5.0 cetaceans 5.1 i · pdf filethis chapter presents the findings of the cetacean survey. ......
Post on 02-Feb-2018
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 5.0: CETACEANS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 5-1
5.0 CETACEANS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the findings of the Cetacean survey. The Shannon Dolphin and Wildlife
Foundation (SDWF) carried out inter-tidal and sub-tidal flora and fauna surveys, marine and
terrestrial mammal surveys and explored the commercial and recreational fisheries at the site.
The site is part of the Lower River Shannon candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC)
(Site code 01265) which is designated for six species (including otter, bottlenose dolphin,
salmon and three species of lamprey) and fourteen habitats (including mudflats and sandflats
and shingle beach), including one priority habitat (lagoon). The Shannon and Fergus Special
Protection Area (Site Code 4077) is adjacent to the site but the site is not within its boundary.
The results of these investigations are presented in Chapter 5 – Cetaceans and Chapter 6 -
Terrestrial Mammals, Inter-tidal and Sub-Tidal Flora and Fauna.
5.2 MARINE MAMMAL SURVEY
The main marine mammal of interest is the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), which is
resident in the Shannon Estuary. The Lower River Shannon is a candidate Special Area of
Conservation for this species and thus any activity which may disturb the dolphins or degrade
their habitat must be fully assessed. In order to provide high quality data on the presence of
bottlenose dolphins in the vicinity of Foynes, Static Acoustic Monitoring (SAM) was used to
monitor the site acoustically.
Static acoustic monitoring (SAM) can be achieved with the use of devices called C-PODs. C-
PODs are self contained click detectors which log the echolocation clicks of porpoises and
dolphins. Once deployed at sea, the C-POD operates in a passive mode and is constantly
listening for tonal clicks within a frequency range of 20kHz to 160kHz. When a tonal click is
detected, the C-POD records the time of occurrence, centre frequency, intensity, duration,
bandwidth and frequency of the click. Internally, the C-POD is equipped with a Secure Digital
(SD) flash card, and all data are stored on this card. Dedicated software, CPOD.exe, provided
by the manufacturer, is used to process the data from the SD card when connected to a PC
via a card-reader. This allows for the extraction of data files under pre-determined parameters
as set by the user. Additionally, the C-POD also records temperature over its deployment
duration. It must be noted that the C-POD does not record actual sound files, only information
about the tonal clicks it detects. SAM can be carried out independent of weather conditions
once deployed and thus ensures high quality data is collected but only at a small spatial scale
(typically around 800m radius for dolphins).
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 5.0: CETACEANS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 5-2
A detection range of up to 1250m for bottlenose dolphins was estimated in the Shannon
Estuary by Philpott et al. (2007) using Version 3 T-PODs (the C-PODs predecessor), but the
majority of detections occurred within 500m. T-POD detection distances of 200m for the
harbour porpoise were estimated by Tougaard et al. (2006) and 300m to 500m by
Villadsgaard et al. (2007). As C-PODs are only available since September 2008, there is no
published material yet available on the detection range of these devices. Trials were carried
out in 2009 in the Shannon Estuary to estimate a detection distance of C-PODs for dolphins.
Preliminary results suggest a detection range of between 500 and 800m for bottlenose
dolphins (O’Brien et al. in prep). Trials carried out in Cardigan Bay suggest a detection
distance of over 500m for bottlenose dolphins (Peter Evans pers. comms). Further theoretical
testing of C-PODs in control tanks has been carried out by Line Kyhn and colleagues at the
National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark and they suggest C-PODs should have a
detection distance of about 250m for harbour porpoises in the field, while field trials carried out
by O’Brien et al. (in prep) reported similar detection distances.
Two individual C-POD units were deployed singularly at one location between 23 February
and 25 October 2010. Calibration of equipment was essential in order to compare results
between units. Chelonia Ltd, the manufacturers of C-PODs, calibrate all units in the lab under
controlled conditions to a standard prior to dispatch but Chelonia highly recommend that
further calibrations are carried out in the field if used in monitoring programmes (Nick
Tregenza pers comms). Field calibrations aim to assess differences in sensitivity between
units (O’Brien 2009), and also facilitate comparisons between datasets collected in different
areas using multiple loggers (Dähne et al. 2006). This is especially important where projects
employ several units aimed at comparing detections across a number of sites. If units of
differing sensitivities are used, then these data do not truly reflect the activity at a site. For
example, a low detection rate may be attributed to a less sensitive POD, with a lower
detection threshold, which in turn leads to a lower detection range, while the opposite holds for
a very sensitive unit. It is fundamental that differences between units are determined prior to
their deployment as part of any project, to allow for the generation of correction factors which
can be applied to the resulting data. Field trials are carried out in high density areas in order
to determine the detection function (O’Brien et al. in prep). The field calibration of new units
should be carried out in conjunction with a reference C-POD, where a single unit is used
solely for calibrations and is deemed a reference. This allows for the incidence where new
units are acquired over the course of a project to be calibrated with the reference.
The mooring line consisted of a single rope suspended from the quay wall, with a line running
to a free hanging weight (20kg). At approximately mid-water a loop was etched in the line and
the C-POD units were shackled secure. The units are positively buoyant, but salmon float are
attached to them to ensure they stay upright even in heavy seas and strong currents.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 5.0: CETACEANS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 5-3
Figure 5.1 Mooring System Used to Deploy C-PODs of the Quay Wall at Foynes
Port
C-POD.exe, the dedicated software V1.054 (latest version, May 2010) provided by the
manufacturer was used to process all C-POD data files (cp.1files processed to output cp.3
files). Only dolphin click trains in the train filters “High” and “Mod” were used for analyses.
These options included a combination of clicks classed as being of high probability cetacean
origin and clicks classed of lower probability cetacean origin. Dolphin detections were
extracted as detection positive minutes per day and per hour. Although some dolphin clicks
could be detected in the porpoise channels, the setting of the click bandwidth used should
have greatly reduced this incidence. The term DPM represents the number of minutes in a
day or an hour that dolphins were acoustically detected.
5.3 RESULTS
A total of two calibration trials were carried out in the Shannon Estuary over the duration of
this study. This was due to the acquisition of new equipment over the duration. Firstly, two
units were calibrated in the Shannon Estuary prior to their deployment in February 2010. This
calibration trial was carried out in June 2009 for 24 days. Results from this trial showed that
the application of a correction factor was not necessary for these two units as their total
Detection Positive Minutes per day (DPM) and mean DPM/hr-1 were so similar, showing there
was little variation in sensitivities between units (Figure 5.2, Table 5.1). A second trial on
C488 was carried out in March 2010, against C172. Again results were found to be very
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 5.0: CETACEANS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 5-4
similar and hence removed the necessity to apply a correction factor to the resulting data
(Table 5.2).
Table 5.1 Results of Calibration Rrials for C-PODs C172 and C167
C-POD
Number
Total deployment
days
Total DPM
Mean No. of DPM/hr-1
167 24 548 0.95
172* 24 662 1.14
*reference unit
Table 5.2 Results of Calibration Trials for C-PODs C172 and C488
C-POD
Number
Total deployment
days
Total DPM
Mean No. of DPM/hr-1
488 28 117 0.17
172* 28 108 0.16
*(reference unit)
Figure 5.2 Calibration Results DPM per Day from Shannon Estuary Trials
A total of 176 days were monitored at Foynes Port Jetty for bottlenose dolphins during three
periods of monitoring using two different CPODs. COD 167 was deployed from 23 February to
9 April (45 days), CPOD 488from 9 April to 3 June (55 days) and CPOD 167 again from 10
August to 25 October (76 days). The CPOD failed to log between 3 June to 10 August (67
days).
Over the monitoring period dolphins were detected on from 27 to 47% of days (mean = 34% of
days). A total of 162 DPM were recorded with a mean on 0.87 DPM per day (Table 3). When
recorded, there was only one encounter per day and the duration of encounters were short
with only 6 (3.4%) greater than 4 minutes (Figure 5.3).
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 5.0: CETACEANS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 5-5
Table 5.3 Summary of Results from Acoustic Monitoring Using CPODS
POD No.
CF
Deployment
No.
No. of
Monitoring days
% of days
with detections
Detection Positive
Minutes (DPM)
Mean
DPM/day
167
N/A
1
45
29
42
0.94
488 N/A 2 55 27 31 0.55 167 N/A 3 76 47 89 1.17
NA - Not Applicable
Figure 5.3 Number of DPMs Per Day from February to October 2010 from Foynes
Jetty
5.4 DIEL ACTIVITY
C-POD data files in the format of Detection Positive Minutes per hour (DPM/h-1) were divided
into day and night-time using local times of sunrise and sunset times, obtained from the U.S.
Naval Observatory (www.aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS). Results showed that of the 176
DPM recorded, 135 DPM (76%) were detected at night, with only 41 DPM (24%) of the
detections during daylight hours, suggesting that dolphins are using this upriver site more
frequently at night, maybe as there is less human activity and thus are rarely observed.
Bottlenose dolphins were frequently recorded acoustically in the vicinity of Foynes. Recent
trials in the Shannon Estuary suggest a detection distance of around 800m for bottlenose
dolphin so we should detect any dolphins entering the harbour or occurring at the harbour
entrances. With this range, dolphins may have been in the area to the east or west of the
harbour and would still have been detected.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 5.0: CETACEANS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 5-6
5.5 SUMMARY
In summary, the site of the proposed land reclamation is of no significant ecological value. The
site largely comprises inter-tidal mud and is greatly disturbed by human activity and ship
berthing. While bottlenose dolphins were frequently detected acoustically in general
bottlenose dolphins are very rarely recorded in Foynes harbour. With an estimated detection
distance of around 800-1000m, dolphins may be detected in the approaches to the harbour in
either the west or east channels without dolphins actually entering the harbour area. Loss of
inter or sub-tidal habitat is not thought to have any effect on the dolphins. However as
dolphins were recorded frequently during the survey period they should be taken into account
during construction.
5.6 MITIGATION
In order to ensure no dolphins are affected by the proposed land reclamation a Marine
Mammal Observer (MMO) should be used during activities which might disturb dolphins. This
includes dredging and dumping of spoil or activities such as pile driving which may create
sound pressure waves. Bottlenose dolphins have been shown to be capable of detecting
noise from this activity up to 10-15km away (David, 2006). The buffer zone to be monitored
should be agreed with NPWS but we recommend 500-1000m. This is in line with current
NPWS guidance “Code of Practice for the Protection of Marine Mammals during Acoustic
Seafloor Surveys in Irish Waters”. The surveys should be carried out by a suitably qualified
Marine Mammal Observer and Marine Mammal Recording Forms should be returned to
NPWS following the completion of works.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-1
6.0 TERRESTRAIL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA & FAUNA
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the findings of the Survey of Terrestrial Mammals, Inter-tidal and Sub-
tidal Flora & Fauna. An initial site visit on 23 February 2010 suggested there is very little
habitat at, or adjacent to, the site suitable for terrestrial mammals. Brown rat (Rattus
norvegicus) probably occurs, but more importantly otters may utilize the site. Otters are on
Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive and the Lower River Shannon cSAC is designated for
this species thus it is entitled to strict protection, including its habitat.
The survey work concentrated on determining the presence of otters (Lutra lutra) at the site.
This was established by searching for the presence of spraints and/or other signs of otter
activity, which is consistent with the methodology described in Bailey and Rochford (2006). An
otter survey of the area was carried out on 26 April and 3 June 2010. No spraints were
recorded and only two middens with remains of shore crabs (Figure 6.1) recorded on 26 April.
These could have been created by otters but were more likely from gull predation. No middens
were recorded on 3 June 2010
Figure 6.1 Crab Remains Located Above High Water at Study Site
(Thought to be remains of gull predation rather than otter)
The area immediately adjacent to the proposed reclamation site was surveyed thoroughly on
two occasions for the presence of otters. No presence was found. This does not mean that
otters are entirely absent from the site but are not regularly using it, especially during the
spring and summer. The site is not considered a potential habitat due to the high level of
disturbance. Interestingly Bailey and Rochford (2006) also failed to record otters in the 10km
square (R25) ion their survey of Ireland in 2004/05.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-2
6.2 INTER-TIDAL HABITATS
6.2.1 Fauna
The site consists mainly of inter-tidal mud with some hard substrates such as concrete beams
and rock mainly at the western portion of east jetty (West End). Four samples were taken at
low water on 26 April 2010, along two transects from high to low water: one each in site A
(East End) and B (West End). Samples were taken 25m apart in all samples in transect 1 and
samples 1 and 2 in transect 2. Sample 3 was 50m further down the shore and no sample was
taken at the site closest to the water as the mud was so soft as to be dangerous to walk on.
All mud was removed from a surface area of 300x300mm and to a depth of 300mm, which
gives a total of 0.27m2. All samples were washed and sieved through a 1mm sieve and all
marine invertebrates collected. They were divided into worms (all Nereis diversicolour) and
mollusks (All Scobicularia plana) and weighed (wet weight, to within 0.1g). All bivalves were
measured along their greatest length. The results are shown in Table 6.1.
Site A. West End Site B. East End
Figure 6.2 Division of Jetty where transects were taken
Table 6.1 Wet Weight of Marine Invertebrates Along Two Transects at Foynes
Port, Co Limerick
Transect 1 (east) Transect 2 (west)
Worms Bivalves Worms Bivalves
Sample 1 19.2 9.4 (n=1) 2.3 5.3 (n=5)
Sample 2 11.8 11.4 (n=16) 0.5 0.8 (n=1)
Sample 3 4.2 3.2 (n=1) 0.3 0.2 (n=1)
Sample 4 None None No
sample
No sample
Mean 8.8 6.0 1.0 2.1
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-3
Densities of marine worms varied between sampling sites and transects. The density
decreased towards the sea with highest biomass at the upper shore. This difference can be
seen in Figure 5 where the tracks on the surface caused by invertebrate activity decreases
further down the shore. This difference was consistent between sites, however the biomass at
site B (West End) was considerable less than site A (East End). The relative biomass of
worms in the total was even greater than suggested in Table 6.1 as the wet weight of bivalves
includes the shell which is not digestible by predators.
Transect 1 Sample 1 Transect 1 Sample 2
Transect 1 Sample 3 Transect 1 Sample 4
Figure 6.3 Image of Each Sampling Site Along Transect 1. (Note Increased Surface
Activity in Samples 1 and 2)
The ragworm Nereis diversicolor is abundant in the Shannon Estuary and one of the most
abundant worms in inter-tidal and sub-tidal habitats. O’Sullivan (1983) recorded a maximum
density of 800 m2 at Aughinish to the east of Foynes. They are a major prey for estuarine
wader species throughout its range on the intertidal mudflats along the coast of Europe and
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-4
NW Africa. Most worms recorded at Foynes Port were small <30-40mm) although it is possible
very large worms avoided being sampled.
The bivalve mollusc Scrobiularia plana or Peppery furrow shell is abundant in the Shannon
Estuary (O’Sullivan 1983) and commonly found on sandy or muddy sea coasts and estuaries
in northern Europe, the Mediterranean and West Africa and may be found at quite high
densities. It is a filter feeder, with long siphons, burying itself up to 200mm deep in sand or
mud.
The length frequency distribution of Scrobiularia from Foynes Port is shown in Figure 6.4.
Most individuals were less than 20mm in length and there was a peak in size at 5-10mm. The
maximum size recorded 42.4mm shell length. The larger the individual the deeper the shell
will be in the mud. Thus the larger individuals are only accessible to birds with long beaks.
Figure 6.4 Length Frequency Distribution of Scrobilcularia at Foynes
However most Scobicularia sampled were small (peak 5-10mm) and thus accessible to most
waders foraging in the area.
6.2.2 Flora
There was very little flora on the mud in either sections apart from a few clumps of Fucus
vesiculosis attached to rocks and boulders (Figure 6.5). There was 100% cover on the
concrete structures in the Western End and along the lower part of the revetments (Figure 6.5
& 6.7).
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Length (mm)
Numbers present
Transect 1
Transect 2
Sub-tidal
All
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-5
Figure 6.5 Clumps of Fucus vesiculosis Growing on Boulders in the Mud in
Both Sections
Figure 6.6 Inter-Tidal Flora in Western and Eastern Ends Respectively
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-6
The flora was zoned with Pelvetia canuliculata occurring on the upper shore, Fucus spiralis
(39% cover) and Fucus vesiculosis occurring in the mid-shore and Ascophyllum nodosum
(10% cover) in mid to lower shore. This is typical of sheltered locations on the west coast of
Ireland. Associated fauna was limited to small numbers of Gammaridae and Littorina rudis.
Small Carcinus maenas were also found under the seaweed and on the mud. This site is
typical of sheltered rocky shores in the Shannon Estuary and along the Irish coast.
Figure 6.7 This was a Combination of Fucus vesiculosis and Ascophyllum
nodosum
6.2.3 Impact of Foraging Birds
One of the biggest potential impacts of the proposed land reclamation could be on foraging
waders and waterfowl. In order to asses this we have attempted to quantify the loss of
potential prey to these birds. We have attempted to calculate the potential biomass of prey
present at the site by extrapolating the biomass within the samples to the entire site. The area
of the eastern portion of the site was estimated as 11,453 m2 and western section at
11,068m2. If we divide each section into four equal parts, corresponding with each sample
along the transect. The total biomass of worms available in the top 300mm in the East End
was 373 kg (wet weight) and West End 32kg making a total of 405 kg (Table 6.2). Equivalent
wet weight of bivalves was 319 kg but most of this was shell.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-7
Table 6.2 Estimated Total Biomass of Invertebrates Available to Feeding Waders
in Each Area
Area
(m2)
Transect 1 (east)
Area (m2)
Transect 2 (west)
Worms Bivalves Worms Bivalves
Area 1 2863 203 100 Area 1 2767 24 54
Area 2 2863 125 121 Area 2 2767 5 8
Area 3 2863 45 34 Area 3 2767 3 2
Area 4 2863 0 0 Area 4 2767 0 0
Total
373
255
32
64
Estimating prey accessibility to waders is an unsolved problem (Leyrer and Exo 2001). Zwarts
and Wanink (1993) showed that the overall biomass of the macrobenthos in winter was half of
that in summer, and the burying depth varies per species: Scrobicularia plana and Nereis
diversicolor bury more deeply in the winter and the majority of these prey live out of reach of
the bird's bill. Thus it is not easy to determine how much of the potential biomass is available
to waders.
6.3 SUB-TIDAL HABITATS
Sub-tidal habitats were sampled with a van Veem grab deployed from the edge of the berthing
jetty. Four samples were taken on 3 June 2010 from west to east. Each grab has a sample
area of 0.1 m2 (360 x 280 mm) and its long lever arms and sharp cutting edges on the bottom
of the scoops allow it to cut deep into softer bottoms. Each sample was treated the same as
the sub-tidal mud samples and washed through a 1mm sieve and all marine invertebrates
collected.
No fauna were recovered from three of the four grab samples. Two small (shell length 11.6
and 8.7mm) specimens of Scrobicularia plana but no worms were recovered in grab sample 1
which was at the eastern end of the jetty. This low recovery was thought to be representative
as there was no surface activity visible in the samples. The highly disturbed nature of the
sediment due to regular ship activity was though to mitigate against colonization by in-fauna at
the site.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-8
6.3.1 Fisheries (Commercial and Recreational)
In order to record the commercial and recreational fisheries in the area an internet search was
carried out and consultation letters sent to Foynes Angling and Yacht Clubs and Inland
Fisheries Ireland (IFI) Limerick) on the 4th July 2010 requesting any relevant information. To
date no response has been received from Foynes Angling and Yacht Club. Following further
communication with Inland Fisheries Ireland a one to one consultation meeting was held. IFI
confirmed that commercial fishing activity is limited within Foynes Harbour with only
occasional potting taking place at the approaches to Foynes Harbour. Historically a weir
operated near Durnish which would have indicated salmon use along the inner channel
however this weir has been redundant for many years. As discussed with IFI, modelling and
monitoring of sedimentation together with the development of mitigation measures should be
considered both within the EIS and during the dredging process. The impacts of sedimentation
together with the modelling results are presented in Chapter 9 of the EIS.
An internet search suggested that shore angling is popular, where visitors are advised that
you can fish the pier side of the marina fence where very deep water is accessible but during
the evenings small boats are coming in and out until past dusk. Immediately below the car
park is the main shipping channel which is some 60 feet deep. Catches in deep water include
thornback ray (Raja clavata), conger (Conger conger), dogfish (Scyliorhinus canicula) and
codling (Gadus morhua). The ray fishing is considered particularly good with fish to 4.5kg
regularly taken. Local anglers frequently take flounder (Platichthys flesus) and whiting
(Merlangius merlangus) off the main piers and some of the cod caught here have exceeded
3kg. The flooding tide is the most productive period and the majority of the larger conger, are
taken during the hours of darkness.
In summary, there was no evidence of commercial fishing in the area but recreational fishing
is promoted outside of the immediate Port area. The extent of this fishing is not known but it
seems to concentrate on the deep water off the jetties and not the shallow inter or sub-tidal
areas. Whereas some fish feeding areas will be removed following reclamation, direct access,
by the public, to the shore at the site is restricted and discouraged as it is a working jetty, thus
any impact on recreational fishing will not be significant.
6.4 SUMMARY
In summary, the site of the proposed land reclamation is of no significant ecological value. The
site largely comprises inter-tidal mud and is greatly disturbed by human activity and ship
berthing. The total area which SFPC are proposing to reclaim is approximately 2.5ha, however
only 1.5ha of this is inter-tidal. While this will mean some loss of the Annex 1 Saltmarsh
Habitat based on the results of our field assessments as outlined in this chapter it is apparent
that the loss will have no significant impact on the overall integrity of the Lower Shannon SAC
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-9
or SPA. This is further compounded by the findings of our avian assessments which are
detailed in Chapter 7 where extremely low bird numbers were recorded utilising the area.
Furthermore the very low biomass and availability of prey items to the qualifying interest
features of the SPA clearly indicate that this is a very poor example of this habitat due to the
poor structure and function of it. The area behind the existing east jetty is a poor example of
this important habitat due to the very low biomass of polychaete worms and bivalve molluscs
recorded in the area during the field assessments. The typical polychaete worms which this
habitat support include Tubificoides spp., Capitella spp., and Malacoceros spp.together with
the molluscs Abra alba and Mytilus edulis together with algae and plants were not found to be
present within the study area as can seen from the surveys results.
6.5 MITIGATION
Nonetheless appropriate mitigation measures under Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive will be
undertaken by SFPC to offset any perceived loss of habitat and potential foraging areas for
birds. A consultation process to identify the most appropriate steps and mitigation was
undertaken in consultation with NPWS. Initial site visits within the Lower Shannon SAC and
SPA were undertaken to identify potential areas for mitigation measures on the 26th of May
2011 with Stefan Jones (District Conservation Officer) and Liam Lenihan (Conservation
Ranger) of NPWS. Following this field investigation more appropriate options were identified
and discussed with NPWS. These included;
1. Identification of areas of inter-tidal mudflats which have become encroached and
invaded by Spartinia anglica swards.
2. Identification of areas which have been subject to historical reclamation or in-filling
which would previously have contained inter-tidal mudflats.
3. Habitat enhancement measures on Sturamus Island
Option 3 was subsequently dis-counted due to the already intact and pristine nature of the
habitats on Sturamus Island. It was felt that no further steps could be taken there to enhance
an area further to satisfy these requirements. Option 2 was also discounted due to issues with
naturalisation, establishment of landowners and costs associated the removal of such infill
together with associated negative environmental impacts from large scale removal if infill in an
aquatic environment.
Option 3 has been progressed further with an assessment of its suitability for this project
undertaken in association with the Appropriate Assessment.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-10
Identification of areas of inter-tidal mudflats which have become encroached and
invaded by Spartinia anglica swards
Spartina anglica is considered to be an invasive alien species in Ireland (McCorry et al. 2003);
even though Preston et al. (2002) classes it as a native endemic species in Britain. Stands of
S. anglica have been considered of low intrinsic value to wildlife and as a threat to mudflats
used as feeding grounds by wintering waders and wildfowl (Nairn 1986). Many NPWS
conservation plans of SACs containing Spartina swards list the monitoring and control of S.
anglica as one of the primary objectives to maintain the conservation status of other species
and habitats of conservation importance. The spread of S. anglica is likely to have significantly
reduced the area of the Annex I habitat Salicornia and other annuals on mud and sand (1310)
in Ireland (McCorry 2007). Spartina swards have mainly developed in Ireland at the expense
of intertidal mud and sandflats (also an Annex I habitat - 1140) (McCorry et al. 2003).
Irish Spartina swards are generally made up of S. anglica (McCorry et al. 2003). This is a non-
native species in Ireland. Spartina was planted in the early 20th century at locations in Cork
Harbour and Fergus Estuary, Co. Clare for the purposes of land reclamation. It was
subsequently planted at other locations in Co. Dublin, Co. Donegal and Co Mayo. It has since
spread naturally (or with the help of some further planting) to many other locations along the
coast. It has mainly spread on unvegetated mudflats seaward of previously established
saltmarsh, but has also spread on previously established Atlantic salt meadows, areas
formerly vegetated by Salicornia flats (1310) and areas formerly vegetated by Zostera spp.
(NPWS, 2007).
In order to mitigate against the loss of inter-tidal habitat and potential feeding area (c. 1.4ha)
at the east jetty in Foynes Port it is proposed to enhance an area of inter-tidal habitat through
the removal or control of Spartina anglica swards. Thus enhancing the area and mitigating
against the small loss of habitat and bird foraging area within the SAC and proposed SPA.
The overall outcome will mean no net loss to the SAC or pSPA of the Lower Shannon and
Lower Shannon and Fergus Estuaries respectively.
Environmental Impact of Spartina
Some of the very traits that make Spartina valued are also the greatest causes for concern. In
the introduced range, the greatest concern is the species’ ability to trap large amounts of
sediment. The stout stems and leaves of Spartina slow tidal water, thus trapping sediment
(mostly in the leaf axes). As portions of the plant age and fall off, the sediment is deposited at
the base of the plant and then bound by the extensive rhizomes (Thompson 1991). Spartina
sediment accretion rates are higher than those of other salt marsh vegetation and other
Spartina species (Lee and Partridge 1983). As a result, Spartina causes tidelands to rise more
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-11
than they would if they were unvegetated or vegetated by other species (Thompson 1991). In
Europe, sedimentation rates of 20 to 200 mm/yr. are reported (Ranwell, 1967; Lee &
Partridge, 1983; Thompson, 1991), and as much as six feet of accreted sediment occurs
under some British Spartina marshes (Ranwell, 1967; Gray et al., 1991).
A secondary impact of increased sediment accretion may be changes in water circulation
patterns. Sediment accretion associated with Spartina infestations in England has been known
to reduce tidal flow. In New Zealand, where Spartina was intentionally introduced, it has
trapped so much sediment that the previously existing salt marshes behind the Spartina have
become slight depressions (Hubbard, 1981). By this process, Spartina impedes drainage,
resulting in flooding from trapped, backed up water (Partridge, 1987). Large, dense
populations at or in river mouths may cause particular problems by decreasing flow and
leading to increased flooding, especially during periods of heavy precipitation and/or above
normal tides (Ebasco Environmental, 1993). Detrimental effects of Spartina infestations
extend beyond increases in sedimentation. Doody (1990 cited in Gray et al., 1991)
summarized the negative impacts of Spartina in Britain as follows:
1. Invades mudflats rich in invertebrates and used by overwintering shorebirds and
waterfowl;
2. Replaces more diverse plant communities;
3. Produces dense, monotypic stands that alter succession and are replaced in ungrazed
areas by equally species-poor communities.
In Britain, the spread of Spartina has been associated with the decline of some bird
populations by as much as 50 percent in affected areas. Birds most affected were those that
prefer to feed on open mud. Studies of the Dunlin (Calidris alpina) found that populations
declined most in estuaries where Spartina had spread the most, while population numbers
remained unchanged where Spartina populations were static. Control and removal of Spartina
infestations resulted in the return of the Dunlin (Gray et al., 1991). The exact cause of these
patterns has not been investigated thoroughly, but Spartina may remove feeding areas and
reduce feeding time, resulting in increased emigration and mortality (Gray et al. 1991).
In conjunction with the Environmental Impact Statement an Appropriate Assessment of Natura
2000 sites has also been undertaken. Within the associated Natura Impact Statement details
in relation to the proposed mitigation measures at Barrigone SAC & SPA which is adjacent to
Foynes Port have been outlined. These measures will offset any perceived loss of inter-tidal
habitat and potential feeding areas for birds through the enhancement and remediation of the
site.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-12
Mitigation Measures - Environmental Management Plan
Site Name Barrigone, Aughinish
Site Access/
Location
This site is located along the south side of the River Shannon Estuary, near the
village of Barrigone. It is located approximately 25 kilometres north-west of Limerick
City along the N69 road approximately 6km from Foynes.
Designation SPA – the selected areas are totally within the current SPA Boundary: 4077
SAC - the selected areas are totally within the current cSAC Boundary: 2165
pNHA - the selected areas are totally within the current pNHA Boundary: 0435
Figure 6.8 &
6.9 SAC and
SPA
Boundaries in
area proposed
for mitigation
measures
Figure 6.8
Figure 6.9
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-13
Site suitability Barrigone contains three Annex I Habitats currently listed as qualifying interests for
the Lower Shannon cSAC.
H1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand
H1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritime)
H1410 Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritime)
The close proximity to the site where the loss of habitat will occur coupled with the
suitability of the site in terms of similar habitat types (inter-tidal mudflats) makes this
a suitable area to implement appropriate mitigation measures.
The site was previously surveyed as part of the McCorry & Ryle 2009 saltmarsh
survey for the research branch of NPWS. McCorry and Ryle found extensive areas
of Spartina anglica swards both as pure swards and as a mosaic with three of the
Annex I habitats.
Background to
identified
mitigation
measures
Large tracts of the mudflats within this area have been colonised by Common
Cordgrass (Spartina anglica) and the majority of this habitat occurs as pure sward.
Since the publication of the 2nd edition 6 inch maps there is an indication of an
overall increase in the area of saltmarsh vegetation at this site over the past century
mainly as a result of the development of Spartina swards. (See Figure 6.9 for a
habitat map indicating the areas covered by Spartina swards from MCorry & Ryle
2009)
While Spartina is listed as an Annex 1 species it is considered to be a non-native
invasive alien species in Ireland according to Invasive Species Ireland.
http://invasivespeciesireland.com/most-unwanted-
species/established/marine/smooth-cord-grass
The Article 17 Conservation Status report states that as Spartina is considered to be
an invasive alien species in Ireland and therefore it is assessed in a different way to
other habitats. Increases in the area and extent of Spartina swards are actually
considered to be unfavourable and as future expansion is considered likely, the
overall conservation status of this habitat is rated as poor.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-14
Figure 6.10 Habitat Map Indicating the Areas Covered by Spartina Swards from MCorry & Ryle
2009 Within the SAC Boundary
Removal,
Control or
Containment of
Spartina
Key features of Spartina
• Robust grass with shoots 0.4m - 1.3m.
• Spread by both seed and vegetatively.
• Yellowish green in Spring / summer.
• Light brown in Autumn / winter.
Impacts
• Produces dense monoswards slowing the movement of water and increasing the
rate of silt deposition.
• Raises the general level of the marsh.
• Excludes native species.
• Reduces the available food resources for wildfowl and wading birds.
• Reduces the area of eel-grass beds and invertebrates.
Management information
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-15
Physical: Smothering with plastic sheeting, burying and repetitive burning have
achieved kill rates of over 90%. They however, are more costly than herbicides and
have practical problems e.g. sheeting may become dislodged by tidal currents.
These methods are therefore only suitable for use on small areas. Seedlings or
young plants can also be dug out. In Northern Ireland the largest plant to be dug out
successfully was 50cm in diameter. Attempts to dig up larger clumps have been
unsuccessful. Other possible control methods being researched include steam
treatment.
Biological: Other possible control methods being researched include biological
control using an insect (Prokelisia spp.)
Chemical (Preferred Option): Herbicide application is the most frequently used
control method due to its practical ease of use and cost effectiveness. The
herbicides Fluazifop (Fusilade) and Haloxyfop (Gallant) both regularly achieve over
90% kill after one application. A study in Northern Ireland has also found that
Dalapon achieved over 90% success rate with Glyphosate achieving 75%.
Complete eradication requires repeated treatment application.
It is recommended that use of herbicides in cSACs and SPAs follows guidelines
from the Herbicide Handbook: Guidance on the use of herbicides on nature
conservation sites (English Nature, 2003)
The handbook recommends the use of Glyphosate (e.g. Rival or Roundup Pro
Biactive) on Spartina anglica in aquatic situations. The application method proposed
is foliar spray or weed-wipe in Spring/Summer, when grass is actively growing.
Grass with at least 4-5 new leaves and at least 10cm tall is recommended.
Livestock should be excluded from the treated fields and may not graze or be fed
the treated forage, nor may it be used for hay, silage or bedding.
The herbicide Handbook contains herbicide information summary sheets which
should be referred to prior to carrying out any chemical treatment. The sheets do
not replace the product label, or the approval, which remains the final authoritative
legal instrument for the provision of usage instructions. The Glyphosate sheet from
the handbook is contained in Appendix 2. Figure 6.10 outlines the initial area where
Spartina control may be undertaken. The area outlined in red if left un-checked may
close in and lead to the infill and further development of a Spartina monosward to
the determent of the other Annex habitats in the western inlet.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-16
Figure 6.11 Areas for Implementing Initial Mitigation Measures
Benefits of
proposed
measures
Through the implementation of such measures as Spartina control it will enhance
the overall integrity of the SAC/SPA at Barrigone. It will halt the further degradation
of the Annex I habitats from the spread of Spartina and it will further ensure the
qualifying interest features of the SAC/SPA are maintained. While the proposed
reclamation project will see the loss of some Annex I habitat and potential feeding
area for birds the mitigation measures proposed under this Environmental
Management Plan for the Barrigone site will ensure the loss will be negated through
the further enhancement of an area within the Barrigone SAC/SPA.
By preventing the further erosion of saltmarsh habitats in this area it will allow for
rehabilitation and for the continued security of the site as a high tide waterbird roost
within the existing SPA Boundary.
Key Stages in
the proposed
Environmental
Management
Plan for the site
The full implementation of an Environmental Management Plan within Barrigone
should involve the development of a detailed programme of works and conservation
plan for the area together with detailed method statements and programme of works
in terms of stage treatment of Spartina swards throughout the site.
All programmes of works should be designed in close consultation with the NPWS
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 6.0: TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS, INTER-TIDAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUB-TIDAL FLORA AND FAUNA
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-17
and IFI and should incorporate a monitoring programme over the coming years.
On approval of Planning Permission SFPC will undertake the development of a
detailed Environmental Management Plan for the area which will incorporate an on-
going monitoring programme and programme of measures for the site.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-1
7.0 BIRDS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the findings of the winter 2010/11 and summer/autumn 2010 surveys of
water birds in the vicinity of Foynes Port. It describes the potential impacts of the proposed
reclamation on birds and recommends mitigation measures, where deemed appropriate.
Natura Environmental Consultants Ltd was commissioned by RPS Group, to undertake
baseline surveys, from March 2010 to February 2011 inclusive in order to assess and monitor
birds likely to be affected by the proposed land reclamation at Foynes Port. The site of the
proposed land reclamation, at East Jetty, is located within the boundaries of the Lower River
Shannon cSAC and Inner Shannon Estuary pNHA, and approximately 700m from the River
Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA. The objective of the survey was to provide an up-
to-date assessment of the importance of the subject area for birds.
7.2 METHODOLOGY
7.2.1 Desk Review and Consultation
A desk study was carried out to collate the available information on bird populations within the
study area and surroundings. The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) of the
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government were consulted in relation to
the conservation objectives of the designated areas within the study area and the proposed
extension of the River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA boundary. The local NPWS
Conservation Ranger was also consulted. A consultation meeting was held with NPWS
personnel on the 8th March 2011. Previous winter counts of non-breeding birds in the entire
Shannon/Fergus Estuary and adjacent intertidal areas (IWeBS data) were provided by
BirdWatch Ireland. These results cover the most recent 5-year period, 2003/04 to 2007/08.
Local ornithologists also provided data on previous wintering bird counts in the Shannon
Estuary. A previous survey of wintering birds within Shannon Foynes Port (OES Consulting,
2008) commissioned by Shannon Foynes Port Company was also reviewed.
7.2.2 Intertidal Bird Surveys
The methodology for the field surveys was as follows. The area of the proposed reclamation
area and all intertidal and tidal areas within 1km of the reclamation area were surveyed at
monthly intervals from March 2010 to February 2011 inclusive. Sturamus Island is outside of
the 1km study area (approx. 1.5km north east), however, where visibility allowed, birds on the
Island were also counted as it is occupied in summer by a Common Tern colony.
On each visit counts were conducted at low tide when the mudflats within the proposed
reclamation area were exposed. High Tide roost surveys were also undertaken in the peak
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-2
winter period in order to establish the locations of significant roost sites. Four vantage points
were selected in order to observe all areas within 1km of the East Jetty, from Colleen Point to
the inner channel of the Robertstown River (see Figure 7.1 for locations). Vantage point
details area as follows:
VP1 (grid ref R 124664 151941) – west of proposed reclamation area
VP2 (grid ref R 124664 151941) - adjacent to proposed reclamation area
VP3 (grid ref R 124664 151941) – east of reclamation area
VP4 (grid ref R 124664 151941) – east of reclamation area
See Appendix 3 Plates 1-9 for photographs taken from Vantage Points. All counts were
undertaken in reasonable to good visibility using a 34x telescope.
Figure 7.1 Location of Vantage Points VP1 to VP4 within Shannon Foynes Port
7.3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
7.3.1 General Description of the Study Area
Shannon Foynes Port is situated on the southern shores of the Shannon Estuary within the
largest estuarine complex in Ireland. The proposed reclamation site is an area of soft mudflats
behind the East Jetty within the port. The wider study area extends 1km west from the East
Jetty as far as Colleen Point and 1km east as far as the inner channel of the Robertstown
River. It also includes the southern shores of Foynes Island, which are directly opposite the
East Jetty. This wider area was included to assess the possibility of indirect effects on birds in
the estuarine area surrounding the Port. Sturamus Island is situated approximately 1.5km
north east of the East Jetty.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-3
7.3.2 Designated areas (Natura 2000 Sites)
The proposed reclamation area is covered by two areas designated for nature conservation
and situated approximately 700m from another (see Figure 7.2 for location map). Two of the
designated areas are Natura 2000 sites (cSAC and SPA) and one is a proposed Natural
Heritage Area (pNHA) (see Table 7.1). The EIS has been completed in the knowledge that the
foreshore to be reclaimed is being considered for inclusion within an expansion of the existing
SPA within the Shannon Estuary. The extension of the boundary has not yet been formally
proposed by the Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government.
Table 7.1 Designated Areas within the Proposed Reclamation Site
Site Name Status Code Approx. distance from
proposed reclamation site
Lower River Shannon cSAC 002165 Within
Shannon and River Fergus
Estuaries
SPA 004077 Presently 700m
Proposed extension to cover
study area.
Inner Shannon Estuary pNHA 000435 Within
cSAC = candidate Special Areas of Conservation; SPA = Special Protection Areas; pNHA =
proposed Natural Heritage Area
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-4
Figure 7.2 Location of Designated Areas for Nature Conservation Within the Study
Area
Lower River Shannon cSAC (002165)
The full extent of the cSAC is of great ecological interest as it contains a high number of
habitats and species listed on Annexes I and II of the E.U. Habitats Directive, including the
priority habitat lagoon. Most of the estuarine part of the site has been designated a Special
Protection Area (SPA), under the E.U. Birds Directive, primarily to protect the large numbers
of migratory birds present in winter.
The qualifying interests (habitats) of the candidate SAC are as follows:
Estuaries
Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide
Coastal lagoons
Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts
Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand
Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)
Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi)
Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-
Batrachion vegetation
Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time
Large shallow inlets and bays
Reefs
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-5
Perennial vegetation of stony banks
Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae)
Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clavey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae)
Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion
incanae, Salicion albae)
The qualifying interests (species) of the candidate SAC are as follows:
River lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis)
Brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri)
Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus)
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates)
Otter (Lutra lutra)
Freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera)
Shannon & River Fergus Estuaries SPA (site code 004077)
The entire area of the SPA is of great ornithological interest, being of international importance
on account of the numbers of wintering birds it supports. It also supports internationally
important numbers of Whooper Swan and ten other species that have populations of national
importance (Boland et al 2010). For several of the bird species, it is one of the most important
sites in the country. Also of note is that three of the species which occur regularly here are
listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive, i.e. Whooper Swan, Golden Plover and Bar-tailed
Godwit.
The Conservation objective for the Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA, as published by
the National Parks and Wildlife Service, is:
To maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the bird species listed as
Qualifying Interests and Special Conservation Interests for this SPA (NPWS, 2009).
The favourable conservation status of a species is achieved when:
population data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself, and
the natural range of the species is neither being reduced or likely to be reduced for the
foreseeable future, and
there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its
populations on a long-term basis.
The Qualifying Interests and Special Conservation Interests for the Shannon and River Fergus
Estuaries SPA are given in Table 7.2.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-6
Table 7.2 List of Qualifying Interests and Special Conservation Interests for the
Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries Special Protection Area
Common name Scientific name Annex of EU
Birds
Directive
Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo n/a
Light-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota n/a
Shelduck Tadorna tadorna n/a
Wigeon Anas penelope n/a
Teal Anas crecca n/a
Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula n/a
Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria Annex 1
Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola n/a
Lapwing Vanellus vanellus n/a
Knot Calidris canuta n/a
Dunlin Calidris alpine n/a
Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa n/a
Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica n/a
Curlew Numenius arquata n/a
Redshank Tringa totanus n/a
Qualifying
interests
Greenshank Tringa nebularia n/a
Whooper Swan Cygnus olor Annex 1
Pintail Anas acuta n/a
Shoveler Anas clypeata n/a
Scaup Aythya marila n/a
Special
Conservation
Interests
Black-headed gull Larus ribundus n/a
7.3.3 Habitats Within the Study Area
The proposed reclamation site consists mainly of inter-tidal mud with some hard substrates
such as concrete beams and rock, mainly at the western portion of East Jetty (West End).
There is very little flora on the mud in either sections apart from a few clumps of bladder wrack
(Fucus vesiculosis) attached to rocks and boulders. Sub-tidal habitats have been sampled
with no fauna recovered from three of the four grab samples. Two small (shell length 11.6 and
8.7mm) specimens of Scrobicularia plana but no worms were recovered in grab sample 1
which was at the eastern end of the jetty. This low recovery was thought to be representative
as there was no surface activity visible in the samples (Berrow and O’Brien, 2010).
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-7
7.3.4 Bird Usage of Area Within 1km of Proposed Reclamation Site
Non-Breeding Birds
Intertidal areas within 1km of the proposed reclamation area, including the channel between
the port area and Foynes Island, as far west as Colleen Point and as far east as the inner
channel of the Roberstown River were included in the regular monthly counts carried out from
March 2010 to February 2011. This area was included to enable assessment of possible
indirect effects of dredging on the birds using these areas during construction of the new jetty
area.
The main feeding areas for waders and gulls were between Foynes Port and Aughinish Island
to the east of the East Jetty, and on the east side of Foynes Island, where extensive intertidal
mudflats are exposed at low tide. Most wildfowl species including Mallard, Teal and Shelduck
were recorded along the shores of Foynes Island, in particular around Gammarel Point and
also along the Robertstown River channel to the west. Oystercatcher, Curlew and Black-
headed Gull were recorded feeding in most intertidal areas. The main channel between the
East Jetty and Foynes Island is relatively deep and is never exposed at low tide. Some of the
intertidal areas along the southern and eastern shores of Foynes Island are exposed at low
tide, including a number of small inlets. The southern shore directly opposite the Jetty is only
ever used by a small number of birds including mostly gulls and some duck species. The
eastern side of the Island is used more extensively by other species including Shelduck,
Wigeon, Teal and Mallard.
There are only small high tide roosts within 1km of the East Jetty. Small numbers of wildfowl
including Mallard, Wigeon and Teal roost at Gammarel Point on the shoreline of Foynes
Island. A small area of mudflat east of the Jetty remains exposed during certain high tides.
This area is used by gull species including Black-headed Gull, Common Gull and Herring Gull
and a number of waders including Bar-tailed Godwit, Curlew, Knot, Redshank and
Oystercatcher. The most significant high tide roosts close to the study area occur along the
shore of the Robertstown River and on the small Islands located north of Aughinish Island
(more than 1km from the East Jetty).
A total of 21 species of water birds was recorded within this count area over the period of
March 2010 to February 2011. This includes five species of wildfowl (and allies), seven
species of wader, four species of gull, one species of tern, together with Cormorant, Great
Crested Grebe, Grey Heron and Little Egret. Appendix 3 gives the full counts for this area
while Table 7.3 gives a summary of the mean and peak numbers of each species occurring at
low tide. The peak figure represents the maximum number of birds recorded at any one time
during the winter counts. The peak counts for each species occurred on different dates. The
highest total count of all species at low tide was 753, recorded in January 2011.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-8
For most species of wildfowl and waders, numbers are greater at low tide as more of the
intertidal area is exposed. At high tide the birds move to a few key roost sites and some leave
the study area completely. For diving species such as Cormorant, Red-breasted Merganser
and Great Crested Grebe, some birds were present on all states of the tide as they are mainly
confined to the channel.
A full list of species is presented in Appendix 3. Overall the number of species of water birds
was considered to be low, especially within the proposed reclamation area.
Table 7.3 Summary of Peak and Mean Numbers of Water Birds Within 1km of the
Proposed Reclamation Area Over Months, March 2010-Febraury 2011
Low tide
Number of
counts = 10 Species SPA status*
Peak Mean
Shelduck QI 38 6.8
Wigeon QI 15 4.2
Teal QI 143 46.9
Mallard Not listed 49 16.6
Red-breasted
Merganser
Not listed 1 0.1
Great Crested Grebe Not listed 4 0.9
Cormorant QI 1 0.3
Little Egret Not listed 1 0.2
Grey Heron Not listed 7 1.8
Oystercatcher Not listed 47 9.1
Knot QI 48 4.3
Black-tailed Godwit QI 73 12.6
Bar-tailed Godwit QI 27 4.8
Curlew QI 29 12.2
Redshank QI 22 6.5
Greenshank QI 2 0.2
Black-headed Gull SCI 309 94.3
Herring Gull Not listed 23 3.0
Common Gull Not listed 132 20.8
Great Black-backed
Gull QI 2 3.0
Common Tern QI 6 0.5
*Shannon/Fergus Estuary Special Protection Area: QI = Qualifying Interest; SCI = Special
Conservation Interest; Shannon/Fergus Estuary Special Protection Area.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-9
Breeding Birds
A breeding colony of herons was recorded in the large conifer trees in the southeast corner of
Foynes Island. Approximately four nests were recorded. Numbers were difficult to count, due
to the dense foliage, but some chicks were seen in the nests. None of these birds were seen
to feed within the proposed reclamation area.
Common Terns were recorded nesting on Sturamus Island (north east of Foynes Island)
between May to July. Numbers were difficult to count due to the distance from the vantage
points but approximately 20-25 birds, possibly terns and Black-Headed Gulls, were recorded
in flight over the Island in 2010. Common Terns feeding in the Foynes Channel (north of the
jetty) are probably from the breeding colony at Sturamus Island. A survey of the Island in June
2011 by the National Parks and Wildlife Service recorded 6 Common Tern nests and 31
Black-Headed Gull nests (NPWS Consultation 2011).
No terns were recorded feeding within the proposed reclamation site.
A roost of approximately 14 cormorants was also recorded on Sturamus Island. None of
these birds were seen to feed within the proposed reclamation area.
7.4 BIRD POPULATIONS OF THE ENTIRE SHANNON AND FERGUS ESTUARIES
The best available information on the bird populations of the entire area of the Shannon and
Fergus Estuaries is provided by the Irish Wetland Bird Survey (IWeBS), organised by
BirdWatch Ireland. Table 7.4 gives the mean of peak counts, for the five species recorded
within the proposed reclamation site, for a series of five winters (2003/04 to 2007/08), the
latest complete information available. The Shannon/Fergus Estuary is of international
importance for Light-bellied Brent Goose, Black-tailed Godwit and Redshank and of national
importance for a further 19 species (Crowe 2005). The entire estuary held a mean of 18,782
birds over the five winters 2004/05 to 2008/09 (Boland et al. 2010). Appendix 3 provides the
entire winter counts for all species recorded within the Shannon and Fergus Estuaries over the
five year period (2003/04 to 2007/08),
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-10
Table 7.4 Summary of entire Shannon & Fergus Estuary mean of peak numbers
for those species recorded within the proposed reclamation area over
the 5-year period, 2004/05 to 2008/09
Entire
Shannon/Fergus
Estuary Species SPA status*
Mean of peaks
2004/05- 2008/09
Oystercatcher Not listed 195
Redshank QI 589
Black-headed Gull SCI 1,349
Common Gull Not listed 93
Lesser Black-backed
Gull Not listed 2
*Shannon/Fergus Estuary Special Protection Area: QI = Qualifying Interest; SCI = Special
Conservation Interest; Shannon/Fergus Estuary Special Protection Area.
7.5 BIRD USAGE OF THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION SITE
A total of five species of water birds was recorded within the proposed reclamation area over
the period March 2010 to February 2011. This included three species of gull and two species
of wader. Appendix 3 gives the full counts of this area while Table 7.5 gives a summary of the
mean and peak numbers of each species occurring at low and high tide.
Table 7.5 Summary of peak and mean numbers of water birds using the proposed
reclamation area over months, March 2010-Febraury 2011
Number of
counts = 10 Species SPA status*
Peak Mean
Oystercatcher Not listed 5 0.8
Redshank QI 2 0.1
Black-headed Gull SCI 7 2.0
Common Gull Not listed 2 0.2
Lesser Black-backed
Gull Not listed
3 0.2
*Shannon/Fergus Estuary Special Protection Area: QI = Qualifying Interest; SCI = Special
Conservation Interest; Shannon/Fergus Estuary Special Protection Area.
Table 7.6 below shows the peak number of birds recorded within the proposed reclamation
area over the winter period 2010/2011 (10 counts in total) as percentages of the total number
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-11
of birds for the same species recorded within the entire Shannon and Fergus Estuaries over a
series of five winters (2004/05 to 2008/09.) (IWeBS data). It should be noted that the
methodology used to count the Shannon and Fergus Estuaries as part of IWeBS involves a
single aerial count per winter, taken from an aeroplane. A survey of this kind is inevitably less
accurate than one involving an intensive and regularly repeated survey by an observer on the
ground. A detailed count, such as that used for this survey, using a telescope over an area of
1km2 gives a much higher population estimate for the same area. For example, in Table 7.6
below, it is most likely that the number of Lesser Black-backed Gulls in the entire estuary has
been grossly under estimated during the IWeBS counts.
Table 7.6 Peak numbers of birds recorded within the reclamation area as a
percentage of the peak number of birds in the wider study area and
entire Shannon and Fergus Estuaries
*N/D no data
Table 6 also shows the peak number of birds recorded within the proposed reclamation area
over the winter period 2010/2011 (10 counts in total) as percentages of the peak number of
the same species recorded within the 1km study area surrounding the development site over
the same winter period 2010/2011 (10 counts in total). This is a much more accurate
representation and demonstrates that overall the percentage of those species recorded within
the reclamation area is relatively insignificant.
Reclamation Area
Species
Peak no.
within
reclamation
area during
2010/2011
Peak as % of
mean peaks in
Shannon/Fergus
Estuary
(IWeBS data)
Peak as %
of peaks
in 1km
study
area
Oystercatcher 5 2.6 10.6
Redshank 2 0.3 9.1
Black-headed Gull 7 0.5 2.3
Common Gull 2 2.2 1.5
Lesser Black-backed
Gull 3 150 *N/D
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-12
7.6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON BIRDS
7.6.1 Disturbance
Disturbance during construction works within the proposed reclamation area, including
dredging activities, is not expected to have any significant impact on birds feeding and
roosting within the channel or intertidal areas surrounding the East Jetty. The East Jetty
experiences constant high levels of activity due to existing port facilities. Very small numbers
of water birds were recorded using the reclamation site during the survey period. The
proximity of the reclamation site to the East Jetty and the fact that it is surrounded by existing
structures would deter most water birds from using this area. The most significant bird feeding
and roosting areas are at a sufficient distance from the reclamation area not to be disturbed
during construction. A study of waders roosting within 150 to 200m of a major construction site
in Galway Bay found that most species had either increased or remained relatively stable
during the period of construction (Nairn, 2005).
7.6.2 Indirect Effects of Sediment Redistribution
The disturbance of sediment during dredging of the proposed development area could
potentially cause some sediment to be redistributed in surrounding areas of intertidal flats,
indirectly affecting the rate of sedimentation and the invertebrate prey of some of the bird
species. The Coastal Processes Chapter of this EIS has investigated the potential effects of
the proposed jetty development and associated dredging programme on sediment transport,
using numerical models.
The results from the modelling indicate that, on completion of the dredging, it is anticipated
that sedimentation will occur to a level of 100mm at the west side of Foynes Port western jetty
or between 5- 40mm at the western sides of Aughinish Island along the drying banks (see
Figures 9.20-9.23 in Coastal Processes Chapter). Greater levels of sedimentation will occur at
the dredge site itself, but it is expected that this should be removed following completion of the
dredging operation. The intertidal areas in the vicinity of both the West and East Jetties have
been shown to be of limited value for foraging birds and therefore any temporary increase in
sediment at these locations will not have an impact on birds using the estuary. The banks
west of Aughinish Island are used at high tide by roosting Curlew and Redshank, however
feeding is limited here also. The predominant feeding area at low tide for the estuarine birds at
Foynes Port is the large expanse of mudflat east of the East Jetty as far east as Aughinish
Island. Other isolated areas in the inter-tidal zone may also undergo limited sedimentation;
however this should be reduced by the presence of wave-induced dispersion, which was not
included within the model (RPS, 2011).
During the course of the dredging programme, average suspended solid concentrations are
predicted to remain largely below 70-80mg/l, with affected areas ranging between Coalhill
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-13
Point and western Aughinish Island. Bed concentrations should remain below 50mg/l
throughout the course of the dredging.
A study of annual maintenance dredging, as well as occasional capital dredging for new
installations in the Tamar Estuary, southern England, concluded that there was no evidence of
ecological changes related to the dredging activity. There were significant changes in the
number of over-wintering Teal and Wigeon, over many decades but these changes were
related to large-scale climatic events rather than anthropogenic factors such as dredging
within the Tamar Estuary (Widdows et al., 2007).
Overall the temporary increase in sediment and suspended solids within Foynes Estuary as a
result of dredging activities is not expected to have a significant impact on birds using the
estuary.
7.6.3 Habitat Loss
The proposed land reclamation south of the East Jetty will result in a loss of less than 2.4ha of
intertidal mudflat (Appendix 3 (I), Plates 2 and 3). This area of mudflat is considered of
negligible importance to estuarine birds in the breeding season. Very small numbers (<10) of
Oystercatcher, Black-headed Gull, Common Gull, Redshank and Lesser Black-backed Gull
were recorded here in the non-breeding season at low tide (see Table 7.3-4). The proximity of
the site to the working area of the port and the fact that it is surrounded by existing structures
would deter most water birds from using this area.
Substrate samples were taken within the proposed reclamation area in order to assess the
biomass of potential prey species for birds. This assessment was based on extrapolating the
biomass within the samples to the entire site. The results showed very low densities of prey
species for birds within the site to be developed (Berrow and O’Brien, 2010). Therefore the
site is not considered to be an important feeding area for birds, regardless of disturbance from
existing port activities.
Overall, the impact on water birds associated with the loss of habitat within the proposed
reclamation area is considered to be imperceptible.
7.7 MITIGATION MEASURES
The loss of 1.4ha of intertidal mudflat south of the East Jetty will not have a significant impact
on any water birds using the Shannon/Fergus Estuaries. The proposed reclamation area is
being considered for inclusion within an extension of the Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries
SPA and therefore is treated as a proposed Special Protection Area for the purpose of this
study. Details in relation to the proposed mitigation measures to off-set any perceived loss of
potential feeding area for birds is detailed in Chapter 6 Section 6.5.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 7.0: BIRDS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-14
7.8 RESIDUAL IMPACTS
The residual impact of the proposed land reclamation at the East Jetty in Foynes Port on birds
will be imperceptible.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-1
8.0 AIR QUALITY
8.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter forms the Air Quality and Climate section of the Environmental Impact Statement.
This Section should be read in conjunction with the site layout plans for the site and project
description Chapter of the EIS.
8.2 LEGISLATION AND POLICY
Air quality legislation in Ireland is derived from the EU Directive on air quality (and its Daughter
Directives) called the Air Quality Framework Directive 96/92/EC. This was transposed into
Irish law through the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 (Ambient Air Quality
Assessment and Management) Regulations 1999 (SI 33 of 1999). The four Daughter
Directives establish the limits for specific pollutants. The first two Daughter Directives which
cover sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead;
then carbon monoxide and benzene, are enacted into Irish Law by as the Air Quality
Standards Regulations 2002. The following two Daughter Directives were enacted into Irish
Law by the Ozone in Ambient Air Regulations 2004 and the Arsenic, Cadmium, Mercury,
Nickel and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Ambient Air Regulations 2009.
The Clean Air For Europe (CAFÉ) Directive (2008/50/EC) was published in May 2008, and is
now entered into force and replaces the Framework Directive and the first, second and third
Daughter Directives. The fourth Daughter Directive (2004/107EC) will be included in CAFE at
a later stage. Table 8.1 gives the limit values of CAFE Directive 2008/50/EC (EPA, 2010).
These limits for specific pollutants are defined in order to protect our health, vegetation and
ecosystems.
Table 8.1 Limit Values and Alert Thresholds of CAFE Directive 2008/50/EC
Pollutant Limit Value
Objective
Averaging
Period
Limit
Value
ug/m3
Limit
Value
ppb
Basis of Application
of the Limit Value
Limit Value
Attainment
Date
SO2 Protection of
human health 1 hour 350 132
Not to be exceeded
more than 24 times in a
calendar year
1 Jan 2005
SO2 Protection of
human health 24 hours 125 47
Not to be exceeded
more than 3 times in a
calendar year
1 Jan 2005
SO2 Protection of
vegetation
Calendar
year 20 7.5 Annual mean
19 July
2001
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-2
Pollutant Limit Value
Objective
Averaging
Period
Limit
Value
ug/m3
Limit
Value
ppb
Basis of Application
of the Limit Value
Limit Value
Attainment
Date
SO2 Protection of
vegetation
1 Oct to 31
Mar 20 7.5 Winter mean
19 July
2001
SO2 Alert
Threshold 1 hour 500 -
Public to be informed if
threshold exceeded for
3 consecutive hours
-
NO2 Protection of
human health 1 hour 200 105
Not to be exceeded
more than 18 times in a
calendar year
1 Jan 2010
NO2 Protection of
human health
Calendar
year 40 21 Annual mean 1 Jan 2010
NO + NO2 Protection of
ecosystems
Calendar
year 30 16 Annual mean
19 July
2001
NO2 Alert
Threshold 1 hour 400 -
Public to be informed if
threshold exceeded for
3 consecutive hours
-
PM10 Protection of
human health 24 hours 50 -
Not to be exceeded
more than 35 times in a
calendar year
1 Jan 2005
PM10 Protection of
human health
Calendar
year 40 - Annual mean 1 Jan 2005
PM2.5 -
Stage 1
Protection of
human health
Calendar
year 25 - Annual mean 1 Jan 2015
PM2.5 -
Stage 2
Protection of
human health
Calendar
year 20 - Annual mean 1 Jan 2020
Lead Protection of
human health
Calendar
year 0.5 - Annual mean 1 Jan 2005
Carbon
Monoxide
Protection of
human health 8 hours 10000 8620 - 1 Jan 2005
Benzene Protection of
human health
Calendar
year 5 1.5 - 1 Jan 2010
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-3
8.3 METHODOLOGY AND GUIDANCE
This air quality assessment is prepared using the advice in the “Guidelines on the information
to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements” (EPA, 2002) and the “Advice Notes on
Current Practice” Project Type 10– New or Extended Harbours (EPA, 2003).
8.4 BASELINE CONDITIONS
The following sections summarise the local and regional climatic conditions and landscape,
and the main environmental designations, sensitive receptors and background air pollution
levels within the vicinity of the port.
8.4.1 Climate
The climate of Ireland can be defined as being a Temperate Oceanic or Temperate Maritime
Climate, which is similar to that of most of north west Europe. Foynes is in the south west of
Ireland on the Shannon estuary and hence could be more exposed to southerly, westerly and
south westerly Atlantic weather. The annual average temperature is about 10°C, with monthly
averages of about 15.6°C in July and August and 5.5°C in January and February. The area
receives on average 926mm of rainfall a year, which is below that of the far west and south
west coasts, but above that of the east coast of Ireland. Mean annual wind speeds in the
region are of the order of 5-6m/s and would predominantly come from the west and south
west, however as shown in Figure 8.1 the wind conditions recorded at the port itself are
mainly westerlies.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-4
2006
Figure 8.1 Port of Foynes Wind Roses – 2005 to 2009
8.4.2 Landscape
The terrain in the region would protect Foynes from much of the worst of the Atlantic weather
with the Mullaghareirk Mountains to the south west and Slievecallan and the Burren to the
north west in County Clare shielding the low lying estuarine area of Foynes. However there is
predominance at the port for a westerly and west north westerly wind as it travels from the
Atlantic up the Shannon estuary, as demonstrated by the wind roses in Figure 8.3.
8.4.3 Sensitive Environments and Local Receptors
The Port of Foynes is located on the Lower River Shannon and the south shore of the
Shannon Estuary which is a designated Natura 2000 site Special Area of Conservation (SAC
– 002165), for protection of internationally rare and / or vulnerable habitats, and is also a
proposed Natural Heritage Area (pNHA - 000435), for protection of nationally important
habitats and species. Approximately 500m to the north east of the site the area is a
designated Natura 2000 Special Protection Area (SPA) for protection of internationally rare
and / or vulnerable birds, the River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA (004077).
2005 2007
2008 2009
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-5
The main receptors in the vicinity of the Port activities would be the workers within the Port
and the residents of Foynes village. Outside the port and village of Foynes the area is mostly
agricultural land with low density rural housing. They are more industrial operations occurring
to the north east of Foynes at Aughinish Island. There have been no serious issues raised in
relation to air quality pollution emanating from the port, however in the past there have been
comments raised to the port on dust originating from port activities depositing in the village
area. Previous EPA and Limerick County Council studies and monitoring throughout the
1990s were conducted regarding the potential for emissions from local and regional industry to
contaminate the soil and water resources in the region, which were thought to be affecting
human and livestock health. The main industries in the area investigated were the alumina
production plant at Aughinish Island and the power stations at Moneypoint in County Clare,
and Tarbert in County Kerry. The outcomes of the investigations were that the levels of the
potential pollutants in the area were below those likely to cause harm to the environment
generally, to livestock or to humans (EPA, 2000).
8.4.4 Background Air Pollution
The EU Air Framework Directive deals with each EU Member State in terms of Zones and
Agglomerations. For Ireland, four zones, A, B, C and D are defined in the Air Quality
Standards (AQS) Regulations (SI No 271 of 2002). The main areas defined in each zone are:
Zone A: Dublin Conurbation.
Zone B: Cork Conurbation.
Zone C: 15 urban areas with populations greater than 15,000. Includes Galway,
Limerick, Waterford, Clonmel, Kilkenny, Sligo, Drogheda, Wexford, Athlone,
Ennis, Bray, Naas, Carlow, Tralee and Dundalk.
Zone D: Rural Ireland, i.e. the remainder of the State excluding Zones A, B and C.
Foynes and the surrounding area lies in Zone D in relation to the EU Air Framework Directive
and EPA Air Quality Zones. The index calculation is based on the latest
available measurements of ozone, nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and sulphur dioxide in Zone D. The
current air quality within the Shannon region and Zone D as a whole is GOOD, with air
pollution levels falling within the following bands:
SO2 (1 hour average) – 50 – 129 μg/m3.
NO2 (1 hour average) – 37 – 94 μg/m3
O3 (1 hour average) – 40 – 119 μg/m3
PM10 (24 hour average) – 20 – 49 μg/m3
The Shannon air quality monitoring site is located on raised ground on a farm near Askeaton
in County Limerick, downwind of the major sulphur dioxide sources in the Shannon estuary.
Monitoring is done by a continuous monitor for sulphur dioxide.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-6
RPS carried out on-site Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Monitoring at the Port and Foynes village
between 8th September 2010 and the 8th December 2010. This monitoring involved the
placement of 7 no. NO2 diffusion tubes for 1 month at a time in the locations as shown in
Figure 8.2. A description of these diffusion tube locations and their recorded results are given
in Table 8.2. The diffusion tubes were put up for a month at a time, then sent to the Gradko
Laboratories for analysis of NO2 by U.V. Spectrophotometry. Pictures of these sampling
locations are shown in Figures 8.2 – 8.9. Results at all locations, both on average and
individually for each monitoring period, were well within the limit values for human health of 40
μg/m3 and the limit values for protection of ecosystems of 30 μg/m3. The highest NO2 levels
were recorded at the roadside locations of the Port Inner Road / Port Access Road (Location
7) and on the N69 at the junction for the East Link Road (Location 5). These monitoring
locations recorded generally higher NO2 levels than the other sample locations due to their
close proximity to busier roads. Emissions from traffic are the main source of NO2 in Ireland,
along with power stations and other industries that involve combustion.
Figure 8.2 Foynes Nitrogen Dioxide Sampling Locations
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-7
Figure 8.3 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 1
Figure 8.4 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 2
Figure 8.5 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 3
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-8
Figure 8.6 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 4
Figure 8.7 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 5
Figure 8.8 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 6
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-9
Figure 8.9 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 7
Table 8.2 Foynes Nitrogen Dioxide Sampling Results
08/09/2010
-
08/10/2010
08/10/2010
-
08/11/2010
08/11/2010
-
08/12/2010
Tube
No. Location
μg/m3 μg/m3 μg/m3
Raw Mean
μg/m3
1 Port Site (opposite main office) 2.81 8.10 13.15 8.0
2 Housing Estate above village 9.71 7.79 12.34 9.9
3 Church (opposite hotel) 7.68 13.39 17.16 12.7
4 Close to Garage on Main St 4.40 15.70 19.53 13.2
5 Approach to Foynes 14.18 19.38 22.80 18.8
6 Opposite BNM site 5.98 10.26 20.54 12.3
7 Port Inner road 14.18 19.07 14.26 15.8
8 Test Blank 0.02 - - -
0 Lab Blank 0.11 0.17 0.19 -
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-10
8.4.5 Dust
Large fraction particulate matter (>10µm) may be classed as a nuisance and are principally
caused by construction works, road traffic and natural processes. There are no Irish limit
values for ambient dust deposition of nuisance dust, however internationally there are a
number of guidelines used, such as the German TA Luft Guidelines (2002), which gives a
mass deposition value of 350mg/m²/day (annual average) for Possible Nuisance, while in the
UK there is a general “unofficial” guideline of Nuisance Dust of 200mg/m²/day (annual
average) used, whereas levels above this should trigger an action by the operator to mitigate
the dust source.
Dust issues at the Port of Foynes have been linked to the unloading, handling and
transporting of dusty cargo in dry and breezy conditions. Complaints in relation to dust issues
have been raised infrequently over the past number of years and also at the public
consultations which took place in June 2010. Following these complaints SFPC implemented
a new set of procedures for handling dusty cargo which included mitigation measures such as
wind speed and direction monitoring, the use of water curtains, in store loading and vehicle
washing. SFPC has also been proactively monitoring dust levels in the vicinity of the Port
since 2005. These dust sampling locations can be seen in Figure 8.10. Annual means of the
dust sampling results can be seen in Table 8.3.
Figure 8.10 Port of Foynes Dust Sampling Locations
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-11
No sample locations in the area of the port have exceeded the TA Luft Possible Nuisance
guideline concentrations or the UK unofficial Nuisance dust guidelines since 2008. The
SFPC dust monitoring site at Askeaton is over 8kms to the east of Foynes and it is unlikely
that direct port activities would influence dust levels at a monitoring site that far away. Large
dust particles (>30 microns) will tend to deposit within 100m of the source, while intermediate
sized particles (10 – 30 microns) can travel 200 – 500m (BGS, 2010). Heavy Goods Vehicles
(HGVs) from the Port and other nearby industry may influence the dust levels at the
monitoring site in Askeaton if loads are uncovered, if the vehicle is dirty and if they are
travelling at higher speeds. The port now requests that any loads be covered prior to
departure from the store apron.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-12
Table 8.3 Annual Mean Recorded Dust Levels at Foynes
Annual Mean mg/m3
Year Pet Coke
Yard Peris Yard
Outdoor
Garage Foynes Island Askeaton
2005 233.51 270.20 100.15 55.74 -
2006 139.48 113.85 228.28 52.12 -
2007 57.43 122.19 138.83 41.28 -
2008 336.52 5269.79 622.16 149.04 184.68
2009 86.80 108.72 131.51 98.35 177.37
2010 85.78 51.55 82.32 45.32 129.48
8.5 ROAD TRAFFIC
RPS carried out a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) to assess the impact on the local road
network of the reclamation project at the east jetty of Foynes Port. Traffic has the potential to
negatively impact upon air quality through exhaust emissions and the loads that it may be
carrying. There is the potential for effects on air quality if the traffic composition changes,
there are average road speed changes, there are alterations to road layouts, or most
importantly if there are changes in traffic numbers.
8.5.1 Construction Road Traffic
Ideally there would be alternative methods of material transport to the construction site, such
as by sea or by rail, which produce less emissions per tonne of material transported than road
transport. However to take the worst case scenario for this assessment it is assumed that all
construction traffic will be coming by road. This construction traffic will be accessing Foynes
Port east jetty area to deliver the retaining structures (e.g. concrete and steel) reclamation
material (e.g. rockfill and rock armour) and surfacing material (e.g. bituminous wearing course
and stone) required to implement the proposed reclamation. All traffic will access the port via
the N69 using either the western or eastern port entrances then the R521 East Link Road,
thus avoiding the Main Street of Foynes. It has been estimated within the TIA that the
reclamation works planned will require a total of 21,005 vehicle trips over a 16 month period.
The majority of these vehicle trips (19,783) will be Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDVs) importing fill
material.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-13
There is the potential for an increase of more than 10% in Annual Average Dailly Traffic
(AADT) and a change of more than 10% in the number of Heavy Duty Vehicles during the 16
month construction period on the Port Access Road / Harbour Road / R521 East Link Road. A
series of Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB v1.03c) Screening Models were
carried to assess the impact of this traffic increase for the following years:
2010 – Baseline year;
2013 – 1st Year of construction;
2014 – 2nd Year of construction;
2015 – 1st Year of operation.
The years used in the screening model are the anticipated years of construction and
operation. Three receptor locations were chosen for the screening models, which were to tie
in with the previous NO2 monitoring locations. The only true “receptor” location is that of the
Church on Foynes Main Street (Diffusion Tube Location 3), as this has the potential for public
exposure to pollutants. The other two receptor locations for the model were chosen as had
the highest monitored NO2 exposures. These model receptors were the roadside monitoring
locations at the N69/Link Road junction (at the location of Diffusion Tube 5) and the Port Inner
Road (at the location of Diffusion Tube 7). Traffic information was sourced from the RPS
Traffic Impact Assessment data and is shown in Table 8.4. The traffic figures include yearly
factored growth, which is taken from the NRA Future Road Growth Forecasts for Ireland 2002
– 2040. The roads were given the following average speeds, Harbour Road - 30km/hr,
Foynes Village Road - 30km/hr and N69 to Limerick - 80km/hr.
Table 8.4 Road Traffic Used in DMRB Screening Models
AADT % LDV % HDV AADT % LDV % HDV AADT % LDV % HDV AADT % LDV % HDV
Habour Rd 192 25.0 75.0 516 9.9 90.1 519 10.0 90.0 210 25.2 74.8
Foynes Village Road 2622 94.4 5.6 2771 94.1 5.9 2815 94.0 6.0 2859 94.0 6.0
N69 to Limerick 2490 88.9 11.1 2944 79.5 20.5 2986 79.6 20.4 2714 88.9 11.1
Road2010 2013 2014 2015
LDV – Light Duty Vehicle.
HDV – Heavy Duty Vehicle
Background pollutant levels had to be derived from a variety of sources for the DMRB
assessments. Table 8.2 details the background pollutant levels used in the DMRB models
and their sources. These background pollutants levels were selected as there is no site
specific background data available for Foynes, other than that monitored by RPS. All pollutant
levels were converted to the desired year of modelling using the NETCEN conversion
calculators (versions 1.1. and 2.2a). Only the Benzene and 1,3-Budadiene concentrations
could be considered as background levels, as the other pollutants would be including inputs
from traffic emission, therefore representing a worst case scenario approach. DMRB model
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-14
results of the three future years, 2013, 2014 and 2015 were compared to the results from the
baseline model of 2010. The outputs of this comparison are given in Table 8.5. Full results
from the DMRB models are given in Appendix 4.
Table 8.5 Background Pollution Levels
Pollutant Units Source & Year Source
Value 2010 2013 2014 2015
CO mg/m3 Cork Harbour (Zone
D) 2008* 0.26 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.21
Benzene µg/m3 Belfast Harbour
2001** 1.08 0.76 0.73 0.73 0.73
1,3-
Butadiene µg/m3
Belfast Harbour
2001 0.25 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12
NOx µg/m3 DEFRA NOX to NO2
calculation 2010*** 22.20 22.20 20.48 20.11 19.86
NO2 µg/m3 Monitored 2010 13.00 13.00 12.41 12.30 12.23
PM10 µg/m3 Cork Harbour (Zone
D) 2008* 16.70 16.07 15.57 15.49 15.46
* EPA, 2008. Ambient Air Monitoring at Cork Harbour. ** DEFRA, 2001. UK background air quality mapping.
*** DEFRA, 2010. NOx to NO2 calculator v2.1.
The results comparison in Table 8.6 shows how an increase in construction traffic will only have a
localised temporary effect on the port access road and should have no affect on the receptors within
the town itself. During the construction period any increases in pollutant concentrations due to traffic
on the N69 / East Link Road Junction and the Port Inner Road can be classified mostly as being
extremely small (<1%) or very small (1-5%), with the one exception of a small increase (5-10%), even
under these worst case scenario conditions (NSCA, 2006). For all pollutants modelled at all roadside
locations the results were well within all Limit Values and Alert Thresholds. Following completion of
the reclamation project the traffic should revert to its pre-construction levels, including yearly factored
growth. Traffic emissions in general are expected to improve in the future with new developments in
fuel and engine technology and with stricter air quality legislation and enforcement, hence the DMRB
screening models predictions of continuing improvements in air quality.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-15
Table 8.6 DMRB Screening Model Output Comparisons
Pollutant Concentrations at Receptor
CO Benzene
1,3-
butadien
e
NOx NO2 PM10 Receptor
Location Year Year Description
Annual
mean
mg/m3
Annual
mean
μg/m3
Annual
mean
μg/m3
Annual
mean
μg/m3
Annual
mean
μg/m3
Annual
mean
μg/m3
2010 Baseline Year 0.24 0.78 0.14 24.08 13.59 16.33
2013 1st Year
Construction 0.22 0.75 0.13 21.65 12.78 15.78
% Difference to Baseline
Year -8.17% -3.82% -8.00%
-
10.10% -5.92% -3.40%
2014 2nd Year
Construction 0.22 0.75 0.13 21.28 12.67 15.69
% Difference to Baseline
Year -8.13% -3.80% -7.91%
-
11.65% -6.73% -3.91%
2015 1st Year Operation 0.23 0.75 0.13 21.48 12.75 15.68
Church,
Main
Street
% Difference to Baseline
Year -7.96% -3.77% -6.77%
-
10.81% -6.18% -4.01%
2010 Baseline Year 0.26 0.79 0.16 30.63 15.49 16.85
2013 1st Year
Construction 0.24 0.76 0.17 32.22 15.84 16.46
% Difference to Baseline
Year -6.58% -3.67% 3.74% 5.21% 2.26% -2.31%
2014 2nd Year
Construction 0.24 0.76 0.17 31.22 15.57 16.32
% Difference to Baseline
Year -6.55% -3.65% 3.60% 1.94% 0.51% -3.12%
2015 1st Year Operation 0.24 0.76 0.15 26.60 14.29 16.06
Junction
N69
% Difference to Baseline
Year -7.49% -3.65% -6.23%
-
13.15% -7.77% -4.69%
2010 Baseline Year 0.23 0.75 0.13 22.00 12.94 16.02
2013 1st Year
Construction 0.21 0.72 0.13 22.12 12.93 15.64
% Difference to Baseline
Year -8.31% -3.97% -1.41% 0.58% -0.02% -2.40%
Port
Access
2014 2nd Year 0.21 0.72 0.13 21.58 12.77 15.54
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-16
With the large amount of rockfill requiring to be imported and deposited on site there is
however the potential of impacts from dust generation from construction traffic. Much like the
operational traffic at Foynes Port this can be managed by strict adherence to the Ports
Standard Operating Procedures. A Dust Minimisation Plan should be implemented throughout
the construction phase of the project. Details of specific dust mitigation measures are
presented later in this chapter.
8.5.2 Operational Road Traffic
Following completion of the reclamation project there will be improvements in port operations
at the east jetty, however there are no planned or anticipated significant changes in traffic
numbers or traffic composition from the current port operations as a result of the proposed
project. There is therefore not expected to be any changes in traffic emissions in the area due
to this project.
It should be noted that following project completion the operational traffic from the port will still
need to adhere to the existing management plans for site traffic and handling dusty product,
with the R521 Harbour Road / East Link Road being used at all times, the regular cleaning of
vehicles, adherence to speed limits and the covering of loads prior to departure from the Port.
8.6 PORT ACTIVITIES
8.6.1 Construction Activities
Emissions from plant and other mechanical equipment on-site during construction should only
have short term and very localised impacts on air quality. Provided the on-site plant and
equipment is modern and maintained, there should be no significant negative impacts on air
quality from their exhaust gases. Dust and emissions from construction activities can be
avoided or managed through adherence to the dust mitigation measures presented later in
this chapter, which should form part of a Dust Minimisation Plan that should be implemented
throughout the construction phase of the project.
8.6.2 Operational Activities
There are no planned or anticipated significant changes to occur with regard to vessel
numbers and sizes, or cargo types and tonnages following completion of the reclamation
Construction
% Difference to Baseline
Year -8.34% -3.98% -1.57% -1.90% -1.28% -3.01%
2015 1st Year Operation 0.21 0.72 0.12 19.55 12.13 15.40
% Difference to Baseline
Year -8.95% -4.01% -7.88%
-
11.13% -6.24% -3.90%
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-17
project. There are currently no air quality issues with regards to air quality and emissions from
ships or equipment at the port. The UK Guidance on Local Air Quality Management LAQM
TG (09) (DEFRA, 2009) recommends that detailed assessment of air quality impacts from
ports is required only for large ports with more than 5,000 shipping movements per year which
have a relevant public exposure within 1km of berthing and manoeuvring areas, and therefore
no more detailed assessment is required at the Port of Foynes as it would generally have less
than 900 shipping movements per year.
In the long term there should be continuing improvements in the quality of air emissions from
shipping traffic at the port. International regulations have been implemented within recent
years to reduce these emissions from shipping such as the International Maritime
Organisations (IMO) International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL) and the European Commissions EU Shipping Strategy. Annex VI of the MARPOL
Convention sets limits on the sulphur content of marine fuel oils and on the emissions of
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from new ship engines. The IMO has also been assessing the
application of limits for Particulate Matter (PM10) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).
Compliance with the emission controls is mandatory for ship owners and operators. The
Annex VI regulations and the amendments contained in the Sea Pollution Miscellaneous
Pollution Act, 2006 should reduce the potential for noxious emissions at ports.
Any issues regarding management of dusty cargo at the port or transport of dusty product
from the port by road can be mitigated for with adherence to the Ports management document
Procedures for Handling Dusty Product. This procedure document can be found in Appendix
4.
8.7 CLIMATE AND CLIMATIC CHANGE
The burning of fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases (GHG) which have been recognised to
contribute to climate change. The proposed development will produce GHG during the
construction and operational phases. Construction emissions will be from direct emissions of
construction plant, vehicles and staff and also embodied emissions from the material utilised.
Operational GHG emissions will be the same direct and indirect emissions that currently occur
at the Port. Direct emissions will include port equipment emissions, ship emissions while in
port and general fuel related emissions for operations at the facility. Indirect emissions will
result mostly from the transport of goods to and from the port by road transport.
Ireland is required to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol to 13%
above 1990 levels by the first commitment period 2008-2012. The measures being
undertaken to tackle this are detailed in the National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012.
Following this Strategy the Government has looked to adopt the Climate Change Bill 2010
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-18
which has the main purpose of adopting a national policy for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions; This is planned to be supported through the making of mitigation and adaptation
action plans; and to make provision for emission reduction targets to support the objective of
transition to a low carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy. There
are no specific climate change policies relating to Ports and shipping.
The IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) has given extensive
consideration to control of GHG emissions from ships and finalized a package of specific
technical and operational reduction measures in July 2009. In March 2010 MEPC started the
consideration of making the technical and operational measures mandatory for all ships
irrespective of flag and ownership, a work that is expected to be completed by July 2011.
In order to quantify the impact of the Port of Foynes harbour extension on climate, a
construction phase carbon footprint calculation was undertaken.
8.7.1 Construction Phase Carbon Calculation
A carbon calculation assessment has been carried out to give approximate total GHG
emissions generated from the relevant activities that will take place during the construction
phases of the port extension. This carbon calculation assesses the main areas of construction
phase GHG emissions as follows:
Embodied GHG emissions associated with the construction materials.
Emissions from deliveries of these construction materials,
Emissions from plant and machinery;
Emissions associated with waste disposal during construction phase;
Emissions from site construction staff.
The methodology employed was the UK Environment Agency Carbon Calculator for
Construction Projects, which is an Excel based calculator that requires project specific inputs
for the construction phase of the project. Where details are not available for certain aspects of
the project, generic data has been used or assumptions have been made based on previous
experience. The input data has been sourced from the project construction plan and further
discussions with the project engineers. It is not always possible to give exact quantities of all
materials and plant but the estimates used are considered relatively accurate. Some
assumptions that have been made for this calculation are that all quarried material is coming
via road from the nearest available and viable quarry (5kms), the metal used in construction
has come from mainland Europe by sea, any waste material from the reclamation can be
dumped at sea, the project will involve 30 men for the full 16 months of construction and the
project value is over £10 million.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-19
Table 8.7 gives a summary of outputs from the carbon calculation of the proposed harbour
extension at the Port of Foynes.
Table 8.7 Carbon Calculation Summary in Tonnes Fossil CO2
Category Tonnes CO2 Percentage of Total
Quarried Material 2,617 15%
Concrete, Mortar and Cement 477 3%
Metals (Steel) 13,688 77%
Plant Emissions 400 2%
Waste Removal 10 0%
Portable Site Accommodation 20 0%
Material Transport 388 2%
Personnel Travel 144 1%
Totals 17, 744 100%
The above table demonstrates that the vast majority of Tonnes of Fossil CO2 produced in the
construction of the proposed port extension is due to the production of the large quantities of
steel required. Although the quarried material is also producing a large proportion of the
percentage total CO2 produced there is less input required in its extraction and the material is
coming from a nearby source. There is limited scope on influencing the energy and emissions
required to produce these materials from the Port of Foynes perspective, however the Tonnes
of Fossil CO2 produced in the transport of these materials can be influenced by the port
through the method of transport and the source of material. If a more distant aggregate
supplier is chosen for the source of quarried material there can be large impacts on the carbon
footprint and costs of the development, as demonstrated in Table 11.8 which gives a
summary of outputs from the carbon calculation if a quarry 25kms away is chosen as the main
source of rock and other aggregate. This gives a total difference of over 1,000 Tonnes Fossil
CO2. It would therefore be in the ports interest for both carbon footprint and most likely in
economic terms to select material sources that are closer to the port and can be delivered to
the site in the most sustainable manner, although final choice of source will be made by the
construction contractor.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-20
Table 8.8 Carbon Calculation Summary in Tonnes Fossil CO2
Category Tonnes CO2 Percentage of Total
Quarried Material 2,617 14%
Concrete, Mortar and Cement 477 3%
Metals (Steel) 13,688 73%
Plant Emissions 400 2%
Waste Removal 10 0%
Portable Site Accommodation 20 0%
Material Transport 1472 8%
Personnel Travel 144 1%
Totals 18, 828 100%
This carbon calculation is a simplified estimate of construction related greenhouse gas
emissions based on available data and represented by tonnes of fossil CO2 produced. There
are likely to be changes to the data throughout the planning and construction stage of the
project. The carbon calculation can be adjusted to reflect any significant changes in material
use and / or construction practices. Carbon emissions from the construction phase are a once
off occurrence and should not be significant in the context of national emissions.
8.8 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The potential air quality issues associated with the proposed development include:
Nuisance dust and Particulate Matter (PM10) from construction activities.
Traffic-derived air pollution and dust from transport during construction.
The potential consequences of these issues are:
Increased dust and traffic-derived pollutions can negatively impact on amenity, visual
and health aspects of local receptors during the construction period.
Quantities of dust will be generated during construction of the jetty. Most nuisance dust
generated will be deposited close to the source, however smaller dust particles may disperse
further from the site. The distances where likely impacts are expected from construction sites
are outlined in Table 8.9. The risk of dust impacts occurring during construction can be
reduced quite simply with good site management practices.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-21
Table 8.9 Assessment Criteria for the Impact of Dust from Construction, with
Standard Mitigation in Place, NRA 2006
Source Potential distance for significant effects
(distance from source)
Scale Description Soiling PM10* Vegetation
effects
Major
Large construction
sites, with high use
of haul roads
100m 25m 25m
Moderate
Moderate sized
construction sites,
with moderate use
of haul roads
50m 15m 15m
Minor
Minor construction
sites, with limited
use of haul roads
25m 10m 10m
*Significance based on the PM10 Limit Values specified in S.I. 271 of 2002, which allows 35 daily
exceedances/year of 50 μg/m3
The increase in construction traffic at the Port during the proposed reclamation will only have
a localised temporary effect on the port access road and should have no affect on air quality
within the town itself. During the construction period any increases in pollutant concentrations
on the N69 / East Link Road Junction and the Port Inner Road due to traffic should be
extremely small (<1%) or very small (1-5%). All pollutants modelled at all roadside locations
within this assessment were well within all Limit Values and Alert Thresholds. Following
completion of the reclamation project the traffic should revert to its pre-construction levels,
including yearly factored growth.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-22
8.9 MITIGATION MEASURES
Quantities of nuisance dust may be generated during construction, with most of this being
deposited close to the source. The smaller the dust particle the more likely it is to disperse
further from the site. However the risk of nuisance dust impacts from construction of the
proposed reclamation can be quite simply reduced with good site management practices. A
Dust Minimisation Plan should be formulated for the Construction Phase of the project. This
construction Dust Minimisation Plan should include the following general dust and emission
mitigation measures:
Site roads will be regularly cleaned and maintained as appropriate. Hard surface roads
will be swept to remove mud and aggregate materials from their surface while any un-
surfaced roads will be restricted to essential site traffic only;
Any site roads with the potential to give rise to dust will be regularly watered, as
appropriate, during dry and/or windy conditions (also applies to vehicles delivering
material with dust potential);
All vehicles exiting the site should make use of a wheel wash facility prior to entering
onto public roads, to ensure mud and other wastes are not tracked onto public roads.
Wheel washes will be self-contained systems that do not require discharge of
wastewater to water bodies;
The contractor will be required to ensure that all vehicles are suitably maintained to
ensure that emissions of engine generated pollutants is kept to a minimum;
Public roads outside the site will be regularly inspected for cleanliness, and cleaned as
necessary;
The site should be adequately screened with suitable barriers to reduce the potential for
dust dispersion;
Material handling systems and site stockpiling of materials will be designed and laid out
to minimise exposure to wind and will be located as far from receptors as possible;
Minimise drop-heights to control the fall of materials;
The transport of topsoil, rock, aggregate, and any other fill materials should be
undertaken in tarpaulin-covered vehicles;
The number of material handling operations should be minimised to ensure that dusty
material is not handled unnecessarily;
Any material on made ground should be kept damp and not allowed to dry out;
Hard surfacing of made ground will take place as soon as is operationally feasible;
Continued dust monitoring in the vicinity of the port;
Adherence to the Ports management document Procedures for Handling Dusty Product.
On-going review of the Dust Minimisation Plan will be necessary throughout the construction
phase of the project. Responsibility for dust management should be assigned to a specific
member of the project team who will liaise with contractors, suppliers, local residents and the
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 8.0: AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-23
local authority. A complaints procedure should be designed and made available to
stakeholders.
The UK Building Research Establishment (BRE), the Construction Industry Research and
Information Association (CIRIA), the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM, 2005) and
the London Councils (2006) have produced best practice guidance documents for dust
minimisation plans and dust minimisation from construction and demolition projects.
8.10 RESIDUAL IMPACTS
Following the implementation of appropriate environmental management controls, only minor,
localised and temporary adverse effects are anticipated from construction related dust during
dry and breezy conditions. Appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize
the generation of nuisance dust. Particular care will be taken during land reclamation works to
ensure that dust generation is minimised. The predicted increase in traffic-derived pollutant
concentrations during construction is extremely small to very small and all predicted
concentrations are well within current air quality limit values.
8.11 CONCLUSIONS
The reclamation of land behind the east jetty at the Port of Foynes has the potential to have
temporary impacts on air quality through increased traffic and plant emissions, and the
creation of nuisance dust during the construction phase. Through adequate site management
these potential negative impacts can be minimised or mitigated for completely.
The future operations at Foynes Port following completion of the east jetty reclamation should
remain the same as they are currently. There are no planned or anticipated changes in vessel
and road traffic numbers, sizes or cargos. Emissions to air from port activities are therefore
not expected to change from the existing emissions to air. With no significant change to port
activity, continuing improvements in fuel and engine quality, and increasing environmental
legislation and guidelines, it is anticipated that air quality at Foynes Port should improve with
time, provided the port operations occur within the guidelines of their management plans and
operating procedures.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-1
9.0 COASTAL PROCESSES
9.1 INTRODUCTION
The proposed east jetty development at Foynes Port will have potential sedimentation effects
due to the dredging associated with its construction; therefore an assessment was carried out
to address this concern. The impact of the proposed dredging was assessed using
computational modelling techniques based on the MIKE 21 suite of coastal process modelling
software developed by the Danish Hydraulics Institute.
The proposed dredging will use a submersible pump to extract material and deposit it into a
nearby barge. Thus, the main concern for this environmental impact assessment is the
overspill of sediment from the barge. The extent, concentration and duration of the resulting
sediment plume were investigated along with the associated sedimentation to assess the
impact of the dredging process.
The following sections detail the model development and the predicted impact of the dredging.
9.2 MODELLING SYSTEM
9.2.1 Tidal Model
The tidal flow simulations which form the basis for the sediment dispersion simulations were
undertaken using the MIKE21 HD and NHD flow model. The HD Module (MIKE21 HD) is the
principal module in the MIKE21 package and provides the hydrodynamic basis for the
computations performed in the modules for Sediment Dispersion and Environmental
Hydraulics.
The HD Module is a 2-dimensional, depth averaged hydrodynamic model which simulates the
water level variations and flows in response to a variety of forcing functions in lakes, estuaries
and coastal areas. The water levels and flows are resolved on a rectangular grid covering the
area of interest when provided with bathymetry, bed resistance coefficient, wind field,
hydrodynamic boundary conditions, etc.
The system solves the full time-dependent non-linear equations of continuity and conservation
of momentum using an implicit ADI finite difference scheme of second-order accuracy.
The effects and facilities incorporated within the model include:
Convective and cross momentum;
Bottom shear stress;
Wind shear stress at the surface;
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-2
Barometric pressure gradients;
Coriollis forces;
Momentum dispersion (e.g. through the Smagorinsky formulation);
Wave-induced currents;
Sources and sinks (mass and momentum);
Evaporation;
Flooding and drying.
Facilities for focussing on specific areas within the computational domain through the use of
transfer boundary data are also included within MIKE21 HD.
The NHD Module is an extension to the standard HD Module, which has the capability to
simulate consecutively finer nested grids which are dynamically linked together. The use of
nested grids allows computationally efficient modelling to take place with the dynamic linking
ensuring that there is the correct transfer of momentum across the patch boundaries. This
eliminates possible inaccuracies associated with extracting boundary conditions for transfer
boundaries and allows a larger region to be modelled using fewer cells. A description of the
development and validation of the Shannon model is given Section 9.3.
9.2.2 Sediment Dispersion Model
For the sediment dispersion simulations, RPS used the MIKE321 NPA model which describes
the transport and fate of solutes or suspended matter and uses data from the hydrodynamic
model to provide information on the general movement of the water body.
Within MIKE 321 NPA the sediment is considered as a series of discrete particles being
advected with the surrounding water body and dispersed as a result of random processes in a
2-Dimensional or 3-Dimensional regime using the Lagrangian approach. Hence, the
resolution of the sediment plume is not restricted by the grid size of the current field.
The model can be used to determine the fate of suspended or dissolved matter that is
discharged or accidentally spilled in lakes, estuaries, coastal areas or the open sea. The
model simulates the effects of wind driven currents, including a mechanism for dealing with
the overturning currents at the shoreline. The loss of active material from the water column
through either settling or decay can also be included within the model simulations.
Although the model can use data from 2-Dimensional depth averaged hydrodynamic flow
models; in such cases the MIKE321 NPA model applies a logarithmic vertical velocity profile
to the tidal current component to provide a more accurate assessment of the displacement of
particles located at different depths in the water column. This facility provides a more realistic
representation of the situation at full scale.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-3
9.3 TIDAL MODELLING SIMULATIONS
9.3.1 Irish Coastal Waters Model
The tidal flow around Foynes was simulated by a series of sub-models driven by RPS’ Irish
Coastal Waters model, which provided boundary data for the detailed models. The Irish
Coastal Waters model stretches from the North-western end of France including the English
Channel as far as Dover out into the Atlantic to 16° west, including the Porcupine Bank and
Rockall. In the other direction it stretches from the Northern part of the Bay of Biscay to just
south of the Faeroes Bank. Overall the model covers the Northern Atlantic Ocean and UK
continental shelf up to a distance of 600km from the Irish Coast as illustrated in Figure 9.1.
Figure 9.1 Extent of Irish Coastal Waters Model
This model was constructed using flexible mesh technology allowing the size of the
computational cells to vary depending on user requirements. Along the Atlantic boundary the
model features a mesh size of 13.125’ (24km). The Irish Atlantic coast has been described
using cells of on average 3km size while in the Irish Sea, the maximum cell size is limited to
3.5 km.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-4
The bathymetry was generated from a number of different sources. Large parts of the
bathymetric information were obtained from Admiralty Charts, as produced digitally by C-MAP
of Norway. Recent surveys of several banks and coastal areas have also been included
covering in part or all of:
Wexford and approaches;
Blackwater bank;
Arklow bank;
Codling bank;
Carlingford Lough;
Dublin Bay;
Malahide Estuary;
Rogerstown Estuary;
Greystones.
Both survey data commissioned by RPS and the digitised charts were quality checked by RPS
engineers and compared with Admiralty data and known benchmarks. Recent surveys carried
out by Geological Survey Ireland (GSI) as part of the Irish National Seabed Survey (INSS)
were also incorporated into the model. The datum of the various bathymetry sources was
adjusted to mean sea level using over 350 reference levels to obtain a consistent dataset. A
custom made routine was used to interpolate the mean sea level corrections for the relevant
survey area and adjust the bathymetry values accordingly before incorporation into the overall
model.
The simulation of the astronomic tides in the model area is mainly driven by the oscillation of
water levels along the open boundaries. The Irish Coastal Waters model has six open
boundaries, five in the Atlantic and one in the English Channel. The time series of tidal
elevations along these boundaries were generated using a global tidal model designed by a
team at the Danish National Survey and Cadastre Department (KMS). The KMS global tidal
model is based on the prediction of tidal elevations using 8 semidiurnal and diurnal tidal
constants (as opposed to the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office approach which uses 4-6
constants). These constants were derived through the simulation of the effect of astronomic
forces due to the sun and moon on the water surfaces. The model output was further refined
with the use of satellite derived altimetry data.
9.3.2 Shannon Estuary Base Model
The extent of the base model for the Foynes Port study included the Shannon Estuary and the
nearby Atlantic Ocean, as illustrated in Figure 9.2. The bathymetry for this base model was
taken from the same sources as the Irish Coastal Waters model, as detailed in Section 9.3.1,
although this was supplemented with the results of a bathymetric survey carried out as part of
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-5
the INFOMAR project, a joint venture between the Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) and the
Marine Institute (MI).
The northern and western boundary conditions were defined using the Irish Coastal Waters
model.
Figure 9.2 Base model extent (135m grid) for the Shannon Estuary Tidal Model
A series of sub-models were developed from the base model in order to focus and refine the
modelling area. At each stage of refinement the model predictions were validated against
Admiralty tidal predictions before transfer boundary data was extracted.
The Foynes modelling was finally undertaken on a 45m / 15m nested grid, with boundary data
supplied from the 135m base model.
The bathymetry for the 45m model region is shown in Figure 9.3, with the finer (15m) nested
grid region shown by the black outline, and in detail in Figure 9.4. Bathymetry is given relative
to mean sea level which varies with chart datum depending on the location. At Foynes mean
sea level is 2.83m above chart datum (LAT).
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-6
Figure 9.3 Tidal model domain 45m grid with nested 15m section (MSL)
Figure 9.4 15m grid bathymetry (MSL) for the Foynes area
This final model was used to simulate tidal flow patterns for a period of one month, to include
both neap and spring tides. Typical spring tidal flow patterns are presented in Figure 9.5 to
Figure 9.10. Figure 9.5 and Figure 9.6 show the flood tidal flow patterns for the 45m and 15m
grid model areas respectively, while Figure 9.7 shows the flood tidal flow pattern in the area of
principal interest. Similarly Figure 9.8 and Figure 9.9 show the corresponding ebb tidal flow
patterns for the 45m and 15m model domains while Figure 9.10 shows the ebb tidal flow
through the main area of interest.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-7
Figure 9.5 Flood tide pattern 45m grid extent – Spring Tide
Figure 9.6 Flood tide pattern for 15m grid extent – Spring Tide
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-8
Figure 9.7 Flood tide pattern for area of interest – Spring Tide
Figure 9.8 Ebb tide pattern 45m grid extent – Spring Tide
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-9
Figure 9.9 Ebb tide pattern for 15m grid extent – Spring Tide
Figure 9.10 Ebb tide pattern for area of interest – Spring Tide
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-10
The detailed plots given in Figure 9.7 and Figure 9.10 demonstrate the complexity of the tidal
flows in the nearshore area; with a number of areas in which tidal eddies occur due to the
presence of partially submerged rock outcrops and plateaux.
9.3.3 Impact of the Proposed Development on the Tidal Flows
The impact of the proposed development was simulated by altering the tidal model bathymetry
to include the east jetty. Comparisons of the tidal flow conditions throughout the area were
then made to assess the impact of the development. Figure 9.11 and Figure 9.13 show the
typical spring flood and ebb patterns respectively prior to development works, with Figure 9.12
and Figure 9.14 showing the difference in spring flood and ebb velocities between the
simulation with the development having been undertaken and the same simulation for the
existing seabed bathymetry.
From these tidal speed difference plots it can be seen that on the flood tide, there are small
changes in the current velocity in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development, with
very minor changes along the northern drying bank of Aughinish Island. A small change
occurs on the ebb tide in the area of the proposed development only. The maximum
differences in the peak velocities beyond the immediate vicinity of the construction are of the
order of ±0.1m/s, but only exist in very small areas, due to a minor change in tidal regime
along the drying banks. This was the anticipated outcome, and is considered to have no
significant impact.
Figure 9.11 Typical spring flood flow pattern – Before Development
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-11
Figure 9.12 Difference in peak spring flood current velocity – Proposed development
minus existing
Figure 9.13 Typical spring ebb flow pattern – Before Development
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-12
Figure 9.14 Difference in peak spring ebb current velocity – Proposed development
minus existing
9.4 MODEL VERIFICATION
9.4.1 Model Verification Data
The hydrodynamic model was verified using field data collected specifically for this study. It
should be noted that the model simulation period was not the same as the monitoring period
and therefore data was compared in terms of the occurrence of similar tidal ranges, making
use of Admiralty predicted tides. When the model is compared with the time series of
predicted tides at Carrigaholt and Tarbert over the actual simulation period as shown by
Figure 9.15 and Figure 9.16, it can be seen to give a good representation of the tidal levels
experienced in this area at this time. Further to this, when comparing spring or neap tidal
ranges simulated by the model at Carrigaholt, Tarbert, Foynes and Mellon Point with those
values indicated in the Admiralty tide tables, a good correlation was also found.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-13
Figure 9.15: Predicted and Simulated Tidal Elevations at Carrigaholt
Figure 9.16 Predicted and Simulated Tidal Elevations at Tarbert
The model calibration process was focused on ensuring that the observed tidal flow regime in
the Foynes area was adequately simulated within the model. Figure 9.17 shows the location of
the principal monitoring sites for which data is presented in this report.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-14
Figure 9.17 Location of Tidal Current Monitoring Points
9.4.2 Model Verification Results
Figure 9.18 to Figure 9.23 show the comparison between the measured data and the model
data at each of the monitoring locations shown in Figure 9.17 for both spring and neap tides.
The measured data for current velocity and direction are shown as a series of points (as they
are discrete measurements). At each location surface, middle and bed measurements were
provided representing the water column, however for the purposes of this calibration, the
readings from the middle of the water column were considered the most representative to be
compared with the model results.
The simulated data is presented as a continuous trace which presents the depth averaged
value of either current speed or direction at the corresponding location within the model
domain. The surface elevations taken from the model at the corresponding times are also
shown for clarity.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-15
Figure 9.18 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation
(bottom) at CO1 – Spring Tide
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-16
Figure 9.19 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation
(bottom) at CO1 - Neap Tide
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-17
Figure 9.20 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation
(bottom) at CO2 – Spring Tide
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-18
Figure 9.21 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation
(bottom) at CO2 - Neap Tide
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-19
Figure 9.22 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation
(bottom) at CO3 - Spring Tide
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-20
Figure 9.23 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation
(bottom) at CO3 - Neap Tide
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-21
Location CO1
This point was located at the north west of Foynes Island in around 23m of water. Both spring
and neap flows, shown in Figure 9.18 and Figure 9.19 respectively, show similar flow patterns.
There are clearly defined south westerly tidal currents on the ebb tide and north easterly tidal
currents on the flood tide. In both cases a good correlation has been achieved between the
measured and simulated data, with the predicted current speed and directions falling within
the range of those measured, although current speeds are possibly slightly under-predicted on
the spring ebb tide.
Location CO2
CO2 is located at the north east of Foynes Island, close to Sturamus Island in a water depth of
circa 10m. Shallower water along with drying banks to the north east and south west of this
site gives rise to eddying in the vicinity of CO2. Figure 9.20 and Figure 9.21 show the
measured and simulated data for this site during spring and neap tides. In both cases, the
tidal flow runs in a north westerly direction on the ebb tide and a south easterly direction on
the flood tide, however much higher current velocities occur on the ebb tide than the flood tide.
Agreement between the modelled and observed data is good indicating that this tidal
asymmetry is well represented within the model.
Location CO3
Figure 9.22 shows the spring tide and Figure 9.23 the neap tide currents for site CO3 to the
north east of the site of the proposed jetty expansion, close to Durnish Point. This meter was
sited in around 8m of water. The tidal currents flow in a north easterly direction on the flood
tide and a south easterly direction on the ebb tide. The model shows good correlation in
current speed at this location on both the spring and neap tides.
Overall
The model verification results discussed above indicate that the spatial distribution of the tidal
flow is generally being well represented in the model simulations. The nearshore flow is
complex with some level of circulation to the north east and south west of the island due to
shallow/drying areas. Across the area over which the dispersion modelling will take place the
model is considered suitably well verified to give a good prediction of sediment concentration
and excursion for the dredging scenario to be investigated.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-22
9.5 MODELLING THE IMPACT OF DREDGING OPERATIONS
The process of submersible suction pump dredging will unavoidably cause a discharge of
material through the water column due to washout from the barges. These losses may have
potential impacts on marine life in the form of a sediment plume within the water column and
the following sedimentation may impact on the seabed flora and fauna or accumulate in
navigation channels. These losses were modelled as part of the study to quantify the impact
on the local environment during the dredging processes.
The tidal models, discussed in Section 9.2 were coupled with the MIKE 321 NPA particle
modelling module to carry out the assessment. The affect of the sources on the seabed and
through the water column was modelled by releasing discrete particles during the dredging
cycle and tracking their progress to produce sedimentation patterns and concentration plots of
the subsequent sediment plumes.
9.5.1 Modelling Foynes Harbour Dredging
Flow Model Data
The tidal model domain shown in Figure 9.3 was used as the basis for the particle tracking
model, where particles released into the water column during the course of dredging are
tracked precisely and independently of grid spacing. The processes simulated during the
course of the modelling included dredging taking place across the site for a period which
included both spring and neap tide conditions.
Sediment Source
Borehole logs taken in the area of the proposed dredging were used to determine the nature
and grading of the sediment. The total losses to the water column are often assumed to be 2%
of the dredged volume, however given the fine grading of the dredged material, 5% loss was
assumed in order to be conservative, in line with industry practice; “Scoping the Assessment
of Sediment Plumes from Dredging” CIRIA 547..This was represented in the model by a
source at the water surface, indicating the washout from the barges.
The Mike 321 NPA model simulated the fate of the loss of material from the barges by
releasing particles into the water column and tracking each particle throughout the simulation
process. A range of grain sizes has been used in the model, in order to cater for the sediment
grading of the dredged material. The source to be released to the water surface had the
distribution of grain size shown in Table 9.1. This represents the finest material within the
sediment as settlement will take place within the barge before washout occurs.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-23
Table 9.1 Sediment Grading of Dredged Material
Grain Diameter
mm % Occurrence
0.05 71
0.105 23
0.18 1
0.255 1
0.45 1
0.89 1
1.59 1
2.675 1
Dredging Simulations
The dredging simulations were carried out over a period of 22 days, representing the
anticipated dredge time and allowing adequate time to assess the dredging process under
both spring and neap tides. This ensured that both the largest amount of sedimentation,
occurring during neap tide, and the widest sediment plume, occurring at spring tide, were
modelled. For the simulations it was assumed that 150,000m3 of dredging material was
extracted over the 22 day period. The intended method of dredging to be used at Foynes Port
East jetty is by submersible pump, with deposition into two alternating barges. This will
involve a 2.5 hour dredging cycle, including a 0.5 hour offload time.
During the course of the simulation the barges were positioned at both the eastern and
western ends of the jetty in such a way as to ensure that each part of the site was modelled
over the full range of tidal conditions. Washout from the barges was taken to be 5% at the
water surface.
9.5.2 Impact of the Proposed Dredging
The impact of the dredging and the associated sediment sources may be evaluated by
considering two aspects:
sedimentation and any potential impact on the existing seabed flora and fauna or
potential accumulation in navigation channels; and
the concentration of sediment within the water column prior to settlement or due to
subsequent re-suspension, which may potentially impact upon marine life.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-24
Sedimentation Impacts
The sediment transport modelling extended throughout the Foynes region, within the Shannon
Estuary as shown in Figure 9.24. Evaluation of the results showed that any sedimentation of
significance on completion of the works was limited to the immediate vicinity of the dredging
and is shown in more detail in Figure 9.25. Apart from the immediate dredging vicinity, the
greatest predicted sedimentation depth on completion of the works was circa 100mm at the
west side of Foynes Port western jetty, or between 5- 40mm at the western sides of Aughinish
Island along the drying banks. However, sedimentation is often over-predicted for drying
areas within the modelling process due to shallow water inaccuracies. Greater levels of
sedimentation occurred at the dredge site itself, but it is expected that this would be removed
as part of the dredging operation. Much smaller levels of deposition are also predicted at
shoreline locations where the tidal currents are much reduced. It should be noted that this
modelling approach does not include the effect of waves and that many of these inter-tidal
locations would experience some level of sediment dispersion leading to lower levels of
sedimentation than predicted within the model.
The maximum sedimentation expected to occur over the course of the dredging is shown in
Figure 9.26 and in more detail in Figure 9.27. This is the maximum depth experienced in each
model cell over the course of the simulation, but some material may be subsequently re-
suspended. The maximum sedimentation plots show similar results to the final sedimentation
plots shown above. On completion of the dredging, the sediment is predicted to remain on the
drying banks; however it will be re-suspended in the channel areas.
Figure 9.24 Sedimentation on completion of proposed dredging works
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-25
Figure 9.25 Sedimentation on completion of proposed dredging works in local area
Figure 9.26 Maximum sedimentation during proposed dredging works
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-26
Figure 9.27 Maximum sedimentation during proposed dredging works in local area
The concentration of sediment above background values within the water column during the
course of the dredging was examined by investigating the average concentration through the
water column and also in the 0.5m thick layer adjacent to the bed. The former is of importance
in general water quality turbidity whilst the latter will relate to seabed fauna such as mussel
beds.
In order to gain an understanding of typical background values, RPS reviewed the available
water sampling data from four locations around Foynes Island, as shown in Figure 9.. At Point
SSO1, average background values through the water column ranged from 20-35mg/l, while at
points SSO2, SSO3 and SSO4, the range was between 35-75mg/l, 15-35mg/l and 15-25mg/l
respectively.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-27
Figure 9.28 Location of Water Sampling Points
The plume generated, as sediment is released into the water column, is shown for typical
flood and ebb scenarios for both spring and neap tides in Figure 9.29Error! Reference
source not found. to Figure 9.32. As anticipated, the spring tide plots show a much greater
dispersion extent, with highest concentrations found on the flood tide of circa 200mg/l above
background to the east of the dredging site and at the west of Aughinish Island. Figure 9.33 to
Figure 9.36 show the concentration of particles at the bed during spring and neap tides, for
both flood and ebb scenarios. As before the worst case scenario is the spring flood tide,
yielding concentrations of up to circa 150mg/l above background in the bed layer.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-28
Figure 9.29 Typical suspended solids concentration above background: Foynes
Port dredging – Spring Flood tide
Figure 9.30 Typical suspended solids concentration above background: Foynes
Port dredging – Spring Ebb tide
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-29
Figure 9.31 Typical suspended solids concentration above background: Foynes
Port dredging – Neap Flood tide
Figure 9.32 Typical suspended solids concentration above background: Foynes
Port dredging – Neap Ebb tide
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-30
Figure 9.33 Typical bed concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging –
Spring Flood tide
Figure 9.34 Typical bed concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging –
Spring Ebb tide
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-31
Figure 9.35 Typical bed concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging –
Neap Flood tide
Figure 9.36 Typical bed concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging –
Neap Ebb tide
The concentrations shown in the previous plume plots give a ‘snapshot’ and therefore present
levels which may only occur for a limited period during the dredging cycle as Figure 9.37 to
Figure 9.40 illustrates. Figure 9.37 shows the average suspended solids over the duration of
the dredging period, with Figure 9.38 showing a more detailed view of the dredging area.
Apart from the immediate vicinity of the dredging, an average of less than 60-70mg/l of solids
(above background) are suspended through the water column. This area extends from the
west of Aughinish Island as far east as Coalhill Point. Bed concentrations are further reduced,
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-32
as can be seen in Figure 9.39 and Figure 9.40, with values ranging up to 40-50mg/l above
background.
When analysing data from the water sampling locations as depicted in Figure 9., some
understanding of percentage values of concentration above background level can be gained.
For example at Point SSO1, the average value of suspended solids in the water column
determined by the model over the dredging period is less than 5% of the average measured
background value. At Points SSO2 and SSO4, the average suspended solids concentration
found within the water column during the dredging simulations is less than 10% and 65% of
the average measured background value respectively. As was expected, at Point SSO3
directly adjacent to the dredging site, the concentrations above background were subject to
the most significant increase, with average concentration values up to 1.5 times greater than
the average background. Despite these increases, the average suspended solid
concentrations derived from the model at the four sampling locations are less than the natural
variation in suspended solid concentrations shown in the measured data.
In each of the following plots, the plume of dredging material extending from the site is clearly
visible with reduced concentration at increased distance from the dredging site. In some
isolated inter-tidal regions concentrations are increased due to re-suspension of deposited
material, however as discussed earlier, this sedimentation is likely to be over-predicted due to
the wave induced dispersion which would occur but is not included within the model.
Figure 9.37 Average suspended solids concentration (above background) during
dredging cycle
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-33
Figure 9.38 Average suspended solids concentration (above background) during
dredging cycle in local area
Figure 9.39 Average bed concentration (above background) during dredging cycle
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-34
Figure 9.40 Average bed concentration (above background) during dredging cycle
in local area
Maximum suspended solid concentrations for the water column and bed layer are shown in
Figure 9.41 and Figure 9.42 respectively; these represent the highest concentrations
experienced over the entire simulation for each grid cell. It should be noted that these
maximum values may occur for a period of time as short as 15 minutes and are therefore not
a representation of a true plume, but are included to provide information on the upper bound
concentrations.
Outside the immediate dredging vicinity, the maximum suspended solid concentrations at any
point in time over the dredging period generally fall below 600mg/l above background, but
more commonly only reach maximums in the region of 100-200mg/l above background.
Likewise, the maximum bed layer concentrations at any point in time over the dredging period
generally fall below 500mg/l, but are much lower in most other areas.
The aforementioned average concentration plots provide a more realistic representation of the
dispersion. However the maximum plots prove that even the upper bounds of the potential
concentration are still relatively low.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-35
Figure 9.41 Maximum suspended solids concentration (above background) during
dredging cycle
Figure 9.42 Maximum bed concentration (above background) during dredging cycle
9.6 MODELLING CONCLUSIONS
The potential effects of the proposed jetty development and associated dredging programme
on sediment transport have been investigated using numerical models. On completion of the
dredging, it is anticipated that sedimentation will occur to a level of 100mm at the west side of
Foynes Port western jetty or between 5- 40mm at the western sides of Aughinish Island along
the drying banks. Greater levels of sedimentation occurred at the dredge site itself, but it is
expected that this should be removed following completion of the dredging operation. Other
isolated areas in the inter-tidal zone may also undergo limited sedimentation. However this
should be reduced by the presence of wave induced dispersion which was not included within
the model.
During the course of the dredging programme, average suspended solid concentrations are
predicted to remain largely less than 60-70mg/l above the background value, with affected
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-36
areas ranging between Coalhill Point and western Aughinish Island. Bed concentrations
should remain less than 50mg/l above background, throughout the course of the dredging.
The impact of the tidal flow patterns, following the development works on the jetty was also
assessed. Comparisons of the tidal flow conditions throughout the area before and after the
development were carried out, concluding that only small changes in the current velocity in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed development will occur, along with very minor changes
along the northern drying bank of Aughinish Island. The maximum differences in the peak
velocities beyond the immediate vicinity of the construction are of the order of ±0.1m/s, due to
minor flow realignment.
9.7 WATER QUALITY
The proposed reclamation area is within Foynes Harbour transitional water body (water body
code: IE_SH_060_0350) and is immediately adjacent to the Lower Shannon Estuary
transitional water body (water body code: IE_SH_060_0300) (Figure 9.43).
The Lower Shannon Estuary is a large water body at 123 km2 in area and extending from
Ballinvoher village in County Limerick to Ballylongford village in County Kerry (insert in Figure
9.43).
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-37
Figure 9.43 Foynes Harbour and Lower Shannon Estuary water bodies
9.8 DESIGNATIONS
9.8.1 Protected Areas
The works area is located within a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and is also adjacent to
a Special Protection Area (SPA):
SAC – Lower River Shannon SAC (SAC site code: 002165);
SPA – River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA (SPA side code: 004077).
Foynes Harbour and the Lower Shannon Estuary water bodies must achieve the water quality
standards for these areas in accordance with the Habitats and Birds Directives.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-38
The closest shellfish waters are West Shannon Ballylongford1 and West Shannon
Poulnasharry Bay2, however, both are located more than 20 kilometres downstream of the
works area. There are no nutrient sensitive areas or designated bathing waters in the vicinity
of the works area.
Figure 9.44 Protected areas
9.8.2 Other Designations
Foynes Harbour has been designated as a heavily modified water body due to the hard
defences and the port activities within the water body. Therefore, this water body is subject to
alternative Water Framework Directive (WFD) objectives. These objectives take account of the
current modifications of the water body but also take account of new modifications which will
take place in the future including future flood relief measures which will be undertaken by the
EPA in accordance with the Floods Directive but particularly the planned expansion and
development of the port.
1http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Water/PublicConsultations-ShellfishWatersDirective/FileDownLoad,22102,en.pdf 2http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Water/PublicConsultations-ShellfishWatersDirective/FileDownLoad,22106,en.pdf
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-39
9.9 SOURCES OF WATER QUALITY INFORMATION
This section presents surface water quality information for the waters in the vicinity of Foynes
Harbour where the land reclamation work is proposed. The sources of the water quality
information summarised in this chapter are:
Water body status information arising from the Water Framework Directive monitoring
programme and outlined in the Shannon International River Basin Management Plan
(2009-2015) (ShIRBD, 2010).
Water quality information outlined in the EPA’s most recent water quality report, Water
Quality in Ireland 2007-2009 (EPA, 2010).
9.9.1 Water Framework Directive Status Classifications
Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water
policy (the Water Framework Directive), was adopted by the European Parliament and Council
in 2000. It was transposed into Irish law via the European Communities (Water Policy)
Regulations, 2003 (S.I. No. 722 of 2003), as amended by the European Communities (Water
Policy) (Amendment) Regulations, 2005.
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) establishes a legal framework for the protection,
improvement and sustainable management of rivers, lakes, transitional waters (estuaries),
coastal waters and groundwater. It is an over-arching piece of legislation, superseding and
updating existing legislation, and will be the most significant piece of legislation governing the
water environment for the foreseeable future.
The aim of the WFD is to prevent deterioration of the existing status of waters and to ensure
that all waters are classified as at least ‘good’ status (by 2015 in most cases, with all waters
achieving good status by 2027 at the latest). A water body must achieve both good ‘ecological
status’ and good ‘chemical status’ before it can be considered to be at good overall status.
Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) for classifying surface water status are established
in the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations, 2009
(S.I. 272 of 2009). These regulations set standards for biological quality elements, physico-
chemical conditions supporting biological elements (including general conditions and specific
pollutants), priority substances and priority hazardous substances.
The ‘ecological status’ of a water body is established according to compliance with the EQSs
for biological quality elements, physico-chemical conditions supporting biological elements
and relevant pollutants.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-40
The ‘chemical status’ of a water body is established according to compliance with the EQSs
for priority substances and priority hazardous substances. In the case of transitional and
coastal waters, the establishment of chemical status is incomplete due to a lack of monitoring
data. However, an initial indication of the chemical status of some transitional and coastal
water bodies was made using existing data sources such as the National Dangerous
Substances Screening Exercise and the Marine Institute’s shellfish waters monitoring
programme.
As well as achieving good ecological and chemical status, a water body must achieve
compliance with standards and objectives specified for protected areas, which include areas
designated by the Bathing Water, Urban Waste Water Treatment, Shellfish Waters, Habitats
and Birds Directives. Waters bodies that are compliant with WFD standards, but that contain
protected areas that are non-compliant with protected area standards, are downgraded to
‘less than good’ status.
In order to establish the WFD status of water bodies, the EPA developed a new, WFD-
compliant monitoring programme which began in 2006. It builds on previous monitoring
programmes and provides a comprehensive assessment of water quality and quantity.
WFD status classifications apply at the water body scale and are based on several
samples/surveys targeting the variety of parameters, including biological, physico-chemical,
chemical and hydromorphological elements, required to establish WFD status. The current
status classification is an interim classification and is based on monitoring information
collected between 2006 and 2008. Final status classifications, based on the results of a
complete monitoring cycle, i.e. 2007 to 2009, will be reported in 2011.
The interim status classification of transitional and coastal water bodies is primarily based on
information and data collected by the EPA, Marine Institute and Central Fisheries Board (now
Inland Fisheries Ireland) between 2006 and 2008. In addition, assessments of the
conservation status of protected areas carried out by NPWS were also taken into account.
9.9.2 EPA Water Quality Information
The EPA Water Quality Report 2007-2009 was published in 2010 and presents a review of
Irish ambient water quality for the years 2007 to 2009. The water quality information is
presented on a water body scale in line with the WFD and with comparisons with the WFD.
EQSs. However, it is also presented in the manner of previous EPA reports so that trends
over time can be seen.
The water quality information in relation to transitional and coastal waters outlined in the report
was generated by the EPA as well as other organisations including:
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-41
Central and Regional Fisheries Boards (now Inland Fisheries Ireland);
Marine Institute;
Sea Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA);
National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS);
Waterways Ireland; and
Irish Coast Guard.
9.10 EXISTING WATER QUALITY
9.10.1 Water Framework Directive Status
The Foynes Harbour water body is not monitored in the WFD monitoring programme and
therefore the WFD status assigned to it is extrapolated based on that status of other water
bodies with similar physical characteristic and with similar risks to water status (in this case
the Lower Shannon Estuary which is a monitored water body in the WFD monitoring
programme).
Both water bodies are classified as being at ‘moderate’ status (Figure 9.45). The results in
relation to the individual status elements are presented in Table 9.2
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-42
Figure 9.45 Foynes Harbour and Lower Shannon Estuary WFD water body status
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-43
Table 9.2 Water Framework Directive Status Elements
Status Element Foynes Harbour Lower Shannon
Estuary
Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen status - Good
Molybdate Reactive Phosphorus status - Good
Dissolved oxygen as per cent saturation status - High
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-days) status - High
Macroalgae - phytobiomass status - High
Macroalgae - opportunistic algae status - -
Macroalgae - reduced species list status - -
Angiosperms - Seagrass and Saltmarsh status - -
Benthic Invertebrates status - -
Fish status - High
Hydrology status - -
Morphology status - Good
Specific Pollutant Status - Fail
Overall protected area status - At least good
Ecological Status Moderate Moderate
Chemical Status Fail
Surface Water Status -
Confidence level in status High
Monitored / Extrapolated Extrapolated Monitored
Donor water bodies Lower Shannon
Estuary
-
A water body must achieve both good ‘ecological status’ and good ‘chemical status’ before it
can be considered to be at good overall status. It must also be compliant with standards for
protected areas in the vicinity.
The Lower Shannon Estuary water body achieved ‘high’ or ‘good’ status in relation to all of the
physico-chemical and biological parameters and is compliant with the standards established in
the Habitats and Birds Directives. However, it failed chemical status, and therefore its status
was downgraded to ‘moderate’.
The chemical failures were in relation to specific pollutants status (WFD Annex XIII specific
pollutants) and chemical status (WFD Annex X priority substances). There is currently no
dedicated WFD monitoring programme in relation to specific pollutants and priority
substances. Therefore, data from other monitoring programmes was used to assign status.
Other monitoring programmes included the National Dangerous Substances Screening
Exercise and Marine Institute monitoring programmes. In the case of the Lower Shannon
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-44
Estuary, data from the shellfish waters monitoring programme was used to assign specific
pollutant and chemical status. Therefore, the failure in relation to specific pollutant status is
due to elevated levels of zinc within West Shannon Ballylongford shellfish area while the
failure in relation to chemical status is due to elevated levels of lead within West Shannon
Ballylongford shellfish area. It should be noted that these failures take place more than 20
kilometres downstream of the proposed works area.
The objective for the Lower Shannon Estuary water body as outlined in the Shannon
International River Basin Management Plan is to achieve at least good status by 2015 and
measures are outlined in the Shannon International River Basin Management Plan and the
Shannon Transitional and Coastal Water Management Unit Action Plan to ensure that this is
achieved.
As the Foynes Harbour water body is heavily modified, it has an alternative objective to
achieve at least ‘good ecological potential’ by 2021. Measures to achieve this objective are
outlined in the Shannon International River Basin Management Plan3 and the Shannon
Transitional and Coastal Water Management Unit Action Plan.
Table 9.3 EPA Water Quality 2007 to 2009
Relevant Quality Indicators Lower Shannon Estuary
2007-2009 2007-2008 2004-2006
Trophic status Unpolluted Unpolluted Unpolluted
Nitrogen levels
Salinity-related thresholds Compliant Compliant Compliant
WFD EQS Compliant - -
Phosphorus levels
Salinity-related assessment levels Compliant Compliant Compliant
WFD EQS Compliant - -
DO levels Sufficient - Sufficient
BOD levels (WFD EQS) -
WFD EQS Compliant - -
Assessment levels - - Acceptable
Oil pollution incidents None - -
Trophic Status
The trophic status of transitional and coastal water bodies is assessed using the EPA’s
Trophic Status Assessment Scheme (TSAS). This assessment is required for the Urban
Waste Water Treatment Directive and Nitrates Directive. The scheme compares the
3http://www.wfdireland.ie/docs/1_River%20Basin%20Management%20Plans%202009%20-%202015/ShIRBD%20RBMP%202010/
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-45
compliance of individual parameters against a set of criteria indicative of trophic state (DIN,
MRP, chlorophyll, macroalgae, dissolved oxygen). These criteria fall into three different
categories which broadly capture the cause-effect relationship of the eutrophication process,
namely nutrient enrichment, accelerated plant growth, and disturbance to the level of
dissolved oxygen normally present;
Eutrophic water bodies are those in which criteria in each of the categories are
breached, i.e. where elevated nutrient concentrations, accelerated growth of plants and
undesirable water quality disturbance occur simultaneously;
Potentially Eutrophic water bodies are those in which criteria in two of the categories
are breached and the third falls within 15 per cent of the relevant threshold value;
Intermediate status water bodies are those which breach one or two of the criteria;
Unpolluted water bodies are those which do not breach any of the criteria in any
category.
The Lower Shannon Estuary water body is classed as unpolluted in the most recent water
quality report and was also unpolluted in the previous two reports dating back to 2004.
Nitrogen levels
Levels of Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) are monitored in winter, when levels are
expected to be at their seasonal maximum due to the absence of any significant plant or algal
growth, and in the summer, to capture the potential effect of seasonal changes in river flow
which can have an effect on concentrations.
Each water body is assessed against salinity-related thresholds and the WFD EQS for DIN.
The Lower Shannon Estuary water body was compliant with both.
Phosphorus levels
Levels of Molybdate Reactive Phosphorus (MRP) are monitored in winter, when levels are
expected to be at their seasonal maximum due to the absence of any significant plant or algal
growth, and in the summer, to capture the potential effect of seasonal changes in river flow
which can result in higher phosphate concentrations in some estuaries.
Each water body is assessed against salinity-related assessment levels and the WFD EQS for
MRP. The Lower Shannon Estuary water body was compliant with both.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-46
Dissolved Oxygen Levels
Low levels of Dissolved Oxygen (DO) can have adverse effects on aquatic organisms
including slower growth rates, impaired immune response and, in severe cases, mortality. DO
levels are classified as follows:
Anoxic (0 - 0.5 mg l-1)
Hypoxic (0.5 – 2.0 mg l-1)
Deficient (2.0 – 6.0 mg l-1)
Sufficient (6.0 – 10.0 mg l-1)
The Lower Shannon Estuary water body is classified as sufficient.
Biological Oxygen Demand
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) was compared with the WFD EQS for BOD. The Lower
Shannon Estuary water body was compliant with the EQS.
Oil Pollution Incidents
There was no oil pollution incidents recorded in the Lower Shannon Estuary during the most
recent monitoring cycle.
Shannon Estuary Anti-Pollution Team (SEA-PT)
Shannon Foynes Port Company are part of a consortium consisting of the Port Company,
Local Authorities and oil importers and was initiated to form a unified coordinated response to
pollution incidents on the Shannon Estuary. Each member contributed initially to provide
pollution response equipment and support tools. This equipment is available to respond to any
pollution incident or threat. Members contribute annually to maintain equipment, carry out
exercises and training and purchase new and replacement equipment. A full inventory of the
equipment held in storage by SFPC on behalf of SEA-PT is contained in Appendix 5.
The group has been in operation for the past 10 years under a committee of pollution officers
representing the members. The aim of the group is to provide a unified response to oil
pollution within the region, even though each member has individual responsibility for their
own area. An Oil Spill Tracking Model, Geographic Information System, Environmental Atlas,
Sensitivity Study, Oil Spill Response Strategy, Hydrocarbon Baseline Study and Emergency
Response Plans have been developed for the region and updated.
The Pollution Control Plan is provided to assist the Shannon Estuary Ports Anti-Pollution
Team (SEA-PT) in dealing with an accidental discharge of oil. Its primary purpose is to set in
motion the necessary actions to stop or minimise the discharge and to mitigate its effects.
Effective planning ensures that the necessary actions are taken in a structured, logical and
timely manner. This plan guides the Coordinator and On Scene Commander and other
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-47
involved personnel through the decisions, which will be required in an incident response. The
tables, figures and checklists provide a visible form of information, thus reducing the chance of
oversight or error during the early stages of dealing with an emergency situation. For the plan
to be effective, it must be:
familiar to those with key response functions in the ports
regularly exercised; and,
reviewed and updated on a regular basis.
9.11 CONCLUSIONS IN RELATION TO WATER QUALITY IMPACT
The likely impact on water quality of the sedimentation and suspended solids effects predicted
by the modelling is discussed in this section.
9.11.1 Sedimentation and Water Quality Impacts
As the dredged material is not contaminated, the sedimentation which will result from the
dredging works will not affect water quality in the area.
9.11.2 Suspended Solids and Water Quality Impacts
Short term increases in suspended sediment levels associated with the dredging activity can
give rise to short term changes in water quality, specifically increased turbidity (which in turn
can impact on habitat diversity and species diversity and abundance as described in chapters
5-7). The modelling results and plume plots show the extent of the increased turbidity likely to
arise from the proposed dredging activities at Foynes Port.
In order to determine whether the suspended solid concentrations predicted by the modelling
to arise from the dredging activities is likely to have an adverse effect on water quality in the
area, the concentrations can be compared with available environmental quality standards for
transitional waters.
Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) for certain pollutants in surface waters in Ireland are
outlined in the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters)
Regulations, 2009 (S.I. No. 272 of 2009). The purpose of the EQSs is to limit the quantity of
certain pollutants in surface waters in order to achieve the environmental objectives
established for waters by Directive 2000/60/EC, the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
However, an EQS is not established in these Regulations for suspended solids.
Article 5 of the Shellfish Directive (2006/113/EC) and section 6 of the Quality of Shellfish
Waters Regulations, 2006 (S.I. No. 268 of 2006) require the development of Pollution
Reduction Plans (PRPs) for designated shellfish areas in order to improve water quality in
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-48
designated shellfish areas and to achieve compliance with water quality parameter values
outlined in Annex I of the Directive and Schedules 2 and 4 of the Regulations. Imperative (I)
values must be fully achieved while it must be endeavoured to achieve guideline values (G).
Table 9.4 outlines the mandatory value for suspended solids established in the Regulations.
This standard can be used as a measure of whether the suspended solid levels which would
arise from the proposed dredging is likely to have an adverse effect on water quality. This
measure can be considered conservative as it is designed to protect shellfish life and growth
and shellfish are sensitive to suspended solids as shellfish species are generally bottom
dwellers and/or filter feeders.
Table 9.4 Shellfish Directive Mandatory and Guideline Values
Parameter Guideline
Value (G)
Mandatory Value (I)
Suspended
Solids
(mg/l)
n/a A discharge affecting shellfish waters must not
cause the suspended solid content of the waters
to exceed the content in unaffected waters by
more than 30%
In order to be compliant with the shellfish mandatory value for suspended solids, suspended
solid concentrations much not be raised more than 30% above background concentration.
This standard is expressed as a 75-percentile, i.e. the value below which 75 percent of the
observations may be found.
Available suspended solid monitoring results from four monitoring locations around Foynes
Island (Figure 9.46) show that background levels through the water column vary significantly
as follows:
SSO1 - 20-35mg/l;
SSO2 - 35-75mg/l;
SSO3 - 15-35mg/l;
SSO4 - 15-25mg/l.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-49
Figure 9.46 Location of Water Sampling Points
For the purposes of this assessment, average suspended solid concentrations arising from
dredging works were compared with average background concentrations in order to calculate
the percentage increase arising from the dredging works for comparison with the shellfish
mandatory value.
At point SSO1, the average suspended solids concentration within the water column
predicted by the model over the dredging period is less than 5% of the average
measured background value. Therefore, the proposed dredging works will not cause
water quality issues in this area to an extent that would constitute a non-compliance with
the Shellfish Regulations.
At point SSO2, the average suspended solids concentration within the water column
predicted by the model over the dredging period is less than 10% of the average
measured background value. Therefore, the proposed dredging works will not cause
water quality issues in this area to an extent that would constitute a non-compliance with
the Shellfish Regulations.
SHANON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 9.0: COASTAL PROCESSES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
IBE0215/EIS01/September 11 9-50
At point SSO4, the average suspended solids concentration within the water column
predicted by the model over the dredging period is approximately 65% of the average
measured background value. This monitoring point is much closer to the proposed
dredge area.
At point SSO3, directly adjacent to the dredging site, the average suspended solids
concentration within the water column predicted by the model over the dredging period
is approximately 1.5 times the average measured background value. This monitoring
point is adjacent to the proposed dredge area.
The average suspended solid concentrations modelled at SS03 and SS04 are greater than
30% of the average background value. However, the average suspended solid concentrations
derived from the model at these locations are less than the maximum measured concentration
at these locations. The simulated peak concentrations are also below the measured peak at
site SS04. Only at site SSO3, which is directly adjacent to the dredge site, are the simulated
peak concentrations greater than the measured peak concentrations and these simulated
peak values may occur for a very small space of time. In general, it can be concluded that the
effects of suspended sediments on water quality (i.e. turbidity) will be quite localised and will
be limited to the duration of the dredging activity and shortly thereafter.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-1
10.0 SEDIMENT QUALITY
10.1 INTRODUCTION
Sedimentation in the marine environment is a natural phenomenon, occurring by rivers
eroding material in upstream areas and settling suspended matter when the current becomes
slower, runoff by lowland rivers or by currents, coming from the sea, transporting and settling
material in protected areas such as ports.
Contamination of these sediments occurs when natural or human activity results in the
introduction of contaminants that can cause undesirable impacts on the environment. Many of
these introductions take the form of waste discharges that are mixed with the sediments when
they settle.
Contaminants in sediments can act as a source of long-term environmental pollution. Certain
substances can be bio accumulated in benthic organisms resulting in biomagnifications at
higher levels in the food chain. Some widespread pollutants e.g. polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) are no longer in use but due to their extreme persistence they can still be detected in
marine sediments and are therefore included for analysis.
10.2 MARINE INSTITUTE DREDGE SAMPLING PROGRAMME
The Marine Institute (MI) were consulted in regards to the requirements for a dredge sampling
programme both in terms of sample location and parameters for analysis. A Sampling
Analysis Plan was provided by the Marine Institute which was issued as part of the tender
specification documents to all interested parties for the Grab Sampling & Contamination
Testing contract in order to ensure compliance with the MI requirements.
The MI advised on the particular substances which should be analysed for. They
recommended substances that are considered of most concern for the marine environment,
those which have combined properties of persistence, toxicity and liability to bio accumulate.
Typically, the most important contaminants associated with dredged material include organotin
compounds, heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) and oils (OSPAR, 2004).
Table 10.1 outlines the recommendations from the Marine Institute on the number sites and
the particular parameters which needed to be analysed for at each site.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-2
Table 10.1 Recommendations from Marine Institute on Particular Parameters for
Each Sample
Sample
No.
Sample
depth Easting Northing Parameters for analysis
1 Surface 125220 151857 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f, 4g.
2 Surface 125329 151871 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f, 4g.
3 Surface 125321 151908 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f, 4g.
4 Surface 125362 151926 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4e, 4f.
5 Surface 125376 151894 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f, 4g.
6 Surface 125409 151931 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4e, 4f.
7 Surface 125439 151962 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4e, 4f.
8 Surface 125490 151967 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f, 4g.
9 Surface 125432 151912 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4e, 4f.
10 Surface 125273 151885 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4e, 4f.
11 Surface 125257 151837 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4e, 4f, 4g.
Parameter Code:
1. Visual inspection, to include colour, texture, odour, presence of animals etc
2. Water content, density (taking into account sample collection and handling)
3. Granulometry including % gravel (> 2mm fraction), % sand (< 2mm fraction) and % mud
(< 63m fraction).
3. The following determinants in the sand-mud (< 2mm) fraction * :
a) total organic carbon
b) carbonate
c) mercury, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, chromium, nickel, lithium,
aluminium.
d) organochlorines including �-HCH (Lindane), and PCBs (to be reported as the 7
individual CB congeners: 28, 52, 101, 118, 138, 153, 180).
e) total extractable hydrocarbons.
f) tributyltin (TBT) and dibutyltin (DBT)
g) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) - Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene,
Anthracene, Benzo (a) anthracene, Benzo (a) pyrene, Benzo (b) fluoranthene,
Benzo (ghi) perylene, Benzo (k) fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz (a,h)
anthracene, Flourene, Fluoranthene, Indeno 1,2,3 – cd pyrene, Naphthalene,
Phenanthrene, Pyrene.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-3
h) Toxicity tests (Microtox or whole sediment bioassay) using appropriate
representative aquatic species. (This requirement will depend on the results of
the chemical analyses.)
As part of the plan MI also recommended the following:
Where the gravel fraction (> 2mm) constitutes a significant part of the total sediment,
this should be taken into account in the calculation of the concentrations.
Collection of sufficient samples to allow all the toxicity testing to be carried out on the
material.
Brief details of the methodologies should be supplied with the results. This should
include sampling, sub sampling and analytical methods used for each determinant.
Appropriate marine Certified References Materials (CRM) are to be analysed during
each batch of analyses and the results to be reported along with sample results.
The MI also outlined the required minimum detection limits for the various determinants.
These are given in table 10.2 below.
Table 10.2 Required Minimum Detection Limits for the Various Determinants
Contaminant Concentration Units (dry wt)
Mercury 0.05 mg kg-1
Arsenic 1.0 mg kg-1
Cadmium 0.1 mg kg-1
Copper 5.0 mg kg-1
Lead 5.0 mg kg-1
Zinc 10 mg kg-1
Chromium 5.0 mg kg-1
Nickel 15 mg kg-1
Total extractable hydrocarbons 10.0 mg kg-1
TBT and DBT (not organotin) 0.01 mg kg-1
CB28 1.0 g kg-1
CB52 1.0 g kg-1
CB101 1.0 g kg-1
CB118 1.0 g kg-1
CB138+163 1.0 g kg-1
CB153 1.0 g kg-1
CB180 1.0 g kg-1
HCB 1.0 g kg-1
PAH
Acenaphthene 20 g kg-1
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-4
Contaminant Concentration Units (dry wt)
Benzo (a) anthracene 20 g kg-1
Benzo (a) pyrene 20 g kg-1
Benzo (b) fluoranthene 20 g kg-1
Benzo (ghi) perylene 20 g kg-1
Benzo (k) fluoranthene 20 g kg-1
Chrysene 20 g kg-1
Fluoranthene 20 g kg-1
Indeno (1,2,3 – cd) pyrene 20 g kg-1
Naphthalene 20 g kg-1
Phenanthrene 20 g kg-1
Pyrene 20 g kg-1
The Marine Institute also required that the reports be submitted in a pre supplied excel file and
should include the following information;
Date of sampling
Treatment of samples and indication of sub-sampling, compositing etc.
Tabulated geophysical and chemical test results
Summary method details
Method performance specifications: Limit of detection, Precision, Bias
Batch QC (CRM) results
If determinant is not detected, report less than values, and indicate LoD/ LoQ used.
Clear expression of units and indication of wet weight or dry weight basis
Other quality assurance information (e.g. accreditation status)
The MI stated that the analysing laboratory should be experienced in analysing marine
sediments, and should participate in recognised proficiency testing schemes. The laboratory
should also have submitted a completed QA questionnaire to the MI in order to ensure that
quality standards can be met. All of the Sampling Analysis Plan requirements were met by
Hydrographic Surveys Ltd together with National Laboratory Service (NLS) whom were sub-
contracted by Hydrographic Surveys Ltd.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-5
10.3 DREDGE SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Hydrographic Surveys Ltd was appointed to carry out the sediment sampling and analysis at
Foynes Port East Jetty. Eleven separate sample locations in and around the jetty were
selected for monitoring in consultation with Marine Institute.
Figure 10.1 Sediment Sample Locations Behind the East Jetty at Foynes Port
The background details in terms of the dredging methodology which will be utilised in Foynes
Port is outlined in Chapter 4 and the dumping at sea of the dredged material will be the
subject of a separate application for a dump at sea permit to the EPA.
10.3.1 Sediment Sampling Methodology
The dredge sampling and collection was carried out on the 10th February 2011 by Mr Colin
Johnston, a surveyor from Hydrographic Surveys Ltd, who has many years of experience in
this type of sample recovery.
The taking of, recovery and submission of marine samples was carried out using the
Shannon Foynes Port Company survey launch, at a suitable high tide to enable access to all
the locations specified by the Marine Institute in Table 10.1.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-6
Prior to the recovery exercise the launch was fitted with a differential Global Positioning
System (GPS), positioned directly above the on board recovery point. The launch was then
easily navigated to the various points as specified in Table 10.1. At each point a stainless
steel grab was lowered onto the river bed. Once the grab made contact with the bed, the
recovery line was tightened and the grab sealed the sample. The actual co-ordinated recovery
position was then recorded and logged.
The grab was then recovered on board and the sample transferred to suitable prepared
containers, sealed, annotated and packed in preparation for shipping. The grab was
then cleaned prior to the taking of the next sample; this procedure was continued until a
sample was recovered from all of the required locations. The samples were then couriered to
the National Laboratory Service in the U.K. for analysis.
10.3.2 Guideline Values for the Assessment of Dredge Material
All samples which were analysed by the National Laboratory Service were compared against
the proposed guidance values for sediment quality guidelines from the “Guidelines for the
Assessment of Dredge Material for Disposal in Irish Waters”.
There are two sets of guidance values (upper and lower) used in these guidelines. According
to the guidance the lower level values correspond to contaminant concentrations below which
the sediment, if disposed of at sea, is assumed to have a physical impact only. The upper
level guidance values are set at concentrations above which adverse effects might be
expected.
Lower level guidance values represent concentrations that are either a) at the upper end of
the no-effect range or, b) at background concentrations.
Upper level guidance values are set at the lower end of the known range of effective
concentrations i.e. lowest concentrations shown to have adverse effects on marine organisms.
The proposed parameter guidelines as given the guidance are listed in Table 10.3.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-7
Table 10.3 Parameters and Proposed Guidelines for Sediment Quality
Parameters Units Units (dry wta) Lower level Upper Level b
Arsenic mg kg¹ 9c 70*
Cadmium mg kg¹ 0.7 4.2
Chromium mg kg¹ 120 370
Copper mg kg¹ 40 110d
Lead mg kg¹ 60 218
Mercury mg kg¹ 0.2 0.7
Nickel mg kg¹ 21 60
Zinc mg kg¹ 160 410
Σ TBT & DBT mg kg¹ 0.1 0.5
γ – HCH (Lindane) µg kg¹ 0.1 0.5
HCB μg kg-1 0.3 1 µg kg¹ 0.3 1
PCB (individual congeners of
ICES 7) µg kg¹ 1 180
PCB (Σ ICES 7) μg kg-1 7 1260 µg kg¹ 7 1260
PAH (Σ 16) µg kg¹ 4000
Total extractable hydrcarbons µg kg¹ 1
a- total sediment <2mm
b- ERM (rounded up)
c- ERL (rounded up) – No background Irish data available
d PEL as ERM considered high
* In some locations natural levels of arsenic will exceed this value and in such instances this guidance
value will not be appropriate
10.3.3 Sediment Sampling Results
The analysis of the samples was sub-contracted to National Laboratory Service (NLS)
laboratories in the UK, and included the following determinants for each sample:
- Ecotoxicology (30 minute EC50)
- Carbon Content
- Gran Size fractions
- Hydrocarbons
- Metals
- PAHs
- TBT and DBT
- Dry Solids
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-8
The detailed results and analytical reports from NLS laboratories are outlined in Appendix 6
with summary results discussed in this section. All sample results were below the upper level
guideline concentration.
In addition, the vast majority of parameters for each of the sediment samples from each of the
11 sites were determined to be below the lower level concentrations for sediment quality, as
listed in Table 10.3. Ten of the 11 samples exceeded the guideline lower level concentration
for Nickel (21 mg kg¹). Nickel concentrations are likely to be due to background
concentrations, which are naturally occurring in slate, sandstone, clay minerals and basalt
geologies that occur within in the River Shannon catchment. One sediment sample had levels
of Copper exceeding the lower limits (40 mg kg¹), and two sediment samples exceeded the
lower limits (9 mg kg¹) for Arsenic. None of the 11 sediment samples exceeded any of the
guideline upper level concentrations listed in Table 10.3 and therefore the sediment is
considered suitable for disposal at sea.
10.3.4 Sediment Quality
All monitoring results together with the certified values for the CRM’s and a map of the survey
locations were submitted to the Marine Institute for review. Following further consultation and
response to queries made by the Marine Institute all samples were found to be in compliance
with the upper level guideline concentrations and therefore the sediments were considered
suitable for disposal at sea.
10.4 RADIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
Radioactivity monitoring of the Irish marine environment is carried out by the Radiological
Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII). The primary focus of its marine monitoring programme is
to assess the radiation doses to the Irish population arising from discharges from the Sellafield
reprocessing plant and temporal distribution of artificial radionuclides in the marine
environments.
The Radiological Protection Institute Ireland was also consulted in regards the requirements
for radiological sampling at the East Jetty.
RPII did not require sampling on this occasion as Radiological analysis was carried out on this
site in 2008 where the samples analysed were found to be de minimise.
However, should the radiological conditions in the vicinity of the proposed dredging site
change significantly; they may request samples for analysis. A copy of the response received
from the RPII can be found in Appendix 6.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-9
10.5 ALTERNATIVE USES
The overall site was characterised by deposits of slightly sandy clay, slightly sandy slightly
gravelly clay, slightly sandy silt, sandy silt, slightly sandy slightly gravelly silt, slightly sandy
organic silt, very silty very gravelly sand, and silty sandy gravel from the boreholes which were
dug as part of the site investigations at depths of 24.0m to 41.9m with one borehole at 42.3m
below existing ground level (bgl). Based on the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N values, the
cohesive soils were of variable strength and described as very soft to stiff with N values
ranging from 0 to 35. Shear strength data indicated very soft to soft deposits. The shear vane
test indicated very soft sediments. Based on the SPT N values the sand deposits were of
variable relative density and were described as being very loose to dense, with N values of 0
to 34. The gravels were typically medium dense to dense with N values of 11 to 50. However,
the dredge material will only form a fraction of this material and will largely comprise of the
very soft upper sediments which will have a direct bearing on the potential re-use.
The volume of material to be dredged is in the region of 150,000m3, in carrying out this
assessment a number of possible options/reuse for the dredged material were addressed.
These options include;
Land Incineration
Spreading on agricultural land
Beneficial reuse e.g. beach nourishment
Disposal in licensed land fill sites
Reclamation
Disposal at sea
All of the above options are briefly discussed below, where an option is considered
impracticable, the reason is given and the option discounted from further discussion.
Land Incineration
Incineration would not be possible in Ireland, as facilities do not currently exist. Although this is
a possible option if shipment to the UK was considered however, it is perhaps not the most
viable or economical option and therefore is discounted.
Spreading on Agricultural Land
The expected spoil is not suitable for soil conditioning or spreading on agricultural lands, this
option is therefore discounted.
In terms of options 1 & 2 a suitable area of the existing jetty would be required which would
accommodate likely vessels and which would allow for landing of the material by crane or
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-10
grab, most likely to a temporary stockpile area where the material would be allowed to
dewater. From here the spoil would be loaded onto lorries for transport to the incinerator or
lands. Material would most likely be transported by tipper lorry, probably with a capacity of
between 18-20 tonnes. These options in combination with the import of rock to the site would
place extreme pressure on the N69 and therefore both options are not considered viable.
Beneficial Reuse e.g. Beach Nourishment
The sand element of the dredged material may be suitable for beach nourishment, however
the silt would not. Given the practicable difficulties of separation of these two materials the
dredged material is not considered suitable for beach nourishment. This option is therefore
discounted.
Landfill
The dredge spoil generated from the proposed harbour development is a saturated silt and
has no beneficial re-use either as a construction material or as a capping material for a landfill.
The Dredge spoil from the site, if brought ashore, will therefore be classified as a waste.
Landfill operators are reluctant to accept large quantities of dredge spoil because of its
wetness and salt content. The closest landfill to the site is at Gortadroma. The operators of
this site have confirmed that they would not be able to accommodate the quantities of dredge
spoil arising from the site. Alternative landfills at much greater distances from the site would
therefore be required.
The dredge spoil would need to be de-watered on site to enable the material to be transported
by road to a suitably licensed landfill. This would require the dredge spoil to be temporarily
stockpiled within the harbour area whilst preventing the uncontrolled washout of fine material
back into the Shannon estuary. No such hardstanding can be made available within the
harbour area without severely impacting existing port operations.
The latent water arising from the dredge spoil would also need to be treated before either
being discharged back into the Shannon Estuary or tankered offsite to a suitable Wastewater
Treatment facility.
Transporting the dredge spoil to and from a landfill would also require over 50,000 HGV
movements. This would have a negative environmental impact with respect to the road
infrastructure and emissions to air, notably CO2.
The waste will be subject to Landfill Tax. The landfill tax as of September 2011 is €50 per
tonne. This will increase to €65 per tonne from July 2012 and €75 per tonne from July 2013.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-11
The volume of dredge spoil is 150,000 cubic metres which equates to circa 210,000 tonnes.
The landfill tax alone will therefore be in the range € 13.6 – 15.7 million.
The above serves to illustrate that disposal at a suitably licensed landfill is not a viable option
and can be discounted as an alternative option to disposal at sea.
Reclamation
The expected spoil is of relatively poor quality in engineering terms and may not be suitable
for land reclamation projects except in specific circumstances where the poor properties of the
material would not be considered a significant constraint. However, to date no such projects
have been identified within close proximity to the site. The spoil would need to be de-watered
before it could be re-used. There would also be implications in terms of its use due to the
saline nature of the material. The chosen site would need to have some saline intrusion in
order for it to be considered suitable for use. Therefore, this option may not be economically
viable or technically feasible and therefore this option is discounted.
Dumping at Sea
The material which is proposed for dredging behind the east jetty is generally suitable for
dispoal at sea based on the results of sediment analysis carried out by the Radiological
Protection Institute and the Marine Institute (See section 10.2 – 10.4). Based on the findings
from the sediment analysis, the marine institute review and the findings of the Environmental
Impact Assessment the dumping of the dredge spoil will not have significant negative impacts
on the Water Quality within the Shannon Estuary. While costs will be incurred in the capture of
the material and the transport of the material to the selected dump site it will be considerably
less than the costs which would be incurred if transferred to land for re-use, landfill or
incineration. Therefore, this option is considered the most viable from both an economic and
ecological perspective. The dumping of any dredge spoil at sea would be subject to a
separate assessment under the Dumping at Sea permit application to the EPA.
10.6 CONCLUSION
From the assessment of the various options together with the sediment analysis and
subsequent review, it was concluded that sediment from Foynes Port were considered
suitable for disposal at sea.
Within the vicinity of Foynes Port there exists an approved dump site which has previously
been used for the deposition of dredge spoil and has no know public health implications
associated with it. In terms of the ecological implications the dumpsite has a history of
dumping with further dumping of material unlikely to have a significant impact given the recent
history of similar dumping operations. Overall, in environmental terms this option will have
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 10.0: SEDIMENT QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 10-12
negligible impacts on the proposed dumpsite as it has been used in the past for dumping of
material
This will form part of a separate dumping at sea application to the EPA. Approvals for dumping
at sea are based on the advice of the Marine Licence Vetting Committee (MLVC). This is an
inter agency group, which manages the application and vetting process for dumping at sea.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-1
11.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION
11.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the EIS includes an assessment of the potential noise and vibration impacts
associated with the proposed port reclamation works at Shannon Foynes Port.
The likely noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed development have been
assessed in the context of the following:
Noise and vibration impact associated with construction phase activities at the port;
Noise and vibration impact associated with construction phase deliveries to and from
the proposed site;
Noise and vibration impact at the nearest noise sensitive receptors from noise
generated by the operation of the site (e.g. plant & equipment operating on-site etc.);
Noise and vibration impact associated with alterations to operational phase traffic
movements to and from the proposed site.
This section should be read in conjunction with Figure 11.1 contained in Appendix 7.
11.2 METHODOLOGY
11.2.1 Relevant Noise Guidance Documents
Guidance Note for Noise in Relation to Schedules Activities, 2nd Edition (EPA, 2006)
This EPA noise guidance document is intended to provide information, advice and guidance
on noise from activities licenced by the EPA under the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control
(IPPC) and waste licensing systems in Ireland.
The guidance document sets out basic noise and vibration concepts and provides a variety of
practical techniques and measures for controlling noise. The document has been used as a
reference document for completing the noise and vibration assessment for the proposed
development.
Environmental Noise Survey Guidance Document (EPA, 2003)
This guidance document was created to provide acoustic guidelines to the operators of
activities which are listed in the First Schedule of the EPA Act 1992, activities which are
normally subject to IPC regime. The guidelines provide guidelines for conducting and
completing Annual Noise Surveys.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-2
While not specifically related to the completion of noise surveys for the planning process, the
guidelines provide useful reference material for general noise surveys. It is in this context that
these guidelines have been used as reference guidelines for the noise surveys completed as
part of the proposed development.
Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements) (EPA, 2003)
This guidance document along with the EPA Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in
Environmental Impact Statements (2002) provides the guidelines on current practice for the
structure and content of Environmental Impact Statements in Ireland.
While the guidelines relate to all of the significant environmental issues that generally are of
interest for EIA projects, it also gives specific guidance relating to noise and vibration.
Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes (NRA,
2004)
These guidelines provide specific and detailed guidance on all aspects of the survey and
assessment of noise and vibration for road schemes in Ireland. While the guidance document
relates specifically to noise and vibration from road schemes, it provides useful reference
material that can be used for noise and vibration assessments such as the proposed Shannon
Foynes Port development.
World Health Organisation (WHO) – Guidelines for Community Noise (1999)
In 1999, the World Health Organisation (WHO) proposed guidelines for community noise. In
this guidance, a LAeq threshold daytime noise limit of 55 dB is suggested for outdoor living
areas in order to protect the majority of people from being seriously annoyed. A second
daytime limit of 50 dB is also given as a threshold limit for moderate annoyance.
The guidelines suggest that an internal LAeq not greater than 30 dB for continuous noise is
needed to prevent negative effects on sleep. This is equivalent to a façade level of 45 dB LAeq,
assuming open windows or a free-field level of about 42 dB LAeq. If the noise is not
continuous, then the internal level required to prevent negative effects on sleep is an LAmax,fast
of 45 dB. Therefore, for sleep disturbance, the continuous level as well as the number of
noisy events should be considered.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-3
World Health Organisation (WHO) – Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise (2011)
This recent WHO document was prepared by experts in working groups convened by the
WHO Regional Office for Europe to provide technical support to policy-makers and their
advisors in the quantitative risk assessment of environmental noise, using evidence and data
available in Europe.
The document presents the most updated views on the relationship between environmental
noise and specific health effects, including cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment, sleep
disturbance and tinnitus. The document is used as a useful reference document in
determining the likely noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed development.
British Standard 8233: 1999 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings – Code
of Practice
BS8233:1999 provides guidance values for a range of ambient noise levels within residential
properties as shown in Table 11.1 below.
Table 11.1 Internal Ambient Noise Levels for Bedrooms and Living Rooms
Design Range dB LAeq,t Citation Typical Situation
Good Reasonable
Living rooms 30 40 Reasonable resting/
sleeping conditions Bedrooms 30 35
British Standard BS4142: 1997 – Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed
residential and industrial areas
BS4142: 1997 describes a method of determining the level of a noise of an industrial nature,
together with procedures for assessing whether the noise in question is likely to give rise to
complaints from persons living in the vicinity. In general, the likelihood of complaint in
response to a noise depends on factors including the margin by which it exceeds the
background noise level, its absolute level, time of day, change in noise environment etc., as
well as local attitudes to the premises and the nature of the neighbourhood.
The standard has been used in this assessment in order to characterise whether the noise
generated from the proposed development is likely to give rise to complaints in the residential
units nearest the proposed development.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-4
Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) – Department of Transport (Welsh Office)
This Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) guidance document outlines the procedures to
be applied for calculating noise from road traffic. These procedures provide guidance
appropriate to the calculation of traffic noise for general applications e.g. environmental
appraisal of road schemes, highway design and land use planning.
The document consists of three different sections, covering a general method for predicting
noise levels at a distance from a highway, additional procedures for more specific situations
and a measurement method for situations where the prediction method is not suitable. The
prediction method constitutes the preferred calculation technique but in a small number of
cases, traffic conditions may fall outside the scope of the prediction method and it will then be
necessary to resort to measurement. The prediction method has been used in this instance to
determine the likely noise impact from traffic flow increases as a result of the proposed
development.
British Standard BS 5228:2009 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites
This British standard consists of two parts and covers the need for protection against noise
and vibration of persons living and working in the vicinity of construction and open sites. The
standard recommends procedures for noise and vibration control in respect of construction
operations and aims to assist architects, contractors and site operatives, designers,
developers, engineers, local authority environmental health officers and planners.
Part 1 of the standard provides a method of calculating noise from construction plant,
including:
Tables of source noise levels
Methods for summing up contributions from intermittently operating plant
A procedure for calculating noise propagation
A method for calculating noise screening effects
A way of predicting noise from mobile plant, such as haul roads.
The standard also provides guidance on legislative background, community relations, training,
nuisance, project supervision and control of noise and vibration.
11.2.2 Consultation
As part of the preparation for survey and assessment of noise and vibration issues associated
with the proposed development, a consultation exercise was undertaken with the
environmental health officers in Limerick County Council.
The proposed survey and assessment methodology was discussed with the council with a
view to gaining general approval with regard to the approach to be adopted for the noise and
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-5
vibration assessment. The EHO was invited to forward any comments or information that may
supplement the survey and assessment work completed as part of the proposed development.
11.2.3 Vibration
Any potential vibration impacts associated with the proposed development will be associated
with the construction phase. Vibration threshold values discussed below are presented in the
context of potential vibration effects from the construction phase. Any plant/equipment
associated with the operational phase will be sufficiently distant so as not to present any
potential vibration impacts at the nearest noise sensitive properties.
Limits of transient vibration, above which cosmetic damage could occur, are given numerically
in Table 11.2 (Ref: BS5228-2:2009). Minor damage is possible at vibration magnitudes which
are greater than twice those given in Table 11.2, and major damage to a building structure can
occur at values greater than four times the tabulated values (definitions of the damage
categories are presented in BS7385-1:1990).
Table 11.2 Transient Vibration Guide Values for Cosmetic Damage (Ref BS5228-
2:2009)
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) (mm/s) in Frequency
Range of Predominant Pulse
Type of Building
4 Hz to 15 Hz 15 Hz and above
Reinforced or framed structures.
Industrial and heavy commercial
buildings.
50 mm/s at 4 Hz and
above
50 mm/s at 4 Hz and above
Unreinforced or light framed
structures.
Residential or light commercial
buildings.
15 mm/s at 4 Hz
increasing to 20 mm/S at
15 Hz
20 mm/s at 15 Hz
increasing to 50 mm/s at 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.
The human body is an excellent detector of vibration, which can become perceptible at levels
which are substantially lower than those required to cause building damage. The human body
is most sensitive to vibration in the vertical direction (foot to head). The effect of vibration on
humans is guided by British Standard 6472:1992. This standard does not give guidance on
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-6
the limit of perceptibility, but it is generally accepted that vibration becomes perceptible at
levels of approximately 0.15 to 0.3 mm/s.
BS 6472 defines base curves, in terms of root mean square (rms) acceleration, which are
used to assess continuous vibration. Table 5 of the Standard states that in residential
buildings, the base curve should be multiplied by 1.4 at night and by 2 to 4 during the daytime
to provide magnitudes at which the probability of adverse comment is low.
In order to assess human exposure to vibration, ideally, measurements need to be undertaken
at the point at which the vibration enters the body, i.e. measurements would need to be taken
inside properties. However, various conversion factors have been established to convert
vibration levels measured at a foundation to levels inside buildings, depending on the structure
of the building.
Where vibration is intermittent or occurs as a series of events, the use of Vibration Dose
Values (VDVs) is recommended in BS 6472 for the assessment of subjective response to
vibration. The VDVs at which it is considered there will be a low probability of adverse
comment are drawn from BS 6472 and presented in Table 11.3.
Table 11.3 Threshold Values for the Evaluation of Disturbance Due to Vibration
Place Daytime 16 Hour VDV (ms-1.75) Night-time 8 Hour VDV (ms-1.75)
Critical working Area 0.11 0.09
Residential 0.22 – 0.43 0.13
Office 0.43 0.361
Workshops 0.87 0.73
These VDV thresholds do not apply unless night-time work was a regular activity at these
premises.
11.2.4 Methodology for Noise Monitoring
Baseline noise monitoring was conducted in the vicinity of the proposed development site in
order to characterise the noise environment in the vicinity of the nearest noise sensitive
properties to the proposed development. A total of 5 locations were selected to represent the
nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed development. The noise monitoring locations are
illustrated in Figure 11.1.
At the nearest noise sensitive property to the existing Shannon Foynes Port, daytime
monitoring was carried out for two separate one-hour periods. Daytime noise monitoring was
also completed for 15 minutes at four other locations at varying distance from the existing port.
Six measurements of five minutes duration were undertaken at location 1 during the night-time
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-7
period. Night-time monitoring was also undertaken at each of the 4 other locations for a period
of five minutes. Subjective noisy events were recorded during each logging period.
Noise monitoring was carried out on-site using a Bruël & Kjær 2250 Hand Held Analyzer and a
Bruël & Kjær Type 4231 Sound Level Calibrator. This instrumentation conforms to the
requirements for integrating averaging sound level meters (Type 1) as specified in BS EN
60804. The sound level meter was accurately calibrated before use.
Measurements were made at a height of 1.2 – 1.5m above ground level. The weather
conditions were in accordance with the requirements of BS7445: Description and
Measurement of Environmental Noise.
The following parameters were recorded during each monitoring period:
LAeq The continuous equivalent A-weighted sound pressure level. This is an “average”
of the sound pressure level.
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.
11.3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
Noise monitoring was carried out at the proposed development site on 16/08/10 and 17/08/10.
The noise monitoring locations are illustrated in Figure 11.1. The noise measurements
attained during daytime and night-time monitoring surveys are displayed in Table 11.4 below
and subjective noisy events are described in Table 11.5.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-8
Table 11.4 Summary of Daytime and Night-time Noise Monitoring
Monitoring Time Period
Measured
LAeq
dB(A)
Measured
LAmax
dB(A)
Measured
LAmin
dB(A)
Measured
LA10
dB(A)
Measured
LA90
dB(A)
Daytime
Noise Monitoring Location 1
(L1) 14:05 – 15:05 (16/08/10)
49.8 72.3 42.8 51.4 45.6
Noise Monitoring Location 1
(L1)
11:45– 12:45 (17/08/10)
51.9 69.0 45.8 53.7 49.4
Cumulative L1
51.0 72.3 42.8 52.6 47.5
Noise Monitoring Location 2
(L2) 15:40– 15:55 (16/08/10)
57.3 84.6 42.6 60.3 46.1
Noise Monitoring Location 3
(L3) 16:06– 16:16 (16/08/10)
69.7 84.9 41.9 74.1 49.8
Noise Monitoring Location 4
(L4) 16:21 – 16:36 (16/08/10)
47.9 65.4 33.4 50.6 38.9
Noise Monitoring Location 5
(L5) 16:42 – 16:57 (16/08/10)
43.5 56.4 36.6 45.8 40.0
Night time
Noise Monitoring Location 1
(L1) M1: 23:04 – 23:09
(16/08/10)
50.3 65.0 42.6 51.7 44.1
L1 – Measurement 2
23:11 – 23:16 (16/08/10)
49.8 75.8 47.8 48.5 44.1
L1 – Measurement 3
23:17 – 23:22(16/08/10)
45.9 64.6 43.0 46.9 44.0
L1 – Measurement 4
23:22 – 23:27 (16/08/11)
45.8 61.0 42.7 47.0 43.8
L1 – Measurement 5
23:28 – 23:33 (16/08/10)
46.7 68.4 42.2 48.0 44.3
L1 – Measurement 6
23:34 – 23:39 (16/08/10)
48.2 73.0 43.4 49.9 44.5
Cumulative L1
48.2 75.8 42.2 48.7 44.1
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-9
Monitoring Time Period
Measured
LAeq
dB(A)
Measured
LAmax
dB(A)
Measured
LAmin
dB(A)
Measured
LA10
dB(A)
Measured
LA90
dB(A)
Noise Monitoring Location 2
(L2)
23:43 – 23:48 (16/08/10)
49.1 71.3 41.7 48.7 43.1
Noise Monitoring Location 3
(L3)
23:52 – 23:57 (16/08/10)
63.8 84.1 33.1 65.1 36.4
Noise Monitoring Location 4
(L4)
00:00 – 00:05 (16/08/10)
50.0 65.9 30.8 53.7 32.7
Noise Monitoring Location 5
(L5)
00:09– 00:14 (16/08/10)
38.0 52.4 30.7 42.0 32.1
Noise Monitoring Location 1
(L1)
11:45– 12:45 (17/08/10)
51.9 69.0 45.8 53.7 49.4
Table 11.5 Subjective Noisy Events Recorded During Noise Monitoring Surveys
Monitoring Time Period Subjective Noisy Event
Daytime
Noise Monitoring Location 1
(L1) 14:05 – 15:05 (16/08/10)
Dominant road traffic noise, bird noise and noise from the port*. Also
a sewage pump was operating for 10minutes during the recording,
approximately 12 meters from the noise meter. A dog was barking
and there was general people activity.
Noise Monitoring Location 1
(L1)
11:45– 12:45 (17/08/10)
Dominant noise from port*. Dog barking. Church bells.
Noise Monitoring Location 2
(L2) 15:40– 15:55 (16/08/10)
Dominant road traffic noise, bird noise and noise from port*. People
activity.
Noise Monitoring Location 3
(L3) 16:06– 16:16 (16/08/10)
Dominant road traffic noise and bird noise. Drone from generator
inside garage and car idling at garage.
Noise Monitoring Location 4
(L4) 16:21 – 16:36 (16/08/10)
Dominant road traffic noise and bird noise. Faint hum from port.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-10
Monitoring Time Period Subjective Noisy Event
Noise Monitoring Location 5
(L5) 16:42 – 16:57 (16/08/10)
Dominant road traffic noise and bird noise. Reversing siren at the
port. People activity.
Night time
Noise Monitoring Location 1
(L1) M1: 23:04 – 23:09
(16/08/10)
Dominant noise from port*. Dog barking.
L1 – Measurement 2
23:11 – 23:16 (16/08/10)
Dominant noise from port*. Car door closing. Car starting up. Dog
barking.
L1 – Measurement 3
23:17 – 23:22(16/08/10)
Dominant noise from port*.
L1 – Measurement 4
23:22 – 23:27 (16/08/11)
Dominant road traffic noise.
L1 – Measurement 5
23:28 – 23:33 (16/08/10)
Dominant road traffic noise and noise from port*. Car door closing.
L1 – Measurement 6
23:34 – 23:39 (16/08/10)
Dominant road traffic noise.
Noise Monitoring Location 2
(L2)
23:43 – 23:48 (16/08/10)
Dominant road traffic noise. Car door closing. Car horn in distance.
Noise Monitoring Location 3
(L3)
23:52 – 23:57 (16/08/10)
Dominant noise from port*.
Noise Monitoring Location 4
(L4)
00:00 – 00:05 (16/08/10)
Dominant road traffic noise. Car door closing.
Noise Monitoring Location 5
(L5)
00:09– 00:14 (16/08/10)
Dominant road traffic noise.
Noise Monitoring Location 1
(L1)
11:45– 12:45 (17/08/10)
Dominant noise from port*. Dog barking.
* Port noise included HGVs, reversing siren, occasional loud bangs resulting from the movement of large
containers, men shouting, the dumping of large quantities of coal and grain and a continuous hum.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-11
11.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
11.4.1 Construction Phase
Construction Phase – General Description
Chapter 4 of the EIS outlines a general description of the proposed development, which also
includes a description of the construction phase. In general terms, a number of retaining
structures will be required in order to carry out the reclamation works, namely a combi wall, an
anchor wall structure and the excavation and replacement of soft soil deposits with imported
rockfill.
The combi-wall structure will comprise tubular steel piles installed at intervals with traditional
steel sheet piles filling the spaces between. It is envisaged that this activity will take place
over a period of approximately 5-6 months.
Existing deposits of soft clays will be excavated and replaced with rockfill from quarried
sources. In the course of replacing the clay deposits, bunds will be formed using rockfill to
facilitate the installation of the anchor wall structure.
Dredging will be required to provide sufficient water depths for vessels at all stages of the tide.
Dredging will entail excavation of uncompacted clays and silts, but no rock dredging is
anticipated. Dredged material will be dumped at sea (subject of a separate application to the
EPA).
Typical noise levels from various relevant construction plant are displayed in Table 11.6. The
plant shown in Table 11.6 is representative of the type of plant that will be in use for the
construction phase of the proposed development.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-12
Table 11.6 Noise Levels for Construction Plant (Ref: BS 5228:2009)
Activity / Plant
(Reference from BS5228:2009, table reference
indicated in brackets)
Power Rating
(kW)
Equipme
nt Size,
Weight
(Mass),
Capacity
Activity
Equivalent
Continuous
Sound
Pressure
Level LAeq
at 10m (dB)
Sheet Steel Piling [D4, Ref 13] 220,00kg/pile 78
Tubular Steel Casting / pile cast in place [D4, Ref 19] 4t 1m drop 87
Impact bored / pile cast in place [D4, Ref 26] 2 x 16kW 83
Digging out river - tracted Excavator & Water Pump*
[D12, Ref 2]**
46
6
85
Clearing river bank (tracked loader) [D12, Ref 3]** 37 80
Trench Filling (wheeled excavator/loader) [D3, Ref
107]
46 82
Dump truck [D3, Ref 60] 450 50t 82
Combined Noise Level of All Above Equipment
92
* submersible pump will be used for dredging rather than dredging using ship chain bucket
** Reference to ‘river’ is direct quote from BS5228:2009, obviously this applies to the sea in this instance
The above table gives a combined worst-case noise level for construction phase activities at
the proposed development site. This combined predicted noise level has been used for the
purposes of making worst-case construction phase noise predictions at the nearest noise
sensitive properties to the proposed development.
Predicted Impact of Construction Noise from Proposed Development
Construction activity for the proposed development will generally operate between the hours of
08:00 and 18:00 on Monday to Fridays, between 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and there will
be no activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There may be a requirement for certain activities
to be undertaken outside these hours, especially where tidal influences have critical impacts
on the works to be undertaken. Any such activities will not be undertaken without prior
agreement with the local authority and liaison with the local community.
The sequence of construction phase activities required as part of the proposed development is
detailed below:
Carry out enabling works;
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-13
Installation of combi wall from deck level of existing jetty structure;
Excavation of overlying silts behind installed combi wall;
Fill in wedge of excavated soil with rockfill material;
Formation of bund structure;
Installation of capping beam above new combi wall structure;
Installation of anchor wall and tie rods;
Completion of filling operations;
Installation of rock armour revetments at ends of reclaimed areas;
Installation of transfer slab between rear of existing jetty and reclaimed area;
Installation of drainage and surfacing.
The precise construction strategy to be adopted will be a matter for the contractor and it is
likely that construction noise levels experienced during the construction phase will vary over
the duration of the construction phase depending on the nature and extent of the activities
taking place.
In order to assess the worst-case construction noise level from the proposed development, a
worst-case noise level of 92 dB(A) at 10m (see combined noise level from Table 11.6) has
been used. This combined noise level assumes all activities listed in Table 11.6 will be taking
place simultaneously and continuously at the nearest point of the construction phase activities
to the nearest noise sensitive properties. This worst-case combined noise level would be
expected to be in excess of what would be experienced in reality during the construction
phase.
Table 11.7 below includes worst-case construction noise level predictions at a selection of the
nearest noise sensitive properties to the proposed development. The hard ground distance
attenuation equation from BS5228:2009 (Equation F1, Annex F) has been assumed for all of
the noise level predictions included in this table in order to ensure a worst-case scenario is
assessed. The location of these properties is illustrated in Figure 11.1.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-14
Table 11.7 Worst-Case Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Noise
Sensitive Properties
Noise Sensitive
Receptor
(See Fig 11.1)
Worst-Case
LAeq @ 10m
(dBA)
Distance from
Construction
Boundary (m)
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA)
Building/
Barrier
Attenuation
(dBA)
Predicted
Worst-Case
Construction
Noise (dBA)
1 92 290 -29 -10 53
2 92 221 -27 -5 60
3 92 189 -26 -5 61
4 92 181 -25 -5 62
5 92 217 -27 -5 60
6 92 298 -29 -10 53
7 92 291 -29 -10 53
8 92 226 -27 -10 55
9 92 237 -27 -5 60
10 92 417 -32 -10 50
11 92 502 -34 -10 48
12 92 641 -36 -10 46
Table 11.7 demonstrates that there is potential for construction noise impacts at the nearest
noise sensitive properties if worst-case construction activities take place at the boundary of the
proposed development site. There is potential for worst-case construction noise levels up to
the low 60s dB(A) at the nearest properties if the combined construction phase activities were
undertaken at the boundary of the proposed development site with the nearest properties.
Table 11.4 presents the noise levels recorded at a number of the nearest noise sensitive
properties to the proposed development. The predicted construction phase noise levels
included in Table 11.7 illustrate that there is potential for construction phase noise levels
marginally above the existing ambient noise levels at a number of the nearest noise sensitive
properties.
On the basis of the predicted worst-case construction noise levels from the proposed
development, there will be a requirement for mitigation measures to be put in place in order to
ensure that construction noise levels are reduced as much as practicable. Noise mitigation
measures for construction activities are outlined in Section 11.5 below.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-15
Construction Traffic on the Road Network
A Transport Assessment (TA) has been completed for the proposed development. The
assessment of traffic movements associated with the construction phase of the proposed
development indicated that there would be 21,005 vehicle movements in total associated with
the proposed reclamation works. The most rigorous demand in terms of traffic movements will
be during the 10th and 11th months of the construction phase with 4,954 traffic movements
accessing the site each month. This equates to 21 vehicle movements per hour on the basis
of a 10-hour day.
On the basis of the factored 18-hour AADT traffic flows for the main port entrance road and
the East Link Road, the HGV traffic movements associated with the worst-case construction
phase periods (i.e. months 10 and 11) will result in an increase in traffic flows along these
routes. If it were assumed that all of this HGV construction traffic were to use one or the other
of the routes, the increase would be 50% in the case of the main port entrance or 47%
increase in the case of the East Link Road. However, it must be acknowledged that this
proportional increase is significant only on account of the existing flows on these routes being
so low. Even with the worst-case construction phase traffic flows using these roads, the AADT
traffic flow will be very low (i.e. less than 500 vehicle movements per day). These flows are
too low for accurate traffic noise level predictions to be made in accordance with the CRTN.
As the traffic flows will be so low, any potential noise impact associated with the construction
phase HGV movements will be minor.
The most significant increase in traffic flows along the N69 route as a result of construction
phase HGV movements will be a 12% increase along a portion of the N69 West during the
worst-case construction phase months (i.e. months 10 and 11). It takes a 25% increase in
traffic flows to result in a 1dB(A) increase in traffic noise levels. On account of this,
construction phase traffic along this portion of the N69 West will result in a noise level increase
significantly less than 1 dB(A), which would be imperceptible and hence of negligible impact.
11.4.2 Operational Phase
The potential noise impact resulting from the operational phase of the proposed development
has been assessed to determine effects on the nearest sensitive receptors.
Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) Assessment
A Transport Assessment (TA) has been undertaken for the proposed development and is
submitted as part of the planning application for the proposed development. The TA states
that only traffic movements associated with the delivery of materials during the construction
phase are included in the assessment. The TA confirms that there are no proposals to
increase the final traffic flows once the harbour extension has been completed. On this basis,
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-16
there will be no operational phase traffic noise increases associated with the proposed
development.
Operational Phase Noise from Proposed Development Site
The proposed development will result in the addition of an area of reclaimed land to the
existing port facilities. The proposal is for the area between the East Jetty and the foreshore
to be infilled and maintained as a storage area for the port activities. The reclaimed area will
be used for storage in a manner not dissimilar to the existing use of the West Jetty. See
Figure 11.1 for the locations of the East and West Jetties.
It is not intended that the proposed additional storage area will increase the throughput of the
port activities; the intention is that it will improve the operation of the port activities in the
context of its existing operations. Therefore, while there will be an additional storage area at
the port, the overall activities of the port will not necessarily increase.
The new storage area will require the presence of some additional plant, which is
characterised in Table 11.8 below.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-17
Table 11.8 Additional Operational Plant to be Used at the Proposed Reclaimed
Area
Activity / Plant
(Reference from BS5228:2009, table reference
indicated in brackets)
Power
Rating
(kW)
Equipment
Size,
Weight
(Mass),
Capacity
Activity Equivalent
Continuous Sound
Pressure Level
LAeq at 10m (dB)
Site fork lift trucks [D7, Ref 93] 32 - 76
Diesel Hoist [D7, Ref 97] 6 - 73
Harbour Mobile Crane* 73
Combined Noise Level of All Above Equipment
79
* Average SPL @ 10m derived from literature research from numerous sources
For the purposes of assessment, some noise level predictions have been undertaken to determine the
worst-case noise levels from the proposed plant at the nearest noise sensitive properties. These
predictions assume that all of the specified plant is operating simultaneously, continuously and at the
nearest point on the proposed reclaimed area to the relevant property.
Table 11.9 Worst-Case Operational Noise from Proposed Plant at Nearest Noise
sensitive Properties
Noise Sensitive
Receptor
(See Fig 11.1)
Worst-Case
LAeq @ 10m
(dBA)
Distance from
Construction
Boundary (m)
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA)
Building/
Barrier
Attenuation
dB(A)
Predicted
Worst-Case
Noise Level
(dBA)
1 79 290 -29 -10 40
2 79 221 -27 -5 47
3 79 189 -26 -5 48
4 79 181 -25 -5 49
5 79 217 -27 -5 47
6 79 298 -29 -10 40
7 79 291 -29 -10 40
8 79 226 -27 -10 42
9 79 237 -27 -5 47
10 79 417 -32 -10 37
11 79 502 -34 -10 35
12 79 641 -36 -10 33
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-18
The predicted worst-case noise levels illustrated in Table 11.9 are at worst similar to the
background daytime noise levels (LA90) recorded in the vicinity of the relevant property as
presented in Table 11.4. On the basis of a BS4142 assessment, such predicted noise levels
would not result in a strong likelihood of complaint even assuming a tonal penalty of 5dB(A).
The predicted noise levels would be below the WHO guideline thresholds for moderate and
serious annoyance and would not present any difficulties in terms of the BS8233 internal
thresholds for speech intelligibility and sleep disturbance being achieved.
The above predictions assume continuous, simultaneous activity from all of the plant at the
nearest point of the reclaimed land to the nearest properties. This will not be the case in
reality. The proposed development will result in no nett increase in overall activity at the port.
Overall, there will be no significant operational noise impact associated with the proposed
development.
11.5 MITIGATION
11.5.1 Construction Phase
It has been proposed at the outset that the hours of operation for construction works will be
between 08:00 and 18:00 from Monday to Friday, between 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and
no activities on Sundays and Bank Holidays. There may be a requirement for certain activities
to be undertaken outside these hours, especially where tidal influences have critical impacts
on the works to be undertaken. Any such activites will not be undertaken without prior
agreement with the local authority and liaison with the local community.
A detailed programme for the construction phase will be prepared as part of the detailed
design phase and will include information such as notifications, contact numbers, method of
appointing contractor, monitoring, contractual conditions and timescales. The programme of
works will be agreed with Limerick County Council and the successful contractor will be
obliged to comply with the information therein.
Piling
As outlined in Section 11.4.1, there will be a requirement for tubular steel piles to be installed
at intervals with traditional steel sheet piles filling the space between. The noise impact
associated with the piling operations has been included in the cumulative predicted noise level
included in Table 11.6.
The standard to be achieved during piling operations and the selection criteria for contractors
will be agreed with Limerick County Council prior to works commencing. This operation
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-19
should be carried out using recognised noise reducing systems and only during specified
working hours. The activity will be confined to specific locations and will be of limited duration.
Vibration
Subject to vibration at sensitive locations not exceeding 5mm/s during general construction
works and 10mm/s during piling, structural damage to buildings is highly unlikely.
Monitoring
It may be necessary to conduct noise monitoring of construction works during noisy or
extensive works at locations close to the nearest residential properties. Noise levels limits set
down by Limerick County Council should be adhered to. In the absence of specific noise
thresholds specified by the council, the contractor should abide by recognised standard noise
guidelines such as the ABC Method described in Section E3, Annex E, BS5228:2009.
Specific Mitigating Measures for Construction Phase
As described in Section 11.4, there is potential for construction noise levels from the proposed
development site to reach up to the high 50s dB(A) at some properties if worst-case noise
levels are emitted at the boundary of the proposed site and if no mitigating measures are put
in place.
Table 11.4 presents the noise levels recorded in the vicinity of those properties nearest to the
proposed development site. The ambient noise level (i.e. LAeq) in the vicinity of the nearest
properties (i.e. those characterised by noise monitoring locations L1 and L2) are in the low to
low 60s dB(A). Table 11.7 illustrates that there is potential for worst-case noise levels to reach
the low 60s dB(A) with no mitigation measures in place.
It is recommended that a robust temporary barrier (minimum of 3m height) is put up along the
boundary of the proposed construction activities nearest to the closest noise sensitive
properties. On account of the location of construction activities in the vicinity of the water,
careful thought and planning must go into the design and placement of such a barrier. The
barrier would be located at the boundary between the foreshore and sea as illustrated in
Figure 11.1. The exact dimensions for the barrier would be worked out as part of the detailed
construction plan for the proposed works. Such a barrier, if constructed in accordance with
sound acoustic principles, should offer a minimum of 10dBA attenuation on ground based
activities in close proximity to the boundary barrier.
In addition to this, a detailed construction plan will be prepared and will include a range of
measures aimed at reducing the potential construction noise impact on the nearest properties
to the proposed development site. This plan will address the mode and timing of construction
activity during the construction phase, aiming to reduce the noisiest activities in the vicinity of
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-20
the boundary of the proposed site. The plan will set out modes of operation that will ensure
that construction plant will not all be operating simultaneously close to the boundary that is
nearest to the closest noise sensitive properties (i.e. the worst-case noise levels specified in
Table 11.7 will not be realised). This plan will also address the issues relating to collaboration
with the local community in order to reduce as much as possible the potential impact from
construction noise.
A range of measures will be taken to ensure that the quietest machinery is used or that the
use of machinery is such as to be sensitive to the residents at the nearest properties. This will
be detailed in the construction plan mentioned above.
British Standard BS5228:2009 – Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites
outlines a range of measures that can be used to reduce the impact of construction phase
noise on the nearest noise sensitive receptors. These measures will be applied by the
contractor where appropriate during the constriction phase of the proposed development.
Examples of some of the best practice measures included in BS5228 are listed below:
ensuring that mechanical plant and equipment used for the purpose of the works are
fitted with effective exhaust silencers and are maintained in good working order;
careful selection of quiet plant and machinery to undertake the required work where
available;
all major compressors should be ‘sound reduced’ models fitted with properly lined and
sealed acoustic covers which should be kept closed whenever the machines are in use;
any ancillary pneumatic percussive tools should be fitted with mufflers or silencers of
the type recommended by the manufacturers;
machines in intermittent use should be shut down in the intervening periods between
work;
ancillary plant such as generators, compressors and pumps should be placed behind
existing physical barriers, and the direction of noise emissions from plant including
exhausts or engines should be placed away from sensitive locations, in order to cause
minimum noise disturbance. Where possible, in potentially sensitive areas, acoustic
barriers of enclosures should be utilised around noisy plant and equipment.
Handling of all materials should take place in a manner which minimises noise
emissions;
Audible warning systems should be switched to the minimum setting required by the
Health & Safety Executive;
In order to minimise the likelihood of complaints, Limerick County Council and affected
residents should be kept informed of the works to be carried out and of any proposals for work
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 11.0: NOISE & VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-21
outside normal hours. A complaints procedure will be operated by the Contractor throughout
the construction phase.
11.5.2 Operational Phase
It is not expected that the operational phase of the proposed development will result in any
significant noise impacts at the nearest noise sensitive properties.
11.6 RESIDUAL IMPACT
The proposed development will result in minor to moderate noise impacts throughout the
duration of the construction phase of the proposed development. The operational phase of
the proposed development will not result in any significant increase in noise generating activity
at the port and therefore there will not be any significant long term increase in noise levels as
a result of the proposed development.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-1
12.0 MATERIAL ASSETS
12.1 INTRODUCTION
This Chapter discusses the Material Assets within the Foynes area. Material Assets are
generally considered to be the physical resources in the environment which may be either of
human or natural origin. The object of the assessment of these resources is to identify the
impact of the development on individual enterprises or properties and to ensure that natural
resources are used in a sustainable manner in order to ensure availability for future
generations.
12.2 INFRASTRUCTURE
12.2.1 Water Supply
Foynes is serviced by Limerick County Council Foynes/Shannon Estuary Public Drinking
Water Supply Scheme which serves circa. 1480 people. The proposed jetty development will
not result in a substantial increase in water demand from the water supply and therefore the
existing water supply to Foynes will be capable of servicing the new port jetty without causing
any disruption to the village’s water supply
12.2.2 Sewerage Infrastructure
At present sewage from Foynes village is collected in a combined sewer and is discharged
untreated directly into the harbour. A new waste water treatment works has been proposed as
part of the Askeaton Sewerage Scheme (Formerly Athea Askeaton Foynes Shanagolden Glin
grouped sewerage scheme). The Askeaton Sewerage Scheme is included in the 2010-2012
Water Services Investment Programme by the Department of Environment, Heritage and
Local Government. Currently the sewerage facilities in the town are inadequate and as part of
the scheme the towns are to be provided with wastewater facilities to serve their existing and
future requirements. The overall scheme will cater for a future population loading of 11000PE
in 20 years time. The preliminary report for the project was submitted to the department in
September 2008 and Limerick County Council are awaiting approval to proceed to the detailed
design stage.
The storm water drainage system will collect rainwater incident upon the site for discharge to
the harbour waters via a series of full retention silt traps and oil interceptors. There will be no
increased demand on the existing collection system to convey either sewage or storm water
from the proposed development. Therefore there will be no impact to the existing
infrastructure.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-2
12.2.3 Mechanical and Electrical Services
The proposed expansion of the jetty will continue to be supplied with electricity from the local
network from a high voltage ring main distribution system. There is adequate provision within
the local electricity infrastructure to accommodate the power needs of the proposed
development without causing any impact on Foynes village or the wider supply area.
12.3 ROADS AND TRAFFIC
12.3.1 Existing Transport Network
Introduction
The nature of this particular proposal is such that generated flows will be mostly associated
with the delivery of construction materials. The traffic impact will therefore arise from the
construction phase and this requires an assessment of the delivery options as well as a review
of sustainable travel options for staff working at the site.
Road Access
There are good road linkages provided at both the eastern and western access to the port,
which means that private vehicle access is currently the most popular method of delivery to
and from the site. The eastern access contains a right turning lane for traffic turning onto the
port access road and a dedicated left turning lane for traffic turning out of the access road.
Current arrangements specify that any Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) must not travel through
Foynes Village so that any vehicles approaching from the Tralee direction must access the
port at the western entrance and traffic travelling from the Limerick direction must access the
port via the eastern access. The same system is used for traffic leaving the port. These
accesses are identified in Figure 12-2. These allow the Goods Vehicles to access the Port
without the need to drive along Main Street or the village centre.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-3
Figure 12.1 Map of Critical Delivery Routes
Rail Access
A railway line has been in existence since 1858 and ran as a passenger line from Limerick
City terminating at Foynes. The line was closed to passengers in 1963 and used by Iarnród
Eireann as a freight line until 2000, when it was closed and has not been used since then.
Despite the Shannon Foynes Port Company’s desire to reinstate the line, Iarnród Eireann
currently has no intentions to upgrade. The route of the existing line is shown below in Figure
12.1.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-4
Courtesy of Foynes Heritage Railway Group
Figure 12.2 Route of Limerick to Foynes Railway Line
The feasibility of using the existing rail link will be largely influenced by its location relative to
the source and destination of the construction materials required to be transported to the site.
The largest element of material to be brought to site is the import of rockfill which accounts for
over 94% of the material which will be delivered to site, and is considered to be the critical trip
generator. This will likely be procured from local quarry sources although the final choice of
source will be by the chosen contractor and as such, it is not guaranteed that the source will
be located as to be feasible for delivery by rail. Even if access to the rail line was feasible it
will still be necessary to transport the material from the identified source to the nearest rail link
point, unload, the vehicles and load the rail carriages. After transport to the site this process
will need to be repeated to unload the carriages and move the material to its final destination.
The impact of the additional loading and unloading would make this an unviable option over
such a short distance.
Accessibility on Foot/Bicycle
The port currently has two accesses; one to the east of Foynes village and one to the west.
The junction for the eastern access road is located outside the main confines of the village but
within the 50kph limit. The footpath does not extend to this junction nor does it continue along
the eastern access to the port entrance. Indeed there is limited verge provision along these
roads, preventing access on foot. The western access is located on the edge of Foynes village
within the 50 kph limit and is served by the village’s footpath network. Within the confines of
the port estate itself, there is a limited footpath network so all things considered access on foot
does not prove suitable even for normal access on foot or by bike.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-5
Summary
Ideally a range of sustainable travel modes should be introduced; however due to the nature
of the traffic that will be generated during construction and the lack of sustainable facilities
available, it is suitable to assume that individual construction vehicles will deliver all materials
to the site. This will provide for a robust assessment as the use of sea transport or the
reinstatement of the rail line would result in a lower generation than that considered in this
assessment.
12.3.2 Traffic Generation Due to the Proposed Works
Proposed Development
The proposed land reclamation will involve installation of two combi wall structures; one along
back of the jetty and the other between jetty and dock allowing infilling of the area behind to
reclaim the foreshore.
Construction Traffic
In assessing the number of vehicle movements associated with the proposed construction
works a conservative assumption has been made that all construction materials will be
transported to the site by road. Should some materials be delivered by sea or by rail then In
assessing the number of vehicle movements associated with the proposed construction traffic
impacts will be less than those presented in this assessment
The various tasks associated with the construction works and the amount of associated
materials have been estimated as per table 12.1. The number of vehicles required to
transport the materials to the site have been estimated based on the quantity of material
required and the capacities of plant machinery that will be used to transport the material. This
table offers a clear indication of the total number of vehicles needed to complete the project;
however it is how they are distributed that will influence the traffic impact. Using an indicative
construction programme for the scheme (Figure 12.3), we can allocate resources and
establish when the site will experience the most construction traffic.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-6
Table 12.1 Traffic Generated by Proposed Operations
Operation Unit Quantity Density (t/m³) Total Weight (t) Weight per Vehicle (t) No. of Vehicles
Retaining Structures
Tubular Piles t 2758 2758 20 138
Sheet Piles t 752 752 20 38
Capping Beam Concrete m³ 1238 2.4 2971.2 20 149
Capping Beam Re-bar t 371.4 371.4 20 19
Transfer Slab Concrete m³ 360 2.4 864 20 44
Transfer Slab Re-bar t 72 72 20 4
Connection to Structure m³ 145 2.4 348 20 18
Anchor Wall t 1008 1008 20 51
Tie Rods t 98 98 20 5
Wailers t 39 39 20 2
Reclamation
Imported Rockfill m³ 216384 1.8 3894914.2 20 19475
Rock Armour m³ 2564 2.4 6153.6 20 308
Surfacing
Wearing Course m³ 1057 2.35 2484 20 125
Base Course m³ 1295 2.35 3035 20 153
DBM Sub-base m³ 5284 1.8 9511 20 476
TOTAL 21005
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-7
Figure 12.3 Preliminary Programme for Proposed Operations
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-8
Table 12.2 Traffic Distribution Generated by Proposed Operations
Retaining Structures Reclamation Surfacing Demand Frequency
Month
Tub
ular
Pile
s
She
et P
iles
Cap
ping
Bea
m C
oncr
ete
Cap
ping
Bea
m R
e-ba
r
Tra
nsfe
r S
lab
Con
cret
e
Tra
nsfe
r S
lab
Re-
bar
Con
nect
ion
to S
truc
ture
Anc
hor
Wal
l
Tie
Rod
s
Wai
lers
Impo
rted
Roc
kfill
Roc
k A
rmo
ur
Wea
ring
Cou
rse
Bas
e C
ours
e
DB
M S
ub-b
ase
TO
TA
L
VE
HC
ILE
S/M
ON
TH
TO
TA
L V
EH
ICL
ES
/DA
Y
(24
DA
Y M
ON
TH
)
TO
TA
L V
EH
ICL
ES
/HO
UR
(10H
R D
AY
)
TO
TA
L V
EH
ICL
ES
/HO
UR
(8 H
OU
R D
AY
)
1 0 0 0 0
2 23 7 30 1.25 0.13 0.16
3 23 7 30 1.25 0.13 0.16
4 23 7 30 1.25 0.13 0.16
5 23 7 30 1.25 0.13 0.16
6 23 7 30 1.25 0.13 0.16
7 23 7 30 1.25 0.13 0.16
8 4869 4869 202.88 20.29 25.36
9 4869 4869 202.88 20.29 25.36
10 75 10 4869 4954 206.42 20.64 25.80
11 75 10 4869 4954 206.42 20.64 25.80
12 22 2 9 26 3 1 63 2.63 0.26 0.33
13 22 2 9 26 3 1 103 166 6.92 0.69 0.86
14 103 159 262 10.92 1.09 1.36
15 103 63 77 159 402 16.75 1.68 2.09
16 63 77 159 299 12.4 1.24 1.55
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-9
Table 12.1 shows us that the reclamation works will require a total of 21005 vehicles to
complete and that 19783 of these vehicles will import fill associated with land reclamation.
Using the programme in Figure 12-3, we can see that this aspect of the works will take place
over 5 months and will run simultaneously with the construction of the capping beam for the
combi wall structures. Table 12.2 breaks this programme down further and shows how the
traffic is distributed over this period. It shows that the most rigorous demand occurs during
months 10 and 11 with 3978 vehicles accessing the site for each month, resulting in an
average of 20.7 vehicles/hour.
12.3.3 Traffic Generated By Employees
On-site shift working hours will be between the hours of 07:00-16:00 hours (8 hr day), 6 days
a week. Peak on-site employment is expected to be up to 25-30 persons. It is envisaged that
all employees would travel to and from site by car or light commercial vehicles, at average
vehicles occupancy of 1.3 persons per vehicles.
The peak on-site employment would generate a total of approximately 23 light vehicles
inbound in the AM and approximately 23 vehicles light vehicles outbound in the PM. All peak
traffic generated by on-site employment would occur before the local morning peak period and
overall daily peak hour period, and after the evening peak hour.
Operational Traffic
As the proposed works are intended to improve the flexibility and efficiency of existing harbour
operations there is not expected to be a significant increase in road traffic during the
operational phase.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-10
12.4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
12.4.1 Introduction
While the aim is to encourage sustainable methods to deliver materials to East Jetty, it is more
than likely that most deliveries will be carried out using individual HGVs and this assessment
has been carried out on the conservative assumption that all materials will be delivered by
road. This section provides additional information on the impacts of the generated traffic
relating to the proposed deliveries. It is anticipated that the works will be completed within two
years of the counts being taken; however for the purposes of this study we have also
considered the impact a further 10 and 15 years in the future.
12.4.2 Existing Conditions
In order to determine existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed site, traffic
surveys were undertaken at various junctions adjacent to the site: at both accesses to the port
and the junction of N69 and R521. Surveys were undertaken in AM (0700-0930) and PM
(1600-1830) peak periods. The East Jetty is the junction with slightly higher traffic flows and
as such this is the access that will be tested for capacity issues. The information collated from
the traffic surveys will allow for the determination of a two-way traffic flow and this will be used
to assess the capacity impact for the possible arrival of delivery materials to the site via the
East Jetty. Table 12.3 below summarises the times and locations of the surveys.
Table 12.3 Traffic Survey Details
Location Date Survey Time
26/10/10 0700-0930 Eastern Access to
Shannon Foynes
Port 26/10/10 1630-1830
26/10/10 0700-0930 Western Access to
Shannon Foynes
Port 26/10/10 1630-1830
26/10/10 0700-0930 Junction of N69 &
R521 26/10/10 1630-1830
Surveyors noted the weather was sunny and dry during the survey period and no major
incidents occurred during the traffic survey periods. Traffic flow sheets are included in
Appendix 8 (I). Observed traffic flows on the network are illustrated in the flow diagrams in
Appendix 8 (II). Existing percentage of HGV traffic is illustrated on flow diagrams in Appendix
8 (III).
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-11
The surveys indicated that both accesses to the port had peak hour periods of 0730-0830 in
the AM and 1630-1730 in the PM. The junction of the N69 and R521 had peak periods of
0745-0845 in the AM and 1630-1730 in the PM.
Due to the relatively low number of turning movements recorded at the junction, no queuing
was observed.
12.4.3 NRA Future Road Growth and Factored Traffic Flows
Existing traffic flows in Appendix 8 have been factored using NRA Future Road Growth
Forecasts for Ireland 2002-2040. These are widely accepted as standard for the estimation of
future year existing network traffic. Table 12.4 overleaf details the percentage growth for the
future design years of the development extrapolated from Table 13 of the NRA document.
Table 12.4 NRA Future Road Growth Forecasts
Year Forecasted Number of Registered Cars Percentage Increase
2006 1661655
2007 1704558
2008 1747460
2009 1790363
2010 (Traffic Survey) 1833265
2011 1876168
2012 (Year of Completion) 1906581 3.999%
2013 1936995
2014 1967408
2015 1997822
2016 2028235
2017 2054729
2018 2081223
2019 2107716
2020 2134210
2021 2160704
2022 (Year of Completion +10) 2181072 18.972%
2023 2201440
2024 2221808
2025 2242176
2026 2262544
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-12
Year Forecasted Number of Registered Cars Percentage Increase
2027 (Year of Completion +15) 2276988 24.204%
2028 2291432
2029 2305877
2030 2320321
2031 2334765
Factored existing traffic flow diagrams for design years 2012, 2022 and 2027 are provided in
Appendix 8 (IV).
12.4.4 Committed Development and Base Traffic Flows
As outlined in the scoping study, Limerick County Council’s online planning database has
been consulted in relation to any significant developments that have approval in the
surrounding area. The search indicated that no significant approvals existed and therefore no
committed development has been included in this assessment. Therefore base traffic flows
remain the same as the factored traffic flows provided previously.
12.4.5 Generated Traffic and Traffic Distribution
Vehicle traffic generation associated with the proposed development have been calculated
previously in Chapter 3 and is summarised in Table 12.5 below.
Table 12.5 Generated Vehicle Trips
AM Peak Period PM Peak Period
Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures
Generated Trips 26 26 26 26
In relation to traffic distribution, the potential rockfill source will be subject to future tender;
however it will either approach from the West and enter via the western access, or will
approach from the east and enter the site via the eastern access. As the traffic flows are
slightly higher at the eastern access it has been considered for modelling and capacity
analysis to ensure a robust test. In using the eastern access traffic will avoid Main Street and
the village centre. If the approach route is taken as from the west, then construction traffic will
use the western access to deliver and return from the site, again avoiding the village centre.
For the purpose of testing the capacity of the network the arrivals and departures to/from the
proposed site have been distributed from the site access along the N69. Generated traffic flow
diagrams have been included in Appendix 8 (V).
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-13
12.4.6 Proposed Traffic Flows
Generated traffic flows (Appendix 8 (V)) have been added to the factored/base traffic flows
(Appendix IV) to give proposed design year traffic flows. Proposed design year traffic flow
diagrams have been included in Appendix 8 (VI).
12.4.7 Assessment of Generated Traffic
The Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT) have published guidelines for
undertaking Traffic Impact Assessments. These guidelines have been used as a basis for the
assessment of the traffic generated by the proposed development.
Guidelines recommend that a TIA should be produced when one or other of the following
thresholds are exceeded:
Traffic to and from the development exceeds 10% of the existing two-way flow on the
adjoining highway.
Traffic to and from the development exceeds 5% of the existing two-way flow on the
adjoining highway, where traffic congestion exists or will exist within the assessment
period, or in other sensitive locations.
Percentage Impact diagrams are included in Appendix 8 (VII). The flow diagrams detail two-
way percentage impacts and percentage impacts on individual movements. Since the
surrounding highway network experiences no notable congestion the 10% threshold is
applicable in this instance. The percentage impact diagrams indicate that only the minor arm
(Harbour Access) on the eastern junction exceeds this threshold. Based on relatively low
existing two way flows (94 in the AM peak and 34 in the PM peak), it experiences an increase
of 28% in the AM peak and 68% in the PM peak. This increase is due to the low base flow
and the impact is tested below.
Junction Modelling – Junction of Eastern Access Road and N69
The impacted junction has been assessed using the PICADY (Priority Intersection Capacity
and Delay) modelling package. This package enables the user to predict the capacity, queues
and delays at junctions based on geometric and traffic flow inputs. PICADY is an NRA
approved assessment tool.
The outputs from PICADY present Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) and Queue Lengths (Q) as
indicators of the operational efficiency of a junction. An RFC would indicate that a junction is
operating at its theoretical maximum capacity, however, a value of approximately 0.85 is
considered to be the optimum operational RFC value for a traffic movement at a junction. The
queue length indicated the number of vehicles queuing during the assessment period, typically
the peak hour.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-14
The junction under study is of a high standard and includes dedicated left and right exiting
lanes onto the N69, and a right turning lane for vehicles wishing to access the port. The
dimensions of this junction have been measured for input into the PICADY model, which has
been built for a number of study years. The most onerous of these is 15 years after completion
and Table 12.6 below summarises the output of the PICADY analysis for year of completion
(2012) and 15 years after completion (2027).
Table 12.6 Junction Capacity Analysis – Proposed Site Access
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour MVT
RFC Queue RFC Queue
2012 Proposed
Flows
B-A
B-C
C-B
0.016
0.060
0.133
1
1
1
0.018
0.046
0.067
1
1
1
2027 Proposed
Flows
B-A
B-C
C-B
0.019
0.066
0.154
1
1
2
0.021
0.047
0.072
1
1
1
The analysis shows that the junction operates within capacity for proposed design flows in
year 2027. The maximum RFC in the AM peak period is 15.4% with a maximum queue of
2vehicles and the maximum RFC in the PM peak period is 7.2% with no more than 1 vehicle
queuing. As such the analysis indicates that there is ample capacity to accommodate the
expected level of traffic even if all the vehicles approach from one side of the village.
12.5 MITIGATION MEASURES
12.5.1 Proposals to Improve Access to Harbour
To help improve access to the Harbour, it is proposed to install warning signage in advance of
both junctions to raise awareness of the increase in construction traffic associated with the
works. Skid resistant surfacing will be laid 100m in advance of both east and west harbour
accesses given the increased risk of skidding given the heavy loads involved. Maximum
visibility from the minor arm of the junction is to be provided by cutting back and maintaining
the grass verges along the N69. The current exclusion of HGVs through Foynes Village is to
be maintained to prohibit disruption through the village.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-15
12.6 CONCLUSIONS
The proposal is to reclaim lands at Shannon Foynes Port to extend the harbour at the East
Jetty, providing an increased area for storage and manoeuvre of large vehicles. Under this
scope of study, there are no proposals to increase the final traffic flows once the harbour
extension has been completed, therefore this assessment studies the impact of vehicles
delivering materials during construction work.
While pedestrian, cycling and public transport facilities have been discussed in detail in the
Transport Assessment, the nature of the traffic generated by the land reclamation operation
will be individual HGVs.
During construction, access to the site will be provided via the existing eastern or western
access to Shannon Foynes Port from the N69. The existing eastern access includes a right
turning lane onto the port access road and also a dedicated left turning lane for traffic turning
left out of the port. It has been agreed with Limerick County Council that HGVs through traffic
relating to the construction activities at the proposed site will be directed to use the access
either side of the village and the use of access through the village will be discouraged.
A person trip model has been produced for the proposed development and outlines the likely
levels of walking, cycling, public transport and vehicular trips to the site. The peak traffic flows
occur over a four month period when the rockfill and capping beam are constructed
simultaneously. This results in a peak hourly flow of 20 goods vehicles at the port.
RPS is in possession of traffic surveys undertaken at the both accesses to the Port and also
the junction of the N69 and R521, which are included in Appendix 8 (I). The surveyed traffic
flows have been factored by NRA Traffic Forecasts rates to form factored future year existing
flows. An extensive search showed no committed development was approved for the area.
Generated traffic was added to the future/base traffic flows to give proposed design year flows
for the proposed development.
Distribution of construction traffic will be influenced by the delivery route of the rockfill. It is
assumed that all rockfill material will be sourced from local quarries and delivered to site via
the existing road network. The eastern access currently carries slightly more traffic than the
western access and as such is the junction likely to experience capacity issues first. For the
purpose of this assessment a potential delivery route has been taken along the N69 and to the
eastern access road. This means that 100% of the construction traffic has been assessed as
using this access to test a robust situation. A similar situation would occur if the rockfill was
delivered from the West. In this case the approach route would be along the N69 and would
use the western access. The modelling has taken the junction with the highest flows to test the
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION SECTION 12.0: MATERIAL ASSETS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-16
capacity, and the results indicates that adequate capacity exists to accommodate the
expected level of traffic , if road transport is used as the delivery method of rockfill to the site.
Percentage impact diagrams have been established comparing base traffic flows of opening
year 2012 and proposed traffic flows of 2012. These flows indicate that the increase in traffic
on the minor arm of the eastern junction exceeds the 10% threshold stipulated in the NRA
Guidelines for both the AM and PM peaks.
Results of the PICADY modelling show that even for the most onerous study year of 2027, the
capacity of the access junction is not compromised. The most critical movement from N69
Eastbound/Rock Stockpile to the Harbour Road experiences an RFC of 15.4% in the AM peak
with an 2 cars queuing, while in the PM peak it experiences an RFC of 7.2% with 1 car
queuing. The normal level that notable queuing starts to occur is when the model predicts an
RFC of 85%. Therefore the assessment indicates that the proposed traffic flows during the
construction phase are unlikely to cause any capacity issues on route to the port.
On the basis of this assessment it has been demonstrated and concluded that the combined
traffic impact of the proposed development to and from the site will not have a significant
impact on the surrounding road network. It is noted that the proposed development gives
support to building and working towards the sustainable objectives within the region.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-1
13.0 ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURAL HERITAGE
13.1 FOYNES PORT
This chapter addresses the known and potential archaeological environment; assesses the
actual and proposed impacts on that environment from the works programme; and makes
recommendations to resolve any further archaeological requirements prior to the works
programme commencing.
The Archaeological Diving Company Ltd (ADCO) was appointed by RPS Group Ltd., on behalf
of Shannon Foynes Port Company (SFPC), to undertake a non-disturbance archaeological
and architectural assessment of an area of inter-tidal/ sub-tidal foreshore at Shannon Foynes
Port, as an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Cultural Heritage and Architectural
Heritage section of the project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The archaeological and architectural assessment is based on a desktop review of existing
archival and published information; an interpretation of the results of a marine geophysical
survey commissioned specifically by the SFPC for the present project; and an on-site
inspection of the foreshore, quayside and underwater area.
The on-site work was carried out under licence from the DoEHLG on 23rd February 2011;
license numbers 10D033, 10R092.
13.2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
A desk study of cartographic and archival information was conducted as a preliminary stage of
archaeological assessment for the project;
Topographical files in the National Museum of Ireland;
Register of Monuments and Places in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and
Local Government (DoEHLG);
National Inventory of Architectural Heritage;
Ordnance Survey mapping for the area since the First Edition six-inch series in 1844;
Admiralty Charts;
Other historic mapping;
Inventory of Historic Shipwrecks and the Ports and Harbours record at the DoEHLG;
the record of licensed archaeological work;
relevant published sources were reviewed.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-2
The following legislation, standards and guidelines were considered and consulted for the
purposes of this evaluation:
Advice Notes on Current Practice (in preparation of Environmental Impact Statements),
2003, EPA;
Architectural Heritage (National Inventory) and Historic Monuments (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act, 2000 and the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 2000;
Frameworks and Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, 1999,
(formerly) Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and Islands;
Guidelines for the Assessment of Archaeological Heritage Impacts of National Road
Schemes, NRA;
Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements,
2002, EPA;
Heritage Act, 1995;
National Monuments Acts, 1930-2004;
Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill, 2006;
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Pack, 2010 EPA;
In the absence of a specific Code of Practice between the Marine Industry and the
Minister of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the following Codes of
Practice that exist between industry and the Minister were consulted: Bord Gáis Éireann
(2002); .Coillte (no date); EirGrid (2009); ESB Networks (2009), Irish Concrete
Federation (2009), National Roads Authority (no date), Railway Procurement Agency
(2007).
The following county and local development plans were considered and consulted for the
purposes of this evaluation:
Limerick County Heritage Plan 2005-2011.
On-site archaeological and architectural fieldwork has been carried out as part of the present
report.
Limitations
No limitations were encountered during the desk study.
Classification of Impacts/Effects
Impact/effect categories will typically have regard to those set out in the ‘Guidelines on the
information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements’, 2002, EPA; ‘Advice notes
on Current Practice (in preparation of Environmental Impact Statements), 2003, EPA;
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), 2010; and Guidelines for the Assessment of
Archaeological Heritage Impacts of National Road Schemes, no date, National Roads
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-3
Authority. Impacts/effects are generally categorised as either being a direct impact, an indirect
impact or as having no predicted impact.
13.3 THE RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT
The specific details of individual observations are set out in Appendix 9. A general overview of
what the sum of these observations implies is presented below, and this is followed with
individual presentations of the relevant source material.
Overview
Foynes Port lies on the south side of the Shannon estuary, west of Aughinish (Appendix 9,
Figure 1). The presence of Foynes Island, some 330m to the North presents a wide channel
and a most suitable anchorage with protection from the winds, but with a strong ebb flow. A
range of archaeological sites are identified on Foynes Island (Appendix 9)
The presence of six fualchta fiadha or spreads of burned stone material, indicate a distinct
prehistoric horizon of activity that is concentrated in the centre and along the north shore of
the Island. These are a commonly occurring site and represent cooking and related activities,
which are often associated with nearby settlements but can also occur in isolation, suggesting
the re-use of more general hunting or fishing sites. The clustering of fulachta fiafha on Foynes
Island carries the attention westwards along the estuary for prehistoric activity that has been
identified on the tidal mudflats to the east at Carrigdirty and to the north along the Fergus
estuary.1 There is however an absence of known archaeological sites at Foynes Port itself.
This is a low-lying area on which tidal mudflats developed to the west of the Robertstown
River and Aughinish, which lie c. 150m east of the present Port. In many respects, the
landscape presents an ideal environment for early prehistoric activity similar to that which has
been identified further east, focused on the exploitation of marine resources through the use of
fishtraps and other shore-based activities. However the presence the pier and later port will
have removed and/or buried such remains.
The survival of a medieval tower house to the south in Corgrig townland (RMP LI 010-007)
indicates the presence of settlement in the more recent past, but it is the Napoleonic era
battery on Foynes Island that most clearly reflects the degree to which the landing place of
Foynes was regarded with some importance in the past. The battery site (LI 010-001) was an
earthwork construction that held six 24-pounders, and was part of the wider defences along
the estuary constructed against the threat of invasion.2 It was considered capable of
commanding the full width of the river at this point, which is a mile wide from Battery Point
across to the Co. Clare shore.
1 Aidan O’Sullivan, Foragers, farmers and fishers in a coastal landscape: an intertidal archaeological
survey of the Shannon estuary, Discovery Programme Monograph 5., (Dublin 2002), pp55, 93 2 Paul Kerrigan, Castles and fortifications in Ireland, 1485-1945 (Collins Press, Cork 1995), p. 211.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-4
Topographic files, National Museum of Ireland
The National Museum of Ireland’s Topographical Files is the national archive of all known
objects reported to the National Museum. These files relate primarily to artefacts but also
include references to monuments and also contain a unique archive of records of previous
archaeological excavations. The Museum's files present an accurate catalogue of objects
reported to that institution from 1928. There is a computerised database of finds from the
1980s onwards. The find-spots of artefacts can also be an important indication of the
archaeological potential of the related or surrounding area. The information is ordered
according to townland. In assessing the information for Foynes, the following townlands were
considered: Foynes Island; Durnish, Corgrig, Ballynacragga North.
A single object is noted in the records of the National Museum of Ireland under these
townlands. A long narrow axehead made from silicified black mudstone, typical of the ‘Clare
Shales’ of Cos. Clare and Limerick, and which outcrop at the east end of Foynes Island was
recorded from the central area of Foynes Island. The axe head is 17.7cm long, 5cm wide at its
blade, and up to 2.3cm thick. It is in private possession and represents a typical tool for cutting
wood during early prehistory.
Record of Monuments and Places3
The Record of Monuments & Places (RMP) is a list of archaeological sites known to the
National Monuments Service with accompanying RMP Maps, based on OS 6” Sheets, which
indicate the location of each recorded site. The RMP list is based on The Sites and
Monuments Record files housed in the National Monuments Services offices. The Sites and
Monuments Records (SMR) are lists with accompanying maps and files of all known or
possible archaeological sites and monuments, predominately pre-1700AD in date, for all
counties. These lists were, in many cases, initially based on cartographic, documentary and
aerial photographic sources. The SMR (as revised in the light of available fieldwork) form the
basis of the statutory RMP. The record is updated on a constant basis and focuses on
monuments that predate 1700AD. Buildings belonging to the seventeenth-century and later
are not well represented in their archive, although they are considered as archaeological sites
today.
While no sites are listed in the RMP for the area under investigation, a number of sites are
listed for the wider area (Appendix 9)
National Inventory of Architectural Heritage
The National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) is a county by county database that
identifies, records, and evaluates the post-1700 architectural heritage of Ireland, uniformly and
3 The RMP is maintained by the National Monument Section, Department of Environment, Heritage
and Local Government.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-5
consistently as an aid to the protection and conservation of the nations built heritage. The
NIAH surveys provide the basis for the recommendations of the Minister for the Environment,
Heritage and Local Government to the planning authorities for the inclusion of particular
structures in their Record of Protected Structures (RPS).
Two sites, located in close proximity to the area under assessment, are listed in the inventory
and include a late eighteenth-century mill house (currently the SFPC office) and adjacent T-
shaped, limestone constructed, pier built in 1847 (Table 13.1, Appendix 9). These structures
are listed as retaining architectural and technical interest.
Table 13.1 Entries in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage located in
close proximity to the area under assessment.
NIAH Reg. No. Categories
of Special
Interest
Rating Original
Use
Description
21829003:
SFPC Office
Architectural
Artistic
Regional Miller’s
House
Detached four-bay two-
storey with dormer attic.
Former saw mill and mill
house, built in 1863
21829004:
Dock/ harbour
Architectural
Technical
Regional Dock/
harbour
T-plan limestone pier with
harbour, built in 1847.
Cartographic Sources and the development of Foynes Port
The OS First Edition mapping of 1844 provides the most direct record of development within
the survey area at Foynes. A village is already established on the shoreline to the south, and it
is indicated as a linear development of detached and semi-detached dwellings located on
either side of a roadway (now part of the N69) which runs close to the upper foreshore on the
south side of the River Shannon (Appendix 9). A post office is depicted to the west of the
settlement and a National School is shown 200m to the southwest. A small quay structure is
shown, located on the upper foreshore, between the main street and the aforementioned post
office.
Work began on redeveloping the port in the 1840s, and records relate the progress and list of
implements used during 1847-49 relative to sinking foundations and costs of completion.4
Further improvement occurred in the 1880s, possibly reflecting the expansion of mackerel
fishing. A new jetty was built and further dredging took place in 1915.
4 National Archives, reference OPW8/. See also Colin Breen and Claire Callaghan, ‘Post-medieval
shipwrecks, harbours and lighthouses’, in O’Sullivan, Foragers, farmers and fishers, pp 233-251, at p.
249.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-6
The 1844 map also depicts the nature of the shoreline (Appendix 9). In contrast to the rocky
foreshore that is shown to form the southern side of Foynes Island, the inter-tidal zone
adjacent to Foynes village was composed of estuarine mud-flats that extedended in length
between 121m and 350m. Flood embankments were located along the upper foreshore,
placed to protect farmland to the southeast of Foynes, fields to the north of Durnish townland.
A fishtrap or ‘Weir’ is shown running roughly north-south from the LWM, parallel (west) to a
small river that has cut a channel through the inter-tidal zone (Appendix 9). This structure
measured approximately 170m in length and had two equidistant arms that protruded from the
structure at right angles along its western side (c.25m length). The tidal fish-trap represents a
sizable endeavour and highlights the exploitation of the estuarine environment as a natural
resource in the nineteenth-century, and is one of many such sites observed along the
Shannon estuary, continuing an age-old tradition of exploiting the seasonal migrations. The
site of this weir is located approximately 148m east of the proposed development area.
The OS Third Edition Mapping of 1923 depicts a much more developed Foynes, reflected in
the establishment of a harbour to the northwest (1853), the construction of a railway line
(1858) to facilitate the port facilities, and an extended settlement eastwards (Appendix 9). Two
photographs of Foynes from the early 1900s record the railway station, goods shed, and
turntable tract adjacent to the south Pier of Foynes’s historic harbour (Appendix 9 Plates 2-3).
A sizeable flood embankment, as noted on the First Edition Map, is visible running along the
upper foreshore, to the left-hand side of both pictures.
The OS Third Edition map also records a second fishtrap site; this time a staggered ‘Salmon
Weir’ is indicated off Durnish Point, 350m east of the proposed reclamation area (Appendix 9).
It is orientated NNW to SSE and the mapping indicates that the structure measured up to
124m in length.
A deep-water quay was added to the port in 1936 and for the next decade the harbour
provided the European base for a transatlantic flying-boat service.
Another photograph from the 1960s provides an aerial view of Foynes subsequent to the
construction of an oil terminal, an ore unloading plant, and the newly constructed East Jetty
(Plate 4). It also, shows sizeable reclamation of the foreshore was undertaken as part of the
above development, approximately 153m (max.) north-south x 800m east-west area being
reclaimed. The original shoreline is denoted by the aforementioned floodwater embankments
which are still in situ.
Today the Shannon Foynes Port Company operates a general purpose terminal, catering for
dry bulk, break bulk, liquid, and project cargoes. The port comprises of the west jetty (271m
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-7
length), east jetty (295m length), and Oil Dolphins located to the east of the site (Appendix 9
Plates 5-7).
Shipwreck Inventory
The Shipwreck Inventory in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local
Government’s archive is a list of recorded instances of wrecking since 1750. The details
provided describe the type of vessel, the journey it foundered on, and information on the
ultimate plight of the vessel and its crew, where possible. In describing the wrecking event, the
records will locate the incident in relation to the nearest headland or other topographic marker
where known. This is not however a record of where the wreckage lies, since the historic
records generally only deal with the vessel before it sunk. Such finer details emerge from
other sources, such as fishermens’ records of snag points and diver records of sites located
underwater. These are included in the Inventory wherever possible but it is true to say that
most entries lack this final level of data. Finally, it should be pointed out that while the
Inventory provides a record of wrecking incidents since 1750, it does not claim to be a
comprehensive record for earlier events, and therefore the medieval and prehistoric periods
are not represented in this archive.
The shipwrecks recorded for the Shannon estuary have been examined.5 Where it is possible
to approximate the location of ship-wrecking events, one observes a fairly even distribution
along both north and south shores of the estuary, with a particular concentration at Kilrush, no
doubt because of the extensive fishing port that Kilrush represents. In assessing the pattern of
wrecking at Foynes, the following topographical markers were noted: Durnish Point,
Gammarel Point, Foynes Rock, Poultallin Point.
There are only two references to wrecking events at or close to Foynes. A sailing boat whose
name was not recorded was reported as having wrecked ‘near Foynes Island’ on 12th August
1788. The boat was carrying three men form Limerick when it overturned in a squall. Two of
the men drowned. The Castleragget was a turf boat journeying from Limerick in Octboer 1833
when she was hit by a brig near Foynes Island. Nine people died.
One must conclude from this that the potential for observing wrecksites dating from c. 1750
AD is low.
Licensed archaeological work
The excavations bulletin publishes annual summary accounts of licensed archaeological
excavations undertaken throughout Ireland.6 Summaries may also be submitted for inter-tidal
5 Breen and Callaghan, ‘Post-medieval Shipwrecks’. 6 Isabel Bennett (ed.) Excavations Bulletin: summary accounts of archaeological excavations in
Ireland, Wordwell Ltd.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-8
survey, underwater assessments, and the archaeological monitoring of marine dredging
works. Appendix 9 lists the entries relating to the townlands surrounding Foynes, comprising:
Aughinish Island, Aughinish West, Ballynacragga, Durnish, Leahys and Foynes Harbour. Eight
sites of archaeological significance are listed and include: a Bronze Age stone fort (entry:
1975-0025), a Medieval Tower House and Bawn (entry: 1974-0028), an Enclosure site (entry:
1996: 0232, RMP: 10-14), an Early Christian Ringfort (entry: 2004-0975, RMP 10:82), and a
series of Fulacht Fiadh and associated burnt mounds that were encountered as part of
archaeological investigations carried for the Bord Gais Eireann Pipeline to the West. These
latter observations complement the series of burned stone spreads observed on Foynes
Island, and serve to highlight further the prehistoric dimension that exists along this wider
shoreline.
Two entries relate to archaeological monitoring that has taken place within estuary at or close
to Foynes, but in neither instance have materials of interest been observed. One entry
(02E0469) refers to monitoring of backhoe dredging associated with the laying of a section of
gas pipeline across the River Shannon between Leahys townland, Co. Limerick, and
Shanakea townland, Co. Clare. The second entry (02E1767) relates to archaeological
monitoring of maintenance dredging works at Foynes Port, and is the only reference to
licensed archaeological work occurring close to the development area to date. The project
noted a series of previous dredging projects, including capital dredging within the port area but
these projects took place before the need to archaeologically monitor such work, and no
materials of archaeological significance were reported.
Conclusion
Maritime activity within the Shannon Estuary is documented from early prehistoric times. The
study of the wider estuary indicates that the location of Shannon Foynes Port within a low-
lying sheltered shoreline is an ideal situation for early human activities. The presence of
remains on Foynes Island to the north and Aughinish to the east, as well as former fish weirs
close by at Durnish Point, reinforces this observation, but it is clear that the construction of the
nineteenth-century pier and later port with its attendant development and reclamation works
will have reduced the potential for archaeological recovery. There is, however, an inherent
potential for foreshore archaeology to be revealed during new construction projects that are
associated with fresh disturbance activities, where the ground surfaces are impacted directly.
In such instances, there is a need for archaeological resolution strategies, to mitigate the
possibility for new discoveries.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-9
13.4 MARINE GEOPHYSICAL DATA
Marine geophysical survey was conducted as part of the wider EIA. The parameters of the
survey were to meet the requirements set by the DoEHLG for marine geophysical survey for
archaeological purposes. The work was conducted by Hydrographic Surveys for SFPC in
January 2011, and the primary data and associated mapping were made available to ADCO
for review.
Nature of record
The record is comprehensive. Side-scan sonar and magnetometer survey was conducted over
a survey area that measures c. 600m East-West along the shoreline and c. 320m across the
channel from the existing shore (Figure 5). The area surveyed is greater than the area being
developed, and the larger survey footprint provides a necessary context in which to
understand the seabed within the East Jetty area.
Survey Grid
The side-scan sonar survey was conducted on a series of eighteen separate survey lines. A
series of East-West lines were extended on the seaward side of the East Jetty, and a
sequence of shorter East-West lines was run within the enclosed spaces inside the East Jetty.
Shorter cross lines were extended at right angles, to provide an overall project grid. Line-
spacing reached 50m, but was frequently less than this, and averaged 30m apart. Within the
interior of the East Jetty, the survey line overlap was still more instense. The survey has
provided ample overlap and the ability to view the same areas of seabed from different
directions.
Side-scan Sonar Survey
The seabed is indicated as a relatively uniform sandy/silty surface. Sand rippling/waves are
evident in the NE sector outside the East Jetty, where the ripples are aligned NE-SW. The
criss-crossed nature of the gridded beams which make up the East jetty are also clearly
visible, as is the rock armouring of the current reclaimed shoreline inside the jetty.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-10
Images of seabed as shown on side-scan sonar traces. The upper image shows the sand
waves which form off the NE sector in the channel outside the East Jetty between Foynes Port
and Foynes Island. The lower image shows the seabed within the East Jetty on its western
side, indicating the jetty on the left side of the screen and the rock-armoured reclaimed
shoreline of the present port on the right. This space between the jetty and the shore is to be
filled in as part of the current development proposal.
A number of anomalies were identified throughout the area surveyed and these are
highlighted in Hydrographic Surveys’ report. A small number of additional features were
indicated within the East Jetty area, and these have focussed the archaeological inspection
(Appendix 9). Anomalies 18, 20_01, 20_03 and 20_24 were considered.
Anomaly 18 is represented as a series of small circular anomalies forming two parallel rows
next to the shoreline in the eastern section inside the East Jetty. The rows lie c. 4m apart, and
the individual anomalies are c. 3m apart. The feature is aligned East-West. Examination of site
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-11
maps and consultation with the port revealed no evidence to suggest what this feature might
represent, and no material indication of this feature was observed during the underwater
inspection (see below).
Anomaly 20_01 (ss8) was irregular in shape, measuring approximately 4.9m by 3m in size,
1.1m high. It was observed just beside the East Jetty on its downstream side. Dive inspection
did not identify any material of archaeological interest in this location, and the anomaly may
represent a natural localized variation in the seabed.
Anomaly 20_03 was represented by a short linear anomaly beneath the viaduct that joins the
East Jetty with the shore. Dive inspection did not identify any feature in this location.
Anomaly 20_04 observed as a short anomaly on the next to the shoreline rock armour was
revealed as a kelp-covered tyre.
Magnetometer Survey
The magnetometer survey revealed a natural variation in background magnetic levels. Certain
limitation was experienced with the magnetometer because of the presence of berthing
vessels along the East Jetty. However the survey did not highlight the presence of any
particular anomalies suggestive of localized debris or other archaeological indicators.
Conclusion
The area surveyed included the development area and the channel to the North of the jetties.
Side-scan sonar and magnetometer surveys were conducted within the specifications for
marine geophysical surveys as defined by the DoEHLG. No material of obvious archaeological
interest was identified, but a number of anomalies were highlighted. Those which occur within
the development area were subsequently inspected and are reported below.
13.5 GEOTECHNICAL DATA REVIEW
Geotechnical ground investigations were undertaken at the proposed Reclamation Area in
March 2009 by Priority Geotechnical Drilling Ltd.7 This investigation comprised of the
gathering of data from nine cable percussive boreholes and nine rotary core boreholes, the
samples from which underwent subsequent analysis in the laboratory (Appendix 9). The
boreholes data from this investigation was assessed from an archaeological perspective by
ADCO. The borehole data sheets did not reveal any indicators to suggest the presence of
submerged landscapes or buried peat horizons at this location.
7 Foynes East Jetty Site Investigation, Report on Ground Investigation, Factual Report No.: PC9031,
Priorty Geotechnical Drilling Ltd., October 2009.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-12
13.6 ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT
An assessment of various documentation relating to the shore has been undertaken using first
editions of the National Ordnance Survey maps, subsequent editions and aerial photography
available online. In addition, site visits were made on separate occasions by Brian F O’Carroll,
B Arch FRIAI RIBA Minst RA, and Santiago Marinas, COAATM (Spain), of O’Carroll Associates
Architects Ltd, Conservation Architects. It is clear that there are no known archaeological sites
or features in the development area. However, more recent structures, particularly the existing
quay walls contain some worked stones which are worthy of conservation.
The built environment to the South of the East Jetty, consists of industrial type stores,
warehouses, pipelines, mass concrete walls and miscellaneous pavings. None of these late
19th and 20th century buildings has any particular architectural qualities despite the fact that
they are in the Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). It is the entire group of buildings, rather
than any individual building, which creates an industrial heritage with a variety of structures
typical of that period, particularly oil storage facilities and prominent pipelines.
However, none of these industrial structures within the Natural Heritage Area (NHA) or the SAC
will in any way be affected by the infill proposed as part of the general developments being
anticipated by the Shannon Foynes Port Company Limited.
There is almost no structure in the area which will be impacted by the proposed infilling. The
only possible exception to this comment relates to some stones, which are built into the quay
walls and which are illustrated in Appendix 9. In turn, none of the stone structures is in any
way unusual or of merit but again, similar to the structures within the SAC, it is a group of
feature stones within the rough setting that has some merit.
The quay walls or revetments were constructed in the late 1920s and further extended at the
time the railway line was closed after World War II. Available images indicate that the two
water towers and the signal box were demolished and the remains are now built into the
revetments. From examination of the stones on the quay wall it is clear that they came from
demolished portions of other structures and consist of saddle stones, door jambs, door cases
and similar features of passing interest only. The carving of these dressed stones would
possibly have been in the latter part of the 19th century and are the only remains of buildings of
no real significance. However these stones could be built into new structures to illustrate the
quality and standards of stone masonry in the latter part of the 19th century.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-13
13.7 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Methodology
Archaeological site work took place on 23rd February 2011, and included a terrestrial and
intertidal inspection of the foreshore, and an underwater inspection of the sub-tidal portions of
the development area inside the East Jetty.
No limitations were experienced, and full access to the development area was possible. Much
of the proposed reclamation area was accessible at Low Water (LW). The sub-tidal portion
consisted of a 10m wide x 290m long section of riverbed/ seabed, and water depths of 0.5m
were experienced.
A Topcon differential GMS2 unit was used to position-fix any observations/ plate locations
taken and to locate the coordinates for those anomalies identified for visual inspection. A finds
retrieval strategy dealing with conservation issues, cataloguing, and locational recording was in
place to deal with any artefacts that might be recovered during the survey.
The site was accessed from a dive vessel with VHF communications to shore and relevant port
authorities. This boat acted as a support vessel for those archaeologists undertaking the inter-
tidal field-walking. All water-based operations were undertaken in accordance with HSE Diving
at Work regulations 1998. A notification to dive was submitted to the Health and Safety
Authority (HSA) in advance of the dive work commencing.
Visual Survey and Assessment
The assessment concentrated on the immediate impact zone and extended across a 75m
(max.) x 290m area of inter-tidal foreshore and 10m x 290m area of sub-tidal seabed (Figure
7). The locations of side-scan sonar anomalies SS20_01, SS20_03, SS20_04, and SS18_1 to
SS18_17 were inspected. In addition, two areas of archaeological potential (AP1 and AP2)
identified from cartographic sources were visually assessed (Figure 8).
Intertidal Foreshore
The inter-tidal zone extends between 46m and 75m from the High Water mark to the Low
Water mark (Appendix 9 Plates 8-11). It is characterized by a deposit of sandy-silt that ranges
from very a soft composition (sediment penetration 1m+), along the western half of the survey
area, to a moderately stiff composition across the eastern half (sediment penetration 0.45m+).
Occasional gravel and fragmented shell inclusions were noted, with infrequent sub-rounded
cobbles and boulders being scattered across its expanse. These cobbles and boulders area
more concentrated across the upper reaches of the foreshore (c.5m wide section), where
seaweed (bladderwack species) has used these inclusions as anchored points (Appendix 9
Plate 12). The upper foreshore is delineated by a twentieth-century masonry revetment that
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-14
slopes from a low-slung retaining wall to the foreshore at a c.30° angle (Appendix 9, Plates
13-14). Rock armour has been placed along the upper foreshore to the west of the survey
area, running between the East Jetty and West Pier locations (Appendix 9 Plates 15-16). A
stream is located to the east of the site, beneath the upstanding structure for the mooring
dolphins. This waterway has cut a narrow channel through the inter-tidal zone as it discharges
into the Shannon (Appendix 9 Plate 19-20). The waterway was inspected to see if any
archaeological material had been exposed by the natural erosion of the foreshore at this
location.
A number of modern debris features capable of casting a side-scan sonar shadow were
encountered and recorded as part of the survey (Figure 6). These include: an iron table frame
or similar (D01), a cast-iron machine bucket (D02), a 1m diameter concrete pipe-cap/ diffuser
(D03), and a series of concrete beams and pipe sections (D04). The latter being situated on
the upper foreshore, immediately west of the viaduct (Appendix 9, Plates 19-22). No material,
structures, or deposits of archaeological or historic significance were encountered as part of
the foreshore survey.
Sub-tidal Foreshore
A 10m wide section of seabed was inspected along the northernmost extent of the proposed
reclamation area. This zone is composed of a soft sandy-silt with a penetration depth of
0.75m+. Occasional cobble and shell inclusions were noted. No material, structures, or
deposits of archaeological significance were encountered as part of underwater survey.
Side-scan Sonar Anomalies
Visual inspection at the anomaly locations for SS20_1 and SS20_03 did not reveal a positive
target; and no object capable of casting a side-scan shadow was present (Appendix 9 Plate
23). Likewise, no objects that would account for the parallel run of anomalies shown on the
side scan imaging for SS_1 to SS18_17 were present (Appendix 9 Plates 24). Only one
object, a cast-iron machine bucket (D02), was located at the target location for one of these
anomalies (SS_18_04, Plate 20). A positive target was achieved for SS20_04, where a
seaweed-covered car tyre was present (Appendix 9 Plates 25-26).
Areas of Archaeological Potential (AP1 and AP2)
As previously discussed, two fish weirs were recorded on early Ordance Survey six-inch maps
(Appendix 9 Figures 3-4). AP1 is located 148m east of the proposed reclamation area and
AP2 is located 350m to the east (Appendix 9 Figure 7). These sites were categorized as
areas of foreshore retaining archaeological potential, and an on-site visual inspection was
undertaken at both locations. No above-surface indicators relating to these sites remain
(Appendix 9 Plates 27-28). However, it is possible that in-situ elements of these structures lie
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-15
buried below the surface, within the estuarine mudflats that form the foreshore at both
locations.
A small stream discharges into the Shannon 17m East of the location of AP2 (Appendix 9
Plate 29-30). This waterway was also inspected for any sub-surface archaeological material
that may be exposed across its extent. However no material, structures, or deposits of
archaeological of historic interest were encountered as part of this endeavour.
Conclusion
The on-site assessment was comprehensive and extended outside the confines of the
proposed reclamation impact zone. While there is an inherent archaeological potential
associated with the foreshore areas surrounding the River Shannon Estuary, this potential has
been limited for the section of foreshore under assessment. It is clear that extensive foreshore
reclamation undertaken at Foynes Port in the 1960s has served to remove much of the
potential historical and archaeological material that may have been present along the original
shoreline. In addition, the data review and interpretation of both the geophysical and
geotechnical investigations did not yield any evidence to suggest the presence of
archaeological horizons lying exposed within the proposed reclamation area. Despite this, the
possibility of buried in situ archaeologically does remain. Therefore, it is recommended that
the removal of any foreshore or seabed deposits as part of the proposed project be
archaeologically monitored to mitigate for this potential.
13.8 PROPOSED IMPACTS
The port proposes to reclaim the area of foreshore behind the East Jetty to provide more
immediate storage and handling facilities for the bulks operations. The reclamation will be
constructed to the level of the existing structure. Engineering works will be required along
either the front or rear face of the existing jetty to retain the fill. The reclaimed area will be
surfaced and used for normal harbour operations and storage. Some dredging will be
required. The material used to infill the reclamation area will be imported and transported to
the site either by land or sea.
The works proposed in the development area will effectively seal the existing seabed with fill
material and represents a direct permanent impact on the existing surfaces. Dredging activity
represents a direct impact on the buried sediments of the foreshore, which has the potential to
expose previously unseen material of archaeological significance.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-16
13.9 RECOMMENDATIONS
13.9.1 Pre-Construction Measures
No further ameliorative measures are recommended in advance of the reclamation works
commencing within the area of foreshore/ seabed located south of the East Jetty structure.
13.9.2 Construction Phase Measures
It is understood that some dredging works will be necessary to facilitate the proposed
reclamation works. ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING, licensed to the Department of the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government is recommended during all works where
foreshore or seabed deposits will undergo removal. A suitably qualified competent maritime
archaeologist with experience in riverine/ marine dredging environments should undertake the
archaeological monitoring. The archaeological monitoring should be undertaken with the
proviso for full excavation of any archaeologically significant material uncovered as part of the
operation.
This report recommends that the key stones of architectural interest identified in this report
are avoided during construction. However, if it is not possible to avoid impacting these
features, the key stones of interest should be recovered for re-use in an appropriate location
in future development within the Port. Consideration might be given to their extraction from the
quay walls and featured in the new revetments which will be built around the infilled area.
Archaeological/Cultural Heritage Management
RETAINING AN ARCHAEOLOGIST/S. A competent maritime archaeologist should be
retained for the duration of the relevant works.
THE TIME SCALE for the construction phase should be made available to the archaeologist,
with information on where and when ground disturbances and dredging will take place.
SUFFICIENT NOTICE. It is essential for the developer to give sufficient notice to the
archaeologist/s in advance of the construction works commencing. This will allow for prompt
arrival on site to monitor the ground disturbances. As often happens, intervals may occur
during the construction phase. In this case, it is also necessary to inform the archaeologist/s
as to when ground disturbance works will recommence.
DISCOVERY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL. In the event of archaeological features or
material being uncovered during the construction phase, it is crucial that any machine work
cease in the immediate area to allow the archaeologist/s to inspect any such material.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL. Once the presence of archaeologically significant material is
established, full archaeological recording of such material is recommended. If it is not
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 13.0: ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURE HERITAGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 13-17
possible for the construction works to avoid the material, full excavation would be
recommended. The extent and duration of excavation would be a matter for discussion
between the client and the licensing authorities.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEAM. It is recommended that the core of a suitable archaeological
team be on standby to deal with any such rescue excavation. This would be complimented in
the event of a full excavation.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIVE TEAM. It is recommended that an archaeological dive team be on
standby to deal with any underwater rescue excavation. This team will carry the necessary
commercial dive insurance, be fully certified to HSE/ HSA requirements, and will conduct its
work according to Safety in Industry (Diving Operations) Regulations 1981, SI 422.
SECURE WET STORAGE facilities should be provided for the storage of archaeological
material derived from the marine environment within the project works compound.
SECURE SITE OFFICES and facilities should be provided on or near those sites where
excavation is required.
FENCING/BUOYING of any such areas would be necessary once discovered and during
excavation.
ADEQUATE FUNDS to cover excavation, post-excavation analysis, and any testing or
conservation work required should be made available.
MACHINERY TRAFFIC during construction must be restricted as to avoid any of the selected
sites and their environs.
SPOIL should not be dumped on any of the selected sites or their environs.
Recommendations are subject to the approval of The Department of Arts, Heritage and the
Gaeltacht (formerly Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government).
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 14.0: HUMAN BEINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14-1
14.0 HUMAN BEINGS
14.1 INTRODUCTION
The well-being of the local and wider community within the Foynes area has been
comprehensively addressed throughout this EIS. This chapter of the EIS details the human
‘environment’ of the hinterland surrounding the East Jetty and Foynes Port in terms of
population profile and trends, employment and community aspects. It also discusses the
impact of the proposed jetty development on the overall amenity of the area.
14.2 BASELINE INFORMATION
14.2.1 Population and Demographics
The immediate area surrounding Foynes comprises the Shanagolden Electoral Division (ED),
while the Limerick Electoral Areas (County and City) constitutes 173 other Electoral Divisions
(see Figure 14.1).
Figure 14.1 Limerick Electoral Division Catchments
Baseline information with respect to the demographic and employment characteristics of the
resident population within the catchment area was sourced from Census of Population 2002 &
2006 (where available). The data included information on population, structure, age profile,
household size, number of persons at work and unemployment profile. Table 14.1 outlines
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 14.0: HUMAN BEINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14-2
the population change between 2002 and 2006, whilst Table 14.2 outlines the growth rate of
these population figures.
Table 14.1 Population Figures and Growth Rate
2002 2006
State 3,917,203 4,239,848
County Limerick 141,281 131,516
Limerick City 54,023 52,539
Shanagolden ED 981 1,004
Source: Census of Population 2002 and 2006
Table 14.2 Growth Rate of Population Figures (%)
2002-2006
State 8.2%
County Limerick 8.4%
Limerick City -2.7%
Shanagolden ED 2.3%
Source: Census of Population 2002 and 2006
Foynes town recorded a population of 491 persons in the 2002 census and 606 persons in the
2006 census, reflecting a 23.4% increase in population in the period 2002 -2006. As Foynes
has a population of less than 1,500 persons, the town is contained in an electoral division with
the neighbouring village of Shanagolden called Shanagolden ED.
Age Profile Table 14.3 below outlines the age profile of the population in terms of dependent age cohorts
(0-14 and 65+) and working age cohorts (15-64) in 2006. The actual age cohorts of the
population are then outlined in Table 14.4. The age structure is important to examine as this
will have implications for housing demand, schools and health care services. This
assessment indicates a youthful population residing in both the Rural Limerick Area and the
Shanagolden E.D. with a significant percentage of the population falling within the childbearing
age group.
Table 14.3 Population of each catchment categorised into independent, dependent
and childbearing cohorts 2006
Area
15-64 years
Independent
0-14 and 65+ years
dependent
15-44 years
Child-bearing
State 2006 68.6% 31.4% 46.6%
Limerick County 2006 69.3% 30.7% 46.6%
Limerick City 2006 70.1% 30.4% 49.2%
Shanagolden ED 2006 72.3% 27.6% 43.8%
Source: Census of Population 2006
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 14.0: HUMAN BEINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14-3
Table 14.4 Age Cohorts 2006
Age Cohort
0-14
15-24
25-44
45-64
65+
TOTAL
State 2006 20.4% 15% 31.7% 21.9% 11% 4,239,848
Limerick County 2006 20.2 % 16.4% 30.2% 22.7% 10.5% 131,516
Limerick City 2006 17.9% 18.6% 30.6% 20.9% 14.5% 52,239
Shanagolden ED 2006 16.1% 13.7% 30.1% 28.5% 11.5% 1,004
Source: Census of Population 2006
Summary
In summary, from an analysis of the Census of Population 2006, it is apparent that the
Shanagolden ED has a growing middle-age (45-64 years old) population, well above the
National County average. There is a below average proportion of people within the dependant
age groups (i.e. low numbers of children 0-14 years old) and there is also a below average
proportion of people within the working and childbearing age groups.
14.2.2 Employment
Receiving Environment
ESRI Economic Commentary, for 2011
The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Economic Commentary for summer 2011
summarises the outlook for the economy for the State in 2011 and beyond as follows: The ESRI Economic Commentary for, 2011 addresses some key issues concerning Ireland's situation. The ESRI expects that: 1. GNP will contract by 1½ per cent this year. GDP will decline by ¼ per cent. 2. For 2011 GNP will grow by 2 per cent and GDP will grow by 2¼ per cent 3. Employment will average 1.86 million this year, down 68,000 from 2009, a fall of 3½ per
cent. The rate of unemployment will average 13¼ per cent. 4. For 2011, the number employed will average 1.85 million and the rate of unemployment
will average 13½ per cent.
Trends in Numbers of Persons at Work
An assessment of the number of persons at work and unemployment rates could only be
carried out using 2006 as the baseline. However, the current situation is thought to be
considerably different but unfortunately employment statistics from 2011 will not become
available until the results of Census 2011 have been collated. The 2006 census indicates that
the Shanagolden ED has a similar proportion of the population at work to the State and
County averages. Shanagolden ED had a lower unemployment rate (circa 3%) indicating a
healthy local economy in 2006.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 14.0: HUMAN BEINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14-4
Table 14.5 Total Number of Persons at Work 2006
2006
STATE 1,930,042
County Limerick 53,718
Limerick City 23,488
Shanagolden ED 530
Source: Census of Population 2006
Table 14.6 Unemployment Rates 2006 (%)
2006 Total Unemployed 2006
STATE 8.5% 179,456
County Limerick 5.9% 10,485
Shanagolden ED 3.1% 26
Source: Census of Population 2006
The following are the main important employment statistics regarding Shanagolden Electoral
Division. The electoral division had a combined population of 1,004 persons in 2006 of which
842 are aged 15 years or over. The table below highlights the economic status of persons
over 15 years of age in the electoral division.
Table 14.7 Economic Status of Persons over 15 years of age - 2006 (%)
Sex Male Female Total
At Work 343 187 530
Looking for first regular job 1 3 4
Unemployed having lost of given up
previous job
11 15 26
Student 31 30 61
Looking after family home 3 88 91
Retired 51 42 93
Unable to work due to permanent
sickness or disability
17 16 33
Other 2 2 4
Total Aged 15 years or over 459 383 842
Source: Census of Population 2006
Based on the 2006 census 530 persons are employed with less than 10% of persons in the
electoral division retired and less than 10% looking after the home/family. Approximately 3%
of persons are unemployed with 4% unable to work due to sickness or disability. However, it
is expected that these figures do not reflect the current situation in 2011 due to a rapid change
in the economic climate since 2006.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 14.0: HUMAN BEINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14-5
Sectoral Composition of Employment
In 2006, the key sectoral employment areas for people at work in Shanagolden ED Area were
manufacturing industries (101), transport industry (81) and service industry (57). The large
numbers of people working in the manufacturing sector is to be expected given the strong
presence of pharmaceutical industries in the vicinity of Askeaton and Limerick City. However,
employment forecasts nationally for 2011 indicate unemployment levels circa 15%. Updated
statistics from the 2011 census for Foynes area or for the Shanagolden ED are not currently
available.
14.2.3 Community Aspects
The smallest geographical units distinguished by the CSO are Electoral Divisions. The East
Jetty at Foynes Harbour is located in Foynes within the Shanagolden Electoral Division.
There are three principle elements of the community in the study area. These can be
considered as:
The resident community
The working community
The visiting community
Resident Community
The growth and expansion of the Greater Limerick Area over the past 20 years has resulted in
an increased number of households within Limerick County, including the wider vicinity of
Foynes within County Limerick.
Foynes village and area is characterised by a mixed range of land uses including industrial
and residential areas. The harbour and associated lands are industrial use whereas, the areas
South and East of Foynes Harbour is Foynes village centre where the majority of residential
development is based. In the rural catchment of Foynes, the housing stock comprises
generally low-density housing made up of detached dwelling units.
Working Community
Between 2002 and 2006 the population of Shanagolden ED increased by 2.3% from 981 to
1004. There are numerous well-established sources of employment situated close to Foynes
Port such as Aughinish Alumina and Pfizer in Askeaton. The established location of the deep-
water port at Foynes also provides local employment which it is hoped will be enhanced and
expanded on through the current project and over the lifetime of the Port Master Plan.
Visiting Community
The main attraction for visitors to the general area of Foynes is the Flying Boat Museum which
houses a full size replica Boeing B314, exhibitions and coffee dock. There are many scenic
walks around Foynes with the N69 a designated scenic route between Limerick and Kerry.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 14.0: HUMAN BEINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14-6
Leisure and Recreational Uses
Foynes Yacht Club lies to the east of Foynes Port. The club has just over 130 members with a
pontoon which can accommodate a range of club vessels together with swinging moorings.
Additional there is a wintering compound for approximately 25 yachts and a launching slip. A
variety of sailing classes are offered at the Yacht Club from junior to adult sailing lessons,
motor boat handling lessons to a variety of VHF and Emergency Care courses.
14.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL
14.3.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE
A development of the nature and scale proposed in this location would potentially have the
following temporary affects during the construction phase, which would affect the residential,
working and visiting communities:
Potential negative impacts;
Increase in HGV traffic transporting construction materials to site
Increase in noise and dust generated as a result of the construction works
Potential positive impacts;
Increase in construction employment and related businesses
Increased trade within local shops, pubs and restaurants from construction workers
Whilst temporary nuisances may be caused to the existing communities in the area, these
impacts will be limited to the construction phase. The construction phase is therefore
considered to only have a moderate short-term impact on the residential and working
communities in the area.
The potential temporary impacts associated with increased traffic and noise & dust during the
construction phase of the development are described in detail in Chapters 11, and 12
respectively of this EIS. Appropriate mitigation measures are also presented within these
Chapters.
14.3.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE
The operation of the proposed reclaimed harbour working area could potentially impact on the
community in the Shanagolden Electoral Division and the wider Rural Limerick Area in the
following ways:
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 14.0: HUMAN BEINGS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14-7
Potential positive impacts;
Possible future increase in employment within the new port facilities
Possible future increase in employment in other port and logistics related businesses
Slight increase in trade within local shops, pubs and restaurants from employees at the
port facility and other port related businesses
General support to local and regional businesses dependent on trade that passes
through the port
Future business opportunities associated with improvement facilities
14.4 MITIGATION MEASURES
The construction associated with the infilling of the foreshore behind the jetty will use local
services, such as catering and plant hire. Temporary local employment may be created from
the construction stage of the project but this will be dependent on the contractors appointed.
No significant socio-cultural impacts are predicted arising from the temporary local increase in
noise associated with construction. Once the jetty is operational it will be strategically valuable
to the local and national economy.
Therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed as the assessment has not identified
potential negative impact on the general amenity of the locality.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-1
15.0 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL
15.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter examines the potential landscape and visual impact of the proposed reclamation
works on:
The landscape and visual resources of the wider Foynes area along the southern bank
of the Shannon River; and
The landscape and visual resources of relevant areas along the northern Shannon
embankment in County Clare.
This report seeks to:
a) Establish the baseline conditions -
Record and analyse the existing character, quality and sensitivity of the landscape and
visual resource. This should include elements of the landscape such as;
Landform;
Land cover including the vegetation, the slopes, drainage, etc;
Landscape character;
Current landscape designations and planning policies; and
Site visibility, comprising short, medium and long distance views.
b) Analyse baseline conditions -
Comment on the scale, character, condition and the importance of the baseline
landscape, its sensitivity to change and the enhancement potential where possible.
A visual analysis (illustrated by photographic material) describing characteristics
which may be of relevance to the impact of the design and to the method of mitigation.
c) Describe the development
d) Identify the Impacts of the Development on the Landscape and Visual
Resource -
Identify the landscape and visual impacts of the development at different stages of its
life cycle, including:
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-2
Direct & indirect landscape impacts of the development on the landscape of the
site and the surrounding area; and
Visual impacts including: the extent of potential visibility; the view and viewers
affected; the degree of visual intrusion; the distance of views; and resultant
impacts upon the character and quality of views.
e) Assess the significance of the landscape and visual impacts in terms of the sensitivity
of the landscape and visual resource, including the nature and magnitude of the
impact.
f) Detail measures proposed to mitigate significant residual detrimental landscape and
visual impacts and assess their effectiveness.
g) Assess the ability of the landscape and visual resource to absorb the proposed
development.
15.2 METHODOLOGY
15.2.1 Introduction
Methods used in this assessment have been developed by RPS Planning & Environment and
are derived from the DoEHLG “Landscape and Landscape Assessment” (June 2000) and
‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (GLVIA) by The Landscape
Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002). These
documents recommend baseline studies to describe, classify and evaluate the existing
landscape and visual resource focusing on its sensitivity and ability to accommodate change.
The guidelines are not intended as a prescriptive set of rules but rather offer best practice
methods and techniques of LVIA. The existing landscape and visual context of the study area
was established through a process of desktop study, site survey work (March 2011) and
photographic surveys. The proposal was then applied to the baseline conditions to allow the
identification of potential impacts, prediction of their magnitude and assessment of their
significance. Mitigation can then be identified to reduce as far as possible any residual
potential landscape and visual impacts.
15.2.2 Landscape Assessment Criteria and Terminology
The following section describes the criteria and terminology used for during the landscape
assessment: -
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-3
Landscape Quality
For the purpose of this assessment, landscape quality is categorised as:
Exceptional Quality - Areas of especially high quality acknowledged through designation
as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or other landscape based sensitive areas. A
landscape that is significant within the wider region or at a national level;
High Quality - Areas that have a very strong positive character with valued and
consistent distinctive features that gives the landscape unity, richness and harmony. A
landscape that is significant within the district;
Medium Quality - Areas that exhibit positive character but which may have evidence of
alteration/degradation or erosion of features resulting in a less distinctive landscape.
May be of some local landscape significance with some positive recognisable structure;
and
Low Quality - Areas that are generally negative in character, degraded and in poor
condition. No distinctive positive characteristics and with little or no structure. Scope for
positive enhancement.
Landscape Sensitivity
Landscape sensitivity to the type of development proposed is defined as follows:
High Sensitivity: High visual quality landscape with highly valued or unique
characteristics susceptible to relatively small changes.
Medium Sensitivity: Medium visual quality landscape with moderately valued
characteristics reasonably tolerant of changes.
Low Sensitivity: Low visual quality landscape with common characteristics capable of
absorbing substantial change.
Magnitude of Landscape Resource Change
Direct resource changes on the landscape character of the study area are brought about by
the introduction of the proposal and its effects on the key landscape characteristics. The
following categories and criteria have been used:
High magnitude: Total loss or alteration to key elements of the landscape character
which result in fundamental and / or permanent long-term change.
Medium magnitude: Partial or noticeable loss of elements of the landscape character
and / or medium-term change.
Low magnitude: Minor alteration to elements of the landscape character and / or short-
term/ temporary change.
No Change: No change to landscape character.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-4
Significance of Landscape Impact
The level of significance of effect on landscape is a product of landscape sensitivity and the
magnitude of alteration in landscape resource. Where landscape sensitivity has been
predicted as high and the magnitude of change as high or medium the resultant impact will be
significant in terms of EIA Regulations. This is illustrated in Table 15.1 below.
Table 15.1 Significance of Landscape Impact
Landscape Sensitivity Magnitude of
Landscape resource
change Low Medium High
No change No change No change No change
Low Slight Slight / moderate Moderate
Medium Slight / moderate Moderate Moderate /
Substantial
High Moderate Moderate
/Substantial
Substantial
Landscape Assessment Definitions
Landscape Resource: The combination of elements that contribute to landscape
context, character and value.
Landscape Value: The relative value or importance attached to a landscape that
expresses national or local consensus because of intrinsic characteristics.
Landscape Character: The distinct and homogenous pattern that occurs in the
landscape reflecting geology, landform, soils, vegetation and man’s impact
15.2.3 Visual Assessment Criteria and Terminology
The following text describes the key criteria and terminology used in the visual assessment.
Viewer Sensitivity
Viewer sensitivity is a combination of the sensitivity of the human receptor (i.e. resident;
commuter, tourist; walker; recreationist, or worker) and viewpoint type or location (i.e. house,
workplace, leisure venue, local beauty spot, scenic viewpoint, commuter route, tourist route or
walkers’ route). Sensitivity can be defined as follows:
High sensitivity: e.g. users of an outdoor recreation feature which focuses on the
landscape; valued views enjoyed by the community; tourist visitors to scenic viewpoint.
Medium sensitivity: e.g. users of outdoor sport or recreation which does not offer or
focus attention on landscape; tourist travellers.
Low sensitivity: e.g. regular commuters, people at place of work (excluding outdoor
recreation).
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-5
Magnitude of Visual Resource Change
The magnitude of alteration in visual resource or amenity results from the scale of change in
the view with respect to the loss or addition of features in the view and changes in the view
composition, including proportion of the view occupied by the proposed development.
Distance and duration of view must be considered. Other vertical features in the landscape
and the backdrop to the development will all influence the magnitude of visual resource
change. This can be defined as follows:
High magnitude: Where changes to the view significantly alter (negative or beneficial)
the overall scene or cause some alteration to the view for a significant length of time.
Medium magnitude: Where some changes occur (negative or beneficial) in the view, but
not for a substantial part of the view amd/or for a substantial length of time.
Low magnitude: Where only a minor alteration to the view occurs (negative or
beneficial) and/or not for a significant length of time.
No change: No discernible deterioration or improvement in the existing view.
Significance of Visual Impact
Significance of visual impact is defined on a project by project basis. The principal criteria for
determining significance are magnitude and sensitivity of the receptor. A higher level of
significance is generally attached to large scale or substantial effects on sensitive receptors.
Where visual sensitivity has been predicted as high or medium, and the magnitude of change
as high, the resultant impact will be significant. Where the magnitude of change has been
predicted as high and the visual sensitivity has been predicted as high or medium then the
resultant impact will be significant in terms of EIA Regulations.
Table 15.2 illustrates significance of visual impact as a correlation between viewer sensitivity
and visual resource change magnitude.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-6
Table 15.2 Significance of Visual Impact
Visual Sensitivity Visual Resource
Change Magnitude Low Medium High
No change No change No change No change
Low Slight Slight / moderate Moderate
Medium Slight /
moderate
Moderate Moderate / Substantial
High Moderate Moderate/Substa
ntial
Substantial
Positive effects upon receptors may also result from a change to the view. These may be
through the removal of negative features or visual detractors, or through the addition of well
designed elements, which add to the visual experience in a complementary, positive and
stimulating manner.
Visual Assessment Definitions
Visual Quality: Although the interpretation of viewers’ experience can have preferential and
subjective components, there is generally clear public agreement that the visual resources of
certain landscapes have high visual quality. The visual quality of a landscape will reflect the
physical state of the repair of individual features or elements.
Visual Resources: The visual resources of the landscape are the stimuli upon which actual
visual experience is based. They are a combination of visual character and visual quality.
Visual Character: When a viewer experiences the visual environment, it is not observed as
one aspect at a time, but rather as an integrated whole. The viewer’s visual understanding of
an area is based on the visual character of elements and aspects and the relationships
between them.
Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI)
The ZVI is the area within which views of the site and/or the development can be obtained.
The extent of the ZVI is determined primarily by the topography of the area. The ZVI is then
refined by field studies to indicate where relevant forestry, woodlands, hedges or other local
features obscure visibility from the main roads, local viewpoints/landmarks and/or significant
settlements.
Using terrain-modelling techniques combined with the proposed development specification, a
map is created to show areas from where the proposed development would theoretically be
seen. A worst case scenario is taken in line with Landscape Institute guidelines.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-7
The actual visual impacts within the ZVI have been described in later sections of this report.
The ZVI for the proposal is illustrated in Figure15.1 in Appendix 10.
Photographs
Photographs have been prepared for selected representative viewpoints throughout the study
area as indicated in Figure 15.2 in Appendix 10.
Viewpoints are chosen to give a typical representative sample of views of the proposal within
the landscape using the parameters of distance and direction of view. Viewpoints frequented
by members of the public such as public rights of way, car parks and popular viewpoints are
usually chosen, along with views from nearby settlements.
Photographs from each viewpoint location are taken covering an arc of view matching that of
the visual extent of the development.
15.3 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT
15.3.1 Scale and Character
Landscape is generally characterised by physical factors such as landform and land cover
including topography, water, vegetation and settlements.
This site constitutes a defined area of water within the River Shannon Estuary, located
between the southern shore of the river and East Jetty – an open piled structure 290 metres
long and accessed via an 82 metre long viaduct, within Foynes Port.
The Shannon Estuary and its coastline is the dominant feature of the landscape within the
study area. Scattered rural housing located along the existing road network is designed to
take advantage of existing views. Across the expanse of the Shannon to the north, the
coastline of Clare is sporadically visible, however at this location views to the Port and village
are largely obscured by the tree covered banks of Foynes Island.
Foynes Village is a significant feature in the landscape. This is a model estate town with
historic associations to trans-Atlantic transportation in the 19th and 20th Century. Today there
is a growing tourist industry linked with this history, although the town continues to be
recognised mainly for its Port facilities which are a core asset for the economic development
of the region. The area surrounding the site is zoned industrial land and the landscape is
accordingly dominated by warehousing and associated infrastructure. Crane structures, many
of which are moveable/temporary represent significant vertical elements along the Shoreline.
South of the railway line that dissects the zoned development limit of Foynes; an Architectural
Conservation Area is located on both sides of the N69 Road. This ACA is established to
protect features including frequent buildings constructed of ashlar and rustic limestone, natural
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-8
slate roofing and timber windows, some with cast iron sashes and a significant number of
houses are lime rendered.
The landscape character of the study area can be described by use of the following distinctive
landscape character areas:
1. Foynes Port and Urban Landscape:
The proposal is located on the eastern side of Foynes village within the existing Foynes Port.
The harbour industry has grown significantly in modern times and Foynes Port is one of the
most important ports on the western coast. This is exhibited visually by the large ships and
boats that use the port as well as by the support services necessary for the port housed in
large industrial style units. The harbour has a busy (working) appearance constantly on the
move. Tall mast lighting and cranes are prominent and visible from the wider landscape. A
large number of HGV’s and transport containers use the port and are visually prominent on
local roads. Commercial and industrial buildings related to the Port extend east towards the
N69. The village is centred on Main Street that consists of two storey buildings. The
topography rises to the west of the village where residential development is prominent at
Marine Cove.
The Foynes Port and Urban Landscape Character Area has a low sensitivity to change.
2. Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland
This LCA is comprised of a fairly refined portion of land to the south, east and west of the
urban footprint of Foynes. The landscape is dominated by the southern shore of the Shannon
River which is also the defining characteristic of the wider region as well as a somewhat
unique natural asset in an Irish context. To the south of the N69 Road shallow tracts of
forestry and occasionally steep landscape tracts partially obscure long distance views within
the LCA. These natural features are notable in the landscape surrounding Foynes Village.
Further south the landscape gradually rises into agricultural lands which in turn lead to the
western hills of south-west Limerick. Field patterns, close to the estuary, are more irregular
and less dominated by hedgerows than those located further south. The landscape of the
estuary is unique in character in that it possesses both agricultural and maritime
characteristics.
Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland is assessed as a landscape with a high sensitivity to
change.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-9
15.3.2 Planning Designations
Limerick County Development Plan 2010 – 2016
Limerick County Development Plan 2010 – 2016 came into effect on 29th November 2010 with
the purpose of setting out the County Council’s overall strategy for planning and development
within the County until 2016 and beyond. This document has been reviewed to ascertain
relevant land use designations to assist in the appraisal of important landscape and visual
features and landscape quality. It should be noted that not all policies relevant to Foynes, the
Port or the Shannon Estuary are listed as a fully comprehensive planning review is included in
Chapter 1 – Introduction of the EIS.
Views and Prospects
The importance of landscape and visual amenity and the fact that this may conflict with other
roles of planning is recognised in the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2010.
Accordingly, preservation of the character of the landscape, including the preservation of
views and prospects and the amenities of places and features of natural beauty or interest is
listed as a mandatory objective of the Plan.
Map 7.61 of the Development Plan sets out protected views and prospects within the Plan
Area. The only view/prospect of relevance to the study area is:
located along the N69 adjacent to the Shannon Estuary from Foynes to Glin. This is
incorporated into the Shannon Estuary Integrated Coastal Management Zone.
Regarding the area between Foynes and Glin, Section 9.41 of the Plan states that the extreme
sensitivity from a visual and environmental perspective should be borne in mind when
considering any new development proposals.
1http://www.lcc.ie/NR/rdonlyres/98B6FBFC-A88E-4ADD-9E7B
4663058E8A33/0/Volume1WrittenStatementWebversion.pdf
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-10
Landscape Character Areas
Chapter 71 and Map 7.4 of the County Development Plan 2010-2016 sets out Landscape
Character Areas within the Plan Area. On this basis the study area for this LVIA is entirely
located within the Shannon Estuary Integrated Coastal Management Zone. The Plan states
that this zone comprises a large area of the northern part of the County bounded by the
Shannon Estuary with rising ground leading into an agricultural zone and western hills to the
south. The estuary is stated as the main feature of the LCA and is of regional importance. The
landscape is said to be enclosed farmland dominated by hedgerows with field patterns being
less regular than elsewhere in the County.
The Shannon Integrated Coastal Management Zone as described in the Development Plan is
consistent with the Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland LCA identified by this landscape and
visual impact assessment in Section 15.3.1 - above.
Clare County Development Plan 2011 – 2017
Given the relative proximity to County Clare and in the interest of thoroughness a review has taken
place of the Clare County Development Plan 2011-2017 to establish if there is any relevant
landscape and visual related designations that may influence the assessment within the study
area. Chapter 162 and Map 16a of the Development Plan set out a range of landscape zonings for
the County summarised below.
Landscape Character Areas
Appendix 7 in the County Development Plan 2011-2017 sets out the relevant landscape
character areas within the study area as follows;
LCA 18 Shannon Estuary Farmlands:- The Landscape Character Assessment of Clare County
states that the key characteristics of this LCA are; prominent ridged landscape with linear hills;
secluded areas interspersed with open views across the estuary; flatter coastal fringe;
Scattery Island important focal point; and complex patterns of farmland.
The Shannon Estuary Farmlands (LCA18) described in the County Clare Development Plan is
consistent with the Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland LCA identified by this landscape and
visual impact assessment in Section 15.3.1 - above.
2 http://www.clarecoco.ie/planning/publications/clare-county-development-plan-2011-2017-volume-1-
written-statement-9107.pdf
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-11
Seascape Character Areas
The Landscape Character Assessment of County Clare identified 12 Seascape Character
Areas. The relevant area for the proposal is Seascape Character Area 11 - River Shannon,
which runs tight to the coastline and is illustrated in Chapter 16 - Figure 16.3 of the Plan.
Living Landscape Types
The Plan has developed objectives for future planning of rural areas of County Clare by
considering the County to consist of three types of areas; Settled Landscapes – where people
work and live comprising the network of farmland, villages and towns in the County; Working
Landscapes – intensively settled and developed areas within Settled Landscapes or areas
with a unique natural resource comprising two areas, The Western Corridor between Ennis,
Limerick and the Shannon Estuary between Moneypoint and Ballynacragga Point excluding
Clonderalaw Bay; Heritage Landscapes – where natural and cultural heritage are given priority
including Clonderalaw Bay. Each area is outlined in Map 16a of the Plan. The Plan sets out a
series of objectives for new development within these areas.
Scenic Routes
Appendix 7 of the Development Plan set out protected views and prospects from Scenic
Routes within the study area. There are number of such designations in the study area as
follows; Scenic Route SR 18 – Along coast road from Carrigaholt to Doonaha; Scenic Route
SR 19 – Coast road south east of Cappagh to Carrowdotia South; and SR 20 – R473 from
outside Labasheeda to T junction before Killadysert.
15.4 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS
15.4.1 Landscape Character Area Impacts
As identified in the baseline assessment above the study area incorporates two landscape
character areas:
Foynes Port and Urban Landscape; and
Shannon Estuary and Rounded Farmland.
The landscape impacts of the proposed development is summarised in the following text.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-12
Foynes Port and Urban Landscape
The development proposed is located between the existing Foynes Port Shoreline and the
southern edge of the East Jetty. The length of the existing jetty will not increase, rather, the
land reclamation will occur within a narrow expanse of water between the jetty and shore. The
proposal is consistent with the character of Foynes Port and Urban Landscape and the facility
will blend in seamlessly with existing infrastructure. Additionally, the low lying nature of the
proposal will render it invisible throughout the majority of the Foynes urban area.
The landscape at this location is identified as medium quality with a low sensitivity to change.
The predicted magnitude of change in landscape resource is low and the significance of the
landscape impact is assessed as slight /negative.
Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland
The proposal will be an insignificant development within the wider Shannon Estuary Rounded
Farmland Landscape Character Area. The proposal is located among existing port facilities
and will not be visible, blending into a backdrop of a busy port and existing fixed and movable
plant and infrastructures.
The Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland landscape is identified as high quality with a high
sensitivity to change. Due to the lack of influence over this landscape the proposal is predicted
to have a magnitude of change in the landscape resource of no change and therefore the
predicted significance of landscape impact for this LCA is no change.
15.4.2 Planning Policy Designation Impacts
Impacts on relevant designations contained within the Limerick and Clare County
Development Plans – as referred to above in Section 15.3.2 – are assessed below.
Limerick County Development Plan 2010 – 2016
Views and Prospects: The proposal will have no impact on the majority of the protected views
and prospects along the N69 east of Tarbert to Foynes due to the distance of view and
intervening topography. A brief glimpse view is available from the N69 when travelling east
and approaching Foynes in closer proximity to the proposed site where the existing context of
the Port will provide a common backdrop to the proposal ensuring that there will be no
significant visual impacts along the N69 (see Viewpoint 1 below).
Landscape Character: Chapter 7 and Map 7.4 in the County Development Plan 2010-2016
sets out the relevant landscape character areas within the study area. LCA 2 Shannon
Integrated Coastal Management Zone described in the Development Plan is consistent with
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-13
the Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland LCA identified by this landscape and visual impact
assessment and predicted landscape impacts are described fully in Section 15.4.1 - above.
Clare County Development Plan 2011 – 2017
Landscape Character Areas: There is only one specific objective set out in the Plan for
landscape character areas - to encourage the use of the Landscape Character Assessment of
County Clare as an excellent resource and extremely useful tool during the preparation of
planning applications. The Shannon Estuary Farmlands (LCA18) described in the Clare
County Development Plan is consistent with the Shannon Estuary Rounded Farmland LCA
identified by this landscape and visual impact assessment in section 15.3.1 – above.
Consistent with 15.4.1 no significant landscape impacts have been predicted for this LCA due
to distance from the proposal.
Seascape Character Areas: There are no specific objectives set out in the Plan for seascape
character areas. The nearest area identified in the Plan to the proposal is Seascape Character
Area 11 - River Shannon - that runs tight to the coastline and is illustrated in Map 16.3 of the
Plan. Due to the distance of the proposal from this defined area there will be no direct impacts
on the River Shannon Seascape Character Area on the Clare County coast.
Living Landscape Types: The nearest Living Landscape Type to the proposed scheme is the
Working Landscape known as Shannon Estuary located between Moneypoint and
Ballynacragga Point excluding Clonderalaw Bay as outlined in Map 16a of the Plan. The
objectives set out in the Plan for this landscape type are focused on development within these
areas when the proposal is located very remote form the area set out in Map 16a. A Heritage
Landscape extends around Clonderalaw Bay east of Killimer that is even further from the
proposal. The Tarbert Power Plant is a much more prominent landscape feature than the
proposals in views from County Clare at this location. Consequently as with the Landscape
Character Area above due to the distance of the proposal no significant impacts are predicted
for these designations.
Scenic Routes: There are number of such designations in the study area with potential for
visual impact as follows; Scenic Route SR 18 – Along coast road from Carrigaholt to
Doonaha; Scenic Route SR 19 – Coast road south east of Cappagh to Carrowdotia South;
and SR 20 – R473 from outside Labasheeda to T junction before Killadysert. Site survey and
assessment has established that due to distance and intervening topography it will not be
possible to view the proposals from SR18 and SR19. Long distance views (5-6km) will be
possible from SR20 between Labasheeda and Killadysert. As illustrated by Viewpoint 6 below
a combination of the distance of views and the intervening topography of Foynes Island
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-14
prevents views from this scenic route. Overall no significant visual impacts are predicted for
Scenic Routes designated in the Clare County Development Plan.
15.4.3 Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI)
The ZVI for the proposed scheme is illustrated in Figure 15.1. As viewer distance from the
proposed site and existing port facility increases, the level of visibility decreases significantly.
This is contributed to by the low lying nature of the coastal landscape within the study area. As
referred to previously, the nature of the development – land reclamation to existing ground
level – the context of the site, and the relatively refined size of the area will all combine to
further negate potential views.
As stated in Section 15.2.3, the delineation of the ZVI is dictated based on a worst case
scenario. In reality, views of the site will be entirely obscured from a number of locations within
this area such as from within the urban Foynes area. At most locations within Foynes, the
enclosed nature of the existing streetscape will render views to the site either impossible or -
where available – insignificant.
The ZVI has been used to identify the locations where potential visual impacts may occur. The
following text describes the predicted visual impacts on visual receptors within the ZVI.
Within the study area the landscape is generally well enclosed. The existing urban fabric of
Foynes and the Port facilities also helps offset the potential visual impact where views are
occasionally available. In these instances it will be difficult to discern the location of the site
given the type of development proposed and the context within which it will be located.
To the west of the site there will be occasional open and expansive views along the N69
Coast Road, as it rises gently along the southern banks of the Shannon. Further south the
landscape becomes more elevated however views are restricted by existing roadside
vegetation as well as a band of forestry surrounding the southern outskirts of Foynes. Any
open views from this direction are long distance in nature and proposed scheme will be
insignificant as it merges within the settlement and port.
East of the site the landscape is low lying and flat, obscuring views in the direction of the site.
Views along the Shannon Estuary from the east are further obscured by the headlands and
existing development present on Aughinish Island. Potential views across the Shannon from
County Clare will be insignificant given the separation distance and backdrop to the site. Often
these will be entirely obscured by the intervening land mass of Foynes Island.
Existing clusters of housing within Foynes constitute the nearest residential structures to the
site. These are located along and adjacent to Main Street/N69. The low lying topography
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-15
throughout the village prevents long term views to the site from these residential areas. In
addition those along the Main Street and to the south at Woodvale are generally orientated to
face away from direction of the site. Where the topography and townscape allows the
Shannon to become the focus of views, for example at Marine Cove in Foynes, the existing
Port facilities are prominent in views and will combine with the distance of such views to
restrict the significance of any visual impact associated with the proposal.
15.4.4 Visual Impacts on Residential Properties
An assessment has been completed within the ZVI to determine the magnitude of visual
impact of the scheme on potential views from sensitive visual receptors including residential
properties.
The majority of dwellings within the study area are located within the development limit of
Foynes. Because of the built up nature of the townscape and low lying topography throughout
most of the village, views within Foynes will be severely restricted. Views of the proposal to
linear housing development to the southeast along the N69 for example – will be completely
obscured. Dwellings are often grouped together in terraces – such as Main Street - or housing
estates, and front onto the existing road network away from the site. Where the topography
and townscape allows views towards the proposals at Marine Cove, the existing Port facilities
will restrict the significance of any visual impact associated with the proposal.
Scattered sporadic dwellings are located within the study area beyond Foynes to the south
and to the west. Views from individual dwellings will vary with the specific characteristics of
each site. Where available from the elevated lands to the south however, the separation
distance together with the intervening townscape of Foynes combines to mitigate the impact of
the proposal. To the west, a number of dwellings front onto the N69. The orientation of the
road and intervening landscape features including topography and vegetation combine to
obscure views from dwellings in this direction.
No residential properties within the ZVI will have been predicted as having significant visual
impacts
15.4.5 Viewpoint Assessment
A series of representative viewpoints have been selected from locations throughout the study
area and subjected to specific assessment below. The location of all viewpoints can be cross
referenced using Figure 15.2.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-16
Viewpoint 1 – N69 Coast Road –North of Foynes
Type and Sensitivity of receptor: This view is available from the N69 on a Scenic Route
designated in the Limerick Development Plan and is predominantly available to the local
community, tourists and day-trippers. The viewer sensitivity is high.
Existing view: The N69 coastal route dominates the scene as it rises westwards away from
Foynes. The southern edge of Foynes Island is visible in the River as are the tops of masts of
boats moored along the River’s southern banks. Steep roadside embankments define the right
of the view. In the middle distance portside infrastructure and ships are visible at a lower
elevation. Occasional cranes, the tops of ship masts and roadside telegraph poles are further
vertical elements in the view.
Predicted view: The proposal will be located in the centre of this view. However, only a very
small portion of the proposal will be visible and it will be extremely difficult to discern from the
rest of the Port facilities.
Magnitude of visual resource change: There will be no change to the visual resource available
at this location.
Significance of visual impact: The predicted significance of visual impact is no change.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-17
Viewpoint 2 – Main Street, Foynes
Type and Sensitivity of receptor: This view is available to local traffic on the N69 as well as
day trippers and tourists visiting Foynes. The viewer sensitivity is medium.
Existing view: This view is available along Main Street, Foynes at the entrance to the Flying
Boat Museum. The scene is dominated by the roadway including pavements, walls, signage,
telegraph pole, and a telephone kiosk. Variety in the scene is increased by the visibility of
trees and areas of open space along both road sides. Two storey terraced roadside
development is visible in the middle distance on the northern side of the Main Street. The view
is enclosed.
Predicted view: The majority of the proposal will not be visible from this location due to its low
lying nature and the intervening development and landscape features. The upper portions of
cranes and lighting masts will be partially visible especially in winter months. The partially
visible features will not be overly prominent and read with the streetscape in the foreground.
Magnitude of visual resource change: The magnitude of change to the visual resource will be
low.
Significance of visual impact: The predicted significance of visual impact is slight/moderate.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-18
Viewpoint 3 – Foynes Port Access Road
Type and Sensitivity of receptor: This view is predominantly available to local work traffic and
those accessing/leaving Foynes Port on business purposes. The viewer sensitivity is
assessed as low.
Existing view: This view is available along the access road to Foynes Port across a low lying
and flat landscape. The entrance gates are visible in the centre of the scene, bisecting the
road itself which is lined by large grass verges. A single vertical pole acting as a
lighting/surveillance stanchion is an obvious feature in the scene along with large tanks and
tall buildings. Vegetation obscures views towards the northwest.
Predicted view: Given the low lying nature of the proposal, it will not be visible from this
location as it will be entirely obscured by intervening vegetation and existing development.
Magnitude of visual resource change: There will be no change to the visual resource available
at this location.
Significance of visual impact: The predicted significance of visual impact is no change.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-19
Viewpoint 4 – Marine Cove Housing Development, Foynes
Type and Sensitivity of receptor: This view is predominantly available to the local community
(residents of the Marine Cove housing estate) on a cul-de-sac. The viewer sensitivity is high.
Existing view: The elevated location of viewpoint means there are quite open and expansive
views towards the Shannon Estuary to the northeast. The southern shores of Foynes Island
are visible in the River, to the extreme right of the view. The roofs of lower lying housing in the
Marine Cove development are visible across the foreground of the view. The tops of cranes
and boat masts are visible in the direction of the docks that break the skyline.
Predicted view: The proposals will be partly located within this view including cranes and mast
lighting but will be impossible to discern from the existing port facilities.
Magnitude of visual resource change: There will be no change to the visual resource available
at this location.
Significance of visual impact The predicted significance of visual impact is no change.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-20
Viewpoint 5 – N69 –East of Foynes
Type and Sensitivity of receptor: This view is available along the N69 east of Foynes and is
predominantly available to the local community including works traffic to Foynes Port as well
as tourists, day trippers and through traffic along the N69. The viewer sensitivity is medium.
Existing view: The view is dominated by four lanes of the N69, two of which are facilitate
access to and from Foynes Port. The N69 is defined on both sides by narrow grass verges
and stone walls. In the distance towards Foynes, large trees also define the roadside.
Buildings at Foynes are partially visible but hard to discern. There are also partial views to
taller infrastructure at the Port.
Predicted view: The proposal will not be visible due to the low lying nature of the proposed
land reclamation, the separation distance and intervening landscape features.
Magnitude of visual resource change: There will be no change to the visual resource available
at this location.
Significance of visual impact: The predicted significance of visual impact is no change.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-21
Viewpoint 6 – Cahercon County Clare
Type and Sensitivity of receptor: This view is predominantly available to the local community,
tourists and day trippers from the R473 road that is designated as a Scenic Route. The
viewer sensitivity is high.
Existing view: The view is available to the northwest of the site across the expanse of the
Shannon Estuary and at a distance of approximately 5km. Rural and agricultural in nature, the
foreground of the view is dominated by large fields defined by well trimmed hedgerows and
stone walls. The Shannon is visible in the middle distance, beyond the Limerick Coastline and
Foynes Island are visible.
Predicted view: The proposal will not be visible due to the separation distance and the
intervening landmass of Foynes Island.
Magnitude of visual resource change: There will be no change to the visual resource available
at this location.
Significance of visual impact: The predicted significance of visual impact is no change.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-22
15.4.6 Construction Phase Impacts
Construction Phase Impacts
During the construction phase potential impacts include:
(i) Site preparation/enabling works and operations;
(ii) Site infrastructure and access;
(iii) Vehicular and plant movements including dredging; and
(iv) Dust emissions
The construction phase is likely to be in the order of 16 months and therefore visual impacts
during the construction phase will be of a temporary nature. Works will be visible from within
the ZVI during this location to a varied extent that will be related to the construction activity at
any given time.
Due to distance and the broad scale of the landscape within which the works are located the
change in landscape and visual resource will be low therefore the significance of landscape
and visual impacts during the construction stage will be slight. There are no residential
dwellings in close proximity to the construction works and no significant visual impacts are
predicted at this stage as a result.
15.5 MITIGATION MEASURES
The visual impact of the proposal is caused by the appearance of a reclaimed portion of land
to the rear of the East Jetty at Foynes Port, on the southern bank of the Shannon and its
associated operational features such as cranes and light masts.
The design evolution of the proposed project has undertaken to enable incorporation of the
following mitigation measures;
i) sensitive use of local materials for constructed elements;
ii) careful integration of constructed elements with existing elements such as existing
jetties;
iii) general site housekeeping designed to minimise visual impact during construction
stage;
iv) use of directional lighting.
Good site design, use of an environmental management plan during the construction phase
and incorporation of mitigation measures identified above will effectively mitigate the impact of
ancillary works.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 15.0: LANDSCAPE & VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-23
15.6 CONCLUSION
The proposed scheme is located to the rear of the existing east jetty within the Port of Foynes,
on the southern bank of the Shannon. In landscape character terms the wider study area has
been classified as:
Foynes Port and Urban Landscape; and
Shannon Estuary and Rounded Farmland.
The proposal is located within the former of these LCA and because of the context within
which the proposal will be located – Foynes Port - and its low lying nature, there will be no
significant landscape impacts on either of the Landscape Character Areas identified. The
proposals are consistent with this LCA.
The theoretical ZVI has been established for the proposed development. The extent of the
visibility of the proposal is limited by existing built development at Foynes and the topography
of Foynes Island. A series of six viewpoints have been assessed to give an accurate reflection
of views to the site from throughout the study area. No significant impacts are predicted for
any viewpoints.
Existing clusters of housing within Foynes constitute the nearest residential structures to the
site although further scattered sporadic dwellings are located within the study area beyond
Foynes to the south and to the west especially. The low lying nature of the proposal, existing
port facilities located in views, intervening features, separation distances and orientation of
distance combine to ensure there are no residential dwellings within the ZVI predicted as
being significantly impacted.
The current Limerick and Clare County Development Plans have been examined. The
proposal will have no significant impact on any relevant landscape designations due to the
separation distance between the proposals and designations.
Overall, therefore, when the landscape and visual impacts are considered the proposal is
acceptable and the surrounding landscape and its visual resources have the ability to
accommodate the changes of the type associated with this development.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-1
16.0 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
16.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapters 5.0 to 15.0 of this EIS assess the likely significant impacts arising from the proposed
development. This section summarises the impacts identified and the mitigation measures
required, where necessary.
16.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 16.1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation
Cetaceans (Chapter 5)
Lower River
Shannon cSAC
Visual and noise disturbance to
Lower River Shannon during
construction
Site of the proposed reclamation
works was found to have no
significant ecological value.
In order to ensure no dolphins are
affected by the proposed land
reclamation a Marine Mammal
Observer (MMO) should be used
during activities which might disturb
dolphins.
Terrestrial Mammals, Inter-tidal and Sub-Tidal Flora and Fauna (Chapter 6)
Lower River
Shannon cSAC
& River
Shannon and
Fergus cSPA
Permanent loss of 1.5ha of inter-tidal
habitat
The findings of the site
investigations have shown the area
of the proposed land reclamation is
of no significant ecological value.
The site largely comprises inter-tidal
mud and is greatly disturbed by
human activity and ship berthing.
The total area which SFPC are
proposing to reclaim is
approximately 2.5ha, however only
1.5ha of this is inter-tidal. While this
will mean some loss of the Annex 1
Saltmarsh Habitat based on the
results of the field assessments it is
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-2
Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation
apparent that the loss will have no
significant impact on the overall
integrity of the Lower Shannon SAC
or SPA.
Nonetheless appropriate mitigation
measures under Article 6.3 of the
Habitats Directive will be undertaken
by SFPC to offset any perceived
loss of habitat and potential foraging
areas for birds.
Mitigation Measures proposed
include the enhancement of an
adjacent SAC/SPA at Barrigone
through the Identification of areas of
inter-tidal mudflats which have
become encroached and invaded by
Spartinia anglica swards. Steps will
be undertaken in consultation with
NPWS and IFI to enhance this area
in order to restore the natural habitat
and provide feeding areas for birds.
Lower River
Shannon cSAC
Impact on
Commercial
and
Recreational
Fisheries
There was no evidence of
commercial fishing in the area but
recreational fishing is promoted
outside of the immediate Port area.
The extent of this fishing is not
known but it seems to concentrate
on the deep water off the jetties and
not the shallow inter or sub-tidal
areas. Whereas some fish feeding
areas will be removed following
reclamation, direct access, by the
public, to the shore at the site is
restricted and discouraged as it is a
working jetty, thus any impact on
recreational fishing will not be
significant.
The following mitigation measures
have been incorporated into the
design of the dredging works:
The dredging operations will use
Best Available Technology. No
overspill of material from the barges
will be permitted.
The dredging will take place outside
the salmon season of May – July.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-3
Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation
Loss of benthic
communities
Loss of benthic communities within
reclamation footprint.
Currently this area is extremely
impoverished with very low biomass
and availability of fauna. No
mitigation required.
Birds (Chapter 7)
River Shannon
and River
Fergus cSPA
Disturbance
Loss of Habitat
Disturbance during construction
works within the proposed
reclamation area, including dredging
activities, is not expected to have
any significant impact on birds
feeding and roosting within the
channel or intertidal areas
surrounding the East Jetty.
The loss of 1.4ha of intertidal
mudflat south of the East Jetty will
not have a significant impact on any
water birds using the
Shannon/Fergus Estuaries.
Nonetheless appropriate mitigation
measures under Article 6.3 of the
Habitats Directive will be undertaken
by SFPC to offset any perceived
loss of habitat and potential foraging
areas for birds.
Mitigation Measures proposed
include the enhancement of an
adjacent SAC/SPA at Barrigone
through the Identification of areas of
inter-tidal mudflats which have
become encroached and invaded by
Spartinia anglica swards. Steps will
be undertaken in consultation with
NPWS and IFI to enhance this area
in order to restore the natural habitat
and provide feeding areas for birds.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-4
Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation
Air Quality (Chapter 8)
Impact of
Construction
Traffic
Nuisance dust and Particulate
Matter (PM10) from construction
activities.
Traffic-derived air pollution and dust
from transport during construction.
Increased dust and traffic-derived
pollutions can negatively impact on
amenity, visual and health aspects
of local receptors during the
construction period.
Site roads will be regularly cleaned
and maintained as appropriate. Hard
surface roads will be swept to
remove mud and aggregate
materials from their surface while any
un-surfaced roads will be restricted
to essential site traffic only;
Any site roads with the potential to
give rise to dust will be regularly
watered, as appropriate, during dry
and/or windy conditions (also applies
to vehicles delivering material with
dust potential);
All vehicles exiting the site should
make use of a wheel wash facility
prior to entering onto public roads, to
ensure mud and other wastes are
not tracked onto public roads. Wheel
washes will be self-contained
systems that do not require
discharge of wastewater to water
bodies;
The contractor will be required to
ensure that all vehicles are suitably
maintained to ensure that emissions
of engine generated pollutants is
kept to a minimum;
Public roads outside the site will be
regularly inspected for cleanliness,
and cleaned as necessary;
The site should be adequately
screened with suitable barriers to
reduce the potential for dust
dispersion;
Material handling systems and site
stockpiling of materials will be
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-5
Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation
designed and laid out to minimise
exposure to wind and will be located
as far from receptors as possible;
Minimise drop-heights to control the
fall of materials;
The transport of topsoil, rock,
aggregate, and any other fill
materials should be undertaken in
tarpaulin-covered vehicles;
The number of material handling
operations should be minimised to
ensure that dusty material is not
handled unnecessarily;
Any material on made ground should
be kept damp and not allowed to dry
out;
Hard surfacing of made ground will
take place as soon as is
operationally feasible;
Continued dust monitoring in the
vicinity of the port;
Adherence to the Ports management
document Procedures for Handling
Dusty Product.
Impact of
Operational
Traffic
No increase in operational traffic
associated with the works No mitigation measures required.
Coastal Processes (Chapter 9)
Impact on
coastal
processes
Impact of the reclamation area and
dredged area on the tidal flow and
sediment transport regime.
Impact of the dredging operations
as a result of the sediment plume
arising from the dredging activity
and from settlement of material
brought into suspension.
Computational modelling of the
proposed dredging works and the
creation of a reclamation area
confirmed that:
The dredging operation, using Best
Available Technology, would have no
significant impact on the marine
ecology outside the immediate area
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-6
Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation
to be reclaimed as a result of a
sediment plume arising from the
dredging activity or from re-
settlement of material brought into
suspension.
The creation of the reclamation area
and dredged area would have no
significant impact on the tidal flow
and sediment transport regime of the
Lower Shannon Estuary.
Sediment Quality (Chapter 10)
Dumping at Sea
Dredged material unsuitable for re-
use within the reclamation area will
be disposed of at sea at a licensed
disposal site located within the
Lower Shannon estuary. Chemical
analysis of the material has
indicated that it is suitable for
disposal at sea without causing a
significant impact on marine
ecology. A separate Dumping at Sea
Permit will be applied for which will
include modelling to determine the
‘footprint’ of impact caused by the
disposal operation and an Impact
Hypothesis to assess the impact of
the disposal operations on the
marine ecology.
A separate Dumping at Sea Permit
will be applied for.
Noise & Vibration (Chapter 11)
Construction
Phase
There is potential for construction
noise levels from the proposed
development site to reach up to the
high 50s dB(A) at some properties if
worst-case noise levels are emitted
at the boundary of the proposed site
It is recommended that a robust
temporary barrier (minimum of 3m
height) is put up along the boundary
of the proposed construction
activities nearest to the closest noise
sensitive properties.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-7
Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation
and if no mitigating measures are
put in place.
A detailed construction plan will be
prepared and will include a range of
measures aimed at reducing the
potential construction noise impact
on the nearest properties to the
proposed development site.
This plan will also address the
issues relating to collaboration with
the local community in order to
reduce as much as possible the
potential impact from construction
noise.
A range of measures will be taken to
ensure that the quietest machinery is
used or that the use of machinery is
such as to be sensitive to the
residents at the nearest properties.
This will be detailed in the
construction plan mentioned above.
British Standard BS5228:2009 –
Noise and vibration control on
construction and open sites outlines
a range of measures that can be
used to reduce the impact of
construction phase noise on the
nearest noise sensitive receptors.
These measures will be applied by
the contractor where appropriate
during the constriction phase of the
proposed development.
It is not expected that the operational
phase of the proposed development
will result in any significant noise
impacts at the nearest noise
sensitive properties.
No mitigation measures required
Material Assets (Chapter 12)
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-8
Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation
Traffic Construction and Operational
Through the detailed traffic
assessment it has been
demonstrated and concluded that
the combined traffic impact of the
proposed development to and from
the site will not have a significant
impact on the surrounding road
network. It is noted that the
proposed development gives
support to building and working
towards the sustainable objectives
within the region.
To help improve access to the
Harbour, it is proposed to install
warning signage in advance of
both junctions to raise awareness
of the increase in construction
traffic associated with the works.
Skid resistant surfacing will be laid
100m in advance of both east and
west harbour accesses given the
increased risk of skidding given the
heavy loads involved.
Maximum visibility from the minor
arm of the junction is to be
provided by cutting back and
maintaining the grass verges along
the N69.
The current exclusion of HGVs
through Foynes Village is to be
maintained to prohibit disruption
through the village.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-9
Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation
Archaeology & Cultural Heritage (Chapter 13)
Intertidal/
Underwater
Archaeology
The development will require the
reclamation of an intertidal and
subtidal area and dredging works.
There are no recorded shipwrecks in
the vicinity of the proposed
development and geophysical
surveys did not show any items of
archaeological potential. However,
there is potential for items to be
buried in the soft sediment fraction in
the proposed development area.
Key stones of architectural interest
were identified during the site
investigations.
A suitably qualified archaeologist will
monitor the dredging works and an
archaeological plan will be
implemented in order to deal with
potential finds during the
construction phase of the project.
If it is not possible to avoid impacting
the key stones of interest, then they
should be recovered for re-use in an
appropriate location in future
development within the Port.
Consideration might be given to their
extraction from the quay walls and
featured in the new revetments
which will be built around the infilled
area.
Human Beings (Chapter 14)
The well-being of the local
community and the wider
community within the Foynes area
has been comprehensively
addressed within the EIS:
Impact on air quality – Chapter
8
Impact on material assets
including traffic – Chapter 12
Impact on landscape and visual
– Chapter 15
The construction associated with the
infilling of the foreshore behind the
jetty will use local services, such as
catering and plant hire. Temporary
local employment may be created
from the construction stage of the
project but this will be dependent on
the contractors appointed. No
significant socio-cultural impacts are
predicted arising from the temporary
local increase in noise associated
with construction. Once the jetty is
operational it will be strategically
valuable to the local and national
economy.
Therefore, no mitigation measures
are proposed as the assessment has
not identified potential negative
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION 16.0: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-10
Chapter Potential Impact Mitigation
impact on the general amenity of the
locality.
Landscape and Visual (Chapter 15)
Landscape
and Visual
Impact
The low lying nature of the
proposal, existing port facilities
located in views, intervening
features, separation distances and
orientation of distance combine to
ensure there are no residential
dwellings within the ZVI predicted
as being significantly impacted.
The current Limerick and Clare
County Development Plans have
been examined. The proposal will
have no significant impact on any
relevant landscape designations
due to the separation distance
between the proposals and
designations.
Overall, therefore, when the
landscape and visual impacts are
considered the proposal is
acceptable and the surrounding
landscape and its visual resources
have the ability to accommodate
the changes of the type associated
with this development.
No mitigation measures
required
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 1
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
CHAPTER 5.0 MARINE MAMMALS
Bailey, M. and Rochford J. (2006) Otter Survey of Ireland 2004/2005. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 23.
National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government,
Dublin, Ireland.
Dähne, M., U.K. Verfuß, Diederics, A., Meding, A. and Benke, H. (2006) T-POD test tank calibration
and field calibration. Static Acoustic Monitoring of Cetaceans, European Cetacean Society, Gydnia,
2006. ECS newsletter no.43-Sepcial Issue, July 2006, 1-55.
David, J.A. (2006) Likely sensitivity of bottlenose dolphins to pile-driving. Water and Environment 20,
48-54.
Leyrer, J. and Exo, K-M. (2001) Estimating prey accessibility for waders: a problem still to be solved.
Wader Study Bulletin 96, 60-63.
O’Brien, J. (2009) The Inshore Distribution and Abundance of Small Cetaceans on the West Coast
of Ireland: Site Assessment for SAC Designation and an Evaluation of Monitoring Techniques. Ph.D
Thesis submitted to the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, pp1-226.
O’Brien, J., Berrow, S.D., McGrath, D., and O’Connor, I. (in Prep) First results from long-term static
acoustic monitoring of small cetaceans on the west coast of Ireland using C-PODs. Biology and
Environment, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy.
O’Sullivan, G. (1983) The intertidal fauna of Aughinish Island, Shannon, Co Limerick. Irish Naturalists
Journal 21(2), 62-69.
Philpott, E., Englund, A., Ingram, S. and Rogan, E. (2007) Using T-PODs to investigate the
echolocation of coastal bottlenose dolphins. Journal of Marine Biological Association, 87, 11-17.
Tougaard, J., Poulsen, L.R., Amundin, M., Larsen, F., Rye, J. and Teilmann, J. (2006) Detection
function of T-PODs and estimation of porpoise densities. Proceedings of the workshop Static Acoustic
Monitoring of Cetaceans, held at the 20th Annual meeting of the European Cetacean Society, Gydinia,
Poland, April, 2006.
Villadsgaard, A., Wahlberg, M. and Tougaard, J. (2007) Echolocation signals of wild harbour
porpoises, Phocoena phocoena. Journal of Experimental Biology, 210, 56-64.
Zwarts, L. and Wanink, J.H.(1993) How the Food Supply Harvestable by Waders in the Wadden Sea
Depends on the Variation in Energy Density, Body Weight, Biomass, Burying Depth and Behaviour of
Tidal-Flat Invertebrates. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research 31 (4): 44 1-476.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 2
CHAPTER 7 BIRDS Berrow, S. and O’Brien, J. (2010). Shannon Foynes Port Company Land Reclamation Survey Marine
Investigations: Draft Final Report. Unpublished report.
Boland, H., Walsh, A. and Crowe, O. (2010) Irish Wetland Bird Survey: results of waterbird monitoring
in Ireland in 2008/09. Irish Birds 9: 55-66.
Crowe, O. (2005) Ireland’s Wetlands and their Water Birds: Status and Distribution. BirdWatch
Ireland. Newcastle.
EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), (1979). Council Directive 79/209/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
conservation of wild birds.
Lynas, P., Newton, S.F. and Robinson, J.A. (2007). The status of birds in Ireland: an analysis of
conservation concern 2008-2013. Irish Birds 8: 149-166.
Svenson, L., Mullarney, K.and Zetterstom, D. (2009) Collins Bird Guide. Second Edition. Harper
Collins Publishers.
Nairn, R.G.W. (2005). Use of a high tide roost by waders during engineering work in Galway Bay,
Ireland. Irish Birds 7: 489-496.
NPWS 2009. Conservation objectives for Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA [site code
004077]. Department of the Environment Heritage & Local Government.
Widdows, J., Bale, A. J., Brinsley, M. D., Somerfield, P. and Uncles, R.J. (2007) An assessment of
the potential impact of dredging activity on the Tamar Estuary over the last century: II. Ecological
changes and potential drivers. Hydrobiologia 588, 97-108.
CHAPTER 9 COASTAL PROCESSES European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, S.I. 94 of 1997, as amended by S.I. 233 of
1998 and S.I. 378 of 2005. Stationery Office, Dublin.
European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations, S.I. 722 of 2003. Stationery Office, Dublin.
European Communities (Assessment and Management of Flood Risks) Regulations, S.I. 122 of 2010.
Under S.I. 94 of 1997, as amended and the forthcoming European Communities (Birds and Natural
Habitats) Regulations, 2010. Stationery Office, Dublin.
Environmental Protection Agency (Licensing) Regulations, S.I. 85 of 1994 as amended in 1995, 1996,
2004 and 2008. Stationery Office, Dublin.
Shannon International River Basin District River Basin Management Plan 2010
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 3
CHAPTER 8 AIR QUALITY BGS, 2010. Planning 4 Minerals. http://www.bgs.ac.uk/Planning4Minerals. British Geological Survey,
2010.
DEFRA, 2001. Local Air Quality Management. UK background air quality mapping.
http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/?tool=background08. DEFRA, 2001
DEFRA, 2009. Local Air Quality Management. Technical Guidance LAQM.TG (09). DEFRA,
February 2009.
DEFRA, 2010. Local Air Quality Management. NOx to NO2 calculator v2.1.
http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/tools-monitoring-data/no-calculator.html . DEFRA, January 2010.
EPA, 2000. Investigations of Animal health Problems at Askeaton, Co. Limerick. Main Report. EPA.
January 2000.
London Councils 2006. The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition –
London Councils 2006.
NRA, 2006. Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of
National Road Schemes. National Roads Authority, 2006.
NSCA, 2006. Development Control: Planning for Air Quality. September 2006
ODPM, 2005. Minerals Policy Statement 2. Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of
Mineral Extraction in England. Annex 1 – Dust – Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, March 2005.
TA Luft, 2002. Technical Instructions on Air Quality Control. Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature
Conservation and Nuclear Safety. July 2002.
CHAPTER 13 ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURAL HERITAGE Bennett, Isabel (ed.), Excavations Bulletin: summary accounts of archaeological excavations in Ireland (Wordwell, Bray). Breen, Colin and Callaghan, Claire, ‘Post-medieval shipwrecks, harbours and lighthouses’, in O’Sullivan, Foragers, farmers and fishers, pp 233-251. Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Code of Practice between Bord Gáis Éireann and the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, 2002. Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Code of Practice between the National Roads Authority and the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, no date. Department of the Environment and Local Government, Code of Practice between Coillte and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, no date.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 4
Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government, Code of Practice between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Railway Procurement Agency, 2007. Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government, Code of Practice between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Irish Concrete Federation, 2009. Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government, Code of Practice between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and ESB Networks, 2009. Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government, Code of Practice between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and EirGrid, 2009. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘Advice notes on Current Practice (in preparation of Environmental Impact Statements), 2003. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements’, 2002. Kerrigan, Paul, Castles and fortifications in Ireland, 1485-1945 (Collins Press, Cork 1995). O’Sullivan, Aidan, Foragers, farmers and fishers in a coastal landscape: an intertidal archaeological survey of the Shannon estuary, Discovery Programme Monograph 5, (Royal Irish Academy, Dublin 2002). Priorty Geotechnical Drilling, Foynes East Jetty Site Investigation, Report on Ground Investigation, Factual Report No. PC9031, Priorty Geotechnical Drilling Ltd., October 2009.
SHANNON FOYNES PORT COMPANY- LAND RECLAMATION BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
0215.00/EIS01/September 11 5
THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS PREPARED BY: RPS Consulting Engineers Elmwood House 74 Boucher Road Belfast BT12 6RZ Telephone 048 90 667 914 Facsimile 048 90 668 286 email ireland@rpsgroup.com web www.rpsgroup.com/ireland RPS Consulting Engineers Mulkear House Newtown Centre Annacotty Co.Limerick Telephone 061-337914 Facsimile 061-337920 Email Ireland@rpsgroup.com Web www.rpsgroup.com/ireland On behalf of: Shannon Foynes Port Company Foynes Limerick Ireland
Telephone 069 73100 Facsimile 069 73140 email info@sfpc.ie web www.sfpc.ie The following sub-consultants carried out specialist studies
Natura Environmental Consultants Broomhall Business Park, Rathnew, Co. Wicklow Ireland ADCO
The Archaeological Diving Company Ltd Brehon House Kilkenny Road Castlecomer Co. Kilkenny Ireland
SDWF Shannon Dolphin & Wildlife Foundation Merchants Quay Kilrush Co.clare Ireland
top related