Environmental Impact Statement Volume I: Main Text

Contents

1.0 INTODUCTION, SCOPING & CONSULTATION

2.0 NEED FOR SCHEME AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

4.0 PLANNING POLICY

5.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

6.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE

7.0 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL

8.0 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

9.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION

10.0 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE

11.0 SOILS AND GEOLOGY

12.0 COASTAL PROCESSES

13.0 WATER ENVIRONMENT

14.0 MARINE ECOLOGY

15.0 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY & ORNITHOLOGY

16.0 INTERACTIONS

17.0 SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

1.0 INTRODUCTION, SCOPING & CONSULTATION

1.1 Project Summary The Port of Cork (POC) has appointed a team of specialist consultants to compile an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed alterations to the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment. The EIS is required by An Bord Pleanala (the Board) under Section 146C of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) (the Act). A comprehensive description of the proposed alterations is included in Chapter 3 of this EIS.

1.2 Planning Context

Under ABP Ref. No. PA00035m the Board decided on 28th May 2015 to grant a 10-year planning permission for the redevelopment of the existing port facilities at Ringaskiddy. During the detailed design of the proposed works it became evident that the long-term sustainability of the project could be significantly improved by making a number of alterations to the infrastructural works and the landside operations of the permitted container terminal.

On 20 th July 2016, POC submitted to the Board a request under Section 146B(1) of the Act to alter the terms of the permission granted under PA00035. On 6 th September 2016, the Board determined in accordance with Section 146B(2)(a) of the Act that the proposed alteration would constitute a material alteration to the terms of the development.

The Board therefore decided to invoke Section 146B(8). This required the applicant to publish details of the application and to make a copy of the application documents available to the prescribed bodies and the public. A total of 19 submissions/observations were made.

On 28 th October 2016, the Board determined under 146B(4) of the Act that the proposed alteration would be likely to have significant effects on the environment and that an environmental impact statement (EIS) was therefore required in accordance with the provisions of Section 146C (see Appendix 1.3).

1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - Concept EIA is a key instrument of European Union environmental policy and a procedure required under the terms of European Union Directives 2011/92/EU (Consolidated EIA Directive) on assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

1.4 Environmental Impact Statement - Structure • Non-Technical Summary • Volume I. EIS: Main Statement • Volume II. EIS: Figures & Photomontages • Volume III. EIS: Appendices

The EIS should be read in conjunction with the associated planning submission to An Bord Pleanála including the planning application drawings. Where figures referenced in the chapters of this EIS are not located within the relevant chapter, they are provided in EIS Volume II. Where appendices are referenced in the chapters of this EIS, they are provided in EIS Volume III.

The EIS comprises the following chapters:

01 – Introduction; 02 – Need for Alterations & Outline of Alternatives; 03 – Project Description; 04 – Planning Policy; 05 – Human Environment; 06 – Cultural Heritage;

NI1004 S146C EIS 1-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

07 – Landscape and Visual Impact; 08 – Traffic and Transportation; 09 – Noise and Vibration; 10 – Air Quality and Climate; 11 – Soils and Geology; 12 – Coastal Processes; 13 – Water Environment; 14 – Marine Ecology 15 – Terrestrial Ecology and Ornithology; 16 – Interactions / Inter-Relationships; 17 – Summary of Response to Observations submitted to An Bord Pleanála.

1.5 Methodology The EIS follows the format of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements (March 2002). The EPA Advice Notes on Current Practices (in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements) (September 2003) details the topics usually addressed for particular project types.

Whilst details of the methodology used in each individual discipline are given in the relevant chapter of the document each EIS chapter broadly conforms to the following format:

• An Introduction describing the purpose of the chapter; • A description of the Methodology used in the chapter; • A description of the aspects of the Existing Environment relevant to the environmental topic under consideration in the context of the proposed alterations; • An assessment of the likely or potential Impact (including cumulative) of the proposed alterations to the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment on the environmental topic; • Recommendations for Mitigation measures to avoid, reduce or remedy where possible, any significant negative impacts identified; and • An assessment of the Residual Impact.

1.6 Scoping & Consultation 1.6.1 Introduction The scope of the EIS is set out in the Board’s letter of 28 th October 2016 which in turn closely follows the wording of Section 146C of the Act. The POC is required to prepare an environmental impact statement in relation to the proposed alteration of the terms of the development permitted.

This means that the EIS should be focussed on the potential impact of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development. The key requirement is that the direct and indirect effects of the alterations, and the cumulative effects of the alterations with the permitted development, are to be considered and assessed.

The scope of the EIS includes the information which is generally required under Section 177 of the Act and Article 94 and Schedule 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 (as amended) (the Regulations). The EIS should also include any other information prescribed in these Regulations to the extent that it is relevant to: • the given stage of the consent procedure and to the specific characteristics of the development or type of development concerned, and • the environmental features likely to be affected.

1.6.2 An Bord Pleanála statutory consultation with relevant bodies On 6th September 2016, the Board required POC to give notice of the proposed alterations to the prescribed bodies and to invite submissions or observations in relation to the proposal. The Board had regard to the submissions and observations made before deciding under Section 146B(4) of the Act that the proposal would be likely to have significant effects on the environment and that an EIS would therefore be required under Section 146C.

NI1004 S146C EIS 1-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The statutory and non-statutory consultees listed below were informed of the proposed alterations to the permitted Ringaskiddy Redevelopment and invited to submit their comments on the proposals:

• Cork County Council • Cork City Council • Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government • Minister for Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Development Applications Unit) • Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment • Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport • Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine • Minister for Justice and Equality • Minister for Defence • Transport Infrastructure Ireland • National Transport Authority • Southern Regional Assembly • An Chomhairle Ealaion • Failte Ireland • An Taisce • Heritage Council • Inland Fisheries Ireland • larnrod Eireann • Commission for Railway Regulation • Irish Water • Irish Aviation Authority • Office of Public Works • Birdwatch Ireland • Health and Safety Authority • Health Service Executive

The responses received from the Statutory Bodies are provided in Volume III EIS Appendices – Appendix 1.1.

1.6.3 Public Consultation & Submissions On 7 th September 2016, An Bord Pleanala published a notice of the proposed alterations and invited submissions from the wider public with s closing date for submissions on 7th October 2016.

A copy of all submissions from the public and interest groups are provided in Volume III EIS Appendices – Appendix 1.2.

NI1004 S146C EIS 1-3 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

2.0 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AND OUTLINE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

2.1 The Need for the Alterations

Port of Cork is a Tier 1 Port of National Significance. The National Port’s Policy statement, (March 2013) places an onus on Tier 1 Ports to deliver Ireland’s port capacity and services to contribute to overall national development goals. The Port of Cork’s Strategic Development Plan Review, (2010), outlined the company’s intention to relocate commercial trade to the lower harbour at Ringaskiddy. Government endorses the core principles underpinning the company’s plan and the continued commercial development of the Port of Cork Company is a key strategic objective of the National Port’s Policy.

Port companies are required to fund all their infrastructure and operational requirements from their own resources. Further Port of Cork must cater for future economic growth and the changes in shipping trends towards larger vessels. The Port must remain competitive in order to sustain the regional and national economy.

The EIS for the permitted development highlighted that the provision of competitive port facilities is required for the economic vitality of the country and the South West Region. Government policy is to ensure that this essential infrastructure and port services are provided in time to meet changing market demands.

A strategic cost-benefit appraisal carried out by Indecon Economic Consultants indicated that the proposed Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment would be likely to deliver a net economic return to the Irish economy, with a Benefit-Cost Ratio of 2.31 to 1 in favour of proceeding with the project.

The original development area was chosen to meet the following operational requirements for container Lift on-Lift off, (LoLo), Roll on-Roll off, (RoRo) and project cargo trade:

• The provision of multipurpose and LoLo berths (Berths 1 and 2 respectively); • Flexible container stacking areas; • Gate operations which facilitate mobility management; • Flexible quay working areas; • Laydown area for project cargo, (i.e. wind turbine elements, heavy lift and out-of-gauge loads); • RoRo vehicle parking including accompanied, (i.e. with driver) truck and trailer, and unaccompanied, (parked up for scheduled collection), trailer traffic; • Maintenance and administration areas to support the various operational requirements

The EIS for the permitted development acknowledged (para 2.2.6.1) that the mix of LoLo and RoRo facilities proposed by Port of Cork would require a degree of flexibility as the final port operator was not known at that stage. It remained possible that the container terminal LoLo would be operated on a landlord model whereby the port company owns and manages the port facilities and infrastructure and leases them to private port operators, who would provide their own superstructure and equipment. The RoRo would typically be operated by the Port.

The EIS for the permitted development indicated that other port management models would also be considered whereby the superstructure and handling equipment would be provided by the port company and would be implemented in a phased manner responding to specific market drivers and the variability in global shipping and trade trends.

Three options were identified for the method of container handling within the terminal:

• Rail mounted gantry cranes, (RMGs), utilising sprinter straddle carrier or trucks and trailers • Rubber tyred gantry cranes, (RTGs), utilising trucks and trailers • Straddle carriers, (SCs)

The options were reviewed by the Port and the EIS assumed that Rubber Tyred Gantry (RTGs) utilising truck and trailers would be the method of container handling within the terminal.

NI1004 S146C EIS 2-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Following the grant of permission, Port of Cork considered alterations to take account of the conditions imposed by the Board which had implications for the viability and sustainability of the construction and operational phases of the permitted development, including: (a) Condition 4 which deferred the introduction of the proposed RoRo services until the upgrades of the N28 and the Dunkettle Interchange are completed; (b) Condition 5 which required a more restrictive mobility management plan than originally proposed; (c) Condition 8 which clarified the noise limits which would be imposed at various times of the day.

The review also took account of the revised programme for the delivery of the upgrade of the national road network and the decision made by the Port of Cork Company to fund and directly provide the port superstructure and equipment for container handling.

The review also brought the phasing of capital and operational expenditure to the forefront of the project review, including:

(a) The optimisation of the design of the multi-purpose berth for container traffic to take account of the fact that Phase 3, the proposed linkspan would not be operational until the completion of the planned upgrades of the national route network; (b) The need for a more flexible method of container handling to ensure efficient implementation of the mobility management plan; and (c) The need to align capital and operational costs with the business model and funding capabilities

The following conclusions were reached through the review:

• A single optimised container berth would require less upfront capital investment and have the capacity to accommodate two container vessels • Straddle carriers would require less upfront capital than RTGs; • The number of straddle carriers could be more easily adjusted to the growth in traffic as they have lower capital cost per unit when compared to RTGs; • Straddle carriers could comply with the noise restrictions imposed by the Board; • The use of straddle carriers would better support the requirements of the RMMP and ensure the most efficient use of the road capacity allowed under the mobility management plan; • The re-use of the existing straddle carriers in the Tivoli container terminal would result in a significant reduction in the initial capital expenditure; • The use of straddle carriers could reduce operational expenditure by more than €1.0 m per annum as they would require fewer operator resources and less ancillary equipment.

2.2 The Alternatives Considered

Before reaching the conclusions as to the proposed alterations, a number of options were considered.

In regard to the optimisation of the multi-purpose berth, the Port assessed the following alternatives in regard to the phasing of the construction of the linkspan and the concrete outstand which connects the linkspan to the main structure of the berth:

(a) To provide the outstand but defer provision of the linkspan until the N28 and Dunkettle Interchange upgrades are completed (b) To defer both the outstand and the linkspan until the N28 and Dunkettle Interchange upgrades are completed; (c) To defer both the outstand and linkspan and make more efficient use of the full length of the berth by extending the dredged pocket and relocating the existing dolphins serving the passenger terminal.

NI1004 S146C EIS 2-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

It was concluded that option (c) was the most cost effective as it would provide 361.1m of usable berth in the initial phase of the project as compared with 314m if the linkspan and outstand were provided at the outset.

A 361.1m berth would allow two “feeder size” container ships and two ship to shore cranes to be accommodated at Berth 1 pending the completion of the N28. This will support throughput of 240,000 Twenty-foot Equivalent Units, (TEU) at the container terminal before further investment was required in the construction of Berth 2.

A further assessment of alternative container handling systems was undertaken. Three alternatives were considered:

(a) the permitted mix of rubber tyre gantries (RTGs) with trucks and trailers; (b) the option of using rail mounted gantries (RMGs) with sprinter straddle carriers trucks and trailers or trucks and trailers (c) the use of straddle carriers in the initial phase with two rail mounted gantries (RMGs) being added when trade demands required and funding was available.

The use of RTGs and RMGs were shown to be the least flexible method for container management, with the highest initial cost. RTGs and RMGs also provide the least opportunity to introduce equipment and infrastructure on a phased basis to match handling capacity to container throughput. The use of straddle carriers was shown to be more efficient and cost effective than the permitted mix of RTGs and truck / trailers.

The use of SCs would permit the Port to;

(a) transition across from their current facilities at Tivoli and then increase equipment in line with trade demand, thereby significantly reducing the threshold cost at the start of the operation of the terminal; (b) support faster turnaround times for HGVs using the terminal; and (c) provide a more flexible system to support any variations of traffic flows that may be required within the Ringaskiddy Mobility Management Plan (RMMP).

The use of straddle carriers would result in a reduction of the height of the container storage stacks from 5 containers to 3 containers, thereby requiring a larger footprint. However, there would still be sufficient area within the container storage yard to allow containers to be stacked 3-high until the throughput reaches 280,000 TEU. Thereafter two RMGs would be introduced which would allow 5- high stacks at the southern end of the yard. It is envisaged that the permitted general cargo area would not be required for this purpose until the upgrades of the N28 and the Dunkettle Interchange are completed.

The Ringaskiddy Mobility Management Plan will require all freight vehicles using the permitted development at Ringaskiddy to be included in the vehicle booking system. Since the permission was granted by the Board, the Port has developed an automated gate process in the current Tivoli container terminal. The automated gate is necessary to support the vehicle booking system that will be the nucleus of the RMMP. The Port’s experience at Tivoli has shown that an effective gate process requires additional space to support internal access roads, a large entrance and interchange area, vehicle queueing area, and problem resolution area.

The operating provision of the automated gate process requires the relocation of the maintenance workshop building, office and car parking outside the container yard and the revised circulation layout will require repositioning of the southern perimeter fence a short distance to the south of the previous development boundary. These alterations would increase the permitted development area by 7%.

The use of straddle carriers would also require the redesign and relocation of the permitted maintenance workshop building. The Port assessed alternative locations for the maintenance workshop building, office and car park area to the east and west of the container yard. Both were ruled out. The location to the east is subject to a long term leasing arrangement and would involve straddle carriers sharing road space with port traffic. The location to the west would require substantial

NI1004 S146C EIS 2-3 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

reconfiguration of the existing marshalling yards for the passenger ferry terminal. The Port consider the relocation of the maintenance workshop building, office and car park area as currently proposed to be the most operationally efficient and cost-effective location.

Condition 8 of the An Bord Pleanala decision to grant permission requires that noise levels emanating from the proposed development, when measured at noise sensitive locations shall not exceed specified levels. This compliance is detailed in Chapter 9 of this EIS.

In summary, the need for the proposed alterations arises from a review of the viability of the project in the context of the conditions imposed by the Board, the current time frame for the upgrade of the national road network and the requirement for the Port of Cork to fund the superstructure and container handling equipment from its own resources. The Port assessed a number of alternative layouts and operating systems, including gate operation, and concluded that there would be significant savings in capital and operating expenditure if the design of the permitted berth was optimised for container traffic and if straddle carriers rather than RTGs utilising trucks and trailers were used for container handling within the terminal. These in turn required an adjustment of the southern boundary of the container yard and a relocation and redesign of the maintenance workshop building, office and car park area. The current proposal is considered to be the most sustainable and cost effective way of delivering the strategic planning and economic objectives for this site.

NI1004 S146C EIS 2-4 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED ALTERATIONS

3.1 Introduction This Chapter of the EIS describes the works and operational changes that are the subject of the proposed alterations. The description sets out the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development and seeks to clarify where changes are proposed and where works remain unchanged from those covered by the extant permission.

The description is supported by reference to various figures included in Volume II of the EIS. Reference is also made to the drawings which accompany the submission made in response to An Bord Pleanala’s request dated 28 th October 2016.

3.2 Context of Proposed Alterations

The permitted development comprised the following works:-

Ringaskiddy East (Container Berths and Multi-purpose Berth (CB/MPB))

• A new 314m Container Berth 1/ Multipurpose Berth that will be capable of accommodating vessels carrying a range of different cargoes including containers, freight and general cargoes • An additional 200m Container Berth 2 • Surfacing of existing port lands to provide operational areas • Dredging of the seabed to a level of -13.0 m Chart Datum (CD) • Demolition of existing link-span • Installation of link-span comprising a floating pontoon and access bridge • Installation of container handling cranes and terminal transport equipment • Maintenance building, administrative buildings and entrance kiosks • Ancillary car parking, lighting and fencing

Ringaskiddy West (Deepwater Berth Extension) • A new 182m extension to the existing Deepwater Berth (DWB) which will comprise a filled quay structure extending no further seaward than the edge of the existing DWB • Dredging works to varying levels to facilitate navigational access to the new facilities • Lighting

Road Improvements • Improvements to the external road entrance into the Ringaskiddy Deepwater Terminal and to Ringaskiddy West • Improvements to the internal link road between Ringaskiddy East and Ringaskiddy West • Road improvement works within the existing harbour lands at Ringaskiddy East • Improvements to internal road network at Ringaskiddy East to facilitate future access to the N28 • Lighting and fencing

Paddy’s Point Amenity Area • Construction of a new public pier, slipway and boarding platform • New planting and landscaping to provide public amenity area • Boat storage, lighting and fencing

NI1004 S146C EIS 3-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The proposed alterations to the permitted development are required to enable the Port development to be sustainable by meeting trade demands, port operational requirements and funding capability. In this context detailed design including port operation simulations, funding capability and the extant permission and conditions have informed the requested alterations.

The requested alterations seek to change: • The landside container handling • The main berth and mooring dolphins • The entrance and interchange area. • Maintenance, office and customs building

The proposed alterations do not change the volume of trade or traffic levels set out in the original EIS for the permitted development

The proposed alterations are relatively minor in nature in the context of the permitted development. The alterations are limited to Ringaskiddy East. There are no changes proposed to the works at Ringaskiddy West, the external Road Junction/internal roads and Paddy’s Point.

The requested alterations are described more fully in the following sections and are summarised in Table 3-01.

Table 3.01 – Extent of Alterations

Landside Container Handling (refer to section 3. 5)

• A change in the landside container handling system from the permitted Rubber Tyred Gantry (RTG) with truck / trailers to a Straddle Carrier (SC) operation. • Internal container stacking arrangement and height amended to suit new container handling system. Containers are stacked 3 high over the majority of the site. • The lower stack height requires an increased footprint • Change in position of lighting columns • Use of part of the permitted general cargo storage area for storage of the increased container footprint. • Change in the extent of the container yard (increase of 5% in terminal area). • Overall increase in development footprint of 7% Main Berth and Mooring Dolphins (refer to Section 3. 6) • Minor alterations to the geometry of the southern end of the main berth 1. • 5.6% increase in number of piles as a result of phased construction. • Dredge pocket extended approximately 46m southwards to accommodate berthing along the full length of the main berth • 15,000m3 additional volume of dredging (4% increase in overall dredge volume) / 3750 m2 additional dredge area (4 % increase in overall dredge area) • Removal of two existing mooring dolphins • Construction of three replacement mooring dolphins Entrance and Interchange Area (refer to Section 3.8) • Entrance and exit areas moved and realigned to facilitate improved circulation and separation at the interchange area • Provision of additional queuing capacity Maintenance, Office and Customs Buildings (refer to Section 3. 7) • New Maintenance Workshop building provided within a dedicated area to the south of the existing Ferry Terminal access road • Single storey building previously proposed as a maintenance building is relocated to the South of the terminal site • Change of use of previously proposed maintenance building to a customs inspection building • Number of entrance/exit kiosks reduced • Provision of separate refrigerated container (reefer) gantry structures

NI1004 S146C EIS 3-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

3.3 Permitted Work Currently Completed Elements of the permitted development have been constructed to comply with the extant permission, conditions and schedule of environmental commitments, in advance of the main works and to meet environmental constraints.

Works carried out comprise the following and are illustrated in Figure 3.01:-

• Removal of existing linkspan • Filling and rock armour revetment construction on the link road between the Deepwater Berth and the Ferry Terminal • Erection of a visual barrier between the link road and existing dolphins • Erection of a visual and noise barrier between the port area and Ringaskiddy village extending from the entrance to the DWB to the ferry terminal entrance from the N28 • Site clearance and vegetation removal at Ringaskiddy East

Elements of the detailed design are also in the process of being agreed with the planning authority in accordance with the following conditions of the extant permission.

Condition 6 - Prior to commencement of development, final detailed design for the new port entrance, at the junction of the regional road R613 with the N28, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority. This shall include the details of pedestrian facilities.

Condition 15 - Prior to commencement of development, a comprehensive landscaping plan for the entire site shall be submitted to and agreed with the planning authority. Such plan shall particularly provide for additional landscaping along the northern site boundary of Ringaskiddy East.

3.4 Proposed phasing of development from commencement up to full implementation of the entire project The permitted development provides that various elements of the infrastructure proposed may be implemented in a single construction or alternatively they may be implemented in a number of phases as a result of trade demands, Port operational requirements and funding.

3.4.1 Permitted Development Phasing for the permitted development as presented in the original EIS is as follows:-

Phase 1 – Ringaskiddy East comprising;

(a) Improvements to existing port entrance adjacent to existing DWB entrance (b) Pier, slipway and amenity area at Paddy's Point (c) Elements of internal road improvements to facilitate access to Ringaskiddy East (d) Construction of the CB/MPB and associated container storage and handling areas (e) Additional Internal Roads to facilitate connection to new N28, when constructed, at eastern end of port complex / Ringaskiddy Village

Phase 2 – Ringaskiddy West comprising the extension to the existing DWB

Phase 3 – Ringaskiddy East comprising additional quay wall and floating linkspan to accommodate Ro-Ro traffic at the CB/MPB. This facility will not be brought into commission for accompanied Ro-Ro freight traffic until the new N28 is in place and operational.

NI1004 S146C EIS 3-3 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

3.4.2 Proposed Alterations The proposed phasing is illustrated in Figures 3.02a and 3.02b.

Phasing for the proposed alterations will largely be in accordance with the permitted development except that Phase 1 will now be implemented in two separate stages as set out below. Phases 2 and 3 remain unchanged

This phasing is further described in Sections 3.5 –Landside Container Handling and 3.6 – Main berth and mooring dolphins.

Phase 1a – Initial Stage of Development at Ringaskiddy East to accommodate movement of container activities from Tivoli, comprising:-

(a) Improvements to existing port entrance adjacent to existing DWB entrance (b) Pier, slipway and amenity area at Paddy's Point (c) Elements of internal road improvements to facilitate access to Ringaskiddy East (d) Construction of an optimised single berth, and associated mooring dolphins for the accommodation of ships handling containers and general cargoes. (e) Container handling area to be operated using ship to shore cranes and straddle carriers to accommodate a throughput of up to 240,000 Twenty-foot Equivalent Units, (TEU)

Phase 1b – Further Phase of Development at Ringaskiddy East which will be implemented when trade volumes require the provision of additional quay space and associated container storage, comprising:-

(a) Construction of permitted second berth for the accommodation of container ships. (b) Further container storage and handling area to be provided within the permitted cargo storage area using Rail Mounted Gantry Cranes to accommodate throughput up to the permitted 330,000 TEU (e) Permitted Internal Roads to facilitate connection to new N28, when constructed, at eastern end of port complex / Ringaskiddy Village.

Phase 2 – Ringaskiddy West - unchanged from the permitted development

Phase 3 – Ringaskiddy East - unchanged from the permitted development

Changes to the phasing are relatively minor in the overall context of both the construction and operational stages of the permitted development and the overall timeline is unchanged.

3.5 Landside Container Handling

This section sets out the proposed alterations to the landside container handling operation of the permitted development. The proposed changes include elements of phased implementation of operations (Phases 1a and 1b) as described in section 3.4.2.

The permitted development included for three main modes of trade;

Lift on Lift off (LoLo) – involving the loading/unloading of containers from vessels and temporary storage on the site before onward transport by road.

Roll on Roll Off (RoRo) – involving the embarkation/disembarkation and temporary on terminal parking of freight HGV traffic

General Cargo – involving the loading/unloading and temporary on terminal storage of general break bulk and project cargoes.

NI1004 S146C EIS 3-4 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

All of these three modes of trade continue to be accommodated within the proposed alterations. Proposed amendments to the accommodation of these trades as a result of the alterations are set out in the following sub-sections.

There is no change in the volume of trade proposed to be accommodated from that permitted. Changes are limited to the method of handling and storage of containers within the port.

3.5.1 Lift on Lift off (Lo-Lo) Container Handling system 3.5.1.1 Permitted Development Lo-Lo operations for the permitted development were to comprise the loading and unloading of containers from vessels with temporary storage on the site before onward transport by road. Ship to Shore Gantry (SSG) cranes would be used to lift the containers from vessels berthing alongside the new quays. The cranes would then place the containers onto truck/trailer units which would transport the containers to the onsite container stacks. Electrically operated Rubber Tyred Gantry (RTG) cranes would then be used for the handling of containers in the main stacks. These cranes would lift the containers into the stack and at a later time facilitate onward transport of the containers by transferring to road going Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). In an export cycle the above mentioned process is reversed.

The permitted development included 6 nr container storage stacks where containers would be stored in blocks 7 wide and 5 high (12.95 m in height). Each main stack included a gantry at one end where refrigerated containers, otherwise known as reefers, would be stored with connections to electrical power. Hazardous container storage facilities would be accommodated within the main stacks. A separate storage area would be provided for the accommodation of empty containers which would be handled by reach stackers. The terminal layout is illustrated in Figure 3.03 of this EIS.

A typical RTG is illustrated in Figure 3.04. The RTG will be approximately 23 m in height.

Figure 3.04 - Typical Rubber Tyred Gantry Crane

NI1004 S146C EIS 3-5 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

3.5.1.2 Proposed Alterations

There is no change proposed in ship to shore operations by the use of SSGs.

The permitted Rubber Tyre Gantry Cranes (RTG’s) and associated truck/trailers will be replaced with a handling system that will be implemented in a phased manner to match throughput demand. The handling system will comprise both Straddle Carriers and Rail Mounted Gantry (RMG) operations.

The final terminal layout is illustrated in Figure 3.05.

Straddle Carrier (SC) Operations In a typical import cycle Ship to Shore Gantry Crane (SSG) cranes would be used to lift the containers from vessels berthing alongside the quay. The cranes then place the containers onto the quayside where they are lifted by the straddle carriers and deposited in the container stacks. Subsequently the container is lifted from the stack by a straddle carrier and transferred to the terminal interchange area where the container is placed on a HGV for onward transportation by road. In an export cycle the above mentioned process is reversed. The straddle carrier in effect undertakes the duty of two elements of equipment from the permitted development (RTG and truck/trailer unit).

Straddle carriers will be approximately 16 m in height. A total of 15 straddle carriers will be in use comprising equipment relocated from Tivoli Container Terminal (5 units, diesel hydraulic) and newly purchased equipment (10 units, diesel electric). A typical straddle carrier is illustrated in Figure 3.06.

Figure 3-06 - Typical Straddle Carrier

The container storage area for straddle carrier operations will be located at the northern side of the terminal and containers in this area will be stacked up to 3 high (7.8 m in height).

A separate area of refrigerated container (reefer) storage will be provided to the south of the straddle carrier container storage area. Reefer containers will be handled by straddle carriers and will be stacked 4 high (10.4 m in height). Steel gantry structures (8.6 m in height) will be constructed to provide personnel access.

Straddle Carrier operations will provide capacity for a throughput of 240,000 TEU.

NI1004 S146C EIS 3-6 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Rail Mounted Gantry (RMG) Operations

In a typical RMG operation import cycle the SSGs would continue to be used to lift the containers from vessels berthing alongside the quay. The cranes will then place the containers onto the quayside where they are lifted by the straddle carriers, transported to the RMG interchange area and placed on the ground. The container is then lifted by the RMG and placed in the stack. Subsequently the container is lifted from the stack by the RMG and placed on a HGV in the interchange area for onward transportation by road. In an export cycle the above mentioned process is reversed.

Two RMG stacks will be constructed in the area previously allocated to multi-purpose cargo. These will be similar in scale and form of construction to the RTG stacks proposed in the permitted development. Containers will be stacked 7 wide and 5 high (12.95 m in height) in this area with a vehicle lane also being provided in the area beneath the RMG. A typical RMG is illustrated in Figure 3.07. RMGs will be of a similar scale to the permitted RTGs and will be approximately 23 m in height.

. Figure 3.07 - Typical Rail Mounted Gantry Crane

Phasing of Container Handling in the Operational Stage The implementation of container handling systems in the operational stage of the development will be carried out in a phased manner.

Phase 1a The initial stage of development (Phase 1a) will comprise the Straddle Carrier (SC) operation only. This will include the provision of the separate reefer stack (4 high). This system will provide capacity for a throughput of 240,000 TEU.

In Phase 1a, two SSG cranes will operate from the single Berth 1.

The Phase 1a operational layout is illustrated in Figure 3.08.

Phase 1b In the second phase (1b) the two Rail Mounted Gantry Cranes (RMGs) will be provided to supplement the straddle carrier operation. This will increase the throughput capacity to 330,000 TEU.

The phase 1b operational layout is illustrated in Figure 3.05

NI1004 S146C EIS 3-7 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

3.5.1.3 Comparison of Container Handling Equipment for Permitted Development and Proposed Alterations A comparison of the types of container handling equipment and associated numbers to be used is illustrated in Table 3.02 and Figure 3.09. . Table 3.02 – Comparison of container handling equipment Permitted Proposed Development Alterations Ship to Shore Gantry Crane 2 nr 2 nr Harbour Mobile Crane 1 nr 1 nr Rubber Tyred Gantry Crane 6 nr Rail Mounted Gantry Crane - 2 nr Straddle Carrier - 15 nr Reach Stacker 2 nr - Tractor/ Trailer (Heavy Goods Vehicle) 12 nr - TOTAL 23 nr 20 nr

3.5.2 General Cargo Operations 3.5.2.1 Permitted Development In the permitted development an area of the terminal was to be used to accommodate general break bulk and project cargoes. Generally the maximum height of stored materials was to be approximately 5.5m. Cargo would have been lifted from vessels using a harbour mobile crane or SSG and would either be placed directly into the storage area or on the quayside for onward movement and stacking by internal port equipment, such as reach stackers.

3.5.2.2 Proposed Alterations The proposed alterations do not include any proposed change to the method of handling and storing general cargo. The area available for set down of such cargo is reduced in the initial Phase 1a of development. When the proposed RMGs are installed in Phase 1b there will be no accommodation of general cargo. This cargo will then be accommodated on port lands to the east of the container terminal and adjacent to the current RoRo freight terminal as per current practice.

3.5.3 Roll on Roll off (RoRo) Operations 3.5.3.1 Permitted Development The permitted development included the provision of a RoRo ramp that would be used to allow direct access by freight HGV traffic to/from vessels with suitable vehicle loading ramps. Freight traffic would comprise;

Unaccompanied - in this mode the freight trailers are transported on and off the vessel by dedicated port transport tractor units. The trailers are then stored in the southern portion of the terminal area where they are subsequently collected by road going HGVs.

Accompanied – in this mode each trailer on the vessel is accompanied by a driver. On disembarkation these vehicles, once processed by the vehicle management system, will drive directly onto the public road network without being temporarily stored in the port area. During embarkation such vehicles will marshal at the port shortly before the vessel is due to depart.

NI1004 S146C EIS 3-8 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

3.5.3.2 Proposed Alterations

The proposed alterations make provision for the introduction of a RoRo ramp in the latter stages of the development. In accordance with Condition 4 of the extant permission this will not be made operational until such times as the N28 and Dunkettle road upgrade schemes are completed.

3.5.4 Operational Area The proposed alterations as described in the preceding sections result in an amendment to the extent of; • the terminal area, • container storage areas within the overall port operational area • the extent and location of buildings and ancillary areas.

A comparison of the operational area uses for the permitted development and proposed alterations (including phasing) is provided in Table 3.03.

Table 3.03 – Comparison of Terminal Operational Areas Permitted Proposed Alterations Development Phase 1a Phase 1b (ha) (ha) (ha) RTG stacking incl reefers (5 3.86 - - high) Straddle Carrier stacking (3 - 4.68 4.93 high) Reefer stacking (4 high) - 0.73 0.73 RMG stacking incl reefers (5 - - 1.67 high) Multipurpose Storage Area 4.34 2.91 - Entrance/Exit, Interchange and 4.22 5.97 7.29 Trafficked Areas Buildings, parking and ancillary 0.92 1.28 1.28 areas Quay Working Area 2.24 1.49 2.23 Total Area 15.58 17.06 18.13

The extent of changes to the port operational area as a result of the proposed alterations is illustrated in Figure 3.10

3.5.5 Site Lighting

The proposed amendments to the operational arrangement within the terminal area necessitate the reconfiguration of the permitted terminal high mast lighting. Figure 3.11 illustrates the locations of the high mast lighting as per the permitted development and as per the proposed alterations (shown in the context of the altered internal operational layout). The site lux levels from the proposed alterations to the high mast lighting locations is illustrated in Figure 3.12.

3.5.6 Operational Throughput Although alterations are proposed to the method of internal handling of containers there will be no change to the throughput of the terminal in respect of LoLo, RoRo and general cargo traffic. There is therefore no change in the volume of traffic entering and exiting the terminal from that for the permitted development.

NI1004 S146C EIS 3-9 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

3.6 Main Berth and Mooring Dolphins This section sets out the physical aspects of the proposed alterations to the currently permitted development. Implementation of infrastructure is proposed on a phased basis as described in detail in Section 3.4.

3.6.1 Main Quayside Works 3.6.1.1 Permitted Development The permitted development included a new 314m Container Berth 1/ Multipurpose Berth and a second additional 200m Container Berth 2. Provision was made at the southern end of the Berth 1/ Multipurpose Berth for the accommodation of a Roll-on Roll-off (Ro-Ro) linkspan bridge with the construction of an associated quay wall outstand. The general layout of the quay structures for the permitted development is illustrated in Figure 3.13.

The method of construction of the permitted quayside works is not specified in detail in the permission granted by An Bord Pleanala. It is anticipated that the berthing facilities will comprise a concrete deck surface supported on steel/concrete piles and the new quay wall will comprise a vertical steel wall tied to a sheet piled anchor wall. The main wall will likely comprise a combi-wall form of construction, which involves the installation of intermittent tubular steel piles with traditional steel piles infilling between the main piles, although other forms of construction such as open piled, or a combination of open piled and closed structures could be used.

3.6.1.2 Proposed Alterations

The alterations to the quay comprise a minor modification to the shape of the southern end of berth 1. This is intended to facilitate a phased implementation of the RoRo linkspan (see section 3.6.1.3) and to maximise mooring of vessels in the interim. The southern end of the quay structure is extended by 6.6m along the line of the main berth but the landward edge is reduced in length by 5.2m as illustrated in Figure 3.15. The reconfiguration of the shape of the quay end wall does not result in quay piling and construction activity being any closer to Ringaskiddy village than in the permitted development. Berth 2 is unchanged.

The general arrangement of the quay is illustrated in Figure 3.14.

The proposed alteration will result in a 5.6% increase in the number of tubular steel piles installed in the quay wall construction.

A comparison of the proposed quay wall layout with that for the permitted development is illustrated in Figure 3.15.

3.6.1.3 Phasing of Quay Wall Construction It is proposed that the quay infrastructure will be constructed in three phases. Phasing is illustrated in Figures 3.02a and 3.02b and further described below.

Phase 1a In Phase 1a, Berth 1 will be constructed without the outstand which accommodates the RoRo linkspan.

Condition 4 of the extant permission specifies that the permitted link-span bridge and berth shall not become operational until such time as the N28 and Dunkettle road upgrade schemes are completed. Phase 1a therefore does not include construction of the link span bridge and associated quay outstand structure. This will be deferred until phase 3 when the N28 and Dunkettle road upgrade schemes have been completed.

The Phase 1a quay arrangement is illustrated in Figure 3.16.

NI1004 S146C EIS 3-10 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Phase 1b In Phase 1b, Berth 2 will be constructed to the North of Berth 1 as permitted.

The Phase 1b quay arrangement is illustrated in Figure 3.16.

Phase 3 In Phase 3 the quay outstand structure for the RoRo ramp will be constructed. The final general arrangement after completion of Phase 3 is illustrated in Figure 3.14.

3.6.2 Mooring Dolphins 3.6.2.1 Permitted Development In the permitted development mooring of ships was accommodated on the main quay structure and no mooring dolphins were proposed.

3.6.2.2 Proposed alterations The phasing of the introduction of the Ro-Ro ramp in order to comply with Condition 04 of the extant permission presents the opportunity for improved utilisation of the entire length of the quay structure for berthing, in the initial stages of development. However the potential utilisation of the berth is limited by the close proximity of the existing ferry terminal mooring dolphins. In order to maximise the efficiency in mooring operations the following alterations are proposed;

The removal of two existing mooring dolphins

The alterations include the removal of two existing mooring dolphins at the existing ferry terminal to facilitate the use of the full length of the quay wall for berthing in the initial stages of the development. The dolphins comprise concrete pile caps supported on tubular steel piles. The two mooring dolphins to be removed contain nine piles each, a total of eighteen piles. The piles will be cut at design dredge level and both piles and concrete pile caps will be removed for offsite disposal.

Removal works will be carried out from floating or jack-up plant and this operation will be undertaken approximately 20m further southwards of the area of construction operations for the quay wall as proposed in the permitted development. Such works will include concrete cutting, steel cutting, and concrete breaking using mechanical plant.

Removal of the dolphins will be carried out in the period between September and April inclusive to:-

• avoid interaction with summer ferry terminal operations, • avoid the breeding tern season • comply with the seasonal restrictions of the extant permission.

Removal works will be undertaken concurrently with other quay construction activities and will not result in an increase in the overall duration of the works

The dolphins to be removed are identified in Figure 3.17.

Construction of three replacement mooring dolphins

Three new mooring dolphins are proposed to be constructed to replace those removed from the ferry terminal. The dolphins are located outside the development footprint for the currently permitted development. The southernmost dolphin is approximately 19m southwards of the extent of the permitted quay construction. The location of the dolphins in relation to the permitted development boundary is illustrated in Figure 3.18.

The proposed dolphins will be of a similar form of construction and scale as those proposed to be removed, comprising concrete pile caps on steel tubular piles. Each dolphin will comprise eight tubular steel piles with a diameter of 914 mm. Concrete pile caps will be approximately 7m x 7m x 2 m

NI1004 S146C EIS 3-11 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

deep. Steel access walkways will be provided from the shore and between the dolphins. The form of construction of the mooring dolphins is illustrated in Figure 3.19.

Construction of the dolphins will use similar construction techniques as those for the main quay wall in the permitted development, namely steel pile installation and concrete construction. Construction will be carried out in the period between September and April inclusive for the same reasons as previously described for the removal of existing dolphins. Overall the period for construction of the dolphins will be in the order of two to three months but these works will be undertaken concurrently with other quay construction activities and will not result in an increase in the overall duration of the construction works.

3.6.3 Dredging 3.6.3.1 Permitted Development The permitted development included dredging for both Ringaskiddy East and Ringaskiddy West. Bed conditions comprise uncompacted silts overlying gravel, clay and limestone, depending on location. Dredging is required in all materials including bedrock. Dredging of overburden is to be carried out either by backhoe or trailing suction hopper dredger. Bedrock and other hard strata will most likely be removed by a combination of drilling and blasting, and / or the use of mechanical plant working from a floating or jack-up barge.

The total volumes of dredging for the permitted development are:-

Ringaskiddy East 137,000 m3 (of which 90,000 m3 would be disposed of to sea) Ringaskiddy West 215,000 m3 (all of which would be disposed of to sea)

3.6.3.2 Proposed Alterations To allow the full length of the berth to be utilised for mooring of vessels the dredge pocket for Berth 1 at Ringaskiddy East is proposed to be extended to the South along the full length of the quay wall. Dredging will be to the same depth as that included in the permitted development (-13.0m CD).

The extent of the proposed additional dredging is illustrated in Figure 3.20. The southernmost extent of the proposed additional dredge area is approximately 65 m south of the dredge area for the permitted development.

The additional dredging covers an area of 3750m 2 and approximately 15,000 m3 of additional material will be generated. This represents, at this location, an increase of approximately 11% on the original dredge quantity and a 17% increase in the volume to be disposed of at sea. The percentages in comparison to the total quantity included in the original EIS for the permitted development (including Ringaskiddy West) are 4% in total dredging and 5% in material to be disposed of at sea. The additional dredging is estimated to add approx. 3 days to the overall duration of dredging activities.

Dredging to the required depths will use similar methods to those considered in the original EIS for the permitted development, namely by backhoe or trailing suction hopper dredger with any rock being removed by a combination of drilling/blasting and mechanical excavation. Any dredged bedrock or other hard strata will be re-used in the construction works.

The disposal of the dredged material will be the subject of a separate application for a Dumping at Sea Permit from the Environmental Protection Agency.

3.6.4 Reclamation There are no proposed alterations to the extent of reclamation compared to the permitted development.

NI1004 S146C EIS 3-12 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

3.7 Buildings and Miscellaneous Structures

3.7.1 Permitted Development The permitted development included the following buildings, the locations of which are illustrated in Figure 3.21:-

3.7.1.1 Maintenance Building

The maintenance building was to be provided for the maintenance and repair of terminal equipment and other port infrastructure. The size of this building was to be 7.82m high x 18.2m wide x 20.5m long.

3.7.1.2 Offices

Two porta cabin offices were proposed to house port administration staff, welfare facilities and other ancillary activities. Each office was to comprise a small two storey building of prefabricated construction, approximately 5.15m high x 3.80m wide x 12.2m long.

3.7.1.3 Entrance Kiosks

Security kiosks and associated canopies were to be provided at the entrance and exit gates. Kiosks had dimensions of 3.9m high x 3.40m wide x 8.7m long. Canopies had plan dimensions of 10.8m x 10.8 m with a maximum height of 7.2m.

3.7.2 Proposed alterations A number of alterations are proposed for the buildings as set out in the following sections;

3.7.2.1 Maintenance Building / Customs Inspection Builidng

The proposed change in operating system to straddle carriers means that the permitted maintenance building proposed is no longer fit for the purpose of maintaining the changed port operating equipment. It is therefore proposed to use this building as a customs inspection building. The internal layout of the building has been amended to accommodate this proposed change in use.

The requirement for the internal re-arrangement of the terminal area to accommodate an increased area for entrance and interchange facilities in order to operate the automated gate operating system results in this building being relocated to the south of the terminal site, adjacent to the proposed terminal entrance within Port lands. The proposed position is approximately 67m south of the permitted location. The southern edge of the building extends approximately 3 m south of the permitted terminal boundary. The location of the building is illustrated in Figure 3.22.

Very minor amendments to the overall external dimensions of the building are proposed to accommodate the change in use.

The building is illustrated on Figures 3.22a and 3.22b and on the following drawings; • 16001-SKE-02-1001 – Customs Inspection Building - Ground Floor Plan • 16001-SKE-02-2001 – Customs Inspection Building - Elevations

3.7.2.2 Proposed Office and Maintenance Building and Car Park Area

The proposed alterations include the re-location of the previously proposed maintenance building, office and car parking area from inside the container storage area and the construction of a new office and maintenance building and car park near the entrance to the passenger terminal. The re-location is required to provide area to accommodate an increased entrance and interchange layout to operate the automated gate operating system

NI1004 S146C EIS 3-13 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The area will be located on Port land to the South of the existing Ferry Terminal access road as illustrated in Figures 3.22 and 3.23. The maintenance building is located approximately 74m (to the centre of the building) southwards of the terminal boundary of the permitted development. The southern boundary of the area is approximately 116m southwards of the terminal boundary of the permitted development

The building will comprise a maintenance workshop and all facilities required for maintenance operations personnel. The building is detailed on Figures 3.23a, 3.23b, 3.23c and 3.23d and on the following drawings;

• 16001-SKE-00-0002 – Site Layout Plan Terminal Office and Maintenance Building • 16001-SKE-00-1003 – Ground Floor Plan Terminal Office and Maintenance Building • 16001-SKE-00-1004 – First Floor Plan Terminal Office and Maintenance Building • 16001-SKE-00-1005 – Roof Plan Terminal Office and Maintenance Building • 16001-SKE-00-2001 – Elevations Terminal Office and Maintenance Building • 16001-SKE-00-2002 – Contextual Elevations, Terminal Office and Maintenance Building • 16001-SKE-00-2003 – Contextual Elevations, Terminal Office and Maintenance Building

The maintenance workshop building will be required to facilitate the maintenance of straddle carriers and will have with an overall height of 22.5m. The proposed alterations require some minor changes to the existing entrance to the Ferry Terminal check in area.

3.7.2.3 Alterations to Entrance Kiosks and Canopies The automated gate operating system is at the nucleus of the Vehicle Management System necessary for the implementation of the Ringaskiddy Mobility Management Plan as required under Condition 5 of the extant permission.

The proposed alterations include the relocation of the entrance facilities and amendments to the automated gate operating system elements as set out below;

1. Relocation of entrance facilities – the entrance and exit facilities are proposed to be relocated as described in Section 3.8.2.

2. Removal of entrance canopies – the entrance canopies are no longer required and are removed from the proposed Development.

3. Reduced number of kiosks – The number of kiosks is reduced from three to two

4. Automated gate operating system gantries – In order to facilitate the operation of an automated gate operating system it is proposed to construct two steel gantry structures over the entrance and exit roads to accommodate cameras and signage. Each gantry will be 20 m wide to span across the road and will have a height of 6.55m. The locations of the gantry structures are illustrated in Figure 3.24.

3.7.2.4 Refrigerated Container Gantry Structures Permitted Development

In the permitted development refrigerated containers (reefers) were to be accommodated in the main RTG stacks as illustrated in Figure 3.25.

NI1004 S146C EIS 3-14 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Proposed Alterations

It is now proposed to provide separate stacking for the storage of reefers at the location illustrated in Figure 3.25.

Reefer containers will be stacked 4 high (10.4 m in height) and steel gantry structures (8.6 m in height) will be constructed to provide personnel access. A typical reefer gantry structure is illustrated in Figure 3.26.

3.8 Entrance and Interchange Area Layout

3.8.1 Permitted Development

The layout of the entrance and exit area for the permitted development is illustrated in Figure 3.27.

3.8.2 Proposed Alterations

The layout of the entrance and interchange area to the terminal is proposed to be amended to accommodate the proposed Straddle Carrier/RMG operating system, to allow efficient vehicle management and queuing, and to facilitate the automated Gate Operating System that will enable the implementation of the Mobility Management Plan.

The overall layout is illustrated in Figure 3.27.

Alterations are limited to:-

• Relocation of the entrance facilities • Reconfiguration of the entrance roadway/lanes • Removal of surface car parking area from within the terminal area. This is proposed to be accommodated at the location of the proposed new maintenance building as described in Section 3.7.2.2. • Changes to the provision of Kiosks, Canopies and Gantries as described in Section 3.7.2.3.

The revised operating plant circulation area will also require the southern boundary to the terminal /interchange area to be 18m south of the boundary for the permitted development. . 3.9 Footprint of Development The proposed alterations as described in the above sections result in a change in the footprint of the development compared to that included in the permitted development as a result of:-

• The introduction of the mooring dolphins • The reduced container stack height from five to three containers • The extension of the southern boundary of the container storage area to accommodate changes to the entrance and interchange area layout • The movement of the maintenance workshop building, office and car parking area within Port lands which is currently used for the passenger terminal.

The proposed alterations result in a 7% increase in the area of the planning boundary, as compared to the permitted development.

A comparison of the areas for the permitted development and proposed alterations is illustrated in Figure 3.28.

NI1004 S146C EIS 3-15 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 Introduction This Chapter of the EIS reviews the policy context for the proposed redevelopment of facilities at Ringaskiddy and considers the proposed alterations in the context of current planning policy.

The policy context is supportive of the redevelopment of Port facilities at Ringaskiddy including the relocation of the container terminal from Tivoli and expansion of other port trades, subject to infrastructure development being funded without any exchequer funding. The proposed alterations are needed to facilitate the efficient operation of Port trade and to effectively manage the release of traffic onto the national road network; to maintain and improve the Port’s international competitiveness, and to ensure that the redevelopment project is financially robust consistent with the European, regional, national and local planning policy context.

4.2 European Policy – Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) In 2011 the European Commission adopted a proposal to transform the existing patchwork of European roads, railways, airports and canals into a unified transport network (TEN-T). The policy sets an objective to establish a core transport network by 2030 to act as the backbone for transportation within the Single market:

“The aim is to ensure that progressively, and by 2050, the great majority of Europe’s citizens and businesses will be no more than 30 minutes’ travel time from this comprehensive network .” (Memo/11/706)

TEN-T policy aims to ensure the free-flow of goods and people to support growth, jobs and EU competitiveness. The comprehensive network includes components for all transport modes – rail, road, inland waterway, air and maritime, as well as their connecting points and corresponding traffic information and management systems. 1

The core network represents the strategically most important nodes within TEN-T, which link the overall trans-European network. Core network links are identified as being of the highest importance for long-distance traffic and to play a strategic role for the development of the TEN-T.

At the European level, the trans-European network for the transport sector (TEN-T) recognises the Port of Cork as a core network port; and significant grant funding has been awarded to progress the Port’s strategic development proposals. In December 2013, the Connection Europe Facility (CEF) was established to accelerate investment in the field of trans-European networks and to leverage funding from both the public and private sectors. The Port of Cork secured c. €12.3m under the CEF programme in June 2015 toward the permitted development.

The proposed alterations remain consistent with the policy objective to develop efficient strategic core network links.

4.3 National Economic Policy Enterprise 2025 was published in November 2015 by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise & Innovation. The document sets out the strategic framework for coherence across government departments to deliver sustainable enterprise and growth.

Enterprise 2025 notes that, as a small open economy, sustainable long term growth is dependent on continued success in international markets. It notes that:

1 Planning Methodology for TEN-T, p.3

NI1004 S146C EIS 4-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

“An export led strategy is not just about exporters. In addition to generating greater wealth than would be possible through only domestically traded activities, there is a substantial ripple effect in terms of job creation across the entire economy and an increase in technology adoption, innovation, standards and best practice overall.” 2

To facilitate continued growth in exports, Enterprise 2025 recognises that investment is required in key infrastructure and commits to putting in place the appropriate policy framework to stimulate investment confidence in long-term infrastructure projects. In relation to the delivery of sustainable, reliable and quality transport networks the report Includes the following objective:

“In sea transport: Implement the 2013 Ports Policy framework such that the future needs of maritime connectivity are periodically reviewed; that access to a wide range and frequency of port services at competitive prices is ensured; and that deeper water facilities are provided at Irish ports that can accommodate the international trend towards larger shipping vessels.” 3

The proposed alterations remain consistent with the national policy objective to develop competitive port services, fit for purpose to respond to international shipping trends.

4.4 National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020 Pending publication of the National Planning Framework, the National Spatial Strategy (NSS) provides primary national planning policy. The NSS was reviewed in 2010 and concluded that all the international evidence pointed to the role that competitive and sustainable cities and their wider regions play in underpinning overall national competitiveness. The NSS designates Cork as a Gateway which will contribute to Ireland’s economic growth, and identifies the significance of sea port services to the economic strength and competitiveness of regions.

The strategic importance of the Gateways is that they are focal points for transportation with

“… adequate, reliable, cost effective and efficient access to port facilities” (NSS p.40).

The strategy notes, regarding ensuring regions’ international competitiveness, that:

“It will be important to ensure that regions have the required access to international markets for goods, services and labour mobility. The capacity to attract mobile investment will be supported by the strategic development of infrastructure such as telecommunications, energy networks, regional air and sea port services.” (NSS, p.98)

More explicitly, in terms of the strategic radial corridors to the South-West the National Spatial Strategy recognises the need for

“…good quality road and public transport connections between Dublin and Cork, improved road access to Cork port and Airport” (NSS p.59).

The National Spatial Strategy recognises the significance of sea port services to the economic strength and competitiveness of regions, and particularly the national Gateways.

The proposed alterations remain consistent with the NSS goal to develop efficient port services to contribute to the economic strength and competitiveness of the region.

2 Enterprise 2025, Dept.JEI, November 2015, p. 6 3 Ibid, page 36.

NI1004 S146C EIS 4-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

4.5 Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth: July 2012 ‘Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth: An Integrated Marine Plan for Ireland’ (IMP) was published in July 2012 by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It sets out a roadmap for the government’s vision, high level goals and integrated actions across policy, governance and business for the marine sector. The vision of the IMP is stated as:

“Our ocean wealth will be a key element of our economic recovery and sustainable growth, generating benefits for all our citizens, supported by coherent policy, planning and regulation, and managed in an integrated manner.”

The IMP notes that:

“Infrastructure includes fixed assets (e.g. ports, fisheries harbours, piers, slipways, buildings etc), mobile assets…., research, educational and innovation platforms… and datasets…

Maintaining, upgrading and providing these infrastructures is critical to our national economy (e.g. 99% of Ireland’s exports and imports are transported through Ireland’s ports); energy needs and export potential (e.g. grid infrastructure); …” (IMP July 2012, p. 43)

The key actions for infrastructure include:

“No. 32: Put in place clear integrated policies and strategies for the development of new key strategic infrastructure to support job creation and economic growth (e.g the grid and port infrastructure to support renewable energy and export potential). … No. 34: Carry out national regional and local initiatives aimed at tapping into the potential of new and existing coastal infrastructure to develop sustainable products, services and jobs. This would encourage investment along the coast. Initiatives include: … • Supporting major national seaports in the implementation of their master plans to provide additional capacity and greater draft using their own resources. “ (IMP July 2012, p. 43- 44)

The provision of enhanced port infrastructure is identified as a critical action and clear policy support is provided for the implementation of port master plans (such as the Port of Cork’s Strategic Development Plan Review 2010).

The 2015 Review of Progress in implementation of the IMP noted that the Port of Cork had received planning permission for the redevelopment of Ringaskiddy port and had been successful in receiving funding through TEN-T and CEF for the development proposals.

The proposed alterations remain consistent with the IMP policy objective to develop additional capacity of ports, using the Port’s own resources.

4.6 Disposal at Sea National and local spatial planning policy documents do not apply beyond the immediate foreshore. The foreshore extends from the high water mark out to 12 nautical miles and this area is recognised by Government as providing: “…a unique and important ecologically sensitive resource which supports various economic activities, public infrastructure and recreation uses.” [Foreshore & Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2009] Policy protection for the foreshore is provided by the London Convention 1972 (and subsequent Protocol of 1996), and the Convention of the Prevention of Marine Environment of the North-East

NI1004 S146C EIS 4-3 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Atlantic 1992 (the OSPAR Convention 1992). The London Convention 1972 has an objective to promote the effective control of all sources of marine pollution and to take all practicable steps to prevent pollution of the sea by dumping of wastes and other matter. The OSPAR Convention 1992 has an objective to protect the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic from pollution and regulate dumping at sea. In Ireland, OSPAR and London Convention requirements are implemented via the Dumping at Sea (DAS) Acts 1996 to 2012. The OSPAR Guidelines of the Management of Dredged Material (2014-06) 4 provide a scientific and technical framework for dredging and associated dumping at sea. The guidelines note that: Dredging is essential to maintain navigation to, within and from ports and harbours and for the development of port facilities, as well as for remediation, flood management and to maintain the carrying capacity of marine and coastal systems. Much of the material removed during these necessary activities requires deposit at sea. (p.3, Agreement 2014-06) The aim of the Guidelines is to ensure that EU Contracting Parties take all possible steps to prevent and eliminate pollution and to protect the maritime area against adverse impacts associated with dredging. Since February 2010 the responsibility for permitting and enforcement for Dumping at Sea transferred from the Department of Agriculture Fisheries & Food to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA is responsible for issuing DAS permits for the disposal of dredged material and for ensuring compliance with EU legislation, policy and guidelines.

Any additional dredging material associated with the proposed alterations will be managed in accordance with OSPAR Guidelines.

4.7 2013 National Ports’ Policy The 2013 National Ports’ Policy (NPP) is identified as a contribution to achieving the vision of the 2012 IMP – Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth. It is stated that the National Ports’ Policy:

“… clearly sets out a roadmap for the ports sector for at least the next generation, setting down clear objectives, the policies to achieve them and timelines for doing so.” (NPP, p. 9)

The core objective of the NPP is to facilitate an effective and competitive market for maritime transport services. The policy identifies that the long-term international trend in ports and shipping is toward increased consolidation of resources to achieve optimum efficiencies of scale 5.

The NPP introduces a clear categorisation of ports, namely: Ports of National Significance (Tier 1), Ports of National Significance (Tier 2) and Ports of Regional Significance. The Port of Cork is one of three ports identified as at Tier 1 ‘Port of National Significance (along with Dublin Port Company and Shannon Foynes Port Company). It is noted that it is critically important that Ports of National Significance (Tier 1 & 2) provide an efficient and cost-effective service to the economy. Tier 1 ports are identified as Ports that:

• “…are responsible for 15% to 20% of overall tonnage through Irish ports, and • have clear potential to lead the development of future port capacity in the medium and long term when and as required.” (NPP, .p13)

The NPP reemphasizes the government’s policy outlined in the 2005 Ports’ Policy Statement that the ports sector should receive no further Exchequer funding for infrastructure development. The NPP states that it is important that bodies bringing forward significant port capacity developments have the resources required to ensure that the State’s and the public interest is protected and enhanced. This means that it is a policy objective for Port companies to promote financially viable development projects.

4 Agreement 2014-06 5 NPP, p.13.

NI1004 S146C EIS 4-4 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The NPP is not prescriptive about the location of future port infrastructure, but it notes that specific locations of future port capacity should be incorporated within the existing planning and development policy hierarch. It also encourages active engagement between port companies and the relevant planning authorities to ensure that port masterplans and relevant planning and development strategies are complementary and consistent. In other words, while the NPP’s core objective supports the expansion of port capacity, it is considered that locational issues are most appropriately addressed within existing spatial planning policy documents.

With specific reference to the Port of Cork the NPP notes that it is one of only two ports capable of handling traffic across all five principal traffic modes (LoLo, RoRo, Break Bulk, Dry Bulk and Liquid Bulk) and is second only to Dublin in its importance in the LoLo sector 6. The NPP states that:

“The Government endorses the core principles underpinning the company’s Strategic Development Plan Review, and the continued commercial development of the Port of Cork Company is a key strategic objective of national Ports Policy.” (NPP, p.26)

In relation to the European unified transport network (TEN-T) the NPP notes that three ports are proposed for inclusion within the network – Dublin, Cork and Shannon Foynes. It also notes that efficient hinterland connections are critically important to a port’s ability to facilitate large volumes of traffic. It states that TEN-T core ports must have a connection to both core road and rail networks, although it is acknowledged:

“The vast majority of Ireland’s freight movements to and from ports are via road. As acknowledged in the European Commission’s White Paper, Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a Competitive and Resource-Efficient Transport System, it is likely that “freight movements over short and medium distances (below some 300km) will to a considerable extend remain on trucks” (Commission of the European Communities 2011c).” (NPP, p.45).

In recognition of the likely continued focus on road freight in Ireland, the NPP states that the interconnections between the national primary road network and the commercial port network will continue to be of primary importance 7.

The NPP also identifies the relationship between ports and major cities, noting that as port facilities have shifted downstream over time it has allowed for the redevelopment of previously port-related lands for other commercial, residential or recreational uses. While it is acknowledged that this can be of mutual benefit to ports and local authorities, the NPP states that the cost of relocating and redeveloping port facility must be considered in any redevelopment plans. This point is made in the context of the government’s policy to require ports to fund any infrastructure developments from its own resources. It is stated within the NPP that:

“…redevelopment proposals must take account of the need for sufficient replacement port capacity within the region. Any development proposals require careful consideration by all relevant stakeholders, in particular the planning authorities, local communities, port authorities and port users.”

The NPP sets a clear policy context for the future expansion and efficient operation of Port of Cork activities, emphasising the crucial role to be played in facilitating national economic growth. The proposed alterations remain consistent with this policy objective as they are required to ensure the efficient operation of the Port’s activities.

6 NPP, p. 26 7 NPP, p. 45

NI1004 S146C EIS 4-5 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

4.8 Transport 21 2006-2015 Transport 21 set the projected capital investment framework under the National Development Programme over the period 2006 – 2015, although actual expenditure was significantly curtailed due to the national economic downturn.

The N28 National Primary Road, linking Cork City to Ringaskiddy, was proposed for upgrade under Transport 21, but this investment was suspended due to economic cutbacks. A decision has now been taken to proceed with the upgrade. It is currently anticipated that the Motorway Order and Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed road upgrade will be published early in 2017. The proposed alterations are consistent with the objectives of the capital investment framework as they are designed to effectively manage the release of traffic onto the national road network.

4.9 The South West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010 The 2010–2022 South West Regional Planning Guidelines (2010 RPGs) highlight the importance of the relocation of the port to the region’s strategic spatial strategy; acknowledge the limitations of potential rail transport and state that future port facilities need to be well served by the road network. S.1.3.33 of the 2010 RPGs state:

“There is an immediate requirement to identify an appropriate location with deep water for enhanced port facilities within Cork Harbour to accommodate increasing traffic and to help secure the redevelopment of the City Docklands. In the past, proposals to relocate the port have raised concerns regarding the most appropriate land-side transport arrangements for freight. The rail network serving Cork does not provide an adequate means of collection/distribution of freight to the region and so future port facilities need to be well served by the road network.”

S.5.5.8 of the 2010 RPGs emphasises the importance of the port’s growth to the region, stating:

“It is important to the development of the region’s economy that the Port of Cork can increase its tonnage in line with the future economic growth of the region and its own strategic development plan (currently under review) will guide this approach.”

The 2010 RPGs continue to provide regional spatial planning policy, pending publication of the Regional Spatial & Economic Plans, to be published by the new Regional Assemblies. 8

The proposed alterations remain consistent with regional planning guidelines to facilitate and manage increased tonnage in line with economic growth projections for the region.

4.10 Cork Area Strategic Plan (CASP) 2001-2020 CASP is a non-statutory document which was jointly undertaken by Cork County and Cork City Council to provide a vision and strategy for the development of the Cork City Region up to 2020. CASP identified the Port of Cork to be of strategic national importance:

“The Port of Cork contributes significantly to the well-being of commerce, industry and tourism, not just of the Cork sub-region, but beyond, to the entire country.” (CASP, p.116)

CASP considered that the Cork Area Strategic Plan and the Port of Cork’s Strategic Development Plan were mutually reinforcing and that there was a need for effective partnership between the City and County Councils to ensure the accomplishment of both strategies. Essentially much of CASP objectives for growth of Cork City are dependent on the relocation of the Port’s activities from the City Quays and Tivoli.

8 Cork and its region fall within the Southern & Eastern Regional Assembly.

NI1004 S146C EIS 4-6 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

CASP’s policy is supportive of the Port’s permitted development to relocate its inner harbour activities and to develop additional facilities at Ringaskiddy.

The proposed alterations remain consistent with the policy to redevelop the Port’s facilities at Ringaskiddy.

4.11 Cork County Development Plan 2014 The Cork County Development Plan 2014 (CDP 2014) provides the spatial planning context for the location of additional port facilities in Cork County. The CDP 2014 notes that Cork Harbour is the second most significant port in the state and that the efficient movement of goods is vital to the competitiveness and economic welfare of the Cork Region. It states that the plan supports the development of expanded facilities at Ringaskiddy, so that port centred operations and logistics can become more efficient through the accommodation of larger ships and so that port traffic can directly access the National Road network without passing through the city centre. The policy objectives for Cork and other Ports (TM 5-2), are to:

a) “Ensure that the strategic port facilities at Ringaskiddy, Whitegate and Cork Airport have appropriate road transport capacity to facilitate their sustainable development in future years… b) Support the relocation of port activities and other industry away from the upper harbour on the eastern approaches to the city. c) Support Ringaskiddy as the preferred location for the relocation of the majority of port related activities having regard to the need for a significant improvement to the road network... d) Local area plans should give priority to identifying appropriate and sustainable locations for port related activities. e) Generally support the ports and harbours of the County and recognise their essential role in facilitating industrial development, defence, trade, marine leisure, recreation and other economic sectors, while respecting their environmental setting. f) Improve port and harbour infrastructure in the County to safeguard lands in the vicinity of ports and harbours against inappropriate uses that could compromise the long-term economic potential (including access) of the port or harbour.”

Economic and policy objective EE 6-2 Cork Harbour also provides a policy objective to protect lands for port related developments at Ringaskiddy. The County Development Plan also identifies the need for the N28 to be upgraded as critical infrastructure to support employment development at Ringaskiddy.

The proposed alterations remain consistent with the Council Development Plan policy objectives for development of strategic port facilities at Ringaskiddy, and effectively managing the road network.

4.12 Cork City Development Plan 2015-2021 The Cork City Development Plan 2015-2021 identifies the importance of the relocation of port activities to achieve the strategic development objectives for Cork Docklands and Tivoli. The plan identifies issues which have constrained the redevelopment of the Docklands, including the failure to relocate port activities. It identifies the relocation of the Port as a critical step that needs to be undertaken to facilitate and encourage the redevelopment of Docklands and Tivoli, as well as further developing the Upper Harbour for tourism and recreation.

The City Development Plan policies have no bearing on the proposed alterations.

4.13 Carrigaline Local Area Plans 2011 The 2011 Carrigaline Electoral Area LAP provides the planning policy and zoning objectives for Ringaskiddy. The strategic aims for Ringaskiddy are to reaffirm its strategic industrial and port related roles and seek to promote its potential for large scale stand-alone industry, which are in line with the

NI1004 S146C EIS 4-7 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

strategic objectives for the settlement set out in the 2003 Carrigaline LAP. The 2011 Carrigaline LAP provides additional general development objectives for Ringaskiddy, which were not established in the 2003 LAP. These include the specific objective DB-02:

“…to facilitate the relocation of the Port of Cork’s container and bulk goods facilities to Ringaskiddy.”

The 2011 Carrigaline LAP zones the Port lands I-18 ‘Port Facilities and Port Related Activities’, (see figure 4.1)

The majority of land around Ringaskiddy is zoned for industrial use, although the village core is zoned for town centre / neighbourhood uses and there is some provision made for open space and amenity use, as illustrated on the zoning map in the LAP. The zoning map also shows the proposed route of the N28 upgrade, which will remove traffic from the residential core of Ringaskiddy and the village of Shanbally. The final route of the N28 will be determined following the current design process being undertaken by the Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII).

The Carrigaline LAP is currently under review and is to be replaced by the Ballincollig / Carrigaline Municipal District Local Area Plan (draft BCMD LAP). A draft of the BCMD LAP was published in November 2016

The general objectives for Ringaskiddy in the draft BCMD LAP confirm the settlement’s role as a strategic employment area and:

Reaffirm Ringaskiddy’s focus on industrial and port related roles which reflects its status as a Strategic Employment Area (Objective RY-GO-01)

The draft LAP also includes objective to facilitate the relocation of the Port of Cork’s container and bulk goods facilities to Ringaskiddy (RY-GO-03) and to facilitate the proposed M28 and protect the route corridor from inappropriate development. (RY-GO-05). The zoning objective for Ringaskiddy terminal remains as Port Facilities and Port Related Activities (RY-I-18).

The proposed alterations remain consistent with local planning policy objectives for the development of expanded port facilities on lands zoned for Port related activities in Ringaskiddy.

4.14 Summary The permitted development for Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment is consistent with European and national policy objectives, which identify high quality transport infrastructure, including port facilities, as essential for economic growth; maximising Ireland’s ocean wealth; and ensuring competitiveness of Ireland and Europe. The proposed alterations do not affect the principle of the established permission to provide for the relocation of container trade and additional berthing capacity at the terminal. As noted in Chapters 1 & 2, the proposed alterations are required to facilitate the efficient operation of Port trade; to effectively manage the release of traffic onto the national road network; to maintain and improve the Port’s international competitiveness, and to ensure that the redevelopment project is financially robust.

At a European level, the TEN-T recognises the Port of Cork as a core network port; and significant grant funding has been awarded to progress the Port’s strategic development proposals, under both the TEN-T and CEF programmes. The need for efficient and competitive port services is a policy objective for Core Ports under TEN-T. The proposed alterations are designed to improve the efficiency of port operations and therefore remain consistent with TEN-T policy objectives. The 2013 National Ports’ Policy (NPP 2013) establishes the policy framework for the development of port facilities in Ireland. It identifies the Port of Cork as one of 3 ‘Tier 1 – Ports of National Significance’ and endorses the principles contained within the Ports 2010 SDP. The NPP 2013 notes that identification of appropriate locations for port expansion should be addressed within spatial planning policy documents. The NPP 2013 requires Port companies to develop infrastructure from

NI1004 S146C EIS 4-8 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

their own resources. It is incumbent on the Port of Cork to promote a financially robust project, the financial implications of the development project are, accordingly, a material policy consideration. The proposed alterations are more cost effective, particularly in the early phases of implementation, than the permitted development.

The 2010 Regional Planning Guidelines (RPGs 2010) highlight the importance of the relocation of the Port to the region’s strategic spatial strategy; acknowledge the limitations of potential rail transport and state that future port facilities need to be well served by the road network. The proposed alterations remain consistent with 2010 Regional Planning Guidelines to facilitate and manage increased tonnage in line with economic growth projections for the region.

Spatial Planning Policy (CASP, the 2014 County Development Plan; 2011 Local Area Plan and 2016 Draft LAP) identify Ringaskiddy as the preferred location for the primary expansion of port activities and the application lands at Ringaskiddy are zoned to provide for the location of the Port of Cork’s container and bulk goods facilities. The Cork City Development Plan 2015-2021 identifies the critical need to relocate Port activities to facilitate the redevelopment of the Docklands and Tivoli and to maximise the potential of the Upper Harbour for other commercial and recreational uses. The proposed alterations remain consistent with Spatial Planning Policy, to provide an expansion of port activities at Ringaskiddy.

European, national, regional and local planning policy provide a framework supportive of the consolidation of port activities and the development of efficient port operations to facilitate sustainable economic growth. At a local level, Ringaskiddy has been identified as the preferred location for the relocation of container freight and the expansion of bulk freight. The strategic policy framework also recognises the need for Ports to operate efficiently and to have excellent connectivity within Ireland and Europe; as well as a requirement to be financially robust in bringing forward significant port capacity developments.

The proposed alterations remain consistent with this policy context, as they are required to facilitate efficient, effective and competitive port services, within a cost-effective development; and to manage a sustainable release of freight traffic onto the national road network.

NI1004 S146C EIS 4-9 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

References

Cork City Council (2015), Cork City Development Plan 2015-2021

Cork City Council and Cork County Council (2001); Cork Area Strategic Plan 2001-2020

Cork City Council and Cork County Council (2008); Cork Area Strategic Plan Update

Cork County Council, (2011), Carrigaline Electoral Area Local Area Plan 2011-2017

Cork County Council, (2011), Midleton Electoral Area Local Area Plan 2011-2017

Cork County Council (2014), Cork County Development Plan 2015-2021

Cork County Council (2016), draft Ballincollig Carrigaline Municipal District Local Area Plan

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (2009), Regulatory Impact Analysis – Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2009.

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (2012), Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth: An Integrated Marine Plan for Ireland.

Department of Agriculture, Food & the Marine (2016), Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth: Review of Progress 2015.

Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government (2002), National Spatial Strategy 2003- 2020

Department of Transport (2005), Transport 21

Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport (2013), National Ports Policy

Department of Jobs, Enterprise & Innovation , Enterprise 2025

Environmental Protection Agency (2012), Dumping at Sea EPA Enforcement and Permitting Booklet

European Commission (2011), Connection Europe: The new EU core transport network, Memo/11/706

European Commission (2011), Planning Methodology for the trans-European transport network (TEN-T)

European Commission (2013), TEN-T 2012 Annual Call, Proposals for an Implementing Decision on the selection of projects.

OSPAR (2014) Guidelines for the Management of Dredged Material at Sea. (Agreement 2014-06)

South West Regional Planning Authority (2010), The South West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010.

NI1004 S146C EIS 4-10 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

5.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

5.1 Introduction This Chapter of the EIS considers the potential and likely significant effects of the proposed alterations to the permitted development on the Human Environment. The purpose of this chapter is to identify and describe any likely significant Human Environment effects because of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development. The potential Human Environment impacts are considered under the headings of Economic Activity; Social Considerations; Land Use and Health & Safety.

5.2 Methodology The methodology for the Human Environment chapter consists of an assessment of the human environment baseline and identification of potential receptors; appraisal of the proposed alterations to identify potential impacts; and a review of submissions from relevant agencies / stakeholders. The potential receptors that may be impacted by the proposed alteration are identified as being: Residential Receptors • Residential properties adjacent to the Port • Residential properties within ½ km of the site • Residential properties adjacent to the primary transport routes • Residential properties in the wider context • Land zoned for residential development Direct Economic Receptors • Commercial and Industrial premises near the site • Commercial activities located within Cork Harbour • Tourism activities in and around Cork Harbour • Zoned commercial lands near the site • Operational and construction related employment Indirect Economic Receptors • Suppliers of construction materials • Commercial and industrial activities served by the N28 Social and Community Facilities • Schools in the vicinity or located on the N28 • Third level educational & research facilities (National Maritime College of Ireland and UCC’s Marine Based Research Centre – the Beaufort Laboratory) • Recreation and Amenity facilities – within Ringaskiddy village and Cork Harbour, including existing and permitted marinas at Monkstown and Cobh • Land zoned for recreation or amenity use • Cork Crematorium • Churches within Ringaskiddy village and Shanbally Transient Population • Commuters using the N28 • Passengers of the Ferryport Other • Irish Naval Base • Permitted Developments within Ringaskiddy, or located on the N28

NI1004 S146C EIS 5-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

5.3 Receiving environment Ringaskiddy has a population of circa 480 people. The village consists of a main street running east/west along the N28 with some smaller streets running off the main street to the south. The Port of Cork occupies lands to the north of the N28.

Ringaskiddy is designated as a Strategic Employment Centre and there is a significant presence of large industrial development within the settlement, in addition to the existing Port of Cork terminal. The draft Local Area Plan 1 covering Ringaskiddy notes that, outside the Greater Dublin area, Ringaskiddy has the largest direct investment employment centre in Ireland. It estimates that approximately 8,800 people are employed in the area and notes that many of the top world leading pharmaceutical companies are in Ringaskiddy.

The National Maritime College of Ireland is in Ringaskiddy. University College Cork also has a Marine based research centre located at the east of Ringaskiddy. The research centre opened in July 2015 and has provision for c.135 research and support staff.

Residential amenities within Ringaskiddy and Shanbally include a primary school, churches, convenience shop, bar, restaurant; crèche and community playground. The area has numerous leisure amenities and recreational facilities, including local GAA and athletic clubs, soccer club and golf course. The permitted development will provide a new amenity area at Paddy’s Point to the east of the village. The amenity area will provide a replacement pier and slipway, in mitigation for the loss of access to the existing pier and slipway within the Port of Cork’s operational area.

Ringaskiddy is connected by road to Haulbowline Island at the eastern end of the village. Haulbowline Island is home to the Irish Navy, the old Irish Steel site and the Coastal Marine Research Centre. A crematorium is located on a small island – Rocky Island - between Haulbowline and Ringaskiddy. Cork County Council has permission to undertake remediation works to the old Irish Steel site and develop a public park on the eastern tip of the Island.

Figure 5.1 provides an aerial view of Shanbally and Ringaskiddy, identifying the main existing industries and community receptors within the area.

Spike Island is situated in the lower Cork Harbour, to the east of Ringaskiddy. Access to the island is currently only possible by boat, with regular tours leaving from Cobh. Spike Island currently offers visitor tours to the military fortification. Strategic plans are being prepared to develop the Island as a more significant tourism and recreational attraction for the Cork area.

Monkstown village is located across the harbour, north-west of Ringaskiddy and the port lands are visible from much of the village. Monkstown village includes an existing 90 berth marina, which has permission for an extension to provide for 280 berths. Monkstown is linked in spatial planning policy to Passage West and Glenbrook and the area is identified as an important residential settlement within Metropolitan Cork. Monkstown is also identified as a significant centre for water based activities.

Rushbrooke Dockyard is located north of the port lands. Whitepoint, Cobh is located to the east of Rushbrooke and is a relatively low density residential area. The port lands form part of the harbour vista from several residential properties at Whitepoint.

Cobh town is located on the opposite side of the harbour to the north, with the main commercial area of the town facing onto the harbour. The town has a steep topography, with many residential areas having a vista of the harbour and the port lands form part of this vista. There are limited views of the port lands from the commercial part of Cobh town.

1 Draft Ballincollig Carrigaline Municipal District LAP, November 2016 (draft 2016 LAP)

NI1004 S146C EIS 5-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 5.1: Aerial view of Shanbally and Ringaskiddy, identifying the main existing industries and community receptors within the area

NI1004 S146C EIS 5-0 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The shipping lane (known colloquially as Cobh Road) passes up the middle of the harbour and crosses in front of the town. Cove Sailing Club is located at Whitepoint, and in 2011 was granted planning permission to develop a 74-berth marina.

Cork Harbour is widely used for sailing and leisure boating. Figure 5.2 illustrates the shipping lane, the location of the main sailing and rowing clubs; and sailing racing marks in the Lower Harbour.

Carrigaline is located approximately 5 km to the south west of Ringaskiddy. It is a key residential settlement of approximately 14,757 people 2. Carrigaline experiences strong commuting to Cork City and Ringaskiddy.

Crosshaven is located to the south east of Ringaskiddy. It is a small settlement with a population of c. 1,700. The strategic planning aim for Crosshaven is to consolidate the settlement and recognise its important economic, leisure, tourism and marine roles within Cork Harbour Area. The main access route from Crosshaven to Cork City is on the N28, via Carrigaline. The Carrigaline LAP has not identified a strong commuting link between Crosshaven and the city.

The permitted development will result in the relocation of some of the Port’s current activities from Tivoli and City Quays. The relocation of activities from these sites will provide redevelopment opportunities in the city. In addition to redevelopment of land, the South Docks Local Area Plan has identified the potential for enhanced use of the River Lee for leisure and amenity use when port activities are relocated.

Demographic analysis of the 2006 and 2011 census indicates that the residential population of Ringaskiddy declined by 7% during the inter-censual period (from 514 to 478). Household size in the village is relatively small (at 2.6 in 2011, compared to a county average of 2.8). This may be the consequence of the presence of student housing associated with the NMCI. Population data was not available for the village of Shanbally.

Ringaskiddy and Shanbally are small residential settlements, with a limited housing stock. The 2011 census data states that Ringaskiddy had a total of 241 houses, of which 46 were vacant at the time of the Census (19%); Shanbally had 117 houses, of which 4 were vacant (3%). On Census night, the vacancy rate in Cork County was 15.8% and in the State it was 14.5%.

The vacancy rate in Ringaskiddy suggest that the village does not have a strong housing market in the context of Cork County, which can be explained by the settlement’s strategic designation as an area for large scale industrial development. Shanbally would appear to have a stronger housing market, with a vacancy rate significantly lower than the county or state averages.

5.3.1 Residential Receptors There are no residential properties directly adjoining the Port lands. The residential properties closest to the site of the proposed alterations are those located to the south of the N28 on the main street of the village. There are approximately 173 residential units within 500m of the site.

From Ringaskiddy Port to the Bloomfield Interchange there are approximately 150 dwellings adjacent to the road. From the Bloomfield Interchange to the Dunkettle Roundabout there are approximately another 76 dwellings adjacent to the road.

There is no land specifically zoned for future residential development in either Ringaskiddy or Shanbally, although some small scale residential development may be considered acceptable within areas zoned for town centre / neighbourhood centre.

2 Cork County Development Plan 2014 – reference to 2011 Census Data

NI1004 S146C EIS 5-0 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 5.2: Illustrating the shipping lane, the location of the main sailing and rowing clubs; and sailing racing marks in the Lower Harbour

NI1004 S146C EIS 5-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

5.3.2 Direct & Indirect Economic Receptors Ringaskiddy is dominated by industrial development, with the draft 2016 LAP estimating that approximately 8,800 people are employed in Ringaskiddy. There are also significant amounts of land zoned for further employment and industrial development. There have been several major industrial planning applications in recent years and the strategic objective for Ringaskiddy is to support the development of additional industry, include large scale stand-alone industrial developments.

There are a limited number of commercial service companies located within Ringaskiddy. There is one small convenience shop and one restaurant / public house within the village (see plate 5.1).

The primary commercial activities located within Cork Harbour are related directly to Port related activities and fishing. The shipping lane is shown on Figure 5.2. There are approximately 50 commercial fishing boats active in the Cork Harbour area.

Cork Harbour also provides an important economic tourism role. Several marine based leisure activities (including fishing, sailing, kayaking, rowing, bird watching and swimming) take place in the harbour and support the tourism industry. The cruise industry is also an important tourist based economic activity. Cobh cruise terminal currently attracts 60 cruise ships a year. It is an objective of the Port of Cork to continue to promote the cruise business and it has an objective to develop a second cruise berth at Cobh.

Spike Island is an important tourism, cultural and recreational destination for Cork and Cork County Council has a vision to further develop the potential of the island.

Ringaskiddy is an arrival / departure point for tourist using the Cork Roscoff passenger car ferry, which operates seasonally once a week. Tourism facilities within Ringaskiddy are limited, with no tourist routes, walking trails, amenities or heritage / cultural sites of major significance within the village.

In relation to direct employment, the Port of Cork currently employs 22 people at the Ringaskiddy site. There are 43 people employed directly at Tivoli and 7 employed by the Port at City Quays. When the redevelopment of Ringaskiddy port is completed, it is anticipated that employees based at Tivoli will be relocated to Ringaskiddy.

It is projected that the construction phase of the development will result in the equivalent of c. 849 full time direct construction jobs for the full development proposals 3. Combined direct and indirect full time equivalent jobs (FTEs) are estimate to be 1,473, with an implied economy wide income support of €58.8m because of the construction process 4.

3 Table 5.9 of Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment EIS, Volume 1 - Main Statement (RPS, 2014) 4 Ibid

NI1004 S146C EIS 5-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Plate 5.1: Ferry Boat Inn, Ringaskiddy

5.3.3 Social and Community Facilities There is one primary school within Ringaskiddy (Plate 5.2) – Ringaskiddy Lower Harbour National school (approximately 90 pupils) and one primary school at Shanbally – Shanbally National School (approximately 214 pupils). There are no secondary schools in Ringaskiddy or Shanbally. There is one crèche in Ringaskiddy village – located at the entrance to the Ferryview housing estate.

Plate 5.2: Ringaskiddy National School

NI1004 S146C EIS 5-3 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The National Maritime College of Ireland (NMCI) is situated to the east of Ringaskiddy, and has a total of c. 430 full-time students, as well as running several short-term and commercial courses. University College Cork has a marine research centre located adjacent to the NMCI, with c. 135 research and support staff.

Sports clubs in the area include the Shamrocks Hurling and GAA Club in Shanbally and the Hibernian Soccer Club, also based in Shanbally.

Other leisure activities and amenities in the area include fishing; amenity walking (such as Monkstown seafront, Gobby beach, Ringaskiddy to Loughbeg Road to the Martello Tower on the eastern shore); bird watching; sailing; rowing; swimming; and kayaking. There are 6 boat moorings located in Ringaskiddy. Cork Lower Harbour is an active location for leisure sailing and boating, including several racing events, such as the Cobh Regatta (August); Cork Sailing Week (early July) Ocean to City (late May / early June). Open sea swimming has also become more popular within the harbour and there are several events throughout the year, including Cork City to Cobh swim (September) and Escape from Spike Island (August). The Great Island Kayak Race takes place in December / January, but this race circumnavigates Cobh Great Island and does at any point cross the shipping lane.

Recreational lands within the permitted development boundary include Ringaskiddy pier and slipway, used by small craft and an area of cleared scrub to the east of Ringaskiddy Basin, regularly used on an informal basis for walking. . The pier and slipway are used to access 6 moorings located at Ringaskiddy. The pier and slipway remain accessible, but will be closed as part of the permitted development; the location of the moorings will remain unchanged. The development of Paddy’s Point Amenity Area is included as part of the first phase of the permitted redevelopment works, and will be constructed before access is closed off to Ringaskiddy pier and slipway.

Access to the cleared scrublands to the east of Ringaskiddy Basin is no longer available because advanced works associated with the permitted development has fenced this area off. Development of Paddy’s Point Amenity Area under Phase 1A will occur in mitigation for the loss of access to all of these areas.

The port lands also include a Sculpture Garden, which forms part of the landscaping associated with the ferry terminal building and this is to be relocated as part of the permitted development.

A community playground (plate 5.3) was opened in May 2015 and is located on lands immediately adjacent to the boundary of the Port’s operational area (as identified in Figure 5.1).

NI1004 S146C EIS 5-4 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Plate 5.3: Ringaskiddy Community Playground

Ringaskiddy has one church, Ringaskiddy Catholic Oratory, which is directly opposite the existing entrance to the Port of Cork (see Plate 5.4). The Church of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Shanbally is located c. 1.45 from the permitted development boundary, adjacent to the N28. The island crematorium is located at Rocky Island – to the east of Ringaskiddy.

Plate 5.4: Ringaskiddy Catholic Oratory Church

There is a small amount of open space zoned within the village of Ringaskiddy, designated as providing a buffer zone between existing residential development and adjoining land designated for industrial use. Similarly, in Shanbally, existing recreational and amenity uses (golf courses & playing

NI1004 S146C EIS 5-5 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

pitches) are zoned open space and additional land is zoned open space to act as a buffer zone or to protect the feeding grounds of bird species.

5.3.4 Transient & Other Receptors Transient receptors that could be impacted by the permitted development and proposed alterations include commuters on the N28 from Carrigaline into Cork City; and passengers of the Cork to Roscoff service, which caters for a maximum of 2,400 passengers and 650 cars.

Other receptors in the area include the Irish Naval base at Haulbowline Island, accessed via a bridge from the east of Ringaskiddy.

5.4 Impact Assessment The EIS for the development permitted in May 2015 provided an assessment of the potential impact of the redevelopment of Ringaskiddy port. An Bord Pleanála’s decision of May 2015, permits the redevelopment of port facilities, subject to the Schedule of Mitigation measures presented at the Oral Hearing, as further amended by the conditions of the Board’s permission. The Schedule of Mitigation measures and conditions commit the permitted development to the following measures:

• Provision of Paddy’s Point Amenity Area, including landscaped area a new pier and slipway; • Relocation of the Sculpture Garden; • Restriction on construction to ensure safe access and adequate Health & Safety measures are in place; • Implementation of Pest Management measures; • Provision of a planning gain contribution, not less than €1m, to enhance the public realm of Ringaskiddy.

The assessment in this EIS is focused on the proposed alterations to the permitted development, in the context of the final Schedule of Mitigation measures and the planning conditions of the extant permission. Impacts which have already been assessed are therefore not reconsidered unless altered in any way by the proposed alterations. The proposed alterations are described in detail in Chapter 3 Project Description. For the purposes of assessment of the impact on the Human Environment the proposed alterations are categorised as being alterations to:

• Landside container handling • Main Berth and Mooring Dolphins, including dredging and dumping at sea • Entrance and interchange area • Maintenance, office and customs building

The impact of each of these is considered in the context of Economic Activity; Social Considerations; Land Use; Health & Safety, Disposal at Sea and Cumulative Effects.

5.4.1 Economic Activity Landside container handling The proposed landside container handling alterations will result in an alteration to the method for the logistical handling of containers on the quay side. The alteration will not influence the quantum of containers that may be handled, nor on the number of employees required to operate the landside container handling equipment. There is, therefore, no impact on direct employment associated with the proposed alterations.

The proposed alterations to the landside container handling equipment will result in cost-savings to project, improving the financial viability and economic efficiency of the development. The proposed alterations will, therefore, have a positive impact on the direct economic activity of the Port services.

NI1004 S146C EIS 5-6 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The construction process will be slightly different, as there will be Rail Mounted Gantry cranes (RMGs) and Straddle Carriers (SCs), instead of Rubber Tyred Gantry cranes (RTGs). This alteration will have an imperceptible impact on the economic impacts associated with the construction process, with investment targeted more towards SCs and RMGs, rather than the RTGs. The alterations will not have any effect on the quantum of trade through the Port. As such, there will be no impact on indirect economic activity.

The proposed landside container handling alterations do not introduce any additional direct or indirect negative impacts in relation to economic activity during either the construction or operational phase of the development.

Main Berth and Mooring Dolphins The alterations to the main berth (container berth 1) and mooring dolphins are proposed to facilitate efficient use of the berth, following identification of operational restrictions during the detailed design process. In addition, the proposed alteration facilitates the development of the berths at Ringaskiddy East in two phases.

The proposed alterations do not in themselves have any effect on construction, operational, or indirect Economic Activity when compared with the permitted development. The scheduling of the construction phasing will be different than originally envisaged, as the first phase is to be divided into Phase 1a and 1b. However, the totality of the construction works required remains broadly similar to the permitted development. There may be minor increases in construction related employment associated with the additional dredging and dolphin construction, which will have an imperceptible to minor positive impact on direct economic activity during the construction phase.

During the operational phase, the proposed alterations will provide substantial cost-savings in the early phase of the redevelopment. The alternations to the main berth will mean that the construction of the second berth can be deferred to a later phase in the timeline of the permitted development. This will reduce the level of initial investment required before the container trade can be relocated from Tivoli. This will have a positive short term economic impact for the Port of Cork, improving the economic viability of the infrastructure investment.

In a ‘do-nothing’ scenario, where the development proceeds as currently permitted, there may be a negative impact on direct and indirect economic activity, because of the logistical restrictions associated with the permitted design, and the higher initial investment costs associated with the construction of 2 berths in the first phase of the redevelopment.

The proposed alterations to the main berth and mooring dolphins do not introduce any negative direct or indirect impacts in relation to economic activity during either the construction or operational phase of the development.

Entrance and interchange area The alterations to the entrance and interchange area have been proposed to facilitate efficient operation of the Straddle Carrier system and will not change the volume of trade that may be handled by the Port. The alterations will not change economic activity associated with either the construction or operational phase of the permitted development. The alterations to the entrance and interchange will not result in any indirect effects on economic activity, as there will be no change to the volume of trade handled by the Port.

The proposed alteration to the entrance and interchange area do not introduce any negative direct or indirect impacts in relation to economic activity during either the construction or operational phase of the development.

NI1004 S146C EIS 5-7 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Maintenance, office and customs building The proposed alterations to the maintenance, office and customs building are to provide a space fit for purpose to maintain the Straddle Carriers, and consolidate the other uses of Customs, Border Control and Agriculture Inspection Facilities.

During the construction phase, there will be a minor positive impact on economic activity associated with the development of the additional maintenance shed.

During the operational phase, the nature of the maintenance works associated with container handling operations will be different from the permitted development, as they will be focused on the 15 straddle carriers, and 2 Rail Mounted Gantry (RMG) cranes, rather than the permitted RTGs, and associated container handling equipment. The proposed alteration does not change the overall scale of maintenance that will be associated with container handling operations and it is not envisaged that there will be any change in the number of people to be employed related to maintenance works.

Similarly, the consolidation of the Customs, Border Control and Agriculture Inspection Facilities do not change the nature or scale of work involved. The proposed alteration will provide more suitable and comfortable facilities, but there is no change envisaged to any employment associated with these activities

The proposed alterations to the maintenance, office and customs building do not introduce any negative direct or indirect impacts in relation to economic activity during either the construction or operational phase of the development.

5.4.2 Social Considerations Social considerations relate to whether the development will change patterns and types of activity. In this context, it is necessary to consider potential impacts on recreation and amenity; and on non- commercial activities that may be affected by the proposed alterations. Potential social and community receptors have been identified as being: residential population; schools; third level education and research facilities; childcare facilities; churches and cemeteries; and recreation and leisure amenities.

Impacts associated with the permitted development were identified as the relocation of the Sculpture Garden; loss of access to the existing pier and slipway; loss of access to the informal walk at Ringaskiddy East; a slight increase in the distance from the existing 6 moorings to the new pier and slipway; and loss of access to a sailing race marker within the Port’s operational area.

No other impacts on social considerations were identified and it was concluded that the then proposed (now permitted) development would not result in the loss of any sailing grounds within the Lower Harbour.

Mitigation measures proposed for the permitted development were the development of Paddy’s Point Amenity area and the relocation of the sculpture garden. In addition, the planning permission requires a community gain contribution toward enhancing the public realm for Ringaskiddy village. Realisation of those mitigation measures enshrined in the extant approval for the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment development will not be impacted by the proposed alterations.

The following assessment considers whether the proposed alterations will have any additional impact on social considerations.

Landside container handling The proposed alterations will result in no material changes to the construction methods associated with the works to provide for RMG cranes. No construction impacts on social considerations have been identified.

NI1004 S146C EIS 5-8 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

During the operational phase, the proposed alterations to the landside container handling will result in the use of mobile Straddle Carriers &RMGs (instead of RTGs) and the provision of a maintenance shed for the purposes of maintaining the Straddle Carriers. The nature of the container handling will not impact on the overall quantum of trade throughput at the Port, or the level of traffic entering or exiting the Port. All the container handling activities will take place within the boundary of the Port of Cork’s operational area and will not have any direct impact on social considerations, such as recreation and leisure amenity, education facilities, or churches.

The Ringaskiddy Community Playground has been developed since the original permission was granted (see Plate 5.3 and Figure 5.1). The playground is adjacent to the Port of Cork’s site boundary and within 250m of the proposed Maintenance Shed. There are no public safety implications associated with the operation of the container handling or maintenance shed – as the Port of Cork is a secure site; and there is no connection from the playground into the operational area. Noise attenuation barriers are now in place at the boundary of the Ports lands, providing a noise barrier and a visual screening between the playground and the Port operational area. The playground, by its nature, is an active and animated environment and does not rely on low baseline noise for its use. The proposed alterations to the landside container handling system will have no impact on the community playground.

The proposed alterations to the landside container handling do not introduce any negative direct or indirect impacts in relation to social considerations during either the construction or operational phase of the development.

Main Berth and Mooring Dolphins

The proposed alterations at the main berth (container berth 1) do not impact on landside features and therefore there is no effect on any landside social considerations, such as recreation and leisure amenity, education facilities, or churches, during the construction or operational phases.

In terms of seaward impacts, the alterations do not result in any change to the quantum of ships to be handled by the Port, or to any shipping movements within the harbour. Therefore, the proposals will not impact on the use of the harbour for leisure, tourism or other commercial activities during the operational phase. Potential construction impacts related to an increased duration of dredging and disposal at sea operations are considered in section 5.4.5.

The proposed alterations to the main berth and mooring dolphins do not introduce any negative direct or indirect impacts in relation to social considerations during either the construction or operational phase of the development.

Entrance and interchange area While the proposed alterations amend the layout of the entrance and interchange area, the nature and scale of the associated construction works are unchanged. The construction phase of the proposed alterations to the entrance and interchange area will, therefore, have no impact on social considerations.

The alterations to the entrance and interchange area have been proposed to facilitate efficient operation of the Straddle Carrier system and will not change the volume of trade that may be handled by the Port. The alterations will not change the level of traffic entering or exiting the site, or compliance with Mobility Management restrictions, enshrined in the conditions of the permitted development.

The proposed alterations to the entrance and interchange area do not introduce any negative direct or indirect impacts in relation to social considerations during either the construction or operational phase of the development.

NI1004 S146C EIS 5-9 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Maintenance, office and customs buildings As noted above, the proposed alterations to landside container handling will require the provision of a Maintenance Shed, fit for purpose to maintain Straddle Carriers and no construction or operational negative impacts have been identified. Also, as noted, the consolidation of the Customs, Border Control and Agriculture Inspection Facilities do not change the nature or scale of work involved during the operational phase. Therefore, the proposed alterations will not have any impact on social considerations during the operational phase.

There will be an imperceptible difference between the construction of the permitted maintenance building and the proposed alteration to the ‘Custom’s Building. Accordingly, no negative construction impacts on social considerations have been identified.

The proposed alterations to the maintenance office and customs buildings are within the Port operational area and will not introduce any negative direct or indirect impacts in relation to social considerations.

5.4.3 Land Use The proposed alterations all fall within the landholding of the Port of Cork within lands and water used for ‘port operations’. There are, therefore, no potential impacts on ‘Land Use’ during either the construction or operational phases, because of the proposed alterations, as the lands and water involved are all existing port operational areas.

The proposed alterations will not introduce any negative direct or indirect impacts in relation to land use during either the construction or operational phase of the development.

5.4.4 Health & Safety The proposed alterations will not result in any change to the health & safety procedures or requirements associated with either the construction or operational phase of the development. The proposed alterations will not involve any inherent increase in construction health and safety risk over the existing permitted design. Construction Health & safety will be addressed within the Construction Management Plan which will take account of the final permitted design and the proposed alterations.

The operational phase of the redevelopment is guided by national health & safety legislation. The proposed alterations will not involve any inherent increase in health and safety risks over the permitted development.

None of the proposed alterations introduce any additional direct or indirect negative impacts in relation to health & safety during either the construction or operational phase of the redevelopment.

5.4.5 Disposal at Sea The construction process for the proposed alterations will involve dredging and associated disposal at sea of dredged materials, as described in the project description. The potential impacts on social considerations relate to tourism; and recreation & amenity use of the harbour and Western Celtic Sea.

The proposed alterations will result in a minor increase in the area to be dredged, but do not result in a significant extension to the proposed dredging programme. Dredging will not take place during the months from May to August (inclusive). Dredging activity will therefore take place outside the season for the main established leisure events that occur in the Lower Harbour – namely Cobh Regatta (August); Cork Sailing Week (early July); Ocean to City (late May / early June); or escape from Spike Island (August).

It is anticipated that the additional area to be dredged will result in an additional five days of vessel movements between the dredging and disposal sites. This level of increased shipping will be

NI1004 S146C EIS 5-10 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

imperceptible in the context of existing commercial shipping activity in the Lower Harbour and will not result in any impact on tourism, or recreation and leisure amenity use of the harbour and Western Celtic Sea.

5.4.6 Cumulative Effects The significant proposed developments which may have a cumulative effect in combination with the proposed alterations include the following:

° Road Infrastructure : M28 Upgrade and Dunkettle Interchange Improvements; ° Tourism / State Infrastructure Developments : proposed Cobh Cruise Berth; Spike Island Masterplan; Martello Tower Site Reprofiling ° Industrial / Commercial Developments : range of application for expansion of existing and new commercial and industrial activities in Ringaskiddy (such as Indaver; GE Healthcare; DePuy Turbines) ° Leisure / Amenity Developments : Marina at Whitepoint, Cobh, Marina at Monkstown; ° Residential : Shannonpark Masterplan site

The potential Human Environment cumulative effects identified for the permitted development related to: ° A positive impact on the public realm, due to the combined plans for Haulbowline Island and Paddy’s Point. ° A positive impact on public amenity due to the then proposed development of the community playground and the removal of traffic from the main street of the village. ° A positive impact on the economic vitality of Cork and its region because of employment expansion associated with Port activities and proposed industrial / commercial developments. ° Potential for concentrated increase in commercial shipping within the Lower Harbour, should construction dredging activity for Monkstown Marina and the proposed Ringaskiddy Port redevelopment coincide. Any cumulative effect was identified as being very short term, as Port related construction dredging was anticipated to be complete within 20 days.

No cumulative effects have been identified in any of the Human Environment categories of Economic Activity; Social Considerations; Land Use or Health & Safety because of the proposed alterations. Impacts related to disposal at sea of additional dredged material will be imperceptible.

Having reviewed the significant proposed developments listed above in context of the proposed alterations, no further potential cumulative effects have been identified, nor have any changes to the cumulative effects for the permitted development been identified during either the construction or operational phase of the redevelopment.

5.5 Mitigation Measures No negative impacts have been identified because of the proposed alterations to the permitted development. Accordingly, no further mitigation measures are required in the context of the Human Environment. The mitigation measures that formed part of the An Bord Pleanála approval of the permitted development of the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment therefore do not require any changes and remain entirely appropriate.

NI1004 S146C EIS 5-11 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

5.6 Residual Impacts No significant residual impacts on the Human Environment have been predicted for the proposed alterations. The extant permission provides for the redevelopment of port facilities, subject to the Schedule of Mitigation and planning conditions. The mitigation measures enshrined in the extant permission for the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment remain unchanged by the proposed alterations.

5.7 Conclusion The assessment of the Human Environment has considered the potential and likely significant effects of the proposed alterations to the human environment baseline of the site and its surrounding environment.

The conclusion of this assessment of the proposed alterations is that these modifications will not result in any significant change to the assessment of effects and conclusions as previously presented in the 2014 EIS for the permitted development. The mitigation measures enshrined in the Schedule of Commitments and conditions of the extant permission remain applicable.

NI1004 S146C EIS 5-12 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

6.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE

6.1 Introduction This Chapter of the EIS considers the potential and likely significant effects of the proposed alterations to the permitted development on the cultural heritage assets and potential. The purpose of this section is to identify and describe any likely significant effects upon terrestrial, intertidal and subtidal archaeological and architectural heritage sites and areas of potential as a result of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development.

The proposed alterations are described in detail in Chapter 3 Project Description. Part of the proposed alterations are located in the inner section of the Ringaskiddy Port, an active ferry and bulk cargo port, which has been reclaimed from the Ringaskiddy shoreline during the twentieth century. The Port is shown in Figure 6.1.

For the present assessment of the proposed alterations, a comprehensive review of existing sources was completed, and new data sets have been acquired based on non-intrusive survey and recording above and below the waterline.

The conclusion of this assessment of the proposed alterations is that these modifications will not result in any significant change to the assessment of cultural heritage risk as previously made for the permitted development.

6.2 Assessment Methodology – Permitted Development and Proposed Alterations A sequence of work has been completed to ensure that the Cultural Heritage assessment has been comprehensive and robust. The work has included a desktop study of known archaeological and architectural sources, including marine geophysical survey conducted in 2005 and archaeological dive inspection conducted in 2006, 2012 and 2014. An Archaeological dive inspection was also carried out in 2016 to deal with a detail relating to the proposed alterations.

6.2.1 Consultations The Irish Antiquities Division of the National Museum of Ireland (NMI) retains an extensive archive of small finds and objects discovered across Ireland and reported to the Museum and its predecessors since the nineteenth century. It represents a critical resource for archaeological research, where registered objects are recorded by townland in the Topographical Files. For the present project, the following townlands were assessed: Barnahely; Ballybricken; Ringaskiddy.

Department of Arts, Heritage, Rural, Regional and Gaeltacht Affairs (DAHRRGA, formerly the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, DAHG) Sites and Monuments Record files . The information, which is also filed according to townland, provides details relating to specific monuments and sites of archaeological importance that survive or whose site area is recorded. The record generally includes only sites that pre-date c. 1750 AD.

DAHRRGA’s Historic Shipwreck Inventory files and Places and Ports archive . This information relates to the archives maintained by the National Monuments Section’s Underwater Archaeology Unit for shipwreck and other maritime sites of archaeological interest. The information is located regarding the nearest topographic locator, such as a town or headland, as well as site-specific grid coordinates where known. For the present project, the following landmarks were relevant: Monkstown Creek; Ballybricken Point; Ring; Ring Island; Ring Point; Ringaskiddy; Ringaskiddy Island; Paddy’s Point; Rocky Island; Oyster Bank; Golden Rock.

National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH). The DAHG provides an online register of historic buildings and features/street furniture that retain architectural heritage interest, and is maintained by the DAHG’s architectural section. The Inventory is organized by place and townland. The Inventory complements the archaeological inventories by including buildings and features that date from the eighteenth century and more recently.

NI1004 S146C EIS 6-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

In addition, the following sources have been consulted:

• Cartographic sources , including Admiralty Charts (Chart 1777) and Ordnance Survey First and Second Edition maps (6-inch Sheet Cork 87). Historic and current topographical maps represent very important sources that can reveal the progress of natural erosion and human development across a landscape/seascape over time. Such mapping in Ireland is metrically accurate from the mid-late nineteenth century;

• Office of Public Works (OPW) Piers and Harbour Structures files, 1708-1922 (OPW/8). This body of state records refers to port improvement works across the country and forms part of the National Archives collection;

• Excavations Bulletin is an annual published list of licensed archaeological intervention work conducted across Ireland. It is arranged by county and then by townland, and is currently completed to 2010 in published format, with more recent entries accessible through an on-line database supported by the DAHRRGA, ( www.excavations.ie ); and

• Relevant published sources.

6.2.2 Data Acquisition The desktop review included a review of historic mapping that can reveal the development of the landscape over time, an examination of existing archival information at the NMI and the DAHRRGA in relation to the known archaeological objects and features and sites of archaeological and architectural interest, and a review of archaeological work conducted in the immediate vicinity of the proposed alterations from published and unpublished sources. The information combines to establish a baseline data source.

The desktop data is informed further by a programme of marine geophysical survey conducted in 2005 and archaeological diver inspection carried out in 2006, 2012 and 2014, conducted under licence from what is today the DAHRRGA, and commissioned by the Port of Cork for cultural heritage assessment of the permitted development at Ringaskiddy. The baseline data and the factual observations made in the on-site surveys are presented in detail in Appendices of the original EIS.

Additional project-specific data was acquired in 2016 to complement the earlier data sets and is focussed on a detail of the proposed alterations. This information is described in section 6.4 of the present chapter.

6.2.3 Legislation The following legislation, standards and guidelines with particular reference to Archaeology were consulted for the purposes of this evaluation:

• National Monuments Acts, 1930-2004; • The Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act, 2006; • The Heritage Act, 1995; • Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements, 2002, EPA; • Advice Notes on Current Practice (in preparation of Environmental Impact Statements), 2003, EPA; • Guidelines for the Assessment of Archaeological Heritage Impacts of National Road Schemes, no date, NRA; • Frameworks and Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, 1999, Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and Islands (now DAHG); • Architectural Heritage (National Inventory) and Historic Monuments (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2000 and the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 2000; • Code of Practice between Bord Gáis Éireann and the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (now the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht), 2002.

NI1004 S146C EIS 6-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

6.2.4 Classification of Impacts Impacts are generally categorised as either being a direct impact, an indirect impact or as having no predicted impact:

• Direct impact occurs when an item of archaeological or architectural heritage is located within the footprint of the proposed development and entails the removal of part, or all, of the monument or feature. • Indirect impact may be caused where a feature or site of archaeological or architectural interest is located in close proximity of the proposed development. • No predicted impact occurs when the proposed development does not adversely or positively affect an archaeological or architectural heritage site.

These impact categories are further assessed in terms of their quality i.e. positive, negative, neutral (or direct and indirect).

• Negative Impact is a change that will detract from or permanently remove an archaeological or architectural monument from the landscape. • Neutral Impact is a change that does not affect the archaeological or architectural heritage. • Positive Impact is a change that improves or enhances the setting of an archaeological or architectural monument.

A significance rating for these impacts is then given i.e. slight, moderate, significant or profound.

• Profound applies where mitigation would be unlikely to remove adverse effects. This is reserved for adverse, negative effects only. These effects arise where an archaeological or architectural site/feature is completely and irreversibly destroyed by a proposed development. • Significant is an impact that, by its magnitude, duration or intensity alters an important aspect of the environment. An impact like this would be where the site/feature or part thereof would be permanently impacted upon leading to a loss of character, integrity and data about the archaeological or architectural site/feature. • Moderate is a moderate direct impact that arises where a change to the site is proposed which, though noticeable, is not such that the archaeological integrity of the site/feature is compromised and which is reversible. This arises where an archaeological or architectural site/feature can be incorporated into a modern day development without damage and that all procedures used to facilitate this are reversible. • Slight is an impact that causes changes in the character of the environment that are not significant or profound and do not directly impact or affect an archaeological or architectural feature or monument. • Imperceptible is an impact capable of measurement but without noticeable consequences.

In addition, the duration of impacts is assessed and has been sub-divided into the following categories.

• Temporary Impact , where an impact lasts for one year or less. • Short-term Impacts , where an impact lasts one to seven years. • Medium-term Impact , where an impact lasts seven to fifteen years. • Long-term Impact , where an impact lasts fifteen to sixty years. • Permanent Impact , where an impact lasts over sixty years.

6.3 Existing Environment 6.3.1 Overview Ringaskiddy is located in Cork’s Lower Harbour, approximately half way along the circuitous route that leads from the sea northward to Lough Mahon and Cork city (Figure 6.2). It is one of the series of natural havens that populate the edges of the wide harbour, and it is located to the west of where navigation can fork in two directions around Great Island. The maritime location defines the cultural heritage context of Ringaskiddy.

NI1004 S146C EIS 6-3 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Material remains from the early stages of human occupation in Ireland have been discovered in Cork Harbour, and are manifested in a series of stone tools from the Mesolithic period which indicate the presence of Hunter-Gatherer-Fisher folk in the fourth millennium BC. At Ringaskiddy however the earliest indicators are somewhat later. Two coastal midden sites exist on the east shore overlooking the West Channel (Register of Monuments and Places [RMP], CO087-54 and -161). The middens are ancient low mounds or heaps of domestic waste, and may indicate the presence of ancient fishing places. More tangible prehistoric evidence was discovered during works associated with the N28 road scheme in Barnahely townland, when terrestrial geophysical survey revealed a complex of interlocking enclosure features indicative of unenclosed settlement sites that might be Bronze Age or Iron Age in date (RMP CO087-155. Figure 6.3 shows the location of the known archaeological monuments in the vicinity of the port complex). This relatively small area of landscape also retains sites that are more recent in date.

The next significant evidence lies in Ballintaggart townland and is represented by a former ecclesiastical site (RMP CO87-061) belonging to the early medieval period (c. 500-1100 AD). The site does not survive above ground today, but it is thought to have been one of the principal church sites in the southwest. The medieval period is represented in Barnahely townland, where the ruined remains of a sixteenth-century tower house castle and its bawn survive (RMP CO087-052). Also known today as Castle Warren, the tower house was built by the De Cogans. The site lies close to and south of Barnahely Church (RMP CO087-051), whose visible remains date to the early 1700s, but which was undoubtedly associated with the castle.

A Martello tower (RMP CO087-053) was built on the highest point of Ringaskiddy promontory to the west, and represents the most prominent statement of the location’s maritime heritage. The harbour had for long been strategically of great importance, and successive phases of defensive construction had been witnessed. As early as 1590, Sir George Carew, Master of the Ordnance in Ireland, observed that while ‘Cork can hardly ever be fortified, yet upon the river, towards the sea, many convenient places may be found for annoying the shipping on the passage towards the town’. The great batteries and star-shaped forts at Dognose, Ramhead, and Spike Island convey the conscious attempts to protect the Harbour against invasion. A bastioned fort was also built on Haulbowline Island in 1602 under the direction of the military designer Paul Ive, who was also responsible for the fortification work at Castle Park, to protect Kinsale.

The continued if episodic threat of invasion into the nineteenth century saw a rebuilding of the Harbour’s coastal defences with the construction of its Martello Towers. Such towers are named after a successful engagement by the Royal Navy at Martello in Italy, where the attackers were impressed by the defensive towers, whose substantial form presented solid rebuttals to ship-borne artillery, and whose upper platforms provided superior gun platforms that could exploit a 360-degree rotation if needs be. The Navy studied the towers and absorbed their plan into their own coastal defence systems. They have become an iconic symbol of the Napoleonic era, and were built into the defences of Ireland’s major harbours at the time. Under construction in 1812-15, the Ringaskiddy tower is the largest of the Martello towers constructed around Cork Harbour as a defensive network to protect against the possibility of a French invasion.

Located on dry land to the south of Ringaskiddy East, the Ringaskiddy tower is positioned at the centre of a circular enclosure, and was associated with an avenue that was built from the tower to the shoreline, which would have served to convey ordnance. The proximities of the magazine (RMP CO087-105) stored on Rocky Island to the north of Ringaskiddy, and the slightly more distant fortifications on Haulbowline Island (CO087-059001-3), highlight the complex fortified landscape that Ringaskiddy was a part of at this time.

Haulbowline Island was known for its ship-building and was upgraded to a Naval Dockyard in 1869. The island was artificially enlarged to provide an open-water harbour protected by a breakwater that effectively doubled its area. Ringaskiddy seems to have played less of a role in subsequent naval defence. The nineteenth century also saw the growth of parklands and big houses discretely away from the more strategic coastal locations. Ballybricken House was the mansion of the Connors, and Prospect House the villa of Lieutenant-Colonel Burke. Both lay to the west of the village that developed along the former shoreline of Barnahely and Loughbeg townlands, immediately adjacent to the RIngaskiddy East area. Though known today as Ringaskiddy, having absorbed the townland’s name to the east, the nineteenth-century village was also known simply as ‘Ring’. Fishing was

NI1004 S146C EIS 6-4 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

important to the village’s economy, particularly during the winter months, while Ringaskiddy also became a known summer resort.

6.3.2 Cartographic sources The narrative of development revealed in the standing archaeological sites and features is indicated in the sequence of maps and charts that survive. The Down Survey of 1670 facilitated an assessment of land-holding across Ireland for Cromwellian interests by mapping the available lands in some detail. It accompanied a written record of such, known as the Civil Survey. A general map of the province included Cork Harbour, and the shoreline at Ringaskiddy is clearly indicated along with Haulbowline and Spike Islands, as the cartographer traces the passage of shipping to and from Cork (Figure 6.4). The barony map of Kerrycurrihy shows the coastline in greater detail but as its focus of attention was to plot the parishes within the barony it was less concerned with the accuracy of topographical detail (Figure 6.4). One begins to see the detail at parish level (Figure 6.4). Barnahely Parish, complete with its church and castle was valued at £235, and it included the townlands of Ballebricane (Ballybricken) on the shoreline to the west, and Reniskydy (Ringaskiddy) to the east. There was a small holding of the Earle of Corke on the shoreline between both townlands, while what became known in the nineteenth century as Ring Island was named Creagh on the Down Survey. The shoreline and sea area is clearly recorded but there is nothing to distinguish water depths or shoreline features, as these were not subjects that concerned the Down Surveyors.

Given the importance of the wider Harbour it is little surprise that other useful maps are known from an early period also. A map of the Harbour dated c. 1770 shows Ringaskiddy in some greater detail from a maritime perspective, lying to the south of Great Island and in association with Haulbowline and Spike islands, while indicating the natural channels of navigation (Figure 6.5). The highlights on the landscape reveal the headlands and the forts. The map is clearly focusing on maritime access to the town, and the strategic role of Haulbowline and Spike Island is conveyed, as sentinel posts either side of the narrow passage around the point at Ringaskiddy. It is clear too that certain settlement exists on Ring Island, while what becomes Ballybricken House to the west has three buildings recorded, when it was known as Ballybrillon.

A map of 1781 presents a still more strategic record (Figure 6.5). It accompanies a report of Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Vallancy on the defences of the Harbour, and was commissioned at the time of the American War of Independence, when Cork remained a key naval base to support England’s efforts. The ‘Survey of the harbour of Cork from the entrance to Haulboling Yards showing the range of the batteries…’ highlights the integral place that Ring Point had. Recorded as ‘Innishiddy Pt.’ the map shows the low headland connected to the shoreline by a narrow sandy/stony bar. There is no fort on the headland but there is a small dark feature that perhaps represented a structure of some sort. A further map of 1800/1802 was completed following the French-supported United Irishmen rebellion of 1798 and indicates the strategic approaches to Cork (Figure 6.5). The channel for passage around the southwest side of Great Island is indicated running between Spike Island and Haulbowline Island. Ringaskiddy is clearly shown and labelled but there is little to indicate its fortified nature, and more to suggest its residential emphasis.

In the mid-1800s, the Ordnance Survey provides the first large-scale metrically accurate mapping, and this reveals the low-lying nature of the shoreline that is dominated by sandy shallows. Apart from the Martello tower and its associated features, the remains at Ringaskiddy are entirely residential and parklands, with a simple fishing village recorded at Ring, just south of the present-day East Basin (Ringaskiddy East) (Figure 6.6). A landing place is indicated at the foot of Ballybricken House, with a linear feature extending across the sandflats. Boathouses are shown on the shoreline close to where the demesne of Ballybricken House met the edge of Prospect Villa. There is little other structural evidence along the shoreline, while Ring Island and Ring Point show only a series of small field walls. An Ordnance Survey datum station is indicated at the tip of Ring Point. The structures that may have existed on Ring Island earlier are not shown.

Later editions of the Ordnance Survey maps show the progressive development of the shoreline. By the time of the Third Edition ( c. 1912), the landing place at Ballybricken had been extended below the Low Water Mark and is recorded as ‘Ballybricken Hard’ (Figure 6.3). It reached almost across to what is today the reclaimed land of Ringaskiddy East. The boathouses belonging to Ballybricken House continued to exist, while a new linear breakwater, ‘Foot’s Hard’, was built across the intertidal

NI1004 S146C EIS 6-5 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

shallows on the east side of Ring Island. Buildings are once again recorded on the island, and include a windmill. There was also a well. The locations of these features are all now beneath the reclaimed land that forms Ringaskiddy East.

Much of the landscape along the shore of Ring/Ringaskiddy has been transformed since the mid- twentieth century. The building of industrial complexes took place across the parkland of Ballytaggart in the 1960s with the development of the Pfizer pharmaceutical plant. The development of the deepwater port at Ringaskiddy has seen the progressive reclamation of the foreshore along Barnahely and Loughbeg, and the former narrow extents of Ring Island and Ring Point are absorbed under the much more extensive Ringaskiddy East area, as indicated on Figure 6.3.

The footprint of the modern port shows the need to undertake extensive reclamation to reach the deep waters of the main channel. This is evident in Ringaskiddy West where the former shoreline of Ballybricken has been buried. The reclamation work has been far greater in Ringaskiddy East, where the large area of low-lying land that included Ring Island and Ring Point, and the sandy shallows that connected these locations with the shoreline, are beneath the current port surface. None of the original natural shoreline remains exposed within port lands.

6.3.3 Architectural evidence The Martello tower and Barracks (NIAH 20908747) are recorded as features of architectural heritage interest, and are also recorded as a complex of archaeological features (CO087-059001-3). The site area lies 1.1km away from the current development and will be not impacted by it.

A section of estate boundary wall runs along the western side of the R613 roadway, where it is intended to tie-in the improved road network of the Port to that outside. The wall defines the eastern boundary of Prospect Villa (NIAH CO-87-W-774641). A modern factory has been built on the site of the villa.

There is no entry made for Ringaskiddy in the OPW Ports and Harbours record files, 1708-1922, indicating that no state-financed harbour work took place there between those dates.

6.3.4 Historic Shipwreck Inventory Neither the Ordnance Survey maps nor the Admiralty Charts indicate the presence of shipwrecks at Ring/Ringaskiddy. The Historic Shipwreck Inventory maintained by the National Monuments Section of DAHG, contains information on 150 shipwrecking events within Cork Harbour. The Inventory is a robust source for wrecking since the mid-1700s when records were made consistently. There are no references to wreckage at Ringaskiddy. When the Inventory is examined in detail with reference to recorded places of loss, there are only four possible instances of wreckage that occur close to Ringaskiddy.

The nearest locations are to the north at Cobh, or to the northeast at Haulbowline Island where, for instance, an unnamed wooden rowing boat collided with the steamship Cambridge on 20th October 1898 ‘off Haulbowline’, and was lost with five of the 16 workmen aboard being drowned. The Maria was lost in 1900 at Rocky Island, which lies to the east of the main development, but is close to Paddy’s Point. The existing record does not reveal further insight to what type of vessel the Maria was, or where she wrecked on the island. The absence of reported wrecking events at or immediately adjacent to Ringaskiddy may suggest the low potential for new discovery, but it is necessary to observe that the Inventory of Shipwrecks does not claim to be representative of wrecking events that occurred before c. 1750.

6.3.5 Primary Data Acquisition (2005) – Marine Geophysical Survey The marine geophysical survey was conducted by Hydrographic Surveys Ltd, a leading marine survey company in Ireland with a detailed knowledge of the project area. In addition to ongoing bathymetric survey to monitor seabed levels, new survey was carried out. Seismic survey would principally inform geotechnical aspects, while cultural heritage issues were more directly addressed by undertaking side-scan sonar survey and magnetometer survey. The work was focused on two areas; one area at Oyster Bank and Ringaskiddy East where the permitted development and the proposed alterations

NI1004 S146C EIS 6-6 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

are located, and a large area that extended either side of the ADM Jetty in Ringaskiddy West where parts of the permitted development is located also (Figure 6.7). The work identified a series of anomalies on the seabed, and these were subsequently inspected by diving to assess further their archaeological potential (the work conducted under licence 06D026). None of the anomalies proved to be archaeological in nature, and referred to former mooring features or debris.

A C-Boom sub-bottom profiler was used to ascertain the nature of the seabed layers. The survey concluded that the seabed at Oyster Bank and the ADM Jetty is characterised by sand, silt, shells, gravel, and clay, with peat also being noted at Oyster Bank, and that the thickness of subsurface material can range from 0m to 11.9m. The sub-bottom profiles at part of Ringaskiddy East reveal a coarse seabed littered with boulders lying on and extending through the sediment.

A CMax 800 dual frequency side-scan sonar device was used with range settings of 50m and 100m per channel. No indication of significant debris was observed but a series of small-scale anomalies were identified, and these locations were subsequently inspected by archaeological divers to clarify their nature and extent, as described in section 6.3.6.

An AX2000 Proton magnetometer was used. No indication of significant debris was observed but a series of small-scale anomalies were identified, and these locations were subsequently inspected by archaeological divers to clarify their nature and extent, as described in section 6.4.2.

6.3.6 Archaeological Inspection of Marine Geophysical Survey Anomalies (2006) The marine geophysical survey identified 22 anomalies at Oyster Bank and 11 anomalies at the ADM Jetty site. The anomalies inspected underwater by archaeological divers sought to clarify their nature and extent. The diver would locate on site underwater and conduct a search pattern around the anomaly location, extending up to 30m from it, to ensure that the target area was fully identified and inspected. Record was made of the topographical context of the anomaly as well as of the feature itself, and an underwater metal-detector was employed to further assist in the survey work.

The seabed at Oyster Bank is dominated by a fine silt-sand mix that is up to 1m in thickness and lies over a silt-clay substrate. Occasional concentrations of rock and gravel were evident. The seabed at the ADM site is dominated by a similar fine silt-sand mix, which lies 40cm thick over a harder silt-clay mix. Linear undulations running parallel with the shore may result from vessel prop-wash, while certain dredge scars were visible resulting from maintenance dredging of the basin.

Of the 33 anomalies identified in the marine geophysical survey data, 31 were positively identified underwater, and the remaining two targets were thought to have represented mobile objects that had been moved by the tides. No material of archaeological significance was observed.

6.3.7 Intertidal Survey (2006) The Oyster Bank area was also inspected and metal-detected at Low Water as an intertidal exercise. The work confirmed the presence of a rock-armoured shoreline associated with the present quay area, and soft featureless sediment along its base. While large numbers of metallic debris were identified littering the shoreline, they were noted to be modern in date, and no features of archaeological interest were observed.

6.3.8 Land Assessment (2014) Field-walking was undertaken in the Ringaskiddy East area in the locations on land within the development footprint. The reclaimed nature of the land area is clear (Figure 6.10). There is no indication of the former island that underlies this large area of fill, or of related features recorded on the First Edition Ordnance Survey and earlier maps. No material of archaeological significance was observed.

The tie-in point between the Port’s proposed internal road upgrades, and the external road link to the N28 was inspected. Section of an estate wall (measuring c. 40m in length) survives where the road network tie-in runs along the R613. The wall is associated with the site of Prospect Villa (CO-87-W- 774641). The wall is substantial in construction, measuring over 4m in height, and comprises a

NI1004 S146C EIS 6-7 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

mixture of dressed-, semi-dressed, and rough-cut sandstone. An approximately 10m-long section has been removed from its northern end, as part of the development for the existing road network. Frequent repairs, both modern and old, are visible along the surviving extent of estate wall. The originally capping is obscured by heavy ivy growth.

6.3.9 Intertidal and Underwater inspections (2012 and 2014) On-site work in 2012 combined intertidal inspection and sub-tidal dive inspection to focus on three areas that had not been considered in detail previously, relative to the development proposals of the permitted development (Figure 6.8). The work was completed under licence from the DAHG (12D016, 12R073). The intertidal survey was conducted during Low Water, and throughout the surveys the weather was clear, the sea state calm, and underwater visibility was good at 2m. The underwater work was completed using Surface Supplied Diving Apparatus. Further underwater assessment was carried out in 2014 of the proposed new Public pier and slipway at Paddy’s Point, upstream of the bridge to Haulbowline Island.

The intertidal work was completed in the Ringaskiddy West area, extending west along the shoreline at Ballintaggart, and east beside the ADM Jetty (Figure 6.8). This landscape bears witness to the significant level of modern development; the shoreline is covered in rock armour except to the west along Ballintaggart, outside the Port of Cork lands. In this location, which extends into Monkstown Creek, a wooded landscape extends to the High Water Mark, and a gently sloping shingle shore over sand extends seawards (Figure 6.11).

Within the Port of Cork lands, soft sand and silt extends from the toe of the rock armour. A few patches of hard shingle are deposited close inshore on the north side of the ADM Jetty, but elsewhere the surface is featureless sand. The breakwater to the north is newly made and surfaced with rock armour.

Metal-detection noted a series of small anomalies that were revealed as modern debris. No material of archaeological significance was observed.

The underwater inspection was completed at five locations (Figures 6.8, 6.14). The archaeological diver was towed in a systematic manner to and fro across each area to ensure that the same area of seabed was inspected from different angles. He was equipped with an underwater camera and a metal detector to assist in the recording of observations.

The dive area along Ringaskiddy East extended within the perch buoys that define the edge of the dredged channel. The shore is defined by rock armour (Figure 6.12). The seabed is composed of clean sand that slopes gently from a depth of c. 2m at the toe of the rock armour to some 10-11m at the edge of the dredged channel, where the seabed then slopes significantly into the dredged area. There were only two objects of debris noted; a modern coffee cup, and a tyre. No material of archaeological significance was observed.

The dive area within the No. 2 ramp dolphins represents a quiet area of the modern port close inshore. Rock armour lines the shoreline, while the dolphin ramps are made from large concrete piles. The seabed is rocky inshore (Figure 6.13). Such rock is not associated with the rock armour but extends outwards from the shoreline and is considered to represent the natural shore. Kelp and seaweed fronds represent a light vegetation cover. The rocky sub-tidal shore quickly gives way to sand, which occupies the remaining area out to the dolphin ramps. The sand lies quite high in the seabed but slopes significantly at the piles, where large hollows are a feature around the piles, representing scour pockets. No material of archaeological significance was observed.

6.3.10 Underwater Inspections (2016) An underwater archaeological assessment of the footprint for the relocation of three dolphin moorings as part of the alterations to the permitted development was carried out as licences 14D0004 Ext. and 14R0003 Ext. The assessment covered an area measuring 100m by 20m; extending beyond the impact area associated with the proposed dolphins. The seabed is composed of a medium-to-loose silty-clay with a hand-penetration depth ranging between 500mm and 1m+ in depth. The seabed was sterile of visible modern surface debris, although a consistent metal-detection target ratio of 1-2 hits

NI1004 S146C EIS 6-8 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

per m² was overserved, suggesting the presence of subsurface metallic objects. In general, the seabed was flat and featureless, although a gentle southwest slope (15º -20º angle) was noted along the north side. A localised depression in the seabed, formed as a result of prop-wash from the adjacent ferry dock was also observed along the south-east side. No material, structures, or deposits of archaeological or historical significance were encountered as part of the underwater assessment.

6.3.11 Summary of existing environment The intertidal and dive work did not observe any of the features relating to the former seashore recorded on the nineteenth century Ordnance Survey First Edition maps. The work observed a seabed characterised by sand and silt which would provide a good holding content for buried material if it exists. No features or objects of archaeological significance were observed lying on the seabed surface or protruding from it. It remains possible that archaeological material lies buried in the covering sediments.

It is possible to conclude that the cultural heritage baseline characterisation has been extensive and comprehensive, employing a wide range of resources and non-intrusive survey to facilitate a comprehensive description of the cultural heritage associated with the proposed alterations. The boundary wall of Prospect Villa is standing. There are otherwise no upstanding remains of archaeological or architectural significance within the port area. There are no remains of archaeological or architectural significance within the proposed alterations area. This location remains an area of cultural heritage potential.

6.4 Licensed Archaeological Excavation Work Certain archaeological excavation work has been carried out, exposing the buried strata beneath the ground surface. In general, however, despite the number of different opportunities to monitor and investigate the soils on land and at sea in the area around the port, little significant new insight has emerged. This may be due in part to the limited and discrete nature of most of the investigations. The discovery of the possible Bronze Age or Iron Age settlement enclosures made during work associated with the N28 road scheme in Barnahely townland is the notable exception, and the fact that this work necessitated the investigation of a relatively large area may be a factor in the discovery. It may therefore be anticipated that new works that are carried out over large areas, increase the archaeological risk of new discovery in what is a landscape and seascape of known and significant cultural heritage activity.

Archaeological monitoring has taken place within the Port as part of the advanced works in 2016 for the permitted development. The work required reclamation on the foreshore using imported quarry material that was in turn to be protected with rock amour. Seabed disturbance activities were monitored archaeologically as part of the conditions for the permitted development. A series of timbers were observed and determined to be natural in origin and use and not of archaeological significance. No material of archaeological significance was recorded.

6.5 Impact Assessment – Proposed Alterations 6.5.1 Impacts during Construction Phase The proposed alterations are described in Chapter 3 of this EIS. Revisions to the geometry of container berth 1 include a minor modification to the shape of the southern end of the berth, but due to the reconfiguration of the shape of the quay return wall, piling and construction activity is effectively in the same location as in the permitted development (refer EIS Figure 3.12). Berth 2 is unchanged.

Dredging is proposed in Ringaskiddy East at the southern tip of the container berth 1 and will extend from the current level of c. -1.5m CD at the shoreline to a level of -13m CD, which is 1.25m below the general basin level of 11.75m. The volume of additional material to be removed as part of the alterations is estimated to be 15,000m 3.

The fact that the landward sides of the additional dredging area are on land reclaimed in the twentieth century suggests it is unlikely that new work will encounter levels of archaeological interest. The absence of discernible archaeological levels on the foreshore may be noted as one observation from

NI1004 S146C EIS 6-9 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

the archaeological monitoring completed as part of the advanced works for the permitted development.

Three new mooring dolphins are proposed as part of the alterations and will be similar in scale and massing to the existing two dolphins. The three proposed dolphins will require 8 piles each, a total of 24 piles, measuring 0.9m diameter each.

No significant cultural heritage effects are predicted to occur as a result of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development.

6.5.2 Impacts during Operation and Aftercare No potential impacts are identified during the operational phase as it is anticipated that the archaeological environment will have been resolved during the construction phase. As such, no significant adverse cultural heritage effects are predicted to occur as a result of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development.

6.6 Mitigating Measures The mitigation measures that formed part of the An Bord Pleanála approval of the permitted development of the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment remain entirely appropriate.

6.7 Cumulative Effects Cumulative impacts consider the following projects and proposed projects from a cultural heritage perspective:

• M28 Upgrade • Dunkettle interchange • East Tip Remediation project • Indaver incinerator • DePuy turbine • Martello Tower site reprofiling • Steelwork’s site • Industrial/commercial developments in the area • Shannonpark roundabout • Cobh marina • Monkstown Marina • Cobh Cruise Berth Upgrade /Mooring Dolphins • Spike Island Masterplan • Cobh Second Cruise Berth • Whitepoint marina

The cultural heritage narrative of the Lower Harbour area is informed by the standing remains of coastal defensive works and related structures. Among the specific projects identified, including Ringaskiddy, the most substantial cultural heritage assets are on the islands of Haulbowline and Spike, where the historic forts and their later developments remain centrally important to the present- day landscapes, and the proposed reprofiling of landscape at the Martello tower in Ringaskiddy.

The East Tip Remediation Project on Haulbowline Island will be meeting conditions required to preserve the archaeological heritage during construction works, and this can be expected as part of the Spike Island Masterplan and the reprofiling of the Martello tower in Ringaskiddy as well.

The archaeological potential at all of these project locations also lies in the buried sediments on land and at sea. The potential remains unqualified. To address this issue, and where construction impacts will be significant, the implementation stages of the projects will have comprehensive archaeological monitoring programmes as part of their construction management plans.

Archaeological monitoring that is licensed by the Department of Arts, Heritage Rural, Regional and Gaeltacht Affairs (DAHRRGA), is the single most useful mitigation when working in locations that do

NI1004 S146C EIS 6-10 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

not have visible or known archaeological features in the immediate area, as it safeguards any cultural heritage material that may be discovered as a result of new construction works, and it ensures that such material is recorded and archived in the most effective manner. Such measures are in fulfilment of requirements set by the National Monuments Section of the DAHRRGA, which are made on the basis of conserving the archaeological heritage of a site and securing the preservation and protection of any remains that may exist within the site.

The cumulative impact of this mitigation strategy across the projects will be to generate a new baseline of information that will inform the wider cultural heritage narrative of Cork Harbour. This impact can be considered a positive long term result.

6.8 Residual Impacts Based on the impact assessment of the proposed alterations, there are no residual impacts of the proposed alterations to the permitted development on the cultural heritage resource of the area. Any archaeology encountered will be resolved in the construction stage of the proposed redevelopment.

6.9 Conclusions The conclusion of this assessment of the proposed alterations is that these modifications will not result in any significant change to the assessment of cultural heritage risk as previously made for the permitted development.

The mitigation measures enshrined in the extant approval remain fully applicable to the proposed alterations.

NI1004 S146C EIS 6-11 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

7 LANDSCAPE & VISUAL

7.1 Introduction This chapter of the EIS considers the potential and likely significant landscape and visual effects of the proposed alterations to the permitted development. The purpose of this chapter is to identify and describe any likely significant landscape and visual effects as a result of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development.

7.2 Methodology 7.2.1 Introduction Methods used in this assessment have been developed by RPS and are derived from the DoEHLG “Landscape and Landscape Assessment” (June 2000) and ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (GLVIA) by The Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013). These documents recommend baseline studies to describe, classify and evaluate the existing landscape and visual resource focusing on its sensitivity and ability to accommodate change. The guidelines are not intended as a prescriptive set of rules but rather offer best practice methods and techniques of LVIA. The existing landscape and visual context of the study area was established through a process of desktop study, site survey work and photographic surveys. The proposal was then applied to the baseline conditions to allow the identification of potential impacts, prediction of their magnitude and assessment of their significance. Mitigation is identified to reduce as far as possible any potential significant landscape and visual impacts.

7.2.2 Landscape Assessment Criteria and Terminology The following section describes the criteria and terminology used for during the landscape assessment: -

Landscape Quality For the purpose of this assessment, landscape quality is categorised as:

• Exceptional Quality - Areas of especially high quality acknowledged through designation as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or other landscape based sensitive areas. A landscape that is significant within the wider region or at a national level;

• High Quality - Areas that have a very strong positive character with valued and consistent distinctive features that gives the landscape unity, richness and harmony. A landscape that is significant within the district;

• Medium Quality - Areas that exhibit positive character but which may have evidence of alteration/degradation or erosion of features resulting in a less distinctive landscape. May be of some local landscape significance with some positive recognisable structure; and

• Low Quality - Areas that are generally negative in character, degraded and in poor condition. No distinctive positive characteristics and with little or no structure. Scope for positive enhancement.

Landscape Sensitivity Landscape sensitivity to the type of development proposed is defined as follows:

• High Sensitivity : High visual quality landscape with highly valued or unique characteristics susceptible to relatively small changes.

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

• Medium Sensitivity : Medium visual quality landscape with moderately valued characteristics reasonably tolerant of changes.

• Low Sensitivity : Low visual quality landscape with common characteristics capable of absorbing substantial change.

Magnitude of Landscape Resource Change Direct resource changes on the landscape character of the study area are brought about by the introduction of the proposal and its effects on the key landscape characteristics. The following categories and criteria have been used:

• High magnitude : Total loss or alteration to key elements of the landscape character which result in fundamental and / or permanent long-term change.

• Medium magnitude : Partial or noticeable loss of elements of the landscape character and / or medium-term change.

• Low magnitude : Minor alteration to elements of the landscape character and / or short-term/ temporary change . • No Change: No change to landscape character.

Significance of Landscape Impact

The level of significance of effect on landscape is a product of landscape sensitivity and the magnitude of alteration in landscape resource. Where landscape sensitivity has been predicted as high and the magnitude of change as high or medium the resultant impact will be significant in terms of EIA Regulations. This is illustrated in Table 7.1 below.

Table 7.1 Significance of Landscape Impact

Magnitude of Landscape Sensitivity Landscape resource change Low Medium High No change No change No change No change Low Slight Slight / moderate Moderate Moderate / Medium Slight / moderate Moderate Substantial Moderate High Moderate Substantial /Substantial

Landscape Assessment Definitions

• Landscape Resource : The combination of elements that contribute to landscape context, character and value.

• Landscape Value: The relative value or importance attached to a landscape that expresses national or local consensus because of intrinsic characteristics.

• Landscape Character : The distinct and homogenous pattern that occurs in the landscape reflecting geology, landform, soils, vegetation and man’s impact.

7.2.3 Visual Assessment Criteria and Terminology The following text describes the key criteria and terminology used in the visual assessment.

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Viewer Sensitivity Viewer sensitivity is a combination of the sensitivity of the human receptor (i.e. resident; commuter, tourist; walker; recreationist, or worker) and viewpoint type or location (i.e. house, workplace, leisure venue, local beauty spot, scenic viewpoint, commuter route, tourist route or walkers’ route). Sensitivity can be defined as follows:

• High sensitivity: e.g. users of an outdoor recreation feature which focuses on the landscape; valued views enjoyed by the community; tourist visitors to scenic viewpoint.

• Medium sensitivity: e.g. users of outdoor sport or recreation which does not offer or focus attention on landscape; tourist travellers.

• Low sensitivity: e.g. regular commuters, people at place of work (excluding outdoor recreation).

Magnitude of Visual Resource Change The magnitude of alteration in visual resource or amenity results from the scale of change in the view with respect to the loss or addition of features in the view and changes in the view composition, including proportion of the view occupied by the proposal. Distance and duration of view must be considered. Other vertical features in the landscape and the backdrop to the development will all influence the magnitude of visual resource change. This can be defined as follows:

• High magnitude: Where changes to the view significantly alter (adverse or beneficial) the overall scene or cause some alteration to the view for a significant length of time.

• Medium magnitude: Where some changes occur (adverse or beneficial) in the view, but not for a substantial part of the view and/or for a substantial length of time.

• Low magnitude : Where only a minor alteration to the view occurs (adverse or beneficial) and/or not for a significant length of time.

• No change: No discernible deterioration or improvement in the existing view.

Significance of Visual Impact Significance of visual impact is defined on a project by project basis. The principal criteria for determining significance are magnitude and sensitivity of the receptor. A higher level of significance is generally attached to large scale or substantial effects on sensitive receptors.

Where visual sensitivity has been predicted as high or medium, and the magnitude of change as high, the resultant impact will be significant. Where the magnitude of change has been predicted as high and the visual sensitivity has been predicted as high or medium then the resultant impact will be significant in terms of EIA Regulations.

Table 7.2 illustrates significance of visual impact as a correlation between viewer sensitivity and visual resource change magnitude.

Positive effects upon receptors may also result from a change to the view. These may be through the removal of negative features or visual detractors, or through the addition of well designed elements, which add to the visual experience in a complementary, positive and stimulating manner.

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-3 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Table 7.2 Significance of Visual Impact

Visual resource change Visual Sensitivity magnitude Low Medium High No change No change No change No change Low Slight Slight / moderate Moderate Medium Slight / Moderate Moderate / Substantial moderate High Moderate Moderate/ Substantial Substantial

Visual Assessment Definitions Visual Quality: Although the interpretation of viewers’ experience can have preferential and subjective components, there is generally clear public agreement that the visual resources of certain landscapes have high visual quality. The visual quality of a landscape will reflect the physical state of the repair of individual features or elements.

Visual Resources: The visual resources of the landscape are the stimuli upon which actual visual experience is based. They are a combination of visual character and visual quality.

Visual Character: When a viewer experiences the visual environment, it is not observed as one aspect at a time, but rather as an integrated whole. The viewer’s visual understanding of an area is based on the visual character of elements and aspects and the relationships between them.

Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI ) The ZVI is the area within which views of the site and/or the proposed alterations can be obtained. The extent of the ZVI is determined primarily by the topography of the area. The ZVI is then refined by field studies to indicate where relevant forestry, woodlands, hedges or other local features obscure visibility from the main roads, local viewpoints/landmarks and/or significant settlements.

Using terrain-modelling techniques combined with the proposal specification, a map is created to show areas from where the proposed development would theoretically be seen. A worst case scenario is taken in line with Landscape Institute guidelines.

The actual visual impacts within the ZVI have been described in later sections of this Chapter.

Photographs & Photomontages Photographs and photomontages have been prepared for selected representative viewpoints throughout the study area as indicated in Figure 7.3 and illustrated in section 7.5.5 below (see EIS Volume II – Figures). Photomontages have been prepared to illustrate typical potential views from the village of Ringaskiddy as requested by An Bord Pleanála in their letter dated 28 th October 2016

Viewpoints are chosen to give a typical representative sample of views of the proposal within the landscape using the parameters of distance and direction of view. Viewpoints frequented by members of the public such as public rights of way, car parks and popular viewpoints are usually chosen, along with views from nearby settlements.

Photographs from each viewpoint location are taken covering an arc of view matching that of the visual extent of the proposed alterations.

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-4 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

7.3 Receiving Environment 7.3.1 Scale and Character The village of Ringaskiddy is located southeast of Cork City, and has a reputation as a hub of industry for County Cork, a deepwater port linking Ireland to the UK and Continental Europe, and as ferry port linking Ireland to France. The proposed alterations and permitted development site comprises an area of land, which has been reclaimed since circa the 1970’s and a further small area of seabed which is proposed to be reclaimed. The northern boundary of the proposed site abuts the waters of Cork Harbour with Monkstown, Cobh and Whitepoint located further north, while the N28 and Ringaskiddy village is located to the south. To the east of the proposed alterations and permitted development is located the National Maritime College and Haulbowline Island, while existing industrial lands are located to the west (see Site Location Figure 3.1 of the EIS).

Cobh is a significantly larger settlement than Ringaskiddy and has an important tourist industry and acts as a satellite town for Cork City. Large cruise liners regularly berth at Cobh from where tourists can explore Cobh and the wider Cork City area. The topography at Cobh rises steeply from the shoreline with stepped terraces of houses that broadly follow the contours with direct views across the Harbour.

Monkstown is located to the northwest of Ringaskiddy and like Cobh has grown up the steep hillsides that surround Cork Harbour with distinctive terraces and occasional church spire breaking the skyline. Due to the terraced nature of the settlement there are potential views across the Harbour.

Haulbowline Island is located to the east and the topography of the island site is generally flat in the centre with undulations to the western and eastern most edges before reaching sea level at the edge. The naval base buildings offer screening in views to the west but the east side of the island is open to views to the north east and south. The eastern side of the island is known as east tip and consists of the brownfield site of the former Irish Steel plant that is currently subject to remediation. Views of the island are available from Cobh to the north, Monkstown to the west and Ringaskiddy to the southwest.

In addition the Cork Harbour is well used for commercial and leisure craft that will also have views of the island.

The proposed alterations and permitted development site comprises a portion of coastal lands located on the north-eastern periphery of an extended industrial area that consists of various chemical and pharmaceutical factories including Pfizer. There is an associated narrow jetty extending into the Harbour at Ballybricken Point to the northwest of the site known as the ADM Jetty. The existing port facilities and associated ship and vehicle traffic at Ringaskiddy are a prominent part of the existing landscape on this side of Cork City.

The topography of the alterations and permitted development site is flat reaching sea level at the harbour’s edge. Further inland to the southwest, beyond the N28 and Ringaskiddy village, the landscape becomes increasingly rural. The topography also rises steadily to a crest over 50m OD, permitting medium distance views toward the site. The even and level nature of the proposed alterations and permitted development site is contrasted by the steep, rising elevations of lands that surround the inner Cork Harbour at Ringaskiddy, Monkstown and Cobh.

Given the coastal location of this proposal it is anticipated that there will be potential views of the proposed alterations available from:

• Monkstown to the northwest; • Cobh to the northeast (particularly Blackpoint and Whitepoint); • Haulbowline to the east; • Ringaskiddy and the adjacent coastline to the south.

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-5 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The landscape character of the study area can be described by use of the following distinctive landscape character areas (which are illustrated in Figure 7.2):

Estuarine Harbour-Based Industrial and Maritime Landscape This landscape character area is concentrated mainly on low-lying parts of the landscape at the edge of Cork Harbour, but also expands to the hillsides. Many of the industrial sites are located at the waters edge for operational purposes. Industrial sites are located at Ringaskiddy (mainly pharmaceutical plants), Haulbowline Island with its naval activities and east tip site, Rushbrooke (Cork Dockyard), Aghada and Whitegate (electricity generating station, and oil refinery). The value of this landscape is mainly economic, due to its industrial nature. This is a generally robust changing landscape. The industrial landscapes around the existing Harbour and reclaimed lands are generally of low visual quality with frequent industrial type buildings and equipment and vacant lands. The proposed site has a recreational value as it is used for by walkers, and for the launching of recreational boats at an existing slipway and pier. Recently the erection of a number of tall wind turbines has altered the landscape character of the Cork Harbour at Ringaskiddy and the wind turbines are visible over a wide area and are the tallest features in the landscape. The permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment is located within this landscape character area. Overall this landscape character area has a low sensitivity to change.

Harbour Edge Town Centre and Undulating Residential Townscape Town centres such as Ringaskiddy, Monkstown, Cobh and Passage West are all located at the waterside of Cork Harbour. The residential areas of these towns have spread outwards along the harbour. Monkstown, Cobh and Passage West have also extensively spread onto the surrounding hillsides, with Cobh continuing to expand on to the higher parts of the hill on which it is located. The towns have a scenic value due to their location on the harbour. This value is expressed by the designations of scenic landscapes and scenic routes. These towns also have recreational value in the form of town parks or walking trails. Cobh has a number of structures recorded for protection. These structures give Cobh a high scenic value. Due to Cobh’s history it attracts many visitors and has a high recreational value. This landscape character area has a medium sensitivity to change.

Undulating Agricultural Patchwork Landscape The undulating agricultural landscape is a landscape found over a wide area in County Cork and comprises agricultural fields, and meadows, hedgerows as field boundaries, rural houses, farm complexes etc. It also comprises protected structures scattered across the landscape. This landscape extends inland from the harbour’s edge and is undulating in nature. This landscape character area is medium sensitivity to change.

7.3.2 Planning Designations County Cork Development Plan 2014 The Cork County Development Plan 2014 states the following objectives regarding scenic amenity views and prospects:

County Development Plan Objective GI 7-1: General Views and Prospects Preserve the character of all important views and prospects, particularly sea views, river or lake views, views of unspoilt mountains, upland or coastal landscapes, views of historical or cultural significance (including buildings and townscapes) and views of natural beauty as recognized in the Draft Landscape Strategy.

County Development Plan Objective GI 7-2: Scenic Routes Protect the character of those views and prospects obtainable from scenic routes and in particular stretches of scenic routes that have very special views and prospects identified in this plan. The scenic routes identified in this plan are shown on the scenic amenity maps listed in Volume 2 Chapter 5 Scenic Routes of the plan.

County Development Plan Objective GI 7-3: Development on Scenic Routes a) Require those seeking to carry out development in the environs of a scenic route and/or an area with important views and prospects, to demonstrate that there will be no adverse obstruction or

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-6 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

degradation of the views towards and from vulnerable landscape features. In such areas, the appropriateness of the design, site layout, and landscaping of the proposed development must be demonstrated along with mitigation measures to prevent significant alterations to the appearance or character of the area; and b) Encourage appropriate landscaping and screen planting of developments along scenic routes.

County Development Plan Objective GI 7-4: Development on the approaches to Towns and Villages: Ensure that the approach roads to towns and villages are protected from inappropriate development, which would detract from the setting and historic character of these settlements.

County Development Plan Objective GI 8-1: Prominent and Strategic Metropolitan Greenbelt Areas requiring Special Protection Protect those prominent open hilltops, valley sides and ridges that define the character of the Metropolitan Cork Greenbelt and those areas which form strategic, largely undeveloped gaps between the main Greenbelt settlements. These areas are labelled MGB1 in the Metropolitan Greenbelt map and it is an objective to preserve them from development.

Table 7.3: Designated Scenic Landscapes and Scenic Routes in study area

Designation Location High Value Landscape Monkstown High Value Landscape Great Island High Value Landscape Spike Island High Value Landscape Haulbowline Island High Value Landscape Barnahely

R630 Regional Road & Local Road from Ballynacorra via East Ferry to Whitegate and Scenic Route S51 Roche's Point. Views of the Estuary & Harbour, Roche's Point & the rural coastal environment.

R624 Regional Road, between Cobh and Scenic Route S53 Belvelly - Views of the Upper Harbour and coastal environment. R610 Regional Road, Local Road & N28 Scenic Route S54 National Primary Route between Passage West and Ringaskiddy - Views of the Harbour.

7.4 Landscape & Visual Context of Proposed Alterations 7.4.1 Landside Container Handling Alterations Landscape & Visual Overview As outlined in the Project Description Chapter 3, it is proposed that container handling operations will be altered from a system using rubber tyre gantry cranes (RTG's) as assessed in the EIS for the proposed Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment to a system using straddle carriers (SC’s) and rail mounted gantries (RMG’s). This alteration to straddle carriers will result in four changes relevant to the landscape & visual impact assessment; (i) the change from 6 nr RTG’s to 2 nr RMG’s and 15 nr SC’s; (ii) the change in container stack height that decreases from 5 high in places to 3 high; (iii) an increase in the footprint of the container storage area; and (iv) alterations to the positions of lighting columns and noise barriers.

With regards to operational stage effects, each of the four relevant changes are considered as follows. The change from RTG’s to a combination of RMG’s and SC’s will result in fewer of the tall gantry cranes and more SC’s that are smaller than the RTG’s and RMG’s. This change will result in a slight

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-7 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

decrease in predicted visual effect especially when combined with the lowering in stack heights from 5 high to 3 high in places even though 5 high stacks are moved closer to the village of Ringaskiddy. While the footprint of the stacks increases this will be barely discernible from the surrounding area as the site is flat and the container stacks are read as one from distance. The slight movement of some of the light columns and will not noticeably change the appearance of the permitted development when viewed from the surrounding area. While the container stack is proposed to extend closer to the village of Ringaskiddy the containers and cranes are well screened by existing vegetation and fencing/barrier and will not be noticeably different from permitted development.

7.4.2 Main Berth and Mooring Dolphins Alterations Landscape & Visual Overview The alterations to the quay comprise a minor modification to the shape of the southern end of berth 1. The alterations require a minor extension to the dredge pocket to the south. These works will also include the replacement of two existing mooring dolphins with three new mooring dolphins.

At the operational stage, the alterations proposed will not be noticeably different from the permitted development. The dolphins are located at a similar location to the existing dolphins and are not widely visible from within the surroundings. The three proposed dolphins will be of a similar scale and mass as the existing dolphins. The alterations to the quay wall will not be visible from the surrounding landscape due the location of this quay wall in the inner harbour.

7.4.3 Entrance and Interchange Area Alterations Landscape & Visual Overview It is proposed to alter the entrance and exit areas that will be moved and realigned with the separation between the entrance and exit areas increased.

The operational stage effects for the alterations to the entrance and interchange area will not result in any change in the predicted landscape and visual effects. The alterations are located in broadly the same area as that within the permitted development being located well within the development and away from the village of Ringaskiddy. The noise and visual barrier recently erected as part of the permitted development prevents views. Any visible vehicle movements will appear the same in long distance views with no noticeable change in predicted visual resource.

7.4.4 Maintenance, Office and Customs Building Alterations Landscape & Visual Overview It is proposed as part of an alternative handling operating system to have a new dedicated building immediately south of the existing ferry terminal access road. The buildings will consist of a terminal office, maintenance workshop, stores and workshops/terminal office. At the operational stage the proposed alterations to the buildings will result in a location similar to that within the permitted development in most cases in that they are in a non-conspicuous part of the Ringaskiddy Port site. The only noticeable difference will be the larger Maintenance Building. It is proposed that the Maintenance building will be mid grey in colour reflecting the commitment in the permitted EIS for the tall ship to shore cranes to be mid grey in colour. The Custom Building is proposed to be located immediately north of the existing ferry terminal access road at a similar location to where similar buildings were proposed in the permitted development. The majority of the altered buildings will not be widely visible from the surrounding landscape with only glimpse views from higher areas with the village of Ringaskiddy. The potential visual impact of the Maintenance Building is discussed in section 7.5 below. As with the permitted development the alterations to the buildings are read in the context of the wider Ringaskiddy Port and will be not be overly prominent.

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-8 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

7.5 Impact Assessment – Operational Stage

7.5.1 Landscape Character Area Impacts The proposed alterations to the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment are located directly within the Estuarine Harbour-based Industrial and Maritime Landscape.

Estuarine Harbour-Based Industrial and Maritime Landscape This landscape character area is concentrated mainly on low-lying parts of the landscape at the edge of Cork Harbour including the islands. This is a generally robust frequently changing landscape. The current Ringaskiddy Port site is a prominent part of this landscape and associated with wider industrial landscapes to the west of Ringaskiddy including the Pfizer factory. The recently erected wind turbines are a new and very tall feature in the Cork Harbour. The permitted Ringaskiddy Redevelopment is also a feature of this landscape.

The components of the proposed alterations are similar in character to the components of the permitted development. The alterations move the location or vary the design of the components of the permitted development and therefore there is little potential for change in landscape resource as a result. The alterations remain within the harbour based industrial landscape and being read completely in this context, no significant landscape impacts are predicted.

The Estuarine Harbour-based Industrial and Maritime Landscape Character Area has a low sensitivity to change.

The predicted change in landscape resource is no change.

When landscape impacts of the proposed alterations are assessed during the operational phase there will be no change.

Harbour Edge Town Centre and Undulating Residential Townscape The proposed alterations are not directly located within this landscape character and there are no direct impacts as result. The proposed alterations will however provide a backdrop to Ringaskiddy, Monkstown and Cobh and there is therefore potential for indirect landscape impacts. The proposals are located at distance from Monkstown and Cobh and this fact when combined with the fact that the existing port facilities and the permitted development are part of the backdrop to both these settlements decreases potential for indirect change in landscape resource. With regards to the indirect landscape impact on Ringaskiddy the proposed alterations are located directly adjacent to the settlement and closer than as located within the permitted development but Ringaskiddy is known as a port village already and although the alterations are closer to the village they are either completely screened or of low prominence and read as part of the wider existing and permitted port development that offsets any potential for indirect landscape impacts.

This landscape character area has a medium sensitivity to change.

The predicted change in landscape resource is no change.

When landscape impacts of the proposed alterations are assessed during the operational phase there will be no change.

Undulating Agricultural Patchwork Landscape This landscape extends inland from the harbour’s edge and is of an undulating nature. The proposed alterations are not directly located within this landscape character and there are no direct impacts as result. The proposed alterations are located at distance from this landscape character area, a fact that

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-9 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

limits the influence of the alterations on this extensive landscape. In most cases there are settlements or urban landscapes located between the proposals and this landscape.

This landscape character area has a medium sensitivity to change.

The predicted change in landscape resource is no change.

When landscape impacts of the proposed alterations are assessed during the operational phase there will be no change.

7.5.2 Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) The ZVI for the proposed alterations is the same as that for the permitted development due to the location of the port site in low lying land surrounded by hills as illustrated in Figure 7.1. The ZVI has been used to identify the locations where potential visual impacts from the proposed alterations may occur. As viewer distance from the proposed alterations and existing harbour facility and permitted development increases, the level of visibility decreases significantly. In reality, views of the proposed alterations will be entirely obscured from a number of locations within the ZVI area such as from within the Ringaskiddy, Monkstown and Cobh urban areas and undulating shoreline.

The following text describes the actual predicted visual impacts on visual receptors within the ZVI.

7.5.3 Planning Policy Designation Impacts Cork County Development Plan 2014 Impacts on relevant designations contained within the Cork County Development Plan are assessed below. The proposed alterations are not located directly within the areas designated as high scenic value and no significant landscape or visual impacts are predicted due to the separation distances and fact that the alterations are located with a robust harbour based industrial landscape.

Scenic Route S51: The R630 is located at its nearest approximately 6km east of the proposed alterations and at such distances it is currently impossible to discern detail at the existing site and Haulbowline interrupts views further. The proposed alterations activities will not be noticeable. The predicted visual impact of the proposed alterations for the Scenic Route 51 is no change.

Scenic Route S53: The majority of this route is located on the west side of Great Island and therefore visually separated from location of the proposed alterations. On approaching Cobh the road does offer glimpse and direct views across the harbour to the location of the proposed alterations. The views are from low lying positions. The existing site is barely noticeable in these views and the proposed alterations will not be noticeable at this distance either with Haulbowline Island the main focal point in the foreground. The predicted significance of visual impact of the proposed alterations is no change.

Scenic Route S54: People driving the scenic route in the direction from Passage West to Monkstown will be looking in the direction of the proposed alterations and the permitted development but only with glimpse views available. When leaving Passage West the receptor will experience a brief view towards the location of the proposed alterations but a distance of approximately 3km. Due to the distance between receptor and the low visibility of the proposed alterations, they will be read as part of the wider landscape that includes more prominent tall electricity pylons and cranes at Rushbrooke and the existing port facilities.

Drivers on the scenic route in the direction of Monkstown to Monkstown Creek and vice versa will have a view in the direction of the proposed alterations and the permitted development (see Photomontage Viewpoint 6). The proposed alterations to container stacking arrangements and RMG’s and SC’s will be visible due to the open view over the harbour towards the existing port and the permitted

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-10 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

development. The proposed alterations are read with the existing port facilities including the ADM Jetty and DWB that are more prominent in the foreground and will be barely noticeable.

As with the permitted development upper parts of the ship to shore cranes will be intermittently visible to people driving the scenic route from Shanbally to Ringaskiddy. The views are read in the context of the urban development on this side of Ringaskiddy and the existing port facilities and the alterations will not change the visibility of the permitted development.

When entering Ringaskiddy the existing port facilities and vegetation significantly limit views to the proposed alterations.

The predicted visual impact of the proposed alterations on the Scenic Route 54 is no change.

7.5.3 Visual Impacts on Residential Properties An assessment has occurred within the ZVI to determine the magnitude of visual impact of the proposed alterations in the context of the existing port facilities and permitted development during the operational phase on potential views from sensitive visual receptors including residential properties.

Ringaskiddy Residential Properties As with all the settlements located around the Harbour there are large areas of Ringaskiddy that will not have views of the proposal due to intervening vegetation and buildings. However due to the terraced nature of the settlement there will be direct views from a number of properties on the northern side of the built form. The quayside alterations and new dolphins will not be noticeable from properties in Ringaskiddy. The alterations to the operations will mean that RMG’s and SC’s are visible rather than RTG’s only. The SC’s are slightly smaller than RTG’s. The containers will be 3 high in places rather than 5 high in all places as allowed by the permitted development. The containers are spread over a wider area on site. Even though the containers will be stacked at 5 high in proximity to the village, the containers will be well screened from the village by the recently erected noise and visual barrier and intervening trees. The alterations to the buildings will be screened predominantly and it is only the upper most southern elevation of the maintenance building that will be potential visible from properties with a view towards the port (see Photomontage Viewpoints 1 to 5). The proposed maintenance building is set sufficiently back from the village and not prominent in views. The potential visibility of the maintenance building is decreased by significant tree cover and the recently erected noise and visual barrier at the boundary of port as part of the permitted development. The proposed changes to the lighting masts will be difficult to discern from the lighting masts of the permitted development.

The visible components of the proposed alterations will be similar in character to the components of the permitted development. The alterations move the location or vary the design of the components of the permitted development and therefore there is little potential for change in visual resource as a result. The alterations remain within the harbour based industrial landscape and are read completely in this context. Overall the predicted significance of visual impact is predicted as moderate adverse for the residential properties at Ringaskiddy with a view and not significant.

Monkstown Residential Properties There are significant areas of open water located between Monkstown and the site the proposed alterations. The existing port facilities and the permitted development at Ringaskiddy are also a feature of the views from properties as are the cranes and other port facilities at Rushbrooke. While the proposed alterations will be located within the view from those dwellings overlooking the Harbour the distance from the proposed alterations combined with the presence of existing port facilities and on- going activity of ships coming and going from the port will offset potential visual impacts (See Photomontage Viewpoint 6). The quayside changes will not be noticeable and the change to containers and SC’s will be hard to discern from Monkstown. The proposed changes to the lighting masts will be difficult to discern from the lighting masts of the permitted development. Overall the predicted significance of visual impact is predicted as moderate adverse and not significant for the residential properties at Monkstown with a view.

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-11 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Cobh Residential Properties As with Monkstown there are significant areas of open water located between Cobh and the site of the proposed alterations and the settlement is located at a greater distance from the proposals as well. The existing port facilities at Ringaskiddy are a minor feature of the views from properties due to the distance and angle of view that are directed south predominantly towards Haulbowline Island. The proposed changes to the lighting masts will be difficult to discern from the lighting masts of the permitted development. The distance of the proposals from Cobh combined with the presence of existing port facilities and ships will significantly offset potential visual impacts. Overall the predicted significance of visual impact is predicted as moderate adverse and not significant for the residential properties at Cobh with a view towards the proposed alterations.

Blackpoint and Whitepoint Properties The majority of properties at Blackpoint and Whitepoint will not have a view of the proposed alterations as they are interrupted by adjacent buildings and extensive tree cover that is found in this area. It is predominantly only from a limited number of properties that front onto the shore that will have potential views. The taller components of the proposal such as the altered container stacking arrangements and RMG’s, SC’s and the Maintenance Building, will be the most noticeable features. The proposed alterations to the containers (in places where stacked 3 high) and the SC’s will be lower than for the permitted development. The proposals are read against the background of the existing port facilities with existing tall cranes and mast lighting and in the context of the permitted development. Ships coming and going from the Ringaskiddy Harbour are a feature of views from those properties that overlook the Harbour. The proposed changes to the lighting masts will be difficult to discern from the lighting masts of the permitted development. The proposals will occupy a small portion of the panoramic view up and down the Harbour. Overall the predicted significance of visual impact is predicted as moderate adverse and not significant for the limited number of residential properties at Blackpoint and Whitepoint with a view of the proposed alterations.

Harbour Users The Harbour is well used by commercial and leisure craft, for example visitors to Spike Island currently travel in boats from Cobh. There are many leisure craft moored at both Monkstown and Cobh and there is a small slipway at Ringaskiddy. All such vessels will have potential for views of the proposed alterations from differing angles and locations within the open water. The existing port facilities are a feature of all views in proximity to the site as are visiting ships that travel to Ringaskiddy, Tivoli and City Quays. Views from all leisure craft will be from a low level in the water and the alterations will not vary in appearance significantly from the permitted development in close views. The predicted significance of visual impact will be moderate and not significant in close proximity but decreasing to no change with distance away from the site of the proposed alterations.

7.5.4 Viewpoint Assessment A series of representative viewpoints have been selected from locations throughout the study area and photomontages prepared of the proposed alterations and subjected to specific assessment below. In particular viewpoints from the village of Ringaskiddy have been selected as representative of typical views from the village. These photomontages have been prepared in response to the specific request from An Bord Pleanála in their letter dated 28 th October 2016. The location of all viewpoints can be found on Figure 7.3 and Photomontages are provided in EIS Volume II - Figures.

Viewpoint 1: View from the junction of N28 and Martello Park Ringaskiddy

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from across the N28 in Ringaskiddy. This view is available to the local community and passing traffic. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing visual resource : the existing view is low lying and across parkland to the existing Ringaskiddy port area. Existing high mast lighting and fencing (including the recently erected noise and visual

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-12 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

barrier erected as part of the permitted development) can be observed above a dense line of trees that significantly restrict views out to the north. The view is therefore enclosed in character. The screening effect is enhanced by existing buildings that are visible between gaps in the trees. Grassed earth mounds also rise above the level of the road to screen surface level views of the port area. Due to trees and the low lying nature of the viewpoint it is not possible to view the open water of Cork Harbour nor the higher ground at Cobh on the northern side of the Harbour.

Predicted view : the proposed alterations to the landside container operations are completely screened from view by existing fencing and trees. The proposed alterations to the quayside and mooring dolphins are similarly completely screened. The alterations to the Customs Building will be completely screened from view. The alterations to the Maintenance Building will be partially visible through trees. Only the upper portions of the Maintenance Building will be visible of its elevation facing the village broken by existing trees and screened permanently by the noise and visual screen erected as part of the permitted development. Reconfigured high mast lighting will be visible from this location but will be similar to that currently present in the view and to the permitted development. As for the permitted development occasional and intermittent glimpses of moving ship to shore cranes will be potentially visible but only the upper portions of cranes will be visible.

Magnitude of change: the magnitude of change in visual resource is low.

Significance of Visual Impact: the predicted significance of visual impact will be moderate adverse and not significant.

Viewpoint 2: View from N28 junction with St Joseph’s Terrace Ringaskiddy

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from across the N28 in Ringaskiddy. This view is predominantly available to the local community. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing visual resource : this existing view from across the N28 road allowing views direct and close proximity views of the existing Ringaskiddy port area. Existing facilities at the port are visible including high mast lighting and the port ferry terminal entrance. The recently erected noise and visual screen barrier as part of the permitted development is visible and prevents any partial views through to low level activities with the port. Both Monkstown and Cobh are completely screened from view. The view is enclosed in character.

Predicted view : the proposed alterations to the landside container operations are completely screened from view by existing fencing and trees. The proposed alterations to the quayside and mooring dolphins are similarly completely screened. The alterations to the Customs Building will be completely screened from view. The alterations to the Maintenance Building will be partially visible through trees. Only the upper portions of the Maintenance Building will be visible of its elevation facing the village broken by existing trees and screened permanently by the noise and visual screen erected as part of the permitted development. Reconfigured high mast lighting will be visible from this location but will be similar to that currently present in the view. As for the permitted development occasional and intermittent glimpses of moving ship to shore cranes only will be potentially visible but only the upper portions of cranes will be visible.

Magnitude of change: the magnitude of change in visual resource is low.

Significance of Visual Impact: the predicted significance of visual impact will be moderate adverse and not significant.

Viewpoint 3: View from N28 Main Street Ringaskiddy

Viewer sensitivity : this view is from the N28 Main Street in Ringaskiddy. This view is available to the local community. The viewer sensitivity is high.

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-13 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Existing visual resource : the existing view from across the N28 road allows views direct and close proximity views of the existing Ringaskiddy port area. Existing facilities at the port are partly visible including high mast lighting and the port ferry terminal entrance. The recently erected noise and visual screen barrier as part of the permitted development is visible and prevent any partial views through to low level activities within the port. Both Monkstown and Cobh are completely screened from view. The view is enclosed in character.

Predicted view : the proposed operational phase will be well screened from this viewpoint by the existing trees. As with the permitted development ship to shore cranes and high mast lighting will be visible. The existing noise and visual barrier screens views to remaining port facilities and alterations with exception of the Maintenance Building that will be visible in the centre of the view. The upper portions of the Maintenance Building will be visible and it is well screened by both the existing noise and visual barrier and existing trees.

Magnitude of change: the magnitude of change in visual resource is low.

Significance of Visual Impact : the predicted significance of visual impact will be moderate adverse and not significant.

Viewpoint 4: View from Martello Park (Upper) Ringaskiddy

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from the small housing estate at Martello Park. This view is predominantly available to the local community. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing visual resource : the existing view is elevated allowing views from the roadside and over roof tops of Martello Park (lower) to Monkstown and Cobh with a glimpse view to the harbour and open water. High mast lighting is visible within the existing port area but little else is discernible due to intervening trees and buildings.

Predicted view : the proposed alterations will be completely screened from view by trees and buildings. As with the permitted development the ship to shore cranes will be partly visible through the upper canopy of trees. Alterations to the high mast lights will not be discernible from existing lights.

Magnitude of change: the magnitude of change in visual resource is no change.

Significance of Visual Impact: the predicted significance of visual impact will be no change.

Viewpoint 5: View from St Carthage Place at its junction with Priests Avenue

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from the small housing estate at St Carthage Place and Priests Avenue. This view is predominantly available to the local community. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing visual resource : the existing view is elevated and directed along the vista of Priests Avenue towards the harbour area. High mast lighting is visible within the existing port area is difficult to discern from the complex background in the view. Existing buildings completely screen views out except for a narrow glimpse of the higher ground at Cobh on the opposite side of the harbour.

Predicted view : the proposed alterations will be completely screened from view by buildings and topography. Alterations to the high mast lights will not be discernible from existing and permitted lights.

Magnitude of change: the magnitude of change in visual resource is no change.

Significance of Visual Impact: the predicted significance of visual impact will be no change.

Viewpoint 6: View from R610 across Monkstown Creek

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-14 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from the R610 at Monkstown Creek. This view is predominantly available to the local community. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing visual resource : the existing view is low lying but open allowing views from the roadside across Monkstown Creek towards Ringaskiddy. Beyond the Creek topography interrupts views to the existing Pfizer factory but a prominent water tower and factory building are visible on the skyline. The ADM jetty at the existing DWB is just discernible but read with the background landscape. Tall cranes at the DWB are also visible along with a ship and buildings. Further buildings at the existing Harbour and the National Maritime College are also visible in the centre left of the view. Ships will be a continual feature of the viewpoint coming and going from the DWB and the Ferry facilities. The recently constructed wind turbines are the tallest man made features in the view.

Predicted view : the proposed alterations will be read in the visual context of the existing port facilities and the permitted development. The alterations to quayside with extension southwards and removal of two mooring dolphins and provision of three new mooring dolphins will not be noticeable due to screening from the ADM jetty and existing DWB. The changes in operations and container handling systems will be visible. The containers will be visible but stacked at different heights (3 high in most places and up to 5 high elsewhere) than as for the permitted development. The SC’s will be slightly smaller than the permitted RTG’s and the proposed RMG’s. The RMG’s will be visible but less in number when compared to the RTG’s for the permitted development. The Ship to Shore cranes will be the tallest part of the proposed development but read with the tall cranes present at the existing DWB and no different than the permitted development. The alterations to the Custom Building and the Maintenance Building will not be discernible from this viewpoint due to the complex view of the port facilities and background view of the hills.

Magnitude of change: the magnitude of change in visual resource is low.

Significance of Visual Impact: the predicted significance of visual impact will be moderate adverse and not significant.

Viewpoint 7: View from Whitepoint Drive

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from Whitepoint Drive in Cobh. This view is predominantly available to the local community. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing visual resource : the existing view is low lying and across parkland to open water with Ringaskiddy beyond. The view is panoramic in nature and extends to the left beyond the limit of the camera towards Haulbowline. The existing port facilities at Ringaskiddy port are clearly visible with a ship at berth, cranes, buildings and tanks located within the view. The ADM jetty is just visible to the right of the view. As well as the existing port facilities there also extensive industrial buildings located to the rear of the port that breaks the skyline in the centre and right of the view. The recently constructed wind turbines are the tallest man made features in the view.

Predicted view : the proposed alterations will be read in the visual context of the existing port facilities and the permitted development. The alterations to quayside with extension southwards and removal of two mooring dolphins and provision of three new mooring dolphins will be completely screened from view by the permitted development. The changes in operations and container handling systems will be directly visible. The containers will be visible but stacked at different and lower heights (3 high in most places and up to 5 high elsewhere) than as for the permitted development and also spread over a wider area. The containers are not prominent and read against the background port facilities and industrial development outside the port. The containers are well below the skyline. The SC’s will be slightly smaller than the permitted RTG’s and the proposed RMG’s. The RMG’s will be visible but less in number when compared to the RTG’s for the permitted development. The Ship to Shore cranes will be the tallest part of the proposed development but read with the tall cranes present at the existing DWB and no different than the permitted development. The alterations to the Custom Building and the Maintenance Building be will discernible from this viewpoint. The Custom Building is a small alteration and difficult to read due to the complex view of the port facilities and the permitted development. The

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-15 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Maintenance Building is taller but does not break the skyline and is read against the background of hills and existing industrial development at Ringaskiddy. Overall as with the permitted development there is no loss of view from this viewpoint as the panoramic view up and down Cork Harbour is maintained.

Magnitude of change: the magnitude of change in visual resource is low.

Significance of Visual Impact: the predicted significance of visual impact will be moderate adverse and not significant.

Viewpoint 8: View from Brookvale Cobh

Viewer sensitivity: this view is from Brookvale in Cobh. This view is predominantly available to the local community. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing visual resource : the existing view is elevated and across trees and houses towards Ringaskiddy port area. The landmark spire of Christchurch Church of Ireland is prominent in the foreground and interrupts the view to the DWB area. It is possible to discern a ship at berth and buildings but other details are more difficult to make up due to the distance of this view. Industrial buildings at Ringaskiddy to the rear of the port are noticeable due to their higher location on hilltops. The recently constructed wind turbines are prominent features in the view.

Predicted view : the proposed alterations will be read via glimpse views only but in the visual context of the existing port facilities and the permitted development. The alterations to quayside with extension southwards and removal of two mooring dolphins and provision of three new mooring dolphins will be completely screened from view by trees and development in Cobh in the foreground. The changes in operations and container handling systems will be partly visible but at this distance and limited glimpse view not noticeably different from the permitted development. The SC’s will be slightly smaller than the permitted RTG’s and the proposed RMG’s. The RMG’s will be visible but less in number when compared to the RTG’s for the permitted development. The Ship to Shore cranes will be the tallest part of the proposed development but read with the tall cranes present at the existing DWB and no different than the permitted development. The alterations to the Maintenance Building will be just be discernible to the left of the view from this viewpoint but viewed well below the skyline and read against the background of trees and existing urban and industrial development at Ringaskiddy. The Custom Building will be completely screened. The wind turbines remain prominent man-made structures to the right of the view.

Magnitude of change: the magnitude of change in visual resource is low.

Significance of Visual Impact: the predicted significance of visual impact will be moderate adverse and not significant.

Viewpoint 9 View from Haulbowline Bridge

Viewer sensitivity: this view is available from Haulbowline Bridge at Rocky Island. The viewer sensitivity is high.

Existing visual resource : the existing view is slightly elevated on the bridge. The view is directed between Rocky Island and Haulbowline Island towards Ringaskiddy port. The existing port facilities are visible but not prominent due to the distance of the view. It is just possible to discern details such as high mast lighting and three cranes due to the fact that they break the skyline. Existing buildings and silos are more noticeable. Beyond the port facilities the industrial buildings at Ringaskiddy are noticeable on the skyline. The ADM jetty is just discernible in the centre right of the view. The recently constructed wind turbines are the tallest man made features in the view.

Predicted view : the proposed alterations will be read in the visual context of the existing port facilities and the permitted development. The alterations to quayside with extension southwards and removal of

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-16 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

two mooring dolphins and provision of three new mooring dolphins will be completely screened from view by the permitted development and existing port facilities. The changes in operations and container handling systems will be directly visible. The containers will be visible but stacked at different heights (3 high in most places and up to 5 high elsewhere) than as for the permitted development and also spread over a wider area. The containers are not prominent and read against the background port facilities and industrial development outside the port. The containers are well below the skyline. The SC’s will be slightly smaller than the permitted RTG’s and the proposed RMG’s. The Ship to Shore cranes will be the tallest part of the proposed development but read with the tall cranes present at the existing DWB (and the existing wind turbines) and no different than the permitted development. The alterations to the Custom Building and the Maintenance Building will be discernible from this viewpoint. The Custom Building is a small alteration and difficult to read due to the complex view of the port facilities and the permitted development. The Maintenance Building is taller but does not break the skyline and is read against the background existing port facilities and adjacent industrial development at Ringaskiddy. Overall as with the permitted development there is no loss of view from this viewpoint as the panoramic view up and down Cork Harbour is maintained.

Magnitude of change: the magnitude of change in visual resource is low.

Significance of Visual Impact: the predicted significance of visual impact will be moderate adverse and not significant.

7.6.6 Lighting Impacts The alterations to the permitted development will require changes to the locations of outdoor night time lighting. The details of the alterations to the permitted lighting layout are described in full in the Project Description Chapter 3. The alterations to lighting will not be noticeably different from the appearance of the permitted lighting layout when viewed from the surroundings.

Such lights will be read against the background of significant existing lights in the Ringaskiddy area and no significant visual impact is predicted for the alterations to lighting.

7.5.7 Cumulative Effects The assessment of potential landscape and visual cumulative impacts has considered a range of projects including the following projects and proposed projects:

• M28 Upgrade • Dunkettle interchange • East Tip Remediation project • Indaver incinerator • DePuy turbine • Martello Tower site reprofiling • Steelwork’s site • Industrial/commercial developments in the area • Shannonpark roundabout • Cobh Marina • Monkstown Marina • Cobh Cruise Berth Upgrade /Mooring Dolphins • Spike Island Masterplan • Cobh Second Cruise Berth • Whitepoint Marina

When potential construction and operational stage effects are considered for the proposed alterations for potential cumulative landscape and visual effects they will not result in any significant cumulative landscape and visual effects. Construction stage activities are likely to involve an increase in

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-17 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

construction traffic for all cumulative projects. HGV traffic is frequent feature of this industrial landscape and the N28 is a busy road with low potential for significant cumulative visual impacts as a result. The operational stage activities proposed as part of the alterations are sufficiently separated from any permitted or planned projects and very minor in the scale of the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment project to avoid potential cumulative effects.

7.5.8 Construction Phase Impacts When potential construction stage effects are considered the alteration to straddle carriers and containers will not result in any changes to the construction stage landscape and visual effects predicted for the permitted development. The alteration to main berth and mooring dolphins are located in a well screened inner part of the existing port. These construction activities are broadly located in the same location, albeit spread across a wider part of the site with no noticeable landscape or visual change predicted due to screening from existing port facilities, the existing noise and visual barrier and the visual context of the construction activities in a busy port.

Similarly when potential construction stage effects are considered the alteration to entrance and interchange areas these activities will not result in any changes to the construction stage landscape and visual effects predicted for the permitted development. The construction activities will take place in very similar locations to the permitted development and the activities themselves remain the same.

When potential construction stage effects are considered for the alteration to the maintenance, office and customs building the majority of the construction activities are at low level and will be completely screened in most views particularly in views from Ringaskiddy where the recently erected noise and visual barrier and existing tree covers prevents such views currently. While the construction of the upper components of the maintenance building will be visible from some part of Ringaskiddy the works are well separated from the village and will be read in the context of the existing port and permitted development with slight adverse impact.

The construction phase will see no significant increase in traffic (HGV) coming and going from the site when compared to the permitted development.

When viewed from the wider landscape the visual impacts during the construction phase for the alterations will be slight adverse due to limited viewer exposure, phased and temporary nature of the works and low level of landscape and visual resource change.

7.6 Mitigation Measures 7.6.1 Landscape Mitigations Measures As set out in section 7.5 the landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposed alterations has not predicted any significant impacts.

The mitigation measures that formed part of the An Bord Pleanála approval of the permitted development of the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment therefore do not require any changes and remain entirely appropriate.

7.7 Residual Impacts This section of the Chapter assesses the impact of the proposed alterations on the landscape character and visual receptors (previously identified in section 7.5 above), after the mitigation (described above in section 7.6) has been implemented.

No significant landscape or visual impacts have been predicted for the proposed alterations. The landscape mitigation measures enshrined in the extant approval for the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment remain unchanged by the proposed alterations.

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-18 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Within the wider landscape the proposed alterations, as with the permitted development, will continue to blend with existing ship and port activities with no significant residual landscape character impacts. With regards to visual impact on sensitive receptors, impact on existing views will partly remain for some properties in Ringaskiddy in very close proximity but overall the visual impacts at dwellings are limited through time and the proposals will become a recognised feature of the local visual context.

7.8 Conclusion The conclusion of this landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposed alterations is that these modifications will not result in any significant change to the assessment of effects and conclusions as previously presented in the 2014 EIS for the permitted development and that the mitigation measures enshrined in the extant permission remain applicable.

In summary the broader landscape character area and visual context around Ringaskiddy Port area has the capacity to absorb the proposed alterations of this scale in landscape and visual terms in a similar manner to the extant permission.

NI1004 S146C EIS 7-19 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

8.0 Traffic & Transportation

8.1 Introduction The purpose of this Chapter is three-fold. Firstly, this Chapter discusses the proposed alterations to the permitted development and describes how these changes have no additional impact on traffic as considered in the previous EIS. Secondly, this Chapter will consider the conditions imposed by An Bord Pleanála (ABP) relating to traffic, the impact the alterations may have on these conditions and the progress made by the Port of Cork Company (POCC) in complying with these conditions. Finally, this Chapter presents the impact significance of the alterations on traffic.

8.2 Proposed Phasing of Development Phasing for the proposed alterations will be in accordance with the permitted development except that Phase 1 will now be implemented in two separate phases, Phase 1a and Phase 1b. Phases 2 and 3 remain unchanged. The combined traffic impact of Phases 1a & 1b is that of Phase 1 from the permitted development.

The proposed new phasing of the permitted development will be as follows:

 Phase 1a: Initial stage of development at Ringaskiddy East to accommodate movement of container activities from Tivoli.  Phase 1b: Further phase of development at Ringaskiddy East which will be implemented when trade volumes require the provision of additional quay space and associated container storage • Phase 2: Ringaskiddy West - unchanged from the permitted development • Phase 3: Ringaskiddy East comprising additional quay wall and other works (to cater for RoRo). It should be noted that Phase 3 will not become operational until after the M28 and Dunkettle road upgrade schemes are completed.

8.3 Update on Strategic Road Infrastructure M28 Cork Ringaskiddy Motorway Scheme Cork County Council (CCC), in partnership with Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII), are currently preparing a statutory Road Scheme for the upgrade of c. 12.5km of the N28 National Primary Route from its junction with the N40 South Ring Road at Bloomfield to the Port at Ringaskiddy. The upgrading of the N28 to motorway standard is of national significance and has been identified recently in the Government’s “Building on Recovery: Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2016-2021” plan.

The N28 corridor itself is part of the Trans‐European Transport Network (Core TEN‐T Network) accessing the Tier 1 Port at Ringaskiddy. This requires that the Port is served by a high quality road (either a motorway or express road), designed and built for motor traffic.

Currently CCC are preparing a statutory Road Scheme and associated Environmental Impact Statement and anticipate being in a position to submit these to An Bord Pleanala (ABP) for approval at the end of the first quarter of 2017.

8.4 Proposed Alterations The proposed alterations to the permitted development are as follows:

Change to Landside Container handling The originally proposed Rubber Tyre Gantry Cranes (RTG’s) and associated truck/trailers will be replaced with a handling system that will initially comprise a Straddle Carrier (SC) operation with subsequent the introduction of two Rail Mounted Gantry Cranes as trade volumes dictate. Straddle carrier operations will provide capacity for a throughput of 240,000 TEU after which the introduction of

NI1004 S146C EIS 8-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

two RMG’s will increase capacity to 330,000 TEU. This is in line with the throughput described in the assessment of the permitted development.

The proposed alterations make provision for the introduction of a RoRo ramp in the latter stages of the permitted development. In accordance with Condition 4 for the permitted development this will not be made operational until such times as the M28 and Dunkettle road upgrade schemes are completed.

The alterations include the re-location of the previously proposed maintenance building, office, and car parking area from inside the container storage area and the construction of a new office and maintenance building and car park near the entrance to the passenger terminal.

Main Quayside Works The alterations to the quay comprise a minor modification to the shape of the southern end of Berth 1. This is intended to facilitate a phased implementation of the RoRo linkspan and to maximise mooring of vessels in the interim.

Additional dolphins and removal of existing The alterations include the removal of two existing mooring dolphins at the existing ferry terminal to facilitate the use of the full length of the quay wall for berthing in the initial stages of the development. Three new mooring dolphins are proposed to be constructed to replace those removed from the ferry terminal. The material arising from the removal of the dolphins will be transported from site by road and is included in the revised construction traffic profile in Figure 8.1.

Additional dredging To allow the full length of the berth to be utilised for mooring of vessels the dredge pocket for Berth 1 at Ringaskiddy East is proposed to be extended to the South along the full length of the quay wall. Approximately 15,000m3 of additional material will be generated. All additional material from this dredging will be disposed of at sea or re-used in the works.

Internal layout changes at entrance and interchange areas The layout of the entrance and interchange area to the terminal has been amended to accommodate the proposed Straddle Carrier/RMG operating system, to allow efficient vehicle management and queuing, and to facilitate the introduction of a Gate and Terminal Operating system that will enable the implementation of the Mobility Management Plan.

Changes to the onsite accommodation The proposed alteration to the onsite maintenance, office and customs buildings will not result in an increase in the traffic.

Overall all the proposed alterations presented above have no traffic impact above the permitted development.

8.5 An Bord Pleanála’s Conditions Relating to Traffic ABP’s decision to grant permission for the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment came with a number of conditions relating to traffic and transportation. These conditions, Ref DPA0035, are as follows:

Condition 4 Phase 3 of the proposed development (link-span bridge and berth to accommodate roll-on/roll-off freight traffic) shall not become operational until such time as the M28 and Dunkettle road upgrade schemes are completed.

NI1004 S146C EIS 8-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Impact of Alterations: The proposed alterations to the permitted development do not change the requirements of this condition. Phase 3 of the permitted development will not be operational until such a time as the M28 and Dunkettle road upgrade schemes are completed.

Condition 5 Details of the operation of the proposed “Ringaskiddy Mobility Management Plan” (RMMP) (as outlined in section 8.7 of the environmental impact statement, and further described in submissions to the oral hearing) shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority at least six months prior to the coming into operation of the development. The agreement shall include details in relation to:

(a) Management system to be employed. (b) Monitoring arrangements to be employed, which shall enable direct remote access by the planning authority to port traffic information. (c) Reporting arrangements (including making information available to the public). (d) Review arrangements, whereby the agreement can be revised periodically.

All freight vehicles using the port facilities at Ringaskiddy shall be included in the vehicle booking system, (VBS) that forms part of the RMMP. The ‘Do Minimum’ traffic levels (referenced in section 8.7.1.1 of the environmental impact statement) shall be determined by reference to updated traffic surveys prior to commencement of operations. All costs associated with implementing the agreement shall be borne by the developer.

Impact of Alterations: The proposed alterations to the permitted development do not change the requirements of this condition. The overall throughput of the terminal for LoLo, general cargo and RoRo will not be altered due to the change in handling mechanisms. There will, therefore, be no change to the volume of traffic entering or exiting the terminal from that of the permitted development.

PoCC have, to date, delivered on some of the requirements of Condition 5. One of the requirements is the delivery of an automated gate operating system into their container Terminal at Tivoli docks. The gate operating system will be the nucleus of the vehicle booking system (VBS). The gate operating system is now fully operational with 100% of hauliers, operating out of Tivoli, now using the system. The VBS will be a key component of the Ringaskiddy Mobility Management Plan to support the management of the discharge of Port related HGV traffic onto the strategic road network over the whole day.

Access from the local road network to the revised office and maintenance building on site will not change from that proposed in the permitted development and will therefore have no impact on the distribution of traffic.

Condition 6 Prior to commencement of development, final detailed design for the new port entrance, at the junction of the regional road R613 with the N28, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority. This shall include the details of pedestrian facilities.

Impact of Alterations: The proposed alterations to the permitted development do not change the requirements of this condition. The proposed alterations are for internal links only and will not impact on the junction with the R613.

The detailed design of the new port entrance is in the process of being agreed with the planning authority.

Condition 7 The existing port entrance, adjacent to the junction of the L-2545 and the Loughbeg Road, shall not be used by Port related HGV traffic.

Impact of Alterations: The proposed alterations to the permitted development do not change the requirements of this condition.

NI1004 S146C EIS 8-3 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Condition 10 The construction of the development shall be managed in accordance with a Construction Management Plan, which shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the planning authority prior to commencement of development. This plan shall provide details of intended construction practice for the development, including:

(a) Location of the site and materials compound(s). (b) Location of areas for construction site offices and staff facilities. (c) Details of site security fencing and hoardings. (d) Details of on-site car parking facilities for site workers during the course of construction. (e) Details of the timing and routing of construction traffic to and from the construction site and associated directional signage, to include proposals to facilitate the delivery of abnormal loads to the site. (f) Measures to obviate queuing of construction traffic on the adjoining road network. (g) Measures to prevent the spillage or deposit of clay, rubble or other debris on the public road network. (h) Proposals for the suppression of on-site noise. (i) Proposals for the suppression of dust on site. (j) Proposals for the suppression of vibration (associated with rock breaking, blasting or piling). (k) Proposals to minimise light pollution during construction. (l) Proposals to minimise odours.

Impact of Alterations: The alterations to the permitted development will result in a revised construction traffic profile. The assessment of impact is provided below in section 8.6. The traffic impact of the revised construction traffic numbers is significantly less than that of the permitted development.

It should be noted that PoCC, following meetings with Cork County Council have agreed the Construction Traffic Management Plan Principles with Cork County Council with regard to the management and monitoring of construction related traffic generated by the permitted development which is in line with the requirements set out in Condition 10.

8.6 Assessment of Impact Significance The following section assesses the potential impacts on traffic and transport for the construction and operational phases of the proposed alterations to the permitted development. Typically impacts occurring during the construction phase of a development result in short term exposure.

8.6.1 Construction Impacts A construction year of 2017 is the assumed year of construction. As outlined above, as a requirement of Condition 10, Port of Cork and Cork County Council are in the process of agreeing the principles of the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). This is based on the construction traffic levels as indicated in Figure 8.1 below. The CTMP principles include:  Restrictions to construction traffic operation during peak times  Monitoring of compliance  Reporting and reviewing procedures  Production of Construction Traffic Management Plan

To represent a worst case scenario, Figure 8.1, indicates all construction traffic occurring in one phase for ease of comparison to the previously assumed permitted development construction traffic levels. The construction traffic levels presented in Figure 8.1 include the proposed alterations which will be developed in two phases, Phase 1a and Phase 1b.

The estimated monthly maximum construction generated traffic flow is 2,960. Based on this, it is estimated that there will be a peak of 16.8 HGVs per hour (within an 8-hour working day) within the 24 months of construction.

NI1004 S146C EIS 8-4 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 8.1: Construction Traffic

Comparison with Permitted Development For the permitted development construction traffic assessment, the construction of the Deep Water Berth was assumed to coincide with the construction of Ringaskiddy East for the assessment of construction traffic. This estimated a monthly maximum construction generated traffic flow of 5,175. The estimated maximum generated traffic flow for the proposed alterations will be 2,960, which represents a reduction of approximately 43% from the permitted development construction traffic levels.

Figure 8.2 below provides a comparison of the permitted development construction traffic for Ringaskiddy East only with that which is proposed to be generated by the devellopment including the proposed alterations. The construction traffic profile for the construction of Ringaskiddy East (including the alterations) is similar to that previously assumed for Phase 1 of the permitted development.

In summary, the construction traffic impact generated by the development with the proposed alterations will be less than the permitted development due to the change to phasing which significantly reduces the number of construction vehicles generated.

It should be noted, that the additional 15,000m3 of dredged material from the extended dredge pocket will be disposed of at sea or re-used in the works and will not generate additional construction vehicular movements on the surrounding road network.

NI1004 S146C EIS 8-5 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 8.2 Construction Traffic Comparison

8.6.2 Operational Impacts The proposed alterations have no traffic impact above the permitted development.

8.7 Mitigation It is considered that the proposed alterations will not generate additional traffic during the construction or operational phases above that of the permitted development and therefore do not give rise to any additional traffic and transport related impacts. As previously mentioned, for the construction of the development, Port of Cork has agreed the Principles of Construction Traffic Management with Cork County Council. This is based on the revised construction traffic figures for the proposed alterations and includes approaches to the management of construction traffic throughout the working day, detailing the number of vehicles, routes, compliance monitoring and reporting.

The operational phase mitigation measures that formed part of the An Bord Pleanála approval for the permitted development therefore do not require any changes and remain entirely appropriate.

The gate operating system component of the Vehicle Booking System has been trialled in Tivoli and is now fully operational in Tivoli and is proving successful in its management of vehicles in the port.

8.8 Cumulative Impacts For the construction phase assessment in 2017, cumulative traffic volumes include for other permitted construction projects including Monkstown Marina, Cobh Marina, Haulbowline Remediation Project and the proposed N28 Upgrade.

For the operational phase assessment of the proposed alterations and permitted development, cumulative traffic volumes have been included in the predicted traffic levels for future years 2018 and 2033. The same NRA traffic growth figures that were used for the Dunkettle Inteerchange Assessment have also been used for this traffic assessment. These future traffic levels allow for permitted and proposed projects such as the Monkstown Marina; Cobh Marina; Haulbowline Remediation Project; and Cobh Cruise Berths.

NI1004 S146C EIS 8-6 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The cumulative traffic volumes do not result in any changes to the predicted impacts in the EIS for the permitted development. The proposed dredging and disposal to a licensed dump site, as part of the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment and the proposed alterations, has no impact on traffic. Further the proposed alterations and the permitted Development and other permitted and proposed projects are already considered and assessed in the Traffic and Transportation Chapter of the EIS.

8.9 Residual Impacts The residual impact by the proposed alterations in terms of traffic and transportation are considered negligible.

NI1004 S146C EIS 8-7 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

9.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION

9.1 Introduction This Chapter of the EIS considers the potential and likely significant effects of the proposed alterations to the permitted development on noise and vibration. The purpose of this Chapter is to identify and describe any likely significant noise and vibration effects as a result of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development. Full details of the proposed alterations are included in Chapter 3 Project Description.

Ringaskiddy Port is located in an area that contains a significant number of settlements. The nearest residential properties to the proposed alterations, as with the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment works, are the properties to the south of the existing N28 Main Street, properties to the west of the Port at Shanbally, properties to the northwest of the port at Monkstown and properties to the north and northeast at Cobh, Whitepoint and Blackpoint. In addition to the residential properties, there are other potentially noise sensitive receptors in the study area, including the National Maritime College of Ireland (NMCI), the Naval Base on Haulbowline Island and numerous schools, churches, clinics and leisure clubs.

The proposed alterations will be contained on the site of the existing Ringaskiddy Port, where there is an existing Deepwater Berth (DWB) and ferry service which operates during day and night-time periods. On account of this, there is a long history of noise from Port related activities in the vicinity of the proposed alterations. In addition to this, there are numerous existing industrial facilities located in the general study area. Road traffic noise is the dominant noise source in the vicinity of the majority of the nearest noise sensitive properties to the existing Port at Ringaskiddy.

During the construction phase of the proposed alterations as with the permitted development, there is potential for noise impacts at the nearest noise sensitive properties from the use of plant and equipment and vibration impacts from the use a certain construction phase activities (e.g. piling). The assessment of operational phase noise includes an assessment of the noise impact from new plant/equipment at the Port as a result of the proposed alterations and the assessment of road traffic changes in the vicinity of the Port as a result of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development.

There are no statutory noise limits that can be applied to the assessment of noise and vibration impacts from planned developments in Ireland. The assessment of noise and vibration impacts has been completed on the basis of recognised Irish and international guideline documents in the areas of noise and vibration assessment.

A key component of the assessment process has been to determine the likely noise and vibration impacts of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development and existing noise and vibration environment at the nearest sensitive properties to the proposed alterations.

This Chapter should be read in conjunction with Figure 9.1 - 9.3.

9.2 Methodology 9.2.1 Noise Guidance Documents This section includes a summary of Irish and International guidance documents that have been used as reference material for the purposes of completing the Noise and Vibration Assessment.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Environmental Enforcement (OEE) - Guidance Note for Noise: Licence Applications, Surveys and Assessments in Relation to Scheduled Activities (NG4) This document relates primarily to noise surveys and assessments for EPA licensed facilities but in the absence of any other directly applicable guidance documents, it provides useful reference material for the purposes of completing the noise assessment for the proposed alterations to the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment project.

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The EPA published two earlier documents in relation to the survey, assessment and management of noise emissions from licensed facilities, namely the Environmental Noise Survey Guidance Document (commonly referred to as NG1) and Guidance Note for Noise in Relation to Scheduled Activities - 2nd Edition (commonly referred to as NG2). These two documents have been withdrawn with the publication of NG4.

NG4 provides detailed consideration of a range of noise related issues including basic background to noise issues, various noise assessment criteria and procedures, noise reduction measures, Best Available Techniques (BAT) and the detailed requirements for noise surveys. NG4 provides typical limit values for noise from licensed sites, namely:

• Daytime (07:00 - 19:00) - 55dB L Ar,T ; • Evening (19:00 - 23:00) - 50dB L Ar,T : • Night-time (23:00 - 07:00) - 45dB L Aeq,T .

In the description of the limits above, the L Aeq,T is the equivalent continuous sound level over the measurement period and L Ar,T is equal to the L Aeq but includes an additional penalty of 5dB(A) to account for any tonal or impulsive characteristics to the noise source.

While consideration is given to these threshold limits in the general context of the noise assessment for the proposed alterations, the alterations are located in the context of an urban/suburban environment where existing noise levels regularly exceed the typical noise limits set out in NG4 for EPA licensed sites.

Other EPA guidelines such as Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Statements [2002] and Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements) [2003] have been considered also in the preparation of this Noise and Vibration Chapter.

National Roads Authority (NRA) Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes (2004) This guidance document is primarily concerned with setting out the design criteria with regard to noise from new road schemes in Ireland; however it also provides useful reference material in terms of discussing suitable noise and vibration threshold limits for construction phase activities associated with road schemes in Ireland.

The NRA Guidelines list maximum permissible noise levels typically deemed to be acceptable for the construction phase of road schemes (See Table 9.1). These values are indicative only and more stringent limits may be applied where pre-existing noise levels are low.

Table 9.1: Maximum Permissible Noise Levels at the Façade of Dwellings During Construction

Days & Times LAeq (1 hr) dB LpA(max)slow dB

Monday to Friday 70 80 07:00 – 19:00hrs Monday to Friday 60* 65* 19:00 – 22:00hrs Saturday 65 75 08:00 – 16:30hrs Sunday Bank Holidays 60* 65* 08:00 – 16:30hrs * Construction activity at these times. Other than that required in respect of emergency works, will normally require explicit permission of the relevant local authority.

British Standard BS5228:2009+A1:2014 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and open Sites This British standard consists of two parts and covers the need for protection against noise and vibration of persons living and working in the vicinity of construction and open sites. The standard recommends procedures for noise and vibration control in respect of construction operations and aims

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

to assist architects, contractors and site operatives, designers, developers, engineers, local authority environmental health officers and planners.

Part 1 of the standard provides a method of calculating noise from construction plant, including:

• Tables of source noise levels; • Methods for summing up contributions from intermittently operating plant; • A procedure for calculating noise propagation; • A method for calculating noise screening effects; and • A way of predicting noise from mobile plant, such as haul roads.

The standard also provides guidance on legislative background, community relations, training, nuisance, project supervision and control of noise and vibration.

The ABC method outlined in Section E3.2 has been used for the purposes of determining whether the predicted noise levels from the construction activities will result in any significant noise impact at the nearest noise sensitive properties.

Table 9.2 below outlines the applicable noise threshold limits that apply at the nearest noise sensitive receptors. The determination of what category to apply is dependent on the existing baseline ambient (L Aeq ) noise level (rounded to the nearest 5dB) at the nearest noise sensitive property. For daytime, if the ambient noise level is less than the Category A threshold limit, the Category A threshold limit (i.e. 65dB) applies. If the ambient noise level is the same as the Category A threshold limit, the Category B threshold limit (i.e. 70dB) applies. If the ambient noise level is more than the Category A threshold limit, the Category C threshold limit (i.e. 75dB) applies. The applicable limits that apply at each of the sensitive receptors included in the construction phase noise model are presented and discussed in section 9.4 of this Chapter.

Table 9.2: Noise Threshold Limits at Nearest Sensitive Receptors for Drilling Rig Activities

Threshold Limits [dB(A)] Category A Category B Cat egory C

Night-time (23:00 - 07:00) 45 50 55

Evening and Weekends (19:00 - 23:00 Weekdays, 13:00-23:00 55 60 65 Saturdays, 07:00-23:00 Sundays) Weekday daytime (07:00-19:00) and Saturdays (07:00-13:00) 65 70 75

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-3 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

World Health Organisation (WHO) - Guidelines for Community Noise

In the World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines for Community Noise (1999), a L Aeq threshold daytime noise limit of 55 dB is suggested for outdoor living areas in order to protect the majority of people from being seriously annoyed. A second daytime limit of 50 dB is also given as a threshold limit for moderate annoyance.

The guidelines suggest that an internal L Aeq not greater than 30 dB for continuous noise is needed to prevent negative effects on sleep. This is equivalent to a façade level of 45 dB L Aeq , assuming open windows or a free-field level of about 42 dB L Aeq . If the noise is not continuous, then the internal level required to prevent negative effects on sleep is a L Amax,fast of 45 dB. Therefore, for sleep disturbance, the continuous level as well as the number of noisy events should be considered.

World Health Organisation (WHO) - Night Noise Guidelines for Europe The Night Noise Guidelines for Europe was published in 2009 on the back of extensive research completed by a WHO working group. Considering the scientific evidence on the threshold of night noise exposure indicated by L night,outside as defined in the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC), an L night,outside of 40dB should be the target of the night noise guideline (NNG) to protect public, including the most vulnerable groups such as children, the chronically ill and the elderly. An interim target of 55dB is recommended where the NNG cannot be achieved. These guidelines are applicable to Member States of the European Region and may be considered as an extension to the previous WHO Guidelines for Community Noise (1999). The guidelines do not expand on the noise limits applicable to non-continuous noise and hence the guidance included in the 1999 guidelines is still applicable in relation to this.

In the context of the existing environment in the vicinity of the proposed alterations, noise levels in the study area regularly exceed the 40dB night noise limit included in this document.

World Health Organisation (WHO) - Methodological Guidance for Estimating the Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise In 2012, the WHO published the Methodological Guidance for Estimating the Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise . This document outlines the principles of quantitative assessment of the burden of disease from environmental noise, describes the status in terms of the implementation of the European Noise Directive and reviews evidence on exposure-response relationships between noise and cardiovascular diseases.

UK Department of Transport (Welsh Office) - Calculation of Road Traffic Noise [CRTN] This Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) guidance document outlines the procedures to be applied for calculating noise from road traffic. These procedures are necessary to enable entitlement under the Noise Insulation Regulations (NI) 1995 to be determined but they also provide guidance appropriate to the calculation of traffic noise for more general applications e.g. environmental appraisal of road schemes, highway design and land use planning.

The document consists of three different sections, covering a general method for predicting noise levels at a distance from a highway, additional procedures for more specific situations and a measurement method for situations where the prediction method is not suitable. The prediction method constitutes the preferred calculation technique but in a small number of cases, traffic conditions may fall outside the scope of the prediction method and it will then be necessary to resort to measurement. The prediction method has been used in this instance to determine the likely traffic noise increases as a result of the proposed alterations. There is no difference in predicted traffic flows between the permitted development and the proposed alterations and hence there is no change in the traffic noise impacts.

Environmental Noise Directive (END) 2002/49/EC END 2002/49/EC was transposed into Irish legislation in the form of the Environmental Noise Regulations, 2006. The legislation sets out the manner by which Strategic Noise Maps must be

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-4 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

prepared in Ireland for large agglomerations, major roads, major railways and major airports. Strategic Noise Maps were prepared for the Cork Agglomeration in 2012 and a draft Noise Action Plan (NAP) was published for consultation.

The proposed alterations, as with the permitted development, will alter the noise environment in the vicinity of Ringaskiddy Port and hence will alter the Strategic Noise Maps in this area. Under the requirements set out under END, the Strategic Noise Maps are required to be updated every five years. The changes brought about by the permitted development and the proposed alterations will be incorporated into the updated Strategic Noise Maps for the Cork Agglomeration as part of this ongoing update process. This is done separately from the planning process and is not discussed further in this chapter.

9.2.2 Vibration The NRA Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise & Vibration in National Road Schemes is one of the few Irish guidance documents that give recommendations relating to vibration from construction phase activities in Ireland. The guidelines recommend that vibration is limited to the values set out in Table 9.3 in order to ensure that there is little or no risk of even cosmetic damage to buildings. These values and the values indicated in Table 9.4 should be used as guidance for monitoring vibration levels from the construction phase of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development.

Table 9.3: Recommended Vibration Level Thresholds for NRA Schemes

Allowable Vibration Velocity (Peak Particle Velocity) at the Closest Part of Any Sensitive Property to the Source of Vibration, at a Frequency of:

Less than 10Hz 10 to 50 Hz 50 to 100 Hz (and above)

8mm/s 12.5mm/s 20mm/s

Limits of transient vibration, above which cosmetic damage could occur, are also given numerically in Table 9.4 (Ref: BS5228-2:2009). Minor damage is possible at vibration magnitudes which are greater than twice those given in Table 9.4, and major damage to a building structure can occur at values greater than four times the tabulated values (definitions of the damage categories are presented in BS7385-1:1990, 9.9).

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-5 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Table 9.4: Transient Vibration Guide Values for Cosmetic Damage (Ref BS5228-2:2009)

Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) (mm/s) in Frequency Type of Building Range of Predominant Pulse

4 Hz to 15 Hz 15 Hz and above

Reinforced or framed structures. 50 mm/s at 4 Hz and 50 mm/s at 4 Hz and Industrial and heavy commercial above above buildings. Unreinforced or light framed structures. 15 mm/s at 4 Hz 20 mm/s at 15 Hz Residential or light commercial buildings. increasing to 20 mm/S at increasing to 50 mm/s at 15 Hz 40 Hz and above.

British Standard BS 7385 (1993) Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings Part 2: Guide to damage levels from ground borne vibration indicates that cosmetic damage should not occur to property if transient vibration does not exceed 15mm/s at low frequencies rising to 20mm/s at 15Hz and 50mm/s at 40Hz. These guidelines refer to relatively modern buildings and therefore, these values should be reduced to 50% or less for more sensitive buildings.

9.2.3 Methodology for Noise Monitoring A baseline noise survey was completed involving attended noise measurements to record the existing noise environment at the nearest noise sensitive receptors to the proposed alterations and the permitted development. The baseline noise monitoring locations selected generally represent “worst- case” receptors in terms of sensitivity and proximity to the site of the proposed alterations and the permitted development.

The noise monitoring was carried out using Bruel & Kjaer Model 2250 and 2260, Type 1 Integrating Digital Sound Level Meters (SLMs), capable of measuring within +/- 0.1dB(A) in L eq and sound pressure levels (SPL) in ‘A’ scale. The instruments record the L Aeq , L A10 , LA90 , L AMax and L AMin percentiles simultaneously. The instruments were calibrated in accordance with ISO 1996 Acoustics - Description, Measurement and Assessment of Environmental Noise and BS4142 Method for Rating industrial noise affecting mixed Residential and Industrial areas prior to commencing the surveys using the recommended standard calibration procedure and a known pure tone noise source. The units were again calibrated on completion of the surveys to record drift. The units had not drifted during the surveys. Drift is normally associated with battery fade and/or temperature.

Measurements were made at a height of 1.2 – 1.5m above ground level and under free field conditions. The weather conditions were in accordance with the requirements of BS7445: Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise and ISO 1996: Acoustics - Description, Measurement and Assessment of Environmental Noise .

The following parameters were recorded during each monitoring period:

LAeq The continuous equivalent A-weighted sound pressure level. This is an “average” of the sound pressure level. LAmax This is the maximum A-weighed sound level measured during the sample period. LAmin This is the minimum A-weighted sound level measured during the sample period. LA10 This is the A-weighted sound level that is exceeded for noise for 10% of the sample period. LA90 This is the A-weighted sound level that is exceeded for 90% of the sample period.

9.2.4 Noise Model The proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development were modelled using CadnaA noise modelling software. The CadnaA noise modelling software package uses the ISO9613 prediction methodology along with a range of topographical and ordnance data collected on the surrounding area to build up a picture of the noise environment in the vicinity of sensitive receptors in the study area. The software was used to build a 3-dimensional model of all features which may affect

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-6 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

the generation and propagation of noise in the vicinity of the existing environment and the permitted development

The CadnaA noise model was used for predicting cumulative noise levels at various stage of the construction phase and for predicting the cumulative noise levels from proposed scenarios for the operational phase of the proposed alterations. The noise model was validated using noise measurement data recorded within the existing port during operational hours.

9.3 Existing Environment 9.3.1 Noise Survey at Nearest Sensitive Receptors Noise monitoring was undertaken at 5 locations to determine the existing noise environment at the nearest noise sensitive properties. Noise monitoring at each location was conducted in the format of one hour measurements on different days during day and night-time periods at the same 5 locations. The noise monitoring locations are illustrated in Figure 9.1. Subjective observations were recorded during each of the short-term measurements.

In general, the baseline noise monitoring survey illustrated that road traffic noise is the most dominant noise source at the majority of locations. This is supplemented to a greater or lesser extent by a number of different noise sources including various industrial activities, the Port activities, various human activities and birdsong.

In Ringaskiddy, road traffic noise from the existing N28 road and the various local roads around the village was the dominant noise source. The influence of road traffic noise reduces as one travels from Ringaskiddy village out towards the NMCI and on to Haulbowline Island as various other noise sources contribute more to the overall ambient noise levels. A similar scenario prevails at Monkstown with road traffic noise from the R610 being the dominant source. Road traffic noise is dominant in Cobh also, however the further one travels from the main road links towards Whitepoint and Blackpoint, the influence of road traffic noise diminishes and the overall ambient noise is derived from multiple and varied sources.

The noise survey data for each location is presented Tables 9.6 - 9.7 below.

Table 9.6: Summary of Daytime Attended Noise Monitoring

Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured LAeq LAmax LAmin LA10 LA90 Monitoring Time dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) Location 1 15/11/16 48 83 35 49 40 14:27 – 15:27 17/11/16 52 78 42 51 46 10:17 – 11:17 18/11/16 55 81 44 57 47 09:36 – 10:36 Combined 53 83 35 52 44

Location 2 15/11/16 66 83 41 70 50 15:31 – 16:31 17/11/16 63 80 47 68 51 11:23 – 12:23 18/11/16 67 79 46 71 54 14:46 – 15:46 Combined 66 83 41 70 52

Location 3

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-7 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured LAeq LAmax LAmin LA10 LA90 Monitoring Time dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) 16/11/16 59 81 40 62 44 10:22 – 11:22 17/11/16 60 75 44 64 48 12:29 – 13:29 19/11/16 53 74 40 53 42 09:25 – 10:25 Combined 58 81 40 60 45

Location 4 16/11/16 69 87 40 73 47 10:33 – 11:33 17/11/16 72 87 45 76 52 14:09 – 15:09 19/11/16 71 84 40 75 44 10:35 – 11:35 Combined 71 87 40 75 48

Location 5 16/11/16 49 75 38 50 42 12:28 – 13:28 19/11/16 50 76 35 48 38 11:41 – 12: 41 19/11/16 47 72 34 47 36 12:41 – 13:41 Combined 49 76 34 48 39

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-8 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Table 9.7: Summary of Night-time Attended Noise Monitoring

Measured Measured Measured Measured Measured LAeq LAmax LAmin LA10 LA90 Monitoring Time dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) Location 1 14/11/16 43 80 30 37 33 23.12 - 23.42 15/11/16 45 81 32 40 36 02.11 - 02.41 15/11/16 45 83 33 41 36 23.01 - 23.31 16/11/16 44 80 36 40 38 01.28 - 01.58 Combined 44 83 30 40 36

Location 2 14/11/16 55 78 33 49 36 23.55 - 00.25 15/11/16 51 84 32 45 34 02.47 - 03.17 15/11/16 54 82 32 48 35 23.36 - 00.06 16/11/16 49 85 35 43 39 02.03 - 02.33 Combined 53 85 32 46 36

Location 3 15/11/16 46 84 29 36 32 00.30 - 01.00 15/11/16 48 82 29 40 30 02.21 - 02.51 16/11/16 49 80 35 46 33 00.10 - 00.40 16/11/16 50 81 32 41 35 02.37 - 03.07 Combined 48 84 29 41 33

Location 4 15/11/16 53 87 33 40 34 01.31 - 02.01 15/11/16 55 84 33 41 35 04.31 - 05.01 16/11/16 55 84 33 40 35 00.49 - 01.19 16/11/16 46 83 33 40 36 03.17 - 03.47 Combined 53 87 33 40 35

Location 5 19/11/16 43 74 34 40 36 23.15 - 00.15 20/11/16 39 62 32 38 34 00.15 - 01.15 20/11/16 38 68 31 37 34 01.15 - 02.15 Combined 41 74 31 38 35

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-9 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The noise survey information included in Table 9.7 illustrates that existing ambient noise levels in all locations currently exceed the WHO night noise guideline limit of 40dB(A) (see page 9-4) and in the majority of cases also exceed the EPA NG4 night-time guideline limit of 45dB(A) (see page 9-2).

9.4 Construction Phase Impacts 9.4.1 Construction Noise - General A detailed noise model was created of the Port and surrounding noise sensitive receptors in order to predict the cumulative noise level associated with construction phase activities of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development at the nearest noise sensitive properties. In order to create the noise model, it was necessary to define the various plant and equipment used as part of the construction phase activities associated with the proposed alterations. Table 9.8 includes a list of the most significant plant/equipment to be used during the construction phase for the proposed alterations.

Table 9.8: Plant and Equipment to be Used During Construction Phase of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development (Ref: BS5228:2009+A1:2014)

Power Equipment Sound Power Activity / Plant (Reference from Annex C & D, Rating Size, Weight Level (dB) BS5228:2009) (kW) (Mass), Capacity Rolling and Compaction: Vibratory roller (C5 - Ref 27) 20 3t 95 Haulage: Road Lorry - Full (C6 - Ref 21) 270 39t 108 Lifting: Wheeled Mobile Telescopic Crane (C4 - Ref 38) 610 400t 106 Clearing Site: Tracked excavator (C2 - Ref 3) 102 22t 106 Clearing Site: Wheeled backhoe loader (C2 - Ref 8) 62 8t 96 Ground Excavation: Dozer (C2 - Ref 12) 142 20t 109 Ground Excavation: Tracked excavator (C2 - Ref 14) 226 40t 107 Ground Excavation: Wheeled loader (C2 - Ref 27) 193 - 108 Poker Vibrator (C4 - Ref 33) - - 106 Power: Diesel Generator (C4 - Ref 83) 3 210kg 93 Distribution of Material: Tipper Lorry (C8 - Ref 20) - - 107 Piling: Tubular Steel Piling - hydraulic hammer - (C3 - Ref - 240mm 116 3) diameter Piling: Sheet Steel Piling - hydraulic jacking - power pack 147 6t 96 (C3 - Ref 10) Pumping Water: Water pump (C2 - Ref 45) 20 6 in 93 Dredging: Ship Chain Bucket (D12 - Ref 1)* - 35m long 124 * BS5228:2009+A1:2014 has no reference for the specific drill and blast technique and therefore the noisiest dredging technique from BS5229:2009+A1:2014 has been used as reference.

A worst-case construction scenario was modelled with proposed alterations including the following activities: piling, anchor wall works, capping beam works, bunds/armouring, bulk fill, crane foundations, deck slab piling, deck slab works to the CB / MPB quay walls, removal of dolphins and proposed maintenance building works. The plant and equipment requirements for this construction scenario are detailed below on the basis of the activities stated above. The noise model for this scenario assumes that all of the items of plant/equipment for the scenario are active simultaneously.

Permitted Development Construction Scenario Mobile crane x 5 (piling, anchor wall, capping beam, crane foundations, deck slab works), tubular steel and steel sheet piling rigs x 3 (quay wall, anchor wall and deck slab works), excavator x 3 (quay wall piling, anchor wall and bulk filling), tipper lorry x 2 (capping beam and bulk filling), compressor x 3 (capping beam works, crane foundation and deck slab works), poker x 2 (capping beam works and deck slab works) and dozer (bulk filling).

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-10 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Proposed Alterations Construction Scenario In addition to the items listed above, additional items have been included in the construction scenario to reflect the changes to the construction phase of the scheme from that assessed in the published EIS (2014). These changes include:

• removal of two existing dolphins and construction of three new mooring dolphins; • extension of the dredge pocket further south to accommodate an alteration to Berth 1; • the construction of a new maintenance building to the south of the terminal area.

Dredging and piling inputs in the noise model have been moved to reflect the more southerly location included in the revised construction plans for bullet points 1 & 2 above and demolition activity has been included to reflect the demolition of the existing dolphins (Ref: BS5228:2009+A1:2014, Table C1, ref C6). The additional plant/equipment included in the noise model to cover the noisiest part of the construction of the new maintenance building are detailed below. The references in brackets relate to details included in Annex C of BS5228:2009+A1:2014.

• Breaking up concrete: Breaker mounted on wheeled backhoe (C1 - Ref 2) - Lw = 120dB • Lifting: Wheeled Mobile Telescopic Crane (C4 - Ref 38) - Lw = 106dB • Clearing Site: Tracked excavator (C2 - Ref 3) - Lw = 106dB • Clearing Site: Wheeled backhoe loader (C2 - Ref 8) - 96dB • Ground Excavation: Dozer (C2 - Ref 12) - Lw = 109dB • Ground Excavation: Tracked excavator (C2 - Ref 14) - Lw = 107dB • Ground Excavation: Wheeled loader (C2 - Ref 27) - Lw - 108dB • Haulage: Road Lorry - Full (C6 - Ref 21) - Lw = 108dB • Pre-cast concrete piling - hydraulic hammer (C3 - Ref 1) - LW - 117dB

The model has also been updated to include the new 4m noise barrier that has been built adjacent to the entrance to the site as part of the advanced works completed in 2016 as part of the permitted development.

9.4.2 Predicted Impact of Construction Noise from Proposed alterations Where construction activity takes place for a development in the vicinity of residential properties, it is standard practice that the activities would operate between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 on Monday to Fridays, between 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and there will be no activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

The construction scenario detailed in section 9.4.1 is a worst-case scenario of the construction phase where the greatest number of items of plant/equipment will operate at the closest distance to the nearest noise sensitive properties. This scenario is very much a worst-case scenario and it represents an over-estimation of the likely construction phase noise impacts associated with the proposed alterations at any one time.

There are hundreds of receptors in the vicinity of the proposed redevelopment and rather than include all of these, a select number of receptors have been selected and included in the noise model. The selected receptors are representative of those properties that are nearest to the proposed works. These properties are also representative of the properties adjacent to them but not included in the noise model. Some representative properties that are a little further away from the proposed alterations are also included in the model to illustrate the decreasing noise impact with distance from the proposed alterations. Table 9.9 includes the worst-case predicted noise levels for Construction Scenarios described in Section 9.4.1. The locations of the receptors included in the table below are illustrated in Figures 9.1 - 9.3 that accompany this chapter.

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-11 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Table 9.9: Worst-Case Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Noise Sensitive Properties

Property Property Address Predicted Worst -Case Reference (See Figures 9.1-9.3) Construction Noise (dBA) 1 1 Martello Park 54.9 2 9 Martello Park 52.5 3 2A Main St 55.7 4 13 Main St 55.6 5 Reamur, Old Post Office Road 46.4 6 Island View, Main St 53.9 7 Roughty House, Main St 53.2 8 Allenvale, Main St 54.2 9 Leeview, Main St 54.2 10 Lackendarra, Main St 54.2 11 Drouch Na Mara, Warren's Court 50.4 12 5 Belle Vue Place 41.8 13 Detached dwelling, The Demense 38.6 14 Summerland, Strand Road 41.4 15 Thorncliffe, Alta Terrace 41.1 16 Cooleen House, Rinacoltig 45.3 17 Detached dwelling, Rinacoltig 44.2 18 1 Whitepoint Estate 43.0

Table 9.9 illustrates the worst-case predicted cumulative construction noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptors. These worst-case predicted noise levels have been calculated on the basis that all items of plant/equipment are at the nearest point of their usage to the respective noise sensitive property. The worst-case predicted noise levels are based on all plant being active simultaneously and hence represent an overestimation of likely construction noise levels at any one time. They have also been completed on the basis of the predicted noise level at the first floor bedroom window (i.e. 4m) at the nearest noise sensitive property.

In order to determine the noise impact associated with the worst-case predicted construction noise levels included in Table 9.9, the predicted noise levels have been compared to the permissible construction noise levels included in the NRA Guidelines (see Table 9.1) and the derived threshold noise limits using the ABC Method from BS5228:2009+A1:2014 (see Table 9.2). Tables 9.10 illustrates whether the worst-case predicted construction noise levels are within the respective noise threshold limits outlined in the NRA Guidelines and BS5228:2009+A1:2014.

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-12 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Table 9.10: Comparison of Worst-Case Predicted Construction Noise Levels with Noise Threshold Limits in NRA Guidelines (2004) and BS5229:2009+A1:2014

Property Property Address Predicted Noise Threshold Limit Reference (See Figures 9.1-9.3) Worst-Case (L Aeq ) (dBA) Construction NRA BS5228:2009 Noise (dBA) Guidelines ABC Method 1 1 Martello Park 54.9 70 65 2 9 Martello Park 52.5 70 65 3 2A Main St 55.7 70 65 4 13 Main St 55.6 70 65 5 Reamur, Old Post Office Road 46.4 70 65 6 Island View, Main St 53.9 70 65 7 Roughty House, Main St 53.2 70 65 8 Allenvale, Main St 54.2 70 65 9 Leeview, Main St 54.2 70 65 10 Lackendarra, Main St 54.2 70 65 11 Drouch Na Mara, Warren's Court 50.4 70 65 12 5 Belle Vue Place 41.8 70 65 13 Detached dwelling, The Demense 38.6 70 65 14 Summerland, Strand Road 41.4 70 65 15 Thorncliffe, Alta Terrace 41.1 70 65 16 Cooleen House, Rinacoltig 45.3 70 65 17 Detached dwelling, Rinacoltig 44.2 70 65 18 1 Whitepoint Estate 43.0 70 65

Table 9.10 illustrates that the worst-case predicted construction noise levels are well below the maximum permissible noise threshold limits include in the NRA Guidelines for construction phase activities and within the applicable daytime limit outlined in the BS5228:2009+A1:2014 ABC Method.

While the worst-case construction noise levels are well below the noise threshold limits outlined in the NRA Guidelines and BS5228:2009+A1:2014, all measures should be employed during the construction phase activities in these areas to reduce construction noise levels to the lowest possible levels. Mitigation measures aimed at reducing construction phase noise levels are outlined in section 9.5 of the chapter. These measures already form part of the An Bord Pleanála approval of the permitted development of the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment and therefore do not require any changes and remain entirely appropriate.

9.4.3 Construction Phase Traffic Impacts Construction phase traffic noise impacts are the same as those assessed in the permitted development.

9.4.4 Construction Phase Vibration Impacts Construction phase vibration noise impacts are the same as those assessed in the permitted development. 9.5 Operational Phase Impacts 9.5.1 Noise Impact from Deepwater Berth (DWB) extension There are no proposed alterations at the Deepwater Berth. No noise impacts are predicted.

9.5.2 Noise Impact from the Container Berth/Multi-purpose Berth (CB/MPB) Alterations This section includes an assessment of the potential noise impact associated with the addition of new plant/equipment to the proposed site as a result of the proposed alterations to the CB / MPB at Ringaskiddy East. The assessment is similar to that completed as part of the previous assessment

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-13 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

associated with the permitted development but has been updated to reflect the proposed alterations, including the following elements:

• the change in the type of container handling system and stacking arrangements from the use of rubber tyre gantries (RTG) to straddle carriers and a rail mounted gantry (RMG) to the south of the site (reach stackers and terminal transporters were required for the RTG operation but are not required for the straddle carrier/RMG operation and have been omitted from the model); • changes to the layout of the operational area as compared with that previously assessed in the EIS, with operations moving marginally more southward than previously assessed in the EIS; • the addition of a new maintenance building for the straddle carriers; • alterations to berth 1.

In terms of noise emitting plant/equipment, the majority of the plant/equipment operating at the proposed CB / MPB will be new plant/equipment to the Port. It is proposed that straddle carriers will be brought from the existing Tivoli operations (noise levels from these have been measured and included in Table 9.11), but these will be the newer models which are the least noisy straddle carriers currently in operation in Tivoli.

Table 9.11 includes reference data for the various plant and equipment that will operate on the proposed CB / MPB. The data for each item of plant/equipment has been taken from a number of different sources including the SourcedB database (EU Imagine Project), the Dublin Port EFFORTS Study and detailed plant specification sheets. This data list has been updated from that included in the previous assessment associated with the permitted development to reflect the omission of the RTGs from the proposed alterations operation and the inclusion of the straddle carriers and rail mounted gantry (RMG). Reach stackers and terminal transporters which were also included in the noise model for the RTG operation have been omitted as they are not required for a straddle carrier / RMG operation.

For the straddle carrier noise reference in Table 9.11, a noise survey was conducted at Port of Cork's Tivoli operation to measure noise levels from the straddle carriers that will be used at permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment as part of the proposed alterations. Reference noise measurements were made of straddle carriers at 10m distance when undertaking the noisiest activities during normal operations (i.e. hoisting & dropping containers). In all, 14 reference measurements were used which generated an average measurement of 73dB(A) L Aeq at 10m distance, which equate to a sound power level (Lw) of 101dB(A). Only straddle carriers that comply with this reference noise level output will be used at the proposed Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment.

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-14 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Table 9.11: Source Noise Data Used in Noise Model for the permitted CB / MPB with the proposed alterations

Item of Plant/Equipment Sound Power Level (L W) Proportional On-Time dB(A) (%) Ship 101.5 100 Ship to Shore Gantry (SSG) Crane 97.0 80 Rail Mounted Gantry (RMG) Crane 97.0 80 Straddle Carrier 101.0 80 Reefer container 90.6 100 HGV 103.8 50 Mobile Crane (LHM 550) 106.4 80 SSG/RTG/Mobile Crane Alarm/Beacon 100.0* 25 Container Handling Activity 112.0** 1 * All alarm/beacon associated with plant will be of the broadband variety and will be set to a maximum output of 100dB Lw. ** Tonal penalty of 5dB added

In Table 9.11, an entry has been included for general container handling noise, which has been included in the noise model in addition to the plant noise from the various items of plant that will be handling the containers. This noise level was taken from direct measurements completed as part of the Dublin Port EFFORTS Study and has been included here in order to incorporate the various banging noises associated with container handling. The noise level for the container handling noise has been increased by 5dB(A) as a penalty to account of the impulsive nature of this noise (i.e. 107dB + 5dB = 112dB).

Also, in addition to the plant noise for the various crane sources used in the noise model, an alarm/beacon noise source has also been included in the model as conditioned by the permitted development (alarm noise to be limited to 100dB Lw and will be broadband in nature as opposed to the tonal beeping alarms). This also reflects the more recent changes to port operations whereby the Port of Cork have been installing broadband alarms on plant throughout its existing operations.

For the proposed operational phase, two different scenarios were modelled for day and night-time periods and these are detailed in the bullet points included below:

• Scenario 1 - Daytime: proposed CB / MPB operating at 100% capacity with 3 ships, 2 SSG cranes, 1 mobile crane, 15 straddle carriers, 2 RMGs and reefer noise active simultaneously. This option includes container handling events and alarm noise for all lifting plant in the proportions listed in Table 9.11;

• Scenario 2 - Night-time: proposed CB / MPB operating with 1 ship, 1 SSG crane, 6 straddle carriers, 1 RMG and reefer noise active simultaneously. This option includes container handling events and alarm noise for all lifting plant in the proportions listed in Table 9.11;

Table 9.12 contains the predicted noise levels for Scenarios 1-2 as described above. The nearest noise sensitive properties listed in the table are the same as those used for the construction phase noise assessment and are illustrated in Figures 9.1 - 9.3. All predicted noise levels are at a height of 4m to reflect the height of a first floor window.

Table 9.12: Noise Model Predictions of Proposed Operational Phase Noise from Activities at CB / MPB

Property Property Address Predicted Operational Phase Noise Reference (See Figures 9.1-9.3) from Proposed CB / MPB (dBA) Scenario 1 (Day) Scenario 2 (Night) 1 1 Martello Park 44.8 41.7 2 9 Martello Park 43.6 40.2 3 2A Main St 45.5 42.2

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-15 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

4 13 Main St 46.1 42.8 5 Reamur, Old Post Office Road 41.8 39.3 6 Island View, Main St 47.0 43.8 7 Roughty House, Main St 46.3 43.3 8 Allenvale, Main St 47.8 44.6 9 Leeview, Main St 46.7 43.6 10 Lackendarra, Main St 47.9 44.9 11 Drouch Na Mara, Warren's Court 44.6 41.5 12 5 Belle Vue Place 36.5 33.6 13 Detached dwelling, The Demense 34.5 31.6 14 Summerland, Strand Road 36.3 33.4 15 Thorncliffe, Alta Terrace 36.1 33.2 16 Cooleen House, Rinacoltig 41.0 38.2 17 Detached dwelling, Rinacoltig 40.1 37.2 18 1 Whitepoint Estate 39.5 36.5

Scenario 1 is based on a maximum daytime operation at the proposed redeveloped port with all plant in operation at one time. These worst-case predicted operational phase noise levels are significantly below the daytime noise threshold limit of 55dB L ArT as outlined in the EPA guideline document NG4 (see Section 9.2.1). They are also below the evening threshold limit of 50dB L ArT

It may be required at various stages and for various reasons that limited night-time operations may be required to service particular functions within the port. A night-time scenario was modelled as described in Scenario 2 above and the prediction noise levels from this operation was found to be within the night-time 45dB limit at all prediction locations, albeit only marginally so at the nearest noise sensitive properties.

In the context of the night-time predictions included in Table 9.12, the noise survey information included in Table 9.7 illustrates that in the majority of cases, existing night-time ambient noise levels (i.e. L Aeq ) exceed the EPA NG4 night-time guideline limit of 45dB(A) (see page 9-2) at the nearest noise sensitive receptors.

The baseline noise monitoring survey (Tables 9.6 & 9.7) illustrate that road traffic noise is the dominant noise source in the study area. This is supplemented by other noise sources such as port activities, other industrial activities, various human activities and a range of miscellaneous noise sources. The proposed alterations will not change the existing noise environment in the vicinity of the proposed redevelopment.

9.5.3 Noise Impact from Traffic Movements In and Out of Port from Proposed Alterations

There is no change to the traffic flows entering or leaving the permitted development as a result of the proposed alterations. The assessment of traffic noise impacts concludes that there will be no significant traffic noise impact on sensitive receptors in the study area as a result of the proposed alterations.

9.5.4 Operational Phase Vibration Impacts As for the permitted development the proposed alterations will not result in any vibration generating activities being placed in close proximity to any of the nearest vibration sensitive receptors in the study area. There will be no vibration impact associated with the operational phase of the proposed alterations.

9.5.5 Cumulative Noise Impacts There a range of projects in the study area that are in different stages of planning and have the potential to influence the noise environment in the vicinity of the proposed alterations. These have all been considered in the context of the proposed alterations to the permitted development and the potential for cumulative noise impacts at the nearest noise sensitive receptors.

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-16 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Current or future projects that have the potential to alter the noise environment in the study area include the East Tip Remediation Project at Haulbowline Island, the construction of 5 wind turbines by the Cork Lower Harbour Energy Group, the upgrade of facilities at the Hammond Lane Metal Company, the IMERC Masterplan, the Spike Island Masterplan and the proposed Monkstown Marina.

As for the permitted development the proposed alterations has been assessed against a quieter background noise environment not including any potential noise from the above sources (i.e. worst- case assessment). The above mentioned projects have the potential to increase noise levels at sensitive locations in the immediate vicinity to them. Any noise in the context of the proposed alterations to the permitted development will as a result be less prominent at those receptors.. The cumulative noise impacts associated with the proposed alterations are the same as for the permitted development.

9.6 Mitigation Measures 9.6.1 Construction Phase There is no change to the proposed mitigation measures from those already included in the permitted development. Construction Phase mitigation measures already form part of the An Bord Pleanála approval of the permitted development of the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment and remain entirely appropriate.

9.6.2 Operational Phase Section 9.5 includes an assessment of the operational phase noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed alterations as part of the permitted development. The noise modelling predictions indicate that full daytime operational noise levels will be well below the daytime noise threshold limit of 55dB as presented in the EPA guidelines NG4 and will also be below the evening threshold limit of 50dB. A night-time scenario was also modelled and was found to be inside the night-time threshold limit of 45dB, albeit only marginally so.

In the context of the night-time predictions included in Table 9.12, the noise survey information included in Table 9.7 illustrates that in the majority of cases, existing night-time ambient noise levels (i.e. L Aeq ) exceed the EPA NG4 night-time guideline limit of 45dB(A) (see page 9-2) at the nearest noise sensitive receptors.

In relation to potential night-time operations, it must be noted that this assessment compares worst- case predicted noise levels from the proposed alterations as part of the permitted development during the night at the nearest noise sensitive receptors. In setting the context for this assessment, it must be considered that worst-case noise levels will only occur for a relatively small proportion of the time and that noise levels will generally be below worst-case noise levels and in many instances, well below worst-case noise levels.

In addition to this, the port will not be active every night. The extent of night-time working at the Port will be generally quite similar to what is occurring at present, with the plan being to deal with much of the existing scheduled visits (e.g. the weekly Maersk visit) at the proposed CB / MPB rather than at the DWB where it is currently processed.

Port of Cork will only operate plant with broadband alarms during night-time hours, which is a change that Port of Cork has already been making to its fleet of plant in Ringaskiddy. The difference between broadband alarms and the traditional beeping alarms is significant and it is the tonal quality of the beeping alarms that has been a significant aspect of complaints received in relation to port activities in the past.

A series of 4m barriers are already conditioned to the permitted development and these barriers will be in place for the amended scheme. These will provide significant attenuation in relation to port noise in the direction of Ringaskiddy in particular.

These measures already form part of the An Bord Pleanála approval of the permitted development of the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment and therefore do not require any changes and remain entirely appropriate.

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-17 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

9.6.3 Vibration As outlined in section 9.4.4, the construction phase of the permitted development is not likely to result in any significant vibration impacts at the nearest sensitive receptors. Section 9.5.4 clarified how there will be no operational phase activities likely to give rise to vibration impacts at any of the nearest sensitive receptors. The proposed alterations will not change this prediction.

As per the extant conditions for the permitted development BS5228:2009+A1:2014 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and open Sites - Part 2: Vibration includes a range of measures for the reduction of vibration associated with piling activities and for general surface based activities. The contractor will adhere to the mitigation measures included in BS5228:2009+A1:2014 where practicable to reduce vibration levels from general and piling activities to the lowest possible levels.

These measures already form part of the An Bord Pleanála approval of the permitted development of the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment and therefore do not require any changes and remain entirely appropriate.

9.7 Residual Impact The residual impact from the proposed development will be the same as that detailed in the assessment for the permitted development of Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment.

NI1004 S146C EIS 9-18 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

10.0 AIR QUALITY & CLIMATE

10.1 Introduction This Chapter of the EIS considers the potential and likely significant air quality and climate effects of the proposed alterations to the permitted development. The purpose of this chapter is to identify and describe any likely significant air quality and climate effects as a result of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development.

Full details of the proposed alterations are detailed in Chapter 3 Project Description of this EIS.

10.2 Methodology 10.2.1 Construction Stage The main potential impacts to the atmosphere from the construction stage of the proposed alterations are: • Container Berth: Potential sources of air pollution: emissions to the air during the construction phase of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and construction dust. • Surfacing of existing port lands to provide operational areas:. Potential sources of air pollution: emissions to the air during the construction phase of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and construction dust. • Dredging of the seabed: Potential sources of air pollution: emissions to the air during the construction phase of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and construction odour from dredging. • Installation of container handling cranes and terminal transport equipment: Potential sources of air pollution: emissions to the air during the construction phase of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and construction dust. • Maintenance building, administrative buildings and entrance kiosks: Potential sources of air pollution: emissions to the air during the construction phase of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and construction dust. • Ancillary car parking, lighting and fencing: Potential sources of air pollution: emissions to the air during the construction phase of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and construction dust. • Road Improvements: Potential sources of air pollution: emissions to the air during the construction phase of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and construction dust.

10.2.2 Operational Stage 10.2.2.1 Emissions from Engines and Plant Current port activity involves the berthing, loading and unloading of ships in the Ringaskiddy Basin. The air quality impacts of the traffic using the existing Port area can be divided into two categories of emission; (i) those resulting from traffic and (ii) those resulting from port activity.

Emissions from road traffic (there is no change in traffic arising from the proposed alterations when compared to the permitted development) and port activity (operational movement and machinery type for the proposed alterations have changed from the permitted development) have been assessed in terms of their potential for local impact on human health and sensitive ecosystems. The main pollutants of concern from traffic emissions in terms of local impact are nitrogen oxides and particulate matter PM 10 , and these are compared to the relevant statutory limits on air quality. Specifically, with regard to the proposed alterations the operational stage potential emissions are set out overleaf:

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

• Container Berth: No significant operational effect in terms of atmospheric pollution. • Surfacing of existing port lands to provide operational areas: Potential sources of air pollution: emissions to the air during the operational phase of particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide. • Dredging of the seabed: No significant operational effect in terms of atmospheric pollution – this is a construction phase activity. • Installation of container handling cranes and terminal transport equipment: Potential sources of air pollution: emissions to the air during the operational phase of particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide. • Maintenance building, administrative buildings and entrance kiosks: Potential sources of air pollution: emissions to the air during the operational phase of particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide. • Ancillary car parking, lighting and fencing: Potential sources of air pollution: emissions to the air during the operational phase of particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide. • Road Improvements: Potential sources of air pollution: emissions to the air during the operational phase of particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide.

10.2.2.2 Shipping Emissions There is no change to shipping emissions due to the proposed alterations. The proposed alterations will have no significant effect in terms of shipping emissions. These are not assessed further in this chapter.

10.2.3 Assessment Criteria 10.2.3.1 Dust Dispersion and Particulate Matter (PM10) Construction dust assessments have tended to be risk based, focusing on the appropriate measures to be used to keep dust impacts at an acceptable level. This approach has continued to evolve and in 2014, the IAQM published guidance on the assessment of construction air quality effects.

Assessment criteria is used by determining the size of the development and determining the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. Risk assessment criteria is set out in Table 10.1 and determined for four phases of the construction phase, which are:

• Demolition, • Earthworks, • Constructing, • Trackout.

Table 10.1 Risk Category from IAQM used in the Construction Assessment for the proposed alterations

Distance to Nearest Receptor (m) a Dust Emission Class Dust Soiling and Ecological Large Medium Small PM 10 Medium Risk <20 - High Risk Site High Risk Site Site 20 – 100 <20 High Risk Site Medium Risk Site Low Risk Site

100 – 200 20 – 40 Medium Risk Site Low Risk Site Low Risk Site

200 – 350 40 – 100 Medium Risk Site Low Risk Site Negligible

An ‘ecological receptor’ refers to any sensitive habitat affected by dust soiling. This includes the direct impacts on vegetation or aquatic ecosystems of dust deposition, and the indirect impacts on fauna (e.g. on foraging habitats).

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

For the sensitivity of people and their property to soiling & people to the health effects of PM10 the IAQM guidance recommends that receptors are identified between:

• High Sensitivity Receptor, • Medium Sensitivity Receptor; • Low Sensitivity Receptor.

For the purposes of this assessment of the proposed alterations all receptors have been considered as highly sensitive.

10.2.3.2 Potential Odours A qualitative assessment is made of the likely impacts from odour from the dredging operation in the proposed alteration to the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment.

As with construction dusts, Ireland, does not currently have any legislative limit for odours in place and standard industry guidelines are typically applied. In this case an odour marker compound such as hydrogen sulphide will be used to determine odour nuisance during all dredging works.

Hydrogen sulphide (H 2S) is one of the key odour compounds that can cause odour nuisance impacts. H2S is a colourless, flammable, extremely hazardous gas with a "rotten egg" odour. It occurs naturally in crude petroleum and natural gas. In addition, H 2S is produced by bacterial breakdown of organic materials and may be released during dredging works if there is organic material disturbed.

There are no statutory limits for the protection of human health for H 2S so guidelines are applied. Two thresholds are employed in this instance - the threshold for odour nuisance and the threshold for health impacts as presented below in Table 10.2.

Table 10.2: Health and Odour Guidelines for H 2S Parameter Averaging Period Guideline Source Health Effects 24 hours 150 µg/m 3 World Health Organisation Odour Annoyance 30 mins 7 µ g/m 3 World Health Organisation

10.2.3.3 Legislative Context - Combustion Gases A European directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (2008/50/EC) was implemented in 2008; replacing previous EU directives on the topic. Directive 2008/50/EC has been subsequently transposed into Irish legislation in the form of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2011 (S.I. 180 of 2011). These Regulations are presented in Table 10.3 below and represent the main assessment criteria for the operation phase of the proposed alterations and in the context of the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment.

The relevant Irish ambient air standards have been adopted from the European Commission Directives 1996/62/EC, 1999/30/EC and 2000/69/EC and are cited as the Air Quality Standards Regulations, which came into force on 17th June 2002 (Irish Legislation S.I. No. 271 of 2002). In May 2008, these European Directives on air quality were replaced with a new Directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (2008/50/EC). The Clean Air for Europe Directive (2008/50/EC) (now transposed into Irish Law) and the Fourth Daughter Directive (2004/107/EC) set limits and target values for ambient concentrations of air pollutants harmful to human health and the environment. The CAFE Directive was transposed into Irish legislation by the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 180 of 2011). It replaces the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002 (S.I. No. 271 of 2002), the Ozone in Ambient Air Regulations 2004 (S.I. No. 53 of 2004) and S.I. No. 33 of 1999. The 4th Daughter Directive was transposed by the Arsenic, Cadmium, Mercury, Nickel and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Ambient Air Regulations 2009 (S.I. No. 58 of 2009).

The Air Quality Standards Regulations specify limit values in ambient air for sulphur dioxide (SO 2), lead, benzene, particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) and carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). These limits are for the protection of human health and are largely based on review of epidemiological studies on the health impacts of these pollutants.

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-3 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Table 10.3 Air Quality Standards Regulations 2011

Pollutant Criteria Value 3 Nitrogen Hourly limit for protection of human health - not to 200 µg/m NO 2 Dioxide be exceeded more than 18 times/year 3 Annual limit for protection of human health 40 µg/m NO 2 Annual limit for protection of vegetation 30 µg/m 3 NO + NO 2 Benzene Annual limit for protection of human health 5 µg/m 3 Carbon Maximum daily 8-hour running mean 10 mg/m 3 Monoxide Lead Annual limit for protection of human health 0.5 µg/m 3 Sulphur dioxide Hourly limit for protection of human health - not to 350 µg/m 3 be exceeded more than 24 times/year Daily limit for protection of human health - not to be 125 µg/m 3 exceeded more than 3 times/year Annual limit for protection of vegetation 20 µg/m 3 3 Particulate 24-hour limit for protection of human health - not to 50 µg/m PM 10 Matter PM 10 be exceeded more than 35 times/year 3 Annual limit for protection of human health 40 µg/m PM 10

3 Particulate Annual target value for the protection of human 25 µg/m PM 2.5 Matter PM 2.5 health

The limits presented in the EU Directives on air quality consider people with respiratory illness and the limits include a margin of tolerance for such conditions, as well as children and the elderly. The limits mimic those based on World Health Organisation (WHO) review of epidemiological studies on health impacts around the world. For example, oxides of nitrogen (NO, NO 2 and NOx) are known to affect the pulmonary function of the lungs in short term doses. Of all of the medical literature reviewed by the WHO, the lowest adverse affect of exposure was recorded at about 560ug/m3 which showed a reduced lung function in asthmatics. The WHO uses this lowest adverse impact and apply a margin of tolerance (usually 50%) to generate a limit of 200ug/m3 for 1-hour human exposure to oxides of nitrogen. This approach is then replicated for all pollutants. 10.2.3.4 Significance of Air Pollution Impacts An adoption is made of the IAQM guidance (as advised by the TII) for the rationale for describing the impact of the proposed development is derived from the Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) and Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance (EPUK & IAQM) “Land-Use Planning & Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (May 2015)” (paragraphs 6.25-6.39), which has replaced “Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (2010 Update)”. There is a two stage process to be followed in the assessment of air quality impacts • a qualitative or quantitative description of the impacts on local air quality arising from the development; and

• a judgement on the overall significance of the effects of any impacts

The suggested framework for describing the impacts is set out in Table 6.3 of the EPUK & IAQM guidance document and is shown in Table 10.4 below. The term Air Quality Assessment Level (AQAL) has been adopted as it covers all pollutants, i.e. those with and without formal standards. AQAL is used to include air quality objectives or limit values where these exist. The Environment Agency uses a threshold criterion of 10% of the short term AQS as a screening criterion for the maximum short term impact. The EPUK & IAQM guidance adopts this as a basis for defining an impact that is sufficiently small in magnitude to be regarded as having an insignificant effect.

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-4 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Table 10.4: Impact descriptors for individual receptors Long term average % Change in concentration relative to Air Quality Assessment Level Concentration at receptor in (AQAL) assessment year 1 2-5 6-10 >10 75% or less of AQAL Negligible Negligible Slight Moderate

76-94% of AQAL Negligible Slight Moderate Moderate 95-102% of AQAL Slight Moderate Moderate Moderate 103-109% f AQAL Moderate Moderate Substantial Substantial 110% or more of AQAL Moderate Substantial Substantial Substantial

Explanation 1. AQAL = Air Quality Assessment Level, which may be an air quality objective, EU limit or target value, or an Environment Agency ‘Environmental Assessment Level (EAL)’. 2. The Table is intended to be used by rounding the change in percentage pollutant concentration to whole numbers, which then makes it clearer which cell the impact falls within. The user is encouraged to treat the numbers with recognition of their likely accuracy and not assume a false level of precision. Changes of 0%, i.e. .less than 0.5% will be described as Negligible. 3. The Table is only designed to be used with annual mean concentrations. 4. Descriptors for individual receptors only; the overall significance is determined using professional judgement. For example, a ‘moderate’ adverse impact at one receptor may not mean that the overall impact has a significant effect. Other factors need to be considered. 5. When defining the concentration as a percentage of the AQAL, use the ‘without scheme’ concentration where there is a decrease in pollutant concentration and the ‘with scheme;’ concentration for an increase. 6. The total concentration categories reflect the degree of potential harm by reference to the AQAL value. At exposure less than 75% of this value, i.e. well below, the degree of harm is likely to be small. As the exposure approaches and exceeds the AQAL, the degree of harm increases. This change naturally becomes more important when the result is an exposure that is approximately equal to, or greater than the AQAL. 7. It is unwise to ascribe too much accuracy to incremental changes or background concentrations, and this is especially important when total concentrations are close to the AQAL. For a given year in the future, it is impossible to define the new total concentration without recognising the inherent uncertainty, which is why there is a category that has a range around the AQAL, rather than being exactly equal to it.

The rationale for the assessment of significance is derived from the EPUK & IAQM Guidance (paragraphs 7.1-7.12 referring to Table 6.3) and relates to Table 10.4.

Impacts on air quality, whether adverse or beneficial, will have an effect on human health that can be judged as ‘significant’ or ‘not significant’. An ‘impact’ is the change in the concentration of an air pollutant, as experienced by a receptor. This may have an ‘effect’ on the health of a human receptor, depending on the severity of the impact and other factors that may need to be taken into account. The impact descriptors set out in Table 10.4 are not, of themselves, a clear and unambiguous guide to reaching a conclusion on significance. These impact descriptors are intended for application at a series of individual receptors. Whilst it may be that there are ‘slight’, ‘moderate’ or ‘substantial’ impacts at one or more receptors, the overall effect may not necessarily be judged as being significant in some circumstances.

Any judgement on the overall significance of effect of a development will need to take into account such factors as:

• the existing and future air quality in the absence of the development; • the extent of current and future population exposure to the impacts; • the influence and validity of any assumptions adopted when undertaking the prediction of impacts.

The impacts descriptor table acknowledges this and points to a conclusion of significant effect in cases where concentrations of a regulated pollutant are in excess of the objective value. Where the baseline concentrations are close to the objective value at a receptor, but not exceeding it, a case may be made for the development’s predicted contribution being significant. It will always be difficult, however, to attribute the exceedance of an objective to any individual source.

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-5 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Magnitude (scale of change) is determined by considering the predicted deviation from baseline conditions. Quantifiable assessment of magnitude has been undertaken. Impacts of the proposed alterations on air quality have been assessed with reference to the baseline conditions and environmental assessment criteria.

10.2.3.5 Greenhouse Gases There are no project specific limits or guidelines that apply to new developments in relation to Greenhouse Gas emissions. There are a number of national and local policy documents that apply including The National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012. The changes in Greenhouse Gases will be compared with the existing emissions for context in the absence of specific limits. The proposed alterations due not change the traffic associated with the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment there will be no significant changes in greenhouse gas emissions and they will remain as per the predictions for the extant approval.

10.3 Existing Environment 10.3.1 Receiving Environment The site of the proposed alterations is at the existing Port of Cork facility. The port landside entrance/exit is at Ringaskiddy. The site is bordered to the south by Ringaskiddy village and further south by agricultural lands and industrial facilities. Haulbowline Island is located to the northeast of the port. The Irish Naval base and the decommissioned Irish steel plant are located on Haulbowline Island. Across Cork Harbour, to the northwest and northeast are Monkstown and Cobh respectively.

The site is located in a suburban setting surrounded by various existing port business and commercial properties. Ringaskiddy consists of a wide main road with residential dwellings situated adjacent to the road and further back onto elevated lands. The main road carries local traffic, naval staff traffic as well as heavy goods vehicles using the Port and other commercial businesses. The level of traffic in the town centre is likely to generate amounts of dust and traffic-derived pollution (i.e. nitrogen oxides, benzene and sulphur dioxide from diesel exhausts) under the existing conditions. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed container terminal are approximately 180m from the proposed alterations. These receptors consist of terraced dwellings, housing estates and associated amenities. The naval college is approximately 400m from the existing site. Monkstown and Cobh are at their closest point, 800m and 500m from the site perimeter respectively.

Identifying sensitive receptor locations is an important step in locating areas that may be more susceptible to potential impacts from changes in air pollution concentrations. In general, sensitive receptors include areas such as residential housing, school, hospitals, places of worship, sports centres and shopping areas. The longer-term standards, such as the 24-hour and annual means, would not apply at such kerbside locations, as they would not reasonably represent longer-term public exposure. There are a number of environmental designations, including Cork Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA) and Monkstown Creek proposed Natural Heritage Area (pNHA). Sensitive receptor locations are highlighted in Table 10.15 of this Chapter.

10.3.2 Existing Sources of Atmospheric Pollution The main existing sources of pollution in the area around Ringaskiddy Port are from road traffic, shipping traffic, space heating, industrial emissions, residential emissions and fugitive emissions from fuel/gas storage. Existing Port operations including shipping emissions (both docked emissions and at sea emissions) and land operations (cranes, trucks, etc.) will also give rise to combustion emissions. These emissions are dependent on the fuel employed, the size of the vessel and the duration of the operations.

Sources of nuisance dust in the area include bulk cargo unloading operations at the existing DWB and bulk grain storage facilities at Ringaskiddy West. There are also bulk grain warehouses located to the east along the N28 east of Ringaskiddy village Main Street. Depending on operational conditions and prevailing wind conditions, these sources have the potential to impact on nuisance dust levels in the area.

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-6 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

10.3.2.1 Existing Operations – Operational Procedures The environmental objectives of the Port of Cork is to manage cargo handling, cargo storage and port industry activities to minimise emissions to air, particularly odour, dust and noxious fumes. These objectives will be applied to the proposed alterations as they were to the extant approval. Port of Cork currently operates an Environmental Management System (EMS) which complies with ISO 14000. The current adopted practices are detailed below:

• Maintaining an Environmental Management System compliant with European Sea Ports Organisation ECOPORTS criteria and certified to ISO 14001. • The principle of ‘pollution prevention’ through operational best practice, emissions management, waste minimisation, efficient resource use, and conservation awareness. • Compliance with relevant environmental legislation, regulations and industry codes of practice. • Continual environmental performance improvement, by achieving realistic objectives and targets in the context of a systematic management programme. • Communicating and implementing this environmental policy statement with all employees and providing appropriate training. • Making the EMS available to our stakeholders and the general public, and supporting local community liaison. • Public reporting on environmental performance. • Ensure the availability of necessary resources to implement this policy.

These objectives will be applied to the proposed alterations as they were to the extant approval

10.3.3 Baseline Air Quality Under the Clean Air for Europe Directive, EU member states must designate "Zones" for the purpose of managing air quality. For Ireland, four zones were defined in the Air Quality Standards Regulations (2011). The zones (see table 10.5) were amended on 1 January 2013 to take account of population counts from the 2011 CSO Census and to align with the coal restricted areas in the 2012 Regulations (S.I. No. 326 of 2012).

Table 10.5: Air Quality Zones

Zone Location Zone A Dublin Zone B Cork Zone C Other cities and large towns comprising Limerick, Galway, Waterford, Drogheda, Dundalk, Bray, Navan, Ennis, Tralee, Kilkenny, Carlow, Naas, Sligo, Newbridge, Mullingar, Wexford, Letterkenny, Athlone, Celbridge, Clonmel, Balbriggan, Greystones, Leixlip and Portlaoise. Zone D Rural Ireland, i.e. the remainder of the State excluding Zones A, B and C.

The proposed alterations are located within Zone B. Figure 10.1 shows a zoomed location on the Port of Cork detailing the proposed development in Zone B and the surrounding coastal area in Zone D.

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-7 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 10.1 Proposed Development Air Quality Zone (indicative site location highlighted by a black circle)

Source: www.epa.ie

10.3.3.1 RPS Site Specific Monitoring Results A total of 10 monitoring locations we re selected for the air quality assessment of the alterations, the same as for the permitted development in order to ascertain ba seline air quality conditions b y monitoring for Benzene, NO 2 and SO 2 concentrations. Background levels are significantly under relevant Irish/EU limit values.

10.3.3.2 Update on background air quality monitoring EPA Monitoring in Cork

An assessment of air quality was carried out at Monkstown, Cork Harbour from August 2007 - March 2008. No limit values were exceeded during the measurement period . Current monitoring in the wider Cork area is undertaken at South Link Road, CIT Bishopstown and Heatherton Park. A brief summary of current air quality conditions is given below for each site.

South Link Road - The South Link Road site is located on the South side of Cork City, at the Cork City Council landfill. Monitoring is done using continuous monitors for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-8 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

oxides, carbon monoxide and ozone. Continuous sample were also taken for particulates (PM 10 ), and benzene. Current air quality conditions are described as good for November 2016.

Cork Institute of Technology, Bishopstown - The Bishopstown site is located on the grounds of CIT. The site is operated by CIT. Monitoring is done using continuous monitors for sulphur dioxide and ozone. Current air quality conditions are described as good for November 2016.

Heatherton Park - The PM 10 and PM 2.5 monitors are located in a suburban housing estate 1 mile south of the City Centre. It is operated by Cork City Council. Benzo (a) Pyrene and heavy metals are also monitored at this site. Current air quality conditions are described as good for November 2016.

The background air quality across Cork and within the vicinity of the proposed alterations show no significant changes from the previous air quality background levels reported the permitted development.

10.3.3.3 Air Quality in Ireland 2015: Key Indicators of Ambient Air Quality This annually produced report summarises monitoring across Ireland undertaken by the EPA. Air monitoring data from 31 stations in the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network was assessed against legislative limit and target values for the protection of human health and vegetation. No levels above the EU limit value were recorded at any of the ambient air quality network monitoring sites in Ireland in 2015. The following sections give a summary of air pollutants in reported in the 2015 report.

Carbon Monoxide - Levels in 2015 are very similar to concentrations observed in from 2005 to 2014 and are below the limit value. Measured concentrations were also below the WHO air quality guideline values. Trends in CO concentrations in Dublin and Cork since 2005, levels have remained low over the period with all levels recorded below the limit value.

Nitrogen Dioxide - NO2 concentrations were monitored at 15 locations across Ireland in 2015. NO2 values for all monitoring sites in Ireland were below the annual limit value in 2015.

Sulphur Dioxide - SO2 was measured at 10 stations in 2015. No exceedances of the daily EU limit values was recorded in 2015. The trend in annual mean SO2 concentrations across Ireland since 2005 have been consistently low in that period.

Ozone - Ozone concentrations recorded in 2015 were below the EU limit value for human health across Ireland (11 sites).

Particulate Matter (PM10) - PM10 was monitored at eighteen stations across Ireland in 2015. Mean concentrations are below the annual limit value of 40 µg/m3 at all locations.

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – There have been no exceedances of the EU limit value for PM2.5 (25µg/m3) in Ireland across 9 monitoring sites.

Benzene - Routine annual monitoring for Benzene was carried out at two stations in 2015; there was no exceedance of the annual limit of 5 µg/m3.

Heavy Metals - Lead, arsenic, cadmium and nickel in PM10 were measured at five stations in 2015. The annual mean concentrations measured at all stations were all below the respective target or limit values.

The background air quality across Ireland and within the vicinity of the proposed alterations show no significant changes from the permitted development.

10.3.3.4 Consultation Paper (October 2016) National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Programme 2017-2022 This is a new document that sets out future monitoring across Ireland. Following a comprehensive review of the current status of ambient air quality monitoring in Ireland, a new national ambient air quality monitoring programme is proposed under Section 65 of the EPA Act. A consultation paper was

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-9 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

released in October 2016 entitled, National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Programme 2017-2022. The paper was prepared by the National Ambient Air Quality Team in the Office of Radiological Protection, Environmental Protection Agency. The paper set out future monitoring requirements, long term planning and funding requirements.

The EPA manages and co-ordinates current ambient air monitoring activities in Ireland in cooperation with local authorities and other state bodies. The development of the network into its current configuration and the critical role of the network partners in supporting this national infrastructure have evolved in the absence of an integrated strategy underpinned by medium or long terms plans regarding funding, resources and governance arrangements. The absence of long term planning has hampered the strategic development of air monitoring capacity and the optimisation of available resources. As part of the development of this proposed programme, a new governance platform including multi-annual funding.

It is proposed that the new programme will involve a greatly expanded national air quality monitoring network providing enhanced real-time information to the public, supplemented by an additional increased local authority capacity to conduct indicator monitoring. The network can be supported and augmented by increased modelling and forecasting capability, with the aim of providing an ongoing air quality forecast to the public.

10.3.4 Baseline Climate The topography of the site is flat reaching sea level at the harbour’s edge. Further inland to the southwest, beyond the N28 and Ringaskiddy village, the landscape becomes increasingly rural. The topography also rises steadily to a crest over 50m OD. The even and level nature of the proposed development site for the alterations is contrasted by the steep, rising elevations of lands that surround the inner Cork Harbour at Ringaskiddy, Monkstown, Cobh, Western Great Island, Aghada, Whitegate, and Crosshaven.

The Port of Cork at Ringaskiddy has a weather station that records detailed information every 30 minutes. The information recorded includes; date, time, Temperature, High Temperature, Low Temperature, Humidity, Dew Point, Wind Speed, Wind Direction, High Wind Speed, High Wind Direction, Wind Chill, Heat Index, Pressure, Rainfall and Rainfall Rate. All this data, most importantly wind speed and wind direction can lend to an understanding of fugitive dust behaviour and can aid in addressing a potential dust dispersion episode on sensitive receptors on the peripheries of the working site. The climate (micro and macro) remains the same as for the baseline described for the permitted development.

10.4 Impact Assessment The following section details each proposed alterations in terms of air quality, dust and odour as required.

10.4.1 Container Berth Summary of proposed alteration: The alterations to the quay comprise a minor modification to the shape of the southern end of berth 1; Demolition of two existing dolphins; and Provision of three new mooring dolphins.

Assessment: The proposed change in the Container Berth 1 will not have a significant effect on levels of atmospheric pollution. No significant effects to air quality are predicted from the proposed alterations.

10.4.2 Surfacing of existing port lands to provide operational areas Summary of proposed alteration: Internal arrangement amended to suit new container handling system; Expansion of the terminal areas southwards.

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-10 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Assessment: The changes associated with the proposed alteration in internal arrangements and expansion of the terminal southward are insignificant in term of air quality. All levels of atmospheric pollution are significantly under relevant EU and Irish Limit values and do not alter the conclusions of the previous assessment or mitigation measures enshrined in the extant approval. The surfacing of existing port lands will not have a significant impact on levels of atmospheric pollution. No significant effects to air quality are predicted from the proposed alterations.

10.4.3 Dredging of the seabed Summary of proposed alteration: Dredge pocket extended to accommodate alterations to Berth 1. Assessment: There is a relatively low potential for odour generation and nuisance to occur during the construction phase of the proposed dredging for the proposed alterations. The potential exists where decayed organic material has the potential to release sulphurous compounds (such as H 2S) or where solvent contamination is uncovered. Should an odour issue become apparent specific measures can be put in place to address the problem. The mitigation measures for the permitted development are entirely appropriate and do not require any changes. No significant effects from odour are predicted from the proposed alterations.

10.4.4 Installation of container handling cranes and terminal transport equipment Summary of proposed alteration: Change in the type of container handling system and container stacking arrangements; Change in the extent of the container yard; Use of part of the permitted multipurpose storage are for storage of containers.

Assessment: The proposed alterations in operational machinery will not have a significant impact on levels of atmospheric pollution. The originally proposed Rubber Tyre Gantry Cranes (RTG’s) and associated terminal transports will be replaced with a handling system that will initially comprise a Straddle Carrier (SC) operation with a subsequent phase including the introduction of 2 nr Rail Mounted Gantry Cranes The overall change in atmospheric pollutants from the proposed alterations are not significant. Pollution concentration are well below EU and Irish Limit values. No significant effects to air quality are predicted from the proposed alterations.

10.4.5 Maintenance building, administrative buildings and entrance kiosks Summary of proposed alteration: New Maintenance Building to south of terminal area; Change in location and use for maintenance building in terminal area; Entrance kiosks omitted.

Assessment: The proposed new Maintenance Building and change in use for the maintenance building in the terminal area will not result in significant impacts in terms of air quality & climate. Where applicable, specific measures are already identified in the schedule of commitments confirmed as part of the extant approval for the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment. No significant effects to air quality are predicted from the proposed alterations.

10.4.6 Ancillary car parking, lighting and fencing Summary of proposed alteration: Changes to accommodate new internal terminal layout; New parking provided at new maintenance building.

Assessment: The proposed change in ancillary car parking will not have a significant effect on levels of atmospheric pollution. No significant effects to air quality are predicted from the proposed alterations.

10.4.7 Road Improvements Summary of proposed alteration: Minor alterations to internal roads on approach to the existing Ferry Terminal.

Assessment: The proposed minor alterations to the internal roads will not have a significant impact on levels of atmospheric pollution. The changes in pollution concentration are insignificant and are

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-11 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

well below EU and Irish Limit values and reflective of levels predicted in the previous assessment. No significant effects to air quality are predicted from the proposed alterations.

10.4.8 Dumping at Sea The activities required for the transfer of dredged material to the licensed disposal site will be completed by the dredging vessel. The transfer will require the dredged vessel to move back and forth from Ringaskiddy to the licensed site until completion of dredging works. Dredging and disposal operations will be very temporary in duration and are expected to be undertaken within 25 days.

There are numerous vessels coming and going from Cork Harbour and the addition of the dredging vessel will not cause any significant air quality (including odour) & climate impacts. The proposed alterations will not result in any significant air quality effects above those already predicted for the permitted development.

10.4.9 Overall Assessment of the Construction Phase of Proposed Alterations The traffic flow generated during the construction phase of the proposed alterations will be associated with the construction traffic, comprising contractor’s vehicles and HGVs, diggers, and other diesel- powered vehicles. This traffic flow will result in emissions of nitrogen oxides, fine particles and other combustion related pollutants. The operation of these vehicles will be localised. With regard to local air quality, emissions of combustion related pollutants from the construction phase are expected to be negligible. Residual impacts as a result of the proposal are not expected. Impacts during the construction phase such as dust generation and plant vehicle emissions are predicted to be short-lived and only relevant during the construction phase.

There will be intermittent construction dust plumes of varying magnitude generated during various construction activities such as the movement of construction vehicles during the construction phase. The construction phase will have the potential to result in intermittent short term impacts on air quality. The mitigation measures outlined will reduce the impact magnitude to negligible. The mitigation measures remain the same as those enshrined in the extant approval for the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment.

Using the IAQM guidance and on the assumption that appropriate dust mitigation measures are applied commensurate with the risk of potential dust impacts, the potential for residual significant effects is considered to be minimal. The following sections breakdown the likely risk and impact for each IAQM assessment stage.

10.4.9.1 Demolition Activities The IAQM guidance details that, when it comes to the demolition of an existing structure at the proposed development site, a competent individual must assess site and assign it to one of the three potential dust emission classes:

Table 10.6: IAQM Potential Dust Emission Classes

Class Description (not all criteria needs to be met) Large Total building volume >50,000m3, potentially dusty construction material (e.g. concrete), on site crushing and screening, demolition activities >20m above ground level. Medium Total building volume 20,000m3 – 50,000m3, potentially dusty construction material, demolition activities 10-20m above ground level. Small Total building volume <20,000m3, construction material with low potential for dust release (e.g. metal cladding or timber), demolition activities <10 m above ground, demolition during wetter months. (Source: IAQM, 2014, pg. 14)

A ‘small’ dust emission class is assigned to the proposed development due to the limited amount of demolition that will be required on the site.

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-12 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The level of mitigation required differs depending on a number of factors. The potential dust emission class should be used in conjunction with Table 10.7 which assigns the development site a risk category based upon the results of Table 10.6 and the development sites distance to the nearest receptor.

Table 10.7: Risk Category from Demolition Activities

Distance to Nearest Receptor (m) a Dust Emission Class Dust Soiling and Ecological Large Medium Small PM 10 <20 - High Risk Site High Risk Site Medium Risk Site 20 – 100 <20 High Risk Site Medium Risk Site Low Risk Site 100 – 200 20 – 40 Medium Risk Site Low Risk Site Low Risk Site 200 – 350 40 – 100 Medium Risk Site Low Risk Site Negligible a These distances are from the dust emission source. Where this is not known then the distance should be from the site boundary. The risk is based on the distance to the nearest receptor. The risk from dust soiling and PM10 from demolition activities is ‘medium’ (with no mitigation measures in place) due to the proximity of residential receptors to the south of the site. Risk during demolition on ecological receptors are deemed to be ‘low’ due to protected designated ecological areas in the immediate vicinity.

10.4.9.2 Earthworks Activities Earthworks activities essentially involve the excavation, haulage, tipping and stockpiling of materials. Also, such activities can include the levelling of the site and landscaping works. Each site is different and as such, should be assessed on a case by case basis.

Table 10.8: IAQM Potential Dust Emission Classes from Earthworks Activities

Class Description (not all criteria needs to be met) Large Total site area >10,000 m 2, potentially dusty soil type (e.g. clay, which will be prone to suspension when dry due to small particle size), >10 heavy earth moving vehicles active at any one time, formation of bunds >8 m in height, total material moved >100,000 tonnes. Medium Total site area 2,500 m2 – 10,000 m2, moderately dusty soil type (e.g. silt), 5-10 heavy earth moving vehicles active at any one time, formation of bunds 4 m - 8 m in height, total material moved 20,000 tonnes – 100,000 tonnes; Small Total site area <2 ,500 m2, soil type with large grain size (e.g. sand), <5 heavy earth moving vehicles active at any one time, formation of bunds <4 m in height, total material moved <20,000 tonnes, earthworks during wetter months.

A ‘small’ earthworks class is assigned to the proposed alternatives. Table 10.9 below presents the risk categories for earthworks activities with no mitigation.

Table 10.9: Risk Category from Earthworks Activities

Distance to Nearest Receptor (m) a Dust Emission Class Dust Soiling and Ecological Large Medium Small PM 10 <20 - High Risk Site High Risk Site Medium Risk Site 20 – 50 - High Risk Site Medium Risk Site Low Risk Site 50 – 100 <20 Medium Risk Site Medium Risk Site Low Risk Site 100 – 200 20 – 40 Medium Risk Site Low Risk Site Negligible 200 - 350 40 – 100 Low Risk Site Low Risk Site Negligible These distances are from the dust emission source. Where this is not known then the distance should be from the site boundary. The risk is based on the distance to the nearest receptor.

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-13 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

There is a ‘medium’ risk from earthworks activities as part of the proposed alterations development at the closest receptors. However, this is without mitigation measures in place. Risks during earthworks on ecological receptors are deemed to be ‘low’ due to protected designated ecological areas in the immediate vicinity.

10.4.9.3 Construction Activities The proposed alterations are determined to be a ‘small’ class in terms of construction activities. The assessment of potential dust emission class; a number of key issues come into consideration;

• Size of the infrastructure; • Method of construction; • Materials used during construction; and, • Duration of build.

As with assessing all risk categories pertaining to a development; each site is different and as such, should be assessed on a case by case basis.

Table 10.10: IAQM Potential Dust Emission Classes from Construction Activities

Class Description (not all criteria needs to be met) Large Total building volume >100, 000 m3, on site concrete batching, sandblasting; Medium Total building volume 25,000 m3 – 100,000 m3, potentially dusty construction material (e.g. concrete), on site concrete batching; Small Total building volume <25,000 m3, construction material with low potential for dust release (e.g. metal cladding or timber).

Table 10.11 below presents the dust emission class categories which should be taken into consideration when determining potential dust emission arising during construction activities.

Table 10.11: Risk Category from Construction Activities

Distance to Nearest Receptor (m) Dust Emission Class Dust Soiling and Ecological Large Medium Small PM 10 <20 - High Risk Site High Risk Site Medium Risk Site 20 – 50 - High Risk Site Medium Risk Site Low Risk Site 50 – 100 <20 Medium Risk Site Medium Risk Site Low Risk Site 100 – 200 20 – 40 Medium Risk Site Low Risk Site Negligible 200 – 350 40 – 100 Low Risk Site Low Risk Site Negligible

There is a ‘medium’ risk from earthworks activities as part of this proposed development. Again, this is without any mitigation measures in place. Risks during construction on ecological receptors are deemed to be ‘low’ due to protected designated ecological areas in the immediate vicinity.

10.4.9.4 Trackout Concerning trackout impacts; the various factors which can assist in predicting trackout effects as a consequence of the development are;

• Vehicle size; • Vehicle speed; • Number of vehicles; • Geology of the site; and, • The duration of the activity.

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-14 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

As a general rule, it is perceived that significant trackout can occur up to 500 m from the site, 200m for the medium and 50m for the small sites (2014 EIS, pg. 16).

Table 10.12: IAQM Potential Dust Emission Classes from Trackout

Class Description (not all criteria needs to be met) Large >50 HDV (>3.5t) outward movements in any one day, potentially dusty surface material (e.g. high clay content), unpaved road length >100 m Medium 10-50 HDV (>3.5t) outward movements in any one day, moderately dusty surface material (e.g. high clay content), unpaved road length 50 m – 100 m; Small <10 HDV (>3.5t) outward movements in any one day, surface material with low potential for dust release, unpaved road length <50 m.

In terms of track-out and due to the number of potential HGVs per day and length of unpaved surface the proposed site is deemed to be ‘medium’. Table 10.13 below presents the risk categories for trackout.

Table 10.13: Risk Category from Trackout

Distance to Nearest Receptor (m) Dust Emission Class Dust Soiling and Ecological Large Medium Small PM 10 <20 - High Risk Site Medium Risk Site Medium Risk Site 20 – 50 <20m Medium Risk Site Medium Risk Site Low Risk Site 50 – 100 20-100 Low Risk Site Low Risk Site Negligible

There is a ‘medium’ risk from track-out activities as part of this proposed development with no mitigation measures put in place. Risk during trackout on ecological receptors are deemed to be ‘medium’ due to protected designated ecological areas in the immediate vicinity.

The four activities have been assessed in relation to the proposed development for the alterations; a summary table (Table 10.14) is below articulating the findings of the risk categories.

Table 10.14: Summary of Dust Emission Magnitude & Risk of Dust Impacts

Source Dust Risk of Dust Ecological Emission Impacts Risk of Dust Magnitude Impacts Demolition Small Medium Low Earthworks Small Medium Low Construction Small Medium Low Trackout Medium Medium Medium

Mitigation measures as per the extant conditions for the proposed development will help control dust during the construction phase of the proposed alterations. With mitigation measures in place controls on fugitive dust and exhaust emission will reduce the ‘medium’ to ‘low’ risk of impact to ‘negligible’.

10.4.10 Overall Assessment of the Operational Phase of Proposed Alterations The Table 10.15 details selected worst case sensitive receptors. The proposed alterations and associated difference in movement from operational machinery and plant are negligible.

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-15 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Table 10.15: Sensitive Receptor Location

Receptor name X(m) Y(m) Significance 1.Ringaskiddy Main St 177675 64219 Negligible 2.4 Riverview Ringaskiddy 177706 64219 Negligible 3.Ringaskiddy Main St 2 177755 64221 Negligible 4.Ringaskiddy Footpath 177832 64242 Negligible 5.Ringaskiddy Main St 3 177852 64218 Negligible 6.Ringaskiddy Main St 4 177864 64218 Negligible 7.Ringaskiddy Main St 5 177970 64205 Negligible 8.Ringaskiddy Main St 6 178192 64202 Negligible 9.Ringaskiddy Main St 7 178253 64210 Negligible 10.Marello Pk Ringaskiddy 178313 64199 Negligible 11.Harbour 1 Ecological Designation 178010 64803 Negligible 12.Harbour 2 Ecological Designation 177615 64791 Negligible 13.Off Main N28 177611 64052 Negligible 14.Layby N28 177327 64336 Negligible 15.Shanbally Cross 1 175756 64457 Negligible 16.Shanbally Cross 2 175715 64376 Negligible 17.Shanbally Cross School 175670 64363 Negligible 18.Shanbally Cross 3 175635 64439 Negligible 19.Shanbally Cross 4 175608 64436 Negligible 20.Shanbally Cross 5 175481 64392 Negligible

The annual average NO 2 and PM 10 , 24-hour PM 10 and maximum 1 hour NO 2 concentration limit values will not be exceeded in either the ‘do minimum’ or ‘do something’ scenario at any sensitive receptor locations. Any impacts are negligible and not significant in terms of relevant atmospheric pollutants. Full model outputs remain as per the outputs for the permitted development. Table 10.16 summarises dispersion model output results.

Table 10.16: Summary of Detailed Dispersion Model Predictions - NO 2 & PM 10

CERC ADMS Particulate Matter (in relation to Dispersion Model Nitrogen Dioxide Summary relevant PM10 objectives) Summary Output Scenario 2012 Base 2018 Without - Do Minimum 2018 With - Do Something No breaches of Irish Air 2023 Without - Do No breaches of Irish Air Quality Quality Objectives / European Minimum Objectives / European Limit Values for Limit Values for Annual Mean 2023 With - Do Annual Mean or 24 Hour Mean or 1-Hour Mean Something 2033 Without - Do Minimum 2033 With - Do Something

10.5 Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures that formed part of the An Bord Pleanála approval of the permitted development of the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment do not require any changes and remain entirely appropriate to offset any potentially significant effects upon air quality and climate. These mitigation measures apply with equal force to the proposed alterations and the same conclusion is reached.

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-16 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

10.6 Residual Impacts Residual impacts from the proposed alterations are not anticipated as mitigation measures have been identified to control potential air quality impacts. The proposed alterations will not have a significant negative impact on sensitive receptors at Ringaskiddy.

No air quality impacts have been predicted for the proposed alterations. The air quality mitigation measures enshrined in the extant approval for the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment remain unchanged by the proposed alterations.

10.7 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts may arise from the combined effects of a number of different projects, in combination with the project being assessed, on a single receptor/resource. This can include multiple impacts of the same or similar type from a number of projects upon the same receptor/resource.

A review took place of the planning history for the area to establish projects that might have a potential cumulative impact with the proposed alterations as part of the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment. Amongst the permitted projects included in the cumulative assessment were the Monkstown Marina; the five large single wind turbines being developed by Cork Lower Harbour Energy Group; Cobh Marina; Cobh Cruise Berth; and Haulbowline Remediation Project. With regards to planned projects the following have been assessed; Spike Island Masterplan; a potential Cobh Second Cruise Berth.

The air quality and climate assessment has taken into consideration cumulative impacts that takes account of all proposed developments or those that are planned. The contribution of airborne contaminants from site vehicles and plant during the construction phase to local air quality is predicted to be negligible, and effects transient. The cumulative impacts from the proposed alterations, permitted development and other permitted projects (Monkstown Marina; the five large single wind turbines being developed by Cork Lower Harbour Energy Group; Cobh Marina; Cobh Cruise Berth; and Haulbowline Remediation Project) and the planned projects (Spike Island Masterplan and Cobh Second Cruise Berth) on air quality and climate are predicted to be negligible.

No significant air quality and climate impacts have been predicted for the proposed alterations. The mitigation measures enshrined in the extant approval for the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment remain unchanged by the proposed alterations.

10.8 Conclusion The air quality and climate assessment has considered the potential and likely significant effects of the proposed alterations to the existing context of the site and its surrounding environment.

The conclusion of this chapter is that the proposed alterations will not result in any significant change to the assessment of effects and conclusions as previously presented in the assessments for the permitted development and that the mitigation measures enshrined in the extant permission remain applicable.

NI1004 S146C EIS 10-17 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

11.0 SOILS AND GEOLOGY 11.1 Introduction This Chapter of the EIS considers the potential and likely significant soils and geology effects of the proposed alterations to the permitted development. The purpose of this chapter is to identify and describe any likely significant soils and geology effects as a result of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development.

11.2 Methodology The assessment methodology is based on the document produced by the Institute of Geologists of Ireland, “Geology in Environmental Impact Statements – a guide”, September 2002. This document outlines the likely impacts and potential mitigation measures for geological issues by topic, although no importance criteria are given by which the impact can be graded.

Information from a number of sources was collated in preparation of this Chapter and are outlined below: • Ordnance Survey of Ireland, Discovery Series, • Ordnance Survey of Ireland online historical maps and aerial photographs, • Ordnance Survey of Ireland online Environmental Report, • Geological Society of Ireland, Geology of Cork (1:100,000) Sheet 25, • Geological Society of Ireland online Groundwater Database, Aquifer Classification, Aquifer Vulnerability, Teagasc Soil Classification, • National Parks and Wildlife Service online database, • Environmental Protection Agency online mapping, • National Maritime College, Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork. Site Investigation Contract Interpretive Report No. 179116. Geotech Specialists Limited, • Implementation of Port of Cork Strategic Development Plan, Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork. Site Investigation. Report No. 05-653. Glover Site Investigations Limited 2006, • Site Investigation for a Proposed Development at the National Maritime College, Cork. Interpretive Report. Site Investigations Limited (Contract No. 4900) 2009, • Marine Energy Research Centre, Ringaskiddy. Preliminary Site Investigation Factual report. No. P11038. PGL Priority Geotechnical August 2011. • Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment Site Investigation Report - PGL Priority Geotechnical 2015. • OSI Environmental Report - Reference No. 19651241 • New Maintenance and Office Building Preliminary Risk Assessment Report (See EIS Volume III – Appendix 11.1).

A glossary of terms used to explain the quality and significance of impacts used in this assessment are outlined below:

• Positive Impact – a change which improves the quality of the environment. • No Change Impact – a change which does not affect the quality of the environment. • Negative Impact – a change which reduces the quality of the environment. • 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. • Substantial Impact – an impact which, by its character, magnitude, duration or intensity alters a sensitive aspect of the environment.

11.3 Baseline Conditions 11.3.1 Regional Geology The geology of County Cork presents a simplistic geological structure (Figure 11.1 - EIS Volume II). The surface geology is controlled throughout by folds in the rock sequence, with the axis considered to run approximately from east to west. These folds were created during the Variscan Orogeny (a period

NI1004 S146C EIS 11-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

of mountain-building caused by continental collision) between approximately 390 and 310 million years ago.

The ridges which are evident across southern Cork comprise of Devonian age (roughly 415 to 360 million years ago) sandstones and mudstones. However, the valleys are considered to consist of much softer limestones from the Carboniferous period (roughly 360 to 300 million years ago) which have been eroded into u-shaped valleys by ancient rivers and glaciers.

Geologically recent Quaternary sediments cover many of the rocks, particularly in the valleys and are mostly of glacial origin, ranging from approximately 1.6 million years to the present day. These sediments have been deposited either directly from glacier ice during an Ice Age, or by glacial meltwater flowing from the ice. The sediments may be up to 100m thick in deep-cut valleys and are considered to represent a major resource in the Cork area, through sands and gravels which they are predominantly composed, of groundwater, and also of geothermal energy. Two buried valleys in the Cork Syncline can be classed as high yield regional aquifers.

11.3.2 Local Geology The proposed alterations are located north of the “Ringaskiddy Anticline ” – which is described as a small wedge of older sandstones and mudstones, known as the “ Kinsale Formation ” which have been thrust upwards by faulting. The site is underlain by the Waulsortian Mudbank which comprises pale grey massive Limestones (Figure 11.2 - EIS Volume II).

The geological map indicates that there are a number of geological faults which occur around the site (see Figure 11.3 - EIS Volume II). However, these faults are not currently active and the previous intrusive ground investigations undertaken for the permitted development at the site, confirm that these faults do not represent a threat to the stability of the site.

An area immediately south of the site is designated as a Geological Heritage Site by the Geological Survey of Ireland (Ringaskiddy, Golden Rock) due to the presence of exposed Limestone bedrock at the surface.

11.3.4 Soils ‘Brown Podzolic’ is the principal soil type in County Cork, which is a soil highly suited to agricultural use and in particular for pasture. When sufficiently supplemented with lime and fertiliser, it is possible for this type of soil to sustain 185 livestock units per 100ha. This soil is generally well drained and has good moisture holding capacity. The lime-deficient Acid Brown Earth that is mainly found to the north of the County but also present at Ringaskiddy, is also free draining with good moisture holding capacity. The soil originates from glacial drift of sandstone-limestone mix, and is generally of good structure. Although the soil is of relatively low nutrient status, it is considered to respond well to additives and is a desirable soil for both tillage and pasture lands.

A significant proportion of the Ringaskiddy Harbour has been constructed on reclaimed land. Therefore the site is underlain by fill material (Made Ground). Information provided by Port of Cork indicated that fill material for Ringaskiddy East was pumped ashore from Curlane Bank whilst Ringaskiddy West was filled with sands recovered from Spit Bank.

11.3.5 Hydrogeology Eighty percent of Cork County Council’s drinking water is provided from surface water resources, with approximately 94% of South Cork’s total water supply originating from rivers and lakes (Cork City WMP, 2004-2009) . However, in contrast to this, North Cork is highly dependent on groundwater supplies.

Groundwater is water found below the surface of the earth, often occurring in natural reservoirs in permeable rock layers. Bedrock formations or sand and gravel deposits which yield significant quantities of water are called aquifers. The type of rock affects the volume and chemistry of the water. The dominant sandstone and limestone rock types around Cork are classified as aquifers but vary significantly in productivity. Figure 11.4 (EIS Volume II) represents the aquifer classification within the

NI1004 S146C EIS 11-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

area. It is apparent that the majority of the site has not been classified by GSI as it comprises reclaimed land. The land to the south of the site is classified as; a Locally Important Karstified aquifer (Lk) and also as a Locally Important aquifer (Li) which is only productive in local zones. The majority of the site has not been assigned a Groundwater Vulnerability rating by the GSI. The area to the south of the site is classified as having an Extreme vulnerability (‘E’). There are currently no potable groundwater abstraction wells within a 1km radius of the site.

11.3.6 Surface Water Hydrology Ringaskiddy is located within Cork Harbour which represents the closest surface water body to the site of the proposed alterations. The River Lee flows into Cork Harbour approximately 1.5km north of the site where it is classified as Transitional water (not fully saline and not fully freshwater). Under the Water Framework Directive, Cork Harbour is classified as being of Moderate status (2007-2009) and is at risk of not achieving good status by 2015. The River Lee where it enters Cork Harbour is classified as being of Good status (2007-2009), however it is also at risk of not maintaining its Good status by 2015.

Cork Harbour is designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) (refer to Chapter 15), and as an important Shellfish area (refer to Chapter 13).

11.3.7 Previous Ground Investigations A number of site investigations have been carried out in the area surrounding the site of the proposed alterations.

National Maritime College – Geotech Specialists Ltd, 1999 During May and June 1999, Geotech Specialists Ltd carried out a geotechnical site investigation on a site for the proposed National Maritime College. The investigation comprised 8 No. boreholes advanced via cable percussive boring techniques with follow on rotary percussive methods.

Ground conditions encountered during the investigation comprised Topsoil and Hydraulic Fill (medium dense silty Sand) overlying Glacial Clay (firm to stiff sandy gravelly Clay) or Gravel above Bedrock. Bedrock was encountered in one location only at a depth of 5.2m below ground level. No description of the rock is provided and the report assumes from the published geology that the rock is likely to be sandstone.

Marine Energy Research Centre – PGL Priority Geotechnical 2011 During May 2010, PGL Priority Geotechnical carried out a site investigation on a site for a proposed University College Cork marine research centre. The investigation comprised 2 No. cable percussion boreholes, 6 No. rotary cored boreholes and 9 No. trial pits.

The site was characterised by glacial deposits of slightly sandy gravelly Clay/Silt, slightly sandy slightly gravelly organic Silt, clayey/silty very gravelly Sand and very clayey/silty very gravelly Sand and silty sandy Gravel to depths of 10m below existing ground level.

Limestone bedrock was encountered at four test locations at depths of; 5.6m, 6.5m, 8.7m and 10.0m below ground level where it was described as moderately strong to very strong.

Groundwater was encountered at shallow depths within the Sand and Gravel deposits and at greater depth upon encountering the Limestone bedrock.

A limited number of sub-soil samples were analysed for metal, Hydrocarbon and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) contaminants. The laboratory results indicated that contaminant levels were low overall.

Port of Cork Strategic Development Study – Glover Site Investigations Ltd 2006 During November 2005 and again during March 2006, two phases of intrusive site investigation were completed by Glover Site Investigations Ltd. The site investigations were carried out within Cork Harbour in the area immediately adjacent to Ringaskiddy Pier (Oyster Bank) and also in the area adjacent to the existing Deepwater Berth (DWB). One borehole (RPSBH18) was advanced on land

NI1004 S146C EIS 11-3 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

within the current site area. The investigation made provision for the advancement of 17 No. boreholes by means of a Dando 2000 shell and auger drilling rig using light cable percussion techniques. These boreholes were drilled from a jack-up platform, manoeuvred around the site by tugboat.

The site investigation also made provision for eleven vibrocores, driven to practical refusal using a seabed vibrocore unit lowered to the seabed over the side of a workboat. These vibrocores were undertaken between 2st February 2006 and 2 nd March 2006. During this time 4 No. cone penetration tests (CPTs) were completed by Lankelma from the jack-up platform using the shell and auger drilling rig to lower the facilitating casing and CPT rods to the required depth.

Twenty one (21 No.) grab samples were taken from the service boat at locations determined using GPS. Sediment contamination testing parameters and detection limits were recommended by the Marine Institute and the samples were sent to the Environment Agency (UK) for contamination analysis.

The general progression identified by the ground investigation was as follows: • Uncompacted organic silt with occasional layers of sand, clay or shells (marine silt) • Firm brown and grey brown very gravely sandy clay with some cobbles and boulders (glacial till) • Very weak grey highly weathered fine-grained carboniferous limestone • Moderately strong grey fine-grained carboniferous limestone

In some areas the cores contained mostly oyster shells (70%) in a matrix of uncompacted silt.

The borehole advanced on land within the site area encountered Made Ground to a depth of 4.6m which was underlain by Sand to the borehole completion depth of 10m. The Made Ground comprised; Limestone quarry fill underlain by Loose to medium dense grey slightly silty fine to medium Sand with occasional shells. The Sand was described as; medium dense grey slightly silty fine to medium Sand with occasional shells.

Extensive testing of sea bed sediments for chemical quality was carried out within the Oyster Bank and at the area adjacent to the existing ferry terminal at Ringaskiddy. Testing was also carried out in the area of Paddy’s Point.

The sediment sampling results demonstrated that the sediments were not contaminated and would be therefore suitable for re-use where appropriate, or for disposal at sea where not suitable as engineering fill material.

Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment - PGL Priority Geotechnical 2015 A number of boreholes were advanced across the Ringaskiddy site as part of a ground investigation for the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment. A number of Trial Pits and boreholes were advanced in close proximity to the study site. The logs for these test locations are included within the New Maintenance and Office Building Preliminary Risk Assessment Report (See EIS Volume III – Appendix 11.1).

In summary, the ground conditions within the study area consist of Made Ground comprising gravelly Sand and Gravel which is underlain by deposits of Sand. Further south of the study area, deposits of Silt are present underneath Gravel deposits.

11.4 Impact Assessment The following section assesses the potential impacts on soils, geology and hydrogeology for the construction and operational phases of the proposed alterations to the permitted development. Typically impacts occurring during the construction phase of a development result in short term exposure.

NI1004 S146C EIS 11-4 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

11.4.1 Construction Impacts 11.4.1.1 Soils and Geology It is anticipated that earthworks will be required during the construction of the development for the proposed alterations. It will be necessary to utilise a piled foundation solution to construct the combi- walls required for the new quay wall extension. The combi-wall will comprise tubular steel piles installed at intervals with traditional steel sheet piles filling the space in-between. The tubular piles will be drilled and installed or grouted into the bedrock.

The new mooring dolphins will require piling. The three proposed mooring dolphins will comprise concrete pile caps on steel tubular piles and will be similar in scale and massing to the existing dolphins. Each dolphin will require 8 tubular steel piles with a diameter of 914 mm. Concrete pile caps will be approximately 7m x 7m x 2 m deep.

Dredging works will be carried out to -13.4m Chart Datum maximum adjacent to the altered Berth 1 to provide sufficient water depths for vessels. Bed conditions comprise uncompacted silts overlying Gravel, Clay and Limestone bedrock. Dredging will be required in all materials including bedrock.

The soft overlying silt material is unsuitable for use in the works and therefore this will be removed, either by backhoe or trailing suction hopper dredger, and disposed of at a sea disposal site. The quantity involved is in the order of 15,000m3. The disposal of the dredged material will require application for a Dumping at Sea Permit from the Environmental Protection Agency; this will be subject to a separate consenting process.

Bedrock and other hard strata will most likely be removed by a combination of drilling and blasting, and/or the use of mechanical plant working from a floating or jack-up barge. Dredged rock and other suitable material will be re-used in the reclamation works.

Piling will be required for the construction of the maintenance and office building. Precast concrete piles will be installed to a competent underlying strata.

Construction activities may also include noise, dust, odour and site traffic generation problems as well as potential contamination issues arising with the use of fuel storage tanks, vehicles and the use of paints and oils.

The impact to soils and geology are considered to be slight and short term in nature. No significant impacts will occur.

11.4.1.2 Hydrogeology At the construction stage during piling undertaken as part of the earthworks, groundwater may be encountered. Any potential groundwater encountered would require careful management in order to prevent further degradation of its quality. As there are no current potable groundwater abstractions within a 1km radius of the site (See EIS Volume III – Appendix 11.1), there will be no impact upon potable water supplies as a result of piling.

11.4.2 Operational Impacts 11.4.2.1 Potential Impacts to Groundwater A number of activities can have an impact on groundwater resources, including: • Excessive pumping e.g. from wells for water supply • Saline intrusion (risk of over-abstraction in coastal areas pulling sea water into the groundwater body • Pollution from nutrients, e.g. nitrates and phosphates • Pollution from chemicals.

The proposed alterations is not anticipated to have an impact on the groundwater as it will not involve any abstraction of water and all surface runoff will be collected and diverted to the local waste water treatment system. Clean fill material will be used in the alterations to berth 1 therefore aquifer

NI1004 S146C EIS 11-5 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

protection zones do not need to be specified. Day to day operation of the Port will not involve the use of chemicals, however contingency measures will be put in place in the unlikely event of any oil spills as is best practice in all harbour developments.

11.4.2.2 Commercial Units There are a number of commercial units located within the area and surrounding vicinity. Potential contaminants may arise from the storage of fuels, oils, greases and lubricants.

11.4.2.3 Contaminant Pathways The majority of the site will be covered in hard-standing which will minimise contaminant exposure pathways in relation to human health.

Any made ground beneath the site may have the potential to be a source of harmful ground gases such as Methane and Carbon Dioxide. However the sand and gravel deposits underlying the site are of low organic content and the potential for ground gas generation is therefore low. No significant impacts will occur. The conceptual site model developed for the New Maintenance and Office Building Preliminary Risk Assessment Report (See EIS Volume III – Appendix 11.1) indicates that no source- pathway-receptor linkages will be present on the developed site and therefore the risk to human health and environmental receptors is considered to be low.

11.4.3 Cumulative Impacts A range of projects (e.g. IMERC Masterplan, Spike Island Masterplan and East Tip Remediation Project, Haulbowline Island) has been taken into consideration as part of the cumulative assessment. When these projects have been considered as part of this assessment, no significant cumulative effects are predicted.

11.5 Mitigation Measures 11.5.1 Construction Phase Mitigation As set out in section 11.4.1 the soils and geology assessment of the proposed alterations during the construction phase has not predicted any significant impacts.

The construction phase mitigation measures that formed part of the An Bord Pleanála approval of the permitted development of the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment remains entirely appropriate.

11.5.2 Operational Phase Mitigation As set out in section 11.4.2 the soils and geology assessment of the proposed alterations during operation phase has not predicted any significant impacts.

The operational phase mitigation measures that formed part of the An Bord Pleanála approval of the permitted development of the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment therefore do not require any changes and remain entirely appropriate.

11.6 Residual Impacts The residual impact relating to soils and groundwater by proposed alterations is considered negligible.

NI1004 S146C EIS 11-6 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

12.0 COASTAL PROCESSES

12.1 Introduction This Chapter of the EIS considers the potential and likely significant effects of the proposed alterations to the permitted development. The purpose of this chapter is to identify and describe any likely significant coastal processes effects as a result of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development. This was informed through the use of numerical modelling techniques which provided information on tides and sediment transport.

The coastal process models developed for the permitted development were used as a baseline and the subsequent changes as a result of the proposed alterations were quantified by comparison with pre-development conditions. The models were also used to quantify the impact of the proposed amendments during the construction phase due to dredging.

The computational modelling was undertaken using RPS’ in house suite of MIKE coastal process modelling software developed by the Danish Hydraulic Institute as detailed in the following Sections.

The modelling was divided into two main areas as follows: • Flow Regime Modelling • Sediment Transport & Water Quality Modelling

The modelling of the coastal processes was undertaken using RPS coupled tide, wave and sediment transport Mike21 flexible mesh model of the Cork Estuary. This tidal model extends from the mouth of the Estuary to Cork City as shown in Figure 12.1 which also indicates the water depth in metres to Chart Datum (CD).

Figure 12.1 Flexible mesh tidal model of the Cork Estuary

The model of the estuary has a southern boundary near Roberts Cove; this tidal station was used to drive the tidal model. The model has graded grid spacing; with areas of fine cells in the vicinity of the redevelopment in the order of 5-10m in resolution and also with cells more concentrated in locations with rapidly varying bed profiles. This means the model has sufficient detail for the modelling of the coastal processes and dredging activity associated with the permitted development and proposed alterations.

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

12.2 Flow Regime Modelling The flow models were run for a 16 day period selected so that the hydrodynamics used for the dredge plume and dispersion plume modelling were representative of the full range of tidal states that could be experienced during the permitted development construction phase. The models were verified by comparison of tidal height across the model domain with tide gauge network data and by comparison with recorded current meter readings collected specifically for this EIS by Irish Hydrodata.

12.3 Water Quality Modelling Both the dredging of the Ringaskiddy East and Ringaskiddy West components of the permitted development were assessed with regard to the level of suspended sediment and deposition of material from the dredging plume. These were simulated using the dredging module in the Mike 21 FM MT model which is the sand and mud transport module within the MIKE suite. The simulations were run for a 12 day period so that the deposition results could be assessed under the widest range of tidal conditions. This is the period required to carry out the dredging programme and the timing was selected to include both small neap and large spring tides to ensure that the full range of dredging plume characteristics were established.

12.4 Data Sources The model was developed from an existing RPS model. The rectangular 30m/10m resolution nested rectangular model had previously been developed using a combination of bathymetry data taken from local hydrographic surveys and supplemented by Admiralty Chart Data (as digitally supplied by C.Map of Norway). The bathymetric data was transferred from the existing model to a new flexible mesh model and supplemented by more recent surveys. Principally three surveys were added; the first related to the maintenance dredging carried out in the River Lee in 2011, the other two were undertaken specifically for this study. The extents of the surveys are indicated in Figure 12.2.

Figure 12.2 Extent of bathymetric data survey datasets

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

12.5 Model Calibration The model was verified by comparison with tidal heights across the domain and published Admiralty tidal stream data. The two most relevant gauge locations are Cobh and Ringaskiddy, the locations of which are indicated in Figure 12 .3. In addition some limited hydrographic data was collected at four locations near Paddy’s Point at the site of the permitted pier and slipway (also indicated on the figure). The model showed good agreement with the current speed during mid tide which was recorded to be 0.6m/s.

Figure 12.3 Calibration l ocations for data presented

The model was used to simulate the full range of tidal excursion as shown in Figure 12.4 therefore the model was calibrated over this range. Figure 12.512.5 and Figure 12 .6 show the comparison between the predicted astronomic tide from th e tide gauge at Cobh with the model data for the spring and neap tides respectively. Figure 12. 7 and Figure 12.8 shows the same data for Ringaskiddy . Both locations indicate that the model simulates the tidal flows well.

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-3 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 12.4 Surface elevation for simulation period (CD)

Figure 12.5 Tidal Elevation from Gauge and Model Data - Cobh Spring tide

Figure 12.6 Tidal Elevation from Gauge and Model Data - Cobh Neap tide

Figure 12. 7 Tidal Elevation from Gauge and Model Data - Ringaskiddy Spring tide

Figure 12.8 Tidal Elevation from Gauge and Model Data - Ringaskiddy Neap tide

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-4 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

12.6 Flow Regime Modelling 12.6.1 Baseline - Ringaskiddy Port Permitted Development The baseline model bathymetry included the permitted development as shown in Figure 12.9; reclaimed areas are shown in solid yellow whilst dredging extents are outlined in yellow. Figure 12.10 and Figure 12.11 show the mid-ebb and mid-flood flow patterns respectively in the vicinity of the Port and environs.

Figure 12.9 Baseline Bathymetry - Ringaskiddy

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-5 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 12.10 Permitted development Current Regime Mid-ebb

Figure 12.11 Permitted development Current Regime Mid-fld

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-6 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The tidal currents in the area are strongly bi-directional within the main channel. However behind the Ringaskiddy ADM training wall, at the mouth of the Monkstown Creek, the current speeds are much smaller with some circulatory currents being evident. These reduced currents are illustrated further on an analysis of peak currents. Figure 12.12 and Figure 12.13 show the maximum current speeds experienced through the ebb and flood tide respectively.

Figure 12.12 Permitted development Peak Ebb Current Speed

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-7 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 12.13 Permitted development Peak Ebb Current Speed

12.6.2 Impact of Proposed Alterations on Flow Regime The proposed alterations include a straight quay wall as part of a proposed phased construction with additional dredging at the southern tip. The flood tide will therefore run unobstructed into the existing ferry terminal to the south rather than being directed around a protruding quay wall for this phase of the development. The proposed alterations will therefore have less impact on tidal currents than the currently permitted design at this southern end of the quay wall and will be more akin to the pre- redevelopment tidal pattern.

Figure 12.14 and Figure 12.15 show change in currents between the pre and post redevelopment flow regimes for ebb and flood tides; in each case the changes are very localised and are insignificant in the vicinity of the proposed berth and quay wall design amendment. Therefore it may be concluded that the less pronounced change proposed would be insignificant in terms of changes in tidal currents. This is also demonstrated in Figure 12.16 and Figure 12.17 which show the changes in the peak current speeds for ebb and flood tides pre and post consented development respectively.

Both the existing and proposed mooring dolphins are open piled structures which do not cause any significant obstruction to tidal currents, therefore no appreciable additional permanent effects are predicted relating to the amended siting of these structures when compared to the effects identified and described in the previous assessment for the permitted development.

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-8 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 12.14 Vector Difference in Current Speed Mid-ebb (post minus pre-redevelopment)

Figure 12.15 Vector Difference in Current Speed Mid-flood (post minus pre-redevelopment)

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-9 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 12.16 Difference in Peak Current Speed Ebb- (post minus pre-redevelopment)

Figure 12.17 Difference in Peak Current Speed Flood (post minus pre-redevelopment)

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-10 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

12.7 Sediment and Water Quality 12.7.1 Baseline Sediment Modelling and Water Quality Sediment modelling was carried out relating to the dredging plumes and subsequent sedimentation during the capital dredging at the two Ringaskiddy sites for the permitted development. In both cases the modelling was carried out using excess suspended sediment concentrations, therefore background levels were not modelled.

The modelling was carried out using the Mike21 Mud Transport module, which is an advection dispersion model which uses the hydrodynamic conditions generated during the tidal modelling phase. The sediment was modelled using the sediment grading and settling characteristics of the samples collected at each of the dredging sites. The modelling includes sediment settling and also re- suspension with the application of critical shear stress parameters.

The total volume to be dredged at Ringaskiddy West site is 215,000m 3 comprised of a combination of fine silt and sand. The sediment grading used was determined by borehole logs collected at the site and is shown in Table 12.1.

Table 12.1 Sediment grading of Ringaskiddy West material

Sediment Type Mean diameter (mm) Proportion (%) Mud 0.0025 19 Fine silt 0.0165 20 Silt 0.044 42 Sand 0.15 19

The total volume of soft material to be dredged at Ringaskiddy East site is 90,000m 3 with the remaining site depth being rock. The material to be dredged comprised of a mainly coarser material than at Ringaskiddy West. The sediment grading used was again determined by borehole logs collected at the site and is shown in Table 12.2.

Table 12.2 Sediment grading of Ringaskiddy East material

Sediment Type Mean diameter (mm) Proportion (%) Silt 0.044 7 Sand 0.15 58 Coarse Sand 0.3 35

The project description indicates that either a trailing hopper suction dredger (THSD) or a combination of THSD and backhoe dredger will be employed for the dredging operations. The most likely scenario is the use of a THSD at the western site and a backhoe method at the eastern site as these suit the composition of the material to be removed and the works being undertaken.

The modelled dredging applied a spill rate of 2% at each site, with the source being locating at the dredging head or bucket adjacent to the bed to replicate the sediment which is mobilised during operations. A further 2% was released within the water column in accordance with dredging techniques anticipated to used in the eastern site. This sediment was released throughout the water column as the spill occurs as the backhoe bucket is lifted through the water.

The dredging programme included travel time to and from the sea disposal site being 75 minutes of dredging and 130 minutes of travel and disposal time. Given the nature of the dredging regime and the amount to be removed the simulation was undertaken over a period of 12 days, timed to coincide with large spring and small neaps to provide the full range of conditions. The programme was designed to simulate the most proficient dredging rate and therefore includes the maximum rate of sediment release and associated suspended sediment concentrations.

The sediment was released intermittently over the course of the simulation, in line with the regime outlined, during which the sediment was introduced across the area to be dredged. The amount of

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-11 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

‘passes’ at each release location was proportional to the material to be removed, i.e. less sediment was released where overburden was being removed for bed grading and stability when compared to the full berthing depth. The simulations were undertaken with the reclamation structures in place as some material may be suitable for back-filling and therefore this is the most likely mode of construction.

The results of the dredging simulations for the two sites are presented in Figure 12.18 to Figure 12.21. As with current speed, for sediment thickness and suspended sediment it should be noted that the scales are not equally spaced, to provide more information on lower levels whilst also providing maximum values. The first of the plots shows the anticipated depth of deposition following the dredging of the full dredging volume required. It can be seen that beyond the immediate vicinity of the operations the depths are a fraction of a millimetre, which would not be discernible from background levels but have been included on the figures to demonstrate the maximum excursion from the site.

The largest proportion of the sediment, mainly sand and coarser material, will be deposited at the dredge site itself and be removed by successive operations. The finer material remains in suspension for longer and is dispersed more widely through the area, however subsequent deposition depths are insubstantial.

Ecological assessment has highlighted the sensitivity of the Monkstown Creek area therefore sediment releases into the water column will be minimised with the implementation of suitable mitigation techniques, i.e. no barge overspill being permitted. Suitable monitoring will be undertaken to ensure that suspended sediment concentrations due to the dredging operations fall within acceptable levels.

Figure 12.19 and Figure 12.20 show the typical suspended solids concentration mid ebb and flood when the finer material is most mobile. Areas below 20mg/l are unshaded and would have little significance given the background suspended levels which are known to exist, particularly in relation to silt carried into the Estuary by the Lee River. Figure 12.21 shows the average concentration throughout the course of the dredging operations. The concentrations are largest within the redevelopment site itself as this is where that material is released, however the sheltered nature of the site and the presence of the breakwater reduces the excursion into Monkstown Creek and the River Lee. Typically the suspended sediment concentrations are below 300mg/l and are not expected to reach the northern SPA sites.

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-12 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 12.18 Final Sedimentation following permitted development Dredging Operations

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-13 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 12.19 Typical Mid-Ebb Suspended Sediment Concentration above Baseline during permitted development dredging

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-14 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 12.20 Typical Mid-Flood Suspended Sediment Concentration above Baseline during permitted development dredging

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-15 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 12.21 Average Suspended Sediment Concentration above Baseline during permitted development dredging

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-16 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The Monkstown Creek site experiences maximum values of around 400mg/l but these do not persist for the entire tidal cycle or across the extent of the inlet. Similarly the other sites in the main channel vary; with those north of the dredging experiencing the lowest concentration. The active shellfish beds to the east in Rostellan will be remain unaffected by the proposed works. Values of suspended solids are anticipated to remain below 40mg/l for the duration of the dredging operations, with average concentrations being less than half this value. This is typically less than the turbidity experienced in estuaries during storm conditions with increased fluvial flows and would be within the normal range of conditions experienced within shellfish areas.

12.7.2 Impacts of Proposed Alterations on Sediment and Water Quality 12.7.2.1 Dredging During the main berth construction phase additional dredging will be undertaken. The volume of additional material to be removed is estimated to be 15,000m 3. The location of the additional dredging, at the southern end of the quay, is a sheltered position where current speeds do not exceed 0.1m/s therefore the material released into the water column will not be dispersed widely. As demonstrated above, a large proportion of the material spilled in the vicinity will settle back onto the dredging site and be removed during subsequent dredging operations.

It should be noted that the proposed alterations are required to facilitate optimal phasing of the permitted Ringaskiddy development. The baseline modelling presented assumes that dredging is undertaken for all phases coincidently (i.e. worst case) to provide the maximum potential impact. The relatively small increase in material to be dredged will not result in additional impacts to those presented.

The mitigation measures enshrined in the extant permission for the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment as part of the previous assessment include the use of suitable dredging technologies which minimise sediment release into the water column.

12.7.2.2 Dumping at Sea The impact of the proposed 2007 Oyster Bank Strategic Infrastructure Development (Ref: 04.PA0003) on the hydrodynamic regime of the dredge material disposal area was assessed using computational modelling techniques based on the MIKE 21 suite of coastal process modelling software developed by the Danish Hydraulics Institute.

That model was run on the basis of a 385,000m 3 volume which is greater than both the consented dredge material volume and the total with the additional material associated with the proposed alterations (15,000m 3). This modelling related to the placement of material of the same nature (due to the proximity and overlapping nature of the development) at the dump site. It showed that the depth of deposition would be less than 50mm beyond the immediate vicinity of the dumpsite with no perceivable impact beyond 4km. This demonstrated that the modelled volume is within the assimilation capacity of the dumpsite. It should also be noted that the dumping activities modelled as part of the proposed Oyster Bank development were never actually dredged and disposed of at sea, therefore there are no cumulative impacts in this regard.

The authors of the 2007 EIS Coastal Processes chapter are the same authors of the 2014 Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment EIS Coastal Processes chapter and also this EIS chapter. We can confirm that the model used then is wholly applicable to the current proposal to dispose at sea of material dredged in Ringaskiddy Basin. We can confirm that predicted dispersion patterns of disposed dredge material are identical for the present project.

The model accurately simulated the tidal flows and water level variations in the area. The tidal model was run for a period from late February to early April 2005 so that the hydrodynamic data would include a large equinoctial spring tide. The results of those simulations are shown below in terms of the deposition footprint on the seabed and the maximum concentration envelope. The maximum concentration envelope shows the peak value that occurs at any time during the simulation at the particular point in the model area and is generated in the model as the plume from the dredged

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-17 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

material disposal washes over the area in response to the varying tidal flow conditions. The concentrations shown in the figures will therefore not be experienced simultaneously.

Figure 12.22 shows the net deposition footprint on the seabed for the disposal of the 385,000 m 3 of material from the dredging. The deposition thickness on the seabed in millimetres may be estimated by dividing the kg/m 2 value by 1.5. It will be noted that the thickness of the deposited sediment outside the dump site area is generally less than about 50mm and that no measurable amount of material is deposited further than about 4km from the centre of the site.

Figure 12.23 show the maximum instantaneous suspended sediment concentration envelope averaged over the whole of the water column that occurs at any time during the dumping operations. Figure 12.24 shows maximum instantaneous suspended sediment concentration envelope in the top 10m of the water column that occurs at any time during the dumping operations.

It can be seen from the maximum suspended sediment concentration figures that the plume from the dumping of the dredge material, even at very low concentration values, does not extend a great distance from the disposal site.

The offshore dumping modelling examined a volume which is greater than both the consented dredge volume and the additional volume associated with the proposed alterations. It demonstrated that the material to be deposited is within the assimilation capacity of the dumpsite.

The sheltered location of the alterations to the dredging means that the relatively small increase in material released into the water column will not be widely dispersed and will settle back onto the dredging site. The mitigation measures enshrined in the extant permission for the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment include the use of suitable dredging technologies which minimise sediment release into the water column. The alterations proposed enable optimal phasing of the permitted Ringaskiddy development and will therefore not result in additional impacts.

Figure 12.22: Deposition Footprint for dumping of 385,000 m3 of sediment from Oyster Bank and related area

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-18 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 12.23 Maximum Concentration Contours (instantaneous) of suspended sediment averaged over the of water column dumping of 385,000 m 3 of sediment from Oyster Bank and related area

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-19 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 12.24 Maximum Concentration (instantaneous) of suspended sediment in top 10 metres of water column dumping of 385,000 m 3 of sediment from Oyster Bank and related area

12.8 Cumulative Effects Examination of the planning history shows that there are three proposed activities which are not land based. The Monkstown Marina consists of floating berths and breakwaters located on the western shore at Monkstown. Modelling of the coastal processes has been undertaken for this development as part of a request for further information by the planning authority. The modelling showed that there would be no effect on the coastal processes with no change in tidal levels and the effect on the tidal currents restricted to the project area with changes of not greater than 0.04m/s. Thus this development will not have a cumulative effect with the permitted port redevelopment or the proposed alterations.

Similarly the remedial work proposed at the eastern end of Haulbowline Island will not have a cumulative effect. While the Haulbowline Island scheme will require some dredging activity at this site, the works proposed will mainly be carried out behind retaining structures to reduce the impact within the estuary and therefore the anticipated footprint of these activities will not encroach on the proposed redevelopment even if they are undertaken coincidently.

The Cove Sailing Club was granted planning permission for a 74 berth marina located at Whitepoint, Cobh. As part of the planning process a hydrodynamic study was undertaken by Cronin Millar Consulting Engineers in January 2010 on behalf of the Cove Sailing Club. The following conclusions are reproduced from this study:

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-20 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

In reference to point a) if the Cove Sailing Club development will not have an impact of the flow regime then there cannot be the potential for in combination effects with the permitted Ringaskiddy development and proposed alterations. Likewise, as outlined in point e) if there is no dredging works relating to the marina project there cannot be any in combination effects on suspended sediment levels.

When potential construction and operational stage effects are considered for the proposed alterations for potential cumulative coastal processes effects they will not result in any changes to the cumulative effects predicted as part of the assessment for the permitted development.

The construction stage and operational stage activities proposed as part of the alterations are sufficiently separated from any permitted or planned projects and minor in the scale of the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment project to avoid potential cumulative effects.

12.9 Conclusion The conclusion of this assessment is that the proposed alterations will not result in any significant change to the assessment of effects and conclusions as previously presented in the 2014 EIS for the permitted development and that the mitigation measures enshrined in the extant permission remain applicable

NI1004 S146C EIS 12-21 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

13.0 WATER ENVIRONMENT

13.1 Introduction This Chapter of the EIS considers the potential and likely significant effects of the proposed alterations to the permitted development on the water environment. This assessment was informed through characterisation of the baseline and an assessment of the potential changes on the water quality status of the relevant water bodies arising from the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development.

The elements of the water environment that are assessed in this Chapter with regard to the proposed alterations of the permitted development include water quality, flood risk and sewage and storm water infrastructure. The baseline has been characterised on the basis of information from the Water Framework Directive (WFD) monitoring programme 2010-2015.

Chapter 3 of the EIS sets out a full description of the elements of the proposed alterations considered in the completion of this assessment. The assessment concludes that the proposed alterations will not, in the environmental sense, have any significant effect on the environment and the mitigation measures enshrined in the extant permission remain fully applicable to the proposed alterations.

13.2 Water Quality 13.2.1 Methodology The methodology outlined below is in line with that undertaken for the permitted development to ensure consistency. 13.2.1.1 Study Area As illustrated in Figure 13.1, the proposed alterations lie within Cork Harbour coastal water body (IE_SW_060_000) in the South Western River Basin District (SWRBD). The harbour is fed by Lough Mahon (IE_SW_060_0750), Owenboy Estuary (IE_SW_060_1200) and North Channel Great Island (IE_SW_060_0300) transitional water bodies before feeding into the Outer Cork Harbour coastal water body (IE_SW_050_000).

Cork Harbour is a mid-sized water body approximately 28km 2 in area, and takes in the areas of Ringaskiddy, Monkstown, Cobh, Rostellan and Whitegate in County Cork.

Cork Harbour coastal water body must achieve the core environmental objectives outlined in the South Western River Basin Management Plan (SWRBMP) including the achievement of water related objectives for designated protected areas.

The location of the proposed dumping at sea site for the additional dredged material from the proposed alterations lies partly within the Western Celtic Sea coastal water body (IE_SW_010_0000) in the South Western River Basin District (SWRBD). This large coastal water body is fed by numerous coastal and transitional water bodies along the south coast of Ireland. The water body is a large, over 500 km 2 in area, and extends along the southern coastline from Brow Head County Cork to Ram Head, County Waterford as illustrated in Figure 13.2.

In terms of the impact assessment Cork Harbour and the Western Celtic Sea are considered to be features of extremely high importance based on the evaluation of significance set out in the National Roads Authority (NRA) publication “ Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes ” (NRA, 2008). The significance of the water bodies is extremely high as sections are protected by EU legislation, i.e. Natura 2000 sites (European Sites) designated under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and shellfish areas designated under the Shellfish Waters Directive (2006/113/EC). This is relevant to the assessment of environmental impacts as outlined in Tables 13.1 and 13.2. The designated sites in the vicinity of the proposed alterations are illustrated in Figure 13.3.

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

13.2.1.2 Consultations Consultations were undertaken with relevant stakeholders for the permitted development in order to determine the existing water quality status in the context of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and to establish a scope for the assessment of water quality impacts, thereby enabling an assessment of the impact of the development to be made. Consultation of the WFD APP, an online EPA resource, was undertaken to ensure the most current baseline for water quality status was being used.

Figure 13.1 Location map showing Cork Harbour and nearby waterbodies

Figure 13.2 Location map showing Western Celtic Sea and nearby water bodies

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 13.3 Map showing designated areas in proximity to Cork Harbour

13.2.1.3 Criteria for Rating Impact Significance In order to estimate the magnitude of the impact on the water environment in the vicinity of the proposed alterations the criteria for rating significance set out in the NRA Guidelines (NRA, 2008) has been used for the most part. However additional criteria in relation to hydromorphological impact in the context of the coastal process and alteration to any natural coastline have also been assessed. This rating is based on a series of criteria which determines both negative and positive impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment. Table 13.1 provides a summary of the criteria for rating the significance of the impact as presented in the NRA Guidelines (NRA, 2008).

13.2.1.3 Rating of Significance of Environmental Impacts Based on the importance of the receiving water bodies, which have been assessed to be of extremely high importance, and the impact significance an assessment of the potential environmental impact of the proposed alterations to the permitted development has been made based on the matrix presented in Table 13.2.

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-3 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Table 13.1: Criteria for Rating Impact Significance (based on the NRA, 2008)

Magnitude Criteria Typical Examples of Impact Loss or extensive change to a water body or water dependent habitat. Increase in predicted peak flood level >100mm. Large Results in loss of attribute and /or Extensive loss of fishery Adverse quality and integrity of attribute Extensive reduction in amenity value Potential high risk of pollution to water body from routine run-off Increase in predicted peak flood level >50mm Partial loss of fishery Moderate Results in impact on integrity of Potential medium risk of pollution to water body Adverse attribute or loss of part of attribute from routine run-off Partial reduction in amenity value Increase in predicted peak flood level >10mm Results in minor impact on Minor loss of fishery Small integrity of attribute or loss of Potential low risk of pollution to water body from Adverse small part of attribute routine run-off Slight reduction in amenity value Results in an impact on attribute Negligible change in predicted peak flood level Negligible but of insufficient magnitude to Negligible loss of amenity value affect either use or integrity Negligible loss of fishery

Table 13.2: Rating of Environmental Impacts (derived from NRA, 2008)

Magnitude of Impact Negligible Small Moderate Large Significant / Profound / Extremely High Imperceptible Profound moderate severe Very High Imperceptible Moderate Significant severe Importance Significant / Severe / of Attribute High Imperceptible Moderate / Slight Moderate Significant Medium Imperceptible Slight Moderate Significant Slight / Low Imperceptible Imperceptible Slight Moderate

13.2.1.4 Compliance with the Water Framework Directive Objectives The potential for the proposed alterations to the permitted development to impact upon water quality is assessed in the context of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Directive 2000/60/EC). The WFD was adopted in 2000 and transposed into Irish Legislation by the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations (2003) as amended. The WFD requires all Member States to manage and improve the quality of their surface and groundwaters.

For the purposes of monitoring and assessing the quality of surface waters, all rivers, lakes, coastal interbasins, estuaries, and coastal waters (within 1 nautical mile of the shoreline) have been divided into management units called “water bodies”. The condition of each water body must be reported to the European Commission in the form of ecological status and chemical status. The fundamental objectives of the WFD are to maintain “high status” of waters where it exists, prevent deterioration in the existing status of waters and achieve at least “good status” in relation to all waters by 2015. The EPA and Local Authorities are the competent authorities with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government providing a coordinating role.

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-4 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The WFD requires the preparation of a Programme of Measures (POMs) outlining the steps that will be taken to meet WFD objectives as applicable to each water body. This Programme is contained within an overarching River Basin Management Plan (RBMP). One RBMP is prepared for each RBD and also contains information on water body status, objectives and timescales. The final RBMPs for the first River Basin Management Cycle were published in July 2010 with work continuing on the second river basin management plans.

WFD Assessment The WFD assessment undertaken for the proposed alterations, as per the assessment for the permitted development, is based on the guidelines published by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency Water Manag ement Unit: “Carrying out a Water Framework Directive (WFD) Assessment on EIA Development ” (NIEA, 2012) as similar guidance for WFD assessment has not yet been prepared in Ireland.

A desk study and consultations were undertaken to determine the current water quality status of Cork Harbour and Western Celtic Sea in the context of WFD through the consideration of published data from the WFD monitoring programme between 2010 -2012, which was published in 2015 (EPA, 2015).

An assessment of the proposed alterations in terms of current status and the WFD objectives was also undertaken and assessed against the WFD Assessment of the permitted development to determine if any of these would result in a change to the outcome of the assessment.

13.2.2 Existing Environment This section presents existing surface water quality and sediment quality information in the vicinity of Ringaskiddy where the alterations are proposed. The sources of the water quality information summarised in this Chapter are:

• Water body status information arising from the WFD monitoring programme and outlined in the “South Western River Basin Management Plan: 2009-2015” (SWRBD, 2010) .

• Water quality information outlined in the EPA’s most recent water quality report, “Water Quality in Ireland 2010-2012” (EPA, 2015) (EPA, 2010). This represents new information that has become available since the baseline for the permitted development was established.

• “Ecological Status and Chemical Status of Surface Waters and Chemical and Quantitative Status of Groundwaters. Prepared in fulfilment of Articles 24 and 25 of SI 272 of 2009, Water Framework Status Update 2007-2009 ” (EPA, 2011)

• An assessment of dangerous substances in “Water Framework Directive Transitional and Coastal Waters: 2007 – 2009 ” (Marine Institute, 2011)

• The Marine Institute was consulted in regards to the requirements for a dredge sampling programme both in terms of sample location and parameters for analysis for the permitted development. The Sampling Analysis Plan, provided by the Marine Institute, remains relevant to the consideration of the proposed alterations.

13.2.2.1 WFD Classification As well as achieving good ecological and chemical status, a water body must achieve compliance with standards and objectives specified for protected areas, which include areas designated by the Bathing Water Directive; the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive; the Shellfish Waters Directive; the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive. Waters bodies that are compliant with WFD standards, but that contain protected areas that are non-compliant with protected area standards are downgraded to ‘less than good’ status.

In order to establish the WFD status of water bodies, the EPA developed a new, WFD-compliant monitoring programme which began in 2006. It builds on previous monitoring programmes and provides a comprehensive assessment of water quality and quantity.

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-5 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

WFD status classifications apply at the water body scale and are based on several samples/surveys targeting the variety of parameters, including biological, physico-chemical, chemical and hydromorphological elements, required to establish WFD status. The current status classifications are based on the results of a complete monitoring cycle, i.e. 2010 to 2012, and have been reported by the EPA (EPA, 2015).

The status classification of transitional and coastal water bodies is primarily based on information and data collected by the EPA, Marine Institute and Inland Fisheries Ireland. In addition, assessments of the conservation status of protected areas carried out by NPWS were also taken into account.

The Cork Harbour coastal water body (IE_SW_060_0000) is designated as a heavily modified water body (HMWB) due to the port developments (SWRBD, 2008), and has been classified as being at ‘good morphological status’ according to the most recent EPA reporting (EPA, 2015). This water body was classified as being at ‘moderate ecological potential’ in the South Western River Basin Management Plan (2009-2015) (Figure 13.4), however, its condition has improved to ‘good ecological potential’ in the 2010 – 2012 monitoring period. The results in relation to the individual status elements are presented in Table 13.3. Chemical status is currently failing based on Priority Hazardous Substances, with tributyltin (TBT) and low levels of Mercury recorded in the biota.

Figure 13.4 WFD Status of Cork Harbour study area

The Cork Harbour coastal water body is achieving ‘good ecological status’ in the 2010-2012 monitoring period (EPA, 2015) and as such is meeting its WFD status objectives.

The Western Celtic Sea coastal water body (IE_SW_010_0000) has not been assigned a classification for ecological or chemical status under the Water Framework Directive as the coastal and estuarine monitoring programmes have yet to be fully implemented. The completion of the classification for coastal waters will be completed as soon as the Environmental protection Agency deems sufficient monitoring data is available (South Western River Basin Management Plan (2009- 2015), 2010). Based on a precautionary approach and recognising the location of Natura 2000 sites and shellfish designated waters in the water bodies discharging to the Western Celtic Sea coastal water body it has been assumed that the status for this water body is high.

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-6 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Table 13.3 Water Framework Directive status elements (EPA, 2015) Status Element Cork Harbour Physico chemical elements supporting ecological status Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen status (winter/summer) Good Molybdate Reactive Phosphorus status High Dissolved Oxygen as per cent saturation status Good Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-days) status High Biological elements supporting ecological status Macroalgae - phytobiomass status Good Macroalgae - reduced species list status High Marine Plants High Benthic Invertebrates status High Fish status - Hydromorphological Status Hydrology status - Morphology status Good (pHMWB) Specific Pollutant Status Pass Protected area status Fail Ecological Status Good Chemical Status Fail Confidence level in status Medium

13.2.2.2 WFD Objectives Under Article 4(3) of the WFD, Member States can designate surface water bodies as Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB). ‘Heavily modified water body’ means a body of surface water which as a result of physical alterations by human activity is substantially changed in character, as designated by the Member State in accordance with the provisions of Annex II. If the specified use of such a water body (in this case port development) or the “wider environment” would be significantly affected by the restoration measures required to achieve good ecological status and if no other better, technically feasible and cost-effective, environmental options exist then the environmental objective is Good Ecological Potential (GEP) in recognition of the fact that the water body will not achieve the ecological status of an unmodified natural coastal water body. As Cork Harbour is classified as HMWB it has been assigned an alternative objective of the achievement of good ecological potential (GEP) and good chemical status.

A deadline for the achievement of the WFD objectives of good ecological potential and good chemical status for the Cork Harbour water body has been extended to the year 2021, i.e. the end of the 2 nd River Basin Management Cycle. This was due to the pressures associated with municipal wastewater discharges and technical constraints due to the certainty of cause of problem in relation to the chemical status failures and the elevated dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) levels, both of which required further investigation as detailed in the South Western RBD Transitional and Coastal Waters Action Programme (SWRBD, 2010). The DIN levels are now indicative of good status/potential and therefore one of the major pressures previously preventing the water bodies from achieving its objectives has been reduced sufficiently to improve the nutrient conditions in the Harbour. This will be further improved when the Cork Lower Harbour Main Drainage Scheme is completed.

As the classification of the Western Celtic Sea water body has not yet been completed a WFD objective has not been established. However on the assumption that the status is high it is a requirement to prevent the deterioration of the status.

13.2.2.3 EPA Water Quality Information The EPA Water Quality Report 2010-2012 was published in 2015 and presents a review of Irish ambient water quality for the years 2010 to 2012. The water quality information is presented on a water body scale in line with the WFD and with comparisons with the WFD EQSs. However, it is also presented in the manner of previous EPA reports so that trends over time can be seen. Table 13.4 provides a summary of the most recent water quality information available and as such the water

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-7 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment quality in Cork Harbour is compliant with the relevant EQS and the trophic status is considered to be unpolluted.

Table 13.4 EPA Water Quality 2010 to 2012 (from EPA, 2015) Rel evant quality indicators Cork Harbour 2010 -2012 Trophic status Unpolluted Nitrogen levels Salinity-related thresholds Compliant WFD EQS Compliant Phosphorus levels Salinity-related assessment levels Compliant WFD EQS Compliant DO levels Sufficient BOD levels (WFD EQS) WFD EQS Compliant Assessment levels - Oil pollution incidents None

13.2.2.4 Dangerous substances assessment An assessment of hazardous substances (i.e. priority substances and other relevant pollutants) in Transitional and Coastal Waters (TCW) was prepared by the Marine Institute, on request of the EPA, as part of the monitoring programme required under the WFD to contribute to the status classification (Marine Institute, 2011).

From the Marine Institute report published in 2011 Cork Harbour was found to fail chemical status requirements due to Tributyltin (TBT), a priority hazardous substance, and lead compounds, a priority substance under Annex X of the WFD. This is supported by the latest EPA reporting of the 2010-2012 WFD monitoring programme which includes TBT as one of the failing elements for chemical status.

However, monitoring undertaken in Ringaskiddy East in 2009 showed ecological quality objectives were met for TBT and the samples passed demonstrating a recovery situation. The results for other stations in Cork Harbour however failed which resulted in a failure across the whole water body (Marine Institute 2011). The results of the baseline surveys of the sediment at the Ringaskiddy Port site, undertaken to inform the assessment of the permitted development, are presented in section 13.2.2.5 and at Appendix 13.1 of the EIS for the permitted development as this information remains relevant for the proposed alterations.. The results show TBT levels in the sediment are compliant with guidance values for sediment quality guidelines from the “ Guidelines for the Assessment of Dredge Material for Disposal in Irish Waters” (Marine Institute 2006).

The main sources of lead to the environment are primary production processes such as ferrous and non-ferrous metal production and mining. Other relevant sources are transport, glass production and recycling processes, ceramics production, offshore industry, and waste incineration and disposal. The main pathway of lead to the sea is via air and it can be carried long distances from its source.

TBTs were used from the 1960s onwards in the marine environment as a biocide in antifouling coatings on underwater structures, ships and other craft. Marketing of TBT for use on small vessels was banned in the mid-1980s, as emerging research revealed adverse effects on marine snails and bivalves. Use of TBT as a marine antifouling agent is currently being phased out through the 2001 International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships (AFS Convention), which banned the application of TBT-based antifouling paints for use on ship hulls. The Convention entered into force in 2008 but has previously been implemented through EU Regulation (EC) No 782/2003 on the prohibition of organotin compounds on ships. With the phasing out TBT levels of organotin are likely to decline further in Irish coastal areas (Marine Institute, 2011).

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-8 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

13.2.2.5 Sediment quality analysis Marine Institute (MI) Dredge Sampling Programme Twelve separate sample locations in the vicinity of the dredging locations for the permitted development were sampled in consultation with Marine Institute. Sample location 12 is at the site of proposed alterations. The locations are illustrated in Figure 13.4 and detail is contained in Appendix 13.1 of the EIS for the permitted development.

The Marine Institute recommended that sediment samples be analysed for substances that are considered of most concern for the marine environment, those which have combined properties of persistence, toxicity and liability to bio accumulate. Typically, the most important contaminants associated with dredged material include organotin compounds, heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and oils (OSPAR, 2004).

Guideline Values for the Assessment of Dredge Material The sample for site 12 was compared against the proposed guidance values for sediment quality guidelines from the “ Guidelines for the Assessment of Dredge Material for Disposal in Irish Waters” (Marine Institute 2006).

Figure 13.5 Sediment Sample locations at Cork Harbour

Sediment Sampling Results for Site 12 The sample results were below the upper and lower level guideline concentration for all parameters with the exception of Nickel. Nickel concentrations are higher than the lower level for dredge spoil value recommended in the guidelines in all sediment samples undertaken for the permitted development and this may be due to background concentrations, which are naturally occurring in slate, sandstone, clay minerals and basalt geologies that occur within in the South Western RBD. Discussions have been held with the Marine Institute in relation to these levels and the nickel levels are not an area of concern due to the naturally high background levels. Indeed in a report prepared by the Marine Institute for the EPA, “An assessment of dangerous substances in Water Framework Directive Transitional and Coastal Waters: 2007 – 2009”, nationally all sediments exceed the level 1

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-9 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment dredge spoil value indicating that the value is probably too low to account for natural background concentrations in Irish coastal sediments and should be revised (Marine Institute, 2011).

13.2.2.6 Protected Areas A significant proportion of waters in the South Western RBD are protected under existing EU legislation requiring special protection due to their sensitivity to pollution or their particular economic, social or environmental importance. All of the areas requiring special protection in the RBD have been identified by EPA, then mapped and listed in a register of protected areas (required under Article 5 of the WFD Directive). The register of protected areas includes:

• Drinking Water Areas; • Economically Significant Waters; • Recreational Waters; • Nutrient Sensitive Areas; • SPAs; and • SAC’s.

A number of protected areas, listed on the register are located within the Cork Harbour water body. These protected areas have their own monitoring and assessment requirements to determine their condition. They are often assessed for additional pollutants or requirements relevant to their designation. For example, faecal coliform levels are assessed within shellfish and bathing waters. Therefore it is important that the standards required for these protected areas are also met, otherwise a water body which otherwise meets the requirements of the WFD, may have the status reduced to “less than good” as it is not meeting the protected area objectives. The register of protected areas for the Cork Harbour area includes designations for economically significant waters (Shellfish Waters), nutrient sensitive areas and Natura 2000 sites.

Economically Significant Waters The Shellfish Directive (2006/113/EC) sets physical, chemical and microbiological requirements that designated shellfish waters must either comply with or endeavour to improve. There are three designated shellfish waters within the Cork Harbour coastal water body:

• Rostellan North • Rostellan South • Rostellan West

Pollution Reduction Programmes (PRPs) have been produced for each of the designated shellfish areas in order to protect and improve water quality in these shellfish growing areas and in particular, to ensure compliance with the standards and objectives for these waters established by the European Communities (Quality of Shellfish Waters) Regulations 2006.

The most recent water quality monitoring available for the shellfish areas indicates that there is no water quality issues in any of the Rostellan designations and therefore Cork Harbour water body is achieving its protected area objective for Shellfish waters (DECLG, 2012).

Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) The proposed alterations do not directly impinge upon any Natura 2000 sites but are located 770m SE of Cork Harbour SPA [Site Code: IE0004040] and 5.5km of The Great Island Channel SAC [Site Code: IE0002267]. Chapter 15 of this EIS assesses the impacts on European sites; where water quality is identified as a key element of this assessment.

UWWTD Nutrient Sensitive Waters Nutrient Sensitive Areas designations are those water bodies listed in accordance with the Urban Waste Water Treatment (UWWT) Directive 91/271/EEC Transposed into Irish law through the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (S.I. 254 / 2001, S.I. 440/2004) and S.I. 48/2010 (amendment). These designations comprise areas designated as sensitive under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). Since nutrient enrichment may affect physic-chemical conditions (particularly

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-10 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Phosphorous and Nitrates), thus affecting ecological and overall status of water bodies it is imperative to ensure the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development do not contribute to nutrient enrichment in order to achieve the overall objectives of the WFD.

Cork Harbour is designated as a sensitive area under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive and requires appropriate treatment to be in place. The Cork Lower Harbour Main Drainage Scheme is yet to be completed and therefore Cork Harbour is not achieving its protected area objective.

13.2.2.7 ‘Cork Harbour and WFD Objectives Cork Harbour has been designated as a heavily modified water body under Article 4(3) of the WFD. The reason for the designation is due to port shipping and dredging activities, and port reclamation of recent decades. The designation means that the objective for this water body is ‘good ecological potential’ in recognition of the fact that it is significantly altered due to physical modifications. This objective allows the important function of this water body to be retained, while ensuring that the ecological features are protected or improved as far as possible. The water body is classified as at ‘good morphological status’ in the latest EPA report on the WFD Status (EPA, 2015). This indicates that the existing, ongoing physical modifications made to facilitate the port development (e.g. maintenance dredging, quay development) will not, in isolation, prevent the water body from achieving good ecological potential. In order for a water body to achieve good ecological potential the morphological status must also be good.

Cork Harbour is currently achieving its water quality objective of ‘good ecological potential’ however the lack of secondary treatment for sewage discharges into the Harbour means that the water body fails the protected area objective under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. As the Port activities do not represent a significant source of the nutrient levels there is no requirement for the existing Port operations to address the nutrient pressures in Cork Harbour which is currently being addressed through the construction of the Cork Lower Harbour Main Drainage Scheme.

The chemical pollution failure in Cork Harbour is due to lead pollution and TBT levels (Marine Institute, 2010). The main source of lead is from aerial deposition and existing port activities are unlikely to be a source of this pollution. TBT levels in Ringaskiddy Basin are within acceptable limit values and are recovering as reported by Marine Institute (Marine Institute, 2010) and confirmed in the baseline surveys undertaken to inform this assessment. Monitoring stations within the Cork Harbour water body have identified that the cause of the chemical status failure is not within the Ringaskiddy Basin (Marine Institute, 2010). Given the recovering status of the levels of TBT the existing Port activities in Ringaskiddy Basin are not a cause for the chemical status failures.

The objectives as presented in the South Western River Basin Management Plan (2009-2015) have extended the timelines for the achievement of ‘good ecological potential’ and ‘good chemical status’ to 2021 to allow investigations into the cause of the chemical pollution failures. The existing port facilities in Ringaskiddy East will not have any significant impact on the achievement of this objective, as the activities are not a source of the pressures causing a failure of the environmental quality objectives.

13.2.4 Impacts of the Proposed Alterations to the Water Environment The key issues identified with regard to water quality are associated with the physical disturbance in the marine environment and adjacent lands due to construction activities and additional dredging associated with the proposed alterations. The potential impact arising from the physical disturbance includes sediment, concrete or fuel/chemicals entering Cork Harbour. During the operational phase the potential for the marine structures associated with the proposed alterations to impact on coastal processes and morphology of Cork Harbour is considered. Additional pressures associated with sewage, storm water drainage and accidental spillages potentially impacting on water quality are also assessed in the context of the proposed alterations.

It is important to note that the proposed alterations to the permitted development do not prevent the Cork Harbour or Western Celtic Sea coastal water bodies from achieving the objectives of the WFD and in particular do not introduce additional or cumulative pressures that may deteriorate the condition of the Cork Harbour water body which is currently at good ecological potential or the Western Celtic Sea which has an assumed status of high status.

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-11 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

13.2.4.1 Main Quayside Works Revisions to the geometry of container berth 1 include a minor modification to the shape of the southern end of the berth are proposed as part of the alterations, but due to the reconfiguration of the shape of the quay return wall, piling and construction activity is effectively in the same location as in the permitted development (refer EIS Figure 3.15). Berth 2 is unchanged.

Chapter 12 Coastal Processes concludes that the flood tide will not significantly change as result of the proposed quayside alterations. The proposed alterations will therefore have the same impact on tidal currents as the permitted design. The proposed alterations will therefore not have a significant adverse impact on the coastal processes or the morphological status of the Cork Harbour water body.

The proposed alterations to the main berth under operational conditions will not introduce any significantly increased or additional adverse risks to water quality as predicted in the previous assessment for the permitted development. As for the permitted development, the altered quayside will be provided with collection facilities for surface water which will be discharged to sea after passing through an oil and silt interceptor in accordance with Pollution Prevention Guideline 3 “Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems”.

There is no significant increase in the quay structures and the mitigation strategy/environmental commitments already enshrined in the extant approval means that the impact from the proposed alteration to the main quayside works can be considered as negligible . For extremely high sensitivity water bodies i.e. Cork Harbour, this will result in an imperceptible impact based on the criteria in Table 13.2.

13.2.4.2 Dredging During container berth 1 construction phase additional dredging will be undertaken for the proposed alterations. The volume of additional material to be removed is estimated to be 15,000m 3 which represents a 4% increase in total volume of material to be dredged. As stated in Chapter 12 (Coastal Processes), the location of the additional dredging, at the southern end of the quay, is a sheltered position where current speeds do not exceed 0.1m/s therefore the material released into the water column will not be dispersed widely.

The Coastal Processes Chapter also notes that modelling undertaken for the permitted development assumes that dredging is undertaken for all phases coincidently (i.e. worst case) to provide the maximum potential impact. The phasing of the overall permitted development will facilitate a more measured approach where potential impacts may actually be reduced.

The sediment sampling programme and subsequent analysis established that the baseline sediment quality within the proposed additional dredging area to the south of berth 1 is largely in compliance with the lower level guideline concentrations for all parameters with the exception of nickel which has been attributed to natural background concentrations. The additional dredging activities will not therefore result in the release of contaminated sediments into the water column.

Regarding disposal of dredged material at sea, the increased dredging volume represents a 4% increase in total volume to be placed at the licensed dumpsite as all additional material is bound for the offshore dumpsite. Chapter 12, Coastal Processes has confirmed that the additional dredge volume resulting from the proposed alterations is well within the previously modelled volumes which will have a limited dispersion from the proposed dump site as demonstrated in Figures 12.22 to 12.24. Taking into consideration the uncontaminated nature of the sediment, the dumping at sea of the additional dredged material will not have a significant impact on the chemical status of the Western Celtic Sea water body or on those physic-chemical elements supporting ecological status.

In terms of the biological elements that contribute to ecological status Chapter 14, Marine Ecology, has concluded that there will only be a minor negative impact that will be temporary in nature. Given that the majority of the dump site is located outside the Western Celtic Sea coastal water body and the minor nature of the impact which will be confined to the footprint of the dumpsite and immediate

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-12 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment adjoining areas the additional dredge volume will not result in an overall deterioration in the ecological status of the water body.

When assessing the ecological status of a water body the protected area status should also be considered. Given the uncontaminated nature of the additional dredged sediment and the limited dispersion within the Western Celtic Sea water body there is no potential for impact on the protected areas in adjacent water bodies such as the Ballycotton Bay SPA, Cork Harbour SPA or Great Island Channel SAC.

Taking this into consideration the impact on the water quality, ecological and chemical status of the Western Celtic Sea water body and adjoining water bodies is considered to be negligible and there will be no risk of deterioration in status, therefore the WFD objective for this water body will not be compromised. The significance of the impact for the proposed alterations for a water body of extremely high importance such as the Western Celtic Sea is therefore imperceptible, based on the criteria outlined in Table 13.2, which is the same conclusion as the EIA for the permitted development. The mitigation measures already enshrined in the extant approval remain fully applicable without need for any changes and are therefore adequate to prevent a significant environmental impact.

13.2.4.3 Mooring Dolphins

Construction of three new mooring dolphins The three new mooring dolphins will use similar construction techniques as those for the main quay wall in the permitted development. The magnitude of the potential impacts of the construction for the permitted development arising from concrete / cement entering the aquatic environment was assessed to be to be moderate adverse with regard to water quality. Based on the matrix of environmental impacts as present in Table 13.2 the impact was considered to be potentially significant to profound in the absence of mitigation. However with the mitigation strategy and environmental commitments in the extant permission the construction impact was considered to be small adverse and with a significance rating of moderate over the short term.

The mitigation strategy for the extant approval remains entirely appropriate for the proposed alterations and there will be no difference in the significance of the impact predicted for the permitted development and the impact of the proposed alterations can be considered as not significant .

Demolition of two existing mooring dolphins Demolition works will most likely be carried out from floating or jack-up plant and this operation will be undertaken approximately 20 m southwards of the area of construction operations for the quay wall as proposed in the permitted development. Such works will include concrete cutting, steel cutting, and diving, airlifting and concrete breaking using mechanical plant. The potential impacts to the water environment include possible dust from concrete cutting in particular and the use of plant within the marine environment even when located on floating or jack up barges.

The proposed alterations have the potential to have a moderate adverse impact on the water environment through oil or chemical pollution or through release of debris from the demolition to the aquatic environment. The mitigation strategy and environmental commitments of the extant permission remain fully applicable to the proposed alterations and will ensure that the magnitude of impact from the demolition of the existing mooring dolphins will be negligible resulting in an imperceptible impact on the Cork Harbour water body.

13.2.4.4 Entrance and interchange area The proposed entrance and interchange area alterations will occur in an area already assessed for its effects on Water Quality.

No additional, appreciable or significant adverse effects are predicted to occur as a result of the proposed alterations.

13.2.4.5 Maintenance building and terminal offices

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-13 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The proposed maintenance and terminal office building will be located within a dedicated compound, to the South of the existing Ferry Terminal access road. The new steel framed structure will compromise a maintenance hall and all facilities required for maintenance operations personnel, customs and border control offices and facilities for shipping agents. The building compound includes provision for car parking, and set down, marshalling and working areas.

The permitted development includes a commitment for full retention oil interceptors for all storm water networks to address operational impacts from contaminated surface water drainage. The single storey building previously proposed as a maintenance building within the terminal area is proposed to be changed from a maintenance building to a customs inspection building. The proposed alterations include the removal of the previously proposed office buildings from inside the container storage area and the construction of a new combined maintenance and office building near the entrance to the passenger terminal. The environmental commitment enshrined in the extant approval for full retention oil interceptors for all storm water networks to address operational impacts from contaminated surface water drainage still applies to the relocated maintenance building. No additional, appreciable or significant adverse effects are predicted to occur as a result of the proposed alterations.

In terms of sewage and water supply the proposed alterations will not have any additional significant impacts and the mitigation strategy outlined in the extant permission is adequate to mitigate any additional sewage treatment or water supply necessary for the proposed maintenance building and terminal offices.

13.2.4.6 Customs Building The single storey building previously proposed as a maintenance building within the terminal area is proposed to be relocated to the South of the terminal site, adjacent to the proposed terminal entrance. The purpose of this building is proposed to be changed from a maintenance building to a customs inspection building. The Internal layout of the building has been amended to accommodate this proposed change in use.

No significant effects are predicted to occur as a result of the proposed alterations.

13.2.4.7 Other operational changes The other operational changes such as container handling system and general cargo operations will not introduce any additional, additive, incremental, associated or connected effects resulting in synergistic impacts above a magnitude already predicted in the previous assessment.

13.2.5 Mitigation Measures for the protection of Water Quality The mitigation measures that formed part of the An Bord Pleanála approval of the permitted development do not require any changes and remain entirely appropriate.

13.2.6 WFD Assessment A WFD Assessment was carried out for the proposed alterations in the context of the potential impact on the Cork Harbour and Western Celtic Sea coastal water bodies using guidelines which requires a development to comply with the four main objectives of the WFD, i.e.:

• To prevent deterioration in the ecological status/potential of the water body; • To prevent the introduction of impediments to the attainment of good WFD status/potential for the water body: • To ensure that the attainment of the WFD objectives for the water body are not compromised. • To ensure the achievement of the WFD objectives in other water bodies within the same catchment are not permanently excluded or compromised.

In addition to the water quality impacts identified above the elements of the proposed alterations that have the potential to impact on the achievement of the WFD objectives are summarised below. 13.2.6.1 Habitat Loss

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-14 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

One of the contributing elements to the WFD status classification of a water body is the protected area status supported by that water body. Where the conservation status of the habitats and species for which the protected area has been designated are considered to be unfavourable the ecological status/potential must be assessed as less than good on the basis that it is failing to achieve the protected area objectives. On this basis the habitat loss assessment has been included in the consideration of the status of Cork Harbour.

There will be no additional subtidal or intertidal habitat loss except for the footprint of new dolphins on the seabed. The marine areas of the proposed alterations are immediately adjacent to modified or reclaimed coastline. The impact in terms of habitat loss is considered negligible with an imperceptible impact across the wider Cork Harbour water body.

13.2.6.2 Marine morphology Water bodies can be physically modified to provide beneficial human uses such as water supply, navigation, flood/coastal protection and transport. In the context of the proposed alterations the extension to the quay walls and the construction of 3 new mooring dolphins with the removal of two existing mooring dolphins will modify the coastline albeit over a relatively small length of coastline in terms of Cork Harbour. Such modifications can reduce the diversity of plant and animal communities either directly by affecting habitats or indirectly by changing natural processes.

Cork Harbour is already currently assigned as a Heavily Modified Water Body (HMWB) and the combined extent of the alterations to the coast line as a result of the proposed alterations will not result in any significant increase in quay structures and coincides with sections of the coastline that have already been altered or reclaimed and therefore do not impact upon natural coastline.

In consideration of the impact of the potential for modification of the coastline and intertidal area through the proposed alterations, modelling completed for Chapter 12 Coastal Process concludes that the proposed alterations will not have an impact on tidal currents and remain similar to those predicted for the current permitted design.

On this basis the morphological impact of the proposed alterations in the context of the status of Cork Harbour can be considered as negligible with an imperceptible impact.

13.2.6.3 Invasive Species The proposed alterations will have a neutral impact on the risk from invasive species as they do not represent activities that will introduce invasive species to Cork Harbour or the Western Celtic Sea water bodies.

13.6.2.4 Achievement of WFD objectives The proposed alterations to the permitted development do not change the conclusions of the WFD assessment for the permitted development. The WFD objectives for the Cork Harbour and Western Celtic Sea water bodies will not be compromised.

13.2.7 Cumulative Impacts affecting Water Quality Other developments in the Cork Harbour area have been considered in the context of cumulative impacts with the proposed alterations on Water Quality. A review of other committed development through an examination of the Cork County Council Planning Register was undertaken to establish potential for cumulative impact with the proposed alterations. There are a number of projects that have the potential for cumulative impact on the water environment as outlined below.

Permitted Development (Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment) The proposed alterations have the effect of increasing the footprint of the planning boundary by 7% compared to that included in the permitted development as a result of –

• The introduction of the mooring dolphins • The extension of the southern boundary of the container storage area

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-15 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

• The introduction of the maintenance/office building and associated compound and car parking within an area which is currently used for the passenger terminal.

A comparison of the development areas for the permitted development and proposed alterations is illustrated in Figure 3.28. For the marine area, the additional dredging covers an area of 3750m 2 and approximately 15,000 m 3 of additional material will be generated. The permitted development includes dredging of 9ha of seabed, and the proposed alterations adds 0.375ha (~4%) to that overall total. This is a minor increase in the overall marine footprint of the permitted development. There are no significant cumulative effects upon the water environment as a result of the proposed alterations to the permitted development.

Other industrial development There are other developments approved for Novartis and DePuy (Ireland) which are essentially extensions to existing infrastructure at their current facilities. The potential for impact on the water environment from these developments is low and the cumulative impact is considered to be negligible particularly given the mitigation strategy developed for the permitted development and proposed alterations.

Hammond Lane Metal Company Planning permission was granted in 2012 for demolition, new build, upgraded facilities, new processing plant etc at the Hammond Lane Metal Company located adjacent to the N28 opposite the proposed eastern entrance to Port lands at Ringaskiddy. The EIS prepared for this project has been reviewed. No significant impacts on water quality were predicted and therefore cumulative impact is not significant.

East Tip Remediation Project, Haulbowline Island The primary objective of this project is to remediate the East Tip thereby ensuring that potential risks to humans and the wider environment are minimised. It is proposed the waste at the site will be contained by constructing an engineered capping system on top of the waste and a perimeter engineered structure (PES) around the waste body. The project additionally seeks to widen the access road and construct a slipway and floating pontoon. The EIS prepared in support of the application concludes that there will be negligible impacts on the hydrogeology with the mitigation proposed during the construction phase. During the operational stages the water quality impacts are positive with the PES reducing groundwater discharge from the site to the marine waters in Cork Harbour. No cumulative impact is therefore anticipated with the permitted development and proposed alterations.

Monkstown Marina Proposals for a new marina at Monkstown were submitted for planning permission and that application included a NIS. The marina comprises car-parking, retail, office and landscaping, with a requirement to dredge part of the seabed in the shallower parts of the marina and in a band paralleling the shore to enable safe access by craft during all states of the tide. The EIS prepared for the development outlines the suite of mitigation measures proposed to address water quality impact and concludes there will be no significant impact on water quality. No cumulative impact is therefore anticipated with the permitted development and proposed alterations.

Discharge Licences A review of existing licensed discharges to Cork harbour was undertaken. There are eight Integrated Pollution Prevention Consents near Ringaskiddy, two licensed surface water discharges under the Water Pollution Acts into the harbour. All of these discharges are currently regulated under by the EPA or Cork County Council and have emission limit values specified in their consent license to ensure that there is no significant impact on the receiving water. It is therefore anticipated that there will be no significant impacts on the water environment.

Nutrient Inputs Upstream nutrient input mainly from diffuse sources but also waste water treatment discharges are the key sources of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN). DIN levels in Cork Harbour are currently below the

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-16 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

EQS, and the water body from achieving good ecological potential. The proposed alterations will be serviced by the proposed Cork Lower Harbour Main Drainage Scheme or, in the event that the scheme is not completed prior to operational phase of the permitted development, a dedicated waste water treatment plant prior to discharge to coastal waters. The proposed alterations will therefore not have any cumulative adverse impacts on nutrient conditions in the Harbour. It is therefore anticipated that there will be no significant, cumulative impacts on the water environment.

Ringaskiddy Resource Recovery Centre This is a project by Indaver Ireland to construct and operate a waste-to-energy facility for the treatment of up to 240,000 tonnes per annum of residual household, commercial and industrial, non-hazardous and suitable hazardous waste at Ringaskiddy. Mitigation measures have been incorporated for both the construction and operational stages of the development to address potential risks to water quality. The development does not propose any discharge of process effluent to surface waters and underground process pipes or process drains will be double contained and subject to regular maintenance and inspection. Storm water drainage systems will have hydrocarbon interceptors and a storm water holding tank prior to discharge to surface waters. Chemical and oil storage will be on impervious areas with suitable bunds and tanker unloading areas will have a dedicated collection system in the event of any spillages. No significant effects on the water environment of Ringaskiddy are predicted to act cumulatively between the proposed alterations to the permitted development and the Ringaskiddy Resource Recovery Centre.

Dunkettle Interchange Improvement Motorway Scheme The EIS for the proposed motorway scheme was reviewed and it concludes that the scheme will not cause the deterioration of water quality within the water bodies adjacent to the proposed development either during construction (with implementation of appropriate mitigation measures) or during the subsequent operational phase. The proposed motorway scheme will not result in any significant hydromorphological impacts, while the there is no significant residual impacts to aquatic ecology and fish following implementation of mitigation measures. It was therefore be concluded that overall, the proposed motorway scheme will not compromise the ability of the Lough Mahon WFD designated water body from achieving good status, and the development was therefore in compliance with the provisions of the WFD. There is therefore no risk of cumulative impacts with the proposed alterations to the permitted development at Ringaskiddy.

13.2.8 Residual Impacts affecting Water Quality Based on the impact assessment of the proposed alterations, the potential impact on the Cork Harbour and Western Celtic Sea coastal water body was considered to range from imperceptible to profound. However when the mitigation strategy and environmental commitments for the extant permission are considered in the analysis of the proposed alterations the residual impacts to water quality are evaluated as negligible and the significance of the impact on the Cork Harbour and Western Celtic Sea water bodies is assessed as not significant.

In addition a WFD Assessment has been undertaken and the proposed alterations to the permitted development will not compromise the achievement of the four main objectives of the WFD.

13.2.8 Conclusion

The conclusion of this assessment of the proposed alterations is that these modifications will not result in any significant change to the assessment of effects and conclusions as previously presented for the permitted development.

The mitigation measures enshrined in the extant permission remain fully applicable to the proposed alterations.

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-17 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

13.3 FLOOD RISK 13.3.1 Introduction and Methodology This section of the Chapter identifies all possible sources of flooding, establishes their impact on the proposed alterations. It will assess the impact of flooding of the proposed alterations. This section will assess the risk of flooding to the proposed alterations in accordance with the methodologies set out in the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines (November 2009).

13.3.2 Existing Environment 13.3.2.1 Potential for Tidal Flooding MIKE 21 flexible mesh coastal model was used to generate a range of extreme tidal water levels. This was achieved through using a tidal and storm surge model, which covers the entire Irish coastline, the English Channel to Dover, the Western English and Welsh coastlines, as well as the Outer and Inner Hebrides and the West of mainland Scotland. The model extends into the Atlantic Ocean off the continental shelf and was developed in house by RPS based on the flexible mesh 2D hydrodynamic software package called DHI MIKE 21 FMHD. Figure 13.5 shows the extent of the numerical model used. The model uses 15 tidal harmonics from a global tidal model on its open boundaries and the wind and pressure field is defined using data from the ERA40 re-analysis model and the most current operational analysis and forecast model operated by the European Centre of Medium Range Weather Forecast.

The model was calibrated against a wide range of tidal measurements from various locations around Ireland and along the relevant UK coast. The model is utilised for both the Irish Coastal Protection Strategy commissioned by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, and the OPW Storm Surge Forecasting Programme.

In the model extreme tidal water levels were estimated for a number of points. The point in the model located closest to Ringaskiddy Basin is C_2, and the location of this is shown in Figure 13.6. Table 13.5 shows the estimated extreme tidal water levels for a range of return period events at Point C_2.

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51 Bathymetry Above -5 -15 - -5 50 -25 - -15 -40 - -25 -55 - -40 -70 - -55 -130 - -70 49 -190 - -130 -250 - -190 -500 - -250 -750 - -500 -1000 - -750 48 -2000 - -1000 -3000 - -2000 -4000 - -3000 Below -4000 47 Undefined Value -16 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1

Figure 13.6 Extent of Irish Tidal and Storm Surge Model

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-18 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 13.7 Location of Point where Water Levels were predicted

Table 13.5 Extreme Tidal Water Levels

Return Period Water Level Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) (years) to OD 0.5% 200 2.73 0.1% 1000 2.88

Flood zones as classified under the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines (2009) are as follows:

• Flood Zone A: areas where the probability of flooding from the sea is highest (0.5%). Based on the present day predicted tidal levels, this would equate to a level of 2.73m OD; • Flood Zone B: area where the probability of flooding from the sea is moderate (between 0.1% and 0.5%), and this would equate to levels between 2.73 and 2.88m OD; • Flood Zone C: areas where the probability of flooding from the sea is low (less than 0.1%), and this would equate to levels above 2.88m OD.

Topographical survey data of the area was used in order to map the extent of tidal flooding in the vicinity of the site. Figure 13.7 (EIS Volume II) shows the extent of these flood zones. Based on the present day predicted tidal flood levels from Table 13.6 the entire land area of the site, with the exception of a small strip around the quay, is above the 0.1% AEP level and subsequently under the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines (2009) would be classified as Flood Zone C.

This zone is considered to be at low probability of flooding. Given this flood zoning and the fact that the type of proposed alterations as with the permitted development would be considered as water

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-19 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment compatible, (as defined by Table 3.1 of the Planning and Flood Risk Management System Guidelines), a Justification Test would not be required and the application site would be considered suitable for all types of development (Table 3.2 of the guidelines).

13.3.2.2 Climate Change Guidance for the application of climate change in terms of sea level rise is provided in ‘Assessment of Future Scenarios for Flood Risk Management’ (OPW, 2009). This recommends that two potential future scenarios are considered: Mid-Range Future Scenario (MRFS) which represents a ‘likely’ future scenario; and High End Future Scenario (HEFS) which represents a more extreme potential future scenario. It is recommended that a mid-range future scenario of 500mm rise in sea levels is considered and a 1000mm increase in sea levels is considered for the high end future scenario. The results of adding these sea level rises are presented in Table 13.6.

Table 13.6 Predicted 2100 Tidal Flood Levels Annual Return Period Water Level MRFS Water HEFS Water Exceedance (years) Present Day Level 2100 Level 2100 Probability (AEP) (m OD) (m OD) (m OD) 0.5% 200 2.73 3.23 3.73

In considering the future risk from coastal flooding, the Mid-Range Future Scenario (MRFS) should be considered. Therefore the proposed alterations as per the permitted development would need to take account of the MRFS 2100 flood level when considering finished floor and development levels across the application site.

13.3.3 Impact Assessment The proposed alterations do not alter the existing levels of the application site. This means that the permitted development and the proposed alterations will not increase the existing flood risk, and therefore the flood zones will remain unchanged.

The predominant source of flooding to the application site emanates from extreme coastal water levels. Ideally, any development should include mitigation measures to ensure the risk from a design tidal level is minimised. For developments in Ringaskiddy Basin, this would equate to a 2100 0.5% AEP event of 3.23m OD.

13.3.4 Mitigation Measures The deck levels for the permitted development and proposed alterations have been designed to 6m CD, which is equivalent to 3.43m OD, and is therefore in excess of the 2100 0.5% AEP level of 3.23m OD. Mitigation measures have therefore been incorporated into the design of the permitted development and the proposed alterations, in particular the customs building, maintenance buildings and terminal offices will not be within an area that is prone to flood risk.

The mitigation strategy for the permitted development remains fully applicable to the proposed alterations.

13.3.5 Residual Impact The additional freeboard afforded to the permitted development above the 1 in 200 year levels will ensure that there will not be any residual flood risk to the permitted development or the proposed alterations.

13.3.6 Conclusion The proposed alterations will not have any impact on the flood risk and is therefore remain compliant with The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Planning Guidelines (2009).

NI1004 S146C EIS 13-20 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

14.0 MARINE ECOLOGY

14.1 Marine Benthos and Fisheries 14.1.1 Introduction This section of the Chapter considers the potential and likely significant effects of the proposed alterations to the permitted development on the intertidal and subtidal benthos and fisheries. The purpose Chapter is to identify and describe any likely significant effects upon intertidal and subtidal benthos and fisheries as a result of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development.

The proposed alterations are described in detail in Chapter 3 Project Description. The proposed alterations are located in the inner section of the Ringaskiddy Port, an active ferry and bulk cargo port, which was reclaimed in the past from the Ringaskiddy shoreline. The area in which marine alterations are proposed comprises a short length of intertidal rock armour revetment and a small subtidal area of sandy mud. A portion of intertidal rock armour revetment will be removed in order to extend the proposed berth, and subtidal sandy mud will be removed by dredging in order to facilitate ship berthing.

14.1.2 Methodology 14.1.2.1 Ringaskiddy Basin In order to characterise the Ringaskiddy subtidal areas a drop-down video survey and a benthic grab sample survey was undertaken in the basin in spring and summer 2012. A 1.5m beam trawl survey was undertaken in August 2013 and an additional intertidal survey was undertaken in February 2016 during low water of spring tides. See Figure 14.1.1 to show the study area for the proposed alterations in relation to tidal marks.

Figure 14.1.1: A close up of the proposed marine components of the alterations showing the lines for mean high water of spring tides (MHWS) and the corresponding low spring tide line (MLWS).

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

14.1.3 Existing Environment 14.1.3.1 Marine / Estuarine Habitats Intertidal Environment The eastern site of the Ringaskiddy basin is bordered by a steep rock armour revetment which is covered in a dense growth of fucoid brown algae shown in Figure 14.1.2(A-D). The area follows the typical vertical zonation pattern of sheltered rocky shores with a supra tidal section of bare rock armour with isolated small patches of yellow and grey lichen below which there are very narrow upper shore bands of Pelvetia and Fucus spiralis with pockets of the red alga Catenella caespitosa between boulders and with a thin covering of Enteromorpha within and immediately above this zone (Figure 14.1.2A).

Below this, the shore is dominated by a heavy growth of the brown fucoid alga Ascophyllum in the middle and upper part of the lower shore (Figure 14.1.2C) with the red epiphyte Polysiphonia lanosa and covered in places by the brown filamentous epiphyte Pilayella littoralis, a typical marine/estuarine- adapted species. Between boulders and brown seaweed the red filamentous species Audouinella sp. is occasionally present on the rock armour surface. Below this patches of Fucus serratus cover the looser rock armour elements and boulders along with scattered clumps of red algae, mainly Cermamium virgatum and Polysiphonia spp (Figure 14.3D) with occasional Lomentaria clavellosa and Mastocarpus stellatus . The boulders in this area tend to be covered with a fine layer of mud. This gives way to the upper subtidal (or shallow infralittoral) where small silted boulders covered in fine red algae including Aglaothamnium sp., Pterothamnium pumula, Hypoglossum hypoglossoides etc.were present (Figure 14.1.3C). This in turn gives way in the subtidal proper to a uniform sandy mud habitat.

A very limited range of intertidal invertebrates were noted on the shore, dominated numerically by the barnacle Elminius modestus (Figure 14.1.3 B) and also including limpets ( Patella vulgata ), periwinkles, Littorina littorea (Figure 14.1.3A) and Littorina obtusata/mariae as well as occasional blue mussels (Mytilus edulis ) and juvenile green crabs ( Carcinus maenas ). The tube dwelling keel worm (Pomatoceros lamarcki ) was occasionally noted on boulders while the smaller spirorbid worms were common on Fucus serratus fronds in the lower shore. No sponges or sea anemones were noted in this part of the shore.

Based on the JNCC marine habitat classification system, the dominant marine biotope in the footprint of the development extension belongs to the broad category of littoral rock and, more specifically, bears a close resemblance to: LR.LLR.F.Asc.X ( Ascophyllum nodosum on full salinity mid eulittoral mixed substrata) and to LR.LLR.FVS.AscVS (Ascophyllum nodosum and Fucus vesiculosus on variable salinity mid eulittoral rock) both of which are fairly low diversity biotopes.

Subtidal The survey of the subtidal in the development area for the proposed alterations showed it to be comprised of a featureless expanse of sandy mud. The infaunal community was dominated by polychaetes worms, including in particular Nephtys hombergii with other polychaete represented by Chaetozone gibber , Streblospio benedicti and Tharyx sp. A. The bivalve mollusc, Abra nitida was also frequently encountered.

This community most closely resembles the JNCC biotope: [SS.SMu.ISaMu] Infralittoral Sandy Mud habitat complex.

14.1.3.2 Fisheries and Aquaculture General Fish and Epibenthic Community Bream trawl surveys undertaken in August 2013 in the inner section of Ringaskiddy Basin near the site of the proposed alterations revealed a small range of typical marine / estuarine fish species including juvenile plaice, juvenile sole, sand gobies and pogge.as well as typical mobile epibenthic crustaceans including green crab ( Carcinus maenas ), swimming crab ( Liocarcinus spp.), a brown crab ( Cancer pagurus ), brown shrimp ( Crangon crangon ) and palaemon shrimp (Palaemon serratus ). All of these

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

species are widespread throughout Cork Harbour and elsewhere around the coast in the Western Celtic Sea.

No commercial fishing is undertaken in the proposed development area, given its location in a busy ferry and cargo port. Furthermore, due to the presence of exclusion fencing along the site, the area is not used for recreational fishing. There are no aquaculture receptors within or near the Ringaskiddy Basin, the nearest active aquaculture being undertaken in the North Channel and in the eastern side of the harbour near Rostellan more than 9km from the proposed works.

A B

C D

Figure 14.1.2: A = top of rock armour revetment with narrow band of Pelvetia, Fucus spiralis and fine greens ( Enetromorpha ?) B = base of revetment showing patchy F. serratus cover on loose boulders. C = close-up of dense Ascophyllum cover on main body of revetment; D = close-up of F serratus on silted lower shore boulders.

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-3 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

B A

C D

Figure 14.1.3 (A-D): A = Edible periwinkles and blue mussel – lower shore B = patch of the barnacle Elminius modestus , lower shore C = Green alga ( Ulva sp.) Fine reds and F. serratus on extreme lower shore boulder. D = Fine reds and hydrozoa (?) on upper subtidal (shallow infralittoral) boulders, in very turbid waters at the base of the revetment.

14.1.4 Impact Assessment 14.1.4.1 Relevant characteristics of the proposed alterations The relevant aspects of the proposed alterations from a marine ecological perspective are:

• Alterations to the geometry at the southern end of the main berth as per Figure 14.1.1 with no resultant change in the removal of existing intertidal rock-armour revetment when compared to the permitted development. • The dredging of 0.375ha of additional subtidal habitat which will result in its deepening of this area of the basin to -13m CD. • The removal of 18 piles at 2 existing dolphins by cutting at design dredge level. • The installation of 13 x 1.8m diameter additional tubular steel piles for the quay walls and 24 x 0.9m diameter tubular steel piles new piles for the 3 new dolphins. • Dolphin removal and construction works to be undertaken in the period between September and April inclusive.

14.1.4.2 Impact of Habitat Removal There is no change in the impact on intertidal rock armour revetment.

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-4 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

14.1.4.3 Dredging The deepening through dredging of 0.375ha of subtidal muddy sand habitat adjoining the berth constitutes a temporary disturbance of this habitat which will be recolonised by the same range of species within the first year of the dredging, with a return to full biomass expected within 2 to 3 years. This constitutes a negligible change in the context of the large area of such habitat within the Ringaskiddy basin itself and within the wider harbour. The area is likely to be used by the same range of juvenile and other fish and mobile epibenthic invertebrates after the dredging, such that the impact on the fish community can also be described as temporary and negligible.

Impact of Dredger Plumes on Fish Dredgers generate plumes of elevated suspended solids in their wakes, which will vary depending on local hydrodynamic conditions, the depth, and the type of material being dredged and the rate of dredging and type of dredger among other factors.

Elevated suspended solids can have the following impacts on fish in the environment:

(i) Behavioural - altered swimming behaviour, breakdown in schooling, altered foraging rates and success, avoidance (lateral and or vertical); (ii) Sub-lethal - physiological changes including increased blood sugar, increased blood cortisol, increased coughing response and reduced feeding success all of which are considered signs of stress or alarm. Repeated stress can lead to reduced growth rates; and (iii) Lethal - direct mortality due to severe gill damage.

The effects of suspends solids depends principally on a combination of concentration and duration of exposure. The nature of the solids involved is also a factor with larger angular silt and sand particles considered more damaging than smaller particles.

Results from the dredge modelling for the permitted dredging of Ringaskiddy Basin (see Chapter 12 Coastal Processes), indicate that the highest suspended solids experienced during dredging will be in the Ringaskiddy Basin itself and the adjoining shallow embayment to the north, i.e. Monkstown Creek. In Monkstown Creek for example, suspended solids concentrations during dredging are expected to fluctuate between about 25mg/l up to 200mg/l depending on the stage of the tide. Outside of these two sheltered areas, the plume is seen to disperse rapidly, such that in the main west passage channel opposite Monkstown, the levels will fluctuate from very low, to peak at 40-60mg/l depending on the state of the tide. The same pattern will pertain in the main channel off the end of the ADM Jetty, while over the Oyster Bank the levels will occasionally peak to 200-300mg/l for short periods of the tide depending on whether there is a neap or spring cycle, but will remain below 50-100mg/l for most of the time. Outside of these areas suspended solids generally will average in the 20-40mg/l range.

In these scenarios, benthic fish, and in particular flat fish and gobies, are likely to remain in and around the same areas throughout the dredging period, because their benthic habit means that they are more usually exposed to elevated solids levels. In contrast, pelagic species such as sprat are more likely to avoid plumes during periods of the tide when solids levels peak. Migrating salmon smolts are most likely to do the same, although probably at higher suspended solids concentrations. It important to note that salmon are known to move through highly turbid estuarine reaches where solids levels comparable to those being modelled occur naturally at certain stages of the tide and in certain reaches. No direct mortalities are expected to occur due to turbidity plumes, however it is conceivable that some weaker individuals in the population may succumb to gill disease as a result of the increased turbidity. This is not however, expected to result in a significant adverse impact at the local population level of any species.

It is important to note that the impacts outlined above are based on the modelled dispersion of 12 days of dredging for the permitted development which includes 215,000m 3 of material being dredged from Ringaskiddy West and 137,000m 3 from Ringaskiddy East. The proposed alterations will add an additional dredge volume of 15,000m 3. However, this additional dredging will be undertaken in the most inner part of the development area where ebb tidal velocities are the lowest within the redevelopment area, which means in effect that the associated dredging plume beyond Ringaskiddy Basin will likely contain much lower levels of suspended solids than those modelled for the permitted combined

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-5 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

dredging of the western and eastern sides of Ringaskiddy Basin and hence be associated with lesser potential impacts than those outlined above.

Commercial Fishing and Aquaculture The 15,000m 3 of proposed dredging for the alterations in the inner part of the Ringaskiddy Basin is not expected to have any, adverse impacts on commercial fishing in Cork Harbour. Nor is it expected that aquaculture will be adversely impacted in any way. This is because aquaculture is only undertaken in the North Channel and the eastern side of the harbour where the dispersion modelling for the larger permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment (Chapter 12) predicted low incremental increases in suspended solids levels due to the dredging operation.

Dredging-related sedimentation levels outside of the immediate footprint of the dredging when modelled for the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment were extremely low, i.e. fractions of a millimetre in the Monkstown Creek SPA (Site Code: 0001979). Clearly, the much smaller dredging effort associated with the proposed alterations (15,000m 3), located as it is in the inner part of the Ringaskiddy Basin, will generate negligible additional sedimentation outside of the basin and consequently will have a negligible impact on the SPA and other benthic habitats in Cork Harbour.

Impact of dredge spoil disposal at the licensed dump site The dredge spoil arising for the proposed alterations to the berth at Ringaskiddy East (15,000m 3) results in a 4% increase in total quantum of material to be dredged and 5% increase in total quantum of material to be disposed of at sea. The current licensed dumpsite site is approximately 4km 2 in area and is situated 4.5 km south of Power Head and 7.5 km south east of Roches Point at the entrance to Cork Harbour. It has been in use since 1996, however, it formed the eastern half of a dump site that had been in use since 1978 of dredge spoil disposal. The current reduced-size dump has received considerable amounts of dredge spoil since 1996, initially every 2 years and in recent times every 3 years. Most recently in late 2014 the volume of spoil for which a license was granted was 352,000m3. On the 4 previous occasions, the volume of spoil dumped was as follows –

• 2011 = 272,025m 3 • 2008 = 253,848m 3 • 2005 = 133,979m 3 • 2003 = 441,931m 3

Source: Port of Cork Maintenance Dredging Habitats Directive Assessment, Screening Statement (RPS, 2014)

These figures indicate that the disposal at sea volumes proposed from the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment as well as the additional amounts arising from the extended dredge pocket will not mark a departure from the regular disposal activity at this site over the past decade.

A number of previous surveys at the site have shown that much of the site area comprises exposed bedrock rock, interspersed with areas of sediment making up the remainder of the site. Cobbles and boulders are also very common. It’s exposure to the Atlantic with huge fetches from the south east, south and south west means that it susceptible to storm surges and this combined with tidal currents make it a dynamic site from which sediment rapidly disperses into the surrounding area. Such sites are generally the fastest to recover from disturbance to their benthic communities following dredge spoil disposal. The disposal site, in common with all sites which regularly receive dredge spoil undergoes regular 2-3 year cycles of disposal followed by an intervening period of 2-3 years in which recovery of the benthic communities within and adjoining the site can takes place and this is what is anticipated will again occur at this site following the disposal of the combined 305,000m 3 earmarked for disposal from permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment and the additional 15,000m 3 arising from the proposed alterations to the development.

Modelling of a large disposal volume (385,000 m 3) at the dumpsite undertaken in 2007 by RPS (refer to Chapter 12) included a simulation of suspended solids in the water column. This indicated that within the upper water column and close to the dredger, very high suspended solids levels (2,000-5,000 mg/l) were estimated to occur which then rapidly dissipated away from the dredger disposal track, falling to hundreds of mg/l toward the edges of the box and beyond (Refer to Figures 12.22 – 12.24 of Coastal

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-6 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Processes, Chapter 12). These simulations however present the worst case because they give the maximum instantaneous concentrations across the whole dumping period but in reality each dumping event will be associated with a unique plume which while it will give rise to suspended solids within these ranges will only persist over a few hours and within a much more restricted area, with the highest concentrations persisting for the least time.

That notwithstanding, fish and especially shoaling pelagic species such as herring or sprat would likely avoid such plumes in the area in and around the dump site if they were present in the area during the proposed dumping period, which may run to 25 days. Demersal and benthic species such a pollock and wrasse would also likely avoid these plumes and during the disposal period overall fish biomass in the immediate area of the dumpsite may be reduced. However, within hours or days of the cessation of disposal the suspended solids levels will rapidly decline to background levels and cease to cause avoidance reactions in fish. In this regard therefore the impact of the disposal on pelagic and demersal species is expected to be minor and consist of temporary avoidance of the area at the time

Note that the volumes modelled for dumping at sea are larger than the combined disposal amount of both the permitted (305,000m 3) and proposed additional volumes (15,000m 3) associated with the alterations.

The current state of commercial fishing activity at the disposal site is unknown. However the rocky nature of the substrate means that trawling could not be safely undertaken at the site. Potting or bottom netting could be undertaken there but it is extremely unlikely that fishermen would leave static gear at this site during periods of disposal, as their gear would be in danger of being smothered by spoil. Outside of the very short disposal periods (estimated in this instance to be about 25 days between October and March) fishermen would be unlikely to use the site (given the distance offshore) unless it proved a more productive area than more easily accessible inshore sites for target species such as crab, lobster and demersal fish. In any case, given the long history of the sites’ use as a disposal area, fishermen have probably adapted their fishing practice at the site to these periodic 2-3 year cycles of disturbance, either avoiding the site entirely or concentrating in periods outside of the dumping and early recovery phases

14.1.4.4 Piling Noise There is no significant extension to the quay walls at Ringaskiddy East berth. The berthing alterations will require 13 tubular piles 1.8m in diameter. The new proposed mooring dolphins require 24 x 0.9m piles. Piles installed in water give rise to noise levels normally well above ambient. Tubular piles such as those which will be used in the project give rise to higher noise outputs than sheet piles and the following assessment will concentrate on the potential impacts from these piles.

Impact piling entails use of a heavy weight (hammer) to ram piles into the substrate at a strike rate of about one every 1.5 seconds. The noise generated is intermittent consisting of discrete noise outputs for each hammer impact. The sound generated also has several features, which characterise it. Firstly it is a loud sound i.e. it generally has high amplitude. It is also a sharp sound with a very short rise time to reach peak pressure (measured in milliseconds). It has a broad spectrum i.e. the sound is spread over a wide range of frequencies from a few hertz (Hz) to several thousand hertz. Sound is measured in units of pressure i.e. Pascals. Sound is generally expressed in decibels (dB), which is a log scale of the ratio between a reference pressure to the actual measured pressure.

When attempting to assess the impact of pile installation sound on fish, scientists have used a number of metrics to analyse the sound in a way that can be correlated with an effect in fish. One way to quantitatively describe the time history of a pressure signal generated by a pile installation pulse is to describe the total sound energy in the pressure signal. The sound energy associated with a pile installation strike or pulse, can be characterized by its SEL or Sound Exposure Level. SEL is the constant sound level in one second, which has the same amount of acoustic energy as the original time- varying sound, it is given in units of dB re 1µPa 2-sec. Another way of representing the sound output from pile installation is to add the SEL outputs from individual pile strikes for the total number of strikes required to drive one or more piles. The latter is termed the cumulative SEL (SEL cumulative ). These metrics have been used in research to describe the impacts of pile installation sound on fish. Such effects include a range of non-auditory tissue damage up to mortality, auditory tissue damage, which

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-7 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

results in a reduction in the hearing ability which may be permanent, a temporary reduction in hearing sensitivity or behavioural affects, e.g. startle or avoidance responses.

There are no existing standards governing anthropogenic noise levels set for the protection of fish in Irish or European legislation. Accordingly, for this assessment the guideline limit values for various thresholds in terms of fish impacts drawn up by the world’s leading research group on the impacts of anthropogenic noise on fish have been used in order to determine the potential risks to fish. These guideline levels are presented in Popper et al., (2014). Using these criteria, zones of potential impact around the piles to be used in the alterations project have been calculated. The zones in question are (i) an inner zone where direct fish mortality could occur, (ii) a second zone just outside this where minor physical injury could occur but where full recovery is likely In undertaking this assessment the assumption being made is that the SEL for each pile impact for the 1.8m diameter piles being used in the quay wall will be approximately 190dB and that the cumulative SEL for 500, 1000 and 5000 piles drives will give SEL cumulative of 217, 220 and 227 respectively at source. Based on these data the 2 impact zones around each pile referred to above are outlined in Table 14.1.1.

Table 14.1.1: Potential noise impact radii around 1.8m diameter tubular piles for different types of fish

Mortality radius (m) Recoverable Injury radius (m) Fish with swim Fish with swim Fish without Fish with swim Number of bladders used in bladders not Swim bladders used in strikes hearing involved in Bladders hearing All other fish to drive a pile (e.g. sprat and hearing (e.g. (e.g. flat fish and (e.g. sprat and herring) salmon, eel) lamprey) herring) 500 46 29 7 86 12 1000 74 46 12 136 18 5000 215 136 34 397 54

This analysis shows that the greater the number of hammer strikes needed to install a pile the higher the potential for mortality or injury. However, as the table also indicates fish vary in their susceptibility to injury, with hearing specialists such as sprat and herring being more susceptible (column 2) than hearing generalists such as salmon and eel (column 3) and especially those fish such as lamprey and flatfish that do not have swim bladders and which are the least sensitive (column) 4. The data also shows that the radii of influence both for mortality and recoverable injury are all well within the Ringaskiddy basin itself and therefore only likely to affect the resident population there. Many of those fish such as plaice and sole, do not have swim bladders and therefore are less susceptible to injury, rather than migratory species such as salmon, eel. These calculations are for the larger tubular piles in the quay wall, whereas those in the mooring dolphins (0.9m diameter) and especially the sheet piles will have much smaller zones of potential impact. It should be noted also that these impacts assume that the affected fish remains stationery within the impact radius throughout the period when a pile is being installed.

This assessment for the proposed alterations indicates that the impact from pile installation noise on fish will be localised and temporary and only likely to affect fish of non-conservation importance within the basin and mainly close to the actively installed pile. In the context of the fish population as a whole within Cork Harbour these potential impacts are considered minor to negligible.

14.1.5 Mitigation Measures 14.1.5.1 Construction Phase The intertidal and subtidal benthos and fisheries mitigation measures enshrined in the extant approval of the permitted development include the following commitments: • During the construction phase refuelling of plant will be undertaken away from the intertidal area to minimise the effects of possible fuel spillage. • During the construction phase standing machinery will be placed on drip trays to avoid spillages. • For the sections of concrete that are under water, pre-cast units shall be used for construction.

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-8 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

• Where the use of pre-cast units is not possible, where in situ stitching is required or where concrete is to be placed under water or in tidal conditions, specific fast-setting mix is required to limit segregation and washout of fine material / cement. • Dredging will not be undertaken between May and August. • During the construction phase no overflow from the dredger shall be permitted during dredging. • During dredging, an emergency spill kit and oil spill containment equipment will be held on board the dredging vessel by the dredging operator to manage potential potential oil spills. • During pile installation, a ramp-up procedure (i.e., “soft-start”) must be used in accordance with NPWS (2014).

The mitigation measures that formed part of the An Bord Pleanála approval of the permitted development of the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment remain entirely appropriate.

14.1.5.2 Operation Phase Impacts The intertidal and subtidal benthos and fisheries mitigation measures conditioned to the approval of the permitted development include the following commitments:

• During the operational phase surface water will be collected in drainage channels and gullies, and passed through oil interceptors prior to discharge. • During the operational phase Port of Cork will contribute to an environmental education programme for local primary schools concentrating on the marine environment. To that end they will engage with Inland Fisheries Ireland, and with the relevant educational institutions on the initiative with a view to agreeing a programme to commence within 18 months of project commencement should it be approved.

The mitigation measures that formed part of the An Bord Pleanála approval of the permitted development of the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment remain entirely appropriate.

14.2 Marine Mammals 14.2.1 Introduction This section of the Chapter considers the potential and likely significant effects of the proposed alterations to the permitted development on marine mammals. The purpose of this section of the Chapter is to identify and describe any likely significant effects upon marine mammals as a result of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development.

The Irish Whale and Dolphin Group (IWDG) have carried out this assessment of marine mammals and the potential impacts of proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development.

14.2.2 Methodology This assessment is based on a review of the previous evaluation and analysis presented in the marine mammals assessment conducted by Coastal and Marine Research Centre (CMRC) completed for the permitted development, and supplemented by information from published and unpublished literature as well as consultation with relevant authorities.

14.2.3 Baseline 14.2.3.1 Legislation In Ireland, cetaceans (whale, dolphins and porpoises), pinnipeds and the Eurasian otter ( Lutra lutra ) are protected under a suite of national and international legislation. All cetaceans, as well as grey (Halichoerus grypus ) and harbour seals ( Phoca vitulina ) and our only species of otter are protected under the Wildlife Act (1976) and amendments (2000, 2005, 2010 and 2012). Under the act and its amendments, it is an offence to hunt, injure or wilfully interfere with, disturb or destroy the resting or breeding place of a protected species (except under license or permit from the Department). The act applies out to the 12 nm limit of Irish territorial waters. Additionally, all cetaceans, pinnipeds and otter are protected under the EU Habitats Directive, where all cetaceans are included in Annex IV of the Directive as species ‘in need of strict protection’. Under this Directive, the harbour porpoise (Phocoena

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-9 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

phocoena ), bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ), grey seal, harbour seal and Eurasian Otter are listed under Annex II, which identifies these species of community interest and whose conservation requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs).

In 2007, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) of the then Department the Environment, Heritage and Local Government produced a ‘ Code of Practice for the Protection of Marine Mammals during Acoustic Seafloor Surveys in Irish Waters (NPWS, 2007). These were subsequently reviewed and amended to produce ‘ Guidance to manage the risk to marine mammals from man-made sound sources in Irish waters ’ (NPWS, 2014).

14.2.3.2 Marine Mammals in the vicinity of the proposed alterations and dump site It is necessary to determine what marine mammals use the area of proposed alterations and surrounding waters in order to estimate the likely significance of any impacts resulting from the proposed alterations. A baseline was derived in the 2014 EIS using published literature for cetaceans and through a number of site visits for pinnipeds. To update this baseline for marine mammals, a review of available additional data between 2013 and 2016 was carried out. The Irish Whale and Dolphin Group operate an all-Ireland sightings scheme since 1991, and hence a database of more than 10,000 records has been created from around the island of Ireland. The IWDG database was accessed for cetacean species, and other marine megafauna such as turtles, basking sharks and sunfish records received. The National Biodiversity Data Centre is a national organisation that collates, manages and analyses and disseminates data on Ireland’s biodiversity. An online portal facilitates access to records countrywide.

Data on seal occurrence and distribution at the site of the proposed alterations was accessed through the online portal of the National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC).

Between January 2013 and November 2016, a total of 44 cetacean sightings were recorded in the vicinity of Cork Harbour, including bottlenose dolphin, common dolphin, harbour porpoise, fin whale and minke whale, as well as a number of unidentified cetacean species. A total of 11 basking shark sightings were also recorded.

Table 14.2.1: Species and number of sightings recorded in Cork Harbour, November 2013-2016 (source www.iwdg.ie)

No of Species sightings Basking shark 11 Bottlenose dolphin 8 Unidentified cetaceans 15 Common dolphin 7 Fin whale 6 Harbour porpoise 3 Minke whale 5

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-10 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 14.2.1: All species recorded in the vicinity of Cork Harbour

Figure 14.2.2: Bottlenose dolphin sightings in the vicinity of Cork Harbour

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-11 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 14.2.3: Common dolphin sightings recorded in the vicinity of Cork Harbour

Figure 14.2.4: Fin whale sightings recorded in the vicinity of Cork Harbour

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-12 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 14.2.5: Harbour porpoise sightings recorded in the vicinity of Cork Harbour

Figure 14.2.6: Minke whale sightings recorded in the vicinity of Cork Harbour

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-13 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Figure 14.2.7: Unidentified cetacean species recorded in the vicinity of Cork Harbour

Only a single seal sighting exists on the NBDC database in the vicinity of Ringaskiddy between the years 2013 and 2016. All other records are before this time. This was of a single common seal from August 2014.

Table 14.2.2: Seals recorded in Cork Harbour, November 2013-2016 ( source www.nbdc.ie )

02/08/2014 Common seal Haulbowline 1

During maintenance dredging in Cork Harbour (between City Quay and Crosshaven, and including Ringaskiddy Basin) in September and October 2014 carried out under EPA Reg No. S0013-02, marine mammals were observed on 25 occasions, with the majority being grey seals at the dredge sites. Of these, 9 sightings were during pre-watches. On two occasions, common dolphins were recorded at the Roches Point dump-site when operations were about to begin (Russell and Levesque 2014). Dredging did not appear to cause disturbance to the seals as they would appear to investigate the area after dredging had begun. No marine mammals, basking sharks, otters or turtles were seen between November and December 2015 by a dedicated Marine Mammal Observer during dredging operations at the Royal Cork Yacht Club and Crosshaven boatyard marina (O’Donovan 2015).

The marine mammal community has not changed since the assessment reported in 2014 for the permitted development. Harbour porpoise, common and bottlenose dolphin and minke whale are the most frequently reported cetaceans and grey seal is also present in small numbers. The semi-resident group of 6-7 bottlenose dolphins, which occurred at the mouth of Cork Harbour have not been reported since May 2013. Nearly all records are at the mouth of Cork Harbour and cetaceans especially do not enter far into the harbour.

14.2.4 Impact Assessment The marine ecological features and receptors within the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment where alterations are proposed remain the same as those identified and described for the permitted development. The proposed alterations are described in full in EIS Chapter 3, but the marine components include:

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-14 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

• Alterations to the geometry at the southern end of the main berth as per Figure 14.1.1; • The dredging of 0.375ha of additional subtidal habitat which will result in the deepening of this area of the basin to -13m CD. • The removal of 18 piles at 2 existing dolphins by cutting at design dredge level. • The installation of 13 x 1.8m diameter additional tubular steel piles for the quay walls and 24 x 0.9m diameter tubular steel piles new piles for the 3 new dolphins. • Dolphin removal and construction works to be undertaken in the period between September and April inclusive.

Figure 14.1.1 illustrates the marine components of the proposed alterations.

14.2.4.1 Alterations of the Main Berth and Mooring Dolphins The alterations to the main berth will result in 13 tubular piles 1.8m in diameter. The new mooring dolphins require 24 x 0.9m piles. Piles installed in water give rise to noise levels normally well above ambient. Tubular piles, such as those which will be used in the project, give rise to higher noise outputs than sheet piles and the following assessment will concentrate on the potential impacts from these piles.

The worst case impact pile installation entails use of a heavy weight (hammer) to ram piles into the substrate at a strike rate of about one every 1.5 seconds. The noise generated is intermittent consisting of discrete noise outputs for each hammer impact. The sound generated also has several features, which characterise it. Firstly it is a loud sound i.e. it generally has high amplitude. It is also a sharp sound with a very short rise time to reach peak pressure (measured in milliseconds). It has a broad spectrum i.e. the sound is spread over a wide range of frequencies from a few hertz (Hz) to several thousand hertz. Sound is measured in units of pressure i.e. Pascals. Sound is generally expressed in decibels (dB), which is a log scale of the ratio between a reference pressure to the actual measured pressure.

The effect of sound pressure levels on marine mammals is still uncertain. Recent controlled exposure experiments with captive animals have produced theoretical thresholds for injury and disturbance (e.g. Kastelin et al. 2012). Validating these hypothetical limits in the field is more difficult and assessors rely heavily on modelling of site specific sound attenuation. If a marine mammal’s received sound exposures, exceed the relevant thresholds, auditory injury (PTS) is assumed to be likely. Pile installation is classed as a multi pulse source of impulsive sound. Its measured effects on marine mammals are largely based on work by Southall et al. (2007), who proposed a dual criterion based on peak sound pressure level (SPL) and sound exposure level (SEL), where the level that is exceeded first is what should be used as the working injury criterion (i.e. the precautionary of the two measures).

As all marine mammals do not hear equally across all frequencies, the use of frequency weightings is applied to compensate for differential frequency responses of their sensory systems (Table 14.2.3). The M-weighting (for marine mammals) is similar to the C-weighting for measuring high amplitude sounds in humans. At present there are no data available to represent the onset of PTS in marine mammals but Southall et al. (2007) estimated it as 6 dB above the SPL (unweighted) and 15 dB above the SEL (M- weighted according to the relevant marine mammal functional group, see Figure 1) based on the onset of TTS. Therefore, Southall et al. (2007) proposed SPL criteria of 230 dB re 1 µPa (peak broadband level) for PTS onset in cetaceans and 218 dB re 1 µPa for pinnipeds. They also recommended TTS can occur at 224 dB re 1 µPa (peak broadband level) for cetaceans and 212 dB re 1 µPa for pinnipeds (Southall et al. 2007; Bailey et al. 2010) (Table 2). While, the SEL criteria proposed by Southall et al. (2007) include TTS onset at 183 dB re 1 µPa 2 -s for cetaceans and 171 dB re 1 µPa2 -s for pinnipeds, and PTS onset is expected at 15 dB additional exposure (Bailey et al. 2010) (Table 14.2.4).

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-15 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Table 14.2.3: Functional marine mammal hearing groups, and group specific (m) frequency weightings (from Southall et al. 2007)

Table 14.2.4: Proposed injury criteria for individual marine mammals from Southall et al. (2007)

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-16 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Table 14.2.5. Proposed behavioral response criteria for individual marine mammals exposed to various sound types

Based on work by Southall et al. (2007), it is possible that harbour porpoise can experience behavioural disturbance up to 70km from the pile installation of large piles associated with offshore windfarms, however Bailey et al. (2010) presented results which indicated that strong avoidance behaviour would only be expected within 20km of the sound source. They also suggested that bottlenose dolphins and minke whales may exhibit behavioural disturbance within 50km and 40km from the source respectively (Bailey et al. 2010). Regarding pinnipeds, this zone is smaller, estimated within 14km of the source.

Based on this literature, pile installation has the potential to impact on harbour porpoise, minke whale, common and bottlenose dolphin as well as common and grey seals. However as there is no evidence that cetaceans occur within 3-5km and the closest sightings (bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise) were in the channel to the southeast of the site, there is little probability of sound exposure. Seals could occur within 1km of the site during piling and must be considered at risk from potential sound exposure. Due to the location of the site, sound pressure is likely to be largely contained within the immediate vicinity with little energy entering the shipping channel. Conditions attached to the extant planning permission require compliance with NPWS (2014) guidelines to ensure there are no marine mammals (especially seals) with 1000m of the site of the proposed alterations.

14.2.4.2 Removal of existing mooring dolphins and mooring bollard This will entail cutting existing piles at proposed dredge level and removing piles and concrete capping structures for offsite disposal. The two mooring dolphins to be removed contain 9 piles each, a total of 18 piles. Demolition works will most likely be carried out from floating or jack-up plant and this operation will be undertaken approximately 24m southwards of the area of construction operations for the quay wall as proposed in the permitted development. Such works will include concrete cutting and braking using mechanical plant.

An existing land based mass concrete mooring structure will be broken up and removed. This structure is within the construction area of the permitted development. Such works will include concrete cutting and braking using mechanical plant.

14.2.4.3 Construction of mooring dolphins Constructing three mooring dolphins will require additional piling works to be undertaken within the period proposed for piling activities associated with the construction of the main berth. Thus the duration of piling is unchanged and the cumulative noise from piling not significant. The construction period of September to April is outside the breeding season for all cetaceans known to be in the vicinity of Cork Harbour and the dump site. Although grey seals pup from August through to November, peaking in October, there are no known pupping sites for this species in the area.

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-17 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

14.2.4.4 Dredging One of the main potential implications of the proposed alterations for marine mammals is the removal of 15,000m 3 of additional sandy muddy sediment from the dredge pocket, which will be disposed of at the licensed dumpsite off Roches Point. The permitted development included dredging for both Ringaskiddy East and Ringaskiddy West. Bed conditions comprise uncompacted silts overlying gravel, clay and limestone depending on location. Dredging is required in all materials including bedrock.

The main potential effect is that associated with disposal of spoil at the dump site, south of Roches Point. The potential for disturbance to marine mammals is greatest when elevated levels of underwater noise are considered. Marine mammals, especially cetaceans, have well-developed acoustic capabilities and are sensitive to sound at much higher frequencies than humans (Richardson et al. 1995). They are less sensitive to the lower frequencies but there is still great uncertainty over the effects of sound pressure levels on marine mammals and thus the assessment of its impact. Sources of noise include that generated by the vessel during dredging and transiting to and from the dump site, the noise generated by dredging and that generated during dumping.

Received levels of dredging noise by marine mammals can exceed ambient levels to considerable distances depending on the type of dredger used (Richardson et al . 1995). Hopper dredges produced broadband sound between 20-1000 Hz and the highest levels occurred during loading. Evans (2000) suggested dredging activities produce sounds varying from 172-185 db re 1 ųPa at 1 metre over the broadband range 45 Hz to 7 kHz but there have been no studies examining the reaction of odontocetes to this activity. Audiograms for bottlenose dolphins show peak sensitivity between 50-60 kHz and no sensitivity below 2 kHz and above around 130 kHz (Richardson et al. 1995). Because of rapid attenuation of low frequencies in shallow water dredge noise normally is undetectable underwater at ranges beyond 20-25km (Richardson et al. 1995). The effects of low frequency (4-8 kHz) noise level and duration in causing threshold shifts in bottlenose dolphins were predicted by Mooney et al. (2009). They found that if the Sound Exposure Level was kept constant significant shifts were induced by longer duration exposures but not for shorter exposures. They found that short duration exposures require greater sound energy to induce Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) but predicting TTS in odontocetes is complicated however a logarithmic algorithm was suggested for inducing TTS and also for recovery. The broadband sound generated by hopper dredges (20-1000 Hz) are generally below the frequencies detectible by dolphins thus disturbance from the noise generated will not exist or at worse be very minimal. The World Organisation of Dredging Associations acknowledges that the management of risks related to dredging sound is not an easy task, but that it is clear that sound produced from dredging has the potential to impact on aquatic life and it is assumed that most of these impacts would concern disruption of communication due to masking or alteration of behaviour patterns.

NPWS (2014) identify increased sound pressure levels above ambient do occur due to dredging which could be detected up to 10km from shore. These levels are thought to potentially cause masking or behavioural effects but are not thought to cause injury to a marine mammal. There is no guidance on the effects of noise generated by dumping of dredge material on marine mammals.

Noise associated with dredging vessel The presence of a dredger in the area will lead to increased vessel traffic and associated noise. Large vessels produce low frequency sounds and the dredger will be 98-126 m in length, which is quite small compared to the average size of cargo vessel transiting Cork Harbour. The dump site is adjacent to the shipping channel entering Cork Harbour. This is one of the busiest shipping lanes in coastal Irish waters (Beck et al. 2013) and marine mammals using this area will be accommodated to shipping noise. The presence of an additional vessel and associated noise will not be significant. The increased noise above ambient levels generated by the dump vessel will be of relatively short duration.

It has been estimated that since 1978, over 7 million cubic metres of material have been disposed of at this site (PoC pers comm .). Although dumping has occurred only infrequently during a number of dredging campaigns the marine mammals in this area will have been exposed to dumping at this site in recent years. The dump site is adjacent to the shipping channel entering Cork Harbour. As noted above, this is one of the busiest shipping lanes in coastal Irish waters (Beck et al. 2013) and marine mammals

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-18 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

using this area will be habituated to shipping noise. The presence of an additional vessel and associated noise will not be significant and it will only be at the dump site for very short periods.

Physical Disturbance The risk of injury or mortality is considered extremely low as i) there are unlikely to be any marine mammals in the areas and in the immediate vicinity of the vessel and ii) any marine mammals, if present in the area, are exposed to large vessels on a daily basis and would be aware of their presence. The dredge vessels are slow moving and not able to turn quickly thus any animals in the area would have sufficient time to avoid any collisions and thus injury or mortality. The chance of actually releasing dredged material on top of a marine mammal is extremely unlikely. The duration of the release of dredged material last only a few minutes and the vessel will slow down during the opening of the doors.

Collision Risk The collision risk is considered extremely low as marine mammals in the area are exposed to large vessels on a daily basis and would be aware of their presence. The vessels are slow moving and not able to turn quickly thus any animals in the area would have sufficient time to avoid any collisions. Large whales, which are more vulnerable to ship collisions (Ritter 2012) do occur in the area between September and December but any interaction are extremely unlikely. There are no records to date of collisions between marine mammals or ships in the vicinity of Cork Harbour.

Dredging associated with the already permitted development totals 352,000m 3 (137,000m 3 at Ringaskiddy East and 215,000m 3 at Ringaskiddy West) of which 305,000m 3 was to be disposed at sea and 47,000m 3 re-used. The proposed alterations generate an additional 15,000m 3 of material, resulting in a 4% increase in total quantum of material to be dredged and 5% increase in total quantum of material to be disposed of at sea.

It is concluded that these alterations will not result in any significant change to the previous assessment of effects upon marine mammals associated with the permitted development.

14.2.4.5 Noise associated with increased shipping during operation The proposed alterations will not result in any increase in shipping during operations and no significant impacts are predicted as a result.

14.2.5 Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures that formed part of the An Bord Pleanála approval of the permitted development of the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment remain entirely appropriate.

14.3 Cumulative Impacts Other approved developments in the area have been considered for potential to result in cumulative impacts upon intertidal and subtidal benthos, fisheries and marine mammals with the proposed alterations to the permitted development. These include Marina developments in Monkstown and White Point, a liner docking facility at Cobh and remediation of East Tip at Haulbowline.

The consented marina development at Monkstown is for 285 berths and entails both foreshore reclamation and dredging. The area to be reclaimed comprises intertidal and subtidal components which will be used for car parking and marina buildings. The extent of the reclamation isn’t given but was estimated based on drawings in the EIS at approximately 1.25ha. As part of the project a total 70,000m 3 of dredged material will be removed from the site to facilitate mooring vessels of various drafts. The coarser portion of this will be used in the reclamation with the balance of finer material being disposed of at the same licensed dumpsite that would be used for the current development. The marina EIS concluded that the loss of habitat associated with the development will be minor because of the widespread occurrence of similar habitats in Cork Harbour. It also indicates that the impact will be partly offset by the building of a rock armour perimeter around the seaward side of the reclamation area, which would be quickly colonised by a broad range of marine species. It is considered that there will be

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-19 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

negligible cumulative impact between the marina development and the current proposal in terms of habitat loss in view of the relatively small areas of habitat concerned.

If in the unlikely event that the spoil arising from the marina development (max 70,000m 3) will be disposed of at the same time as the combined spoil volumes from both sections of the consented Ringaskiddy development and the current proposed alteration, this would amount to 390,000m 3. This volume remains in the same range of disposal volumes that have been placed on the licensed dumpsite at intervals over the decades. Furthermore it would also be accommodated within the dispersion model for the disposal site (RPS 2007) which modelled the disposal of a very similar volume of spoil i.e. 385,000m 3. Consequently no cumulative impacts are expected to arise.

Two other developments, a 74-berth marina at White Point in Cobh (permission granted in 2011) and proposed additional moorings for Cruise Liners at Cobh (under construction) are not considered likely to have any cumulative or in-combination adverse impacts either with the consented Ringaskiddy development or the proposed alteration. In the case of the new marina, there would be no habitat reclamation involved and no dredging, with the proposed floating pontoon held in place using a chain and anchor system. In the case of the Cobh liner terminal mooring upgrade, there will be no habitat reclamation required for the new mooring dolphins and no dredging, so that no change to the local habitats or their ecology is anticipated. Furthermore the relatively large distance between this development and the proposed works in Ringaskiddy means that cumulative noise impacts from piling isn’t expected even if both piling operations were to be contemporaneous.

When effects of these other projects are considered for potential cumulative ecological effects on marine mammals along with the proposed alterations and permitted development, no significant cumulative impacts over and above those outlined for the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment are expected to arise.

14.4 Residual Impacts This section of the Chapter assesses the impact of the proposed alterations on the intertidal and subtidal benthos, fisheries and marine mammal receptors, after the mitigation has been implemented.

The dredging of approximately 0.36 hectares of soft sediment within the Ringaskiddy Basin will result in the temporary loss of the benthic communities within the immediate dredge footprint. Due to the nature of the benthic communities identified in the area, recovery to pre-dredge levels is expected to be rapid (within 2-3 years). No adverse impacts are expected on the protected areas within Cork Harbour as a result of the proposed additional dredging in Ringaskiddy. Although some deposition has been predicted for Monkstown Creek, the levels expected are very small (<0.1mm deposition thickness). The additional volumes of dredge spoil earmarked for disposal as a result of the proposed alterations will not materially change the usual 2-3 year cycle of impact and recovery at the licensed dumpsite associated with dredge spoil disposal that has been carried out there for decades.

No likely significant impacts upon marine mammals have been predicted for the proposed alterations.

The mitigation measures enshrined in the extant permission for the permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment remain applicable.

14.5 Conclusions The conclusion of this assessment of the proposed alterations is that these modifications will not result in any significant change to the assessment of environmental effects and conclusions on intertidal and subtidal benthos, fisheries and marine mammals as previously made for the permitted development

The extant Planning Permission together with the conditions/restrictions and environmental commitments enshrined therein will have equal force and effect in relation to the proposed alterations such that there will be no significant effect on intertidal and subtidal benthos, fisheries and marine mammals.

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-20 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

References

Bailey H, Senior B, Simmons D, Rusin J, Picken G and Thompson P M (2010) Assessing underwater noise levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm and its potential effects on marine mammals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60 888–97.

Beck, S., O’Connor, I., Berrow, S. and O’Brien, J. (2013). Assessment and Monitoring of Ocean Noise in Irish Waters. EPA STRIVE Programme 2007-2013 Report No. 120.

Buckstaff, K. C. (2004). Effects of watercraft noise on the acoustic behaviour of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus , in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science , 20 , 709-725.

Evans, P.G.H. (2000) Marine Mammals in the English Channel in relation to proposed dredging scheme . Unpublished report by the Seawatch Foundation. pp21.

Kastelein, R. A., Gransier, R., Hoek, L. and Olthuis, J. (2012) Temporary threshold shifts and recovery in a harbor porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ) after octave-band noise at 4kHz. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , 132, 3525–3537.

Mooney, T.A., Nachtigall, P.E., Breese, M., Vlachos, S., and Au, W.W.L. (2009) Predicting a temporary threshold shift in bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ): The Effects of noise level and duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125(3), 1816-1826.

O’Donovan, M. (2015) Report on marine mammal monitoring during Crosshaven dredging . Unpublished Mammal Observer Report by the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group, December 2015. 14pp.

Palka, D., and Hammond, P. S. (2001). Accounting for responsive movement in line transect estimates of abundance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences , 58 , 777-787.

Popper, A. N., Hawkins, AD, Fay, RR, Mann, DA, Bartol, Soraya, Carlson, TJ, Coombs, S, Ellison, WT, Gentry, RL, Halvorsen, MB, Lokkenborg, S, Rogers, PH, Southall, BL, Zeddies, DG Tavolga, WM (2014) Sound exposure guidelines for fishes and sea turtles: A technical report prepared by ANSI- Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC1 and registered with ANSI . Springer Briefs in Oceanography, ASA Press.

Richardson, W.J., Greene, C.R., Malme, C.I. and Thomson, D.H. (1995) Marine Mammals and Noise . Academic Press.

Ritter, F. (2012) Collisions of sailing vessels with cetaceans worldwide: First insights into a seemingly growing problem. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 12(1), 119-127.

Russell, C. and Levesque, S. (2014) Port of Cork Maintenance Dredging and Dumping at Sea. Marine. Unpublished Mammal Observer Report by the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group, October 2014. 79pp.

Ryan, C., Rogan, E., and Cross, T. (2010). The use of Cork Harbour by bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus (Montagu, 1821)). Irish Naturalists’ Journal , 31(1), 1-9.

Sini, M.I., Canning, S.J., Stockin, K.A. and Pierce, G.J. (2005) Bottlenose dolphins around Aberdeen harbour, north-east Scotland: a short study of habitat utilization and the potential effects of boat traffic. Journal of the Marine Biological Association (UK), 85, 1547-1554.

Southall, B. et al. (2007) Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations. Aquatic Mammals , Volume 33, Number 4, 411-509.

NI1004 S146C EIS 14-21 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

15 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY & ORNITHOLOGY

15.1 Introduction This Chapter of the EIS considers the potential and likely significant effects of the proposed alterations to the permitted development on terrestrial flora and fauna, including terrestrial habitats, higher plants, mammals and birds. The purpose of this Chapter is to identify and describe any likely significant ecological effects as a result of the proposed alterations in the context of the permitted development.

Marine Ecology is dealt with separately in Chapter 14 of this EIS.

A project description is provided in Chapter 3 of this EIS. Information contained in it and associated figures have been fully considered during the completion of this impact assessment. This assessment has been concluded upon review of the following allied assessments in particular:

• Chapter 3 Project Description • Chapter 7 Landscape & Visual • Chapter 9 Noise & Vibration • Chapter 10 Air Quality & Climate • Chapter 12 Coastal Processes • Chapter 13 Water Environment • Chapter 14 Marine Ecology

This assessment includes the following technical reports and figures which are appended to this EIS:

• Appendix 15.1 Screening for appropriate assessment report and Natura Impact Statement • Appendix 15.2 Data records • Appendix 15.3 Otter Survey Report 2015 • Appendix 15.4 Common Tern Monitoring Surveys 2014 - 2016 • Appendix 15.5 Wintering Wetland Bird Survey 2014/15 • Figure 5.1 Designated Sites • Figure 5.2 Habitat Survey

This chapter of the EIS outlines the terrestrial ecology and ornithology features of the receiving environment for the proposed alterations and within a wider zone of influence in the vicinity of the permitted development. It comprises information as required by Annex IV to the EIA Directive to be contained in an EIA Report (an EIS), in respect of terrestrial flora, fauna and avifauna.

15.2 Methodology 15.2.1 Consultation Prescribed bodies were consulted on the proposed alterations to the permitted development. The Department of Arts, Heritage Rural, Regional and Gaeltacht Affairs (DAHRRGA) responded in writing. Regional staff of NPWS and the Heritage Officer of Cork County Council met with the project ecologist on site in October 2016 to discuss inter alia the proposed alterations to the permitted development.

The purpose of consultation is to identify any relevant existing baseline information held by consultees; to identify and potential concerns associated with the proposed development and to identify any key issues to be addressed and detailed within this EIS.

A wealth of desktop research was conducted in the preparation of a previous ecological assessment for the permitted development, and this was used and updated as required for the current assessment. The following key websites and databases were consulted:

NI1004 S146C EIS 15-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

• National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) - www.npws.ie; • National Biodiversity Data Centre – www.biodiversityireland.ie/; • Botanical Society of the British Isles - www.bsbi.org.uk; • Invasive Species Ireland - www.invasivespeciesireland.com; • Bat Conservation Ireland - http://www.batconservationireland.org/; • Chartered Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management (CIEEM) - www.cieem.net; and • BirdWatch Ireland (BWI) - http://www.birdwatchireland.ie/.

15.2.2 Terrestrial Ecology Surveys 15.2.2.1 Flora & Habitat Survey The permitted development site was surveyed in May 2012, September 2013 and January 2014, in order to carry out a Flora and Habitat Survey. Areas where the proposed alterations are proposed were re-visited in April 2016. All applicable terrestrial habitats i.e. above the mean high water mark (MHWM) encountered within the survey area were mapped and an intensive search was undertaken for protected and invasive flora species. Habitat assessment categories used were consistent with those outlined in A Guide to Habitats in Ireland (Fossitt, 2000).

15.2.2.2 Mammal Fauna Study A mammal fauna study was undertaken for the permitted development site in 2012 and updated in late winter 2014. The shoreline of all lands within which the permitted development is located (and which includes those marine areas in which the marine components of the proposed alterations are located) was surveyed for otter in December 2015. All other terrestrial areas where the proposed alterations are proposed were re-surveyed in April 2016. The surveys aimed primarily to identify the presence and importance of the proposed development footprint to otter Lutra lutra and badger Meles meles. In addition the survey also gathered general observation of all other terrestrial mammal species.

15.2.3 Ornithological Surveys 15.2.3.1 Breeding Bird Survey A breeding bird survey was undertaken in 2012 and 2013. The field survey methodology employed was largely a scaled down version of the British Trust for Ornithology’s (BTO) Common Bird Census (CBC) technique (Bibby et al ., 2000 & Gilbert et al ., 1998). All bird species encountered during survey were mapped and coded using standard BTO ‘Species Codes’ and ‘Categories of Breeding Evidence’ e.g. singing male, agitated behaviour, carrying food, recently fledged downy young. No attempts were made to locate nests as such behaviours are generally sufficient to determine probable or confirmed breeding. Survey visits commenced shortly after dawn and were completed before mid-day to coincide with the peak bird activity period. Visits were not made during adverse weather conditions, and a route was chosen to ensure all parts of the survey area were passed within c.100m.

A breeding summer season wetland bird survey was undertaken within the intertidal and marine areas adjacent to the proposed redevelopment footprint in 2011, 2012 and 2013. Monitoring of the breeding site of the Ringaskiddy Deepwater Berth (DWB) sub-colony of Common Terns was conducted in 2014, 2015 and 2016.

The breeding season wetland bird survey primarily aimed to identify key foraging areas for Common Terns during the respective breeding seasons. Effort was made to visually track the origin and destination of terns using count areas to ascertain their association with the Deepwater Berth (DWB) sub-colony. All wetland bird species were recorded during the survey, with the overall objective to establish the usage of the survey area by wetland birds during the breeding season.

Common Tern monitoring involved regular visits by an experienced seabird ornithologist throughout the breeding season in order to locate and monitor the Ringaskiddy sub-colony. These visits were planned to coincide with all stages of the breeding season, i.e. pre-breeding (May), incubation (June),

NI1004 S146C EIS 15-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

chick provisioning (July) and post-breeding (August). Birds were recorded using a "look-see" approach at three sites in the Ringaskiddy area where Common Terns have nested in the recent past; being the Pfizer Pond at Raffeen Creek, Lough Beg and Ringaskiddy DWB. The number of individual adults, nesting pairs and young associated with each dolphin was recorded and are presented separately.

15.2.3.2 Wintering Bird Survey The intertidal and marine areas were subject to a wintering wetland bird survey in 2011/12; 2013/14 and a scaled down version in 2014/15. The Wintering Wetland Bird Survey comprised a series of waterbird counts between the overwintering months of September to April, based on the British Trust for Ornithology’s (BTO) Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) and Irish Wetland Bird Survey (I-WeBS) methodologies (Gilbert et al. , 1998).

15.2.4 Impact Assessment The information gathered from desk study and survey has been used to make an ecological impact assessment (EcIA) of the proposed alterations upon the identified ecological features. The EcIA has been undertaken following the methodology set out in CIEEM (2016) and with reference to BS 42020:2013. EcIA is based upon a source-pathway-receptor model, where the source is defined as the individual elements of the proposed alterations that have the potential to affect identified ecological features. The pathway is defined as the means or route by which a source can affect the ecological features. An ecological receptor is the feature of interest, being a species, habitat or ecologically functioning unit of natural heritage importance. Each element can exist independently however an effect is created where there is a linkage between the source, pathway and feature.

A significant effect is defined in CIEEM (2016) as –

“an effect that is sufficiently important to require assessment and reporting so that the decision maker is adequately informed of the environmental consequences of permitting a project. A significant effect is a positive or negative ecological effect that should be given weight in judging whether to authorise a project: it can influence whether permission is given or refused and, if given, whether the effect is important enough to warrant conditions, restrictions or further requirements such as monitoring”.

BS 42020:2013 states that if an effect is sufficiently important to be given weight in the planning balance or to warrant the imposition of a planning condition, e.g. to provide or guarantee necessary mitigation measures, it is likely to be “significant” in that context at the level under consideration. The converse is also true: insignificant effects would not warrant a refusal of permission or the imposition of conditions.

Likely significant effects of the proposed alterations to the permitted development as described in Chapter 3 of this EIS are predicted on the basis of the above CIEEM (2016) and BS 42020:2013 definitions.

15.3 Terrestrial Ecology and Ornithology Baseline It is important to note that the proposed alterations to the permitted development are located in and adjacent to an operational Port. The ecological baseline currently co-exists alongside the Port’s operations including daily human and shipping presence on the quayside, periodic maintenance dredging, and the amenity and commercial use of the shoreline, basin and channel. When the permitted development is added to this characterisation of the immediate area, the sites of the proposed alterations can be described as being contained within and at the quayside of a major multi- modal Tier 1 deepwater port with ongoing operations 7 days a week throughout the year.

NI1004 S146C EIS 15-3 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

15.3.1 Designated Sites for Nature Conservation A review of the NPWS database and the European Environment Agency (EEA) Natura 2000 Viewer revealed that the location of the proposed alterations is not located within any statutory or non- statutory designated site for nature conservation. The deepwater berth at Ringaskiddy West is located immediately adjacent to one existing designated site for international nature conservation importance and one proposed designated site for national nature conservation importance.

Monkstown Creek is a shallow embayment immediately northwest of the deepwater berth at Ringaskiddy West. It is a proposed NHA and a component of Cork Harbour SPA. It’s boundary is marked by a training wall. Feature species of Cork Harbour SPA also use structures within the Port and its dredged basin as part of their territories, in addition to parts of Cork Harbour further from the port.

Designated sites are illustrated in Figure 15.1.

15.3.1.1 European Sites Cork Harbour SPA [Site Code: IE0004040] is located 770m NW of the new mooring dolphins and 800m NW of the additional area to be dredged for optimised berth geometry. The area of proposed marine works is located 100m NNE of existing mooring dolphins upon which the Deepwater berth Common Tern colony breeds each summer.

Great Island Channel SAC [Site Code: IE0002267] is located 5.5km north of the proposed alterations.

Ballycotton Bay SPA [Site Code: IE0004022] is located 29km by sea from the proposed alterations, and 16km by sea from the marine dump site off Roches Point.

These European sites are described further in Appendix 15.1, which contains a Screening for appropriate assessment report and a Natura Impact Statement.

15.3.1.2 Natural Heritage Areas NHAs are statutory designations, considered important for the habitats present or the species it holds, whose habitats need protection. NHAs are designated under the provisions of the Wildlife Act and are legally protected from damage from the date they are formally proposed for designation. There are no NHAs located within 5km of the proposed alterations.

Monkstown Creek is a proposed NHA [Site Code: 001979] listed in the Cork County Development Plan 2014 (CDP 2014), a designation not specified in the Ballincollig / Carrigaline Municipal District Local Area Plan (draft BCMD LAP) published in November 2016.

The boundary of this pNHA wis coincident with the SPA boundary. Consultation with NPWS confirms that the conservation objectives and qualifying interests of the European site are to be considered for impact assessment purposes.

15.3.1.3 Ramsar Sites Sites designated for their nature conservation value, which are not statutorily protected, derive from International Treaties and Regional Planning Policy. The Ramsar Convention (The Convention on Wetlands on International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat) is an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilisation of wetlands, which is designed to stem the progressive encroachment on and loss of wetlands. The Convention was developed and adopted by participating nations at a meeting in Ramsar, Iran in 1971 and came into force in 1975. The Republic of Ireland was one of the original signatory nations.

NI1004 S146C EIS 15-4 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

The Cork Harbour Ramsar Site [Site Code: 837] is located approx 800m to the south of the proposed alterations at its nearest point. The site comprised a Harbour consisting of several limestone basins separated from the sea and from each other by sandstone ridges. The Harbour is impounded and so is no longer tidal. Vegetation is dominated by rushed and included algae, wet woodland and wet grassland. The site supports various breeding waterbirds, internationally important numbers of wintering and spring staging waterbirds and provided important feeding areas for waders. Human activities include industrial and urban development, recreation and shooting.

15.3.1.4 Important Bird Areas Important Bird Areas (IBAs) are sites selected as important for bird conservation because they regularly hold significant populations of one or more globally or regionally threatened, endemic or congregatory bird species or highly representative bird assemblages. The European IBA programme aims to identify, monitor and protect key sites for birds all over the continent. It aims to ensure that the conservation value of over 4,000 IBAs is maintained and where possible enhanced. Through their designation they aim to form a network of sites ensuring that migratory species find suitable breeding, stop-over and wintering places along their respective flyways. The site of proposed alterations lies within Cork Harbour IBA [Site Code: IE088]. Whilst sites designated under the IBA programme have a different standard of qualifying criteria to European sites, it is sufficient to say that this site is considered an important bird area for its waders and waterbirds.

15.3.2 Protected Species (Existing Records) The National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) database was trawled in October 2016 to search for any protected flora or fauna species present within the vicinity of the proposed alterations. Protected species included are those listed in:

• Annex II of Habitats Directive; • Schedules of The Wildlife Acts (excluding avifauna); • The First Schedule of the Birds and Natural Habitats Regulations (all species listed in Annex IV and V of The Habitats Directive); and • The Flora Protection Order 1999.

Table 15.1 presents protected species identified in the data trawl.

Table 15.1: Existing Protected Species Records Species W76S W76X Conservation Status Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus X WA Leathery Turtle Dermochelys coriacea X Annex IV ; WA Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus X Annex IV ; WA Key To Table WA - The Wildlife Acts Annex IV - Annex IV of The Habitats Directive

Additional species of conservation concern identified in the data trawl include:

• Sharp-leaved Fluellen Kickxia elatine (Endangered); • Winter Heliotrope Petasites fragrans (Invasive) and; • Wall Brown Lasiommata megera (Endangered).

15.3.3 Existing Bat Records A review of existing bat records held by Bat Conservation Ireland (National Bat Records Database) within 10km of the proposed alterations revealed that seven out of the ten known Irish bat species have been recorded locally. These include common Pipistrellus pipistrellus and soprano P. pygmaeus

NI1004 S146C EIS 15-5 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

pipistrelle, Leisler's Nyctalus leisleri , brown long-eared Plecotus auritus , Daubenton's Myotis daubentonii , Natterer's M. nattereri and whiskered M. mystacinus bats as shown in Table 15.2 below.

Table 15.2: Adjudged status of Irish Bat Species in the Immediate Area Common name Scientific name Presence Local roosts Source Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus Present None known BCIreland Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus Present 2 known BCIreland Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii Potential None known BCIreland Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri Present 2 known BCIreland Brown long -eared bat Plecotus auritus Present 1 known BCIreland Lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros Absent None known BCIreland Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii Present None known BCIreland Natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri Present None known BCIreland Whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus Present None known BCIreland Brandt’s bat Myotis brandtii Potential None known BCIreland

The remaining Irish bat species; lesser horseshoe Rhinolophus hipposideros, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, P. nathusii and Brandt’s M. brandtii bat have not been recorded in the local area to date. The lesser horseshoe bat is largely confined to the west of the county and the nearest known record is adjacent to the town of Ballincollig, approximately 20km to the west. The latter two species are both rare and may occur in the area occasionally.

15.3.4 Existing Waterbird Records The Irish Wetland Bird Survey (I-WeBS) is a joint survey scheme between BirdWatch Ireland (BWI) and NPWS which aims to monitor wintering waterbirds in Ireland. The survey runs from September to March each winter, with over 800 wetland sites surveyed including estuaries, coastlines, bays, rivers, turloughs, lakes, streams and flooded fields. BWI provided RPS with 5-years of I-WeBS counts for sub-sites within 2km of the proposed alterations, and the data is presented in Appendix 15.2.

With the exception of Cormorant, the peak mean counts suggests the sub-site is of relatively low importance to wintering waterbirds in the context of Cork Harbour as it is supporting low percentages of the overall Cork Harbour waterbird assemblage. The significance of the Ringaskiddy sub-site (OL655) for Cormorants is likely related to the presence of a key roost site on the ADM Jetty located 640m north of the marine works of the proposed alterations.

The purpose of the NPWS 2010/11 waterbird survey programme was designed to complement I- WeBS and to investigate how waterbirds are distributed across Irelands coastal wetland sites during the low tide period (Cummins & Crowe, 2011) rather than at high tide when I-WeBS counts are undertaken. Ringaskiddy Port is subsite (OL528) which includes the marine and intertidal areas of the Ringaskiddy Basin.

With the exception of Gulls, counts of waterbirds within Ringaskiddy Port were negligible. Eight species which are SCIs of Cork Harbour SPA were recorded, with the sub-site being of most importance to Black-headed Gull and Oystercatcher. The peak count of 38 Black-headed Gulls during low-tide conditions equated to ~4% of the SPA qualifying population, with the peak count of 34 Oystercatcher also equating to ~4% of the SPA qualifying population. No counts of waterbird species exceeded the thresholds for national or international importance. The data from this subsite is presented in Appendix 15.2.

15.3.5 Flora and Habitats EIS Figure 3.28 illustrates the location of additional lands within the proposed alterations to the permitted development. Figure 15.2 illustrates the terrestrial habitats contained within that area.

NI1004 S146C EIS 15-6 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Habitats where alterations to landside container handling are proposed (EIS Figures 3.10, 3.14 and 3.16) remain the same as for the permitted development. That is to say they comprise dry calcareous or neutral grassland with gorse scrub (Heritage Council codes GS1 and WS1 respectively).

Habitats where alterations to the entrance and interchange area are proposed (EIS Figures 3.22 and 3.27) remain the same as for the permitted development. That is to say they comprise artificial surfaces and scattered trees/parkland on amenity grassland (Heritage Council codes BL3, WD5 and GA2 respectively).

Habitats where alterations comprising the maintenance, office and customs building are proposed (EIS Figures 3.22 and 3.23) remain the same as for the permitted development. That is to say they comprise artificial surfaces and scattered trees/parkland on amenity grassland (Heritage Council codes BL3, WD5 and GA2 respectively). A non-native hedgerow (WL1) is positioned between the grassland and the terminal building road, and a surfaced area (old car park) (BL3) is positioned in the middle of the two areas of scrub and grassland.

Habitats where alterations to the container berth 1 geometry, dredging and mooring dolphins are proposed (EIS Figure 3.20) are intertidal and subtidal habitats and are described in EIS Section 14.1.3.1.

There is no change to this aspect of the receiving environment.

15.3.6 Mammals Mammal surveys in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2016 have confirmed that there are no protected mammal structures where the proposed alterations are located.

There is no change to this aspect of the receiving environment.

15.3.7 Ornithological Survey Results 15.3.7.1 Breeding Bird Survey Breeding Common Tern is a Special Conservation Interest (SCI) of Cork Harbour SPA, with a mean of 69 pairs for the period 1998-2000 and a maximum of 102 pairs in 1995 (NPWS, 2008). Common Terns have nested in a number of locations within Cork Harbour since c.1970, and since 1983 have chosen various artificial structures as nest sites, including – • derelict steel barges close to Marino Point until these were removed c.1999; • the roof of a Martello Tower adjacent to the railway line between Great Island and Fota Island; and • mooring dolphins within Ringaskiddy Port since 2010.

In 2012 the total population of Common Terns which nested within Cork Harbour was between 85 and 95 pairs, close to the maximum recorded population of 102 pairs in 1995 (NPWS, 2008). This represents c.2.1% of the all-Ireland population estimated at 4,189 during Seabird 2000 (Mitchell et al ., 2004).

Additional recent nesting sites within close proximity to Ringaskiddy Port include the ADM Training Wall to the west of the DWB, an island within a lake of the Pfizer owned Rafeen Creek Golf Course and a rocky island within Lough Beg.

Between 45 and 50 pairs of Common Tern nested in 2012 and 2013 on the mooring dolphins within the Port. These are the three dolphins on the south side of the ferry terminal, adjacent to the existing security gate and truck weighbridge. The terns experience extra-ordinarily high levels of disturbance, which they have seemingly habituated to, and are relatively tolerant of a range of human activity in very close proximity to the colony. The colony is located 25m from a visual barrier between them and

NI1004 S146C EIS 15-7 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

the permitted link road, constructed as part of the permitted development described in Section 3.3 of this EIS.

Common Tern colony monitoring in 2014-2016 (at Appendix 15.4) replicated the methodology of the previous four surveys conducted between 2011 and 2013 for the permitted development, to facilitate a direct comparison of results with those obtained previously.

Survey revealed a maximum of 75 pairs in 2015 at the Deepwater Berth mooring dolphins (to the south of the dolphins circled in red in EIS Figure 3.17). Pairs are estimated as apparently occupied nests (AONs). 55 pairs were estimated in 2016. This is a reduction on 2015 numbers but maintains the slight upward average trend of recent years (52 pairs in 2014, 48 in 2013 and 50 in 2012).

134 deserted nests were observed in July 2015 including 33 with cold eggs, principally due to predation by Grey Heron. In 2014, 113 nestlings were ringed in July (as part of a separate study). By comparison, only 34 nestlings were ringed in 2016. It is estimated that of these, only five survived to fledging in 2016. The sub-colony failed to fledge any young in 2015 or 2014. Once again predation by Grey Herons is thought to be the most likely cause.

Common Terns forage extensively both in the Deepwater Basin and further afield. In general, foraging is concentrated either side of the main channel; in the wake of vessels including those moored on the DWB; and in close proximity to the mooring dolphins.

The Ringaskiddy Deepwater Berth subcolony of Common Terns remains active in the operational port, and is under threat of predation. In that sense, there is no change to this aspect of the receiving environment.

15.3.7.2 Wintering Wetland Bird Survey Surveys associated with the permitted development revealed that Ringaskiddy Port contains a good proportion of Cormorant, Grey Heron, Black-headed Gull, Common Gull, Great Black-backed Gull, Herring Gull and Lesser Black-backed Gull. These species are all components of the overwintering species assemblage of Cork Harbour SPA. This is largely due to four key roosting locations for these species within the wider port area –

• Training Wall • ADM Jetty • Ringaskiddy DWB Buildings and Mooring Dolphins • trees on the southern shore of Monkstown Creek

The area where marine components of the proposed alterations occur is one of the least used parts of the wider area surveyed in 2011/12 and 2013/14. Overwintering waterbird counts in 2015/16 (at Appendix 15.5) replicated the methodology of previous surveys conducted in 2011/12 and 2013/14 to facilitate a direct comparison of results with those obtained previously. Survey results revealed similar trends and peak counts at high and low tidal states in the Ringaskiddy Port area.

There is no change to this aspect of the receiving environment.

15.4 Impact Assessment 15.4.1 Landside Container Handling As outlined in the Project Description Chapter 3 of this EIS, it is proposed that container handling operations will be altered from a system using rubber tyre gantry cranes (RTG's) as assessed in the EIS for the proposed Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment to a system using both railed mounted gantries (RMT’s) and straddle carriers (SC’s). This alteration to RMG’s and SC’s will result in four changes relevant to the ecological assessment; (i) the change from RTG’s only to RMG’s and SC’s; (ii) the change in container stack height that decreases from 5 high to 3 high in places; (iii) an increase in the

NI1004 S146C EIS 15-8 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

footprint of the container storage area and moves containers further south as well; and (iv) alterations to the positions of lighting columns and noise barriers.

15.4.1.1 Construction phase There is no material difference between constructing the permitted development layout of landside container handling area and the proposed alterations layout. An area of dry calcareous grassland with gorse scrub shall be transformed into hardstanding under both scenarios. There are no protected mammal structures located in this area. There is no significant use of this area by avifauna. A strip of amenity tree 7 shrub planting shall be removed to accommodate the alterations to container storage area. These habitats are of low local value only. No significant ecological effects are predicted to occur for the proposed alterations.

15.4.1.2 Operational phase The proposed Landside Container Handling alterations are 170m from the Common Tern nesting dolphins, and in excess of 500m from Cork Harbour SPA. This area was previously proposed for general cargo / RoRo and container operations. The locations of lighting masts as a result of the proposed alterations are illustrated in EIS Figure 3.28. The layout of lighting masts is simply altered with no appreciable difference. Changing the landside container operations results in no significant ecological effects.

15.4.2 Maintenance, office and customs building It is proposed as part of an alternative handling operating system to have a new dedicated building immediately south of the existing ferry terminal access road. The building will consist of a terminal office, maintenance workshop, stores and workshops/terminal office. Most of these buildings were included in the permitted development and where located immediately north of the existing ferry terminal access road. 15.4.2.1 Construction phase An area of artificial surface, non-native hedgerow, scattered trees/parkland on amenity grassland and a non-native hedgerow (WL1) is positioned between the grassland and the terminal building road, and areas of scrub shall be transformed into hardstanding in both scenarios. There are no protected mammal structures located in this area. There is no significant use of this area by avifauna. No significant ecological effects are predicted to occur during the construction phase for the proposed alterations to the buildings.

15.4.2.2 Operational phase The proposed maintenance office and customs building alterations are located 440m from the Common Tern nesting dolphins, and in excess of 1km from Cork Harbour SPA. Although the building locations and designs are altered they are still located inside an operational port area. Changing the location of the maintenance, office and customs buildings and developing a fraction more land within Ringaskiddy East results in no significant ecological effects.

15.4.3 Entrance and interchange area The layout of the entrance and interchange area to the terminal is proposed to be altered to accommodate the proposed SC/RMG operating system.

15.4.3.1 Construction phase An area of artificial surfaces and scattered trees/parkland on amenity grassland shall be transformed into hardstanding in both scenarios. There are no protected mammal structures located in this area.

NI1004 S146C EIS 15-9 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

There is no significant use of this area by avifauna. No significant ecological effects are predicted to occur.

15.4.3.2 Operational phase The proposed alterations to the entrance and interchange area are in excess of 500m from the Common Tern nesting dolphins, and in excess of 1km from Cork Harbour SPA. The proposed operational changes in this area result in no significant ecological effects occurring.

15.4.4 Container berth 1 and mooring dolphins EIS Chapter 3 section 3.7 sets out in some detail the marine components of the proposed alterations, but in summary they comprise –

• Alterations to the geometry at the southern end of container berth 1; • Dredging and disposal at sea of 15,000m 3 of seabed material; • The removal of 18 piles at 2 existing dolphins by cutting at design dredge level; • The installation of 13 x 1.8m diameter additional tubular steel piles for the quay walls and 24 x 0.9m diameter tubular steel piles for the 3 new dolphins;

Demolition and construction of dolphins will be carried out in the period between September and April inclusive to:-

• avoid interaction with summer ferry terminal operations, • avoid the breeding tern season • comply with the seasonal restrictions of the extant planning conditions.

15.4.4.1 Construction phase Breeding Common Tern A clear view occurs from the nearest existing dolphin upon which the Common Tern colony nest to the nearest existing dolphin to be removed, at 135m. The furthest seaward existing dolphin is 150m from the nearest nesting dolphin. These structures to be demolished are illustrated in Figure 3.17. The replacement dolphins and walkway infrastructure are illustrated in Figure 3.18 and will be, at their closest point, 110m from the nearest nesting dolphin, and with an unobscured view. The new dolphins will be located at 110m, 130m and 155m from the nearest nesting dolphin. The permitted development quay wall design is located 150m from the nearest nesting dolphin. The proposed alteration quay wall design is located 144m from the nearest nesting dolphin (refer EIS Figure 3.15).

The area where new dolphins are to be located is part of the main feeding area for terns within the dredged Deepwater Basin, but equally feeding also occurs far and wide, beyond the basin in the Lower Harbour.

The proposed alterations require marine demolition and construction and potentially in full view of the tern colony, but these works to demolish and construct dolphins will only occur in the portion of the year when Common Tern is not present in Cork Harbour.

Construction of container berth 1 will occur throughout the summer breeding period and also indeed throughout the overwintering period. Insofar as the Terns are concerned, works in relation to the permitted development access road to the south are already screened from the colony as described in Section 3.3 of the EIS. Quay wall construction to the north is considered to be sufficiently distant from and partially screened from the nesting dolphins by existing port infrastructure.

The conservation objective for Common Tern in Cork Harbour SPA is to “ maintain the favourable conservation condition of Common Tern in Cork Harbour SPA, which is defined by the following list of

NI1004 S146C EIS 15-10 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

attributes and targets ”. Those six attributes and targets are described in a Natura Impact Statement accompanying this EIS, at Appendix 15.1. Of these, the target for two (breeding population abundance and productivity rate) is “ no significant decline ”. For disturbance at the breeding site, the target is that “ human activities should occur at levels that do not adversely affect the breeding common tern population ”.

Having been subject to significant predation for the past two years, Common Tern is under a degree of pressure in Cork Harbour. The species is however very resilient, and it is of note that the colony is located in and adjacent to an operational Port. The colony currently co-exists alongside the Port’s operations including daily human and shipping presence on the quayside, periodic maintenance dredging, and the amenity and commercial use of the shoreline, basin and channel.

All permitted development dredging and disposal of dredged material at sea is restricted to a period between September and April under EPA Dumping at Sea Permit Reg No. S0021-01. The same seasonal restrictions are appropriate for the proposed alterations to dredging and dumping of an additional 15,000m 3 s as per the permitted development.

No significant ecological effects are predicted to occur to the population of Common Terns as a result of changes to container berth 1, dredging and disposal of dredged material at sea and demolition and construction of mooring dolphins.

Overwintering assemblage Cork Harbour SPA is located 770m NW of the nearest new mooring dolphin and 800m NW of the additional area to be dredged for the proposed alterations. The area where marine components of the proposed alterations occur is one of the least used parts of the wider area surveyed for overwintering waterbirds. No significant ecological effects are predicted to occur to the overwintering waterbird populations as a result of changes to container berth 1 and demolition and construction of mooring dolphins

Evaluation and analysis by the coastal processes and marine ecology assessments in Chapters 12 and 14 reveals that dredging-related sedimentation levels outside of the immediate footprint of the dredging when modelled for the permitted development were extremely low, i.e. fractions of a millimetre in the Monkstown Creek component of Cork Harbour SPA. Clearly, the much smaller dredging effort associated with the proposed alterations (15,000m 3), located as it is in the inner part of the Ringaskiddy Basin giving a sheltered nature to the site, coupled with the presence of the breakwater reduces the excursion into Monkstown Creek and the River Lee resulting in negligible additional sedimentation outside of the Deepwater Basin. Chapter 13 of this EIS concludes there will be no significant impact on water quality and Chapter 14 of this EIS concludes that dredging will result in a negligible impact on the SPA and other benthic habitats in Cork Harbour. No significant ecological effects are predicted to occur to the intertidal feeding areas of the overwintering waterbird populations as a result of dredging associated with the proposed alterations.

15.4.4.2 Operational phase Once construction is completed, potential effects relate only to operational port activity. The proposed container berth 1 and mooring dolphins are located 600m south of the ADM Liquids Jetty and the intertidal mussel bank and 800m south of the Training Wall and Cork Harbour SPA. These locations are where the overwintering population of waterbirds were chiefly recorded roosting and feeding. At these distances and within what is already a busy operational port environment, no significant ecological effects are predicted as a result of the new mooring dolphins and the altered quay wall design.

Regarding the breeding Common Terns, distances between the nesting structures and the proposed alterations are described in Section 15.4.4.1. Bringing the operational quay wall 6m closer to the nesting structures (and now at 144m distance) is an imperceptible change resulting in no significant impact.

NI1004 S146C EIS 15-11 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

15.4.5 Cumulative Impacts Potential cumulative effects with other projects has been considered in making this assessment.

Permitted Development (Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment) The proposed alterations have the effect of increasing the footprint of the planning boundary by 7% compared to that included in the permitted development as a result of –

• The introduction of the mooring dolphins • The extension of the southern boundary of the container storage area • The introduction of the maintenance/office building and associated compound and car parking within an area which is currently used for the passenger terminal.

A comparison of the development areas for the permitted development and proposed alterations is illustrated in Figure 3.28. Given the value of the terrestrial habitats recorded on site, and also that no significant negative effects of terrestrial habitat loss were predicted as a result of the permitted development alone, there are no significant cumulative effects upon flora, habitats and fauna as a result of the proposed alterations to the permitted development.

Reconfiguration of container berth 1 will have an imperceptible effect on the marine piling programme as it adds 13 no. piles to approximately 240 marine piles associated with the permitted development, programmed to take one year to complete. Demolition and construction of the dolphins is estimated to take 2-3 months but these works will be undertaken concurrently with other quay construction activities and will not result in an increase in the overall duration of the construction works. Dredging for the permitted development is anticipated to take 3 weeks, and adding the additional dredging required for the proposed alterations will add 3-5 days to that schedule of work. The cumulative effect is that marine piling and dredging will take longer if conducted for both the proposed alterations and the permitted development, but the magnitude of this effect is imperceptible. There are no significant cumulative effects upon flora, habitats and fauna as a result of this aspect of the proposed alterations to the permitted development.

Monkstown Marina Proposals for a new marina at Monkstown were submitted for planning permission and that application included a NIS. The marina comprises car-parking, retail, office and landscaping, with a requirement to dredge part of the seabed in the shallower parts of the marina and in a band paralleling the shore to enable safe access by craft during all states of the tide. The NIS concluded that the marina at Monkstown will not result in the loss of any feeding areas or roosting sites for wintering waterfowl or waders in Monkstown Creek. Indeed, it will be used predominantly in the summer period. No significant effects upon the flora, habitats and fauna of Ringaskiddy are predicted to act cumulatively between the proposed alterations to the permitted development and the Monkstown Marina.

Marina at Whitepoint, Cobh The permitted scheme includes for a 74 berth marina at Whitepoint, Cobh and is located 1.1km to the northeast of Ringaskiddy East across the harbour. The NIS for the marina was reviewed and concludes no significant impact on European sites given the small footprint of the proposed project, the use of a point anchoring system, the principal use of the development outside of the overwintering season and no resulting increase in boating activity in the harbour. No significant effects upon the flora, habitats and fauna of Ringaskiddy are predicted to act cumulatively between the proposed alterations to the permitted development and the Cobh marina project.

Cobh Cruise Berth Moorings This project is located 2.2km northeast of Ringaskiddy East, and across the Harbour at Cobh. Cruise liners currently berth at the deepwater quay in Cobh. The NIS Screening Assessment of the Cobh

NI1004 S146C EIS 15-12 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Cruise Terminal Upgrade was reviewed. It concluded no significant negative direct or indirect effects on the European sites assessed given the distance between the proposed project and the European sites; the size and scale of the proposed project in the context of existing activity within Cork Harbour, the principal use of the development outside of the overwintering season and absence of the qualifying features within the area of study. No significant effects upon the flora, habitats and fauna of Ringaskiddy are predicted to act cumulatively between the proposed alterations to the permitted development and the Cobh cruise berth moorings project.

East Tip Remediation Project, Haulbowline The primary objective of this project is to remediate the East Tip thereby ensuring that potential risks to humans and the wider environment are minimised. It is proposed the waste at the site will be contained by constructing an engineered capping system on top of the waste and a perimeter engineered structure around the waste body. The project additionally seeks to widen the access road and construct a slipway and floating pontoon. An NIS was prepared for that application and it was reviewed. No significant effects upon the flora, habitats and fauna of Ringaskiddy are predicted to act cumulatively between the proposed alterations to the permitted development and the East Tip Remediation Project.

M28 Cork to Ringaskiddy Motorway Scheme This project will upgrade the N28 to motorway standards between Bloomfield Interchange and Ringaskiddy village. It will terminate at the Port entrance. It has not yet been submitted for consent. No significant effects upon the flora, habitats and fauna of Ringaskiddy are predicted to act cumulatively between the proposed alterations to the permitted development and the M28 scheme due to the separation between the schemes.

Ringaskiddy Resource Recovery Centre This is a project by Indaver Ireland to construct and operate a waste-to-energy facility for the treatment of up to 240,000 tonnes per annum of residual household, commercial and industrial, non-hazardous and suitable hazardous waste at Ringaskiddy. Aerial emission impacts on nearby Lough Beg wetlands (within Cork Harbour SPA) are described as insignificant. Ecotoxicological pathways and bioaccumulation in marine sediments was considered insignificant. No significant effects upon the flora, habitats and fauna of Ringaskiddy are predicted to act cumulatively between the proposed alterations to the permitted development and the Ringaskiddy Resource Recovery Centre.

Hammond Lane Metal Company Planning permission was granted in 2012 for demolition, new build, upgraded facilities, new processing plant etc at the Hammond Lane Metal Company located adjacent to the N28 opposite the proposed eastern entrance to Port lands at Ringaskiddy. The ecological impact assessment prepared for this project was reviewed. No significant effects upon the flora, habitats and fauna of Ringaskiddy are predicted to act cumulatively between the proposed alterations to the permitted development and the Hammond Lane Metal Company project.

15.5 Mitigation The mitigation measures that formed part of the An Bord Pleanála approval of the permitted development of the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment remain entirely appropriate.

15.6 Residual Impacts No significant terrestrial ecology or ornithology impacts have been predicted for the proposed alterations. The ecological mitigation measures enshrined in the extant approval for the Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment remain unchanged by the proposed alterations.

NI1004 S146C EIS 15-13 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

15.7 Conclusion The conclusion of this Ecological Impact Assessment of the proposed alterations is that these modifications will not result in any significant change to the assessment of environmental effects and conclusions on terrestrial ecology and ornithology as previously presented in the EIA and AA conducted for the permitted development.

The extant planning permission together with the conditions and environmental commitments enshrined therein will have equal force and effect in relation to the proposed alterations and there will be no significant effect on terrestrial ecology and ornithology.

NI1004 S146C EIS 15-14 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

16 ENVIRONMENTAL INTERACTIONS

16.1 Introduction The EIA Directive and its transposing Regulations requires that in addition to assessing impacts on human beings, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets and cultural heritage, the interaction between these factors must be taken into account as part of the environmental impact assessment process.

16.2 Interactions Table 16.1 below is a matrix table indicating the significant interactions that are likely to occur between the various environmental disciplines with regard to the proposed alterations to the permitted development. Where an asterisk exists in a box in the table, this indicates that a relationship exists between the two environmental disciplines. The purpose of the table is to allow interaction between various disciplines to be recognised, although the level of interaction will vary in each case. It is assumed in presenting this table that an environmental discipline has a potential inter-relationship both during the construction and operational phases of the proposed alterations. A summary of expected interactions is given in Table 16.2.

NI1004 S146C EIS 16-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Table 16.1: Inter-relationship Matrix – Potential Interaction between Environmental Disciplines

Terrestrial Human Landscape & Traffic & Noise & Air Quality & Coastal Water Cultural Heritage Soils & Geology Marine Ecology Ecology & Environment Visual Transportation Vibration Climate Processes Environment Ornithology

Human Environment * * * Cultural Heritage *

Landscape & Visual * * * *

Traffic & Transportation * * *

Noise & Vibration * * * *

Air Quality & Climate * * * Soils & Geology * *

Coastal Processes * * *

Water Environment * * * Marine Ecology * * *

Terrestrial Ecology & Ornithology * * * * *

NI1004 S146C EIS 16-2

Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment Environmental Impact Statement

Table 16.2: Summary of Interactions

Interaction Interaction With Human Noise & Noise and vibration generated from the construction and Environment Vibration operational phases of the proposed alterations have the potential to impact upon local population centres; the noise assessment does not however identify any significant impacts. Air Quality & The construction and operational phases of the Climate proposed alterations have the potential to generate impacts in terms of air quality upon local population centres; the air quality assessment for the proposed alterations does not however identify any significant impacts. Landscape & The proposed alterations have the potential to impact on Visual the landscape and visual resources perceived by human beings; the landscape and visual assessment for the proposed alterations does not however identify any significant impacts. Cultural Coastal Coastal processes considers processes which have Heritage Processes potential to impact upon marine archaeology. Assessment has concluded that there will be no impacts upon marine archaeology as a result of the proposed alterations. Landscape & Noise & The proposed alterations have a potential interaction Visual Vibration with landscape and visual impacts of the proposals. However no significant landscape and visual or noise impacts for the proposed alterations are predicted. Terrestrial Vegetation is an important aspect with respect to Ecology & providing wildlife corridors. Any vegetation removed as Ornithology part of the proposed alterations will result in no significant impact. Human The proposals have the potential to impact on the Environment landscape and visual resources perceived by human beings; however no significant impact for the proposed alterations is predicted. Traffic & Traffic generation has the potential to impact upon the Transportation landscape and visual resources however traffic will not increase as a result of the proposed alterations. Traffic & Noise & Traffic generation has potential to result in Noise related Transportation Vibration impacts, however traffic will not increase as a result of the proposed alterations. Air Quality & Traffic generation has potential to impact on Air Quality Climate however traffic will not increase as a result of the proposed alterations. Landscape & Traffic generation has the potential to impact upon the Visual landscape and visual resources however traffic will not increase as a result of the proposed alterations.

Noise & Terrestrial Noise from construction and operational phases of the Vibration Ecology & proposed alterations has potential to impact on fauna. Ornithology However, no significant noise impact is predicted. Landscape & The proposed alterations have a potential interaction Visual with landscape and visual impacts of the proposals. However no significant landscape and visual or noise impacts for the proposed alterations are predicted. Traffic & Traffic generation has potential to result in noise related Transportation impacts however traffic will not increase as a result of

NI1004 S146C EIS 16-3 Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment Environmental Impact Statement

Interaction Interaction With the proposed alterations. Human Noise and vibration generated from the construction and Environment operational phases of the proposed alterations have the potential to impact upon local population centres, but no significant noise impacts are predicted. Air Quality & Traffic & Traffic generation has potential to result in impacts on Climate Transportation Air Quality however traffic will not increase as a result of the proposed alterations. Soils & Excavation works and exposure of soil during the Geology construction phase can influence the microclimate in an area. The movement of soils during the construction phase may result in the spread of dust and mud onto surrounding land uses and public roads. The air quality assessment of the proposed alterations indicates that there is no significant impact associated with these matters. Human The construction and operational phases of the Environment redevelopment have the potential to generate impacts in terms of air quality upon local population centres; the air quality assessment does not identify any significant impacts however. Soils & Geology Air Quality Excavation works and exposure of soil during the construction phase can influence the microclimate in an area. The movement of soils during the construction phase may result in the spread of dust and mud onto surrounding land uses and public roads. The soils & geology assessment indicates that there is no significant impact associated with these matters. Landscape Any imported soils will be chemically analysed and screened against generic screening values for a commercial end use to ensure that it does not pose a risk to human health. Coastal Marine There is an inter-relationship between coastal modelling Processes Ecology and marine ecology impacts. There has been close coordination between the designer, ecological and Coastal Modelling consultants and following assessment, no significant impacts are predicted for the proposed alterations. Water There is a potential inter-relationship between water Environment quality and coastal processes. Assessments have concluded however that the proposal will have no significant impact.

Cultural The presence of marine archaeology may be impacted Heritage upon by coastal processes. Assessment has concluded that there will be no impacts upon marine archaeology as a result of the proposed alterations. Water Marine Marine ecology is dependent on water quality. Environment Ecology Disruption in water chemistry or sediment levels has potential to impact on local flora and fauna. There has been close coordination between the designer, water environment and ecology consultants and following assessment, no significant impacts are predicted for the proposed alterations.

NI1004 S146C EIS 16-4 Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment Environmental Impact Statement

Interaction Interaction With Coastal There is a potential inter-relationship between water Processes environment and coastal processes. Assessments have concluded however that the proposed alterations will have no significant impact. Marine Ecology Water Marine ecology is dependent on water quality. Environment Disruption in water chemistry or sediment levels has potential to impact on local flora and fauna. There has been close coordination between the designer, water environment and ecology consultants and following assessment, no significant impacts are predicted for the proposed alterations. Terrestrial There is an inter-relationship between Terrestrial Ecology & Ecology & Ornithology and marine related ecology Ornithology impacts. Following assessment, no significant impacts are predicted for the proposed alterations. Coastal There is an inter-relationship between coastal modelling Processes and marine ecology impacts. Following assessment, no significant impacts are predicted for the proposed alterations. Terrestrial Noise & Noise from construction and operational phases of the Ecology & Vibration proposed alterations has potential to impact on fauna. Ornithology Following assessment, no significant impacts are predicted for the proposed alterations. Marine There is an inter-relationship between ecology and Ecology, marine related ecology and water quality impacts. Coastal Following assessment, no significant impacts are Processes, predicted for the proposed alterations. and Water Environment Landscape & Vegetation is an important aspect with respect to Visual providing wildlife corridors. Any vegetation removed as part of the proposed alterations will result in no significant impact.

16.3 Conclusion An assessment has been completed on the interactions that are likely to occur between the various environmental disciplines with regard to the proposed alterations to the permitted development. As set out in Table 16.2 above no significant effects have been predicted for interactions between the various EIA disciplines during the construction and operational phases of the proposed alterations.

NI1004 S146C EIS 16-5 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

17.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED

17.1 Introduction

The Chapter set out a summary of the issues raised by submissions made to An Bord Pleanala from both Statutory Bodies and from the public and interest groups.

The submissions received from the Statutory Bodies are provided in Volume III EIS Appendices – Appendix 1.1.

A copy of all submissions from the public and interest groups are provided in Volume III EIS Appendices – Appendix 1.2.

Su bmission EIS Topic Issue How the issue is addressed from with in this EIS Transport Traffic & It has been suggested in the Chapter 8 Traffic of the EIS Infrastructure Transportation submissions that the current has established that there is Ireland application by the Port of Cork no increase in port related will result in an increased Port traffic on the road network as Capacity; an increase in Port a result of the proposed related traffic and increased alterations. There is therefore congestion on the road no increase in traffic network. congestion on the road network as a result of the proposed alterations. Department of Ecology The Screening for Appropriate Arts, Heritage, Assessment (August 2016) is Chapter 14 Marine Ecology Regional, Rural noted by the Department, in and Chapter 15 Terrestrial and Gaeltacht particular the statement on Ecology & Ornithology of the Affairs p.18 that works for the EIS has established that the demolition and construction of extant planning permission the mooring dolphins and together with the conditions other marine structures will be and environmental undertaken outside the commitments for marine and common tern breeding season terrestrial ecology and (i.e. works will be restricted to ornithology enshrined therein September to April inclusive). will have equal force and There appears to be no effect in relation to the scientific reason to disagree proposed alterations and with the conclusion of no there will be no significant significant effect on Cork effect on terrestrial ecology Harbour SPA in the Screening and ornithology. Report (p.24). However, this is based on the above restriction, and it is recommended that the limitation of construction and demolition of the mooring dolphins to September to April inclusive be required by condition.

The Underwater Archaeology Cultural Unit of this Department has no No response required.

NI1004 S146C EIS 17-1 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

Heritage issue with what is being proposed.

Brian Flavin Noise & Submission for an objection to EIS Chapter 9 sets out how Vibration changes to proposed 22.5m the proposed alterations to the maintenance building. It has maintenance building are been suggested that this will addressed in Sections 9.4 and result in an increase in high 9.5. The proposed alterations levels of noise pollution. to the maintenance building do not result in any significant noise and vibration effects.

Landscape and The visual impact from the EIS Chapter 7 sets out how Visual building will also devalue the the proposed alterations to the homes even more than it maintenance building are already has. addressed in Sections 7.5.3 and 7.5.4. The proposed alterations to the maintenance building do not result in any significant visual effects. A range of photomontages that provide representative views of the proposed alterations from Cobh, Monkstown and Ringaskiddy have been provided in EIS Volume II. Patrick O’Mahony Landscape and This submission objects to the EIS Chapter 7 sets out how Visual 22.5m high maintenance shed the proposed alterations to the at location outside the maintenance building are Planning Policy development area for which addressed in Sections 7.5.3 planning was granted in 2015. and 7.5.4. The proposed Unacceptable proximity to alterations to the maintenance existing village. building do not result in any significant visual effects. Additional photomontages have been prepared and are provided in EIS Volume II. Southern Planning Policy None No response required. Regional Assembly Robert J Human Beings Submission suggests that the No response required. McLaughlin planning permission PL04 PA0035 was granted by the board of ABP against the wishes and concerns of the harbour residents and against the boards own inspectors report. A bullying approach by the board of ABP which continues with their hastily conclusion that the present amendments fall within the scope of section 146b of the planning act 2000. ABP failed

NI1004 S146C EIS 17-2 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

to meet the principles of their own Mission Statement and code of conduct for board members.

Noise & POC plan PA0035 is not Chapter 9 Noise & Vibration Vibration sustainable. Now using 15 has established that the diesel straddle carriers. construction and operation of Building a massive the proposed maintenance maintenance building which building will not result in can only be described as a significant noise impacts. massive noise box.

Lighting Increase in footprint outside The proposed alterations will the allowed boundary which not significantly alter the will increase light pollution. lighting proposals that formed part of the permitted development. Full details of lighting alterations are provided in Chapter 3 Project Description with further assessment in Chapter 7 Landscape & Visual.

Traffic & Cost to harbour residents. Chapter 8 Traffic of the EIS Transportation Increase in traffic. has established that there is no increase in port related traffic on the road network as a result of the proposed alterations. There is therefore no increase in traffic congestion on the road network as a result of the proposed alterations.

Air Quality Air pollution caused by ships The proposed alterations do running generators, fans and not result in any changes to other auxiliaries while tied up the number of ships using the in harbour. permitted development. The air quality assessment for the proposed alterations is set out in Chapter 10 of the EIS and has predicted that there will be no significant impact.

Planning Lack of time given to The S146C EIS will be process stakeholders to be fully published and available for informed of changes. Lack of purchase or viewing for information on POC drawings. statutory period locally in accordance with planning regulations. William A Traffic & Concerns that the Planning Chapter 8 Traffic of the EIS O’Meara Transportation Board chose to ignore the has established that there is evident lack of necessary no increase in port related transport infrastructure traffic on the road network as serving Ringaskiddy and a result of the proposed illogically granted permission alterations. There is therefore

NI1004 S146C EIS 17-3 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

with conditions. The permitted no increase in traffic and now proposed works congestion on the road would create additional traffic network as a result of the problems. proposed alterations.

Planning Policy If this PM0010 application is The planning context for the allowed as a "material S146C EIS Application is set alteration" then Port of Cork out in Chapter 4 Plans and and any other applicant could Policy of the EIS. use it as a precedent for almost any development within large site areas that they might own, but outside the area of a specific permission. This could reduce the entire relevant planning process to ineffectuality in many future cases. Proposals that are outside the physical area require a new, separate, planning application.

Air Quality & The proposed 22.5m high The air quality assessment for Climate; building and its compound is a the proposed alterations is set Landscape & hazardous, unpleasant out in Chapter 10 of the EIS Visual environment. and has predicted that there will be no significant impact.

EIS Chapter 7 sets out how the proposed alterations to the maintenance building are addressed in Sections 7.5.3 and 7.5.4. The proposed alterations to the maintenance building do not result in any significant visual effects. A range of photomontages that provide representative views of the proposed alterations from Cobh, Monkstown and Ringaskiddy have been provided in EIS Volume II.

Noise & Working at night in inclement Chapter 9 Noise & Vibration Vibration; weather multiplies the level of has established that the Lighting hazard, noise and construction and operation of disturbance. New lighting the proposed maintenance would pollute the night sky. building and the other proposed alterations will not result in significant noise impacts. The proposed alterations will not significantly alter the lighting proposals that formed part of the permitted development. Full details of

NI1004 S146C EIS 17-4 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

lighting alterations are provided in Chapter 3 Project Description with further assessment in Chapter 7 Landscape & Visual. Vera O’Driscoll & Noise & Concerned as a resident Chapter 9 Noise & Vibration Kaye Neill Vibration about the predicted noise. No has established that the noise modelling to indicate construction and operation of what level of noise might be the proposed maintenance generated in the workshops of building and the other the maintenance building proposed alterations will not when the new container result in significant noise facility is operational. impacts.

Air quality Ringaskiddy social community The air quality assessment for forever have to suffer (24/7) the proposed alterations is set health hazards from dust out in Chapter 10 of the EIS levels/noise/exposure and and has predicted that there now the further 'threat' from will be no significant impact. noise emanating from proposed changes. C A M Hulehinson Planning Policy New application to be The planning context for the & List of residents submitted and not an S146C EIS Application is set names/addresses alteration. out in Chapter 4 Plans and for objection Policy of the EIS.

Traffic & Concerns over traffic flow. Chapter 8 Traffic of the EIS Transportation has established that there is no increase in port related traffic on the road network as a result of the proposed alterations. There is therefore no increase in traffic congestion on the road network as a result of the proposed alterations.

Noise & There is no information on the Chapter 9 Noise & Vibration Vibration working hours of the has established that the maintenance building or on construction and operation of the levels of noise generated the proposed maintenance all of which could well have a building and the other negative impact on the quality proposed alterations will not of life. result in significant noise impacts.

Landscape and We believe that the EIS Chapter 7 sets out how Visual construction of a maintenance the proposed alterations to the building of this size will maintenance building are produce an excessively large addressed in Sections 7.5.3 structure that is totally out of and 7.5.4. The proposed keeping with its immediate alterations to the maintenance surroundings. building do not result in any It will unnecessarily intrude significant visual effects. A

NI1004 S146C EIS 17-5 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

into the privacy of local range of photomontages that resident and devalue local provide representative views property values. of the proposed alterations from Cobh, Monkstown and Ringaskiddy have been provided in EIS Volume II.

Kieran O’Flaherty Landscape and Submission objects to the EIS Chapter 7 sets out how Visual visual impact of the 22m the proposed alterations to the building and the change of maintenance building are plan to what was already addressed in Sections 7.5.3 proposed and further and 7.5.4. The proposed devaluing of property. alterations to the maintenance building do not result in any significant visual effects. A range of photomontages that provide representative views of the proposed alterations from Cobh, Monkstown and Ringaskiddy have been provided in EIS Volume II.

Noise & Concerns over noise impact of Chapter 9 Noise & Vibration Vibration crane. has established that the construction and operation of the proposed maintenance building and the other proposed alterations will not result in significant noise impacts. Cork Harbour Planning Policy The Port Company in carrying The planning context for the Environmental out its development works S146C EIS Application is set Protection with disregard to the planning out in Chapter 4 Plans and Association conditions reflects a cavalier Policy of the EIS. (CHEPA) approach to the planning laws. The new Administration Block, Workshop facility and Canteen area, as presented, requires to be presented as a new planning application. A detailed EIS should be provided with any future application and ample opportunity given to concerned Harbour residents to respond. The precedent thus created would have disastrous consequences for proper and sustainable future planning decisions.

Traffic & We believe that the proposal Chapter 8 Traffic of the EIS Transportation for a significant increase to has established that there is dockside berth age will lead to no increase in port related

NI1004 S146C EIS 17-6 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

an increase in cargo handling traffic on the road network as which in turn will result in an a result of the proposed incremental increase in alterations. There is therefore vehicular traffic. This increase no increase in traffic has not been addressed in a congestion on the road revised RMMP study. network as a result of the proposed alterations.

Terrestrial With reference to the Chapters 12- 15 of the EIS Ecology & proposed berthage extension. presents an impact Ornithology This proposal requires further assessment of the proposed evaluation to quantify its alterations on coastal negative potential for the bird processes, the water life and the environment. No environment, marine ecology such study has been and ornithology, and set out presented. how the proposed alterations do not result in any significant coastal processes, water environment, marine ecology or ornithology effects. Commission for N/A None No response required. Railway Regulation Cllr Seamus N/A Opposition to the application. No response required. McGrath Cllr Marcia Noise & The impact of the changes Chapter 9 Noise & Vibration D’Alton Vibration was not assessed in the has established that the original planning application. construction and operation of The environmental the proposed maintenance implications, particularly building and the other noise, are significantly worse. proposed alterations will not No suggestion within the result in significant noise original application that impacts. alterations would be required.

Planning Policy No liaison with the public to The S146C EIS will be either forewarn them of these published and available for changes or to obtain their purchase or viewing for input in advance. statutory period locally in accordance with planning regulations.

Landscape and Although photomontages EIS Chapter 7 sets out how Visual demonstrated the impact of the proposed alterations to the the proposed 22.5m high maintenance building are building, not one illustrated addressed in Sections 7.5.3 the potential impact on and 7.5.4. The proposed Ringaskiddy village. alterations to the maintenance building do not result in any significant visual effects. A range of photomontages that provide representative views

NI1004 S146C EIS 17-7 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

of the proposed alterations from Cobh, Monkstown and Ringaskiddy have been provided in EIS Volume II.

Traffic & With this material alteration Chapter 8 Traffic of the EIS Transportation request, the total berth age has established that there is available to containers would no increase in port related be S60m, i.e. 75% of that traffic on the road network as refused in 2008 because of a result of the proposed the serious traffic congestion it alterations. There is therefore would cause on strategic no increase in traffic routes. But there has been no congestion on the road change in the road network network as a result of the since 2008. proposed alterations.

Human Beings Do you think these people In The planning context for the Planning Policy Ringaskiddy have confidence S146C EIS Application is set in the concept of proper out in Chapter 4 Plans and planning and sustainable Policy of the EIS. development? The reality is that the nightmare they live through has not merely been permitted, but rather has been facilitated by the Board. Robert J Human Beings Concerns over the lack of time The S146C EIS will be McLaughlin to respond for the real published and available for stakeholders in this purchase or viewing for development. statutory period locally in accordance with planning regulations.

Noise & Intend to make a more Chapter 9 Noise & Vibration Vibration detailed submission but need has established that the answers to the following – construction and operation of • Have ABP validated the the proposed maintenance noise modelling data building and the other received from POC as proposed alterations will not they are duty bound to do. result in significant noise If not why not. impacts.

• POC proceeded with Port of Cork have been and advanced works on the continue to liaise with all foreshore in Ringaskiddy relevant authorities in respect without a foreshore of the redevelopment of the licence, all under the blind port. eyes of the co council.

This is a breach of planning conditions and is illegal. Ringaskiddy Landscape and This submission details the EIS Chapter 7 sets out how Active Retirement Visual strong objection to the change the proposed alterations to the Association of plans by Port of Cork. maintenance building are Village already destroyed and addressed in Sections 7.5.3 not the 22m building will be a and 7.5.4. The proposed concrete eyesore. alterations to the maintenance

NI1004 S146C EIS 17-8 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

building do not result in any significant visual effects. A range of photomontages that provide representative views of the proposed alterations from Cobh, Monkstown and Ringaskiddy have been provided in EIS Volume II.

Monkstown Water Lengthening of the main berth Chapter 5 Human District Residents Environment; and relocation of mooring Environment has established Association Human dolphins. How will this affect that the construction and Environment the high value sailing waters operation of the proposed which are shared? alterations will not result in significant human environment impacts and in particular the social and recreational use of the harbour.

Noise & Changes to the process of Chapter 9 Noise & Vibration Vibration landside handling of has established that the containers; How will this affect construction and operation of the noise nuisance in the the proposed maintenance Monkstown Bay area? building and the other proposed alterations will not result in significant noise impacts.

Planning Policy The board has decided, The planning context for the against the advice of its S146C EIS Application is set inspector in accordance with out in Chapter 4 Plans and section 1468(2)(a) of the Act, Policy of the EIS. that the proposed alteration would constitute a material alteration to the terms of the development. This is not a material alteration this building development requires a new planning application. The need to alter the terms of their permission is a direct result of project splitting by the Port of Cork. The new building will be about 25 feet high, it will be on land which is already reclaimed and is outside the 04.PA0035 planning permission boundary. If permitted it would create a precedent and weaken the robustness of future Strategic Infrastructure Developments. We feel the Port of Cork engaged in project splitting and the viability of port

NI1004 S146C EIS 17-9 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

requires a new motor way, costing 200 million of tax payers money.

Coastal Extra dredging of the seabed Chapters 12- 15 of the EIS Processes; must be assessed under an presents an impact Marine Ecology EIS with reference to the SAC assessment of the proposed which is adjacent to the area. alterations on coastal processes, the water environment, marine ecology and ornithology, and set out how the proposed alterations do not result in any significant coastal processes, water environment, marine ecology or ornithology effects with particular reference to designated sites in the area. Ringaskiddy & Landscape and This submission details the EIS Chapter 7 sets out how District Residents Visual concerns about the Port of the proposed alterations to the Association Cork change of plans. The maintenance building are biggest concern being the addressed in Sections 7.5.3 22m high maintenance and 7.5.4. The proposed building. Port of Cork could alterations to the maintenance not provide us with a photo building do not result in any montage from the significant visual effects. A Ringaskiddy side. Some of the range of photomontages that information is lacking. provide representative views of the proposed alterations from Cobh, Monkstown and Ringaskiddy have been provided in EIS Volume II.

Noise & Now using Diesel machines Chapter 9 Noise & Vibration Vibration which are noisier. has established that the construction and operation of the proposed alterations including the straddle carriers will not result in significant noise impacts.

Planning Policy We ask that there is a full The planning context for the hearing so that we can look at S146C EIS Application is set the new EIS and other out in Chapter 4 Plans and relevant information as the Policy of the EIS. time frame was to too tight for us to review the information. Mary Jordan Landscape and Had a meeting with the Port EIS Chapter 7 sets out how Visual on 23rd September they were the proposed alterations to the able to show photo montages maintenance building are but none from Ringaskiddy. addressed in Sections 7.5.3 Could not show us drawings and 7.5.4. The proposed of the proposed maintenance alterations to the maintenance building - another 'eyesore'. I building do not result in any strongly object to the erection significant visual effects. A of a proposed maintenance range of photomontages that

NI1004 S146C EIS 17-10 EIS of the proposed alterations to Permitted Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment

building. provide representative views of the proposed alterations from Cobh, Monkstown and Ringaskiddy have been provided in EIS Volume II.

Traffic & How can a company dictate a Chapter 8 Traffic of the EIS Transportation new road layout at the has established that there is entrance to our village no increase in port related because it suits them? traffic on the road network as a result of the proposed alterations. There is therefore no increase in traffic congestion on the road network as a result of the proposed alterations.

Air Quality & We have spent many years Chapter 9 Noise & Vibration Climate putting up with inconvenience, and Chapter 10 Air Quality Noise & dust, dirt and increased traffic has established that the Vibration for the benefit of others. construction and operation of Human Beings the proposed alterations will not result in significant noise or air quality impacts.

NI1004 S146C EIS 17-11