Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Statement

89
2421 dg001f09.1 Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Statement LOCATION OF SITE FIGURE 9.1 Ma in Stre et

Transcript of Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Statement

2421 dg001f09.1

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Statement

LOCATION OF SITE FIGURE 9.1

Main Street

2421 dg001f09.4

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Statement

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER OF SITE FIGURE 9.4

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING SITE AS SEEN FROM EXISTING PIER

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 140

10. Archaeology & Cultural Heritage

Introduction

10.1 It is proposed to develop the harbour area at Schull, on the Mizen peninsula in West Cork (Figure 10.1). The proposed development is described in Chapter 2 Project Description. The proposed development will encompass both the land and sea although most of the work will be concentrated in the littoral zone/foreshore area.

10.2 The specifics of the development are as follows;

• Construction of an access road in the terrestrial area;

• Reclamation of the foreshore;

• Construction of floating breakwaters;

• Construction of a slipway;

• Raising of and extension to the existing pier;

• Construction of a rubble breakwater; and

• Construction of a marina.

10.3 This report comprises a cultural heritage assessment of the area intended for this development. The purpose of the assessment is to evaluate the potential impact such a development would have on the cultural heritage of the proposed development site and surrounding area.

10.4 There are no recorded archaeological monuments within the proposed development site (Figure 10.3). The nearest recorded archaeological site is a standing stone CO139-036---, situated c. 600m to the northeast in the townland of Cooradarrigan. There are twenty-six recorded archaeological monuments within a 2km radius of the proposed development site. In addition, the Maritime Sites and Monuments Record lists twelve shipwrecks for the Schull Harbour area. The monuments and shipwrecks reflect the archaeological background of the area surrounding the proposed development site and possibly the archaeological potential of the development site itself.

10.5 This report was compiled in accordance with the most recent EPA Guidelines as published in 2002 and Advice Notes on Current Practice 2003.

10.6 The report was undertaken by Sheila Lane & Associates, Consultant Archaeologists, Deanrock Business Park, Togher, Cork at the request of Atkins. A Marine Geo-archaeological Survey dealing with the foreshore and underwater environment was carried out by Donal Boland and Ciara Herron of Cushcallows, Banagher, Co. Offaly. This report is included in Appendix H6.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 141

10.7 The terms used in this report are explained hereunder;

• Cultural Heritage: The term cultural heritage in this report encompasses the following topics: Archaeology, Folklore/Tradition/History, Architecture/Settlements and Monuments/Features;

• Study Area: In order to obtain a comprehensive assessment of the Cultural Heritage Environment, a study area within 2km of the proposed development site was chosen.

Methodology

10.8 The care of archaeological monuments in Ireland has its beginnings in the 19th century with the establishment of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1882. This was the first piece of legislation in the United Kingdom that sought to protect monuments of archaeological importance. This Act was upgraded in 1892 to provide legal protection to a wider range of monuments, including medieval structures. Various Acts followed (The Local Government Act, 1898, The Land Acts of 1903 and 1923) which sought to broaden the scope of what was considered to be of archaeological importance and to give more protection to these sites. The National Monuments Act 1930 repealed all previous Acts and is at present the principal statute which governs the care of monuments in the Irish Republic. Various amendments have been made to the Principal Act of 1930; 1954, 1987, 1994 and 2004. Archaeology and architectural heritage are protected under the National Monuments and National Monuments (Amendment) Acts 1930-2004, and the Planning and Development Acts 2000-2001.

10.9 Underwater archaeological sites are protected under the National Monuments Amendments Acts 1987 and 1994 and the Merchant Shipping Salvage and Wreck Act 1933. These acts provide full protection to all underwater sites and objects over 100 years old and limit all activities carried out on them. Some wreck sites under 100 years old that are deemed to be of major historical importance are also afforded the same protection.

10.10 This cultural heritage assessment is based on the following;

• A desktop appraisal of the study area;

• A field inspection of the terrestrial section of the proposed development ;

• A marine geo-archaeological survey of the foreshore and underwater section of the proposed development.

10.11 The desktop appraisal examined the archaeological and historical record for the area within a 2km radius of the proposed development site and included the following components;

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 142

Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) - this record, compiled by the OPW, now the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG), comprises a list of all known archaeological sites and monuments in the county and their location. It also lists and locates possible archaeological sites and it lists sites known to occur in an area but with no exact location. It is accompanied by a set of constraint maps on which each site is marked.

Record of Monuments and Places (RMP) - this record was compiled in accordance with The National Monuments Act 1994. It provides an updated list of all known archaeological monuments and places of archaeological interest, with an accompanying set of constraint maps. It is an offence to interfere with any of the sites or monuments listed in the Record without first giving two months notice in writing to the National Monuments Service at the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (A list of all recorded monuments within the study area is given in Appendix H1).

The Maritime Sites and Monuments Record – The National Maritime archaeological survey was established in 1997 by the National Monuments Service, within the then Department of Arts, Culture and Gaeltacht. This survey was an extension of the existing land SMR, into intertidal and subtidal environments. (A list of all shipwrecks in the Schull Harbour area is given in Appendix H1).

Archaeological Inventory of County Cork – Volume I West Cork – The inventories for each county are follow-ons by Dúchas, to the SMRs and RMPs. They give a written description of each archaeological site in the county. County Cork, Volume I was published in 1992. Details of published sites within the study area are given in Appendix H2.

Files of Archaeological Survey of Ireland, Co. Cork – The files of the Cork Archaeological Survey were consulted to ascertain if any new archaeological sites have been added since publication of the RMP. No new sites were noted. The files were also consulted to obtain information on sites not detailed in the published Inventory and any Post Medieval sites within the Study Area (Appendix H3).

The County Development Plan for County Cork, February 2003 - The Record of Protected Structures of this was consulted for the area of the proposed development.

The National Museum of Ireland Archives - These files were consulted for all townlands within the study area. The topographical files contain the reports, including correspondence, present location and occasionally, illustrations of archaeological material recovered throughout the country (Appendix H5).

Database of Irish Excavation Reports (www.excavations.ie) - This web site provides a database of summary reports of all archaeological excavations and investigations in Ireland undertaken from 1970 to 2000. The excavations are also published in book format up to 2002. Details of excavations undertaken within the study area is given in Appendix H4.

Documentary Sources - all available literary sources were consulted. These include local histories and relevant journals.

Cartographic Sources - The first (1842), second (1902) and third (1950) editions of the Ordnance Survey six-inch maps were consulted.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 143

TERRESTRIAL SITE INSPECTION

10.12 The proposed development site was inspected on the 17th of January in dry bright weather conditions. The primary purpose was to assess the physical environment in which the development is proposed and to determine if any previously unrecorded archaeological remains or structures/features of cultural heritage interest were present.

MARINE GEO-ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

10.13 This survey included both foreshore and underwater surveys that were carried out under Licence (06R017/06D017) and conducted under guidelines and acquisition parameters as recommended by the Maritime Unit of the DoEHLG. Geophysical surveys, including bathymetric, side-scan sonar and magnetic surveys, were conducted from the 11m Lochan Blue Thunder at an average lane spacing of 35m. The shore at the location of and adjacent to the proposed crossing were inspected by walkover survey and revealed no features that could be interpreted as archaeological. Backscatter returns at the site indicate a sandy seabed. Lack of bedform-development suggests cohesive elements (e.g. mud or clay particles) in this substrate or a low hydrodynamic regime in the area.

Existing Environment

DESKTOP APPRAISAL OF THE STUDY AREA

10.14 The area to be developed is located at Schull on the Mizen Peninsula in West Cork, c. 17km to the southwest of Skibbereen town (Figure 10.1). The village of Schull is situated in the parish of Skull in the Western Division of the barony of West Carbery also known as the ‘Western Land’.

10.15 The pace of landscape change in Ireland accelerated in the second half of the 20th century and many archaeological sites have been levelled by activities associated with modern development and progress. This has ensured that the present day archaeological landscape is not fully representative of the human occupation of this island, which has spanned some nine thousand years. Terrestrial archaeological sites survive today as upstanding structures, earthwork monuments or subsurface remains. Maritime archaeological sites can be found on the foreshore or buried in the seabed.

10.16 The archaeological timescale can be divided into the following;

Prehistoric Period: (c. 7000 to 4000BC) – Neolithic (c. 4000 to 2000BC) – Bronze Age (c.

2000 to 600BC) – Iron Age (c. 500BC to 500AD). Early Christian Period: (c. 500 to 1100

AD). Medieval Period (1100AD to 1650). Post Medieval Period (c. 1650 – Present).

10.17 There are no recorded archaeological monuments listed in the RMP within the proposed development site. The closest recorded archaeological site is a standing stone (CO139-036-), situated c. 600m to the northeast in the townland of Cooradarigan. There are twenty-six recorded archaeological monuments within a 2km radius of the development site and twelve

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 144

shipwrecks listed in the Maritime Sites and Monuments Record, providing evidence for human activity in the area from the Bronze Age up to the present day.

10.18 The National Museum Files (Appendix H5) list three objects found within the study area, again providing evidence for early human activity in the area. These consist of a bronze penannular brooch that was discovered in a bog in the townland of Skull in the 19th century. In the townland of Caherlusky, to the southwest of the proposed development site, a stone hone and a portion of a stone mace head were found in 1947. The hone stone was a type of whetstone used for sharpening tools, and is commonly found on sites dating to the Early Christian Period, while the stone mace head was a ritual object of prestige, sometimes found in passage tombs dating to the Neolithic Period (c. 4000-2000BC).

10.19 The Irish Bronze Age is characterised by the introduction of metallurgy, distinctive pottery styles, changes in burial traditions and an increase in population. The first metal used as a raw material in Ireland was unalloyed copper with much evidence for primitive copper mining being discovered in the south-west, such those on Mountgabriel in the hilly interior of the Mizen Peninsula. In the study area, the Bronze Age is represented in the form of one standing stone (CO139-036---) and three boulder-burials (CO139-03701-, CO139-03702- and CO139-045---), all in the townland of Cooradarrigan.

10.20 Single upright stones are a common feature of the Irish countryside, and are known by several terms such as gallán, dallán, long stone etc., Standing stones sometimes served as Bronze Age burial markers, route markers or may have had some ritual function. It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish ancient standing stones from modern ‘scratching stones’ for cattle. The above standing stone, rectangular in shape (H 1.65m; 0.67m x 0.46m), is situated c. 600m to the northeast of the proposed development site in a laneway to a house.

10.21 Boulder-burials usually consist of large boulders resting on three or more low stones above the ground. They can occur singly or in small groups and are sometimes found in association with stone circles. Over seventy examples have been found in Cork and Kerry and their absence elsewhere in the country suggests that they are a local innovation in the south-west (Power et al, 1992, 29). Two of the boulder burials in Cooradarrigan, situated c. 1.9km to the NE of the proposed development, were excavated in 1988 (Appendix H4). Excavation on one revealed a central pit containing charcoal fragments that were dated to the Bronze Age. Neither of the burials produced human remains or artefacts (ibid).

10.22 Christianity was introduced into Ireland during the late 4th century, becoming widely established during the second half of the sixth century. Ireland in the Early Christian Period was a rural and tribal society, run by dynasties of ruling families. Communities were spread throughout the countryside in settlements such as ringforts and crannógs. One of the principal Gaelic families or septs in Cork at this time were the O’Mahonys whose territory had spread from Cork to Dunmanway, gradually expanding into the Mizen Head by 747AD. By 1028, towards the end of the Early Christian Period, the ‘Western Land’, of the Mizen Peninsula had become a Deanery of the Cork Diocese comprising six parishes one of which was Schull (Hawkes, 2003, 3). There are six archaeological monuments, dating to the Early Christian Period within the study area; two ringforts (CO139-03401-) in Meenvane and (CO149-030---) in Ardintenant; a possible ringfort (CO139-033---) in Gubbeen; two possible

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 145

souterrains (CO139-03402- and CO140-036---) in Meenvane and Coosheen and one enclosure (CO139-038---) in Rathcool.

10.23 Archaeological excavation has ascertained that ringforts, also referred to as ‘rath’ or ‘lios’, functioned as enclosed farmsteads, used in Early Christian times. They are generally circular or sub-circular areas enclosed by an earthen bank, made up of material thrown up from a concentric fosse outside the bank. The diameter of the ringfort is normally between 25m and 50m. Some ringforts have associated souterrains, or man-made underground tunnels leading to a chamber or series of chambers. The ringfort at Meenvane, c. 1km to the northwest of the proposed development site, is described as a sub-circular raised area (35.3m N-S; 40.6m E-W) enclosed by an earthen bank (external height of 2.6m) and external fosse (D2m). There is a possible souterrain at the centre that was accessed at some time in the past, but of which there is now no visible surface trace (Power et al, 1992, 253). The ringfort at Ardintenant, c.

2km to the southeast of the proposed development site, consists of a circular area (diam. 38m N-S) defined by an earthen bank (internal height 0.5m). An external fosse (diameter 1.6m) is evident in places. A tower house and mural tower (CO149-002---) are situated on the NW line of the bank of the ringfort (ibid 402). The possible ringfort is situated in the townland of Gubbeen, c. 2km to the west of the proposed development site. It is depicted on the 1st edition OS map as a circular enclosure (diam. c. 32m) of which there is now no visible surface trace (ibid, 217). There is no visible surface trace of the possible souterrain in Coosheen, c. 1.35km to the east of the proposed development site (ibid 245). There is one enclosure in Rathcool, c. 1.8km to the northeast of the proposed development site. The term enclosure is applied to archaeological sites, which cannot be definitively classified. Very often these enclosures are ringforts or cashels, which fall outside the accepted size, range for these monuments (i.e. less than 20 m or more than 60 m in diameter). Sometimes they can be of indeterminate shape and may date to as early as the Bronze Age or as recently as the last century, when they were used as sheep shelters. The enclosure at Rathcool, consists of a subcircular area (17.8m N-S; 29.5m E-W) that is enclosed by an earthen bank (internal height 1.1m) and external fosse (0.55m deep) (ibid 269).

10.24 The tradition of visiting holy wells goes back to the very beginnings of Irish Christianity, but most probably has its origin in pre-Christian ritual activities. The majority of the ‘wells’ are springs or just depressions in rocks where rainwater collects; some have more recently constructed stone or concrete surrounds. Some wells are still maintained for holy use when at certain times of the year they would be visited in the form of a pilgrimage often referred to as a ‘round’ or ‘patron’. Other wells are known through tradition for their reputed curative properties. There is one recorded holy well (CO139-035---) c. 1.5km to the north of the development site in the townland of Cooradarrigan. According to the Files of the Cork Survey (Appendix H.3), the site is shown in the wrong place on the SMR map and the well is actually in a small rectangular field to the south. There is no history or tradition of veneration at this well.

10.25 One of the characteristics of the Medieval Period is the arrival of the Anglo-Normans in 1169 at the request of Diarmait Mac Murchada, the deposed king of Leinster. With Diarmait reinstated to his lands the Anglo-Normans set about seizing territory for themselves. There followed a period of unrest during which time the O’ Mahony territory was constantly under attack by the Normans and neighbouring Irish clans. However, the clan maintained much of their lands and prospered well into the 15th century as is evident by their numerous tower houses such as Dunmanus Castle (CO139-015---), Dunbeacon (CO130-025---), Rossbrin

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 146

(CO140-045---), Dunlogh (CO146-00102-) and Ardintenant (CO149-002---). Tower houses date to the 15th and 16th centuries. Though not castles in a strict military sense, they retain many of the features of ‘true’ castles, such as battlements and narrow slit windows. The only tower house within the study area is that at Ardintenant, known as ‘White Castle’, situated c. 2km to the southeast of the proposed development site. It consists of a four-storey building, situated on the NW line of the bank of an earlier habitation site, a ringfort (CO149-030---). To the south of the main tower house, on the southern line of the bank of the ringfort is a smaller rectangular 3-storey mural tower, clad in ivy (Power et al, 1992, 408). It is suggested that the name Ardintenant written ‘Ard an Tennail’ in the Annals of Lough Ce of 1473, may derive from ‘Ard na Thighearna’ (The High Chieftian) signifying its status as the seat of the O’Mahony chiefs (Hawkes, 2003, 1). The Annals of Loch Ce record that one of the O’Mahony chiefs, Concobar of the Western land died in this Castle in 1473 (ibid, 8).

10.26 The harbour of Schull during the Medieval Period would have been a hive of maritime activity. Exports at the time would have included timber, hides, beef and fish while imports from the continent consisted of salt, coal, lead and wines. Piracy was commonplace and the local inhabitants of the village would have prospered both from legally traded goods and also the trading and smuggling of contraband such as brandy, wine, spices, silver and gold. When the English in 1613 offered pardon to the pirates, the illegal activity gave way to organised trade but this trade was eventually drawn towards the larger ports of Cork, Bantry and Kinsale. Surprisingly, there are no recorded shipwrecks in the harbour area for this time period. With the decline in illegally imported and exported goods, smuggling also declined and the ordinary folk of Schull would have lost the means to a large part of their livelihood. Consequently, the village and general environs of Schull went into decline.

10.27 The parish of Skull is described by Lewis (1837) as containing 15,252 inhabitants, that include several inhabited islands in Roaring Water bay and 385 residents in the village itself (Cadogan,1998, 408). Of the many Post Medieval structures in the study area there are eleven listed in the RMP as follows; a milling complex (CO139-04101-) and a corn/carding mill (CO139-04102-) in Cooradarrigan; a barytes mill (CO139-04103-), two mining complexes (CO139-04201- and CO140-037---) and a magazine (CO139-04202-) in Coosheen; a workhouse (CO139-04001-), in Cooradarrigan and its associated burial ground (CO139-04002-) in Rathcool; Church and graveyard (CO148-02002- and CO148-02001-) in Skull and a mass rock (CO139-043---) in Cooradarrigan.

10.28 The milling complex at Cooradarrigan is situated c. 1.3km to the northeast of the proposed development site. The mill consists of a small mid-19th century gable-ended building that is attached to the eastern elevation of a residence. It is one of three mills that are in still operable in the West Cork region. Just to the east of the corn mill, along the water’s edge is a carding mill which has been converted into a residence (Power et al, 1992, 388). In the townland of Coosheen, there is a Barytes mill also known as ‘Mountgabriel Mills’ situated 1.3km to the northeast of the proposed development site on the north shore of Schull Harbour. The mill is shown on the 2nd edition OS map as ‘Barytes and Umber mill’. The remains of the mill consists of two single-storey structures and a dilapidated quay (ibid, 1992, 393). At Mountgabriel mills, barytes (barium sulphate) was mined and then ground to a fine white powder to be used as an adulterant, usually as a gloss for cotton sheets or as an additive to paint. The mill opened in 1894 and by 1898 over 400 tons of barytes were mined annually. During the World War I barytes was exported from Coosheen and Schull harbours

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 147

to Germany. However after the war, the mine was abandoned as demand dropped (Kingston 1985, 118).

10.29 There are two copper mines within the study area, one in the townland of Coosheen, (CO139-04201-) situated along the coast, on the east side of Schull harbour, c. 1.1km to the east of the development site. The other mine (CO140-037---) is situated, c. 500m to the east of this. The extensive copper ore deposits that occur throughout the Mizen peninsula were exploited from the mid 19th century with mines at Ballycummisk, Brow Head, Coosheen, Crookhaven and Dhurode (O’Brien, 1994, 27). Throughout much of West Cork there are extensive mining remains, both over and underground. However, by the late 19th century, many of the mines were in decline (Power et al, 1992, 384). The mines at Coosheen provided much needed employment to the local population. As Hancock (1850, 3) noted ‘Before the establishment of this (the Cosheen) mine, there were no roads – there was no market nearer than Skibbereen- there was no employment for the people and their condition, living in hovels amongst the rocks, cultivating little patches of land, was indescribably wretched’. One consequence of the 19th century mining was the discovery of older copper workings, often called ‘Danes Mines’ by local people. The majority of the surviving mines, concentrated in the hilly interior of the Mizen peninsula, are known as Mount Gabriel-type mines and constitute one of the most important early mining groups in Europe (Power et al, 1992, 72). Radiocarbon dating has confirmed that the main period of mining on Mount Gabriel was between 1700-1500 BC (O’Brien, 1994, 27). The mining areas of Mount Gabriel lie outside the study area c. 3km to the north of the proposed development site.

10.30 The Poor Law Act of 1838 initiated the building of workhouses throughout the country and the village of Schull was no exception. Schull workhouse is situated c. 1.5km to the northeast of the proposed development site in the townland of Corradarrigan. The workhouse is defined by a wall enclosing a sub-rectangular area within which are the remains of two 2-storey structures built at right-angles to each other and divided by a stone-faced stream channel. A burial ground (CO139-04002-) abuts the enclosure to the east in the townland of Rathcool (Power et al, 1992, 412). The burial ground contains a total of forty-two uninscribed grave markers and is known locally to be the burial place of famine victims and people from the workhouse (ibid, 409). According to the Poor Law Commission, the workhouse was designed to accommodate 600 people, but a census of 1851 records that it held 1,075 inmates (Mackey, 1996, 45). The workhouse burnt down in 1921, leaving only the ruins of the hospital that still stand on the site today (ibid, 49). The parish of Schull suffered badly during the famine, the mortality rate being given as 1,363 people for the time period from September 1846 to September 1847 (Hickey, 1993, 892).

10.31 The remains of St. Mary’s Church of Ireland church (CO148-02002-), Colla Road, c. 650m to the south of the proposed development site date from the 18th century. However, an ogee-headed window in the N chancel and a blocked door in the N wall is probably evidence that this was a Medieval church rebuilt in Post Medieval times (Appendix H3). The church is mentioned in a detailed rent roll for the Diocese of Cork in 1581 by the name ‘St. Maria de Scoll’ (Mackey, 2000, 70). The church is situated within the north side of a graveyard (CO148-02001-). The old section of the cemetery contains the famine burial area, which doubled in size in a single year to receive the numerous victims. By the 1840’s the church was in ruins and was replaced by the present Church of Ireland Church, the Holy Trinity, c. 600m to the north, which was opened in 1854 (Ibid, 71). This church is a protected structure, listed in the Co. Development Plan and assigned the number 00969.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 148

10.32 Mass rocks or Poill an Aifrinn are situated throughout Ireland and developed from the religious strife of the 17th century and the passing of the Penal Laws in 1695. During this time, the celebration of the Catholic Mass became difficult and dangerous. To overcome this, isolated sites were selected for worship and many natural rocks and boulders became ‘Mass Rocks’. The mass rock at Cooradarrigan, c. 1.7km to the northeast of the proposed development site is situated in pasture and consists of a fallen stone (L 4.13m; 0.5m x 0.38m) to the northeast of boulder-burials (CO139-13701- and CO139-03702-). It is said locally to be a mass rock (Power et al, 353).

10.33 The twelve shipwrecks listed in the Maritime Sites and Monuments Record for the Schull Harbour area all date from the early 19th to the early 20th centuries, the earliest wreck, Aere was lost in 1802. A list of the shipwrecks is given in Appendix H2.

10.34 There are many other Post Medieval buildings of note in the village of Schull that are not listed in the RMP but are detailed in the Files of the Cork Survey Office. They include various buildings that cover all facets of life in the village; the parochial house and rectory, the Catholic Church, the national school, the Wesleyan Chapel, the coast guard station and a boathouse (details on all these buildings is given in Appendix H3).

CARTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE FOR THE SITE

10.35 An examination of the three editions of the OS maps (Figures 10.3, 10.4 & 10.5) show the changes that have occurred in the proposed development area from the mid 19th to the mid 20th century. The most obvious difference on the 1st edition of the OS map dated to 1842 is the absence of the pier. The pier, which was constructed c.1890 is evident on the 2nd edition of the OS map (1902).

10.36 Another feature absent from the 1st edition map is the Schull & Skibbereen Railway line, which opened on the 2nd of January 1888. The extension of the line beyond the station southwards to the pier is variously known as ‘The Pier Line’, ‘The Harbour Line’ or the ‘Pier Extension’ and was opened in October 1893 (Boyd, 1999, 7). The railway line is shown on the 2nd edition OS map, with a section of the line, passing through the amenity area to the west of the tennis courts and running due south towards the shoreline. The line would have continued on between Pier Road and the foreshore, before curving eastwards and terminating on the pier itself.

10.37 The 1st edition OS map also depicts a number of buildings that are accessed by a minor roadway within the proposed development site. These buildings are no longer evident on the later 2nd edition OS map and the access roadway has been intercepted by a section of the railway line.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 149

Plate 10.1 - Schull Pier, c. 1898. The railway line ran behind the wall (after Boyd 1999, 165).

Plate 10.2 - The ‘Pier Extension’ of the Schull and Skibbereen Tramway and Light Railway

looking northwards (after Boyd 1999, 165).

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 150

Plate 10.3 - The pier c. 1898 showing stacked fish barrels beside the railway track (after Boyd

1999, 165).

TERRESTRIAL SITE INSPECTION

10.38 The terrestrial section of the proposed development was inspected on the 17th of January 2006 in dry, bright weather conditions and is divided into two areas (Figure 10.2).

Area 1: Slightly undulating area under short/medium grass, sloping down to the south. The area is bounded on the north by modern concrete fencing, lined with trees; modern fencing along the south; a low earthen bank topped with vegetation bounds the east and a modern concrete path runs along the west. No cultural heritage features were evident in this area.

Area 2: Landscaped amenity area under short/medium grass within which are two tennis courts, some benches and a modern concrete path. There is no evidence for a section of the Schull and Skibbereen light railway that would have ran due south through this area to the west of the tennis courts.

10.39 It is proposed to develop an access road in the general location of the existing modern concrete path that runs along the east of Area 2.

MARINE GEO-ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

10.40 This consisted of an assessment of two areas, the foreshore / intertidal and underwater/sub-tidal. The assessment and results are given in full in Appendix H6.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 151

Foreshore/Inter-tidal area

10.41 The proposed development will impact the foreshore and seabed at the northeast side of Skull Harbour at and adjacent to the location of the existing pier (Figure 10.2). The foreshore at the location of the proposed marina will be infilled providing access to water depths required for the mooring of pleasure craft. An extension will be added to the modern section of the existing pier and a rubble breakwater constructed from the pier extension to protect the marina from the destructive forces of the sea particularly during southerly storm conditions.

10.42 At the location of the proposed development the foreshore and seabed have been impacted by previous development works associated with the construction of the existing stone pier and sea wall c1890 and the construction of an extension to the pier and a boat slipway c1980. The discharge of a small stream located in the northwest corner of the harbour has been altered and the foreshore to the west stripped of cobbles and boulders by the work of a local man over the past twenty years (Appendix H6: Plates A to D).

10.43 The existing pier, constructed of stone, has been overlain with a protective concrete top and a extension added to provide sufficient berthage for local fishing craft (Appendix H6: Plates E to F). The interface between the older stone pier and the newer concrete extension is depicted in Plate G, while the interface between the stone pier and the stone seawall is shown in Plate H. The older stone pier will not be impacted directly by the proposed development; an extension will be interfaced with the newer concrete section of the pier (Figure 10.2).

10.44 The foreshore at the location of the proposed marina development has also been impacted over the years by the forces of wind and wave. The lands immediately above the foreshore are comprised of a small park and a coastal pathway (Appendix H6: Plates I to J) a visual inspection of this area revealed no features, which could be described as archaeological.

10.45 The upper foreshore is comprised of eroded earthen cliffs that stand in places up to 4m above the high water mark with the majority being c.1-2m high. Works associated with arresting the processes of erosion are evident in the construction of defensive sections of seawall (Appendix H6: Plates K to L). An inspection of the upper revealed no features which could be described as archaeological.

10.46 The mid- and lower foreshore is comprised of exposed bedrock overlain with coarse gravel, cobbles and boulders. The foreshore extends as seaweed-covered exposed bedrock to a sandy gravel seabed (Appendix H6: Plates M to P). An inspection of the upper foreshore revealed no features interpreted as archaeological.

10.47 The ability of the seabed within the intertidal zone at the location of the proposed development to retain archaeology is likely to be poor. From the inspection of the site, it is interpreted that the area of seabed immediately below the intertidal zone has a good ability to retain archaeology and must be regarded as a possible repository for archaeological materials eroded from or deposited on the foreshore. No features of archaeological potential were revealed by the seabed surveys conducted immediately adjacent to the foreshore at the location of the proposed development.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 152

Geology and seabed sediments: Sub-tidal/Underwater area

10.48 A mosaic of the 500kHz-sidescan sonar survey of the Schull Harbour survey area are displayed in Figure 10.6. The low backscatter returns displayed in the mosaic are indicative of fine-grained sand. Lack of bedform development in the area suggests cohesive elements (e.g. mud or clay particles) in this substrate or a low hydrodynamic regime in the area.

10.49 The data acquired from bathymetric survey in the Schull Harbour survey area are displayed as a two-dimensional contour plot in Figure 10.7. Bathymetry ranges from 2.2m on the north- west landward side of the survey area to depths of up to 8.6m to the south-east of the site. The area deepens regularly in a south-easterly direction.

10.50 The results obtained from the magnetometer survey are presented in Figure 10.8 as two- dimensional contour plot within the survey location and in Figure 10.9 as two- and three-dimensional contour plots of magnetic deviation. The results range from +40nT to -2200nT on a background of 0nT. The majority of magnetic deviation within the survey area lies within the +10nT to -40nT range. There are two magnetic anomalies, M1 and M2, indicated in Figure 10.9. M1 represents the existing jetty and M2 indicates a number of fishing vessels at anchor in Schull Harbour.

10.51 Side scan Sonar Data: Any anomalies are identified from the 500kHz side-scan sonar survey data. None of these sites are likely to be of archaeological potential, and are associated with chains, mooring blocks and drag marks in the busy harbour area.

10.52 Data integration and interpretation: Analysis of all data recorded over the site of the proposed marina development in Schull Harbour revealed no features, interpreted as archaeological.

Do-Nothing Impact

10.53 Should the development not go ahead, the proposed development site will remain as is with potential archaeological features intact below the surface, both on land and in the foreshore and underwater areas.

Environmental Impact

CONSTRUCTION IMPACT

10.54 Construction of the proposed development will not impact on any visible sites of archaeological/cultural heritage interest in the terrestrial, foreshore and underwater areas. Although previous developments have impacted on all three areas of the proposed development site, it is still possible that archaeological/cultural heritage remains lie intact below the surface.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 153

OPERATIONAL IMPACT

10.55 The proposed development will not impact on any known archaeological sites. The closest recorded archaeological site consists of a standing stone CO139-036---, situated c. 600m to the northeast of the proposed development site in the townland of Cooradarrigan.

10.56 No archaeological/cultural heritage features were identified in the terrestrial area of the proposed development. There is no surface trace of the Schull and Skibbereen Light railway line, a section of which would have passed through Area 2 to the west of the tennis courts

10.57 No archaeological/cultural heritage features were identified during the geo-archaeological survey of foreshore and underwater areas of the proposed development.

10.58 The old stone pier (dating to c. 1890) will not be impacted as the proposed extension will be interfaced with the newer concrete section of the pier.

Mitigation Measures

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

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

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

Residual Impacts

10.62 The recommended mitigation for the terrestrial section of this development is for archaeological monitoring in advance of construction of the proposed access road. This will ascertain if any archaeological remains exist below ground level. If any finds or features of archaeological significance are found, they will be resolved through preservation in situ or preservation by record.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 154

10.63 The recommended mitigation for the foreshore and underwater area is that archaeological monitoring of the excavation and/or dredging phase of the development should take place. This will ascertain if any archaeological remains exist below ground level. If any finds or features of archaeological significance are found, they will be resolved through preservation in

situ or preservation by record.

10.64 In the event of preservation in situ, there will be no residual impact. In the event of preservation by record, i.e. archaeological excavation, this will result in the removal of any archaeological finds or features from the landscape.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 10.1 - Location Map (extract from OS Discovery Series 1:50,000, Sheet 88).

Proposed

Development

site

Z¨2421/30/32/Chapter 10 Cultural Heritage Figures

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 10.2 - Proposed development site. Areas 1 to 2 are part of the terrestrial development.

Armoured Breakwater

Foreshore

Reclamation

Floating Marina and

Breakwater

Pier Extension

2

1 Proposed

access road

Z¨2421/30/32/Chapter 10 Cultural Heritage Figures

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 10.3 - Extract of the 3

rd edition OS map (1950) with RMP detail within a

2km radius of the site. This area covers 4 OS sheets 139, 140, 148 and 149.

Proposed

development

area

Z¨2421/30/32/Chapter 10 Cultural Heritage Figures

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 10.4 - Extract of 2nd

edition OS map (1902). Green line indicates the route of the ‘Pier Extension’ of the Schull and Skibbereen Tramway and Light

Railway

Former

Railway

route

Proposed

development

area

Z¨2421/30/32/Chapter 10 Cultural Heritage Figures

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Figure 10.5 - Extract of 1st

edition OS map (1842). Post Medieval sites are numbered on the map (see Appendix H3).

Proposed

access road

Proposed

development

area

Z¨2421/30/32/Chapter 10 Cultural Heritage Figures

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 159

11. Air Quality

Introduction

11.1 The air quality impacts of this development are likely to occur during both the construction and operational phases of this scheme. These are anticipated in the main to be due to the generation of dust from site construction works and from road traffic exhaust emissions during the operational phase.

11.2 Whilst the operation of marine diesel-fuelled craft will have some effect on local concentrations of pollutants, the nearest residential receptors are 90 metres away. The largest material air quality issue for local stakeholders is likely to be the increase in the number of motor vehicle trips in and around the Schull area, as these represent a much closer pollutant source of greater magnitude at the receptors assessed.

11.3 An assessment of the Air Quality was carried out as follows:

(i) Air pollutant concentrations were assessed on the basis of compliance with the appropriate standards or limit values under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002 (DELG, 2002) (See Table 11.1);

(ii) Quantitative impacts on local air quality due to traffic-derived pollutants were assessed for both with and without the proposed harbour development scenario; and

(iii) The qualitative effect of construction on air quality and potential mitigation measures is discussed.

AIR POLLUTANTS

11.4 Impacts on air quality are likely to be derived from vehicle emissions, or activities that raise and/or generate dust; hence this section deals with only those relevant pollutants.

NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2)

11.5 Nitrogen dioxide is a secondary pollutant produced by the oxidation of nitric oxide (NO). Nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide are collectively termed nitrogen oxides (NOx). Over half of the NOx emissions in Ireland are from road transport. The majority of NOx emitted from combustion sources is in the form nitric oxide, which oxidises rapidly in the presence of ozone to form nitrogen dioxide, which is the more toxic of the two pollutants. In high concentrations, nitrogen dioxide can affect the respiratory system.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 160

CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)

11.6 Carbon monoxide is formed from the incomplete combustion of carbon-based fuels and is emitted largely from motor vehicles. Carbon monoxide impacts on health by reducing the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. This occurs because CO binds more readily to haemoglobin than does oxygen and results in the formation of carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb), which leaves less haemoglobin available for transferring oxygen around the body (WHO, 1999). It also contributes indirectly to the greenhouse effect by slowing the rate of chemical breakdown of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.

HYDROCARBONS

11.7 The term ‘hydrocarbons’ or ‘total hydrocarbons’ (THC) is used to include all organic compounds emitted and covers many hundreds of different compounds. Hydrocarbons are important precursors of photochemical smog and oxidising compounds. Benzene from traffic sources is assessed, in particular as it is a genotoxic carcinogen, exposure to which is associated with certain types of leukaemia.

PARTICLES (PM10)

11.8 Particulate matter may be emitted from the exhaust, through the re-suspension of road surface dust, or generated as abrasion products from tyre, brake and road surface wear. Diesel exhaust contains much higher particle concentrations (in terms of mass per unit volume of exhaust gas) than petrol exhaust. These emissions comprise carbonaceous matter onto which a wide range of organic and inorganic compounds may be adsorbed. Particles with a median diameter of less than 10 µm are referred to as PM10. Road transport is considered a significant source of PM10 emissions in Ireland (EPA, 2005). The effects of long-term exposure to elevated levels of PM10 include increases are in lower respiratory symptoms and reduced lung function in children; and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and reduced lung function in adults (WHO, 2003).

AIR QUALITY CRITERIA AND LEGISLATION

11.9 Air quality criteria can be readily divided into two groups, those that are mandatory and those that are designed for guidance. The mandatory limit values were set in order to protect human health. Mandatory criteria that apply to Ireland are the European Community (EC) or European Union (EU) Directive limit values.

11.10 In 1996, the European Commission published the Air Quality Framework Directive (96/62/EC) on ambient air quality assessment and management. This Directive covers the revision of previously existing legislation and the introduction of new air quality standards, setting the timetable for the development of daughter directives on a range of pollutants. This framework directive was transposed into Irish law by the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 (Ambient Air Quality Assessment and Management) Regulations 1999 (S.I. No. 33 of 1999).

11.11 The Framework Directive was followed by four daughter directives, which will supersede previous EC Directives on their achievement date (i.e. 1 January 2005 or 2010). The daughter directives include the limit values for specific pollutants as summarised in Table 11.1.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 161

• The first daughter directive (1999/30/EC) deals with sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead. This was transposed into Irish law by the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002 (S.I. No. 271 of 2002) and came into force on 17th June 2002;

• The second daughter directive (2000/69/EC) deals with carbon monoxide and benzene. This was transposed into Irish law by the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002 (S.I. No. 271 of 2002) and came into force on 17th June 2002;

• A third daughter directive, Council Directive (2002/3/EC) relating to ozone was published in February 2002 and was transposed into Irish law by the Ozone in Ambient Air Regulations 2004 (S.I. No. 53 of 2004); and

• The fourth daughter directive (2004/107/EC) was published in January 2005. It covers polyaromatic hydrocarbons, arsenic, nickel, cadmium and mercury in ambient air. It is due to be transposed into Irish law by 15th February 2007.

11.12 Guideline values are set as advisory targets for the protection of human health and the environment in the longer term. These non-mandatory criteria include:

• EC Directive guide values; and

• World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines.

11.13 The air quality criteria for vehicle-derived pollutants are detailed in Appendix I, Tables I.1 to I.5.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 162

Table 11.1 - EU Daughter Directive Limit Values

Pollutant Averaging Period Limit Value (µg/m3) Basis of Application of the Limit Value

Limit Value Attainment Date

NO2 1 hour 200 Not to be exceeded

more than 18 times in a calendar year

1 January 2010

NO2 Calendar Year 40 Annual Mean 1 January 2010

PM10 –

Stage 1

24 hours 50 Not to be exceeded more than 35 times in a calendar year

1 January 2005

PM10 –

Stage 1

Calendar Year 40 Annual Mean 1 January 2005

PM10 –

Stage 2

Calendar Year 20 Annual Mean 1 January 2010

CO 8 hours 10,000 8-hourly mean 1 January 2005

Benzene Calendar Year 5 Annual Mean 1 January 2010

11.14 For most pollutants, air quality models calculate an annual average mean concentration. The air quality criteria against which the modelled concentrations may be assessed are often expressed over different periods, for instance carbon monoxide has an 8-hour average criterion of 10 mg/m3. Exceedances of CO are very rare even at the busiest roadside sites, and if the annual mean is less than 2 mg/m3, it is considered unlikely that the running 8-hour mean will be exceeded.

11.15 In the case of NO2, there are very few exceedances of the 200 µg/m3 hourly criterion at points

where the annual mean concentration is below 40 µg/m3, although the relationship is

statistically weak. The annual mean limit is nonetheless used as the principal criterion when assessing NO2.

11.16 Concentrations of PM10 and benzene are expressed as annual means in the Directives and can therefore be readily compared to model outputs.

Methodology

11.17 Information on background concentrations at the site of the proposed development was obtained from long-term measurements carried out by the EPA. As part of the implementation of the framework Directive on Air Quality (1996/62/EC), four air quality zones have been defined in Ireland for air quality management and assessment purposes (EPA, 2005). The Dublin conurbation is defined as Zone A, and Cork as Zone B. Zone C comprises 16 towns with a population greater than 15,000; the remainder of the country including rural Ireland and all towns with a population of less than 15,000 is defined as Zone D.

11.18 Correction factors recommended published by Defra in the UK was then applied to all pollutant concentrations to take account of the estimated likely changes in background concentrations for the assessment years. There are no equivalent Irish tools in common usage.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 163

IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

11.19 Once appropriate background concentrations were established, dispersion modelling was used to determine the ambient concentrations of PM10, NO2, CO and benzene for the following scenarios:

• 2006, to characterise the current air quality in the vicinity of the proposed development site;

• 2011, the opening year, as the highest concentrations associated with the development are expected to occur in this year; and

• 2021, the design year.

11.20 The air quality assessment has been carried out following procedures described in publications by the EPA (EPA, 2002, 2005) and using the methodology outlined in Defra (UK) and UK Highways Agency publications (Defra, 2003)(Highways Agency, UK, 2003). The UK DMRB Screening Model was used for the dispersion modelling (Version 1.02, November 2003) as there are no equivalent Irish tools in common usage.

11.21 The local air quality assessment takes into account:

• Daily average vehicle flows and speeds;

• The distance between the receptor and the roads carrying the traffic;

• Road classification;

• The proportion of heavy duty vehicles (HDVs), defined in the DMRB as any vehicle with a gross weight greater than 3.5 tonnes;

• Changes in future exhaust emissions due to legislation; and

• Background pollutant concentrations.

TRAFFIC AND RECEPTORS

11.22 Data on daily average traffic flows, HDV proportions and average speeds were calculated by Atkins Traffic and Transportation Department (Appendix I).

11.23 Light and heavy-duty vehicles sold in Ireland must comply with EC Directives for exhaust emissions. The first exhaust emission requirements were specified in Directive 70/220/EEC, which has subsequently become more stringent following several iterations. Since 1993, all new petrol engine cars have been with catalytic converters, as specified in Council Directive 91/441/EEC. These significantly reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Emission control legislation further reduced emissions from petrol cars with catalysts in 1996, 2000 and 2005 (Council Directives 94/12/EC and 98/69/EC). Lower

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 164

emission limits for new diesel light and heavy-duty vehicles were introduced in 1992, 1995, 2000 and 2005 (Council Directive 91/542/EC and Directive 1999/96/EC).

11.24 Beyond 200 metres, the contribution of vehicle emissions from the roadside to local pollution levels is not significant; therefore, only properties within 200 metres of the potentially affected routes were considered in the assessment.

11.25 Properties assessed included residential properties and other sensitive receptors where susceptible people may be exposed to air pollution. The Schull Harbour site is located adjacent to several residential areas. A playground and two churches also lie within 200 metres of the potentially affected routes. (see Figure 11.1).

11.26 Seven receptors were selected for assessment due either to their proximity to the Development and affected roads, or because of their sensitive nature. The properties selected were:

• R1 – Playground adjacent to East Schull Carpark;

• R2 – Church, Main Street;

• R3 – 1 McLean Terrace;

• R4 – Town Hall;

• R5 –Church, Pier Road;

• R6 – Pier Road (10 metres from the centreline); and

• R7 – R592 (10 metres from centreline).

11.27 These properties are shown on Figure 11.1.

11.28 For each receptor the DMRB Air Quality Screening Tool was used to estimate:

• Annual mean concentrations of NO2;

• Annual mean concentrations of PM10 and the number of days with PM10

concentrations above 50 µg/m3;

• Annual mean concentrations of CO; and

• Annual mean concentrations of benzene.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 165

Receiving Environment

AIR QUALITY MONITORING

11.29 Air quality monitoring programs have been undertaken in recent years by the EPA and Local Authorities. The EPA’s most recent Annual Report “Ambient Air Quality in Ireland, 2004” details the range and scope of monitoring carried out in Ireland.

11.30 For the purpose of air quality monitoring, four air quality zones have been defined across the country, based on population and existing air quality. Dublin is defined as Zone A and Cork as Zone B. Zone C comprises 16 towns with population greater than 15,000. The remainder of the country is defined as zone D. Monitoring was carried out in 54 locations across these zones throughout the year. Characterisation of the current air quality in Schull was made based on the most recent available data for the appropriate zone (Zone D) and the Netcen year adjustment calculator, which uses adjustment factors provided by Defra (Casella Stanger, 2003) (Defra, 2003).

11.31 Across the country PM10 concentrations in 2004 were significantly lower than in 2003. All stations were compliant with the 2005 limit value, which permits no more than 35 daily values

greater than 50 µg/m3. Annual mean concentrations measured at all stations were below the

40 µg/m3 limit value.

11.32 All average NO2 concentrations measured in 2004 were compliant with the future 2010 limit values. All stations were also compliant with the future limit value, which permits no more

than 18 hourly values greater than 200 µg/m3 in a calendar year from 2010 onwards.

11.33 All measured CO concentrations were well within the daily 8-hr mean limit of 10 mg/m3 in 2004.

11.34 All measured benzene concentrations were also well below the limit value of 5 µg/m3 which

comes into force in 2010.

BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS

11.35 Background concentrations of each pollutant were required for the assessment. Data were selected from sites monitored by the EPA to reflect the site conditions in terms of levels of traffic and development. The correction factors recommended in the DMRB were then applied to all pollutant concentrations, using the Netcen year adjustment calculator, to take account of the estimated likely changes in background concentrations for the assessment years of 2006, 2011, and 2021.

11.36 PM10 was measured in two zone D locations, Mountrath (Co. Laois, 10m from N7 Dublin to Limerick) and Drogheda (Co. Louth, town centre), with average PM10 concentrations of 26

µg/m3 and 17 µg/m3, respectively. The nearest monitoring locations are located in zone B

locations, at Heatherton Park (housing estate, 1 mile south of Cork city centre) and Old

Station Road (500m from the city centre) with average concentrations of 19 µg/m3 and 22

µg/m3, respectively. The Mountrath site is not believed to be representative of air quality in

Schull, due to its proximity to a major road, the N7 from Dublin to Limerick. Old Station Road

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 166

was also not deemed to be representative of Schull, as the monitoring location is close to the

city centre. An annual mean of 19 µg/m3 was therefore used as a conservative estimate of

local PM10 concentrations.

11.37 NO2 was measured in three zone D locations, Mountrath (Co. Laois), Glashaboy (Co. Cork, north east of the city) and Killkitt (Co. Monaghan, rural setting), with average concentrations

of 13 µg/m3, 8 µg/m3, and 3 µg/m3, respectively. The data measured at Glashaboy was

deemed to be most representative of air quality in Schull.

11.38 CO and benzene concentrations measured in Tralee (Zone C), to the north-east of the town centre were used as representative background concentrations for Schull in the absence of sufficient Zone D data.

11.39 A summary of the background concentrations used in the air quality assessment is presented in Table 11.2.

Table 11.2 - Background Concentrations

2006 2011 2021

PM10 (µg/m3)

Heatherton Park EPA Zone B 18.2 16.5 16.5

NOx (µg/m3)

Glashaboy EPA Zone D 11.2 9.0 8.0

NO2 (µg/m3)

Glashaboy EPA Zone D 7.6 6.6 6.0

CO (mg/m3)

Tralee EPA Zone C 0.3 0.2 0.2

Benzene (µg/m3)

Tralee EPA Zone C 0.2 0.2 0.2

AIR QUALITY MODELLING

11.40 The estimated existing mean concentrations are presented in Table 11.3. These concentrations represent the calculated road network contribution superimposed on the assumed background levels. Concentrations are estimated to be well below relevant limit values for all pollutants at all modelled receptors.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 167

Table 11.3 - Estimated Existing Air Quality

Year Receptor CO Benzene NO2 PM10 PM10

Annual Mean Annual Mean Annual Mean Annual Mean Days > 50

mg/m3 µg/m

3 µg/m

3 µg/m

3 Days

2006 R1 0.4 0.2 9 19 2

R2 0.4 0.2 9 19 2

R3 0.4 0.2 8 18 2

R4 0.3 0.2 8 18 2

R5 0.3 0.2 8 18 2

R6 0.3 0.2 8 18 2

R7 0.4 0.2 9 19 2

EU Daughter Directive Limit Values

10* 5** 40** 20**, 40*** 35

**The CO Air Quality Criterion is stated in terms of 8-hourly average and as such cannot be compared to the annual mean directly; however, if the annual mean is below 2 mg/m3 then the 8-hourly average value of 10mg/m3 is unlikely to be reached. ** By 2010 *** 2005 Limit Value

Do-Nothing Impact

11.41 Estimated concentrations of NO2, PM10, CO and benzene at the selected receptors are all presented in Table 11.4 for a scenario without the harbour development.

11.42 Annual mean concentrations of all pollutants at the locations assessed were estimated to be significantly below the Irish criteria in all years without the proposed development, as seen in 11.4.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 168

Table 11.4 - Estimated Annual Mean Concentrations for the Do-Nothing Situation

Year Receptor CO Benzene NO2 PM10 PM10

Annual Mean Annual Mean Annual Mean Annual Mean Days

mg/m3 µg/m

3 µg/m

3 µg/m

3 >50 µg/m

3

2011

R1 0.3 0.2 7 17 1

R2 0.3 0.2 8 17 1

R3 0.3 0.2 7 17 1

R4 0.3 0.2 7 17 1

R5 0.2 0.2 7 16 0

R6 0.3 0.2 7 17 1

R7 0.3 0.2 8 17 1

2021

R1 0.3 0.2 7 17 1

R2 0.3 0.2 7 17 1

R3 0.2 0.2 7 17 1

R4 0.2 0.2 6 17 1

R5 0.2 0.2 6 17 1

R6 0.2 0.2 6 17 1

R7 0.3 0.2 7 17 1

EU Daughter Directive Limit Values

10* 5** 40** 20** 35

*The CO Air Quality Criterion is stated in terms of 8-hourly average and as such can not be compared to the annual mean directly; however, if the annual mean is below 2 mg/m3 then the 8-hourly average value of 10mg/m3 is unlikely to be reached. ** By 2010

Environmental Impact

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

11.43 Air quality can be affected by dust-generating activities during construction and by emissions from construction vehicles, both on site and travelling to and from the site.

11.44 Dust emissions can lead to increased deposition rates in the surrounding area, which can cause soiling of cars, windows, laundry, paintwork and other surfaces, which may cause nuisance. Dust emissions can also lead to increased concentrations in the air, both for total particulate loading and for the smaller more respirable PM10 fraction.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 169

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS

11.45 The estimated annual mean concentrations for NO2, PM10, CO and benzene are presented in Table 11.5, below, for the situation with the proposed development.

Table 11.5 - Estimated Annual Mean Concentrations for Selected Receptors with the Development

Year Receptor CO Benzene NO2 PM10 PM10

Annual Mean Annual Mean Annual Mean Annual Mean Days > 50

mg/m3 µg/m

3 µg/m

3 µg/m

3 Days

2011

R1 0.3 0.2 7 17 1

R2 0.3 0.2 8 17 1

R3 0.3 0.2 7 17 1

R4 0.3 0.2 7 17 1

R5 0.2 0.2 7 16 0

R6 0.3 0.2 7 17 1

R7 0.3 0.2 8 17 1

2021

R1 0.3 0.2 7 17 1

R2 0.3 0.2 7 17 1

R3 0.3 0.2 7 17 1

R4 0.2 0.2 6 17 1

R5 0.2 0.2 6 17 1

R6 0.2 0.2 6 17 1

R7 0.3 0.2 7 17 1

10* 5** 40** 20** 35

*The CO Air Quality Criterion is stated in terms of 8-hourly average and as such cannot be compared to the annual mean directly; however, if the annual mean is below 2 µg/m3 then the 8-hourly average value of 10µg/m3 is unlikely to be reached. ** By 2010

11.46 The results indicate that the concentrations of all pollutants will be significantly below their respective air quality limits for both assessed years. For most receptors, concentrations of the compounds under consideration are expected to remain the same or decrease between the assessed years with reduced emissions from the national fleet with improved vehicle emissions technology.

11.47 Concentrations of CO are expected to increase from 0.2 mg/m3 to 0.3 mg/m3 at receptor 3 in 2021.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 170

11.48 There is a negligible change in air quality due to the additional traffic from the proposed Harbour Development.

Odour

11.49 Disturbance of mud in anoxic conditions underwater can potentially result in the release of odorous emissions. While the potential exists for piling operations to result in the release of odours, this is likely to be localised and transient and to be detectable within several tens of meters of the site of the piling operations only. No mitigation measures will be necessary during piling. However, should mud be transported to the surface during the course of screw piling, it is preferable to remove from site in a suitably sealed container to prevent odour impacts.

Mitigation Measures

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

11.50 Mitigation measures to control dust during reclamation and construction would typically be specified within contract documentation and will be minimised by transfer of materials to the site by sea. Such measures may include but not necessarily be limited to:

• Regular water-spraying and sweeping of unpaved and paved roads to minimise dust and remove mud and debris;

• Using wheel washes, shaker bars or rotating bristles for vehicles leaving the site where appropriate to minimise the amount of mud and debris deposited on the roads;

• Sheeting vehicles carrying dusty materials to prevent materials being blown from the vehicles whilst travelling;

• Enforcing speed limits for vehicles on unmade surfaces to minimise dust entrainment and dispersion;

• Ensuring any unmade site roads are no wider than necessary to minimise surface area;

• Dampening down of surfaces prior to their being worked; and

• Storing dusty materials away from site boundaries and in appropriate containment (e.g. sheeting, sacks, barrels etc.)

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 171

OPERATIONAL PHASE

11.51 The potential effects of the Schull Harbour Development scheme on air quality are almost entirely due to vehicle exhaust emissions. Mitigation of these emissions is hence dependent on changes in European legislation and the changes in motor vehicle technology, which are expected to follow as a result. Measures such as catalytic converters and particle traps are examples of the types of material changes in motor vehicle design intended to reduce pollutant emissions. The DMRB spreadsheet method incorporates emission factors for future years that allow for increasingly efficient and less-polluting vehicles in the national fleet.

Residual Impacts

11.52 As mitigation measures are built in to the assessment, the changes in air quality due to the proposed development may be considered “residual effects”.

11.53 Concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, benzene and particulate matter (PM10) have been estimated at locations close to the R592 and Pier Road using the screening method described in the DMRB. The assessment was carried out for 2006, 2011 and 2021.

11.54 Concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, PM10, carbon monoxide and benzene were shown to be below the air quality criteria in all cases, with negligible changes in annual mean concentrations for all pollutants assessed.

11.55 Overall, the proposed harbour development is predicted to have a negligible effect on air quality in the assessed area.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 173

12. Noise & Vibration

Introduction

12.1 This chapter assesses the operational noise impact from the proposed Schull Harbour Development, Schull Co. Cork. The proposed harbour will consist of a 225-berth Marina, the extension of the existing pier and the construction of a new ferry berth. The development will provide 130 car parking spaces and a utility building comprising of administration offices, meeting rooms and shower rooms, and possible additional indoor accommodation for an inshore rescue boat and rowing boats.

12.2 The study area is located at the head of Schull Harbour on the southern shoreline of the Mizen Peninsula, West Cork. The land is zoned within Cork County Development Plan 2003-2009 for a combination of Open Space/Sports/Recreational/Amenity and Amenity Walk and

Primary Industry/Enterprise. The existing land use is a combination of open space and seafront walkway and pier.

12.3 Existing noise sources within the study area include road traffic, the Ice Factory on the existing pier and boats travelling to and from the harbour. Sensitive receivers within the study area include the Coastguard Apartment Complex, playground/amenity area along the seafront, and residential properties on Main Street and Pier Road. Sensitive receivers outside the Study Area include Schull local Community School and St. Gabriel’s Community Hospital.

Methodology

VIBRATION

12.4 Vibration standards address both human comfort and cosmetic or structural damage to buildings. In both cases, the magnitude of vibration is quantified in units of Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). People are particularly sensitive to vibration stimuli and any perception of vibration may lead to concern. In the case of road traffic, vibration is perceptible at around 0.5mm/s and may become disturbing or annoying at higher magnitudes. However, higher levels of vibration are typically tolerated for single events or events of short duration. For example, blasting and piling, two of the primary sources of vibration during construction, are tolerated at vibration levels up to 12mm/s and 5mm/s respectively. This guidance is applicable to the daytime only, it is unreasonable to expect people to be tolerant of such activities during the night.

12.5 Vibration limits for construction activities are contained in the publication Guidelines for the

Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes (NRA 2004), and British Standards BS 5228 (1992): Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites: Part 4: Code of

practice for noise and vibration control during piling.

12.6 There will be no significant sources of ground-borne vibration during the operational phase and therefore vibration can be scoped out of the present assessment.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 174

NOISE

12.7 A noise survey was undertaken to determine the existing ambient noise climate within the local area.

12.8 Construction plant noise emissions were calculated using BS 5228: Part 1: 1997 which sets out noise levels to be expected from construction activities at 10m from those activities, and equations to allow the prediction of noise levels at other distances.

12.9 The change in operational noise from the development was based on changes in predicted traffic flows. The assessment compares the do nothing scenario with the do something scenario. Traffic noise levels were predicted using the procedures set out in the technical memorandum Calculation of Road Traffic Noise CRTN (HMSO 1988).

12.10 Directive 2002/49/EC: The Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise introduced new units for the description of environmental noise, one of which has been adopted by the current NRA Guidelines (Lden). Lden is currently only used for National Road Schemes.

Receiving Environment

12.11 The topography of the study area is predominantly sloping to gently undulating down towards the harbour. The study area is located at the head of Schull Harbour on the southern shoreline of the Mizen Peninsula, West Cork. The proposed development is situated within Schull Town, directly off the Main Street. The land use is currently open space with an amenity walk along the shoreline and primary industry along the existing harbour.

12.12 An access road is proposed from the Main Street to the shoreline. The access road will start southwest of the Coastguard Apartments before travelling in a southerly direction passing east of the existing tennis courts. The access road will then join up with the proposed utility building and car park.

12.13 The existing ambient noise climate has been established by the noise survey. Measurements were conducted on Tuesday 17Th of January 2006 between 12:00 hours and 14:00 hours. These hours are within the expected hours of the construction activities, and are representative of the noise climate throughout the likely period of use of the harbour development.

12.14 Measurements were made with a Bruel and Kjaer Sound Level Meter Type 2231, Serial No. 1735069. The meter was calibrated with a Bruel and Kjaer Calibrator 4231 Serial No. 2350846 before and after measurements. No significant drift was recorded. The sound level meter was tripod-mounted at a height of 1.5m above ground level, and the microphone was protected by a windshield.

12.15 The weather conditions during the survey were dry with moderate coastal winds from a south-westerly direction.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 175

12.16 Noise is measured and assessed in “dB”. The dB refers to the decibel scale, which is logarithmic rather than arithmetic. This means that the scale is ratio rather than ordinal, so that a difference of 3dB represents a doubling of sound energy, regardless of absolute levels. Other key values are:

• 1dB is the smallest step-change in a steady noise level that may be perceived under controlled laboratory conditions;

• 3dB is the smallest change in general environmental noise that is likely to lead to a change in public response; and

• A 10dB increase is likely to be perceived as a doubling of subjective loudness.

12.17 It is now almost universal practice to measure noise using an “A” weighting network within the sound level meter. The “A” weighting network reflects the differential sensitivity of the human ear to sound at different frequencies (pitches).

12.18 Table 12.1 below shows the noise results recorded and location means. The LA90 is the noise level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period. It is referred to in BS 4142:1997 as the

background noise level. For traffic noise the most usual index is the LA10, the level exceeded for 10% of the measurement period. The “A” weighted equivalent sound level, abbreviated to LAeq, is the constant noise level that would have the same energy content as the fluctuating noise level over the measurement period. By convention, an arithmetic average is used for the LA90 and LA10, and a logarithmic average for the LAeq. Table 12.1 below shows the results from the noise survey and the locations are shown on Figure 12.1.

Table 12.1 - Existing Ambient Noise Climate

LAeq (dB) LA90 (dB) LA10 (dB)

1st 2nd 3rd Average 1st 2nd 3rd Mean 1st 2nd 3rd Mean

No.9,

Coastguard Apartments

51.5 51.0 49.9 50.8 45.8 46.3 44.8 45.6 53.8 53.8 52.8 53.5

Playground, Main Street

50.7 49.8 50.2 50.3 45.8 46.8 46.3 46.3 53.3 51.8. 52.3 52.5

12.19 Location 1 - The Coastguard (Plate 1). This two-storey residential holiday home complex is at a lower elevation than the Road as shown on Plate 12.1, facing the sheltered Schull Harbour. The predominant noise source at this location is road traffic noise from the Main Street and traffic entering and exiting the complex and from the existing harbour activities.

12.20 Location 2 - Between Passive open space/Playground and two residential buildings. The predominant noise source at this location is road noise from the Main Street and traffic entering and existing the car park adjoining the Playground.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 176

12.21 A third location, on Pier Road, has been included in the assessments but no noise measurements were taken there.

12.22 It must be noted that wind conditions during the noise measurements were moderate therefore a cautious approach should be taken as the LA90 levels may be marginally elevated above still air conditions. However, still air conditions will be relatively rare at this coastal location.

Do-Nothing Impact

12.23 If the proposed development did not take place the ambient noise level would continue to be noisy for residential properties in Schull, as it has an already expanding tourism industry, generating road traffic and hence road traffic noise.

Environmental Impact

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Noise and Vibration

12.24 The programme for construction works has not yet been established in detail. However it is known that the construction period for the development is likely to be completed in 3 different stages, and a generic assessment for each is set out below.

Stage 1 - Pier Extension, 12 months.

12.25 The highest noise levels are likely to be experienced during piling. Piling will be required for the proposed pier extension approximately 130 piles will be used. 52 piles will also be required for the floating marina and pontoons. These are likely to be tubular steel piles of 450mm - 600mm diameter.

Stage 2 – Reclamation of land and Rubble breakwaters 6-8 months each

12.26 These breakwaters will protect the harbour from wave action. Construction of the breakwaters will involve using the following construction equipment: floating barges and pontoons, excavators, lifting equipment, dumper trucks, compressors, generators and lorries. Stage 2 will also include reclaiming the land, which will take approximately 9 –10 months.

Stage 3 - Construction of the Marina (pontoon and floating breakwater) 2-3 months

12.27 Construction of the Marina can only take place once the pier extension; rubble breakwater and reclamation are completed. The construction of the utility building would take approximately 4 months.

12.28 Construction work will include the reclamation of land for utility building, access road, car and dinghy park facility. During the construction programme a variety of construction plant,

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 177

including excavators, lifting equipment, dumper trucks, compressors, generators, lorries and cranes will be in use. A total of 182 piles will be required for the proposed development, 130 these will be required for the proposed pier extension, while a further 52 will be required for the floating marina and pontoons.

Construction Hours

12.29 Construction is likely to be limited to the hours of 08:00 to 20:00, Monday to Friday, and 08:00 to 16:00, Saturday. However, given that Marina construction works are reliant on tidal conditions it might be necessary to conduct works outside normal hours on occasions. There will be no works on Sundays or Bank Holidays, except under special circumstances, and by prior agreement with the local authority. As far as is economically practicable, the noisiest construction activities in the vicinity of the Coastguard Apartments should be avoided during the holiday season. The Contractor will ensure that piling is not undertaken during the school examination period between May and June, or during peak tourist season in July and August.

Construction Activities

12.30 During the peak construction period, it is forecast that there will be up to 40 trips (2-way) per day. Reclaiming the land will create the greatest number of HGV during Construction Phases 2 and 3. On the A592 east of Schull the present traffic volume is 5,700 vehicles per day with 2% heavy goods vehicles. The additional construction traffic will increase the flow to 5780, and the percentage of heavy vehicles to 3%. The additional heavy vehicle movements will be noticed but the increase in daily traffic noise level will not be noticeable.

Table 12.2 - Estimated HGV loads during construction

HGV Loads Stone Concrete Pontoons Misc materials Disposal Plant TOTALS

Exist Pier 105 100 20 225

Pier Extension 356 308 40 30 734

Breakwater 10 10

Reclaimed land 6710 290 76 893 30 7998

Marina 60 10 70

Facilities Building 50 30 80

Slipway 108 94 45 6 253

Boat Pontoons 5 4 9

TOTALS 7174 797 65 266 938 140 9379

12.31 The impact from traffic during the construction phase will be moderate and short-term.

12.32 Until a contractor is appointed, actual construction methods and plant cannot be specified. However generic assessment has been undertaken using data in BS5228: Part 1: 1997.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 178

12.33 BS5228: Part 1: 1997 sets out Sound Power Levels for typical plant items. These can be corrected to allow for the percentage of time for which each item is operating at full power, referred to as the “on-time”, and to an activity equivalent Sound Pressure Level at a reference distance of 10m. The contributions of several items of plant operating simultaneously can then be summed. The Standard gives equations for the total noise from all plant items to be extrapolated to other distances.

12.34 The noise emission data was established by measurements made mostly in the 1980s, since when, under the influence of EC Directives on noise emissions from plant used outdoors, typical noise emissions have been reduced. Predictions based on data within the Standard tend to over, rather than under-estimate noise exposure, and adoption of the data therefore represents a cautious approach.

12.35 The following three Tables, one for each of the three stages of construction, are based on data on plant noise emissions within BS 5228: Part 1: 1997.

Table 12.3 - Construction Noise Emissions for Stage 1.

Plant SWL On Time BS 5228

reference LAeq @10m On time

corrected

Pilling 112 50 C.4/41 81 78

Tracked Excavator

108 50 C.3/109 80 77

Grader 111 25 C.9/07 83 77

Dump Truck 96 25 C.7/81 68 62

Truck Mixer 104 25 C.5/07 76 70

2 x Poker Vibrators

101 25 C.6/40 73 67

Compressor 90 25 C.7/17 62 56

Diesel Generator 82 104 C.7/53 54 54

Tracked Crane 101 25 C.6/29 73 67

Total 83

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 179

Table 12.4 - Construction Noise Emissions for Stage 2

Plant SWL On Time BS 5228

reference LAeq @10m On time

corrected

Tracked Excavator

108 50 C.3/109 80 77

Lorries 113 10 C.3/112 85 75

Dump Truck 96 25 C.7/81 68 62

Truck Mixer 104 25 C.5/07 76 70

2 x Poker Vibrators

101 25 C.6/40 73 67

Compressor 90 25 C.7/17 62 56

Diesel Generator 82 104 C.7/53 54 54

Tracked Crane 101 25 C.6/29 73 67

Tracked Excavator

108 50 C.3/109 80 77

Total 80

Table 12.5 - Construction Noise Emissions for Stage 3.

Plant SWL On Time BS 5228

reference LAeq @10m On time

corrected

Tracked Excavator

108 50 C.3/109 80 77

Lorries 113 10 C.3/112 85 75

Dump Truck 96 25 C.7/81 68 62

Truck Mixer 104 25 C.5/07 76 70

Compressor 90 25 C.7/17 62 56

Diesel Generator 82 104 C.7/53 54 54

Tracked Crane 101 25 C.6/29 73 67

Total 80

12.36 During construction of any development, temporary adverse increases in noise levels are to be expected. The predicted noise levels for each of the stages and each of the three representative properties are shown in Table 12.6 below. The predicted levels are for the short periods when plant is operating at the shortest distances to noise-sensitive properties. No allowance has been made for soft ground attenuation, which is a cautious approach.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 180

Table 12.6 - Construction Noise Levels at Representative Properties

Location Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Distance (m) Noise level (dB LAeq)

Distance (m) Noise level (dB LAeq)

Distance (m) Noise level (dB LAeq)

1 330 52 330 50 60 64

2 245 55 270 52 70 63

3 190 57 264 52 150 56

12.37 In Section 2.3.2 of the Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes (Rev 1, October 2004) the National Roads Authority suggest that a construction noise level of 70 dB LAeq, 1hour should be deemed acceptable for works within the hours of 0700 to1900 on Mondays through Fridays, and a level of 65 dB LAeq, 1 hour within the hours of 0700 to 1630 hours on Saturdays. Construction work outside these hours, which is not intended in the present case should normally require the explicit permission of the relevant local authority.

12.38 It will be noted that all predicted levels are lower than the NRA criterion. Provided that the contractor is required to adopt good site practice to minimise noise impacts, as advised within BS 5228: Part 1:1997, the predicted levels should be acceptable during weekday working hours. Nevertheless, consideration should be given to undertaking construction works, which have the greatest impact outside the holiday season.

12.39 With appropriate measures in place adverse effects during daytime construction works should be moderate and temporary.

OPERATIONAL PHASE

12.40 The proposed Harbour development is not likely to generate significant noise emissions from on-site activities other than vehicle movements during the operational phase. However noise is expected to be generated from cars using the car park and boats using the Marina Facility and Ferry Berth. Cars are expected to move throughout the car park areas of the site and access the site only from Main Street off the R592 road to Ballydehob.

12.41 The development will generate additional local traffic that could potentially affect the closest residential properties within the town especially during peak holiday periods i.e. May to September. The closest sensitive receivers include The Coastguard Apartments and two residential properties north of the proposed car park.

12.42 Table 12.7 shows the traffic noise levels for scenarios with and without development traffic in the year 2021. Traffic noise levels are conventionally predicted and assessed using the noise unit LA10,18 hour, which is defined as the arithmetic average of the levels exceeded for 10% of each hour within the period 06:00 to 24:00 hours during weekdays, and can be calculated directly from a knowledge of the weekday 18 hour flow

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 181

12.43 The percentage of heavy vehicles (for the “with development” scenario) within the existing local road network is shown in Table 12.7 below. The traffic speed has been set at 22 km/hr for all scenarios.

12.44 Traffic noise levels can be predicted using the procedures set out in the technical memorandum Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (HMSO 1988). The initial stage in the calculation is to predict the traffic noise level on a straight section of road at a set reference distance on the basis of 18-hour traffic volumes, traffic speed, and the percentage of heavy vehicles in the traffic flow (referred to as the Basic Noise Level, and abbreviated to BNL). The actual noise level at a particular property will also be affected by the distance between the road and the property, the nature of the intervening ground, and any screening or reflections. However, when evaluating the effects of additional site-generated traffic all these factors remain constant.

Table 12.7 - Change in Traffic Noise Levels with and without development 2021 (18 hour).

Link Traffic Volume without

development

Traffic Volume with Development

HCV’s

without development

HCV’s

with development

%

Change

dB(A)

Change

R592 East of Schull

5,600 5,700 2% 2% 1.8 0.08

Pier Road 2,150 2,220 1% 1% 3.3 0.14

12.45 Development-generated traffic is not expected to cause a noticeable increase in noise level on the R592 and Pier Road. Predictions of the change in traffic noise level at each location, using the CRTN calculation method are shown in Table 12.7. The highest dB difference for any property is 0.14 dB(A). Increases in traffic noise of less than 1.0 dB LA10 ,18 hour are unnoticeable, even under controlled conditions. The smallest increase that reliably leads to a change in public perception is 3 dB LA10,18 hour Therefore the predicted increases in traffic noise during the operational phase will not be perceptible.

Mitigation Measures

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

12.46 It will be noted that all predicted levels are lower than the NRA criterion. Provided that the contractor is required to adopt good site practice to minimise noise impacts, as advised within BS 5228: Part 1:1997, the predicted levels should be acceptable during weekday working hours. Nevertheless, consideration should be given to undertaking construction works, which have the greatest impact outside the holiday season.

OPERATIONAL PHASE

12.47 Because of the nature of the intended on-site activities, there is unlikely to be significant noise emissions during the operational phase and therefore further mitigation is not appropriate.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 182

Residual Impacts

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

12.48 With appropriate measures in place adverse effects during daytime construction works should be moderate and temporary.

OPERATIONAL PHASE

12.49 The predicted increases in traffic noise during the operational phase will not be perceptible.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 184

13. Material Assets

Introduction

13.1 This section provides an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on material assets in Schull. Material Assets comprise the physical resources in the environment and may be of either human or natural origin.

13.2 The objective of this assessment is to determine the impact on these resources and to ensure that they are used in a sustainable manner with respect to the proposed development.

Methodology

13.3 Material assets that have been identified as being within or adjacent to the proposed development site and which may be directly affected by the proposed development have been addressed under the following headings:

• Material Assets of Human Origin:

o Transport Infrastructure;

o Recreational Facilities/Amenities; and

o Public Utilities.

• Material Assets of Natural Origin:

o Undeveloped Land Resource;

o Geological Resource; and

o Natural Amenities.

13.4 Information contained in this report was complied based on data sourced from Cork County Council Water Services division, Electricity Supply Board, a desktop study of relevant plans, policies and strategy documents, a site-visit and consultation with Failte, Cork Kerry Tourism, Schull Harbour Sailing Club, Schull Fishermens Organisation, Schull Marine Outdoor Education Centre, Schull Yawl Rowing Club, Schull Community Inshore Rescue Service, and other local groups of interest (see Table 2.3).

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

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 185

Receiving Environment

MATERIAL ASSETS OF HUMAN ORIGIN

Transport Infrastructure

13.6 The receiving environment in terms of transport infrastructure is described in Chapter 4.

Recreational Facilities/Amenities

13.7 Schull is a popular holiday base and offers a good range of recreational facilities/amenities. The coastal walkway, local beaches and beautiful views of the coastline towards Mizen Head all attract visitors to Schull. Coastal activities such as water sports, fishing and diving are also on offer, and boat trips to the islands and seal watching are popular tourist pursuits. Schull has a 9-hole golf course and it is possible to go pony trekking in the area. Schull also prides itself on having the only Planetarium in Ireland, which holds a number of star shows throughout the summer.

13.8 The area of land adjacent to the harbour provides informal recreation and a sport facility including the public park with park benches, playground, public tennis courts and the amenity walkway that extends along the foreshore of the harbour.

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

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

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

13.12 Currently the local facilities are unsuitable and insufficient for water-based recreational activities (see Table 2.1 for further details on problems and requirements identified for the proposed harbour development). Currently there are no berthing facilities for recreational boats, so that visiting yacht owners have to anchor off-shore and use small dinghies to get to and from the shore from their vessels. In the town of Schull there are two hotels, four restaurants/cafes, at least 4 public bars and a number of guesthouses that cater for existing tourist needs. There are also a range of shops and services available within the village.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 186

Public Utilities

13.13 Public utilities in Schull include:

• Telecommunications Network;

• Electricity Distribution Network;

• Sewerage Network;

• Water Supply Network.

13.14 Nearby dwellings and businesses and the ice plant on the existing pier are currently fully serviced for telephone, fax and email and therefore the basic servicing infrastructure already exits.

13.15 The existing electricity network and drainage network (and Wastewater Treatment Plant) are indicated on Figure 13.1. Existing wastewater treatment within Schull village consists of a septic tank with primary treatment of sewerage with an approximate population equivalent of 1000 from Schull village and environs. This septic tank is hydraulically and biologically overloaded. A new Wastewater Treatment Plant is to be constructed as part of a Design Build Operate Scheme. Construction is expected to commence early 2007 with completion by mid-2008. The new Wastewater Treatment Plant will consist of Secondary Treatment, in line with the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive requirements, with a discharge loading into Schull Harbour of 25mg/l BOD and 30 mg/l suspended solids. The population equivalent for the proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant is approximately 3000 (based on a Year 2020 design horizon), which will encompass significant spare capacity for new developments such as Schull Harbour development.

13.16 Nearby dwellings, businesses and the existing pier are fully serviced with an electrical supply by the ESB and therefore the basic servicing infrastructure already exists. The ESB network currently services buildings adjacent to the existing pier (see Figure 13.1). The proposed harbour development would link up to this network.

13.17 Water for Schull is currently supplied from Skeagh Reservoir located on Mount Gabriel and a lower level reservoir downstream of this at this at Meenvane (see Figure 13.2). Skeagh Reservoir has a capacity of 20,000 gallons of water, while Meenvane has a capacity of 100,000 gallons. Water is treated by slow sand filtration and chlorination. The current capacity is considered insufficient for Schull village, partly due to the low capacity of the water main (4 inch cast iron to Schull Village, and 3 inch cast iron pipe to Schull pier), which can only support low water pressures. Water quality of supply is also subject to contamination from tri-chloromethanes. It is proposed to upgrade the existing system and to provide additional capacity from Skibbereen (which is currently piped as far as Cooradarrigan, located approximately 3.5km to the east of Schull). It is also proposed to treat water by ozonisation to prevent water quality issues associated with chlorination. Works are expected to commence in 2007 and to be completed by late 2008/ early 2009. Sufficient capacity will be available for water requirements at the proposed harbour development.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 187

Educational and Community Facilities

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

13.19 Mention has been made above of sporting clubs such as those associated with the harbour and the golf club and these organisations have material assets in the form of grounds and/or buildings. Other sporting/social clubs include Schull Harbour Sailing Club, which currently has a register of 64 boats ranging from sailing boats of various sizes to power boats, the Fastnet Marine Outdoor Education Centre and Schull Yawl Rowing Club, Other community facilities in the vicinity of the proposed development include a crèche, school, hospital, Rectory and land owned by the Church of Ireland.

MATERIAL ASSETS OF NATURAL ORIGIN

Undeveloped Land Resource

13.20 The proposed harbour development, encompassing foreshore reclamation for landscaping, public walkway, administration building and washroom facilities, lies on coastal land encompassing predominantly rocky shoreline, which is backed by lands designated as amenity along the northern shore, and port related development along the western shore. A number of residential areas and holiday cottages are located along the top of the foreshore.

13.21 The proposed development is described in detail in Section 2 (Description of the Development). The proposed development site comprises a total of 1.3 hectares, and is divided into three key areas as follows:

• Pier Extension / Commercial Area 0.25ha

• Pontoons for recreational and existing users 0.08ha

• Land reclamation for Utility building & Public Park 0.97ha

Geological Resource

13.22 Details of the geology and hydrogeology of the area are provided in Chapter 7. The site area is underlain by a succession of Upper Devonian sedimentary rocks, which underlie large areas of West Cork. The rocks underlying the Schull area are the Castlehaven Formation (CE), which comprises purple mudstones and sandstones, and the Toe Head Formation (TH), which comprises cross-bedded sandstones and minor mudstone. The bedrock aquifers in the site area have been classified as being both locally important and poor aquifers. The GSI uses four groundwater vulnerability categories – extreme, high, moderate and low – for mapping purposes and in the assessment of risk to ground waters. The till material at the site would be classified as moderate to low permeability, and given that the subsoil thickness is less than 3 m, an Extreme Vulnerability (E) rating is assigned to the site. Given the aquifer rating of Poor (P) the aquifer resource protection rating is therefore designated as a Poor

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 188

Aquifer with Extreme Vulnerability (Pl/E). Given that the site is on the seafront it is very probable that the groundwater in the site area is influenced by the sea and is probably brackish, with slightly elevated chloride and conductivity level and possibly non-potable as a result.

Natural Amenities

13.23 Ecological resources and landscape and amenities are discussed under chapters 5, 6 and 9. The area has been designated as a scenic landscape under the Cork County Development Plan and there is also a number of designated amenity routes located adjacent to Schull (see Figure 9.2 of the landscape and visual chapter). Schull Harbour is located within the Roaringwater Bay and Islands Special Area of Conservation, which is designated for a number of key marine habitats and species (see also Figure 9.2 and Chapter 6 on marine ecology for further details). None of the species or habitats for which the SAC is designated is located within the proposed development area.

Do-Nothing Impact

13.24 Should the development not proceed, the existing harbour will have a continuing negative impact on recreation and amenity due to lack of adequate resources. Other impacts on material assets would be neutral.

Environmental Impacts

13.25 The potential impacts of the proposed harbour development are considered in this section. The impact assessment is qualitative i.e. the assessment is focused upon whether the impacts on material assets would be positive or negative.

MATERIAL ASSETS OF HUMAN ORIGIN

Transport Infrastructure

13.26 Traffic impacts of the proposed development are described in Chapter 4 and are therefore not considered further in this section.

Recreational Facilities/Amenities

13.27 Facilities within Schull Harbour are currently inadequate to support existing recreational and commercial use of the harbour. Details of current problems and requirements are detailed in Table 2.1 and are not expanded here.

13.28 During the construction phase there will be a temporary negative impact on recreational activities within Schull, particularly during the peak tourism months. Access to certain areas will be restricted during the construction phase of the project (refer to Chapter 4 on traffic and Chapter 3 on human beings for further details), while there will be an increase in traffic from construction activities resulting in negative air quality and noise impacts (see Chapters 11 and 12 for further details) during this time. However, the impacts caused by the construction

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 189

phase of the development will be short term in nature and will note have any long-term implications.

13.29 The operational phase of the proposed development will not negatively affect the amenities of the Schull area. The development will include the enhancement and extension of the existing coastal path and public amenity, harbour area for leisure and easy access to the sea, beaches, community clubs, public parking, coastal sea rescue and will provide a safe pier for fishing and launching boats etc. Overall, the operational phase will create a positive long-term impact on recreational facilities / amenities in Schull.

Public Utilities

13.30 The main requirements for water in the proposed harbour development will be for office water requirements, washroom and cleaning facilities within the building. Water requirements for the ice plant located on the pier, will not change. The new harbour development will be serviced by mains water supply within Schull as detailed under existing environment above. The proposed harbour development will not result in a substantial increase in water demand. It is expected that the existing water supply in Schull will be capable of servicing the new harbour development without causing any direct disruption to the town’s water supply.

13.31 It is envisaged that foul water generated by the proposed development will connect into the existing sewerage network in Schull. RSW (refrigerated seawater) from the fishing vessels will not be permitted to discharge into the town sewerage network. Wastewater will be extracted from recreational boats at a designated service point located adjacent to the fuel storage area and buildings on the reclaimed area. The new Wastewater Plant being constructed by Cork County Council is to be located directly adjacent to the proposed development and will have spare capacity available to service the Schull Harbour Development. There will therefore be no impact on the town sewerage network as a result of the proposed harbour development.

13.32 The proposed harbour development will be connected to existing telecommunications and electricity services within Schull village. There is currently an existing basic electrical supply to the existing pier and ice plant.

Educational and Community Facilities

13.33 Existing clubs within Schull will experience a positive impact in that the available potential membership pool and usage of facilities will be expanded. The new facilities at the Harbour will impact positively on the Harbour clubs.

MATERIAL ASSETS OF NATURAL ORIGIN

Undeveloped Land Resource

13.34 The proposed harbour development is limited to the foreshore area, which currently is comprised of common marine species, and habitats (see Chapters 5 and 6 for further details),

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 190

which will be replaced by a public amenity and enhanced public walkway and amenity area. There will not be any marine dredging as part of the proposed harbour development.

Geological Resource

13.35 It is anticipated that approximately 84,650m3 of crushed stone, bulk rock fill will be required for the proposed development, 80,000m3 of which will be required for the reclamation. The site from which the imported material will be sourced is not presently known. It will be the responsibility of the contracted building company to ensure that the practice of importing material for the development will not have a negative impact on another location. The site from which the material is to be sourced will need to be examined in order to identify any possible negative impacts that the extraction from the site may have. Material is likely to be obtained from a number of quarries located within a 50km radius of the site, as there are a number of viable quarries to the north and east of the site. 101,000m3 of stone will also be required for construction of the armoured breakwaters. This material would be brought to the site by sea.

13.36 As the materials supply is sourced externally, it will not negatively impact the existing geological resources in the Schull area. The impact on the geological resource in the area is considered to be neutral as it is expected that construction of the proposed development will not affect the underlying bedrock.

Natural Amenities

13.37 The proposed harbour development will not have a significant impact on the candidate Special Area of Conservation (see Chapter 6 for further details) and will have a positive impact on landscape and visual impact in line with the landscape character area as defined in the Cork County Development Plan (see Chapter 9 for further details). The existing public walkway will be enhanced and a landscape amenity area included within the project footprint.

Mitigation Measures

13.38 The mitigation measures required to ameliorate the impacts are detailed below.

MATERIAL ASSETS OF HUMAN ORIGIN

Transport Infrastructure

13.39 Mitigation measures are detailed in Chapter 4.

Recreational Facilities/Amenities

13.40 Many recreational facilities in Schull are based around the Harbour area. The upgrading of the harbour will facilitate the development of water sports in the area thus improving the amenity value of the Harbour. During the construction phase, however the re will be a short-term negative impact on the public use of the harbour. Access will be restricted to certain areas during the construction phase. Provisions will be made to allow the maximum level of

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 191

public access to the harbour provided that it will not result in a breach of health and safety regulations.

Public Utilities

13.41 The infrastructure for water supply, electricity and telecommunications is already in existence and is assessed to have adequate capacity to accommodate the demands of the proposed harbour. No additional mitigation measures are recommended.

13.42 The new Schull Wastewater Treatment Plant, currently under commission, will have the capacity to cater for the increased loadings as a result of the harbour development. Water quality within Schull Harbour will be improved once this new WWTP is operational.

13.43 The discharge of wastewater within the sheltered boat harbour will be strictly prohibited.

Educational and Community Facilities

13.44 No mitigation measures are required.

MATERIAL ASSETS OF NATURAL ORIGIN

Undeveloped Land Resource

13.45 No mitigation measures are necessary to protect the undeveloped land resource in the vicinity of the proposed Harbour development at Schull.

Geological Resource

13.46 As there are no predicted impacts on the geological resource, there are no requirements for mitigation measures with respect to the proposed harbour development at Schull.

Natural Amenities

13.47 Public access to the harbour area may be limited during construction activities, however every attempt will be made to allow access whereby it would not result in a breach of health and safety regulations.

13.48 The Roaringwater Bay candidate Special Area of Conservation will not be negatively impacted upon by the development.

13.49 Mitigation of visual impact will be considered in both the design and operational phases of the project. Soft and hard landscape proposals will be required in order to reduce the impact on public amenity during the operational phase.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 192

Residual Impacts

13.50 The proposed development will have a positive long-term impact on the material assets of the Schull area.

WATER SUPPLY TO SCHULL

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

13.2

2421DG02_fig13_2.pdf

FIGURE

Skibbereen supply currently extends as far as here

Skeagh ReservoirSkeagh ReservoirSkeagh ReservoirSkeagh ReservoirSkeagh ReservoirSkeagh ReservoirSkeagh ReservoirSkeagh ReservoirSkeagh Reservoir

4 inch water main

Meenvane low Meenvane low Meenvane low Meenvane low Meenvane low Meenvane low Meenvane low Meenvane low Meenvane low

level reservoirlevel reservoirlevel reservoirlevel reservoirlevel reservoirlevel reservoirlevel reservoirlevel reservoirlevel reservoir

Mount Gabriel (water supply zone)Mount Gabriel (water supply zone)Mount Gabriel (water supply zone)Mount Gabriel (water supply zone)Mount Gabriel (water supply zone)Mount Gabriel (water supply zone)Mount Gabriel (water supply zone)Mount Gabriel (water supply zone)Mount Gabriel (water supply zone)

1111111110.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.5000000000

kilometreskilometreskilometreskilometreskilometreskilometreskilometreskilometreskilometres

ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND LICENCE No. AR 0082506ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND LICENCE No. AR 0082506ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND LICENCE No. AR 0082506ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND LICENCE No. AR 0082506ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND LICENCE No. AR 0082506ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND LICENCE No. AR 0082506ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND LICENCE No. AR 0082506ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND LICENCE No. AR 0082506ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND LICENCE No. AR 0082506

ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND & GOVERNMENT OF IRELANDORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND & GOVERNMENT OF IRELANDORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND & GOVERNMENT OF IRELANDORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND & GOVERNMENT OF IRELANDORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND & GOVERNMENT OF IRELANDORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND & GOVERNMENT OF IRELANDORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND & GOVERNMENT OF IRELANDORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND & GOVERNMENT OF IRELANDORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND & GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND

©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 195

14. Fluvial Processes

Introduction

14.1 Concern has been raised regarding the issue of potentially high sediment loadings from a local stream impacting on the feasibility of the proposed harbour development. Deposition of fluvial sediments in the vicinity of the new marina could locally reduce harbour depths over time thereby restricting access to certain areas of the marina. Dredging of Irish harbours to maintain depths comes at a high financial and environmental cost and is not a favoured option in terms of mitigating against localised sedimentation of the harbour.

14.2 As the stream is not named on either contemporary or historical Ordnance Survey maps (circa 1842) it will be referred to as Schull Stream for the purposes of this document.

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

• Identify the potential for high sediment loadings to occur in Schull Stream;

• Identify particular areas or hotspots where sediment is delivered to the channel;

• Assess if sediment deposition in the harbour is likely to be an issue; and,

• Identify potential mitigation options.

Methodology

14.4 A rapid geomorphological assessment is a basic appraisal designed to identify broad geomorphological issues and assess the geomorphological feasibility of design proposals. The assessment consists of a field reconnaissance and desktop study by an experienced fluvial geomorphologist. The assessment is purely qualitative with little or no measurements conducted. As such, a rapid geomorphological assessment should be viewed as a scoping exercise, which can be used to direct further investigation or review of proposals.

14.5 The field reconnaissance element of the rapid geomorphological assessment was conducted along the 2 km length of Schull Stream and its tributaries. The purpose of the assessment was to ascertain the potential for the stream to carry high sediment loadings and to identify sources and pathways of sediment delivery to the stream.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 196

Existing Environment

BACKGROUND

14.6 Schull stream is a small watercourse that rises on the foothills of Mount Gabriel and flows through agricultural land and the town of Scull before entering Schull Harbour. A slipway and a concrete pier (extending 100 m) are currently located in the harbour within the study area and a number of informal moorings exist within the harbour. Although Schull stream is only 2 km in length, it exhibits three very different channel characteristics, which are described below.

14.7 The headwaters are characterised by several small, shallow channels dissecting the slopes of Mount Gabriel and the marshy peat landscape below. A network of parallel ditches also drains the peat landscape and all of these channels feed into the straight trapezoidal channel. Landuse in the headwaters is predominately agricultural with several farms supporting livestock. A small pine plantation is located directly adjacent to the main channel with several small tributaries and ditches flowing through the plantation. Immediately downstream of the pine plantation, Schull Stream becomes incised and the occurrence of bank erosion becomes more prolific. It should be noted that there is no floodplain downstream of the pine plantation to Schull Harbour.

14.8 By mid catchment the stream is deeply incised with a subsequent increase in bed gradient and is characterised by steep banks, step pool sequences, bedrock intrusions and fine to coarse grained sediment. The channel flows through farmland grazed by livestock and poaching is evident along the length of the channel. A small, disused reservoir is located along the left bank of the channel and is in a state of disrepair. Although a break in the wall currently diverts a proportion of the stream flow into the reservoir, the majority of flow bypasses the reservoir.

14.9 In the lower catchment, the channel alternates between typical valley morphology with sheer banks, steep bed gradient and boulder cascades to culverts where the flow is diverted underground through the town of Schull before discharging into Schull Harbour. The discharge point at Schull Harbour has been extended by the creation of a channel reinforced by rock to direct stream flow further into the harbour.

SEDIMENT SOURCES AND TRANSPORT

14.10 Sediment movement in rivers is generally episodic and the sediment system has been likened to a ‘jerky conveyor belt’. The sediment transfer system is complex and is comprised of a series of sources, transfer links and stores extending through the drainage system. Individual sediment particles are transported from the headwaters to the coast through a series of short duration transport events separated by longer periods of storage either within the channel or on the floodplain.

14.11 In terms of sediment sources for Schull Stream, these can be divided into two main categories; diffuse sources and point sources. Diffuse sediment sources arise from various activities with no discrete source (such as runoff from arable fields, overgrazing, afforestation,

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 197

weathering of rocks etc). The headwaters of Schull stream are the primary areas of sediment production with the slope of Mount Gabriel representing a diffuse source. Weathering (the breakdown of materials in situ) and the down-slope mass movement of weathered material from Mount Gabriel are the two main processes that produce sediment in the headwaters. The peat uplands located at the foot of Mount Gabriel are also likely to deliver sediment to the channel during the summer months when the peat dries out and becomes disturbed by livestock thereby releasing fine material for entrainment during the next rainfall event. Another diffuse sediment source is the small pine plantation located in the peat uplands. Sediment delivery from forest plantations to watercourses tend to peak during the sowing period and the harvesting period when the soils are disturbed and exposed. Although the pine plantation is unlikely to be a significant diffuse source at present, this is likely to change once the plantation is harvested and replanted.

14.12 Point sources of sediment in the Schull catchment represent areas where discrete sources of sediment can be easily identified. These areas are often termed as ‘hotspots’ and while localised, they could potentially be delivering a significant proportion of sediment to the channel. Descriptions of the hotspots identified in the Schull catchment are provided in Table 1 below and the locations are displayed in Figure 14.1.

Table 14.1 - Potential point sources of sediment in Schull Catchment.

Hotspot Location

Sediment Delivery Mechanism

Notes Photo

1. Upper Catchment

Bank erosion due to poaching by cattle.

Bank failure was observed in the vicinity of the pine plantation where livestock have trampled along banks to access water and marginal vegetation. Bank failure mechanism was generally cantilever and slip failures resulting in sections of the bank collapsing into the channel with subsequent sediment delivery.

2. Upper Catchment

Bank erosion due to poaching by cattle at channel crossing location.

A channel crossing point is used by livestock to access fields on the other side of the channel. This access point is quite steep with exposed banks and is likely to contribute to delivery of fine sediment, particularly during the winter months.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 198

Hotspot Location

Sediment Delivery Mechanism

Notes Photo

3. Upper Catchment

Release of sediment into the channel as a result of bed incision.

Bed erosion due to the stream incision is releasing silt and gravels to the channel. The erosion head is currently located immediately downstream of the pine plantation and is likely to propagate upstream in future flood events.

4. Mid Catchment Runoff from livestock track adjacent to the channel.

A 200 m length track runs adjacent to the channel in the vicinity of the disused reservoir. Evidence of poaching of the track by livestock was observed. In addition, the track is perched on a ridge above the channel and any rainfall runoff from the track is likely to drain directly into the Schull stream providing a source of fine sediment.

5. Lower Catchment

Runoff from soil heap perched on edge of channel.

A large stockpile of soil observed along the left edge of the Schull Stream valley at Ardmanagh Drive. Some of the soil had slipped down the valley wall and into the channel.

6. Upper, Mid and Lower Catchment

Sediment delivery via tributaries and land drains.

Several tributaries and ditches drain grazing farmland, delivering fine sediment to Schull stream. In channel sediment deposition was particularly evident in the ditches and tributaries located in the headwaters.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 199

Figure 14.1 - Location of point sources of sediment in Schull Catchment. Refer to Table 1 for descriptions of the sediment sources.

14.13 Due to the incised nature of Schull Stream in the mid to lower catchment, the absence of floodplain and the steep bed gradient, a high proportion of sediment delivered to the stream is prone to be transported downstream and deposited in the harbour. However, as described above, sediment transport is episodic and it is unlikely that sediment delivered to the channel would be transferred to the harbour in one single flow event. Sediment is likely to be deposited within the channel confines and re-suspended during subsequent flow events before reaching the harbour. This assertion is supported by the field observations of fine sediment and gravel deposits along the channel margins and behind boulder clusters.

14.14 The sediment loadings observed during the field reconnaissance were indicative of a typical upland stream. While there was no evidence of excessive sedimentation within the channel, it is possible that high sediment loadings do occur and are only discernable during high rainfall and flow events. Anecdotal evidence provided by members of the local community with comments of ‘torrents of brown water’ and ‘muddy water during high flows’ suggest this may be the case.

14.15 Despite potential high sediment loadings of Schull Stream during flood events, fluvial sediment input to the harbour is likely to be insignificant in terms of the overall coastal sediment budget in the harbour. Analysis of photographs taken during low tide indicate that local fluvial sediment deposition at the discharge point into the harbour is not excessive (i.e.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 200

no evidence of a large delta) suggesting that fluvial sediments deposited at the river mouth become re-suspended during subsequent tidal cycles and are transported further into the harbour.

Do Nothing Impact

14.16 The do nothing option is unlikely to have significant impacts in terms of local sedimentation of the harbour. Analysis of existing bed levels in the study area suggests that sediment transport and deposition is currently in equilibrium.

Impact

14.17 The proposals to develop a new marina in Schull harbour include the construction of several ‘jetties’ in close proximity to the Schull stream discharge point. These jetties will be regularly used for boat mooring with the nearest jetty approximately 100 m from the stream discharge point. In addition, it is proposed that the existing pier will be extended by up to 100 m into the harbour and two new boat pontoons added to the existing pier. These floating pontoons are located approximately 80 m from the stream discharge point. The construction of an armoured breakwater and floating breakwater is also proposed to protect the new marina from wave attack.

14.18 A numerical model study of Schull harbour conducted by the Hydraulics and Marine Research Centre (2005) was undertaken to determine the level of wave activity at the proposed marina site. The study used a MIKE21 BW model to simulate the effects of waves of a number of different marina layouts. The study found that tidal current and wave velocities in the vicinity of the proposed marina are low and hence the level of sediment transport is also likely to be low. However, the study also concluded that an armoured breakwater attached to the existing pier is required in order to reduce wave heights to acceptable levels in all areas of the marina.

14.19 The implications for fluvial sediment deposition in the harbour could be significant if the existing threshold velocity for sediment deposition and re-suspension by tidal action is considerably reduced by the new shelter provided by the marina development. However, three key questions need to be answered before an assessment can be made regarding the likelihood of increased sedimentation of the marina;

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

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

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

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

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 201

Mitigation Measures

14.21 If sedimentation was found to be an issue following further investigation, a number of mitigation measures and options are available to reduce the risk of potential sedimentation of the harbour. Some of these measures and options could be used in parallel with one another and include:

1) Movement of the jetties and pontoons further away from Schull Stream discharge point.

2) Divert Schull Stream around the existing pier to change the discharge location of the stream into the harbour.

3) Install sediment traps to intercept sediment before it reaches the harbour.

4) Reactivate the disused reservoir so it is online and acts as a stilling basin for sediment.

5) Control sediment at source.

14.22 All of these options and mitigation measures require further investigation to determine the feasibility and cost benefits. However, a short description of each option and the major issues associated with it are described below.

Option 1 – Move the jetties and pontoons further away from Schull stream discharge point

14.23 The feasibility and cost effectiveness of this option needs to be investigated. However, redesigning the marina so the jetties are located further away from Schull Stream should be considered.

Option 2 – Divert Schull Stream

14.24 This option would require planning consent from the local authority and would require an environmental impact assessment.

Option 3 – Install sediment trap

14.25 A sediment trap could be used to control sediment delivery to Schull Harbour. It should be noted that a sediment trap would not ensnare all of the catchment sediment and some fines would still be deposited in the harbour. The design of sediment traps is demanding and data intensive. To support a suitable design and installation requires detailed knowledge of the reach hydraulics as well as data on the quantity and transport mechanism of the sediment load. Other design considerations include:

14.27 Wherever possible, traps should be sited at areas of natural siltation e.g. upstream side of a riffle.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 202

1) Effective trap capacity is approximately 66% unless sited at natural siltation sites.

2) Convenience of access for emptying the trap is vital for efficient operation.

3) Traps should be located away from downstream sensitive structures such as bridges.

4) Trap limits should be protected against headcutting upstream and incision downstream.

5) Possible downstream impacts of sediment removal should be considered.

Option 4 – Reactivate disused reservoir

14.26 Diverting flow from Schull stream into the reservoir would promote sediment deposition due to the reservoir acting as a stilling basin. This would help to remove a significant proportion of sediments delivered from the headwaters however a number of issues need to be considered;

1) Reinstating the reservoir and bringing it back ‘online’ would require special consents from the Environment Protection Agency.

2) The reservoir is currently in a state of disrepair and would require an engineering survey to determine if it is structurally sound and to identify the extent of work required to restore the reservoir.

3) Trapping sediment in the reservoir may trigger erosion downstream due to a decrease in sediment transport delivery downstream, if the stream tries to compensate for the removed sediment. This phenomenon is known as ‘sediment starvation’ and is often associated with reservoirs.

4) Sediment delivered to the channel downstream of the reservoir would still be deposited in the harbour.

Option 5 – Control sediment at source

14.27 Given that downstream siltation is linked to upstream sediment supply, controlling sediments at source is an option that could be used in parallel with some of the options described previously. Control at source could involve landuse management outside of the channel or control of the small tributaries that feed into Schull Stream. The three sediment delivery hotspots identified during the field reconnaissance could be mitigated in the following ways:

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 203

Site Sediment delivery mechanism Mitigation

Upper catchment Bank erosion due to poaching by cattle

Vegetate channel corridor in the vicinity of pine plantation to stabilise banks.

Or fence bank to prevent livestock access.

Upper catchment Erosion due to poaching by livestock at channel crossing location

Build small stock access ramp across main channel to reduce livestock moving through channel to access paddocks.

Provide offline-watering points for livestock to reduce poaching of banks.

Upper catchment Bed incision Install a series of sills upstream of the erosion head to limit incision propagating upstream.

Mid catchment Runoff from livestock track adjacent to channel.

Provide vegetated buffer strips between livestock track and channel to limit sediment delivery to channel.

Lower catchment Runoff from soil stockpile perched on edge of channel

Move soil stockpile away from channel bank (minimum 10 m).

Construct small barrier between soil pile and bank to limit sediment delivery to channel.

Residual impacts

14.28 The residual impacts would be dependent on the mitigation option(s) chosen and cannot be fully determined at this stage without knowing what mitigation option would be put in place and provision of further information to accompany this.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 204

15. Interaction between Environmental Factors

15.1 This Chapter of the EIS address the interactions between the various aspects of the EIA. Table 15.1 below identifies each chapter of the Environmental Impact Statement where the impacts or environmental effects of specific topics within the environmental statement interact between each other. Mitigation measures where necessary, have been provided for in the appropriate chapter of the EIS.

Table 15.1 – Interactions (see text below table for brief description of the interaction).

Human Beings

Traffic Ecology Geology & Hydrogeology

Coastal Processes

Landscape & Visual

Cultural Heritage

Noise & Vibration

/ Air Quality

Material Assets

Human Beings

Par. 15.2

Par. 15.3

Par 15.4 Par 15.5 Par 15.6 – 15.7

Par 15.8 – 15.9

Par. 15.10

Par 15.11

Traffic Par. 15.2

Par 15.12

Par 15.13 Par 15.14 Par 15.15 Par 15.16 Par 15.17 Par 15.18

Ecology Par. 15.3

Par 15.12

Par 15.19 Par 15.20 Par 15.21 Par 15.22 Par 15.23 Par 15.24

Geology & Hydrogeology

Par 15.4

Par 15.13

Par 15.19

Par 15.25 Par 15.26 Par 15.27 – 15.28

Par 15.29 Par 15.30

Coastal Processes

Par 15.5

Par 15.14

Par 15.20

Par 15.25 Par 15.31 Par 15.32 Par 15.33 Par 15.34

Landscape & Visual

Par 15.6 – 15.7

Par 15.15

Par 15.21

Par 15.26 Par 15.31 Par. 15.35 Par 15.36 Par 15.37

Cultural Heritage

Par 15.8 – 15.9

Par 15.16

Par 15.22

Par 15.27 – 15.28

Par 15.32 Par 15.33 Par 15.38 Par 15.39

Noise & Vibration / Air Quality

Par. 15.10

Par 15.17

Par 15.23

Par 15.29 Par 15.33 Par 15.36 Par 15.38 Par 15.40

Material Assets

Par 15.11

Par 15.18

Par 15.24

Par 15.30 Par 15.34 Par 15.37 Par 15.39 Par 15.40

Note: Red indicates there is an interaction, green indicates where there is none.

Interaction between Human Beings and Traffic

15.2 There is potential for increased employment in the local area during the construction phase. There will be interruptions to recreational use of the harbour during construction phase due to high heavy goods vehicle usage of the village. Health and safety issues may also arise from increased traffic during the construction and operation of harbour. Increased traffic inputs to Schull during both construction and operation, will have positive benefits to shops, restaurants and other services in Schull village.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 205

Interaction between Human Beings and Ecology

15.3 Increased commercial and recreational usage of harbour encouraged by harbour development place further pressures on marine ecology, through increased fisheries, potential pollutants and disturbance to cetaceans, seals and birds by tourist use of the area

Interaction between Human Beings and Geology / Hydrogeology

15.4 None

Interaction between Human Beings and Coastal Processes

15.5 None

Interaction between Human Beings and Landscape & Visual

15.6 The proposed harbour development will result in a change in the landscape within Schull village. This will result in some changes to views that people currently experience not only within Schull itself, but also along other parts of Schull Harbour (e.g. eastern part of the harbour) distant from the site.

15.7 Development may lead to increased development in the area, and increased usage for tourism and leisure, which interact through increasing visual impact due to greater usage of area, but also potential change in landscape if development in the area is increased due to the harbour development.

Interaction between Human Beings and Cultural Heritage

15.8 There is potential that previously undiscovered archaeological material could be uncovered during the construction phase. These potential archaeological artifacts may be off interest to people in the local community and archaeologists throughout the country. There will be a positive interaction from better appreciation of cultural heritage from additional tourism generated in area as a result of the development.

15.9 Increased fishing and recreational use of the area may cause damage to as of yet undiscovered underwater archaeological artefacts from moorings and anchorages.

Interaction between Human Beings and Air Quality / Noise & Vibration

15.10 There will be a short-term noise associated with the construction works. Increasing development in the harbour, and consequently increased traffic inputs will lead to an increase in noise and vibration, and potential air pollution from boats and vehicles.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 206

Interaction between Human Beings and Material Assets

15.11 There will be a short-term impact on road infrastructure in the Schull area during the construction phase.

Interaction between Traffic and Ecology

15.12 Increased traffic particularly during the construction phase may cause disturbance to wildlife such as birds and noise impacts on cetaceans and seals.

Interaction between Traffic and Geology / Hydrogeology

15.13 None

Interaction between Traffic and Coastal Processes

15.14 None

Interaction between Traffic and Landscape & Visual

15.15 Increased traffic will lead to increased visual impacts particularly during the construction phase. Increased traffic during the operational phase will be in the form of tourists taking advantage of the scenic routes in the area and amenity designations. Thus interactions are negative during the construction phase but positive during the operational phase of the harbour.

Interaction between Traffic and Cultural Heritage

15.16 None.

Interaction between Traffic and Noise & Vibration / Air Quality

15.17 Increased traffic during the construction phase is one of the key causes of noise impacts and potential increases in air pollution.

Interaction between Traffic and Material Assets

15.18 There will be a temporary negative impact on amenity usage of the site from traffic during the construction phase.

Interaction between Ecology and Geology / Hydrogeology

15.19 The nature and type of habitats and species present are dependent on the underlying geology / hydrogeology. Any impacts on water quality or flow patterns would indirectly impact on ecological communities. There is thus a strong interaction between these two components.

Interaction between Ecology and Coastal Processes

15.20 Any changes in flow patterns, or sediment movements within the harbour will influence the marine ecological community structure.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 207

Interaction between Ecology and Landscape & Visual

15.21 The littoral shore, which provides habitats for a range of species also provides a natural landscape element, characteristic of the area. Landscape design proposals will influence the nature of species and habitats that will develop following construction.

Interaction between Ecology and Cultural Heritage

15.22 None

Interaction between Ecology and Noise & Vibration / Air Quality

15.23 Noise generated during construction activities, particularly piling can have a serious negative impact on cetacean species, and to a lesser extent on birds and seals. Noise from boats during the operation of the marina can also negatively impact cetaceans.

Interaction between Ecology and Material Assets

15.24 The marine habitats support a range of fish species and provide habitats for both marine fisheries and aquaculture ventures.

Interaction between Geology / Hydrogeology and Coastal Processes

15.25 The nature of marine sediments will determine how changes in coastal processes from the proposed development will influence them.

Interaction between Geology / Hydrogeology and Landscape & Visual

15.26 The geology of an area influences the landscape character. Local impacts on hydrogeology & geology will influence landscape and visual elements. A portion of the foreshore (consisting of mainly rocky seashore and gravel and sand) will be reclaimed as part of the proposed harbour development. This will cause a change in the visual appearance of this attractive foreshore area, which is located adjacent to an amenity walkway.

Interaction between Geology & Hydrogeology and Cultural Heritage

15.27 There is a chance that some undiscovered archaeological material which was not identified in the geophysical and magnetometer surveys is uncovered during the construction phase of the project, perhaps in the redistribution of material on the seabed within the new harbour area.

15.28 Removal of topsoil and changes to the hydrology of the area may lead to damage to archaeological artefacts.

Interaction between Geology & Hydrogeology and Noise & Vibration / Air Quality

15.29 None

Interaction between Geology & Hydrogeology and Material Assets

15.30 None

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 208

Interaction between Coastal Processes and Landscape & Visual

15.31 None

Interaction between Coastal Processes and Cultural Heritage

15.32 Any changes to coastal processes that causes erosion, may reveal undiscovered archaeological artefacts.

Interaction between Coastal Processes and Noise & Vibration / Air Quality

15.33 None

Interaction between Coastal Processes and Material Assets

15.34 None.

Interaction between Landscape & Visual and Cultural Heritage

15.35 Archaeological sites can contribute to landscape character. There will be no interactions, however in Schull Harbour development.

Interaction between Landscape & Visual and Noise & Vibration / Air Quality

15.36 None

Interaction between Landscape and Material Assets

15.37 Landscape and visual impacts contribute to amenity use of the harbour.

Interaction between Cultural Heritage and Noise & Vibration / Air Quality

15.38 None

Interaction between Cultural Heritage and Material Assets

15.39 None

Interaction between Noise & Vibration / Air Quality and Material Assets

15.40 During the construction phase there will be a negative interaction between amenity recreation and noise and dust generated.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 209

References

Aalen, F. Whelan, K. and Stout, S. (1997). Atlas of the Irish Rural Landscape, Cork University Press, Cork.

ABP Research, (1999). Good practice guidelines for ports and harbours operating within or near UK

marine Special Areas of Conservation. English Nature, UK Marine SACs Project. pp 120.

Bloxham, M., Rowe, A., McGovern, E., Smyth, M. & Nixon, E. (1998). Trace metal and chlorinated hydrocarbon concentrations in shellfish and finfish from Irish waters – 1996. Marine Environmental

Series 2/98. Fishery Leaflet 179. Marine Institute, Dublin.

Boyd, J. 1999. The Schull and Skibbereen Railway, Oakwood Press.

British Standard BS 5228: Part 1: (1997) ‘Noise and Construction control on construction and open sites: Code of Practice for basic information and procedures for noise and vibration control.

British Standard BS 5228: Part 4: (1997) ‘Noise and Construction control on construction and open sites: Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control applicable to piling operations.

Budd, G.C. (2005). Abra alba. A bivalve mollusc. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and

Sensitivity Key Information Sub-Programme. Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. www.marlin.ac.uk/species/Abraalba.

Byron, H. (2000). Biodiversity Impact. Biodiversity and Environmental Impact Assessment: A Good

Practice Guide for Road Schemes. The RSPB, WWF-UK, English Nature and the Wildlife Trusts, Sandy.

Cadogan, T. (1998). Lewis’ Cork: A topographical dictionary of the Parishes, towns and villages of

Cork City and County. (First published in 1837.) The Collins Press, Cork.

Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) (1988), Department of Transport, UK

Casella Stanger (2003) Guidance note for use of projection factors for background and roadside

pollution factors

Central Statistics Office, (2003). Fishery Statistics 2002. www.cso.ie.

Clarke, K.R. & Warwick, R.M. (1994). Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical

analysis and interpretation. Natural Environment Research Council, UK, 144pp.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 210

Connor, D.W, Dalkin, M. J., Hill, T. O., Holt, R. H. F. & Sanderson, W. G. 1997b. Marine Nature

Conservation Review: marine biotopes classification for Britain and Ireland. Volume 2. Sublittoral biotopes. Version 97.06. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding N., Howell, K.L., Lieberknecht, L.M., Northen, K.O. & Reker, J.B. (2004). The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC, Peterborough

Connor, D.W., Brazier, D.P., Hill, T.O. and Northen, K.O. 1997a. Marine Nature Conservation

Review: marine biotopes classification for Britain and Ireland. Volume 1. Littoral biotopes. Version 97.06. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Cork County Development Plan (2003), Volume 2, Specific Objectives: Heritage and Amenity.

Costello, M.J., Emblow, C.S. and White, R. (Eds). 2001. European register of marine species. A check-list of the marine species in Europe and bibliography of guides to their identification. Patrimoines naturels, 50:463.

Cronin, M. Duck, C., Ó Cadhla, O., Nairn, R., Strong, D and O’Keeffe, C. (2004). Harbour seal population assessment in the Republic of Ireland: August 2003. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No 11. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment and local Government. Dublin, Ireland.

Curtis, T.G.F. and McGough, H.N. (1988). The Irish Red Data Book. 1 Vascular Plants. The Stationery Office, Dublin.

David, J.A., (2006). Likely sensitivity of bottlenose dolphins to pile-driving noise. Water and

Environment Journal, 20: 48-51. Chartered Institute of Water and Environment Management.

Davies, J., Baxter, J., Bradley, M., Connor, D., Khan, J., Murray, E., Sanderson, W., Turnbull, C. & Vincent, M., Eds. (2001). Marine Monitoring Handbook. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

DEFRA, (2000). Quality Status Reporting of the Marine and Coastal Areas of the Irish Sea and

Bristol Channel. Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.

DEFRA (2001). Design Criteria for Enhancing Marine Habitat. Within Coastal Structures: A Feasibility

Study. Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs, London,

DEFRA UK (2003) Part IV of the Environment Act 1995: Local Air Quality Management Technical

Guidance LAQM.TG(03) and LAQM.TG(03) Update (January, 2006)

DEFRA (2005). Marine Habitats and Species. Report 3 of 5. Charting Progress – An Integrated

Assessment of the State of the UK Seas. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

DEFRA, (2005). Charting Progress – An Integrated Assessment of the State of the UK Seas. 1.

Marine Environment Quality. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 211

DELG (Department of Environment and Local Government) 2002, Air Quality Standards Regulations. S.I. No. 271 of 2002

Dwyer, R.B. (2000). Protecting Nature in Ireland. The NGO Special Areas of Conservation Shadow List. A Report prepared for An Taisce, BirdWatch Ireland, Coastwatch Ireland, Irish Peatland Conservation Council and the Irish Wildlife Trust. IPCC, Dublin.

Emblow, C. S., Costello, M. J. and Wyn, G. (1998). Methods for mapping seashore and seabed

biotopes in Wales and Ireland - INTERREG SensMap project. Irish Sea Forum - Emergency response planning: saving the environment, Liverpool University Press.

Environmental Protection Agency (2005), Ambient Air Quality in Ireland 2004 (and previous reports

1997-2003)

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2002). Guidelines on the information to be contained in

Environmental Impact Statements. EPA, Wexford.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2003). Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the preparation

of Environmental Impact Statements). EPA, Wexford.

Fossitt, J.A. (2000). A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council of Ireland.

Geological Survey of Ireland 6 - Inch Field Mapping sheets (1840’s).

Glynn, D., Tyrrell, L., McHugh, B., Monaghan, E., Costello, J. & McGovern, E. (2004). Trace metal and chlorinated hydrocarbon concentrations in shellfish from Irish waters, 2002. Marine Environment

and Health Series, No. 16. Marine Institute, Dublin.

Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes, National Roads Authority, Revision 1 October 2004.

Hancock, N. (1850). On the Causes of Distress at Skull and Skibbereen during the Famine in Ireland, Dublin.

Hawkes, J. (2003). Ardintenant Castle and the O’Mahony Fonn-Iartharach in Journal of the Mizen

Archaeological and Historical Society No. 11.

Hayden, T. and Harrington, R. (2000). Exploring Irish Mammals. Dúchas, The Heritage Service, Dublin.

Hayward, P.J. & Ryland, J.S., (1996). Handbook of the Marine Fauna of North-West Europe. Marine & Environmental Research Group, University of Wals, Swansea.

Hickey, P. (1993). Famine in West Cork in Flanagan, P. and Buttimer, C. eds. Cork History and

Society, Geography Publications, Dublin.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 212

Highways Agency UK (2003) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Volume 11, Chapter 3)

Hiscock, K., (2005). Anemonia viridis. Snakelocks anemone. Marine Life Information Network: Biology

and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 03/02/2006]. Available from: <http://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/Anemoniaviridis.htm>

Howson, C. M. & Picton, B (1997). The species directory of the marine fauna and flora of the British

Isles and surrounding seas. The Ulster Museum, Northern Ireland and The Marine Conservation Society, Ross-on-Wye.

Hunt, J., Derwin, J., Coveney, J. and Newton, S. (2000). Pp 365 – 416 in Heath M.F. and Evans, M.I., eds. Important Bird Areas in Europe: Priority sites for conservation. 1: Northern Europe, Cambridge, UK: Birdlife International (BirdLife conservation Series No. 8).

ICES, (2003). Environmental Status of the European Seas. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation & Nuclear Safety.

IEA (Institute of Environmental Assessment) (1995). Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. E & FN Spon, London, UK.

Institute of Geologists of Ireland, (2002). Geology in Environmental Impact Statements- A Guide.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2004), Guidelines for Minimising Acoustic Disturbance to

Marine Mammals from Acoustic Surveys. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Aberdeen. www.jncc.gov.uk/marine.

Kingston, Paul (1985). The Story of West Carbery. The Friendly Press, Cork.

Lyons, D. O. (2004) Summary of National Parks and Wildlife Service surveys for common (harbour) seals (Phoca vitulina) and grey seals (Halichoerus grypus), 1978 to 2003. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No 13. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment and local Government. Dublin, Ireland.

M.J. Gardiner, (1980). Ireland General Soil Map (Second Edition) 1:575,000. An Foras Taluntais.

Mackey, M. (1996). The Schull Workhouse in Journal of the Mizen Archaeological and Historical

Society No. 4.

Mackey, M. (2000). Short History of the Ruins of St. Mary’s Church, Colla Road, Schull in Journal of

the Mizen Archaeological and Historical Society No.8.

Marine Institute, (1999). Ireland’s Marine and Coastal Areas and Adjacent Seas: An Environmental

Assessment. Marine Institute, Dublin.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 213

MEMG (2004). UK National Marine Monitoring Programme – Second Report (1999 – 2001). Marine Environment Monitoring Group, Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science, Suffolk.

National Roads Authority (2004). Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road

Schemes. NRA.

O’Brien, W. (1994). Bronze Age Copper Mining on Mount Gabriel, in Journal of the Mizen

Archaeological and Historical Society No.2.

Picton, B.E. and Costello M. J. (1998). The BioMar biotope viewer: a guide to marine habitats, fauna

and flora in Britain and Ireland, Environmental Sciences Unit, Trinity College, Dublin.

Pielou, E.C., (1975). Ecological diversity. Wiley-Interscience, New York, 165pp.

Power, D., Byrne, E., Egan, U., Lane, S. and Sleeman, M. (1992). Archaeological Inventory of

County Cork: Volume 1: West Cork, The Stationery Office: Dublin.

Power, D., Byrne, E., Egan, U., Lane, S. and Sleeman, M. 1992. Archaeological Inventory of County

Cork: Volume 1: West Cork, The Stationery Office: Dublin.

Pracht & Sleeman, (2001). Geological Survey of Ireland 1:100,000 Geological of West Cork.

Preston, C.D. Pearman, D.A. and Dines T.D., (2002) New Atlas of British and Irish Flora. Oxford University Press.

Reid, J.B., Evans, P.G.H. and Northridge, S.P. (2003). Atlas of Cetacean distribution in north-west

European waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Riley, K. (2003). Lumbrineris tetraura. A bristleworm. Marine Life Information Network. Biology and

Sensitivity Key Information Sub-Programme. Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. www.marlin.ac.uk/species/Lumbrineristetraura.htm.

Sleeman, D.P and Moore, P.G. (2005). Otter (Lutra lutra) in Cork City. Irish Naturalists Journal 28(2), 73-79.

Summers, C.F. (1983) The grey seal. Unpublished report to the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Wildlife.

Tyler-Walters, H. & Hiscock, K. (2005). Impact of human activities on benthic biotopes and species. Report to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN). Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the UK (Contract no. CDEP 84/5/244).

Warwick, R.M. & Clarke, K.R. (1991). A comparison of some methods for analysing changes in benthic community structure. J.Mar.Biol.Assoc. UK. 71(1): 225-244.

Schull Harbour Development Environmental Impact Assessment

Z:2421/30/32/RK2421DG02.doc Page 214

Warwick, R.M., (1986). A new method for detecting pollution effects on marine macrobenthic communities. Mar.Biol. 92: 557-562.

World Health Organization (1999) Carbon Monoxide. Environmental Health Criteria 213. Geneva: World Health Organization.

World Health Organization (2003) Health Aspects of Air Pollution with Particulate Matter, Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide. Report on a WHO Working Group. Bonn, Germany, January 2003.

www.gsi.ie Geological Survey of Ireland On-line map query service.