, Co. Cork

Deirdre Hegarty, Schull Yawl No reply Rowing Club, Laherathanavalley, Roaring Water Bay, Skibbereen, Co. Cork.

Denis Quinlan, Schull No reply Community Inshore Rescue Service, Main Street, Schull, Co. Cork.

Fisheries Officer, Central Reply received from Norman Dunlop on 27th January 2006. They consider Fisheries Board, Sword the development beneficial. They said that the current lack of an all tide Business Park, Balheary slipway, reliable moorings, and safe trailer storage facility has been a major Road, Swords, Co. Dublin. drawback. They wish for the marina to be available to visiting boat anglers.

Harbour Master, Union Hall, No reply. Skibbereen, Co. Cork.

Adam Cronin, Department of Pre-consultation meetings undertaken prior to EIS. Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Oak House, Mahon, Cork.

Ms Laura Casey, Department Response received on 20th January. Letter to be passed to Coastal Zone of Communications, Marine Administration Division. and Natural Resources, Leeson Lane, Dublin 2.

John O’Keeffe, Engineering Telecon received on 16th February, issuing concerns at development of Division (Southern Region), foreshore for car parking facilities. Indicated that further consultations with Department of the DCMNR are essential. Communication, Marine and Natural Resources, Oak House, Mahon, Co. Cork.

Jim Casey, Regional No reply. Engineer, Dept. of Communication, Marine and Natural Resources, 29-31 Adelaide Road, Dublin 2.

Donal Molloy, Ferry Operator No reply.

Skeagh, Schull, Co. Cork.

Eithne Lynch, Select Vestry No reply. Church of Ireland, The

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 21

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Organisation Response Rectory, Altar, Goleen, Co. Cork.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

2.35 The public consultation phase began early in the EIA process. Consultation letters were sent to any parties likely to have an interest in the proposed development at the start of the EIS process (some of which are listed in Table 2.3 above) and local clubs were encouraged to inform their members and local community about the proposals.

2.36 The Schull Community Harbour Development Company, leading the proposed development held a number of meetings with the Design Team and Consultants undertaking the Environmental Impact Assessment (approximately 6 progress meetings during the EIS process) identifying key issues and ensuring that development proposals were in accordance with the wishes of key community groups. The Schull Community Harbour Development Company represents key existing community groups within the local Schull area, such as Schull Fisherman’s Organisation and Schull Harbour Sailing Club.

2.37 In February 2005, the Schull Community Harbour Development Company held a meeting inviting members to comment on the proposed development; Schull Community College responded positively to the consultation letter received, and provided comments and recommendations for the proposed development. Cork Kerry Tourism also discussed the proposed development during a steering group meeting of the Marine Leisure in West Cork Committee, and provided positive input. The Schull Harbour Sailing Club also presented information about the proposed development during a club meeting in February 2006.

2.38 A Public Information meeting was held in Fastnet Marine Outdoor Education Centre, Schull, on the 20th April from 4pm until 8pm (see Appendix A3 for newspaper notice and copy of notices erected within Schull village during the week prior to the meeting). A project information leaflet was provided for attendees and copies were also distributed within shops, restaurants, and other public places within Schull village following the public consultation meeting (see Appendix A6 for copy). This public information meeting was advertised in the Southern Star newspaper and also via notices placed at selected locations within Schull village (see Appendix A3 for copy of newspaper notice). The advertisement appeared in the local press 5 days prior to the meeting. During this public information meeting, people were able to view the design options and discuss the project with the design team. A questionnaire was used to offer people the chance to put their views in writing. The questionnaire, which was used, is presented in Appendix A4.

2.39 Members of the design team, environmental team and Schull Harbour Users Group were present at the Public Consultation to discuss the project and answer questions. A total of 73 people attended the Public Consultation meeting, and 34 questionnaires were completed. A summary of the questionnaire response is included in Appendix A5. The responses to the questionnaire highlighted the general public consensus that current facilities at Schull Harbour are inadequate and the public are overwhelmingly in favour of the proposed harbour development. 79% of responses were very positive towards the project, while less than 6%

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 22

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

were not in favour of the development. Key concerns related to health and safety issues, the impact on the local transportation network out side the site during construction, the width of the access road within the site to accommodate boats on trailers and provision of adequate storage and berthage for commercial users and inshore fishermen. Concerns were also issued about pollution within Schull Harbour at present.

2.40 The design team has taken on board the views presented over the day and from responses received during the EIA process, where possible, and the design option refined accordingly before submission of the planning application and Environmental Impact Statement to Cork County Council.

CONCLUSIONS

2.41 The various submissions and comments made in relation to the proposed harbour development at Schull have been fully considered by the consultants in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement. Every effort has been made to address all of the concerns raised, and where possible, mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce the environmental impact of the development.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 23

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 2.3 - Proposed Pier Layout and Extension

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 25

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

3. Planning Context and Human Beings

Introduction

3.1 This section describes the existing human environment within the immediate locality of the proposed Schull Harbour development and assesses the possible impacts of the proposed development on the existence, activities and well being of groups of people in Schull.

Methodology

3.2 The existing human environment and the potential impacts on human beings and the human environment as a result of the proposed development are described in this chapter under the following headings:

• Population, Employment and Economic Activity,

• Land Use;

• Tourism and Recreation; and

• Health & Safety.

3.3 Information contained in this report was complied based on a desktop study of relevant plans, policies and strategy documents as well as data sourced from the Central Statistics Office (CSO). The desktop study was supplemented with a site-visit.

3.4 Mitigation measures are proposed where appropriate in order to address any likely impacts associated with the proposed development of Schull Harbour.

Receiving Environment

3.5 Schull is an attractive coastal village overlooking a sheltered harbour and is situated some 20 km west of Skibbereen. As outlined in the Cork County Development Plan 2003 (CDP), Schull functions as a key support settlement due to its strategic position on the Mizen Peninsula and its attraction as a holiday base. The overall strategy set out in the CDP for Schull is to consolidate the village within its scenic coastal setting with continued promotion of its coastal tourism functions while protecting its established role as a fishing port and marine food employment centre.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 26

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

3.6 Western County Cork (referred to as West Cork) is predominantly rural/ agricultural in nature with a dispersed, low-density population. The North-West Cork Strategic Plan 2002-2020 (NWCSP), which incorporates the Mizen peninsula and Schull, sets out a strategy for the north-west region of County Cork up to the year 2020. It estimates that the North-West Cork area comprises over two thirds of the total area of the county, but contains only 35% of its population with almost half of this population inhabiting the narrow coastal belt. The average population density in County Cork is 39 persons per square kilometre whereas the estimated population density in the Schull area is, on average, 23 persons per square kilometre.

3.7 Population figures sourced from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) indicate that at the time of the last census in 2002, Schull had a population of 1,068 people forming 364 households (average household comprising 2.93 persons). With reference to the table below, it can be seen that the 2002 population figure represented a very slight decrease on the 1996 figure of 1,072 persons (-0.37%).

Table 3.1 - CSO Population Figures (2002)

Settlement Persons Persons Males Females Males Females Actual Area 1996 2002 1996 1996 2002 2002 change population 1996-2002

Schull Rural 1072 1068 517 555 526 542 -4 District

3.8 There are a number of development programmes operating within the West Cork Area such as the West Cork Leader Programme, which aim to further develop an environment and culture conducive to and supportive of local enterprise. Schull is also included in the Clár Programme, which was launched by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development in 2001 and is designed to tackle the problem of depopulation, decline and lack of service provision by prioritising National Development Plan (NDP) spending in rural areas. It is likely that as a result of these initiatives, the population of Schull will have increased since 2002 and it is envisaged that this will be demonstrated by the results of the 2006 census.

3.9 The picture presented by the NWCSP, which provides population and household projections for the North-West Cork area to the year 2020, is a positive one. This plan forecasts a 21% increase in population within the Schull Rural District by 2020 (See Table 3.2 below).

3.10 Despite the essentially static nature of the population in the area between 1996 and 2002, Schull is a vibrant village and is the commercial and shopping centre for the Mizen Peninsula. The Main Street is home to the local Post Office as well as branches of Allied Irish Bank (AIB), Bank of Ireland and TSB and a variety of other small service sector businesses. There is also a Garda Station located on the eastern approach to the village and a library on the Main Street opposite the AIB.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 27

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Table 3.2 - Projected Future Population and Household (H/H) Formation Trends

Area Total H/Hs 2021-MIFI Additional Estimated 2021 (Low) Estimated Estimated 2001 (High) H/Hs % inc. in Total Increase in % Increase Estimated housing Estimated Population in H/Hs stock Population Population Required

Bantry Rural District 2489 3819 1330 53% 10311 1849 22%

Schull Rural District 1384 1768 384 28% 4773 829 21%

Skibbereen Rural and 4100 5507 1407 34% 14868 2390 19% Urban Districts

3.11 Table 3.3 below provides CSO employment figures for the Schull Electoral Area in 2002. From this it can be seen that a total of 367 people were employed within the area in 2002.

Table 3.3 - CSO Employment Figures for Persons Aged 15 years & Over Classified by Principal Economic Status within Schull Area (2002) nemployed having

Area Total revious job armer/Agriculture ost or given up At Work Lookingregular for first job U l p Student Not in labour force F Schull Rural District 742 367 3 22 220 350 61

3.12 West Cork generally has been an important destination and service centre for tourism for many years. The industry is a significant source of employment and attracts substantial spending power from outside the county. In line with this, employment in the Schull area is comprised primarily of small-scale businesses that benefit either directly or indirectly from the custom of visitors to the area including tourist related enterprises such as craft shops, coffee shops, restaurants and the water sports centre. Employment is also generated from the provision of a variety of tourist accommodation including holiday homes, B&B’s and guesthouses to cater for the influx of tourists to the area each year.

3.13 One of Schull’s key functions is that of a fishing port and marine food employment centre. Data from the CSO Fisheries Statistics published in 2003 showed that in 2002 there were 1,234 tonnes of live weight sea landings at Schull pier valued at €226,900 thus demonstrating the importance of Schull Harbour’s busy fishing fleet and fish processing plant to the local economy.

3.14 Educational facilities in Schull include the local Community School, which is a post-primary school with approximately 400 pupils. This school provides sailing as part of the curriculum and has its own slipway to the harbour. Scoil Mhuire National School is the primary school and has approximately 160 pupils.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 28

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

LAND USE

3.15 The CDP sets out the general zoning approach and specific zoning objectives for Schull.

3.16 In the CDP, there are nine sites zoned for residential development in the Schull area. The principal concern regarding residential development in Schull is to ensure a balance between permanent residents and holiday visitors avoiding an excess of often-vacant holiday homes. The objectives set out in Chapter 4 of the CDP indicate that the lands provided for new residential development in Schull should not generally be used for the provision of tourist accommodation except on a small scale with a suitable layout and configuration that does not interfere with residential amenity.

3.17 There are two sites currently set aside for industrial use in Schull in the CDP. One site to the north-west of the town (I-01) is suitable for light industrial uses, while the other site located adjacent to the pier (I-02) is ideal for port related uses. The Council considers that the reservation of the identified lands adjacent to the pier for port related industry is vital to the continued well-being of the village, because of its potential importance to marine employment and the character of the village.

3.18 The CDP sets out an area (T-01) for town centre expansion to the north of the Main Street, which is the primary location for retail and commercial activities. In addition, three locations are reserved around the village for commercial development.

3.19 Relatively large areas of either established or proposed open space, that form part of the structure of the village, are included in the overall zoning approach for Schull. Six specific open space, sports, recreation and amenity objectives are set out in the CDP. Specific Objective O-06 refers to the area of land adjacent to the harbour, which provides informal recreation and sport facility including the public park with park benches, playground, public tennis courts and the amenity walkway that extends along the foreshore of the harbour from the Coastguard Apartment Complex. This specific objective aims to “protect general openness, views of sea from road, and retain and provide trees and shrubs and general parkland quality”.

TOURISM AND RECREATION

3.20 Tourism is of major national and regional importance in terms of economic activity and enterprise in Ireland. According to the National Tourism Review Policy of Ireland (2004), tourism made a direct contribution of 4.4% to the GNP in 2002 and this is forecast to increase further. As shown in Table 3.4 below, the South-West Region of Ireland is the best performing region in terms of tourism after Dublin City. A survey on domestic tourism carried out by Failte Ireland showed that the South-West was the most popular region for domestic holidaymakers with the destination accounting for over one quarter of all domestic holidays in 2004.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 29

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Table 3.4 - Regional Distribution of Tourism Revenue

Region 1990 Euro M 2002 Euro M Real Growth As a % of 1990 As a % of 2002 1990-2002 Revenue Revenue

Dublin 356 1,257 15% 22 30

South-West 290 793 94% 18 19

3.21 According to a Customer Response Card survey conducted in 2002, the top three reasons stated by tourists for visiting West Cork were natural beauty (26%), coastline (19%) and character of the locality (11%). It is therefore no surprise that Schull is a popular holiday base with its coastal walkway, local beaches and beautiful views of the coastline towards Mizen Head. Schull also offers visitors the opportunity to take part in coastal activities such as water sports, fishing and diving, and boat trips to the islands and seal watching are also popular tourist pursuits. In addition, Schull has a 9-hole golf course to offer, and pony trekking, and prides itself on having the only Planetarium in Ireland, which holds a number of star shows throughout the summer.

3.22 Schull Harbour’s active sailing club organises weekend races for both cruisers and dinghies throughout the summer. Visiting yachtsmen are invited to take part in all events, including the Schull Harbour Regatta, which is now the high spot of a week of active racing in and beyond the harbour. This week of racing is known as Calves Week and has become a major event in the Irish racing calendar, attracting many boats and crews who participate in the week's racing. The Fastnet International School's Regatta, an annual event held in July for young sailors from all over Europe and the world has become a concrete addition to the excellent reputation Schull has achieved within the international sailing community.

3.23 The area around Schull is a paradise for the angler offering river, beach and deep-sea fishing. Boats operate out of Schull and Crookhaven and the general deep-sea angling is excellent, with good catches of Blue Shark, Pollack, Cod, Ling, Bull Huss etc. Shore fishing offers a selection of venues such as beaches, piers and rocky headlands. Ray and Bull Huss are two of the species taken here, especially in August and September.

3.24 There is also a thriving local diving club at the Schull Watersports Centre, which welcomes visiting divers. Canoeing and sailing tuition are also provided.

HEALTH AND SAFETY

3.25 At present it is considered that the harbour is insufficiently lit, the only lighting to the harbour being that emitted by a few streetlights in the area. Safety issues also exist with regard to the absence of restrictions with regard to pedestrian access. The pier area does not have barriers or safety railings and no safety notices are in place to warn users of the area to be mindful of the pier edge. Also, it is possible at present to drive vehicles to the edge of the pier, which has obvious safety implications.

Do-Nothing Impact

3.26 The town of Schull has traditionally functioned as a market/service centre and as a tourist centre. As a result of existing development initiatives to promote the West Cork area including

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 30

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Schull, it is estimated that there will be a 21% increase in population within the Schull Rural District by 2021.

Impacts

3.27 The potential impacts of the proposed harbour development are considered in this section. The impact assessment is qualitative i.e. the assessment is focused upon whether the impacts on human beings and the human environment would be positive or negative and the time scale over which the impacts are likely to occur.

POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

3.28 The development of the harbour and its surrounding area is likely to have a significant positive impact in terms of enhancing and facilitating the economic and socio-economic development of Schull. These impacts may in turn result in increased population levels in the local area in the longer term.

3.29 The proposed development would provide increased mooring for ferryboats and would provide more berthing space in deeper water encouraging larger fishing trawlers to use Schull, thus creating the potential for increased commercial activity. An increase in commercial activity has the potential to result in a significant positive effect on the economy of the local area.

3.30 The proposed development would enhance the tourist potential of the area, which would in turn have a positive impact on the local area economy. At present, it is not possible to berth small recreational boats in the harbour. The proposed development would provide a 225- berth marina and would take full advantage of the potential to generate income from berth fees. There would also be a knock-on positive economic impact on local businesses in Schull.

3.31 The impact in terms of direct full time employment after the proposed development is complete is forecast to be positive both directly and indirectly. With respect to indirect employment the proposed development could for example have the impact of enticing suitable industry to locate in the site zoned for industrial development adjacent to the pier (I- 02), thus creating further employment. Employment opportunities would also result from the construction stage of the proposed development.

3.32 The harbour development has the potential to cause an increase in the population of the area during the construction phase of this project, as there would be an influx of construction workers to the area during the development. However, the construction phase may also have a negative impact on the population of the area, due to the associated noise and dust from the site that may deter people from moving to the area during that time.

3.33 Some commercial activities related to the harbour may be negatively impacted during the construction phase of the proposed development. However, the increase in employment associated with the construction works would generate greater demand particularly in the food and beverage sector and this would offset any negative impact.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 31

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

3.34 Small boat fisherman and others will lose approximately 100 existing moorings as part of the development. However, it is proposed that the small boat pontoons at the pier would be installed in the first phase of the works, prior to moorings being removed, thus providing an alternative facility of better quality, early in the construction period. Larger trawlers, however, would be required to berth at alternative ports e.g. Union Hall during the construction phase, which may result in a temporary negative impact on the economy of Schull.

LAND USE

3.35 The proposed development is likely to have a positive impact on the take up of lands zoned for commercial development in the CDP as well as the area zoned for town centre expansion due to the forecast increase in economic activity and general vibrancy in the town as a result of the proposed development. This may also have the impact of bringing forward the construction of the proposed northern relief road (Specific Objective U-02), which would greatly improve traffic conditions on the Main Street by removing through-traffic and therefore create a better human environment in Schull.

3.36 It is considered that the pier extension aspect of the proposed development would enhance the potential of the lands adjacent to the pier that are zoned for port related industry in the CDP (Specific Objective I-02). This reservation is considered by the Council to be vital to the continued well-being of the town, because of its potential importance to marine employment and the character of the town. In this way, the pier extension would have a positive impact on land use in Schull, which would in turn have a positive impact on the human environment in terms of economic activity, enterprise and potentially also population growth.

3.37 One potential negative impact associated with the recreational aspect of the proposed development may take the form of increased pressure for the provision of holiday homes in residentially zoned lands. This may arise on account of the forecast spin-off economic activity and vibrancy in the town. This could be considered a negative impact in terms of land use as the CDP indicates that the lands provided for new residential development in Schull should not generally be used for the provision of tourist accommodation except on a small scale with a suitable layout and configuration that does not interfere with residential amenity. The Council’s principal concern in this regard is the potential for serious loss of vitality in the town during the winter months when holiday homes are left vacant.

3.38 The public walkway located in the area of open space adjacent to the harbour would be retained and incorporated into the landscape design for the proposed development. Therefore, this public amenity would be enhanced as a result of the development.

TOURISM AND RECREATION

3.39 The proposed development would cater for a much higher number and variety of boats thus potentially increasing the number of visitors that arrive by boat to the Schull area. As a consequence, it is expected that the tourist industry in the Schull area would grow upon completion of the proposed development.

3.40 The construction of the harbour is expected to take up to 2.5 years to complete. This has the potential to interfere with sailing festivals that normally take place in Schull during the summer months as public access to the harbour would be restricted due to obvious health and safety

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 32

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

reasons. These events may be in jeopardy of being relocated or cancelled during the construction phase with a knock on negative impact on tourism and recreation. The developer would actively work with the organisers of these events to achieve minimal disruption. There is precedent for reduced-scale festivals being held in Schull during previous works on the pier, which would maintain continuity of the events during the construction phase. Following the completion of the development it is expected the proposed development would attract increasing numbers of tourists to Schull.

3.41 The construction phase of the development also has the potential to deter tourists from visiting the area due to the fact that there would be limited access to the harbour and there would be an increase in noise and dust particularly during the piling operation for the extension to the pier. A strategy that aims to optimise arrangements for both the developer and the public should be developed so as to allow some public access to the harbour area during construction.

HEALTH & SAFETY

3.42 On completion of the proposed development, it is expected that there would be an increase in marine traffic in Schull Harbour. This increase in traffic has the potential to increase the risk of water in the harbour becoming polluted by the leakage of fuels or lubricants. However, a positive impact of the proposed development in terms of health and safety would result in the segregation of leisure and commercial boats, therefore reducing the risk of collisions within the harbour.

3.43 Health and safety would also be improved by the provision of navigation beacons at the end of the breakwaters in order to provide both visual aid and warning to those using the harbour. Another positive impact of the proposed development in terms of health and safety would be the provision of pedestrian railings and lighting along the pedestrian areas of the development.

3.44 The existing pier will be raised by approx. 0.4m to 0.5m as part of the development, and this raised deck level will be provided in the pier extension. The existing parapet wall protects the area that ferry passengers and small boat owners will use on the upgraded pier, and the wall will also be raised, to a height of 1.5m above the new deck level. These measures will improve the safety of pedestrians on the pier significantly at times of high tides and adverse weather from the southern quarter. The parapet wall will not be extended along the rest of the pier, in the area catering for the fishing trawlers, to maximise the flexibility of the pier for these users.

3.45 The proposed development will lead to a high degree of separation of uses within Schull Harbour, which will significantly improve safety for all classes of user, including large and small craft fishermen, ferry passengers, water sports club members, yachtsmen and other leisure craft users. The dangerous practices that people are forced to adopt at present will be eliminated, including: access by the public to the pier over berthed trawlers (due to ‘rafting-up’ of boats); transferring from moorings to the pier by punt; excessive congestion at the existing pontoon by leisure craft; poor facilities for wheelchairs or ambulant disabled.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 33

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

3.46 The development will improve safety of pedestrians and road users, since the a significant amount of traffic will be removed from the narrow Pier Road and Main Street, and instead will access the water via the new slipway at the north shore site.

3.47 It is envisaged that construction associated with the proposed development would take up to 2.5 years with a proposed opening year in 2011. The construction phase would be undertaken in three phases as detailed in Chapter 2. During construction, access to the harbour would be restricted for obvious safety reasons and this would have a negative impact on the amenity of the area.

3.48 The works would be subject to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989 and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations, 2001. The Project Supervisor Design Stage would be D.J. Fitzgibbon & Company. The Project Supervisor Construction Stage would be responsible for the control and co-ordination of health and safety during the works.

Mitigation Measures

3.49 No significant negative impacts are anticipated in terms of population, employment and economic activity during the operational stage of the proposed development. Also, the impacts forecast with regard to land use and tourism in the operational stage are generally positive. One negative impact that may result from the increased tourism potential created by the proposed development, a positive impact in itself, is the potential pressure to allow holiday home developments in the lands zoned residential in the CDP. This would be a consideration for Cork County Council when assessing future planning applications in the area.

3.50 It is recommended that a business plan be prepared in support of the proposed development.

3.51 It is recommended in the interests of safety that a speed limit be introduced for vessels within the harbour when the proposed development is in operation in order to reduce the risk of accidents.

3.52 During the construction stage of the development, all works should be in compliance with the relevant health and safety regulations.

3.53 It is recommended that a Construction Management Plan be drawn up and implemented during the Construction Stage of the proposed development.

3.54 Good environmental management practice should be put in place during the construction phase in order to minimise impacts from noise and dust. Contractors should comply with the provision of BS5228 (1997) Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites, which provides detailed guidance on the control of noise & vibration from demolition and construction activities. This is discussed further in Chapter 12 of this report.

3.55 A Construction Traffic Plan should be put in place to best manage the movements of construction related traffic thus minimising the associated negative impacts on the human environment during this stage of the development.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 34

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Residual Impacts

3.56 All walkways will be retained or replaced so that there will be a positive residual impact on public amenity.

3.57 Views of the rugged foreshore would be permanently loss as a result of the development, with a resulting negative impact on the visual amenity of the harbour. This is covered in greater detail in Chapter 9.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 35

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

4. Traffic

Introduction

4.1 This Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) has been prepared by Atkins on behalf of DJ Fitzgibbon and Company Consulting Engineers for a proposed harbour development at Schull, Co. Cork. It forms part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that is required for submission to Cork County Council as part of the planning application for the proposed development. This assessment estimates the traffic generating potential of the proposed development during both the construction and operational phases, assesses the proposed access arrangements and traffic impacts on the surrounding road network and identifies any mitigating measures required.

4.2 The proposed development includes the following:

• Extension of existing pier;

• Reclamation of land and development of yacht marina including access road, car park, slipway and utility buildings; and

• Construction of rubble breakwaters.

Methodology

4.3 This TIA has been prepared in the context of the recommendations of The Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT) Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessment and the Traffic Management Guidelines, jointly issued by the Department of the Environment and Local Government (DoELG), the Department of Transport (DoT), and the Dublin Transportation Office (DTO). A summary of the methodology of this TIA includes the following:

• Appraisal of existing road network and traffic flows;

• Establishment of traffic trip generation and distribution of traffic flows for both construction and operational phases;

• Appraisal of predicted traffic flows;

• Assessment of junctions in the vicinity of the proposed development;

• Assessment of proposed development site access and parking arrangements; and

• Identification and appraisal of any proposed mitigation measures.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 36

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Receiving Environment EXISTING ROAD NETWORK

4.4 The location of the proposed development in the context of the surrounding road network is shown in Figure 4.1.

4.5 The main approach road to the proposed access to the new marina is the R592 Regional Road, which extends in a southwesterly direction from Ballydehob where it intersects with the N71 National Secondary Road. The R592 travels through the centre of Schull and terminates at its intersection with the R591 at Toormore, approximately 8km west of Schull. The R591 extends southwards to Crookhaven and to the north; it intersects with the N71, approximately 4km south of Bantry. Together, the R591 and R592 form a loop off the N71 that provides access to the Mizen Peninsula.

4.6 The R592 in the vicinity of the proposed roadside access to the marina is approximately 10m in width with a speed limit of 50 kph. From visual inspection, the pavement and road markings are generally in good condition at this location.

4.7 Schull Pier is accessed off the Pier Road, a local road that extends southwards from the priority junction with the Main Street (R592). From visual inspection, the pavement quality of this road is generally poor particularly along the lower section leading to the pier.

4.8 The Main Street suffers from some traffic congestion issues, mainly on account of the narrowness of the carriageway, which are further exacerbated by instances of illegal parking. The need to resolve these issues is highlighted in the current Cork County Development Plan (2003).

PARKING PROVISION

4.9 On-street car parking is provided in Schull free-of-charge. There is no time limit on this parking.

4.10 In addition to on-street parking, there are a number of off-street car parks in Schull as listed below with estimated capacities in brackets:

• Opposite the East End Hotel (60);

• Behind the AIB Bank (Ardmannagh) (30); and

• Pier Road (30).

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 37

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

R591 to Durrus

N71 to Bantry

BallydehobBallydehob

N71 to Skibbereen MountMount GabrielGabriel

R592

SchullSchull

R592 to Crookhaven

00 11 22

kilometerskilometers

PROPOSED HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF EXISTING ROAD NETWORK FIGURE 4.1

2421DG02_fig4_1.pdf ©©ORDNANCEORDNANCE SURVEY SURVEY IRELAND IRELAND LICENCE LICENCE No. No. AR AR 0082506 0082506 ORDNANCEORDNANCE SURVEY SURVEY IRELAND IRELAND & & GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT OF OF IRELAND IRELAND Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Public Transport Provision

4.11 Bus Eireann operates Service No. 047 between Cork and Goleen, which services Schull (the penultimate stop on the route). There are two services per day in both directions between Cork and Schull, Monday – Sunday with one additional service in both directions between Skibbereen and Schull, Monday to Saturday. The average journey time by bus between Cork and Schull is approximately 2hours 30 minutes and there are seven intermediate stops. The journey time between Skibbereen and Schull by bus is 45 minutes and there is one intermediate stop at Ballydehob.

PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST FACILITIES

4.12 There is a pedestrian walkway through the area zoned open space (O-06) in the County Development Plan and along the shoreline. Dedicated cycling facilities have not as yet been developed in Schull.

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

4.13 The current County Development Plan indicates a line for a relief road to the north of the village (Specific Objective U-02). This would allow through-traffic on the R592 to bypass Schull Main Street. Additional off-street parking provision with a new access road is proposed to the north of the Main Street (U-01 and U-03) and a local relief road that would open up lands zoned for residential and industrial development is proposed west of Pier Road (U-04). It is also a specific objective of the Plan to develop and maintain the pedestrian walkway described above in 1.12 (U-05).

BASE YEAR TRAFFIC FLOWS

4.14 Morning, lunch-time and evening peak hour traffic counts were carried out by Atkins in August 2003 at the junction of Schull Main Street and Pier Road as part of the Schull Traffic and Parking Review prepared on behalf of Schull Retailers Group. It was decided to use this traffic data as the base data for the current assessment as the counts were undertaken during the summer holiday period (July/August) when Schull is busiest and also when it is predicted that trips generated by the proposed development would be greatest.

4.15 The evening peak hour (16:00-17:00) represented the overall daily peak hour. The recorded August 2003 traffic flows at the junction of Main Street and Pier Road are shown in Figure 4.2 overleaf.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 39

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 4.2 - Base Year (2003) PM Peak Hourly Traffic Flows – Main St/Pier Road

161 34

Main St

148

54 22 47

Pier Road

4.16 Reference was made to the NRA document RT201 Expansion Factors for Short Period Traffic Counts to estimate AADT volumes. The estimated 2003 AADT on the R592 at Schull was of the order of 4,600 vehicles.

4.17 In order to determine estimated 2006 traffic volumes, the recorded 2003 traffic volumes were factored to 2006 levels by applying growth factors derived from the NRA publication entitled “Future Traffic Forecasts 2002-2040” (August 2003). This publication estimates that cars and light vehicles would increase by a factor of 1.07 during the period 2003 and 2006, whilst heavy vehicle traffic would increase by a factor of 1.05 during the same period.

4.18 The resulting estimated 2006 AADT on the R592 at Schull is of the order of 4,900 vehicles.

Do-Nothing Impact

4.19 Subject to planning permission, it is envisaged that the proposed development would be completed in full by 2011. The IHT Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessment recommend that the opening year (base year) of the development and a plan year, 10 years after the opening year, should be considered for assessing a proposed development. In this case, the opening year is 2011 and the plan year is 2021.

4.20 In order to determine peak hour background traffic volumes in 2011 and 2021 without the proposed development, the recorded 2003 background peak hour traffic volumes on the local road network were factored to forecast future levels by applying growth rates derived from the NRA publication entitled “Future Traffic Forecasts 2001-2040” (August 2003). This publication envisages that cars and light vehicles on non-national roads would increase by a factor of approximately 1.16 during the period 2003 to 2011, and by a factor of approximately 1.28 during the period 2003 to 2021. Heavy vehicles are forecast to increase by a factor of

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 40

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

approximately 1.14 during the period 2003 to 2011 and by a factor of approximately 1.26 during the period 2003 to 2021.

4.21 The forecast 2011 and 2021 AADT flows on the R592 and the Pier Road without the proposed development in place i.e. Do-Nothing scenario are shown in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 - Forecast 2011 and 2021 AADTs on Local Road Network

2011 AADT 2021 AADT

R592 East of Schull* 5,330 5,880

Pier Road 2,040 2,250

* Adjacent to proposed roadside access to marina

4.22 The forecast 2021 traffic flows represent a “worst case scenario” where it is assumed that the proposed Northern Relief Road (Specific Objective U-02, Cork County Development Plan 2003) is not in place. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 show the forecast PM peak hour turning movements at the junction of Main Street and Pier Road in 2011 and 2021.

Figure 4.3 - Forecast 2011 PM Peak Hourly Traffic Flows – Main St/Pier Road

187 39

Main St

172

63 26 55

Pier Road

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 41

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 4.4 - Forecast 2021 PM Peak Hourly Traffic Flows – Main St/Pier Road

206 44

Main St

189

69 28 60

Pier Road

Environmental Impact

Traffic Generated by Proposed Development

4.23 Trip generation rates for the marina development have been obtained by interrogation of the TRICS database. The TRICS database contains trip generation rates relating to a variety of land uses from sites throughout the UK and in Ireland. Through careful selection of input parameters relating to a variety of criteria (such as land use, location and public transport provision) the TRICS database allows an estimate to be made of the probable trip generation rates for a proposed development.

4.24 The trip generation rates and resulting trips are shown below in Table 4.2 for the AM, and PM peaks and the overall peak hour on a Saturday, generally the busiest day of the week at marina developments, as well as the total for the day. The number of trips is based on 169 berths (i.e. 75% of the total berths proposed for Schull) as it is proposed to retain 56 of berths for visitors arriving by sea.

Table 4.2- Assumed Trip Generation Rates and Resulting Trips - Saturday

AM Peak PM Peak 15:00-16:00 Day Total

In Out In Out In Out In Out

Trip Generation Rates 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.66 0.65

Resulting Trips 5 3 5 10 9 10 112 110

4.25 It is not envisaged that the pier extension would result in increased employment. However, it is expected to generate additional business and this would result in increased trips to and

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 42

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

from the pier. It is difficult at this stage to quantify the exact level of increased roadside trips due to increased business at the pier therefore an additional 10 trips (2-way) on the Pier Road during the evening peak hour, the overall peak hour recorded for traffic in Schull, has been applied as a conservative estimate.

Parking

4.26 It is proposed to provide 130 parking spaces as part of the proposed marina development. Requirements as regards parking provision for developments such as this are not well defined in Ireland. International experience tends towards a requirement for 0.5 to 0.75 spaces per berth. It is proposed to retain 25% of the 225 berths at the proposed marina development in Schull for visitors arriving by sea, therefore based on the remaining 169 berths, the proposed parking provision equates to 0.77 spaces per berth. The requirement of 0.75 spaces per non- visitor berth would result in provision of 42 spaces. The additional spaces will cater for the needs of various other users of the facilities.

4.27 Formal parking provision is proposed in the vicinity of the existing slipway, and alongside the parapet wall on the pier, which it is proposed to extend as part of the overall proposed development.

Proposed Development Access

4.28 The proposed marina would be accessed directly from the R592 east of Schull village centre via priority controlled T-junction (see Figure 4.1).

4.29 The extended pier would be accessed by road via the existing Pier Road off the Main Street (see Figure 4.1), as at present.

Proposed Development Traffic Distribution

4.30 For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that development trips generated by the marina would be split 70/30 between the east (towards Cork) and westbound directions respectively. This is based on current traffic patterns in the area and the likely attraction of development trips to the east and west directions based on where users of the proposed marina are likely to originate from. Forecast additional traffic generated by the proposed pier extension has been split in accordance with recorded turning movements at the junction of Pier Road and Main Street

4.31 The resultant distribution traffic figures generated by the proposed development at the proposed marina access junction off the R592 and the junction of Pier Road and Main Street are shown in Figures 4.5 and 4.6.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 43

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 4.5 - Distribution of Traffic Generated by Marina Development at Proposed Access Junction

To R592 To Schull Ballydehob/ Cork (N71) 6

3 7

Proposed Marina

Figure 4.6 - Distribution of Traffic Generated by Pier Extension at Main St Junction

To R592 To Toorun Ballydehob/ Cork (N71) 4

1 4

Pier

OPERATIONAL IMPACT

4.32 The impact of the overall peak hour predicted traffic flows generated by the proposed development on the local road network was assessed based on the following:

• The forecast peak hour traffic flows with and without the proposed development;

• The Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC), queue lengths and average delays per vehicle during the peak hour, with and without the proposed development in place at the proposed marina development entrance junction and the priority controlled T-Junction of Main Street and Pier Road using the computer software package, PICADY.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 44

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Opening Year (2011)

4.33 A summary of the predicted opening year (2011) peak hour traffic flows on the local road network with and without the proposed development is as follows:

Table 4.3 - Predicted 2011 Peak Hour 2-way Traffic Flows (vehs)

Without Development With Development Change

R592 476 485 +9

Pier Road 183 193 +10

4.34 With the proposed development in place, the two-way peak hour traffic flows would increase by up to 2% on the R592 and by up to 6% on Pier Road.

4.35 Full details of the junction analyses for the opening year, with and without the proposed development in place, are provided in Appendix B. The results are summarised as follows:

Table 4.4 - Results of Junction Analyses for Opening Year (2011)

Junction Highest Max Q length Highest RFC (vehs) Delay per Veh (mins)

Without Development 0.198 0.2 0.15

Main Street/Pier Road

With Development 0.212 0.3 0.16

Main Street/Pier Road 0.021 0.0 0.13

Proposed Entrance to Marina Development

4.36 An RFC of 0.9 for a priority-controlled junction is considered to represent typical practical capacity. The above analysis indicates that capacity is not an issue at the Main Street/Pier Road junction in either the Do-Nothing or Do-Something scenarios in 2011. The proposed marina development entrance junction on the R592 would also operate well within capacity in 2011.

Plan Year (2021)

4.37 A summary of the predicted plan year (2021) peak hour traffic flows on the local road network with and without the proposed development is as follows:

Table 4.5 - Predicted 2021 Peak Hour 2-way Traffic Flows (vehs)

Without Development With Development Change

R592 524 533 +9

Pier Road 201 211 +10

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 45

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

4.38 With the proposed development in place, the two-way peak hour traffic flows would increase by up to 2% on the R592 and by up to 5% on Pier Road.

4.39 Full details of the junction analyses for the plan year, with and without the proposed development in place, are provided in Appendix B. The results are summarised as follows:

Table 4.6 - Results of Junction Analyses for Plan Year (2021)

Junction Highest RFC Max Q length Highest Delay (vehs) per Veh (mins)

Without Development 0.220 0.3 0.16

Main Street/Pier Road

With Development 0.233 0.3 0.16

Main Street/Pier Road 0.021 0.0 0.13

Proposed Entrance to Marina Development

4.40 An RFC of 0.9 for a priority-controlled junction is considered to represent typical practical capacity. The above analysis indicates that capacity is not an issue at the Main Street/Pier Road junction in either the Do-Nothing or Do-Something scenarios in 2021. The proposed marina development entrance junction on the R592 would also operate well within capacity in 2021.

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

Construction Period Traffic Generation

4.41 Information regarding the construction stage of the development was obtained from the client.

4.42 It is envisaged that construction of the development would commence in September 2008.

4.43 The proposed construction phases, with estimated construction periods for the various elements of the development and estimated numbers of construction employees provided in brackets after each item, are as follows:

Phase 1

• Pier Extension – 12 months (15-30 people);

• Reclamation of land and access road (to overlap with Pier Extension) – 9-10 months (15-20 people);

Phase 2

• Rubble Breakwater Nr. 1 – 6-8 months (8-12 people);

• Rubble Breakwater Nr. 2 – 6-8 months (8-12 people);

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 46

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

• Construction of Utility Building – 4 months (8-16 people);

Phase 3

• Construction of Marina – 2-3 months (6-8 people).

4.44 The estimated number of HGV loads required during the construction period is summarised in the table below.

Table 4.7 - Estimated HGV Loads During Construction Stage

Misc. Construction Stage\ Loads Stone Concrete Pontoons Disposal Plant Total Loads Materials

Existing Pier 105 100 20 225

Pier Extension 356 308 40 30 734

Rubble Breakwater 10 10

Land Reclamation 6,710 290 76 893 30 7,998

Marina 60 10 70

Utility Building 50 30 80

Slipway 108 94 45 6 253

Boat Pontoons 5 4 9

Total HGV Loads 7,174 797 65 266 938 140 9,379

4.45 The peak construction period as regards construction traffic would occur during the Land Reclamation stage, which it is proposed to progress concurrently with the Pier Extension stage as Phase 1 over a period of up to 12 months. Based on an assumed 6-day week and 8-hour day, it is estimated that taken together these stages could generate up to 40 deliveries per day. Assuming a constant arrival rate throughout the day, this would equate to approximately 10 trips (2-way) during the peak hour.

4.46 During the peak construction period, the maximum number of labourers working on the development would be approximately 50 people. A maximum of 30 labourers would be involved in the pier extension and would access the site via the Pier Road. The remaining 20 would access the development site directly off the R592.

4.47 Trips associated with construction workers leaving the site at the end of the workday would occur during the evening peak (16:00-17:00). It is assumed that 80% of construction workers during the peak construction period would use their own car to leave the site. Accordingly, it is estimated that 40 trips would be generated in the PM peak hour during the peak construction period, with approximately 15 departing via the marina development access junction and 25 via Pier Road and the priority controlled T-junction it forms with the Main Street.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 47

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Proposed Construction Route

4.48 Information regarding the quarries from which material would be sourced during the peak construction stage (Phase 1) of the proposed development was obtained from the client. This indicated that HGV loads of material could potentially arrive from either the east or west directions from the following locations:

• Glan, north-west of Schull;

• Cooragurteen (between Schull and Ballydehob), east of Schull; and

• Skibbereen, east of Schull.

4.49 The construction access road from the east would be via the N71 from Skibbereen and the R592 from Ballydehob. The construction access road from Glan would be via local county roads and the R592 west of Schull.

4.50 It is recommended that prior to commencement of the works that the contractors undertake a survey of the general condition of the existing access roads to assess route suitability.

Proposed Construction Access Arrangements

4.51 It is assumed that construction access points would be the same as those proposed for the proposed development i.e. the construction site associated with the proposed marina development would be accessed directly from the R592 east of Schull village centre via priority controlled T-junction and the construction site associated with the pier extension would be accessed by road via the existing Pier Road off the Main Street.

4.52 It is recommended that access to the construction sites be clearly signed in accordance with Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual.

Construction Period Traffic Distribution

4.53 The resultant distribution figures at the proposed marina access junction off the R592 and the junction of Main Street/Pier Road during the peak are shown in Figures 4.7 – 4.8, for both the scenarios where deliveries arrive from the east and from the west directions.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 48

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 4.7 - Distribution of Traffic Generated by Construction Phase at Marina Access Junction

(Deliveries from East)

To R592 To Schull Ballydehob (N71) 4

4 15

F i Proposed Marina g

Figure 4.8 - Distribution of Traffic Generated by Construction Phase at Marina Access Junction

(Deliveries from West)

To R592 To Schull Ballydehob (N71) 0

8 11

Proposed Marina

Figure 4.9 - Distribution of Traffic Generated by Construction Phase at Main Street/Pier Road Junction

(Deliveries from East)

To R592 To West Ballydehob (N71) 1

7 19

Pier Road

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 49

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 4.10 - Distribution of Traffic Generated by Construction Phase at Main Street/Pier Road Junction

(Deliveries from West)

To R592 To West Ballydehob (N71) 0

8 18

Pier Road

4.54 Having derived the traffic generated during the peak construction period of this development and the distribution figures on the adjacent road network, this traffic was added to the forecast 2008 background traffic, when Phase 1 of the construction period is proposed to take place. This results in a worst case AADT of approximately 5,350 vehicles on the R592. This equates to an additional 2% on account of construction traffic relative to forecast background traffic flows, which is considered negligible in terms of impact on the traffic capacity of the road. A worst case AADT of approximately 2000 vehicles would result on the Pier Road during the park construction stage. This equates to an additional 3% on account of construction traffic relative to the forecast background traffic flows, which is also considered negligible. However, on account of the poor pavement quality of the existing Pier Road, it is recommended that some upgrading works be undertaken such as resurfacing to cater for traffic generated by the construction and operation stages of the proposed development as well as for local traffic.

Mitigation

4.55 Consideration should be given to reducing construction traffic generation in the peak hour by minimising the volume of plant and material to be transported by road e.g. by transporting material and plant by water and by phasing movements to avoid peaks on the road network.

4.56 It is recommended that prior to commencement of the works that the contractors undertake a survey of the general condition of the existing access roads to assess route suitability.

4.57 It is recommended that a detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan be prepared and implemented.

4.58 Appropriate parking areas should be provided within the proposed development site for construction parking.

4.59 Wheel washing facilities should be provided at site exits to prevent construction vehicles depositing mud on the public roads.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 50

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

4.60 Warning signs should be provided at site entrances/exits in accordance with the Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 8).

4.61 It is recommended that improvements to the Pier Road be undertaken for the benefit of traffic generated by the proposed development during the construction and operational stages as well as the benefit of local road users.

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

4.62 The access roads and junctions should be designed in accordance with the National Roads Authority’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (NRA DMRB), the NRA’s Road Geometry Handbook, which contains a section on non-national roads prepared by the DoEHLG, and the requirements of Cork County Council. Signage and road markings should be provided local to the junctions in accordance with the DoE Traffic Signs Manual.

Conclusions / Residual Impacts

4.63 This TIA has been prepared in support of a planning application to Cork County Council for the proposed development of Schull Harbour.

4.64 Atkins has undertaken a detailed investigation into the impact of the proposed development on the adjacent road network. Current and future traffic flow levels were established on the surrounding road network.

4.65 The traffic flows and impacts generated by the proposed development would be relatively small, compared to background traffic levels.

4.66 Junction analysis was carried out for the proposed access to the marina development on the R592 and for the junction of Main Street with Pier Road.

4.67 The surrounding road system would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the predicted traffic levels.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 51

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

5. Flora and Fauna

Introduction

5.1 Schull Harbour Community Development Association proposes to undertake a marine development project and ancillary works in Schull Harbour, Co. Cork. The elements of the proposed development are described in Section 2 above. In order to construct these elements an area of foreshore is to be reclaimed. Two existing tennis courts and an existing sewage treatment plant compound will not be impacted by the proposed development.

5.2 This chapter assesses the impacts of the proposed development on terrestrial ecology (flora and fauna). A detailed assessment of potential impacts on marine flora and fauna is presented in Chapter 6. As much of the proposed development is marine in nature this section deals largely with development of lands along the northern side of the harbour.

5.3 All studies were carried out with reference to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ‘Draft Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Statements’ (March 2002) and Advice Notes on Current Practice (EPA, 2003), the Institute of Environmental Assessment’s ‘Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment’ (1995), along with experience of ‘best practice’ in the ecological assessment.

Methodology DESKTOP REVIEW

5.4 A desktop review was carried out to identify features of ecological importance within the study area and environs. Sites designated as being of conservation importance were reviewed in the immediate environs of the proposed development site. These include candidate Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas for birds (both internationally important) and proposed Natural Heritage Areas (of national importance); Figures 5.1 & 5.2.

5.5 In addition the distribution of non-designated sites, such as the NGO ‘Shadow Sites’ (Dwyer, 2000) and Important Birds Areas (Hunt et al., 2000) was reviewed. Furthermore a review of the published literature, including the Cork County Development Plan (2003) and County Cork Heritage Plan (2005), was undertaken in order to collate data on species and habitats of conservation concern on and in the immediate environs of the proposed development site.

5.6 As part of the ecological assessment process (both terrestrial and marine), consultation was undertaken with appropriate individuals and statutory and non-statutory organisations. Individuals and groups that were contacted include the National Parks & Wildlife Service (now part of DoEHLG), Irish Wildlife Trust, Vincent Wildlife Trust, Irish Whale & Dolphin Group, Southwestern Regional / Central Fisheries Boards, BirdWatch Ireland, the Heritage Council etc. (refer to Table 2.1). Data received or details of responses received are integrated into the text where appropriate.

Z: 2421/30/32/RK2421DG02_EIS Page 52

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

FIELD SURVEY WORK

Habitat Survey

5.7 A Phase 1 habitat survey of the site was conducted on 25th November 2005 using methodology developed by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1993). Habitats were classified using habitat descriptions and codes published in the Heritage Council’s ‘A Guide to Habitat Types in Ireland’ (Fossitt, 2000). It should, however, be noted that November is sub-optimal for undertaking general habitat surveys (NRA, 2004) and that the plant species list compiled for the site is incomplete.

5.8 Target notes were made on all semi-natural habitats encountered including notes on dominant vegetation, a qualitative assessment of plant species diversity, vegetation structure, topography and drainage, disturbance and management. A habitat map illustrating the location of specific habitats has been prepared and is presented in Figure 5.3. Scientific names of plants and animals mentioned in the text are presented in Appendix C.1.

Criteria for identification of ecological constraints

5.9 The results of the baseline survey were evaluated to determine the significance of the features located in the study area on an importance scale ranging from International, National, County, High local, Local importance, Local value to Insignificant.

5.10 The evaluation methodology used in this assessment is presented in full in Appendix C.2. Apart from the guidelines recently published by the National Roads Authority (NRA, 2004), there are no standard criteria for evaluating the importance of ecological features in Ireland. The evaluation method presented has been developed and tested in the field; successfully presented at oral hearing; and reviewed in the context of similar published criteria in the U.K. (Byron, 2000). Furthermore, it should also be noted that this, or in fact any similar evaluation method may be biased by the fact that some groups of flora and fauna have traditionally been studied in more detail than other groups.

5.11 The significance of impacts was assessed on a combined basis of the value of the feature being affected and the magnitude of the impact. Impacts on features of less than local value are not considered to be potentially significant. The terminology used to define impact significance is described in Appendix C.2. Impacts during both Construction and Operation of the proposed development are considered, as are impacts in the Short (1-7 years), Medium (7-15 years), Long term (15-60 years) or permanent (over 60 years); a temporary impact is one which is less than 1 year in duration (as per EPA methodology).

Z: 2421/30/32/RK2421DG02_EIS Page 53

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Existing Environment DESIGNATED SITES

Sites of International Value

5.12 Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas for birds (SPAs) are those sites that are deemed to be of European (i.e. international) importance. They form part of a network of sites to be designated across Europe in order to protect biodiversity within the community, known as Natura 2000 sites. Special Areas of Conservation are designated under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), as transcribed into Irish law by the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997, while SPAs are designated under the Birds Directive (79/4089/EEC).

5.13 The proposed development site adjoins Roaringwater Bay & Islands candidate Special Area of Conservation (site code 1011). Roaringwater Bay is a wide shallow bay located on the southwest coast. The cSAC site includes the immediate coastline on the mainland from Long Island to Baltimore together with the whole bay and most of the islands. The bay itself has a wide variety of reef and sediment habitats, subject to a range of wave exposures and tidal currents, and has been selected for three marine habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive, i.e. large shallow inlets and bays, marine caves and reefs (refer to Chapter 7 on marine ecology for further discussion of these habitats). The terrestrial habitats are also of conservation interest and include three habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive, i.e. dry heath, sea cliffs and lowland hay meadows.

5.14 The cSAC site also supports a number of species listed on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive; i.e. Harbour Porpoise, Otter and Grey Seal. Roaringwater Bay supports important numbers of Harbour porpoise. This is our smallest cetacean and is by far the most numerous species in northwestern European continental shelf waters (Reid et al., 2003). In order to assess the potential impact that marine construction could have on marine mammals in general Dr. Simon Berrow of the Irish Whale & Dolphin Group undertook a review on our behalf; this is presented in Chapter 6 below.

5.15 The cSAC site supports a nationally important breeding population of Chough (c. 33 breeding pairs) and several breeding pairs of Peregrine falcon. Both species are listed on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive. While a colony of Arctic/Common Terns (122 pairs) were noted as breeding on Carrigviglash Rock2 (W0131) in 1984, there is no reference to this colony in the recently prepared Natura 2000 form for the SAC (both species are listed on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive). Islands within Roaringwater Bay support nationally important populations of breeding Fulmar, Cormorant, Lesser black-backed gull and Black Guillemot.

5.16 Barley Cove to Ballyrisode Point cSAC (site code 1040) is located approximately 10km west of Schull harbour. This cSAC site is of conservation importance for the presence of a number

1 Information on Roaringwater Bay cSAC was extracted from both the NPWS site synopsis and the Natura 2000 form.

2 Carrigviglash Rock is located c. 10km east of Schull Harbour by water.

Z: 2421/30/32/RK2421DG02_EIS Page 54

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

of good examples of coastal habitats. Of particular significance is the fixed dune as this is a priority habitat on Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive. The concentration of rare plants is of especial note, as is the high density of Choughs.

5.17 There are no Special Protection Areas for birds in the environs of the proposed development.

Sites of National Importance

5.18 At a national level the basic unit of conservation is the Natural Heritage Area (NHA); NHAs are designated to protect habitats, flora, fauna and geological sites of national importance. Natural Heritage Areas effectively replace an earlier list of Areas of Scientific Interest (ASIs) published by An Foras Forbartha in 1981. The legislative framework for NHAs is provided by the Wildlife Act, 1976 and the Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000. However, until consultation has been undertaken following the enactment of this legislation, there is no legal backing for pNHAs.

5.19 Both Roaringwater Bay & Islands and Barley Cove to Ballyrisode Point cSAC are also proposed for designation as Natural Heritage Areas. The boundaries of Roaringwater Bay & Islands cSAC and pNHA are identical within Schull Harbour.

5.20 Derreennatra Cutaway pNHA is located 2.5km northeast of the proposed development. It adjoins the R592 Ballydehob to Schull road. This site is the only known location for the protected plant species (Flora Protection Order, 1999), Slender Cotton-Grass in County Cork. It was first found here in 1994. A number of other bog pond plant species are also found, including Marsh St. John's Wort and White Water Lily.

Z: 2421/30/32/RK2421DG02_EIS Page 55

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Table 5.1 Sites of international and national importance within 10 km of the proposed development site.

Site Site Key Features Distance Code from Site Roaringwater Bay 101 The bay itself has a wide variety of reef and sediment habitats, subject to a range of wave exposures and tidal Adjoining & Island cSAC / currents, and has been selected for three marine habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive, i.e. large shallow pNHA inlets and bays, marine caves and reefs (refer to section on marine ecology for further discussion). The terrestrial habitats are also of conservation interest and include three habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive, i.e. dry heath, sea cliffs and lowland hay meadows.

The site is also of note for a range of scare and rare marine species and terrestrial plant species. The site also supports Harbour Porpoise, Otter and Grey Seal, which are listed on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive; bird species on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive include Peregrine falcon and a nationally important Chough population.

Barley Cove to 1040 This site is of conservation importance for the presence of a number of good examples of coastal habitats. Of c. 10 km Ballyrisode Point particular significance is the fixed dune as this is a priority habitat on Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive. The west cSAC / pNHA dominant habitat over much of the remainder of the site is coastal heath The concentration of rare plants is of especial note, as is the high density of Choughs. Rare plants include the legally protected species (Flora (Protection) Order 1999), Hairy Bird’s-foot-trefoil (Lotus subbiflorus) and Lanceolate Spleenwort (Asplenium billotii), and three Red Data Book species, Green-winged Orchid (Orchis morio), Bird’s-foot (Ornithopus perpusillus) and Spotted Rock-rose (Tuberaria guttata), occur in places. A further scarce plant, which occurs at the site, is the Strawberry Tree (Arbutus unedo). Derreennatra 2105 This site is the only known location for the protected plant species (Flora Protection Order, 1999), Slender Cotton- 2.5 km Cutaway pNHA Grass (Eriophorum gracile) in County Cork. It was first found here in 1994. A number of other bog pond plant species northeast are also found, including Marsh St. John's Wort (Hypericum elodes) and White Water Lily (Nymphaea alba). (adjoining the R592)

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 56

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Additional Sites

5.21 A number of environmental Non Governmental Organisations recently undertook a review of areas of conservation importance in Ireland. The result was a publication produced by the Irish Peatland Conservation Council entitled "Protecting Nature in Ireland. “The NGO Special Areas of Conservation Shadow List" (Dwyer, 2000). This report proposes that a number of additional factors be included amongst the habitats and species for which Roaringwater Bay and Islands site is designated3. These include;

• 1220 - Perennial vegetation of stony banks (Sherkin / Roaringwater Bay)

• 1351 – Harbour porpoise (Sherkin / Roaringwater Bay)

5.22 However, as noted above Harbour porpoise is in fact included in the SAC site description.

5.23 There is a single Important Bird Areas as defined by Birdlife International located in the environs of the study area (Hunt et al., 2000). Sheeps Head and Mizen Head peninsulas IBA (site code 082) is a linear coastal site encompassing two peninsulas, as well as Cape Clear and Sherkin Island. The site is of importance for breeding Chough. The site overlaps with Barley Cove to Ballyrisode Point cSAC; unfortunately as no maps accompany the register of sites it cannot be determined whether Schull Harbour is included.

5.24 Other than cSACs, SPAs and pNHAs discussed above the Cork County Development Plan (2003) does not list any additional sites of conservation importance.

HABITATS

5.25 A habitat plan illustrating the distribution of different semi-natural habitats within the study area is presented in Figure 5.3.

Treeline (WL2)

5.26 Fossitt (2000) defines a treeline as a ‘narrow row or single line of trees that is greater than 5m in height and typically occurs along field or property boundaries’. Most are planted and often regularly spaced. The boundary of the site along the R592 Ballydehob to Schull road is lined with Cabbage Palm, also known as Cordyline (Cordyline australis).

5.27 A number of short lines of native trees are located along the public path from the inner harbour to the tennis courts. Dominant species are Ash and Sycamore, with Hawthorn and Elder also recorded.

3 It is also proposed that 4030 – Dry heath should be listed for Barley Cove to Ballyrisode Point cSAC.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 57

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Amenity Grassland (improved) (GA2)

5.28 The site is dominated by improved amenity grassland. Most areas were dominated by Perennial rye-grass and White clover; with Ribwort plantain, Greater plantain, Daisy and Creeping buttercup also recorded.

Flower beds & borders (BC4)

5.29 Associated with the public space within the site are a number of flowerbeds and borders. These include a number of raised formal beds, which divide the public car park. The southeastern shoreline and the enclosure around the sewage treatment plant are lined with New Zealand Flax; this species is a stemless perennial with a fan shaped basal rosette of tough sword shaped leaves. Its flowers are borne on a c. 4m flower spike. Like Cabbage Palm, flax grows well in West Cork and therefore is commonly planted as a screening plant.

5.30 In the amenity grassland southeast of the car park there is a small bed of Escallonia and Fuchsia.

5.31 A private garden parallels part of the public path (southern and eastern sides of the garden); species along the path were dominated by non-natives such as Escallonia, Grisellinia, Leyland Cypress, Sycamore, Butterfly bush, rose (Rosa sp.) and Montbretia; natives such as Hawthorn, Elder, Bramble and Hart’s-tongue fern were also noted.

Earth banks (BL2)

5.32 Earthen banks are located in a number of areas within the site. Immediately east of the stream the public path is bordered on either side by raised earthen banks (due to the level of adjacent amenity grassland). Species encountered include Ivy, Hart’s tongue fern, Polypody, Herb-robert, Bracken, Bramble, Nettle, Yarrow (where the banks grades into GA2), Traveller’s joy, Winter Heliotrope and Montbretia.

5.33 As noted above a Cabbage Palm is located along the R592; the ground slopes down in the form of an earthen bank to an area of amenity grassland along the path. This bank is dominated by nettle, Winter Heliotrope on the lower slopes and Knotweed higher up the bank.

5.34 Along the shoreline there is a drop of over 20ft in places to the rocky shoreline; where vegetation can gain a hold just beyond the amenity grassland there is a narrow fringe of Bramble, Elder and Montbretia, particularly towards the western end of the site.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 58

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Scrub (BC4)

5.35 A number of areas of scrub occur within the site. The most westerly adjoins an area of amenity grassland with park benches. Centrally, it is dominated by Brambles, New Zealand Flax and a young conifer; towards the edge species characteristic of earth banks (see above), together with Common knapweed and Broad-leaved dock were recorded.

5.36 The remaining areas of scrub are mono-dominant stands of the invasive alien Japanese Knotweed.

Eroding / upland river (FW1)

5.37 A small stream enters the northwestern corner of the inner harbour. The stream descends along a narrow rocky bed from Main Street and enters the inner harbour under a pedestrian bridge. Vegetation along its eastern bank is heavily swathed in Traveller’s joy.

Other Habitats

5.38 The eastern boundary of the study area is separated from the Coastguard Cottages by a species poor low quality hedgerow (WL1); dominated by Bramble and Fuchsia. A number of mature Black Pine are located within the adjoining Coastguard Cottage site. Three mature poplars standards are located in the southeastern corner of the site; along with a number of patches of Fuchsia within amenity grassland.

5.39 A Stone wall (BL1) is located along the western boundary of the private garden.

5.40 The shoreline includes elements of Rocky Shores and Shingle and Gravel Shores (LS1). The only terrestrial species recorded on the upper rocky shoreline was Thrift. These are discussed further in Chapter 7 of the report.

PROTECTED PLANT SPECIES

5.41 The New Atlas of British and Irish Flora (Preston et al., 2002) was reviewed for the presence of rare flowering plants/ferns, which are listed on the Flora Protection Order, 1999 (S.I. 94 of 1999) or included in the Red Data Book for vascular plant species (Curtis and McGough, 1988). The study area is located within the 10km grid square V93.

5.42 The only Flora (Protection) Order, 1999 species recorded is Slender Cotton-grass; this species is found in the wettest parts of bogs, transitional mires, poor fens and on the edge of Alnus carr, typically over liquid peats (Preston et al., 2002). As noted above this has been recorded at Derreennatra Cutaway pNHA. Suitable habitat does not occur within the study area.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 59

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

5.43 Red Data Book (Curtis and McGough, 1988) species recorded from 10km grid square V93 are Bird’s foot, Slender Cotton-grass, Corncockle (pre-1970; Alien) and Sharp-leaved Fluellen (pre-1970; Alien). Bird’s foot is a winter-annual of short, open grassland on free- draining acidic sands and gravels; also around rock outcrops, on sand dunes and in bare patches on dry heathland (Preston et al., 2002); suitable habitat does not occur within the study area. Corncockle is an annual weed of cereal and other arable crops; Sharp-leaved Fluellen is an annual found on the headlands and margins of arable fields (particularly cornfields), and less commonly on tracks, waste ground and in gardens. Suitable habitat does not occur for these species within the study area.

FAUNA

5.44 The proposed development site is a linear strip of land confined between urban development and roads in Schull and an active harbour, which supports fishing vessels, an island ferry and recreational vessels. Man-modified habitats and non-native species dominate the narrow strip of land proposed for development. This area is not likely to support any mammal species of conservation concern. The site would not appear to be suitable for either Common frog or Newt. Viviparous lizard may use the stonewall recorded on site. Bird species noted during the site visit can be characterised as common garden birds; the site does not include suitable habitat for supporting species of conservation concern such as Chough.

5.45 The area is of greater importance for marine / aquatic species. As noted above Roaringwater Bay supports both Grey Seal and Harbour Porpoise. Seal regularly enter the inner bay, even into the harbour itself, though usually only in single figures. Harbour Porpoise tend to remain in Roaringwater Bay proper and are not known to enter the harbour. A full evaluation of impacts on marine mammals is presented in Chapter 7 of this report.

5.46 Otter, listed on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive, has also been recorded from the harbour. The northern shoreline includes area of Rocky Shores and Shingle and Gravel Shores; behind these the ground rises steeply (c. 20 feet) to amenity grassland. There was no evidence of an Otter holt or temporary haul out area along the shoreline. However, the number of pedestrian paths and associated pedestrian activity, together with disturbance from dogs is such that this shoreline is unlikely to be of much importance for Otter. The outer harbour and shoreline does, however, provide large areas of suitable habitat for Otters.

5.47 When visited in November the harbour was dominated by Herring Gull and Black headed Gull, with Grey Heron roosting on a fishing boat in the harbour; other gull species such as Lesser Black-backed, Great Black-backed, Common Gull and Kittiwake are also known to use the harbour. Common Tern, which breed in Roaringwater Bay, feed in the harbour, even fishing in and out between boats. Black Guillemot and Cormorant also fish in the harbour.

EVALUATION

5.48 Terrestrial habitats within the site are of no more than Local Value; many cannot in fact be defined as semi-natural habitats or are dominated by non-native species (the criteria used in the evaluation of habitats are presented in Appendix 5.2). Marine habitats such as Rocky Shores and Shingle and Gravel Shores (LS1) are discussed in Chapter 6 of this report.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 60

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

5.49 No rare or protected vascular plant species were recorded within the proposed development site. While the habitat survey was undertaken in November, it is not considered likely that any occur (based upon the habitats recorded and rare plants known from this part of West Cork.

5.50 As the proposed development site is not known to support any rare or scarce habitats or plants it is considered to be of only Local Value for habitats and flora.

5.51 The mammal and bird fauna of terrestrial habitats along the northern shore are likely to be of only Local Value. Due to the potential occurrence of Grey Seal and Otter, together with foraging Common Tern the harbour itself is of greater value.

Do Nothing Impact

5.52 Under the ‘Do-Nothing’ scenario terrestrial habitats along the northern shore of the harbour would continue to be managed as public amenity space.

Construction Impacts DESIGNATED SITES

5.53 Based upon the NHA and SAC site boundaries downloaded from the NPWS web page it would appear that the terrestrial habitats within the proposed development site are located outside the boundaries of Roaringwater Bay pNHA / cSAC. There will therefore be no negative impact on terrestrial habitats within this designated site. Impacts on marine habitats and species are discussed in Chapter 7 of this report.

HABITATS, FLORA & FAUNA

5.54 As noted above, terrestrial habitats within the site are of no more than Local Value and no plant species or habitats of conservation concern were recorded within the study area. The proposed development is illustrated in Figures 2.2 and 2.3. As much of the proposed development is to be located on reclaimed land the direct loss of habitats will be largely restricted to those immediately along the shoreline; i.e. a narrow area of amenity grassland (GA2), two short sections of treeline along the shore, some small scrub patches (WS1; some of which are dominated by the invasive alien Japanese Knotweed) and a bed of New Zealand flax (BC4). Some amenity grassland will also be lost to accommodate the access road. None of these habitats are of more than local ecological value. Thus impacts on terrestrial habitats due to the proposed development are likely to be Imperceptible; i.e. a change in the ecology of the affected site, the consequences of which are strictly limited to within the development boundaries.

5.55 Impacts on shoreline habitats, such as Shingle / gravel shores (LS1) and rocky shores are discussed in detail in the marine ecology assessment presented in Chapter 6.

5.56 As noted above, the mammal and bird fauna of terrestrial habitats along the northern shore are likely to be of only Local Value; the proposed development is therefore not likely to have any significant direct impacts.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 61

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

5.57 While Otter are known from Roaringwater Bay the habitats within the development site are of little value and are likely to be used only intermittently, if at all by Otter. With respect to feeding or use of shoreline elsewhere in Schull Harbour, although construction activities will result in a high level of disturbance at certain times of the day, the peak periods of construction disturbance activity will be outside times of peak otter activity. Otters are known to be relatively tolerant to disturbance and are commonly found feeding and living in area of moderate to high disturbance associated with traffic and built up areas, as noted in some locations in Cork City (Sleeman and Moore, 2005).

5.58 None of the trees to be removed along the shoreline are of sufficient age to host suitable locations for roosting bats.

5.59 The potential impact on marine mammals, such as Grey Seal and Harbour Porpoise are discussed in detail in the marine assessment in Chapter 6.

5.60 Habitats within the site are not of importance for bird species of conservation concern, such as Chough or Peregrine falcon. Thus these species will not be negatively impacted.

5.61 Due to the scale of the proposed reclamation of foreshore a large volume of fill material will be required on site. Both this and associated construction works will result in a temporary (defined by the EPA as lasting 1 year or less) increase in levels of noise and disturbance, which in turn may result in temporary avoidance of the area by animals. For example, birds such as Common tern that feed in the harbour may be temporarily displaced during periods of heavy construction disturbance. However the area from which such species might be displaced is likely to be restricted to the inner Schull Harbour and would not be expected to negatively impact on the use of Roaringwater Bay.

5.62 Piling, which will be required during construction of the marine elements of the development will also introduce an increase in disturbance from noise. However, the majority of species recorded within the study area can acclimate to such disturbance. Potential impacts of piling on marine mammals are discussed in Chapter 7.

5.63 Unless properly managed importation of fill material and on-site works could result in localised blanketing of vegetation with dust, especially during dry periods of the year.

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS

5.64 During the operation of the proposed development the greatest potential for impact is through disturbance. However, it should be noted that the harbour currently experiences significant levels of disturbance as it is heavily used by both recreational and fishing vessels. With respect to terrestrial bird species, those characteristic of the habitats recorded on site, are tolerant of increased public usage of the site. Equally many of the seabirds recorded from the harbour are tolerant of human use of the area; for example, gulls and species such as Common tern, Black Guillemot, Cormorant and Grey Heron would continue to use the harbour. Common tern, in particular, will feed within active marinas where suitable fishing opportunities exist.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 62

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

5.65 While the proposed development will increase public access to the site, this should also be viewed in the context of significant public usage in adjoining areas of shoreline.

Mitigation

5.66 Loss of habitats of local value causes an imperceptible ecological impact and so requires no specific mitigation measures. However, the proposed landscaping measures will provide for the inclusion of native tree, shrub and grassland species within the development to mitigate for loss of, for example, trees along the shoreline. Where practicable, landscape planting should be predominantly of Irish native species, which reflect the existing vegetation of the area. These should be derived from local (i.e. southwest) native-origin stock (NB; the terms ‘native’ and ‘native origin’ have specific technical meanings as defined by Flora Locale, 2003). Where non-native formal planting is to be included invasive species should be avoided. The landscape architect shall liase with the ecological team prior to finalising any such planting schemes.

5.67 Of particular concern is the presence of Japanese Knotweed on site. Prior to construction a Method Statement shall be prepared to provide for the efficient removal and control of Japanese knotweed within the site. This species is highly invasive and can have a significant negative impact on native habitats and flora due to its rapid growth and expansion, particularly on disturbed ground. It can also be easily spread when soil taken off site includes small fragments of the plant, which are capable of regenerating.

Residual Impact

5.68 Following implementation of the above mitigation measures it is predicted that the impacts the proposed development on terrestrial habitats, flora and fauna are likely to be Imperceptible; i.e. A change in the ecology of the affected site, the consequences of which are strictly limited to within the development boundaries. Removal / control of the highly invasive Japanese knotweed from the site would be a positive impact.

5.69 Impacts on marine habitats and species, including marine mammals, are discussed in Chapter 6.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 63

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Special Areas of Conservation Site location

Barleycove to Ballyrisode Point cSAC (site code 001040)

No Window

Roaringwater Bay & Island cSAC (site code 000101)

0 0.5 1 kilometres

CANDIDATE SPECIAL AREAS OF CONSERVATION FIGURE 5.1

2421dg02_fig_5_1.pdf ©©ORDNANCEORDNANCE SURVEYSURVEY IRELANDIRELAND LICENCELICENCE No.No. ARAR 0082506008250008250600825066 ORDNANCEORDNANCE SURVEYSURVEY IRELANDIRELAND && GOVERNMENTGOVERNMENT OFOF IRELANDIRELAND Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

proposed Natural Heritage Areas Site Location Dereennatra Cutaway pNHA (site code 002105)

Barleycove to Ballyrisode Point pNHA (site code 001040)

No Window

Roaringwater Bay & Island pNHA (site code 000101)

0 0.5 1 kilometres

PROPOSED NATURAL HERITAGE AREAS FIGURE 5.2

2421dg02_fig_5_2.pdf ©©ORDNANCEORDNANCE SURVEYSURVEY IRELANDIRELAND LICENCELICENCE No.No. ARAR 00825060082506 ORDNANCEORDNANCE SURVEYSURVEY IRELANDIRELAND && GOVERNMENTGOVERNMENT OFOF IRELANDIRELAND Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Seaview Tce 27.0

Amenity Grassland (GA2) The Coastguard

Treeline (WL2) 1 0 6 Earth banks (BL2) 1 Flower beds & borders (BC4) 10.6 0 F F Scrub (WS1) Eroding upland river (FW1) Mc Lean Tce

1 Shingle gravel shores (LS1) 9 0 4 Rocky shores

K 1 Buildings & artifical surfaces (BL3) 0 Hedgerow (WL1) 23.2

0 1 Stone Wall (BL1) 1 -2 Skull - 3 0 0 U N 14.5 0 D -1 Tennis Courts -2

0 Church(Cath) K -2 -1

Hotel -2 K 0 k W

C -2 -1 21.1

17.6 No Window 0 Ma in St PO reet 18.5 -2 W -1 C 0 17.7 Car Park 0 -2 -1

UND - UND 0 Playground -1 -2 -3

C S 0

1 - -3 K -2

3 -

-2

UND 2 - -1

-3

3 C S

1 2 - -

-3

-2 6

1 -

0 The Sextant

HABITAT MAP (NOT TO SCALE) FIGURE 5.3

2421dg02_fig_5_3.pdf ©©ORDNANCEORDNANCE SURVEYSURVEY IRELANDIRELAND LICENCELICENCE No.No. ARAR 00825060082506 ORDNANCEORDNANCE SURVEYSURVEY IRELANDIRELAND && GOVERNMENTGOVERNMENT OFOF IRELANDIRELAND Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

6. Marine Ecology

Introduction

6.1 As the proposed harbour development involves activities extending from the sublittoral4 to the terrestrial zones, marine based studies were undertaken on the sublittoral and littoral areas. The site is of particular concern as it is located within the Roaringwater Bay candidate Special Area of Conservation (SAC), of particular note for marine habitats and species. This section also considers fisheries, cetaceans and marine mammals (particularly grey seal and harbour porpoise, which for which the SAC is designated). Potential impacts by the development are assessed and mitigation measures proposed as considered necessary. Terrestrial ecology is discussed under chapter 5.

Methodology DESKTOP REVIEW

6.2 The Marine Institute and Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources were contacted to obtain any existing data on water chemistry, sediment characteristics, marine benthos for the study area and to determine the location of aquaculture and shellfish beds, and monitoring data collected as part of the EU Directive ‘laying down the health conditions for the production and placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs’ (CEC, 1991).

6.3 The Regional Marine Ecologist (Mr. David Lyons), Local Conservation Ranger (Mr. Declan O’Donnell) for the area and the Designations Section (Ms. Jacinta Douglas) of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government were consulted with respect to recommendations, requirements and ‘Notifiable Actions’ with respect to the Roaringwater Bay and Islands candidate Special Area of Conservation, as designated under the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997.

6.4 An assessment of cetaceans was undertaken by the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group (IWDG) and incorporated below. The full report from the IWDG is included in Appendix D.6.

6.5 A desktop review of any existing studies on marine species and habitats in the study area was also undertaken.

FIELD SURVEY

Littoral Survey

6.6 A littoral survey was undertaken by jointly by Atkins and Limosa (Ecological Consultants) on the 1st February 2006 for a distance of approximately 550m along the north-eastern side of the existing pier, and to approximately 30m to the south of the pier during low spring water tides (see Figure 6.1). The shore was walked in order to identify and map the extent and distribution of biotopes present (including soft and hard substrata), and were categorised

4 Sublittoral refers to habitats permanently submerged.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 67

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

according to Connor et al 2004 and using techniques described in the Marine Monitoring Handbook (2003). Rocky areas were examined and a total of 4 dig samples were collected from soft substrata to determine the main characteristic species (see Appendix D.1 for list of species found & Figure 6.1 for location of dig sites). Dig samples were passed through a 1 mm mesh sieve and the material collected and preserved in 70% Industrial Methylated Spirits (IMS) and returned to the laboratory for identification and counting. Species were then identified to species level where possible and a voucher collection of specimens retained. The results were compared to existing data and interpreted using the biotope classification (Connor et al., 2004).

Sublittoral Survey

6.7 Eight sublittoral sites were surveyed by boat by Atkins and EcoServe (Marine Ecological Consultants) on the 20th December 2005 (Figure 6.2, Appendix D.2). A 0.1 m van Veen grab was used for collection of three replica samples at each of the 8 sites. Grab samples were passed through a 1 mm mesh sieve. Material collected was sorted on board and the relative abundance of conspicuous fauna and floral species recorded. Species that could not be identified in situ were preserved in 70 % Industrial Methylated Spirits (IMS) and returned to the laboratory for identification and counting. Species were identified to species level where possible and a voucher collection of specimens retained.

6.8 Specimens were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level using the following literature: For mysid crustaceans, Makings (1977); crabs, Crothers and Crothers (1983); shrimps and prawns, Smaldon (1993), Barnes (1994) and Hayward and Ryland (1995); for marine molluscs, Graham (1998) and Picton and Morrow (1994); for echinoderms, Picton (1993) and for marine fish, Wheeler (1978). Biotopes were identified following Connor et al. 2004.

Impacts definitions

6.9 Impacts are defined in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency criteria for Environmental Impact Assessments (EPA, 2003).

6.10 A glossary of the main impacts as extracted from the EPA Guidelines is presented in Table 6.1 below.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 68

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Table 6-1 Glossary of Impacts (extracted from EPA, 2003) Impact Description

Imperceptible An impact capable of measurement but without noticeable consequences. Impact Slight Impact An impact, which causes noticeable changes in the character of the environment without affecting its sensitivities. Moderate Impact An impact that alters the character of the environment in a manner that is consistent with existing and emerging trends. Significant Impact An impact, which, by its character, magnitude, duration or intensity alters a sensitive aspect of the environment. Profound Impact An impact, which obliterates sensitive characteristics. Short-term Impact Impact lasting one to seven years. Medium-term Impact lasting seven to fifteen years. Impact Long-term Impact Impact lasting fifteen to sixty years. Permanent Impact Impact lasting over sixty years. Temporary Impact Impact lasting for one year or less. A change, which does not affect the quality of the environment. Neutral Impact Cumulative Impact The addition of many small impacts to create one larger, more significant, impact.

6.11 The location of littoral and sublittoral sites are listed in Table 6.2 below.

Table 6.2 – Location of Littoral and Sublittoral Sample locations (Refer to Figures 6.1 & 6.2) Station Easting Northing Substratum Sample Type

Sublittoral S.1 93011 31368 Mud Grab S.2* 93020 31274 Mud Grab S.2A 93070 31225 Mud Grab S.3 93258 30271 Mud Grab S.4 93255 30402 Mud Grab S.5 93213 30650 Mud Grab S.6 93233 30980 Mud Grab S.7 93622 31321 Mud Grab S.8 93668 30827 Mud Grab

Littoral 1 92890 31379 Shingle & Gravel Non-quantitative Dig 2 92876 31347 Mixed Sediment Non-quantitative Dig 3 92874 31306 Shingle & Gravel Non-quantitative Dig 4 92873 31274 Sand Non-quantitative Dig *Three duplicate samples were collected per site. At Site S.2 due to boat drift, one sample was collected at a slightly different location to the other two samples (i.e. S.2A)

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 69

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Existing Environment DESIGNATED HABITATS AND SPECIES

6.12 Schull harbour forms part of the Roaringwater Bay and Islands candidate Special Area of Conservation (Site Code 000101), which covers an area of 142km2. The site is designated for 5 Annex 1 Priority Habitats under the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) according to the National Parks and Wildlife Service as follows (See Chapter 5 on terrestrial for further details):

• Large shallow inlets and bays (NATURA 2000 CODE 1160);

• Reefs (NATURA 2000 CODE 1170);

• European Dry Heaths (NATURA 2000 CODE 4030);

• Submerged or partly submerged sea caves (NATURA 2000 CODE 8330);

• Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Coasts (NATURA 2000 CODE 1230).

6.13 The site is also designated for the following Annex 2 Species as follows:

• Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) (NATURA 2000 CODE 1364);

• Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) (NATURA 2000 CODE 1351);

• Otter (Lutra lutra) (NATURA 2000 CODE 1355)

6.14 The National Parks and Wildlife Service have identified a number of other sensitive species that are present within the SAC as listed in Table 6.3 below.

6.15 Details of Annexed Habitats are provided in Appendix D.4 and further details of the SAC in Appendix D.5. None of the species listed in Table 6.3 were found within the site survey. Terrestrial habitats and species are discussed in Section 5 of this EIS.

6.16 The littoral zone within the study area falls under the Annex 1 Category “Reefs”. The sublittoral zone falls under the Annex 1 Category “Large Shallow Inlets and Bays”. Although biotopes within the study area fall under these categories, the biotopes and species present are considered common and widespread. None of the key species for which the SAC is designated, are present within the study area. Further details of habitats and species are provided above. Details of Annex II species present within the Roaringwater Bay and Islands SAC are presented below.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 70

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Table 6.3 – Important marine aquatic species within Roaringwater Bay & Islands SAC

Species Group Population

Tethyspira spinosa Sponge Rare

Gymangium montagui Hydroid Common

Lytocarpia myriophylum Hydroid Common

Tamarisca tamarisca Hydroid Rare

Alcyonium glomeratum Coral Common

Isozoanthus sulcatus Coral Common

Phyllophora sicula Red Algae Rare

Spyridia filamentosa Red Algae Rare

Lithophyllum dentatum Red Algae Rare

Lithothamnion corallioides Red Algae Common

Phymatolithon calcareum Maerl Common

Zostera marina Seagrass Common

LITTORAL SURVEY

6.17 The spatial distribution of littoral biotopes are indicated in Figure 6.1, with a full species listing associated with these biotopes provided in Appendix D.1. A total of 23 littoral biotopes were identified, with 58 characterising taxonomic groups identified within these biotopes (see Appendix D.1). A description of littoral biotopes is included in Appendix D.3. (See also Table 6.6 for area of littoral biotopes).

6.18 The site was characterised by a variety of biotopes (23) with moderate species diversity (58 species), particularly within the Laminaria digitata zone on the sublittoral fringe. All of the major biotopes recorded in the study area are common and widespread in the British Isles according to Connor et al (1997; 2004).

6.19 The most common biotopes in the littoral zone were shingle and gravel shores (38% of the littoral zone), Laminaria digitata on moderately exposed sublittoral fringe rock (15.8%) and littoral mixed sediment (12.6%). The Laminaria zone was characterised by a high density of a range of species (15 species in total identified), particularly red algae, sponges and tunicates (see Appendix 6.1 for list of species). The other two sediment biotopes are characterised by low species diversity and abundance, with only the occasional polychaete (Glycera sp.). No rare or uncommon species were found in the study area, and none of the species for which the Roaringwater Bay and Islands Special Area of Conservation is noted, were located within the study area. Of note, was the anemone, Anemonia viridis that was present in large numbers in mid-shore rockpools. However, this species is considered widespread along the west and southwest coasts of Ireland (Hiscock, 2005).

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 71

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

SUBLITTORAL SURVEY

6.20 Substrata consisted of infralittoral cohesive sandy mud. Water depth ranges between 0.9m and 9.1m Chart Datum according to the Admiralty Chart for the study area.

6.21 A total of 41 taxonomic groups were identified in 24 benthic samples (3 replicas at 8 sites) collected within the sublittoral environment. The location of sampling points is shown in Figure 6.2. A full list of species contained within samples is provided in Appendix D.2. The majority of samples were broadly similar in their composition and comprise a variation of the marine biotope “Melinna palmata with Magelona spp and Thyasira spp in infralittoral sandy mud” (Biotope code: SS.SMU.IsaMu.MelMagThy) according to Connor et al 2004. A summary of this biotope is included in Appendix D.3. This biotope contains the muddier aspect of the old biotope “Spio filifornis and Spiophanes bombyx in infralittoral clean or muddy sand” (Biotope code: IMS.FaMS.SpiSpi) (Connor et al, 1997). This muddy sand biotope, containing the polychaete worms, Spio filifornis and Spiophanes bombyx has been discontinued as it is seen as a transitional biotope between other biotopes. Those recorded previously under this biotope are now contained within a variety of other biotopes with shallower muddier examples falling into in the new biotope “Melinna palmata with Magelona spp and Thyasira spp in infralittoral sandy mud” (representative of the study area).

6.22 The marine polychaete, Melinna palmata was the dominant species found in samples (a total of 310 individuals found in 21 of the 24 samples). The bivalve, Abra alba was also dominant in many samples (182 individuals found between 21 samples). The polychaetes, Nephtys hombergii and Lumbrineris tetraura were also abundant in most samples (74 of each species found in total, and present in 23 samples and 19 samples respectively). Figure 6.3a to 6.3h show pie charts of percentage dominance of species within each of the eight sites (each pie chart represents a sum of numbers for all three replica samples). Nephtys hombergii is found throughout Britain and Ireland and is commonly used as aquaculture bait, as well as providing an important food source for birds (Budd & Hughes, 2003). The polychaete Melinna cristata is found on most north-west European coasts (Hayward & Ryland, 1996). The bristleworm, Lumbrineris tetraura has been recorded from scattered locations around the coast of Britain (Riley, 2003). The bivalve, Abra alba is widespread in distribution (Budd, 2005) within the British Isles. This species forms an important part of the diet for plaice and other juvenile fish.

6.23 Diversity indices are used to measure community diversity and health. Diversity is a measure of both species richness and the relative abundance of each species (evenness or equitability). A community with high evenness, which is not dominated by one or very few species, is considered to be more diverse than one with low evenness (Clarke & Warwick, 1994). According to Clarke and Warwick (1994), the Shannon-Weiner diversity Index (H1) is the most commonly used diversity index, incorporating both species richness and evenness.

Margalef’s index (DMg) is an expression of species richness, which incorporates the number of individuals to give a measure of the total number of species for a given number of individuals. In terns of evenness or equitability, Pielou’s index J’ is the most commonly used (Clarke & Warwick, 1994). Summary statistics for each of the sublittoral sites are presented in Table 6.5 below. Descriptions of calculation of indices are included in Appendix D.4.

6.24 The Marine Environment Monitoring Group (2004) examined marine benthos community structure at 28 estuaries and 31 coastal sites throughout the British Isles in 2000 (MEMG,

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 72

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

2004; 2005) The lower range of figures (see Table 6.4) represent polluted sites, while the upper range represent ‘unpolluted’ sites. Within samples collected in Schull Harbour, the number of species in individual samples ranged between 4 and 15, while the total number of species found was 41, which is relatively low when compared with the Marine Environment Monitoring Group results. H1 values above 3 are considered to represent ‘unpolluted conditions’ while values below 1.5 are considered to represent polluted conditions. On the basis of average H1 values obtained from samples, all sites range somewhere in between these. H1 values within Schull generally represent moderately polluted conditions. J’ within Schull harbour ranged between 0.6 – 1.0, which are in the mid-range of values determined at other coastal sites. It is not possible to compare numbers of individuals between sites, as these figures depend on sampling techniques and volume of sediment collected.

Table 6.4 – Comparison between diversity at Schull and other coastal sites (extracts from MEMG, 2005)

Site Number of H1 J’ Number of Sites Species

Coastal (MEMG, 2005) 31 0.93-3.11 0.45-0.95 3-94

Estuarine (MEMG, 2005) 28 0.03-2.22 0.05-1.90 2-60

Schull 24 1.1-3.7 0.6-1.0 4-16

6.25 The area is not considered of high ecological importance as species and habitats present are considered common and widespread, while diversity indices show that the marine benthic community has a low to moderate diversity and evenness. None of the species for which the Special Area of Conservation was designated were found in the study area.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 73

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Table 6.5 – Summary statistics on diversity of sublittoral sites at Schull

1 Site Number Sample Number S N H J' DMg Site 1 S1.1 12 48 2.9 0.8 2.8 S1.2 4 17 1.1 0.6 1.1 S1.3 7 47 2.6 0.9 1.6 Site 1 Average 8 37 2.2 1 2 Site 2 S2.1 12 36 3.1 0.9 3.1 S2.2 10 31 2.8 0.9 2.6 S2.3 9 45 2.3 0.7 2.1 Site 2 Average 10 37 2.7 0.8 2.6 Site 3 S3.1 12 40 3.3 0.9 3.0 S3.2 16 36 3.7 0.9 4.2 S3.3 9 21 2.9 0.9 2.6 Site 3 Average 12 32 3.3 0.9 3.3 Site 4 S4.1 13 40 3.1 0.8 3.3 S4.2 9 36 2.5 0.8 2.2 S4.3 12 59 2.5 0.7 2.7 Site 4 Average 11 45 2.7 0.8 2.7 Site 5 S5.1 11 48 3.1 0.9 2.6 S5.2 12 31 3.3 0.9 3.2 S5.3 7 26 2.4 0.9 1.8 Site 5 Average 10 35 2.9 0.9 2.5 Site 6 S6.1 12 49 2.3 0.6 2.8 S6.2 13 62 3.0 0.8 2.9 S6.3 9 25 2.1 0.7 2.5 Site 6 Average 11 45 2.5 0.7 2.7 Site 7 S7.1 10 69 1.8 0.5 2.1 S7.2 7 35 1.4 0.5 1.7 S7.3 5 5 2.3 1.0 2.5 Site 7 Average 7 36 1.8 0.7 2.1 Site 8 S8.1 7 51 2.2 0.8 1.5 S8.2 15 66 2.3 0.6 3.3 S8.3 12 62 2.3 0.7 2.7 Site 8 Average 11 60 2.3 0.7 2.5 S = Number of species; N = Number of Individuals, H1 = Shannon Weiner Index, J’ = Pielou’s Evenness; Dmg = Margalef’s richness. Note: H1 in red represent polluted sites, while H1 in blue represent ‘unpolluted condition’.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 74

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

No.No. Survey Areas Yellow & Gray Lichens in Supralittoral Zone (LR.FLR.Lic.YG) Verrucaria maura on littoral fringe rock (LR.FLR.Lic.Ver) Pelvetia caniculata & barnacles on moderately exposed littoral fringe rock (LR.MLR.BF.PelB) Fucus spiralis on sheltered eulittoral rock (LR.LLR.F.Fspi) Fucus serratus on moderately exposed lower eulittoral rock (LR.MLR.BF.Fser) Robust fucoid and red seaweed communities (LR.HLR.FR) Mussels & fucoids on moderately exposed shores (LR.MLR.MusF) Semibalanus balanoides on exposed rock (LR.HLR.MusB.Sem) LR.FLR.Lic.YG description Semibalanus balanoides, Fucus vesiculosus & red seaweeds (LR.HLR.MusB.Sem.FvesR) Mytilus edulis & barnacles on very exposed eulittoral rock (LR.HLR.MusB.MytB)

Laminaria digitata on moderately exposed sublittoral fringe rock (IR.MIR.KR.Ldig.Ldig) LR.HLR.MusB.Cht (not mapped) Laminaria saccharina & red seaweed in infralittoral sediments (SS.SMp.KSwSS.LsacR) Barren coarse sand (LS.LSa.MoSa.BarSa) Littoral mixed sediment (LS.LMx) 11 Shingle & gravel shores (LS.SCS.Sh) Scolelepis spp. in littoral mobile sand (LS.LSa.MoSa.AmSco.Sco) LR.HLR.MusB.Cht (not mapped) Existing Outfall 22 Littoral Core Sample Target Notes Approximate area of proposed foreshore reclamation 33 Rockpool with dense anemones

44 Rockpool with dense red algae

Rockpool with dense anemones Sewage Outfall Rockpools with dense red algae 55 LR.MLR.BF.Rho (not mapped)

LR.MLR.BF.PelB (not mapped) 66 LR.FLR.Lic.YG (Yellow and grey lichens on supralittoral rock) 77

88 LR.LLR.F.Fspi (Fucus spiralis on sheltered upper eulittoral rock)

IR.LIR.K.Lsac.Ldig (not mapped 1010

1212 11 LR.HLR.MusB.Sem (Semibalanus balanoides on vertical sheltered eulittoral rock) LR.FLR.Eph.Ent (not mapped)

22 Position of freshwater entry LR.HLR.FR (robust fucoid & red 1313 seaweed communities)

IR.MIR.KR.Ldig.Ldig (Laminaria digitata on moderately exposed sublittoral fringe 33 rock) 1313 LR.MLR.BF.Rho (not mapped)

00 5050 100100 44 1414 metresmetres LR.LLR.F.Fspi (not mapped) metresmetres

LITTORAL HABITATS WITHIN SCHULL HARBOUR FIGURE 6.1 ORDNANCEORDNANCE SURVEYSURVEY IRELANDIRELAND LICENCELICENCE No.No. ARAR 00825060082506 2421dg02_fig_6_1.pdf ©©ORDNANCEORDNANCE SURVEYSURVEY IRELANDIRELAND LICENCELICENCE No.No. ARAR 00825060082506 ORDNANCEORDNANCE SURVEYSURVEY IRELANDIRELAND && GOVERNMENTGOVERNMENT OFOF IRELANIRELANDIRELANIRELANDDD Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

11 77 2A2A

66 88

000 0.350.350.35 0.70.70.7 33 kilometerskilometers

Sublittoral Survey Sites Aquaculture Licenses (applications only) Roaringwater Bay Special Area of Conservation

LOCATION OF SUBLITTORAL SAMPLING SITES FIGURE 6.2

2421dg02_fig_6_2.pdf ©©ORDNANCEORDNANCEORDNANCE SURVEY SURVEYSURVEY IRELAND IRELANDIRELAND LICENCE LICENCELICENCE No. No.No. AR ARAR 0082506 00825060082506 ORDNANCEORDNANCEORDNANCE SURVEY SURVEYSURVEY IRELAND IRELANDIRELAND & && GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENTGOVERNMENT OF OFOF IRELAND IRELANDIRELAND Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 6.3 – Species Dominance at sublittoral sites.

Figure 6.3b -Site 2 Figure 6.3a -Site 1 Melinna palmata Other 9% Melinna Other 29% 32% palmata 28% Abra alba 27%

Thyasira spp. 6% Lumbrineri Abra alba Nephtys Thyasira Lumbrineri Nephtys s tetraura 19% hombergii spp. s tetraura hombergii 11% 6% 4% 19% 10%

Figure 6.3c - Site 3 Figure 6.3d - Site 4

Melinna palmata Other 24% Melinna Other 10% palmata 38% Lumbrineris 41% Abra alba tetraura 16% 2%

Nephtys Thyasira spp. hombergii Lumbrineri 13% 6% s tetraura 14% Nephtys Thyasira Abra alba hombergii spp. 19% 9% 8%

Figure 6.3e - Site 5 Figure 6.3f - Site 6

Melinna Melinna Other palmata palmata Other 26% 35% 15% 13%

Abra alba 20% Lumbrineris tetraura 1%

Thyasira Abra alba Lumbrineri spp. 47% s tetraura 5% Nephtys 14% Nephtys hombergii hombergii 7% Thyasira 11% spp. 6%

Z: 2421/30/32/Figure 6.3

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

CETACEANS & SEALS

6.26 The Irish Whale and Dolphin Group (IWDG) recorded a total of 33 cetacean sightings in Roaringwater Bay, covering the period from March 1992 to January 2006 inclusive. This includes nine sightings from Castle Point and three from Crookhaven. At least six species have definitely been recorded including both species (harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin) on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive. Other species recorded include two sightings each of common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) and minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). There was also one sighting each of killer whales (Orcinus orca) and pilot whales (Globicephala melas). Sightings not identified to species level include two unidentified dolphin species and one large whale sighting (see Appendix D.6). None of the 33 sightings reported here were within Schull harbour, with the major concentrations off the Calf islands around 4 nmls (7km) from the proposed development site.

6.27 There were cetacean sightings in Roaringwater Bay in all months except September, November and December. The greatest number of sightings were made in June and the greatest number of individuals in August (see Appendix D.6 for further details). Records were too few to explore in any detail, but it would be reasonable to say that harbour porpoise are present in the bay throughout the year with periodical incursions by common and bottlenose dolphins, especially in the summer. Minke whales are present in the outer bay in the summer months and transient species such as killer and pilot whales also occasionally occur.

Figure 6.4 - All cetacean sightings from 1. Roaringwater Bay 2. Castle point and 3. Crookhaven (source IWDG)

Legend

□ porpoise □ dolphins □ whales □ Other (basking

1. 2. 3.

6.28 A recent review of National Parks and Wildlife Service surveys on grey and common or harbour seals shows that both grey and harbour seals occur in Roaringwater Bay and do occasionally pup on the islands (Lyons, 2004). There were 13 sites around the country including Roaringwater Bay, where NPWS have made more than 10 observations between 1978 and 2003. Five counts of harbour seals revealed a mean of 7 seals (maximum 15) in Roaringwater Bay and 12.8 (maximum 43) grey seals. Harbour seal pups were reported in 1985 and grey seal pups in 1978 and 1983. During an aerial survey in 2003, a total of 52 harbour seals were counted in Roaringwater Bay, mainly off Ballydehob and on Ringarogy Island (Cronin et al. 2004). Although this was predominantly a harbour seal survey, 55 grey seals were also counted in Roaringwater Bay, mainly on Ringarogy Island (Cronin et al. 2004).

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 78

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

6.29 The maximum-recorded number of harbour seals equates to around 1.2% of the estimated 2,905 harbour seals estimated to occur in Ireland (Cronin et al. 2004). No current population estimates for grey seals occur but previous estimates suggest the breeding population is around 2-2,500 seals (Summers 1983). However many of those seals recorded in Roaringwater bay are not breeding thus the proportion of the Irish population using the Bay cannot be calculated. An aerial survey of grey seals was carried out in 2005 (results not yet available).

FISHERIES & AQUACULTURE

6.30 The southwest of Ireland (Cork Harbour to Loop Head) consists of a mixed fishery. The area is important for herring and whitefish. In 2002, a total of 1,234 tonnes of seafish were landed at Schull, representing 0.5% of total sea fish landings in Ireland and compared with 5,909 tonnes landed at Castletownbere (the largest port in the south-west representing 2.4% of Irelands total) and Killybegs, Irelands largest port (80,594 tonnes, representing 32.9% or Irelands total) (CSO, 2003). See also Chapter 3 on human beings for fisheries in relation to human beings.

6.31 Roaringwater Bay is a Class B Shellfish Production Area for mussels under the EC Directive ‘laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of live bivalves molluscs’ (CEC, 1991). Baltimore Harbour is a Class B Shellfish Production Area for Oysters, while Sherkin North is designated Class B for Oysters, and Sherkin Kinnish designated as Class A for Oysters. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (DCMNR) are the competent authority in Ireland for the classifying shellfish production areas (under S.I. No. 147 of 1996). For Class B Shellfish Production Areas, there must be less than 6000 faecal coliforms or 4600 Ecoli in 90% of samples of shellfish flesh (per 100g of shellfish flesh5).

6.32 There are a number of licensed aquaculture beds within the areas of Roaringwater Bay, Baltimore Harbour, Sherkin/Kinish, and Schull Harbour (see Figure 6.2 for location of beds in the vicinity of Schull). However, none of the licensed beds are located directly within Schull harbour itself. The nearest beds are ‘applications’ at Castleisland Channel, located approximately 3km southeast of the proposed marina development, and in the Long Island Channel located approximately 4km southwest of the proposed development (DCMNR, unpublished data).

6.33 The Schull Harbour area itself is likely to provide an important spawning and nursery area for inshore fish, which feed on marine benthic communities, particularly the rich concentration of bivalves and polychaetes present, as discussed earlier.

5 Five-tube, three-dilution MPN test.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 79

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Do Nothing Impact LITTORAL & SUBLITTORAL HABITATS & BENTHIC SPECIES

6.34 A Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently being constructed, which will lead to an improvement in water quality within Schull Harbour and subsequent changes to species and habitat composition. Currently there is a lack of suitable mooring facilities within Schull Harbour for fishing, aquaculture and recreational vessels. Should the proposed harbour development not proceed, the lack of a coherent control on management and mooring of boats may lead to a deterioration in water quality and damage to benthic habitats and species.

Impacts

6.35 The construction and operation of a harbour development and associated coastal protection works has the potential to adversely impact the immediate and adjacent habitats and species. Potential impacts include direct loss of habitat and species, an increase in suspended solids loadings, alteration to hydrology (covered separately in Section 7), and pollution and waste deposition. Construction and operational impacts are covered separately.

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

6.36 The greatest impact of the proposed harbour development is direct loss of habitat and species contained within. During the construction phase, the key impacts are disturbance to marine communities, and risk of sedimentation and pollution from plant and materials. The construction phase will last for approximately 2.5 years, and is projected to commence in 2008.

Loss of habitat

6.37 The majority of the proposed development is located on the foreshore. The proposed development will require reclamation of 1.05 hectares of littoral foreshore for various facilities (i.e. car parking facilities, landscaping, utility building etc) as detailed in Section 2. A summary of littoral habitat loss is provided in Table 6.6 below.

6.38 The impact on littoral habitat and species is permanent removal of habitat. As no designated species were found within the littoral zone (also no key species for which the Special Area of Conservation is noted) and all habitats and species within the littoral zone are considered common and widespread in Ireland, this impact is considered negative slight.

6.39 The construction of the pier extension and armoured Breakwater Nr. 1 will result in a permanent loss of0.21 ha of sublittoral habitat. An additional loss of sublittoral habitat will result from construction of Breakwater Nr. 2 (1.1 ha); and the new local boat pontoons and 225 floating berths, which will cover an additional area of approximately 0.21 ha, which will be covered (although not resulting in actual total removal of seabed). This loss of habitat will be temporary in the latter case, as species will recolonise once construction is complete. The habitats and species present in the study area are widespread and common, and the site classified as ‘moderately polluted’, so that impacts on loss of sublittoral habitat are considered slight.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 80

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Table 6.6 – Littoral Habitat Loss to Foreshore Reclamation as part of proposed harbour development

% of biotope Area lost to surveyed % of total development lost to Biotope Code Biotope Name Area (m2) survey area (m2) development

LR.FLR.Lic.YG Yellow and grey lichens on supralittoral rock 406.5 4.6% 335.6 82.6%

LR.FLR.Lic.Ver Verrucaria maura on littoral fringe rock 9.6 0.1% 9.6 100.0%

Pelvetia caniculata and barnacles on LR.MLR.BF.PelB moderately exposed littoral fringe rock 118.6 1.4% 117.5 99.1%

Fucus spiralis on moderately exposed to very LR.LLR.F.Fspi sheltered upper eulittoral rock 94.4 1.1% 94.4 100.0%

Fucus serratus on moderately exposed lower LR.MLR.BF.Fser eulittoral rock 23.4 0.3% 0.0 0.0%

Robust fucoid and/or red seaweed LR.HLR.FR communities 815.7 9.3% 815.7 100.0%

Mussels and fucoids on moderately exposed LR.MLR.MusF shores 229.7 2.6% 0.0 0.0%

Semibalanus balanoides on exposed to moderately exposed or vertical sheltered LR.HLR.MusB.Sem eulittoral rock 199.4 2.3% 0.0 0.0%

Mytilus edulis and barnacles on very LR.HLR.MusB.MytB exposed eulittoral rock 424.2 4.8% 424.2 100.0%

Laminaria digitata on moderately exposed IR.MIR.KR.Ldig.Ldig sublittoral fringe rock 1,382.0 15.8% 1,382.0 100.0%

Laminaria saccharina and red seaweeds on SS.SMp.KSwSS.LsacR infralittoral sediments 59.5 0.7% 9.1 15.3%

LS.LSa.MoSa.BarSa barren littoral coarse sand 352.7 4.0% 352.7 100.0%

LS.LMx Littoral mixed sediment 1,103.0 12.6% 0.0 0.0%

LS.LCS.Sh Shingle (pebble) and gravel shores 3,335.0 38.0% 916.0 27.5%

LS.LSa.MoSa.AmSco.Sco Scolelepis spp. in littoral mobile sand 220.6 2.5% 0.0

Total 8,774.3 4,456.8 50.8%

Sedimentation

6.40 Construction works have a significant potential to cause the release of sediments directly into the marine waters of Schull harbour. The construction phase will last approximately 2.5 years, with different phases during the development. Most sediment loads will be generated from the breakwater construction works, which will take place in 2 stages over a 12-16 month period, and from land reclamation works, which will take place over a 9 to 10 month period. Approximately 80,000 m3 of material (predominantly crushed stone) will be required for reclamation; a further 48,000m3 for construction of Breakwater Nr. 1; and 53,000m3 for Breakwater Nr. 2. The form of construction of the pier extension envisaged is of concrete. It is expected that a bund or cofferdam may be required to construct the pier extension in the dry; a bund would occupy a large footprint - it would effectively be like a double breakwater around the extension say footprint of 0.5 hectares and a volume of 10,000 m3 of material. A

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 81

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

cofferdam would have a relatively small footprint, approximately 5m outside the pier extension extents. These works will be undertaken during all tidal conditions. The placing of stone will lead to a short-term increase in the turbidity of the sublittoral waters. However, the extent of the impact is dependant on the timing of works.

6.41 The reclaimed area will be built as follows: if contractor chooses, he may create a bund around the working area, possibly in stages, to work in the dry; excavate (possibly from a barge, if contractor chooses a 'wet' method) for foundations; pour concrete for footings; place shutters / pre-cast panels & pour walls; backfill; repeat for next stage. This all implies pumping to keep water levels down, and a footprint for a bund.

6.42 This increase in turbidity may lead to increased siltation and smothering of marine organisms and habitats. High levels of suspended solids settling on the seashore and seabed can alter habitats resulting in a potential loss of feeding, nursery and spawning grounds for fish. The sublittoral habitats within Schull harbour are already muddy, containing tolerant polychaete species and are subject to silt loadings from existing port activity. It is therefore predicted that the impact will be slight. In addition, there is a risk of pollution from machinery.

Pollutants

6.43 There is a risk of release of pollutants from plant and equipment to be used during the construction phase. It is envisaged that piles for the pier, marina and pontoons will be transported to the site by sea, while all other materials will be transported to the site by road. It is understood that protective coating of piles is likely to be coal-tar epoxy grade PC2, which would be applied to the piles prior to transportation to the site, so that pollution impacts will not occur. Pollutants and chemicals used during the construction phase could have toxic impacts on the fauna and flora in the littoral and sublittoral zones. Likely pollutants would include fuel oil and leakages from equipment. Approximately 15,000m3 of concrete will be required for construction works, which it is envisaged will be transported to site as ready- mixed wet concrete, before being poured or pumped into place. If waters become polluted, species more tolerant to pollution can extend their distribution, thus altering species composition. Sensitive species were not found in the sublittoral survey, and the survey area is considered ‘moderately polluted’. Thus, the potential polluting impact during construction works is considered slight to moderate due to the ability of existing species to tolerate such impacts. Further details of potential pollutants are discussed under operational impacts.

Cetaceans & Seals

6.44 It is envisaged that piles for the pier, marina and pontoons will be transported to the site by sea, while all other materials will be transported to the site by road. However, the Contractor may choose to transport additional materials by sea, such as stone for the breakwaters. The impact from construction of the proposed marina and associated facilities is likely to be limited to the harbour with little direct impact in the Bay. No dredging or blasting is proposed and equipment and materials are to be brought in by road. If dredging or blasting was to be considered then a pre-survey to ensure no marine mammals are within 2.5km of the site should be carried out.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 82

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

6.45 Pile driver-generated noise has the potential to affect dolphin populations adversely as it detectable up to 40km from the source. AT 9kHz, this noise is capable of masking strong vocalisations within 10-15 km and weak vocalisations up to approximately 40km (David, 2006). The threshold peak impulse sound pressure for direct physical trauma in marine mammals, birds and fish is generally considered to be greater than 200dB (David, 2006). The response thresholds of cetaceans are usually the lowest for pulsed sounds, and pile driving is one of the loudest sources of this type of noise (David, 2006). It is recommended that the received level of noise for cetaceans should not exceed 150dB (IWDG, unpublished data). The impact of construction activities on cetacean species could be significant if mitigation measures provided in this report are not followed.

Fisheries & Aquaculture

6.46 There are no fisheries located within the actual construction zone. The nearest licensed aquaculture beds are located over 2.5km from the proposed development. Thus, there will not be direct impacts on fishing or aquaculture during construction works. Construction works will take place on a phased basis. Temporary mooring facilities for small fishing boats will be made available at all times during the construction phase. However, larger trawlers will not be able to berth at Schull Harbour during the construction phase. However, there will be some disturbance and a slight short-term impact on fish landings during this period.

Bathing & Recreational Waters

6.47 There are no designated bathing waters in the vicinity of Schull Harbour. The nearest blue flag beach and designated bathing water, located at Crookhaven, Barleycove is located more than 15km to the west of the proposed development. There are some small beaches within Schull Harbour, however, which are likely to be used for bathing, particularly during the summer period. There is a small gravel beach directly to the east of the proposed floating breakwater and new leisure craft slipway. This beach would be subject to sedimentation and possible pollution during the construction phase, particularly during works on the reclamation area, and piling operations in the vicinity of the beach. This work will take approximately 9-10 months for land reclamation and a further 2-3 months for construction of the marina. These impacts are considered short-term slight to moderate.

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS

Habitat alteration from changes in sediment transport

6.48 Alteration to the hydrology and sediment deposition routine in the area from the new pier extension and breakwater, could lead to subsequent alteration of marine benthic communities. An assessment of the wave and sediment climate is detailed in Section 7, which indicates that there will not be a significant alteration to marine sediment movements as a result of the harbour development. Consequently, the impact on marine benthic communities is considered to be neutral.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 83

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Pollutants

6.49 Schull Harbour provides an interface between land waste management and disposal system for ships and boats. Operational waste from vessels, if not properly managed, can end up in the sea where the potential for contamination or pollution occurs. The Marine and Coastguard Agency in the UK (www.mcga.gov.uk) provide environmental and health and safety guidance on the operation of boats. In addition, a 5,000 litre capacity fuel storage tank and refuelling point will be included within the proposed development. This storage tank will be located underground in the vicinity of the Utility Building, and will include hydrocarbon interceptors and bunding in the design of the tank, to prevent pollution. Key waste issues are as follows (which are important issues during both construction and operation of the harbour development):

Oil & Organics: This may be from operational, accidental and illegal discharges from boats. Sources of oil contamination include spills of fuel and lubricating oils, exhaust emissions, wood treatment solutions, and run-off from marina parking lots. Marine animals and plants tend to be tolerant of low-level concentrations of oil in sediments. However, exposure to major and minor oil spills can lead to the mass mortality of benthic communities, fish, marine mammals and birds. In sediments, as it is organic, oil will be broken-down relatively quickly by micro-organisms which may result in the localised removal of oxygen from the sediments and surrounding water with possible effects on marine life. Schull Harbour supports approximately 12 large to medium sized fishing trawlers, and this number is not expected to increase. The proposed harbour development will support primarily an increase in leisure craft, under 40ft long, which are less likely to contribute to a major pollution event. Tolerant benthic communities are present in the vicinity of Schull Harbour so potential impacts are considered be imperceptible, but with the potential for significant impacts in the case of a boating accident within the SAC. This risk, however, is not likely to be much greater than the current risk. The proposed harbour development will predominantly cater for existing boat traffic within Schull. 169 out of the total 225 berths will cater for existing users of Schull Harbour, the remaining 56 berths will be made available for visiting recreational boats which will visit the site mainly from Ireland, the UK and the north of France. It is expected that some of the 169 berths will also be rented out to visitors to Schull, when vacant.

The persistent toxic constituents of oil, such as heavy metals, can become stored in the sediments and taken up into the food chain. Therefore, following large oil spills, even where animals recover in diversity and density, they may continue to suffer physiological and behavioural disorders, which can result in reduction of growth and reproduction, and in the worse cases, death. The breakdown of oils tends to be slowest in littoral areas, which leads to the highest concentrations and longest residence times (ABP, 1999). No data is available for contaminants in marine sediments within Schull Harbour, although these are expected to be very low. Glynn et al (2004) and Bloxham et al (1998) reported very low levels of contaminants within shellfish in Roaringwater Bay, and these were well within human consumption guidelines and standards set by OSPAR countries. The proposed development will increase the risk of pollution by encouraging increasing boat usage of Schull.

Sewage: There is no legislation regarding the environmental requirements for harbours at a EU level or within Ireland. Sewage may affect the marine environment in three main ways,

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 84

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

through oxygen depletion, causing disease, and by nutrient enrichment. Ancillary development for the proposed harbour provides toilet and showering facilities, and laundry facilities for less than 20 people, but no kitchen facilities will be provided. Therefore the quantity of foul sewage from the site will be extremely low. This foul sewage will discharge into the proposed new Schull Wastewater Treatment Plant, adjacent to the development; operators of the new facilities will not discharge untreated sewage into the cSAC. It is not possible to purge sewage holding tanks on modern recreational vessels directly into the sea. There will be a service point located adjacent to the refuelling facility, which will facilitate removal of wastewater from incoming recreational vessels for treatment at Schull WWTP. As older vessels are retired or retro-fitted with holding tanks, the risk of sewage being discharged directly to the sea will reduce. This process is being driven by EU Directives and national Enabling Legislation, and will be assisted by providing sewage removal facilities at Schull. The risk of pollution from wastewater from incoming boats is considered neutral. The impacts of Schull Wastewater Treatment Plant are outside the scope of this EIS. Summary information of the WWTP is included in Section 2. Impacts from the proposed harbour development are expected to be neutral.

Garbage: Garbage enters the port and harbour environment via numerous pathways, both from on and offshore, one of which is through overboard dumping from ships and boats. Many ships and boats rely on adequate and convenient reception facilities being available in ports and harbours of the disposal of garbage. Inadequate reception facilities may discourage users from disposing of their litter responsibly ashore, and may lead to garbage being disposed of overboard at sea. Impacts of littering are expected to be slight.

Ballast Water: The movement of vessels around the world requires the intake of ballast water to give them a safe degree of stability when light. This disposal of water, when it takes place within ports and harbours is classed as a waste product. The ballast water that is disposed of may contain a variety of harmful substances, including in certain cases oil contaminants, non-native marine animals and plants, and disease causing organisms in sewage-contaminated water. The non-native barnacle, Elminius modestus is currently present within Schull Harbour. This species was likely introduced from ballast water from boats. The proposed harbour development will support mainly small leisure craft and existing, local fishery boats, which do not contain ballast water. Therefore the potential impact of introduction of non-native is considered neutral.

Anti fouling paint scraps and maintenance wastes: The proposed harbour development will facilitate existing fishing trawlers and new light recreational boats predominantly. The removal and application of anti-fouling will be forbidden at the proposed harbour development, so that the impact is considered to be neutral.

Cetaceans & seals

6.50 At least six cetacean species and two seal species have been sighted adjacent to the site of interest and two additional cetacean species (one historical) has been stranded in the vicinity of the proposed development. There is no evidence of cetaceans regularly entering Schull harbour. Grey and common seals are present in the bay and occasionally pup on the islands and may enter the harbour while foraging but there are no records to support this. One cetacean species (harbour porpoise) is probably present in the area throughout the year while

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 85

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

the others are seasonal (minke whale) or transient. Both species on Annex II of the Habitats Directive have been recorded, one of these (harbour porpoises) regularly and throughout the year. Thus any impact of this development is likely to be limited to harbour porpoise.

Fisheries & Aquaculture

6.51 There will some loss of sublittoral habitat and species contained within. The polychaete and bivalve species dominant in sublittoral sediments provide a food source for fish species. However, this loss of food source and potential fish habitat is considered slight to imperceptible as these species are common and widespread throughout the harbour, and the area of impact represents a small proportion of the wider habitat available (<0.2% comparing sublittoral habitat loss with area of sublittoral biotope available within Schull Harbour, based on sampling undertaken).

6.52 There is currently cramped access, and inadequate mooring facilities for local fishing boats. The Central Fisheries Board has targeted the Mizen peninsula and surrounding inshore waters as an area for promotion as a sea-angling destination. The proposed harbour development will provide for better mooring and storage facilities for local fishing boats. All known local fishermen, and fishery organisations were consulted as part of the EIS to ensure that their needs are accommodated with the proposed harbour development (see Table 2.1 for list of consultees and Appendix A for responses received). A designated area will be provided for the storage of inshore fishery gear. The new pier and breakwater will provide more microhabitats for fish themselves and more fishing spots for shore anglers on the longer term. It will be possible for fishermen to generate additional revenue through developing opportunities for providing whale watching and sea angling trips to tourists. The impacts on fisheries and aquaculture are therefore considered long-term positive.

Bathing & Recreational Waters

6.53 There are no designated bathing waters in the vicinity of the site. However, there is a small gravel beach to the east of the development, which is likely to be used as a bathing area. There will be no discharges from the proposed development. The construction of the new Wastewater Treatment Plant by Cork County Council is likely to improve water quality in the area. The impacts of the proposed harbour development are considered neutral.

Mitigation Measures CONSTRUCTION

Loss of Habitat

6.54 Loss of habitat from reclamation works and for construction of the new pier and breakwater. However, the new pier and rubble breakwater will provide new habitat for a range of species. The design of the pier extension and armoured breakwaters, especially below the tide line should seek to incorporate as much microstructure as possible to allow niches for lobster crab and fish to shelter or breed in the structure. A diversity of boulder sizes and rock placed

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 86

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

along the outer edge of the breakwater would be useful in this respect. This would facilitate maximum biodiversity at the site.

6.55 Examples of general sensitive times for selective marine animals and plants are presented in Table 6.6 below. Construction works should be minimised during these sensitive periods where possible.

6.56 The harbour development will result in the permanent loss of littoral and sublittoral habitat from the area for foreshore reclamation for ancillary development, and sublittoral seabed removal for construction of the pier extension, armoured breakwaters and piling associated with the boat pontoons. Removal of the seabed for these works should be minimised between the months of June and October, which are spawning and larval stages for many marine species, and therefore when they are most sensitive to impacts. Summer time is considered the most sensitive for many species. It is also the main tourist season in Schull. Therefore, avoiding construction during this period will benefit not only marine communities, but also human beings.

Sedimentation

6.57 The impacts of sedimentation and increased turbidity during construction works are not considered significant due to the high tolerance of species present within the vicinity of the proposed dredge area. The impacts of increased sedimentation and suspended solids are greatest during the larval stage of marine species. Construction works should avoid sensitive periods for marine animals. Spawning and larval stages for many species take place during the summer months, for example between June and September for Ostrea edulis. It is recommended that construction work on the seabed be maximised during low tide and during neap tides as the extent of effects would be less than during high tide or spring tides.

6.58 Construction runoff will be kept to a minimum in order to control the level of suspended solids released into the water column. Perimeter controls such as earth dykes and silt fences should be installed at the edge of the construction site to retain or filter runoff before being discharged into surrounding waters. Needless clearing and grading will be minimised. Sediment traps or basins will be installed to allow captured sediments to settle out and will be regularly maintained. To improve trapping efficiency, these basins will be designed to incorporate features such as larger volumes, use of baffles, skimmers and other outlet devices and multicell construction. A coffer dam or bunding will be employed during construction in the reclamation area.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 87

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Table 6.6 – Sensitive times for selected marine animals and plants (ABP, 1999)

Type of Organism Sensitive Stage in Life Cycle Period

Benthic Animals Spawning Spring

Highest growth rates Early Summer

(shellfish) May-July

Highest numbers of eggs and larval stages Early Summer

(shellfish) March-July

Fish Migration of salmon & sea trout (smolt) from rivers to the sea Spring & early summer

Highest numbers of eggs & larval stages Early summer

Microalgae Highest growth rates (highest potential for algal bloom April through July (phytoplankton) formation)

Seals Breeding Summer

Pollutants

6.59 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 least 100m away from the sea. Fuel for machinery or any chemicals will be required to be stored in a secure and bunded area. Oil interceptors will also be installed at appropriate locations. Equipment will be regularly maintained and leaks repaired immediately away from the site. Accidental spillages will be contained and cleaned up immediately.

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

6.61 All surface water drainage from the development area will be directed to petrol interceptors before being discharged to the sea.

6.62 During the construction phase, contained chemical portable toilets will be used and all sewage will be removed from site to an authorised treatment works.

Cetaceans & Seals

6.63 The area surrounding pile-driving operations should be scanned for cetacean populations; this could include the use of hydrophones, which would be particularly useful in bad weather. An exclusion zone of 500m radius should be monitored for at least 30 minutes before the start of piling (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2004). If cetaceans are observed in the exclusion zone, marine works should be delayed until they have left the area. If cetaceans enter the exclusion zone after piling has commenced, marine works should cease until they have left (JNCC, 2004). Alternatively, to give cetaceans some warning of the impending acoustic impact of piling, driving of new piles should start with a few light taps before the main hammering begins.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 88

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

6.64 The presence of seals or cetaceans close to operating machinery must be reported to the National Parks and Wildlife Service who will advice on the best course of action.

6.65 For any of the proposed works, operations during the winter months would be less likely to impact marine mammals than during the summer months.

Fisheries and Aquaculture

6.66 Alternative berths or moorings will be provided for small fishing boats during the construction phase although larger trawlers will not be able to berth at Schull Harbour during the construction phase. As detailed above, design of the new pier and rubble breakwaters will maximise the potential for creation of microhabitats for fish and other marine species.

Bathing and Recreation

6.67 Mitigation measures for reduction of sedimentation and pollution above will also protect bathing and recreational waters.

OPERATION

Habitat alteration from changes in sediment transport

6.68 Details of changes to hydrodynamics are detailed in Chapter 7. Impacts are considered neutral and no further mitigation required.

Pollutants

6.69 An Oil Spill Contingency Plan should be drawn up for the Harbour by the Harbour Service Provider in consultation with Cork County Council, including identification of areas where the use of dispersants presents little or no concern. The National Parks and Wildlife Service can provide advice. The highest possible standards should be maintained during the operation of the harbour and associated infrastructure. Potential pollutants such as fuel oils should not be stored in the vicinity of the marine environment (a minimum buffer zone of 100m is recommended). Long term management of boat activities associated with the pier is necessary to reduce impacts in terms of disturbance and pollutants within the SAC.

6.70 Foul sewage from the proposed development will be piped to the new Schull Wastewater Treatment Plant. Wastewater from incoming vessels will be removed at a designated ‘service area’, for removal from the site and treatment at Schull WWTP. There will not be any discharge to the marine environment from the proposed harbour development. Impacts are considered neutral.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 89

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

6.54 There must be adequate provision for port-generated waste in accordance with Cork County Waste Management Plan. The Harbour Service Provider should encourage the responsible management of waste, including minimisation and recycling, at the point of generation on boats, reception at Schull Harbour, transportation and disposal. Cork County Council must ensure that users of the pier report large pieces of floating garbage and should consider the collection of marine litter, particularly plastics, where considered necessary. Due to the low volumes of traffic anticipated at Schull Harbour, and with good management impacts of littering should be neutral.

6.71 Ballast Water: There will be no ballast water generated from vessels entering the proposed development, as this is to cater for local fisheries only, and recreational craft that do not contain ballast. Cork County Council should prohibit the unnecessary discharge of ballast water at Schull Harbour should larger boats visit the site. Following these recommendations, impacts of ballast water should be neutral.

6.72 Removal and application of antifouling will be prohibited at Schull Harbour, and activities prevented, that have the potential for release of these contaminants within the SAC.

Cetaceans & seals

6.73 The impact of this development is considered minor and local. It is recommended that the operators of the harbour provide educational material on the marine mammals of the area and encourage a Code of Good Practice by boat operators based on the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources recommendations included in Appendix D6 of this EIS.

6.74 The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (DCMNR) require that boat behaviour around cetaceans follow the following recommendations (see Appendix D.6 for DCMNR Marine Notice):

• When whales or dolphins are first encountered, craft should maintain a steady course;

• Boat speed should be maintained below 7 knots;

• Do not attempt to pursue whales or dolphins encountered;

• In the case of dolphins, they will very often approach craft and may engage in “bow riding”. Always allow dolphins approach a boat rather than attempt to go after them;

• Maintain a distance of at least 100m from whales;

• Maintain a distance of 200m between any other boats in the vicinity;

• Attempt to steer a course parallel to the direction whales or dolphins are taking;

• Do not corral whales or dolphins between boats;

• Special care must be taken when young calves are seen - do not come between a mother and her calf;

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 90

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

• Successive boats must follow the same course;

• Boats should not spend more than 30 minutes with whales or dolphins;

• DO NOT attempt to swim with them.

6.75 With respect to oil spillages, studies have shown cetaceans avoid such areas and would be very unlikely to surface in a slick.

6.76 A seal scarer can be used to clear the harbour of seals in the event of a spill and also during construction works.

Fisheries & Aquaculture

6.77 Mitigation outlined above for prevention of pollution will benefit fisheries and aquaculture within the area. As detailed above, design of the new pier and rubble breakwaters will maximise the potential for creation of microhabitats for fish and other marine species. The provision of a wide range of rock sizes in the bedding stone will provide a mosaic of microhabitats for fish food organisms, thereby attracting fish for food and shelter.

6.78 Breakwaters provide habitat comparable to natural rocky habitat and can be potentially more complex in structure. Most structures have scattered, isolated boulders at their base, which support a rich diversity of organisms. There would be considerable ecological value in deliberately adding such elements to the breakwater design for this project. Species likely to use the breakwaters include crabs and lobsters and especially prawns (DEFRA, 2001).

6.79 Algae especially the kelps, add an additional layer (up to 1m deep) of habitat complexity to the structure. This appears to be especially important for many fish species including, sand smelt, wrasse and 2 spot gobies. This algal cover may also contribute to the success of the structure as a habitat for crustacea. The following recommendations, extracted from DEFRA, 2001 are recommended when construction the rubble breakwaters:

• Opportunities for fishery habitat enhancement increase with water depth;

• Maximise the diversity of crevices as this will increase the chances of a more diverse biological community;

• Consider using a mix of materials to provide a wider range of chamber sizes;

• Where possible incorporate ‘animal friendly’ features into the design. For example, isolated boulders for scour pools and projections to create under hangs.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 91

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

6.80 No further mitigation is required.

Bathing & Recreation

6.81 Mitigation outlined above for prevention of pollution will benefit bathing and recreational sites. The proposed harbour development will strive to attain Marine Blue Flag Status. No further mitigation is required.

Residual Impacts

6.82 A summary of residual impacts are provided in Table 6.7 below.

6.83 This facility will impact on the marine mammals in the area by drawing in additional recreational craft and cause increased disturbance to cetaceans in Roaringwater Bay and seals hauled out on adjacent islands. This impact might be direct due to disturbance or acoustic through increased ambient noise. However, as the proposed harbour development will mainly facilitate existing users of the bay (circa 75%), the impact is considered neutral once mitigation measures outlined above are adhered to.

6.84 Once mitigation measures outlined above are undertaken, impacts are slight, imperceptible and even positive. It is not possible to mitigate for the direct loss of habitat from reclamation of the foreshore and therefore the impacts are moderate.

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 92

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Table 6.7 – Summary of Residual Impacts

Key Area Impact Type Impact before Mitigation Residual Impact

Construction

Littoral Loss of habitat Permanent Slight Permanent Moderate

Sublittoral Loss of habitat Permanent Slight Permanent Slight

Littoral & Sublittoral Sedimentation Slight Slight

Pollutants Slight – moderate Slight

Cetaceans & Seals Noise Temporary possible Neutral significant

Fisheries & Aquaculture Disturbance / moorings Short-term slight Short-term slight

Bathing & Recreation Pollution & siltation Slight to moderate Slight to Neutral

Operational

Sublittoral Hydrological impacts Neutral Neutral

Littoral & Sublittoral Pollutants – oils & organics Potential Significant Imperceptible

Sewage Neutral Neutral

Garbage Slight Imperceptible

Ballast water Neutral Neutral

Anti-fouling Neutral Neutral

Cetaceans & Seals Disturbance Imperceptible Imperceptible

Fisheries & Aquaculture Provision of facilities Long-term positive Long-term positive

Loss of food source / Slight to imperceptible Slight to imperceptible habitat

Bathing & Recreation Pollution Slight Neutral

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 93