N60 Castlebar Balla Road (Manulla) Improvement Scheme. Alternatives Assessment Report. June 2015

Transcription

1 N60 Castlebar Balla Road (Manulla) Improvement Scheme Alternatives Assessment Report June 2015

2 Document Control Sheet BPP 04 F8 Version 16; Oct 2013 Project: Client: Document Title: Ref. No: ORIGINAL N60 Castlebar Balla (Manulla) Road Improvement Scheme MCC Mayo National Road Design Office Alternatives Assessment Report RS001 Project Number: Originated by Checked by Reviewed by NAME NAME NAME Various Tomas Cleary Bill Senior Approved by NAME As Project Manager I confirm that the above document(s) have been subjected to DATE Mar 2014 David Feighery Jacobs Check and Review procedure and that I approve them for issue Document status: DRAFT Issue for Client Review INITIALS REVISION NAME NAME NAME Various M McKee / T Cleary Sebastian Widel Approved by NAME As Project Manager I confirm that the above document(s) have been subjected to Bill Senior DATE June 2015 Document status: FINAL Jacobs Check and Review procedure and that I approve them for issue INITIALS REVISION NAME NAME NAME Approved by NAME As Project Manager I confirm that the above document(s) have been subjected to Jacobs Check and Review procedure and that I approve them for issue DATE Document status INITIALS REVISION NAME NAME NAME Approved by NAME As Project Manager I confirm that the above document(s) have been subjected to Jacobs Check and Review procedure and that I approve them for issue DATE Document status INITIALS Copyright Jacobs Engineering Ireland Limited. All rights reserved. No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs Engineering Ireland Limited. If you have received this report in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs Engineering Ireland Limited. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs Engineering Ireland Limited, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this report. No liability is accepted by Jacobs Engineering Ireland Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Jacobs Engineering Ireland Limited using due skill, care and diligence in the preparation of the same and no warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs Engineering Ireland Limited has been made.

3 Contents 1 Introduction Forward Scheme Description and Project History Identification of Need 3 2 Scheme Objectives Scheme Objectives 9 3 Description of Study Area and Principal Constraints Introduction Description of Constraints Study Area Principal Environmental Constraints Principal Engineering Constraints Summary of Principal Environmental and Engineering Constraints 63 4 Options Description and Rational for Option Selection Do-Nothing & Do-Minimum Alternatives Description of Options Rational for Option Selection 68 5 Details of Public Consultation Public Consultation Submissions Conclusions 72 6 Options Appraisal General Introduction Options Appraisal Environmental Options Appraisal Engineering Options Appraisal Safety Options Appraisal Economic Recommendation of Preferred Option Project Appraisal Balance Sheet Conclusions and Recommendations 161 Appendix A Alternative Assessment Report Drawings Appendix B Public Consultation Materials Appendix C Road Safety Audit Stage F Reports (Parts 1 & 2) Appendix D Road Safety Impact Assessment Appendix E Cost Benefit Analysis Appendix F Options Cost Comparison Estimate

4 Appendix G Statutory Consultation Responses Appendix H Traffic Assessment Report Appendix I Project Appraisal Balance Sheet Appendix J Environmental Assessment

5 1 Introduction 1.1 Forward This Alternative Assessment Report has been prepared on behalf of Mayo County Council Mayo National Road Design Office (MNRDO). The purpose of the Report is as follows: Fulfil the requirements of the National Roads Authority (NRA) Project Management Guidelines 2010, as are considered applicable for this Scheme; Ensure that the appropriate Alternative is chosen for progression to the Design and Statutory Processes Stages; Undertake a detailed technical evaluation of the scheme corridor, record, analyse and compare each of the Corridor Options/Alternatives and recommend a Preferred Corridor Option for the scheme; Examine and assess the existing constraints within the Study Area, and the impacts of the scheme; Ensure the appropriate standards will be applied when advancing the design of the Preferred Corridor Option; and Validate the need for the scheme. The current NRA Project Management Guidelines (2010) relate to Major Road Schemes as defined by the Major Projects Unit of the NRA, the N60 Castlebar Balla Road (Manulla) Improvement Scheme is not considered a Major Project, therefore only those elements of the NRA Project Management Guidelines (2010) which are required and considered necessary in order to arrive at the optimum solution have been adopted in relation to the consideration and recommendation of a preferred option in relation the N60 Manulla Scheme, in this Report. Under Phase 2 ( Selection) of the NRA Project Management Guidelines (2010), the appraisal is outlined as a 3 Stage Process. Stage 1: Preliminary Options Assessment. Stage 2: Project Appraisal of Options. Stage 3: Selection of a Preferred Corridor. For the purposes of this report, a more concise and focussed approach has been adopted, whereby Stages 1 and 2 have been combined into a singular appraisal process with Stage 3 being maintained. 1

6 1.2 Scheme Description and Project History Scheme Description A Location Plan of Scheme and the Study Area is provided in Figures A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A of this Report. The N60 National Secondary Road is of high strategic importance to Castlebar and the West and North West Regions of Mayo. The road commences at the junction with the N84 in Castlebar, with the N5 in close proximity, and passes through the towns of Claremorris, Ballyhaunis, Castlerea and terminates at the junction with the N61 in Roscommon town, at a distance of approximately 93km. It also passes through the villages of Breaffy, Manulla, Balla, Brickeens, Ballinlough and Ballymoe and crosses the N17 Sligo Galway Road. The largest amount of traffic can be found on the Castlebar Claremorris section of the road between the N84 and nearby N5 in Castlebar and the N17 in Claremorris. This section of road links the towns of Castlebar, Newport, Achill, Belmullet and their hinterlands with the Galway, Limerick, Cork, Waterford and Athlone areas. N60 Castlebar Balla Road (Manulla) Improvement Scheme is located approximately 9.0 km southeast of Castlebar and approximately 1.4km northwest of Balla, in the townlands of Manulla, Skiddernagh, Rinnahulty, Derreen, Creaghanboy, Drumnaslooeen, Lisnolan, Carrowntober Eighter, Smuttanagh, Carrowntober Oughter, Tully Beg and Lagnamuck. The proposed scheme comprises of widening and realignment to a 4.0 km (approx.) section of single carriageway. The scheme will start on the existing N60 approximately 100m northwest of the existing Iarnród Éireann Level Crossing in the townland of Manulla and terminate on the existing N60, approximately 390m southeast of the existing L1707-0/N60 Junction (at Balla Mart) Project History The N60 has seen little improvement works since the 1970 s, with the exception of the Claremorris Relief Road, which was constructed in two stages between 1988 and The section of the N60 road which is considered to have the poorest alignment with little opportunity for overtaking safely is in the vicinity of Manulla. In the late 1990 s the Castlebar to Claremorris Scheme was developed, connecting Castlebar and passing north of the Manulla and Balla townlands and continuing south east to tie-in with the N17 Knock / Claremorris bypass. A preferred route was selected in The scheme was then suspended and it is currently envisaged not to be constructed within the next 20 years. In May 2008, Mayo County Council created and adopted the Mayo County Development Plan Its transportation policy asserts that it is an objective of the Council to upgrade the existing N60 from Castlebar to the N17 Claremorris bypass. In relation to the Manulla section of the N60, Mayo County Council in 2008 developed a number of alignment options for a 1.8km improvement scheme 2

7 focussed at Manulla Cross. A preferred offline option was selected and progressed via the Part 8 Planning Process and subsequently approved. This 1.8km section did not proceed to detailed design and construction. In 2011, in response to the suspended Castlebar to Claremorris Scheme and in order to extend the road pavement life and improve the existing N60 network between Castlebar and Claremorris, the following 3 No. separate schemes were commissioned by the NRA and Mayo County Council National Road Design Office (MNRDO) under the NRA Framework for Pavement and Minor Realignment Projects on National Roads. 1. N60 Balla to Claremorris Road (Heathlawn) Improvement Scheme (NRA Ref. No. MO ). 2. N60 Castlebar Balla Road (Lagnamuck) Improvement Scheme (NRA Ref. No. MO ). 3. N60 Castlebar Balla Road (Manulla) Improvement Scheme (NRA Ref. No. MO ). In May 2013, Jacobs Engineering Ireland was appointed as consultant for the N60 Castlebar Balla Road (Manulla) Improvement Scheme. 1.3 Identification of Need Scheme Specific Need The existing section of the N60, where the N60 Castlebar Balla Road (Manulla) Improvement Scheme is proposed, is deficient in terms of width, sight distance at junctions and also in terms of the irregular vertical profile of the carriageway. Limited forward visibilities exist with associated lack of overtaking opportunities. The existing road cross section is narrow with average lane widths of approximately 3.15m in each direction, reducing to 2.75m along some sections, with little or no hard strip. The current AADT values range from 6,300 to 6,700, with medium to high design year forecasts ranging from 7,900 to 10,000. In terms of capacity, the current road does not and will not meet the required Level of Service (LoS). In order to extend the life of the existing N60 and defer the need to construct the proposed Castlebar to Claremorris Scheme, it is necessary for the existing N60 to be widened and realigned at Manulla. A geometric review previously undertaken has determined that the horizontal and vertical alignment is poor and below the standard of the NRA Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), leading to limited opportunities for road users to overtake in a safe manner and resulting in a longer than expected journey time for a National Secondary Road. The sight distance at the intersections and many of the accesses to dwellings is sub-standard, which is a traffic hazard, while the capacity of the road is reduced with the large number of accesses to dwellings, farms and commercial areas. This is 3

8 characterised by the presence of continuous white lining over the majority of its length. The existing route requires traffic to travel close to Manulla National School. From historical accident data, a number of accidents have occurred on this section of road. MNRDO have observed that the existing road requires regular maintenance and structural improvement. If this section of road is improved, maintenance costs will be reduced National and Local Policy Documents The proposed scheme is consistent and compatible with the following local and national policy documents, details of which are outlined below: National Spatial Strategy for Ireland, ; National Development Plan, ; National Secondary Roads Needs Study (NSNRS) Networks Options Report West Region, 2011; Regional Planning Guidelines for the West Region ; Mayo County Council Development Plan ; Mayo County Council Development Plan ; and Road Safety Authority, Road Safety Strategy National Spatial Strategy for Ireland This National Spatial Strategy for Ireland (NSS), is a twenty year planning framework designed to achieve a better balance of social, economic, and physical development and population growth between regions. Having regard to the existing road network, the NSS states that, Improvements will be needed in the quality of connections between cities and towns which are developing as linked-centre gateways or development hubs. The NSS identifies Castlebar as a medium sized hub strategically located to promote regional development and revitalisation through a partnership with Ballina as a linked hub. This is due to the large area that is served and the relative proximity to Galway and Sligo. Attributes such as the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, access through Knock Airport and a tourism resource based on landscape, natural wilderness, the islands and angling, will support this role. Section 4.8 of the NSS deals with the West Region and suggests that linking the Midlands gateway with Castlebar/Ballina through upgraded road (i.e. N60), public transport and communications links also has the potential to benefit a number of other towns, including Ballyhaunis and Claremorris. Overall, the proposed Scheme is consistent with the objectives of the NSS in improving access between these strategic hubs. 4

9 The National Development Plan, In January 2007, the Government published the National Development Plan (NDP). In relation to the National Road Network, the NDP seeks to achieve the objectives set out in relation to National Roads in both the National Spatial Strategy and Transport 21. Amongst its general goals, the NDP set out to, Decisively tackle structural infrastructure deficits that continue to impact on competitiveness, regional development and general quality of life and to meet the demands of the increasing population and Integrate regional development within the National Spatial Strategy Framework of Gateway cities and Hub towns to achieve the goals of economic growth in the regions and provide major investment in the rural economy. With particular regard to transport, the key strategic objective of the NDP, which is consistent with the Transport 21 Programme, is the, creation of a road network that will promote regional, national and international competitiveness. Relevant objectives of the Roads Sub-Programme within the NDP are the improvement of road links between the main NSS Hubs. Therefore, as Castlebar is recognised as one of the main NSS Hubs, the proposed improvement of the N60 section at Manulla is consistent with the objectives of the NDP National Secondary Roads Needs Study Networks Options Report West Region, 2011 The NRA commissioned the National Secondary Roads Needs Study (NSRNS) in order to identify NSR routes or NSR route sections suitable for investment to a higher design standard. The West Region Report identified the following improvement schemes for the N60 Castlebar to Roscommon: Corridor N60a Castlebar to Claremorris (N17) 27.3km 1) N60.a.1.T1 Castlebar to Claremorris (as per NRA Scheme preferred route stage 2001) 26.9 km 2) N60.a.1.T2 Balla to Claremorris (Heathlawn) 4.4 km As part of the appraisal process, the Castlebar to Claremorris Scheme was discounted and the Balla to Claremorris (Heathlawn) Scheme was identified as a Priority 1 Scheme, representing value for money. As stated in Section above, the NRA and MNRDO in 2011 commissioned the Heathlawn Scheme (NRA Ref. No. MO ). In the absence of the progression of the N60 Castlebar to Claremorris Scheme in the foreseeable future, 2 No. Minor Road Projects (i.e. this Scheme and the Lagnamuck Scheme) on this section of the N60 Road were commissioned by the NRA and MNRDO, in order to extend the life and improve the network. 5

10 The Regional Planning Guidelines for the West Region, To give effect to the NSS, Regional Planning Guidelines (RPGs) for each of the Regional Areas were first published in 2004, with a subsequent revision of the guidelines in The RPGs for the West Region are intended to take a strategic overview of development of the western region (Galway, Mayo & Roscommon). The Guidelines identify Castlebar as the County Town and administrative centre of County Mayo. As in the NSS, Castlebar is designated as a linked hub with Ballina working together to promote regional development in the north and central part of the region. Under Chapter 5 (Infrastructure Strategy) of the RPGs, Road Objective Ref. No. IO5 states that the following works are identified for priority completion in order to promote a balanced regional development: Reclassify and upgrade the N60/N61 as a National Primary route, Athlone to Castlebar via Roscommon and the upgrading of the N61 Roscommon to Boyle minimising environmental impact Mayo County Development Plan, This plan, published in May 2007, sets out the sustainable planning required over the 6 year period and the longer term vision. The Overall Strategy of the County Development Plan is, to promote and facilitate the provision of a sound infrastructure base throughout the County, and in particular critical infrastructure, which will enhance intra/interregional linkages in order to improve the economic competitiveness of Mayo. In Section (Development Trends and Key issues) - Infrastructural Deficiencies, it states that, the peripherality of the County, in national and international terms, is exacerbated by major infrastructural deficiencies, particularly in relation to strategic road and rail connections, telecommunications and energy. These infrastructural deficiencies are a major inhibiting factor in terms of the social and economic development of the County and quality of life in general. In Section (Transport and Public Infrastructure Roads Objectives), Objective 0/TIR states that, it is an objective of the Council to support improvements to the existing National Road network including road schemes and by-passes outlined in Appendix 1: Table 1.1, Table 1.2 & Table 1.4. Within Appendix 1, under National Secondary Roads, it states that, it is an objective of the Council to completely upgrade the N60 from Castlebar to the N17 Claremorris Bypass. Within Table 1.2 National Secondary s, Objective NS2, relating to the N60, states that, Complete design, commence land acquisition and construction of Castlebar-Claremorris section including the Balla By-pass. Objective RC-1 in Table Classification of Roads states; It is an objective of the Council to have the N60 Castlebar Claremorris reclassified as a National Primary Road. 6

11 Mayo County Development Plan, The County Development Plan following on from the Plan will be a key element to assist economic recovery and sustainable growth in the County. This was adopted on the 22 nd April 2014 and located on the MCC website. With reference to Section 3 (Infrastructure Strategy) of the Plan, the following is stated: The strategic aim of the Infrastructure Strategy of this plan is to maintain and provide additional key infrastructure and to work with other agencies in the provision of infrastructure to attract new business investment and people into the County through the implementation of the policy and objectives. and the Development Guidance document of this Plan. Table below outlines the Plan s Road Objectives. Objective Ref. No. RD-01 RD-02 RD-03 RD-04 RD-05 Objective It is an objective of the Council to protect the capacity and safety of the National Road and Strategically Important Regional Road network in the County and ensuring compliance with the Spatial Planning and National Roads Planning Guidelines (January 2012). It is an objective of the Council to support improvements to the existing National Road and Regional Road network including road schemes and by-passes where it can be demonstrated that the development will not will not have significant adverse effects on the environment, the integrity of the Natura 2000 network or visual amenity. It is an objective of the Council, in co-operation with the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, to continue with the strengthening and improvement of the local road network including links, by-passes and relief roads, with priority given to those serving the Linked-Hub and Key Towns and interconnection between such settlements, where it can be demonstrated that the development will not have significant adverse effects on the environment or Natura 2000 network. It is an objective of the Council to provide a safe road system throughout the County through Road Safety Schemes and to encourage the promotion of road safety in the County. It is an objective of the Council to continue to review road classifications in the County and reclassify where deemed necessary. Table 1.3-1: Mayo County Development Plan, , Road Objectives With reference to Road Objective RD-02, Table 3 Priority Infrastructure Projects for Co. Mayo , the proposed Scheme is included under the National Roads Heading as follows: N60 Castlebar to Claremorris a) Lagnamuck b) Heathlawn c) Manulla Cross 7

12 Regarding RD-03 and RD-04, the proposed Scheme will improve and strengthen interconnection between Linked-Hub and Key Towns and provide a safer road system Road Safety Authority, Road Safety Strategy The Road Safety Authority s (RSA) Road Strategy outlines an Action Plan, consisting of Education, Engineering and Enforcement Measures to reduce injuries and fatalities on the local road network. Table below outlines a number of Engineering Measures which are the responsibility of the NRA with support from Local Authorities. Action Ref. No Description Carry out 150 minor realignment schemes on the national road network by Increase from 88% to 95% the percentage of national road pavement that is measured as above Investigatory Level in the annual skid resistance (SCRIM) surveys. Increase from 84% to 90% the percentage of the national road network in which the pavement condition, as measured by annual survey indices, is characterised as fair or better. Reduce the number of access points outside speed limit areas on national roads by 5% by Completion Date Q Q Q Q Table 1.3-2: Engineering Measures under the Responsibility of the NRA Road Safety Strategy With reference to the table above, the proposed Scheme will contribute to the completion of the Engineering Measures listed above. 8

13 2 Scheme Objectives 2.1 Scheme Objectives The following are the objectives of the proposed N60 Castlebar Balla Road (Manulla) Improvement Scheme. Reduce accidents by providing a road which meets a recognised standard and the requirements of the NRA DMRB and does not present drivers or vulnerable users with unexpected or substandard layouts. Improve standard of road to increase overtaking opportunities. Extend the life of the existing N60 in terms of capacity through widening or re-alignment. Reduce the number of direct private accesses to the N60. Integrate and comply with national, regional and local policy. Remove and/or reduce identified existing safety problems, including substandard visibility on mainline and at junctions and substandard pavement, and in particular the proximity of Manulla School to the existing N60. Minimise impact where possible on adjacent environmentally sensitive sites including wildlife habitats. Enhance linkage to Atlantic Corridor and other strategic routes. 9

14 3 Description of Study Area and Principal Constraints 3.1 Introduction The initial stage of the route selection process is to identify the nature and extent of significant constraints within a defined Study Area. These constraints are identified, mapped and assessed so that feasible route options can be designed to avoid such constraints, where possible. The Study Area is to be large enough to encompass all feasible route options and associated zones of influence, but not excessively so, as the Selection and Appraisal needs to be a focussed approach, where the use of resources and the acceleration of the design and development process is to be maximised. The Constraints Study objective is to identify the constraints which could affect the design, delay progress, influence the construction costs and therefore influence the route selection process and the identification of a preferred route option. The methodology for compiling this information comprised a detailed desktop study, as well as a number of on-site surveys including an ecology survey. For the purposes of this Constraints Study, the principal constraints have been split into Environmental and Engineering Constraints. These are described in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 below. The environmental and engineering constraints have been mapped on a series of drawings provided in Appendix A of this report. These are to be read in conjunction with the sections below. 3.2 Description of Constraints Study Area The extent of defined Constraints Study Area, within which the route options will be contained, is shown in Figure A.2 in Appendix A. The Study is an irregular rectangular shape of approximately 4.1km long by 0.7km wide, with an approximate area of 2.84km 2. In the east-west direction, the Study Area starts approximately 50m northwest of the start of the Scheme on the existing N60 (Castlebar side), and ends approximately 50m southeast of the end of the Scheme on the existing N60 (Balla side). In the north-south direction, the boundary of the Study Area extends south of the existing Westport-Dublin Railway Line (From the L to Balla Mart), north of the existing N60 and extends past the north side of Derreen Lough and south of Manulla Village. The Study Area incorporates the following townlands, going from northwest to southeast; Manulla, Skiddernagh, Rinnahulty, Derreen (ED Manulla), Creaghanboy, Drumnaslooeen, Lisnolan, Carrowntober Eighter, Smuttanagh, Carrowntober Oughter, Tully Beg and Lagnamuck. 10

15 The Study Area is in rural countryside setting with rolling drumlins with loughs, the largest being Derreen Lough. The existing N60 goes through the centre of the Study Area with a series of local roads extending north and south of the N60. In terms of development, the area is characterised mainly by single dwellings in the form of ribbon development along the existing N60, with collections of dwellings at the junctions of local roads, including Manulla Cross, which has the highest concentration. Manulla Village, is located approximately 600m northwest of Manulla Village, and as stated above is outside the Study Area. Further details of the natural and built environment in the Study Area are provided in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 below. 3.3 Principal Environmental Constraints The principal environmental constraints have been considered under the following headings and are described in the sections below: Ecology Methodology 1) Ecology 2) Archaeology, Architectural and Cultural Heritage 3) Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology 4) Landscape & Visual 5) Air 6) Noise 7) Agronomy This assessment was undertaken with reference to the NRA Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes (NRA, 2009a), and Ecological Surveying Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National Road Schemes (NRA, 2009). Data Sources and Consultation This section describes the key ecological constraints which were identified within the Study Area as required by the NRA Project Management Guidelines (NRA, 2010) and NRA Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes (NRA, 2009). The following ecological constraints are described: Desk Based Study Baseline information for the Study Area was gathered from the following sources of information: Rare & protected species records from National Parks & Wildlife Service Research Branch within a 10km radius from the Study Area (Data obtained 1st October 2013); 11

16 EU Habitats Directive Annex 1 habitat mapping for a 10km radius from the Study Area from data held by National Parks & Wildlife Service Research Branch (Data obtained 1st October 2013); Botanical Society for the British Isles Flora species Distribution Maps An Irish Flora (Parnell & Curtis, 2012) - Flora species Distribution and status; National Biodiversity Data Centre Aerial Photography and protected species data Red-lists for mammals, fish, amphibians and invertebrates are available online at: British Trust For Ornithology/Birdwatch Ireland Bird Atlas bird records for the local area: Bat Conservation Ireland (BCI) bat roost data, BCI foraging bat data for a 10km radius from the Study Area (obtained October 2014) and NPWS Research branch mapping of known caves within 10km with regard to potential for Lesser Horseshoe Rhinolophus hipposideros Bats; Kingfisher Alcedo atthis nest data for the River Moy csac from the NPWS publication Assessment of the distribution and abundance of Kingfisher Alcedo atthis and other riparian birds on six SAC river systems in Ireland (Cummins et al., 2010); Geological Survey of Ireland information on groundwater and geology from the online database: Environmental Protection Agency information on surface water features and quality from the online database: and Reports for other developments including the N60 Balla to Claremorris Realignment at Heathlawn Environmental Assessment Report (2013). Consultation Input to Options Collection of the most recent available data was facilitated by verbal consultation with the local National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) Conservation Ranger and through discussions with Birdwatch Ireland, Inland Fisheries Ireland, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG), Bat Conservation Ireland and liaison with residents within the Study Area. The NPWS Ranger advised on known ecological features of value in the locality. A summary of the responses from these consultees have been included in Table Consultation will be on-going throughout the development of the Scheme. Consultee BirdWatch Ireland Barn Owl Project Officer Date of Consultation 11 th October 2013 and follow up consultation on the 28 th October 2014 Comments There are no known Barn owl (or other raptor species) nest sites within 10km of the study area. The nearest Barn owl (and Kestrel) nest site was more than 11km from the study area. BWI noted that this area has not been extensively surveyed. 12

17 Consultee BirdWatch Ireland Inland Fisheries Ireland (River Moy Manager) Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) National Parks & Wildlife Service (Conservation Ranger) Date of Consultation 13 th November 2013 and 28 th October th October nd December th July 2013 Comments I-WeBS survey date for wetland areas in the Manulla area were supplied by BirdWatch. Unpublished survey data for River Moy from IFI electrofishing surveys of Walshpool Lough River in October 2013 recorded significant stocks of Brown Trout Salmo trutta and moderate stocks of Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar, Eel Anguilla anguilla, Three-spined Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus and Perch Perca fluviatilis. Survey area comprised the Walshpool Lough River from the footbridge southeast to the McDonnell Brothers garage. IFI suspect that further upstream the stream may be connected to suitable salmonid spawning habitats. All relevant NRA ecological and environmental guidance should be followed. The Study Area and route options for the scheme extend close to the European site, River Moy csac (site code ), and the general area is likely to drain to the SAC. The project will require screening for appropriate assessment in accordance with Section 177U of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. Advised to consult the NPWS website as a key source of data, information and publications on nature conservation sites and biodiversity issues of potential relevance to the project and its associated environmental assessment(s). A copy of the DAHG letter is provided in Appendix J. No Whooper Swans were recorded between Manulla River and Balla Turlough. Occasionally recorded along River Manulla when fields flood. Potential for White-clawed crayfish. Clerk of Works should be included on highly sensitive sites. No turloughs known from locality (nearest is Balla Turlough csac). No rare flora known. No known Lesser Horseshoe bats nearby other than a night roost known from Turlough village (c. 6km to north). 13

18 Consultee Bat Conservation Ireland Local residents within Study Area (Questionnaires issued requesting anecdotal information on presence of protected species in locality) Date of Consultation 22 nd October 2013 and 28 th October 2014 July and August 2013 Comments Bat roost records, and bat detector records, were obtained from Bat Conservation Ireland within 10km of the study area. Two anecdotal records for Pine Marten Martes martes within Study Area. Two anecdotal Badger records within Study Area. One potential record for a bat roost in townland of Drimslogan. One unsubstantiated anecdotal record of a Kestrel. Two records of Irish Hare. One record of Wild Geese and ducks in Study Area. Table 3.3-1: Consultation undertaken for Constraints Study Existing Desktop Records for Protected and Rare Species The desk study recorded no rare or protected flora within a 10km radius of the Study Area, according to desktop sources including the NPWS Research branch data. Records for protected and rare fauna species were collated within a 10km radius of the Study Area from desktop data sources. Records of aquatic species were primarily provided from the unpublished electrofishing survey data provided by Inland Fisheries for the Walshpool Lough River (see Table 3.3-1). Habitat requirements and legislative protection for fauna species were provided in accordance with NRA guidelines (2009a). Fieldwork All surveys were conducted in accordance with the relevant NRA survey guidelines. Additional survey guidance was sought for birds from Gilbert et al., (1998); for bats from Hundt et al., (2012); and for badgers and otters from the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 10 Environmental Design and Management, Section 4 Nature Conservation, Part 4, HA 81/99, (Highways Agency, 2001) and Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 10 Environmental Design and Management, Section 4 Nature Conservation, Part 2, HA 59/92 (Highways Agency, 2001). Prior to conducting larval web surveys for Marsh fritillary butterfly Euphydryas aurinia in accordance with the NRA Guidelines (2009b), a habitat suitability assessment was used to select suitable habitat following Fowles (2003). 14

19 Table below outlines the ecological surveys carried out to inform the route selection assessment. Survey Date Area Habitat, rare and invasive flora and breeding bird surveys Bat activity surveys and building/bridge surveys 17 th -18 th July 17 th -18 th September th -18 th and 30 th -31 st July th August 2014 c.100m radius offset from route options c.100m radius offset from route options White-clawed crayfish Surveys Marsh fritillary (Larval Web Surveys) 17 th -19 th September 2013 c.100m offset up and downstream of watercourse crossings 17 th -18th September 2013 c.50m offset from route options Winter birds 28 th December th -26 th February th March st -2 nd April 2014 Mammal survey 25 th -27 th February 2014 Lakes within the study area c.250m offset from route options Amphibian surveys 1 st -4 th April st -22 nd May th -27 th February st -4 th April st -22 nd May 2014 c.250m offset from route options Table 3.3-2: Ecological Surveys Bat activity surveys were undertaken from before sunset on the 30 th July 2013 until sunrise on the 31 st July 2013, in calm and mild conditions. The bat activity survey area comprised of eleven potential bat feeding sites within the Study Area which were selected using aerial photography. These areas were distributed relatively evenly throughout the Study Area. The eleven areas were surveyed using direct observation of bats in flight and ultrasound heterodyne/time expansion (Pettersson D240x) detectors. Recordings were analysed using sound analysis software. Static frequency-division detectors (Anabat SD1) were also placed at eight further locations within the Study Area and left in-situ to record bat activity over extended periods in July 2013 without the need for site presence. 15

20 Bat buildings There were two locations identified where existing buildings were potentially at risk from route options being considered; three bridge sites deemed to be at risk were also surveyed. These were surveyed for the presence of bats in July of 2013 and in August The details relating to the survey of each building are presented in the existing environment section of this report. White-clawed crayfish A licence was obtained from the NPWS to undertake trapping of White-clawed crayfish, and for this additional guidance was sought from A technical manual for monitoring white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes in Irish lakes (Reynolds et al., 2010), and other literature as conditioned on the licence. Habitats All habitats were classified using the Guide to Habitats in Ireland (Fossitt, 2000), recording dominant species, indicator species, protected species, Important Plant species in the County Mayo Biodiversity Action Plan (Mayo Coco, 2010), and/or flora meriting consideration in the constraints study due to their distribution or threat status in the Irish Red Data Book: 1. Vascular Plants (Curtis & McGough, 2005) and the Ireland Red List No.8: Bryophytes (Lockhart et al., 2012). Fauna Fauna species meriting consideration in the constraints study were identified with reference to legislative protection, restricted distribution, or threat status as per relevant legislation, and various national Red-Lists. Birds meriting consideration were identified with reference to the Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland classification (Lynas et al., 2007). This classifies bird species as Green ( Concern ), Amber ( Concern ), or Red ( High Concern ). Fieldwork comprised of a series of multidisciplinary surveys of habitats, mammals, rare and invasive flora, butterflies (including Marsh fritillary butterfly), breeding birds, bat activity and White-clawed crayfish. These habitat and species groups were selected for particular attention after analysis of desktop data on the receiving environment. Wintering birds Counts of wintering birds were carried out on the following six lakes on the 28 th December 2013, the 25 th February 2014, and the 8 th March 2014: Drumadoon Lough; Derreen Lough North and South; Creaghanboy Lake; Manulla Lake; and Lakeland Upper. 16

21 Ad-hoc counts were also undertaken at Drumadoon on the 26 th February 2014 and the 1 st April 2014, at Derreen Lough (South) on the 1 st and 2 nd April 2014, and at Creaghanboy Lake on the 2 nd April 2014, in the course of other survey work. Mammals A corridor of at least 500m was surveyed for mammal activity over the period February to May The status and activity of any Badger setts or Otter holts was recorded along with any evidence of activity, including paths, tracks, feeding signs, latrines or couches (Otter resting places). Bridge sites in the wider area were also checked for the presence of Otter activity to supplement the findings within the 500m survey corridor. Watercourses All suitable watercourses, drainage ditches and wetland features crossed by the proposed development were surveyed for the presence of Common frog in February These features were also surveyed for the presence of Smooth newt over the course of three visits: the first visit in February 2014 was used to assess the suitability if each of the features to support Smooth newt populations; during the second visit, all suitable features were surveyed using torchlight inspections and manual egg searches from the 1 st to the 4 th April 2014; and on the third visit, all of these features were resurveyed using a combination of torching and manual searches/sweep netting using a hand-net on the 21 st and 22 nd May Limitations of Data Collection Surveys of habitats, invasive species, rare flora, breeding birds, White-clawed crayfish, bats, other mammals (Badger and Otter), wintering birds, amphibians, and Marsh fritillary butterfly were conducted at the optimal time of year (as per NRA guideline) and with sufficient survey effort to provide adequate data to inform ecological valuation and impact assessment for the constraints study. Existing Environment Identification of Key Ecological Receptors In accordance with NRA guidelines (NRA, 2009), the constraints study only takes account of key ecological receptors. Key ecological receptors must be within the zone of influence of the route option(s) and both of sufficient value to be material in decision making and likely to be affected significantly. The NRA defines sufficient value in this context as being an ecological feature of Local Importance (Higher value) or higher as per the NRA s ecological valuation criteria (NRA, 2009). All ecological features within the potential zone of influence were therefore valued in accordance with NRA valuation criteria, and key ecological receptors were identified. Features of Local Importance (er value) did not qualify as key ecological receptors, and are therefore not described in detail. 17

22 Overview of Study Area (Ecology) With reference to Figure A.3 in Appendix A, the Study Area primarily comprised open lowland farmland, degraded cutover bog habitats, peaty wet grasslands and reed-fringed lake habitats. Clusters of modern housing, and occasional farm buildings were scattered along the existing N60 road. An active railway line with scrub embankments ran through the Study Area, parallel with the existing N60, and included several level crossings. Wooded habitats were very limited in extent. Hedgerows and treelines were relatively frequent, and were considered valuable wildlife corridors despite being of poor structure/ floristic diversity, due to the open character of the local landscape. Designated Sites The location of designated sites and their associated Special Conservation Interests (SCI) for Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Qualifying Interests (QI) for candidate Special Areas of Conservation (csacs), within 15km of the existing N60 are provided in Table

23 Site Name & Code Distance Qualifying Interests and Special Conservation Interests (* = Priority Habitat) River Moy csac/pnha (2298) 0.2km White-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes) [1092] Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) [1095] Brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri) [1096] Salmon (Salmo salar) [1106] Otter (Lutra lutra) [1355] Active raised bogs [7110] Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration [7120] Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion [7150] Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in British Isles [91A0] Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) [91E0] Carrowmore Lough Shore pnha (1492) 1km Lake, cutover bog & wet grassland Wintering waterfowl Balla Turlough csac/pnha (463) 2.5km Turloughs* [3180] Ballinafad csac/pnha (2081) 4km Lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros) [1303] Lough Beg, Carrowmore pnha (1528) Slishmeen Turlough pnha (1559) 6.5km Turloughs* [3180] Mountpleasant School Turlough (1472) 6.5km Lake and reed beds including rare flora species Marsh Stitchwort Stellaria palustris 7.5km Turloughs* [3180] Cloonboorhy Lough pnha (1486) 9km Eutrophic lake Towerhill House csac (2179)/pNHA (550) 10.5km Lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros) [1303] 19

24 Site Name & Code Lough Carra/Mask Complex csac/pnha (1774) Distance Qualifying Interests and Special Conservation Interests (* = Priority Habitat) 10.5km Lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros) [1303] Otter (Lutra lutra) [1355] Shining sickle moss (Drepanocladus vernicosus) [1393] Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae) [3110] Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp. [3140] European dry heaths [4030] Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco Brometalia)(*important orchid sites) [6210] Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae [7210] Alkaline fens [7230] Limestone pavements [8240] Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) [91E0] Lough Carra/Mask SPA (1774) 10.5km Breeding Common Gull (Larus canus) [A182] Lough Manan pnha (1533) 12km Lake Lough Conn and Lough Cullin SPA 12km Greenland White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons flavirostris) [A395] (2298) Tufted Duck (Aythya fuligula) [A061] Common Gull (Larus canus) [A182] Common Scoter (Melanitta nigra) [A065] Wetlands [A999] Moore Hall csac/pnha (527) 13.5km Lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros) [1303] Dambdaduff Lough (1491) 14km Breeding Common Gull Larus canus and breeding waterfowl Table 3.3-3: The Special Conservation Interests and Qualifying Interests of Designated Sites within 15km (Grey colour indicates Relevant Sites with whom a potential source-pathway-receptor linkage has been identified) 20

25 A channelised tributary of the Walshpool Lough River flows west along the existing N60 (and all route options) for approximately 1.5km. It is culverted beneath the existing N60 near the Barrackland Level Crossing, and discharges into the Manulla 34 River approximately 0.3km downstream of the existing N60 (within the River Moy csac). The Walshpool Lough River provides a linkage between the River Moy csac and the N60. The Carrowmore Lough proposed Natural Heritage Area (pnha) (Site Code 1492) is located c. 1.2km north of the route options. This site is comprised of a deep oligotrophic lake lined with cutover bog, reed beds, limestone outcrops and fen swamp. There are linkages between the Study Area and the pnha via existing drainage ditches and Derreen Lough. There were no other designated sites within 2km of the route options. The Balla Turlough csac (Site Code 463) was the next nearest designated site located c. 2km to the east. This csac is designated for a seasonal groundwater-fed lake ( turlough ), which is a priority habitat under Annex I of the EC Habitats Directive. Surface Waters With reference to Figures A.2 and A.9, one river (the Manulla 34 (1) River), and several streams and drainage ditches were recorded within the Study Area and with some of these being culverted beneath the existing N60 and associated local roads. Most were connected to one or more of the lakes systems described below. In accordance with the Heritage Council habitat classification system (Fossitt, 2000), drainage ditches 1 (FW4) were primarily distinguished from rivers (FW2) by being artificial in origin. Furthermore, in contrast to streams, ditches may contain stagnant or flowing water and are often narrower. Many of the ditches were deep, peaty, and slow-flowing, with fine silt substrates. The deepest drains were associated with historical drainage of raised bog/fen habitats. There are no lakes within the footprint of the existing N60, but several in close proximity. The water bodies referred to here as the Manulla Lakes within the River Moy csac are fed by the Manulla River. The nearest lake was located c.400m south of the existing N60. The Manulla Lakes are located outside the Study Area and are likely to be outside the potential zone of influence of the route options because they are upstream of it. The lake habitats are unlikely to require further assessment at Design Stage, but Irish Wetland Bird Survey data will be obtained to assess the potential for birds to move into the Study Area. 1 Classification applies to habitat type only, in accordance with Fossitt, 2000, which distinguishes ditches based on artificial influence and flow. All watercourses are considered as river or streams throughout the remainder of the report in accordance with EPA classification. 21

26 Aquifers and Ground-Water Dependent Systems There were no intertidal or marine areas within the Study Area, which is located inland. There were no turloughs within the Study Area according to field survey results and the databases of the NPWS. The nearest known turlough was located c. 2km to the east (Balla Turlough csac). Only one groundwater-dependent habitat was recorded within the Study Area in the form of a small acidic flush (PF2) (c.60m 2 ) on the margin of the degraded raised bog in the townland of Smuttanagh (the drier part of the bog north of the N60). The online databases of the Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicated that the Study Area is primarily underlain by karstic groundwater bodies, with a small area underlain by gravel groundwater bodies. The underlying aquifer was described as Locally important in the northern part of the Study Area and Regionally Important-karstified (conduit) in the rest of the Study Area. The GSI database indicated that groundwater vulnerability to human activities was High throughout most of the Study Area. Habitats and Flora within the Study Area - High Value Habitats Table lists all habitats recorded within the Study Area, along with the ecological value. In certain cases (in line with NRA guidelines), locations have been given a site name where a particular grouping of habitats or species has been identified (e.g. Derreen Lough or Orchid-rich roadside verges at Manulla as described below). In this context, the term site refers to an area of ecological value for the purposes of describing the habitats and species in this report. It does not equate to any formal designation. Habitats qualifying as key ecological receptors are mapped in Figure A.3 Habitats Mapping and Ecological Constraints in Appendix A of the Report. The highest value habitats recorded were of County Importance as per NRA Guidelines (2009a). These are listed below with habitat descriptions and codes (Fossitt, 2000) in parentheses. According to Inland Fisheries Ireland, the Walshpool Lough River (land depositing river - FW2) contained European Eel Anguilla anguilla ( Critically Endangered ), Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar and Brown Trout Salmo trutta (both Least Concern ). The river was found to be an ecological corridor connecting the surrounding landscape to the River Moy csac downstream. Otter droppings containing White-clawed crayfish remains were recorded in the River within the Study Area. Both species are Qualifying Interests of the River Moy csac. The site therefore qualified for county-level importance high biodiversity in a county context as a site containing habitats or species undergoing a decline...at a national level (NRA, 2009a). The site hereafter referred to as Area C1: Manulla Molinia Grasslands (Wet grassland - GS4) comprised several open, peaty, wet grassland fields in the townland of Manulla. They were valued at County importance because the correspond to the Annex 1 habitat type Molinia meadows on calcareous, 22

27 peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) [6410], but did not meet the NRA (2009a) criteria for national importance. The site hereafter referred to as Area C2: Derreen Lough comprised Swamps (FS1/FS2) and Mesotrophic lake habitats (FL4). It was valued at County importance due to the presence of Black Bog Rush Schoenus nigricans, and Marsh Helleborine Epipactis palustris Orchids. It therefore qualified as a site that contained high biodiversity in a county context and species that are rare on a national level NRA, 2009). The site hereafter referred to as the Area C3: Smuttanagh Bog (PB4/HH3) was bisected by the existing N60 road. It has been historically drained by deep perimeter ditches. There was no evidence of current peat-cutting but historical cutting is obvious from aerial photography. The portion of bog/heath to the south of the N60 has retained characteristic raised bog vegetation in some areas, where drainage had been less severe than to the north. The moss layer included Sphagnum austinii and S. papillosum which are indicative of wetter peat-forming conditions. There are small areas of wet heath present which correspond to the Annex I habitat type [4010] Northern Atlantic wet heats with Erica tetralix along with non-natural depressions in the bog which correspond with the Annex I habitat [7150] Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion. Based on the presence of these Annex I habitats, this site is valued at County importance, but did not meet the NRA (2009a) criteria for national importance. Habitats and Flora within the Study Area - er Value Habitats A large number of habitats and named sites of Local Importance (Higher value) were also recorded, and are mapped in Figure A.3. The named sites are described below. A site in the townland of Manulla hereafter named Area LH1: Orchid-rich verges at Manulla (Dry meadow - GS2), comprised of narrow strips of calcareous grassland containing three Orchid species including Marsh Helleborine. A small lake hereafter called Area LH2: Creaghanboy Lake (Mesotrophic Lake- FL4) was recorded in a sloping field dominated by swamps (FS1/FS2) and is c. 0.1km south of the existing N60. The lake is fed by Derreen Lough via the Manulla 34 River (1) under the existing N60 and is 0.1km south of the existing N60. A species-rich field hereafter named Area LH3: Species-rich Grassland at Rinnahulty (Dry calcareous and neutral grassland GS1), was recorded adjacent to Creaghanboy Lake and contained a diverse extensively managed meadow of neutral and calcareous species. Area LH4: Orchid-rich scrub at Creaghanboy (Scrub - WS1) contained three Orchid species, and other calcareous species of interest. Area LH5: Railway embankment scrub (Scrub - WS1) ran intermittently along the southern part of the Study Area in areas where scrub lined the existing railway. Four species of bats were recorded feeding in this habitat. 23

28 Other habitats that were recorded included small woodland copses (Broadleaved woodland - WD1; Mixed broadleaved/coniferous woodland -WD2; Wet pedunculate oak-ash woodland WN4; Bog Woodland - WN7); grasslands other than those previously described (Dry meadows - GS2), Scrub (WS1); and Drainage ditches (FW4). A small number of lower value habitats of Local Importance (er value) were recorded but do not require assessment in accordance with the approached recommended by the NRA (2009a). Rare Flora The desk study recorded no rare or protected flora within a 10km radius of the Study Area (the NPWS Research branch data). Field studies in July and September 2013 recorded one species on the Irish Red Data Book for Vascular Plants (Curtis & McGough, 2005); Marsh Helleborine. The species was locally abundant at two sites within the Study Area. The first was in Area LH1 where it was abundant, and the second was on the shore of Area C2 where it was occasional. The species is not threatened in Ireland (Curtis & McGough, 2005), but is locally frequent in the centre and rather rare elsewhere (Parnell & Curtis, 2012). Black Bog Rush Schoenus nigricans was found to be locally frequent at Area C2 amongst reeds on the southern shore. The species is listed as an Important Flora in the Mayo Biodiversity Action Plan (Mayo Co.Co., 2010) due to its importance in lowland blanket bog and rich fen habitats, and its national decline due to drainage of wetlands. Invasive Flora Two invasive flora species were recorded within the Study Area, namely Japanese Knotweed Fallopia japonica and Canadian Waterweed Elodea canadensis. A small population of Japanese Knotweed was recorded in a roadside hedge in the townland of Drumnaslooeen. Canadian Waterweed is in an aquatic plant that was recorded in a series of drainage ditches and streams scattered through the Study Area. Both are on the list of 39 Problematic Plants of the National Invasive Species Database. Under Schedule 3 of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations, 2011, it is an offence to cause to disperse, spread or otherwise cause to grow [either species]. Fauna In accordance with NRA Guidelines, the legal status of all protected fauna species is provided in Table below. 24

29 Badger and Otter Evidence of badger activity was recorded in the townlands of Carrowntober Oughter, Drumnaslooeen, and Manulla. A total of eleven Badger setts were identified within the study area; five of which were active at the time of survey with the remainder showing no signs of recent use. The status and description of each of the setts is provided in Table below. Ref. No. Type of Sett 2 Status and Description S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Subsidiary Possible Annexe Minor Possible Main Outlier Outlier Disused sett with single entrance. In raised earth bank in the woodland along a well-used badger trail. Active single entrance sett in the northern side of the rail line embankment. Disused single entrance sett. In woodland copse amongst bramble scrub. Active single entrance sett underneath the existing N60. Bedding present in spoil and cluster of latrines nearby. Active single entrance sett amongst bramble scrub in a peaty bank along a field drain. Three entrances. Not very active and covered in vegetation. No signs of recent activity. S7 Outlier Two entrances, one on each side of the hedge. No recent activity S8 Subsidiary One entrance with fresh spoil. S9 Possible Main Two entrances in an embankment of the N60. There was a lot of digging activity in the adjacent field and a foot print was recorded. S10 Outlier Two entrances in ring fort. No evidence of recent activity. S11 Outlier A single entrance adjacent to the ring fort. No evidence of recent use. Table 3.3-4: Badger setts within the study area Evidence of Otter activity was found widely throughout the study area and it suggests that Otter potentially use all of the watercourses and lakes within the study area to some degree. One potential Otter holt, and one couch site, were recorded within the study area. The status and description of each of these features is provided in Table below. Ref. No. Feature Status and Description H1 Potential Holt Inactive, single entrance burrow in the bank of a large field drain under tree roots. C1 Couch Well used couch site along the bank of a river. Table 3.3-5: Otter holts/couches within the study area 2 Badger sett definitions after Byrne, A., Sleeman, D.P., O Keefe, J. and Davenport, J. (2012) The ecology of the European badger (Meles meles) in Ireland: a review. Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 112B,

30 Otters and badgers could cross existing roads and the proposed options at any point within the Study Area either overland or via existing culverts, thereby bringing them within the zone of influence of potential collision impacts. Depending on the exact alignment of any route option there may be direct impacts (e.g. loss of setts within the footprint of the proposed development) or indirect impacts (e.g. disturbance during construction) on the local Badger and Otter populations. Any potential impacts are likely to be reduced to the local geographic scale impacts after standard mitigation measures are applied. Derogation licences may be required to disturb any identified breeding or resting places. Hedgehog and Pygmy Shrew There were no signs of either species recorded during multi-disciplinary surveys, but field signs or observations of live animals are relatively rare. Both species are likely to breed/hibernate in grassland/hedgerow habitats throughout the Study Area. Given the populations potentially present, potential impacts are likely to be reduced to the local geographic scale with mitigation. Bats Four species of bats were recorded feeding and commuting within the Study Area (Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, Leisler s Bat Nyctalus leisleri, and an unidentified 3 Myotis sp. bat). Three of the species were of Least Concern on the national Red-List (Marnell et al., 2009). The Leisler s bat is Near Threatened in Ireland despite the stable population numbers because of its importance to the global population. No Lesser Horseshoe Bats were recorded during bat activity surveys, and there were no historical records of the species occurring within 6km. There were no known cave features (i.e. potential bat hibernation sites) within 10km of the route options according to the NPWS cave database. Bat Conservation Ireland had no records of known bat roosts within 3km of the route options. The nearest known roost was a Lesser Horseshoe bat roost located approximately 3.2km to the south of the study area. The next nearest roost was a Brown Long- Eared Plecotus auritus located approximately 5km to the south-west of the existing N60. There was no evidence of roosting bats recorded at any of the buildings or bridge structures affected by the route options. Small numbers of bats were recorded feeding at five of the eleven potential bat feeding areas within the bat activity survey area. No bats were recorded at six of the eleven potential feeding areas which often included open grassland fields. Highest bat feeding activity was recorded within Area LH5 near the cutover bog at Smuttanagh. Bats were recorded feeding continuously around security lighting at the 3 Bats from the genus Myotis cannot be easily identified to species level, and there are three widespread species In Ireland. However, only one recording of a Myotis bat call was made. Therefore, only one species was recorded. 26

31 Smuttanagh Level Crossing (5 Soprano pipistrelle bats and 5-6 Leisler s bats). Overall, local bat populations were valued at Local Importance (Higher value). None of the buildings or bridge sites surveyed showed any evidence of bat use. The findings of the building and bridge inspections are summarised below in Table Structure N60 bridge at Carrowntober Oughter N60 bridge at outfall from Derreen Lough Bridge SW of Manulla crossroads Agricultural shed Grid ref , Agricultural shed Grid ref , Uninhabited cottage Grid ref , A complex of agricultural sheds and barns Grid ref , Note Some suitable crevices for roosting bats but no evidence of bat presence/activity. Concrete pipe bridge with plastered parapet. No potential for roosting bats. Underneath of bridge structure inaccessible. Concrete pipes visible at upstream end. No evidence of roosting bats High potential for roosting bats. Dusk emergence and dawn survey undertaken and no evidence of bat use of the building was recorded. High potential for roosting bats. Dusk emergence and dawn survey undertaken. No evidence of roosting bats. High potential for roosting bats. Dusk emergence and dawn survey undertaken. No evidence of roosting bats. bat roosting potential. Internal/external inspection and dusk/dawn detector survey undertaken. No evidence of roosting bats. Table 3.3-6: Results of building and bridge surveys for roosting bats Birds Breeding birds The results of the breeding bird survey are shown on Figure A.3c. Table below, lists the bird species recorded within the study area along with their current Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland status (BoCCI). None of the breeding bird species recorded within the study area are listed on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive 2009/147/EC. 27

32 Common Name BoCCI Category 1 Common Name BoCCI Category Grey wagtail B Coal tit B Meadow pipit B Collared dove B Common gull B Dunnock B Goldcrest B Goldfinch B Greenfinch B Grasshopper warbler B House martin B Jackdaw B House sparrow B Magpie B Robin B Mallard W Starling B Pied wagtail B Stonechat B Sedge warbler B Swallow B Whitethroat B Blackbird B Willow warbler B Blackcap B Woodpigeon B Blue tit B Wren B Bullfinch B Table 3.3-7: Results of the breeding bird survey 1 BoCCI Status Red list species are of a high conservation concern, Amber list species are of a moderate conservation concern, and Green list species are of a low conservation concern (Colhoun & Cummins, 2013). The category used within the BoCCI status refers to the primary occurrence for the species in Ireland;. breeding (B), passage (P) and wintering (W) There were no records of Kingfishers within 10km of the Study Area (Cummins et al., 2010), and limited potential for the species to breed within the Study Area where optimal nesting habitat was absent. Overall, the bird populations are valued at Local Importance (Higher value). The wintering bird species recorded on lakes within the study area are presented in Table with the locations of the lakes referred to below shown on Figure A.3f. Location Bird Species Recorded Dec 2013 Feb Mar 2014 Apr Creaghanboy Lake No birds No birds Mute swan (2) Mallard (4) 28

33 Location Drumadoon Lough Derreen Lough South Derreen Lough North Bird Species Recorded Dec 2013 Feb Mar 2014 Apr Whooper swan (7) Mute swan (2) Mallard (2) Mallard (3) Tufted duck (28) Whooper swan (7) Mute swan (2) Tufted duck (3) Tufted duck (20) Mallard (1) Coot (3) Tufted duck (2) No birds Coot (1) Mallard (3) - Manulla Lake No birds No birds No birds - Lakeland Upper Mallard (4) Cormorant (1) Water rail (1) Wigeon (37) Tufted duck (15) Cormorant (3) Wigeon (28) Cormorant (2) Tufted duck (44) Wigeon (3) Mallard (5) Coot (2) Mute swan (1) Mute swan (1) Grey heron (1) Mallard (2) Table 3.3-8: Results of the wintering bird survey 1 All sites were counted on the 25 th February with a second count undertaken at Drumadoon Lough on the 26 th February in the course of other field surveys. The record for Mallard applies only to the earlier survey date. 2 Counts taken during the course of other survey work; sites not counted in April 2014 are denoted with - Amphibians Common frog Rana temporaria were present throughout the study area. Confirmed breeding habitat (i.e. where frog spawn was present) was also relatively widespread, with Smuttanagh Bog supporting a relatively large breeding frog population locally. Smooth Newts Triturus vulgaris were recorded in one location within the study area; in Smuttanagh Bog between the existing N60 and the rail line. This species could breed in any suitable pond/pool areas within the bog and surrounding drainage ditch network. The results of the amphibian surveys are shown on Figure A.3d. - 29

34 Both species were likely to be locally and regionally-common and widespread and are nationally of Least Concern (King et al., 2011). Given the populations potentially present, potential impacts are likely to be reduced to the local geographic scale with mitigation. Marsh Fritillary There were no Marsh fritillary larval webs recorded during searches of suitable habitat in the appropriate season. Using the standard descriptions of Habitat Suitability for this species (Fowler, 2003), one grassland area ( patch type ) qualified as in Good Condition for the species (Area C1). Three fields at Manulla and Smuttanagh qualified as Suitable (Under-Grazed) for the species. There is currently no evidence that these areas support Marsh fritillary populations. However, Marsh fritillary populations are variable from year to year, and new metapopulations can colonize new areas from core breeding areas, or re-populate core areas that may have become extinct. The nearest known Marsh fritillary site is located within 2km of the Study Area at Walshpool Lough. Butterflies could disperse over this distance to occupy the Good Condition and Suitable (Under-Grazed) fields in the future. These areas are valued as areas of Local Importance (Higher value). White-Clawed Crayfish No White-clawed crayfish were recorded during surveys. Populations are known from the Manulla River, and the Loughnaminoo Stream within 0.5km of the Study Area. Due to the intermediate water depth, silty substrate, and overhanging vegetation along watercourses within the Study Area, there is no one survey method suited to the habitat conditions that would ensure detection of all crayfish present. There is also potential for crayfish to have been absent during the time of the surveys, or to establish new populations in watercourses within the Study Area in the future (e.g. by moving upstream from the known populations in the River Moy csac). This is however not a significant limitation to the constraints study, as mitigation (including licenced translocation of crayfish) can reduce all potential impacts to local scale impacts. There is no likelihood of a significant impact to the River Moy csac site integrity. Fisheries The Walshpool Lough River has significant stocks of Brown Trout, and moderate stocks of Atlantic Salmon, Eel, Three spined Stickleback and Perch according to Inland Fisheries Ireland (see Table 3.3-1). There is currently no information on fisheries in Derreen Lough or the lough at Creaghanboy, but there may be resident Brown Trout stocks given their presence in several similar catchments in the local area (e.g. Lough Naminnoo and Manulla). 30

35 Other Sites of Ecological Value near the Study Area There were no other relevant ecological sites or features outside the Study Area that were likely to be impacted, and that were considered a significant feature to assess as part of the constraints study. Other Relevant Conservation Designations or Programs The Study Area is located within the Western River Basin District, which will be subject to implementation of the Office of Public Work s Western Catchment Flood Risk Assessment & Management (Western CFRAM) Study. This study is currently on-going, and will be revisited at a later stage during design to determine if any proposed/draft actions are of relevance to the assessment of the preferred route. The Study Area includes a number of scheduled channels and a number of areas of land benefited as part of the Moy Arterial Drainage Scheme, for which the Office of Public Works (OPW) has a maintenance responsibility. The location of the channels and the benefiting lands is shown on Figure A.18 OPW Flooding Mapping. A copy of the letter received from the OPW is included in Appendix F. Table summarises the key ecological receptors within the Study Area and their status. 31

36 Key Ecological Receptor/Site Name Area C1: Manulla Molinia Grasslands Area C2: Derreen Lough Area C3: Smuttanagh Bog (PB3/HH3) Walshpool Lough River Area LH1: Orchid-rich verges at Manulla Area LH2: Creaghanboy Lake (FL3/FS1) Area LH3: Rinnahulty Grassland (GS1) Area LH4: Orchid-rich scrub at Creaghanboy Area LH5: Railway Embankment Scrub Fossitt Code EU HD Annex 1 Habitat Flora Species qualifying as Key Ecological Receptors 4 Wet grassland (GS4) Swamps (FS1/FS2) and Mesotrophic lakes (FL4) Cutover bog and wet heath (PB4/HH3) land depositing rivers (FW2) Dry Meadow and Grassy Verges (GS2) Mesotrophic lakes (FL4), Swamps (FS1/FS2) Dry Calcareous and Neutral Grassland (GS1) Dry Meadow and Grassy Verges (GS2) Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) [6410] - Black Bog Rush (BAP), Northern Atlantic wet heats with Erica tetralix [4010] Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion [7150] Known Fauna Species present qualifying as Key Ecological Receptors - Good Condition Habitat for Marsh Fritillary (not confirmed present during surveys in 2013) Marsh Helleborine (RDB) - - Atlantic Salmon, Brown Trout, European Eel, Otter - Marsh Helleborine (RDB)- County County County County Ecological Value - Local Importance (Higher value)) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) - Marsh Helleborine (RDB) Grasshopper Warbler - Local Importance (Higher value)) Scrub (WS1) - - Bats (Common Pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle, Leisler s Bat, and an unidentified Myotis sp. bat), Local Importance (Higher value)) Location Several interconnected fields at Manulla, south of N60 Derreen Lough in townland of Creaghanboy Fields adjacent to the existing N60 in townland of Skiddernagh Manulla River Tributary, which flows along and under the existing road before discharging into the River Manulla, within the River Moy csac Several roadside embankments at Manulla Lake downstream of the route options, which is fed by Derreen Lough by a ditch culverted under the existing N60 One field in townland of Rinnahulty Several roadside embankments at Manulla Drainage Ditches (FW4) - - Otter Local Importance (Higher value)) Dry Meadow and Grassy Verges (GS2) (other than LH1 and LH4) Wet Grassland (GS4) (Not qualifying as Annex 1 Molinia grasslands) Poor Fen and Flush (PF2) Hedgerows/Treelines (WL1/WL2) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) - - Bats (3 species), Potential Buzzard, &Kestrel Local Importance (Higher value) Frequently culverted underneath existing road. Often associated with historic drainage of peat habitats Along roadside embankments and in hay meadows (GS2) Frequent throughout Single tiny feature on margin of degraded raised bog in townland of Smuttanagh Frequent throughout 4 RDB = Red Data Book for Vascular Flora (Curtis & McGough (2005); BAP = Important flora under Mayo Biodiversity Action Plan

37 Key Ecological Receptor/Site Name Fossitt Code EU HD Annex 1 Habitat Flora Species qualifying as Key Ecological Receptors 4 Known Fauna Species present qualifying as Key Ecological Receptors Ecological Value Location Badger and Otter Hedgehog and Pygmy Shrew Breeding Birds Wintering Birds Amphibians and Reptiles Bats (other than at LH5: Railway Embankment Scrub) Broad-leaved Woodland (WD1) Mixed Broadleaved/conifer Woodland (WD2) Wet pedunculate oak-ash woodland (WN4) Bog Woodland (WN7) - - Bats (1 species) Local Importance (Higher value) - Bats (1 species) Local Importance (Higher value) - - Bats (1 species) Local Importance (Higher value) None (Does not qualify as Annex 1 Bog woodland habitat) - - Local Importance (Higher value) Scrub (WS1) - - Bats (2 species), Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value Local Importance (Higher value Local Importance (Higher value Local Importance (Higher value Local Importance (Higher value Local Importance (Higher value) - - Local Importance (Higher value) - - Local Importance (Higher value) - - Local bird species assemblage (see Table 3.3-7) - - Local bird species assemblage (see Table 3.3-8) - - Common frog and Smooth newt - - Bats (Common Pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle, Leisler s Bat, and an unidentified Myotis sp. bat), Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) One copse In townland of Lagnamuck One very small copse in townland of Creaghanboy One large wooded area immediately east of all route options Occurs on degraded bog in townland of Smuttanagh, and scrub-covered bog in further east Scattered throughout Potential throughout Potential throughout Throughout Throughout Common frog widespread Smooth newt present in Smuttanagh Bog Throughout Fisheries (outside Manulla River and Stream) Local Importance (Higher value) Improved Agricultural Grassland (GA1) Recolonising Bare Ground (ED2) Stone walls and other stonework (BL1) BL3 Buildings and artificial surfaces (BL3) - - Atlantic salmon, Brown trout, and moderate stocks of Eel, Threespined stickleback and Perch Local Importance (Higher value) Watercourses throughout Local (er value) Not relevant to constraints study Local (er value) Not relevant to constraints study - Local (er value) Not relevant to constraints study - Local (er value) Not relevant to constraints study Table 3.3-9: Ecological Value and Status of Ecological Features within Study Area 33

38 3.3.2 Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage Methodology The methodology used in the preparation of this assessment is based on guidance provided in the National Roads Authority s Guidelines for the Assessment of Archaeological Heritage Impacts on National Road Schemes and Guidelines for the Assessment of Architectural Heritage Impacts on National Road Schemes (NRA 2005). Data Sources Baseline information for the Study Area was gathered from the following sources of information: Record of Monuments and Places (RMP); Sites and Monuments Record (SMR); Register of Historic Monuments; First edition Ordnance Survey 6 mapping ( ) and first edition Ordnance Survey 25 mapping ( ) from The National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) for Mayo; National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) Survey of Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes; List of Structures on the Record of Protected Structures for County Mayo; and Mayo County Development Plan for the Record of Protected Structures, Architectural Conservation Areas and relevant heritage policies. The Study Area is dominated by the existing N60 and the area is generally rural, characterised by residential properties and agricultural land. The Study Area includes the townlands of Manulla, Lakeland er, Skiddernagh, Rinnahulty, Creaghanboy, Derreen, Drumnaslooeen, Lisnolan, Smuttanagh, Carrowntober Eighter, Carrowntober Oughter, Tully Beg and Lagnamuck. A total of 31 archaeological and cultural heritage sites were identified within the Study Area, 7 No. within a 300m radius of the existing N60 and 24 No. within the wider Manulla area as shown in Figure A.4 Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage Constraints in Appendix A. Information on these sites is summarised in Table

39 Reference No. Legal Status Townland Monument Type Irish National Grid Reference (E, N) Sites within the Study Area MA Recorded Monument Skiddernagh Ringfort-Rath / MA Recorded Monument Drumnaslooeen Ringfort-Rath / MA Recorded Monument Carrowntober Oughter Ringfort Rath / MA Recorded Monument Carrowntober Oughter Enclosure / MA Recorded Monument Lisnolan Fulacht Fia / Sites within the wider Manulla area (Outside of the Study Area) MA Redundant Record / MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Lakeland er Suspected Crannog. Field investigation revealed natural island Skiddernagh Ringfort Rath / Manulla, Holy Well / Rinnahulty Carrowmore Ringfort Rath / Drumnaslooeen Ringfort Rath / Carrowkeel Ringfort Rath / Prison North Ringfort Rath / Lisnolan Ringfort Rath / Lisnolan Enclosure / Rathedmond Enclosure / Drumadoon Enclosure / Carrowntober Mound / Eighter Knockmore Souterrain / Oughter Knockmore Church / Eighter Rinnahulty Earthwork / Rinnahulty Children s / Burial Ground Rinnahulty Castle /

40 Reference No. Legal Status Townland Monument Type MA Recorded Monument MA079- Recorded Monument MA079- Recorded Monument MA079- Recorded Monument MA079- Recorded Monument MA Recorded Monument MA Recorded Monument Non-Designated Sites within the Study Area Land League Cottage and garden Statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary Irish National Grid Reference (E, N) Rathedmond Ringfort Rath / Rathedmond Souterrain / Carrowkeel Souterrain / Prison North House / Creaghanboy Children s / Burial Ground Lisnolan Enclosure / Tully Beg Crannog / Table : Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage sites County Mayo has a rich archaeological and architectural heritage, reflected in the nearly 6,000 areas of archaeological importance included in the Record of Monuments and Places for Co. Mayo spanning over 7,000 years and 271 architectural features noted in the Record of Protected Structures (Environmental Report Documenting the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Mayo County Development Plan (Mayo County Council, February 2013). The Study Area contains ringfort-raths, enclosures and souterrains, however there are no other details on these sites available from the National Monuments Service online database. Non-Designated Cultural Sites A building of local importance is the Land League Cottage. The history of the Land League Cottage goes back to the Land League Movement in the 1880 s. The Land League sought to help poor tenant farmers in Ireland. Members of the Land League Movement constructed the cottage in the course of a single day to provide a home for one of their members. One of the interesting features of building is that three of the men involved in the construction of the cottage were named Early, Noone and Knight adding to the lore surrounding the great feat of building a house in the course of one day. A shrine to the Blessed Virgin Mary is located at the Lisnolan cross-roads between the townlands of Carrowntober Eighter, Drumnaslooeen and Creaghanboy. This is a small white structure housing a statue of the Virgin Mary with a small white wall either side. 36

41 3.3.3 Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology Soils and Geology Methodology This assessment was undertaken with reference to the NRA Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes (NRA 2009). A review of publicly available data has been undertaken to provide a qualitative assessment of the geological conditions anticipated. Soils and Geology Data Sources and Consultation The following data sources have been consulted in relation to the assessment: Ordinance Survey of Ireland ( Historic 6 inch & 25 inch maps and OSI maps); Environmental Report Documenting the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Mayo County Development Plan ; and Geological Survey of Ireland ( EPA & Teagasc Soils and Subsoils Maps 2006 ( The General Soil Map of Ireland, 2 nd Edition, (1980), Teagasc (formerly An Foras Taluntais) Peatlands of Ireland Map, 1981, Teagasc (formerly An Foras Taluntais) Field surveys, ground investigation and other site specific data was not available at the time of assessment. Reference is to be made to the following Figures: A.5 Bedrock; A.6 Subsoils Geology; A.7 Hydrogeology Constraints; and A.8 Groundwater Vulnerability Constraints. Soils and Geology With reference to Figures A.5 and A.6, the Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) records indicate that Study Area is underlain predominantly by Limestone Till and extensive Cutover Peat deposits. The till is derived from the underlying Carboniferous limestone bedrock which outcrops at surface level in the townlands of Lisnolan and Drumnaslooeen (200m either side of Lisnolan Cross). The underlying limestone varies in composition across the Study Area. In the north west of the Study Area, the medium grained, thick bedded pale limestone with minor shale of the Barney Limestone Formation (to Manulla Cross) and the thickly bedded cherty limestone of the Bohoge Member are truncated along two minor fault lines running approximately northeast to southwest and east to west respectively. To the east of the fault lines, the south eastern section of the Study Area is underlain by the limestone of the Illaunagapul Formation (up to the 37

42 N60/L Junction townlands of Smuttanagh) and the fine grained, dark limestone and shale of the Creagh Member, thereafter. A summary of the limestone bedrock underlying the Study Area is provided in Table below and in Figure A.5 in Appendix A. Name of Geological Formation or Member Brief Description of the Dominant Rock Types Blarney Limestone Formation Thick bedded pale limestone and minor shale BT Illaunagappul Limestone, thin shale partings IL Formation Ardnasillagh Formation Dark cherty Limestone, thin AS shale Creagh Member Fine-grained dark limestone OKcr and thin shale Craggagh Shale Black shale CH Formation er Sandstone Thick bedded pale fine CHIs Member sandstone Bohoge Member Thick bedded cherty limestone BTbh GSI Map Code Table : Summary of solid geology underneath the Study Area The depth of till across the site is not known. However a particular characteristic of limestone is an irregular bedrock surface and therefore the thickness of the overlying till may be expected to vary considerably over the Study Area. Soft ground conditions are likely to be encountered across the area due to the extent of the peat deposits and it is likely that modification of these deposits will have occurred in some areas by virtue of the description of Cutover Peat, particularly along the route of the existing N60 and other areas of development. The online Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Envision 2006 Soil layer and the General Soil Map of Ireland, 1980 indicate that the Principal Soils within the Study Area are: Soil Association Number 28: Grey Brown Podzolics with Associated Soils of Gleys, Interdrumlin Peat and Peaty Gleys Soil Association Number 44: Basinal Peat Predominantly formed by the build-up of decomposed plant material over several thousand years, peat is generally of low permeability and associated with areas of poor drainage. The Peatland Map of Ireland (1981) indicates peat within the area to have an average depth of 2.5m. 38

43 Grey Brown Podzolic (infertile) soils have a loam texture and surface horizons contain 20 to 24% clay and 30 to 40% silt. The parent material consists of glacial till of mainly limestone composition. The associated gley soils are formed from till derived from Carboniferous shale and sandstone and usually consists of a very dark brown surface horizon of weak structure and poor consistence about 20 to 25cm deep. This overlies a grey mottled and plastic subsurface with a coarse structure, with some podzolic (infertile soil) soil in places. No geological heritage sites, active or historical quarries were identified within the Study Area. A landfill is located adjacent to the L , northwest of the existing N60. According to an Application for Planning Permission, the material deposited onsite includes topsoil, subsoil, silt clay, gravel and inert waste from construction and demolition. Wood chippings have been spread on site to condition the soil to enable it to be used for agricultural purposes once the site is filled. Figure A.5 Geology Bedrock shows the location of the field the landfill is located in. The landfill was refused planning permission to continue infilling in April At the time of the planning application the area filled was approximately 9,100 square metres in the south-west section of the field and the average depth of 1.25m (approximate volume deposited 11,375m 3 ). Hydrogeology Methodology This assessment was undertaken in line with the NRA Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes (NRA 2009). A review of publicly available data has been undertaken to provide a qualitative assessment of the hydrogeological conditions anticipated. Hydrogeology Data Sources and Consultation The following data sources were consulted in relation to this element during the constraints study assessment: Ordinance Survey of Ireland ( Environmental Report Documenting the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Mayo County Development Plan ; Geological Survey of Ireland ( and National Park and Wildlife Service ( Hydrogeology Constraints The majority of the Study Area is underlain with a Regionally Important Aquifer. The centre of the Study Area is underlain by a Locally Important Aquifer (bedrock which is moderately productive only in local zones) with small sections of poor 39

44 aquifer which are generally unproductive or unproductive except for local zones. These aquifers are shown on Figure A.7 Hydrogeology Constraints. The groundwater vulnerability of the aquifers within the Study Area is predominantly high with smaller areas which identified as having low vulnerability and extreme vulnerability. Vulnerability Mapping of the Study Area is shown in Figure A.8. The nature of limestone strongly influences its susceptibility to karstification, with purer limestones more susceptible than those containing shale or other constituents. Structural alteration such as folding and faulting can also cause fracturing and the formation of a network of fissures along which water can penetrate and begin to dissolve the rock. On this basis all of the limestone bedrock beneath the Study Area has the potential to be karstified with uneven bedrock surfaces, large voids and rapid underground drainage. All of the limestones, with the exception of the Bohoge Member (i.e. Thick Bedded Cherty Limestone), are described as karstified and are regionally important aquifers with moderate to extreme groundwater vulnerability (See Figure A.7 Hydrogeology Constraints). The Bohoge Member is a locally important aquifer also of moderate to extreme vulnerability. No private water supplies data is available within the Study Area Surface Water Methodology This assessment was undertaken in line with the NRA Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes (NRA, 2009). Data Sources and Consultation The following data sources were considered as part of the constraints study in relation to surface water and fisheries: Ordinance Survey of Ireland ( Environmental Report Documenting the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Mayo County Development Plan ; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ( Water Quality Monitoring Database and Reports; Water Framework Directive Classification; EPA flow measurements; The Western River Basin District Management Plan (WRBDMP) and associated Water Management Unit plans; National Parks and Wildlife Service ( designated sites); 40

45 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the Mayo County Development Plan ; Mayo County Development Plan ; and Office of Public Works ( Consultation letters were issued as part of the constraints and route selection process. Consultees included Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) and the Office of Public Works (OPW). In addition a meeting was held with the IFI on-site to discuss the development. Copies of the responses to the consultation letters can be found in Appendix F. Constraints Catchment and Sub-Catchment The Study Area lies within the Western River Basin District (RBD). The District comprises 89 river catchments with over 14,200km of river. The Study Area includes a number of scheduled channels and a number of areas of land benefited as part of the Moy Arterial Drainage Scheme, for which the Office of Public Works (OPW) has a maintenance responsibility. The location of the channels and the benefiting lands is shown on Figure A.19 OPW Benefiting Lands and Scheduled Channels. Surface water features The major watercourses within and adjacent to the Study Area are: Manulla 34 River; Walshpool Lough River; Kilmacrade River; Lakeland er stream; South Curryeallaun stream; Rinnahulty stream; Drumnaslooeen stream; Manulla west stream; Manulla 34 stream; South Carrowmore stream; Kilmacrade stream; Eighter stream; Tully Beg 34 stream; Drumadoon stream; and A number of unnamed streams. In addition to watercourses there are a number of surface water bodies within the Study Area and in the surrounding areas. These include Carrowmore Lough, 41

46 Derreen Lough (collective name for two loughs) and Creaghanboy Lake. These surface water features are shown on Figure A.9 Surface Water. Within the Study Area the existing N60 road crosses over watercourses at 5 points. There are also a number of ditches associated with drainage of the farmland in the area. Surface Water Quality Under the Water Framework Directive, the EPA has assigned a water quality status to water bodies ranging from High to Bad. The Manulla 34 River is the only water body within the Study Area which has been monitored and assigned a water quality status. The Manulla 34 River has been identified as having a River Status of Good. The Carrowmore Lough to the North of the Study Area is identified as a lake which provides drinking water. Consideration should be given in the route selection stage to any impact which may affect this lake. Fisheries The Manulla 34 River is designated as a Salmonid River under EU freshwater Fish Directive. Amenity The Manulla 34 River is noted as a fishing attraction in the area. The river offers trout fishing and some of the small loughs on the Manulla 34 River hold pike. Flood Risk This section outlines the risk of flooding in the Study Area from a range of potential sources associated with inland flooding. Mayo County Council prepared a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the Mayo County Development Plan Stage 1 identified areas where there might be a significant risk of flooding, highlighting communities, facilities and sites where the risk due to flooding might be potentially significant. Manulla was not identified as an area for further assessment at this stage. a) Inland Flooding Inland flooding is caused by prolonged and/or intense rainfall. Inland flooding can include a number of different types: - River Flooding where the capacity of a watercourse channel is exceeded, causing excess water to spill from the channel onto the surrounding low-lying land. - Overland Flow where the amount of rainfall exceeds the capacity of the ground to absorb it and excess water flows overland, ponding in natural hollows or behind obstructions. 42

47 - Artificial Drainage Systems where flow entering a drainage system exceeds the discharge capacity or the system becomes blocked, resulting in flooding on the surface. - Groundwater occurs where the level of water stored in the ground rises above the ground level as a result of prolonged rainfall. There is an extensive network of rivers and tributaries which traverse the Study Area including the Manulla River. There is no risk of coastal or tidal flooding due to the distance from the coast to the Study Area. b) Flood Risk from Artificial Drainage Systems The existing road network and urban development on the proposed scheme is served by surface water drainage systems. Should these systems block, or if a rainfall event occurs that exceeds the discharge and storage capacity of these systems, flooding of the carriageways and surrounding areas could occur. These drainage systems are maintained by the local authority in order to ensure that they work correctly and do not become blocked. It is unlikely that significant amounts of debris would be washed onto the carriageway that could result in a blockage. The risk of flooding from artificial drainage systems is therefore considered low. c) Flood Risk from Groundwater Due to the low-lying nature of the Study Area there is the potential for prolonged rainfall to raise the groundwater level within these aquifers above ground surface level, resulting in flooding. d) Recorded Flooding Incidents There have been a number of recorded flooding incidents along the N60 including one within the Study Area. Land and road flooding in the N60 Drumadoon Carrowntober Area at Manulla during periods of heavy rain is recorded to occur at least once per year. This information was obtained from the OPW website: e) OPW Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment The Office of Public Works (OPW) has developed the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA), a national screening exercise to identify areas where there may be a significant risk associated with flooding. Figure A.18 OPW Flooding shows the route options 43

48 overlaid on the draft preliminary flood risk assessment map. This identifies areas of flood risk from fluvial (river) flooding and pluvial (rainfall) flooding and the water bodies in the area Landscape and Visual Methodology The methodology in relation to identifying key constraints associated with the landscape consisted of a review of all statutory documents and plans pertaining to the Study Area including the Mayo County Council Development Plan and the Landscape Appraisal of County Mayo, County Development Plan A review of published literature including maps, inspection of aerial photography and tourist information was also used. Description of Existing Landscape The Study Area landscape consists of rolling drumlin countryside ranging between approximately +26m and +50m above Ordnance Datum (OD) Malin. The land use is mainly grassland and pasture with occasional coniferous plantations. Figure A.10 Contour Mapping and Landscaping Features shows the existing landscape. Landscape Planning Context The Study Area falls within the Mayo County Council Development Plan, Within the Development Plan, Mayo County Council outlines a priority list of infrastructure projects for the county. The N60 Castlebar to Claremorris road is identified on this list for improvements at Lagnamuck, Heathlawn and Manulla Cross. Views and Prospects Highly scenic views or vistas indicate areas along public roads from which views and prospects of areas of high natural beauty and interest can be enjoyed. The Landscape Appraisal for County Mayo 2008 does not identify any scenic routes or protected views within the Study Area. Vulnerable Features The Landscape Appraisal for County Mayo report identifies that under the categories specified for Landscape Assessment, based on the CORINE Land Cover Project, the Manulla River and Carrowmore Lough, within the Study Area, are designated as Vulnerable. The Study Area is designated as a mix of agricultural lands with significant natural vegetation, transitional woodland scrub and peat bogs. 44

49 Trees and Woodland Mayo County Council seeks to protect trees and groups of trees. As per the Mayo County Development Plan : O/EH-NH 1 It is an objective of the Council to make Tree Preservation Orders, Special Amenity Area Orders and Landscape Conservation Orders where necessary. There are no tree preservation orders within the Study Area. Visually Prominent Protected Structures There are a number of protected structures and recorded monuments within the Study Area which are outlined in detail in Section Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage. None of the recorded protected monuments are visually prominent within the landscape. The Land League Cottage, adjacent to the existing N60, is visible from the existing N60, however the cottage is consistent with other residences in the area and is not considered to be visually prominent Air Methodology This assessment was undertaken with reference to the NRA Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes, (Revision 1, 2011). The assessment of existing air quality for the Study Area has been undertaken with reference to the above NRA Guidelines and includes, where possible, the following: A list of all receptors deemed sensitive, or potentially sensitive, to air quality; A general description of the prevailing ambient air quality environment; A list of any significant non-traffic sources in the Study Area; and A discussion of any opportunities for mitigation. The following data sources were considered as part of the constraints study in relation to air quality: Environmental Report Documenting the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Mayo County Development Plan ; and EPA Air Quality Databases for Claremorris and Castlebar monitoring stations. 45

50 The NRA Guidelines require any receptors that are, or have the potential to be significantly affected by changes to air quality to be identified. Any location where members of the public are likely to be regularly present can be included as a sensitive receptor. Examples include residential housing, schools, hospitals, places of worship, sports centres and shopping areas. In addition designated habitats are also potentially sensitive receptors. Those receptors, which have been identified within the Study Area, are shown in Figure A.11 Sensitive Receptors, and designated habitats are shown in Figure A.3 Habitat Mapping and Ecological Constraints. Constraints The Mayo County Development Plan recognises the significance of addressing air issues in a planning context. Section 3.1.5: Development Policies and Objectives for Environment, Heritage and Amenity Strategy, under Air Quality and Noise Pollution states: AN-01: It is an objective of the Council to support the implementation of the Air Quality Regulations. Air Pollution Sources The greatest existing source of air pollution within the Study Area is road traffic, specifically that emanating from the existing N60. The primary influences on air quality in Mayo include emissions from transport and domestic/commercial heating sectors. A review of IPPC licences issued by the EPA for the region has shown that there are no industrial facilities with emissions to atmosphere in the Study Area. Meteorological Data A key factor in assessing temporal and spatial variations in air quality is the prevailing meteorological conditions. Depending on wind speed and direction, individual receptors may experience very significant variations in pollutant levels under the same source strength (i.e. traffic levels). Wind is of key importance in dispersing air pollutants and for ground level sources, such as traffic emissions, pollutant concentrations are generally inversely related to wind speed. The prevailing westerly wind from the Atlantic Ocean ensures good dispersion of pollutants and background air pollutant concentrations are low in County Mayo (Environmental Report documenting the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Mayo County Development Plan ). The nearest representative weather station collating detailed weather records is Claremorris Meteorological Station, which is located approximately 17km southeast of Manulla. Results indicate that the prevailing wind direction is southwesterly in direction. 46

51 Air Quality Zones in Ireland As part of the implementation of the Air Quality Framework Directive (1996/62/EC), four air quality zones have been defined in Ireland for air quality management and assessment purposes. Dublin is defined as Zone A and Cork as Zone B. Zone C is composed of 21 towns with a population of greater than 15,000. The remainder of the country, which represents rural Ireland but also includes all towns with a population of less than 15,000 is defined as Zone D. The Study Area is categorised as Zone D. EPA / Local Authority Monitoring Programmes Air quality monitoring programmes have been undertaken throughout Ireland in recent years by the EPA and Local Authorities. The most recent EPA annual report on air quality monitoring undertaken throughout Ireland is entitled Air Quality In Ireland Key Indicators of Ambient Air Quality. Continuous EPA monitoring is carried out for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) and Particulate Matter (PM 10 ) at Zone D locations at Longford, Castlebar, Kilkitt and Glashaboy. Although no EPA or Local Authority monitoring has been carried out within the Study Area, the monitoring station at Castlebar is approximately 7km northwest of Manulla and would be representative of background concentrations in the Study Area. Additionally, the Claremorris Meteorological Station is located 17km from Manulla and would also be considered representative of background concentrations in the Study Area. Review of EPA Monitoring Data The NRA Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality during the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes state that the local air quality assessment should focus on NO 2 and PM 10, as these are the pollutants of greatest concern with respect to road traffic conditions. NO 2 monitoring was carried out at Castlebar monitoring station between July and December The results of the NO 2 monitoring indicated an average NO 2 concentration of 4.06parts per billion (ppb). Based on this information, a conservative estimate of the current background NO 2 concentration in the Study Area is 4.06ppb. Long-term PM 10 measurements are carried out at the Castlebar and Claremorris weather stations. The PM 10 annual average in 2011 at Castlebar was 14.3 µg/m 3 and at Claremorris was 11.5µg/m 3. Based on this information, a conservative estimate of the current background PM 10 concentration in the study is 14.3 µg/m 3. These levels are below the NO 2 and PM 10 standards derived from the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2011 (S.I. 180 of 2011), provided in Table

52 Pollutant Averaging Period Limit Value Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) 1 Hour 200µg/m 3 not to be Protection of Human exceeded more than 18 Health times a calendar year by Annual Average 40µg/m 3 by 2010 Particulate Matter (PM 10 ) 24 Hour 50µg/m 3 not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year by 2005 Annual Average 40µg/m 3 by 2005 Table : Relevant Air Quality Standards (S.I. 180 of 2011) Noise Methodology Consideration has been given to the NRA Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes. Data Sources and Consultation The assessment of noise and vibration for the Study Area has been undertaken with reference to the above NRA Guidelines and includes the following: A list of all receptors deemed sensitive, or potentially sensitive, to noise and/ or vibration; A general description of the prevailing noise climate; and A list of any significant sources of noise in the Study Area. The following data sources were considered as part of the constraints study in relation to noise; Mayo Local Authorities Noise Action Plan, Draft March 2009; Environmental Report Documenting the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Mayo County Development Plan ; and NRA Strategic Noise Mapping Phase 2 (2012). Noise and Vibration Constraints The Mayo County Development Plan recognises the significance of addressing noise issues in a planning context. Section 3.1.5: Development Policies and Objectives for Environment, Heritage and Amenity Strategy, under Air Quality and Noise Pollution states: AN-02: It is an objective of the Council to require that noise levels from new and existing developments do not exceed normally accepted standards, as set down in the Environmental Noise Regulations

53 AN-03: It is an objective of the Council to support the Noise Action Plan (or any subsequent revision). Under the NRA Guidelines, receptors that are, or have the potential to be, particularly sensitive to noise and/or vibration are required to be identified. Examples of such receptors are schools, hospitals, places of worship, heritage buildings, special habitats, amenity areas in common use and designated quiet areas. Those receptors which have been identified within the Study Area are shown on Figure A.11 Sensitive Receptors. The existing environment of the Study Area is rural in nature. The land use is predominately a mixture of agricultural lands, residential properties and a few small commercial properties. The main contributors to the existing noise environment are road traffic movements along the existing N60, traffic along the existing local roads and general environmental sources including bird song and rustling foliage. Noise maps were prepared by the NRA in 2012 for major roads in Mayo, based on a road noise computation model run by the NRA. These maps present calculated environmental noise levels from major roads in coloured noise contour bands from 55dB Lden and 50 db Lnight, to greater than 75dB Lden and greater than 50 db Lnight, in 5 db bands. The maps indicate that the calculated noise levels in the Study Area are generally between 65 to 69 db on-line or immediately adjacent to the existing N60, reducing with distance from the road Agronomy Introduction As part of the works associated with the proposed N60 Castlebar Balla Road (Manulla) Road Improvement, Philip Farrelly & Co. were engaged by Jacobs in October 2013 to assess the current agricultural land use of the Study Area in question. The assessment provides an overview of the agricultural land and the agricultural practices within the Study Area. The agricultural assessment of the constraints in the Study Area comprised a combination of a desktop examination of available information, local knowledge, and consultation with several sources on current land use. Methodology A desktop assessment of the Study Area was carried out using Ordnance Survey Ireland (OSI) Discovery Series and Vector Mapping and aerial photography. This allowed a detailed examination of the land quality and current land use. Consultation with local Teagasc officials was carried out to further compile information on agricultural enterprises within the Study Area. 49

54 Desktop consultation also took place with the following sources: Central Statistics Office (CSO); Farmers Handbook 2012; and Gardiner, M.J. and Radford, T. (1980) Soil Associations of Ireland and Their Land Use Potential. Dublin: An Foras Talúntais. Receiving Environment Land use in the Study Area consists mainly of grassland, forestry, bog and rough grazing. The range of agricultural activities within the Study Area includes beef & sheep farming. 1) Agriculture within the Study Area Available data was compiled on farm size and crop type at a local Electoral Division (ED) level. Figures are based on the Agricultural Census completed in 2010 and are the latest figures available from the CSO for ED s. It has been compared with similar data at a national level to illustrate the general agricultural activity in the local area. This will indicate if the proposed scheme will impact on an area where agriculture is significantly different from that on a national level or if there is any significantly unusual agricultural production taking place along the route of the road. The Study Area affects a total of 2 No. EDs Manulla and Balla. a) Farm Size The distribution of farm sizes within the affected ED s in the Study Area in comparison with national averages are presented in Table Farm Size No. of % of Farmers Farmers National % <10 Hectares <20 Hectares < Hectares 30 - < Hectares 50 - < Hectares >=100 Hectares Total Table : Number of Farms Classified by Farm Size within the Affected EDs and Nationally Summary of solid geology underneath the Study Area 5 5 CSO Census of Agriculture

55 The table shows that there were a higher percentage of farms within the 10-<20ha categories of 34.8% in the ED s within the Study Area when compared with the national average of 24%. This indicates a relatively higher number of smaller landowners in the Study Area when compared with a Study Area of a similar size elsewhere in Ireland. In farm size categories greater than 50 hectares, the number of farms decreases, i.e. the national percentage of farms in the 50-<100 ha category is 14.8% whereas only 3.1% of farms in the ED s of the Study Area are within this size grouping. The results indicated that in general, farm size appears to be smaller than the national average in the Study Area. b) Crop Type Table presents the category of crop type in ED s within the Study Area and how they compare with the national percentages for each category. Crop Type Total Crops Fruit and Horticulture No. of % of National % hectares Farmers Total Hay Total Pasture 3, Total Silage 1, Rough Grazing Total 5, Table : The Number of Farms Classified by Crop Type within affected District ED s and nationally 6 The percentage of land under pasture at 66.84% in the ED s of the Study Area is greater than the national average of 54.8%. There are similar levels of hay and silage production in the area when compared with a national basis and a significantly lower level of lands within the total crops, fruit and horticulture indicating that the land type and land quality are not suitable for crops, fruit and horticulture production. 2) Soil Associations within the Study Area A soil association is a mapping unit on a soil map, which consists of two or more soils. A soil map is a representation of the distribution of soil types of a given landscape (Soil Associations of Ireland and Their Land Use Potential. Dublin: An Foras Talúntais). 6 CSO Census of Agriculture

56 The most extensive soil type within the Study Area is soil associations 44. Soil Association 44: Basin Peats This Basin Peat association occupies 5.79% of the country. It occurs extensively from the Central Plain to east Galway, east Mayo and Sligo. It also occurs in west Clare, north Kerry and in Antrim and Tyrone. This soil is predominately basin peat and is normally associated with wet surface conditions. The depth of the organic material can vary from 3 to 8 m. Topography is flat. This land is very limited in its use, unless it is extensively drained where it can be used as grassland. Assessment Criteria In relation to agronomy, the land area in the Study Area can be categorised under several headings. Agricultural lands. Grassland farms. Dairy farms. Equine farms. Land based sports enterprises. Agri-Businesses. The effect of a proposed scheme will directly impact upon a given number of farmers along the chosen route. The nature and extent of this impact will depend on the length and location of the proposed scheme. Choosing alternative routes at varying locations will simply affect a different sub-set of farmers. The largest determinant influencing agricultural impact at this stage of the proposed scheme development is the length of the route, as a longer route will result in more land take and an impact on a greater number of farmers. As the farming practice, enterprise mix and soil types throughout the Study Area are broadly similar it is unlikely that standard farming practices will act as a constraint in deciding the route to be selected. The majority of the land holdings within the Study Area are relatively small, with exception of a small number of larger holdings. This would indicate that a relatively high number of landowners will be affected by the route. Reference is to be made to Figures A13 a & b Landowner Data Constraints, which show extents of holdings within the Study Area. Agricultural lands The rural element of the Study Area consists of agricultural grassland, areas of peat bog and forestry. The quality of most of the agricultural lands is medium in general ranging from medium quality lands to lands of poor quality and of limited agricultural use. The wide range in land quality allows most land uses in the Study Area. However, there are no areas of tillage or dairy farming located within the Study Area largely due to a combination of land quality and a climate 52

57 unsuited to tillage production and small landholdings unsuitable for dairy production. Severance or loss of poorer quality lands should be considered over the severance or loss of medium quality lands. Dairy Farms From the assessment, no dairy farms were identified within the Study Area. Dairy farms are known to be particularly sensitive to the location of a major road. A dairy farm is one of the most intensive land-based farming enterprises and is entirely dependent on the land parcel or grazing paddocks adjacent to the farmyard. In addition to the land take involved, the location of a major road may cause severance of the land parcel into smaller areas or severance of the access from the yard to the grazing paddocks. This may impact on the future viability of the farm or its continuation in dairying. Grassland Farms Grassland based farming is by far the most prominent agricultural land use in Ireland and includes beef, sheep, horses and mixed-livestock grazing farms. Sports horses are often kept in conjunction with other farm enterprises. Grassland is the most common land use in the Study Area and these grasslandbased farms are located throughout the entire Study Area. Beef production is the predominant farm enterprise within the Study Area. Other farm enterprises such as sheep and mixed livestock including horses may also be carried out in some cases. Like dairy farms, grassland farms are also affected by land take and severance due to the location of a road. Severance of lands will impact on overall farm management and access to farmyard facilities from severed areas. These farms are generally less affected than dairy farms as stock on these farms are not moved from field to field as frequently as on a dairy farm. Cattle and sheep are not as sensitive as horses to the noise impact of a major road. Where there is a significant impact on a grassland farm, the farming practices on these farms need to be adapted to mitigate the overall impact. Equine Enterprises While there were no stud farms identified there are a number of farms where a number of sport horses and ponies are kept on the farm in conjunction with other farm enterprises. One farm within the Study Area, located adjacent to the L , south of the existing N60, has equine facilities on the farm. The facilities include an outdoor sand arena. Equine farms also have the potential to be severely impacted as equine stock are of a more nervous disposition than other stock types and are prone to stress caused by irregular noise and moving vehicles. Such stress may render individual land parcels unsuitable for grazing equine stock or for certain types of equine activities. In some cases fields left in an irregular shape (e.g. triangle shaped fields, fields with sharp/narrow corners) may also be unsuitable for grazing with equine livestock. 53

58 Tillage Enterprises From the assessment, there is no evidence to suggest that specialist tillage farming is operated within the Study Area. A road scheme will have a lower impact on a tillage farm or enterprise than on a livestock farm. Land take and severance may also occur on a tillage farm although the impact will largely consist of access problems for machinery to the severed area. Land-based Sports Enterprises There were no land based sports enterprises in the Study Area. However the Sports Grounds of Manulla Football Club was identified just outside the Study Area to the north. Agri-business As part of the assessment of the Study Area, a number of the agri-businesses could be affected by the location of the proposed scheme. The location of a new scheme near such businesses may impact on the accessibility of the businesses to the agricultural and wider community. Balla Livestock Mart, and Western Farming Co-operative are within the Study Area. These businesses provide a number of services to farming in the Study Area including supplying of inputs such as seeds, feeds and fertilisers and also provide a market place for farmers to sell their produce. Frequent access with agricultural machinery is required for these businesses. Farmers bring livestock to and from Balla Mart on a weekly basis. Agricultural Summary of Constraints Area The Study Area can be considered to be an area of agricultural production consisting of lands of wide use range, capable of most agricultural uses. The main farming enterprises are grassland based enterprises predominantly specialist beef, sheep and mixed livestock enterprises. The level of specialist dairy farming within the Study Area is not significant and no dairy farms or tillage farms were identified within the Study Area. It is inevitable that the construction of a new road will impact a number of farmers. Overall there is no specific major agricultural impediment or land use constraint in the Study Area. High/ quality land should be avoided in preference to poorer quality land. Farmyards should be avoided. It is important that every effort is made to minimise the impact on agriculture. 54

59 3.4 Principal Engineering Constraints The principal engineering constraints have been considered under the following headings and are described in the sections below: 1) Topography 2) Existing Road Network 3) Traffic 4) Railway Infrastructure 5) Houses, Buildings and other Structures 6) Planning, Zoning and Land Use 7) Population, Economy, Business, Tourism and Amenities 8) Utilities 9) Construction Phasing 10) Required Levels of Service 11) Technical Standards 12) Access Controls Topography The topography of the Study Area is shown in Figure A.10 in Appendix A. As outlined in Section (Landscape and Visual Constraints) above, the Study Area consists of mainly rolling drumlins, creating an undulating topography, with the existing N60 fitting between them at low points. Generally, Study Area rises from a low point of +26m OD Malin, at the northwestern end, near the Manulla River, up to a peak of +50m OD Malin in the townlands of Drumnaslooeen and Creaghanboy, where it then descends to a level of +34m OD Malin at the south-eastern end, in the townland of Carrowntober Oughter Existing Road Network The existing road network is shown in Figures A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A. The existing road network within the Study Area consists of 1 No. National Primary (Secondary) Road, the N60, passing through the centre of the Study Area with a series of Local Roads crossing the N60 at various locations. There are no Regional Roads within the Study Area. Commencing at the north-western end of the Study Area in the townland of Manulla, approximately 9.0km southeast of Castlebar, the N60 crosses the existing Barrackland Level Crossing, passes through the Manulla Cross, where it meets the L The L connects Manulla Cross and the N60 with Manulla Village, which is located 600m north of Manulla Cross. After leaving Manulla Cross, the N60 continues in a south-easterly direction, where it meets the L in the townland of Rinnahulty, with the local road crossing both sides of the N60. The N60 then passes through the townland of Creaghanboy, into the townland of Drumnaslooeen, where it runs adjacent to the existing Dublin 55

60 Westport Railway Line. Turning in a slight westerly direction, away from the Railway Line, the N60 meets the L in the townland of Lisnolan before meeting the L in the townland of Smuttanagh. From the L T- Junction, the N60 continues in a south-westerly direction where it meets the L at Balla Mart and terminates in the townland of Lagnamuck, approximately 5.3km northwest of Balla. The existing N60 road cross section is comparatively narrow with average lane widths of approximately 3.15m in each direction, reducing to 2.75m along some sections, with little to no hard strips. Overall, the cross-section of N60 in the Study Area can be considered to be a Type 3 Single Carriageway (S2) Traffic The National Secondary Roads Needs Study West Region Report in 2011 stated that in relation to the N60 Castlebar to Roscommon; the route is expected to carry traffic volume of the order of 5,000 AADT increasing to 8,500 AADT on the approach to Castlebar. As part of Traffic Assessment for the Proposed Scheme (See Section below and Appendix G Traffic Assessment Report) and in order to derive estimates of Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on the existing N60 and the connecting local roads within the Study Area, 12 hour Junction Turning Counts were undertaken at 3 No. locations and a temporary Automatic Traffic Counter (ATC) was installed on the N60 in October It was determined that base year (2013) AADTs ranged from 6,300 (North West of Manulla Crossroads) to 6,700 (South-East of Carrowntober L T-Junction), with medium to high design year (2034) forecasts ranging from 7,900 to 10,000. As stated in Section above, the existing N60 road cross-section in the Study Area can be considered to be a Type 3 Single Carriageway (S2). The AADT capacity for a Level of Service (LoS) D for a Type 3 is 5,000 AADT, as per Table 6/1 of NRA DMRB TD9/12 Road Link Design (See Section for further Details on LoS). Therefore, the existing N60 within the Study Area is currently operating at over capacity, and will be furthermore in the future without upgrading works. In relation to road accidents, data spanning from 2002 to 2011 was obtained from the MCC Regional Road Safety Engineer in October It is highlighted that accident data for 2013 was unavailable. A summary of the road accidents is provided below in Table below. Between 2002 and 2012, 2 No Fatal, 2 No Serious and 8 No Minor accidents occurred within the Study Area. A location map of these accidents with further details is provided in the Road Safety Impact Assessment Report in Appendix C. 56

61 Ref. No. Year Category Location Fatal Existing N60 South East of Manulla Cross, Townland of Manulla Fatal Existing N60 South-East of the L , Townland of Smuttanagh Minor Existing N60 South-East of the L , Townland of Smuttanagh Serious Existing N60 South-East of Manulla Cross, Townland of Manulla Minor Existing N60, South-East East of Barrackland Rail Level Crossing, Townland of Manulla Minor Existing N60, North-West of Barrackland Rail Level Crossing, Townland of Manulla Minor Existing N60, North West of L Junction, Townland of Manulla Serious Existing N60, at the N60/L Crossroads, Townland of Lisnolan Minor Existing N60 South East of Manulla Cross, Townland of Manulla Minor Existing N60, at the N60/L Crossroads, Townland of Lisnolan Minor Existing N60, at the N60/L Crossroads, Townland of Lisnolan Minor Existing N60, at the N60/L Crossroads, Townland of Cartron Table 3.4-1: Summary of Road Accidents within the Study Area Railway Infrastructure Existing Iarnród Éireann infrastructure, including railway lines and levelcrossings, within the Study Area is shown in Figures A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A. The Dublin-Westport and Manulla Junction-Ballina Railway lines run east to west and south to north respectively through the Study Area. The Westport line is part of the greater intercity rail network with approximately 6 No. trains daily in each direction. The Ballina branch line runs from Manulla Junction to Ballina with approximately 4 No. trains daily in each direction. Within the Study Area, the Ballina line crosses the N60 at the north-western end at the automated Barrackland Level Crossing (Ref No. XX01), while the Westport line passes through 4 No level crossings and 2 No underbridges all with local roads. 1) Manulla Underbridge Ref. No. UBM 769 (L ) 2) The Blackgates Manual Rail Level Crossing Ref. No. XM237 (L ) 3) Lisnolan Automated Rail Level Crossing Ref. No. XM236 (L ) 4) Smuttanagh Manual Rail Level Crossing XM235 (L ) 5) Carrowntober Automated Rail Level Crossing XM234 (L ) 57

62 6) Disused Access Track Underbridge between the Blackgates and Lisnolan Level Crossings None of these assets conflict with the existing N60 although the level crossing at Lisnolan is approximately 30m south of the carriageway. There is also a section of the N60 and Westport Railway line that run parallel and in close proximity for approximately 110m in the townland of Drumnaslooeen. In relation to the Smuttanagh Level Crossing, Iarnród Éireann made an application to Mayo County Council in 2012 to extinguish the Public Right of Way through the Level Crossing. Mayo County Council objected to the proposed extinguishment. Iarnród Éireann and Mayo County Council are currently in consultation regarding the matter Houses, Buildings & Other Structures Details of land plots in the Study Area are provided in Figures A13a & A13b in Appendix A. The main building types in the Study Area are dwelling houses and farm structures. The area is characterised mainly by single dwellings in the form of ribbon development along the existing N60, with collections of dwellings at the following locations: Manulla Cross; Townland of Creaghanboy and Lisnolan Crossroads (L /N60 Junction); Townland of Smuttanagh; and Townland of Carrowntober Oughter. The land holdings are smaller in the vicinity of Manulla Cross and the Townland of Creaghanboy, and tend to be larger outside these areas. All the landowners on the existing N60 have curtilage onto the road. In addition, it is highlighted that there are a number of dwellings in the Townlands of Creaghanboy and Carrowntober which are setback in some cases less than 2.5m from the road edge. These areas are constraints should the new scheme, with increased roadcross section, pass through. With reference to Figure A.10 there are a number of commercial, agricultural and social buildings within the Study Area: Sunny Days Creche School (North-West of Manulla Cross); McDonnell Bros. Ltd s Service Garage (Currently Closed North-West of Manulla Cross); School at Manulla Cross; Railway Tavern Bar, south of Manulla Cross on the L ; Balla Mart in the Townland of Carrowntober Oughter; and Western Farming Co-operative in the Townland of Lagnamuck. 58

63 It is desirable to plan routes that affect the least number of landowners and businesses as possible while severance is an important consideration and this should be minimised when planning route options. Where this cannot be done, however, it may be necessary to provide alternative access or to purchase additional land that would become severed from the owner's main holding Planning, Zoning and Land use As well as existing properties, discussed in Section 3.3.5, potential future property developments are to be treated as major constraints. As part of the Constraints Study, a search of existing planning applications within the Study Area from 2001 to present was undertaken. A location plan of relevant planning applications within the Study Area is provided in Figure A.12 in Appendix A. Figure A.12 also contains a schedule of these applications. In relation to land zoning within the Study Area, the former Mayo County Development Plan , and the Mayo County Council Development Plan do not specify any particular land zoning objectives for Manulla or other areas within the Study Area. There is no Local Area Plan for Manulla. The nearest Local Area Plan is the Castlebar and Environs Development Plan , which does not include Manulla or any other areas within the Study Area. Regarding land use, the majority of the land within the Study Area is agricultural. Details of agricultural use are provided in Section (Agronomy) above. Residential and commercial development is concentrated on the existing N60 and local roads and is described in Section above Population, Economy, Business, Tourism and Amenities In relation to population, in the 2011 Census a population of 988 was taken for Manulla Electoral Area. In terms of tourism, the surrounding lakes and the Manulla River attract anglers to the area. The river is noted to offer excellent dry fly fishing, with good trout fishing downstream from Moyhenna Bridge. Some of the smaller loughs on the Manulla river system such as Lakelands, Peenogue Lake and Cuiltybo Lough offer good pike fishing. In addition to fishing, Manulla has a number of cultural heritage sites, including the Holy Well and Adam s Well, where it is said that St. Patrick converted pagans to Christianity and the ruins of Manulla Castle, which are both located north of Manulla Village. In the townland of Lisnolan, there is the Land League Cottage, which housed members of the land league movement in the 1880 s. Although currently not open to the public, there may be potential to promote it as a tourist attraction in the future. Regarding existing community amenities in the Study Area, there is a National School located at Manulla Cross and a day crèche northwest of Manulla Cross. 59

64 The Local Community Centre lies outside of the Study and is located in Manulla Village, approximately 500m north of Manulla Cross. The Sports Grounds of Manulla Football Club is located in the townland of Carrowntober Eighter outside of the Study Area, to the North. The nearest church ruin is at Knockmore Eighter, south of Creaghanboy (National Monument No. MA ) Utilities As part of the Constraints Study, updated utility record drawings were requested from all known service providers. The following existing public utilities have been identified within the Study Area and are shown on Figures A.14 A.17 in Appendix A: 1) Bord Gáis Transmission; 2) Eircom Telecommunications; 3) MCC Water Services Group Water Scheme; and 4) ESB Networks. Bord Gáis A Bord Gáis high pressure underground transmission line runs through a section of the Study Area. It passes through the townlands of Manulla and Skiddernagh south of Manulla Cross. A high pressure gas main is considered a major constraint and could cause considerable financial and time implications were it to conflict with the proposed Scheme (see Figure A.14). Eircom The existing overhead Eircom services are generally located adjacent to the existing N60 and existing side roads within the Study Area. The services cross the existing N60 at Manulla Cross and the Lisnolan Crossroads (L /N60 Junction) (See Figure A.15). MCC Water Services Group Water Scheme The underground water mains are generally located adjacent to N60 and existing side roads resulting within the Study Area. The services cross the existing N60 at Manulla Cross, the L Crossroads, Lisnolan Crossroads (L /N60 Junction) and in the townlands of Carrowntober (See Figure A.16). ESB There are no ESB Transmission High Voltage Cables within the Study Area. There are a number of ESB Networks MV and LV overhead cables in the Study Area which are generally offset from the existing N60 and within adjacent landowners fields. The MV cables cross the existing N60 at a number of locations within the Study Area. It is noted that the ESB Networks drawing do not show localised connections to properties but these are considered a minor constraint (See Figure A.17). 60

65 3.4.9 Construction Phasing The phasing of construction works is considered to ensure that the proposed scheme can be constructed within the known limits. Traffic management will be an integral component of the construction process owing to the likelihood that a proportion of the scheme will be online. Accesses to properties, fields and businesses need to be maintained at all times. There may be some temporary disruption to accesses but it is anticipated that this will not be significant. Full or Partial Road closures will only be permitted suspect to prior agreement with Mayo Council County and the National Roads Authority. Consideration needs to be given to the utility diversions / protection and whether these will be undertaken in advance of the main works. It is anticipated that some of the utility diversions can be carried out in advance, but some will be undertaken in conjunction with the main works due to the nature of the cut and fill locations. As part of the phased construction plan, particular attention will be paid to level crossings, junctions and adjacent railway line sections. Temporary roads may be necessary but these will be considered further during the Design Stage. An area has yet to be identified for the storage of construction fill material. This will be decided once the preferred route option is determined Required Levels of Service The overall target of the National Roads Needs Study (1998) is for the development of the National Road System in order to ensure that no section of the network would fall below Level of Service D (LoS D) equivalent to an interurban travel speed of 80km/h. This is heightened through the National Secondary Roads Needs Study West Region Technical Standards Technical design standards will impose geometric constraints on the proposed scheme and will influence the alignment of the route options. The applicable technical standard in this case is the NRA Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). The following NRA DMRB standards are applicable to the design of the mainline, side roads and accesses: TD 9/11 Road Link Design; TD 27/14 Cross Sections; TD 41/42 Geometric Design of Major / Minor Priority Junctions and Vehicular Access to National Roads; and IAN 03/12 Provisions for Cyclists and Pedestrians The required cross-section for the proposed Scheme is a Type 2 Single Carriageway with Cycleway. This comprises a 7m carriageway, 0.5m hard strips, 1.75m to 2.5m cycleway (two-way), 1.5m to 6m carriageway separation distance 61

66 (includes 0.5m hardstrip) and verges of typically 2m to 6.5m. The design speed is 100km/h Access Control One of the Scheme objectives is to reduce the number of direct accesses onto the N60. The design of any route option will have due regard to road safety, technical design standards and capacity, in compliance with the NRA Policy Statement on Development Management and Access to National Roads. The adoption of this policy, the treatment of existing roads and the provision of link roads will all impose constraints on the proposed route locations. 62

67 3.5 Summary of Principal Environmental and Engineering Constraints Constraint Presence within Study Area Environmental Constraints Ecology 1) Linkages with Designated Sites: 2 No.( River Moy csac/pnha & Carrowmore Lough Shore pnha). 2) Ecological Receptors/Features: 1 No. of Local Importance, Up to 21 No. of County Importance & Up to 25 No. of Local Importance. Archaeology, Architectural 6 No. Designated Sites. and Cultural Heritage 2 No. Non-Designated Sites of Local Importance (Land League Cottage & Shrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary). Soils, Geology and 1) Soils & Geology: Extensive Deposits of Cutover Peat. Majority of Bedrock is Karstified with 1 No. Outcrop in the Study Area. Hydrogeology 2) Hydrogeology: Ranging from Locally Important Aquifer to Regionally Important (Karstified) with low to extreme groundwater vulnerability. 3) 1 No. Closed Landfill in the townland of Drumnaslooeen. Surface Water 3 No. Loughs, 3 No. Rivers, 11 No. Streams & Number of unnamed streams. 3 No. Designated Salmonid Rivers/Streams. 1 No. Watercourse Designated under the Water Framework Directive (Manulla 34 River Status: Good). 1 No. Location of Recurring Flood Event Recorded. OPW Pluvial and Fluvial Flooding estimated within the Study Area. OPW Arterial Drainage Scheme. Landscape and Visual No designated scenic routes, protected views or vulnerable features within the Study Area. Air Area designated as Zone D under the Air Quality Framework Directive. Recoded Baseline Levels of NO 2 and PM 10 in the vicinity of the Study Area are below the standards derived from the Air Quality Standards Regulations Noise Baseline noise levels between 65 to 69 db on N60 or immediately adjacent. 11 No. sensitive receptors in the Study Area and its vicinity. Agronomy Main farming enterprises are grassland based (specialist beef, sheep and mixed livestock enterprises). No Dairy farms or tillage farms. 1 No. farm has equine facilities. Engineering Constraints Topography An undulating topography mainly consists of rolling drumlins, with the existing N60 fitting between them at low points. Existing Road Network Consists of 1 No. National Primary (Secondary) Road, the N60, passing through the centre of the Study Area with a series of Local Roads crossing the N60 at various locations. No Regional Roads. Traffic 2013 AADT Values of 6630 north-west of Manulla Cross and 6700 south-east of Carrowntober L T-Junction Design Year AADT to High Growth Values between 7400 and Accident Records 2002 to 2012: 2 No. fatal, 2 No. serious and 8 No. Minor. Railway Infrastructure Dublin Westport & Manulla Junction Ballina Railway lines. 4 No. Level Crossings. 2 No. Underbridges. Approx. 110m Section of Railway Running Adjacent to N60. Houses, Buildings and Ribbon development along the existing N60, with collections of dwellings at 5 No. Locations. 6 No. Buildings of commercial, agricultural Other Structures (industry) and social type. Planning, Zonning and 6 No. relevant/active planning applications. No particular land zoning objectives and no Local Area Plan for Manulla and its environs. Majority Land Use of Land Use is agricultural. Population, Economy, Population of 988 people. Surrounding lakes and Manulla River attracts anglers. 3 No. cultural heritage sites of Tourist interest. 2 No. Business, Tourism and community amenities within the Study Area. Amenities Utilities Existing Eircom telecommunications, ESB Networks, Group Water Scheme & Bord Gáis Transmission Line. No HV Electricity in Study Area. Construction Phasing Traffic Management/Temporary Road Closures TBC. Access to properties and fields to remain open. Advance Works potentially required. Level of Service (LoS) Over capacity at present and in the future. Technical Standards Required cross-section is a Type 2 Single Carriageway (S2) with Cycleway. NRA DMRB Compliance. Access Control Reduction in number of direct accesses onto Scheme. Table 3.5-1: Summary of Principal Environmental and Engineering Constraints 63

68 4 Options Description and Rational for Option Selection 4.1 Do-Nothing & Do-Minimum Alternatives For this Scheme, the Do-Nothing and Do-Minimum Alternatives are defined below. Do-Nothing Alternative: There will be no improvement works to the existing N60 between the Scheme start and end points, other than regular maintenance. Do-Minimum Alternative: There will be minor improvement works to the existing N60 between the Scheme start and end points with regular maintenance. The minor improvements works, will include: 1) Relining Works; and 2) Additional Signage & Replacement of part of the Existing Signage. The Do-Minimum Alternative also assumes that there is a speed restriction of 60kph in place on the existing N60 at Manulla Cross. The proposed speed restriction extends approximately 400m either side of Manulla Cross, giving a total length of 800m. 4.2 Description of Options Introduction Seven feasible route options were identified within the Study Area, all starting at approximately 0.1km northeast of Barrackland Level Crossing in the townland of Manulla and terminating approximately 0.38km southeast of the L T-Junction in the townland of Lagnamuck. The outline design of the horizontal and vertical alignment for each route option was developed using AutoCAD Civil 3D The ground model was generated from OSI Lidar Data. Through the development of these alignment designs, indicative scheme footprints and earthworks were created for each option. The outline alignment designs, including longitudinal sections, for each route option are provided in Appendix A of the Report. A brief description of each route Option is provided in Sections to below Option 1 (Green) Option 1 is 4.01km in total length and consists of approximately 3.71km of online upgrade and approximately 0.30km of offline construction. Option 1 commences on the existing N60, 100m northwest of the existing Barrackland Level Crossing in the townland of Manulla and continues along the existing N60 for the entire length of the Scheme, with the exception of 0.3km in the 64

69 townland of Drumnaslooeen, between Ch2200 and Ch2500. The route contains 7 No. proposed junctions; 1) Existing L T-Junction at Ch110; 2) Upgraded Staggered Junction at Existing Manulla Cross; 3) Realigned L (Northwest) T-Junction at Ch1290; 4) Realigned L (Southeast) T-Junction at Ch1550; 5) Existing L Simple 4-Arm Junction at Ch2750; 6) Realigned L T-Junction at Ch3270; and 7) Realigned L T-Junction at Ch3630. As in the case of the Do-Minimum Alternative, a speed restriction of 60kph is considered to be in place on the existing N60 at Manulla Cross, for a distance of 800m between Ch470 and Ch Option 2 (Pink) Option 2 is 4.03km in total length and consists of approximately 2.95km of online upgrade and approximately 1.08km of offline construction. Option 2 commences 100m northwest of the existing Barrackland Level Crossing in the townland of Manulla and continues along the existing N60 for 0.30km. It then leaves the existing N60 for 1.0km and proceeds south in the townland of Skiddernagh, returning south east back into Manulla and re-joining the existing N60 as it enters the townland of Rinnahulty. It continues along the existing N60 until the townland of Drumnaslooeen where it leaves the existing N60 for 0.3km before returning to the existing mainline. Here it runs adjacent to the existing Dublin Westport Railway Line for 110m and then continues along the existing N60 to end of the Scheme. The route contains 7 No. proposed junctions: 1) Existing L T-Junction at Ch110; 2) New Staggered Junction South of the Existing Manulla Cross; 3) Realigned L (Southeast) T-Junction at Ch1530; 4) New T-Junction at Ch2250; 5) Existing L Simple 4-Arm Junction at Ch2750; 6) Realigned L T-Junction at Ch3270; and 7) Realigned L T-Junction at Ch Option 3 (Orange) Option 3 is 4.01km in total length and consists of approximately 2.01km of online upgrade and approximately 2.00km of offline construction. Option 3 commences on 100m northwest of the existing Barrackland Level Crossing in the townland of Manulla and continues along the existing N60 for 1.50km. It proceeds offline for 1km as it enters the townland of Rinnahulty and continues south-east through townlands of Creaghanboy and Drumnaslooeen. It recommences along the existing N60 in Drumnaslooeen for 0.4km (running adjacent to the Dublin-Westport Railway Line for 110m) before returning offline for 0.8km 65

70 through the townland of Smuttanagh. It then returns to the existing N60 in Carrowntober Oughter for the remainder of the scheme. The route contains 5 No. proposed junctions: 1) Existing L T-Junction at Ch110; 2) New Staggered Junction at the existing Manulla Cross; 3) Realigned L Staggered Junction at Ch ; 4) Existing L Simple 4-Arm Junction at Ch2700; and 5) Realigned L T-Junction at Ch3610. As in the case of the Do-Minimum Alternative and Option 1, a speed restriction of 60kph is considered to be in place on the existing N60 at Manulla Cross for a distance of 800m between Ch470 and Ch Option 4 (Blue) Option 4 is approximately 4.02km in total length and consists of 1.62km of online upgrade and 2.40km of offline construction. Option 4 commences on the existing N60, 100m northwest of the existing Barrackland Level Crossing in the townland of Manulla and continues along the existing N60 for 0.3km. It then leaves the existing N60 for 1.2km to the south through townlands of Skiddernagh, and Manulla, re-joining the existing N60 as it enters the townland of Rinnahulty for approximately 0.4km. Following which, it leaves the existing alignment to the north at Creaghanboy for 1.5km through townlands of Drumnaslooeen, and Smuttanagh before returning to the existing N60 southeast of the L junction in Carrowntober Oughter for the remainder of the scheme. The route contains 5 No. proposed junctions: 1) Existing L T-Junction at Ch110; 2) New Staggered Junction South of the Existing Manulla Cross; 3) Realigned L (Southeast) T-Junction at Ch1530; 4) Existing L Simple 4-Arm / Priority Junction at Ch2770; and 5) Realigned L T-Junction at Ch Option 5 (Brown) Option 5 is 4km in total length and consists of approximately 1.95km of online upgrade and approximately 2.05km of offline construction. Option 5 commences on the existing N60, 100m northwest of the existing Barrackland Level Crossing, in the townland of Manulla and continues along the existing N60 for 0.3km. It then leaves the existing N60 for 1.9km to the south through the townlands of Skiddernagh, Manulla, Rinnahulty, and Creaghanboy, before re-joining the existing N60 in the townland of Drumnaslooeen for the remainder of the scheme. The route contains 6 No. proposed junctions: 1) Existing L T-Junction at Ch110; 2) New Staggered Junction South of the Existing Manulla Cross; 66

71 3) Realigned L T-Junction at Ch1600; 4) Existing L Simple 4-Arm Junction at Ch2710; 5) Realigned L T-Junction at Ch3230; and 6) Realigned L T-Junction at Ch Option 6 (Purple) Option 6 is approximately 4.03km in total length and consists of 1.15km of online upgrade and 2.88km of offline construction. Option 6 commences on the existing N60, 100m northwest of the existing Barrackland Level Crossing in the townland of Manulla and continues along the existing N60 for 0.3km. It then leaves the existing N60 for 1.2km to the south through townlands of Skiddernagh, and Manulla, re-joining the existing N60 as it enters the townland of Rinnahulty for approximately 0.4km. Following which, it leaves the existing alignment to the north at Creaghanboy for 1.9km through the townlands of Drumnaslooeen, Carrowntober Eighter and Smuttanagh, before returning to the existing N60 approx. 160m southeast of the L junction in Carrowntober Oughter for the remainder of the scheme. The route contains 5 No. proposed junctions: 1) Existing L T-Junction at Ch110; 2) New Staggered Junction South of the Existing Manulla Cross; 3) Realigned L (Southeast) T-Junction at Ch1530; 4) Existing L Simple 4-Arm / Priority Junction at Ch2820; and 5) Realigned L T-Junction at Ch Option 7 (Turquoise) Option 7 is approximately 4.01km in total length and consists of 2.23km of online upgrade and 1.78km of offline construction. Option 7 commences on the existing N60, 100m northwest of the existing Barrackland Level Crossing in the townland of Manulla and continues along the existing N60 for 1.8km until the townland of Rinnahulty. At this point the route follows the same offline route as Option 6, leaving the existing alignment to the north at Creaghanboy for 2.0km through the townlands of Drumnaslooeen, Carrowntober Eighter and Smuttanagh, before returning to the existing N60 approx. 160m southeast of the L junction in Carrowntober Oughter for the remainder of the scheme. The route contains 6 No. proposed junctions: 1) Existing L T-Junction at Ch110; 2) Upgraded Staggered Junction at Existing Manulla Cross; 3) Realigned L (Northwest) T-Junction at Ch1290; 4) Realigned L (Southeast) T-Junction at Ch1550; 5) Existing L Simple 4-Arm / Priority Junction at Ch2790; and 6) Realigned L T-Junction at Ch

72 4.3 Rational for Option Selection As outlined in Section Project History, Mayo County Council in 2008 developed a 1.8km section of the existing N60 between the Scheme start point and approximate Ch1700, which consisted of a bypass south of Manulla Cross. This was subsequently given Part 8 Planning Permission, but it did not progress any further. With the subsequent commissioning of this 4 km Scheme, it was considered prudent to reconsider the previously approved 1.8km section in the context of the overall longer improvement section and in the context of alternative solutions. Therefore, a series of route options were identified and selected for this Scheme, some of which included and some of which excluded the 1.8km section, and offered various online and offline combinations thereafter. Options 2, 4, 5 and 6 include the 1.8km section, offering online and offline variations thereafter, while Options 1, 3 and 7 do not consider the 1.8km section. In relation to Option 1, it was considered prudent and necessary to include an option which was predominately online, which would also assist in the comparative process. A brief explanation of the rational for other specific offline sections of the route options is provided below. Option 3 and 5 (Ch1200 Ch2450): This offline section was incorporated to provide a more effective overall horizontal alignment from the start of scheme and in particular at the approach to the townlands of Drumnaslooeen, adjacent to the existing Dublin-Westport Line. Option 3 (Ch2900 Ch3900): This offline section was incorporated to improve the horizontal alignment on the approach to the Townlands of Carrowntober and bypass the vertical constraint at the collection of dwellings in the townland of Smuttanagh. Option 4 (Ch1900 Ch3250): This offline section was incorporated as it offered a route which did not run adjacent to the existing Dublin Westport Railway Line, and reduced the number of direct accesses to the proposed mainline, due to the avoidance of the properties adjacent to the N60 in the townlands of Creaghanboy and Drumnaslooeen. Option 6 and 7 (Ch1800 Ch3850): Similar to Option 4, this offline section was incorporated as it offered a route which did not run adjacent to the existing Dublin Westport Railway Line, and reduced the number of direct accesses to the proposed mainline, due to the avoidance of the properties adjacent to the N60 in the townlands of Creaghanboy and Drumnaslooeen. The offline section in this option extends further than Option 4 bypassing another cluster of properties near the level crossing in Smuttanagh. In doing so the route runs adjacent to the historical landfill site at Drumnaslooeen. It then re-joins the N60 after the L junction and Balla Mart entrance. This option passes directly through the 4 no. properties on the east-bound side of the N60 in Carrowntober Oughter. 68

73 5 Details of Public Consultation 5.1 Public Consultation A Public Consultation was held on Tuesday 19 th August 2014 in Manulla Community Centre, Manulla, Co. Mayo. Staff members from MNRDO and Jacobs Engineering were in attendance to address queries raised by the public. At the time of the Public Consultation only Options 1-6 were being considered. As a result of feedback from the Public Consultation, Option 7 was introduced as a combination of Options 1 and 6 for appraisal. At the event, display boards were erected displaying A1 copies of Options 1-6 on both vector and ortho mapping backgrounds. An A0 drawing showing the 6 No. route options overlaying each other was also displayed. Brochures and questionnaires were supplied for attendees along with A3 copies of the drawings to take away. A copy of the brochure and questionnaire are provided in Appendix B. 133 people attended the event on the day. 5.2 Submissions Attendees were invited to provide feedback on the scheme in the form of the questionnaire. The questionnaires could be completed after the consultation and submitted to MNRDO. The closing date for returning completed questionnaires was 23rd September A total of 37 people completed and returned questionnaires to MNRDO, including 3 submissions that were after the closing date but have been included. The key findings from the feedback have been summarised in the following images. Image 5.1: Do you own or occupy property in the Study Area? 69

74 Image 5.2: Are you a current user of the N60 at Manulla? Image 5.3: Are you in favour of improving the N60 at Manulla? 70

75 Image 5.4: Please rate the following effects of the scheme on how important they are to you. The results displayed in Images show that the majority of people who submitted feedback were local property owners or tenants, users of the N60 at Manulla Cross and were in favour of the scheme in general. The key concerns with regard to the effect the scheme will have are: 1. Improve safety 2. Improve traffic conditions 3. The impact on the community/ landscape Image 5.5 Number of comments provided on each Option 71

76 Image 5.5 relates to the section of the questionnaire that sought comments on any one of the route options or a combination of route options. The statistical graph makes up the highest score for each of the route options. The most commented option is Option 2 however the variance between route options is slight. Image 5.6: Key comments received from Feedback Submissions Image 5.6 shows the key comments received in response to the section on any other views or opinions. It is shown that the four most commented items relate to: 1. Direct impacts to properties 2. Avoid Manulla Crossroads/Manulla National School 3. Suggested traffic calming measures around Manulla Crossroads 4. Suggested alternate entrance arrangements to Manulla School 5.3 Conclusions From the feedback received it is concluded that the scheme has strong public support with improvement to safety ranked by local users as of high importance. There is no clear preference from the feedback towards any one option and similarly there is no outright objection to any one route option either. Instead the feedback is subjective with partial preference to and against all options dependant on potential impacts. The lack of clear preference may also be due to the limitations of the questionnaire itself as it did not specifically ask to state a particular preference to, or ranking of, the route options, rather provide comments. From the additional comments submitted it is clear that the majority of concerns from local users are in relation to the impact the routes will have on plots of land and other properties owned or occupied along the routes. It is clear once again that the 72

77 submissions are concerned about the safety of the road, in particular in the vicinity of Manulla Crossroads and Manulla National School. However, despite this agreement, there was a difference in opinion towards the solution to this issue. Some submissions stated that the safety issues around this junction should be resolved by introducing traffic calming measures and/or reduced speed limits in this area. Others also stated that the entrance arrangement to the school could possibly be improved either by improving the entrance into the school itself, modifying the junction perhaps by staggering, or making use of an available plot of land adjacent to the school by converting it into a car park negating the need for the current drop off/pick up set up. Finally some submissions indicated the best option would be to bypass this area altogether such as Options 2, 4, 5 and 6 suggest. As previously mentioned, these three different views have fairly similar levels of support with the result that there is no clear preference on any particular route option. Following public consultation feedback, a further route option was introduced as a combination of Options 1 and 6 that included as part of the Selection Appraisal Stage, and titled Option 7. It is likely that whichever option is selected as the preferred option from this Selection process, it will have a certain level of support and opposition based on the public consultation feedback to date. 73

78 6 Options Appraisal 6.1 General Introduction As outlined in the Forward to this Report, the current NRA Project Management Guidelines (2010) relate to Major Road Schemes as defined by the Major Projects Unit of the NRA, the N60 Castlebar Balla Road(Manulla) Improvement Scheme is not considered a Major Project, therefore only those elements of the NRA Project Management Guidelines (2010) which are required and considered necessary in order to arrive at the optimum solution have been adopted in relation to the consideration and recommendation of a preferred option in relation the N60 Manulla Scheme, in this Report. Under Phase 2 ( Selection) of the NRA Project Management Guidelines (2010), the appraisal is outlined as a 3 Stage Process. The three stages are listed below. Stage 1: Preliminary Options Assessment Stage 2: Project Appraisal of Options Stage 3: Selection of a Preferred Corridor For this purposes of this Report, a more concise and focussed approach has been adopted, whereby Stages 1 and 2 have been combined into a singular appraisal process, with Stage 3 being maintained. The Options Appraisal below has assessed the Options in context of the following Criteria: Environment; Engineering; Safety; and Economics. In addition to the sections below, it is noted that reference is to be made to the Drawings provided in Appendix A. With reference to these Drawings, it is noted that the route options are shown within an effective corridor width of 50m. This corridor may be amended during route development process or as a result of comments from the Public Consultation. 6.2 Options Appraisal Environmental The Environmental Option Appraisal of the proposed route options has been undertaken with regard to the requirements of the following National Road Authority (NRA) Documents: National Roads Authority Project Management Guidelines 2010; and 74

79 National Roads Authority Environmental Assessment and Construction Guidelines. The main aims of the Environmental Options Assessment are as follows: To ensure consideration of the environmental effects of the Options so that decisions can be made with knowledge of their environmental consequences; To aid in the identification of ways in which the potential environmental effects could be minimised through route selection and other measures; and To ensure consideration of the likely environmental effects of options in a way that enables the importance of the proposed effects, and the scope for mitigating these, to be properly evaluated. The following environmental aspects have been considered in this assessment: Ecology; Archaeological Architectural and Cultural Heritage; Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology; Surface Water; Landscape and Visual; Air; Noise; and Agronomy. At this stage, it must be appreciated that there is still scope at a future stage, during the environmental assessment process of the final selected route, to alter the horizontal and vertical alignment of the proposed road within the defined corridors Ecology Introduction The National Roads Authority documents entitled Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes Chapter 5 Corridor Selection Study and the Ecological Surveying Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National Road Schemes provide guidance on the route selection assessment procedures. In undertaking the assessment consideration has been given to this guidance. Assessment Methodology Overview Guidance on the approach to collection of data at the route selection stage recommends a combination of desktop study and an appropriate level of fieldwork to supplement the data that has been collected to provide a comprehensive understanding of the receiving environment. 75

80 Defining the Ecology Study Area The latest draft route options available at the time of writing were examined to determine an appropriate ecology Study Area for the route selection assessment. The Study Area was receptor-specific due to the varying zones of influence or effect areas (NRA, 2009a) that are likely for different potential impacts, on different species. For instance, knowledge of the feeding ranges of roosting Lesser Horseshoe bats Rhinolophus hipposideros indicates that bats may generally move up to approximately 6km from roosts. For this species therefore, the zone of influence for an impact is 6km. However, the zone of influence for impacts to other receptors may be much smaller. For example, the zone of influence for potential impacts to breeding birds or non-wetland habitats is likely to be approximately 100m. Desktop Study A desktop study was conducted from July 2013 to October 2013 and the sources of information that were used for this study are listed in Section This was supported by consultation with key stakeholders as described in Section Ecological Constraints, Table Fieldwork Details of the ecological fieldwork carried out for this assessment are provided in Section Ecological Constraints. Fieldwork comprised of a series of multidisciplinary surveys of habitats, rare and invasive flora, butterflies (including Marsh fritillary butterfly), breeding and wintering birds, mammals, amphibians, bat activity and White-clawed crayfish. These habitats and species groups were selected for particular attention after analysis of desktop data on the receiving environment. Identification of Key Ecological Receptors In accordance with NRA guidelines (NRA, 2009), the route selection assessment only takes account of key ecological receptors. Key ecological receptors must be within the zone of influence of the route option(s) and both of sufficient value to be material in decision making and likely to be affected significantly. The NRA defines sufficient value in this context as being an ecological feature of Local Importance (Higher value) or higher as per the NRA s ecological valuation criteria (NRA, 2009). All ecological features within the potential zone of influence were therefore valued in accordance with NRA valuation criteria, and key ecological receptors were identified. Features of Local Importance (er value) did not qualify as key ecological receptors, and are therefore not described in detail. See Section Ecological Constraints for further details. 76

81 Mapping and Ranking Ecological Features Only key ecological receptors are shown on the alternatives assessment Figure A.3a Habitats Mapping and Ecological Constraints. Features of Local Importance (er value) such as improved agricultural grassland do not qualify as key ecological receptors and were therefore not mapped in Figure A.3a Habitats Mapping and Ecological Constraints. There were no relevant documents supporting the Conservation Objectives for the River Moy csac published by the NPWS at the time of writing. It was therefore not possible to map the locations of habitats in the vicinity of the study area, which were the reason for designation, within the csac boundary, as recommended by NRA Guidelines (2009a). The extent of the turlough priority habitat within Balla Turlough csac, the next nearest European Site to the Study Area, has been published by the NPWS (Goodwillie, 1992). This has not been included in Figure A.3a as this European Site is outside the zone of influence of the route options. Options Assessment Potential Ecological Impacts of Options The route options have been assessed in the context of the unmitigated project. In accordance with NRA Guidelines (NRA, 2009a): [F]or impact assessment purposes, the unmitigated project should include those measures where delivery is unequivocal, and success is highly likely. Where more uncertainty exists, measures should be assessed as mitigation. Table and Table provide a comparative assessment of each option for each ecological feature. Potential Impacts to Designated Sites There are no European or nationally-designated sites within the footprint of any route options. One European Site (csac) and one nationally-designated site (pnha) were located within 1km of the route options. The Balla Turlough (csac) is located approximately 2km to the east of the Study Area. All seven route options were equidistant (c.0.2km) from the River Moy candidate Special Area of Conservation (csac) (Site Code 2298). This European Site includes the Manulla River (c. 0.2km to the west), and a series of small lakes. There were no habitats listed as SCIs or Qualifying Interests of the designated sites recorded within c.500m of the route options. Aerial photography indicates that Degraded raised bogs still capable of regeneration [7120], and Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion [7150] may occur beyond this area, but that SCI or reason for designation woodland is not locally present. Several SCIs, or Qualifying Interests species (Otter Lutra lutra, several fish species and White-clawed crayfish 77

82 Austropotamobius pallipes), are likely to occur throughout the csac (see Section Ecological Constraints Table 3.3-3). Carrowmore Lough pnha (1492) is designated for its habitat assemblage, and a small number of locally important species and habitats. There is limited potential for many of the species noted in the Site Synopsis for Carrowmore Lough pnha (NPWS, 2009) to occur (e.g. Carline Thistle Carlina vulgaris, wintering Common Gull Larus canus, Mountain Everlasting Antennaria dioica). A small number of the species and habitats noted in the pnha synopsis do occur within the Study Area and potential footprint of the route options (e.g. Grass-of-Parnassus Parnassia palustris, Long-stalked yellow Sedge Carex lepidocarpa), but none of these species are protected, Red-listed, rare, or Priority species in the Mayo BAP. An analysis of impact pathways between the route options and all Designated Sites within their likely zone of influence concluded that there are pathways linking the unmitigated project with the Carrowmore Lough pnha and River Moy csac. A positive response in Table below indicates that an adverse impact arises for a given route option, and is likely to be significant, albeit at different geographic scales. Differentiation between the levels of significance of such impacts cannot be assigned at the route selection assessment stage but will be assessed on the emerging preferred route. However, it should be noted that a significant impact on an SPA/cSAC is unlikely to result in an impact to site integrity, because the project will require screening for Appropriate Assessment (AA) in accordance with Section 177U of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. Additional mitigation would be included as part of the Appropriate Assessment process to address potential impacts on Natura 2000 sites. Site Name (& Code) River Moy csac (2298) Balla Turlough csac (0463) Carrowmore Lough pnha (1492) All other Designated Sites Ecological Value (NRA, 2009A) Option 1 Risk of likely significant effects on designated sites?* Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 International Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes International No No No No No No No National No No No No No No No National- International No No No No No No No * assumes mitigation measures will be identified as part of the AA process Table : Summary of Potential Impacts to Designated Sites 78

83 Potential Impacts to Undesignated Sites Table lists which key ecological receptors (other than Designated Sites) which could potentially be significantly impacted upon by each route option. Detailed descriptions of ecological receptors are provided in the Table Section Ecological Constraints. Ecological Receptor/Site name 7 Ecological Value (NRA, 2009a) Is there potential for the receptor to be significantly impacted assuming mitigation outlined in Table Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Manulla Stream County Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Area C1: Manulla Molinia County No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Grasslands Area C2: Derreen Lough County No No No Yes No Yes Yes Area C3: Smuttanagh Bog County Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes (PB3/HH3) Area LH1: Orchidrich verges at Manulla Local Importance (Higher value) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Area LH2: Creaghanboy Lake Area LH3: Rinnahulty Grassland Area LH4: Orchidrich scrub at Creaghanboy Area LH5: Railway Embankment Scrub Drainage Ditches Dry Calcareous and Neutral Grassland (other than at Rinnahulty) Dry Meadow and Grassy Verges Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7 In certain cases (in line with NRA, 2009a), locations have been given a site name where a particular grouping of habitats or species has been identified (e.g. Area C2: Derreen Lough or Area LH1: Orchid-rich roadside verges at Manulla). In this context, the term site refers to an area of ecological value for the purposes of describing the habitats and species in this report. It does not equate to any formal designation. 79

84 Ecological Receptor/Site name 7 Wet Grassland (GS4) (not qualifying as Annex 1 Molinia habitat) Poor Fen and Flush (PF2) Hedgerows/Treelin es (WL1/WL2) Broad-leaved Woodland (WD1) Mixed Broadleaved/conifer Woodland (WD2) Wet pedunculate oak-ash woodland (WN4) Bog Woodland (WN7) Scrub (WS1) Badger and Otter Hedgehog and Pygmy Shrew Breeding Birds Wintering Birds Amphibians and Reptiles Marsh fritillary (Suitably [Under Grazed] Habitat) Bats (other than at Area LH5) Fisheries (outside Manulla River and Stream) Ecological Value (NRA, 2009a) Is there potential for the receptor to be significantly impacted assuming mitigation outlined in Table Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Local Importance (Higher value) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) Local Importance (Higher value) No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No Table : Summary of potential Impacts of Options to Undesignated Features 80

85 Given that this assessment is based on 50m wide Option corridors, it may be possible, through the design process, to avoid or reduce the magnitude of the potential impacts of any of the route options on the identified ecological receptors; which in turn may affect the relative ecological preference of each of the route options. Mitigation measures for ecological features potentially impacted by the route options may be assumed at this stage to allow for practical consideration of the options. These are given in Table below; Feature Breeding Birds Badgers* and Otters* Amphibians* Hedgehogs* and Pygmy Shrew* Bats* Crayfish Fisheries Protection Invasive Species Protected & Rare Flora Other Habitats (Woods, grasslands, treelines, watercourses) Measure -Seasonal restriction on works to occur outside breeding season (March-August). -Nesting checks prior to site clearance if seasonal restricting works is not practical. Derogation licences required to remove licences if located within working zone. -Exclusion zones around Wheatear, Grasshopper Warbler and Skylark nests if located within the working zone, and seasonal restriction are not practical. -Micrositing of aspects of the road e.g. culverts, crossings, to avoid otter holts and badger setts. - Exclusion and/or artificial holt/sett creation under license. -Appropriate landscaping and fencing proposals (e.g. to screen cycle/pedestrian paths or lead animals to underpasses). -Sensitive lighting design (e.g. of watercourses and hedgerows). -Sensitive culvert design and/or provision of ledges (as per NRA guidelines). -Translocation to suitable receptor site under license. -Seasonal works to avoid breeding bird season (coincides with majority of Hedgehog and Pygmy Shrew breeding season). -Exclusion and/or artificial roost creation under license. -Inclusion of underpasses to mitigate break in commuting. -Licenced translocation of crayfish prior to commencement of instream works. -Timing of works to avoid sensitive seasons and/or measures to reduce impacts -during construction (e.g. barriers) -All culverts to be fish-passable (including specific measures potentially required for European Eel) -Use of pillars rather than embankment for construction -Invasive Species Management Plan to prevent spread of Japanese Knotweed, and Canadian Waterweed -Micrositing of road infrastructure. -Plant translocation (and propagation as enhancement measure) where necessary (last resort as success of translocation is difficult to predict). -Appropriate landscape proposals including species-rich landscape mixes. * Mitigation may not be required if further surveys/preferred route do not predict significant impacts Table : Likely Mitigation Measures 81

86 Assessment Conclusion Table below provides the number of impacts from each route option based on potential impact of features of ecological value. Impact Level Significant Impact on feature of International Importance Significant Impact on feature of National Importance Significant Impact on feature of County Importance Significant Impact on feature of Local Importance (Higher value) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Options Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option Table : Summary Comparison of Impacts on all Ecological Features All route options will have some degree of ecological impacts. Potential impacts of highest concern relate to those on the River Moy csac (International Importance); all route options could similarly impact the River Moy csac, but are all considered unlikely to adversely impact site integrity subject to appropriate mitigation. Impacts of next highest concern are those to County-value features. Options 1, and 3 impact the least number (two) of County-value features. Both route options have similar impacts on Area C1. As Option 1 is online through Smuttanagh Bog (Area C3) compared with Option 3, which would remove part of the bog between the railway and the existing N60, Option 1 is potentially the least damaging of the two from an ecological perspective. There are four corridors which impact on three County-value features: Options 2, 5, 6 and 7. Options 6 and 7 are the most preferred of these as they avoid Smuttanagh Bog and have fewer impacts on features of Local Importance (Higher Value). However, Options 2, 5 and 6 do have a greater impact on the Manulla grasslands site (Area C1) than Option 7. Option 4 has the greatest number of potential impacts to County-value features (four) and also has the highest number of potential impacts to features of Local Importance (Higher Value). In summary, the ecological preference of each of the seven options is provided below in Table ; Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option7 Overall Rating High High Table : Ecological Impacts Assessment Summary 82

87 6.2.2 Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage Introduction The National Roads Authority document entitled Guidelines for the Assessment of Archaeological Heritage Impacts of National Road Schemes provides guidance on the route selection assessment procedures in Chapter 4 Corridor Selection Study and the Guidelines for the Assessment of Architectural Heritage Impacts of National Road Schemes provides guidance on the route selection assessment procedures in Chapter 4 Corridor Selection Study. In undertaking the assessment consideration has been given to this guidance. Assessment Methodology For the purposes of this assessment, Study Areas extending 250m from the edge of each route option were defined. The known archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage sites within the Manulla area are shown in Figure A.4 Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage Constraints. Baseline information for the Study Areas was gathered from the following sources of information: Record of Monuments and Places (RMP); Sites and Monuments Record (SMR); Register of Historic Monuments; First edition Ordnance Survey 6 mapping ( ) and first edition Ordnance Survey 25 mapping ( ) from: National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) Survey of Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes; List of Structures on the Record of Protected Structures for County Mayo; and Mayo County Development Plan for the Record of Protected Structures, Architectural Conservation Areas and relevant heritage policies. Existing Environment The Study Area is dominated by the existing N60 and is generally rural, characterised by residential properties and agricultural land. The Study Area contains a number of archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage resources which are listed in the following sections. Options Assessment A total of 7 sites of archaeological and cultural heritage significance were identified within the 250m Study Area of each of the route options, 5 recorded monuments and 2 non-designated cultural heritage sites. Table summarises the potential impact of each of the seven route options on the known archaeological and cultural heritage resources. Unless otherwise stated, all impacts are negative. 83

88 Reference No. MA MA MA MA MA National Grid Reference (E, N) Site Type Ringfort-Rath Ringfort-Rath Ringfort-Rath Enclosure Fulacht Fia - - Land League Cottage and garden - - Shrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary Statutory / Other Designation Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Recorded Monument Non-designated site Non-designated site Distance from Edge of the Proposed Road (m) and Impact Type Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 230m 185m 230m 185m 185m 185m 230m No No No No No No No predicted predicted predicted predicted predicted predicted predicted impact impact impact impact impact impact impact Outside 250m Study Area 220m No predicted impact 64m No predicted impact 0m Direct 0m Direct 0m Direct Outside 250m Study Area 220m No predicted impact 64m No predicted impact 0m Direct 0m Direct 0m Direct Outside 250m Study Area 227m No predicted impact 64m No predicted impact 0m Direct 0m Direct 0m Direct 120m No predicted impact 220m No predicted impact 64m No predicted impact 190m No predicted impact 180m No predicted impact 190m No predicted impact Outside 250m Study Area 227m No predicted impact 64m No predicted impact 0m Direct 0m Direct 0m Direct 0m Direct 141m No predicted impact 64m No predicted impact 221m No predicted impact 203m No predicted impact 221m No predicted impact 0m Direct 141m No predicted impact 64m No predicted impact 221m No predicted impact 203m No predicted impact 221m No predicted impact Table : Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assessment* *Items in grey are located outside of the 250m Study Area from each of the routes or is not predicted to result in an impact. 84

89 Potential impacts on 4 No. sites have been identified. These are described below. Direct Impacts The Land League Cottage is a non-designated site, located with a private entrance to the existing N60. It is a building of local importance, with a history going back to the Land League Movement in the 1880 s. Option 1, Option 2, Option 3 and Option 5 would involve online improvements, including widening, to the existing road adjacent to the Land League Cottage. The Land League Cottage building is several metres away from the existing N60 road and in the event that the private access cannot be maintained, a new private access will be required to be provided. The Shrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a non-designated site, located at the roadside of the existing L arm junction. It is an object of local importance. Option 1, Option 2, Option 3 and Option 5 would involve online improvements, including widening, of the existing road which would result in an impact to the shrine and possibly require the relocation of the shrine. The Fulacht Fia (MA ) is located directly adjacent to the existing N60 road. Option 1 would involve widening of the existing road over the location of the Fulacht Fia and it is considered that the construction and operation of Option 1, Option 2, Option 3 and Option 5 would result in a direct impact to the site. The Ringfort-Rath (MA ) is located directly adjacent to the existing N60 road. Option 6 and Option 7 would involve the construction of a new road directly adjacent to the Ringfort-Rath and it is considered that the construction and operation of Option 6 and Option 7 would result in a direct impact to the site. The impact will be reviewed at the next stage of design in order to minimise adverse effect to the site. Assessment Conclusion Option 4 is considered to be the most-preferable option due to its distance from the designated and non-designated sites. Option 4 will not have an impact on any of the designated and non-designated sites. Option 1, Option 2, Option 3 and Option 5 are predicted to result in similar impacts to the Land League Cottage, the Blessed Virgin Mary shrine and the Fulacht Fia. Option 6 and 7 are predicted to result in an impact on the Ringfort-Rath (MA ). A detailed consideration of the impacts and mitigation requirements will be completed during the environmental assessment process for the preferred route option. 85

90 Table provides a comparison of the seven route options for Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage. No Predicted Impact Direct Impact Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option Overall Rating High Table : Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage Impacts Assessment Summary Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology Introduction The National Roads Authority document entitled Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes provides guidance on the route selection assessment procedures in Chapter 4 Corridor Selection. In undertaking the assessment consideration has been given to this guidance. Assessment Methodology In addition to the above guidance, the Irish Geological Society online mapping tool provided valuable information regarding soils, bedrock, karst, faulting, aquifers and aquifer vulnerability for each of the routes. No private water supplies data is available along each of the route corridors and as such no weighting has been given to the number of wells along each route corridor and/or their distance from the route centre line when assessing relative impacts. Existing Environment The Study Area is composed of various shale and limestone rock formations. There are no identified geological heritage sites and no active or historic quarries within the Study Area. The Study Area is generally composed of limestone till (carboniferous) subsoils, with large areas of cutover peat throughout. An area identified as karstified limestone bedrock at the surface is located in the townland of Creaghanboy (See Figure A.5 Geology Subsoils). The majority of the Study Area beneath the seven route options is underlain by a Regionally Important Aquifer. Sections of all seven route options are underlain by a Locally Important aquifer (bedrock which is moderately productive only in local zones). The groundwater vulnerability of the aquifers within the Study Area is 86

91 predominately high, with smaller areas which are identified as having low, moderate or extreme vulnerability. A landfill is located adjacent to the L , north-west of the existing N60. The material deposited on site to date includes topsoil, subsoil, silt clay, gravel and inert waste from construction and demolition. Wood chippings have been spread on site to condition the soil to enable it to be used for agricultural purposes once the site is filled. Options Assessment Option 1, closely follows the line of the existing N60 and as such will have the least impact on soils, geology and hydrogeology. Option 2, Option 3, Option 4 and Option 5 will involve the development of sections of offline roads above the Locally Important aquifer. Option 3, Option 4, Option 5, Option 6 and Option 7 will involve the development of off-line road in areas above the Regionally Important Aquifer. The gross quantities of cut and fill for each option are outlined in Table Indicative Earthworks Balance of the Corridor Options below. The earthworks quantities shown area based on the assumption that all excavated material can be reused in the proposed scheme as there is insufficient geotechnical information available at this time that would suggest otherwise. Once selected, the preferred route corridor option will undergo a detailed topographical and ground investigation survey and the design will then be reexamined in detail to investigate whether the alignment can be adjusted to improve the earthworks balance and the suitability of excavated material. Cut (m 3 ) Fill (m 3 ) Balance (m 3 ) Option 1 25,941 69,970-44,029 Option 2 44,742 78,487-33,744 Option 3 61,036 81,694-20,658 Option 4 79,343 92,791-13,448 Option 5 86,685 83,782 2,902 Option 6 80, ,376-23,371 Option 7 62,797 90,179-27,382 Table : Indicative Earthworks Balance of the Corridor Options All seven route options will include major areas of cutting and filling which could potentially alter the drainage pattern in the area and impact groundwater. Option 2 will include an area of significant cutting, maximum of 7m approximately in depth, in an area above a Locally Important Aquifer which is of moderate vulnerability (Ch1050 Ch1240). 87

92 Option 3 will include an area of significant cutting, maximum of 9m approximately in depth, in an area above a Regionally Important Aquifer which is of high vulnerability (Ch1935 Ch2135). Option 4 will include two areas of significant cutting, one, maximum of 7m approximately in depth, in an area above a Locally Important Aquifer which is of moderate vulnerability (Ch1050 Ch1240) and one, over 10m in depth, in an area above a Regionally Important Aquifer which is of high vulnerability (Ch2245 Ch2410). Option 4 will include development through the area of the identified landfill. Due to the potential requirement for disposal for waste material generated from the development of Option 4, Option 4 is of low preference. Option 5 will include two areas of significant cutting, one, maximum of 7m approximately in depth, in an area above a Locally Important Aquifer which is of moderate vulnerability (Ch1050 Ch1240) and one, maximum of 10m approximately in depth, in an area above a Regionally Important Aquifer which is of high vulnerability (Ch1950 Ch2150). Option 6 will include two areas of significant cutting, one, maximum of 6m approximately in depth, in an area above a Locally Important Aquifer which is of moderate vulnerability (Ch1050 Ch1240) and one, over 10m in depth, in an area above a Regionally Important Aquifer which is of high vulnerability (Ch2245 Ch2395). Option 6 will include development through the area of the identified landfill. Due to the potential requirement for disposal for waste material generated from the development of Option 6, Option 6 is of low preference. Option 7 will include an area of significant cutting, over 10m in depth, in an area above a Regionally Important Aquifer which is of high vulnerability (Ch2245 Ch2395). Option 7 will include development through the area of the identified landfill. Due to the potential requirement for disposal for waste material generated from the development of Option 6, Option 7 is of low preference. This would make Option 1 the most preferable option as it involves the least volume of cut and fill. A detailed consideration of the impacts and mitigation requirements will be completed during the environmental assessment process for the preferred route option. Assessment Conclusion Based on the information contained within the previous sections, the following ranking order has been assigned to the seven options. Overall Rating Option 1 High Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Table : Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology Impacts Assessment Summary 88

93 6.2.4 Surface Water Introduction The National Roads Authority document entitled Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes provides guidance on the route selection assessment procedures in Chapter 4 Corridor Selection. In undertaking the assessment consideration has been given to this guidance. Assessment Methodology The following data resources were referred to during this assessment: Ordnance Survey of Ireland (OSI); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Water Quality Monitoring Databases and Reports; EPA flow and water level measurements (EPA Hydronet System); Water Framework Directive Ireland Database; The Western River Basin District Management Plan (WRBDMP) and associated Water Management Unit plans; National Parks and Wildlife Services (designated site); and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the Mayo County Development Plan Consultation letters were issued as part of the constraints and route selection process. Consultees included Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) and the Office of Public Works (OPW). In addition a meeting was held with the IFI on-site to discuss the development. Copies of the responses to the consultation letters can be found in Appendix F. Field Surveys Site walkovers were undertaken in August and September These walkover surveys were carried out within the proposed scheme footprint and extended as required to include other relevant hydrological aspects. The field surveys were carried out as a cursory inspection of the important surface water sites and features along the route corridors. A walkover of the Walshpool Lough River and the Manulla 34 River (1) between one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake was also carried out with a representative from the IFI. See Figure A.9 Surface Water for the location of these water bodies. Detailed field studies will be progressed in accordance with the requirements of the NRA guidelines during the EIA stage of the recommended preferred route at the next stage of the proposed scheme development. 89

94 Existing Environment This section describes the hydrological attributes and the potential impacts on these attributes as a result of the various route options. The main threats to hydrological attributes as a result of this proposed scheme have been identified as a result of: Water quality impact on receiving streams, lakes and rivers from routine carriageway runoff (heavy metals, organics, nutrients, hydrocarbons, suspended solids, coliforms, etc.) and from accidental spillages (agricultural, oil/chemical spillages, bulk liquid cement); and Increase in runoff characteristics (due to impervious road pavement area and increased transmission time and point loading) resulting in a possible increase in the overall flood peak magnitude and flooding frequency in the receiving stream. It is likely that some of the impacts noted in this section will be fully mitigated, but this will not become clear until later in the Design Stage. The new drainage system will be designed to avoid impacts, thereby limiting the effect road drainage will have on water quality or flow into receiving watercourses. As a result of the proposed scheme there may be an improvement in water quality due to road runoff from proposed being treated before discharge, removing hydrocarbons and heavy metals which currently drain from the existing road. It is currently too early in the design process to determine if this will give an overall positive impact to the surface water features in the area. Overview of Catchments and Sub-Catchments Crossed All seven route options lie within the River Moy Catchment and the Conn Water Management Unit (WMU), within the Western River Basin District (WRBD). The Manulla River in the south of the Conn WMU, as well as the upper tributary Meander River are of Moderate status (The values of the biological quality elements for the surface water body deviate moderately, as a result of human activity, from the reference or undisturbed condition). There is one river, unnamed, west of Balla which is at Poor status (assigned by extrapolation from similar monitored water body). Carrowmore Lough and Walshpool Lough are at High and Good status respectively. Overview of Watercourses in the Area Watercourses within and adjacent to the Study Area include the following: Manulla 34 River; Walshpool Lough River; Kilmacrade River; Lakeland er stream; South Curryeallaun stream; 90

95 Rinnahulty stream; Drumnaslooeen stream; Manulla west stream; Manulla 34 stream; South Carrowmore stream; Kilmacrade stream; Eighter stream; Tully Beg 34 stream; Drumadoon stream; and A number of unnamed streams. In addition to watercourses there are a number of surface water bodies within the Study Area and in the surrounding areas. These include Carrowmore Lough (approximately 1km from the existing N60), Derreen Lough (collective name for two lakes) (approximately 75m from the existing N60) and Creaghanboy Lake (approximately 150m from the existing N60). The shores of Carrowmore Lough are designated as a proposed National Heritage Area (pnha), see Figure A.3 Habitat Mapping and Ecological Constraints for the designation boundary. Sections of the Manulla 34 River are designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) as it is a tributary of the River Moy, see Figure A.3 Habitat Mapping and Ecological Constraints. The section of the Manulla 34 River which is designated as part of the SAC is outside of the Study Area, to the north-east of the proposed scheme start point. These surface water features are shown on Figure A.9 Surface Water. There are also a number of ditches associated with drainage of the farmland in the area. The Walshpool Lough River and the Manulla 34 River between one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake are designated as Salmonid Rivers under the EU Freshwater Fish Directive, as shown in Figure A.9 Surface Water. Crossings and Encroachment The mainline of the seven route options cross or encroach upon a number of the rivers and streams. These are identified in Table and any designated rivers or streams are also identified. It is noted that the crossings of the proposed side roads have not been considered as part of the assessment at this stage. 91

96 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Number of Water - courses Directly Impacted Name and approximate location of watercourses directly impacted Manulla 34 River (1) connecting one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake at Ch1650 Manulla 34 River (2) coming from Derreen Lough Ch2200 Kilmacrade Stream at Ch2960 Eighter Stream at Ch3425 Tully Beg 34 Stream at Ch3550 Drumadoon Stream at Ch3900 Walshpool Lough River at Ch250 Ch950 Manulla 34 River (1) connecting one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake at Ch1650 Manulla 34 River (2) coming from Derreen Lough at Ch2225 Kilmacrade Stream at Ch2990 Eighter Stream at Ch3440 Tully Beg 34 Stream at Ch3590 Drumadoon Stream at Ch3920 Manulla 34 River (1) connecting one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake at Ch1620 Manulla 34 River (2) coming from Derreen Lough Ch2250 Kilmacrade Stream at Ch2970 Eighter Stream at Ch3425 Tully Beg 34 Stream at Ch3670 Drumadoon Stream at Ch3900 Walshpool Lough River at Ch250 Ch950 Manulla 34 River (1) connecting one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake lakes at Ch1660 Manulla 34 River (1) coming from Derreen Lough at Ch2130 South Carrowmore Stream at Ch2500 Kilmacrade Stream at Ch2970 Eighter Stream at Ch3420 Tully Beg 34 Stream at Ch3670 Drumadoon Stream at Ch3920 Walshpool Lough River at Ch 250 Ch 950 Manulla 34 River (1) connecting one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake at Ch 1620 Manulla 34 River (2) coming from Derreen Lough at Ch 2250 Kilmacrade Stream at Ch 2960 Eighter Stream at Ch 3410 Tully Beg 34 Stream at Ch 3550 Drumadoon Stream at Ch 3900 Walshpool Lough River at Ch250 Ch950 Manulla 34 River (1) connecting one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake lakes at Ch1660 Manulla 34 River (2) coming from Derreen Lough at Ch2130 South Carrowmore Stream at Ch2500 Kilmacrade Stream at Ch3030 Eighter Stream at (Ch3140 and Ch3330) Tully Beg 34 Stream at Ch3570 Drumadoon Stream at Ch3920 Manulla 34 River (1) connecting one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake at Ch1650 Manulla 34 River (2) coming from Derreen Lough at Ch2130 South Carrowmore Stream at Ch2500 Kilmacrade Stream at Ch3030 Eighter Stream at (Ch3140 and Ch3330) Tully Beg 34 Stream at Ch3570 Drumadoon Stream at Ch3920 Table : Watercourses Crossed by Each Option 92

97 Carrowmore Lough is located to the north of the Study Area and the seven route options. Carrowmore Lough is identified as a lake which provides drinking water. None of the route options cross or encroach upon the Carrowmore Lough directly however, all seven route options will involve either the upgrade of existing crossing or development of a new crossing over a stream which flows into Carrowmore Lough. Table below identifies the crossings. Kilmacrade Stream Eighter Stream Option 1 Potential Upgrade of existing crossing/development of New Crossing Crossing Option 2 Potential Upgrade of existing crossing/development of New Crossing Potential Upgrade of existing crossing/development of New Potential Upgrade of existing crossing/development of New Crossing Option 3 Development of new crossing Development of new crossing Option 4 Option 5 Development of new crossing Potential Upgrade of existing crossing/development of New Crossing Potential Upgrade of existing crossing/development of New Crossing Potential Upgrade of existing crossing/development of New Crossing Option 6 Development of new crossing Development of new crossings Option 7 Development of new crossing Development of new crossings Table : Crossings over streams flowing into Carrowmore Lough Options 2, 4, 5 and 6 all include development of new road off-line south of the existing N60, in the townland of Skiddernagh. These options will require a section of the Walshpool Lough River to be realigned. This river is designated as a Salmonid River under the EU Freshwater Fish Directive. A survey in October 2013 by the Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) identified that the Walshpool Lough River has significant stocks of Brown Trout and moderate stocks of Atlantic Salmon, Eel, Three Spined Stickleback and Perch. As a result of the designated status of the river and initial consultation with the IFI where they expressed their preference that the river not be altered, Options 2, 4, 5 and 6 would be the least preferred options. Overview of Surface Water Quality The Study Area lies within the Western River Basin District (WRBD). The Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires that a programme of measures is developed for each water body. The Final River Basin Management Plan for the Western River Basin District in Ireland ( ) was published in July 2010, accompanied by a series of Water Management Unit Plans. 93

98 The Study Area is within the Conn River Water Management Unit, and it is an objective of the Plan that all water bodies within the WMU must achieve Good status by 2015, unless otherwise specified in the Plan. As detailed in Table , Carrowmore Lough achieved good status in Waterbody Waterbody code Type Current Status Element causing less than good Achieve Good Status by Carrowmore WE_34_30 Lake Good * Lough 4 *According to the Conn River Water Management Unit Action Plan published in 2010, Carrowmore Lough achieved High status. Table : EPA Status Classification of Water bodies in the Study Area EPA Classification and Water Quality The EPA assess the water quality of rivers and streams across Ireland using a biological assessment method, which is regarded as a representative indicator of the status of such waters and reflects the overall trend in conditions of the watercourse. Biological Water Quality Data for the watercourses in the Study Area was sourced from the EPA. The EPA assigns biological river quality (biotic index) ratings from Q5 Q1 to watercourse sections. Q5 denotes a watercourse with good water quality and high community diversity, whereas Q1 denotes a bad water quality and very low community diversity. The nearest monitoring stations in the Study Area are located along the Lough Naminnoo Stream and the Manulla 34 River. The locations of the monitoring stations are shown on Figure A.9 Surface Water. Table below details the current water quality status of these rivers. River Location Q Value Status Lough Naminnoo Railway Bridge at Q3-4 Moderate Stream Smuttanagh Manulla 34 River Manulla Bridge Q3-4 Moderate Table : EPA River Quality Details Overview of Amenity Areas The Manulla River is noted as a fishing attraction in the area. The river offers trout fishing and some of the small loughs on the Manulla River hold pike. Overview of Flood Aspects The proposed options all involve a number of off-line road developments as well as upgrading of online sections of the existing N60. 94

99 It is unlikely that sections of road raised above the existing ground level, comparable to the existing road levels, would be at significant risk from flooding associated with storm surges or rivers. The existing road network does not have any engineered/designed drainage systems (e.g. carrier pipes, gullys, etc.) except for a small 20m section at Ch1850. Surface water drains over the edge of the road into road ditches eventually discharging into nearby streams. Raising road levels above ground level will also make the options less susceptible to flooding from overland flow and groundwater. To further reduce the risk of flooding it is assumed that the new options will also be provided with drainage, designed to the necessary standards. The Office of Public Works (OPW) has developed the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA), a national screening exercise to identify areas where there may be a significant risk associated with flooding. Figure A.19 OPW Flood Mapping shows the route options overlaid on the draft preliminary flood risk assessment map. This identifies areas of flood risk from fluvial (river) flooding and pluvial (rainfall) flooding and the water bodies in the area. The sections of the Walshpool Lough River and the Manulla 34 River (1), between one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake, are identified as having a 1% annual exceedance probability (AEP), indicating it has a 1% or 1 in 100 chance of flooding occurring or being exceeded in any one year. The 1% flood is often referred to as the 100-year flood because, on average over a long period of time, it is likely to occur or be exceeded once every hundred years. All of the route options cross the Manulla 34 River (1) and Options 2, 4, 5 and 6 will all involve new crossings and realignment of the Walshpool Lough River. There is also an area of pluvial flooding identified as being indicative of a 1% AEP event located north of the existing N60, adjacent to the L and Option 6 and Option 7 travel through this area. Options Assessment Table summarises the associated impacts identified for each option. An order of preference is given for the route options at the end of the table. 95

100 Attribute Designated Areas Attribute Importance Very High (Attribute has a high quality or value on a regional or national scale) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Walshpool Lough River The new alignment for Option 1 will be within closer proximity to the Walshpool Lough River (Ch250 Ch500) which is designated as a Salmonid River under the EU Freshwater Fish Directive. The Walshpool Lough River flows into the Manulla 34 River outside of the Study Area. The Manulla 34 River is designated as a SAC outside of the immediate Study Area. Walshpool Lough River Option 2 will involve two new watercourse crossings of the Walshpool Lough River (Ch350 & Ch650), realignment of approximately 300m of the Walshpool Lough River (Ch350 Ch650) and the development of a new staggered junction in the area of an existing crossing of the Walshpool Lough River (Ch900). The Walshpool Lough River is designated as a Salmonid River under the EU Freshwater Fish Directive and flows into the Manulla 34 River outside of the Study Area. The Manulla 34 River is designated as a SAC outside of the immediate Study Area. Walshpool Lough River The new alignment for Option 3 will be within closer proximity to the Walshpool Lough River (Ch250 Ch500) which is designated as a Salmonid River under the EU Freshwater Fish Directive. The Walshpool Lough River continues flows into the Manulla 34 River outside of the Study Area. The Manulla 34 River is designated as a SAC outside of the immediate Study Area. Walshpool Lough River Option 4 will involve two new watercourse crossings of the Walshpool Lough River (Ch350 & Ch650), realignment of approximately 300m of the Walshpool Lough River (Ch350 Ch650) and the development of a new staggered junction in the area of an existing crossing of the Walshpool Lough River (Ch900). The Walshpool Lough River is designated as a Salmonid River under the EU Freshwater Fish Directive and flows into the Manulla 34 River outside of the Study Area. The Manulla 34 River is designated as a SAC outside of the immediate Study Area. Walshpool Lough River Option 5 will involve two new watercourse crossings of the Walshpool Lough River (Ch350 & Ch650), realignment of approximately 300m of the Walshpool Lough River (Ch350 Ch650) and the development of a new staggered junction in the area of an existing crossing of the Walshpool Lough River (Ch 900). The Walshpool Lough River is designated as a Salmonid River under the EU Freshwater Fish Directive and flows into the Manulla 34 River outside of the Study Area. The Manulla 34 River is designated as a SAC outside of the immediate Study Area. Walshpool Lough River Option 6 will involve two new watercourse crossings of the Walshpool Lough River (Ch350 & Ch650), realignment of approximately 300m of the Walshpool Lough River (Ch350 Ch650) and the development of a new staggered junction in the area of an existing crossing of the Walshpool Lough River (Ch900). The Walshpool Lough River is designated as a Salmonid River under the EU Freshwater Fish Directive and flows into the Manulla 34 River outside of the Study Area. The Manulla 34 River is designated as a SAC outside of the immediate Study Area. Walshpool Lough River The new alignment for Option 7 will be within closer proximity to the Walshpool Lough River (Ch250 Ch500) which is designated as a Salmonid River under the EU Freshwater Fish Directive. The Walshpool Lough River flows into the Manulla 34 River outside of the Study Area. The Manulla 34 River is designated as a SAC outside of the immediate Study Area. Designated Areas Very High (Attribute has a high quality or value on a regional or national scale) Manulla 34 River Option 1 will involve an upgrade of the existing crossing of the Manulla 34 River between one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake (Ch1650) which is also designated as a Salmonid River under the EU Freshwater Fish Directive. Carrowmore Lough Option 1 will involve the upgrading of the existing crossings over the Kilmacrade Stream (Ch2975) and Eighter Stream (Ch3425) which flow into Carrowmore Lough, which is designated as a pnha. Manulla 34 River Option 2 will involve an upgrade of the existing crossing of the Manulla 34 River between one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake (Ch650) which is also designated as a Salmonid River under the EU Freshwater Fish Directive. Carrowmore Lough Option 2 will involve the upgrading of the existing crossings over the Kilmacrade Stream (Ch3000) and Eighter Stream (Ch3450) which flow into Carrowmore Lough, which is designated as a pnha. Manulla 34 River Option 3 will involve a new watercourse crossing of the Manulla 34 River between one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake (Ch1825). Carrowmore Lough Option 3 will also involve two new water course crossings over the Kilmacrade Stream (Ch2950) and Eighter Stream (Ch3650) which flow into Carrowmore Lough, which is designated as a pnha. Manulla 34 River Option 4 will involve an upgrade of the existing crossing of the Manulla 34 River between one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake (Ch1650) which is also designated as a Salmonid River under the EU Freshwater Fish Directive. Carrowmore Lough Option 4 will involve the development of a new crossing over the Kilmacrade Stream (Ch3000) and the upgrading of the existing crossing over the Eighter Stream (Ch3425) which flow into Carrowmore Lough, which is designated as a pnha. Manulla 34 River Option 5 will involve a new watercourse crossing of the Manulla 34 River between one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake (Ch1600). Carrowmore Lough Option 5 will involve the upgrading of the existing crossings over the Kilmacrade Stream (Ch2975) and Eighter Stream (Ch3425) which flow into Carrowmore Lough, which is designated as a pnha. Manulla 34 River Option 6 will involve an upgrade of the existing crossing of the Manulla 34 River between one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake (Ch1660) which is also designated as a Salmonid River under the EU Freshwater Fish Directive. Carrowmore Lough Option 6 will also involve three new water course crossings, one over the Kilmacrade Stream (Ch3030) and two over the Eighter Stream (Ch3140 and 3330) which flow into Carrowmore Lough, which is designated as a pnha. Manulla 34 River Option 7 will involve an upgrade of the existing crossing of the Manulla 34 River between one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake (Ch1650) which is also designated as a Salmonid River under the EU Freshwater Fish Directive. Carrowmore Lough Option 7 will also involve three new water course crossings, one over the Kilmacrade Stream (Ch3030) and two over the Eighter Stream (Ch3140 and 3330) which flow into Carrowmore Lough, which is designated as a pnha. Impacts related to design and construction activities. Impacts related to design and construction activities. Impacts related to design and construction activities. Impacts related to design and construction activities. Impacts related to design and construction activities. Impacts related to design and construction activities. Impacts related to design and construction activities. 96

101 Attribute Water Quality Attribute Importance High (Attribute has a high quality or value on a local scale) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Potential water quality impact on receiving waters from routine carriageway runoff (heavy metal, organics, nutrients, hydrocarbons, suspended solids, coliforms, etc.) and from accidental spillages. Potential water quality impact on receiving waters from machine servicing or concrete mixing areas during the construction phase. Potential water quality impact if any in-stream works are required. Potential water quality impact on receiving waters from routine carriageway runoff (heavy metal, organics, nutrients, hydrocarbons, suspended solids, coliforms, etc.) and from accidental spillages. Potential water quality impact on receiving waters from machine servicing or concrete mixing areas during the construction phase. Potential water quality impact if any in-stream works are required. Potential water quality impact on receiving waters from routine carriageway runoff (heavy metal, organics, nutrients, hydrocarbons, suspended solids, coliforms, etc.) and from accidental spillages. Potential water quality impact on receiving waters from machine servicing or concrete mixing areas during the construction phase. Potential water quality impact if any in-stream works are required. Potential water quality impact on receiving waters from routine carriageway runoff (heavy metal, organics, nutrients, hydrocarbons, suspended solids, coliforms, etc.) and from accidental spillages. Potential water quality impact on receiving waters from machine servicing or concrete mixing areas during the construction phase. Potential water quality impact if any in-stream works are required. Potential water quality impact on receiving waters from routine carriageway runoff (heavy metal, organics, nutrients, hydrocarbons, suspended solids, coliforms, etc.) and from accidental spillages. Potential water quality impact on receiving waters from machine servicing or concrete mixing areas during the construction phase. Potential water quality impact if any in-stream works are required. Potential water quality impact on receiving waters from routine carriageway runoff (heavy metal, organics, nutrients, hydrocarbons, suspended solids, coliforms, etc.) and from accidental spillages. Potential water quality impact on receiving waters from machine servicing or concrete mixing areas during the construction phase. Potential water quality impact if any in-stream works are required. Potential water quality impact on receiving waters from routine carriageway runoff (heavy metal, organics, nutrients, hydrocarbons, suspended solids, coliforms, etc.) and from accidental spillages. Potential water quality impact on receiving waters from machine servicing or concrete mixing areas during the construction phase. Potential water quality impact if any in-stream works are required. Amenity Flooding Order of (Attribute has a low quality or value on a local scale) (Attribute has a medium quality or value on a local scale) - Impact related to construction activities on fishing in the Manulla River. If any culvert installation is required they must not provide any barrier to the movement of migratory fish, such as salmon, trout and eel. Flood risk associated with storm surge and artificial drainage systems. Preferred option due to lower levels of hydrological impact when compared to other routes. Impact related to construction activities on fishing in the Manulla River. If any culvert installation is required they must not provide any barrier to the movement of migratory fish, such as salmon, trout and eel. Flood risk associated with storm surge and artificial drainage systems. Sections of road set below current ground level. Less preferable due to impact on the Walshpool Lough River. Impact related to construction activities on fishing in the Manulla River. If any culvert installation is required they must not provide any barrier to the movement of migratory fish, such as salmon, trout and eel. Flood risk associated with storm surge and artificial drainage systems. Sections of road set below current ground level. preference due to slightly higher level of hydrological impact when compared with Option 1, including the new crossing of the designated Manulla 34 River between one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake and a new crossing over the undesignated Manulla 34 River coming from Derreen Lough and new crossings over the Kilmacrade Stream and Eighter Stream which flow into Carrowmore Lough. Impact related to construction activities on fishing in the Manulla River. If any culvert installation is required they must not provide any barrier to the movement of migratory fish, such as salmon, trout and eel. Flood risk associated with storm surge and artificial drainage systems. Sections of road set below current ground level. Less preferable due to impact on the Walshpool Lough River, new crossings over the Kilmacrade Stream and Eighter Stream which flow into Carrowmore Lough and the proximity of Option 4 to the undesignated Derreen Lough. Impact related to construction activities on fishing in the Manulla River. If any culvert installation is required they must not provide any barrier to the movement of migratory fish, such as salmon, trout and eel. Flood risk associated with storm surge and artificial drainage systems. Sections of road set below current ground level. Less preferable due to impact on the Walshpool Lough River, the new crossing over the designated Manulla 34 River and new crossing over the undesignated Manulla 34 River (2) coming from Derreen Lough. Impact related to construction activities on fishing in the Manulla River. If any culvert installation is required they must not provide any barrier to the movement of migratory fish, such as salmon, trout and eel. Flood risk associated with storm surge and artificial drainage systems. Sections of road set below current ground level. Section of Option 6 travels through an area of pluvial flooding identified as being indicative of a 1% AEP event. Less preferable due to impact on the Walshpool Lough River, new crossings over the Kilmacrade Stream and Eighter Stream which flow into Carrowmore Lough and the proximity of Option 6 to the undesignated Derreen Lough. Impact related to construction activities on fishing in the Manulla River. If any culvert installation is required they must not provide any barrier to the movement of migratory fish, such as salmon, trout and eel. Flood risk associated with storm surge and artificial drainage systems. Sections of road set below current ground level. Section of Option 7 travels through an area of pluvial flooding identified as being indicative of a 1% AEP event. due to impact of the new crossing over the Kilmacrade Stream and Eighter Stream which flow into Carrowmore Lough and the proximity of Option 7 to the undesignated Derreen Lough. Table : Hydrology Assessment Summary 97

102 Assessment Conclusion Option 1 is considered to be the most preferable option as it closely follows the line of the existing N60 and as such will have the least extent and significance of hydrological impact. Nevertheless, the route will necessitate the upgrade of the staggered junction at Manulla Cross, the realignment of four junctions and construction of a new local access road. Impacts will be most significant during construction and measures to protect water quality will be required. Option 3 will have a slightly higher level of hydrological impact when compared with Option 1. This includes a new crossing of the designated Manulla 34 River connecting one of the lakes identified as Derreen Lough and the Creaghanboy Lake, a new crossing over the undesignated Manulla 34 River coming from Derreen Lough and new crossings over the Kilmacrade Stream and Eighter Stream which flow into Carrowmore Lough. See Figure A.9 Surface Water for the location of these water bodies. Option 7 will also have a slightly higher level of hydrological impact when compared with Option 1. This includes the new crossings over the Kilmacrade Stream and Eighter Stream which flow into Carrowmore Lough and the proximity of Option 7 to the undesignated Derreen Lough. Options 2, 4, 5 and 6 are of lesser preference due to the impact on the Walshpool Lough River. These routes will involve the realignment of this designated Salmonid River and impacts will be most significant during construction. Initial consultation has been held with IFI where they expressed their preference that the river not be altered due to the presence of significant stocks of Brown Trout and moderate stocks of Atlantic Salmon, Eel, Three Spined Stickleback and Perch. If these route options are chosen further consultation with the IFI will be required. Whatever option is finally selected, an assessment of potential impacts on surface water will be required and will provide recommendations for mitigation measures for the protection of water quality. Based on the information contained within the previous sections, the following ranking order has been assigned to the seven options. Overall Rating Option 1 High Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Table : Summary of Hydrological Assessment Option 5 Option 6 Option Landscape and Visual Introduction The National Roads Authority document entitled Project Management Guidelines provides guidance on the route selection assessment procedures in Section 2. 98

103 Selection Process. The National Roads Authority guidelines A Guide to Landscape Treatments for National Road Schemes in Ireland was also referred to in the development of this section. Assessment Methodology Landscape has two separate but closely related aspects. The first is visual impact, i.e. the extent to which a new structure in the landscape can be seen. The second is landscape character impact, i.e. effects on the fabric or structure of the overall landscape. Visual Impact Visual impacts are categorised under Visual Intrusion and Visual Obstruction where; Visual Intrusion is an impact on a view without blocking; and Visual Obstruction is an impact on a view involving blocking thereof. The majority of receptors within this Study Area will involve residential properties. In this report the term receptors means viewers within residential properties but will also include viewers within the general environment. Those community services and sensitive receptors, which have been identified within the Study Area, are shown in Figure A.11. Landscape Character Landscape character is derived from the appearance of the land, and takes account of natural and manmade features such as topography, landform, vegetation, land use and built environment and their interaction to create specific patterns that are distinctive to particular localities. The landscape impact assessment predicts impacts and describes the likely nature and scale of changes to individual landscape elements and characteristics, together with the significance of such effects. Landscape planning designations, including National and County designations or listings are considered and assessed for impacts, where appropriate. In addition potential impacts on designated sites of cultural heritage value and ecological value are also considered. The following criteria to further assess the landscape character and visual impact of the routes are used: Statutory designations Designated scenic views and landscapes; Residential amenity; Trees and woodland; Cultural landscapes; Listed houses, parklands and gardens; Recreational amenities; and Landscape character. 99

104 The potential impact of each option on the criteria listed above will be used to determine the option preference as either high preference, medium preference or low preference. Existing Environment The Study Area landscape consists of rolling drumlin countryside ranging between approximately 26m and 49m above ordnance datum (Malin). The land use is mainly grassland and pasture with occasional coniferous plantations. The majority of receptors within this Study Area are residential properties. There are no designated scenic or protected views within the 300m Study Area. There are no listed houses, parklands or gardens within the Study Area. As noted in the Landscape Appraisal for County Mayo 2008 report, the Manulla River and Carrowmore Lough are designated as Vulnerable. It is not anticipated that there will be a significant impact on the shorelines of the Manulla River or Carrowmore Lough, due to the distance between the seven route options and the Manulla River and Carrowmore Lough. Options Assessment Each of the seven route options incorporates sections of online improvements to the existing N60 and off-line road development. The seven route options have been assessed to identify whether impacts which could result in visual intrusion or visual obstruction and impacts on the landscape character of the area. This includes consideration of impacts on topography, landform, vegetation, land use and built environment are likely to result from the proposed scheme. The potential significant impacts associated with each route option are set out in the paragraphs below. Option 1 Option 1 follows closely the route of the existing N60 and as such it is not anticipated that Option 1 will result in significant impacts. Potential impacts may result from the development of the new staggered junction at the existing Manulla Cross and in the vicinity of the small section of road realignment at Drumnaslooeen. Option 1 is not anticipated to result in a significant visual impact on residential and commercial properties. Option 2 Option 2 follows the route of the existing N60 for approximately 2.9km and it is not anticipated that significant impacts will result in these areas. Potential impacts may result from the development of new road south through the townlands of Skiddernagh and Manulla re-joining the existing N60 as it enters the townland of Rinnahulty and a new staggered junction south of Manulla Cross. 100

105 Option 2 may result in a negative visual impact on residential properties to the south of Manulla in the Skiddernagh townland. Option 3 Option 3 is online until Ch1200 It then travels in a southerly direction to the west of the existing N60. It comes back online at Ch2450 and is online until Ch2950. It then travels to the west of the existing N60. It comes back online at Ch3600 for the remainder of the online section of the route. Potential impacts may result from the development of the new staggered junction at the existing Manulla Cross, the development of new road through the townland of Rinnahulty and continuing south east of the townlands of Creaghanboy and Drumnaslooeen and the development of new road through Smuttanagh. Option 3 may result in a negative visual impact to residential properties in the townlands of Creaghanboy and Drumnaslooeen. Option 4 Option 4 is online for 400m. It then goes offline and travels in a southerly direction to the west of the existing N60. It comes back online for a short period at Ch1500 it then goes offline again at Ch1950 and travels to the east of the existing N60. It returns to the alignment of the existing N60 at Ch3300 and is online for the remainder of the route. The route option is not anticipated to result in significant landscape and visual impacts in the online areas. Potential impacts may result from the development of new road south through the townland of Skiddernagh and Manulla re-joining the existing N60 as it enters the townland of Rinnahulty and a new staggered junction south of Manulla Cross and from the development of new road to the north of the existing N60 at Creaghanboy through the townlands of Drumnaslooeen and Smuttanagh. Option 4 may result in a negative visual impact to residential properties to the north in the townlands of Creaghanboy, Drumnaslooeen and Smuttanagh. Option 5 Option 5 is online for approximately 400m. It then goes offline and travels in a southerly direction to the west of the existing N60. It continues offline until Ch2450 it then goes back online for the remainder of its length. The route option is not anticipated to result in significant landscape and visual impacts in the online areas. Potential impacts may result from the development of the new staggered junction at the existing Manulla Cross and the development of new road to the south through Skiddernagh, Manulla, Rinnahulty, Creaghanboy and re-joining the existing N60. Option 5 may result in a negative visual impact to residential properties to the south of the existing N60 in the townland of Creaghanboy. 101

106 Option 6 Option 6 is online for 400m. It then goes offline and travels in a southerly direction to the west of the existing N60. It comes back online for a short period at Ch1500 it then goes offline again at Ch1950 and travels to the east of the existing N60. It returns to the alignment of the existing N60 at Ch3800 and is online for the remainder of the route. The route option is not anticipated to result in significant landscape and visual impacts in the online areas. Potential impacts may result from the development of new road to the north of the existing N60 at Creaghanboy through the townlands of Drumnaslooeen, Carrowntober Eighter and Carrowntober Oughter. Option 6 may result in a negative visual impact to residential properties to the north in the townlands of Creaghanboy, Drumnaslooeen Carrowntober Eighter and Carrowntober Oughter. Option 7 Option 7 is online for 1950m. The route option is not anticipated to result in significant landscape and visual impacts in these areas. Option 7 then goes offline and travels in a north easterly direction to the east of the existing N60. Potential impacts may result from the development of new road to the north of the existing N60 at Creaghanboy through the townlands of Drumnaslooeen, Carrowntober Eighter and Carrowntober Oughter. Option 7 may result in a negative visual impact to residential properties to the north in the townlands of Creaghanboy, Drumnaslooeen Carrowntober Eighter and Carrowntober Oughter. Assessment Conclusion Option 1, is considered to be the most preferable option as it closely follows the line of the existing N60 and as such will have the least extent and significance of landscape and visual impact. Nevertheless, the route will necessitate the upgrade of the staggered junction at Manulla Cross, the realignment of four junctions and construction of a new local access road. The route will also involve disturbance to existing roadside plantings. Impacts will be most significant during construction and will involve disturbance and or loss of property boundaries. Options 2, 3 and 5 are of lesser preference due to the impact on residential properties as a result of the construction and operation of new offline sections of road. These routes will involve disturbance to existing roadside plantings. Impacts will be most significant during construction and will involve disturbance and or loss of property boundaries. Options 4, 6 and 7 are the least preferred due to the lengths of new offline sections of road which will have a higher landscape and visual impact on residential properties. 102

107 A detailed consideration of the impacts and mitigation requirements will be completed during the environmental assessment process for the preferred route option. Based on the information contained within the previous sections, the following ranking order has been assigned to the seven options. Overall Rating Option 1 High Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Table : Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Summary Option Air Introduction The National Roads Authority document entitled Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes provides guidance on the route selection assessment procedures in Chapter 2 Selection. In undertaking the assessment consideration has been given to this guidance. Assessment Methodology The primary aspects of the assessment relate to existing ambient air quality, proximity of sensitive receptors and a review of the overall significance of potential changes in air quality. The objective at this stage of the route selection process is to indicate whether there are likely to be significant air quality impacts associated with particular broadly defined routes. In the current assessment, the number of residential properties within 50m of each route option have been identified. The assessment focuses on the pollutants NO 2 and PM 10 only, as these pollutants are of most concern with respect to traffic related emissions, in accordance with the Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes, NRA Existing Environment The primary influences on air quality in County Mayo include emissions from transport and domestic/commercial heating sectors. The greatest existing source of air pollution within the Study Area is road traffic, specifically that emanating from the existing N60. There are no IPPC licenced industrial facilities with emissions to the atmosphere within the Study Area. 103

108 Section Air Constraints indicated that the levels of NO 2 and PM 10 recorded at the EPA air quality monitoring stations, Castlebar and Claremorris, are below the standards derived from the Air Quality Standards Regulations Options Assessment Sensitive Receptors The number of receptors sensitive to air quality within 50m of the carriageway of each of the proposed routes has been determined. In addition to the residential properties there is also a crèche, a school, a sports ground and a few commercial properties; newsagent, garage, Western Farming Co-op, etc. The numbers of sensitive receptors along each route within 50m are included in Table below. No. of Receptors (0-50m) Order Option 6 15 Option 4 19 Option 5 23 Least Impact to Option 7 25 Greatest Impact Option 1 26 Option 2 26 Option 3 31 Table : Summary of Sensitive Receptors and Impact Assessment Impact on Sensitive Ecosystems The EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the Habitats Directive ) requires an Appropriate Assessment to be carried out where there is likely to be a significant impact upon a European protected site. The NRA requires the Air Quality Specialist to liaise with an ecologist on schemes where there is a European protected site within 2km of the route. Per the NRA Guidelines where there is a significant change to traffic flows (>5%) and a designated site lies within 200m of the road centre line, the assessment at the Selection stage will involve a calculation of nitrogen oxides (NOx) concentrations and nitrogen deposition. There is no anticipated significant change to traffic flows for the proposed scheme, traffic flow forecasts are the same under both the Do-Minimum Alternative and Do- Something Alternatives (Options 1 7). There are no European protected sites within 200m of the road centre line of any of the seven route options and as such no calculation of NOx concentrations and nitrogen deposition has been carried out. Assessment Conclusion A detailed consideration of the impacts and mitigation requirements will be completed during the environmental assessment process for the preferred route option. 104

109 Based on the number of sensitive receptors along each proposed route, the following ranking order has been assigned to the seven route options. Overall Rating Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Table : Air Impact Assessment Summary Option 5 Option 6 High Option Noise Introduction The National Roads Authority document entitled Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes provides guidance on the route selection assessment procedures in Chapter 5 Corridor Selection. In undertaking the assessment consideration has been given to this guidance. Assessment Methodology Assessment of potential impact is based primarily upon sensitive receptor counts and likely changes in traffic flow. Sensitive properties may include residential units, schools and crèches; although at this stage of the assessment no further distinction is made between these different types of properties. The following has been conducted to assess the impact rating of each of the seven routes under consideration. Property counts have been conducted within four bands either side of the centreline of each route, i.e. 0 to 50m, 50 to 100m, 100 to 200m and 200 to 300m. Consideration of the likely changes in traffic flow. Existing Environment The existing environment of the Study Area is rural in nature. The land use is predominately a mixture of agricultural lands, residential properties and a few small commercial properties. The main contributors to the existing noise environment are road traffic movements along the existing N60, road traffic along the existing local roads, and general environmental sources including bird song and rustling foliage. The area has relatively few residential properties in the vicinity of the Study Area. Those that are present are a mix of ribbon style development and one off housing along the existing non-national routes. In addition to the residential properties there is also a crèche, a school, a sports ground and a few commercial properties; newsagent, garage, Western Farming Co-op, etc. 105

110 Options Assessment An assessment of potential impact in terms of noise and vibration based upon the number of noise sensitive receptors within specified distance bands from each of the options under consideration is set out in the following Section. The number of properties potentially sensitive to noise and/or vibration within 300m of each of the proposed route options has been identified. This has been undertaken for four bands either side of centreline of each option, i.e. 0-50m, m, m and m. Refer to Figures A.11 A to G for locations of these bands relative to each of the options. A desktop study has been carried out in order to determine as accurately as possible the number and type of properties in the vicinity of each of the proposed options. The total number of receptors in each band is multiplied by an arbitrary rating factor. The rating factor is 4 for Band 1, 3 for Band 2, 2 for Band 3 and 1 for Band 4. The resultant values are summed to give a single number for each route option, termed the Potential Impact Rating (PIR). The option with the lowest PIR has the lowest nominal potential impact. Table presents the potential impact rating for Options 1 to 5 based on the number of property counts within 300m of each of the proposed road centreline. Band Rating Factor 1 (0 50m) 4 2 (50 100m) 3 No. of Receptors in Band multiplied by the Rating Factor Option Option Option Option Option Option Option X 4= 26 X 4= 31 X 4= 19 X 4= 23 X 4= 15 X 4= 25 X 4= X 3= 9 X 3= 8 X 3= 7 X 3= 10 X 3= 9 X 3= 6 X 3= X 2= 16 X 2= 16 X 2= 21 X 2= 18 X 2= 16 X 2= 11 X 2= 3 ( m) X 1= 12 X 1= 7 X 1= 12 X 1= 12 X 1= 17 X 1= 12 X 1= 4 ( m) Potential Impact Rating Table : Potential Impact Rating for Options 1 to 7 Summary of PIR Assessment Based on the PIR values only, the following ranking order is applied for the seven route options under assessment. Option PIR Order Option Least Impact to Option Greatest Impact Option

111 Option Least Impact to Option Greatest Impact Option Option Table : Summary of PIR Scores Assessment Conclusion A detailed consideration of the impacts and mitigation requirements will be completed during the environmental assessment process for the preferred route option. Based on the information contained within the previous sections, the following ranking order has been assigned to the seven route options based on the PIR assessment, assigning a preference order based on the number of sensitive receptors in proximity to the proposed route options. Overall Rating Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Table : Noise Impact Assessment Summary Option 5 Option 6 High Option Agronomy Introduction Philip Farrelly & Co. were commissioned by Jacobs Engineering to carry out an assessment of the agricultural impact of route options for input into the route selection assessment for the proposed scheme. The National Roads Authority documents entitled Project Management Guidelines and Environmental Impact Assessment of National Road Schemes A Practical Guide provides guidance on the route selection assessment procedures. In undertaking the assessment consideration has been given to this guidance and the guidance provided in the EPA documents entitled Guidelines on Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Statements and Advise Notes on Current Practice (on the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements. Assessment Methodology The assessment of the agricultural impact consisted of a combination of a desktop survey of available information, a roadside inspection and local knowledge of the Study Area. Consultation also took place with local Teagasc officials to compile information on agricultural enterprises within the Study Area. This assessment considers a total of seven route options. All route options are comprised of a number of unique road sections which when combined make up the individual route options being considered. This study carried out an assessment of 107

112 the agricultural impact of each of the seven unique route options and allocated them a level of preference. The desktop study consisted of aerial photography and scheme mapping. Scheme mapping consisted of preliminary design plan for all route options and landownership mapping for the Study Area. The roadside survey was carried out in October The assessment of the impact on agricultural land was completed for categories including: Land quality; Land use; and Land severance and farmyard disturbance. The assessment of road sections under the above categories (i.e. land use) is based on the number of land holdings or plots falling within each sub-category (i.e. grassland). The sub-category levels are then expressed as a percentage of the total road section. Using available landownership information the assessment of land quality, land use and land severance is based on an assessment of individual land parcels. Where the route option wholly or partly impacts upon a farmyard, the farmyard was recorded under disturbance for the purposes of this assessment. The assessment of land use has considered the impact on local farms of particular note such as dairy farms due to their intensive nature or equine farms which can be regarded as sensitive to road development. No farms of particular note are located within the Study Area. Soil type(s) within the Study Area was also considered. It should be noted that the number of land parcels identified on each route option may not reflect the total number of farms affected due to the fragmentation of farms. The assessment of route sections under each of the above categories involved identifying an impact rating to each route section and a relevant preference level. The selection of a preference level for each section will feed into the comparison matrix for the proposed scheme and allow for the selection of a preferred route. Assessment Criteria The proposed scheme will pass through productive agricultural land with impacts on farm holdings or individual land parcels. Slight positive impacts could be associated with some route options through improvement of accessibility to lands for some agricultural enterprises. The overall impacts are generally found to be negative as with agricultural properties the negative impacts will be found to be greater than any positive impact. In general, negative impacts from the development of a new road are mainly due to the level of land take, land severance and access problems to land and farmyard facilities. Intensive farm enterprises such as dairy farms may be particularly affected by the loss of direct access to severed lands. 108

113 Severance of a land parcel occurs when a road alignment splits a field or land parcel into two or more pieces. This results in the fragmentation of the farm into a greater number of management units. Access may involve a considerable distance to the severed area of land. Fragmentation of farms results in greater costs due to increased livestock and grassland management involved in farming more than one unit e.g. movement of livestock between land parcels and increased travel distances for grassland, silage and tillage machinery. The category of land severance is also given a greater weighting when land quality and land use are similar for route sections. The definitions for each level of land severance are presented in Table Significance Impact Large Negative Impact Moderate Negative Impact Minor Adverse Impact Neutral Slight Positive Impact Moderate Positive Impact Large Positive Impact Impact There is a high number of land parcels on the route option with those affected being primarily of good land quality. Land use is arable or grassland based. Affected parcels primarily consist of intensive grassland-based livestock enterprises. There is a relatively high level of land take on the route option. Land Severance of affected land parcels is mainly major. There is a high level of farmyard disturbance. There are a high number of land parcels with those affected being primarily of average to good land quality. Land use is mainly grassland based. There is a relatively moderate level of land take on the route option. Land Severance of affected land parcels is moderate to major. There is a level of farmyard disturbance. The affected lands are primarily of poor to average land quality. Land use is grassland based and includes nongrassland parcels such as wetlands and woodlands. There is a relatively low level of land take on the route option. Land Severance of affected land parcels is primarily minor to moderate. There is a low level of farmyard disturbance. No effect on agricultural land. Increased access to the affected land parcels or improved drainage. However, this will not outweigh the removal of a portion of land. Not applicable to agriculture. Not applicable to agriculture. Table Details of Significance Impact 109

114 Existing Environment The Study Area commences in the townland of Manulla, and terminates in the townland of Lagnamuck. The majority of the land in the Study Area can be broadly classified as agricultural. The main land use is grassland with some small areas of scrub and bog. The farmland is generally of average to good quality and is dominated by grass based farming. There are no areas of tillage or dairy farming located throughout the Study Area largely due to a combination of land quality and a climate unsuited to tillage production and small land holdings unsuitable for dairy production. Agriculture within the Study Area is dominated by grassland farming and predominantly specialist beef, sheep and mixed livestock enterprises. The majority of farmers within the Study Area are involved in suckler beef farming. A number of farms with horses present on the lands were identified during the roadside inspection. The horses consisted of recreational horses and ponies. The horse enterprises are likely to be run in conjunction with other farm enterprises such as beef and sheep. There were no specialist equine farms within the Study Area. The level of specialist dairy farming within the Study Area is not significant. No dairy farms or tillage farms were identified within the Study Area. The farm enterprises range from intensively managed systems in areas of good land quality to very extensive systems in areas of average to poor quality land. Farms in the Study Area generally consist of more than one parcel of land. Some farms are quite fragmented consisting of several land parcels in close proximity to each other. This may result in a route option affecting more than one land parcel on a farm holding. Options Assessment The results of the assessment for each route section are shown in the following sections for land quality, land use, land severance and farmyard disturbance. For each section the number of land parcels under several headings is recorded and expressed as a percentage of the total. Figure A.13a and A.13b Landowner Data Constraints provides an overview of landowner plots in the Study Area. Land Quality The definitions for the assessment categories under land quality are presented in Table Good quality land High agricultural value and potential. Accessibility is good and the maintenance level is very high. The drainage is very good or the soils are free draining. It is suitable for a wide range of arable and livestock enterprises at an intensive level. 110

115 Average quality land Poor quality land Table : Definitions of Land Quality Average agricultural value with a high agricultural potential. There may be drainage problems in these areas. These areas may require maintenance work to increase productivity. It is suitable for a wide range of arable and livestock enterprises. agricultural value and potential. These areas are unsuitable for intensive grazing by livestock enterprises. They are suitable for extensive stocking, rough grazing, forestry or peat production. The impact on agriculture is greater where the affected land is of a higher quality. Higher quality land has a high agricultural potential and the agricultural value attached to that land is greater as a result. Land of a lower quality has a lower agricultural potential and value and as a result, a lesser impact. Land % Land Quality Parcels Good Average Poor Option Option Option Option Option Option Option Table : Assessment of Land Quality The Study Area of the proposed development contains a varying quality of land, ranging from good to poor quality agricultural land. Some of the route sections traverse good quality land and poor quality land parcels. Poor quality parcels are mostly in low lying areas along the routes. These lands are more limited in terms of agricultural range and usage. Land Use The definition for the assessment categories under land use are presented in Table Grass Forestry Other This consists of areas of grassland. This consists of areas of natural woodland, commercial forestry and areas with significant levels of scrub and hazel. This consists of lands which are in other uses such as for horticultural use. Table : Definitions of Land Use The impact on agriculture is greater on the grassland category and in other intensive land uses. Those in the grassland category are primarily used for livestock based 111

116 enterprises which are most affected by land access, severance or disturbance to farmyards or animal handling facilities. Other intensive land uses include horticultural operations such as nursery and garden allotments. As a result, high levels of parcels in these categories would indicate a greater impact on agriculture. Land % Land Use Parcels Grass Forestry Other Option Option Option Option Option Option Option Table : Assessment of Land Use The entire Study Area is in grassland. There are no forestry lands or lands classified as other within the Study Area. The farmland is generally of average to good quality. The grassland based activities comprise beef, and sheep enterprises. Land Severance and Farmyard Disturbance The definitions for the assessment categories under land severance are presented in Table Major Moderate Minor None Major severance refers to land parcels that are characterised by the route splitting the parcel in two resulting in a significant area of the parcel becoming inaccessible or landlocked. It also occurs in smaller parcels where the route may occupy a significant portion of the parcel area. The route may impact on farmyard buildings or a significant agricultural facility. Moderate severance refers to land parcels where a significant portion is separated from the rest by the new development. The isolated portion is large enough to continue to be farmed in a productive manner. There will be operational difficulties when moving livestock or machinery. Alternative access and/or gateways may need to be provided. Animal handling facilities or a farmyard area may be affected. Minor severance denotes land parcels that are characterised by having a relatively small portion of land isolated by the route or a realignment of a local road, or where the land take is along the boundary of a land parcel and impacts upon access to remaining lands. Small severed parcels of land may be too small to farm in a productive manner. No severance refers to land parcels that are impacted along the boundary of the parcel or where a corner of a field is removed. It generally involves a low level of land take. There is no impact on access to lands. Table : Definitions of Land Severance 112

117 The levels of significant land severance together with the level of farmyard disturbance are often the most influential factors that impact on agriculture. Significant severance is regarded as the combined levels from the major and moderate categories. Severance of livestock-based farm holdings can have a high impact due to the difficulties created in stock movement around the farm or access to and from the fields to the farmyard. Under this assessment, farmyard disturbance was recorded. Such facilities may include animal housing or fodder storage facilities and also applies to animalhandling facilities such as yards and cattle pens. Farmyard disturbance is recorded as one group of farm buildings or facilities. The assessment of severance did not include the impact of the route on land drainage, provision of services such as electricity and water supply. It has been assumed that the provision of land drainage will be restored and services to severed land will be restored. Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Land Parcels % Land Severance Major Moderate Minor Not significant Farm Yards Table : Land Severance and Farmyard Disturbance Discussion Option 1 Option 1 is predominately online. The land take for this option would occur along the existing road corridor therefore disturbance will be minimised by staying on line. The route impacts on 42 land parcels and is approximately 4km long. There is no farmyard disturbance on this route. Option 2 At the start of Option 2, the route travels in an easterly direction causing severance to land parcels. The route alignment then comes back online at Ch1500 and follows the route of the existing N60 reducing severance and disturbance for the 113

118 remainder of the route. The route impacts on 37 land parcels. The route is approximately 4km long. No farmyards are disturbed by this route however the route runs in close proximity to two farm buildings at Ch1150. Access to the farmyards is not affected but in one instance access is severed between a particular farmhouse and farmyard. Option 3 Option 3 is online until Ch1200 It then travels in a southerly direction to the west of the existing N60 causing severance to land parcels. It comes back online at Ch2450 and is online until Ch2950. It then travels to the west of the existing N60 causing severance to land parcels. It comes back online at Ch3600 reducing severance for the remainder of the online section of the route. It impacts on 31 land parcels. There is no farmyard disturbance along the route. The route is approximately 4km long. Option 4 Option 4 is online for 400m. It then goes offline and travels in a southerly direction to the west of the existing N60 causing severance to land parcels. It comes back online for a short period at Ch1500 it then goes offline again at Ch1950 and travels to the east of the existing N60 causing severance to land parcels. It returns to the alignment of the existing N60 at Ch3300 and is online for the remainder of the route. The route impacts on 37 land parcels and is approximately 4km long. No farmyards are disturbed by this route however the route runs in close proximity to two farm buildings at Ch1150. Access to the farmyards is not affected but in one instance access is severed between a particular farmhouse and farmyard. Option 5 Option 5 is online for approximately 400m. It then goes offline and travels in a southerly direction to the west of the existing N60 causing severance to land parcels. It continues offline until Ch2450 it then goes back online for the remainder of its length. It impacts on 28 land parcels. Although the route corridor impacts on the least amount of land parcels, it is the least preferred route because it crosses land parcels in a manner which causes a high severance impact. Major severance occurs on 14% of the land parcels affected by the proposed route. The high level of severance is attributed to the large proportion of the route that is offline. No farmyards are disturbed by this route however the route runs in close proximity to two farm buildings at Ch1150. Access to the farmyards is not affected but in one instance access is severed between a particular farmhouse and farmyard. The route is approximately 4km long. Option 6 Option 6 is online for 400m. It then goes offline and travels in a southerly direction to the west of the existing N60 causing severance to land parcels. It comes back online for a short period at Ch1500 it then goes offline again at Ch1950 and travels to the east of the existing N60 causing severance to land parcels. It returns 114

119 to the alignment of the existing N60 at Ch3800 and is online for the remainder of the route. The route impacts on 30 land parcels and is approximately 4.03km long. No farmyards are disturbed by this route however the route runs in close proximity to two farm buildings at Ch1150 Access to the farmyards is not affected but in one instance access is severed between a particular farmhouse and farmyard. Option 7 Option 7 is online for 1950m. It then goes offline and travels in a north easterly direction to the east of the existing N60 causing severance to land parcels. It returns to the alignment of the existing N60 at Ch3800 and is online for the remainder of the route. The route impacts on 30 land parcels and is approximately 4.00km long. No farmyards are disturbed by this route. Assessment Conclusion This study carried out an assessment of the agricultural impact of each of the seven route options and allocated them an agricultural impact. The impact of the individual route options on agriculture has been assessed under several categories including land quality, land use, land severance and farmyard disturbance. The assessment of land use has also considered the impact on local farms of particular note such as dairy or equine farms. There were no farms of particular note within the Study Area. Option 1 (online alignment) has the least impact on agriculture and is the most preferred route option. This is mainly attributed to land severance and no farmyard disturbance occurs along this route. This route option is most preferred. Option 3 is identified as preferred. This is attributed to the low level of land severance, low number of land parcels impacted and no farmyard disturbance occurs along the route. Option 2, Option 4, & Option 7 are identified as Intermediate. Option 2 and Option 4 impact on the same number of land parcels. Option 7 impacts on a higher number of land parcels than Option 2 and Option 4, however the impact of land severance is broadly similar for the three route options. Land quality is similar for Option 2 and Option 4. Option 7 has a higher percentage of good quality land along the route alignment than Option 2 and Option 4. Option 5 and Option 6 are identified as least preferred due to high level of land severance along the proposed corridors. The land quality under all options is predominately of average to good quality of limited use range. The farming in the area of the proposed routes appears to be of low intensity and none of the farms are of national or regional importance. The permanent loss of 115

120 agricultural land in the Study Area would affect agricultural productivity on a local level only. Based on the information contained within the previous sections, the following ranking order has been assigned to the seven route options based on the agricultural impact of each of the route options. Overall Rating Option 1 High Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Table : Agronomy Assessment Summary Option 5 Option 6 Option Overall Environmental Assessment The seven route options have been assessed under the Environmental Criteria highlighted in the previous sections. The environmental assessment has been summarised in Table below. The individual assessments have been combined to give an overall preference for each option. Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Ecology High High Archaeological, Architectural & Cultural Heritage Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology High High Surface Water High Landscape and Visual High Air High Noise High Agronomy High Overall High Table : Summary of Environmental Assessment 6.3 Options Appraisal Engineering In accordance with the NRA Project Management Guidelines 2010 Appendix 2.4 Checklist for Preliminary Options Assessment (Engineering & Environmental), the following engineering aspects have been considered for the engineering appraisal and are described in Sections to : 1) Traffic Assessment and Road Cross Section; 2) Technical Standards; 3) Junctions, Access and Interaction with Existing Network; 4) Structures; 116

121 5) Geology & Hydrogeology; 6) Earthworks; 7) Drainage; 8) Construction; 9) Services Conflicts; 10) Land and Property; 11) Impact on Iarnród Éireann Infrastructure With regard to the importance of safety placed on the appraisal of the chosen route, weightings have been applied proportionately to some of the sections within the Engineering appraisal. Junction, Access and Interaction with Existing Network has been weighted by a higher factor of 2 while Services Conflicts has been weighted by a lower factor of 0.5. Impact on Iarnród Éireann Infrastructure has also been weighted by a higher factor of 2 due to the substantial engineering solutions (e.g. high containment safety barriers) that would be required by any options involving construction adjacent to the existing railway line. The Road Safety Impact Assessment has also been assessed under the appraisal section for Safety, given in section 6.4 of this report Traffic Assessment and Road Cross-Section Traffic Assessment A Traffic Model was not undertaken as part of the Traffic Assessment, instead a basic Cost Benefit Analysis (COBA) Network was constructed for the purposes of forecasting and CBA. The reasoning for this approach is explained in more detail in the Traffic Assessment Report, which is provided in Appendix G. For the purposes of the assessment, no reassignment of traffic from other routes/local roads has been considered and the traffic flow forecasts are the same under both the Do-Minimum Alternative and Do-Something Alternatives (Options 1 7). The base year for the network is The opening year is 2019 and the design year is 15 years following this at The traffic growth from the base 2013 to the opening 2019 and design 2034 was completed in accordance with the Project Appraisal Guidelines 2011, Unit 5.5 Link-Based Traffic Growth Forecasting. Factors of, and High growth scenarios were applied. Base Year AADT values and % HGVs are outlined in Table below and Design Year AADT values are shown in Table for low growth, medium growth & high growth for each link road on the various options. 117

122 Link Road Name/Ref. N60 North-West of Manulla Crossroads N60 - Between Manulla Crossroads & Lisnolan Crossroads (N60/L ) N60 Between Lisnolan Crossroads & Carrowntober T- Junction (N60/L ) N60 South-East of Carrowntober T- Junction (N60/L ) L North of Manulla Crossroads L South of Manulla Crossroads L North of Lisnolan Crossroads L South of Lisnolan Crossroads L South of Carrowntober T- Junction Corresponding Link Ref. No. AADT % HGV's % % % % % % % % % Table 6.3-1: Base Year AADT (2013) and % HGVs Note: Traffic flows are rounded to the nearest 100 vehicles on the N60 and to the nearest 50 vehicles on local roads. 118

123 Link Road Name/Ref. N60 - North-West of Manulla Crossroads N60 - Between Manulla Crossroads & Lisnolan Crossroads (N60/L ) N60 - Between Lisnolan Crossroads & Carrowntober T- Junction (N60/L ) N60 - South-East of Carrowntober T- Junction (N60/L ) L North of Manulla Crossroads L South of Manulla Crossroads L North of Lisnolan Crossroads L South of Lisnolan Crossroads L South of Carrowntober T- Junction Link Ref. No. Growth (%HGV) Growth (%HGV) High Growth (%HGV) (3.3%) 7900 (3.3%) 9500 (3.3%) (3.8%) 8100 (4.1%) 9700 (4.0%) (4.0%) 8100 (4.1%) 9700 (4.0%) (4.5%) 8400 (4.5%) (4.4%) (5.9%) 1050 (5.9%) 1250 (5.8%) (4.4%) 750 (4.4%) 900 (4.4%) (3.3%) 200 (3.2%) 250 (3.0%) (4.0%) 850 (4.0%) 1000 (3.9%) (7.9%) 2150 (8.0%) 2550 (7.8%) Table 6.3-2: Design Year AADT (2034) Growth, Growth & High Growth Note: Traffic flows are rounded to the nearest 100 vehicles on the N60 and to the nearest 50 vehicles on local roads. In terms of travel time, it has been considered that a speed restriction of 60kph for the Options, namely 1, 3 and 7, would be in place through the existing Manulla Cross. Options 2, 4, 5 and 6 will bypass Manulla Cross and therefore the 60kph speed restriction will not be imposed on these options. 119

124 Road Cross-section The capacity of a roadway, its cross section and the passing sight distance along the Corridor Option are determined from the desired Level of Service (LoS) of the route. LoS, as defined in the National Road Needs Study 1998, has six levels ranging from A to F. LoS A is essentially free flow operation and LOS F indicates breakdown in vehicular flow. The cross section proposed for all Corridor Options is Type 2 Single Carriageway Cross Section with cycleway. Operating at LoS D, the capacity of a Type 2 Single Carriageway is 8,600 AADT as outlined in Table 6/1: Recommended Rural Road Layouts of the NRA DMRB Volume 6 Section 1 Part 1 NRA TD9/12 Road Link Design. The forecasted traffic indicates that in the and Growth Scenarios, Type 2 Single Carriageway is the optimum choice for all Options. The 8,600 AADT capacity for Type 2 Single Carriageway is exceeded in the High Growth Scenario, however the next carriageway type available is Type 1 Single Carriageway with an 11,600 AADT capacity. Considering the Type 2 Single Carriageway capacity is marginally exceeded in the high growth scenario only, Type 2 Single Carriageway is selected for all growth scenarios. Figure 6.3-1: Type 2 Single Carriageway with Cycleway Cross Section Conclusion In relation to traffic flows, as stated above, the reassignment of traffic flows have not been considered for any options and AADT growth forecasts are the same for the Do-Minimum and Do Something (i.e. Options 1 7) Alternatives. In relation to travel times, although Options 1, 3 and 7 will have longer journey times than Options 2, 4, 5 and 6, this cannot be considered a differentiator under the Traffic Assessment Heading, as it will be considered in the COBA Section below. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, all route options have been given the same preference in Table below. 120

125 Overall Rating Option 1 Same Option 2 Same Option 3 Same Option 4 Same Option 5 Same Option 6 Same Option 7 Same Table 6.3-3: Traffic Assessment Summary Technical Standards The Corridor Options are designed in accordance with the NRA Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, in particular TD9/12 Road Link Design, TD27/11 Cross Sections and Headroom and TD41-42/11 Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions and Vehicular Access to National Roads. The principal geometric parameters used in the design of the Corridor Options are summarised in Table below. Reference is to be made to Option Alignment Drawings provided in Appendix A of the Report. Design Heading Road Type Design Speed LoS Sight Distance Horizontal Alignment Vertical Alignment Cross Section and Headroom Junctions Design Element Road Type Alignment Constraint Ac Layout Constraint Lc Level of Service Stopping Sight Distance Full Overtaking Sight Distance Road Camber Superelevation Range Min. R without Superelevation Min. R super elevation of 5% 1 step below Desirable Min. R with super elevation of 7% Minimum crest K 1 Step below Min. crest K Minimum Sag K 1 step below Min. sag K FOSD Overtaking crest K Desirable Max. Gradient: S2 1 Step Below Des. Max, Gradient S2 Minimum Gradient Cross section Headroom (Road Over Road) Permitted Junction types (S2) Design Requirement All Purpose Road 100kph LOS D(=80kph) 215m 580m 2.5% 2.5%<S<7.0% 2040m 720m 510m % 6% 0.5% S2 5.30m Simple Ghost Island Roundabout Table 6.3-4: Principal Geometric Standards for the Scheme Standard Ref NRA TD 9/12 Figure 1/1 NRA TD 9 Paragraph 1.3 NRA TD 9 Paragraph 1.4 NRA TD 9 NRA Needs Study 1998 Table 1/3 NRA TD 9 Table 1/3 NRA TD 9 Paragraph 3.1 NRA TD 9 Paragraph 3.2 NRA TD 9 Table 1/3 NRA TD 9 Table 1/3 NRA TD 9 Table 1/3 NRA TD 9 Table 1/3 NRA TD 9 Table 1/3 NRA TD 9 Table 1/3 NRA TD 9 Table 1/3 NRA TD 9 Table 1/3 NRA TD 9 Paragraph 4.1 NRA TD 9 Paragraph 4.2 NRA TD 9 Paragraph 4.3 NRA TD 9 Table 3 NRA TD 27 Table 7 NRA TD 27 Table 2/1 NRA TD Table 2/1 NRA TD Table 6/1 NRA TD 9 121

126 Tables to provide a summary of mainline departures for each of the 7 No. Options based on the horizontal and vertical alignment profiles developed for each. Reference is to be made to Outline Mainline Alignment Option Drawings which are provided in Appendix A. Ref. No. Departure Location (Chainage) Area Description *South Eastern Side of Manulla Village between Ch950 & Ch1300 Departure Length Existing L Junction Adjacent to Existing Collection of Properties between the L & L in the Townland of Carrowntober Oughter Departure Category Combination of relaxation (+Single Departure) Combination of relaxation Combination of relaxation Combination of relaxation Combination of relaxation Combination of relaxation Combination of relaxation Combination of relaxation Departure Type Ver+ SSD Forward Ver + SSD Reverse Ver + SSD Reverse Ver + SSD Reverse Ver+ SSD Forward+ SSD Reverse Ver+ SSD Forward Hori+ SSD Forward Ver + SSD Reverse Standard Provided (Steps) 2 step + 3 step 2 step + 2 step 1 step + 2 step 1 step + 1 step 1 step + 1 step+ 1 step 1 step + 1 step 2 step + 1 step 1 step + 1 step Collection of Properties South-East of L T-Junction Combination of relaxation Combination of relaxation Ver + SSD Reverse Ver + SSD Reverse 2 step + 1 step 2 step + 2 step Table 6.3-5: Summary of Departures Option 1 Note: * = These Departures may be reduced and/or all removed with a speed restriction of 60kph through Manulla Cross. 122

127 Ref. No. Departure Location (Chainage) Area Collection of Properties between the L & L in the Townland of Carrowntober Oughter Departure Length Collection of Properties South- East of L T- Junction Table 6.3-6: Summary of Departures Option 2 30 Departure Category Combination of Relaxations Combination of Relaxations Combination of Relaxations Departure Type Ver+ SSD Reverse Ver+ SSD Forward Ver+ SSD Reverse Standard Provided (Steps) 1 step + 1 step 2 step + 2 step 2 step + 2 step Ref. No. Departure Location (Chainage) Area Description *South Eastern Side of Manulla Collection of Properties between CH 950 & CH 1300 Departure Length Collection of Properties South- East of L T-Junction Departure Category Combination of Relaxations Combination of Relaxations Combination of Relaxations Combination of Relaxations Departure Type Ver+ SSD Forward Ver+ SSD Reverse Ver+ SSD Forward Ver+ SSD Reverse Standard Provided (Steps) 2 step + 3 step 2 step +2 step 2 step + 2 step 2 step + 2 step Table 6.3-7: Summary of Departures Option 3 Note: * = The impact of these Departures may be reduced and/or all removed with a speed restriction of 60kph through Manulla Cross. 123

128 Ref. No. Departure Location (Chainage) Area Approach to L Junction Collection of Properties South-East of L T- Junction Departure Length Departure Category Combination of Relaxations Combination of Relaxations Combination of Relaxations Combination of Relaxations Departure Type Hori + SSD Forward Hori + Ver + SSD Forward Ver+ SSD Forward Ver+ SSD Reverse Standard Provided (Steps) 1 Step + 2 Step 1 Step+ 2 Step + 2 Step 2 step + 2 step 2 step + 2 step Table 6.3-8: Summary of Departures Option 4 Ref. No. Departure Location (Chainage) Area Collection of Properties between the L & L in the Townland of Carrowntober Oughter Departure Length 20 2 Collection of 70 Properties South East of L T-Junction 50 Departure Category Combination of Relaxations Combination of Relaxations Combination of Relaxations Departure Type Ver+ SSD Reverse Ver+ SSD Forward Ver+ SSD Reverse Standard Provided (Steps) 1 step + 1 step 2 step + 2 step 2 step + 2 step Table 6.3-9: Summary of Departures Option 5 Ref. No. Departure Location (Chainage) Area Approach to L Junction Collection of Properties South-East of L T- Junction Departure Length Departure Category Combination of Relaxations Combination of Relaxations Combination of Relaxations Departure Type Hori + SSD Forward Hori + Ver Ver+ SSD Reverse Standard Provided (Steps) 1 Step + 1 Step 1 Step + 2 Step 2 Step + 1 Step Table : Summary of Departures Option 6 124

129 Ref. No. Departure Location (Chainage) Area Description Departure Length *South Eastern Side of Manulla Village between Ch950 & Ch Existing L Junction Adjacent to Existing Property 10 Departure Category Combination of relaxation (+Single Departure) Combination of relaxation Combination of relaxation Combination of relaxation Combination of relaxation Combination of relaxation Combination of relaxation Departure Type Ver+ SSD Forward Ver + SSD Reverse Ver + SSD Reverse Ver + SSD Reverse Ver+ SSD Forward+ SSD Reverse Ver+ SSD Forward Hori+ SSD Forward Standard Provided (Steps) 2 step + 3 step 2 step + 2 step 1 step + 2 step 1 step + 1 step 1 step + 1 step+ 1 step 1 step + 1 step 2 step + 1 step Approach to L Junction Collection of Properties South-East of L T- Junction Combination of Relaxations Combination of Relaxations Combination of Relaxations Hori + SSD Forward Hori + Ver Ver+ SSD Reverse 1 Step + 1 Step 1 Step + 2 Step 2 Step + 1 Step Table : Summary of Departures Option 7 Note: * = The impact of these Departures may be reduced with a speed restriction of 60kph through Manulla Cross. In summary, Options 1 and 7 have the highest number of departures. This is due to the fact that large sections of the proposed alignments are predominately constrained within the existing N60 footprint. The departures primarily relate to combinations of relaxations for vertical alignment and stopping sight distance east of Manulla Cross adjacent to properties. Options 3 and 4 have the second highest number of departures based mainly on combinations of vertical and visibility relaxations with Option 4 including horizontal alignment relaxations. Options 2, 5 and 6 have the least departures again based on vertical and visibility relaxations adjacent to dwellings along the N60. The Departures summary table provided in Table

130 Total No. of Mainline Departures Option 1 10 Option 2 3 Option 3 4 Option 4 4 Option 5 3 Option 6 3 Option 7 10 Table : Overall Summary of Departures across all Options Conclusion For the purposes of ranking the route options in terms of Technical Standards, the total number of departures for each route option has been the taken as the deciding factor. It is noted that the departures assessment above was undertaken based on a design speed of 100kph. As indicated above, should a speed restriction of 60kph be employed at Manulla Cross, the impact of departures on road safety will be reduced for Options 1, 3 and 7. The exact reduction has not been determined as part of the assessment, and for the purposes of preference ratings the totals stated in Table above have been considered. The preference ratings in terms of Technical Standards are provided below in Table Option 1 Option 2 High Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 High Option 6 High Option 7 Overall Rating Table : Technical Standards Assessment Summary Junction, Access and Interaction with Existing Network NRA TD 9/12 Road Link Design Section 7.32 outlines the junction strategy guidelines to be adopted on two way single carriageway roads. A junction strategy should provide drivers with layouts that have consistent standards and are therefore not confusing. The requirement to provide the most appropriate form of junction, based on operational, economic and environmental considerations, must be balanced with the need to maintain consistency of junction type though the scheme. Lengths of Type 2 Single Carriageway should not therefore involve many different junction layout types. The junction strategy adopted for these roads during the detailed design stage will have to take account of the following factors: Safety; Design standards; and Maintenance of existing road network. 126

131 In addition to the above, the junction strategy should seek to minimise the number of direct accesses onto a scheme. NRA TD 41-42/11 states that There is a potential saving in collisions where there is a reduction in the number of lightly trafficked direct accesses and minor junctions made directly on to each national road. In the case of Single Carriageway Roads, the recommended junction treatments are Priority Junctions (with ghost islands where necessary) and Roundabouts. With reference to the Option Alignment Drawings in Appendix A, the proposed junction types with the existing roads for each the route option is provided below in Table It is noted that existing junctions on the N60 have been described in Section Option No. of Junctions Location of Junctions 1) L T-Junction@ Ch110 2) New Staggered Existing Manulla Ch ) Realigned L Staggered Ch1300- Ch1570 4) New T-Junction at Ch2250 5) Existing L Arm Ch2750 6) Realigned L T-Junction@ Ch3270 7) Realigned L T Ch3630 1) L T-Junction@ Ch110 2) New Staggered Junction South of the Existing Manulla Ch ) Realigned L (Southeast) Ch1570 4) New T-Junction at Ch2250 5) Existing L Arm Ch2750 6) Realigned L T-Junction@ Ch3270 7) Realigned L T Ch3650 1) L T-Junction@ Ch110 2) New Staggered Existing Manulla Ch ) Realigned L Staggered Ch ) Existing L Arm Ch2700 5) Realigned L T Ch3610 Table : Junction Types for Existing Roads on the Options (Part 1) 127

132 Option No. of Junctions Location of Junctions 4 5 1) L T-Junction@ Ch110 2) New Staggered Junction South of the Existing Manulla Ch ) Realigned L (Southeast) Ch1530 4) Existing L Simple 4 Arm / Priority Ch2770 5) Realigned L T Ch ) L T-Junction@ Ch110 2) New Staggered Junction South of the Existing Manulla Ch ) Realigned L T- Ch1600 4) Existing L Arm Ch2710 5) Realigned L T-Junction@ Ch3230 6) Realigned L Ch ) L T-Junction@ Ch110 2) New Staggered Junction South of the Existing Manulla Ch ) Realigned L (Southeast) Ch1570 4) Existing L Simple 4-Arm / Priority Ch2820 5) Realigned L T Ch ) L T-Junction@ Ch110 2) New Staggered Existing Manulla Ch ) Realigned L Staggered Ch1300-Ch1550 4) Existing L Simple 4-Arm / Priority Ch2800 5) Realigned L T Ch3610 Table : Junction Types for Existing Roads on the Options (Part 2) The number of direct accesses on the Options is provided in Table and In summary, the highest number of accesses is associated with Option 1 with it being a primarily online solution. Options 3 and 7 are the second highest with an equal percentage of private and field accesses while Option 2 is the next highest also with an even split of field to private accesses. Options 4 and 5 have the least accesses with a higher percentage of field to private accesses. Option 6 has the least number of accesses as it is mostly offline with 65% field and 35% private accesses. 128

133 Total No. of Accesses No. Field Accesses Split of Total No. % Field Accesses No. Private Accesses % Private Accesses Option % 30 53% Option % 15 43% Option % 21 50% Option % 12 41% Option % 12 43% Option % 8 35% Option % 23 51% Table : Number of Direct Accesses on the Options Total No. of Junctions Total No. of Accesses Option Option Option Option Option Option Option Table : Summary Table of Proposed Junctions & Direct Accesses on the Options Conclusion For the purposes of ranking the route options in terms of Junctions, Accesses, and Interaction with the Existing Network, the total number of proposed junctions and the total number of direct accesses for each route option were been the taken as the deciding factors. As safety is of particular concern for this scheme, this section of the Engineering Appraisal has been weighted by a factor of 2; therefore the preference score given for this section is worth double that of other sections. In relation to proposed junctions, out of the seven route options, four options (Options 2, 4, 5 and 6) bypass the existing Manulla Cross with a new staggered junction arrangement, while three options (Options 1, 3 & 7), stay online through Manulla Cross, with a reconfiguration of the existing junction. Options 1 and 2 have the highest number of junctions with 7 No. and Options 3, 4, 6 and 7 have the lowest with 5 No junctions. In relation to direct accesses, Option 6 (Online and Offline) has the least number at 23 No comprising 8 No Private Accesses and 15 No Field Accesses, while Option 1 (Existing / Online) has the highest number at 57 No with 30 No Private Accesses and 27 No Field Accesses. 129

134 Overall Rating When considering the proposed junctions and accesses in combination, Option 6 was given a high preference due to much lower numbers of accesses and proposed junctions. Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 High Table : Junction, Access and Interaction with Existing Network Assessment Summary Structures Option 7 As stated in Section above, there are no significant existing bridges along the N60 within the Study Area while no underpasses exist primarily due to the large presence of direct field accesses. With reference to Option Constraints Drawings in Appendix A of this Report, a number of proposed structures have been considered as part of the outline design. These are subject to change as the development of the design progresses. Table outlines proposed structures which may be required. In relation to underpasses, these structures have been considered in areas, with reference to the land plots in the area, to potentially mitigate against land severance. Underpass Retaining Wall Culverts/Watercourse Crossings Option 1 None None 7 No. Option 2 None None 10 No m High Retaining 1 No. Machinery wall at 1 No. Location Toe Underpass (4.5m of Scheme Embankment Option 3 X 4.5m x 25m 9 No. adjacent to Existing Long - Precast Railway Line Box) at Ch2150 Ch Option 4 None None 12 No. Option 5 1 No. Machinery Underpass (4.5m X 4.5m x 25m Long - Precast Box) at Ch m High Retaining wall at 1 No. Location Toe of Scheme Embankment adjacent to Existing Railway Line Ch No. Option 6 None None 14 No. Option 7 None None 11 No. Table : Structures on the Scheme 130

135 Overall Rating Conclusion All seven route options require a number of culvert and watercourse crossings with Options 3 and 5 potentially requiring an underpass and retaining walls, therefore these Options have been given a low preference. rankings for each route option are provided in Table below. Option 1 High Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Table : Structures Assessment Summary Option 5 Option 6 Option Geology and Hydrogeology Peat and soft ground across the Study Area will require treatment before construction of any of the routes along which it is encountered. Treatment of the ground will depend largely on the thickness and extent of the deposits and also on the nature of the proposed earthworks at that location. Options for treating peat or soft ground include stripping and removal of the deposits, soil improvement by mixing in-situ, or ground treatment by reinforcement using geogrid and/or geotextile. Where the peat is of significant thickness (greater than about 3-4m), it is anticipated that the new road construction will need to be piled in order to limit settlements (both total and differential). For thinner peat deposits, it would generally be more economical to either excavate and replace the peat or use soil mixing to improve the strata. It is anticipated that full settlement of any soft deposits under the existing route will already have occurred, however any road widening will be subject to additional settlement. In general the Limestone Tills are likely to vary significantly in gravel, sand and clay content across the site and possess a wide variety of permeabilities. The thickness of the deposits is also likely to vary significantly due to the nature of the underlying bedrock. Although these deposits may not pose a general engineering issue with respect to cuttings and embankments, the nature and variation of the deposits along the proposed route should be investigated carefully should any specific area require treatment. It is anticipated that any karstic features within the limestone outcropping at the surface along the current route will have been encountered and treated during construction of the existing road, or any subsequent failures will have been remediated. However it should be noted that additional loading due to widening and particularly along sections of new embankment, new areas of weakness may generate within the karstic material. All of the limestone bedrock likely to be encountered within the Study Area has the potential to be karstified. This should be investigated thoroughly along the proposed route, including widening of the existing route. Any features or significant areas of weakness encountered will require treatment before construction. Options for treating karst features should be considered carefully due to the significance of the limestones as regionally and locally important aquifers. In this respect conventional 131

136 backfilling or grouting up of any voids or sinkholes may not be appropriate and geogrid/ geotextile mattresses may be required to bridge the areas of weakness. Conclusion Based on the information available (Figure A6), it is anticipated that all of the proposed routes will encounter Cutover Peat and Limestone Till over potentially karstified Carboniferous Limestone at depth. All of the proposed routes with the exception of 4, 6 and 7 are also likely to encounter karstic limestone outcropping at the surface. It is recommended that a preliminary ground investigation be undertaken on the emerging preferred route option to confirm the available desktop information and this assessment. The following summary of route options in Table is based exclusively on the potential impact of the various ground conditions likely to be encountered on the amount of earthworks anticipated along that route. Attribute Peat / Soft Ground Limestone Till Surface Karst Features Potentially Karstified Bedrock Option 1 Significant See note (i) Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Moderate Significant Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Minor Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate N/A Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Table : Impact of Options on Existing Ground Conditions Note (i): It is to be noted that while the extent of the earthworks along the existing 1 is significantly reduced compared to the other routes, differential settlement may be a significant issue along the route due to the existing road having already settled. Conclusion The seven route options have been assessed against the anticipated ground conditions likely to be encountered along each route. The results of the assessment are summarised in Table

137 Attribute Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Peat / Soft Ground Limestone Till Surface Karst Features Potentially Karstified Bedrock High High Overall High Table : Geology and Hydrogeology Assessment Summary Earthworks The gross quantities of cut and fill for each Option are outlined in Table The quantities have been generated using AutoCAD Civil 3D and utilising Lidar Data obtained from Ordnance Survey Ireland. For the purposes of presentation of the earthworks balance below in Table , all excavated material is considered to be reusable. Once selected, the Preferred Option will undergo a detailed topographical and ground investigation survey and the design will then be re-examined in detail to investigate whether the alignment can be adjusted to improve the earthworks balance. Option Cut (m 3 ) Fill (m 3 ) Balance (m 3 ) Location of Significant Cut Chainage (m) & Approx. Depth NA NA m max m max m max m max m max m max NA NA m max m max m max. N/A Location of Significant Fill Chainage (m) & Approx. Depth m max m max m max m max m max m max & m max NA m 6.7m max NA & m max m max & m max. N/A Note: For the purposes of the above table, all excavated material is assumed to be reusable. Table : Earthworks Balance Summary 133

138 Conclusion In terms of bulk quantities, Option 1 has the lowest cut and fill quantities as it is predominantly online and does not contain any limited areas of significant cut/fill. Options 4 to 7 have the largest quantities as they go through significant areas of cut and embankment, with Options 2 and 3 lying in between. In relation to earthwork balance, Option 5 currently offers the best solution. Though, as noted above, the earthworks balance will be further optimised at the next stage of the design for the Preferred Option. Consequentially, it is considered to be less of a deciding factor in this assessment compared with the cut/fill extents and quantities. Taking into account the earthworks balance and depths/extents of cut and fill, the overall ratings of the Options are summarised in Table Overall Rating Option 1 High Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Table : Earthworks Assessment Summary Option 5 Option 6 Option Drainage The construction of a new road scheme will invariably necessitate the relocation of services. Adequate provision must be made for drainage if the road pavement is to give satisfactory performance. The principal functions of a drainage system are to: To prevent flooding of the carriageway by rain or by water flowing onto the road from adjoining areas; To avoid weakening of the sub-grade soil and the pavement structure which might be caused by the presence of water; and To avoid erosion of the side slope on embankments or the faces of cuttings. Regarding Carriageway drainage, preliminary analysis of the area indicates that there are sufficient suitable outfalls in the area for all options to take the water from the drainage scheme without the need for alternative measures such as soak pits, pumping, way leaves etc. However, in consultation with Inland Fisheries Ireland and EPA, mitigation measures shall be taken to reduce the potential pollution impact of the road drainage on stream water quality. Silt and Oil/Petrol interceptors will be provided where necessary to mitigate against contamination of watercourses. It is anticipated that a combination of Filter Drains and Open Drains will be sufficient to meet drainage requirements. In cuttings, filter drains will intercept both surface water and ground water while interceptor ditches will divert runoff from adjacent properties. Groundwater shall be drained by means of a separate filter drain. On low embankments (>1.5m, <6.0m) over the edge drainage of surface water to toe drains may be used. In high embankments (>6m) a sealed system of drainage 134

139 shall be used to intercept surface runoff thus avoiding potential erosion of the side slopes. In the design stage the drainage requirements will be considered in detail. A number of watercourses, located within the Study Area, are affected by the proposed route corridors, including: Manulla 34 River; Walshpool Lough River; Kilmacrade River; Lakeland er stream; South Curryeallaun stream; Rinnahulty stream; Drumnaslooeen stream; Manulla west stream; Manulla 34 stream; South Carrowmore stream; Kilmacrade stream; Eighter stream; Tully Beg 34 stream; Drumadoon stream; and A number of unnamed streams. The watercourses which are proposed to be crossed on each option are identified in the MLA Series Drawings in Appendix A, and in Table in Section (Surface Water) above. Approximate locations of potential outfalls from identified low points on the alignment for each route option are provided in Table Options Option 1 10 Option 2 9 Option 3 10 Estimated No. Of Potential Outfalls Approx. Chainage Of Potential Outfall Location Potential Outfall Location Ch0, Ch240, Ch450, Ch740 Walshpool Lough River Ch1660 Manulla 34 River (1) Ch2940 Kilmacrade Stream Ch3450 Eighter Stream Ch3890 Drumadoon Stream Ch1290, Ch2070 Up to 2 No Stream/Field drains Ch0, Ch250, Ch450, Ch670 Walshpool Lough River Ch1680 Manulla 34 River (1) Ch2960 Kilmacrade Stream Ch3470 Eighter Stream Ch3910 Drumadoon Stream Ch No Stream/Field drains Ch0, Ch220, Ch430, Walshpool Lough River Ch1600 Manulla 34 River (1) Ch2790 Manulla 34 Stream Ch3020 Kilmacrade Stream Ch3500 Eighter Stream Ch3890 Drumadoon Stream 135

140 Ch1290, Ch2190 Up to 2 No Stream/Field drains Ch0, Ch250, Ch450, Ch670 Walshpool Lough River Ch1680 Manulla 34 River (1) Option 4 9 Ch2530 South Carrowmore Stream Ch3000 Kilmacrade Stream Ch3490 Eighter Stream Ch3900 Drumadoon Stream Ch0, Ch250, Ch450, Ch670 Walshpool Lough River Ch1660 Manulla 34 River (1) Option 5 8 Ch2930 Kilmacrade Stream Ch3450 Eighter Stream Ch3880 Drumadoon Stream Ch0, Ch250, Ch450, Ch670 Walshpool Lough River Ch1680 Manulla 34 River (1) Option 6 9 Ch2500 South Carrowmore Stream Ch3000 Kilmacrade Stream Ch3330 Eighter Stream Ch3920 Drumadoon Stream Ch0, Ch250, Ch450, Ch740 Walshpool Lough River Ch1660 Manulla 34 River (1) Option 7 9 Ch2480 South Carrowmore Stream Ch3000 Kilmacrade Stream Ch3320 Eighter Stream Ch3900 Drumadoon Stream Table : Potential Drainage Outfall Locations Option 1 crosses several watercourses including Walshpool Lough Stream, Manulla 34 River (1), Manulla 34 River (2), Kilmacrade Stream, Eighter Stream and the Tully Beg Stream. An initial review of this option would indicate a requirement for approximately 7 culverts. As this option is online, all 7 culverts are at existing culvert locations and there is potential for some existing culverts to be to be retained and extended following further analysis at the design stage. Option 1 requires the realignment of a section of the Tully Beg Stream where the proposed road alignment impacts on the existing watercourse. Option 1 will have an impact on the drainage pattern in the area however as this option is online the impact will be limited to run-off from the additional areas in cut or on embankment which will be required to be included in the carriageway drainage system. In addition there will be a greater paved area to be drained than the existing situation due to the improved road cross section. Option 2 crosses the Walshpool Lough Stream, Manulla 34 River (1), Manulla 34 River (2), Kilmacrade Stream, Eighter Stream and the Drumadoon Stream in addition to two minor watercourses. Option 2 requires approximately 10 culverts. As this option is offline for some sections of the route only 6 out of the 9 required culverts are at existing culvert locations on the N60. The other 3 are new culverts. There is potential for some existing culverts to be retained and extended following further analysis at the design stage. Option 2 requires the realignment of a section of the Walshpool Lough stream and the Tully Beg Stream where the proposed road 136

141 alignment impacts on these existing watercourses. Option 2 will have an impact on the drainage pattern in the area, as the run-off from the additional areas in cut or on embankment in online sections will be required to be included in the carriageway drainage system in addition to the increased paved area from the new carriageway cross section. Approximately 34% of this option comprises new offline carriageway which will increase the amount of paved surface in the catchment area resulting in a change to the existing drainage regime. Option 3 crosses the Walshpool Lough Stream, Manulla 34 River (1), Manulla 34 River (2), Kilmacrade Stream, Eighter Stream, Tully Beg Stream, Drumadoon Stream and one minor watercourse. Option 3 requires approximately 9 culverts. This option is offline for a significant portion of the route resulting in 7 of the required culverts being located in the offline sections. There is potential for 2 existing culverts to be retained and extended following further analysis at the design stage. Option 3 will have an impact on the drainage pattern in the area as the run-off from the areas in cut or on embankment in online sections will be required to be included in the carriageway drainage system in addition to the increased paved area from the new carriageway cross section. Approximately 52% of this option comprises new offline carriageway which will increase the amount of paved surface in the catchment area resulting in a change to the existing drainage regime. Option 4 crosses the Walshpool Lough Stream, Manulla 34 River (1), Manulla 34 River (2), South Carrowmore Stream, Kilmacrade Stream, Eighter Stream and the Drumadoon Stream in addition to two minor watercourses. This option will require approximately 12 culvert crossings. As Option 4 has a significant portion of the route offline, 7 culverts will be at new locations while 4 are at existing culvert locations on the N60. There is potential for some existing culverts to be retained and extended following further analysis at the design stage. Option 4 impacts on the Walshpool Lough Stream and the Tully Beg Stream and will require realignment of sections of these watercourses. Option 4 will have an impact on the drainage pattern in the area, as the run-off from the areas in cut or on embankment in online sections will be required to be included in the carriage way drainage system in addition to the increased paved area from the new carriageway cross section. Approximately 64% of this option comprises new offline carriageway which will increase the amount of paved surface in the catchment area resulting in a change to the existing drainage regime. Option 5 crosses the Walshpool Lough Stream, Manulla 34 River (1), Manulla 34 River (2), Kilmacrade Stream, Eighter Stream and the Drumadoon Stream in addition to two minor watercourses. This option will require approximately 10 culvert crossings, 6 of which will be at new locations while 4 are at existing culvert crossings on the N60. There is potential for some existing culverts to be retained and extended following further analysis at the design stage. Option 5 impacts on the Walshpool Lough Stream and the Tully Beg Stream and will require realignment of sections of these watercourses. Option 5 will have an impact on the drainage pattern in the area, as the run-off from the areas in cut or on embankment in online sections will be required to be included in the carriage way drainage system in addition to the increased paved area from the new carriageway cross section. 137

142 Approximately 53% of this option comprises new offline carriageway which will increase the amount of paved surface in the catchment area resulting in a change to the existing drainage regime. Option 6 crosses the Walshpool Lough Stream, Manulla 34 River (1), Manulla 34 River (2), South Carrowmore Stream, Kilmacrade Stream, Eighter Stream, Tully Beg Stream and the Drumadoon Stream in addition to two minor watercourses. This option will require approximately 14 culvert crossings. As Option 6 has a significant portion of the route offline, 11 culverts will be at new locations while 3 are at existing culvert locations on the N60. There is potential for some existing culverts to be retained and extended following further analysis at the design stage. Option 6 impacts on the Walshpool Lough Stream and the land/field drain connected to the Kilmacrade Stream, in the vicinity of proposed Culvert Crossing No. 9, and will require realignment of sections of these watercourses. Option 6 will have an impact on the drainage pattern in the area, as the run-off from the areas in cut or on embankment in online sections will be required to be included in the carriageway drainage system in addition to the increased paved area from the new carriageway cross section. Approximately 71% of this option comprises new offline carriageway which will increase the amount of paved surface in the catchment area resulting in a change to the existing drainage regime. Option 7 crosses the Walshpool Lough Stream, Manulla 34 River (1), Manulla 34 River (2), South Carrowmore Stream, Kilmacrade Stream, Eighter Stream, Tully Beg Stream and the Drumadoon Stream in addition to two minor watercourses. This option will require approximately 11 culvert crossings. As Option 7 has a portion of the route offline, 7 culverts will be at new locations while 4 are at existing culvert locations on the N60. There is potential for some existing culverts to be retained and extended following further analysis at the design stage. Option 7 impacts on the land/field drain connected to the Kilmacrade Stream, in the vicinity of proposed Culvert Crossing No. 6, and will require realignment of sections of these watercourses. Option 7 will have an impact on the drainage pattern in the area, as the run-off from the areas in cut or on embankment in online sections will be required to be included in the carriageway drainage system in addition to the increased paved area from the new carriageway cross section. Approximately 44% of this option comprises new offline carriageway which will increase the amount of paved surface in the catchment area resulting in a change to the existing drainage regime. Conclusion When comparing the different routes in terms of their impact on the existing drainage regime, Option 1 is the most preferred option as it is online and introduces the least amount of new paved area to the catchment. Option 2 is the second most preferred route having approximately 34% of its route offline, next is Option 7 with 44% of the route offline, followed by Option 3 with 52% and Option 5 with 53% offline. The least preferred routes are Option 4 with 64% and Option 6 with 71% of 138

143 the route offline which introduces the most significant amount of new paved area to the local catchment area. The drainage layout will be optimised during design development of the preferred route and the vertical alignment will be defined in more detail. Likely low spots can then be identified allowing drainage discharge locations to be identified. In terms of an optimised drainage design and provision of suitable outfalls, the frequency of suitable watercourses along all routes means that there is no measurable advantage in terms of draining the different options. However with regard to the spread of discharge points along the different routes which results in a more even runoff discharge to the catchment Options 1 and 3 have a slight advantage with more discharge points than the other options, followed by Options 2 4, 6 and 7, with Option 5 having the least number of potential outfall locations resulting in greater concentration of road runoff at these locations. Comparing the number of watercourse crossings on the different routes, Option 1 has a clear advantage having the least number of culvert crossings, all of which are at existing culvert locations on the N60 with potential to retain and extend these culverts. Option 3 is the next most advantageous with 9 culvert crossings, 7 of which are at existing culvert locations on the N60 with potential for retention. Following this is Option 2 with 10 culvert crossings, 6 of which are existing and Option 5, again with 10 culvert crossings, 4 of which are existing. Next is Option 7 which requires 11 culverts, 7 of which are at new locations and Option 4 with 12 culvert crossings, 7 of which are at new locations. The least advantageous is Option 6 with 14 culvert crossings, 11 of which are at new locations. In terms of impact on the alignment of existing watercourses, Option 3 is the preferred option, requiring no watercourse diversions. The next most preferable option is then Option 7 requiring only a diversion of a land/field drain connected to the Kilmacrade Stream. Then the next most preferable option is Option 1 which requires a realignment of the Eighter Stream only. Option 6 follows this requiring a diversion of the Walshpool stream and the land/field drain connected to the Kilmacrade Stream. Finally the least preferred Options are 2, 4 and 5 jointly, all of which require diversions of the Walshpool Stream and the Tully Beg Stream. A summary of the preferences for each option in relation to the different factors of drainage is provided in Table along with the overall drainage preference of each of the seven options. 139

144 Culverts/ Watercourse Crossings No. of Discharge Points % Offline Watercourse Alignment Overall Rating Option 1 High High High High Option 2 Option 3 High High High Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Table : Drainage Assessment Summary Construction In order to assess the impact of each route option from the construction of the proposed road development, an assessment of the following sub-criteria was undertaken: Traffic Management & Diversions; Construction Duration; and Complexity of Construction. Due to the significant online nature of Option 1, this will be the most disruptive to implement due to the traffic management and the levels of proposed diversions during construction. The phasing of construction stages on Option 1 would also be complicated and time consuming due to Traffic Management/ diversions as mentioned above, along with two large embankments. The other options are all rated similarly as they each offer various different complexities, including: online sections requiring Traffic Management and diversions; offline sections causing direct impacts on local roads; Options 2, 3 and 5 in close proximity to Lisnolan Level Crossing; large offline sections of cut and fill; Options 4, 6 and 7 in close proximity to Derreen Lough; Options 6 and 7 in close proximity to the historic landfill site. Conclusion In summary, the Construction preference of each of the seven options is given below in Table Overall Rating Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Table : Construction Assessment Summary Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 140

145 6.3.9 Services Conflicts The construction of a new road scheme will inevitably require the relocation of services. Service diversions will have financial and time implications during the construction work. Service diversions should be avoided as much as possible. With reference to Figures A.14 A.17, provided in Appendix A, a list of the number of conflicts/crossing points with each existing service for each Option is provided in Table below. Group Water Bord Gáis ESB Eircom Option Scheme Transmission (LV & MV) Total Table : Option Conflicts with Existing Services Eircom As outlined in the Section 3.3.8, the Eircom plant is generally located adjacent to existing N60 and existing side roads resulting in all Options having a number of conflicts. At overhead crossing points, the cables will likely be diverted with an underground ducted system. Although, Options 3 and 4 have the highest number of potential conflicts/crossing points, Option 1 is considered to be the least preferred as it will conflict the most with the existing plant which is currently running parallel with existing N60. Option Nos. 6 and 7 are given high preference due to their low number of conflicts and their offline nature. Group Water Scheme As is the case with Eircom, Option 1 will have the highest impact on the existing water mains system, as the network is predominately on the existing N60. In addition to Option1, Option 3 has the highest number of conflicts/crossing points. Therefore, Option 1 and 3 are given a low preference, with Option 6 the most preferred as it the least number of conflicts with 9 No. Bord Gáis Transmission Line All of the Options avoid the Bord Gáis Transmission Line, though, Options 2, 4, 5 and 6 are in closer proximity (approximately 30m) to mains at Manulla Cross, compared to other options. Should Option 2, 4, 5 or 6 be selected, further investigation of exact route of the mains will be required at Design Stage. ESB The ESB Networks MV & LV overhead cables are generally offset from the existing N60 and within adjacent landowner fields. At overhead crossing points, the cables 141

146 will likely be diverted with an underground ducted system. The ESB Networks record drawings do not show localised connections to properties. These are considered a minor constraint and are not considered in this assessment. Options 3 and 5 have the least number of conflicts/crossing points with the existing network, and given a high preference. Options 2 and 4 are given a medium preference with 8 and 10 conflicts/crossing points. Options 6 and 7 have the highest number of conflicts/crossing points and along with Option 1are given a low preference due to its primarily online route. Conclusion It is noted that all route options conflict with relatively minor services and all avoid the Bord Gáis Transmission Gas Mains that runs south of Manulla Cross (approximately 60m from route options 2, 4, 5 and 6). The realignment of local roads L and L for these respective options will be considered in further detail to avoid conflict with the gas main. A more detailed evaluation of service conflicts and further consultation with all service providers will be undertaken at the next stage of design. The preference of each of the six options in terms of services conflicts is given below in Table As safety is of particular concern for this scheme, this section of the Engineering Appraisal has been weighted by a factor of 0.5; therefore the preference score given for this section is worth half that of other sections. This is mainly due to the fact that service diversions will not involve any major disruption to utility infrastructure. Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Eircom High High Group Water Scheme High High ESB High High Overall Rating High High High Table : Services Conflicts Assessment Summary 142

147 Land & Property Impact of the route options on agricultural land has been assessed in Section (Agronomy Assessment) of the Environmental Appraisal above. The impact of the route options on Land and Property was assessed using the following criteria and is provided in Table : 1) Approximate Potential Land take for each Option; and 2) Number of properties/buildings directly impacted by the Scheme. The approximate land take for each option was based upon the potential footprint of the route option and consideration was given to existing landownership in the area with reference to the Land Registry Drawings (as shown in Figures A13a and b). It is highlighted that the existing national road N60 network within the Study Area is in the ownership of private owners and not Mayo County Council. Potential Land take Required Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option Ha 15.9 Ha 16.2 Ha 17.6 Ha 16.2 Ha 18.4 Ha 18.1Ha 5/6 No. 5/6 No. 6/7 No. 5 No. 5/6 No. 4 No. 4 No. Number of Properties/ Buildings Directly Impacted by the Scheme 1/2 No. Approx. Ch2450. Eastbound Carriageway. 100m west of Land League Cottage 4 No. Ch Eastbound Carriageway. East of Balla Mart 1/2 No. Approx. CH2450. Eastbound Carriageway. 100m west of Land League Cottage 4 No. Ch Eastbound Carriageway. East of Balla Mart 1/2 No. Approx. Ch2450. Eastbound Carriageway. 100m west of Land League Cottage 1 No. Ch No. Ch Eastbound Carriageway. East of Balla Mart 1 No. Ch No. Ch Eastbound Carriageway. 50m east of Balla Mart 1/2 No. Approx. Ch2450. Eastbound Carriageway. 100m west of Land League Cottage 4 No. Ch Eastbound Carriageway. East of Balla Mart 4 No. Ch Eastbound Carriageway. 50m east of Balla Mart 4 No. Ch Eastbound Carriageway. 50m east of Balla Mart Table : Land and Property Assessment Summary With reference to Table , Options 6 and 7 have the largest land take, while Option 3 has the largest number of existing properties/buildings which will be directly impacted by the scheme. Options 1, 2, 3 and 5 have similar land take areas and directly impact the same number of properties/buildings. 143

148 Conclusion Taking the above into account, the preference ratings for each of the seven options in terms of Land and Property are given in Table Overall Rating Option 1 High Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Table : Land and Property Assessment Summary Option 6 Option Impact on Iarnród Éireann Infrastructure As part of the consultation process with Iarnród Éireann an Initial Third Party Consultation Application Form was submitted to the Iarnród Éireann Third Party Coordinator in July Following which a consultation meeting was held between Jacobs and Irish in October At the meeting, the potential impacts of the proposed options on the Scheme were identified and discussed. These impacts are shown in Table Option Barrackland Level Crossing (XX01) Pinch Point in the Townland of Drumnaslooeen (Ch 2450/Mid- Point of Scheme) 1 Yes Yes 2 Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes 4 Yes No 5 Yes Yes 6 Yes No 7 Yes No Iarnród Éireann Interface Locations Lisnolan Level Crossing (XM 236) In Close Proximity In Close Proximity In Close Proximity No Significant Change In Close Proximity No Significant Change No Significant Change Smuttanagh Level Crossing (XM235) No Significant Change No Significant Change Scheme Closer No Significant Change No Significant Change No Significant Change No Significant Change Interface with Railway Line in the Townlands of Lisnolan and Smuttanangh Table : Impact of the Options on Iarnród Éireann Infrastructure No No Yes No No No No Carrown - tuber Level Crossing No Significant Change No Significant Change No Significant Change No Significant Change No Significant Change No Significant Change No Significant Change With reference to Table , it was identified that the key areas of impact by the Options are Barrackland Level Crossing, the Pinch Point at approximate Ch

149 and in the Townlands of Lisnolan (Options 1, 2, 3 and 5) and Smuttanagh (Option 3 only). In relation to Carrowntober Level Crossing, the impact of the options on this crossing is considered to be minimal to none, as the alignments of the options do not move closer to these crossings. In relation to Smuttanagh Level Crossing and the L , the alignments of Options 4, 6 and 7 are further north of the existing N60, and therefore there is potentially less impact. In the case of Option 3, its alignment is located further south of the existing N60 and the Smuttanagh Level Crossing would require closing at this location. For Options 1, 2 and 5, the proposed alignments are along the existing footprint of the N60, with a proposed realignment of the existing L , north of the Smuttanagh Level Crossing. For these 3 No. options, the impact is considered minimal to none. In relation to the Barrackland Level Crossing, all route options are proposed to go through the crossing at grade. At this stage of the scheme development, it is not possible to determine the potential impact of the scheme on existing Iarnród Éireann equipment (i.e. signals, etc.) and barriers, which are located on either side of the existing N60 at this location. Regarding the Pinch Point at approximate Ch2450 in the townland of Drumnaslooeen, the footprint of the existing N60 is bordered to the south by an existing stone wall where the Dublin Westport Railway Line lies on the other side. The road is bordered to the north at this location by a collection of properties. The eastbound lane of the existing N60 runs adjacent to the existing wall and railway line for approximately 110m to Ch3560. All options, except for Options 4, 6 and 7, which bypass to the north, run through this area. Between Ch2450 and Ch3560, the eastbound extents of Options 1, 2, 3 and 5 tie in approximately with the existing N60 s extents. Following discussions with Iarnród Éireann, should one of these four options be selected, boundary treatment in the form of safety barrier protection and anti-dazzle measures will be required at this location. It was also highlighted by Iarnród Éireann that the scheme will not lead to any additional flooding of the railway line due to scheme drainage. Northwest of the Pinch Point, Options 1, 2, 3 and 5 are on embankment and are at closer proximity, with varying degrees, to the railway line compared to the existing N60. Further consideration will have to be given to impact of scheme and associated engineering solutions in this area in the next phase of the Scheme development. In summary, Options 4, 6 and 7 are given a higher preference than the other options at the Pinch Point and adjoining locations, as it bypasses this area. In relation to the interface of Scheme with the railway line in the Townlands of Lisnolan and Smuttanagh, Option 3 is the only option which includes this section. Options 3 leaves the existing the N60 at approximate Ch2800, and runs adjacent to the Dublin Westport Railway Line for approximately 800m, where it then returns to the exiting N60 at Ch3600. Should this option be selected, further consideration will have to be given to impact of the Scheme on the railway line in this area. 145

150 Overall Rating Conclusion Taking the above into account, the preference ratings for the impact of each route option on Iarnród Éireann Infrastructure are provided below in Table Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 High Option 5 Option 6 High Option 7 High Table : Impact on Iarnród Éireann Infrastructure Assessment Summary It is highlighted, following selection of the preferred option and progression to the next phase of the scheme development, that further consultation will be undertaken with Iarnród Éireann Overall Engineering Appraisal The seven route options have been assessed under the Engineering Appraisal Criteria highlighted in the previous sections. The Engineering Appraisal has been summarised in Table The individual assessments have been combined to give an overall preference for each Option. Traffic Assessment & Cross Section Technical Standards Junctions, Access and Interaction with Existing Network Structures Geology & Hydrogeology Earthworks Drainage Construction Services Conflicts Land & Property Impact on Iarnród Éireann Infrastructure Overall Option 1 Same * High High High High * High * Option 2 Same High * * * Option 3 Same * High * * Option 4 Same * High * High * Table : Overall Engineering Assessment Summary Option 5 Same High * High * * Option 6 Same High High * * High * High * proportionate weighting factors have been applied to the following categories Option 7 Same * High * High * 146

151 6.4 Options Appraisal Safety Road Safety Audit Stage F Part 1 A Stage F Part 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) was undertaken by Traffic Transport and Road Safety Associates Ltd. (TTRSA) in February The audit was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of NRA DMRB HD 19/12 Road Safety Audit. A copy of the RSA Stage F Part 1 is provided in Appendix B of this Report. The audit examined the documents relating to each of the seven route options and on-site observations. A summary of findings are provided in Table The findings are separated into General, which relate to all seven route options and Specific. A detailed account of the findings is provided in Section 3 of RSA Stage F Part 1 Report in Appendix B of this Report. Ref Location/ No. Element General 1 2 L (Balla Mart) Junction East of Ch3625, including immediately RSA Stage F Part 1 Comment In all seven alternative route options substandard forward stopping sight-distances (SSD) and egress visibilities are retained at the L junction. The presence of the Balla Mart on the L results in an increased number of turning movements of slow and long vehicles at this junction. The improvement of the N60, particularly to the west of this junction, will increase approach speeds on the N60, and as a result, increase the likelihood and severity of collisions at this location. It is the opinion of the Audit Team that additional mitigation measures will be necessary at this location, which may include a combination of: altering the vertical profile of the N60 approaches to the junction, for example, eastbound from approximately Ch.3330; reducing the posted speed-limit for example to 80km/h from approximately Ch.3450 to beyond the eastern tie-in (potentially to the outskirts of Balla); and, seeking approval for, and introducing, vehicle activated signing on the N60 approaches to the junction indicating to approaching road users that a vehicle is egressing from (turning out of) the junction. For the realignment detailed in route options 6 and 7, it may be possible to reduce the overall elevation of the crest immediately to the east of the junction, thereby improving forward and egress visibility. There is currently an area of shoulder on the north side of the N60 opposite the junction which functions both as an informal near-side passing facility, and allows rightturning vehicles from the L to exit and cross the N60 before joining the eastbound traffic stream. The form of the improved junction should take account the volume and type of turning movements occurring. The vertical alignment, and associated stopping sight distances and visibility splays, of the route section from approximately Ch.3625 (L junction) to the eastern tie-in and immediately beyond the eastern tie-in remains substandard following the 147

152 3 to the east of the proposed scheme tie-in L (Manulla Cross) Junction proposed improvement works despite the removal of a number of private accesses on the north eastern side of the carriageway. The improvement works are likely to increase eastbound N60 vehicle speeds on the approach to, through, and immediately beyond, this route section, which in combination with substandard visibility and heavy vehicle movements (including at the L5765 Carton junction) will increase the likelihood and severity of collisions. The proposed realignment and staggering of the Manulla Cross junction (in all of the route options) should fully take account of the volume of turning vehicle movements, with provision of appropriate turning facilities. In route options 1, 3 and 7, and the dominimum option, where a reduced speed limit is proposed, physical measures may be required to increase road user adherence to the reduced speed limit. Table 6.4-1: Summary of RSA Stage F Part 1 Ref No. Location/ Element RSA Stage F Part 1 Comment General CTD. There are a large number of related road safety issues regarding the provision, design and use of the proposed cycle track. 4 Cycle track Facilities Whilst the provision of a cycle track is likely to encourage cycling on the route, the road safety benefits of the track are limited until such time as additional connectivity is provided at the ends of the scheme route section, for example, to Castlebar and to Balla. Depending on the route option progressed, where sections of the existing N60 are realigned but the existing N60 is retained for local access, it may be beneficial to incorporate these within the cycle route, for example, in route options 4 and 6, off-line cycle track provision with appropriate access and crossing points could be provided for the majority of the route length, enhancing safety for all types of cyclist. If a cycle track is provided on one-side of the N60, it will be used two-way by cyclists and provision should be made for cyclists to safely access and egress from the track, including in the vicinity of intersecting junctions. Access and egress locations are likely to determine the length of safe cycle track provision, for example: at the eastern end of the track, westbound road users are likely to have limited forward visibility of cyclists crossing the N60 carriageway in the vicinity of Ch.4010, increasing the potential for high severity collisions involving cyclists; and, the positioning of the railway level crossing infrastructure and associated building at the 148

153 5 6 Ref No. Gradient of Realigned Junctions Boundary Treatments Location/ Element Barrackland level crossing (XX01 Barrackland CCTV) may adversely impact on the safety of additional cycle crossing facilities at/adjacent to the existing level crossing, and potentially further impact on the adequacy of the egress visibility from the adjacent L local road junction (at Ch.110). The design of the access and egress points to the cycle track, and of the route across junctions and private accesses should be taken into full account as part of the design process. To provide safe access, it is likely that jug-turn type arrangements will be required, particularly at the ends of the route length. Intervisibility between cyclists and road users egressing from private accesses needs to be maintained, resulting in the need to maintain a limited visibility splay to the back edge of the cycle track rather than the edge of the carriageway. The safety of the future maintenance activities and associated cyclists use of the track should be taken into full account as part of the detailed design, to ensure that maintenance does not adversely impact on the safety of cyclists using the route, nor force cyclists to unnecessarily use the carriageway. For example: the use of concrete edging to reduce grass and weed penetration; the depth of construction at cross-overs and if vehicle access is required for maintenance of the verge behind the cycle track; and, how autumn and winter-maintenance of the cycle track will be successfully achieved. No information has been provided to the Audit Team in relation to the gradients of the side-road approaches to the realigned junctions, including junctions associated with cul-de-sacs formed from truncated sections of the existing N60. It would appear to the Audit Team that some gradients may be excessively steep when the length and gradient of appropriate dwell areas is taken into account, for example, the alignment of the proposed cul-de-sac junction at approximately Ch.2235 (route options 1 and 2) may impact on egress visibility splays and result in both overshoot and failure to stop type collisions. No details have been provided to the Audit Team in relation to the termination of truncated sections of the existing N60, nor the associated boundary treatments on the realigned route sections. Within a number of scheme route options, locations are present where there is potential for see-through, particularly of headlights during the hours of darkness. This has the potential to mislead road users on the parallel routes as to the alignment of the N60 route, for example, at approximately Ch.2850 in route option 3. RSA Stage F Part 1 Comment Specific 7 Options 1 and 2 The proposed cul-de-sac junction at approximately Ch.2235 is located in an area likely to be used as an overtaking zone. As a 149

154 Options 1, 3 and 7 Options 2, 4, 5 and 6 Options 4, 6 and 7 Options 6 and 7 result, whilst turning movements are likely to be low in volume, the risk of collisions involving side impact into right turning vehicles will be increased. The limited forward SSD and egress visibility splays from the residential and agricultural accesses located between approximately Ch.950 and Ch.1250, combined with the increased approach speeds from the east, due to the route improvement, will increase the likelihood and severity of side and rear impact collisions associated with turning movements into and out of properties at this location. For route option 7, a reduced posted speed limit would need to be applied at this location, as is already proposed for route options 1 and 3. With the exception of the proposed centrelines, no details have been provided to the Audit Team of the revised arrangement of the existing N60 Manulla Cross junction following the route realignment of the N60. Due to the prevailing traffic flows, the predominant movement will be north/south. Therefore, staggering of the L , connecting the existing N60 to the new scheme at approximately Ch.950 as shown, is likely to be inappropriate in terms of traffic flow and road safety. In addition, the southbound approach gradient and lack of opposing vehicle movements on the realigned L may result in collisions occurring due to vehicles failing to stop at the junction (existing Manulla Cross junction) and due to inappropriate entry speeds (particularly southbound) to this junction. It may therefore be more appropriate to prioritise the L alignment as a straight movement at the existing Manulla Cross junction, vehicles on the existing N60 alignment ceding priority to those on the L The existing single-track alignment of the L is undulating with severely restricted forward visibility at several locations. The L will need to be widened and upgraded between the existing and proposed N60 alignments, including associated junctions, to accommodate existing and future traffic flows. options 4, 6 and 7 show the revised L junction with the proposed N60 as a straight (simple) 4-arm cross-roads junction. This will increase the potential for failure to stop and overshoot type collisions with the risk of high severity injury to both vehicle occupants and, for example, riders of two-wheeled vehicles. The priority at the junction of the existing N60 and L will need to be reviewed based on residual traffic flows and the safety of turning movements following the upgrade. It is unclear given the level of design detail available at this stage whether it is intended to retain access to the existing N60 alignment from the realigned L junction. Retention of such access in close proximity to the realigned junction may increase the complexity of turning manoeuvres and increase the risk of loss-ofcontrol type collisions, for example, of westbound vehicles switching through the junction between the realigned and existing N60 alignments. Table 6.4-1: Summary of RSA Stage F Part 1 CTD 150

155 Conclusion Taking the findings above into account, the route options were ranked in terms of road safety by the RSA Stage F Part 1 Audit Team. ratings for each option as part of the Engineering Assessment are provided in Table below. The difference between the road safety impact of the options presented is considered by the Audit Team to be very marginal. It is likely that all of the proposed options will increase vehicle speeds on the improved section of the N60 with the potential to increase the number and severity of collisions on N60 the within the vicinity of junctions and the scheme route tie-ins to the existing N60 route alignment. Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Overall Rating High Table 6.4-2: RSA Stage F Part 1 Summary Road Safety Impact Assessment (RSIA) Report A Road Safety Impact Assessment (RSIA) was undertaken for the Scheme in accordance with NRA DMRB 18/12 Road Safety Impact Assessment. A copy of the RSIA Report is provided in Appendix C. The purpose of a RSIA is to demonstrate, on a strategic level, the implications on road safety of the different planning alternatives (i.e. Do-Nothing, Do-Minimum and Do-Something) of a Road Scheme. The RSIA indicates the road safety considerations which contribute to the preferred solution, provides all the relevant information necessary for the selection of the solution including a comparative analysis of road safety implications of each alternative scheme. The following elements were covered in the assessment: 1) Need for the Scheme and Problem Definition; 2) Road Safety Objectives of the proposed Scheme; 3) Existing Road Safety Problems and Collision Analysis; 4) Description of Proposals; 5) Analysis of Road Safety Impacts; and 6) Ranking of Options. With reference to the Analysis of the Road Safety Impacts, which is considered the main element of the report, this was split into assessment of impact of the options on safety and the comparative analysis of options using the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) outputs. In relation to the assessment of impacts, the following considerations in terms of safety were made when comparing the route options: 1) Number of direct accesses and junctions; 2) The bypass of Manulla Cross (including the Manulla School); 3) The proximity of Iarnród Éireann Infrastructure; 151

156 4) Traffic flow and patterns; and 5) Seasonal and climatic conditions. In relation to CBA, the following outputs from the COBA Software were considered when comparing each route option: 1) Accident Forecast Numbers; and 2) Collision Benefits. ratings were identified for each option for the two parts of the comparative analysis and are provided in Table below. Road Safety Impact Assessment CBA (Safety) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 High Option 5 High High Option 6 High Table 6.4-3: Summary Road Safety Impact Assessment and CBA (Safety) Conclusion Option 7 As part of the overall assessment, the two parts of the comparative analysis were combined and overall preference ratings were identified for each of the seven options. These are provided below in Table Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Overall Rating High High High Table 6.4-4: RSIA Report Assessment Summary Overall Safety Appraisal The seven route options have been assessed under the Safety Appraisal Criteria highlighted in the previous sections. The Engineering Appraisal has been summarised in Table The individual assessments have been combined to give an overall preference for each Option. RSA Stage F Part 1 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 High Option 7 Road Safety Impact Assessment High High High Overall High High Table 6.4-5: Overall Safety Appraisal Summary 152

157 6.5 Options Appraisal Economic Option Comparison Cost Estimates The Option Comparison Cost Estimate (OCCE) for the seven route options, which has been determined in accordance with the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines (PAG) Unit 6.7 Preparation of Scheme Costs, is provided in Table below. The OCCE comprises the Scheme Base Cost, Total Inflation Allowance and NRA Programme Risk. Option Comparison Cost Estimate Overall Length Of Mainline (km) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option m 11.69m 13.30m 12.46m 13.00m 12.77m 12.37m Cost per km 2.83m 2.90m 3.32m 3.10m 3.25m 3.17m 3.08 Table 6.5-1: Option Comparison Cost Estimate Summary Options 1 and 2 are the most economically advantageous with Options 3, 5 and 6 the most expensive options. Options 4 and 7 falling in between. If the Options are compared as a cost per kilometre, the order remains the same as there is very little difference in mainline scheme length. Conclusion The preference ratings for each option have been ranked in terms of the OCCE and Cost per km, and are provided in Table Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Rating High Table 6.5-2: Option Comparison Cost Estimate Assessment Summary Cost Benefit Analysis Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is an economic evaluation carried out to determine if the scheme will provide a suitable return and represents value for money. The CBA compares the Do-Minimum scenario with the Do-Something scenario (i.e. Options 1 7), as defined in Section 4, and determines whether benefits resulting from the provision of the scheme will outweigh the costs of construction and future maintenance. The CBA for the scheme was undertaken by Jacobs and a copy of the COBA Report is provided in Appendix E. The COBA Report outlines the analytical process undertaken, including the COBA specifications and network, sources of data, any input assumptions and validation and finally the results and conclusions. 153

158 The assessment was undertaken using COBA 11 Software Release 14 (January 2012), Irish Version. The national input parameters, output summaries and report layout are in accordance with the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines 2011, Unit 6.0 Cost Benefit Analysis. The COBA software evaluates the travel costs over the appraisal period under each Do-Something scenario and compares these with the equivalent travel costs under the corresponding Do-Minimum scenario. The software does this by calculating the travel costs in the Do-Minimum scenario over the appraisal period from the geometric road network information and traffic flow information input by the user within the COBA input file. The software then compares this with the equivalent information input regarding the Do-Something scenario. The difference between the travel costs in these scenarios equates to the benefits of the Do-Something option. This difference is expressed in 2009 Price and Values, is discounted to 2009 and is referred to as the Present Value of Benefits (PVB) of the scheme. The capital cost (construction costs, planning, design, land acquisition etc.) is also expressed in 2009 Prices and Values and discounted to 2009 and referred to as the Present Value of Costs (PVC). The ratio of these benefits to the cost required to achieve them is the Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR): that is the BCR = PVC / PVB. A Benefit to Cost ratio greater than unity indicates that the scheme is expected to generate more benefits than the costs that are required to achieve them, and therefore the scheme can be considered to represent value for money. The difference between the Present Value of Benefits and the Present Value of Costs is referred to as the Net Present Value (NPV). A positive NPV represents a scheme that can be considered to represent value for money. The CBA is conducted over the standard 30 year appraisal period, but also includes the residual value of the asset beyond the 30 year appraisal period, within the calculation of the PVB. The First Scheme Year has been taken as 2019, with the Last Scheme Year being Table summarises the COBA outputs from the three growth traffic scenarios considered for each Option. With reference to Table the BCR for each Option is as follows: Option 1: for High, for and for Growth; Option 2: for High, for and for Growth; Option 3: for High, for and for Growth; Option 4: for High, for and for Growth; Option 5: for High, for and for Growth; Option 6: for High, for and for Growth; and Option 7: for High, for and for Growth. 154

159 TEE Benefits Consumer User Benefits Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 High Med High Med High Med High Med High Med High Med High Med ,409 2,900 2,811 1, ,866 3,267 3,164 4,039 3,419 3,312 3,733 3,157 3, Business Benefits ,435 1,222 1, ,606 1,358 1,315 1,779 1,507 1,458 1,525 1,291 1, Private Sector Provider Impacts Accident Benefits Emissions Benefits Indirect Tax Residual Value ,572 2,771 2,643 1, ,998 3,070 2,924 4,219 3,246 3,083 3,851 2,959 2, Present Value of Benefits (PVB) Governme nt Funding Present Value of Costs (PVC) Overall Impact Net Present Value (NPV) Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 2,224 1,724 1,646 9,040 7,413 7,141 2,825 2,188 2,089 10,071 8,198 7,888 10,684 8,713 8,383 9,690 7,892 7,595 1,683 1,271 1,210 8,018 8,018 8,018 8,278 8,278 8,278 9,417 9,417 9,417 8,821 8,821 8,821 9,200 9,200 9,200 9,043 9,043 9,043 8,763 8,763 8,763-5,794-6,294-6, ,138-6,592-7,288-7,327 1, , ,150-1,447-7,080-7,492-7, Table 6.5-3: Option Comparison CBA Assessment (*Note: All costs and values represented in units of 000) 155

160 Conclusion The results show that only Options 2, 4, 5 and 6 are likely to produce a BCR of greater than one under a High traffic growth scenario. None of the options are likely to produce a BCR of greater than one under or growth scenarios. Options 1, 3 and 7 are unlikely to produce a BCR of greater than one under any of the growth scenarios because the proposed 60 kph speed restriction through Manulla Cross would be retained under these options. For Options 2, 4, 5 and 6, the majority of benefits come from journey time savings associated with bypassing the existing junction at Manulla Cross, which it is assumed will be subject to a 60 kph speed restriction under the Do Minimum scenario. However, accident benefits are also anticipated arising from the rural rather than urban classification of Manulla Cross, as derived from the speed limit assumed. The alignment of Options 1, 3 and 7 would pass through the existing junction in the vicinity of the National School, so would not benefit from the journey time savings associated with bypassing it, with no change in the assumed number of accidents at Manulla. The preference ratings for each option have been ranked in terms of COBA Outputs, and are provided below in Table Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Rating High Table 6.5-4: CBA Assessment Summary Overall Economic Appraisal As the CBA considers the OCCE in its assessment, the preference ratings for the overall economic appraisal will be the same as the preference rating for the CBA provided in Table above. The Overall Economic Appraisal is presented in Table below. Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Options Cost Estimate High CBA High Overall Table 6.5-5: Overall Economic Appraisal Summary 156

161 7 Recommendation of Preferred Option Having appraised each of the Options for Environmental, Engineering (Including Safety) and Economic in the sections above, a preference weighting of high, medium and low for each heading was allocated to each Option and is shown in Table 7.1. Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Environmental High Engineering High Safety High High Economic Overall High Table 7.1: Project Appraisal Matrix Option 6 has emerged as the Preferred Option from the Project Appraisal Matrix. It is ranked as in the Environmental Appraisal with a in the following categories: Ecology, Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage, Landscape and Visual, Air, and Noise. It is ranked as a High in the Engineering Appraisal, with High s in the following categories: Technical Standards; Land and Property; Road Safety Impact Assessment; Junctions, Access and Interaction with Existing Network; and Services Conflicts. It is ranked as High in the Safety Appraisal with a High in both the Road Safety Audit Stage F Part 1 and Road Safety Impact Assessment. It is ranked as a in the Economic Appraisal with a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.07 for High, 0.87 for and 0.84 for Growth. It is ranked in the middle in terms of costs with an Option Comparison Cost Estimate (OCCE) of 12.77M, with Option 5 more expensive and Options 1 to 4 and 7, less expensive. With reference to the above, it is recommended that Option 6 progress as the Preferred Corridor Option as it represents the best balance in terms of the appraisal of Environmental, Engineering, Safety and Economy. 157

162 8 Project Appraisal Balance Sheet The Project Appraisal Balance Sheet (PABS) was completed in accordance with Draft NRA Project Appraisal Guideline, Unit 7.0 Project Appraisal Balance Sheet 2014, as advised by the NRA. The PABS acts as a tool for summarising the expected impacts of the Preferred Corridor Option under the headings and subheadings are listed below: Environment: Safety: 1) Air Quality and Climate; 2) Noise and Vibration; 3) Waste; 4) Landscape and Visual (including light); 5) Biodiversity - Flora and Fauna; 6) Agriculture; 7) Non-agricultural properties; 8) Architectural Heritage; 9) Archaeological and Cultural Heritage; 10) Soils and Geology; 11) Hydrology; 12) Hydrogeology. 1) Accident Reduction; 2) Security. Economy: 1) Efficiency and Effectiveness; 2) Wider Economic Impacts; 3) Funding Impacts. Accessibility and Social Inclusion: 1) Deprived geographical area; 2) Vulnerable groups. Integration: 1) Transport integration; 2) Land use integration; 3) Geographical integration; 4) Integration with Other Government Policies. 158

163 The structure and content of the PABS is fixed and cannot be altered. It consists of a qualitative evaluation summarising the impact of the Scheme in qualitative terms and where possible a quantitative evaluation that sets out quantified and monetised impacts of the Scheme. The headings are also subject to a scaling Quantitative Statement indicating whether the impact are Highly Positive; Moderately Positive; Slightly Positive; Neutral; Slightly Negative or Moderately Negative. The summary of the PABS (Part D) for the Preferred Corridor Option, Option 5 is provided in Table 9.1 below. The complete Project Appraisal Balance Sheet Parts A D is provided in Appendix H of this Report. 159

164 Table 9.1: Project Appraisal Balance Sheet (Part D) 160

165 9 Conclusions and Recommendations It is recommended that Option 6 outlined as the preferred option in Section 7 be approved by the National Roads Authority (NRA) as the Preferred Corridor. It is further recommended that the NRA grant approval for the Scheme to proceed to the next Phase of development, Phase 3: Design, under the current NRA Project Management Guidelines (NRA, 2010). 161

166 Appendix A Alternative Assessment Report Drawings

167 Ref. No. Drawing Ref. No. Title Rev. Scheme Option Drawings /FIG A.1 Scheme Location Plan /FIG A.2 Constraints Study Area /FIG A.3 Habitat Mapping & Ecological 0 Constraints /FIG A.4 Archaeology, Architectural & Cultural 0 Heritage /FIG A.5 Geology Bedrock /FIG A.6 Geology Subsoils /FIG A.7 Hydrogeology Constraints /FIG A.8 Groundwater Vulnerability 0 Constraints /FIG A.9 Surface Water /FIG A.10 Contour Mapping and Landscaping 0 Features /FIG A.11a-e Sensitive Receptors & Noise Bands 0 (5 No. Sheets) /FIG A.12 Planning Constraints /FIG A.13a & b Landowner Data Constraints (A and 0 B) (2 No. Sheets) /FIG A.14 Public utilities Gas /FIG A.15 Public Utilities-Telecommunications /FIG A.16 Public Utilities-Group Water Scheme /FIG A.17 Public Utilities-Electrical /FIG A.18 OPW Flood Mapping (PFRA Maps) /FIG A.19 OPW Benefitting Lands & Scheduled Channels 0 Outline Mainline Alignment Option Drawings /MLA1/OPTION1 Outline Mainline Alignment Design Option 1 (3 No. Sheets) /MLA1/OPTION2 Outline Mainline Alignment Design Option 2 (3 No. Sheets) /MLA1/OPTION3 Outline Mainline Alignment Design Option 3 (3 No. Sheets /MLA1/OPTION4 Outline Mainline Alignment Design Option 4 (3 No. Sheets) /MLA1/OPTION5 Outline Mainline Alignment Design Option 5 (3 No. Sheets) /MLA1/OPTION6 Outline Mainline Alignment Design Option 6 (3 No. Sheets)

168 Appendix B Public Consultation Materials

169

170

171 Appendix C Road Safety Audit Stage F Reports (Parts 1 & 2) Ref. No. Title Author Issue Date 1 N60 Castlebar Balla Road (Manulla) Road Improvement Scheme Stage F Part 1 Road Safety Audit Report Traffic Transport and Road Safety Associates (TTRSA) Ltd. 20 th February N60 Castlebar Balla Road (Manulla) Road Improvement Scheme Stage F Part 2 Road Safety Audit Report Traffic Transport and Road Safety Associates (TTRSA) Ltd. 27 th April 2015

172 Appendix D Road Safety Impact Assessment Ref. No. Title Author Issue Date 1 N60 Castlebar Balla Road (Manulla) Road Improvement Scheme RSIA Report Civil, Structural and Traffic (CST) Ltd. 18 th March 2015

173 Appendix E Cost Benefit Analysis Ref. No. Title Author Issue Date 1 N60 Castlebar Balla Road (Manulla) Road Improvement Scheme Cost Benefit Analysis Report - Phase 2 ( Selection) David Laing Principal Transport Planner - Jacobs 26 th March 2015

174 Appendix F Options Cost Comparison Estimate

175

176 Appendix G Statutory Consultation Responses Part 1 Letter Issued to Statutory Consultees A copy of one of the standard Statutory Consultee s letters (Incl. Drawing) which were issued by Jacobs in October Part 2 Response from Statutory Consultees Ref. No. Statutory Consultee Contact Response Received Date Format 1 NRA Peter Walsh 1 st November OPW Shirley Crosbie & Miriam Mulligan 25 th November 2013 Letter 3 Department Of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) Michael Murphy (Development Applications Unit) 2 nd December 2013 Letter 4 Tree Council of Ireland Kay Hartigan 13 th November Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI) Maria Long 17 th December Coillte Stakeholders Team 31 st October Geological Society of Ireland (GSI) Sophie Pretesille & Sarah Gatley 31 st October Waterways Ireland Katrina McGirr 31 st October An Taisce Tomás Bradley 20 th March Heritage Council Of Ireland Ian Doyle 21 st March

177 Ref. No. Statutory Consultee Contact Response Received Date Format 11 Bord Fáilte Eoin McDonnell 20 th March Teagasc Eric Donald 25 th March Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Máire Buckley 27 th March Inland Fisheries Ireland Declan Cooke 31 st March Royal Irish Academy Dr. John Maguire 31 st March

178 Appendix H Traffic Assessment Report Ref. No. Title Author Issue Date 1 N60 Castlebar Balla Road (Manulla) Road Improvement Scheme Traffic Assessment Report David Laing Principal Transport Planner - Jacobs 25 th March 2015

179 Appendix I Project Appraisal Balance Sheet

180