figure 7.2 non-breeding water bird feeding & roosting areas in lough beg … · 2017. 12....

$: Figure 7.2 Non-breeding water bird feeding & roosting areas in Lough Beg … · 2017. 12. 8. · J:\C2400-C2499\C2465\3_DOCUMENTS\40\REPORTS\EIS\EIS ISSUE\JANSSEN BIOLOGICS EIS_C2465.40_ISSUE$
Secondary feeding areas

Primary feeding areas

Special Protection Area (SPA)

High tide roosting areas

Turbines

AG

L

B

C

D

E

F

H

I

J

K

A

All mapping reproduced under Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence No EN 0036611 © Ordnance Survey Ireland/Government of Ireland

29.04.2011

Broomhall Business Park,

Rathnew,

Wicklow, Ireland

Tel: (0404) 34300

E-mail: [email protected]

Drawn: Checked:

Sheet no: of

Project no: Scale: 1:

Date:Revision:

Approved:

Status:

Figure 7.2Non-breeding water bird feeding & roosting

areas in Lough Beg 2009/2010

CH RN RN

Final 8000@A4

1

17021

1 1

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10

Janssen Biologics (Ireland) Wind Energy Project

Environmental Impact Statement

EIS | Issue 1 | 29 April 2011 | Arup

J:\C2400-C2499\C2465\3_DOCUMENTS\40\REPORTS\EIS\EIS ISSUE\JANSSEN BIOLOGICS EIS_C2465.40_ISSUE 1.DOCX Page 68

Bats:

Existing records

A review of existing records of bat species in the area of the proposed development site showed that seven of the ten known Irish species have been observed within the local Ringskiddy area. These include common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelle P. pygmaeus pipistrelle, Leisler‟s Nyctalus leisleri, brown long-eared Plecotus auritus, Daubenton‟s Myotis daubentonii, Natterer‟s M. nattereri and whiskered M. mystacinus/ Brandts M. brandtii bats as shown in Table 7.4 below. There are no records of Lesser horseshoe (Rhinolophus hipposideros) bat for this area of Cork.

Currabinny wood is a mixed woodland site managed by Coillte and is known to be an important area for bats. The Cork County Bat Group has identified three of the above species within the wood, which is located approximately 2km south east of the development site.

Table 7.4: Records of bat species known to occur within the study area

Common name Scientific name Occurrence Roosts Source

Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus Present No CCBG

Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus Present No CCBG

Leisler‟s Nyctalus leisleri Present Yes NPWS

Brown long-eared Plecotus auritus Present Yes CCBG

Daubenton‟s Myotis daubentonii Present No CCBG

Natterer‟s M. Nattereri Present No CCBG

Whiskered/Brandts M. mystacinus/ M. brandtii

Present No CCBG

CCBG – Cork County Bat Group

Survey results

There are a number of mature ivy covered trees within the treelines on site, but structurally the trees offer little opportunity for roosting bats. Ivy cover provides some limited potential as a temporary night time roost. The only building on site is the Janssen facility, which is a modern, well maintained structure offering little roosting opportunity.

A soprano pipistrelle was recorded foraging along a treelines in the west of the site. Other than a few sparse treelines, the habitats within the site are of low value for bats. Bats are known to occur close to the site and two species, common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle were recorded foraging along the road between the Janssen and Novartis sites See Table 7.5. It is possible that bats may occasionally pass over the development site but there are no significant roosting/foraging areas or commuting routes within the site.

Table 7.5 Bat species recorded adjacent to the site

Common name Scientific name Occurrence Activity

Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus Present Foraging

Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus Present Foraging

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





7.3.4.2 Birds

Breeding birds

Breeding species were recorded on or adjacent to the Janssen site during three site visits in the period April to August 2010. Of these, Linnet and Skylark are considered to be of medium conservation concern (Lynas et al., 2007). These are common and widespread but have declined at national level. The remaining species are all of low conservation concern. None of the species listed in Table 7.6 are considered to be vulnerable to collision with wind turbines (European Commission, 2010).

Table 7.6 Breeding bird species recorded in the area around the Janssen site, 2010

Species Scientific name Level of conservation concern*

Blackbird Turdus merula Low

Blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus Low

Rook Corvus frugilegus Low

Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita Low

Greenfinch Chloris chloris Low

Jackdaw Corvus monedula Low

Linnet Carduelis cannabina Medium

Meadow pipit Anthus pratensis Low

Robin Erithicus rubecula Low

Skylark Alauda arvensis Medium

Song thrush Turdus philomelus Low

Starling Sturnus vulgaris Low

Wood pigeon Columba polumbus Low

Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Low

*Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland are defined by Lynas et al. (2007)

A small colony (maximum 48 nests) of breeding Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) was recorded on an island in the centre of Lough Beg in 2004-2006. This island is accessible to ground predators at low tide. At this site in 2010 there were c15 tern nests and c40 adults. All nests failed and predation at egg or early chick stage was suspected. From 2002 to 2010 a colony of common terns has been breeding on an island in the lagoon within the golf course at the south-west corner of Monkstown Creek. This is over 800m north-west of the proposed turbine location CEN1. In 2010 a minimum of 11 nests was counted from the shore and 20-25 adult birds were present. All nests were lost due to flooding late in the season. This site has suffered from high water flooding each year from 2007 to 2010 (information from P. Smiddy and B. O‟Mahony). Observations of flightlines of these birds in summer 2009 and 2010 show that that they consistently fly over the sea wall to the north of the lagoon and follow the intertidal area of Monkstown Creek to the open sea. They have not been recorded near the proposed turbine location.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





Non-breeding birds:

Water birds in the adjacent areas: The peak numbers of all non-breeding bird species recorded at Lough Beg and Monkstown Creek over the full survey period from November 2009 to October 2010, during 12 separate count dates, are given in Tables A7.1 and A7.2 (Appendix 7.1). Table 7.7 below gives a summary of these figures in the form of a range (lowest to highest peak) and an average (mean peak) for the regularly recorded species (those recorded on at least half of the survey dates). Other occasionally recorded species are listed below the table.

A much greater number of species was recorded at Lough Beg than at Monkstown Creek. The most abundant wildfowl species at Lough Beg were Brent Goose, Shelduck, Wigeon, Teal and Mallard. The largest number of waders at Lough Beg were Dunlin, Redshank, Black-tailed Godwit, Oystercatcher and Curlew. Black-headed Gull and Common Gull were the most abundant gulls.

Monkstown Creek holds a significant roost of Cormorant and Grey Heron with large numbers of Shelduck, Teal, Black-tailed Godwit, Curlew, Redshank, Turnstone and Black-headed Gull feeding at low tide.

The proposed turbine CEN1 on the Janssen site is located over 1.4km from the nearest part of Lough Beg and over 700m from the nearest part of Monkstown Creek.

Table 7.7 Range and mean peak counts of regularly* recorded species counted in Lough Beg and Monkstown Creek over the winter period 2009/10

Species Scientific name Lough Beg Monkstown Creek

Range Mean Range Mean

Little grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis 0-15 7 Irregular

Great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus 0-36 7 Irregular

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 0-20 6 15-162 68

Little egret Egretta garzetta 0-10 4 Irregular

Grey heron Ardea cinerea 1-15 5 6-32 15

Mute swan Cygnus olor 0-6 2 Irregular

Brent goose Branta bernicla hrota 0-65 35 Irregular

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna 0-96 58 0-126 69

Wigeon Anas penelope 0-99 40 Not recorded

Teal Anas crecca 26-112 60 0-94 55

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 0-54 26 2-30 14

Coot Fulica atra 0-6 2 Not recorded

Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 0-14 3 Not recorded

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator 0-30 4 Irregular

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus 53-106 88 Not recorded

Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula 1-125 45 Not recorded

Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola 0-48 15 Not recorded

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





Species Scientific name Lough Beg Monkstown Creek

Range Mean Range Mean

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus 0-156 33 Irregular

Knot Calidris canuta 0-36 7 Irregular

Dunlin Calidris alpina 62-525 244 Irregular

Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa 27-156 103 8-66 39

Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica 0-28 10 Irregular

Curlew Numenius arquata 20-197 81 28-85 47

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus 0-3 2 Not recorded

Redshank Tringa totanus 88-349 157 26-84 57

Greenshank Tringa nebularia 3-17 8 0-5 2

Turnstone Arenaria interpres 0-70 23 2-43 23

Black-headed gull Chroicocephalus

ridibundus

10-281 71 22-323 138

Common gull Larus canus 11-100 48 0-38 6

Lesser black-backed

gull

Larus fuscus 0-19 5 0-16 6

Herring gull Larus argentatus 0-17 4 0-17 5

Great black-backed gull Larus marinus 0-17 4 0-23 5

*Regularly recorded species are defined as those occurring on at least half of the survey dates.

Other infrequent or less regular species recorded (on less than half of the survey dates) are given below:

Lough Beg: Red-throated Diver, Shag, Black Brant, Shoveler, Golden Plover, Snipe, Kingfisher,

Mediterranean Gull, Sandwich Tern, Common Tern, Gadwall, Spotted Redshank, Water Rail.

Monkstown Creek: Little Grebe, Great Crested Grebe, Shag, Mute Swan, Brent Goose, Red-breasted

Merganser, Snipe, Kingfisher, Mediterranean Gull, Shag, Sandwich Tern, Common Tern, Lapwing, Knot,

Dunlin, Bar-tailed Godwit, Mediterranean Gull, Ring-billed Gull.

Feeding areas: At low tide, the majority of non-breeding birds are distributed across the intertidal mudflats of Monkstown Creek and Lough Beg. No non-breeding birds were recorded feeding within the arable fields at the proposed CEN1 Turbine location. Curlew were recorded feeding on the managed grassland mounds around the Janssen facility and in the improved grassland fields further south, which are grazed by cattle (Simms et al., 2011).

A number of other inland fields are also used occasionally by waders and gulls, but none close to the proposed CEN1 turbine location. A flock of 35 Lapwing was recorded feeding over a number of days in fields north west of the DePuy (Ireland) facility in November (Simms et al., 2011). A number of gull species have also been recorded feeding in the fields close to DePuy. The most notable non-esturine feeding areas were identified as the agricultural fields immediately west and south west of Lough Beg Estuary. These fields are considered primary

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





feeding areas for a number of wader and gull species. No inland feeding areas were identified close to Monkstown Creek.

High tide roosts: At high tide, the birds move into a series of high tide roosts around all shorelines of Monkstown Creek and Lough Beg. The nearest recorded high tide roosts to CEN1 are situated over 700m and 1.8km in Monkstown Creek and Lough Beg respectively. The most significant roosts are along the shorelines of the two estuaries. The only water bird inland roost site identified is a stubble field half-way along the Owenboy River approximately 1.5km south west of CEN1 (used by around 30 curlew) (Simms et al., 2011).

Non-breeding raptors:

A number of species of birds of prey (raptors) were recorded in the vicinity of the proposed development in the year November 2009 to October 2010. These are discussed below:

Peregrine (Falco peregrinus) has been recorded occasionally, and nests irregularly at Coolmore Quarry, which is located approximately 1km south of the Janssen site. This species does not breed within the Centor site but has been recorded in flight within 100m of the turbine location CEN1. A second nesting site is located at Ballyheminkin Quarry, west of Shanbally, approximately 2km north-west of the Janssen site. Annual nesting by Peregrine is recorded here. This pair is likely to be the birds sighted at Barnahely Hill and Monkstown Creek (information from J. Lyden, Irish Raptor Study Group).

Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus): There were several sightings of Kestrel in the vicinity of the turbine location CEN1

Common Buzzard (Buteo buteo): There was a single sighting of a Buzzard flying over the site.

Sparrowhawk (Acciper nisus): This species was recorded on several occasions within the Janssen site.

Local movements:

The majority of flights by non-breeding water birds are within the intertidal areas parallel to the shorelines of Monkstown Creek and Lough Beg. Information recorded on bird movements, shows a strong interconnectivity between birds feeding in the Owenboy Estuary and Lough Beg. Most of these birds are also likely to feed in Monkstown Creek and other areas of Cork Harbour. Preliminary radar results indicate a distinct flight pattern between the Owenboy Estuary and Lough Beg. This flight path continues out of Lough Beg in a north-easterly direction possibly towards Cobh, however no distinct pattern of movement has been identified between Lough Beg and Monkstown Creek (Simms et al., 2011).

Flightlines within 500m of the turbine location CEN1 were recorded for a total of 10 species (Table 7.8). Of these species, six species of water bird were recorded passing over the site. Only Black-headed Gull was assessed as passing occasionally within 100m of the turbine location. The four raptor species were recorded hunting. The Peregrines sighted are likely to be those nesting at Ballyheminkin Quarry.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





Table 7.8 Frequency of flights within 500m of turbine location CEN1 (Total 39.25 hours observation)

Common name

Scientific name Nearest Distance to Turbine centre

Frequency of sightings within band nearest turbine

(1)

Vulnerability to collision with wind turbines

(2)

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo <100m Rare 1

Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa <100m Rare 1

Curlew Numenius arquata <200m Rare 0

Black-headed gull Larus ribundus <100m Occasional No data

Lesser black-backed

gull

Larus fuscus <100m Rare No data

Great black-backed

gull

Larus marinus <100m Rare No data

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus <100m Rare 2

Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus <200m Rare 1

Buzzard Buteo buteo <100m Rare 2

Kestrel Falco tinnunculus <100m Rare 2

(1) Frequency of sightings: Frequent = >10 sightings; Occasional = 4 - 9 sightings; Rare = 1 - 3

sightings.

(2) Collision risk with wind turbines: Based on EU Guidance on wind energy development

in accordance with the EU nature legislation (European Commission 2010): 0 = No risk; 1

= Small or non-significant risk or impact; 2 = Potential risk or impact; 3 = Evidence or

indications of risk; 4 = evidence of substantial risk.

7.4 Predicted Impacts

7.4.1 Impacts during Construction

The construction phase of the project includes site preparation, excavation, installation of hardstanding areas for the turbine base and crane equipment and erection of the turbine. Underground cables will link the turbine to the Janssen facility. Typically the cables will be laid in a trench one metre deep and one metre wide.

7.4.1.1 Designated Areas

The turbine on this site is located at least 700m from the nearest boundary of Cork Harbour SPA. There will be no direct impacts to the SPA during construction and due to the distance of the proposed turbine CEN1 from the SPA there will be no indirect impacts as a result of disturbance and/or displacement of bird species, for which the SPA has been designated.

7.4.1.2 Habitat Loss

The only habitat affected by the construction of the turbine is arable crops (BC1) which is of very low ecological value. The likely impacts of construction on habitats are imperceptible.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





7.4.1.3 Fauna

Mammals (other than bats)

The loss of a small area of arable land will have an imperceptible impact on those mammal species known to occur within the site. Any impacts as a result of disturbance from construction activities will only be temporary and will not interfere with foraging behaviour which, for most mammals is usually crepuscular and or nocturnal.

Bats

There will be no loss of potential bat roost sites or commuting routes as a result of the proposed development. The loss of a small area of arable land, a habitat of very low value to foraging bats is considered imperceptible. Disturbance to bats as a result of construction activities is not expected to have any impact on foraging or commuting bats as they are not active during the daytime.

Birds

Breeding birds: None of the breeding birds recorded on the site will be directly affected by habitat loss. The impact of construction on breeding birds is imperceptible to slight. Crops and stubble fields may be used for foraging at certain times of year by flocks of Rook, Wood Pigeon and Finches. These may be disturbed from the immediate area around the construction but this will not be significant given the abundance of similar habitats available in the area.

Non-breeding birds: The intertidal areas of Monkstown Creek and Lough Beg are respectively at least 700m and 1.4km from the proposed turbine location and there is no likelihood of disturbance to birds in these areas, due to the distances involved. Studies of water birds roosting close to major engineering works in Inner Galway Bay showed that there were no negative effects of construction disturbance taking place approximately 150-200m from the main roost (Nairn 2005). In Dublin Bay, most bird disturbance events recorded were caused by dogs and people walking on the beach or fields used for foraging by water birds (Phalan and Nairn 2007). The areas of arable land around the turbine base are not attractive to non-breeding water birds. Curlew have been recorded on occasion feeding in the fields around the buildings at Barnahely but not in the arable fields where the turbine location is proposed. Construction workers may cause temporary disturbance to birds using nearby fields, but they will rapidly habituate to any non-threatening disturbance, resulting in an imperceptible impact.

7.4.2 Impacts during operation

7.4.2.1 Designated Areas

The nearest part of the Cork Harbour SPA is at least 700m from the proposed turbine location. There will be no direct impacts on the designated area during operation. Potential indirect impacts during operation of the turbine may arise in relation to some of the qualifying interests of Cork Harbour SPA, due to collision risk to non-breeding birds. These impacts are discussed below in the section on Birds. Turbine CEN1 will not cause displacement of feeding or roosting birds from Cork Harbour SPA as none have been recorded using the site for these purposes.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





7.4.2.2 Habitat Loss

The habitats surrounding the turbine location are of low ecological value. There will be no additional impacts on these habitats during operation of the wind turbine.

7.4.2.3 Fauna

Mammals

The significance of impacts on mammals, such as fox, rabbit and Irish hare, as a result of disturbance during turbine operation and maintenance will be imperceptible.

Bats

Foraging and commuting bats are primarily at risk from operating wind turbines through collision with turbine rotors and towers. The highest collision rates have been found in wind farms near forests but bat collisions have also been report from turbines in open areas and even at offshore wind farms (European Commission, 2010). Soprano pipistrelle which was recorded briefly on the site and common pipistrelle which was recorded adjacent to the site are both known to fly at heights greater and less than 40m and have been identified as being at risk of collision with wind turbines (European Commission, 2010).

No roost sites were identified within or close to the site. The site is considered of low value for bats. It is probable that bats will pass over and forage within the site occasionally and therefore there is a risk of collision. Given the value of the habitats within the site for bats and the level of activity recorded, any potential impacts as a result of collision are expected to be imperceptible to slight.

Birds

Displacement disturbance:

Displacement of water birds near wind turbines

Bird disturbance leading to displacement or exclusion, and hence loss of habitat

use, is a matter which may be of concern both for onshore and offshore wind

developments (European Commission 2010). Disturbance is said to be caused by

the sight, noise or vibration of the wind turbines themselves and/or by other

activities related to wind farm maintenance. Breeding birds have been considered

to be less affected than feeding or roosting birds (Hotker et al 2006), although

recent studies suggest that this may not always be the case (Pearce-Higgins et al

2009). Some waders, for instance, are site-faithful, implying that their attachment

to a location may outweigh any potential response to change. Hence the true

impact may not be evident until new recruits replace the older birds (Drewitt and

Langston 2006).

The European Commission (2010) guidance on wind energy and Natura 2000

states that “more long-term studies are needed regarding the potential for different

species to habituate and recover”. The first systematic reviews indicated local

population declines over time for various species (e.g. among waterfowl and

waders at staging and wintering sites) and no conclusive evidence of habituation

(Stewart et al 2004; 2007). More recently published long-term studies indicate

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





that various species may habituate, both at onshore and offshore locations

(Petersen and Fox 2007; Madsen and Boertmann 2008).

Displacement disturbance during operation of wind turbines is said to occur with

non-breeding water birds on average, up to 800m from the turbine locations

(Drewitt and Langston 2006, Percival 2005; Petersen and Poulsen 1991).

However, this depends on the particular features of the site and the availability of

alternative sites and food resources (Percival 2005).

Disturbance distances (the distance from wind farms up to which birds are absent

or less abundant than expected) have been recorded up to 800m (including zero)

for wintering waterfowl (Petersen and Poulsen 1991). According to Drewitt and

Langston (2006), 600m is widely accepted as the maximum reliably recorded

distance. Percival (2005) agrees that 600m would make an appropriate worst-case

disturbance scenario (given that it is based on more reliable studies).

The variability of displacement distances is illustrated by one study which found

lower post-construction densities of feeding European White-fronted Goose

(Anser albifrons) within 600m of the turbines at a wind farm in Rheiderland,

Germany (Kruckenberg and Jaene 1999). Another showed displacement of Pink-

footed Goose (Anser brachyrhynchus) up to only 100-200m from turbines at a

wind farm in Denmark (Larsen and Madsen 2000). It is suggested that the

explanation for such different results is that geese avoid wind turbines when there

is easy access to alternative feeding, but will be less selective when resources are

limited (Percival 2005).

A study of non-breeding coastal birds close to an existing wind farm at Zeebrugge

(Belgium) found that large groups of non-breeding foraging/resting waterfowl and

shorebirds normally held a distance of about 100-300m from the turbines.

Individual birds and small groups were sometimes closer. The species observed at

these distances included Great Crested Grebe1, Cormorant, Grey Heron, Little

Egret, gulls (Larus spp), terns (Sterna spp), Common Shelduck, Mallard, Wigeon,

Red-breasted Merganser, Oystercatcher, Dunlin, Ringed Plover, Curlew and Bar-

tailed Godwit (Everaert and Stienen 2007) .

At Blythe Harbour (North-east England) there was a temporary displacement of

the Cormorants that utilised one part of the harbour to roost during the

construction period for nine wind turbines. Once the wind farm became

operational the Cormorants returned to roost in their original numbers. Neither

the construction nor the operation of the wind farm displaced the winter roost of

Purple Sandpiper. The activity level of the large gull population with the harbour

at Blyth did not appear to be affected by the windfarm (Laurence et al 2007).

Monitoring of birds in the harbour following operation found a total of 10 species

of conservation importance (Eider, Oystercatcher, Ringed Plover, Knot,

Sanderling, Dunlin, Redshank and Curlew) within the 600m zone in 2005-06.

None of these species were displaced from this zone around the existing windfarm

1 Scientific names are given in Table 1.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





and the results of the monitoring programme suggest that no disturbance effects

have been significant.

There is little or no systematic information available from Ireland on the possible

displacement of water birds from around existing coastal windfarms. In

particular, there are no original data on the tolerance distances of water birds

feeding and roosting near wind turbines. This information is being collected as

part of a research project initiated in winter 2010-2011 (Nairn et al 2011). The

nearest recorded distances, to date, from operating turbines, at which non-

breeding waterbirds will forage and roost, are given in Table 7.9.

Table 7.9. Nearest recorded distances from operating turbines, at which non-

breeding water birds forage or roost, at three existing coastal windfarms in

Ireland (after Nairn et al 2011)

Species Scientific name Nearest recorded distance

Mute Swan Cygnus olor 450m

Whooper swan Cygnus cygnus 120m

Greenland White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons flavirostris 250m

Pale-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota 400m

Wigeon Anas penelope 250m

Teal Anas crecca 270m

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 180m

Grey Heron Ardea cinerea 100m

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus 170m

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula 100m

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola 250m

Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria 100m

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus 100m

Knot Calidris canutus 470m

Sanderling Calidris alba 100m

Purple Sandpiper Calidris maritima 480m

Turnstone Arenaria interpres 70m

Dunlin Calidris alpina 70m

Redshank Tringa totanus 50m

Greenshank Tringa nebularia 450m

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica 100m

Curlew Numenius arquata 100m

Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus 200m

Common Gull Larus canus 400m

Herring Gull Larus argentatus 130m

Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus 170m

Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus 500m

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





The turbine at CEN1 will be located at least 1.4km and 700m respectively from the nearest intertidal parts of Lough Beg and Monkstown Creek. This is well beyond the likely distance that would cause displacement disturbance by operating turbines (Everaert and Steinen, 2007; Nairn et al 2011) and the risk to water birds in these areas is imperceptible. The risk of displacement of birds in the farmland around the turbine location is also imperceptible. A study in eastern England found that, during the winter period, wind turbines had little or no impact on the distribution of farmland birds (Devereux et al., 2008). The breeding birds using the habitats around the Janssen site are already habituated to human disturbance. None of the breeding bird species recorded on the site is vulnerable to displacement by wind turbines (European Commission, 2010). The risk of displacement of birds during operation of the turbines is therefore imperceptible.

Collision Risk:

Collision Risk Modelling

The SNH Collision Risk Model (CRM) provides an estimate of the potential number of bird collisions likely to occur at a proposed wind farm (Scottish Natural Heritage). The CRM firstly estimates the number of collisions that would occur if the birds were to take no avoidance action. It then applies an avoidance rate to take account of the likely degree of successful avoidance. This is a mathematical model, that requires the following baseline data:

1. Assessment of the probability of a bird colliding, if it flies through an operational turbine. This is based on bird dimensions, flight speeds and turbine characteristics.

2. Estimation of the number of birds passing through the zone swept by the rotating turbine blades. This is calculated from data collected on bird flight activity in the field

Multiplying (1) and (2) yields an estimate of the number of birds colliding with turbines, based on birds taking no action to avoid the turbines.

3. Lastly, application of an avoidance rate, to take account of the fact that many birds may either avoid the wind turbine entirely as a consequence of being displaced (changes in the habitat or prey base, the presence of turbines and associated activities, or other factors may dissuade birds from using the area), or fly high or low so that their flight does not pass through the turbines, or perform „emergency‟ manoeuvres to avoid a moving turbine blade. Avoidance rates are expressed as a percentage, e.g. 98% means that 98% of birds are expected to avoid the turbine(s). The result is used to estimate the number of collisions, either on a yearly basis, or over the lifetime of the wind farm.

The baseline data required for CRM is not available for this site. Hence collision risk assessment is based on published literature for similar species and habitats and detailed knowledge of the site of the proposed wind turbine and the species recorded in the area.

Likelyhood of collisions by birds

Breeding birds: None of the breeding bird species recorded on the Janssen site is at high risk from collision with turbines (European Commission, 2010) as passerines in general avoid this by flying beneath the level of the rotors.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





Non-breeding birds: Some 10 species were recorded flying over land within 500m of the proposed turbine location (Table 7.8). The rotor swept area, will be a circle of 50.5m in radius so only those species recorded within 200m of the turbine base are considered further in this assessment.

Studies of bird collisions at coastal windfarms in Blythe Harbour (North-east England) and Zeebrugge (Belgium) reported collision rates in excess of one bird per turbine per year, with most casualties at both sites being gulls (Laridae) (Percival, 2005). However, both windfarms involved lines of multiple turbines (9 and 25 respectively) located on piers or breakwaters (Everaert and Steinen, 2007; Lawrence et al., 2007) which give birds less opportunity for avoidance than the single turbine proposed for the Janssen site.

Musters et al. (1996) monitored the bird casualties around an array of five wind turbines (each 30m in height with rotor swept area of 25m diameter) in an estuary site in the Netherlands. During a one-year period, the bodies of 26 birds of 17 different species were found. Six birds were certainly killed by the turbines. The species that were certain or probable collision victims included Brent Goose, Mallard, Teal, Gadwall, Oystercatcher, Grey Plover, Snipe and Black-headed Gull. From this sample it was calculated that the average number of all certain and possible victims amounted to 0.01 per wind turbine per day, On this basis, the average number of collision victims from the proposed turbine at Janssen would, theoretically, be on average 3.7 birds per year. It should be noted that the proposed turbine at Janssen is at least 700m from the nearest estuarine habitat and so is unlikely to cause this level of mortality.

Studies using radar-tracking at existing windfarms have shown that birds are generally able to avoid collisions with wind turbines and do not fly into them blindly. Reported collision rates are typically in the range of 1 per 1,000 - 10,000 bird flights through a wind farm (Percival, 2005). The probability of birds avoiding a single wind turbine is much greater than where there are multiple turbines closely spaced in a windfarm. In the case of CEN1, many birds already fly at a greater height than normal to avoid the high buildings in the surrounding industrial complexes, close to which the proposed turbine will be located.

Of those species recorded flying within 200m of the proposed turbine location (Table 7.9) Peregrine, Buzzard and Kestrel are considered to have a potential risk of collision with wind turbines while Sparrowhawk, Cormorant and Black-tailed Godwit have a small or insignificant risk (European Commission, 2010). In addition, it is likely (from published information e.g. Everaert and Steinen, 2007) that Black-headed Gull, Lesser Black-backed Gull and Great Black-backed Gull would also have a potential collision risk. Curlew is considered at no risk of collision (European Commission, 2010). Ducks and waders generally have a low risk of collision. Of those species with a potential collision risk, Cormorant and Black-tailed Godwit are Qualifying Interests and Black-headed Gull and Lesser Black-backed Gull are Special Conservation Interests for Cork Harbour SPA.

The risk of collision by susceptible species recorded at the Janssen site is slight given the high probability of avoidance and the fact that the turbine will be located in close proximity to existing high buildings in an industrial plant. The turbine location is not within any significant flight paths recorded during visual and radar surveys in 2009-2011.

Significance of any collisions with wind turbines

European Commission (2010) guidance states that some species are more at risk

than others, and effects are likely to lie somewhere in the continuum between the

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





extremes of additive – increasing overall mortality – or compensatory – replacing

other causes of mortality (Saether & Bakke 2000).

In wildlife management, any population is affected by three dynamic rate

functions:

1. Natality or birth rate, often described as recruitment;

2. Population growth rate;

3. Mortality, which includes artificial and natural mortality. Natural

mortality includes non-human predation, disease and old age.

If N1 is the number of individuals at time 1 then N1 = N0 + B - D + I - E

where N0 is the number of individuals at time 0, B is the number of

individuals born, D the number that died, I the number that immigrated, and E

the number that emigrated between time 0 and time 1.

If these rates are measured over many time intervals, it is possible to

determine how a population's density changes over time. Immigration and

emigration are present, but are usually not measured.

All of these are measured to determine the available surplus (i.e. number of birds

that may collide with wind turbines), which is the number of individuals that

can be lost from a population without affecting long term stability, or average

population size. The mortality within the surplus is considered compensatory

mortality, where the compensatory deaths are substituting for the deaths that

would occur naturally. Mortality beyond that is additive mortality, in addition

to all the animals that would have died naturally. For example, Burnham and

Anderson (1984) found that hunting mortality in Mallard was compensatory to all

other mortality and was not additive.

In a worst-case scenario, if the proposed turbine did result in 1 to 10 casualties per

year, in total, this would not have a significant impact on the populations of any of

those species recorded at the turbine site. Mortality due to cold weather, predation

and food shortage is likely to be greatly in excess of any mortality due to collision

with wind turbines and is hence likely to be compensatory and not additive.

Bird species vulnerable to collision:

Black-headed Gull occurs in large numbers in Ireland in winter with a total non-breeding population likely to exceed 100,000 birds (Crowe, 2005). It is not possible to identify trends in the wintering numbers of this species in Ireland due to the lack of data from previous periods. Black-headed Gull numbers wintering in Britain have declined since peaks between 1973 and 1993 (Banks et al., 2009). IWeBS mean peaks for Cork Harbour over the period 1994/95 to 2008/09 indicate an average of 2,658 birds (range 513 to 6,821). The trend in this species in Cork Harbour is stable since 2001/02 (IWeBS rolling 5-year mean of peak counts). Thus the species has a favourable conservation status within Cork Harbour SPA.

Lesser Black-backed Gull: Trends in non-breeding Lesser Black-backed Gull in Ireland cannot be accurately determined but numbers overwintering in Ireland

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





have increased significantly from the 1960s to approximately 2,000 at present (O. Merne, pers. com.). Lesser Black-backed Gull numbers wintering in Britain have also increased dramatically since 1953 (Banks et al., 2009). IWeBS mean peaks for Cork Harbour over the period 1994/95 to 2008/09 indicate an average of 507 birds (range 57 to 1,810) so this could represent up to 25% of the Irish wintering population.

Great Black-backed Gull: IWeBS mean peaks for Cork Harbour over the period 1994/95 to 2008/09 indicate an average of 137 birds (range 27 to 238). Trends in the All-Ireland wintering population are unknown.

Cormorant: This species is widespread in Ireland outside the breeding season, both in coastal and freshwater areas (Crowe, 2005). There is a large roost of non-breeding Cormorants on a jetty at the eastern end of Monkstown Creek. IWeBS mean peaks for Cork Harbour over the period 1994/95 to 2008/09 indicate an average of 370 birds (range 144 to 991). The All-Ireland wintering population has increased substantially (by almost 40%) since 1984-86 (Crowe, 2005).

Black-tailed godwit: This species is relatively common in Cork Harbour in winter (Crowe 2005). IWeBS mean peaks for Cork Harbour over the period 1994/95 to 2008/09 indicate an average of 2,053 birds (range 309 to 3,337). There has been a 125% increase in numbers wintering in Ireland since 1984-86 and the population has continued to increase between 1996 to 2000 (Crowe, 2005).

Peregrine: The breeding population of Peregrine in the Republic of Ireland has been virtually stable in the period 1992 to 2002, although there has been a growth in numbers of birds using man-made quarry nesting sites (Madden et al., 2009). In 2006, the population of Co. Cork was estimated to be about 60 pairs and this represented about 15% of the national total (Nagle, 2006). This species is listed in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive.

Kestrel: This is a relatively widespread breeding bird species in Ireland throughout the year where it nests mainly on buildings and other structures (Hutchinson, 1989). A sample of the total breeding population of Kestrel is monitored through the Countryside Bird Survey (CBS). The latest report of the CBS suggests an average annual decline of 6.89% (p =<0.001) over the period 1998-2007 (Coombes et al., 2009). A recent study of breeding biology in 38 pairs found a high success rate in those nests studied in 2010 (J. Lusby, pers com; Clarke, 2011). In 2006, the population of Co. Cork was estimated to be about 596 pairs. It is thought that the densities of Kestrel may be higher than average in Co. Cork due to the presence of a favoured prey species, the bank vole (Nagle, 2006).

Common Buzzard: The breeding population of Buzzard in Ireland has been expanding rapidly both in range and population size. Recent estimates suggest a 300% growth rate in the Republic of Ireland over the period 2000 to 2010 (Clarke, 2011). The breeding population in Co. Cork is estimated to be expanding at approximately 10% per year to about 60 pairs in 2006 (Nagle, 2006). Breeding is normally in broadleaved woodland.

Sparrowhawk: This is the commonest raptor species in Ireland. It is estimated that there may be approximately 1,490 pairs breeding in Co. Cork and densities of over 30 pairs per 10km

2 are likely in many well-wooded lowland areas. There has

not been any noticeable change in these populations in recent years (Nagle, 2006). Currabinny Wood, which is approximately 2km south-east of the proposed development, is likely to hold a breeding population of Sparrowhawk.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





The potential impact of collision during operation of CEN1 for all susceptible bird species is considered to be slight, except in the case of Curlew, where it is considered to be imperceptible. In a worst case scenario, the loss of a small number of birds of these species (less than 10 per year), due to collision with the proposed turbine, would not be significant in terms of the populations of any these species in Cork Harbour or in Ireland. The majority of those susceptible species which have been recorded in the vicinity of the Janssen site have increasing or stable populations in Ireland (where these trends are known).

Migrating birds: Birds flocks migrating through the area of Cork Harbour during the spring and autumn are poorly studied. The nearest regularly monitored bird observatory is at Cape Clear Island (Durman 1976, Sharrock 1973), approximately 100km west of Cork Harbour. Here Curlew passage at sea is recorded as early as mid-June, increasing to a peak in September-October. Whimbrel (which do not breed in Ireland) peak in April-May and again in August-September (Durman 1976).

Berthold (2001) states that bird migration can occur from sea level up to altitudes of some 10,000m. According to radar studies by Jellman (1989) the median height of passerines and waders recorded over land in Northern Germany at night was 910m during return migration and 430m during outward migration (mainly waders). This is well above the maximum height of the proposed wind turbines in this development.

Huppop et al (2006), using radar to monitor bird migration over the sea (North Sea) in relation to offshore wind farms, found that almost half the echoes (flight registrations) were from the lowest 200m. Regardless of the time of day or season of the year, the highest percentage of flights was registered in the lowest 100m. At night, they found that most birds also migrate at altitudes below 200m in a seasonally varying proportion.

Thus, it appears that migrating water birds fly low over the open sea to minimise drag and that, over land, they rise to altitudes of at least 430m. The turbines in the proposed developments are on land and thus it is likely that migrating birds would fly at altitudes higher than the maximum height of the rotors.

Krijgsveld et al (2009) studied collision rate of birds with modern, large 1.65 MW wind turbines in three wind farms in The Netherlands during three months in autumn and winter. Collision rate, after correction for retrieval and disappearance rate, was 0.08 birds per turbine per day on average (range 0.05–0.19). Collision risk, i.e. the number of victims relative to the flight intensity of birds at the wind farms, was 0.14% on average. For nocturnal migrants, risk was as low as 0.01%, while the risk was 0.16% for local birds flying at night. In absolute numbers, the overall collision risk was similar to the 0.06–0.28% found for earlier-generation lower turbines that have a smaller rotor surface. However, given the comparatively large rotor surface and altitude range of the modern turbines, the risk was circa threefold lower than for smaller turbines. A large fraction of collision victims were diurnally active and local birds that were foraging in the area, rather than nocturnal migrants. Flight intensities of this group should be taken into account as well as that of nocturnal migrants, when calculating collision rate.

It is concluded that there is an imperceptible risk to migrating water birds in the Cork Harbour area from the proposed turbine as the birds generally fly at higher altitudes than the maximum height of the turbine.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





Collision Risk: Conclusions

It is concluded that the risk of collision is imperceptible to slight for most species of water birds found in the area of Cork Harbour. In normal daylight conditions, birds will avoid the turbines but, in darkness and conditions of poor visibility, there is a slight risk of collision. However, most of the bird species recorded in the vicinity of the proposed turbine are not threatened at either a local (Cork Harbour) or national level. In the event that a small number of birds do collide with the turbine, during operation, it is likely that this will be compensatory rather than additive to other forms of mortality and will replace other causes of mortality. Migrating birds are not vulnerable to collision with turbines as they fly at higher altitudes above land.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10

Janssen Biologics (Ireland) Wind Energy Project Environmental Impact Statement



Table 7.10 Overall collision risk to non-breeding birds and raptors recorded within 200m of the location of CEN1 turbine.

Nearest

recorded

occurrence

band to

turbine

centre

point

(metres)

Species Frequency of

occurrence

(1)

All-

Ireland

trend

Overall

(2)

Annual

percentage

of flyway

population

in Ireland

(3)

Mean

peak

population

in Cork

Harbour

(4)

Birds of

Conservation

Concern in

Ireland

(non-

breeding)

(4)

Status in

Cork

Harbour

SPA (5)

Collision

risk with

wind

turbines

(7)

Potential

impact on

species

susceptible to

collision

(8)

Significance

of impact on

integrity of

Cork

Harbour SPA

(9)

<100m <200m

High Risk

<50m

None n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Moderate

Risk

<100m

Black-headed

Gull

Occasional Frequent No data No data 2,658 Not listed SCI Potential

risk

Slight Not

significant Lesser Black-

backed Gull

Rare n/a Increasing No data 507 Not listed SCI Potential

risk

Slight Not

significant Great black-

backed gull

Rare n/a No data No data 137 Not listed Not listed Potential

risk

Slight Not

significant Black-tailed

godwit

Rare n/a 1.6%

Increase

39.7% 2,053 Amber listed QI 1 Slight Not

significant Cormorant Rare n/a 6.8%

Increase

11.4% 370 Amber listed QI 1 Slight Not

significant Buzzard Rare n/a Significant

increase

No data No data Not listed Not listed 2 Slight Not QI or SCI

Peregrine Rare n/a Stable No data No data Green listed Not listed 2 Slight Not QI or SCI Kestrel Rare Occasional No data No data No data Not listed Not listed 2 Slight Not QI or SCI

Low Risk

<200m

Curlew n/a Rare -10.5%

Significant

Decrease

13.1% 1,725 Amber listed QI 0 Imperceptible Not

significant

Sparrowhawk n/a Rare No data No data No data Not listed Not listed 1 Slight Not QI or SCI

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10




Notes:

n/a = not applicable

(1) Frequency of occurrence, as observed in winter 2009-10, within the distance bands as given from turbine centre point.

(2) All Ireland trends: Wildfowl and waders: Percentage change between 5-year peak means for 1994/95 and 2003/04 (Crowe et al., 2008); Gulls, Herons and Raptor species

as reported in scientific literature (Banks et al., 2009; Crowe, 2005; Madden et al., 2009; Nagle, 2006) or best available professional opinion.

(3) Annual percentage of total flyway population based in Ireland in the non-breeding season (Crowe et al., 2008).

(4) Mean of 15 years annual peaks calculated from IWeBS counts of entire Cork Harbour (data from BirdWatch Ireland).

(5) Level of Conservation Concern in Ireland (Lynas et al., 2007). Annex 1 on the EU Birds Directive.

(6) Cork Harbour Special Protection Area (Code 004030): QI = Qualifying Interest; SCI = Special Conservation Interest (NPWS, 2011).

(7) Collision risk with wind turbines: Based on EU Guidance on wind energy development in accordance with the EU nature legislation (EU Commission, 2010): 0 = No

risk; 1 = Small or non-significant risk or impact; 2 = Potential risk or impact; 3 = Evidence or indications of risk; 4 = evidence of substantial risk.

(8) Potential impac5ts as defined by EPA (2002). Slight = An impact which causes noticeable changes in the character of the environment without affecting its sensitivities.

(9) Significance of impact on integrity of Cork Harbour SPA: Based on previous columns.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





7.4.3 Overall likely impacts on flora and fauna

Turbine CEN1

Impacts during: Construction Operation

Designated areas No impact No significant impact on integrity of Cork

Harbour SPA

Habitats on site Imperceptible No impact

Mammals (other

than bats)

Imperceptible Imperceptible

Bats Imperceptible Imperceptible to slight risk of collision

Birds Imperceptible to slight disturbance

of breeding birds.

Imperceptible impact on non-

breeding birds.

Imperceptible impact on breeding birds.

Imperceptible to slight collision risk for

some vulnerable species of non-breeding

birds. No significant impact for

populations of these species.

7.4.4 Cumulative impacts of all windfarm developments

Overall there will be no additional barrier effects, from the other five wind turbines proposed for the Lower Harbour area around Ringaskiddy, as the six wind turbines are widely spaced. The cumulative collision risk of all six turbines will have no measurable impact on the populations of those susceptible species that are qualifying interests or special conservation interests of Cork Harbour SPA. Hence, there will be no additional cumulative impacts of all six proposed turbines on the integrity of the SPA.

7.5 Mitigation Measures

The mitigation measures necessary to avoid or reduce the significance of any adverse impacts on flora and fauna are outlined in this section. These measures are over and above those already incorporated into the project design, which has sought to avoid areas of particular sensitivity for rare and protected species by eliminating or relocating turbines.

Habitats

Construction works will be confined to the minimum area possible. Minimum removal of vegetation will take place so as to reduce the area of bare soil. This will help reduce potential soil erosion.

Birds

The Wildlife (Amendment) Act (2000) affords protection to breeding birds by prohibiting the clearance of vegetation containing nests during the period 1st March

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





to the 31st of August inclusive. If removal is required of any trees or other vegetation which may contain small numbers of birds nests, the site clearance will take place in the period September to February, where feasible.

7.6 Residual Impacts

The principal residual impacts of the proposed development will be an imperceptible to slight, local risk of collision with the turbine during operation for bats and some more vulnerable species of non-breeding birds.

7.7 Monitoring

Bats

Under the EUROBATS guidelines (Rodrigues et. al., 2008) it is recommended that

monitoring of bat populations is conducted for three years once the wind turbine

becomes operational. This monitoring at Janssen will include detector surveys of bat

activity near turbines and the continuing status of any nearby roosts, combined with a

suitably designed corpse-searching regime at the turbine location.

Birds

Following construction, bird populations within 1km of the turbine, will be

monitored four times a year over three years, by a competent ornithologist, to

determine if any effects of displacement disturbance can be detected. In addition,

regular searches for bird casualties will be undertaken within a radius of 100m of the

turbine to monitor the actual number of collisions. Any casualties will be logged and

identified to species by a competent ornithologist. Corpse-searching for bird and bat

monitoring can be combined.

7.8 References

Banks, A.N., Burton, N.H.K., Calladine, J.R.. and Austin, G.E. 2009. Indexing winter gull numbers in Great Britain: Using data from the 1953 to 2004 winter gull roost surveys. Bird Study 56, 103-119.

Berthold, P. 2001. Bird Migration: a general survey. 2nd

Edition. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Biosphere Environmental Services 2005. Janssen Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix E: Ecology Report.

Burnham, K.P. and Anderson, D.R. 1984. Tests of compensatory vs additive hypotheses of mortality in Mallards. Ecology 63: 105-112.

Clarke, D. 2011. Irish Raptor Study Group Report 2010. Dublin. IRSG.

Coombes, R.H., Crowe, O., Lauder, A., Lysaght, L., O‟Brien, C.,O‟Halloran, J., O‟Sullivan, O., Tierney, T.D., Walsh, A.J. and Wilson, H.J. 2009. Countryside Bird Survey Report 1998-2007. Wicklow. BirdWatch Ireland.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





Crowe, O. 2005. Ireland‟s Wetlands and their Waterbirds: Status and Distribution. Newcastle. BirdWatch Ireland.

Crowe, O., Austin, G.E., Colhoun, K., Cranswick, P.A., Kershaw, M. and Musgrove, A. 2008. Estimates and trends of waterbird numbers wintering in Ireland, 1994/95 to 2003/04. Bird Study 55, 66-77.

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

Devereux, C.L., Denny, M.J.H. and M.J. Whittington. 2008. Minimal effects of wind turbines on the distribution of wintering farmland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1689-1694.

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, (2009). Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland. DoEHLG, Dublin.

Drewitt, A.L. and Langston, R.H.W. (2006). Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148: 29-42.

Durman, R. (ed.) 1976. Bird Observatories in Britain and Ireland. T. and A.D. Poyser. Berkhamsted.

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

European Commission 2010. Guidance Document: Wind Energy Developments and Natura 2000. Brussels.

EU Habitats Directive (92/42/EEC), (1992). Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Brussels: The Council of the European Communities.

EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), (1979). Council Directive 79/209/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. Brussels: The Council of the European Communities.

Everaert, J.and Steinen, E.W.M. 2007. Impact of wind turbines on birds in Zeebrugge (Belgium). Biodiversity Conservation 16: 3345-3359.

Flora (Protection) Order (1999) Statutory Instrument, S.I. No. 94 of 1999. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Fossitt, J.A. 2000. A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. Heritage Council. Kilkenny.

Hötker H., Thomsen K.M. and Jeromin, H. (2006) Impacts on biodiversity of exploitation of renewable energy sources: the example of birds and bats – facts, gaps in knowledge, demands for further research, and ornithological guidelines for the development of renewable energy exploitation. Michael Otto Institut imNABU, Bergenhausen.

Hǖppop, O., Dierschke, J., Exo, K., Fredrich, E. and Hill, R. 2006. Bird migration studies and potential collision risk with offshore wind turbines. Ibis 148, 90-109.

Jellmann, J. 1989. Radar messungen sur Hoke des nachtlichen Vogel zuges iiber Nortwestdeutschland im Friihjahr und im Hochsommer. Vogelwarte 35, 59-63.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





Krijgsveld, K.L., Akershoek,, K., Schenk, F., Dijk

, F. and Dirksen

, S. 2009, Collision

Risk of Birds with Modern Large Wind Turbines. Ardea 97(3):357-366.

Kruckenberg and Jaene 1999 Zum Einfluss eines Windparks auf die Verteilung

weidender Blassganse imRheiderland. Nature und Landschaft 74: 420-427.

Larsen, J.K. and Madsen, J. 2000. Effects of wind turbines and other physical

elements on field utilization by pink-footed geese (Anser brachyrhynchus): A

landscape perspective. Landscape Ecology 15: 755-764.

Lawrence, E.S., Painter, S. and Little, B. 2007. Responses of brids to the wind farm at Blyth Harbour, Northumberland, UK. In: de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E. & Ferrer, M. (Eds.) 2007. Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation. Quercus.

Lynas, P., Newton, S. & Robinson, J.A. 2007. The status of birds in Ireland: an analysis of conservation concern 2008-2013. Irish Birds 8: 149-167.

Madden, B., Hunt, J. and Norriss, D.A. 2009. The 2002 survey of the Peregrine Falco peregrinus breeding population in the Republic of Ireland. Irish Birds 8: 543-548.

Madsen and Boertmann (2008) Animal behavioural adaptation to changing landscapes: spring-staging geese habituate to wind farms. Landscape Ecology 23: 1007-1011.

Musters, C,J.M., Noordervliet, M.A.W and Terkeurs, W,J. 1996. Bird casualties caused by a wind energy project in an estuary Bird Study 43, 124.126.

Nagle, T. 2006. The Status of Birds of Prey and Owls in County Cork. In: Cork Bird Report 1996-2004. (eds. Cronin, C., Barton, C., Hussey, H. and Carmody, M.) Cork Bird Report Editorial Team. pp 285-308.

Nairn, R.G.W. 2005. Use of a high tide roost by waders during engineering work in

Galway Bay, Ireland. Irish Birds 7: 489-496.

Nairn, R.G.W., Hamilton, C. and Herbert, I.J. (2011) Wind Turbines and Water

Birds. Interim Report No. 2. Natura Environmental Consultants. Wicklow.

NPWS 2011. Conservation objectives for Cork Harbour SPA [004030]. Generic Version 2.0. Department of the Environment Heritage & Local Government.

Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston, R.H.W., Bainbridge, I.P. and Bullman, R. 2009. The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 1323-1331.

Percival, S. 2003. Birds and wind farms in Ireland: A review of potential Issues and Impact Assessment. Durham, UK: Ecology Consulting.

Percival, S. 2005. Birds and Windfarms: What are the real issues? British Birds 98: 194-204.

Petersen and Fox, A.D. (2007) Changes in bird habitat utilization around Horns rev 1 offshore wind farm, with particular emphasis on Common Scoter. National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus, Denmark.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





Pedersen, M.B. and Poulsen, E. 1991. Impact of a 90m/2MW wind turbine on birds. Avian responses to the implementation of the Tjaereborg wind turbine at the Danish Wadden Sea. Danske Vildtunderogelser Haefte 47. Ronde, Denmark: Danmarks Miljoundersogelser.

Phalan, B. and Nairn, R.G.W. 2007. Disturbance to waterbirds in South Dublin Bay.

Irish Birds 8: 223-230.

Rodrigues, L., L. Bach, M. J. Dubourg-Savage, J. Goodwin & C. Harbusch 2008: Guidelines for consideration of bats in wind farm projects. EUROBATS Publication Simms, I.C., Plonczkier, P., & Johnson L.(2011) Cork Lower Harbour Wind Turbine Development Bird Radar Monitoring Interim Briefing Report. Bird Management Unit Food and Environment Research Agency Sand Hutton York.

Saether, B.E. and Bakke, O. 2000. Avian life history variation and contribution of demographic traits to the population growth rate. Ecology 81: 642-653.

Scottish Natural Heritage (No date). Use of Avoidance Rates in the SNH Wind Farm Collision Risk Model. SNH Avoidance Rate Information & Guidance Note. SNH, Battleby.

Sharrock, J.T.R. (ed.) 1973. The Natural History of Cape Clear Island. T. and A.D. Poyser. Berkhamsted.

Stewart, G.B., Pullin, A.S. and Coles, C.F. (2004) Effects of wind turbines on bird abundance. Summary Report. Systematic Review No. 4. Centre for Evidence-based Conservation, Birmingham. Stewart, G.B., Pullin, A.S. and Coles, C.F. (2007) Poor evidence base for assessment of windfarm impacts on birds. Environmental Conservation 34: 1-11.

Wildlife Act, 1976, Wildlife Act, Ireland, 22 December 1976, No. 39 of 1976.

Wildlife Amendment Act, 2000, Wildlife Amendment Act, Ireland, 18 December 2000, No. 38 of 2000.

Websites

www.npws.ie

www.batconservationireland.org

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10

http://www.npws.ie/

http://www.batconservationireland.org/





8 Landscape and Visual

8.1 Introduction

This chapter of the EIS examines the predicted impacts of the proposed wind turbine at Janssen Biologics (Ireland), Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork under the heading of Landscape and Visual. The chapter initially sets out the methodology followed (Section 8.2), then examines the existing environment (Section 8.3), proceeds to examine the characteristics of the proposed development (Section 8.4), proceeds to examine the likely significant landscape and visual aspects associated with both the construction and operational phases of the proposed development (Section 8.5) then describes the mitigation measures (Section 8.6) and finishes with the predicted residual impacts (Section 8.7).

8.2 Methodology

This assessment has been prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements (EPA, 2002) and Advice Notes on Current Practice in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (EPA 2003). In keeping with these guidelines, this assessment provides a description of the existing landscape context and a description of the proposed wind energy development in terms of its landscape and visual context and outlines the various associated landscape and visual effects. These impacts and effects are considered with regard to the vulnerability of the landscape to change and to the location of visual receptors relative to the proposed wind energy development. In this way the impact of the proposed wind energy development on the existing context is appraised and significant impacts to either the landscape character or visual amenity identified. The development forms part of a concurrent set of planning applications for similar wind turbines at the nearby Novartis, DePuy (Ireland) and GlaxoSmithKine (GSK) pharmaceutical plants located with the Ringaskiddy area. The cumulative landscape and visual impacts arising from the proposed development in conjunction with these other wind turbines is also assessed.

8.2.1 Landscape Impacts

Landscape has two separate but closely related aspects. The first is visual impact, i.e. the extent to which a new structure in the landscape can be seen. The second is landscape character impact, i.e. effects on the fabric or structure of the landscape. Landscape character is derived from the appearance of the land and sea, and takes account of natural and man made features such as topography, landform, vegetation, land use and built environment and their interaction to create specific patterns that are distinctive to particular localities.

Zone of Theoretical Visibility Maps (ZTVs) were prepared based on the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government‟s Wind Farm Planning Guidelines. These are referred to throughout the assessment and are illustrated in Figure 8.1-8.2. The ZTVs illustrate a study area extending to 20km around the site and highlight the areas where the proposed turbines will theoretically be visible from. These ZTVs do not take into consideration vegetation cover, changing weather conditions or the mitigating effect of distance and therefore illustrate the worst case

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





scenario of visibility. The relevant Landscape Planning designations within the study area as outlined in the Cork County Development Plan 2009 have been illustrated on Figure 8.0. Figure 8.1 illustrates the theoretical zone of visual influence arising from the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) wind turbine. Figure 8.2 takes into consideration the theoretical cumulative visual impact with the other proposed wind turbines in the harbour area.

Landscape planning designations, including National and County designations or listings are considered and assessed for impacts, where appropriate. All such landscapes and are assessed for direct and indirect landscape impacts.

8.2.2 Visual Impacts

Visual impacts are categorised under „Visual Intrusion‟ and „Visual Obstruction‟ where:

Visual Intrusion is an impact on a view without blocking.

Visual Obstruction is an impact on a view involving blocking thereof.

With a wind energy development visual intrusion is more common.

In reporting on visual impact, three* basic assessments are used:

Construction Impacts: considers the impacts including the active construction of the wind energy project up to completion of the works.

Operational Impacts: considers the impact after completion of construction.

Residual Impacts: considers any alteration of operational impact due to mitigation during the 25 year period that the wind energy project will be in operation before decommissioning.

* Cumulative impact is also considered where appropriate. „Static‟ cumulative impact is considered from the photomontage (Viewshed Reference Point) locations and the residential properties. This is where the receptor is located in one viewing position and looks at the view around them and can view several wind energy projects. „Sequential‟ cumulative impact is considered from the roads. This is where more than one wind energy project would be seen whilst travelling along a length of road, but not necessarily together in one view. The cumulative impact assessment in this chapter assumes that all proposed wind energy projects are built and operating in the landscape as a worst-case scenario.

Following a detailed review of the ZTV mapping and consultation with the surrounding communities and Local Authority, a large number of viewshed reference points (VRP) in the surrounding landscape were identified (see Figure 8.0). Photomontages, from these viewshed reference points, were prepared for the proposed wind turbines, together with other planned wind turbines in the Ringaskiddy area, to assist in demonstrating the levels of visual impact. The full list of viewshed reference points are listed in Table 8.3 and illustrated on Figures 8.0 and 8.1. They have been chosen to reflect a range of distances, directions, sensitivity and receptor types. They are illustrated on Figures 8.3 to 8.63.

In this report the term „receptors‟ means viewers within the general environment as well as residential properties. Although the ZTV extends to 20km the residential

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





assessment has focussed on the closest 5-6km around the site where significant impacts are potentially likely to occur.

The extent to which additional illumination will be visible in the night landscape is also taken into account.

8.2.3 Significance Criteria

The significance criteria as set out in the EPA guidelines have been used for the purpose of this assessment. The significance of landscapes is considered with respect to their designation (national, county, local, etc.). Where not designated, landscapes are considered as being of local significance. Views from properties are all considered on an equal basis without varying degrees of significance.

Table 8.1 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Criteria

Significance Level Criteria

Profound An impact which obliterates sensitive characteristics

Significant An impact which, by its character, magnitude, duration or intensity alters a sensitive aspect of the environment.

Moderate An impact that alters the character of the environment in a manner that is consistent with existing and emerging trends.

Slight An impact which causes noticeable changes in the character of the environment without affecting its sensitivities.

Imperceptible An impact capable of measurement but without noticeable consequences.

As per the EPA Guidelines, impacts can be considered to be negative, neutral or positive in effect. Impacts are considered where they may be direct, indirect and/or cumulative as appropriate.

Impact duration is considered as being Temporary (for up to one year), Short-term (from 1 to 7 years), Medium-term (7 to 15 years), Long-term (from 15 to 60 years) or Permanent (in excess of 60 years).

The study was carried out between the summer and winter of 2010. There were no limitations or constraints in carrying out the assessment.

8.3 Receiving Environment

8.3.1 Existing Environment

The Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site is located at Barnahely, approximately 0.5km west of Ringaskiddy Village, 0.5km east of Shanbally village and 2.5km north-east of Carrigaline. Ringaskiddy is located 16km south east from Cork City, separated from the city suburbs by open green belt. Ringaskiddy is a peninsula within the harbour flanked by the Lee and upper harbour to the north and Owenabue Estuary to the south. It is on the western side of Cork Harbour and adjacent to the sea port. Ringaskiddy has excellent port facilities and contains predominantly large-scale manufacturing industrial uses that occupy large, stand alone sites.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:10





The site of the proposed development contains of a biopharmaceutical plant approximately 26m high (parapet height 67m OD) and associated landscaping, car parking and utility buildings. It covers an area of 39 hectares and has elevations ranging from approximately 30m to 55m high (Malin Head Datum), and forms part of a secondary ridgeline in the area.

Ringaskiddy is accessed off the N28 road which also provides access to Haulbowline Island. The N28 runs along the entire northern boundary of the site. Some mature Ash trees of about 10m in height and native Hawthorn/ bramble hedgerows of approximately 1.5 -2m in height run adjacent to the N28 just north of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site. There is a block of woodland planting between the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site and N28.

South of the sites lies another large scale pharmaceutical plant, Novartis, which is also the subject of a concurrent application for two wind turbines. The NRA‟s preferred route corridor for the new N28 is proposed to run through the intervening space between the Novartis plant and the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site. There is also an existing 110kV ESB sub-station adjacent to this portion of the site.

The eastern boundary wraps around a large distribution/logistics warehouse (Primeline) and contains a site entrance. The existing 6m wide road runs for approximately 200m into the site, and then joins with the N28 IDA site entrance to the northwest. The Barnahely graveyard is located directly across from the Buckeye entrance on the R613. Existing pylons are dominant features along the eastern entry to the site, and there is no significant planting along this boundary.

The local landscape is heavily influenced by the existing industrial, commercial and port related uses in the Ringaskiddy and Loughbeg area. The existing land uses in the surrounding area consist of:

The large scale industrial facilities of Pfizer to the north.

The warehouse/logistics facility adjoins the site to the east. Access to the site is shared with the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site at the existing eastern entrance. There is also an existing graveyard directly opposite the eastern entrance.

The Novartis facility is located approximately 0.5km to the south.

Shanbally Village 0.5km to the west of the development site, which includes residential dwellings, a school, church, shop and pub.

Ringaskiddy Village, 0.5km to the east of the development site, which includes residential dwellings, a school, community centre, shops, post office and pubs. The Ringaskiddy Ferry Port and Deepwater Berth is also located in this area.

Large harbour related activities, power stations and an oil refinery also form an important element of the overall landscape character. The water in Cork Harbour itself is visible from many areas and dominates the character of the area. There are many large industrial man-made elements with visible within the wider landscape. These include Aghada Power Station with its prominent red and white striped stack, Whitegate Oil refinery, Whitegate Power Station, the oil tanks on Corkbeg Island and the former dockyard at Rushbrooke. Smaller elements include the water towers at Monkstown, Cobh and Crosshaven, T.V. and mobile telephone masts, ships, containers, cranes and other large machinery.

The topography in the local area is defined by ridgelines that typically run east-west to form a rolling landscape. The site is located on the east-west ridge which runs

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





from the headland at Ringaskiddy running through Shanbally to Carrigaline. To the north, the primary visual ridgeline runs along the spine of Great Island. This breaks at Rushbrooke where the River Lee Estuary runs through a small channel (West Passage) and continues again to the west to form the ridgeline through Monkstown and onto Raheenaring. To the south, another ridgeline runs from Camden westwards through Frenchfurze. A smaller ridgeline from Coolmore to Currabinny lies between the Ringaskiddy peninsula and Crosshaven ridge. These north and south ridgelines define the visible extents of the local area. To the east the views dissipate with the distance over Cork Harbour and similarly to the west before reaching Carrigaline.

Other distinguishable natural features of the landscape include the, blocks of woodland on the headlands in particular at Currabinny, Marloag Point and Rostellan. There is also woodland visible at Whitegate. Historical features include Cobh Cathedral, the Martello Towers, the brightly coloured houses on the slopes of Monkstown and Cobh, Fort Mitchell on Spike Island, and in the distance, Fort Meagher at Camden and Fort Davis at Carlisle and the lighthouse at Roche‟s Point. Higher on the ridges, beyond the settlement and the industry, green rolling farmland can be seen.

8.3.2 Site Significance

Cork harbour is of crucial importance to the economic, leisure, amenity, marine transport and heritage of Cork and its environs.

Cork harbour is designated as an area of „National Tourism Significance‟ by Fáilte Ireland in their publication Determination of Waters of National Tourism Significance and Associated Water Quality Status (2009). It is an important recreational resource for the region with water based activities such as sailing, fishing etc. It is also an important entry point into the region via the ferries that use Ringaskiddy port. Cruise liners visiting Cobh are an important industry in the region.

The site falls within the Cork County Development Plan (CCDP), 2009 and the Draft Carrigaline Electoral Area Local Area Plan (DCEALAP) 2010.

Ringaskiddy is designated as a „Strategic Employment Centre‟ in the DCEALAP 2010. The site is contained within an existing built up area zoning. The area consists of a number of small villages and settlements including Shanbally and Ringaskiddy village and Coolmore.

Ringaskiddy lies within the landscape type „City Harbour and Estuary‟, an area of very high landscape value, very high sensitivity and an area of national importance. Its character area is designated as „Cork City and Harbour‟. The landscape of the city and harbour area comprises a mix of rural and intensely urban areas, combined with a large expansive harbour. The western side of the harbour supports major industrial development, while on higher ground telecommunication masts or water storage towers punctuate the skyline. The harbour includes large islands, which, along with much of the harbour shore, comprises landscape of fertile farmland which slopes gently to the sea.

There are a number of planning objectives within the CCDP relating to Wind Energy. These are dealt with in further detail in Chapter 5. The CCDP identifies two special areas; Strategic Search Areas and Strategically Unsuitable Areas. A variation of the CCDP has been adopted to bring the policy position in Ringaskiddy in line

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





with the approach already taken with regard to other areas identified for large scale industry so as to enable wind energy proposals at Ringaskiddy to be considered on their merits in relation to the criteria set out in objective INF7-4 and other proper planning considerations.

In relation to landscape, INF 7-4 states;

„… (c) It is an objective in the strategic search areas (and in those areas that are identified as neither strategic search areas nor strategically unsuitable areas), to consider new, or the expansion of existing, wind energy projects on their merits having regard to normal planning criteria including, in particular, the following:

• The sensitivity of the landscape and of adjoining landscapes to wind energy projects;

• The scale, size and layout of the project, any cumulative effects due to other projects, and the degree to which impacts are highly visible over vast areas;

• The visual impact of the project on protected views and prospects, and designated scenic landscapes as well as local visual impacts;

• The impact of the project on nature conservation, archaeology and historic structures;

• Local environmental impacts including noise and shadow flicker;

• The visual and environmental impacts of associated development such as access roads, plant, grid connections etc.

• The proximity and sensitivity of a recognised settlement,

• The impact of the project on archaeology and historic structures, ….‟.

8.3.3 Designated Scenic Landscape

There are large areas around the Cork harbour coast which are designated as scenic landscape. The policy reads: (routes illustrated on map 16 in the CCDP);

„ENV 2-7 Scenic Landscape. It is a particular objective to preserve the visual and scenic amenities of those areas of natural beauty identified as „scenic landscape‟ and shown in the scenic amenity maps in Volume 3 of this plan‟.

There is a large area to the south of Ringaskiddy which is designated as a scenic landscape in the County Development Plan 2009. These lands are deemed scenic due to Currabinny woods and their views to the Owenabue estuary.

To the north and northeast, across the harbour, the scenic designation covers much of Great Island, Foaty Island and the north and northeastern coastline of Cork Harbour. The closest point of these two is from the Great Island scenic area around 3km from the site. To the southeast there is another scenic area along the coast at Whitegate. This area is also around 3km distance and across the harbour from the site. Much of the scenic landscape is in agricultural usage with no public access except for the local roads cutting through them, however there are small pockets of recreational use within them such as the amenity area in Currabinny woods, amenity coastal walkways and the golf course at Monkstown.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





8.3.4 Designated Scenic Routes

Certain roads around the county, including around the harbour area have been designated as scenic routes in the CCDP. The policy reads: (routes illustrated on map 16 in the CCDP).

„ENV 2-11 Scenic Routes

„It is a particular objective to preserve the character of those views and prospects obtainable from scenic routes identified in this plan. Those routes are shown on the scenic amenity maps in Volume 3 and listed in Volume 2 of this plan. A profile of each route and the views to be protected are listed in Volume 2 of this plan‟.

There are a number of routes which could potentially receive views towards the proposed wind turbine developments, namely;

Scenic Route

Name Distance Comment

S41 R639 from Dunkettle to Glounthaune

9.5km north Very high landscape value. Elevated, intermittent views of Cork harbour. Distant views of site – intervening topography.

S42 Local road from Glounthaune to Caherlag

9.8km north Very high landscape value. Elevated, intermittent views of Cork harbour. Distant views of site – intervening topography.

S49 Local road between Inch and Ballycotton

14.5km east Very high landscape value. Views of sea and rural coastal environment.

S50 Local road between Inch and Ballycotton

9.4km east High Landscape Value. Elevated, limited intermittent views of Cork Harbour. Intervening topography to site.

S51 R630 and local road from East Ferry to Roche‟s Point

5.8km south east

Very high landscape value. Low level and elevated views over Cork Harbour and site.

S52 Local road on north side of Great Island

7.5km north east

Very high landscape value. Coastal views north over north channel of Cork harbour and Carrigtohill/Midleton area. Views towards site limited by topography and vegetation.

S53 R624 road between Belvelly and Cobh

2.3km north Very high landscape value. Open views of site on southern side of Great Island.

S54 R610 road, local road and N28 between Passage West and Ringaskiddy

300m north Very high landscape value. Open views of Cork Harbour. Open views of site from Monkstown, Rafeen, Shanbally and Ringaskiddy. Well used recreational area for walking, cycling and boating. Views of pharmaceutical industry.

S56 N27 and R600 between Frankfield and Ballygarvan

9.5km west Very high to high landscape value. City fringe and agricultural activity. Limited views to harbour.

S57 R613 Ballea Woods to Carrigaline

4.8km west Very high to landscape value. Wooded route along river valley. Limited views to harbour due to intervening vegetation and built development.

S58 R612 road between Carrigaline and Crosshaven

2.4km south Very high landscape value. Open views across Owenabue Estuary, Drakes Pool towards Coolmore and Currabinny. Well

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





Scenic Route

Name Distance Comment

used recreational area for walking, cycling and boating. Views of pharmaceutical industry.

S59 R612 road between Crosshaven and Fountainstown

5.2km south Very high landscape value. Elevated views across Cork harbour. Elements of pharmaceutical industry visible.

There are some additional policies in the CCDP which will pertain to the views from routes including:

ENV 2-10 Development on Approach roads to towns and villages

It is an objective to ensure that the approach roads to towns and villages are protected from inappropriate development, which would detract from the setting and historic character of these settlements.

ENV 2-12 Details on Scenic Routes

It is an objective to protect the character and quality of those particular stretches of scenic routes that have very special views and prospects.

ENV 2-13 Development on Scenic Routes

(a) It is also an objective of the Planning Authority to require those seeking to carry out development in the environs of a scenic route and/or an area with important views and prospects, to demonstrate that there will be no adverse obstruction or degradation of the views towards and from vulnerable landscape features. In such areas, the appropriateness of the design, site layout, and landscaping of the proposed development must be demonstrated along with mitigation measures to prevent significant alterations to the appearance or character of the area.

(b) It is an objective to encourage appropriate landscaping and screen planting of developments along scenic routes. Where scenic routes run through settlements street trees and ornamental landscaping may also be required. Refer to Objective ENV 4-13, which provides guidance in relation to landscaping.

8.3.5 Other Designations

Castle Warren at Barnahely is a protected structure (RPS 01260) and is located approximately 1.5km to the north west of the site. The Ringaskiddy Martello Tower (RPS 00575) is located 2.2km to the east. These are dealt with further in Chapter 13 Archaeology, Architecture and Cultural Heritage. The policy in the CCDP/DCCDP only deals with protection of the structure itself rather than its setting, views or landscape character around it therefore it has been considered in this chapter as an amenity viewing point.

As well as views from designated areas, views from the other locally valued locations are also given an importance within the CCDP as follows (ENV 2-8 and ENV 2-5 in DCCDP);

„ENV 2-9 General Views and Prospects

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





It is a general objective to preserve the character of all important views and prospects, particularly sea views, river or lake views, views of unspoilt mountain, upland or coastal landscapes, views of historical or cultural significance (including buildings and townscapes) and views of natural beauty as recognised in the Landscape Strategy.‟

The Landscape Strategy has yet to be completed by the Planning Authority.

8.3.6 Recreation and Amenity Landscapes

The proposed site has no direct bearing on any areas of amenity or recreation. There are however amenity facilities nearby, namely;

Cork harbour which is used extensively for sailing and pleasure craft, and as a gateway to Cork for visiting tourists via the ferries and cruise liners which serve Ringaskiddy and Cobh respectively.

Coastal walks including the Passage West to Monkstown Walk, the Carrigaline to Crosshaven walk, Cobh harbour front, coastal walks on the eastern side of the harbour at Rostellan, Aghada, Whitegate, White Bay and Roche‟s Point.

The historical visitor locations such as Cobh Cathedral, Fort Mitchell on Spike Island and Fort Camden at Crosshaven.

8.3.7 Zone of Theoretical Visibility

A key element of any appraisal of a proposed wind energy development is an assessment of the visual impact. This is greatly aided by the production of a Zone of Theoretical Visibilty Map (ZTV). This is based on the Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 Discovery Series mapping used in conjunction with ArcGIS Spatial Analyst software for a radius of 20km.

The result of this process is a map which indicates all locations where wind turbines will be theoretically visible in the landscape. The assessment is based on topography only and excludes buildings and vegetation. Accordingly, screening influences associated with land use and land cover are excluded and there may be small exceptions locally across this plan however it is intended to illustrate the broad pattern of theoretical visibility across the area. The ZTV mapping illustrates the extent of the visibility at the base of the proposed wind turbine, at the hub (100m) and at half the blade height in addition to the hub height (125.5m), in accordance with the DOEHLG Wind Planning Guidelines. The ZTV map of this site is indicated on Figure 8.2.

The site‟s location on the Barnahely ridge, which is at approximately 50m OD, results in the site being visible over a wide area of the harbour and immediate surroundings. The primary views of site include Monkstown, Rafeen, Shanbally, Ringaskiddy, Currabinny and Cobh. The east/west alignment of the surrounding topography somewhat limits the longer range views to the north of Monkstown and south of Crosshaven.

8.3.8 Landscape Character

As the site is located near Ringaskiddy in Cork Harbour any description of the landscape character should be cognisant of the strong identity of the harbour. The

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





site lies within the „City Harbour and Estuary‟ Landscape Character Type which is also defined as ‟Cork City and Harbour (City Estuary Harbour and Island Complex)‟ Landscape Character Type within the CCDP.

A pilot study of the Landscape Character of Cork Harbour has been undertaken by Mosart on behalf of Cork County Council. The study assesses the landscape thus:

“Notwithstanding the rural character around much of the greater harbour area, the tell-tale signs of urban intensity are evident everywhere through the prevalence of infrastructure such as roads, bridges and electricity power lines and the frequency of urban clusters. Overall, the city and harbour comprise a balance of intensely urban form, rural character and seascape”.

More locally the mixture of the harbour activity, water, industrial development, agricultural land and low density housing comprise the overall character of the local area. The site is industrial in character and heavily influenced both by the water and the industrial developments in the surrounding. The character can therefore be described as an „Industrial Harbour‟ landscape.

8.4 Characteristics of the Development

8.4.1 Description

A full description of the proposed development is given in Chapter 3 Development Description. The proposed development consists of one wind turbine with a hub height of up to 100m, blade radius of approximately 50.5m and an overall base to blade tip height of 150.5m

Once installed, the physical scale and movement of the turbines will give rise to significant change in the immediate landscape. The turbine has been located to work with site constraints, minimise visual and other environmental impacts, as well as maximising the wind potential.

The turbine will painted in an off-white or grey colour with a matt finish. This is the usual colour and finish recommended for Irish wind turbines as under typical Irish skies, these colours look attractive on bright sunny days; and they blend in effectively under cloudy skies.

Other elements which will have a landscape and visual impact but to a lesser degree include;

Night lighting for aviation, which will consist of a small warning light at the top of the turbine hub.

For some turbine models there is an external transformer with typical dimensions of 1m W x 2-3m L x 2m H (approximately). If external it will be located close to the turbine. Other turbines include these within the turbine shaft. Given the scale and context of the sites any visual impacts arising from an external transformer will be minimal.

Cabling will be underground connecting into existing electrical sub stations and networks.

The existing site is secured with a perimeter fence so additional fencing will not be required.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





Access track – the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will utilise the existing road/track network on site.

8.4.2 Do Nothing Scenario

In the event of this development not occurring, the site will continue to remain as an industrial/pharmaceutical site. The lands may none the less be directly impacted in the future by expansion of existing industrial activity of the site.

In the wider context, the overall character of the area will remain and be reinforced as a harbour industrial landscape heavily influenced by the adjacent pharmaceutical plants, infrastructure and industry surrounding the harbour.

8.5 Impacts of the Development

8.5.1 Landscape Impacts

Construction Impacts

In general construction impacts will be temporary, negative and localised in nature. The base of the turbine is generally well screened from the immediate surrounding landscape due to the topography of the area. There will be a need for excavation activities for the foundations of the turbine as well as underground cabling linking into the existing electrical substation on site. The installation of the tower, nacelle/hub and blades will require large lifting cranes. These will be of a short duration over a couple of days. Deliveries to site will be carefully managed to minimise impact on the surrounding community and roads.

Operational Impact

The wind turbine has been sized and located in a position that attempts to balance the environmental impacts together with operations of the site and maximising the wind energy potential. The turbine will be painted off-white or light grey, with a matt or semi-matt finish. This is the usual finish that is recommended by most guidelines for wind turbines in a northern European context. Under typical Irish skies, these colours can look attractive on a sunny day; but more importantly, they blend in effectively with the more usual cloudy skies. This particularly applies to distant views, with the turbine being most visible during clear weather conditions.

The impact of the wind turbine within the landscape will very much depend on by whom and how it is experienced. This is influenced by whether the wind turbine is experienced from residences or roads and by local people or visitors. For the latter, the presence of the wind turbines with the harbour area may appear as a surprise, if not prior expected and if perceived as being an unlikely feature of the type of landscape anticipated, even if it is also considered of interest. The impact of a wind turbine will also depend on how it is encountered; for example, arriving close to it on foot when exposure to wind can also be appreciated or seeing it in short glimpses whilst travelling along a main road where the experience is affected by the vehicle's speed and direction of movement.

Wind turbines can be perceived as either being majestic or dominant depending on where it is seen from and the viewers‟ perception. They are often perceived as being positive within the landscape and interesting in their own right due to their sleek

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





appearance. Some people find them negative or unattractive. Additionally, rather than being just static objects, the movement of the wind turbine blades can attract attention.

Once a wind turbine has been installed, the physical presence of the turbines and the movement of blades can give rise to significant changes in the local visual environment (within 2km). By their nature, wind turbines are very visible elements in the landscape; they must be sited in areas of relatively high wind resource potential, which often inevitably implies locations of higher location and visibility.

Within close proximity to the turbine, it is likely that the structure will be considered as being dominant. However, from mid-ground or distant views, the turbines will be less dominant. From many vantage points they will be screened by intervening vegetation, topography and/or built development. From other vantage points the full size of the turbine will be visible. This may be perceived by people as being majestic due to their scale and form and association with a clean, renewable energy source. It is acknowledged that other people will dislike their form or the change that they create to the existing landscape.

The visibility of turbine will vary throughout the day, weather conditions and season due to the level of the intensity of light. Turbines will be more visible in the early morning and evening when light shines directly upon the structure. Additionally, the backdrop to the structure will also affect the visual contrast. Where the structures are located against the sky they, due to the off-white colour, will blend into the horizon especially when there is haze or cloud. When the structures are viewed against land, the colour contrast increases the visual prominence of the structure. The visual effect is also affected by the orientation of the viewpoint to the wind turbine, as the turbine blades will be more visible when viewed straight on.

During the operation stage, landscape and visual impacts will mainly arise from the physical built presence of the turbine and the movement of the blades. The impacts will be long term (25 years) and for the purposes of this assessment have deemed to be neutral during this stage due to the mitigating effect of a „clean‟, simple composition and layout developed during the design stage, although this is highly subjective dependant on the receptors opinion or perception of wind turbines. The impacts could equally be considered to be negative or positive. During the hours of darkness the turbine will have an aviation safety light in operation.

The wind turbine will be visible over a wide area of the surrounding landscape and lower harbour. The impact will be significant due to the scale and type of development proposed. A comprehensive series of viewshed reference points (VRPs) have been prepared to illustrate the levels of landscape impact.

This wind turbine is part of a number of concurrent applications for similar wind turbines on other pharmaceutical plants in Ringaskiddy and Loughbeg, namely;

Two wind turbines at the Novartis plant approximately 0.5km to the south.

Two wind turbines at the DePuy (Ireland) plant approximately 2km to the east.

One wind turbine at the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) plant 1.5km to the south east.

Each of these proposals is dealt with in detail in their own planning application submissions. The cumulative landscape and visual impact arising from some or all of these turbines will have a significant effect on the visual and landscape character

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





of the area. For some people, the impact will be viewed as negative, but for many others the impact will be positive in nature.

The visual effects of each application are considered in its own right, as well as the cumulative effect of all the turbines.

8.5.2 Visual Impacts of the Development

Viewpoint Assessment

Various vantage points from the surrounding landscape and harbour were identified as suitable viewshed reference points (VRP) for illustrating the level of visual impact. These are listed in Table 8.2 below. For the location of the VRPs, please refer to Figure 8.0. For each VRP, the existing view is shown, followed by the view with the proposed wind turbines and then followed with a wireframe and cumulative view which includes a colour coded key to assist in the identification of each turbine. It should be noted that in some views, the turbines from this particular scheme may be visible from this vantage, but there may be turbines from the other concurrent wind turbine applications which will be visible in the cumulative view.

The table includes the name, location, distance from the wind turbine and level of impact during construction and operational phases.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





Table 8.3 Viewshed Reference Points (VRP)

VRP VRP location Figure Description and nature of existing views Distance km to nearest

turbine

Visual Impact - Janssen

Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K

Construction Operational Cumulative

1 Carrig View,

Rushbrooke

8.3.1 Approach road to Cobh. Views south over

Cork harbour towards Ringaskiddy through

Rushbrooke (Verolme) boatyard.

2.7 3.0 3.2 4.3 Slight, temporary impacts

during installation of

turbines.

Moderate impacts with

turbine tower and blades

visible above ridgeline.


Janssen Biologics (Ireland) and Novartis turbines

visible above ridgeline.

2 High Road,

Cobh

8.3.2 Approach road to Cobh. Residential areas

with views south over Cork harbour to

Haulbowline and Ringaskiddy.



turbines.

Imperceptible to slight

impacts with turbine being

largely obscured by

existing vegetation and

buildings.

Moderate impacts with De

Puy and GSK turbines

visible behind Ringaskiddy

ridgeline.

3 High Road,

Cobh

8.3.3 Elevated view over train station and cruise

liner berth at Cobh. Expansive views over

Cork harbour, Haulbowline, Ringaskiddy and

surrounding areas.



turbines.

Moderate impact with

turbine visible above

Barnahely ridgeline.

Significant impact with all

six turbines being visible

across Cork harbour.

4 Kennedy Quay,

Cobh

8.3.4 Water level view of Cork harbour,

Haulbowline and Ringaskiddy



turbines.

Slight impact with turbine

visible against skyline on

Barnahely ridge.




5 St Coleman's

Cathedral

8.3.5 Elevated open views over Cobh town, Cork

harbour, Haulbowline, Ringaskiddy and

wider landscape.



turbines.



Barnahely ridge.




For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


6 East Ferry 8.3.6 Coastal road with expansive, open views

across the east side of Cork Harbour

including Aghada, Whitegate, Great Island

and Spike Island and Ringaskiddy in the

distance.

10 10.2 7.8 9.3 Imperceptible Slight impacts with turbine

visible against the skyline

in the distance. Visibility

will be higher in the

morning when the sun

strikes the eastern face of

the turbines.

Moderate impact with all

six turbines visible across

the harbour. Visibility will

be higher in the morning

when the sun strikes the

eastern face of the

turbines.

7 Main Street,

Whitegate

(R630)

8.3.7 Coastal road with view over Cork harbour

and through Whitegate refinery to

Ringaskiddy

7.5 7.3 4.7 5.8 Imperceptible Slight impact with turbine

being largely obscured by

existing topography and

vegetation at Whitegate.


DePuy and Janssen

Biologics (Ireland) turbines

visible between the

headland at Whitegate and

Corkbeg Island.

8 Main shipping

channel east of

Ringaskiddy,

Cork Harbour

8.3.8 Centre of harbour with views of Fort

Camden, Currabinny, Loughbeg,

Ringaskiddy, Spike Island and Cobh.

Martello tower prominent feature on

Ringaskiddy ridge. De Puy,

GlaxoSmithCline and Hovione (previously

Pfizer) pharmaceutical plants.



turbines.


visible against skyline

behind Ringaskiddy ridge.




9 Fort Mitchell,

Spike Island

8.3.9 Elevated, expansive view over Cork harbour,

Loughbeg, Ringaskiddy and Haulbowline



turbines.



distant Barnahely ridge.




For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


10 Fort Meagher,

Camden,

Crosshaven

8.3.10 Elevated, expansive view over Cork harbour,

Loughbeg, Ringaskiddy, Cobh and Spike

Island. Residential developments on

northern side of ridgeline with expansive

views across harbour towards Loughbeg,

Ringaskiddy and Cobh.



turbines.



distant Barnahely ridge.




11 Local road

linking R613 to

Currabinny

8.3.11 Intermittent views along local road (L2496)

Raheens East and Currabinny - view looking

north. Dispersed residential properties along

route with views north towards Novartis and

Janssen Biologics (Ireland).



turbines.


turbine visible

through/above intervening

vegetation.

Significant impact with

Novartis and Janssen


visible through/above

intervening vegetation.

12 Local road

linking R613 to

Currabinny

8.3.12 Intermittent views along local road (L2496)

Raheens East and Currabinny - view looking

east. Dispersed residential properties along

route. Open views over Loughbeg with

pharmaceutical plants. Backdrop of rolling

hills in east harbour and Currabinny.

1.4 0.6 2.0 1.4 Imperceptible Imperceptible Significant with turbines at

De Puy and GSK visible.

13 Carrigaline to

Crosshaven

Walk and

R612,

Kilnagleary

8.3.13 Open views across Owenabue Estuary

towards scenic agricultural landscape at

Coolmore. Novartis and Janssen Biologics

(Ireland) visible along ridgeline at Barnahely.



turbines.


turbine visible against

skyline along Barnhely

ridgeline.


Janssen Biologics

(Ireland), Novartis and one

of the De Puy turbines

visible against the skyline.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


14 Leacht Cross,

Fernhill Road

(L2490), East

Carrigaline

8.3.14 Eastern edge of Carrigaline residential area.

Open view across agricultural landscape.

Janssen Biologics (Ireland) and Novartis

visible along ridgeline in distance.



turbines.



Barnahely ridge.




be higher in the evening


western face of the

turbines.

15 Upper

Shanbally,

Road (L2492)

linking

Shanbally to

Coolmore)

8.3.15 Edge of cluster of residential area.

Agricultural fields in foreground. Electrical

pylons and transmission lines prominent in

views.



turbines.


visible against skyline

behind intervening

vegetation and overhead

transmission lines on

Barnahely ridge.

Slight impact with Janssen

Biologics (Ireland) turbine

most visible. Remainder of

turbines will be largely

obscured by intervening

vegetation.

16 N28-R613

crossroads,

approaching

Ringaskiddy

village

8.3.16 Tree lined approach road to Ringaskiddy

village. Ringaskiddy Martello tower visible on

ridgeline above village.

1.0 0.9 1.4 1.9 Imperceptible Imperceptible. Alignment

of this view is east with the

Janssen Biologics (Ireland)

turbine behind the VRP.

There is intervening

topography and vegetation

blocking any views of the

turbine from this vantage

point.

Slight impact with De Puy

turbines visible above

intervening vegetation and

topography. Remainder of

turbines will be largely

obscured.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


17 Shanbally

roundabout on

the N28

8.3.17 View east from Shanbally village towards

Barnahely ridge. Limited views of nearby

pharmaceutical plants at Pfizer and Janssen

Biologics (Ireland).



turbines.


turbine visible along the

axis of the village screen

planting in IDA lands and

against skyline.



and Novartis turbines

visible with remainder of

turbines largely obscured

by intervening vegetation.

18 Coastal Walk

and R616,

Monkstown

8.3.18 R616 coastal road and walk with open views

across Rafeen Creek in Cork harbour

towards Ringaskiddy, Pfizer and Janssen

Biologics (Ireland).



turbines.



skyline.



the harbour.

19 Monkstown

Car Park

8.3.19 Open views across Cork harbour towards

Ringaskiddy and Barnahely ridgeline.

Industrial buildings, warehousing, tanks and

cranes visible.



turbines.



skyline.



the harbour.

20 Monkstown

golf course

8.3.20 Elevated open views across Cork harbour,

Ringaskiddy and Barnahely with backdrop of

Currabinny and Crosshaven ridgelines



turbines.


turbine visible on the

Barnahely ridgeline and

against the skyline.



the harbour.

21 White's Point,

Cobh

8.3.21 Water level view from amenity walk/viewing

area at White's point. Views across harbour

towards Cobh, Haulbowline, Ringaskiddy

and Monkstown.



turbines.



Barnahely ridge.



the harbour.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


22 Norwood Park,

Ringmeen,

Cobh

8.3.22 Elevated view from open space area in

Cobh representative of views from similar

residential areas. South facing views over

harbour, Ringaskiddy, Currabinny and

Crosshaven ridgelines.



turbines.


visible on Barnahely ridge.



the harbour.

23 Oak Drive/The

Pines,

Ballynoe, Cobh

8.3.23 Elevated view from open space in residential

development area above Rushbrooke.

South facing views across Cork harbour

towards Monkstown, Ringaskiddy with

Crosshaven/Boycetown ridgeline in distance.

Overhead powerlines and pylons prominent

in the landscape.



turbines.


visible on Barnahely ridge.




visible along Barnahely

ridge and against skyline.

24 Lissanisky,

Great Island

8.3.24 South facing view from the north side of

Great Island. Rolling agricultural landscape

with distant views to Ringaskiddy.

5.2 5.5 5.2 6.4 Imperceptible Imperceptible to slight

impact with turbine due to

intervening distance and

topography.


impacts with Janssen

Biologics (Ireland) and

Novartis turbines visible in

distance, but small in

context in overall view.

25 Harper's

Island, N25

8.3.25 South facing views along western bound

carriageway of the N25 over Fota Island,

Little Island and upper harbour. The

topography and Cork harbour channel

between Great Island and Passage West

allows narrow, distant views of Ringaskiddy.



intervening distance and

topography.


impacts with Janssen



distance, but small in

context in overall view.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


26 Rocky Island,

Haulbowline

8.3.26 South facing views across Cork harbour

channel towards Ringaskiddy ridgeline.

Bridge crossing to Haulbowline, overhead

powerlines, Maritime College, Martello tower

on ridgeline, warehousing around

Ringaskiddy port are prominent features.



turbines.



skyline.




27 Near Spitbank

lighthouse in

Cork Harbour

(off Cobh

Quay)

8.3.27 Centre of harbour with open views

throughout. Viewing west Spike Island,

Ringaskiddy, Barnahely, Haulbowline,

Monkstown and Cobh define the view.



turbines.



Barnahely ridge.



the harbour.

28 Aghada Pier 8.3.28 Open views across east side of Cork

harbour from Aghada to Spike Island and

Cobh. Aghada chimney prominent feature in

views. Distant views of Ringaskiddy and

Barnahely ridgelines visible in the distance.



intervening distance across

Cork harbour.






eastern face of the

turbines.

29 Ballynookery,

south of

Aghada

8.3.29 Elevated rural road 2km to the south of

Aghada. Views west across rolling

agricultural landscape with portions of the

higher parts of Cobh town being visible.

Aghada chimney prominent feature.

9.6 9.3 6.7 7.6 Imperceptible Imperceptible Slight impact with a

number of turbines visible

against skyline.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


30 Roches Point 8.3.30 Open coastal view northwards into Cork

harbour. Forts Camden and Davis flank the

views. Views into the harbour of

Ringaskiddy ridgeline, Cobh town and Spike

Island. De Puy pharmaceutical building

visible at Ringaskiddy.

7.3 6.9 5.0 4.9 Imperceptible Imperceptible due to

intervening topography at

Fort Camden.

Slight impact with De Puy

turbines visible within

harbour. Visibility will be

highest at midday when the

sun strikes the southern

face of the turbine.

31 White Bay

Amenity Car

Park

8.3.31 Elevated coastal view from amenity carpark

and nearby residential development into

Cork harbour. Forts Camden and Davis

flank the view with Currabinny woods,

Loughbeg, and Ringaskiddy visible within

the harbour.


visible on Barnahely ridge

against

Monkstown/Rochestown

ridge.


visible within the harbour

against the backdrop of


ridge..

32 Fort Davis

(Carlisle Fort)

8.3.32 Elevated expansive views across Cork

harbour from Fort Davis to Currabinny,

Loughbeg, Ringaskiddy, Spike and Great

Island.



turbines.



against


ridge and against skyline.





and early afternoon when

the sun strikes the eastern

and southern face of the

turbines.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


33 Main shipping

channel, centre

Cork harbour,

between Fort

Davis and Fort

Camden

8.3.33 Harbour based view looking northwest

towards Currabinny, Loughbeg,

Ringaskiddy, Spike and Great Island.


visible against skyline.


six turbines being visible on

entering Cork harbour.

34 Rural road

(L6507) at

Kilnagleary,

Carrigaline

8.3.34 Rural, elevated view over Owenabue

Estuary, Currabinny, Ringaskiddy and wider

harbour. Rolling agricultural landscape with

medium to long range views of settlement

and pharmaceutical facilities around Cork

harbour.



turbines.



against Great Island/Cobh

and skyline.




be higher in the afternoon


southern and western face

of the turbines.

35 St Philomena's

Road,

Crosshaven.

8.3.35 Residential area overlooking Owenabue

Estuary, Currabinny and Ringaskiddy

peninsula beyond.



turbines.


turbine visible on

Barnahely ridge against

Monkstown and skyline.

Visibility will be higher in

the afternoon when the sun

strikes the southern face of

the turbine.

Moderate impact with the

Janssen Biologics

(Ireland), Novartis and

GSK turbines visible over

the Currabinny ridgeline.



strikes the southern and

western face of the

turbines.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


36 R612,

Crosshaven to

Fountainstown

Road

8.3.36 Elevated view close to Myrtleville Cross

along Crosshaven ridge over rolling

agricultural landscape. Middleground views

of pharmaceutical and settlement around

Cork harbour with background of

Monkstown/Rochestown ridgeline.


visible against Monkstown

Ridge and skyline.

Moderate impact with all of

the turbines visible over the

Currabinny ridgeline.




western face of the

turbines.

37 Currabinny

Woods

8.3.37 Currabinny Woods. Coillte owned and

managed woodland amenity. Steeply

sloped with several trails and paths running

in east west orientation across the contours.

There are a number of vantage points within

the woodland where views to the north open

out to allow views over Loughbeg,

Ringaskiddy, Cobh, Spike Island and Cork

harbour. Well used walking amenity.



Localised significant impact

with De Puy turbines fully

visible on the Ringaskiddy

peninsula and part of the

blade of the GSK turbine

visible.

38 Carrigaline to

Crosshaven

Walk and R612

west of

Crosshaven

8.3.38 Coastal walk and nearby road with views

across Owenabue Estuary to Currabinny.

Extensively used boat mooring area with a

number of residential dwellings facing north.


intervening Currabinny

ridge.

Moderate impact arising

from the GSK and De Puy

turbines visible above the

Currabinny ridge and

against the sky.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


39 Drake's Pool,

on the R612

8.3.39 Scenic wooded area with steep sloped

topography overlooking Owenabue Estuary.

Views northeast along estuary towards

Currabinny.


intervening

Coolmore/Currabinny

ridge.

Moderate impact arising

from the GSK and De Puy

turbines visible above the

Currabinny ridge and

against the sky.

40 R612 road at

Aghamarta

8.3.40 Elevated open views to north across rolling

agricultural landscape, settlement around

Cork harbour, pharmaceutical industries

around Ringaskiddy and distant Galtee and

Knockmealdown mountains.



turbines.


visible against Monkstown

Ridge and skyline.




the turbine.


turbines visible across the

landscape. Visibility will be

higher in the afternoon


southern and western face

of the turbines.

41 Boycestown

(L6511 road)

8.3.41 Elevated local road in rural, agricultural

landscape. Expansive views to the north

across rolling agricultural landscape,

pharmaceutical industries and settlement

around Cork harbour and distant Galtee and

Knockmealdown Mountains.



turbines.


visible against Great

Island/Glounthaune

Ridges, Galtee Mountains

in distance and skyline.




the turbine.



the landscape. Visibility


afternoon when the sun


western face of the

turbines.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


42 Martello Tower

on Ringaskiddy

ridge.

8.3.42 Publically accessible via a right of way path

through agricultural fields. 360 degree

panoramic views over much of Cork harbour.

To the south views towards Forts Camden

and Davis and Roches Point. De Puy

pharmaceutical facility close to the south but

largely well screened by topography. Views

across Loughbeg towards Currabinny and

GlaxoSmithCline facility. Views west

towards Barnahely ridgeline with Novartis

and Janssen Biologics (Ireland) facilities

visible. Views north over Ringaskiddy port

facility towards Cobh and Haulbowline.

Views east over Cork harbour to Aghada

and Whitegate.



turbines.



skyline on distant

Barnahely ridge.



from this panoramic point

in the centre of the

harbour.

43 N28,

Ringaskiddy

Village

8.3.43 View west from entrance to Ringaskiddy

ferry port. Residential and a number of

commercial properties located within village.

Logistics warehouse (Primeline) and

Janssen Biologics (Ireland) building visible

along ridgeline. Views south limited by

topography of Ringaskiddy ridge.



turbines.


turbine visible along the

axis of the village against

skyline.




visible along the axis of the

village against skyline. De

Puy and GSK turbines not

visible due to intervening

topography on Ringaskiddy

ridge.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


44 Castlewarren,

Ringaskiddy

8.3.44 Local road (L2496) from Warren's Cross to

Loughbeg. Small rural road with a number

of residential properties and primary school

located along it. Some glimpsed views of

pharmaceutical buildings in the area

including Novartis and Janssen Biologics

(Ireland). However views are generally well

screened by roadside hedgerows.



turbines.



skyline on Barnahely ridge.




visible against skyline. De

Puy and GSK turbines not

visible due to intervening

vegetation along road.

45 R613 at

Barnahely,

Ringaskiddy

8.3.45 View from R613 looking east over Barnahely

cemetery. The view is characterised but the

mixture of agricultural, commercial and

pharmaceutical buildings with the backdrop

of the Ringaskiddy, east Cork, Currabinny

and Crosshaven ridgelines. The

Ringaskiddy Martello tower and overhead

powerlines are prominent features.


visible above Primeline and


buildings. Note not visible

in VRP 45 as turbine is

behind VRP location.

Moderate impact with De

Puy and GSK turbines

visible against skyline and

background topography.

Novartis and Janssen


visible but partially

screened by intervening

topography and built

development.

46 Kilmoney Road

Upper,

Carrigaline

8.3.46 Residential areas (Clevedon, Hillview,

Liosrua) on elevated topography within

Carrigaline have long range views east

towards the Monkstown, Barnahely and

Great Island ridgelines. Settlement and

pharmaceutical buildings (Janssen Biologics


visible against skyline.



strikes the south and west


Slight impact with Novartis

and Janssen Biologics

(Ireland) turbines visible

against skyline. Visibility


afternoon when the sun

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


(Ireland) and Novartis) are visible. strikes the south and west


47 Shannonpark

Roundabout

8.3.47 N28 roundabout at Shannonpark links

Carrigaline and Ringaskiddy to Cork City

and the wider road network. Busy traffic

thoroughfare. Views east to Ringaskiddy

somewhat limited by intervening vegetation

and topography.



Imperceptible due to


48 Ballinrea

between

Carrigaline and

Donnybrook

8.3.48 Elevated view from Ballinrea. Distant views

to the south east of settlement and

pharmaceutical industries around Cork

harbour with the backdrop of the ridgelines

to the east of Cork harbour and Crosshaven.

5.6 5.8 7.8 7.7 Imperceptible Slight impact with distant

view of turbine against

backdrop of east Cork

harbour topography and

skyline. Visibility will be

higher in the afternoon


south and west face of the

turbine.

Slight with most of the

turbines or part of the

turbines visible in the

distance against skyline.



strikes the south and west


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


49 Kilmore Road,

Knocknaheeny,

Cork City

8.3.49 Elevated views from the northwest side of

Cork City. Expansive views across city,

upper harbour and Rochestown ridgeline. In

the distance, Aghada chimney visible.

14 14.4 16.0 16.4 Imperceptible Imperceptible due to

distance and intervening

topography. Tips of blades

may be visible in clear light

conditions in late

afternoon/evening as sun

sets and strikes western

face of turbine blades.

Imperceptible due to

distance and intervening

topography. Tips of blades

may be visible in clear light

conditions in late

afternoon/evening as sun

sets and strikes western

face of turbine blades.

50 Strawhall,

Raffeen

8.3.50 View from the R610 at Strawhall, Rafeen.

Winding, rural road with views opening out

onto Rafeen Creek, Cork harbour and

Barnahely ridgeline. Pharmaceutical

industries at Shanbally and Ringaskiddy

(Pfizer) set back behind screen woodland

planting along the coastline. Barnahely

ridgeline and portions of Janssen Biologics

(Ireland) facility visible.



turbines.


visible on Barnahely

ridgeline against skyline.

Slight impact with Novartis

and Janssen Biologics

(Ireland) turbines visible

against skyline.

51 N8

approaching

Dunkettle

8.3.51 View from Glanmire/Caherlag road bridge

above N8. View south towards upper

harbour and Rochestown ridgeline.

Rochestown water tower visible along

ridgeline.

9.8 10.4 11.2 12.1 Imperceptible Imperceptible impact due

to intervening topography

at Monkstown ridge.

Slight impact with blades

visible from De Puy

turbines.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


52 Ballyhennick,

north of Little

Island

8.3.52 Elevated open views south from Caherlag to

Killacloyne road at Glounthaune over Little

Island, Fota Island, upper harbour, Marino

Point and River Lee west passage to

Barnahely and Crosshaven ridgelines.

Elements of the Pfizer and Janssen

Biologics (Ireland) facilities visible in the

distance.


visible in distance on

Barnahely ridgeline against

Crosshaven ridge and

skyline.

Slight impact with Janssen



distance on Barnahely

ridgeline against


skyline.

53 Granary Wharf,

Passage West

8.3.53 Water level view from the R610 at

Glenbrook, Passage West looking south

along west passage of River Lee. Elevated

topography of Rushbrooke on Great Island

and Monkstown ridge frame the view, with

distant view of Barnahely and Crosshaven

ridgelines.


on Barnahely ridgeline and

skyline, partially visible

behind woodland on

Monkstown ridge.

Slight impact with De Puy,

GSK and Janssen


visible against Crosshaven

ridge and skyline.

54 Shipping lane

off

Ballybrickeen

jetty

8.3.54 View from the centre of the shipping lane

north of Ballybrickeen pier with Great Island

to the north and Ringaskiddy to the south.

Wide views of Haulbowline, Ringaskiddy,

Barnahely and Monkstown ridge lines.



turbines.



skyline, visible behind


building.


six turbines visible against

skyline.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


55 Scotchman's

Road,

Monkstown

8.3.55 Elevated view south from residential area in

Monkstown over Cork harbour, Ringaskiddy

and Barnahely ridgelines with Currabinny

and Crosshaven ridgelines in background.

Many of the pharmaceutical and port

facilities are visible from this area.



turbines.


turbine visible on



skyline.



the harbour.

56 Coolmore

Crossroads

8.3.56 Crossroads located on the R613 Carrigaline

to Ringaskiddy Road. Cluster of residential

properties and entrance to Coolmore

Demesne. Road to north leads to Shanbally

village. Woodland screen planting within the

Novartis site screens the facility from this

area.


to intervening vegetation in

Novartis facility.

Significant impact with two

Novartis turbines visible

above screen planting

against skyline.

57 Carrigaline

East, R613

beside

Owenabue

Estuary

8.3.57 Travelling east along the R613 from

Carrigaline to Ringaskiddy there are views

east towards Coolmore. Open views over

Owenabue estuary. Rural character with

rolling hills, demesne seawall and clumps of

woodland in Coolmore.


to intervening topography

and vegetation.

Slight impact arising from

visibility of Novartis and

GSK turbines above trees

at Coolmore and viewed

against skyline.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


58 Currabinny

Road (L2496)

8.3.58 Elevated view from the local road along the

spine of Currabinny ridge. Rural character

with views of Owenabue estuary to the south

and more industrial in character to the north

with views of Novartis, GlaxoSmithCline and

Hovione pharmaceutical facilities at

Loughbeg.



turbines.



skyline.



the landscape.

59 R613 at

entrance to

Novartis

8.3.59 Road side view of Novartis facility entrance

along the R613. Well landscaped entrance

which screens much of the internal areas of

the site.



turbines.



skyline.


Novartis turbines in close

proximity to road.

60 Ballynametagh,

north of N28

8.3.60 Local rural road linking townlands of

Hilltown, Ballynametagh and Rafeen.

Dispersed residential dwellings along road.

Intermittent views south from road across

predominantly rural landscape over N28,

Carrigaline to Barnahely, Currabinny and

Crosshaven ridgelines in distance. A

number of overhead powerlines traverse the

landscape.



turbines.



skyline.



, Novartis and GSK

turbines visible.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11







turbine


Biologics (Ireland)

Jan

ssen

Bio

log

ics

(Ire

lan

d)

No

vart

is

De P

uy

GS

K


61 Local road at

Strawhall,

Rafeen

8.3.61 Local road linking Rafeen/Strawhall to

Monkstown/Monkstown Golf Club. Cluster

of residential properties in the area with

elevated open views of Rafeen creek, Cork

harbour, Barnahely ridgeline with more

distance views of eastern part of Cork

harbour.



turbines.


turbine visible on


skyline.



, Novartis, De Puy and

Novartis turbines visible

across the landscape.

62 Warren's Cross

Roads

8.3.62

Road side view of Novartis and Janssen

Biologics (Ireland) facilities from the R613

road across open agricultural fields.



turbines.


turbine visible on


the skyline.


Janssen Biologics

(Ireland), Novartis, De Puy

and GSK turbines visible

across the landscape.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





Settlements

Many of the visual impacts upon surrounding settlements in the lower harbour area are well illustrated in the VRP figure and Table 8.3 above.

Ringaskiddy

There will be views of the proposed turbine along the N28 axis above the Barnahely ridge and Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site from properties located to the south of the village, which will result in moderate impact.

The cumulative impact with the Novartis turbines added is deemed to be moderate. Due to the intervening topography the De Puy and GSK turbines will not be visible from the lower level properties in Ringaskiddy. A number of properties are located on higher ground to the south of the village will have views of the De Puy and GSK turbines with a resulting moderate visual impact.

See Figures 8.3.16 and 8.3.43.

Shanbally

There will be views of the turbine against the sky and above existing vegetation at properties around Shanbally, resulting in locally significant visual impact. The Novartis turbine will also be partially visible. Cumulatively, the impact will be significant.


Raheens / Coolmore

The Janssen Biologics (Ireland) facility is generally well screened by intervening vegetation and topography. The electricity pylons running to the south of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site are a prominent feature in the landscape. The turbine at Janssen Biologics (Ireland) will be visible from a number of vantage points in this area resulting in varying slight to moderate impact. The properties to the east of the L2492 road (Marian Terrace) will have open views of the turbine resulting in significant visual impact. The group of properties at Coolmore Close further south will also have views of the turbine behind the pylons, resulting in a moderate visual impact.

Cumulatively, the Novartis turbines will also be visible from a number of vantage points in the area, resulting in a varying moderate to significant impact.

See Figures 8.3.15, 8.3.56, 8.3.57 and 8.3.59.

Rushbrooke/Cobh/Great Island

The historic town of Cobh is set on Great Island with a south facing slope with panoramic views out over Cork harbour including Barnahely and Ringaskiddy. Depending on the location of the viewer within the town the turbine will be seen behind the Barnahely ridgeline and will result in a varying level of visual impact ranging from imperceptible, to slight to moderate visual impact. Properties that are located on higher ground in the town will have more open views of the turbines resulting in a moderate visible impact.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





Cumulatively, the six turbines at varying locations and heights across the harbour will result in a significant visual impact when seen against the backdrop of Currabinny and Crosshaven ridgelines and skyline,. For some viewers this will be perceived as positive in nature, but it must be acknowledged that to others the impact will be negative. It should be noted that the views from Cobh are characterised by a complex mixture of water, headlands, industrial, pharmaceutical and port related structures at Haulbowline and Ringaskiddy and the introduction of the wind turbines will be another „layer‟ in this visual composition.

See Figures 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3, 8.3.4, 8.3.5, 8.3.22, 8.3.23 and 8.3.24.

Carrigaline

Properties to the eastern edge of Carrigaline town will view the turbine at Janssen Biologics (Ireland) at a distance of 2.5km resulting in a slight to moderate impact. Visibility will increase in the evening as the sun shines on the turbines from the west. Elevated properties to the north, east and south of Carrigaline will experience distant views of the turbine against the backdrop of east Cork harbour topography and skyline, resulting in a slight visual impact.

Cumulatively, the other wind turbines planned for the area will also be visible resulting in visual impacts which vary from slight to moderate.

See Figures 8.3.13, 8.3.14, 8.3.34, 8.3.46, 8.3.47, 8.3.58, 8.3.57 and 8.3.60.

Monkstown/Rafeen/Passage West

The settlements of Monkstown, Rafeen and Passage West are characterised by their relationship with Cork harbour and the steep topography on which they are located. There are many sea level and elevated views over the harbour with the industrial, port related and pharmaceutical industries important visual features in the landscape. The Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will be seen above the Barnahely ridgeline against and skyline, varying in impact from slight to moderate.

Cumulatively, depending on the location of the viewer, some or all of the turbines will be visible, resulting in a varying level of visual impact from slight to significant.

See Figures 8.3.18, 8.3.19, 8.3.20, 8.3.50, 8.3.53, 8.3.55 and 8.3.61.

Eastferry/Aghada/Whitegate/Roche‟s Point

These settlements are located to the east of Cork harbour at approximately 7.5km distance from the site. The turbine at Janssen Biologics (Ireland) will be visible from a number of these areas in the distance resulting in slight visual impact.

Cumulatively, all six turbines will be visible from various vantages points in the area particularly in the morning sun and sunset silhouette, resulting in a varying level of visual impact ranging from slight to moderate, albeit in the distance - not as significant as closer locations.

See Figures 8.3.6, 8.3.7, 8.3.28, 8.3.29, 8.3.31 and 8.3.32.

Crosshaven/Currabinny

The settlements around Crosshaven and Currabinny are heavily influenced by their relationship with the Owenabue Estuary, Cork harbour, rolling topography and wooded slopes. Elevated areas from these settlements have views north into the

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





inner harbour with the industrial, pharmaceutical and settlements around the harbour set against the backdrop of the steeply sloped ridgelines of Monkstown and Great Island. The introduction of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will have varying levels of visual impact ranging from slight to moderate.

Cumulatively, the levels of impact arising from all six wind turbines will vary from slight to significant, depending on their visibility, context and sensitivity.

See Figures 8.3.10, 8.3.11, 8.3.12, 8.3.13, 8.3.34, 8.3.36, 8.3.37, 8.3.38, 8.3.39, 8.3.40, 8.3.41 and 8.3.58.

Cork City and Environs

Given the distance and intervening topography there will be limited visibility of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine from Cork city and environs. Turbine blade tips may be visible in late afternoons / evening as the sun sets above the Monkstown ridgeline, resulting in imperceptible to slight visual impact. The cumulative impact is similar.

Further east towards Glounthaune, there will be some distant views of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine but impacts will be slight due to the intervening distance. The cumulative impact is similar.

See Figures 8.3.25, 8.3.49, 8.3.51, 8.3.52.

Designated Scenic Routes and Roads

By their nature as transportation corridors, the views and landscape context vary along their route. The Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will vary in visibility and levels of visual impact depending on the location of the viewer, orientation and visual context. There are a number of designated scenic routes within the 20km radius of influence which will have varying levels of visual impact.

Scenic Route R639 / S41 (Road from Dunkettle to Glounthaune)

There will limited views of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine from this route due to the intervening topography at Monkstown Ridge and distance. Cumulatively, tips of the blades from De Puy will be visible from a number of limited vantage points but impacts will be slight to imperceptible.

See Figure 8.3.51.

Scenic route S42 (Local road from Glounthaune to Caherlag)

The Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will be visible at a distance against the Crosshaven ridge and skyline, giving a slight impact.

Cumulatively, the Novartis and De Puy turbines will also be visible resulting in a slight cumulative impact. No other turbines will be visible.

See Figure 8.3.52.

Scenic Route S50 (Local road between Inch and Ballycotton)

Views from this route are concentrated over the coastline to the south. The Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will not be visible from this scenic route due to the orientation and hedgerow lined character of the road, resulting in an imperceptible impact.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





Cumulatively a number of other turbines will be seen from limited sections of the route at Ballynookery, 2km south of Aghada, resulting in a slight impact.

See Figure 8.3.29.

Scenic Route S51 (R630 and local road from East Ferry to Roche‟s Point)

The impact of the turbine will vary along this route, which is over 20km long. There will be no visibility of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine travelling from Aghada to Whitegate, due to the distance and intervening topography at Whitegate. The road leading to Eastferry from Saleen will have distant views of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine visible against the skyline, resulting in a slight impact. There will be other intermittent views along the route at Aghada, Whitegate, White Bay and Roches Point, resulting in a slight impact.

Cumulatively, visual impacts will vary from slight to moderate.

See Figures 8.3.6, 8.8.7, 8.3.28, 8.3.30, 8.3.31 and 8.3.32.

Scenic Route S52 (Coastal road on north side of Great Island)

No turbines will be visible from this route due to the Great Island ridgeline which will block visibility southwards.

Scenic Route R624 / S53 (Road between Belvelly and Cobh)

Along the southern section of this coastal route, where it travels from the edge of Cobh to the town centre, there are intermittent open views across Cork harbour to Ringaskiddy and Barnahely. The Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will be visible behind the Barnahely ridge against the skyline, resulting in a varying slight to moderate visual impact. In many locations the turbines will be obscured by existing vegetation and buildings which will result in imperceptible impact.

Similarly when considering the cumulative impact, impacts will vary from moderate to significant.

Similar levels of visual impact can be expected for users of the Cobh to Cork Rail line.

See Figures 8.3.1, 8.3.2 and 8.3.3.

Scenic Route R610 & N28 / S54 (Road between Passage West and Ringaskiddy)

This coastal route links Passage West, Monkstown, Rafeen, and Shanbally to Ringaskiddy. From Passage West to Monkstown, views of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will be screened by intervening topography. From Monkstown to Rafeen there will be views of the turbines behind the Barnahely ridge resulting in slight to moderate impact.

Cumulatively, the impact will vary from moderate to significant.

Views from Shanbally, Ringaskiddy and Rocky Island will vary from imperceptible to slight, depending on the vantage point. Cumulatively, the impact will vary from imperceptible to significant.

See Figures 8.3.16, 8.3.17, 8.3.18, 8.3.19, 8.3.26 (south and west), 8.3.43, 8.3.50, 8.3.53 and 8.3.62.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





Scenic Route N27 & R600 / S56 (Road between Frankfield and to Ballygarvan)

There will be no views of any turbines from this route due to intervening topography.

Scenic Route R613 / S57 (Road from Ballea woods to Carrigaline)

There will be no views of any turbines from this route due to the orientation of the route and extensive vegetation along its route.

Scenic Route R612 / S58 (Road between Carrigaline and Crosshaven)

This coastal road looks over the Owenabue River across to Coolmore, Currabinny and Barnahely ridgelines. There will be views of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine against the skyline travelling east from Carrigaline, resulting in a varying slight to moderate impact. Views will become limited, as you travel to Crosshaven due to intervening Coolmore / Currabinny ridge and result in imperceptible impact. The final section of this route that leads to Fort Camden will see the turbine visible against Raffeen ridge and skyline, providing a slight impact.

Cumulatively, the impacts will vary along the route due to the visual complexity along its route. There will be moderate visual impact travelling from Carrigaline to Drake‟s Pool as Janssen Biologics (Ireland), Novartis and one De Puy turbines will be visible. The other De Puy turbine and GSK turbines will be visible above the Currabinny ridge travelling further east. Once arrived at Fort Camden, all turbines will be visible across Cork harbour resulting in a significant cumulative impact.

See Figures 8.3.10, 8.3.13, 8.3.38, 8.3.39.

Scenic Route R612 / S59 (Road between Crosshaven and Fountainstown)

Given its elevated height, parts of this road have panoramic north into Cork harbour and beyond. There will be distant views of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine resulting in slight impact.

Cumulatively, impacts will vary from slight to moderate.


N28

Views of the turbines along the existing N28 will generally be limited by intervening vegetation and topography and alignment of the route. On approaching the Shanbally roundabout, there will be views of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine.

Cumulatively, the overall impact along this route will be imperceptible, but locally significant at Shanbally where the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) and Novartis turbines will be viewable along the axis of the road.

The National Roads Authority (NRA) and Cork County Council have developed a preferred route selection for a new N28 alignment. This will pass south of Shanbally village and between Janssen Biologics (Ireland) and Novartis. There will be locally significant views of the turbines at this location due to their relative proximity.


L2496 - Local Road through Currabinny

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





There will be locally moderate impact from the turbine above intervening vegetation to the north. As the road meanders through the terrain, acute 90 degree bends are provided and opens up expansive views will be experienced across Lough Beg, where the proposed turbines of De Puy and GSK will be visible. At the southern end of this route slight impact will be experienced of Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine against the Barnahely ridge, however this impact changes to significant when looking at the cumulative impact, as all turbines will be seen across the panoramic view.

See Figures 8.3.11, 8.3.12 and 8.3.58.

R613 Road

Travelling eastward from Carrigaline, views of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will be limited by existing vegetation and topography. Moving further east at the entrance to Novartis, views will open up of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine, resulting in a varying slight to moderate impact.

Cumulatively the impacts will be locally significant due to the proximity of the Novartis turbines to the viewer. The De Puy and GSK turbines will also be visible as you travel further west from the Novartis site towards Barnahely cemetery resulting in varying moderate to significant visual impact.

See Figures 8.3.45, 8.3.56, 8.3.57 and 8.3.59.

N25

There will be long range distant views of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine from Harpers Island, resulting in slight to imperceptible impact.

Cumulatively, there will be impact from the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) and Novartis turbines, but given the distance and the context of the overall view and speed in which people travel this road, the impact will be largely imperceptible.

See Figure 8.3.25.

Designated Scenic Landscapes

There will be no direct impacts arising from the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine within designated scenic landscape; however there may be indirect or visual impacts, as follows:

Scenic Landscape at Crosshaven ridge

This landscape is rolling, agricultural land, with a north facing aspect orientated to the Owenabue Estuary, Currabinny ridgeline and inner harbour. Distant views of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will be seen against Monkstown ridge, resulting in varying slight visual impact.

Cumulative impacts will vary from slight to significant, depending on the vantage point.

See Figures 8.3.10, 8.3.13, 8.3.34, 8.3.35, 8.3.36, 8.3.38, 8.3.39, 8.3.40 and 8.3.41.

Scenic Landscape at Currabinny

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





This landscape is rolling agricultural land, with elevated views of the industrial landscape of Ringaskiddy and Loughbeg. Views of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will vary throughout the landscape with impacts varying from imperceptible to significant.

Cumulatively, the impacts will vary from slight to significant. The higher impacts will be between Coolmore and Currabinny which impacts ranging from moderate to significant.

See Figures 8.3.11, 8.3.12, 8.3.14, 8.3.37, 8.3.56, 8.3.57, 8.3.58 and 8.3.59.

Scenic Landscape at Monkstown

This scenic landscape encompasses much of the Monkstown settlement from sea level up to the golf course on high elevated ground. There are clear views across the harbour from much of this area, with the backdrop of Currabinny and Crosshaven ridgelines. The Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will be seen behind Barnahely ridgeline and against the skyline, providing a moderate impact.

Cumulatively, all 6 turbines will be visible across the harbour and result varying slight to significant cumulative impacts.

See Figure 8.3.18, 8.3.19, 8.3.20 and 8.3.55.

Scenic Landscape on Great Island

The scenic area is predominantly along the northern and eastern parts of the Island. Visibility from the northern part of the island is limited by topography. There will be views from Cuskinny, Ballymore and Marloag across the harbour with slight impacts.

Cumulatively, the impacts will be slight.

See Figure 8.3.24.

Scenic Landscape on the north and northeastern coast of Cork Harbour

This is a rolling, agricultural coastal landscape, with views over Cork harbour. Distant views of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will be possible in some locations, with greater visibility in the morning, giving rise to slight impact.

Cumulatively, all 6 turbines will be visible in some locations in the scenic landscape, again in the morning time, resulting in moderate cumulative impact.


Scenic Landscape from Whitegate to Roches Point

This is a coastal, rolling agricultural landscape with elevated views across Cork harbour. The Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will be visible in some locations against the Monkstown ridge, resulting in a slight impact.

Cumulatively, the impacts will vary from slight to moderate.

See Figures 8.3.7, 8.3.30, 8.3.31 and 8.3.32.

Recreational Areas

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





Only outdoor recreational activities where one of the main focuses of the activity will be on the wider views of the landscape have been included.

Cork Harbour

Cork harbour is of crucial importance to the economic, leisure, amenity, marine transport and heritage of the Cork and its environs.

There are many types of users to Cork harbour ranging from regular ferry users, to visiting passenger cruise liners, to smaller pleasure craft. Views from the harbour are generally open and uninterrupted to the various pharmaceutical facilities around Ringaskiddy and Loughbeg.

The harbour is a busy, visually unstructured and complex arrangement of natural features, buildings and large scale infrastructure such as Whitegate Refinery, Aghada chimney, Whitegate Pier, overhead pylons etc. The Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will have a tip height similar to the Aghada chimney, and will be of a larger scale that any building element in this landscape and will become an additional component within the harbour landscape. The impacts will vary from various vantage points around the harbour but generally will be moderate to significant in impact.

Cumulatively, all of the turbines will be visible from most areas of the harbour. Depending on the context impacts will range from slight to significant.

See Figures 8.3.8, 8.3.9, 8.3.21, 8.3.27, 8.3.33 and 8.3.54.

Monkstown Golf Course

The views from this golf course are of similar distance and direction to those assessed from Monkstown settlement and the Scenic Area within which this course is located. Unlike the settlement, which is generally orientated out towards the harbour, not all the golf holes are orientated in this direction and there is substantial tree cover to screen views in certain areas. However, the course is elevated and there are certain tee boxes, fairways and greens particularly within the 1st nine holes which experience panoramic views out over Cork Harbour. The Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will be seen along the Barnahely ridgeline and against the skyline, resulting in a moderate impact.

All six turbines will be visible across the harbour and result in significant cumulative impact.

See Figure 8.3.20.

Currabinny Woods/ Forest Trail

These Coillte managed woods are an important and well used amenity in the area. Facilities include parking, looped footpaths and picnic areas. The majority of views are screened by the trees, however there are some clearings. Views of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will be limited due to the intervening vegetation, resulting in imperceptible impact.

At the northern side of the woods, turbines from the De Puy site will be fully visible, resulting in a locally significant cumulative impact.

See Figure 8.3.37.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





Local Amenity Footpaths/ Cyclepaths

There are a number of well used walking/running and cycle routes around the harbour close to the water‟s edge and which have open views across the harbour. Walkers and cyclists will be travelling at slower speed than motorists and often stop to take in oblique as well as directional views and therefore impacts will vary considerably. The main points from where there may be a view of the proposed turbines are described below.

Monkstown has a popular walkway along the water front as well as a network of walking routes through the town which lead higher up onto the slope above Monkstown and afford elevated views across the harbour. Views are again of similar direction and distance to those views described from Monkstown, the Scenic area, Monkstown Golf Course and the Scenic Route S54 as it passes through Monkstown. The impact of the views is deemed as slight to moderate along this walkway. Cumulatively, sections will experience significant visual impact. See Figures 8.3.18, 8.3.19, 8.3.20 and 8.3.55.

Cobh has a Town Park promenade with children‟s play area, sculptures and bandstand as well as an amenity walkway, „Five Foot Way Walkway‟, which passes from the Heritage Centre to White Point. There will be clear views from the walkway particularly the section of land around White Point. The impact on the views is deemed as moderate to significant. See Figures 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.3.3, 8.3.4, 8.3.5 and 8.3.21.

There is also a cliff walk at Crosshaven which leads to a view at Fort Meagher at Camden, which has opened as a heritage/visitor centre. The impact on views from the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will be slight, with significant impacts cumulative impacts. See Figure 8.3.10.

The right of way and area around the Ringaskiddy Martello Tower, will have views of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine through the electricity pylons and overhead wires against the skyline and result in moderate impact. Cumulatively, the impact will be significant particularly with the proximity of the De Puy turbines to the south. See Figures 8.3.42 (west and south).

Spike Island has been recently acquired by Cork County Council, with the objective to develop the island as a cultural and tourist destination. The Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will be visible against the skyline, resulting in slight visual impact. Cumulatively, all six turbines will be visible from this location across the harbour resulting in significant cumulative impact. See Figure 8.3.9.

8.5.3 Impact on Landscape Character

The proposed wind turbine will be located within the „City Harbour and Estuary‟ Landscape Character Type which is also defined as ‟Cork City and Harbour (City Estuary Harbour and Island Complex)‟ Landscape Character Type within the CCDP, which states:

“Notwithstanding the rural character around much of the greater harbour area, the tell-tale signs of urban intensity are evident everywhere through the prevalence of infrastructure such as roads, bridges and electricity power lines and the frequency of urban clusters. Overall, the city and harbour comprise a balance of intensely urban form, rural character and seascape”.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





Locally the mixture of the industrial development, agricultural land, low density housing and proximity to the harbour define the overall character of the local area. The character can therefore be described as an „Industrial Harbour‟ landscape. The area comprises large entities such as production buildings, stacks, overhead power lines and towers, structural woodland screen planting, houses and roads which create a context that helps to visually absorb and assimilate the turbine into the landscape.

On its own, the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) turbine will impart a slight to moderate change to the lower harbour landscape character area.

Cumulatively, all of the wind turbines will impart a moderate change in the harbour landscape character area. The wind turbines are likely to be seen as one of the key elements of the landscape rather than the dominant feature between two and five kilometres away, and all of the wind turbines are more likely to be visible at this distance. For some people, this will be a positive change within the harbour landscape; however it is acknowledged that for others this change may be perceived as being of neutral or negative in change.

At greater distances than this up to 15km the turbines will only be prominent in clear visibility conditions and will be seen as part of the wider landscape composition, although the movement of blades may still be discernible.


As with any similar development some degree of impact is inevitable and wherever possible measures have been proposed to mitigate the potential „negative‟ nature of these impacts.

Mitigation measures have been included in the design and will be implemented in the development of the project. Mitigation has been incorporated into careful site selection and design of the wind energy project at the early initial stages, as due to the turbines height and nature the more „traditional‟ mitigation measures such as tree planting are not deemed to be as effective.

Electricity lines will be under ground and along access tracks. Existing tracks have been utilised wherever possible to minimise unnecessary physical disruption of the site.

General mitigation will include that site machinery operates within the proposed construction compounds and storage areas will be located so as to avoid impacting further on existing trees or visually on roads and properties. The construction compound will be fully re-instated at the end of the construction contract.

The three bladed turbines will be of a grey/ off white colour which will be the least prominent against the principle colour of the backdrop of the sky. They are of uniform height and rotor diameter to each other. All turbine blades will rotate in the same direction so as not to unduly catch a viewer‟s attention.


Due to the visual nature and scale of wind turbines along with the design rationale for them to be sited on a prominent, elevated location to capture wind, it is inevitable that residual visual impacts will remain, particularly from the closest surrounding areas. As described in the mitigation paragraph above, due to the nature of the

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





development, the landscape and visual mitigation was considered and incorporated during the design stage to „design out‟ negative impacts and create a simple clean „neutral‟ image within the harbour landscape. Therefore the residual impacts remain at the same significance level as assessed for the operational phase.

The site is located in an area of high landscape value, however given the mixed industrial character of the landscape it can accommodate the proposed development in its own right as well as the other wind energy projects planned. Overtime, the perception of the impact often lessens as the new development becomes more familiar and part of the overall „normal‟ views.

As mentioned earlier, the wind turbines are likely to be seen as one of the key elements of the landscape. For some, this may be a negative impact on the harbour landscape; however, for others the wind turbines will represent a positive element with the landscape and visual environment.

8.8 References

Cork County Development Plan 2009, Cork County Council.

Draft Carrigaline Electoral Area Local Plan 2010, Cork County Council.

Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements, EPA. (March 2002)

Landscape and Landscape Assessment, Consultation Draft of Guidelines for Planning Authorities Department of Environment and Local Government, (June 2000).

Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG), Wind Farm Planning Guidelines

Visual Assessment of Wind farms: Best Practice, Scottish Natural Heritage 2002.

Ordnance Survey of Ireland Discovery Series 1:50,000 mapping.

SEI and IWES, (2008), Best Practice Guidelines for the Irish Wind Energy Industry

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (2nd

Edition), The Landscape Institute / Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, Spon Press, 2002.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





9 Noise and Vibration

9.1 Introduction

This chapter assesses the environmental noise and vibration impact of the proposed wind turbine at Janssen Biologics (Ireland), which is one of six wind turbines which may be installed by member companies of the Cork Lower Harbour Energy Group (CLHEG). The CLHEG comprises Janssen Biologics (Ireland), Novartis Ringaskiddy Ltd, DePuy (Ireland) and GSK.

Compliance with guideline noise limits is assessed based on the cumulative wind turbine noise levels, assuming that all six wind turbines are installed.

The noise impact of the proposed wind turbine at Janssen Biologics (Ireland) has been assessed in accordance with criteria outlined in the Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government Wind Farm Planning Guidelines (EHLG), 2006. Account was also taken of cumulative industrial plus wind turbine noise limits.

This assessment was undertaken by ANV Technology on behalf of Arup.

9.2 Methodology

The existing noise environment was determined by means of baseline noise surveys at the nearest representative noise sensitive location in accordance with ISO 1996 Description and measurement of environmental noise. In addition, reference is made to the results of the annual environmental noise survey which has been carried out by Janssen Biologics (Ireland) as part of its compliance monitoring.

Noise propagation calculations were made according to ISO 9613 Attenuation of noise during propagation outdoors.

The final wind turbine model has not yet been selected. It is envisaged that a wind turbine model rated at up to 3MW may be selected. This assessment assumes that six turbines of 3MW are installed at the CLHEG sites, and uses noise emission data for the Enercon E-101 3MW wind turbine for quantitative modelling purposes. The noise impact of alternative wind turbines, with the same sound power emissions would be similar. The noise impact predictions presented in the report can readily be extrapolated for other turbine manufacturers‟ noise emission data, should this be required.

Noise levels presented in the report are in terms of the LAeq and LA90 noise parameters. The LAeq parameter represents the average noise level over a defined measurement period, and is used to describe time-averaged ambient noise levels, industrial noise levels, and wind turbine noise levels.

The LA90 parameter represents the steady component of the measured noise. It is relatively unaffected by intermittent interfering noise, and is used to describe the existing background noise. It is also used for the measurement of the steady component of wind turbine noise, and for evaluation of compliance with limit values. For wind turbine noise, the LA90 value is typically 2 dB lower than the LAeq value.

Definitions of acoustics terminology are provided in Appendix 9.1.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





9.3 Wind Turbine Noise Assessment Criteria

The noise impact is assessed with reference to the Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government (EHLG) guidelines on wind farms, which in turn draws on the methodology of the U.K. guidelines (ETSU-R-97). Account is also taken in this assessment of guidelines published by the EPA in draft form in November 2010.

The guidelines, and their application to the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site, are discussed below.

9.3.1 Department of the Environment Heritage and Local

Government (EHLG) Wind Farm Planning Guidelines

(2006)

The EHLG guidelines require that the noise impact should be assessed at noise sensitive locations, and propose limits for wind turbine noise incident at these locations.

For the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site, these noise sensitive locations include the nearest dwellings in Shanbally, the Church at Shanbally, and the nearest dwellings to the east at Ringaskiddy. Refer to Figure 9.1.

For protection at night time, the EHLG guidelines recommend application of a fixed limit of 43 dB(A) LA90 for wind turbine noise, to ensure an acceptable indoor environment for sleep.

The EHLG guidelines propose a fixed daytime noise limit of 45 dB(A), or a maximum of +5dB above the background noise, whichever is higher. Both the background noise and the wind turbine noise should be assessed using the LA90 parameter.

The EHLG guidelines propose a lower range of fixed limits for areas where the background noise is low (<30 dB(A) LA90), which does not apply in the vicinity of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site.

The EHLG guidelines state that there is unlikely to be a significant impact at distances in excess of 500m from a wind turbine. The nearest dwelling in Shanbally is approximately 640m from the site of the proposed Janssen Biologics (Ireland) wind turbine.

In the Shanbally area, the background noise is a combination of distant traffic noise, industrial noise, and wind noise. In assessing noise impact relative to background noise, it would not be appropriate to include the local industrial noise in the background noise, as industrial noise is treated as a potential nuisance, and its presence should therefore not be used to justify the generation of additional noise.

Excluding any local industrial noise component, background noise is generally a function of windspeed. With increasing wind speed, the background noise levels generally increase at a more rapid rate than the typical increase in wind turbine noise. The potential for a noise impact therefore may decrease with increasing wind speed, due to the masking effect of the wind noise. The procedure for comparison of the wind turbine noise with the background noise involves correlation of the background

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11

Figure Title:Job Title :


Wind Energy ProjectProject No.: C2465.40 Date: 29 April 2011

Figure No.:

Wind Turbine Location Plan

and Noise Sensitive Locations 9.1

Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence No EN 0002811 © Ordnance Survey Ireland/ Government of Ireland Not to Scale

NSL1

Shanbally

NSL2

Shanbally South

NSL5

Ringaskiddy

Centocor

Wind turbine location, and key noise sensitive receptors (those noise sensitive locations identified by noise modelling to have the highest cumulative wind turbine noise exposure).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





noise with windspeed, and the methodology for this is described in detail in the U.K. guidelines ETSU-R-97.

9.3.2 Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines on behalf of

ETSU for the UK DTI, The Assessment and Rating of Noise

from Wind Farms ETSU-R-97 (1996)

In the UK, the Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines set noise limits in their 1996 report. The working group considered that application of outdoor noise limits at noise sensitive locations was the best approach. They considered that application of a fixed noise limit was not appropriate, and that noise limits should be set relative to background.

The report set daytime limits of 35-40 dB LA90, or the background noise level +5dB whichever is the higher. At night, a higher limit of 43dB(A) LA90 was recommended because in this case people would be indoors, and there would be attenuation of the sound transmitted indoors.

For single turbines, or windfarms with very large spacings they proposed a simplified fixed noise limit of 35 dB(A) LA90. Compliance with this would obviate the need for detailed background noise surveys.

9.3.3 EPA Guidance Note for Noise Assessment of Wind

Turbine Operations at EPA Licensed Sites (NG3) –

Consultation Document November 2010

The Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site is licensed by the EPA, and the proposed wind turbine will be subject to noise limits to be set by the EPA. The EPA guidance note on the noise assessment of wind turbines is in draft form at time of preparation of this chapter (April 2011). The guidelines and recommendations may be subject to change in the final version. Nevertheless it provides a useful framework for discussion of noise impacts at IPPC licensed sites, and gives a general indication of how the noise limit issue may be approached by the EPA.

The draft EPA guidelines propose noise limits for daytime, evening and nighttime periods of 55 dB(A), 50 dB(A) and 45 dB(A) LAeq respectively. These are cumulative noise limits representing the sum of the existing industrial noise and the additional wind turbine noise. The wind turbine noise limits would apply at noise sensitive locations.

Essentially, the EPA view is that where wind turbines are erected on existing IPPC sites, the additional noise emissions must be accommodated within the existing EPA guideline noise limits for noise sensitive locations. The current guideline EPA noise limits are 55 dB(A) during daytime, which is defined as 08.00 to 22.00, and 45 dB(A) at nighttime, which is defined as 22.00 to 08.00. The proposed inclusion of a separate 50 dB(A) limit for evening (19.00 to 23.00), which represents a tightening of the noise limits, was to protect against an excessive step increase in noise due to wind turbines in the evening period, and to provide consistency with the day, evening, and night noise descriptors used for compilation of population noise exposures across the EU.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





The EPA guideline limit for nighttime noise of 45 dB(A) LAeq is consistent with the EHLG guideline limit of 43 dB(A) LA90 (allowing for the 2dB difference between LAeq and LA90 for wind turbine noise). In special cases, the EPA draft guidelines also make provision for site-specific noise limits of +5dB relative to background noise (LA90), which corresponds to the EHLG guidelines. However, for IPPC sites, this would require an application to the EPA, with supporting information demonstrating the variation of background noise with windspeed, in accordance with the general procedures of the UK ETSU-R97, and as further specified in the EPA draft guidance note.

In common with the EHLG and UK guidelines, the EPA draft guidance focuses on the noise impact of wind turbines at noise sensitive receptors. The existing IPPC licence for Janssen Biologics (Ireland) sets noise limits at the site boundaries. While it is not explicitly stated in the licence, a reasonable interpretation is that these noise limits apply at noise sensitive boundaries, where there are adjacent dwellings.

9.3.4 Summary of Noise Assessment Criteria

Taking account of the existing EHLG guidelines, and taking account of the additional likely conditions which may be set for Janssen Biologics (Ireland) by the EPA, the following common criteria are used:

Nighttime

At nighttime the total wind turbine noise at any noise sensitive receptor should be less than 43 dB(A) LA90

and

The cumulative wind turbine and industrial noise at any noise sensitive receptor should be less than 45 dB(A) LAeq

Daytime/Evening

During the daytime or evening periods, the total wind turbine noise component should be within +5 dB of the background noise

and

The cumulative wind turbine and industrial noise level at any noise sensitive receptor should not exceed 55 dB(A) LAeq during daytime, or 50 dB(A) LAeq during the evening period.

Regarding compliance with the above daytime and evening limits, for wind turbines that operate continuously, compliance with a fixed nighttime noise limit would automatically ensure compliance with the higher noise limits permitted during evening and daytime.

9.3.5 Descriptive Scale of Noise Impact

In the report a four point descriptive scale of adverse noise impact is employed: negligible, slight, moderate, significant. This was devised to be consistent with the EHLG and EPA guidelines, as follows:

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





Negligible

Wind turbine noise is within the guideline limit values and is less than the existing background noise

Slight

Wind turbine noise is within the guideline limit values, and exceeds the existing background noise by no more than 5 dB

Moderate

Wind turbine noise exceeds the limit value, and exceeds the existing background noise by no more than 5 dB. Or wind turbine noise is within the limit value, but exceeds the background noise by more than 5 dB

Significant

Wind turbine noise exceeds the limit value, and exceeds the existing background noise by more than 5 dB

9.4 Noise Sensitive Locations

The Janssen Biologics (Ireland) plant is located in a mixed industrial and residential area. The village of Shanbally is located 730m to the west of the proposed wind turbine location. The nearest noise sensitive locations are to the south of Shanbally, and are approximately 640m from the proposed wind turbine. To the north of Janssen Biologics (Ireland) is the N28. The industrial sites north of the N28 are not noise sensitive. There are commercial/industrial premises immediately to the west of Janssen Biologics (Ireland). Dwellings in Ringaskiddy, are approximately 110 metres east of the proposed wind turbine. To the south of Janssen Biologics (Ireland) is the Novartis industrial site, which is not noise sensitive.

The wind turbine will be located in the western section of the site. The proposed wind turbine location and the key noise sensitive locations are shown in Figure 9.1. The key noise sensitive locations are also listed in Table 9.1, together with coordinates and the distances to the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) wind turbine.

The key noise sensitive locations are those dwellings or sensitive areas in the vicinity of the site, which on the basis of noise modelling, were determined to be exposed to the highest cumulative wind turbine noise levels. The noise impacts at these noise sensitive locations were assessed in detail. The noise impacts at adjacent noise sensitive locations would be less.

Table 9.1 Details of key Noise Sensitive Locations for Janssen Biologics (Ireland)

Label Description Coordinates Distance to Janssen Biologics (Ireland) Wind Turbine, metres

NSL1 Shanbally, dwellings, church

75760 64340 730m

NSL2 Shanbally south, dwellings

75890 63950 640m

NSL5 Ringaskiddy, dwellings 77590 64055 1100m

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





9.5 Noise Surveys

The surrounding area is a mixed industrial, residential and agricultural area, with an operating ferry port. The main noise sources are local traffic, distant traffic, industrial plant noise, port activities, and wind induced background noise.

Environmental noise surveys were carried out in November 2010 and in January 2011. These noise surveys were conducted in accordance with EPA guidelines, and ISO 1996 Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise.

Attended measurements were carried out in Shanbally village, and in Shanbally south. An unattended survey was carried out at the western boundary of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site. The purpose of this survey was to determine the non-industrial background noise component, due to wind noise, distant traffic, and other distant noise sources. Janssen Biologics (Ireland) carries out annual noise surveys, and the results of the 2010 survey are referred to in the following discussion.

9.5.1 Attended Noise Surveys

The results of the attended noise surveys are presented in Table 9.2. The results are discussed below, together with reference to the annual Janssen Biologics (Ireland) noise survey.

9.5.2 Description of Noise Environment at Noise Sensitive

Locations

NSL1, NSL 2 Shanbally

In the village of Shanbally, the noise environment was dominated by traffic noise on the N28. The daytime ambient noise level was 62 dB(A) LAeq, with an underlying steady background noise component of 53 dB(A) LA90 . In lulls in traffic, there was occasionally a very low level of industrial noise audible from nearby industrial sites. There was no audible or detectible industrial noise from Janssen Biologics (Ireland), nor from Novartis.

Detailed measurements were made in Shanbally south, (NSL2) where there was less interfering noise, with only intermittent local traffic noise and distant traffic noise. During daytime, the total ambient noise level, determined in two surveys, was in the range 48 to 52 dB(A) LAeq, with an underlying steady background component of 42 dB(A) LA90 during both surveys. This background noise was due to local and distant traffic, and wind noise entirely, with no discernible industrial noise.

At nighttime, the total noise level reduced to 38 dB(A) LAeq, with a steady background component of 32 dB(A) LA90. This was due to distant background traffic noise and very low level industrial noise of indeterminate origin.

The Janssen Biologics (Ireland) annual noise survey in February 2010 (Fehily Timoney) reported an audible industrial noise component in Shanbally south, to the west of Janssen Biologics (Ireland). There was an easterly breeze during the survey. Based on the reported LA90 value at nighttime, this industrial component is estimated to be 36 dB(A).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





NSL5 Ringaskiddy

NSL 5 is to the east of Janssen Biologics (Ireland), and was included in the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) annual noise survey in February 2010. During daytime, there was no detectible industrial plant noise. The total noise level was 44 dB(A) LAeq, with an underlying steady background component of 40 dB(A) LA90.

At nighttime, the total noise level reduced to 44 dB(A) LAeq, with a steady background component of 37 dB(A) LA90. There was low level industrial noise reported of indeterminate origin.

Table 9.2 Results of attended noise surveys

Location Date Time Measured Noise Levels, dB(A) Comment

LAeq LA90 LA50 LA10

NSL1

Shanbally

at 20m from road

14/1/11

Day

12:05 61 51 57 64 Local and distant traffic noise only, v. low industrial noise occasionally in traffic lulls

wind W, 2m/s

12:20 61 51 57 65

12:35 61 51 58 64

12:50 65 59 63 68

Mean 62 53 59 65

NSL2

Shanbally South

at 20m from road

03/11/10

Day

12:00 48 42 45 50 Rustling leaves, distant traffic, occasional local cars

no discernible industrial noise

wind SW, 4m/s

12:15 48 43 47 51

12:30 47 41 45 48

12:45 48 42 44 48

13:00 48 44 46 50

13:15 49 43 46 51

13:30 48 42 45 49

Mean 48 42 45 50

14/1/11

Day

13:50 50 41 44 53 Local and distant traffic noise

Low level wind noise

wind W, 2m/s

14:05 51 41 45 52

14:20 53 42 46 55

14:35 53 42 46 56

14:50 52 42 45 54

Mean 52 42 45 54

25/11/10

Night

22:55 47 35 38 45 Occasional local car, very low level distant traffic

or perhaps industrial noise

wind N, 1-2m/s

00:15 37 32 34 40

01:50 31 28 30 33

Mean 38 32 34 39

Instrumentation:

Svantek 949 and Svantek 947 sound level meters, calibrated with Bruel & Kjaer 4231, microphone at 1.5m above ground

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





Unattended Noise Survey at Janssen Biologics (Ireland) Boundary

The western boundary of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site was selected for installation of the noise monitor, as this position is close to the noise sensitive receptors in the Shanbally area to the west. The contribution of Janssen Biologics (Ireland) plant noise at the boundary was negligible.

The objective of the survey was to determine the underlying residual background noise level, and to determine if a correlation between background noise and wind speed could be established. In a rural area, with little man-made noise, this correlation can generally be established. However in an area such as Ringaskiddy, with several industrial plants operating, establishing a correlation is not straightforward, as in addition to the background noise generated by the wind, the industrial component of the noise varies with wind direction, wind speed, and variations in the atmospheric temperature gradients.

Description of Noise Environment

At the western boundary of Janssen Biologics (Ireland), there was no noise audible from the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) plant, which was in excess of 500m distant, and screened by the terrain. There was occasionally noise audible from the direction of Novartis. The monitoring locataion was an elevated exposed site, and at all times there was distant traffic noise audible, and under windy conditions, wind noise in the trees and vegetation was audible. There were low conifers nearby, and a hedgerow with trees at a distance of 30m.

Measurement Results

The results collected from the 3rd

to 11th

November 2010 are summarised in Table 9.3, and a time plot is shown in Figure 9.2. The background noise, as measured by the LA90 parameter, varied widely, from less than 30 dB(A) to slightly over 50 dB(A). The lowest noise levels were recorded during the nighttime periods, due to reduced contribution from distant traffic noise, and possibly reduced industrial noise. The mean background noise level during the daytime and evening periods was 42 dB(A) LA90, and during the nighttime periods was 36 dB(A) LA90. This agrees well with the determination of an industrial noise component of 36 dB(A) during the attended surveys in the Shanbally area to the west.

The noise data was analysed for correlation with wind speed. Wind data was obtained from Met Eireann for Roche‟s Point, which is the nearest synoptic station to the site. In performing the correlation analysis, rainfall periods were excluded, and data corresponding to wind speeds of less than 5m/s were excluded. Data where the noise levels were less than 40 dB(A) were also excluded, as many of these data would have represented steady local industrial noise, which it was considered should be excluded from the background noise. The data was also filtered to exclude times when the wind was blowing directly from the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) plant towards the western boundary, which again was to exclude local industrial noise from the analysis as far as possible.

The correlation between background noise and wind speed is shown in Figure 9.3. A moderate correlation is evident, with background noise levels increasing from approximately 42 dB(A) LA90 at a wind speed of 5m/s to approximately 45 dB(A) LA90, at a wind speed of 10m/s. The background noise is made up of a distant traffic

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11





noise component, a purely wind noise component, and a low level distant industrial noise component of indeterminate origin.

Table 9.3 Summary of results from unattended Noise Survey

Location Date Time Measured Noise Levels, dB(A) Comment

LAeq LA90 LA50 LA10

Janssen Biologics (Ireland) Western Boundary

3/11/10 to 11/11/10

Day/evening 48 42 46 50 1hr measurement periods

Std. deviation 5 5 5 5

Night 43 36 40 46

Std. deviation 7 6 7 7

Instrumentation:

Svantek 955 fitted with 80mm foam windscreen, within CEL outer membrane windscreen, microphone at 1.2m above ground

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11




Figure 9.2 Plot of noise levels measured at western boundary of Janssen Biologics (Ireland)

Centocor boundary, west

3/11 to 11/11/10

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

11:0

0

18:0

0

01:0

0

08:0

0

15:0

0

22:0

0

05:0

0

12:0

0

19:0

0

02:0

0

09:0

0

16:0

0

23:0

0

06:0

0

13:0

0

20:0

0

03:0

0

10:0

0

17:0

0

00:0

0

07:0

0

14:0

0

21:0

0

04:0

0

11:0

0

18:0

0

01:0

0

08:0

0

15:0

0

dB

(A)

LAeq, 1hr

LA90, 1hr

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11




Figure 9.3 Janssen Biologics (Ireland) western boundary: scatter plot showing a

moderate linear correlation between background noise and wind speed.

Background noise measured from 3rd

to 11th November 2010 at the

western boundary of the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site. Wind data for

Roche‟s Point supplied by Met Eireann.

9.6 Predicted Noise Levels

9.6.1 Noise Propagation Model

It is proposed to install a wind turbine with a power rating of up to 3MW, with a hub height of up to 100 metres, and a rotor radius of approximately 50.5 metres. The final turbine model has not yet been selected. The proposed wind turbine location was positioned in a computer noise model, at the co-ordinates indicated in Table 9.4. Calculations in this report are based on data for an Enercon E-101, the noise emission data for which is presented in Table 9.4.

The predicted noise level is a function of the sound power emission from the turbines. The E-101 turbine has a maximum sound power output of 106 dB(A) LWA at a wind speed of 10m/s (measured at 10m height). It could reasonably be expected that other manufacturers‟ models of a similar power rating, representing best available technology, would have similar sound power emissions. The calculated noise levels at the nearest houses can be readily scaled up or down from the predicted values, if the sound power emission of the turbine selected deviates from the value use in the noise model.

y = 0.5898x + 39.175

R2 = 0.2607

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0

Wind Speed, m/s

LA

90

, d

B(A

)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11




Table 9.4 Details of location of wind turbine, and sound power emission used

in noise modelling

Site Turbine ID Easting Northing

Janssen Biologics (Ireland) Cen1 176490 64220

Sound Power Emissions for Enercon E-101, hub height 98m

Sound Power. LWA - 99.0 102.9 105.4 106.0 106.0 106.0 dB(A)

Windspeed, z= 10m 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 m/s

Windspeed, z= 98m 1 6 7 8 10 11 13 14 m/s

1 approximate value calculated from wind shear data in Garrad Hassan Report 104371/BR/01

9.6.2 Noise Propagation Factors

The computer noise model allows for the reduction of sound due to distance, and allows for ground absorption and atmospheric absorption. The lands in the region are acoustically sound absorbing, and a conservative sound absorption factor of 0.5 was assigned in the model, as recommended in the draft EPA guidance note.

Water bodies are acoustically reflecting, and an absorption factor of zero was assigned up to the high tide mark. Due to the elevation of the turbines above ground level, the screening effects of terrain and buildings are in general negligible, and this has not been allowed for in the noise calculation model.

The propagation of sound from a wind turbine is a function of meteorological conditions. The manufacturer‟s guaranteed sound power emissions are measured downwind of the turbine, and consequently represent downwind propagation. For receptors upwind of the wind turbine, the noise propagation is reduced, and at distances of 500m, may be 10 dB less than the downwind value. In analysing the results for specific upwind receptors a conservative upwind correction of 6 dB was applied. Under cross-wind conditions a reduction of 2dB can reasonably be expected, and this was accounted for in the analysis of results at specific receptors as appropriate.

The standard noise model carries out the noise calculations on the basis of downwind noise propagation. The model was initially run with receptors assumed to be simultaneously downwind of the wind turbines. This generates an overestimated noise contour map. The analysis was then refined for each noise sensitive receptor, with sound propagation corrections individually applied for wind direction, and analyzed in the four quadrants north, south, east, and west.

9.7 Predicted Wind Turbine Noise Levels

Indicative noise contour maps are presented in Figures 9.4 and 9.5. These are likely to represent an overestimate of noise levels, as all grid receptors are modelled as being simultaneously downwind. The mapped noise parameter is the wind turbine steady noise component (LA90). This can be directly compared with the 43 dB(A) LA90 EHLG nighttime guideline limit, which is the lowest applicable absolute noise limit.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11




Figure No.:

9.4


Calculated Wind Turbine

Noise Envelope (LA90 Values)

30 dB(A)

40 dB(A)

45dB(A)

50 dB(A)35 dB(A)

30 dB(A)

Calculated wind turbine noise contour map, LA90

values. Noise from Janssen Biologics (Ireland) wind turbine only, with downwind propagation assumed in all directions. Based on a sound power emission of 106 dB(A) LWA for an Enercon E-101, 100m hub height, wind speed 10m/s (at z=10m).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11




Figure No.:

9.5


Calculated Cumulative Wind

Turbine Noise Envelope (LA90

Values)

35 dB(A)

40 dB(A)

45 dB(A)

50dB(A)

Calculated cumulative wind turbine noise contour map, LA90

values. This map represents cumulative wind turbine noise from the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) wind turbine, and from the two wind turbines which are proposed for the Novartis site to the south. Downwind propagation assumed in all directions. Based on a sound power emission of 106 dB(A) LWA

for Enercon E-101, 100m hub height, wind speed 10m/s (at z=10m).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11




Figure 9.4 represents the noise from the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) wind turbine only. Figure 9.5 represents the cumulative wind turbine noise, which includes noise from the five other wind turbines which may be installed by other member companies of the CLHEG. The proposed two wind turbines at Novartis contribute to the cumulative noise, whereas the proposed wind turbines at DePuy and GSK make a negligible contribution.

The noise maps represent a situation where each grid receptor is simultaneously downwind of the wind turbines, which is not physically possible. A meteorologically accurate analysis for each of the key noise receptors is presented in Table 9.5. This table shows the calculated Janssen Biologics (Ireland) wind turbine noise level, along with the calculated cumulative wind turbine noise level at each receptor for northerly, southerly, easterly and westerly wind directions. Each wind direction analysed represents a 90 degree sector. A receptor is defined as downwind, upwind or crosswind, if the wind turbine is located in the corresponding 90 degree sector relative to the receptor. For each receptor, the wind direction representing maximum noise impact is indicated along with the identification of the wind turbines contributing to the cumulative noise.

The data in Table 9.5 represents the situation when the wind turbines are operating at 95% rating, with sound power emission of 106 dB(A) LWA, which corresponds to a wind speed of 10m/s. Predicted noise levels at the noise sensitive locations are also presented in Table 9.6 for wind speeds in the range 5 to 10m/s.

At the wind speed of 5m/s, the predicted noise levels are 7 dB lower than at 10m/s. At a wind speed of 6m/s the noise levels are 3 dB lower. At 8m/s the noise levels reach the maximum values, and remain unchanged up to 10m/s.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11




Table 9.5 Analysis of wind turbine noise level as a function of wind direction.

Based on a sound power emission of 106 dB(A) LWA for Enercon E-101,

100m hub height, wind speed 10m/s (at z=10m).

Key Noise Sensitive Locations

Janssen Biologics (Ireland) Wind Turbine Noise Component

1

LA90, dB(A)

Cumulative Wind Turbine Noise as Function of Wind Direction

3, LA90, dB(A)

Wind Turbines Contributing

2

North South East West Maximum

NSL1

Shanbally

33 34 34 36 30 E 36 Cen 1, Nov 1, Nov 2

NSL2

Shanbally South

35 37 36 38 32 E 38 Cen 1, Nov 1, Nov 2

NSL5

Ringaskiddy East of Janssen Biologics (Ireland)

29 34 35 33 36 W 36 Nov 1,Nov 2, Cen 1

1 receptors downwind

2 excluding those CLHEG turbines whose contribution is 10 dB or more lower than the calculated total

received noise level 3 wind direction in 90 degree sectors, i.e. N represents wind in sector from NW to NE

Table 9.6 Predicted cumulative wind turbine noise levels as a function of

windspeed (at z=10m). Based on a sound power emission curve for

Enercon E-101, 100m hub height


Cumulative Wind Turbine Noise as Function of Wind Speed, LA90, dB(A)

highest value, receptor downwind of nearest turbine

4m/s 5m/s 6m/s 7m/s 8m/s 9m/s 10m/s 1

NSL1

Shanbally

- 29 33 35 36 36 36

NSL2

Shanbally South

- 31 35 37 38 38 38

NSL5

Ringaskiddy East of Janssen Biologics (Ireland)

- 29 33 35 36 36 36

1 wind speed measured at z=10m

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11




9.8 Noise Impact Assessment

The noise impact is assessed at each noise sensitive location with regard to the EHLG guidelines, and the draft EPA guidance.

The assessment of impact is summarised in Table 9.7, and is discussed below.

9.8.1 Compliance with 43 dB(A) Nighttime Criterion

The nearest residential properties to the site are the noise sensitive locations NSL1, NSL2 and NSL5. The highest predicted noise levels at these locations due to the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) wind turbine are in the range 29 to 35 dB(A) LA90. The highest predicted cumulative wind turbine noise levels are in the range 36 to 38 dB(A) LA90, which are comfortably within the EHLG guideline nighttime noise limit of 43 dB(A) LA90.

9.8.2 Compliance with EPA Guideline Noise Limits

Current EPA guideline noise limits for noise sensitive locations are 55 dB(A) LAeq during daytime and 45 dB(A) LAeq during nighttime. In assessing compliance with these guidelines, the cumulative wind turbine noise is added to the existing industrial noise component to yield a cumulative wind turbine and industrial noise level.

Table 9.7 presents the calculated total industrial and wind turbine noise levels for noise sensitive locations in the vicinity of Janssen Biologics (Ireland). The analysis for the noise sensitive locations is confined to nighttime, as this is the period when the tightest noise limit applies.

The cumulative industrial and wind turbine noise at these locations are calculated to be in the range 40 to 41 dB(A) LAeq, and within the guideline nighttime noise limit for noise sensitive receptors.

Given the relatively low absolute levels predicted for the cumulative wind turbine noise, it is not possible for this additional noise to compromise compliance with the daytime noise limit of 55 dB(A) LAeq, nor to compromise any revised evening noise limit of 50 dB(A) LAeq, which is currently under consideration by the EPA.

9.8.3 Tonality, Impulsiveness and Amplitude Modulation

The potential intrusiveness and audibility of a sound depends on the level of the sound relative to background noise levels in the locality, and also on the nature of the sound, i.e. tonality, impulsiveness, modulation. If the sound from a wind turbine has these noticeable characteristics, a correction is applied to the calculated or measured noise levels. In addition, under EPA guidelines, tonal noise is not permitted at nighttime.

For modern wind turbines, tonal and impulsive noise is controlled to extremely low levels. For the Enercon E-101 turbine, which is indicative of the type proposed, the tonal audibility is guaranteed to be less than 2 dB over the operating range, in the vicinity of the turbine.

Amplitude modulation refers to a rhythmic character to the noise, which on occasions is audible at the rotation frequency of the turbine blade in the immediate

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:11




vicinity of individual wind turbines, or close to large wind farms. The noise sensitive locations in the vicinity of Janssen Biologics (Ireland) are in excess of 640m from the wind turbine. There is no potential for noticeable amplitude modulation effects.

9.8.4 Background Noise Considerations

The potential audibility of the wind turbine noise outdoors during daytime will depend on its level relative to the existing background noise. The noise output of the wind turbines increases with wind speed, and for the Enercon E-101, reaches a sound power output of 106 dB(A) LWA at a wind speed of 8m/s (z=10m, or approx 11m/s at z=100m hub height).

Based on the background noise versus wind speed correlation established at Janssen Biologics (Ireland), the background noise could be expected to be 43 dB(A) LA90.

The predicted cumulative wind turbine noise level at the noise sensitive locations range from 36 to 38 dB(A) LA90, which is significantly less than the background noise level. As the EHLG guidelines permit the wind turbine noise to exceed the background noise by up to 5 dB, it can be concluded that the proposed wind turbine will be comfortably within this guideline, and that the noise impact will be negligible.

It is recommended that the above conclusions be reviewed when the final wind turbine model is selected. The review should validate the assumptions regarding background noise made in the present assessment, taking due account of the sound power versus wind speed characteristics of the selected turbine.

Regarding noise conditions which may be imposed by the EPA, or local authorities, it is considered that Janssen Biologics (Ireland) will be able to operate within the existing EHLG and proposed EPA standard fixed limits, and will not have to apply for special limits relative to background noise. If the selected wind turbine does not exceed the sound power emissions assumed in this assessment, further detailed background noise surveys would therefore not be required.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




Table 9.7 Overview of noise impact assessment. Based on a sound power emission of 106 dB(A) LWA for an Enercon E-101, 98m hub

height, wind speed 10m/s (at z=10m)


Highest Janssen Biologics (Ireland) Wind Turbine Noise

1

LA90 dB(A)

Highest Cumulative Wind Turbine Noise

2

LA90 dB(A)

Compliance with EHLG 43 dB(A) Nighttime Criterion

Existing Industrial Noise, Nighttime

3

dB(A)

Wind Turbine and Existing Industrial Noise

LAeq 4 dB(A)

Compliance with Guideline EPA Noise Limits

NSL1, Shanbally 33 36 yes 36 40 yes

NSL2, Shanbally South

35 38 yes 36 41 yes

NSL5, Ringaskiddy to East of Janssen Biologics (Ireland)

29 36 yes 37 40 yes

1 Calculated noise from the single wind turbine at Janssen Biologics (Ireland), receptors downwind of the wind turbine

2 Sum of noise from Janssen Biologics (Ireland) wind turbine, and from two wind turbines at Novartis (contribution from DePuy (Ireland) and GSK is negligible)

3 This is the specific noise level, which is the component of the ambient noise that can be attributed to a specific industrial source. If there is no interfering noise, it is measured

using the LAeq parameter. If there is interfering noise, it is frequently best estimated using the measure LA90 parameter 4 2 dB is added to wind turbine LA90 noise, to give the LAeq, which is then added to the existing industrial noise

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




9.9 Construction Phase Noise

The construction works required for preparation of the foundations, hard standings, site roads, and erection of the turbines are relatively minor. Construction sites of this nature may have daily average total sound power emissions of 115 dB(A) LWA. The resulting noise levels at the nearest houses would be less than 40 dB(A) LAeq. For short duration construction projects, a noise limit of 70 dB(A) is typically applied, and in this context, the impact of the construction works will be negligible.

9.10 Wind Turbine Noise Mitigation

At this planning stage, the mitigation measures include selection of a wind turbine with low sound power emissions, and location of the wind turbine to ensure a distance in excess of 500m to the nearest noise sensitive location.

For the Enercon E-101 wind turbine, or other similar unit, the noise would be comfortably within guideline limits at the assessed key noise sensitive locations in the vicinity of Janssen Biologics (Ireland).

9.11 Residual Noise Impact

For a wind turbine with characteristics similar to the Enercon E-101, the residual noise impact is expected to comfortably within the EHLG limit values, and in compliance with draft EPA guidelines for cumulative industrial and wind turbine noise.

In terms of audible perceived noise, and taking account of the masking effects of background noise, the impact is expected to be negligible at the nearest noise sensitive locations to Janssen Biologics (Ireland).

No significant vibration impacts are predicted, arising from either the construction or operation of the proposed development.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




10 Air Quality and Climate

10.1 Introduction

In this chapter the likely impact of the proposed wind turbine on air quality and climate is described. Good-practice mitigation measures are proposed to avoid any significant dust or nuisance during the construction of the turbine, and the beneficial impacts on air quality and climate arising from reduced dependency on fossil fuels is considered.

10.2 Methodology

Janssen Biologics (Ireland) operates under an Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) licence, which includes conditions relating to emissions to air. The IPPC licence and Annual Environmental Report for Janssen Biologics (Ireland) were reviewed, and Environmental Protection Agency data on air quality was compiled.

Typical construction activities associated with the construction of a wind turbine were reviewed, with particular reference to potential impacts on air quality.

The potential beneficial impacts on air quality and climate of displacing power generated using fossil fuels were considered.

10.3 Existing Environment

Janssen Biologics (Ireland) is located on the Ringaskiddy peninsula, in a zone referred to by the Environmental Protection Agency as Zone D – Rural Ireland. Air quality is measured by monitoring the levels of various pollutants. This monitoring checks whether air quality meets standards that are considered adequate for the protection of human health and environment. The EPA reports that air quality in this zone is „Good‟, with reference to the parameters PM10, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and metals.

In addition, a detailed baseline survey of air quality was completed in the area between November 2006 and July 2008 (AWN, 2008). No exceedances of air quality limit values were recorded in this study.

Under the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and a subsequent European Union burden sharing agreement, Ireland is committed to limiting its increases in national emissions of named greenhouse gases. Energy use and production account for about 80% of EU emissions of greenhouse gases. The most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, and it is widely accepted that controlling and reducing the emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will reduce the risk of adverse climate change.

10.4 Predicted Impacts

10.4.1 Emissions to the Atmosphere

Electricity generation by wind turbines does not lead to emissions to air. The International Energy Agency (IEA 2009) records that wind power, along with

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




energy efficiency and fuel-switching will play a major role in reducing emissions associated with power generation in the next 10 to 20 years.

The wind turbine at Janssen Biologics (Ireland) will have the beneficial impact of generating power without the carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and sulphur dioxide emissions associated with fossil-fuel based power generation.

10.4.2 Interactions with Existing Air Emissions in Ringaskiddy

Introduction

When a wind turbine is located in close proximity to sources of air pollutants the wind turbine may impact on the dispersion of the pollutants and the pollutants may have an impact on the wind turbine. Point sources of air pollutants are likely to be much more common than area sources.

Interaction between a wind turbine and pollutants from point sources is limited to when the wind turbine is directly upwind or directly downwind of a point source.

Impact of Wind Turbines on Dispersion of Air Pollutants

Emissions to air from industrial sites are subject to strict controls, either through Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control licensing, or through emission limits imposed by local authorities. Dispersion of pollutants is calculated for worst-case scenarios, with little or no wind to assist dispersion. In such cases, a turbine will not be operational, and there will be no significant effects on the dispersion plumes.

In the condition that a wind turbine is operational, any pollutants will be dispersed more rapidly than in the worst-case, as sufficient wind will be blowing to power the turbine.

Because of the turbulence that they create in their immediate vicinity, a wind turbine located downwind of a point source of air pollutants would be expected to assist marginally in the dispersion of air pollutants. A wind turbine located upwind of a point source may result in increased turbulence at the point source, but this is unlikely to be significant in terms of air dispersion.

If a wind turbine creates a down draft, then dispersion of air pollutants could be adversely affected. However this is unlikely due to the relatively slender profile, and circular cross-section of the turbine mast, and hence wind turbines are not considered to have the potential to adversely affect the dispersion of air pollutants from point sources.

10.4.3 Construction Phase Impacts

The primary air quality issue associated with the construction of a wind turbine

and associated infrastructure would be short-term dust and exhaust emissions for

the construction phase. Dust emissions during the construction phase are likely to

result from the following activities:

site earthworks

handling of construction materials

wind-blow from temporary stockpiles

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




construction traffic movements

There is a potential short-term localised dust nuisance arising from these activities. No significant or longer term impacts are predicted.

Exhaust emissions will arise from vehicles accessing the site, in addition to plant and equipment operating on the site. The vehicular movements and plant operations will be short-term (up to six months). Because of the relatively low level of emissions and the short duration of the exposure, no significant impacts are predicted on air quality.

10.4.4 Embodied Carbon in Wind Turbines

The UK Parliament Select Committee on Science and Technology, Fourth Report, Appendix 8 (2004), includes an analysis of energy payback times for the manufacture and installation of wind turbines.

Process Wind (no storage or backup)

Terajoules per GW-year of electrical output

Materials (other than fuel) 581

Plant construction 242

Operation 517

Decommissioning 72

Land reclamation Negligible

Total 1,387

Energy Payback Period (yrs)

1.1

There is a direct equivalence between energy consumption and associated carbon dioxide emissions, so the embodied carbon associated with the manufacture, installation and operation of a wind turbine will be recovered within fourteen months of commencing operation.

10.4.5 Cumulative Impacts

Similar impacts on air quality and climate are predicted for the other Cork Lower Harbour Energy Group wind energy projects. No cumulative adverse impacts are predicted arising from the construction activities, due to the separation between the sites, and a long term cumulative beneficial impact is predicted both for air quality and climate at a global scale, arising from the consequent reduction in carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and sulphur dioxide. The cumulative reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will be approximately 22,000 tonnes per year.


Measures to reduce construction-phase impacts on ambient air quality are outlined below.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




Most machinery used on site will be powered by diesel engines. In order to control the emission of excessive exhaust fumes and smoke, the contractor will ensure that all items of plant and equipment are correctly adjusted and maintained.

A dust minimisation plan will be prepared and implemented by the contractor during the construction phase of the project and will include a number of mitigation measures which will be put in place to minimise any dust generation during construction. The mitigation measures will take into account best available techniques such as those outlined in the BRE/DTI document Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities (2003)

The following avoidance, remedial or reductive measures will be implemented as part of the dust minimisation plan:

Vehicle speeds will be limited within the construction site.

During very dry periods when dust generation is likely construction areas will be

sprayed with water.

Exhaust emissions from vehicles operating within the site, including trucks,

excavators, diesel generators or other plant equipment, will be controlled by the

contractor through regular servicing of machinery.

Where activities that may be a significant local source of fine particulate emissions

are taking place, measures such as screening will be used to control emissions and prevent a nuisance within the locality.

No mitigation measures are required for the operational phase, as no adverse impacts are predicted.


There will be minor emissions to the atmosphere during the construction phase. Containment and dust suppression techniques during construction will be sufficient to ensure that any off site impacts are negligible. Therefore, it is not envisaged that the turbines will have any significant adverse impacts on ambient air quality or climate. Long-term beneficial impacts are predicted relating both to air quality and climate.

10.6.1 Cumulative Residual Impacts

Long-term beneficial impacts are predicted relating both to air quality and climate.

10.7 References

AWN Consulting 2008 Air Quality Study (For Indaver Waste-to-Energy Facility, Ringaskiddy, EIS)

Building Research Establishment 2003 Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities BRE|DTI, United Kingdom

International Energy Agency 2009 World Energy Outlook 2009 Paris, France

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




11 Soils Geology Surface Water and Groundwater

11.1 Introduction

The impacts of the proposed Janssen Biologics (Ireland) wind turbine on soils, geology, surface water and groundwater are assessed in this chapter. The potential impacts the development will have on the existing environment, during both construction and operation, are considered. Mitigation measures to reduce the likely impacts are proposed where relevant.

11.2 Methodology

The existing environment of the site was analysed using data collected from a desk study. The information has been derived from a number of different sources, including:

Published geological and soil maps obtained from the Geological Survey of

Ireland (GSI)

Online geological, soils, and groundwater maps, obtained from the Geological

survey of Ireland (GSI) website (www.gsi.ie)

Geological Map of the Cork District (1988). University College Cork

Centocor Environmental Impact Statement (Project Management (PM) 2005)

Site Investigation Report for Industrial Development Authority (Arup

Consulting Engineers, 2001)

11.3 Existing Environment

11.3.1 Soils and Geology

11.3.1.1 Regional Geology

The geology of Cork Harbour is characterised by east-north-east to west-south-west trending ridges of Upper Devonian sandstone, silt – mudstones and valleys of carboniferous limestone, sand, mud - siltstones. The Devonian lithologies were deposited sediments on a continental landmass in a progressively deepening hollow called the Munster Basin. At the end of the Devonian period, tectonic activity resulted in a marine invasion of the basin, and marked the onset of the Carboniferous period. Shallow marine sandstones, mudstones and limestones replaced the former land-based sediments.

The Devonian and Carboniferous rocks were subjected to intense folding and faulting which began at the end of the Carboniferous period which is known as the Variscan Orogeny. This major phase of folding resulted in the creation of the prominent ridge and trough topography that exists in South Cork today. Regionally, the folds are cut by east-west trending strike slip faults parallel to the strike and north-north-west to south-south-east normal faults.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




11.3.1.2 Sites of Specific Geological Interest

The 2009 Cork County Development Plan and the Carrigaline Area Draft Local Area Plan 2010 identify areas of geological interest in the Cork County. No sites of geological interest are located within the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site.

Two sites, in the general Ringaskiddy area are shown in the following Table 11.1

Table 11.1 Sites of Specific Geological Interest

Site Geological Interest Location

Golden Rock Lower Carboniferous Ringaskiddy

Lough Beg Section Carboniferous coastal section, armour shore

Loughbeg, Currabinny

Cork County Development Plan 2009 (Volume 2, Page 88).

11.3.1.3 Site Specific Geology

The 1:100,000 scale Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) Sheet 25, Geology of

South Cork, indicates that the site is underlain by the Cuskinny member of the

Kinsale Formation, generally described as a mud dominant succession laid down

in early Carboniferous times. The Cuskinny Member is distinguished from the

other members of the Kinsale Formation by the higher proportion of sandstone

and sand-dominant layers.

The desk study indicates that the upper one to two metres of bedrock at the site is

very highly weathered.

11.3.1.4 Site Specific Soils

The desk study indicates the ground conditions at the location for the proposed wind turbine to be topsoil underlain by a stiff to very stiff silt sandy gravelly CLAY generally 0 to 2.1m in thickness.

Prior to detailed design and construction a site specific ground investigation will

be undertaken to determine the ground conditions underlying the wind turbine

(refer to Section 4.5.5 for further details).

11.4 Surface Water

There are no watercourses or drainage ditches within or adjacent to the site of the

proposed wind turbine.

The site lies on the Ringaskiddy Peninsula in the lower part of Cork Harbour, and is located to the south of Monkstown Creek. Cork Harbour is a natural harbour and Ireland's second largest port. It includes a number of large and small islands, the largest of which is Great Island where the town of Cobh is located. The main areas of Cork Harbour are the upper harbour which includes Lough Mahon and the outer Lee Estuary, and the lower harbour area. The waters of the lower harbour are well mixed with salinities typical of coastal marine waters.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




11.5 Groundwater

11.5.1 Regional and Local Groundwater

Information from the Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) Groundwater Protection Scheme indicates that the site of the proposed wind turbine is located in an area which has an aquifer classification of „Li‟, indicating that the site is underlain by a „locally important‟ bedrock aquifer, which is moderately productive only in local zones. The Groundwater Protection Zone within which the site falls is classed as „H‟, indicating that the aquifer is of high vulnerability‟. Refer to Table 11.2 below.

Table 11.1 Vulnerability Mapping Guidelines

Vulnerabilty Rating

Hydrogeological Conditions

Subsoil Permeability (Type) and Thickness Unsaturated Zone

Karst Features

High permeability (sand/gravel)

Moderate permeability (e.g. Sandy subsoil)

Low permeability (e.g. Clayey subsoil, clay, peat)

(Sand/gravel aquifers only)

(<30 m radius)

Extreme (E) 0 -3.0m 0 -3.0m 0 -3.0m 0 -3.0m -

High (H) >3.0m 3.0-10.0m 3.0-5.0m >3.0m N/A

Moderate (M) N/A >10.0m 5.0-10.0m N/A N/A

Low (L) N/A N/A >10.0m N/A N/A

Notes: (1) N/A = not applicable

(2) Precise permeability values cannot be given at present

(3) Release point of contaminants is assumed to be 1-2m below ground surface

Source: GSI website.

11.5.2 Site Specific Groundwater

The Centocor EIS, published by Project Management Limited (PM) in 2005,

states that the water table elevation “varies from 47.17m OD to 26.7m OD” across

the area of the existing development.

The 2001 Arup Consulting Engineers report of the site investigation undertaken

by Arup in 2001 at the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site and the lands to the west

states that during the site investigation groundwater was generally not observed in

the boreholes and trial pits. The report also states that there may be “a presence

of perched water tables across the site” as a desk study review of the earlier IDA

site investigation (1976) indicated localised water strikes in some of the fieldwork

located within the site.

The PM report states that “groundwater flow across the site is in a south easterly

direction, veering to a southerly direction along the southern boundary of the

site.”

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




The PM report also states that “Groundwater at the proposed Centocor site is

considered to be vulnerable to contamination due to the generally thin subsoil

cover, with the exception of the locally thick subsoils in the southwestern corner.

Where thicker subsoils are present bedrock aquifer vulnerability is likely to be

lower”.

According to the 2005 EIS, a total of nine groundwater monitoring wells were

installed at the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site during previous geotechnical

investigations at the site (five in 1997 by Dames and Moore (now URS), and four

in January 2005 by Irish Geotechnical Services Limited IGSL). Groundwater

samples were collected from eight of the monitoring wells in January 2005. A

summary of the results of the laboratory analysis of groundwater samples, given

in the 2005 EIS, is as follows:

“No DRO (diesel range organics), PCBs or phenols were detected above

method detection limits in any of the samples analysed.

Metals and major ions were all within normal ranges for Irish groundwater.

One PAH compound, naphthalene, marginally exceeded the IGV in

monitoring well 1. Naphthalene may occur naturally in organic-rich or peaty

soil, therefore its occurrence at low concentrations in groundwater is not

considered to be of environmental concern.

Levels of nitrate and phosphate were above the IGVs in all samples analysed.

The elevated nitrate and phosphate levels are considered symptomatic of

fertiliser application and agricultural use.

Potassium, manganese and chloride also exceeded their respective IGVs in

certain samples. However, the concentrations reported are considered to be

naturally occurring, given the coastal setting (chloride) and mudstone

bedrock (potassium, manganese), and are not considered to be of

environmental concern.”

11.6 Flooding

The Draft Carrigaline Area Local Area Plan 2010 Ringaskiddy map indicates areas zoned as „Susceptible to Flooding‟. The site of the proposed wind turbine does not lie within these zones.

11.7 Proposed Development

The proposed wind turbine is described in detail in Chapter 3 Site and Scheme Description. The construction phase of the turbine is detailed in Chapter 4 Construction Activities.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




11.8 Potential Impacts

11.8.1 Construction Phase

The following are potential impacts on soils, geology and groundwater, which could occur during the construction phase:

Permanent removal of soil offsite - Excavation works below the existing ground level will be required during the construction of the facility (refer to Section 4.5.5). Excavation of the foundation of the turbine will involve excavation of approximately 1300m

3 of spoil, of which 50% may be reused to

backfill over the lower pad. The remaining subsoil will be re-used on site. Soil removal has the potential to cause infiltration of surface water run-off to the underlying “locally important” aquifer.

Groundwater and soils have the potential to become polluted by spillages

during construction.

Soils have the potential to be compacted by plant and machinery during

construction.

No potential impacts on surface water are anticipated.

11.8.2 Operational Phase

During operation, the crane pad will remain in situ to facilitate any future maintenance of the proposed turbine. No potential impacts on soils, geology, surface water or groundwater, during the operational phase of the proposed development, are envisaged.


11.9.1 Construction Phase

The employment of good construction management practices will minimise the risk of pollution of soil, storm water run-off or groundwater. Construction phase mitigation measures are described in Chapter 4 Construction Activities Section 4.10.1.


With the employment of the mitigation measures above, it is considered that

overall there will be no significant impacts on soils, geology, surface water and

groundwater as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed

development.

11.11 Cumulative Impacts

It is anticipated that there will be no significant, cumulative adverse impacts on soils, geology, surface water and groundwater.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




11.12 References

Geological Survey of Ireland (1999) 1:100,000 Bedrock Geology Sheet No. 25 Geology of South Cork GSI, Dublin

Geological Survey of Ireland website www.gsi.ie

University College Cork (1988) Geological Map of the Cork District University College Cork, Cork University College Cork, Cork

Project Management (PM) (2005) Centocor Environmental Impact Statement

Arup Consulting Engineers (2001) Site Investigation Report for Industrial

Development Authority

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12

http://www.gsi.ie/




12 Material Assets

12.1 Introduction

This chapter evaluates the impacts, if any, which the proposed Janssen Biologics (Ireland) wind energy development will have on material assets during both the construction and operation phases. Mitigation measures are proposed, where appropriate.

Material assets are defined in the EPA Advice notes on Current practice in the preparation of EIS, 2003 as „resources that are valued and that are intrinsic to specific places, they may be either human or natural origin and the value may arise for either economic or cultural reasons‟.

This chapter addresses the following aspects:

Telecommunication Services, television broadcasting and civil aviation,

Land Use and Ownership

Infrastructure and Utilities

Natural Resources

Waste Management

12.2 Methodology

A desk study was carried out on the existing material assets associated with the site of the proposed development. Projections of resource use were made, for both the construction and operational phases of the development, and the impact assessed.

Where relevant, impacts on particular material assets such as the road network, and construction waste disposal facilities are considered in detail elsewhere in this EIS. Refer to Chapters 4 Construction Activities for further assessment of the impact of the proposed development on these assets. Cultural heritage is dealt with in Chapter 13 Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage. Refer to Chapter 3 Site and Project Description of this EIS for a detailed description of the site and surrounding areas.

12.3 Telecommunication Services, Television Broadcasting and Civil Aviation

Television broadcasting, communication networks, and systems associated with civil aviation have the potential to be affected by wind turbines. During the preparation of this EIS, the relevant bodies in relation to these were consulted. The full list of consultees is shown in Section 1.8 of Chapter 1.

12.3.1 Television and Telecommunications Broadcasting

In the consultation process with the television broadcasters, no likely interference issues were identified by any of the main service providers. Analogue television

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




broadcasting is scheduled to be switched off in 2012, on the completion of the digital terrestrial television network. In general, digital terrestrial television is less susceptible to interference from wind turbines than analogue broadcasts.

12.3.2 Civil Aviation

The Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) has been consulted in relation to the proposed scheme. They identified the potential for effects on their radar installation at Tulligmore Hill, south of Cork Airport. In response to these concerns, an Aviation Impact Assessment was completed. Refer to Appendix 2.1. The IAA is currently commissioning a radar installation which is similar to that at Tulligmore Hill. This new radar installation is located near Shannon Airport, and it will incorporate mitigation measures similar to those proposed in the Aviation Impact Assessment for this project. The IAA has advised that the outcome of this commissioning will help to inform their assessment of the proposed development.

12.4 Land Use and Ownership

12.4.1 Local Settlement

The proposed facility will be located within the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site which is zoned „Built Environment‟ in the Draft Carrigaline Area Local Area Plan 2010.

Undeveloped adjacent land is zoned „Industry‟. The proposed development will

be in keeping with this zoning, and will be located at the edge of the old

construction site car park.

The overall impact on local settlement and undeveloped land resource is

considered to be neutral.

12.4.2 Potential Impact on Property Values

In 2003, Sustainable Energy Ireland commissioned a catchment area survey focused on people living with a wind farm in their locality, or in areas where wind farms are planned. The results were published in the SEI publication Attitudes Towards the Development of Wind Farms in Ireland.

In relation to impacts on local property values, the percentage of respondents in agreement („agree strongly‟ or „agree slightly‟) with the following statement „the wind farm has damaged (will damage) the value of my property‟ was as follows:

For existing wind farms, 12% agreed. For planned wind farms 8% agreed.

For 88% of respondents living in the vicinity of a wind farm, no adverse impact on property values was noted.

For wind turbines in an existing local industrial context, it is not envisaged that there will be significant impacts on local property values.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




12.5 Infrastructure and Utilities

12.5.1 Road Infrastructure, Access and Traffic

The impacts of the construction phase on traffic and the road infrastructure are addressed in Chapter 4 Construction Activities. There will be no significant impact on the road infrastructure and traffic as a result of the construction phase of the proposed wind turbine.

The operation of the wind turbine will have no impact on the road infrastructure or on traffic.

12.5.2 Electricity Supply

Janssen Biologics (Ireland) is fed from the nearby Barnahely110 kV ESB

substation, located to the south of the N28 National Route near Ringaskiddy and

adjacent to the southwest corner of the site.

The operation of the wind turbine will reduce the consumption of mains electricity

on the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site. At certain stages, surplus power will also

be exported to the grid. No significant impact on existing power infrastructure is

envisaged.

12.5.3 Water Supply and Usage

Janssen Biologics (Ireland)‟s potable water supply is provided by Cork County

Council‟s 1,200mm diameter Cork Harbour trunk water main which runs along

the R613 immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site.

During the construction phase of the project, water will be required for consumption by the construction personnel, for general construction works. The volume of water required during construction will not be significant, and will be supplied by a connection to the existing site watermain.

There will not be a significant impact on the Cork County Council water supply,

as a result of the construction of the proposed development.

No water will be required for the operational phase of the wind turbine.

12.6 Landfill Space

No significant off-site disposal of waste is predicted, and therefore no significant

impacts on landfill space are predicted.

12.7 Natural Resources

There are no known mineral resources located within the site boundary. In so far as possible, construction materials will be from local sources and all imported material that will be used on site will be from approved sources. Further details regarding the construction of the development are outlined in Chapter 5 Construction Activities.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




12.8 Waste Management

The only waste that is predicted to be generated during operation will be waste oil, which will arise in routine maintenance. This will be managed, recovered or disposed-of in accordance with the relevant waste legislation. Construction waste management is addressed in Chapter 4 Construction Activities.


It is anticipated that there will be no significant, cumulative adverse impacts on material assets.

12.10 References

Cork County Council (2010) Draft Carrigaline Area Local Area Plan 2010

Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements) EPA, Wexford

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




13 Archaeology, Architectural and Cultural Heritage

13.1 Introduction

An assessment of the impact of a wind turbine at the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) plant, Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork on archaeology, architecture and cultural heritage was undertaken by Lane Purcell Archaeology, Consultant Archaeologists, at the request of Arup Consulting Engineers.

This turbine is part of a wind energy project in the Lower Cork Harbour area comprising the proposed erection of wind turbines at four existing industrial facilities in the harbour. This EIS deals with a proposed turbine (CEN1) at Janssen Biologics (Ireland) (Figures 13.1 and 13.2), Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork. The proposed turbine site is currently brown field, situated within the complex.

This report comprises an archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage assessment of the land intended for development. The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the potential impact that the proposed turbines would have on the cultural heritage of the land intended for the development and on the surrounding area.

There are no recorded archaeological sites listed in the Record of Monuments and Places for Co. Cork (RMP) on the turbine location (Figure 13.3) or along the route of the proposed access road, nor are there any within the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) complex. The presence of fifty five archaeological monuments within a 2km radius of the proposed development site, however, reflects the archaeological background of the area surrounding the proposed development site and the archaeological potential of the proposed development site itself.

This assessment was carried out in accordance with the most recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines as published in 2002/3.

Some 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 approximately 2km of the proposed development site (but taking due note of the Cork Harbour area) was chosen.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




Figure No.:

13.1


General Location

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




Figure No.:

13.2


Turbine Location

CEN 1Shanbally

Ringaskiddy

Rafeen

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




Figure No.:

13.3


RMP Map (Superimposed on

1934 OS Map)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




Figure No.:

13.4


1842 OS Map

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




Figure No.:

13.5


Down Survey Map

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




Figure No.:

13.6


1902 25 inch OS Map

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




Figure No.:

13.7


Candell’s Map

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




Figure No.:

13.8

Not to Scale

Plates 1 and 2 (Turbine

Location Photographs)

Plate 1: Proposed site of turbine from east Plate 2: proposed site of turbine from south

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




13.2 Assessment Methodology

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.

This archaeological assessment is based on a desktop appraisal of the study area and a field inspection of the area proposed for the construction of the turbines. The desktop study examined the archaeological record and historical background for the area within a 2km radius of the proposed development site. It also took into account the location of the site in relation to Cork harbour (Figure 13.3). A field inspection was carried out on the 3rd of November 2010.

The desktop study included the following components:

Record of Monuments and Places (RMP) - This record was compiled in accordance with The National Monuments Act 1994 and provides a list of all known archaeological monuments and places of archaeological interest, with an accompanying set of constraint maps. The RMP is an update of the Sites and Monuments Record (SMR), compiled by the Office of Public Works (OPW), now the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG), which comprised a list of all known archaeological sites and monuments in the county and their location and which also listed possible archaeological sites known to occur in an area but with no exact location. Unlocated sites are not included in the RMP, but descriptions are sometimes included in the Archaeological Inventory of County Cork. It is an offence to interfere with any of the sites or monuments listed in the RMP without first giving two months notice in writing to the National Monuments Service of the DoEHLG.

Archaeological Inventory of County Cork – Volumes II & V – The inventories for each county are follow-ons by Dúchas, to the SMRs and RMPs. They give a written description of each archaeological site (located or unlocated) in the county. County Cork, Volume II was published in 1994 and Volume V was published in 2009. Details of published sites within the study area are given in Appendix 13.1.

Sites and Monuments Database - The website of the National Monuments Service (NMS) at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG) at www.archaeology.ie, provides an updated list of new archaeological sites, discovered since the publication of the RMP. These are given

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12

http://www.archaeology.ie/




in Appendix 13.2. There are no new sites located within the area of the proposed wind turbine.

NIAH Architectural Inventory of North Cork - The work of the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) involves identifying and recording the architectural heritage of Ireland, from 1700 to the present day, in a systematic and consistent manner. It is divided into two parts; The Building Survey and Historic Garden Survey. The main function of both is to provide a source of guidance for the selection of architectural heritage for protection and to supply data to local authorities, which helps them to make informed judgments on the significance of building stock in their functional area. The Building Survey for this part of Co. Cork is not published, whilst the Historic Garden Survey is available on line. Information on relevant gardens is given in Appendix 13.3.

The County Development Plan for County Cork, 2009 – The County Development Plan provides a mechanism for the protection of buildings and structures, which are considered to be of architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical importance in County Cork. These are listed in a Record of Protected Structures (RPS)

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. There were no finds listed for the townlands within the study area.

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 2007. The excavations are also published in book format up to 2007. A brief summary of excavations undertaken within the study area is given in Appendix 13.4. Several of the more recent sites were identified during archaeological investigations. None of these sites are located within the area of the proposed development site.

A Guide to Irish Country Houses by Mark Bence-Jones, 1988 – In this book Mark Bence-Jones lists and describes every Irish country house of which he knows. Information on relevant houses in the study area is given in Appendix 13.5.

Consultation with various agencies and individuals –Consultation with the Development Applications Unit of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and with Mona Hallinan, Conservation Officer, and Mary Sleeman, Archaeologist, both at the Heritage Unit, Cork County Council took place.

Guidelines - A set of guidelines summarising the „Archaeological Measures to be addressed in Environmental Impact Assessments‟, issued by the NMS was addressed during the preparation of this report. Mitigation measures considered appropriate to the proposed development have been incorporated in the mitigation section of the report.

Documentary Sources - all available literary sources were consulted. These include local histories and relevant journals. The local history sections of the Cork County Library and the Cork City Library were consulted for relevant material on the study area.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




Cartographic Sources - The Down Survey Parish and Barony maps (1654-1659) and Candell‟s map of Cork (1587) were consulted. The Taylor and Skinner (1778) Map of the roads of Ireland do not extend as far as the study area. The first (1842), second (1902) and third (1935) editions of the Ordnance Survey six-inch maps were consulted. Aerial photographs of the area of the proposed development site were examined. These included photographs taken in 2000 and 2005 (www.corkcoco.ie).

13.3 Field Inspection

A field inspection of the site proposed for the construction of a wind turbine at Janssen Biologics (Ireland) at Barnahely was carried out on the 3rd of November 2010 in dull and misty conditions. The primary purpose of field inspection is to assess the physical environment in which the proposed development will take place in order to identify any features of cultural heritage significance, which have not been previously recorded.

13.4 Assessment of the Data

The findings of the desktop survey and field inspections have been amalgamated to provide as comprehensive a survey of the study area as possible. This information was used to assess the predicted impact the proposed development would have on the receiving archaeological and cultural heritage environment.

13.5 Cultural Heritage and the Proposed Development

There are no recorded archaeological monuments listed in the RMP on the proposed turbine site. There are fifty five archaeological sites within 2km of the site, which are listed in the RMP (Figure 13.3).

Construction work associated with the proposed wind turbine will involve ground disturbance and the removal of the existing material on the site which has been introduced since the construction of the facility. An area of approximately 100m by 100m will be cleared to facilitate a pad for the turbine, a work area and a hard standing for a crane. Excavation in the order of 4m below present ground level will be undertaken depending on subsurface conditions.

An access road to the turbine site already exists and no other will be required. Some underground power lines will be excavated running from the turbine to the nearby substation and drains will be connected to the nearest existing drains.

The turbine will stand to a height of 100m to the hub and the radius of the rotor will be approximately 50.5m.

The proposed development work will be confined to this previously disturbed area and it is unlikely, therefore, that this work will compromise potential cultural heritage features below ground level given the scale and volume of disturbance that has taken place here in the past (Figure 13.2). Although construction of the entire proposed development area in the past has impacted ground levels, potential cultural heritage features below ground level may remain. In the event of an archaeological find being discovered, appropriate mitigation measures have been recommended.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




Table 13.1 List of the recorded archaeological sites located within a 2km radius of the proposed development area.

RMP Townland Site type

CO087-019--- Ballyfouloo Ringfort

CO087-020--- Ballyfouloo Possible Ringfort

CO087-021--- Parkgarriff Possible Ringfort

CO087-024--- Parkgarriff Possible Ringfort

CO087-025--- Ballyfouloo Ritual Site/Holy well

CO087-026--- Monkstown (Castle Farm) Lime Kiln

CO087-027--- Monkstown (Castle Farm) Abbey

CO087-028--- Monkstown (Castle Farm) Fortified House

CO087-02901- Monkstown (Castle Farm) Graveyard

CO087-02902- Monkstown (Castle Farm) Church

CO087-038--- Shanbally Lime Kiln

CO087-039--- Shanbally Ringfort

CO087-040--- Shanbally Enclosure

CO087-041--- Shanbally Enclosure

CO087-04201- Coolmore Building

CO087-04202- Coolmore Icehouse

CO087-043--- Coolmore Country House

CO087-044--- Coolmore Possible souterrain

CO087-045--- Coolmore Standing stone

CO087-046 Raheens Ringfort

CO087-047--- Raheens Ringfort

CO087-048--- Barnahely Ringfort

CO087-049--- Ballybricken Possible church

CO087-05002- Barnahely Gate lodge

CO087-05101- Barnahely Graveyard

CO087-05102- Barnahely Church

CO087-05201 Barnahely Tower house

CO087-05202- Barnahely Design landscape

CO087-05203- Barnahely Bawn

CO087-053--- Ringaskiddy Martello tower

CO087-060--- Barnahely One-storey vernacular house

CO087-061--- Ballintaggart Possible early ecclesiastical enclosure

CO087-064--- Coolmore Redundant Record

CO087-06801- Ballybricken Ringfort

CO087-06802- Ballybricken Possible souterrain

CO087-095--- Coolmore Enclosure

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




RMP Townland Site type

CO087-096--- Raheens Standing Stone

CO087-101--- Coolmore Enclosure Possible

CO087-102--- Raheens Souterrain



CO087-106--- Barnahely Enclosure

CO087-111--- Barnahely Country House

CO087-112--- Ringaskiddy Sheela-na-gig

CO087-119--- Shanbally Souterrain

CO087-120--- Barnahely Midden

CO087-131--- Ringacoltig House

CO087-132--- Barnahely Burnt pit

CO087-143--- Barnahely Settlement cluster

CO087-145--- Barnahely Burnt spread

CO087-146--- Barnahely Corn drying kiln

CO087-147--- Barnahely Misc. Excavation

CO087-148--- Barnahely Pit

CO087-155--- Barnahely Settlement cluster

CO087-156--- Barnahely Possible corn drying kiln

13.6 Cultural Heritage and the Existing Environment

The proposed development site is located circa 15km to the southeast of Cork city in the townland of Barnahely in the lower part of Cork harbour (Figure 13.1). The townland is in the Parish of Barnahely and the Barony of Kerrycurrihy. Lewis (Cadogan, 1998, 55) describes the parish of Barnahely as having once been part of the possessions of Gill abbey. The proposed turbine site lies in a disused carpark which was used during the construction phase of the facility between 2005 and 2007. Lewis (ibid.) refers to a „Danish fort in good preservation on the lands of Prospect Villa‟. Prospect Villa (CO087-111), now demolished, was located circa 1km to the east of the proposed development site and some of its demesne (along with that of Ballybricken House (CO087-049)) is included within the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) land holding. The 1842 OS map does not show a ringfort in the demesne of Prospect Villa, however, it does show a tree ring (now removed) in the grounds. It was not unusual at that time, for a landowner to plant a ringfort as an embellishment to his demesne so, therefore, it is possible that the tree ring was in fact a planted ringfort. Alternatively there is a ringfort (CO087-048---) circa 30m south of the southern edge of the demesne and this may also be the ringfort.

The nearest extant settlement to the proposed development site is the village of Ringaskiddy, located circa 1.4km to the east of the proposed turbine location. According to Lewis (Cadogan, 1998, 56), the village was resorted to in summer for „sea-bathing‟.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




An archaeological and historical overview of the study area provides evidence for human activity, both secular and ritual, dating from the Bronze Age to modern times.

The archaeological timescale can be divided into the following;

Prehistoric Period: Mesolithic (circa 7000 to 4000BC) – Neolithic (circa 4000 to 2000BC) – Bronze Age (circa 2000 to 600BC) – Iron Age (circa 500BC to 500AD). Early Christian Period: (circa 500 to 1100 AD). Medieval Period (1100AD to 1650). Post Medieval Period (circa 1650 – Present).

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 such as agriculture, industry, housing developments and infrastructural improvements. This has ensured that the present day archaeological landscape is not fully representative of the human occupation of this island, which has spanned circa nine thousand years. Archaeological sites survive today as upstanding structures, earthwork monuments or subsurface remains.

There are no recorded archaeological monuments listed in the RMP on the proposed turbine site. There are three sites listed in the RMP within 500m of the site. These are a ringfort (CO087-048---) to the southeast, an excavated ringfort (CO087-47) to the south and an enclosure (CO087-106) to the northwest. In recent times a fulacht fia (CO087-145), a corn drying kiln (CO087-146) and a possible corn drying kiln (CO087-156) were identified close to the ringfort. There are fifty five archaeological sites and monuments listed in the Archaeological Inventory for County Cork within the 2km study area (Figure 13.3). Full descriptions of most of these sites are given in Appendices 13.1 and 13.2.

Prehistoric Period

Although the Prehistoric Period is not well represented within the study area, the broader area beyond it contains a large selection of sites dating to this period. The location of the proposed development site, over 2km west of the western side of Cork Harbour is a contributing factor to the potential archaeology of the site. There are several sites, including a cairn, standing stones, shell middens, fulachtai fia, pits and a settlement cluster on this side of the harbour and within 3-4km of the proposed turbine site (outside the study area), a number of which were located during recent archaeological investigations.

Shell middens are mounds or spreads of discarded shells, usually found along the coastline. Many date to the Mesolithic but the Cork harbour middens are generally thought to be much later and medieval dates have been recorded for some of the middens around the harbour. At a distance of circa 900m to the southeast, in Barnahely townland, a shell midden (CO087-120---) was identified (but not excavated) during monitoring in 2004 (Cleary 2005). There are two others to the southeast just outside the study area, in Ringaskiddy (CO087-054---) and Curraghbinny (CO087-055---).

Standing stones are a common feature of the Irish countryside and had varied functions, from prehistoric burial markers to boundary markers along ancient routeways. They are generally thought to be of Bronze Age date, but may also be later. There is one standing stone within the study area, in Coolmore townland (CO087-045---) circa 1.1km to the south. According to local information, there

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




were two standing stones at Raheens (CO087-096---), however, their exact locations are not known.

Fulachtai fia are the most common prehistoric site type in the country and have been interpreted as cooking places, typically Bronze Age in date. They are recognisable as horseshoe–shaped mounds of heat–shattered stones, often located near a stream or in waterlogged areas. Water in a stone or wood–lined trough was brought to the boil by immersing hot stones in it. The stones were heated in a nearby fire and shattered on impact with the cold water in the trough. After each cooking session the stones were removed from the trough and thrown to the side, finally forming the characteristic mound of stones. Regular ploughing of the mound often reduces it to a spread of heat–shattered stones in the field. It has been suggested that the hot water in the trough was used for cooking or may have also been used to provide steam for a sweat house. A fulacht fiadh (CO087-145---) was identified during archaeological testing circa 500m to the southeast in 2004 (Cummins, 2004). It has not been archaeologically resolved and remains in the same condition. There is one unlocated fulacht fiadh (CO099-074---) in Coolmore townland to the south. Two pits (CO087-132--- (O‟Donovan, 2004), CO087-148--- (Hanley, 2004)) and a series of interlocking enclosures (CO087-155--- (Rossaveare and Rossaveare, 2004)), thought to be of Bronze Age date, were exposed during separate archaeological investigations in Barnahely townland to the southeast of the proposed development site.

Early Medieval Period

There are a number of archaeological monuments, dating to the Early Medieval period within the study area. Christianity was introduced into Ireland during the 5th century, becoming widely established during the second half of the sixth century. Archaeological excavation has ascertained that ringforts were enclosed farmsteads, used in Early Christian times (Stout, 1997, 32). These monuments are often referred to as ráth or lios. Ringforts 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. Several ringforts have been recorded in the study area and some of these have associated souterrains. Excavation of the two ringforts (CO087-046---; CO087-047---) in Raheens (on the Novartis site) circa 690m and 600m to the south respectively, produced abundant evidence to substantiate all theories regarding their nature and purpose. Three souterrains (CO087-102---; CO087-103---; CO087-104---) and 11 houses were exposed during the excavations in 1989 in one of the ringforts (CO087-046---) (Power, 1994, 157-158; Lennon, 1993 and 1994). There is an upstanding ringfort in Barnahely townland (CO087-048---) circa 510m to the southeast. During recent investigations in the area around the ringfort a fulacht fia (CO087-145---), a corn drying kiln (CO087-146---) and a possible corn-drying kiln (CO087-156---) were found. The kiln appeared to be keyhole in shape and this type of kiln dates from the Early Medieval Period onward. These remain in situ and unexcavated. There are two other ringforts in the study area at Ballyfouloo (CO087-019---) just over 2km to the west and at Shanbally (CO087-039---) circa 1.16km to the west There is an unlocated ringfort (CO087-06801-) and possible souterrain (CO087-06802-) recorded in Ballybricken townland to the east of the proposed development site. A possible collapsed souterrain (CO087-044---) was noted in ploughed soil in Coolmore townland to the south. A total of

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




three sites in the study area have been classified as Possible Ringforts. In Ballyfouloo (CO087-020---), just over 2km to the north, there is a local tradition of a ringfort, although there is little surface trace of the site. In Parkgarriff, the site of one of the possible ringforts (CO087-024---) is now occupied by a bungalow, while the other (CO087-021---) site is only evident as a slightly raised area. Possible ringforts are so-called because at the time of their classification there was some item of information not available to confidently call it a ringfort. In all likelihood these sites are/were, in the main, ringforts.

There are five circular enclosures listed in the study area, four circular of which have been identified in aerial photographs. The enclosure at Shanbally (CO087-040---) lies circa 1.2km to the southwest. Only an arc of an earthen bank survives. Approximately 500m to the northwest of the proposed turbine site a bivallate enclosure (CO087-106---) was noted. There is no visible surface trace of this site. It lies at the northwest corner of the Centecor land which is currently in agricultural use. An enclosure at Shanbally (CO087-041---), circa 1.11km to the southwest, presents as a levelled circular enclosure on an aerial photo but nothing is evident at ground level. There are two possible circular enclosures identified in aerial photographs (CO087-095--- and CO087-101---) in Coolmore townland circa 1.4km to the south of the proposed development site. One site (CO087-095---) was identified as a shadow site on a photograph and the other (CO087-101---) is defined by a low bank with narrow external and internal fosses. Short fragments of a low bank to the west and south-west of the enclosure seem to indicate small and irregular fields. 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.

There are several church or possible church sites within the study area. An early ecclesiastical enclosure (CO087-061---) may have stood in Ballintaggart townland, 600m to the northeast, on the site of the Pfizer pharmaceutical plant. The remaining sites may have Early Christian origins but documentary and upstanding remains suggest later dates. There is some documentary evidence for the presence of a church (CO087-049---) in Ballybricken townland circa 680m to the northeast of the turbine site. This area is now occupied by the Pfizer pharmaceutical facility. The graveyard at Barnahely, (CO087-05101-) circa 900m southeast of the proposed development site, encloses the site of the former parish church of Barnahely (CO087-05102-) of which there is now no visible trace. Documentary sources describe the church in ruins in 1700 (Power, 1994, 259). A holy well (CO087-025---) at Ballyfouloo named „Tobernadihy‟, circa 1.75km to the northwest, may date to as early as the Early Medieval/Christian period. The practise of visiting these wells can go back this far. Unfortunately, in more recent times this practise is dying out and many of the wells have been abandoned and can no longer be found. The well at Ballyfouloo is one of these.

High Medieval Period

There are four recorded sites dating to the High Medieval Period within the study area. According to Gwynn and Hadcock (1988, 107), there was a small Benedictine Abbey (CO087-027---) in Monkstown in 1204. Its exact location is in doubt although the OS marks it in the grounds of Monkstown Castle (CO087-028---). The remains of a tower house and part of a bawn wall (CO087-05201-,

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




CO087-05203-) are all that remain of a castle reputedly built in 1536 by Richard de Cogan in Barnahely townland circa 950m southeast of the proposed turbine location. The site is listed in the Record of Protected Structures in the Cork County Development Plan, 2009 as RPS NO. 01260. A two-storey gable-ended structure was added in the 16

th/17

th century. Castle Warren house, constructed in

1796, stands on the same site. There is an unlocated castle in Shanbally townland (CO087-128---) circa 1.4km to the west of the proposed development site. According to Healy (1988, 114), there is a local tradition of a castle in the townland and its existence is tenuous. A castle is shown in Coolmore on the Down Survey map (Figure 5). The castle is not listed in the RMP but, according to the archaeological survey (Power et al 1992, 319), the remains are visible in the front lawn of Coolmore House (CO087-043---) on a dry day. Tower houses generally date to the 15

th/16

th century and were built as residences by both Gaelic

and Old English families. They are not castles in the military sense but maintain many of the defensive features typical of castles such as battlements and narrow slit windows. At the end of the 16

th century fortified houses replaced tower

houses with fewer defensive features, these houses provided more comfort. They were built by both landed families and merchant families. At Monkstown the fortified house (CO087-028---) was built by the Archdeacons, a Cork merchant family. It has been abandoned and inhabited on a number of occasions over the centuries and is currently undergoing a refurbishment. The Down Survey map (1654-59) also indicates a small house at Ringacoltig (CO087-131---), circa 2km to the northeast, although its exact location cannot be pinpointed.

A sheela-na-gig (CO087-112---) has been recorded in Ringaskiddy townland. Sheela-na-gigs were medieval stone carvings of naked female figures exposing their genitalia and were probably for warding off evil. They are often found built into the walls of castles and churches. The Ringaskiddy stone is in Cork Public Museum.

The ruined church at Monkstown (Castle Farm) (CO087-02902-) is late medieval in date (Power et al 1994, 253). It was beginning to decay in 1700. The graveyard (CO087-02901) around the church was the burial place of the Archdeacons of Monkstwon Castle (CO087-028---).

Post Medieval Period

There are several sites dating to the Post Medieval Period within the study area. These include one structure associated with the defence of Cork harbour, the site of a possible 17

th century settlement, country houses and associated structures, a

lime kiln and a vernacular house.

Cork Harbour lies just outside the 2km study area to the east and a brief overview of its defences is not amiss when considering the archaeological potential of the proposed turbine sites. (Sites mentioned below, outside the 2km study area, are not listed in Table 1) Although, there is no evidence at present for Viking or Anglo-Norman settlement around the harbour, it is quite likely that it is present. According to Fitzgerald (1992, 123), Spike and Haulbowline Islands (both circa 2.5m east of the proposed turbine site) were renowned refuges for pirates in former times. Spike Island was especially noted for smuggling as at high water small vessels could land there unseen by the officers of Cork.

The entrance to Cork Harbour is narrow and, therefore, relatively easy to defend. Early maps show that there were defensive fortifications on the east side of the

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




harbour entrance at Carlislefort in 1571 and directly opposite this, on the west side of the harbour, at Crosshaven Hill circa 1690 (Power 1994, 288-9). During the Post Medieval period (17th – 19th century) the harbour became more heavily defended with a large number of military fortifications being constructed, which still stand today. Earlier fortifications at Carlislefort were replaced by Carlisle Fort (CO087-058---) in 1798 and this in turn was renamed Dún an Dáibhisigh or Davis Fort when it was handed over to the Irish Government in 1938. Across the harbour from Carlisle Fort the fortifications at Crosshaven Hill were replaced by Camden Fort (CO099-024---) circa 1798.

According to Lewis (ibid., 290), the excavations undertaken during the construction of this new fort are said to have destroyed „a nearly perfect tumulus‟. Camden Fort was likewise handed over to the Irish Government in 1938 and renamed Dún Uí Mheachair or Fort Meagher. It is no longer in use.

Closer to the proposed development site, star-shaped forts were built on Haulbowline Island (CO087-05903-) and on Spike Island (CO087-06503-). Star-shaped forts in Ireland date to the 17th century and were designed as a defence against an artillery attack with angled bastions at the corners to provide flanking fire and sloping earthen embankments or glacis to absorb artillery fire (ibid, 287). At this time also, between 1808 and 1818, a magazine (CO087-105---) was built on Rocky Island, to the south of Haulbowline, for use as a store for gunpowder for the naval base on the Island. The magazine on Rocky Island has been conserved and is now in use as a crematorium. An excavation carried out during the course of conservation works in 2006 recovered the some disarticulate human remains (Purcell, 2007).

There are five Martello towers in Cork Harbour, one of which is in the study area. Martello towers were constructed along the English and Irish coasts to a roughly uniform design. They are generally oval or circular in plan and two storeys high. Their function was defensive and they contained a magazine and could accommodate a small garrison. The roof of a Martello tower contained one or a pair of 32-pounder muzzle-loading guns mounted on traversing carriages. The Martello tower at Ringaskiddy (CO087-053---), circa 2km to the east, is constructed on the highest point of the Ringaskiddy peninsula and is the largest of the Cork harbour Martello towers. It is the only one of the Cork harbour towers to be enclosed by a ditch. A walled circular enclosure, 100m in diameter, and marked by 4 ordnance stones, encloses the tower and ditch.

The country house and associated demesne was a prominent feature of the Irish landscape during the 18

th and 19

th centuries. At one time demesnes occupied

nearly 6% of the country (Aalen, Whelan & Stout, 2000, 197). The typical demesne, consisting of the big house with associated buildings, ornamental grounds, landscaped gardens and woodlands, often enclosed by high walls and belts of trees, still remains the dominant man-made feature of the post medieval landscape in Ireland (Reeves-Smith, 1997, 552). The first edition OS maps, drawn up in the 1830s, depict these demesnes in great detail. Country houses and their demesnes had many associated features such as demesne walls, walled gardens, gate lodges, ornamental towers, tree-lined avenues, tree rings, deer parks, ice houses and lime kilns. There are 2 country houses listed in the RMP within the study area, Coolmore (CO087-043---) and Prospect Villa (CO087-111--- in Barnahely townland). Prospect Villa was demolished in 1981. It stood circa 1km to the east of the proposed turbine site and its demesne extended westward across the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) holding, finishing circa 100m to the east of the

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




proposed turbine site. A more impressive demesne that of Ballybricken House, extended to within 300m of the turbine site to the north. This demesne is listed in the NIAH Garden Survey and it is noted that virtually no recognisable features survive. The house is now no more and much of its land is owned by the Pfizer Corporation. It is not listed in the RMP or RPS but is described by Bence Jones (1988, 19) as an 18

th century house. Only a small, ruinous, overgrown gate lodge

(CO087-05002) to Prospect Villa survives circa 700m southeast of the turbine site. Coolmore House (CO087-043---), circa 1.9km to the south, is now abandoned, however, many of its associated demesne features survive today such as an impressive set of Gate Lodges, an ice house (CO087-04202-), demesne walls, outbuildings and farm buildings (CO087-04201-).

There is one ornamental tower listed in the RMP within the study area. The tower (CO087-05202-), in Barnahely townland, is not detailed in the Archaeological Inventories for County Cork (Power et al, 1994 and Ronan, Egan, Byrne 2009) and is listed as a Designed Landscape on the Sites and Monuments Database. A „turret‟ is marked in the location on the OS maps within the demesne of Castle Warren and the files of the Archaeological Survey of Ireland record that the tower has been demolished. The NIAH Garden Survey lists the demesne of Castle Warren and notes that virtually no recognisable features survive.

The burning of lime as an agricultural fertiliser became widespread all over the country in the 18

th century. Blocks of limestone were burnt in a kiln to produce

quicklime (CaO). This quicklime when mixed with rain water produced Calcium Hydroxide (CaOH), which was the desired fertiliser to spread on the land. There are two lime kilns in the study area, one (CO087-026---) circa 1.8km north of the proposed development site in the townland of Monkstown (Castle Farm) and the second (CO087-038---) circa 1.5km to the northeast in Shanbally. Both remained standing at the time of the publication of the inventories. A lime kiln is marked in the area of the Novartis complex on the 1925 25 inch OS map. Construction work on the complex would have destroyed this kiln if it existed at the time.

There are many vernacular houses in the study area, but only one is listed in the RMP. This is a single storey house, formerly thatched and now with a corrugated iron roof, in Barnahely townland (CO087-060---) circa 800m to the southeast. The 1

st edition (1842) of the OS map for the area indicates that there was a small

settlement at this location (Figure 13.4). In addition, the Down Survey Barony maps (1654-1659) (Figure 13.5) indicate a settlement (CO087-143---) in the area of „Bernehery‟ (Barnahely) church circa 900m to the southeast. There is no visible surface trace of this site and its exact location cannot be pinpointed.

At the beginning of the 20th

century much of the land to the east (the Merfin factory – no longer in use) was bought by the army and developed as a military barracks with associated facilities. Playing pitches are depicted in this area on the 1905 OS map (Figure 13.6).

There are two structures within the 2km study area which are listed in the Cork County Development Plan (2009) in the RPS. These are the Martello tower at Ringaskiddy (RPS No. 00575) and the Castlewarren stronghouse at Barnahely (RPS No. 01260). The Cork County Development Plan (2009) also lists Architectural Conservation Areas. These areas have been designated to allow for the preservation and enhancement of the built heritage in areas of special character. There are none within the study area.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




Joyce (1910) does not give a meaning for the townland name of Barnahely. Bunachar Loganaimneacha na hEireann (http://www.logainm.ie) gives the Irish name as Bearna hEilighe meaning „Healy‟s Gap‟.

An examination of aerial photographs on the Cork County Council website (2000, 2005 and 2007) of the proposed turbine location did not reveal any new features of archaeological potential.

The Down Survey map of 1654-1659 for this area (the South Liberties of Corke) was consulted (Figure 13.5). Barnahely (Bernehery parish) and Ringaskiddy (Reniskydy) are indicated. There are two structures shown in Barnahely. One appears to be a tower and is likely to be a depiction of the tower house and bawn (CO087-05201-) still extant in Barnahely townland today. A castle, named Coolmore, is indicated roughly in the area of Coolmore country house (CO087-043---). A small house is indicated in Ringacoltig (CO087-131---) on this map.

Candell‟s map of Cork Harbour (Figure 13.7), dated to 1587, shows the Ringaskiddy peninsula and names the castle located on the peninsula as Berneyele. This is likely to be Barnahely castle. Coolmore Castle (no RMP number) is also shown on this map.

The Taylor and Skinner maps of the roads of Ireland, which date to 1778, were consulted but do not extend south as far as the area of the proposed development site.

Cartographic sources from the nineteenth and early twentieth century (Figures 13.4 & 13.6) show the area of the development site in agricultural use. The 1

st

edition of the Ordnance Survey (OS) map, dated to 1842, shows a field in the area of the proposed turbine site (Figure 13.4). The demesne of Ballybricken House surrounds the site to the North and East, while that of Prospect Villa is to the southeast with Castle Warren demesne a little further on. The large and impressive demesne of Coolmore extends to within 1km to the south and some of its features are listed in the RMP. By the time of the 2

nd (1902) and 3

rd (1934)

editions of the OS map there is very little change in the area of the proposed development sites (Figures 13.6 & 13.3).

13.7 Site Inspection

The primary purpose of field inspection is to assess the physical environment in which the proposed turbine will be constructed and to identify any features of cultural heritage significance, which have not been previously recorded. Current land use, local topography and environmental conditions were assessed during the site inspection.

The site of the proposed turbine is brown field within the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) site. The complex comprises an area of 100 acres, 35 acres of which have been developed, the remainder of which is in agricultural use. It is proposed to locate the turbine at the edge of the developed portion of the complex. This area is currently a disused carpark (having been used during the construction phase) and it is proposed to locate the turbine at its western edge. The carpark is bordered to the north and west by agricultural land, recently ploughed. The main Janssen Biologics (Ireland) building lies to the east of the carpark. Topsoil was stripped on the carpark site at the initial stages of the development of the complex. Access to

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12

http://www.logainm.ie/




the site will be by the existing road. No finds or features of archaeological interest were noted during the site inspection.

13.8 Likely Significant Impact on the Cultural Heritage Environment

There are no recorded archaeological or cultural heritage sites on the proposed wind turbine site. The proposed location was stripped of topsoil during the initial development of the complex.

The proposed development will not impact directly on any recorded archaeological site.

No features of archaeological/architectural/cultural heritage interest were noted during field and road inspection.

The work associated with the proposed development will involve ground disturbance and reduction. As this type of work has already taken place on both these sites, it is unlikely that the proposed development will impact on any potential archaeological material that may survive below the ground surface.

13.9 Visual Impact on the Cultural Heritage Environment

The proposed turbine (CEN1) will have a visual impact on the ringfort (CO087-048---) in Barnahely. It will stand at a height of 53m OD c.510m to the north of the ringfort and at a higher level to it. The ringfort is at 30m OD. The turbine will rise to a maximum height 150m and the ringfort stands to a maximum height of 2m above the surrounding ground level. The relative scale of the turbine to the ringfort means that when the ringfort is viewed from the road (R613) to the south, the turbine (CEN1) to the northwest will be obviously visible behind it.

There are 3 other recorded archaeological sites in close proximity to the ringfort, a corn drying kiln (CO087-146-), a possible corn drying kiln (CO087-156-) and a burnt spread/fulacht fia (CO087-145-). None of these sites have an above ground expression and, therefore, will not be visually impacted by the proposed turbine.

The proposed turbine will have a visual impact on the graveyard (CO087-05101-), church (CO087-05102-) and fortified house (CO087-05201--) at Barnahely, circa 900m to the southeast of CEN1. When the graveyard is viewed from the south the turbine CEN1 will be prominent behind and to the north. As the turbine will be further to the south than the rinfort, the impact will be less significant.

The proposed turbine will not have a strong visual impact on any other archaeological or cultural heritage sites within the study area.

The turbine as a single entity in the lower Cork Harbour area will impact slightly on the archaeological and cultural heritage of the area as a whole. The occurrence of a further five associated turbines will increase that impact on the lower harbour area. Overall, however, the impact will be slight.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12





The construction work on the proposed development site will involve ground disturbance. In this instance the area has been previously disturbed and no mitigation is necessary.

It is always possible that stray finds may be present in material being disturbed on the site. In the event of archaeological material being uncovered such material should be fully resolved to professional standards of archaeological practice (Policy Guidelines on Archaeological Excavation – Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands). The developer should be aware of the National Monuments Legislation (1930-1994) which states that in the event of the discovery of archaeological finds or remains, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should be notified immediately and that any subsequent investigation should be facilitated and funded by the developer.

13.11 Residual Impact

The proposed development will not directly impact on any architectural heritage.

The proposed development will not directly impact on any cultural heritage.

13.12 References

Bangerter, R. (2006 (a)) Ringaskiddy, in www.excavations.ie

Bangerter, R. (2006 (b)) Ringaskiddy, in www.excavations.ie

Bennet, I. 1997-2003 Excavations Bulletin. Summary accounts of archaeological excavations in Ireland. Wordwell Limited.

Brunicardi, N. (1968) Haulbowline Spike and Rocky Islands. Cork Historical Guides Committee, Cork.

Byrne, M. (1999) Ringacoltig, in www.excavations.ie

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.

Cleary, R. (2004), Barnahely, in www.excavations.ie

Cummins, T. 2004 Archaeological Test Trenching at Novartis Site, Barnahely, Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork in Bennet (ed.) Excavations 2004: Summary accounts of archaeological excavations in Ireland. Wordwell.

Flanagan, D and L. (1994) Irish Place Names Bantry, County Cork.

Fitzgerald, P. (1992) Down Paths of Gold: A Portrait of Cork Harbour‟s Southern Shore Midleton.

Gleeson, C. (2006) Ringaskiddy. In: I. Bennet (ed.) Excavations 2003: Summary accounts of archaeological excavations in Ireland. Wordwell.

Gowen, M. (1992) Ballintaggart, in www.excavations.ie

Hanley, K. (2004) Barnahely, in www.excavations.ie

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12

http://www.excavations.ie/






Gwynn and Hadcock (1988) Medieval and Religious Houses, Ireland. Dublin: Academic Press.

Hanley K. (2004) N28 Cork (Bloomfield) Ringaskiddy Road Scheme: A report on the Archaeological Site Investigations at Castle Warren (Barnahely Td) Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork. Unpublished Archaeological Report, DOEHLG Licence No. 04E0774.

Joyce, P. W. (1910) The Origin and History of Irish Names of Places, M.H. Gill and Son

J. F. L. (1912) Notes and Queries. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society. Vol. XVIII.Cork.

Lane, S. (1996) Monkstown, in www.excavations.ie

Lane, S. (2000) Ringacoltig, in www.excavations.ie

Lane, S. (2003) Archaeological Testing at Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork. In: I.Bennet (ed.) Excavations 2001: Summary accounts of archaeological excavations in Ireland. Wordwell.

Lane, S. (2006) Shanbally, in www.excavations.ie

MacCarthy, C. J.F. (1970) Vallancey‟s Plan for the Defence of Spike Island. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society. Vol. LXXV.

Moore, D (2007) Ringaskiddy, in www.excavations.ie

Murray, P. (2005) Maritime Paintings of Cork, 1700-2000. Cork. O‟Donnell, M. 2001 Castle Warren, Barnahely. In: I.Bennet (ed.) Excavations 1999: Summary accounts of archaeological excavations in Ireland. Wordwell.

O‟Donnell, M. (1999) Barnahely, in www.excavations.ie

O‟Donovan, E. (1996) Barnahely, in www.excavations.ie

O‟Leary, K. V. (1919 The Placenames and antiquities of the Barony of Kerycurrihy, Co. Cork. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society. Vol. XXV.

O‟Mahony, C. 1986 The Maritime Gateway to Cork: A history of the outposts of Passage West and Monkstown, 1754-1942. Tower Books, Cork.

O‟ Murchú, D. 1979 Historic Ringaskiddy. Our Place, Vol 2.

Power, D., Byrne, E., Egan, U., Lane, S. and Sleeman, M. 1994 Archaeological Inventory of County Cork Volume 2: East and South Cork. Dublin.

Pochin Mould, D. D. C. 1991 Discovering Cork. Brandon Books, Co. Kerry.

Power, P. 1923 Placenames and Antiquities. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Vol. 34C.

Power, D. et al. 1994 Archaeological Inventory of County Cork Vol l11, East and South Cork. Office of Public Works.

Purcell, A. (2002) Monkstown, in www.excavations.ie

Purcell, A. (2006 (a)) Ringaskiddy, in www.excavations.ie

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12








Purcell, A. (2006 (b)) Ringaskiddy, in www.excavations.ie

Purcell, A. 2007 Archaeological Excavations at Rocky Island. Unpublished report.

Reeves-Smith, T. 1997 The Natural History of Demesnes in Foster, W. eds. Nature in Ireland, A Scientific and Cultural History, Lilliput Press, Dublin.

Ronan, Byrne, Egan (2009) Archaeological Inventory of County Cork Vol V. Office of Public Works.

Roseveare, M., Roseveare, A. (2004) Archaeological assessment of the N28 Bloomfield-Ringaskiddy scheme (Barnahely): geophysical survey report. Unpublished

Rynne, C. (1993) The Archaeology of Cork City and Harbour from the Earliest Times to Industrialisation. Collins Press.

Shine, M. (2006) Cultural Heritage section of an EIS for Spike Island, Cork Harbour. Unpublished report.

Stout, M. (1997). The Irish Ringfort. Four Courts Press, Dublin.

Sutton, D. (February 2001) Archaeological Assessment – Spike Island, Co. Cork. Unpublished Report.

Sweeney, A. (2007) A History of Cork‟s Lower Harbour- „Beyond the Cut and Cover‟. Litho Press, Midleton, Co. Cork.

Sweetman, D. (2000). The Man-Made Heritage: The Legislative and Institutional Framework in Buttimer, N., Rynne, CIRCA and Guerin, H. The Heritage of Ireland, The Collins Press, Cork.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




14 Cumulative Impacts, Other Impacts and Interactions

14.1 Introduction

This chapter addresses the cumulative impacts, indirect impacts and main interactions between different aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) wind energy project. This chapter also addresses environmental effects which have not been specifically addressed in the individual chapters of the EIS.

Only topics that could be logically linked to the development have been examined in detail. Accordingly, when a topic is not mentioned, the authors have concluded that no potential for impact exists.

14.2 General

The requirement to address cumulative impacts, indirect impacts and interactions of effects comes from the Regulations and EIA Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by 97/11EC and 2003/35/EC. Schedule 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, which mirrors Article 3 of the EIA directives, specifies the information to be contained in an EIS, including the information listed below (emphasis is the author‟s):

“A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed development, including in particular:

human beings, fauna and flora,

soil, water, air, climatic factors and the landscape,

material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, and the cultural heritage, and

the inter-relationship between the above factors.”

“A description is also required of the likely significant effects (including direct, indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative) of the proposed development on the environment resulting from:

the existence of the proposed development, and

the use of natural resources.”

14.3 Methodology Used to Assess Cumulative and Indirect Impacts and Interactions.

Reference was made to the EPA Documents, Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements, EPA 2002, and Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements), EPA 2003 (EPA guidelines) in the preparation of this chapter of the EIS.

The EU has also prepared guidelines, Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions, published by the Office

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




for Official Publications of the European Communities in May 1999 (EU guidelines).

At the screening stage in the preparation of the EIS for the Janssen Biologics (Ireland) wind energy project, the potential for significant cumulative and indirect impacts and interactions was examined and any such potential impacts were identified. Where the potential for significant cumulative and indirect impacts and interactions was identified, such impacts and interaction of impacts were included in the scope and addressed in the baseline and impact assessment studies for each of the relevant environmental media and aspects of the project. The cumulative and indirect impacts and interaction of impacts are presented in the chapters of the EIS which address the most relevant environmental media.

The matrix and expert opinion approaches, as outlined in the EU Guidelines, were used in the identification of the potential for significant cumulative and indirect impacts and interactions. Refer to Table 14.1 for the matrix of potential interactions. Modelling and carrying capacity analyses were used to evaluate impacts.

Reference was also made to the EPA guidelines Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements), in particular to the guidance given for topics which would usually be addressed when preparing an EIS for developments of a particular project class.

14.4 Definitions

There are no generally agreed and accepted definitions for indirect impacts, cumulative impacts or inter-relationship of impacts.

The EPA Guidelines define cumulative impact thus: The addition of many smaller impacts to create one larger more significant impact.

The EPA Guidelines do not define indirect impacts. The EPA Guidelines use the term synergistic impacts. Synergistic impact is defined as: Where the resultant impact is of greater significance than the sum of its constituents.

The EU guidelines use slightly different definitions as follows:

Indirect Impacts: Impacts on the environment, which are not a direct result of the project, often produced away from or as a result of a complex pathway (sometimes referred to as second or third level impacts or secondary impacts).

Cumulative Impacts: Impacts that result from incremental changes caused by other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions together with the project.

Impact Interactions: The reactions between impacts whether between the impacts of just one project or between the impacts of other projects in the area.

The term „impact interactions‟ is equivalent to the term „inter-relationship of effects‟. The EU guidelines accept that their definitions overlap to a certain extent. The EU guidelines also refer to „Cross-Media Impacts‟, in which the impact in one environmental medium may also have an indirect impact on another medium.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




14.5 Effects in Different Environmental Media

14.5.1 Matrix of Effects

Table 14.1 presents the effects matrix. The effects matrix examines the potential for the topic or issue in the left hand column to have an effect on the environmental media listed in the top row of the matrix.

If there is the potential for an effect during the construction phase, this is indicated by a „C‟. An „O‟ indicates the potential for an effect during the operational phase and „OC‟ indicates the potential for an effect during both phases. If there is considered to be no potential for an effect, this is indicated by „-„.

The purpose of the effects matrix is to identify potential effects in different media. Actual effects and their significance are dealt with in the most relevant chapter.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12




Table 14.1 Potential Interaction of Effects Matrix (C = Construction, O = Operational)

Noise and

Vibration

Air

Quality

Climate Landscape

And

Visual

Archaeological

Architectural

& Cultural

Heritage

Human

Beings

Material

Assets

Flora and

Fauna

Soils &

Geology

Surface

Water &

Ground-

water

Road

Network

& Traffic

Noise and

Vibration

-

- - - - CO - CO - - -

Air Emissions - C - - - C - C - - -

Emissions to

water

- - - - - - - - - C -

Landscape and

Visual

- - - - - CO - CO - - -

Archaeological

Architectural &

Cultural

Heritage

- - - - - - - - - - -

Human Beings - - - - - - - - - - CO

Material Assets O - - CO - - O O - - -

Flora & Fauna - - - - - CO - - - - -

Soils & Geology C C - C C - C C - C -

Traffic C C - C - C C - - - C

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12





14.5.1 Potential Interactions

The potential effects of noise and vibration during construction and operation, and the impacts on human beings and fauna are addressed in Chapters 9, Noise and Vibration and 7 Flora and Fauna. Mitigation measures are proposed to ensure there will not be a significant impact.

The proposed development has the potential to impact on soils, geology and groundwater during construction. Mitigation measures for the control of surface water run-off, and for the minimisation of pollution of soils and groundwater, during construction, are described in Chapter 4, Construction Activities. Chapter 4 also addresses the impacts of construction traffic.

Chapter 8, Landscape and Visual Assessment addresses the potential landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development and their potential effects on human beings. In general, there will be no significant visual impacts during the construction phase as it will be temporary, and localised in nature. The operational impacts on viewpoints will range from imperceptible to significant (refer to Table 8.3). During operation there will be a slight to moderate change to the lower harbour landscape character area.

The potential effects on human beings, flora and fauna as a result of air emissions generated during the construction of the proposed wind turbine, are addressed in Chapter 10, Air Quality,. The assessment concluded that there will not be a significant impact.

Potential impacts on cultural heritage are addressed in Chapter 13. There will be no significant impact.

Chapter 6, Human Beings addresses the potential socio-economic impacts of the proposed development and human beings. The proposed development will result in increased employment and economic activity during construction, which will be positive impact on human beings. There will be no significant negative impacts on human beings as a result of the proposed development.

14.5.2 Amenity

The impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the local area has been addressed in a number of sections of this EIS. In Chapter 6, Human Beings, other impacts that the proposed development will have on amenity are assessed. Chapter 8 Landscape and Visual addresses the impacts of the proposed development on the landscape character of the site and on scenic routes.

14.5.3 Indirect Effects

Electrical power generated by the wind turbine and which is not required by Janssen Biologics (Ireland) will be exported to the national power grid. There will be no significant impact on the national grid.

Other indirect effects are described in the chapters of the EIS which address the different environmental media.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12






The cumulative impacts of the six CLHEG turbines on the four sites are addressed in the relevant chapters of the EIS, including as follows:

Cumulative construction impacts are addressed in Chapter 4 Construction Activities. It is envisaged that the cumulative construction impacts will be slight, short term and of a temporary nature.

Cumulative effects on flora and fauna are addressed in Chapter 7. The cumulative impacts on flora and fauna, during construction, range from imperceptible to slight.

The cumulative landscape and visual impacts arising from the proposed development in conjunction with the other LHEG wind turbines are assessed in Chapter 8. The cumulative visual impact arising from some or all of these turbines will be moderate to significant, depending on the viewpoint. For some, the impact will be viewed as negative, but for many others the impact will be positive in nature.

Cumulatively, all 6 wind turbines will impart a moderate change in the harbour landscape character area. For some, this will be a positive change within the harbour landscape; however for others this change may be perceived as being of neutral or negative in change.

The cumulative impacts of the proposed LHEG wind turbines on Noise and Vibration, and Air Quality and Climate are addressed in Chapters 9 and 10, respectively. No cumulative adverse impacts on air quality and climate are predicted arising from the construction activities, due to the separation between the sites. A long term cumulative beneficial impact is predicted both for air quality and climate arising from the consequent reduction in carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and sulphur dioxide.

Cumulative socio-economic impacts on human beings are addressed in Chapter 6 Human Beings. Cumulative construction traffic impacts are addressed in Chapter 4. Other cumulative impacts on human beings are addressed in the above Chapters 4, 8 and 10. It is envisaged that there will be no significant long term cumulative impacts on human beings.

14.7 References

Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements EPA, Wexford

Environmental Protection Agency (2003) Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements) EPA, Wexford

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (1999) Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions

Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, Official Journal of the European Economic Communities, 1985

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12





Directive 97/11EC amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, Official Journal of the European Communities, 1997

Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, Statutory Instrument No 600 of 2001, Government Publications Office, Dublin, 2001

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12





15 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

15.1 Introduction

It has been the intention of Janssen Biologics (Ireland) to reduce the adverse effects of the proposed development on the environment to a practical minimum. Where unavoidable environmental effects have been identified during the environmental impact assessment process, measures have been proposed to mitigate these effects as much as reasonably possible.

This chapter summarises the likely residual environmental effects associated with the proposed development. The predicted impacts and recommended mitigation measures are comprehensively detailed in the relevant chapters of the EIS, and are summarised in Table 15.1 below.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12





Table 15.1 Assessment of Potential Effects and Mitigation Measures

Source / Scale of Effect Control and Mitigation Residual Impacts, Significance Level,

Environmental Consequence

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Site Clearance and Preparation

Removal of topsoil

Excavation of soil for turbine foundation and general site re-grading

Setting up of site fencing, site office,

site facilities, secure storage compound, temporary car parking

Importation of equipment

A construction environmental management plan will be prepared and implemented with the objective of

keeping disruption and nuisance to a minimum. The plan will have regard to the guidance contained in the

handbook published by Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) in the UK,

Environmental Good Practice on Site, CIRIA 2005.

A dust minimisation plan will be formulated for the construction phase of the project

Approximately 50% of excavated spoil may be reused to backfill over the lower pad. The remaining subsoil

will be transported offsite for appropriate reuse, or disposal at an appropriate facility. All efforts will be made to minimise the quantity of materials to be moved off site.

In so far as possible, construction materials will be from local sources. All fill material, if required, will be

from approved sources.

As required by the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations 2001-2006, a Health and

Safety Plan will be prepared which will address health and safety issues from the design stages through to the completion of the construction and maintenance phases.

Measures for control of rainwater run off.

Measures for storage of fuels, etc on site.

Construction will be short term and temporary

Slight

Temporary increase in traffic in the

vicinity of the site.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12







Generation of Waste

Construction waste,

Excavated material

Waste generated during the construction phase will be carefully managed according to the accepted waste

hierarchy which gives precedence to prevention, minimisation, reuse and recycling over disposal with energy recovery and finally disposal to landfill (refer to Section 4.10.4.1).

Control and Mitigation of spoil is detailed in Site Clearance and Preparation above, in this table.

Negligible

Waste not suitable for reuse will use up

landfill space. No significant impact

predicted.

Site Tidiness

Untidy site The following are some of the measures that will be taken to ensure that the site and surroundings are

maintained to a high standard of cleanliness:

A regular program of site tidying will be established to ensure a safe and orderly site,,

Scaffolding will have debris netting attached to prevent materials and equipment being scattered by the wind,

Food waste will be strictly controlled on all parts of the site,

Loaded lorries and skips will be covered,

Surrounding roads used by trucks to access to and egress from the site will be cleaned regularly using an

approved mechanical road sweeper. Roads will be cleaned subject to local authority requirements. Site roads

will be cleaned on a daily basis, or more regularly, as required,

Road edges and footpaths will be cleaned using a hand broom with controlled damping,

Wheelwash facilities will be provided with rumble grids to remove excess mud from wheels. These facilities

Negligible

No significant impact predicted.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12







will be located at all exits from the site,

In the event of any fugitive solid waste escaping the site, it will be collected immediately and removed to storage on site, and subsequently disposed-of in the normal manner.

Visual Impact

Site establishment will require erection

of Permanent and temporary fencing,

Erection of signage.

Removal of land cover and excavation

Temporary office and welfare

facilities.

Craneage will be a significant element

of the construction methodology and it

is envisaged that various craneage

systems will be used for lifting

materials in to place.

Construction of turbine

Limit of construction activity will be adequately fenced-off in order to avoid damage or disturbance to

landscape elements outside of minimum area required for such works.

Construction works will proceed in a controlled and orderly manner.

Site hoardings, cranes, temporary buildings and plant will be removed once construction has been completed.

The construction compound will be fully re-instated at the end of the construction contract.

Slight

Short term imperceptible to slight effects

during construction phase.

Traffic

Increase in traffic due to construction

activities in form of HGVs, abnormal

loads for delivery of cranes and

turbine components, and workforce

A Construction Management Plan will be implemented which will include construction traffic

management.

Very Slight


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12







and general site traffic.

Impact on local road network as a

result of temporary road closures

which may be required for the

transportation of abnormal loads to the site.

Any road closures, if required, for the transportation of abnormal loads to the site will be of a short

duration and will only be for the duration of the transportation of these components.

Construction traffic will be temporary and of short duration.

The Garda Siochána and local residents will be given advance notice of the above closures, should

they be required.

Noise and Vibration

Principal sources of noise

Earthworks plant and equipment.

Construction plant and equipment.

Construction traffic.

In accordance with best practice, noise aspects during the construction phase will be managed in accordance with BS 5228: Noise control on construction and open sites.

Hours will be limited during which noisy site activities are permitted.

Channels of communication will be established between the Contractor/Developer, Local Authority and

residents.

A Site Representative will be appointed responsible for matters relating to noise.

Typical levels of noise will be monitored during critical periods and at sensitive locations.

Plant will be selected with low inherent potential for the generation of noise.

All site roads will be kept even so as to mitigate the potential for vibration from lorries.

Barriers will be erected as necessary around items such as generators or high duty compressors.

Noisy plant will be sited as far away from sensitive properties as permitted by site constraints.

Moderate

Temporary slight increase in noise levels

during the construction phase.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12







Air Emissions

Emissions from construction plant and

vehicles.

Dust from movements on site in dry

windy weather.

Because of the relatively low level of emissions from construction plant and vehicles, and the short duration

of the exposure, no significant impacts are predicted on air quality.

A Construction Management Plan will be implemented.

A Dust Minimisation Plan will be formulated for the construction phase of the project. The focus of the

control procedures will therefore be to reduce the generation of airborne material. The following measures

shall be included as a minimum as part of the dust minimisation plan, to reduce dust emissions in the areas

surrounding the site during construction:

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

surfaced roads will be restricted to essential site traffic only, apart from the contractor‟s car park which will

be hardcore only.

Furthermore, any road that has the potential to give rise to fugitive dust must be regularly watered, as

appropriate, during dry and/or windy conditions.

Vehicles using site roads will have their speed restricted, and this speed restriction must be enforced rigidly.

On any un-surfaced site road, this will be 20 kph, and on paved roads as site management dictates.

Vehicles delivering material with dust potential (soil, aggregates) will be enclosed or covered with tarpaulin

at all times to restrict the escape of dust.

Wheel washing facilities will be provided for vehicle exiting site in order to ensure that mud and other wastes

are not tracked onto public roads.

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

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

exposure to wind.

Imperceptible

Potential short-term, localised dust

nuisance arising from construction

activities. No significant impacts on air

quality are predicted.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12







Water misting or sprays will be used as required if particularly dusty activities are necessary during dry

or windy periods.

During movement of materials both on and off-site, trucks will be stringently covered with tarpaulin at all

times. Before entrance onto public roads, trucks will be adequately inspected to ensure no potential for dust

emissions.

Climate

Construction vehicles, generators etc.,

may give rise to CO2 and NOx emissions.

There will be minor emissions to the atmosphere during the construction phase. No mitigation measures

required. Negligible

No significant impact on climate

predicted.

Soils and Geology

Excavation works below the existing

ground level will be required during

the construction of the proposed development

Excavation of soil and disposal of spoil offsite.

Potential impact on soil from leaks or

spills from fuel, etc.

Re-use surplus soil, where possible. Refer to previous section of this table – Site Clearance and

Preparation

The employment of good construction management practices will serve to minimise the risk of pollution of

soil.

Negligible


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12







Surface Water and Groundwater

Stormwater run off during heavy

precipitation which could contain silt or oils from plant and vehicles.

Measures for control of stormwater run off.

Plant and vehicles serviced regularly to minimise leaks.

Fuels and lubricant stored in bunded areas.

Refuelling of plant in controlled areas only.

Stormwater runoff from the site will be monitored.

Negligible


Flora and Fauna

Potential to have an impact on designated sites

Potential of disturbance to birds

Potential of disturbance to bats

A Construction Environmental Management Plan will be prepared and implemented for the duration of the construction phase of the project.

To prevent incidental damage by machinery or by the deposition of spoil during the site clearance stage, any

trees /habitats earmarked for retention will be securely fenced early in the construction phase. The fencing will be clearly visible to machine operators.

The proposed location of the wind turbine is at least 750m from the boundary of Cork Harbour SPA.

Following commencement of operation, monitoring of bird and bat species will be undertaken

Imperceptible to Slight

Imperceptible impact on habitats on site.

Imperceptible impact on birds

Imperceptible impact on mammals (other

than bats)

Imperceptible impact on bats.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12







Archaeological Architectural and Cultural Heritage

The work associated with the proposed

development will involve ground

disturbance and reduction. As this type

of work has already taken place on

both these sites, the proposed

development will not impact on any

potential archaeological material that may survive below the ground surface.

As the entire area has been previously disturbed, no mitigation is necessary.

In the event of archaeological material being uncovered such material should be fully resolved to

professional standards of archaeological practice (Policy Guidelines on Archaeological Excavation –

Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands).

No Impact

Human Beings

20 (peak) jobs on site and additional

jobs off-site.

No controls or mitigation measures required.

In addition to the direct employment during the construction phase, there will be substantial off-site

employment and economic activity associated with the supply of construction materials and services during

the construction phase.

Moderate Beneficial

Employment.

Impact on local residents from

construction and from construction traffic.

Careful management of site operations.

Traffic management. Slight

Short term temporary effects during

construction phase.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12







Use of Natural Resources

Construction phase will require:

Potable water

Power

Fuel

Materials such as steel and concrete.

Equipment will be serviced regularly to ensure efficient operation.

Materials will be carefully stored and handled to avoid waste and damage.

Water use will be controlled to avoid waste.

Negligible

Resource use will be typical for the type

and size of project.

OPERATIONAL PHASE

Visual Impact

Visual impact

Impact on landscape character

The wind turbine has been sized and will be located in a position that will balance the environmental impacts

together with operations of the site and maximising the wind energy potential.

The turbine will be painted off-white or light grey, with a matt or semi-matt finish.

The turbines will be of uniform height and rotor diameter to each other. All turbine blades will rotate in the

same direction so as not to unduly catch a viewer‟s attention.

Electricity lines will be under ground and along access tracks. Existing tracks have been utilised wherever possible to minimise unnecessary physical disruption of the site.

Imperceptible to significant

The residual impacts on views will vary

from imperceptible to significant,

depending on proximity to the

development and direction of view and

the character of intervening topography.

The impact of the wind turbine within the

landscape will very much depend on by

whom and how it is experienced.

There will be a slight to moderate change

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:12







to the lower harbour landscape character

area.

Traffic

There will be no increase in traffic as a

result of the operation of the proposed

development

No mitigation measures required No Impact


Noise and Vibration

Wind turbines generate noise in

operation

Turbine has been located a minimum of 500 metres from the closest dwelling. No significant impacts are predicted

Air Emissions

There will be no emissions to air as a

result of the operation of the proposed development

No adverse impacts, therefore mitigation measures not required

Slight/Positive

Long-term beneficial impacts are

predicted relating both to air quality and

climate.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13







Climate

No adverse impacts No mitigation measures required Slight/Positive

Long-term beneficial impacts are

predicted relating both to air quality and

climate.

Soils, Geology, Surface Water and Groundwater

No adverse impacts No mitigation measures required No Impact

Flora and Fauna

Potential impacts on Cork Harbour SPA

Potential for bats to collide with

turbine or blades.

Potential for birds to collide with

turbine or blades.

Displacement/disturbance to water

birds at intertidal parts of Lough Beg

Re non-breeding birds, the proposed turbine will be approximately 1,420m and 750m from Lough Beg and

Monkstown Creek, respectively, which is well beyond the likely distance that would cause

displacement/disturbance by operating turbines. The breeding birds using the habitats around the Centocor site are already habituated to a high level of human disturbance.

Re collision with turbines, passerines, in general, avoid collision with rotors by flying beneath the level of

the rotors. Non breeding birds birds are generally able to avoid collisions with wind turbines.

Imperceptible to Slight.

Bats - Imperceptible to slight risk of

collision

Imperceptible impact on mammals

other than bats.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13







and Monkstown Creek

Displacement disturbance to wintering

birds in the farmland around the turbine location

As black-headed gulls are a Special

Conservation Interest of the Cork

Harbour SPA the risk of collision

represents a slight impact on the

designated area.

Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage

No impacts As the entire area has been previously disturbed, no mitigation measures required

No Impact

Human Beings

Health & Safety Impacts

The Health and Safety policy, procedures and work practices of the proposed development will be in

conformance to all relevant health and safety legislation both during its operational stages. The proposed

development will be designed and constructed to best industry standards, with an emphasis being placed on

the health and safety of employees, local residents and the community at large. The technology to be

employed in the proposed development is well understood and has been used successfully in equivalent projects internationally, with no implications for health and safety.

Night lighting for aviation, which will consist of a small red warning light at the top of the nacelle or turbine hub.

No Impact

No impact predicted.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13







Potential impact on views from

recreational areas (refer to Visual

Impact above and to Section 8.2.8.5).

Refer to Mitigation measures in Visual Impact above.

Imperceptible to significant

Impacts on views from recreational areas

are predicted to range from imperceptible

to significant (Refer to Section 8.2.8.5)

Potential impact of shadow flicker on

residential amenity

Turbines have been located a minimum of 500 metres from residences, which helps minimise shadow flicker effects. No significant impacts are predicted

No adverse impacts predicted on

Tourism

No mitigation measures required

No Impact

No adverse impacts predicted

Use of Natural Resources

No use of natural resources during operation

No adverse impacts predicted, therefore no mitigation measures required.

No Impact

No impact predicted

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13

Appendix 2.1

Aviation Impact Assessment

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13

January, 2011

Arup

Ringaskiddy Wind Farm

Development

Aviation Impact Assessment

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13

Aviation Impact Assessment Ringaskiddy Wind Farm Development 3

1 ADMINISTRATION PAGE

Job Reference: 6777A

Date: January, 2011

Prepared for: Arup

Author: Mike Watson

Telephone: +44 1787 319001

Email: [email protected]

Reviewed By: Grahame Stuteley

Date: January, 2011

Telephone: +44 1787 319001

Email: [email protected]

Issue Date Detail of Changes

1 January, 2011 Initial Issue

Confidential: The contents of this document may not be disclosed to others without permission. Copyright © Pager Power Limited 2011 Pager Power Limited, New Mill, Bakers Court, Gt Cornard, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 0GG T:01787 319001 F:01787 319007 E:[email protected] W:www.pagerpower.co.uk

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Arup is proposing to develop a wind farm in Ringaskiddy, approximately 13km south east of Cork. The proposal is for 6 wind turbines, each having a hub height of up to 100m agl (above ground level) and a maximum tip height of 145m. Pager Power has been asked to consider the radar and physical impact of the proposed wind turbines on operations at Cork Airport. The new Cork radar, which is on Tullig More Hill south west of the airport, has been assessed. The proposed wind turbines are approximately 11km from the airport and are on ground which is lower than the airport. Line of sight analysis has shown that the radar is likely to detect the proposed turbines and will therefore be impacted technically. The wind turbines would create a relatively small area of clutter on primary surveillance radar screens. There are unlikely to be any effects on secondary surveillance radar. Whilst the wind turbines are well away from the extended centre line of any runway they are in operationally significant airspace. The proposed development lies entirely within controlled airspace which is a known traffic environment. This may mean that the technical effects on the radar could be operationally acceptable to air traffic controllers at Cork. Whilst technical mitigation will not be required if the development is deemed operationally acceptable, a number of possible technical mitigation solutions have been identified. These include:

Local radar blanking Configuration of Non Auto Initiation Zones within radar processing equipment SSR only operation with or without transponders Radar data fusion using a new or existing in-fill radar

The physical impact of the proposed turbines has been assessed in accordance with International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO protected surfaces. The proposed turbines lie beneath the airport’s Outer Horizontal Surface. The tips of the turbines are approximately 100 metres below this surface and consequently do not breach it. The turbines therefore do not constitute obstacles from an aviation safeguarding perspective. The Turbines will have no effect on Minimum Safe Altitudes or Air Traffic Control Surveillance Minimum Altitudes. It is recommended that three turbines be fitted with low intensity steady red aviation lights which should be lit at night. If the turbine height were increased to 150.5 metres it would be necessary to fit them with medium intensity steady red aviation lights. The overall impact of 150.5 metre turbines would otherwise be similar to the impact of 145 metre turbines.

It is recommended that the Irish Aviation Authority be consulted regarding the progression of this development.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


3 LIST OF CONTENTS

1 Administration Page .......................................................................................... 3

2 Executive Summary .......................................................................................... 5

3 List of Contents ................................................................................................. 7

4 List of Figures .................................................................................................... 9

5 List of Tables ..................................................................................................... 9

6 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 11

7 Proposed Wind Farm Details .......................................................................... 12

7.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 12

7.2 Name and Address ............................................................................................ 12

7.3 Site Location and Height ................................................................................... 12

7.4 Wind Turbines.................................................................................................... 13

7.5 Wind Turbine Schedule ..................................................................................... 13

7.6 Wind Farm and Airport Location Map ................................................................ 15

7.7 Distance and Bearing from the Cork Airport PSR ............................................. 16

8 Airfield and Radar Information ........................................................................ 17

8.1 Cork Airport ........................................................................................................ 17

8.2 Cork Radar ........................................................................................................ 18

9 Airspace and Air Traffic ................................................................................... 19

9.1 Airspace ............................................................................................................. 19

9.2 Air Traffic ........................................................................................................... 20

9.3 Summary ........................................................................................................... 20

10 Assessment of ICAO Physical Safeguarding Surfaces – Cork ....................... 21

10.1 Take Off Climb Surfaces ................................................................................... 22

10.2 Approach Surface .............................................................................................. 22

10.3 Transitional Surface ........................................................................................... 22

10.4 Inner Horizontal Surface .................................................................................... 22

10.5 Conical Surface ................................................................................................. 22

10.6 Outer Horizontal Surface ................................................................................... 22

11 Other Physical Safeguarding Considerations ................................................. 24

11.1 Obstacle Lighting ............................................................................................... 24

12 Radar Analysis – General Principles ............................................................... 26

12.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 26

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


12.2 Overall Radar Height ......................................................................................... 26

12.3 Turbine Height ................................................................................................... 26

12.4 Earth Curvature ................................................................................................. 27

12.5 Radar Signal Refraction .................................................................................... 27

12.6 Attenuation by Forestry and Obstructions ......................................................... 27

12.7 Land Height Profile ............................................................................................ 27

12.8 Adjusted Land Height Profile ............................................................................. 28

12.9 Radar Line of sight ............................................................................................ 28

12.10 Line of sight Ceiling ........................................................................................... 28

12.11 Ceiling Height .................................................................................................... 28

12.12 Visible Turbine Height ....................................................................................... 28

12.13 Predominant Blocking Point .............................................................................. 28

12.14 Land Profile Charts ............................................................................................ 28

13 Line of Sight Analysis ...................................................................................... 29

13.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 29

13.2 Overall Radar Height ......................................................................................... 29

13.3 Turbine Height ................................................................................................... 29

13.4 Earth Curvature ................................................................................................. 29

13.5 Radar Signal Refraction .................................................................................... 29

13.6 Obstructions....................................................................................................... 29

13.7 Individual Turbine Radar Impact Assessments ................................................. 29

14 Radar Line of Sight Results and Analysis ....................................................... 30

14.1 Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR) .................................................................... 30

15 Technical Effects of Wind Farms on Primary Surveillance Radar ................... 34

15.1 Information Sources .......................................................................................... 34

15.2 CAP 764 ............................................................................................................ 34

15.3 Eurocontrol Guidelines ...................................................................................... 35

15.4 Assessment of Likely PSR Impacts ................................................................... 36

16 Technical Effects of Wind Farms on Secondary Surveillance Radar .............. 38

16.1 Information Sources .......................................................................................... 38

16.2 CAP 764 ............................................................................................................ 38

16.3 Eurocontrol Guidelines ...................................................................................... 38

16.4 Assessment of Likely SSR Impacts ................................................................... 39

17 Summary of Likely Technical Effects on Radar .............................................. 40

17.1 Clutter ................................................................................................................ 40

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


17.2 Operational Impact ............................................................................................ 40

18 Primary Surveillance Radar Mitigation ............................................................ 41

18.1 PSR Mitigation Techniques ............................................................................... 41

18.2 PSR Mitigation Evaluation ................................................................................. 45

19 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 47

20 Annex A – Line of Sight Charts – New Radar ................................................. 48

21 Annex B – Line of Sight Charts – Old Radar ................................................... 49

4 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Layout (Note: turbine icons are not drawn to scale) .............................. 14

Figure 2 Wind Farm and Airport Location Map (Note: Icons are not drawn to scale) . 15

Figure 3 Cork Runways and Radar (Note: Icons are not drawn to scale) .................. 17

Figure 4 Airspace structure - Cork Airport and Ringaskiddy ....................................... 19

Figure 5 Cork Airport Obstacle Limitation Surfaces and proposed wind farm ............ 21

Figure 6 Suggested Turbine Lighting Scheme ........................................................... 25

Figure 7 Radar Line of Sight ....................................................................................... 26

Figure 8 Radar Line of Sight – New Cork Radar to Turbine CEN1 ............................ 30

Figure 9 Radar Line of Sight – Old Cork Radar to Turbine CEN1 .............................. 32

Figure 10 Possible radar blanking areas .................................................................... 46

5 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Wind Farm Name & Address ......................................................................... 12

Table 2 Wind Farm Location and Height .................................................................... 12

Table 3 Wind Turbine Details ..................................................................................... 13

Table 4 Wind Turbine Schedule ................................................................................. 13

Table 5 Radar Distance and Bearing [Old Radar] ...................................................... 16

Table 6 Radar Distance and Bearing [New Radar] ..................................................... 16

Table 7 Indicative Cork Radar Parameters ................................................................. 18

Table 8 Airspace structure – Ringaskiddy .................................................................. 20

Table 9 Conical Surface Altitude ................................................................................ 22

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


Table 10 Outer Horizontal Surface vertical clearance distances ................................ 23

Table 11 DTM Characteristics .................................................................................... 27

Table 12 Turbine CEN1 LOS data – New Cork Radar .............................................. 31

Table 13 Turbine CEN1 LOS data – Old Cork Radar ................................................. 33

Table 14 Radar Line of Sight Summary ...................................................................... 33

Table 15 Likely technical effects on PSR .................................................................. 37

Table 16 Likely technical effects on SSR .................................................................. 39

Table 17 PSR Mitigation Evaluation .......................................................................... 45

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


6 INTRODUCTION

Arup is proposing to develop a wind farm in Ringaskiddy, approximately 13km south east of Cork. The proposal is for 6 wind turbines, each having a hub height of up to 100m agl (above ground level) and a maximum tip height of 145m. Pager Power has been asked to consider the radar and physical impact of the proposed wind turbines on operations at Cork Airport. Potential impacts on physical safeguarding surfaces, instrument approach procedure obstacle clearances, primary surveillance radar and secondary surveillance radar are all considered. Where appropriate technical and operational mitigation options are identified.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


7 PROPOSED WIND FARM DETAILS

7.1 Background Arup is proposing to develop a wind farm in Ringaskiddy, approximately 13km south east of Cork. The proposal is for 6 wind turbines, each having a hub height of up to 100m agl (above ground level) and a maximum tip height of 145m. The developer may consider maximum tip heights of up to 150.5 metres.

7.2 Name and Address

Name Ringaskiddy

Location 13km south east of Cork

Developer Reference Arup

Table 1 Wind Farm Name & Address

7.3 Site Location and Height

Centre Point Grid Reference [Irish National Grid] 177860E 63414N

Grid Reference of SW corner 176200E 62400N

Grid Reference of NW corner 176200E 64500N

Grid Reference of NE corner 179500E 64500N

Grid Reference of SE corner 179500E 62400N

Approximate Site Area /ha 693

Average Height above datum /m 1 29

Minimum Height above datum /m 1 9

Maximum Height above datum /m 1 52

Table 2 Wind Farm Location and Height

1 Calculated from land elevation at the base of each Wind Turbine

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


7.4 Wind Turbines

Number of Turbines 6

Turbine ID Numbers CEN1, DEP1, DEP2, GSK1, NOV1, NOV2

Number of Blades per Turbine 3

Tower Design Tapered Tubular

Generator Capacity /MW 2.5

Rotor Diameter /m 90 max

Rotor Radius /m 45 max

Wind Turbine Hub Height /m 100.0 max

Maximum Turbine Blade Tip Height /m 145 max

Table 3 Wind Turbine Details

7.5 Wind Turbine Schedule

Site Turbine Easting [ING] Northing [ING] Approximate Ground Elevation /m

Centocor CEN1 176490 64220 52 DePuy DEP1 179230 63850 26 DePuy DEP2 178830 63790 32 GlaxoSmithKline GSK1 178401 62608 9 Novartis NOV1 176684 63476 28 Novartis NOV2 176790 63800 29

Table 4 Wind Turbine Schedule

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


The site layout is shown below with the turbine locations indicated by green symbols:

Figure 1 Site Layout (Note: turbine icons are not drawn to scale)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


7.6 Wind Farm and Airport Location Map

Figure 2 Wind Farm and Airport Location Map (Note: Icons are not drawn to scale)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


7.7 Distance and Bearing from the Cork Airport PSR

Average distance between the radar and wind turbines 11.4km

6.16nm

Average bearing of wind turbines relative to the radar 103.3 (G)

108.15° (M)

Table 5 Radar Distance and Bearing [Old Radar]

1nm = 1.852 km Magnetic North is, approximately 4.85 degrees west of grid north in 2011.

Average distance between the radar and wind turbines 13.7km

7.4nm

Average bearing of wind turbines relative to the radar 88.6 (G)

93.4 (M)

Table 6 Radar Distance and Bearing [New Radar]

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


8 AIRFIELD AND RADAR INFORMATION

8.1 Cork Airport Cork Airport is located approximately 7km south of Cork. It is operated by Dublin Airport Authority plc. The airport handles around 2.5 million passengers a year. The diagram below shows the airport’s runways and its old and new radar.

Figure 3 Cork Runways and Radar (Note: Icons are not drawn to scale)

The airport has two substantial paved runways which are 2133m and 1310m long. The airport has a variety of navigation equipment including visual markings and approach aids, radio navigation beacons, instrument landing system and radar.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


8.2 Cork Radar It is understood that the radar at Cork Airport has recently been replaced by a new radar to the South West of the airport. The new radar is operated by the Irish Aviation Authority and is operated by air traffic controllers working in Dublin, but providing a service to aircraft arriving and departing Cork Airport. The old radar is understood to be out of service and is located near the airport car parks and terminal building. The wind turbines’ impact on the old radar is nevertheless assessed.

Parameter Old Radar New Radar

Structure Tower Radome on Building

Location Description Airport East Tullig More Hill

Coordinates (Latitude/Longitude) 51 50 53N 08 29 05W 51 49 17N 8 31 20W

Coordinates (ING) 166652E 66244N 164047E 63287N

Terrain Elevation 153 160

Antenna Height agl2 25.3 7.5

Antenna Height amsl3 178.3 167.5

Table 7 Indicative Cork Radar Parameters

2 Height to PSR radiation centre estimated from photography and airfield obstruction data 3 amsl: Above mean sea level

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


9 AIRSPACE AND AIR TRAFFIC

9.1 Airspace Airspace may be classified as controlled or uncontrolled. Pilots need permission and a clearance to fly in controlled airspace. Pilots may fly at will in uncontrolled airspace. Airspace designations and classifications vary with altitude resulting in layers of airspace.

Figure 4 Airspace structure - Cork Airport and Ringaskiddy

The diagram above shows the structure of airspace around Cork Airport and Ringaskiddy. It can be seen that both the airport and the wind farm development lie entirely within controlled airspace. The proposed wind farm is over 15km laterally from the nearest uncontrolled airspace. The airspace layers immediately above the wind farm are detailed in the following table:

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


Lower Altitude Upper Altitude Name Class Controlled

Surface 5000 feet Cork CTR C Yes

5000 feet FL245 Shannon CTA C Yes

FL245 FL 660 Shannon UIR C Yes

FL660 Unlimited N/A G No

Table 8 Airspace structure – Ringaskiddy

9.2 Air Traffic The majority of air traffic in the vicinity of Ringaskiddy is likely to consist of aircraft arriving at and departing from Cork Airport as well as General Aviation aircraft flying locally in the Cork area. Commercial aircraft departing Runway 17 to the north east and east are likely to fly near, and sometimes over, the proposed development on standard departure routes TISMO 1S, TISMO 1Q, VAPAL 1S, VAPAL 1Q, ERTER 1N and ERTER 1T. No standard arrival routes overfly the proposed development. Aircraft held at Carrigalne are likely to fly in the vicinity of, or over, the proposed development. 9.3 Summary The proposed development lies within fairly busy controlled airspace in which arriving and departing aircraft manoeuvre. The development is well away from the nearest uncontrolled airspace.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


10 ASSESSMENT OF ICAO PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDING SURFACES – CORK

Physical safeguarding at licensed aerodromes is managed using a series of imaginary surfaces which are projected from the aerodrome and its runways. The size and dimensions of these surfaces depend on runway length and a number of other factors. The wind turbines have been assessed against standard ICAO safeguarding surfaces – as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The non-standard Outer Horizontal Surface has also been considered.

Figure 5 Cork Airport Obstacle Limitation Surfaces and proposed wind farm

The diagram above (figure 4) shows a plan view of the safeguarding surfaces at Cork Airport together with the proposed turbines.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


10.1 Take Off Climb Surfaces A Take Off Climb Surface exists for all four runways and extends out from the runway ends. None of the turbines lie beneath any Take Off Climb Surface and consequently no turbines impact any Take Off Climb Surface. 10.2 Approach Surface An Approach Surface exists for all four runways and extends out from the runway ends. None of the turbines lie beneath any Approach Surface and consequently no turbines impact any Approach Surface. 10.3 Transitional Surface The Transitional Surface is a complex surface that exists between the runway edges and the Inner Horizontal Surface. No turbines impact any Transitional Surface. 10.4 Inner Horizontal Surface The Inner Horizontal Surface is a horizontal plane located above and around an aerodrome at a height of 45m above the aerodrome. None of the turbines lie beneath the Inner Horizontal Surface and consequently no turbines impact the Inner Horizontal Surface. 10.5 Conical Surface The conical surface slopes outwards from the airfield, having its maximum altitude at its outer edge. The table below shows the Conical Surface Altitude.

Altitude / Elevation Metres Feet

Airfield 141 461

Conical Surface – Inner Edge 186 609

Conical Surface – Outer Edge 291 953

Table 9 Conical Surface Altitude

None of the turbines lie beneath the Conical Surface and consequently no turbines impact the Conical Surface.

10.6 Outer Horizontal Surface The Outer Horizontal Surface is used for physical safeguarding of aerodromes in some states, but not all. The Outer Horizontal Surface is not part of the core ICAO standard for physical safeguarding – although its use in some states is acknowledged. The Outer Horizontal Surface dimensions have been determined for Cork Airport. The Outer Horizontal Surface has an altitude of 291 metres above mean sea level. All six turbines lie beneath the Outer Horizontal Surface, but none breach it. Vertical clearance calculations have been undertaken for each turbine and are shown in the table below.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


Turbine Easting Northing Ground Elevation /m

Clearance /m

CEN1 176490 64220 52 94

DEP1 179230 63850 26 120

DEP2 178830 63790 32 114

GSK1 178401 62608 9 137

NOV1 176684 63476 28 118

NOV2 176790 63800 29 117

Table 10 Outer Horizontal Surface vertical clearance distances

The turbines do not breach the Outer Horizontal Surface and consequently no turbines impact the Outer Horizontal Surface.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


11 OTHER PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDING CONSIDERATIONS

The tip altitudes of each wind turbine is shown in the table below:

Turbine Base elevation (m) Tip Altitude (m) Tip Altitude (Feet)

CEN1 52 197 646

DEP1 26 171 561

DEP2 32 177 581

GSK1 9 154 505

NOV1 28 173 568

NOV2 29 174 571

The proposed wind development is over 6 nautical miles from the airport which has an elevation of 502 feet. The tip of the highest turbine is therefore 142 feet higher than the airfield. Consideration of the above results in combination with airport and aviation charts suggests that the proposed development will have no effect on the Maximum Elevation Figure, Instrument Approach Procedure or Radar Minimum Altitudes. The proposed development is unlikely to have any physical impact on operations at Cork Airport. 11.1 Obstacle Lighting Rules and regulations for fitting lights to wind turbines vary significantly throughout the world. Both the rules for determining whether lights should be fitted and what sort of lighting is fitted vary. In the case of this particular development the following should be considered. Where obstacles are not close to airports, do not breach obstacle limitation surfaces and do not exceed 150 metres there is usually no specific requirement to light them. There is an international requirement to fit structures higher than 150 metres with medium intensity lighting which is illuminated at night. A number of wind farms in south west Ireland are shown as unlit on aviation charts. Structures which are shorter than the turbines are shown to be lit in the vicinity of the airport. These include a chimney or mast at Whitegate, to the east of the proposed development.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


It is recommended that three of the six turbines be lit with low intensity red lights at night. These lights should be fitted to the wind turbines’ nacelles.

Figure 6 Suggested Turbine Lighting Scheme

For in

spec

tion p

urpo

ses o

nly.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


12 RADAR ANALYSIS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES

12.1 Overview Line of sight Analysis is used to determine the extent to which a planned wind turbine could be detected by a specific radar installation. This analysis takes into account: The curvature of the Earth Refraction of the radar signal by the atmosphere The Effective Radar Height The Effective Turbine Height The height profile of the terrain between the radar and turbine The following diagram shows how Radar Line of sight is determined, together with the various terms used in the analysis:

Figure 7 Radar Line of Sight

12.2 Overall Radar Height The radar height determines the Line of sight angle. This in turn determines the Ceiling Height. The higher the radar, the lower the Line of sight Ceiling will be. The Overall Radar Height is the height of the radar radiation centre above mean sea level. 12.3 Turbine Height Higher wind turbines are more likely to be detected by radar than lower ones. The Turbine Height is calculated by adding the hub height to the rotor radius.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


12.4 Earth Curvature Curvature of the Earth limits the distance at which objects can be detected, using visual and radar techniques. The effect of Earth Curvature increases as the separation between radar and wind turbine increases. The effect of Earth Curvature is calculated by determining the vertical separation of two lines running between the radar and wind turbine. The first is the arc of the great circle that passes through the radar and wind turbine. This is the shortest arc between the two points. The second is the chord between the radar and wind turbine. This line cuts through the Earth’s surface. 12.5 Radar Signal Refraction Radar Signals travel in straight lines in free space. Variations in the atmosphere cause bending of radar signals. This bending is caused by lower denser air having a higher refractive index than higher less dense air. The result of this bending is that effective radar range is extended beyond the visible horizon. Radar system designers compensate for this effect by using a larger effective Earth Radius in their calculations. This compensation allows radar signals to be treated as straight lines, even though they are actually being refracted. The Earth Radius is multiplied by a refraction constant k to give an increased effective Earth Radius. The standard figure used for k is 4/3. This value is known as Standard Refraction. The Earth Curvature curve can then be adjusted, by recalculating each point using the adjusted Earth radius. 12.6 Attenuation by Forestry and Obstructions Areas of land between the Radar and the Wind Farm may be covered with forest, buildings or structures that effectively attenuate radar signals. Where there are large areas of forestry, or built up areas, these may be considered, and included within the land profile charts. 12.7 Land Height Profile A Land Height Profile is generated by determining the height of a series of equally spaced points along the line between the radar and a single wind turbine. The Digital Terrain Model (DTM) data used has the following characteristics:

DTM data source origin SRTM

DTM data point interval 3 arc seconds

DTM height data resolution 1 metre

Table 11 DTM Characteristics

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


12.8 Adjusted Land Height Profile The Adjusted Land Height Profile can take Earth Curvature, Radar Refraction and any Buildings or Forestry into account. It is calculated by adding the ‘Land Height’ curve and the ‘Earth Curvature with compensation for Radar Refraction’ curve. 12.9 Radar Line of sight The Radar Line of sight is determined by taking the straight line which: Originates at the radiation centre of the radar Has the highest tangent with the Adjusted Land Height Profile Passes through or over the Wind Turbine 12.10 Line of sight Ceiling The Line of sight Ceiling is the height, above mean sea level, of the point at which the Line of sight passes the wind turbine. 12.11 Ceiling Height The Ceiling Height is the height, above ground level, of the point at which the Line of sight passes the wind turbine. 12.12 Visible Turbine Height The Visible Turbine Height is the vertical distance between the point at which the Line of sight passes the wind turbine, and the top of the wind turbine.

[Visible Turbine Height] = [Turbine Height] - [Ceiling Height] If the Line of sight passes below the top of the Wind Turbine then Visible Turbine Height is positive. If the Line of sight passes above the top of the Wind Turbine then Visible Turbine Height is negative. 12.13 Predominant Blocking Point The Predominant Blocking Point is defined as the point at which the Radar Line of sight is tangential to the Adjusted Land Height Profile. The Blocking Point is the piece of land that physically prevents or limits the radar’s detection of the wind turbine. If a wind turbine lies in the shadow cast by the Predominant Blocking Point, the radar, discounting weak diffraction effects, cannot detect it. 12.14 Land Profile Charts These show the Line of sight between the radar and a wind turbine. The horizontal scale shows the distance between the radar and the wind turbine in kilometres. 0km at the left hand side corresponds to the radar location. The right hand end of the scale represents the point in the wind farm. The vertical scale shows land height in metres. All heights are with reference to the mean sea level.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:13


13 LINE OF SIGHT ANALYSIS

13.1 Overview Radar Impact Assessment Profiles have been generated from the new surveillance radar at Cork. 13.2 Overall Radar Height The Cork radar altitude used in this analysis was 167.5m amsl. 13.3 Turbine Height The proposed wind turbines have a maximum blade tip heights of 145m agl. 13.4 Earth Curvature Physical Earth Curvature offsets have been calculated, using the Earth’s radius at the respective latitude. 13.5 Radar Signal Refraction A refraction factor k of 4/3 has been used. This value is known as Standard Refraction and is the customary value used for radar refraction calculations. This corresponds to a refractivity gradient of -39 N/km. This value of 4/3 is conservative, as k is generally smaller in a well mixed atmosphere. When wind turbines are operating, there will be a wind, which will result in atmospheric mixing. 13.6 Obstructions In the case of Cork an inspection of aerial photography indicates that there is unlikely to be significant additional shielding of the wind turbines from the radar, as there do not appear to be any buildings of significance between the radar and the proposed wind farm. 13.7 Individual Turbine Radar Impact Assessments Individual Turbine Radar Impact Assessment Profile Charts for all turbines are provided in Annex A.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


14 RADAR LINE OF SIGHT RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

14.1 Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR)

14.1.1 Assessed Radar

A search of potentially impacted radar was undertaken. Following this search Line of Sight Analysis was undertaken for the following radar:

New Cork PSR Old Cork PSR

14.1.2 New Cork Radar – Turbine CEN1

The chart below shows the line of sight profile from the Cork radar to Cork turbine 1.

Figure 8 Radar Line of Sight – New Cork Radar to Turbine CEN1 The following table summarises the results for turbine CEN1.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


Table 12 Turbine CEN1 LOS data – New Cork Radar

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


14.1.3 Old Cork Radar – Turbine CEN1

The chart below shows the line of sight profile from the Old Cork Radar to turbine CEN1.

Figure 9 Radar Line of Sight – Old Cork Radar to Turbine CEN1 The following table summarises the results for the Old Cork Radar and turbine CEN1.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


Table 13 Turbine CEN1 LOS data – Old Cork Radar

14.1.4 Radar Line of Sight Results

Line of Sight Charts for each turbine from the new radar are shown in Annex A. Line of Sight Charts for each turbine from the old radar are shown in Annex B.

Visibility results for each turbine and each radar are shown in the table below.

Turbine New radar visible height (m)

New radar visibility

Old radar visible height (m)

Old radar visibility

CEN1 145.0 Fully Visible 54.4 Rotor partially visible

DEP1 138.4 Fully Visible 25.7 Rotor partially visible

DEP2 143.3 Fully Visible 38.4 Rotor partially visible

GSK1 134.6 Fully Visible 71.0 Rotor and tower partially visible

NOV1 131.2 Fully Visible 55.4 Rotor partially visible

NOV2 142.1 Fully Visible 45.9 Rotor partially visible

Table 14 Radar Line of Sight Summary

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


15 TECHNICAL EFFECTS OF WIND FARMS ON PRIMARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR

15.1 Information Sources The following two European documents outline the potential effects of wind turbines on primary and secondary surveillance radar. The documents are the UK Civil Aviation Authority Publication CAP 764 CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines and the Eurocontrol document Guidelines on How to Assess the Potential Impact of Wind Turbines on Surveillance Sensors. 15.2 CAP 764 This document identifies the following potential effects of wind turbines on primary surveillance radar:

a) Receiver Saturation Radar receivers require a large dynamic range in order to detect the reflected energy from both large and small aircraft. However, if an obstacle such as a wind turbine reflects a significant amount of power, the receiver can be pushed beyond its dynamic range and can become saturated. This effect is not limited to wind turbines and can be caused by any large obstacle; however, it is dependant upon the size and range of the obstacle from the receiver. It is acknowledged that the likelihood of wind turbine generated receiver saturation is low; however, it is something that must be considered.

b) Constant False Alarm Rate (CFAR) CFAR covers a range of radar processing techniques that can be used to dynamically adjust the receiver threshold (or other filters) to limit the number of false targets being generated from background noise or clutter. Amplitude based CFAR samples the average amplitude of detected energy in the vicinity of a target and causes the receiver threshold to rise or fall as background energy increases or decreases. Clutter, including wind turbine clutter, can cause the threshold to rise resulting in loss of detection of lower energy targets in the vicinity of the clutter. This can lead to a lowering of the probability of detection of aircraft in the region of the clutter and in front and behind the clutter as the receiver thresholds ramp up and down in range.

c) Defeating Moving Target Processing (Obscuration) Moving targets impart a frequency shift in the reflected energy of the radar. The effect is known as a Doppler shift. Techniques such as Moving Target Indication (MTI) and Moving Target Detection (MTD) employ filters to detect the Doppler shift allowing discrimination of fast moving objects (assumed to be aircraft) from slow moving, or stationary objects (assumed to be clutter). The slow moving or stationary objects can then be suppressed from display. The stationary parts of a wind turbine (nacelle and tower) can be filtered out using these techniques. However, the tips of the rotating turbine blades can move at similar speeds to aircraft such that the blades are not suppressed from output and may appear as aircraft on the display.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


d) False Radar Returns (clutter) As described above, the Doppler shift from the rotation of the wind turbine blades can cause them to be detected by radar. The position of the wind turbines within a development and the synchronicity of the turbine blades can cause a ‘twinkling’ effect or even the formation of tracks. This effect can be very distracting for a controller and can cause confusion when trying to distinguish between real aircraft and false targets. Additionally, the separation of other aircraft from these targets may need to be maintained (dependant upon radar service being provided and airspace). Furthermore, high levels of clutter can obscure display symbology such as track labels and make them difficult to read.

e) Plot Extractor/Filter Memory Overload On radars fitted with a plot extractor, every target picked up by the radar is processed and filtered. Due to the constraints of memory size, there is a limit to the number of plots and tracks a system can handle. Therefore, if for a particular radar, there are a high number of false plots, the memory capacity can be reached and subsequent problems can arise. The developer must, by consultation with the ANSP4, prove that the ATC equipment will not be overloaded or that suitable techniques are employed to prevent this happening.

f) Presenting an Obstruction (shadow) In general, with the exception of the rotating blades, a wind turbine presents an obstruction to a primary radar signal in the same way as any other structure, e.g. a large building. Moreover, the operational effect of any such large structure is taken into consideration using current planning and assessment procedures. However, for wind turbines, it is generally accepted that the shadow area behind the turbines within which aircraft are unlikely to be detected is often only a few hundred metres because this is generally the distance it takes for a radar beam to diffract around an obstacle and continue beyond it. However, a radar beam only contains a specified amount of energy and, when it reaches a wind turbine or another obstacle, some of this energy is either reflected back to the receiver or off into the atmosphere; thus reducing the energy available to diffract around the obstacle. This reduction in energy may result in the detection ability beyond the obstacle being reduced, although the extent of this reduction will depend upon a number of factors such as size of the obstacle(s), range from the radar and terrain. Of note is that the greater the number of turbines, the harder it will be to assess the impact of the obstacle because of the complicated nature of the effect.

15.3 Eurocontrol Guidelines This document identifies the following potential PSR impacts:

Reduction in probability of detection – similar to (b) and (c) above False target reports (due to echoes from wind turbines) – similar to (d) above Processing overload – similar to (e) above Shadowing effects- similar to (f) above False target reports (due to secondary or indirect reflections from the wind

turbines) – not mentioned in CAP 764 Range and azimuth errors – not mentioned in CAP 764 Raised thresholds – similar to (b) above Receiver saturation – similar to (a) above

4 ANSP – Air Navigation Service Provider

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


15.4 Assessment of Likely PSR Impacts Based on the results of line of sight analysis, each of these potential impacts has been considered for the new primary surveillance radar at Cork. The most likely impact is outlined in the table below:

Technical Effect New Cork PSR

Receiver Saturation The slope of the tapered wind turbine tower together with its lower elevation means that the wind turbine towers have the potential to be efficient radio reflectors as the towers may slope at perfect right angles to the radar beam.

The turbines low position in relation to the radar mean that they will lie well beneath the most powerful part of the radar beam, meaning that power transmitted to and received from the wind turbines will effectively be attenuated. The wind turbines are likely to be illuminated by the auxiliary, rather than main, beam meaning that these attenuating effects will be greater still.

The wind turbines are all more than 10km from the radar which means that transmitted and received signals will be attenuated simply by the distance between the radar and the turbines.

It is unlikely that the wind turbines will cause any receiver saturation effects.

Reduction in probability of detection around wind farm

This is possible because all six turbines are likely to be detected by the radar. Small targets flying slowly in the vicinity of wind farm may be less likely to be detected.

Any such effects are likely to be limited because of the radar’s modern design; the relatively small number of turbines and the fact the turbines are situated below the radar’s auxiliary beam.

Whilst there may be a small localised reduction in the probability of detection, genuine targets are still likely to be detected.

Defeating MTI Processing and false radar returns.

All six turbines are likely to generate false radar returns and defeat MTI processing if no technical mitigation arrangements are made.

Plot Extractor/Memory Filter Overload

Unlikely to be significant when considering this particular wind development. This is because of the modern design of the radar and the relatively small number of wind turbines.

Shadow effects Shadowing effects are likely to be insignificant because of the small size of the shadow zone resulting from the radar being higher than the turbines.

False Target Reports due to reflections

Unlikely because of the relatively low elevation of the turbines, particularly if all turbine towers are completely tapered. Processing equipment in modern radar, such as this one, can mitigate false target reports due to reflections. Power transmitted to and received from turbines is attenuated because turbines are below strongest

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


part of radar beam.

Range and Azimuth Errors

Unlikely because radar will not be ‘looking through’ the wind farm, due to its low elevation.

Table 15 Likely technical effects on PSR

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


16 TECHNICAL EFFECTS OF WIND FARMS ON SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR

16.1 Information Sources The following two European documents outline the potential effects of wind turbines on primary and secondary surveillance radar. The documents are the UK Civil Aviation Authority Publication CAP 764 CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines and the Eurocontrol document Guidelines on How to Assess the Potential Impact of Wind Turbines on Surveillance Sensors. 16.2 CAP 764 This document identifies the following potential effects of wind turbines on secondary surveillance radar: a) SSR Reflections

Wind turbines, like any other large obstacle, can cause reflections if they are sufficiently close to the SSR facility and are within 'Radar Line of Sight'. In general terms, SSR energy may be reflected off the structures in both the uplink and downlink directions. This can result in aircraft, which are in a different direction to the way the radar is looking, replying through the reflector and tricking the radar into outputting a false target in the direction where the radar is pointing i.e. at the obstruction. Traditional SSR (Mode A and C) is susceptible to this, but employs reflection processing and gain-time control to try to eliminate the reflections. However, these techniques are not always successful in eliminating high power reflections. Moreover, most reflection processing assumes a fixed-reflector orientation, as turbines swing to face the wind their orientation changes. The selective and predictive tracking used by Mode Select (Mode S) radars makes them less susceptible to the effects of reflections (i.e. the reflection is not in the predicted location where the aircraft should be, so the selective interrogation will not be directed there). b) Presenting an Obstruction If the wind turbines are within ‘Radar Line of Sight’ and aircraft are required to be detected at longer range behind the wind turbines, then effects similar to those described above for Primary Radar can occur.

16.3 Eurocontrol Guidelines This document identifies the following potential SSR impacts:

Reduction in probability of detection and probability of Mode A and Mode code detection – similar to (b) above

SSR false target reports – similar to (a) above Reduction in SSR 2D position accuracy

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


16.4 Assessment of Likely SSR Impacts Based on the results of line of sight analysis, the author’s experience with wind turbines and radar interference, and the author’s knowledge of the equipment in use, each of these potential impacts has been considered for the secondary surveillance radar at Cork. Potential impacts are considered in the table below:

Technical Effect New Cork SSR

SSR Reflections Unlikely that there will be any significant impact due to range of turbines, low elevation of turbines and the spacing between turbines. Modern radar design and processing will make any potential impact less likely.

Presenting an Obstruction

Shadowing effects are likely to be insignificant because of the small size of the shadow zone resulting from the radar being higher than the turbines.

Reduction in positional accuracy

Unlikely that there will be any significant impact due to range of turbines and turbines low elevation.

Table 16 Likely technical effects on SSR

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


17 SUMMARY OF LIKELY TECHNICAL EFFECTS ON RADAR

The proposed turbines at Ringaskiddy are likely to have the following significant effects on the radar at Cork.

1. New Cork PSR – Slight reduction in probability of detection in immediate vicinity of wind farm

2. New Cork PSR – False radar returns from all 6 wind turbines, unless the effects of the wind turbines are mitigated

17.1 Clutter Primary radar false returns are often referred to as clutter. There are many sources of clutter including:

Waves Birds Road vehicles Rail vehicles Weather

Air traffic controllers are trained to distinguish genuine and false radar returns so that aircraft can be controlled both safely and efficiently. In the United Kingdom air traffic controllers may disregard clutter in controlled airspace in certain circumstances. 17.2 Operational Impact The airspace above and around the proposed wind farm is busy. The proposed wind farm is deep inside a known traffic environment so the probability of unknown aircraft appearing in the vicinity of the proposed wind farm is low. The vast majority of aircraft flying in the vicinity of the wind farm will be transponder equipped and therefore visible on secondary surveillance radar which is unlikely to be affected by the wind farm. Clutter (or false radar returns) from the proposed wind farm could be disregarded by air traffic controllers as the wind farm is situated in a known traffic environment.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


18 PRIMARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR MITIGATION

18.1 PSR Mitigation Techniques UK Civil Aviation Authority document CAP 764 describes a number of operational and technical mitigation options. Operational mitigation options include:

Routing aircraft around areas of wind farm clutter Disregarding wind farm clutter

Technical mitigation options are described in CAP 764 as follows:

PSR Blanking. Many of the equipment mitigations described below rely on the ability to blank out or mask the area over the windfarm within which the PSR 'clutter' is being generated. This can be done in a number of ways. Certain radar systems have the ability to blank out user definable areas to prevent the radar from processing returns from those areas; however, other methods simply involve masking the affected area on the controller’s display. In the latter situation, the clutter is still generated, just not shown to the controller.

Data-Fusion/In-Fill Radar. To help provide continuity of radar cover and to reduce the effect that clutter can have on the provision of an air traffic service, it is sometimes possible to inhibit the returns over a wind turbine development from an affected radar and to overlay the radar returns from an alternative radar that, for reasons such as distance or terrain, is not affected by the wind turbine development (known as an 'in-fill' radar). This technique can also be known as a 'mosaic' picture and relies upon a number of factors:

a) The ability of the affected radar or air traffic control system to inhibit radar returns in specific areas; b) The capability of the air traffic control system to receive data from an additional source; c) The capability and design of the air traffic control system to fuse the data together and to display it to the controller in a usable format.

Clearly there will be new risks posed by data fusing that may impact on the accuracy, timeliness and general integrity of the displayed plot position, and the service provider must ensure that these risks are tolerable or otherwise mitigated.

It must also be noted that when considering using an infill radar, the integrity of the data source must be considered. It is not for the CAA to comment on who should provide the data or own the data source; however, where an infill radar is not collocated or owned by the aerodrome or other ANSP affected, some form of guarantee must be put in place to maintain the integrity of the data for all but unforeseen, shortnotice outages.

Of additional concern is the effect that the provision of new, infill radars will have on the RF spectrum. In certain situations, the concept of an infill radar may appear to be a viable mitigation but an alternative radar may not already be available such that a new radar would have to be provided. However, this radar would require operating frequencies that are deconflicted from those already in existence and this is becoming harder and harder to accomplish. Additionally, there is an OFCOM requirement for efficient use of the RF spectrum and this may lead to an Incentive pricing scheme within which users are asked to pay for the specific frequencies they use. This needs to be taken into consideration when determining which form of mitigation is most viable as some technologies may become

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


more costly than envisaged. Other techniques such as multilateration (see sub-paragraph 2.7) may offer a more viable (and potentially cheaper) alternative to the provision of a new radar; however, such systems would only replace conventional SSR systems and not PSR. Consequently, in areas where PSR is required, the use of a multilateration system alone would not be sufficient.

Physical or Terrain Masking. In certain circumstances, and where low-level radar coverage in the area of the wind turbine development is not required, it may be possible to use either existing terrain or a man-made object to prevent a radar from 'seeing' the wind turbines. The use of terrain may involve moving the radar or turbines to a suitable alternative location whereas a man-made object would need to be specifically designed and may even be constructed of radar absorbent materials (RAM), thus creating an artificial radar horizon. In either case, a detailed study of the radar performance requirements would need to be carried out and taken into account when considering this technique. Furthermore, the only time that such masking would be viable is when the operational use of the radar is such that completely removing all radar coverage on specified radials at certain levels would be acceptable.

Multilateration. Multilateration is an alternative to traditional SSR systems and employs a number of receiver stations that are strategically placed to provide a network of coverage around a given area. These units listen for the information transmitted by a transponder in an aircraft and, because the aircraft will be at varying distances from each receiver, the signals will be received at slightly different times. Consequently, using advanced processing and a technique known as Time Difference of Arrival, it is possible to calculate the precise location of each aircraft. Multilateration can be entirely passive, i.e. they operate using the ‘squitter’ received from Mode S transponders, or active by transmitting an interrogation signal to prompt Mode A/C transponders to reply. However, both active and passive systems have their limitations. Both systems rely on aircraft to be carrying transponders, while passive systems rely on these transponders to provide either an unprompted transmission (i.e. squitter), or for an interrogation signal to be provided by another system (e.g. a nearby SSR radar). In general, multilateration systems are likely to be cheaper than a traditional SSR radar; however, before adopting such a system, consideration would need to be given to how the data would be integrated into the ATC system and whether or not this is even possible.

Non Auto-Initiation Zones. Some plot extracted Primary Radar systems have the ability to define zones where plot extracted tracks will be prevented from initiating However, mature tracks flying through the zone will not be inhibited. These zones are referred to as Non Auto Initiation Zones (NAIZ). NAIZ can be programmed in areas of wind turbine clusters to prevent the rotating blades from forming tracks within the cluster. Nevertheless, although the use of NAIZ may inhibit distracting tracks from being generated from within the wind turbine cluster, it may still be hazardous to allow real aircraft tracks to fly through the cluster. This is because, although not seen, the wind turbine blade radar returns still exist. If these are of equivalent or greater return signal strength than the real aircraft, it may seduce the aircraft track and display it in the wrong position. If this persists for several scans, the false track will eventually run out due to the extent of the cluster, but the real aircraft track may not appear due to the NAIZ rules until it emerges from the cluster. Therefore, when flying aircraft over a wind turbine development, NAIZ should be avoided unless it is known that the wind turbine returns are of significantly lower signal strength than the real aircraft returns in the area. NAIZ will stop real aircraft tracks starting within the zone. For example aircraft climbing into radar cover from low altitude may reach radar cover within the boundaries of an NAIZ and therefore not be shown until they emerge out of the zone. It is for this reason that the use of NAIZ is discouraged. Where NAIZ is used, the size of the zone should be minimal and proliferation of zones should be avoided.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


Advanced Tracking Algorithms. Advanced Tracking Algorithms are classified as non-traditional tracking methods, for example using Alpha-Beta and Kalman based filters. Advanced methods include Particle Filtering, Multiple Hypothesis, Bayesian Algorithms and H-Infinity. These modern tracking systems make use of high capacity and speed processing systems to perform multiple calculations to determine the most probable target positions. These non-deterministic approaches to target detection and tracking have yet to be fully accepted in the UK civil radar arena, where more traditional deterministic tracking methods are the norm. These methods are currently undergoing trials to explore the feasibility of these concepts.

One of the problems that advanced tracking algorithms face is in proving that the software and algorithms work all of the time and will not produce hazardous results. This is in part due to the non-deterministic nature of the algorithms. As such, it may be difficult for any service provider to provide a robust safety assessment, including necessary verification evidence, for systems using advanced tracking algorithms. Nevertheless, this does not mean that it may not be possible.

Use of SSR Only. It may be possible to mask the unwanted primary radar returns generated by a windfarm and use SSR only in certain specified areas. However, the permanent use of SSR only in the Approach environment is not approved in the UK.

This is due to the aircraft transponder being a single point of failure and the subsequent increased risk of non-transponder equipped or transponder unserviceable aircraft remaining undetected and coming into conflict with aircraft receiving an air traffic service. However, it may be justifiable to use SSR only to maintain the identity of an aircraft transiting through small areas of airspace affected by the clutter caused by wind turbine developments. Attention is drawn to the following issues that should be considered as part of the full safety assessment to mitigate any operational procedures that allow aircraft to fly through small areas of radar clutter:

a) The maximum extent of the wind turbine radar clutter tolerable. This may be related to the radar separation standard being applied in the vicinity of the clutter and the performance of the radar; b) The proximity of the wind turbine radar clutter to other displayed wind turbine clutter areas i.e. the cumulative effect of the clutter; c) The likelihood that the wind turbine radar clutter will be hiding other aircraft.

The use of SSR only in the en-route environment is more common; however, the same risks posed by non-transponding aircraft still exist but to a lesser extent and approval is still required from the CAA.

Transponder Mandatory Zones. Transponder carriage requirements within UK airspace are changing to maximise the benefits offered by Mode S. However, under current regulations or proposals, not all UK airspace will require a transponder to be fitted and used, thus leaving large areas (over both land and sea) where transponders will not be mandatory. Nevertheless, it is recognised that under certain circumstances and in certain areas, mandatory transponder carriage can provide significant safety benefits. Consequently, the CAA has the regulatory power to create Transponder Mandatory Zones (TMZs) for a number of reasons, one of which may be to help mitigate the effects of wind turbines on primary radar. External bodies can also request TMZs; however, it must be recognised that a procedure similar to the existing Airspace Change Process (ACP) would have to be followed. This would provide full justification for the creation of such an area and, by way of appropriate consultation,would allow an assessment of the effect upon all

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


airspace users to be made. The responsibility for completing this assessment would not necessarily fall to the aviation stakeholder.

When considering whether a TMZ may provide suitable mitigation, a number of factors must be taken into account: a) The effect on other airspace users e.g. the General Aviation community who, if they are not transponder equipped, would be excluded from the area; b) The creation of choke points by ‘funnelling’ non-transponder equipped aircraft into smaller areas; c) Whether it will be necessary to mask areas of significant primary radar clutter and whether the ATC system capable of doing so; d) If the primary clutter in the area of the TMZ is to be masked, whether CAA, SRG will allow control in that area using SSR only (see paragraph 2.11).

It must be noted that for Air Defence reasons, Transponder Mandatory Zones may not be suitable in all areas but this is an issue that will need to be raised with the MoD and is outside the scope of this CAP.

Mechanical Beam Tilting. To reduce the effects of clutter on radar it is possible to mechanically raise the radar beam so that it passes over the wind turbine development. The obvious effect on this is a significant reduction in low-level radar coverage and the effect of this would need to be discussed with the appropriate aviation stakeholder.

Radar Absorbent Materials. Radar Absorbent Materials (RAM) to reduce the Radar Cross Section of wind turbines are available for the towers and nacelles; however, similar materials for use on the turbine blades are still being developed and tested. Nevertheless, such technology may provide a viable mitigation method in the future.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


18.2 PSR Mitigation Evaluation Each of the above mitigation techniques is considered for the Primary Surveillance Radar at Cork:

Technical Mitigation

Cork

PSR Blanking The area is too large to be blanked in its entirety. It may be possible to blank each turbine location individually or to blank small groups of turbines. An example of how blanking might be arranged is shown below.

In Fill Radar An alternative existing radar could be found or a new infill radar could be purchased. This is a promising – but potentially expensive – solution. Potential solutions include reuse of the Old Cork Airport radar or use of a new local in-fill radar.

Physical Masking

There does not appear to be a suitable location for erecting a radar shield. This solution is not viable in this case (although it could be if the old radar were to be used as an in-fill).

Multilateration Not viable for PSR only targets.

Non Auto Initiation Zones

A Non Auto Initiation Zone should be considered.

Advanced Tracking Algorithms

It is unlikely that there will be a practical solution in this particular situation.

SSR Only

These could be considered, as the development sits entirely within controlled airspace. Transponder

Mandatory Zones

Beam Tilting This is unlikely to be viable because the wind turbines are entirely visible to the radar. It could be considered if the old radar were used as an in-fill.

Radar Absorbent Materials (RAM)

RAM turbines are not currently available commercially. RAM Materials are unlikely to eliminate radar impact – although they may reduce it.

Table 17 PSR Mitigation Evaluation

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


Figure 10 Possible radar blanking areas

The most promising technical mitigation techniques for the impact of the proposed Ringaskiddy wind development on the PSR radar at Cork are:

1. Non Auto Initiation Zones 2. Localised blanking 3. Use of SSR Only and/or Transponder Mandatory Zones 4. In Fill Radar using new or existing radar 5. A combination of the above

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14


19 CONCLUSIONS

Arup is proposing to develop a wind farm in Ringaskiddy, approximately 13km south east of Cork. The proposal is for 6 wind turbines, each having a hub height of up to 100m agl (above ground level) and a maximum tip height of 145m. Pager Power has been asked to consider the radar and physical impact of the proposed wind turbines on operations at Cork Airport. The new Cork radar, which is on Tullig More Hill south west of the airport, has been assessed. The proposed wind turbines are approximately 11km from the airport and are on ground which is lower than the airport. Line of sight analysis has shown that the radar is likely to detect the proposed turbines and will therefore be impacted technically. The wind turbines would create a relatively small area of clutter on primary surveillance radar screens. There are unlikely to be any effects on secondary surveillance radar. Whilst the wind turbines are well away from the extended centre line of any runway they are in operationally significant airspace. The proposed development lies entirely within controlled airspace which is a known traffic environment. This could mean that the technical effects on the radar could be operationally acceptable to air traffic controllers at Cork. Whilst technical mitigation will not be required if the development is deemed operationally acceptable, a number of possible technical mitigation solutions have been identified. These include:

Local radar blanking Configuration of Non Auto Initiation Zones within radar processing equipment SSR only operation with or without transponders Radar data fusion using a new or existing in-fill radar

The physical impact of the proposed turbines has been assessed in accordance with International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO protected surfaces. The proposed turbines lie beneath the airport’s Outer Horizontal Surface. The tips of the turbines are approximately 100 metres below this surface and consequently do not breach it. The turbines therefore do not constitute obstacles from an aviation safeguarding perspective. The Turbines will have no effect on Minimum Safe Altitudes or Air Traffic Control Surveillance Minimum Altitudes. It is recommended that three turbines be fitted with low intensity steady red aviation lights which should be lit at night. If the turbine height were increased to 150.5 metres it would be necessary to fit them with medium intensity steady red aviation lights. The overall impact of 150.5 metre turbines would otherwise be similar to the impact of 145 metre turbines.

It is recommended that the Irish Aviation Authority be consulted regarding the progression of this development.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 08-12-2017:04:01:14