Alexandra Basin Redevelopment

380 Pages·2014·9.75 MB·English

by  Jarlath Fitzsimons

Alexandra Basin Redevelopment
Foreshore Application
Oral Hearing - Witness Statements
e.
us
er
h
ot
oses eodn lfy.or any
ectionw npeurr rpequir
For inysripght o
o n s e n t of cop
C
rpsgroup.com
EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:38
e.
us
er
h
ot
oses eodn lfy.or any
ectionw npeurr rpequir
For inysripght o
o n s e n t of cop
C
EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:38
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)

e.
us
er
h
ot
oses eodn lfy.or any
ectionw npeurr rpequir
For inysripght o
o n s e n t of cop
C
EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:38
e.
us
er
h
ot
oses eodn lfy.or any
ectionw npeurr rpequir
For inysripght o
o n s e n t of cop
C
EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:38
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 use.
10. Mr. Donal Doyle – Contaminated Sediments h–er Treatment & Infilling
ot
1112.. DMrr.. NCiharlli sB Sraoduyth –g Catuel t–u rCaol nHseerritvaagteio nos esS eotdn lrfy.oar taney gy
1134.. MMrr.. MDaicvhida eDl iSgnhaemar y- N– aCvoigmamtiounencti iotnyw np eurGr rpeaquiirn
15. Mr. Michael Sheary – FinaFnor icnysriipaghlt o& Corporate
1167.. MM rr.. TLuerisry A Djaumrnile –y C– r P u l io a sn s n ee n tn A oif ncsogpp ePcotlsic y (including Alternatives)
C

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:38
e.
us
er
h
ot
oses eodn lfy.or any
ectionw npeurr rpequir
For inysripght o
o n s e n t of cop
C
EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:38
STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA
(REG. NO. PL29N .PA0034)

ORAL HEARING

DUBLIN PORT
ALEXANDRA BASIN REDEVELOPMENT
e.
PROJECT us
er
h
ot
oses eodn lfy.or any
ectionw npeu rr rpequir
For inysripght o
o n s e n t of cop
C

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DR. ALAN BARR

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

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:38
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.

e.
us
er
2 Involvement in the Project h
ot
2.1.1 I(p EewIrSams) i srfseoisor pnto htnoes AibAnleB B Rfoo rrdP t hrPoelje eoacvnte árwlaahl lo icpnehrc te6 iop wnwM anpaeurrar sarpreo tcqsieusohis run eo2dnb l f0yo.omr1 fa i4nttyht .e ed Eansv irpoanrmt eonft atlh Iem paapcpt liScatatitoenm efonrt
2.1.2 Iin wteagsr aatilosno irnetosp tohnes eibnlgei nfoere rtihnFegor idcnysroeipg-shoti grodni.n ation of environmental alternatives and their
2.1.3 Iw witha ss auuptphoorrt ofrfo Cmh acpotl el e r a 1o g n 0s u e ne to osff ctKohpea tEieI SS m(Saerct ti(oCnhsa 1rt0e.r1e dto E1n0v.4ir)o nremlaetnetda lt oS wciaetnetri sqt)u aalnitdy
C
Fiona Murphy (Chemist).
2.1.4 I was also the author of Chapter 14 of the EIS – Interactions and In-Combination
(Cumulative) Effects.

1

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:38
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
e.
and the Gaeltacht, Department of Environment, Comusmunity and Local Government,
er
National Roads Authority, National Transport Auotthhority, Department of Transport,
F A anil tPeeux Itbreelinclasanitvidoe,n pE ronofvg irraoa mncmommeenm toauf ln pPiutyrbo ltnieceec ctcwitoionosw nnplneeusrr rtpAuetoeqslgteuisra re eotndnci lofcyi.ornry ca uwnayl naadtse atdhl setoo M uoanvrdienere rt 4aIn0ks,e0tni0t u0int evh.o olmvinegs : in the
areas adjacent to Dublin PFoor rintys;rip ght o
 BMreieeftiinngg slo wcaitlh p luobcali c l c r oeo n mps e r n tme osf uecnonpittya tgivreosu;p s;
C
 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
2

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:38
 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
e.
us
3.2.1 The main aim of the environmental appraisals conduerc ted on behalf of DPC, as part of
h
tmmhieen aidmnesiss ioegfdn i mparnpodac cetths msa,ti tiistgh ateot i obenen nsisue,rf iewc ihtahel arate sa ppnoeyosc spstess oibeo tdn lloefey.ofnr, atttinhaoy el oltay vpdoraoidmje iacmtg pianargce t esef fanethc attshn eca erpedla .a nvTnohiniedg e bdae nosdrt
dissmouepmcshiage cna td ntpe hihgmaartpe scaeeac sont. fnc Raoiment d pbbuaeecc tcati oomwnme ilopll ioflae Froprtar ieiostnyleestryiepd,g e nhca tt ibtvooiunawo nptlie u drr iprpmeerqdoupi.rva iRdcteessd iuntchvieon lgvm etehsa eln eissm sbpeyan ciwnt gha iccthkhne o thdweele gddreegege rseo eft h aaontf
3.2.2 Tlighhet koef yt hoev eBro-aarrcdh’sin rge f e u n s ov a n i s lr e o nf t on ofrm ctoehpnet aGl aatletewranya tpivreo jienc tr,e ltaot ifoonc utos tohne aA BcoRm pbrionjaetciot nw aosf ,r ein-
developing existing (andC 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

EPA Export 31-07-2015:23:39:38