National Hydromorphology Expert Group – List of members, copies of agendas/minutes of meetings, and any presentations/reports made to the Working Group, or mentioned in agendas/minutes” (period 2023-2025)

Membership

National Hydromorphology Programme
Agenda

Legislative requirements of the Water Framework Directive and the development of a
regulatory framework

Donal Grant, Principal, Water Policy
Hydromorphology Expert Group, 10-Jul-2024

Land Use Review
Marc Kierans
Land Use Review – National Hydromorphology Expert Group
10 July 2024

Guidelines for the incorporation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) into the Planning System
Presentation to the Hydromorphology Expert Group
Lisa Egan
10th July 2024

Update on the EIA Agri Regulations for the National Hydromorphology Programme Meeting
Ted Massey, Water & Air Quality Division
10th July 2024

Hydromorphology as a pressure

EPA presentation

DHLGH Hydromorphology Expert Group, July 2024

National Barrier Mitigation Programme
Introduction
Hazel King, Head of the Barrier Mitigation Division

10 July 2024

Consultation on Heavily Modified Water Body Designation
Presentation to the Hydromorphology Expert Group
Lisa Egan
10th July 2024

The Nature Restoration Regulation – NRL

Nature-based Solutions
Averil Gannon, Water Policy Advisor
10th July 2024

Interim Actions within the Current Regulatory Framework
Hydromorphology Expert Group Meeting
Custom House – 10th July 2024

Presented by Eimear O’Keeffe (Water Policy Advisor, Water Division

National Hydromorphology Programme
Preparation of work programme
Water Division
10th July 2024

National Hydromorphology Programme
Agenda
23rd September 2024

Hydromorphology Expert Group: Terms of Reference, Technical Sub-groups, Timelines &
Interim Measures
23rd September, 2024

River Restoration – Hydromorphological Assessment and River Restoration Plan for the Waters of LIFE Islands Demonstration Catchment

Tender

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/241390/1

Carry out a hydromorphological assessment on the waterbodies within the Islands Demonstration catchment in order to understand current condition and the hydromorphological issues driving that condition, and to identify appropriate river restoration measures to mitigate those issues, considering multiple benefits.

The assessment should be based on a combination of desk based studies and targeted field investigations. Reference should be made to the output LAWPRO local catchment assessments

The successful tenderer will be required to carry out a hydromorphological assessment on the waterbodies within the Islands Demonstration catchment in order to understand current condition and the hydromorphological issues driving that condition, and to identify appropriate river restoration measures to mitigate those issues, considering multiple benefits. The assessment should be based on a combination of desk based studies and targeted field investigations. Reference should be made to the output LAWPRO local catchment assessments.


Relevant stakeholders should be consulted and environmental screening of proposed measures should be provided as required (EcIA, AA and NIS).


A comprehensive outline of the methodologies to be employed and the data sources to be consulted should be submitted along with a proposed timetable for completion of the various stage of the project (it is expected that the final report should be delivered within 3 months of the date of appointment).


The project deliverables will be:
– Final Hydromorphological Assessment Report and River Restoration Plan
– Relevant shapefiles, raw data and photographs

AIE: HydroSED

AIE Request

OCEI reference: OCE-130455-H2J9M1
UCD reference: AIE12_1_1015

“All environmental records relating to the ongoing HydroSED project to include, but not restricted to
• Methodology
• Interim Reports
• Preliminary findings
• Correspondence
• GIS data (in GIS format).”

Basis for refusal:

Methodologies outlined in the HydroSED Research Grant Proposal report and referred to in the Dr O’Sullivan’s correspondence file are being withheld in accordance with Article 9 (1)(d) of the AIE Regulations.

The premature release of this information at this time would seriously disadvantage the projects in question, UCD as Research Performing Organisation leading the research, and the funding provider, in financial, competitive and potentially commercial terms.

While the project is ongoing, it is important that this information is protected from release as there are real concerns that release of such comprehensive elements contained within the proposal into the public domain leave the project, including the location sites, timeframes, risks and proposed changes and anticipated deliverables at risk of being compromised.

Our funders hold the view that this information should only be released when the project has been completed and final report published.

Release of our project proposal could affect our ability to attain funding in the future.

Similarly the 6-month interim report and Year 1 Scientific Progress report, as per attached schedule, provide detailed updates on the project to our funder, DAFM and are withheld in accordance with Articles 9 (1)(d) and 9 (2) of the AIE Regulations.

These reports contain detailed updates to DAFM about the live and ongoing research being carried out and unfinished scientific data.

This scientific data also forms part of our PhD student’s degree, who is conducting research with the data. Early release of this information into the public domain, may lead to other parties deciding to use the data for their own benefit, which would seriously compromise our student’s thesis and PhD

Premature release of this data, which is subject to change over the course of the project, would have no significant meaning without the final findings and would be open to incorrect interpretation by other individuals which could negatively impact the project itself. For this reason, project data and project files contained within Dr O’Sullivan’s correspondence file have also been withheld/redacted.

Disclosure would adversely affect intellectual property rights. Release of records under the AIE regulations are considered as being released to the world at large and in doing so we must assume that release of information contained within the proposal and interim reports that are subject to intellectual property could be commercially exploited or used in a way that would constitute an unauthorised infringement of the intellectual property rights. In accordance with the terms of the project, any IP emanating from the project will be owned by the research performing organisations and access to industry parties will be via licensing which shall be on fair commercial terms, subject to overall State Aid, technology transfer and other legal or government policy considerations.

In line with DAFM’s commitment to ensuring that the research outputs are made available to all potential end users, it is expected that once the project is finished, expected completion date 31 August 2024, and the final report is published, then the results would be shared, contingent on the coordinator’s consent to publish.

In applying these exemptions, I have also considered Articles 10(3) and 10(4) of the AIE Regulations.

Factors in favour of releasing the information include,
• right of the public to have access information,
• the need for an open, transparent and accountable public service and
• the need for scrutiny of decisions.

Factors opposing release of the records into the public domain include,
• protecting the integrity of university processes,
• maintaining confidentiality of IP rights,
• protection of unfinished research and material in the course of completion and,
• protection of the university’s ability to secure future funding for similar projects.

Having weighed up all factors, I have determined that the public interest would be best served by not disclosing the information.