Intel Ireland Ltd FAB 24-3 Environmental Impact Assessment 12 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE 12.1 Introduction This Section of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) summarises the results of an archaeological desk based assessment. Its aims were to assess the archaeological potential of the proposed development site and to look at the potential impact of the proposed scheme on known archaeological remains and cultural heritage resources. Recommendations are made to reduce the potential impact upon known resources and to determine the need for further evaluation and mitigation. The following assessment assumes a full build out of FAB 24-3 - Option 2. 12.2 Aims and Objectives It is the aim of this Section to make an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the known and potential archaeological resources within a defined 2kn-1 Study Area (centred on the proposed FAB 24-3). The extent and location of the Study Area is shown on Map 12.1. To meet this aim, the specific objectives of the archaeological assessment are: 0 to identify and define the extent of known archaeological and heritage resources within the Study Area; 0 to establish, from existing evidence, the likely archaeological potential of the Study Area; and a to make recommendations on the need for (and scope of) further evaluation and mitigation, as necessary. 12.3 Legislation and Policy Context 12.3.1 Statutory Legislation The following table summarises the statutory legislation relating to the historic environment and relevant to this section: Table 12.1: Statutory Protection For Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Sites Legislation The National Monuments (Amended) Act 1930-2004. Jurisdiction Key issues The Department of the Places a duty on the Department Environment, Heritage and Local to protect historic monuments Government and buildings. Historic monuments may be protected by designating them as Recorded Monuments and Places (RMP) or by taking them into State Care. For those sites not in State Care or designated as RMPs which may be threatened by development or land-use RSKENSR Environment Ltd RSKENSWHV P40126/04/Rev103 12-1 For inspection purposes only. Consent of copyright owner required for any other use. EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:22:21
Transcript
Intel Ireland Ltd FAB 24-3
Environmental Impact Assessment
12 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
12.1 Introduction
This Section of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) summarises the results of an archaeological desk based assessment. Its aims were to assess the archaeological potential of the proposed development site and to look at the potential impact of the proposed scheme on known archaeological remains and cultural heritage resources. Recommendations are made to reduce the potential impact upon known resources and to determine the need for further evaluation and mitigation.
The following assessment assumes a full build out of FAB 24-3 - Option 2.
12.2 Aims and Objectives
It is the aim of this Section to make an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the known and potential archaeological resources within a defined 2kn-1 Study Area (centred on the proposed FAB 24-3). The extent and location of the Study Area is shown on Map 12.1.
To meet this aim, the specific objectives of the archaeological assessment are:
0 to identify and define the extent of known archaeological and heritage resources within the Study Area;
0 to establish, from existing evidence, the likely archaeological potential of the Study Area; and
a to make recommendations on the need for (and scope of) further evaluation and mitigation, as necessary.
12.3 Legislation and Policy Context
12.3.1 Statutory Legislation The following table summarises the statutory legislation relating to the historic environment and relevant to this section:
Table 12.1: Statutory Protection For Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Sites
Legislation
The National Monuments (Amended) Act 1930-2004.
Jurisdiction Key issues
The Department of the Places a duty on the Department Environment, Heritage and Local to protect historic monuments Government and buildings. Historic
monuments may be protected by designating them as Recorded Monuments and Places (RMP) or by taking them into State Care.
For those sites not in State Care or designated as RMPs which may be threatened by development or land-use
proposals the Department of the Environment has a duty to protect the built heritage and is responsible for identifying, recording and protecting terrestrial and marine heritage.
Study Methodology
Data Sources Data for the desk-based assessment was collected from the following sources:
Table 12.2: Data Sources Consulted as part of Desk-Based Assessment and Information Obtained
Source Data obtained/ viewed
Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government Archive Unit (RMP)
Records of all listed monuments, their maps and files
Information on archaeological excavations
INational of Ireland (NMI) 1 Records of all archaeological artefacts in the curatorship of the state
Records of architectural heritage National Inventory of Architectural Heritage; Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government
National Library of Ireland
Excavations Bulletins
Leixlio Local Plan 2002
Primary printed sources
Secondary printed sources
Historic Mapping
First Edition Ordnance Survey
Archaeological excavation records (up to 2002)
Zone of Archaeological Potential
12.4.2 Previous Archaeological Work Archaeological and cultural heritage information has been identified in three environmental impact statements for previous work within the development area:
l FORBAIRT 1994 Environmental Impact Statement - Intel Ireland: Proposed Extension Wafer Fabrication Facility, Volume 1 and 2; and
l EIS Limited 2000 Environmental Impact Statement - Intel Ireland: FAB Extension, Ireland FAB Operations, Main Report.
12.4.2.1 EOLAS 1990 Environmental Impact Statement The report provides brief details of an archaeological walkover survey of the site, which concludes, “ There are no apparent archaeological remains on the Intel lands or in the immediate environs thereof (Page 141).”
12.4.2.2 FORBAIRT 1994 Environmental Impact Statement - Intel Ireland: Proposed Extension Wafer Fabrication Facility, Volume I and 2. The report notes “As part of the site is already developed and no archaeological items or evidence were encountered here during construction, this archaeological assessment concentrates exclusively on that area of the site situated to the east of the existing facilities” and it concludes “apart from these industrial archaeological features (two man made water tanks or spa wells possibly associated with the Royal Canal), no other archaeological features are apparent”. The report continues “in addition, no archaeological features are depicted on the maps of this area and none were apparent when the site was inspected
12.4.2.3 I994 Archaeological Work
In 1994, a series of 12 archaeological test trenches, each c.lOm in length, were dug in the undeveloped eastern portion of the site, under archaeological licence 94E0195. A review of the report for this work, held by DOEHLG, showed that the trenches did not uncover any archaeological remains. The archaeologist noted that despite the absence of any archaeological remains, a suitably qualified archaeologist should monitor all future earth removal on the site.
12.4.2.4 EIS Limited 2000 Environmental Impact Statement - Intel Ireland: FAB Extension, Ireland FAB Operations, Main Report Section 4.9 Cultural Heritage, addresses the impact of the development on the archaeological and cultural resources. It notes in Section 4.9.1 “Actual Impact of the Proposal (Page 124 -125) The actual impact of the proposal on the archaeological environment of the site is likely to be minimal or nil. Archaeological test trenches were not placed in the actual site of this proposed development, but eight archaeological test trenches excavated in the immediate area (prior to the construction of FAB 14, west of the car park to the south in 1994). These indicated that the area is unlikely to contain archaeological material. The levelling of the area for playing pitches and subsequently as a temporary contractors compound has already greatly altered the ground levels, thereby lessening the chances of archaeological content”.
Section 4.9.2 Remedial or Reductive Measures, continues, “This development is unlikely to require specific reductive measures. Further archaeological test trenches on the site of the proposed building footprint are unlikely to yield additional information further to the trenching undertaken in 1994”.
Section 4.9.3 Monitoring continues, “‘If extensive site clearing, topsoil removal, lanciscaping etc is to take place in any other area, where ground levels may be still largely undisturbed, it should be the subject of on site monitoring bq’ a suitabl) qualified archaeologist”.
12.5 Gazetteer
12.5.1 Introduction A gazetteer has been compiled, using information from the sources identified in 12.4.2 above. The identified archaeological sites have been allocated a unique reference number, e.g. ‘RSK Site 1’. The gazetteer includes a summary of the known archaeological resource within the Study Area, the importance of the known sites, the likely impact of the scheme and the proposed mitigation. The gazetteer is included as Appendix 12.1; Map 12.1 shows the location of the known resources.
RSKENSR Environment Ltd RSKENSWHVP40126/04/Rev/03
12-3
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:22:21
Intel Ireland Ltd FAB 24-3
Environmental Impact Assessment
12.52 Importance The known archaeological and heritage resources have been graded according to their degree of significance and importance. This can be a very subjective process, the outcome of which can reflect many different processes. The interests of those categorising the site, and the available information may all have a bearing on the eventual result. It should therefore be remembered that this grading is purely an arbitrary classification designed to allow choice over the relative importance of sites.
Table 12.3: Criteria for Determining Importance
r ‘.I2 High A
lesbripti$. Internationally and nationally important ~, :
Regionally important resources not legally protected of a reasonably defined extent, nature and date and significant examples in a regional context
Burial sites, Ringforts, Raths, dense scatters of finds
Avoidance recommended
Low c
Locally important resources of low or minor importance
Field systems, historic landscape components ridge and furrow, old field boundaries
Avoidance not envisaged
Negligible D
Resources which have little or no archaeological or historical value, or where remains may have been previously destroyed
Modem field boundaries, drains and ponds
Avoidance unnecessary
Unknown E
Resources whose archaeological importance is unknown, sites of uncertain character or date
Single find spots, unidentified features on aerial photographs
Further investigation to assess impact
The impact of the proposed scheme has been assessed by comparing its land-take with the locations of the known archaeological resources (see Map 12.1). The magnitude of any impact has been assessed according to the scale set out below.
Impact
Severe:
Major:
Minor:
None:
Uncertain:
Complete or almost complete destruction of deposits
A high proportion of deposits damaged or destroyed
A small proportion of the surviving deposits damaged or destroyed
Deposits will not be affected, because of distance from the proposed development, or method of construction
The extent or nature of the deposits is unknown, or construction techniques have not yet been determined.
The potential impact of the proposed development on the archaeological resource will be either:
12.5.3.1 Direct l physical damage including compaction and/or partial/total removal of
deposits; and
l severance of archaeological features, in particular linear features.
12.5.3.2 Indirect l visual intrusion, affecting the aesthetic setting of sites or landscape
features; and
l disturbances caused by vibration, dewatering, changes in hydrology.
Much of the impact will occur during the construction phase of the proposed development: topsoil stripping, soil storage, movement of heavy machinery, and excavation of footing trenches can all have a permanent, damaging effect on the archaeological resource.
12.54 Significance The significance of any impact has been assessed by comparing the importance of the known archaeological resources against the magnitude of the impact upon them. The significance of impact has been quantified according to the scale set out in Section 1.8
Factors affecting the significance of impact include:
0 the proportion of the site or feature affected;
l the integrity of the site or feature; impacts may be reduced if there is pre-existing damage or disturbance of a site; and
0 the nature, potential, and heritage value of a site or feature.
12.6 Limitations of the Assessment
12.61 Data Sources Information held by public data sources can normally be assumed to be reliable, but uncertainty can arise in a number of ways:
The data from the RMP and NM1 can be limited because it depends on random opportunities for research, fieldwork and discovery. There may be a lack of dating evidence for sites.
Documentary sources are rare before the Medieval period, and as documents were not usually compiled for archaeological purposes, they are inherently biased.
Primary sources, especially older records, often fail to accurately locate sites and are obviously subjective in any interpretation.
The usefulness of aerial photographs depends upon geology, land use and weather conditions when the photographs were taken. Some types of remains do not produce crop, soil or vegetation marks. Aerial photographs necessarily involve some subjective interpretation of the nature of sites.
RSKENSR Environment Ltd RSKENSWHVP40126/04/Rev/03
12-5
For
insp
ectio
n pur
pose
s only
.
Conse
nt of
copy
right
owne
r req
uired
for a
ny ot
her u
se.
EPA Export 25-07-2013:14:22:21
Intel Ireland Ltd FAl3 24-3
Environmental Impact Assessment
12.7 Existing Environment
12.7.1 Introduction
The data gathered for the Study Area during the desk based assessment identified that there are sixteen sites of archaeological and cultural heritage significance of which only one is actually recorded within the proposed development area. Details of these sites and their significance are included in the gazetteer (Appendix 12.1) and their location is shown on Map 12.1.
12.7.2 Record of Monuments and Places The Records of Monuments and Places (RMP) held by Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government contains ten sites of archaeological and cultural heritage within the Study Area.
Table 12.4: Record of Monuments and Places
Monumht ,’ _’ - . 1
Type
RSK
Site
No.
Townland
Kilmacredock Lower
Field System Seen in a St Joseph aerial photograph AY R51 (1969)
1
Kilmacredock
Upper
Ruined church, surveyed by OPW in 1942 and 1985. Shown on three aerial photographs; St Joseph, AHKl 1 (1963) AYR53 (1969) BDV45 (1970)
2 Church
Graveyard Graveyard with ruined church, mentioned by Walter Fitzgerald in Journal Kildare Archaeological Society 1896, page 378. Shown on three aerial photographs; St Joseph, AHKI 1 (1963), AY R53 (19691, BDV45 (1970)
3 Kilmacredock
Upper
Kilmacredock
Upper
Enclosure of ruined church and graveyard Shown on three aerial photographs; St Joseph, AHKl 1 (1963), AYR53 (1969) BDV45 (1970)
Enclosure
Leixlip Spa Well I Holy Well Uncovered during the construction of the Canal. Jackson (1979-80, 160) records that the well is thought to have been near the site of a monastery. The well is not associated with any saint, but tradition says that the well water is a cure for sore eyes.
Bamhall Enclosure Circular crop mark seen on aerial photograph (N467-6)
6
Earthwork Earthwork crop mark seen on aerial photograph (N467-6)
7 Kilmacredock
Upper
Sion Shaughlins Well 8 Considered to be holy well. Recorded in the Holy Wells of Kildare by
Records from the Excavations Bulletins were consulted and only one excavation was found within the Study Area, Licence 94EO195 (RSK Site 14). The report stated “This site was tested in advance of redevelopment. No features of archaeological importance were identified. “.
12.7.7
12.7.8 Archaeological Potential
Townland
Confey Shaughlins Castle
Donaghmore Ringfort
(RathKashel)
Monument
Type
Details
Jackson (1979-80)
Possible location of Castle, mentioned by J. O’Dononan (1838-40) in his letters on historical sites to the Ordnance Survey. A field survey in 1985 by the OPW failed to locate the site.
A roughly circular ringfort, c.25m in diameter, surveyed by OPW in 1972 and 1985
10 A National Museum of Ireland Topographical Records The National Museum of Ireland Topographical records contain no records of any archaeological artefacts in the curatorship of the state from within the Study Area.
National Inventory of Architectural Heritage In addition to the Royal Canal (RSK Site 11). which runs through the study area, the records from the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage show that there are two architectural heritage structures within the study area; Deevy Bridge and Lock on the Royal Canal (RSK Site 12) and a Gateway into Castletown Demesne built c.1760 (RSK Site 13).
A review of the historic mapping for the study area did not highlight any other sites of archaeological or cultural heritage significance within the Study Area.
Kildare County Council - Zone of Archaeological Potential Kildare County has designated three Zones of Archaeological Potential (ZAP) within the Study Area for the proposed development. The three areas are the Louisa Bridge over the Royal Canal and Railway (RSK Site 15); The Rye Water Aqueduct constructed from earth (RSK Site 16) and the Spa well (RSK Site 5).
Due to the buried and invisible nature of archaeological remains there is always the potential for the occurrence of as yet undiscovered archaeological sites on which the proposed scheme could have an impact. The baseline study shows that most of the sites identified in the Study Area relate to predominately medieval and post medieval activity. The only site that is located within the proposed development is the 1994 archaeological investigation site (RSK Site 14), which did not identify any
During Construction As described in the ‘Proposed Development’ (Section 2) the construction of the proposed structure will entail the removal of some soils beneath the proposed buildings. In addition 220,000m3 of spoil will be stored within Intel owned lands.
12.8.2 During Operation Upon completion of construction, the land will be reinstated in accordance with the proposed Master Plans.
12.9
12.9.1
Assessment of Impacts
The Do Nothing Scenario If the project did not proceed the areas identified for development would be graded and used for additional surface car parking. No archaeological sites would be affected by these works.
12.9.2 Assessment of impact and Mitigation The impact of the proposed development on known archaeological and cultural heritage remains within the Study Area has been assessed by comparing their known location against the location of the proposed development.
12.9.3 Summary of impact
archaeological activity. The remaining archaeological and cultural heritage sites are all located outside of the proposed development.
The location of the proposed development is within an area, which has already been subjected to an amount of construction activity, which therefore may have altered the ground levels thereby reducing in some areas the potential for locating archaeological deposits.
There is therefore considered to be a low possibility of previously unrecorded archaeological remains surviving within the proposed development area.
The following activities associated with the construction of the proposed Intel development could impact on known or potential archaeological remains:
l spoil removal;
0 construction of the building foundations;
l excavation, landscaping and levelling work;
l construction of temporary or permanent accesses, compounds and car parking
0 movement of heavy machinery; and
0 installation of services.
Of the known sites of archaeological and cultural heritage interest recorded within the Study Area, all of the sites are considered to be too far from the proposed
development, or of insufficient archaeological significance for there to be any significance of impact.
12.9.4 During Construction
12.9.4.1 Construction Phase - Direct Impact There are no known archaeological or cultural heritage sites located within the area of the proposed development on which the proposed development would have a direct impact.
12.9.4.2 Construction Phase - Indirect Impact
12.9.5
12.10 Proposed Mitigation
12.11
There are no known archaeological or cultural heritage sites located of the proposed development on which the proposed development indirect impact.
within the area would have an
During Operation The operation of the proposed development will not impact on potential archaeological sites or cultural heritage resources.
any known or
There is always the potential that as yet undiscovered archaeological sites will occur within the development area, on which the proposed scheme could have an impact. The most recent EIS (2000) and the archaeological work in 1994 both recommend that any extensive ground clearance work, top soil removal, landscaping etc, in any areas where the ground levels remain largely undisturbed, should be subject to archaeological monitoring. The following approach to archaeological mitigation is therefore recommended.
Watching Brief -To ensure that any previously unrecorded sites which come to light during the course of the development are adequately identified and recorded, it is recommended that a suitably qualified, licensed archaeologist is employed to monitor any ground clearance work, top soil removal, landscaping etc, in any areas where the ground levels remain largely undisturbed or are greenfield.
The watching brief archaeologist will monitor all the topsoil stripping work in the designated areas. Topsoil will be taken to the top of the uppermost archaeological layer or natural subsoil, whichever is encountered first. Should any archaeological features be uncovered, the work will be halted and an archaeological excavation licence will be applied for. Any features or deposits of archaeological significance will only be recorded using written description, photography and illustration and their location will be surveyed to Ordnance Datum in accordance with best practices as designated by Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Any necessary on-site conservation will be undertaken in accordance with the guidelines issued by the National Museum of Ireland. The Archaeologist will have a conservator on call in order to deal with any emergencies.
Residual Impacts
There will be no residual impact on archaeological and cultural heritage resources after the proposed mitigation has been implemented.
