Irish Water / Cork County Council Youghal Main Drainage ...

Youghal Main Drainage Scheme

Response to Department of Environment, Community & Local Government

2794DG75_WSLResponse.docx

Irish Water /

Youghal Main Drainage Environmental Evaluation of Effects of proposed WWTP

Outfalls

Notice

This report was produced by Atkins for Queries Raised by the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG)December 2014 on the above.

This report may not be used by any person other than County Council’s express permission. In any event, Atkins accepts no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses arising as a result of the use of or reliance upon the contents of this repCouncil.

Document History

JOB NUMBER: 2794

0 Draft for Comment

Revision Purpose Description


Irish Water / Cork County Council


Environmental Evaluation of Effects of proposed WWTP Outfalls – Youghal, Co. Cork

February 2015

for Irish Water & Cork County Council for the specific purpose ofthe Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG)

This report may not be used by any person other than Irish Water & Cork County Council without express permission. In any event, Atkins accepts no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses arising as

he use of or reliance upon the contents of this report by any person other than

DOCUMENT REF: 2794DG75

PO’D/DB/AF AF BMK

Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised

1

Cork County Council

Scheme

Environmental Evaluation of Effects of proposed WWTP

for the specific purpose of a Response to the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG) via letter dated 18

th

without Irish Water’s & Cork express permission. In any event, Atkins accepts no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses arising as

ort by any person other than Irish Water & Cork County

BMK 25-2-2015

Authorised Date




Contents Section

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. Background

3. Responses to Issues Raised

4. Benefits of the Project

5. Conclusions

6. References

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Emission Limit Values for Youghal WWTP.

Table 2.2 Allowable Frequency of Discharges from Secondary Discharge Points in Youghal.

Table 3.1 Summary of proposed

proposed short sea outfall at Green’s Quay.

Table 3.2 Extracted from Section 5.13, pg 37, Appropriate Assessment (Atkins 2013); copy of Table 5.1

Summary of outfall locations relative to Natura 2000 sites.

Table 3.3 Extract of Table 15.1 –

Chapter 15 Interaction of Environmental Impact, EIS Volume 2 (Atkins McCarthy, 2001).

List of Text Boxes

Text Box 1 Section 5.2.3 Impact on Mussel Beds: Extracted

McCarthy, 2001).

Text Box 2 Extract from EIS Vol. 2 (2001), pgs 51

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Project Timeline

Figure 2.2 Location of proposed WWTP (copy of Figure 1.3 of the Non

Figure 2.3 Extract from Admiralty Chart included with Foreshore Licence application showing outfall locations.

Figure 2.4 Location of proposed Greens’ Quay outfall looking out to subtidal channel.

Figure 3.1 Copy of map included in Woodstown

of Environment, Communications and Local Government which is stated as showing the area of

exclusive title/rights licensed to Woodstown Shellfish Ltd by the Duke of Devonshire/Lismore

Estate.


Responses to Issues Raised

Emission Limit Values for Youghal WWTP.

Allowable Frequency of Discharges from Secondary Discharge Points in Youghal.

Summary of proposed mitigation measures in respect of the construction and operation of the

proposed short sea outfall at Green’s Quay.

Extracted from Section 5.13, pg 37, Appropriate Assessment (Atkins 2013); copy of Table 5.1

Summary of outfall locations relative to Natura 2000 sites.

– Youghal Main Drainage Scheme – Environmental Impacts; Extracted from


Section 5.2.3 Impact on Mussel Beds: Extracted from Chapter 5 Marine Ecology, EIS Vol. 2 (Atkins

Extract from EIS Vol. 2 (2001), pgs 51-52.

Location of proposed WWTP (copy of Figure 1.3 of the Non-Technical Summary to t

Extract from Admiralty Chart included with Foreshore Licence application showing outfall locations.

Location of proposed Greens’ Quay outfall looking out to subtidal channel.

Copy of map included in Woodstown Shellfish Ltd submission of 5th December 2013 to Department



ii

Page

iv

1

3

14

42

43

44


construction and operation of the

Extracted from Section 5.13, pg 37, Appropriate Assessment (Atkins 2013); copy of Table 5.1 –

Environmental Impacts; Extracted from


from Chapter 5 Marine Ecology, EIS Vol. 2 (Atkins

Technical Summary to the EIS)

Extract from Admiralty Chart included with Foreshore Licence application showing outfall locations.

December 2013 to Department






Figure 3.2 Extract of Figure 5.3 –

Ecology, EIS Vol. 2, Atkins McCarthy (2001).


Ecology, EIS Vol. 2, Atkins McCarthy (2001). SLR.Myt.X consists predominantly of mussels.

Figure 3.4 Mussels to the North of Ferry Point

Figure 3.5 Mussel colonisation of small sandbank on southern side of Ferry Point


Ecology, EIS Vol. 2, Atkins McCarthy (2001).

List of Appendices

Appendix A Submission from Woodstown

Section, Department of Environment, Community and Local Government

December 2013.

Appendix B CORMIX Model (from EIS, 2001).

Appendix C Figure 5.1 & Plates 1.3

Appendix D Table 5.2 of the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013).


– Map showing locations of dredge sampling sites; from Chapter 5 Marine

2, Atkins McCarthy (2001). [Option 1 is preferred option]

– Marine biotypes along the lower Youghal Mudlands; from Chapter 5 Marine

2, Atkins McCarthy (2001). SLR.Myt.X consists predominantly of mussels.

Mussels to the North of Ferry Point.

Mussel colonisation of small sandbank on southern side of Ferry Point.

– Marine biotypes along the lower Youghal Mudlands; from Chapter 5 Marine

Ecology, EIS Vol. 2, Atkins McCarthy (2001). SLR.Myt.X consists predominantly of mussels.

Submission from Woodstown Bay Shellfish Ltd to Marine Planning & Foreshore

Section, Department of Environment, Community and Local Government

.

Model (from EIS, 2001).

& Plates 1.3-1.6 of the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013).

Table 5.2 of the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013).

iii

Map showing locations of dredge sampling sites; from Chapter 5 Marine

[Option 1 is preferred option]

Mudlands; from Chapter 5 Marine

2, Atkins McCarthy (2001). SLR.Myt.X consists predominantly of mussels.

Marine biotypes along the lower Youghal Mudlands; from Chapter 5 Marine

consists predominantly of mussels.

Bay Shellfish Ltd to Marine Planning & Foreshore

Section, Department of Environment, Community and Local Government – 5th

(Atkins, 2013).




Executive Summary

The Youghal Main Drainage Scheme

as Consulting Engineers to Youghal Urban District Council to prepare a preliminary report

of the scheme includes improvements to Youghal municipal drainage network and the provision of a

new wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to treat sewage emanating from the town.

The treated effluent from the new

long outfall pipeline to the central channel of the river

existing outfalls located on the foreshore

These outfall works require a Foreshore Licence

application has been made to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government

(DECLG) for same.

As part of the application process for the Foreshore Licence, the DECLG has

summarising: -

a) the anticipated environmental impacts

proposed mitigation measures;

b) potential impacts during construction of new outfall and refurbishment of 4 existing outfalls;

c) alternatives considered to the outfalls that are the subject of the Foreshore Licence

application.

During the planning phase of the scheme, various environmental reports and subm

prepared including an EIS (2001), Waste Water Discharge Licence Application (2008) and an

Appropriate Assessment (2011 and updated 2013).

alia, in these documents in response to the queries

In summary, the conclusions of all the various documents are as follows:

• A number of options were considered for the location of the WWTP and outfall and the

proposed development represent

environmental impact and

• The provision of a new WWTP and outfall in Youghal will have positive long

effects on the local environment, including improvements in estuarine water quality

These benefits will be to the good of all users of the estuary, inclu

commercial and leisure users.

• There will be temporary short term impacts on the estuary during the construction

phase. However, it will be possible to put in place suitable mitigation measures during

construction to minimise these impacts

of the works, provision of silt curtains to minimise silt mobilisation etc.

This report also summarises the clear benefits that the scheme will bring to Youghal including

reductions in levels of nutrients and bacterio

leading to improved water quality in the Blackwater Estuary.


Executive Summary

The Youghal Main Drainage Scheme has been progressing since 2000 when Atkins was appointed

as Consulting Engineers to Youghal Urban District Council to prepare a preliminary report



new WWTP will be discharged to the Blackwater Estuary via a 350m

to the central channel of the river. Minor works are also

located on the foreshore.

These outfall works require a Foreshore Licence in accordance with the Foreshore Act


As part of the application process for the Foreshore Licence, the DECLG has

the anticipated environmental impacts on aquaculture activities in the Harbour and any

proposed mitigation measures;

during construction of new outfall and refurbishment of 4 existing outfalls;

alternatives considered to the outfalls that are the subject of the Foreshore Licence

During the planning phase of the scheme, various environmental reports and subm


Appropriate Assessment (2011 and updated 2013). This report collates the information provided,

response to the queries raised.

In summary, the conclusions of all the various documents are as follows: -

A number of options were considered for the location of the WWTP and outfall and the

proposed development represents the preferred option taking into account both

tal impact and cost.

The provision of a new WWTP and outfall in Youghal will have positive long


These benefits will be to the good of all users of the estuary, inclu


There will be temporary short term impacts on the estuary during the construction

However, it will be possible to put in place suitable mitigation measures during

construction to minimise these impacts. Mitigation measures proposed include timing



reductions in levels of nutrients and bacteriological contamination being discharged t

ity in the Blackwater Estuary.

iv

has been progressing since 2000 when Atkins was appointed

as Consulting Engineers to Youghal Urban District Council to prepare a preliminary report. The scope



WWTP will be discharged to the Blackwater Estuary via a 350m

Minor works are also proposed to some

in accordance with the Foreshore Act and an


As part of the application process for the Foreshore Licence, the DECLG has requested a report

on aquaculture activities in the Harbour and any

during construction of new outfall and refurbishment of 4 existing outfalls;

alternatives considered to the outfalls that are the subject of the Foreshore Licence

During the planning phase of the scheme, various environmental reports and submissions were


This report collates the information provided, inter


the preferred option taking into account both

The provision of a new WWTP and outfall in Youghal will have positive long-term

effects on the local environment, including improvements in estuarine water quality.

These benefits will be to the good of all users of the estuary, including both



tion measures proposed include timing



logical contamination being discharged to the river




1. Introduction

Reasons for Report

1.1 Atkins is acting as consulting

Main Drainage Scheme

municipal drainage network and the provision of a new wastewater treatment plant

(WWTP) to serve Youghal Town and its environs.

1.2 In order to construct

Blackwater Estuary, a Foreshore Licence is required from the Department of Environment,

Community and Local Governmen

1.3 This report is prepared in response to a request from th

environmental impacts of the proposed construction works and

shellfish within the harbour.

1.4 This report collates existing data from the reference sources below to address the request

for clarification. There were n

inform the report.

Reference Sources

1.5 Material to address the queries raised has primarily been extracted and summarised from

the following documents:

• Atkins (December 2013). Youghal Main Drainage: Appropriate Assessment under

Article 6(3) of the ‘Habitats Directive’ [Amended to address queries to Foreshore

Licence Application].

DECLG to address qu

• Atkins (2009). Ecological Report and Article 6 Appropriate Assessment Screening

Report. Report

accompany Foreshore Licence application

• Atkins (2008). Applic

Agglomeration. Submitted by Cork

Agency (EPA).

• Application for a Lease/Licence/Permission under the Foreshore Act 1933 (As

Amended). Submitted to Cork County

subsequently submitted to the Department of the Marine, Commu

Natural Resources

• Revised drawings to accompany Foreshore Licence application of 2008

Atkins for Cork County Council and subm

1http://www.environ.ie/en/Foreshore/ApplicationsSubjecttoEIA/CorkCountyCouncil/ApplicationDetails/FileDownLo

ad,34387,en.pdf


Introduction

Reasons for Report

Atkins is acting as consulting engineers to Irish Water in the development of the Youghal

Scheme. The scope of the scheme includes upgrades to the existing


to serve Youghal Town and its environs.

to construct a treated effluent outfall from the proposed WWTP into the


Community and Local Government (DECLG).

his report is prepared in response to a request from the DECLG for clarification on

environmental impacts of the proposed construction works and WWTP

shellfish within the harbour.

This report collates existing data from the reference sources below to address the request

e were no additional environmental surveys or sampling carried out

Reference Sources

Material to address the queries raised has primarily been extracted and summarised from

documents: -

Atkins (December 2013). Youghal Main Drainage: Appropriate Assessment under


Licence Application]. Report prepared for Cork County Council

address queries to Foreshore Licence Application.

Atkins (2009). Ecological Report and Article 6 Appropriate Assessment Screening

Report. Report prepared for Cork County Council and submitted to DECLG to

accompany Foreshore Licence application.

Atkins (2008). Application for Waste Water Discharge Licence for Youghal

Submitted by Cork County Council to the Environmental

Application for a Lease/Licence/Permission under the Foreshore Act 1933 (As

Amended). Submitted to Cork County Council by Atkins, 2nd

subsequently submitted to the Department of the Marine, Commu

Natural Resources.

drawings to accompany Foreshore Licence application of 2008

Atkins for Cork County Council and submitted to the DECLG in August

http://www.environ.ie/en/Foreshore/ApplicationsSubjecttoEIA/CorkCountyCouncil/ApplicationDetails/FileDownLo

1

ater in the development of the Youghal

scheme includes upgrades to the existing


outfall from the proposed WWTP into the


for clarification on the

WWTP operation on

This report collates existing data from the reference sources below to address the request

surveys or sampling carried out to

Material to address the queries raised has primarily been extracted and summarised from

Atkins (December 2013). Youghal Main Drainage: Appropriate Assessment under


uncil and submitted to

Atkins (2009). Ecological Report and Article 6 Appropriate Assessment Screening

and submitted to DECLG to

ation for Waste Water Discharge Licence for Youghal

Environmental Protection

Application for a Lease/Licence/Permission under the Foreshore Act 1933 (As

October 20081 and

subsequently submitted to the Department of the Marine, Communications and

drawings to accompany Foreshore Licence application of 2008. Prepared by

August 2011.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Foreshore/ApplicationsSubjecttoEIA/CorkCountyCouncil/ApplicationDetails/FileDownLo




• Atkins McCarthy (2001)

Statement, Vol. 1 Non

District Council and included in application for planning approval to An Bord Plean

in 2001.

• Atkins McCarthy (2001). Youghal Main Drainage Scheme: Environme

Statement, Vol. 2

and included in app

• Atkins McCarthy (2001). Youghal Main Drainage Scheme: Environmental Impact

Statement, Vol. 3

Urban District Council

Pleanála in 2001.

• A marine ecology assessment of the coasta

by Ecological Consultancy Services Ltd. (EcoServe) in May 2001

are reported in EIS Vol. 2

• Atkins (June 2003). Youghal Main Drain

Water Treatment Works.

the DECLG in 2013

• Atkins (June 2003). Youghal Main Drainage: Preliminary

Collection System.

DECLG in 2013.

1.6 Additionally, the following

• Letter from Atkins of 6

to the submission made by WBSL of 5

• Email from Emmet Deegan, Development Application Unit, Department of Arts,

Heritage and the Gaeltacht of 26

• Letter from Patrick O’Neill, Foreshore Unit, DECLG,

Kennedy, WSIP Project Office, Cork County Council.

• Letter from Claire Dunphy, BirdWatch Ireland of 26

O’Neill, Foreshore Unit, Department

Government.

• Letter from Andrew Gillespie, Fisheries Environmental Officer, Southern Regional

Fisheries Board of 7

Division Department of Agriculture, Fishe

• Letter from Benedict D Heyes, Agent, Estate Office, Lismore Castle of 26

2008 to Kevin Murray, Atkins

2 EIS was certified by An Bord Pleanala in 2002


Atkins McCarthy (2001)2. Youghal Main Drainage Scheme: Environmental Impact

Statement, Vol. 1 Non-Technical Summary. Report submitted to Youghal Urban

and included in application for planning approval to An Bord Plean

Atkins McCarthy (2001). Youghal Main Drainage Scheme: Environme

Statement, Vol. 2 Main Report. Report submitted to Youghal Urban District Council

and included in application for planning approval to An Bord Plean

Atkins McCarthy (2001). Youghal Main Drainage Scheme: Environmental Impact

3 Technical Drawings and Appendices. Report submitted to Youghal

Urban District Council and included in application for planning approval to An Bord

la in 2001.

A marine ecology assessment of the coastal areas adjacent to Youghal,

by Ecological Consultancy Services Ltd. (EcoServe) in May 2001

are reported in EIS Vol. 2 (Atkins McCarthy 2001).

Atkins (June 2003). Youghal Main Drainage: Preliminary Report Volume 2

Water Treatment Works. Report prepared for Youghal Town Council

the DECLG in 2013.

Atkins (June 2003). Youghal Main Drainage: Preliminary Report Volume 3 Drainage

Collection System. Report prepared for Youghal Town Council and submitted to the

Additionally, the following documents have been reviewed as part of this reporting:

Letter from Atkins of 6th December 2013 to Foreshore Unit, DECLG which responded

to the submission made by WBSL of 5th December 2013.

Email from Emmet Deegan, Development Application Unit, Department of Arts,

Heritage and the Gaeltacht of 26th November 2013 to Foreshore Licensing

Letter from Patrick O’Neill, Foreshore Unit, DECLG, of 26th November 2013 to Shane

Kennedy, WSIP Project Office, Cork County Council.

Letter from Claire Dunphy, BirdWatch Ireland of 26th November 2013 to

O’Neill, Foreshore Unit, Department of the Environment, Community and Local

Letter from Andrew Gillespie, Fisheries Environmental Officer, Southern Regional

Fisheries Board of 7th November 2008 to Eucharia Cotter, Coastal Zone Management

Division Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Letter from Benedict D Heyes, Agent, Estate Office, Lismore Castle of 26

2008 to Kevin Murray, Atkins.

by An Bord Pleanala in 2002.

2

. Youghal Main Drainage Scheme: Environmental Impact

Technical Summary. Report submitted to Youghal Urban

and included in application for planning approval to An Bord Pleanála


. Report submitted to Youghal Urban District Council

lication for planning approval to An Bord Pleanála in 2001.


. Report submitted to Youghal

pplication for planning approval to An Bord

l areas adjacent to Youghal, undertaken

- the results of which

age: Preliminary Report Volume 2 Waste

Youghal Town Council and submitted to

Report Volume 3 Drainage

and submitted to the

have been reviewed as part of this reporting:-

December 2013 to Foreshore Unit, DECLG which responded

Email from Emmet Deegan, Development Application Unit, Department of Arts,

to Foreshore Licensing Section.

November 2013 to Shane

November 2013 to Patrick

of the Environment, Community and Local

Letter from Andrew Gillespie, Fisheries Environmental Officer, Southern Regional

November 2008 to Eucharia Cotter, Coastal Zone Management

Letter from Benedict D Heyes, Agent, Estate Office, Lismore Castle of 26th August




2. Background

Project History

2.1 Youghal is located in east Co. Cork on the main Cork City (51km) to Waterford

road (i.e. the N25) and is a port of considerable antiquity. Youghal Harbour forms part of

the lower estuary of the Blackwater River. The harbour and outer bay are popular tourist

destinations, particularly during the summer months, and have a high

fishing, sailing and bathing activity.

2.2 The town has a population of 7,794 (2011 Census) but this can increase to 14,000 in the

summer months with an influ

2.3 The town currently has no wastewater treatment

discharges directly to the Blackwater Estuary with no treatment. The typical discharge is

estimated to be in the region of 12,000

2.4 The Blackwater Estuary is designated as ‘sensitive’ under the U

Treatment Regulations 2001.

2.5 The Front Strand, Claycastle and Redbarn beaches are popular tourist attractions

comprising 5km of sandy beach with caravan parks located at both Claycastle and

Summerfield. The sea off these beaches is a design

Water Quality Regulations 2008

2.6 Ballyvergan Marsh, to the rear of Claycastle Beach, is an important wetland area and a

proposed Natural Heritage

2.7 Work on the Youghal Main Drainage Scheme co

Atkins as consulting engineers to Youghal Urban District Council to prepare a Preliminary

Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the drainage system and new

WWTP. The EIS was submitted in 2001 and was ap

the Preliminary Report was approved by the Department of the Environment in 2006

Atkins was subsequently appointed to prepare a detailed design and contract documents

for the scheme in 2008.

2.8 The Main Drainage Scheme is

Youghal and to provide a new waste water treatment plant to provide secondary treatment

of waste water. This will bring Youghal

line with best international

required by the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC).

2.9 A summary timeline of the sche


Background

Youghal is located in east Co. Cork on the main Cork City (51km) to Waterford



destinations, particularly during the summer months, and have a high

fishing, sailing and bathing activity.

The town has a population of 7,794 (2011 Census) but this can increase to 14,000 in the

summer months with an influx of tourists and day trippers.

The town currently has no wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and


be in the region of 12,000 Population Equivalent (PE).

The Blackwater Estuary is designated as ‘sensitive’ under the U

Treatment Regulations 2001.

The Front Strand, Claycastle and Redbarn beaches are popular tourist attractions


Summerfield. The sea off these beaches is a designated bathing water under the Bathing

Water Quality Regulations 2008.

Ballyvergan Marsh, to the rear of Claycastle Beach, is an important wetland area and a

proposed Natural Heritage Area (pNHA; site code 000078).

Work on the Youghal Main Drainage Scheme commenced in 2000 with the appointment of



The EIS was submitted in 2001 and was approved by An Bord Pleanála in 2002;

the Preliminary Report was approved by the Department of the Environment in 2006


for the scheme in 2008.

The Main Drainage Scheme is intended to upgrade the existing drainage network in


This will bring Youghal’s wastewater drainage and treatment systems in

line with best international practice and will help improve water quality in the Estuary as

required by the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC).

A summary timeline of the scheme is presented in Figure 2.1.

3

Youghal is located in east Co. Cork on the main Cork City (51km) to Waterford (72km)



destinations, particularly during the summer months, and have a high level of recreational

The town has a population of 7,794 (2011 Census) but this can increase to 14,000 in the

plant (WWTP) and so all wastewater


The Blackwater Estuary is designated as ‘sensitive’ under the Urban Waste Water

The Front Strand, Claycastle and Redbarn beaches are popular tourist attractions


ated bathing water under the Bathing

Ballyvergan Marsh, to the rear of Claycastle Beach, is an important wetland area and a

mmenced in 2000 with the appointment of



proved by An Bord Pleanála in 2002;

the Preliminary Report was approved by the Department of the Environment in 2006.


intended to upgrade the existing drainage network in


s wastewater drainage and treatment systems in

practice and will help improve water quality in the Estuary as




Need for the Project

2.10 The need for the proposed Youghal Main Drainage scheme was set out in the EIS

(Section 2.2 Need for Scheme, Vol

“There is currently no wastewater treatment other than a holding tank and comminutors on

the Green’s Quay and P

discharges via 2 outfalls; the Green’s Quay and Paxe’s Lane outfalls

2.11 The EIS further noted that

“There is a significant amount of legislation relating to the protection and improvement

water quality. The legislation as it impacts on waste

1. Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC);

2. Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/

254 (2001) Urban Waste Wat

3. Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC);

2000• Atkins appointment to prepare Preliminary Report and EIS

2002• EIS approved by An Bord PLeanala

2006• Preliminary Report approved by DECLG

2008

• Atkins appointment for detailed design

• Original application for Foreshore Licence submitted

• Application for Waste Water Discharge Licence submitted

2010• Planning permission applied for and granted for works to upgrade pumping stations

2011• Revised Foreshore Licence application submitted

2012• Waste Water Discharge Licence Reg No. D0139

2013• Public Consultation on Foreshore Licence Application

2014• Construction Commenced on Draiange Netowrk Contract


Figure 2.1 – Project Timeline

Need for the Project

the proposed Youghal Main Drainage scheme was set out in the EIS

(Section 2.2 Need for Scheme, Vol. 1, Atkins McCarthy 2001) which stated

There is currently no wastewater treatment other than a holding tank and comminutors on

the Green’s Quay and Paxe’s Lane outfalls. The municipal untreated raw sewage currently

discharges via 2 outfalls; the Green’s Quay and Paxe’s Lane outfalls.”

further noted that: -

There is a significant amount of legislation relating to the protection and improvement

water quality. The legislation as it impacts on wastewater treatment is as follows:

mework Directive (2000/60/EC);

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) as implemented by S.I.

254 (2001) Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 2001;

Water Directive (76/160/EEC);

Atkins appointment to prepare Preliminary Report and EIS

EIS approved by An Bord PLeanala

Preliminary Report approved by DECLG

Atkins appointment for detailed design

Original application for Foreshore Licence submitted

Application for Waste Water Discharge Licence submitted

Planning permission applied for and granted for works to upgrade pumping stations

Revised Foreshore Licence application submitted

Waste Water Discharge Licence Reg No. D0139-01 granted by EPA

Public Consultation on Foreshore Licence Application

Construction Commenced on Draiange Netowrk Contract

4

the proposed Youghal Main Drainage scheme was set out in the EIS

1, Atkins McCarthy 2001) which stated: -

There is currently no wastewater treatment other than a holding tank and comminutors on

axe’s Lane outfalls. The municipal untreated raw sewage currently

There is a significant amount of legislation relating to the protection and improvement of

water treatment is as follows: -

271/EEC) as implemented by S.I. No.




4. Shellfish Directive (79/923/EEC)

The above legislation identifies the need for the provision of a secondary wastewater

treatment plant and the

specified parameters in the relevant receiving waters.”

2.12 The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) as implemented by S.I. No.

254 (2001) Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 200

agglomerations with population equivalents between 10,000 and 15,000 PE must have

secondary treatment of waste water i

2.13 Youghal is one of a small number of large urban areas in Ireland which do not currently

have adequate waste water treatment facilities. Furthermore the town was named in a

European Court of Justice Pilot Infringement case (4058.12.ENVI) against Ireland for

implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 2001 (S.I. 254 of 2001).

2.14 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a wastewater discharge licence

(Reg. No. D0139-01) for the Youghal agglomeration requiring that treatment be

place by 31st December 2015.

Scope of the Youghal Main Drainage

2.15 The sewer network serving Youghal and environs has grown and expanded as the town

has developed through the mid and late 20

currently discharged to the Blackwater Estuary and the sea via three main outfalls at

Paxes Lane near Green Park, Dunn’s Park and Foxhole near the Youghal Bridge. The

upgrading to the existing system is summarised

2.16 The scope of the scheme is as follows:

• Provision of a new

wastewater

• A new outfall from WWTP to Blackwater Estuary

• Upgrades to existing pumping stations at Dunn’s

Front Strand

• New pumping station at Green Park

• Upgrades to gravity sewer network to mitigate flooding risk and separate

and foul flows

• New rising mains to connect discrete catchments in the town to deliver

wastewater from Youghal to Dunn’s Park pumping station

will act as a terminal pumping station for the delivery of all

new WWTP.

2.17 The scheme will be delivered


Shellfish Directive (79/923/EEC) & Shellfish Production Area Directive (91/92/EEC).


treatment plant and the specific standards that require to be met with respect to the

specified parameters in the relevant receiving waters.”

The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) as implemented by S.I. No.

254 (2001) Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 2001 requires that all


secondary treatment of waste water in place by 31st December 2005.

Youghal is one of a small number of large urban areas in Ireland which do not currently


European Court of Justice Pilot Infringement case (4058.12.ENVI) against Ireland for


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a wastewater discharge licence

01) for the Youghal agglomeration requiring that treatment be

December 2015.


The sewer network serving Youghal and environs has grown and expanded as the town

developed through the mid and late 20th century. Waste water from the town is



upgrading to the existing system is summarised as follows.

The scope of the scheme is as follows: -

Provision of a new waste water treatment plant to provide secondary treatment to

ew outfall from WWTP to Blackwater Estuary for treated effluent

Upgrades to existing pumping stations at Dunn’s Park, Foxhole, Summerfield and

New pumping station at Green Park

to gravity sewer network to mitigate flooding risk and separate

New rising mains to connect discrete catchments in the town to deliver

wastewater from Youghal to Dunn’s Park pumping station (PS). This pumping station

will act as a terminal pumping station for the delivery of all collected

delivered in 2 contracts as follows: -

5

n Area Directive (91/92/EEC).


specific standards that require to be met with respect to the

The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) as implemented by S.I. No.

1 requires that all


Youghal is one of a small number of large urban areas in Ireland which do not currently


European Court of Justice Pilot Infringement case (4058.12.ENVI) against Ireland for non-


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a wastewater discharge licence

01) for the Youghal agglomeration requiring that treatment be put in

The sewer network serving Youghal and environs has grown and expanded as the town

century. Waste water from the town is



waste water treatment plant to provide secondary treatment to

for treated effluent

Park, Foxhole, Summerfield and

to gravity sewer network to mitigate flooding risk and separate storm water

New rising mains to connect discrete catchments in the town to deliver collected

This pumping station

collected waste water to the




• Drainage Network C

system and on the Summerfield, Green Park, Front Strand and Foxhole pumping

station (currently ongoing)

• WWTP Contract

(DBOM) Contract and to include upgrade to Dunn’s Park PS, a rising main to the

WWTP, new WWTP and new outfall pipeline to Blackwater Estuary.

Wastewater Treatment Plant and Outfall

Procurement of WWTP

2.18 The WWTP project has been developed as a Design Build O

2.19 The WWTP and outfall are

final, detailed design solution must await the appointment of a chosen contractor /

operator. A preferred Tenderer has been identified but his appoin

Contract will not be completed until the Fores

2.20 The construction period for the WWTP and outfall pipeline is estimated at 12

The construction of the outfall, however, is programmed to take

The exact timing of the outfall construction work will be dependent on environmental

constraints as well as weather conditions. Details of the construction programme for

individual project elements will not become available until t

awarded.

Location of WWTP

2.21 A site selection process was undertaken to determine the most suitable location for the

provision of a wastewater treatment works and outfall considering environmental, cost and

technical reasons. A const

ecological and heritage designations, accessibility, proximity to development and the

catchment, proximity to potential discharge locations, land ownership and land use

zonings within the vicinity

for consideration.

2.22 Following an environmental, technical and cost appraisal of

Mudlands area to the north of the town was selected as the most suitable site for the

location of the proposed new WWTP; with the final treated efflu

estuary.

2.23 The key geographical features of the chosen site are

• The WWTP to be

Technical Summary to the EIS

• The access road serving the plant will run south from the plant to the public road,

shown in Figure 1

The incoming pipework and effluent outfall will run under this road

• From the plant entrance, the treated effluent outfall will run in the road to Green’s

Quay, approximately 1km from the t


etwork Contract: to include all works on the upgrade


(currently ongoing).

WWTP Contract: To be delivered under a Design Build Operate and Maintain



Wastewater Treatment Plant and Outfall

Procurement of WWTP

The WWTP project has been developed as a Design Build Operate & Maintain (DBOM).

The WWTP and outfall are being procured as a DBOM contract; as a consequence the

design solution must await the appointment of a chosen contractor /

A preferred Tenderer has been identified but his appointment and signing of the

Contract will not be completed until the Foreshore Licence has been granted.

The construction period for the WWTP and outfall pipeline is estimated at 12

The construction of the outfall, however, is programmed to take in the region of 2 months



individual project elements will not become available until the DBOM contract has been

A site selection process was undertaken to determine the most suitable location for the


technical reasons. A constraints map was generated based on broad criteria including



within the vicinity of Youghal. Based on this constraints map, 7 sites were selected

Following an environmental, technical and cost appraisal of the 7


location of the proposed new WWTP; with the final treated effluent discharging to the

The key geographical features of the chosen site are as follows;

The WWTP to be located in the Youghal Mudlands as shown in Figure

Technical Summary to the EIS [see Figure 2.2 below]; and

access road serving the plant will run south from the plant to the public road,

shown in Figure 1.3 of the Non-Technical Summary to the EIS [see Figure 2.2

The incoming pipework and effluent outfall will run under this road

From the plant entrance, the treated effluent outfall will run in the road to Green’s

Quay, approximately 1km from the treatment plant. The discharge point from the

6

upgrade to the gravity sewer


To be delivered under a Design Build Operate and Maintain



perate & Maintain (DBOM).

; as a consequence the

design solution must await the appointment of a chosen contractor /

tment and signing of the

hore Licence has been granted.

The construction period for the WWTP and outfall pipeline is estimated at 12-18 months.

the region of 2 months.



he DBOM contract has been

A site selection process was undertaken to determine the most suitable location for the


raints map was generated based on broad criteria including



. Based on this constraints map, 7 sites were selected

the 7 potential sites, the


ent discharging to the

the Youghal Mudlands as shown in Figure 1.3 of the Non-

access road serving the plant will run south from the plant to the public road, as

see Figure 2.2 below].

The incoming pipework and effluent outfall will run under this road.

From the plant entrance, the treated effluent outfall will run in the road to Green’s

discharge point from the




proposed treated effluent outfall will be located approximately 350m offshore from

Green’s Quay to the northwest of Ferry Point.

discharge licence as the Primary Outfall fo

Treatment Standards

2.24 The development of the WWTP will ensure that sewage receives a secondary level of

treatment. This will include nutrient reduction to reduce levels of nitrogen in the effluent

2.25 The minimum quality and

Contract (and subject to penalties) and under the terms of the Waste Water Discharge

Licence (Ref: D0139-

Table 2.1

Parameter

pH

cBOD

COD

Suspended Solids

Total Nitrogen (as N)

2.26 Compliance with these standards will be monitored by the plant operator

the EPA.

2.27 The discharge licence does not set any Emission Limit Value for coliforms



Green’s Quay to the northwest of Ferry Point. This is referred to in the waste water

discharge licence as the Primary Outfall for the agglomeration.

Treatment Standards

The development of the WWTP will ensure that sewage receives a secondary level of

treatment. This will include nutrient reduction to reduce levels of nitrogen in the effluent

The minimum quality and characteristics of the treated effluent will be enforced under the


-01) which set Emission Limit Values; reproduced in Table 2.1 below

Table 2.1 - Emission Limit Values for Youghal WWTP.

Parameter Emission Limit Value

6.0-9.0

mg/l

25

125

Suspended Solids 35

Total Nitrogen (as N) 15

Compliance with these standards will be monitored by the plant operator

discharge licence does not set any Emission Limit Value for coliforms

7


This is referred to in the waste water

The development of the WWTP will ensure that sewage receives a secondary level of

treatment. This will include nutrient reduction to reduce levels of nitrogen in the effluent.

characteristics of the treated effluent will be enforced under the


01) which set Emission Limit Values; reproduced in Table 2.1 below

Compliance with these standards will be monitored by the plant operator, Irish Water and

discharge licence does not set any Emission Limit Value for coliforms.

Youghal M

ain

Dra

inage S

chem

e

Response to D

epart

ment

of E

nvironm

ent, C

om

munity &

Local G

overn

ment

2794D

G75_W

SLR

esponse.d

ocx

Fig

ure

2.2

– L

oc

ati

on

of

pro

po

se

d W

WT

P (

co

py o

f F

igu

re 1

.3 o

f th

e N

on

Response to D

epart

ment

of E

nvironm

ent, C

om

munity &

Local G

overn

ment

Lo

ca

tio

n o

f p

rop

os

ed

WW

TP

(co

py o

f F

igu

re 1

.3 o

f th

e N

on

-Te

ch

nic

al

Su

mm

ary

to

th

e E

IS)

8

Te

ch

nic

al

Su

mm

ary

to

th

e E

IS).




Existing Outfalls

2.28 The Waste Water Discharge Licence application for the Youghal agglomeration identifies a

total of 10 existing

wastewater discharges and stormwater overflows

works on the foreshore to four of these outfalls and these are included in the Foreshore

Licence application as follows:

• Strand outfall at Front Strand;

• Paxe’s Lane outfall;

• Dunn’s Park Outfall; and

• Foxhole outfall.

2.29 Each of these outfalls discharges belo

2.30 Section 2(A) of the Foreshore Licence Application (2008) indicated that the extent of works

required at the four existing outfalls would be determined after a diver or boat based

survey or inspection from the ground,

• Removal of sediment build

• Installation or replacement of diffusers as per typical details shown in drawing no.

2794SK03;

• Replacement or upsizing of existing pipe work.

2.31 A dive survey of the

that the outfalls were in reasonable condition

However, they were partially filled with sediment and required cleaning.

2.32 It is now no longer propose

works will be limited to cleaning of outfalls, and inspection and repair of any

significant damage if

Operation of Existing

2.33 Under the Youghal Main Drainage Scheme

points, two at Summerfield and one at Foxhole.

retained to act as secondary discharges, i.e.

This means that outfalls which

will, in the future, only infrequently discharge

times of high rainfall or in emergency situations such as a power cut or a pump failure

2.34 The frequency of overflows through each outfall has been designed to comply with DECLG

guidance as set out in their Document “

Overflows”. The allowable overflows from each discharge point

below.


Existing Outfalls

The Waste Water Discharge Licence application for the Youghal agglomeration identifies a

existing discharge points from the municipal sewer network including

wastewater discharges and stormwater overflows. It is only proposed to carry out any


Licence application as follows: -

Strand outfall at Front Strand;

outfall;

Dunn’s Park Outfall; and

Foxhole outfall.

Each of these outfalls discharges below Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) level

Section 2(A) of the Foreshore Licence Application (2008) indicated that the extent of works

the four existing outfalls would be determined after a diver or boat based

survey or inspection from the ground, but could include the following works:

Removal of sediment build-up around the outfalls;

Installation or replacement of diffusers as per typical details shown in drawing no.

Replacement or upsizing of existing pipe work.

A dive survey of the existing outfalls was carried out in September 2008

the outfalls were in reasonable condition, albeit with some local


It is now no longer proposed to install diffusers or to upsize any pipework. Any


significant damage if deemed necessary.

Existing Outfalls

Youghal Main Drainage Scheme, it is intended to close three existing

, two at Summerfield and one at Foxhole. The remaining seven

secondary discharges, i.e. stormwater overflows or emergency outfalls

This means that outfalls which now regularly discharge untreated sewage

only infrequently discharge very dilute wastewater and stormwater

or in emergency situations such as a power cut or a pump failure

of overflows through each outfall has been designed to comply with DECLG

guidance as set out in their Document “Procedures and Criteria in Relation to Storm Water

”. The allowable overflows from each discharge point are set out in Table 2.2

9

The Waste Water Discharge Licence application for the Youghal agglomeration identifies a

s from the municipal sewer network including

It is only proposed to carry out any


w Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) level.

Section 2(A) of the Foreshore Licence Application (2008) indicated that the extent of works

the four existing outfalls would be determined after a diver or boat based

but could include the following works: -

Installation or replacement of diffusers as per typical details shown in drawing no.

outfalls was carried out in September 2008. This indicated

, albeit with some local repairs necessary.


d to install diffusers or to upsize any pipework. Any


three existing discharge

The remaining seven will, however, be

or emergency outfalls.

discharge untreated sewage to the estuary

and stormwater during

or in emergency situations such as a power cut or a pump failure.

of overflows through each outfall has been designed to comply with DECLG

Procedures and Criteria in Relation to Storm Water

are set out in Table 2.2




Table 2.2 – Allowable Frequency of Discharges from Secondary Discharge Points in Youghal.

Outfall

Dunn’s Park

Front Strand

Green Park/Paxes Lane

2.35 In addition, screens will be installed on the

solids above 6mm diameter, further reducing the pollut

Emergency overflows will remain in place at Summerfield and Foxhole to cope with events

such as power failures or pump breakd



Outfall Allowable Spill Frequency

per Bathing Season

7

3

Green Park/Paxes Lane 7

In addition, screens will be installed on the outfalls at each location designed to remove

solids above 6mm diameter, further reducing the polluting potential of the discharge.


such as power failures or pump breakdowns.

10


outfalls at each location designed to remove

ing potential of the discharge.





Figure 2.3 – Extract from Admiralty Chart


Extract from Admiralty Chart included with Foreshore Licence application

locations.

11

included with Foreshore Licence application showing outfall




Summary of Scheme

EIS

2.36 The EIS for the scheme was prepared by Atkins in 2000

Pleanála (ABP) for certification in 2001.

2.37 As part of the certification process, the following public consultation was carried out:

• Advertisement in a

• EIS made available for inspection in Youghal UDC Offices between

November 2001

• Public exhibition of EIS including attendance by Atkins in Youghal in September

2001;

• Circulation of EIS to prescribed bodies

2.38 No formal submissions/observations on the EIS were received by An Bord Plean

result of this consultation.

2.39 Approval was granted by

condition in relation to site lighting

Planning Permission

2.40 Planning permission was sought by Cork County Council from Youghal Town Council to

carry out works to three pumping station in the town

2010 and granted in May 2010

2.41 As part of the planning process, the following public consultation was carried out:

• Advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the area

• Placement of standard planning

location

Foreshore Licence

2.42 An application for a Foreshore Licence was originally submitted to the Department of

Communications, the Marine and Natural Resources (DCMNR) in October 2008

the department responsible for management of foreshore licences

2.43 In 2011, the proposed landfall point of the

accommodate a proposal to locate a marina at Green’s Quay

licence application were submitted to the DECLG in August 2011

2.44 As part of the application process, the following public consultation was carried out:


November 2013


Scheme Approvals & Consultations

The EIS for the scheme was prepared by Atkins in 2000-2001 and submitted to An Bord

for certification in 2001.

As part of the certification process, the following public consultation was carried out:

Advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the area;

EIS made available for inspection in Youghal UDC Offices between

November 2001;

Public exhibition of EIS including attendance by Atkins in Youghal in September

Circulation of EIS to prescribed bodies.

No formal submissions/observations on the EIS were received by An Bord Plean

consultation.

Approval was granted by An Bord Pleanála for the WWTP development, subject to one

in relation to site lighting, in 2002.

ermission

Planning permission was sought by Cork County Council from Youghal Town Council to

t works to three pumping station in the town. Permission was applied for in April

2010 and granted in May 2010.

As part of the planning process, the following public consultation was carried out:

Advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the area

nt of standard planning notification signage at each proposed works

An application for a Foreshore Licence was originally submitted to the Department of

Communications, the Marine and Natural Resources (DCMNR) in October 2008

he department responsible for management of foreshore licences at that time

In 2011, the proposed landfall point of the effluent discharge pipeline

accommodate a proposal to locate a marina at Green’s Quay. Revised drawings for the

licence application were submitted to the DECLG in August 2011.

As part of the application process, the following public consultation was carried out:

Advertisement in a local and national newspaper circulating in the area

November 2013

12

2001 and submitted to An Bord

As part of the certification process, the following public consultation was carried out: -

EIS made available for inspection in Youghal UDC Offices between September and

Public exhibition of EIS including attendance by Atkins in Youghal in September

No formal submissions/observations on the EIS were received by An Bord Pleanála as a

for the WWTP development, subject to one

Planning permission was sought by Cork County Council from Youghal Town Council to

Permission was applied for in April

As part of the planning process, the following public consultation was carried out:

at each proposed works

An application for a Foreshore Licence was originally submitted to the Department of

Communications, the Marine and Natural Resources (DCMNR) in October 2008 who were

at that time

effluent discharge pipeline was altered to

Revised drawings for the


newspaper circulating in the area on the 7th




• Document were made available for public review at Youghal Library, Youghal Town

Council offices and Midleton Garda Station between 7

December 2013

• Placement of notification signage at the proposed works location at Green’s

Waste Water Discharge Licence

2.45 An application for a Waste Water Discharge Licence was originally submitted to the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in October 2008

2.46 As part of the application process, the following public consultation was carried out:


• Placement of notification signage

2.47 In 2012, the Agency issued a final decision (Reg

discharge and setting limits on the effluent discharge

2.48 Condition 5.4 of the Licence requires that the works to develop the WWTP be complete by

31st December 2015.

Support from Duke of Devonshire

2.49 In a letter to Atkins dated 26

ownership of the Estuary, confirmed his support for the development of the wastewater

treatment plant in Youghal with specific reference to the construction of the outfall

Figure 2.4 - Location of propos


were made available for public review at Youghal Library, Youghal Town

Council offices and Midleton Garda Station between 7th

December 2013

Placement of notification signage at the proposed works location at Green’s

arge Licence

An application for a Waste Water Discharge Licence was originally submitted to the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in October 2008.


Advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the area

Placement of notification signage at the proposed works location

In 2012, the Agency issued a final decision (Reg. No. D0139-01) approving the proposed

discharge and setting limits on the effluent discharge.

of the Licence requires that the works to develop the WWTP be complete by

.

Support from Duke of Devonshire

In a letter to Atkins dated 26th August 2008, the Duke of Devonshire, who claims


treatment plant in Youghal with specific reference to the construction of the outfall


13

were made available for public review at Youghal Library, Youghal Town

November and 5th

Placement of notification signage at the proposed works location at Green’s Quay

An application for a Waste Water Discharge Licence was originally submitted to the


at the proposed works location

01) approving the proposed

of the Licence requires that the works to develop the WWTP be complete by

August 2008, the Duke of Devonshire, who claims


treatment plant in Youghal with specific reference to the construction of the outfall.

ed Greens’ Quay outfall looking out to subtidal channel.




3. Responses to Issues Raised

Introduction

3.1 By letter to Irish Water dated 18 December

“full environmental evaluation … on the potential effects, both positive and

negative of the proposed WWTP outfalls with regard to

1. aquaculture activities, in particular, mussel farming in Youghal

Harbour with specific reference to the area referred to by

their submission of 5 December 2013 as their mussel production area

together with any mitigating and monitoring measures proposed by

Irish Water, and

2. the potential effects during the construction of the outfall at Ferry

Point and the refurbishment

In addition, the report should:

3. describe in outline the main alternatives to the outfalls that are the

subject of the foreshore application that have been considered by

Irish Water.”

3.2 This section addresses the queries raised

Aquaculture in Youghal Bay/Harbour

3.3 At the time of preparation of the EIS, the report noted that “

shellfish production area, although harvesting has not been undertaken for a number of

years and is not nor has been a designated shell

Communities (Live Bivalve Molluscs) (Health Conditions for the Production and Placing on

the Market) Regulations, 1996 (S.I. No. 147 of 1996)

Knockadoon and Knockavery

regulations. However, in the 2001 Live Bivalve Molluscs (Production Areas) Designation,

2001 (No.1) Youghal was not designated as a shellfish production area

Section 5.1.3 Mussel beds, pg 66, EIS Vol

3.4 With respect to aquaculture in Youghal Harbour, Atkins

states that “There remains no formal designation for shellfish in Youghal Harbour. An

application for an aquaculture licence was made by

Youghal Town Council and Cork County Council both objected to the granting of the

licence on the basis that there was no treatment of wastewater in Youghal. The application

was not approved”.

3.5 An outline of available detail

Youghal Bay is given below.


Responses to Issues Raised

By letter to Irish Water dated 18 December 2014, the DECLG has requested a:


negative of the proposed WWTP outfalls with regard to

aquaculture activities, in particular, mussel farming in Youghal

Harbour with specific reference to the area referred to by



Irish Water, and

the potential effects during the construction of the outfall at Ferry

Point and the refurbishment of the other 4 outfalls.

In addition, the report should:

describe in outline the main alternatives to the outfalls that are the


Irish Water.”

This section addresses the queries raised.

ulture in Youghal Bay/Harbour

At the time of preparation of the EIS, the report noted that “Youghal Harbour used to be a


years and is not nor has been a designated shellfish production area under the European


the Market) Regulations, 1996 (S.I. No. 147 of 1996). Prior to 2001 the area between

Knockadoon and Knockavery outside the harbour was designated as a Category B in the

However, in the 2001 Live Bivalve Molluscs (Production Areas) Designation,

2001 (No.1) Youghal was not designated as a shellfish production area

Section 5.1.3 Mussel beds, pg 66, EIS Vol. 2 (Atkins McCarthy 2001)].

With respect to aquaculture in Youghal Harbour, Atkins’ letter to Foreshore Unit, DECLG,

There remains no formal designation for shellfish in Youghal Harbour. An

application for an aquaculture licence was made by Youghal Fishermans Co



An outline of available details on WBSL and their stated aquaculture activities with

Youghal Bay is given below.

14

2014, the DECLG has requested a: -


aquaculture activities, in particular, mussel farming in Youghal

Harbour with specific reference to the area referred to by WBSL in



the potential effects during the construction of the outfall at Ferry

of the other 4 outfalls.

describe in outline the main alternatives to the outfalls that are the


Youghal Harbour used to be a


fish production area under the European


Prior to 2001 the area between

our was designated as a Category B in the

However, in the 2001 Live Bivalve Molluscs (Production Areas) Designation,

2001 (No.1) Youghal was not designated as a shellfish production area” [extract from

2 (Atkins McCarthy 2001)].

letter to Foreshore Unit, DECLG,

There remains no formal designation for shellfish in Youghal Harbour. An

Youghal Fishermans Co-op in 2005.



aquaculture activities with




Woodstown Bay Shellfish

3.6 Woodstown Bay Shellfish Ltd

being: -

“at the forefront of the crustacean farming industry in Ireland, specialising in the

production of quality oysters and mussels for the international export market”

and as

“…specialists in the production of quality blue mussels, which are harvested by

"The Creadan Lady

Woodstown Bay Shellfish Limited; gracing the Waterford estuary, the river llen,

and the coastlines of Youghal and Kinsal

3.7 In their submission of 5

Shellfish Ltd is the exclusive stakeholder of the rights of the bottom of the said seabed in

Youghal Bay, map of our exclusive title/rights licensed to us by the Duke of

Devonshire/Lismore Estate is attached

is private foreshore owned by Lismore Estate

Figure 3.1 Copy of map included in Woodstown Shellfish Ltd submission of 5

2013 to Department of Environment, Communications and Local Government

which is stated as showing the area of exclusive title/rights

Woodstown Shellfish Ltd by the Duke of Devonshire/Lismore Estate.


Woodstown Bay Shellfish Ltd.

Shellfish Ltd describes itself on its website (www.wbsglobal.com

ront of the crustacean farming industry in Ireland, specialising in the



"The Creadan Lady" a bespoke vessel built to the specific requirements of


and the coastlines of Youghal and Kinsale.”

In their submission of 5th December 2013 to DECLG, WBSL state that “



Devonshire/Lismore Estate is attached [see below], this is due to the fa

is private foreshore owned by Lismore Estate.”

Copy of map included in Woodstown Shellfish Ltd submission of 5


which is stated as showing the area of exclusive title/rights


15

www.wbsglobal.com) as

ront of the crustacean farming industry in Ireland, specialising in the



" a bespoke vessel built to the specific requirements of


December 2013 to DECLG, WBSL state that “Woodstown Bay



, this is due to the fact that Youghal Bay

Copy of map included in Woodstown Shellfish Ltd submission of 5th December


which is stated as showing the area of exclusive title/rights licensed to





3.8 Atkins’ letter to the Foreshore Uni

claim exclusive rights to the seabed in Youghal Bay, courtesy of a licence from the Duke of

Devonshire, ownership of the bed is disputed by the State.

notwithstanding disputati

August 2008 to confirm his support for the Youghal Main Drainage project, including

specifically the construction of the outfall at Green’s Quay.

3.9 The letter from WBSL of 5

Shellfish Ltd was authorized to develop a bottom mussel production in Youghal Bay and

invested €3.5 million in building our vessel the 43m “Creadan Lady” purpose built for

farming mussels in Youghal Bay

note that they “have been operating in Youghal Bay since 2004 and have been exclusively

licenced by the Duke of Devonshire/Lismore Estate to cultivate shellfish on the bed of the

river. We have significant stock o

3.10 It is important to note that the authorisation referred to above to develop bottom mussel

production in Youghal Bay was granted

WWTP and outfall had been received


Foreshore Unit, DECLG of 6th December 2013 noted that whilst WBSL


Devonshire, ownership of the bed is disputed by the State. The letter also noted that

withstanding disputation of ownership, the Duke of Devonshire had written to

to confirm his support for the Youghal Main Drainage project, including

specifically the construction of the outfall at Green’s Quay.

The letter from WBSL of 5th December 2013 also states that “In 2003 Woodstown Bay


3.5 million in building our vessel the 43m “Creadan Lady” purpose built for

farming mussels in Youghal Bay”. In terms of aquaculture activity in Youghal Bay, WBSL

have been operating in Youghal Bay since 2004 and have been exclusively


river. We have significant stock of mussels on the bed of the river at present

It is important to note that the authorisation referred to above to develop bottom mussel

production in Youghal Bay was granted after planning approval for development of the

had been received from An Bord Pleanála in 2002.

16

noted that whilst WBSL


The letter also noted that

on of ownership, the Duke of Devonshire had written to Atkins in

to confirm his support for the Youghal Main Drainage project, including

In 2003 Woodstown Bay


3.5 million in building our vessel the 43m “Creadan Lady” purpose built for

aquaculture activity in Youghal Bay, WBSL

have been operating in Youghal Bay since 2004 and have been exclusively


f mussels on the bed of the river at present.”

It is important to note that the authorisation referred to above to develop bottom mussel

for development of the




Q1. Aquaculture Activities

DECLG...would be obliged if Irish Water could arrange to carry out a full environmental

evaluation and provide a report to the Department on the potential effects, both positive

and negative of the proposed WWTP outfalls with regard to:

1. aquaculture activities, in particular, mussel farming in Youghal Harbour with specific

reference to the area referred to by WBSL in their submission of 5 December 2013 as

their mussel production area together

proposed by Irish Water.

3.11 As noted in chapter 3, paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 of this report, active aquacultural activities

were not taking place in Youghal Bay at the time of preparation of the approved EIS for the

scheme. The approved EIS also noted that the estuary was not a designated Shellfish

Production Area under the

Conditions for the Production and Placing on the Market) Regulations, 1996 (S.I. No. 147

of 1996).

3.12 WBSL’s letter of 5th December 2013 indicates that they were authorized in 2003 for

bottom mussel production in Youghal Bay, and commenced said activity from 2004

onwards. Their letter also notes that as of 5

of mussels on the bed of the river at present.”

Appendix A.

3.13 The area referred to in the WBSL submission of 5

the entirety of Youghal Harbour, from the entrance to the harbour just

Knockaverry, along both sides of the harbour, and onwards at the north of the harbour,

past Youghal Bridge.

Distribution of Mussel Beds in Youghal Harbour

3.14 During the nine dredges undertaken for the EIS (Atkins, 2001), it was found th

mussels were present in the sub

proposed outfall location

158]. Dredging surveys noted that mussels were not abundant in the estu

exception of one subtidal site, labelled as M1 in Figure 3.2

existing Paxe’s Lane outfall. Additionally, the survey found two mussel dominated biotypes

in the littoral survey extending on the west side of the estuar

north to the south of Youghal town. It was noted that

SLR.MytX) represented less than ½% of the littoral area mapped, although this figure is

only representative of horizontal surfaces as di

of the mussels were present on walls and vertical surfaces, the area of which could not be

calculated” [from Section 5.1.3 Mussel Beds, and Figure 5.3

dredge sampling sites; EIS Vol


Q1. Aquaculture Activities

would be obliged if Irish Water could arrange to carry out a full environmental


he proposed WWTP outfalls with regard to: -

aquaculture activities, in particular, mussel farming in Youghal Harbour with specific


their mussel production area together with any mitigating and monitoring measures

proposed by Irish Water.

As noted in chapter 3, paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 of this report, active aquacultural activities


. The approved EIS also noted that the estuary was not a designated Shellfish

Production Area under the European Communities (Live Bivalve Molluscs) (Health


WBSL’s letter of 5th December 2013 indicates that they were authorized in 2003 for


onwards. Their letter also notes that as of 5th December 2013, WBSL had “significant stock

of mussels on the bed of the river at present.” Their submission is included in full in

The area referred to in the WBSL submission of 5th December 2013 encompasses almost

the entirety of Youghal Harbour, from the entrance to the harbour just


Distribution of Mussel Beds in Youghal Harbour

During the nine dredges undertaken for the EIS (Atkins, 2001), it was found th

mussels were present in the sub-littoral zone and no mussel beds were found near to the

proposed outfall location [EIS Vol. 2., Atkins McCarthy (2001), Section 16 Conclusion

Dredging surveys noted that mussels were not abundant in the estu

btidal site, labelled as M1 in Figure 3.2 below,


in the littoral survey extending on the west side of the estuary from the landfill site in the

north to the south of Youghal town. It was noted that “These two biotopes (ELR.MytB and


only representative of horizontal surfaces as discussed in Section 5.1.1 [of the EIS]


Section 5.1.3 Mussel Beds, and Figure 5.3- Map showing locations of

dredge sampling sites; EIS Vol. 2 (Atkins McCarthy (2001)].

17

would be obliged if Irish Water could arrange to carry out a full environmental


aquaculture activities, in particular, mussel farming in Youghal Harbour with specific


with any mitigating and monitoring measures

As noted in chapter 3, paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 of this report, active aquacultural activities


. The approved EIS also noted that the estuary was not a designated Shellfish

European Communities (Live Bivalve Molluscs) (Health


WBSL’s letter of 5th December 2013 indicates that they were authorized in 2003 for


December 2013, WBSL had “significant stock

Their submission is included in full in

encompasses almost

the entirety of Youghal Harbour, from the entrance to the harbour just north of East Point /


During the nine dredges undertaken for the EIS (Atkins, 2001), it was found that few

littoral zone and no mussel beds were found near to the

Section 16 Conclusion, pg

Dredging surveys noted that mussels were not abundant in the estuary with the

below, which is east of the


y from the landfill site in the

These two biotopes (ELR.MytB and


scussed in Section 5.1.1 [of the EIS]. Most


Map showing locations of




Figure 3.2 Extract of Figure 5.3

Chapter 5 Marine Ecology, EIS Vol

preferred option]


Extract of Figure 5.3 – Map showing locations of dredge sampling sites; from

Chapter 5 Marine Ecology, EIS Vol. 2, Atkins McCarthy (2001).

preferred option]

18

Map showing locations of dredge sampling sites; from

2, Atkins McCarthy (2001). [Option 1 is







3.15 As part of the survey bacteriological levels in mussels collected in the estuary were

assessed. It was found that faecal coliform levels were low in the mussel bed (130

FC/100g), well below the level required under the shellfish production regulations. Levels

were relatively high in the mussels collected on the pier wall (5,400 FC/100g) but within

the specified limits under the Shellfish Waters and Shellfish Production Directives.

3.16 Specific locations for bottom mussel production within Youghal Harbour have not been

indicated by WBSL in their correspondence.

3.17 Atkins carried out a site visit to the harbour and

proposed outfall location during a low spring tide on the 21st January 2015.

3.18 A small number of mussels were noted to the north of Ferry Point in mesh bags

appeared to be oyster bags which


Extract of Figure 5.2 – Marine biotypes along the lower Youghal Mudlands; from

Chapter 5 Marine Ecology, EIS Vol. 2, Atkins McCarthy (2001). SLR.Myt.X


As part of the survey bacteriological levels in mussels collected in the estuary were

s found that faecal coliform levels were low in the mussel bed (130



cified limits under the Shellfish Waters and Shellfish Production Directives.

Specific locations for bottom mussel production within Youghal Harbour have not been

indicated by WBSL in their correspondence.

Atkins carried out a site visit to the harbour and the area around Ferry Point close to the


A small number of mussels were noted to the north of Ferry Point in mesh bags

appeared to be oyster bags which had been colonised by mussels (Fig

19

biotypes along the lower Youghal Mudlands; from

2, Atkins McCarthy (2001). SLR.Myt.X

As part of the survey bacteriological levels in mussels collected in the estuary were

s found that faecal coliform levels were low in the mussel bed (130



cified limits under the Shellfish Waters and Shellfish Production Directives.

Specific locations for bottom mussel production within Youghal Harbour have not been

the area around Ferry Point close to the


A small number of mussels were noted to the north of Ferry Point in mesh bags. These

Figure 3.4).




Figure

3.19 Additionally, on the south side of Ferry Point, a sand bank was noted approximately 100m

long and 30m wide. This sandbank was almost completely covered in muss

3.5 below.

Figure 3.5 - Mussel


ure 3.4 - Mussels to the North of Ferry Point.

Additionally, on the south side of Ferry Point, a sand bank was noted approximately 100m

This sandbank was almost completely covered in muss

Mussel colonisation of small sandbank on southern side of Ferry Point

20

Additionally, on the south side of Ferry Point, a sand bank was noted approximately 100m

This sandbank was almost completely covered in mussels. See Figure

on southern side of Ferry Point.




3.20 Mussels have also colonised structures on the western side of the harbour such as piers,

quay walls, outfalls pipelines etc

3.21 No other significant mussel beds were visible during the site visit, either in the vicinity of

Ferry Point or further north on inter

side of the estuary around Pilpark and Newtown or towards the western side of the estuary

at the confluence with the River Tourig

Potential for Impacts on Mussel Beds

3.22 Section 5.2.3 Mussel Beds, included in Chapter 5 Marine Ecology, of the EIS (Atkins

McCarthy, 2001) set out potential impacts on mussel beds from the proposed project and

is reproduced in Box 1 below.


Mussels have also colonised structures on the western side of the harbour such as piers,

quay walls, outfalls pipelines etc.

nt mussel beds were visible during the site visit, either in the vicinity of

Ferry Point or further north on inter-tidal areas towards Youghal Bridge, on the eastern


at the confluence with the River Tourig.

Potential for Impacts on Mussel Beds

Section 5.2.3 Mussel Beds, included in Chapter 5 Marine Ecology, of the EIS (Atkins


reproduced in Box 1 below.

21

Mussels have also colonised structures on the western side of the harbour such as piers,

nt mussel beds were visible during the site visit, either in the vicinity of

tidal areas towards Youghal Bridge, on the eastern


Section 5.2.3 Mussel Beds, included in Chapter 5 Marine Ecology, of the EIS (Atkins





Text Box 1 - Section 5.2.3 Impact on Mussel Beds: Extracted from Chapter 5 Marine

Ecology, EIS Vol. 2 (Atkins McCarthy, 2001)

5.2.3 Mussel beds

Shellfish are filter feeders that eat bacteria from sewage along with the tiny

food they pump through their gills into their stomachs

water-borne pathogens (disease

government recommends no harvesting of mussels within 1000m of any exist

while in South Carolina in the US, shellfish beds are closed when the coliform count

reaches 200 per 100 ml of water

Faecal coliform levels were predicted for a plume emanating from the two existing

outfalls and for the proposed outfall at Fer

dilution based discharge plume model undertaken for this EIS [Ref

model predicts that the proposed secondary treated effluent without disinfection

discharging at the Ferry Point outfall will improve

greatly increased loading on the works

coliforms in the outfall plume centreline depending on tidal conditions

levels were predicted to occur during high

16,430 FC/100ml at 10m from the outfall to 230 FC/100ml at a distance of 1000 m

upstream from the outfall. The downstream value for the Spring low water slack varies

from 13,550 FC/100ml at 10m from the outfall to

estuary 1750m downstream of the proposed outfall

compares well with the

achieved at even closer distances to the outfall (approxima

outfall). These figures are also conservative as no account is taken of the Decay factor of

bacteria which could lower the values by as much as 30%

With secondary treatment and disinfection, faecal coliform levels are negligible e

a distance of 10m from the outfall (maximum 110 FC/100ml)

At present sewage receives no treatment, but despite this, faecal coliform levels were

found to be low in mussel tissue in the samples taken

coliform levels which will enhance the potential for shellfish harvesting should the

practice resume again

estuary. However, the proposed WWTW will lead to positive and significant long

impacts on water quality and the quality of shellfish.

3.23 Section 5.2.3

term impacts on general marine ecology from the proposed development. The key

points were: -


Section 5.2.3 Impact on Mussel Beds: Extracted from Chapter 5 Marine

2 (Atkins McCarthy, 2001).

Shellfish are filter feeders that eat bacteria from sewage along with the tiny

food they pump through their gills into their stomachs. They can convey virtually all

borne pathogens (disease-causing organisms) to humans. In South Australia, the

government recommends no harvesting of mussels within 1000m of any exist


reaches 200 per 100 ml of water.


outfalls and for the proposed outfall at Ferry Point (options 1 & 3) using a CORMIX

dilution based discharge plume model undertaken for this EIS [Ref


discharging at the Ferry Point outfall will improve water quality conditions even with a

greatly increased loading on the works. This model predicts high variability in faecal

coliforms in the outfall plume centreline depending on tidal conditions

levels were predicted to occur during high water slack for Neap tides and vary from



from 13,550 FC/100ml at 10m from the outfall to 70 FC /100ml at the mouth of the

estuary 1750m downstream of the proposed outfall. This latter value of 70 FC/100ml

compares well with the Conditional Classification Shellsan standard

achieved at even closer distances to the outfall (approximately up to 500m from the


bacteria which could lower the values by as much as 30%.

With secondary treatment and disinfection, faecal coliform levels are negligible e

a distance of 10m from the outfall (maximum 110 FC/100ml).


found to be low in mussel tissue in the samples taken. Secondary treatment will reduce

which will enhance the potential for shellfish harvesting should the

practice resume again. However it is not proposed to meet the Shellsan Standards in the

estuary. However, the proposed WWTW will lead to positive and significant long

r quality and the quality of shellfish.

3 of the EIS (Atkins McCarthy, 2001) commented on potential short


22

Section 5.2.3 Impact on Mussel Beds: Extracted from Chapter 5 Marine

Shellfish are filter feeders that eat bacteria from sewage along with the tiny particles of

They can convey virtually all

In South Australia, the

government recommends no harvesting of mussels within 1000m of any existing outfall



ry Point (options 1 & 3) using a CORMIX

dilution based discharge plume model undertaken for this EIS [Ref. Chapter 7]. This


water quality conditions even with a

This model predicts high variability in faecal

coliforms in the outfall plume centreline depending on tidal conditions. Faecal coliform

water slack for Neap tides and vary from



70 FC /100ml at the mouth of the

This latter value of 70 FC/100ml

standard which can be

tely up to 500m from the


With secondary treatment and disinfection, faecal coliform levels are negligible even at


Secondary treatment will reduce

which will enhance the potential for shellfish harvesting should the

However it is not proposed to meet the Shellsan Standards in the

estuary. However, the proposed WWTW will lead to positive and significant long-term

of the EIS (Atkins McCarthy, 2001) commented on potential short-





• Short-term, temporary loss of widespread hab

laying the new outfall pipe at Ferry Point, with the habitat expected to return to its

natural state upon completion of this works element;

• Short-term, temporary loss of species, specifically epifauna, during outfal

construction, through small

feeding grounds, considered to be a negligible impact as habitat and species would

recolonize after completion of works;

• Short-term, temporary increase in turbidity of th

which could result in increased siltation, smothering of organisms and reducing light

for phytoplankton and seaweed. This was considered to have minimal potential for

impact as estuarine environments typically have hig

species adapted to such conditions;

• Potential for contamination during works from accidental spills etc, which was

considered not significant with the implementation of standard operating procedures

during the construction p

3.24 In respect of potential impacts on the

River Blackwater SAC designation, and occurring as part of the Annex 1 habitats Estuaries

[1130] and Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide [1140], the

Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013) noted th

the eastern side of the main estuary and will not be directly impacted by proposed works

(see Figure 3 of NPWS, 2012c). A single small bed is located in subtidal waters to the east

of the existing Paxe’s Lane outfa

repairs / maintenance works. Improvements in water quality associated with the proposed

development should be beneficial (i.e. through reduction in e.g. levels of faecal coliforms)

for Mytilus edulis dominated community”.

3.25 Paragraph 5.21 of the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013) noted that “The greatest risk

to mussel beds is from blanketing by silts escaping during construction works on the

Green’s Quay / Ferry Point outfall. To minimise such

to use silt curtains in order to trap as much silt as possible which is mobilised into the

water column during subtidal works. Silt curtains can be placed which effectively close off

the works area preventing the loss of

the risk to sensitive habitats, shellfish etc”.

3.26 It should also be noted that works on the Greens Quay outfall would represent 6

of the overall 12-18 month construction programme.

Potential for Impacts on Water Quality

3.27 The EIS noted that “

Point, in the estuary. Existing water quality in the harbour is good with respect to biological

parameters. However nutrient and chlorophyll levels

due to upstream riverine inputs to the estuary leading to the susceptibility of being

eutrophic” [EIS Vol. 2, Atkins McCarthy (2001), Section 16 Conclusions, pg 158].

3.28 The EIS also noted that “

Point. There is a large trench in the area of Ferry Point and extends for some distance

downstream. This is likely to be as a result of the narrowing of the estuary due to the spit


term, temporary loss of widespread habitat during construction of a trench for


natural state upon completion of this works element;

term, temporary loss of species, specifically epifauna, during outfal

construction, through small-scale loss of habitat for species and temporary loss of


recolonize after completion of works;

term, temporary increase in turbidity of the water during pipeline construction,



impact as estuarine environments typically have high sediment load, with estuarine

species adapted to such conditions;

Potential for contamination during works from accidental spills etc, which was


during the construction phase.

In respect of potential impacts on the Mytilus edulis dominated community found within the



Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013) noted that “These are predominantly located along



of the existing Paxe’s Lane outfall; as noted works at this outfall are to be limited to minor



dominated community”.

Paragraph 5.21 of the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013) noted that “The greatest risk


Green’s Quay / Ferry Point outfall. To minimise such impacts the Contractor is proposing



the works area preventing the loss of silt to the wider water column; and thus minimising

the risk to sensitive habitats, shellfish etc”.

It should also be noted that works on the Greens Quay outfall would represent 6

18 month construction programme.

pacts on Water Quality

noted that “The preferred discharge location and receiving waters is at Ferry


However nutrient and chlorophyll levels have been historically high mainly


2, Atkins McCarthy (2001), Section 16 Conclusions, pg 158].

noted that “The estuarine discharge would be located in the vicinity of Ferry


This is likely to be as a result of the narrowing of the estuary due to the spit

23

itat during construction of a trench for


term, temporary loss of species, specifically epifauna, during outfall

scale loss of habitat for species and temporary loss of


e water during pipeline construction,



h sediment load, with estuarine

Potential for contamination during works from accidental spills etc, which was


dominated community found within the



at “These are predominantly located along



ll; as noted works at this outfall are to be limited to minor



Paragraph 5.21 of the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013) noted that “The greatest risk


impacts the Contractor is proposing



silt to the wider water column; and thus minimising

It should also be noted that works on the Greens Quay outfall would represent 6-8 weeks

The preferred discharge location and receiving waters is at Ferry


have been historically high mainly


2, Atkins McCarthy (2001), Section 16 Conclusions, pg 158].

d be located in the vicinity of Ferry


This is likely to be as a result of the narrowing of the estuary due to the spit




at Ferry Point. Discharging to this l

dilute the effluent, even at low tide, and due to increased currents at this location would

provide good mixing and dispersion in the receiving waters

(2001), Section 2.4.2 Estuarine discharge standards, pg 21]

notes that “The predicted tidal range is approximately 3.5m and currents in the estuary can

be strong with tidal currents at the Ferry Point varying from 0.02

3.29 The EIS notes that the estuary has a tendency towards eutrophication (Section 7.2.1

Biological and Nutrient Water Quality, pg 87)

the most significant contributor of nutrients to the Blackwater Estuary

3.30 The background water quality and point pressures acting on the River Blackwater,

detailed in paragraphs 4.95

include combined and assimilated discharges from a number of waste water

plants along the River Blackwater and other point sources such as industries holding IPPC

licences, together with diffuse source

and runoff from forestry etc.

3.31 Furthermore the EIS states

designated as a ‘sensitive area’ under the Regulations, nutrient reduction is required under

this designation along with secondary treatment

reduce nitrogen as the limiting nutrient to alleviate the p

harbour which has been identified by the EPA. Bacteriological modelling of the discharge

to the estuary indicates that the designated beaches at Youghal Main Beach and

Claycastle will not be impacted on and their Blue Fla

not be threatened” [EIS Vol

3.32 Paragraph 3.10 (pg 14) of the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013) noted that

medium term, there will be a reduced

whole due to more efficient treatment of discharge from Youghal and unrelated water

quality improvement as required under the Water Framework Directive in watercourses

contributing to the estuary

3.33 The results of CORMIX modelling

are reported in Section 7.2.2 Bacteriological Water Quality Modelling, EIS Vol

McCarthy, 2001) and in paragraphs 4.72 to 4.87 of the Appropriate Assessment (Atkin

2013); extract from the EIS is reproduced in Appendix B

estuary is well mixed and that the coliform concentrations diminish significantly at the

harbour entrance at East Point.

bacteria concentrations discharged in an effluent plum

outfalls at Paxe’s Lane and Greens Quay. The EIS reported (pg 89) that “

predicts a significant reduction in faecal coliform levels in the h

outfall at Ferry Point even with an increase in loading to 20,000 population equivalent

This was considered to be a conservative estimate as no decay factor for bacteria had

been included in the model and “

conditions can be expected based on a T90 of 12 hours

3.34 Based on the CORMIX modelling, the EIS concluded that “

the WWTW will improve bacteriological water quality in the harbour although not meeti

bathing or shellfish (Shellsan

of faecal coliforms afforded by secondary treatment without disinfection (approximately 2


Discharging to this location would provide significant volumes of water to


provide good mixing and dispersion in the receiving waters.” [EIS Vol

2 Estuarine discharge standards, pg 21]. Chapter 7 of the EIS (pg 77)

The predicted tidal range is approximately 3.5m and currents in the estuary can

be strong with tidal currents at the Ferry Point varying from 0.02 – 0.89m s

that the estuary has a tendency towards eutrophication (Section 7.2.1

Biological and Nutrient Water Quality, pg 87). The River Blackwater has been identified as

the most significant contributor of nutrients to the Blackwater Estuary.

water quality and point pressures acting on the River Blackwater,

detailed in paragraphs 4.95-4.97 of the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013). The

combined and assimilated discharges from a number of waste water

River Blackwater and other point sources such as industries holding IPPC

licences, together with diffuse sources such as agricultural runoff, septic tank discharges

forestry etc.

urthermore the EIS states “As Youghal Harbour / Blackwater E


this designation along with secondary treatment. This requires the treatment process to

reduce nitrogen as the limiting nutrient to alleviate the potential for eutrophication of the



Claycastle will not be impacted on and their Blue Flag status in relation to water quality will

[EIS Vol. 2., Atkins McCarthy (2001), Section 16 Conclusions, pg 158].

Paragraph 3.10 (pg 14) of the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013) noted that

medium term, there will be a reduced level of nutrient enrichment within the estuary as a



contributing to the estuary”.

results of CORMIX modelling undertaken on bacteriological water quality assessment

are reported in Section 7.2.2 Bacteriological Water Quality Modelling, EIS Vol

McCarthy, 2001) and in paragraphs 4.72 to 4.87 of the Appropriate Assessment (Atkin

; extract from the EIS is reproduced in Appendix B. The model demonstrates that the


harbour entrance at East Point. It also predicted dispersion and dilution

bacteria concentrations discharged in an effluent plume at neap tide from two existing

outfalls at Paxe’s Lane and Greens Quay. The EIS reported (pg 89) that “

predicts a significant reduction in faecal coliform levels in the harbour from the proposed

outfall at Ferry Point even with an increase in loading to 20,000 population equivalent


been included in the model and “further reductions of the order of 50% for these tidal

conditions can be expected based on a T90 of 12 hours.”

Based on the CORMIX modelling, the EIS concluded that “the proposed discharge from

the WWTW will improve bacteriological water quality in the harbour although not meeti

Shellsan) standards. The large reduction in the effluent concentration


24

ocation would provide significant volumes of water to


.” [EIS Vol. 2, Atkins McCarthy

Chapter 7 of the EIS (pg 77)

The predicted tidal range is approximately 3.5m and currents in the estuary can

0.89m s-1.”

that the estuary has a tendency towards eutrophication (Section 7.2.1

he River Blackwater has been identified as

water quality and point pressures acting on the River Blackwater, are

4.97 of the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013). These

combined and assimilated discharges from a number of waste water treatment

River Blackwater and other point sources such as industries holding IPPC

such as agricultural runoff, septic tank discharges

“As Youghal Harbour / Blackwater Estuary has been


This requires the treatment process to

otential for eutrophication of the



g status in relation to water quality will

ection 16 Conclusions, pg 158].

Paragraph 3.10 (pg 14) of the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013) noted that “In the

level of nutrient enrichment within the estuary as a



bacteriological water quality assessment

are reported in Section 7.2.2 Bacteriological Water Quality Modelling, EIS Vol. 2 (Atkins

McCarthy, 2001) and in paragraphs 4.72 to 4.87 of the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins,

The model demonstrates that the


predicted dispersion and dilution of faecal coliform

e at neap tide from two existing

outfalls at Paxe’s Lane and Greens Quay. The EIS reported (pg 89) that “This model

arbour from the proposed

outfall at Ferry Point even with an increase in loading to 20,000 population equivalent”.


he order of 50% for these tidal

the proposed discharge from

the WWTW will improve bacteriological water quality in the harbour although not meeting

The large reduction in the effluent concentration





log) will lower significantly the concentrations occurring in the harb

population equivalent of 20,000.

3.35 Furthermore, the EIS stated that “

outfall at Ferry Point fall below the Bathing Waters Directive guide value

at a distance of 1750m downstream at the estuary mouth

located outside the estuary, the new discharge situation will not adversely affect the Blue

Flag status of the beach

3.36 The EIS did note, based on bacteri

undertaken for the proposed project, that

area outside the harbour in Yough

redesignated it would meet with t

(2001), pg 7].

3.37 In summary, the EIS concluded that the proposed project would result in improved water

quality conditions within Youghal Bay, which would have the added impact of “

significant long-term impacts on water quality and the quality of shellfish

Proposed avoidance and mitigation measures

3.38 Measures to avoid significant impacts on the receiving environment during construction of

the new outfall at Green’s

outfalls included in the project

Assessment, specifically paragraphs 5.33 to 5.41 of the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins

2013). The key measures are summarised in Table


log) will lower significantly the concentrations occurring in the harb

population equivalent of 20,000.” [EIS, Vol. 2, Atkins McCarthy (2001), pg 90

, the EIS stated that “The computed concentrations for the proposed new

outfall at Ferry Point fall below the Bathing Waters Directive guide value

at a distance of 1750m downstream at the estuary mouth. Since the designated beach is


Flag status of the beach”.

The EIS did note, based on bacteriological analysis and assessment (see Box 1 above)

undertaken for the proposed project, that “The previously designated shellfish production

area outside the harbour in Youghal Bay is not impacted on and should the area be

redesignated it would meet with the Shellsan standards” [EIS, Vol.

In summary, the EIS concluded that the proposed project would result in improved water

quality conditions within Youghal Bay, which would have the added impact of “

term impacts on water quality and the quality of shellfish

Proposed avoidance and mitigation measures

Measures to avoid significant impacts on the receiving environment during construction of

the new outfall at Green’s Quay, and during the possible refurbishment of the other 4

outfalls included in the project are provided in both the EIS and the Appropriate


2013). The key measures are summarised in Table 3.1 below: -

25

log) will lower significantly the concentrations occurring in the harbour at the design

2, Atkins McCarthy (2001), pg 90].

The computed concentrations for the proposed new

outfall at Ferry Point fall below the Bathing Waters Directive guide value of 100 per 100ml

Since the designated beach is


ological analysis and assessment (see Box 1 above)

The previously designated shellfish production

al Bay is not impacted on and should the area be

. 1, Atkins McCarthy

In summary, the EIS concluded that the proposed project would result in improved water

quality conditions within Youghal Bay, which would have the added impact of “positive and

term impacts on water quality and the quality of shellfish”.

Measures to avoid significant impacts on the receiving environment during construction of

e refurbishment of the other 4

provided in both the EIS and the Appropriate





Table 3.1 - Summary of proposed

operation of the proposed short sea outfall at Green’s Quay

Issue

Construction phase

works

Silt escape on mussel

beds during construction

of outfall

Temporary habitat loss

during outfall construction

Fauna (Salmon)

Fisheries

Water quality

(operational)

Water quality

(construction)


Summary of proposed A B

mitigation measures in respect of the construction and

operation of the proposed short sea outfall at Green’s Quay

Proposed mitigation Reference

Contractor to provide an overall programme

detailing timings, durations and methods of

works, location of site compounds

(Construction/Mitigation Method Statement &

Project Environmental Management Plan)–

to be approved by Cork County Council,

National Parks and Wildlife Service and

Inland Fisheries Ireland. Input from

appropriately qualified ecologist is required.

Specifically the EMP document and

associated supporting documents will set out

the measures to be undertaken by the

appointed Contractors for construction of the

Green’s Quay outfall, including any specific

measures to protect identified sensitive

ecological receptors along and adjacent to

the proposed works area during the

construction period. The EMP will include

details of proposed monitoring protocols and

recording and reporting of same.

EIS Vol

and 14.8, pg 138;

Paragraphs

(pg 19) and 5.24 to

(pgs 43

Assessment

beds during construction

Contactor to use silt traps during works to

trap silt mobilised in water column during

subtidal works.

Paragraph 5.37, pg 47,

Appropriate Assessment

during outfall construction

Trench to be back-filled after laying of

discharge pipe; natural recovery of subtidal

habitats.

Paragraph 3.11, pg 15


Works to avoid the early summer and

autumn to reduce impact on salmon from the

sea to the estuary. Fish passage not

prevented as works will not extend across

full extent of the river.

EIS Vol

pg 7

Assessment paragraph

5.39, pg 47

Discharge point of new outfall to be marked

with a buoy to avoid damage to the diffuser

by anchors; pipeline will not be located near

any existing anchor points.

EIS Vol

pg 119

The WWTP will be designed to provide

secondary treatment of wastewater to

comply with the Urban Waste Water

Treatment Regulations 2001 (SI No. 254 of

2001) as amended and the Waste Water

Discharge Authorisation DO139-01 for the

proposed WWTP included in Book 8 – Site

Information (of the Waste Licence

submission documents).

EIS Vol

pg 90; Appropriate


4.88 (pg 32)

Standard Operating procedures to be

employed.

EIS Vol

14.11 pg 144 & 145

26

mitigation measures in respect of the construction and

operation of the proposed short sea outfall at Green’s Quay.

Reference

EIS Vol. 2, Section 14.5

and 14.8, pg 138;

Paragraphs 3.9, 3.25

(pg 19) and 5.24 to 5.30

(pgs 43-45) Appropriate

Assessment





EIS Vol. 2, Section 5.3,

pg 71; Appropriate


5.39, pg 47


pg 119


pg 90; Appropriate


4.88 (pg 32)

EIS Vol. 2, Section

14.11 pg 144 & 145




Issue

Water quality (mixing)

Water quality (nitrogen

reduction)

Water quality

(phosphorus removal)

Water quality (coliform

levels)

Marine sediments

Contaminants

A EIS = Atkins McCarthy (2001), Vol

and Appendices

B Appropriate Assessment = Atkins (2013).


Table 3.1 - continued.

Proposed mitigation Reference

Locating discharge at Ferry Point will provide

significant volumes of water to dilute effluent

due to presence of large trench which

extends for some distance downstream.

EIS Vol

2.4.2, pg 21

Scheme to include nitrogen reduction for

discharge to estuary as this has been

identified as the limiting nutrient in the

estuary. Reduction via secondary treatment

process with aerobic and anoxic zones.

EIS Vol

2.4.2

Provision to be made to addition of

phosphorus removal in WWTP if ongoing

studies by EPA indicate this would be of

benefit for water quality.

EIS Vol

2.4.2

Provision of secondary treatment without

disinfection predicted by CORMIX modelling

to meet requirements of the Bathing Water

Directive/Blue Flag status; would also ensure

meeting of the Shellsan standards for area

outside of Youghal Bay should this be

redesignated under the Shellfish Directive.

EIS Vol

2.4.2

Minimise area of seabed dredged and

disturbed during construction of outfall to

reduce short-term impacts from release of

contaminants and increased turbidity.

Construction works to be undertaken over

periods of slack tide to minimise dispersion

and removal of material. Replacement of

marine sediments after construction in

dredged locations to restore natural profile.

Consideration of placement of rock armour if

scour likely to occur over the alignment of

the proposed outfall.

EIS Vol

6.3.1, pg 77

5.3, pg 71; Section 4.19,

pg 151

Adherence to Standard Operating

Procedures to avoid release of contaminants

Appropriate

Assessment;

Section 5.3, pg 71

EIS = Atkins McCarthy (2001), Vol. 1 Non-Technical Summary; Vol. 2 Main Report; Vol

Appropriate Assessment = Atkins (2013).

27

Reference

EIS Vol. 2, Section

2.4.2, pg 21

EIS Vol. 2, Section

2.4.2, pg 23

EIS Vol. 2, Section

2.4.2, pg 23

EIS Vol. 2, Section

2.4.2, pg 25

EIS Vol. 2, Section

6.3.1, pg 77; Section

5.3, pg 71; Section 4.19,

pg 151

Appropriate

Assessment; EIS Vol. 2,

Section 5.3, pg 71

2 Main Report; Vol. 3 Figures




Q2. Potential Construction Impacts

DECLG......would be obliged if Irish Water could arrange to carry out a full environmental



2) the potential effects during the

refurbishment of the other 4 outfalls.

3.39 An overview of the proposed

effluent outfall is provided in

Potential for Impacts on Natura 2000 sites

3.40 The location of the proposed outfall

relative to Natura 2000 sites on

(Atkins, 2013; refer to Appendix C).

illustrate the environs of the outlfall

proposed outfall is located is designated as part of the River Blackwater SAC but lies

outside the Blackwater Estuary SPA. The relat

Natura 2000 sites and Natural Heritage Areas is shown on Table

Table 3.2 - extracted from Section 5.13, pg 37, Appropriate Assessment (Atkins 2013)

3.41 The Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, December

pipe and all associated works are primarily located within the Youghal urban area which

does not support habitats or species of conservation concern for which the River

Blackwater SAC / Blackwater Estuary SPA are des

outflow pipe enters the Blackwater Estuary, the foreshore habitat is dominated by a narrow


Q2. Potential Construction Impacts

obliged if Irish Water could arrange to carry out a full environmental



the potential effects during the construction of the outfall at Ferry Point and the

refurbishment of the other 4 outfalls.

An overview of the proposed works on the existing outfalls and on the proposed treated

is provided in Chapter 2 of this report.

s on Natura 2000 sites

The location of the proposed outfall at Greens Quay (opposite Ferry Point

Natura 2000 sites on Figure 5.1, extracted from the Appropriate Assessment

; refer to Appendix C). Plates 1.3 to 1.6 of the Appropriate Assessment

illustrate the environs of the outlfall. The section of the River Blackwater within which the


outside the Blackwater Estuary SPA. The relationship of other outfalls requiring upgrade to

Natura 2000 sites and Natural Heritage Areas is shown on Table 3.2 below:

extracted from Section 5.13, pg 37, Appropriate Assessment (Atkins 2013)

Assessment (Atkins, December 2013) noted that “The proposed outflow



Blackwater SAC / Blackwater Estuary SPA are designated (see Plates 1.3


28

obliged if Irish Water could arrange to carry out a full environmental


construction of the outfall at Ferry Point and the

and on the proposed treated

opposite Ferry Point) is illustrated

Figure 5.1, extracted from the Appropriate Assessment

of the Appropriate Assessment

of the River Blackwater within which the


ionship of other outfalls requiring upgrade to

below: -

extracted from Section 5.13, pg 37, Appropriate Assessment (Atkins 2013).

The proposed outflow



(see Plates 1.3-1.6). Where the





band of sand and mixed sediment with polychaetes and crustaceans community complex

grading into coarse sediment community com

NPWS marine habitats conservation objective supporting document). Where the proposed

pipeline first enters the foreshore it is within a small harbour dominated by what appear to

be thick anoxic mud and silts (Plate

narrow band of mudflat (Plate 1.5); to the south the shore is more mixed substrate in

character (Plate 1.6). Both are narrow with a deep subtidal channel located close to shore

in this area (i.e. the ma

3.42 The Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, December 2013)

significant impacts from the proposed project in its entirety on Conservation Objectives of

the River Blackwater SAC/Blackwater Estuary SPA. The Appropriate Assessment

identified potential for minor disturbance during the cons

Lamprey, Twaite Shad, Atlantic Salmon and Otter; but concluded that works would

extend fully across

implementation of mitigation measures would avoid significant

Assessment also noted (paragraph 3.5, pg 14) that “

will run do not represent areas of intertidal or sub

waders / wildfowl for which the Blackwater Estua

3.43 The Annex 1 habitat Estuaries [1130], a Conservation Objective of the River Blackwater

SAC, is located to the north of and adjoining The Foxhole outfall. In relation to potential

impacts on this habitat, the Appropria

the Foxhole is subtidal; should limited repair works be needed works would be boat / diver

based. There is e.g. no requirement for creation of a temporary haul road alongside the

existing coastal protect

works will not negatively impact upon this resilient Annex I habitat which is accustomed to

dynamic shifts and changes in water flows, turbidity and undercurrents etc

3.44 Existing outfalls at t

identified by NPWS as

seawater at low tide [

Point. The Appropria

disturbance to this Annex I habitat during maintenance / upgrade works to the existing

outflow pipes. The temporary nature of these works will not negatively impact upon this

resilient Annex I habitat which is accustomed to dynamic shifts and changes in water

flows, turbidity, tidal undercurrents etc

3.45 The Annex 1 habitat

footprint or environs of the proposed outflow pipe. This

proposed outflow pipe in the townland of Ferry

habitat, the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins 2013) concluded that “

located on the eastern side of the estu

is to discharge subtidally via a diffuser at a maximum rate of 125 l/sec into the main

channel of the River Blackwater (daily average of 52.1 l/sec); this may increase to a daily

maximum of 187.5 l/s in 1

as the Bride & Tourig joining the main channel) is 58.56 m

Maximum discharges from the plant is thus only 0.32% of the Ballyduff flow which as noted

is prior to a number of large tributaries joining the main channel (and hence is a very

conservative estimate). This will not significantly alter the rate of flow or erosive power of

the river as it passes Ferry Point”.



grading into coarse sediment community complex in deeper waters to the south (from



be thick anoxic mud and silts (Plate 1.3 & 1.4). To the north of the harbour entrance is a



in this area (i.e. the main discharge channel of the River Blackwater through the estuary)

Assessment (Atkins, December 2013) considered the potential for



identified potential for minor disturbance during the construction period on Sea and River

Lamprey, Twaite Shad, Atlantic Salmon and Otter; but concluded that works would

extend fully across the River Blackwater and block fish or Otter

implementation of mitigation measures would avoid significant impacts. The Appropriate

Assessment also noted (paragraph 3.5, pg 14) that “the habitats through which the pipe

will run do not represent areas of intertidal or sub-tidal habitat of significance for foraging

waders / wildfowl for which the Blackwater Estuary SPA for birds has been designated.

The Annex 1 habitat Estuaries [1130], a Conservation Objective of the River Blackwater


impacts on this habitat, the Appropriate Assessment (Table 5.2) noted that “



existing coastal protection wall. The temporary nature / small scale of any maintenance


dynamic shifts and changes in water flows, turbidity and undercurrents etc

the Foxhole, Dunn’s Park & Paxe’s Lane pipes all traverse areas

identified by NPWS as the Annex 1 habitat Mudflats and sandflats not covered by

[1140]. Extensive areas of this habitat are also located north of Ferry

Point. The Appropriate Assessment (Table 5.2) noted that “Potential for temporary



abitat which is accustomed to dynamic shifts and changes in water

flows, turbidity, tidal undercurrents etc”.

Perennial vegetation of stony banks [1220] is not located within the

of the proposed outflow pipe. This habitat is located to the east of the

proposed outflow pipe in the townland of Ferry Point. In respect of potential impacts on this

habitat, the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins 2013) concluded that “

located on the eastern side of the estuary at Ferry Point. The new outfall at Green’s Quay



maximum of 187.5 l/s in 15-20 years. Mean river flow at Ballyduff (i.e. prior to rivers such

as the Bride & Tourig joining the main channel) is 58.56 m3/sec (i.e. 58,561 l/sec).


number of large tributaries joining the main channel (and hence is a very


the river as it passes Ferry Point”.

29


plex in deeper waters to the south (from



1.3 & 1.4). To the north of the harbour entrance is a



lackwater through the estuary)”.

considered the potential for



truction period on Sea and River

Lamprey, Twaite Shad, Atlantic Salmon and Otter; but concluded that works would not

or Otter passage and

impacts. The Appropriate

the habitats through which the pipe

tidal habitat of significance for foraging

ry SPA for birds has been designated.”

The Annex 1 habitat Estuaries [1130], a Conservation Objective of the River Blackwater


te Assessment (Table 5.2) noted that “The outfall at



ion wall. The temporary nature / small scale of any maintenance


dynamic shifts and changes in water flows, turbidity and undercurrents etc”.

he Foxhole, Dunn’s Park & Paxe’s Lane pipes all traverse areas

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by

so located north of Ferry

Potential for temporary



abitat which is accustomed to dynamic shifts and changes in water

] is not located within the

habitat is located to the east of the

. In respect of potential impacts on this

habitat, the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins 2013) concluded that “No works are to be

ary at Ferry Point. The new outfall at Green’s Quay



20 years. Mean river flow at Ballyduff (i.e. prior to rivers such

/sec (i.e. 58,561 l/sec).


number of large tributaries joining the main channel (and hence is a very





3.46 The Appropriate Assessment (Atkins 2013) conclude

impacts on other Conservation Objectives of the River Blackwater SAC, namely

Freshwater Pearl Mussel, White

annuals colonizing mud and sand

maritimae), Mediterranean salt meadows (

courses of plain to montane levels with the

Batrachion, Old sessile oak woods with

forests with Alnus glutinosa

albae) and *Taxus baccata

3.47 The Appropriate Assessment further noted (para 5.19, pg

conservation objectives for the Annex I habitat ‘Mudflats and sandflats not covered by

seawater at low tide’ (1140) is to maintain and conserve

site; while Zostera is also recorded within ‘Estua

the conservation objectives for this annexed habitat. At Youghal

mouth of the River Tourig (see Figure 3 of NPWS, 2012c) to the northwest of the Foxhole

outfall; as we understand th

of the Foxhole outfall there should be no negative impacts on the extent or condition of

Zostera beds”.

3.48 With respect to potential impacts on

of Estuaries, refer to the response to Query 1 above,

3.25, as well as Box 1

3.49 The Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013) noted (para 5.22, pg 42) that “

existing outflow pipes are all partially located within the An

sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide’ (1140). Small scale upgrade works will be

localised and may cause some temporary disturbance to this Annex I habitat. There will be

no direct habitat loss or removal as a result of

accustomed to continual changes and shifts in deposition and accretion depending on tidal

regimes, flushing of the estuary, extreme weather conditions etc. The upgrade works in the

vicinity of the outflow pipes ma

impacts of these works will be negligible given the area of these habitats within the wider

estuary and that such habitats are accustomed to regular fluctuations and shifts of the

sediments during cha

upgrade works will be temporary. This is in line with the guidance on Appropriate

Assessment included in Section 2 of the Blackwater River Conservation objectives

supporting document

impacts on marine habitats such as 1140

3.50 The mussel dominated habitat is an integral part of estuarine complex of habitats that

characterises Youghal Estuary; as such it is adapted to the

suspended solid regimes that characterise estuaries such as Youghal

receive inputs from the sea; large rivers (in this case the Blackwater, Tourig & the Licky)

and the surrounding agriculture dominated land

3.51 The Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013) concluded that the

new outflow pipe running east from Green’s Quay

or within close proximity to those shoreline / coastal Annex I habitats th

Objectives of the River Blackwater SAC

proposed works to construct the new outfall at this location.


The Appropriate Assessment (Atkins 2013) concluded that there would be no potential for


Freshwater Pearl Mussel, White-clawed Crayfish, Brook Lamprey, Salicornia

annuals colonizing mud and sand, Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco

Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi), Killarney Fern,

courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles

Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae

Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles (refer to Appendix B).

The Appropriate Assessment further noted (para 5.19, pg 41) that “A requirement of the


seawater at low tide’ (1140) is to maintain and conserve Zostera communities within the

is also recorded within ‘Estuaries’ (1130) it is not listed as an attribute of

the conservation objectives for this annexed habitat. At Youghal Zostera


outfall; as we understand that no intrusive works are proposed for the mudflats northwest


With respect to potential impacts on Mytilus edulis dominated communities, a component

Estuaries, refer to the response to Query 1 above, and specifically

, as well as Box 1.

The Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013) noted (para 5.22, pg 42) that “

existing outflow pipes are all partially located within the Annex I habitat ‘Mudflats and



no direct habitat loss or removal as a result of the upgrade works. This Annex I habitat is



vicinity of the outflow pipes may require some localised excavation works. The scale of



sediments during changes in tidal regimes etc. All impacts associated with the proposed



supporting document – marine habitats (NPWS, 2012) when considering the potential for

impacts on marine habitats such as 1140”.

The mussel dominated habitat is an integral part of estuarine complex of habitats that

characterises Youghal Estuary; as such it is adapted to the pattern of changing salinity and

suspended solid regimes that characterise estuaries such as Youghal


and the surrounding agriculture dominated landscape.

Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013) concluded that the location of the proposed

new outflow pipe running east from Green’s Quay (opposite Ferry Point

or within close proximity to those shoreline / coastal Annex I habitats th

Objectives of the River Blackwater SAC and therefore will not be impacted by the

proposed works to construct the new outfall at this location.

30

d that there would be no potential for


Salicornia and other

Glauco Puccinellietalia

, Killarney Fern, Water

Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-

in the British Isles, *Alluvial

Alnion incanae, Salicion

refer to Appendix B).

A requirement of the


communities within the

ries’ (1130) it is not listed as an attribute of

Zostera is located at the


at no intrusive works are proposed for the mudflats northwest


dominated communities, a component

paragraphs 3.24 and

The Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013) noted (para 5.22, pg 42) that “The four

nex I habitat ‘Mudflats and



the upgrade works. This Annex I habitat is



y require some localised excavation works. The scale of



nges in tidal regimes etc. All impacts associated with the proposed



ine habitats (NPWS, 2012) when considering the potential for

The mussel dominated habitat is an integral part of estuarine complex of habitats that

pattern of changing salinity and

suspended solid regimes that characterise estuaries such as Youghal – such estuaries


location of the proposed

Ferry Point) is not located on

or within close proximity to those shoreline / coastal Annex I habitats that are Conservation

and therefore will not be impacted by the




3.52 Water quality in the estuary will improve as a result of the WWTP and outfall construction

and refurbishment. The Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013) noted that “

have medium to long term impacts on the carrying capacity of the estuary / SPA for fauna

species for which it has been designated, any such changes would arise from comp

with a number of EU Directives including the Water Framework Directive

Potential for impacts on other ecological receptors and on the environment

3.53 Table 15.1 Youghal Main Drainage Scheme

from the EIS Vol. 2 (Atkins McCarthy. 2001) and is presented here as a summary of the

main identified environmental impacts of the proposed development, i.e. the WWTP,

construction of the new outfall and remediation of the existing outfalls


Water quality in the estuary will improve as a result of the WWTP and outfall construction

d refurbishment. The Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013) noted that “


species for which it has been designated, any such changes would arise from comp

with a number of EU Directives including the Water Framework Directive


Table 15.1 Youghal Main Drainage Scheme – Environmental Impacts has been extracted

2 (Atkins McCarthy. 2001) and is presented here as a summary of the


construction of the new outfall and remediation of the existing outfalls.

31

Water quality in the estuary will improve as a result of the WWTP and outfall construction

d refurbishment. The Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013) noted that “Whilst this may


species for which it has been designated, any such changes would arise from compliance

with a number of EU Directives including the Water Framework Directive”.


Environmental Impacts has been extracted

2 (Atkins McCarthy. 2001) and is presented here as a summary of the


Youghal M

ain

Dra

inage S

chem

e

Response to D

epart

ment

of E

nvironm

ent, C

om

munity &

Local G

overn

ment

2794D

G75_W

SLR

esponse.d

ocx

Ta

ble

3.3

E

xtr

act

of

Ta

ble

15.1

– Y

ou

gha

l M

ain

Dra

inag

e S

ch

em

e

Vo

lum

e 2

(A

tkin

s M

cC

art

hy,

20

01

) –

Ta

ble

pa

ge

1 o

f 3

Response to D

epart

ment

of E

nvironm

ent, C

om

munity &

Local G

overn

ment

Yo

ug

ha

l M

ain

Dra

inag

e S

ch

em

e –

En

vir

on

me

nta

l Im

pa

cts

; E

xtr

acte

d f

rom

Ch

ap

ter

15

Inte

raction o

f E

nvir

onm

en

tal Im

pa

ct, E

IS

Ta

ble

pa

ge

1 o

f 3

.

32

En

vir

on

me

nta

l Im

pa

cts

; E

xtr

acte

d f

rom

Ch

ap

ter

15

Inte

raction o

f E

nvir

onm

en

tal Im

pa

ct, E

IS

Youghal M

ain

Dra

inage S

chem

e

Response to D

epart

ment

of E

nvironm

ent, C

om

munity &

Local G

overn

ment

2794D

G75_W

SLR

esponse.d

ocx

Ta

ble

3.3

E

xtr

act

of

Ta

ble

15.1

– Y

ou

gha

l M

ain

Dra

ina

Vo

lum

e 2

(A

tkin

s M

cC

art

hy,

20

01

) –

Ta

ble

pa

ge

2 o

f 3

Response to D

epart

ment

of E

nvironm

ent, C

om

munity &

Local G

overn

ment

Yo

ug

ha

l M

ain

Dra

inag

e S

ch

em

e –

En

vir

on

me

nta

l Im

pa

cts

; E

xtr

acte

d f

rom

Ch

ap

ter

15

Inte

raction o

f E

nvir

onm

en

tal Im

pa

ct, E

IS

Ta

ble

pa

ge

2 o

f 3

.

33

En

vir

on

me

nta

l Im

pa

cts

; E

xtr

acte

d f

rom

Ch

ap

ter

15

Inte

raction o

f E

nvir

onm

en

tal Im

pa

ct, E

IS

Youghal M

ain

Dra

inage S

chem

e

Response to D

epart

ment

of E

nvironm

ent, C

om

munity &

Local G

overn

ment

2794D

G75_W

SLR

esponse.d

ocx

Ta

ble

3.3

E

xtr

act

of

Ta

ble

15.1

– Y

ou

gha

l M

ain

Dra

inag

e S

ch

em

e

Vo

lum

e 2

(A

tkin

s M

cC

art

hy,

20

01

) –

Ta

ble

pa

ge

Response to D

epart

ment

of E

nvironm

ent, C

om

munity &

Local G

overn

ment

Yo

ug

ha

l M

ain

Dra

inag

e S

ch

em

e –

En

vir

on

me

nta

l Im

pa

cts

; E

xtr

acte

d f

rom

Ch

ap

ter

15

Inte

raction o

f E

nvir

onm

en

tal Im

pa

ct, E

IS

Ta

ble

pa

ge

3 o

f 3

.

34

En

vir

on

me

nta

l Im

pa

cts

; E

xtr

acte

d f

rom

Ch

ap

ter

15

Inte

raction o

f E

nvir

onm

en

tal Im

pa

ct, E

IS




Construction stage mitigation

3.54 During construction of the new outfall at Green’s Quay (opposite Ferry Point), and

refurbishment of the other 4 outfalls, a comprehensive mitigation and avoidance

programme will be employed. Both the EIS (2001) and the Appropriate Assessment (2013)

set out measures to protect the receiving environment during the construction period.

3.55 Relevant extracts with regard to mitigation/avoidance measures extracted from the EIS

and AA are summarised

3.56 Any material excavated as part of

will be replaced into the trenches so as to maintain the profile of the sea bed (Section 11,

Foreshore Licence Application, 2008).

careful manner to mitigate risk of silt migration into the water column


Construction stage mitigation

construction of the new outfall at Green’s Quay (opposite Ferry Point), and



es to protect the receiving environment during the construction period.

Relevant extracts with regard to mitigation/avoidance measures extracted from the EIS

summarised in Table 3.1 above in response to Query 1.

Any material excavated as part of the construction of the new Greens Quay


ore Licence Application, 2008). Any surplus material will be locally distributed in a

o mitigate risk of silt migration into the water column.

35

construction of the new outfall at Green’s Quay (opposite Ferry Point), and



es to protect the receiving environment during the construction period.

Relevant extracts with regard to mitigation/avoidance measures extracted from the EIS

Greens Quay outfall works


Any surplus material will be locally distributed in a




Q3. Alternatives Considered

In addition the report should:

3) describe in outline the main alternatives to the outfalls that are the subject of the

foreshore application that hav

New Green’s Quay Outfall

3.57 As required by the European Communities (Environmental Impact

Assessment)(Amendment) Regulations 2001 (SI No. 538 of 2001)

prepared for Youghal Main Drainage,

Alternatives, considered the main alternatives for the project. Consideration of alternatives

was divided into a) Wastewater Treatment Works Site Selection; and b) Discharge

Location Options.

3.58 Initially the site constraints considered se

Wastewater Treatment site and associated outfall

3.59 Refer to Volume 2 and Volume 3 of the EIS (2001) for the following relevant information in

respect of alternatives considered for t

• Sections 2.5.1 - Wastewater Treatment Works Site Selection (pg 46)

• Section 2.5.2 - Environmental Appraisal of Site Options

• Figure 2.8 - Constraints Map and Site Locations;

• Table 2.8 - Site Options and Location

• Table 2.9 - Summary Environmental Appraisal

• Appendix K.

3.60 In considering the location for the proposed

assessed for each of the seven potential locations, and rated on a scoring system from 0

to 4, with 0 indicating neutral impact and 4 indicating least environmentally favourite

option. Scores for the eight criteria assessed were added for each of the potential

locations, giving a total score used to provide an overall site ranking.

3.61 Option B Mudlands (for the p

across the criteria assessed, and it was ranked first of the seven potential sites

considered, i.e. the most favourable location for the project. Within the Mudlands site,

three options, Options 1, 2 and 3, were co

associated pipelines. The conclusion of the

that: -

“The assessment indicated that the most northerly site option 3 adjacent to the

UDC boundary is the most environmental

this is at additional cost by comparison with the other two options which are closer

to the catchment and outfall location


Q3. Alternatives Considered

In addition the report should: -

describe in outline the main alternatives to the outfalls that are the subject of the

foreshore application that have been considered by Irish Water.

Outfall

As required by the European Communities (Environmental Impact

Assessment)(Amendment) Regulations 2001 (SI No. 538 of 2001)

prepared for Youghal Main Drainage, Chapter 2 Details of Proposed Scheme and

, considered the main alternatives for the project. Consideration of alternatives

a) Wastewater Treatment Works Site Selection; and b) Discharge

Initially the site constraints considered seven possible locations for the proposed

Wastewater Treatment site and associated outfall – labelled Sites A to G in the EIS.

Refer to Volume 2 and Volume 3 of the EIS (2001) for the following relevant information in

respect of alternatives considered for the location of the WWTP site: -

Wastewater Treatment Works Site Selection (pg 46)

Environmental Appraisal of Site Options (pgs 48-49

Constraints Map and Site Locations;

Site Options and Locations;

Summary Environmental Appraisal;

In considering the location for the proposed WWTP site, eight environmental criteria were


cating neutral impact and 4 indicating least environmentally favourite

Scores for the eight criteria assessed were added for each of the potential

locations, giving a total score used to provide an overall site ranking.

(for the proposed WWTP) had the lowest combined score (4 points)



three options, Options 1, 2 and 3, were considered for construction of the

associated pipelines. The conclusion of the WWTP site selection constraints process was

The assessment indicated that the most northerly site option 3 adjacent to the

UDC boundary is the most environmentally suitable option. It should be noted that


to the catchment and outfall location.

36

describe in outline the main alternatives to the outfalls that are the subject of the

As required by the European Communities (Environmental Impact

Assessment)(Amendment) Regulations 2001 (SI No. 538 of 2001), the EIS (2001)

Proposed Scheme and

, considered the main alternatives for the project. Consideration of alternatives

a) Wastewater Treatment Works Site Selection; and b) Discharge

ven possible locations for the proposed

labelled Sites A to G in the EIS.

Refer to Volume 2 and Volume 3 of the EIS (2001) for the following relevant information in

Wastewater Treatment Works Site Selection (pg 46);

49);

site, eight environmental criteria were


cating neutral impact and 4 indicating least environmentally favourite

Scores for the eight criteria assessed were added for each of the potential

had the lowest combined score (4 points)



nsidered for construction of the WWTP and

site selection constraints process was

The assessment indicated that the most northerly site option 3 adjacent to the

It should be noted that





The economic assessment also indicated that locating a treatment works at the

mudlands was the most economically advantageous for both estuary and long sea

outfall options.”

[pg 47, Youghal Main Drainage Scheme

Atkins McCarthy (2001)].

3.62 With respect to discharge location options

WWTP, two alternative receiving waters were considered in the EIS (2001); a) long sea

outfall to Youghal Bay area and b) short sea outfall to the estuary. These are discussed in

detail below.

Long Sea Outfall to Youghal Bay

3.63 Consideration of the potential for

quality standards from

• Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) as implemented by S.I

254 (2001) Urban Waste Water Treatment

• Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC

• Shellfish Directive (79/923/EEC)

3.64 Section 2.5.3 Discharge Location Options and Table 2.10

for Coastal discharge [

Box 2 below in their entirety.



was the most economically advantageous for both estuary and long sea

[pg 47, Youghal Main Drainage Scheme - Environmental Impact Statement Vol

Atkins McCarthy (2001)].

discharge location options for discharge of effluent from the proposed

, two alternative receiving waters were considered in the EIS (2001); a) long sea


to Youghal Bay

on of the potential for a long sea outfall to Youghal Bay was based on effluent

from the following regulations: -

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) as implemented by S.I

254 (2001) Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations, 2001;

Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC);

Shellfish Directive (79/923/EEC) and Shellfish Production Area Directive (91/92/EEC)

Section 2.5.3 Discharge Location Options and Table 2.10 - Summary Quality Sta

for Coastal discharge [EIS (Atkins McCarthy 2001), Vol. 2, pgs 51-53]

in their entirety.

37


was the most economically advantageous for both estuary and long sea

Environmental Impact Statement Vol. 2.

nt from the proposed

, two alternative receiving waters were considered in the EIS (2001); a) long sea


long sea outfall to Youghal Bay was based on effluent

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) as implemented by S.I. No.

Shellfish Production Area Directive (91/92/EEC).

Summary Quality Standards

53] are provided in Text




Text Box 2 - Extract from EIS Vol. 2 (

Coastal Discharge Standards

The coastal discharge would be located some distance off the main beach in

the length of the outfall would be determined by the level of treatment provided at the

WWTW and the assimilative capacity of the receiving waters

UWWT Regulations

The minimum treatment standard required is secondary treatment under Clause

the UWWT Regulations

concentrations in the discharge shall comply with Part 1 of the second schedule in the

regulations and as summarised in Table 2.2

secondary treatment process is considered to be sufficient to achieve these emission

limiting values with a sludge age of no greater than 5 days

capacity and reactor vessel volume requirement

Bathing Regulations

Also as the beaches at Youghal and Claycastle are designated beaches under the Bathing

Water Regulations the discharge will require to meet with the National Limit Values on

Coliform concentrations as set out in Table 2.3

Blue Flag and this is a voluntary standard and to achieve this status the Guide value from

the regulations should be achieved. It is important to note that the bacterial

concentration limits apply to the bathing waters and not the effluent and that the

assimilative capacity in terms of the dispersive nature of the receiving waters can be used

for treatment of the discharge.

Shellfish Regulations

The area between Knockadoon and Knockaverry outside the estuary had been designated

until as recently as 2000 as a

Regulations. However the most recent 2001 regulations have excluded Youghal Bay from

the schedule of designated areas

has not been practised

that it would not be designated at some future point in time and it would be prudent to

ensure that the standards for Class B production be met in the planning of a long sea

outfall discharge. The S

the water quality shall comply with Table 2.5

Outfall length

To achieve these bacterial water quality standards for both the bathing and shellfish there

are two options in terms of treatment which can be provided resulting in differi

lengths. These are: -

1. Secondary treatment al

2. Secondary treatment with disinfec


Extract from EIS Vol. 2 (2001), pgs 51-52

Coastal Discharge Standards

The coastal discharge would be located some distance off the main beach in


WWTW and the assimilative capacity of the receiving waters.

The minimum treatment standard required is secondary treatment under Clause

the UWWT Regulations, 2001 for all discharges to coastal waters and effluent


regulations and as summarised in Table 2.2. To achieve this standard a high rate


limiting values with a sludge age of no greater than 5 days. This will give a low aeration

capacity and reactor vessel volume requirement.

beaches at Youghal and Claycastle are designated beaches under the Bathing


Coliform concentrations as set out in Table 2.3. The beaches currently enjoy the status of

ue Flag and this is a voluntary standard and to achieve this status the Guide value from



ilative capacity in terms of the dispersive nature of the receiving waters can be used

for treatment of the discharge.


until as recently as 2000 as a Class B shellfish production area by the DOMNR under the


the schedule of designated areas. This is mainly due to the fact that shellfish harvesting

has not been practised in the area for a number of years. This however does not mean



The Shellsan Classification system has been adopted by the DoMNR and

the water quality shall comply with Table 2.5 Shellfish Regulations.


ions in terms of treatment which can be provided resulting in differi

1. Secondary treatment alone with a long sea outfall and;

2. Secondary treatment with disinfection and a shorter sea outfall.

38

The coastal discharge would be located some distance off the main beach in Youghal and


The minimum treatment standard required is secondary treatment under Clause 4(1)(b) of

2001 for all discharges to coastal waters and effluent


To achieve this standard a high rate


This will give a low aeration

beaches at Youghal and Claycastle are designated beaches under the Bathing


The beaches currently enjoy the status of

ue Flag and this is a voluntary standard and to achieve this status the Guide value from



ilative capacity in terms of the dispersive nature of the receiving waters can be used


Class B shellfish production area by the DOMNR under the


This is mainly due to the fact that shellfish harvesting

This however does not mean



ellsan Classification system has been adopted by the DoMNR and


ions in terms of treatment which can be provided resulting in differing outfall




Based on a desk study of the receiving waters in Youghal Bay, including the Bathymetry

and Tidal diamonds from the Admiralty Charts (Figure 2.3), and the previous shellfish

designation, a length of 2.5 km long sea outfall has been estimated as the

of outfall for Option 1 for secondary treatment only

approximately 5m depth of water in the vicinity of Blackball Ledge. A shorter length

outfall of 1.5 km is assumed for a WWTW which has disinfection include

A summary of effluent quality standards for discharge to Youghal Bay are as follows:

3.65 Chapter 16 Conclusions

economic assessment indicated that the estuarine discharge was the

based on the Mudlands site

favoured.




designation, a length of 2.5 km long sea outfall has been estimated as the

ption 1 for secondary treatment only. This will bring the discharge point to


outfall of 1.5 km is assumed for a WWTW which has disinfection include


Conclusions, pg 157, of the EIS (Atkins McCarthy 2001) stated that “

economic assessment indicated that the estuarine discharge was the

based on the Mudlands site” and therefore a discharge to the Backwater Estuary

39



designation, a length of 2.5 km long sea outfall has been estimated as the order of length

This will bring the discharge point to


outfall of 1.5 km is assumed for a WWTW which has disinfection included in the process.


, pg 157, of the EIS (Atkins McCarthy 2001) stated that “An

economic assessment indicated that the estuarine discharge was the least cost solution

discharge to the Backwater Estuary was




Short Outfall to Estuary

3.66 Chapter 5 Marine Ecology considered two

WWTW namely: -

• Option 1 –outfall located at the southern end of Allins’ Quay in Youghal town

as Green’s Quay outfall)

• Option 3 –outfall located north of the quays at Youghal town and at the southern end

of the Youghal M

3.67 Environmental assessment of the two outf

assessments. Littoral and sub

biotypes (habitats and species assemblages. Refer to Figure

Figures 5.1 Marine biotypes of Youghal

also refer to Figure 3.3 (above)

lower Youghal Mudlands where Option 3 outfall (

proposed [both figures extracted from

McCarthy, 2001)].

3.68 In summary, the habitats and species encountered at both alternative sites, Option 1 and

Option 3 are typical of estuaries on the south coast of Ireland and no species or habitats of

conservation importance were recorded. For detailed descriptions of biotypes present at

the sites, refer to Appendix B of the EIS (Atkins McCarthy, 2001).



consists predominantly of mussels


stuary

Chapter 5 Marine Ecology considered two estuarine outfall locations from the proposed

outfall located at the southern end of Allins’ Quay in Youghal town

as Green’s Quay outfall); and

outfall located north of the quays at Youghal town and at the southern end

Mudlands.

Environmental assessment of the two outfall options comprised a number of surveys and

assessments. Littoral and sub-littoral surveys were undertaken to identify the main

biotypes (habitats and species assemblages. Refer to Figure 3.6 below which reproduces

Figures 5.1 Marine biotypes of Youghal Harbour where Option 1 outfall was prop

3.3 (above) which reproduces Figure 5.2 Marine biotypes along the

lower Youghal Mudlands where Option 3 outfall (Greens Quay; opposite

proposed [both figures extracted from Chapter 5 Marine Ecology, EIS Vol

In summary, the habitats and species encountered at both alternative sites, Option 1 and

are typical of estuaries on the south coast of Ireland and no species or habitats of


the sites, refer to Appendix B of the EIS (Atkins McCarthy, 2001).

Extract of Figure 5.1 – Marine biotypes along the lower Youghal Mudlands; from

Chapter 5 Marine Ecology, EIS Vol. 2, Atkins McCarthy (2001).


40

outfall locations from the proposed

outfall located at the southern end of Allins’ Quay in Youghal town (known

outfall located north of the quays at Youghal town and at the southern end

all options comprised a number of surveys and

littoral surveys were undertaken to identify the main

below which reproduces

Harbour where Option 1 outfall was proposed;

which reproduces Figure 5.2 Marine biotypes along the

Greens Quay; opposite Ferry Point) was

Chapter 5 Marine Ecology, EIS Vol. 2 (Atkins

In summary, the habitats and species encountered at both alternative sites, Option 1 and

are typical of estuaries on the south coast of Ireland and no species or habitats of


Marine biotypes along the lower Youghal Mudlands; from

2, Atkins McCarthy (2001). SLR.Myt.X




3.69 Chapter 5 Marine Ecology [EIS Vol

McCarthy, (2001),] noted that “

Option 1 and Option 3 are widespread in the survey area and percentage loss is expected

to be minimal”. Furthermore, the EIS noted that “

expected that species from the sites at Option 1 and Option 3 will readily re

area from the surrounding habitat. The loss of species due to loss of feeding and spawning

grounds is likely to be negligible due to the

relation to the wide area of similar habitat available in the area

3.70 A summary of information on mussel beds collated for the EIS (Atkins McCarthy 2001) is

presented in response to Query 1, and specifically in

found there was no significant differentiation between outfalls Option 1 and Option 3 where

long-term impacts or impacts on mussel beds were considered. Therefore, the conclusion

reached was that in terms of potential impa

difference between Option 1 and Option 3 for location of the outfall.

3.71 The estuarine outfall emerged as the preferred option and is currently being proposed by

Irish Water in the foreshore licence application.

3.72 Option 1 was chosen over Option

was considered to be the most environmentally and economically suitable location for the

proposed works and outfall

3.73 It is notable that the inspector for

concurred with the decision to locate the WWTP and outfall at the proposed locations

Existing Outfalls

3.74 As the existing outfalls are in place and connected to the municipal drainage network, it is

not feasible at this stage to identify alternative discharge

3.75 Complete closure for all of the existing outfalls is not possible as it is necessary to provide,

at least, emergency overflows in the event of pump failure or power cuts at pumping

stations. It is also standard practice in the

drainage networks to make provision for limited overflows from the system in the event of

heavy rainfall.

3.76 It is important to note that

outfalls will reduce as a result of the works on the drainage network carried out through the


designed to be in accordance with

operation of combined


5 Marine Ecology [EIS Vol. 2, Section 5.2.1 Short term impacts

McCarthy, (2001),] noted that “The habitats likely to be impacted by the development at


. Furthermore, the EIS noted that “Once the habitat has been reinstated it is

expected that species from the sites at Option 1 and Option 3 will readily re


grounds is likely to be negligible due to the small area of seabed likely to be impacted in

relation to the wide area of similar habitat available in the area”.

A summary of information on mussel beds collated for the EIS (Atkins McCarthy 2001) is

presented in response to Query 1, and specifically in paragraphs 3.26


term impacts or impacts on mussel beds were considered. Therefore, the conclusion

reached was that in terms of potential impacts on marine ecology, there was negligible

difference between Option 1 and Option 3 for location of the outfall.

The estuarine outfall emerged as the preferred option and is currently being proposed by

Irish Water in the foreshore licence application.

was chosen over Option 3 for location of the estuarine outfall because

s considered to be the most environmentally and economically suitable location for the

proposed works and outfall.

It is notable that the inspector for An Bord Pleanála, in his report, explicitly stated that he

concurred with the decision to locate the WWTP and outfall at the proposed locations

ting outfalls are in place and connected to the municipal drainage network, it is

not feasible at this stage to identify alternative discharge options.

Complete closure for all of the existing outfalls is not possible as it is necessary to provide,

t, emergency overflows in the event of pump failure or power cuts at pumping

It is also standard practice in the operation of combined (i.e. storm and foul)


It is important to note that the frequency of untreated discharges through all existing


Youghal Main Drainage Scheme. The frequency of discharge from each outfall has been

designed to be in accordance with the requirements of the DECLG guidance on the

combined storm overflows (CSO’s).

41

2, Section 5.2.1 Short term impacts, pg 69, Atkins

The habitats likely to be impacted by the development at


t has been reinstated it is

expected that species from the sites at Option 1 and Option 3 will readily re-colonise the


small area of seabed likely to be impacted in

A summary of information on mussel beds collated for the EIS (Atkins McCarthy 2001) is

3.26 and 3.27. The EIS


term impacts or impacts on mussel beds were considered. Therefore, the conclusion

cts on marine ecology, there was negligible

The estuarine outfall emerged as the preferred option and is currently being proposed by

outfall because this option

s considered to be the most environmentally and economically suitable location for the

explicitly stated that he

concurred with the decision to locate the WWTP and outfall at the proposed locations.

ting outfalls are in place and connected to the municipal drainage network, it is

Complete closure for all of the existing outfalls is not possible as it is necessary to provide,

t, emergency overflows in the event of pump failure or power cuts at pumping

of combined (i.e. storm and foul)


the frequency of untreated discharges through all existing


from each outfall has been

the requirements of the DECLG guidance on the




4. Benefits of the

4.1 The clear benefit of the project is that the wastewater from Youghal which is currently

discharged untreated through the three outfalls at Paxes Lane, Dunn’s Park and Foxhole

will be collected and

be discharged to a deep channel in the centre of the Blackwater Estuary

4.2 Secondary treatment of wastewater will achieve the major reductions in the volumes of

pollutants discharged to Youghal Harbour

disinfection typically achieves a 99% reduction in coliform discharges compared to a

discharge of raw sewage

4.3 Outfalls which to date have continuously discharged untreated, raw sewage will in future

only discharge highly dilute wastewater and stormwater on an

Additionally, the scheme is intended to improve the operation of

Overflows (CSO’s) on the network so that these operate in accordance with best practice

guidelines as set out by the DECLG

overflows and further contribute to the improvement in water quality in the estuary

4.4 The overall impact will be to reduce the volumes of pollutants entering the Blackwater

Estuary at Youghal and to ensure that the vast majority of

the river channel where dilution and dispersion of the treated effluent will be maximised

4.5 This will improve the overall water quality in the estuary

can only be to the benefit of all users of


Benefits of the Project

The clear benefit of the project is that the wastewater from Youghal which is currently


a receive secondary treatment at a new WWTP

be discharged to a deep channel in the centre of the Blackwater Estuary

Secondary treatment of wastewater will achieve the major reductions in the volumes of

pollutants discharged to Youghal Harbour. Secondary treatment of wastewater without

nfection typically achieves a 99% reduction in coliform discharges compared to a

discharge of raw sewage.

Outfalls which to date have continuously discharged untreated, raw sewage will in future

only discharge highly dilute wastewater and stormwater on an

Additionally, the scheme is intended to improve the operation of


guidelines as set out by the DECLG. This will reduce the frequency of discharges from the

overflows and further contribute to the improvement in water quality in the estuary

The overall impact will be to reduce the volumes of pollutants entering the Blackwater

Estuary at Youghal and to ensure that the vast majority of discharges are to the centre of

the river channel where dilution and dispersion of the treated effluent will be maximised

This will improve the overall water quality in the estuary. Improvements in water quality

can only be to the benefit of all users of the estuary, both recreational and commercial

42

The clear benefit of the project is that the wastewater from Youghal which is currently


. Treated effluent will

be discharged to a deep channel in the centre of the Blackwater Estuary.

Secondary treatment of wastewater will achieve the major reductions in the volumes of

Secondary treatment of wastewater without

nfection typically achieves a 99% reduction in coliform discharges compared to a

Outfalls which to date have continuously discharged untreated, raw sewage will in future

only discharge highly dilute wastewater and stormwater on an infrequent basis.

Additionally, the scheme is intended to improve the operation of all Combined Storm


of discharges from the

overflows and further contribute to the improvement in water quality in the estuary.

The overall impact will be to reduce the volumes of pollutants entering the Blackwater

discharges are to the centre of

the river channel where dilution and dispersion of the treated effluent will be maximised.

Improvements in water quality

the estuary, both recreational and commercial.




5. Conclusions

5.1 In summary, the conclusions of all the various documents are as follows:

• A number of options were considered for the location of the WWTP and outfall and the

proposed development represent

environmental impact and

• The provision of a new WWTP and outfall in Youghal will have positive long


These benefits will be to the good of all users of the estuary, including both


• There will be temporary short term impacts on the estuary during the construction

phase. However, it will be possible to put in place suitable mitigation measu

construction to minimise these impacts


5.2 This report also summarises the clear benefits that the scheme will bring to Youghal

including reductions in levels of nutrients and bacteriological contamination being

discharged to the river leading to improved water quality in the Blackwater Estuary.


Conclusions

In summary, the conclusions of all the various documents are as follows:


proposed development represents the preferred option taking into account both

environmental impact and cost.

The provision of a new WWTP and outfall in Youghal will have positive long


ts will be to the good of all users of the estuary, including both



However, it will be possible to put in place suitable mitigation measu

construction to minimise these impacts. Mitigation measures proposed include timing


This report also summarises the clear benefits that the scheme will bring to Youghal



43

In summary, the conclusions of all the various documents are as follows: -


the preferred option taking into account both

The provision of a new WWTP and outfall in Youghal will have positive long-term

effects on the local environment, including improvements in estuarine water quality.

ts will be to the good of all users of the estuary, including both



Mitigation measures proposed include timing


This report also summarises the clear benefits that the scheme will bring to Youghal






6. References

DEHLG (2009). Appropriate Assessment of Plans and ProjectPlanning Authorities

Eastern Regional Fisheries Board (2004). Habitat during Construction and Development Works at River SitesFisheries Board, Dublin

EC (2000). Managing Natura 2000 Sites: the provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. European Commission.

Fossitt, J. A. (2000). A Guide to Habitats in Ireland

Irish Statute Book (1936)Ireland.

Irish Statute Book (2011)2011 - S.I. No. 477/2011

National Roads Authority Schemes in Ireland

National Roads Authority (2006).Construction of National Road Schemes

National Roads Authority Impacts of National Road Schemes.

National Roads Authority (2010native invasive plant species on national roads

National Roads Authority (2010)prior to, during and post construction of national roads schemesAuthority, Dublin.

National Roads Authority (2014)Special Structures) Materials; Section 2 Special Structures; Section 2 Part 8A NRA TD 19/14: Safety Barriers

Natural England (2010). England, Peterborough.

Wildlife Act 1976 and Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000.


References

Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland: Guidance for Planning Authorities. DEHLG, Dublin.

Eastern Regional Fisheries Board (2004). Requirements for the Protection of Fisheries Habitat during Construction and Development Works at River SitesFisheries Board, Dublin.

Managing Natura 2000 Sites: the provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive , Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,

Luxembourg. European Commission.

A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. Dublin: The Heritage Council.

Irish Statute Book (1936). Noxious Weeds Act 1936. Office of the Attorney General, Dublin 2,

Irish Statute Book (2011). European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations S.I. No. 477/2011. Office of the Attorney General, Dublin 2, Ireland.

National Roads Authority (2006). A Guide to Landscape Treatments for the National Road Schemes in Ireland.

National Roads Authority (2006). Guidelines for the Treatment of Bats During the National Road Schemes. National Roads Authority.

National Roads Authority (2009; Rev. 2.0). Guidelines for the Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes.

National Roads Authority (2010). Guidelines on the management of noxious weeds and nonative invasive plant species on national roads. National Roads Authority, Dublin.

National Roads Authority (2010). Guidelines for the protection of trees, hedgerows and scrub prior to, during and post construction of national roads schemesAuthority, Dublin.

National Roads Authority (2014). Volume 2 highway Structures: Design (Substructures and Special Structures) Materials; Section 2 Special Structures; Section 2 Part 8A NRA TD 19/14: Safety Barriers National Roads Authority, Dublin.

Natural England (2010). Bat Habitat Assessment prior to Arboricultural OperationsEngland, Peterborough.

Wildlife Act 1976 and Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie

44

s in Ireland: Guidance for

Requirements for the Protection of Fisheries Habitat during Construction and Development Works at River Sites. Eastern Regional

Managing Natura 2000 Sites: the provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive , Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,

. Dublin: The Heritage Council.

Office of the Attorney General, Dublin 2,

European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations Office of the Attorney General, Dublin 2, Ireland.

A Guide to Landscape Treatments for the National Road

Guidelines for the Treatment of Bats During the . National Roads Authority.

Guidelines for the Assessment of Ecological

Guidelines on the management of noxious weeds and non-National Roads Authority, Dublin.

Guidelines for the protection of trees, hedgerows and scrub prior to, during and post construction of national roads schemes National Roads

Volume 2 highway Structures: Design (Substructures and Special Structures) Materials; Section 2 Special Structures; Section 2 Part 8A NRA

Bat Habitat Assessment prior to Arboricultural Operations. Natural

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie.




Submission from Woodstown Bay Shellfish Ltd to Marine Planning & Foreshore Section, Department of Environment, Community

and Local Government

Environment, Community & Local Government

APPENDIX A


and Local Government – 5th December 2013

45


December 2013




Cormix Model (extract from the EIS, 2001)


APPENDIX B -


46


Youghal Main Drainage Scheme Environmental Impact Statement Youghal Urban District Council

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Atkins McCarthy Page 88 Main Report Vol2_RK1721DG010 Main Report.doc

The proposed WWTW will involve secondary treatment and due to the potential for

eutrophication will also include nutrient removal. This will lead to significant reductions in

BOD, COD, suspended solids and nutrients achieving the emission limit values set down in

the legislation which are set out in Section 2.3.

It is proposed that the WWTW would reduce nitrogen, the assumed limiting nutrient, with the

provision for phosphorus removal if deemed to be required by further monitoring of the

estuary.

Therefore, the proposed wastewater treatment works will help to ensure good water quality in

the future thus protecting designated waters (e.g. sensitive area, bathing waters, shellfish

waters).

7.2.2 Bacteriological Water Quality Modelling

A CORMIX model was undertaken for bacteriological water quality assessment. This model

predicted dispersion and dilution of faecal coliform bacteria concentrations discharged in an

effluent plume from the two existing outfalls. The following Table 7.6 and 7.7 below

indicates output data for Paxes Lane and Greens Quay existing outfalls for neap tide:

Table 7.6 - Results of Neap Tide Simulations for Paxe’s Lane Outfall

FAECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS AT PLUME CENTRELINE ON NEAP TIDE (per 100ml)

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM

Point on Tide

1000m 500m 200m 100m 50m 10m 10m 50m 100m 200m 500m 1000m

Max Flood 380 580 4,500 16,460 38,710 158,000 - - - - - - High Water Slack 860 1,670 11,760 34,120 58,570 100,180 - - - - - - Max Ebb - - - - - - 138,000 42,310 18,480 4,110 710 460 Low Water Slack - - - - - - 136,990 75,170 38,400 11,600 1,550 1,190

Table 7.7 - Results of Neap Tide Simulations for Green’s Quay Outfall


UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM

Point on Tide

1000m 500m 200m 100m 50m 10m 10m 50m 100m 200m 500m 1000

m

Max Flood 900 1,300 2,270 7,520 35,670 90,100 - - - - - - High Water Slack 2,970 3,120 21,920 90,130 253,280 577,600 - - - - - - Max Ebb - - - - - - 78,800 42,250 15,000 2,670 1,500 1,030 Low Water Slack - - - - - - 809,580 297,950 94,710 21,850 3,680 3,650


________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


This data is based on a faecal concentration of 1E7 FC/100ml. Following secondary

treatment only (without disinfection) a 2 log kill is predicted with concentrations of 1E5

FC/100ml based on performance data from the nearby Midleton WWTW which demonstrates

that these concentrations are regularly achieved.

This model predicts a significant reduction in faecal coliform levels in the harbour from the

proposed outfall at Ferry Point even with an increase in loading to 20,000 population

equivalent. The following are the key parameters for the modelling.

• Flow = 1.5 DWF =0.078m3/s

• Influent FC = 1E7 FC/100ml

• Effluent concentration = 1E5 FC/100ml

The following Table 7.8 indicates these results:

Table 7.8 - –Neap Tide Simulations for Secondary Treated Discharge from Proposed

Ferry Point Outfall


UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM

Point on Tide

1000m 500m 200m 100m 50m 10m 10m 50m 100m 200m 500m 1000m 1750m

Max Flood 70 110 750 1,230 1,470 12,010 - - - - - - - High Water Slack 230 1,045 4,950 9,300 12,440 16,430 - - - - - - - Max Ebb - - - - - - 12,085 1,260 890 205 125 85 65 Low Water Slack - - - - - - 8,265 4,790 2,790 965 135 80 75

These results are considered to be conservative as no decay factor for bacteria has been

accounted for and further reductions of the order of 50% for these tidal conditions can be

expected based on a T90 of 12 hours.

If disinfection is undertaken, concentrations of faecal coliforms are virtually zero within a

very short distance of the outfall. Details of the CORMIX model are given in Appendix D

Volume 3.


________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


From the model results it is concluded that the proposed discharge from the WWTW will

improve bacteriological water quality in the harbour although not meeting bathing or shellfish

(shellsan) standards. The large reduction in the effluent concentration of faecal coliforms

afforded by secondary treatment without disinfection (approximately 2 log) will lower

significantly the concentrations occurring in the harbour at the design population equivalent

of 20,000.

The computed concentrations for the proposed new outfall at Ferry Point fall below the

Bathing Waters Directive guide value of 100 per 100ml at a distance of 1750m downstream

at the estuary mouth. Since the designated beach is located outside the estuary, the new

discharge situation will not adversely affect the Blue Flag status of the beach.

The Shellsan Conditional water quality standard for the previously designated area in

Youghal Bay outside the estuary (Knockadoon to Knockaverry) of >14 <146 FC /100ml

(90% compliance) is also being met.

For a secondary treated effluent with disinfection the coliform concentrations are greatly

reduced and do not exceed 100 per 100ml within 10 metres of the outfall.

7.3 Mitigation Measures

The WWTW will be designed to provide secondary treatment of the wastewater to comply

with the standards set down in the UWWT Regulations 2001 and for designated Bathing

Waters and Shellfish areas as set out in section 2.3.




Figure 5.1 & Plates 1.3Assessment


APPENDIX C –

Figure 5.1 & Plates 1.3-1.6 of the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013).

47

of the Appropriate .

LegendOutfall Locations

Existing

Proposed

Natura 2000 Sites

Special Area ofConservation (SAC)

Special ProtectionArea (SPA)

Ordnance Survey Ireland Licence No. AR 0082513© Ordnance Survey Ireland and Government of Ireland

Client: Cork County Council

Project: Youghal Main Drainage

Title: Natura 2000 Sites

Designed/Drawn:DK

Checked:ED

Authorised:PO'D

Date: Dec 2013Date: Dec 2013Date: Dec 2013

Drawing No: Figure 5.1 Rev: 0

Dublin - Tel: 353 - 1 - 810 8000Cork - Tel: 353 - 21 - 429 0300Galway - Tel: 353 - 91 786050




Plates 1.1 – 1.6 from the 2013 Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013)

Plate 1.1 Existing strand outfall at Front Strand (south of Moll Goggin’s Corner).

Plate 1.2 Existing outfall at Paxe’s Lane.


1.6 from the 2013 Appropriate Assessment (Atkins, 2013)

Existing strand outfall at Front Strand (south of Moll Goggin’s Corner).

Existing outfall at Paxe’s Lane.

49




Plate 1.3 Location of proposed Greens’ Quay outfall (to be laid along left hand side near wall).

Plate 1.4 Location of proposed Greens’ Quay outfall looking out to subtidal channel.


Location of proposed Greens’ Quay outfall (to be laid along left hand side near wall).


50

Location of proposed Greens’ Quay outfall (to be laid along left hand side near wall).




Plate 1.5 Shoreline north of new outfall; taken shortly after low tide on shore).

Plate 1.6 Shoreline south of new outfall; taken shortly after low tide on the 3Mytilus shells & old building rubble).


Shoreline north of new outfall; taken shortly after low tide on the 3rd

December 2013 (soft sediment

Shoreline south of new outfall; taken shortly after low tide on the 3rd

December 2013 (mixed sediment; shells & old building rubble).

51

December 2013 (soft sediment

December 2013 (mixed sediment;




Table 5.2 of the Appropriate Assessment


APPENDIX D –

the Appropriate Assessment 2013).

52

the Appropriate Assessment (Atkins,




Table 6.2 of the Appropriate Assessment

Conservation Objectives of the River Blackwater SAC

[Note: The Blackwater Estuary SPA was also addressed in the AA; see Atkins, 2013.]

Conservation Objective3

Freshwater Pearl Mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera

White-clawed Crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes

Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) 1095

Brook Lamprey (Lampetra planeri) 1096

River Lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) 1099

Twaite Shad (Alosa fallax)

(see below for further discussion)

3 As listed on NPWS (2012a) Conservation Objectives: Blackwater River (Cork/Waterford) SAC 002170. Version 1.0.

National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.


.2 of the Appropriate Assessment – discussion of potential impacts with respect to


Blackwater Estuary SPA was also addressed in the AA; see Atkins, 2013.]3 Located within nearby sections

of the River Blackwater SAC Potential for impact

Margaritifera margaritifera) 1029 Does not occur within the estuarine sections of the River Blackwater SAC (Map 8, NPWS Conservation Document).

None

Austropotamobius pallipes) 1092 Does not occur in estuarine parts of the River Blackwater SAC. (Map 9, NPWS Conservation Document).

None

Petromyzon Recorded from the Lickey, Bride and Blackwater upstream of the estuary. Likely to use the nearby stretches of the Blackwater estuary when migrating to spawning sites in the Blackwater catchment. (Map 10, NPWS Conservation Document). Passage upstream in May / June; generally by night (Igoe et al., 2004)

Potential for minor disturbance during construction; though works will not extend fully across river and block fish passage; see discussion below.

Lampetra Unlike other species Brook Lamprey is not anadramous and does not occur in estuarine stretches of the river. Juvenile River / Brook lamprey recorded extensively in the Blackwater catchment (Map 10, NPWS Conservation Document).

None

Lampetra Juvenile River / Brook lamprey recorded extensively in the Blackwater catchment Likely to use the nearby sections of the River Blackwater estuary when migrating to spawning sites in the Blackwater catchment. (Map 10, NPWS Conservation Document). Passage upstream in UK can be protracted; September – June (Igoe et al., 2004).

Potential for minor disturbance during construction; though works will not extend fully across river and block fish passage; see discussion on Method Statement below.

) 1103

(see below for further discussion)

Potential for adults to occur within the Blackwater Estuary between April and June when migrating to spawning sites at Lismore and Cappoquin along the River Blackwater main channel. After spawning, juvenile Twaite Shad use the upper estuary between mid and late summer before migrating to sea.

Potential forduring construction; though works will not extend fully across river and block fish passage; see discussion on Method Statement below.

Juveniles unlikely to occur in the high energy subtidal channel within the works area, but upstream in

NPWS (2012a) Conservation Objectives: Blackwater River (Cork/Waterford) SAC 002170. Version 1.0. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

53

discussion of potential impacts with respect to


Blackwater Estuary SPA was also addressed in the AA; see Atkins, 2013.]

Potential for impact

Potential for minor disturbance during construction; though works will not extend fully across river and block fish passage; see discussion on Method Statement



Juveniles unlikely to occur in the high energy subtidal channel within the works area, but upstream in lower energy side

NPWS (2012a) Conservation Objectives: Blackwater River (Cork/Waterford) SAC 002170. Version 1.0.





Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar(only in fresh water) 1106

Estuaries 1130

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide 1140

Perennial vegetation of stony banks 1220


3 Located within nearby sections


estuaries / channels.

Salmo salar)

Likely to use the nearby sections of the River Blackwater estuary when migrating to spawning sites in the Blackwater main channel and its tributaries.

Salmon run the river and pass through the estuary between February (springers) and June (peel). Juvenile salmon drop back down into the estuary in April / May.

Potential for minor disturbance during construction; though works will not extend fully across river and block fish passage; see discussion on Method Statement below.

Located to the north of and adjoining the Foxhole (see Figure 5.4).

The outfall at the Foxhole is subtidal; should limited repair works be needed works would be boat / diver bno requirement for creation of a temporary haul road alongside the existing coastal protection wall. The temporary nature / small scale of any maintenance works will not upon this which is accshifts and changes in water flows, turbidity and undercurrents etc.

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

The Foxhole, Dunn’s Park & Paxe’s Lane pipes all traverse areas identified by NPWS as 1140. Extensive areas are also located north of Ferry Point (see Figure 5.3).

The proposed new outfall at Green’s Quay (opposite Ferry Point) does not traverse habitat identified by NPWS as 1140 sediment shores.

Potential for temporary disturbance to this Annex I habitat during maintenance / upgrade works to the existing outflow pipes. The temporary nature of these works will not negatively resilient accustomed tand changes in water flows, turbidity, tidal undercurrents etc.

Perennial vegetation of stony Not located within the footprint or the environs of the proposed outflow pipe. This habitat is located to the east of the proposed outflow pipe in the townland of Ferrypoint (See Figure 5.3). The NPWS supporting document for the River Blackwater SACs coastal habitats states the following; There is one large area of shingle at Ferrypoint where it forms a stable spit with a well developed vegetation cover. The spit is composed of small stones and cobbles.

No works are to be located on the eastern side of the estuary at Ferry Point.

The new outfall at Green’s Quay is to discharge subtidally via a diffuser at a maximum rate of 125 l/sec intoRiver Blackwater (daily average of 52.1 l/sec); this may increase to a daily maximum of 187.5 l/s in 15-20 years.

Mean river flow at Ballyduff (i.e. prior to rivers such as the Bride & Tourig joining the main channel) is 58.56 ml/sec). Maximum discharges from the plant is the Ballyduff flow which as noted is prior to a number of large tributaries joining the main channelconservative estimate)

54


estuaries / channels.

Potential for minor disturbance during construction; though works will not extend fully across river

nd block fish passage; see discussion on Method Statement

The outfall at the Foxhole is subtidal; should limited repair works be needed works would be boat / diver based. There is e.g. no requirement for creation of a temporary haul road alongside the existing coastal protection wall. The temporary nature / small scale of any maintenance works will not negatively impact upon this resilient Annex I habitat which is accustomed to dynamic shifts and changes in water flows, turbidity and undercurrents etc.

Potential for temporary disturbance to this Annex I habitat during maintenance / upgrade works to the existing outflow pipes. The temporary nature of these works will not negatively impact upon this resilient Annex I habitat which is accustomed to dynamic shifts and changes in water flows, turbidity, tidal undercurrents etc.

No works are to be located on the eastern side of the estuary at Ferry Point.

The new outfall at Green’s Quay is to discharge subtidally via a diffuser at a maximum rate of 125 l/sec into the main channel of the River Blackwater (daily average of 52.1 l/sec); this may increase to a daily maximum of 187.5 l/s in

20 years.

Mean river flow at Ballyduff (i.e. prior to rivers such as the Bride & Tourig joining the main channel) is 58.56 m

3/sec (i.e. 58,561

l/sec). Maximum discharges from the plant is thus only 0.32% of the Ballyduff flow which as noted is prior to a number of large tributaries joining the main channel (and hence is a very conservative estimate). This will





Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand 1310

Atlantic salt meadows (GlaucoPuccinellietalia maritimae) 1330

Otter (Lutra lutra) 1355

Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) 1410

Killarney Fern (Trichomanes speciosum) 1421

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion 3260

Old sessile oak woods with and Blechnum in the British Isles 91A0




not significantly flow or erosive power of the river as it passes Ferry Point.

and other annuals colonizing mud and sand 1310

This habitat is not located within the footprint or in the immediate environs of the remaining existing or proposed outflow pipes (see Figure 5.3).

None

Glauco-) 1330

This Annex I saltmarsh habitat is located to the west of the existing outflow pipe at Foxhole. This habitat is also located on the eastern side of the estuary on the tidal stretches of an unnamed stream at Kinsalebeg (See Figure 5.3). This habitat is not located within the footprint or within the immediate surrounds of the existing or proposed outflow pipes.

None

NBDC holds Otter records from within the harbour; signs also recorded in the Mudlands during the 2009 bird surveys.

Likely to use the estuary for transit / commuting purposes to and from the Blackwater main channel, the Tourig River and other watercourses feeding into the estuary.

Potential for temporary disturbance; movement along the eastern shore not impacted so no risk of severance / fragmSignificant areas of suitable habitat into which animals can temporarily reworks will also avoid key times of Otter activity.

Overall anticipated.

Mediterranean salt meadows

This saltmarsh habitat is not located close to any of the existing or proposed outflow pipes. Small parcels of this annexed saltmarsh habitat is located on the eastern side of the estuary on the tidal stretches of an unnamed stream at Kinsalebeg (See Figure 5.3). This habitat is not located within the footprint or within the immediate surrounds of the existing or proposed outflow pipes.

None

Trichomanes Does not occur within the estuarine parts of the River Blackwater catchment

None

and 3260

Does not occur within the estuarine parts of the Blackwater catchment.

None

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex British Isles

Does not occur within estuarine parts of the River Blackwater SAC. This habitat occurs along the riparian corridor of the River Blackwater and its many tributaries.

None

55


not significantly alter the rate of flow or erosive power of the river as it passes Ferry Point.

Potential for temporary disturbance; movement along the eastern shore not impacted so no risk of severance / fragmentation. Significant areas of suitable habitat into which animals can temporarily re-locate. Timing of works will also avoid key times of Otter activity.

Overall – no significant impact anticipated.





*Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanaeSalicion albae) 91E0

*Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles 91J0




Alnus Fraxinus excelsior Alnion incanae,

Does not occur within the estuarine parts of the River Blackwater SAC. This habitat occurs along the riparian corridor of the River Blackwater and its many tributaries.

None

woods of the Does not occur within the nearby estuarine sections of the River Blackwater SAC. A small stand of Yew (Taxus baccata) woodland occurs within the River Blackwater SAC on a limestone ridge at Dromana, near Villierstown (> 15km upstream of the proposed outfall).

None

56


Irish Water / Cork County Council Youghal Main Drainage ...

Documents

Transcript of Irish Water / Cork County Council Youghal Main Drainage ...