SCEILG MHICHÍL
World Heritage Site
Report to UNESCO on Film Production Activities Undertaken at
the World Heritage Property in September 2015
Contents
1.
Introduction3
2.
Proposal for Film Production at Sceilg Mhichíl ...................................................................................................3
2.1 Approach by Film Production Company ............................................................................................................3
2.2 Supervision and Monitoring of Production Activities ........................................................................................4
3.
Archaeological/Built Heritage Report .................................................................................................................6
3.1 Report on Specific Works and Related Impacts .................................................................................................6
3.1.1 Locations between A and C (See Fig. 1) - Boat Landing to base of South steps to the Monastery ..............6
3.1.2 Location D – Lighthouse .............................................................................................................................7
3.1.3 Locations E –Lighthouse Platform and Wailing Woman................................................................................. 7
3.1.4 Location F - Base of steps to Saddle ..........................................................................................................9
3.1.5 Locations G - Christ’s Saddle ......................................................................................................................9
3.1.6 Locations H - Upper Monks' Garden ...................................................................................................... 110
3.1.7 Locations I – Monastery ........................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.8 Locations J Bedrock Above Monastery ......................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Note on Camera Positions ............................................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Note on maintenance: .................................................................................................................................... 12
3.4 Note on Preparation of Set at Wailing Woman ............................................................................................... 12
3.5 Note on Anchor Points: ................................................................................................................................... 13
4.
Natural Heritage Report ................................................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Report on Specific Works and Related Impacts ............................................................................................... 13
4.2.1 General Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 143
4.2.2 Boat transport to the Island..................................................................................................................... 14
4.2.3 Helipad and Helicopter Usage ....................................................................................................................... 14
4.2.4 Locations C – Base of South Steps; E – Wailing Woman; G - Christ’s Saddle; H – Upper Monks’ Garden; I –
Monastery ........................................................................................................................................................ 14
5.
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...15
Appendix 1 Letter from National Monuments Service
Appendix 2 (a) Screening for appropriate assessment submitted by the film company
Appendix 2 (b) Ecological and Screening Assessment undertaken by the Department
Appendix 2 (c) Consent
Appendix 3 Incident Report on Paint Spill
Appendix 4 Incident report on minor disturbance to entrance to Upper
Monks’ Garden.
2
Appendix 5 Report from National Parks and Wildlife Service
on filming activity
on Sceilg Mhichíl in September 2015
1. Introduction
The Skellig Rocks, Sceilg Mhichíl (also known as Skellig Michael or Great Skellig) and Little Skellig, are sea
crags rising from the Atlantic Ocean almost 12 km west of the Iveragh Peninsula in County Kerry.
In 1996 UNESCO inscribed the island of Skellig Michael onto the World Heritage List in recognition of its
outstanding universal value. The inscription was made on the basis of cultural criteria (iii) and (iv)
considering that the site is of outstanding universal value being an exceptional, and in many respects
unique, example of an early religious settlement deliberately sited on a pyramidal rock in the ocean,
preserved because of a remarkable environment. It illustrates, as no other site can, the extremes of a
Christian monasticism characterizing much of North Africa, the Near East and Europe1.
2.
Proposal for Film Production at Sceilg Mhichíl
2.1 Approach by Film Production Company
Bord Scannán na hÉireann (the Irish Film Board), an agency of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the
Gaeltacht, promotes Ireland as a location for international film production and provides support to
companies engaged in filming activities on location in Ireland. The Board was contacted earlier this year by
representatives of the producers of a major feature film to establish whether the Sceilg Mhichíl world
heritage site could be used for certain limited filming activities in 2015 in light of the sensitivity of the site
from a cultural and natural heritage perspective.
Many world heritage sites have been used as locations for major film and television productions, for
example Al Khazneh in Petra, Jordan; Dubrovnik, Croatia; Aït Benhaddou, Morocco and the Redwood
National and State Parks, California, USA). ,
Similar filming work had previously been undertaken by the same producers on Sceilg Mhichíl in 2014 with
the necessary statutory consents from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (which also
owns the island on behalf of the State). The nature, extent and logistics of what was proposed for 2015
was broadly similar to what had previously taken place in 2014. One notable departure, however, was that
the 2015 proposals were scheduled for September, rather than July/August as in the previous year. This is
a fundamental difference from an ecological perspective as many breeding seabird species have left the
island or completed their breeding cycle by September.
The proposal was referred to the Department’s:
 National Monuments Service (NMS), the competent authority in relation to the assessment of
impacts on built and cultural heritage, and
 National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), which is, inter alia, responsible for the assessment of
effects on natural heritage in Special Protection Areas (SPA’s) - important sites designated for bird
species.
A detailed method statement was provided by the producers and a series of protection measures and
protocols in relation to the cultural and natural heritage on the island were drawn up and agreed with
them by the Department, including full on-site supervision by State personnel of all activities undertaken
by the film crew (covering preparatory works, filming and removal).
There was extensive interaction with the Department in relation to natural heritage over a number of
1
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/757
3
months, and particularly with regard to the detailed design of the project and draft proposals. The
proposed project, its design, possible impacts and protection measures were the subject of in-depth
review by NPWS in respect of both seabird and SPA interests (constituting inter alia a screening
assessment), as well as other elements of biodiversity of the Islands.
The Department requested the proposers to undertake a detailed counting programme of all seabirds on
Skellig Michael in order to collect site specific data which could inform any assessment.
The proposal was also referred to the Office of Public Works (OPW), which is statutorily charged with the
management, operation and maintenance of all national monument sites (including Ireland’s two world
heritage sites) in the ownership of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. The proposal and
method statement produced by the film company was approved by the OPW conservation architect
responsible for Sceilg Mhichíl and by NPWS on foot of an Ecological Assessment (constituting inter alia a
‘Screening Assessment’). The OPW visitor guides (normally charged with escorting visitors on the island)
and NPWS scientific and technical staff were tasked with implementing agreed arrangements for
supervising and monitoring the activities of the film crew on the island for the duration of the project.
Preparations for filming began on the afternoon of Monday, 7 September 2015, involving the shipping of
equipment to the island. Filming proper was commenced on Tuesday, 15 September, and concluded on
Thursday, 17 September. All equipment and other material used by the film crew were removed from the
island by Friday, 18 September 2015.
2.2 Supervision and Monitoring of Production Activities
All works on Sceilg Mhichíl were monitored by Grellan D Rourke, Senior Conservation Architect, National
Monuments Service (OPW), and Bob Harris, Head Guide (OPW). Mr Rourke was directly responsible for all
cultural heritage on the island.
Declan O' Donnell, Clare Heardman, Michael O’Sullivan, David Tierney and Philip Buckley of the
Department’s NPWS monitored the works throughout, including during filming:
 to ensure that the conditions and Protection Protocols incorporated into the design of the proposal
and the consent granted were adhered to, and
 with a view to avoiding any potential impacts on the breeding birds of the island.
An ornithologist and ecologist employed by the film producers were also in full-time attendance.
OPW’s Head Guide, who remained on the island throughout the entirety of the project, was tasked with
direct liaison with the film crew, in consultation with other OPW and NPWS personnel on site, to ensure
that any potential impacts to either the cultural or natural heritage were avoided. NPWS personnel
similarly monitored all activities on the island throughout (and inspected biosecurity arrangements,
including on the mainland). NPWS officers had the authority to halt or modify any of the filming or any
activities at any stage (this was a condition of the Consent).
No archaeological consent was required under the legislation governing the protection of archaeological
heritage, the National Monuments Acts 1930 – 2004, as no works were contemplated or carried out that
would have come within the scope of the consent framework. A copy of the letter to that effect issued to
the producers is included as Appendix 1.
Consent was, however, needed and granted under the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats)
Regulations 2011 (S.I. 477 of 2011) and the European Communities (Conservation of Wild Birds (Skelligs
Special Area of Conservation 004007)) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 74 of 2010). A copy of (a) Screening of
appropriate assessment submitted by the film company; (b) the Ecological and Screening Assessment
undertaken by the Department and (c) the Consent issued is attached at Appendix 2a, Appendix 2b and
Appendix 2c.
4
Figure 1 pinpoints the main areas of activity in relation to the film production on Sceilg Mhichíl. The areas
of activity are designated A – J and these locations are referenced in the main sections of the report
dealing with archaeological/built heritage and natural heritage.
5
3. Archaeological & Built Heritage Report
Following receipt of the Natura Impact Statement and method statement from the film company the
Department’s NMS, in conjunction with the OPW managers of the world heritage site, undertook a full
review of the proposals with a view to identifying and eliminating any potential negative impacts on the
archaeological monuments on Sceilg Mhichíl.
The OPW personnel responsible for managing the world heritage site accompanied the film crew when
they visited the island on Tuesday, 1 September, to discuss logistics and the proposed locations for the
filming. The professional ornithologist engaged to advise on the film production was also in attendance.
The proposals focused on the following locations - the Wailing Woman, the base of the long flight of steps
to the Christ's Saddle, the Saddle itself, the flight of steps above the Saddle and a location above the
Monastery. No filming was proposed in the vicinity of any of the monastic structures other than the steps.
Discussions also took place in relation to the appropriate number of film crew required to be on site and
the position of any temporary structures, as in the previous year. Subsequent to this meeting, OPW
manager met film representatives on the mainland on Friday, 4 September, to discuss any outstanding
issues, including:
 Inspection arrangements for cargo being taken out to the island,
 safety set-up,
 separation from historic structures,
 removal and reinstatement of fencing on the Saddle,
 issues of marshalling,
 activities on the Saddle.
The final method statement accommodated the Department’s and OPW's observations in relation to crew
and temporary structures. The producers also undertook to be bound by the directions of OPW and
Departmental personnel in relation to the location of temporary structures and the minimising of the
impact of camera positions, etc.
3.1
Report on Specific Works and Related Impacts
3.1.1 Locations between A and C - Boat Landing to base of South Steps
All loads were brought by cargo boat to the landing pier (point A) and all cargo was transported by hand by
rope access specialists to point C (the base of the South Steps). Some material was stored at point B
(lighthouse store by helipad) and on the lighthouse road.
Two portaloos were set up just west of the landing on a rock surface. There was temporary storage at
point C. Any material left overnight was stored more than 1.2m away from any built structure to avoid
damage and to allow the ingress and egress of night birds nesting in the walls.
Duration: 7 days
Impact: None
6
Storage of material on the lighthouse road before filming.
On three days a small area (point C) was set aside to handle catering.
Catering area at point C
3.1.2 Location D - Lighthouse
Loads were brought by hand by rope access specialists and stored in the Lighthouse (point D). Material
included cameras, lights, film and some catering supplies. Security was dealt with by the Commissioners of
Irish Lights.
A brief period of filming (without actors) took place on Thursday, 17 September, from this area looking up
towards the Upper Lighthouse Road.
Duration: 8 Days and a number of hours for the filming.
Impact: None
3.1.3 Location E - Lighthouse Platform & Wailing Woman
Material was carried up to a camp area on the Lighthouse Platform across from the Wailing Woman. All
loads were carried by rope access specialists.
Duration: 3 days
Impact: None
7
Left: The Lighthouse Platform showing light tent and equipment stored thereon and tape marking out access areas.
Right: Visitors to the platform on Friday, 18 September, after removal of film material (lhs).
The Wailing Woman is an iconic natural rock formation located at the Lighthouse Flagstaff platform where
there are remains of a concrete pad and some fixings for metal stays. This flat location was used for filming
and the storage of two large props. Storage of materials not being used in filming was located at the
aforementioned Lighthouse Platform. Filming took place over a 2-day period at this location.
Duration: 6 days
Impact: Low in relation to the ground but see report of minor incident below.
The Wailing Woman platform area showing protection of prop prior to filming and delineated access areas to avoid any nests
and fragile surfaces with little or no vegetation.
The Wailing Woman platform area after removal of all
props and equipment.
8
Incident Report: In late afternoon, Wednesday, 16 September, a small volume of diluted water-based
paint was spilled on adjacent rocks. Highly-absorbent spill pads were used to immediately mop up the spill.
Clean water was also applied to further dilute and eliminate the effects of the spill. Used spill pads were
double bagged for off-island disposal. An ecologist and ornithologist were present and nests were not
compromised in any way. Any remaining light rock discolouration will be monitored and is expected to
quickly disappear through weathering. See Appendix 3 for a more detailed account.
3.1.4 Location F – Base of flight of steps to Saddle
There was a brief film shoot at the base of this long flight of steps. A small platform was set up under
supervision.
Duration: 2 days [small platform in place 2 days; filming a few hours]
Impact: None
Platform in place (lhs) and being removed after filming.
3.1.5 Location G – Christ's Saddle
Material was carried up to a camp area at Christ's Saddle. All loads were carried by rope access specialists.
Material was kept to a minimum and, as in 2014, there were no heavy loads.
The camp area included one tent and an area designated for storage. Materials stored included tools,
track, water, props, small generators, etc. All archaeological features and nesting areas were fenced off
with hazard tape to confine activities to non-sensitive locations.
The central part of the fence on the north side of the Saddle was taken down to allow filming northwards.
This was identical to what happened on site in 2014 and the work was supervised. The fence was
reinstated by Friday, 18 September, the day the island re-opened to visitors.
Saddle showing detail of tape to mark exclusion zones, location of tent and storage area for equipment.
9
A short period of filming (of terrain only), with one cameraman and 2 safety specialists, was permitted on
Thursday, 17 September, on an upper section of the North Steps. There was also a brief amount filming
from the steps above Christ's Saddle looking down onto the Saddle.
Saddle after removal of tent and equipment and reinstatement of
fencing on 18 September 2015.
Section of fencing removed to
facilitate filming on 15 September.
3.1.6 Location H - Upper Monks' Garden
Material was carried up to a small camp in the Upper Monks' Garden (point G). All loads were carried by
rope access specialists and the camp consisted of two tents. The two tents were located on the remnants
of an archaeological spoil heap. All temporary structures were located more than 1.2m away from walls
and were also fenced off with hazard tape to isolate the area from nesting birds at the west end of the
Garden. Material stored at the site included water, camera equipment, medical equipment and small
generators.
Duration: 5 days
Impact: None in relation to the ground but see report of minor incident below.
Two tents were located in the Upper Monks' Garden. These were used for storage
including some small generators. Very few of the film crew accessed this area.
Incident Report: On the morning of Thursday, 17 September, when materials were being removed from
the garden area, a small part of the dry stonework forming part of the inner jamb of the entrance to the
Upper Monks' Garden was partially disturbed. The opening was immediately propped by OPW masons and
the minor drystone repair effected; the entrance was opened again immediately afterwards. This incident
mirrored a similar occurrence in mid-June when the same section of stone was displaced by a visitor to the
island, possibly through contact with his/her rucksack. Similar remedial action was taken by OPW masons
at that time. See Appendix 4 for a more detailed account.
10
Doorway into Upper Monks' Garden from inside showing partial dislocation of stonework to the interior south jamb and
immediate repair by OPW masons.
3.1.7 Location I – Monastery Enclosure:
A tent was set up to the west of Cell A at the monastery. All loads were transported by safety specialists to
this area. A self-sealed toilet unit was located in the tent. Very few people used this, as they were
encouraged to use the toilets below.
Duration: A few hours on 2 days – to erect and remove it.
Impact: None
Storage tent at H to the west of Cell A. This area was not accessed in the end.
3.1.8 Location J - Bedrock above Monastery
Ropes were attached to give safe access to this rock area and a safety line was set out, back from the face
of the lighthouse wall at the rear of the cells to facilitate access.
Duration: A few hours
Impact: None
11
Safety line above lighthouse wall en route to an area of rocky outcrop above the Monastery, one of the locations for a shoot.
Very few personnel were allowed into this area which was fully supervised.
3.2 Note on Camera Positions
Precise details of camera positions are not provided in this report because of commercial considerations.
However all positions were recorded both prior to and during filming.
All surfaces, particularly paving, were insulated against contact by camera and other tripods by various
means, including laying down heavy layers of cloth and use of other protective materials. All camera tracks
were levelled using light wooden boxes and wedges. There was no ground disturbance and no cameras
were placed on walls.
Duration: 3 days
Impact: None
3.3 Note on maintenance:
As is the case during normal visiting times, the steps were monitored regularly in the course of the filming.
The ongoing maintenance required by OPW masons, who are on site throughout the visitor season, i.e.
tightening of some individual steps, was consistent with that required on a normal week when visitors are
on the island.
Duration: 7 days
Impact: Consistent with normal visitor numbers
3.4
Note on preparation of set at Wailing Woman
It was necessary to dress the set for filming at the Wailing Woman. Small amounts of sea campion (taken
from the lighthouse compound area) were used in addition to very small stones (scree – taken from the
vicinity of the platform); the stones were put back in their original location after the filming.
Duration: 2 days
Impact: None
12
3.5
Note on Anchor Points:
No new anchor points were drilled. There is an existing network of anchor points for fixing ropes to
facilitate the removal of injured personnel or visitors. These have easily removable attachments and,
where advised by safety personnel, were utilised by the film crew.
Duration: 3 days
Impact: None
4. Natural Heritage Report
4.1 Introduction
All issues relating to natural heritage impacts were covered in a Ministerial Consent, which related to a
proposal and method statement supplied by the film company (see Appendix 2c).
Michael O’Sullivan, Clare Heardman, Declan O’Donnell, Dr David Tierney and Dr Philip Buckley of the
National Parks and Wildlife Service (DAHG) monitored the works throughout, including during filming, to
ensure that the conditions and Protection Protocols were adhered to and to avoid any possible impacts on
the birds or their habitats on the island. One, usually two (sometimes more), NPWS officers were present
on the island at all times monitoring the activities and with the authority to halt or modify any activities at
any stage (this was a condition of the Consent).
4.2 Report on Specific Works and Related Impacts
4.2.1 General Impacts
The Skelligs is important for and designated a Special Protection Area for populations of specified breeding
seabirds, namely: Storm-petrel, Puffin, Guillemot, Kittiwake, Fulmar, Manx Shearwater and Gannet (latter
nesting on nearby Little Skellig, but not nesting on Skellig Michael). The most notable other elements of
biodiversity on Skellig Michael are the lichens.
The project involved three broad categories of activities in terms of any possible impacts on the
biodiversity, namely (1) activities undertaken on the island itself, (2) boat transport to the island, and (3)
helicopter usage.
Possible impacts were:
1) Transfer of animals/other biota to the island from the mainland (especially potential predators of
seabirds e.g. rats);
2) ‘On the ground’ disturbance of birds, particularly at breeding sites;
3) Disturbance of birds by helicopters;
4) Damage to or destruction of birds borrows or breeding habitats;
5) Physical damage to lichens.
The final project incorporated a comprehensive range of measures to address potential ecological issues.
The main protection measures included:
1) Limiting the seasonal timing of the film project to September.
2) Limiting the daily timing of the filming to avoid overlap with the activity of any remaining nocturnal
seabird species.
3) Stringent biosecurity.
13
4) Confining activities to limited and specified areas (and in the main, to areas usually frequented by
tourists) and limiting the numbers of persons on the island (did not exceed normal tourist
numbers).
5) Identification, marking and avoidance of any sensitive areas for nesting seabirds at the specific
location/habitat level;
6) Various Protocols and Controls for movement of film crew and equipment; for storage or placing of
equipment; for waste and food; for dusk filming; for helicopter usage; for protection of lichens.
7) Presence of NPWS personnel (and also a Supervising Ecologist and a seabird surveyor (who has
been monitoring birds on the island over the breeding season)) - with the authority to stop or
modify any filming or other activity.
Duration: 9 Days
Impact: None
4.2.2 – Boat Transport to the Island
Most personnel and equipment involved with the filming were brought to the island by boat (using normal
licensed ferries & ports). Any transfer of animals (especially potential predators of seabirds such as rats)
from the mainland to a seabird colony would be a significant ecological issue.
The consent required that specific and stringent biosecurity protocols were in place. These were adhered
to at all times. All equipment and material being transported to the island was inspected before
loading/departure from the mainland.
Boat transport did not have potential to cause disturbance to the breeding birds or their habitats or other
biodiversity.
Duration: 9 Days
Impact: None
4.2.3 Location B – Helipad and Helicopter Usage
The majority of the film crew accessed the island by boat. A limited number of helicopter trips to and from
the helipad to transport some of the film crew occurred.
The helipad is situated close to an active seabird breeding colony. A helicopter was also used to take film
shots on occasion over the course of the 3 days of filming (and under conditions specified in the consent).
Breeding activity by all species was completed by the time of the filming. A small number of Fulmars (adult
or fledged) were in attendance in the area of the helipad. The reactions of seabirds to the helicopter
touchdowns at the helipad and to helicopter usage for filming generally were monitored. The study birds
generally remained on the breeding ledges. Any that did take wing returned shortly afterwards. There was
no adverse impact on the breeding seabirds.
Duration: 3 Days
Impact: None
4.2.4 Locations C - Base of South Steps; E - Wailing Woman; G - Christ’s Saddle; H - Upper Monk’s
Garden; I – Monastery
With the exception of Manx Shearwater and Storm Petrel, all other seabird species had completed their
breeding cycle and the majority of these birds had left the island before filming activity commenced.
14
Terrestrial based filming was limited to defined areas. Most, though not all, areas are normally accessible
to tourists. All areas were all treated as potential breeding seabird habitats/nest sites, or as having active
breeding Manx Shearwater or Storm Petrel (unless there was specific data showing otherwise).
In order to prevent damage to the potential breeding habitat and to minimise direct disturbance to any
actively breeding seabirds that might be present, protocols for the identification, marking, cordoning off
and avoidance of any Shearwater or Petrel nesting sites were followed.
Both Manx Shearwater and Storm Petrel are nocturnal at breeding colonies. No filming activity took place
after dark, and all film crew had left the island by then. The temporary structures (e.g. tents, equipment)
associated with the filming were sited at particular locations that would not impede access from or egress
to the breeding sites.
Duration: 9 Days
Impact: None
The design of the project and the Protection Measures and Protocols it incorporated were worked out to
explicitly address and avoid any significant damage to the breeding seabirds, the SPA or other biodiversity.
NPWS monitored the filming activities throughout. NPWS is satisfied that all conditions and Protection
measures were followed in full (and indeed that the project was generally conducted in an exemplary
manner). NPWS is satisfied that this filming had no adverse impact on the seabirds or other biodiversity of
Sceilg Mhichíl.
5. Conclusions
Any potential impacts on the cultural and built heritage of Sceilg Mhichíl by the film production were fully
addressed and the Department is entirely satisfied that the activities undertaken had no implications for
the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Property.
The natural heritage value of Sceilg Mhichíl is very rich and the island is fully protected by relevant Irish
and EU legislation. However, the Department notes that the island’s flora and fauna, while important, are
not central to its inclusion on the world heritage list. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Department is
entirely satisfied that no impact was made on the natural heritage of the island, or on any of the
approaches to it, and that the activities undertaken as part of the film production avoided any significant
damage to the populations of breeding birds present, or any other biodiversity on the island.
Ed Bourke
____________
Edward Bourke,
Senior Archaeologist,
World Heritage Unit,
Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht,
G49, Custom House,
Dublin 1
15th October 2015.
15
Philip Buckley
_________________
Philip Buckley,
Divisional Manager,
National Parks & Wildlife Service,
Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht,
Custom House, Flood Street,
Galway
16
Appendix 1
Letter of 7 September 2015 from National Monuments Service, DAHG, to
Lucasfilm regarding Consent under Section 14 of National Monuments Act
1930 (as amended)
Appendix 2a
Screening for appropriate assessment as submitted by the film company
Appendix 2b
Ecological and Screening Assessment of proposed film work
undertaken by the Department
Skelligs Islands, Co Kerry
Ecological and Screening Assessment of proposed film work September 2015
1. Skelligs Islands
The Skelligs are two islands that lie about 13km of Valentia Island, Co Kerry. They are red sandstone
& slate. Skellig Michael is the larger island (48ha) and the Little Skellig is 7ha. They hold important
seabird breeding colonies. Indeed they are recognised as being internationally important for
breeding seabirds. Skellig Michael supports several thousand pairs of Storm-petrels (c. 10,000) and
Puffin (c. 4,000 pairs), and smaller numbers of Guillemot, Kittiwake, Fulmar, Manx Shearwater and
Razorbill, as well as some other seabird species. Little Skellig supports nearly 35,000 pairs of Gannets
(one of 6 colonies in Ireland). No Gannets occur on Skellig Michael. The Skelligs are an established
Nature Reserve. They are also designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA).
The number of other species, and habitats is generally limited as it is an island.
The breeding biology (and status, ecology, etc) of seabird species in Ireland and Britain is generally
well known and documented.
Skellig Michael is also a National Monument and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
2. Proposed Film Project
There is a proposal to undertake filming work on Skellig Michael in September 2015. The
Department has now received a formal application (accompanied by an Assessment and Screening
Report).
There have been meetings and communications with the Department (and others) in regard to this
proposed project for a number of months, and particularly in relation to the detailed design of the
project and drafts of an ecological and screening report over the last two months or more. The
Department requested the proposers to undertake a detailed counting and monitoring programme
of all seabirds (not just limited to those for which the islands are designated as an SPA) on Skellig
Michael in order to collect site specific, comprehensive & up-to-date data which could inform any
report and assessment.
Previously in 2014, similar filming work was undertaken on Skellig Michael (having obtained consent
from this Department). The nature, extent and design of that film project is broadly, but not exactly
similar, to that in the current application. A notable difference is that the work in 2014 was
undertaken in July/August, whereas the 2015 request is for September. Ecologically, this is a
fundamental difference, as several, but not all, of the breeding seabird species of the Skelligs have
left the island or completed their breeding cycle by September.
3. Assessment
3.1 Background
As mentioned, there was considerable interaction with this Department (NPWS) re the design of the
proposal and the preparation of draft and final Ecological and Screening Reports.
The draft proposals and reports were subject to detailed review and comment by scientific and
technical staff in NPWS. This included Head of Birds Unit; staff familiar with the island; other NPWS
scientific staff; Divisional Manager for Southern Division (an ornithologist; previously Head of Birds
Unit).
The application now lodged is accompanied by a report. It may be noted that that document not
only addresses the SPA (and Article 6(3) Assessment) requirements, but considers other important
biodiversity elements also. The Department asked the proposers to follow this ‘best-practice’
approach, and not limit their consideration solely to legal requirements.
The proposed project, its design, possible impacts and protection measures has been the subject of
in-depth review by us in respect of both seabird & SPA interests (constituting inter alia a screening
assessment), as well as other elements of biodiversity of the Islands.
3.2 Biodiversity
The Skelligs is designated an SPA for populations of specified breeding seabirds, namely:
Storm-petrel.
Puffin.
Guiilemot.
Kittiwake.
Fulmar.
Manx Shearwater.
Gannet (not nesting on Skellig Michael).
A number of other species of seabird and terrestrial bird species also occur.
The most notable other elements of biodiversity on Skellig Michael are the lichens. The island is
considered to be a nationally and internationally important site for lichens.
3.3 Main elements of project
The project involves filming on Skellig Michael in specific and defined areas, and generally those
areas are used by tourists. Filming is proposed to take place over about a week in mid-September
2015. Preparatory work will take place the week before and removal work the week after. Up to 100
persons may be involved at peak periods (up to 40 during preparatory & demobilisation periods).
They, and the equipment, will be transported to the island by boat (most) or helicopter. A helicopter
will also be employed during filming. Filming and other activities will take place during daylight
hours, or at dusk on occasion.
The project involves three broad categories of activities in terms of any possible impacts on the SPA
and bird species and other biodiversity, namely (1) activities undertaken on the island itself, (2) boat
transport to the island, & (3) helicopter usage.
3.4 Potential Impacts
Possible impacts are:
1) Transfer of animals/other biota to the island from the mainland (especially potential
predators of seabirds e.g. rats);
2) ‘On the ground’ disturbance of birds, particularly at breeding sites;
3) Disturbance of birds by helicopters;
4) Damage to or destruction of birds borrows or breeding habitats;
5) Physical damage to lichens.
3.5 Protection Measures
The proposal in terms of design and execution have at this stage incorporated many measures –
both at the overall and a detailed level – to address a comprehensive ranges of potential ecological
issues (including, but not limited to, the SPA/SCI interests).
The main protection measures include:
1) Limiting the seasonal timing of the film project to September.
2) Limiting the daily timing of the film/other activity so that there is no or very little overlap
between filming and that of any remaining seabird species still engaged in breeding activity
(i.e. species are nocturnal; filming is during the day or dusk).
3) Stringent biosecurity.
4) Confining the on the ground activities to limited and specified areas.
5) Ensuring, that in the main, film activities, etc are limited to areas usually frequented by
tourists.
6) Ensuring that the numbers of persons on the island will not exceed, and indeed will generally
be less, than the normal tourist number using the island.
7) Protocols for storage and movement of film crew and equipment.
8) Identification, marking and avoidance of any sensitive areas at the specific location/habitat
level;
9) Protocols for storage or placing of equipment (e.g. specified distance from any potential nest
sites in walls).
10) Protocols for waste and food.
11) Controls for dusk filming.
12) Controls for helicopter usage.
13) Controls for protection of lichens.
14) Presence of seabird surveyor (who has been monitoring birds on the island over the
breeding season) - available to provide advice in relation to location, movements etc of
seabirds at the micro or island level.
15) Presence of a Supervising Ecologist – available for any detailed ecological checking, and with
the authority to stop or modify any filming or other activity.
16) Presence of NPWS personnel, with the authority to stop or modify any filming or other
activity
3.6 Assessment of significance of potential Impacts
The potential impacts and their significance on each of the qualifying seabird species for the SPA
(and Razorbill) are outlined below.
Gannet
No Gannets occur on Skellig Michael. No activities will take place on Little Skellig (the Gannet colony)
& no direct impacts on the breeding site are possible. The helicopter will maintain a minimum
distance of 1km from Little Skellig at all times and therefore is unlikely to cause any significant
disturbance to the remaining Gannets.
Storm-petrel
Given the Ecological Protection Protocols (protocols for identification, marking and avoidance of any
petrel nest sites), it is unlikely that there will be any significant loss or damage to petrel nest sites.
The species is nocturnal at breeding colonies. Observed activity patterns on the island, recorded no
birds flying within one hour of sunset. This relates to adult birds. Even if there were some temporal
overlap with fledging birds, it is unlikely that the dusk filming activities will result in any significant
disturbance given limited artificial lighting in the area, reduced crew and on the spot DAHG
supervision to halt film related activity if deemed excessive.
Guillemot
Based on on-site observations, Guillemots have now all finished breeding on Skellig Michael and
generally have departed the island. Direct disturbance is therefore not an issue at breeding site. No
ground-based activities will take place on or near any Guillemot breeding ledges and there can be
no adverse impacts on these.
Razorbill
Based on on-site observations, Razorbills have now all finished breeding on Skellig Michael and
generally have departed the island. Direct disturbance is therefore not an issue at the breeding site.
No ground-based activities will take place on or near any Razorbill breeding sites and there can be
no adverse impacts on these.
Puffin
Based on on-site observations, Puffins have now all finished breeding on Skellig Michael and
generally have departed the island. Direct disturbance is therefore not an issue. Given the Ecological
Protection Protocols (especially protocols for identification, marking and avoidance of any Puffin
burrows & nesting habitats), it is unlikely that there will be any loss or damage to Puffin breeding
habitats.
Kittiwake
Based on on-site observations, the majority of Kittiwakes have finished breeding on Skellig Michael
and generally have departed the island. Therefore there is unlikely to be any significant disturbance
of breeding Kittiwake when filming begins. No ground-based activities will take place on or near any
Kittiwake breeding sites and therefore unlikely to result in any significant damage.
Fulmar
Count data and age profile data indicate that all Fulmar chicks will have fledged by mid-September
(which is in accord with scientific literature (Snow & Perrins 1998). It is therefore unlikely that any
significant disturbance will arise. No ground-based activities are to take place on or near Fulmar
breeding ledges and therefore no adverse impacts on these are foreseen.
Manx Shearwater
Given the Ecological Protection Protocols (protocols for identification, marking and avoidance of any
Shearwater burrows & nesting habitats), it is unlikely that there will be any loss or damage to
Shearwater burrows or breeding habitats. The likelihood is that there will be little or no disturbance
of Shearwaters. The species is nocturnal at breeding colonies. Given observed activity patterns on
the island, there is no overlap in time between shearwater activity in the open & filming activity
(even at dusk). Even if there were some overlap, it is unlikely that the dusk filming activities will
result in any significant disturbance given limited artificial lighting in the area, reduced crew and on
the spot DAHG supervision to halt film related activity if deemed excessive.
4. Decision
I am satisfied that what is proposed will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA, nor have a
significant adverse effect on the biodiversity of the site.
The site is an SPA and the application has to be assessed further to the requirements of Statutory
Instrument 477 of 2011 and Statutory Instrument 74 of 2010, which designates the Skelligs as a
Special Protection Area (SPA) for Birds.
This proposal and application for consent requires the Minister to satisfy herself, beyond reasonable
scientific doubt, that what is proposed will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, within the
meaning of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.
I have undertaken the screening for appropriate assessment pursuant to the European Communities
(Birds and Habitats) Regulations 2011. I have taken into account expert advice from NPWS staff,
including in particular Head of Birds Unit, scientific knowledge and the screening report that
accompanied the application.
Having undertaken this review (including the screening for an Appropriate Assessment), my view
and recommendation is that there is no ecological reason why this application cannot be granted. I
would recommend that it would be prudent to include in any consent explicit conditions that the
applicant has to adhere to. These could be a modification of those required last year (I set these out
in the Appendix here).
Appendix
Special Conditions
1. A Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) representative will be present on
the island during the project. The DAHG representative will have full discretion to modify any
aspect of this consent or to revoke it at any time. The applicant will comply with any direction
given by the DAHG representative.
REASON – To protect the SPA, to ensure that protection and avoidance measures are complied
with in full and to address unforeseen issues.
2. All avoidance and protection measures proposed in the application document to be
undertaken in full and to the satisfaction of the DAHG representative on-site.
REASON – to ensure that there is no significant disturbance to species or damage to habitats.
3. The applicant shall ensure to the satisfaction of the on-site DAHG representative that nest
sites are not damaged or access to and from them impeded in the course of this project.
REASON – to ensure that there is no significant disturbance to species or damage to habitats.
4. Helicopter landings on the Island to be limited to the existing helipad and restricted to 16
returns in total over the three weeks and no more than four return flights in any one day. A
maximum of four additional contingency flights, if required, may be requested but must be
agreed by DAHG representative in advance.
REASON – to avoid any significant disturbance to species
5. Helicopter presence on helipad to be limited to disembarking and boarding of passengers
only and immediate turnaround to be undertaken.
REASON – To avoid any prolonged disturbance at helipad site.
6. Personnel on the island to be limited to maximum numbers set out in Appendix 1 Paragraph
4.7 of proposal and combined film-related personnel (incl. OPW and DAHG officials) and tourists
on the island shall not exceed 180 at any time.
REASON – to avoid any increase of numbers of people at the site at one time beyond those
permitted in Site Management Plan.
7. Consent is confined to 7th September 2015 to 25th September 2015 inclusive.
REASON – to ensure project is limited to proposed dates
8. No personnel to arrive on the island before 07:00. All personnel to have quit the island each
day by 20:00, except for the dusk filming crew (maximum 15 persons) 21:00 on the XXXX to
XXXX September, save with express consent of DAHG representative.
REASON – to ensure that the island is vacated when nocturnal birds emerge from or enter their
nests.
9. The applicant will strictly adhere to biosecurity protocols for the control of alien species as set
out in 4.2.6.2.Resonsibility for ensuring biosecurity must be assigned to a specified person and a
record kept of same.
REASON – To ensure that no alien species of plants or animals are introduced to the Island.
10. Daily transport to and from the Island for the DAHG representatives to be provided by the
applicant.
REASON – To ensure DAHG representative’s presence on-site
11. The salary and expenses (at standard civil service rates) of the DAHG representatives to be
met by the applicant (subject to a maximum of €12000).
REASON – Applicant to meet tax-payers’ costs incurred.
12. The applicant accepts that the Department is not liable for any losses or costs incurred by
the applicant in regard to restrictions or directions given in the course of the project pursuant to
this consent and to the protection of the site as a Special Protection Area and otherwise.
REASON – Project risk to be borne by applicant.
13. For the production of aerial filming (other than that subject to condition 15) the helicopter
will take a standby position outside of the SPA boundary (or a minimum of 500m from the Great
Skellig or 1km from Little Skellig) and only enter to undertake 15 passes of no more than 180
seconds each (this gives the requested 120 seconds of filming and 30 seconds to enter and 30 to
leave). The approaching flight path will be a distance of more than 100m above the cliffs.
REASON – to avoid significant disturbance of cliff-nesting birds.
14. For the production of tile shots the hovering helicopter must not take a position closer than
300m from the Great Skellig. When not actively filming, the helicopter should position itself
outside of the SPA or not within 500m of Great or 1km of Little Skellig. Any variation of this
condition must be approved by the on-site DAHG representative in advance.
REASON – to avoid significant disturbance of cliff-nesting birds.
15. The Department retains the right to extend the restrictions or to impose further restrictions
if adverse reactions by the breeding seabirds are observed.
Philip Buckley
5th September 2015
Appendix 2c
Consent issued by the Department in respect of Wildlife Issues
Muckross House
Killarney National Park
Killarney
Co. Kerry
7th September 2015
Mr Martin Joy
Production Manager Ireland
Dear Mr Joy,
I refer to your application of 4th September to undertake filming on Skellig Michael in September
2015.
The Department acknowledges the considerable interaction with its technical and scientific staff
regarding the design of the proposal, including the habitat and species issues to be addressed, and
the preparation of draft and final Ecological and Screening Reports.
The proposal in terms of its design and execution has at this stage incorporated many protection
measures to address ecological issues, and the Department underlines the importance of same.
The proposed project, its design, possible impacts and protection measures has been the subject of
in-depth review by the Department in respect of both seabird and SPA interests (constituting inter
alia a screening assessment), as well as other elements of biodiversity of the Islands.
The Department has taken into account expert advice from specialist NPWS staff, scientific
knowledge and the screening report that accompanied the application.
The site is an SPA and the application has been assessed further to the requirements of Statutory
Instrument 477 of 2011 and Statutory Instrument 74 of 2010, which designates the Skelligs as a
Special Protection Area (SPA) for Birds.
Your proposal and application for consent requires the Minister to satisfy herself, beyond reasonable
scientific doubt, that what is proposed will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, within the
meaning of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.
The Department has undertaken the screening for appropriate assessment pursuant to the
European Communities (Birds and Habitats) Regulations 2011.
Having examined your proposal, the Department has concluded that, provided the protection
measures set out therein, and the special conditions outlined below, are adhered to in full,
what is proposed will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA, nor have a significant
adverse effect on the biodiversity of the site.
Special Conditions
1. A Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) representative will be present on
the island during the project. The DAHG representative will have full discretion to modify any
aspect of this consent or to revoke it at any time. The applicant will comply with any direction
given by the DAHG representative.
REASON – To protect the SPA, to ensure that protection and avoidance measures are complied
with in full and to address unforeseen issues.
2. All avoidance and protection measures proposed in the application document to be
undertaken in full and to the satisfaction of the DAHG representative on-site.
REASON – to ensure that there is no significant disturbance to species or damage to habitats.
3. The applicant shall ensure to the satisfaction of the on-site DAHG representative that nest
sites are not damaged or access to and from them impeded in the course of this project.
REASON – to ensure that there is no significant disturbance to species or damage to habitats.
4. Helicopter landings on the Island to be limited to the existing helipad and restricted to 16
returns in total over the three weeks and no more than four return flights in any one day. A
maximum of four additional contingency flights, if required, may be requested but must be
agreed by DAHG representative in advance.
REASON – to avoid any significant disturbance to species
5. Helicopter presence on helipad to be limited to disembarking and boarding of passengers
only and immediate turnaround to be undertaken.
REASON – To avoid any prolonged disturbance at helipad site.
6. Personnel on the island to be limited to maximum numbers set out in Appendix 1 Paragraph
4.7 of proposal and combined film-related personnel (incl. OPW and DAHG officials) and tourists
on the island shall not exceed 180 at any time.
REASON – to avoid any increase of numbers of people at the site at one time beyond those
permitted in Site Management Plan.
7. Consent is confined to 7th September 2015 to 25th September 2015 inclusive.
REASON – to ensure project is limited to proposed dates
8. No personnel to arrive on the island before 07:00. All personnel to have quit the island each
day by 20:00, except for the dusk filming crew (maximum 15 persons) 21:00 on the XXXX to
XXXX September, save with express consent of DAHG representative.
REASON – to ensure that the island is vacated when nocturnal birds emerge from or enter their
nests.
9. The applicant will strictly adhere to biosecurity protocols for the control of alien species as set
out in 4.2.6.2. Responsibility for ensuring biosecurity must be assigned to a specified person and
a record kept of same.
REASON – To ensure that no alien species of plants or animals are introduced to the Island.
10. Daily transport to and from the Island for the DAHG representatives to be provided by the
applicant.
REASON – To ensure DAHG representative’s presence on-site
11. The salary and expenses (at standard civil service rates) of the DAHG representatives to be
met by the applicant (subject to a maximum of €12000).
REASON – Applicant to meet tax-payers’ costs incurred.
12. The applicant accepts that the Department is not liable for any losses or costs incurred by
the applicant in regard to restrictions or directions given in the course of the project pursuant to
this consent and to the protection of the site as a Special Protection Area and otherwise.
REASON – Project risk to be borne by applicant.
13. For the production of aerial filming (other than that subject to condition 14) the helicopter
will take a standby position outside of the SPA boundary (or a minimum of 500m from the Great
Skellig or 1km from Little Skellig) and only enter daily to undertake passes of no more than 90 to
180 seconds each). In any event, aggregated aerial filming will not exceed 45 minutes per day of
filming activity. The approaching flight path will be a distance of more than 100m above the
cliffs.
REASON – to avoid significant disturbance of cliff-nesting birds.
14. For the production of tile shots the hovering helicopter must not take a position closer than
100m from the Great Skellig. When not actively filming, the helicopter should position itself
outside of the SPA or not within 500m of Great Skellig or 1km of Little Skellig. Any variation of
this condition must be approved by the on-site DAHG representative in advance.
REASON – to avoid significant disturbance of cliff-nesting birds.
15. The Department retains the right to extend the restrictions or to impose further restrictions
if adverse reactions by the breeding seabirds are observed.
I am directed by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht to provide consent to you on
the basis of your proposal, as submitted, on condition that all protection measures are
implemented in full and that all Special Conditions are adhered to in full.
Yours sincerely
Philip Buckley
Divisional Manager
Appendix 3
Incident report on Paint Spill at Wailing Woman issued by Space Bear Ltd.
Wailing Woman Incident Report 16/09/15
At approx. 15:00 the Standby Art Director started to move painting materials from a safe area
behind a rock near the set piece platform to a position further down the slope towards the
Lighthouse Road, so they would be clear for an upcoming aerial shot. All materials had been
removed safely except for 2 part filled kettles of diluted, water based emulsion paint and 2 kettles
containing texturing saw dust. The paint was picked up and placed on the broad, stable top of the
rock whilst the saw dust pots were lifted for transit. As the (far lighter) saw dust pots were lifted
onto the rock, one swung on its handle and impacted the paint containers, causing some of their
contents to be spilled over onto the adjacent rocks. There was water and a Spill Kit containing
pads, rolls and sheets of high absorbency material (previously placed here by the Locations Dept)
to hand. The Spill Kit rolls were immediately deployed to create a bund, containing and limiting the
affected area. Water was used to further dilute the paint with this solution then being thoroughly
mopped up using the Spill Kit pads & sheets. Regrettably, it is likely that some paint may have
been absorbed into the rock, although having appropriate treatment material on standby and the
quick action of crew effectively minimised this effect. The contaminated spills pads, sheets & rolls
were double bagged for off island disposal. Inspection by Simon Nobes and John Murphy
confirmed that neither any potential Petrel nesting features beneath the rocks, the local vegetation
in the form of a patch of Sea Spurrey, nor an adjacent Puffin burrow, marked by a yellow ground
tag were compromised. Further examination of the rocks showed that there was no significant
impact on the lichen resource. With the inherently mottled hued nature of the lichen covered rocks
creating a variably toned surface colouration, the visual effects of the incident are virtually
undetectable.
Rock subject to minor paint spill, post incident clear up.
Appendix 4
Incident report on minor disturbance to entrance to Upper
Monks Garden issued by Space Bear Ltd.
1
Monastery Incident Report 17/09/15
At approximately 08:45 a member of Crew snagged their right jacket sleeve on the
edge of a stone internal to the feature as they passed in a low crouch position through
the first entrance to the monastery complex. Their momentum caused the large stone
to rotate through approximately 40 degrees and move out of alignment with the
vertical elevation. This motion also drew smaller stones out of alignment from the
courses immediately above and below, ‘though to a lesser degree (see below).
A safety marshal immediately stopped any further use of the entrance and notified
Simon Nobes from the film company’s Location Dept. Recognising the potential risks
and lacking the appropriate skills, no attempt was made to effect repairs. On
attending the scene Simon Nobes discussed the situation with Bob Harris (OPW) and
under his advice it was decided to permit three crew members to pass through the
entrance to join the shooting crew already in place on the rocky outcrop above the
monastery. These individuals removed all loose clothing, hats, radios etc to create a
smooth body profile. They were then instructed to ‘crab’ through the entrance
sideways, avoid all contact with the stonework whilst facing the damaged area in order
to keep it in clear view at all times. SN denied access to one member on the grounds
of their size.
Via radio coms, OPW foreman Tom Kerrisk and stonemason Eamonn McCarthy were
asked to attend. By approximately 09:40 they fitted temporary horizontal bracing
boards and proceeded to remove loose stone for assessment (see below). Inspection
by the Production Ecologist failed to reveal any evidence of the affected area being
used by Storm Petrels.
1
2
Immediately prior to the installation of bracing boards, two key members of crew (cast
double and wardrobe assistant) were allowed to leave in the controlled manner
previously described. Meanwhile, Mally Chung (Supervising Locations Manager)
informed Grellan Rourke (OPW) of the situation and sent him photos of the scene.
Bob Harris also spoke to Grellan. Under Grellan’s instruction, relayed to Simon Nobes
by Bob Harris, no further foot traffic was permitted to pass through the entrance until
the feature had been made completely secure. By approximately 10:20 after
additional required materials had been brought up from the Lighthouse Road, the
entrance had been fitted with supporting wooden sleeving.
Under the assurance of Eamonn and Tom that with the support boarding in place, a
short delay in undertaking full repair would not be detrimental, Crew and OPW staff
(21 in total) remained in the Monks Garden area whilst a helicopter filmed a shot of a
single member of cast moving up the stairs from The Saddle towards the monastery.
By 10:58 the helicopter filming was completed and by 11:14 Crew and OPW guides
had left the monastery under the supervision and direction of Bob Harris. Larger items
of equipment were left in the monastery garden. Full repair then commenced with
Eamonn and Tom completing the work by approximately 12:45 (see below).
In conversation with Eamon and Tom it became apparent that this same area of stone
work has been subject to two similar such incidences of damage in the past 18months
which they repaired. This is the narrowest passing place on the island.
2
3
Rather than being carried, the remaining kit was then moved through the entrance by
being passed between two Sherpas. This protocol was also applied to elements of a
storm tent which was dismantled and removed from the monastery garden later in the
day.
3
Appendix 5
Report from National Parks and Wildlife Service on filming activity on
Sceilg Mhichíl in September 2015
Skelligs Islands, Co Kerry
Assessment and Report of film work September 2015
1. Background
Filming work took place on Sceilg Mhichíl in September 2015. This was carried out between the
7th September and 18th September 2015. Specifically, preparation and transport of equipment to
the island took place on 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, 13th; filming activities (both on the ground and
helicopter) took place on 15th, 16th and 17th; and removal of equipment and final inspection on
18th September.
Consent had been granted for this work by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht
further inter alia to an Ecological (including a ‘Natura screening’) Assessment.
Similar filming work was previously undertaken by the same producers on Sceilg Mhichíl in 2014
The nature, extent and logistics of the 2015 filming activities was broadly similar to what had
previously taken place in 2014. A significant difference ecologically was that the 2015 activities
took place in September, rather than July/August as in the previous year. This is a fundamental
difference from an ecological perspective as many breeding seabird species have left the island
or completed their breeding cycle by September.
Information on the project itself, and particularly on ecological issues and assessments
undertaken prior to approval being given for this project, are set out elsewhere (e.g. the
Ecological and Screening Assessment undertaken by the Department, the letter of consent (and
also the proposals and screening reports submitted by the applicants)). This document is a
report on, and assessment from the ecological perspective of, the activities carried out in
September 2015.
The proposal in terms of its design and execution incorporated many protection measures to
address ecological issues. The Department further attached conditions to the consent to ensure the
activities would not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA, nor have a significant adverse effect on
the biodiversity of the site.
2. NPWS Supervision and Monitoring of Activities
NPWS monitored all activities on the island (and inspected biosecurity arrangements, including
on the mainland). NPWS officers had the authority to halt or modify any of the filming or any
activities at any stage (this was a condition of the Consent).
Michael O’Sullivan, Declan O’Donnell, Dr David Tierney, Dr Clare Heardman and Dr Philip
Buckley of the Department’s NPWS monitored the works:
-
to ensure that the conditions and Protection Measures incorporated into the design of the
proposal and the consent granted were adhered to, and
with a view to detecting and avoiding any potential impacts on the breeding birds, their
habitats and other biodiversity of the island.
An ecologist and an ornithologist employed by the film producers were also in full-time
attendance.
On the island, the NPWS staff monitored the filming and other activities. Staff also carried out
observations on the birds. Staff ensured they were in attendance at all specific ‘filming events’.
The filming itself and other activities were scrutinised to detect and avoid any potential ecological
issues. NPWS staff undertook observations of the birds present and their responses to activities and
in particular to helicopter work.
NPWS staff who were present have submitted their own logs on what they observed. (The Film
Company has also submitted a report, including observations and data from the Consulting
Ecologist.)
3. Observations
Adherence to Protection Measures and Conditions
Staff were satisfied that the film crew and activities followed in full the ecological protection
measures and procedures as set out in proposal submitted (which in turn were cited as a
requirement in the consent granted).
Staff were also satisfied that the Conditions the Department attached to the consent were adhered
to (one condition - to have left the island by 2100 was technically over ran as the boat departed the
quay at 2110. This was of no consequence ecologically).
Observations on the ecological effects of the activities
NPWS staff closely monitored activities, including all filming events. No incidences of any adverse
effects on the birds, their habitats or other ecological interests were observed.
Observations on disturbance & the response of the birds present (including to helicopter work)
NPWS staff made specific observations of the effects and responses of the birds that were present to
the helicopter work, covering both (a) direct drop off and pick up landing flights (to and from the
helipad), and (b) filming work per se where the helicopter was either static or made slow passes off
some cliff areas. The Consultant Ecologist also provided observational data/reports on this.
Helicopter drop off and pick up landings at the helipad were observed. Small numbers of birds were
present in the vicinity (most having departed the island given the stage of the breeding cycle),
mostly Fulmars. Generally, the birds showed no observable response and did not take flight. On one
occasion, some Fulmar were seen to depart in advance of the helicopter touch down.
Most of the helicopter filming activity (‘static or passes’) was also observed by NPWS staff (and
Consultant Ecologist). Again only small numbers of birds (mostly Fulmars, a few Laridae) were
present in the vicinity of these activities. Generally the birds under observation did not take flight
nor even become agitated. On one occasion two Fulmars took flight (and returned within five
minutes), and on two other occasions, a few Fulmar assumed an ‘alert’ posture. Such behavioural
responses, and affecting such limited numbers of birds, and particularly at this time of year are of no
ecological significance.
Biosecurity
NPWS staff inspected and observed bio-security arrangements and procedures. NPWS staff were
satisfied that all bio-security protocols and procedures were followed in full.
Incidents
There were two ‘incidents’ reported. These related to spillage of a diluted water-based paint and
sleeve- snag dislodgement of stones in a Monastery gateway.
NPWS staff attended on both occasions and observed and specifically examined the areas to see if
seabirds were present or if there were any ecological issues. There were none, and both incidents
were resolved and of no ecological consequence.
4. Conclusion
There was close and continuous monitoring of these activities by NPWS personnel throughout. The
activities themselves were monitored and supervised, and observations were made of the responses
of the seabirds and any impacts on them or their habitats, or on other biodiversity.
Based upon the observations and reports of NPWS staff, and my own observations, we are satisfied
that the conditions of the consent were adhered to fully, these activities had no adverse ecological
impacts, and did not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA, nor have a significant adverse effect
on the biodiversity of the site.
Philip Buckley
15th October 2015