Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate -
Tuesday, 5 Mar 2024

Fish Migration and Barriers to Migration: Discussion (Resumed)

An Cathaoirleach

We will commence now in public session. I have received apologies from Deputy Devlin and Senator Higgins. The purpose of this morning's meeting is to have our second public session discussion on fish migration and barriers to fish migration. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the following witnesses to the meeting: Mr. Jim Casey, head of flood risk management in the Office of Public Works, OPW, and Mr. Cian Ó Dónaill of the flood risk management section in the south-west division and environment section of the OPW. They are both very welcome to the committee this morning.

I will read out the note on privilege now as usual. This is remind our guests of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If any statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct witnesses to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

I remind members of the committee of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind members that they are only allowed to participate in this meeting if they are physically located on the Leinster House complex. For those few members who are joining online, I ask them to confirm that they are on the grounds of Leinster House prior to making their contribution to the meeting.

I will ask Mr. Casey now for his opening statement, please.

Mr. Jim Casey

I thank the Chair and the committee members for their invitation to attend this meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action. I am joined this morning by my colleague, Mr. Cian Ó Dónaill, south-west division and environment section of the Office of Public Works.

The OPW appreciates the committee’s invitation to discuss the subject of fish migration and barriers to migration. In these brief opening remarks, I will outline for the committee the important role the OPW plays in flood risk management, arterial drainage maintenance and related environmental considerations, in particular, those concerning fish migration and I will note our ongoing engagement with Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI.

Under the OPW’s climate responsive flood risk management brief, we co-ordinate a whole-of-Government approach to managing Ireland’s flood risk from rivers and the sea, the primary sources of Ireland’s flood risk. The OPW's core objective is to reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the impact of flooding on homes and businesses, and the consequent risk to life in communities known to be at significant flood risk.

Since 2018, as part of a phased approach to scheme delivery, national development plan, NDP, funding of some €1.3 billion has allowed the OPW to treble its work on flood relief schemes to some 100 schemes currently at design, planning or construction at this time. Many of these schemes are being led by local authorities in partnership with the OPW. Some 23,000 at-risk properties will benefit from this NDP investment. As each scheme is progressed by a multi-disciplinary team, designing the optimal technical solution, ensuring a robust approach to environmental assessments, and meeting other regulatory requirements are all essential steps.

Barriers to fish passage are a major issue of concern with respect to the biodiversity in our rivers and lakes. There are many human-made barriers in the form of weirs, bridges and culverts in our rivers. The OPW has been aware of this and is focused on, where possible, the removal of existing barriers, avoiding the creation of new barriers, and ensuring that new and modified structures do not impede fish passage. Some visual examples have been provided in the attached submission.

The OPW has worked closely with Inland Fisheries Ireland to protect fisheries and to remove several barriers to fish passage as part of our work on flood relief schemes and arterial drainage maintenance. These include for the rivers Tolka, Dodder and Nore, the Fergus, the Tullamore, the Suir at Clonmel, and the Brosna at Mullingar, among others. More recently, on the Templemore flood relief scheme, extensive consultation with IFI at detailed design stage allowed for a fish-friendly design, which included 40 measures designed to enhance the aquatic environment.

As the committee will be aware, as part of the development of the flood relief scheme for Bandon, which provides protection to some 390 properties, a rock ramp-type fish pass was provided at the historic weir in the main river channel.

The fish pass was designed by specialist designers on behalf of OPW, in consultation with IFI. Representatives of IFI inspected the fish pass during its construction. Surveys, especially on numbers of salmon fry, indicate notable improvements, showing that the fish pass is having beneficial effects in allowing better passage of fish upstream of the weir in Bandon. The OPW continues to monitor the performance of the fish pass.

The OPW has a statutory duty to maintain arterial drainage schemes completed under the Arterial Drainage Act 1945. These schemes provide drainage outfall for 260,000 ha of agricultural lands and a level of protection from flooding to urban areas, including some 21,000 properties and critical infrastructure. The annual arterial drainage maintenance works programme is carried out in accordance with relevant legislation, through a range of environmental assessments, including strategic environmental assessments, appropriate assessments and ecological assessments, supported by widespread stakeholder consultation.

Arterial drainage maintenance works are carried out in line with OPW environmental guidelines, developed in conjunction with IFI, which set out procedures for environmentally friendly maintenance. The guidance also includes steps for the enhancement of channels, such as the creation of gravel beds, pools, irregular features and flow depths, and deflectors where opportunity exists.

The OPW works closely with IFI on the environmental drainage maintenance research programme, which builds on existing collaboration, good practice and guidance materials developed by IFI and the OPW over the course of many years. This close relationship between both organisations has been formalised by means of the latest shared service agreement. The agreement aims to enable the OPW to maximise environmental gain during arterial drainage maintenance practices and to implement enhancement and restoration on channels identified by IFI. An aim of the shared service agreement is for OPW and IFI to work jointly towards meeting the objectives of the water framework directive and meeting actions set out in Ireland’s national biodiversity action plan. The OPW looks forward to continuing this proactive engagement with IFI. I thank the Chairman and committee members for their time and would welcome any questions they may have.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Casey for his opening statement. Members might indicate if they wish to ask questions.

I might start by asking about the challenge of the OPW remit. I accept it is not for Mr. Casey to say what the remit should be. His job is to carry out the functions of the OPW as set out in legislation. I am trying to explore the potential for nature-based solutions to flooding that might have a positive knock-on effect on habitats, fish migration and so on. Can Mr. Casey speak about that? Is there a move within the OPW towards more nature-based solutions with that challenge? It is not just fish migration; it is all kinds of biodiversity enhancement.

My second question is on the arterial drainage maintenance programme. Mr. Casey said it is carried out in accordance with relevant legislation through a range of environmental assessments including strategic environment assessments, appropriate assessments and ecological assessments. He acknowledged the importance of widespread stakeholder consultation. Is every project undertaken by the OPW put through those assessments or is the programme simply looked at annually at the start of the year? I am aware of projects in my own locality and I do not know if these assessments have happened. Mr. Casey might be familiar with the Newport river. A huge amount of clearance work has been done there lately and it does not seem right.

It is devastating for the local environment. There might be a drainage or flooding challenge that overrides the environmental challenge, and that might be the OPW’s remit or the view that it takes, but I am curious about whether individual assessments at project level happen across the board.

Mr. Jim Casey

I will first deal with the Chair’s questions on the broader remit of the OPW and nature-based solutions. As the Chair well knows, the OPW is the lead agency for flood risk management. Much of the work we do focuses on the mitigation of flood risk. However, we are obliged to achieve solutions to flood risk problems in conjunction with, and having regard to, the regulatory framework, all of the environmental legislation and everything else I mentioned in my opening statement. When we look to find solutions to flood problems, they must be environmentally sensitive. Where there is potential harm to the environment, we have to incorporate what are usually strict measures to mitigate the impact.

In recent years, we have been doing a great deal of work in respect of nature-based solutions. Such solutions work by slowing down the flow of water to reduce flood risks downstream. They can provide multiple additional benefits for a range of objectives, including water quality, biodiversity and public amenity. We are conscious of the value of nature-based solutions. While pilot and demonstration projects have shown that such solutions can reduce the risk from more frequent low-intensity floods, these benefits are understood to reduce for the more extreme floods, such as one-in-100-year floods. Unfortunately, nature-based solutions have not been widely implemented to date, but the OPW is active in pursuing this approach for future applications. Some of our work in this area includes the co-funding of research, which will conclude shortly, to examine the effectiveness of nature-based measures on agricultural lands. This is being done under the SloWaters research project. The OPW has provided funding to the Inishowen Rivers Trust in Donegal to investigate and implement such measures to reduce flood risk and provide co-benefits. All of our capital flood relief schemes involve a specific requirement to assess the potential for the use of nature-based solutions. Other delivery mechanisms are also being developed. The OPW supports other public agencies and organisations in the development of their nature-based policies and schemes, identifying areas for mutual co-operation. With the EPA, the OPW is co-chairing the working group on nature-based solutions for catchment management. Nature-based solutions are becoming an increasing focus of our work, but an ongoing challenge is the fact that such solutions on their own will not necessarily achieve the level of mitigation we require for more extreme events. The difficulty here is that those events are likely to get more extreme.

Regarding the ADA, I might ask my colleague-----

An Cathaoirleach

I might interject before Mr. Ó Dónaill contributes. It is positive that, according to what I just heard, there has been a move towards understanding and assessing flood mitigation and flood risk through the lens of nature-based solutions. It was heartening to hear that. I expect that, in the rivers where these solutions are employed, we will see multiple co-benefits. Will Mr. Casey discuss some of the solutions that have been developed and how the assessment works?

Does the OPW have the in-house expertise? I am an engineer and engineers can be siloed in their thinking and in the way they develop solutions. For nature-based solutions a multidisciplinary approach is needed. Does the OPW have that multidisciplinary expertise in house so that it can properly assess flood risk, mitigation and appropriate nature-based solutions?

Mr. Jim Casey

I believe we do. We have significant expertise in this area in house. We sit on a range of working groups and committees. We participate in international forums in terms of learning about the current state of knowledge on nature-based solutions. In recent years, the OPW developed a dedicated environmental section. We have people with a broad range of skill sets from ecologists, to environmental scientists, to environmental engineers within our teams. Our expertise in that area is developing. We also rely on external environmental consultants. For example, on all our flood relief schemes, we employ not only engineering consultants on the design team, but also environmental consultants. We have access to all of that capability.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Casey. The other question was on the individual projects. Do they go through the gamut of assessments?

Mr. Jim Casey

I might ask Mr. Ó Dónaill to come in on that one and on the Newport project that was mentioned.

Mr. Cian Ó Dónaill

Before I move on to that, in the new flood relief schemes, the brief was updated such that the consultants must consider nature-based solutions for flood relief schemes. In Clonakilty, while it is not fully nature based, there is upland storage. The water is prevented from going down into the town when it comes into operation, flooding out the land. That is an example. In regard to the question on artificial draining maintenance, an annual programme is produced and all the relevant assessments are done for that. We have environmental guidance about how our operational staff undertake the work. Most of the work they do is covered by catchment-wide appropriate assessment for working in special areas of conservation, SACs. The Cathaoirleach also mentioned a specific project, and something in his own locality, on the Newport River. Sometimes such specific work might need a separate process for the appropriate assessment, AA. The most recent example along the Newport River was a possible breach. Unfortunately, during storms trees fell down and pulled part of the embankment and the berm area. The flow was being diverted to the far bank causing a good deal of erosion. The OPW could not just sit there and wait. We had to go in to repair this because if we had a breach, God knows when we would get back in to repair it. Unfortunately, much clearance was required to get down to the location because there is no access. It is not possible just to drive in there. The ground conditions are poor, especially after all the rain we had. The works that need to be done - the embankment repair - will require a specific natura impact statement, NIS.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay.

Mr. Cian Ó Dónaill

The tree clearance would be part of the normal catchment-wide NIS. Not all the tree clearance works were done by the OPW on that channel. The Ballymackeogh scheme is rather unique in Ireland in that the OPW has been involved in that scheme since the mid-1990s. While the flood relief scheme was done under the 1995 amendment to the Arterial Drainage Act 1945, it was taking over the drainage district which was originally under an 1863 Act. That river system has been embanked for well over 150 years. That brings its own problems in terms of river morphology and so on. It is a concern to the OPW that we are trying to let more trees grow, not rewilding as such but we do not want the place to be denuded of trees either. However, there is a risk when something falls and pulls the embankment. That is what happened in this location. There is a risk to property in that scheme. That is not an arterial drainage scheme but a flood relief scheme.

Deputy Martin Kenny

I thank the witnesses for their presentation and commend them on the work they are doing on the issues under discussion, particularly drainage in many parts of the country. My area has had many difficulties down the years. This is the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action. One thing that always strikes me is that the impact of these flood events on the environment is often not looked at. We talk about the damage to property and farmland. I would like to tease this issue out. Farmers involved in the curlew scheme are trying to protect the curlew and the next thing that happens is an early summer flood and nests are washed away. It is a significant problem.

In many towns, when treatment systems becomes flooded, all the sewage gets out and goes into the environment, including rivers. It also affects rural areas with small one-off treatment systems. The danger and impact of this is not often looked. The opening statement mentioned obstacles, some of which are man-made. We have the weir at Drumshanbo on the River Shannon where something like that is there for a very long time and is no longer in use and while it might look nice, it causes significant problems. Sometimes it is a bridge or a pinch point on a river.

A lot of commercial forestry has been planted along rivers, which this makes access difficult. These trees grow very fast and a lot of foliage grows around them. They close in the river and sometimes fall into it. They affect flow significantly and cause significant problems with flooding upstream. Can more be done to ensure this does not happen? Could there be more forward planning to ensure that when these forests are being developed, that does not happen in the future?

Mr. Jim Casey

The Deputy is quite right. When flood events occur, they can have devastating impacts not just on people's homes, businesses and properties, but also on environmentally sensitive receptors. Flood events are very destructive. Under our catchment flood risk management, CFRAM, programme, we have sought to identify the flood risk across the country. We concluded the CFRAM programme in 2018 with the publication of 29 flood risk management plans covering the State. We examined fluvial river flooding and coastal flooding. We have also done preliminary flood risk assessment nationally for other types of flooding such as groundwater flooding and pluvial flooding. We have identified up to 150 flood relief schemes that need to be implemented to deal with the risk referred to by the Deputy. We have a very substantial programme and that is the one that is being funded under the national development plan at a cost of €1.3 billion. We are about our business in the roll-out of two thirds of those 150 schemes, which we call our tranche one schemes. The devastation referred to by the Deputy may be happening in one of those areas that is earmarked for the implementation of a scheme to mitigate that damage. We are looking to roll that out as quickly as possible.

He mentioned barriers and weirs and how they can create a backing up of sediment or trigger flood events. Our focus for this committee meeting is how we are looking to remove barriers to enhance fish migration but sometimes we may have to remove barriers to improve conveyancing channels and keep the water in channel as opposed to getting out on to the flood plain.

We have a very substantial programme of work looking at barrier removal and things that might be exacerbating flood risk. This is being looked at in conjunction with the CFRAM programme and also the next cycle of our national preliminary flood risk assessment. This is being done six years later to see whether we missed something that has become a risk in more recent years because of local conditions. We may pick up these issues in the next cycle of our national preliminary flood risk assessment. This cycle is under way.

Deputy Martin Kenny

Mr. Casey said the barriers are being looked at. Fish migration has to happen. The point I am really making is that flooding causes great damage to fish stocks as well as to the environment in all parts of the country. It does not have the focus it should. On the one hand, we are saying we need to have measures in place to protect nature, and we do, but we must also understand that if it is not working properly, it has a devastating effect on nature.

Mr. Jim Casey

Deputy Kenny mentioned barriers and devastation to fish stocks. Under the national barrier programme, the OPW is building a database of fish barriers, in collaboration with Inland Fisheries Ireland, to identify such barriers that create pressures. We are looking to develop a plan to mitigate these impacts. As part of our ongoing work with IFI, we have a service level agreement. This will look at surveys to be undertaken to examine potential barriers, using desk and field-based methods to assess structures considered obstacles to fish passage. Small barrier mitigation measures will be planned following these studies. This forms part of the recent new service level agreement, which I referred to in my opening statement. It was signed at the end of last year and it will cover the period from 2023 to 2027.

In 2017 and 2018, the OPW and IFI surveyed the Inny catchment for potential barriers to fish movement. Recommendations were made. This was used as a pilot scheme to prepare our design guidance for fish passage on small barriers. Mr. Ó Dónaill has a copy of the guidance we developed. It is the first guidance of its kind ever published in Ireland. It is available for all stakeholders who have an interest in the area. The guidance and the implementation of its recommendations and methodologies will be very important in coming up with solutions to the problems that Deputy Kenny has outlined.

Deputy Martin Kenny

Are the solutions as simple as removing the barriers? Many people think this is the simple solution but it may be more complex than that.

Mr. Jim Casey

Deputy Kenny is right. I do not believe it will be as simple as just removing the barrier. Before we go down the road of completely removing a barrier, we must look at the implications and consequences. They can be quite varied. Removal of barriers on rivers will have implications for the natural morphology of the river. It could also have potential implications for groundwater levels adjacent to the location of barrier removal. If there are properties adjacent to the location, we could have potential negative impacts for subsidence of ground levels and potential impacts on properties. It is not always as simple as just removing a barrier. In some cases the best solution might be to reduce the negative impact of the barrier by making modifications to it.

Senator Timmy Dooley

My only comments are to compliment the OPW on the work it does, particularly on flood relief schemes.

I am familiar with and worked tirelessly over the years to bring attention to two schemes in County Clare, one of which is the Ennis flood relief scheme, which has been successful. It was a detailed project with a number of phases, as Mr. Casey will recall, and it has worked exceptionally well in sympathy with the environment. It may not have happened as quickly as all of us would have liked, given the impact of certain flood events on commercial and domestic locations, but the quality and long-term viability of the work have been positive.

There was also a scheme on the River Shannon in the Springfield area of Clonlara, which I am sure Mr. Ó Dónaill and Mr. Casey were involved in at one point. We have seen some testing conditions in the past year or 18 months, with a significant increase in the quantity of water because of various events. The solution that was identified for Springfield has worked well. The OPW’s detailed planning, consideration of aquatic life and the environment, approach and painstaking work have paid dividends. I compliment the OPW and wish it well in its ongoing work in the area.

Mr. Jim Casey

I thank the Senator. I appreciate those comments. He referenced two important flood relief schemes in County Clare, namely, the Ennis and Springfield-Clonlara schemes. The Springfield scheme came on stream last year. The Senator is right, in that Mr. Ó Dónaill and his team were heavily involved in its delivery – not just in the scheme’s planning and design, but also in its construction, given that it was a direct labour construction project. We are pleased with the result.

Senator Timmy Dooley

If you have politicians in an area pleased, it means the constituents are exceptionally pleased. I thank the witnesses for that work and wish them continued success.

An Cathaoirleach

Next is Deputy Whitmore, whom I believe is joining us from her office.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Yes. I am on the Leinster House campus.

I thank Mr. Casey for his interesting presentation and I thank the witnesses for attending. I have a few questions. There were many references to the Arterial Drainage Act. To be clear, when Mr. Casey refers to arterial drainage, is he speaking about rivers?

Mr. Jim Casey

Yes. Arterial drainage is typically on river catchments and estuaries, so it can include embankments along the Shannon Estuary, for example.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

People watching in might think that “arterial drainage” is a much more technical term, but we are essentially speaking about rivers that have been modified since the 1940s to provide a flood relief benefit.

Given that these arteries have been highly modified, they are not under the remit of the water framework directive. They are not included in the percentage that need to be in good status. Is that correct?

Mr. Jim Casey

Yes. A number of those areas are currently in good status and we are constantly considering the impact of arterial drainage maintenance. The work we now do in that respect is not primarily about constructing new arterial drainage schemes, since we are not doing that anymore, but about maintaining the existing schemes. We have to do careful environmental assessments on all of that maintenance, and I have referenced some of those. One of the focuses of such assessments is on the impact of what we are doing in respect of water quality and the water framework directive targets. We focus on the status and quality of the water in those areas.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

What is the length of the rivers under the remit of the OPW? Has the OPW quantified that?

Mr. Jim Casey

Yes, we have some 11,500 km of channels under our arterial drainage maintenance programme.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

The OPW attempts to keep all of those maintained through drainage. That is a huge amount of work.

Mr. Jim Casey

Yes. I will just-----

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

This exchange is going backwards and forwards. I have many small questions.

Mr. Jim Casey

I will ask my colleague to outline some of the facts and figures.

Mr. Cian Ó Dónaill

The OPW is responsible for maintaining 11,500 km of channel and approximately 800 km of flood defence embankments, most of which are on estuaries. It is done in a cycle. In general, we maintain just over 2,000 km per year. That is done under section 37 of the Arterial Drainage Act. It is a statutory obligation.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Is the term "maintain" defined in the Act? Could the term "maintain" also mean maintained to an ecological rather than an engineering standard?

Mr. Cian Ó Dónaill

It is defined in the Act as in effective condition and in proper repair.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Okay. The term "effective condition" depends on whether one looks at this through an engineering or a natural lens in terms of how it is applied. Is that correct? Is the work defined under the Act to an engineering-----

Mr. Cian Ó Dónaill

The OPW has changed its work practices. It is unrecognisable from 20 years ago. The main purpose of the Arterial Drainage Act and the schemes that were developed was to provide drainage outflow. There was some flood protection benefit to provide drainage outflow. Along with IFI, we have developed guidelines over the years on how to carry out this work in an environmentally friendly way.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Today's meeting is about dams and barriers. The OPW has not quantified the number of dams and barriers. Is that correct? That work is under way.

Mr. Jim Casey

The work is under way and is being updated constantly. Along with IFI, we have identified in the order of 814 barriers along OPW maintained channels at the moment. Just over 10% of those are potential barriers to fish migration. That is not a final figure and it is work in progress. It is being updated at the moment. The IFI barriers programme is part of that, and we are feeding into that. We will have more up-to-date and accurate information on that very shortly.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

If the OPW thinks approximately 81 barriers are potential barriers to migration, does it have a timeline for dealing with those or is this something it is still working on?

Mr. Jim Casey

A timeline for when we think-----

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I am referring to a timeline to remediate them, whether by removal or modification.

Mr. Jim Casey

I cannot give the Deputy a specific timeline on that at the moment. We are trying to get a big picture of where the barriers are and to what extent they are a barrier. We need to prioritise them. Of the 815 barriers, perhaps 10% are problematic for fish passage. There may be some that are more problematic than others. We probably need to look at prioritising that. I cannot give the Deputy a specific timeline, other than to say we will move it along as quickly as possible.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Okay. I thank Mr Casey. Does the OPW have specific funding available for that project or will that come through IFI?

Mr. Jim Casey

The Government announced in the past week or two direct funding of, I believe, €100 million to support the improvement of barriers and mitigation of fish passages. There is a specific fund to cover that. That will likely come through IFI.

The OPW can play a part in this. Historically in conjunction with some of the existing arterial drainage schemes, there was also a removal of barriers for the purpose of making fish passage more effective. This is not something new to us. We have been doing this work for many decades. There is now a specific funding package, which was announced very recently.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I thank Mr. Casey. There are 150 flood relief schemes and those in tranche one are under way. How many of these 150 have incorporated nature-based solutions? Are any of them based solely on nature-based solution measures?

Mr. Jim Casey

In the past two years, we have made it a specific requirement that all flood relief schemes being planned and designed need to incorporate detailed consideration of potential nature-based solutions together with all other solution options. An example of this is the Midleton scheme. Midleton was one of the first schemes where we carried out a pilot investigation into specific nature-based solutions. The scheme will incorporate nature-based solutions. It will likely be in the scheme adaptation plan rather than the initial scheme. This work will be done for all of our flood relief schemes from now on. It will be done for the majority of the 150 schemes referenced by the Deputy.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

That is great. One of our difficulties is that we have lost trust in nature. We are so used to engineering our way out of problems that we just do not trust nature's response or nature-based solutions. In instances where hard engineering solutions are being put in place, are nature-based solutions being incorporated upstream at the same time? This would be as a pilot to show exactly how they can assist and mean the downstream engineering works are not needed as much. The UK has done incredible work on this. It is putting a lot more effort into nature-based solutions. It would be good for us culturally to get to this point. We will need to prove them to people because there will be a lot of fear about loss of land and loss of homes. Education is very important. The UK is also undertaking a programme of rewiggling. This is to bring more natural dynamics back into river systems that have been straightened over the years through arterial drainage programmes. Is this something the OPW is considering? Has it looked at rewiggling any rivers?

Mr. Jim Casey

We have looked at a broad range of nature-based solutions. Some of the typical nature-based solutions being explored are woodland creation, attenuation ponds, wetlands, instream wood structures, peatlands restoration, river restoration and meandering, which is the same thing as the wiggling the Deputy referred to, flood plain enhancements and storage and sediment traps. The Clonakilty scheme includes a substantial upstream attenuation pond that has been delivered and is operating effectively as a flood relief scheme. It is probably the best example I can give of an operational nature-based solution. Of course, we will have more examples in future.

The OPW has interacted with colleagues in Scotland where a lot of this work is being done. OPW staff have visited Scotland over the past four or five years looking at some of the implementation. I referenced the fact the OPW has also funded specific nature-based work in County Donegal.

It will become a much bigger part of everything we do. I have no doubt we will be challenged in order to do precisely that. This ties in with the broader enhancement of biodiversity as well.

An Cathaoirleach

I think Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan will be disappointed not to be here to talk about the Clonakilty scheme. I am sure he would relish that opportunity.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

We can ask a few questions on his behalf.

An Cathaoirleach

He is probably listening. No doubt, he is but I am sure we can talk about it again.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I will pick on the last point. It has been mentioned that the OPW has been engaged in these practices for decades. I think Mr. Ó Dónaill mentioned that the approach of the OPW has changed considerably compared to 20 years ago. The witnesses referenced the guidance issued in 2021. Can they sketch out how the approach today differs compared to years ago? What is the driver of that? Is it European or national policy? Is it the new dispensation within the OPW? What are the considerations regarding individual projects? I am looking at the OPW's guidance. With decision three, one is looking at ownership and access, habitat value upstream and site requirements. How does the OPW weigh those individual elements project by project? I guess the concern would be that the tendency would be towards a heavily engineered solution. How does the OPW weigh those different factors regarding the consideration of nature-based solutions or more environmentally-friendly solutions?

Mr. Jim Casey

Probably one of the key drivers of our focus on the environment in the past couple of decades originated with the EIA directive coming from Europe. This has been there for many decades, so it is something on which we have had a lot of practice. As the Deputy will appreciate, we look at a number of key criteria when we are evaluating flood relief schemes. We look at the economic justification for the scheme, the technical merit of the scheme and how effective it is in achieving the flood mitigation to the typical 100-year standard we target but the environment is one of the three key pillars of all our projects. Part of that involves looking at a broad range of solution options. We do not just come up with one solution because we think it is the best one. We apply a multi-criterion analysis and look at those three key criteria. There are many sub-criteria under that when we start to look closely at the environmental scores of a particular solution. We go through probably a series of public consultations around scheme options. For example, in Midleton, we have had three public consultations to date looking to present the whole range of options to the public to get the view of the public on the solution options to inform what we finally select as a preferred option and then looking at the environmental impact of that. We then have to carry out very detailed environmental impact assessment reports where we look at all the different parameters of the environment, whether we are looking at fish or the full spectrum of biodiversity. We are looking at flora, fauna and the total impact. What is the description of the existing environment? What is the scheme? How does one interact with the other, what are the impacts and how do we mitigate those impacts?

We come up with a series of mitigations to the scheme, which are set out in great detail within the environmental impact assessment reports. All that information is fed into the consenting process for the scheme. It is part of the package seeking consent for the schemes we construct. Invariably, those environmental mitigation measures are picked up by the planning authorities and reinforced as conditions of planning, but we then have to go a stage further. After we secure consent and go to the implementation of the construction phase of the scheme, we also have to carry out construction environmental management plans, CEMPs, which get into a lot of detail not just about what we are constructing and the environmental impacts of that but also about how we are constructing it, the methods we can use and the methods we cannot use.

We are no strangers to what the Deputy outlined. To go back to his original question about where the approach comes from, the EIA regulations were a key driver for that but, of course, there are now many other drivers. We heard just last week about the passing of the nature restoration law, we are very familiar with the biodiversity crisis and we are now in the third round of the water framework directive. All these issues have to be part of the broad regulatory environment we have to navigate, and we have to succeed in demonstrating to our planning authorities that the solutions we are coming up with are optimal and will have the least environmental impact possible.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

In respect of the project under the OPW and IFI regarding the Tallanstown weir and the Kells Blackwater, there were proposals for the construction of a rock ramp. Are there details on the progress of that? If not now, Mr. Casey might revert to us on it.

Mr. Jim Casey

I do not have details to hand but we can certainly come back to the Deputy on it. There is no problem with that.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

My next question relates to the OPW's working relationship with IFI regarding co-ordination. We have heard from IFI. The OPW has its annual plan and much of its budget goes through IFI. Will Mr. Casey comment on the co-ordination of those programmes of work, the funding for them and ensuring they are as well aligned as possible?

Mr. Jim Casey

We have a very good working relationship with IFI, right down through our teams, not just at present but for many years now. It is evidenced in a number of service level agreements we have had for a decade or so, the most recent of which was signed at the end of last year. In fact, since 1980, the OPW has been working with IFI on research into the development of environmental drainage maintenance, capital enhancement works and so on. The programme builds on existing good practice developed between both organisations over many years. The environmental drainage maintenance programme was further developed into the environmental river enhancement programme, EREP, which has provided an avenue for environmental research in OPW catchments, establishing baseline data sets where they are absent or building on existing data sets through repeated surveying and monitoring. This programme aims to enable the OPW to maximise environmental gain during arterial drainage maintenance practices while still maintaining our statutory remit for conveyance.

Works carried out by IFI and the OPW for this and preceding programmes include floral, faunal and fish stock surveys and assessments, hydromorphology assessments, enhancement programmes, tourism angling measures between 1995 and 2000, environmental river enhancement programmes since 2008 and generic surveys on the Moy catchment.

I can go into much more detail on that. Suffice to say, we recently signed a further service level agreement with IFI. That was at the end of last year or early this year. That will be funded by the OPW. We are committing funds of up to approximately €250,000 annually over five years or so. Funding those measures is a significant investment by the OPW.

An Cathaoirleach

I think that is all the members’ questions. We are at the end of the session. We allocated an hour for it, so our timing is okay. I thank both Mr. Casey and Mr. Ó Dónaill for coming in. It was a short but very worthwhile session. I learned a lot from it and I am sure colleagues did as well. It will be very helpful for us in the production of our report on fish migration, including barriers to fish migration. I thank the witnesses again for their time this morning; we appreciate it.

Mr. Jim Casey

I thank the Chairman and members.

An Cathaoirleach

We will go into private session to consider some housekeeping matters before adjourning.

The joint committee went into private session at 12.06 p.m. and adjourned at 1.18 p.m. sine die.