catchment-based flood risk assessment and … · catchment-based flood risk ... 6. hydrological...

NATIONAL FLOOD RISK

ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

PROGRAMME

CATCHMENT-BASED FLOOD RISK

ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

(CFRAM) STUDIES

STAGE I TENDER DOCUMENTS:

PROJECT BRIEF

2149/RP/002/F

May 2010

Flood Relief and Risk Management Division

Engineering Services

Office of Public Works

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F Page (i) of (iv) May 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY

1. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF SERVICES REQUIRED....................................1

1.1. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................1

1.2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES, DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE........................................1

1.3. PROJECT STRUCTURE AND PROGRAMME......................................................7

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS......................................................................................9

2.1. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORKS ...............................................................9

2.2. REQUIRED LEVEL OF DETAIL ............................................................................9

2.3. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS.....................................................................9

2.4. PROJECT INCEPTION...........................................................................................11

2.5. NATIONAL TECHNICAL COORDINATION GROUP.......................................12

2.6. WEB-BASED WORK PLATFORM.......................................................................14

2.7. PROJECT WEBSITE ..............................................................................................14

2.8. USE OF DIGITAL MEDIA AND GIS ...................................................................14

2.9. HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS........................................................15

3. DATA COLLECTION..................................................................................................19

3.1. LEVEL OF DETAIL ...............................................................................................19

3.2. RELEVANT DATASETS.......................................................................................19

3.3. FLOOD EVENT DATA COLLECTION................................................................20

4. FLOOD RISK REVIEW...............................................................................................21

4.1. BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................21

4.2. RISK REVIEW........................................................................................................21

5. SURVEYS.......................................................................................................................23

5.1. DEFENCE ASSET CONDITION SURVEY ..........................................................23

5.2. CHANNEL AND STRUCTURE SURVEY ...........................................................23

5.3. FLOODPLAIN SURVEY .......................................................................................23

5.4. PROPERTY SURVEY ............................................................................................24

5.5. MAP INFORMATION............................................................................................25

6. HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................27

6.1. LEVEL OF DETAIL ...............................................................................................27

6.2. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC FLOODS .........................................27

6.3. CATCHMENT BOUNDARIES..............................................................................27

6.4. ANALYSIS OF HYDROMETRIC AND METEOROLOGICAL DATA..............27

6.5. ESTIMATION OF DESIGN FLOOD PARAMETERS..........................................28

6.6. FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL AND CATCHMENT CHANGES.......................30

6.7. HYDRO-GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT.............................................30

6.8. HYDROLOGY REPORT........................................................................................30

7. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS............................................................................................31

7.1. LEVEL OF DETAIL ...............................................................................................31

7.2. DEVELOPMENT OF FLUVIAL HYDRAULIC MODELS..................................31

7.3. DEVELOPMENT OF COASTAL FLOODING MODELS....................................32

7.4. SENSITIVITY TESTS ............................................................................................33

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F Page (ii) of (iv) May 2010

7.5. FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING................................................................................33

7.6. DEFENCE FAILURE SCENARIOS ......................................................................37

7.7. OPTION EVALUATION........................................................................................37

7.8. HYDRAULICS REPORT .......................................................................................38

8. FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT.....................................................................................39

8.1. FLOOD RISK RECEPTOR GROUPS....................................................................39

8.2. REPORTING OF RISK AND RISK INDICATORS..............................................40

8.3. FLOOD RISK MAPS ..............................................................................................40

8.4. FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES....................................................42

9. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT..........................................................................43

9.1. STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .............................................43

9.2. APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................43

10. CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT .............................................................45

11. DEVELOPMENT OF FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ...................47

11.1. LEVEL OF DETAIL ...............................................................................................47

11.2. PREFERRED DESIGN STANDARDS ..................................................................48

11.3. FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT METHODS........................................................49

11.4. SCREENING OF POSSIBLE FRM METHODS....................................................50

11.5. DEVELOPMENT OF POTENTIAL OPTIONS .....................................................51

11.6. APPRAISAL OF POTENTIAL OPTIONS.............................................................51

11.7. SELECTION OF PREFERRED OPTIONS ............................................................52

11.8. EXISTING FLOOD RELIEF SCHEMES...............................................................52

11.9. SPATIAL PLANNING AND IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT...........................53

11.10. PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT................................................................53

12. PREPARATION OF A FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN.........................55

12.1. FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN.................................................................55

12.2. DRAFT FINAL REPORT .......................................................................................56

12.3. FINAL REPORT .....................................................................................................57

13. REPORTING AND DELIVERABLES ...................................................................59

13.1. REPORTING STANDARDS ..................................................................................59

13.2. DELIVERABLES....................................................................................................59

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F Page (iii) of (iv) May 2010

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: HAZARD AND RISK ASSESSMENT FOR SURVEY WORK

APPENDIX B: HEALTH AND SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX C: DEFENCE ASSET SURVEY REQUIREMENTS

APPENDIX D: CHANNEL AND STRUCTURE SURVEY REQUIREMENTS

APPENDIX E: AVAILABLE COASTAL LEVEL DATA

APPENDIX F: ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL FUTURE SCENARIOS

APPENDIX G: PILOT METHODS FOR ASSESSMENT OF DEGREES OF CONFIDENCE

APPENDIX H: PROVISIONAL MAP FORMATS

APPENDIX I: CALCULATION OF ECONOMIC DAMAGES

APPENDIX J: PROVISIONAL GENERIC FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

APPENDIX K: PROCESS FOR STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL AND APPROPRIATE

ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX L: PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

APPENDIX M: FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT METHODS

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F Page (iv) of (iv) May 2010

GLOSSARY AEP Annual Exceedence Probability (expressed as a percentage)

APMR Areas of Potential Moderate Risk

APSR Areas of Potential Significant Risk

CFRAM Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management

DAD Defence Asset Database

DAS Defence Asset Survey

DoEHLG Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government

DEM Digital Elevation Model (Includes surfaces of structures, vegetation, etc.)

DTM Digital Terrain Model (often referred to as ‘Bare Earth Model’)

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan

HEFS High-End Future Scenario

HPW High Priority Watercourses

IRR Individual Risk Receptors

MPW Medium Priority Watercourses

MRFS Mid-Range Future Scenario

NTCG National Technical Coordination Group

WFD Water Framework Directive

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F Page 1 of 60 May 2010

1. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF SERVICES REQUIRED

1.1. BACKGROUND

1.1.1. General Background Flood risk in Ireland has historically been addressed through the use of structural or engineered solutions (arterial drainage schemes and / or flood relief schemes). In line with internationally changing perspectives, the Government adopted a new policy1 in 2004 that shifted the emphasis in addressing flood risk towards:

− A catchment-based context for managing risk,

− More pro-active flood hazard and risk assessment and management, with a view to avoiding or minimising future increases in risk, such as that which might arise from development in floodplains,

− Increased use of non-structural and flood impact mitigation measures. Notwithstanding this shift, engineered solutions to manage existing risks are likely to continue to form a key component of the overall national flood risk management programme and strategy. A further influence on the management of flood risk in Ireland is the ‘Floods’ Directive2 [2007/60/EC]. The aim of this Directive is to reduce the adverse consequences of flooding on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity.

1.1.2. Background to the Project To assess and develop a Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) to manage the existing flood risk in the Study Area, and also the potential for significant increases in this risk due to climate change, ongoing development and other pressures that may arise in the future, the OPW will commission a CFRAM Study, hereafter referred to as the ‘Project’. This project should deliver upon many of the principal requirements of the EU Floods Directive, and in particular it shall, within the scope of the Project, deliver upon all of the requirements set out in Articles 6, 7 and 8 and Annex A of the Directive related to flood mapping and flood risk management plans.

1.2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES, DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE

1.2.1. Project Objectives The objectives of this Project are to:

− Identify and map the existing and potential future3 flood hazard within the Study Area,

− Assess and map the existing and potential future flood risk4 within the Study Area,

1 Report of the Flood Policy Review Group, OPW, 2004 (www.opw.ie/about/fr_public.htm) 2 Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks, 2007/60/EC 3 Potential future flood hazards and risk include those that might foreseeably arise (over the long-term) due to

the projected effects of climate change, future development and other long-term developments. 4 Flood risk is defined as a combination of probability and degree of flooding and the adverse consequences of

flooding on human health, people and society, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity and infrastructure


− Identify viable structural and non-structural options and measures for the effective and sustainable management of flood risk in the Areas of Potential Significant Risk (APSRs) and within the Study Area as a whole,

− Prepare a set of FRMPs for the Study Area, and associated Strategic Environmental and, as necessary, Habitats Directive (Appropriate) Assessment, that sets out the policies, strategies, measures and actions that should be pursued by the relevant bodies, including the OPW, Local Authorities and other Stakeholders, to achieve the most cost-effective and sustainable management of existing and potential future flood risk within the Study Area, taking account of environmental plans, objectives and legislative requirements and other statutory plans and requirements.

It is not an objective of the Project to develop detailed designs for individual risk management measures.

1.2.2. Definitions 1.2.2.1. Study Area The Study Area for the Project is as shown in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II). 1.2.2.2. Units of Management Where the Study Area comprises a River Basin District (as defined under the Water Framework Directive, or ‘WFD’), it is divided into Units of Management. The Units of Management constitute major catchments / river basins (typically greater than 1000km2) and their associated coastal areas, or conglomerations of smaller river basins and their associated coastal areas. An example, provided for demonstration purposes only, of a Study Area and the Units of Management within a Study Area is shown in Figure 1. The Units of Management within the Study Area are as identified in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II). Where so defined in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II), the Study Area may comprise only a single Unit of Management. 1.2.2.3. Areas of Potential Significant Risk The degree of existing or potential future flood risk within the Study Area is more significant in some areas than others. Such areas would include existing towns and villages, areas for which significant development is anticipated, and other areas or structures for which the risk that could arise from flooding (existing or future) is understood to be significant. These areas are defined as Areas of Potential Significant Risk (APSRs).

Example of Likely Study Area and Unit of Management – See Figure 1 The Study Area for the South-East CFRAM Study may comprise the South-East River Basin District, as defined under the WFD implementation, which may comprise seven Units of Management, namely: − Owenavorragh: (Hydrometric Area 11) − Slaney & Wexford Harbour (Hydrometric Area 12) − Ballyteigue - Bannow (Hydrometric Area 13) − Barrow Catchment (Hydrometric Area 14) − Nore Catchment (Hydrometric Area 15) − Suir Catchment (Hydrometric Area 16) − Colligan - Mahon (Hydrometric Area 17) The extents of each Hydrometric Area will be provided by the OPW.


Figure 1: Example of Possible South-East CFRAM Study Area, Units of Management and Slaney Unit of Management Communities at Risk


The Consultant shall, subject to the approval of the OPW, define the spatial extent of the APSRs within the Study Area, where the extent of each APSR shall include:

− the outer boundary of the existing urban / developed area (including all areas of housing, industry, retail, amenity and recreational areas, etc.) of the Community at Risk (see below)

− the extent of the land zoned for development or other uses such as public amenity or recreation in a Development Plan, Local Area Plan or other spatial planning document, where existing, for the Community at Risk (see below), or,

− the spatial extent of an Individual Risk Receptor (see below) The Communities at Risk and Individual Risk Receptors (IRRs) for the Project are as identified in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II), but may include additional or fewer Communities at Risk or IRRs if so identified under the Flood Risk Review (see Section 4). An example, provided for demonstration purposes only, of Communities at Risk within a Unit of Management is shown in Figure 1. The flood risk within each Community at Risk and IRR that has been deemed to be potentially significant results from one or more particular sources of flooding, namely fluvial or coastal. The source(s) of flooding that give rise to the potentially significant risk in each Community at Risk and IRR are identified for each Community at Risk and IRR in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II). Some of the services required under this Project will only be required with respect to those sources of flooding identified as being the, or one of the, sources giving rise to the significant risk in any given Community at Risk or IRR, and associated APSR. The services to which this limitation applies are only those where this limitation is clearly and explicitly identified. 1.2.2.4. High Priority Watercourses The watercourses that could give rise to existing or potential future fluvial or estuarine flooding within an APSR are defined as High Priority Watercourses (HPWs). The Consultant shall, subject to the approval of the OPW, define the extent of the HPWs associated with each APSR within the Study Area, where the extent of the HPWs shall include:

− all watercourses (i.e. rivers, streams, estuaries and drainage channels, including those that have been canalised, realigned, culverted or otherwise modified) within the boundary of an APSR, or adjacent to an APSR, and / or which could give rise to flooding of land within the APSR.

− an appropriate reach (usually of not more than 2kms in length for large watercourses, and may be considerably less for small or steep watercourses) of each of the watercourses defined above upstream of the APSR such that any out-of-bank flow

Example of Possible Communities at Risk within a Unit of Management – Figure 1 Within the Slaney – Wexford Harbour Unit of Management (Hydrometric Area 12), whichis within the Study Area for the South-East CFRAM Study, the following four towns might be defined as Communities at Risk: − Baltinglass − Tullow − Enniscorthy − Wexford The extent of the APSR for each of the above towns will include the existing developed area and the areas zoned for development, as set out above.


paths occurring upstream of the APSR and that may give rise to flooding of that or another APSR, is captured as part of that HPW.

− an appropriate reach of each of the watercourses defined above downstream of the APSR such as to minimise any downstream boundary uncertainties in hydraulic modelling of the watercourses such as back-watering effects from structures.

Fully artificial foul, combined and stormwater piped sewerage systems, other than culverted natural channels, shall NOT be defined as HPWs 1.2.2.5. Medium Priority Watercourses The watercourses that could give rise to existing or potential future fluvial and estuarine flooding within certain other areas within the Study Area are defined as Medium Priority Watercourses (MPWs). The Consultant shall, subject to the approval of the OPW, define the extent of the MPWs within the Study Area, where the extent of the MPWs shall include:

− the reaches of watercourses providing hydraulic connectivity in normal or flood flow conditions between two reaches of HPW on a watercourse within a Unit of Management, and,

− the reaches of watercourses downstream of each HPW, including estuarine areas, until the watercourse discharges to the open sea, and,

− the reaches of watercourses (excluding those extents already defined as HPWs) downstream of MPW Upstream Limits (see below), including estuarine areas, until they discharge to open sea.

The MPW Upstream Limits for the Project are as identified in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II), but may include additional or fewer MPW Upstream Limits (and hence additional reaches of MPW) if so identified under the Flood Risk Review (see Section 4). 1.2.2.6. Areas of Potential Moderate Risk The areas to which the MPWs could give to rise existing or potential future fluvial and estuarine flooding are defined as the Fluvial Areas of Potential Moderate Risk (APMRs). Areas outside of APSRs that could be prone to coastal flooding are defined as Coastal APMRs. 1.2.2.7. Individual Risk Receptors In addition to the APSRs, there are some individual properties or infrastructural (e.g., transport or utility) assets outside of the APSRs that, if flooded, would also give rise to significant detrimental impact or damage. These are defined as Individual Risk Receptors (IRRs). The IRRs within the Study Area are as identified in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II).

1.2.3. Previous Studies For some of the APSRs, HPWs and MPWs previous studies have been undertaken to perform some of the services defined herein that would otherwise be required with respect to these areas or watercourses. Such studies are defined in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II), along with the APSRs, HPWs and MPWs for which they have performed some services, and the services that are not required to be undertaken by the Consultant under this Project with respect to these APSRs, HPWs and MPWs.


1.2.4. Scope of Services The Consultant appointed to undertake the Project shall undertake such studies, analyses, assessments, investigations and other work as necessary to meet the Project Objectives. The services required include the following: i) Collection, analysis and timely quality assessment of data relevant to flooding within

the Study Area

ii) Identification, and condition and performance assessment, of flood defence assets and input of data into the flood defence asset database

iii) Analysis of the hydrology of the Units of Management within the study area, and of coastal water levels and cycles using, where available, existing analysis

iv) Hydraulic analysis (including modelling) of the relevant watercourses (HPWs and MPWs)

v) Analysis and mapping of flood extents and hazards (e.g., depth, velocity) in relation to flooding from the HPWs and MPWs, and in relation to coastal and pluvial flooding where so identified

vi) Management of hydrographic or land-based topographic surveys (to be undertaken by third party Survey Contractors) of the HPW and MPW channels and associated structures, and of flood defence assets within the Study Area, including contract document preparation, tender evaluation, site supervision and final account

vii) Preliminary assessment of flood risk from groundwater and from other potential sources of flooding within the Study Area

viii) Undertaking of a Strategic Environmental Assessment and a Habitats Directive Appropriate Assessment

ix) Determination of existing and potential future flood risks to human health, people and society, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity and infrastructure

x) Determination and impact analysis of, and on, future spatial planning and development scenarios with regards to flood risk, and provision of advice to Local Authority planners on the consideration of flood risk in the preparation of Development / Local Area Plans

xi) Determination of flood risk management objectives for the Study Area as a whole, with particular emphasis on the APSRs, and the development and appraisal of possible flood risk management policies, strategies, measures and actions to achieve the defined objectives for coastal and river areas

xii) Identification of the most appropriate set of flood risk management policies, strategies, measures and actions for the Study Area, with due consideration of spatial and temporal cohesion

xiii) Preparation of a Flood Risk Management Plan for the Study Area, and of reports on the findings of the Project incorporating, where relevant, existing studies and works

xiv) Ensuring relevant health and safety best practices and legal requirements are adhered to, including management of the health and safety aspects of survey and the activities of sub-consultants or third-party contractors, and assumption of the role, and performance of the duties, of the Project Supervisor Design Process, in accordance with the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Construction Regulations) 2006

xv) Public and stakeholder engagement, consultation and information dissemination throughout the Project, including the preparation of six-monthly newsletters describing the direction and progress of the Project, and the establishment, maintenance and update of a project website.

A detailed description of the services required to undertake the Project is provided in the following Sections of this Project Brief.


1.3. PROJECT STRUCTURE AND PROGRAMME

1.3.1. Project Structure The Office of Public Works (OPW) is the Contracting Authority and the Client for the purposes of the Catchment-based Flood Risk Assessment and Management (CFRAM) Study (The ‘Project’). The CFRAM Study will be carried out under direction and guidance from the OPW, the Steering Group (see Section 2.3.2) and other Stakeholders. The Project shall be undertaken as a fixed sum contract by the Consultant on behalf of the OPW.

1.3.2. Project Programme It is anticipated that the Project will commence at a date during the period of the third quarter 2010 until the second quarter of 2011. The Consultant shall submit the Draft Hydraulics Reports (Section 7.8) and Draft Flood Hazard Maps (Section 7.5) and Flood Risk Maps (Section 8.3) by 28/02/2013, other than for those areas or watercourses where earlier delivery is required as specified in the tender documentation of the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II). The Consultant shall submit Draft Final Flood Maps (Sections 7.5 and 8.3) for public consultation by 31/05/2013, other than for those areas or watercourses where earlier delivery is required as specified in the tender documentation of the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II). The Consultant shall submit the Draft Final Reports and associated deliverables (Section 12.2), including Initial Draft Flood Risk Management Plans for review by the Steering Group, by 31/08/2014, other than for those areas (APSRs or Units of Management) where earlier delivery is required as specified in the tender documentation of the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II). The Consultant shall submit Draft Flood Risk Management Plans (Section 12.1) for public consultation by 30/11/2014, other than for those areas (APSRs or Units of Management) where earlier delivery is required as specified in the tender documentation of the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II). The Consultant shall submit the Final Report and associated deliverables (Section 12.3), including a Draft Final Flood Risk Management Plan, by 30/09/2015, other than for those areas (APSRs or Units of Management) where earlier delivery is required as specified in the tender documentation of the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II).


(Blank Page)

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev D Page 9 of 60 May 2010

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

2.1. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORKS The objectives of the Project and general scope of works are provided in Section 1.

2.2. REQUIRED LEVEL OF DETAIL The Consultant shall undertake the Project to a sufficient level of detail to: 1. Enable the Local Authorities and OPW to proceed with confidence and robust

justification with the implementation of the identified flood risk management policies, strategies, measures and actions and with the further development (to full scheme development and detailed design) of the flood risk management measures defined within the Flood Risk Management Plan produced through this Project, and,

2. Enable planning authorities to make decisions with confidence relating to the consideration of flood risk in the preparation of development plans, local area plans and other spatial planning documents for APSRs, and in making decisions on planning applications within APSRs, in accordance with the Guidelines on the Planning System and Flood risk Management5.

The specific level of detail required for each of the various services required under this Project is set out within the relevant Sections of the Brief.

2.3. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

2.3.1. Project Management The OPW shall direct the Consultant in the performance of its duties, review and approve work done, and shall undertake all other tasks normally associated with a Client. The OPW shall be assisted in the performance of its duties by a Steering Group and a Progress Group.

2.3.2. Steering Group Meetings The Steering Group will comprise senior representatives of the OPW, relevant local authorities and other key stakeholders as deemed necessary. The Consultant (Project Director, Project Manager and other key staff as appropriate to the stage of the Project) shall attend regular Steering Group Meetings, to be typically held every six (6) months within the Study Area or in the offices of the OPW (in Dublin or Trim). For each Steering Group Meeting the Consultant shall prepare and submit (at least five working days in advance of each meeting) an Agenda and Steering Group Report that shall summarise progress and identify key issues, findings, proposals and problems upon which the Steering Group may, or should, provide direction or assistance. The Consultants shall minute the Steering Group Meetings, including a summary of actions arising with associated responsibilities and deadlines, and submit the minutes to all Steering Group Members for review no later than five working days after the date of the meeting.

2.3.3. Progress Group Meetings The Progress Group will comprise project management and technical representatives of the OPW, relevant local authorities and other key stakeholders as deemed necessary. 5 Dept. of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Office of Public Works, 2009,

(www.opw.ie)


The Consultant (Project Manager and other key staff as appropriate to the stage of the Project) shall attend regular Progress Group Meetings, to be typically held every six (6) weeks with every fourth meeting coinciding (and typically held back-to-back) with a Steering Group Meeting. The meetings will be held within the Study Area or in the offices of the OPW (in Dublin or Trim, Co. Meath). For each Progress Meeting the Consultant shall prepare and submit (at least five working days in advance of each meeting) an Agenda and a Progress Report (see Section 2.3.4). The Consultants shall minute the Progress Meetings, including a summary of actions arising with associated responsibilities and deadlines, and submit the minutes to all relevant people (including Progress Group Members) for review no later than five working days after the date of the meeting.

2.3.4. Progress Reports The Progress Reports shall outline the work undertaken during the period since the previous Progress Group Meeting, and shall detail technical findings, proposals and any problems encountered or foreseen, with associated proposed solutions, and provide an updated work programme for the remainder of the project for the approval of the OPW, including critical dates for delivery of information, decisions or other inputs from the OPW, other members of the Progress Group or other parties. Each Progress Report shall be accompanied by up-to-date versions, highlighting any changes made since the previous version, of the following documents:

− Inventory of Datasets (Section 3.2)

− Project Programme, including a clear indication of all critical path tasks

− Project Risk Assessment (a document setting out risks to the success of the Project in meeting the defined objectives on time, along with indicators of likelihood, consequence and risk, proposed or enacted mitigation measures, and who is responsible for managing the risk)

− Register of Issues and Actions (a document setting out significant issues raised at Progress Meetings or otherwise by the OPW, Steering Group, Stakeholders or the Consultant, the actions required or enacted to address the issues, along with required timescales / closure dates)

2.3.5. Project Presentations The Consultant shall make official presentations related to the Project to various audiences, such as the elected members of the Councils, senior management of the OPW, or at professional conferences if so instructed by the OPW. The Consultant may voluntarily, and at their own cost, make other presentations related to the Project that are not specifically requested by the OPW, subject to prior approval of the OPW. It is expected that the Consultant shall be required to make thirty (30) official presentations (excluding those at Steering, Progress and Stakeholder Group Meetings), each of typically fifteen (15) to forty five (45) minutes duration.

2.3.6. Informal Client Liaison The Consultant shall liaise frequently (at least once per week) with the OPW by telephone, informal meetings and other means as appropriate to discuss progress and address matters arising in between Progress Meetings.


2.4. PROJECT INCEPTION

2.4.1. Inception Meeting Within two (2) weeks of appointment, the Consultant (Project Director, Project Manager and other key staff) shall attend an Inception Meeting (the first Progress Group Meeting – See Section 2.3.3) to discuss in detail the approach and methodology for the Project, the working relationship and communication between the various parties, health and safety issues as set out in Section 2.9, the initiation of the data collection process and other issues as relevant to Project start-up. The Consultant shall provide a full and detailed project programme at the Inception Meeting for discussion with, and approval of, the OPW.

2.4.2. Inception Report Within six (6) months of Commencement of the Project, and earlier if possible, the Consultant shall submit Inception Reports to the OPW and Steering Group, which shall detail or include all of the following, and which shall be accompanied by all data collected (digital, or hardcopies if not available digitally): 1) Detailed Methodology, including:

a) Any critical constraints, data problems or other issues that have been identified that might give rise to opportunities for, or risks to, the Project

b) Further detail of, or proposed amendments to, the methodologies proposed for use in delivery of the Project (beyond that set out in the tender proposal or agreed at or after the Inception Meeting), based on the enhanced familiarity with the Study Area and with the data collected over the start-up period of the Project

2) Data & Data Requirements, including:

a) A list of data identified, collected, provided and reviewed and a description of the quality, fitness-for-purpose and interpretation of such data

b) A detailed list of all (if any) outstanding data required for completion of the elements of the Project not completed at the time of submission of the Inception Report, including likely data sources (such as members of the Steering Group), dates before which the data shall be required, potential costs that may be incurred in acquiring the data (where relevant), and the potential detrimental impacts on the Project in the event of this data not being made available

c) A description of the data which is, and will be, unavailable, the potential impacts of this absence of data on the Project, and how it is proposed to overcome the problems arising

3) Survey Requirements

a) A list (including identification and type) and accompanying referenced map of all of the flood defence assets within the Study Area (see Appendix C, Section 1)

b) Unless delivered in advance of the Inception Report, the Specifications for all of the channel, structures and defence asset geometric surveys in the Study Area (see Section 5.2), to be provided as separate documents accompanying the Inception Report.

4) Preliminary Hydrological Assessment & Method Statement, including:

a) A preliminary hydrological assessment, including a review of historical floods, catchment boundaries and hydrometric and meteorological data as defined in Sections 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 (but not including Section 6.4.3).


b) Discussion of historical flood events, including the dates they occurred, their duration, mechanisms, depths, impacts (e.g., number of properties flooded, infrastructure affected, etc.), severity (e.g., flows, levels, estimated annual exceedance probability), etc.

Note: To assist with this duty, the Consultant will be provided with the information collated to date by the OPW and other organisations in relation to the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, but the Consultant shall undertake their own assessment to build on and further develop this information.

c) A preliminary assessment of past floods and flooding mechanisms.

d) A detailed method statement, setting out the datasets to be used and the approaches to be followed for the hydrometric review as defined in Section 6.4.3, and statistical analysis of data for the estimation of design flows (Section 6.5) for all hydrometric stations (Final reporting of all aspects of the hydrological analysis shall be reported upon in the Hydrology and Hydraulics Report).

The OPW, assisted by the Steering Group and other experts as deemed necessary by the OPW, shall review the Draft Inception Reports and submit observations to the Consultant within six (6) weeks of receipt. The Consultant shall review the observations submitted by the OPW, and prepare and submit to the OPW a Draft Final Inception Reports that suitably addresses the observations of the OPW within four (4) weeks of receipt of the observations from the OPW. The OPW, assisted by the Steering Group and other experts as deemed necessary by the OPW, shall, within four (4) weeks of receipt, review the Draft Final Inception Reports to ensure that all observations have been appropriately addressed. In the event that the OPW does not consider that all observations have been appropriately addressed, the OPW shall submit further observations to the Consultant to be addressed by the Consultant as set out above. Once the OPW is satisfied that all observations have been appropriately addressed, the Consultant shall re-submit the Draft Final Inception Reports as the Final Inception Reports. The Consultant shall prepare and submit separate Draft, Draft Final and Final Inception Reports for each Unit of Management within the Study Area.

2.5. NATIONAL TECHNICAL COORDINATION GROUP

2.5.1. Objectives of the National Technical Coordination Group A National Technical Coordination Group (NTCG) shall be established to provide a forum at a national level for the technical coordination of the implementation of the CFRAM Studies and the delivery of the requirements of the ‘Floods’ Directive. The composition of the NTCG shall include representatives of the OPW, the Consultant (see Section 2.5.2) and other technical representatives of key stakeholders. The objectives and principal functions of the NTCG shall be to:

− exchange views, expectations and information between the consultants appointed to undertake the Project and other CFRAM Studies and between these consultants, the OPW and other technical stakeholders to achieve the optimum and most cost-effective outcomes for Ireland, and to promote efficiency in delivery of the Project by the Consultant and of other CFRAM Studies by the other consultants

− agree detailed technical formats and standards for the deliverables of the Project and other CFRAM Studies


− agree and / or refine technical methodologies for undertaking aspects of the Project and other CFRAM Studies

2.5.2. National Technical Coordination Group Meetings The NTCG shall meet on six (6) occasions during the period 2011 to 2015, with each meeting typically lasting two (2) full days. The meetings shall be held at various locations around Ireland. For the meetings of NTCG, the OPW shall cover the cost of the hire of the meeting rooms, coffee and tea during the meetings, lunch and (when the meetings are of a duration of two (2) days) of dinner at the end of the first day, but shall not cover travel or bedroom / breakfast costs of the Consultants, which are the responsibility of the Consultant. The Consultant (Project Director, Project Manager and other key staff as appropriate to the stage of the Project) shall attend and constructively participate in each meeting of the NTCG in a spirit of good faith, cooperation and openness to meet the stated objectives and functions.

2.5.3. Issues for the National Technical Coordination Group With respect to certain aspects of the Project (including, but not limited to, those outlined herein), the OPW shall put forward to the NTCG formats, standards and methodologies (such as those set out herein), and the NTCG shall review, consider, discuss and suggest refinements to these, including where necessary expanded detail on certain aspects. The OPW shall ultimately decide on such formats, standards and methodologies to be pursued and delivered under the Project, but shall do so with genuine and thorough consideration and regard to the comments and suggestions of the NTCG. The issues that require discussion, recommendations and / or decision at the NTCG may be those raised by the OPW, the consultants or Stakeholders as the Project and other CFRAM Studies progress. Notwithstanding issues raised in the manner set out above, the NTCG shall address the following issues:

− The typical structure and contents of Draft, Draft Final and Final Reports and of the Flood Risk Management Plans

− The technical format of all digital deliverables, including flood map data

− Allowances for the MRFS and HEFS – Section 6.6 and Appendix F

− The methodology for assigning a degree of confidence to the flood flows, levels and extents – Section 7.5.3

− The details of the methodologies for the assessment of the economic damages of flood events – Section 8.1.4

− The definition of the Indicators of Vulnerability and Types of Economic Activity – Sections 8.1 and 8.3 respectively

− Guidelines on the assignment of Local Weighting under the definition of flood risk management objectives – Section 8.4

− Unit costs for common flood risk management measures (such as flood defence walls and embankments, establishment and operation of flood forecasting and warning systems, individual property protection measures, etc.) – Section 11

− Guidelines on standard scores that might be used in the application of the multi-criteria analysis under the appraisal of potential options for typical application conditions of certain measures – Section 11.6


2.6. WEB-BASED WORK PLATFORM Upon Commencement, the Consultant shall establish, and then maintain until completion of the Project, a secure web-based work platform of good commercial standard to store and manage Project data, documents, maps, etc., through which all permitted users (typically the project team and members of the Steering and Progress Groups) shall have access to, and (depending on access rights) be able to make edits to, current and previous versions of data, documents, maps, etc. and be able to upload data and documents. The Consultant shall upload to the platform all data, documents, maps, etc. that are issued to the OPW or the project team for information or review (e.g., progress reports, minutes, draft reports, draft maps, etc.). The platform shall clearly separate and identify formal deliverables (i.e., for review, or as finalised) and work-in-progress. The platform shall be secure from malicious use and unauthorised access, with data and documents backed up regularly using standard back-up procedures. Tenderers shall set out in their tenders the format, functionality, security and other relevant details of the platform they propose to use to meet these requirements.

2.7. PROJECT WEBSITE Within two (2) months of Commencement, the Consultant shall develop and establish a project website, and then host, update and maintain the project website until 30/06/2016. The detailed structure, format, ‘look-and-feel’ and functionality of the Website shall be agreed with the OPW prior to establishment, but shall:

− Be hosted independently by the Consultant, but linked from the OPW Website

− Be based on a logical structure allowing users (including the public) to readily access information on the project (including, but not limited to, project background, programme, technical work elements, consultation activities, newsletters, project reports and outputs, etc.)

− Enable users to download all reports and outputs (including flood maps) in pdf or similar format, with access and selection of maps by location query and geographical (map-based) search

− Enable users to submit queries and observations, and register their contact details for the dissemination of information related to the project

The Consultant shall regularly update the website including adding information on current work activities, updating the work programme, advertisement of consultation activities, etc. Tenderers shall set out in their tenders the functionality and other relevant details of the project website they propose to establish.

2.8. USE OF DIGITAL MEDIA AND GIS Noting the spatial nature of much of the work involved in this Project, and the role of spatial data and GIS, the Consultant shall be required to make extensive use of, and deliver, digital data in undertaking the Project (including spatial and non-spatial datasets). All spatial datasets required as Deliverables of the Project shall be delivered in an agreed GIS format (that shall be compatible with MapInfo and ArcGIS) with associated metadata.


The detailed metadata and interoperability requirements of all spatial data shall be agreed with the Steering Group after Commencement, but shall align with the Metadata and Interoperability responsibilities for Public Authorities, as set out in Articles 5 & 6 and, insofar as possible, Articles 7-10 of the European Union Directive 2007/2/EC (the “Inspire” Directive), other agreed international standards, and, where relevant, with the technical reporting requirements and schema required with respect to the implementation of the ‘Floods’ Directive. All other (non-spatial) Deliverables shall be submitted in a suitable digital format such that web-based publication may be readily achieved.

2.9. HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

2.9.1. General and Legal The Consultant shall perform any duties incumbent upon him under Health and Safety legislation. The Consultant shall advise the OPW on any matters of Health and Safety, particularly in relation to current law, which may have implications for the OPW, or require action by, or on behalf of, the OPW in connection with the Project. In relation to the Consultant’s duties in the management of the Survey Contractor appointed by the OPW to undertake the Survey Contract for the Project (Appendix D3.3), the Consultant shall generally ensure that the Survey Contractor complies with best practice and relevant legislation in relation to Health, Safety and Welfare at work. A general discussion of Health & Safety issues, and the Consultant’s duties in relation to Health and Safety, will take place during the Initial Progress Meeting. The specific requirements of the Consultant with respect to the services they shall provide under the Contract are set out below. The following should however be viewed as the minimum and non-exhaustive requirements of the Consultant in relation to Health and Safety. Tenderers should include as part of the methodology in their submissions proposals for improving and developing the management of all Health and Safety issues in relation to this Project.

2.9.2. Appointment of PSDP The Consultant shall upon Commencement appoint a competent representative of the Consultant as Project Supervisor Design Process for the Project under the Safety, Health and Welfare and Work (Construction Regulations) 2006. The Consultant shall submit to the OPW upon Commencement the name of the PSDP and, subject to approval of the proposed PSDP by the OPW, submit to the OPW written confirmation of acceptance of the appointment of the PSDP. The PSDP shall fulfil all relevant obligations of the PSDP as defined in Safety, Health and Welfare and Work (Construction Regulations) 2006 for the duration of the Project, including, but not limited to, the production of the project Safety File.

2.9.3. Safety Statements 2.9.3.1. Consultants Safety Statement Consultants shall submit an up-to-date and relevant Safety Statement, compliant with Section 20 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005, prior to the Initial Progress Meeting. While the Safety Statement should cover all aspects of work that may be encountered in the work described in this Specification, the OPW reserves the right to seek


Method Statements from the Consultant concerning specific tasks where deemed necessary. 2.9.3.2. Survey Contractor’s Safety Statement The Consultant shall ensure that the appointed Survey Contractor possesses an up-to-date and relevant Safety Statement, in accordance with Section 20 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005. The Consultant shall obtain a copy of the Contractor’s Safety Statement prior to the Survey Contractor Briefing, and ensure it is up-to-date and relevant to the work activities to be undertaken during the Survey Contract. The Consultant shall, in any areas it deems necessary, seek clarification from the Contractor in any in the form of task-specific method statements. The Consultant shall retain a written record of the entire process detailed in this section on the Project Safety File.

2.9.4. Safety Meetings The Consultant shall attend a Safety Meeting with the OPW subsequent to appointment and prior to any of its staff undertaking any work on site. This meeting may be incorporated into the Initial Progress Meeting, provided that it occurs prior to the Consultant’s staff undertaking any work on site. The Consultant shall take minutes of the safety meeting and submit these to all relevant parties within five (5) working days. The Consultant shall require the appointed Survey Contractor to attend a Safety Meeting upon appointment of the Survey Contractor. This meeting may be incorporated into the Survey Contractor Briefing as described in Appendix D4.1, provided it occurs prior to the Contractor undertaking any survey work on site. The Consultant shall take minutes of the Safety Meeting and submit these to all relevant parties within five (5) working days.

2.9.5. Confined Spaces The Consultant shall not cause their staff or staff employed by Contractors, to enter Confined Spaces, during the execution of their duties in relation to this commission, unless explicitly agreed in writing in advance by the OPW in each instance, and then only by suitably trained persons and once the Consultant has completed a specific hazard and risk assessment.

2.9.6. Hazard & Risk Assessment A non-exhaustive Hazard and Risk Assessment for site visits, survey work, site inspections and other on-site activities is included in Appendix D. This Assessment will provide the basis for discussion at the safety meetings as detailed in Section 2.9.4. Upon appointment, and prior to the Consultant’s staff undertaking work on site, the Consultant shall examine and, if deemed necessary, develop and enhance the Hazard and Risk Assessment. The Consultant shall throughout the duration of the Project actively assess and identify hazards, risks and suitable mitigation measures and amend and update the Hazard and Risk Assessment as necessary. The location and nature of any particular risks encountered shall be included in the Hazard and Risk Assessment by the Consultant as their work on site progresses. The Consultant shall include this Hazard and Risk Assessment in the tender documents for the Survey Contract issued, and shall use this as the basis for the pre-survey Safety Meeting with the appointed Survey Contractor. The Consultant shall require the appointed Survey Contractor to examine, and if necessary update, their copy of the Hazard and Risk Assessment. The Consultant shall continue to assist the Contractor in actively assessing and identifying hazards, risks and suitable mitigation measures, throughout the duration of the Survey Contract and to maintain and update as necessary the Hazard and Risk Assessment, again paying particular attention to the location and nature of any particular risks encountered. On completion of the Survey Contract, the Consultant shall require the Survey Contractor to return the latest version of the Hazard and Risk Assessment, and provide same to the OPW for future reference.


2.9.7. Accidents And Dangerous Occurrences The Consultant shall immediately advise OPW verbally, and at the earliest available opportunity afterwards in writing, of any accidents or dangerous occurrences, loss or damage to any personnel, third parties or property arising during the execution of their duties, or in the execution by the Survey Contractor of their duties, in relation to this project. Such accident reporting to OPW shall not relieve the Consultant or the Survey Contractor of their statutory responsibilities for accident reporting to the relevant statutory authorities and/or insurers.

2.9.8. Safety Inspections The Consultant shall carry out on-site health and safety spot checks during the duration of the Survey Contract. These checks should be of adequate frequency and thoroughness to satisfy the Consultant of the Contractor’s compliance with their health and safety obligations. The Consultant shall retain written reports of such inspections, and any corrective actions required of the Contractor, on the Project Safety File.

2.10. TECHNICAL TRAINING To enhance the technical understanding and capacity, and hence facilitate effective engagement, of those involved with the Project, the Consultant shall develop, prepare and deliver a programme of technical training. The training shall be aimed at enhancing the understanding of the trainees of the technical work required, and how this work is to be undertaken, in delivering the Project, and of the outputs of the Project. The training programme, content and notes shall be subject to approval of the OPW. The Consultant is encouraged, but not obliged, to coordinate the preparation and development of the training programme within the NTCG, and may, subject to agreement and cooperation of all involved, develop and prepare the programme jointly and / or in cooperation with consultants undertaking other CFRAM Study Contracts.

2.10.1. Trainees The trainees shall include members of the Steering Group, Progress Group and Stakeholder Group. It is expected that there shall in the order of 20 – 50 trainees, depending on the size of the Study Area and the number of Local Authorities whose jurisdiction lies in whole or in part within the Study Area. The existing technical knowledge of the trainees will be variable, but it should be assumed that trainees have a basic awareness, but no detailed knowledge, of the technical issues.

2.10.2. Training Structure The technical training shall comprise five (5), full day training workshops. Each workshop shall focus on one of the following topics, and provide a technical background for the topic and explain what work is to be done under the Project, and how, in relation to the topic:

− Hydrology (Section 6)

− Hydraulics, hydraulic modelling and flood mapping (Section 7)

− Flood Risk Assessment (Section 8)

− Environmental Assessment (Section 9)

− Flood risk management (Section 11) The format of each workshop should include a mix of presentations and worked examples (preferably based on real-life Irish examples), delivered in class-room style with some break-out work-group exercises, as appropriate.


The Consultant shall prepare and deliver the workshop for each topic at an appropriate time during the Project period, which should typically when the topic is starting to be addressed under the Project. The Consultant shall provide suitably qualified trainers for the workshops, who shall be professionals with significant experience relevant to the topic. There should be not less than one trainer for every ten (10) trainees at each workshop.

2.10.3. Training Notes and Material For each workshop, the Consultant shall prepare presentations and worked examples to be presented at the workshop. The Consultant shall prepare and provide to each trainee attending each workshop a hardcopy set of brief workshop notes to facilitate delivery of the workshop and note taking by the trainee during each workshop. The Consultant shall also prepare and provide to each trainee a CD / DVD with more detailed course notes that shall include copies of any presentations made, worked examples covered and more detailed descriptions and explanation of the topic, with references to further relevant material, to enable the trainee to pursue further study of the topic outside of the workshop. The detailed course notes for all workshops may be provided on a single CD / DVD rather than a separate CD / DVD for each workshop.

2.10.4. Programme Administration The Consultant shall make all necessary administrative arrangements for the training programme and workshops, including invitation and registration of trainees, organisation of venue and workshop facilities and material, etc. The Consultant may not charge trainees a fee for attending the training or for the provision of the training notes and material. The OPW shall, subject to prior approval of the relevant arrangements, pay for the costs of the hire of workshop venues and of refreshments and lunch for the trainees and trainers.


3. DATA COLLECTION

3.1. LEVEL OF DETAIL The level of detail of the data capture and derivation to be undertaken under this Project should be sufficient to meet the objectives of the Project and to achieve the requirements of the other requirements of the Project as set out herein.

3.2. RELEVANT DATASETS The Consultant shall search for, locate, register, extract, derive, copy (if necessary), review, quality control, format (if necessary), interpret and make use of (as relevant) all potentially relevant information, including, but not necessarily limited to, those referred to below: − Flood Relief / Risk Management Measures: Previous reports or studies concerning

the flood hazard, risk or possible flood relief measures, and information on current flood risk and water management measures / practices already put in place, or other flood-related matters for the Study Area undertaken under other national programmes or other EU Directives. Sources of such reports and information might include, but not necessarily be limited to, the OPW, the Local Authorities, the EPA, universities, public libraries, or other sources.

− Historic Flood Data: Data or information on flooding, flood extents, levels, depths, causes or mechanisms, damages, presence of turloughs, etc. Sources of data might include, but not necessarily be limited to, Local Authorities and the EPA. Local residents might also need to be contacted where particular issues or concerns arise.

The OPW has collated a national web-based database of historic flood information (www.floodmaps.ie), including press articles relating to flood events. The OPW will provide access to the appointed Consultants to download GIS data from this website.

− Hydrometric Data: Recorded water levels and tidal data, flows, flow gaugings and ratings (stage-discharge relationships). The majority of such data will be available from the OPW and EPA. Other sources may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the Local Authorities, universities, the Marine Institute, Harbour Masters, and the River Basin District Project Offices.

− Meteorological Data: Rainfall, air pressure, wind speed and direction, and, if necessary, temperature and evapo-transpiration data. Sources of data may include, but not necessarily be limited to, Met. Eireann. The recently developed depth-duration-frequency gridded (GIS) rainfall data (Section 2.4.4.1) will be provided by OPW.

− Land-Use Data: Data on the current and past uses of the land. Such data is likely to be available from the CORINE dataset, available from the EPA. Other relevant data may be available from the Local Authorities or other sources.

− Soil and Geological Data: Data on soil classifications, sub-soils, geology and aquifers. Sources of data may include, but not necessarily be limited to, Teagasc and the Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI).

− Planning and Development Information: Information concerning existing development, and possible future development, would be available from plans such as the National Spatial Strategy, Development Plans (or Draft Development Plans), Local Area Plans, Master Plans, etc.

− Defence and Coastal Protection Asset Data: Information concerning the location, type, ownership, design and/or actual performance standard and the condition of the asset. Sources of information may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the Local Authorities, the OPW and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.


− Existing Survey / Geotechnical Data: Previously collected topographical, channel, structural or geotechnical survey data, such as might have been collected for previous flood relief studies or other construction projects (e.g., main drainage or sewer projects). Such data might be available from a range of sources, but most notably the Local Authority.

− Environmental Data: Previously collected or currently available information, reports, studies, zoning and assessments of environmental and archaeological status, issues, constraints and impacts. Sources of relevant data may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the River Basin District Management Groups, and on the website of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The OPW will provide to the Consultant the public datasets, and other datasets for which permissions are provided, that have been previously collated for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive.

− Other Receptor Data: Data on flood risk receptors, including types and locations, such as property types, utility and transport infrastructure, national monuments and protected structures, hospitals, schools, etc. While the OPW will endeavour to provide national datasets to the Consultant, the Consultant will be required to fill in any gaps in the information and collect data locally.

A register of relevant reports, data and information is provided as provided in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II). This register shall however not be taken as being a comprehensive or exhaustive list of all available and relevant reports, data and information, and further efforts by the Consultant shall be required to locate additional reports, data and information. It is the Consultant’s responsibility to, as far as reasonably possible, identify, collect and log all relevant reports, data or information. The Consultant shall satisfy themselves as to the quality, relevance, fitness-for-purpose and appropriate use (or otherwise) of data promptly upon receipt of any reports, data or information. In the event of reports, data or information being incomplete or not being of high quality or fit-for-purpose, or where excessive delays are being incurred in securing data, the OPW and other members of the Steering Group shall provide assistance where appropriate and as reasonably possible to address any such issues to assist the Consultant. The Consultant shall nonetheless be responsible for the collection and validation of the necessary data infilling any data gaps where possible, and for achieving the Project objectives and requirements with the data available within the required programme. The Consultant must provide sufficient time in the programme for data collection, quality control, etc. Upon Commencement, the Consultant shall establish, and subsequently maintain throughout the Project, an Inventory of Datasets that shall identify any information, data, reports or other items (such as those noted herein) that are relevant to the Project, and shall record relevant meta-data (see Section 2.8). The Inventory shall be updated and provided with each Progress Report. Any third-party costs associated with the purchase of such data shall, subject to prior agreement, be paid for by the OPW.

3.3. FLOOD EVENT DATA COLLECTION In the event of internal flooding of properties from rivers of sea water within the Study Area during the duration of the Project, the Consultant shall, in a safe manner, record and collect flood data such as, but not limited to, flood extents, levels, flows, probabilities, dates and durations, mechanisms, properties and infrastructure affected, number of evacuees, etc., and report on the flood event within one (1) month of the flood.


4. FLOOD RISK REVIEW

4.1. BACKGROUND The OPW has undertaken an initial preliminary flood risk assessment, based on available and readily-derivable information, to identify the Communities at Risk, and other locations or Individual Risk Receptors (IRRs) deemed to be at potentially significant risk. This assessment has been based principally upon:

− Information on past flood events

− Knowledge of probable flood risk areas of the staff of the OPW and Local Authorities

− Analysis of available or readily-derivable predictive flood hazard information (such as localised flood extent mapping and coastal extent mapping (both where available) and also broad-scale mapping of areas potentially prone to fluvial flooding based on DTM data and normal-depth calculation) and flood risk receptor data.

The OPW shall provide the outcomes of the initial preliminary flood risk assessment, and relevant supporting datasets, with the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II).

4.2. RISK REVIEW The Consultant shall review the initial preliminary flood risk assessment described in Section 4.1 and all information and knowledge gained by the Consultant in undertaking the Project requirements set out in other Sections herein, including but not necessarily limited to site visits, data collection, review of survey outputs, defence asset condition assessment, review of spatial planning documents, discussion or interviews with the staff of the OPW, Local Authorities and other relevant stakeholders who may have relevant information, etc. Based on this review, the Consultant shall assess and identify:

− areas other than those defined as APSRs (based on the Communities at Risk or IRRs defined within the Specific Tender Documentation) where potential significant risks exist or might be considered likely to occur, and,

− areas defined as APSRs (based on the Communities at Risk or IRRs defined within the Specific Tender Documentation) where potential significant risks do not exist or might be considered not likely to occur,

The criteria for the definition of significant risk shall be provided by the OPW. The Consultant shall, in particular, consider the potential flood risk to environmental receptors (designated or locally important sites and locations of designated species), taking into account the indicative flood hazard (Section 4.1) and the potential adverse consequences of flooding for the site or species (vulnerability). In assessing the vulnerability of an individual site or species, the Consultant should take into account both generic guidance on vulnerability of classifications of sites or species that will be provided by the OPW, and also the local details and context of the site or species.

4.3. RISK REVIEW REPORT The Consultant shall prepare and submit to the OPW not later than 30/06/2011 a Draft Risk Review Report that shall include:

− a description of the methodology undertaken for the Flood Risk Review, including the datasets, information and knowledge used, and the preliminary risk assessments, and,


− the outcomes of the Review in terms of areas where the risk might be potentially significant, and the areas and Individual Risk Receptors set out above.

The OPW, Steering Group and Progress Group shall review the Draft Flood Risk Review Report and provide comments to the Consultant within two (2) months. The Consultant shall address the comments provided and submit, not later than 30/09/2011, a Final Flood Risk Review Report. On the basis of the Flood Risk Review, the OPW may decide to designate additional, or de-designate (i.e., remove) Communities at Risk. For additional Communities at Risk, the Consultant shall undertake the services required for the Locations and Risk, and associated APSRs, HPWs and MPWs as set out herein, for the fixed-sum fees that will be defined in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II). For de-designated Communities at Risk, the Consultant shall undertake no further services set out herein for Communities at Risk, and the associated APSRs, HPWs and MPWs, beyond those delivered by the time of the decision to de-designate such Communities at Risk, for a reduction in the fees payable according to the fixed-sum fee reductions that will be defined in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II).


5. SURVEYS

5.1. DEFENCE ASSET CONDITION SURVEY The Consultant shall undertake a defence asset condition survey of all flood defence assets within the APSRs and, if so specified in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II), of defined flood defence assets along the MPWs or in coastal areas. In some APSRs, the location and type of flood defences will already have been identified and where this is the case shall be set out in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II). The Consultant shall include as part of this survey the identification, inspection, photographing and assessment of flood defence assets and the entry of all relevant data into the Defence Asset Database. The detailed requirements of the defence asset condition survey that the Consultant shall undertake, and the types of defence asset and their constituent parts that shall be included as part of the defence asset condition survey, are set out in Appendix C. The Health and Safety requirements associated with this work are set out in Section 2.9 and Appendix C.2.

5.2. CHANNEL AND STRUCTURE SURVEY The Consultant shall specify and manage the procurement, execution, delivery and quality control of the geometric and geo-referenced survey of channel cross-sections of HPWs and MPWs, of structures that are in, over or adjacent to the HPWs and MPWs, and of flood defences within APSRs and, if so specified in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II), along the MPWs or in coastal areas. The Consultant shall enter all such data for flood defences (including that captured by other parties – see below) into the Defence Asset Database. The detailed requirements of the channel and structure survey that the Consultant shall undertake are set out in Appendix D. The Health and Safety requirements associated with this work are set out in Section 2.9. The OPW will have initiated work, being managed by other consultants, to capture channel, structure and flood defence geometric survey data for certain APSRs, HPWs and MPWs, which may include some of those within the Study Area. The APSRs, HPWs and MPWs for which such survey data have been captured, or will be in the process of being captured, at the time of Commencement within the Study Area will be specified in the tender documentation of the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II). For such areas, the Consultant shall as soon as possible after Commencement review the specifications for the Survey Work (including output formats) and advise the OPW of any suggested amendments, and shall work constructively and in a cooperative manner with the consultants managing the survey work to ensure the outputs and survey data required for the Project are achieved. The Consultant shall ensure their site inspection visits are undertaken at the earliest opportunity to ensure that such a review can be undertaken at the earliest possible occasion.

5.3. FLOODPLAIN SURVEY

5.3.1. Data Requirements & Availability This type of information includes level and location data for the floodplains of the relevant reaches of the channels in the Study Area, as necessary for the construction of a hydraulic model adequate to meet the objectives of the study. DTM and / or DEM data of the floodplain in APSRs, derived from a survey using LIDAR or similar systems, will be required to adequately meet the project objectives.


DTM and DEM data (2m, 5m and 10m horizontal resolutions and 0.01m vertical resolution, to accuracy of 0.2m RMSE) and Orthorectified Colour Aerial Photography has been, or will be, captured for the Areas of Potentially Significant Risk (APSRs) and will be provided to the Consultant by the OPW within nine (9) months of receipt of the definition of the APSRs from the Consultant, or sooner if possible or if available or if so indicated in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II). For all of the Study Area, a medium resolution bare-earth Digital Terrain Model (5m horizontal resolution and 0.01m vertical resolution, to quoted vertical accuracy of 0.7m RMSE), collected using RADAR based technology in 2007, will be made available to the Consultant by OPW upon Commencement for use on the project. This has associated Ortho-rectified panchromatic aerial photography with a ground pixel resolution of 62.5m and a horizontal accuracy of 2m. In using the two sources of the DTM / DEM data (e.g., for hydraulic modelling), the Consultant shall apply corrections to the lower accuracy dataset to remove and edge discrepancies (i.e., where levels of the two datasets do not agree at the boundary of the higher accuracy dataset), and smooth any corrections made to an area moving outwards from the boundary, with a view to minimising errors that could otherwise arise from edge discrepancies.

5.3.2. Consultants’ Duties Preliminary quality assurance checks will have been carried out prior to handover of the floodplain survey data to the Consultant. However, immediately following receipt of the data, the Consultant shall be required to assess whether the DTM and/or DEM data is fit-for-purpose and compatible with the modelled schema as proposed by the Consultant. The Consultant shall also check the quality and format of the data in terms of readability, coverage, resolution, etc. The Consultant shall flag any potential problems associated with the data and its use to the Client within four (4) weeks of receipt of the data, and outline and discuss proposed solutions to overcome any such problems with the OPW. Any discrepancies that may arise in the DTM and / or DEM in the course of using the data for hydrological analyses, hydraulic modelling and / or flood map development shall be checked by the Consultant, and the Consultant shall immediately communicate to the OPW any such problems identified with proposals for solutions to address such problems.

5.4. PROPERTY SURVEY

5.4.1. Data Requirements & Availability This data type includes information on property location, type, use, floor area (commercial properties only), etc. of all properties potentially at risk from flooding as necessary for the damage/benefit analysis required to meet the project objectives. The OPW shall provide the Consultant with a licensed copy of the An Post GeoDirectory that is a geo-referenced postal database, which defines the location and classification of properties. A limited number of properties are not registered in the GeoDirectory, and a small number (approximately 10% nationally) are not classified.

5.4.2. Consultants Duties The Consultant shall identify all properties potentially at risk from flooding from the HPWs and MPWs and from coastal or pluvial flooding, and shall collect, quality control and register relevant data, as set out above, related to these properties as necessary to meet the objectives of this project, and in particular the flood risk assessment (Section 8).


The Consultant may generally assume for the purposes of the damage assessment, subject to confirmation by the Consultant through spot-checks, that doorstep / floor levels of ground-floor properties are a specific height above ground level as determined from the DTM data. The specific height adopted for each APSR, and separately for residential and non-residential properties, should be based on observation / measurement for each APSR. The Consultant shall however undertake surveys of the threshold levels for flooding of major commercial properties (those with estimated potential damages greater or equal to €500,000 for an event of annual exceedence probability of 0.1% in the APSR), and also for entry points to significant basements or underground car-parks. The Consultant shall, for the purposes of the flood damage estimation, derive the floor areas of non-residential properties, from OSi maps, from ortho-rectified aerial photography or by some other method subject to approval of the OPW, but are not required to derive floor areas for residential properties in areas. The Consultant shall, for the purposes of 2-dimensional hydraulic modelling (see Section 7.2), derive the geo-referenced location and extent of both residential and non-residential properties within 2-dimensional modelling domains, from OSi maps, from ortho-rectified aerial photography or by some other method subject to approval of the OPW. The Consultant shall identify the classification (type) of any properties that are unclassified in the GeoDirectory within APSRs, and within reason (based on site visits) endeavour to identify any unregistered properties within APSRs. The Health and Safety requirements associated with this work are set out in Section 2.9.

5.5. MAP INFORMATION Ordnance Survey Ireland (OSi) datasets (including cadastral maps and OSi DTM data) will be made available to the Consultant at the scales and formats for which the OPW holds a licence. The Consultant may avail of the OPW licences for these datasets for use only on this Project. The OPW does not accept any responsibility for errors or omissions in any information or map data provided to the Consultant for project planning purposes. The map information for which the OPW holds a licence includes:

− Nationwide coverage of 1:50,000 Discovery Data and Webmap in raster format

− 1:5,000 composite maps in raster format

− 160 x Digi-Towns – Refer to www.osi.ie for further information (NOTE: The OPW makes no guarantee that such maps will be available for any given APSR)

− Digi-Cities – Refer to www.osi.ie for further information (NOTE: The OPW makes no guarantee that such maps will be available for any given APSR)

Note that vector maps are not available from the OPW, and will not be purchased for the purposes of the Project.


(Blank Page)


6. HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS

6.1. LEVEL OF DETAIL The hydrological analysis of the whole Study Area should be comprehensive and taken to a high level of detail, such that no further hydrological analysis should be required after completion of the Project (other than to confirm findings of the Project, assess minor design variations or update the analysis after a number of years or the occurrence of an extreme event) for the OPW or other authorities to have justifiable confidence in the implementation of the strategy and specific measures identified through the Project to manage the flood risk within the APSRs. The hydrological analysis should place particular emphasis on flood flow estimation for the APSRs and HPWs in terms of, for example, statistical flood frequency estimation and the calibration of hydrological models.

6.2. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC FLOODS The Consultant shall analyse all available previous studies and reports and the historic flood data collected (see Sections 3 and 4) in terms of peak levels, flood extents, damage caused, flows, etc. Such data shall be utilised in the analysis described below. The Consultant shall also rank the historic flood events in the APSRs and, for fluvial flood events, within each catchment within the Study Area, in terms of magnitude, including those for which only outline information is available, and estimate annual exceedance probabilities for all such events using appropriate statistical methodologies. The Consultant shall use the peak levels and flood extents, including anecdotal information from informed individuals, recorded or observed during historical flood events, as references for comparison with design flood levels (developed as per Section 6.5, 7.2 and 7.2) and flood extents (developed as per Section 7.5) to ensure consistency between observed events and design events, particularly with reference to the estimated annual exceedance probabilities of those events.

6.3. CATCHMENT BOUNDARIES The Consultant shall, following necessary hydrological analysis, establish the catchment boundaries and sub-catchment boundaries for each of the Hydrological Estimation Points (see Section 6.5.3), and provide details of same to the OPW in compliance with GIS and hard copy format requirements for this project. The catchment boundaries defined for the purposes of the implementation of the Water Framework Directive will be provided to the Consultant to facilitate, and form the basis of this process, but the Consultant shall review and confirm these boundaries and, with the assistance of the OPW and, where relevant, through cooperation with consultants undertaking other CFRAM Studies, resolve any discrepancies arising.

6.4. ANALYSIS OF HYDROMETRIC AND METEOROLOGICAL DATA

6.4.1. Rainfall Data The Consultant shall, promptly upon receipt, analyse historic and recorded rainfall data throughout the catchment in terms of severe rainfall event depths, intensities, durations, etc., and shall estimate probabilities for significant and / or recent events, with reference and comparison made to the Flood Studies Update data and other relevant research. The OPW shall provide the Consultant upon appointment with the rainfall depth-duration-frequency data as generated by Met. Eireann for the Flood Studies Update. This data, available in GIS format, provide national coverage of depth-duration-frequency data for 2km grid squares.


6.4.2. Hydrometric Data Review The Consultant shall promptly upon receipt analyse the historic and recorded water levels, including tidal and surge levels and estimated flows (with due reference given to the rating reviews – Section 6.4.3), in terms of peak flood levels and flows, hydrograph shape, flood volumes, etc. and shall estimate probabilities for major or recent events, with reference and comparison made to the Flood Studies Report and / or other relevant research. Tenderers should note that annual maxima data are manually extracted rather than being derived directly from digitised data, and that in some instances discrepancies exist between the two datasets. Where such discrepancies occur, the annual maxima values that have been manually extracted would typically be more reliable.

6.4.3. Hydrometric Gauging Station Rating Reviews The Consultant shall review the upper range of the stage-discharge relationships at all of the hydrometric stations identified in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II), to ensure appropriate understanding of the quality and limitations of the flood flow data and reduce any uncertainty associated with the upper range of the ratings and of its extrapolation beyond the maximum gauged flow over the period of record of the station. For the stations listed in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II), the Consultant shall undertake detailed localised hydraulic modelling, and any associated work to meet accepted best practice, including site visits, to derive modelled high / flood flow ratings for the period of record of the gauging station. The Consultant shall develop hydraulic models appropriate for this purpose, incorporating the channels and floodplains up- and down-stream of the gauging station as necessary to ensure an accurate representation of the conditions at the gauging station. The Consultant shall calibrate the modelled rating to the recorded flow gaugings (as deemed reliable) up to the maximum gauged flows, and use surveyed data and supporting information (e.g., from site visits) to derive the best estimate of the extrapolation of the rating above the maximum gauged flows based on hydraulic modelling of the gauging station. The survey requirements for the modelling of the hydrometric stations shall form part of the channel and structure survey work set out under Section 5.2.

6.5. ESTIMATION OF DESIGN FLOOD PARAMETERS The Consultant shall, for all Hydrological Estimation Points (see Section 6.5.3), derive best estimate design fluvial flood parameters including peak flows, hydrographs, flood volumes and other design flood parameters, such as downstream boundary levels, as necessary to deliver the requirements of the Project. The Consultant shall, for all APSRs subject to significant coastal flood risk, derive design coastal flood parameters including peak sea levels and tidal cycles of water levels (as necessary for modelling of coastal flooding and to provide downstream boundaries of fluvial models) and other design flood parameters as necessary to deliver the requirements of the Project. The OPW will provide extreme sea levels (but not associated tidal cycles) at certain points as set out in Section 6.5.4.

6.5.1. Design Event Probabilities The range of probabilities for which the Consultant shall derive design flood parameters as set out herein shall include those with an annual exceedence probability (AEP) of 50%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 2%, 1%, 0.5% and 0.1%.

6.5.2. Design Event Flow Estimation Methods The Consultant shall estimate design fluvial flood flows using a range of methodologies as appropriate to the catchments and data availability, including, but not necessarily limited to:


− rainfall-runoff or catchment modelling, as would be necessary for event simulation,

− methods for estimating index design flood flows and growth curves using, the Flood Studies Update (FSU) methodologies, or the FSR and other relevant research if it is agreed by the OPW that the FSU methodologies are not appropriate

− the full use, and statistical analysis, of historic gauged levels and flows, including those where records might exist but for which there may be no gauged data.

6.5.3. Hydrological Estimation Points The Consultant shall derive best estimate design fluvial flood parameters based on the methods referred to above at Hydrological Estimation Points. The Hydrological Estimation Points shall include all of the following:

− points on the HPW that are central within each APSR, and immediately upstream and downstream of the APSR,

− all hydrometric gauging stations (as specified in the tender documentation of the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II)).

− points upstream and downstream of the confluences of all tributaries that potentially contribute more than 10% of flow of the main channel immediately upstream of the confluence for a flood event of a particular AEP,

− upstream boundaries of hydraulic models, and,

− other points at suitable locations as necessary to ensure that there is at least one Hydrological Estimation Point every 5kms along reaches of all modelled river (i.e., either HPW or MPW).

6.5.4. Coastal Flood Levels The OPW shall, upon appointment for reaches of the East and South coast and by the end of 2010 for other reaches of the coast (or sooner if possible), provide the Consultant with peak design extreme coastal water levels (incorporating both astronomical tide and surge effects, but not other effects such as wave action) at various points around the Irish coast based on a strategic model at a national scale. This data does not include the tidal cycles for the peak levels. A description of the analysis undertaken and the data that will be provided to the Consultants by the OPW is provided in Appendix E. The Consultant may use the coastal peak water levels provided as the basis for estimating relevant design flood parameters, and shall not be required to undertake astronomical tide or storm surge modelling, or develop off-shore models, under this project.

6.5.5. Hydrological Calibration and Validation The Consultant shall calibrate and validate the estimates of the design flood parameters (other than extreme peak sea levels) to recorded data as far as reasonably possible, based on historic or recorded flood event data.

6.5.6. Joint Probability Analysis The Consultant shall undertake dependency and joint probability analyses of the coincidence of fluvial flood flows and coastal flood levels to determine, subject to approval of the OPW, the appropriate combinations of flows and sea levels that should be used for the design probability events in zones of both fluvial and tidal influence. This analysis shall include literature reviews, assessment of any relevant recorded data to detect any dependence between the fluvial and coastal flood parameters along the general reach of coast in the vicinity of the Study Area, and sensitivity tests to assess the potential impacts of possible combinations.


6.5.7. Sensitivity Tests The Consultant shall undertake sensitivity tests as appropriate to determine degrees of uncertainty associated with the design flood event parameters.

6.6. FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL AND CATCHMENT CHANGES The Consultant shall estimate design flood parameters with appropriate allowances for possible future changes, such as future development, land use changes and climate change, in accordance with the requirements set out in Appendix F. The relevant allowances to be adopted and used for each of the two possible future scenarios (the MRFS and the HEFS) that shall be assessed by the Consultant shall be agreed in consultation with the Steering Group.

6.7. HYDRO-GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT The Consultant shall undertake, based on available or readily derivable information, a preliminary assessment of the hydro-geomorphology and sediment transport issues of the HPWs and MPWs, in so far as they may affect flood risk within the Study Area. The assessment should include, but not necessarily be limited to, any available information, historical records or evidence on erosion or deposition (e.g., such as might be available from the relevant WFD River Basin District project), an analysis of the topography, sub-surface materials (soil, sub-soil, geology, etc.), and, where necessary, site visits. Based on the assessment set out above and the risk indicators defined in Section 8, the Consultant shall assess and report on the existing and potential risk associated with the hydro-geomorphology in the Study Area, and how the hydro-geomorphological conditions might affect flood risk.

6.8. HYDROLOGY REPORT The Consultant shall submit to the OPW detailed, technical Draft Hydrology Reports that shall set out the work and analysis undertaken in relation to, and the findings and conclusions of, the hydrological analysis as defined within Section 6, accompanied with all hydrometric and meteorological data used and created. The typical structure and contents of the Draft, Draft Final and Final Hydrology Reports shall be agreed by the NTCG, subject to approval of the OPW, as set out in Section 2.5. The OPW, assisted by the Steering Group and other experts as deemed necessary by the OPW, shall review the Draft Hydrology Reports and submit observations to the Consultant within six (6) weeks of receipt. The Consultant shall review the observations submitted by the OPW, and prepare and submit to the OPW Draft Final Hydrology Reports that suitably addresses the observations of the OPW within four (4) weeks of receipt of the observations from the OPW. The OPW, assisted by the Steering Group and other experts as deemed necessary by the OPW, shall, within four (4) weeks of receipt, review the Draft Final Hydrology Reports to ensure that all observations have been appropriately addressed. In the event that the OPW does not consider that all observations have been appropriately addressed, the OPW shall submit further observations to the Consultant to be addressed by the Consultant as set out above. Once the OPW is satisfied that all observations have been appropriately addressed, the Consultant shall re-submit the Draft Final Hydrology Reports as the Final Hydrology Reports. The Consultant shall prepare and submit separate Draft, Draft Final and Final Hydrology Reports for each Unit of Management within the Study Area.


7. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

7.1. LEVEL OF DETAIL The level of detail of the hydraulic analysis to be undertaken under this Project should be sufficient to enable the Consultant to fully meet the requirements and objectives of the flood mapping, flood risk assessment, development and appraisal of flood risk management actions and measures (and associated assessments) and the preparation of a Flood Risk Management Plan, as set out herein. Within APSRs, the hydraulic analysis should be comprehensive and taken to a high level of detail, such that no further hydraulic analysis should be required after completion of the Project (other than to confirm findings of the Project, assess minor design variations or for validation and / or re-calibration after the occurrence of an extreme event) for the OPW or other authorities to have justifiable confidence in the implementation of the strategy and specific measures identified through the Project to manage the flood risk within the APSRs. The level of detail of the hydraulic analysis for MPWs does not need to be as high as that required for the APSRs, but nonetheless should be the best achievable within the constraints of the survey specification and available calibration data for MPWs to enable reasonable estimates of flood hazard and risk.

7.2. DEVELOPMENT OF FLUVIAL HYDRAULIC MODELS

7.2.1. Fluvial Model Development The Consultant shall develop dynamic hydraulic models for the HPWs and MPWs and their associated floodplains, based on the definitions of HPWs and MPWs set out herein, and the APSRs associated with fluvial flood risk, as identified in the tender documentation of the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II), to analyse historic flood events and estimate design and potential future flood levels, depths, velocities and extents. The Consultant shall develop models to a high level of detail for the HPWs, but to a lower level of detail for MPWs, making full and best use of the survey, calibration and other information captured, provided or developed as specified herein. The Consultant shall, as a minimum, undertake the modelling of in-bank fluvial reaches for HPWs, and in-bank and out-of-bank (floodplain) modelling for channels and floodplains of MPWs, using 1-dimensional modelling schematised in accordance with best practice to appropriately model conveyance routes, storage and attenuation and other hydraulic features. The Consultant may, if considered appropriate, undertake the out-of-bank (floodplain) modelling for MPWs using 2-dimensional modelling or other types of modelling capable of accurately simulating the 2-dimensional propagation of flow, dynamically linked to 1-dimensional in-bank models. The OPW have a strong preference that out-of-bank fluvial (floodplain) modelling for HPWs shall be undertaken using 2-dimensional modelling or other types of modelling capable of accurately simulating the 2-dimensional propagation of flow, dynamically linked to 1-dimensional in-bank models, and taking account of buildings and other hydraulically-relevant structures. The OPW recognises however that it might be appropriate, and adequate to effectively model out-of-bank conveyance routes, storage and attenuation and other hydraulic features, for the out-of-bank fluvial (floodplain) flows for HPWs for some small APSRs to be undertaken using 1-dimensional modelling. The hydraulic models shall be developed using one of the following modelling software packages:


− ISIS / ISIS-2D / Tuflow

− Mike 11, Mike 21, Mike Flood Hydraulic modelling software packages other than those listed above may not be used in undertaking this element of the Project.

7.2.2. Fluvial Model Calibration The Consultant shall appropriately ensure that the flood flows within the hydraulic models along HPW and MPW reaches are calibrated to the flood flow estimates at the Hydrological Estimation Points to ensure hydrological continuity (taking account of flood attenuation explicitly simulated within the hydraulic modelling) and that the design flood flows for each AEP are maintained along all lengths of relevant watercourses. Such adjustment might, for example, be by the provision of appropriate lateral inflows and ensuring appropriate inflow from tributaries, or by running the hydraulic models for individual reaches. The Consultant shall calibrate and verify the fluvial hydraulic models against a number of suitable past flood events (not less than four (4) events for each APSR if relevant data is available). The calibration and verification of the models shall make use of the best available data including, but not limited to, hydrometric data, photographs, videos, press articles and anecdotal information provided by local authority staff and other Stakeholders. The models should be verified to vertical accuracies of not less than 0.2m and 0.4m for HPWs and MPWs respectively, subject to the availability of suitable calibration data.

7.2.3. Fluvial Model Design Runs The Consultant shall run the dynamic hydraulic models for design flood events to determine flood levels, extents and other parameters as necessary for the Consultant to produce the required flood maps (see Sections 7.5 and 8.3), and to assist in the robust development and appraisal of potential flood risk management methods, options measures and potential strategies. The Consultant shall run the models for design events of the full range of probabilities specified in Section 6.5.1 for existing conditions and for the MRFS, and for the 10%, 1% and 0.1% AEP design flood events for the HEFS.

7.3. DEVELOPMENT OF COASTAL FLOODING MODELS

7.3.1. Coastal Flooding Model Development The Consultant shall develop models for the APSRs associated with risk of flooding from coastal sources, as identified in the tender documentation of the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II), to analyse the inland propagation of coastal or estuarine flood waters and to analyse historic flood events and estimate design and potential future flood levels, depths, velocities and extents. It is reiterated that the Consultant shall not be required to develop hydrodynamic storm surge models, or off-shore models, under this Project and shall instead use the peak design extreme coastal water levels provided by the OPW as the basis for the inland (overland) propagation modelling of flood waters. The Consultant shall develop models to a high level of detail making full and best use of the survey and other information captured, provided or developed as specified herein. The modelling shall be undertaken using 2-dimensional modelling or other equivalent types of flood spreading modelling capable of accurately simulating the propagation of coastal floodwaters over tidal cycles and storm surge events inland. The hydraulic models shall be developed using one of the following modelling software packages:


− ISIS-2D / Tuflow

− Mike 21, Mike Flood

− JFlow Hydraulic modelling software packages other than those listed above may not be used in undertaking this element of the Project.

7.3.2. Coastal Flooding Model Calibration The Consultant shall calibrate and verify the coastal flooding models against a number of suitable past flood events (not less than four (4) events for each APSR if relevant data is available). The calibration and verification of the models shall make use of the best available data including, but not limited to, hydrometric data, photographs, videos, press articles and anecdotal information provided by local authority staff and other Stakeholders. The models should be verified to vertical accuracies of not less than 0.2m, subject to the availability of suitable calibration data.

7.3.3. Coastal Flooding Model Design Runs The Consultant shall run the coastal flooding models for design flood events to determine flood levels, extents and other parameters as necessary for the Consultant to produce the required flood maps (see Sections 7.5 and 8.3), and to assist in the development and appraisal of potential flood risk management methods, options measures and potential strategies. The Consultant shall run the models for design events of the full range of probabilities specified in Section 6.5.1 for existing conditions and for the MRFS, and for the 10%, 0.5% and 0.1% AEP design flood events for the HEFS.

7.4. SENSITIVITY TESTS The Consultant shall undertake sensitivity tests for each and all forms of modelling as described above as appropriate to determine the robustness and sensitivity of the models and the design flood levels, extents, etc. estimated using the models. Such tests should include, but not necessarily be limited to, variations in roughness parameters, flow values, boundary conditions and (within APSRs) afflux parameters at hydraulically-significant structures.

7.5. FLOOD HAZARD MAPPING

7.5.1. Level of Detail The Consultant shall produce flood hazard maps for the APSRs for each source of flooding relevant to the APSR as identified in the tender documentation of the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II) to the best accuracy and level of detail that can be achieved with the methodologies specified and the available data. The flood hazard maps should provide the information necessary for spatial planning (e.g., for Development Plans and Local Area Plans) and the assessment of planning applications, as well as for the flood risk assessment, development and appraisal of flood risk management actions and measures (and associated assessments) and the preparation of a Flood Risk Management Plan, as set out herein. The flood hazard maps produced for the areas at risk of flooding from the MPWs (APMRs) should be of sufficient detail and reliability (subject to the availability of calibration data) to provide the information necessary for preliminary flood risk assessments to be made in relation to spatial planning and planning applications. It is not however anticipated that the maps produced for the areas at risk of flooding from the MPWs would be adequate for final decisions relating to major development proposals, or those subject to appeal, and that such


proposals may require further flood risk analysis (by the planning permission applicant and / or planning authority) beyond that delivered under this Project.

7.5.2. Flood Mapping Requirements Based on the modelling and analysis described herein, and making full and best use of the survey and other information captured, provided or developed as specified herein, the Consultant shall produce a range of flood hazard maps, as set out below, for those areas for which flooding may occur for the APSRs for each source of flooding relevant to the APSR as identified in the tender documentation of the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II), and for the APMRs. The range of flood maps the Consultant shall produce shall include: 1. Flood Extent Maps, which shall show the extents of flooding, and include the

following:

a) An indicator of degree of confidence (see Section 7.5.3) associated with the flood extent

b) For APSRs and APMRs subject to fluvial flood risk, tables of peak flood flows for all modelled design flood event probabilities at each of the Hydrological Estimation Points (see Section 6.5.3). The flows presented shall be the total flows in the full valley section at each Point, rather than just those that are in-channel or attached to an individual model node.

c) Tables of peak flood levels for all modelled design flood event probabilities at:

i) all nodes (sited at cross-section locations or model nodes, and to be named according to an agreed naming convention) along the centre line of the main channels and other flow paths for HPWs and MPWs modelled using 1-dimensional fluvial hydraulic models (and along HPWs within APSRs modelled using other techniques)

ii) points within modelled domains of coastal flooding as appropriate to the nature of the model and to meet the needs potential users of the flood hazard maps (such points would typically be at not more than 500m centres)

d) Areas benefiting from flood protection from flood defences (formal and informal effective – see Appendix C) with the associated standard of protection and the location and extent of the flood defence assets

2. Flood Zone Maps, which shall show only three flood extents, as flood zones A, B and C, to facilitate implementation of the Guidelines on the Planning System and Flood Risk Management (DoEHLG & OPW, November 2009).

3. Flood Depth Maps, which shall show the depths of flooding, in ranges / classifications to discussed by the National Technical Coordination Group for decision of the OPW.

4. Flood Velocity Maps, which shall show the velocities of floodplain flow, in ranges / classifications to discussed by the National Technical Coordination Group for decision of the OPW.

5. Flood Hazard Function Maps, which shall show a function of flood hazard (the ‘risk to life’) calculated from depth and velocity and, if relevant, a debris factor. The function to be used shall be discussed by the National Technical Coordination Group for decision of the OPW.

The Consultant shall produce each of the above maps for each of the scenarios (current, MRFS and HEFS) for the flood event probabilities set out in Table 7.1 below.


Table 7.1: Flood Mapping Requirements

Flood Event Probabilities to be Mapped for Each Scenario Type of Flood Map

Current MRFS HEFS

Flood Extent – GIS All Probabilities All Probabilities 10%, 1%, 0.1%

Flood Extent – Print-Ready 10%, 1%, 0.1% 10%, 1%, 0.1% Not Required

Flood Zone – GIS 1%, 0.1% 1%, 0.1% Not Required

Flood Zone – Print-Ready 1%, 0.1% Not Required Not Required

Flood Depth – GIS All Probabilities 10%, 1%, 0.1% Not Required

Flood Depth – Print-Ready 10%, 1%, 0.1% Not Required Not Required

Flood Velocity – GIS All Probabilities Not Required Not Required

Flood Velocity – Print-Ready 10%, 1%, 0.1% Not Required Not Required

Flood Hazard Function – GIS 10%, 1%, 0.1% Not Required Not Required

Flood Hazard Function – Print-Ready 10%, 1%, 0.1% Not Required Not Required

The above event probabilities are for fluvial flooding. For coastal (tidally-influenced) flooding the requirements are the same (i.e., as set out in Table 7.1), except for the restricted range of probabilities (specified as 10%, 1%, 0.1% or as 1%, 0.1% in Table 7.1) for which the probabilities required are 10%, 0.5% and 0.1%, or as 0.5% and 0.1% respectively. The terms ‘GIS’ and ‘Print-Ready’ as used to describe the types of map within Table 7.1 refer to mapping formats as described in Section 7.5.4. Flood Velocity and Hazard Function Maps are only required for APSRs, and are not required for MPWs. The Consultant shall prepare flood hazard maps for coastal and groundwater flooding using assumed values of velocity to be agreed with OPW. The ‘Print-Ready’ Flood Extent and Flood Zone maps shall include all of the flood event probability extents on the same map. For all other ‘Print-Ready’ maps, the Consultant shall prepare separate maps for each flood event probability. The Consultant shall post-process the outputs of the hydraulic models before production of the flood maps to, for example, eliminate small islands and pools and remove flooded areas with no hydraulic connectivity to the source of flooding. 7.5.2.1. Flood Mapping in Tidally- and Fluvially-Influenced Areas In areas where flooding is subject to both tidal and fluvial influence, the Consultant shall develop three sets of Flood Extent maps for that area:

− one set (in both GIS and Print-Ready Format) shall show the fluvially-influenced flood extents only (assuming an appropriate tidal downstream boundary condition)

− one set (in both GIS and Print-Ready Format) shall show the tidally-influenced flood extents only (assuming an appropriate fluvial upstream boundary condition)

− one set (in GIS Format only) shall merge the tidally- and fluvially-influenced flood extents, with the mapped extents representing the outer (greater) extent of either the tidally- or fluvially influenced flood extents

The first two sets of maps (i.e., those showing only the tidally- or fluvially-influenced flood extents), shall include a clear note on each indicating that another map is available displaying the flood extents from the other source, and an indication of the area prone to flooding from the other source.


For all other types of flood map (i.e., other than the flood extent maps), the Consultant shall produce separate flood maps for each of the fluvially-influenced and tidally-influenced flooding scenarios (with each assuming an appropriate tidal and fluvial boundary respectively) in areas where flooding is subject to both tidal and fluvial influence. The Consultant shall not be required to prepare these other types of maps merging these two separate maps.

7.5.3. Degrees of Confidence The Consultant shall, for the purposes of the Flood Extent Maps, derive an indicator of the degree of confidence in the estimated flows and levels and consequently in the mapped flood extents. The indicator of degree of confidence shall be based on some or all of the following factors:

− Hydrological: o Design flood parameter estimation method(s) o Availability, proximity and quality of recorded flood flow or tidal level data o Probability of the design flood event

− Hydraulics: o The quality (including cross-section spacing) of the survey data o Method for estimating roughness o Complexity of the relevant hydraulics and / or hydraulic model o Availability, proximity and quality of flood level or extent calibration data and /

or the outcomes of the calibration and validation

− Topographical (Flood Extents) o The quality of the floodplain survey data o The local topography / slope of the floodplains

The detailed methods to be used for determining the degree of confidence in flows, levels and extents shall be agreed by the NTCG, subject to approval of the OPW, as set out in Section 2.5. The uncertainties (or degree of confidence) in the flood extents to be represented on the flood extent maps shall be based on the uncertainties in the flood levels, and a categorisation of the projected spatial range of the possible flood extents based on this uncertainty in level, taking into account the local topography. The method to derive extent uncertainty based on uncertainties in levels shall follow the method set out in Appendix G. Software code for the application of this method has been developed and can be made available to the Consultant if so required, but this code would require adaptation / amendment to produce the required outcomes dependent on the modelling and mapping software being used, and should not be relied upon as ready-to-use. The Consultant shall present the degrees of confidence for each mapped flood extent by means of varying flood extent boundary line types for the flood extents (see Appendix H). Additional hydraulic model runs will not be required as part of the assessment of degree of confidence, although the determination of degree of confidence in level and extent will require analysis based on model outputs, and may be automated within a modelling process.

7.5.4. Formats for Delivery of Flood Hazard Maps The Consultant shall deliver the maps in digital format in two formats:

− GIS Format: Maps to be provided as layers, tables, meta-data and / or files (as appropriate) in a GIS format compatible for direct import into MapInfo and ArcGIS.


− Print-Ready Format: Maps to be provided in an editable (e.g., AutoCAD dxf) and pdf format that will provide for direct printing (i.e., without merging, amendment, or other manipulation) to hardcopy at A3 size, such that the printed image is in a standard map / drawing format, including borders, title block with location map, legend, notes, map title / origin, etc.

The Consultant shall provide all of the mapped flood flows and levels as attribute tables within the GIS Format version of the flood extent maps, including those for the full range of AEP flood events, for all scenarios, and for all Hydrological Estimation Points and model nodes respectively. Limited tables of flood flows and levels (i.e., for only a selection of flood event AEPs) shall be reproduced on the print-ready format maps. The Consultant shall provide the Print-Ready Format version of the maps to a printed scale at A3 paper size of 1:5 000 and 1:25 000 for APSRs and APMRs respectively, overlain on appropriately-scaled OSi cadastral base-maps. The details of GIS data and ‘Print-Ready’ formats for the flood maps (colour palettes and other details of presentation) shall be agreed by the NTCG, subject to approval of the OPW, as set out in Section 2.5. Examples of the expected ‘Print-Ready’ map formats are provided in Appendix H.

7.6. DEFENCE FAILURE SCENARIOS In the event of a failure of flood defence assets (such as the collapse of a section of wall or breach of an embankment), areas that would otherwise be defended against flooding during a given event severity might become subject to flooding. The Consultant shall undertake analysis to identify and assess the flood hazard and risk that may be caused or significantly increased (with due consideration for flow velocities, rate of onset of flooding, likely flood volumes and potential flood damage), by the occurrence of failures of defence assets providing protection to the areas at risk from flooding. The Consultant shall undertake such analysis using appropriate hydraulic modelling techniques in line with best practice using the models identified in Section 7.2, or the JFlow modelling software. The Consultant shall undertake such analysis for two (2) failure scenarios (comprising potential breach extents / breach development scenarios or locations) for each of the existing flood defence assets where the retained depth of water above ground level exceeds 1.0m during a flood event of a probability equal to the standard of defence of the asset. The Consultant shall be guided by the defence asset survey (Section 5.1) as well as the degree of potential risk arising in the selection appropriate locations for the analysis of failure scenarios, subject to agreement of the OPW. The Consultant shall, for each failure scenario, produce Flood Extent (but excluding all of the requirements of sub-points 1.a) to 1.d) of Section 7.5.2), Depth and Velocity maps as set out in Section 7.5 for the areas flooded due to each the breach analysed. The Consultant shall report on, and provide the maps produced for, the defence failure scenario analysis and findings in the Preliminary Options Report.

7.7. OPTION EVALUATION The Consultant shall undertake simulations and model runs as necessary to develop and appraise options for possible flood risk management actions and measures (see Section 11).


7.8. HYDRAULICS REPORT The Consultant shall submit to the OPW detailed, technical Hydraulics Reports that shall set out the work and analysis undertaken in relation to, and the findings and conclusions of, the surveys as defined within Section 5 and the hydraulic analysis as defined within Section 7, except for the work defined in Section 7.6 and 7.7, which shall be reported upon in the Preliminary Options Reports. The Consultant shall supply the following as part of, or as an accompaniment to, the Draft and Final Hydraulics Reports:

− All survey data, including digital data files, as detailed in Section 5.

− Digital hydraulic model files, including, but not necessarily limited to, calibration, verification, design run and sensitivity analysis model and results files, for the work detailed in Section 7, excluding Section 7.6 and 7.7.

− A copy of the defence asset database with all flood defence asset geometric and condition survey completed and accurately entered, including the defence asset survey deliverables, as detailed in Section 5.1 and 5.2 and Appendices C and D

− Digital copies of the GIS-Format and Print-Ready Format Flood hazard maps, as detailed in Section 7.5

The OPW, assisted by the Steering Group and other experts as deemed necessary by the OPW, shall review the Draft Hydraulics Reports and submit observations to the Consultant within six (6) weeks of receipt. The Consultant shall review the observations submitted by the OPW, and prepare and submit to the OPW a Draft Final Hydraulics Reports that suitably addresses the observations of the OPW within four (4) weeks of receipt of the observations from the OPW. The OPW, assisted by the Steering Group and other experts as deemed necessary by the OPW, shall, within four (4) weeks of receipt, review the Draft Final Hydraulics Reports to ensure that all observations have been appropriately addressed. In the event that the OPW does not consider that all observations have been appropriately addressed, the OPW shall submit further observations to the Consultant to be addressed by the Consultant as set out above. In the event that the OPW is satisfied that all observations have been appropriately addressed, the Consultant shall re-submit the Draft Final Hydraulics Reports as the Final Hydraulics Reports. The Consultant shall prepare and submit separate Draft, Draft Final and Final Hydraulics Reports for each Unit of Management within the Study Area. The Consultant shall provide a number, as identified in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II), of bound sets of printed hardcopies of each set of Draft and of Final flood hazard maps as set out in Section 7.5 and above.


8. FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

8.1. FLOOD RISK RECEPTOR GROUPS The Consultant shall assess and map the potential adverse consequences (risk) associated with flooding in the APSRs and the APMRs, and to IRRs, to four risk receptor groups, namely:

− Society (including risk to people),

− The Environment,

− Cultural Heritage,

− The Economy, Requirements for these assessments are set out below. The Consultant shall undertake the risk assessments using relevant information for all of the design flood event probabilities referred to in Section 6.5.1 for existing conditions and for the MRFS. The Consultant shall derive indicative estimates of risk for the HEFS based on flood damages as derived for the MRFS scaled using only the HEFS flood events with an AEP of 10%, 1% (0.5% for coastal flooding) and 0.1%.

8.1.1. Social Risk The social flood risk shall be assessed, mapped and reported upon using four methods and indicator sets:

i) the location and number of residential properties

ii) the location, type, an indicator of vulnerability and number of potentially high-vulnerability sites, such as residential homes for children, the elderly or disabled, etc.

iii) the location, type, an indicator of vulnerability and number of valuable social infrastructural assets, such as fire stations, Garda stations, ambulance stations, hospitals, government and council buildings, etc.

iv) the location, type, an indicator of vulnerability and number of social amenity sites, such as parks, leisure facilities, etc.

8.1.2. Risk to the Environment The flood risk to the environment shall be assessed and mapped and reported upon using three methods and indicator sets:

i) The location, type, an indicator of vulnerability and number of installations referred to in Annex I to EU Directive 96/61/EC (1996) concerning integrated pollution prevention and control and other significant potential sources of pollution. (NOTE: Information on IPPC Licenses are available on the Environmental Protection Agency Website (www.epa.ie) and information on Section 4 and Section 16 licenses under the Water Pollution Act are available from the Water Pollution Control Section of the relevant Local Authorities)

ii) The location, extent, nature and an indicator of vulnerability of areas identified in Annex IV(1)(i), (iii) and (v) to the Water Framework Directive (EU Directive 2000/60/EC)

iii) The nature, location, an indicator of vulnerability and areas of other environmentally-valuable sites, such as SACs

8.1.3. Risk to Cultural Heritage The flood risk to cultural heritage shall be assessed and mapped and reported upon using one method and indicator set:


i) The location, type, an indicator of vulnerability and number of sites or assets of cultural value

8.1.4. Risk to the Economy The flood risk to the economy shall be assessed and mapped and reported upon using four methods and indicator sets:

i) The location, type (residential and classifications of non-residential) and numbers of properties, with associated frequency-depth-damage information based on property type

ii) The density of economic risk expressed as annual average damage (euro/year) per unit area (e.g., per 100m or 500m square)

iii) The location, type, an indicator of vulnerability and number (and / or lengths) of transport infrastructural assets, such as airports, ports, motorways, national and regional roads, rail, etc.

iv) The location, type, an indicator of vulnerability and number of utility infrastructural assets, such as electricity generation and sub-stations, water supply and treatment works, natural gas and oil facilities, important telecom interchanges, data repositories, etc.

The Consultant shall assess and calculate the economic damages and risk for risk indicators i) and ii) above shall be undertaken using the methodology based on that set out in Appendix I, subject to review and refinement by the NTCG, and approval of the OPW. As noted in Section 5.4, the Consultant may for the purposes of the economic risk estimation for properties, but subject to limitations of the data and spot-checks required as set out in Section 5.4, assume the property floor levels are a fixed height above ground level based on the DTM.

8.1.5. Indicators of Vulnerability The OPW shall provide the Consultant with the indicators of vulnerability for each type of social, environmental, cultural and economic risk receptor, where noted above, and excluding economic risks i) and ii) that shall be calculated using the methodology as set out in Appendix I. The indicators of vulnerability shall typically be a categorisation of vulnerability (e.g., very high to very low) or, where possible, as a numerical or economic consequence or depth-consequence curve in the event of flooding. The definition of the indicators of vulnerability shall be reviewed and, if necessary and agreed, refinement of the NTCG, subject to approval of the OPW.

8.2. REPORTING OF RISK AND RISK INDICATORS The results of the flood risk assessments under the four risk receptor groups referred to under Section 8.1 shall be described in the Preliminary Options Report (See Section 11.9).

8.3. FLOOD RISK MAPS The Consultant shall, for the APSRs and, unless otherwise defined, for the APMRs, prepare flood risk maps that present in a clear manner the flood risk as defined under Section 8.1. The Consultant shall prepare a range of different sets of maps as set out below.


8.3.1. Specific Flood Risk Maps

8.3.1.1. Indicative Number of Inhabitants For the social risk indicator i) [Section 8.1.1, i)], the Consultant shall prepare an individual set of maps presenting the indicative number of inhabitants at risk of flooding within each of the flood events with AEPs of 10%, 1% (fluvially-influenced risk only), 0.5% (tidally-influenced risk only) and 0.1% by means of a population density (i.e., number per unit area) or total (i.e., number within a given area, such as an APSR or a discrete flood cell within an APSR). The indicative number of inhabitants shall be derived from the number of residential properties, supplemented by secondary data where available (such as the typical numbers of residents per property in the relevant area or sub-area). The method for defining the indicative number of inhabitants shall be reviewed and refined by the NTCG, subject to approval of the OPW. The Consultant shall prepare these maps in GIS-Format and in Print-Ready Format (See Section 7.5.4) for the APSRs and for the APMRs (but in GIS-format only for the APMRs) for the current scenario, and in GIS-Format only for the MRFS (but not for the HEFS). The indicative numbers of inhabitants as represented on the maps shall also be provided as attribute data to the maps. 8.3.1.2. Types of Economic Activity For the economic risk indicator i) [Section 8.1.4, i)], the Consultant shall prepare an individual set of maps presenting the types of property use for areas within the APSR according to certain categories, or the category of an IRR, representing the type of economic activity at risk from flooding from a flood event with an AEP of 0.1%. The definition of the categories of economic activity shall be provided by the OPW, but shall be reviewed and refined by the NTCG, subject to approval of the OPW. The Consultant shall prepare these maps in GIS-Format and in Print-Ready Format (See Section 7.5.4) but only for the APSRs (i.e., not for the APMRs) for the current scenario, and in GIS-Format only for the MRFS (but not for the HEFS). The categories of economic activity as represented on the maps shall also be provided as attribute data to the maps. 8.3.1.3. Economic Risk Density For the economic risk indicator ii) [Section 8.1.4, ii)], the Consultant shall prepare an individual set of maps presenting the annual average damage. These maps need only be prepared in GIS-Format (i.e., not in Print-Ready Format – See Section 7.5.4) for the APSRs (i.e., not for the APMRs) and for the current scenario and MRFS (i.e., not for HEFS). The economic risk density as represented on the maps shall also be provided as attribute data to the maps.

8.3.2. General Flood Risk Maps For all risk indicators other than those for which specific flood risk maps are to be prepared (Section 8.3.1), the Consultant shall prepare, on a separate set of maps for each risk receptor group (i.e., Social, the Environment, Cultural Heritage and the Economic risk), maps with all of the risk indicators for that group overlain on the Flood Extent Maps (but excluding all of the requirements of sub-points 1.a) to 1.d) of Section 7.5.2) including extents for flood events with AEPs of 10%, 1% (fluvially-influenced risk only), 0.5% (tidally-influenced risk only) and 0.1% (i.e., with all flood event probabilities on a single set of maps). The Consultant shall prepare sets of risk maps in both GIS and ‘Print-Ready’ formats (see Section 7.5.4) as set out above for both the APSRs and APMRs for the current scenario, and in GIS-Format only for the MRFS (but not for the HEFS).


The Consultant shall geo-reference the IRRs, where such data is not already geo-referenced, and shall provide as attribute tables attached to each IRR within the GIS Format version of the flood risk maps the category, type, nature, vulnerability, flood likelihoods and depths and other relevant data for each IRR. The details of the GIS and ‘Print-Ready’ formats for the flood maps (appropriate symbols, colour palettes and other details of presentation) shall be agreed by the NTCG, subject to approval of the OPW, as set out in Section 2.5.

8.4. FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Generic flood risk management objectives, linked to the risk receptor indicators and with associated Global Weightings, shall be provided to the Consultant by the OPW after Commencement. A sample set of these objectives is provided in Appendix J, although it should be noted these might be subject to change. Based on the outcomes of the flood risk assessment outlined herein, the Consultant shall for each Unit of Management, sub-catchments within each Unit of Management, each APSR and each IRR assess the relative importance of each objective within the relevant area or for the relevant receptor. The Consultant shall then assign an appropriate Local Weighting for each objective that will subsequently be used in developing and appraising flood risk management options (see Section 11). To promote national consistency in assigning the Local Weighting, the Consultant shall follow guidelines to be provided by the OPW, but which shall be reviewed and refined by the NTCG, subject to approval of the OPW, as set out in Section 2.5. These guidelines shall expand on the following, providing rules and / or examples with respect to each objective:

Local Weighting Description of Importance

− Very High National or International Importance

− High Regional Importance

− Moderate Significant Local Importance

− Low Moderate Local Importance

− Very Low Negligible or Minor Local Importance

− N/A Objective Not Relevant within Area or for Individual Risk Receptor


9. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

9.1. STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The European Communities (Assessment of Certain Plans and Programmes) Regulations 2004 (S.I. No. 435 of 2004) (hereafter referred to as ‘the SEA Regulations’) require that a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) be completed for some plans and programmes that have the potential to effect the environment. The OPW requires that an SEA be undertaken as part of the Project and the development of the each Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP). As an integrated part of the development of measures, strategy options and the FRMP, the Consultant shall undertake an SEA that shall satisfy the requirements of the SEA Regulations and also those of the document produced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entitled “Development of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Methodologies for Plans and Programmes in Ireland – Synthesis Report” (hereafter referred to as the “EPA Publication”), and (where relevant) of the Guidelines issued by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG, November 2004). It is foreseen that, to comply with the SEA Regulations and follow guidance of the EPA Publication in relation to this project, the SEA will be undertaken through the process set out in Appendix K. It should be noted that a screening assessment (Tasks 1.1, 1.2 and Output 1 as referenced in the EPA Publication) has already been undertaken by the Client and is not required as part of the Project.

9.2. APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT Appropriate Assessment (AA) is required to identify and address any potential impacts the flood risk management options (Section 11), and each of the FRMPs, (Section 12) might have on areas designated as Natura 2000 sites (i.e., Special Areas of Conservation [SACs] and / or Special Protection Areas [SPAs] and any associated candidate sites). This requirement arises from the EU Birds Directive (79/409/EC) and Articles 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directives (92/43/EC). The Consultant shall undertake an AA that shall satisfy the requirements of the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997 S.I. No. 94 of 1997 and also those of the document produced by the DoEHLG “Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland Guidance for Planning Authorities” (hereafter referred to as the “DoEHLG AA Guidelines”). Appendix K sets out the anticipated process for carrying out the AA. The Consultant shall undertake a screening assessment that shall identify any potential impacts the measures, options and FRMPs might have on designated areas, with outcomes being used to further inform the development of flood risk management options (Section 11). The screening assessment shall be undertaken in parallel with the Option Appraisal Studies of the SEA. The Consultant shall report the findings and conclusions of the screening assessment in a Screening Statement. Depending on the outcome of the Screening Assessment the Consultant shall carry out a detailed AA in line with the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997 and the DoEHLG AA Guidelines.


The OPW shall provide the Consultants with a generally satisfactory example of a Screening Statement and a detailed AA (with comments on potential improvements, if relevant) within three (3) months of Commencement.


10. CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT The Consultant shall undertake stakeholder and public consultation activities as necessary to promote and provide for the awareness and active engagement of the public and all stakeholders that might have an interest in, or be affected by, the Flood Hazard or Risk Maps or the Flood Risk Management Plan (and the decisions made towards the development of the Plan), to ensure that the public and stakeholders have the opportunity to review and make comments and submissions on the flood maps, the Plan and other project outputs, and participate in the decision making processes, as appropriate. In undertaking such consultation and engagement activities, the Consultant shall be required to perform the services set out in Appendix L.


(Blank Page)


11. DEVELOPMENT OF FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

11.1. LEVEL OF DETAIL The Consultant shall, for each Unit of Management, develop a flood risk management plan (the FRMP), including a prioritised set of actions and measures aimed at meeting the defined flood risk management objectives (Section 8.4), for each UoM as a whole but focusing on the management of flood risk in each of the APSRs and to each of the IRRs. The Consultant shall assess and develop coherent actions and measures at a range of at least four Spatial Scales of Assessment (SSAs) that shall include:

− the Units of Management

− each sub-catchment or coastal area within the Unit of Management

− each individual APSRs, and,

− Individual Risk Receptors (IRRs) at potentially significant risk, as identified in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II).

In reporting on the actions to be set out in the FRMP, which might include studies or more detailed analysis, monitoring, establishment of new hydro-meteorological stations, etc., the Consultant shall include a description of the action, along with the need for and objectives of the action, and estimates of cost, programme (based on a prioritisation process), responsibility, etc., for that action. Although the analysis undertaken under this Project will form the basis for detailing the action within the FRMP and the subsequent implementation of the action, the actual implementation of the actions defined in the FRMP does not form part of this Project. The Consultant shall develop, appraise and report on the measures to the degree of detail required to determine and demonstrate the indicative costs and benefits of the options, the robust reasoning for the identification of the measure as a preferred option and the priority each measure should be afforded. To achieve this, the Consultant shall undertake the following: − An assessment of the viability of Flood Risk Management (FRM) methods and options

as described in Sections 11.4 to 11.7 herein

− An outline estimation of costs, using basic quantities (e.g., number, length, size, height, etc.) and typical unit costs, of options

− Determination of the outline details of primary performance criteria of the options (e.g., crest levels of walls, embankments or weirs, or conveyance, width, depth and typical gradient of channels, or approximate lead times and degree of correlation / accuracy for potential flood forecasting systems, etc.)

− Preparation of outline plans (drawings) of the options indicating the possible / probable location of works, and an indication of their vertical / horizontal scale (e.g., plan showing possible line of defence works, with indications of heights at spot points along defence line, or of the spatial extent of channel widening, with assigned required widths and depths and approximate design bed levels at spot points, or possible locations of gauges required to enable development and operation of an effective flood forecasting system)

− An environmental assessment as required under SEA and, if necessary, an assessment as required under the Habitats Directive (See Section 9).


− Discussion of options with Local Authorities, the public (based around the second Public Information Day) and other stakeholders to get views on options and broad agreement on preferred options (measures)

− Discussion with Local Authority Planners on issues related to planning and development, and an outline indication of potential impacts of development on flood plains and residual risk management measures that might be appropriate for that location

Work that the Consultant would not be required to undertake includes:

− Detailed estimation of costs derived from, for example, measured quantities from site-specific structural design, or specific types of data logger and communications systems.

− Structural design (foundation sizes, pile wall strengths / depths, etc.) or similar detailed design (e.g., detailed inter-site flood routing / forecasting relationships or models as required for the installation of a system)

− Specifications of materials or finishing (block, concrete or stone walls, pile types,

− Detailed, scaled design drawings (cross-sections, long-sections, structural design features, etc.)

− Application of an EIS

− Agreement of all stakeholders on all specific details within an overall option or measure

− Detailed discussions and agreements on specifics of planning and development related issues and required residual risk management measures for specific areas

It should be noted that while the plan should aim to recommend a series of preferred flood risk management measures (based on assessment against the criteria and objectives as set out in 11.4 and Appendix J), the presentation of alternative measures or options may be acceptable. This situation could arise where two or more measures or options are considered to be of approximately equal benefit, viability and acceptability, rather than where one measure or option is clearly preferable to all others. In such circumstances, the range of alternatives should be described in the Flood Risk Management Plan. The analysis, and method and option development and appraisal, to derive the set of actions and measures to be defined in the FRMP, as described herein, should form a robust and sound foundation for the future full development (after completion of this Project) of a measure to be taken to public exhibition or planning (as appropriate) and subsequent implementation. The rejection of any method or option shall be robust and with clear and transparent reasoning, as rejected methods and options shall not be reconsidered in future projects.

11.2. PREFERRED DESIGN STANDARDS The preferred design standards (i.e., flood event probabilities that the risk management measures and options should address) shall be the 1% AEP event for fluvial flooding and 0.5% AEP for tidal flooding (and the appropriate combination for areas of joint fluvial-tidal influence), with provision for adaptability to the MRFS (see Section 6.6, and Appendix F). However, where there is a clear technical, economic, social or environmental case as to why the preferred standards would not be appropriate or acceptable, or where the adoption of alternative standards would provide significant additional benefit in relation to costs and impacts, the Consultant shall consider and develop and assess actions and measures, as set out herein, to meet alternative design standards.


Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall consider flood risks associated with more significant events than those of the preferred or proposed design standard (e.g., 0.1% AEP) as part of the appraisal to assess the impacts of failure of the measures, and, if appropriate, for inclusion in design of the measures. Where no major structural flood protection option is viable for an APSR, the Consultant shall assess localised or low-scale structural protection measures (e.g., raising existing defences, infilling gaps in defences, creating minor defences not requiring major structural works, etc.) to determine whether some protection (to a design standard that may be less than the preferred design standard), would be beneficial and viable. Such measures may compliment other non-structural measures that have been determined to be viable.

11.3. FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT METHODS A flood risk management option (‘option’) for one of the SSAs consists of one, or, more commonly, a combination of FRM methods, or elements of such methods. The Consultant shall consider all possible structural and non-structural methods (i.e., techniques or approaches that may be used to prevent flooding, or reduce, mitigate against or manage flood risk), which may be of localised application and benefit (for example, structural flood defences or floodplain preservation through land zoning for a specific area) or of broader application and benefit (such as the use of distributed upland storage or a catchment-wide flood forecasting and warning system), and shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, those listed in Appendix M. The Consultant shall not be expected to develop policies on planning control, guidelines on building standards or other such general policy documents, but shall identify how existing or developing policies and guidelines should be implemented within the specific conditions prevalent in the SSAs within the Study Area.

11.3.1. Flood Forecasting Systems The Consultant shall analyse the potential for the development of an effective flood forecasting system for each APSR, and shall report on such analysis under the potential flood risk management options in the Preliminary Options Report (Section 11.9). The analysis shall include the assessment of:

− The potentially available advance forecast period

− The potential accuracy of the forecasts

− The potential reliability of the forecasts

− The infrastructure (i.e., fluvial and / or rainfall gauging stations) that would be required As part of the analysis, the Consultant shall consider travel times of flood peaks, the location of existing and possible gauging sites, the nature of the drainage network, degrees of uncertainty, costs of establishment and operation, etc. The analysis shall not be required to include assessments of institutional capabilities. The Consultant shall not be required to develop or implement the forecasting system under the Project, but rather assess potential viability and benefits.

11.3.2. Strategic Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems The Consultant shall analyse the potential for the development of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) for each APSR, and for sub-divisions of each APSR, at a strategic level, and shall report on (including maps and drawings as appropriate) such analyses under the potential flood risk management options in the Preliminary Options Report (Section 11.9). The analysis shall, for each APSR and sub-division or sub-catchment of the APSR, include the assessment of:


− The natural drainage patterns

− The potential for infiltration

− The potential runoff rates (existing and potential future, including consideration of the potential future scenarios)

− The storage volumes that might be required for detention ponds (for the APSR and sub-divisions, within swales, road networks for extreme events, etc.)

− The potential benefits with respect to water quality and achievement of the objectives of the Water Framework Directive, as well as for the management of flood risks.

− The responsibilities for management and maintenance of proposed systems (through discussion with the relevant local authorities)

− The safety aspects of proposed systems The Consultant shall focus on the potential and requirements for SUDS for large areas (i.e., multiple, rather than individual, development plots) but will not be required to develop detailed designs for the systems.

11.3.3. Dams, Reservoirs and Operable Control Structures The Consultant shall review the operating procedures and regulations of any dams, reservoirs or operable control structures (e.g., variable weirs, sluices, etc.) on HPWs and MPWs, and assess the potential for amendment of the procedures and regulations to reduce flood risk upstream and downstream. The assessment shall include, as appropriate, running the fluvial model (Section 7.2) to simulate amendments of the operating procedures and regulations to determine the degree of reduction of flood risk that could be achieved, and what other flood risk management measures might be required to achieve or enhance the flood risk management benefit achievable.

11.4. SCREENING OF POSSIBLE FRM METHODS The Consultant shall screen the identified possible FRM methods to identify those that might be applicable and viable to address the risk and meet the defined objectives for each and all of the SSAs within each Unit of Management, including all APSRs. The Consultant shall screen all of the possible FRM methods, including but not limited to those set out in Appendix M, for their likely viability against a range of criteria, including: − Applicability to relevant area

− Economic (potential benefits, costs, impacts – See Section 8 and Appendix I)

− Environmental (potential benefits, impacts and opportunities – See Section 8 and Appendix K)

− Social (social, legal and political acceptability, impacts on community development and sustainability, etc. – See Section 8)

− Cultural (potential benefits, impacts and opportunities – See Section 8) The Consultant shall not be expected to design or develop the potentially viable FRM methods in any detail as part of the screening process, but rather assess the FRM methods at a preliminary level to achieve an indicative appraisal against the above criteria, to identify the potentially viable FRM methods that should be taken forward for consideration in the formation of options and more detailed appraisal. Notwithstanding this, the Consultant shall soundly and robustly justify the rejection of a FRM method from further consideration, with clear and transparent reasoning, on the basis of at least one of the above criteria.


11.5. DEVELOPMENT OF POTENTIAL OPTIONS The Consultant shall develop a range of potentially viable options for achieving the flood risk management objectives for each and all of the SSAs in each Unit of Management to outline design (i.e., as set out in Section 11.1). Options are likely to incorporate one, or (more likely) a combination of, the FRM methods, or elements of these methods, determined to be viable through the screening process (Section 11.4), and may include a mix of localised and broader FRM methods. Each option shall constitute a potential response to meet the defined flood risk management objectives, that could be taken forward and, if confirmed as an agreed preferred option, form an action or measure as part of the Flood Risk Management Plan.

11.6. APPRAISAL OF POTENTIAL OPTIONS The Consultant shall appraise each and all of the potential options (Section 11.5), including where appropriate or necessary the use of hydraulic modelling, to assess the performance and impacts of the option. The Consultant shall appraise each and all of the potential options (for each SSA) against the objectives (Section 8.4 and Appendix J), in the form of a multi-criteria analysis, for each and all of the SSAs in each Unit of Management. The appraisal shall involve scoring each and all of the potential options against each objective in relation to specified minimum requirements (i.e., requirements for that objective that the option should meet to be acceptable) and aspirational targets (i.e., targets that options should seek to achieve to be assigned a maximum score for that objective), making use of defined indicators for each objective. Under the appraisal, the Consultant shall determine appropriate scores for each option against each objective based on their understanding of benefits, impacts, etc., as appropriate, as derived from their work and information developed or received under the Project. The basis for the assignment of scores shall be quantitative where possible, but otherwise qualitative, with the assignment of a score based on a description or category. In assigning scores for each option with respect to each objective, the Consultant shall apply the Global Weighting (see below), and determine and apply the Local Weighting (Section 8.4) appropriate to reflect the importance of that objective for the area in question. The OPW shall define the indicators, minimum requirements and aspirational targets, along with a ‘Global Weighting’ (national ranking of importance of each of the objectives), for each objective. The Consultant shall soundly and robustly justify the assignment of scores under the appraisal within the Preliminary Options Reports, with clear and transparent reasoning that should include quantitative evidence where reasonably possible. In assigning the scoring of different options against different sub-objectives, the Consultant shall follow guidelines on default scoring (subject to variation based on local context), to be agreed by the NTCG, subject to approval of the OPW, as set out in Section 2.5, that will be developed to ensure consistency. The Consultant shall calculate the costs of each option to the level of detail as described in Section 11.1, and shall report on the calculation of costs (including the provision of a cost breakdown) in the Preliminary Options Report. In the identification, development and appraisal of the options, the Consultant shall take into account all of the issues and aspects to be taken into account in the preparation of flood risk management plans, as defined in Article 7(3) the Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks (2007/60/EC).


Under the appraisal of options, the Consultant shall also identify and assess flood related measures being undertaken under other policy areas including, but not necessarily limited to, national legislation and European directives as listed under Annex A of the ‘Floods’ Directive, and shall identify and assess:

− the actions or measures being, or proposed to be taken under other policy area,

− their timing and duration,

− their actual or possible impacts on flood hazard and risk within the APSRs and the Units of Management as a whole

− opportunities or constraints they may provide or impose on options being appraised under the Project

11.7. SELECTION OF PREFERRED OPTIONS Based on the appraisal set out under Section 11.6, the Consultant, in consultation with the OPW, the Steering Group and Stakeholder Group, shall identify a preferred flood risk management option, or, preferred options where two or more options score approximately equally under the appraisal, for each SSA, including all APSRs and IRRs in each Unit of Management. As part of the identification process, the Consultant shall ensure that the preferred options should be:

− viable against all criteria, and,

− on balance across all criteria, the most beneficial option relative to cost

− spatially coherent and optimised with respect to other preferred options

− temporally coherent and optimised with respect to other preferred options In ensuring spatial cohesion and optimisation of the preferred option for a specific SSA, the Consultant shall review the option to identify if it may be mutually redundant, beneficial or exclusive in relation to potentially preferred options for other SSAs (at the same of different spatial level), including other APSRs and IRRs. In ensuring temporal cohesion and optimisation of the preferred option for a specific SSA, the Consultant shall review the option taking into account options that might potentially need to be implemented in the future due to changes such as climate change, either within the same SSA or others, ensuring a ‘no regrets’ approach within the long-term Flood Risk Management Plan. The identified preferred options shall form actions and measures, and the basis of the flood risk management strategy for the Unit of Management, which the Consultant shall develop and detail within the Flood Risk Management Plan. In consultation with the OPW, the Steering Group and Stakeholder Group, the Consultant shall prioritise the actions and measures, according to their benefits relative to costs, taking account of potential budgets and the scale and duration of the actions and measures.

11.8. EXISTING FLOOD RELIEF SCHEMES In some APSRs, Flood Relief Schemes have already been constructed, or are at an advanced stage of design. For such APSRs, as specified in the tender documentation of the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II), the Consultant shall be required to perform the following services:


− the services set out in Section 11.5, 11.6 and 11.10 with respect only to the development of a monitoring and maintenance programme for the Flood Relief Scheme, and,

− the services set out under Section 11.9, but shall not be required to perform the other services set out herein under Section 11 (i.e., the Consultant shall not be required to assess, develop, screen and appraise a range of possible flood risk management methods, options and measures), unless otherwise specified in the tender documentation in the Specific Tender Stage, as set out in Section 1.2.3.

11.9. SPATIAL PLANNING AND IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT The Consultant shall review the Development Plans, Local Area Plans and any other spatial planning documents relevant to each APSR and each Unit of Management as a whole, including Plans or documents in force or in draft form at the time of the review. The Consultant shall discuss potential land use, spatial planning and development management policies, objectives, zoning and issues with the planning departments of Local Authorities whose jurisdiction falls in part or in whole within the APSRs and / or Units of Management. On the basis of the review and discussions, and with reference to all other work undertaken under the Project and to the Guidelines on the Planning System and Flood Risk Management6, the Consultant shall develop high-level draft recommendations for the consideration of flood risk in planning and development management for each Unit of Management as a whole, and also specific draft recommendations for each APSR. The draft recommendations should be outline in nature, and will not be required to address planning for individual plots or the consideration of individual planning applications. The Consultant shall discuss the draft recommendations with the planning departments of the relevant Local Authorities, the OPW, the Steering Group and other key stakeholders as necessary, and report recommendations, amended as necessary based on these discussions, in the Preliminary Options Report. Such recommendations shall, where appropriate, form actions or measures to be included in the FRMP.

11.10. PRELIMINARY OPTIONS REPORT The Consultant shall submit to the OPW detailed, technical Draft Preliminary Options Reports that shall set out the work and analysis undertaken in relation to, and the findings and conclusions of, the identification of viable actions and measures (agreed preferred options) to meet the flood risk management objectives, and other work as defined in Sections 7.6, 7.7, and Section 11. The Consultant shall supply the following as part of, or as an accompaniment to, the Draft and Final Preliminary Options Reports:

− A draft SEA Options Appraisal Report that shall detail the work and analysis undertaken in relation to, and the findings and conclusions of the second stage of the SEA as defined in Section 2 of Appendix K

− A draft Habitats Directive Screening Assessment, as defined in Section 3 of Appendix K

6 Guidelines on the Planning System and Flood Risk Management, Dept. of Environment, Heritage and

Local Authorities & Office of Public Works (November 2009)


− Full sets of digital hydraulic model files, including, but not necessarily limited to, calibration, verification, design run and sensitivity analysis model and results files, for the work detailed in Sections 7.6 and 7.7, and Sections 11.5, 11.6 and 11.7.

− Flood Risk Maps, as detailed in Section 8, and associated GIS / attribute digital data Within the (Draft) Preliminary Options Report, the sections addressing and reporting on the work defined under Sections 11.3.2 and 11.9 herein, including the findings and conclusions thereof, should each be prepared such that they might be read in isolation, or may be submitted as separate volumes / documents (e.g., as appendices) referred to within the Preliminary Options Report. The OPW, assisted by the Steering Group and other experts as deemed necessary by the OPW, shall review the Draft Preliminary Options Reports and submit observations to the Consultant within six (6) weeks of receipt. The Consultant shall review the observations submitted by the OPW, and prepare and submit to the OPW Draft Final Preliminary Options Reports that suitably addresses the observations of the OPW within four (4) weeks of receipt of the observations from the OPW. The OPW, assisted by the Steering Group and other experts as deemed necessary by the OPW, shall, within four (4) weeks of receipt, review the Draft Final Preliminary Options Reports to ensure that all observations have been appropriately addressed. In the event that the OPW does not consider that all observations have been appropriately addressed, the OPW shall submit further observations to the Consultant to be addressed by the Consultant as set out above. In the event that the OPW is satisfied that all observations have been appropriately addressed, the Consultant shall re-submit the Draft Final Preliminary Options Reports as the Final Preliminary Options Reports. The Consultant shall prepare and submit separate Draft, Draft Final and Final Preliminary Options Reports for each Unit of Management within the Study Area. The Consultant shall provide a number, as identified in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II), of bound sets of hardcopies of each set of Draft flood risk maps and of the Final flood risk maps.


12. PREPARATION OF A FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN

12.1. FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN The Consultant shall prepare a separate Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) for each Unit of Management, including a 10-15 page executive summary that can be read in isolation. The FRMP shall briefly outline the Project and the flood risk assessment and analysis, and then clearly set out the flood risk management policies, strategies, actions and measures (proposed) to be implemented by the OPW, Local Authorities and other relevant bodies. The FRMP will be publicly available, and shall be non-technical and suitable for use by politicians, stakeholders and the public. The main text of the FRMP shall typically be in the order of 100 pages in length (excluding the executive summary and appendices). It is foreseen that the FRMP will be structured in the following format:

− Introduction and Background

− Statutory, Stakeholder and Public Consultation (including, where appropriate, a description of the cross-border coordination)

− Catchment Overview (description of the rivers and catchments)

− Outcomes of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment

− Outcomes of the Flood Hazard Assessment

− Outcomes of the Flood Risk Assessment

− Flood Risk Management Objectives

− Environmental Considerations (including a summary of the SEA and HAD, and a description of the coordination with review of the River Basin Management Plans prepared under the Water Framework Directive)

− Flood Risk Management Options (including a brief outline of the method and option appraisal and prioritisation processes)

− Programme of Work (including a prioritised and costed programme of the policies, strategies, actions and measures to be implemented by the OPW, Local Authorities or other relevant bodies, including those under other policy areas)

− Plan Monitoring and Review The text and images for the section of the FRMP on ‘Outcomes of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment’ shall be provided by the OPW, but the Consultant shall incorporate this into the FRMP, including any formatting, etc., as necessary. Appendices to the FRMP, or linked separate volumes referenced within the FRMP, shall include, but not necessarily be limited to:

− A list of the relevant Competent or Responsible Authorities

− Flood hazard and risk maps

− A detailed list of objectives, indicators and targets

− A description of the preferred options as set out under Section 11.7 herein, including plans, sections and other visual aids as appropriate

− A description, including maps, drawings, etc. of the measures included in the FRMP


The Consultant shall, in addition to preparing the Plan with respect to the work undertaken for the Project, incorporate additional material (e.g., sections of text, including as appropriate images or maps) provided by the OPW, the Steering Group or other parties (subject to the approval of the OPW), and shall format and take account of such material as necessary to provide a complete and coherent FRMP. Such material shall constitute the outcomes of other work undertaken to implement requirements of the ‘Floods’ Directive that are not covered by the Project. The Consultant shall not be expected to edit the material provided in this manner, other than where necessary to remove contradictions, correct references and ensure coherence of the FRMP, but shall transfer actions and measures from such material to relevant sections of the Plan.

12.2. DRAFT FINAL REPORT The Consultant shall submit initial Draft Final Reports that shall incorporate summaries of the previously submitted reports and shall also detail the development of the Flood Risk Management Plans (Section 12.1). The Consultant shall supply the following as part of, or as an accompaniment to, the Draft Final Reports:

− Draft outline design drawings, plans and documents of the preferred options (measures).

− Draft SEA Environmental Reports and Non-Technical Summaries, that shall detail the work and analysis undertaken in relation to, and the findings and conclusions of Phase IV of the SEA as defined in Appendix K.

− Draft Appropriate Assessment Screening Statements that shall detail the work and analysis undertaken in relation to, and the findings and conclusions of Appropriate Assessment Screening as defined in Appendix K.

− Initial Draft Flood Risk Management Plans. The OPW, assisted by the Steering Group and other experts as deemed necessary by the OPW, shall review the initial Draft Final Reports and Initial Draft Flood Risk Management Plans and submit observations to the Consultant within eight (8) weeks of receipt. The Consultant shall review the observations submitted by the OPW, and prepare and submit to the OPW second versions of the Draft Final Reports and the Draft Flood Risk Management Plans that suitably addresses the observations of the OPW within four (4) weeks of receipt of the observations from the OPW. The OPW, assisted by the Steering Group and other experts as deemed necessary by the OPW, shall, within four (4) weeks of receipt, review the second version of the Draft Final Reports and Draft Flood Risk Management Plans to ensure that all observations have been appropriately addressed. In the event that the OPW does not consider that all observations have been appropriately addressed, the OPW shall submit further observations to the Consultant to be addressed by the Consultant as set out above. In the event that the OPW is satisfied that all observations have been appropriately addressed, the Consultant shall re-submit the Reports and Plans as the Draft Final Reports and the Draft Final Flood Risk Management Plans. The Draft Final Flood Risk Management Plans shall be put out to public and stakeholder consultation for a period of six (6) months. The Consultant shall prepare and submit separate initial, second and final versions of the Draft Final Report and the Draft Flood Risk Management Plan for each Unit of Management within the Study Area.


The Consultant shall provide a number, as identified in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II), of bound sets of hardcopies of each set of Draft Final Flood Risk Management Plans.

12.3. FINAL REPORT The Consultant shall review all submissions made during the six (6) month public and stakeholder consultation period, that should close on 30/06/2015, and shall provide written appropriate responses to each and all submissions to the OPW within one (1) month (i.e., by 31/07/2015) for review and, subject to clarification of any queries on the response by the Consultant, issue to the submitter. The Consultant shall submit, no later than 31/08/2015, the first version of the Final Reports and Flood Risk Management Plans that shall be amended revisions the Draft Final Reports and Draft Flood Risk Management Plans (and all components thereof) that address the submissions and comments raised during the public and stakeholder consultation period, subject to discussions with the OPW and Steering Group. The Consultant shall supply the following as part of, or as an accompaniment to, the Final Reports: − Final sets of all reports, maps, model files and all other data connected with or used for

the Project with the Final Reports, as set out in Section 13.2.

− The first versions of the Flood Risk Management Plans, including the draft final SEA Statements and Appropriate Assessment Statements (see Appendix K).

The OPW, assisted by the Steering Group and other experts as deemed necessary by the OPW, shall review the first versions of the Final Reports, Flood Risk Management Plans and Statements and submit observations to the Consultant within six (6) weeks of receipt. The Consultant shall review the observations submitted by the OPW, and prepare and submit to the OPW second versions of the Final Reports, Flood Risk Management Plans and Statements that suitably addresses the observations of the OPW within three (3) weeks of receipt of the observations from the OPW. The OPW, assisted by the Steering Group and other experts as deemed necessary by the OPW, shall, within three (3) weeks of receipt, review the second version of the Final Reports, Flood Risk Management Plans and Statements to ensure that all observations have been appropriately addressed. In the event that the OPW does not consider that all observations have been appropriately addressed, the OPW shall submit further observations to the Consultant to be addressed by the Consultant as set out above. In the event that the OPW is satisfied that all observations have been appropriately addressed, the Consultant shall re-submit the Reports, Plans and Statements as the final versions of the Final Reports, Flood Risk Management Plans and Statements. The Consultant shall prepare and submit separate first, second and final versions of the Final Reports, Flood Risk Management Plans and Statements for each Unit of Management within the Study Area. The Consultant shall provide a number, as identified in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II), of bound sets of hardcopies of each set of Final Flood Risk Management Plan.


(Blank Page)


13. REPORTING AND DELIVERABLES

13.1. REPORTING STANDARDS All reports, draft and final, submitted to the OPW by the Consultant shall be detailed and clear and shall have been proof-read prior to submission to correct any grammatical or typographical errors. Reports shall:

− Provide full and comprehensive descriptions of topics covered,

− Detail any assumptions made, including the requirement for the assumption and the justification for the assumption made,

− Support any statements made with relevant discussion and justification,

− Provide (in appendices if necessary) all data, maps and information relevant to the topics covered.

13.2. DELIVERABLES The Consultant shall supply to the OPW the documents, data, files and other material detailed herein with the reports (in both draft and final versions) under which it is listed. Provision of the deliverables is a pre-requisite for payment against the relevant milestone. Unless otherwise stated, the Consultant shall only be required to provide digital copies of the each report or deliverable. The spatial information forming the basis of all maps should be provided in GIS format (see Section 7.5.4). Selected maps (as specified within this document) and all drawings should be provided in Print-Ready Format (see Section 7.5.4). All reports and deliverables, both draft and final, shall be supplied in editable digital format compatible with the Microsoft Office suite, ArcGIS, MapInfo or AutoCAD as appropriate, and also in Adobe Acrobat ‘pdf’ format. The Consultant shall provide to the OPW with the Final Report the final sets of all digital data pertinent to the project (other than cadastral mapping, DTM and DEM data, ortho-photography and other very large datasets [i.e., greater than 4 Gbs] that were provided to the Consultant by the OPW), including all final versions of the model files, reports and all GIS and Print-Ready Format maps and drawings, with the Final Report in four copies of a fully indexed CD/DVD album with all CD/DVDs, directories and files clearly referenced and named.


(Blank Page)

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F A1 May 2010

APPENDIX A – HAZARD AND RISK ASSESSMENT FOR SURVEY WORK


(Blank Page)


Likelihood of Occurrence Impact to Health Level of Risk Actions to be Taken to Remove, reduce or mitigate the risk Level of Risk Post

Mitigation

Ref Risk Hazard Consequence Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High

1. High Visibility Clothing to be worn at all times

1 To other Road Users Personal Injury. Possible Fatalities Low Medium Medium 2. Use Approved Motorway Maintenance Signs if required Low

National Routes Material Damage, Injury to Others 3. Use Approved yellow flashing beacons on vehicles

Local Routes 4. Do not park in a position likely to obstruct other motorists

5. All vehicles to be in roadworthy condition

2 Trains, Rail Crossings

Personal Injury, Possible Fatalities Low High High

1. Do not enter onto Railway Property without prior consent of Irish Rail Low

Material Damage, Injury to Others

2. Observe and comply with Health and Safety requirements of Irish Rail.

3 To Landowners from Machinery Striking

Personal Injury, Injury to Others

1. Place markers in boundaries away from where machinery will operate

Surveying Pegs Material Damage Medium Medium Medium 2. All surveying pegs and nails to be driven flush into ground Low

3. Remove unwanted markers after survey

4. All pegs and nails to be clearly marked with high visibility paint / flag

4 Injury from Animals / Livestock

Personal Injury, Injury to Others Low Medium Medium 1. Do not enter field or area with dangerous livestock Low

2. Arrange alternative safe access if possible

3. Request owner to remove dangerous livestock before entering

4. Do not leave closed gates open

5 Obstructions Personal Injury, Injury to Others Low Low Low

1. Ensure that that all survey equipment is not set-up in such a manner not to cause an obstruction Low

2. Ensure that all pegs and nails will not cause as tripping hazard

3. Provide protective barriers and/or assistance as required.

6 General Accidents Personal Injury, Medium Low Medium 1. Approved First Aid Kit must be provided / available to all staff Low

Cuts, Bruises etc 2. Ensure that staff are aware of nearest A&E locations and have contact details


3. Have emergency telephone numbers issued to staff and stored in memory of mobile phones.

4. Where possible have a staff member trained in First Aid on each survey team

5. Wear personal protective equipment (i.e. PPE), Maintain in good order, replace damaged defective items.

7 Working Near to River /Water

Personal Injury. Possible Fatalities Medium High High

1. Wear Life Jackets/ floatation device at all times when near water Low

2. Immersion suit or wet suit to worn as appropriate

3. Maintain and check all PPE before use.

4. All surveying teams to carry minimum of two mobile phones

5. Work rota and locations to be agreed daily with project manager

6. A boat will be used in deep/fast flowing water

7. Only enter into water where depth does not exceed 1 metre depth, approved waders must be worn

8. Teams of two will operate where water levels are low enough not to constitute a safety risk

9. Teams of three required when a boat is in use

10. Life Buoy and Secure Rope to be provided at all times when near water

8 Launching Boats Personal Injury. Possible Fatalities Medium Low Medium 1. Choose a suitable and safe location to access the water Low

2. Launch and secure boat prior to loading

3. Ensure enough staff are present to lift boat and equipment comfortably

9 Working from Boats Personal Injury. Possible Fatalities Medium High High

1. Wear Life Jackets/ floatation device at all times when near water Low

2. Maintain and check all PPE before use.

3. Arrange secure rope across water to hold boat in position.

4. All boat crews to be instructed and trained in proper and safe use of boat

4. Seek persmission of relevant authorities when using boats in waters used by other boats and shipping

10 Boat Engine / Fuel Storage

Muscular, Ligament or joint injury Low Low Low 1. Boat Engine to be moved / fitted by two staff members Low

Risk of Fire and Burns

2. Fuel to be stored and transported in approved sealed containers.


Risk of Burns 3. Wait for engine to cool before removal

Risk of lacerations, cuts and bruises

4. Ensure that propeller is in the water and free from obstructions before starting.

11 Mud - Slipping Personal Injury High Medium High 1. Wear safety boots with thick cleated non slip soles Low

2. Use rope and wear gloves

12 Weil's Disease Hazard to Health Low Medium Medium 1. Cover cuts and wear suitable gloves Low

2. Wash hands before eating, smoking of bringing hands in contact with mouth

3. Provide suitable disinfectant cleaning liquid / wipes

4. Wear approved waders when in water.

13 Submerged Objects Broken Bones, Bruises, Medium Medium Medium

1. Before entering water undertake visual inspection for potential hazards Low

Lacerations, 2. Never enter water without suitable protective footwear

3. Move cautiously if in water

14 Potential Health Hazards

Broken Bones, Bruises, Medium Medium Medium

1. Review all sites and banks for potential health hazards, (e.g. Discarded hypodermics, broken glass etc) Low

Lacerations, 2. Do not handle any such potential health hazards,

IHazard to Health 3. Do not enter water if in doubt

15 Sudden Peak Flow/ Exposure to risk of drowning Medium High High

1. Liase with barrier control staff and advise when working in channel Low

Water Release/ Tidal 2. Check tide tables daily

3. Check weather forecast daily and monitor conditions.

4. Liase with ESB

16 Falling from Heights Broken Bones, Bruises, Low High Medium 1. Observe the working at heights regulations Low

Lacerations, possible fatalities

17 Injury from Above Personal Injury -Possible Fatalities Medium Medium Medium

1. Do not enter spaces at risk from falling objects such as loose masonry without required PPE Low

(Falling masonry)

18 Confined Spaces Personal Injury - Possible Fatalities Medium High High

1. Do not enter any confined space, unless trained and appropriately equipped with required PPE Low

2. Inform Client if need to enter confined space is required.

19 Access Personal Injury Medium Medium Medium 1. Agree work locations daily with Project Manager Low

2. Special care to be taken when accessing remote sites, (Crossing boundaries, gates, fences etc)


3. Special care to be taken when working or crossing fields where animals are grazing.

4. Use safe access routes in and out of the sites and around sites.

20 Site Vehicles / Transportation to site

Material Damage, Personal Injury Low Medium Medium 1. Must be driven by a competent and authorised person. Low

Injury to Others

21 Working near high voltage power lines

Possible fatalities due to electrocution Medium High High

1. Observe guidelines issued by Electricity Supply Board and Health & Safety Authority Low

and other services Injury to others 2. Ensure that no contact is possible with either overhead or underground cables.

3. If unable to work safety at site due to overhead/underground cables inform Project Manager re: alternative location

22 Manual Handling Muscular, Ligament or joint injury Medium Medium Medium

1. Observe best practice manual handling techniques when lifting and carrying Low

2. Ensure enough staff are present to lift /carry equipment comfortably

Release of Possible Contaminants

1. Check known and or possible locations with Client prior to commencement of Survey

23 from Mud / Sediments from Bed

Injury to Health, Damage to Aquatic Medium Medium Medium

2. Minimise need to entry water and/or possible disturbance of muds and sediments Low

of River Channel Enviroment and Water Quality

3. If type of contaminant known consult with competent authority regarding possible risks

4. Cover cuts and wear suitable gloves and PPE

5. Comply with recommendation from Enviromental and Health Authorities

6. Provide suitable disinfectant cleaning liquid / wipes / Washing facilities

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F B1 May 2010

APPENDIX B – HEALTH AND SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE

SURVEY CONTRACTORS

HEALTH AND SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE

HEALTH AND SAFETY QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Does your company have an up-to-date Health and Safety statement?

YES NO

2. Please state name of Director responsible for Safety

3.Does your company employ a Safety Officer?

NO YES – on full time basis YES – on part time basis YES – provided by

external consultant

4.Does your company operate under any certified or other Safety Management System?

YES NO

Please elaborate

5. Outline any specialist resources which are utilised by your organisation in an advisory or

informative capacity on health and safety matters

6. Is each member of your organisation aware of his / her responsibilities under relevant

health and safety acts and regulations?

YES NO

Please elaborate

7. Provide details of membership of any relevant professional safety organisation held by your

organisation or key members within your organisation

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F B2 May 2010

8. Provide the names and details of any relevant Health and Safety Courses attended by key

personnel within your organisation (whom may have a role in undertaking this project) in the

last 3 years

9.Does your company maintain a record of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences?

YES NO

Please elaborate

10.Please provide details of any prosecution(s) undertaken against your company or

individuals employed by your company for breaches of health & safety legislation within the

past five (5) years.

11.Please provide details of any prohibition, improvement or other enforcement notices

served against your company within the past five (5) years.

12.Describe (in not more than 500 words) your approach to ensuring compliance with the

relevant Health & Safety legislation, and ensuring the safety of your staff, the public and

others, on a project of this type. You may use examples of your previous experience in

projects of this type to illustrate your description.

13.Describe (in not more than 200 words) your approach to ensuring that any sub-contractors

to your company comply with the relevant Health & Safety legislation, and ensure the safety

of their staff, the public and others.

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F C1 May 2010

APPENDIX C – FLOOD DEFENCE ASSET SURVEY REQUIREMENTS

C1. INTRODUCTION

C1.1. Definition of Flood Defences Flood Defence Assets (or ‘flood defences’) are defined as structures or features (including those listed in Section C1.4) that were constructed to provide a formal flood defence function (‘formal flood defences’), including those that may be in poor condition, and also those that may have been built for other purposes but that, in the opinion of the Consultant, would provide a flood defence function (‘informal effective flood defences’). They do NOT include structures that were not constructed to provide a formal flood defence function and that, in the opinion of the Consultant, would fail to provide a flood defence function due to structural weakness, porosity or other such reasons (‘informal ineffective flood defences’), such as garden walls or embankments perforated by uncontrolled culverts. C1.2. Scope of Survey The flood defences for which the Consultant shall perform the duties set out herein are limited to those that are within the Study Area and that are either

− within an APSR, or,

− alongside, in or over an MPW and have been specified in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II).

The Consultant shall prepare, and agree with the Steering Group in advance of commencing the flood defence asset survey, a list and location of the flood defence assets that shall be included within the flood defence asset survey. C1.3. Consultants Duties The services and duties of the Consultant under the Flood Defence Asset Survey shall include: -

− A geometric survey of the flood defences, other than those surveyed under other contracts as specified in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II).

− A visual condition survey (measure of risk of failure, residual life and maintenance / replacement requirements) of the flood defences,

− Entry of all geometric and visual condition survey data and other related data into the OPW Flood Defence Asset Database. This data shall include: o Geometric data from the geometric survey of the flood defences o Geometric data supplied from geometric survey of flood defences undertaken

under other contracts o Entry of all the visual condition survey data o Entry of photograph/s for each flood defence o Entry of the flood defence asset geographic location into GIS map application of

the Flood Defence Asset Database o Entry of relevant flow and level data from the hydraulic models (Section 7) o Areas benefiting from protection by the flood defences, and the economic value

of defended risk receptors (Sections 7 and 8) A detailed description of the services and duties the Consultant shall deliver under the flood defence asset survey are set out below.


C1.4. OPW Flood Defence Asset Database The OPW Flood Defence Asset Database (the ‘Database’) has been developed using Microsoft Access and an XML Schema. The OPW will provide the Consultant with a copy of the Database software. Within the Database, flood defences are defined hierarchically as Assets, which comprise one or more Structures, which in turn comprise on or more Elements. A list of the assets, structures and elements used within the Database is provided in Table C1. Training and support on the use of the database will be provided to the Consultant by the OPW prior to commencement of the flood defence asset survey. In order to assist in the preparation of tender submissions a number of screenshots from the Database along with a brief technical description is provided herein. C1.5. Progress Reporting During the survey the Consultant shall be required to submit weekly reports on the progress of the survey. The format of these reports shall be agreed at a start-up meeting. On completion of the first month’s survey (or sooner if agreed), the Consultant shall submit to the OPW a sample of the survey data obtained and entered into the database. The survey team shall then attend a meeting with the OPW to discuss the data submitted. Details of this initial review meeting can be decided at the start-up meeting. The Consultant shall alert the OPW of any additional flood defence assets observed during the survey that he/she feels should be included in the survey. The Consultant shall record all bridges along the watercourses as detailed below and report on the conditions of those bridges. C2. HEALTH AND SAFETY

C2.1. Health and Safety Requirements The Flood Defence Asset Survey shall be undertaken in full accordance with the Health and Safety requirements as set out in Section 2.9. C2.2. Hazard and Risk Assessment A Hazard and Risk Assessment has been undertaken for the Flood Defence Asset Survey. Prior to commencing any survey work on site the Consultant shall meet with the OPW to discuss the Hazard and Risk Assessment. A copy of the Hazard and Risk Assessment has been included in this document. The Consultant shall review the Hazard and Risk Assessment and update as required. The Consultant shall circulate a copy of the Hazard and Assessment along with any updates to all members of the Steering Group and survey team. This reviewed site specific Hazard and Risk Assessment should be submitted to the OPW prior to any site work beginning. C2.3. Confined Spaces Culverts and other flood defence assets that form a confined space shall be inspected as far as is possible from both the upstream and downstream extent but will not at any time be entered under this commission, unless explicitly agreed in writing in advance by the OPW in each instance, and then only by suitably trained persons and once the Consultant has completed a specific hazard and risk assessment. If it is not possible to make an accurate assessment of the condition and construction from either the upstream or downstream extent, or if one or both of these is not accessible, a recommendation will be made for that asset to be inspected by a competent confined space specialist or CCTV.


Table C.1: Flood Defence Assets, Structures and Elements Asset Type Asset Sub-Type Structure Element 1 Element 2 Element 3 Element 4 Element 5 Element 6 Element 7 Element 8 Element 9 Element 10

Natural Channel Tidal Watercourse Channel Bed Left Bank Right Bank Left Berm Right Berm

Toe Protection Left Toe Protection Right

Non-tidal Watercourse Abstraction Point Pipe Head Wall Handrails Control Valves Abstraction Pump

Debris Collector / Deflector

Collector / Deflector Wall

Ford Ford Surface Under-pipes Left Bank Access Right Bank Access

Outfall - Flapped Pipe Head Wall Side Walls Apron Flap Valve

Outfall - Unflapped Pipe Head Wall Side Walls Apron

Off-take Pipe Head Wall Side Walls Apron

Artificial Channel Canal Screen Screen Head Wall Side Walls Ground Slab

Tidal Watercourse Service Crossing Pipe

Left Bank Fixing Right Bank Fixing

Flood Relief Channel Silt Trap Inlet Inlet Wall Tank Floor Left Wall Right Wall Outlet Wall Outlet

Slipway Slipway Slipway Access

Bridge / Crossing Single Arch

Bridge Opening Bed Left Pier Right Pier Soffit

Multi-Arch Bridge Deck Deck Parapets

Single Span Abutment Deck Parapets Abutment Upstream Face Downstream Face Riverside Face

Multi-Span

Pipe Culvert Culvert Barrel U/S Head Wall U/S Apron U/S Side Walls D/S Head Wall D/S Apron D/S Side Walls Flap Valve Pen-Stock

Arch Culvert




Irregular Culvert Manhole Chamber Access Stairs Cover Cover Mountings

Single Box Culvert Screen Screen Head Wall Side Walls Ground Slab

Multi-Box Culvert

Culverted Watercourses Box Culvert Culvert Barrel U/S Head Wall U/S Apron U/S Side Walls D/S Head Wall D/S Apron D/S Side Walls Flap Valve Pen-Stock

Pipe Culvert



Arch Culvert Manhole Chamber Access Stairs Cover Cover Mountings

Irregular Culvert Screen Screen Head Wall Side Walls Ground Slab

Wetland Turlough

Natural

Constructed

Control Structure Multi-Structure

Fixed-Crest Weir U/S Face Crest D/S Face Left Bank Wall

Right Bank Wall Baffle

Fixed Crest Weir Adjustable Crest Weir U/S Face Crest D/S Face Left Bank Wall

Right Bank Wall

Lifting Equipment

Motors / Electrical Eqpt Stop-Logs

Adjustable Crest Weir Sluice Gate Frame Gate Left Bank Wall Right Bank Wall

Lifting Equipment Motors / Electrical Eqpt

Sluice Gate Lock Gates Left Gate - Lower

Right Gate - Lower

Left Gate - Upper

Right Gate - Upper Left Bank Wall

Right Bank Wall Hinges Levers

Motors / Electrical Eqpt

Sluice Openings

Lock Gates Fish Pass

Barrage Access Bridge / Platform

Dam

On-line Storage Artificial Storage Area Bed Left Bank Right Bank

Natural


Wall Raised Wall Wall Toe / Foundation Front Face Crest Back Face Back-Fill Weep Hole

Mechanical Equipment

Electrical Equipment Fixing Points Fitted Parts

Retaining Wall Culvert Barrel U/S Head Wall U/S Apron U/S Side Walls D/S Head Wall D/S Apron D/S Side Walls Flap Valve Pen-Stock

Demountable Wall

Floating Wall

Mechanical Wall

Quay Wall

Embankment Embankment Embankment Front Face Crest Back Face

Culvert Barrel U/S Head Wall U/S Apron U/S Side Walls D/S Head Wall D/S Apron D/S Side Walls Flap Valve Pen-Stock

Back Drain Bed Left Bank Right Bank Left Berm Right Berm Toe Protection Left Toe Protection Right

Spillway U/S Face Crest D/S Face Baffle

High Ground High Ground High Ground Ground Surface

Off-line Storage Artificial Storage Area Bed Left Bank Right Bank

Natural Embankment Front Face Crest Back Face

Fixed-Crest Weir U/S Face Crest D/S Face Left Bank Wall

Right Bank Wall Baffle

Adjustable Crest Weir U/S Face Crest D/S Face Left Bank Wall

Right Bank Wall

Lifting Equipment

Motors / Electrical Eqpt Stop-Logs

Sluice Gate Frame Gate Left Bank Wall Right Bank Wall

Lifting Equipment Motors / Electrical Eqpt

Culvert Barrel U/S Head Wall U/S Apron U/S Side Walls D/S Head Wall D/S Apron D/S Side Walls Flap Valve Pen-Stock

Screen Screen Head Wall Side Walls Ground Slab

Back Drain Bed Left Bank Right Bank Left Berm Right Berm Toe Protection Left Toe Protection Right

Spillway U/S Face Crest D/S Face Baffle


Pumping Station Pumping Station Structures Walls Roof Door Ground Slab Sump Sump Cover

Pump Inlet Impellors Bearings Motor Electrical Controls Telemetry Pipe Work



Sand Dunes Sand Dunes Sand Dunes Sand Dunes

Erosion Protection Erosion Protection Wall

Toe / Foundation Front Face Crest Back Face Back-Fill Weep Hole

Mechanical Equipment

Electrical Equipment Fixing Points Fitted Parts




C3. FLOOD DEFENCE ASSET GEOMETRIC SURVEY C3.1 Consultants Duties The Consultant shall undertake the Flood Defence Asset Geometric Survey as part of the Channel and Structure Survey, as set out in Section 5.2 and Appendix D, and shall enter such data into the Database. Some of the required geometric data for the National Flood Defence Asset Database may have been previously obtained through other contracts. In cases where this data is available, it shall be supplied to the Consultant in the delivery formats set out herein. The Consultant shall enter such data into the Defence Asset Database. C4. VISUAL CONDITION SURVEY C4.1 Consultants Duties The Consultant shall be required to undertake a visual inspection and condition survey of the flood defences, and their component assets, structures and elements (Table C.1), to assess the physical condition of the defence that may be used as a basis to determine its likelihood of failure and need for maintenance, renewal or replacement. Such inspection and condition survey shall be undertaken following a methodology conforming to, or comparable to, the UK Environment Agency T98 condition assessment standard. The Consultant shall record specific data as part of the visual condition survey as necessary to complete the relevant fields in the Database, including those related to Assets and Elements. The Consultant shall, on-site or subsequently in the office, enter such specific data captured under the visual condition assessment into the Database. Geotechnical analysis or other such sampling will not be required as part of the condition assessment under this Project. The Consultant shall photograph each structure that forms part of all surveyed assets. Each photograph shall be saved into a digital common picture format (e.g., jpg, tiff, bmp) not exceeding 100kb and shall be saved, with a filename in a manner that will permit easy identification. Each photograph shall also be entered into the Database linked to the relevant structure and asset. The Consultant shall carry out an overall condition assessment of all bridges on HPWs and on MPWs in the study area and report this on completion of the Defence Asset Survey work. The report is to include details of the bridge such as name, location, watercourse, bridge type, condition assessment, comments etc. C5. DATA ENTRY INTO THE DATABASE The Consultant shall enter all condition, geometric, photographic, and other relevant data, such as flood defence location and outputs from the hydraulic modelling (see Section 7), into the Database. The Consultant shall complete all fields in the Database for each Asset, Structure and Element of each flood defence as far as reasonably possible. Examples of some of the Database data entry forms are provided below, along with a description of the fields and how they should be completed. C5.1 Flood Defence Assets Figure C1 is a typical example of the data entry form for Assets. All the grey fields in the screenshot below are auto calculated fields based on the data entered for the Structures and Elements that form the Asset.


Figure C1: Example of the required entry fields for Condition and Performance Data of a Flood Defence Asset Field: Name Assigned name of the Asset Field: Design Standard of Protection The design standard of the flood defence asset, as derived from the data collection process or from the hydraulic modelling and geometric survey. Field: Condition - Manual and Performance - Manual The “Condition Manual” and “Performance Manual” fields allow the Consultant to override the Condition and Performance ratings calculated by the software. Listed below are details of the options available from a drop-down list for these fields.

Option Description Very good In first few years of life, few minor defects and fully serviceable Good Only minor defects, affecting < 5% of asset. Fully serviceable Fair Minor defects affecting between 5 – 20% of asset Poor Giving cause for concern. Defects affect >20% of asset Very poor Structurally unsound now or in near future, or failed

C5.2 Flood Defence Structures Figure C2 is a typical example of the required entry fields for Performance Data of a Flood Defence Structure. A brief description of each field is given below.


Figure C2: Example of the required entry fields for Performance Data of a Flood Defence Structure Field: Performance Data The Consultant is required to enter the Design Standard of Protection /Conveyance for the Structure based on Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP). A design flow of one in one hundred years has an AEP of 1%, which would be entered as 0.01 in the database. Field: Type The Consultant is required to identify the structure type as either “Primary” or “Secondary”. If the structure is selected as “Primary” the software will then use the performance rating of the Structure when calculating the Performance for the Flood Defence Asset. Field: Level / Flow Dependent The structure’s performance will either be flow or level related depending on the structure’s characteristics. The software will automatically select the appropriate option. The Consultant must enter the required data (e.g., for level – Design Level, Actual Level, Freeboard Required). Field: Performance This is an Auto-calculated field, no entry required from the Consultant. Field: Performance Manual This option allows the Consultant to enter a manually determined performance. Options presented by the drop-down list are described in the table below Option Description Very good In first few years of life, few minor defects and fully serviceable Good Only minor defects, affecting < 5% of asset. Fully serviceable Fair Minor defects affecting between 5 – 20% of asset Poor Giving cause for concern. Defects affect >20% of asset Very poor Structurally unsound now or in near future, or failed Not Known


C5.3 Flood Defence Elements Figure C3 below is a typical example of the required entry fields for the visual condition survey for an element of a flood defence.

Figure C3: Example of the required entry fields for the visual condition assessment of a Flood Defence Element Field: Redundant / Unseen The Consultant is required to select the appropriate option as described below

Option Description Unseen Unable to visually inspect Redundant Not providing any flood defence function

Field: Element Condition Listed below are details of the options available from the drop-down list.

Option Description Very good In first few years of life, few minor defects and fully serviceable Good Only minor defects, affecting < 5% of asset. Fully serviceable Fair Minor defects affecting between 5 – 20% of asset Poor Giving cause for concern. Defects affect >20% of asset Very poor Structurally unsound now or in near future, or failed

Field: Weighting The software calculates the overall condition of a Flood Defence Asset based on the condition of the Structure(s) and Element(s) of which it is composed. The Consultant is requested to indicate the contribution the Element or Structure has on the condition of the Asset. These options available range from “Very Important” to “Unimportant” and are selected from a drop-down list. Field: Installation / Renewed The Consultant is required to enter date of Flood Defence Asset installation or renewal.


Field: Residual Life Auto This is an automatic calculated field, no input required from Consultant. The calculation is based on the Date of Survey and the Date of Installation/Renewal. Field: Residual Life Manual The Consultant is required to select estimated residual life of the Flood Defence Asset in years from the options presented by the drop-down list. Field: Date for Renewal The Consultant is required to select estimated date for renewal of the Flood Defence Asset. C5.4. Other Information The Consultant shall capture the other data as set out below and enter such data into the Database. General Description The Defence Asset Database requires the entry of the following text descriptions: -

− Location description

− Maintenance history if known

− Defended area description

− General historical description of structure if known Linkage to Defended Areas The Consultant shall enter defended areas into the GIS module of the Database, link this to the assets that provide defence for that area and enter associated data such as the economic value of the defended risk receptors (see Section 8). Maps /GIS The Database has a GIS-based Mapping Module. The Consultant shall enter the location of each defence asset into the Database as a point, line or area using the Irish NGR Coordinate system. New Watercourses The database is developed based on a set list of EPA watercourses. In certain instances there will be watercourses in the study that are not part of this list. These new watercourses will need to be added by the Consultant to the list of watercourses. A list of all new watercourses added should be compiled and sent to the OPW throughout the study. C6. QUALITY ASSURANCE

C6.1 Personnel Inspections will be carried out in teams of at least two asset inspectors, one of whom shall have successfully completed either a national or internationally accredited flood defence asset assessment training course, (T98 or similar approved). Consultants shall be required to submit supporting documentation for such training. C6.2 Reconnaissance Survey In order to identify the flood defences assets that need to be surveyed the project manager accompanied by at least one asset inspector shall complete a walkover survey of all of the identified APSRs within the project study area. A list of the flood defence assets shall be submitted to the steering group for approval prior to the commencement of any surveying works.


C6.3 Training The OPW shall provide training and support on the use of the Flood Defence Asset Database. A half-day of office-based training will be provided by the OPW. The on-site start up meeting as detailed below will follow this. The Consultant shall then begin to gather data on site. After a week on site, the training will focus on an early submission of a sample deliverable for review. The Project manager and members of the proposed survey teams shall be required to meet with OPW to discuss feedback on this sample deliverable. C6.4 Validation The Consultant shall undertake validation checks to ensure that all flood defence asset data has been collected and entered into the database in accordance with these specifications. Consultants shall submit details of their proposed method of quality control to ensure that deliverables of the Flood Defence Asset Survey are of the highest quality an in full accordance with these specifications. C6.5 Feedback and Report The Project Manager shall submit weekly progress reports to the OPW, which will enable accurate monitoring of length complete, and will highlight any issues encountered on site. The format of the weekly feedback report shall be agreed at the project start-up meeting. C6.6 On-site Start-up Meeting The successful Consultant will be required to attend an on-site start-up meeting and walkover with representatives from the OPW and Local Authorities. The on-site start-up meeting shall take place within 14 days of appointment. The cost of this site meeting and walkover should be included in the tender price. Survey work shall begin not more than 14 days after the completion of the site-visit / walkover. C7. ACCESS TO LANDS While the Consultants shall have the right to enter land under SI No. 122 of 2010, obtaining access to land is the responsibility of the Consultant, and the Consultant shall make all reasonable efforts to request permission from landowners, and to inform relevant authorities, in advance of any access to private lands. The Consultants shall assess in advance of any site visit any potentially awkward or hazardous sites and plan for the safe access to these areas in advance. C7.1. Permission from Landowners The Consultant shall identify the various landowners affected by the survey and obtain permission from the landowners for access to conduct the survey. C7.2. Entering onto Irish Rail Property The Consultant may be required to enter onto property owned or occupied by Irish Rail. For Health and Safety reasons Irish rail require that all persons entering onto their property to under any works must have completed a two-day training course organised by Irish Rail. They also require that an employee of Irish Rail shall accompany all such persons for the duration of the works. The cost of this employee is charged to the persons/company undertaking the works. C7.3. Livestock Crops & Agriculture The Consultant should make themselves aware of the presence of livestock, sensitive agricultural (or other) crops, and farming activities underway that may impede their work, and plan mitigating measures to avoid these impacting upon their programme. Trimming / Cutting of Vegetation


Where cutting or trimming of bank edge vegetation is necessary, the Consultant shall inform the landowner of the extent of the work. All normal protocols for work within private lands shall be followed, including the protection of habitat. C7.4. Letter of Introduction The OPW will provide the Consultant with a letter of introduction for landowners; which will introduce the Consultant, describe the purpose of the survey and request landowners to make access available to the Consultant.

C8. DELIVERABLES C8.1. Hardcopy & Digital Plans The Consultant shall deliver a set of A3 drawings detailing the location and extents of the Flood Defence Assets that have been surveyed, overlaid on the highest scale of available OSi mapping. These shall form part of the handover report detailed below. The Consultant shall also supply the above dataset in digital format compatible with GIS and CAD software. All digital data shall be supplied on either CD or DVD. C8.2. Defence Asset Database The Consultant shall deliver on either CD or DVD a completed copy of the Database duly completed for all the requested Flood Defence Assets. C8.3. Digital metadata Metadata, including the date and time of the survey, shall be provided for all survey information. The details of the required metadata formats shall be agreed at the Start-up meeting. C8.4. Digital photographs (one set on CD or DVD) The Consultant shall provide digital photographs of every Flood Defence Asset surveyed. The photographs shall cover the full structure list for each asset and provide multiple viewpoints of the defence. C8.5. Handover Report The Consultant shall prepare a report upon completion of the defence asset work. The report shall give an overview of the processes used during the survey and data entry phases. The report shall be a record of assets surveyed and entered to the database and shall incorporate the hardcopy drawings specified earlier. The report shall also contain the bridge condition information as specified earlier. C8.6. Format of Deliverables The exact format of all deliverables will be decided at the Start-up meeting.

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F D1 May 2010

APPENDIX D – CHANNEL AND STRUCTURE SURVEY

D1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND INFORMATION D1.1 Scope of Channel and Structure Survey As described in Section 5.2 of the Tender Documents, the Channel and Structure Survey (the ‘Survey’ as referred to within this Appendix) includes the geometric and geo-referenced survey of channel cross-sections of HPWs and MPWs, and of the structures that are in, over or adjacent to the HPWs and MPWs. The Survey shall also include the geometric and geo-referenced survey of the Flood Defences as identified under Section 5.1 and in Appendix C. The OPW may establish a Survey Framework Agreement comprising five or six Survey Framework Contractors. In the event that such a Framework is established, the procurement of Survey Contractors as set out herein shall be undertaken through the Survey Framework Agreement. If not, then procurement shall be undertaken using open procedures. It is envisaged that a Survey Contract to be specified and managed by the Consultant shall comprise the survey requirements as set out herein for a Unit of Management. The consultant may however, where the Consultant deems appropriate and subject to the approval of the OPW, combine the survey requirements for a number of Units of Management within a single Survey Contract. D1.2 Scope of Services The scope of services required of the Consultant in the delivery of the Survey includes:

a) Review of existing survey specifications or completed survey data where relevant, and liaison with other consultants managing relevant surveys

b) Identification of survey extents and relevant cross-sections, structures and flood defences to be surveyed

c) Preparation of the specification for each Survey Contract (including detailed maps of cross- / long-section, structure and flood defence survey locations and extents), as necessary to capture the information required for the development of accurate hydraulic models under the CFRAM Studies

d) Preparation of the tender and contract documents for each Survey Contract

e) Review and evaluation of tenders received from tenderers for each Survey Contract and recommendation of a preferred tenderer

f) Management of each Survey Contract, including (but not limited to):

− General liaison with the survey contractor,

− Management of programme and progress and reporting on same to OPW,

− Specification, review and quality control of the survey results (including ensuring tie-in with floodplain survey data), outputs and reports,

− Ensuring the timely delivery of good quality survey data that is fit for purpose

− Review and approval of submitted invoices

− Ensuring health and safety compliance on the part of the Survey Contractor and advising and assisting the Client with its health and safety requirements

g) Provision of the completed survey data to the CFRAM modelling team and to the OPW.

These duties are described in more detail later in this appendix.


D2 SURVEY EXTENTS AND SPECIFYING THE SURVEY The definition of the survey extents and structures requiring survey, and the Consultants’ role in relation to these, are described below. These definitions will be discussed and finalised at the Inception Meeting, but should be guided by the requirements of the hydraulic modelling as defined in Section 7 of the Tender Documents. D2.1 High Priority Watercourses The survey extents for HPWs shall be defined by those produced by the Consultant under Section 1.2.2.4 of the Tender Documents. D2.1.1 Survey Requirements for High Priority Watercourses Along HPWs within APSRs, cross-sections on medium to large rivers will be surveyed at spacings of typically 50 to 100m, but not exceeding 100m, and where there is a significant change of section properties (e.g., conveyance). A closer spacing may be required on small channels (less than 3m top width). Along HPWs up- and down-stream of APSRs, cross-sections may be surveyed at greater spacings than those required within APSRs, as necessary to achieve the objectives of the survey of these reaches. The spacing and location of cross-sections along all HPWs, while complying with the requirements included herein, should be specified so as to accurately represent the watercourse in a hydraulic model, guided by the Consultant’s knowledge and experience. D2.1.2 Consultant’s Duties The Consultant shall specify the survey of the HPWs in accordance with the requirements of this document, and in particular, Section D2.1.1 and Section D2.7. The Consultant shall assign Reach Indicator Codes for each HPW identified. The format of the Codes shall be defined by the OPW at the Inception Meeting. D2.2 Medium Priority Water Courses The survey extents for MPWs shall be defined by those produced by the Consultant under Section 1.2.2.5 of the Tender Documents. D2.2.1 Survey Requirements for Medium Priority Watercourses Along MPWs, cross-sections will be surveyed at spacings of typically 500m, but not exceeding 750m, and where there is a significant change of section properties (e.g., conveyance). A closer spacing may be required on small channels (less than 3m top width). The spacing and location of cross-sections, while complying with the requirements included herein, should be specified so as to adequately represent the watercourse in a hydraulic model, guided by the Consultant’s knowledge and experience. D2.2.2 Consultant’s Duties The Consultant shall specify the survey of the MPWs in accordance with the requirements of this document, and in particular, Section D2.2.1 and Section D2.7. The Consultant shall assign Reach Indicator Codes for each MPW identified. The format of the Codes shall be agreed with the OPW at the Inception Meeting D2.3 Structures For the purposes of this Contract, Structures along HPWs shall be deemed to include any on-line or off-line structure that may have an impact in terms of:


− Attenuating flow along the watercourse or floodplain, or,

− Creating an afflux or otherwise have a hydraulic effect that could influence flood levels (structures that only impact on low flow levels, and that would have no impact on flood levels, would not be included within this definition), or,

− Defend an area of land against flooding (See Section D2.4, Flood Defences) Along MPWs, the definition of Structures shall be limited to those that:

− Will have a significant impact in terms of attenuating flow, amending flood levels along MPWs, or,

− Prevent flooding of large areas of land, or,

− Might impact on flooding and flood mechanisms within an APSR Examples of such structures shall include, but not be limited to, bridges, culverts, weirs, floodwalls, embankments, sluices, control gates and service crossings (pipes, etc.). D2.3.1 Survey Requirements for Structures The survey of the required online structures should be undertaken so as to accurately describe the hydraulic characteristics of the structure, and capture potential overflow or by-pass routes. The survey of the required offline structures should be undertaken so as to accurately describe the influence that the structure might have on flow attenuation or flood behaviour in the area of the floodplain. Where a structure spans part or all of the flood plain (for example, a bridge with a road embankment on either side of the channel), then the full elevation of the structure should be surveyed. The structure should be surveyed perpendicular to the direction of flow, both for channel flow and floodplain flow, which may require the sections to “dog-leg” in plan view. The survey of the out-of-channel sections of the structure shall contain survey points as required to accurately represent the structure in a hydraulic model (for example, flood plain arches, crest levels of embankments, parapet wall levels etc). The survey requirements for particular types of structures are specified in Sections D2.3.1.1 and D2.3.1.2. D2.3.1.1 Survey Requirements for Bridges and Culverts For bridges on HPWs and MPWs:

− one channel cross-section (see Section D2.7 for the appropriate survey requirements) shall be surveyed 15 m upstream of the upstream face of the bridge, or 1.5 times the average length of the side constriction caused by the structure abutments (i.e. the bridge tunnel), whichever is greater.

− one cross-section shall be surveyed at the upstream face of the bridge, to include channel bed levels and bridge details. The bridge details shall include the top chord (for example, deck level, approach road and top of embankment levels and parapet) and bottom chord (for example, pier and arch dimensions, widths, springing levels and soffit levels). Survey points of the bottom chord should be provided with a corresponding channel bed and bank survey point i.e. at the same offset value. However, the requirements of Section 4.3.8 in relation to the spacing of the cross-section survey points across the section should still be observed.

− a survey of the downstream face of the bridge should only be taken where different to the upstream face. The requirements of this survey are as per the upstream face.


− the length of the bridge shall be measured parallel to the watercourse, and indicated on the appropriate drawings.

− where significant changes occur in the bridge cross-section along its length, additional sections shall be surveyed so as to accurately describe the changes in its hydraulic characteristics.

− one cross-section shall be surveyed at a distance of 20m downstream of the downstream face of the bridge, or 2 times the average length of the side constriction caused by the structure abutments (i.e. the bridge tunnel), whichever is greater.

− where a structure is not normal to the centreline of the channel, the skew angle shall be measured as the angle between the structure face and a line perpendicular to the channel. The length of the bridge tunnel is then the channel length through the bridge parallel to the watercourse.

For culverts on HPWs and MPWs:

− one channel cross-section (see Section D2.7 for the appropriate survey requirements) shall be surveyed 15 m upstream of the upstream face of the culvert, and one channel cross-section 15 m downstream of the downstream face of the culvert.

− both the inlet and outlet faces of a culvert shall be surveyed, to include channel bed levels and culvert and structure details. The culvert survey should be such as to allow the accurate representation of the culvert in a hydraulic model (for example, soffit level, invert level, diameter), and the structure survey shall include the structure details above the culvert (for example, approach road levels, top of embankment levels and parapet). For the channel survey at the inlet and outlet faces, the requirements of Section D2.7 in relation to the spacing of the cross-section survey points across the section shall be observed.

− the survey shall provide information on the inlet of the culvert, as required to represent the culvert accurately within the hydraulic model. This information should include, but not be limited to, details of headwalls, wing-walls, and culverts projecting beyond headwalls.

− where possible, and with due regard to the requirements of Sections D2.6 (Confined Spaces) and 2.9 (Health & Safety), the internal characteristics of culverts shall be recorded. These characteristics shall include, but not be limited to, the construction type and surface roughness (for example, smooth concrete, brickwork, corrugated iron sheeting). These details should be recorded on the cross-section and long section drawings as appropriate.

D2.3.1.2 Survey Requirements for Weirs For each weir in both HPWs and MPWs, the following cross-sections shall be surveyed:

− One channel cross-section 15m upstream of the weir,

− One channel cross-section 15m downstream of the weir,

− One cross-section shall be surveyed along the full running length of the crest,

− One cross-section immediately upstream of the weir, and one at the downstream foot of each weir, along the full running length of the weir. In the case where the upstream bed level is the same as the crest level of the weir, the upstream cross-section may not be surveyed.

− Details of any gates and / or movable control structures associated with the weir shall also be surveyed. However, where such structures exist, the gate sill shall be surveyed as the crest of the weir, and the moveable structures clearly marked as such on any drawings.


D2.3.2 Consultants Duties The Consultant shall identify any such structures in or over the HPWs and MPWs, or in the floodplains of the HPWs and MPWs. The Consultant shall specify the survey of the identified flood defences as set out herein, of this document, and in particular, Section D2.4.1 and Section D2.7. Minor features, such as those of negligible hydraulic effect or that would have negligible impact on flooding, do not need to be included within the survey of flood defences. D2.4 Flood Defences The flood defences requiring survey shall be defined by those identified by the Consultant, and agreed by the Steering Group, as set out in Appendix C. D2.4.1 Survey Requirements for Flood Defences For flood defences, survey points shall be required as appropriate to the structure and the method by which it provides a flood defence function. The geometric parameters that shall be surveyed for different types of flood defence shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, those set out in Table D1. Table D1 – Flood Defence Structures

Flood Defence

Geometric parameters for the flood defence to be surveyed

Embankment Crest Level

Crest Width

Crest Length

Front Toe Level

Front Face Slope

Back Face Level

Back Face Slope

Flapped Outfalls

Pipe Diameter

Invert level

Flap Width

Flap Height

Pump Inlet Level Inlet Diameter

Pump Diameter

Outlet Level

Outlet Diameter

Storage Area Invert Level

Max. Level

Total Volume

Wall Crest Level

Crest Width

Crest Length

Front Toe Level

Front Face Slope

Back Toe Level

Back Face Slope

Survey points along the length of linear flood defences should accurately represent the defence as it varies, including in particular low points or gaps, but in any event should not be at spacings along the crest of the defence of more than 10m. Where there are step changes along a flood defence reach, points immediately adjacent to the step should be surveyed, to correspond with both elevations at this location. D2.4.2 Consultants Duties The Consultant shall specify the survey of the identified flood defences in accordance with the requirements as set out herein, and in particular, Section D2.4.1 and Section D2.7. D2.5 Hydrometric Gauges D2.5.1 Survey Requirements for Hydrometric Gauges A survey shall be carried out for each of the hydrometric stations referred to in Section 6.4.3 of the Tender Documents (i.e., as listed in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II)) in accordance with the requirements below.


For all specified hydrometric gauges, the following survey is required:

− A cross-section at the level recording device and (if at a different location) the staff gauge for the hydrometric station, including the reduced level of the zero on the staff gauge. The threshold at any gauging hut present should also be included.

− Cross-section(s) at any control structures or points (i.e., structures or natural features that will control the stage-discharge relationship at the level recording device). In the event that such controls are structures, the survey shall comply with the survey requirements for that type of structure as set out in Section D2.3.1.

− An appropriate reach (usually of not more than 2kms in length) of the watercourse upstream of the level recording device such that any out-of-bank overland flow paths upstream of the level recording device that could bypass the gauged section are captured.

− An appropriate reach of the watercourse downstream of the level recording device such as to minimise any downstream boundary uncertainties in hydraulic modelling of the stage-discharge relationship at the gauged section, such as back-watering effects from structures.

D2.5.2 Consultants Duties The Consultant shall specify the survey of the required gauges in accordance with the requirements of this document, and in particular, Section D2.5.1 and Section D2.7. D2.6 Confined Spaces D2.6.1 Survey Requirements Culverts and other flood defence assets that form a confined space shall be inspected and surveyed as far as is possible and safe from both the upstream and downstream extent but will not at any time be entered under this commission, unless explicitly agreed in writing in advance by the OPW in each instance, and then only by suitably trained persons and once the Consultant has completed a specific hazard and risk assessment. D2.6.2 Consultants Duties If it is not possible to make an accurate assessment of the condition and construction from either the upstream or downstream extent, or if one or both of these is not accessible, the Consultant shall recommend to the OPW for that asset to be subject to a CCTV survey. Such a CCTV survey does not fall within the scope of this commission. D2.7 General Requirements of Survey Contracts The generic survey requirements to be met in the implementation of each SC are set out below:

i) Cross-sections shall be surveyed perpendicular to the flow direction (for river channels this shall be perpendicular to the direction of the banks, while for floodplains it shall generally be perpendicular to the general direction of the valley).

ii) All elevations and cross-sections shall be plotted as viewed from upstream to downstream.

iii) Cross-section offset shall increase from left to right looking in the downstream direction. The zero offset shall be at the top of the left bank.

iv) Cross-section locations shall be identified by a Reach Identifier Code and chainage (in metres) along the centreline of the river. This shall be measured from downstream to upstream, starting at 0 at the downstream end of each river. The number of cross-


sections required along the HPW and MPW centreline is described in Sections D2.1.1 and D2.2.1 respectively.

v) In specifying the location of cross-sections, it may be possible to rationalise the survey requirements of HPWs, MPWs and the various structures and features, while still complying with the maximum spacing requirements. For example, where a bridge is within the extent of an HPW, the upstream and downstream sections as required for the survey of the bridge may serve as the sections required by the survey of the HPW.

vi) Horizontal locations, including cross-section offsets, shall be recorded to a resolution of 0.01m. Vertical levels shall be recorded to a resolution of 0.001m.

vii) Cross-sections for HPWs should include out-of-bank survey points for a distance of not less than 20m beyond each bank top, to allow tie-in to floodplain DTM data captured from aerial survey commissioned under other Contracts. Cross-sections may however need to extend significantly beyond this minimum extent where significant or complex overland flow routes may exist that might not be accurately captured or represented by aerial survey data. The Consultant shall identify such locations and specify survey of same within the Specification for each CFRAM SC.

viii) Cross-sections for MPWs should include out-of-bank survey points for a distance of not less than 20m beyond each bank top, to allow tie-in to floodplain DTM data captured from aerial survey commissioned under other contracts.

ix) The number of survey points in any cross-section must be sufficient to describe changes in the shape of that cross-section and include an adequate number of survey points appropriately located across the cross-section to permit accurate representation of the channel geometry and hence conveyance within a hydraulic model. The distance between consecutive points within the channel and within 20m of bank tops should not exceed 2m. The vertical difference in level between consecutive points out of channel should not exceed 0.20m. For cross-sections where the out of bank distance greatly exceeds the minimum requirement of 20m, the 2m minimum distance may be increased, provided the 0.20m vertical distance is not exceeded.

x) Where it is not practical or safe to survey a section at the prescribed position or interval, the position of the surveyed section may be adjusted. However, if safe to do so, the interval between the two adjacent sections shall not exceed the prescribed maximum intervals; the Consultant shall highlight to the OPW instances where achieving the maximum spacing has not been achieved.

xi) The river water level, time and date shall be recorded at the time of survey of each every cross-section and structure.

xii) To assist the modellers in assigning roughness coefficients during the construction of the hydraulic models, the nature of the riverbed material and vegetation should each be recorded at each cross-section, and labelled accordingly on the drawings (e.g. silt, gravel, concrete, heavy weed). Similarly, the nature of the floodplain should be recorded and displayed on the drawings (e.g. pasture, scrub, woodland, dense growth).

xiii) Temporary Benchmarks shall be identified where possible along selected cross-sections to facilitate repetition of survey, or infill survey. Temporary Benchmarks should typically be established at not less than 1km spacing along HPWs, and at not less than 10km spacing along MPWs. Records of the location of these benchmarks should be kept, and photographs taken, for inclusion in the appropriate reporting deliverables.

xiv) All levels shall be provided relative to Malin Head Datum.

xv) All survey shall be provided in Irish National Grid (ING). Details of the method of conversion from Irish Transverse Mercator (ITM) to ING (e.g. Grid InQuest version 6.6.0) shall be provided in the Metadata (Section D6.2).


xvi) All measurements shall be presented in metric units (metres).

xvii) The relative accuracy of the plan position and level measurement of critical details and well-defined features should not exceed +0.025m. The relative accuracy of the plan position and level measurement of soft, less well-defined features and vegetation shall not exceed +0.050m.

D2.7.1 Consultants Duties The Consultant shall ensure in the preparation of Survey Contract tender documents and specifications, in managing the delivery of the survey, and in the review and quality control of survey data, that the requirements of Section D2.7 are specified and met with respect to all Survey Contracts. Where other consultants are specifying or managing surveys to be used as part of the Project (i.e., survey commissioned in advance of the Project to facilitate progress in priority areas, or for other localised projects), the Consultant shall review and comment on the specifications and liaise with the other consultant and the OPW with a view to ensuring that the survey outputs are as required for the Project. D2.8 PREPARATION OF SPECIFICATIONS For each of the CFRAM Survey Contracts, the Consultant shall perform the services set out below for the preparation of the specifications. D2.8.1 Site Visits Upon appointment, the Consultants shall undertake a site visit to each APSR and each hydrometric gauge to be surveyed to:

− Familiarise themselves with the APSR and identify the extent of the APSR

− Assess possible flood mechanisms or characteristics within or around the APSR

− Identify HPWs within the APSR, including those that might not be identified in the OSi Discovery Series of maps or the EPA ‘Blue Line’ Network

− Identify appropriate reaches up- and down-stream of the APSRs where more detailed survey is required, above what would otherwise be required along a MPW as set out in Section D2.2

− Familiarise themselves with the hydrometric gauges and the reaches up- and downstream of those gauges and to identify probable hydraulic controls that would affect the stage-discharge relationship at the gauge

− Identify and photograph appropriate locations for cross-section surveys

− Identify and photograph Structures and Flood Defences (see C1.1 and D2.3). It is not anticipated that the Consultants will undertake detailed Site Visits to inspect all reaches of MPWs, although the Consultant shall undertake inspection of those reaches readily-accessible from roads such as at road bridges, or other public access points, to identify Structure, Cross-Section and Flood Defence survey requirements and take photographs as appropriate to assist hydraulic modellers responsible for modelling the reach. It is expected that personnel experienced in hydraulic modelling and responsible for the specification of the survey as well as personnel responsible for managing the survey work would participate fully in the Site Visits. It is envisaged that the site visits described above may in many instances be combined with site visits as required under Appendix C (Defence Asset Survey), and other site visits to be carried out by the Consultant in undertaking this Project. A record of each Site Visit shall be kept, with the accompanying photographs to inform other areas of the Project, and for future reference. These records shall be provided to the OPW on completion of the Site Visits.


D2.8.2 Access to Lands Obtaining access to land is the sole responsibility of the Consultant, both for the purposes of carrying out their duties under this commission and in assisting the Survey Contractor in undertaking their duties under the Survey Contract. The Consultant and the Survey Contractor have statutory right of access to private lands as agents of the OPW under SI No. 122 of 2010. Not withstanding these rights, the Consultant (and Survey Contractor) shall take measures as set out below to secure permissions of access in advance. The Consultant shall undertake duties including, but not limited to the following, to ensure efficient and timely delivery of each SC:

− Identify the various landowners affected by the survey and take all reasonable actions to obtain permission from the landowners for access to conduct the survey in advance of the survey on the premises of the landowner.

− Make themselves and the Survey Contractor aware of the presence of livestock, sensitive agricultural (or other) crops, and farming activities underway that may impede their work, and plan mitigating measures to avoid these impacting upon their programme.

− Inform the landowner of the extent of any work where cutting or trimming of bank edge vegetation is necessary. All normal protocols for work within private lands shall be followed, including the protection of habitat.

The OPW shall provide the Consultant with a letter of introduction for landowners, which shall introduce the Consultant and the Survey Contractor, describe the purpose of the survey and request, as a courtesy, landowners to make access available to the Consultant and Survey Contractor. In cases where access is not possible, the Contractors shall provide a cross-section at the nearest available location where access is obtainable with reasonable efforts, and alert the Consultant to this who shall in turn alert the OPW to this. The Consultants shall assess in advance of any site visit any potentially awkward or hazardous sites and plan for the safe access to these areas in advance. The Consultant and Survey Contractor may be required to enter onto property owned or occupied by Irish Rail. For health and safety reasons Irish Rail require that all persons entering onto their property to undertake any works must have completed a two-day training course organised by Irish Rail. They also require that an employee of Irish Rail accompany all such persons for the duration of the works. In that event that such entry is necessary, the OPW shall pay the costs associated with this training and attendance of Irish Rail staff. D2.8.3 Approval of Survey Extents and Relevant Structures The Consultant shall seek OPW approval of the APSR, HPW and MPW extents that have been defined (as required under Section 1.2.2 of the Tender Documents), and approval of the relevant structures and flood defences identified, prior to the preparation of the detailed specification for each CFRAM Survey Contract. D2.8.4 Confirmation of Generic Survey Requirements Prior to the preparation of the detailed specification for the Survey Contract, the Consultant shall confirm with the OPW the generic requirements for survey, as set out within Section D2.7, in terms of cross-section spacing, structure and defence structure survey, etc. that will guide the detailed survey requirements to be specified by the Consultant.


D2.8.5 Preparation of Specification for Survey Contract The Consultant shall prepare a detailed specification for the Survey Contract, and subsequent to the approval and confirmation required in Sections D2.8.3 and D2.8.4, shall proceed to incorporate the specification into the Tender Documents as set out in Section D3.1. D3 MANAGEMENT OF THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS The Consultant shall perform the services set out below in managing the procurement process for the Survey Contract. In the event that a Survey Framework Agreement is established, the Consultant shall perform the procurement services set out herein based on a single-stage tender process with potential tenderers limited to those Survey Contractors (foreseen to be five or six in number) within the Framework. In the event that a Survey Framework Agreement is not established, the Consultant shall perform the procurement services set out herein based on a single-stage tender process in open competition through the Official Journal of the European Union, or ‘E-Tenders’ as appropriate to the scale of the Survey Contract. D3.1 Preparation of Tender Documents The OPW shall, upon Commencement, provide for information to the Consultant survey tender documents used on previous survey contracts commissioned by the OPW. These documents should not be taken as final versions of the survey tender documents for use under this Contract, but may be used as a point of reference for improvement in line with the expertise of the Consultant. The tender documents shall clearly specify the requirements of the Survey Contract, including health and safety requirements, the survey extent and the required quality and format of outputs, as necessary to meet the objectives of the Project. The Consultant shall, for the Survey Contract, prepare Tender Documents incorporating the Specification as required by Section D2.8.5, suitable for issue to tenderers for each Survey Contract for competitive, fixed-price tender. The draft Tender documents, including the detailed Specification, shall be submitted to the OPW for approval. The Consultant shall amend the documents as appropriate in accordance with any comments provided by the OPW, and provide the final Tender documents to the OPW ready for issue. D3.2 Management of the Tender Period The OPW shall be responsible for the issue of the Tender Documents to the tenderers, who will typically be permitted between four (4) and six (6) weeks to prepare a tender, depending on the scale of the Survey Contract. The Consultant shall be responsible for drafting responses to any queries (permitted only in writing, including email) submitted by the tenderers, and shall submit the draft responses to the OPW within two (2) working days of receipt of each query. D3.3 Tender Review Upon receipt of Tenders submitted by the Survey Framework Contractors, the OPW shall provide the Tenders to the Consultant. The Consultant shall evaluate the Tenders in accordance with the evaluation criteria to be determined by the Consultant in accordance with procurement regulations subject to approval of the OPW, and shall submit an evaluation report and recommendation for award of contract within ten (10) working days of receipt of the Survey Tenders from the OPW.


In handling and evaluating the Tenders, the Consultant shall adhere to the highest standards of professionalism and independence, and shall treat the Tenders and the commercially sensitive information contained therein as strictly confidential. The Consultant shall respond promptly to any queries on the evaluation submitted by the OPW, and if so required by the OPW, attend a meeting (that will be incorporated into a Progress Meeting if reasonably possible and without causing undue delay to the commissioning of a Survey Contract) to discuss the evaluation. D3.4 Appointment of Survey Framework Contractor The Consultant shall allow for an appeal period of 16 calendar days elapsing between the letter of award being issued by the OPW to the successful Survey Contractor and the appointment of same. Within this period, the OPW may require the Consultant to assist in the preparation for and to attend debriefing meetings with unsuccessful Tenderers. The OPW shall be responsible for commissioning each Contract, and shall pay all fees due to the appointed Survey Contractor under the Contract (i.e., the costs of undertaking the survey Contracts should NOT be included in the Tender Fees submitted under this Contract). D4 MANAGEMENT OF THE SURVEY The Consultant shall perform the services set out below in managing each Survey Contract. D4.1 Survey Contractor Briefing The Consultant shall brief the appointed Survey Contractor on the details of the survey. In particular, the Consultant shall ensure that the Survey Contractor is fully aware of the survey requirements and of the quality and format required of the survey outputs. It is suggested that an office-based meeting be specified as a minimum requirement, with provision for a site-based briefing if so recommended by the Consultant or OPW. D4.2 General Project Management The Consultant shall be responsible for managing the implementation and delivery of the Survey Contract, shall act as the Employer’s Representative of the OPW in managing the Survey Contract and the Survey Contractor, and shall carry out the duties normally associated with that role, in the implementation, management and delivery of the Survey Contract. The services required to perform this duty shall include, but not be limited to:

− Liaison and Progress Meetings with Survey Contractor

− Liaison and Progress Meetings with OPW

− Ensure appropriate and necessary liaison and / or meetings between the Survey Contractor and any Landowners, etc.

− Provide site supervision of the Survey Contractor

− Provision of information to the Gardai, Local Authorities and other relevant public bodies on the programme and nature of the survey work

− Assessing and, within limits to be defined, approving variations and additional work to the Survey Contract

− Monitor progress and risks, instruct the Survey Contractor on remedial actions to be taken (within delegated authorities to be agreed with the OPW) and to promptly inform the OPW of risks that may require action by the OPW, and provide advice as to what such actions might be and the implications thereof


− Ensure timely completion of the Survey Contract and delivery of required outputs

− Ensure outputs are to the required specification, in relation to quality and format

− Identify and effectively manage risks as they may become likely or arise during the completion of the Survey Contact, including those to programme, quality and cost

− Provide an assessment of the performance of the Survey Contractors D4.3 Site Supervision The Consultant shall supervise the Survey Contractor on site as appropriate to each Survey Contract. Tenderers should set out in their Tenders how they would provide this supervision, and the percentage of time during which on-site supervision will be provided. D4.4 Access to Lands by the Survey Contractor The Survey Contractor shall have rights to access lands as set out in Section D2.8.2, although the Consultant shall fulfil the requirements of Section D2.8.2 in relation to access to lands by the Survey Contractor as they shall also fulfil with respect to access to land by the Consultant. D4.5 Quality Control Upon receipt of survey data from the Survey Contractor, the Consultant shall, as reasonably as possible with the data available and using professional judgement, assess the quality of the data to ensure that it is accurate within required tolerances and to required formats. Tenderers for this commission should outline in their submission how they propose to carry out this work. The Consultant shall direct and manage any corrective action required for deficient data, subject to approval from the OPW where such action would justifiably incur additional fees payable to the Survey Contractor, should such an instance arise. D4.6 Variations during Survey The OPW may require variations to the scope of the Survey prior to issue of tender documents, during tender stage or after appointment of a Survey Contractor. Subsequent to the appointment of the Survey Contractor and while the Survey Contractor is on site, additional cross-sections, structures, or features may become apparent either to the Survey Contractor or to the Consultant as requiring survey in order to fulfil the requirements of this document. The Consultant shall be empowered to approve such additional survey up to a value to be agreed with the OPW upon Commencement; additional survey work above this value will require prior approval from the OPW. The Consultant shall allow in their fixed-fees submitted with their Tender for the specific tender stage (Stage II) for the management of any such additional survey work undertaken in this manner, and its compliance with the requirements of this document. Where any variations include the survey of additional (or fewer) APSRs, reaches of watercourses or hydrometric stations, then the rates for additional or reduced work for the Consultant shall be as set out in with their Tender for the specific tender stage (Stage II). Where any variations include the survey of additional (or fewer) cross-sections or related survey details (e.g., structures) within an APSR or reach of a watercourse or related to a hydrometric station as defined within the scope of the Project herein, or the movement of such cross-sections or survey details, then no additional fees or reductions in fees shall be payable (Tenderers should allow for such potential variations in their fixed fees submitted with their Tender for the specific tender stage (Stage II). In the event that the OPW requires additional survey work to be carried out while the survey is ongoing (i.e. subsequent to the issue of the Tender Documents for the Survey Contract), the Consultant shall instruct the Survey Contractor accordingly.


D5 HEALTH AND SAFETY DUTIES The Consultant shall fulfil the requirements of Section 2.9 of the Tender Documents in relation to health and safety. D6 DELIVERABLES All deliverables relevant to the CFRAM Survey Contracts shall be supplied to the OPW on completion of the Survey Contract in editable digital format compatible with the Microsoft Office suite, ArcGIS, MapInfo and AutoCAD, as set out below. This data (other than cadastral mapping) shall be provided on a fully indexed CD/DVD (or an album of CD/DVDs if more than one required), with directories and files clearly referenced and named. Detailed below are the minimum required deliverables for this Commission; it shall be the Consultant’s responsibility to specify these requirements in the CFRAM Survey Contract tender documents (Section D3.1), and ensure delivery of same. D6.1 Cross-Section Key Plans The Consultant shall be responsible for delivering in A1 hardcopy and digital drawing format (AutoCAD-compatible) and GIS (Arc, MapInfo compatible) format, Key Plans for each watercourse. Each Key Plan shall be overlaid on the largest-scale available OSi mapping. The GIS attribute tables for the reaches of watercourse and the cross-sections are detailed in Tables D6.1 and D6.2 respectively. The Cross-Section Identifier Code shall be based on the Reach Identifier Code, and will be agreed with the OPW at the Inception meeting. The field width and type are indicated in the tables. Table D6.1 – Watercourse Reach GIS attribute table Hydrometric Area

Reach Identifier Code

HPW/MPW Start Chainage

End Chainage

Reach Length

Field type “Number”, Field width 2 digits

Field type “Text”, Field width 4 characters





Table D6.2 – Cross-Section GIS attribute table Cross-Section Identifier Code

Easting Northing Name of Structure (if applicable)

Field type “Float”, Field width 12 characters




D6.2 Long-Section Drawings The Consultant shall be responsible for delivering in A1 hardcopy and in digital drawing format (AutoCAD compatible) Long-Section Drawings of each watercourse. Each Long-Section drawing shall include the following information:

− Cross-section location

− Cross-section identifier code

− Structure location

− Chainage along river centreline

− Reach identifier code as assigned under Sections D2.1.2 and D2.2.2


− Any surveyed water levels D6.3 Channel Cross-Section and Structure Elevation Drawings The Consultant shall be responsible for delivering in A1 hardcopy and in digital drawing format (AutoCAD-compatible) Cross-Section Drawings. An appropriate number of Cross-sections and elevations may be placed on each drawing. The drawings shall include the following information:

− Cross-Section identifier

− Channel offset and levels

− Structure Elevation offset and levels

− Location of hydrometric gauges on a structure or within cross-section

− Surveyed water levels

− Details of features such as walls, fences, trees, etc

− Each Cross-Section clearly labelled D6.4 Channel Cross-Section Data Files Cross-section data shall be provided in ASCII format files. Two files shall be submitted for each reach of watercourse, the layout of both files being saved and defined in the digital files issued with these Tender Documents. Particular attention shall be paid to the layout, character spacing and format of the content of these files, during their production. The Consultant will be fully briefed on the format and content of these files at the Initial Progress Meeting. The title of both files shall be based on the Reach Identifier code to be agreed at the Inception Meeting. Each file shall contain the data for the Channel Cross-Sections contained within that reach but omitting the Structure Elevation survey data. Cross-section and structure data shall also be provided in spreadsheet (Excel-compatible) format, as illustrated on the spreadsheet included on the digital files issued with these Tender Documents. A separate spreadsheet shall be provided for each individually named river. The cross-section data should be listed consecutively on the first tab, with a second tab used to continue if necessary. The structure data, with its corresponding channel cross-section, shall be entered on subsequent separate tabs, with each structure having its own tab, and a maximum of thirty tabs per spreadsheet. It may be necessary to produce additional spreadsheets containing the structure information for a single river. The titles of the spreadsheet fields shall be as contained on the spreadsheet included on the accompanying CD. The title of both the cross-section and structure spreadsheets shall be finalised at the Initial Progress Meeting. D6.5 Structure Register File The Consultant shall submit a register of all structures surveyed in GIS (ARC, MapInfo compatible) format. The GIS attribute table for the structures surveyed is detailed in Table 4.4. The field width and type are indicated in the table. Table 4.4 – Structure Register File GIS attribute table Structure Name

Cross-section Identifier Code

Easting Northing Structure Type


Field type “Float”, Field width 12 characters





D6.6 Flood Defence Drawings The Consultant shall be responsible for delivering in A1 hardcopy and in digital drawing format (AutoCAD-compatible) flood defence drawings. An appropriate number of flood defences may be placed on each drawing. The drawings shall include the following information: - Elevations and Plan views of each flood defence - Eastings, Northings and Elevations (ING) as surveyed for each flood defence - Elevations of undefended ground levels (see the requirements of Section 4.3.5.1) D6.7 Cross-Section and Structure Digital Photographs and video The Consultant shall provide a minimum of four referenced digital photographs for each cross section: one showing downstream reach, one showing upstream reach, one of left bank and one of right bank. The photographic record for each section shall cover the full channel section and respective flood plains for both banks. Where the full extent of the surveyed flood plain is obscured from the viewpoint of the photographer by heavy growth or other obstacles, additional photographs should be taken. The Survey Contractor shall capture these photographs as part of each SC. Photographs shall be taken showing the full extent of the surveyed elevations (both upstream, and where surveyed, downstream) of all surveyed structures. A digital video showing the 360o panorama of the surveyed structures shall also be provided. The purpose of this video is to show the structure in the context of its surroundings and the watercourse. D6.8 Digital Metadata Metadata, including the date and time of the survey, should be provided for all survey information. The details and format of the required metadata shall be agreed prior to the issue of the survey tender documents. D6.9 Other The exact format of all deliverables shall be agreed with the OPW prior to the issue of the survey tender documents. D7 Reporting of the CFRAM Survey Contract Reporting of the Channel and Structure Survey Contract to an appropriate level of detail shall be included in the Hydraulics Report for the relevant Unit of Management.

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F E1 May 2010

APPENDIX E – AVAILABLE COASTAL LEVEL DATA

Offshore coastal modeling has been undertaken under the Irish Coastal Protection Strategy Study. The outputs of this Study will be made available to the Consultant. The outputs for the East and South Coast are available at the date of issue of this document, while draft outputs for the West Coast are expected in the Autumn of 2010, with final results expected in the Spring of 2011. Model Construction A flexible mesh model covers the whole of the Irish coast, out to 600km offshore into the North Atlantic Ocean. This covers 18deg longitude, 13.5deg latitude. Cell sizes range as follows: Location Maximum cell size (km)

Atlantic model boundary 24

Irish Atlantic Coastline 3

Irish Sea 3.5

Irish coastline 0.2

Rectangular grid models at a higher resolution are available for some major estuaries. Bathymetry was obtained from Admiralty Charts, and hydrographic surveys where available, including the Geological Surveys of Ireland “Irish national seabed survey.” Bathymetry was corrected to Mean Sea Level using over 490 reference levels. The model was calibrated against a set of tidal predictions over a period of 30 days against gauges around the Irish, British and French coastlines, and offshore gauges. The model achieved 50mm accuracies 72 hours in advance. Boundary Conditions Tides Open boundaries were created using a global tidal model from Kort and Matrikelstryrelsen (KMS) Denmark – tidal elevations were calculated based on harmonics at a spatial resolution of 0.5 degrees. This was complimented using data from the GLOSS and PSMSL datasets from the British Oceanographic Data Centre to incorporate seasonal components. North Atlantic Oscillation The effects of the North Atlantic Oscillation on the results were assessed and the residual impacts unaccounted for by air pressure variations were found to be minimal (<20mm). River Flows Mean flow values were applied at all river boundaries. Surge modelling Surge models were calibrated using hindcast models to simulate 55 surge events. The models were calibrated against water level records from local tide gauges, and an average accuracy of +/-50mm was obtained. Atmospheric pressure at Mean Sea Level and 10 minute average wind speeds were generated from 2 European Centre of Medium Range Weather Forecast datasets:


Period Model Temporal resolution

Spatial resolution

Post Sept 1991 HIRLAM atmospheric model 6 hours 0.5 deg Pre Sept 1991 ERA 40 Re-analysis model 6 hours 1.125 deg

Wind speeds were adjusted using UK Met Office hindcasting. Temporal resolution was improved to 3 hours using forecast simulations from ECMRWF. A variable wind friction approach was used, comparable to the Charnock parameter. Wave Climate Offshore wave data for 1990-2000 was obtained at a 3 hourly frequency from the UK MetOffice “European and UK Waters Wave Model.” This was transformed from offshore waters to inshore using the MIKE21 Nearshore Spectral Windwave model (a stationary, directionally decoupled parametric wind-wave model.) This provided:

− Significant wave height & mean wave period

− Mean wave direction and directional standard deviation

− Radiation stresses Joint Probability Waves and water levels A joint event matrix was created from 16 years of wave and water level data, based on the inshore wave heights from the modeling above, and water levels obtained from tide gauge records. This matrix was used to define a correlation coefficient, which was used in the methods presented in Section 5.7 of FD23087. These methods concluded that the following return periods of wave and water level were valid combinations for a 1 in 200 year joint probability event: Water level return period (years) Wave return period (years) 5 20

10 10

20 5

Tide levels and surge Analyses were separated into areas of low or high current (since the level of (in)dependence of tide and surge would vary according to this.) In areas of low current, a joint probability analysis used tide gauge data to find the relationship between astronomic water levels and extreme surge events. An extreme value analysis was undertaken on tide levels and surge residuals to determine the level:frequency curve of each. These were then combined using the methods of FD23081 to produce extreme water levels. For a given return period, the highest water levels are dominated by surge in association with a minor tidal event (return period = 0.02 years.) In areas of high current, an extreme value distribution was fitted to total water levels generated from the numerical model. 7 DEFRA / Environment Agency Research and Development Technical Report FD2308 / TR2 March 2005 “ Use of Joint

Probability Methods in Flood Management: A Guide to Best Practice”


Seiche A high value of seiche (100-150mm) was observed in Dublin and Wexford Bays, and it was a recommendation of the modeling that allowances are made for this, and an allowance for a seiche of 50mm made along the rest of the coast. Climate Change The analysis under the ICPSS includes current conditions, and the provision of the MRFS allowances for climate change in relation to mean sea level rise. Outputs from ICPSS to be provided to the CFRAMS Consultant Water Levels Water levels, for events with exceedence probabilities of 50%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 2%, 1%, 0.5%, and 0.1%, will be provided to the Consultant. These water levels are provided at points typically 500 to 1000m offshore, and 3000 to 5000m apart. Water levels within estuaries or within areas of fluvial influence will not be provided, with the exception of the Shannon Estuary for which such information shall be provided. It should also be noted that peak levels will be provided, but that levels for tidal curves will not be provided. Flood Mapping Coastal flood maps were produced by straight line projection of sea levels inland and interrogation against a 10m LiDAR grid. Flood outlines were produced for events with exceedence probabilities of 50%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 2%, 1%, 0.5%, and 0.1%. These will be provided to the Consultant, but shall NOT be used for the purposes of meeting the flood mapping requirements as set out under of Section 7.


(Blank Page)

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F F1 May 2010

APPENDIX F – ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL FUTURE SCENARIOS

F1. INTRODUCTION F1.1. Background It is widely predicted that the climate in Ireland will change in the future, leading to increases in sea level, storm event magnitude and frequency, and rainfall depths, intensities and patterns. These impacts, along with others due to land use changes such as urbanisation and deforestation, are likely to have significant detrimental implications for the degree of flood hazard, and hence flood risk, in Ireland. The degree of these impacts over time are, however, subject to significant uncertainty. To address this challenge, the OPW, as lead agency for flood risk management in Ireland, has adopted an approach in relation to assessing and providing for the potential impacts of climate change for the Flood Risk Management Programme. This approach, which is aligned with the objectives of the overall Government policy on flood risk management, is aimed at the effective and efficient provision for the potential impacts of climate change in the management of existing, and particularly potential future, flood risks. The approach requires that the possible impacts of climate change, and the associated uncertainty in projections, shall be considered at all stages of activity under the national Flood Risk Management Programme, and the development, design and implementation of all policies, strategies, plans and measures for, or related to, flood risk management must be sustainable and should adopt an adaptive or, where appropriate, an assumptive approach with respect to such impacts. The approach adopted by the OPW is to be applied by the Consultant in undertaking this Project. This Appendix sets out the adopted approach, and how the Consultant shall assess and provide for the possible impacts of climate change within the context of this Project. F1.2. Summary of Practical Implementation of Approach F1.2.1 Flood Hazard and Risk Assessment For flood hazard and risk assessment, the Sensitivity-Based Approach (See Section F1.3) should be applied, which requires the assessment of flood hazard and risk under future, as well as existing, scenarios. F1.2.2. Development and Assessment of Strategies, Plans and Measures For the development and assessment of flood risk management options (and hence measures) for a specific area of risk under consideration, the Sensitivity-Based Approach should also be applied, as this provides the necessary flexibility in determining the most appropriate approach for the design and future implementation of strategies, plans and measures, given local circumstances and context. The application of this approach requires that the consideration of the potential impacts of climate change should be used to inform the choice of flood risk management options and measures and the overall strategy and climate change policy approach for the area under consideration, and would form one of the criteria against which options would be assessed. F1.2.3. Design and Implementation of Strategies, Plans and Measures For the design and implementation of flood risk strategies, plans and measures, the preferred approach is the Adaptive Approach (see Section F1.3), whereby provision is made in the development, design and implementation of strategies, plans and measures for adaptation or enhancement in the future as changes occur (or reliable evidence builds) in an acceptable, technically-feasible and cost-efficient manner.


It is however recognised that adoption of this approach will not be acceptable, appropriate or the most cost-effective for all measures in all circumstances, and that consideration should be given to the specific context in which a measure is being considered. Where such instances arise, alternative approaches to the Adaptive Approach may, if robustly justified, be adopted on a case-by-case basis, with preference typically being given to the Assumptive Approach (See Section F1.3) over No Physical Provision (See Section F1.3); the later of which should only be adopted where both the Adaptive and Assumptive Approaches are not viable or represent a significant increase in costs or detrimental impacts. F1.3. Definition of the Approaches A brief description of the approaches to the potential impacts of climate change, as referred to above, is outlined below. F1.3.1. Assumptive Approach This approach assumes that a certain degree of impacts arising from climate change will occur. Flood hazards and risks are assessed, and flood risk management strategies and measures are developed, designed and implemented, assuming that this degree of change will happen with provision for this change in all assessments and designs, by including relevant allowances for impacts. F1.3.2. Adaptive Approach Under this approach, flood risk management strategies, plans and measures are developed, designed and implemented according to existing flood hazard (current conditions), but with provision explicitly included for amending or enhancing the strategy, plan or measure for likely future hazards (future scenarios) in an acceptable, technically feasible and cost-efficient manner. This approach relates only to design and implementation. F1.3.3. Sensitivity-Based Approach Under this approach, the potential impacts of climate change (based on future scenarios) are assessed in terms of impacts in increased hazard and risk, with these impacts guiding the decision in hand. This approach is not applicable to the design and implementation of measures as it is a basis for guiding decisions of design, rather than being a design provision (e.g., inclusion of allowance or not, or the incorporation of adaptability) itself. It will however inform which of the other approaches would be appropriate for the design and implementation of measures. F1.3.4. No Physical Provision This approach, which is applicable only to the design and implementation of flood risk management measures, entails making no physical provision for the potential impacts of climate change during the design and implementation, i.e., no additional height, conveyance, etc., and no provision for adaptation. F1.4. Qualitative and Quantitative Assessments The various requirements of this Project involve varying levels of detail of analysis. The potential impacts of climate change therefore similarly require different levels of detail of consideration. The levels of detail are classified as ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’, where: − Qualitative assessments are based on professional judgement, making use of

available or readily derivable information (including quantitative information), to form an indicative assessment of the potential impacts of climate change, typically to guide initial or outline decision-making, and,

− Quantitative assessments are based on numerical analysis to quantify changes or

potential impacts of climate change on flood flows, levels, extents and risks, defence levels, costs, etc. as appropriate to the activity in question.


F1.5. Future Scenarios and Allowances F1.5.1. Future Scenarios Both flood hazard and risk assessments and the assessment of flood risk management strategies, plans and measures require the application of the sensitivity-based approach. The Adaptive Approach shall be applied in the design and implementation of strategies, plans and measures, except where local circumstances justify the adoption of the Assumptive Approach, or, as a last resort, the No Physical Provision Approach. Each of these stages therefore requires analysis and / or design based on one or more future scenarios. To provide an adequate understanding of the potential implications of the predicted impacts of climate change and other future changes, with due consideration of the significant uncertainty associated with such predictions, the Consultant shall assess a minimum of two potential future scenarios. The two minimum scenarios are referred to as the Mid-Range Future Scenario (MRFS) and the High-End Future Scenario (HEFS), as described below: − The former (the MRFS) is intended to represent a ‘likely’ future scenario, based on the

wide range of predictions available and with the allowances for increased flow, sea level rise, etc. within the bounds of widely accepted projections.

− The latter (the HEFS) is intended to represent a more extreme potential future

scenario, but one that is nonetheless not significantly outside the range of accepted predictions available, and with the allowances for increased flow, sea level rise, etc. at the upper the bounds of widely accepted projections.

In certain circumstances, where very significant risk exists or exceptional investment is being considered, the use of further scenarios, particularly extreme scenarios, should be considered. F1.5.2 Allowances for Future Scenarios The allowances, in terms of numerical values for future changes to 2100 in relevant phenomena or characteristics, which should typically be used for each of these scenarios, are set out in Table F1 below. Table F1: Allowances for Future Scenarios (Time horizon – 100 years)

MRFS HEFS

Extreme Rainfall Depths + 20% + 30%

Flood Flows + 20% + 30%

Mean Sea Level Rise + 500 mm + 1000 mm

Land Movement - 0.5 mm / year1 - 0.5 mm / year1

Urbanisation No General Allowance – Review on Case-by-Case

Basis

No General Allowance – Review on Case-by-Case

Basis

Forestation - 1/6 Tp2 - 1/3 Tp2

+ 10% SPR3 Note 1: Applicable to the southern part of the country only (Dublin – Galway and south of this)

Note 2: Reduce the time to peak (Tp) by a third: This allows for potential accelerated runoff that may arise as a result of drainage of afforested land


Note 3: Add 10% to the Standard Percentage Runoff (SPR) rate: This allows for increased runoff rates that may arise following felling of forestry. The following should however be noted:

− The allowances are based on current knowledge and science, and will be frequently reviewed and may be updated, as further research is undertaken

− The allowances are national, and some regionalisation or provision for the nature of the relevant catchment may be suitable where adequate knowledge or analysis would support this (although this would need to be robustly justified where the allowances are less than the assumed national allowances)

F2. APPLICATION OF APPROACH The Consultant shall apply the approach outlined above to the relevant aspects of the Project as set out below. F2.1. Hydrological Analysis (Section 6) The Consultant shall undertake a quantitative assessment of the potential impacts of climate change with respect to the estimation of design floods (Section 6.5 of main text), based on both the MRFS and HEFS, to support the required Sensitivity-Based Approach to flood hazard and risk assessment. The Consultant shall derive design flood estimates for the full range of probabilities (see Section 6.5.1 of main text) for the MRFS and for the HEFS. F2.2 Hydraulic Analysis (Section 7) The Consultant shall generate design flood levels, using a quantitative assessment, based on hydraulic modelling (including coastal) for the full range of probabilities (see Section 6.5.1 of main text) for the MRFS, and for the 10%, 1% and 0.1% AEP design flood events for the HEFS. The Consultant shall prepare flood hazard maps in accordance with the requirements set out in Section 7.5 of the main text. F2.3 Flood Risk Assessment (Section 8) The Consultant shall assess flood risk, using a quantitative assessment, for the full range of probabilities (see Section 6.5.1 of main text) for the MRFS. The Consultant shall assess flood risk for the HEFS, using a quantitative assessment, but based only on the 10%, 1% and 0.1% AEP design flood events with interpolated damages for the remaining probabilities scaled from the risks calculated for the MRFS. The Consultant shall prepare flood risk maps (as set out in Section 8.3 of main text) for the MRFS, but not for the HEFS. F2.4. Development of Flood Risk Management Options The Consultant shall apply a qualitative assessment of the potential impacts of future scenarios, based on both the MRFS and HEFS, for the analysis of strategic sustainable urban drainage systems (Section 11.3.2 of the main text). The Consultant shall apply a qualitative assessment of the potential impacts of future scenarios, based on both the MRFS and HEFS, for the screening of possible measures (Section 11.4 of the main text). This assessment should focus on identifying measures that may become significantly more effective at managing potential future risk, and which therefore merit further consideration, even if unlikely to be viable under existing conditions.


The Consultant shall apply a qualitative assessment of the potential impacts of future scenarios, based on both the MRFS and HEFS, for the development of potential options (Section 11.5 of the main text). This assessment should focus on identifying the management of flood risk over the long-term, taking into consideration the possible increase of flood risk with time and the appropriate responses to such increases, with a view to developing ‘no regrets’ options (i.e., options that will permit future adaptation or the introduction of additional measures effectively and efficiently, if such a need arises). This assessment should inform the design approach that should be taken with respect to each of the options being considered (namely the Adaptive Approach, the Assumptive Approach or No Physical Provision – See Section 1.3 of this Appendix). The Consultant shall apply qualitative and quantitative assessments of the potential impacts of future scenarios, based on both the MRFS and HEFS, for different aspects of the appraisal of potential options and the selection of preferred options (Sections 11.6 and 11.7 of the main text). This assessment shall include:

− A qualitative assessment of adaptability during initial appraisal of all potentially viable options, with consideration of:

• the quantitative assessments of potential future hazard and risk, and,

• the inherent adaptability (and indicative associated costs) of the type of option being considered.

− A quantitative assessment of the potentially preferred option(s), based on hydraulic modelling and hazard and risk mapping for both the MRFS and HEFS for structural options that may significantly impact on the hydraulics of the area, to:

• inform the outline design process of these options,

• assess the potential benefits of the options with respect to the flood risk management objectives under future scenarios,

• estimate the costs of the options (based on the relevant design approach),

• ensure that the option provides for a ‘no regrets’ solution, and,

• inform / confirm the most appropriate design approach. The Consultant shall apply a qualitative assessment of the potential impacts of future scenarios, based on both the MRFS and HEFS, for the consideration of spatial planning impacts of development (Section 11.9 of the main text). This assessment should focus on identifying, at a broad level, the appropriate spatial planning and development management provision for future scenarios, based on the quantitative flood hazard estimates and maps previously generated, noting the precautionary approach advocated in the Guidelines on the Planning System and Flood Risk Management. F2.5 Flood Risk Management Plan The Consultant shall include in the FRMP the issues raised in relation to the potential impacts of climate change, and other future changes, how these changes impact on flood hazard and risk, and how these changes have been taken into account in the development, design and selection of the preferred options. The FRMP should note foreseen longer-term future actions, measures and works that may be required should foreseen degrees of change occur, or that might be necessary to provide information on the degree and / or rate of change (such as a monitoring programme or network).


(Blank Page)

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F G1 May 2010

APPENDIX G –ASSESSMENT OF DEGREES OF CONFIDENCE

The Consultant shall assess the uncertainty in the estimated flood flows and levels, as set out in Section 7.5.3. Based on the uncertainty in flood levels, the Consultant shall estimate the degree of confidence in the flood extent (referred to as ‘shoreline uncertainty’), using the method set out below8. G1. Method for Determining Degrees of Confidence in Flood Extents The shoreline location uncertainty is a function of water level uncertainty and floodplain topography in the region of the shoreline. Information is required on the level uncertainty and sensitivity of the shoreline to changes in water level. Flood hazard mapping studies will generally produce flood maps at a number of return periods, and these can be used to estimate shoreline uncertainty as shown in Figure G1, using the 100 and 1000 year shorelines as an example. The shoreline uncertainty is given by:

1001000

1001000

−

−

∆

∆∆=∆

h

hxx

yUncertaint

yUncertaint [1]

Where: − yUncertaintx∆ is the flood outline location uncertainty,

− 1001000−∆x is the distance between the 1000 and 100 year flood outlines,

− yUncertainth∆ is the uncertainty in model predicted water levels (e.g. derived from the

scoring method), and, − 1001000−

∆h is the difference in water levels between the 1000 and 100 year model

predictions.

Figure G1: Distance to nearest 1000 year shoreline point may not be representative of true distance between shorelines (left). Distance to the nearest 100 year shoreline point from the 1000 year shoreline is more representative (right).

8 Uncertainty Mapping Report, Halcrow (on behalf of OPW), 2008

100

yr

1000 yr

100

yr

1000 yr

Nearest point

Nearest point Take maximum

of these distances

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F G2 May 2010

The shoreline uncertainty is therefore linearly interpolated or extrapolated from the difference between the 100 and 1000 year shorelines. ∆h1000-100 can be found for each shoreline point (i.e. each vertex of the polyline defining the shoreline) from raster data of predicted water levels, and if these data are unavailable (it is often only a by-product of the flood mapping process, and therefore may not be kept from previous studies), ∆h1000-100 can be calculated from the flood extent and a DTM. ∆x1000-100 is defined by measuring the difference between each 100 year shoreline point and its nearest 1000 year counterpart. This may give an unrepresentative value for the distance, for example where the distances between the shorelines vary significantly (G1). An alternative measure is therefore also defined by measuring the minimum distance between each 1000 year shoreline point and the 100 year shoreline. The maximum of these values is taken as the distance between the shorelines, and this measure has been found to represent well the sensitivity in shoreline locations. By using this method, the uncertainty in flood outline location can be estimated based not only on water level uncertainties, but on the sensitivity of flood outlines to these water levels. Thus sensitive areas (i.e. of low lateral floodplain slope) will be assigned a higher uncertainty, and areas where the flood outline is well constrained by steep bounding slopes will be assigned a lower sensitivity, even if these two areas have the same uncertainty in water levels. The two main sources of uncertainty in flood outline location, water level uncertainty and the sensitivity of the shoreline location to changes in water level, are thus represented in this simple model. This method has been implemented in a simple command-line driven tool (UMap) operating with ASCII raster grids and ESRI shapefiles. The shoreline location uncertainty results are smoothed and then discretised into three classes, to allow them to be displayed clearly in GIS software. A number of polylines are output in a single shapefile, each representing a length of shoreline of the same uncertainty class, with the uncertainty given in the attribute table.

Figure G2: Shoreline uncertainty derived from 100 year and 1000 year flood outlines

The method is also applicable to shoreline mapping derived from sources other than 1D models (such as 2D models, tidal flood extents created by GIS etc.).

1000 year level

100 year level

Shoreline shows little

sensitivity to water level ∆x1000-100

Shoreline is

highly sensitive

to water level

100 year

level+Uncertainty

∆xUncertainty ∆h1000-100 ∆hUncertainty

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F H1 May 2010

APPENDIX H – PROVISIONAL MAP FORMATS


(Blank Page)


Figure H1: Sample Flood Extent Map


Figure H2: Sample Flood Depth Map


Figure H3: Sample Flood Velocity Map


Figure H4: Sample Flood Hazard Function Map

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F I1 May 2010

APPENDIX I – CALCULATION OF ECONOMIC DAMAGES

I1. FLOOD DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

The economic flood damages for a location or area shall be calculated in the form of an Annual Average Damage, based on a range of probabilities, as described in Section 6.5.1 of the Specification, and a resulting expected Net Present Value (NPV) of damages. I1.1 Flood Damage Estimation Methodology

The Consultant shall estimate the flood damages using the methodologies outlined and values given in ‘The Benefits of Flood and Coastal Defence: A Manual of Assessment Techniques’ (Flood Hazard research Centre, Middlesex University, U.K., 2005), which is often referred to as ‘the Multi-Coloured Manual’, or, subject to approval by the OPW, any update thereof. Further guidance is provided in ‘A Review of Cost Benefit Procedures for Flood Relief Schemes’ (Goodbody Economic Consultants for OPW, 2001), although it should be noted that this preceded the publication of FHRC, and as such not all aspects are relevant. In using these documents and methodologies, the following guidance shall be followed: − Prices given in FHRC shall be converted to Euro and Irish prices using the most recent

Purchasing Price Parity figures available.

− Prices shall be brought up to current year prices through application of the appropriate inflation rates.

− In determining residential property flood damages, properties shall be classified according to type, but not age, social class or size.

− In determining non-residential property flood damages, properties shall be classified according to type and size (Note as that vector maps are not available and will not be purchased, the Consultant shall be required to extract property size by an appropriate method, such as digitisation from raster maps).

− Intangible flood damages (if included under the economic analysis), shall be set equal to the total residential property damage and the damage to small, individually or family-owned businesses where the intangible impact would be personal and similar in nature to that which might be experienced were the property residential. The inclusion of intangible damages for non-residential properties (if included) shall be justified on a property-by-property basis, and may not be generally applied across an entire sector or sub-sector.

− The potential increase in values of land should a scheme be completed (due, for example, to development potential), and reduction of capital value of a property due to an existing flood risk may not be included as damages or potential scheme benefits (except for the latter in the case that the estimated damages exceed the capital value of the property, whereby the capital value of the property shall be used instead of the calculated fabric damages described in the Multi-Coloured Manual).

− Where the depth-damage data provided in FHRC provides unusual or extreme results, the Consultant should refer to the OPW for guidance.

I2. ESTIMATION OF OPTION COSTS

I2.1 Estimation of Option Costs

In estimating the costs of implementing the possible flood risk management measures and options, including construction / implementation costs and other costs, the Consultants should follow the methodology as defined below.


I2.2 Construction / Implementation Costs

The estimation of construction costs shall be based on typical unit and item costs (e.g., cost per metre length of reinforced concrete wall of given height, or cost of a pump of certain capacity). The typical unit costs shall be based on current standard costs in Ireland as appropriate to the scale, nature and location of the works. The basis upon which the unit and item cost rates have been derived shall be explained in the relevant report(s). The OPW shall provide information on typical unit costs for common flood risk management methods. I2.3 Other Costs

The implementation costs of a flood risk management measure or option shall also include the following: − Provision for unmeasured items (Typically 20% of Gross Capital Construction Costs)

− Provision for optimism bias (At a percentage rate of Gross Capital Costs plus provision for unmeasured items to be agreed with the Steering Group)

− Maintenance costs (Discounted NPV of maintenance costs throughout project lifespan, i.e., 50 years)

− Detailed Design (Design Fees)

− Construction Supervision

− Allowances for Archaeological and/or Environmental monitoring / exploration

− Cost of Land Acquisition / Compensation

− Allowance for Art (Refer to the OPW for current guidelines) Note that VAT and the cost of OPW staff time shall not be included in potential scheme costs for the purposes of cost – benefit analysis. I3. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

I3.1 Benefit Assessment

The Consultant shall estimate the potential benefits of the possible options on the basis of flood damages avoided should that scheme option be implemented (see main document and Section 1 above). Potential benefits shall be calculated on the basis of damages avoided up to and including the 0.1% AEP flood event. The current conditions shall be taken for the purposes of the determining the benefit-cost ratio of the option. The benefit-cost ratio shall however also be calculated for the MRFS and the HEFS for the purpose of assessing the potential impacts of climate and other change in the development and selection of measures (Section 11), and the temporal coherence of the measures and FRMP. Amenity, environmental and similar potential indirect scheme benefits shall not be included in the economic benefit analysis. These items are considered under other criteria during the selection process of the preferred scheme option. I3.2 Benefit-Cost Ratio

The Consultant shall estimate the benefit-cost ratio for each measure or option based on the estimated scheme options costs and potential benefits that would accrue, should the scheme be implemented. The following should be noted in undertaking the analysis:


− The Project Lifespan (time horizon) is 50 years.

− The discount rate for calculating NPVs is 4% (this may vary by the time the cost-benefit analysis is undertaken, and shall be confirmed by the Consultant with the OPW at the relevant time).

− Sensitivity tests shall also be undertaken for information purposes, including

• The use of increased / decreased discount rates

• Increased / decreased construction costs of 50%

− The ‘Do Nothing’ and ‘Do Minimum’ options shall be considered as part of the cost – benefit analysis.

The preferred scheme option(s) should be economically viable, i.e., have a benefit-cost ratio greater than one (1). The Consultant (in consultation with the OPW) shall also consider the total cost of the scheme in relation to the opportunity cost to the National Flood Relief Programme and appropriate prioritisation. Less expensive options of similar benefit-cost ratio shall generally be preferred to those that are more expensive.


(Blank Page)

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F J1 May 2010

APPENDIX J – PROVISIONAL GENERIC FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

CRITERIA OBJECTIVE SUB-OBJECTIVE INDICATOR

a Ensure flood risk management options are operationally robust

i) Ensure flood risk management options are operationally robust

Level of operational risk of option i.e. mechanical or human intervention required (e.g. lengths/numbers of demountables, pumps etc

b Minimise health and safety risk of flood risk management options

i) Reduce and where possible eliminate health and safety risks associated with the construction and operation of flood risk management options

Health and safety risk to construction workers of Flood Risk Management (FRM) options

i) Ensure flood risk management options are adaptable to future flood risk

Level of adaptability of FRM option to future flood

1 Technical

c Ensure flood risk managed effectively and sustainably into the future

ii) Ensure future maintenance requirements are manageable and sustainable

Level of future maintenance requirements

a Minimise economic risk

i) Minimise economic risk Annual Average Damage (€)

b Minimise risk to transport infrastructure

ii) Minimise risk to transport infrastructure

Number of transport routes (road, rail, navigation) at risk from flooding (0.1% AEP Event)

c Minimise risk to utility infrastructure

iii) Minimise risk to utility infrastructure

Number of utility infrastructure assets (power stations, WWTWs, WTWs, telecom exchanges etc) at risk from flooding (0.1% AEP Event)

2 Economic

d Manage Risk to Agricultural Land

i) Manage Risk to Agricultural Land

Area of agricultural land at risk from flooding (based on CORINE data or other)

i) Minimise risk to human health and life of residents

Number of residential properties at risk from flooding (0.1% AEP Event)

a Minimise risk to human health and life

ii) Minimise risk to high vulnerability properties

Number of high vulnerability properties at risk from flooding (0.1% AEP Event)

i) Minimise risk to social infrastructure

Number of high-value social infrastructural assets at risk from flooding (0.1% AEP Event)

b Minimise risk to community

ii) Minimise risk to local employment

Number of non-residential properties at risk from flooding (0.1% AEP Event)

3 Social

c Minimise risk to social amenity

i) Minimise risk to flood-sensitive social amenity sites

Number of amenity sites at risk from flooding (0.1% AEP Event)

4 Environmental a Support the objectives of the WFD

i) Prevent deterioration, and where possible raise, ecological status / potential of water-bodies

Ecological status of water-bodies

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F J2 May 2010

ii) Prevent deterioration, and where possible raise, chemical status / potential of water-bodies

Chemical status of water-bodies

b Minimise the risk of environmental pollution

i) Minimise risk to potential sources of pollution

Number of potential pollution sources at risk from flooding (including those licensed under Directives 96/61/EC and 92/271/EC)

i) Avoid damage to, and where possible enhance, internationally and nationally designated sites of nature conservation importance

Reported conservation status of designated sites relating to flood risk management

ii) Avoid damage to or loss of habitats supporting legally protected species and other known species of conservation concern and where possible enhance

Presence and/or extent of suitable habitat supporting legally protected species and other known species of conservation concern (‘target species’)

c Avoid damage to, and where possible enhance, the flora and fauna of the catchment

iii) Avoid damage to or loss of existing riverine, wetland and coastal habitats (including those for Freshwater Pearl Mussel), and where possible create new habitat, to maintain a naturally functioning system

Area of riverine, wetland and coastal habitat protected or created / restored as a result of flood risk management measures

i) Maintain existing, and where possible create new, habitat supporting fisheries and maintain upstream access

Area of suitable habitat supporting salmonid and other fisheries and number of upstream barriers

d Avoid damage to, and where possible enhance, fisheries within the catchment

iii) Ensure no adverse effects on commercial shellfisheries

Classification of shellfish waters

i) Protect, and where possible enhance, landscape character within the catchment

Compliance with landscape character objectives relevant to flood risk management measures

e Protect, and where possible enhance, landscape character and visual amenity within the catchment ii) Protect, and where possible

enhance, the character of designated Landscape Protection Zones within the catchment

Character of lengths of waterway corridor qualifying as Landscape Protection Zones within urban areas relating to flood risk management measures

f Avoid damage to or loss of features of cultural heritage importance, their setting and heritage value within the catchment

i) Avoid damage to or loss of known buildings, structures, archaeological features and areas of cultural heritage importance, including their setting and heritage value, within the catchment

Numbers and types of internationally, nationally and locally designated areas and structures at risk from flooding

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F K1 May 2010

APPENDIX K – PROCESS FOR STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL AND APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

K1. GUIDELINES AND LEGISLATION The processes set out below are those foreseen for undertaking the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Appropriate Assessment (AA) for this Contract, but it should be noted that the over-riding requirement under the contract is compliance with the SEA and Habitats Directive Regulations (Section 1.1 and 1.2). The processes shall also comply with the specification hereunder and broadly adhere to the EPA and DoEHLG Guidelines (Section 1.3 and Section 1.4). The findings of the SEA and AA processes should be compiled into separate reports. K1.1. SEA Regulations The Consultant shall undertake the SEA to comply with the European Communities (Environmental Assessment of Certain Plans and Programmes) Regulations 2004 (S.I. No. 435 of 2004, hereafter referred to as the ‘SEA Regulations’). Appropriate Assessment Regulations The Consultant shall undertake the AA to comply with the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997 (S.I. No. 94 of 1997), European Communities (Natural Habitats)(Amendment) Regulations, 1998 (S.I. No. 233 of 1998), and European Communities (Natural Habitats)(Amendment) Regulations, 2005 (S.I. No. 378 of 2005). EPA Publication Within this specification, reference is made to a number of Tasks and Outputs that are identified in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publication entitled Development of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Methodologies for Plans and Programmes in Ireland – Synthesis Report, 2003 (hereafter referred to as the “EPA Publication”). This specification shall be read in conjunction with the EPA Publication. DoEHLG Guidelines

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Authorities (DoEHLG) have issued guidelines for undertaking SEAs entitled “Implementation of SEA Directive (2001/42/EC): Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment, Guidelines for Regional Authorities and Planning Authorities”, 2004 (hereafter referred to as the ‘DoEHLG SEA Guidelines’) and these guidelines shall be followed where relevant to the Contract.

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Authorities (DoEHLG) have also issued guidelines for undertaking AAs entitled “Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland Guidance for Planning Authorities”, 2009 (hereafter referred to as the ‘DoEHLG AA Guidelines’) The DoEHLG AA Guidelines shall be read in conjunction with this specification K2. SEA PROCESS K2.1. PHASE I (SCREENING ASSESSMENT) The OPW have completed a Screening Assessment for this project. A screening assessment (Tasks 1.1, 1.2 and Output 1 as referenced in the EPA Publication) is therefore not required as part of this contract. The OPW shall provide a copy of the screening assessment to the Consultant.


K2.2. PHASE II (CONSTRAINTS AND SEA SCOPING STUDY) Constraint Study The Consultant shall undertake a Constraint Study that consists of desk studies and preliminary site visits by specialists in the relevant disciplines to identify issues that might be relevant to, or impose constraints on, the design and/or implementation of any flood risk management measure. Tasks for Constraint Study The Constraint Study will include the completion of the following tasks (as referenced in the EPA Publication) that will build towards the completion of the SEA Scoping Report (refer to EPA Publication Output 2):

− Task 2.1: Determine the key elements of the plan to be assessed.

− Task 2.2: Determine the environmental issues to be assessed.

− Task 2.3: Collect and report on the relevant international, national and local plans, objectives and environmental standards (existing or emerging) that may influence or impact on the plan.

− Task 2.4: Develop draft environmental objectives, indicators and targets to allow the evaluation of impacts based upon the findings of Tasks 2.2 and 2.3.

− Task 2.5: Identify, through liaison with the Steering Group, reasonable alternative means of achieving the strategic goals of the plan.

− Task 3.1: Establish the baseline environment:

The Consultant shall also begin work on establishing the baseline environment. This task may continue into the subsequent phases with information received from public and stakeholder consultation at scoping stage being used to inform and update the understanding of the baseline environment in Phases III and Phases IV.

Key Environmental Issues The Consultant shall identify the key environmental issues associated with flooding and flood risk within the study area. These issues will include those set out in Schedule 2, Item (f) of the Regulations, but shall also include:

− Fisheries and angling,

− Amenity, tourism and recreational use,

− Geology, soils and land use,

− Morphology, fluvial and coastal processes,

− Flood-related social or socio-economic* issues. * The consultant will not be required to undertake any cost benefit analysis or flood damage analysis as part of the SEA process) In relation to flora and fauna, habitats and fisheries, the Consultant shall identify the key species, the location of designated and / or other important habitats, and the aspects of the species or habitat that could potentially be impacted upon, or constrain, the design and/or implementation of any measure. The archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage aspects of the study shall identify known sites and features and areas of archaeological and/or heritage importance. For known sites, the study shall identify a zone of avoidance around the site, if relevant.


The landscape study shall identify the significant features in the landscape, which determine its character with particular reference to the objectives of the relevant Local Authority Development Plan. In assessing environmental issues, and particularly in identifying environmental objectives, the Consultant shall have regard to all relevant European, national, regional and local legislation and plans, notably the Water Framework Directive (and River Basin Management Plan for the relevant River Basin District as identified in the tender documentation for the Specific Tender Stage (Stage II)), the Birds, Habitats and Biodiversity Directives, County Development Plans and Local Areas Plans. Field Surveys The Consultant shall not be expected to undertake detailed ecological field surveys under this stage. Consultation The Consultant shall organise public and stakeholder consultation as outlined in Appendix L. Outputs from Phase II The output from Phase II (Constraints and SEA Scoping Study) will be a Scoping Report (in hardcopy and digital format), including graphics. The standard and content of this report will follow that defined in the EPA Publication under Output 2 (Scoping Report), including the identification of environmental objectives (and associated indicators and targets), but shall (also) specifically identify environmental constraints and opportunities relevant to the development of possible flood risk management objectives, options and measures. Accompanying the SEA Scoping Report, the Consultant shall provide GIS (MapInfo) files / layers of the various environmental constraints and opportunities, with associated attribute / meta-data, such as type of area, classification, brief description of impact / constraint / opportunity, community populations, etc. The Scoping Report shall be produced in draft format and circulated to all key stakeholders for comments and observations. A period of four weeks shall be allowed for comments and observations. The finalised Scoping Report shall be sent to all key stakeholders in digital and hardcopy formats. A summary leaflet (1,000 copies) shall also be produced for public distribution through the Local Authority offices and public libraries. The contents and format of the summary leaflet shall be agreed with the Steering Group in advance of printing. K2.3. PHASE III (OPTION APPRAISAL STUDY) Scope Once the environmental constraints and the scope of the SEA have been identified (Phase II), the OPW will proceed to develop viable flood risk management measures and strategies (Section 2.8 of the Specification). Under Phase III of the SEA, the Consultant shall assess and report upon the possible environmental benefits and impacts associated with each measure and option (including the ‘Do Nothing’ option), and suggest mitigation measures, where feasible. The benefits and impacts of the options assessed shall be described in terms of quality, significance, duration and type. Impact mitigation measures and environmental enhancement measures, which could be incorporated into the viable options, should also be suggested, along with a description of any residual impacts.


The Consultant shall assess and rank the options (with and without impact mitigation measures) against the environment objectives, indicators and targets identified at the Scoping Stage. It should be noted that the options appraisal study is not a series of detailed EIS/EIAs, and that the level of detail of the study shall be appropriate to that of the objectives of the Contract. The Option Appraisal Study will also include the completion of the following tasks (as referenced in the EPA Publication) that will build towards the completion of the SEA-Environmental Report and the Information on Decision (SEA Statement, refer to Stage II and Outputs 3 and 4 of EPA Publication):

− Task 3.2: Predicting the impact of the plan.

− Task 3.3: Evaluating the significance of impacts.

− Task 3.4: Mitigate significant impacts and prepare monitoring programme. The monitoring programme shall include details on the following: the frequency and responsibilities for reporting on the monitoring programme; the data to be used for monitoring; the responsibility for the collection of data; the inclusion of methods for monitoring of positive, negative and cumulative impacts; and responsibility for determining the need for and the subsequent implementation of any necessary remedial action should negative impacts be detected (See also Section 3.2.4 AA Monitoring). The Consultant shall not be required to carry out any of the monitoring proposed by the programme as part of this Contract. Output The output from Phase III (Option Appraisal Study) will be an Option Appraisal Report, which will describe the likely environmental benefits and impacts of each flood risk management option, relevant impact mitigation measures, and the performance of the options against the environmental objectives. The report shall be provided in digital and hardcopy formats. The findings of the study shall be presented to the OPW and the Steering Group at a meeting. K2.4. PHASE IV (SEA REPORT) Scope In parallel and close co-ordination with the identification and development of the preferred flood risk management strategy and the preparation of the (each?) Flood Risk Management Plan, the Consultant shall prepare a SEA Report covering the preferred options and Plan. The preparation of the SEA Report shall include the completion of the following tasks, as referenced in the EPA Publication:

− Task 3.1: Completed as part of the Constraint Study (Stage I).

− Task 3.2: Completed as part of the Option Appraisal Study (Stage II).



− Task 3.5: Justification for selected plan alternative.

− Task 3.6: Quality review of Draft SEA Report.

− Task 4.1: Review comments for applicability to SEA or plan.


Consultation The Consultant shall organise public and stakeholder consultation as outlined in Appendix L. Output The output from Phase IV (SEA) will be an SEA Environmental Report (in hardcopy and digital format), including graphics. The standard and content of this report is defined in the EPA Publication under Output 3 (SEA Report), in accordance with the requirements of the SEA Regulations. A Non-Technical Summary shall also be produced that will meet the statutory obligations, as required by the SEA Regulations. However, it will also be an important source of information on the preferred options for the general public and shall therefore be prepared with particular attention given to ease of use, clarity, and high quality graphics. Production of the SEA Report The Consultant shall allow for producing 20 hardcopies of the SEA Report and 100 hardcopies of the Non-Technical Summary, bound separately. 1 digital copy of each shall be provided (on CD or DVD). Note that the Non-Technical Summary may be included as part of the SEA Report, but must also be produced as a stand-alone document. K2.5. PHASE V – UPDATE OF SEA Following submissions on the draft Catchment Flood Risk Management Plan (CFRMP) it may be necessary to undertake revisions to the SEA. The consultant shall be responsible for identifying and undertaking any such revisions, and complete the following task, as referenced in the EPA Publication:

− Task 4.2: Undertake “fast-track” SEA on significant changes to the plan. Output The output from Phase V (SEA) will be an SEA Statement (in hardcopy and digital format). The standard and content of this statement is defined in the EPA Publication under Output 4 (SEA Statement / Information on Decision). Production of the SEA Statement The Consultant shall allow for producing 100 hardcopies of the SEA Statement / Information on Decision and 1 digital copy shall be provided (on CD or DVD). K3. APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT PROCESS K3.1. SCREENING FOR APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT Scope In parallel with the selection of the preferred options under the option appraisal study the Consultant shall carry out a screening assessment covering the preferred flood risk management options and flood risk management strategy to determine whether a detailed AA is necessary. As part of the screening for appropriate assessment the following steps as outlined in the DoEHLG AA Guidelines shall be carried out:

- Description of the plan or project, and local site or plan area characteristics.

- Identification of relevant Natura 2000 sites, and compilation of information on their qualifying interests and conservation objectives.

- Assessment of the likely effects – direct, indirect and cumulative - undertaken on the basis of available information as a desk study or field survey or primary research as necessary.


Output The output from the Screening for Appropriate Assessment is a Screening Statement, (in hardcopy and digital format), including graphics which should give details on all Natura 2000 sites potentially affected by the Flood Risk Management Plan including the qualifying interests and conservation objectives of the sites. The Statement should also indicate the Natura 2000 sites (if any) whose conservation objectives may be affected by the Flood Risk Management Plan and should detail the methodologies applied in reaching these conclusions. Consultation Consultation with staff from the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) should be carried out early on during the screening assessment to identify detailed information such as site conservations objectives and management plans. K3.2 APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT Scope Subject to the results of the Screening for Appropriate Assessment the Consultant shall undertake a detailed AA, based on best scientific knowledge, to assess the impacts of the preferred flood risk management options and Plan on identified Natura 2000 sites. The AA should detail the methodologies applied in assessing impacts, in proposing mitigation measures and in reaching conclusions. Output Specifically the Consultant shall be required to carry out the following:

- Produce the Statement for AA (Natura Impact Statement), which deals with mitigation/alternatives/IROPI and compensatory measures, as necessary.

- Advise the OPW on the production of the AA Conclusion Statement. Consultation It is recommended that consultation with NPWS and DoEHLG takes place before finalising the process. Monitoring While there is no explicit requirement for the ongoing monitoring of the impact of the implementation of Plans on Natura 2000 sites under the Habitats Directive, the Consultant shall devise the SEA monitoring programme to allow for the assessment of the impact of the Flood Risk Management Plan on the identified Natura 2000 sites. K3.3. PRODUCTION OF THE STATEMENT FOR AA/NATURA IMPACT STATEMENT AND AA CONCLUSION STATEMENT The Consultant shall allow for producing 20 hardcopies of the Statement for AA/Natura Impact Statement and 1 digital copy (on CD or DVD). K3.4. UPDATE OF AA Following submissions on the draft CFRMP it may be necessary to undertake revisions to the AA. The consultant shall be responsible for identifying and undertaking any such revisions.

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F L1 May 2010

APPENDIX L – PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

L1. STAKEHOLDERS A number of statutory, non-statutory and local organisations and members of the general public have been identified as stakeholders in the development and implementation of the options for the Project and SEA. Listed below is a non-exhaustive list of possible stakeholders. The Consultant shall identify any further relevant stakeholders. 1.Environmental Authorities Environmental Protection Agency – Regional Inspectorate Department of Communications and Natural Resources – Coordination Unit Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government – Development Applications Unit 2. Primary Stakeholders

Office of Public Works Regional Authorities County Councils Town Councils 3. Secondary Stakeholders An Taisce Birdwatch Ireland Fisheries Boards Coastal Marine Resources Centre Coillte Teoranta (Forest Service) County Developments Boards Regional Fisheries Board River Basin District Authorities and Competent Authorities for Water Framework Directive Fáilte Ireland Geological Survey Ireland Heritage Council Iarnród Éireann Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA) Irish Farmers Association Landscape Alliance Ireland National Parks and Wildlife Service National Roads Authority Teagasc

L2. COMMUNICATIONS PLAN L2.1. Communications Plan The consultant shall, within two months of Commencement, develop a Communications Plan for the Project as a whole, including the SEA. This Plan shall identify:

(i) All relevant stakeholders / organisations and the relevant contact persons in each.

(ii) A programme for publicising the project and disseminating project outputs and information. This programme shall include use of local newspapers, local radio stations, the internet services of both the OPW and participating Local Authorities, local information opportunities and any other media or mechanisms as appropriate and necessary.


(iii) A procedure for Public Consultation, including Stakeholders Workshops, to encourage and facilitate feedback from, and engagement of, members of the public and relevant stakeholders.

(iv) Appropriate coordination mechanisms with the implementation of the Water Framework Directive

(v) A procedure for recording and acknowledging feedback from all members of the public and relevant stakeholders.

(vi) Programme for progress and steering group meetings.

(vii) Details of the internal project communications to ensure all members of the project team, Steering Group and Progress Group are kept updated and informed as appropriate.

The Consultant shall submit the Communications Plan to the Steering Group for review and approval. After approval, the Consultant shall implement, monitor and update the Plan throughout the duration of the Project. L2.2. Response to Public Enquiries Throughout the duration of the Project, the Consultant shall record and promptly respond to any enquiries, comments, feedback or other correspondence from members of the public or other stakeholders related to the Project. The Consultant shall be identified in relevant publicity material as the primary point of contact for the Project. L2.3. Project Presentations The Consultant shall make presentations on the Project, to stakeholder groups, professional seminars or conferences, public meetings, or other such events, as required throughout the duration of the Project (see Section 2.3.5). L2.4. Newsletters The Consultant shall, every four (4) months prepare a newsletter, aimed at non-technical stakeholders and members of the public that outlines activities undertaken during the preceding quarter, activities planned for the following quarter and other information relevant at the time of preparation. The newsletter shall be prepared in colour and to a high standard of presentation, and shall include relevant images. The Consultant shall issue a draft of each newsletter to the Steering Group for review, incorporate comments made re-issue to the Steering Group for approval and, once approved, print a total of two hundred (200) copies and issue these copies to the Steering Group for distribution. The Consultant shall also make the newsletters available on the Project Website and issue the newsletters by email to any stakeholder who has requested electronic receipt of the newsletters. L3. PUBLIC INFORMATION AND CONSULTATION The Consultant shall deliver the services required herein related to public information and consultation in line with the requirements of Statutory Instrument (S.I.) No. 122 of 2010. L3.1. Public Consultation Days The Consultant shall undertake direct public consultation exercises (hereafter referred to as the Public Consultation Days) for the Project, including the SEA, at appropriate stages throughout the duration of the Project (see Section L4.3 of this Appendix). A Public Consultation Day, for each of the stages as set out in Section L4.3 for which Public Consultation Days are required, shall be held at each APSR associated with a Community at Risk (but not IRRs) within the Study Area.


Each Public Consultation Day shall typically be held in the afternoon and evening (e.g., 3pm to 9pm), and shall be attended by at least two relevant senior staff from the Consultant’s Project Team (e.g., Project Manager and SEA or Flood Risk Management Options Team Leader). The Consultant shall prepare, arrange and manage the Public Consultation Days and prepare supporting information. The purpose of each event will be to solicit the views and feedback of the public on the Project, flood risk management and related environmental issues within the Study Area, as pertinent to the stage of the Project. The Consultant shall, subject to prior approval from the Steering Group, make all necessary arrangements for conducting each event including, but not limited to, the following;

− Organise appropriate venues/dates and make reservations as appropriate. Note that the Consultant will not be expected to pay the cost of any such reservations.

− Prepare advertisements for each event to be provided to the local media (newspapers and local radio). Note that the Consultant will not be expected to pay any charges related to the placement of such advertisement in the media.

− Write to local organisations advising them of each event at least three weeks in advance.

− Prepare and print a brief information leaflet to be given to visitors at each event, and which might be made available more widely within the principal study area. Format and content of information leaflet to be agreed prior with the Steering Group.

− Prepare, in consultation with the Steering Group, a presentation regarding the Project and / or SEA (Note that presentations made at Public Consultation Days would not be one of those referred to in Section 2.3.5).

− Prepare and print information posters to inform the public of each event.

− Compile a summary report of the submissions received in response to the consultation exercise and submit to the Steering Group along with copies of all submissions.

The Consultant, in conjunction with the OPW, shall coordinate the arrangement and management of the Public Consultation Days with the competent authorities for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. L3.2. Stakeholder Workshops The Consultant shall prepare, arrange and manage a number of one-day Stakeholder Workshops for Primary and Secondary Stakeholders. The purpose of each workshop will be to solicit the views and feedback of the stakeholders on the Project, flood risk management and related environmental issues within the Study Area, as pertinent to the stage of the Project. The Consultant, subject to approval from the Steering Group, will make all necessary arrangements for conducting of each workshop including, but not limited to, the following;

− Organise appropriate venue/date and make reservations as appropriate. Note that the Consultant will not be required to pay the costs of the hire of any venues.

− Write to each stakeholder and/or local organisations advising them of each event at least six weeks in advance.

− Prepare, in consultation with the Steering Group, an agenda and presentation(s) relevant to the stage of the Project and / or SEA (Note that such presentations would not be one of those referred to in Section 2.3.5).



It is expected that five (5) Stakeholder Workshops shall be required at relevant stages throughout the duration of the Project. L3.3. Consultation Stages The consultant shall be required to undertake public and / or stakeholder consultation at the following stages of the Project and SEA: L3.3.1. SEA Scoping Stage As part of the Scoping Study of the SEA for the Project, the Consultant shall:

− Organise and hold a Stakeholder Workshop to make stakeholders aware of the Project, elicit views and information on relevant issues related to flood risk and environmental assets that might be affected by the outcomes of the Project, and promote engagement in the Project

− Devise and implement a public consultation programme to advertise the Project and the SEA and seek public input to the definition of environmental objectives, including a mechanism to encourage and facilitate feedback and comments from the public, and also to identifying flood risk issues within the Study Area and potential means of addressing this risk. Tenderers shall provide outline details of the programme they would propose to implement as part of the tender submission. When devising such a programme consultants shall give consideration to the use of local newspaper, local radio, internet etc., but should note that the use of Public Consultation Days (as defined in Section 4.4.1 of this Appendix) has not proved to be a satisfactory approach at this early stage of such projects in the past on similar projects due to poor attendance.


L3.3.2. Draft Flood Map Preparation Stage Upon approval of the draft flood maps by the OPW (including draft hazard and risk maps), the Consultant shall:

− Make a presentation to the relevant local authorities

− Organise and hold a Stakeholder Workshop to outline the flood mapping process and elicit views of the stakeholders on the maps, including any information they may have relating to their accuracy

− Organise and hold a set of Public Consultation Days to outline the flood mapping process and elicit views of the public on the maps, including any information they may have relating to their accuracy

− Upload the draft flood maps to the project website, and establish a mechanism for electronic (e.g., by email via the project website) and written (hardcopy) feedback and observations from the stakeholder and the public on the flood maps

L3.3.3. FRM Objectives Stage As part of the development of the flood risk management objectives (Section 8.4 of the Specification), the Consultant shall:

− Organise and hold a Stakeholder Workshop to outline the process, and provide stakeholders with the opportunity to contribute to, the definition of the flood risk management objectives.


L3.3.4. Preliminary Option Report Stage As part of the assessment of the potential flood risk management options (Section 11 of the Specification), the Consultant shall:

− Organise and hold a Stakeholder Workshop to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to review and comment upon the flood risk management options being considered for the Study Area as a whole and for each APSR.

− Organise and hold a set of Public Consultation Days to provide the public with the opportunity to review and comment upon the flood risk management options being considered for the Study Area as a whole and for each APSR.

L3.3.5. Draft FRMP Stage Upon approval of the Draft Flood Risk Management Plan (Section 12 of the Specification), by the OPW, the Consultant shall:

− Make a presentation to the relevant local authorities

− Organise and hold a Stakeholder Workshop to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to review and comment upon the draft Flood Risk Management Plan and SEA Report

− Organise and hold a set of Public Consultation Days to provide the public with the opportunity to review and comment upon the draft Flood Risk Management Plan and SEA Report.

− Upload the draft FRMP to the project website, and establish a mechanism for electronic (e.g., by email via the project website) and written (hardcopy) feedback and observations from the stakeholder and the public on the flood maps.


(Blank Page)

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F M1 May 2010

APPENDIX M – FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT METHODS A flood risk management strategy option (‘option’) consists of one or, more commonly, a combination of flood risk management methods, which might include, but shall not be limited to the following: − Do Nothing (i.e., implement no new flood risk management measures and abandon

any existing practices)

− Existing Regime (continue with any existing flood risk management practices, such as reactive maintenance)

− Do Minimum (i.e., implement additional minimal measures to reduce the flood risk in specific problem areas without introducing a comprehensive strategy)

− Non-Structural Measures (Existing and / or Potential Future Risk)

• Planning and development control measures (zoning of land for flood risk-appropriate development, prevention of inappropriate incremental development, review of existing Local Authority policies in relation to planning and development and of inter-jurisdictional co-operation within the catchment, etc.)

• Building regulations (regulations relating to floor levels, flood-proofing, flood-resilience, sustainable drainage systems, prevention of reconstruction or redevelopment in flood-risk areas, etc.)

• Sustainable urban drainage systems

• Installation of a flood forecasting and warning system and development of emergency flood response procedures

• Targeted public awareness and preparedness campaign

• Individual property flood resistance (protection / flood-proofing) and resilience

• Land use management, including creation of wetlands, riparian buffer zones, etc.

− Structural Measures (Potential Future Risk)

• Strategic development management for necessary floodplain development (pro-active integration of structural measures into development designs and zoning, regulation on developer-funded communal retention, drainage and / or protection systems, etc.)

− Structural Measures (Existing Risk)

• Storage (single or multiple site flood water storage, flood retardation, etc.)

• Flow diversion (full diversion / bypass channel, flood relief channel, etc.)

• Increase conveyance (in-channel works, floodplain earthworks, removal of constraints / constrictions, channel / floodplain clearance, etc.)

• Construct flood defences (walls, embankments, demountable defences, etc.)

• Rehabilitate, improve existing defences

• Relocation of properties

• Localised protection works (e.g., minor raising of existing defences / levels, infilling gaps in defences, etc.)

− Channel or Flood Defence Maintenance Works / Programme

− Other works that might be of particular relevance to, or suitability for, a given location

F: CFRAM Studies: Stage II Tender Docs – Rev F M2 May 2010

(Blank Page)