Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Foreshore Application

Oral Hearing - Witness Statements

rpsgroup.com

Dublin Port Company

Alexandra Basin West Redevelopment Project

Foreshore Application

Witness Statements presented at the Oral Hearing held by An Bord Pleanála from 8th to 17th October 2014

(venue of Oral Hearing – Best Western Academy Plaza, Dublin)

The following witness statements were read in at the Oral Hearing for the ABR Project held by An Bord Pleanála from 8th October to 17th October 2014. The witness statements are presented in this document in the order outlined below:

1. Dr. Alan Barr – EIS Preparation, Alternatives, Water Quality, Interactions & In-combinations Effects 2. Mr. Adrian Bell – Coastal Processes & Flooding 3. Dr. Michael Shaw – Engineering & Construction Phasing 4. Mr. Eugene McKeown – Underwater Noise 5. Mr. Stephen Cleary – Noise & Vibration 6. Ms. Celine Daly - Transportation 7. Mr. Gerard Morgan – Benthic Ecology & Fisheries 8. Mr. Richard Nairn – Birds 9. Dr. Simon Berrow – Marine Mammals 10. Mr. Donal Doyle – Contaminated Sediments – Treatment & Infilling 11. Dr. Niall Brady – Cultural Heritage 12. Mr. Chris Southgate – Conservation Strategy 13. Mr. David Dignam - Navigation 14. Mr. Michael Sheary – Community Gain 15. Mr. Michael Sheary – Financial & Corporate 16. Mr. Luis Ajamil – Cruise Aspects 17. Mr. Terry Durney – Planning Policy (including Alternatives)

STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N .PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DR. ALAN BARR

EIS PREPARATION, ALTERNATIVES, WATER QUALITY, INTERACTIONS & IN-COMBINATION EFFECTS

1 Qualifications and Experience

1.1.1 I am Dr. Alan Barr. I hold a First Class Honours Bachelor of Science degree and a PhD in Civil Engineering from Queen’s University, Belfast. My PhD was in the field of coastal hydrodynamics with a focus on renewable energy from waves.

1.1.2 I am a Chartered Engineer, Chartered Scientist and Chartered Water and Environmental Manager. I am a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers (FICE), Fellow of Engineers Ireland (FIEI) and Member of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (MCIWEM).

1.1.3 I have over 30 years’ experience of marine environmental studies associated with Port and Harbour developments and capital dredging schemes. I am currently Director for the Eastern Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management (CFRAM) Project which provides support to the OPW in making Flood Risk Management Plans for the Greater Dublin area in accordance with the requirements of the EU Floods Directive. Previously, I was a member of the National Technical Co- ordination Group established by the EPA to oversee the preparation of Ireland’s River Basin Management Plans 2009 - 2015 in accordance with the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive.

2 Involvement in the Project

2.1.1 I was responsible for the overall preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the ABR Project which was submitted as part of the application for permission to An Bord Pleanála on 6 March 2014.

2.1.2 I was also responsible for the co-ordination of environmental alternatives and their integration into the engineering design. 2.1.3 I was author of Chapter 10 of the EIS (Sections 10.1 to 10.4) related to water quality with support from colleagues Katie Smart (Chartered Environmental Scientist) and Fiona Murphy (Chemist). 2.1.4 I was also the author of Chapter 14 of the EIS – Interactions and In-Combination (Cumulative) Effects.

3 EIS Preparation

3.1.1 In accordance with established practice and guidance, the approach adopted in preparing the EIS was to firstly provide a description of the receiving environment which has the potential to be significantly affected by the proposed ABR Project. A description of the likely or probable significant effects of the proposed development on the environment was next described. This was followed by a description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and, where possible, eliminate or offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. The impact of the residual effects was then assessed. This step-wise nature of the EIS enables the competent authority, in this case An Bord Pleanála, to conduct the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This approach is consistent with the provisions of the Codified EIA Directive, Irish national law and European Commission and EPA guidelines.

3.1.2 Consultations formed a key role in formulating the scope of the EIS. Building on the extensive consultation carried out to develop the Dublin Port Company Masterplan 2012-2040, further consultation on the ABR Project was carried out during the development of this current proposal. The extent of the consultation is presented Section 2.3 of Volume 1 of the EIS.

In summary, the consultations comprised interaction with key stakeholders including Dublin City Council, National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, National Roads Authority, National Transport Authority, Department of Transport, Failte Ireland, Environmental Protection Agency and the Marine Institute.

An extensive programme of public consultation was also undertaken involving:

 Publication of a community newsletter circulated to over 40,000 homes in the areas adjacent to Dublin Port;

 Briefing local public representatives;

 Meetings with local community groups;

 Provision of a dedicated website; and

 An extensive media campaign to publicise the ABR Project which secured wide coverage in national and local print, electronic and online media outlets. 3.1.3 The scope of the EIS is presented in Section 1.5 of Volume 1 of the EIS and, for convenience, the key environmental issues identified are briefly summarised below:

 Potential impact of noise during piling operations on neighbouring communities and potential disturbance to wildlife, including birds, marine mammals and migratory fish;

 Potential impact of the removal and treatment of contaminated sediments within Alexandra Basin West on the marine environment;

 Potential impact of the capital dredging scheme on the coastal processes within Dublin Bay, it’s benthic ecology and food resource for birds and marine mammals; and

 The potential loss of infrastructure of architectural heritage importance and the potential to uncover previously unrecorded archaeological material during dredging and construction activities. All of the environmental issues identified during the scoping phase are addressed in the EIS in what is termed a “Grouped Format Structure” which examines each topic as a separate section referring to the existing environment, the proposed development, impacts and mitigation measures. The environmental issues which have potential to impact on Natura 2000 sites, notably the Rockabill to Dalkey Island candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) and the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) are addressed in the Natura Impact Statement (NIS). A summary of the mitigation measures recommended in respect of the proposed development is presented in Chapter 2 of the Draft High Level Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (which was submitted to the Board as part of the developer’s RFI response).

Consideration of Alternatives in the EIS 3.2.1 The main aim of the environmental appraisals conducted on behalf of DPC, as part of the design process, is to ensure that any potentially damaging effects are avoided or minimised and that the beneficial aspects of the project are enhanced. The best means of impact mitigation is, where possible, to avoid impacts at the planning and design phases. Reduction of potential impacts involves lessening the degree of an impact that cannot be completely avoided. Reducing the impact acknowledges that some degree of impact will arise, but provides the means by which the degree of such an impact can be ameliorated

3.2.2 The key over-arching environmental alternative in relation to the ABR project was, in light of the Board’s refusal for the Gateway project, to focus on a combination of redeveloping existing (and in some cases life-expired) infrastructure and increasing the productivity of existing port lands, as an alternative to the expansion of the Port through further infill in Dublin Bay (Section 1.2 of Volume 1 of the EIS).

3.2.3 Furthermore, in order to maximize the operational efficiency of the Port, many of the new berths proposed in the ABR Project have been designed to be multi-purpose so as to cater for the needs of a range of ship and cargo types as an alternative to, for example, dedicated berths for cruise ships.

3.2.4 Alternatives associated with the key environmental issues identified by the EIS Scoping are briefly summarised below:

 Potential impact of noise during piling operations on neighbouring communities and potential disturbance to wildlife, including birds, marine mammals and migratory fish (Chapters 5 and 7 of Volume 1 of the EIS). The environmental alternatives considered were (a) piling throughout the year, and (b) piling only at certain times of the year. The latter option was adopted and, accordingly, no piling will take place along the Liffey Channel during the three months of the year when smolts are likely to run at their highest numbers (March to May inclusive). The phasing of the works has also been designed to ensure 3

piling at Berths 52/53 takes place during the winter period when terns are not present at the nearby colony. In relation to construction activity in the vicinity of residential properties, the alternatives considered were (a) construction on a 24/7 basis, and (b) construction only within designated times. Thus, it is proposed that construction activities will occur between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 on Monday to Fridays and between 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and there will be no activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Noise levels will be kept within required threshold levels during the piling operations.

 Potential impact of the removal and treatment of contaminated sediments within Alexandra Basin West on the marine environment (Chapter 11 of Volume 1 of the EIS). The principal alternatives considered in relation to disposal of contaminated sediments were (a) disposal at sea, and (b) disposal within the Port Estate. In the event, it was decided that contaminated sediments arising within Alexandra Basin West will not be disposed of at sea. Rather, dredged material recovered from Alexandra Basin West will be treated and placed in the Berth 52/53 basin and Graving Dock #2 as a recovery activity, avoiding the necessity to use virgin materials that would otherwise be required for the development. This alternative use of contaminated dredged material represents best practice with respect to the waste management hierarchy (see Appendix 11 of Volume 2 of the EIS).

 Potential impact of the capital dredging scheme on the coastal processes within Dublin Bay, its benthic ecology and food resource for birds and marine mammals (Chapters 5 and 9 of Volume 1 of the EIS). In a similar manner to piling, the environmental alternatives considered in respect of capital dredging were (a) dredging throughout the year, and (b) dredging only at certain times of the year. The latter option was adopted and, accordingly the dredging works will be undertaken over a six year period during the winter months only (ie, October to March inclusive). The proposed dredging campaign will divide the shipping channel into six separate areas and the dredging will be confined to one of these areas each winter period. This is the also preferred alternative from a benthic and fisheries perspective and with respect to terns as they migrate away from Dublin Bay over the winter months.

 The potential loss of infrastructure of architectural heritage importance and the potential to uncover previously unrecorded archaeological material during dredging and construction activities (Chapter 12 of Volume 1 of the EIS). A conservation strategy has been developed to consider alternatives in light of the cultural heritage significance of the North Wall Quay Extension. The conservation strategy includes the incorporation of conservation zones within the quay wall design and retaining an exemplar of Bindon Blood Stoney’s foundation works for public view as part of the Port’s cultural heritage assets. The historic Graving Dock #1 will also be reinstated as part of the ABR Project. The obvious alternative was to remove the existing North Wall Quay infrastructure and construct an entirely new quay wall. However, for reasons of conservation, this latter alternative was not pursued. Rather, DPC is proposing to retain the existing

quay wall, with certain enhancements from a conservation perspective in a number of locations.

Conclusions of the EIS - Water Quality 3.3.1 A desk-based assessment of surface water quality in the vicinity of the proposed works was conducted using extensive data collated by the EPA for the purposes of water quality reporting under the EU Water Framework Directive.

3.3.2 The works are located within two water bodies: ‘Liffey Estuary Lower’ transitional water body and ‘Dublin Bay’ coastal water body. These water bodies are within the Eastern River Basin District (ERBD).

3.3.3 The available monitoring information for these water bodies indicates that the overall WFD status of the water bodies is ‘moderate’ against a target of ‘good’ primarily due to elevated levels of Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN). The general trend is however of improving water quality most likely as a result of upgraded levels of waste water treatment in the area.

Construction Phase

3.3.4 The ABR Project has been designed to minimize the impact on the receiving water environment.

3.3.5 The redevelopment of Alexandra Basin West will include construction of new quays and jetties and capital dredging to deepen the basin to achieve a depth of -10m CD. The dredging will involve removal of circa 0.47 million cubic metres of mainly silty material from the Alexandra Basin West.

3.3.6 A suite of sampling and environmental testing has been undertaken to quantify and identify the nature of the contamination within the bed materials of Alexandra Basin West. The location of the sediment samples and the determinands to be tested were specified by the Marine Institute. This material is unsuitable for disposal at sea.

3.3.7 Dredging operations have been designed to minimise the disturbance and escape of this material at the seabed and during removal through the water column. A floating pontoon with an excavator mounted clamshell bucket adapted for environmental dredging will be used. A silt curtain will also be placed around the dredger as a further measure to contain the marine sediments. This method of dredging will serve to minimize the spread of suspended contaminated sediments beyond the dredge foot print.

3.3.8 The dredged material recovered from Alexandra Basin West will be transported by barge to a treatment facility adjacent to Berth 52/53. It will be stabilised and modified to improve the engineering properties of the material to allow its re-use as fill material. In order to minimise the stockpiling of dredged material, the rate of dredging will be determined by the rate of treatment of the dredged material. The treatment process is addressed in Section 11.2.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS and in Appendix 11 of Volume 2 of the EIS.

3.3.9 Capital dredging of the Dublin Port’s navigation channel is required to achieve a design depth of -10m CD. The sediment quality of this material has been tested and found to be suitable for disposal at sea (subject to the granting of a Dumping at Sea

Permit by the EPA). Again, the location of the sediment samples and the determinands to be tested were specified by the Marine Institute.

3.3.10 Model simulations were undertaken to determine the impact of increased suspended sediment levels due to dredging and deposition of the dredge spoil and sedimentation due to the settling of the sediments on the seabed. The dredging, disposal, dispersion and fate of dredged sediments are addressed in Section 9.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS.

3.3.11 The risk of water quality impacts associated with works machinery, infrastructure and on-land operations (for example leakages /spillages of fuels, oils, other chemicals and waste water) will be controlled through good site management and the adherence to codes and practices which limit the risk to within acceptable levels. These are described in Section 10.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS and Chapter 3 of the Draft High Level CEMP. A Draft Water Quality Management Plan is also appended to my witness statement.

Operational Phase

3.3.12 The new port facilities, when complete, will be subject to Dublin Port Company’s existing Environmental Management Plan. Dublin Port is accredited to ISO 14001 standard to ensure that operations are undertaken with due consideration for the environment and that guidance is given to tenants to promote the principles of sustainability.

3.3.13 Moreover, Dublin Port has been designated an ‘Ecoport’ at European level, in relation to its environmental management system. Dublin Port’s Environmental Management Plan does not permit any discharges from vessels using the port, or travelling through Dublin Bay, to the receiving waters.

3.3.14 Dublin Port Company also maintains and operates an emergency management plan and has the emergency management structures and arrangements in place which are compatible with the requirements of the 2006 Framework for Major Emergency Management. These include procedures for dealing with, amongst others, potential oil spills and spills of hazardous material. Training of staff and exercises are undertaken in line with best practice.

Mitigation and Residual Impact

3.3.15 The detailed mitigation measures set out in Section 10.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS adhere to best practice during both the construction and operational phases of the ABR Project, in addition to a programme of environmental monitoring to ensure the efficacy of those mitigation measures. These measures are also presented in Chapter 3 of the Draft High Level CEMP and the Draft Water Quality Management Plan appended to my witness statement.

3.3.16 Provided the appropriate mitigation measures are fully implemented during the construction and operational phases, the impact of the proposed development on the water quality in the area will be neutral to minor.

3.3.17 The ABR Project will not have a significant impact on the water quality of the receiving waters or make a significant change to the existing morphology. It can therefore be concluded that the proposed works are compliant with the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive.

Conclusions of the EIS - Interactions and In-Combination Effects

3.4.1 The interactions between the various potential impacts arising from the proposed development, and in-combination effects with other plans or programmes, are presented in Chapter 14 of Volume 1 of the EIS. Interaction between the environmental experts who have undertaken the various environmental impact appraisals has occurred on a continual basis throughout the preparation of the EIS. This has enabled the environmental evaluation of each topic to take into consideration the issues associated with all other topics and to develop mitigation measures to eliminate the risk of potential impact or to reduce the potential risk to an acceptable level.

3.4.2 Interaction has also taken place between the environmental experts and the engineering design team on a continual basis in order to integrate the environmental mitigation measures with the engineering design of the project.

3.4.3 In addition, there was an appraisal of other projects, plans or programmes in the general vicinity of the ABR Project, in order to assess in-combination effects / cumulative impacts. Of note, the evaluation of in-combination effects includes the proposed Dublin Eastern Bypass, the proposed Dublin Array (offshore wind farm), the proposed Ringsend Waste Water Treatment Plant upgrade including a proposed 9km long sea outfall, the proposed Poolbeg Waste to Energy Plant and ESB’s proposed 220kV replacement cable crossing of the River Liffey. The key points are summarized below:

Dublin Eastern By-pass The Dublin Eastern By-pass concept is a possible future urban motorway to connect the existing Dublin Port Tunnel to the M50 in the Sandyford area to achieve an orbital road network around Dublin.

Previous suggested alignments for the Dublin Eastern By-pass route have intersected with the Dublin Port area. Therefore, in preparing the ABR application, Dublin Port Company consulted with the relevant stakeholders, including the National Roads Authority (NRA) and Dublin City Council (DCC). This process has enabled the ABR Project to be designed to ensure it will not compromise any potential corridor running along the port boundary in line with the existing East Quay Wall and the East-Link Bridge. Indeed, a 55m exclusion zone along the North Wall Quay Extension from the East Link Bridge has been incorporated into the design of the ABR Project.

It is clear that, as set out in the NRA’s most recent corridor study (September 2014), the protected corridor for Section A of the Dublin Eastern Bypass between the North Port Junction and the Poolbeg Peninsula was reviewed and, following further consultations with Dublin City Council and Dublin Port Company, one of the two previously protected corridors has been deleted and a revised single corridor that can accommodate a range of potential alignment options has been identified, which facilitates the provision of a reservation to the west of the location of the ABR Project within an ascertained corridor.

Accordingly, given the location of the revised corridor to the west of the location of the ABR Project and the fact that the construction of the ABR and potential Eastern Dublin Bypass will not overlap, there is no potential for significant cumulative impacts between the two developments.

Dublin Array This proposed development comprises the construction of up to 145 offshore wind turbines, each with a hub height of 100m, on the Kish and Bray Banks (see In- combination Constraints Map of Dublin Bay, Appendix 1 of this witness statement). It is proposed that the offshore wind farm would be connected to the national grid via a subsea cable running to a proposed connection point on land in the vicinity of Carrickmines. The Kish and Bray Banks lie to the south-east of Dublin Bay and seaward of the Rockabill to Dalkey Island candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC). The route of the proposed subsea cable lies to the south of Dublin City and Dun Laoghaire.

The cumulative impact of this development is assessed in Section 3.5 of the NIS. The key issue is the potential cumulative impact of the ABR Project and noise generated from piling the foundations of the wind turbines in relatively deep water with respect to the qualifying interests of the cSAC, that is, harbour porpoise. The underwater noise assessment presented in Appendix A of the response to the RFI demonstrates that the ABR Project will have no significant impact on underwater noise within the Rockabill to Dalkey cSAC and it can therefore be concluded that there will be no cumulative noise impact.

Ringsend Waste Water Treatment Plant upgrade including a proposed 9km long sea outfall

The construction of a proposed 9km long sea outfall associated with the Ringsend Waste Water Treatment Plant was considered to have the potential of in-combination effects with the ABR Project (see In-combination Constraints Map of Dublin Bay, Appendix 1 of this witness statement).

It is proposed that the long sea outfall will be constructed by boring a tunnel through rock underlying Dublin Bay. A vertical shaft will then be constructed with a diffuser unit to transfer treated waste water from Ringsend Waste Water Treatment Plant to the receiving waters of Dublin Bay. The implications of the of the ABR Project on the Dublin Sewage Outfall discharge plume was assessed and found to have no perceptible impact (see response to Issue 10.4 in the Response to the Request for Further Information). A further potential issue considered was the potential cumulative impact of the ABR Project and noise generated from the construction of the long sea outfall’s diffuser unit which lies within the Rockabill to Dalkey cSAC in relatively deep water. Again, the underwater noise assessment presented in Appendix A of the response to the RFI demonstrates that the ABR Project will have no significant impact on underwater noise within the cSAC and it can therefore be concluded that there will be no cumulative noise impact.

Dublin City Council lodged an application for a Dumping at Sea Permit for the waste arising from the outfall with the EPA but it was subsequently withdrawn. It was therefore not possible to assess the cumulative impact at the proposed offshore disposal site. The EPA confirmed that potential in-combination effects associated with offshore disposal should be limited to ‘live’ applications.

Irish Water released a statement on 12 May 2014 to confirm that the proposed Ringsend long sea outfall was cancelled. An article published in the Irish Times on 12th May 2014 is presented in Appendix F2 of the Response to the RFI. Poolbeg Waste to Energy Plant The proposed Waste to Energy Plant is located on land located on the Poolbeg peninsula. There is, however, a cooling water system associated with the plant. Both the proposed cooling water intake and outlet are located within River Liffey estuary to the south of the Port’s navigation channel. The cooling water system will result in a localised increase in temperature of the receiving waters. The capital dredging scheme is not expected to significantly alter the flow characteristics at the location of the outfall. The in-combination effect of the thermal plume and the capital dredging scheme is therefore expected to be imperceptible.

The potential for cumulative air quality impacts from the shipping operations in combination with emissions from the planned Waste to Energy facility in Poolbeg have also been examined. Potential cumulative emissions including the ambient background, the maximum emissions from the Waste to Energy Plant and the shipping emissions are predicted to be below the relevant limits for the protection of human health and the cumulative impact is therefore not expected to be significant.

ESB 220kV replacement cable crossing of the River Liffey The ABR Project requires the demolition of the end of the North Wall Quay Extension. This in turn will require the diversion of existing services from the area of quay to be demolished including a 220kV cable crossing of the River Liffey. Discussions among ESB, Eirgrid and Dublin Port Company have concluded that the laying of the replacement 220kV cable will be a separate ESB Project.

An indicative route for the replacement 220kV cable has been agreed among the parties. This is indicated in ESB’s submission to the Board of 7 May 2014. The proposed route lies entirely within the Dublin Port Estate. To ensure no disruption to the electricity usage of the existing cable, the replacement cable will need to be in place prior to the demolition of the end of the North Wall Quay Extension which is programmed to commence mid 2018.

The specific, nature, extent, location and construction methodology of the 220kV replacement cable has yet to be confirmed and will be the subject of separate future applications for development consent. It is therefore not possible for the potential cumulative impact of the proposed development and the separate associated cable crossing development to be established and quantified at this time. Discussions between ESB, Eirgrid and Dublin Port Company have nevertheless concluded that the probable solution will be to replace the cable by running new cables through bedrock underneath the River Liffey. This provided sufficient information for a high level in-combination assessment to be undertaken. The construction of a new cable crossing through bedrock underneath the River Liffey will require the use of directional drilling technology. A boring rig will most likely be established within the Dublin Port Estate on the northern side of the River Liffey and an interceptor shaft constructed at Poolbeg. A small bored tunnel within the rock which underlies the site is then constructed. A heavy drilling mud such as bentonite is normally used to keep the small bored tunnel open until the cable is winched through to complete the crossing. The boring of the small diameter tunnel and winching of the 9

cable is not expected to take more than one week to complete, excluding site preparation works. By using this construction technique, no dredging of the Liffey Channel is required and the replacement cable will be at a much greater depth compared to the -10m CD dredged depth of the navigation channel proposed by the ABR Project. No significant in-combination affects are therefore anticipated. 3.4.4 A Draft High Level Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) was submitted as part of the Applicant’s response to the Request for Further Information (RFI) on 18 August 2014. The objective of the CEMP is to capture all mitigation measures and standards, as set out in the EIS and NIS, together with any conditions imposed by An Bord Pleanála. The CEMP will form part of the specification of the Contract Documents for the construction phase making adherence to the mitigation measures binding on the Contractor.

4 Submissions and Responses (Water Quality)

In preparing this witness statement, I have considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the appraisal of water quality impacts undertaken in respect of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project. I have addressed each submission or observation in turn below, before providing my response to the essential point being made.

4.1 Dublin Bay Watch

Submission

Dublin Bay Watch has expressed a concern with respect to the environmental impact caused by the release of contaminants from the seabed.

Response

Firstly, it should be clarified that sediments currently contained within the Alexandra Basin West are contaminated and therefore are not suitable for disposal at sea. The quantity to be dredged to achieve the design dredged depth is circa 470,000 m3. These sediments were assessed with regard to their suitability for use as fill material. Best practice industry techniques will be used to treat the contaminated material as described in Section 11.2.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS and in Appendix 11 of Volume 2 of the EIS. Ex-situ Stabilisation/Solidification (S/S) is proposed for the treatment of the contaminated material. This method produces a high strength monolith-like product that physically reduces the mobility and chemically binds contaminants to the produced matrix. This treated mass can then be recovered / recycled to serve as infill material or for beneficial reuse. It is proposed to use this treated material to infill the Berth 52/53 basin and Graving Dock #2. The treatment and recovery of the contaminated marine sediments within Alexandra Basin West will be undertaken in accordance to the conditions of an Industrial Emissions Licence to be obtained from the EPA.

The proposed capital dredging of the Navigation Channel will result in 5,900,000 m3 of dredged material, which has been tested for a range of determinands specified by the Marine Institute. The results of the sediment sampling and analysis programme show that the sediments within the navigation channel are suitable for disposal at sea. This means that the dredged sediments have been proven to have no significant eco-toxicological effect on 10

the marine environment. There is, however, an area immediately adjacent to Alexandra Basin West where low levels of contamination have been identified requiring this material to be disposed of at sea only on a slack tide and immediately covered by sand or gravel. It is proposed to dispose of this category of marine sediments at the licenced sea disposal site located to the west of the Burford Bank. The dredging and disposal of these marine sediments will take place in accordance to the conditions of a Dumping at Sea Permit to be obtained from the EPA. The Dumping at Sea Permit application will be supported by the same EIS submitted to the Board for the current application. The environmental assessment of the dumping at sea operations is presented in Chapter 5 and Chapter 9 of Volume 1 of the EIS.

4.2 Contarf Residents Association

Submission

The Contarf Residents Association has expressed a concern as to the environmental impact of contaminants.

Response

This issue was also raised by Dublin Bay Watch and the response is set out in Section 4.1 above.

4.3 Sandymount & Merrion Residents Association

Submission

The Sandymount & Merrion Residents Association suggest that there may be a possible increase in the growth of algae due to the suspended silt.

Response

The sediments which make up the seabed within Dublin Bay are primarily fine sands and will quickly drop back to the seabed if disturbed by dredging. The origin of the dredged silts is primarily from the inner navigation channel, which will be disposed of at sea at the licensed offshore disposal site located to the west of the Burford Bank. The tidal flow characteristics at this location are such that silts are dispersed by the tidal currents, generally in a north- south direction. The dredging, disposal, dispersion and fate of dredged sediments are addressed in the witness statement of Adrian Bell.

The eutrophication process within Dublin Bay is well documented, of note is the paper ‘Impact of the River Liffey discharge on nutrient and chlorophyll concentrations in the Liffey estuary and Dublin Bay (Irish Sea) by T.G. O’Higgins and J.G. Wilson. This paper concludes that in the Bay proper (location of offshore disposal site), summer nutrient concentrations drop below detection limits, and chlorophyll a concentrations (indicator of algal growth) follow the classical pattern with a spring bloom maximum of circa 5.5 milligrams of chlorophyll a per cubic metre. These patterns in nutrient and chlorophyll a fluxes come from an advection of waters into the Bay from the Irish Sea.

Overall, outer Dublin Bay shows little biological response to nutrient loading. The disposal of dredged silts at the offshore disposal will therefore not give rise to any perceptible increase in algal growth.

Within the River Liffey Channel, any nutrients arising from suspended sediments due to dredging will be imperceptible compared to the existing loading from the River Liffey and 11

Ringsend Waste Water Treatment Plant.

In addition, the dredging of the Navigation Channel will only take place during the winter months when algal activity is at a minimum.

4.4 Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) Submission

DAHG in their submission of 24 September 2014 notes that the applicant proposes to further develop a Water Quality Management Plan and advises that this Plan must be sufficiently well-developed and finalised to allow for its analysis and consideration by the Board in its appropriate assessment of the application.

Response

The Draft Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is appended to this witness statement (see Appendix 2). The Draft WQMP forms an element of the CEMP. Its primary purpose is to ensure that the mitigation measures specified in Chapter 10 of Volume 1 of the EIS are adhered to and that a monitoring regime is put in place to further safeguard the receiving water environment. The Draft WQMP will take on board any conditions imposed by the Board, should planning permission be granted, for it to be finalised.

5 Submissions and Responses (Interactions and In-Combination Effects)

5.1 Drogheda Port Company (submission by Brady Shipman Martin)

Submission

In its submission on the application, Drogheda Port Company states its concern that the basin and berthing pockets of the redeveloped Alexandra Basin West and Berths 52/53 will be dredged to -10m CD but they are designed to be dredged to a future level of -15m CD. Drogheda Port Company also submits that the consideration of the extensive dredging required to both deepen the berth and the likely further dredging of the channel to efficiently accommodate larger vessels has not been considered in this application although it is stated by Brady Shipman Martin that Dublin Port Company is seeking approval for development to facilitate this.

The submission later continues that the cumulative effect of this level of dredging, and the continuous maintenance dredging, that would be required is very considerable and the environmental impact of this has not been assessed.

Response

The ABR Project has been designed to future-proof the operations of Dublin Port, given the strategic importance of Dublin Port and its infrastructural assets. The level of the new quays and berths has been designed to accommodate predicted increases in water level by the year 2100 as a result of climate change (Section 10.5 of Volume 1 of the EIS). The piles used to form the quay walls have been designed, with appropriate corrosion allowance incorporated into the design of the piles and a suitable maintenance regime, for a lifespan of over 50 years. 12

The pile lengths have been designed to accommodate potential future dredging of the berthing pockets, up to -15m CD. Given the cost of piling, it was considered prudent to sink the piles to this depth in order to facilitate future deeper berths. This was considered sensible in order to avoid further piling in the event that a decision is made in the future to dredge to -15m CD and the submitted EIS and NIS address the issue of piling in this context. However, it should be clarified that it is not proposed to dredge below -10m CD at this time and it is not known at this stage whether future dredging of the berths to -15m CD will be required. If and when dredging to a depth below -10m CD is required, then an application will be made for all required development consents at that time.

DPC’s approach to future proofing is similar now to that proposed in a previous application to An Bord Pleanála (PL29N.PA0007). The inspector’s report on that particular application noted in Section 10.1.2.5 that: Building in a design flexibility to allow for possible future deepening, subject to market requirements, and which would also be subject to further appropriate statutory consents, is, in my view, a perfectly reasonable way to proceed. In this regard I am also satisfied that there is no issue of project-splitting involved. DPC believes that this approach remains appropriate in the context of the ABR Project. An analysis of the size of ships across all modes was undertaken to allow Dublin Port Company to take a view on the reasonable maximum size ship that the Port should cater for in the coming decades (Section 1.2 of Volume 1 of the EIS). The results of this analysis show that there is no intention or requirement to dredge the navigation channel deeper than -10m CD for the foreseeable future. The cumulative impact of dredging to -15m CD is therefore not a realistic consideration at this stage. The Masterplan does, however, state that future capital dredging of the Port’s approach channel from -10m CD to -12m CD may take place within the lifespan of the Masterplan (prior to 2040). This will only be needed should there be a further significant increase in the draughts of ships calling to Dublin. Any future capital dredging works to -12m CD would constitute a major new project and would be the subject of development consent applications which would include the submission of an EIS and NIS which would address the cumulative impacts which may then arise. In terms of maintenance dredging requirements, the impact of the proposed capital dredging scheme to -10m CD on the sediment transport regime and morphological stability of the navigation channel was appraised using computational modelling (Section 9.8 of Volume 1 of the EIS). The results of this analysis show that the new navigation channel will require maintenance dredging of a similar magnitude to that required with the existing channel (see response to Issue 14.4 of the response to the RFI).

5.2 Sandymount & Merrion Residents Association

Submission

Sandymount & Merrion Residents Association submit that the ABR application should be viewed in the context of the combined effects it would have on the marine environment over

both the short and long term if other proposed works such as the 9km sewage tunnel, the Poolbeg incinerator and the possible Kish/Bray bank wind farm in Dublin Bay also proceed. Response These projects were appraised during the preparation of the EIS and screened out as having no in-combination (cumulative) effect with the ABR Project. A summary of the key points arising from the in-combination assessments are presented under Section 3.4.3 of this witness Statement. A figure showing the location of these proposed developments is also presented in Appendix 1 of this witness statement.

5.3 Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) Submission

DAHG make reference to the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and state that it is the view of the Department that it is not possible to adequately assess the impact of the project without knowing the minimum standards and mitigation measures that will be in any construction methodology or similar types of plan. Such a plan should include the mitigation measures in the EIS for the natural heritage. Response The objective of the CEMP is, among other things, to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures and standards, as set out in the EIS. The schedule of the environmental commitments made within the EIS will form the most significant component of the CEMP. A Draft High Level CEMP was submitted as an integral part of the response to the Request for Further Information (RFI) on 18 August 2014. It should be clarified that it is not intended that the CEMP will modify mitigation measures as set out in the EIS nor introduce new mitigation measures, with the exception of measures required by specific conditions attached by An Bord Pleanála. Rather, the CEMP will provide a plan or mechanism for the practical implementation of the mitigation measures and development proposals to best practice industry techniques as described in Chapter 3 of the Draft High Level CEMP. The CEMP will form part of the specification of the Contract Documents for the construction phase making adherence to the mitigation measures binding on the Contractor.

5.4 Dublin City Council Submission

The Planning Report submitted by Dublin City Council questions how the mitigation measures identified in the NIS are included in the application process.

Response

The mitigation measures specified in the NIS are also specified in Chapter 5 of Volume 1 of the EIS and are, therefore, included twice in the application process. The implementation of the mitigation measures will be carried through to the CEMP, which will form part of the specification of the Contract Documents for the construction phase making adherence to the 14

mitigation measures binding on the Contractor. A summary of the mitigation measures are again presented in the Draft High Level CEMP.

For example, the mitigation measures with respect to Marine Mammals presented in Section 3.4.3 of the NIS are also specified in Section 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS. Further elaboration of the mitigation measures are presented in Section C of the Response to the RFI. The marine mammal mitigation measures are again presented in Section 2.1 – 2.2 and Section 3.3.6 of the Draft High Level CEMP.

6. Conclusions

In summary, due consideration was given to all concerns raised by the submissions during the preparation of the EIS. Appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed to ensure that residual impacts during both the construction and operational phases of the ABR Project pose no significant risk to the receiving environment.

Conclusions - EIS Preparation

The approach adopted in preparing the EIS is consistent with the provisions of the Codified EIA Directive, Irish national law and European Commission and EPA guidelines.

Conclusions – Consideration of Alternatives in the EIS

The environmental options selected from the range of alternatives considered have fed directly into the design process of the ABR Project and have played a key role of ensuring sustainable development. Mitigation by avoidance has been adopted where practical to do so.

Conclusions - Water Quality

Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIS, NIS and other application documentation (and summarized in the Draft High Level CEMP) will ensure that the ABR Project will have no significant impact on the water quality of the receiving waters or make a significant change to the existing morphology. The evaluation set out in the EIS therefore concludes that the proposed works are compliant with the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive. Conclusions - Interactions and In-Combination Effects

Interaction between the environmental experts who have undertaken the environmental impact appraisals of aspects of the ABR project has taken place on a continual basis throughout the preparation of the EIS. This has enabled the environmental assessment of each topic to take into consideration the issues associated with all other topics and to develop appropriate mitigation measures to eliminate the risk of potential impact or to reduce the potential risk to an acceptable level. Interaction has also taken place between the environmental experts and the engineering design team on a continual basis in order to integrate the environmental mitigation measures with the engineering design of the project. Each environmental topic has also taken into consideration other proposed projects, plans or programmes in order to assess the potential in-combination (or cumulative impacts) of those other projects, plans and programmes.

The EIS was prepared over a one-year period, during which time extensive baseline surveys were undertaken. The EIS also benefited from earlier work undertaken for the Port’s Masterplan and associated Strategic Environmental Assessment, as well as the assessments undertaken as part of the previous (2009) Dublin Gateway Planning Application. Having recognised the significant levels of public concern about the expansion of the Port through further infill in Dublin Bay, the ABR Project focuses on a combination of redeveloping existing (and in some cases life-expired) infrastructure and increasing the productivity of existing port lands. To maximize the operational efficiency of the Port, many of the new berths proposed in the ABR Project have been designed to be multi-purpose to cater for the needs of a range of ship and cargo types. The environmental appraisals presented within the EIS and NIS of this current approach to port planning by Dublin Port Company support the conclusion that the ABR Project represents sustainable development.

APPENDIX 1

In-combination Constraints Map of Dublin Bay

Appendix 1

Irish Times Article re Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant Tunnel

APPENDIX 2

Draft Water Quality Management Plan

1.0 CONTEXT

A Draft High Level Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) was submitted as part of the Applicant’s response to the Request for Further Information (RFI) on 18 August 2014. The measures set out in the Draft High Level CEMP will be implemented in the final CEMP, which is prepared by the contractor engaged by DPC to construct the ABR Development, should planning permission be granted by An Bord Pleanála. Thus the objective of the CEMP is, among other things, to capture all mitigation measures and standards, as set out in the EIS and NIS, together with any conditions imposed by An Bord Pleanála. The CEMP will form part of the specification of the Contract Documents for the construction phase making adherence to the mitigation measures binding on the contractor.

This Draft Water Quality Management Plan forms an element of the CEMP. Its primary purpose is to ensure that the mitigation measures specified in Chapter 10 of Volume 1 of the EIS are adhered to and that a monitoring regime is put in place to confirm the efficacy of the mitigation measures implemented so as to further safeguard the receiving water environment.

2.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Construction phase impacts

Temporary impacts on water quality have the potential to occur during the construction phase of the works. Pollution from mobilised suspended sediment is the prime concern.

 Increased suspended sediment levels due to dredging and deposition of dredge spoil;

 Sedimentation due to settling of suspended silt;

 The dispersal and fate of contaminated sediments; and

 Water quality impacts associated with works machinery, infrastructure and on-land operations (for example leakages /spillages of fuels, oils, other chemicals and waste water, controlled discharges under licence).

Operational phase impacts

Operational phase impacts are associated with normal port operations whilst dealing with continued growth. These include potential impacts from:

 Discharges from vessels using the port (ballast water, wastewater, oil spillages, fuel bunkering);

 Discharges from cargo handling (leakages from containers, bulk material spillages, losses from conveyor systems); and

 Discharges from cargo storage areas and onward transportation (losses from hoppers, flat bulk stores and HGVs).

Any of these activities have the potential to impact on water quality (and associated species and habitats) and therefore the activities associated with the construction and operation phases of the development require mitigation.

Impact matrix The potential impacts described above are rated in accordance to their degree of impact (major, moderate, minor and neutral) in the absence of any mitigation (see Table 10.3 below which has been extracted from Chapter 10 of Volume 1 of the EIS). The assessment of these potential impacts is presented in Chapter 10 of Volume 1 of the EIS.

Table 10.3 Impact matrix (in the absence of mitigation)

(extracted from Chapter 10 of the EIS)

Navigation Alexandra Basin Navigation Channel Redevelopment Channel ( Alexandra (Bull Wall to Basin West to Dublin Bay Bull Wall) Buoy) Construction phase Suspended sediments Major Major Moderate Sedimentation Major Major Moderate Pollution from contaminated sediment Moderate Major Minor Other water quality issues associated Moderate Moderate Minor with construction works Operational Phase Suspended sediments Neutral Neutral Neutral (except for (except for (except for maintenance maintenance maintenance dredging) dredging) dredging) Sedimentation Neutral Neutral Neutral (except for (except for (except for 19

maintenance maintenance maintenance dredging) dredging) dredging) Pollution from contaminated sediment Neutral Neutral Neutral (except for (except for maintenance maintenance dredging) dredging) Other water quality issues associated Neutral Neutral Neutral with construction works Discharges from vessels using the port Minor Minor Minor Discharges from cargo handling Neutral Moderate Neutral Discharges from cargo storage areas and Neutral Minor Neutral onward transportation

3.0 ADHERANCE TO MITIGATION MEASURES

Construction phase impacts

A suite of measures has been designed and proposed by DPC in order to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed development on water quality, and will be implemented by the contractor (as specified in Chapter 10 of Volume 1 of the EIS) in order to comply with the requirements for best practice and adherence to relevant Irish guidelines, or international guidelines where these are not available:

 Good practice guidelines on the control of water pollution from construction sites developed by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA, 2001);

 Pollution prevention guidelines in relation to a variety of activities developed by the Environment Agency (EA), the Scottish Environmental Agency (SEPA) and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA);

 Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG6);

 Fisheries Guidelines for Local Authority Works. Department of Communications, Marine & Natural Resources, Dublin, (Anonymous, 1998);

 Guidelines on protection of fisheries habitats during construction projects (Eastern Regional Fisheries Board, 2006);

 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL) for domestic waste discharges to the environment;

 International Marine Organisation guidelines; and

 Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Handling of Hazardous Materials.

Operational phase impacts

The new port facilities, when complete, will be subject to the Port’s existing Environmental Management Plan. Dublin Port is accredited to ISO 14001 to ensure that all employees undertake their work with due consideration for the environment and that guidance is given to tenants to promote the principles of sustainability. Dublin Port has been designated an ‘Ecoport’ at European level, in relation to its environmental management system.

Dublin Port’s Environmental Management Plan does not permit any discharges from vessels using the port, or travelling through Dublin Bay, to the receiving waters. In particular, the following must be adhered to with respect to vessels at berth or travelling through Dublin Bay:

 No waste shall be disposed of at sea;

 Ballast water shall be treated in accordance with MARPOL standards;

 Ballast tanks shall be separate from hydrocarbon storage areas and no potentially contaminated streams shall be diverted to the ballast tanks;

 De-ballasting shall be undertaken offshore in accordance with IMO guidelines;

 Hazardous wastes shall be stored in sealed, labelled drums in locked chemical cabinets;

 Vessels shall be equipped with oil-water separation systems in accordance with MARPOL requirements;

 Spills on deck shall be contained and controlled using absorbing materials;

 Vessels without sewage treatment systems shall have suitable holding tanks and will bring waste onshore for treatment by licensed contractors;

 All chemicals used on-board shall be handled in compliance with COSHH instructions on handling hazardous materials;

 Chemicals shall be stored appropriately in suitably bunded areas and with material safety data sheets; and

 All waste discharges shall be monitored and recorded as per vessel procedures.

Dublin Port Company also maintains and operates an emergency management plan and has the emergency management structures and arrangements in place which are compatible with the requirements of the 2006 Framework for Major Emergency Management. These include procedures for dealing with, amongst others:

 A major oil spill from a vessel, jetty or on land including storage areas;

 A major spill of hazardous material from a vessel, jetty or on land including storage areas; and

 Vehicle accidents involving hazardous material.

Training of staff and exercises will continue to be undertaken in line with best practice.

4.0 RESIDUAL IMPACTS

With full adherence to the mitigation measures specified above, during both the construction and operational phases, the residual impact of the proposed development on the water quality in the area will be neutral to minor (as indicated in Table 10.4 of Chapter 10 of Volume 1 of the EIS).

5.0 DRAFT CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMME

A Draft Construction Environmental Monitoring Programme has been prepared to provide additional safeguards in respect of the receiving water environment during the construction phase of the works. The implementation of a monitoring regime will facilitate the policing of contractor’s activity on site with respect to environmental practices. A combination of water quality monitoring and regular environmental audits will provide an indication of which, if any, practices require modification and to provide early warning of any unforeseen incidents. The management of the environmental monitoring programme will fall under the remit of the Environmental Clerk of Works (EnCoW), who is independent of the Contractor. The EnCoW will provide reports to the relevant authorities as required and will also submit copies of those reports to the liaison group as described in Section 3.1 of the Draft High Level CEMP.

Monitoring Programme Design

The monitoring system has been designed to ensure robust protection is afforded to the assets of the users of the River Liffey Channel, notably the intakes of power stations, as well as Natura 2000 sites, notably the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) (Site Code 004024).

It is proposed to use three monitoring stations at locations indicated in Figure A2.1.

Figure A2.1 Location of Monitoring Stations

Monitoring Station 1 This monitoring station will be sited in the River Liffey Channel upstream of the works.

Monitoring Station 2 This monitoring station will be sited along the southern edge of the River Liffey Channel in close proximity to a power station intake.

Monitoring Station 3 This monitoring station will be sited along the northern edge of the River Liffey Channel, outside but within close proximity to, the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka SPA.

The location of the monitoring stations can be moved during the construction phase of the works, with the agreement of Dublin City Council, depending on the construction activities taking place at the time.

Monitoring System Specification

The specification is based on state of the art 24/7 real time monitoring. Water quality monitoring sensors, giving high resolution data with respect to the following parameters will be used at each of the three monitoring locations

- Turbidity - Dissolved Oxygen - Temperature - Salinity

Turbidity is measured as a surrogate for suspended solids. Site specific tests will be undertaken to define the relationship between Turbidity and suspended solids. Suitable housing and moorings will be used, designed for the marine conditions at the monitoring locations. A data acquisition and transfer system will be used to enable the transmission of high resolution data at 10-15 minute intervals.

A calibration and maintenance programme will be put in place comprising: - Regular calibration of sensors - Regular maintenance of sensors (including cleaning) - Maintain Data Quality Control - Provision of replacements if required

A data storage, interrogation and advanced warning system will be put in place comprising - Provision of Data Server - Web site for access to data - Suitable Software to interrogate data - Automatic warning system (e.g. message to mobile phone)

Duration of Monitoring Programme

The monitoring programme will be established at least one month prior to commencement of the works associated with the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment and continue for the duration of the construction works.

Automatic Warning System

The system will be designed to automatically send text messages to the mobile phones of the ENCoW, Contractor and the Resident Engineer to alert them that a pre-determined trigger level has been breached. This early warning system will enable the responsible parties to quickly determine the cause of the breach and to take appropriate action, including the temporary cessation of the works where appropriate. The following trigger levels are proposed:

- Dissolved Oxygen level falling below 6 mg/l - Peak Suspended Solids level rising above 100mg/l above background

The Dissolved Oxygen trigger level has been selected to safeguard fish-life. The Suspended Solids trigger level has been selected based on the results of the computational modelling work presented in Chapter 9 of Volume 1 of the EIS. The monitoring stations will be relocated when the dredging works are being undertaken within 150m of the dredger. The trigger levels can be varied, with the agreement of Dublin City Council, depending on the nature of the construction works at the time.

Example of Similar Monitoring System - Mulroy Bay Bridge Crossing A similar real time water quality monitoring programme was used to monitor the construction of the Mulroy Bay Bridge connecting the Fanad and Rosguill peninsulas in County Donegal. The need for the real time monitoring system was driven by the sensitivities of Mulroy Bay which is designated as a European Natura 2000 site (candidate Special Area of Conservation [cSAC]) under the Habitats Directive and as a Shellfish Water under the Shellfish Directive. A typical monitoring station used is shown in Plate A2.1.

Plate A2.1 Monitoring Buoy System deployed at Mulroy Bay

STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N .PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

WITNESS STATEMENT OF ADRIAN BELL

COASTAL PROCESSES AND FLOODING

1 Qualifications and Experience

1.1.1 I am Adrian Bell. I hold a 1st Class Honours BSc in civil engineering from the University of Glasgow, I am a Fellow of The Irish Academy of Engineering, a Fellow of Engineers Ireland and have more than 35 years experience in the fields of maritime engineering and marine environmental modelling.

1.1.2 I have undertaken more than 50 coastal process studies for projects in the UK, Ireland and overseas, many of which involve the appraisal of the potential environmental impacts of harbour developments and dredging.

1.1.3 I was the project director for the Irish Coastal Protection Strategy, undertaken by RPS for the Office of Public Works which, in addition to other issues, examined potential coastal flooding around the whole of the coast of Ireland and developed the national storm surge forecast model which RPS currently operates on behalf of the OPW.

1.1.4 I have been involved in extensive wave modelling studies on east coast of Ireland and in Dublin Bay including the Irish Wave and Water level Study for the OPW, wave simulations for developments around Dun Laoghaire and ship wash wave studies in Dublin Bay for the Port of Dublin. Thus I have extensive experience in coastal process modelling and coastal flood appraisal on the east coast of Ireland and in Dublin Bay.

2 Involvement in the Project

2.1.1 I undertook the design of the proposed realigned approach and entrance channel to Dublin Port and assessed the stability and maintenance dredging requirements for the channel, using advanced computational coastal process modelling techniques.

2.1.2 I evaluated the potential impact of the proposed development on the coastal process of Dublin Bay and the potential impact of the proposed dredging and spoil disposal on the hydraulic regime, using computational modelling techniques. I also considered the impact of the proposed development on coastal flooding, including the effects of both coastal storm surges and high fluvial flows.

2.1.3 I was the author of Chapter 9, Coastal Processes, of the Environmental Impact Statement [EIS] submitted with the application for development consent in respect of the proposed Alexander Basin Redevelopment Project, as well as a contributor to the coastal flooding appraisal reported in Chapter 10 of the EIS.

3 Conclusions of the Coastal Processes and Flood Risk Impact Appraisal

3.1 Coastal Processes 3.1.1 An extensive programme of model simulations, supported by fieldwork and literature review, has been undertaken to evaluate how the proposed ABR Project would impact the coastal processes and the stability of the approach channel, as well as to investigate the disposal of dredged spoil at the existing licensed offshore spoil site within Dublin Bay.

3.1.2 This programme included:

 Fieldwork comprising hydrographic surveys, geophysical surveys, sediment sampling and analysis and tidal current surveys, (Section 9.3 of Volume 1 of the EIS);

 Review of previous maintenance dredging campaigns; (section 9.8.1 of Volume 1 of the EIS)

 Review of previous hydrodynamic studies in the Dublin Bay area, (Section 8.1 of the response to the RFI);

 Model simulations of the Spring and Neap tidal flow regime, (Section 9.6 of Volume 1 of the EIS);

 Model simulations of the wave climate under a range of storm conditions, (Section 9.7 of Volume 1 of the EIS);

 Model simulations of the sediment transport regime, (Section 9.8. of Volume 1 of the EIS);

 Morphological simulations combining the results of tidal flow, storm waves and sediment transport, (Section 9.8.2 of Volume 1 of the EIS);

 Model simulations of the dispersion, fate and settlement of dredge spoil dumped at the licensed offshore disposal site located close to the Burford Bank; (Section 9.9.3 of Volume 1 of the EIS);

 Model simulations of the dispersion, fate and settlement of dredge spoil released to the water environment during dredging operations; (Section 9.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS), and

 Use of 3D modelling within the inner harbour to take into account the presence of salinity gradients within the water column (salt wedge) of the Liffey Channel (Section 9.9.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS).

3.1.3 The computational modelling was undertaken using RPS' in-house suite of MIKE coastal process modelling software developed by the Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI). The models were calibrated using the results of the fieldwork and other data held by RPS.

3.1.4 These models are currently being used to inform the Irish Coastal Protection Strategy being developed by RPS on behalf of the OPW. The models are also currently being run on a 24/7 basis to support the OPW Storm Surge Forecasting Programme. The models provide predictions of extreme tide and storm surge levels along the eastern coastline of Ireland, which are furnished to the relevant local authorities in order to provide early warning of potential coastal flood events.

3.1.5 The models have been compared with those used in other previous hydrodynamic model studies for Dublin Bay. The results of the RPS models compare well with those from the previous studies (Section 8.1 of the response to the RFI).

3.1.6 The results of the model simulations show that:

 There will be no significant change to the tidal flow regime of Dublin Bay and the proposed scheme will have no significant impact on the dispersal of effluent from the Ringsend WWTP Long Sea Outfall which, in any event will not now be developed (Section 10.4 of the response to the RFI);

 There will be no significant change to the wave climate within Dublin Bay. There is a slight increase in the wave heights in the Liffey channel but this will have no significant impact on either the navigation or the mooring of ships in this area (Section 9.3 of the response to the RFI);

 There will be no significant change in the tidal velocity within the deepened, realigned navigation channel or in its power to cause scouring of the sea bed (Figures 9.11 to 9.14 in Chapter 9, Volume 1 of the EIS);

 The new navigation channel will require maintenance dredging of a similar magnitude to that required for the existing channel (Section 9.8 of Volume 1 of the EIS and Section 14.4 of the RFI);

 There will be no significant change to the sediment transport regime within Dublin Bay, including the Tolka Estuary (Section 9.82 of Volume 1 of the EIS);

 The proposed offshore disposal site to the west of the Burford Bank is dispersive for the silt fractions within the dredged spoil material. The sand fractions within the dredged spoil will remain on the disposal site under normal tidal conditions. However, under storm conditions the sand will gradually be assimilated into the overall sediment regime of Dublin Bay (Section 9.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS);

 As outlined in section 9.9.2 of Volume 1 of the EIS, the existing disposal site at the Burford Bank is the preferred disposal option as the fine sand material from the navigation channel will not be lost to the overall sediment supply to Dublin Bay;

 Model simulations of the dispersion, fate and deposition of sediment plumes arising from the dredging and disposal operations have been used to inform the environmental appraisal of the natural environment and the water environment;

 The dispersion, fate and deposition of sediment plumes arising from the dredging and disposal operations are not expected to impact on other users of the waters

within the River Liffey channel or Dublin Bay and will have no significant impact on the power station intakes in the Liffey (Section 9.9.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS). 3.1.7 The comprehensive studies undertaken, as outlined above, show that the ABR Project will not have a significant impact on the coastal processes of Dublin Bay. Nor will the proposed works have any significant residual impact.

3.2 Flood Risk

3.2.1 A Flood Risk Appraisal (FRA) of the ABR Project, Section 10.5 in Volume 1 of the EIS, in order to evaluate:

 flood risk at the site of the proposed development; and

 change in flood risk to the neighbouring areas as a result of the development including Clontarf, South Quays and North Quays.

3.2.2 The FRA was undertaken in accordance with the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Planning Guidelines (2009) published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Office of Public Works.

3.2.3 An evaluation of the potential flood risk arising from the proposed development has concluded that the predominant source of flood risk emanates from coastal flooding.

3.2.4 However, the appraisal concluded that the ABR Project complies with the requirements of the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Planning Guidelines (2009).

3.2.5 Model simulations have been undertaken to determine any change to the flood risk associated with neighbouring areas of Clontarf, South Quays and North Quays, particularly as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme.

3.2.6 The results of the model simulations, set out in Sections 10.5.5 and 10.5.6 in Volume 1 of the EIS, have shown that the proposed works do not increase the flood risk to any of these areas.

4 Request for Further Information

On 7th July 2014, An Bord Pleanála issued by a request for further information (RFI). A summary of the responses to the issues relating to coastal processes raised in the RFI are provided below.

4.1 RFI Paragraph 8.1 Issue Compare previously completed Coastal Processes Studies in the Dublin Bay and Liffey Estuary (including the Tolka and Ringsend Areas) either published as technical papers or performed in support of other marine and estuarine projects with the current ABR study for hydrodynamic (2D and 3D modelling including thermal, water quality and salinity studies), tidal surge, wave climate and sediment transport (dredging and morphology) analysis. Summary of response RPS reviewed the following three relevant studies relating to coastal processes within Dublin Bay during the preparation of the EIS:

1. A Three-Dimensional Hydro-Environmental Model of Dublin Bay. Bedri et al. (2011). 2. Ringsend Waste Water Treatment Plant, Long Sea Outfall, Dublin Bay. DHI (2010). 3. Dublin Waste to Energy. DHI (2006). The three studies which were primarily concerned with water quality used combinations of 2 and 3D flexible mesh models in a similar manner to those used by RPS. Comparisons were made with the data and results contained in these studies and were found to be very similar to those obtained by the RPS modelling.

4.2 RFI Paragraph 8.2 Issue There is little information provided in the coastal modelling studies in relation to the model capabilities and limitations and their justification for use in respect to the ABR project and further clarity is required with respect to boundary conditions, bed roughness, turbulence model and specific boundary inputs for tides and freshwater flows for the calibration runs. Summary of response There are a range of well established computational modelling systems that were considered by RPS for the simulation of the coastal process for the ABR project, including:

 the French Telemac system;  the Dutch Delft system;  the Danish MIKE system; and  several models developed by the US Army Corps.

In RPS’s view the MIKE modelling system is the most suitable for the ABR project as it includes both rectangular and flexible mesh models, a greater range of wave models and a full morphological coupled model including flow, wave and sediment transport models with automatic feedback of the morphological change in bathymetry into the flow and wave model calculations throughout the simulation. This morphological modelling capability is not as well developed in many of the other modelling systems. The tidal boundary conditions for the Dublin Bay model were taken from RPS' Irish Sea Tidal and Storm Surge model which was developed for the Irish Coastal Protection Strategy Study (ICPSSS) for the OPW. RPS also utilised their ICPSS east coast wave model to gather wave boundary data for the Dublin Bay model to ensure that the hydrodynamic influence of the offshore Kish and Codling banks were accounted for in the model. Values for the bed roughness, turbulence model and specific boundary inputs for tides and freshwater flows were provided in the RFI Response document.

4.3 RFI Paragraph 8.3 Issue There is a high reliance on relatively poor resolution colour contour/tonal plots to demonstrate magnitude of impact in the EIS (for example Figure 9.7 to 9.23). Provide zoomed in plots in addition to time series plots at relevant reference locations and also where appropriate provide tabular comparisons. Summary of Response The majority of the plots presented in the coastal processes chapter in Volume 1 of the EIS including Figures 9.7 to 9.23 were compiled in a style to demonstrate any far- field impacts of the proposed capital dredging scheme and were produced from a range of high resolution models which had a mesh grid size varying from c.15m in the area of interest ranging to c.500m at the model boundary, as reported in Chapter 9 Volume 1 of the EIS.

The original digital images produced by RPS for the EIS clearly demonstrate the magnitude and extent of any impacts of the proposed dredging scheme within Dublin Bay. Throughout Chapter 9 Volume 1 of the EIS, where possible, RPS have utilised difference plots instead of additional time series plots and tabular comparisons to indicate any impacts stemming from the redevelopment of Dublin Port as this shows the impact of the proposed scheme on the coastal processes over the entire area rather than at a number of isolated points.

In order to increase the clarity of Figures 9.7 to 9.10, those figures have been reproduced with isolines to represent changes in values and the number of vector arrows representing the magnitude and direction of the current flow in the X and Y axes has also been reduced. Figures 9.11 to 9.14 and 9.21 to 9.23 have been reproduced with zoomed inlays of relevant locations. Each of the inlays also has isolines representing changes in values to increase the clarity of the image.

As requested by the Board, time series plots have also been produced from the 2D hydrodynamic model to show the impact of the proposed channel on the current

speed and horizontal current directions at four different stations. Further time series plots have also been produced to show the impact of the proposed channel on the hydrodynamics at the four stations identified above in the top, middle and bottom layers of the 3D hydrodynamic model. These figures can be found in Appendix F1 of the response to the RFI.

4.4 RFI Paragraph 9.1 Issue Clarify the accuracy of the wave climate model as it is not clear from the EIS to what degree the wave climate modelling has been verified against measured Wave Climate in Dublin Bay or compared with other Wave Climate studies. Summary of response Suitable detailed wave measurements of the inshore wave climate of Dublin Bay were not available thus RPS' wave model simulations were undertaken as a comparative study. The inshore wave climate for assessing the impact of the proposed scheme was therefore derived by transforming offshore wave data for individual past storm events into the Dublin Bay. These have also been extensively and successfully used in numerous other studies including the Irish Coastal Protection Strategy Study and the Irish Coastal Wave and Water level modelling study both conducted on behalf of the Office of Public Works (OPW). It is also important to clarify that this aspect of the EIS is a comparative study which is primarily interested in the impact of the change to the bathymetry as a result of the proposed dredging rather than the establishment of the inshore wave climate for a specific range of extreme storm events. It is the view of RPS that this is a sufficiently accurate and robust approach to assess and quantify the impacts of the ABR project on the inshore wave climate of Dublin Bay and the surrounding areas.

4.5 RFI Paragraph 9.2 Issue Please clarify whether wave-breaking and wave-current interaction has been included and to what extent wave reflection and diffraction processes have been modelled to predict the Wave Climate in the Liffey and Tolka estuaries. Comment on the effectiveness of the North and South Bull Walls in protecting the estuarine waters. Summary of response The Mike 21 SW wave model can take account of wave-breaking and wave-current interaction as well the effects of diffraction around structures and wave energy reflection along boundaries. It also includes wind wave generation within the model area which is important for the wave climate in the Tolka and Liffey estuaries. However, wave-current interactions was not been accounted for in the model as RPS's experience shows that this type of interaction makes little difference to the inshore wave climate in this part of the east coast of Ireland for comparative studies.

The Bull Walls afford Dublin Port significant protection against arduous storm events as both of the walls act as effective breakwaters. Part of the North Wall is submerged at high water and the model includes this partially submerged section of the North Bull wall.

4.6 RFI Paragraph 9.3 Issue Comment on the predicted increase in wave heights up along the Liffey Channel, and clarify the magnitude of wave heights in this area and along the adjacent Liffey and Tolka Estuary Shoreline areas with and without the proposed development. Comment on the implications for navigation, mooring and flood risk caused by the wave climate. Summary of response The wave height increase at the entrance to the Dublin harbour channel during an extreme south easterly storm event would not exceed 0.20m as a result of the ABR project. There is also a small increase in the wave heights at the entrance to the Tolka Estuary, the extent of which depends upon the tidal levels but this generally does not exceed 0.12m. The details of this impact on the wave climate in the Tolka Estuary are already provided in Chapter 10 Volume 1 of the EIS. In terms of the effect on navigation, the relatively insignificant increase of +0.20m to the storm wave climate at the entrance of the harbour channel nor the +0.12m increase in the storm wave heights at the entrance of the Tolka estuary will have any impacts on navigation within Dublin Harbour or the Greater Dublin Bay area. Similarly, it was found that the maximum change to the inshore wave climate within the channel during an extreme storm did not exceed +0.20 metres, thus there would be no significant impact to the mooring loads within Dublin Port as a result of the ABR project. As concluded in Chapter 10 Volume 1 of the EIS, the increase in wave height at the entrance to the Tolka Estuary will have no perceptible impact in terms of the volume of water breaching the sea defences from overtopping waves and that there will be no net increase to the existing flood risk to this area of Clontarf as a consequence of the ABR Project.

4.7 RFI Paragraph 10.1 Issue Comment on the effectiveness of a 3D model with 5 layers to model salinity and the effect that salinity and temperature stratification will have on the dredge plume dispersion from the dredging works in the Liffey Channel. Summary of response A three-dimensional model of Dublin Bay using a five vertical layer model is an approach that has also been successfully adopted in the three recent studies undertaken by Bedri et al (2011) and DHI (2010 and 2006). RPS’ view is that the

use of a five vertical layer model gives a good representation for the stratified flows in the Liffey and Tolka estuaries due to salinity and temperature. The calibration data produced for the DHI (2006) study showed good comparison between modelled and field data.

4.8 RFI Paragraph 10.2 Issue In the hydrodynamic calibration at Station 1 the time/date scales on horizontal axis are significantly different. Please review and overlay these plots similar to the presentation for stations 2 and 3 in Appendix 9 Volume 2 of the EIS. Summary of response As specified in Appendix 9 Volume 1 of the EIS, the ADCP data at station 1 was acquired by the Danish Hydraulic Institute in 2010, however only a hardcopy of the data was available for this study. However, as can be seen Figure F35 of the response to the RFI, conditions measured at station 1 by DHI are very well represented by the tidal conditions simulated by RPS at station 1.

4.9 RFI Paragraph 10.3 Issue In respect to the offshore sediment disposal site please review and comment on why the provision of ADCP measurement data was not carried out in the dredge disposal site. Previous hydrographic measurements may have been carried out at this disposal site for previous dumping at sea licences and such data should be included in the model verification. Summary of response The calibration hydrodynamic sampling station H2 taken for the modelling study undertaken by Bedri et al (2011) is just to the north of the licensed disposal site. As will be seen in Figure 37 of the RFI, the flow regime measured at station H2 compared very well with the conditions simulated by the RPS model.

4.10 RFI Paragraph 10.4 Issue Review and comment on the implications of the proposed development on the Dublin Sewage Outfall discharge plume. Summary of response The impact of the proposed Dublin Sewage Outfall was considered by RPS. The dispersion envelope, Figure F38 of the response to the RFI, covers an area in which the hydrodynamic regime remains unchanged as a result of the ABR project. Thus there can be no change to the dispersion plume as a result of the proposed scheme.

It was therefore concluded that the ABR project would have no impact on the fate of the discharge from the outfall.

4.11 RFI Paragraph 11.1 Issue Please clarify the accuracy of the Bathymetric surveys at the Disposal Site that provided an estimate of 15% of the deposited waste between 2008 and 2013 to have remained within the disposal site. Please also clarify the conclusion that the contaminated sediments overlain/capped by placed sand and gravel remain in-situ. Summary of response These hydrographic surveys were undertaken by the same company using the same high end echo sounder swath systems. The accuracy of any survey data depends on the water depth and beam footprint size which is a direct function of the transmitting and receiving bandwidths, as the water depth increase so does the beam footprint size, but generally multi beam survey data can be expected to be accurate within the order of centimetres

The data collected from each of these surveys was then used to generate a full digital terrain models (DTMs), which were in turn used to conduct volume computations. As the accuracy of the original survey data was within the order of centimetres, volumetric computations can be expected to be within approximately the same degree of accuracy.

The mounds of the capped material were clearly visible in the 2013 hydrographic surveys. The conclusion that the contaminated sediments overlain by the capping of granular material remained in-situ was based on volumetric difference calculations of the results of the hydrographic surveys.

4.12 RFI Paragraph 11.2

Issue

The models appear to indicate that the dumping is evenly distributed across the entire disposal area, comment on how this would be achieved and what are the implications of recurring disposal in a localised section of the site.

Summary of response

The sediment transport model which was used to simulate the fate of the silt released from the barges over the dump site had a moving sediment source that spilled sediment at a constant rate along a track that transverses the entire dump site area over the course of one lunar month.

The dumping operations will be undertaken by only cracking open the bottom doors so that the material spills out slowly as the dredger moves along the track. All dredgers will have GPS track plotters fitted to ensure that they remain on the specified route throughout the entire dumping operation. All dumping operations will

be conducted in accordance with any restrictions imposed by the Dumping at Sea Permit which is issued by the EPA.

4.13 RFI Paragraph 12.1 Issue

Review and comment on the spillage risk from the proposed use of silt curtains to contain dredge sediment within the Alexandra Basin and whether a spillage input has been included in the dredging plume analysis.

Summary of response

A spillage input was not included in the dredging plume analysis as it was not deemed necessary. The spillage risk from the dredging of Alexandra Basin West is assessed in the Dredging Risk Assessment document which is included as an Appendix of the High Level Construction Environmental Management Plan. The risk assessment showed that with the proposed mitigation measures in place, including the installation of a stand by bubble curtain at the entrance to Alexander Basin West, the risk of the occurrence of contaminated material entering the main channel was very low.

4.14 RFI Paragraph 12.2

Issue Provide scientific backup for the use of 1% sediment loss rates at the Suction Dredger head and for the overspill at the surface and comment on the potential deviation in such rates and the resultant impact on Liffey Channel. Summary of response

The losses from the dredgers were assessed based on site measurements made during the construction of the Denmark - Sweden fixed link tunnel and bridge and by reference to data contained in "Scoping the Assessment of Sediment Plumes from Dredging" CIRIA 547. In the case of dredging the partially contaminated material, loses due to overspill will be restricted so that loses at the surface will be no more than 1%.

4.15 RFI Paragraph 12.3

Issue

Provide more details in respect to the dredge plume modelling (for example how the dredging activity was specified in the model runs including the location of the dredging activity) that gives rise to the plume plots presented in the EIS.

Summary of response

As specified in Chapter 9 Volume 1 of the EIS, the dredging of the harbour channel (Liffey) will be undertaken over three separate six month winter periods. The modelling was therefore undertaken for dredging operations in the outer, middle and inner sections of the harbour channel. During each period a source at the level of the dredger head and another at the surface were moved in and out along the channel to simulate the movement of the dredger.

It was determined from Particle Size Analyses described in Chapter 11 Volume 1 of the EIS that the material to be dredged from each section of the harbour channel was predominantly silt and was characterised by three discrete fractions with mean diameters of 200µm, 20µm and 3µm. In the channel adjacent to Alexandra Basin West each fraction constituted 1/3 of the total volume of silt to be dredged. In the outer parts of the Liffey channel in the harbour the coarser fraction consisted about half of the total volume to be dredged. The coarser fraction of the silt, i.e. the sand fraction was found to behave differently relative to the two finer fractions that had mean grain diameters of 20µm and 3µm. The sand fraction remained in the area of the dredging and produced virtually no plume, whereas the two finer silt fractions were carried away by the tidal currents.

4.16 RFI Paragraph 12.4

Issue

Comment on the implications for the intake waters to the Power Plants at Poolbeg from the proposed dredging activities.

Summary of response

As set out in Chapter 9 Volume 1 of the EIS, the suspended sediment concentration at the various power station cooling inlets was assessed and quantified from the model simulations of each of the three dredging operations, inner, middle and outer sections of the Liffey channel in the harbour. The suspended sediment concentrations are given in Table 9.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS and reproduced in Table F3 in the RFI.

The results of the simulations showed that the levels of additional suspended sediment concentrations at the power station intakes is relatively small and is unlikely to have a significant effect on the power station operations. In addition, numerous past maintenance dredging campaigns with similar a dredging rate have been completed at Dublin Port without any significant impact on the on the power station intakes within the Port.

4.17 RFI Paragraph 12.5

Issue

In the sediment transport study please indicate the sediment composition of the sea bed used throughout the model domain (i.e. whether it was variable based on sediment sampling or constant).

Summary of response

The composition of the sea bed used throughout the models was based on the particle size distribution analyses of the sediment samples as detailed in Appendix 11 of Volume 1 of the EIS which indicated that the material was mainly a fine sand. In the models the bed material was specified as a fine sand which had a mean grain diameter of 0.14mm. This fine sand fraction had a sigma value of 1.1 meaning that 68% of the grains had a diameter within a factor of 21.1 of the median diameter of 0.14mm.

4.18 RFI Paragraph 12.6

Issue

The resolution of the morphology plots for the navigation channel and adjacent Bay area presented in the EIS are of a very coarse scale and consequently difficult to distinguish the sediment pattern from the modelled storm events. Please provide more zoomed in plots at the areas of interest and explain the pattern of erosion and accretion predicted in respect to the role of wave climate and tidal dynamics.

Summary of response

To increase the clarity of the images representing the sediment transport in Dublin Bay under various storm conditions, Figure 9.28 to Figure 9.38 in Volume 1 of the EIS, have been reproduced in Figure F40 to F48 in the RFI. These morphological simulations of the existing and proposed approach channel show that the proposed channel will perform in a similar manner to the existing channel. As with the existing channel there will be a tendency for the northern bank of the approach channel, seaward of the North Bull Wall, to migrate south under storm conditions. Similarly it is expected that there will be siltation along the banks of the approach channel landward of the Bull Walls with a tendency for these banks to migrate in towards the channel.

Overall, the results show that there will be no significant impact on the sediment transport regime within the River Liffey Channel, Tolka Estuary or Dublin Bay as a result of the capital dredging scheme.

14.19 RFI Paragraph 14.1

Issue

The coastal process models assume that dredging operations would take place evenly over a 6 year period and that dredge disposal would take place 24/7 during each 6 month winter dredging campaign. In the event that operations take place during normal working hours (Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm) the available time for dredging and dredge disposal would be reduced. Furthermore, the EIS and NIS mitigation measures (in relation to the protection of marine mammals) impose further restrictions on the time available for the commencement of daily dredging and dredge disposal operations. Any significant reduction in available time could either extend the overall dredging timetable or give rise to the dredging and disposal of increased concentrations of material which could in turn have implications for benthic communities, water quality, sediment transport and marine mammals.

Summary of response

The dredging rates specified in the Chapter 9 Volume 1 of the EIS are based on standard dredging industry vessel operating hours, taken as 168 hours per week (24 hours per day, 7 days per week). Furthermore, the operating hours assumed in the study have been based on dredging rates at which numerous past and present dredging operations have been undertaken over a number of decades. The rates also account for stoppages in the dredging operations that may result from adverse weather conditions.

4.20 RFI Paragraph 14.2

Issue

Confirm the anticipated time period and operational hours for dredging and dredge disposal. The coastal process models should be re-calibrated to take account of any significant changes to the timescale. This information is required to enable the Board to assess the potential adverse effects of the proposed works on coastal processes and marine ecology.

Summary of response

As specified in Chapter 9 Volume 1 of the EIS, for the purpose of the study it was assumed that that the volume of dredging would be spread relatively evenly over a six year period with an average volume of circa 0.177million m3 dredged per month. It was also assumed that the dredging would be undertaken on a 24/7 basis with barges disposing of the material over the dump site on a regular basis throughout each winter dredging campaign.

It should be noted that the channel dredging at the rate proposed for this project has already been undertaken during various previous maintenance dredging campaigns without creating any environmental issues. Both the direct and indirect potential impacts of the proposed dredging operations, including those on coastal processes

and marine ecology, along with the appropriate mitigation measure are addressed in full in Chapter 5, Volume 1 of the EIS.

4.21 RFI Paragraph 14.3

Issue

The EIS and NIS refer to potential future dredging of berths to a depth of -15m CD. However this future dredging and the likely future channel deepening that would be required to provide vessel access to the deepened berths has not been addressed in the EIS or NIS. Comment on the likely potential environmental impacts arising from any future dredging to a depth of -15m CD, including any effects this might have on the submarine pipeline under Dublin Bay which brings wastewater from North Dublin to Ringsend for treatment.

Summary of response

The ABR Project has been designed to future-proof the Port given the strategic importance of Dublin Port and its infrastructural assets. The pile lengths have been designed to accommodate potential future dredging of the berthing pockets, up to - 15m CD. Given the cost of piling, it was considered prudent to sink the piles to this depth in order to facilitate future deeper berths. This was considered sensible in order to future proof these critical assets for future generations.

An analysis of the size of ships across all modes was undertaken to allow Dublin Port Company to take a view on the reasonable maximum size ship that the Port should cater for in the coming decades (Volume 1 of the EIS, Chapter 1, Section 1.2). The results of this analysis show that there is no intention or requirement to dredge the navigation channel deeper than -10m CD for the foreseeable future. The submarine pipeline under Dublin Bay which brings wastewater from North Dublin has a level at the top of the pipeline of -15.7m CD. I was a member of the team responsible for the design of this marine pipeline and I can confirm that the pipeline was designed to accommodate future deepening of the Dublin Port approach channel. Thus I can confirm that the currently proposed channel dredging to -10m CD would have no impact on this pipe.

4.22 RFI Paragraph 14.4

Issue

Clarify the future maintenance dredge requirements for the Port in respect to the navigation channel (e.g. please provide an estimated annual average dredging volume for disposal).

Summary of response

As specified in Chapter 9 Volume 1 of the EIS, it is expected that the new channel will require maintenance dredging of a similar magnitude to that required with the existing channel - this currently a value of c. 1,000,000m3 per every six years.

5 Responses to Submissions made to An Bord Pleanála on the EIS

In preparing this witness statement, I have considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the appraisal of potential impacts of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project on coastal processes and flood risk. I have addressed each submission or observation in turn below, before providing my response to the essential point being made.

5.1 Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DoAHG)

5.1.1 Issue#1 - Secondary Impacts in the River Liffey

Submission:

The EIS has failed to address the potential secondary impacts that the proposed dredging works may have on the sediment transport regime upstream of the East Link Bridge. The Shipwreck Inventory of Ireland lists over 300 wrecks for the River Liffey, which are subject to statutory protection under section 3 of the 1987 National Monuments (Amendment) Act. Should dredging works proceed in the River Liffey east of the East Link Bridge, there is potential that material of archaeological potential may be uncovered due to an increased rate of sediment transportation and erosion from this area.

Response:

The EIS has actually addressed the potential secondary impacts that the proposed dredging works may have on the sediment transport regime upstream of the East Link Bridge. In order for there to be a change in the sediment transport regime there has to be a change in either the tidal regime (water levels and currents) or a change in the bed sediments or both.

The impact of the proposed capital dredging scheme on the tidal regime is described in Section 9.6 of Volume 1 of the EIS and the impact of the dredging on the tidal levels due to extreme storm surges and river flows is shown in Section 10.5.5 of Volume 1 of the EIS.

As the Figures in Section 9.6 of Volume 1 of the EIS cover the whole of Dublin Bay, for clarity, enlarged sections of the results of the tidal simulations for the Liffey above the East Link Bridge are set out below.

Figure 1 shows a comparison of the spring neap tidal curve for the existing channel (blue) and for the dredged channel to -10m CD (red dash) for the Liffey at a point about 1 kilometre above the East Link Bridge. It will be seen from the diagram of the tidal curves that there is no change in the water levels above the East Link Bridge due to the proposed dredging of the channel.

Figure 1 Comparison of tidal curves above East Link Bridge

Figures 2 and 3 show the difference in the spring tide flood and ebb current speed (proposed dredged channel minus existing channel) in the area above the East Link Bridge. It will be seen from these simulations that there is no significant change in the tidal current speeds (differences of less than 0.002 m/s) above the East Link Bridge as a result of the proposed dredging of the channel to -10m CD.

Figure 2 Difference in tidal spring flood tide current speed (proposed – existing)

Figure 3 Difference in tidal spring ebb tide current speed (proposed – existing)

The nature of the bed sediments above the East Link Bridge will not be altered as a result of the proposed dredging down stream of the Bridge. Therefore, as there is no change in the tidal regime above the bridge, there will be no increase in the sediment transport and erosion upstream of the East Link Bridge as a result of the proposed dredging.

We are aware that historic vessels have become exposed up-stream of dredging in other estuaries such as the Boyne at Drogheda. However, in the case of the dredging of the Boyne, the scheme included the removal of the bar which led to a reduction of the low tide levels at Drogheda and a consequent increase in the flow velocity up stream of the dredging due to the removal of the flow restriction of the bar. In the case of Dublin Port the channel is already sufficiently deep (at -7.8m CD) that there is no restriction on the discharge of waters from the Liffey to the sea. Thus the dredging of the channel to -10m CD does not alter the tidal regime up stream of the East Link Bridge.

5.2 Irish Underwater Council

5.2.1 Issue #1 - Suspended Solids - Errors in modelling of dredged spoil dispersion

(i) Submission:

There are a number of errors in the modelling of the dredged spoil dispersion at the disposal site (section 9.9.3 of the EIS) which, in combination, have resulted in the concentration of suspended solids resulting from dredging operations being greatly underestimated.

It was assumed for the models that dredging will take place over a 6-year period and that disposal of the spoil will take place 24/7 during each winter dredging campaign (October – March). However, Charlie Murphy, Communications Manager of Dublin Port Company stated at a meeting with CFT on 14 April that operations only take place from 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday.

Response

There are no errors in the modelling of the dredged spoil dispersion which have resulted in the concentration of suspended solids resulting from dredging operations being greatly underestimated. Mr. Murphy was referring to working hours for the piling, quay construction and dredging of the Alexander basin itself, which is disposed via treatment and infilling of the dock 52/53 and not the dredging operations for the channel, which will be carried out on a 24/7 basis.

(ii) Submission:

The mitigation measures required to minimise the impact on marine mammals impose even greater restrictions on the time available for dumping. A trained and experienced Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) should be present during piling, dredging, dumping and demolition operations. The MMO will undertake a visual survey to ensure no marine mammals are in the vicinity of the activity. Because of this is a visual survey, all operations must be undertaken in daylight hours with wind speeds of Beaufort Force 3 or less. Whilst it is impossible to predict wind speed over the next 6 years, it is certain that this restriction will further reduce the time available for dumping dredged waste.

Response:

In relation to marine habitats and species, DoAGH has recommended to An Bord Pleanála that the following mitigating measures be applied as conditions of any grant of planning permission:

 A trained and experienced Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) will be put in place during piling, dredging, dumping, and demolition operations. The MMO will scan the surrounding area to ensure no marine mammals are in a pre-determined exclusion zone in the 30-minute period prior to operations. It is suggested that this exclusion zone is 500m for demolition and dredging activities, and 1000m for piling activities considering the potential risks outlined. Noise-producing activities shall only commence in daylight hours where effective visual monitoring, as performed and determined by the MMO, has been achieved.

 Once normal operations commence (including appropriate ramp-up procedures), there is no requirement to halt or discontinue the activity at night-time, nor if

weather or visibility conditions deteriorate, nor if marine mammals occur within a radial distance of the sound source that is 500m for dredging and demolition works, and 1000m for piling activities.

 Once operations have begun, operations should cease temporarily if a cetacean or seal is observed swimming in the immediate (<50m) area of piling and dredging and work can be resumed once the animal(s) have moved away.

 Dumping of material at sea should not take place if a cetacean or seal is within 50m of the vessel.

In order to comply with the second to last bullet points, the developer proposes to have a MMO on board the dumping vessel at all times and to use a passive acoustic system during the hours of darkness to ensure that the operators of the vessel can comply with the recommendations of DoAHG. Thus the requirement for marine mammal observance can be accommodated without undue disruption to the dredging disposal programme.

(iii) Submission:

The dredged material from the ABR project is primarily fine silt with particle sizes ranging from 200 μmm to less than 3 μmm (Section 9.9.3 of the EIS). This material is to be dumped at the licensed disposal site on the Burford Bank where the water depth is approximately 20m. When this material is dumped it will form a plume in the water column with varying concentrations at different depths due to the variation in settling rate of different sized particles.

The output from the computer modelling of suspended solids resulting from the dumping of dredged material at the disposal site is a series of two dimensional graphics (Figures 9.41 to 9.48 of the EIS). These graphics indicate the suspended sediment solids concentration in the resulting plume. However a plume of this type is three dimensional with different concentrations of suspended solids at different depths. The two dimensional graphics provided in the EIS give no indication of the concentration variation at different depths. The use of average concentration of suspended solids across all depths disguises peak concentrations at different depths. These peak concentrations at depth will be significantly higher than the average.

Response:

The waters around the licensed dump site are well mixed so the use of a depth averaged hydraulic model is appropriate for modelling the suspended sediment concentrations away from the immediate area of the dump barge itself particularly when the discharge is spread over a prolonged period as opposed to a one off short period dump.

The dredged spoil from the ABR comprises two different types of material, a silt material mainly confined to the inner harbour channel area and relatively fine sand which is mainly found in the outer approach channel. The dispersion of these two types of material has been modelled separately as their dispersion characteristics are quite different.

During disposal under normal tidal conditions, the sand material settles quickly onto the bed of the sea within the disposal area and does not produce a significant plume

beyond the area around the licensed dumpsite (concentrations values of circa 0.02 mg/l or less, Figure 9.50 in Volume 1 of the EIS). With the exception of the disposal site itself (where diving operations are not permitted during disposal operations) the increase in suspend solids values is so low that it will not affect diving operations in Dublin Bay.

The disposal of the silt material is quite different from that of the sand, in that the silt stays in suspension and is dispersed away into the main body of the Irish Sea. The waters around the licensed disposal site are well mixed and material which stays in suspension will be relatively quickly dispersed throughout the depth of the water column. Thus the use of depth-averaged plume diagrams to show the impact of the dredged plume on suspended solids concentrations in the water areas beyond the area of the licensed disposal site is quite appropriate. Further more the modelling includes the simulation of the dispersion of each fraction of the sediment material separately and then the overall suspended sediment concentration is the combination of the suspended sediment concentrations of each fraction resulting in a high accuracy in the simulation. There will be a gradation in the suspended sediment concentration with depth in the area around the dump barge itself but, as noted previously, this is not an area where diving operations would be permitted during disposal operations.

(iv) Submission:

The most significant error in the modelling of the dispersion of suspended solids at the disposal site is that the models are assumed average situation rather than a potential worst case situation. The models presented in the EIS should be of the situation during peak disposal operations at the dump site when levels of suspended solids are at their greatest. Since the worst case has not been modelled, the distribution and concentration of suspended solids resulting from the disposal of the dredged material is significantly underestimated. Therefore, the impacts arising from the movement of suspended solids away from the disposal site are likely to be far greater than currently estimated.

Response:

There are no significant errors in the modelling of the dispersion of the suspended solids at the disposal site. As noted in 4.2.1(iii) above, the modelling using the depth- averaged suspended solids concentration is valid for the plume concentrations away from the immediate area of the dump site. The results of the modelling of the plume of suspended sediment concentrations have been shown in the EIS for both spring and neap tidal cycles at times of high and low waters and for peak ebb and flood conditions. Thus the modelling shows the range of conditions which will be experienced through out the disposal operation and not just average conditions as claimed by CFT (Irish Underwater Council).

It will be seen from the results of the model simulations of the suspended sediment concentration plumes, Figures 9.41 to 9.48 in Volume 1 of the EIS, that apart from the area around the dump barge, the sediment concentrations will remain below 20 mg/litre above back ground. This is a very low concentration which is extremely unlikely to have a significant impact on diving operations in Dublin Bay. It will also be noted that very little of the silt is deposited within Dublin Bay, Figure 9.40 Volume 1 of the EIS, so that there will not be an issue of significant coating of underwater surfaces (reefs, wrecks etc).

5.3 Sandymount & Merrion Residents Association

5.3.1 Issue #1 – Coastal processes and far field deposition

(i) Submission:

Pages 5 - 96 of the EIS refer to modelling results for deposition of the dispersed fine sediments fraction of spoil.

Reclamation and dredging over a period of time has already affected the southern shores of Dublin Bay which are designated areas of SPA, SAC and candidate NHA’s. Over a six year period the effects the dispersion of seven million cubic metres of spoil followed by biennial maintenance dredging in the Bay would have on the zostera beds, sand eel and other species of the southern coastline, either directly or indirectly, should not be lightly dismissed as of little or no significance simply because most if not all of Rockabill to Dalkey SAC is unlikely to be significantly affected.

Response

Historically, Dublin Bay has changed over time in response to the construction of the North and South Bull walls, the reclamation of the estuarine areas and the construction of sea walls and other coastal protection measures around the Bay. As part of the studies for the ABR project, extensive modelling of the impact of the deepened channel on the coastal process of the Bay has been undertaken and the increase of the maintained channel depth from 7.8 metres to 10 metres was found to have no significant effect on the coastal processes away from the immediate area of the channel itself. Thus the proposed deepening of the channel will have no significant impact on the stability of the southern shores of Dublin Bay.

The dredging of the channel involves the disposal of some 6.3 million cubic metres of material of which about half is silt from the inner harbour channel and half is sand from the approach channel. The studies undertaken for the ABR project have shown that the silt material is dispersed away in to the Irish Sea and only a minute fraction will be deposited along the shorelines in Dublin Bay with deposition depths of less than 0.003 mm, per Figure 9.40 in Volume 1 of the EIS. The dredged sand is the same material that currently occupies much of the sea bed of Dublin Bay and while the deposited dredged sand will initially be confined to the licensed dump site, the sand will gradually migrate under storm action into the surrounding Bay area where it will ensure that there is no loss of sediment to the Dublin Bay system as a result of the deepening of the Navigation Approach channel to Dublin Port. Thus the deepening of the channel as part of the ABR project will not interfere with the existing coastal processes of Dublin Bay.

(ii) Submission:

The long-term effects of changes to the shipping channel and the surge effect of very large vessels in the Bay on the surrounding beaches and shoreline is unclear. The existing ferries definitely had some visible effect on the southern coastline of the bay and have necessitated the erection of warning notices. We note that a surge protection wall is considered necessary to protect the Poolbeg marina.

Response:

The impact of the ferries referred to in the submission relates to the introduction some years ago of fast ferries into Dublin and Dun Laoghaire. Due to their high speed these ferries produced a very long period wash which is quite unlike the wash from conventional ships. The high speed ferries do not require particularly deep channels and due to the high cost of fuel, very large high speed craft are a thing of the past.

Due the requirements of operating in relatively shallow water, large ships approaching Dublin Port will be travelling well below their maximum speed and thus will not produce significantly greater wash than the conventional ships already operating in and out of Dublin Port. Thus the proposed dredging of the approach channel in to Dublin Port will not result in any significant increase in the impact of ship wash on the beaches in Dublin Bay.

The surge protection wall is required to act as a retaining wall for the bed sediments and to separate the Poolbeg marina from the effect of ships thrusters as they manoeuvre close to the marina when entering or leaving the Alexander Basin West berths. It is not required for protection from the normal ship wash waves.

5.3.2 Issue #2 Utilities

Submission:

Both the ESB cooling water outfall/weir and the Ringsend sewage plant and storm water outfall discharge beside the Great South Wall. It is unclear whether or to what extent the shipping channel works will affect these outfalls and consequently the operation of the utilities in either the short or long term.

Response:

None of the utilities outfalls/weirs or intakes bedside the Great South Wall are affected by the proposed deepening of the shipping channel either from the physical structural aspect or in relation to excessive suspended sediment concentration. This is covered in significant detail in Section 9.9.4 and in Table 9.4 in Chapter 9 Volume 1 of the EIS

5.4 Peadar Farrell

5.4.1 Issue #1 - Dumping of contaminate spoil from Alexander Basin at sea Submission: According to the Natura Impact Statement, “The sediments within Alexander Basin West were found to be unsuitable for disposal at sea at the majority of locations within the basin. Parameters which exceed the upper guideline were heavy metals (Nickel, Lead, Zinc, Cadmium, Copper and Mercury), Tributyltin (TBT), Dibutyltin (DBT) and Total Extractable Hydrocarbons. Parameters which were between the lower and upper guidelines were Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s) and Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The Marine Institute confirmed the results of the assessment and advised that the sediments within Alexander Basin West are unsuitable for disposal at sea.” The proposal goes on to outline that they are planning/proposing to dump the said materials in reclaimed Sea area and in Dublin Bay and state that the entire Project would have little or no impact on Dublin Bay.

Response:

The sediments from the dredging of Alexander Basin West will not be disposed of to sea. Rather the contaminated sediments from the basin will be taken ashore, treated and then encapsulated in cement in the infill of the existing Berth 52/53 area as described in Chapters 4 and 9 of Volume 1 of the EIS

5.4.2 Issue #2 – Proposed location of the Dublin Bay dump site

Submission:

Dublin Bay is in effect “fenced off” from the rest of the Irish Sea by the Burford Bank. This Bank stretches from Howth to well past Dalkey and keeps virtually all materials dumped in the Bay inside the Bay.

The proposed dumping inside the Burford Bank would ensure that the entire12.6 million tons of material dumped would stay inside Dublin Bay forever. This is seen as positive in the EIS; I see it as negative as this dumped waste not only would include river silt but ancient dumped land fill material.

While it is still not a good idea to dump at Sea in a special EU protected area should the dumping take place outside the Burford Bank in deeper water outside Lambay Island at least Dublin Bay would be spared the contamination. The materials would be distributed widely up and down the Irish Sea by the tidal stream.

Response:

The submission refers to 12.6 million tons of material using a conversion rate of 2 tons per cubic metre. However this density conversion is not correct, so for clarity in this response we will refer to the 6.3 million cubic metres of material to be dredged.

The dredged sand is the same material that currently occupies much of the sea bed of Dublin Bay and while the deposited dredged sand will initially be confined to the licensed dump site, the sand will gradually migrate under storm action into the surrounding Bay area where it will ensure that there is no loss of sediment to the Dublin Bay system as a result of the deepening of the Navigation Approach channel to Dublin Port. As noted in Section 9.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS, It is important that the there is not a loss of sand sediment in the Dublin Bay sediment sub cell as a result of the dredging, as this could adversely affect the beaches and flats which are part of the designated areas around the Bay. For these reasons, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to dump all the sediment to sea ward of Lambay Island.

5.4.3 Issue #2 – Contaminated Materials

(i) Submission:

It is proposed to excavate out a large volume of ancient filling material and that is heavily contaminated with heavy metals such as “Nickel, Lead, Zinc, Cadmium, Copper and Mercury), Tributyltin (TBT), Dibutyltin (DBT) and Total Extractable Hydrocarbons.”

No Matter what precautions are taken when this material is being excavated there must be some leaching of these contaminants into the water column. It is then proposed to barge this contaminated material to land and treat it. Some of this material will be used below water to make up new land fill areas.

Response;

As set out in Section 9.9.1 in Volume 1 of the EIS, the dredging of the material in the Alexander Basin West will be undertaken using a floating pontoon with an excavator- mounted clamshell bucket adapted for environmental dredging. This will minimise the disturbance and escape of material at the seabed and through the water column. In addition a silt curtain will be utilised around the dredger whilst the dredging of contaminated material is ongoing. This will contain the contaminated sediment within the dredging operations in Alexander Basin and prevent the loss of contaminated sediment to the wider harbour area.

The dredged material recovered from Alexandra Basin West will be transported by barge to a treatment facility adjacent to Berth 52/53. It will be stabilised and modified to improve the engineering properties of the material, to allow its re-use as fill material for reclamation works identified within the Port at berths 52/53. The material which has already been treated will be placed in the fill area and stabilized with

cement. The fill area is also to be protected by the construction of a new quay wall thus the treated material will be contained and is thus suitable for use in the infill of the old 52/53 dock including areas beneath water level.

(ii) Submission:

Other lesser contaminated material they propose to barge out into Dublin Bay and let it drop 20m through the water column to the sea floor. I believe that this dumping will separate out this material and undo the process entirely.

Response:

As set out in Section 9.9.1 in Volume 1 of the EIS, dredging of slight/moderately contaminated silty material adjacent to the North Wall Quay Extension and the entrance to Alexandra Basin West will be undertaken in conjunction with the dredging of gravels from the main channel. The slight/moderately contaminated silts deposited at the dump site will be overlaid (capped) with the dredged gravels. The dumping of the silt will be undertaken at slack tide to ensure that the partially contaminated silt will de deposited on the bed in the dump site area and immediately covered by the gravel which will be stable even in storm conditions. This process has already been successfully carried out during the last maintenance dredging campaign. Monitoring has shown that the gravel capping is still in place and working as it was design to do.

5.4.4 Issue #3 – People using the Bay

Submission: The writer’s main interest here is in Scuba Diving in Dublin Bay. We are always aware when dumping is taking place in the Bay with the lack of visibility underwater. Following dumping the slightest winds cause waves action dispersing silt from the dump site all across the Bay. When visibility eventually clears out the entire sea floor, the rocks and even the Seaweed is covered with fine silt. The lobster and crab shells are similarly covered and now we know that this silt contains heavy metals. Response: It is noted that the submission states that the problem of underwater visibility occurs during the slightest winds which cause wave action dispersing the silt from the dump site. The dump site is in some 20 metres of water, so waves resulting from the slightest of wind can not affect the sea bed at this depth. Thus the silt to which he refers must thus be in very shallow water to be disturbed by small waves. The sea bed in Dublin Bay comprises mainly fine sand but there is also a small percentage of silt in the natural sea bed. This material can be disturbed in shallow water by wave action and will affect the natural suspended sediment concentrations. The lightly contaminated silt will be dumped on the disposal site and capped with gravel as described in 4.4.3 (ii) above. Thus there will not be a release of heavy metals from the ABR project dredging disposal.

The uncontaminated silt will be dumped at the disposal site. The studies undertaken for the ABR project, Section 9.9.3 of Volume 1 of the EIS, have shown that the silt material is dispersed away by the tidal currents into the Irish Sea and only a minute fraction will be deposited along the shorelines in Dublin Bay with deposition depths of less than 0.003 mm.

6 Responses to Submissions made to An Bord Pleanála on the RFI

6.1 Irish Underwater Council

6.1.1 Issue#1 Suspended Solids

Issue

The submission made to An Bord Pleanála on suspended solids is basically a repetition of the points made by the Irish Underwater Council in their submission on the EIS.

Response

The response to these points is made in Sections 5.2.1 (ii), (iii) and (iv) of this document, pages 21-23. It should be noted that in 2012 a maintenance dredging campaign of some 650,000 m3 was undertaken with the same rate of dredging and disposal at the licensed site at the Burford Bank with no adverse suspended solids issues. This confirms the validity of the proposed dredging operations described in the EIS.

6.2 Peadar Farrell

6.2.1 Issue#1 Marine Mammals

Issue

A barge with say 5,000 tons of dredged material opens its floor and in10 seconds the 5000 tons cascade down the 20 metres to the sea floor killing fish and mammals swimming under the barge.

Response

Mr Farrell assumes that 5,000 tons of material will be dumped on the disposal site in a 10 second period. This is totally incorrect as the disposal of dredged material will be undertaken as a slow gradual process with the material being spread out over the dumpsite area. This is achieved by the dump barge cracking open its bottom doors to allow the material so slip out gradually as the barge travel around the dumpsite area. This is a standard practice for situations such as the dumping of the material at the Bruford Bank licensed disposal site in Dublin Bay. The dumping period for the quantity suggested by Mr Farrell would take hours rather than the 10 seconds assumed by Mr Farrell.

6.2.2 Issue#2 Underwater Divers

Issue

Dublin Port is seeking permission to dump 12,744,000 tons of material which is equivalent to 637,200 builders trucks with 20 tons aboard. For every 1,000,000 tons dumped, 850,000 tons sails off with the tide and current and we divers and the local swimmers would be immersed in it. The total dispersion all over Dublin Bay would be 10,324,000 tons with a mere 1,911600 staying at the dumping site.

Following the dumping mentioned in 2012 at the dump site the underwater visibility in Dublin Bay was not reduced dramatically and there was little protest from divers. The material lay mostly on the bank where it was deposited. But following the winter storms in 2013 to 2014 when we had months of severe easterly winds this all changed. The storms were very severe and shell fish by the millions were thrown up on the beaches all around Dublin and the East Coast.

Diving generally resumes after the winter in March some weeks before Easter. This year it was impossible to dive until after May and was then worthless with low visibility until late June. I have no proof or data of this but something very unusual happened during the winter of 2013/14. The visibility in the water this year has not come close to what is the norm and in the beginning of the year the water was chocolate coloured. I believe that the dumping on the Burford Bank was reduced in 2 months to the 15% stated by being blown off the Bank with the storms.

Response

Mr Farrell’s assumptions about the dumping process and the suspended sediment which results is not correct. Section 9.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS clearly shows that the suspended sediment plume from the dumping operations is very low at about 20 mg/litre and that virtually all the silt is dispersed in to the Irish Sea with only minute quantities deposited within Dublin Bay.

It is pleasing to hear Mr Farrell confirm that the dredging and disposal undertaken by Dublin Port in 2012 did not significantly affect underwater visibility. However he is incorrect in his assumption that the material lay mostly on the bank where it was deposited. Post dredging surveys of the dumpsite in 2012 showed that only about 15% of the material remained on the dump site.

The winter storms during 2013/2014 were both very severe and prolonged with significant damage to beaches and dunes along the east coast. Large quantities of sediment were drawn off the beaches and shorelines by the severe wave action which greatly increased the suspended sediment values all along the east coast and in Dublin Bay. The extremely severe weather, which also resulted in the damage to shellfish beds referred to by Mr Farrell, was responsible for the poor visibility rather than the dredging undertaken by Dublin Port in 2012.

6.2.3 Issue#3 Coastal Processes

Issue

Mr Farrell was shocked to read that the wave heights at Clontarf wooden bridge will be increased by 5”/120mm and 8” or 200mm. The easterly wind drives the waves to shore at Clontarf and it’s the breaking waves that spill over the sea wall and flood the area.

Response

Mr Farrell has confused the increase in wave heights at the entrance to the harbour channel with the wave heights adjacent to the Clontarf wooden bridge. As shown in section 10.5.6 of Volume 1 of the EIS, the increase in the wave heights adjacent to the Clontarf wooden bridge is only 0.03 of a metre, and as explained on page 10-34 of section 10.5.6 of Volume 1 of the EIS, there is no net increase to the existing flood risk to this area of Clontarf as a consequence of the ABR project.

6.2.4 Issue#4 Sediment disposal site

Issue

Any mammal or shoals of fish at the dump site will almost certainly be killed by falling tons of materials. Sea conditions from October to March and darkness will render an observer totally worthless.

As 85% of the dumped material will be blown off the dump site by severe storms it is neither fair nor reasonable to call this a dump site or a disposal site. The dump site is all of Dublin Bay where 85% of the material dumped will finally lodge. It would also be reasonable to assume that 85% all dangerous contaminants including heavy metals dumped will spread out over Dublin Bay.

To suggest that contaminated material can be dropped down through 20m of water all falling neatly on the bottom in a nice fine layer and at some time later a layer of coarse sand can be dropped 20m exactly on top of this layer is fantasy.

If the dredged material has to be dumped at sea it could be dumped a few miles outside Dublin Bay where the currents are strong. These are areas not too far out where the depth is 40m. The deeper the water the greater the dispersal and the greater the dilution. This would have much less effect in the diving and swimming communities and kill less sea life as most of the marine life is in the shallow waters close to shore.

Response

Mr Farrell’s concerns in this section of his submission are commented on in Sub- section 6.2.1 and Section 5.4 of this document. The 85% of material referred to is actually the percentage of the dredged spoil which did not remain on the dump site under normal tidal conditions (not storms) during the dumping of the material dredged by Dublin Port in 2012. This has been shown to be the approximate amount of silt dredged in that dredging campaign.

The proposal is to cap the partially contaminated material with gravel immediately

after the dumping of the silt, rather than some time later as suggested by Mr Farrell. The process has already been undertaken successfully in the 2012 dredging campaign.

As set out in Section 5.4.2 of this document and as noted in Section 9.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS, It is important that the there is not a loss of sand sediment in the Dublin Bay sediment sub cell as a result of the dredging, as this could adversely affect the beaches and flats which are part of the designated areas around the Bay. For these reasons, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to dump all the sediment to sea ward of Dublin Bay as recommended by Mr Peadar Farrell.

7 Conclusion

7.1 An extensive programme of model simulations, supported by fieldwork and literature review, has been undertaken to evaluate how the proposed ABR Project would impact upon the coastal processes and the stability of the approach channel, as well as to investigate the disposal of dredged spoil at the existing licensed offshore spoil site within Dublin Bay.

7.2 A Flood Risk Appraisal (FRA) of the ABR Project has been completed on behalf of the developer in accordance with the Flood Risk Management Planning Guidelines (2009).

7.3 An evaluation of the potential flood risk arising from the proposed development has shown that the predominant source of potential flood risk emanates from coastal flooding and that the ABR Project complies with the requirements of the Flood Risk Management Planning Guidelines (2009).

7.4 Model simulations have been undertaken to determine any change to the flood risk associated with neighbouring areas of Clontarf, South Quays and North Quays as a result of the proposed capital dredging scheme. The results of the model simulations have shown that the proposed works will not increase the flood risk to any of these areas.

7.5 A submission has been received from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht concerning potential secondary impacts that the proposed dredging works may have on the sediment transport regime upstream of the East Link Bridge. It has been shown that the proposed dredging of the channel will have no impact on the sediment transport regime upstream of the East Link Bridge.

7.6 Responses have also been received from the Irish Underwater Council, Sandymount & Merrion Residents Association, and Peadar Farrell concerning the impact of the dredging and spoil deposition on the suspended sediment loading of the waters around Dublin Bay with consequent issues relating to diving and far field deposition. The studies undertaken for the ABR project have shown that the dredged silt material from the harbour channel is dispersed away in to the Irish Sea and only a minute fraction will be deposited along the shorelines in Dublin Bay. The deposited dredged sand from the approach channel will initially be confined to the licensed dump site, but will gradually migrate under storm action into the surrounding Bay area where it will ensure that there is no loss of sediment to the Dublin Bay system as a result of the deepening of the navigation channel to Dublin Port.

7.7 The comprehensive studies undertaken as part of the EIS preparation, show that the ABR Project will not have a significant impact on the coastal processes of Dublin Bay or the flood risk to Dublin and the adjoining area.

33 STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N .PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL SHAW

ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION PHASING

1 Qualifications and Experience

1.1.1 I am Dr Michael Shaw and am Director of Ports and Harbours with RPS Consulting Engineers. I have 29 years experience in the maritime engineering sector and have been responsible for feasibility studies, design and supervision of marine engineering projects including harbour design, coastal defence structures, berthing facilities, cargo handling, infrastructure, aquaculture and marina development. I have been responsible for the design and supervision of major dredging projects. I also have significant experience in diving inspections in coastal and inland waters for civil works and aquaculture: including inspections of concrete and steel quay structures, breakwater underwater supervision and long sea outfalls.

I graduated in 1981 with a BSc in Civil Engineering and in 1985 I obtained a PhD in Wave Current Interactions in Tidal inlets/estuaries.

My professional affiliations include:

 Member of Engineers Ireland;

 Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers; and

 Member of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management.

1.1.2 My PhD research was on the interaction of wave and tidal currents at tidal entrances, providing fundamental research on the transformation of the waves and the currents in non-uniform fields.

2 Involvement in the Project

2.1.1 My evidence will deal with Project Engineering and Construction Phasing. I will summarise the physical layout and infrastructure associated with the development of the proposal.

2.1.2 RPS Consulting Engineers were responsible for the preliminary engineering design of this scheme. I was RPS Project Director responsible for leading the engineering design which was submitted as part of the application for permission to An Bord Pleanála on 6 March 2014.

3 Engineering Alternatives Considered

3.1.1 As set out in detail in Chapter 1 of Volume 1 of the EIS,

In identifying the engineering options in the Masterplan, DPC recognised significant levels of public concern about the expansion of the Port through further infill in Dublin Bay. Accordingly, the Masterplan confirmed that the Company would continue to develop the Port within its current footprint to the maximum extent possible before any major reclamation works might be considered.

The ABR Project, therefore, focuses on a combination of re-developing existing (and in some cases life-expired) infrastructure and using existing port lands at higher utilisation levels. Beyond this, and to maximise the operational efficiency of the Port, many of the new berths proposed in the ABR Project have been designed to be multipurpose to cater for the needs of a range of ship and cargo types.

For ease of reference, the engineering options identified in the Masterplan are shown in Figure 3.1 below.

ABR Project ABR Project

Figure 3.1 Masterplan Engineering Options

4 Proposed Engineering & Dredging Works

4.1.1 As set out in detail in Section 4 of Volume 1 of the EIS, the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment [ABR] project comprises a number of elements.

Firstly, for ease of reference, the geographical extent of the ABR Project is presented in Figure 4.1A below1.

Figure 4.1A Site Location Plan

The proposed development works comprise the following elements:- Navigation Channel Dredging (see Figure 4.1A)

 Dredging of Liffey Channel to -10m Chart Datum [CD], from Dublin Bay Buoy to East Link Bridge over a six year period

 Construction of a surge protection/retaining wall at Poolbeg Marina

Alexandra Basin West (see Figure 4.1B)

 Dismantling of infrastructure and removal of infill material

 Quay wall refurbishment/construction (designed to accommodate future dredging to a level of -15m CD)

 Installation of Ro-Ro ramps

 Ro-Ro jetty construction

 Dredging of basin and berths to -10m CD

 Treatment of contaminated dredged material and re-use as infill on site

 Excavation and restoration of Graving Dock # 1

 Infilling of Graving Dock # 2 with treated dredged material

1 Uncontaminated material dredged from the navigation channel will be disposed of the at Burford Bank dumpsite, as described in Section 5.4.3 of Volume 1 of the EIS.

 Relocation of ore concentrates loading operations to Alexandra Quay West Extension

 Development of cultural heritage interpretative space

Figure 4.1B Works at Alexandra Basin West

Existing Berth 52/53 (see Figure 4.1C)

 Dismantling and removal of existing infrastructure

 Infilling of existing Berth 52/53 with treated dredged material

 Raising of existing surface levels by approx.1.4m

 Quay wall construction

 Mooring jetty construction

 Installation of Ro-Ro ramp

Figure 4.1C Works at Berth 52/53

Port Equipment The works associated with this ABR project are required to permit a reconfiguration of the existing operations within Alexandra Basin West and at Berth 52/53. It is therefore envisaged that all operations within these areas will be similar to current operations. In order to facilitate the operations within the proposed basin layout, and at the new river berth at 52/53, it is necessary to reconfigure existing equipment and install new equipment including:

 Relocation of existing ramp No. 8 from Berth 52/53 to Crossberth Quay;

 Installation of ramp No. 8 and 1 no. new Ro-Ro ramp to serve the 273m long Ro-Ro jetty;

 Relocation of double deck ramp No. 4 from Alexandra Basin West to new river berth at 52/53;

 Installation of a double Ro-Ro ramp at intersection between Alexandra Quay West and Ocean Pier West; and

 The relocation of the ore concentrates loading operations to a new quay across the entrance to Graving Dock No.2.

There is no proposal for additional cranes within the port, as part of this proposed development, other than normal upgrading of harbour mobile cranes as and when required. This brief description has been intended as an introductory overview of the project which is fully described in Chapter 4 of Volume 1 of the EIS.

5 Programme & Construction Sequence

5.1 Draft Construction Programme

As set out in detail in Section 4 of Volume 1 of the EIS, a draft construction programme was produced for the proposed works associated with the ABR project, and was submitted in Appendix 4 in Volume 2 of the EIS. A copy of this programme is shown overleaf. Locations of berth numbers referenced on the programme are shown on Figures 5.1A and 5.1B.

Figure 5.1A Alexandra Basin West Berth Numbers (As per Figure 3.5 in Section 3 of Volume 1 of the EIS)

Figure 5.1B Terminal 5 Berth Numbers (As per Figure 3.6 in Section 3 of Volume 1 of the EIS)

5.2 Construction Sequence

The construction activities are divided between two primary work streams: the civil engineering works required to facilitate the creation of deep berths and enclose Berths 52 / 53 and dredging of the main channel and of Alexandra Basin West. There are two distinct dredging phases within the project, dredging of the navigation channel and dredging of Alexandra Basin West. The works are broken into three distinct, sequential phases:

Phase 1 (as per Figure 5.2A)

 Removal of stockpile in Alexandra Basin West, demolition of lead-in and loading jetties

 Piling of extension to Alexandra Quay West

 Piling of Crossberth Quay & Ocean Pier

 Construction of Ro-Ro Jetties in Alexandra Basin West

Phase 2 & 2A (as per Figure 5.2B)

 Closing of existing Berths 52/53

 Construction of New Berth 52

 Piling of Alexandra Quay West

 Basin dredging, treatment and filling operations ongoing throughout Phase 2 & 2A

Phase 3 & 3A (as per Figure 5.2C)

 Partial deconstruction of North Wall Quay Extension and piling of newly shaped structure

 Construction of Marina Wall

 Basin dredging, treatment and filling operations ongoing throughout Phase 3 & 3A

Phase Works 1 Phase

(Image from Google Earth) Google from (Image Figure Figure

Phase 2 & 2A Works 2A & 2 Phase

.2B

(Image from Google Earth) Google from (Image Figure Figure

orks

Phase 3 & 3A W 3A & 3 Phase

.2C

(Image from Google Earth) Google from (Image Figure Figure

5.3 Piling Sequences

Table A1 below (as set out in Section 2A of the Response to Request for Further Information document) contains specific details relating to the extent of quay wall construction that will require piling works, the number of piles that will be required for each quay and the approximate duration of piling works related to each particular quay.

Table A1: Extent and Duration of Piling Activities during Construction Works (no piling during March – May)

Quay Structure Approximate Number Preliminary Programmed Dates Approximate Quay Length of Piles Duration of to be Piled Piling Works Ocean Pier Apr 2016-Feb 2017 557m 186 10 months (Berths 32-34) (Piling commencing June 2016)

Alexandra Quay Oct 2015 - Feb 2016 West 530m 177 Jan 2017 - Feb 2017 13 months (Berths 29-31) June 2017 - Nov 2017 Crossberth 256m 86 Nov 2015 - Feb 2016 4 months Quay North Wall Jan 2018 -Feb 2018 Quay Extension 937m 312 9 months Jul 2018 - Jan 2019 (Berths 21-25)

New Berth Jul 2017 - Jan 2018 297m 1433* 7 months 52/53 (Piling commencing Aug 2017) Sept 2017 - Feb 2018 Marina Wall 220m 74 7 months (Marine plant mobilisation Aug 2017)

Ro-Ro Jetty in Jan 2017 - June 2017 Alexandra 273m 72 3 months Basin (Total construction period)

Ro-Ro Jetty at Jul 2017 - Mar 2018 40m 18 1.5 months Berth 49 (Total construction period)

Ro-Ro Jetty at Jul 2017 - Mar 2018 75m 18 1.5 months Berth 52 (Total construction period)

* New Berth 52/53 quay two forms of construction, 130m steel combi-wall (equating to 45nr 1.6m diameter tubes), and 167m formed using cellular cofferdams (equating to 1388nr 0.5m wide straight web piles). The latter is considerably less noisy than the former, so for the purposes of appraising worst-case noise levels, the former has been used in the noise model. The draft programme includes a three month break in piling operations between March and May (inclusive). This is to mitigate against any potential impact on migrating smolts in the river channel. Piling operations at New Berth 52 will be limited to mid-August to mid-March to negate any impact on the tern colony nearest to berths 52/53.

Table A2 below elaborates on Table A1 to illustrate the type of piling proposed for each quay structure, the number of piling rigs required and references the appropriate figure in this statement which shows the location of the relevant quay structures. 14

Table A2: Details of Piling Activities during Construction Works

As outlined in Table A2 above, the preliminary programme dates are for piling to commence in October 2015 and continue until January 2019. However, as is illustrated by Table A2 piling activities at different locations will take place at different times during that period.

The marked-up programme overleaf highlights the piling activities throughout the project, and notes the number of rigs required at each location.

The number of piling rigs that will be active at any one time will vary throughout the construction period, with initially only one rig being active (i.e. October 2015) reaching a maximum of 5 in accordance with the programme (e.g. January 2018). These 5 rigs will be active at the following locations:

 Berth 52 (2nr piling rigs)

 North Wall Quay Extension (2nr piling rigs)

 Marina Wall (1nr marine-based piling rig)

Jan2018

(Max.piling 5nr rigs working simultaneously) working

6 Submissions and Responses

In preparing this witness statement, I have considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the engineering and construction phasing aspects of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project. I have set out each submission or observation in turn below, before providing my response to the essential point being made.

6.1 Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAU)

In its submission on the application, the Development Applications Unit of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht makes a number of submissions in relation to the exposed sections of Stoney's quay along the North Wall Quay Extension. These submissions are set out below and the developer's response is made directly thereunder.

6.1.1 Issue #1– Support to Exposed Section of Stoney's Quay

Submission:

The Department has requested clarification on how the exposed sections of Stoney's quay are to be supported given that the river bed is to be dredged beneath them to a new depth and that the new piles will apparently stop short of them on each side.

Response:

The engineering works proposed for the exposed sections of Stoney's quay are outlined in Section 4.1.2 of Volume 1 of the EIS. In order to provide clarification on the engineering approach to the exposed sections of Stoney's quay, details of the construction technique are outlined in the following bullet points:

 Steel piles will be installed along the full length of the new quay structure, in front of existing masonry North Wall Quay Extension structure  At the locations for the openings onto the exposed sections of Stoney's quay, the top of the piles will be cut down to required level (below LAT)  Lean mix concrete will be placed behind piles up to the level of the cut-off piles  At the exposed section, an inclined concrete slab/sill will be placed between existing wall and front edge of piles (to seal the junction between the piles and the existing Stoney quay)  Precast concrete corner return panels will be installed to close off the jambs between new wall and original masonry wall

Using this approach, a line of steel piles will be driven to the required depth along the full length of the proposed structure. This new quay wall will facilitate the proposed dredging, whilst protecting the foundations of the existing quay wall. The top level of the piles will be lowered locally at the exposed sections of Stoney's quay to provide a view onto the existing structure (see Figure 6.1A & Figure 6.1B).

Figure 6.1A Elevation on Proposed Opening in North Wall Quay Extension (Extract from planning drawing IBM0498-NQ-012)

Figure 6.1B Elevation on Conservation Opening in North Wall Quay Extension (Extract from MOLA Architects Conservation Strategy pg25)

6.1.2 Issue #2 – Existing Timber Piles beneath Stoney Blocks

Submission:

The Department notes that in one of the old engraving drawings submitted, it would appear that Stoney's blocks were supported on timber piles. The Department questions how these piles will continue to function given the dredging and engineering interventions proposed.

Response:

Historical drawings available for the Stoney blocks indicate that the blocks are founded on a bed of gravel overlying a stiff clay layer, with no evidence of timber piles.

Furthermore, recent site investigations have identified competent strata at the foundation level of the base of the Stoney blocks.

6.2 Peadar Farrell, 49 Foxfield Avenue, Raheny, Dublin 5

Peadar Farrell makes a submission in relation to construction activities at the Great South Wall. This submission is set out below and the developer's response is made directly thereunder.

6.2.1 Issue #1 – Piling Operations at Great South Wall

Submission:

Mr Farrell raises his concerns regarding the health and safety implications of piling operations at the Great South Wall. Specifically, the risk to public using the Great South Wall caused by noise levels during piling operations.

Response:

As detailed in Section 4.1.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS, the strengthening works proposed for the Great South Wall involve the placement of additional rock armour to extend the existing underwater rock armour protection to the new channel depth.

No piling operations are proposed to the Great South Wall.

The nature and extent of the proposed works are shown on Figure 6.2A, which is an extract from planning drawing IBM0498-CH-005.

Figure 6.2A Extent of Proposed Strengthening Works to Great South Wall (Extract from planning drawing IBM0498-CH-005)

6.2.2 Issue #2 – Excavation at Great South Wall

Submission:

Mr Farrell raises his concerns regarding the risk of slippage and potential loss of the structure following the dredging of the navigation channel.

Response:

As detailed in Section 4.1.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS, slope stabilisation works are proposed in the vicinity of the Great South Wall to reinforce the dredge slopes and prevent any potential slippage (extent shown on planning drawing IBM0498-CH-005).

These stabilisation works will be in the form of rock armour placed on the slopes, or the installation of concrete mattresses along the dredged slope (as shown on Figure 6.2B, which is an extract from planning drawing IBM0498-CH-005).

Figure 6.2B Proposed Slope Stabilisation Works to Great South Wall (Extract from planning drawing IBM0498-CH-005)

6.3 Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAU)

In its submission on the Response to Request for Further Information, the Development Applications Unit of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht makes a submission in relation to the High Level Construction Environmental Management Plan, and the reference therein to the production of a Dredging Management Plan post-consent. This submission is set out below and the developer's response is made directly thereunder.

6.3.1 Issue #1 – Dredging Management Plan

Submission:

The Department advises that the Dredging Management Plan must be sufficiently well- developed and finalised to allow for its' analysis and consideration by the Board in its appropriate assessment of this application.

Response:

A Draft Dredging Management Plan is attached in Appendix A of this Witness Statement.

This draft management plan has been produced by collating the dredging operations information provided in Sections 4 and 9 of Volume 1 of the EIS, the risk assessment from the Draft High Level Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), and the mitigation measures outlined throughout both the EIS and the Draft High Level CEMP.

7 Conclusion

The engineering options considered, the proposed development works and construction activities (including programming/phasing) have been detailed in the EIS.

The proposed method of quay wall construction has been developed to facilitate the retention of the existing Stoney quay behind the new quay structure along the River Liffey side of the North Wall Quay Extension.

The quay construction has been suitably detailed to provide openings in the new quay structure, exposing sections of the original Stoney quay, whilst protecting the existing foundations and facilitating the proposed dredging campaign.

In summary, it should be emphasised that due consideration was given to the foundations and, where possible, the retention of the existing North Wall Quay Extension from an early stage in the project design.

In relation to the Great South Wall, no piling works are proposed in the vicinity of this structure. It is envisaged that stabilisation works will be required to the Great South Wall to negate any impact from the channel dredging and realignment. These works will include the placement of additional rock armour to protect the lower existing rock armour slopes around the bull lighthouse to prevent any undermining of the existing structure. The dredged side slopes will also be steepened and stabilised at this location using concrete mattresses.

Chapter 4 of the EIS describes the proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment project and full consideration has also been given to the construction activities associated with the works and operation and maintenance of the completed facilities.

APPENDIX A

DRAFT DREDGING MANAGEMENT PLAN

Alexandra Basin Redevelopment

Draft Dredging Management Plan

Document Control Sheet

Client: Dublin Port Company

Project Title: Alexandra Basin Redevelopment

Document Title: Draft Dredging Management Plan

Document No: MDE1139Rp0006

Text Pages: 38 Appendices: 1

Rev. Status Date Author(s) Reviewed By Approved By nd D01 Final 2 October 2014 PC AKB MRS

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of the Client. It is provided for sole use of the Client and its professional advisors. Information disclosed should be treated as being strictly private and confidential. Any use which a third party makes of this document, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. No responsibility is accepted by RPS for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, for any other purpose.

rpsgroup.com/ireland

Dredging Management Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 SCOPE OF THE PLAN ...... 1

1.2 OVERVIEW OF OPERATIONS ...... 1 1.2.1 Dredging & Disposal of Uncontaminated material ...... 4 1.2.2 Dredging & Disposal of slight/moderately contaminated material ...... 4 1.2.3 Dredging of Heavily Contaminated Material ...... 5

1.3 INTERFACING WITH OTHER PLANS ...... 5

1.4 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ...... 6 2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF INTERESTED PARTIES ...... 7

2.1 DUBLIN PORT COMPANY ...... 7

2.2 THE DREDGING CONTRACTOR ...... 8 3 RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 10

3.1 INTRODUCTION & SCOPE ...... 10

3.2 RISK IDENTIFICATION...... 10

3.3 RISK ANALYSIS ...... 11

3.4 RISK REGISTER ...... 12

3.5 RISK EVALUATION ...... 20

3.6 RISK TREATMENT ...... 22 4 PREVENTION AND MITIGATION ...... 30

4.1 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ECOLOGY ...... 30

4.2 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR WATER QUALITY AND GEOLOGY ...... 31

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Communication Details for Key Personnel

MDE1139Rp0006 i Dredging Management Plan

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SCOPE OF THE PLAN

This Dredging Management Plan (DMP) has been prepared for Dublin Port Company (DPC) to cover the dredging elements of the proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment project. The dredging included in this DMP will be undertaken at the following locations:

. Dredging of Alexandra Basin to -10.0m CD . Dredging of the Liffey Channel to -10.0m CD, from the East Link Bridge to the Dublin Bay Buoy over a 6 year period.

This DMP presents the proposed management and emergency response procedures for the dredging operation

It should be noted that this is a live document that will be updated and reviewed to reflect any changes in the proposed dredging operation, the efficiency of the management of incidents, the communications procedure and the results of any monitoring programme.

It is also important to note that the dredging contractor will play a critical role in the DMP and as a contractor is yet to be appointed some aspects of this DMP are in summary format pending the contractor input. The DMP will be further updated on contractor appointment and issued to Dublin City Council for approval prior to the commencement of any works.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF OPERATIONS

The proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project comprises works to be undertaken in three areas as follows:

. Alexandra Basin West . Berths 52 / 53 . The navigation channel and fairway from Dublin Port into Dublin Bay

The extent of the proposed development works are outlined in Figure 1.1 overleaf. The location of the Alexandra Basin West and Berths 52 / 53 in Dublin Port are shown in Figure 1.2.

The existing land-use within Alexandra Basin West is solely Port related. Similarly, the existing land- use at Berths 52 / 53, also known as Terminal 5, is solely Port related. Berths 52 / 53 are located in a basin at the eastern end of the Port, on the northern side of the River Liffey. The navigation channel is controlled by Dublin Port Company (DPC) which is the competent authority with responsibility for the safe passage of all shipping entering and leaving the Port. No other commercial activities are permitted within the navigation channel for safety reasons. Maintenance dredging of the navigation channel takes place on a regular basis to maintain a depth of -7.8m Chart Datum (CD).

MDE1139Rp0006 1 Dredging Management Plan

Figure 1.1 – Site Location Plan

Figure 1.2 –Location of Alexandra Basin West and Berths 52 / 53

Alexandra Basin West Berths 52 / 53

A draft project programme is shown in Figure 1.3. This project programme outlines the proposed works and associated timescale that will be undertaken during the construction works of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment. From the project programme, it can be seen that there are two distinct dredging phases within the project; the Main Channel dredging and the Alexandra Basin dredging. It is envisaged that the Main Channel Dredging will be limited to the winter months only and will carried out within a six month period to negate any potential impact on salmonid migration and summer bird feeding in the vicinity of the dredging operations. It is proposed that the dredging will commence following advance works with the first dredging operations due to commence in October 2015 and finish in March 2016. It is estimated that the main channel dredging could be completed, given favourable conditions, within six years. As such there will be 6 phases of dredging with the final phase proposed from October 2020 to March 2021 (as shown in Figure 1.4).

MDE1139Rp0006 2 Dredging Management Plan

Figure 1.3 – Draft Project Programme

MDE1139Rp0006 1 Dredging Management Plan

Figure 1.4 – Draft Dredging Sequence

The dredging of the Alexandra Basin is not seasonally dependent. However the rate of dredging within Alexandra Basin West will be determined by the rate of treatment of the dredged material and as such it is envisaged that these works will be completed within 18 months, commencing in October 2017 and will be completed by end of March 2019.

A capital dredging scheme is an integral part of the development. Its purpose is to deepen Alexandra Basin West and the navigation channel and fairway from Dublin Port into Dublin Bay from its current depth of -7.8m CD to a depth of -10m CD. The proposed development is located within the confines of Dublin Port Company’s land and the navigation channel approaching Dublin Port.

The following dredging will be undertaken as part of the proposed works to permit access to Alexandra Basin and provide sufficient water depths for vessels in Alexandra Basin at all stages of the tide:

. Dredging of Alexandra Basin to -10.0m CD . Dredging of the Liffey Channel to -10.0m CD, from the East Link Bridge to the Dublin Bay Buoy over a 6 year period.

This equates to approximately 6,370,000m3 of dredging. The alignment of the dredge channel at Alexandra Basin East and West is shown in Figure 1.5.

MDE1139Rp0006 2 Dredging Management Plan

Figure 1.5 – Dredge Material Locations

Alexandra Basin West is contaminated particularly with heavy metals as a result of past cargo handling and ship repair activities.

As outlined in Chapter 4 of Volume 1 of the EIS, a suite of sampling and environmental testing has been undertaken to quantify and identify the nature of the contamination within the bed materials of Alexandra Basin West and the Liffey Channel. The results shows that the bed materials within the Alexandra Basin West are contaminated with heavy metals such as Arsenic, Copper, Chromium, Cadmium, Nickel, Lead, Mercury and Zinc at depths exceeding 2m. Lower levels of contamination were recorded in the channel sediments adjacent to the basin. The volume of material to be dredged is outlined in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 – Dredge Volumes

Source Location Material Status Approx. Volume (m3) Alexandra Basin West Heavily Contaminated 470,000 Navigation Channel Slight/Moderately Contaminated 500,000 Navigation Channel Uncontaminated 5,400,000 Total Volume - 6,370,000

As such, there are three distinct dredging and disposal operations that will be carried out as part of the proposed development, and each are discussed in more detail below.

. Dredging & Disposal of Uncontaminated material from the outer Navigation channel (between North Bull Wall/Great South Wall and the Dublin Bay Buoy);

MDE1139Rp0006 3 Dredging Management Plan

. Dredging & Disposal of Slight/Moderately contaminated material from the Liffey Channel (adjacent to the North Wall Quay Extension and the entrance to Alexandra Basin West); . Dredging of Heavily contaminated material from Alexandra Basin West and treatment of material at facility at Berth 52/53.

1.2.1 Dredging & Disposal of Uncontaminated material

The marine sediments from the outer channel, comprising mainly fine sands, between the North Bull Wall / Great South Wall and the Dublin Bay Buoy will be dredged using a Trailer Suction Hopper Dredger, or equivalent. The dredged material will be loaded into barges and transported directly to the licensed sea disposal site, Burford Bank in outer Dublin Bay. This disposal option is preferred because it keeps the dredge material within the natural Dublin Bay sediment cell.

Inside the Port’s walls, the bed material changes to silts, sands and gravel. This section of the channel will be dredged to the required design depths by an excavator which will operate from a floating pontoon. The dredged material will be loaded into barges and transported directly to the licensed sea disposal site at Burford Bank. The material will be spread evenly over the disposal area using split bottom barges with the doors opened slightly ajar to allow the controlled slow release over the disposal area.

It is envisaged that the dredging of uncontaminated material will be carried out during winter months only, within a 6 month period (October to March) to negate any potential impact on salmonid migration and summer bird feeding, notably terns, in the vicinity of the dredging operations. The dredging in the outer channel will commence at the channel mouth and continue westwards into the port, and will take place over a period of six winter seasons.

The channel will be dredged to the required depth along one side, maintaining an open shipping lane at all times. Once completed, the opposite side of the channel will be dredged to depth, with the shipping lane changed to the newly dredged section.

A Dumping at Sea (DaS) Permit will be required from the EPA, which will enable Dublin Port Company (DPC) to carry out the disposal of dredged material at the licensed disposal site, Burford Bank. The DaS Permit application will be subject to approval from the EPA.

1.2.2 Dredging & Disposal of slight/moderately contaminated material

The sediment quality of the material to be dredged within the navigation channel has been tested for contamination and is suitable for disposal at sea, however, some of the material to be dredged from the channel outside Alexandra Basin West has shown slight/moderate levels of contamination.

The dredging of slight/moderately contaminated material in the Liffey Channel will be undertaken using a floating pontoon with an excavator mounted clamshell bucket adapted for environmental dredging. This will minimise the disturbance and escape of material at the seabed and during removal through the water column.

Dredging of slight/moderately contaminated silty material adjacent to the North Wall Quay Extension and the entrance to Alexandra Basin West will be undertaken in conjunction with the dredging of gravels from the main channel. The slight/moderately contaminated silts deposited at

MDE1139Rp0006 4 Dredging Management Plan the licensed sea disposal site, Burford Bank in outer Dublin Bay will be overlaid (capped) with the dredged gravels from the main channel. This will be carried out only at slack tide.

A DaS permit will be required from the EPA for the disposal of dredged material at the licensed disposal site. The DaS Permit application will be subject to approval from the EPA.

1.2.3 Dredging of Heavily Contaminated Material

As part of this scheme, Alexandra Basin West will be dredged to -10.0m CD. In order to achieve this, approximately 470,000m3 of material must be removed from the basin. Dredging of contaminated material within Alexandra Basin West will be undertaken to the design dredge level for the scheme.

The dredging will be undertaken using a floating pontoon with an excavator mounted clamshell bucket adapted for environmental dredging. This will minimise the disturbance and escape of material at the seabed and during removal through the water column. In addition, a silt curtain will be utilised around the dredger whilst the dredging of contaminated material is ongoing.

It is envisaged that the dredging of the contaminated sediments will not be seasonally dependent, as the silt curtain will serve to prevent the spread of suspended contaminated sediments beyond the dredge foot print.

A programme of sediment quality sampling and analysis has shown that the sediments within Alexandra Basin West are contaminated and not suitable for disposal at sea. As such, the dredged material recovered from the Alexandra Basin West will be loaded onto barges to be transported to a treatment facility adjacent to Berth 52/53. No overtopping of barges will be permitted and spill plates will be utilised to prevent spillage during offloading operations.

The contaminated dredged material will be left on the barge overnight to allow for settlement. This method is proposed to remove as much free water from the dredged material as possible. Liquid arising from the solid material settling will be pumped out to an appropriately licensed mobile water treatment plant on site. The dredged material will be off loaded by excavators to the treatment facility. The dredge material will be stabilised and modified to improve the engineering properties of the material, to allow its re-use as fill material for reclamation works identified within the Port. A detailed description of the treatment process is outlined in Chapter 11 – Soils & Geology of Volume 1 of the EIS.

In order to minimise the stockpiling of dredged material, the rate of dredging will be determined by the rate of treatment of the dredged material. The treatment and recovery of the dredging spoil on site will take place in accordance with the conditions of an Industrial Emissions Licence to be obtained from the EPA.

1.3 INTERFACING WITH OTHER PLANS

Dublin Port Company (DPC) has an existing Emergency Management Plan (EMP) in place. The EMP is designed to provide guidelines to the DPC for responding to an emergency within their area of jurisdiction. As such the EMP is designed to cater for both marine and land based emergencies and the plan outlines the DPC structures and arrangements for responding to emergencies that may occur within Dublin Port.

MDE1139Rp0006 5 Dredging Management Plan

As the structures and arrangements are well defined, this EMP will be adhered to during the construction phase of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment and as such it will cover the dredging works in the event of an accident, spillage or containment.

As potential oil spills at sea are addressed in the EMP any such incident during dredging will follow the DPC procedures. Specific procedures relating to sediment control and sediment spill during the dredging operation are addressed in this DMP.

1.4 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

The DMP is supported by a number of documents which have been submitted in the original planning application or prepared in response to conditions raised in the planning consent. These documents are as follows;

 Environmental Impact Statement  Natura Impact Statement  Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

These documents specify particular environmental requirements that will be fulfilled during the broader construction phase of the project (including the dredging operation). All contractors involved in the project must comply with these documents.

In addition, any planning conditions set by An Bord Pleanála or licence/permit conditions set by the EPA will be incorporated into this plan in the event that consents are granted by these parties.

MDE1139Rp0006 6 Dredging Management Plan

2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF INTERESTED PARTIES 2.1 DUBLIN PORT COMPANY

If an incident was to occur during dredging operations, the fundamental legal responsibility for clean-up would rest with Dublin Port Company (DPC) as the operator. Government authorities such as the Environmental Protection Agency would, in most cases, simply monitor the clean-up activities while reserving the right to intervene actively if the operations were not being appropriately carried out, or if it became apparent that the problem was beyond DPC’s capability to resolve.

DPC recognises that as the operator it has primary operational and financial responsibility for cleaning up any environmental damage caused by an incident during the course of it's operations (including dredging). In compliance with Irish and International legislation, DPC is responsible for:

• Developing and maintain the DMP through the lifetime of the dredging operation; • Managing ongoing incident response; • Liaising with statutory bodies (including DCC, EPA, NPWS, etc. and other agencies) in the event of an incident; • Training staff in incident response procedures.

The DPC Project Manager will have an overall responsibility for the organisation and execution of all dredging activities in accordance with regulatory and planning requirements. The duties and responsibilities will include:

 Read, understand, approve and implement the NMP and supporting documentation and ensure that all standards are achieved during the operation of the development.  Be aware of legislation, codes of practice, guidance notes and good working practice relevant to environmental protection.  Ensure that the contractors dredging method statements and operations are prepared and carried out in accordance with the requirements of the EIS, any planning conditions and this DMP.  Ensure that all related activities are planned and performed such that minimal environmental risk is introduced during dredging activities.  Identify any specific training requirements and have this training arranged. Make arrangements for incident awareness training for all relevant staff and contractors.  Be alert to any inadequacies of the effectiveness of the current plan or operations and bring such inadequacies to the attention of the contractor or DPC as appropriate.  Provide assistance to members of the local authority and other regulatory bodies when they are carrying out site visits.  Appoint appropriate personnel to undertake duties in accordance with the DMP.  Act without undue delay on investigating any incident that comes to their attention and report these to the local authority and other regulatory bodies as appropriate.  Carry out or arrange for the carrying out of any water quality or ecological monitoring required for incident investigation or other purpose.  Liaise with third parties and community groups as required following incidents and in advance of any high risk operations.  Ensure environmental records are maintained in accordance with the DMP.  Provide reports as required to the local authority.

MDE1139Rp0006 7 Dredging Management Plan

2.2 THE DREDGING CONTRACTOR

The Dredging Contractor will not be appointed prior to any grant of the relevant planning and environmental operating consents. As such, details on the key personnel and structure of this contractor cannot be presented at this point.

The Contractor (yet to be appointed) is responsible for:

• Initial incident response; • Providing trained personnel to assist; and • Providing proven technical expertise to the operator in the event of an emergency.

The principle responsibilities of the various parties are presented in Table 2.1. It should be noted that this table is indicative pending award of contracts and assigning of responsibilities prior to the works. This table will be formalised in the updated DMP issued to Dublin City Council in advance of the dredging operations.

Names, and contact details and roles of all key nominated DPC and contractor staff are presented in Appendix A of this plan.

MDE1139Rp0006 8 Dredging Management Plan

Table 2.1 – Summary of Indicative Responsibilities

Position Responsibilities  Overall responsibility for implementation of the CEMP  Overall responsibility for compliance with statutory requirements  Overall responsibility for compliance with HSE requirements ABR DPC Contract manager  Overall responsibility for incident reporting  Ensure all Management Programmes and Monitoring in the CEMP are implemented  Responsibility for implementation of the CEMP for Dredging and Dumping at sea operation  Responsibility for compliance with statutory requirements in relation to Dredging Manager Dredging  Responsibility for incident reporting  Ensure all Management Programmes and Monitoring in the CEMP are implemented for dredging  Responsibility for implementation of the CEMP for construction  Overall responsibility for compliance with statutory requirements Construction Manager  Responsibility for incident reporting  Ensure all Management Programmes and Monitoring in the CEMP are implemented for construction  Prepares and implements an environmental management plan in accordance Dredging Project  with the requirements of this DDMP  Manager(onsite) Implements the management actions  Ensures adequate training of all personnel within area of responsibility  Ensures all equipment is adequately maintained and correctly operated  Coordinates the training and induction process  Overall responsibility for operations on their vessel including Health Safety and Environment  Comply with the requirements of this CEMP  Comply with the requirements of SMPP and SOPEP Skippers (Dredge vessels and  Comply with all legal requirements under the approvals documents and Tugs for Barges) relevant Acts  Comply with instructions from DCP HM  Exercise a duty of care to the environment at all times  Report all environmental incidents to DCPM  Overall responsibility for Port operations DPC Harbour Master  Overall responsibility for Port EMT and emergency reposes  Responsible for monitoring all shipping including the Dredge Operations  Provides advice on dredging and dredge material management related environmental issues  Oversees implementation of EIA mitigation, environmental controls, monitoring programs, inspections and audits  Completes compliance reporting requirements ECoW / PSDP  Responsible for the implementation of the environmental monitoring programs  and inspection  Prepares environmental monitoring reports  Provides advice with respect to environmental issues as required  Comply with the requirements of this CEMP  Comply with all legal requirements under the approvals documents and All Project Personnel relevant Acts  Exercise a duty of care to the environment at all times  Report all environmental incidents

MDE1139Rp0006 9 Dredging Management Plan

3 RISK ASSESSMENT 3.1 INTRODUCTION & SCOPE

The risk assessment considers the risk of incidents occurring that could result in liabilities materialising e.g. the event of an accident, spillage or containment breach. The risk assessment has been prepared following the EPA document ‘Guidance on assessing and costing environmental liabilities” (EPA, 2014).

The ELRA approach is a standard risk assessment that involves the assessment of the likelihood of occurrence of an event in combination with the consequences of that event. The ELRA procedure is based on the standard risk assessment principles presented in the following Irish Standards;

. I.S. ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management – Principles and Guidelines; and . IS. EN 31010:2010 Risk Management – Risk Assessment Techniques.

Following the EPA Guidance, the procedure is as follows:

. Risk Assessment including the following stages: - risk identification, i.e. the systematic identification of plausible risks, the sensitivity of the receiving environment (receptor) and the potential pathway for the activity to impact on the environment. - risk analysis consists of determining the likelihood and consequences for identified risk events. - risk evaluation is the ranking and presentation of risks to allow for prioritisation of the risk treatment programme. - risk treatment is a process to mitigate risks, e.g. by removing the risk or minimising the likelihood or consequences

3.2 RISK IDENTIFICATION

Risk identification was undertaken following a review of the information provided in the EIS and in consultation with DPC. The risk identification process involved:

. The identification of plausible incidents from dredging & disposal operations only that pose a potential hazard to the environment.

Based on a review of the dredging and disposal operations, the risks presented in Table 3.1 have been identified. The list includes all plausible risks that are considered possible to be associated with the dredging and disposal activities.

MDE1139Rp0006 10 Dredging Management Plan

Table 3.1 – Risk Register

Id Process Plausible Risk Identified Environmental Effect Ship Collision with the dredge vessel within the Release of diesel fuel resulting in marine 1 navigation channel pollution Collision of dredge vessel with fixed object Release of diesel fuel resulting in marine 2 within the navigation channel pollution Major spill from the dredge vessel during Release of diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid etc. 3 Dredging dredging activities resulting in marine pollution Breach in containment of the silt curtain Spread of suspended contaminated around the dredger in Alexandra Basin West 4 sediment beyond the dredge foot print during dredging of heavily contaminated resulting in marine pollution material Overtopping of barge with recovered heavily Release of recovered heavily 5 contaminated dredged material from Alexandra contaminated dredged material resulting Basin West in marine pollution Rupture or failure of the barge with recovered Barge failure with the release of sediment 6 Loading heavily contaminated dredged material from plume resulting in marine pollution Alexandra Basin West Uncontrolled or poorly controlled release of Release of sediment plume resulting in 7 heavily contaminated dredged material during marine pollution loading operations Breach in containment of the spill plates Spillage of sediment into the water 8 around the barge transporting heavily column resulting in marine pollution contaminated dredged material to Berth 52/53 Rupture of failure of the barge while Barge failure with the release of sediment 9 transporting heavily contaminated dredged plume resulting in marine pollution Transport material to Berth 52/53 Ship collision with the barge within the Liffey Release of diesel fuel resulting in marine 10 Channel pollution Collision of the barge with fixed object within Release of diesel fuel resulting in marine 11 the Liffey Channel pollution Breach in containment of the spill plates Spillage of sediment into the water 12 Unloading around the barges column resulting in marine pollution Potential for impact on marine flora and Dumping Dredged spoil from the Navigation 13 Dumping fauna of a higher ecological value than Channel at the incorrect location the approved dump site location

3.3 RISK ANALYSIS

The risks identified in Table 3.1 above were assessed against the Risk Classification Tables (RCT) in Tables 3.2 and 3.3. The risk classification tables were designed to reflect the levels of risk appropriate to the dredging activities.

Ratings, taken from the risk classification table, were applied to the consequence and likelihood of occurrence of each hazard. A risk score was calculated for each risk using the ratings.

MDE1139Rp0006 11 Dredging Management Plan

Table 3.2 – Risk Classification Table (Likelihood)

Likelihood Rating Category Description 1 Very Low Very low chance of hazard occurring 2 Low Low chance of hazard occurring 3 Medium Medium chance of hazard occurring 4 High High Chance of hazard occurring 5 Very High Greater than chance of hazard occurring

Table 3.3 – Risk Classification Table (Consequence)

Consequence Rating Category Description 1 Trivial No damage or negligible change to the environment 2 Minor Minor impact/localised or nuisance 3 Moderate Moderate damage to environment 4 Major Severe damage to local environment 5 Massive Massive damage to a large area, irreversible in medium term

3.4 RISK REGISTER

The hazards identified associated with the dumping and dredging activities are outlined in Table 3.4. A description of each heading in the table is outlined below:

. Risk ID – Provides a unique identifier for each hazard. . Process – Notes the activity to which the hazard relates. . Potential Risk – Identifies the potential failure mode, which could result in the hazard occurring. . Environmental Effect – The effect on the potential hazard on the environment, in this case Marine Flora & Fauna including migratory birds, benthic communities etc. . Consequence Rating – Rates the environmental impact due to the hazard event occurring given the current controls ranked against the Risk Classification Table (RCT) as provided in Table 3.3. . Basis of Consequence – Identifies the basis for the selected consequence rating. . Likelihood Rating – Rates the likelihood of the potential hazard occurring given the current controls ranked against the Risk Classification Table (RCT) as provided in Table 3.2. . Basis of Likelihood – Identifies the basis for the selected occurrence rating and notes the current controls in place for the hazard. . Risk Score – Provides a risk score to allow the ranking of each hazard. The risk score is based on the product of the severity rating and the occurrence rating for the hazard.

MDE1139Rp0006 12 Dredging Management Plan

Table 3.4 – Risk Analysis for Dredging Operations (pre-mitigation)

Risk Score Risk Environmental Consequence Likelihood Process Potential Risk Basis of Consequence Basis of Likelihood Id Effect Rating Rating (Consequence x Likelihood) Spillage could cause fish kill, impact to birds and other marine life, impact on water quality. Release of diesel Ship Collision with Six Natura 2000 sites and two fuel from one or Low chance of collision the dredge vessel Ramsar sites lie within 5km 1 both vessels 4 2 occurring, however operations 8 within the of the development. resulting in marine occurring in busy port navigation channel pollution The volumes involved may warrant the activation of Tier 3 response under the DPC Emergency Management Plan. Spillage could cause fish kill, impact to birds and other Dredging marine life, impact on water quality. Collision of dredge Six Natura 2000 sites and two Release of diesel Low chance of occurrence vessel with fixed Ramsar sites lie within 5km 2 fuel resulting in 3 2 with sufficient force for loss of 6 object within the of the development. marine pollution vessel or inventory. navigation channel The volumes involved may warrant the activation of a Tier 3 response under the DPC Emergency Management Plan. Spillage could cause fish kill, Low level releases are possible Major spill from Release of diesel impact to birds and other during operations due to the dredge vessel fuel, hydraulic fluid 3 4 marine life, impact on water 2 mechanical failure or 8 during dredging etc resulting in quality. refuelling spillage. activities marine pollution as a result of Six Natura 2000 sites and two High levels of loss or inventory

MDE1139Rp0006 13 Dredging Management Plan

Risk Score Risk Environmental Consequence Likelihood Process Potential Risk Basis of Consequence Basis of Likelihood Id Effect Rating Rating (Consequence x Likelihood) mechanical failure Ramsar sites lie within 5km loss are unlikely. or refuelling of the development. The volumes involved may warrant the activation of a Tier 3 response under the DPC EMP Suspended sediment loss containing heavy metals could have an impact on the marine environment, as the sediment plume may disperse over a large area. Six Natura 2000 sites and two Ramsar sites lie within 5km Breach in of the development. containment of Spread of Low chance of occurrence, the the silt curtain Birds suspended choice of silt curtain will be around the Wintering Brent Geese, while contaminated determined by the site specific dredger in they swim on the surface of 4 sediment beyond 3 2 environmental conditions e.g. 6 Alexandra Basin the water, do not feed while the dredge foot nature or material to be West during on the water and will not be print resulting in dredged, type of dredger, etc. dredging of heavily exposed to contaminated marine pollution contaminated sediments during dredging. material Turbidity in the water of the Dublin Port shipping channel has the potential to increase. Fish-eating birds, such as Black Guillemots, or morants or terns, can be sensitive to increasing turbidity as they use their eyes to chase and capture their prey under

MDE1139Rp0006 14 Dredging Management Plan

Risk Score Risk Environmental Consequence Likelihood Process Potential Risk Basis of Consequence Basis of Likelihood Id Effect Rating Rating (Consequence x Likelihood) water. They will not be significantly impacted by the dredging works, which will take place in the winter months only. Black Guillemots are rarely seen foraging in the water areas of the Basin as it is unlikely that their preferred fish prey occurs here in sufficient density. As such unlikely to be affected. The breeding tern colonies will not be affected as they are located some 2km away. Six Natura 2000 sites and two Ramsar sites lie within 5km of the development. In the EIS, the spill rate from the barges was taken to be Overtopping of Low chance of occurrence as Release of 108kg ms-1, this equates to barge with there will be restriction on the recovered heavily the disposal of circa recovered heavily maximum load of dredged contaminated 0.177million m3 per month 5 Loading contaminated 3 2 material that can be carried 6 dredged material dredged material Model simulations in the EIS on the barge. resulting in marine from Alexandra (Chapter 9) evaluated that pollution No over-spill will be allowed Basin West there will be no significant on the barges. impacts affecting the intertidal habitats (wetlands) which support the wintering waders and water birds for which this site is designated.

MDE1139Rp0006 15 Dredging Management Plan

Risk Score Risk Environmental Consequence Likelihood Process Potential Risk Basis of Consequence Basis of Likelihood Id Effect Rating Rating (Consequence x Likelihood) The dredged material recovered from the Alexandra Basin West will be loaded onto barges to be Rupture or failure transported to a treatment of the barge with Barge failure with facility adjacent to Berth Low chance of occurrence of recovered heavily the release of 52/53. The failure or rupture the total loss of recovered 6 contaminated sediment plume 3 2 6 of the barge will results in a dredged material from the dredged material resulting in marine sediment plume, but this will barge from Alexandra pollution be contained within the Basin West Alexandra Basin West. Six Natura 2000 sites and two Ramsar sites lie within 5km of the development. The dredging will be Medium chance of undertaken using a floating occurrence, however the use pontoon with an excavator of mounted clamshell bucket mounted clamshell bucket Uncontrolled or will minimise the release of adapted for environmental poorly controlled recovered heavily Release of dredging. This will minimise release of heavily contaminated dredged sediment plume the disturbance and escape 7 contaminated 3 2 material. The grab size of the 6 resulting in marine of material at the seabed and dredged material clamshell bucket will be pollution during removal through the during loading between 0.75 -3 m3. operations water column. Any uncontrolled release will Six Natura 2000 sites and two result in localised sediment Ramsar sites lie within 5km plume. of the development. Breach in Spillage of The breach in containment of Low chance of occurrence as containment of sediment into the the spill plates around the the silt curtains will be 8 Transport the spill plates water column 3 barge may result in a spillage 2 maintained. 6 around the barge resulting in marine of sediment into the water The times in which the transporting pollution column. curtains are temporarily

MDE1139Rp0006 16 Dredging Management Plan

Risk Score Risk Environmental Consequence Likelihood Process Potential Risk Basis of Consequence Basis of Likelihood Id Effect Rating Rating (Consequence x Likelihood) heavily Six Natura 2000 sites and two opened will be minimised to contaminated Ramsar sites lie within 5km control the containment of dredged material of the development. suspended solids. to Berth 52/53 The dredged material recovered from the Alexandra Basin West will be loaded onto barges to be Rupture or failure transported to a treatment of the barge while Barge failure with facility adjacent to Berth Low chance of occurrence of transporting the release of 52/53. The failure or rupture the total loss of recovered 9 heavily sediment plume 3 2 6 of the barge will results in a dredged material from the contaminated resulting in marine sediment plume, but this will barge dredged material pollution be contained within the to Berth 52/53 Alexandra Basin West. Six Natura 2000 sites and two Ramsar sites lie within 5km of the development. Spillage could cause fish kill, impact to birds and other marine life, impact on water quality. The volumes involved may Ship collision with Release of diesel warrant the activation of a Low chance of collision 10 the barge within fuel resulting in 4 Tier 1 to Tier 3 response 2 occurring, however operations 8 the Liffey Channel marine pollution under the DPC Emergency occurring in busy port Management Plan. Six Natura 2000 sites and two Ramsar sites lie within 5km of the development.

MDE1139Rp0006 17 Dredging Management Plan

The main impact associated The proposed dump site with dredge spoil disposal is (subject to DaS permit from Potential for smothering of the benthos the EPA) has been mapped Dumping Dredged impact on marine following deposition of large and documented for many spoil from the flora and fauna of volumes of inert sediment on years. The disposal site has 13 Dumping Navigation a higher ecological 3 2 6 the seabed. been used for dredge spoil Channel at the value than the disposal for several decades, incorrect location approved dump The sandy sediments to be to with the benthos and site location be collected from the outer demersal fish species subject areas of Dublin Bay are to periodic smothering, and similar in nature to the the dump site is not a known

MDE1139Rp0006 18 Dredging Management Plan

Risk Score Risk Environmental Consequence Likelihood Process Potential Risk Basis of Consequence Basis of Likelihood Id Effect Rating Rating (Consequence x Likelihood) sediments identified in large hotspot‟ for harbour porpoise parts of the dump site, as foraging. such the recovery of benthic The impacts associated with communities present at the the deposition of 5.9 million site will proceed more rapidly m3 of mixed sediment over a 6 than if there were large year period will be temporary differences in composition negative in nature, principally between the spoil and the affecting the direct footprint sediment already at the site. of the disposal site, and that Dublin Port Company will substantial recovery can be provide all dredging expected to occur within 12 companies with detailed months of the cessation of drawings, grid co-ordinates disposal. and admiralty charts The disposal of dredged indicating the exact location material in the approved of the dump site. disposal site will take place Six Natura 2000 sites and two entirely in the winter months Ramsar sites lie within 5km (Oct - March), over a period 6 of the development. years. A deposition rate of approximately 177,000m3 of sediment (from the main shipping channel) per calendar month at the disposal site will be disposed.

MDE1139Rp0006 19 Dredging Management Plan

3.5 RISK EVALUATION

Based on the risk analysis carried out in Table 3.4, the risks have been prioritised to identify the risks with the highest profile and allow for prioritisation of risk treatment. The prioritised risks are presented in Table 3.5.

The prioritisation in Table 3.5 indicates that all risks with a consequence rating of 4 relate to a ship collision with the dredge or barge vessel resulting in a release of diesel fuel. The likelihood of such events occurring are however considered “low”. The risks with a consequence rating of 3 relate mainly to dispersal of silt plume or oil as a result of an incident. The likelihood of such events occurring however are considered “low” or “Moderate”.

Table 3.5 – Risk Evaluation Table (by Rank) pre-mitigation

Consequence Likelihood Risk Id Process Plausible Risk Identified Rating Rating Score Ship Collision with the dredge vessel within the 1 Dredging 4 2 8 navigation channel Major spill from the dredge vessel during 3 Dredging 4 2 8 dredging activities Ship collision with the barge within the Liffey 10 Transport 4 2 8 Channel Collision of dredge vessel with fixed object within 2 Dredging 3 2 6 the navigation channel Breach in containment of the silt curtain around 4 Dredging the dredger in Alexandra Basin West during 3 2 6 dredging of heavily contaminated material Overtopping of barge with recovered heavily 5 Loading contaminated dredged material from Alexandra 3 2 6 Basin West Rupture or failure of the barge with recovered 6 Loading heavily contaminated dredged material from 3 2 6 Alexandra Basin West Uncontrolled or poorly controlled release of 7 Loading heavily contaminated dredged material during 3 2 6 loading operations Breach in containment of the spill plates around 8 Transport the barge transporting heavily contaminated 3 2 6 dredged material to Berth 52/53 Rupture of failure of the barge while transporting 9 Transport heavily contaminated dredged material to Berth 3 2 6 52/53 Collision of the barge with fixed object within the 11 Transport 3 2 6 Liffey Channel Breach in containment of the spill plates around 12 Unloading 3 2 6 the barges

13 Dumping Dumping Dredged spoil from the Navigation 3 2 6 Channel at the incorrect location

MDE1139Rp0006 20 Dredging Management Plan

In addition to the risk evaluation table in Table 3.5, a risk matrix has been developed to allow the risks to be easily displayed. The consequence and likelihood ratings are used in the matrix with the level of consequence forming the x-axis and the likelihood forming the y-axis. This matrix provides a visual tool for regular risk reviews since the success of mitigation can be easily identified. The risk matrix is displayed in Table 3.6.

The risks have been colour coded in the matrix to provide a broad indication of the critical nature of each risk. The colour code is as follows:

. Red- There are hazards with high-level of risks and requiring priority attention. Theses hazards have the potential to be catastrophic and should be addresses as a priority.

. Amber – There are hazards with medium to high-level of risk requiring action, but are not as critical as a red coloured risk.

. Green – These are the lowest-level risks and indicate a need for continuing awareness and monitoring on a regular basis. Whilst they are currently low or minor risks, some have the potential to increase to medium or even high-level risks and must therefore be regularly monitored and if cost effective mitigation can be carried out to reduce the risk even further this should be pursued.

The Risk Matrix indicates that there are no risks in the red zone requiring priority treatment.

There are 3 risks in the amber zone requiring treatment through mitigation or management action. These risks are associated with a ship collision with the dredge vessel within the navigation channel during dredging activities, major spill from the dredge vessel during dredging activities or ship collision with the barge within the Liffey Channel during transportation of dredged material which have the potential to result in marine pollution.

The majority of identified risks are located in the green zone indicating the need for continuing awareness and monitoring on a regular basis. However, assessment of the green zone risks has indicated that a number of these risks can be reduced through the implementation of mitigation measures. These risk treatment measures should be adopted where considered cost-effective to further reduce the risks.

Table 3.6 – Risk Matrix (Pre-Mitigation)

V. High 5

High 4

Medium 3 2, 4, 5, 6, 7,

Low 2 8, 9, 11, 1, 3, 10 Likelihood 12, 13 V. Low 1 Trivial Minor Moderate Major Massive 1 2 3 4 5 Consequence

MDE1139Rp0006 21 Dredging Management Plan

3.6 RISK TREATMENT

During the Risk Assessment, each risk identified has been examined in relation to the mitigation measures which have been recommended and proposed in the EIS. As such an updated Risk Analysis was carried out on the Risk Register, which has taken into account the mitigation measures/control measures that will be in place and as such an updated risk score is presented in Table 3.7.

Following the completion of the Risk Analysis (with-mitigation), a risk matrix was developed. This risk matrix was developed to allow the with-mitigation risks to be easily displayed. The consequence and likelihood ratings are used in the matrix with the level of consequence forming the x-axis and the likelihood forming the y-axis. The risk matrix is displayed in Table 3.8.

MDE1139Rp0006 22 Dredging Management Plan

Table 3.7 – Risk Analysis for Dredging Operations (with-mitigation)

Risk Score Residual Environmental Risk Process Potential Risk Mitigation and controls Consequence Likelihood Risk Effect (with- Id mitigation) Score Marine notices, Radio Navigation warnings, Ship Collision monitoring and control of operations by the Dublin with the Release of diesel Port Harbour Master. dredge vessel 1 fuel resulting in 8 Emergency response plans (SOPEP, DPC Emergency 4 1 4 within the marine pollution Plan, Dublin Bay OSCP) navigation channel Onsite oil spill containment and response unit in the port. Collision of dredge vessel Marine notices, Radio Navigation warnings, with fixed Release of diesel monitoring and control of operations by the Dublin 2 object within fuel resulting in 8 Port Harbour Master. 3 1 3 the marine pollution navigation channel Dredging Major fuel spill from the Emergency response plans (SOPEP, DPC Emergency Release of diesel dredge vessel Plan, Dublin Bay OSCP) 3 fuel resulting in 9 3 1 3 during marine pollution Onsite oil spill containment and response unit in the dredging port. activities Breach in The silt curtains will be maintained. The times during containment Spread of which the curtains are temporarily opened will be of the silt suspended minimised to control the containment of suspended curtain contaminated solids 4 around the sediment beyond 6 3 1 3 the dredge foot dredger in A contingency bubble curtain will be installed Alexandra print resulting in Basin West marine pollution across the entrance to Alexandra Basin West. during This bubble curtain will be utilised in the event of

MDE1139Rp0006 23 Dredging Management Plan

Risk Score Residual Environmental Risk Process Potential Risk Mitigation and controls Consequence Likelihood Risk Effect (with- Id mitigation) Score dredging of a breach of the silt curtain around the dredger. If a heavily breach occurs, dredging activities will immediately contaminated cease, and the silt curtain will be material repaired/replaced prior to restarting dredging. The bubble curtain will be activated by switching on a compressor, which will force compressed air through a submerged perforated hose allowing a series of “bubble plumes”. The rising bubbles cause a vertical current of air and water flowing towards the surface, generating an air curtain. This bubble curtain will prevent the movement of any contaminated sediment from entering the Navigation channel whilst allowing port traffic to pass. Silt curtains will be monitored as part of the site management. A furling system will allow for ease of installation and removal, allowing the silt curtains to be easily removed.

The effectiveness of the silt curtains will be monitored by field turbidity measurements within and outside the curtain area. In addition, the curtain screen and anchoring will be inspected through a diver survey. The frequency of inspection will be dependent on the environment. Calmer environments can have inspections every several weeks. In the chance of extreme weather, the curtains will be removed in advance to avoid risk of damage.

MDE1139Rp0006 24 Dredging Management Plan

Risk Score Residual Environmental Risk Process Potential Risk Mitigation and controls Consequence Likelihood Risk Effect (with- Id mitigation) Score Overtopping of barge with Release of recovered recovered heavily heavily Barge load limits will be adhered to and the contaminated 5 contaminated 6 appropriate level will be clearly marked on the 3 1 3 dredged material dredged materials barge hull. resulting in material from marine pollution Alexandra Basin West Rupture or failure of the barge with Barge failure with Dublin Port Company are provided with certification recovered the release of of inspection and sea worthiness for all vessels. All heavily 6 sediment plume 6 vessels are subject to Irish Load Line certification and 3 1 3 contaminated Loading resulting in MSO inspection as appropriate. dredged marine pollution material from Alexandra Basin West Uncontrolled or poorly controlled release of Release of A silt curtain will be utilised around the dredger whilst heavily sediment plume the dredging of contaminated material is on-going. 7 contaminated 9 3 1 3 resulting in Loading operations will be monitored by Site manager. dredged marine pollution material during loading operations

8 Transport Breach in Spillage of 6 3 1 3 containment sediment into the Spill plates will be designed to prevent any “drippings”

MDE1139Rp0006 25 Dredging Management Plan

Risk Score Residual Environmental Risk Process Potential Risk Mitigation and controls Consequence Likelihood Risk Effect (with- Id mitigation) Score of the spill water column from falling between the material barge and dock plates around resulting in where the unloading equipment is stationed. the barge marine pollution All equipment will be inspected prior to transporting commencement of activity. heavily contaminated dredged material to Berth 52/53 Rupture of failure of the barge while Barge failure with transporting the release of 9 heavily sediment plume 6 All equipment will be inspected prior to 3 1 3 contaminated resulting in commencement of activity. Activity to be monitored dredged marine pollution by site management. material to Berth 52/53 Marine notices, Radio Navigation warnings, Ship collision monitoring and control of operations by the Dublin with the Release of diesel Port Harbour Master. 10 barge within fuel resulting in 8 Emergency response plans (SOPEP, DPC Emergency 4 1 4 the Liffey marine pollution Plan, Dublin Bay OSCP) Channel Onsite oil spill containment and response unit in the port. Collision of the barge Marine notices, Radio Navigation warnings, Release of diesel with fixed monitoring and control of operations by the Dublin 11 fuel resulting in 8 3 1 3 object within Port Harbour Master. marine pollution the Liffey Channel

MDE1139Rp0006 26 Dredging Management Plan

Risk Score Residual Environmental Risk Process Potential Risk Mitigation and controls Consequence Likelihood Risk Effect (with- Id mitigation) Score Spill plates surrounding the barges will be checked and maintained. Breach in Spillage of If breach in containment is noted in the spill plates, containment sediment into the the unloading will cease and the spill plates will be 12 Unloading of the spill water column 6 3 1 3 repaired/replaced prior to restarting the unloading plates around resulting in from the barges. the barges marine pollution All equipment will be inspected prior to commencement of activity. The fine sediment elements of the dredged material are predicted to disperse in a plume on each tide. Suspended solids levels will return to background levels within a period of days. Each vessel will be fitted with a tracking device which will record the vessels position and time to ensure the dredged spoil is dumped at the correct licensed location. Potential for Dumping impact on marine Restricting the navigation channel dredging operations Dredged spoil flora and fauna of to the winter months (October to March) provides from the a higher suitable mitigation to ensure that the dredging 13 Dumping Navigation 6 3 1 3 ecological value operations will have no significant impact on the Channel at than the qualifying interests of Natura 2000 sites. the incorrect approved dump To minimise the risk of direct injury to marine location site location mammals in the areas of operation, the following will be put in place: A trained & experienced Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) will be put in place during dredging & dumping activities. The MMO will scan the surrounding area to ensure no marine mammals are in a pre-determined exclusion zone (500m for dredging activities) in the 30-minute period prior to operations.

MDE1139Rp0006 27 Dredging Management Plan

Risk Score Residual Environmental Risk Process Potential Risk Mitigation and controls Consequence Likelihood Risk Effect (with- Id mitigation) Score Operations will be conducted in accordance with NPWS (2014) Guidance1 and will include seals.

Once operations have begun operations, operations should cease temporarily if a cetacean or seal is observed swimming in the immediate (<50m) area of dredging and work can be resumed once the animal(s) have moved away.

Dumping of material at sea should not take place if a cetacean or seal is within 50m of the vessel.

Any approach by marine mammals into the immediate (<50 m) works area will be reported to the NPWS.

1 (NPWS, 2014) “Guidance to Manage the Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-made Sound Sources in Irish Waters” Department of Arts, Heritage and and the Gaeltacht, Ely Place Dublin.

MDE1139Rp0006 28 Dredging Management Plan

The Risk Matrix indicates that there are no risks in the red zone.

Pre-mitigation there were 3 risks identified in the amber zone. These risks are associated with a ship collision with the dredge vessel within the navigation channel during dredging activities, major spill from the dredge vessel during dredging activities or ship collision with the barge within the Liffey Channel during transportation of dredged material which has the potential to result in marine pollution. Through the implementation of the mitigation measures/control measures that were specified in the EIS, it is evident that the likelihood of these risks can be reduced. As such, following the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures/control measures outlined in the EIS, there will no risks in the amber zone.

Pre-mitigation the remaining risks identified were in the green zone, however the likelihood of occurrence was Low. With-mitigation, the likelihood of these risks occurring has reduced and the risk of occurrence is very low.

With-mitigation, all risks will be located in the green zone, indicating the need for continuing awareness and monitoring on a regular basis.

Table 3.8 – Risk Matrix (With-Mitigation)

V. High 5

High 4

Medium 3 Low 2

Likelihood 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, V. Low 1 7, 8, 9, 11, 1, 10 12, 13 Trivial Minor Moderate Major Massive 1 2 3 4 5 Consequence

MDE1139Rp0006 29 Dredging Management Plan

4 PREVENTION AND MITIGATION This section outlines the mitigation proposed in the EIS, AA and CEMP as of October 2014. In addition, any planning conditions set by An Bord Pleanála or licence/permit conditions set by the EPA will be incorporated into this plan in the event that consents are granted by these parties.

4.1 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ECOLOGY

The following list of proposed mitigation measures is derived from the EIS to minimise in the impact of the dredging operation on the natural environment:

• The dredging works in the navigation channel will be undertaken over a 6 year period during the winter months only (October to March). • A trained and experienced Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) will be put in place during dredging and dumping operations. The MMO will scan the surrounding area to ensure no marine mammals are in a pre-determined exclusion zone in the 30-minute period prior to operations. It is suggested that this exclusion zone is 500m for dredging activities. • Noise-producing activities shall only commence in daylight hours where effective visual monitoring, as performed and determined by the MMO, has been achieved. Where effective visual monitoring is not possible, the sound-producing activities shall be postponed until effective visual monitoring is possible. Visual mitigation for marine mammals (in particular harbour porpoise) will only be effective during daylight hours and if the sea state is 2-3 (Beaufort scale) or less. In the absence of year-round data on marine mammal use within Dublin Bay, there is no justification for limiting works to any particular season. • Once operations have begun, operations will cease temporarily if a cetacean or seal is observed swimming in the immediate (<50m) area of dredging and work can be resumed once the animal(s) have moved away. • Dumping of material at sea will not take place if a cetacean or seal is within 50m of the vessel. • Any approach by marine mammals into the immediate (<50 m) works area will be reported to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. • Once normal operations commence, there is no requirement to halt or discontinue the activity at night-time, nor if weather or visibility conditions deteriorate, nor if marine mammals occur within a radial distance of the sound source that is 500m for dredging works. • The MMO will keep a record of the monitoring using a ‘MMO form location and effort (coastal works)’ available from the National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) and submit to the NPWS on completion of the works. • In order to reliably quantify the zone of responsiveness associated with the proposed programme of dredging and dumping activities associated with the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment, passive acoustic monitoring will be used. • The proposed six year dredging campaign will divide the shipping channel into six separate areas and dredging will be confined to one of the areas each winter period. This is the preferred approach from a benthic and fisheries perspective. • The inner narrowest portion of the channel upstream and opposite Alexandra Basin West, will not be dredged in October in order to reduce the potential risk to river lamprey migration. This non-dredge window will be agreed in consultation with IFI.

MDE1139Rp0006 30 Dredging Management Plan

• There will be no overflow from the dredger when it is dredging the riverside face and associated berths along the North wall Quay Extension where recent sediment analysis indicated pockets of elevated contaminant levels. This will help to minimise the potential release of contaminants to the water column during dredging. • It has been shown that the drag-head of the Trailer Suction dredger in the outer channel will tend to entrain more fish and mobile epibenthic crustaceans when it is lifted from the sediment surface while the pumps are still running. This occurs when the dredger comes to the end of a dredged line and turns to dredge back up along an adjacent line. In order to avoid the associated risk of increased entrainment during this turning processes. To remove this risk, the pumps will be switched off while the drag-head is withdrawn from the seabed during the turning process and not engaged again until it is replaced onto the seabed to dredge the next line. • To facilitate more rapid recovery of the benthic communities, the depth of the over burden on the faunal communities will be minimised spreading over the whole disposal site as evenly as is practicable per calendar month in a systematic directional sequence to allow the greatest opportunity for deep burrowing invertebrates to move vertically through the newly deposited layers of spoil.

4.2 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR WATER QUALITY AND GEOLOGY

The following list of proposed mitigation measures is derived from the EIS to minimise in the impact of the dredging operation on water quality:

Continual engagement with a range of interested parties/stakeholders including Dublin City Council, EPA, National Parks & Wildlife Service, Inland Fisheries Ireland, Dublin Port tenants and local community groups will be undertaken.

The design of the Construction Environmental Monitoring Programme will include the following elements related to the receiving waters:

 An assessment using 3-D hydrodynamic computational modelling and water quality modelling to design the placement of a number of water quality monitoring buoys and telemetry based warning systems.

 The establishment of water quality trigger levels and corresponding actions (including the necessity to temporarily cease construction operations) to safeguard sensitive conservation sites (SPA and SAC) and the operations of other users of the receiving waters (e.g. Power Stations)

The following list of proposed mitigation measures is derived from the EIS to minimise in the impact of the dredging operation on geology and soils:

• Contaminated sediments within Alexandra Basin West will not be disposed of at sea. • Dredging operations have been designed to minimise the disturbance and escape of material at the seabed and during removal through the water column. A floating pontoon with an excavator mounted clamshell bucket adapted for environmental dredging will be used. A silt curtain will also be placed around the dredger to contain the marine sediments. This method of dredging will serve to minimize the spread of

MDE1139Rp0006 31 Dredging Management Plan

suspended contaminated sediments beyond the dredge foot print. A contingency bubble curtain will also be installed across the entrance to Alexandra Basin West. • The dredged material recovered from Alexandra Basin West will be transported by barge to a treatment facility adjacent to Berth 52/53. It will be stabilised and modified to improve the engineering properties of the material to allow its re-use as fill material. In order to minimise the stockpiling of dredged material, the rate of dredging will be determined by the rate of treatment of the dredged material. • Best practice industry techniques will be used to treat the contaminated material yielded from the dredging of Alexandra Basin West. Ex-situ Stabilisation/Solidification (S/S) is proposed for the treatment of the contaminated material. • Ex-situ Stabilisation/Solidification (S/S) is a remediation technology that reduces the mobility of contaminants. Immobilisation is achieved by reaction of contaminants with reagents to promote sorption, precipitation or incorporation into crystal lattices, and/or by physically encapsulating the contaminants. • The method produces a high strength monolith-like product that physically reduces the mobility and chemically binds contaminants to the produced matrix. The treated mass can then be recovered/recycled to serve as infill material or for beneficial use. • The treatment and recovery of the dredging spoil on site will take place in accordance with the conditions of an Industrial Emissions Licence to be obtained from the EPA. Following treatment the material will be placed in the Berth 52/53 basin and Graving Dock #2 as a recovery activity, replacing the need to use virgin materials that would otherwise be required for the development. • A dumping at sea permit will be sought from the EPA. • The disposal of dredge spoil at sea will be undertaken in accordance with the conditions of the dumping at sea permit. • Sediments immediately adjacent to Alexandra Basin West where low levels of contamination have been found will be disposed of at sea only at slack tide and immediately covered by sand or gravel, if required by the EPA.

MDE1139Rp0006 32

APPENDIX A

Communication Details for Key Personnel

Role Nominated Person Contact Details Mobile: ABR DPC Contract manager Landline: Mail: Mobile: Dredging Manager Landline: Mail: Mobile: Construction Manager Landline: Mail: Mobile: Dredging Project Landline: Manager(onsite) Mail: Mobile: Skippers (Dredge vessels and Landline: Tugs for Barges) Mail: Mobile: DPC Harbour Master Landline: Mail: Mobile: ECoW / PSDP Landline: Mail: Mobile: Dublin City Council Landline: Mail: Mobile: EPA Landline: Mail: Mobile: NPWS Landline: Mail:

STRATEGIC INFRASRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N .PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

WITNESS STATEMENT OF EUGENE MCKEOWN

UNDERWATER NOISE

1 1 Qualifications and Experience

1.1.1 My name is Eugene McKeown. I hold a degree (B.E.) in Mechanical Engineering from University College Dublin (1980), a degree in Law (LLB) from the National University of Ireland, Galway (1997) and a Master of Science Degree (M.Sc.) in Applied Acoustics from the University of Derby (2005).

1.1.2 I am a Senior Consultant with RPS Group PLC. I have over thirty years engineering experience including noise and vibration.

1.1.3 I have been involved in over 200 Environmental Noise Studies including transport, waste management, marine construction, marine surveying and power supply infrastructure projects. I have acted for the applicants, the local community and as advisors to the planning authorities on different cases.

1.1.4 Regarding underwater noise, I have worked on the following underwater noise projects throughout Ireland including: Galway Harbour Extension, EPA STRIVE project on Ocean Noise, Spiddal & Belmullet Wave Energy Test Sites and Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant marine outfall,

1.1.5 I have experience on projects of carrying out background noise measurements in Dublin Bay and calculating noise transmission losses in the outer bay area.

2 Involvement in the Project

2.1.1 Underwater noise impacts are specifically considered in Chapter 5 (Flora & Fauna) and Chapter 10 (Water) of the EIS and Appendix B of the NIS (the Planning Documents). Chapter 10 addresses noise in the context of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and Chapter 5 in the context of potential impacts on marine species.

2.1.2 As a result of specific submissions made to An Bord Pleanála on underwater noise I was requested by DPC to prepare a statement on the subject.

2.1.3 In addition, I was requested to carry out certain underwater noise measurements while some piling activity was taking place at Alexandra Basin on another project. The results of these measurements are reported as part of the Dublin Port Company [DPC] response to Request for Further Information [RFI] issued by An Bord Pleanála (at Appendix A of the response submitted). As a further part of the response process, I have estimated underwater noise levels from piling in the Dublin Bay area.

2.1.4 I was also requested by DPC to review the underwater noise sections of the application documentation and to consider and provide responses to the issues raised in the third party submissions to An Bord Pleanála.

2 3 Underwater Noise Issues in the Application Documentation

3.1.1 Underwater noise levels referred to in the planning documents are in decibels referenced to 1 micro-Pascal in accordance with international practice. This means that the underwater dB levels referred to are not equivalent to dB levels for airborne noise and the dB levels cannot be directly compared.

3.1.2 Some of the activities associated with the proposed ABR project have the potential to result in high levels of underwater noise. The scale of the impact depends on the source level of the noise, the transmission loss along the path to the receiver, the background noise levels and the sensitivity of the receiver to the noise. This is set out in section 5.2.5 of the EIS and section A of the RFI response.

3.1.3 Section 5.2.5 of the EIS also sets out potential underwater noise impacts arising from the proposed development and identifies the construction phase activities of potential concern.

3.1.4 The application documentation also outlines the potential impacts using conservative scenarios supported with data for rock breaking, demolition, pile driving and dredging activities on other sites and activities from around the world. The source levels quoted in the documents represent the highest noise levels likely to arise as a result of carrying out these type of activities.

3.1.5 Consideration is given to the sound levels arising from the various activities and attention is drawn to the difficulties in making direct comparisons without site specific data on noise sources and transmission. The majority of published data deals with scenarios where underwater noise levels are considerably greater than could possibly arise in the ABR project.

3.1.6 The calculations in the planning documents are based on open water propagation and do not take into account the confined nature of the site, the shallow water level in the area or the significant absorption that will arise from the seabed sediments in Dublin Bay. These factors provide significant reduction in received noise levels.

4 Piling Noise Measurements – Dublin Bay June 2014

4.1.1 A report on underwater noise measurements undertaken while piling activity was taking place at Alexandra Basin East is attached as Appendix A to the response to the RFI submitted to An Bord Pleanála.

4.1.2 This report outlines a series of measurements undertaken in the outer bay, inside the area enclosed by the Great South and North Bull walls, the river Liffey and Alexandra Basin East. The measurement results are presented in Section 3 of that report and the measurement locations are shown in the attached Figure 1.

4.1.3 Noise from piling at the Alexandra Basin was not detectable in the measurements taken near the end of the North Bull and Great South walls, Location H in Figure 1.

4.1.4 The report on marine mammals, Section C in the Response to Request for Further Information, makes reference to proposed injury criteria from Southall et al. (2007). The results of McKeown (2014), taken at the site, show that the noise levels are below the Southall et al. (2007) thresholds for high-frequency cetaceans and pinnipeds within just 431 m from the pile driving location (Table 3.3 and 3.4 of

3 underwater noise report). In addition the results showed that piling noise was inaudible at 3570 m from the pile driving source. This information is summarised in Table 1.

Sound Southall et al. exposure Distance (2007) level from proposed (SEL source (m) injury criteria dB re: 1µPa2-s)

High- frequency 198 Na cetaceans

Pinnipeds in 186 Na water

Response to Sound RFI - exposure Distance Appendix A: level from Report on (SEL source (m) Underwater dB re: Noise 1µPa2-s)

A 202 77

431 E 156 (upstream)

F 173 722

170 – piling H 3570 not detected

4 5 Site Specific Underwater Noise Considerations in Dublin Bay

5.1.1 The site specific measurements taken in Dublin Bay differ from the published literature, such as scientific papers relating to offshore wind farm construction or marine aggregate dredging for the following reasons:

Piling at Alexandra Basin East Piling at Horns Rev

 The scale of the activities i.e. size of the piles and machinery involved.

 Water Depths – Dublin Bay is extremely shallow from an acoustic perspective o 200m is regarded as shallow from an acoustic point of view, Dublin Bay has extensive intertidal areas. The dredged navigation channel is quite narrow and currently minus 7.8 metres Chart Datum.

 Sediment type o The bay is underlain with up to 30m of silt, sand, clay and gravel deposits which acts as an underwater sound absorptive layer

 Enclosure o The vast majority of the piling activity for the ABR project will take place in the Alexandra Basin West which is enclosed on 3 sides and adjacent to the River Liffey channel.

5  Transition Waters o There is a transition from fresh to saline water which has the effect of refracting some of the acoustic energy, reducing the intensity of noise further out the bay. 5.1.2 Underwater noise is a topic of considerable research, given the concerns relating to marine mammals and the emerging legislative controls under European Directives. Much of the research to date has been conducted in open waters with activities on the extreme end of the loudness scale. Site specific considerations need to be taken into account in any comparison of underwater noise levels. 5.1.3 The site at Alexandra basin is relatively confined from an acoustic point of view. The Alexandra Quay West, Ocean Pier West, Cross-berth Quay, North Wall Quay Extension (Basin Side) and the pontoons for the Ro-Ro Jetty are all facing into the confines of the basin enclosure. Piling noise on these constructions, which form a substantial part of the overall piling requirement, will reverberate inside the basin. As a result elevated noise levels will be contained in the Basin and a short stretch of the River Liffey channel. Underwater noise from this element of the project will not propagate effectively out into the wider bay. 5.1.4 Piling for the North Wall Quay Extension (Channel side), Poolbeg Marina Wall and at New Berth 52 are contained in the main River Liffey channel. The North Wall Quay Extension and New Berth 52 do require some 1.6m diameter piles (45 of them at Berth 52). These locations are in the dredged channel and enclosed by the shallow waters inside the Great South Wall and North Bull Wall. 5.1.5 The piles on the Poolbeg Marina Wall are smaller piles in the order of 0.6m in diameter. The piles proposed for New Berth 52 are sheet piles and combi-wall piles only 45 of which are large diameter piles. The 2 mooring pontoons will require 18 piles of 0.762m diameter. The source noise levels associated with these smaller piles is significantly lower than that reported in the EIS. Section 5.2.7 which is based on data from 1.5m diameter piles in open water (ITAP 2005). 5.1.6 The factors outlined above are likely to result in high noise levels inside and adjacent to the Alexandra Basin and for a short distance upstream and downstream of this area. However, the levels arising in the wider Dublin Bay Area will be significantly lower due to enclosure, attenuation and seabed absorption. 5.1.7 The confined nature of the site is clearly indicated in Figure 2 which shows the proposed piling, dredging and dumping areas. The Dublin Bay Array wind farm, the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC and popular dive sites around Dublin Bay are also shown on the drawing. 5.1.8 The piling activity will take place inside Alexandra Basin and the River Liffey channel. Figure 2 shows the low water contour (area coloured green) and the 10m contour (area coloured dark blue). The proposed dredging works are indicated by the red line which, as can be seen from the drawing, extend eastwards to the 10m contour line. 5.1.9 As outlined in the EIS, both dredging and pile driving noise are low frequency noise sources. Shipping noise is also a low frequency noise source. Low frequency noise is subject to significant attenuation due to what is known as “low frequency cut off”. 5.1.10 The water depth in the channel at high tide is 14.5m. This water depth has a cut-off frequency of 100 Hz. While this does not represent a sharp cut-off, frequencies

6 below this are strongly attenuated and frequencies above this to a lesser degree. As you move radially out of the channel or the tide level is lower the range of frequencies that are significantly attenuated increases. 5.1.11 The Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Technical Sub Group on Underwater Noise has recommended that frequencies in the 63 Hz and 125 Hz third octave bands are used as indicators for shipping noise. These frequencies are in the low frequency cut-off range for the Dublin Bay area. The lower 63Hz third octave band does not propagate effectively in water less than 38m deep. 5.1.12 I have personal experience measuring underwater noise levels in Dublin Bay which confirms the significant attenuation in shallow water. A large vessel such as a ship passing a location in the bay will elevate noise levels for approximately 5 minutes where a faster moving small vessel will elevate levels for around 1 minute. The background noise level in Dublin Bay between the Rosbeg buoy and Howth was measured at 125 to 135 dB re 1µPA on the 15th October 2012 and is reported in Beck et al. (2013). Peaks of 140 dB re 1µPA, when measured 1km from the edge of the shipping channel, occur over short periods as vessels enter or leave the bay. 5.1.13 I have also measured noise and, in particular, noise attenuation on the eastern side of the proposal dredge disposal area. The attenuation levels in that area, based on site specific measurements, carried out on 25th March 2011 were in the order of 35 log R close to the source. The attenuation used in the planning documents is based on 15 Log R resulting in a considerable over estimation of the potential noise levels in Dublin Bay. 5.1.14 Figure 2 also shows the Great South Wall and the Bull Wall which form an enclosure of the Port Area extending to the low water mark at the North Bull and Poolbeg lighthouses. These two structures form an effective acoustic barrier around the Port Area where all the piling and a substantial portion of the dredging activities will take place. 5.1.15 The dredging source level data in the EIS is based on marine aggregate dredging. This is due to the lack of published source level information on dredging noise levels. Dredging marine aggregates in deeper waters involves the transport of large stone particles through the suction tube which is inherently very noisy. However, it must be clarified that the dredge material on the ABR project is, in general, a fine sand and silt material in very shallow water (as outlined in section 9.4 of the EIS). Extraction of this type of material is carried out using smaller vessels and is inherently quieter than extracting marine aggregates. Accordingly, the source levels reported in the EIS represent an extremely conservative open water noise situation. 5.1.16 Section 5.4.7 and 5.4.8 of the EIS set out specific measures to control and minimise dredging and piling noise impacts in the area immediately adjacent to the Alexandra basin. 5.1.17 In relation to shipping noise, the numbers of vessels arriving at the port will increase as set out in Table 1.16 of the EIS. The significant increase is in Ro-Ro traffic. Overall traffic is estimated to increase from 19 ships per day to 33 ships per day in 2040. Based on measurements I have undertaken in Dublin Bay noise levels from the passage of a large Ro-Ro vessel elevates noise levels at a single location for approximately 5 minutes which is characterised by a fairly short peak.

7 5.1.18 Shipping noise will be elevated in the dredged channel and near Alexandra Basin. Elevated noise levels in the wider bay area will be highly localised and of short term duration. The areas impacted will correspond to a small portion of Dublin Bay.

5.1.19 In conclusion, the planning documents address the issue of underwater noise in a comprehensive way and provide a robust, conservative analysis.

5.1.20 In particular, the effective implementation of the mitigation measures proposed will ensure that no significant residual impacts. The mitigation measures are presented in the planning documents and are collated in the outline Construction Environmental Management Plan [CEMP] submitted with the RFI Response. Significantly, site specific factors provide clear evidence that noise levels will be lower than those outlined in the EIS.

5.1.21 Accordingly, the documentation submitted to the Board on behalf of the developer adequately address the issue of underwater noise emissions and provide the means to ensure no significant environmental impacts will arise.

8 6 Submissions and Responses

6.1 Submission from Dublin City Council

In general terms, the Planning Authority has assessed the full submission including the drawings, various reports and impact statements and is generally satisfied and in agreement with their content and conclusions. Therefore, it is not intended as part of this report to address and reiterate every matter pertaining to the application. The following addresses the key issues identified by the Planning Authority.

The City Council considers that the Natura Impact Statement submitted, in combination with the Avian Impact Assessment and the Marine Mammals Impact Assessment is generally satisfactory in terms of identifying Natura 2000 sites in relevance in the area and the potential impacts thereon of the proposed project, at both habitat and species level. However it would like to make the following comments:

 How are the mitigation measures identified in section 3.4.3 of the NIS included in the application process, if at all?

Dublin City Council’s submission concludes with the request that the recommendations of the EIS and Natura Impact Assessment would be carried through in any grant of permission in order to safeguard the character and amenities of the River Channel, Dublin Bay and reduce any potential impacts on the site of the development and adjoining lands.

Response

I note that Dublin City Council is generally satisfied and in agreement with the content and conclusions of the planning documentation and is satisfied that the Marine Mammals Impact Assessment is generally satisfactory. In relation to Dublin City Council specific queries I wish to respond as follows:

 The mitigation measures identified in section 3.4.3 of the NIS are the core mitigation measures, they are repeated in section 5.2.9 of the EIS and form part of the Schedule of Environmental Commitments in respect of the project. In the event that the Board decides to grant permission, it is anticipated that such a grant would be subject to conditions, including a standard condition that the proposed development is to be carried out in accordance with the plans and particulars submitted included in the EIS and NIS. Moreover, for ease of reference, the environmental mitigation measures proposed in the application documentation has been collated in a schedule of commitments set out in the outline CEMP submitted with the RFI Response.

6.2 Submission from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht

The submission from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht makes a number of recommendations regarding nature conservation in particular marine construction. The recommended mitigation measures are set out as follows:

1. A trained and experienced Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) will be put in place during piling, dredging, dumping, and demolition operations. The MMO will scan the surrounding area to ensure no marine mammals are in a pre-determined exclusion zone in the 30-minute period prior to operations. It is suggested that this exclusion zone is 500m for demolition and dredging activities, and 1000m for piling activities considering the potential risks outlined.

9 2. Noise-producing activities shall only commence in daylight hours where effective visual monitoring, as performed and determined by the MMO, has been achieved. Where effective visual monitoring is not possible, the sound-producing activities shall be postponed until effective visual monitoring is possible. Visual mitigation for marine mammals (in particular harbour porpoise) will only be effective during daylight hours and if the sea state is 2-3 (Beaufort scale) or less.

3. For piling activities, where the output peak sound pressure level (in water) exceeds 170dB, a ramp-up procedure must be employed following the pre-start monitoring. Underwater acoustic energy output shall commence from a lower energy start-up and thereafter be allowed to gradually build up to the necessary maximum output over a period of 20-40 minutes.

4. Once operations have begun, operations should cease temporarily if a cetacean or seal is observed swimming in the immediate (<50m) area of piling and dredging and work can be resumed once the animal(s) have moved away.

5. Dumping of material at sea should not take place if a cetacean or seal is within 50m of the vessel.

6. If there is a break in piling activity for a period greater than 30 minutes then all pre-activity monitoring measures and ramp-up (where this is possible) should recommence as for start- up.

7. Once normal operations commence (including appropriate ramp-up procedures), there is no requirement to halt or discontinue the activity at night-time, nor if weather or visibility conditions deteriorate, nor if marine mammals occur within a radial distance of the sound source that is 500m for dredging and demolition works, and 1000m for piling activities.

8. The MMO will keep a record of the monitoring using a MMO form location and effort (coastal works) (or similar) available from the National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and submit to the Competent Authority on completion of the works, as described in the NPWS guidance (2014).

9. In order to reliably quantify the zone of responsiveness associated with the proposed programme of piling activities associated with the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment, one of the following methods will be used:

 Modelling of sound propagation calibrated using field measurements; or  Deployment of hydrophones in combination with passive acoustic monitoring.

10 The submission also refers to the project construction management plan as follows:

It is stated in section 10.4 and 14.3 of the EIS that a construction management plan or construction environmental management plan and construction environmental monitoring programme will be prepared should planning permission be granted by an Bord Pleanála. This will include any extra conditions imposed by An Bord Pleanála and will be prepared in consultation with interested parties and stakeholders including the NPWS of this Department. An Bord Pleanála should note that it is the view of this Department that it is not possible to adequately assess the impact of the project without knowing the minimum standards and mitigation measures that will be in any construction methodology or similar type of plans.

Such a plan should include the mitigation measures in the EIS for the natural heritage.

Response:

Dublin Port Company notes the proposed conditions outlined in the Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht submission as being in line with those set out in the EIS (at section 5.2.9) and the NPWS Guidance to Manage the Risk to Marine Mammals from Man- made Sound Sources in Irish Waters (January 2014).

As outlined in section 4 above, the underwater noise evaluation in the application documentation is based on a “worst case” view premised on open water propagation. However, the Alexandra Basin site is a confined site in shallow water with significant sediment thickness. These three factors provide significant mitigation as low frequency noise does not propagate effectively in shallow water.

The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht requests that the mitigation measures outlined in the planning documents and its submission are included in a construction environmental management plan. The developer is committed to implementing the mitigation measures outlined in the planning documents.

Further Submission: In a further submission to An Bord Pleanála dated 24th September, the recommended mitigation measures presented in the Department’s earlier submission are repeated.

11 6.3 Submission from Inland Fisheries Ireland

The Submission states:

All works will be completed in line with an Construction Management Plan (CMP) which ensures that good construction practices are adopted throughout the construction period and contains mitigation measures to deal with potential adverse impacts identified in advance of the scheme. The CMP should provide a mechanism for ensuring compliance with environmental legislation and statutory consents.

Water and habitat quality must be closely monitored throughout the redevelopment and dredging operation. The construction process must ensure that the fundamental objectives of both Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive can be achieved. The preparation of a Construction Environmental Monitoring Programme (CEMP) to include the following should be a condition of any permission;

i. An assessment using 3-D hydrodynamic computational modelling and water quality modelling to design the placement of a number of water quality monitoring buoys and telemetry based warning systems.

ii. The establishment of water quality trigger levels and corresponding actions (including the necessity to temporary cease construction operation) to safeguard sensitive conservation sites (SPA and SAC) and the operations of other users of the receiving waters. (EIS Section 10.4)

All mitigation measures discussed in respect of pile driving, including best available technology, monitoring and best practice to mitigate potential impacts should be a condition of any permission.

Response:

The mitigation measures outlined in the application documentation will be implemented as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan and the construction contract conditions and, indeed, have been collated in the outline CEMP for ease of reference. Mitigation measure no.9 provides for both modelling and confirmatory monitoring of underwater noise to ensure that, as predicted, the proposed development will have no significant underwater noise impact.

12 6.4 Submission from Irish Underwater Council

The submission states: ‘underwater noise will be generated by this project. Demolition, piling, dredging and disposal of the dredging spoil will all contribute significantly to underwater noise during the construction phase. The objective of the project is to permit larger vessels to use Dublin Port and these larger vessels will have a different underwater noise output to the existing shipping traffic. Therefore, this project has both short-term and long-term implications with regards the impacts of underwater noise.

Whilst the EIS includes considerable information on noise levels in air and on land, there is far less consideration for underwater noise. The construction section of the EIS (Section 4.2) provides no information regarding changes in underwater noise outputs due to the use of Dublin Port by significantly larger vessels than those currently using the facility.

Section 5.2 of the EIS (Flora and Fauna – Marine Mammals) suggest that noise associated with pile driving will be of concern to cetaceans and pinnipeds. The author estimates peak source levels of 228 dB re 1µPa @ 1m for a 1.5m diameter jacket pile (the piles to be used in the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment are approx. 1.6m in diameter). Noise generated by pile driving noise may affect harbour porpoise and harbour seals at distances of up to 20km.

Many dive sites in Dublin Bay are within 10km or less from the Alexandra Basin. Parvin et al. (2002) suggest diver aversion response at around 145 dB re. 1 µPa @ 1m for a 1.5m diameter jacket pile (the piles to be used in the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment are approx. 1.6m in diameter). Noise generated by pile driving noise may affect porpoise and harbour seals at distances of up to 20 km.

There is insufficient data in the EIS to determine whether noise generated during pile driving will have an adverse effect on divers’.

Response:

Again, it is reiterated that the application documentation provides considerable detail on underwater noise and, as outlined previously, consider levels that will not arise in this project. However, the site specific conditions outlined clearly indicate that the noise levels referred to in the application documentation will not arise in practice. Site specific measurements carried out in June 2014 while piling was taking place at the Alexandra Basin East and submitted in the RFI response, demonstrated that such piling noise will not be detectable at any of the recognised diving sites in Dublin Bay. The use of the port by larger vessels will not necessarily mean an increase in noise levels. Considerable work is being carried out on an international basis to reduce noise emissions from shipping. Vessels are now being designed to be quieter in operation with the objective of reducing (or at worst not increasing) shipping noise on a global scale into the future. Noise impacts from vessels using the port are highly localised in both spatial and temporal impact. Larger vessels will not significantly increase underwater noise levels in the greater bay area. The shipping noise levels in Dublin Bay are confined to narrow shipping channels and levels 1km outside this zone are at or about background levels for the vast majority of the time. The noise levels referred to in section 5.2 of the EIS are source levels, not received levels. Source levels never arise in practice, they are a mathematical description of the noise source when considered as a point source. Noise levels when measured at 1 metre from the source are by definition significantly below the source level quoted.

13 The received noise level at any point is a function of source level and other factors as set out in section 5.2.5 of the EIS. The received level at any point in Dublin Bay will be determined by the shallow water depth and the absorption of the seabed. As stated earlier elevated noise levels will only arise close to Alexandra Basin and in the navigation channel. The Figure 2 indicates several of the popular dive sites in Dublin Bay, all of which are outside the area enclosed by the North Bull and Great South Walls and at least 6km from the nearest piling location and 3km from the nearest dredging location. Noise from dredge dumping and shipping traffic is on a much lower scale. There will be no significant underwater noise impact from the proposed development on the popular dive sites in Dublin Bay or the wider Bay area.

Further Submission: In a further submission (date stamped 24th September 2014) the Irish Underwater Council pointed out some inconsistencies in the numbering of the figures and tables in the report on underwater noise at Appendix A of the response to the RFI.

Response: This resulted from a typographical error in numbering of figures in the report.

No new issues relating to underwater noise levels were raised in this submission.

14 6.5 Submission from Sandymount & Merrion Residents Association

The Submission states: ‘The proposed dredging and alteration to the shipping channel extends into part of the habitat; the area proposed for the dumping of dredged material is in another part of the cSAC. The priority species, in this case the harbour porpoise, will be subjected to adverse impacts of noise, disturbance, reduction in foraging area and possibly separation of groups and fragmentation of habitat due to activities taking place in a number of areas in Dublin Bay simultaneously, in addition to permanent loss of part of the habitat.

EIS section 5.2.9 refers to a number of mitigation measures such as ramp-up procedures and a 50metre zone around dredging ships free of cetaceans before each days work begins. However, section 5.2.7 cites Diederichs et al as recording a 600m zone within which it takes three times longer for harbour porpoises to return to an area after sand extraction than to an area where no such activity has occurred.

We submit that An Bord Pleanala should also view this application in the context of the combined effects it would have in both the short and long term if several other proposed works such as the 9km sewage tunnel, the Poolbeg incinerator and possible Kish/Bray bank wind farm in Dublin Bay also proceed.

The proposed sewage tunnel and onshore shaft works on ESB lands will give rise to considerable noise during construction. In operation the proposed diffuser which is also within the Rockabill to Dalkey cSAC would have permanent adverse impact.

Richardson et al(1995) referred to the increase in ambient noise levels in the sea due to underwater noise levels incidental to the increase in size and frequency of commercial shipping. Combined effects of such changes in noise levels and disturbance on the priority species and other cetaceans should be a serious consideration. [Human beings might be a little unhappy too]

Response:

The points raised regarding underwater noise levels have been addressed in the EIS and summarised in Section 5 above. Whilst this is more appropriately a matter for the marine ecologist, I understand that underwater noise levels at the cSAC will not be such as to adversely affect the conservation interests of that designated site. With regard to potential in-combination effects, the shallow water and absorption of the seabed in the area is such that noise underwater noise levels arising from this proposed development will be at a level that when combined with any of the following projects the cumulative impact will be zero due to the logarithmic addition of noise levels. The projects include:

 Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant outfall – project now cancelled.

 Poolbeg Incinerator – land based project.

 Dublin Eastern Bypass

 Dublin Bay Array – project in planning and awaiting grid connection agreement.

 Dun Laoghaire Harbour Development – planning application not yet lodged.

15 6.6 Submission from Ms. Donna Cooney Green Party Representative

The submission states:

The plan is to dump the rest of the material; some of them moderately contaminated at a the Burford Bank. This is an area that harbour Porpoise frequent the Natura Impact Statement says that this beautiful creature which protected under EC habitats directive (95/43/EEC):

Extract from the EIS:

 The physical injury of death of individuals resulting from collisions with operator vessels

 Physical injury or death of individuals resulting from close-range exposure to pile driving noise

 Hearing damage or disturbance/displacement as a result of piling or dredging noise

Response:

The points raised regarding underwater noise levels have been addressed in the EIS and summarised in Section 5 above. There is no known case of injury or death of a marine mammal due to noise from pile driving. In any event, underwater noise levels at the cSAC will not be such as to adversely affect the conservation interests of that designated site.

6.7 Submission from Mr. Peadar Farrell, Raheny

The Submission states:

Noise pollution:

Sound travels very fast underwater and a ship many miles away can seem to be just overhead and deafening to a Diver. The proposed operation would make noise over a period of 6 years that would certainly empty Dublin Bay of all sea going creatures especially Dolphin and Porpoise as they can avoid the noisy regions. So what is our SAC and Natura 2000 designation for? What this pounding noise would do to the fish that cannot escape I do not know but it’s very apparent under water that they are very sensitive to sound.

Response:

The points raised regarding underwater noise levels have been addressed in the EIS and summarised in Section 5 above. The noise levels arising from pile driving will have no impact east of the Poolbeg Lighthouse. Dredging noise levels are in the same order as those of shipping and will have limited highly localised impacts at the navigation channel and the spoil dump site. Underwater noise levels at the cSAC will not be such as to adversely affect the conservation interests of that designated site.

16 Mitigation measures to protect fish from underwater noise arising during construction and dredging works are outlined in section 5.4.6 of the EIS.

As outlined previously the proposed development will have no significant environmental impact at the popular dive sites in Dublin Bay.

Further Submission: In a further submission date stamped 22nd September 2014, no new issues relating to underwater noise were raised.

17 7 Conclusion

7.1.1 Underwater noise impacts have been considered in detail in the EIS and the NIS. The proposed mitigation measures outlined in the EIS are in compliance with the NPWS Guidelines (2013) and have been included in the submission to the Board from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

7.1.2 The EIS sets out an extremely conservative scenario regarding underwater noise. However, due to site specific factors, the noise levels and potential impacts considered in the planning documents are very robust. In practice, the noise levels arising from the proposed development in the Dublin Bay area will be significantly lower than this.

7.1.3 Site specific underwater noise measurements have been carried out while piling was taking place in Alexandra Basin East. The results of this monitoring demonstrates that piling noise is not detectable in the outer bay area.

7.1.4 The proposed development will therefore have no significant impact at any of the popular dive sites in Dublin Bay.

7.1.5 Underwater noise levels in the cSAC during dredging will be elevated while dredging vessels are operating. The EIS indicates that this may potentially result in some displacement of marine mammals on a short term localised basis. However, with the effective implementation of the mitigation measures proposed in relation to marine mammals, underwater noise levels at the cSAC will not be such as to adversely affect the conservation interests of that designated site.

7.1.6 As regards areas outside the cSAC, with the stated mitigation measures in place, the proposed redevelopment of Alexandra Basin will have no significant environmental impact arising from underwater noise.

8 References

McKeown, M. (2014) Measurements of Pile driving Noise. Alexandra Basin Dublin Port. Technical Report for RPS, August 2014. Southall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T., Finneran, J.J., Gentry, R.L., Greene, C.R. Jr., Kastak, D., Ketten, D.R., Miller, J.H., Nachtigall, P.E., Richardson, W.J., Thomas, J.A., and Tyack, P. (2007). Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33: 411-521.

Figure 1 – Summary of Piling Noise Measurements

Figure 2 – Dublin Bay

STRATEGIC INFRASRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N .PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

WITNESS STATEMENT OF STEPHEN CLEARY

NOISE AND VIBRATION

1 Qualifications and Experience

1.1 My name is Stephen Cleary. I have a BA(Mod) in Natural Sciences from Trinity College Dublin, a MSc in Applied Environmental Sciences from Queens University Belfast and a Postgraduate Diploma in Acoustics and Noise Control from the Institute of Acoustics. I am a Full Member of the Institute of Acoustics (MIOA), a Full Member of the Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (MIEMA) and a Chartered Environmentalist (CEnv).

1.2 I have 15 years experience in the area of environmental management and over 10 years experience as a specialist in the area of environmental noise. I have completed detailed noise appraisals for a broad range of developments including ports, roads, wind farms, mixed use masterplans, mining/quarry operations, housing developments, renewable energy projects, waste projects, industrial developments, commercial enterprises, energy projects and leisure facilities. In the area of ports, I have worked on many port-related projects throughout Ireland, including Ringaskiddy Port, Shannon Foynes Port, Belfast Harbour, Greenore Port and Galway Port.

2 Involvement in the Project

2.1 I was the author of Section 7.1 of Volume 1 of the EIS, Noise and Vibration, which was submitted as part of the planning application for the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment project.

2.2 I was responsible for the overview of all aspects of the preparation of the Noise and Vibration section included in the EIS, including the completion of the noise monitoring surveys, the analysis of noise monitoring data, the appraisal of construction and operational phase noise and vibration in relation to the existing noise environment and guidance relating to noise and vibration and the consideration of mitigation measures for the proposed redevelopment.

3 Conclusions of the Noise and Vibration Appraisal

3.1 During the construction phase, worst-case construction activities associated with the proposed redevelopment may contribute to elevating daytime noise levels at some of the nearest noise sensitive properties on certain occasions. Worst-case construction noise predictions are based on the assumption that all plant involved in the construction phase are active simultaneously at the nearest point of construction to the nearest noise sensitive receptor. However, even worst-case predicted noise levels from the construction phase will be within the required threshold limits for construction phase noise activities as specified in the NRA Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes (2004) and British Standard BS5228:2009 Noise and Vibration on Construction and Open Sites.

3.2 Traffic flow changes during the construction phase of the proposed redevelopment will be less than 5% on all relevant roads in the study area. Traffic noise increases associated with the construction phase traffic will be significantly less than 1dB(A) at all sensitive receptors in the study area and hence will result in a negligible noise impact at the nearest noise sensitive receptors.

3.3 Some of the activities associated with the proposed redevelopment have the potential to result in vibration impacts at sensitive receptors, if sufficiently close to the receptor. Activities included in the proposed redevelopment that have the potential to result in vibration impacts include piling, dredging and demolition works. On the basis of the appraisal included in the EIS, there will be no significant construction phase vibration impacts at the nearest sensitive properties. There will be no operational phase vibration impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment.

3.4 The change in location of various plant/equipment within the Port as a result of the proposed redevelopment will not result in any significant change to the operational phase noise levels from the Port. Worst-case predicted operational phase noise levels from the proposed redevelopment are lower than the existing daytime ambient

noise levels (i.e. LAeq) and lower or similar to existing daytime background (i.e. LA90) noise levels at all of the nearest noise sensitive properties. Existing night-time activities in the container area east of Ocean Pier will not be increased as a result of the proposed redevelopment.

3.5 There will be a number of roads in the vicinity of the Port that will experience traffic flow increases and decreases of significantly less than 25% during the operational phase. This equates to traffic noise level changes of significantly less than 1dB(A), which will be negligible. Operational phase traffic noise increases of between 1- 3dB(A) will be experienced on the Port Tunnel in 2040, however, this will not result in any significant noise impact at any of the nearest noise sensitive properties. The road traffic changes along Promenade Road will be the most significant during the operational phase, however, there are no noise sensitive receptors adjacent to this road and therefore no significant noise impact will be experienced.

3.6 There is potential for cruise liner activity to increase at the Port in future years and hence there is potential for an increase in the relative frequency of certain types of prominent noise sources associated with such vessels (e.g. foghorn, tannoy announcements etc.). A small proportion of these may arrive before 07:00 and hence during the night-time period (i.e. 23:00 - 07:00). A survey of cruise liner noise

at the Port completed as part of the EIS concluded that road traffic noise remains the dominant noise source at the nearest receptors during cruise liner arrivals/departures, however very short-term noise sources from cruise liners such as foghorns or tannoy announcements may be prominent for short periods of time. In order to ensure that there is no increase in noise impact from changes in cruise liner movements into and out of the Port during the night-time period, Dublin Port will maintain a Noise Management Plan in relation to the ongoing management of noise issues associated with changes to port activities.

3.7 The combined operational phase noise impact associated with plant/equipment, cruise liner activity and traffic noise associated with the proposed redevelopment will be negligible at all of the nearest noise sensitive properties to the proposed redevelopment.

3.8 An appraisal of potential in combination cumulative noise and vibration impacts from the proposed redevelopment in combination with other projects, plans or programmes was completed as part of the noise and vibration appraisal for the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment. Projects included in the consideration of cumulative noise impacts included Poolbeg Waste to Energy Facility, Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant Extension, Dublin Array (offshore wind farm), the Eirgrid 220kV replacement cable and the Dublin Eastern Bypass. This appraisal concluded that there will be no significant in combination cumulative noise and vibration impacts.

4 Submissions and Responses

4.1 Of the valid submissions to An Bord Pleanála (ABP), seven make some form of reference to terrestrial noise and vibration and these are discussed in the paragraphs below. Underwater noise and vibration queries included in submissions to ABP have been addressed in a separate Witness Statement that covers this topic.

Submission: Dr D O Gráda on behalf of Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company

4.2 This submission contains one query relating to the Noise and Vibration chapter, highlighting the apparent discrepancy in cruise liner numbers as outlined in Section 7.1.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS as compared to the numbers included in Section 8.7.

Response:

The numbers included in the Noise and Vibration Chapter (Volume 1, Section 7.1.4) are taken directly from Table 15 (Page 23) of the Project Rationale document that accompanies the planning application.

Submission: Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht

4.3 Under heading 'Nature Conservation', sub-heading 'Marine', the Department outlines a number of recommendations for mitigation measures to be applied as conditions to any grant of planning permission.

Response:

These recommendations relate to the hours of operation of noise producing activities in the marine environment, procedures relating to piling activities and recommended distances between piling activities and marine mammal species.

Submission: Inland Fisheries Ireland

4.4 In the final bullet point of this submission, a general statement is included stating that "all mitigation measures discussed in respect of pile driving, including best available technology, monitoring and best practice to mitigate potential impacts should be a condition of any permission".

Response:

This submission includes a statement that the mitigation measures included in the EIS (including the mitigation measures in Section 7.1 of the EIS, Noise and Vibration) should be included as a condition of any approval for the proposed redevelopment.

Submission: Dublin Bay Watch

4.5 The submission contains the following text, which makes reference to noise and vibration:

"Arguably, this present development raises air quality, noise and vibration issues that were not a factor in the Gateway project but may be more of a concern for this project because of its closer proximity to residential areas on the North Wall. There will be much bigger ships entering this port if the development goes ahead, and ship emissions are a huge source of environment concern for city ports worldwide."

Response:

In relation to noise and vibration, an appraisal of the likely noise and vibration impacts associated with bigger ships entering the port is included in Section 7.1.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS. The changes to plant and equipment associated with the proposed redevelopment will not result in any significant operational phase noise impact at the nearest noise sensitive properties. There will be an increase in the relative frequency of certain types of vessels, however noise levels from such vessels will be below existing ambient and background noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptors and will only be audible for short periods of time where particular types of short-term noise sources (e.g. foghorn, tannoy noise) may occur.

Submission: Peadar Farrell

4.7 In Section 4.0 of this submission, the following statement is made:

"It is impossible to believe that the South Wall could be allowed to remain open with a Piling Operation only a few metres from the shore. The noise level would be above any allowable threshold for the public without proper ear protection."

Response:

Section 7.1.3 of Volume 1 of the EIS contains a detailed appraisal (and noise model) of worst-case construction phase activities (i.e. all plant/equipment active simultaneously at the nearest point of construction activity to the nearest properties). The worst-case construction phase predictions for Scenario 2 in Table 7.1.16 of the EIS includes the piling activities at the South Wall. These worst-case noise levels will be audible at the nearest properties along Pigeon House Road but are lower than the noise threshold limits included in the NRA Guidelines (2004) and BS5228:2009. Mitigation measures associated with the construction phase are included in Section 7.1.5 of Volume 1 of the EIS.

Submission: Dublin City Council

4.9 This submission raises a number of queries in relation to issues in Volume 1 Section 7.1 of the EIS and requests clarification on these items prior to planning permission being granted. The items raised are listed below:

 1. "Figure 7.1.1 displays noise monitoring locations and noise prediction locations on a map. This diagram should be supplemented with a list of addresses of these locations in order to make the results provided in Tables 7.1.7-7.1.12 and Table 7.1.14-7.1.17 clearer."

Response:

A List of Addresses is provided in Appendix 1 that accompanies this Witness Statement.

 2. "The 'current' modelled noise results at the noise prediction locations should be provided in Tables 7.1.14-7.1.16 in order to clearly show the noise impact of the proposed development."

Response:

Revised Tables 7.1.14 - 7.1.16 that include the 'current' modelled noise predictions are provided in Appendix 2 that accompanies this Witness Statement.

 3. "No reference is made to ongoing noise monitoring during the construction and operational phases of the project, either at the noise monitoring locations or noise prediction locations, to confirm the projected noise impacts of the works. It is recommended that, if planning consent is granted, the planning department should require that ongoing assessment of noise levels from the port should be carried out and the results should be forwarded to Dublin City Council periodically (as determined by the Planning Department) and upon request by Dublin City Council."

Response:

Specific arrangements for noise monitoring during construction and operational phases was not included in Chapter 7 of Volume 1 of the EIS as it is expected that any approval of planning permission for the project will include condition(s) stipulating the requirements for noise monitoring during the construction and operational phases.

 4. "If planning consent is granted, the mitigation measures as outlined in Section 7.1.5 of the EIS must be undertaken by Dublin Port Company."

Response:

This statement is a reiteration of the proposal that the mitigation measures included in Section 7.1.5 of Volume 1 of the EIS will be undertaken.

 4.11 Dublin City Council stated in its submission that the following three standard conditions relating to noise should be imposed as a minimum as part of any planning approval:

 "During the construction and demolition phases, the proposed development shall comply with British Standard 5228 - Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites Part 1. Code of practice for basic information and procedures for noise control."

 "Noise levels from the proposed development should not be so loud, so continuous, so repeated, of such duration or pitch or occurring at such times as to give reasonable cause for annoyance to a person in any premises in the neighbourhood or to a person lawfully using any public place."

 "The noise levels from the site, during operational phase, measured as an LAeq (5min at night, 15 min in day) when all proposed plant is operating, shall not exceed the LA90 by 5dB(A) or more."

Response

Bullet point 1 reiterates the mitigation measures included in Section 7.1.5 of Volume 1 of the EIS and the need for all construction phase activities to comply with the mitigation measures included in BS5228. Bullet point 2 includes a description of the factors that are used in determining noise nuisance under existing Irish legislation (i.e. Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and the Environmental Protection Agency Act [Noise] 1994). Bullet point 3 outlines the threshold noise limits that Dublin City Council wish to be applied as a condition to operational phase noise from the proposed redevelopment to ensure that no operational phase noise impacts are experienced at the nearest noise sensitive receptors. These threshold limits are not queried by the applicant.

Submission: Coastguard Station Residents Group

4.12 This submission includes a scientific paper from the 'Environment International' Journal (An assessment of residential exposure to environmental noise at a shipping port, Murphy E., King, E. A., December 2013) which details a survey and analysis of noise levels in the vicinity of Dublin Port. This paper is presented as context to the existing noise impacts experienced by the residents in the vicinity of the MTL facility. It is stated that the proposed redevelopment will add to the noise environment in a negative manner. Further issues relating to the planning validity of cranes in use at the MTL facility are raised. The submission concludes by requesting that ABP address the issues raised in the enclosed paper (listed above) and the unauthorised crane issue before granting planning permission to the proposed project.

Response:

The noise impact appraisal included in Section 7.1.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS does not corroborate the view that the proposed redevelopment will add significantly to the noise environment in a negative manner. Rather, as has been made clear in the application documentation, predicted noise levels from the proposed redevelopment

as illustrated in Table 7.1.17 will be below existing ambient noise levels (i.e. LAeq) at all of the nearest noise sensitive receptors and below or similar to existing

background noise levels (i.e.LA90) The proposed redevelopment will not result in any changes to the activities at the MTL facility and will not result in any significant change to the noise environment at properties in the vicinity of the MTL facility.

Further Information Request from An Bord Pleanála

4.14 An Bord Pleanála issued a request for further information in relation to the proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment, which included some queries relating to noise and vibration. For ease of reference, Appendix 3 of this Witness Statement includes the response to the An Bord Pleanála further information request.

5 Conclusion

5.1 A Noise and Vibration Appraisal of the proposed Alexandra Basin Redevelopment [ABR] project, during both construction and operational stages, has been conducted on behalf of the developer and been submitted to the Board for its assessment.

5.2 The proposed ABR project is located within a noise environment that currently is subject to high noise levels. Road traffic noise is the dominant noise source at the nearest noise sensitive receptors to the south, west and north of Dublin Port. The existing noise environment at these receptors is supplemented with a wide range of industrial and human based noise sources, including existing activities at Dublin Port.

5.3 During the construction phase of the proposed redevelopment, construction noise levels will be below existing ambient noise levels and in many cases background noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptors for the majority of the construction period. For these periods, construction phase noise impacts will be negligible. On certain occasions, which will be proportionally small in the context of the overall construction period, worst-case construction noise will result in minor noise impacts at a limited number of properties. On rare occasions, there is potential for moderate noise impacts when worst-case construction noise levels (including noise of a certain character, e.g. piling noise) takes place at the nearest point to the nearest noise sensitive receptors.

5.4 Road traffic flow changes associated with the construction and operational phases of the proposed redevelopment will result in negligible changes in road traffic noise levels on all road links that contain sensitive noise receptors adjacent to them. There is potential for minor increases in road traffic noise levels on the Dublin Tunnel in future year scenarios and moderate traffic noise level increases on Promenade Road, however these will not have any impact on noise sensitive receptors.

5.5 The appraisal of vibration impacts associated with the construction and operational phases concluded that there will be no significant vibration impact at the nearest vibration sensitive receptors.

5.6 During the operational phase, there will be minor increases and decreases in the noise levels associated with changes to the operation of plant/equipment and vessel movements. The operational phase noise levels from the Port will generally remain below existing ambient noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive properties and in many instances, below existing background noise levels. Night-time noise levels from general Port operations will not change as a result of the proposed redevelopment.

5.7 The projected increase in cruise liner activity has the potential to result in a small increase in the instances of non-continuous tonal or impulsive noises (foghorn, tannoy announcements etc.) during night-time hours. Mitigation measures have been included in the Noise and Vibration Chapter to manage noise sources of this nature and ensure that there is no significant increase in noise impacts of this nature at the nearest noise sensitive properties.

5.8 In conclusion, the noise and vibration impacts associated with the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment will be negligible at the nearest noise sensitive properties for the majority of the construction and operational phases. On a limited number of occasions and at a limited number of sensitive receptors, there is potential for minor and even moderate short-term noise impacts, however the implementation of the noise mitigation measures in the Noise and Vibration Chapter will reduce the number and extent of such instances. The overall noise environment will remain broadly similar with and without the proposed redevelopment in place.

Appendix 1 - Addresses of Noise Monitoring and Noise Prediction Locations Used in Noise Impact Appraisal

The table below list the addresses of all noise monitoring and prediction locations illustrated in Figure 7.1.1 of Volume 2 of the EIS.

Noise Prediction Location - Reference in Address / Description of Location Figure 7.1.1

1 51 York Road

2 1 Alex Quay

3 1 Pigeon House Road

4 30 Pigeon House Road

5 46 Pigeon House Road

6 62 Pigeon House Road

7 71 Pigeon House Road

8 80 Pigeon House Road

9 The O2

10 Point Hotel

11 210 Clontarf Road

12 22 Vernon Court

13 221 Clontarf Road Noise Monitoring Location - Reference in Address / Description of Location Figure 7.1.1

1 Adjacent to 30 Pigeon House Road

2 Adjacent Gibson Hotel

3 15m South East of 215 Clontarf Road

4 Adjacent to 81 Pigeon House Road

5 Adjacent to 30 Beach Road

6 Opposite 30 Pigeon House Road, on northern side of Pigeon House Road.

Appendix 2 - Tables 7.1.14 - 7.1.16 Including 'Current' Modelled Noise Results

All of the tables below have been extracted from Chapter 7 of Volume 1 of the EIS.

Table 7.1.14 Worst-Case Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Noise Sensitive Properties from Construction Phase (Scenario 1)

Property Nearest Property Predicted Worst- 'Current' Predicted Existing Reference Case Worst-Case Daytime (See Figure 1) Construction Operational Phase Ambient Noise Noise [Including Noise Levels from Levels (LAeq) Dredging] (dBA) Port (dBA) * (dBA) ** 1 51 York Road 54.8 [65.9] 50.5 67.1 2 1 Alex Quay 55.1 [65.6] 50.8 67.1 3 1 Pigeon House Road 51.2 [58.4] 50.2 67.1 4 30 Pigeon House Road 51.2 [69.2] 51.0 67.1 5 46 Pigeon House Road 55.4 [59.5] 54.2 67.1 6 62 Pigeon House Road 54.8 [58.7] 54.2 67.1 7 71 Pigeon House Road 52.2 [57.4] 58.9 59.7 8 80 Pigeon House Road 51.9 [57.0] 57.9 59.7

9 The O2 58.2 [60.2] 54.2 63.9 10 Point Hotel 60.8 [61.0] 55.5 63.9 11 210 Clontarf Road 44.3 [44.6] 56.7 63.8 12 22 Vernon Court 44.3 [44.6] 56.3 63.8 13 221 Clontarf Road 44.0 [44.3] 56.0 63.8 * Assumes all plant/equipment active simultaneously

** Includes all noise sources in the study area, including the Port (road traffic noise dominant in most instances).

Table 7.1.15 Worst-Case Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Noise Sensitive Properties from Construction Phase (Scenario 2)

Property Nearest Property Predicted Worst- 'Current' Predicted Existing Daytime Reference Case Worst-Case Ambient Noise (See Figure 1) Construction Operational Phase Levels (LAeq) Noise [Including Noise Levels from (dBA) ** Dredging] (dBA) Port (dBA) * 1 51 York Road 59.5 [67.1] 50.5 67.1 2 1 Alex Quay 59.5 [66.8] 50.8 67.1 3 1 Pigeon House Road 55.4 [60.2] 50.2 67.1 4 30 Pigeon House Road 57.1 [68.0] 51.0 67.1 5 46 Pigeon House Road 63.5 [64.5] 54.2 67.1 6 62 Pigeon House Road 57.5 [60.2] 54.2 67.1 7 71 Pigeon House Road 55.9 [58.5] 58.9 59.7 8 80 Pigeon House Road 54.7 [57.8] 57.9 59.7

9 The O2 68.3 [68.5] 54.2 63.9 10 Point Hotel 66.3 [66.4] 55.5 63.9 11 210 Clontarf Road 42.4 [42.8] 56.7 63.8 12 22 Vernon Court 42.4 [42.8] 56.3 63.8 13 221 Clontarf Road 42.4 [42.8] 56.0 63.8 * Assumes all plant/equipment active simultaneously

** Includes all noise sources in the study area, including the Port (road traffic noise dominant in most instances).

Table 7.1.16 Comparison of Worst-Case Predicted Construction Noise Levels with Noise Threshold Limits in NRA Guidelines (2004) and BS5229:2009

Property Nearest Property 'Current' Predicted Worst- Noise Threshold Ref Predicted Worst- Case Construction Limit (LAeq) (dBA) (See Figure 1) Case Noise* (dBA) Operational Scenario Scenario NRA BS5228 Phase Noise Guide- : 2009 Levels from Port 1* 2* (dBA) * lines ABC Method 1 51 York Road 50.5 65.9 67.1 70 70 2 1 Alex Quay 50.8 65.6 66.8 70 70 3 1 Pigeon House Road 50.2 58.4 60.2 70 70 4 30 Pigeon House Road 51.0 69.2 68.0 70 70 5 46 Pigeon House Road 54.2 59.5 64.5 70 70 6 62 Pigeon House Road 54.2 58.7 60.2 70 70 7 71 Pigeon House Road 58.9 57.4 58.5 70 65 8 80 Pigeon House Road 57.9 57.0 57.8 70 65

9 The O2 54.2 60.2 68.5 70 70 10 Point Hotel 55.5 61.0 66.4 70 70 11 210 Clontarf Road 56.7 44.6 42.8 70 70 12 22 Vernon Court 56.3 44.6 42.8 70 70 13 221 Clontarf Road 56.0 44.3 42.8 70 70 * Worst-Case Predictions Include Dredging

Appendix 3 - Response to An Bord Pleanála (ABP) Request for Further Information

A Noise and Vibration

1. Construction noise and vibration

1.1 The EIS described the effects of noise and vibration resulting from the proposed works however more information is required to enable the Board to assess the potential adverse effects of construction noise and vibration on the surrounding area. Provide detailed information in relation to the proposal to construct new quay walls and structures over a significant area of Dublin Port referred to in Section 4.1.1 of the EIS with regard to the anticipated duration of overall pile installation activity along with the anticipated duration of piling at Alexandra Basin West and at Berths 52/53. Also, provide further details of the piling techniques that will be used in the construction of the new quay walls and other structures.

RPS - Further Information Response

Section 7.1.3 of Volume 1 of the EIS contains a detailed appraisal of the predicted construction noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed development, while Section 7.1.5 of Volume 1 of the EIS contains an outline of mitigation measures for construction noise and vibration. Table 7.1.13 of Volume 1 of the EIS contains the reference plant/equipment inputs into the noise model, including a worst-case reference of tubular steel piling using hydraulic hammer (BS5228:2009, Annex C, Table C3, Reference 3) for piling works. Tables 7.1.14 and 7.1.15 illustrate worst-case predicted construction noise levels during two of the noisiest stages of the construction process and Table 7.1.16 presents this worst-case construction noise levels in the context of commonly used construction noise threshold limits as set out in the National Roads Authority (NRA) Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes (2004) [NRA Guidelines] and BS5228:2009 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites.

Table 1 contains specific details relating to the extent of quay wall construction that will require piling works, the number of piles that will be required for each quay and the approximate duration of piling works related to each particular quay. For each quay, two piling rigs will be active simultaneously during the duration of the construction works, albeit there will be a short lag time between the commencement of the first and second rig. As outlined in Table 1, piling will commence in October 2015 and will continue until January 2019. The number of piling rigs that will be active at any one time will vary over this period of time, with initially only one rig being active (i.e. October 2015) reaching a maximum of 5 in accordance with the programme (e.g. January 2018). In the paragraphs that follow, the discussion on the noise model illustrates that up to 7 piling rigs were included in the noise model as being active at any one time. The logic for this was to create a very robust model that would account for greater levels of construction activity than what is programmed, to allow for potential alterations to the programme and to ensure that a 'worst-case' scenario was appraised.

Table 1: Extent and Duration of Piling Activities During Construction Works

Quay Structure Approximate Number of Preliminary Programmed Approximate Quay Length Piles Dates Duration of to be Piled Piling Works Ocean Pier 557m 186 Apr 2016-Feb 2017 10 months (Berths 32-34) Alexandra Quay Oct 2015 - Feb 2016 West (Berths 29- 530m 177 Jan 2017 - Feb 2017 13 months 31) June 2017 - Nov 2017 Crossberth Quay 256m 86 Nov 2015 - Feb 2016 4 months North Wall Quay Jan 2018 -Feb 2018 Extension (Berths 937m 312 9 months 21-25) Jul 2018 - Jan 2019 New Berth 52/53 297m 1433* Jul 2017 - Jan 2018 7 months Marina Wall 220m 74 Sept 2017 - Feb 2018 7 months Ro-Ro Jetty in Jan 2017 - June 2017 273m 72 3 months Alexandra Basin (Total construction period) Ro-Ro Jetty at Jul 2017 - Mar 2018 40m 18 1.5 months Berth 49 (Total construction period) Ro-Ro Jetty at July 2017 - Mar 2018 75m 18 1.5 months Berth 52 (Total construction period) * New Berth 52/53 quay two forms of construction, 130m steel combi-wall (equating to 45nr 1.6m dia tubes), and 167m formed using cellular cofferdams (equating to 1388nr 0.5m wide straight web piles). The latter is considerably less noisy than the former, so for the purposes of appraising worst-case noise levels, the former has been used in the noise model.

Table 7.1.13 of Volume 1 of the EIS contains the reference for tubular steel piling using hydraulic hammer (BS5228:2009, Annex C, Table C3, Reference 3) which was used in the noise model. This is a particularly noisy form of piling and has been used in the noise model to ensure a worst-case noise appraisal has been completed in the absence of final exact details of the piling technique that will be finalised at the detailed design stage. The two options currently in the submitted proposal for piling are a tubular pile combi wall (diameter approx 1.6m) [tubes at approximately 3m c/c with pair of Arcelor z-section piles between each tube] and a HZM king pile wall [H piles at approximately 2m c/c with pair of Arcelor z-section piles between each tube].

Of the two techniques under consideration, the tubular pile combi wall option is the noisier and hence has been used in the noise model. The proposed piling technique assumes the driving of tubular piles using a combination of vibratory and impact techniques. A temporary steel frame will be erected along the quay edge to form a gate/guide for the installation of the piles. The piles will then be lifted into position. Assuming a maximum pile length of 50m, the piles may be installed in two sections. Based on this assumption, the piles may stand approximately 25m above deck level prior to the commencement of the driving operations. Initially the piles may be driven using a vibratory hammer to penetrate through the softer strata. An impact hammer will then be used to progress the pile through the harder strata to rock. A ramp-up procedure, starting with low impacts and working up to full hammer stroke, will be employed when driving the piles in order to mitigate against potential noise impacts. The noisiest part of this process is assumed in the noise model.

Section 7.1.3 of Volume 1 of the EIS describes the rationale for the noise models that have generated the worst-case predicted construction noise levels included in Tables 7.1.14 - 7.1.16 of Volume 1 of the EIS. There will be many elements of cross-over of construction activities at the various quays during the construction process, so in order to complete a worst-case construction phase noise appraisal two worst-case snapshots of the construction phase were used. These two snapshots are described below:

 Construction Phase Scenario 1: In terms of piling, this scenario assumes that 6 separate piling rigs are active simultaneously at Alexandra Quay West (3 piling rigs), Crossberth Quay (1 piling rig) and Ocean Pier (2 piling rigs).  Construction Phase Scenario 2: In terms of piling, this scenario assumes that 7 separate piling rigs are active simultaneously at the Marina Wall (1 piling rig), Berth 52 (2 piling rigs), North Wall Quay (2 piling rigs) and Alexandra Quay West (2 piling rigs).

While that will be a certain degree of cross-over between construction activities at the various quays (see Table 1), all of these cross-over events will not take place at the same time and certainly not to the extent that there will be 6-7 separate piling rigs active simultaneously. On this basis, the worst- case construction noise model (which includes piling activities) is very much an overestimation of construction noise from the Port at any one time and it is unlikely that these worst-case construction noise levels will be reached at any stage during the construction process.

Even assuming the worst-case assumptions for construction phase activities included in Construction Phase Scenarios 1 and 2 (including piling activities), the worst-case predicted noise levels presented in Tables 7.1.14 - 7.1.16 of Volume 1 of the EIS are within the required noise threshold limits outlined in the NRA Guidelines and BS5228:2009. In the majority of instances, they are also below existing ambient (i.e. LAeq) noise levels (see Table 7.1.7 of Volume 1 of the EIS) and in many instances, they are also below existing background (i.e. LA90) noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive properties.

STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N .PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

WITNESS STATEMENT OF CELINE DALY

TRANSPORTATION

Qualifications and Experience

1.1.1 I am Celine Daly. I hold a Bachelor of Science Honours Degree in Mathematics from Queens University Belfast. I am a Chartered Member of the Chartered Institution of Logistics and Transportation, a Member of the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation and a Member of the Transport Planning Society. I have over 13 years experience as a transportation and highways engineering consultant.

1.1.2 My work primarily involves the management and preparation of transportation and highways-related documentation on behalf of private developers relating to the progression of proposed schemes through the planning process. My work also involves the progression of administrative and statutory processes to deliver highway works.

1.1.3 I have extensive experience of highway design, transportation impact analysis, people/traffic trip modelling and highway junction modelling.

2 Involvement in the Project

2.1.1 I was the co-author with Conor O'Hara of Chapter 8.1 of Volume 1 of the EIS, Transportation, which was submitted with the application for permission to An Bord Pleanála on 6 March 2014.

2.1.2 I analysed the proposed development and the transportation-related data and formulated much of the analyses, results and conclusions as presented in the EIS.

2.1.3 I carried out detailed research into the history and progression of the Dublin Eastern By-pass design and its status in adopted and draft statutory planning documents. I contributed to Appendix 4 of the Planning Report entitled 'Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project and a Possible Future Eastern Bypass', also submitted as part of the application for permission to An Bord Pleanála on 6 March 2014.

3 Conclusions of the Transportation Appraisal in the EIS

Existing Conditions 3.1.1 Dublin Port is well connected to the national road network and, in particular, to the Dublin Port Tunnel (which opened in 2006), thus providing fast and direct access to the strategically important M50 and M1 routes within minutes of leaving the Port. The Dublin Port Tunnel has also assisted in removing congestion within the Dublin Port Estate and in the environs of the Port itself.

3.1.2 Currently, the Dublin Port Tunnel carries c17,500 vehicle trips per day. The Tunnel has a maximum theoretical capacity of c173,000 vehicle trips per day. Therefore, only 10% of the current capacity of the tunnel is being utilised and there is ample spare capacity to accommodate growth at Dublin Port.

3.1.3 DPC has invested significantly in improvements to the internal road network of the Port Estate to facilitate the efficient movements of goods to and from the various terminals and facilities in the Port. These internal improvements have been delivered to ensure that the investment in the Dublin Port Tunnel and the expansion of the capacity of the M50 are adequately utilised by freight traffic to and from the Port. The Dublin Port Tunnel, the expansion of the capacity of the M50 and the implementation of the Dublin City Council HGV Management Strategy have assisted in reducing the times involved in moving goods to and from the Port.

3.1.4 The tunnel is utilised by 79% of heavy vehicles leaving Dublin Port and 83% of heavy vehicles arriving at Dublin Port. Each of the other local roads in the area only carry c2-6% of heavy vehicles generated by the Port.

Rail 3.1.5 Dublin Port is at the heart of the national rail network with direct connections to all major centres of population. DPC has maintained and developed the main rail infrastructure within the Port and is committed to the provision of rail connections and sidings within the Port. The level of freight that is transported by rail remains comparatively low, however, there is significant potential for rail freight to grow over the period of the Masterplan.

3.1.6 Iarnród Éireann (Irish Rail) provides 26 freight train services per week in Ireland, 21, or 80%, of which are destined for Dublin Port.

3.1.7 Currently cargo is transported to the Port by freight train from Tara Mines in Navan, County Meath, and Ballina in County Mayo, with 3 Tara Mines trains per day and 6 Ballina trains per week accessing Dublin Port on weekdays. The Ballina service began as twice weekly 5 years ago and has expanded to currently providing 6 services per week. It has recently been announced that the service will expand further to 7 days per week, demonstrating the growth in the rail freight at the Port.

3.1.8 DPC has also recently invested €1.8M in the extension of a rail siding Alex Quay East, demonstrating the Port's commitment to ensuring the Port's infrastructure can continue to accommodate growth in rail freight.

3.1.9 Iarnród Éireann (Irish Rail) were consulted as part of the pre-application discussions for the ABR scheme.

3.1.10 Ore concentrates from Tara Mines are exported by rail from a quayside location within the subject site. The current ore loading facility will be improved as part of the ABR scheme.

3.1.11 The rail access to the site is via the existing Alexandra Road access. The closure of this access to operational traffic as part of the ABR scheme, as will be discussed below, and the redistribution of internal traffic flows at the Port away from this section the Alexandra Road internally, will reduce disruption between the train services and the freight vehicles accessing the site.

Existing Sustainable Transport 3.1.12 The appraisal set out in the EIS has demonstrated that Dublin Port is accessible by sustainable transport modes and details the extent of the existing walking and cycle network, the Dublin Bike scheme, the bus facilities surrounding the site and the Luas Depot at the Point.

Traffic Appraisal 3.1.13 The ABR Project will assist in achieving the objectives of DPC Masterplan, that is, to cater for 60m gross tonnes of cargo by 2040, which equates to a growth of 2.5% per annum from 2012 to 2040.

3.1.14 The application does not trigger the requirement to provide a detailed Transportation Assessment as specified the NRA guidelines. However, in order to be proactive and to provide all relevant information to the Board on the potential impact of the proposed development on the capacity of the highway network, DPC has submitted a high level appraisal of the traffic impact in the EIS Transportation Chapter, Volume 1 Chapter 8.

3.1.15 The transportation appraisal was carried out to evaluate the impact of the associated 2.5% per annum growth in port traffic upon the surrounding highway network. It should be noted that this traffic appraisal considers the entirety of the development envisaged in the DPC Masterplan, and not just the ABR application, thereby providing an extremely robust evaluation of the potential traffic impacts arising from the proposed ABR development.

3.1.16 Traffic information was sourced through surveys in 2013 and by supporting traffic survey information undertaken by Dublin Port in 2008. Figure 1 (extracted from EIS Volume 3 Appendix 8.2) shows diagrammatically the existing traffic flows on the surrounding highway network for the survey year, 2013. The diagram shows the existing flows through the Port Tunnel of c17,500 vehicles per day (8952 + 8620).

Figure 1: 2013 Existing Daily Traffic Flows, (EIS Volume 3 Appendix 8.2)

3.1.17 There are 3 main existing accesses serving Dublin Port: Promenade Road (leading directly to the Port Tunnel), and Alexandra Road and the Terminal 3 access (both located along the East Wall Road). Promenade Road currently carries about 70% of the vehicles that access the Port.

3.1.18 The ABR scheme will close the Terminal 3 access completely, and will close the Alexandra Road access to all operational traffic. Thereafter, this current access will only accommodate light vehicles to the car park for the DPC offices.

3.1.19 Currently, vehicular access is used intermittently to the Port directly from the O2 Roundabout. This access will also be permanently closed to vehicles as part of the ABR scheme.

3.1.20 The proposed access reconfiguration will effect localised traffic reassignment which will deliver a significant planning gain to the local road network. As a result of the proposals, Promenade Road will accommodate 99% of the vehicles generated by the Port, channelling them directly to the Port Tunnel and onto the strategic road network beyond.

3.1.21 Figure 2 (extracted from EIS Volume 3 Appendix 8.9) shows diagrammatically the proposed daily traffic flows on the surrounding road network for the year 2040, the end of the DPC Masterplan period. The proposed flows shown include both the existing traffic factored up using NRA high growth rates and the existing Port traffic factored up at 2.5% per year. The diagram shows the redistributed traffic flows with the Port accesses closed along East Wall Road.

Figure 2: 2040 Proposed Daily Traffic Flows, (EIS Volume 3 Appendix 8.9)

3.1.22 There will be a significant reduction in the volume of traffic along the frontage of Dublin Port along East Wall Road. On the day of opening, c3500 heavy vehicles will be removed from East Wall Road and c1650 heavy vehicles will no longer u-turn at the North Wall Quay Roundabout. The removal of the accesses and heavy vehicles along East Wall Road will:  Improve road capacity for local vehicles;  Reduce heavy vehicles on local roads, increasing safety, improving the localised environment for pedestrians and cyclists and reducing localised noise and air impacts;  Facilitate the future signalisation of the North Wall Quay Roundabout (plans proposed by Dublin City Council) thereby allowing controlled pedestrian crossings and improved pedestrian safety;  Facilitate the provision of the softening of the boundary to the Dublin Port, facilitating a Public Realm area and provision for sustainable transport enhancement.

3.1.23 The results of the TA show that the Dublin Port Tunnel has ample spare capacity to accommodate the predicted traffic increase for, not only the ABR scheme, but the entire Masterplan. The two-way predicted daily traffic flow at the Port Tunnel by 2040, the end of the Masterplan period, is 36,351 vehicles, as shown in Figure 2 above (18716+17635). This represents just 21% of the tunnel's maximum theoretical capacity.

3.1.24 Figure 3 (extracted from EIS Volume 3 Appendix 8.10) shows the Percentage Impacts between the existing traffic flows and the proposed traffic flows for the year of completion of the construction of the scheme, 2019.

Figure 3: Percentage Impact Diagram 2019 (EIS Volume 3 Appendix 8.10)

3.1.25 Figure 3 shows that the percentage impacts on the surrounding road network, even for the full Masterplan, are less than 5% in the year 2019 on all links with the exception of the Port Tunnel. This demonstrates that the ABR scheme does not trigger a Transportation Assessment as per the NRA guidelines. The diagram also shows the reduction in the volume of traffic along East Wall Road in the year of opening, between -7.9% and -17.1%.

3.1.26 The predicted impacts upon the other local routes including North Wall Quay, Pigeon House Road and Sheriff Street Upper are marginal even by 2040 for the entire Masterplan, all experiencing a less than 10% increase in daily two way flows.

Cruise Liners 3.1.27 The ABR project will relocate cruise liners along the North Wall Quay, increasing the passenger connectivity to the City Centre. The existing North Wall Quay access, located close to the existing O2 Roundabout, will be formally dedicated as a pedestrian and cycle access to accommodate the cruise passengers.

3.1.28 As already demonstrated the road network surrounding Dublin port has an established walking and cycle network, the Dublin Bike scheme, bus facilities and the Luas Depot at the Point. The location of the cruise liners closer to the city centre and the dedication of the 02 Roundabout access for the use of pedestrians and cyclists will encourage the cruise passengers to create a modal shift towards the sustainable transport facilities.

3.1.29 DPC predicts that the number of cruise calls at the Port will increase from 83 in 2013 to 140 in 2032. The biggest cruise liners generate c650 trips per day. The majority of these trips occur outside of the peak hours and the impact is only c1.45% of the total daily vehicles accessing the Port and has negligible impact upon the surrounding highway network.

3.1.30 Note that a docked cruise liner prevents the berth from being utilised by other vessels, negating the potential traffic which would be generated by other vessels in circumstances where the cruise liner is absent.

Dublin Eastern By-Pass 3.1.31 The Dublin Eastern Bypass (DEB) concept is a possible future urban motorway to connect the existing Dublin Port Tunnel to the M50 in the Sandyford area to achieve an orbital road network around Dublin.

3.1.32 Previous suggested alignments for the DEB route have intersected with the Dublin Port area. Therefore, in preparing the ABR application, DPC has held consultations with the relevant stakeholders, including the National Roads Authority (NRA) and the Dublin City Council (DCC), and has commissioned detailed research into the history and progression of the DEB design and its status in adopted and draft statutory planning documents.

3.1.33 This process has ensured that the ABR scheme will not compromise any potential 55m wide corridor running along the port boundary in line with the existing East Quay Wall and the East-Link Bridge. The 60m exclusion zone along the North Quay Wall

from the East Link Bridge can accommodate both the latest emerging alignment for the future DEB and any potential upgrade of the East Link Bridge.

3.1.34 This solution has been progressed during pre-application consultation discussions with the relevant key stakeholders and is compatible with the relevant planning policy.

Construction Traffic 3.1.35 The generation of construction traffic was found to have negligible impact upon the surrounding highway network. During the 3½ year construction period, an average the number of construction vehicles will be 21 per hour, with a worse case of 66 vehicles per hour (during an 8 hour day). As consistent with the Dublin City Centre HGV Management Strategy (which bans HGVs from Dublin City Centre), these vehicles will be instructed to utilise the Port Tunnel, which has ample spare capacity as already demonstrated.

4 Submissions and Responses

In preparing this witness statement, I have considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties concerning the transportation related elements of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment project. I have addressed each submission or observation in turn below, before providing my response to the essential point being made.

4.1 National Roads Authority (NRA)

The NRA submission by Tara Spain, Senior Policy Advisor (Planning), concentrates on two main items; the Dublin Tunnel and the Dublin Eastern Bypass. Each of these issues are set out below and the developer’s response is made directly thereunder.

4.1.1 Issue#1 – Dublin Tunnel - Function

Submission:

The NRA have confirmed that the 'Dublin Port Tunnel' has been renamed as the 'Dublin Tunnel' and has also been designated as the M50 Motorway. The Authority recognises that the Tunnel was constructed to accommodate traffic to and from Dublin Port, but goes on to emphasise that the possible future function of the Tunnel as a section of the Eastern By- pass must be recognised and protected.

Response:

The applicant recognises the position expressed by NRA regarding the function of the Tunnel.

4.1.2 Issue #2 – Dublin Tunnel - Capacity

Submission:

The NRA have stated that they are concerned with the assumptions and methodologies used for calculating the capacity of the Dublin Tunnel.

They state that they will continue to take reasonable measures to protect the capacity of the Tunnel and have strongly recommended that DPC liaises directly with the NRA in respect of quantifying the capacity of the tunnel for further developments of the DPC Masterplan.

Response:

Industry recognised methodology has been used for estimating link road capacity as per the NRA DMRB (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) to give an indication of the theoretical capacity of the tunnel. The exercise was carried out to demonstrate that there is a comfortable level of available capacity within the tunnel to accommodate the traffic generated by the ABR application.

The applicant will adhere to the request to liaise directly with the NRA with regard to the capacity of the Tunnel for further development of the DPC Masterplan.

4.1.3 Issue #3 – Dublin Tunnel - Construction Dirt or Dust

Submission:

The NRA have recognised that the tunnel will be the primary access for land based construction traffic and have requested appropriate measures to prevent the deposition of construction dirt or dust in the Tunnel.

Response:

The applicant accepts this request and appropriate measures will be implemented by the appointed contractor during the construction stage. DPC has committed to provide a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and, indeed, onEIS 18 August 2014 additional information was submitted to the Board as a response to a Request for Further Information (RFI), which included a Draft High Level CEMP. The Draft High Level CEMP made reference to:

 Traffic Management Plan;  Site Waste Management Plan; and a  Dust & Odour Management Plan.

The Draft Outline CEMP includes details of a Dust Minimisation Plan prepared in accordance with the Building Research Establishment document entitled 'Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities', which will include procedures for the cleaning and maintenance of mud and aggregate materials, control of dust, wheel washing facilities and regular road inspections. The Dust Minimisation Plan is included in Appendix 2 of the Draft High Level CEMP.

Paragraph 3.3.1 of the Draft High Level CEMP makes reference to the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) and states 'The TMP will include provisions for routing, wheel washing and covering loads using the Dublin Tunnel'.

In the event that development consent is granted, the Draft High Level CEMP will be finalised and will be implemented during the construction stage.

The effective implementation of these measures will prevent the deposition of construction dirt and dust in the Tunnel as requested by NRA.

4.1.4 Issue #4 – Dublin Eastern By-pass (DEB)

Submission:

The NRA acknowledge the extensive consultation that has taken place between DPC, DCC and NRA with respect to the Dublin Eastern Bypass (DEB).

The NRA have confirmed the identification of a technically feasible route corridor for the DEB, from the Dublin Tunnel South Portal to the River Liffey, that will allow the delivery of the ABR scheme to be advanced prior to the construction of the DEB.

The NRA expects to publish a revision to the Corridor Protection Study Sector A report in July 2014 and will continue to engage with DCC with a view to securing the appropriate statutory protection for the newly identified corridor. 13

Response:

The DPC also acknowledges the positive and cooperative consultations between DPC, NRA and DCC on the DEB.

DPC welcomes the confirmation of a technically feasible route corridor that allows the delivery of the ABR scheme to be advanced prior to the construction of the DEB. The ABR scheme has been designed to accommodate the new corridor.

DPC also welcomed the procedures being progressed by NRA in association with DCC to provide the revised alignment corridor with statutory protection. A revision of the Dublin Eastern Bypass, Corridor Protection Study, Sector A: Dublin Tunnel to Sandymount Strand was released by NRA in September 2014 which confirms the latest alignment of the DEB route corridor.

4.1.5 Issue #5 – Pedestrian and Cycle Access at the O2 Roundabout

Submission:

The NRA highlights a potential conflict for the pedestrian/cycle access close to the O2 Roundabout for one of the options of the revised DEB alignment. They have requested that a primary pedestrian and cycle access be amended to access the LUAS Plaza/Terminus just north of the O2 (building).

Response:

To clarify, DPC proposes that the Port access close to the O2 Roundabout will be the dedicated route for pedestrians and cyclists associated with the Cruise Liners. General pedestrian and cycle access for staff and visitors will be via the Promenade Road access, the Alexandra Road access and the access close to the O2 Roundabout.

DPC understands the nature of the objective to remove a potential conflict between one the proposed DEB corridor options and the crossing of cyclist and pedestrians. However, it seems likely that the construction will occur a significant period of time after the commencement of the ABR Project. Accordingly, the current position is that pedestrian and cycle access from the Port should remain at the existing Port access close to the O2 Roundabout, at least until until the DEB scheme is implemented. The current proposed location allows direct access to the North Wall Quay, which leads directly to the city centre on foot and connects to the nearest Dublin Bike facility. Indeed, the O2 Roundabout may be signalised as part of DCC proposals, which the ABR Project facilitates by removing a significant numbers of u-turners from the roundabout. This would include controlled crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, which is of obvious benefit. It is also possible that an interim controlled crossing facility may be implemented at East Wall Road until the signalisation of the roundabout is realised.

DPC has ensured that the ABR scheme will not compromise any potential 55m wide corridor running along the port boundary in line with the existing East Quay Wall and the East-Link Bridge. The 60m exclusion zone can be readily used to relocate the pedestrian and cyclist access until the development of the DEB is imminent.

As will be discussed below, DPC is proposing that the final detailing of the pedestrian and 14

cycle routes along East Wall Road will be agreed with DCC prior to the commencement of the scheme.

4.2 Dublin City Council (DCC)

The applicant welcomes the statement in the submission from DCC (by Jim Keogan, Executive Manager) confirming that he Roads and Traffic Planning Division is supportive of the proposed development. While supportive of the proposals, the DCC Roads and Traffic Department have raised certain queries and each of these issues are set out below and the developer’s response is made directly thereunder.

4.2.1 Issue#1 – Access Arrangements, Vehicular Routes and Parking Arrangements for Cruise Liners

Submission:

The DCC has requested confirmation of the outline details of the access arrangements, vehicular routes and parking arrangements for buses, taxis etc. servicing cruise ships.

Response:

A dedicated pedestrian and cycle access for the cruise liner users is proposed at the existing Dublin Port Access close to the O2 Roundabout. The situation at the O2 Roundabout, which may be signalised as part of DCC proposals, will actually be allievated by the ABR Project with the removal of significant numbers of u-turners from the roundabout. This would include controlled crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, which is of obvious benefit.

In response to the request from DCC, Drawing IBH0362/0020 Indicative Layout for Terminal 4 has been produced which shows the indicative vehicular routes and parking facilities within the Dublin Port for the buses, taxis and other vehicles associated with the Cruise Liners. See Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Drawing IBH0632/0020 Indicative Layout for Terminal 4

4.2.2 Issue#2 – Access Closure Timings, Internal Roads and Internal Traffic Management

Submission:

DCC has stated that it needs to be satisfied that the internal network can accommodate the redistributed traffic internally before the access closures.

Response:

The applicant has no difficulty with a condition in terms of Recommended DCC Condition 2.

Indeed, DPC has already significantly progressed the analysis required to fulfil this condition.

A detailed traffic appraisal was carried out by RPS between May and September 2014 in order to analyse the access closure timings and the impact on the internal highway network, the Dublin Tunnel and the interchange connecting the Port (at Promenade Road) to the Tunnel.

The appraisal included:

 Detailed, high specification surveys of existing traffic carried out over both the internal and external road networks, including classified counts, 24 hour turning movements and existing traffic queues;  Collation of extensive data on pedestrian movements, push cycles and buses;  Identification and detailed consideration of key peak hours coinciding with the simultaneous disembarking the largest Ro-Ro vessels within the Port;  Proposed traffic flows derived in accordance with the proposed road and access closures/changes, the construction phasing and the relocation of the major operators within the Port due to the construction of the ABR Project, and external and internal traffic growth for the entire Masterplan period;  The proposed flows also consider construction traffic, and a worst case assessment of cruise traffic;  A road and junction capacity model (Linked LinSig) has been built. The base model has been validated with the existing traffic flows, existing queues lengths surveyed at each arm of each junction, and with the existing recorded traffic signal timings at the existing signalised junctions. This ensures that the base model accurately reflects the existing traffic conditions occurring within the Port's road network.  The validated Linked LinSig model has then been used to assess the future year capacities of the internal road network for each Stage/Year up to 2040 for both the internal AM and PM peak hours.

The approach followed in Section 8 of the EIS in relation to future traffic flows was to look at the impact of growth over the complete period of the Masterplan to 2040. In particular, impacts were assessed for the years 2019, 2024, 2034 and 2040 notwithstanding that the flows in future years assume works subsequent to those proposed in the ABR Project have been completed. This approach was followed in order to give a robust basis for assessing traffic impacts in future years. This approach has been extended in the detailed analysis of Dublin Port’s internal road network.

Figure 5 below shows the location of the No26 Junctions that have been surveyed, and Figure 6 shows an example of a traffic flow diagram used in the appraisal.

Figure 5: Location of No26 Junctions Surveyed for the Appraisal

Figure 6: Example of Traffic Flow Diagram Figure 7 illustrates the linked LinSig Network Model used to assess the traffic capacity within road network.

Figure 7: Illustration of Linked LinSig Network Diagram - Internal Network 19

The extent of the analysis demonstrates that DPC has already significantly progressed the work and analysis required to fulfil this condition with a view to satisfying DCC, prior to the commencement of the scheme, that the internal network will be able accommodate the internal redistributed traffic due to the access closures.

4.2.3 Issue#3 – Pedestrian and Cycle Access at the O2 Roundabout

Submission:

The DCC has states that there are no final plans for the signalisation of the O2 Roundabout, including the provision of crossing facilities. They suggest that it would not be appropriate to concentrate pedestrian and cycle access to the Port at this time until such time as improved facilities are available.

They suggest that the finalisation of the pedestrian and cycle access from East Wall can be conditioned.

Response:

To clarify, the current proposals are that the access close to the O2 Roundabout will be the dedicated route for pedestrians and cyclists associated with the Cruise Liners. General pedestrian and cycle access for staff and visitors will be via the Promenade Road access, the Alexandra Road access and the Port access close to the O2 Roundabout.

The applicant has no difficulty with a condition relating to this issue as per Recommended DCC Condition 3.

As suggested above, it is possible that an interim controlled crossing facility may be provided at East Wall Road until the signalisation of the O2 Roundabout by DCC is realised.

4.2.4 Issue#4 – Eastern Bypass and the ABR

Submission:

DCC state that the proposed development must make provision for the emerging alignment for the DBP, and that written agreement of the NRA and the DCC should be sought prior to commencement of the development.

Response:

The proposal has ensured that the ABR scheme will not compromise any potential 55m wide corridor running along the port boundary in line with the existing East Quay Wall and the East-Link Bridge. The 60m exclusion zone along the North Quay Wall from the East Link Bridge can accommodate both the latest emerging alignment for the future DEB and any potential upgrade of the East Link Bridge.

The applicant will has no difficulty with a condition in terms of Recommended DCC Condition 1.

4.3 Conditions Recommended by Dublin City Council

Dublin City Council has recommended the attachment of a number of indicative conditions which are contained at Appendix 1 to its Report to the Board.

The conditions are set out below for ease of reference. Commentary has been provided on each proposed condition.

4.3.1 Recommended DRAFT Condition 1

Proposed Condition

The proposed development shall make provision for the emerging alignment of the Eastern By Pass. In this regard, the written agreement of the NRA and Dublin City Council shall be sought prior to commencement of development.

Response

It is suggested that this condition should read as follows:

The proposed development shall make provision for a corridor that would facilitate the provision of an Eastern Bypass on the alignment set out in the Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study Sector A: Dublin Tunnel to Sandymount Strand (September 2014).

As stated above, the Dublin Eastern Bypass, Corridor Protection Study, Sector A: Dublin Tunnel to Sandymount Strand was released by NRA in September 2014 which confirms the latest alignment of the DEB route corridor.

4.3.2 Recommended Condition 2

Proposed Condition

All traffic management measures along East Wall Road including the timing of the closure of existing accesses to the port shall be agreed in writing with the Roads and Traffic Department of Dublin City Council prior to commencement of the development.

Response

The applicant has no objection to this condition. As stated at paragraph 4.2.2 above, DPC has already significantly progressed analysis with a view to fulfilling this condition.

It is submitted that the words ‘Roads and Traffic Department of Dublin City Council’ be replaced with the words ‘Planning Authority’

4.3.3 Recommended Condition 3

Proposed Condition

Final details of the pedestrian and cyclist routes from the East Wall Road shall be agreed with the Roads and Traffic Department of the Dublin City Council prior to the commencement of the development. These shall take into consideration future plans for the signalisation of the Point Roundabout including the provision of pedestrian facilities.

Response

The applicant accepts this condition. In addition, the applicant hasaddressed issues relating to the location of the pedestrian and cycle access at the Port and the alignment of the DEB, including the provision of an interim controlled crossing facility at East Wall Road until the signalisation of the O2 Roundabout by DCC is implemented.

Again it is submitted that the words referring to the Department be replaced with reference to the Planning Authority.

4.3.4 Recommended Condition 4

Proposed Condition

The Dublin Port Company shall liaise with Dublin City Council and the NTA with regard to the development of a Transport Plan for the port that includes the provision of public transport and promotes sustainable transport to and from the port.

Response

The applicant accepts this condition. Paragraph 4.2.2 above explains the level of data and analysis already being collated with a view to fulfilling such a condition.

4.3.5 Recommended DRAFT Condition 5

Proposed Condition

The developer shall be obliged to comply with the requirements set out in the Code of Practice.

Response

The principle of the condition seems acceptable by the client. However, the condition is unclear in that the Code of Practice is not specified. It needs to be specified.

4.3.6 Recommended Condition 6

Proposed Condition

All costs incurred by Dublin City Council, including any repairs to the public road and 23

services as necessary as a result of the development, shall be at the expense of the developer. Work in the public road may only be carried out by Dublin City Council.

Response

It is suggested that this proposed condition should be omitted. The draft Construction Environmental Management Plan sets out appropriate measures to ensure that there is no damage caused to the public road or services is a common law matter.

4.4 National Transport Authority (NTA)

The NTA submission by Hugh Creegan, Director of Transport Investment and Taxi Regulation, references three issues. Each of these issues are set out below and the developer’s response is made directly thereunder.

4.4.1 Issue#1 – Dublin Eastern Bypass (DEB)

Submission:

NTA have acknowledged the considerable engagement taken place between DPC, NRA and DCC to identify a feasible route corridor that would allow the subject proposed development prior to the construction of the DEB. NTA emphasises that it is important that NRA are in a position to confirm that the proposed development does provide for a technically feasible route corridor that could facilitate the possible subsequent development of a transport route along this corridor.

Response:

As discussed above, the NRA have confirmed the identification of a technically feasible route corridor for the DEB, from the Dublin Tunnel South Portal to the River Liffey, that will allow the delivery of the ABR scheme to be advanced prior to the construction of the DEB.

The NRA published a revision of the Dublin Eastern Bypass, Corridor Protection Study, Sector A: Dublin Tunnel to Sandymount Strand in September 2014, which confirms the alignment of the DEB route corridor.

4.4.2 Issue#2 – Transport Plan

Submission:

NTA refer to their recommendation in the DPC Masterplan that a Transport Plan would be prepared for the Masterplan in conjunction with the NTA and the DCC.

The NTA states that a Transport Plan for the Port Estate as a whole would serve to inform the assessment of specific development proposals and guide the management of additional trips associated with the on-going development of the Port Estate.

NTA recommends that a Transport Plan be prepared and agreed prior to the commencement of this development and that it would also encompass the construction related movements associated with the proposed ABR development.

Response:

This recommendation is consistent with the Recommended DCC Condition 4, to which the applicant has no objection.

As set out at paragraph 4.2.2 above, information has been collated and analysis progressed with a view to fulfilling Condition 4. The analysis includes the collation of high specification of base data relating to all transport users at the site, and details of road network capacity modelling. Figure 7 above illustrates the linked LinSig network model used to assess the traffic capacity within road network for the internal Port and Figure 8 below illustrates the linked LinSig network model used to assess the traffic capacity on the external road network.

Figure 8: Illustration of Linked LinSig Network Diagram - External Network

It should also be noted that the construction related movements have already been considered for the ABR scheme. Refer to EIS Volume 1, Chapter 8, Section 8.8, which conclude that the generation of construction traffic was found to have negligible impact upon the surrounding highway network.

The analysis includes detailed consideration of the construction vehicles. A comprehensive schedule of the construction vehicles associated with the land based construction of the ABR Project has been prepared, entitled 'Dublin Port, ABR Construction Traffic Flows Schedule', dated September 2014. The Construction Programme contained within in the EIS and the construction vehicle volumes contained within EIS Volume 1, Chapter 8, Section 8.8 formed the basis for deriving the likely construction traffic on the road network. The calculations are included in the Schedule and the construction vehicle flows have been included in the traffic flow scenarios and within the LinSig models.

The extent of the analysis demonstrates that DPC has already significantly progressed the work and analysis required to fulfil this condition for a Transport Plan to guide the on-going development of the Port.

4.4.3 Issue#3 – Proposed Closure of Accesses and Internal Road Network

Submission:

NTA confirms its support of the relocation of vehicle access away from the East Wall Road and the associated consolidation of port-related traffic to the northern end of the Port Estate, channelling vehicles to the Port Tunnel.

NTA states that it may be appropriate to clarify the internal linkage arrangements from the new development to the Promenade Road access.

Response:

The applicant welcomes the support from NTA for the reconfiguration of the existing accesses along East Wall Road and the channelling of port traffic to the Promenade Road access.

The recommendation to clarify the internal linkage arrangements is consistent with the Recommended DCC Condition 2 as discussed above. Paragraph 4.2.2 above explains the extent of the analysis that DPC has already significantly progressed with a view to fulfilling this condition.

4.5 Irish Ferries

We have considered the observations raised in the submission on behalf of Irish Ferries by Andrew Sheen, Operations Director. Each of these issues are set out below and the developer’s response is made directly thereunder.

The applicant welcomes the comments from Irish Ferries stating that they are broadly supportive of the overall development objectives of the Port.

4.5.1 Issue#1 – Traffic Assignment to the Dublin Port Tunnel due to the Closures of the Accesses along East Wall Road

Submission:

Irish Ferries claim that the EIS has stated that the closure of the Port accesses on East Wall Road will cause traffic to divert from East Wall Road to the Dublin Port Tunnel. They state that c20% of traffic does not have an origin or destination via the Port Tunnel and as such much of the traffic will continue to use East Wall Road.

Response:

To clarify, traffic distribution between the Port and the surrounding external road network has not changed due to the proposals. The access and internal road changes proposed in the ABR Project do not change the proportions of traffic allocated to each approach road. The road changes cause only the assignment route to each approach road to change. This was also highlighted in the EIS (Chapter 8.1 of Volume 1 of the EIS, Page 8-31). Irish Ferries have mistakenly interpreted that the EIS considered that more traffic would access the Port via the Port Tunnel due to the access changes proposed as part of the ABR Project. This is not the case.

What the EIS did highlight is that the access reconfiguration will result in removing the vehicles from East Wall Road that currently exit from the Alexandra Road Access and the T3 Access and U-Turn at the O2 Roundabout to head northbound to access the Tunnel. This is illustrated in Figure 9 below.

Figure 9: Illustration of the Closure of Alexandra Road Access Resulting in the Removal of U- Turners at the O2 Roundabout

Figure 3.1 shows an example of the existing traffic assignment route for traffic originating between the T1/T2/T5 area and using the Alexandra Road Access to reach the Dublin Tunnel. The diagram also shows the proposed traffic assignment route for traffic originating between the T1/T2/T5 area and using the Promenade Road Access to reach the Dublin Tunnel. This would be the route when the Alexandra Road Access is closed and illustrates how the closure of the Alexandra Road Access and the T3 Access results in reducing the 29

volumes of traffic U-turning at the O2 Roundabout.

As detailed above in paragraph 3.1.22, on the day of opening, c3500 heavy vehicles will be removed from East Wall Road and c1650 heavy vehicles will no longer u-turn at the North Wall Quay Roundabout providing significant planning gain to this section of the East Wall Road.

4.5.2 Issue#2 – Tunnel Capacity

Submission:

Irish Ferries have raised concerns regarding overestimation of the capacity of the Tunnel.

Response:

Industry recognised methodology has been used for estimating link road capacity as per the NRA DMRB (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) to give an indication of the theoretical capacity of the tunnel. The exercise was carried out to demonstrate that there is a comfortable level of surplus capacity within the tunnel to accommodate the traffic generated by the ABR application.

The estimated daily capacity quoted by Irish Ferries, 40,000-50,000 vehicles per day, would also comfortably accommodate the two-way predicted daily traffic flow at the Port Tunnel by 2040, the end of the Masterplan period, of 36,351 vehicles (As shown in Figure 2 above). Note that this predicted flow is for the entire Masterplan in 2040, not just the ABR scheme.

4.5.3 Issue#3 – Closure of Alexandra Road and Internal Road Network - Event of a Road Blockage

Submission:

Irish Ferries have raised concerns regarding the closure of the Alexandra Road access and the revised internal road layout due to the access reconfiguration.

The concern is that one internal access route to enter and exit the Port could result in capacity issues in the event of a blockage on a section of the route such as vehicle breakdown, traffic collision, etc. A secondary route has been requested in order to ensure an alternative access in available.

Response:

Drawing IBH0362/0075 Emergency Route Options, shown in Figure 10 below, shows the alternative routes available if a blockage was to occur at any section of the internal road network once the proposed access and internal road closures are in place.

Figure 10: Drawing IBH062/0075 Emergency Route Options

The drawing shows that alternative routes are always available and well established procedures and checks are currently in place to mange and control the emergency procedures at the Port. Drills are currently carried out routinely to check/refine the emergency procedures.

4.5.4 Issue#4 – Closure of Alexandra Road and Internal Road Network - Road Capacity

Submission:

Irish Ferries are further concerned that the closure of the Alexandra Road access and the revised internal road layout due to the access reconfiguration will result in issues for the internal road capacity, particularly at such times when a disembarkment of one of their main Ro-Ro vessels coincides with the disembarkment of a similar Stena Ro-Ro vessel.

Response:

This concern has also been raised by DCC, and the applicant has agreed to comply with Recommended Condition 2 from DCC, as detailed above, which relates to DCC stating that they need to be satisfied that the internal network can accommodate the redistributed traffic internally before the access closures.

As set out in paragraph 4.2.2 above,analysis of the impact of the proposed access closures has been significantly progressed.

A report including detailed road capacity analysis has been prepared and was made available to Irish Ferries (and is available at this oral hearing). The analysis was careful to consider the identification and detailed assessment of key peak hours coinciding with the simultaneous disembarking the largest Ro-Ro vessels within the Port.

4.5.5 Issue#5 – The Infill Area at Berths 52 and 53 and the Construction of the Double Teir Linkspan - Construction Vehicles and Methodology

Submission:

Irish Ferries state that there is little detail in the EIS regarding the construction traffic generated in this area.

Response:

The construction related movements have already been considered for the ABR scheme. Refer to EIS Volume 1, Chapter 8, Section 8.8, which concludes that the generation of construction traffic was found to have negligible impact upon the surrounding highway network. As stated above the generation of construction traffic was found to have negligible impact upon the surrounding highway network. During the 3½ year construction period, the average number of construction vehicles will be 21 per hour, with a worse case of 66 vehicles per hour (during an 8 hour day). As consistent with the Dublin City Centre HGV Management Strategy (which bans HGVs from Dublin City Centre), these vehicles will be instructed to utilise the Port Tunnel, which has ample spare capacity as already demonstrated.

A Transport Plan has been requested by DCC and NTA that also includes details of the construction vehicles. The applicant has accepted the condition to provide a Transport Plan, which is the subject of Recommended DCC Condition 4 described above, and certain essential aspects of that plan are set out above.

Also, DCC Condition 2 requests that all traffic management measures along East Wall Road including the timing of the closure of existing accesses to the port shall be agreed in writing with the Roads and Traffic Department of DCC prior to commencement of the development. The applicant has no difficulty with such a condition in principle, and paragraph 4.2.2 above sets out the extent of the analysis that DPC has already significantly progressed with a view to fulfilling this condition. The analysis includes detailed consideration of the construction vehicles. A comprehensive schedule of the construction vehicles associated with the land based construction of the ABR Project has been prepared, entitled 'Dublin Port, ABR Construction Traffic Flows Schedule', dated September 2014. The Construction Programme contained within in the EIS and the construction vehicle volumes contained within EIS Volume 1, Chapter 8, Section 8.8 formed the basis for deriving the likely construction traffic on the road network. The calculations are included in the Schedule and the construction vehicle flows have been included in the traffic flow scenarios and within the road capacity network models.

DPC has committed to provide a CEMP and a Draft High Level CEMP EIS was submitted to the Board as part of the response to a Request for Further Information (RFI). The Draft High Level CEMP made reference to a Traffic Management Plan in section 3.3.1 and in the event that planning permission is granted, the Draft High Level CEMP will be finalised and will be implemented during the construction stage.

These measures shall ensure that the levels of construction traffic associated with the ABR Project have been identified and will be managed and controlled.

4.5.6 Issue#6 – The Infill Area at Berths 52 and 53 and the Construction of the Double Teir Linkspan - Suggested Possible Internal Link Road

Submission:

Irish Ferries reiterate their concerns with the internal road network and suggest a possible new link road connecting the existing Promenade Road to Terminal Road North.

Response:

The applicant has agreed to comply with Recommended Condition 2 from DCC, as detailed above, which relates to DCC being satisfied that the internal network can accommodate the redistributed traffic internally before the access closures.

Paragraph 4.2.2 above explains that analysis of the impact of the proposed access closures has been significantly progressed.

As stated above, a report was commissioned which included detailed road capacity analysis and was made available to Irish Ferries (and is available at the oral hearing). The analysis was careful to consider the identification and detailed assessment of key peak hours coinciding with the simultaneous disembarking the largest Ro-Ro vessels within the Port. The report demonstrated that the section of carriageway as suggested by Irish Ferries is not required as a mitigation measure for the ABR Project.

4.5.7 Irish Ferries Response to Detailed Capacity Analysis

On 29 September 2014, Irish Ferries forwarded a cover letter and a response by Stephen Reid Consulting to the report by RPS on the road capacity analysis for the internal road network. Each of these issues are set out below and a brief response on behalf of the developer is made directly thereunder.

Issue#7: Objection to the closure of section of Alexandra Road

Response: The closure of the section of Alexandra Road to which Irish Ferries refer is not part of the ABR scheme.

Issue#8: There is little tabulated data with reliance on traffic flow diagrams and Linsig network results diagrams

Response:

The traffic flow diagrams are A3 size and the Linsig diagrams are A1 size. These diagrams clearly present the relevant data.

Issue#9: Traffic data at the junctions should have been provided over a week.

Response:

Refer to EIS Volume 1 Chapter 8.1 Page 8-26 which states that traffic surveys were commissioned for 7 days. A review of this data allowed the selection of the appropriate survey days for the further analysis. Note that midweek survey days were selected, with 3 cruise liners in the Port and an event on at the O2, thereby providing robust analysis.

Issue#10: Irish Ferries have considered that an appropriate PCU conversion rate for the Dublin Port and environs would be 2.9 as opposed to 2.3 for heavy vehicles.

Response: Irish Ferries have referred to ‘normal practice’ to use a conversion rate of 2.9 and claim that NRA reports have used this rate. The 2.9 figure is not referenced in any published guidelines, and we are aware of examples of NRA reports using conversion rates of 2.

It is our understanding that the use of 2.9 relates to modelling exercises where the vehicular classification is either car or HGV, with no additional level of classification provided. The traffic surveys undertaken by RPS include for 7 classifications (pedal cycle, motorcycle, car, light goods vehicle, OGV1, OGV2 and bus) to allow for more detailed, refined analysis. These classification categories are the same as those set out in the COBA manual.

RPS has contacted NRA regarding the use of the PCU conversion factors as detailed within the report and NRA have confirmed that these figures (as extracted from the Transport for London Modelling Guidelines) are acceptable for use within the assessment.

Issue#11: Selection of the Peak Hours

Response: The selection of the peak hour calculations use industry recognised methodology. Careful selection on the external network, internal network and ‘Spine Road’ was provided. Traffic analysis is based on typical days as per the IHT guidelines. Delays caused by adverse weather conditions are not typical.

Issue#12: Issues relating to the signalisation of Junction 16 (RPS reference for the Tolka Quay Road/No2 Branch Road North Junction)

Response: RPS did not claim, as suggested, that the junction would operate within capacity by 2040. The report clearly identifies the fact that, towards the latter years of the Masterplan, the existing internal network will experience capacity issues as would be expected. The level of drawing detail is typical for the initial traffic analysis stage. Swept path analysis would form part of a more detailed junction design stage. DPC is aware of issue regarding the perceived carriageway width on Tolka Quay Road (which is not related to the proposed ABR project) and will address this issue as part of internal road maintenance mechanisms.

Issue#13: Issues relating to Junction 10 (RPS reference for the Promenade Road/Bond Drive Roundabout).

Response: The report clearly identifies towards the latter years of the Masterplan Junction 10 will experience capacity issues as would be expected. It is unclear how a one-way east bound extension of Promenade Road for inbound traffic would affect capacity at Junction 10. The diagrams provided on behalf of Irish Ferries show that the approaches to Junction 10 operate well, with some slow moving traffic on the circulating carriageway, again as is expected. Linsig model is acceptable for modelling roundabouts and a separate ARCADY model is not required.

Issue#14: General issues relating to the future year capacity within the Port

Response: The RPS report concluded that the internal road network will operate within capacity (below 100% DOS) up to at least the year 2024. The analysis considered the entirety of the development envisaged in the DPC Masterplan, not just the ABR scheme. As expected, towards the latter years of the Masterplan (2034 onwards) the internal road network will experience capacity issues and further highway works may be required at later stages as the DPC Masterplan, subsequent to the ABR scheme, continues to be implemented.

Issue#15: Request for Travel Plan for staff to encourage modal shift away from the private car.

Response: As discussed above, DPC has no objection to a condition to provide a Transport Plan (Recommended DCC Condition 4) which relates to the development of a Transport Plan for the port that includes the provision of public transport and promotes sustainable transport to and from the port.

4.6 Stena

We have considered the observations raised in the submission on behalf of Stena by Wyn Parry, Ports Manager, in the submission dated 7 May 2014. Each of these issues are set out below and the developer’s response is made directly thereunder. The issues raised by

Stena are broadly similar to the submission made by Irish Ferries.

4.6.1 Issue#1 – Traffic Assignment to the Dublin Port Tunnel due to the Closures of the Accesses along East Wall Road

Submission:

Stena has claimed that the EIS has stated that the closure of the Port accesses on East Wall Road will cause traffic to divert from East Wall Road to the Dublin Port Tunnel.

Response:

As stated above in the response to Irish Ferries (Issue#1), traffic distribution between the Port and the surrounding external road network has not changed due to the proposed development. The access and internal road changes proposed in the ABR Project do not change the proportions of traffic allocated to each approach road, only the assignment route to each approach road to change. This was also highlighted in the EIS (Chapter 8.1 of Volume 1 of the EIS, Page 8-31). Stena has mistakenly interpreted that the EIS considered that more traffic would access the Port via the Port Tunnel due to the access changes proposed as part of the ABR Project. This is not the case.

The EIS did highlight that the access reconfiguration will result in removing U-turning traffic at the O2 Roundabout that originate from the Port to head northbound to access the Tunnel, which was illustrated in Figure 9 above.

4.6.2 Issue#2 – Closure of Alexandra Road and Internal Road Network - Road Capacity

Submission:

Stena, similarly to Irish ferries, has raised concerns regarding the closure of the Alexandra Road access and the internal road layout due to the access reconfiguration.

The concerns relates to the resultant capacity of the internal road, particularly at such times when a disembarkment of one of their main Ro-Ro vessels coincides with the disembarkment of a similar Irish Ferries Ro-Ro vessel.

Response:

As stated above in the response to Irish Ferries Issue#4 at Paragraph 4.5.4, this concern has also been raised by DCC, and the applicant has agreed to comply with Recommended Condition 2 from DCC, as detailed above, which relates to DCC stating that they need to be satisfied that the internal network can accommodate the redistributed traffic internally before the access closures.

Refer to Paragraph 4.2.2 above which explains that analysis of the impact of the proposed access closures has been significantly progressed.

A report including detailed road capacity analysis has been prepared and made available for view by Stena. The analysis was careful to consider the Identification and detailed assessment of key peak hours coinciding with the simultaneous disembarking the largest Ro-Ro vessels within the Port.

Note also, as stated above in the response to Irish Ferries Issue#3, Drawing IBH0362/0075 Emergency Route Options, shown in Figure 10 above, shows the alternative routes available if a blockage was to occur at any section of the internal road network once the proposed access and internal road closures are in place. The drawing shows that alternative routes are always available and well established procedures and checks are currently in place to mange and control the emergency procedures at the Port. Drills are currently carried out routinely to check/refine the emergency procedures.

4.7 Seatruck

A submission was made on the 7 May 2014 on behalf of Seatruck by John O'Malley of Kiaran O'Malley & Co. Ltd. Seatruck has, in effect, withdrawn its submission and is now fully supportive of the ABR application, as per correspondence from Seatruck to the Board dated 29 August 2014.

4.8 Burke Shipping Group

We have considered the issues raised in the submission on behalf of Burke Shipping Group by Tom Halley of McCutcheon Halley Walsh. Each of these issues are set out below and the developer’s response is made directly thereunder.

4.8.1 Issue#1 – Potential Conditions Relating to the Travel Plan, Regulation of Traffic and Road Damage Bond

Submission:

Burke Shipping Group has requested that any conditions attached to any grant of permission are 'reasonable' in accordance with section 7.3.5 of the Development Management Guidelines, particularly in relation to any conditions which would restrict existing operations and efficient use of the port's infrastructure.

They have mentioned in particular:

 The introduction of a Travel Plan;

 The regulation of traffic (including rail and construction traffic);

 A condition requiring a bond to cover road damage.

Response:

With regard to the Travel Plan, as discussed above the Applicant shall shall liaise with Dublin City Council and the NRA with regard to the development of a Transport Plan for the 38

port that includes the provision of public transport and promotes sustainable transport to and from the port.

With regard to the regulation of construction traffic, DPC has committed to provide a CEMP and has now submitted EIS a Draft High Level CEMP, which refers to a Traffic Management Plan in section 3.3.1.

With regard to the road bond, this is covered by Recommended DCC Condition 6. DPC is confident that the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the application documentation shall not cause any damage to the roads infrastructure. However, it may be useful to consider roads condition surveys to be carried out prior to the commencement of construction and immediately after construction is completed in order to confirm whether roads repairs are required..

5. Conclusion

5.1 Dublin Port is well connected to the national road network and, in particular, to the existing Dublin Port Tunnel, thus providing fast and direct access to the strategically important M50 and M1 routes within minutes of leaving the Port.

5.2 DPC has invested significantly in improvements to the internal road network of the Port Estate to facilitate the efficient movements of goods to and from the various terminals and facilities in the Port.

5.3 Dublin Port connects to the national rail network with direct connections to all major centres of population. DPC has maintained and developed the main rail infrastructure within the Port and is committed to the provision of rail connections and sidings within the Port.

5.4 The appraisal set out in the EIS has demonstrated that Dublin Port is accessible by sustainable transport modes and details the extent of the existing walking and cycle network, the Dublin Bike scheme, the bus facilities surrounding the site and the Luas Depot at the Point.

5.5 There are 3 main existing accesses serving Dublin Port. The ABR scheme will close the Terminal 3 access completely, and will close the Alexandra Road access to all operational traffic. The proposed access reconfiguration will effect localised traffic reassignment which will deliver a significant planning gain to the local road network.

5.6 The results of the transportation appraisal demonstrate that the Dublin Port Tunnel has ample spare capacity to accommodate the predicted traffic increase for, not only the ABR scheme, but the entire DPC Masterplan. The two-way predicted daily traffic flow at the Port Tunnel by 2040, the end of the Masterplan period, is 36,351 vehicles. This represents just 21% of the tunnel's maximum theoretical capacity.

5.7 The predicted impacts upon the other local routes are marginal even by 2040 for the entire Masterplan, all experiencing a less than 10% increase in daily two way flows.

5.8 As a result of extensive pre-application engagement between DPC, NRA and DCC, it has been ensured that the ABR scheme will not compromise a potential 55m wide corridor running along the port boundary in line with the existing East Quay Wall and the East-Link Bridge. The 60m exclusion zone along the North Quay Wall from the East Link Bridge can accommodate both the latest emerging alignment for the future DEB and any potential upgrade of the East Link Bridge.

5.9 The Dublin Eastern Bypass, Corridor Protection Study, Sector A: Dublin Tunnel to Sandymount Strand was released by NRA in September 2014 which confirms the latest alignment of the DEB route corridor.

5.10 The growth in traffic associated with the planned expansion of the cruise liner business was found to have no significant impact upon the surrounding highway network.

5.11 Similarly, the impact of construction traffic was found to have no significant impact upon the surrounding highway network.

5.12 Finally, a detailed traffic appraisal was carried out by RPS between May and September 2014 to analysis the access closure timings and the impact on the internal highway network, the Dublin Tunnel and the interchange connecting the Port (at Promenade Road) to the Tunnel.

5.13 DPC has already significantly progressed the work and analysis required to fulfil Recommended DCC Conditions 2 and 4 relating to demonstrating that the internal network will be able accommodate the internal redistributed traffic due to the access closures and provision of a Transport Plan.

STRATEGIC INFRASRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N .PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

WITNESS STATEMENT OF GERARD MORGAN

BENTHIC ECOLOGY & FISHERIES

Error! Unknown document property name. 1 Qualifications and Experience

1.1.1 My name is Gerard Morgan. I hold an honours Bachelor of Science degree and a Master of Science degree in zoology from University College Cork, and have almost 35 years’ experience of freshwater and marine ecological surveys and the preparation of EISs.

1.1.2 I have extensive knowledge of freshwater, transitional water and nearshore coastal habitats and have specialised in human impacts on these habitats and their associated invertebrate and fish communities, including water quality, channel dredging and infrastructural effects. In addition, I have worked on and managed, several applied research projects in freshwater, estuarine and coastal areas. I have undertaken many Environmental Impact Studies covering a broad range of human activities including fish farming, aggregate extraction, coastal defences, port developments and effluent discharges.

2 Involvement in the Project

2.1.1 I was the author of section 5.4 of the EIS, Benthic Ecology and Fisheries, which was submitted as part of the application for permission to An Bord Pleanála on 6 March 2014. As part of the assessment of the receiving environment, a benthic grab sampling survey was undertaken at 25 sites spread between Alexandra Basin and the shipping channel out as far as the turnabout buoy in order to assess the benthic communities present. The benthic grab sampling survey was supplemented with a drop-down video survey in or near the same sites to obtain additional information about the habitats present. As part of the fisheries assessment, 18 beam trawls were taken across the same study area along with some limited fyke netting along the north side of the shipping channel. These field data were supplemented with a desktop review including consultation with relevant agencies.

2.1.2 Prior to the preparation of the benthic ecology appraisal, which was presented in section 5.4 of the EIS, I examined the benthic ecology and fisheries data and oversaw and approved the analyses presented in the EIS, before formulating the results and conclusions as presented in the EIS.

2.1.3 As set out in detail in the EIS (see, for example, section 5.4.8), the Alexandra Basin redevelopment will result in the loss of a relatively small area of subtidal benthos from the inner parts of Dublin Bay. These areas consist primarily of sandy muds and muds dominated by highly opportunistic fauna. The net loss involved – circa 1.5ha is considered negligible in the context of the Lower Estuary of the Liffey in its entirety.

2.1.4 The 6-year dredging operation will result in the removal of macroinvertebrate infauna within the surface sediments of the channel areas being dredged as well as a sizeable portion of the mobile epifauna, including juvenile fish, within the dredge footprint and immediate adjacent areas. In addition, increased rates of sedimentation in areas immediately adjoining the dredged footprint will lead to a localised reduction in macroinvertebrate diversity and biomass. However, re-colonisation in these areas is expected to be rapid, as the areas will not have been subjected to actual sediment removal. The fact that the area to be dredged will be apportioned more or less evenly over a 6-year period will ensure that the impact on the wider populations of the benthic and fish species affected will not be significant. Recovery of the each annual dredged areas will begin as soon as the dredging will have ceased in that section and be expected to have largely recovered within 2 to 3 years. The disturbance through dredging of 0.25% of the cSAC at the very outer end of the shipping channel is considered to be minor, as it is expected that recovery of the benthic community to pre-dredge levels will occur rapidly after cessation of dredging. Furthermore, given the temporary nature of this impact affecting just 0.25% of the area of the cSAC, the designated site will be maintained at a favourable conservation status in circumstances where the constitutive characteristics of the cSAC will be preserved. It is also important to point out that the small area of benthic habitat within the cSAC that will be affected by the dredging is not listed in the Conservation Objectives of the cSAC. The only benthic habitat listed are Reefs (an Annex 1 habitat), and the nearest one to the dredged channel is the intertidal rocky shore along the southern side of Howth Head, i.e. more than 2km to the north. This latter area will not be impacted by the dredging. All species identified as occurring in the area to be dredged are typical of Irish coastal waters. No rare or protected species were identified in the present survey

2.1.5 As part of the mitigation measures to reduce the evolution of solids from the inner part of the shipping channel where there are some slightly to moderately contaminated sediments present, it has be decided to use a back-hoe dredger rather than a trailer suction dredger. This will therefore eliminate the possibility of entrainment of outward migrating smolts or inward migrating river lamprey by the dredging process in this narrower section of the channel. Some returning adult salmon will overlap with the dredging (i.e. during October), however their larger size and strong homing instinct will take them through the active dredging areas, regardless of the timing of operations.

2.1.6 It is expected that the main impacts associated with the deposition of approximately 1,000,000 m3 of sediment annually over a six year period will be mainly confined to the footprint of the disposal area. The nature of the sediment to remain (primarily sands) will mean recovery of the sediments will commence immediately and occur rapidly. The disposal area is an active disposal site, and as such the benthic communities are adapted to periodic disturbance and contain communities in a continuous state of recovery. Full recovery at the site is not expected to occur until the full six year campaign is completed. The residual impacts associated with this campaign are considered to be moderate, but localised and typified by reduced benthic diversity and biomass of benthic macroinvertebrates and to a lesser extent

mobile epibenthos including crustaceans and fish. The far-field deposition of up to 0.3 g m-2 of fine sediments within Dublin Bay is expected to have no residual impact.

2.1.7 Provided the recommendations for non-piling windows indicated in the EIS are adopted, then no significant impacts will occur to Annex II fish species from pile driving.

3 Submissions and Responses

In preparing this witness statement, I have considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the appraisal of potential benthic ecological impacts undertaken in respect of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project. I have addressed each submission or observation in turn below, before providing my response to the essential points being made.

Donna Cooney (Green Party Representative)

Submission:

In its submission the Green Party cites two potential impacts which were listed in the EIS that could impact Harbour Porpoise;

 ‘Consumption of contaminated prey items resulting from contaminants entering the food chain (this is only a problem where contaminated substrates are disturbed)’, and

 ‘Changes in prey availability due to local changes in benthic ecology caused by accumulation of dredge spoil on the seabed’.

Response:

Firstly, it should be recognised that these potential impacts are listed in the EIS as examples of how the harbour porpoise might be affected. However, neither of these impacts will be significant, for the reasons set out below.

In the case of the consumption of contaminated prey items, it is important to note that porpoises are a wide-ranging species with a large home range and will forage throughout the cSAC area and beyond. They are known to eat a wide variety of fish species, so the possibility of porpoises consuming sufficiently large amounts of fish that may be subject to contamination as a result of the disposal contaminated sediment at the dump site is extremely remote. Furthermore, the level of contamination in the sediment for disposal is classed as slight to moderately contaminated, emanating from the inner portion of the dredge channel. In total this constitutes less than 10% of the overall volumes for disposal. The remaining 90% will come from the outer areas of the channel where contaminant levels are lower and closer to background levels. Moreover, the slight to moderately contaminated sediment will be capped at the disposal site immediately after it is deposited. This will prevent it’s dispersal from the site or slow its release into the wider area.

On the second issue raised by Ms. Cooney, the EIS indicated that there will be a reduction in the quality of feeding at the dredge spoil disposal site during the dredging campaign (EIS, Vol 1, Section 5.4.6, p. 5-96), although fish will feed at the site because there will not be a complete lack of invertebrate fauna there. This will mainly affect bottom feeding fish. Furthermore, partial faunal recovery is expected to occur between each 6-monthly dredging campaign. Therefore, fish will be present at the site, although possibly at lower densities. Nevertheless, as pointed out earlier, the area over which harbour porpoise forage is far wider than the dumpsite and so a temporary reduction of fish density at this site will not have a significant ecological effect on them or result in an adverse effect on the integrity of the cSAC. It is also important to note that pelagic feeding species, such as herring and sprat, which are important prey species for harbour porpoise will not be affected at all by the temporary reduction in bottom food at the dumpsite as they feed exclusively in the water column. A combination of these factors indicates that the disposal of spoil will not have an adverse impact on the availability of prey for porpoises.

Inland Fisheries Ireland

Submission:

In its submission to the Board, Inland Fisheries Ireland has requested that any grant of permission be accompanied by a commitment to implement mitigation measures in relation to the following:

1. Loading and unloading of dredge spoil 2. Capping of contaminated dredge spoil at the dumps site 3. Specifying dredge-free windows to ensure fish passage. 4. Post disposal bathymetric monitoring of the dump site. 5. The adoption of good practice in the Construction Management Plan (CMP) 6. The provision of water quality monitoring stations in order to ensure the protection of sensitive species, protected habitats and other water users through the use of agreed water quality trigger levels and associated management actions. 7. The implementation of pile-driving mitigation as outlined in the EIS.

Response:

With regard to items 1 to 4 above all matters relating to dredge spoil disposal are subject to a Dumping at Sea application and a Foreshore Licence application, and the conditions attached to such a licence usually relate to all the matters listed by IFI.. Under item 5, a draft Construction Management Plan has been prepared and furnished to the Board, and DPC has indicated that they will liaise with IFI throughout the construction phase (see, for example, the references to IFI at pages 17, 38 and 40 of the draft CEMP). In respect of item 6, in relation to water quality monitoring, as part of the draft Water Quality Management Plan outlined in the evidence of Alan Barr of RPS, water monitoring stations will be in operation throughout the full period of the construction phase monitoring turbidity on a continuous basis, with appropriate trigger levels set for the protection of Annex II species and habitats. Finally, in relation to item 7 listed, I can confirm that there will be a non-piling window during the period of the salmon smolt run from March to May each year. 5

Mr. Peadar Farrell

Submission:

Mr. Farrell has lodged an objection to the proposed project on a number of grounds, with particular emphasis on the disposal of dredge spoil. In his submission he makes the following statement:

“If a project like this were to be allowed, surely the sea bottom dwelling fish, shellfish and filter feeders eaten by the general public must be constantly checked by a government agency for heavy metal contaminants which would be dispersed right across the bay. “

Response:

This statement implies that the general public would be at risk from eating contaminated fish and shellfish from Dublin Bay. Firstly, it should be clearly stated that neither fish nor shellfish will be contaminated as a result of the proposed development. Secondly, Dublin Bay is not a designated bivalve shellfish growing area, so no bivalve shellfish can be offered for sale from Dublin Bay. Thirdly, lobsters and crab are potted in parts of Dublin Bay, although not on the dumpsite. Fourthly, flat fish and round fish are commercially caught but generally not from within Dublin Bay. Fifth, it is worth noting that the Marine Institute undertakes analysis of a wide range of heavy metals and organic contaminants in fish landed at Irish Ports (including Howth) and in shellfish grown in shellfish growing areas. The findings of the Marine Institute consistently indicate that contaminant levels in Irish fish and shellfish are low by comparison with the strictest EU and international standards and, therefore, suitable for human consumption.

Mr Farrell also made a submission in relation to the Further Information Request from the Board some of which benthic communities and fisheries.

Submission:

In relation to benthic communities he suggests that the EIS ignored ‘much larger creatures living on the seafloor some of who are also part of the human food chain’ and lists the following creatures: lobster, crabs, flat fish, mussels, clams, oysters, Norwegian lobster and scallops, which he indicates ‘ are all commonly seen over all areas of Dublin Bay.

Response:

In the baseline survey undertaken using grabs samples, beam trawls and drop-down video camera, covering all the dredging area and adjacent areas, there were no lobster, scallops,, oysters or Norwegian lobsters collected or observed and just very low numbers of mussel. Crabs, flat fish and clams (bivalve molluscs) were all encountered within the study area and the potential impacts on these species are addressed in the EIS and the FIR.

Submission:

In relation to the disposal site Mr Farrell suggests that the EIS does not address ‘shoaling fish’ at the site and suggests that shoals of fish will be struck and killed.

Response: 7

The EIS (at page 5-101) does address the matter of turbidity plumes from the disposal process and the potential impact on fish at the site, and this would also include pelagic or shoaling fish. It is also worth noting that, apart from the extremely remote chance of a dredger happening to dump spoil just as a shoal of herring happened to be passing beneath, herring (and also sprat) are two of the most sound-sensitive fish species and therefore likely to avoid an approaching dredger, such that the chances of a shoal being killed during disposal is considered extremely remote..

Sandymount & Merrion Residents Association

Issue #1 – Perceived Loss of Habitat

Submission:

In its submission to the Board, the Sandymount & Merrion Residents Association (SAMRA) make observations on perceived environmental impacts of the project. In relation to the Rockabill to Dalkey cSAC, SAMRA notes that the dredging and alteration of the shipping channel extends into the cSAC and suggest, among other things, that there will be a permanent loss of part of the habitat.

Response:

As made clear in the EIS (Vol. 1, Section 5.4.6, p.5-93), the dredging will result in a temporary disturbance of the habitat, i.e. during the dredging and the period post dredging while the communities recover to their pre-dredging state. However, there will be no permanent loss of habitat in the cSAC as a result of the project.

Issue #2 – Recovery Periods after Dredging

Submission:

Commenting on recovery of benthic communities between each 6-monthly campaign, SAMRA state: ‘It appears to be suggested that because dredging will be limited to six month periods in each of six consecutive years benthic communities will have time to recover prior to each period of dredging even though it is recorded in other studies that it takes at least twelve months for signs of recovery to occur after substrate removal has ceased’.

Response:

It is not clear what the residents association is referring to here. If the submission is made in respect of the Dumping at Sea location, then the statement is incorrect because, as section 5.4.8 of the EIS makes clear, it will take more than 6 months for full recovery. However, a certain amount of partial recovery is likely between each 6-monthly campaign. If, on the other hand, the statement is referring to recovery of the far field communities from the very thin layer of silt deposition predicted by the Coastal Processes model to disperse away from the site after each 6-month campaign (Figure 9.40, EIS Vol 1), then the EIS does not refer to a recovery process in this case because an adverse impact is not predicted to arise and therefore no recovery is required. In particular, there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of the cSAC, having regard to the benthic conservation objectives of that site.

Submission:

Commenting on the rate of recovery of the benthic communities after channel dredging over the 6 years of the operation the SAMRA state: ‘It seems to us unlikely that there will be a real opportunity for affected benthic communities’ to recover during those six years or even for some period after that.

Response:

It is important to note that only 20% approximately of the channel area will be dredged each year (EIS Vol 1, Section 5.4.6, p.5-97), so that in each subsequent year, the area previously dredged will be in the process of recovery, which will continue while each successive annual dredging is being undertaken at each of the next dredge areas. So, it is incorrect to suggest that recovery will not begin until after the end of the six year campaign in this instance. It is also worth bearing in mind that other features of the dredging and the dredge site will also facilitate recovery, namely finer nature of the material being dredged and the fact that the material remaining will be of a similar nature, meaning that the communities that will recolonize the affected areas will be the same as those removed during dredging and the same as those present in the adjoining non-dredged areas, which will act as a reservoir for all the same species. The shallow dynamic nature of the site will further facilitate recovery as will the autumn/winter timing of the dredging. The latter means that dredging will occur at a time when recruitment of new individuals to the benthos is low, while it will cease each year before the main spring and summer peak in recruitment from the plankton of new colonisers, which will then be available for settlement on the newly dredged channel area.

Request for Further Information (An Bord Pleanála)

Issue #6.1 & 6.2 – Recovery of the Benthos from Dredging and Dredge Spoil Disposal

Response – Dredge Area:

In their assessment of recovery rates at aggregate dredge sites in the UK, Hill et al., (2011) list several factors which would contribute to a rapid recovery (months to 1 year) at dredging sites, several of which are characteristic of the proposed dredged area in Dublin Bay, including

(i) High Tidal Energy,

Sediments in the dredge area are subject to strong tidal movements, wind-generated wave action and periodic high riverine inputs likely to disturb the sediments.

(ii) Fine sediments including sands,

The sediments throughout the area to be dredged are dominated by muds and fine sands

(iii) Disturbed Community Type,

Disturbance of sediments by strong tidal currents, periodic increases in river discharge as well as channel maintenance dredging all contribute to promoting a disturbed resident benthic community, which is adapted to more rapid recovery.

(iv) R-selected species dominant,

These are species which are generally small in size, have short life cycles and can reproduce rapidly, they are characteristic of more disturbed communities and are well represented within the benthic samples collected within the study area. They are the species which rapidly recolonize dredged areas.

(v) Sediment remaining unchanged.

It is expected that the sediment remaining in the dredged channel after dredging will be the same as that being removed, which will facilitate recolonisation by the same community type.

Each of the above factors will promote a more rapid recovery of the benthos within the dredged area. It is also noteworthy that just over one sixth of the total area will be dredged in each successive year of the 6-year campaign, which means that as each successive channel section is being dredged recovery will be continuing in each of the previously dredged sections, so that when the last section is being dredged, the first will already have undergone several years of recovery.

Recovery at the Disposal Site

Several features of the Burford Bank disposal site will facilitate the rapid recovery of the benthos, including the hydrodynamics of the site, the history of the site for sediment disposal and the nature of the dredge spoil being disposed of.

The disposal site is dispersive in nature with a peak tidal flow of 1.59 knots. Dispersive sites in the UK and elsewhere have been shown to contain communities which are more naturally stressed and which recover more rapidly as a consequence.

The Burford Bank site has been used on a regular basis for the disposal of dredge spoil with nearly 9½ million tons licensed for disposal at the site between 1996 and 2012. It is clear therefore that the benthic community present at the site is in a constant state of disturbance and recovery which is typical of regularly used disposal sites. A benthic survey carried out at the site in late 2007, resulted in a classification of the benthos as High with reference to the Water Framework Directive indicating that the site had recovered well from previous disposal events. The site was licensed to receive >4million tons in the six years prior to that survey.

The disposal site is dominated by fine substrates with pockets of coarser material and the substrate to be disposed of will be dominated by fine to medium sands in the majority of the dredge area with higher mud content from the inner part of the channel. Studies have shown that where the material to be disposed of is similar to that already at the disposal site, as in this case, more rapid recovery is facilitated.

Each of these features of the disposal site will contribute to a rapid rate of recovery at the site. Moreover, the decision to spread the spoil evenly over the full area of the site, allowing upward migration of some of the existing benthic organisms at the site, will also facilitate recovery. Finally, the late autumn – winter timing of the disposal means that each 6-monthly campaign will be ongoing during a period of seasonally low natural recruitment and will 10

cease in advance of the main spring-summer-early autumn recruitment period when the larvae of benthic organisms will settle from the plankton onto the newly deposited material to begin the process of re-colonisation. Thus, while full recovery will not occur at the dumpsite until after the 6-year disposal period, partial recovery of benthos is expected to occur during the 6 month non-dredge period each year throughout the campaign. It is important to note therefore, that at no stage will the site be devoid of benthic invertebrate fauna.

Indirect Impacts on Waterfowl and Marine Mammals

Benthic habitats such as those in the shipping channel and at the disposal site provide feeding for both mobile crustaceans (e.g. shrimp and crab), and fish, and these in turn provide food for seabirds and marine mammals. A temporary reduction in the diversity, numbers and biomass of invertebrates at the dredging and disposal sites may lead to a reduction in the amount of food energy which is available for transfer up the food chain to birds and marine mammals foraging at these locations. Nevertheless, as indicated above, there will always be benthic fauna at these sites and evidence from elsewhere indicates that these sites will also be used by fish, although possibly at a reduced rate in some instances. It is important to note also that the fish most likely to be affected by the proposed dredging and dumping are bottom or near bottom dwelling species, there will be no adverse impact on pelagic species. These for example include sprat, herring, mackerel or scad which feed exclusively in the water column on zooplankton and on other shoaling fish and are not directly dependent on benthic habitats for their energy. These fish form an important component in the diet of seabirds and marine mammals which for this reason alone are both likely to continue to feed within the shipping channel and at the dumpsite during the construction phase. In considering the potential impacts of the proposed dredging and dumping on harbour porpoise in particular, it is essential to point out that in the context of the cSAC as a whole that the area of the dumpsite constitutes just 0.5% of the total area, so that even a temporary reduction in the food energy in benthic fish and invertebrates transferred from this relatively small area will not adversely impact the species either individually or at the level of the population. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that porpoises are a very wide-ranging and mobile species with the ability to forage over a very wide area so that a temporary reduction in the prey available at both the dredging and disposal sites can readily be compensated for by the species foraging in similar adjoining habitats.

5. Conclusion

The main benthic and fisheries ecological constraints identified within the project study area are:

 Annex II species Atlantic salmon and river lamprey within the Liffey River and the Dodder and Atlantic Salmon in the Tolka

 Annex I Habitats: Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide [1140] in North Dublin Bay cSAC (Site Code: 000210) & South Dublin Bay cSAC (Site Code: 000210)

 Annex I Habitats: Reefs in Rockabill to Dalkey Island candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC Code: 003000).

 Intertidal habitats associated with North Bull Island SPA (Site Code: 004006); and South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA (Site Code: 004024)

 General subtidal benthic habitats and associated fish and invertebrate communities throughout Dublin Bay and the Burford Bank Dump site.

The Benthic Ecology & Fisheries section of the EIS (Chapter 5.4) lists a range of focused mitigation measures, for example, to minimise the evolution of suspended sediment from dredging within parts of the inner channel and to reduce the potential impacts of piling noise during the passage of Annex II fish. In circumstances where these measures are implemented, then there will be no adverse effects on those Annex II species or on any of the qualifying interests and conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 sites in, and adjacent to, Dublin Bay. Nor, for the avoidance of doubt, will there be any adverse impacts on the integrity of any of the Natura 2000 sites listed above having regard to the benthic or fisheries conservation objectives of each site.

STRATEGIC INFRASRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N .PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

WITNESS STATEMENT OF RICHARD NAIRN

ECOLOGY - BIRDS

Page 1 of 20

1 Qualifications and Experience

1.1. My name is Richard Nairn. I hold an honours degree in Natural Sciences from Trinity College Dublin. I am a Chartered Environmentalist and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. I am a former director of IWC BirdWatch Ireland. I have been a professional ornithologist since 1980 and I have comprehensive knowledge of waterbird ecology and survey methodology. I have published the results of my research on birds in a number of peer-reviewed journals. I was also the co-editor of a recent book entitled “Bird Habitats in Ireland”. 1.2. I have over 24 years’ experience in environmental consultancy and I have prepared ecological impact statements for over 250 projects including roads, pipelines, port developments, sewage treatment works and industrial developments. I was also the lead ecologist advising Dublin City Council in relation to the proposed extension of Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Works. The EIS for the latter project deals also with potential impacts on Dublin Bay.

2 Involvement in the Project 2.1. I am the author of section 5.1, in relation to Birds, in Volume 1 of the EIS which was submitted as part of the application to An Bord Pleanála on 6 March 2014. I also prepared an Avian Impact Assessment (included as Appendix A to the Natura Impact Statement) submitted for this application. 2.2. The methodology for the work on birds is set out in section 5.1.2 of the EIS. I carried out a desk review of all available information on the birds recorded in the vicinity of Dublin Port and surrounding area. I have personally undertaken monitoring of bird populations in the Tolka Estuary, Dublin Bay, over the four consecutive winters 2009/10 to 2012/13. This is the nearest part of the intertidal areas of Dublin Bay to the Port. As part of the present project, I undertook monitoring of bird populations in Dublin Port (including Alexandra Basin) throughout the two winters 2012/13 and 2013/14. I have undertaken surveys of breeding birds throughout Dublin Port in 2013 and 2014. I also assisted BirdWatch Ireland with the monitoring of breeding tern colonies in Dublin Port during 2013. From June 2013 to January 2014, I carried out six boat-based transect surveys of seabirds in the approach channel to Dublin Port and also in the licensed dredge disposal site close to the Burford Bank. These surveys were undertaken following international best practice methods. 2.3. I have been involved in a comprehensive 3-year monitoring project, entitled Dublin Bay Birds, which was initiated in 2013 by BirdWatch Ireland, with support from Dublin Port Company. This includes both high-tide and low-tide surveys of birds throughout the bay and in all seasons of the year. It also includes detailed monitoring of the breeding terns in Dublin Port and the post-breeding tern assemblages on Sandymount Strand. A sample of wintering birds in Dublin Bay has been marked with colour-rings, and in some cases, radio-transmitters, which will facilitate monitoring of the importance of particular parts of the Bay for feeding and roosting (in both daylight and darkness). The results of this new work will form a thorough baseline for future monitoring of the impacts, if any, of the ABR project on birds.

Page 2 of 20

2.4. Dublin Bay is one of the most intensively studied areas for birds in Ireland. Regular counts of wildfowl began here in 1951. All species of waterbirds were systematically monitored throughout the Bay in the early 1970s and in the mid-1980s. From 1994/95 to the present there has been consistent annual monitoring of waterbirds in Dublin Bay as part of the Irish Wetland Bird Survey (IWeBS). The breeding tern colonies in Dublin Port have been monitored since 1994. As a result, there are long data series available and a good level of knowledge on how birds use this internationally important area. 2.5. In preparing these reports, I had regard to the following guidelines:  Guidelines on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements (Environmental Protection Agency, 2002).  Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland: Guidance for Planning Authorities (Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 2009).  Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Environmental Impact Assessment (European Commission, 2013).  Guidance Document on the Implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in estuaries and coastal zones with particular attention to port development and dredging (European Commission, 2011).Assessment of Plans and Projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 Sites: Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (European Commission 2001).  Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The Provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats Directive’ 92/43/EEC (European Commission, 2000).

3 Conclusions of the Birds section of Chapter 5 in the EIS

3.1. As set out in detail in Volume 1 of the EIS, section 5.1.4, the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment [ABR] project will entail potential ecological impacts on three separate areas (1) redevelopment of the Alexandra Basin itself, (2) infill of Berths 52/53 at the eastern end of the port, and (3) dredging of the navigational channel to the port. The potential impacts of each of these components of the project on birds were considered separately. In addition, section 5.1.5 of the EIS evaluates possible indirect impacts on the designated Special Protection Areas [SPAs] in Dublin Bay and neighbouring coasts. Alexandra Basin (West) 3.2. The most important bird species present in Alexandra Basin are wintering Brent Geese that feed on spilt agricultural products on the quays. Redevelopment of the quays and jetties in the Basin will take place on a phased basis so that shipping can continue to use parts of the Basin at all times. As agricultural products will continue to be unloaded here, albeit in different locations, the geese will continue to be attracted to the spillages. They are already habituated to high levels of shipping activity and associated noise, so that construction noise is unlikely to have any additional effects. The geese will tolerate vehicles to a distance of less than 20m so it is likely that they will not be disturbed by construction vehicles. While the geese do swim on the

Page 3 of 20

surface of the Basin, they do not feed while on the water. Thus, they will not be exposed to contaminated sediments during the dredging operations. It is concluded that there will be an imperceptible impact from this part of the proposed development on wintering Brent Geese within Alexandra Basin West. 3.3. Black Guillemots are present in Alexandra Basin West, mainly in spring and summer months. A maximum of 16 birds was recorded within the Basin in May 2013 and this represents about 20% of the total breeding population in Dublin Port. A maximum of 14 birds was recorded in the Alexandra Basin in May 2014. The birds breed in cavities within the existing quays and jetties, including a number of disused drainage pipes. These cavities will be removed prior to the commencement of the redevelopment works, so as to prevent their use by the birds during demolition. Mitigation measures will be introduced to provide alternative nest sites in neighbouring areas of the port, in advance of the redevelopment. A plan has been prepared to locate these alternative nestboxes in the area of the Oil Jetty in Dublin Port. Black Guillemots are rarely seen foraging in the water areas of the Basin as it is unlikely that their preferred fish prey occurs here in sufficient density. 3.4. The breeding tern colonies on the mooring dolphins in Dublin Port are sufficiently remote from Alexandra Basin West (approximately 2km) and will not be directly affected by the redevelopment works. Terns are rarely recorded flying within the Basin as it is unlikely that their preferred fish prey occurs here in sufficient density. The dredging of spoil from the Basin will not therefore have any indirect impacts on breeding terns. Berths 52/53 3.5. There are no significant intertidal areas within the basin occupied by berths 52/53. This is a confined deep-water area and does not hold any significant numbers of birds in winter. The basin will be fully contained within a new steel pile wall prior to reclamation. This will prevent any escape of fill material to the Liffey channel or to the wider areas of Dublin Bay. Thus, no impacts on wintering birds are predicted. 3.6. The only breeding birds present in the vicinity of Berths 52/53, are Black Guillemots which use the area mainly in spring and summer months. A maximum of 4 birds was recorded within this Basin in May 2013 and this represents about 5% of the total breeding population in Dublin Port. A further survey in May 2014 found no birds in this area. The birds breed in cavities within the existing quays and jetties. These cavities will be removed preceding the redevelopment works to prevent their use by the birds during demolition. Mitigation measures will be introduced to provide alternative nest sites in neighbouring areas of the port, in advance of the redevelopment. Again, a plan has been prepared to locate these alternative nestboxes in the area of the Oil Jetty in Dublin Port. Black Guillemots are rarely seen foraging in the water areas of Berths 52/53 as it is unlikely that their preferred fish prey occurs here in sufficient density. The infilling of this area will cause an imperceptible impact on Black Guillemots.

Page 4 of 20

Capital dredging of the navigation channel 3.7. The navigation channel is used by a range of seabirds and other species throughout the year. The dredging works in the channel will be carried out in phases over six years. The work will be confined to winter months (October to March inclusive) and, thus, will not affect birds foraging during the breeding season. Maintenance dredging was carried out in the channel in 2012 and no significant changes in bird populations in the Tolka Estuary area in winter 2012/13 were recorded that could be connected with the dredging activity. In fact, the sum of peak counts for all species increased from 13,717 in 2011/12 to 18,900 in 2012/13. This was largely caused by a significantly higher number of Knot and Black-headed Gull in the estuary in 2012/13. Peak counts of Bar-tailed Godwit and Curlew also increased in 2012/13.All birds using the channel and approaches are habituated to high levels of shipping activity. A single dredging vessel, involved in the proposed capital dredging for this project, would not cause any significant additional disturbance affecting wintering waterbirds and seabirds within the channel. 3.8. As the proposed dredging of the channel will take place in winter months only (October to March inclusive), when the terns are absent, there will be no residual increase in suspended sediments from dredging by the time the terns return to the colonies in late April. Black Guillemots, which also breed within Dublin Port, are rarely seen foraging in the channel but most frequently feed in the wider area of Dublin Bay and are seen returning to the nest sites carrying small fish. They are mainly present in the channel during spring and summer with only small numbers are present in the channel in autumn and winter. Thus, there will be an imperceptible impact of the dredging works, which will take place in the winter months only. 3.9. The proposed dredging of the channel may generate some fine suspended material in the water column. Deposition of this suspended material in the Tolka Estuary has been shown to be less than 0.002kg/m3, which equates to a deposition of less than 0.0002mm depth after six months of dredging. This will have an imperceptible impact on the intertidal areas of the Tolka Estuary. The results of the modeling also indicate that the low levels of contaminants in the channel, outside of Alexandra Basin, are unlikely to require special dredging techniques to prevent sediment loss during dredging. 3.10. Dredging of the channel to -10mCD will not significantly alter the tidal regime, wave climate or sediment transport regime in Dublin Bay away from the immediate area around the channel at the approaches to the Bull walls. The proposed channel dredged to -10mCD is unlikely to be susceptible to rapid infilling and will have a similar stability to the existing channel. It is therefore concluded that there will be imperceptible impacts of the dredging on surrounding intertidal areas within Dublin Bay, either in the short-term or long-term. There will thus be no indirect effects on waterbirds in these locations. 3.11. The potential for the marginally increased turbidity in the immediate vicinity of the dredging operations having any significant effects on foraging birds is assessed by reference to the breeding tern colony within Dublin Port. Maintenance dredging of the channel took place in 2012. Breeding productivity of the Common terns at this colony between 1995 and 2002 averaged 1.50 fledged young per nesting pair. In 2013, the estimated productivity for this colony averaged 1.48 which is not

Page 5 of 20

significantly different. This suggests that the overall productivity of the terns is relatively stable over the medium term and was not negatively affected by dredging of the channel in 2012. 3.12. It is concluded that, with full implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the EIS (section 5.1.6), there will be, at worst, imperceptible impacts of the proposed development on either breeding birds or wintering birds within the Port or the Channel.

Page 6 of 20

4 Conclusions of the Birds section of the NIS

4.1. The Natura Impact Statement considers only the potential impacts of the proposed development on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000 sites. I prepared an Avian Impact Assessment (attached as Appendix A to the Natura Impact Statement) which addresses the likely impacts on birds which are qualifying interests for Special Protection Areas (SPAs) in Dublin Bay and neighbouring coastlines. 4.2. Redevelopment of the Alexandra Basin and infill of Berths 52/53 will have imperceptible impacts on four bird species that are listed as Special Conservation Interests of the relevant SPAs. There will be no adverse effects of the proposed development on wintering Brent Geese within Alexandra Basin West as the development will be carried out in phases and agricultural products will continue to be offloaded at different berths within the port. The geese will adapt quickly to any new source of feeding. Black-headed Gulls and Herring Gulls also forage on the spilt agricultural products but these will continue to be available both during and after construction. Cormorants roost in small numbers on some of the jetties within the Basin. There are abundant alternative roost sites within the Port and these will remain available both during and after construction. 4.3. The potential for effects of the proposed capital dredging on the Conservation Objectives of the nearest SPAs was assessed by considering those species recorded in the navigation channel in 2013/14 which are qualifying interests of these SPAs. Seven of the qualifying species are infrequent and have only been recorded flying over the channel. These species will not be affected by the dredging activity. The remaining ten of the qualifying species were recorded either foraging or roosting on navigation buoys. The impacts of dredging on these species will be localised at any one time. All of these bird species feed on small shoaling fish which are mobile and will move away from any active dredging. Thus any indirect impacts of the dredging will be imperceptible and temporary in nature. The proposed dredging works will take place in the winter months only and will not therefore have any impacts on any of the breeding species that are qualifying interests (Special Conservation Interests) for the SPAs in Dublin Bay and neighbouring coasts. 4.4. There will be no impacts arising from the proposal that would affect the sediment transport regime or sediment budget within Dublin Bay, which maintains the structure and function of the intertidal feeding grounds supporting the bird species which are Special Conservation Interests for the SPAs. 4.5. The disposal of dredged material in the licensed disposal site will take place entirely in winter months (October to March). The predicted concentrations of suspended sediment are low and would not have any significant effect on the foraging ability of seabirds. All such suspended sediment would disperse or settle out within a period of days during winter and there would be no residual effects on seabirds in the following breeding season. 4.6. There will be no adverse effects from the proposed development on the conservation objectives of any Special Protection Area, with regard to the maintenance (or restoration) of the favourable conservation condition of the bird species listed as Special Conservation Interests for these SPAs. In these circumstances, the

Page 7 of 20

proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of any SPA, in view of the sites’ conservation objectives.

5 Submissions and Responses

In preparing this witness statement, I have considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the appraisal of potential impacts of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project on birds. I have addressed each submission or observation in turn below, before providing my response to the essential point being made.

5.1 Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAU)

Issue 1 – Conservation Objectives for Natura 2000 sites

Submission:

Where site specific conservation objectives are not available for a site, the Department recommends that the detailed conservation objectives for other sites which have the same qualifying interests are used.

Response:

The Avian Impact Assessment, submitted as Appendix A of the Natura Impact Statement, considers the potential impacts of the proposed development in relation to a number of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) in Dublin Bay and neighbouring coastlines. These are:

 South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA (site code 004024)

 North Bull Island SPA (site code 4006)

 Skerries Islands SPA (site code 4122)

 Rockabill SPA (site code 4014)

 Lambay Island SPA (site code 4069)

 Ireland’s Eye SPA (site code 4117)

 Howth Head SPA (site code 4113)

 Dalkey Island SPA (site code 4172)

In all of the above cases, with the exception of Rockabill SPA, the published Conservation Objectives are generic but the qualifying interests are site-specific. In the case of Rockabill the Conservation Objectives are site-specific. In all cases, the qualifying interests are different to all other Natura 2000 sites (as specified in Table 1 of the Avian Impact Assessment, Appendix A of the NIS). Therefore, it is not possible to transpose detailed conservation objectives for other sites which have the same qualifying interests.

Page 8 of 20

5.2 Donna Cooney

Issue 1 – Mitigation measures for birds

Submission: The submission states: “I am not convinced of the mitigation measures for the birds: especially the Brent Geese and the Terns.

Response:

There are no mitigation measures proposed for Brent Geese or terns as there will be, at the very worst, only imperceptible impacts of the proposed development on these species. The only proposed mitigation measures for birds are the provision of artificial nest box sites for Black Guillemots to replace the artificial sites in the quay walls, that will be removed during construction. This is a proven technique to enhance breeding populations of this species and there is published scientific data to prove that it is successful elsewhere.

5.3 Dublin City Council

Issue 1 – Mitigation measures for Guillemots

Submission:

Are the mitigation measures for Guillemots, outlined under section 4.1.2 and 4.2.2 of the Avian Impact Assessment, incorporated into the application? Response:

These mitigation measures are also included in the EIS, Volume 1, section 5.1.6. A plan has been prepared to locate the alternative nestboxes for Black Guillemots in the area of the Oil Jetty in Dublin Port in advance of construction works. Issue 2 – SPAs identified in the NIS and Avian Impact Assessment

Submission:

There appears to be a disparity in the SPAs identified in the NIS compared with the Avian Impact Assessment. Response:

All SPAs within 15km of the proposed development were considered in the screening for the Avian Impact Assessment. In the Avian Impact Assessment, the two SPAs within Dublin Bay and a further six SPAs designated for breeding seabirds, in the wider area of North Dublin area were considered as the dredging of the shipping channel could potentially have indirect effects on the foraging areas of these seabirds. However, the proposed dredging will be confined to the winter months,

Page 9 of 20

outside the breeding season of these seabird species, and there is no scientific evidence linking any of the species present in winter in the area of the proposed works with individual breeding colonies in the Dublin area. Most seabird species disperse widely from the breeding colonies at the end of the breeding season and some species even cross the Atlantic. It is quite possible that many of the seabirds present in Dublin Bay in winter originate in breeding colonies outside the Irish Sea. The SPAs covering sites outside Dublin Bay were screened out of the NIS which concluded that there would be no impacts on these sites due to the separation distance and the absence of any pathways for potential impacts to take place.

5.4 An Bord Pleanála Request for Further Information

Issue No. 2.3: Effects of pile installation noise and vibration or dredging noise on bird populations in the vicinity of the site. Issue: “There will be a three month break in marine based piling operations between March and May to mitigate against any potential impact on migrating salmon smolts in the river channel. However no similar consideration has been given to the effects of pile installation noise and vibration or dredging noise on bird populations in the vicinity”. Response: Effects of pile installation noise and vibration on bird populations Piling was undertaken in Dublin Port (Alexandra Basin East) in May and June 2014. This was at the start of the breeding season for Common and Arctic terns which breed in a large colony on the south side of the Liffey channel at Poolbeg. The two sites within the colony are approximately 1,200m and 1,500m from the pile-driving operations in Alexandra Basin East. The nearest section of the colony is located close to sample station G in Figure 1.

Page 10 of 20

Figure 1: Measurement locations and transects for RPS monitoring of underwater noise from pile driving in Alexandra Basin, Dublin Port in June 2014.

The tern colony has been carefully monitored in 2014 (and previous years). In 2014, the number of tern nests reached the highest recorded level since 1995 with 478 Common Terns and 77 Arctic Terns (data from BirdWatch Ireland). Average clutch sizes (number of eggs per nest) and productivity (number of fledged young per nest) were in the normal range for these species as measured over the previous two decades at this site (see Merne 2004) and at other colonies in Ireland and Britain (Cabot and Nisbet 2013). Terns were observed throughout the breeding season to be foraging as normal and provisioning the chicks at the colony with fish as normal. This monitoring demonstrates that the tern colony was unaffected by the pile-driving activity in Alexandra Basin East in May-June 2014.

Black Guillemots breed in pipes and cavities in the quays throughout Dublin Port and have been surveyed here in both breeding seasons of 2013 and 2014. Alexandra Basin East contained the highest density of this species in the Port in both years, with 14 birds recorded here in May 2014. The birds continued to use the area in close proximity to the pile-driving activity in May-June 2014. This demonstrates that Black Guillemots are unaffected by pile-driving noise or vibration.

Brent Geese are present in Alexandra Basin West and on Ocean Pier between October and April each year. Here they forage on spilt agricultural products which are unloaded from the ships. They are already habituated to high levels of machinery noise, shipping activity and vehicle noise, so that pile-driving noise is unlikely to have any additional effects. It has also been observed that the geese currently tolerate vehicles at a distance of less than 20m, so it is likely that they will not be disturbed by construction vehicles.

Page 11 of 20

Noise Levels in the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA

Piling noise from the ABR project will not change underwater noise levels in the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA. Underwater noise measurements taken in June 2014 at Location G (close to the tern colony at the CDL and ESB mooring dolphins) indicate that no piling noise (from the works on Alexandra Basin East) was audible when shipping movements are taking place and is close to background levels at other times. For wading birds generally, underwater noise propagates least at low water, when they are likely to be foraging. While some level of piling noise may be present close to the Alexandra Basin and Berths 52 and 53, it will have no adverse effect on the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA.

The Special Conservation Interests of South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA and North Bull Island SPA include Brent Geese, Common and Arctic Terns and 18 additional species (mainly ducks, waders and gulls). The conservation objectives for the SPA are to maintain (or restore) the favourable conservation condition of the bird species listed as Special Conservation Interests for these SPAs. There will be no adverse effects of pile-driving noise or vibration from the proposed development on any of these species or on the Conservation Objectives of either Special Protection Area. The proposed development will not therefore adversely affect the integrity of any SPA, in view of the sites’ Conservation Objectives.

Effects of dredging noise on bird populations

The likely technology to be used in the dredging will be either trailer suction hopper dredger (TSHD) where the material is pumped aboard or a 'hopper' vessel which carries it out to the spoil ground. An excavator-mounted clamshell bucket adopted for environmental dredging will be used for dredging Alexandra Basin West to minimise disturbance and escape of contaminated material. Dredging of the shipping channel will generate some minor noise from the vessel engines and the dredging work. Underwater noise from dredging will be at similar levels to that from existing shipping.. Shipping noise as measured in Dublin Port (McKeown, 2014) does not generally have an acoustic impact more than approximately 200 metres from the source.. Birds that use the port are familiar with the existing shipping activity and dredging will be similar in nature but over longer periods and (much) slower moving. Habituation by the birds is very likely. It is possible that dredging activity will generate some new foraging opportunities for birds by bringing prey items to the surface. The author has personally observed terns and Kittiwakes feeding in the wake of ships entering and leaving Dublin Port and has observed Cormorants foraging close to an active dredger in Wicklow Harbour. Underwater noise will not impact waders as it cannot propagate in water less than 1.0m deep. The largest species of wader, Curlew, has legs that are a maximum of 0.1m in length and they do not normally swim in deeper water.

Page 12 of 20

Noise Levels due to Proposed Dredging for Alexandra Basin West

Underwater noise levels from dredging activity will be significantly lower than those arising during piling. A Manu-Pekka is a relatively noisy backhoe dredger. At 500m the noise level from such dredging operations is around 50 dBA. A modern TSHD is noticeably quieter in operation. In context 60dB to 65dB is regarded as normal conversation level, 50 dB is a typical (not noisy) office environment level. Dredging noise is thus unlikely to disturb birds.

From the modelling carried out, the underwater noise transmission loss is significant due to the shallow water and the sediment/sand based seabed in Dublin Bay. Proposed dredging activity will be limited to the navigation channel and the Alexandra Basin. The navigation channel is close to the North Bank and some dredging noise will arise at low tide in this area which is part of the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA. Due to the extremely shallow water depths at low tide, transmission loss will be far greater than that outlined in the model. Underwater noise propagating in this area will be at background levels and will not have any significant environmental impact. Underwater noise arising from dredging the navigation channel inside the North Bull Wall will not propagate to the North Bull Island. Dredging in the navigation channel east of the Bull Wall is located 1,500m from North Bull Island from which it is separated by very shallow water. Noise from dredging will not cause any significant environmental impact at North Bull Island SPA.

Maintenance dredging was carried out in the Liffey channel in 2012 and no significant changes in bird populations in the Dublin Port breeding tern colony or Tolka Estuary area in winter 2012/13 were recorded that could be connected with the dredging activity. All birds using the channel and approaches are habituated to high levels of shipping activity. A single, slow-moving dredging vessel, involved in the proposed capital dredging for this project, would not cause any significant additional disturbance affecting wintering waterbirds or seabirds within the channel.

Issue No. 2.4: International literature review of pile installation noise and vibration or dredging noise on bird populations.

Submission:

“Further detailed information is required to enable the Board to assess the impact of pile installation noise and vibration and dredging noise on the bird populations that use the adjacent and nearby European sites in Dublin Bay. A comprehensive analysis should be carried out by a suitably qualified bird ecologist. The analysis should be based on international research as well as information currently available in Ireland.”

Page 13 of 20

Response:

Direct effects of pile-driving noise on birds

The effects of construction noise on wild birds are poorly studied in general with most emphasis on terrestrial species. Lackey et al. (2012) examined behavioural responses, territory placement and reproductive success in the federally endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler in a field experiment that used playback of construction noise. Their results suggest that this species alters neither its territory placement nor its behavioural response to noise playback. Reproductive success also appears to be unaffected by construction noise. These findings suggest that intermittent construction noise is not among the threats to this species.

Waders using a high tide roost on Mutton Island in Galway Bay were surveyed before, during and after the construction of a major sewage treatment plant situated between 150m and 200m from the main roost site (Nairn 2005). At the start of this five-year period the island was linked to the mainland by a causeway and the roosting birds became more concentrated on the undeveloped part of the island but otherwise showed no negative effects of construction noise or disturbance. Numbers of waders using the roost were highest in the last two of the construction years.

The construction work for Mutton Island treatment plant included trench excavation for the outfall in rock and was excavated using drill and blast techniques. The maximum charge for the blasting was adjusted to ensure that the sound waves were maintained in the range 150dB to 160dB when measured 250m from the epicentre (Edger and Murdock 2003). The author carried out observations of foraging waders during the blasting, at ranges of 250m and 500m from the location of the blasting and no visible response was observed in any of the birds, which continued to forage normally.

Leopold and Camphuysen (2009) studied possible effects of underwater noise levels on sensitive seabirds during construction of the first Dutch offshore wind farm in North Sea waters. This was the OWEZ project that consisted of 36 turbines on monopoles. It is located north-west of Ijmuiden harbour, some 8 NM off the mainland coast of the Netherlands. Erecting the 36 monopiles was done by pile-driving, from a large ship using a hydro-hammer. This technique generated considerable noise that might be detrimental for local wildlife. The action of the hydrohammer on the large steel pipes, that need to be driven into the seabed, could produce underwater sound levels in excess of 200 dB and this could be detrimental to vertebrates swimming in the vicinity (within several hundreds of meters).

Bird species most likely to be vulnerable to underwater sound were those that forage by diving after fish or shellfish. Diving birds that may occur in relatively high densities at the OWEZ location include auks, and possibly divers and seaduck. Terns, that feed by shallow dives are considered less vulnerable and mostly occur closer to the

Page 14 of 20

mainland coast. Several gull species may occur in the area in high densities, but they feed at the surface only, and are considered the least vulnerable. Birds that did fly by the construction site (mainly gulls and terns) did not show a noticeable reaction to the activities. It is therefore concluded that effects of underwater noise on seabirds, though potentially detrimental, were negligible during construction of OWEZ. This was due to fortunate timing of the work and to appropriate mitigation measures (Leopold and Camphuysen 2009).

The U.S. Department of the Interior (2004) briefly mentioned effects of underwater sound (seismic surveys) briefly in its extensive Environmental Impact Assessment of exploration activities in the Gulf of Mexico, as follows:

"Generally, noise produced from activities associated with seismic surveys might impact only those offshore species of birds that spend large quantities of time underwater, either swimming or plunge diving while foraging for food. Offshore birds that may be classified as underwater swimmers include certain waterfowl (some diving ducks) and seabirds (loons and cormorants). Noise from seismic surveys could adversely affect surface feeding and diving seabirds near air gun arrays. However, there are no data indicating such impacts exist. Stemp (1985) found no effect of seismic survey activity on the distribution and abundance of seabird populations in arctic Canadian environment. Parsons (in Stemp, 1985) reported that shearwaters with their heads underwater were observed within 30 m of seismic sources (explosives) and did not respond. Because seismic pulses are directed downward and highly attenuated near the surface, birds feeding on the surface or diving just below it are unlikely to be exposed to sound levels sufficient to cause temporary or permanent hearing impairment. In any case, sound pressure levels would not be sufficient to cause death or life-threatening injury."

None of the above studies found any impacts of pile-driving noise or vibration on birds in the marine environment. Birds, foraging, flying or swimming close to the sources of noise showed no response to the noises.

Indirect effects of pile-driving noise on fish prey of birds

Inger et al. (2009) have reviewed the potential ecological impacts of underwater noise and they suggest that fish can detect pile-driving noise over large distances, and that the noise may affect intra-specific communication, or cause injury or mortality at close range (Popper et al. 2003; Thomsen et al. 2006).

There may be some localised negative impacts of pile-driving on fish species in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. However, the Alexandra Basin West and Berths 52 and 53 are not generally used for foraging by fish-eating birds (terns, Cormorants, Black Guillemots) so no indirect effects on bird species are predicted. In addition, the pile-driving at Berths 52 and 53, which are the nearest construction locations to the tern colonies in Dublin Port, will be confined to the period mid-August

Page 15 of 20

to January when terns are absent from the colonies. Underwater noise from the pile- driving propagating beyond the Port entrance will be at background levels and is not expected to have any negative impacts on fish or on birds.

Effects of dredging noise on birds

A review of the impacts of capital and maintenance dredging in the Tamar estuary, in south-west England, was published by Widdows et al. (2007). This estuary is a Special Protection Area under the EU Birds Directive which requires annual maintenance dredging as well as occasional capital dredging for new installations. Maintenance dredging here involves annual removal of between 5,000 and 200,000 tonnes of dry sediment per year. During two periods of capital dredging in the Tamar, the amount of sediment dredged was between 500,000 and 700,000 tonnes per year. Annual estimates for ten species of wildfowl and waders were analysed over several decades in the Tamar Estuary. There were no significant correlations between overwintering bird numbers and dredging activity. Declines in Teal and Wigeon over 30 years were related to milder winters which changed the migratory patterns of these species. An assessment of the ecological impacts of maintenance dredging noise in Plymouth Sound reached similar conclusions (Debut Services 2011).

Page 16 of 20

6 Conclusions

In conclusion, it has been demonstrated there will be no significant impacts of the proposed development on bird populations in Dublin Port or in the surrounding areas. The redevelopment of Alexandra Basin and infill of Berths 52/53 will not affect Brent Geese or breeding terns in the port. While some Black Guillemots will lose their breeding sites in the old quay walls, these will be replaced using artificial nest boxes in the new development. Dredging of the shipping channel will be confined to the winter months and thus will have no impact on the breeding tern colony, which is absent at this time. The dredging will not significantly alter the tidal regime, wave climate or sediment transport regime in Dublin Bay away from the immediate area around the channel. The maintenance dredging carried out in the channel in 2012 had no measurable effects on the winter bird populations in the neighbouring Tolka Estuary in the following year. Monitoring of the tern colony also shows that the overall productivity of the terns is relatively stable over the medium term and was not negatively affected by dredging of the channel in 2012. The Avian Impact Assessment included in the Natura Impact Statement shows that Redevelopment of the Alexandra Basin and infill of Berths 52/53 will have, at worst, imperceptible impacts on birds which are qualifying interests for Special Protection Areas (SPAs) in Dublin Bay and neighbouring coastlines. The proposed dredging works will take place in the winter months only and will not therefore have any impacts on any of the breeding species that are Special Conservation Interests for the SPAs in Dublin Bay and neighbouring coasts. The disposal of dredged material in the licensed disposal site will take place entirely in winter months (October to March). The predicted concentrations of suspended sediment are low and would not have any significant effect on the foraging ability of seabirds in the following breeding season. There will thus be no adverse effects from the proposed development on the Conservation Objectives of any Special Protection Area, with regard to the maintenance (or restoration) of the favourable conservation condition of the bird species listed as Special Conservation Interests for these SPAs.

Dublin City Council has drawn attention to an apparent disparity between the SPAs identified in the NIS compared with the Avian Impact Assessment. The latter document has screened all SPAs on the Dublin coast and ruled out any potential effects on the six seabird breeding colonies, as the proposed dredging will be confined to the winter months, outside the breeding season of these seabird species. Moreover, there is no scientific evidence whatever linking the species using the area of the proposed development in winter and the breeding birds in the SPAs. An Bord Pleanála requested further information on the effects of pile installation noise and vibration or dredging noise on bird populations in the vicinity of the site. The piling actually undertaken in Alexandra Basin East in 2014 was reviewed and found to have no significant effects on the breeding terns and Black Guillemots in Dublin Port. All birds that use the port are habituated to existing shipping noise and will readily habituate to any noise from the dredging vessel. An international literature

Page 17 of 20

review has found that studies found no impacts of piled-driving noise or vibration on birds in the marine environment. Birds swimming or flying close to the sources of noise showed no response to the noises. This review confirmed that there may be some localised negative impacts of pile-driving on fish species in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. However, the Alexandra Basin West and Berths 52 and 53 are not generally used for foraging by fish-eating birds so no indirect effects are propagated. . Finally, in respect of the EIA to be conducted by the Board, it has been demonstrated that there will be no significant impacts on birds. In respect of the Appropriate Assessment to be conducted by the Board, the proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of any European site, based on complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects of the works proposed on the protected sites concerned.

Page 18 of 20

REFERENCES Cabot, D. and Nisbet, I. 2013. Terns. HarperCollins. London.

Debut Services (SW) Ltd 2011. Baseline Document for Maintenance Dredging in Plymouth Sound and Estuaries European Marine Site. Report to UK Defence Estates.

Edger, M.J. and Murdock, S. 2003. Galway City wastewater treatment plant design and construction aspects. Paper presented to the Institution of Engineers of Ireland. 7th April 2003.

Habib, L. et al. 2006. Chronic industrial noise affects pairing success and age structure of ovenbirds Seiurus aurocapilla. J. Appl. Ecol. 44, 176–184.

Inger, R., Attrill, M.J., Bearhop, S., Broderick, A.C., Grecian, W.J., Hodgson, D.J., Mills, C., Sheehan, E., Votier, S.C., Witt, M.J. and Brendan J. Godley, B.J. 2009. Marine renewable energy: potential benefits to biodiversity? An urgent call for research. Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 1145–1153.

Lackey, M.A., Morrison, M.L., loman, Z.G., Collier, B.A. and Wiklkins, R.N. 2012. Experimental determination of the response of Golden-cheeked Warbler (Setophaga chrysoparia) to road construction noise. In: The influence of anthropogenic noise on birds and bird studies. (Eds. C.D. Francis and J.L. Blickey) American Ornithologists’ Union. Ornithological Monographs, no 74, 89-98.

Leopold, M.F. and Camphuysen, K.C.J. 2009. Did the pile driving during the construction of the Offshore Wind Farm Egmond aan Zee, the Netherlands, impact local seabirds? Report Number: C062/07. Institute for Marine Resources & Ecosystem Studies. Ijmuiden, The Netherlands.

Merne, O.J. 2004. Common Sterna hirundo and Arctic Terns S. paradisaea breeding in Dublin Port, County Dublin, 1995-2003. Irish Birds 7, 369-374.

Mueller-Blenkle, C., McGregor, P.K., Gill, A.B., Andersson, M.H., Metcalfe, J., Bendall, V., Sigray, P., Wood, D.T. & Thomsen, F. 2010. Effects of pile-driving noise on the behaviour of marine fish. COWRIE Ref: Fish 06-08, Technical Report 31st March 2010.

Nairn, R. 2005. Use of a high tide roost by waders during engineering work in Galway Bay, Ireland. Irish Birds 7, 489-496.

Popper, A.N., Fewtrell, J., Smith, M.E. & McCauley, R.D. 2003. Anthropogenic sound: effects on the behavior and physiology of fishes. Marine Technology Society Journal, 37, 35–40.

Reijnen, R. and Foppen, R. 1994. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird

Page 19 of 20

populations in woodland. 1. Evidence of reduced habitat quality for willow warblers (Phylloscopus trochilus) breeding close to a highway. Journal of Applied Ecology 31, 85–94.

Slabbekoorn, H., Bouton, N., van Opzeeland, I., Coers, A., ten Cate, C. and Popper, A.N. 2010. A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25 (7), 419-427.

Stemp R. 1985. Observations on the effects of seismic exploration on seabirds, pp. 217-233. In: G.D. Greene, F.R. Engelhardt & R.J. Paterson (eds), Proceedings of the Workshop on Effects of Explosives Use in the Marine Environment, January 29-31, 1985, Halifax. Canada Oil and Gas Lands Administration, Environmental Protection Branch, Technical Report No. 5.

Thomsen, F., Ludemann, K., Kafemann, R. and Piper, W. 2006. Effects of offshore wind farm noise on marine mammals and fish. COWRIE Report.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 2004. Geological and Geophysical Exploration for Mineral Resources on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment. New Orleans, 487p. Available from: http://www.gomr.mms.gov.

Widdows, J., Bale, A.J., Brinsley, M.D., Somerfield, P. and Uncles, R.J. 2007. An assessment of the potential impact of dredging activity on the Tamar Estuary over the last century: II. Ecological changes and potential drivers. Hydrobiologia 588, 97- 108.

Page 20 of 20

STRATEGIC INFRASRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N .PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

WITNESS STATEMENT OF Dr Simon Berrow

Marine Mammals

1 Qualifications and Experience

1.1.1 My name is Dr Simon Berrow. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Biology (Liverpool Polytechnic) and a Ph.D. in Zoology from University College, Cork. I am a full time lecturer in the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology where I teach on the Applied Freshwater and Marine Biology degree. I am founder member and currently Chief Executive Officer of the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group and also Project Manager of the Shannon Dolphin and Wildlife Foundation based in Kilrush, Co Clare.

1.1.2 I have over 25 years’ experience of working on marine mammals especially with cetaceans (whales dolphins and porpoises) in Ireland since 1989 but have also carried out research projects on South Georgia for the British Antarctic Survey and around Cape Verde islands off West Africa. Most of my work has been on cetaceans, but I have also worked with fur seals on South Georgia. My research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals with well over 100 publications to date including 50 on marine mammals as well as carrying out a large number of Environmental Impact Assessments and other reports. I have carried out a number of harbour porpoise surveys of Dublin Bay since 2008 on behalf of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (Berrow and O’Brien 2013; Berrow et a. 2014) and am thus well aware of the site and relevant issues.

2 Involvement in the Project

2.1.1 I was not involved in the preparation of the appraisal of the potential impacts of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project on marine mammals, which was carried out by Drs. Michelle Cronin and Mark Jessopp of CMRC at University College, Cork. I have been engaged by RPS to provide an independent assessment of the potential effects of the ABR project on marine mammals and to respond to issues raised by An Bord Pleanála. However, at the outset, I should say that I largely agree with CMRC findings and proposed mitigation as outlined in the Marine Mammals Impact Assessment (Appendix B, of the Alexandra Basin Re-development Project Natura Impact Statement).

3 Conclusions of the Marine Mammal Appraisal in the EIS

3.1.1 As set out in detail in the EIS (see section 5.2.5 of Volume 1 of the EIS), the anthropogenic noise associated with the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) is considered to have the potential to cause a negative effect on marine mammals. The main issues to be considered are noise and disturbance associated with dredging and dumping and noise created through piling.

3.1.2 Sound propagation in the marine environment is context and site specific. Sound attenuation models carried out as part of this impact assessment indicate noise levels 500m upstream and downstream of piling in the Alexandra Basin will be at background levels. As such, the guidelines provided by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS, 2014 and SID-2014-DC-06) and additional mitigation measures proposed will mitigate the risk of injury and minimise disturbance to marine mammals in the area of operations: These measures include:

• a trained and experienced Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) should be in place during piling, dredging, dumping, and demolition operations to implement NPWS Recommendations.

• an exclusion zone must be clear of marine mammals prior to dredging, dumping and piling

• for piling activities a ramp-up procedure should be employed following the pre-start monitoring, thus underwater acoustic energy output shall commence from a lower energy start-up and be allowed to gradually build up to the necessary maximum output over a period of 20-40 minutes.

• a real time Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) system will be in place to enable mitigation at night and in high sea-states should this be required as visual mitigation techniques are only effective during daylight hours and if the sea state is <3.

• Static Acoustic Monitoring (SAM) using CPODs will be carried out pre, during and post-construction to provide baseline data on habitat use by harbour porpoise, during construction and for a period of two years post-construction to determine that no long term negative impacts has occurred.

3.1.3 The most likely impact of the proposed dredging and disposal of dredge spoil in the outer bay on marine mammals will be through local sound disturbance and habitat modifications.

3.1.4 The proposed development and dredging of the channel within the harbour and bay will not cause impacts on seals at the population level. However, seals are known to enter the harbour area, and there is a possibility that minor impacts through disturbance, may occur on individual grey or harbour seals entering the works zone.

3.1.5 There are no known haul out sites for seals in the immediate proximity of the proposed works and therefore there is no threat of disturbance to seals by the proposed works. Seals do regularly haul out on Bull Island (around 6km to the northeast) and at Lambay Island but these sites are considered far enough away from the construction activity to have no negative effect, especially as sensitivity of seals to acoustic disturbance is less when hauled out. However, the waters of Dublin Bay are utilised by grey seals, for feeding and/or for navigation. Risks to these animals will be small and implementation of the mitigation measures recommended (see Section 3.1.4. above, and Section 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS) will be sufficient to mitigate this potential impact.

3.1.6 Rock-breaking and piling associated with the proposed demolition and construction of quay walls is also considered to be a potentially negative impact on marine mammals because it produces sound with a high source level and of broad bandwidth. Extended exposure to impulsive sounds can lead to injuries to hearing in pinnipeds resulting in temporary or permanent hearing loss and other injuries (Richardson et al. 1995). Animals close to the source, exposed to a sudden onset of pile-driving noise might be injured (Thomsen et al. 2006). Temporary threshold shift (TTS), which is a temporary elevation of the hearing threshold due to noise exposure, could be induced by exposure to pile-driving noise. Thomsen et al. (2006), estimated a TTS-zone for pinnipeds as 400m using a model impact pile-driving broadband sound pressure level of 229 dB, based on 1.5m diameter piles and scaled up by 10 dB for larger diameter piles. Kastelein et al. (2011) exposed harbour porpoise and harbour seals to sound pressures mimicking offshore pile driving and showed that TTS occurred at 136 db in harbour porpoises and 148 db in harbour seals but both fully recovered within 48 and 60 minutes post-exposure. Importantly neither species responded behaviourally to the noise. The potential impact of the proposed works on seals including breeding, moulting and foraging is negligible as sound attenuation models carried out as part of this impact assessment indicate noise levels 500m upstream and downstream of piling in the Alexandra Basin will be at background levels and thus piling will not result in significant PTS or TTS effects on seals in the area, if the recommended mitigation measures are carried out (see Section 3.1.4. above, and Section 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS).

3.1.7 Dublin Port is a busy shipping channel and marine mammals in the area are exposed to noise and associated disturbance on a regular basis and will not cause any impact to exposed marine mammals. Elsewhere, received sound pressure levels from dredging of sand and aggregate have been shown to exceed 140 dB at 1 km distance from the source, a value that is detectable by most marine mammals. Maximum source level for dredging silt with a TSHD dredger is very similar to other activities associated with the process thus sound exposure will be equivalent to an additional ship in the area.

3.1.8 Dublin Bay is an important area for harbour porpoise and some of it has recently been designated as a candidate Special Area of Conservation [cSAC] for this species. It is essential therefore to ensure that impacts, if any, are local and short term and have no significant impact either at the individual or population level or compromise the conservation objectives of the site. Acoustic impacts from activities associated with the ABR project are the main areas of potential concern; including dredging, piling and dumping. Although the site is important for harbour porpoise it should be remembered that porpoise have not been sighted within the Alexandra Basin or approaches and in fact porpoise records in the outer Dublin Bay are low compared to adjacent areas (Berrow and O’Brien 2014).

3.1.9 Physical disturbance is also extremely unlikely providing they do not approach the immediate vicinity of operations and have the opportunity to leave the affected area. Appropriate mitigation measures to minimise acoustic and other disturbance to cetaceans are required and set out in Section 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS (see also Section 3.1.4. above). These measures include:

• a trained and experienced Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) should be in place during dredging to implement NPWS Recommendations. • these guidelines require an exclusion zone of 500m to be clear of marine mammals prior to dredging

• Static Acoustic Monitoring (SAM) using CPODs will be carried out post-construction to provide baseline data on habitat use by harbour porpoise, during construction and for a period of two years post-construction to determine that no long term disturbance has occurred.

Consequently, the dredging of the channel within the harbour and bay will not cause detectable impacts on cetaceans at the population level nor individual level if these guidelines are implemented.

3.1.10 Sediment plumes may present local habitat disturbance to marine mammals foraging in the area. The dredging of material, particularly of fine sand and silt, will result in the removal of macroinvertebrate infauna within the surface sediments of the channel areas being dredged as well as a sizeable portion of the mobile epifauna, including juvenile fish, within the dredge footprint and immediate adjacent areas (Ger Morgan Witness statement). Seals especially are curious and will often approach dredging activities for foraging opportunities. However, this effect will not be significant if the mitigation guidelines are followed (see Section 3.1.4. above, and Section 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS). These include ensuring an area of up to 500m is clear of marine mammals prior to starting dredging activity.

3.1.11 The dredged material will be transported to the dump site on Burford Bank, which is in an open body of water approximately 10km from Alexandra Basin West and 3km outside Dublin Bay in about 20m water depth. The dredge spoil disposal site to the west of the Burford Bank overlaps to a limited extent with the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC, with harbour porpoise listed as a qualifying interest for that designated site. Therefore, the dumping of large quantities of dredged material has the potential to cause negative effects on harbour porpoise.

3.1.12 Some of the dredge material within the Liffey Channel has been identified as being slight to moderately contaminated. Heavily contaminated dredge material identified within the port facility will be treated in situ and used as infill during construction works rather than being transported to the dump site. Therefore, any contamination outside of the works area will be negligible, if it occurs at all.

3.1.13 Dumping of dredged material will be mainly confined to the footprint of the disposal area (Ger Morgan Witness Statement). Recovery of the sediments will commence immediately and occur rapidly with full recovery at the site after the full six year campaign is completed. The dumping of dredged material will not cause any adverse effects on cetaceans or seals in the area, providing mitigation measures are in place but may affect local prey availability as small shoaling fish occur regularly in the diet of seals and porpoises could be affected locally. However, seals and harbour porpoise are highly mobile and concentrations of harbour porpoise at the dump site are low compared to adjacent areas (Berrow and O’Brien 2014), therefore any displacement resulting from possible impacts on available prey will be short-term and local, with fish returning to the area at the completion of dumping activity. The mitigation measures are set out in Section 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS (see also, Section 3.1.4, above) will minimise any potential impact of dumping on individual seals and harbour porpoise. It is expected that animals would habituate to vessels during dredging and dumping, and would return to foraging in the affected areas when operations area completed. However, given the volumes of material to be dumped, and the time-scale of these operations, mitigation measures to reduce and avoid the potential impact of dredging and dumping on harbour porpoise (and other marine mammals) are provided in Section 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS (see also, Section 3.1.4, above). These include:

• a trained and experienced Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) should be in place during dumping operations to implement NPWS Recommendations.

• these guidelines require an exclusion zone of 50m to be clear of marine mammals prior to dumping

• Static Acoustic Monitoring (SAM) using CPODs will be carried out post- construction to provide baseline data on habitat use by harbour porpoise, during construction and for a period of two years post-construction to determine that no long term disturbance has occurred.

3.1.14 Since the boundary of the cSAC for harbour porpoise is 4.5km from the dredge site, the likelihood of impacts of this activity on the conservation objectives of the site is neglieable (see Section 3.1.4, above and Section 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS). However, pile driving noise can potentially impact harbour porpoise closer to the construction site including their behaviour and communication. For example, Thomsen et al. (2006) provisionally defined a radius for the zone of behavioural response to pile-driving noise from offshore windfarms as up to at least 20km for harbour porpoises. More recent data indicate that porpoise could react to pile driving at received sound exposure levels of approximately 140 dB re μPa2s. Source levels of broadband sheet piling are typically around 206 dB re μPa2s. At 9 kHz this noise is also capable of masking strong dolphin vocalizations within 10-15km and weak vocalizations up to approximately 40km (David, 2006). These examples demonstrate the potential for impacts at a scale that overlaps with the cSAC and adjacent areas. Sound attenuation models carried out as part of this impact assessment indicate noise levels 500m upstream and downstream of piling in the Alexandra Basin will be at background levels. Considering the results of these trials and the potential for indirect impacts of pile driving and other industrial noise on cetaceans, in particular harbour porpoise, appropriate mitigation measures to minimise acoustic disturbance to cetaceans are set out in Section 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS (see also, Section 3.1.4, above). These measures include:

• a trained and experienced Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) should be in place during piling, dredging, dumping, and demolition operations to implement NPWS Recommendations.

• for piling activities, where the output peak sound pressure level (in water) exceeds 170 dB re: 1μPa @ 1m, a ramp-up procedure must be employed following the pre- start monitoring. Underwater acoustic energy output shall commence from a lower energy start-up and thereafter be allowed to gradually build up to the necessary maximum output over a period of 20-40 minutes. • these guidelines require an exclusion zone of 1000m to be clear of marine mammals prior to piling

4 Submissions and Responses

In preparing this witness statement, I have considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the appraisal of potential impacts of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project on marine mammals. I have addressed each submission or observation in turn below, before providing my response to the essential point being made.

5.1 Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAU)

4.1.1 Issue#1 – Mitigation measures to be applied

Submission:

The department has outlined the mitigation measures that should be applied, regarding marine mammals and anthropogenic noise.

Response:

The guidelines provided by the DAU are those proposed by the NPWS of the same department, all of which are recommended for the ABR project and can be found within Section 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS.

5.2 Donna Cooney

5.2.1 Issue#1 – Inadequate mitigation with respect to the impact(s) on harbour porpoise

Submission:

Ms. Cooney is concerned that the dumping ground, Burford Bank, is an area important to harbour porpoises, an animal protected under EC habitats directive (92/43/EEC).

Reference is made by Ms. Cooney to an extract from the summary provided in Section 5.2.5 of Volume 1 of the EIS, which details the potential risks to harbour porpoise:

• The physical injury or death of individuals resulting from collisions with operator vessels • Physical injury or death of individuals resulting from close-range exposure to pile driving noise • Hearing damage or disturbance/displacement as a result of piling or dredging noise • Consumption of contaminated prey items resulting from contaminants entering the food chain (this is only a problem where contaminated substrates are disturbed) • Temporary impact on marine mammals visibility should they intersect the sediment plume during the dumping of dredged material • Changes in prey availability due to local changes in benthic ecology caused by accumulation of dredge spoil on the seabed

The mitigation approach to address these potential risks is also questioned; specifically “The MMO will scan the area to ensure no marine mammals are in a pre-determined exclusion zone in the 30-minute period prior to operations” (see Section 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS, for further details) citing a concern that these are small animals and hard to see, especially if there are plumes from silt materials being dredged and dumped. Ms. Cooney concludes that, where porpoise are recorded, this information is passed to NPWS, which is not satisfactory.

Response:

The potential risks and potential impacts of the ABR project on harbour porpoise (as set out in Section 5.2.5 of Volume 1 of the EIS) are deemed to have very little likelihood of causing direct impacts on this species (or any other marine mammal) at the population level; therefore, the scale of effects are not considered significant. Impacts of sound pressure are not considered significant as the sound exposure levels will be at or below ambient noise levels at Burford Bank for dredging and piling activity. Mitigation measures, including real time passive acoustic monitoring, will reduce any potential impact to individual animals (Sections 5.2.8 & 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS), and it is concluded at Section 5.2.10 of Volume 1 of the EIS that “there will be no significant impacts of the proposed development on the Conservation Objectives of the Special Areas of Conservation in Dublin Bay of the neighbouring coastlines” as long as the strict mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS are followed.

The mitigation measures for marine mammals outlined in the report directly follow the recent guidelines from regulatory authorities, such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service (2014) and include the following relevant measures:

'A trained and experienced Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) should be put in place during piling, dredging, dumping, and demolition operations'. ' A qualified marine mammal observer (MMO) is a visual observer who has undergone formal marine mammal observation training (JNCC MMO training course or equivalent) and has a minimum of 6 weeks marine mammal survey experience at sea over a 3 year period. MMO’s for use in Ireland should have field experience in marine mammal monitoring in European waters including surveying/identifying harbour porpoise as the area is important for this species and they are difficult to visually detect’

'Noise-producing activities shall only commence in daylight hours where effective visual monitoring, as performed and determined by the MMO, has been achieved. Where effective visual monitoring is not possible, real-time passive acoustic monitoring will compliment visual methods to ensure the sound-producing activities will have no impact.

‘The MMO will keep a record of the monitoring using a ‘MMO form location and effort (coastal works)’ available from the National Parks and Wildlife Service and submit to the NPWS on completion of the works.’

A static acoustic monitoring (SAM) programme using CPODs will also be implemented to ensure any disturbance is temporary and activity returns to pre-constructions levels, if any decline is recorded. Four stations will be monitored including two at the dumping site on Burford Bank and two within Dublin Bay. These stations will be monitored pre-construction, during construction and for a minimum of two years post-construction in line with best international practice.

5.3 Peadar Farrell

5.3.2 Issue#1 – Location of dump site in Dublin Bay

Submission:

Mr. Farrell is also concerned that dumping at Burford Bank and suggests that “the animals that live there… will be substantially damaged”.

Response:

Dumping of dredge spoil at Burford Bank is not a new activity. The site itself was first licensed in 1996 after the previous dumpsite nearby closed, with average annual licensed tonnage is circa 550,000 m3 and dredging and dumping is to be confined to a six month period during October to March each year. Although this increase in dumping has the potential to negatively impact on the site, the proposed mitigation is considered sufficient to reduce any impacts to negligible.

5.3.2 Issue#2 – Marine mammals accumulating contaminants released from the sediment

Submission:

A general concern is expressed regarding the potential for individual animals to accumulate toxic materials within their bodies.

Response:

The heavily contaminated dredge material identified within the port facility will be dredged using curtain dredging, treated, and used as infill during construction works rather than being transported to the dump site. Therefore, in circumstances where the mitigation measures outlined in the application documentation are implemented, there will be no contamination outside of the works area and there will be no impact on marine mammals, which are not known to occur close to the site.

5.3.1 Issue#3 – Noise pollution

Submission:

The author is concerned that the “noise over a period of six years….would certainly empty Dublin Bay of…..dolphin and porpoise”.

Response:

The potential risks and potential impacts (cited by the author, and found in Section 5.2.5 of Volume 1 of the EIS) to harbour porpoise and dolphins are deemed to have little direct impacts on marine mammals at the population level; therefore, the scale of effects are not considered significant. Moreover, the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the impact to individual animals (Sections 5.2.8 & 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS), and it is concluded that “there will be no significant impacts of the proposed development on the Conservation Objectives of the Special Areas of Conservation in Dublin Bay of the neighbouring coastlines”, as long as the strict mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS are followed.

Recent measurement of actual piling operations and modelling of sound exposure levels created by piling within Dublin Port demonstrated that noise levels 500m upstream and downstream of piling in the Alexandra Basin will be at background levels. Moreover, sites at 3570m from the sound source were undetectable, all of which suggests rapid attenuation. Therefore, following the strict mitigation measures recommended in Section 5.2.10 of Volume 1 of the EIS), residual impacts on porpoise and dolphins will be negligible.

5.4. Sandymount and Merrion Residents Association [SAMRA]

5.4.1 Issue#1 – Inadequate mitigation with respect to the impact(s) on harbour porpoise, with reference to the EU Habitats Directive and the cSAC.

Submission:

In particular, SAMRA has concerns regarding noise, disturbance, a reduction in the species’ foraging area, possibility of separation of groups, fragmentation of habitat due to activities taking place in Dublin Bay and permanent loss of part of the habitat. More specifically, the submission cites one specific example from Section 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS, which covers mitigation measures such as ramp-up procedures and a 50 metre marine mammal exclusion zone around dredging vessels before each days work begins. Further, citing Section 5.2.7 of Volume 1 of the EIS, it is noted that Diederichs et al (2010) found that within a 600m zone, it took three times longer for harbour porpoises to return to an area after sand extraction than to an area where no such activity had occurred. Thus, SAMRA suggests that the mitigation measures recommended for the ARB are inadequate.

Response:

The studies referred to are likely to be site-specific and, whilst important for guidance, do not necessarily correlate to the conditions in Dublin Bay. In any event, it is important to note that Diederichs et al. (2010) found only short term avoidance of the vicinity of the dredging ship, and could only concluded that this was “possibly due to acoustic disturbance”. Furthermore, in comparison to three control sites, they found that there was no significant difference in the long-term use of the impact area by harbour porpoise, and there was no evidence to suggest that the area decreased in quality as a feeding habitat for porpoises. Therefore, following the strict mitigation measures recommend (Section 5.2.10 of Volume 1 of the EIS) impacts on porpoise will be negligible. To ensure that any disturbance is limited, a static acoustic monitoring programme will be implemented (including monitoring stations at Burford Bank) to demonstrate that porpoise activity levels are unaffected or return to pre-construction levels once activity has concluded.

5.4.2. Issue#2 Cumulative impacts with other proposed developments in the area.

Submission:

SAMRA is concerned about the cumulative impact of anthropogenic activity within the Dublin Bay area. This concern primarily focuses on the potential impact of the ABR project in conjunction with other proposals for various activities within the Dublin Bay area occurring at the same time. Response:

The cumulative effects of ABR project in relation to other projects in the area has been considered elsewhere but with regard to the potential impact on marine mammals, it is acknowledged that “piling and dredging within the basin at the same time would increase the potential impacts of sound exposure to marine mammals therefore simultaneous dredging, demolition and piling should not occur, or should be strictly limited in the basin to minimise risk” (Section 5.2.7 of Volume 1 of the EIS).

5.5. Irish Underwater Council

5.5.1 Issue#1 – IUC expresses concern regarding short and longer-term underwater noise from demolition, piling, dredging and disposal of the dredging spoil and subsequent increase of larger vessels within the Port. This submission makes reference to purported contraventions of the EU Habitats Directive and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, with respect to maintaining good environmental status (GES). It is suggested in the submission that, “human activities should occur at levels that do not adversely affect the harbour porpoise community at the site” and “proposed activities or operations should not introduce man-made energy at levels that could result in a significant negative impact on individuals and/or the community of harbour porpoise within the site. This referes to the aquatic habitats used by the species in addition to important natural behaviours during the species annual cycle”. It is also stated that the EIS and NIS for the ABR project “unequivocally demonstrates that underwater noise generated by the construction phase will have an adverse impact on harbour porpoise, harbour seal and grey seal”. Finally, IWC submits that modelling of background levels of underwater noise and models predicting future levels of noise is required in order to make an informed decision regarding the impact of construction activity on marine mammals.

Response

The potential risks and potential impacts of the ABR project on harbour porpoise (as set out in Section 5.2.5 of Volume 1 of the EIS) are deemed to have very little likelihood of causing direct impacts on this species (or any other marine mammal) at the population level; therefore, the scale of effects are not considered significant. Proposed mitigation measures will reduce the impact to individual animals (Sections 5.2.8 & 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS). Concerns about the impacts of noise on harbor porpoises are addressed in the modelling carried out as part of the EIS which states that “noise from piling has an impact confined to the basin ... and no piling noise is detectable at the North Bull Lighthouse or the outer Dublin Bay area” On this basis, it is concluded that “there will be no significant impacts of the proposed development on the Conservation Objectives of the Special Areas of Conservation in Dublin Bay of the neighbouring coastlines” (Section 5.2.10 of Volume 1 of the EIS) as long as the strict mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.2.9 of Volume 1 of the EIS are followed. This conclusion is upheld in the RFI following the sound propagation models.

5.5.1 Issue#2 – The proposed time scale, with reference to the MMO protocol

Submission:

The submission states that: “A trained and experienced MMO should be present during piling, dredging, dumping and demolition operations. The MMO will undertake a visual survey to ensure no marine mammals are in the vicinity of the activity. Because this is a visual survey, all operations must be undertaken in daylight hours with wind speeds of Beaufort Force 3 or less”. The ultimate point being that both time and the environment will limit the ability for the activity to proceed and thus the time frame is optimistic.

Response:

With reference to the MMO protocol only, once operations are underway the visual scans are no longer required; therefore, it is possible for activity to continue at nighttime and if environmental conditions deteriorate. These mitigation measures directly follow the recent guidelines from the regulatory authorities, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (2014) and include the following relevant measures:

• If there is a break in piling activity for a period greater than 30 minutes then all preactivity monitoring measures and ramp-up (where this is possible) should recommence as for start- up. Therefore, so long as breaks in noise generating activities do not exceed 30 minutes, then it is possible for activities to continue during nighttime and during sea states greater than Beaufort Force 3.

• provision of real time passive acoustic monitoring will compliment visual mitigation methods to ensure no harbor porpoise or other odontocetes and seals are within the mitigation zone during darkness or high sea-states when visual methods are ineffective.

• Once normal operations commence (including appropriate ramp-up procedures), there is no requirement to halt or discontinue the activity at night-time, nor if weather or visibility conditions deteriorate, nor if marine mammals occur within a radial distance of the sound source that is 500m for dredging and demolition works, and 1000m for piling activities.

5 Conclusion

There is potential for the proposed construction of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment project to negatively impact on marine mammals, through disturbance, including acoustic, of piling, dredging and dumping activities.

The principal activities of concern are those potential impacts which may arise from demolition and piling. Sound pressure levels from this activity can potentially negatively impact on marine mammals at great distances from the sound source. However, actual site-specific measurements have been carried out of piling activities within Dublin Port by McKeown (2014), and modelling of the potential acoustic impact of piling during this project has also been carried out on the basis of the measurements taken (and assuming the models are correct), then noise from piling noise levels 500m upstream and downstream of piling in the Alexandra Basin will be at background levels. Indeed, it is notable that sound pressure levels at monitoring sites 3570m from the source were below ambient noise levels and thus undetectable. In those circumstances, there will be no impact on marine mammals at or adjacent to the proposed activities and no impaxct on the Conservation objectives of the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC, where harbour porpoise is listed as a qualifying interest

In addition, Implementation of the NPWS (2014) Guidelines, as well as additional mitigation measures including acoustic monitoring, will ensure that potential negative impacts are not significant at the population or individual level for any marine mammals within Dublin Bay.

The principal provisions of the Marine Mammals Impact Assessment which has been appended to the NIS include:

• a trained and experienced Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) should be in place during piling, dredging, dumping, and demolition operations to implement NPWS Recommendations.

• for piling activities a ramp-up procedure should be employed following the pre-start monitoring, so underwater acoustic energy will gradually build up to the necessary maximum output over a period of 20-40 minutes

• for piling activities an exclusion zone of 1000m to be clear of marine mammals prior to piling being commenced

• for dredging activities an exclusion zone of 500m to be clear of marine mammals prior to dredged being commenced

• an exclusion zone of 50m to be clear of marine mammals prior to dumping of dredged spoil

Additional mitigation measures now proposed include passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) and static acoustic monitoring (SAM)

Real-time passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) will be used to compliment visual mitigation methods, as suggested as a further recommendation by NPWS (2014). This will be achieved through by deploying a system called LIDO (www.listentothedeep.com) which can acquire high and low frequency data and stream these data ashore through the internet. This will allow for real time monitoring of harbour porpoises and other odontocetes (bottlenose dolphins) within a range of 250 – 800m and will also detect mid and low frequency seal vocalisations during both day and night-time and in all weather conditions. Two to three hydrophone systems should achieve monitoring of the minimum 1000m exclusion zone.

It is also proposed to establish a static acoustic monitoring (SAM) programme using CPODS. This will provide a large datasets to enable changes in activity to be identified at high resolutions. Four stations will be monitored including two at the dumping site on Burford Bank and two within Dublin Bay. These stations will be monitored pre-construction, during construction and for a minimum of two years post- construction in line with best international practice.

It is concluded that, with full implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.2.9 of the EIS, there will be no significant impacts from proposed ABR project on marine mammals, including harbour porpoise, within Dublin Bay. Specifically, in relation to the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC and other designated sites, the proposed ABR project will not have any adverse effects on the conservation objectives of those candidate Special Areas of Conservation in Dublin Bay or the neighbouring coastlines. I therefore conclude that based on the information provided and from my own experience there are, therefore, no significant impacts identified that would have the potential to give rise to adverse effects on the integrity of any designated area.

6 References

Berrow, S.D. and O’Brien, J. (2013). Harbour porpoise SAC survey 2013. Report to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Irish Whale and Dolphin Group. pp. 37.

Berrow, S.Hickey, R., O’Connor, I. and McGrath, D. (2014) Density estimates of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) at eight coastal sites in Ireland. Biology and Environment 114B (1), 19-34.

David, J.A. (2006), Likely sensitivity of bottlenose dolphins to pile-driving noise. Water and Environment Journal 20: 48–54.

Diederichs, A., Brandt, M. and Nehls, G. (2010) Does sand extraction near Sylt affect harbour porpoises? Wadden Sea Ecosystem, 1999-2003. EC. 2010. Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters. Brussels: European Commission.

Kastelein, R. et al. (2011) Temporary hearing threshold shifts and recovery in a harbor porpoise and two harbour seals after exposure to continuous noise and playbacks of pile driving sounds. Part of the Shortlist Masterplan Wind ‘Monitoring the Ecological Impact of Offshore Wind Farms on the Dutch Continental Shelf’. SEAMARCO ref: 2011/01.

McKeown, M. (2014) Measurements of Pile driving Noise. Alexandra Basin Dublin Port. Technical Report for RPS, August 2014.

NPWS (2014) Guidance document for minimising the acoustic impact of man-made sound sources on marine mammals. National Parks and Wildlife Service. January 2014..

Thomsen, F., Lüdemann, K., Kafemann, R., Piper, W. (2006) Effects of offshore windfarm noise on marine mammals and fish biota. Hamburg, Germany on behalf of COWRIE Ltd., Newbury, UK.

Richardson, W.J., Greene Jr., C.R., Malme, C.I., Thomson, D.H. (1995) Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego.

STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N .PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

WITNESS STATEMENT OF MR. DONAL DOYLE

CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS TREATMENT AND INFILLING

1 Qualifications and Experience

1.1 I am Donal Doyle and I hold a Bachelor of Engineering degree in Civil Engineering from Queens University, Belfast, and have 19 years experience in civil engineering and waste management.

1.2 My professional affiliations include:  Member of Engineers Ireland;

 Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers; and

 Member of the Chartered Institution of Waste Management

1.3 I have worked on, or managed, a large number of projects dealing with the management of waste material. These have included the preparation of applications to the EPA for statutory consents in relation to landfill developments, undertaking detailed designs for landfills and contract administration of landfill development works, in particular.

2 Involvement in the ABR Project

2.1 I was the author of Section 11.2.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS relating to the Treatment and Filling of Contaminated Sediments, with support from my colleague Angela McGinley (Environmental Scientist).

2.2 Prior to the preparation of the EIS, I examined published literature as to the manner in which contaminated sediments have been treated elsewhere in the world and considered how this may be applied to the project at Alexandra Basin before presenting the proposals in the EIS.

3 Treatment and Filling of Contaminated Sediments

3.1 As set out in detail in Section 11.2.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS, the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment project includes dredging of legacy contaminated sediments from within Alexandra Basin, the treatment of those sediments and subsequent filling to Berths 52/53 and Graving Dock Nr 2.

3.2 A number of options for dealing with the contaminated sediments were set out in Appendix 11 of Volume 2 of the EIS.

3.3 Best practice industry techniques will be used to treat the contaminated material yielded from the dredging of the Alexandra Basin. Several techniques have been considered in Appendix 11 of Volume 2 of the EIS. These techniques include Stabilisation/Solidification [S/S], which is a remediation technology that reduces the mobility of contaminants. Immobilisation is achieved by reaction of contaminants with reagents to promote sorption, precipitation or incorporation into crystal lattices, and/or by physically encapsulating the contaminants.

3.4 This method produces a high strength monolith-like product that physically reduces the mobility and chemically binds contaminants to the produced matrix. The treated mass can then be recovered/recycled to serve as infill material or for beneficial use.

3.5 Details of projects of similar size and levels of contamination are presented in Appendix 11 of Volume 2 of the EIS. The site where data was most readily available was the Port of Gävle, Sweden (2012/2013) - the project involved the deepening and widening of the fairway to the port and beneficial use of the dredged contaminated sediments for the new port areas by treating the sediments by the S/S method hence reducing the use of natural resources. The binder comprised cement, granulated blast furnace slag and fly ash (150 kg/m3) and were mixed into the dredged material. Approximately 550,000 m3 of contaminated sediments (PCB, PAH, TBT and metals) was treated. A comparison of metals with Dublin port is provided in Graph 1 below.

Graph 1 Comparison between Dublin Port and Port of Gävle Contamination levels

3.6 The treatment and recovery of the dredging spoil on site will take place in accordance with the conditions of an Industrial Emissions Licence to be obtained from the EPA, and this application will be accompanied by the EIS.

3.7 Following treatment, the material will be placed in Graving Dock Nr.2 and Berth 52/53 and the adjoining area to the east as a recovery activity, replacing the need to use virgin materials that would otherwise be required for the proposed development in these locations.

3.8 Key considerations in the Industrial Emissions Licence application will be the emissions from the proposed activity, which will include evaluation of the potential emissions to surface waters. As part of the initial analysis of the design mixes, the leachability from the design mixes has been assessed against the Environmental Quality Standards set out in the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) regulations 2009.

3.9 The stabilisation mix used in the dredged treatment has been designed specifically for the sediment at Alexandra Basin. Typical binder quantity values vary from 100 kg/m3 up to 250 kg/m3. The binder can consist of a single substance or be a mixture of various substances.

3.10 A laboratory-based treatability study has been commenced on a composite sample of dredged material. A total of 9 different base-mixes were used, incorporating various

combinations of Ordinary Portland cement (OPC), quicklime and pozzolanic materials, which included pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and granulated ground blast furnace slag (GGBS). These different combinations of additives and binding agents provide specific bonding and fixation mechanisms, which are beneficial in reducing the leachability of many of the contaminants present in soils and sediments. All addition rates to soils were kept relatively constant to minimise volume increase, at about 18% by weight:- Mix 1 20% OPC – 80% PFA Mix 2 50% OPC – 50% PFA Mix 3 28% OPC – 72% PFA Mix 4 20% OPC – 80% GGBS Mix 5 50% OPC – 50% GGBS Mix 6 28% OPC – 50% GGBS Mix 7 66% OPC – 34% PFA Mix 8 66% OPC – 34% GGBS Mix 9 66% OPC – 34% Quicklime

3.11 The following leaching tests were performed on the treated samples following curing:-  Batch Leachate testing in accordance with BS EN 12457 Part 2:2002 with a liquid to solids ratio of 10:1, which represents a worst case environmental stress scenario, as the sample particle size is reduced as part of the test.  Monolithic Tank Test in accordance with NEN 7375:2004 - represent a less aggressive leaching environment, as there is no reduction in the particle size prior to testing, with the sample remaining in its monolithic form, with leaching generally occurring through diffusion.

3.12 The results of batch testing carried on the sediment composite indicate that there is generally a very low level of leaching across the range of determinants from the original material.

3.13 There is a very good level of reduction from the baseline concentrations evident for Tributyltin (TBT), for all of the mix formulations. The average reduction in TBT leaching levels was 99.4% across all mixes.

3.14 Many of the parameters tested for were below the detection limits available. Copper, TBT, Zinc, Arsenic, Nickel and Lead were detected and results from the batching leachate testing are provided below in Graphs 2 to 8. These are selected as they are then compared again the relevant standard from the relevant Environmental Quality Standard from the European Communities Environmental Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations 2009.

3.15 The Industrial Emissions Licence application will include detailed technical analysis of the emissions from the treatment and recovery process on site and any subsequent licence would contain leaching limit values for the treated material to meet before it can be filled to Berths 52/52 and Graving Dock Nr.2.

Graph 2 Results from Leaching Batch Test Results - Copper

Graph 3 Results from Leaching Batch Test Results - Zinc

Graph 4 Results from Leaching Batch Test Results - TBT

Graph 5 Results from Leaching Batch Test Results - Arsenic1

1 Arsenic Levels in Mix 4 were below the detection limit of 0.4μg/l 8

Graph 6 Results from Leaching Batch Test Results - Nickel

Graph 7 Results from Leaching Batch Test Results - Lead2

2 Lead Levels in Mixes 2-9 were below the detection limit of 1.0μg/l 9

Graph 8 Results from Leaching Batch Test Results - Cadmium3

3.16 Further environmental and geotechnical tests on these mixes are ongoing. Ultimately a field test will be undertaken prior to the commencement of any works on site in order to confirm the results of the batch testing carried out to date. Chemical, physical as well as geomechanical properties of the stabilised material largely depend on the type and quantity of binder used.

3.17 The addition of stabilisation/solidification additives to the dredged material would equate to a 20% increase in the volume of contaminated dredge spoil, i.e., 470,000 m3 of contaminated dredge spoil will equate to 564,000 m3 of infill after stabilisation/solidification.

3.18 Dredging and treatment will be carried out at a rate of approximately 1,000 m3 per day. The sediment handling process is estimated to last approximately 18 months based on the estimated volume to be treated of 470,000 m3 and will be undertaken all year round.

3.19 The contaminated dredged material will be screened to remove a negligible quantity of extraneous material unsuitable for treatment (e.g. debris). This can be undertaken on the barge by raking or by feeding the material onto a screen. This material will be disposed of at an appropriately licensed landfill. The movement of traffic associated

3 Cadmium Levels in all mixes were below the detection limit of 0.08μg/l 10

with this activity has been incorporated in the construction traffic movements as part of Section 8.8 of Volume 1 of the EIS.

3.20 Separation techniques may be applied to separate dredge material into fines, sand and gravel in order to separate contaminated fine particles from uncontaminated sediments. Based on the particle size analysis undertaken to date, as presented in Appendix 11 of Volume 2 of the EIS it would appear that some oversized material is present in the material and hence would require separation. Uncontaminated sediment may be used as fill material without the requirement for further treatment. The need for dewatering will be determined by the water requirements of the treatment technology and the solids content of the sediments following removal, transport and screening and separation pre-treatment.

3.21 Reducing the moisture content reduces the volume to be treated and the volume of additives that may be required for the S/S process.

3.22 During the construction phase of the proposed development, the contractor engaged by the developer will be required to manage any contaminated water arising from the sediment handling process. A water treatment plant will comprise a single lane treatment process to remove suspended solids, product and contaminants (if present) from the waste water produced from the dredging, dewatering and treatment processes. Options for dewatering are outlined Appendix 11 of Volume 2 of the EIS. The volume of water to be treated will be determined by the amount of water to be removed prior to the treatment process.

3.23 The waste water will be pumped from the treatment area into a settlement holding tank/lagoon. From the tank/ lagoon water will be pumped through a separator to prevent suspended solids and oil from entering the waste water treatment process. From the separator the remaining water will be pumped through a sand filter to remove further suspended solids and activated carbon vessel to remove the organic contaminants if required before discharged via a designated discharge point in accordance with the appropriate consents.

3.24 Sampling points will be included within the pipe work system to allow for the collection of water samples. The proposed sampling and testing schedule will be based on flow and effluent quality prior to discharge. The sand filter and activated carbon will be replaced as required.

3.25 The sediment handling process will be undertaken in a batching plant in the treatment area as shown on planning drawing IBM0498-GA-017. An area of approximately 50m x 100m would be required to facilitate the sediment handling process of approximately 1,000 m3 of contaminated dredge material per day.

3.26 The treated contaminated dredged material will be recovered for use as infill for Graving Dock Nr.2 and Berth 52/53 as shown on planning drawings IBM0498-GA- 015 and IBM0498-GA-017 and as outlined in the Draft High Level Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

3.27 Prior to the filling of Berth 52/53 basin, a cellular cofferdam will be constructed to close off Berth 52/53 from the main navigation channel. This will eliminate surface water flows from the main estuary into the berths. 11

3.28 An ongoing monitoring programme will be undertaken prior, during and post the recovery operation (surface water quality in harbour, monitoring of pore water in the construction, toxicity test on S/S samples, sediment samples from the harbour, water levels and groundwater).

4 Submissions and Responses In preparing this witness statement, I have considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the appraisal of the treatment and filling of contaminated sediments at Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project. I have addressed each submission or observation in turn below, before providing my response to the essential point being made.

4.1 Peadar Farrell, Raheny Resident In the submission on the application made by Peadar Farrell, he makes a number of statements in relation to the disposal of contaminated dredged material.

4.2 Issue#1 – Sediments within Alexandra Basin Submission:

It is suggested that the material which has been identified as unsuitable for disposal at sea by the Marine Institute will be dumped 'in the reclaimed Sea area and Dublin Bay'. The submission goes on to refer to the volume of material as 6,300,000 m3.

Response:

As identified in Section 11.2.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS, the volume of dredged material to be treated by stabilisation/solidification is 470,000m3. The remainder of the material is considered suitable for disposal at sea.

Source Location Material Status Approx Volume (m3) Alexandra Basin Heavily Contaminated 470,000 Navigation Channel Slightly Contaminated 500,000 Navigation Channel Uncontaminated 5,400,000

4.3 Issue#2 – Disposal at Sea of Stabilised/Solidified material Submission:

It is suggested that the disposal at sea will 'undo the process' of stabilisation/solidification.

Response:

The dredged material to be treated by stabilisation/solidification is to be only filled to Berths 52/53 and Graving Dock Nr 2. There will be no disposal at sea of stabilised/solidified material.

4.4 Issue#3 – Regulation of Process Submission:

The submission suggests that there will be no one to 'check any of the proposed processes or nobody to appeal to if we find that they do not comply with any conditions set out by An Bord Pleanala'. The submission goes on to question why 'the handling of this contaminated material does not need a pollution prevention and control licence'.

Response:

As identified in Section 11.2.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS, the treatment and recovery of the dredging spoil on site will take place in accordance with the conditions of an Industrial Emissions Licence to be obtained from the EPA. As such the licence will set out operational constraints for the works and these will the regulated by the EPA.

4.5 Issue#4 – Alternative Treatment Options for moderately polluted sediments Submission:

It has been submitted that DPC should consider alternate treatment options for moderately polluted sediments from the section of the Liffey channel located adjacent to the Alexandra Basin and provide details of a monitoring program that should be carried out to identify such sediments prior to dredging.

Response:

Consultations were undertaken with the Marine Institute regarding the assessment of the suitability of sediments from Alexandra Basin West, the Liffey Channel and fairway for disposal at sea as part of the ABR project. In accordance with its current Dumping at Sea Permit (ref: S0004-01 issued on 28th July 2011 for a 6-year maintenance dredging campaign), DPC is permitted to dredge contaminated sediments from the navigation channel, and dispose of these sediments subject to specific conditions (capping of contaminated material at the dump site with a 0.5m thick layer of clean coarse uncontaminated material yielded from the dredging campaign). 14

Given the large volume of slightly/moderately contaminated material, the cost associated with landfilling and /or export would be prohibitive and the energy consumption associated with exporting the material would be significantly greater than the sea disposal option proposed in the EIS. In terms of bringing material onto land for recovery, the capacity within Graving Dock Nr. 2 and Berth 52/53 is limited and will be largely used by the dredging from Alexandra Basin (due to bulking from the placement of additives in solidification/stabilisation). Hence, there is no further capacity at these locations to receive the Slight/Moderately contaminated material.

Based on the above analysis, the dumping at sea and overlain with the dredged gravels is considered the most appropriate method for dealing with this material. Disposal of this dredged material to the licensed disposal site will require an application for a Dumping at Sea permit from the EPA.

5 Conclusion

5.1 In summary, due consideration was given to researching the techniques for treating contaminated sediments from the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project.

5.2 The type and amount of binder to be used has been considered by way of initial laboratory tests on 9 potential mixes. This included various combinations of Ordinary Portland cement (OPC), quicklime and pozzolanic materials, which included pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and granulated ground blast furnace slag (GGBS). These different combinations of additives and binding agents provide specific bonding and fixation mechanisms, which are beneficial in reducing the leachability of many of the contaminants present in soils and sediments. The additives used are provided in Section 3.10 of this statement.

5.3 Preliminary test results indicate that the contaminated dredging from Alexandra Basin is suitable for the stabilisation and solidification process for recovery by infilling at Berths 52/53 and Graving Dock Nr.2. Further testing is currently ongoing to fine tune the type of appropriate binder to be used in the project.

5.4 Leaching and diffusion tests on the stabilised material will be compared to leachate limit values set out in an Industrial Emissions Licence to ensure that leaching of contaminants from the S/S treated sediment will not cause environmental pollution. The contaminants in the dredged sediments will be bound to a low-leaching state and will not add to the pollution load on existing water quality in the harbour. Further information in this regard will be included in the Industrial Emissions Licence application to the EPA, which application will be accompanied by an EIS.

5.5 Finally, the mitigation measures proposed will ensure that the proposed development will not prevent Dublin Bay coastal water body from achieving its objectives under the Water Framework Directive.

STRATEGIC INFRASRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N .PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DR. NIALL BRADY

CULTURAL HERITAGE

1 Qualifications and Experience

1.1.1 I am Dr Niall Brady, FSA. I hold a Bachelor of Arts degree in Archaeology and Geography, and a Master’s Degree in Archaeology from UCD (1983, 1986), and a PhD in Medieval Studies from Cornell University, USA (1996). I have been Visiting Assistant Professor in Medieval History at Trinity College, Hartford, and lecturer in Underwater Archaeology at Shoals Marine Laboratory, New Hampshire (1992-97). Since returning to Ireland in 1997, I have been project director of the Discovery Programme’s Medieval Rural Settlement Project (2002-10). I have been senior archaeologist with Valerie J Keeley Ltd, and I am founding director of the Archaeological Diving Company Ltd. I am the national representative for Ireland on the Ruralia committee, a European network of archaeologists concerned with the development of rural landscape. I am honorary Newsletter Editor for the Society for Medieval Archaeology.I have more than 20 years’ experience of marine archaeology, where I have been involved in both research and consultancy. I have worked on and managed a wide range of marine and underwater development projects around Ireland, including work in Dublin Port, the Port of Cork, Greystones Harbour, Greenore, Foynes Harbour and Belfast Harbour.

2 Involvement in the Project

2.1.1 I am the principal author of section 12 of the EIS, Cultural Heritage, which was submitted as part of the application for permission to An Bord Pleanála on 6 March 2014.

2.1.2 I have carried out the desk-based appraisal and site inspections for this project. I have managed the archaeological aspects of the marine geophysical survey, and I have interpreted that data. I have coordinated and participated in the diver-truthing of the marine geophysical anomalies observed.

3 Conclusions of the Cultural Heritage Appraisal

3.1.1 The cultural heritage appraisal set out in the EIS identifies and records the location, nature, and dimensions of any archaeological and architectural features, fabric or artefacts that may be impacted by the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project. The evaluation in the EIS includes an examination of existing sources and the acquisition of new data arising from site inspections and surveys. Walkover surveys of the terrestrial elements were carried out, along with comprehensive marine geophysical survey and archaeological dive inspections licensed by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. The appraisal gauges the degree of predicted impact, and includes detailed recommendations for the mitigation of any archaeology present within the development area..

3.1.2 As set out in the EIS volume 1, section 12.2 (pages 12-7 to 12-25), the receiving environment is informed by historic cartographic information, which conveys the consistent process of development since the 1600s. Many of the hydrographers whose work features in the maps and charts were commissioned to assist in developing measures to improve navigation along the Liffey. Records that deal with the dredging of the Approach Channel extend back to 1800. Since then the channel has been deepened by more than 5.8m.

3.1.3 The area of the proposed development remained undeveloped from a terrestrial perspective until the 19th century, when the deep-water harbour of Alexandra Basin was constructed to facilitate growth and development within the port. The contribution of Bindon Blood Stoney (who was Chief Engineer to the Dublin Port and Docks Board, 1852-1898) is seen in many features across the Port area, and North Quay Extension is one location where he used an innovative and cost-effective engineering design of pre-cast cement and stone foundation blocks to support the overlying quay.

3.1.4 Dublin Bay and the approaches to Dublin Port are considered to be a seascape that retains very high archaeological potential (slide: EIS volume 2 figure 12.10). The shallow sandy reaches of the Bay have proved hazardous to shipping, and during the later medieval period were considered problematic enough to limit access of deep- water craft to the city’s quays. The Dublin Bar, which forms across the entrance to the harbour, was a principal concern for channel improvement. The number of recorded shipwrecking events associated with Dublin Bay area and the approaches to the Port approximates to 600, of which almost 300 are associated with Dublin Bar. The number of known wreck sites is much smaller. There are five instances of charted possible wreck locations that occur within the area of the proposed ABR project (EIS volume 2, Figure 12.10, page 374). One location is located within Alexandra Basin West, and refers to a poorly defined anomaly that was observed during seabed surveys in a location that has since been buried by infill beside the Lead-in jetty. The remaining four sites are located close together at the south-eastern extent of the dredge area. All four sites are described in a similar manner from early seabed surveys carried out by the UK Hydrographic Survey office, as being 3m long, 3m wide and standing 3m above the seabed.

3.1.5 Licensed archaeological work completed to date helps to confirm aspects of the Port’s development that are indicated in the cartographic and historical records. It also demonstrates the archaeological potential that lies in those parts of the bay that have not been disturbed previously by dredging.

3.1.6 Dublin Port commissioned new work to inform the archaeological potential within the ABR area. As set out in the EIS volume 1 section 12.2.6, pages 12-25 to 12-26, this work comprised site investigations consisting of boreholes which were carried out on the quays. The boreholes have revealed a sequence of information that confirms aspects of the constructions used in the building up of the quays. No issues or material of archaeological concern were noted.

3.1.7 A terrestrial walkover survey of the quay areas has been conducted in order to better understand the quay areas at the present time (EIS volume 1 section 12.3, pages 12- 27 to 12-28).

3.1.8 An extensive and comprehensive marine geophysical survey of the Approach Channel was carried out in June-July 2013 (EIS volume 1 section 12.4, pages 12-28 to 12-39). The combination of side-scan sonar, magnetometry and sub-bottom profile survey has provided a robust dataset with which to detect anomalies on the seabed and within its sedimentary levels. The survey grid is based on very close line-spacing (20m intervals), to maximise information gain.

3.1.9 Some 120 side-scan sonar anomalies were detected. There are no clearly or obviously defined anomalies indicative of shipwreck. There are no boat-shaped features lying on the seabed, and there are no obvious composite features indicative of areas of timber-framing suggestive of a ship’s structure.

3.1.10 Magnetometry recorded small-scale variations through much of the survey area. The survey highlighted clearly the line of the Cross-Bay sewer pipeline that crosses beneath the Approach Channel between Buoys 5 and 6 (EIS volume 2, Figure 12.25, page 389). There was however little correspondence with the distribution of side- scan sonar anomalies, indicating that the magnetic anomalies are buried. 3.1.11 The sub-bottom profile survey recorded a small number of reflectors that cannot be explained as natural geological features. In no instance does any reflector present unqualified evidence of a wreck site or other significant archaeological feature.

3.1.12 The marine geophysical survey data acquired at the charted locations of recorded wreckage within the survey area did not record any features indicative of wreckage at these sites.

3.1.13 As set out in the EIS volume 1, section 12.5, pages 12-39 to 12-40, a programme of archaeological underwater inspection survey has been carried out under licence from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht in 2013 and 2014. The results of the work completed in 2013 are presented in the EIS. The results of the additional work completed in 2014 are being presented as an appendix to this witness statement (ie, Dive Inspections, 13D019) and provide information which supplements the content of the relevant section of the EIS. This most recent report was submitted to, and has been reviewed and considered by, the DAHG, whose observations are included in its submission of 24/09/2014 (reference SID-2014-DC_06), which is addressed below in section 5.3. The report repeats the details that inform the EIS chapter 12, and highlights the additional factual information. The factual information is presented as Appendices 1 and 2 in the 2014 report, which update Appendices 12.4 and 12.5 of the EIS respectively (volume 2). To facilitate comparison, the additional factual information is colour-coded.

Thus, a total of 159 individual dives have taken place between 2013 and 2014, representing a comprehensive and robust inspection process (slide Figure Dive report 13D019 Figure 12.41). In addition to inspecting the 120 side-scan sonar anomalies, the work extended to include two sub-bottom profile locations; the area of the proposed breakwater works at Poolbeg Marina; the location of Poolbeg Lighthouse; and four different underwater locations on the North Quay Extension.

In six instances, loose ship’s timbers were observed on the seabed but these do not represent in situ shipwreck contexts and are considered to represent mobile artefacts that have become un-associated from their original contexts.

In one instance (anomaly 131_1), a metal piece appears to be the remains of moorings for a temporary pilot station.

The four charted wrecksite locations that are accessible within the development area were inspected. Some debris was identified at one of the locations (W1553).

Some timbers were observed at one location beside Poolbeg Lighthouse.

The conclusion is that over the greater extent of the development area there is little indication of significant archaeological remains lying exposed on the seabed. The observations confirm the assumptions presented in the EIS. As indicated in section 5.3 of this witness statement, the mitigations remain substantially the same as presented in the EIS.

4 Cumulative impacts

4.1.1 Cumulative impacts of the following projects have been considered from the perspective of Cultural Heritage: Ringsend wastewater treatment plant extension and associated 9km long sea outfall; Poolbeg Waste to Energy Plant; Dublin Array (offshore wind farm); Eastern Bypass.

4.1.2 The Ringsend wastewater extension runs parallel with the dredging works proposed for the ABR project. ADCO has reviewed that data-set and absorbed its findings where necessary. The Ringsend project has been cancelled, and there is no associated impact with the ABR project.

4.1.3 ADCO carried out the underwater archaeological assessment for the Poolbeg Waste to Energy Plant project, which will be confined to an area that lies outside the ABR project area. There is no associated impact with the ABR project.

4.1.4 The Dublin Array project is considering a location on the Kish and Bray Banks, which lies to the south of the ABR project area and consequently there will be no associated impact.

4.1.5 The ABR Project has been designed following consultations with the statutory authorities to be compatible with the indicative route for the Eastern Bypass project identified by Dublin City Council in its City Development Plan. From a cultural heritage perspective, the Bypass project should have regard for the cultural heritage assets that lie within the Port Estate.

5 Submissions and Responses

In preparing this witness statement, I have considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the appraisal of potential cultural heritage impacts undertaken in respect of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project. I have addressed each submission or observation in turn below, before providing my response to the essential point being made.

5.1 Dublin City Council

In its submission on the application, Dublin City Council recognises the strategic importance of the port and its capacity to continue to fulfil its role, and that this must be balanced against the demolition of a section of the North Quay wall extension. The Council further recognises the element of heritage gain that the Port will provide, which includes the conservation and retention of granite slabs and mooring rings within the modified modern protective retaining in such a manner as to permit public viewing and access in a controlled manner; reinstatement of the character of the Graving Dock 1; provision of access to the lighthouse and an interpretive centre.

Response:

As Dublin City Council identifies, the heritage initiatives are directed at re-connecting the port and its activities with the city, and support the principles of promoting minimal intervention by retaining as much of the original structure as possible.

5.2 Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAU)

In its submission on the application, The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAU) recommends that all of the archaeological Mitigation Measures detailed in section 12.7 of the EIS are carried out in full. In addition, the DAU has sought a number of related areas requiring further consideration.

5.2.1 Issue#1 –

Submission:

The Department believes that the EIS does not assess the potential impact of the proposed breakwater works on known or potential archaeology at Poolbeg Marina, and recommends an underwater archaeological assessment be carried out of the area.

Response:

Licensed archaeological work was carried out at Poolbeg Marina, and this is referred to in the EIS, vol 2, Appendix 12.1 (licence number 04E740). That work included archaeological monitoring during dredging activity for the pontoon marina. No material of archaeological significance was revealed. The proposed breakwater footprint is included within the area covered by marine geophysical survey for the ABR project, and that data has been examined for archaeological purposes. A series of three side-scan sonar anomalies were observed over this area, and have been inspected. This work provided the opportunity to consider further the nature of the seabed in these locations. An underwater inspection was also completed along the extent of the footprint for the breakwater, and is described in the addendum report, section 3.4. No material of archaeological significance is apparent. Dredge scars from previous impacts, and modern moorings occur. Archaeological monitoring will be conducted during construction phase works, as part of the wider mitigation strategy for the project. 5.2.2 Issue#2 –

Submission:

The Department believes that the EIS does not assess the potential impact of the dredging works and rock armouring works on the recorded monument at Poolbeg Lighthouse, and recommends an underwater archaeological assessment be carried out of the area.

Response:

The location of Poolbeg Lighthouse is included within the area covered by marine geophysical survey for the ABR project, and that data has been examined for archaeological purposes. The data includes side-scan survey, magnetometry and sub-bottom profiling data. The inshore seaward perimeter of the lighthouse has been substantially reinforced by rock- armour and poured concrete. As set out in the EIS, volume 1, section 12.4.9, pages 12-32 to 12-34, a series of side-scan sonar anomalies were observed close to this area. The results of dive inspection in this area are presented in the addendum report, section 3.3. Underwater inspection was completed to the north, the east and the south sides of the Lighthouse. The inspections extended underwater from the Low Water Mark. A broad expanse of rock armour protection is evident that envelopes the lighthouse. Modern rock armour is placed at the Low Water mark. It reinforces existing rock armour, which inshore is made from large granite boulders over 1.5m in size. These give way offshore to smaller blocks that form a more level surface at a lower level. That surface terminates abruptly where it meets the sandy seabed on the south and east sides. On the north or channel side, the lower apron of rock armour protection terminates in a steep slope that is 3-4m deep.

Four timbers were observed, wedged against the base of the rock armour on the channel side, and appear to represent pieces of a skiff or small boat. The new stabilization works will extend a protective mattress seaward down the deepened dredge slope (EIS volume 1, section 4.4.1, page 4-16). There is a clear protocol for resolving archaeological material that may be impacted upon by construction projects, and this is highlighted in the EIS volume 1, section 12.7, pages 12-47 to 12-50). Archaeological investigation will be carried out in advance of the stabilization measures, to resolve the timbers. This will entail manual excavation underwater of a series of investigation trenches, to further expose the feature. If it is determined that the feature is unassociated; namely where the timbers are single unarticulated pieces, the elements will be recorded and recovered to the surface where they will be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the National Museum of Ireland. If the features are part of a more substantive structure, further excavation will take place to resolve the site fully by record and in accordance with the requirements of the National Museum of Ireland. In addition, archaeological monitoring will be conducted during construction phase works, as part of the wider mitigation strategy for the project.

5.2.3 Issue#3 –

Submission:

The Department submits that the EIS does not assess the potential secondary impacts that the proposed dredging works may have on the sediment transport regime upstream of the East Link Bridge, and recommends an underwater archaeological assessment be carried out of all areas which may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed works

Response:

This point has been addressed by my colleague Adrian Bell. For there to be a change in the sediment transport regime there has to be a change in either the tidal regime (water levels and currents) or a change in the bed sediments or both. The impact of the proposed dredging on the tidal regime is described in Section 9.6 of Volume 1 of the EIS and the impact of the dredging on the tidal levels due to extreme storm surges and river flows is shown in Section 10.5.5 of Volume 1 of the EIS. These details are also addressed in the RFI, Coastal Processes section. The nature of the bed sediments above the East Link Bridge will not be altered as a result of the proposed dredging downstream of the Bridge. Since there is no change in the tidal regime above the bridge there will be no increase in the sediment transport and erosion upstream of the East Link Bridge as a result of the proposed dredging.

In considering the Department’s submission, the project team has evaluated the impact upstream of dredging on the River Boyne in Drogheda, where archaeological sites do appear to be exposed subsequent to dredging activity. However, the dredging of the Boyne included the removal of the sandbar in that instance. This led to a reduction of the low tide levels at Drogheda and a consequent increase in the flow velocity up stream of the dredging due to the removal of the flow restriction of the bar. In the case of Dublin Port, the channel is already sufficiently deep at -7.8m CD that there is no restriction on the discharge of waters from the Liffey to the sea. The dredging of the channel in Dublin to -10m CD does not alter the tidal regime up stream of the East Link Bridge. It is therefore concluded that the dredging work for the ABR project will not have any secondary impacts upstream of the East Link Bridge, and therefore there will be no impact on cultural heritage assets upstream of the East Link Bridge.

5.2.4 Issue#4 –

Submission:

The Department requests a copy for review of the marine geophysical survey report completed by Hydrographic Surveys Ltd in 2013.

Response

The Department has been sent a copy of Hydrographic Surveys Ltd report, and a copy of this report is available for review at the oral hearing.

5.2.5 Issue#5 –

Submission:

In relation to North Quay Extension, the Department addresses architectural heritage in a series of two principal points. It is unclear to the Department how the exposed sections of Stoney's quay are to be supported, given that the river bed is to be dredged beneath them and that the new piles will apparently stop short of them on each side. The Department notes that in one of the old engravings it would appear that Stoney’s blocks were supported on timber piles and the Department questions, if this is the case, how these piles will continue to function given the dredging and engineering interventions proposed? The Department asks whether or not the Stoney blocks are faced with calp limestone as some accounts state?

Response

The Department’s concerns relating to the support of the North Quay Extension are addressed by my colleague, Dr. Michael Shaw.

Underwater inspection of the North Quay Extension has taken place in four separate locations as part of the inspection of geophysical anomalies. Two of the locations were on the basin side, and two on the channel side of the quay. There is no indication of any timber piles, and there is no indication that the concrete foundation blocks are faced with calp limestone in the locations inspected.

5.2.6 Issue#6 –

Submission:

The Department’s second point on architectural heritage welcomes the proposed restoration of No. 1 Graving Dock and Pump House but wonders why it is considered necessary to fill in the No. 2 Graving Dock. The Department also wonders if it would not be better to concentrate the historical interpretive elements of the project (with the exception of the relocated Lighthouse) in the one location, adjacent to No. 1 Graving Dock and Pump House. Such a direction would, in the Department’s view, obviate the need to construct a publically accessible facility at the East Link Bridge and thereby retain the quay wall in this location without the need for an installation on the quayside above it.

Response

These points are addressed by Christopher Southgate, conservation engineer.

5.3 Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAU)

In its submission on the Further Information received, and on the archaeological report submitted on completion of the underwater assessments (completed under licence from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht in 2013 and 2014 - reference licence 13D019), the DAU recommends that all of the archaeological Mitigation Measures as detailed in section 5 of the archaeological report be applied as conditions in the granting of planning permission.

Response

Dublin Port Company concurs with the recommendation. The measures are the same mitigations that are presented in the EIS volume 1, section 12.7, pages 12-47 to 12-50, with the addition of underwater investigations to be carried out at W01553 and beside Poolbeg Lighthouse.

6 Conclusions and Mitigations

Due consideration was given to significant cultural heritage constraints early in the project design. It is not expected that there will be any archaeological requirement associated with the proposed ABR works at Berths 52/53. However, extensive and robust mitigation measures are proposed to ensure the proper archaeological resolution of the ABR project prior to and during construction. These include:

6.2.2 Archaeological and architectural/industrial heritage pre-construction mitigation will include a metrically-accurate detailed survey of North Quay Extension above and below the waterline to confirm the historically recorded nature and design of the structure.

6.2.3 North Wall Lighthouse will be recorded in detail and a management plan devised to ensure its safe custody during construction and its safe repositioning post-construction.

6.2.4 Archaeological underwater inspection has assessed the nature and extent of anomalies and seabed features detected in the marine geophysical survey. Underwater investigation at the site of W01553 and at the site of the timbers identified off the Poolbeg Lighthouse will be carried out to resolve any further observations by record.

6.2.5 All activity associated with removing infill within Alexandra Basin will be archaeologically monitored, as will all demolition works and dredging works, to ensure that the appropriate protocols are observed in the event of uncovering material of archaeological interest during construction.

6.2.6 Archaeological investigation on the deck area of North Quay Extension, will be undertaken to confirm the presence and extent of features that relate to the early use of the quay, which may be buried beneath the current working surface. 6.2.7 Demolition works will be archaeologically monitored under licence from the DAHG, and the opportunities will be taken to record more fully the nature of the quay’s construction.

6.2.8 An exemplar of Bindon Blood Stoney’s foundation blocks will be recovered to examine the as-built block in terms of its construction method and materials, and to retain for public view as part of the Port’s cultural heritage assets.

6.2.9 Archaeological monitoring of all dredging activities conducted within the Approach Channel will be carried out, with the provision to resolve fully any material of archaeological significance observed at that point.

6.2.10 A series of archaeological management protocols will be put in place to facilitate these works.

STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N .PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

WITNESS STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER SOUTHGATE MACantab MIStructE FIEI C Eng REVISION C (OCT 2014)

CONSERVATION ENGINEER AND CONSERVATION CONSULTANT

Page 1

1 Qualifications and Experience

1.1 I am Christopher Southgate. I hold a Master of Arts Degree in Engineering from Cambridge University. In addition, I am a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institute of Structural Engineers and a Fellow of the Institute of Engineers of Ireland. I have 25 years experience of working almost exclusively on historic structures and was the first Engineer in Ireland to set up a specialist Conservation Engineering Consultancy. I am currently Managing Director of Southgate Associates.

1.2 Since the year 2000, I have considerable experience not only in the technical aspect of historic building and engineering conservation but also on conservation strategy planning. I have produced conservation strategy information for major developments as follows;  Ballisadare Village Project (€200million), Ballincollig Town Centre Redevelopment (€450million),  Cork City Centre Redevelopment (€350million),  Ballincollig Town Centre (€350 million)  Good Sheppard Redevelopment.

1.3 In all of the above mentioned projects I acted not only as Conservation Engineer but also as Conservation Consultant for the full development.

1.4 In addition to these major infrastructure developments I have acted as Conservation Consultant producing Conservation Management strategies for many public and private buildings ranging from early medieval structures such as Waterford City Walls to Church Buildings, Cathedrals, Harbour Developments for Waterford County Council and Royal Canal for Dublin Docks Development Authority and have also offered specialist conservation engineering advice to assist other engineering practices to carry out sensitive conservation works. Under this heading I was involved in Farmleigh House with Horgan Lynch & Partners, Dunboy Castle Estate with Horgan Lynch & Partners, Kinsale Courthouse with John O’Donovan Associates to name but a few.

I have also worked with Architectural practices with little conservation expertise to assist them to take on major conservation projects to best practice standards.

1.5 In this project I worked both as conservation engineer and conservation consultant to develop a Conservation Strategy for Dublin Port Company [DPC]. This required an engineering background is order to identify opportunities for a balanced strategy which took into account best practice conservation approach based on international conservation charters together with the design brief.

1.6 Initially, this involved a preliminary report to inform the design team of the conservation objectives and ensure that all decisions relating to the development brief of this project were considered carefully from a conservation point of view. This involved my experience not only as a conservation engineer but also as an engineer experienced in structural design, including marine applications.

As such I was requested to attend all design team meetings following my appointment. I developed a Conservation Strategy report in association with the expert Industrial Archaeological advice of Dr Colin Rynne from the Archaeological Department of UCC. Dr Rynne assisted in evaluating the significance of the site. Dr Rynne also contributed to

Page 2

Chapter 12 of the EIS and gave important advice regarding the recording of the site prior to works involving proposals for laser scanning.

The preparation of the proposals for the conservation strategy was substantially my work. However, the detailing of the conservation zones and the interpretation zones was carried out by MOLA architecture. The technical design or the project was carried out by RPS group. This in my opinion ensured the best practice implementation of conservation policy. During the production of the Conservation Strategy report I also produced conservation methodologies for the project in liaison with RPS group.

Page 3

2 Involvement in the Project

2.1.1 I was appointed to the project in November 2013, at which stage DPC was concerned to ensure that conservation issues were fully considered in the development of the ABR project.

2.1.2 I outlined the need for a robust conservation strategy for the project which involved significant intervention to Alexandra Basin to develop a deep water facility for the sustainable future of Dublin Port. I ensured that due regard was given to the historic nature of the Port and aimed to get a Best Practice Conservation Strategy agreed with all members of the design team. Subsequently, Dr. Colin Rynne was appointed by DPC to act as an Industrial Archaeologist for the scheme to assist in the appraisal of the significance of the historic fabric.

2.1.3 Prior to carrying out our Conservation Strategy Report and the Industrial Archaeological section of the EIS, I carried out extensive visual examination of the historic structures on the site together with desktop studies as outlined in the Reports. In addition, I consulted previous studies carried out by Marcus Archaeology and co-ordinated carefully with all members of the design team.

Page 4

3 Conclusions of the Industrial Archaeological Appraisal and Conservation Strategy

3.1.1 In keeping with DPC’s concept of the sustainable development of the deep water facility at Alexandra Basin, Dublin Port Company has also required a Best Practice approach to conservation on the site. This preserves the cultural significance of Dublin Port as a Deep Water Port.

3.1.2 A detailed Historical analysis by Magnus Archaeology (Appendix 3 to Appendix 5 of the Planning Report) and by ADCO Ltd (Chapter 12 of the EIS) together with an Industrial assessment by Dr Colin Rynne of UCC Archaeology Department have informed the process of developing a conservation strategy to best practice standards for the development.

3.1.3 The alterations to North Wall Quay Extension include the construction of a new quay wall outside the existing wall on the Liffey frontage, the shortening of the overall length and a reconfiguration to provide accommodation for larger ships on the Alexandra Basin side by narrowing the quay. The new quay wall is penetrated by 6 conservation zones which not only relieve the horizontal proportioning of the new quay but also show the existing quay wall features- mooring rings steps etc. allowing the original wall to be legible. The policy of legibility is continues across the surface finishes of the quay.

Diagram showing Conservation zone E (one of 6 conservation zones) in this case showing the original steps. The conservation zones allow the original quay to be legible while a retaining wall is to be built in front of the remaining wall allowing the channel to be dredged.

Page 5

Demolitions and Excavations Proposed in Alexandra Basin West

Page 6

Conservation Strategy Key Plan

Page 7

3.1.4 As part of Dublin Port Company’s commitment to public accessibility Southgate Associates have coordinated with MOLA Architects to design 2 interpretive zones at each end of the quay. The first is a public interpretation area for the Stoney blocks (Interpretation zone 1) and involves lifting a 350 tone block onto the Western end of the quay augmented by a contemporary design by MOLA Architects. This is linked (Interpretation zone 2) around the repositioned lighthouse at the eastern end of the new quay with controlled access since it passes through the operational area. Two other conservation zones involve the opening of Graving Dock No 1 and the conservation of the Pump House (Conservation Zone G) together with another area along the Western wall (Conservation Zone G) preserving the original quay wall, Entrance Gates and opening to the cross river pedestrian tunnel.

Original concept design for interpretation zone 1 located adjacent to conservation zone 1

3.1.5 The scheme involves the retention and conservation of structures of regional significance including 3 cranes and capstans associated with graving dock No 2 with several post 1970 structures (which are not rated) being demolished.

3.1.6 The development involves a high quality reconstruction of the quay end to include a 1902 lighthouse on original granite plinth with a new curved granite wall protruding above fenders on the eastern quay end (Interpretation Zone 2). Due care has been taken by MOLA architects to ensure the Architectural high quality of the interventions which are developed under Sean O Laoire’s supervision.

3.1.7 The major intervention of dismantling over half of Stoney’s 1875 quay is necessitated for Dublin Port Company's operational programme but is also mitigated by the following conservation strategy which has been designed with due regard to the recent ICOMOS “Dublin Principles” which include:-

 Best practice recording using 3d laser technology and supervised by Dr Colin Rynne  A policy of penetration by conservation zones ensuring legibility of the original construction  Mitigation measures for interpreting the achievement in construction rather than the artefact of the concrete blocks through an Architecturally innovative interpretation scheme in the Public Realm area  A salvage policy for the large stock of Dalkey granite not only for this scheme and other areas of the Port but also for other worthy conservation projects as advised by conservation authorities

Page 8

4 Submissions and Responses 4.1 In preparing this witness statement, I have considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the Industrial Archaeology Appraisal and Conservation Strategy for the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project. I have addressed each submission or observation in turn below, before providing my response to the essential point being made.

4.2 Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAU)

Submission:

The application is for the redevelopment of Alexandra Basin by the Dublin Port Company and involves major engineering works to deepen the berths both within the Basin and on the Liffey quayside at the North Wall Quay Extension and in the process will remove much of the existing quay wall structures and conceal most of the remainder behind a new wall built on top of sheet piles. It is also proposed to reopen the No. 1 Graving Dock, dating from 1860, to renovate the adjacent pump-house, and to fill-in, for the time being, the No. 2 Graving Dock which dates from 1956. It is proposed to allow occasional public access to the No. 1 Graving Dock and Pump House and to the relocated North Wall Quay Extension lighthouse. There is also to be a new interpretative installation, just inside the gates at the East Link Bridge (Interpretive Zone 1). This is to consist of a re-erected 350-ton concrete block raised from beneath the quay wall and two small pavilions constructed alongside.

The North Wall Quay Extension was constructed by the port engineer, Bindon Blood Stoney, between 1869 and 1884 using innovative techniques for its day. This involved the construction of two vessels, one to drop a diving bell, the other a floating crane to lay the 350-ton blocks. Work was suspended in 1884 and not resumed until the 1930s when the port engineer Joseph Mallagh completed it, moving the lighthouse to the end of the new pier in 1937. Mallagh used a different construction technique, utilising sunken concrete caissons instead of pre-cast blocks. The EIS submitted describes the North Wall Quay Extension and Alexandra Quay West as being of international importance (12.86), the No. 1 Graving Dock to be of national importance, while the Crossberth Quay, No. 2 Graving Dock, North Wall Lighthouse and the Pump House are considered to be of regional importance.

The Department notes that the Dublin Port Company has stated in the application that: ‘given the important role that Dublin Port plays in the economy of the greater Dublin Area and in the wider national economy, improving the quality and capacity of the infrastructure at Dublin Port is strategically important’.

In reviewing the application with regard to Built Heritage, the Department notes that some of the impacts will be considerable but that mitigation measures are proposed. From a review of the documentation submitted it would appear that all of the Basin side of Stoney’s quay is to be removed in addition to all of the extension built by Mallagh.

Submission: It is noted that much of Stoney’s quay is to be retained behind the new construction on the river side with some sections left visible at select points, including a short section beside the East Link Bridge. It is unclear to the Department how these exposed sections of Stoney's quay are to be supported given that the river bed is to be dredged beneath them to a new depth and that the new piles will apparently stop short of them on each side.

Page 9

Response: Conservation zone A (55m long) adjacent to the East Link bridge is not to be dredged as shown on drawing IBM 0498 NQ 010 . In other conservation zones B,C,D,E, and F, The piles continue under water level to restrain the Stoney block laterally with a horizontal spanning pile cap tied to full height piles at the return on each end thus providing support to the blocks as shown on MOLA architecture drawing 2306.

Submission: The Department notes that in one of the old engravings submitted it would appear that Stoney’s blocks were supported on timber piles and the Department wonders if this is the case how these piles will continue to function given the dredging and engineering interventions proposed.

Response: It has not been found to be the case that timber piles were deployed in the North Wall Quay extension scheme. The blocks in our opinion are bearing on the sea bed.

Submission: The Department recommends that clarification be sought on this point and also as to whether or not the Stoney blocks are faced with calp limestone as some accounts state

Response: The Stoney blocks are always under water level and have not been faced with calp limestone on the North Wall Quay extension.

Submission: The Department welcomes the proposed restoration of the No. 1 Graving Dock and Pump House but wonders why it is considered necessary to fill in the No. 2 Graving Dock, which is supposed to be only a temporary measure. The Department also wonders if it would not be better to concentrate the historical interpretive elements of the project (with the exception of the relocated Lighthouse) in the one location; that is adjacent to the No. 1 Graving Dock and Pump House. The Department notes that the access gates nearest the bridge are currently canted so as to be in a recessed position while closed but that it is proposed to reinstate them flush with the gate posts. It would appear that pedestrian access would not be optimal at this point given that it is at a busy roundabout and road junction. It is not clear how or when this interpretative installation would be manned. The Department suggests that the quay wall could be retained at this point without the need for the installation on the quayside above it.

The Department recognises the strategic importance of this development but the Department recommends that An Bord Pleanála seeks further information and clarification of the queries above and that it also gives consideration to concentrating the interpretative elements (the Lighthouse excepted) in one location, that is in the vicinity of No. 1 Graving Dock.

Response to the infilling of Graving dock No 2: The infill graving .No. 2 has been proposed in a reversible manner so as to ensure that there is no long term loss to historic fabric. It is to be carefully recorded using laser scanning survey so all historical information regarding the profile is preserved by record.

Page 10

Access studies have been carried out by Dublin Port Company which have looked at alternative locations for access to the site and were considered unviable.

In mitigation, the opening of Graving Dock No. 1 has been proposed, which is the more significant historic structure and will be open to public access. Having carefully considered the issue, in our opinion the proposals currently tabled are Best Practice approach to the brief constraints.

Response to the location of the interpretive centre: The option of locating the interpretive centre adjacent to the pump house, although considered in design by Southgate associates, proved unworkable due to access and security reasons.

A reasonable intermediate use has been proposed for the Pump House which is to use it as a store for mechanical and electrical plant (pumps, capstans etc.) which are not in service and are of techno historical significance. This is in my opinion in accordance with the ICOMOS “Dublin Principles” which highlight the importance of retaining original equipment of Industrial Archaeological value.

Long term uses for this area will be considered by Dublin Port Company in association with Dublin City Council and the Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht. This will take into account operational issues and local community interests. Any proposal will be subject to planning approval in the future. Meanwhile the building envelope is to be conserved to best practice standards.

The current location of interpretive zone 1 has been chosen for the following reasons:-

 Proximity to pedestrian links and the quays  Proximity to vehicular routes  DPC is committed to the imaginative presentation and interpretation of its legacy. The Diving Bell and the complementary elements proposed for Conservation Zone 1, can be viewed as both part of a Port Heritage trail, and manifestations of a programme which will make extensive use of social media, to connect the many layers of its legacy.  In short, this is a commitment to a policy of “distribution” of heritage interpretation on a structured heritage trail, rather than “consolidation”, in one site, which will present real challenges in respect of security, and access, from the Alexandra Road, which is very much environmentally the realm of the “working Port” and has little or no footfall.

Page 11

4.3 Dublin City Council

Dublin City Council has commented on the Conservation Strategy proposals in a favourable manner as indicated below:-

Mitigation

In terms of the impact of the development, the city council acknowledges that the following works will provide some welcome mitigation on the conservation front:

1. Improved access to within the working port which will be a means for developing awareness of cultural heritage and the historic role of the port. 2. Restoration of Graving Dock 1, constructed in 1860 of Dalkey granite which will be excavated and exposed. A conservation proposal for the pump house has been included as part of the proposals. 3. The conservation of the jib cranes as examples of industrial heritage. 4. The salvaging and placing in a publicly accessible position beside the new interpretative centres of an intact 350 tonnes Bindon Blood Stoney concrete caisson. 5. The creation of conservation zones three metres wide and capped with open mesh flooring are to be left within the upper level of the steel wall structure to permit views of the original construction. 6. The relocation and opening up of the lighthouse structure life as an interpretative zone on the newly shaped North Wall Quay Extension with the original granite blocks re-used to face the adjacent quay front. 7. The salvaging of granite setts which will highlight the conservation areas along the quay wall. 8. The retention of modern industrial heritage of technical interest such as the caissons designed by an engineer Mallagh within a deeper quay facing.

The history of the port of Dublin is that of a continually evolving infrastructure. The challenge in this instance is to manage change in such a way that allows for the retention of character and special interest, a primary aspiration of good heritage conservation. In this case the strategic importance of the port and its capacity to continue to fulfil its role must be balanced against the demolition of a section of the North Quay wall extension, a structure of some significance. The proposed conservation and retention of granite slabs and mooring rings within the modified modern retaining structure is significant and is introduced to balance the loss of nineteenth century workmanship and illustrate an approach by the applicant that appears cognisant of the historical value of the protected structure. The proposals to reinstate the character of the Graving Dock 1, a significant piece of marine engineering, by removing the filling in materials and allow controlled access by the public is clearly welcomed.

Page 12

6. Conclusion

6.1 In summary, it should be emphasised that careful consideration of the location of the proposed ABR development has been undertaken from a conservation perspective.

6.2 It is considered that the proposed development has resulted in balanced application of development and conservation objectives and in our opinion produced a Best Practice approach to the project.

6.3 Extensive and robust mitigation measures have been provided in determining the significant aspect of the Stoney blocks by implementing an interpretation scheme on the site. In our opinion, from the perspective of the public this will significantly add to the appreciation of the site in due course.

6.4 By appointing an independent archaeological adviser (Dr. Colin Rynne from University College Cork), an independent and objective opinion has been obtained regarding the industrial archaeological significance of this development.

6.5 The development proposal to re-establish Dublin as a deep water port is of cultural significance. I feel that the mitigation measures proposed are balanced in achieving both the development of the port and Best Practice Conservation of this important part of Dublin’s heritage.

6.6 The submission of Dublin City Council has been supportive and the Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht have raised some queries which have been addressed satisfactorily in my view. The issue of infilling of No 2 Graving Dock is necessary for Dublin Port Company’s operational brief but has been designed to be reversible.

6.7 The concept of locating the Stoney Blocks adjacent to the pump house on site is a creative suggestion by the DAHG, which was considered during design, but discounted for operational and security reasons. The intermediate use of the pump house as a store for mechanical and electrical equipment with best practice conservation practice allows for careful consideration of the end use with liaison with the relevant authorities in the future.

Page 13

Appendix 1

Revised Table 12.8.3 Summary of likely impacts of development on industrial archaeological features and built environment of the study area (addendum to page 12-62 of EIS) Site no. Ngr Site Significance Impact type Impact assessment DP.01 718451, North Wall Not rated but Direct Negative: 734367 Quay construction Significant Extension technology considered b Dr Rynne to be international DP.02 718587, Goods transit NOT RATED Direct Negative: Profound 734388 shed No. 3 and irreversible (‘Island Shed’), North Wall Quay Extension DP.03 718536, Goods transit NOT RATED Direct Negative: Profound 734581 shed No. 1 and irreversible (‘Island Shed’), North Wall Quay Extension DP.04 718691, Goods transit NOT RATED Direct Negative: Profound 734362 shed No. 2, and irreversible North Wall Quay Extension DP.05 718752, North Wall Not Rated Direct Significant/positive 734319 Lighthouse but considered Regional DP.06 718072, Crossberth Not rated but Direct Significant/positive 734613 Quay considered regional DP.07 718595, Alexandra Not rated Direct Significant/positive 743658 Wharf DP.08 718316, Graving Dock Not rated but Direct Moderate/positive 734789 No. 1 considered National DP.09 718336, ‘Pump House’ Not rated but Direct Moderate/positive 734733 (Graving Dock considered No. 1) Regional DP.10 718370, Graving Dock Not rate but Direct Moderate but 734789 No. 2 considered reversible/positve Regional DP.11 718343, Lead-in jetty Not rated Direct Profound and 734589 irreversible DP.12 718605, Alexandra Not rated but Direct Negative: 734671 Quay West construction Significant technology considered by Dr Rynne to be International DP.13 718460, Goulding’s Not rated Direct Negative: Profound 734556 (Tara Mines) and irreversible

Page 14

Site no. Ngr Site Significance Impact type Impact assessment Jetty DP.14 718500, PO Ramp No. Not rated Direct Negative: Profound 734550 4 and irreversible DP. 15 718091, P&O Head Not rated Direct Negative: Profound 734448 offices and irreversible DP. 16 718139, P&O Terminal Not rated Direct Negative: Profound 734423 building and irreversible DP. 17 718080, VMU building Not rated Direct Negative: Profound 734553 and irreversible DP. 18 718066, Control Not rated Direct Negative: Profound 734578 building (P&O) and irreversible

Page 15

STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N .PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

CAPT. DAVID T. DIGNAM (HARBOUR MASTER)

Qualifications, Experience & Role

1.1 My name is David Dignam and I have been Dublin Port Company’s Harbour Master since January 2005.

1.2 My role in the project has been to consider the marine operations in relation to the proposed ABR Project.

1.3 Before I became Harbour Master, I was the Assistant Harbour Master from 2001 and prior to that I was a Dublin Bay Marine Pilot from January 1996.

1.4 I first went to sea as a Cadet with Irish Shipping in September 1973, studied and worked my way up through the ranks to become a Ship’s Master in 1986.

1.5 I was a Ship’s Master from 1986 until joining Dublin Port Company as a Marine Pilot in January 1996.

1.6 My qualifications reflect my extensive ship handling training and experience, which are central to the successful implementation of this project. Those qualifications include:-

 Master Mariner (Class 1) 10th December 1985. (Equiv: Master Unlimited STCW 78/95)  Pilot Exemption Certificate River Thames (1990 to 1994)  Pilot Exemption River Mersey (Liverpool, Runcorn & Eastham Ports)(1990 to 1996)  Pilot Exemption Manchester Ship Canal(1993 to 1996)  Pilot Dublin Bay January 1996 (Class One Pilot from January 1998)  Manned Model Ship handling Course Warsash 1996  Real-time Simulation for Azipod Familiarisation & Training (NMCI Cork 2013)  Real-time Simulation Manoeuvring of 350 metre LOA Cruise Liners within proposed ABR Project Development (2013 & 2014)

1.7 In relation to my role as Harbour Master, I am the legally designated person (under Section 46 1(a) of the Harbours Act, 1996) responsible for the regulation and control of ships and leisure craft in Dublin Port and Dublin Bay.

1.8 The rules and procedures by which this regulation and control are achieved are specified in the DPC’s Notice to Mariners, especially Notice to Mariners Number 10 of 2014 entitled “Standard operating Procedures for Vessels Entering into, Shifting within & Departing from The Port of Dublin”. All Dublin Port Notice to Mariners are in addition to and run in conjunction with the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) “The International Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea”.

Page | 1 Current Marine Operations in Dublin Port

2.1 In order to properly consider the operational impacts of the proposed ABR project, it is important to first understand the dynamics of the port and some of the restrictions that currently exist and the manner in which the ABR Project will alleviate these constraints.

2.2 Dublin is a river port and the approach channel to the port commences at the Dublin Bay Buoy approximately 2.75 Nautical Miles (NM) or 5.1km to the east of the port’s entrance marked by the North Bull and the Poolbeg Lighthouses. The channel inside the port’s entrance is a further 2.78 NM (5.15km) long and stretches to the East Link Bridge. There is a “maintained depth” – or minimum depth – within the entire shipping channel that measures -7.8 metres Chart Datum. (Chart Datum is 2.51 metres below Ordnance Datum Malin). This terminates close to the East Link Bridge in a turning area at the mouth of the Alexandra Basin West. This area allows for turning manoeuvres to be carried out. Depending on the tidal values, smaller ships with draughts of up to 7.0 metres may proceed beyond the East Link Bridge.

2.3 The length of a ship which can turn within the port is limited by the width of the river or the turning area. The turning area at the entrance to the Alexandra Basin West provides a manoeuvring area with 325 metres at the narrowest point.

2.4 The longest ships that have been swung in Dublin to date are currently 295 metres in length. Over the past ten years, 193 ships with lengths of over 250 metres have been handled in Dublin. Of these, 130 were greater than 285 metres and this figure includes 2014. In circumstances where permission is granted for the ABR Project, Dublin Port will be in a position to handle ships of up to 350 metres in length in the future.

2.5 The channel into Dublin Port is marked by statutorily sanctioned buoys that conform to “International Association of Lighthouse Authorities” (IALA) standards. At the half-way point of the channel (between the North Bull and Poolbeg lighthouses) the channel narrows to a seabed width of 160 metres. In this narrow section, which measures 0.68 NM in length, ships are not allowed to overtake or contra flow. This presents a constraint on the general day-to-day operations in the port at present. The proposed increase in the channel seabed width from 160 to 200 metres means that contraflow will be permitted for medium sized ships. At a typical speed of nine knots, it will take a ship less than five minutes to transit this section of the channel. For most ships the average passage time within the channel is one hour. (45mins + 15 mins)

2.6

2.7 The effect of no “contra-flow” at the narrow point of the channel is most apparent at the times when ferries are either arriving or departing. Ro-Ro ferries normally arrive in concentrated groups on most days (04:30 to 05:50 in the early morning and 16:35 to 17:20 in the afternoon). At midday and midnight there are other Ro-Ro ferries also on slot-times but not in the same concentrated numbers. These ships have guaranteed slot times which leave almost 22 hours available during the rest of the day for other

Page | 2 ships (including container ships, bulk carriers, car carriers, oil tankers and cruise ships).

Tidal Conditions

3.1 Tidal conditions have a significant impact on the times that ships can enter and leave the port.

3.2 Some ships are limited by their draughts and must operate within specific tidal windows. These tidal windows depend on a ship’s draft and on the predicted tidal heights.

3.3 The predicted tidal heights are calculated using average meteorological conditions. Actual tidal heights can vary due to extremes in weather conditions.

3.4 On the rising tide the “tidal window” opening time is that time when the channel depth plus the rise-of-tide provides sufficient water so that there will be a minimum of one metre underkeel clearance (UKC) when the vessel commences its transit into the channel.

3.5 The proposed deepening of the channel from -7.8m Chart Datum to -10.0m Chart Datum will make the port accessible for most of the current vessels at virtually all stages of the tide. It will also allow considerably deeper ships than can currently enter the port to call at Dublin.

Page | 3 Maritime Services

4.1 In relation to Maritime Services, it is necessary to set out how marine operations in the port are dealt with at present so as to better understand the benefits of the ABR Project in the future.

4.2 In this regard, there are four main areas I wish to highlight:

a. Vessel Traffic Services (VTS); b. Pilotage; c. Towage; and d. Dredging

A. Vessel Traffic Services

4.3 DPC provides Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) to manage shipping operations in Dublin Bay and in Dublin Port on a 24/7/365 basis. VTS operates in much the same manner as an air traffic control system. VTS controls the movement of all vessels within the DPC area of jurisdiction. The golden rule is that “VTS control the space – Ships masters control their ships”.

DPC uses VTS to meet its obligations:

 For navigational safety  To co-ordinate safely and effectively all traffic movements as required  To provide pilots with the necessary information to formulate a passage plan  To monitor all movements, tidal and weather conditions  To monitor any possible developing situations and intervene as necessary  To record and collate a record of all vessel movements  To act as “Control Point” of contact for the Port outside normal office hours

DPC’s VTS Operators are trained to “International Maritime Organisation” (IMO) approved and recognised qualifications.

From the VTS point of view, we have a state-of-the-art monitoring facility and the highly trained personnel capable of handling the anticipated increases in traffic.

B. Pilotage

5.1 Pilotage is a highly specialised service, with fully trained and experienced people operating the pilotage services. Dublin Port Company has invested in and developed this service over the years. An expert pilotage service contributes to efficient traffic management, safety and also mitigating environmental risk.

5.2 DPC is the statutorily authorised Pilotage Authority for Dublin Bay (including Dun Laoghaire Harbour). Pilotage is compulsory in Dublin and DPC employs ten qualified pilots who are available on a 24/7/365 basis. DPC is also responsible for transferring these specialists to and from ships in Dublin Bay.

Page | 4 5.3 The majority of ships calling to Dublin are regular and frequent callers (notably the Ro- Ro ferries) and their requirement for pilotage is met in many such cases by the ship’s master having a Pilot Exemption Certificate (PEC). DPC sets the syllabus and criteria for eligibility and examines candidates for PECs. 78% of ship movements are either exempted ships or carried out under PECs. Before a PEC is issued the applicants must prove that they have extensive knowledge of Dublin bay and its environs and have the ability to manoeuvre their ships.

5.4 In the remaining 22% of cases, a DPC pilot provides the necessary assistance to the ship’s master. Pilots must have had command experience and must have had extensive ship handling experience before being considered by DPC for the position. Their role is to go on board ships to advise and provide local information to the ship’s masters. Pilots use their ship handling knowledge and expertise to assist the master to safely navigate and manoeuvre his ship in Dublin Bay and Dublin Port.

5.5 DPC anticipates that there will be an increase in pilotage as port traffic increases. We have the experienced pilots and the services in place to handle the anticipated increases.

C. Towage

6.1 In relation to towage, DPC uses two powerful tug boats “Shackleton” and “Beaufort” which are available on a 24/7/365 basis. The tugboats assist those ships which are either too large or do not have the necessary power and manoeuvrability when turning or berthing in the basins and river. The tugboats also help ships which need additional assistance due to adverse weather conditions. (5,100 BHP – 3,840 kW – 54.3 tons)

6.2 The presence of, and the expertise involved in handling, tugs are vital for day-to-day port operations.

6.3 During 2013, 859 out of the 13,920 ship movements were tug assisted. Large ships generally require tugs in all weather conditions. Beyond this, very large ships (such as Ro-Ro ferries and cruise ships) will also frequently take tugs in adverse weather conditions notwithstanding their own large manoeuvring power. (In 2014 to date, 623 out of 11465 ship movements were tug assisted)

6.4 Tugs play a vital role and more importantly the service they provide will be required more in future. It is inevitable that there will be an increase in the level of tug jobs in the future and I am confident that DPC has the capability to deal with the increased workload.

D. Dredging

7.1 Dredging is a fundamental part of the ABR Project. Dublin Port is an estuarial port and has a very dynamic seabed that is constantly changing. Therefore, DPC needs to regularly dredge so as to maintain the channel (“maintenance dredging”).

Page | 5

7.2 As an estuarial port, Dublin suffers from the effects of silt carried down by various rivers into the shipping channel. This silt is deposited within the dock basins, berth pockets and channel causing them to reduce both in width and depth over time. Furthermore, in Dublin Bay, the effect of wind, tide and currents cause the sands on the seabed to shift into the dredged channel.

7.3 Accordingly, DPC carries out regular bathymetric surveys to measure depths throughout the port and in the channel. Based on these surveys, maintenance dredging operations are planned and carried out at required intervals so as to maintain a Channel Depth of - 7.80 metres Chart Datum and also to maintain the declared standard width and depths of the berth pockets at each of the quays.

7.4 DPC currently has a six-year licence to carry out maintenance dredging. The last maintenance dredging campaign was in June 2012 when 590,000 m3 were dredged. Over the long run, maintenance dredging has been carried out about once every two years. Such dredging has been performed in Dublin Port and Dublin Bay for more than a century.

7.5 Dublin Port has been evolving and developing since it began. From a marine perspective, DPC has put in place a very robust management and maintenance dredging system. This caters not just for the needs of the port today, but will also provide for the port’s future needs as envisaged under the ABR Project.

Page | 6 Management of land operations in Dublin Port

8.1 The management of the operations in Dublin Port is split between marine and land side and the management of this interface is critical.

8.2 On the landside, it is particularly important that the port’s road infrastructure has not only the capability to operate efficiently and safely but also that all potential risks or likely events which might disrupt this network are considered and mitigated accordingly. This is done through the port’s emergency management planning processes.

8.3 To explain the manner in which the proposed works will accommodate road access for the duration of the construction phase and subsequent operations I have shown a plan of the north side of the port in Figure 1 highlighting the two areas in which works are proposed. This plan shows the port’s road network comprising a grid with three main east to west spines (black) and branch roads (blue) joining these roads and linking them into the working areas adjacent to the port’s berths.

8.4 The three main access routes are:

 Promenade Road which, since the opening of the Dublin Port Tunnel, is the main road access route for port traffic.  Alexandra Road which caters for both road traffic and rail traffic  Tolka Quay Road which is permanently shut onto East Wall Road but which remains a useable route in emergency circumstances.

8.5 The grid layout provides alternative routes for port traffic in the event of road closures or blockages either inside the port or in the adjacent road network. For example, since the closure of a section of Alexandra Road at the eastern end of the port in 2007, an emergency route has been maintained along the alignment of this closed section of road. Figure 2 shows how this provides an alternative route in the event of a blockage on Tolka Quay Road at the location indicated.

8.6 There are similar alternative route options available in respect of blockages or closures of any other roads within the port.

Page | 7 Figure 1: Location of ABR Project works in relation to Dublin Port’s road network

Page | 8 Figure 2: Sample emergency route option based on a closure of Tolka Quay Road

Page | 9 Planning for marine operations in the context of the ABR Project

9.1 In relation to accommodating longer ships, the new berth designs and, in particular, the designs of the Alexandra Basin and the modifications to North Wall Quay Extension, are based on a combination of:

 The guidelines specified within the Permanent Association of International Navigation Congress’s (PIANC) “Harbour Approach Channels Design Guidelines”.

 Real-time simulation exercises which DPC commissioned at the National Maritime College of Ireland’s (NMCI) 360° simulator in Cork. The 360° simulator in the NMCI is world class and is at least on a par with facilities available anywhere else.

9.2 PIANC recommends in its guidelines that at the concept design phase the nominal diameter of a turning area in a port should not be less than twice the length of a ship.

9.3 When designing the turning area at Alexandra Basin West the following vessel types and size were considered:

Ship Type LOA Draught Container 3,500 250m 12.4m TEU Dry Bulk 230m 12.0m Deepsea Ro-Ro 290m 12.0m Multi-purpose Ro- 240m 6.5m Ro Cruise Ships 340m ≤ 9.0m

9.4 Real-time simulation was carried out on the NMCI 360° Simulator using various vessels of these sizes.

9.5 Over four days in June 2013, the channel and berth layout detailed in DPC’s planning application were tested by myself as Harbour Master, the Assistant Harbour Master and nine of DPC’s ten pilots.

9.6 On the 11th November 2013, further simulations were carried out using Royal Caribbean’s Quantum of the Seas. These simulations were performed with a Senior Training Master from Royal Caribbean Cruise Line.

9.7 The Quantum of the Seas is the largest ship simulated (with a length of 348 metres and a beam of 41 metres). These simulations confirmed that the proposed turning area (which has 480 metres minimum manoeuvring length at its narrowest point) would meet DPC’s projected requirements. This is an increase of 155 metres over the current 325 metres available today.

Page | 10 9.8 Based on all of these simulations, which are ongoing, I am fully satisfied that the widening of the entrance to Alexandra Basin West will allow the largest ships specified in the EIS to be brought into the port and swung safely in the turning basin.

9.9 For most ships considered, the turning area meets the PIANC guidelines and it also, of course, facilitates the turning of very large cruise ships as well.

9.10 Royal Caribbean Cruise Line has indicated to DPC that the minimum swinging distance that they require as part of their safe operating procedures is 1⅓ times their ship’s length, which, for a 350 metre ship would be comfortably less than our proposed 480 metres. The ability to manoeuvre such large ships in such tight areas is a result of the ships’ own enormous power and manoeuvring capabilities to control their movements. For example, the largest cruise ship travelling at a speed of 10kts can stop within its own length.

Increased shipping activity in the channel

10.1 Having considered how DPC can accommodate longer ships, it is also necessary to set out how DPC would facilitate extra shipping traffic.

10.2 The ABR Project is intended to facilitate the ultimate development of the port to cater for a doubling of port throughput by 2040. As ships get bigger, the doubling in cargo is projected to increase the level of shipping activity by 71% (as shown in Table 15 on Page 23 of the Project Rationale attached as Appendix 2 to the Planning Report). 96% of this increase is projected to be in the Ro-Ro mode with only a small increase in ship numbers in other modes.

10.3 This is a substantial increase in shipping activity in the port which I believe can be safely managed. For example, ship arrivals grew from 3,540 arrivals in 1990 to 7,710 in 2000. In 2007 our busiest year we had 7,880 arrivals. A further increase to over 12,000 arrivals (33/day) by 2040 is well within the capacity of the channel and our VTS operations. By 2040, Ro-Ro ferries are projected to account for 80% of all shipping movements which will be in very concentrated groups.

10.4 The frequency of ship arrivals will go from every 33 minutes in 2007 – Dublin Port’s busiest year – to every 22 minutes by 2040 based on predicted volumes of shipping activity for 2040.To put the future situation in Dublin into context, the Port of Dover in 2013 had 19,101 ferry arrivals, implying an average time between ship movements of 14 minutes which is considerably less than is predicated for Dublin in 2040.

10.5 In Dublin, ship activity is concentrated around fixed ferry slots. For example, on a typical morning, there would be scheduled arrivals from P&O (04:25), Stena Line (05:15), Irish Ferries (05:30) and Seatruck (05:45). The minimum time that would be allowed between arriving ships is five minutes which means that for such ferries there is a distance of 1.5 kilometres (0.8 NM) between them.

Page | 11 10.6 Against this background, I am satisfied that that the movement of ships at the volume predicted for 2040 can be safely managed in Dublin Port.

10.7 Given that ferries arrive on fixed priority time slots, other ships must work around these times. In the case of cruise ships, for example, the times available for them to enter and leave Dublin Port are compatible with the sailing times from previous destinations and to subsequent destinations (such as Cork, Belfast, Holyhead, Liverpool and Greenock) and these itineraries are tried and tested over many years.

10.8 The average draught of a cruise ship varies between 8.0 metres to 8.5 metres. The static under keel clearance (UKC) required for these larger cruise liners is 1½ metres. That means that the minimum required depth in the channel is 10.0 metres. Once the channel has been dredged to 10.0 metres then tidal windows would not apply. When “height of tide” is added into the equation, there will always be a greater depth of water available than that which is required for those ships, providing us with an added safety margin.

10.9 It is standard practice in Dublin Port to liaise with ships and their agents to schedule arrival times around other known shipping movements. In many cases, ships will alter speed on their way to Dublin to arrive at the required entry time. There is much scope and flexibility available to us to schedule and manage ship arrivals and I am satisfied that there is a large excess of capacity in our channel to facilitate a large growth in ship activity without negative effects on either safety or operational efficiencies.

Page | 12 Conclusions

11.1 In conclusion, the projected increase in ship volumes to 2040 will increase the level of shipping activity by 71%. 96% of this increase is projected to be in the Ro-Ro mode with only a small increase in other modes albeit that in these modes we believe that the size of ships will increase.

11.2 The increase in Ro-Ro ships will see more peak periods through the day similar to the current morning and evening peaks.

11.3 The increase in the size and volume of other ships (Lo-Lo ships, bulk carriers, tankers and cruise ships) will most likely lead to an increase in the use of tugs in the port.

11.4 In the case of cruise ships, the widening of the turning basin at the entrance to Alexandra Basin West will allow the port to accommodate cruise ships of 350 metres in length compared to the current limit of 300 metres.

11.5 The design of the reconfigured berths in Alexandra Basin West and in the reconfiguration and deepening of the entrance channel to Dublin Port included carrying out real-time simulation exercises at the National Maritime College of Ireland, in conjunction with the port’s pilots and with senior captains from world leading cruise lines.

11.6 I am satisfied that, in the event that permission is granted for the ABR Project, Dublin Port can be operated to the same standards as currently apply through to the levels of shipping activity projected for 2040.

Page | 13

STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N .PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF MR. MICHAEL SHEARY

COMMUNITY GAIN

1. Qualifications and Experience

1.1 My name is Michael Sheary and I am the Company Secretary of Dublin Port Company [DPC]. My qualifications and experience are set out in my first witness statement delivered to the hearing and have not been repeated here.

1.2 This statement provides an outline of the Community Gain proposal that Dublin Port Company is advancing in the context of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment project.

2. Involvement and Role in the Community Gain element of the ABR Project

2.1 As Company Secretary I was central to the development of the Community Gain initiative advanced in the context of this planning application and the subsequent consultation exercise conducted in relation to the proposal. I also acted as liaison contact with Dublin City Council concerning the proposal.

3. Community Gain

3.1 Section 37G(7)(d) of the Planning and Development 2000, as amended, provides that, in the event that planning permission is granted for a strategic infrastructure development, the Board may attach a condition requiring –

(i) the construction or the financing, in whole or in part, of the construction of a facility, or

(ii) the provision or the financing, in whole or in part, of the provision of a service

in the area in which the proposed development would be situated, being a facility or service that, in the opinion of the Board, would constitute a substantial gain to the community.

4. Existing community initiatives

4.1 DPC has given particular consideration to the type of initiative or project that would represent a real community gain for the people of Dublin in the context of the proposed development. Indeed, this community gain proposal is made in addition to the substantial programme of support for and engagement with communities living adjacent to the Port in East Wall, Clontarf, the North Inner City, Ringsend, Irishtown and Sandymount. On an annual basis, DPC allocates €300,000 towards community based activities and sponsorships which are aimed at local communities.

5. ABR Community Gain Proposal

5.1 In the context of the ABR project, DPC believes that it has identified a particular community gain proposal which meets the criteria of relevance and appropriateness and would represent a significant community gain, not just in the immediate locality, but to the wider community in Dublin. The proposal will deliver benefits from an environmental, tourism and social inclusion perspective.

5.2 It is proposed by DPC that, in the context of a grant of planning permission by An Bord Pleanála for the ABR Project, a community gain initiative would be advanced with the following elements:

i. DPC will transfer its ownership over a portion of Bull Island to Dublin City Council [DCC] to hold in perpetuity for the people of Dublin. This will secure the preservation of Bull Island for future generations of Dubliners and encourage the development of the strategic vision for Bull Island being advanced by DCC at present. A unified ownership structure for Bull Island will facilitate proper management of the resource by the City Council. It would be the intention of DPC to maintain rights of access to the North Bull Wall to facilitate maintenance on essential ship navigation assets such as the North Bull Lighthouse. ii. In addition, as part of the Community Gain proposal, DPC will allocate a sum of €200,000 towards the costs of the preparation of studies and plans by DCC, such as a feasibility study for a proposed International Visitor Centre, a masterplan for Bull Island or a management plan. These will be prepared by DCC with participation and support from DPC and other stakeholders. iii. DPC will also allocate a further sum to DCC of €1,000,000 towards the provision of any services or facilities identified as a consequence of the study and the Masterplan for Bull Island. This sum will be paid by DPC on a basis to be agreed with DCC within 10 years of planning for the ABR Project having been secured. iv. All of these sums will be in addition to the current community based initiatives and special projects that DPC is undertaking.

6. Consultation on Community Gain

6.1 An extensive programme of public consultation concerning the ABR project was undertaken between September and November 2013 to seek the views of the wider public on the ABR proposal and particularly on a proposed community gain initiative to be advanced as part of the project.

This consultation process on the community gain initiative involved:

• The publication of a community newsletter on the ABR Project and the Community Gain proposal, which was circulated to over 40,000 homes in areas directly adjacent to the Port. • Meetings with local community groups in areas directly adjacent to the Port • Briefings with local public representatives on the ABR Project and the Community Gain proposal. These meetings included one to one briefings with individual public representatives, but also with the Local Area Committees of DCC. • The development of a dedicated website to explain the proposed initiative and facilitate feedback. • A dedicated community consultation process to seek views on both the ABR project and the Community Gain proposal. The consultation process sought respondents’ views in general but also invited responses around specific questions about the project and the Community Gain proposal.

6.2 The consultation process secured written responses from 34 parties.

There was broad support for the Community Gain proposal being advanced by DPC.

A number of specific issues were raised during the consultation process concerning the community gain proposal and which will be reflected in the implementation of the proposal if approved, including:

• The importance of retaining and safeguarding Bull Island as a unique natural heritage resource. • Ensuring that any proposals for Bull Island which emerge from the DCC feasibility study are measured, balanced and proportionate, taking account of different users of the area and the sensitive eco-system that applies there. • A reduction of car traffic on Bull Island, proper traffic management and greater concentration of more sustainable transport modes (bicycles, pedestrian and public transport). • The sensitive development of an interpretative centre with associated information provision on the Island. • The protection of Bull Island as a unique and special resource without overdevelopment or intensification of structures / inappropriate uses. • Programmes are required to tackle anti-social activities on Bull Island and to deal with litter control. • A desire that any proposals from DCC for Bull Island following on from the implementation of the community gain proposal should be subject to appropriate consultation, best practice and the relevant planning consents and environmental assessment processes.

6.3 It should also be noted that there was strong support for the Community Gain proposal expressed by DCC, both from the elected members and the executive. By way of example, DCC Managers Report submitted to the Board on this application states as follows in relation to the community gain proposals:

“Dublin City Council welcomes these proposals as it considers that they will help secure the preservation of Bull Island and facilitate the development of a strategic and unified vision for Bull Island. It will also facilitate the proper management of the resource by the City Council. Critically, the Council acknowledges that the proposals will constitute significant community gain, not just for the immediate locality, but to the wider community in Dublin, delivering benefits from environmental, tourism and social inclusion perspectives.”

7. Concluding comments

8.1 DPC’S proposal for community gain will bring considerable benefit to the local area of Bull Island and to the Dublin region. DPC has, and is committed to further, engagement with the local community.

8.2 The feedback from the consultation process to date indicates broad support for the community gain initiative and outlines some specific concerns and observations which will need to be reflected in the processes being adopted by DCC when bringing forward the relevant studies and plans for Bull Island. DPC has advised DCC of the feedback to the consultation process on the Community Gain initiative and will seek to ensure that the views expressed are captured and influence subsequent engagement with DCC if the community gain proposal is adopted in the context of the current application.

8.3 DPC is committed to providing the community gain proposed in the event that permission is granted for the ABR project by the Board and, in order to secure the effective implementation of the community gain proposal, respectfully requests the Board to attach a condition to that effect pursuant to section 37G(7)(d) of the Planning and Development Acts.

STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N.PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

WITNESS STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SHEARY

Qualifications, Experience and Role

1. My name is Michael Sheary and I am the Company Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of Dublin Port Company. My role in the development of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project included consideration of the capital requirements of the project and the financial capacity of DPC to fund the project, so as to determine whether the ABR Project is sustainable from a financial perspective.

2. I have worked for Dublin Port Company (DPC) and its predecessor (the Dublin Port and Docks Board) since January 1982 and I was appointed to my current role in June 2001. My role involves all areas of financial control and financial management, compliance, corporate governance, estate and facilities management and corporate affairs for the Company. I am a Fellow of the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants (FCCA).

3. Dublin Port Company is a private limited company wholly owned by the State with the company’s shareholding being held by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

4. The principal objects of the company are set out in the Memorandum and Articles of Association and the Harbours Act, 1996 which provides at section 11 as follows:

11(1) The principal objects of a company shall be stated in its memorandum of association to be – (a) to take all proper measures for the management, control, operation and development of its harbour and the approach channels thereto, (b) to provide such facilities, services, accommodation and lands in its harbour for ships, goods and passengers as it considers necessary, (c) to promote investment in its harbour, (d) to engage in any business activity, either alone or in conjunction with other persons, that it considers to be advantageous to the development of its harbour, (e) to utilise and manage the resources available to it in a manner consistent with the objects aforesaid.

5. Accordingly, DPC has a clear mandate to run the port efficiently, facilitate trade in and out of the country, and at all times ensure the port is adequately resourced to do so.

6. In 2013, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport published the Government’s National Ports Policy document. Within the National Ports Policy framework, Dublin Port has been designated as a Tier 1 Port of National Significance (corresponding to the classification by the EU Commission of Dublin Port as a core port in its TEN-T network). The policy confirms that Tier 1 ports are ports which are:  Firstly, responsible for at least 15% to 20% of overall tonnage through Irish ports, and  Secondly, have clear potential to lead the development of future capacity in the medium and long term, when and as required.

7. The National Ports Policy deals specifically with DPC at section 2.5.1 in confirming that DPC is the State’s largest port company, handling 43% of all seaborne trade in the State. The Policy document further confirms as follows: “The Port’s importance is even more pronounced in the higher value unitised (LoLo and RoRo) sectors, where it handles approximately 70% of all LoLo and 85% of all RoRo trade in the State”

8. Significantly, the following statement is made in the National Ports Policy in respect of Dublin Port: “The Government endorses the core principles underpinning the company’s Masterplan, and the continued commercial development of Dublin Port Company is a key strategic objective of National Ports Policy.”

9. One of the key requirements of the National Ports Policy 2013 is that port companies, as commercial entities, should be capable of funding their operations and infrastructural requirements without relying on Exchequer support. This policy maintains the approach as previously set out in the 2005 Ports Policy statement. In this regard, the Government is of the view that port infrastructure projects that can demonstrate stable and strong cash flows are attractive propositions for private sector investors and lenders in the medium to long term.

10. The strength of DPC’s financial position ensures it is well placed to meet the objective of providing port capacity without recourse to Exchequer funding. The proposed ABR Project will deliver essential additional capacity directly to the heart of the largest market on the island and will be financed in full by DPC from its own resources. Indeed at this stage, I can point out that all capital developments

undertaken by Dublin Port Company since corporatisation in 1997 have been self- financed.

11. In emphasising this point, the Company’s Strategic Plan 2012-2016 sets out the following financial objective whereby we are required to:

 maintain an appropriate capital structure which keeps the Port’s level of financial risk exposure at acceptable levels consistent with continuing necessary investment in infrastructure.

12. As has been previously mentioned, the ABR Project is the first major infrastructure project to be brought forward for development consent from Dublin Port Company's Masterplan 2012 to 2040. The Masterplan recognises the need to provide capacity in the Port to cater for 60 million gross tonnes of cargo by 2040 and was approved by the Board of Dublin Port Company (DPC) in January 2012. DPC’s Masterplan was subsequently endorsed by Government in its National Ports Policy 2013 in the following terms:

“The government endorses the core principles underpinning the company’s Masterplan, and the continued commercial development of Dublin Port Company is a key strategic objective of National Ports Policy.”

13. As will be detailed in later witness statements, in designing the ABR Project, DPC considered a range of alternatives based not only on the Masterplan options but also on a range of alternatives elsewhere in other ports. The analysis of all of these alternatives is presented in Appendix 6 to the Planning Report which was submitted with the application to An Bord Pleanála. In general terms, DPC considered:

1. The “do nothing” scenario 2. Development of other locations within the existing area of Dublin Port 3. Creation of new additional port areas at Dublin Port 4. Alternative locations at other ports

14. In reality, the “do nothing” alternative was not appropriate, given the requirements of the Harbours Acts, National Ports Policy and DPC’s own Strategic Plan. In relation to the development of other locations within the existing Port Estate, DPC concluded that the current high level of activity in the Port, allied to the commitments made by

DPC to maximise the utilisation of existing land and infrastructure, combined to leave the ABR Project as the only viable way for DPC to begin to deliver the Masterplan’s capacity objective. Moreover, the expansion of areas (such as infilling to the east of the northside of the port or on the Poolbeg peninsula) were not considered to be practicable alternatives to the ABR Project. Finally, having considered alternative locations in other existing ports, for geographic and other reasons, Shannon Foynes, Cork, Belfast or Larne are not considered as viable alternatives to the ABR project.

15. In terms of DPC’s ability to deliver the ABR project, in the event that the Board decides to grant planning permission, it should be noted that, since corporatisation in March 1997, Dublin Port Company has consistently delivered profits resulting in an accumulated profit and loss account reserve on the company balance sheet in excess of €254.8m at 31 December 2013.

Some of the key performance indicators over the last 5 years are summarised in this table:

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 €’000 €’000 €’000 €’000 €’000 Revenue 62,852 66,969 69,111 65,318 68,375 Operating Profit 25,647 27,031 27,830 29,107 32,818 Operating Margin 40.8% 40.4% 40.3% 44.6% 48% EBITDA 32,313 37,810 40,688 39,618 41,497 Net Debt 39,125 30,262 10,801 4,351 290

As you can see, DPC has consistently maintained profit margins and remains in a healthy financial position.

16. DPC’s financial performance has been particularly strong and robust over the last five years in the face of one of the deepest recessions and economically challenging periods that the country has ever encountered.

17. Looking specifically at the figures for 2013, it can be seen that Turnover for the year was €68.4m delivering an operating profit of €32.8m and EBITDA of €41.5m. The strength of the company’s operating and financial performance is further evidenced by the fact that throughput and revenue levels in 2013 amounted to 93% and 97% respectively of the levels achieved in the company’s peak year in 2007. The

company was essentially debt free at the end of 2013, with a net debt position of just €0.3m.

18. Furthermore, the company has since 2007 consistently returned a dividend to the State consistent with National Ports Policy. In this regard Section 3.4 of the policy states:

“It is Government policy that profitable commercial State companies should pay a financial dividend to the State. The guideline figure is 30% of after-tax profits. Dublin Port Company has complied with this policy since 2007 and indeed has paid more than 30% in some years.”

19. Thus, Dublin Port Company paid a dividend to the State in June 2014 amounting to €8m and the total amount paid by way of a dividend to the State since 2007 was €69.8m.

20. Indeed, the level of expenditure by the company since it was incorporated in 1997, in respect of dividend payment, capital infrastructure investment and pensions funding, amounts to a total of €657m. Again, I would like to stress that this has been achieved through the company’s own resources. So, it can be clearly seen that DPC is on a sound financial footing and well able to take on a capital project of the scale of the ABR development, in the event that the Board decides to grant planning permission in respect of the project.

21. It is also important to confirm that the ABR Project will not be financed through higher port charges introduced specifically to fund development, and DPC will not increase port charges to fund the proposed ABR development.

22. DPC is aware of its role in the transport logistics chain and how that can impact on the competitiveness of DPC’s customers. To that extent, Dublin Port Company operates a programme of continuous efficiency improvements which has resulted in a number of key outcomes, for instance:  In relation to port charges for unitised business (which accounts for 81% of the overall business of Dublin Port), DPC’s cargo dues charges are currently 5% lower today when compared to 1997. By and large DPC’s charges have remained static and are competitive in European terms;  Over this period DPC has invested €318m in infrastructure and has not increased charges in order to fund this capital expenditure;

 In relation to operating costs, DPC is continually implementing improvements to systems, processes, structures and work practices. In this regard, DPC’s payroll costs which peaked in 2001 at €19.1m were 45% lower in 2013 at €10.6m.

23. Dublin Port Company’s capability to finance a project of the scale involved in the ABR development is further demonstrated through DPC’s 5-year financial projections. The company’s budget for 2014 and financial projections for the period to 2018 were approved by the Board in December 2013. These projections incorporate a capital investment programme of €153m over the period.

24. The continued strength of the core business, and resultant strong operating cash flows, means that the 5-year capital programme and the company’s ongoing operations will be financed entirely without recourse to Exchequer funding.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 €’000 €’000 €’000 €’000 €’000 Revenue 69,615 71,395 73,065 74,450 75,870 Operating Profit 33,770 33,740 34,315 34,585 34,700 Operating Margin 49% 47% 47% 46% 46% EBITDA 42,615 43,510 45,365 46,595 47,625 Net Debt (7,243) (2,752) 11,633 14,711 15,087

25. Indeed as demonstrated in the above table, Revenue between 2014 and 2018 over the period is forecast to rise from €69.6m in 2014 to €75.9m in 2018. Over that period, Operating Margins will be maintained at 46% to 49% resulting in Operating Profits of €34m per annum. The projections are based on a prudent assessment of

annual throughput growth rates of 2.5% to 4%. In actual fact, in 2013 a growth rate of 3% was achieved while in the first nine months of 2014 the level of growth is running at 7.2%.

26. In addition, the Company will continue to meet its commitment of returning a dividend to the State amounting to 30% of Profit after Tax throughout the life of this project and beyond. Over the course of the period covered by the projections, dividends will amount to over €8m per annum totalling €41.4m.

27. Over the period of the projections, the company’s net debt position peaks at just €15.1m, which is well within the parameters set down by the Harbours Act 1996. The Harbours Act 1996 permits DPC to borrow up to a maximum of 50% of the value of its fixed assets. At 31 December 2013 the audited financial statements disclose a fixed asset base of €284.9m in the case of DPC meaning that a borrowing level of €142m could be sustained within the parameters of the Act. The company currently has committed loan facilities in place with Bank of Ireland totalling €50m. But it fact, only €15m is needed over the next five years.

28. It is clear from this financial appraisal that DPC has the financial capability to deliver a project of the scale of the ABR Project through the utilisation of its own resources and a modest level of borrowing which can be facilitated within existing facilities. While the company has traditionally relied on medium term debt financing - typically of 5 years duration - it is intended in this case to put longer term financing in place in line with the long term nature of the infrastructural assets of the project.

29. In addition, DPC is engaging with the relevant EU institutions in relation to the ABR Project on two different levels. Firstly, to examine any opportunities for grant aid for the project and secondly, to look at what funding options might be available to us on competitive terms. DPC will also be seeking further grants in respect of the construction works under the newly launched Connecting Europe Facility. On the funding side, DPC has commenced engagement with the European Investment Bank to explore the options and availability of long-term financing at competitive rates. Whilst the project is not dependent on either the availability of EU grants or EIB funding, such funding would be of considerable benefit to Dublin Port Company.

30. It should also be stated that the ABR Project will have a significant community benefit through the creation of new employment in both the construction and operational phases of the development. An economic assessment of the Project detailed in Section 13 of the EIS (Tables 13.6 – 13.10) estimates that the ABR project will have the following benefits during construction;

 375 workers will be employed on the project during the various phases of development  Gross wages generated from employment on the project will be €22.8m with Labour tax payments to the Exchequer of €5.78m.  A conservative income multiplier effect of 2 means that there should be an injection of €34.2m into the wider economy. 31. Once operational, the development works proposed under the ABR Project will help to secure existing employment in Dublin Port and provide opportunities for further employment associated with a continued growth in trade. The potential for the growth of cruise tourism as indicated in Figure 13.5 in the Chapter 13 of the EIS indicates real potential for this growing area to generate significant additional economic impacts between up to 2043, rising from €45m in 2013 to €515m in 2043.

32. In all these circumstances, it has been demonstrated that, having considered the alternative development options that the ABR Project is the right project, in the right place at the right time to deliver on DPC’s obligations under the Harbours Acts, National Ports Policy and its own Strategic Plan. In terms of the capital requirements of the ABR Project, Dublin Port Company has the financial capacity and financial management capability to deliver the ABR Project in a prudent and sustainable manner. It has also been demonstrated that the ABR Project has the potential to have a significant community or socio-economic benefit through the generation of new employment both during construction and at the operational phase.

STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N.PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

WITNESS STATEMENT OF MR. LUIS AJAMIL Bermello, Ajamil & Partners

Page | 1

1. Qualifications and Experience

1.1. I am Luis Ajamil, President and CEO of Bermello Ajamil & Partners, Inc. (B&A). I am a graduate Civil Engineer, graduated from the University of Florida in the United States and registered Professional Engineer in the State of Florida, United States. I subsequently completed post-graduate studies in Architecture from the University of Miami. I have practiced my career, predominately in the field of port and urban waterfront planning throughout the world, in Europe, North and South America, Asia, Middle East Africa and Australia.

1.2. B&A is a multidisciplinary firm that encompasses the disciplines of Architecture, Interior Design, Urban Planning, Landscape Architecture, Civil Engineering, Transportation Engineering, Maritime Engineering and other allied disciplines.

B&A is one of the most recognized firms in port and urban waterfront planning throughout the world, particularly as it relates to the integration of cruise ships into both an urban and a port environment. (See map below where B&A has led port and cruise developments).

1.3. Our firm and I have been involved in the cruise business since the late 70s/early 80s when cruising was predominantly based in Miami, Florida. Since that time, B&A has expanded its practice as the industry grew throughout the world and has designed some of the major cruise facilities throughout the world including the new cruise terminals and facilities in Singapore, New York, Miami, Port Everglades, San Diego and Seattle.

Page | 2 1.4. B&A serves as consultants, not only to ports and cities but to cruise lines themselves having designed the facilities for the Castaway Cay for Disney Cruise Line, Carnival’s Puerto Maya in Cozumel Mexico, and Carnival’s Terminal 4 in San Juan among others. Currently our firm is working with Norwegian Cruise Lines, MSC, and Royal Caribbean on projects throughout the Mediterranean, Europe, Africa and the Americas.

1.5. The concept of the inclusion of cruise terminals as a major element in the regeneration of waterfronts for many cities is something that B&A is engaged in throughout the world. In addition, our firm has completed or is working on waterfront plans and master planning of cruise terminals in urban environments in some of the most recognized and iconic harbours such as Sydney, Australia, Hong Kong, Tampa, Florida, Valencia and Malaga in Spain, Genoa, Italy, and Gibraltar.

2. Involvement in the Project

B&A began assisting Dublin Port Company (DPC) in 2012; followed by a number of engagements to assist DPC with the planning of cruise facilities and the location of cruise terminals.

The initial assignment in 2012 served to answer the question as to whether Dublin had a future in the cruise industry and if DPC had potential to serve it.

2.1. The initial work led to the conclusion that cruise ships are an integral part of the Dublin waterfront and that Dublin Port needed to make major modifications to be able to keep up with the growth of the cruise ships and the demands of the cruise industry.

2.2. During this work, an analysis was undertaken of the physical growth of cruise ships, the number of passengers, lengths and dimensions, which dictated potential locations for the facilities. A recommendation was made that DPC should consider the proposed location as the ideal site, not only for providing for the growth of the industry, but also identifying the most strategically important location.

Subsequently, B&A was again engaged to develop a plan of what a cruise port could be and how the integration between the Port and the City could be articulated.

The B&A recommendations weighed not only on the experience and opinions of the professionals within the company, but also extensive research, meetings and discussions with the cruise lines.

Page | 3 2.3. B&A’s engagement continued the following year in working on the infrastructure for tourism by assisting DPC in creating a strategy on how to be able to attract more cruise ships into the area, the kind of activities, facilities needed, hard infrastructure and tourism infrastructure, and how to actually market the business to the cruise lines.

2.4. Although B&A was not involved in the preparation of the planning application and supporting documentation to An Bord Pleanála, the major elements and recommendations from B&A to expand the cruise business, and to strategically locate the facilities in a site integrated with Dublin City and suggested modifications to North Wall Quay Extension have been included.

3. General observations

3.1. The future growth of the traffic in Dublin

Dublin Port is Ireland’s premier port, with over 17,000 ship movements annually across all modes of transportation. Over the past 20 years, Dublin City has developed into a very popular destination for cruise line passengers from Europe and North America. In 2012 nearly 100,000 cruise passengers visited Dublin on 88 cruise calls from a wide variety of cruise lines. This number has grown to 153,000 passengers in 2013. Dublin has traditionally been a port- of-call. In addition, in recent years, a number of homeport visits have also been accommodated and, with the present level of convenient air and hotel infrastructure, the possibility for continued growth in this regard is possible. Today, cruise ships are hosted at the Dublin Port Company (DPC) berths that are also used for other cargo operations. This provides an unattractive welcome to cruise passengers and does not allow for a positive linkage to the City and experience for the visitor.

Through discussions with Dublin City Council and Dublin Chamber of Commerce, DPC recognizes that the development of the cruise industry is of wider strategic importance to the City of Dublin. Dublin City Council has published a Local Area Plan, Cruise Tourism Urban Regeneration (CTUR), which envisages developing a designated cruise terminal/facility at Dublin Port.

The underlying conditions are such that despite issues such as economic recessions, depressions, accidents, viruses and terrorism, the cruise industry thrives. The figure below shows year-on-year growth for the past two decades. Ship orders are such that growth into the foreseeable future is almost assured. Therefore, when B&A determined the potential for Dublin, the basic question to study was: how attractive and competitive are cruises that call and originate from Dublin and what did DPC have to do to make that a reality?

Page | 4 WORLDWIDE CRUISE PASSENGERS BY REGION 25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000 Passengers ('000) Passengers 5,000

Asia Europe North America

The City of Dublin is a marquee destination in the region due to its name brand recognition and delivery of tourism venues, products and services. Dublin’s centralized location in the British Isles provides for excellent use in planning a variety of itinerary patterns. They include Transatlantic, British Isles, Norwegian Fjords, Iceland, Repositioning and Coastal cruises.

Dublin is a key port-of-call on a variety of current cruise patterns. In the future, there are opportunities for increasing homeport options for the North American and European markets. In the long-term, the development of expanded cruise seasonality in the Canary Islands, Africa and Cape Verde may also influence deployment options in the region, inclusive of Dublin.

As part of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) assessment conducted, questionnaires were sent to key cruise line decision-makers (mainly marketing and deployment personnel) in all of the major cruise lines operating in the region inclusive of North American, European and UK branded operators.

Below are key excerpts from the feedback received from cruise lines outlining specific topics:

 The Port and City have brand name marquee recognition and stronger market value.  Dublin is in an excellent position for turnarounds in the mid-term.  There is a need for new facilities for homeport and POC in Dublin.  New facilities need to provide higher guest satisfaction.  Facilities should serve the cruise lines and community (multi-purpose).  Lack of dedicated terminal and car parking is a problem for home-porting.  The Irish economy affects how many local consumers buy cruises.  There is also a need for additional airlift to support cruise homeport operations.

Page | 5  Facilities close to the city centre offer the best overall passenger experience. o All cruise line decision-makers interviewed prefer Dublin over Dun Laoghaire.  Dublin is an excellent port of call. o Dun Laoghaire too far from city centre.  Prefer walking distance to Dublin city centre.  Cruise facilities need to be away from any ferry facilities.

From a marquee value destination perspective, Dublin ranks high. There is brand recognition across all passenger demographics. While there were some specific comments concerning the marine and shore excursion operations, overall cruise operators see Dublin as a good entity to deal with on issues. While berth availability is good, the location of the berths within the port does cause issues with cruise lines due to a lack of passenger access and costs of shuttle buses, etc. Tourism venues and activities were strong overall for Dublin.

B&A generated future cruise passenger projections using a variety of methodologies; among them, market capture analysis and short-term cruise line patterns. Our methodology includes, establishing global forecasts, establishing market capture of Northern Europe and of the key market deployments; which led to a market share to Dublin;

For the purposes of the projections we assumed that Northern Europe growth rates will moderate over time producing a conservative average range of 6.7% growth per annum, increasing the number of passengers by 2033 from 3.9 to 4.6 million annually.

Separate projections were done on a deployment basis that evaluated a company-by- company forecast of deployment.

Based on the above, a composite projection of all the approaches yields a range of annual passengers from a low point of 248,345, a target of 342,965 to a high potential of 424,345 passengers in 2033.

DUBLIN RANGE OF PASSENGER PROJECTIONS, 2013 – 2033

450,000

400,000

350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000

150,000 Cruise passengers Cruise 100,000 50,000 0

Historical Low Target High

Page | 6 Since these forecasts were made two years ago, the actual results are well within the projected track and ahead of the target projection.

3.2. Ship size

The one aspect of the cruise industry that is very well understood is the trend that has existed now for well over two decades: ships are getting bigger. Future vessel size is driven by the need to optimize capacity providing for more space to increase revenue options and spread the cost structure over a greater area in terms of passenger load. New build vessels are increasing in size and the trend is continuing, below is a graph showing the average number of passengers on the ships delivered by year including the ships already ordered, confirmed and under construction.

AVERAGE PASSENGERS PER SHIP BY YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION, 1999 - 2017

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

In order to accommodate this number of passengers, cruise lines and shipyards have increased all of the dimensions of cruise ships, with the most noticeable being the length. The figure below shows the average length of vessels in feet by year of construction.

Page | 7 AVERAGE LENGTH-OVERALL (LOA) OF SHIPS BY YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION, 1980 – 2015

400

350

300

250

200

150

100 Average Length (meters) Length Average 50

0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

As can be seen from this graph, the average size ship is over 330 meters in overall length. It is important to note that none of the major cruise lines (Carnival, Princess, Cunard, Royal Caribbean, Celebrity, MSC, and Norwegian Cruise Lines) have recently taken delivery or ordered a ship of any lesser size. In fact only 18% of all the ships built in the last five years are less than 300 meters in length.

Since the design life of each ship is known and the capabilities of ship yards is also well understood, the fleet size moving forward can very accurately estimated. In the case of Dublin, length of the ship is critical since, if the port does not upgrade the facilities, ships will be limited and the market will not be served.

Thus, looking over the long-term, the figure below shows the percent of ships in the total worldwide fleet that will be greater than 300 meters in length.

Page | 8 ESTIMATED PERCENT OF SHIPS OVER 330 METERS, 2012 - 2040

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

All fleet Majors only

Multiple brands and vessel types servicing several different itineraries are within Dublin’s market sphere. They include the North American market, which typically offers newer larger vessels, fewer calls, and greater passenger capacity, LOAs and beam. These have typically been the newer vessels in the worldwide fleet.

For Dublin, the net result of the cruise vessel development trends is that current and future pier, terminal and upland areas will need to be able to accommodate larger cruise vessels as older smaller vessels are phased out and newer larger vessels are brought into the fleets.

The ability for Dublin to accommodate ships of more than 100,000-GT and up to 300 metres LOA is a key factor in its ability to serve as a primary regional POC in the mid-term. In the long-term, Dublin will need to accommodate vessels approaching 150,000-GT and over 330 metres to continue to meet the demands of the cruise industry and support cruise tourism to Dublin.

If the DPC facilities cannot be reconfigured to facilitate this market, then DPC and thus Dublin City will be restricted in receiving calls in the future.

Based upon future new build trends of the industry and the deployment scenarios studied, it is anticipated that the average number of passengers per sailing will grow from approximately 1,132 persons in 2012 to 2,448 passengers per sailing in 2033. This is a growth rate of 4.56% per annum. With the high scenario the rate climbs to 2,536 passengers per call.

3.3. Competition & Alternatives

Page | 9

Throughout the studies that B&A has completed all over the world, there are some common themes that can be identified. Firstly, ports are very competitive with each other and, secondly, the cruise line customers prefer to have choices for their services.

The overall concept that choice and competition is good for an area or region because it drives each facility to excel is valid here. The largest and most successful cruise ports in the world all reside with the same competitive environment. Miami and Port Everglades are a mere 30 kilometres apart. They tend to the same cruise line customers and their desire to compete has allowed each to grow to become the number 1 and number 3 ports in the cruise world. Similarly, Seattle and Vancouver compete across national borders and each succeed and improve.

Thus, competition is the natural state of cruise ports. We know from cruise line interviews that cruise lines prefer their ships to come to Dublin’s City Centre at DPC and for An Bord Pleanála to consider potential competition effects as a reason not to approve a cruise development plan would, in the long-term, be detrimental to Dublin and Ireland.

3.4. Allocation of land and berth resources to cruise within a port

It has been suggested that DPC should not allocate land and berths to cruise because there are other uses that generate a greater yield to the port. This is an argument that goes to the heart of the role and function of a port in a community. If a port were to measure its investments and allocation of resources purely by highest and best yield, most ports would be devoid of ferry operations, bulk operations, and maritime servicing operations as these elements are the traditional functions of the port that produce little or no return on investment; and yet ports provide such services.

Most ports’ missions are framed within a national and regional strategy for economic development, transportation, defence and other goals. As a result, most ports in the world balance their business plans that yield different returns.

A better test for a port is to balance the economic goals of a region and its impact on its bottom line to make the smart choices as to investments. In the case of cruise business, the economic impact that cruise liners has is mostly felt outside of the DPC tariffs and charges. Passengers will spend on tours, taxis, meals and many other things which far surpass the revenues of any port. As a result, in places like Miami (the largest cruise port in the world), the port more commonly cites its economic impact on the community than the port’s revenues.

3.5. “Do Nothing” Alternative

Our conclusion is that, if DPC does not advance development of cruise facilities at Dublin Port, Dublin City will lose its ability to participate in this burgeoning cruise industry. The main argument cited by others against development of cruise facilities at Dublin port is the desire to relocate the ships to a remote port.

Page | 10 There are several points to consider about a remotely located port:

1. Passengers do not choose a destination because of a port, they choose a place that they would like to visit for its intrinsic cultural, historic, entertainment or other value. The port is only a means to an end. 2. Passengers do not like to be “bussed” around. 3. Cruise lines take their ships where there is passenger demand and they can make a return. 4. The cruise lines have indicated during our interviews their preference is to be near the City Centre. 5. The time that ships are in port is a finite period, therefore the time it takes to transport passengers to and from a city centre is time lost in the ability to offer activities to passengers. 6. Passengers are interested in visiting the historic centres of cities and cultural icons, not suburban areas. 7. Remote ports are those of last resort, when other options are not available, such as Civitavecchia is the Port of Rome (since Rome is many kilometres inland).

Therefore, all things being equal, the DPC location is the best location for a cruise terminal.

There is, however, a role for a remote port to succeed, but only when the remote port begins to define itself as a destination in itself. This is exactly what the Caribbean does, having many ports in very close proximity, each selling themselves to the passengers.

4. Submissions and Responses

The following are specific comments and response related to submissions made to the Board in relation to cruise operations and the proposed development of cruise facilities at Dublin Port. Each submission is summarised and a response is provided immediately thereunder.

4.1. Brady Shipman Martin on behalf of Drogheda Port Company

The Brady Shipman Martin report on behalf of Drogheda Port is focused entirely on cargo operations and since this statement relates exclusively to our work is relative to cruise, we have no comments on the report.

4.2. Tom Phillips Associates and AECOM Consulting on behalf of Dublin Graving Docks Ltd

Submission (AE1: Revenue from cruise)–

Page | 11 There appears to be a suggestion that cruise facilities are of less value to a port than any other uses. For example, a statement is made as to “giving over” 4.5 hectares to the cruise facilities producing a loss of revenue.

Response Ports are made up of revenue-generating facilities and non-revenue generating facilities. It is the totality of the port in meeting its overall mission that is the most important. Most ports have a dual mission with the primary being to serve maritime trade for the purpose of providing economic development to the country, region and city. Cruise ports, after they attain a certain level of maturity, can in fact generate higher revenues per hectare or per meter of berth than cargo. In fact, there are many activities which generate much less revenue per hectare, such as certain bulk operations, and yet these services are provided by ports.

Submission (AE2: Length of ship) The submission purports to provide percentages of cruise ships that currently are longer than 300 meters and the number of days in 2014 where the number of vessels exceeds a particular number.

Response DPC is planning for the future and for the growth of the cruise industry. As set out above, the overwhelming number of new cruise ships of the port’s customers will exceed the 300 metres in length. If Dublin Port does not cater for vessels of that size, Dublin Port will become obsolete and will be out of the cruise business.

4.3. Dr Diarmuid Ó’Gráda and DKM Economic Consultants on behalf of Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company

The following are comments in the report by Dr. Ó’Gráda (DG).

Submission DG1: Compatibility (page 1) The submission offers a comment that parts of the proposal are intrinsically incompatible by making a statement that the main function of the port is the facilitation of freight exports and imports.

Response Ports have a function to serve the totality of the maritime trade and their communities. Since the cruise industry is something that is relatively new in Europe and just a little bit older in America, many ports throughout the world are redeveloping themselves to provide for the dual use of cruise and cargo. There are few, if any, ports that have declined to provide service for cruise ships.

Submission DG2: Competition of land within the port (pages 3, 4, and 5)

Page | 12 There is a statement that the decision to allocate land to cruise is taking away from cargo operations.

Response The allocation of land resources within a port varies from time to time reflecting the overall needs and changing market conditions. In addition, capacities of port land and berths are a variable depending on the methods used and the agility of the operations. Containerization has totally transformed the way cargo moves as well as other uses within the port. Therefore it is the function of the port to be able to allocate resources in a changing environment. The allocation of land is not a static process either. Ports have the ability to increase capacity by increasing the throughput of both its land and berth resources. For example in the cargo area, you can begin to stack up containers higher and you can allocate faster cranes. That’s how most ports in the world can increase capacities from moving under 2000 TEU’s per hectare to well over 15,000 to 20,000 TEU’s per hectare within the same land space. Thus one use is not at the expense of the other. In the cruise area, ships handling 4,000 passengers take hardly more room than ships carrying 2,600 passengers, thus the berth is more productive.

Submission DG3 - Moving ports to less congested areas The report tries to make the case that ports are relocating outside of cities to get away from congested areas and for lack of compatibility with the surrounding cities and that a congested port is a place unfit for dedicated cruise vessels.

Response The concept of ports moving out of the central city’s congested area 100% of the time is referring to the movement of container and heavy cargo to industrial areas away from the City. As a result, in many major metropolitan areas, container, bulk and other industrial operations have been moved to other locations if it is deemed to be incompatible with the surrounding uses.

On the other hand, the direct opposite is true for cruise. It is the desire of cruise lines and passengers and cities to retain this business in close proximity to the city or area which they are going to visit. Throughout the world, if at all possible and the facilities are in existence, ports relocate the cruise closer to the urban core. In New York, for example, all sorts of shipping was relocated to Port Elizabeth, New Jersey years ago, except for the passenger cruise terminals that are the

Page | 13 only remaining historical uses and now is a part of the Hudson River Park.

In San Francisco, all of the piers along the city’s edge along the famous Embarcadero have given way to urban uses except for the cruise terminals. Not only has San Francisco City and its Port retained the old cruise terminals, it just opened a brand new terminal this month, which is viewed as a very desirable location. (See picture taken in July of construction progress, the foreground will be a park)

Submission DG4 - Proximity to city centre (Page 5) Respective distances of Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Ports from Dublin city centre.

Response Cruise ships and passengers want to land in the city, not a suburb. Passengers are only in port for a few hours, and come to a destination to see the main sights and attractions. In Dublin, as elsewhere in Europe, these are located in and around the City centre.

Submission DG5 - ultimate disposition of Dublin Port (Page 7): The submission questions why the cruise port should be located in Dublin in the first place because the port might have to be relocated in the future.

Response The fact that Dublin City Council’s LAP supports the cruise development proposals of the ABR project indicates that the project is based on sustainable planning and provides for a stronger relationship between the port and the city. Historically, the settlements that eventually became the City of Dublin were centred around its port on the River.

The working nature of the river alongside the new urban landscape creates a dynamic for the water’s edge which is befitting of its history and course.

Submission DG6 - security (Page 10) Dublin Port is “out of bounds” for safety and security.

Response There is no data to support this contention. The case for the integration of a cruise terminal into an urban waterfront and maintaining the highest levels as provided within the ISPS Code can be done with intelligent design.

Submission DG7 - Congestion (pages 15 and 16) The port would be very busy and, as such, congestion could exist.

Response No specific data is provided to show that congestion will affect operations.

Page | 14

From a marine operations perspective, the number of vessel operations within the harbour can be easily modelled. Based on our experience at ports that handle over 10 cruise ship calls on any given day through a single channel, three cruise ships operating within the harbour with this length of channel will have plenty of operational time to be able to move in and out without any congestion problems.

Submission DG8 Summary (page 18) The report purports to provide a summary of the arguments providing that Dun Laoghaire will be a much more attractive port than the Dublin Port.

Response Remote cruise ports are not as successful as city ports. The ports that are most sought out by the cruise lines are those located in or near city centres. To cite a few examples, the Port of Seattle developed its first terminal in Pier 66 as part of the Central Harbour Redevelopment Program; subsequently the port needed to grow and built additional more remote facilities. However, the port’s major cruise line at the time (NCL) refused to move citing the need to be “in the City”.

Likewise Vancouver has decided to close its remote terminal at the Ballentyne Pier and move 100% of its traffic to Canada Place a location in the city. Only if there is no alternative (e.g., the Port of Rome) or some major issue exists will the cruise line prefer to locate remotely to a major city centre.

4.4 The following are comments in the report by DKM Consulting (DK).

Submission DK1 - Fleet size (page 7) There is a comparison trying to draw conclusions as to the current fleet size make-up and as to why this project is not needed.

Response This document provides a discussion on the future make-up of the cruise fleet and how cruise vessels are growing in size. Indeed, as stated above, such trends in increasing vessel length will make the current Dublin Port cruise facilities obsolete and hence the cruise development aspects of the ABR project have been proposed. Even today, a large percentage of the world fleet cannot come to Dublin due to size.

Page | 15 Submission DK2 - Differences between Ports (page 10) The report contends that the advantages of Dun Laoghaire are certain attributes such as shorter sailing times, easier access to berths, and more time on-shore for the passenger.

Response If the argument is that passengers will spend more time onshore so they can be on a bus to be driven to Dublin, the argument is self-defeating. As to the shorter sailing time, there is insufficient proof that the sailing time is significantly different and is related to the difference in the transit time within the channel to get to the berth. All of these are well within operational parameters for the cruise lines. Where cruise lines tend to differentiate is when the sailing distances between ports are significant enough that they can save large amounts of fuel while underway.

Submission - Relative size of revenues (page 13) There seems to be an implication that the cruise revenue as a percentage of total port revenue is a significant issue to consider.

Response We are not sure where this fits in making a planning decision. In any event, ports should grow in a sustainable manner; usually that means having a good diversity of revenue sources, including cruise line revenues.

Submission DK4 - Urban regeneration (page 14) There is an argument being made that urban regeneration of Dublin is better served by having cruise ships at Dun Laoghaire.

Response In waterfronts throughout the world, cruise ships, which are a tourism product for people (not cargo), are being used as a tool for regeneration by bringing activity, commerce, and attraction to the waterfront. Cruise ships attract retail and other commercial establishments. The proposition that Dublin Port should move the cruise ships out and maintain Dublin Port as a purely cargo port and that this would, somehow, foster urban regeneration is totally illogical.

Successful waterfronts have a series of common elements; among them is the diversity of uses and/or districts which allow for rich experiences. Cruise ships not only bring people to the waterfront, but themselves become one additional attraction for non-cruisers to come and see.

Submission DK5 – Monopoly (page 15) Dun Laoghaire should be designated as the “sole cruise facility in Dublin”.

Response Clearly, this proposition is anti-competitive. Dublin Port Company is not applying to An Bord Pleanála as to whether Dublin Port should be the sole cruise facility in Dublin. Rather, DPC is applying to the Board for permission for

Page | 16 the ABR project, including its cruise development element, is a sustainable development which should be consented in the interests of proper planning. .

Dublin would benefit from having multiple providers of cruise port services which will mean that each provider would improve its facilities to attract more customers and, as a result, the tourism product should improve. Multiple facilities should create conditions to provide a better product and help attract more business to the region.

The DKM submission is not supported by any evidence from any of the cruise lines to the effect that one facility should be designated as the sole facility. In most areas in the world, dual facilities are by and large promoted and preferred by cruise lines as it is in their interest to maintain competition. Major cruise areas include South Florida where Port Miami and Port Everglades are located within 35 kilometres of each other. In another major area, Seattle and Vancouver, are in close proximity. In the Southwest area of the United States Los Angeles and San Diego are located in close proximity. In Europe ports along the Mediterranean such as Genoa, Savona and Barcelona all in close proximity to each other and all competing and being successful in the business.

4.5. Tom Phillips Associates on behalf of Dublin Graving Docks

Submission TP1 - off-season commercial uses of North Wall Quay (page 9) There are no alternative commercial uses for the North Quay during the off- season.

Response As a general observation, in most ports that are surrounded by large municipalities, waterfront areas are highly sought after, very attractive and highly desired for commercial uses. People like to come to the water’s edge and the project can be designed in a way to attract commercial uses year- round. In many places, a year-round design can be achieved to provide weather protection to commercial spaces.

Submission TP2 – Large ship capacity at the port (Page 13 last paragraph) The submission claims that there was not an in-depth expert analysis presented for the ceiling that the port’s long-term capacity to meet the need to accommodate larger ships.

Response This document contains a detailed evaluation showing a progression of cruise ship sizes over time as well as the forecasts for cruise ship sizes. It is beyond argument that, unless a port is willing to provide for berthing of ships over 300 metres, it cannot realistically expect to continue in the cruise business over the medium- to long-term.

Page | 17 Submission TP3 – Congestion (Page 16 second last paragraph) The ABR proposal is a more complicated and congested arrangement in terms of ship movements than the previous master plan.

Response As far as cruise ships are concerned, the arrangement proposed in the ABR project is very satisfactory. Complicated or busy does not make it worse. In fact, most ports strive to be busy. Many of the world’s largest cruise ports (#1Miami, #2 Port Canaveral, #3 Port Everglades) have a single entrance channel such as in Dublin and they operate more than satisfactorily.

5. Conclusions

In general, some of the documents filed by the objectors discussed in this report can be very simply summarized as entities that are vying with Dublin Port business. Put in these terms, the issues are clearly understood.

Many of the submissions made contend that the ABR project will result in poor or incompatible city-port integration; and yet the most supportive document of all comes from the Dublin City Council itself.

We are of the view that the cruise development aspects of the proposed ABR project are consistent with and will support the continued growth of Dublin Port as a destination for cruise vessels. Dublin Port is the preferred location for cruise vessels visiting the East Coast of Ireland, helped by the close proximity of Dublin Port to Dublin City Centre. The proposed development works, through an increase in the size of available berths and the deepening of the channel depth will allow Dublin City to attract significant more cruise visitors with the consequent benefits that this will bring for the wider Dublin area.

Page | 18 STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (REG. NO. PL29N .PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

WITNESS STATEMENT OF TERRY DURNEY

PLANNING POLICY (INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES)

1. Qualifications and Experience

1.1 I am Mr Terry Durney. I am a town planner and a partner in the practice of MacCabe Durney Barnes Planning Consultants. I hold a Diploma in Town Planning from University College Dublin and am a member of the Irish Planning Institute. I am also an architect holding a Diploma in Architecture from the Dublin Institute of Technology and am a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland. I have 40 years’ experience in planning and related work.

1.2 My planning experience is generalist in nature but I have particular experience in marine projects and advised Dublin Port Company (DPC) on the Gateway project in Dublin Port and Sispar and Wicklow County Council on the Greystones Harbour Project in County Wicklow.

2. Involvement in the Project

2.1 MacCabe Durney Barnes was engaged in November 2012 in relation to the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project (ABR) and made the pre-application submission on behalf of Dublin Port Company (DPC) to An Bord Pleanála on the 28th January 2013 and attended the subsequent pre-application meetings held on the 14th March 2013 and 27th May 2013. The Board decided on the 8th July 2013 that the proposed development is strategic infrastructure. 2.2 I subsequently advised DPC on planning aspects of the application and was the author of the Planning Report that formed part of the application for permission to the Board made on 6th March 2014. I also prepared the alternatives section contained in the EIS.

3. This Statement, the Planning Report and Alternatives

This statement confines itself to updating and providing further elaboration on aspects of the proposed development, as appropriate, and addresses certain submissions made to the Board that are relevant from a planning perspective.

Planning Report The Planning Report that was submitted with the application sets out the critical areas of compliance of the proposed development with:  statutory and other policy documentation; and  proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Appendix 2 attaching to the Report sets out the project rationale. Alternatives Alternatives are addressed in a number of places in the application documentation. For example, the EIS contains a section on alternatives written from an environmental and sustainable planning point of view. Appendix 6 attached to Appendix 2 of the Planning Report also considers the issue of alternatives from DPC’s perspective as experts in factors that determine port location, It is not intended to re-iterate the environmental/planning alternatives in detail in this statement other than to set out the principal headings examined 2

and also to address alternatives in response to submissions which refer specifically to the topic.

4. Recent Developments

4.1 The Eastern Bypass This Dublin Eastern Bypass Feasibility Study (2007) concluded that there exists a strong economic case for retaining the Dublin Eastern Bypass motorway scheme as a medium to long term objective of the National Roads Authority. The Feasibility Study concluded that the existing route reservation through the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council jurisdiction between Sandyford and Belfield should continue to be protected for the future development of the scheme. It was also recommended that development aspirations for Dublin Port should respect the future need for the scheme and should allow for the provision of a reservation for the future construction of the scheme. The Feasibility Study investigated several route options for the motorway scheme, having divided the route between Dublin Port and Sandyford into four sectors, including, Sector A: Dublin Port. In relation to Dublin Port, the following route options were retained following the Feasibility Study Stage: A1: Medium Level Opening Bridge across Dublin Port; A2: Cut & Cover Tunnel through Dublin Port; and A4: High Level Bridge across Dublin Port. The Board highlighted the issue of the Eastern Bypass at the last pre-application meeting (27th May 2013) prior to the submission of the planning application as something that the proposed development should not curtail. The Bypass is also referred to in the EIS. Appendix 4 of the submitted Planning Report, which sets out the situation with regard to the Bypass in further detail as it applied at the date of application to the Board (6th March 2014). Since then the National Roads Authority (NRA) has produced a new corridor study entitled Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study Sector A: Dublin Tunnel to Sandymount Strand, September 2014. Accordingly, the 2013 – 2014 study of the section of the Eastern Bypass between the North Port Junction and the Poolbeg Peninsula identified that Route A4 was no longer considered to be feasible due to conflicts with other development proposals in the area – most particularly Dublin Port Company’s aspiration to accommodate large cruise liners in the Alexandra Basin. Route A4 is therefore no longer retained as a feasible option for the Eastern Bypass in Sector A. The 2013 – 2014 study also re-examined Options A1 and A2 and introduced a new Option (A6) to route the motorway at grade. Conclusion and Compliance with Development Plan The identification by the NRA of a single bypass corridor in the vicinity of Dublin Port is a positive planning outcome in that it removes uncertainty. It resolves an issue which has been outstanding for some time and allows all parties to proceed to plan positively for a bypass. It is clear that the proposed ABR project is fully compliant with the Dublin City Development Plan in respect of the proposed Eastern Bypass. In particular, as set out in the NRA’s most recent corridor study, the protected corridor for Sector A of the Eastern Bypass between the North Port Junction and the Poolbeg Peninsula was reviewed and, following further consultations with Dublin City Council and the Dublin Port Company, one of the two previously protected corridors has been deleted and a revised single corridor that can accommodate a range of potential alignment options has been identified, which facilitates the provision of a reservation to the west of the ABR project within an ascertained corridor.

5.0 Additional Issues

5.1 Habitats Directive / Birds Directive

5.1.1 Introduction The Natura sites in Dublin Bay have exercised a strong influence of the planning of the project. In particular the application was formulated in the light of the EU Guidelines on the Implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in Estuaries and Coastal Zones (January 2011) with reference to its section on Guidelines for Spatial Planning in aiming for efficient land use by optimising space allocation of port industrial activities and making optimal use of different transport modes such as shipping and rail. It also was designed as the alternative that involved a location that did not give rise to significant impacts that would adversely affect the integrity of any designated site. 5.1.2 Compliance with the Development Plan The Dublin City Development Plan contains a number of policies in relation to conservation and includes the following:

GC26 To protect flora, fauna and habitats, which have been identified by the Habitats Directive, Birds Directive, Wildlife Act 1976 (as amended), the Flora Protection Order (S.I. NO.84 of 1999), and the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997(S.I. no. 94 of 1997). GC27 To conserve and manage all Natural Heritage Areas, Special Conservation Areas and Special Protection Areas identified and designated, or proposed to be designated, by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The impacts of the proposed development on the designated sites are described in detail in the EIS and NIS. They conclude that there are no significant impacts on qualifying bird species within either the South Dublin Bay SPA or River Tolka SPA and that the proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of the Rockabill to Dalkey cSAC, having regard to its conservation objectives in relation to reefs and harbour porpoises. The proposed development therefore fully accords with the Development Plan policies.

5.2 Conservation of the Archaeological and Industrial Archaeological Heritage

5.2.1 Archaeology

5.2.1.1 Compliance with the Development Plan The City Development Plan contains policies and development standards with regard to archaeology. Of particular relevance is Policy No. FC67. It states; “It is the policy of Dublin City Council ……… 5

To recognise the importance of underwater/inter-tidal archaeology.” Development Standards are set out in Paragraph 17.11 of the Development Plan. These standards relate primarily to zones of archaeological interest and the Board will note that the subject site is not within such a zone however a number of the standards are applicable to the proposed development. They include; . Where a site is deemed to require archaeological investigation, all in-situ remains shall be recorded according to best practice irrespective of date and evaluated for preservation in situ, . Ensure the assessment of industrial features during archaeological investigations . Where preservation in-situ is not feasible/appropriate, sites of archaeological interest shall be the subject to archaeological excavation and recording according to best practice, in advance of development . The results of all archaeological excavation shall be published in full in a reasonable time following archaeological site completion . The excavation archive shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the DoEHLG Guidelines to the Dublin City Archaeological Archive following site completion. The importance of underwater-inter-tidal archaeology is recognised in the application. The proposed development has been the subject of very detailed archaeological survey and investigation as set out in Chapter 12 of the EIS. The mitigation measures proposed address issues of excavation and best practice will be followed in terms of publication and submission to the City’s Archive.

5.2.2 Industrial Archaeology

5.2.2.1 Introduction The built heritage of the Port is essentially industrial archaeological heritage rather than architectural heritage. The heritage consists primarily of engineering works. Indeed there are only two buildings that are of interest i.e. the pump house which forms part of the historic engineering infrastructure associated with Graving Dock No.1. and the Lighthouse at the end of North Wall Quay Extension and these too could be considered to be engineering rather than architectural works. The Conservation Strategy and Industrial Heritage Appraisal Document prepared by Southgate Associates Engineering Conservation Consultants (The Southgate Associates Report), included in Appendix 5 of the Planning Report, as well as the EIS, evaluate all items of interest including machinery and those dating from quite recent times. Although none are rated in terms of being included on the Record of Protected Structures, they have been assigned a value as being of international, national, regional or local interest. An over- riding concern is that the cultural significance of Dublin Port as a deep-sea port is retained. That significance is threatened if the Port loses its ability to handle larger ships.

5.2.2.2 North Wall Quay Extension The conservation challenge relates primarily to North Wall Quay Extension which is accorded international status in terms of importance. Its particular interest lies in its engineering design and internal construction (which is not visible). It was designed in two phases, the first designed by Bindon Blood Stoney and the second by Joseph Mallagh, both former distinguished Chief Engineers of Dublin Port. The construction in the first phase involved laying down large concrete blocks on the sea bed which were then levelled by operatives in a diving bell specifically designed for the purpose. (The diving bell is featured on Sir John Rogerson’s Quay). The second phase involved the use of specially designed caissons. Both construction methodologies were pioneering at the time. Both the EIS and the Southgate Associates Report detail the Quay’s history, construction and importance. However it is part of the working Port and its configuration is not suitable for larger vessels in terms of draught and manoeuvrability. In functional terms it was originally constructed to handle bulk goods loaded and unloaded at the quayside and this type of goods handling has decreased significantly. It is the key location for cruise vessels to meet the objective of re-integrating the Port with the City as set out in the Masterplan and endorsed in the Government’s Ports Policy document. As cruise vessels are increasing in size in terms of length, a reconfigured quay is essential to allow vessels to turn around. It should be noted that the reconfigured quays will cater for both passenger cruise and cargo vessels. Cruise business is seasonal and cargo vessels (such as car transporters which tend to be counter cyclical to the cruise season) will use the quay to maximise the use of port facilities. The proposed development in relation to the Quay involves the demolition of:

 The eastern end of the Quay to widen the turning circle at the entrance to Alexandra Basin. (note: large ships will not reverse out along a shipping channel of this length for safety reasons)  A section of its northern side (Alexandra Quay West).

The construction of:

 New quay walls that will be deeper and more robust than the present walls in order to cater for an additional berth and larger ships. The walls will be constructed to the outside of the existing quay walls on the southern side.  Interpretative facilities at the western end close to the public domain.

The existing lighthouse will also be carefully taken down for re-erection and conservation measures taken. In order to achieve the functional requirements whilst recognising the conservation importance of the Extension, a conservation strategy has been devised by DPC’s engineering conservation/architectural consultants Southgate Associates and MOLA Architecture. This is set out in two complementary reports: the Southgate Associates report as mentioned above and Conservation Strategy for the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project- The Design Framework by Mola Architecture and Southgate Associates appended as Appendix 6 to the submitted Planning Report. The conservation strategy can be summarised as follows:

 Accurately record the existing North Wall Quay Extension structure. 7

 Retain as much of the original structure as possible.  Create six conservation zones along the Liffey frontage where the original walls will be visible behind the new quay walls in juxtaposition and where features such as stone steps and mooring rings are present.  Use of as much as possible of good stone material from the demolition works to provide a rounded profile to the re-configured quay wall at its upper levels.  Move the lighthouse to the eastern end of the re-configured quay.  Retain and present one of the massive historic concrete blocks that forms part of the pioneering structure that was hitherto hidden from view, on the quayside.  Construct an interpretive building to house the block for public exhibition, which would explain the construction process.

The most historic and interesting part of the Quay is, as indicated above, its unseen part i.e. the internal construction. The stone walls are of lesser importance and can be viewed in the context of the extensive existing Liffey Quay walls further west which are included on the Record of Protected Structures and are in excess of four kilometres long to both sides of the Liffey. The strategy has been to add conservation value by explaining the pioneering engineering concept behind the construction of the Quay Extension to the public whilst allowing views of the original quay wall in juxtaposition with the new quay walls, which in themselves are of engineering interest (even if, as yet, they do not have the cachet of age).

5.2.2.3 Other Conservation Works Alexandra Quay West is also given an international rating because of its use of caissons designed by Mallagh. The concrete facing elements are not of value. This quay will not be demolished and the integrity of the structure will be maintained. A new deeper quay wall will form the new facing. Aside from the Quays rated as being of international importance, one item is designated as being of national importance i.e. Graving Dock No. 1. The excavation and restoration of the graving dock is a key element in the project. This is again described in the EIS and Appendix 5 to the submitted Planning Report. The North Wall Lighthouse is assigned a rating of regional importance. It also has an iconic visual status. It will be moved to a new position at the eastern end of the reconfigured North Wall Quay Extension. This will be the second time it has been moved, having been moved to its current location in 1931 when Joseph Mallagh completed the construction of the Quay. The methodology for moving it and drawings are included in Appendix 5 of the Planning Report. Complimentary measures in the form of works to other elements of regional or local importance and others, whilst not given any special importance, are of interest. These include:

 The restoration of the pump house associated with Graving Dock No. 1 and its associated light standard.

 Retention of all historic items such as cap stones, mooring rings located within the ground along the western side of the site within a linear conservation zone.  Retention of the entrance gates at the interface with North Wall Quay.  Retention of historic crane rails.  Retention of historic cranes and capstans.

Graving Dock No 1 will be infilled. However, it will be fully surveyed and filled under the supervision of a qualified expert to ensure that the works are reversible and the Dock is capable of restoration to a substantial degree at a future date. The Port Company is mindful that conservation of historic or interesting features is a key planning consideration but unlike in the past where the Port continued to expand eastwards into Dublin Bay and left historic quayside structures behind to become part of City, it has now to re-engineer existing facilities that are part of the working port. It cannot afford to leave and abandon redundant infrastructure but must repair, reconfigure or adapt as required.

8.2.2.4 Compliance with the Dublin City Development Plan The issue of compliance with any objectives or policies in terms of statutory planning conservation does not arise as the features are not listed in the Record of Protected Structures; rather DPC itself has recognised the conservation importance of many of the structures and items within their care. It has worked hard at addressing the issue and considers that it has taken responsible steps to preserve the historic legacy of North Wall Quay Extension and the other features in the manner set out above whilst meeting its key objectives for:

 Re-integration of the Port with the city,  Provision of suitable modern shipping facilities and  Retention of the cultural importance of Dublin as a deep-sea port.

The outcome can be viewed as a positive response in balancing the sometimes conflicting objectives involved in a project of this nature. Although the Development Plan refers mainly to Protected Structures it contains policies of tangential relevance as follows: FC26 To protect and conserve the city’s cultural and built heritage; sustaining its unique significance, fabric and character to ensure its survival for future generations. FC28 To continue to protect our built heritage, and development proposals affecting the built heritage will be assessed in accordance with the DoEHLG document “Architectural Heritage Protection, Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2004”. The proposed development complies with the planning authority’s policies in that it seeks to conserve and enhance the heritage within this part of the port and in so doing so uses the Guidelines that are most appropriate. Taken together the proposed development represents an enhancing of the conservation of this part of the port whilst permitting it to meet functional requirements for modern shipping.

5.2.2.5 Applying Appropriate Guidelines Although strictly speaking the features of interest in the port are of industrial archaeological interest rather than architectural heritage, DPC has been guided in its approach by Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2004 and in particular by the conservation principles set out in paragraph 7.2 of that document which have universal application to heritage structures, these include;

 Keeping a Structure in Use

 Researching and Analysing

 Using Expert Advice

 Protecting the Special Interest

 Minimum Intervention

 Honesty of Repair and Alteration

 Using Appropriate Materials including Salvaged Materials

 Ensuring Reversibility of Alterations. Keeping a Structure in Use The proposed development is designed to retain the use of North Wall Quay Extension in particular as part of the active port. The Guidelines recognise that heritage structures cannot remain frozen in time. Good conservation practice allows a structure to adapt to meet changing needs while retaining its particular significance. The challenge facing DPC was to adapt the Quay to meet changing needs whilst celebrating its core heritage importance. It considers that it has met this challenge. A significant part of the quay is retained and the new interventions ensure its continued use. Researching and Analysing DPC has through its consultants researched all items of heritage interest in the port and analysed their special characteristics. In the case of North Wall Quay Extension the key important heritage characteristic is the structural methodology. Graving Dock No. 1 is the most interesting of the graving docks and will be preserved in-situ. Using Expert Advice DPC has used expert advice and in particular sought advice from Christopher Southgate Associates who specialises in engineering conservation as well as Dr Colin Rynne with his expertise in industrial archaeology. Protecting the Special Interest. The special interest which is the engineering aspect is preserved insofar as possible. The approach has been to highlight the engineering methodology in North Wall Quay Extension by displaying one of the historic concrete block components within an interpretation centre directly located on the Quay and by preserving the other elements of conservation interest. Minimum Intervention

Intervention is minimal in the case of the graving dock and the pump house and is restricted as far as possible in the case of North Wall Quay Extension. Honesty of Repair and Alterations/ Salvaged Materials The new engineering works are expressed honestly outside the older fabric of the existing quay wall. Existing recovered stone from the Quay will be used for repair as appropriate in comparable areas to where the stone originates. Ensuring Reversibility of Alterations By constructing the new quay walls outside the existing walls on North Wall Quay Extension the old walls could be restored at a future date. However this may not be desirable as the new walls might well have their own interest to future generations and in this sense would replicate the protected quay walls on North Wall Quay which also feature a quay wall constructed against an earlier original.

5.2.2.6 A Balanced View.

Planners are frequently required to balance competing objectives between development and other issues such as conservation. My submission is that an excellent result has been achieved in this application by approaching the issue in a creative and imaginative manner.

The proposed development achieves the objective of

 meeting the technical demands of catering for increased shipping sizes to meet national objectives for port handling capacity and, that of bringing cruise vessels close to the city centre to set up a new more integrated relationship between City and Port, whilst also  conserving as much of past engineering achievements as possible but also providing added conservation value by celebrating past achievements through the new interpretative measures combined with the featured conservation zones particularly along the North Wall Quay Extension on the River.

6. Submissions and Responses In preparing this witness statement, I have considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to planning aspects of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project. I have addressed each submission or observation in turn below, before providing my response to the essential points being made. My consideration is confined largely to planning issues raised in the submissions and not to operational and environmental issues which are addressed in statements by other more appropriate members of the applicant’s team.

Submissions by Prescribed and Other State Bodies

6.1 Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAU)

Submission

In the submission on the heritage aspect of the application, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht makes a number of observations in relation to the proposed development and the EIS.

Response

As indicated above, these will be addressed by our own expert witnesses, however, as a planner I would comment on the suggestion that the interpretive elements on North Wall Quay Extension be relocated to the conserved pump house.

Although an interesting suggestion, there were considered reasons behind the location of the interpretive element on North Wall Quay Extension as follows;

 There appeared to be conservation value in placing the massive pre-cast concrete block on the Quay itself to explain what lay beneath. Its structural function is associated with the quayside and not the graving dock.

 The interpretive elements form part of a planned heritage trail that includes the diving bell on Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, the idea being that there is a series of interesting linked artefacts rather than a concentration in one location. The aim is to encourage pedestrian movement along the quays that links directly to the Port.

 The quayside will more accessible to the public in that it will be open on a more continuous basis than the pump house.

 It is highly visible to the public and cruise visitors.

 There is an objective to link the port and the city in a creative and visible manner and the interpretive elements of high quality architectural design would signal a more prominent and immediate link as well as an improved environment.

 DPC wish to enhance the visual environment for cruise passengers and the improved quayside including the interpretive elements, lighthouse and surface restoration are designed to achieve this aim.

The Board is requested to retain the interpretive elements shown on the quayside in any decision to grant permission in relation to the proposed development.

6.2 The National Roads Authority

Submission

The NRA in its submission agrees that extensive discussions have taken place with regard to the identification of a technically feasible corridor for the proposed Eastern By-pass that would not preclude the development of the ABR project and that such a route has been identified. However the submission appears to suggest that a revised Dublin City Development Plan is required to copper fasten the route (although it does not state that the proposed corridor is not compliant with the existing Development Plan).

Response

The line of the By-pass is annotated as being ‘indicative only’ on Map F of the Development Plan. This is a common annotation in development plans where a route is subject to further detailed technical and environmental study before a definitive alignment is selected. The proposed corridor is compliant with the Development Plan and it is noted in its submission that the Planning Authority shares DPC’s interpretation (see below).

However, since its submission to the Board, the NRA has produced a new corridor protection study as set out in paragraph 4.1 above, which identifies a revised single corridor that can accommodate a range of potential alignment options and which facilitates the provision of a reservation to the western side of the ABR project within an ascertained corridor.

The Board is free to decide that a suitable corridor has been identified and that in addition a positive planning outcome will be achieved in that uncertainty is removed.

The comment in relation to requiring the agreed corridor to be included in a new Development Plan in the submission is a matter for the planning authority in deciding to make or vary its development plans, and is not relevant to this application.

DPC engaged successfully and co-operatively with the NRA with regards to the Eastern Bypass and a number of meetings took place (as referenced in the recent Corridor Protection Study). The Board will note the comment in the NRA submission that “a very limited consultation took place with regard to the Environmental Impact Statement for the project especially with regard to the supporting Transport Impact Assessment”. I refer the Board to the letter received from the NRA dated 16th May 2013 at the scoping stage where the Authority expressed an unwillingness to engage directly with the applicant (see Appendix 8.1 of the EIS).Their wishes were respected in this regard.

The NRA refers to possible construction dirt or dust deposition in the Tunnel. DPC will prevent the deposition of construction dirt or dust in the Tunnel. As a matter of course it follows all relevant NRA guidelines as applicable. The high-level outline Construction Environmental Management Plan submitted as part of the additional information supplied to the Board also addresses the issue.

6.3 National Transport Authority Submission

The authority refers to the desirability of maintaining a corridor reservation for the Eastern Bypass, the preparation of a Transport Plan for the area and supports the relocation of the main movement in and out of the Port to the northern end of the Port.

Response

These are all objectives which DPC shares.

6.4 ESB/ Eirgrid Submission

Both submissions refer to the need to maintain continuity of supply and indicate that they will work with DPC to finalise the design of the new replacement 220kV cable which is likely to be a strategic infrastructure development requiring separate permission from the Board.

Response

The additional information to the Board addresses the issue insofar as it can be addressed at this stage. Eirgrid has subsequently expressed its satisfaction on the issue in a recent submission to the Board on the additional information furnished to the Board (8th September 2014).

6.5 An Taisce Submission

An Taisce recognises that DPC has responded to their previous submission in relation to the Gateway Project where they recommended the enhancement of the use of existing berthage before considering further reclamation.

Response

The comments of An Taisce in this regard are welcomed.

Submissions from Other Harbour Companies and Operators

6.6 Submission from the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company Limited (DLHC)

The Attractiveness and Suitability of Dublin for Cruse Visits

Submission

DLHC is critical of the use of port lands for cruise vessels in the light of pressure for accommodation for cargo vessels (as are some operator submissions). It sets out the case for cruise accommodation in Dun Laoghaire Harbour and refers to the inclusion of cruise ship facilities in the DLHC Masterplan and the references to Dun Laoghaire Harbour in National Ports Policy. It is critical of Dublin Port as a suitable environment for cruise vessels.

Response

This issue has been addressed in the opening statements to the hearing. DPC has developed the cruise business in Dublin and considers that it is the cruise companies that select the destinations they wish to visit. Dublin City has proved an attractive destination for such vessels and DPC envisages the continued growth in such visits. The city centre contains the major retail and cultural destinations that attract cruise passengers. These include the Grafton Street and Henry Street retail cores, Trinity College and the Book of Kells, the Guinness Storehouse, the National Gallery and Museums, St Patricks and Christchurch Cathedrals as well as the its historic Georgian Core. It also enjoys immediate access to the motorway system so that other attractions for day tours such as the Boyne Valley/Trim/Tara and Glendalough/Powerscourt can be reached easily by coaches without having to traverse the city or suburbs. Its proximity to the city centre permits independent access by passengers by foot, Dublin Bikes or Luas.

DHLC has sought to develop cruise visits in the very recent past and the object of its submission appears to be to seek to have the proposed development refused permission in order to facilitate Dun Laoghaire Harbour develop its cruise business.

Dun Laoghaire Harbour, whilst being an aesthetically attractive location, cannot at present cater for large cruise ships. Visits by such ships involve the use of a tender to reach the Harbour. DLHC or the Dun-Laoghaire Rathdown County Council may in the future develop a purpose-built facility for cruise liners in accordance with the DLHC Masterplan. However challenging financial, environmental, technical and harbour use issues would need to be addressed.

Even if the proposed subject development was refused permission, Dublin Port would continue to welcome cruise ships, albeit not always in the preferred location, which is designed to link the Port and City in a positive manner.

The ABR project is designed to cater for both cargo and cruise passenger vessels. North Wall Quay Extension is the chosen location for accommodating cruise vessels, however, as previously mentioned cruise business is seasonal and the Quay is designed to serve a dual purpose of also accommodating cargo vessels. The use of the quayside for cruise ships will occur principally during the summer season when the bulk goods trade is less busy so that there is no significant impact on the Port’s capacity in terms of goods handling. In economic terms it is a sensible arrangement and will maximise productive use of what is an expensive infrastructural development.

Cruise vessels do not take up substantial parts of the land bank as submitted by DHCL. The main consumer of land is the unitised trade. North Wall Quay Extension is not designed to cater significantly for this trade given the planned width of the quayside. It will largely handle other cargo types.

NSS

Submission

The submission refers to uncertainty over the NSS and considers a material change of circumstances has occurred and invites the Board not assign significance to it in the manner it did in relation to the Gateway Project.

Response

The NSS remains in place at the time of this submission and the Minister for State at the DoECLG has categorically stated so. (See paragraph 7.3.2 of the submitted Planning Report).

If one was to speculate as to the contents of a future NSS, it is likely to take into account National Ports Policy and this is likely to re-enforce the role of Dublin Port in spatial strategy terms as a tier 1 Port of National Significance whose continuous commercial development is a key objective.

Z7 Zoning

Submission

The Z7 zoning (To provide for the protection and creation of industrial uses and facilitate opportunities for employment creation) in the Development Plan is referred to and it is submitted by DLHC that an industrial port is unsuitable for cruise vessels.

Response

The port’s nature derives from its shipping activities. Ships using the Port include cargo vessels, passenger ships, combined passenger/cargo vessels, naval vessels and cruise ships. Cruise companies have had no difficulty in using the Port and use similar multi- functional ports throughout Europe. However the proposed location for the cruise vessels at North Wall Quay Extension beside the city proper and beside an area that has seen considerable urban renewal (to an extent that it is used regularly as the backdrop for television news reporting from Dublin) together with the planned physical improvements on the quayside will enhance the arrival experience for the cruise passenger.

As stated above it is the cruise companies who decide where they wish to call and it is not in the interests of the tourism industry to try to force cruise companies to locations they may not wish to visit. The result would be that they simply would not visit such locations and there would be a loss to the Dublin Region as a whole.

Seveso Sites

Submission

Seveso sites are referred to in the submission.

Response

These sites are generally oil and gas storage facilities located mainly north of the subject development site. They form part of the ports landscape and are typical of many ports.

The Health and Safety Authority [HSA] was consulted at the pre-application stage and was also sent a copy of the application documentation. It can be noted that the HSA had no submissions to make in relation to the application.

The location proposed for cruise vessels is further away from these sites than the principal berths currently used by cruise ships in Alexandra Basin West.

Eastward Extension of the City

Submission

Reference is made to the possible eastward expansion of Dublin City into the port area, as articulated in the Dublin City Development Plan.

Response

The language used in the Development Plan is discursive and articulates an option. It is not part of policy and more importantly is it not an objective. The Board did not consider that the previous Gateway proposal was impacted by similar statements and Dublin City Council in its submission supports the project and quotes the relevant policies and objectives in the Development Plan to that effect.

Economic Value

Submission

The submission refers to cruise business as being of low economic value to DPC.

Response

DPC recognises that it is part of the City’s economy and considers it has a partnership role to play in reinforcing tourism and retail revenues for the city centre and cruise traffic plays a vital role in this respect. The consolidation and revitalization of the City and its development as a world class tourist destination are articulated in various sections of the Dublin City Development Plan. The proposed cruise development would facilitate increased tourist numbers that help to sustain the retail core and the cultural attractions of the City.

Cruise business makes a contribution to DPC revenues at a time of year when bulk cargo is least busy and not availing fully of North Wall Quay Extension. DPC seeks a diversified revenue base so as not to be dependent on one revenue source. Cruise business forms an important part of that diversified base.

National Port Policy

Submission

DLHC is critical of National Ports Policy in that it does not give weight to passenger traffic and deals only with cargo movement. It invites the Board to find National Ports Policy defective.

Response

It is not the function of the Board to decide a government policy is defective. Indeed, as the Board is aware, it is statutorily bound to have regard to “any relevant policy of the Government” in its consideration of the application for permission in respect of the ABR project. 17

The National Ports Policy refers to Dun Laoghaire Harbour in paragraph 2.7.2. The Policy does not envisage large-scale freight traffic through the port but forecasts its long-term future in terms of marine leisure, maritime tourism, cultural amenity and urban development. It acknowledges that the Harbour Company has developed ambitious plans in this regard in its Masterplan. However the policy does not envisage the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sports as the appropriate body to oversee these plans as they are not focussed on fulfilling national transport objectives. It also envisages the transfer of control from the Harbour Company to Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council and the heads of a Bill in relation to this and other transfers has been published recently.

National Port Policy does refer to cruise traffic in Section 4.1 as follows

In addition to the above, there are other emerging capacity requirements and opportunities in other areas, including cruise tourism and the off-shore energy market. In the cruise tourism market a number of initiatives are underway or under consideration by different ports. National Ports Policy recognises the potential afforded by this growing market and encourages those ports to continue to work closely with relevant public and private stakeholders to ensure that the wider economy benefits from the expected future growth in this sector.

DLHC submits that this appears to be an afterthought in the Policy. However it is a clear statement and does not confer any particular status to any port with regard to cruise vessels with the notable exception of Dublin Port. The Policy endorses the DPC Masterplan which includes improvements to accommodation for cruise ships as an objective

In contrast the policy does not endorse the Dun Laoghaire Harbour Masterplan as such given the status of the port.

Local Action Plan

Submission

DLHC states that the Local Area Plan for Cruise Traffic and Urban Renewal (presumably the Local Action Plan) is not of material significance as it is not included in the Development Plan in Appendix 1 which lists those plans to be used for development management and guidance.

Response

The plan is not a statutory plan; however, other plan types are frequently produced to inform the planning process. It is perfectly legitimate for the Board to consider the Local Action Plan as material pertinent to the proposed development. The Board will examine the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and the Board can judge for itself whether the Plan makes a useful contribution to its assessment.

The Local Action Plan was produced by Dublin City Council, DPC, Dublin Docklands Development Authority and local tourism, community and business interests. It represents a considered and agreed approach to integrating cruise tourism neighbouring a regeneration area. It has informed the DPC Masterplan to a substantial degree and this application, especially with regard to alternative sites for cruise ship location within the Port.

Comparative Costs

Submission

DLHC quote the high costs of providing for the quayside facilities for cruise vessels as set out in the DPC Masterplan and seems to suggest that such facilities could be provided at more reasonable cost in Dun Laoghaire Harbour.

Response

This is not a planning consideration. The Dublin Port facility has the benefit of being multi- purpose in function whereas the facility set out in the Dun Laoghaire Masterplan appears to be purposely designed to cater only for cruise vessels which are seasonal in nature. Although there are no figures available for the Dun Laoghaire proposal, it is unlikely to achieve as good a return on the financial outlay involved as the facilities planned by DPC.

Environmental Impact

Submission

DLHC assert that a facility for cruise vessels in Dun Laoghaire would have a lesser impact on the environment than the proposed development.

Response

In the absence of an EIS for the proposed DLHC facility this is not quantifiable. There are likely to be substantive environmental challenges involved in developing a facility in Dun Laoghaire.

Wind Impacts

Submission

It is submitted that vessels would be subject to cross winds when turning in Dublin Port in a confined area.

Response

This is essentially a matter for the Harbour Master. I am advised that large ships are regularly turned in the protected waters of the Port without difficulty and there is nothing to suggest this will not continue. DPC has the resources in skilled manpower and equipment to achieve safe turning movements.

In the case of Dun Laoghaire Harbour it would seem that it is intended that cruise vessels would reverse out of Dun Laoghaire Harbour to a turning circle outside the Harbour. Turning movement would be subject to both wind and tidal impacts in what is an exposed location.

Procedural Issues

Submission

The submission seems to suggest that the use of the quayside for cruise vessels is some sort of separate land use class and that mention should have been made of it specifically in the public notice.

Response

The proposed development does not involve any change of use. Alexandra Basin and North Wall Quay Extension have been used for shipping of all types since the end of the nineteenth century. Cruise vessels have used both North Wall Quay Extension and Alexandra intermittently before 2000 and more regularly since then as cruise business has expanded in Irish waters. The land and berths will continue to be used for shipping. The proposed improvements to the quays are intended to facilitate that continued use. There is therefore no requirement to specifically highlight cruise ships in the public notices.

Submission

The submission suggests that the newspaper notice is defective in that it did not include an address for the south side of the Liffey as the proposed marina protection structure would be reached from the southern side.

Response

All the facilities can be reached by water from the north or south side but the landside works are essentially to the north side and construction activity will be largely originate from this side. The Liffey channel does not have a postal address. The purpose of the public notice is to inform the public. It is evident that the public were informed. The evidence for this is the submission by DHCL itself as well as from residents groups located south of the Liffey. A public notice was erected on the southern side of the Liffey on the public road (R131) close to the Poolbeg Yacht and Boat Club to inform the public on that side of the river.

Disruption

Submission

Criticism is levelled at the disruption the project would cause.

Response

Any new strategic infrastructure engineering project causes disruption. The proposed works will be carried out in a phased basis in order to minimise disruption in liaison with the operators that may be affected. DPC has regularly constructed substantial engineering works in the past and is well used to managing shipping movements to minimise impacts on operators. The purpose of the works is to improve facilities for operators and most will recognise that this is in their long-term interest

6.7 Drogheda Port Company

Submission

This submission raises the issue of the Bremore Port proposal and articulates a view that it is a viable solution in meeting increased demand for cargo movement in and out of Ireland. It is critical of National Ports Policy and suggests that it has the potential to restrict competition. It also suggests that negative issues raised by the Board’s inspector in his report on the Gateway proposal and rejected by the Board should be re-considered and re- applied to this application. It quotes National Ports Policy as considering that a ports cluster concept encompassing the existing ports within the Greater Dublin Area be included as a core port forming part of the TEN-T core network together with any future port facilities that might be developed up to 2050. 20

It is critical of the proposal to build quays at -15.0 below chart datum that could cater for larger vessels at some time in the future and considers that the EIS should have assessed the impact of accommodating possible future channel deepening.

Response

Drogheda Harbour Company may be unhappy with National Ports Policy but that Government policy document does provide an objective view of the port sector in Ireland. Dublin Port is a landlord port where operators compete with each other and other ports for business. The competition issue is considered in Appendix 1 attached to the Planning Report. The thrust of the Drogheda Port Company submission would seem to be that Dublin Port should be restricted in order to facilitate the development of Drogheda Port and the proposed Bremore facility. The Board rejected these arguments in the past where the same issue was articulated in relation to the Gateway Project by Drogheda Port Company and its property development partners.

In any event, the National Ports Policy does envisage a cluster concept for Dublin. However, it categorically states that “National Ports Policy categorises only Dublin Port as a port of National Significance (Tier 1) within the Greater Dublin Area” (emphasis added).

The construction of the quay walls to -15.0m below chart datum is designed to cater for the possibility of significant increases that may occur in vessel sizes sometime in the future. It is simply future-proofing. It makes sense at this stage to construct quay walls to that level now, rather than having to disrupt the developed areas and operations at a possible future date to build another set of deeper walls. This precise issue was considered in the Gateway proposal (see paragraph 10.1.2.5 page 218 of the inspector’s report) and the inspector had no difficulty with it and the Board did not remark on it. Any future further channel deepening (beyond – 10.0m chart datum) would involve a new planning application and environmental assessment.

6.8 Remaining Third Party Submissions Issues raised in remaining submissions are largely related to specific topics in the EIS or relate to operational issues in the Port and are not considered in this statement but are considered in statements from the relevant experts.

7. Dublin City Council Submission

Submission

The City Council’s submission is supportive of the proposed development. The Board will note its recitation of planning policy as set out in the Dublin City Development Plan and other relevant local and national plans and its expression of compliance with the zoning set out in the Development Plan. It states that the proposal conforms to National Port Policy. It highlights issues relating to the Dublin Bay Natura sites and the proposed Eastern By-Pass, which have been considered by Dublin Port Company and its consultants.

The planning authority’s submission welcomes the focus of development in an existing port area rather than extending the port as this minimises impacts on the coast/Dublin Bay. It also welcomes the proposed cruise ship berthage at the interface with the city.

The submission notes that cruise terminal building does not form part of the application and queries how the development might impact on the future development of a terminal.

Moreover, the planning authority expresses satisfaction with the EIS and NIS and welcomes the remediation proposals for contaminated material.

The submission notes the heritage conservation measures proposed and recognises the balancing conservation measures taken to compensate for loss of historic material.

Dublin City Council expresses general support for the traffic and transport measures outlined, however, it considers that agreement on detail with regard to timing of closures, internal arrangements for port traffic, and a requirement for improvements at the Point Depot Roundabout will be required.

Dublin City Council agrees that a technically feasible corridor for the Easter Bypass has been identified, which does not conflict with the indicative line shown in the Dublin City Development Plan.

The planning authority welcomes the Community Gain proposal.

The submission concludes with Dublin City Council stating that the proposed development is in accordance with the policies and objectives of the Dublin City Development Plan.

A number of appendices dealing with various aspects of the development are attached and these suggest a number of conditions that the Council recommends should be attached in any decision by the Board to grant permission.

Response

DPC welcomes the submission which is supportive of the proposed development.

With regard to the cruise terminal, there is at present no requirement for a permanent terminal structure given the number of cruise visits and such a facility is not required in the medium term. However, if in the longer term, business in the cruise sector in the City increases substantially and Dublin succeeds in establishing itself as a cruise departure location, a terminal building would become a more realistic proposition. It is something that DPC will keep under continuous review in consultation with DCC and tourism and business interests.

The lands at the quayside are largely open and the proposed development does not in any way compromise the provision of a cruise terminal at some future date.

8. Conditions Recommended by Dublin City Council

Dublin City Council has recommended the attachment of a number of indicative conditions should the Board grant permission which is contained in appendices to its Report received by the Board on 21st May 2014. DPC consider many of the conditions are appropriate and would welcome their inclusion by the Board in any positive decision but have concerns about the wording. It considers a small number of conditions to be inappropriate.

Appendix A Roads and Traffic Planning Division

Submission

“1.The proposed development shall make provision for the emerging alignment of Eastern By Pass. In this regard, the written agreement of the NRA and Dublin City Council shall be sought prior to the commencement of development.”

Comment

The Development Management Guidelines in paragraph 7.9 advise that conditions relating to agreement with a particular department within the planning authority or with another public authority should not be attached to a grant of permission.

It is suggested that this condition should read as follows:

The proposed development shall make provision for a corridor that would facilitate the provision of an Eastern Bypass on the alignment set out NRA’s Dublin Eastern Bypass Corridor Protection Study, Sector A: Dublin Tunnel to Sandymount (September 2014).

Submission

“2. All traffic Management measures along East Wall Road including the timing of the closure of existing accesses to the port shall be agreed in writing with the Roads and Traffic Department of Dublin City Council prior to the commencement of development.”

Comment

It is submitted that the words ‘Roads and Traffic Department of Dublin City Council’ be replaced with the words ‘Planning Authority’

Submission

“3. Final Details of the pedestrian and cycle routes from East Wall Road shall be agreed with the Roads and Traffic Department of Dublin City Council prior to the commencement of development. These shall take into consideration future plans for the signalisation of the Point Roundabout including the provision of pedestrian facilities.”

Comment

Again it is submitted that the words referring to the Department be replaced with reference to the Planning Authority.

Submission

“5.The developer shall be obliged to comply with the requirements set out in the Code of Practice.”

Comment

The condition is unclear in that the Code of Practice is not specified. It needs to be specified.

Submission

“All costs incurred by Dublin City Council, including any repairs to the public road and services necessary as a result of the development, shall be at the expense of the developer. Work in the public road may only be carried out by Dublin City Council”.

Comment

This leaves the planning authority as the sole arbiter as to what these costs may be. It is suggested that this proposed condition be omitted. The outline high-level Construction Environmental Management Plan sets out appropriate measures. Damage to the public road or services is a legal matter.

Appendix B

Hours of Work

The applicant considers the proposed condition to be appropriate and in line with what is set out in the application.

Noise

The applicant considers Conditions 1 and 3 under that section to be appropriate however Condition 2 is open-ended and subjective in nature, in that it allows a third party to consider what constitutes annoyance. It is suggested that this condition be omitted

Air Quality

The applicant is content to accept these conditions.

9. Alternatives

Section 1.3 of the EIS examines alternatives for both cruise and cargo vessels.

These alternatives include

 The Do Nothing Scenario.

 Other Locations within the Port Area.

 Creation of New Additional Port Areas as extensions to the Port.

 Alternative East Coast Locations.

 Other Locations.

It examines the alternatives in environmental and sustainable planning terms.

Cargo

The Do Nothing scenario is not a realistic alternative. There is a long lead-in time to building major new port infrastructure and given Dublin Port’s designation as a Tier 1 Port of National Significance in National Ports Policy and its status as one of the three TEN T ports in Ireland a ‘Do Nothing’ approach would create an infrastructure deficit in Ireland in the coming years.

Other locations within the Port identified in the Masterplan are less advantageous and can involve more land reclamation, are not well configured for the unitised trade, do not have landside expansion possibilities, are more remote from motorway and rail access, and are more distant from deep water and/or not available within a reasonable period.

The previously proposed 21 Hectare Gateway site that was refused permission by the Board is the only other real possible alternative in terms of additional port areas as it is the only one close to deep water with relatively minimal impact on the Natura sites. Locations to the South and North of the Port would have a major impact on the designated sites as well as having impacts on recreational use of the Bay and significant visual impacts.

National Ports Policy recognises that port traffic has increasingly gravitated towards the larger ports in recent years to avail of capacity and economies of scale. As Dublin Port serves the Dublin Region, which is the State’s largest conurbation and economically dynamic area it must meet the demands placed upon it. It is closest to the market it serves with excellent motorway and rail access and is the most suitable location in terms of sustainable traffic movements and reduced emissions. Other ports either existing or proposed do not provide realistic alternatives mainly because of distance from the Dublin market.

Cruise Vessels

Cruise vessels visit those ports that the cruise companies wish to visit. Dublin continues to attract an increasing number of such vessels and its city centre is likely to remain a major attraction. The only possible alternative is Dun Laoghaire Harbour. However it is more remote from the city centre and is likely to play a complementary role in the future. At present it relies on tender access for larger ships. It may develop dedicated cruise facilities at some time in the future if Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council decides to continue to progress the Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company’s proposal in this respect. The market will

decide the issue and DPC are confident that the proposed cruise facilities at North Wall Quay Extension will be a successful attraction for the cruise companies. There is real added value in planning and environmental terms in linking the Port and the City and improving the physical interface between the two.

In reality, National Ports Policy means that there are no real alternatives to developing the unitised trade outside of Dublin given its Tier 1 status and the only alternative to developing in the vicinity of the Port is at the Gateway location, which has already been refused permission by the Board.

It can be concluded that the proposed project is the best alternative in environmental and sustainable development terms in order to meet the needs of the Dublin Region in particular. The proposed development will meet the sea-borne trade requirements that are forecast in line with economic growth for the medium term.

The cruise facilities are located in the optimal location to re-integrate the City and the Port, improve the physical environment and sustain the tourism economy of the City and in the location that will be attractive to cruise companies.

10. Conclusion The proposed development fully accords with planning policy and objectives contained within the suite of planning policy documents from national to local level including National Ports Policy and the Dublin City Development Plan.

In conclusion, it can be stated that the proposed development:

 represents a positive development for the national and regional economy and an enhancement of strategic infrastructure at national, regional and local level. It does so without any adverse impacts on the environment.

 is imaginative in its approach to conservation.

 has assisted in determining the corridor for the Eastern By-pass which is a positive step forward in planning an important piece of infrastructure.

 is a sustainable development involving the remediation of contaminated areas and making maximum productive use of existing available landside resources.

 accords with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area; and

 in my expert opinion should be granted permission, subject to the conditions which the Board may see fit to attach.

Belfast Elmwood House 74 Boucher Road Belfast BT12 6RZ

Tel: +44 28 90667914

Global Office Locations

Australia Brazil Canada Russia South East Asia The Netherlands United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States of America