5.0 CETACEANS 5.1 I · PDF fileThis chapter presents the findings of the Cetacean survey. ......

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).



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.



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



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).



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.



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


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.



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



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



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



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



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.



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.



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



or SPA. This is further compounded by the findings of our avian assessments which are

detailed in Chapter 7 where extremely low bird numbers were recorded utilising the area.

Furthermore the very low biomass and availability of prey items to the qualifying interest

features of the SPA clearly indicate that this is a very poor example of this habitat due to the

poor structure and function of it. The area behind the existing east jetty is a poor example of

this important habitat due to the very low biomass of polychaete worms and bivalve molluscs

recorded in the area during the field assessments. The typical polychaete worms which this

habitat support include Tubificoides spp., Capitella spp., and Malacoceros spp.together with

the molluscs Abra alba and Mytilus edulis together with algae and plants were not found to be

present within the study area as can seen from the surveys results.

6.5 MITIGATION

Nonetheless appropriate mitigation measures under Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive will be

undertaken by SFPC to offset any perceived loss of habitat and potential foraging areas for

birds. A consultation process to identify the most appropriate steps and mitigation was

undertaken in consultation with NPWS. Initial site visits within the Lower Shannon SAC and

SPA were undertaken to identify potential areas for mitigation measures on the 26th of May

2011 with Stefan Jones (District Conservation Officer) and Liam Lenihan (Conservation

Ranger) of NPWS. Following this field investigation more appropriate options were identified

and discussed with NPWS. These included;

1. Identification of areas of inter-tidal mudflats which have become encroached and

invaded by Spartinia anglica swards.

2. Identification of areas which have been subject to historical reclamation or in-filling

which would previously have contained inter-tidal mudflats.

3. Habitat enhancement measures on Sturamus Island

Option 3 was subsequently dis-counted due to the already intact and pristine nature of the

habitats on Sturamus Island. It was felt that no further steps could be taken there to enhance

an area further to satisfy these requirements. Option 2 was also discounted due to issues with

naturalisation, establishment of landowners and costs associated the removal of such infill

together with associated negative environmental impacts from large scale removal if infill in an

aquatic environment.

Option 3 has been progressed further with an assessment of its suitability for this project

undertaken in association with the Appropriate Assessment.


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 6-10

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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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



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.



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



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



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.



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).



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.



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.



Breeding Birds

A breeding colony of herons was recorded in the large conifer trees in the southeast corner of

Foynes Island. Approximately four nests were recorded. Numbers were difficult to count, due

to the dense foliage, but some chicks were seen in the nests. None of these birds were seen

to feed within the proposed reclamation area.

Common Terns were recorded nesting on Sturamus Island (north east of Foynes Island)

between May to July. Numbers were difficult to count due to the distance from the vantage

points but approximately 20-25 birds, possibly terns and Black-Headed Gulls, were recorded

in flight over the Island in 2010. Common Terns feeding in the Foynes Channel (north of the

jetty) are probably from the breeding colony at Sturamus Island. A survey of the Island in June

2011 by the National Parks and Wildlife Service recorded 6 Common Tern nests and 31

Black-Headed Gull nests (NPWS Consultation 2011).

No terns were recorded feeding within the proposed reclamation site.

A roost of approximately 14 cormorants was also recorded on Sturamus Island. None of

these birds were seen to feed within the proposed reclamation area.

7.4 BIRD POPULATIONS OF THE ENTIRE SHANNON AND FERGUS ESTUARIES

The best available information on the bird populations of the entire area of the Shannon and

Fergus Estuaries is provided by the Irish Wetland Bird Survey (IWeBS), organised by

BirdWatch Ireland. Table 7.4 gives the mean of peak counts, for the five species recorded

within the proposed reclamation site, for a series of five winters (2003/04 to 2007/08), the

latest complete information available. The Shannon/Fergus Estuary is of international

importance for Light-bellied Brent Goose, Black-tailed Godwit and Redshank and of national

importance for a further 19 species (Crowe 2005). The entire estuary held a mean of 18,782

birds over the five winters 2004/05 to 2008/09 (Boland et al. 2010). Appendix 3 provides the

entire winter counts for all species recorded within the Shannon and Fergus Estuaries over the

five year period (2003/04 to 2007/08),


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-10

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



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



Table 7.6 below shows the peak number of birds recorded within the proposed reclamation

area over the winter period 2010/2011 (10 counts in total) as percentages of the total number


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 7-11

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


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


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.


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


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


calendar year

1 Jan 2005

SO2 Protection of

vegetation

Calendar

year 20 7.5 Annual mean

19 July

2001



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


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


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


PM2.5 -

Stage 2

Protection of

human health

Calendar


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



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.



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



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.



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



Figure 8.3 Photo of Diffusion Tube Location No. 1






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 -


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


Year -6.55% -3.65% 3.60% 1.94% 0.51% -3.12%


Junction

N69


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


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


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


Year -8.34% -3.98% -1.57% -1.90% -1.28% -3.01%



Year -8.95% -4.01% -7.88%

-

11.13% -6.24% -3.90%


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-22


Quantities of nuisance dust may be generated during construction, with most of this being

deposited close to the source. The smaller the dust particle the more likely it is to disperse

further from the site. However the risk of nuisance dust impacts from construction of the

proposed reclamation can be quite simply reduced with good site management practices. A

Dust Minimisation Plan should be formulated for the Construction Phase of the project. This

construction Dust Minimisation Plan should include the following general dust and emission

mitigation measures:

Site roads will be regularly cleaned and maintained as appropriate. Hard surface roads

will be swept to remove mud and aggregate materials from their surface while any un-

surfaced roads will be restricted to essential site traffic only;

Any site roads with the potential to give rise to dust will be regularly watered, as

appropriate, during dry and/or windy conditions (also applies to vehicles delivering

material with dust potential);

All vehicles exiting the site should make use of a wheel wash facility prior to entering

onto public roads, to ensure mud and other wastes are not tracked onto public roads.

Wheel washes will be self-contained systems that do not require discharge of

wastewater to water bodies;

The contractor will be required to ensure that all vehicles are suitably maintained to

ensure that emissions of engine generated pollutants is kept to a minimum;

Public roads outside the site will be regularly inspected for cleanliness, and cleaned as

necessary;

The site should be adequately screened with suitable barriers to reduce the potential for

dust dispersion;

Material handling systems and site stockpiling of materials will be designed and laid out

to minimise exposure to wind and will be located as far from receptors as possible;

Minimise drop-heights to control the fall of materials;

The transport of topsoil, rock, aggregate, and any other fill materials should be

undertaken in tarpaulin-covered vehicles;

The number of material handling operations should be minimised to ensure that dusty

material is not handled unnecessarily;

Any material on made ground should be kept damp and not allowed to dry out;

Hard surfacing of made ground will take place as soon as is operationally feasible;

Continued dust monitoring in the vicinity of the port;

Adherence to the Ports management document Procedures for Handling Dusty Product.

On-going review of the Dust Minimisation Plan will be necessary throughout the construction

phase of the project. Responsibility for dust management should be assigned to a specific

member of the project team who will liaise with contractors, suppliers, local residents and the


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 8-23

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;



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.



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.



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



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).



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.



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

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



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

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



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

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



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



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

minus existing

Figure 9.13 Typical spring ebb flow pattern – Before Development



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.



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.



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.



Figure 9.18 Current speed (top), Current direction (middle) and Surface Elevation

(bottom) at CO1 – Spring Tide




(bottom) at CO1 - Neap Tide




(bottom) at CO2 – Spring Tide




(bottom) at CO3 - Spring Tide



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.



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.



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.



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



Figure 9.25 Sedimentation on completion of proposed dredging works in local area

Figure 9.26 Maximum sedimentation during proposed dredging works



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.



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.



Figure 9.29 Typical suspended solids concentration above background: Foynes

Port dredging – Spring Flood tide


Port dredging – Spring Ebb tide




Port dredging – Neap Flood tide


Port dredging – Neap Ebb tide



Figure 9.33 Typical bed concentration above background: Foynes Port dredging –

Spring Flood tide


Spring Ebb tide




Neap Flood tide


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,



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



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



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.



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



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).



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.



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



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.



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:



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



Figure 9.45 Foynes Harbour and Lower Shannon Estuary WFD water body status



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



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


DO levels Sufficient - Sufficient

BOD levels (WFD EQS) -


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/



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.



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



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



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.



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.


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.




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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


(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


(L2) 15:40– 15:55 (16/08/10)

57.3 84.6 42.6 60.3 46.1


(L3) 16:06– 16:16 (16/08/10)

69.7 84.9 41.9 74.1 49.8


(L4) 16:21 – 16:36 (16/08/10)

47.9 65.4 33.4 50.6 38.9


(L5) 16:42 – 16:57 (16/08/10)

43.5 56.4 36.6 45.8 40.0

Night time


(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


23:17 – 23:22(16/08/10)

45.9 64.6 43.0 46.9 44.0


23:22 – 23:27 (16/08/11)

45.8 61.0 42.7 47.0 43.8


23:28 – 23:33 (16/08/10)

46.7 68.4 42.2 48.0 44.3


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


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)


(L2)

23:43 – 23:48 (16/08/10)

49.1 71.3 41.7 48.7 43.1


(L3)

23:52 – 23:57 (16/08/10)

63.8 84.1 33.1 65.1 36.4


(L4)

00:00 – 00:05 (16/08/10)

50.0 65.9 30.8 53.7 32.7


(L5)

00:09– 00:14 (16/08/10)

38.0 52.4 30.7 42.0 32.1


(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


(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.


(L1)

11:45– 12:45 (17/08/10)

Dominant noise from port*. Dog barking. Church bells.


(L2) 15:40– 15:55 (16/08/10)

Dominant road traffic noise, bird noise and noise from port*. People

activity.


(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.


(L4) 16:21 – 16:36 (16/08/10)

Dominant road traffic noise and bird noise. Faint hum from port.


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 11-10

Monitoring Time Period Subjective Noisy Event


(L5) 16:42 – 16:57 (16/08/10)

Dominant road traffic noise and bird noise. Reversing siren at the

port. People activity.

Night time


(L1) M1: 23:04 – 23:09

(16/08/10)

Dominant noise from port*. Dog barking.


23:11 – 23:16 (16/08/10)

Dominant noise from port*. Car door closing. Car starting up. Dog

barking.


23:17 – 23:22(16/08/10)

Dominant noise from port*.


23:22 – 23:27 (16/08/11)

Dominant road traffic noise.


23:28 – 23:33 (16/08/10)

Dominant road traffic noise and noise from port*. Car door closing.


23:34 – 23:39 (16/08/10)



(L2)

23:43 – 23:48 (16/08/10)

Dominant road traffic noise. Car door closing. Car horn in distance.


(L3)

23:52 – 23:57 (16/08/10)

Dominant noise from port*.


(L4)

00:00 – 00:05 (16/08/10)

Dominant road traffic noise. Car door closing.


(L5)

00:09– 00:14 (16/08/10)



(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.


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.


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;


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.


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.


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,


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


0215.00/EIS01/July 11 12-7

Figure 12.3 Preliminary Programme for Proposed Operations


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


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.


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).


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


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).


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.


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.


12.5.1 Proposals to Improve Access to Harbour

To help improve access to the Harbour, it is proposed to install warning signage in advance of

both junctions to raise awareness of the increase in construction traffic associated with the

works. Skid resistant surfacing will be laid 100m in advance of both east and west harbour

accesses given the increased risk of skidding given the heavy loads involved. Maximum

visibility from the minor arm of the junction is to be provided by cutting back and maintaining

the grass verges along the N69. The current exclusion of HGVs through Foynes Village is to

be maintained to prohibit disruption through the village.


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 12-15

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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


Summary

In summary, from an analysis of the Census of Population 2006, it is apparent that the

Shanagolden ED has a growing middle-age (45-64 years old) population, well above the

National County average. There is a below average proportion of people within the dependant

age groups (i.e. low numbers of children 0-14 years old) and there is also a below average

proportion of people within the working and childbearing age groups.

14.2.2 Employment

Receiving Environment

ESRI Economic Commentary, for 2011

The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Economic Commentary for summer 2011

summarises the outlook for the economy for the State in 2011 and beyond as follows: The ESRI Economic Commentary for, 2011 addresses some key issues concerning Ireland's situation. The ESRI expects that: 1. GNP will contract by 1½ per cent this year. GDP will decline by ¼ per cent. 2. For 2011 GNP will grow by 2 per cent and GDP will grow by 2¼ per cent 3. Employment will average 1.86 million this year, down 68,000 from 2009, a fall of 3½ per

cent. The rate of unemployment will average 13¼ per cent. 4. For 2011, the number employed will average 1.85 million and the rate of unemployment

will average 13½ per cent.

Trends in Numbers of Persons at Work

An assessment of the number of persons at work and unemployment rates could only be

carried out using 2006 as the baseline. However, the current situation is thought to be

considerably different but unfortunately employment statistics from 2011 will not become

available until the results of Census 2011 have been collated. The 2006 census indicates that

the Shanagolden ED has a similar proportion of the population at work to the State and

County averages. Shanagolden ED had a lower unemployment rate (circa 3%) indicating a

healthy local economy in 2006.


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14-4

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


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


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


Based on the 2006 census 530 persons are employed with less than 10% of persons in the

electoral division retired and less than 10% looking after the home/family. Approximately 3%

of persons are unemployed with 4% unable to work due to sickness or disability. However, it

is expected that these figures do not reflect the current situation in 2011 due to a rapid change

in the economic climate since 2006.


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 14-5

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.


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:


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


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:


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: -


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.


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).


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


at this location.



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.


at this location.

Significance of visual impact The predicted significance of visual impact is no change.


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.


at this location.



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.


at this location.



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.


The visual impact of the proposal is caused by the appearance of a reclaimed portion of land

to the rear of the East Jetty at Foynes Port, on the southern bank of the Shannon and its

associated operational features such as cranes and light masts.

The design evolution of the proposed project has undertaken to enable incorporation of the

following mitigation measures;

i) sensitive use of local materials for constructed elements;

ii) careful integration of constructed elements with existing elements such as existing

jetties;

iii) general site housekeeping designed to minimise visual impact during construction

stage;

iv) use of directional lighting.

Good site design, use of an environmental management plan during the construction phase

and incorporation of mitigation measures identified above will effectively mitigate the impact of

ancillary works.


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 15-23

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


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-2


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.


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-3


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.


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-4


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


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-5


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


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-6


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.


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-7


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)


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-8


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.


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-9


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


0215.00/EIS01/September 11 16-10


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.



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



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.



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.



THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS PREPARED BY: RPS Consulting Engineers Elmwood House 74 Boucher Road Belfast BT12 6RZ Telephone 048 90 667 914 Facsimile 048 90 668 286 email [email protected] web www.rpsgroup.com/ireland RPS Consulting Engineers Mulkear House Newtown Centre Annacotty Co.Limerick Telephone 061-337914 Facsimile 061-337920 Email [email protected] Web www.rpsgroup.com/ireland On behalf of: Shannon Foynes Port Company Foynes Limerick Ireland

Telephone 069 73100 Facsimile 069 73140 email [email protected] web www.sfpc.ie The following sub-consultants carried out specialist studies

Natura Environmental Consultants 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

5.0 CETACEANS 5.1 I · PDF fileThis chapter presents the findings of the Cetacean survey. ......

Documents

Transcript of 5.0 CETACEANS 5.1 I · PDF fileThis chapter presents the findings of the Cetacean survey. ......