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