inspector’s report · 2017. 12. 21. · irish underwater council coastguard stations residents...

___________________________________________________________________________________

29N.PA0034 An Bord Pleanála of 237

An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

PL 29N.PA0034

Development: Redevelopment of Alexandra Basin and

Berths 52 and 53 together with

associated works in Dublin Port.

Location: Dublin Port, Alexandra Road, Dublin1.

Application Type: Strategic Infrastructure, Section 37E,

Planning and Development Act 2000 (as

amended)

Planning Authority: Dublin City Council

Applicant: Dublin Port Company

Type of Application: Permission/Approval

Submissions/Observations: 23

Date of Site Inspection: 9th May 2014 and 29th May 2014

Inspector: Karla Mc Bride

Antony Cawley

(Hydro Environmental Ltd)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Observers: Dublin City Council

Department of Arts, Heritage &Gaeltacht

Environmental Protection Agency

Inland Fisheries Ireland

Geological Survey of Ireland

National Roads Authority

National Transport Authority

ESB

EirGrid

An Taisce

Dublin Bay Watch

Irish Underwater Council

Coastguard Stations Residents Group

Clontarf Resident Association

Sandymount & Merrion Residents

Association

Donna Cooney (Green Party representative

for Clontarf)

Peadar Farrell

Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company

Drogheda Port Company

Stena Line Limited

Irish Ferries Limited

Burke Shipping Group

Dublin Graving Docks Limited

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 4

THE APPLICATION 5

THE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 44

THE PLANNING AUTHORITY REPORT 50

SUBMISSIONS FROM PRESCRIBED BODIES 52

GENERAL PUBLIC AND COMPANIES 55

FURTHER INFORMATION 64

THE ORAL HEARING 78

PLANNING ASSESSMENT 119

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 192

APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT 204

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 227

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Site and location

1.1.1 The proposed development would be located within Dublin Port, the

Liffey channel and Dublin Bay. Dublin Port is bound to the W by East

Wall Road and East Link Bridge; to the S by East Wall Road; to the N

by the Tolka Estuary; and to the E by Dublin Bay. Dublin Port and the

surrounding area are mainly characterised by industrial and port related

land uses. The area to the W is dominated by commercial uses

including the 3 Arena (Point Depot), the Gibson Hotel and a LUAS

stop; the lands to the N are industrial with residential beyond at

Clontarf; and the lands to the S are mainly occupied by port related

uses and public utilities including the Poolbeg electricity generating

station and wastewater treatment plant. The Poolbeg Marina and

Coastguard Cottages are located opposite the W section of the Port.

1.1.2 The proposed development would comprise construction and dredging

works. The proposed construction works would be located in the W

section of the original historic port at Alexandra Basin and North Wall

Quay Extension, in the vicinity of Terminal 3 (P&O) and the bulk carrier

berths, and in the E section of the Port at Berths 52 and 53 in the

vicinity of Terminal 1 (Irish Ferries) and Terminal 5 (Seatruck berths).

The proposed dredging works would be located within Alexandra Basin

West, the Liffey Channel and the shipping channel as far E as the

Dublin Bay Bouy. The North Bull Island is located c.1km to the NE of

the proposed construction works and to the N of the proposed channel

dredging works.

1.1.3 There are three main vehicular access points to the Port Estate which

comprises a network of internal roads and junctions. The first access

point is located in the N section of the Port Estate along Promenade

Road in the vicinity of the Dublin Tunnel (Dublin Port Tunnel) and East

Wall Road. The second and third access points are located in the W

section of the Port Estate along East Wall Road at Alexandra Road and

the Terminal 3 entrance. The original historic entrance to Alexandra

Basin West and North Wall Quay Extension is also located off East

Wall Road in the vicinity of the Point Roundabout and the East Link

Bridge, although it is rarely used.

Photographs and maps in the attached wallet serve to describe the site

and location in some detail.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


1.2 Pre-Application Consultation

1.2.1 The Board’s Notice to the applicants under Section 37B (4) (a),

Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) confirmed that the

proposed development would constitute strategic infrastructure.

The records of the pre-application meetings, copied to the applicants,

also referred to the following issues as likely to be relevant to the

consideration of the application:

The treatment of legacy contaminated material.

Effects on residential amenity.

Effects on heritage and archaeology.

Implications for the future Eastern Bypass route options or any

options for the upgrading of the East Link Bridge.

The need to apply for a new dumping at sea licence from the EPA

and a Foreshore Licence.

2.0 THE APPLICATION

2.1 Documentation

2.1.1 The application documentation includes the following:

Planning Report

Community gain proposal

EIS

NIS

Draft High Level Construction Environmental Management Plan

2.2 Development Description

2.2.1 By reference to the public notices the proposed development consists

of the redevelopment of Alexandra Basin and Berths 52 and 53

together with associated works in Dublin Port and the dredging of the

Liffey approach Channel.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


The development includes the following:

Alexandra Basin:

The infilling of Graving Dock No.2 (6,055sq.m)

The excavation and restoration of historic Graving Dock No.1.

The removal of infill material (9,000sq.m.)

The relocation of the ore concentrates loading system within

Alexandra Basin West

The relocation of double deck ramp No.4 to new river berth at

Berths Nos. 52/53

The demolition of:

o The bulk jetty (3,200sq.m.)

o A section of North Wall Quay Extension (21,700sq.m.)

o Five control rooms/buildings/oil bunds (1,715sq.m.)

o A floating ramp on the Liffey side of North wall Quay

Extension

o A lead-in jetty at Graving Dock No.2 within the Basin

The construction of:

o New quay walls at North Wall Quay Extension (937m in

length) including a rounded eastern end using salvaged

stone material from demolished sections of quay.

o Moving and reconstruction of existing light house to E end

of revised North Wall Quay Extension

o Extension of Alexandra Quay West (130m in length)

o Rebuilding of existing quay walls in the remainder of

Alexandra Basin West having an aggregate length of

1200sq.m.

o New 273m long Ro-Ro jetty and provision of three Ro-Ro

ramps

o Interpretative glazed pavilions (36sq.m.) on the W of the

reconfigured North Wall Quay Extension and the

presentation of a salvaged historic concrete block from

the demolished section of the quay

The dredging of:

o 470,000m3 of contaminated material to a depth of -10.0m

Chart Datum (CD) over an area of 194,000sq.m within the

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


redeveloped Alexandra Basin and its subsequent

remediation.

Conservation works to the existing pump house and to retained

sections of North Wall Quay Extension

Berths 52 and 53

The demolition of:

Existing Berths 52 and 53

Jetty at Berth 52 (500sq.m.)

Concrete Dolphin at Berth 53 (500sq.m.)

The construction of :

A new river berth at Berths 52/53 (300m long)

A new 75m mooring jetty at new river berth

New 40m long mooring jetty to extend existing Berth 49 (50m

long)

The infilling of the Terminal 5 Ro-Ro basin (45,650sq.m.)

The raising of existing levels by 1.4m over an area of 95,000sq.m.

Dredging of new river berth to -10m CD

Liffey Channel

Construction of a marina protection structure to a height of +7.0m CD

and a length of 220m on the S side of the River channel.

Dredging of the shipping channel to a depth of -10m CD from a point

55m to the E of the East Link Bridge to a location in the vicinity of

Dublin Bay a total distance of 10, 320m.

2.3 Related matters

2.3.1 The proposed development traverses a designated European site in

the form of the channel deepening.

The following licences will be required:

Waste Licence from the EPA

Dumping at Sea Permit from the EPA

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Foreshore consent under the Foreshore and Dumping at Sea

(Amendment Act) 2009

2.4 Planning Report

2.4.1 The Planning Report includes the following sections:

The importance of Dublin Port

Economic background and project justification

Relevant planning history

Description of the proposed development

Relevant plans and policies

Identification of the main planning issues

Community gain

2.4.2 The Report states that this is an application for a 10 year permission

given the extent of the proposed development, the restricted dredging

season and the complexities of keeping the Port fully operational during

the works; that some of the works are weather dependent; and that it is

intended to complete the works within 6 years.

2.4.3 The Report states that in order to cater for future need the applicant

needs to:

Provide for deeper berths and a deeper channel to cater for

larger vessels.

Reconfigure a number of existing quays and berths to cater for

longer vessels including the demolition of parts of the quays.

Provide for new improved quayside infrastructure.

Reconfigure for landside storage areas and provide some

additional areas to cater for increases in the volumes of unitised

cargo.

Provide for the remediation of contaminated areas.

2.4.4 The Report refers to the previous Gateway Project for a 21ha landfill

extension to the E of the Port into which was refused permission by the

Board under 29N.PA0007 in 2010. The Board was not satisfied that the

proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of the

South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA. The formulation of the

current proposal has been guided by this decision and the works are

confined to the established port and to the existing channel.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


2.4.5 The proposed development is stated to be compliant with relevant

plans and policies by reference to:

Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040

National Port Policy 2013

National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020

Transport 21

Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area

(RPG, GDA) 2004 – 2016

Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017

Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan Review 2008

The North Lotts and Grand Canal Planning Scheme

Other studies currently underway and that have a direct impact on

Dublin Port include:

Dublin Bay – “An Integrated Economic, Cultural and Social

Vision for Sustainable Development” DCC.

The Dublin Port National Development Plan Study (The Indecon

Report, 2009.

The Special Task Force on Dublin Bay established by the

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Local Action Plan City of Dublin – Cruise Traffic and Urban

Regeneration of City Port Heritage as a key for Sustainable

Economic, Social and Urban Development

2.4.6 Planning issues arising in the context of the proposed development are

identified as follows:

Traffic increases:

The proposal will lead to a c.2.5% increase in traffic per

annum.

It includes the closure of the Alexandra Road entrance from

East Wall Road which will direct traffic (including cruise traffic)

to the Port Tunnel which has adequate capacity with no

adverse impacts on local roads and junctions.

It will promote the increased use of rail freight thought the

movement of containers and bulk solids by rail.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


The berthing of cruise ships at North Wall Quay facilitate the

use of public transport, taxis and Dublin Bikes.

The Eastern Bypass

Proposal will not curtail the future development of the Eastern

By-pass, however the consideration of three alternative routes

could freeze large parts of the Port from development.

The DCC Development Plan does not contain a written

objective although it does show an indicative line on Map F as

a specific objective which is not prescriptive.

Discussions have taken place between the DCC, the NRA, and

DPC, a number of alternatives have been evaluated and a

route parallel to the East Link Bridge has been agreed.

A 55m wide reservation is provided for in the design of the

North Wall Quay Extension, which will allow the proposal to

proceed.

Conservation of archaeological & industrial archaeological heritage

The heritage primarily relates to underwater archaeology, some

anomalies were revealed but no shipwrecks or significant

archaeological material has been identified.

There are several items of industrial archaeological interest in

the area but no Protected Structures.

The conservation challenge relates to North Wall Quay

Extension, and it is proposed to demolish and reconstruct

sections of the quay wall, excavate and restore Graving Dock

1, and relocate the North Wall lighthouse.

Contamination

The silt at the bottom of Alexandra Basin West is contaminated

with heavy metals which has prevented maintenance dredging

of this part of the Port and is leading to its siltation. The silt will

be removed for treatment and reused as infill material.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Contamination of silt in the Liffey Channel between the East

Link Bridge and the entrance to the Basin is minor and will be

disposed of at sea along with clean silt from the channel to the

E of the Basin entrance.

European Sites

Three European sites located in close proximity to the site.

Dredging would extend into the Rockabill to Dalkey SAC, there

are no reefs located within this dredge area and noise

mitigation would protect Harbour porpoises.

Noise and Vibration

There will be direct port noise from larger more frequent ships,

cargo traffic will be directed towards the port tunnel and

mitigation measures will control construction noise, with no

impact on residential amenity.

Visual amenity

Proposal involves the reconfiguration of existing port facilities

with no adverse impact on visual amenity.

Consent

Most of the landside works will take place within lands owned

by Dublin Port as do some of the works to the foreshore. The

Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government

has agreed to the making of the application in relation to other

works to quay walls and dredging.

Community gain

Under Section 37 G (7) Planning and Development Act, 2000

the Board may attach a condition to facilitate the following:

o The handover of lands on the Bull Island in perpetuity to

the public under the control of DCC to provide a unified

ownership structure for the island.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


o The allocation of €200,000 towards the cost of a study

for a proposed International Visitor Centre and

Masterplan for the Bull Island.

o A further sum of € 1,000,000 towards the provision of

any services or facilities identified as a consequence of

the study and Masterplan to the DCC on an agreed

basis within 10 years of any grant of permission.

2.4.7 The Report was supplemented by the following Appendices:

Socio-economic aspects of the project

Project Rationale

Description of operations in Dublin Port

Possible future Eastern Bypass

Conservation strategy and industrial heritage appraisal

Community gain proposal

2.5 The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

The EIS includes the following sections:

2.5.1 Background (EIS Section 1.1)

The Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) project comprises three

elements related to works at Alexandra Basin West, the infilling of

Berths 52 and 53 and the deepening of the approach channel.

The Masterplan 2012-2040 recognises the need to provide capacity in

the Port to cater for 60m gross tonnes of cargo by 2040 and the ABR

project focusses on a combination of re-developing existing

infrastructure and increasing the productivity of existing port lands.

To increase the productivity of the Port, many of the new berths have

been designed to be multipurpose to cater for the needs of large ship

and cargo types.

2.5.2 Project justification/statement of need (EIS Section 1.2)

The works are needed for the following reasons:

To make provision for anticipated growth in volumes of both

cargo and passengers.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Dublin is the preferred location for shipping services having

regard to regional connectivity afforded by road and rail.

Dublin Port needs to prepare for increases in ship sizes and

the changing operational preferences as well as being able to

cater for an increase in ship arrivals each day.

Dublin Port needs to reconfigure port operations to best meet

future capacity requirements.

Existing infrastructure is approaching the end of it useful life

and needs to be renewed/replaced.

The works to Alexandra Basin West will allow for the treatment

of legacy contamination which restricts efforts to carry out

routine and essential maintenance dredging operations.

In 2007 Dublin Port handled approximately 40% of the national trade,

including 63% of national Lo-Lo trade and 80% of national Ro-Ro trade.

Overall growth is predicted to be in the region of 2.5% per annum in the

30 years to 2040 for cargo volumes and cruise passenger volumes will

continue to increase substantially to c.140 ships per annum carrying

c.340, 000 passengers.

It is predicted that the port’s unitised business (Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo) will

grow at a faster rate (2.8%) than its non-unitised business, primarily

bulk liquid and bulk solid commodities (0.7%), and as a result of this

differential, unitised cargos will account for 87.3% of total cargo by

2040 compared with 78.8% in 2010. Within the unitised cargo, Ro-Ro

is expected to grow faster (3.2%) than Lo-Lo (1.7%).

The main constraint in Dublin Port is the maintained channel depth of -

7.8m Chart Datum, and the available depth varies between 2 extremes

related to the highest and lowest Astronomical Tides.

The proposed works will enable the Port to cater for a range of much

larger ships than can currently be accommodated:

Container ships with draughts of up to 12.5m with capacities in

excess of 3,500TEU.

Dry bulk ships with draughts up to 12.5m with deadweight

capacities in the region of 55,000 tonnes.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Deep sea Ro-Ro ships with draughts approaching 12m and

lengths approaching 300m.

Multipurpose (freight and passenger) Ro-Ro ferries with

lengths of up to 240m

Cruise ships up to 240m long with average draughts of 9m.

2.5.3 Consideration of Alternatives (EIS Section 1.3)

Options examined:

1. Do-nothing scenario.

2. Use of other locations within the port area.

3. Creation of other additional port areas.

4. Alternative east coast locations and other port locations on the

south and west coasts.

5. Other locations for new ports

The EIS concluded that the proposed development offers the only

realistic solution in terms of the Dublin region’s requirements for the

movement of unitised trade in and out of the region by sea.

2.5.4 Construction Activities (EIS Section 4.2)

The works are divided into two primary work streams which are

broken into distinct sequential phases:

o The civil engineering works to facilitate the creation of

deep berths, and to enclose Berths 52 and 53.

o Dredging of the main channel and Alexandra Basin

West

There will be 3 month break in marine based piling operations

between March and May (inclusive) to mitigate against any

potential impact on migrating smolts in the river channel.

The rate of dredging in the main channel will be determined by

the capacity of the disposal site to accommodate material and

the length of the dredging season which is c.6 months.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Dredging is expected to take 6 years (up to a maximum of 10

years), given favourable conditions and the prior completion of

the works at North Wall Quay and the Marina Wall.

The dredging of Alexandra Basin West is dependent on the

closing of Berths 52/53 and the requirement to have sufficient

re-fronted quay wall established to facilitate the dredged depth.

The rate will be determined by the rate of treatment of the

dredged material but is expected to take 18 months.

The civil engineering works will mainly comprise the re-fronting

of the existing quay walls with Alexandra Basin West and the

reconfiguration of the existing berths within the Basin and in

Berths 52/53, and the rate of work will be determined by the

need to keep the Port operational during the works.

The construction programme will take a maximum of 10 years.

2.5.5 Birds (EIS Section 5.1)

This section of the EIS covers impacts on birds in Dublin Port and the

navigational channel and approaches to the port.

Bird surveys within the port area:

Several winter bird surveys, boat based surveys and desk top studies

were undertaken for:

o Brent geese

o Black Guillemots

o Common Terns and Artic Terns

o All sea birds

The EIS listed the birds recorded in the surrounding Special Protection

Areas (SPAs).

Bird populations:

Brent Geese regularly use Alexandra Basin between November

and April to feed on agricultural foodstuff, in addition to intertidal

vegetation in Dublin Bay and amenity grasslands around Dublin;

and Dublin Bay holds the largest single group in Ireland.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


The Tolka Estuary is the nearest intertidal area to Alexandra

Basin and the Liffey Channel where 36 waterfowl species have

been identified, the sum of peak counts for all waterfowl species

in the estuary in 2012/13 was 18, 900 birds, and the average

total number of birds wintering in Dublin Bay 31, 700.

Dublin Bay holds a sizable colony of breeding Black Guillemots

who breed throughout the Port in disused drainage pipes and

feed on fish caught in the shallow waters of the Bay. There are

an estimated 82 adult birds in the Port and 16 in Alexandra

Basin which equates to 20% of the population.

Dublin Bay has held a breeding colony of Common Terns and

Artic Terns (Annex 1 species) at two mooring structures on the S

side of the Liffey near the Poolbeg power station and a total of

449 Common Terns and 33 Artic terns have been ringed.

Several other species of bird have been recorded in Alexandra

Basin although none have been recorded as breeding here.

The shipping channel survey recorded 31species of waterfowl.

The most abundant species was the Black-headed Gull, most of

the birds roosted on and around the outfall for the Ringsend

wastewater treatment works, the area was mainly used by

Common and Artic Terns, Black Guillemots, Cormorants,

Herring Gulls, Common Guillemots and occasionally Kittiwakes.

Impacts of works within Alexandra Basis West include:

Works include the construction of new quays and jetties,

remediation of contaminated sediments (heavy metals) and

capital dredging (c.0.47 million cubic meters) within a silt curtain

with the material removed to Berths 52/53 for remediation.

Brent Geese will continue to feed off agricultural feedstuff as the

works will occur on a phased basis, the birds are already used to

high levels of shipping activity and noise, and they will not be

exposed to contaminants as do not feed on water.

Black Guillemots breed in cavities within the quay walls and

jetties which will be removed, and new nest sites will be found

elsewhere in the Port.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


The breeding tern colonies on the mooring dolphins are

sufficiently remote from Alexandra Basin and they will not be

affected by the works as they rarely fly into the Basin.

None of the other species that feed of agricultural foodstuff will

be significantly affected.

Impacts of works a Berths 52/53 include:

Works include the infilling of Berth 52/53 and the construction of

a new river berth, the remediation and re-use of the dredged

material from the Basin as infill.

There are no significant intertidal areas within this basin, fill

material will be contained by new steel pile wall with no

significant impacts on wintering birds predicted.

Two pairs of Black Guillemots were recorded in cavities in the

vicinity, this represents 5% of the total breeding population in the

Port, the cavities will be removed to prevent their use during

demolition and alternative nest sites will be found.

Impacts of works associated with capital dredging include:

Works include the dredging of c.5.9 million cubic meters of

material from North Wall Quay to Dublin Bay Buoy and the

construction of a surge protection/retaining wall along the S

edge of the navigation channel adjacent to the Poolbeg Marina.

The dredging of uncontaminated material will occur over a six

year period, during winter months only (October to March) to

negate any potential impact on Salmonid migration and summer

bird feeding and breeding in the vicinity of the operations.

Sediment deposition on the Tolka estuary will be c. 0.002kg/m3

with no adverse impact on the intertidal area.

Dredging will not alter the tidal regime, wave climate or sediment

transport in the Bay outside of the channel which will have the

same stability as the existing channel, with no adverse impact on

the surrounding intertidal areas and waterfowl.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Turbidity in the channel will increase marginally which could

affect fish eating birds (Black Guillemots, Cormorants and terns):

o Monitoring of the term colony in the Port indicates that it

was not adversely affected by recent dredging, and

dredging will take place in the winter months when the

terns are absent.

o Black Guillemots usually forage for food in the wider Bay

and are only present in small numbers in the winter.

Overall impacts on the SPAs in Dublin Bay include:

There are two SPAs in inner Dublin Bay and a further six on the

wider Dublin coastline that may have connectivity to the Port.

There is no overlap with the SPA boundaries and the proposal.

Most SPA bird species fly over the shipping channel and the

Basin but only Brent Geese occurs in significant numbers in the

Basin and they will quickly adapt to any new food sources.

Black headed gulls mainly feed at the outfall from the Ringsend

WWTP.

The three tern species and Kittiwake are only present in the

summer months when there will be no dredging.

There will be no significant impacts on the SPAs either during

construction or operation.

Mitigation measures include:

Redevelopment of the Basin will be phased and spillage from

agricultural ships will continue to provide food for Brent Geese.

Artificial nest boxes will be provided for Black Guillemots.

2.5.6 Marine Mammals (EIS section 5.2)

This section of the EIS covers impacts on marine mammals in Dublin

Bay as a result of the proposed works including demolition, piling,

dredging and dumping of dredge spoil.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Relevant European sites include:

Lambay Island SAC (Grey seal)

Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC (Harbour porpoise)

Species that regularly use Dublin Bay and Burford Bank include:

Harbour porpoise in high densities of 1.19 per sq.km, very

sensitive to vessel noise and activity, not attracted to vessels.

Bottlenose dolphins are transient visitors to the Bay, attracted to

vessel activity and vulnerable to harm from dredging.

Minke whales are common around the coast near inshore waters

and very vulnerable to noise and are occasional users of the

Bay and Burford Bank.

Common dolphins are common around the coast, attracted to

vessels, infrequent visitors to the inner Bay but occasional users

of the outer Bay and Burford Bank.

Risso’s dolphins observed around the coast, not attracted to

vessels and no recorded sightings in the Bay.

Harbour (common) seals are present in the Bay and Burford

Bank, closest haul-out site is at Lambay Island, noise

disturbance could affect mating and they are at risk to

detrimental impacts of piling, dredging and spoil disposal.

Grey seals have breeding sites at Lambay Island, Dalkey Island,

Irelands Eye and St. Patricks Island, frequently seen in Dublin

Bay, Howth Harbour, Sandycove, and Bull Island where they

also haul-out, extensive foragers and at risk to detrimental

impacts of piling, dredging and spoil disposal.

Impacts of works on marine mammals include:

Pile driving

Pile driving noise can induce behavioural effects within a few km

from the sound source.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Pile diving is a potentially detrimental activity and sound can

propagate through the water column and sediments.

Extended exposure to pile driving noise can lead to noise related

injuries and permanent hearing loss in cetaceans and pinnipeds,

source levels can adversely impact behaviour, communication

and breeding for up to 20km.

Sound propagation is dependent on water depth, bathymetry,

sediment type, oceanographic conditions and ambient noise

levels and behavioural responses.

Dredging, infilling and disposal of dredge material:

Sound disturbance and local habitat modification by destroying

the benthos through substrate removal, smothering and plumes.

Noise from dredging could affect Minke whales and Harbour

porpoises, harbour seals and grey seals.

Dredging can reduce the feeding quality or the area for at least

one season after dredging although it won’t eliminate fish from

the site and only 20% of the channel will be dredged per year.

Dredging can affect water quality and create plumes, fine

sediments will be dispersed by N-S tidal currents; temporary

effect on marine mammal visibility in the immediate vicinity and

fish feeding following each 6 month dredging period; but no

significant adverse impacts are predicted.

Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts include:

Piling, demolition and dredging within the basin at the same time

would increase potential impacts of sound exposure to marine

mammals.

The dump site has been used for dredged material and it is not a

significant feeding area for cetaceans or seals.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Assessment of impact magnitude and significance:

Impacts of piling, dredging and dumping at the dump site on

marine mammals are not considered significant although

individuals will be affected by noise in the works area.


A marine mammal observer (MMO) should be employed.

No marine mammals should be present in the pre-determined

exclusion zones (500m for demolition and dredging and 1,000m

for piling) in the 30 minute period prior to operation.

Noise producing activities should only commence in daylight

hours and a ramp up procedures must be employed over a 20-

40 minute period.

Piling, dredging and dumping should cease if a cetacean or seal

is observed in the vicinity of the works (c.50m).

There is no requirement to halt or discontinue activity at night

time, in poor weather conditions or if marine mammal occurs

within 500m (dredging and demolition) and 1000m (piling).

Residual impacts include:

None after mitigation.

2.5.7 Terrestrial Ecology (EIS section 5.3)

This section of the EIS covers impacts on terrestrial ecology.

Methodology:

The surveys comprised a desk top study and an Extended Phase 1

Habitat Survey of Alexandra Basin and Berths 52/53 to identify:

Plant habitats

Invasive flora and fauna

Invertebrates

Protected amphibians (smooth newt and common frog)

Protected reptiles (Common lizard)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Surveys were also carried out for Badgers, Otters and Bats.

Baseline data:

Of the 57 Protected Species identified with a 1km buffer from the

Alexandra Basin Redevelopment, 15 were recorded in the works area

(mainly waterfowl and 2 species of bat) and 11 are likely to occur

(waterfowl, grey seal, otter and 1 species of bat).

The results of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey include:

No evidence of badgers, otters, Invertebrates, protected

amphibians, protected reptiles or invasive flora and fauna.

The North Quay lighthouse and a Tara mines conveyor building

have minimal Bat roost potential as the foraging potential of the

site is low, however an Automated Passive Monitoring survey

recorded two species of bat (Common pipistrelle and Leisler’s

bat) which were probably foraging but not roosting.

The results of the Impact Assessment include:

No significant loss of habitat or protected species.

No loss of typical bat associated habitats.

No mitigation measures required.

2.5.8 Benthic Ecology and Fisheries (EIS section 5.4)

This section of the EIS covers impacts on benthic ecology and

fisheries.

The Benthos Methodology included:

Baseline surveys were undertaken and 25 sub tidal grab samples were

collected from the Bay (Figure 5.4.1 of the EIS); a Particle Size

Assessment divided the material into gravel, sand and silt-clay and the

level of organic matter was estimated. A sub-tidal video was carried out

on 24 sites (Figure 5.4.2 of the EIS).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


The Benthos results include:

Sandy muds are present in the sheltered areas at the Basin and

Berths 52/53 and within the Liffey channel adjacent to the Port,

while fine, gravelly and muddy sands occur along the more

exposed parts of the Bay (Figure 5.4.4 of the EIS).

Two distinct faunal groupings identified in the W parts of the

inner Bay and the outer parts of the Bay, the species are

common to the Irish coast and not of conservation interest.

The Burford Bank has been used as a dump site for more than

100 years, the N-S current takes the dredged material away to

open sea and the ecological impacts are site specific.

Some 5.9 million cubic metres of sediment will be disposed of

over a 6 year period, resulting in the deposition of c.1.0 million

cubic metres of sediments per year (October to March) or c.177,

000 cubic metres per month.

The dump site is characterised by fine to medium sands with

high benthos stability and the WFD ecological rating is High.

The Fisheries Methodology included:

Desktop studies and field surveys which included trawling (18

beam trawls) and the deployment of two fyke nets on the N

edges of the channel (Figure 5.4.17 of the EIS).

The Fisheries results include:

The Liffey system supports a regionally significant population of

Atlantic salmon, a species listed under Annex II and V of the EU

Habitats Directive and the rivers Tolka and Dodder have

populations of salmon and sea trout.

The coastal and inshore habitats around Dublin Bay provide

nursery areas for commercially valuable species and recreational

sea angling takes place in Dublin Bay.

Twaite shad have been recorded in the River Liffey and they are

listed in Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive while Lampreys are

protected in designated SAC’s.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Potential Benthic impacts include:

The loss of c.1.4ha loss of sub-tidal benthic habitat.

Temporary removal of the benthos from within the Rockabill to

Dalkey Island cSAC.

No reefs were identified in or adjacent to the dredging area.

Hydrodynamic modelling indicates that will be no significant

change in the tidal regime, wave climate or sediment transport

regime in the Bay as result of channel deepening.

There will be a reduction in tidal velocities in the vicinity of the

Bull Wall which will give rise to deposition, and increases in

velocity along the N edge of the channel which will rise to

erosion, but only localised changes in the benthos will occur.

Sediment dumping will smoother the benthos although finer

sediments will be rapidly dispersed by tidal currents with a rapid

rate of recovery.

Small amounts of fine sediment will deposit along the inter-tidal

stretches of the North Bull Island, the S shores of the Bay, and

shallow coastal stretches to the N of the channel following each

6 month disposal event, but no adverse impacts predicted for

intertidal communities or reef habitats.

Potential Fisheries impacts include:

The quality of feeding in the dredged area for adult and juvenile

fish will be significantly reduced after dredging, there will

increased sedimentation of sand within 200-500m of the dredger

and dispersed finer sediments will give rise to smothering of the

benthos, but this will fully recover over 2-3 years and the impacts

will be minor and phased over c.6 years.

Fish species could become entrained in the dredger which could

constitute a minor to moderate impact over the 6 year period.

The generation of sediment plumes from dredging depends on

hydrodynamics, depth and type of material, concentrations are

highest within the first 50-100m of the dredger but drop of

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


rapidly, suspended solids can cause injury, behavioural changes

and death although most fish tend to avoid plumes, a time

restriction on dredging will protect smolts from the re-suspension

of sediments in the Liffey channel.

The reduction of food as result of dumping will have a minor

temporary impact on fish and very little commercial or

recreational fishing takes place in the vicinity of the channel.

The effects of pile driving noise on fish range from non-auditory

tissue damage to death, interim US noise level criteria will be

applied to Annex II species (EIS Table 5.4.13 and 4), and piling

should not take place at certain times of the year to protect

migrating species.


Dredging will be confined to one of 6 separate areas per year.

No dredging March to May in the inner section of the channel to

protect out migrating smolts, and the section opposite the Basin

should be dredged in September to reduce risk to River

Lampreys migrating during October.

No overflow permitted from the dredger at the riverside face and

associated berths along North Wall Quay where recent sediment

analysis indicated pockets of elevated contaminant levels.

The pumps should be switched off while the drag head is

withdrawn from the seabed during the turning process to

minimise fish entrainment.

The depth of the overburden on the benthos should be

minimised to facilitate rapid recovery.

There should be no piling in the Liffey channel during March-

May when smolts run in their highest numbers.


Marginal loss of habitat and temporary loss of benthic

communities but no residual impact subject to implementation of

mitigation measures.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


2.5.9 Landscape and Visual (EIS section 6.0)

This section of the EIS covers impacts on the landscape and visual

resources of Dublin Port and the wider Dublin Bay area.

Methodology:

The methodology comprised an assessment of landscape quality and

character (EIS Figure 6.3).

Impacts during construction and operation include:

The main area with potential views during construction and

operation stages are located to the immediate S at York Road

and Pigeon House Road where the predicted impact will be

slight to moderate negative.

A total of 13 viewpoints (EIS figure 6.2) were assessed with no

adverse visual impacts predicted, and the broader landscape

character and visual context around Dublin Port has the capacity

to absorb the works.

2.5.10 Noise and Vibration (EIS section 7.1)

This section of the EIS covers impacts of noise and vibration.

Methodology:

The noise assessment methodology had regard to relevant EPA and

the NRA noise guidelines, various British Standards for noise, WHO

Guidelines for Community Noise and the UK Department of Transport

calculation of traffic noise. The vibration assessment methodology has

regard to British Standards and NRA Guidelines.

Two different noise surveys were undertaken to record the existing

noise environment at the nearest noise sensitive receptor and to record

actual noise levels from cruise liner vessels using the port. (The

monitoring locations are identified in EIS Figure 7.1.1).

The area was modelled using CadnaA noise modelling software which

predicted cumulative noise levels at various constructional and

operational phases. Traffic noise was the dominant noise source

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


beginning at 05.46 and ceasing at 08.51 and cruise liner noise was

recognisable.

Potential noise and vibration impacts include:

In relation to construction noise, the main sensitive receptors

include areas in the vicinity of Pigeon House Road, the 3 Arena

and Clontarf, the main sources are from dredging, piling, plant

and traffic, and there will be no significant noise effects.

In relation to vibration, the main sources are from piling,

demolition and dredging, piling activity at North Wall Quay will be

over 70m away from the O2, and piling activity at Poolbeg

marina will be over 120m from Pigeon House Road, and there

will be no significant vibration effects.

In relation to operational noise from new and relocated

plant/equipment and changes to the locations of various ramps

and jetties will result in minor increases and decreases in

predicted noise levels with no significant increase predicted.

No significant noise impact predicted for the increase in shipping

vessels with predicted noise levels below existing ambient and

background noise levels in the area.

No significant traffic noise impact on sensitive receptors

predicted. (EIS Chapter 8 includes a detailed TIA).

In relation to increased night time port activities, most activities

occur in the container area at Ocean Pier.


Construction phase mitigation measures will be based on the

best practice guidelines contained in BS5228:2009.

Operational phase measures include the maintenance of a

Noise Management Plan.

Construction related vibration mitigation measures will be based

on the best practice guidelines contained in BS5228:2009.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Residual Impacts:

Taking account of mitigation measures the residual noise

impacts are rated as negligible.

2.5.11 Air Quality and Climate (EIS section 7.2)

This section of the EIS covers impacts in relation to emissions from

road traffic, vessel emissions, dust, odours and greenhouse gas

emissions and an Assessment of Seveso Sites is included in Appendix

7 of the EIS.

Methodology:

Baseline air quality was determined from the EPA monitoring network

and climate data has been derived for Met Eireann 30 year averages.

Potential impacts include:

Impacts arising across all the tests range from minor negative,

through negligible negative to no impact for both the

construction and operational phases. This includes impacts in

relation to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from vehicular

road traffic and odour emissions from the dredging operations.

In relation to the construction phase, the dredging operations

and treatment process, infilling and general site construction will

have a low risk for dust impacts, the main emission of

greenhouse gases will be from the removal of material from the

area, and the odour impact will be negligible.

In relation to the operational phase, all pollutant emissions from

road traffic and shipping are predicted to be insignificant.


A dust minimisation plan will be prepared as part of the

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and it

will include measures to keep roads clean.

The CEMP will include an Odour Management Plan to mitigate

the potential for odours from dredging operations.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


The Traffic Management Plan will contain measures to minimise

congestion and queuing to minimise greenhouse gas emissions,

and materials with a reduced environmental impact may be

incorporated into the construction phase.

Residual impacts:

Taking account of mitigation measures there are no predicted

residual impacts.

2.5.12 Material Assets: Transportation (EIS section 8.1)

This section of the EIS covers transportation impacts in relation to

pedestrian movement, cycling, public transport and private vehicles.

Methodology:

Traffic surveys at strategic points along Dublin Port frontage and

existing Port and DCC data utilised. Traffic enters and leaves the Port

along Promenade Road, Alexandra Road and the Terminal 3 access,

and Promenade Road carries 70% of daily vehicles.

Proposed works include:

The closure of two existing accesses to the port with an associated re-

distribution of existing traffic within the port:

The Alexandra Road closure to all operation traffic will result in a

reduction in traffic along East Wall Road which will be redirected

to Promenade Road and Dublin Port Tunnel (EIS Appendix 8-4),

this redistribution will only affect the immediate road network and

the main receptor road flows will remain unchanged.

Terminal 3 access on East Wall Road will result in a reduction in

traffic along East Wall Road (EIS Appendix 8-5).


There will be a c.10% traffic increase associated with the

predicted 2.5% annual growth in port activity until 2040 (as a

percentage of base traffic) and a full TIA is not required.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


There will be an overall decrease in traffic along East Wall Road

to North Wall Quay due to the close of the Alexandra Road and

Terminal 3 accesses, a marginal increase along Sheriff Street,

North Wall Quay and Pigeon House Road, and a significant

increase in the Port Tunnel and within the Port.

The reduction in port related traffic volumes along East Wall

Road and the removal of the need to carry out a U turn at the

roundabout the vicinity of the O2 arena will have a positive

impact in terms of safety, air quality and noise.

In relation to cruise vessel traffic, the local road network can

accommodate the coach traffic generated by 519 cruise ships

(173 days x 3 ships per day) with no impact on local traffic

volumes, the number of passengers is predicted to increase by

c.12, 500 and the number of cruise calls (from larger vessels)

will increase from 83 to 140 per year up to 2032, and the coach

and taxi trips generated by this increase equates to c.1.45% of

traffic volumes at Promenade Road and the Port Tunnel.

In relation to construction traffic, vehicles will arrive via the Port

Tunnel, c.6, 302 vehicles will arrive per month which equates to

between 26.3 to 32.8 vehicles (one way) per hour for an 8 to 10

hour day, which is c.1% of the Port Tunnels capacity.


There will be no significant impact on the road network and no

mitigation measures are proposed.

2.5.13 Material Assets: Services (EIS section 8.10)

No significant impact on water or electricity supply predicted and

there is no gas infrastructure in the area.

High voltage cables traverse the navigation channel at a depth

of -10m underneath the current seabed and will not be affected

by dredging an additional 2.2m.

There are underground cables along North Wall Quay Extension

and other parts of Alexandra Basin no works will be carried out

without prior consultations with the ESB.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


There is a cooling water intake and outfall servicing three power

stations, including Poolbeg and safeguards will be put in place to

avoid disruption from dredging activities.

A sewerage pipeline which runs across Dublin Bay from Sutton

to Ringsend treatment works at a depth of -15m CD will not be

affected, and no impacts are predicted on sewerage networks

within the Port.


There will be no significant impact on services and no mitigation

measures are proposed.

2.5.14 Coastal Processes (EIS section 9.0 and Appendix 9)

This section of the EIS covers impacts on coastal processes in Dublin

Bay in relation to wave climate, tidal patterns and sediment transport.

Methodology:

RPS used a suite of coastal process models based on the MIKE 21

software for the simulation of:

The impact of the channel dredging on the tidal regime and

inshore wave climate.

The stability of the channel deepening and its impact on

sediment transport regime.

The suitability of the existing offshore dredge disposal site as a

receptor for the dredged material.

The fate of the material dumped at the spoil site.

The impact of sediment plumes during dredging in the Alexandra

Basin and channel.

Data collection and site surveys:

Data collection comprised an historical review of relevant data

related to the existing fairway and approach channel to support

the assessment of channel stability.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Site surveys comprises a bathymetric and geophysical surveys,

current metre surveys using acoustic Doppler current profilers

and sediment sampling including particle size analysis (Survey

locations identified in EIS figures 9.1 and 9.2).

Proposed works:

Deepen Alexandra Basin West and the fairway and approach

channel to -10mCD by dredging c.6.37million cubic meters of

sediment comprising:

o 3.2 million cubic meters of fine sand from the outer

approach channel.

o 2.7 million cubic meters of silty material from the inner

harbour channel

o 0.47 million cubic meters of silty contaminated material

from Alexandra Basin and adjoining channel.

The channel will be realigned at the entrance to the Port at the

Bull Walls to remove a slight restriction to navigation (illustrated

in EIS figures 9.3 and 9.4).

Impacts of dredging on tidal regime include:

The dredging will have no predicted impact on the tidal regime

outside the immediate vicinity of the approach channel.

Negligible impacts to the tidal regime in the approach channel

after realignment, no perceptible change in tidal velocity within

the channel or in its power to cause scouring of the seabed.

Impacts of dredging on wave climate include (EIS section 9.7):

The dredging will have no predicted impact on the wave climate

inside the approach channel or in the greater Dublin Bay area

outside the immediate vicinity of the approach channel.

Impacts of dredging on sediment transport and morphological

stability in the channel include (EIS section 9.8):

A review of previous maintenance dredging campaigns was undertaken

and the results were input to a GIS to determine changes in dredged

depth and areas of accretion.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Model simulations for storm events:

No significant change predicted in the morphological response

of the seabed outside the channel area during a north-easterly,

easterly or south easterly storm event.

The proposed channel will perform in a similar manner to the

existing channel and there will be:

o A tendency for the N bank of the approach channel,

seaward of the Bull Wall, to migrate S under storm

conditions.

o Siltation along the banks of the approach channel

landward of the Bull Walls with a tendency for these

banks to migrate towards the channel.

No significant impact predicted on the sediment transport regime

within the River Liffey Channel, Tolka Estuary or Dublin Bay as

result of dredging.

2.5.15 Dredging and spoil disposal (EIS section 9.9 and Appendix 9)

This section of the EIS provides information on the dispersion and fate

of material lost to the water column during the dredging and disposal

operations to the W of the Burford Bank and dredging plumes.

Methodology:

A series of computational model simulations were undertaken to

assess the dispersion and fate of dredged material, the particle size

distribution analysis of the sediment samples (EIS Appendix 1).

Impacts include:

The disposal site is dispersive for the silt fractions within the

dredged spoil material and the sand fractions will remain on the

disposal site under normal tidal conditions, under storm

conditions the sand will gradually be assimilated into the overall

sediment budget regime of Dublin Bay.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


The existing disposal site at the Burford Bank is the preferred

disposal option as the fine sand 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 have been used to inform the assessment of

the natural and water environment (NIS chapter 5 and EIS

chapter 10).

Restricting the navigation channel dredging operations to winter

months provide suitable mitigation to ensure that the dredging

will not affect the qualifying interest of the European sites.

The dispersion, fate and deposition of sediment plumes are not

expected to impact on other users of the waters within the Liffey

channel or Dublin Bay.

Residual impacts:

The works will not have a significant detrimental impact on the

coastal processes of Dublin Bay and will be no residual impacts.

2.5.16 Water quality (EIS section 10.1)

This section of the EIS assesses the potential impact of the proposed

development on water quality in the receiving environment

Methodology and baseline data:

Regard was had to all relevant EU Directives and national policy

guidance. The available monitoring information indicates that:

The overall WFD status of the water bodies is ‘moderate’ due to

general components and morphology.

Tropic status is ‘unpolluted’.

Dissolved oxygen levels are satisfactory and capable of supporting

nearly all forms of aquatic life.

The level of oxygen demand in the water bodies is acceptable.

The designated bathing areas in the vicinity of the ABR Project are

compliant with bathing water quality standards.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Impacts on water quality include:

Construction phase impacts include:

Temporary impacts include pollution from mobilised suspended

sediment in relation to increased suspended sediment levels due to

dredging and deposition of 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.

EIS Chapter 9 (Coastal Processes) concludes that there will be no

significant impact on the sediment transport regime within Dublin

Bay and estuary as a result of the capital dredging scheme and the

dredging will not have a significant impact on the existing

morphology of the Liffey Estuary Lower or Dublin Bay water bodies.

Operational phase impacts include:

Normal port operations and continued growth including discharges

from vessels using the port, discharges from cargo handling and

discharges from cargo storage areas and onward transportation.

These activities have the potential to impact on water quality (and

associated species and habitats) and therefore require mitigation.


Construction phase mitigation measures include adherence to the

EIS construction techniques and timing of works and the

preparation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan

which will contain a Waste Management Plan, Contamination

Strategy and Water Quality Management Plan.

Operational phase mitigation measures include compliance with the

Port’s existing Environmental Management Plan which requires that

no waste should be disposed of at sea, the correct treatment of

ballast water and tanks, and appropriate storage of hazardous

wastes, oil, chemicals and waste.


Provided appropriate mitigations 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 and there will be no residual impacts.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


2.5.17 Flood risk assessment (EIS section 10.5)

This section of the EIS assesses the flood risk at the work site and the

change in flood risk to the neighbouring areas as a result of the

development including Clontarf, South Quays and North Quays.

Methodology:

The FRA was undertaken in accordance with The Planning System and

Flood Risk Management Planning Guidelines (2009).

Port impacts include:

Predicted coastal flooding events at Alexandra Basin West and

Berths 52/53 indicate that:

o Flood Zone A (highest probability of flooding) is limited to

areas adjacent to the existing quays.

o Flood Zone B (moderate probability of flooding) extends

further to the hard standing areas.

o Flood Zone C (lowest probability of flooding) indicates that

Port infrastructure outside the immediate working quay area

has a low flood risk.

The fluvial flood risk simulations have shown that extreme fluvial

events will not further increase the extreme flood levels predicted

during extreme tidal and storm surge events.


Mitigation measures include design recommendations to minimise the

risk of flooding in the present day scenario and to future proof the Port

against climate change.

Impacts on neighbouring area include:

The results of model simulations results indicate that the works are

not expected to increase the flood risk to any of surrounding areas.

2.5.18 Geology, soils and contamination (EIS chapter 11)

This section of the EIS assesses the impact on soils, geology and

hydrogeology including the treatment of contaminated marine

sediments within Alexander Basin West.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Methodology

Research was undertaken by way of desk studies to identify bedrock

and hydrogeology, and sediment samples were collected from within

the Basin and along the Liffey and approach channel (illustrated in EIS

Figures 11.2 to 11.4) and subject to a particle size analysis (EIS Figure

11.5) and the full results are contained in Appendix 11 of the EIS.

Alexandra Basin west sediments:

The Basin sediments are unsuitable for disposal at sea as they

exceeded the upper level guidance parameters for heavy metals

including Nickel, Lead, Zinc, Cadmium, Copper and Mercury.

The Basin sediments do not meet the acceptance criteria for inert

waste and treatment is required prior to use as fill in Berths 52/53

and Graving Dock 2, remediation will comprise the use of

stabilisation/solidification technology to reduce the mobility of

contaminants by chemically binding them (an EPA Industrial

Emissions Licence is required).

Sediments (470, 000 cubic metres) will be transported by barge to a

facility at Berths 52/53, dredging and treatment will be carried out at

a rate of c.1, 000 cubic meters per day over an 18 month period,

wastewater will be treated and held in a settlement lagoon, whilst

the mobilised sediments will batched into blocks for re-use as infill.

Navigation channel sediments:

Channel sediments (c.4.5 million cubic meters) are suitable for

disposal at sea in the Burford Bank (subject to an EPA Permit).

Channel sediments located adjacent to the Basin (c.0.5million cubic

metres) have low levels of contamination and can only be disposed

of at sea at slack tide and immediately covered by sand or gravel.

Impacts include:

Construction phase impacts include:

Pollution from mobilised suspended sediment and leaching of

contaminants from sediments used as fill material in the Basin.

Operational phase impacts include:

Long term leaching of contaminants from sediments used as fill

material in the Basin.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________



Construction phase mitigation measures include:

Measures include adherence to construction techniques and timing

of works, preparation of a CEMP, compliance with relevant

guidelines, consultation with stakeholders, and the preparation of a

construction monitoring programme.

Operational phase mitigation measures include:

Measures include compliance with the Ports existing Environmental

Management Plan.


None predicted subject to compliance with mitigation measures.

2.5.19 Cultural Heritage (EIS Section 12.0)

This section of the EIS covers impacts on the cultural heritage

(archaeology and architecture) of Dublin Port and Dublin Bay.

Methodology:

Research comprised desk top studies and site surveys, including a

cultural heritage assessment and a Level 2 industrial archaeological

heritage study. The study area extended from Alexandra Basin to the

Dublin Buoy (EIS Figure 12.1 illustrates the extent of the study area).

Baseline information:

None of the sites are included in the Record of Protected Structures.

Alexandra Basin contains 29 sites of interest.

The North Bull Wall contains 2 sites of interest.

The South Bull Wall contains 21 sites of interest including 3

Recorded Monuments.

The Approach Channel contains 4 sites of interest related to

shipwrecks.

Twelve of the 275 sites listed in the Dublin City Industrial Heritage

Record are located within the project area.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Impacts include:

Impacts on heritage features include:

Graving Dock 1: reopened as part of heritage centre

Alexandra Basin : to be dredged

North Wall Quay Extension: partially remove

Goods shed x 3: potential demolition

Revenue Watch House: potential demolition

North Wall Light House: to be relocated (relocated in 1937)

Poolbeg lighthouse: foundations will be reinforced

Recorded wreck feature: potential re-exposure

Shipwrecks x 4: area will be dredged

Impacts during construction include:

Alexandra Basin:

The works could uncover an historic shipwreck site (GIS162) and

the re-opening of Graving Dock 1 will be a heritage gain as it will re-

expose an important mid-19th century engineering structure.

North Wall Quay:

Partial demolition of the Quay will remove the basin side of the

active quay area and the easternmost c.150m section which

constitutes most of the 1930’s works; the quay will be retained

within a composite casing structure which will leave sections of the

quays river façade exposed; and the North Quay lighthouse will be

relocated to the terminus of the rebuilt quay.

The works represents a significant, direct negative impact on the

North Wall Quay extension which was built by Bindon Blood Stoney

and completed by Joseph Mallagh.

Approach channel:

The dredging represent a direct, permanent impact on the seabed,

4 ship wreck sites could be directly affected by being exposed.

Impacts during operational phase include:

None predicted other than routine maintenance.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Mitigation measures:

Pre-construction mitigation and on-going archaeological monitoring

during construction works with preservation by record of any

discovered features of interest.

Level 2 Industrial Archaeological Heritage Study (EIS section 12.8)

This Strategy comprises an industrial archaeological inventory of

the historic docklands landscape in Alexandra Basin West.

The impact of the proposed works was not rated as significant.

The Conservation Strategy divides Basin and the North Wall Quay

extension into conservation and interpretive ones.

2.5.20 Human Beings (EIS section 13.0)

This section of the EIS deals with the socio economic, amenity,

recreation and tourism issues.

2.5.21 Interactions (EIS Section 14.0)

This section of the EIS deals with the main interactions between the

various aspects of the EIS and they are presented in Table 14.1 of the

main report.

2.6 The NIS

This report sets the nature conservation context for the proposed

development, it assesses the likely significant impacts on European

sites and it is supplemented by the following appendices:

Avian Impact Assessment

Marine mammals Impact Assessment

Coastal Processes Modelling

NPWS Natura 2000 Site Synopses

Screening Assessment (Stage 1) to identify the potential for

significant effects in the absence of mitigation to the Rockabill to

Dalkey Island cSAC.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Of the 21 European sites located within a 15km radius of the proposed

works, the following 5 sites were identified as been at risk from the

potential impacts of the construction, development and operational

elements of the proposal.

North Dublin Bay cSAC: contains ten Annex 1 habitats including

one with priority status and one Annex 11 species (petalwort), the

site is internationally important for wintering birds, and several rare

or legally protected species of plants and invertebrates.

South Dublin Bay cSAC: contains one Annex 1 habitat (mudflats

and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide), site is important

for several species of wintering birds.

Rockabill to Dalkey island cSAC: contains one Annex 1 habitat

and one Annex 11 species (Reefs and harbour porpoise)

North Bull Island SPA: contains several species of wintering birds.

South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA: contains several

species of wintering birds.


Channel dredging and dredge disposal works lie within the

boundary of the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC, the works could

have the potential for direct effects on the Harbour porpoise.

Noise levels or disturbance as a result of works and increased

shipping could affect bird species through displacement and loss of

feeding time in adjacent SPAs.

Changes in the hydrology and sediment regime as a result of the

works and dredging could cause changes in the distribution of inter-

tidal and sub-tidal habitats and an increase on future maintenance

dredging could result in habitat loss in the SACs.

There is potential for habitat severance or fragmentation in the outer

Bay as a result of dredging, impacts from noise and physical

disturbance within the SAC as a result of piling and construction

activities could affect the Harbour porpoise and water quality.

Changes in hydrology and suspended sediments have the potential

to affect the availability of prey species for birds within adjoining

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


SPAs as changes in turbidity, deposition and scour of sediment

could affect inter-tidal and sub-tidal habitats.

There is an increased risk of pollutants during construction as a

result of accidental spillages and site run-off and increased ship

movements.

Direct and indirect impacts include:

North Dublin Bay cSAC: none predicted.

South Dublin Bay cSAC: no potential for significant impacts.

Rockabill to Dalkey island cSAC: no adverse impacts on Reef

communities; construction and piling noise could affect Harbour

porpoise and mitigation measures are required; and the temporary

loss of feeding grounds from dumping will have a minor impact.

North Bull Island SPA: no potential for significant impacts on

wintering or breeding birds in relation of loss of feeding grounds,

dredging activities and plumes or noise disturbance.

South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA: as for North Bull

Island SPA.

Impacts on the Conservation Objectives include:

North Dublin Bay cSAC: there are no pathways for impacts (direct,

indirect or cumulative) on the coastal and terrestrial section of this

site; any minor change to coastal processes will not have the

potential adversely affect favourable conservation condition of the

habitats.

South Dublin Bay cSAC: any minor change to coastal processes

will not have the potential adversely affect the favourable

conservation condition of the habitats.

Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC: the works and dredging have

the potential to affect Harbour porpoise directly and indirectly in this

site and mitigation measures are required for the avoidance and

amelioration of impacts.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


North Bull Island SPA: the works and dredging would not have the

potential to affect the inter-tidal habitats in this site.

South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA: as for North Bull

Island SPA.


A series of mitigation measures are set out in Section 3.4 of the NIS

and they include the employment of a marine mammal observer in

relation to works that could affect the Harbour porpoise and other

marine mammals in the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC.

In-combination effects include:

Ten plans or projects were assessed as having possible significant

impacts (reduced by way of mitigation) and eight were assessed as

having no impact. The key projects and plans that could have a

potential in-combination effect include:

o Dollymount promenade and Flood Protection Project

o Dublin Eastern By-pass (route options)

o Sutton to Sandycove cycleway

o Maintenance dredging (ongoing)

o Dublin Array – piling noise from the offshore wind farm could

affect Harbour porpoise

Residual impacts:

There is no potential for residual effects on four of the five European

sites and some potential for residual effects one of the sites:

Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC:

o No potential for residual effects on Reefs as a result of

sediment dispersal and deposition, and

o Residual effects on the Harbour porpoise will not be

significant subject to noise mitigation measures.

NIS conclusion: The proposed project will not give rise to significant

impacts, either individually or in combination with other plans and

projects, and will not adversely affect the integrity of any designated

site.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


3.0 THE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

3.1 EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

The Habitats Directive deals with the Conservation of Natural Habitats

and of Wild Fauna and Flora throughout the European Union. Article

6(3) of this Directive requires that any plan or project not directly

connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to

have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination

with other plans or projects shall be subject to appropriate assessment

of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation

objectives. The competent authority must be satisfied that the proposal

will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site.

3.2 European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations,

2011

These Regulations consolidate the European Communities (Natural

Habitats) Regulations 1997 to 2005 and the European Communities

(Birds and Natural Habitats)(Control of Recreational Activities)

Regulations 2010, as well as addressing transposition failures identified

in judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

3.3 EC Guidance on the implementation of the Birds and Habitats

Directives in estuaries and coastal zones, with particular attention

to port development and dredging, 2011

This document provides sector specific guidance on the

implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in estuaries and

coastal zones. Ports are often situated in or near estuaries which are

dynamic and highly productive ecosystems and in many cases

designated Natura 2000 sites; estuaries provide the necessary shelter

and suitable conditions for maritime access to ports; and ports fulfil a

strategic role in the development and realisation of global trade and

they periodically need to expand. This document provides a number of

recommendations and elements of good practice to enhance port

development and management in or near Natura 2000 sites. In

particular section 3.2 deals with spatial planning and the integrated

management of ports, estuaries and the coastal zone.

3.4 Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) Regulations, 2014

The TEN-T network is based on a comprehensive network and a core

network and these networks comprise the highest level of infrastructure

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

http://www.npws.ie/media/npwsie/content/files/Birds%20and%20Habitats%20Regulations%20SI%20477%20of%202011.pdf

http://www.npws.ie/legislationandconventions/irishlaw/euregulations/controlrecreationalactivities/



___________________________________________________________________________________


planning within the EU. The preamble states that appropriate measures

should be taken for the development of the Core network by 2030.

Action will concentrate on those components of the TEN-T network with

the highest European added value, in particular cross-border sections,

missing links, multimodal connecting points and major bottlenecks,

serving the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from

transport. Maritime ports of the Core network must be connected with

the railway and road transport network by December 2030. There is

one Core Network Corridor crossing Ireland which comprises The North

Sea – Mediterranean Corridor that stretches from Belfast, Cork and

Dublin, through the UK, Belgium, Luxembourg and France.

3.5 European Union Ports 2030 Gateways for the Trans European

Transport Network, 2014

This document states that the EU is highly dependent on seaports for

trade with the rest of the world and within its Internal Market. Ports are

the nodes from where the multimodal logistic flows of the trans-

European network can be organised, using short sea shipping, rail and

inland waterways links to minimise road congestion and energy

consumption. The 2011 White Paper on Transport and the Single

Market Act II emphasised the need for well-connected port

infrastructure, efficient and reliable port services and transparent port

funding. The availability of adequate port infrastructure, good

performance of port services and a level playing field are vital if the EU

is to remain competitive in the global markets, improve its growth

potential and create a more sustainable and inclusive transport system.

3.6 National Ports Policy, Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport,

2013

This document sets out Government policy in relation to the countries

ports. It states that the core objective of national policy is to facilitate a

competitive and effective market for maritime transport services. It

accepts that the long term international trend imports and shipping is

toward increased consolidation of resources in order to achieve

optimum efficiencies of scale. It acknowledges that this trend will have

knock-on effects in terms of vessel size, water depth in ports and the

type and scope of port hinterland transport connections.

Dublin Port is categorised as one of three Tier 1 Port of National

Significance which is responsible for 15-20% of overall tonnage,

with clear potential to lead the future development of port

capacity in the medium and long term.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


The proposed revision of the EU’s Trans European Network –

Transport (TEN-T) consists of a comprehensive transport

network which connects the major European urban areas by

means of railways, roads, inland waterways, ports, airports and

freight terminals; Dublin Port is proposed for inclusion in the

TEN-T core network and the continued development of these

ports is a key objective of National Ports Policy.

The Government endorses the core principles underpinning the

Dublin Port Masterplan (2012-2040) which seek to:

o Maximise the use of existing port lands.

o Reintegrate the port with the city.

o Develop the port to the highest environmental standards.

The continued commercial development of Dublin Port is a key

strategic objective of National Ports Policy.

3.7 Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040

Dublin Port Company has prepared this non statutory document to

guide development in Dublin Port up to 2040 and it has been framed

within the context of EU, national, regional and local development plan

policies.

Section 3 describes the rationale for the Masterplan and sets out the

key objectives which seek to:

Ensure the safe operation and sustainable development of the Port

and its approach waters.

Optimise the use of lands of Port lands.

Develop quay sides adjacent to deep water.

Extend berthage and storage area while protecting sensitive sites.

Provide adequate water depth for deep draught vessels.

Integrate with the City and enhance the aesthetics of the area.

Provide public transport, promote walking and cycling, maximise

the use of rail and enhance existing infrastructure.

Protect natural resources and European sites.

Protect against flooding.

Ensure the preservation of protected structures and heritage.

Promote recreation and amenity.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Section 4 provides general overview of the economy, it anticipates

future growth, assesses potential capacity in Dublin Port to 2040,

anticipates future trends in relation to increased Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo

traffic and the corresponding need for additional berths and storage

facilities, along with a growth in demand for cruise facilities which will

require new infrastructure.

Section 5 describes the main infrastructure and engineering proposals

which will serve to deliver new capacity by reconfiguring existing

facilities and intensifying existing land use within the Port as well as

dredging the approach channel.

Sections 6 to 11 deal with property and blight; transport, connectivity

and permeability; economic, social and community impacts along with

proposals to reintegrate the port with the City; health, safety and

security issues; environmental studies; and implementation.

3.8 National Development Plan (NDP) 2007- 2013

The Ports sub-Programme includes the following: -

Ireland’s commercial sea ports are tidal transport arteries, carrying

99% by volume of the island’s external trade.

Planned investment by the commercial ports over the period of this

plan will support the strategic policy objectives in the Government’s

Ports Policy Statement 2005.

The Government proposes to undertake a comprehensive study of

the role of Dublin Port, taking account of locational considerations,

in the context of overall ports policy on the island of Ireland, wider

transport policy, urban development policy, the National Spatial

Strategy and national economic policy.

3.9 National Spatial Strategy (NSS) 2002-2020

The NSS states the following in relation to international sea

accessibility:

Dublin Port is vital to the national economy, Dublin and adjoining

regions, however the port faces a shortage of capacity, giving rise

to its need for more land to accommodate its expanding activities

and additional facilities may need to be developed.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Developing such additional shipping facilities will need to be

supported by improved access so that transit times and costs are

competitive with those available from Dublin.

3.10 The Dublin Transportation Office Strategy (Platform for Change)

This document outlines an integrated transportation strategy for the

GDA for the period 2011- 2016. This is currently being reviewed as part

of the NTAs GDA Draft Transportation Strategy, 2011-2030. It is the

policy to retain a corridor for the provision of the eastern Bypass,

linking Sandyford with the Port Tunnel.

3.11 Regional Planning Guidelines – Greater Dublin Area 2004 - 2016

(RPG GDA)

The Guidelines recognise Dublin Port and Dublin Airport as the premier

international access points for the country and that their continued

development is essential in the interests of underpinning Ireland’s

future international competitiveness. Landside access is identified as a

significant issue. In this regard the role of the Dublin Port Tunnel is

noted. The potential for further access improvements through the

development of a southern port access route is also noted.

3.12 Dublin City Development Plan 2011- 2017

Paragraph 4.4.1.2 : The City Council fully supports and recognises the

important national and regional role of Dublin Port in the economic life

of the City and the region and the consequent need in economic and

competitiveness terms to facilitate port activities which may involve port

development or relocation in the longer term…..the Council recognises

the Port as a major source of employment in the area as well as the

need for ferry terminal services and linkages to the natural amenities of

Dublin Bay.

Zoning objective Z7: Provide for the protection and creation of

industrial uses, and facilitate opportunities for employment creation and

the majority of these lands are located in the Port area.

Policy SI19: Support the provision of a link between north Dublin Port

and the Southern Cross/South eastern Motorway via an eastern

bypass of the city.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Policy GC23: Co-operate with the Dublin Bay Task Force to work

towards developing a framework for Coastal Zone Management Plan

for Dublin Bay, developing a detailed Masterplan, and identifying new

opportunities for enhancing Dublin Bay as a resource.

Policy GC24: Continued improvement of water quality, bathing facilities

and other recreational opportunities in the coastal, estuarine and

surface waters in the city and to protect the ecology and wildlife of

Dublin Bay.

Policy GC27: Conserve and manage all NHAs, SACs and SPAs

identified or designated, or proposed to be designated by the

Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. These

designations will allow for protection in the event of any approved

boundary changes by the Department.

Protected structures: North Wall Quay is a protected structure (Ref.

5835) which comprises of granite ashlar quay walls, stone setts,

mooring rings, steps, bollards, lamp standards and machinery.

Policy FC46: To protect and enhance the important civic design

character of Dublin’s Quays, Squares and historic public spaces.

Policy FC68: To implement the relevant recommendations of the

Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record (DCIHR).

Conservation Areas: The River Liffey is a Conservation Area.

Objective REO16: Examine the feasibility of a cruise terminal in the

Poolbeg area and Dublin Port, including a review of the current

disembarking point and the development of tour options for visitors

within the city and set out recommendations.

3.13 The North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock Planning Scheme, 2014

This statutory Planning Scheme recognises the importance of cruise

tourism in section 4.9.4.6 and contains the following objectives:

Objective TL5: seeks to facilitate the cruise traffic coming into Dublin

and encourage the timing of planned events, festivals to coincide with

cruise ship calls at Dublin Port.

Objective PR12: seeks to support the provision of a suitable terminal

for cruise liners and other passenger vessels within Dublin Port.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


3.14 Local Action Plan City of Dublin – Cruise Traffic and Urban

regeneration of City Port Heritage as a key for Sustainable

Economic, Social and Urban Development, 2011

This document seeks to develop a strategy for the development of

cruise traffic and the regeneration of the Port that will articulate a new

relationship between the City and the Port. It contains the following

Specific Objectives and Action.

Specific objective 1: To transform, regenerate and adapt the physical

and environmental components of the port.

Action 1.1: to provide a cruise terminal and improve connectivity

between the port and the city.

3.15 Dublin Docklands Area Master Plan 2008

Contains several polices for port related trade, commerce, tourism and

recreation.

3.16 Dublin City Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) 2008 - 2012

The plan aims to promote biodiversity and it contains a programme of

actions to protect and enhance the city’s natural heritage. The plan

also selects a number of habitats and species for priority action.

3.17 A Management Plan for North Bull Island – DCC, 2009

The main objectives of this plan are to update key data, particularly

about the current status of habitats and species of conservation

importance, to identify and discuss current management issues on the

island and to make recommendations to manage these issues.

4.0 THE PLANNING AUTHORITY REPORT

4.1 General planning and environmental impact:

The increase in Port capacity complies with the national and local

policy, proposal will enhance the economic life of the city, it will

allow for greater connectivity with the city, and it will minimise the

impacts on Dublin Bay.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


The absence of a cruise terminal building is noted and proposal

should not prejudice the future development of a terminal.

Details required for access arrangements, vehicular routes and

parking for vehicles serving cruise ships.

No adverse impacts anticipated, the removal of contaminants will

ensure the protection of European sites, and an invasive species

management system is required.

4.2 Conservation and built heritage:

Site comprises a receiving environment of considerable industrial

heritage value and an example of significant engineering works.

North Wall Quay extension is not a protected structure, Graving

Dock 1 is of heritage value and the proposed conservation works

are welcome.

The works are necessary in order to provide for a modern port to

accommodate upward trends in vessel size and scale.

4.3 Roads and traffic:

The strategic objectives of the Masterplan are consistent with DCC

policies and objectives for movement and integration with the city.

The access closures and pedestrian/cyclist arrangements require

further agreement with the Council.

The proposal is consistent with the objective of delivering the

Eastern by-pass in the medium to long term and it facilitates a

potential alignment along the western boundary of the port.

4.4 Community gain:

Welcome the community gain proposal for the North Bull Island.

4.5 Air quality monitoring and noise control:

Ongoing assessment of noise levels should be carried out and the

results should be forwarded to DCC periodically, all noise mitigation

measures in section 7.1.5 of the EIS must be undertaken.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


5.0 SUBMISSIONS FROM PRESCRIBED BODIES

5.1 Department of Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht

Bats:

The 2 buildings identified as suitable as bat roosts should be re-

surveyed before development commences and a derogation

licence is required is bats are found and removed.

Marine mammals:

The mitigation measures in the NPWS 2014 Guidelines should be

adhered to including: the engagement of a Marine Mammal

Observer (MMO) during piling, dredging, dumping and demolition

operations to ensure that there are no marine mammals within a

set exclusion zone 30 minutes prior to operations (1000m for piling

and 500m for other activities); commencement of noisy operations

in daylight hours; the use of ramp-up up procedures for noisy

activities; cessation of works if a marine mammal is observed within

50m of piling and dredging; monitoring log to be kept; and the use

of hydrophones should be considered.

Underwater archaeology:

The Shipwreck Inventory lists over 600 wrecks for the harbour area

which are protected as National Monuments and all of the

mitigation measures in Section 12.7 of the EIS should be included

as conditions.

Conditions should also be attached for the Poolbeg Marina

Breakwater, Poolbeg lighthouse; secondary impacts in the River

Liffey require consideration and the Hydrographic Surveys Report

should be forwarded to the National Monuments Service for review.

Architectural heritage:

Some of the impacts on the quay will be considerable, particularly

at North Wall Quay Extension but mitigation measures are

proposed and the conservation zones are welcome.

Concerned about the underpinning of the Stoney blocks in the

North Wall Quay extension.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


Suggest placing the historical interpretive elements in the one

location adjacent to the Graving Dock 1 and the Pump House

which could be used as an Interpretative centre.

5.2 Environmental Protection Agency

DPC will make an application for an Industrial Emissions Licence to

the EPA for the treatment of dredge spoil from the Basin and the

deposit of the treated material as infill at Berths 52/53.

The dredging of the Basin and the transport of contaminated

material to the treatment facility may not require EPA authorisation

depending on the daily amount to be dredged.

The treatment process will need to be contained and mitigation

measures are required to ensure that that there are no uncontrolled

emissions to ground, air and water; the leaching of contaminates

from the treated material should be controlled by way of leaching

limit values contained in any licence granted by the EPA.

5.3 Inland Fisheries Ireland

Port is located within the catchments of the Rivers Liffey, Dodder

and Tolka which support Atlantic salmon and Lamprey; the

proposed works have significant potential to impact directly on

sensitive aquatic ecology; although not a designated SAC a

precautionary approach should be extended to all designated and

non-designated sensitive species in this area.

Loading and deposal of all dredged material should comply with the

EPA licence, moderately contaminated material should be capped

at the disposal site, the overall impact of dumping in the Burford

Bank should be assessed by post dumping bathymetric surveys,

and suitable conditions for fish transition should be maintained

through the redevelopment and dredging process.

All works must be completed in accordance with a Construction

Management Plan (CMP); its mitigation measures, water and

habitat quality must be closely monitored throughout the

redevelopment and dredging operation; the objectives of the WFD

must be achieved and a Construction Environmental Monitoring

Programme (CEMP) should be prepared to monitor water quality.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:46

___________________________________________________________________________________


5.4 An Taisce

Evaluation is required in relation to the environmental impact of the

project and mitigation measures including dredging spoil, deposition

and treatment of 470,000 contaminated materials from the Basin.

5.5 Geological Survey of Ireland

No issues of concern.

5.6 National Roads Authority

Extensive consultations have taken place between DPC, DCC and

the NRA in relation to the identification of a technically feasible

corridor for the Eastern By-pass that would not preclude the

proposed works, this exercise has not been concluded and the

NRA had little input to the EIS and TIA.

Seek to protect the function of Dublin Tunnel to accommodate port

traffic and traffic from the future Eastern Bypass; tunnel capacity

overestimated in the EIS, and measures should be put in place to

prevent the deposition of dirt from construction vehicles.

Seek to protect the route corridor options for the Eastern By-pass in

line with statutory policy; a study undertaken for the section of the

route that affects Dublin Port identifies a technically feasible

corridor that accommodates 3 possible route/alignment options,

and a revised Corridor Protection Study is expected by mid-July

2014 and until then the existing arrangements will remain in place.

The EIA suggests that the primary pedestrian and cycle access to

the Port will be from the Point Roundabout which conflicts with one

of the route options and this should be amended to a location just N

of the 3 Arena (Point Depot).

5.7 National Transport Authority

A route corridor for the By-pass should be protected for a future

transport scheme that would be implemented after 2030.

A Transport Plan should be prepared for the entire Port Estate to

deal with construction related movements, the function and

management of the East Wall Road/East Link Bridge; the

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


management of HGV movements through the Port Tunnel; the

function of the proposed interconnector bridge within the port

estate; general vehicular access to the Docklands; provision for

pedestrian and cycle movements along East Wall Road; and

internal linkage arrangements for vehicles from the development to

the main port entrance at Promenade Road.

5.8 ESB and EirGrid

Confirm presence of two existing high voltage sub aqua electricity

transmission cables traversing the River Liffey from N to S in the

vicinity of the Poolbeg marina and North Wall Quay.

The proposed demolition of a section of North Wall Quay will

require the relocation of the westernmost cable prior to

development commencing as part of the enabling works.

The new alternative 220kV cables will involve running new cables

through bedrock underneath the Liffey at a location E of the Port

Operations Building in the vicinity of the Poolbeg Power Station.

In relation to the cooling water intake and outfall which services the

power stations, the ESB recommends that it is necessary that:

o Adequate safeguards are put in place to avoid disruption to

power station operations; there should be no impact on the

integrity or operation of either the intake or outfall pipes.

o Monitoring buoys and water quality trigger levels required to

safeguard ESB power station operations and to initiate the

temporary cessation of works which may cause elevated

levels of suspended solids from turbidity during dredging.

6.0 SUBMISSIONS: GENERAL PUBLIC AND COMPANIES

6.1 Dublin Bay Watch

Inevitable that reclamation will be needed in the near future as the

extensive dredging will make it easier to progress a proposal.

Environmental issues raised in the last application are still relevant.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Project splitting exercise, monopoly position of Dublin Port

reinforced, future reclamation enabled, additional environmental

impact of the port by bringing in bigger ships with more emissions.

6.2 Irish Underwater Council

Turbidity:

Dublin Bay is a regular dive site and concerns raised in relation to

diver safety and wider environmental issues.

Errors and omissions in the EIS and NIS suggest that the

environmental impacts will be significantly greater than indicated.

Increased levels of suspended solids leads to decreased

underwater visibility which is a cornerstone of dive safety.

The EIS and NIS marine mammal mitigation measures impose

more restrictions on the time available for dumping.

The computer modelling of suspended solids resulting from the

dumping of spoil at the disposal site present an unrealistic uniform

distribution of material throughout the water column.

The dispersal model and distribution patterns for suspended solids

at the disposal site are significantly underestimated with greater

impacts anticipated.

Noise:

Inadequate consideration of underwater noise in EIS and section

4.2 (construction) which provides no information on underwater

noise and no information with regard to changes in underwater

noise outputs due to the use of Dublin port by larger vessels.

Pile driving noise may affect harbour porpoise and harbour seals at

distances of up to 20km and many dive sites are within 10km or

less of the Basin and insufficient data to determine whether noise

generated during pile driving will have an adverse effect on divers.

The EIS demonstrates that underwater noise generated during

construction will have an adverse impact on Harbour porpoise,

harbour seal and grey seal.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


6.3 Coastguard Station Residents Group

Levels of noise, particularly at night are seriously impacting on the

health and wellbeing of the community.

Dublin Port does not fulfil its obligations to protect homes from noise

levels and the proposal will add to the problems.

Two Section 5 declarations enclosed (2011 and 2014) from DCC

stating that Dublin port and their tenants MTL have carried out

unauthorised development on the S bank site since 2000, the noise

emanating from the cranes has resulted in sever sleep deprivation.

Scientific acoustic article in relation to noise levels at Dublin Port

submitted and long term noise measurements were undertaken at

the most exposed residential façade for a period of 45 days to

determine the extent of night time exposure that was above levels

recommended by the WHO (40dB(A) and the results show that

exposure is above night time guideline limits set down by the WHO.

6.4 Clontarf Resident Association

Welcome proposal to use existing lands within the port.

Concerned about future reclamation referred to in the Masterplan.

Potential environmental impact of contaminants disturbed as a

result of dredging.

Medium to long term implications of impacts of ongoing channel

dredging to maintain the new channel depth.

6.5 Sandymount and Merrion Residents Association

Adverse environmental and ecological impacts of channel dredging.

Geography and tides limit the extent of large scale works and port

should relocate but recognise the need for expansion.

Object to the deepening, extension and widening of the shipping

channel which will have adverse environmental impacts on

protected species and habitats around Dublin Bay.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Harbour porpoise will be adversely affected by noise, disturbance,

reduction in foraging area and fragmentation of habitat.

Exclusion zone for Harbour porpoise around dredging activities

should be larger.

Benthic communities will take longer to recover than predicted.

The combined effects of the project should be assessed in relation

to several other proposals along with the impacts larger vessels.

Dumping at sea will increase turbidity, affect water quality and

marine fauna, benthic species will be smothered, and the protected

reef habitats will be affected.

Ongoing dredging and has already affected the European sites

along the S shores of Dublin Bay and the dredging works will

seriously affect the Zostera beds, sand eels and other species.

The surge wave effect from larger vessels will be problematic along

the shoreline and at the Great South Wall.

The effects of the dredging channel works on the sewage plant and

storm water outfalls at the Great South Wall area unclear.

6.6 Donna Cooney (Green Party representative for Clontarf)

Dumping contaminated materials would adversely affect European

sites and water quality at Dollymount Strand, covering the dumped

material with gravel is unsatisfactory and the material should be

treated and not dumped at sea.

The works could cause physical injury to Harbour porpoise as a

result of vessel collisions, exposure to pile driving noise,

consumption of contaminated prey and impaired visibility, and the

mitigation measures are unsatisfactory.

The mitigation measures for birds (especially Brent Geese and

terns) and the information related to tidal waves pattern, silt and

sedimentation are unconvincing.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


6.7 Peadar Farrell (local resident of Clontarf)

Disposal of dredge spoil in the cSAC would have irreversible

environmental impacts.

Contaminated sediments could leach into the water column during

and after treatment at Berths 52/53.

Not possible to ensure the locational accuracy of material dumped

in Burford Bank to cover moderately contaminated sediments.

Noise from pile driving in vicinity of Great South Wall will prohibit

public access, excavations could give rise of collapse which would

endanger public safety, a risk assessment is required.

Adverse impact on recreational use of the bay and diver safety will

put at risk through increased turbidity and reduced visibility; adverse

impact on shell fish and human health, noise pollution and impact

on marine mammals; and trans-boundary impacts.

6.8 Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company

Background:

Main concerns relate to berthing facility for cruise ships.

The main function of Dublin Port is to accommodate freight exports

and imports, the rationalisation of 21ha of existing port lands and

intensification of use indicates that a substantial proportion of the

traffic in cruise ships would be better accommodated in Dun

Laoghaire Harbour.

The City Plan stresses that the port zoning allows for bad neighbour

uses that are incompatible with the intended cruise ship traffic.

Proposal is premature, oversized and badly located.

ABP refused permission for ecological reasons for the reclamation

of 21ha of foreshore to provide for additional berths and storage.

The previous application was promoted on the basis that space was

constrained and this element of constraint has since heightened.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


There has been a material change in circumstance since the

previous decision was made in relation to the intended replacement

of the NSS which does not retain the same significance.

The lands are zoned Z7 for port use and the Seveso sites make the

site unfit for cruise vessels; the port lands will come under

increasing pressure for residential use in the future; the National

Ports Policy is more concerned with cargo than passenger traffic;

and Dun Laoghaire offers a better location for cruise ships.

Cruise ships will generate income but the associated infrastructural

costs will be shared with other agencies and the proposal could

result in demand for previously refused reclamation.

The DLR Development Plan makes provision for the continued

development of Dun Laoghaire Harbour.

The Dun Laoghaire Harbour Masterplan seeks to accommodate

cruise liner facilities and provide for a cruise ship berth which is

centrally located with direct access from the harbour mouth.

A proposed application to ABP will include a new dedicated cruise

berth at Dun Laoghaire, channel deepening and a turning circle

c.400m to the N of the harbour entrance; dredging will equate to

c.10% of Dublin Port dredging; the cruise berth will utilise existing

harbour facilities and public transport, it won’t interfere with other

activities, and it can be completed within 2 years.

Procedural Considerations:

The public notices are defective as they do not refer to the cruise

berths or the multipurpose use of North Wall Quay, the ABP

reference does not indicate the S side element of the works.

Planning considerations:

The engineering and dredging works will disrupt businesses and

damage the local economy and local amenity; the impact on port

users has not been adequately addressed; the transfer of Ro-Ro

traffic from Berths 52/53 to new berths at Crossberth Quay will

intensify vessel movements in Alexandra Basin, which will in turn

adversely affect cruise ship and cargo operators.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


The EIS does not contain navigation simulations, details of cruise

ships or the assumed environmental conditions for the confined

turning area; the Ocean Quay West improvements will negate the

benefits of shortening North Wall Quay, the Basin entrance is too

narrow, and large ships will have difficulty turning safely under

certain wind and tidal conditions and berthing along North Wall

Quay; Dun Laoghaire harbour does not have similar restrictions.

The EIS does not contain a firm timescale for the dredging of

contaminated material from the Basin; channel dredging could take

up to 10 years which could have implications for cruise calls.

Future operational conflicts between Ro-Ro ferries and cruise ships.

The EIS does not deal with the impact of increased traffic volumes

on safety and marine navigation in the fairway.

The EIS contains conflicting cruise ship visit statistics.

6.9 Drogheda Port Company

Question whether the proposed redevelopment will deliver the type

of port facility which Ireland required to drive forward economic

development in the mid to long term.

The proposal will not meet the requirements of the type of vessel

which the applicant considers to be optimum

The proposal has inadequate berth depth to accommodate larger

ships inadequate channel depth to provide 24/7 access.

6.10 Stena Line Limited

Potential adverse impact on traffic movement within the Port Estate

by the future closure of Alexandra Road from Breakwater Road

South to the Alexandra Road exit as per the Masterplan; the

Alexandra Road access junction carries a significant proportion of

traffic, particularly during the daytime.

Not enough information to confirm that the closure of Alexandra

Road access will not have a significant impact and that the majority

of traffic will divert from East Wall Road to the Port Tunnel.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Any future closure of Alexandra Road is concern for Stena Link as it

removes the ability for the Port to absorb some of the exiting load

from the Port, leaving unnecessary pressure on the Tolka Quay

Road/ Bond Drive-Promenade Road W exit route out of the Port.

The proposed single exit route for all traffic exiting from the Port has

the potential to cause significant congestion problems particularly

following peak ferry ship arrivals.

6.11 Irish Ferries Limited

Road closure concerns are similar to those summarised above for

Stena Line Limited.

The EIS figures for the theoretical capacity of the Port Tunnel are

overestimated and the transport arrangement has the potential to

cause significant problems with a negative commercial impact.

Inadequate detail for the construction and operational phases in

relation to the infill of Berths 52/53 and the construction of the

Double Tier Linkspan, and for traffic generation during construction.

No consideration given to the potential measure to improve access

to the Terminals and easternmost Ro-Ro area by developing an

extension to the E end of Promenade Road, through land which is

controlled by DPC, to the Terminal Road N.

Any decision should be on the basis of a single Dublin Bay facility

and that Dublin Port, as a Tier 1 Port, is recognised as the most

important working port in the country; the introduction of larger and

more frequent cruise calls will increases the risk of disruption of

trade in and out of the country.

6.12 Burke Shipping Group

Concerns about the operational and technical aspects of any

decision by the Board including any conditions that might affect

operations and activities within the overall port area.

Conditions should not have an adverse impact on existing

operations within the Port and should comply with the 2007

Development Management Guidelines (relevant to planning and the

development permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Request the Board to have particular regard to the existing

operators in the Port and to the significant investment and

infrastructure which has been provided by the State and by

individual companies/operators within the Port.

6.13 Dublin Graving Docks Limited

Graving Dock 2 comprises a long established port activity that has

operated since 1860 and DGDL has traded since 2002 with 26 staff.

The loss of this utility and it’s complimentary role in assisting in the

event of emergencies together with the adverse economic and

employment impacts arising have not be adequately justified.

The graving dock can be retained in Alexandra Basin within a

revised layout and arrangement as illustrated in the Masterplan.

Proposal is not plan-led and it is not in accordance with the

Masterplan which does not refer to the closure of the Graving Dock.

The AECOM report confirms that the proposal will gives rise to

more complicated and congested arrangements in terms of ship

movements and manoeuvrability when compared to the Masterplan.

Inadequate consideration of alternatives in the EIS and question the

economic viability of the project, DPC are potentially compromising

the core business of the Port for limited economic return by

facilitating seasonal cruise shipping in this part of the Port.

6.14 Ocean Trawlers Limited

Have used the Graving Dock for many years for repair and

maintenance; Dublin and Cork are the only suitable docks for

bottom painting and hull maintenance.

Welcome the proposal but infilling the existing dry dock would be a

mistake given the lack of this type of facility around the coast.

All traffic would be directed to Cork which may not be able to cope

with the extra volume which could drive business overseas.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


7.0 FURTHER INFORMATION

The applicant submitted significant Further Information on 18th August

2014 in relation to the following matters.

7.1 Construction noise and vibration

Provide further detailed information in relation to the proposal to

construct new quay walls and structures with regard to the anticipated

duration of overall pile installation activity and further details of the

piling techniques.

EIS worst case construction noise levels are within the thresholds

set out in the 2004 NRA Guidelines and BS5228:2009.

Two piling rigs will be active simultaneously at each quay with a

short time lag between the start of the first and second rig.

Piling will run from October 2015 to January 2019 and the number

of piles active at any time will vary between 1 and 5 although up to

7 have been included in the noise model.

The number of piles will range from 18 at Berths 49/52 to 1433 at

new Berths 52/53.

Exact piling details to be finalised and piles will comprise tubular

pile combi walls (diameter 1.6m) and HZM king pile walls.

The piles will be driven by a combination of vibratory and impact

hammer techniques with ramp-up procedures.

There will be a certain degree of cross-over between construction

activities all of which will not take place at the same time.

7.2 Birds and noise

Provide further detailed information on the effects of pile installation

noise and vibration on bird populations in the vicinity.

Further studies in spring 2014 (at the start of the breeding season

for Common and Artic Terns which are located c.1.2 km and 1.5km

form Alexandra Basin) demonstrated that the tern colonies and

Black Guillemots (which regularly use the Basin) were unaffected by

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


pile driving activity in the area and Brent geese are already

habituated to high levels of noise.

Piling noise will not change underwater noise levels in the South

Dublin Bay and River Tolka estuary SPA and underwater noise

measurements taken in June 2014 (close to the tern colony on the

mooring dolphins) indicate that no piling noise was audible during

shipping activity.

Underwater noise propagates least at low water when wading birds

they are likely to be foraging.

International studies concluded that pile driving noise did not

adversely affect birds and that underwater noise had no effect on

fish (prey species) 200m from the noise source.

Provide further detailed information on the effects of dredging noise on

bird populations in the vicinity

Underwater noise from dredging is similar to shipping noise which

does not propagate more than 200m from source, noise cannot

propagate in water less than 1m deep so waders and other birds

will not be affected in neighbouring SPAs.

Maintenance dredging in 2012 had no significant impact on bird

populations, international studies indicate no significant correlations

between overwintering bird numbers and dredging activity.

7.3 Harbour seals, grey seals and haul out sites

Provide further detailed information on the potential effects of the

proposed works on the harbour seal and grey seal and on their ability

to continue using the Bull Island during the channel dredging works.

Around 30 seals (including pups) regularly use the Bull Island to

haul out and studies in August 2014 identified c.16 harbour seals

that are used to harbour and shipping noise.

International studies indicate that disturbance from pile driving may

be restricted to 200-300m while minor disturbance may occur up to

15km and seals are highly mobile.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


No adverse impacts predicted subject to mitigation including the use

of a marine observer (1000m) and ramp up procedures.

Monthly monitoring of the haul out site will be undertaken to assess

the effectiveness of the mitigation measures during and after

construction.

7.4 Harbour porpoise, marine mammals and noise

The Harbour porpoise is difficult to detect because of its small size and

erratic surfacing behaviour and further detailed information is required

to assess the potential effects of prolonged noise and disturbance from

pile installation and dredging and dumping noise, and to assess the

effectiveness of the proposed and additional mitigation measures.

Pile driving noise:

Ambient noise in Dublin Bay reflects the level of vessel traffic and

most marine mammals exhibit some tolerance to shipping noise and

some become habituated.

Piling will be fairly continuous for c.38 months when c.990 piles will

be driven and piling will be potentially simultaneous at 3 sites

(Berths 32-34, Berths 29-31 and the Marina Wall).

The potential impacts include Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) and

Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) and behavioural disturbance.

International studies indicate that PTS onset would occur within 5m

of pile driving for cetaceans and 20m for pinnipeds and that TTS

onset would occur within 10m and 40m, and the studies indicate

that no injury or hearing impairment should occur outside of 100m.

Harbour porpoise can experience behavioural disturbance a

significant distance from pile driving and strong avoidance

behaviour within 20km of the sound source.

Bottlenose dolphins, minke whales and pinnipeds exhibit

behavioural disturbance within 50, 40 and 14km respectively.

Harbour porpoise are very difficult to visually detect but they do

have very distinctive echolation characteristics (high frequency –

narrow bandwidth) which facilitates acoustic monitoring techniques.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Propose to install a real time passive acoustic monitoring system

(PAMS) at the approaches to the Port to provide information on the

presence of marine mammals when visual mitigation is not possible,

and the data would be streamed ashore through the internet.

PAMS allows for real time monitoring of harbour porpoise and

bottlenose dolphins within a range of 250-800m and will detect mid

and low frequency seal vocalisations 24/7 in all weather conditions.

Two hydrophones will achieve monitoring on the 1000m exclusion

zone for piling, allow for the on-going detection of disturbance and

the assessment of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.

The deployment of bubble curtains can result in sound reductions

from pile driving out to 10km with decreases in sound pressure

levels of up to 90%.

A recent 2014 noise trials in Dublin Bay (using smaller diameter

piles than proposed) indicate rapid attenuation of sound pressure

from piling within 500m of the sound source due to topography,

seabed substrate and the shallow water; sound pressure was

undetectable above ambient noise 3,570m from source.

The results from this trial suggest that piling will not cause TTL in

marine mammals within 500m of the site and the standard

mitigation NPWS measures will be sufficient with no need for

bubble curtains or any other additional measures.

Noise from dredging and dumping:

Around 6million m3 of sediment will be dredged from the navigation

channel and dumped at the Burford Bank on the boundary of the

SAC over a c.6 year period, 24/7 for 6 months per year.

Limited international studies indicate no evidence of ecological

changes and the greatest impact on fish and marine mammals

related to the re-suspension of contaminants.

Harbour porpoises tend to temporarily avoid extraction areas and

studies found that it takes 3 times longer for Harbour porpoise to

return to within 600m sand extraction.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Dredging seems to have less effect on marine mammals than

moving sources of noise and there is little research in relation to

noise from dumping which may reflect the low impact of dumping.

Received levels of dredging noise by marine mammals can exceed

ambient levels for considerable distances depending on the type of

dredger however international studies suggest that they will be

exposed to the sound equivalent of an additional ship.

Effectiveness of mitigation measures:

The NPWS guidelines will be implemented including the use of a

marine mammal observer, exclusion zones and ramp up

procedures, acoustic harassment devices involve putting additional

unnecessary sound into energy into the marine environment.

Propose to establish a static acoustic monitoring system (SAMS)

using CPODS which will log the echolocation clicks of dolphins and

Harbour porpoise, they have detection distances of c.250m for

Harbour porpoise and 800m for bottlenose dolphins, 2 units will be

deployed at the dump site and within Dublin Bay.

Other matters:

An incorrect version of the Marine Mammals Impact Assessment

Report was inadvertently submitted with the application and it has

been replaced with the correct version.

7.5 Benthos recovery times

Further detailed information is required in relation to the impacts of

dredging and dredge disposal on various benthic communities, their

anticipated recovery times (which could take longer than c.6 months)

and the effects a prolonged recovery time might have on waterfowl

populations and marine mammals who forage for food in the area.

Dredge area:

Dredging will take place over 6 winter months per year for 6 years

and the sediment comprises muds and sands.

International studies indicate rapid recovery (months to 1 year) at

sites with high tidal energy, fine sediments, disturbed community

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


types, opportunistic species, with no change to remaining sediment,

which are all characteristics of Dublin Bay.

On-going maintenance dredging indicates no differences in

community structure between dredged and un-dredged areas.

Disposal area:

Around 1 million m3 of sands and muds will be dumped per year

over 6 years or c.177, 00m3 per month over 6 months which will

allow for a 6 month partial recovery period each year.

Several features of the dump sites facilitate rapid recovery of the

benthos (hydrodynamics, dumping history and nature of the spoil);

international studies at highly dispersive sites recorded minimal

impacts on biological communities.

The dump site has been used for regular dumping since 1996 and

Irish studies indicate the stable nature of the benthos over time in

the area of the dump site.

Recovery can be aided by appropriate management including the

even spread of material throughout the site to facilitate vertical

migration during winter months.

Full recovery will not occur until dredging is complete although

partial recovery will take place during the summer months.

Fisheries, waterfowl and marine mammals:

Limited international studies indicate that spoil placement had no

long term adverse impact on secondary production with rapid

recovery after 2 years.

Few studies on the effects of channel dredging on fisheries however

the likely principal impact will be on small bottom dwelling species

which will be confined to a limited area each year with no impact on

predatory waterfowl or marine mammals.

The dumpsite constitutes less than 0.5% of the SAC.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


7.6 Noise and turbidity

Comment on the lack of information in relation to diver safety in relation

to noise disturbance and reduced visibility.

Recent noise tests indicate that underwater noise levels at dive

sites will not be impacted by piling or dredging noise.

Disposal of spoil under normal tidal conditions will not produce a

significant plume beyond the area of the dumpsite and diving is not

permitted in the dumpsite.

Dredging will occur in the winter months and outside of the

recreational season.

7.7 Coastal processes: General

Compare previously completed Coastal Processes Studies in the

Dublin Bay and Liffey Estuary 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.

Three relevant studies related to coastal processes within Dublin

Bay were reviewed during the preparation of the EIS (3-D hydro

model for Dublin Bay, Ringsend WWTP Long Sea Outfall and

Dublin Waste to Energy).

Further clarity is required in relation to the coastal processes models

with respect to boundary conditions, bed roughness, turbulence model

and specific boundary inputs for tides and freshwater flows for the

calibration runs.

Several well established computational models were considered by

RPS in the simulation of coastal processes and it was concluded

that the MIKE modelling system was the most suitable 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 pf

the morphological change to bathymetry into the flow and wave

model calculations throughout the simulation.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


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.

Figures 9.7 to 9.10 have been reproduced with isolines to represent

changes in values, with a reduction in the number of arrows

representing the magnitude and direction of the current flow; figures

9.11, 9.14, and 9.21 to 9.23 have been reproduced with zoomed

inlays of relevant locations and each of the inlays also has isolines

representing changes in values to increase the clarity of the image.

7.8 Wave Climate

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.

Suitable detailed wave measurements of the inshore wave climate

were not available thus the wave model simulations were

undertaken as a comparative study; the impact of the proposed

scheme was derived by transforming offshore wave data for

individual past storms events into the Dublin Bay area; this

technique has been successfully used in other studies.

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.

The inshore wave climate was transformed using the MIKE 21

Spectral Wave model that simulates the growth, decay and

transformation of wind generated waves and swells in offshore

coastal areas.

Wave-current interactions make little difference to inshore wave

climate.

There will be no changes to the boundary conditions with the Tolka

estuary.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


The Bull Walls successfully attenuate the incident offshore waves

and afford Dublin port significant protection against storm events as

the walls act as breakwaters.

Comment on the predicted increase in wave heights up along the Liffey

Channel, and clarify the magnitude of wave heights and periods 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.

The change in wave heights at the entrance to the harbour channel

will not exceed 0.20m with a small increase in wave height at the

entrance to the Tolka estuary.

No impacts on navigation anticipated.

The maximum change to the inshore wave climate within the

channel during a storm event did not exceed +0.20m and there

would no significant impact to the mooring loads in the port.

There would be a small increase in wave height to the S of the

North Bull Bridge and the post dredging situation will increase the

height of the waves approaching the sea defences by 0.12m which

will have no perceptible impact in terms of the volume of water

breaching the sea defences from overtopping waves with no net

increase in flood risk to Clontarf.

7.9 Hydrodynamics

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.

This method has been successfully adopted in other studies within

Dublin Bay including the Bedri 3-D hydro model of Dublin Bay,

Ringsend WWTP Long Sea Outfall and Dublin Waste to Energy).

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.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


The data was acquired by the Danish Hydraulic Institute in 2010

and was available only in hardcopy format.

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.

The model was well calibrated with 3 hydrographic stations and

hydrodynamics throughout the Bay area was accurately simulated;

given the proximity of the hydrographic sampling station H2 to the

disposal site it is valid to assume that the conditions recorded at

station H2 are representative of the disposal site.

Review and comment on the implications of the proposed development

on the Dublin Sewage Outfall discharge plume.

The dispersion envelope for the plume covers an area in which the

hydrodynamic regime remains unchanged as a result of the project

with no impact on the fate of the discharge from the outfall; the

limestone rock spoil from the proposed 9km long sea outfall from

Ringsend to be disposed of at the Burford bank has the potential for

in-combination effects, however Irish Water has confirmed that the

project has been cancelled.

7.10 Sediment Disposal Site

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 and clarify the

conclusion that the contaminated sediments overlain / capped by

placed sand and gravel remain in-situ.

DPC’s licence requires that hydrographic surveys are conducted at

the dump site before and after maintenance dredge operations, the

data is used to generate a full digital terrain model which conducts

volume computations.

The volume of material dumped in 2012 was c.0.650 million m3, an

assessment of the 2008/13 hydrographic indicates that the change

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


in the sea bed level equated to an additional 0.074million m3 of

sediment at the dump site.

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.

Dumping is undertaken in accordance with EPA Dump at Sea

Permits and industry standards and all dredgers have GPS tack

plotters fitted to ensure that they remain on course.

7.11 Sediment Transport

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.

A spillage input was not included in the dredging plume analysis as

it was not deemed necessary and the spillage risk has now been

assessed in the Draft High Level Construction Environmental

Management Plan.

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.

Losses 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”

For dredging operations related to partially contaminated material

the total losses due to overspill will be restricted so that the loses at

the surface will be no more than 1%.

Suspended sediment measurements can be undertaken to control

dredging operations if excessive overspill becomes a problem

during dredging of the inner channel

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


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.

Dredged material from the outer, middle and inner sections of the

harbour channel are predominantly silt and some sand which

produced no plumes.

Comment on the implications for the intake waters to the Power Plants

at Poolbeg from the proposed dredging activities.

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 the sediment transport study, 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).

The composition of the seabed used through the models was based

on particle size distribution analyses and the material was mainly

fine sand.

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. 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.

The proposed channel will perform in a similar manner to the

existing channel.

There will be a tendency for the N bank of the approach channel,

seaward of the North Bull Wall, to migrate S under storm conditions.

There will be siltation along the banks of the approach channel

landward of the Bull Walls with a tendency for the banks to migrate

in towards the channel.

A similar level of maintenance dredging will be required.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


7.12 Sediment sampling for contaminants

Comment on the relatively small number of sediment cores provided for

the Liffey Navigation channel and the accuracy of the contamination

classification given to sections of the channel and in particular how the

delineation of slightly/moderately contaminated sediments from

sediments suitable for disposal was arrived at and comment on the how

representative the cores are with respect to capital dredge depth.

Regard was had to several previous studies undertaken within

Dublin Port; the Marine Institute (MI) was consulted with regard to

the assessment of the suitability of sediments for disposal at sea.

Sampling and vibro-core locations for the basin, navigation channel

and fairway were agree with the MI in advance of the site

investigation works who advised on both the locations and testing

regime.

A line delineating the boundary between slightly/moderately

contaminated material and material suitable for sea was developed.

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.

Four alternatives were proposed including dumping at sea and

filling to lands at port, along with landfilling and export which were

considered to be too energy intensive and costly.

Provide a timescale for dredging works in the Basin, a risk assessment

and an emergency plan in the event of an accident, spillage or

containment breach.

A Dredging Risk Assessment has been carried out which discusses

the risk of spillage and this forms part of the Draft High level

Construction Management Plan which has been now submitted.

7.13 Channel dredging

Confirm that dredging and disposal operations will take place evenly

over a 6 year period 24/7 during each 6 month winter dredging

campaign, and take account of any changes to the timetable as a result

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


any time restrictions for the commencement of daily dredging and

dredge disposal operations as a result of the mitigation measures.

Dredging will take place 24/7 over 6 months per year and the rates

account for stoppages that may result from weather conditions.

Confirm the anticipated time period and operational hours for dredging

and dredge disposal and the coastal process models should be re-

calibrated to take account of any significant changes to the timescale.

Times confirmed and no changes to models required.

Comment on the likely potential environmental impacts arising from any

future dredging to a depth of -15mCD, including any effects this might

have on the submarine pipeline under Dublin Bay which brings

wastewater from North Dublin to Ringsend for treatment.

The project will future proof the port and the level of new quays and

berths have been designed to accommodate predicted increases in

water level as a result of climate change.

Given the cost of piling the pile lengths will accommodate potential

(but not certain) future dredging of the berthing pockets to -15mCD.

No current requirements to dredge the shipping channel beyond -

10mCD although the Masterplan refers to a possible future depth of

-12mCD up to 2040 and this would constitute a new project.

The submarine pipeline is -15.7mCD and dredging to -10 or

12mCD would have no impact;

The demolition of part of the North Quay Extension necessitates the

removal of the 220kV cable and a replacement cable is required to

maintain the connection between the Poolbeg and North Wall

Power Stations and in-combination impacts were considered with

the ESB and Eirgrid although the specific nature, extent, location

and construction has yet to be confirmed and will be subject to a

separate future proposal for statutory consent.

7.14 Responses to Further Information

The responses received from the DAH&G, EIRGRID, the Irish

Underwater Council and Peadar Farrell raised no new issues.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


8.0 THE ORAL HEARING

8.1 Introduction

The oral hearing opening on Wednesday 8th October 2014 and it

closed on Friday 17th October 2014. The hearing lasted for 7 days and

it took place in the Academy Plaza Hotel, Findlater Street, Dublin 1.

A digital recording of the proceedings, copies of written submissions,

where provided, and the attendance lists are attached to this report.

Dr. Anthony Cawley of Hydro Environmental Limited was appointed by

the Board to provide advice on matters relating to coastal processes,

hydrodynamics, flood risk and climate change.

8.2 Oral Hearing Proceedings

The following sections provide a brief summary only of the main

additional information that emerged at the oral hearing over and above

that contained in the application documentation, further information

response and written submissions already received and summarised in

the foregoing sections of this report.

8.3 Applicants Submissions

The applicant was requested to make a brief opening submission to the

hearing to describe the nature and extent of the proposed

development. The applicant’s expert witnesses were requested to

provide a brief summary of their main findings and conclusions, and to

then focus on the matters raised in the observations received by the

Board in relation to the following broad and overlapping issues:

Alternatives

Construction phase

Dredging and dredge disposal

Coastal processes and hydrology

Contamination

Noise

Ecology

Heritage and archaeology

Transportation, traffic and access

Jarleth Fitzsimmons (Senior Counsel) set the legislative context for

the proposed development.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Eamonn O’Reilly (Chief Executive) described the nature and extent of

the proposed development and the evolution of the Masterplan; he

illustrated the historical development of the port and explained the

rational for the proposed development.

Michael Sheary (Company Secretary and Chief Financial Officer) set

the European, national and economic context for the proposed

development and summarized the community gain proposal.

Captain David Dignam (Harbour Master) described current and future

marine operations at Dublin Port in relation to the restrictions imposed

by the current channel width and alignment, the turning and

manoeuvring areas at the entrance to Alexandra Basin West, and tidal

windows; along with the need to accommodate larger and longer

vessels in the future.

Terry Durney (McCabe, Durney Barnes Planning Consultants) set the

planning policy context for the proposed development and addressed

the consideration of alternatives.

The Dublin Eastern By-pass:-

The proposed development accords with recent developments in

relation to the NRA’s corridor study for the Dublin Eastern By-pass

(2014); the line of the by-pass is annotated as being indicative only

on Map F of the DCC Development Plan, and meetings have taken

place between DPC and the NRA.

Response to Observers concerns:-

Cruise vessels do not take up substantial parts of the land bank;

the NSS remains in place; the proposal complies with the Z7

zoning objective in relation to industrial uses and employment

opportunities; and it is not an objective of the DCC Development

Plan to extend the City eastwards.

The Local Action Plan for Cruise Traffic and Urban Renewal is not

a statutory plan however the Board can have regard to it and this

plan informed the DPC Masterplan.

The cost of providing quayside facilities for cruise vessels is not a

planning consideration and the port is multi-functional; the safety of

vessels accessing the port during high winds is a matter for the

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Harbour Master; and the use of the quays for cruise vessels does

not constitute a separate land use.

There is no current to medium term requirement for a permanent

cruise terminal structure given the number of cruise visits per year,

although one may be required in the future if Dublin establishes

itself as a cruise departure location.

Dr. Alan Barr provided a summary of the main findings and

conclusions in relation to EIS preparation, alternatives, water quality,

interactions and in-combination effects which are already detailed in

section 2.5 and section 7.0 (FI response) of this report. A Draft Water

Quality Management Plan (which forms part of the CEMP) was also

submitted to the hearing.


Contaminated sediments in Alexandra Basin West are not suitable

for dumping at sea and they will be treated by way of

Stabilisation/Solidification and reused as infill material in

accordance with an EPA Industrial Emissions Licence.

The sediments in the navigation channel are suitable for disposal at

sea as they have no significant eco-toxicological effect on the

marine environment.

Low levels of contaminated sediments adjacent to the Basin will be

disposed of at sea only on slack tide and immediately covered by

sand and gravel in accordance with an EPA Dumping at Sea

Permit.

There will be no increase in algae growth due to suspended silt

dredged from the inner navigation channel as the tidal flow patterns

at the Burford Bank are such that silts will be dispersed by the tidal

currents in a N-S direction.

The Basin and berthing pockets will be dredged to -10mCD and

designed to be dredged to -15mCD to future proof the operations of

Dublin Port; the level of the new quays and berths have been

designed to accommodate predicted increases in water level as a

result of climate change; the piles have a 50 year lifespan; and any

future dredging of the berths or approach channel to -12mCD will

be subject planning approval.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


The impact of the proposed development in-combination with

several other plans and projects in Dublin Bay were appraised and

screened out as having no cumulative impact.

An objective of the CEMP is to ensure the implementation of all

mitigation measures and standards set out in the EIS without

modification or the introduction of new measures, except where

required by ABP.

The mitigation measures are specified in the NIS and the EIS, and

implementation 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 mitigation measures

binding on the contractor.

Dr Michael Shaw provided a summary of the main findings and

conclusions in relation to the engineering works and demolition,

construction and pile driving works over 3 main phases, which are

already detailed in section 5.2 and section 7.0 (FI response) of this

report. Dr Shaw also clarified that a maximum of 5 piling rigs will be

operating simultaneously for a short time in 2018.

A Draft Dredging Management Plan was also submitted to the hearing

which provided information in relation to:

An overview of operations.

Roles and responsibilities of interested parties.

A risk assessment.

Prevention and mitigation measures.


The exposed sections of Stoney’s quay will be supported by steel

piles installed along the full length of the new quay structure, the

top of the piles will be cut down to expose the conservation zones

and concrete will be placed behind the piles and the Stoney blocks

are supported on the sea bed.

The strengthening works at the Great South Wall involve the

placement of additional rock armour to extend the existing

underwater rock armour protection to the new channel; there will be

no piling operations at the Great South Wall; and slope stabilisation

works are proposed in the vicinity of the Wall to reinforce the

dredge slopes and prevent slippage.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Adrian Bell provided a summary of the main findings and conclusions

in relation to coastal processes and coastal flooding which are already

detailed in section 2.5 and section 7.0 (FI response) of this report.


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, as there is no change in the tidal regime above the

bridge, there will be no increase in sediment transport and erosion

upstream of the bridge as a result of dredging.

Several mitigation measures will ensure that the protection of

marine mammals and the requirements for a Marine Mammal

Observer can be accommodated without undue disruption to the

dredging and disposal programme.

The waters around the 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; under normal tidal conditions sand will

settle onto the sea bed with no significant plumes beyond the dump

site and no impact on dive operations; the silt will stay in

suspension and will be quickly dispersed away into the main body

of the Irish Sea with no significant plumes beyond the dump site

and no impact on dive operations outside the area.

Silt will dispersed away into the Irish Sea and only a minute fraction

will be deposited along the shorelines in Dublin Bay to a depth of

0.003mm while the sand will gradually assimilate back into the

bay’s sediment budget with no impacts on coastal processes or

European sites.

None of the utilities, outfalls, weirs or intakes beside the Great

South Wall will be affected by the deepening of the shipping

channel by way or structural works or excessive suspended

sediment concentrations.

The dredging of slight/moderately contaminated silty material

adjacent to North Wall Quay and the entrance to Alexandra Basin

will be undertaken in conjunction with the dredging of gravels from

the main channel and the silts will deposited in the dump site and

overlaid/capped with the dredged gravel as is previous campaigns.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


The dump site is located in c.20m of water so winds cannot usually

affect the sea bed at this depth and there will be no re-suspension

of dumped sediments and the disposal of dredged material will be

undertaken as a slow gradual process with no impact on fish and

marine mammals.

The winter storms of 2013/14 were severe and prolonged, large

quantities of sediment were drawn off beaches and shorelines by

severe wave action which greatly increased the suspended

sediment values along the coast and in Dublin Bay which in turn

resulted in damage to shellfish beds and poor diver visibility.

The increase in wave heights at the adjacent to the Clontarf

wooden bridge is minor and there will be no net increase to the

existing flood risk to this area of Clontarf.

Donal Doyle provided a summary of the main findings and conclusions

in relation to contaminated sediments treatment and infilling which are


report.


C.470,000m3 of dredged material to be treated by stabilisation/

solidification an reused as infill, the remainder of the dredged

material is considered suitable for disposal at sea and the works

will take place in accordance with the conditions of an EPA

industrial emissions licence.

In accordance with its current Dumping at Sea Permit 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).

The costs associated with landfilling and/or export would be

prohibitive given the large volume of slightly/moderately

contaminate material with associated energy costs and there is no

further spare capacity in Berths 52/53 or the Graving Dock 2.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Stephen Cleary provided a summary of the main findings and

conclusions in relation to noise and vibration which are already detailed

in section 2.5 and section 7.0 (FI response) of this report.


The cruise ship numbers included in the Noise and Vibration

chapter of the EIS are taken from Table 15 of the Project rationale

document.

The noise mitigation measures relate to hours of operation of noise

producing activities in the marine environment and the mitigation

measures included in the EIS should be included as a condition to

any grant of permission.

Changes to plant and equipment will not result in any significant

operational phase noise impact at the nearest noise sensitive

locations and the noise associated with the increase in the relative

frequency of certain types of vessels will not exceed existing

ambient and background noise levels.

The EIS contains a detailed appraisal of worst case construction

phase activities including pile driving, although noise will be audible

along Pigeon House Road the levels will be lower than the noise

threshold limits in the 2004 NRA Guidelines and BS5228:209.

A list of addresses for the noise monitoring locations and noise

prediction locations has been submitted; Tables 7.1.14 to 16 are

revised to include current modelled noise predictions.

Any approval of permission will include conditions stipulating the

requirements for noise monitoring during the construction and

operational phase; and accept the content of the three standard

noise conditions suggested by DCC.

Predicted noise levels will be below existing ambient noise levels at

all of the nearest noise sensitive locations and below or similar to

existing background noise levels.

Eugene McKeown provided a summary of the main findings and

conclusions in relation to underwater noise which are already detailed


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________



The NIS core mitigation measures are repeated in the EIS and form

part of the schedule of Environmental commitments.

The DAH&G conditions are in line with those set out in the EIS and

the NPWS Guidance to Manage Risk to Marine mammals from

Manmade Sound Sources in Irish Waters (2014).

The underwater noise evaluation is based on a worst case view

premised on open water propagation whilst the Basin is confined in

shallow water with significant sediment thickness.

The use of the port by larger vessels will not necessarily mean an

increase in noise levels; vessels are now designed to be quieter;

noise impacts are localised in spatial and temporal impact and

shipping noise levels in Dublin Bay are confined to narrow

channels; and noise levels 1km outside this zone are close to

background levels.

The popular dive sites in Dublin Bay are outside the are 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;

and underwater noise levels in the cSAC will not adversely affect

the conservation interests of the site.

In relation to in-combination effects, the shallow water and

absorption of the seabed are such that underwater noise levels will

be at a level that when combined with any of the other plans and

projects in the Bay the cumulative impact will be zero due to the

logarithmic addition of noise levels.

There are no known cases of injury or death of a marine mammal

due to noise from pile driving.

Gerard Morgan provided a summary of the main findings and

conclusions in relation to benthic ecology and fisheries which are


report.


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Consumption of contaminated prey and changes to prey availability

are listed as two potential impacts in the EIS as examples of how

the Harbour porpoise might be affected but neither will be

significant because:

o Porpoises are a wide ranging species which forage over a wide

area and they eat a variety of fish species.

o The level of sediment contamination is classed as slight to

moderate, it equates to less than 10% of the overall volume for

disposal and it will be capped at the dump site.

o Fish will always be present at the site and a temporary reduction

in fish density will not have a significant ecological effect on

porpoises

All matters relating to dredge spoil disposal are subject to a

Dumping at Sea licence and Foreshore licence application; the

adoption of good practice will be incorporated into the CEMP; and

water monitoring stations will be in operation throughout the full

construction period.

There will be no pile driving during the salmon smolt run from

March to May each year.

Neither fish no shellfish will be contaminated, Dublin Bay is not a

designed bivalve shellfish growing area, lobsters and crabs are

potted in parts of the bay but not at the dumpsite, flat fish and

round fish are usually not commercially caught from within the bay,

and the findings of the Marine Institute indicate that contaminant

levels in Irish sea fish and shell fish are low.

No lobsters, scallops, oysters or Norwegian lobsters were collected

or observed in the study area and the chances of a shoal of fish

being killed during dredge disposal area very remote as most

species are noise sensitive.

No permanent loss of habitat in the cSAC, only 20% of the channel

area will be dredged each year, dredge areas will take c.6 months

to recover and a certain amount of partial recovery is like between

each 6-month campaign, the effects of far field deposition silt

deposition will be so minor as not to cause an impact with no

adverse impacts on the integrity of the cSAC.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Simon Berrow provided a summary of the main findings and

conclusions in relation to marine mammals which are already detailed


Proposed amendment to marine mammal mitigation measures:

The Applicant requests the Board to consider the following changes to

the marine mammal mitigation measures:

Models carried out as part of the pile driving appraisal undertaken

in by Eugene McKeown indicate that the impact of noise levels

arising from piling will be confined to an area 500m upstream and

downstream of the Basin - request that the mitigation zone for piling

be reduced from 1000m to 500m in line with the results of this

model.

Noise from dredging/dumping is estimated in the NPWS Guidelines

at 177dB at peak frequency of 80-200Hz and band width of 20Hz-

80Hz; the source level for dredging is below the threshold for injury

to marine mammals (c.183-206dB at 2.5KHz for pinnipeds and

c.145dB for harbour porpoise; the recommended criteria for injury

for non-pulsed sound of 203dB SEL for pinnipeds in water and

215dB SEL for high frequency cetaceans; the potential impact for

dredging is therefore confined to disturbance only; in a general

model of 15 Log R, the disturbance distance for marine mammals,

assuming a SEL threshold of 145dB is 256m whilst a 35 Log R

model reduces the distance to 16m – as the disturbance distance is

well below that threshold for injury request that the mitigation zone

for dredging from 500m to 250m.

A mitigation measure contained in S.5.2.9 (bullet point 4) of the EIS

relates to a 50m zone around dredging is not included in the NPWS

2014 Guidelines as harbour porpoise are unlikely to enter this zone

– according to the NPWS such a measure is not necessary and its

removal is requested.


The potential risks/impacts on Harbour porpoise have very little

likelihood of causing direct impacts on this species (or any other

marine mammal) at population level and the scale of the scale of

the effects are not considered significant.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Impacts of sound pressure are not considered significant as the

sound exposure levels will be at or below ambient noise levels at

the dump site for dredging and piling activity.

Mitigation measures, including real time passive acoustic

monitoring, will reduce any potential impact to individual animals

and there will be no significant impacts on the Conservation

Objectives of the cSAC and the 2014 NPWS Marine Mammal

Guidelines will be adhered.

The dump site has been used since 1996 and the mitigation

measures will ensure species protection and contaminants will not

be realised into the environment.

To ensure that any noise disturbance to harbour porpoises is

limited, a static acoustic monitoring programme will be

implemented (including monitoring stations at the dump site) to

demonstrate that porpoise activity levels are unaffected or return to

pre-construction levels.

Acknowledge that piling and dredging in 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.

With reference to the Marine Mammal Observer protocol, once

operations are underway the visual scans are no longer required

and it is therefore possible for activity to continue at night time and

if environmental conditions deteriorate.

The full implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in

s.5.2.9 of the EIS will ensure that there will be no significant

impacts on marine mammals, including Harbour porpoise within

Dublin Bay and the c.SAC and other designed sites or their

Conservation objectives.

Richard Nairn provided a summary of the main findings and

conclusions in relation to birds which are already detailed in section 2.5

and section 7.0 (FI response) of this report.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Addendum to written submission

The effects of construction activity (including pile-driving) may

affect birds be two different pathways:

o Aerial noise (addressed below), and

o Underwater noise (already addressed by FI)

Effects of noise disturbance include changes in feeding behaviour,

takin flight or being more vigilant but often without any effect on

their energy budget.

Impacts of noise disturbance imply a change in body condition,

productivity or survival and at population level and the impact

depends on the availability of alternative feeding sites.

Threatening sounds include impulsive sounds; although pile driving

is impulsive it is also repetitive and not threatening to birds; this

was evidenced in studies undertaken on the effects of pile driving

noise and vibration disturbance in birds in the Humber Estuary

SPA; noise up to 50dbA had no effect, noise between 50dBA and

85dBA had some effects and noise above 85dBA resulted in flight;

ambient construction noise levels should be restricted to below

70dBA and sudden irregular noise above 50dBA should be

avoided.

The nearest construction noise will be at the S end of Berths 52/53

which is c.120m from the nearest boundary of the SPA; the worst

case predicted noise level of 51dBA is predicted at the at the

nearest point of the SPA; the entire site is of pile driving is

screened from the SPA on the E and N sides by an elevated

embankment of the seawall, stockpiles of sand and gravel and

port structures which will attenuate any aerial noise, and the

perceived noise from this source will be below the safe 55dBA.


In the case of all of the European sites, with the exception of

Rockabill SPA, the published Conservation objectives are generic

but the Qualifying Interests are site specific therefore it is not

possible to transpose detailed Conservation objectives for other

sites which have the same Qualifying Interests.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


There are no mitigation measures for the geese or terns as there

will be only imperceptible impacts on these species; the mitigation

measures for the Guillemots are included in the EIS; and the

dredging will be confined to the winter months and the respective

SPAs were screened out.

Niall Brady provided a summary of the main findings and conclusions

in relation to cultural heritage which are already detailed in section 2.5

of this report.

Response to Observers concerns:

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 North Wall

Quay structure as possible.

Licenced archaeological work revealed no material of

archaeological significance at the Poolbeg Marina; archaeological

monitoring will take place at the Poolbeg Lighthouse during

construction phases works; no impact on sediment transport to the

W of the East Link Bridge; and a copy of the Hydrographic Surveys

Ltd report was made available.

Christopher Southgate provided a summary of the main findings and

conclusions in relation to conservation which are already detailed in

section 2.5 of this report.


Conservation zone A (55m long) adjacent to East oink Bridge will

not be dredged and in other conservation zones the piles will

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.

Timber piles were not deployed in the North Wall Quay extension

and the blocks rest on the sea bed; the blocks are always under

water and are not been faced with calp limestone.

The infill of Graving Dock 2 will be reversible so as to ensure that

there is no long term loss of historic fabric and it will be recorded

using laser scanning survey so all historical information regarding

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


the profile is preserved by record and the original historic Graving

Dock 1 will be open to public access

Other pedestrian access points were considered unviable as an

alternative to the use of gated entrance at East Link Bridge.

The use of the Pump House as an interpretative centre would be

unworkable due to access and security reasons; the current

location of Interpretative Zone 1 was chosen because to its

proximity to pedestrian links, the quays, vehicular routes and the

heritage trail.

Celine Daly provided a summary of the main findings and conclusions

in relation to transportation which are already detailed in section 2.5 of

this report.


Accept that the Dublin Tunnel has been designated as the M50

motorway and that it’s possible future function as a section of the

Eastern By-pass must be recognised and protected.

The methodology for calculating the theoretical capacity of the

Dublin Tunnel was based on the NRA standards.

Concerns in relation construction dirt and dust in the Tunnel were

addressed in the Draft High Level CEMP which referred to a Traffic

Management Plan, Site Waste Management Plan, Dust and Odour

Management Plan and a Dust Minimisation Plan.

Welcome the confirmation of a technically feasible route corridor

that allows for the delivery of the proposal and which has been

designed to accommodate the new corridor.

The access close to the Point Roundabout will be the dedicated

route for pedestrians and cyclists associated with the liners until

such time as the Eastern By-pass is implemented; the traffic

situation at the roundabout will be alleviated by the removal of HGV

U-turns; it may be signalised by DCC in the future and willing to

accept a condition that this route cannot be used until signalisation

is complete.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


The absence of a vehicular access to the cruise berths has been

addressed by an Indicative Layout for Terminal 4 (Drg. No.

IBH0362/0020) which shows indicative vehicular routes and

parking facilities for buses, taxis and other vehicles (Figure 4).

The internal network can accommodate the redistributed traffic

internally before the access closures; a detailed traffic appraisal

analysed the access closure timings and the impact on the internal

road network, the Tunnel and the interchange connecting the Port

(at Promenade Road) to the Tunnel; and the impact of growth on

the internal road network and junctions for the Masterplan was

examined for 2019, 2024, 2034 and 2040.

A detailed road capacity analysis identifies and assesses the key

peak hours coinciding with the simultaneous disembarking of the

largest Ro-Ro vessels.

The traffic distribution between the Port and the surrounding

external road network will not be changed by the proposal; the road

changes cause only the assignment of each approach road to

change; and more traffic will not access the Port via the Tunnel due

to the access changes.

Drg. No. IBH0362/0075 Emergency Route Options show alternative

access routes 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.

Irish Ferries objection to the closure of a section Alexandra Road is

not part of this proposal; traffic surveys were commissioned over 7

days; the NRA is satisfied with the use of PUC conversion factors;

the selection of the peak hour calculations use industry recognised

methodology; and a detailed road capacity analysis identifies and

assesses the key peak hours coinciding with the simultaneous

disembarking of the largest Ro-Ro vessels.

Certain junctions will not operate within capacity by 2040 and the

internal road network will experience capacity issues towards the

end of the Masterplan period; the internal road network will operate

within capacity up to at least 2024; this analysis considered the

entire Masterplan development and not just the current proposal.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Willing to liaise with DCC and NTA to provide a Transport Plan and

to provide a Road Bond by way of condition.

8.4 Observers submissions

The Observers were requested to provide a brief summary of their main

concerns, to indicate whether or not their concerns had been

addressed by the Applicant’s submission and to identify any

outstanding areas of concern. The main issues raised in the Observer’s

written submission are already detailed in sections 4, 5 and 6 of this

report.

8.4.1 Dublin City Council

Mary Conway provided a summary of the main concerns raised by the

Planning Authority in relation to the proposed development which are

already detailed in section 4 of this report and any additional concerns

raised during the hearing are summarised below.

General:

Proposal complies with the aims of the City Development Plan and

the National Development Plan and the Z7 zoning objective as it

provides for port related facilities and activities which are permitted

uses.

Proposal complies with the primary objective of the North Lotts

Planning Scheme and the CTUR LAP to grow cruise traffic with

enhanced connectivity to the City although the absence of a cruise

terminal building/facility and associated access should be

addressed.

Conservation and built heritage:

Alexandra Basin, North Wall Quay extension, the lighthouse, and

the Graving Dock are of considerable heritage value; although

North Wall Quay is a protected structure the North Wall Quay

Extension is not protected, and there are no other Protected

Structures in the area.

Acknowledge the strategic importance of Dublin Port and its need

to develop as a modern and efficient port that supports the

economy of the city, region and the country; and accept the

necessity to demolish part of the quay wall and welcome the

conservation works.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Roads and traffic:

Supportive of the proposal, the Masterplan, the overall

consolidation of the Port and the movement objectives.

Aspects require further agreement with DCC including the timing of

the access closures off East Wall Road, the traffic management

measures and the capacity of the internal road network to

accommodate redistributed traffic, which could be addressed by

way of condition.

Work is progressing on plans for the signalisation of the Point

Round-about including the provision of pedestrian facilities, but not

appropriate to concentrate pedestrian/cyclist access at this location

until improved facilities are available, which could be addressed by

way of condition.

Eastern by-pass:

Consistent with the objective of delivering the By-pass in the

medium to long term, it facilitates a potential alignment along the W

boundary of the Port and accords with the indicative layout in the

City Plan.

Marine mammals:

The 500m and 1000m exclusion zones for dredging and piling

activities will necessitate the inclusion of several European site

within the exclusion area which include:

o North Bull Island SPA which is used by harbour and grey seals

for breeding and haul-out.

o South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA which is used by

seals and Harbour porpoise, and

o Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC which is designated for Harbour

Porpoise.

o Seals also use the Liffey Estuary and it tidal extent to

Islandbridge.

DCC request that:

o The potential noise impact zones should be mapped in

accordance with the distances stated in the assessment and in

relation to the European Site boundaries, so that it can be

clearly shown where the key impacts are to occur with regard to

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


the European sites on Dublin Bay; these zone maps should

include each species and their known usage of and range within

Dublin Bay.

To address potential issues of MMO Fatigue and as recommended

by the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group, DCC request that:

o Daytime hours are clearly defined in terms of when operations

can commence and cease and that all mitigation measures

should be I accordance with the 2014 Guidelines.

Since there would also be major benefit for the provision for timely

publication of MMO reports, DCC request that:

o The records of monitoring which is submitted to the NPWS be

published by the Applicant and that the Applicant shall also

submit the data to NBDC for the Marine Database, in the

national interest.

Concerned to ensure the preservation of a nationally important site

in Dublin Bay for Harbour porpoise which is sensitive to shipping

disturbance and dredging activity.

No comprehensive survey of seals has been done for Dublin Bay;

the inclusion of Irish Seal Sanctuary data for the Bull island would

have been useful in the Applicant’s assessment; regard should be

had to the City Council’s Management Plan for the North Bull Island

Special Amenity Area which states that 30-40 seals were observe

regularly using the site as a haul-out and for breeding and the use

of N Dublin Bay and beyond for breeding must be fully taken into

account.

Confirm that the regular population on the Bull island is 30 seals

but this is not the maximum number; the island is definitely a

breeding site and not just a haul-out, it has been used continuously

for breeding for the past 15 years as well as for seal rescue; the

applicant’s survey took place over 1 day which is inadequate to

assess site usage which has had consistent usage since c.1914;

and use of the island by seals is affected by recreational

disturbance as well as by tides.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


DCC request that:

o The monitoring of Bull Island as put forward by the consultant

marine ecologist to the Applicant be accepted and undertaken.

In order to assess the impact and effectiveness of mitigation

measures it is recommended that the Applicant undertakes

monthly monitoring of seal haul out sites at the North Bull island

and adjacent areas pre-construction, during construction and for

a minimum of 2 years post construction, in line with best

international practice; the propose monitoring methodology and

duration of the survey to be agreed with DCC and the NPWS.

o The monitoring for harbour and grey seals should be further

extended to include executing a survey of Dublin Bay within the

zones of influence as defined by the EIS.

o There should be a review by DCC and the NPWS of the

mitigation strategy following completion of the surveys at each

stage of completion.

Benthic communities:

Accept that the benthic communities in Dublin Bay can have a

quick recovery but that this may take 2-3 years where gravels

occur; this could affect fish biomass and the food supply for the

c.20, 000 wintering birds; there is no detailed survey or data for the

prey resource for Dublin Bay or its usage by protected species.

Sedimentation plumes seem to be directed toward North Bull Island

and the Tolka Estuary, which could be exacerbated during storm

events, and the coastal models indicate a rise in seabed levels -

the impact of which on the SPA feeding resource has not been

assessed.

Piling operations:

Although the piling schedule is described as phased, 3 of the

phases are potentially simultaneous (Phases2, 2a and 4) at Berths

29-31, Berths 32-43, Ocean Pier, and the Marina Wall, DCC

requests:

o Clarification of the proposed phasing of the piling schedule and

how much it will overlap, as this may intensify impacts on

protected species.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


The preliminary programme dates are for piling to commence in

October 2015 and continue until January 2019; the number of rigs

that will be active at any one time will vary over this period with

initially one rig being active (October 2015) reaching a maximum of

5 (Jan 2018).

Consideration should be given not just to the number but the

timing of the operations of these rigs in relation to:

o The breeding season for cetaceans (seals in October to March)

o Autumn and spring migration of lamprey (in the Liffey) and

returning salmon.

DCC also request that:

o Monitoring for lamprey at the relevant location at Alexandra

Basin be undertaken by the Applicant pre-construction and

during and after the relevant phase of dredging (one season).

Dredging operations:

Query whether the maintenance dredging requirements during the

post-construction phase should also be included in any screening for

AA and EIA.

Bats:

The Applicants bat survey was undertaken at the wrong time of

year in January when the bats are in a state of torpor and the

structures should be resurveyed, and if found, bats should be

moved, DCC requests that:

o The 4 structures proposed for demolition should be re-

surveyed prior to demolition for bats when they are active (May

to September), in accordance with best practice guideline

(2010).

Otter:

The Tolka estuary is critical for otter connectivity between the

Ballybough sections of the River Tolka through to Fingal.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Bryophytes:

The NIS and EIS omitted to mention several species of Bryophyte

which are to be included in the Flora Protection Order 2014.

Invasive species:

No species were found during the site survey which is unusual for

an international port, the EU Invasive Species regulations (2014)

require the identification of pathways for invasive alien species and

this should have been considered in the EIS and a risk assessment

undertaken, DCC request that:

o The applicant should provide a risk assessment and a strategy

for a management system for invasive alien species to be used

for the duration of the propose project in accordance with EU

Regulations.

Proposed planting:

Consideration should be given to increasing the proposed planting

and softening of the Port perimeter as the current proposal is too

narrow for significant impact on ecological function.

Community gain proposal:

DCC welcomes the proposal and requests that:

o Proposal to provide for the transfer of ownership to DCC of

10.5ha of lands owned at North Bull Island by DCC is accepted,

provided that the purpose of the land transfer is to provide for

public enjoyment – subject to fulfilment of the Conservation

Management Objectives of the North Dublin Bay SAC (000206)

and the protection of the North Bull island SPA (00400) so as to

ensure compliance with European and national legislation.

The Applicant shall contribute a sum of E200, 000 towards the

cost of the Study and Masterplan within 2 years of planning

consent having been secured by the Applicant.

The Applicant shall contribute to DCC a further sum of E1, 000,

000 on an agreed basis, towards the provision of any services or

facilities to implement the feasibility study/proposed

Masterplan/SAAO management Plan within 10 years of planning

consent for the ABR Project having been secured by the

Applicant.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


8.4.2 National Roads Authority

Tara Spain provided a summary of the main concerns raised by in

relation to the proposed development which are already detailed in

section 5 of this report. Additional concerns raised during the hearing

are summarised below.

Dublin Tunnel:

The future function of the Dublin Tunnel as an important aspect of

both existing and future planning and transportation policy for the

entire City and region must be recognise and protected.

The assumptions and methodology for calculating the capacity of

the Dublin Tunnel are incorrect and capacity has been significantly

overestimated because:

o It is a distortion to calculate capacity over a 24 hour period.

o Conversion factors should have been applied to larger vehicles

which are also affected by road gradients.

o Tunnel capacity is not equivalent to a surface road. As it is

constrained by:

Dublin Tunnel By-laws with regard to chevrons.

Ventilation, fire safety and emergency access.

Downstream traffic capacity limitations.

The NRA request that:

o A scheme of specific demand management measures for the

DPC Masterplan 2012-2040 shall be prepared by the

Developer in consultation with the NRA prior to the

commencement of development. The final agreed scheme of

specific demand management measures including

implementation schedule shall be submitted to the PA for

approval prior to the operational phase of the development.

Reason: In the interests of managing and protecting the safety,

efficiency and capacity of the Dublin Tunnel and the National

Road Network in the Region.

Appropriate measures should be defined and required to prevent

the deposition of construction dirt and dust in the Tunnel, and the

NRA requests that:

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Prior to the commencement of any development, the Developer

shall liaise with the NRA and the operators of the Dublin tunnel

to prepare and agree a Construction Traffic Management

Strategy for the Dublin tunnel for the duration of the works.


efficiency and capacity of the Dublin Tunnel and the National

Road Network in the Region.

Eastern By-pass:

The NRA broadly supports the proposal and welcomes DPC’s

statement of support for the construction of the Eastern Bypass.

An Engineering and Urban Design Study has been undertaken in

consultation with DCC for the section of the route between the

Dublin Tunnel Southern Portal and the River Liffey, which identifies

a technically feasible corridor that accommodates 3 possible route

alignment options that would not preclude the proposed

development.

A revised Corridor Protection Study Sector A Dublin Port Tunnel to

Sandymount Strand (2014) has been prepared although the

statutory protection of the newly identified corridor has yet been

agreed and pending such agreement, the existing policy outlined in

the 2009 Corridor Protection Study and the DCC Plan has to

remain in place.

The main pedestrian and cyclist access to the port cruise berths at

the Point Roundabout is in conflict with one of the route options for

the eastern By-pass and the NRA requests that the primary access

should be amended to access the LUAS Plaza/terminus just N of

the 3 Arena (Point Depot):

o The proposed development, and any further development of

lands in the ownership or control of Dublin Port Company, shall

be undertaken strictly in accordance with the requirements of the

NRA’s Corridor Protection Study Sector A: Dublin Tunnel to

Sandymount Strand September 2014, including the protection of

the Eastern By-pass Corridor as indicated.

Reason: In the interests of proper planning and sustainable

development.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


o Primary pedestrian and cycle access should be amended to

access the LUA Plaza/Terminus N or the 3 Arena.

Reason: In the interests of the protection of the Eastern Bypass

Corridor.

8.4.3 Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht

Dr Freddie O’Dwyer provided a summary of the main concerns raised

in relation to the proposed development which are already detailed in

section 5 of this report. Any additional concerns raised during the

hearing are summarised below.

No outstanding issues of concern in relation to underwater

archaeology; confirmed the absence of Recorded Monuments and

Protected Structures within the proposal site and request the Board

not to attach conditions that require compliance with the DAH&G.

Suggested the use of the Pump house as an interpretative centre;

that the Stoney blocks should be stored in a secure location; and

raised safety concerns in relation to pedestrian access at the Point

Roundabout and the possibility of anti-social activities in the Basin

with regard to the proposed Heritage Trail.

Regard must be had to the Architectural Guidelines (and the

sections related to harbours and quays) and to the ICOMAS Dublin

Principles.

8.4.4 An Taisce

Ian Lumley provided a summary of the main concerns raised in


section 5 of this report and any additional concerns raised during the

hearing are summarised below.

The concerns in relation to marine ecology have not been resolved;

the studies are extremely confined in their scope to the Port,

shipping channel and dredge disposal site; and the wider potential

impacts of deposition of dredged material (plumes, sediment

transportation, silting, accretion, turbidity, light dilution) with knock-

on effects for re-colonisation, benthos recovery, fish nurseries,

marine mammals and ecosystems chains have not been

addressed.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


The Board is obliged to ensure that adequate information has been

provided in order to carry out an EIA and AA; and more effective

independent monitoring and enforcement of mitigation measures

on developments affecting European sites is required.

In relation to dredging, treatment and dumping of sediments, the

Board should also:

o Provide an independent assessment of the methodology

proposed for silt removal and disposal.

o Determine if marine dumping is the most appropriate treatment

and what alternatives have been considered.

o Determine if the level of heavy metals/contaminants are such

that dumping at sea is not appropriate.

o Attach a condition which is transparent and legally enforceable

and to require independent monitoring of the methodology and

mitigation measures, particularly with regard to marine

mammals.

Concerns were also raised in relation to the impact of international

shipping and the proposed development on global CO2 emissions

and climate change.

8.4.5 Irish Underwater Council

Dr Tim Butter provided a summary of the main concerns raised in


section 6.1 of this report. Additional concerns raised during the hearing


Concerns in relation to the impacts of underwater noise appear to

be resolved by the Applicant’s survey which indicates that noise

from piling could not be detected above normal background

underwater noise at Howth Head and Dun Laoghaire (close to dive

sites).

Concerns still exist with regard to the concentration of suspended

solids resulting from disposal of dredge material and the potential

impact on underwater visibility; computer modelling is a useful

predictive tool but such models do not always predict accurate

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


results and the following additional data would satisfy these

concerns:

o Field data used to substantiate the claim that no adverse

suspended solids issue arose from the 2012 dredging campaign.

o Data correlating suspended solids concentrations to underwater

visibility so as to better understand the impact of additional

suspended solids from the disposal activity.

The MMO can only carry out a visual check for marine mammals

during daylight hours with wind speed Force 3 or less which

restricts the time available for dredge disposal which might have be

disposed of at a faster rate that modelled which a higher

concentrations of suspended solids than predicted.

The use of PAM is not indicated as a mitigating measure in the EIS

or NIS and the DHA&G 2014 Guidelines, consider PAMs to be

helpful but it is not sufficiently developed to be regarded as the

main monitoring approach for risk management purposes,

particularly at night.

8.4.6 Dublin Bay Watch

Gerry Breen provided a summary of the main concerns raised in




Welcome commitment to re-configure the Port without additional

infill but query the absence of a cruise ship terminal.

Adverse impacts of pile driving noise over 4 years on local

communities and wildlife; the disposal of dredge material within the

cSAC.

The doubling of annual tonnage from 30 to 60 million tonnes per

annum could reinforce the Ports monopoly position among Irish

ports with a possible knock on effect of the price of goods; note the

lack of reference to balanced regional development; and refers to

the Competition Authority’s 2013 report on the Irish ports sector in

relation to the management of Lo-Lo terminal licences and the

granting of stevedore licences.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Application forms the first stage of a number of applications for

Dublin Port which will result in a future applications for infilling and

could amount to project splitting with adverse ecological impacts.

8.4.7 Coastguards Residents Association

Alex Downes provided a summary of the main concerns raised in




The long term adverse impacts of port activities on local residents

was described in some detail in relation to disturbance by noise,

vibration and traffic generation, which was occasionally caused by

cruise ships berthing on the S side of the Liffey channel.

8.4.8 Clontarf Residents Association

Deirdre Tobin provided a summary of the main concerns in relation to

the proposed development which are already detailed in section 6.1 of

this report and any additional concerns raised during the hearing are

summarised below.

According to Brendan Price of the Irish Seal Sanctuary the

numbers of grey and harbour seals hauling out and breeding on the

Bull Island has been understated and:

o The concerns in relation to marine ecology are similar to those

raised by An Taisce in section 4.4.4 above.

o The study area should have encompassed UNESCO site, the

SPAs and the proposed MPA (Marine Protected Area); the

development is not confined by the Liffey walls and spoil site but

at the heart of the 3 estuaries and the bay, all of which will be

affected by the outfall and limited mitigation measures.

o Both grey and harbour seals are observed all year round in the

Bay (with pups); they are a highly significant, mixed colony

recorded from c.1914; they feed, breed and haul out in the Bay,

they are vulnerable to disturbance and loss of habitat; and their

presence is important to local residents and cruise passengers.

o The dredging schedule fails to note their October to March

breeding season and presence of pups, whose mortality is

highest during this period (also sea going smolts are noted but

not retuning salmon or the presence of lampreys).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


o The MMO should be present on a year round basis and for the

recovery period after the works are complete.

o Failure to adopt an ecosystem approach to the proposal or

respond adequately the concerns raised; the precautionary

approach would indicate the need for FI and better mitigation;

the consultant’s reports reflect the scientific literature on the

local seals but there is a dearth of local specialist data.

Impact of pile driving noise on adjoining communities and wildlife;

and dredging will disturb mammals, fish and birdlife in the Bay and

the 3 estuaries; and request the Board to attach a condition that

requires separate permissions for each subsequent dredging

programme to ensure continuous monitoring of the dredging

process.

8.4.9 Sandymount and Merrion Residents Association

Lorna Kelly provided a summary of the main concerns raised in




The capacity of the Dublin Tunnel and road network to safely

accommodate construction vehicles carrying unusually large loads.

Cumulative impacts of proposals in combination with several other

plans and project not adequately assessed in relation to the

environment, ecology, coastal processes and transportation,

particularly with regard to the regional haul routes for the Poobeg

incinerator.

Lack of detail in EIS in relation to construction activities including

the impact of suspended sediments on Poolbeg WWTP outfall; the

effects of storm conditions, tidal surges and wave climate on the

proposed Poolbeg Marine Wall; sedimentation patterns around the

Great South Wall; and patterns of sediment deposition on nearby

beaches.

Lack of detail in EIS in relation to relation to impacts on cultural

heritage on the S side of the Liffey.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


8.4.10 Green Party

Donna Cooney provided a summary of the main concerns raised in


section 6.1of this report. Additional concerns raised during the hearing


Construction noise will be audible in Clontarf, request a works time

table, noise contours and a strategic noise plan.

Pile driving noise and dredging/dredge disposal mitigation

measures are not sufficient to protect marine mammals; regard

should be had to the various Water Quality Directives; and proposal

premature pending completion of the Celtic Seas Project.

Opposed to the dumping of slight to moderately contaminated

material at the dumpsite within the cSAC.

8.4.11 Mr Peadar Farrell

Peadar Farrell provided a summary of his main concerns in relation to

the proposed development which are already detailed in section 6.1 of

this report and any additional concerns raised during the hearing are

summarised below.

Described the environmental conditions at the dumpsite and raised

concerns in relation to the transport of fine sediments from

dredging to the N and S of this area and into known dive sites.

Not convinced that the slight to moderately contaminated

sediments will remain at the dumpsite despite capping; night time

and weather restrictions on dumping will prolong of intensify the

activity.

Queried the possibility of dumping in the Irish Sea to reduce

impacts on the benthos, fisheries and marine mammals.

8.4.12 Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company

Dr Diarmuid O’Grada provided a summary of the main concerns

raised in relation to the proposed development which are detailed in



For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


The national, regional, local and historical planning context was

described; the exclusion of Dun Laoghaire Harbour from the list of

Tier 1 ports in the national Ports Policy was queried; and the

compatibility of the proposal with the provisions of the Dublin City

Development Plan in relation to Map K and the Z7 zoning objective

was questioned.

Highlighted several discrepancies between the Dublin Port

Masterplan and the current proposal in relation to the prioritisation of

cruise ship facilities over Ro-Ro facilities in relation to predicted

growth and revenue generation for the Port; the scale of the cruise

ship element; and the absence of a terminal.

Concerns raised in relation to the unattractive setting in comparison

to Dun Laoghaire Harbour; unsafe pedestrian access; the long walk

to the City Centre; and several cruise companies have indicated a

preference for Dun Laoghaire.

The environmental impacts associated with providing for cruise

facilities at Dun Laoghaire would be much less than for Dublin Port

and the facilities could be delivered by c.2017 as opposed to c.2023.

According to Paul O’Connell of Waterman Moylan Consulting

Engineers:

o The environmental conditions, and particularly wind conditions,

assumed for the cruise ship simulation modelling are not clear

and very high vessels can be adversely affected by high winds.

o The berth on the Basin side of the Quay will be difficult to access

even under calm conditions, especially if ships are berthed on

Ocean Pier West and the Ro-Ro berth, particularly in high winds

when many ships master will be unconformable berthing.

o The Quay will be shortened by 180m and narrowed by 35m to

allow cruise ships into this inner berth and allow to access to the

Basin by large cruise ships and shorter Ro-Ro and bulk carriers.

o Ro-Ro vessels are likely to use the high capacity berths at 49

and 52/53 which have double deck ramps and only smaller

ferries will use the new single deck ramp in the Basin.

o The reconfigured Quay is only needed for large cruise vessels,

without which the longer Quay could remain to provide a

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


riverside berthing face of c.550m (as opposed to the proposed

476m) which could facilitate the berthing of 2 medium cruise

ships concurrently (as opposed to 1 small and 1 large vessel)

and the proposal can only accommodate 2 cruise ships over

250m at any one time.

o The same capacity can be achieved if the Basin reconfiguration

is not designed to accommodate larger cruise ships on the Basin

side of the Quay as a much reduced Quay demolition will result

in a longer river berth which could accommodate 2 cruise ships

(250m to 300m) at the same time which would:

Provide better access for ships.

Provide an additional berths for other uses

Reduce the extent of the demolition of the historic quay.

o Although the trend is towards larger cruise ships (+300m), the

Port will also have to continue to service a considerable number

of smaller cruise ships (less than 300m).

o The biggest growth in ship arrivals will be in Ro-Ro traffic which

will be doubled and the smallest growth will be cruise ships but

no additional Ro-Ro berths are provided:

The 2 berths at 52/53 will be replaced with a single higher

capacity, double deck ramp with an increased landside

area, and

The double deck ramp at the Basin and the single deck

ramp on the riverside of the Quay will be replaced with 2

single deck ramps in the Basin.

According to the Masterplan additional Ro-Ro facilities will be

provided in the future on reclaimed land to the E of Berths 52/53

(which was refused permission under the precious Gateway

proposal) and this uncertainly could place the Port under intense

pressure to accommodate future Ro-Ro growth.

There is no alternative to the Port meeting the forecast demand in

marine traffic (Ro-Ro) but there is a viable alternative at Dun

Laoghaire for cruise traffic.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


Predicted growth in the number of vessels using the shipping

channel has the potential to disrupt port operations particularly if an

accident occurs which would have catastrophic consequences for

the port and the economy.

Captain Philip Carron reiterated the concerns raised by Dr

O’Grada and Paul O’Connell

8.4.13 Dublin Graving Docks Limited

John Gannon provided a summary of the main concerns raised in




Joe Nelson (Company Secretary, DGDL):

Described operations in Graving Dock 2, the largest and busiest

dry dock in the country, which carries out statutory inspections and

repairs of commercial vessels and tugs; highly skilled workforce

and profitable commercial operation; inadvisable from a marine

health and safety perspective to close the dock.

Provided services to 200 vessels in 2012; 99% of merchant vessels

and all fishing vessels registered under the Irish Flag may be

accommodated; 68% of vessels visiting the Port in 2014 and 45%

of cruise vessels due to visit in 2015 would fit into the dock.

Several significant inconsistences between the ABR project and the

Masterplan which should have been reviewed to take account of

the changes particularly as Masterplan growth rate assumptions

may not have been high enough.

Query relocation of turning circle from the Bay to the Basin; cost of

using tugs for vessels greater than 300m; shortening of quay wall

and indicative internal road configurations would further encroach

on Ro-Ro; and unsafe pedestrian access at the Point roundabout.

Insignificant amount of land to be gained from closure of Graving

Dock 2 which will be used for infilling with contaminated sediments

and to facilitate the creation of a third cruise ship berth; have other

alternatives been considered including the temporary blocking of

the access to Graving Dock 2 and docking to the W of the East Link

Bridge.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


National Ports Policy does not specifically endorse the cruise

element of the Masterplan or the ABR project; and absence of

national cruise ship strategy for ports.

Three cruise ships were berthed for 3 days in 2014 and estimate

that 3 ships will berth for 11 days in 2035 based on 140 visits and

an 88 day season as per Mr Ajamil - query justification for closing

the dock.

Cruise ship size predictions do not take account of recent

accidents; excessive costs associated with providing for a low

revenue generating port use; the primary allocation of the Quay to

seasonal business is wasteful; and no Ro-Ro or Lo-Lo can’t be

accommodated in practice.

John Gannon (Planning Consultant):

The proposal will result in the closure of the graving dock, a long

established and profitable activity in the port.

Disagree with the applicant’s rationale for closing the graving docks

which relates to poor economic performance; inefficient use of port

lands and decreasing usefulness.

The land gain associated with the closure of graving dock 2 will be

negated by the re-opening and excavation of disused graving dock

1 for a non-core port (heritage) use.

Proposal does not accord with the Port Masterplan, the CTUR LAP

or the Dublin City Plan; the application refers to the Masterplan as

the key document which has followed the traditional plan making

process and it was subject to an SEA and public consultation.

The Masterplan contains 14 options, none of which refer to the

closure of the graving dock; the closure and infilling of the dock is a

material planning issue because it is a change of use; it will be filled

with contaminated material; it will result in job losses; and the

Masterplan should have been reviewed.

Query the need for 3 cruise ship berths; the third berth necessitates

a re-configuration of the Ro-Ro berthing arrangement which

precludes the operation of the graving dock; and no third berth

indicated in the Masterplan or CTUR LAP.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:47

___________________________________________________________________________________


In 2013 there were 23 days when 2, and 3 days when 3 cruises

ships docked in the Port; and the Masterplan states that cruise

ships do not generate a lot of revenue for DPC.

No provision for a cruise terminal as per the Masterplan and the

CTUR LAP; no details of the multipurpose use of the berths when

not in use for cruise ships.

No consideration of alternative design proposals for the site which

is a serious flaw in the EIS; no consideration given to the possibility

of the public viewing a working graving dock as part of the heritage

use.

Mary Gallagher (STS International):

The works envisaged in the Masterplan would have enabled 2 x

riverside cruise berths and the retention of Graving Dock 2; the

ABR project sets aside the operationally reasonable balance

between multipurpose and dedicated berths in the Masterplan

which could affect other commercial operations such as:

o The use of the new cruise berths by car transporters will not be

counter-cyclical to the cruise trade as stated by DPC because of

the 2 annual car registration periods.

o The removal of 2 x linkspans will adversely affect the use of the

Quay by Ro-Ro ships and continued growth in such traffic will

necessitate more and not fewer linkspans.

o There appears to be a linkspan pontoon proposed in the NE

corner of the Basin at the junction of Alexandra Quay and Ocean

Pier West.

o A berth is only multi-functional if it can meet the variety of

operational demand from ships discharging and loading different

types of cargo at times which may not be possible if the berths

are been shared with cruise vessels.

o ABR seems to be prioritising seasonal cruise traffic at the

expense of daily Ro-Ro traffic.

o Need to retain the Masterplan proposal which balances the

needs of Ro-Ro, Lo-Lo, bulk and multi-purpose berths, while

creating quayside capacity for cruise vessels.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


o Infilling Graving Dock 2 with contaminated material will make the

cost of recovering the facility and reintroducing the land use

prohibitive.

Roy Glendon (Senior Marine Consultant with AECOM):

Following the deletion of the Eastern reclamation (previous

Gateway project), the infilling Graving Dock 2 is the cheapest

option for the disposal of treated contaminated sediments from the

Basin.

The Masterplan proposal for a turning area to the E of Berths 52/52

is not included in the ABR project; upstream dredging has been

extended to provide alternative vessel turning in the Basin which

also requires the demolition of a section of the Quay.

The existing 730m long Quay could berth two 330m vessels which

the proposed 530m Quay could not; the reduced capacity has

necessitated the creation of a third Berth on the basin side for

cruise ships; this will result in the relocation of the existing double

Ro-Ro further N; and the blockage of the entrance to Graving Dock

2.

The proposal has very little effect on capacity; berths widths are the

same; the reduced Quay width of 115m limits its use for containers

which require c.400m; the existing berths at Ocean Pier West

should be able to accommodate vessels with a max draft of 12m

and 3,00TEU (less than Panamx) which are c.230m long (with tug

assistance) without widening the entrance; and the proposed Ro-

Ro facility in the corner of Alexandra Quay and Ocean Pier West

lacks detail.

The Ro Ro facility has changed from 1 x double decker in the Basin

and 1 x river side single decker to 2 (possibly 3) single deckers.

Ro-Ro vessel length of 230-240m are the maximum viable so it is

not necessary to increase the entrance to the Basin; Ro-Ro has

been centralised in the Basin thereby limiting manoeuvring space

for other basin users (bulk berth); it make the use of Graving Dock

2 impossible; and its closure does not contribute to the productive

use of space.

The Bulk berth will be increased from 380m to 530m and the

craneway has been extended to more than 530m taking it across

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


the entrance to Graving Dock 2; the size of bulk vessel will be

restricted by the new channel depth of -10CD to a draught of 12m

which are (on average) 200m long and 30m wide, thus the

entrance can be used without widening; 2 vessels could be berthed

together by a vessel spanning the Graving Dock 2 with a conveyor

over the existing 380m quay.

The total bulk throughput of the Port in 2040 is estimated at 3.5mt/

annum (compared to the current 2mt/annum); with a 50,000WT

vessel, then 3.5mt/annum is 70 ships/annum or 1 every 5 days;

and the quay extension to 530m and the close of Graving Dock 2

appears excessive.

The Masterplan provided for cruise berths on the riverside of the

Quay and the maximum vessel length was given at 300m which

can turn in the existing Basin entrance without modification; the

increase in cruise vessel size to 330m is the critical factor in

widening the entrance.

Two x 330m cruise ships can berth on the riverside of the Quay

with a small vessel upstream on the East Link Bridge; only minor

changes to the existing E end of the Quay are required to achieve

adequate manoeuvrability by the use of:

o A round head strong point with special roller fenders which

would accommodate a 300m vessel at the Basin.

o Dolphin/roundhead turning at the next basin downstream which

would accommodate a 330m vessel with a 440m turning circle.

o Reversing down the river for 300m vessels was satisfactory in

the Masterplan so why not 330m vessels?

Alternatives to the disposal of treated contaminated sediments

include:

o Removal to a licenced land tip.

o Store in vacant areas in the N Port for future construction work.

o Disposal at sea as the cementatious or possolanic bonds will

render it less hazardous.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


8.4.14 Irish Ferries and Stena Line

Stephen Reid provided a summary of the main concerns raised by

these companies in relation to the proposed development which are

already detailed in section 6.2 of this report and any additional

concerns raised during the hearing are summarised below.

Strongly object to the proposed closure of Alexandra Road Access

on East Wall Road to all operational traffic referred to in the EIS;

this is a serious issue that should have been identified in the Public

Notices; and disagree with applicant that this particular section of

the road does not form part of the ABR project.

A significant volume (c.23%) of the daily traffic entering or exiting

the Port currently uses Alexandra Road and the proportion of

inbound traffic is even greater; and the Alexandra Road access

performs an important role.

Proposals to close a section of Alexandra Road between East Wall

Road and the main port area are premature until an adequate

capacity improvements are made to the N access route via

Promenade Road.

C.20% of daily traffic exiting the Port travels onwards via East Wall

Road and not via the Tunnel and by retaining the access off

Alexandra Road onto East Wall Road, these vehicles will not

unduly increase pressure on Promenade Road access roads.

The majority of “U” turners at the Point Roundabout are generated

by the P&O exit and not the other exits and the benefits of the

access closure are overstated.

Spare capacity in the Dublin Tunnel is overestimated and the

potential benefits of the proposal are overstated.

The internal road network and junctions will have serious capacity

issues in the future and DPC has overestimated the capacity of

some of the junctions.

Traffic volumes during construction will be significantly lower than

the post-development traffic volumes however construction

activities need to be well managed.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


There is little tabulated data with reliance on traffic flow diagrams

and Linsig network results diagrams which are difficult to read.

The selection of traffic data at junctions has been selective and

avoids the busy Ro-Ro days (Monday and Friday) and the selection

of limited peak hours does not provide a full picture of the issues

and flows through the Port.

The more appropriate HGV to PCU conversion factor would be 2.9

as opposed to 2.3 which would have given a more robust and

reliable set of flow figures for future modelling scenarios.

The modelling of the Junction 16 and the internal road network is

inadequate and does not provide an accurate representation of

future year conditions along Tolka Quay Road.

The roundabout junction of Promenade Road, Bond Drive and

Bond Drive extension (Junction 10) is the most critical junction in

the Port as it provides access throughout the Port, ad following the

road closures it will provide the only access for most of the traffic

to/from the Port.

8.4.15 P&O Ferries

Gordon Hisleap provided a summary of the main concerns raised by

the P&O in relation to the proposed development which are already

detailed in section 6.2 of this report and any additional concerns raised

during the hearing are summarised below.

Current Ro-Ro operations will be significantly affected, concerns

relate to:

o Closure of existing entrance off East Wall Road.

o The absence of any details as to how displaced operations will

be accommodated in the area shown on Drg.IBM0498-GA-015.

o Temporary changes to operational layout during construction.

Concerned about the absence of consultation with DPC but now

satisfied with assurances in relation to the above (and other)

issues:

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


o East Wall Road will not be closed until appropriate, agreed

alternative arrangements are in place and that amendments will

be made to traffic management at key junctions to ensure that

P&O are not logistically or commercially disadvantaged.

o DPC will consult with P&O regarded the detailed layout within

the area shown on Drg.IBM0498-GA-015 and that the existing

layout will remain in place in the interim.

o The shared use of the area shown on Drg.IBM0498-GA-015 with

any other Ro-Ro operator to facilitate Ro-Ro development

elsewhere in the port will only happen while P&O retain the

current operation of the linkspan on the North Wall Quay and

that two operations will not be squeezed into the area.

8.5 Cross questioning

Each of the Observers was afforded the opportunity to question the

Applicant at the end of their submissions and the ensuing debate is

available on the digital record of the proceedings. Although a large

number of points were discussed and/or clarified at this stage, no

significant new planning issues arose, and any salient points of interest

will be referred to in the relevant parts of the assessment under section

9 below.

8.6 Conditions and community gain proposal

The Applicant and Observers were afforded the opportunity to suggest

conditions and comment on the community gain proposal over and

above what was already discussed throughout the course of the

hearing. All of this is available on the digital record of the proceedings

and the following additional conditions were proposed:

8.6.1 Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company:

1. The proposed development shall be limited to 2 berth spaces

located along North Wall Quay West with no berth spaces located

along North Wall Quay West inside the Alexandra Basin West.

Reason: In the interest of the proper planning and sustainable

development of the area and having regard to the strategic position

of Dun Laoghaire Harbour in Dublin Bay as a cruise ship destination.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


2. The two berth spaces shall cater for vessels that do not exceed

300m in length.


development of the area and having regard to the strategic position

of Dun Laoghaire Harbour in Dublin Bay as a cruise ship destination.

3. There shall be no demolition of North Wall Quay until a review of the

impacts of potential increase in cruise ship size is complete and a

cruise ship strategy for Dublin Bay should be agreed in writing with

DCC and DLR county council.


development of the area and having regard to the strategic position of

Dun Laoghaire Harbour in Dublin Bay as a cruise ship destination.

8.6.2 Dublin Graving Docks Limited:

1. The Dublin Graving Dock Number 2 shall be retained.


development of the area.

2. The berthing arrangements authorised in this development shall be

as follows:

(a) Cruise ship berths shall be provided on the channel side of the

North Wall Quay only and when not in use by cruise ships they

may be used by other vessels in accordance with the operational

requirements of Dublin port Company.

(b) The proposed demolition works at North Wall Quay shall be

excluded and the provision of a cruise ship berth within

Alexandra Basin West shall be omitted from this development.

(c) The proposed Ro-Ro berth arrangement within Alexandra Basin

West shall be provided as shown on Figure 3 of Dublin port

Masterplan 2012-2040.

Revised drawings showing the above layout shall be submitted to

the Planning Authority for written agreement before development

commences



For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


3. The closure and infill of Graving Dock Number 2 is not permitted as

part of this development.

Reason: In the interest of clarity and the proper planning and

sustainable development of the area.

8.7 Closing submissions

The applicant and several of the Observers availed of the opportunity

to make a brief closing statement to the hearing which summarised

their main concerns and no new issues were raised.

8.8 End of oral hearing

The oral hearing was formally closed on Friday 17th October 2014.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

9.1 Background

9.1.1 The proposed ABR project would comprise the reconfiguration of

Alexandra Basin West, the infilling of Berths 52 and 53, the installation

of new quay walls in the W and E sections of Dublin Port and the

construction of a protection wall at Poolbeg Marina, along with

extensive channel dredging and associated site and heritage works.

The proposed development has been described in detail in Section 2.2

of this report and the works are required to provide appropriate future

access to the Port for larger shipping vessels and to accommodate the

anticipated increase cruise ship calls to Dublin Port.

9.1.2 Dublin Port Company (DPC) prepared a non-statutory Masterplan to

guide development in Dublin Port up to 2040. The plan sets out the key

objectives for the Port and it provides a general overview of the

economy and anticipates future growth. The plan assesses potential

capacity by showing how the Port could handle 60 million tonne per

annum by 2040 based on an average growth rate of 2.5% per annum.

DPC’s predicted breakdown in growth trends up to 2040 are

summarised in the following table (extrapolated from the Masterplan)

and the number of cruise ship calls is predicted to increase significantly

by c.2033.

Ship type Additional

growth (‘000

tonnes) by 2040

% increase in

additional

growth by 2040

Additional units

(‘000units) by

2040

Ro-Ro 25,929 3.2% +1090

Lo-Lo 4,163 1.7% + 248

All Bulk 1,441 1.9% N/A

9.1.3 The DPC Masterplan also describes the main infrastructure and

engineering proposals which will serve to deliver new capacity up to

2040 by reconfiguring existing facilities, intensifying existing land use

and the possible reclamation of an area to the E of the Port, along with

substantial channel dredging to a depth of -10mCD. The proposed

ABR project comprises approximately one third of the overall

development envisaged by the Masterplan.

9.1.4 The issues raised in this application are numerous and range from

those of a strategic nature to matters of more site specific and local

interest. I am satisfied that all of the main issues that need to be

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


considered by the Board in assessing the proposed development have

been raised in the various written and oral submissions received and

that no other substantive issues arise.

The issues are addressed under the following headings: -

Principle of development

Alternatives

Movement and access

Heritage

Noise, vibration, air and water quality

Dredging and contamination

Coastal processes, hydrodynamics and flood risk

Ecology

Other issues

9.2 Principle of development

This section of the report will focus on the following issues:

EU policy

National and regional policy

Local statutory policy

Local non-statutory policy

The planning policy context for the proposed development is set by EU,

national, regional and local planning policy and by the objectives of the

non-statutory CTUR LAP 2011 and the Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-

2040.

9.2.1 EU policy context:

9.2.1.1The proposed development of Dublin Port, which forms part of the EU

Trans European Network - Transport (TEN-T), would be compatible

with EU policy and guidance in relation to improving the economic

productivity and efficiency of major ports and by contributing to the

provision of an efficient, integrated and sustainable strategic transport

network. This could, in part, be achieved at regional and local level by

way of regularly updated consensus based Port Masterplans. Although

the Port is currently served by 2 existing rail connections there is no

indication that DPC intend to significantly intensify the use of these

connections for cargo or passenger transit under this proposal.

However I am satisfied that the proposed development is compatible

with EU policy in relation to ports and transportation.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.2.2 National and regional policy context:

9.2.2.1The National Development Plan (NDP) 2007-2013, the National Spatial

Strategy (NSS) 2002 -2020 and the Regional Planning Guidelines -

Greater Dublin Area 2004- 2016 (RPG GDA) continue to provide the

national and regional policy framework for managing future

development in Ireland. However, the recently published National Ports

Policy 2013 now provides the main policy framework for the future

development of the countries ports which have been categorised into

ports of national and regional significance.

9.2.2.2Dublin Port (along with Cork and Shannon Foynes) is designated as a

Tier 1 Port of National Significance whilst the neighbouring ports at Dun

Laoghaire and Drogheda are designated as Ports of Regional

Significance. Although the EU TEN-T core network proposes that the

GDA Ports Cluster (which includes existing ports within the GDA) be

included as a core port in line with the RPG for the GDA 2010-2022

(which supports examination of the expansion of Dublin Port and/or a

new facility on the E coast of the GDA), the National Ports Policy 2013

specifically categorises only Dublin Port as a Tier 1 Port of National

Significance.

9.2.2.3The National Ports Policy states that the core objective of national

policy is to facilitate a competitive and effective market for maritime

transport services. It accepts that the long term international trend in

imports and shipping is toward increased consolidation of resources in

order to achieve optimum efficiencies of scale. It acknowledges that

this trend will have knock-on effects in terms of vessel size, water depth

in ports and the type and scope of port hinterland transport

connections.

9.2.2.4There is an expectation that Tier 1 Ports will lead the response of the

State commercial ports sector to future national port capacity

requirements, and that such ports should prepare consensus based

Masterplans which have the potential to become embedded into

planning and development strategies at national, regional and local

level.

9.2.2.5There is no statutory requirement on ports to produce Masterplans and

there is no national guidance in relation to the preparation of such

plans. However the UK Department of Transport (UKDoT) and the

Northern Ireland Department for Regional Development (DRDNI)

provide helpful plan preparation guidance.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.2.3 Local statutory policy context:

Statutory development plan:

9.2.3.1The proposed ABR project is broadly compatible with the policy

provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011- 2017 in relation

to the environment, heritage, ecology, the economy, employment,

tourism and transportation. Dublin City Council (DCC) has welcomed

the proposed development subject to a number of detailed concerns

which are addressed in later sections of this report. The proposed

development would be located within an area covered by the “Z7”

zoning objective which seeks to:

9.2.3.2Provide for the protection and creation of industrial uses, and facilitate

opportunities for employment creation and the majority of these lands

are located in the Port area, and port-related industries and facilities

are permissible uses within this zone.

9.2.3.3Several of the Observers (including Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company

and Dublin Graving Docks Limited) have raised concerns that the

cruise ship element of the proposed development is incompatible with

the Z7 zoning objective for the area.

9.2.3.4Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company is concerned that the existing

industrial character of the Port, which includes several SEVESO II

sites, provides an inappropriate setting for cruise ships which be better

served by the more attractive character of Dun Laoghaire Harbour.

9.2.3.5Dublin Port is a large working port. The existing arrangements for most

cruise ships berthing in Alexandra Basin West are less than

satisfactory from an operational, tourism, and health and safety

perspective. Passengers currently disembark onto berths that are

mainly used by bulk carriers and Lo-Lo vessels within a highly

industrialised section of the Port. The circuitous route out of the Port is

equally unattractive, which is in contrast to the shipping route through

Dublin Bay and along the Liffey Channel towards East Link Bridge and

the City.

9.2.3.6Under the proposed arrangements, the cruise ship berths would be

located on either side of North Wall Quay Extension and away from the

main industrial section of the Port that they currently occupy. Foot

passengers will ultimately have direct access on to East Wall Road and

the Liffey Quays. I am satisfied that the cruise ship element of the

proposed development will not conflict with the Z7 zoning objective for

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


the area in that it will provide for port related activities whist ultimately

locating the berths away from the more industrial uses.

9.2.3.7It is also noted from the submitted documentation that the cruise ship

element of DPC’s portfolio is one of the least revenue generating

activities in the Port. The Masterplan indicates that the cruise business

currently generates c.E700, 000 in direct revenue for DPC and it is

estimated that cruise passengers contribute up to E50 million to the

local economy. On balance, the revenue dis-benefits are significantly

outweighed by the existing and potential economic and employment

benefits accruing to the wider City and regional economy from the

cruise tourism sector. The proposed development will also provide for

multi-purpose berths and not just cruise berths.

9.2.3.8Having regard to the above, I am satisfied that the proposed

development would be compatible with local planning policy for the Port

and the Z7 zoning objective for the area as set out in the DCC

Development Plan 2011-2017.

9.2.3.9Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company also submitted that the provision of a

cruise ship facility at Dun Laoghaire, which would require less channel

dredging with fewer environmental impacts, would be more compatible

with local planning policy than the current ABR Project. This issue will

be addressed in detail in later sections of this report.

9.2.4 Local non-statutory context:

9.2.4.1DCC prepared the non-statutory Cruise Traffic and Urban

Regeneration Local Action Plan (CTUR LAP) as part of the URBACT II

EU programme in order to develop a strategy for the development of

cruise traffic and the regeneration of the Port area. This will ultimately

provide for a new relationship with the City through the development of

the cruise tourism sector which is an identified growth area. The Liffey

side of Alexandra Basin West is identified as the preferred location for

cruise ships. The three main objectives of the LAP are to provide a

cruise terminal in the long term (with a small scale reception facility in

the short term) and improve connectivity between the Port and the City;

to maximise the potential of cruise traffic and Port heritage as

economic and social generator; and to plan and manage the cruise

development within a global city project.

9.2.4.2Dublin Port Company (DPC) prepared its non-statutory Masterplan

2012-2040 to guide development in Dublin Port up to 2040. The plan

sets out the key objectives for the Port, it provides a general overview

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


of the economy and anticipates future growth. The plan assesses

potential capacity by showing how the Port could handle 60 million

tonne by 2040 based on an average growth rate of 2.5% per annum.

The relevant details are summarised in Section 9.1 above.

9.2.4.3Several of the Observers (including Dublin City Council, Dun Laoghaire

Harbour Company and Dublin Graving Docks Limited) raised concerns

that the proposed development would not accord with the objectives of

the CTUR LAP 2011 and the Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040,

particularly in relation to the proposed reconfiguration of Alexandra

Basin West to accommodate cruise ships, the location of the cruise

ship berths, the closure of Graving Dock no.2 and the absence of a

cruise terminal structure. Dublin Graving Docks Limited also submits

that the Masterplan should have been reviewed to take account of the

current proposal prior to lodging an application for approval.

9.2.4.4Dublin Graving Docks Limited is concerned that the proposed re-

configuration of Alexandra Basin West, which relocates the existing

P&O Ro Ro operations closer to the Graving Dock no.2 and extends

the bulk berths in the N section of the Basin at Alexandra Quay across

the entrance to the Graving Dock, will lead to the closure of the dry

dock facility. The closure of the dock will result in the closure of a

valuable maritime maintenance facility within the Port and the loss of

26 jobs. This would, therefore, be incompatible with local planning

policy and the Z7 zoning objective for the area which seeks to “provide

for the protection and creation of industrial uses and facilitate

opportunities for employment creation.” Dublin Graving Docks Limited

submitted a revised proposal for the Basin (which is assessed in

section 9.3.2 below) which would facilitate the continued operation of

Graving Dock no.2. This retention would in turn be more compatible

with the provisions of the Z7 zoning objective which seeks to protect

port related industrial and employment uses, than the current ABR

proposal.

The main differences between the CTUR LAP, Dublin Port Masterplan

and the ARB Project are summarised in the following table.

Engineering / development options CTUR

LAP

2011

Master

Plan 2012

ABR

Project

2014

Reduce the length and width of N Wall Quay

Extension to widen entrance to Basin

No No Yes

Deepen berths on N Wall Quay Extension to Yes Yes No

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


provide for 2 large cruise ships on riverside

Deepen berths on N Wall Quay for 3 cruise ships

on river and Basin side of Quay

No No Yes

Envisage landmark development which could

also provide cruise terminal facilities at Quay

Yes, but

long term

Yes, but in

future

No

Provide new pedestrian entrance and facilities on

to East Wall Road from N Wall Quay

Yes Yes In the

future

New 400m turning area to the E of the Port

entrance for large cruise ships

N/A Yes No

Turning area at Basin entrance N/A No Yes

Options for Graving Dock no.1 N/A None Excavate

& restore

Options for graving Dock no.2

N/A None Infill &

closure

Options for bulk berths in N section of Basin

(other than dredging)

N/A None –

retain

berths

Provide

longer

berths

Build new Ro-Ro berth to replace capacity lost to

cruise ships on N Wall Quay at Terminal 3 in

Basin

N/A Yes No

Relocate Ro-Ro berths N-wards to central

position in Basin

N/A No Yes

Remove Bulk Jetty (ore) and provide alternative

facilities on a new 120m berth

N/A Yes Yes

9.2.4.5The Observers submit that the proposed additional elements, which

are not provided for in the CTUR LAP 2011 and the Dublin Port

Masterplan 2012-2040, will result in the closure of the Graving Dock

facility and reduce the competitiveness of Dun Laoghaire Harbour as a

cruise ship destination (as 3 and not 2 cruise ship berths will be

provided), whilst the omitted elements will result in a failure to deliver a

cruise terminal structure.

9.2.4.6It should be noted that plans are non-statutory, there is no statutory

requirement to produce a port Masterplan, and there is no national

guidance in relation to the preparation of such plans. Furthermore the

DPC Masterplan states:

The development options presented in Section 5 are not a

prescriptive menu of developments that will be carried out in

Dublin Port. Rather they are a set of possible options that need

to be assessed before being developed by reference to issues

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


of demand and capacity, and that are subject to completion of

the relevant planning consents and requirements. (Page 23),

and

The Masterplan may also be taken into account ay An Bord

Pleanála in considering any application submitted to it under the

Strategic Infrastructure Act. (Page 13)

Preparation of the Dublin Port Masterplan was informed by reference to

the guidance provided by the UK Department of Transport (2010) and

the NI Department for Regional Development (2008). Both documents

state that a port Masterplan is not intended to be restrictive and that:

Ports operate in a dynamic commercial world and it is essential

that they should have the flexibility to adapt to changing patterns

of demand, and to competitive opportunities. The master plan

should therefore present a framework within which such

adaptation can occur without undue bureaucracy. Neither should

the master planning process impose a bureaucratic burden on

the ports. Its purpose is to be of assistance.

These documents go on to recommend a time horizon of 20 to 30

years with a c.10 year review; the underlying assumptions should be

reviewed in relation to the wider economic environment; the

effectiveness of the plan should be assessed after a period of c.5

years; such plans should feed into regional and local planning

strategies but they will not obviate the need for detailed planning

applications to be brought forward for individual schemes. Most of this

guidance has been taken on board in the DPC Masterplan.

Page 23 of the DPC Masterplan goes on to state that:

Where individual applications are advanced during the

Masterplan period they will also require to demonstrate that the

option chosen is justified following a consideration of the

alternatives at that time and by reference to the necessity and

impacts of the proposed development.

The main differences between the 2011 CTUR LAP objectives and the

2012 Masterplan options, and the current 2014 ABP proposals have

been summarised in the above table.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


During 2012 specialist consultants assisted DPC with the planning of

cruise facilities and the location of cruise terminals in Dublin Port. The

current planning application reflects the main recommendations to

expand the cruise business and to strategically locate the facilities at a

site integrated with the City, and modifications to North Wall Quay

Extension are required to deliver the recommended three cruise ship

berths at this location.

2.4.4.7Notwithstanding the apparent emphasis on the provision of cruise ship

facilities, the Inspector asked Captain Dignam (Dublin Port Harbour

Master) whether or not the proposed works would be required with or

without the cruise ship element.

Captain Dignam confirmed that the works are necessary in order to

future proof the Port as there is a global trend towards larger and

longer ships. Captain Dignam referred to changes that are currently

taking place in the Panama Canal where a new set of larger locks are

being constructed to create an additional lane which can handle ships

nearly three times the size of the “Panamax” vessels currently able to

transit the Canal. A “New Panamax” container ship is in the region of

c.400m and the new locks will accommodate an extra 12 to 14 larger

vessels per day, which will double Canal capacity.

According to Captain Dignam, these large cargo ships will eventually

arrive into Dublin Port and the Bulk Berths at Alexandra Basin West

must be able to accommodate them. This will require the widening of

the entrance to the Basin from the Liffey Channel as well as the

deepening of the shipping channel.

2.4.4.8The length of North Wall Quay has to be reduced in order to provide a

widened access to the Basin by larger cargo and cruise ships, although

the proposed reduction in Quay width only appears to be required to

accommodate cruise but not cargo ships. DPC has justified their

selection of the current ABR option on the basis of global trends in

shipping and on the economic and engineering advice it received from

its advisors post adoption of the 2012 Masterplan. I am satisfied that a

review of the plan was not warranted.

2.4.2.9In relation to the absence of a cruise terminal, it is noted that both the

CTUR LAP 2011 and the Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040 refer to

the need for a terminal in the long term but not the short term.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


The CTUR LAP 2011 suggests the re-use of Terminal 3 at North Wall

Quay as an interpretative, reception and tourist information facility, but

that:

Dublin is primarily a port of call, rather than a turnaround port,

although a very limited number of cruises have commenced at

Dublin. (Page 37)

It is desirable that the potential for a permanent cruise terminal

is examined in the long term planning for the cruise traffic

industry in Dublin and in the short term a small scale reception

facility needs to be provided. (Page 38)

The DPC Masterplan states in relation to new cruise ship berthing and

related facilities that:

Beyond this (deepening the berths), it is envisaged that there

could be a landmark development in this area which could

simultaneously provide cruise terminal facilities and provide for

an appropriate additional step in the redevelopment of Dublin’s

north quays.

The Observer’s concerns were acknowledged by DPC who reaffirmed

that a cruise terminal would be provided at some stage in the future if

Dublin Port became a turnaround port or point of departure. This

position largely accords with the provisions of the CTUR LAP 2011 and

the Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040 in terms of planning policy.

9.2.4.10The CTUR LAP 2011 seeks to provide a strategy for the future

provision of a cruise facility at Dublin Port, the DPC Masterplan was

prepared in accordance with EU, UK and NI guidance and both Plans

are non-statutory documents which the Board may or may not have

regard to. Whilst the DPC Masterplan provides guidance for the future

development of port lands, the engineering options (which vary slightly

in their description throughout the document) are not prescriptive and

the plan is flexible enough to take account of changing economic

circumstances.

9.2.4.11I am therefore satisfied that a review of the Masterplan was not

required prior to the submission of the ABR planning application and

that the proposed development should be assessed on its merits and in

accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of

the area.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.2.5 Conclusions:

Having regard to all of the above, I am satisfied that the proposed

development would comply with EU, national, regional and local

planning policy in relation to the development, expansion and

upgrading of a Tier 1 Port of National Significance and that it would

broadly accord with the objectives of the non-statutory CTUR LAP 2011

and the Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040.

9.3 Alternatives


Consideration of alternatives by DPC

Suggested amendments by Dublin Graving Docks Limited

Suggested amendments by Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company

Discussion of alternatives

9.3.1 Consideration of alternatives

DPC examined the following options:

1. Do-nothing scenario.

2. Use of other locations within the port area.

3. Creation of other additional port areas.

4. Alternative east coast locations and other port locations on the

south and west coasts.

5. Other locations for new ports.

Do-nothing scenario: DPC submit that the critical importance of port

and shipping services to Ireland as an open trading nation without land

or bridge connections and the continued interest in Dublin as a tourist

destination for cruise vessels means that this is not a viable option.

Use of other locations within the port area: DPC submit that other sites

identified in the DPC Masterplan are less advantageous and could

involve land reclamation (which poses environmental problems), are

not well configured for unitised trade, are remote from motorway and

rail access, distant from deep water and/or are not available within a

reasonable period. This is not a viable option.

Creation of other additional port areas: DPC submit that the previously

refused proposal to reclaim 21ha offers the only obvious lands that

could be developed for cruise liners. The only other available lands that

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


could be reclaimed are those to the N in the Tolka Estuary or to the S

fronting Sandymount Strand, neither of which is adjacent to a navigable

channel, they are remote from the City and there could be significant

ecological, visual and recreational impacts. This is not a viable option.

Alternative east coast locations and other port locations on the south

and west coasts: DPC submit that Dublin is the major attraction of

cruise chips and the use of Dun Laoghaire Harbour as an alternation

would be constrained by quayside dimensions and navigable access.

Unitised trade could use spare capacity although they are distant from

the main Dublin market. In both economic and environmental terms this

is not a viable option.

Other locations for new ports: DPC submit that the neither of the two

proposals for Bremore and Loughshinny was designed to

accommodate cruise ships and they are remote from the Dublin market

for unitised trade. This is not a viable option.

Conclusion: DPC concluded that the proposal offers the only realistic

solution within the immediate terms of the Dublin region’s requirements

for the movement of unitised trade in and out of the region by sea.

9.3.2 Suggested amendments by Dublin Graving Docks Limited

9.3.2.1Dublin Graving Docks Limited (DGDL) suggested amendments to the

proposed works at Alexandra Basin which would negate the need to

reduce the length and width of North Wall Quay Extension; allow for the

berthing of two large cruise ships (c.330m) on the river side of the

Quay which could be turned at the entrance to either Alexandra Quay

West or Alexandra Quay East; allow for the retention of Ro-Ro

operations in their current position and accommodate the temporary

(as opposed to permanent) expansion of the bulk berths across the

entrance to the dry dock.

9.3.2.2According to the calculations put forward by DGDL, North Wall Quay

extension could accommodate two 330m long cruise vessels with a

33m separation between each vessel and a 54m set back from East

Link Bridge (747m in total). The 54m set back takes account of the

proposed Conservation Interpretative Zone and also the NRA’s 2014

Corridor Protection Study for the Eastern Bypass which extends into

the ABR site by c.55m (described in Section 9.4 below).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.3.2.3 According to the measurements obtained from the application

drawings, North Wall Quay Extension is c.720m long and its length

would be reduced by c.150m to c.570m under the current ABR

proposal. The c.55m section of Quay located within the NRAs corridor

protection area for the Eastern Bypass would reduce the useable

length of Quay to 665m (existing) or 515m (proposed). Furthermore, an

additional c.25m set back would be required to provide an appropriate

slope from the level of the existing river bed to the level of the dredged

berthing pocket as indicated on Drawing No. IBM0498-NQ-010. This

set back would also be necessary to ensure an adequate separation

between a berthed vessel and any future Liffey Bridge (NRA Options

A1 and A6) in the interests of safety and security. The additional

c.25m set back would further reduce the length of useable Quay to

c.640m (existing) or c.490m (proposed).

9.3.2.4The existing c.720m long North Wall Quay Extension could potentially

accommodate one large and one medium sized large cruise ship on

the river side of the Quay as per the DPC Masterplan. In the event that

the length of North Wall Quay Extension was not reduced as proposed,

the remaining c.640m (after the NRA’s 2014 route protection corridor

and the dredge slope are accounted for) could only accommodate one

large c.340m long cruise vessel and one medium c.265m long medium

ship on the riverside of the Quay (with a c.35m separation between

vessels). Under the ABR proposal the useable length of North Wall

Quay Extension would be further reduced to c.490m which could

accommodate one large c.340m vessel and possibly one small c.115m

vessel at the same time on the riverside of the Quay (with a c.35m

separation between vessels) and another large ship on the Basin side.

9.3.2.5Under DGDL’s proposal, the c.720m long Quay could not

accommodate two 330m long vessels and provide for a c.54m set back

from the bridge with a 33m separation between vessels as the

combined length equates to 747m. The suggested arrangement could

not be accommodated without the easternmost vessel partly extending

across the entrance to Alexandra Basin West, which would in turn

cause an obstruction to other Port users, and in particular the larger

cargo vessels envisaged by DPC.

9.3.2.6It should be noted that the suggested amendments were not subject to

any simulation exercises, and that DPC had no comment to make in

relation to the suggestions, other than that a total of three cruise ship

berths are a fundamental requirement of the ABR project. The Board

may wish to seek further information in relation to the technical

feasibility of the suggested amendments. However, it should also be

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


noted that the amendments were not proposed by the Applicant, and

that DPC, as the Port Landlord is not obliged to retain any of the

existing uses within the Port, subject to individual lease arrangements.

9.3.3 Suggested amendments by Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company

9.3.3.1Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company also suggested amendments to the

proposed works at Alexandra Basin which would also negate the need

to reduce the length and width of North Wall Quay Extension. DLHC

submit that the reconfigured Quay is only needed for large cruise

vessels, without which the longer Quay could remain to provide a

riverside berthing face which could facilitate the berthing of 2 medium

cruise ships concurrently.

9.3.3.2DLHC submit that the same capacity can be achieved if the Basin

reconfiguration is not designed to accommodate larger cruise ships on

the Basin side of the Quay as a much reduced Quay demolition will

result in a longer river berth which could accommodate 2 cruise ships

(250m to 300m) at the same time which would provide better access

for ships, provide an additional berths for other uses and reduce the

extent of the demolition of the historic quay.

9.3.3.3It is noted that the DLHC suggestion does not take account of the need

to provide future access to the Basin for larger vessels and it is unclear

whether or not the suggestion includes the 55m protection corridor for

the Eastern By-pass of the 25m slope between the existing and

proposed channel depths.

9.3.4 Discussion of alternatives

Several of the Observers raised concerns that DPC had not given

adequate consideration to alternative layouts and configurations for

Alexandra Basin West in the EIS. It should be noted that the EIS

Regulations only require a developer to provide an outline of the main

alternatives studied and an indication of the main reasons for his/her

choice, taking into account the environmental effects. There is no

requirement to undertake detailed consideration of specific alternatives

of the component parts of the proposed development. This view was

upheld by Justice Mahon in the High Court in Klohn v An Bord Pleanála

and I am satisfied that DPC has addressed this issue at the correct

level.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.3.5 Conclusions:

Having regard to all of the above, I am satisfied that the applicant’s EIS

has had adequate regard to the consideration to alternatives. I am also

satisfied that amendments suggested by Dublin Graving Docks Limited

and Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company would not fulfil the stated

requirements of DPC with regard to future proofing the Port and

improving and berthing facilities large cargo and cruise vessels.

9.4 Movement and access


Traffic movements and vehicular access closures

Dublin Tunnel

Dublin Eastern Bypass

Access to Alexandra Basin West

9.4.1 Context:

DPC submits that the proposed ABR project will assist in achieving the

Masterplan objective to cater for 60m gross tonnes of cargo by 2040.

This would equate to an average growth rate of 2.5% per annum from

2012 to 2040. DPC carried out a transportation appraisal to evaluate

the impact of this increase in port traffic on the surrounding internal and

external road network. However, it should be noted that this appraisal

considered all of the development envisaged by the Masterplan up to

2040 and not just the current ABR project which comprises c. one third

of the overall Masterplan works. Although the Port estate is currently

served by 2 existing rails connections, there are no significant

proposals to utilise these connection to serve cargo or passenger

transport in the short to medium term.

The proposed development would comprise the:

Reconfiguration of Alexandra Basin West to provide new and/or

deeper berths for cruise ships and other vessels along with the

repositioning of existing berthing operations within the Basin;

The closure of the 2 existing “left-only” vehicular access points on to

East Wall Road along with the associated redistribution of traffic

within the Port estate towards Promenade Road; and

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


The infilling of Berths 52/53 to the E of the Port along with the

corresponding creation of replacement riverside berths parallel to the

newly in-filled area.

9.4.2 Traffic movements and vehicular access closures

9.4.2.1The proposed ABR element of the DPC Masterplan 2012-2040 will not

generate significant volumes of additional traffic. However the

proposed closure of 2 existing access points along East Wall Road will

lead to a redistribution of traffic within the Port Estate which will be

channelled towards Promenade Road and the Dublin Tunnel.

Promenade Road currently carries c.70% of port traffic and it will

ultimately carry c.99% of traffic.

9.4.2.2Vehicular access to Alexandra Basin West and the North Wall Quay

Extension is currently via 2 existing entrance points off East Wall Road.

These entrances are located at Alexandra Road and Terminal 3 (P&O)

and they have a “left-only” turn when exiting the Port Estate. Because

of the City Councils HGV ban, all heavy vehicles leaving the Port via

these two access points must travel S to the Point Roundabout, carry

out a “U-turn” and then travel N along East Wall Road towards the

Dublin Tunnel.

9.4.2.3All vehicles exiting from Terminal 3 are compelled to turn left and all of

the HGVs must carry out the “U-turn” in order to reach the Dublin

Tunnel. There was some discussion during the Oral Hearing as to

whether or not DPC had overestimated or underestimated the use of

this “U-turn” route by HGVs exiting other sections of the Port via

Alexandra Road. Notwithstanding the results of the EIS transport

study, it should be noted that vehicles exiting other sections of the Port

can avoid this route by using the Port’s internal road network to reach

the Dublin Tunnel via Tolka Quay Road and Promenade Road. A third

existing entrance off East Wall Road to North Wall Quay Extension,

which is located at the Point Roundabout, is rarely used.

9.4.2.4Under the current proposal the East Wall Road access points will be

closed and c.99% of port traffic will eventually use Promenade Road

with direct access to the Dublin Tunnel, which has adequate spare

capacity. There was some discussion during the Oral Hearing as to

whether or not DPC had overestimated tunnel capacity. However it was

agreed that adequate capacity does exist in the short to medium term

to serve the ABR project. The proposed access closures and resultant

traffic re-distribution will also serve to reduce the volume of traffic along

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


East Wall Road, albeit with some minor increases along the

surrounding road network.

9.4.2.5Dublin City Council (DCC) confirmed at the Oral Hearing that the

existing entrances to the Port Estate along East Wall Road currently

give rise to a traffic hazard, that Council plans to replace the Point

Roundabout with a signalised junction are at an advanced stage, and

that the “U-Turn” will be eliminated. It is therefore evident that vehicles

exiting the western section of the Port will have to be accommodated

by new transportation and exit arrangements when the new DCC

junction layout has been implemented.

9.4.2.6Overall the National Roads Authority (NRA), National Transport

Authority (NTA) and DCC are supportive of the Masterplan, the overall

consolidation of the Port and the movement objectives, and the ABR

Project,. However, certain aspects of the current ABR project and

future Masterplan proposals will require further consultation with these

agencies. In particular the timing of the access closures off East Wall

Road will require the agreement of DCC which could be addressed by

way of a planning condition.

9.4.2.7Notwithstanding the above, several of the Observers (including P&O,

Irish Ferries and Stena Line) raised concerns in relation to the impact

of the proposed access closures and the redistributed traffic on ferry

and shipping operations, especially during peak disembarkation times

in the Port. It was noted that many of the concerns raised by Irish

Ferries and Stena Line relate to the full suite of development proposals

contained in the DPC Masterplan to 2040 and not necessarily the

current ABR proposal. I am satisfied that the internal road network and

junctions have the capacity to accommodate the redistributed traffic

and predicted traffic increases in the short to medium term. However

DPC has indicated that there will be road and junction capacity

problems in the future when other elements of the Masterplan are

implemented (subject to future planning approval).

9.4.2.8Based on the information provided, I am satisfied that the internal road

network will operate within capacity up to at least 2024, subject to

compliance with conditions related to the timing of the access closures

and the implementation of traffic management measures to be agreed

with DCC.

9.4.2.9P&O is located at Terminal 3 in Alexandra Basin West and this

company is currently dependent on the existing access to and from

East Wall Road. Concerns have been raised in relation to the absence

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


of any details as to how displaced operations will be accommodated

and how temporary changes to their operational layout will be managed

during construction. During the Oral Hearing P&O stated that DPC had

provided assurances that:

East Wall Road would not be closed until appropriate, agreed

alternative arrangements are in place and that amendments will be

made to internal traffic management at key junctions.

DPC will consult with P&O regarding the detailed layout within the

area shown and that the existing layout will remain in place in the

interim.

The shared use of the area used by P&O with any other Ro-Ro

operator to facilitate Ro-Ro development elsewhere in the Port will

only happen while P&O retain the sole and current operation of the

linkspan.

9.4.2.10In relation to other matters:

I am satisfied that the Port’s internal road network and the surrounding

local road network can accommodate the coach and taxi traffic

generated by the increase in cruise ship calls to Dublin Port, which are

predicted to increase up to 2032, with minimal impact on local traffic

volumes.

Construction traffic, vehicles should be required to arrive and depart via

the Dublin Tunnel subject to compliance with conditions related to the

management of dirt and dust, and to arrive and depart the Port at times

that do not conflict with peak ferry arrivals and departures.

In relation to emergency route options, it should be noted that drawing

no. IBH0362/0075 illustrates alternative access routes 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.

Conclusions:

Having regard to all of the above, I am satisfied that the traffic

generated by the proposed ARB project, the proposed access closures

along East Wall Road and the resultant redistributed traffic within the

surrounding internal and external road network will not give rise to a

traffic hazard or endanger the safety of other road users.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.4.3 Dublin Tunnel:

9.4.3.1Having Most of the Ports vehicular traffic will be directed towards the

Dublin Tunnel which has adequate spare capacity to accommodate the

additional and redistributed traffic arising from the ABR project. The

NRA has raised concerns that the possible future function of the Dublin

Tunnel as a section of the proposed Eastern By-pass must be

recognised and protected. This is an issue of particular concern when

considering the potential future impact of the additional traffic that

would be generated by the other developments envisaged in the DPC

Masterplan up until 2040.

9.4.3.2The NRA has requested that DPC prepare a scheme of specific

demand management measures for the DPC Masterplan 2012-2040 in

consultation with the Authority. The scheme would be prepared in the

interests of managing and protecting the safety, efficiency and capacity

of the Dublin Tunnel and the National Road Network in the Region. As

this request relates to the entirety of the Masterplan period until 2040

and not just the works currently proposed under the ABR project it

would not be appropriate to attach a planning condition in this regard.

However the specific issues of relevance to the current proposal and

the use of the Dublin Tunnel by could be addressed by way of a

planning condition.

Conclusions:

9.4.3.3Notwithstanding these long term concerns, I am satisfied that the

Dublin Tunnel has sufficient capacity to accommodate the construction

vehicles and the additional traffic generated by the ABR project in the

short to medium term.

9.4.4 Dublin Eastern Bypass:

9.4.4.1The NRA’s 2009 Corridor Protection Study for the Eastern Bypass

identified a number of route options for connecting the N portal of the

Dublin Tunnel to the Poolbeg Peninsula on the S side of the River

Liffey:

A1: Medium Level Open Bridge across Dublin Port

A2: Cut and Cover Tunnel through Dublin Port

A4: High Level Bridge across Dublin Port.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.4.4.2Policy SI19 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 seeks to

support the provision of a link between North Dublin Port and the South

Eastern Motorway via an Eastern by-pass of the city as per the 2009

Corridor Protection Study. An indicative layout is illustrated in the

current City Development Plan and this envisages the extension of the

Dublin Tunnel along the W Port boundary with East Wall Road (Option

A1 above). DCC stated that the proposed ABR Project is consistent

with the objective of delivering the Eastern By-pass in the medium to

long term but that it should make provision for the NRAs emerging

Corridor Protection Study by facilitating a potential alignment along the

W boundary of the Port.

9.4.4.3An Engineering and Urban Design Study has recently been undertaken

in consultation with DCC for the section of the route between the Dublin

Tunnel Southern Portal and the River Liffey. This Study identified a

technically feasible corridor that accommodates 3 possible

route/alignment options that would not preclude the proposed

development.

9.4.4.4A revised Corridor Protection Study Sector A: Dublin Port Tunnel to

Sandymount Strand (2014) was submitted to the Oral Hearing by the

NRA. It should be noted that the statutory protection of the newly

identified corridor has not yet been agreed, and pending such

agreement the Study advises that the existing policy outlined in the

2009 Corridor Protection Study and the current DCC Development Plan

should remain in place.

9.4.4.5Section 2 of the 2014 Study identifies three technically feasible route

options for Sector A which lie within a single protected corridor that

follows the line of East Wall Road from the Dublin Tunnel to Poolbeg

(and along the W Port boundary). It should be noted that Option A4

(from 2009) has been omitted to take account of DPC’s aspiration to

accommodate large cruise ships in Alexandra Basin West, whist

Options A1 and A2 have been retained and a new Option A6 proposed:

A1: Medium Level Opening Bridge across Dublin Port

A2: Cut and Cover Tunnel though Dublin Port

A6: Route the motorway at grade

9.4.4.6Section 3 of the 2014 Study proposes that development should

generally not be permitted within this protected corridor where it would

jeopardise the deliverability of the Eastern By-pass motorway. The

width of this protection corridor varies between 0.8km and c.1.5km from

N to SE along East Wall Road. The N section located along the W Port

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


boundary would extend into the ABR site by c.55m. This reservation

would include the proposed pedestrian entrance to the cruise ship

berths at the Point Roundabout, the Conservation Interpretative Zone

at the W end of North Wall Quay Extension and the two Conservation

Zones located at the boundary wall with East Wall Road. (Conservation

issues will be addressed in section 9.5 below)

9.4.4.7The NRA raised concerns that the main pedestrian access to the

proposed cruise berths at North Wall Quay Extension (in the vicinity of

the soon to be signalised Point Roundabout) conflicts with one of the

route options for the Eastern By-pass. The Authority requested that the

pedestrian access be amended so that pedestrians disembarking from

the cruise ships access the LUAS stop at a point to the N of the 3

Arena (Point Depot /02).

9.4.4.8It should be noted that the 2014 Study did not identify a preferred

scheme, but stated that each of the three options was technically

feasible and should be brought forward for comparison as part of the

formal Route Selection and EIS processes at a later date. I am satisfied

that the appropriate formal route selection will be subject to further

investigation and consultation with the relevant authorities. However,

given that the delivery of the Eastern By-pass is a long term objective, I

am satisfied that a temporary short term solution to providing

pedestrian access to the cruise berths could be agreed by the parties

which could be addressed by way of a planning condition.

9.4.4.9DPC should, nonetheless, be required to comply with the requirements

of the NRA’s Corridor Protection Study Sector A: Dublin Tunnel to

Sandymount Strand, September 2014.

Conclusions:

Having regard to all of the above, I am satisfied that the proposed ABR

project would be compatible with the long term objective to provide for

the future delivery of the Dublin Eastern By-pass.

9.4.5 Access to Alexandra Basin West:

Vehicular access:

9.4.5.1The proposed re-configuration of Alexandra Basin West, which

includes the closure of the two existing vehicular access points on to

East Wall Road, does not include any proposals to provide vehicular

access to the cruise ship berths at North Wall Quay Extension.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


DPC submitted an Indicative Layout for Terminal 4 (Drawing No.

IBH0362/0020 – Figure 4) to the Oral Hearing which shows an

indicative vehicular route. This route runs from the W side of Alexandra

Road (in the vicinity of the Port Offices), parallel to the western Port

boundary with East Wall Road, to North Wall Quay Extension. This

Indicative layout also illustrates the possible future location of parking

facilities for buses, taxis and other vehicles within the Port Estate. Any

final decision on the layout should be agreed with DCC. However, it

should be noted that the indicative vehicular route runs parallel to the

proposed Conservation Zone located along the W Port boundary and

that it would also be located within the c.0.55m wide reservation

identified in the NRA’s 2014 Corridor Protection Study for the Eastern

by-pass. This vehicular access issue could be addressed by way of a

planning condition which requires consultation and agreement with

DCC.

Pedestrian access:

9.4.5.2DPC proposes that the original Port entrance in the vicinity of the Point

Roundabout will be the dedicated route for pedestrians and cyclists

associated with the cruise liners until such time as the Eastern By-pass

is implemented. DPC submits that the traffic situation at the roundabout

will be alleviated by the removal of HGV U-turns and the future

signalisation of the junction by DCC. The DHA&G also indicated that

this route would eventually form part of a Heritage Trail along the

quays.

9.4.5.3As previously stated by DCC, work is progressing on plans for the

signalisation of the Point Roundabout including the provision of

pedestrian facilities. However the Council raised concerns that it would

not be appropriate to concentrate pedestrian/cyclist access at this

location until improved facilities are available. These concerns could be

addressed by a planning condition.

4.4.6 Conclusions:

Having regard to all of the above, I am satisfied that the vehicular

movement and access arrangements for this element of the overall

DPC Masterplan proposals for the Port Estate are acceptable, subject

to continued ongoing consultations with the NRA, NTA and DCC, and

compliance with planning conditions.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.5 Heritage


Context

Heritage features and proposed works

Discussion

9.5.1 Context:

9.5.1.1DPC state that the proposed ABR Project is required to future proof

Dublin Port by ensuring that it is accessible to larger shipping vessels,

including cruise ships, which will facilitate the continued viability of the

Port and the contribution it makes to the national and regional

economy. This would be achieved by reducing the length and depth of

North Wall Quay Extension, widening the entrance to Alexandra Basin

West, deepening the berths and fronting the remaining quay walls with

newer deeper structures within the Basin and along sections of the

Liffey channel.

9.5.2 Heritage features and proposed works:

9.5.2.1The proposed development would comprise substantial works in the

historic western section of the port including the demolition, partial

demolition and restoration of several heritage features at Alexandra

Basin West and North Wall Quay Extension, and the construction of

new quay walls in front of the existing quays.

9.5.2.2The Port is not located within a Conservation Area and none of the

features are Protected Structures. Although North Wall Quay to the W

is a Protected Structure (comprising granite ashlar quay walls, stone

setts, mooring rings, steps, bollards, lamp standards and machinery)

this designation does not extend to North Wall Quay Extension.

9.5.2.3However, the Port has considerable industrial heritage value and it

comprises a wealth of industrial, engineering and maritime features that

are of international, national and regional importance. These features

include 29 sites of interest in Alexandra Basin West and several

underwater sites of archaeological interest in the shipping channel.

Twelve of the 275 sites listed in the Dublin City Industrial Heritage

Record are located within the area.

9.5.2.4The engineering method used in the construction of North Wall Quay

Extension, which was started by Bindon Blood Stoney and completed

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


by Joseph Mallagh, is of international importance. Furthermore, the

Basin, River Liffey and the shipping channel may contain ship wreck

artefacts.

The main elements of the works are summarised in the following table.

Feature Proposed works

Alexandra Basin

To be dredged with potential exposure of a ship wreck

site.

North Wall Quay

Extension -

demolition

Partial demolition will remove the basin side and the

E-most section of the Quay which will result in the

removal of original Bindon Blood Stoney and Joseph

Mallagh construction blocks, and the relocation of the

East Wall Lighthouse.

North Wall Quay

Extension -

conservation

Dredging below the quay wall foundations will require

the insertion of a support wall; the quay will be

retained within a composite casing structure which will

leave several sections of the quay’s river façade

exposed; the conservation zones will retain original

quayside features including steps and rings;

Stoney blocks will be re-used to create an

interpretative feature to the W at the Port entrance.

North Wall

Lighthouse

To be relocated to new position at the Easternmost

end of reconfigured North Wall Quay Extension

(previously relocated in 1937)

Goods shed x 3 Potential demolition

Revenue Watch

House

Potential demolition

Graving Dock no.1 Reopen mid-19th century engineering structure as a

heritage feature

Graving Dock no.2 Infill mid-20th century engineering structure with blocks

of treated contaminated sediments

Pumphouse Restore

Poolbeg lighthouse Foundations to be reinforced

Shipping channel To be dredged with the potential exposure of several

ship wreck sites

9.5.2.5The proposed heritage works would also comprise the creation of a

number of interpretative and conservation zones at Alexandra Basin

West and North Wall Quay Extension. The DPC Conservation Strategy

includes 2 Interpretative Zones and several Conservation Zones.

Other heritage initiatives include the retention of the original entrance

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


gates and the retention and/or relocation of historic cranes to another

part of the Basin.

9.5.2.6The Interpretative Zones include the conservation of a c.55m length of

quay in its original state in the vicinity of the East Link Bridge along with

the creation of an Interpretative Pavilion using a reclaimed 350 tonne

mass concrete Bindon Blood Stoney block. These features would be

linked to the relocated East Wall Lighthouse by a central pathway along

North Wall Quay Extension, all of which would ultimately form part of a

wider Heritage Trail for the Quays.

9.5.2.7The Conservation Zones include the restoration of Graving Dock 1

which will be open to public access and the infill of Graving Dock 2

(which DPC submit will be reversible so as to ensure that there is no

long term loss of historic fabric) and the restoration of the original Port

boundary with East Wall Road. The Conservation Zones also include

the retention and exposure of 5 sections of the original quay wall along

the river side of North Wall Quay Extension including the original

Stoney steps and mooring rings in the W section. These sections will

be visible to the public when viewed from above along North Wall Quay

Extension and from the East Link Bridge to the W.

9.5.2.8The heritage elements of the ABR Project were informed by a number

of specialist studies submitted by the applicant. DPC submits that the

works will be carried out in accordance with international and national

best practice as articulated in the Joint ICOMOS – TICCIH Principles

for the Conservation of Industrial Heritage Sites 2011, the DoEH&LG

Architectural Heritage Guidelines, 2004, and the Dublin City

Development Plan 2011-2017.

9.5.2.9Section 14.3.1of the Architectural Heritage Guidelines, 2004 deals with

the identification of features of interest associated with harbours which

should be protected including quay walls, dry docks, piers, jetties and

associated buildings such as warehouses. Section 14.3.2 states that

protection could also extend to features such as cranes, other

machinery, bollards, lamp standards, chains, harbour lights,

navigational structures or buoys and other items which may or may not

be original to the construction of the harbour but which contribute to

the appreciation of the protected structure and should be retained.

Section 14.3.3 the Guidelines states that where it is necessary to infill a

harbour or dock the works should as far as practicable be reversible.

9.5.2.10Policy FC26 Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017seeks to

protect and conserve the city’s cultural and built heritage, Policy FC29

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


seeks to reinforce the character, cultural significance and tourism

potential of the historic areas in the city, Policy FC46 seeks to protect

and enhance the important civic design character of Dublin’s Quays,

and Policy FC68 seeks to implement the relevant recommendations of

the aforementioned Industrial Heritage Record.

9.5.3 Discussion

9.5.3.1From a practical perspective a number of small structures may have to

be demolished, the partial demolition of North Wall Quay Extension and

the relocation of the North Wall Lighthouse are necessary to enable

future access to the Basin by larger vessels to ensure the continued

viability of Dublin Port. Although the impacts will be direct, negative and

irreversible, I am satisfied, on balance, that the overall benefits to the

continued and future operation of Dublin Port will outweigh the dis-

benefits associated with the partial loss of industrial, engineering and

maritime heritage.

9.5.3.2The proposed conservation initiatives will provide a degree of

compensation for the loss of heritage as they will allow for the

retention, restoration and interpretation of several key features. The

proposed initiatives would be in accordance with Section 14.3.2 of the

Architectural Protection Guidelines, 2004 in relation to the protection of

harbour features and other items which contribute to the appreciation of

the area, irrespective of the absence of a protected structure

designation. The initiatives would also be compatible with Policies

FC26, FC29 and FC46 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017

in relation to conserving the city’s cultural and built heritage, reinforcing

the importance of historic areas, and protecting and enhancing the

important civic design character of Dublin’s Quays.

9.5.3.3Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that the NRA’s 2014

Corridor Protection Study for the Eastern By-pass identifies a

protection corridor that follows the line of East Wall Road from the

Dublin Tunnel to Poolbeg. The Study proposes a 55m reservation

within the W section of the Port which covers some of the proposed

conservation and interpretative zones including the Interpretative

Pavilion. It also includes the proposed pedestrian entrance to the

cruise ship berths via the original Port entrance gates; the 55m long

Conservation Interpretative Zone at the W end of North Wall Quay

Extension (including the Stoney steps) and the two Conservation

Zones located along the original western boundary wall.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.5.3.4The mid-19th Century and mid-20th Century Graving Docks are located

within an area designated as a conservation zone in the DPC

Masterplan 2012-2040. DPC propose to excavate and restore the mid-

19th Century Graving Dock 1 and infill the mid-20th Century Graving

Dock 2 with treated and stabilised contaminated material. This material

would be dredged from the Basin and converted into small cylindrical

concrete blocks at Berths 52/53. DPC submit that the infilling of

Graving Dock 2 will be reversible so as to ensure that there is no long

term loss of historic fabric.

9.5.3.5Section 14.3.3 of the Architectural Protection Guidelines, 2004 states

where it is necessary to infill a harbour or dock, the works should as far

as practicable be reversible; for example the use of loose fill would

allow for later re-instatement of the protected structure. Although both

Graving Docks are located within Masterplan conservation zone,

neither of the Graving Docks are designated protected structures and

the Guidelines are not strictly applicable in this instance.

9.5.3.6The DHA&G suggested the use of the Pump House as an

interpretative centre along with the concentration of all heritage

features in one location, however this was considered unworkable by

DPC due to access and security reasons. Several Observers raised

concerns about the effects of the works on the stability of the Quay

walls, sediment patterns in the Liffey on the W side of East Link Bridge,

and the stability of the Great South Wall. All of these concerns were

addressed by DPC during the course of the Oral Hearing. I am satisfied

that the stability of the Quay wall would not be undermined, that the

sediment regime W of the bridge will not be affected and that the

proposed rock amour works will not affect the integrity, character or

setting of the Recorded Monuments at the Great South Wall to the E of

the Port.

9.5.3.7It should be note that one of the heritage benefits of the alternative

options proposed by Dublin Graving Docks Limited and Dun Laoghaire

Harbour Company (see section 9.3 and 9.4 above) would be the

retention of North Wall Quay Extension in its entirety.

9.5.3.8In relation to underwater archaeology, it should be noted that the

DHA&G is satisfied with the proposed development subject to the

implementation of the EIS mitigation measures and the attachment of

planning conditions related to archaeological monitoring and recording.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.5.4 Conclusions:

The proposed development would have a permanent adverse impact

on the historic character of Dublin Port and it has the potential to

expose buried ship wreck artefacts. Although the dis-benefits would be

compensated for by the implementation of the heritage measures

outlined in the Conservation Strategy, it is noted that the long term

retention of some of these features could be affected by the final

decision on a route for the Eastern Bypass. Notwithstanding this

concern, and having regard to the national and strategic importance of

Dublin Port, the proposed development is considered acceptable,

subject to the full implementation of the EIS mitigation measures and

the attachment of planning conditions related monitoring and recording.

9.6 Noise and vibration, air quality and climate, and water quality


Engineering works

Dredging

Noise and vibration

Air quality and climate

Water quality

It should be noted that issues related to Ecology will be addressed in

section 9.9 of this report.

The proposed works would comprise two main elements which are

anticipated to take between 6 to10 years:

Engineering works to facilitate:

o The creation of deeper berths (-10mCD),

o The enclosure of Berths 52/53 and creation of new berths, and

o The construction of a marine protection wall at Poolbeg Marina.

Dredging of Alexandra Basin West, berthing pockets and the

shipping channel for a distance of c.10km to a depth of -10mCD.

9.6.1 Civil engineering works:

9.6.1.1The proposed civil engineering works would include the partial

demolition of North Wall Quay Extension to reduce its length (from

c.720m to c.567m) and width (from c.75m to 45m); removal of

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


stockpile; dismantling the lead-in and bulk jetties; relocating linkspans

and ramps; re-fronting the quay walls; and the reconfiguration of the

existing berths within Alexandra Basin West; along with the demolition

of several small structures and the relocation of North Wall Lighthouse.

The works would also include the infilling of in Berths 52/53, re-fronting

of quay walls and the creation of new riverside berths; and the

construction of a marine protection wall at the Poolbeg Marina which is

located opposite the entrance to Alexandra Basin West on the S side of

the River Liffey. The Port will remain operational during the civil

engineering works which are expected to take c.4 years to complete

and phasing details are contained in the EIS and Draft High Level

Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP).

9.6.1.2The proposed works will result in the construction of c.3, 185m of new

quay walls (many of which will be attached to existing quay walls)

which will require the installation of c.2376 piles. There will be 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. The construction works are summarised in

the following table:

Location Combined

length

Total no.

of piles

Type of piling

No. of rigs

Alexandra

Basin West

1616m 521 Combi-wall with tubular

piles

1 per section;

5 in total

North Wall

Quay


piles

2

Marina Wall 220m 74 Combi-wall with tubular

piles

1

Berths 49,

52 & 53


piles; cellular walls with

straight web sheet piles

1 per section

2 for Berths

52/53; 4 in

total

Totals 3185m 2376 12

The number of piling rigs that will be active at any one time throughout

will vary throughout the construction period, with initially one rig being

active (October 2015) reaching a maximum of 5 in (January 2018)

working simultaneously at the following locations:

Berths 52 (2 x rigs)

North Wall Quay extension (2 x rigs)

Marina wall ( 1 x rig)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.6.1.3The exact piling details have yet to be finalised although it is known

that the piles will probably comprise tubular pile combi walls (diameter

1.6m) and HZM king pile walls. Although this is subject to change when

works commence it was confirmed at the Oral Hearing that the

diameter of the piles would not increase. The piles will be driven by a

combination of vibratory and impact hammer techniques with ramp-up

procedures. There will be a certain degree of cross-over between

construction activities most of which will not take place at the same

time.

9.6.2 Dredging:

9.6.2.1Alexandra Basin West and the shipping channel will be dredged to a

depth of -10mCD for a distance of c.10km from a point just E of the

East Link Bridge to the Dublin Bay Buoy. The rate of dredging in the

main channel will be determined by the capacity of the dump site to the

W of the Burford Bank to accommodate dredged material, and the

length of the dredging season, which is 6 months during the winter.

Dredging is expected to take c.6 years (up to a maximum of 10 years),

given favourable conditions and the prior completion of the demolition

and construction works at North Wall Quay and the Marina Wall. The

dredging of Alexandra Basin West is dependent on the closing of

Berths 52/53 and the requirement to have sufficient re-fronted quay

wall established to facilitate the dredged depth.

9.6.3 Noise and vibration:

9.6.3.1The ABR Project would be located within the country’s largest and

busiest working port and it is anticipated that noise and vibration from

the proposed demolition, construction and dredging activities will not

escalate above background noise levels to any significant extent.

9.6.3.2DCC had no objection to the proposed development but requested

clarification in relation to several matters which was provided by DPC.

DCC also highlighted the need for on-going noise monitoring during the

construction and operational phases either at the noise monitoring

locations or noise prediction locations in order to confirm the projected

noise impacts of the works. DCC requested that these monitoring

results should be presented to the Council periodically, and this was

agreed to by DPC and could be affirmed by way of condition. DCC also

requested that potential noise impact zones should be mapped in

relation to the European Site boundaries, which could also be

addressed by way of condition. (Ecological issues area addressed in

section 9.9 below).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.6.3.3Several of the Observers raised concerns in relation to the adverse

impacts of noise and vibration from construction, demolition and

dredging activities on residential amenity, cumulative impacts as a

result of ongoing Port activities, and a noise contour map and strategic

noise management plan were suggested.

9.6.3.4The EIS contains a detailed appraisal of worst case construction phase

activities including demolition and pile driving. According to the models,

although noise will be audible along Pigeon House Road to the S the

levels will be lower than the noise threshold limits in the 2004 NRA

Guidelines and BS5228:2009, predicted noise levels will be below

existing ambient noise levels at all of the nearest noise sensitive

locations and below or similar to existing background noise levels. DPC

confirmed that the demolition and construction activities will operate

between 08.00 and 18.00 in the vicinity of residential properties, which

is broadly acceptable. In relation to vibration, the main sources would

also be from piling, demolition and dredging.

9.6.3.5It should be noted that demolition and piling activity at North Wall Quay

Extension will be over 70m away from the 3 Arena to the W; piling

activity at Poolbeg Marina will be over 120m from Pigeon House Road

to the SE; and that piling activity at Berths 52/53 will be over 1km from

the nearest residential area at Clontarf to the N. Most of the dredging

will take place in the shipping channel which is well removed from any

residential areas which is acceptable. However dredging in the W

section of the Liffey Channel in the vicinity of Pidgeon House Road

should be restricted to normal construction related hours of operation to

protect the night time amenities of local residents.

9.6.3.6Having regard to all of the above, including the location of the proposed

development within a busy working port, and the separation distances

between the proposed activities and the nearest residential areas, I am

satisfied that there will be no significant adverse effects from noise and

vibration on the surrounding area as a result of the proposed

demolition, construction and dredging activities, subject to conditions.

9.6.3.7It should be note that one of the environmental benefits of the

alternative option proposed by Dublin Graving Docks Limited and Dun

Laoghaire Harbour Company (see sections 9.3 9.4 above), in relation

to the retention of North Wall Quay Extension in its entirety, would be a

reduction in demolition noise however there would be an increase in

pile driving noise as the entire quay would have to be re-fronted.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


Other sources of noise and vibration:

9.6.3.8In relation to operational noise, potential impacts would be related to

the addition of new, and the relocation of existing plant equipment.

However, having regard to the existing character of the Port, I am

satisfied that the proposed changes to the locations of several ramps

and jetties in Alexandra Basin West and Berths 52/53 will not result in a

significant increase in noise levels at the nearest residential area or

other noise sensitive receptor.

9.6.3.9In relation to noise from shipping vessel movements, the Dublin Port

Masterplan anticipates that the number of Ro-Ro ships will ultimately

double from c.5, 000 in 2014 to c.9, 500 in 2040 (from 14 to 27 per

day), that the number of Lo-Lo ships will stay the same and that the

number of cruise ship visits will increase from 87 to c.160. Although

vessel size is also expected to increase, DPC submit that this will not

give rise to a corresponding increase in noise from vessel turning

movements because of more environmentally sustainable design

improvements and that there is no direct relationship between noise

and vessel size. Most night-time port activities occur in the container

area at Ocean Pier where there will be no significant increase in

activity. I am satisfied that noise levels will not exceed existing ambient

and background noise levels in the Port, subject to curbs being placed

on the night time use of a ships fog horn in the interest of residential

amenity.

9.6.3.10DPC’s traffic appraisal predicts a marginal increase in traffic flows

along Sheriff Street, North Wall Quay and Pigeon House Road with a

larger increase at the Dublin Tunnel and along Promenade Road in

2018, 2023 and 2040. Although there would be a corresponding

increases in traffic noise, having regard to the character of the

surrounding area in which the largest increase would occur, and which

is dominated by port related activities, I am satisfied that there would

be no significant traffic noise related impact on any residential or noise

sensitive receptors as a result of the ABR project.

Conclusions:

Noise and vibration arising for the demolition, construction and

dredging activities along with noise from port operations, shipping

movements and traffic generation, will not have an adverse effect on

the amenities of nearby residential areas. This is subject to compliance

with the EIS mitigation measures and conditions related to noise

monitoring, control and the management of construction related

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


activities. Noise and vibration arising from shipping, port related

activities and associate traffic movements will not give rise to any

significant noise impacts.

9.6.4 Air Quality and climate:

9.6.4.1The ABR Project would be located within a busy working port and the

surrounding area is characterised by industrial uses including electricity

generating stations, a wastewater treatment plant, several Seveso II

sites and a permitted waste treatment facility. The main existing

sources of atmospheric emissions in the vicinity of the Port are related

to road traffic, shipping vessels and industrial processes.

9.6.4.2There are a number of sensitive receptors located within a 2km radius

of the ARP project including residential areas at Pigeon House Road,

York Road and Pembroke Cottages to the S; commercial areas

including the 3 Arena, the Gibson Hotel and offices to the W; residential

areas at Clontarf to the N; and amenity areas to the N and S at the Bull

Island, Sandymount Strand and Ringsend Park; as well as several

ecological areas to the N, S and E.

9.6.4.3The main source of emissions from the proposed ABR project would be

from road traffic during the construction phase; dust from demolition,

construction and treatment activities; odours from dredging Alexandra

Basin West including hydrogen sulphide which, according to DPC, was

not encountered in previous dredging campaigns but may be present in

deeper sediments; combustion gases including carbon monoxide,

sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide; particulate matter; heavy metals

including arsenic, lead, cadmium and nickel from dredging the Basin;

and emissions from the treatment of contaminated sentiments at Berths

52/53; along with emissions from road traffic and shipping vessels

during the operational phase; and greenhouse gas emissions from

removal of organic material.

9.6.4.4The EIS predicts that the proposed development will not have any

significant adverse impact on air quality in the long term subject to the

implementation of a series of mitigation measures and compliance with

all relevant EU, UK and national environmental standards. The

mitigation measures contained in the Draft Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP) include a Dust Minimisation Plan, which will

include measures to keep roads clean; an Odour Management Plan to

mitigate the potential for odours from dredging operations; a Dredge

Management Plan to manage the dredging campaign; and a Traffic

Management Plan to minimise congestion and queuing as a means of

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


minimising greenhouse gas emissions. DPC also anticipate the use of

construction materials with a reduced environmental impact.

Conclusion:

Having regard to all of the above and to the location of the proposed

development within a busy working port which is surrounded by

existing heavy industrial uses, I am satisfied that the proposed ABR

project would not have any long term significant effects on air quality

and climate. This subject to compliance with relevant environmental

standards, the implementation of the EIS mitigation measures, and

compliance with any conditions attached to other licences and permits.

9.6.5 Water quality

9.6.5.1Dublin Port is located within the Liffey Estuary Lower and Dublin Bay

water bodies. According to DPC, the overall WFD status of the water

bodies is classified as moderate, the tropic status is unpolluted,

dissolved oxygen levels are satisfactory and capable of supporting

most forms of aquatic life, the level of oxygen demand is acceptable,

and the designated bathing areas in the vicinity of the proposed works

are compliant with bathing water quality standards. The main potential

source of impacts to water quality relate to the construction, dredging

and operational phases.

9.6.5.2Several construction phase activities have the potential to cause

temporary impacts. These include pollution from mobilised suspended

sediment during dredging and deposition of spoil; sedimentation due to

settling of suspended silt; the dispersal and fate of contaminated

sediments; and impacts associated with works machinery,

infrastructure and on-land operations have the potential to cause

temporary impacts.

9.6.5.3The EIS concluded that there will be no significant impact on the

sediment transport regime within Dublin Bay and estuary as a result of

the capital dredging scheme (refer to section 9.8 below) and the

dredging will not have an adverse effect on the existing morphology of

the Liffey Estuary Lower or Dublin Bay water bodies.

9.6.5.4Potential impacts during the operational phase are associated with

normal and the anticipated growth in port operations. These include

discharges from vessels, cargo handling and cargo storage areas and

onward transportation, all of which can be addressed by way of

adherence to Dublin Port management practices.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.6.5.5All of the activities associated with the construction and dredging have

the potential to impact on water quality and associated species and

habitats (refer to section 9.9 below). These activities will require

construction phase mitigation measures including compliance with

construction techniques and timing and phasing of works set out in the

EIS. The Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

contains a Waste Management Plan, a Contamination Strategy and a

Water Quality Management Plan.

9.6.5.6The operational phase mitigation measures include compliance with

the Port’s existing Environmental Management Plan which requires that

no waste should be disposed of at sea, the correct treatment of ballast

water and tanks, and appropriate storage of hazardous wastes, oil,

chemicals and waste.

Conclusions:

Having regard to all of the above and to the location of the proposed

development within an existing busy working port, I am satisfied that

the proposed ABR project would not have any long term significant

effects on water quality in the Lower Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay

water bodies subject to compliance with relevant environmental

standards, the implementation of the EIS mitigation measures, and

compliance with any conditions attached to other licences and permits.

9.6.7 Conclusions:

The proposed development, which would comprise substantial civil

engineering works, dredging operations and operational changes within

Dublin Port, has the potential to affect the quality of the surrounding

environment by way of noise, vibration, dust, odours, release of

contaminants, turbidity and general disturbance. However, having to

the location of the proposed development within an existing busy

working port, I am satisfied that the proposed ABR project would not

have any long term significant effects on the surrounding area. This is

subject to compliance with relevant environmental standards, the

implementation of the EIS mitigation measures, adherence to the

finalised High Level High Level CEMP and compliance with conditions

attached to any other licences and permits.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.7 Dredging and contamination


Dredging

Contamination

Treatment of heavily contaminated sediments

Disposal of moderately contaminated sediments

It should be noted that the proposed dredging, treatment and disposal

operations will require licences and/or permits from the DoEHLG and

EPA.

The Board should also refer to the report prepared by Dr Tony Cawley,

Consultant Hydrologist, who provided advice in relation to these issues

which is attached to this report.

In relation to non-contaminated sediments, it should be noted that the

potential effects of dredging and dredge disposal at sea on coastal

processes and ecology will be addressed in section 9.8 and section 9.9

of this report.

9.7.1 Dredging

9.7.1.1The proposed ABR project will entail substantial dredging of Alexandra

Basin West, the Liffey Channel, the berthing pockets and the shipping

channel for a distance of c.10km to within the vicinity of the Dublin Bay

Buoy, with a small incursion into a European Site. A total of 6,

370,000m3 of sediments will be dredged over a period of between 6 to

10 years. The proposed dredging will take place for 6 months every

year (October to March), it is anticipated that c.one sixth of the channel

will be dredged per year and that the process will operate from E to W.

The quantities of sediment to be dredged is summarised in the

following table:

Alexandra Basin West Liffey Channel Approach channel

470,000m3 500,000m3 5, 400,000m3

9.7.1.2The depth of the channel will be increased from c.-7.8.mCD to c.-

10mCD as a result of the dredging campaign. The section of channel

located between in the North and South Bull Walls will be realigned and

straightened to allow for a two-way flow of shipping traffic. Although the

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


DPC Masterplan contains a development option to provide a large

turning area for ships in the channel to the E of Berths 52/53, this has

not been included in the currently proposed dredging operation.

9.7.1.3DPC states that the dredging works are required ensure future access

to the Port by larger shipping vessels over the DPC Masterplan period

and beyond. The existing channel depth of -7.8mCD can accommodate

vessels with a maximum draught of 10.2m during Neap tides and 7.5m

during Spring tides. The proposed channel depth of -10mCD would be

able to accommodate ships with a maximum draught of 12.2m during

Neap tides and 9.7m during Spring tides.

9.7.1.4According to the DPC Masterplan, the Port will handle up to 60 million

tonnes per annum by 2040 with an average growth rate of 2.5%. Most

of this growth will occur in the Ro-Ro sector (3.2%) with a modest

amount of growth in Lo-Lo (1.7%) and bulk (1.9%) while cruise ships

calls are predicted to significantly increase over the entire Masterplan

period.

9.7.1.5The ABR project comprises c. one third of the overall development

envisaged by the DPC Masterplan and the proposed works at

Alexandra Basin West will cater for future increases in ship size and

more frequent cruise calls. The proposed works at in the vicinity of

Berths 52/53 will provide some additional Ro-Ro capacity. However the

DPC Masterplan anticipates that most of the predicted future growth in

Ro-Ro operations would be accommodated by way of a reclamation

project to the E of the Port at some stage in the future (subject to

planning approval).

9.7.1.6DPC have included the entire capital dredging programme as part of

the current application as the proposed works will serve both current

and future development proposals in the Port, as well as providing

access to shipping vessels of ever increasing size.

9.7.2 Contamination

9.7.2.1The sediments in Alexandra Basin West are contaminated with heavy

metals. According to DPC this legacy contamination has prevented

maintenance dredging of this part of the Port which has led to siltation

in the vicinity. The proposed ABR project will provide for the

excavation and removal of this material for treatment and the treated

material will be reused to infill Graving Dock no.2 and Berths 52/53.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.7.2.2The sediments in the section of the Liffey channel adjacent to

Alexandra Basin West at the entrance to the Basin are classified as

having slight to moderate contamination levels. DPC proposes to

dispose of these sediments at sea in the licenced dump site to the W of

the Burford Bank. The sediments will be capped by gravel to prevent

the re-dispersion of contaminated material in a similar manner to

previous maintenance dredging campaigns.

9.7.2.3The uncontaminated sediments dredged from the remainder of the

Liffey channel and the shipping channel will also be disposed of at the

dump site to the W of the Burford Bank. The coastal process models

predict that the finer sediments will be rapidly dispersed into the wider

Irish Sea by strong N-S currents while the heavier sands will remain at

the dump site until they get dispersed within Dublin Bay under storm

conditions (these issues are addressed in more detail in section 9.8

below).

9.7.2.4In relation to dredging and dredge disposal at the dump site, it should

be noted that DPC will have to apply for Foreshore Consent (under the

Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment Act) 2009) from the

DoEC&LG and a Dumping at Sea Permit from the EPA.

The quantity of sediment, the level of contamination and the fate of

dredged sediment are summarised in the following table:

Location Dredge

quantity

Level of

contamination

Sediment fate

Alexandra Basin

West

470, 000m3 Heavy Treat and reuse as infill

Liffey channel

adjacent to Basin

500,000m3 Slight to

moderate

Dispose of at sea in

dump site and cap

Liffey & approach

cannel

5,400,000m3 Clean Dispose of at sea in

dump site

Treatment of heavily contaminated sediments:

9.7.2.5The sediments in Alexandra Basin West are not suitable for disposal at

sea as they exceed the upper level environmental guidance

parameters for heavy metals including nickel, lead, zinc, cadmium,

arsenic, copper, chromium and mercury. Furthermore, the Basin

sediments do not meet the acceptance criteria for inert waste and

treatment is therefore required prior to their use as fill in Berths 52/53

and Graving Dock 2.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.7.2.6Dredging will be undertaken using a floating pontoon with an excavator

mounted clamshell bucket. This system has been adapted for

environmental dredging and it is designed to minimise disturbance and

escape of material at the seabed and during removal through the water

column. The dredger will be surrounded by a silt curtain and dredging

will not be seasonally dependent as the potential spread of

contaminated sediments will be prevented by the use of the silt curtain

and the enclosed nature of the Basin.

9.7.2.7The c.470, 000m3 of contaminated sediments will be transported by

barge from the Basin to a treatment facility at Berths 52/53. The

proposed remediation process will comprise the use of Stabilisation/

Solidification (S/S) technology to reduce the mobility of contaminants

by chemically binding them after the sediments have been screened

and dewatered. DPC submit that this process has been successfully

undertaken in similar harbour related projects in the UK and Europe.

9.7.2.8Dredging and treatment will be carried out at a rate of c.1, 000m3 per

day over an 18 month period and the rate of dredging will be

determined by the rate of treatment so that stockpiling will not occur.

Wastewater will be treated and held in a settlement lagoon/tank. The

mobilised sediments will batched into small cylindrical “concrete” blocks

for re-use as infill at Berths 52/53 and Graving Dock 2 and it is

proposed to raise the existing surface levels at Berths 52/53 to

c.7.1mCD over an area of c.95, 000m3. The volume of material

required to infill these areas is summarised in the following table.

Receptor Volume

Berths 52/53 519,000m3

Graving Dock 2 55,000m3

Total capacity 574,000m3

9.7.2.9Several of the Observers raised concerns in relation to the pollution

effects of the proposed works in relation to dredging, transport,

treatment and re-use, on water quality, the River Liffey and the wider

marine environment.

9.7.2.10In relation to the construction phase, the proposed sediment dredging,

transfer and treatment operations, water quality in the Basin and the

Liffey channel could be affected by pollution from suspended

contaminated sediments. This could arise as a result of leaks and

accidental spills from the dredger and barges and from the transfer of

material to the treatment facility at Berths 52/53. In relation to the

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


operational phase, the main concern relates to the potential leaching of

contaminants from sediments used as fill material in Graving Dock.

The EPA stated that DPC must apply for an Industrial Emissions

Licence for the treatment of contaminated dredge spoil from the Basin

and the deposit of the treated material as infill at Berths 52/53 and

Graving Dock 2. However, according to the EPA, the dredging of the

Basin and the transport of dredged material to the proposed treatment

facility at Berths 52/53 do not require authorisation from the Agency.

9.7.2.11Class 11.2 of the First Schedule of the EPA Act 1992, as amended

provides for the disposal or recovery of hazardous waste with a

capacity exceeding 10 tonnes per day. According to the EPA, it may be

that some of the excavated dredge spoil will be classified as hazardous

waste, and if hazardous spoil is mixed with non-hazardous spoil, then

the entire mixture will be classified as hazardous waste. If DPC

demonstrates that the dredge spoil is not hazardous waste or the

capacity of the treatment plant is less than 10 tonnes per day, then an

Industrial Emissions Licence will not be required but that a Waste

Licence will be required.

9.7.2.12The EPA confirmed that the treatment process will need to be

contained and mitigation measures are required to ensure that that

there are no uncontrolled emissions to ground, air and water, that the

leaching of contaminates from the treated material should be controlled

by way of the leaching limit values contained in any licence granted by

the EPA. Any licence application to the EPA will be subject to an

Environmental Impact Assessment and all matters to do with emissions

to the environment from the proposed activities come within the remit of

the EPA.

9.7.2.13The EIS mitigation measures require adherence to best practice

construction techniques and the timing of works, compliance with

relevant guidelines, consultation with relevant stakeholders, and the

preparation of a construction monitoring programme would also reduce

the risk of leaks and accidental spills. The strict implementation of the

mitigation measures and on-going compliance with monitoring

requirements will ensure the protection of surface and ground water

quality.

9.7.2.14DPC carried out a risk assessment as part of the Draft Dredging

Management Plan, which forms part of the Draft High level CEMP that

identified incidents from dredging and disposal operations that could

pose a potential hazard to the environment. The Risk Analysis

examined (and rated) the consequence and likelihood of occurrence of

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


hazards and the subsequent risk evaluation was used to inform the

Risk Matrix.

No high level risks requiring priority attention were identified.

Ten low-level risks with moderate consequences were identified

which indicates a need for continuing awareness and monitoring

on a regular basis, including a breach in the silt curtain,

overtopping of barges, poorly controlled release of material from

barges at the treatment facility and collisions.

Three risks with medium to high level risk requiring action were

identified and these pre-mitigation risks are summarised in the

following table:

Process Potential risk Likeli-hood

of risk

Level of

risk

Level of

consequence

Dredging Ship collision with

dredge vessel

Low Medium to

high

Major

Dredging Major spillage from

dredge vessel

Low Medium to

high

Major

Transport Ship collision with

dredge barge

Low Medium to

high

Major

Following the implementation of mitigation measures the 3 medium to

high level risks move into the low level likelihood of risk category with

moderate to major consequences. These are summarised in the

following table:

Potential risk Mitigation measures Level of

risk

Level of

consequence

Ship collision with

dredge vessel

Notices, warnings,

monitoring & emergency

response plans

Very low Major

Major spillage from

dredge vessel

Emergency response

plans

Very low Moderate

Ship collision with

dredge barge

Notices, warnings,

monitoring & emergency

response plans

Very low Major

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


Disposal of moderately contaminated sediments at sea:

9.7.2.15The sediments in the section of the Liffey channel adjacent to the

Basin entrance have slight to moderate levels of contamination. It is

proposed to dispose of this material at sea in the licenced dump site to

the W of the Burford Bank. DPC state that this would be undertaken at

slack tide and that the sediments would be immediately capped to

prevent their re-suspension into the water column and dispersal

throughout Dublin Bay.

9.7.2.16The dump site is located outside the application site boundary and

DPC will require a Dumping at Sea Permit from the EPA, the relevant

consent authority. Notwithstanding this, the Board should be satisfied

that any works undertaken inside the site boundary (including the

transfer and disposal of material outside the site boundary) when

assessed in-combination with other associated works in the

surrounding area, do not have an adverse effect on the environment,

and in particular the European sites located to the N, S and E of the

proposed development.

9.7.2.17In relation to the sampling information provided in the EIS, DPC was

requested to comment on the relatively small number of sediment

cores provided for the Liffey Navigation channel; the accuracy of the

contamination classification and how the delineation of

slightly/moderately contaminated sediments from sediments suitable

for disposal was arrived at, and how representative the cores are with

respect to capital dredge depth, given that the channel will be dredged

to a depth of -10mCD.

9.7.2.18DPC stated that they had regard to several previous studies

undertaken within the Port; the Marine Institute was consulted with

regard to the assessment of the suitability of sediments for disposal at

sea; sampling and vibro-core locations for the basin, navigation

channel and fairway were agreed with the Marine Institute in advance

of the site investigation works who advised on both the locations and

testing regime; and a line delineating the boundary between

slightly/moderately contaminated material and material suitable for sea

disposal was developed.

9.7.2.19DPC was also requested to consider alternative treatment options for

the slight to moderately polluted sediments and to provide details of a

monitoring program that should be carried out to identify such

sediments prior to dredging. DPC stated that the costs associated with

land filling and/or export would be prohibitive given the large volume of

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


material in combination with the associated energy costs. The

Company also confirmed that there is no further spare capacity in

Berths 52/53 or Graving Dock 2 to accommodate any additional treated

material.

9.7.2.20Several of the Observers raised concerns in relation to the adverse

effects of depositing slight to moderately contaminated sediments at

sea and within a European site. Some of the Observers suggested that,

if remediated, the slight to moderately contaminated sediments would

be a valuable economic resource which could be used infrastructure

projects. DPC stated at the oral hearing that, in accordance with its

current EPA Dumping at Sea Permit, the Company is already permitted

to dredge slight to moderately contaminated sediments from the

navigation channel and dispose of these sediments at the Burford Bank

subject to specific conditions. The conditions include dumping during

certain tidal conditions and capping the material a layer of clean coarse

uncontaminated material.

9.7.2.21Dr Cawley continued to have concerns that the number of samples

collected from the Liffey channel is too sparse to allow an accurate

determination of the dredge area sediments that can be classified as

moderately, slightly and uncontaminated and that further sampling was

required. However this is considered a matter for the EPA and the

DoEC&LG when assessing any new Dumping at Sea and Foreshore

applications.

9.7.3 Conclusions:


dredging, treatment and reuse of heavily contaminated sediments from

Alexandra Basin West will not have an adverse effect on the

environment subject to the strict implementation of mitigation

measures, compliance with planning conditions and the terms and

conditions attached to any other licences and permits.

The proposed disposal of slight to moderately contaminated material at

the dump site to the W of the Burford Bank will require an EPA Permit.

The EPA, as the consent authority, will assess the environmental

ecological impacts of the proposed disposal works and set appropriate

conditions.

I am satisfied, on the basis of the information provided, and subject to

compliance with the mitigation measures, planning conditions and the

terms and conditions attached to any licences and permits, that there

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


will not be any significant in-combination impacts arising from the

proposed development and the subsequent treatment and disposal of

dredged sediments in the wider Dublin Bay area.

9.8 Coastal processes, hydrodynamics and flood risk

9.8.1 The Board should refer to the report prepared by Dr Tony Cawley,

Consultant Hydrologist, which is attached to this report. Dr Cawley

provided advice on the quality of the data and the effectiveness of the

Coastal Processes and related models along with the adequacy of the

simulations and predictions contained in the EIS in relation to:

Hydrological impacts

Dredge material and disposal

Coastal process modelling

Flood risk assessment (and climate change)

Dr Cawley was generally satisfied with the quality of the data collected,

the modelling techniques, simulation exercises and predicted

outcomes, and the main conclusions and recommendations are

summarised below.

9.8.2 Overview of models:

The sediment transport models and modelling approach used to

evaluate the dredging operation within the Liffey Channel area, the sea

disposal at the licenced disposal site near the Burford Bank and the

morphological modelling of the sea bed evolution within Dublin Bay are

considered fit for purpose and meet normal Irish and International

practice for such assessments. The main conclusions are as follows

Flood Risk Assessment:

The proposed development is appropriate development for the

flood risk zones identified.

The flood risk to the development is primarily tidal but potentially

compounded by wave climate.

The proposed Quay levels are located above the 200 year with

sufficient freeboard to account for climate change and potential

local wind and sea waves propagating up the Liffey in combination

with storm tides.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


The site is accessible under 200 and 1000 year flood conditions.

The development is unlikely to materially impact flood risk in the

neighbouring areas of Clontarf and the south Quays.

The proposed development will significantly replace lands in Flood

zones A and B with raised grounds having elevations above the

estimated 1000year flood level (using treated contaminated

sediments)

The flood risk assessment includes the recommended current Irish

practice for Climate Change allowance.

The flood risk assessment meets the requirements of the Flood

Risk Management Planning Guidelines in terms of suitability,

impact and residual flood risk.

Dredging operations:

The simulation results for dredging operations within the inner Liffey

Channel indicate the potential for high sustained suspended solids

spreading across the entire Liffey channel width with concentrations in

excess of 50mg/l. Dredging in the middle and outer channel section

are shown to produce lower sustained concentrations of less than

20mg/l

Sediment deposition:

The simulations show that deposition rates outside of the channel

dredge area as a result of the capital dredging operation will be

insignificant.

To lessen the suspended solids concentration in the inner Liffey It

is recommended that over-spilling at the surface of the dredger is

avoided for all dredging activities within the inner Liffey channel

section. This will significantly reduce the potential suspended

sediment from the dredging operation. It is recommended that

outside of the immediate dredging zone that the increase in

suspended sediment concentration over the ambient does not

exceed a maximum of 50mg/l. This could be addressed by way of

a planning condition.

The sediment transport simulations of the Burford Bank disposal

site show that the silt fraction deposited at the site will be dispersed

widely by tidal flows whereas and a large portion of the fine sand

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


fraction will remain in-situ under tidal flows and is only removed by

storm waves conditions with the dominant wave direction from the

S and SE. Under such a transport mechanism the sand is likely to

remain in Dublin Bay and likely to re-join the natural sediment

budget within the bay.

The simulations indicate no depositional hot spots that will end up

receiving significant amounts of sediment from the disposal site.

The depositional impact on the reef habitat within the Rockabill to

Dalkey Island cSAC and the Lambay Island cSAC based on

modelling results is considered to represent a slight to

imperceptible impact and transitory in nature given the exposure of

the reef areas to wave climate and tidal currents.

Morphological assessment of the navigation channel:

The proposed new channel will not result in any significant change

in the morphological response of the sea bed in Dublin Bay outside

of the channel area.

Similar to the existing case there will be a tendency for deposition

towards the northern side of the channel and erosion to the S side.

The simulation output for the E and SE storm directions indicate an

increase in deposition within the approach channel near the Bull

wall entrance under the proposed capital dredge case. Given the

localised nature of this increase it is unlikely that magnitude of

future maintenance dredging will be significantly increased.

The new channel will require maintenance dredging of a slightly

higher magnitude to that required with the existing channel

9.9 Ecology


European sites and protected species

Terrestrial ecology

Benthic communities

Fisheries

Marine mammals

Birds

Other areas

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.9.1 European sites and protected species

9.9.1.1The ABR project would be located adjacent to several European Sites

and the proposed channel dredging would extend into a small section

of the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC. Most of the dredged material

would be disposed of at a licenced dump site to the W of the Burford

Bank within the same European Site. Dublin Bay is of international

importance for birds, particularly wintering waterfowl, and it contains

many protected species of plants, birds and marine mammals. Sections

of the Bay are also covered by other environmentally sensitive

designation including NHAs and Ramsar sites along with a Biosphere

at North Bull Island, which is also subject to a DCC Special Area

Amenity Order. The River Liffey is a designated Conservation Area in

the Dublin City Development Plan, and it is an important Salmonid

system which also supports migratory sea trout, lamprey and eels.

Several of the Port buildings are potential bat roosts for this protected

species.

9.9.1.2It should be noted that the dump site lies outside the application site

boundary and DPC will require a Foreshore Licence and a Dumping at

Sea Permit for dredging and dredge disposal operations. However as

stated in previous sections of this report, the Board should be satisfied

that any works undertaken inside the site boundary, when assessed in-

combination with other associated works in the surrounding area,

would not have an adverse effect on the environment or the integrity of

any European sites. This is of particular relevance to the SPAs and

cSACs located to the N, S and E of the proposed works which could be

affected by the re-suspension, dispersal and deposition of sediments

from the dump site.

9.9.1.3There are numerous European Sites located within a 15km radius of

the proposed works and the following 5 sites are potentially at risk from

the proposed construction, development and operational works:

North Dublin Bay cSAC (Site code: 0206)

South Dublin Bay cSAC (Site code: 0210)

Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC (Site code: 3000)

North Bull Island SPA (Site code: 4006)

South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA (Site code: 4024)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.9.2 Terrestrial ecology

9.9.2.1The proposed ABR project will comprise the demolition of several

structures, ramps and jetties located at Alexandra Basin West; the

partial demolition of North Wall Quay Extension and the relocation of

North Wall Lighthouse; the excavation of Graving Dock 1 and the infill

of Graving Dock 2; the reconfiguration of quay side berths; and the

infilling of Berths 52/53. None of these proposed works would be

located within a European Site however it is possible that several

protected species could be present in the area.

9.9.2.2DPC carried out surveys for badgers, otters and bats in addition to an

extended Phase 1 Habitat Study of Alexandra Basin West and Berths

52/53 in May 2013 to identify any of the following ecological features:

Plant habitats

Invasive flora and fauna

Invertebrates

Protected amphibians (smooth newt and common frog)

Protected reptiles (Common lizard)

The DPC desk top and field studies indicated that:

There was no evidence of badgers, otters, invertebrates, protected

amphibians, protected reptiles or invasive flora and fauna.

The North Wall Quay lighthouse and the building associated with

the Tara Mines conveyor had minimal bat roost potential as the

foraging potential of the site is low.

Four other structures proposed for demolition at the P&O site

revealed no evidence of bat activity, however the Automated

Passive Monitoring survey recorded two species of bat (Common

pipistrelle and Leisler’s bat) which, according to DPC, were

probably foraging but not roosting.

Nothing of further note was recorded at the Basin or Berths 52/53.

DPC concluded that the proposal would not result in a significant loss

of habitat or protected species or the loss of typical bat associated

habitats.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.9.2.3Several of the Observers (including DAH&G and DCC) raised concerns

in relation to the adequacy of the bat surveys; the lack of attention

afforded to otters which are known to use the Tolka estuary; the

omission of bryophytes from the survey results given that several

species (subject to the Flora Protection Order 2014) are known to

present; the stated absence of any invasive species in the Port; and the

lack of sufficient planting to enhance the ecological function of the Port.

9.9.2.4In relation to the potential presence of two bat species, it should be

noted that DPC’s survey was undertaken in January when the bats are

in a state of torpor. DAH&G and DCC request that the structures

proposed for demolition be re-surveyed for bats prior to demolition

when they are most likely to be active (May to September). In the event

that bats are found a derogation licence will be required for their

removal. This issue could be addressed by way of a planning condition.

9.9.2.5In relation to invasive species, international ports are well known

vectors for such species, the EU Invasive Species regulations (2014)

require the identification of pathways for invasive alien species and this

should have been considered in the EIS and a risk assessment

undertaken. DCC has requested that DPC provide a risk assessment

and a strategy for a management system for invasive alien species

which could be used for the duration of the works in accordance with

EU Regulations. This issue could be addressed by a planning

condition.

Discussion and conclusions:


development would not have significant adverse impacts on terrestrial

ecology subject to strict compliance with mitigation measures and

planning conditions.

9.9.3 Benthic communities

9.9.3.1The proposed ABR project would comprise substantial dredging of

Alexandra Basin West and the shipping channel for a distance of

c.10km from the East Link Bridge to the Dublin Bay Buoy. The depth of

the channel would be increased from c.-7.8mCD to -10mCD which will

result in the overall removal of over 6, 000, 000m3 of sediments. It is

proposed to dispose of most of this material at sea in the licenced

dump site to the W of the Burford Bank, which is located within the

Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC. The works would take a minimum of 6

years to complete, dredging would take place 24/7 for 6 winter months

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


each year, and c.one sixth of the channel would be dredged each year.

This would result in the deposition of c.1, 000,000m3 of sediments per

year or c.177, 000 cubic metres per month at the dump site.


The Basin, Berths 52/53 and the E section of the Liffey channel are

characterised by sandy muds and the more exposed parts of

Dublin Bay are characterised by fine, gravelly and muddy sands.

The dump site is characterised by fine to medium sands with

pockets of coarser material, and the N-S current takes most of the

finer dredged material away to open sea.

Two distinct faunal groupings occur in the inner outer parts of the

Bay, the species are common to the Irish coast and none are of

significant conservation interest.

The faunal samples collected at the dump site are typical and

similar to the samples taken 30 years ago which indicates benthos

stability.

9.9.3.2DPC concluded that there would be a temporary loss of benthic habitat

along the shipping channel as a result of the proposed dredging works;

the temporary removal of the benthos from within the Rockabill to

Dalkey Island cSAC (c.0.25% of the European Site) will have no

adverse effects on its Qualifying Interests (Harbour Porpoise and Reef

communities) and that the benthos recovery rate will be rapid; with no

significant changes to hydrodynamics, wave climate or wave velocities

predicted. Benthic communities within a 200-500m radius of the

dredger could also be affected by sediment plumes however DPC

submit that the benthos will start to recover after each 6 month annual

winter dredge campaign with full recovery expected after 2 to 3 years.

9.9.3.3The removal of substrate and smothering could affect the quality of

benthos food available for adult and juvenile fish, seals and other

marine mammals. This would include Harbour porpoise which is one of

the Qualifying Interests for the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC. The

coastal processes models predict that finer sediments will be rapidly

dispersed by strong N-S tidal currents into the Irish Sea, and that the

sandy material will remain on site until it is eventually re-dispersed

throughout the Bay under storm conditions. DPC submit that the dump

site has a long history of disturbance from dredge disposal and that the

proposed works will not give rise to any long term negative impacts.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.9.3.4Several of the Observers raised concerns in relation to the permanent

loss of benthic communities, the length of the recovery time, and the

effects on the food chain caused by the loss of fish biomass to

wintering birds and the consumption of contaminated prey by fish, birds

and marine mammals.

9.9.3.5According to DPC, international studies indicate a rapid rate of

recovery (6 months to 1 year) at sites with similar characteristics to

Dublin Bay (including high tidal energy, fine sediments, disturbed

community types, opportunistic species and dumping history). Data

collected from on-going maintenance dredging of the shipping channel

confirms that there are no significant differences in benthic community

structures between dredged and un-dredged areas; faunal samples

collected at the dump site are similar to those taken 30 years ago and

the 6 month winter dredge campaign will allow for a 6 month partial

recovery period each summer.

9.9.3.6DCC raised concerns in relation to the direct loss of benthic food

supplies and the resultant loss of fish biomass for wintering birds in the

Bay. DCC is also concerned that sedimentation plumes arising from

dredging and dredge disposal appear to be directed toward North Bull

Island and the Tolka Estuary. This event would be exacerbated during

storms; sediment deposition could affect seabed levels which could in

turn adversely affect food resources for wintering birds in the European

sites.

Discussion:

9.9.3.7The proposed dredging and dredge disposal operations will have a

short term localised negative impact on benthic communities located on

the seabed of the shipping channel and at the dump site by way of

habitat disturbance and smothering. The proposed works relate to a

very small proportion of the overall area of Dublin Bay and the works

will be phased over a 6 to 10 year period, the shipping channel is

subject to regular maintenance dredging and the area around the dump

site has been used for sediment disposal for several decades. I am

therefore satisfied that the proposed development will not have a

significant adverse effect on the seabed and benthic communities at

this location.

9.9.3.8The dump site is highly dispersal and fine sediment will be rapidly

dispersed into the Irish Sea by strong N-S tidal currents whilst the

heavier sands will remain in-situ. The coastal processes models predict

some re-suspension and deposition of sand throughout the Bay under

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


storm conditions (see section 9.8 above). I am satisfied that the depth

of sediment that would be deposited across the sea bed (c.0.0002mm)

would be imperceptible and not be of a sufficient magnitude so as to

adversely affect food resources for winter birds in the surrounding

European sites.

9.9.3.9No heavily contaminated sediment will be disposed of at the dump site.

The slight to moderately contaminated material will be capped by

heavier sands and gravels at the dump site (see section 9.8 above).

The proposed disposal operations will be subject to the conditions of an

EPA Dumping at Sea Permit as per the current arrangement for spoil

disposal. Any contaminated silts escaping from the dump site would be

rapidly dispersed in to the Irish Sea by the strong N-S tidal currents. I

am satisfied that there is little likelihood of the food chain becoming

contaminated by materials dredged from within the application site

boundary and disposed of at the dump site. The proposed development

would not have a significant adverse effect on the benthic food

resource for fish or the marine mammals and birds in the Bay and

surrounding European sites that prey on fish as their main food

resource.

Conclusion:


development will not have a significant long term adverse effect on

benthic communities, that any disturbance will be largely contained

within the shipping channel and the dump site, and that there would be

no significant knock-on effects for fish, marine mammals or birds.

9.9.4 Fisheries

9.9.4.1Certain aspects of the works have the potential to affect fish life in the

Liffey channel, the shipping channel and Dublin Bay.


The Rivers Liffey, Dodder and Tolka support a regionally significant

population of Atlantic salmon and river lamprey, which are

protected under Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive.

Salmon smolts travel to the sea from the Liffey in the spring to

early summer while a small number of multi-sea winter adults

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


(spring salmon) return in February to March and grilse (after one

winter at sea) return in the summer and autumn.

River Lampreys migrate along the Liffey during October.

The coastal and inshore habitats around Dublin Bay provide

nursery areas for several commercially valuable species including

herring, cod, haddock, whiting and lemon sole.

Sea angling takes place in Dublin Bay for several species including

mackerel, Pollack and occasionally bass.

9.9.4.2DPC acknowledge that benthic food resources for adult and juvenile

fish in the shipping channel will be significantly reduced during and

after dredging and dredge disposal (see section 9.9.3 above) and that

some fish could become entrained in the dredger. Suspended

sediments from dredging plumes have the potential to block fish gills,

and reduce visibility, which is a particular concern in the Liffey Channel

for migrating species. The proposed mitigation measures include

phasing dredging operations, prohibiting dredging in the Liffey channel

from March to May to protect migrating smolts, and ensuring that

certain sections are not dredged during lamprey migration.

9.9.4.3Noise from demolition and construction activities (including pile driving)

has potential impacts that range from non-auditory tissue damage to

death, and fish with bladders are the most vulnerable to noise related

injury. DPC state that recognised US noise level criteria will be applied

to all Annex 11 species (EIS Table 5.4.13 and 4 describe this in more

detail) and that piling driving will not take place at certain times of the

year during species migration. The proposed mitigation measures

include phasing demolition and construction works and prohibiting pile

driving from March to May to protect smolts.

9.9.4.4Several of the Observers raised concerns in relation to the effects of

the proposed construction, dredging and dredge disposal works on

fisheries. Their main concerns relate to seasonal migration of fish along

the Liffey channel (Atlantic salmon, river lamprey, sea trout and eels);

loss of benthic food resources for fish in the shipping channel and at

the dump site as a result of dredging and dredge disposal; reduced

visibility as a result of increased turbidity from dredging; physical injury

at the dump site as a result of dredge disposal; contamination of the

food chain as a result of the re-suspension of slight to moderately

contaminated sediment at the dump site; and pile driving noise.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.9.4.5Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) also requested that the overall impact of

dumping be assessed by post dumping bathymetric surveys; suitable

conditions for fish transition should be maintained through the

redevelopment and dredging process; and water and habitat quality

should be regularly monitored to ensure compliance with the objectives

of the Water Framework Directive.

Discussion:

9.9.4.6The effects of the proposed dredging and dredge disposal operations

(including the disposal of slight to moderately contaminated sediments)

on the sea bed, benthic communities and the food chain have been

addressed in section 9.9.3 above. It was concluded that there would be

a temporary and localised impact on the benthos as a result of habitat

disturbance and smothering, and that there is little likelihood of

contaminants entering the food chain. I am satisfied that any resultant

impact on the quantity and quality of food available for fish will also be

temporary, short term and localised with no effect at population level on

fish species in Dublin Bay.

9.9.4.7Fish entrainment could be minimised by using the most

environmentally friendly type of dredger available and adherence to

best practice dredging and dredge disposal techniques should

minimise fish fatalities. The shipping channel and the area around the

dump site have been dredged and dumped for decades and I am

satisfied that most species will tend to avoid these disturbed areas.

Finally, the proposed seasonal breaks in dredging and pile driving will

serve to protect migrating species of fish along the channel. The

monitoring concerns raised by IFI would be addressed either by way of

the proposed mitigation measures or by a planning condition.

Conclusion:


works will not have a significant long term adverse effect on fish

populations in the Liffey Channel, the shipping channel or Dublin Bay,

subject to compliance with the phasing programme, mitigation

measures and monitoring conditions.

9.9.5 Marine mammals

9.9.5.1The proposed ABR project would comprise significant demolition,

construction, dredging and dredge disposal works over a 4 to 6 year

period. The proposed demolition and construction works would not be

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


located within any sensitive sites although there several SPA, cSACs

and NHAs located to the N and S of the works and a small proportion

of channel dredging would take place within the Rockabill to Dalkey

Island cSAC. Certain aspects of the proposed works (including noise

from pile driving and noise and disturbance from dredging) have the

potential to affect marine mammals in Dublin Bay by causing physical

injury, behavioural changes (permanent and temporary), avoidance,

loss of food resources and reduced visibility.

9.9.5.2Several species of marine mammal regularly frequent Dublin Bay

including Harbour porpoise, harbour seals, grey seals and dolphins,

with occasional visits from minke whales. Dublin Bay is covered by a

variety of sensitive ecological designations and many of the marine

mammals are protected under Annex II and V of the Habitats Directive.

Although there are numerous European Sites located within a 15km

radius of the proposed ABR project, marine mammals in three of the

cSACs are most at risk from the proposed pile driving and dredging

works.

The relevant European Sites and their protected marine mammals

include:

European Site (cSAC) Qualifying Interest (QI) Protected species

(PS)

Rockabill to Dalkey Island Harbour porpoise (QI &PS)

Lambay Island Grey seal (QI & PS)

North Dublin Bay (Bull

Island)

Grey seals: haul out and breeding (PS)


There are high densities of Harbour porpoise in the Bay; they are

very sensitive to vessel noise and activity; but are not attracted to

vessels.

Harbour (common) seals are present in the Bay and around the

dump site to the W of Burford Bank; they haul-out at Lambay Island

and North Bull Island; they spend c.80% of time at sea and

continue foraging during the breeding season; disturbance from

noise could affect mating; and they are at risk to detrimental

impacts of piling, dredging and spoil disposal.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


Grey seals have breeding sites at Lambay Island, Dalkey Island,

Irelands Eye and St. Patricks Island; they frequent Dublin Bay,

Howth Harbour, Sandycove and Bull Island where they haul-out;

and they are extensive foragers and at risk to detrimental impacts

of piling, dredging and spoil disposal.

Bottlenose dolphins are transient visitors to the Bay; they are

attracted to vessel activity; and are vulnerable to harm from

dredging.

Minke whales are occasional users of the Bay and the Burford

Bank and they are very vulnerable to noise.

Common dolphins are infrequent visitors to the Inner Bay but are

occasional users of the Outer Bay and Burford Bank.

Risso’s dolphins have been observed around the coast, they not

attracted to vessels and there are no recorded sightings in the Bay.

9.9.5.3DPC acknowledge that the most likely impact from dredging and

dredge disposal operations will be through sound disturbance, reduced

visibility from suspended sediments and plumes, and local habitat

modification. The effects of re-suspended fine sediments on visibility,

the loss of benthic food resources for fish and subsequently marine

mammals, and potential contamination of the food chain were

addressed in sections 9.9.3 and 9.9.4 above. Although dredging noise

is mainly low frequency and continuous in nature, it could affect minke

whales and Harbour porpoise which have a relatively high sensitively

across most frequencies and also harbour and grey seals which have

good underwater hearing. DPC concluded that although Harbour

porpoise is present in this area, the site is not critical for feeding as it

has regularly used as a dump site for several decades and it is not a

significant feeding area for cetaceans or seals.

9.9.5.4DPC acknowledged that noise from demolition and construction

activities has the potential to affect marine mammals through sound

disturbance. Pile driving produces a very high source level and broad

bandwidth pulse which is biased towards lower frequencies, it

propagates through the water column and sediments, although sound

pressure levels in impact pile driving depend on the length and

diameter of the pile. Sound propagation is also dependent on water

depth, bathymetry, sediment type, oceanographic conditions, ambient

noise levels and species behavioural responses. Extended exposure

to pile driving noise can lead to noise related injuries and permanent

hearing loss in cetaceans and pinnipeds, source levels are similar to

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


tactical sonar, and it can adversely impact behaviour, communication

and breeding, with effects detected up to 20km for Harbour porpoise

and harbour seals. DPC concluded that:

Piling, demolition and dredging within Alexandra Basin West and

the Liffey Channel at the same time would increase potential

impacts of sound exposure to marine mammals.

The impacts of piling, dredging and dredge disposal at the dump

site on marine mammals are not considered significant although

individuals will be affected by noise in the works area.

9.9.5.5DPC proposes to implement the NPWS Guidance to Manage Risk to

Marine Mammals from Manmade Sound Sources in Irish Waters (2014)

along with some additional measures which are summarised below:

A marine mammal observer (MMO) should be employed.

No marine mammals should be present in the pre-determined

exclusion zones (500m for demolition and dredging and 1,000m for

piling) in the 30 minute period prior to operation.

Noise producing activities should only commence in daylight hours

and ramp up procedures must be employed over a 20-40 minute

period.

Piling, dredging and dumping should cease if a cetacean or seal is

observed in the vicinity of the works (c.50m).

There is no requirement to halt or discontinue activity at night time,

in poor weather conditions or if marine mammal occurs within 500m

(dredging and demolition) and 1000m (piling).

9.9.5.6DPC concluded that there would be no significant impacts on marine

mammals in Dublin Bay or the European sites during pile driving,

dredging and dredge disposal operations subject to adherence to the

phasing programme and compliance with the 2014 Marine Mammal

Guidelines.

9.9.5.7Notwithstanding this conclusion, Further Information was requested to

assist the Board in its consideration and assessment of the potential

impacts of noise on marine mammals in Dublin Bay and the European

sites in relation to:

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


The use of North Bull Island by harbour and grey seals.

The potential effects of prolonged noise from pile driving, dredging

and dredge disposal works on marine mammals.

The potential effects of prolonged noise on Harbour porpoise.

The potential effects of prolonged noise from dredging and dredge

disposal on marine mammals.

The effectiveness of the noise mitigation measures

The use of North Bull Island by harbour and grey seals:

9.9.5.8DPC carried out survey in August 2014 which concluded that the c.30

seals (including pups) that regularly use the area are probably

habituated to harbour and shipping noise. International studies suggest

that disturbance from pile driving may be restricted to 200-300m while

minor disturbance may occur up to 15km although seals are highly

mobile. No adverse impacts are predicted subject to compliance with

the mitigation measures and DPC will carry out monthly monitoring of

the haul out sites to assess the effectiveness of the mitigation

measures during and after construction.

The potential effects of prolonged noise from pile driving, dredging and

dredge disposal works on marine mammals:

9.9.5.9DPC submit that most marine mammals are habituated to noise from

shipping vessels; piling will be fairly continuous for c.38 months when

c.990 piles will be driven and piling could be simultaneous at 3 sites;

potential impacts include Permanent or Temporary Threshold Shift

(PTS or TTS) and behavioural disturbance; international studies

indicate that PTS onset could occur within 5m of pile driving for

cetaceans and 20m for seals and that TTS onset could occur within

10m and 40m, and that no injury or hearing impairment should occur

outside of 100m; Harbour porpoise can experience strong avoidance

behaviour within 20km of the sound source; minke whales and seals

exhibit behavioural disturbance within 40 and 14km.

The potential effects of prolonged noise on harbour porpoise:

9.9.5.10DPC state that although difficult to visually detect, Harbour porpoise

have very distinctive echolation characteristics (high frequency –

narrow bandwidth) which facilitates acoustic monitoring techniques;

DPC now propose to install a real time passive acoustic monitoring

system (PAMs) at the approaches to the Port to provide information on

the presence of marine mammals when visual mitigation is not

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


possible, this would allow for real time monitoring of Harbour porpoise

within a range of 250-800m and it will detect mid and low frequency

seal vocalisations 24/7 in all weather conditions; the 2 hydrophone

systems will monitor the minimum 1000m and 500m exclusion zones

for piling and dredging; DPC also referred to the use of bubble curtains

to reduce the impact of sound pressure levels on marine mammals

however this system is mainly used for wind turbine piles which have a

much greater diameter and higher sound pressure levels.

9.9.5.11DPC also carried out a pile driving noise trial in Dublin Bay in June

2014 (using slightly smaller diameter piles than proposed); the trial was

undertaken in Alexandra Basin East and the results indicate rapid

attenuation of sound pressure from piling within 500m of the sound

source due to topography, seabed substrate, shallow water, and the

confined character of the site within the Liffey channel and the Bull

Walls; sound pressure was undetectable above ambient noise outside

of the Liffey channel ; DPC submit that the results suggest that piling

noise will not cause TTS in marine mammals within 500m of the site

and that the standard mitigation measures would be adequate.

9.9.5.12During the Oral Hearing the Inspector queried whether or not the

results of a single pile driving trial in Alexandra Basin East could be

considered statistically significant and whether or not the conclusions

and extrapolations for the entire project were scientifically robust. DPC

reaffirmed their conclusions and stated that the only way to fully

examine underwater noise transmission would be to undertake the

actual pile driving works.

9.9.5.13Having regard to the results of this pile driving noise trial DPC

proposed the following amendments to the marine mammal mitigation

measures, during the Oral Hearing, which had the agreement of the

NPWS:

Models carried out as part of the pile driving appraisal indicate that

the impact of noise levels arising from piling will be confined to an

area 500m upstream and downstream of the Basin.

o DPC request that the mitigation zone for piling be reduced from

1000m to 500m in line with the results of this model.

Noise from dredging/dumping is estimated in the NPWS Guidelines

at 177dB at peak frequency of 80-200Hz and band width of 20Hz-

80Hz; the source level for dredging is below the threshold for injury

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


to marine mammals (c.183-206dB at 2.5KHz for pinnipeds and

c.145dB for Harbour porpoise); the recommended criteria for injury

for non-pulsed sound of 203dB SEL for pinnipeds in water and

215dB SEL for high frequency cetaceans; the potential impact for

dredging is therefore confined to disturbance only; in a general

model of 15 Log R, the disturbance distance for marine mammals,

assuming a SEL threshold of 145dB is 256m whilst a 35 Log R

model reduces the distance to 16m.

o As the disturbance distance is well below that threshold for injury

DPC request that the mitigation zone for dredging be reduced

from 500m to 250m.

A mitigation measure contained in S.5.2.9 (bullet point 4) of the EIS

relates to a 50m zone around dredging which is not included in the

NPWS 2014 Guidelines, as Harbour porpoise are unlikely to enter

this zone such a measure is not necessary and DPC request its

removal.

The potential effects of prolonged noise from dredging and dredge

disposal on marine mammals:

9.9.5.14DPC state that Harbour porpoise tend to avoid busy areas and

dredging has less effect on marine mammals than moving sources of

noise; dredging noise can exceed ambient levels for considerable

distances depending on the type of dredger used; this could disrupt

communication due to masking or alteration of behaviour patterns,

however international studies suggest that marine mammals will be

exposed to the sound equivalent of an additional ship during dredging

operations and most species are habituated to such noise.

The effectiveness of the noise mitigation measures:

9.9.5.15DPC state that mitigation measures will include the use of a MMO and

ramp up procedures, and they now propose to install a static acoustic

monitoring programme (SAM) using CPODS which are self-contained

click detectors that log the echolocation clicks of dolphins and

porpoises, they have detection distances of c.250m for Harbour

porpoise and 800mfor bottlenose dolphins, the deployment of 2 units is

proposed at the dump site and within Dublin Bay.

9.9.5.16Several of the Observers and the Inspector continued to have

concerns in relation to the effects of the proposed works on marine

mammals. These concerns related to underwater noise from pile

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


driving, dredging and vessel movements; the DPC noise trial; the

marine mammal exclusion zones; MMO fatigue; cumulative noise

impacts from other plans and projects in the Bay; the loss of food

resource and contamination of the food chain as a result of dredging

and dredge disposal; the adequacy of the seal surveys; and the use of

monitoring data by other agencies. DPC was requested to address

these concerns at the Oral Hearing.

9.9.5.17DPC stated that the underwater noise evaluation is based on a worst

case scenario; the use of the port by larger vessels will not necessarily

mean an increase in noise levels; underwater noise levels in the cSAC

will not adversely affect the conservation interests of the site;

underwater noise levels will be at a level, that when combined with any

of the other plans and projects in the Bay, the cumulative impact will be

zero due to the logarithmic addition of noise levels; and there are no

known cases of injury or death of a marine mammal due to noise from

pile driving.

9.9.5.18DCC noted that the exclusion zones for dredging and piling activities

will necessitate the inclusion of several other European sites within the

zones and requested the Board to consider attaching the following

condition in relation to noise impact zones which is considered

acceptable:

The potential noise impact zones should be mapped in accordance

with the distances stated in the assessment and in relation to the

European Site boundaries, so that it can be clearly shown where

the key impacts are to occur with regard to the European sites on

Dublin Bay; these zone maps should include each species and

their known usage of and range within Dublin Bay.

DCC raised the issue of MMO fatigue and request the Board to

consider attaching the following condition (as recommended by the

Irish Whale and Dolphin Group):

Daytime hours are clearly defined in terms of when operations can

commence and cease and that all mitigation measures should be in

accordance with the 2014 Guidelines.

DCC raised a concern in relation to the sharing of marine mammal

monitoring data with other relevant agencies and request the Board

consider attaching the following condition:

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:48

___________________________________________________________________________________


The records of monitoring which should be published by the

Applicant and the Applicant shall also submit the data to NBDC for

the Marine Database, in the national interest.

The concerns raised by DCC in relation to marine mammal mapping

and monitoring are valid and could be addressed by way of planning

conditions.

9.9.5.19DCC noted that DPC did not carry out a comprehensive survey of

seals in Dublin Bay and regard should have been had to the Irish Seal

Sanctuary data for the North Bull Island the Council’s Management

Plan for the SAAO which states that the Island has been regularly used

by seals for haul out and breeding for several decades, and the use of

North Dublin Bay and beyond for breeding must be fully taken into

account. DCC request the Board to consider attaching the following

condition:

In order to assess the impact and effectiveness of mitigation

measures it is recommended that the Applicant undertakes monthly

monitoring of seal haul out sites at the North Bull island and

adjacent areas pre-construction, during construction and for a

minimum of 2 years post construction, in line with best international

practice; the propose monitoring methodology and duration of the

survey to be agreed with DCC and the NPWS.

o The monitoring for harbour and grey seals should be further

extended to include executing a survey of Dublin Bay within the

zones of influence as defined by the EIS.

o There should be a review by DCC and the NPWS of the

mitigation strategy following completion of the surveys at each

stage of completion.

The concerns raised by DCC in relation to ongoing survey and

monitoring of seals on the Bull Island and Dublin Bay are valid and

could be addressed by way of a planning condition.

9.9.5.20DCC also noted that although the piling schedule is described as

phased, some of the phases are potentially simultaneous and that any

overlap may intensify impacts on protected species; they request that

consideration be also given to the timing of the operations of these rigs

in relation to the breeding season for cetaceans (seals in October to

March) and the autumn and spring migration of lamprey (in the Liffey)

and returning salmon.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Discussion:

9.9.5.21The proposed ABR Project has the potential to affect marine

mammals (including Harbour porpoise and seals) in Dublin Bay and the

European sites by causing physical injury, behavioural changes

(permanent and temporary), avoidance, loss of food resources and

reduced visibility.

9.9.5.22In relation to dredging noise and disturbance, I am satisfied that most

marine mammals that frequent the Bay are probably habituated to

noise and disturbance from ship movements, that dredger noise will not

exceed shipping noise to any significant extent, and that most species

will tend to avoid the proposed dredging works, which will also

minimise the risk of injury a result of collision. However, strict

adherence to the marine mammal mitigation measures in the NPWS

2014 Guidance in combination with the deployment of hydrophones

(PAMs and SAMs) in Dublin Bay is of paramount importance to ensure

the protection of marine mammals during the dredging and dredge

disposal phase.

9.9.5.23In relation to dredging and dredge disposal operations, I am satisfied

that these works, which will take place on a 6 month phased basis over

a minimum of 6 years, will not have any significant long term adverse

effects on marine mammal food resources or visibility in the area.

Harbour porpoise and seals are highly mobile species and it is likely

that they will forage elsewhere for food; each section of the sea bed will

begin to recover after each dredging phase is complete; and the strong

N-S tidal currents will disperse the finer sediments out to sea with no

long term effects on visibility.

9.9.5.24Heavily contaminated sediments will not be disposed of at the dump

site and slight to moderately contaminated sediments will be capped so

that there is little potential for contamination of the food chain, subject

to compliance with the mitigation measures and any conditions

attached to the EPA Permit.

9.9.5.25In relation to the deposition of sediments over the seabed in Dublin

Bay, the coastal process models predict that the proposed dredging

and sediment disposal operations will give rise to some imperceptible

deposition of sediment in Dublin Bay (refer to section 9.8 above).

Although there will be some smothering of the seabed within c.200-

500m of the dredger it should be noted that dredging will be phased

over c.6 years and the areas affected will be localised. Most of the finer

material will be dispersed from the dump site into the Irish Sea by

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


strong N-S tidal currents. The coastal processes model predicts that

the heavier sands will only be dispersed from the dump site only under

storm conditions. I am satisfied that any subsequent deposition of sand

on the seabed would not be of such a magnitude as to smoother the

benthos or affect available food resources for marine mammals to any

significant extent outside of the immediate works area in the short term.

9.9.5.26In relation to underwater noise, the extensive pile driving operations

that are required to construct the new quay walls, berths and marina

protection wall has the potential to adversely affect marine mammals,

including Harbour porpoise and the seals that regularly frequent Dublin

Bay. It is unlikely that such noise would propagate as far the Rockabill

to Dalkey Island cSAC which is located c.10km to the E of the

construction works, and which lists Harbour porpoise as a Qualifying

Interests. However there is potential for underwater pile driving noise to

adversely affect marine mammals up to c.1000m from the sound

source. This could extend as far as the North Bull Island, a regular haul

out site and breeding ground for seals, however it is noted that the

seals tend to occupy the eastern section of the Island in the vicinity of

Sutton Creek which is beyond the 1000m zone. However Harbour

porpoise and seals swimming in the Inner Bay area could be affected

by underwater pile driving noise, and it is noted that seals have been

recorded in the Liffey channel. Therefore strict adherence to the marine

mammal mitigation measures in the NPWS 2014 Guidance in

combination with the deployment of hydrophones (PAMs and SAMs) in

the Bay is of paramount importance to ensure the protection of marine

mammals during the construction phase.

9.9.5.27The marine mammal mitigation measures include the employment of

Marine Mammal Observer (MMO); the delineation of exclusion zones

(500m for demolition and dredging and 1,000m for piling); and use of

ramp up procedures for noisy activities which will ensure that marine

mammals exit the area before the noise intensifies to the point where it

could cause harm.

9.9.5.28Based on the findings of the pile driving noise trial undertaken in June

2014 which concluded that noise from pile driving would not transmit

more that 500m from source along the Liffey channel, DPC has

requested a reduction the size of the exclusion zones from 1000m to

500m for pile driving and from 500m to 250m for dredging in the Liffey

channel. Although the results of the noise trial are compelling, I remain

concerned that the extrapolations for the entire ABR pile driving and

dredging works should be treated with caution because of the limited

number piles, the diameter of the pile, the infrequent and intermittent

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


nature of the pile strikes and site specific location of the trial. I am not

convinced that the exclusions zones should be reduced as requested

by DPC. However I am satisfied that there is little likelihood of a marine

mammal arriving to within 50m of the piling and dredging after the

works have commenced (subject to mitigation).

9.9.5.29DPC proposes to phase the works to ensure that demolition, pile

driving and dredging do not occur at the same time in Alexandra Basin

West and the Liffey Channel in line with the marine mammal

recommendations. It is also proposed that none of these works will

take place during March to May to accommodate the migration of

salmon smolts. However it would appear from the DPC work

programme that several of these activities will take place

simultaneously with up to a maximum of 5 piling rigs operating at the

same time, albeit over a short time frame. Having regard to the

sensitive nature of the receiving environment, and notwithstanding the

implementation of the marine mammal mitigation measures and the

proposed deployment of hydrophones, I am not satisfied that the

intensity of the simultaneous works would not have an adverse impact

on marine mammals. This concern could be addressed by way of a

planning condition which prohibits the operation of more than 3 pile

driving rigs at any one time. Any subsequent revision to the work

programme should be submitted to the Planning Authority for their

written agreement.

Conclusion:

The proposed ABR project would not have a significant adverse impact

on marine mammals in Dublin Bay, including Harbour porpoise which is

a protected species and Qualifying Interest for the Rockabill to Dalkey

Island cSAC and grey seal which is protected species. This is subject

to the strict implementation of the marine mammal mitigation measures

including the retention of the 1000m and 500m exclusion zones for

piling and dredging, the deployment of hydrophones, and compliance

with the attached conditions.

9.9.6 Birds

9.9.6.1Certain aspects of the proposed works have the potential to affect bird

life in the Liffey channel and Dublin Bay by way of noise disturbance

and loss of food resources.

Dublin Bay is a site of international importance for resident, passage,

breeding and wintering birds. The Bay is covered by several sensitive

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


heritage designations including two SPAs which are located to the N

and S of the proposed works at the South Dublin Bay and Tolka

Estuary SPA and North Bull Island SPA.


Dublin Bay holds the largest single group of Brent Geese in Ireland;

they regularly use Alexandra Basin between November and April to

feed on agricultural foodstuff as well intertidal vegetation in the Bay

and amenity grasslands around Dublin.

Some 36 waterfowl species have been identified in the Tolka

Estuary and the Liffey channel, the sum of peak counts for all

waterfowl species in the estuary in 2012/13 was 18, 900 birds, and

the average total number of birds wintering in Dublin Bay is 31,

700.

Dublin Bay holds a sizable colony of breeding Black Guillemots

who breed throughout the Port in disused drainage pipes and feed

on fish caught in the shallow waters of the Bay; there are 82 adult

birds in the Port and 16 in the Basin, which equates to 20% of the

population.

Dublin Bay holds a breeding colony of Common Terns and Artic

Terns (Annex 1 species) at two mooring structures on the S side of

the Liffey near the Poolbeg power station and a total of 449

Common Terns and 33 Artic terns have been ringed.

Several other species of bird have been recorded in Alexandra

Basin although none have been recorded as breeding there.

Some 31species of waterfowl have been recorded in the shipping

channel; the most abundant species was the Black Headed Gull

who mostly frequents the WWTP outfall; the shipping channel is

mainly used by Common and Artic Terns, Black Guillemots,

Cormorants, Herring Gulls, Common Guillemots and occasionally

Kittewakes.

9.9.6.2In relation to the demolition, construction and dredging works at

Alexandra Basin West, DPC concluded that:

Brent Geese will continue to feed off agricultural foodstuff as the

proposed works will occur on a phased basis, the geese are

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


already used to high levels of shipping activity and noise, and they

will not be exposed to contaminants as do not feed on water.

Black Guillemots breed in cavities within the quay walls and jetties

which will be removed and new nest sites will be found elsewhere

in the Port.

The breeding tern colonies on the mooring dolphins are sufficiently

remote from the Basin to be affected by the works and they rarely

fly into the Basin.

No other species that feed of agricultural foodstuff in the Basin will

be significantly affected.

9.9.6.3DPC state that the works connected to the infilling, river berth

construction and remediation of contaminated material at Berths 52/53

will not result in a loss of feeding resource, and fill material will be

contained by a new steel pile wall with no significant impacts on

wintering birds. The two pairs of Black Guillemots in the vicinity will be

accommodated by removing the cavities used for nesting to prevent

their use by birds during demolition and alternative nest sites will be

found.

9.9.6.4DPC state in relation to the channel dredging works that the winter

dredging programme will not interfere with summer birds feeding and

breeding in the area; sediment deposition in the Tolka estuary will be

imperceptible with no adverse impact on the intertidal area or loss of

bird feeding resource; dredging will not alter the tidal regime, wave

climate or sediment transport with no adverse impact on the

surrounding intertidal areas and waterfowl; monitoring of the term

colony in the Port indicates that it was not adversely affected by recent

dredging; works will only take place in the winter months when the

terns are absent; although increased turbidity in the shipping channel

could affect fish eating birds (Black Guillemots, Cormorants and terns)

these species usually forage for food in the wider Bay and Black

Guillemots are only present in small numbers in the winter. DPC

concluded that the SPAs and their conservation interests would not be

adversely affected subject to phasing works in the Basin to ensure a

regular supply of agricultural food for Brent geese and the

implementation of mitigation measures related to the installation of

artificial nest boxes for Black Guillemots.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.9.6.5Notwithstanding this conclusion, Further Information was requested to

assist the Board in its consideration and assessment of the potential

impacts of noise on birds in the Bay and the neighbouring European

sites in relation to:

Dredging noise and disturbance

Pile driving noise and disturbance

Dredging noise and disturbance:

9.9.6.6DPC stated that underwater noise from dredging will be similar to

shipping noise which does not propagate more than 200m from source

and even less in shallow water so wading birds will not be affected in

the nearby SPAs; recent maintenance dredging had no noticeable

impact on bird populations; and international studies indicate that there

are no significant correlations between overwintering bird numbers and

dredging activity.

Pile driving noise and disturbance:

9.9.6.7DPC referred to the underwater noise test undertaken in the Port June

2014 (refer to section 9.9.5 above). This test took place at the start of

the breeding season for Common and Arctic Terns whose colonies are

located c.1.2 km and 1.5km from the Basin; the test demonstrates that

the tern colonies and Black Guillemots (which regularly use the Basin)

were unaffected by pile driving activity in the area. Brent geese are

already habituated to high levels of noise. DPC concluded that pile

driving noise will not change underwater noise levels in the adjoining

South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA and underwater noise

measurements taken close to the tern colony indicate that piling noise

was not audible during shipping activity. DPC further submits that pile

driving noise will not affect wader birds as underwater noise

propagates least at low water when they are likely to be foraging.

9.9.6.8Notwithstanding DPCs response, several of the Observers and the

Inspector continued to have concerns in relation to the potential effects

of airborne noise (as opposed to underwater noise) particularly from

pile driving, on birdlife in the surrounding European Sites.

9.9.6.9Although the results of the June 2014 pile driving noise test did not

record any adverse reaction from the breeding tern colonies and

Kittiwakes in the Port either from underwater or airborne noise, it

should be noted that the test was carried out at a time when there were

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


no wintering birds in Dublin Bay or the neighbouring SPAs.

Furthermore, the noise test was undertaken within the confines of

Alexandra Basin East whereas substantial pile driving is proposed at

Berths 52/53 which is located in much closer to the European sites.

The Inspector also raised concerns in relation to the potential impact of

noise disturbance on the feeding patterns of wintering birds in the

adjoining and nearby SPAs. In particular, a reduction in feeding time

could affect the amount of stored energy required to ensure their safe

return to their northern breeding grounds in the spring, which could in

turn adversely affect breeding patterns and their subsequent rate of

return to Dublin Bay. DPC was requested to address these concerns at

the Oral Hearing.

9.9.6.10In response, DPC stated that the effects of construction activity

(including pile-driving noise) may affect birds by way of aerial and

underwater pathways. DPC stated that the effects of noise disturbance

include changes in feeding behaviour, taking flight or being more

vigilant but often without any effect on their energy budget; that impacts

imply a change in body condition, productivity or survival at population

level; and that the level of impact depends on the availability of

alternative feeding sites.

9.9.6.11DPC submits that although threatening sounds can include impulsive

sounds pile driving noise is also repetitive and therefore not threatening

to birds. DPC referred to a UK study on the effects of pile driving noise

and vibration disturbance in birds in the Humber Estuary SPA. This

study concluded that noise up to 50dbA had no effect; noise between

50dbA and 85dbA had some effects; and noise above 85dbA resulted

in flight. The study recommended that ambient construction noise

levels should be restricted to below 70dbA and sudden irregular noise

above 50dbA should be avoided.

9.9.6.12According to DPC the nearest construction noise will be at the S end

of Berths 52/53 which is c.120m from the nearest boundary of the

South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA and that a worst case noise

level of 51dbA is predicted at the nearest point of the SPA. DPC submit

that the entire site is screened from the SPA on the E and N sides by

an elevated embankment of the seawall, stockpiles of sand and gravel,

and by port structures, which will serve to attenuate aerial noise, and

the perceived noise from this source will be below the safe 50dbA level.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Discussion and conclusions:

9.9.6.13 The proposed works have the potential to adversely affect bird

populations in the adjoining and nearby European Sites to the N and S

of the ABR project area at the South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary

SPA and to the NE at the North Bull Island SPA by way of noise

disturbance and sedimentation. The works also have the potential to

affect some bird species which are of Special Conservation Interest to

the SPAs and who frequent the ABR project area on a regular basis, by

way of noise and general disturbance.

9.9.6.14 I am satisfied that Brent Geese, Black Guillemots and Arctic and

Common Terns are well habituated to noise and disturbance from port

activities, that Brent Geese will continue to forage for agricultural food

in Alexandra Basin West and that the use of artificial nest boxes will

accommodate breeding Black Guillemots after the demolition works

have commenced. I am also satisfied that dredging operations will not

have any significant adverse effects on foraging bird species in the

shipping channel, any impacts would be short term and localised and

dredging could possibly give rise to more foraging opportunities for

birds. I am further satisfied that noise from the winter dredging and

disposal operations would not have a significantly adverse effect on

breeding or feeding birds in the SPAs, having regard to the separation

distance between most of the shipping channel and the European

Sites, and to the level of background noise from shipping vessels.

9.9.6.15 Heavily contaminated sediments will not be disposed of at the dump

site and slight to moderately contaminated sediments will be capped so

that there is little potential for contamination of the food chain, subject

to compliance with the mitigation measures and any conditions

attached to the EPA Permit.

9.9.6.16 The coastal process models predict that the proposed dredging and

sediment deposal operations will give rise to some deposition of

sediment in Dublin Bay but that most of the finer silt will be dispersed

into the Irish Sea by way of strong N-S currents. I am satisfied that the

deposition of sand on the seabed will be imperceptible would not be of

such a magnitude so as to smoother the benthos or affect the depth to

which the various wading birds can forage to find their particular food

resource in the sea bed strata.

9.9.6.17I am satisfied that most bird species have become habituated to noise

and disturbance from port activities and the findings of the Humber

Estuary SPA in relation to impulsive pile driving noise and vibration are

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


informative. However, in the absence of any site specific research, I

remain concerned that the combined airborne effect of several pile

driving rigs operating at the same time in the Port could have an

adverse effect on the feeding patterns of wintering birds in the adjoining

SPA and that this could in turn influence the number of wintering bird

returning to the area in the future.

9.9.6.18 This concern was addressed in section 9.9.5 above when the effects

of underwater pile driving noise on marine mammals was assessed

and it was recommended that the phasing programme be amended by

way of condition to allow for the simultaneous operation of no more

than 3 pile driving rigs at any one time. In the event that the Board

decide to attach such a condition, it would also be of benefit to

wintering birds in the South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA by

reducing the transmission of airborne noise. DPC should also be

required to carry out regular monitoring of birds in the vicinity before,

during and after construction. This could be addressed by way of

planning conditions.

9.9.619 I am satisfied that the proposed works would be would not have a

significant adverse impact on the winter birds that frequent the North

Bull Island SPA because of the separation distance between the

proposed works and this European Site, and that the effects of

underwater noise transmission on birds would be minimal because of

the low rate of propagation in shallow water.

Conclusions:

The proposed ABR project would not have a significant adverse impact

on bird populations in Dublin Bay and the neighbouring European sites.

This is subject to the strict implementation mitigation measures and

compliance with planning conditions.

9.9.7 Other areas:

9.9.7.1 Dublin Bay is also covered by several environmentally sensitive

designations including the North Dublin Bay cSAC (which includes the

North Bull Island) and the South Dublin Bay cSAC. Both of these sites

contain Tidal Mudflats and Sandflats as a Qualifying Interest. The North

Dublin Bay cSAC contains sand dune systems, salt meadows and

Petalwort. The Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC contains Reef

communities at Howth Head and Dalkey Island to the N and S of the

dump site.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


9.9.7.2 The knock-on effects arising from dredging and dredge disposal have

the potential to adversely affect these sites by way of erosion and

deposition of sediment as a result of hydrodynamic changes in to tidal

patterns and wave climate. These issues were addressed in detail in

sections 9.8 of this report where it was concluded that the

hydrodynamic changes would be minor. The predicted changes would

include some erosion and deposition at the Port entrance in vicinity of

the North and South Bull Walls; the rapid dispersal of fine sediments

into the Irish Sea; and the deposition of negigible quantities of sand

across the sea bed within Dublin Bay under storm conditions.

9.9.7.3 Several of the Observers and the Inspector raised concerns that these

sites could be adversely affected by erosion and deposition (including

erosion and deposition at Bull Island; and deposition which could

smoother sensitive species such as Dward Eelgrass (below Merrion

Gates), Green algae (throughout the Bay), Fucoid algae (Maretimo to

Dún Laoghaire area) and Reef Communities (Howth Head)). However

these concerns have been addressed in detail in previous sections of

this report and I am satisfied that the deposition of sand on the seabed

would not be of such a magnitude so as to adversely affect the Reef

Communities in the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC, any of the

Qualifying Interests in the North and South Dublin Bay cSACs or any

other protected species of in the Bay.

9.9.8 Conclusions

Having regard to all of the foregoing, and subject to the full

implementation of DPC’s mitigation measures and compliance with any

conditions attached by the Board, the proposed development would not

have a significant adverse impact on the environment or adversely

affect the integrity of the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC or any of the

other designated European sites in the area. This is subject to strict

compliance with all of the mitigation measures and planning conditions.

9.10 Other issues

Visual impact: The proposed development would not entail the

erection of any new buildings, structures or cranes. The Visual and

Landscape Study concluded that the proposed development would

have no adverse impact on the visual amenities of the area or of views

in to the Port from a variety of locations around Dublin Bay. I am

satisfied that the proposed development would not seriously injure the

visual amenities of the surrounding area including the views along the

approach channel and the Liffey Channel.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Environmental services: The proposed arrangements are considered

acceptable subject to compliance with the requirements of Irish Water

Utilities: The proposed development would not have any significant

impacts on electricity supply provided that the existing underground

high voltage cables that traverse the navigation channel from within the

vicinity of the Poolbeg Marina to the North Wall Quay Extension are

relocated prior to commencement of development in consultation with

the ESB and ERGRID. Appropriate safeguards should be put in place

to avoid disruption from dredging activities to the cooling water intake

and outfall the existing servicing power stations at Poolbeg. The

sewerage pipeline which runs across Dublin Bay from Sutton to

Ringsend treatment works at a depth of -15m CD will not be affected,

and no impacts are predicted on sewerage networks within the Port.

Dive sites: The concerns raised by the Observers in relation to

increased suspended solids, turbidity and underwater noise have been

addressed in section 9 of this report (coastal processes, benthic

communities, fisheries and marine mammals).

Financial contributions: The standard development contributions

conditions should be attached.

Community gain proposal: The DPC community gain proposal is

considered acceptable subject to compliance with conditions in relation

to the handover and management arrangements.

Conditions: Several of the Observers suggested conditions in relation

to a number of issues which have been assessed in section 9.0 of this

report.

Public Notices: Dublin Graving Docks Limited submitted that the

Public Notices were inaccurate as they did not refer to the proposed

access closures off East Wall Road to the Port Estate. DGDL submitted

that the propose closures could have an adverse impact on the

surrounding environment and that the public should have been duly

notified. I am satisfied that the Public Notices complied with all statutory

requirements and approximately half of the Observers written

submission referred to transportation issues.

Project splitting: The issue of project splitting was raised however I

am satisfied that this is not relevant as the proposed development

represents approximately one third of the overall development

envisaged in the DPC Masterplan 2012-2040.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

10.1 Compliance with Articles 94 and 111 of the Planning and

Development Regulations 2001, as amended

The application is accompanied by an EIS, as required for any

application made under Section 37A. The EIS is laid out as follows:

Volume 1 - EIS: Main Statement

Volume 2 - EIS: Appendices

Volume 3 - EIS: Appendices (Photomontages & Transportation)

Volume 4 - Non-Technical Summary

I have reviewed the application documentation, including the EIS, FI

submissions, the written submissions and the submissions to the oral

hearing, and the legislative requirements in terms of Environmental

Impact Assessment. In particular, I note the requirement of Article 94

of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended that

the EIS shall contain the information specified in paragraph 1 and

paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 of the Regulations.

The EIS describes the proposed development, including information on

the site and the project size and design. A description of the main

alternatives studied by the developer, including the do-nothing scenario

and alternative locations considered, is provided and the reasons for

the preferred choice.

The EIS adopts a grouped format and assesses likely significant effects

on the environment under the following headings: Flora & Fauna,

Landscape and Visual, Air and Climate, Material Assets, Coastal

Processes, Water, Geology and Soils, Cultural Heritage, Human

Beings. Under each heading, the EIS describes the receiving

environment, the survey methodology, likely significant effects,

proposed mitigation measures and likely residual effects. Chapter 14

of the EIS identifies the interactions of the above topics, in-combination

effects and technical difficulties. In accordance with Article 94 (c),

there is an adequate summary of the EIS in non-technical language.

With regard to the requirements of Article 111 of the regulations, I

consider that the submissions are generally in accordance with the

requirements of Article 94 of the Planning and Development

Regulations 2001, as amended. In-combination effects with other

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


plans and projects in Dublin Bay are not considered likely to be

significant.

10.2 Likely significant effects arising from the proposed development

Section 9.0 of this report identifies and describes the main likely

significant effects arising from the proposed development and regard

should be had to this section of the report. The likely significant effects

can otherwise be identified as follows:

10.2.1 Human Beings

Impacts

Employment - direct and indirect: Construction activity is estimated

to give rise to 375 jobs for varying lengths of time on different

aspects of the project. The economic analysis indicates that the

operational phase of the ABR Project, including the development of

dedicated cruise berths, will have local and regional economic and

tourism benefits, contributing to the safeguarding or overall creation

of employment. DPC employs 140 people directly and a further 4,

000 are employed in the Port estate, however it is noted that the

proposal will give rise to the loss of 26 jobs when the Graving Dock

is closed and in filled as part of the project.

Residential Amenity: Construction activity will potentially impact on

surrounding residential amenities by reason of noise, dust and

odours; however the proposed redistribution of traffic away from

East Wall Road towards Promenade Road and the Dublin Tunnel

during the operational phase will have a positive impact residential

amenity.

Tourism Impacts: The cruise berth and heritage elements of the

element of the proposed development will have a positive impact

for the city and region.

Leisure and marine activity: The new Marina Wall will have a

positive impact on the continued operation Poolbeg Marina. There

will be some minor temporary loss of fishing grounds in Dublin Bay.

Modified commercial shipping movements may impact on marine

safety.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Invasive species: Increased port activity may result in the arrival of

more invasive species.

Mitigation

Noise reduction through the use of exhaust silencers and mufflers

or silencers for pneumatic percussive tools, selection of sound

reduced compressors, placement of noisy plant equipment beyond

existing physical barriers, and switching warning systems to

minimum acceptable settings.

Phasing and timing of construction activity.

Noise emission limit values for day, evening and night and

monitoring.

Switching off ship foghorns at night.

Implementation of a High Level Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP)

Compliance with all relevant standards or guidelines for noise,

vibration, dust and odours.

Residual Effects

There will be some increase in noise emissions during the construction

phase however predicted levels are within guidance limit values. No

significant vibration impacts are predicted. Residual impacts are not

predicted to be significant.

10.2.2 Cultural Heritage

Impacts

Effects on features of cultural and archaeological interest:

Permanent loss of part of North Wall Quay Extension. Potential for

disturbance or loss of previously unidentified archaeological

features in the sea bed.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Mitigation

Archaeological monitoring during works.

Creation of Conservation and Interpretative Zones.

Residual Effects

In terms of residual impacts, there will be a permanent loss of part of

the historic North Wall Quay Extension. A condition is therefore

recommended for the reuse of material from this quay. Residual

impacts are not otherwise regarded as significant.

10.2.3 Landscape and Visual Impact

Impacts

No significant landscape of visual impacts predicted.

Scale, height and extent of visibility: The development will

consolidate and intensify commercial port activities in the W section

of the Port.

Impact on landscape character: Commercial and tourist related port

activities will be marginally extended and intensified in the W and E

sections of the Port.

Impact on important views or scenic routes: The works will visible

from East Link Bridge.

Mitigation

None required.

Residual Effects

None anticipated.

10.2.4 Material Assets / Traffic and Transportation

Impacts

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Impact on local road network: The closure of the two vehicular

access points off East Wall Road to port traffic which will have a

positive impact on the existing road network. These closures will

result in the redistribution of Port traffic within the internal road

network towards Promenade Road and the Dublin Tunnel. The

Tunnel has sufficient capacity to accommodate redistributed port

traffic and the predicted increase in port traffic as a result of the

proposal. However congestion problems may arise in the future

when DPC seeks to implement other phases of the Masterplan

2012-2040.

Road safety: The creation of a pedestrian and cyclist access to the

cruise berths off East Wall Road at its junction with the Quay and

the East Link Bridge may have road safety implications.

Mitigation

None required. However planning conditions will be required to

ensure that DPC consults with Planning Authority in relation to the

timing of the access vehicular access closures and the pedestrian

access arrangements; and with the NRA in relation to the section of

the proposed Eastern By-Pass to the W of the Port.

Residual Effects

Residual impacts are not predicted to be significant.

10.2.5 Air, Climate, Noise and Vibration

Impacts

Residential and ecological noise impacts: There is potential for

negative noise impacts on residential amenities and adjoining

European Sites from demolition and construction activities at the

port, particularly from the pile driving works; and from early morning

and night-time activities.

Vibration: Vibration from construction activities has the potential to

result in disturbance.

Dust emissions: Dust, air quality and odour issues arising from the

demolition, construction and dredging phases could result in

disturbance.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Increased emissions: Increased traffic volumes and shipping have

the potential for local air quality impacts.

Climatic impacts: Reliance on road freight into the future has the

potential to have negative impacts in terms of CO2 emissions.

Mitigation

Compliance with published guidance for noise and vibration control

during construction.

Phasing and timing of construction works.

Noise reduction measures through the use of exhaust silencers and

mufflers or silencers for pneumatic percussive tools, selection of

sound reduced compressors, placement of noisy plant equipment

beyond existing physical barriers, and switching warning systems

to minimum acceptable settings.

Compliance with day, evening and night-time noise emission limit

values.

Implementation of operational dust control measures, including

water sprays and compliance with emission limit values for

deposition.

Control of traffic movements to avoid peak hour congestion and

provide for more efficient vehicle movements.

Compliance with international obligations with regard to emissions

from shipping.

Compliance with standard construction management measures.

Residual effects

There will be some increases in baseline noise levels, however,

predictions are within guidance limit values. Imposition of limits on dust

emissions will facilitate increased levels of control of activities. Residual

impacts are not predicted to be significant.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


10.2.6 Soils & Geology

Impacts

Dredging: The development will require the dredging of c. 6,000,

000m3 from Alexandra Basin, the Liffey channel and the shipping

channel over a distance of c.10km. Potential for the temporary

localised loss of benthic communities and food resource; and

localised temporary reduction in visibility in fish and marine

mammals.

Disposal of clean dredged materials: Uncontaminated and slight to

moderately contaminated dredged materials will be disposed of at

sea, subject to a Dumping at Sea Permit. Potential for the

temporary localised loss of benthic communities and food resource;

localised temporary reduction in visibility in fish and marine

mammals: contamination of the food chain and minor localised

sediment deposition on benthic habitats.

Disposal of contaminated dredged materials: Heavily contaminated

dredged material will be remediated and re-used as infill elsewhere

in the Port. Potential for water contamination as a result of spills,

leakages and accidents at the construction phase and leaching to

ground and water at the operational stage.

Infill of Graving Dock 2 and Berths 52/53: The treated and batched

contaminated sediments will be used to infill theses area. Potential

for leaching to ground and surface water at the operational stage.

Mitigation

Phasing and timing of dredging and dredge disposal works.

Use of a dredge disposal site which has been used for the

deposition of maintenance dredging for an extended period.

Capping of slight to moderately contaminated waste at the disposal

site.

Compliance with the High Level CEMP, Dredging Management

Plan, consultation with relevant stakeholders, and the preparation

of a construction monitoring programme.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Compliance with CEMP to prevent accidental spills and leaks, and

regular monitoring of water quality to detect leaching.

Residual Effects

Residual impacts otherwise arising are not predicted to be significant.

10.2.7 Water Environment

Impacts

Sedimentation: Dredging activities and dredge disposal at sea may

result in deposition of sediment on the seabed. Activities will also

result in the creation of sediment plume and increased turbidity,

impacting on benthic communities, fisheries, marine mammals,

birds and foraging areas.

Contamination: Construction and operational activities have the

potential to result in contamination of waters and/or entry of

pollutants to the port. Potential release of contaminants from

dredged materials.

Loss of habitat: Dredging will result in a temporary localised loss of

benthic habitats or temporary deterioration due to sediment

deposition.

Mitigation

Phasing and timing of works.

Selection of appropriate dredging plant and operations.

Compliance with the High Level CEMP, Dredging Management

Plan, Construction Monitoring Programme, and consultation with

relevant stakeholders.

Compliance with the appropriate marine standards for cleaning

shipping vessels, on-site management of clean and contaminated

surface water run-off, and application of appropriate fuel handling

areas and procedures.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


On-site management of waste water from the remediation process

for contaminated sediments and regular water quality monitoring in

the vicinity of the in-filled areas.

Compliance with the High Level CEMP and conditions attached to

dumping at sea, waste and foreshore licences and permits.

Residual Effects:


10.2.8 Flora & Fauna

Impacts

Loss or deterioration of habitats: Dredging the shipping channel will

result in some temporary localised loss or deterioration of benthic

habitats; dredging of the Liffey channel may impact on protected

species passing through this area; demolition may result in the

potential loss of bat roosts; and the construction of new quay walls

will result in loss of nesting sites for Black Guillemots.

Effects on the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC: Dredging noise has

the potential to affect marine mammals including Harbour porpoise

(Qualifying Interest); dredging and dredge disposal operations will

result in some temporary localised loss or deterioration of benthic

habitats which may affect food resources for fish and marine

mammals, including Harbour porpoise (QI); while sediment plumes

and turbidity have the potential to affect fish and marine mammal

visibility in the vicinity, including harbour porpoise(QI). Dredging

and dredge disposal operations may impact on protected species

passing through this area.

Effects on the South Dublin and Tolka Estuary SPA: Pile driving

noise has the potential to affect the behaviour and feeding patterns

of several species of bird, including wintering bird, which are

Qualifying Interests for the adjoining SPA; while dredging and

dredge disposal operations may result in some minor sediment

deposition within the SPA.

Species impact and disturbance: There is potential for disturbance

of species of conservation interest during construction and

operational phases; vulnerable species include breeding birds

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


within the Port, migrating Salmon smolts and Lamprey along the

Liffey channel, wintering birds in the adjoining SPA and marine

mammals in Dublin and the cSAC.

Mitigation

Compliance with the provisions of the NPWS publication “Guidance

to manage the risk to marine mammals from man-made sound

sources in Irish Waters”, including the appointment of a qualified

marine mammal observer.

Deployment of hydrophones (PAMs and SAMs) in Dublin Bay and

at the Port entrance.

Phasing and timing of works.

Use of a dredge disposal site that has been used for the deposition

of maintenance dredging for an extended period.

Closure and removal of nesting sites for Black Guillemots and the

installation of new nesting boxes prior to the breeding season.

Pre-clearance surveys of buildings with bat roosting potential prior

to commencement of development.

Residual Effects


A condition may be required to amend the construction phasing

schedule to avoid the use of more than 3 pile driving rigs at any

one time.

10.3 Summary of Interactions:

Human Beings:

Noise & Vibration

Air Quality & Climate

Landscape & Visual

Material Assets / Traffic congestion and road safety

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Cultural Heritage

Coastal Processes

Human Beings

Material Assets / road improvement works

Landscape & Visual

Human Beings

Traffic & Transportation:

Noise & Vibration


Human beings (road safety).

Noise & Vibration

Flora and fauna (terrestrial ecology, birds, fisheries & marine

mammals)

Traffic & Transportation

Human Beings


Traffic & Transportation

Soils &Geology

Human Beings

Soils & Geology:

Air Quality

Flora and fauna (terrestrial ecology, birds, fisheries & marine

mammals)

Human Beings

Water environment

Coastal Processes

Flora and Fauna (birds, benthos, fisheries & marine mammals)

Water Environment

Cultural Heritage

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Water Environment

Flora and fauna (birds, benthos, fisheries & marine mammals)

Marine Ecology

Coastal Processes

Soils & Geology (contamination)

Flora and Fauna:

Water Environment (birds, benthos, fisheries & marine mammals)

Coastal Processes

Noise and Vibration

Human Beings

Material assets / fisheries

Landscape & Visual

Soils & Geology (contamination)

10.4 Conclusions regarding the acceptability or otherwise of the Likely

residual effects identified.

The main assessment in Section 9.0 above outlines the likely main

residual effects of this proposal. These are not considered to be

significant subject to compliance with mitigation measures and planning

conditions, and the terms and condition attached to any other licences

or permits required for dredging, dredge disposal and the

treatment/remediation of contaminated material.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


11.0 APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

11.1 Compliance with Articles 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive

The Habitats Directive deals with the Conservation of Natural Habitats

and of Wild Fauna and Flora throughout the European Union. Article

6(3) of this Directive requires that any plan or project not directly

connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to

have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination

with other plans or projects shall be subject to appropriate assessment

of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation

objectives. The competent authority must be satisfied that the proposal

will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site.

The EU also provides specific guidance on the implementation of the

Birds and Habitats Directives in estuaries and coastal zones, with

particular attention to port development and dredging, given that ports

are usually situated in or near estuaries which are often designated

Natura 2000 sites. This guidance is of assistance to the competent

authority when carrying out an appropriate assessment.

The application was accompanied by a Natura Impact Assessment

(NIS) which describes the proposed development, the ABR project site

and the surrounding area. The NIS outlines the methodology used for

assessing potential impacts on the habitats and species within 5

European Sites that have the potential to be affected by the proposed

development. The NIS predicts the potential impacts for these sites and

their conservation objectives, it suggests mitigation measures for each

site, assesses in-combination effects with other plans and projects and

it identifies any residual effects on the sites and their conservation

objectives.

The NIS was accompanied by the following supporting documents:

Appendix A - Avian Impact Assessment

Appendix B - Marine Mammals Impact Assessment

Appendix C - Coastal processes Modelling

Appendix D - Stage 1 Screening Assessment

Furthermore a range of desk stop studies and specialist surveys were

also carried out in including:

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Wintering bird surveys

Boat based surveys of sea birds

Marine mammal surveys

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

Badger, otter and bat surveys

Benthos surveys and particle size analysis

Fisheries survey

Several coastal process surveys including sediment sampling,

bathymetric, geophysical and current meter surveys

Coastal processes were simulated using a range of models to

predict changes to the tidal regime including tidal flows, currents,

wave climate, flood risk, and sediment dispersal and deposition

As part of the DPC’s response to a request for Further Information, a

noise test was carried out in Alexandra Basin East on June 2014 and a

seal count was undertaken on the Bull Island in August 2014.

Having reviewed the NIS and supporting documentation, I am satisfied

that it provides adequate information in respect of the baseline

conditions, clearly identifies the potential impacts, and uses sound

scientific information and knowledge. Details of mitigation measures

are also provided and they are summarised in Table 3.3 of the NIS. I

am satisfied that the information is sufficient to allow for appropriate

assessment of the proposed development.

11.2 Potential impacts on European sites

Section 9.0 of this report identifies and describes the main likely

significant effects arising from the proposed development and regard

should be had to this section of the report. As outlined in section 9.0

there are numerous European Sites located within a 15km radius of the

proposed works. Screening for appropriate assessment was carried

out by the applicant and it was concluded that the proposed

development could potentially impact five of these designated sites.

The remaining European Sites were screened out of the process

because of the separation distance or lack of connectivity between the

proposed development and the particular sites. This conclusion is

considered to be reasonable subject to the inclusion of one additional

site at Lambay Island. Although this site is also located within the

Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC it is a particularly important breeding

and haul out site for the seal populations that frequent the entire Dublin

Bay area.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


The relevant European sites are:

Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC (Site code: 3000)

Lambay Island cSAC (Site code: 0204)

North Dublin Bay cSAC (Site code: 0206)

South Dublin Bay cSAC (Site code: 0210)

North Bull Island SPA (Site code: 4006)

South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA (Site code: 4024)

11.2.1 Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC (Site code: 3000)

A small section of the proposed works would be located within the

Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC. This would comprise the eastern

most section of the c.10km long shipping channel, which equates to

c.0.25% of the cSAC area. The existing dredge disposal site to the W

of the Burford Bank is also located within the cSAC but not within the

boundary of the ABR planning application. However it is proposed to

dump most of the material dredged from shipping channel in this

disposal site, including the slight to moderately contaminated

sediments from the Liffey channel (which will be capped), subject to an

EPA Dumping at Sea Permit.

The Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC is c. 27, 316ha and it includes a

range of dynamic inshore and coastal waters including sandy and

muddy seabed, reefs, sandbanks and islands. This site extends

southwards, in a strip approximately 7 km wide and 40 km in length,

from Rockabill, running adjacent to Howth Head, and crosses Dublin

Bay to Frazer Bank in south county Dublin. The site encompasses

Dalkey, Muglins and Rockabill islands.

The cSAC provides a key habitat for Reef communities which are found

fringing offshore islands along the Dublin coast. These Reefs are

subject to strong tidal currents with an abundant supply of suspended

matter resulting in good representation of filter feeding fauna such as

sponges, anemones and echinoderms.

The cSAC provides a key habitat for the Annex II species Harbour

porpoise, within the Irish Sea which occurs year-round within the site

and comparatively high group sizes have been recorded. The site also

contains a wide array of habitats believed to be important for Harbour

porpoise including inshore shallow sand and mud-banks and rocky

reefs scoured by strong current flow.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


The NIS sets out the qualifying interests and conservation objectives

for the cSAC and it identifies potential direct and indirect effects.

Qualifying interests and conservation objectives:

Reefs communities (Annex I habitat)

Harbour Porpoise (Annex II species)

The site also supports Harbour seal and Grey seal, for which terrestrial

haul-out sites occur in immediate proximity to the site. Bottlenose

dolphin has also occasionally been recorded in the area and a number

of other marine mammals have been recorded in this area including

minke, fin and killer whales and Risso’s and common dolphins.

Reef communities: The conservation objective seeks to maintain the

favourable conservation condition of Reefs in Rockabill to Dalkey Island

cSAC, which is defined by the following list of attributes and targets:

Attribute Measure Target

Habitat area Hectares

(c.182ha)

Permanent area stable or increasing,

subject to natural processes.

Habitat

distribution

Occurrence Distribution is stable or increasing, subject

to natural processes

Community

structure

Biological

composition

Conserve the following community types in

a natural condition:

Intertidal reef community complex

Sub tidal reef community complex

Harbour porpoise: The conservation objective seeks to the favourable

conservation condition of Harbour porpoise in Rockabill to Dalkey Island

cSAC, which is defined by the following list of attributes and targets:


Access to

suitable

habitat

Number of

artificial

barriers

Species range within the site should not be

restricted by artificial barriers to site use.

Disturbance Level of

impact

Human activities should occur at levels that

do not adversely affect the harbour porpoise

community at the site.

7

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


8 Potential impacts:

Potential direct effects of increased suspended solids from

dredging and dredge disposal operations could affect visibility for

Harbour porpoise.

Potential habitat modification to benthic communities on the seabed

as a result of dredging and disturbance to fish could affect food

resources for Harbour porpoise.

Potential indirect effect of sediment deposition on the sea bed as a

result of dredging and dredge disposal operations which could

smoother benthic communities.

Potential indirect effects on water quality by way of increased

suspended solids from dredging and dredge disposal operations.

Potential indirect effects from slight to moderately contaminated

sediments entering the food chain after from the dredge disposal

site.

Potential disturbance to Harbour porpoise from dredging vessels.

Potential disturbance effects on Harbour porpoise during

construction (pile driving noise in the Inner Bay) and dredging and

dredge disposal operations in the Inner and Outer Bay.


result of dredging and dredge disposal operations could affect reef

communities.

NIS omissions:

None noted. DPC carried out a pile driving noise test in June 2014

which concluded that underwater would not propagate beyond the

Liffey channel (refer to section 9.0 of this report).

Mitigation:

Phasing and timing of dredging and dredge disposal operations to

enable the recovery of benthic communities; selection of

appropriate dredging plant and operations and compliance with

Dredge Management Plan.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Use of an existing shipping channel and a dredge disposal site

which has been used for the deposition of maintenance dredging

for an extended period.

Capping of slight to moderately contaminated sediments at the

disposal site.

Compliance with the provisions of the NPWS publication “Guidance

to manage the risk to marine mammals from man-made sound

sources in Irish Waters”, including the appointment of a qualified

marine mammal observer and the use of ramp up procedures for

noisy activities.

Deployment of hydrophones (PAMs and SAMs) in Dublin Bay, at

the Port entrance and the dump site to detect the presence of

marine mammals.

The location of the dredge disposal site within an area of strong N-

S tidal currents will ensure that fine sediments are dispersed to the

Irish Sea with only small amounts of sand being deposited on the

seabed under storm conditions with no effect on Reef communities.

Residual Effects


Subject to strict adherence with the mitigation measures contained

in EIS and the NIS, and having regard to the conclusions of the

coastal processes modelling exercises which were assessed in

section 9.0 of this report, the proposed development would not

adversely affect the integrity of the European Site, its Conservation

Objectives or the NPWS targets for Reef communities and Harbour

porpoise, as summarised in the above tables.

11.2.2 Lambay Island cSAC (Site code: 0204)

The proposed ABR Project and would be located several kilometres to

the SE of the Lambay Island cSAC which is a large c.250ha island

lying 4km off Portrane on the N Dublin coast. The island rises to 127m

and is surrounded by steep cliffs on the N, E and S slopes.


Reefs (Annex 1 habitat)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Vegetated Sea Cliffs (Annex 1 habitat)

Grey Seal (Annex 11 species)

Common (Harbour) Seal (Annex 11 species)

The Lambay Island cSAC is located within the Rockabill to Dalkey

Island cSAC and the Conservation objectives are the same for both

sites. Vegetated Sea Cliffs are not included in this assessment are they

are elevated above the zone of influence.

Reef communities: The conservation objective seeks to maintain the

favourable conservation condition of Reefs in Lambay Island cSAC, which is

defined by the following list of attributes and targets:



(c.182ha)

Permanent area stable or increasing,


Habitat

distribution

Occurrence Distribution is stable or increasing, subject

to natural processes

Community

structure

Biological

composition

Conserve the following community types in

a natural condition:

Intertidal reef community complex

Sub tidal reef community complex

Grey seal: The conservation objective seeks to the favourable conservation

condition of grey seal in Lambay Island c.SAC, which is defined by the

following list of attributes and targets:


Access to

suitable

habitat

Number of

artificial

barriers



Breeding

behaviour

Breeding

sites

Maintain in a natural condition

Moulting

behaviour

Moult haul

out sites


Resting

behaviour

Resting haul

out sites


Disturbance

Level of

impact


do not adversely affect the grey seal

at the site.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Harbour seal: The conservation objective seeks to the favourable

conservation condition of harbour seal in Lambay Island c.SAC, which is

defined by the following list of attributes and targets:


Access to

suitable

habitat

Number of

artificial

barriers



Breeding

behaviour

Breeding

sites


Moulting

behaviour

Moult haul

out sites


Resting

behaviour

Resting haul

out sites


Disturbance

Level of

impact


do not adversely affect the grey seal

at the site.

Potential effects:

Potential direct effects of increased suspended solids from

dredging and dredge disposal operations could affect visibility for

grey seals and harbour seals.

Potential habitat modification to benthic communities on the seabed

as a result of dredging and disturbance to fish could affect food

resources for grey seals and harbour seals.


result of dredging and dredge disposal operations could smoother

benthic communities.

Potential indirect effects on water quality by way of increased

suspended solids from dredging and dredge disposal operations.


sediments entering the food chain after from the dredge disposal

site.

Potential disturbance to grey seals and harbour seals from

dredging vessels.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Potential disturbance effects on grey seals and harbour seals

during construction (pile driving noise in the Inner Bay) and

dredging and dredge disposal operations in the Inner and Outer

Bay.


result of dredging and dredge disposal operations could affect reef

communities.

NIS omissions:

The Lambay Island cSAC was not specifically included in the NIS,

however it is situated within the Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC and the

same mitigation measures would apply. The NIS was not informed by any

recent surveys of seal movements in Dublin Bay or the interaction between

the breeding grounds and various haul out sites within the bay. The recent

(post NIS) seal count carried out by the applicant for North Bull Island does

not adequacy describe seal usage of the island. Notwithstanding this

omission, I am satisfied that the following mitigation measures will serve to

minimise the impact of the proposed works on marine mammals including

Harbour and Grey seals.

Mitigation:

Phasing and timing of dredging and dredge disposal operations to

enable the recovery of benthic communities; selection of

appropriate dredging plant and operations and compliance with

Dredge Management Plan.





disposal site.

Compliance with the provisions of the NPWS publication

“Guidance to manage the risk to marine mammals from man-

made sound sources in Irish Waters”, including the appointment

of a qualified marine mammal observer and the use of ramp up

procedures for noisy activities.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Deployment of hydrophones (PAMs and SAMs) in Dublin Bay, at

the Port entrance and the dump site to detect the presence of

marine mammals (including grey seals and harbour seals).

The location of the dredge disposal site within an area of strong

N-S tidal currents will ensure that fine sediments are dispersed to

the Irish Sea with only small amounts of sand being deposited on

the seabed under storm conditions with no effect on Reef

communities.

Residual Effects


Subject to strict adherence with the mitigation measures

contained in the EIS and the NIS, and having regard to the

conclusions of the coastal processes modelling exercises which

were assessed in section 9.0 of this report, the proposed

development would not adversely affect the integrity of the

European Site, its Conservation Objectives or the NPWS targets

for Reef communities, Grey seal or Harbour seal, as summarised

in the tables above.

11.2.3 North Dublin Bay cSAC (Site code: 0206):

The proposed ABR Project and would be located to the S of the North

Dublin Bay cSAC which covers the inner part of N Dublin Bay and the

North Bull Island is the focal point of this site. The site supports a

number of important habitats and protected species. The NIS sets out

the qualifying interests and conservation objectives for the cSAC and it

identifies potential direct and indirect effects.

Qualifying interests and conservation objectives (Annex 1 habitats)

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

Annual vegetation of drift lines

Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand

Atlantic salt meadows

Mediterranean salt meadows

Embryonic shifting dunes

White dunes (marram dunes)

Fixed dunes - grey dunes (also a Priority habitat)

Humid dune slacks

Petalwort (Petalophyllum ralfsii)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


North Dublin Bay is of international importance for waterfowl. The North

Bull Island is home to several protected species including birds, plants

and invertebrates and it also contains intertidal lagoons and salt

marshes. Whilst not a Qualifying Interest, Grey seals (Annex II species)

and Harbour seals use the island for hauling-out and breeding.

The conservation objectives for this cSAC seek “To maintain or restore

the favourable conservation conditions of the Annex 1 habitat(s) and/or

Annex II species for which the cSAC has been selected.”

Embryonic shifting dunes, White dunes (marram dunes), Fixed dunes

(grey dunes) and Humid dune slacks are not included in this

assessment are they are considered to be located beyond the zone of

influence of the proposed works

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide: To maintain the

favourable conservation condition of mudflats and sandflats not covered by

seawater at low tide in North Dublin Bay SAC, which is defined by the

following list of relevant attributes and targets:



Stable or increasing subject to natural

processes

Community

extent

Hectares Maintain the extent of the Mytilus edulis

(blue mussel) dominated community,

subject to natural processes

Community

structure

Individuals

per sq.m.

Conserve the high quality of the of the

Mytilus edulis (blue mussel) dominated

community, subject to natural processes

Community

distribution

Hectares Conserve the following community types

(worms) in a natural condition:

Fine sand to sandy mud with

Pygospio elegans and Crangon

crangon community complex

Fine sand with Spio martinensis

community complex

Annual vegetation of drift lines: To restore the favourable conservation

condition of annual vegetation of drift lines in North Dublin Bay SAC, which is

defined by the following list of relevant attributes and targets:

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________




Stable or increasing subject to natural

processes

Habitat

distribution

Occurrence No decline, or change in habitat distribution,

subject to natural processes

Physical

structure

Physical

barriers

Maintain the natural circulation of sediment

and organic matter, without any physical

obstructions

Vegetation

structure

Occurrence Maintain the range of coastal habitats

including transitional zones, subject

to natural processes including erosion and

succession

Vegetation

composition

(typical)

% cover Maintain the presence of species-poor

communities with typical species: sea

rocket, sea sandwort, prickly saltwort and

saltbush

Vegetation

composition

(negative)

% cover Negative indicator species (including non-

natives) to represent less than 5% cover

Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand, and Atlantic salt

meadows and Mediterranean salt meadows: To maintain the favourable

conservation condition of these Annex 1 habitats in North Dublin Bay SAC,

which are defined by the following list of relevant attributes and targets:


Habitat area Hectares Stable or increasing subject to natural

processes

Habitat

distribution

Occurrence No decline, or change in habitat

distribution, subject to natural processes

Sediment

supply

Physical

barriers

Maintain, or where necessary restore,

natural circulation of sediments and

organic matter, without any physical

obstructions

Flooding

regime

Hectares &

frequency

Maintain natural tidal regime

Vegetation

structure-

zonation

Occurrence Maintain the range of coastal habitats

including transitional zones, subject

to natural processes including erosion

and succession

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Vegetation

structure-

height

Centimetres Maintain structural variation within sward

Vegetation

structure-

cover

% cover Maintain more than 90% of area

Vegetation

structure-

species

% cover Maintain the presence of species-poor

communities

Vegetation

structure-

negative

indicator

Hectares No significant expansion of common

cordgrass (Spartina anglica), with an

annual spread of less than 1%

Petalwort: To maintain the favourable conservation condition of the Annex 1

Petalwort habitats in North Dublin Bay SAC which are defined by the following

list of relevant attributes and targets:


Distribution of

populations

Number &

spread

No decline

Population size Number of

individuals

No decline

Area of suitable

habitat

Hectares No decline

Soil moisture Occurrence Maintain hydrological conditions

Vegetation cover Centimetres &

percentage

Maintain open, low vegetation with a

high percentage of bryophytes (and

bare ground)

Potential effects:

Potential indirect effects on water quality by way of suspended

solids from dredging operations and pollution arising from the

treatment and reuse of contaminated sediments as infill.

Potential indirect effect of sediment deposition on the sea bed/sea

shore and smothering as a result of dredging and dredge disposal

operations.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________



sediments entering the food chain after being re-dispersed from the

dredge disposal site.

Potential minor indirect effects on hydrological regimes as a result

of dredging activity.

NIS omissions:

The NIS did not carried out a detailed analysis of the potential effects of

the proposed development on the NPWS targets for various Annex 1

habitats outlined above. However, having regard to the conclusions of

the coastal processes modelling exercises which were assessed in

section 9.0 of this report and to the scale of the proposed development

relative to the overall size of Dublin Bay, I am satisfied that the

proposed works would not result in any substantial habitat removal or

fragmentation; any perceptible changes to the tidal or hydrological

regimes; or any significant ongoing or continuous disturbance to these

habitats by way of physical barriers, excessive sediment deposition,

smothering or the expansion of negative indicator species such as

Spartina.

Mitigation:

Phasing and timing of dredging and dredge disposal operations,

selection of appropriate dredging plant and operations and

compliance with Dredge Management Plan.





disposal site.




seabed under storm conditions.

Compliance with High Level CEMP along with regular monitoring of

water quality at Alexandra Basin and Berths 52/53 in vicinity of

areas filled with remediated sediments.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Residual Effects



in the EIS and the NIS, and having regard to the conclusions of the




Objectives or the NPWS targets for the individual Annex 1 habitats

located within this site, as summarised in the tables above.

11.2.4 South Dublin Bay cSAC (Site code: 0210)

The proposed ABR Project and would be located to the N of the South

Dublin Bay cSAC lies to the south of the River Liffey and extends from

the South Wall to the west pier at Dun Laoghaire. It is an intertidal site

with extensive areas of sand and mudflats. The sediments are

predominantly sands but grade to sandy muds near the shore at

Merrion Gates. The site supports a number of important habitats and

protected species and it is of international importance for waterfowl.

The NIS sets out the qualifying interests and conservation objectives

for the c.SAC and it identifies potential direct and indirect effects.


Tidal Mudflats and Sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

(Annex 1 habitat).

The conservation objective for this cSAC is to maintain the favourable

conservation condition of mudflats and sandflats not covered by

seawater at low tide. The conservation condition is defined by the

following list of attributes and targets for the fine sands with Angulus

tenuis communities (marine bivalve mollusc) at Sandymount and

Blackrock, and the Zostera communities (eelgrass) at Merrion Gates):

No. Targets Considerations

1 The permanent habitat area is

stable or increasing, subject to

natural processes

Activities/operations that will

permanently remove habitat from a site,

and not long/short term disturbance.

2

Maintain the extent of the

Zostera dominated community,


Any significant anthropogenic

disturbance to the extent of these

communities should be avoided.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


3

Conserve the high quality of the

Zostera-dominated community,


It is important to ensure the quality as

well as the extent of Zostera-dominated

communities is conserved

5 Conserve Fine sands with

Angulus tenuis communities in

a natural condition

Significant continuous or ongoing

disturbance of communities should not

exceed an area of c.15% of the area of

each community type

Potential effects:

Potential direct effects from disturbance during channel dredging.




Potential indirect effect of sediment deposition on the sea

bed/seashore and smothering of sensitive ecological communities

as a result of dredging and dredge disposal operations.




NIS omissions:

The NIS did not carry out a detailed analysis of the potential effects of

the proposed development on the NPWS targets for fine sands with

Angulus tenuis community complex and the Zostera communities.

However, having regard to the conclusions of the coastal processes

modelling exercise which are assessed in section 9.0 of this report and

the targets outlined above, I am satisfied that the proposed works

would not result in any habitat removal or fragmentation, or any

significant ongoing or continuous disturbance to this Annex 1 habitat by

way of physical barriers, excessive sediment deposition or smothering.

Mitigation:


selection of appropriate dredging plant and operations and


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________






disposal site.








Residual Effects







Objectives or the NPWS targets for this site, as summarised in the

above tables.

11.2.5 North Bull Island SPA (Site code: 4006)

The proposed ABR Project and would be located to the SW and S of

the North Bull Island SPA. This SPA covers all of the inner part of N

Dublin Bay, with the seaward boundary extending from the Bull Wall

lighthouse across to Drumleck Point at Howth Head. The Island sand

spit is a relatively recent depositional feature, formed as a result of

improvements to Dublin Port during the 18th and 19th centuries. It is

c.5km long and c.1km wide and runs parallel to the coast between

Clontarf and Sutton. It comprises a well-developed and dynamic dune

system which stretches along the seaward side of the island. Various

types of dunes occur, from fixed dune grassland to pioneer

communities on fore dunes. The Island contains intertidal lagoons and

salt marshes and it home to several protected species of wintering bird.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


The SPA supports numerous wintering bird species and the NIS sets

out the Special Conservation Interests and conservation objectives for

the site, and it identifies potential direct and indirect effects.

Special Conservation Interests and conservation objective:

The conservation objective seeks to maintain or restore the favourable

conservation condition of the bird species listed as Special

Conservation Interests for this SPA:

Light-bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla hrota)

Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna)

Teal (Anas crecca)

Pintail (Anas acuta)

Shoveler (Anas clypeata)

Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus)

Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria)

Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola)

Knot (Calidris canutus)

Sanderling (Calidris alba)

Dunlin (Calidris alpina)

Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa)

Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica)

Curlew (Numenius arquata)

Redshank (Tringa totanus)

Turnstone (Arenaria interpres)

Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus)

Wetlands & Waterbirds

Potential effects:

Potential direct effects from disturbance during channel dredging.




Potential indirect effect of minor sediment deposition on the sea

bed/seashore as a result of dredging and dredge disposal

operations.




For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Potential for minor indirect effects on birds by way for noise

disturbance during construction and pile driving.

NIS omissions:

The NIS did not analyse the potential effects of pile driving noise on the

feeding and behavioural patterns of winter birds in the SPA although

this issue was addressed at the Oral Hearing. I am satisfied that there

is little likelihood of potential noise effects because of the separation

distance between the proposed works and this SPA.

Mitigation:

Phasing and timing of dredging and dredge disposal operations

and selection of appropriate dredging plant and operations and






disposal site.








Residual Effects


Brent geese will continue to feed on agricultural feedstuff in

Alexandra Basin West.

It is not anticipated that construction would have a significant effect

on birds however the attachment of a condition to restrict pile

driving operations to no more than 3 rigs at any time would further

reduce the potential effects of noise on birds in the SPA.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________




coastal processes modelling exercises and the additional

information provided to the Oral Hearing in relation to aerial noise

and birds (which were assessed in section 9.0 of this report), the

proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of

this European Site or its Conservation Objectives.

11.2.6 South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA (Site code: 4024)

The proposed ABR Project and would be located to the N and S of the

South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA which comprises a

substantial part of Dublin Bay. It includes the intertidal area between

the River Liffey and Dun Laoghaire, and the estuary of the River Tolka

to the north of the River Liffey, as well as Booterstown Marsh. A portion

of the shallow marine waters of the Bay is also included. In the South

Bay, the intertidal flats extend for almost 3 km at their widest. The

sediments are predominantly well-aerated sands. Several permanent

channels exist, the largest being Cockle Lake. A small sandy beach

occurs at Merrion Gates, while some bedrock shore occurs near Dun

Laoghaire. The landward boundary is now almost entirely artificially

embanked.

The SPA supports a number breeding, passage and wintering bird

species and the NIS sets out the Special Conservation Interests and

Conservation Objectives for the site, and it identifies potential direct

and indirect effects.

Special Conservation Interests and conservation objective:

The conservation objective seeks to maintain or restore the favourable

conservation condition of the bird species listed as Special

Conservation Interests for this SPA:

Light-bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla hrota)

Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus)

Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula)

Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola)

Knot (Calidris canutus)

Sanderling (Calidris alba)

Dunlin (Calidris alpina)

Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica)

Redshank (Tringa totanus)

Black-headed Gull (Croicocephalus ridibundus)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii)

Common Tern (Sterna hirundo)

Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea)

Wetlands & Waterbirds

Potential effects:

Potential direct effects for disturbance and/or displacement of birds

from construction noise, channel dredging and Port operations.




Potential for indirect effects from slight to moderately contaminated

sediments entering the food chain.

Potential indirect effects of minor sediment deposition on the sea

bed as a result of dredging and dredge disposal operations.




NIS omissions:

The NIS did not analyse the potential effects of pile driving noise on the

feeding and behavioural patterns of winter birds in the SPA although

this issue was addressed at the Oral Hearing.

Mitigation:


selection of appropriate dredging plant, and operations and

compliance with the Dredge Management Plan.







For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________





seabed within the SPA under storm conditions.


disposal site.

Residual impacts

Residual effects are not predicted to be significant.

Brent geese will continue to feed on agricultural feedstuff in

Alexandra Basin West.

The tern colonies within the Port are well habituated to dredging,

shipping and harbour noise.

It is not anticipated that construction would have a significant effect

on birds however the attachment of a condition to restrict pile

driving operations to no more than 3 rigs at any time would further

reduce the potential effects of noise on birds in the SPA.



coastal processes modelling exercises and the additional

information provided to the Oral Hearing in relation to aerial noise

and birds (which were assessed in section 9.0 of this report), the

proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of

this European Site or its Conservation Objectives.

11.3 Cumulative impacts

The NIS examined the potential cumulative impact of the proposed

development together with existing and permitted facilities within Dublin

Bay. Ten plans or projects were assessed as having possible

significant impacts (which would be reduced by way of mitigation) and

eight were assessed as having no impact. The plans and projects

included the Clontarf flood relief scheme, the Sutton to Sandycove

cycle path, the extension to the Ringsend WWTP sewerage outfall (no

longer relevant) and an offshore windfarm (Dublin Array) as well as

ongoing maintenance dredging in the channel.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


The only project of plan that could have a potential in-combination

effect on the integrity of European Sites and their Conservation

Objectives relates to piling noise from the offshore wind farm (Dublin

Array) which could affect Harbour porpoise and other noise sensitive

marine mammals. However given that the timescales for the proposed

ABR development and the offshore windfarm do not coincide, there

would be no cumulative or in-combination impacts.

No cumulative or in-combination impacts on marine mammals, benthic

communities, fisheries, bird populations or sensitive habitats from the

construction or operation of the ABR project are predicted. No other

potential in-combination impacts on qualifying habitats and species

within the European sites are identified. It is concluded, therefore, that

no long-term cumulative or in-combination impacts are predicted.

11.4 Conclusion

Having regard to the above assessment, it reasonable to conclude that,

subject to the implementation of the mitigation measures contained in

the EIS and NIS, the construction and operation of the proposed

development, individually and in-combination with other plans or

projects would not adversely affect the integrity of the following

European Sites or their Conservation Objectives:

Rockabill to Dalkey Island cSAC (Site code: 3000);

Lambay Island cSAC (Site code: 0204);

North Dublin Bay cSAC (Site code: 0206);

South Dublin Bay cSAC (Site code: 0210);

North Bull Island SPA (Site code: 4006);

South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA (Site code: 4024);

or the integrity or Conservation Objectives of any other European Sites

located within Dublin Bay.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


12.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

I have considered the EIS and NIS and all submissions and

observations received which are relevant to impacts on the

environment and European Sites, inspected the site, and I have

assessed the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the

development on the environment and the European Sites. Having

regard to the above, I am satisfied that the direct and indirect effects of

the proposed development on the environment and the European Sites

have been identified and described. The potential impact of the

proposed development can be adequately mitigated and is not likely to

result in a significant impact on the environment or any European Sites.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to the provisions of the:

EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC),

European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats)

Regulations, 2011,

EU Guidelines on the Implementation of the Birds and Habitats

Directives in Estuaries and Coastal Zones (with particular

attention to port development and dredging), 2011,

European Union Ports 2030 Gateways for the Trans European

Transport Network, 2014,

National Ports Policy 2014, Department of Transport, Tourism

and Sport,

National Development Plan 2007-2013,

National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020,

Guidance to Manage the Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-

made Sound Sources in Irish Water, DAH&G 2014,

Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017,

North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock Planning Scheme 2014,

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Local Action Plan City of Dublin – Cruise Traffic and Urban

Regeneration of City Port Heritage as a Key for Sustainable

Economic, Social and Urban Development, 2011,

Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040,

9

The submissions and observations received in relation to the

likely effects on the environment, and

The likely consequences for the environment and the proper

planning and sustainable development in the area in which it is

proposed to situate the said development, and the likely

significant effects of the proposed development on a European

site, and

having regard to the presence of an existing port on the site and

subject to compliance with the mitigation measures set out in the

Environmental Impact Statement and Natura Impact Statement, and

the following conditions, the proposed development would not seriously

injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity, would not

be prejudicial to public health or safety and would be acceptable in

terms of traffic safety and convenience. The proposed development

would, therefore, not have significant effects on the environment or any

European Sites and would be in accordance with the proper planning

and sustainable development of the area.

CONDITIONS

1. The development shall be carried out and completed in accordance

with the plans and particulars lodged with the application, as amended

by the Further Information received on 18th August 2014, except as

may otherwise be required in order to comply with the following

conditions.

Reason: In the interest of clarity.

2. The permission shall, in accordance with the application, be for a

period of ten years from the date of this order.

Reason: In order to allow a reasonable period for the completion of this

extensive development.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


3. The developer shall implement in full the mitigation measures

contained in the Environmental Impacts Statement and Natura Impact

Statement submitted with the application save where any such

mitigation measures relate to emissions to the environment falling

within the scope of the Waste Licence and Dumping at Sea Permit,

responsibility for which rests with the Environmental Protection Agency.

Reason: In the interest of clarity and the proper planning and

sustainable development of the area and to ensure the protection of a

European site.

4. The construction of the ABR project shall be managed in accordance

with the Draft High Level Construction and Environmental Management

Plan and the final plan shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with

the planning authority prior to commencement of development.

Reason: To minimise emissions to the environment from the

construction phase of the development and the emissions not covered

by EPA licensing arrangements in order to protect groundwater and

surface water and the general amenities of the area.

5. The developer shall ensure that that over-spilling at the surface of the

dredger is avoided for all dredging activities within the inner Liffey

channel and to ensure that the increase in suspended sediment

concentration over the ambient does not exceed a maximum of 50mg/l

outside of the immediate dredging zone.

Reason: To minimise the levels of suspended sediment in the River

Liffey from the dredging operation.

6. The developer shall operate no more than a maximum of 3 pile driving

rigs at any one time and consideration should be given to the timing of

the operation of these rigs in relation to the breeding season for marine

mammals. Any subsequent changes to the phasing programme for

construction works, which should incorporate all of the relevant

mitigation measures contained in the EIS and NIS, shall be submitted

to the planning authority for written agreement prior to commencement

of development.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity, wildlife protection and

the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


7. (a) The resulting construction noise level for the entire project, and

the dredging noise level in the south western section of the River

Liffey channel located parallel to the residential areas at Pigeon

House Road and Coastguard Cottages, when measured at the

nearest noise sensitive location, shall not exceed-

(i) an LAeq1 hour value of 55 dB(A) during the period 0800

to 2200 hours from Monday to Saturday (inclusive), and

(ii) an LAeq15 minutes value of 45 dB(A) at any other time.

(b) All sound measurements shall be carried out in accordance with

ISO Recommendations R 1996, “Assessment of Noise with

Respect to Community Response” as amended by ISO

Recommendations R 1996/1, 2 and 3, “Description and

Measurement of Environmental Noise”, as appropriate.

Construction and dredging activity outside these hours, other than

works required in response to an emergency, shall require the prior

written agreement of the planning authority and shall accord with the

noise parameters set by the planning authority.

Reason: To protect the residential amenities of property in the vicinity

of the site and to ensure the protection of fauna in the area.

8. The developer shall institute a programme to monitor construction

noise levels at the noise sensitive receptor locations identified in the

EIS. Monitoring shall take place before, during and for 12 months after

completion of construction and dredging works. The results of this

monitoring programme shall be submitted to the planning authority at

regular 6 monthly intervals.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and to maintain a public

record.

9. Water supply and drainage arrangements, including the disposal of

surface water, shall comply with the requirements of Irish Water for

such works.

Reason: To ensure adequate servicing of the development, and to

prevent pollution.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


10. The proposed works at North Wall Quay Extension shall not commence

until the high voltage cables which traverse the River Liffey channel

have been relocated to a new position.

Reason: In the interests of the proper planning and sustainable


11. The developer shall ensure that appropriate safeguards are put in

place to avoid disruption from dredging activities to the cooling water

intake and outfall the existing servicing power stations at Poolbeg.



12. The proposed development, and any further development of the lands

in the ownership or control of the developer, shall be undertaken strictly

in accordance with the requirements of the NRA’s Corridor Protection

Study Sector A: Dublin Tunnel to Sandymount Strand, September

2014, including the protection of the Eastern Bypass Corridor as

indicated.


development of the area and the protection of the Eastern Bypass

Corridor.

13. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall submit

and agree in writing with the planning authority details in relation to:

(a) All traffic management measures along East Wall Road

including the timing of the closures of existing accesses to

Dublin Port.

(b) Internal linkage arrangements for all vehicles, including HGVs

and cruise ship related vehicles, from the new ABR development

to the main Port entrance at Promenade Road.

(c) Pedestrian and cycle routes from East Wall to the Port Estate,

and in particular between the proposed cruise chip berth facility

and the Point Luas stop. Pedestrian and cycle access routes

should have regard to the route options identified in the NRA’s

Corridor Protection Study Sector A: Dublin Tunnel to

Sandymount Strand, September 2014, and the planning

authorities plans for the signalisation of the Point Roundabout.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


Reason: In the interest of traffic and pedestrian safety and the proper

planning and sustainable development of the area.

14. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall liaise

with the National Roads Authority and the operators of the Dublin

Tunnel to prepare and agree a Construction Traffic Management

Strategy for the Dublin Tunnel for the duration of the works.


efficiency and capacity of the Dublin Tunnel and the National Road

Network in the Region.


and agree in writing with the planning authority a detailed construction

traffic management plan which provides details in relation to:

(a) The timing and routing of construction traffic to and from the

construction sites and associated directional signage,

(b) The staggering of various shift start and finish times to take

account of the main ship arrival and departure times.

Reason: In the interest of traffic safety, to ensure the continued

efficient operation of the port and to protect the integrity of the Dublin

Tunnel.

16. All costs incurred by the planning authority, 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 the planning authority.



17. In relation to marine mammals:

(a) All of the measures contained in the Guidance to Manage the

Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-made Sound Sources in Irish

Waters (2014) shall be fully implemented including a1000m

exclusion zone for piling and a 500m exclusion zone for

dredging.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


(b) The developer shall employ more than one suitably qualified

marine mammal observers for the duration of piling and dredging

in order to avoid fatigue and ramp-up operations shall

commence during day light hours with adequate visibility.

(c) An acoustic monitoring programme shall assess the potential

impact of the proposed development on marine mammal

populations in Dublin Bay which shall be carried out through the

construction and dredging phases and for a period of 24 months

after the completion of all works.

(d) The developer shall deploy a minimum of four hydrophones in

Dublin Bay to assist in the detection of marine mammals within

the 1000m and 500m exclusion zones for piling and dredging,

which should be used in combination with all of the measures

referred to in (a) and (b):

i. A minimum of two real time passive acoustic monitoring

system (PAMs) shall be deployed in Dublin Bay at the

approaches to Dublin Port to provide information on the

presence of marine mammals.

ii. A minimum of two static acoustic monitoring systems

(SAMs) shall be deployed at the dump site to the west of

the Burford Bank and within Dublin Bay to provide

information on the presence of marine mammals.

(e) Potential noise impact zones should be mapped for Dublin Bay

and the River Liffey and its tidal extent to Islandbridge in

accordance with the 500m and 1000m exclusion zones for piling

and dredging and in relation to the European site boundaries

which lie within these zones. These zones should include each

species and their known usage of and range within Dublin Bay

and the River Liffey and the maps shall be submitted to the

planning authority to maintain a public record.

(f) A log of the marine mammal observer operations shall be

submitted to the NPWS, the planning authority, and the NBDC

for the Marine Mammal Database, following completion of these

works to maintain a public record.

Reason: In the interest of wildlife protection.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


18. The developer shall undertake monthly monitoring of seal haul out sites

at the North Bull Island and adjacent areas before, during and after

construction for a minimum of 2 years in line with international best

practice. The proposed monitoring methodology and duration of the

survey shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to

commencement of development. Monitoring for harbour and grey

seals shall be further extended to include a survey of Dublin Bay within

the zones of influence as defined in the EIS. The results of the surveys

at each agreed stage of completion shall be submitted to the planning

authority for a review of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures

and to maintain a public record.


19. The developer shall institute a programme to monitor the movement of

River Lamprey in the Liffey Channel in the vicinity of Alexandra Basin

West before construction commences and before, during and after the

relevant phase of dredging for one full season. The results of the

surveys at each agreed stage of completion shall be submitted to the

planning authority for a review of the effectiveness of the mitigation

measures and to maintain a public record.


20. The developer shall carry out further bat surveys of the structures

scheduled for demolition prior to demolition during May to September,

in line with best practice, when the bats are active. Detailed measures

in relation to the removal of bats shall be submitted to and agreed in

writing with the planning authority, prior to commencement of

development. The removal of bats shall be carried out only under

licence from the National Parks and Wildlife Service and details of any

such licence shall be copied to the planning authority.



winter wetland birds in the adjacent European sites at the South Dublin

Bay and River Tolka SPA. This monitoring programme shall continue

throughout the construction phase and for a period of 3 years after the

completion of such works, with monthly surveys from October to March.

The results of this monitoring programme shall be submitted to the

planning authority at 12 monthly intervals to maintain a public record.


For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________



Brent Geese, Black Guillemots, and Common and Artic Tern in Dublin

Port. This monitoring programme shall continue throughout the

construction phase and for a period of 3 years after the completion of

such works. The results of this monitoring programme shall be

submitted to the planning authority at 12 monthly intervals to maintain a

public record.



and agree in writing with the planning authority, a risk assessment and

a strategy for a management system for invasive alien species which

shall be used for the duration of the proposed works.



24. The developer shall liaise with the National Roads Authority in relation

to the location of the proposed Interpretative Pavilion located within

Interpretative Zone 1 at the entrance to North Wall Quay Extension

which lies within the protection corridor for the Eastern Bypass. Any

amended location for this feature along North Wall Quay Extension

shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to

commencement of development.



25. The historic blocks recovered from demolition works at North Wall

Quay Extension shall be stored in a safe and secure location within

Dublin Port. Any future use of these blocks shall be agreed in writing

with the planning authority prior to commencement of development.

Reason: To ensure the management industrial and engineering

heritage within Dublin Port and in the interest of the proper planning

and sustainable development of the area.

26. The developer shall facilitate the preservation, recording and protection

of archaeological materials or features that may exist within the site.

The areas requiring testing are outlined in the EIS. In this regard, the

developer shall –

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________


(a) Notify the planning authority in writing at least four weeks prior to

the commencement of any site operation including hydrological

and geotechnical investigations relating to the proposed

development,

(b) Employ a suitably-qualified archaeologist who shall monitor all

site investigations and other excavation works, and

(c) Provide arrangements, acceptable to the planning authority, for

the recording and for the removal of any archaeological material

which the authority considers appropriate to remove.

(d) In default of agreement on any of these requirements, the matter

shall be referred to An Bord Pleanála for determination.

Reason: In order to conserve the underwater archaeological heritage

of the site and to secure the preservation and protection of any remains

that may exist within the site.

27. The developer shall submit a detailed landscaping plan for the Port

perimeter which should enhance the visual appearance of the Ports

interface with the City and contribute to biodiversity. Details shall be

submitted to the planning authority for written agreement prior to

commencement of development.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity.

28. In relation to community gain:

(a) Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall

transfer ownership of 10.5ha of lands owned by Dublin Port

Company at North Bull Island to the planning authority to provide

for public enjoyment and subject to compliance with the

Conservation Management objectives of the North Dublin Bay

cSAC (site code: 000206) and to the protection of the North Bull

Island SPA (site code: 00400).

(b) Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall

pay to the planning authority a sum of €1,000,000 (one million

Euro) on a basis to be agreed in writing with the planning

authority, toward the provision of any services or facilities to

implement the feasibility study, proposed Masterplan and/or

SAAO Management Plan within 10 years from the date of this

order being signed.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49

___________________________________________________________________________________



development of the area and the protection of wildlife.

29. The developer shall pay to the planning authority a financial

contribution in respect of public infrastructure and facilities benefiting

development in the area of the planning authority that is provided or

intended to be provided by or on behalf of the authority in accordance

with the terms of the Development Contribution Scheme made under

section 48 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The contribution

shall be paid prior to the commencement of development or in such

phased payments as the planning authority may facilitate and shall be

subject to any applicable indexation provisions of the Scheme at the

time of payment. Details of the application of the terms of the Scheme

shall be agreed between the planning authority and the developer or, in

default of such agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Board to

determine the proper application of the terms of the Scheme.

Reason: It considered reasonable that a condition requiring a

contribution in accordance with the Development Contribution Scheme

made under section 48 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as

amended be applied to the permission.

30. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall lodge with

the planning authority a cash deposit, a bond of an insurance company,

or other security to secure the provision and satisfactory completion of

roads, footpaths, watermains, drains, open space and other services

required in connection with the development, together with the

reinstatement of public roads which may be damaged by the transport

of materials to the site, coupled with an agreement empowering the

local authority to apply such security or part thereof to the satisfactory

completion of any part of the development. The form and amount of the

security shall be as agreed between the planning authority and the

developer or, in default of agreement, shall be referred to An Bord

Pleanála for determination.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory completion of the development.

Karla Mc Bride

Senior Planning Inspector

18th December 2014

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 21-12-2017:03:45:49