N11/N25 Oilgate to

Route Selection Report

Part 1 - Main Text

September 2011

N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text September 2011

Wexford County Council

N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

247517 IWE CCT 09 C 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc 06 September 2011 Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text September 2011

Wexford County Council

County Hall, Spawell Rd., Wexford

Mott MacDonald, 5 Eastgate Avenue, Eastgate, Little Island, , Co Cork, Ireland T +353 (0)21 4809 800 F +353 (0)21 4809 801, www.mottmac.com

N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Issue and revision record

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description A June 2011 DW/RH/JH JS JTM Issue 1 Work in Progress

B July 2011 DW/RH/JH JS JTM Issue 2 Final Draft

C September 2011 DW/RH/JH JS JTM Issue 3 Final

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned document being relied upon by any other party, or being used project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission used for any other purpose. which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

Mott MacDonald, 5 Eastgate Avenue, Eastgate, Little Island, Cork, Co Cork, Ireland T +353 (0)21 4809 800 F +353 (0)21 4809 801, www.mottmac.com

N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Master Index

N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Selection Report

Part 1 – Main Text

Part 2 – Appendices

Part 3 – Constraints Study

Part 4 – Figures

Mott MacDonald, 5 Eastgate Avenue, Eastgate, Little Island, Cork, Co Cork, Ireland T +353 (0)21 4809 800 F +353 (0)21 4809 801, www.mottmac.com

N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Content

Chapter Title Page Part 1 – Main Text

1. Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose of this Report ______2 1.2 Structure of the report______3

2. Need for the Scheme 5 2.1 Introduction______5 2.2 National and Regional Policy ______5 2.3 Safety ______8 2.4 Traffic ______9

3. Scheme Objectives 15 3.1 Scheme Objectives______15 3.2 Economy ______15 3.3 Safety ______16 3.4 Environment ______17 3.5 Accessibility & Social Inclusion______17 3.6 Integration ______17

4. Constraints Study 19 4.1 Introduction______19 4.2 Constraints Assessment______19 4.3 Conclusion ______39

5. Feasible Route Options 41 5.1 Introduction______41 5.2 Feasible Route Options ______42 5.3 Route Selection Public Consultation______44

6. Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment 47 6.1 Introduction______47 6.2 Route Option Combinations ______48 6.3 Methodology______48 6.4 Engineering Assessment ______49 6.5 Environmental Assessment ______72 6.6 Economic Assessment ______108 6.7 Preliminary Options Assessment Framework Matrix ______115 6.8 Recommended route options to be carried forward ______120

7. Traffic Assessment & Route Cross-section 123

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

7.1 Introduction______123 7.2 Traffic Models & Incremental Analysis ______123 7.3 Transport Modelling ______126

8. Stage 2 Project Appraisal of Route Options 133 8.1 Introduction______133 8.2 Description of Route Options carried forward to Stage 2 ______133 8.3 Economy Appraisal______134 8.4 Safety Appraisal ______144 8.5 Environmental Appraisal______152 8.6 Accessibility and Social Inclusion Appraisal ______242 8.7 Integration Appraisal______245 8.8 Project Appraisal Matrix ______253 8.9 Recommendation on a Preferred Route Corridor ______253

9. Stage 3 Selection of Preferred Route Corridor 259 9.1 Project Appraisal Balance Sheet ______259 9.2 Road Safety Audit Stage F (Part 2) ______269 9.3 Recommendations ______269

Tables

Table 2.1: Level of Service Summary Existing Bypass (NRA Forecasted Growth – Low Growth) ______11 Table 2.2: Observed 2010 AADT flows ______12 Table 3.1: Fatal Collision rates per billion vehicle km ______16 Table 4.1: Designated Conservation Sites within Study Area ______29 Table 4.2: Geological Heritage ______36 Table 4.3: Lakes within the Study Area______37 Table 4.4: Classification of River Channels______38 Table 6.1: Engineering Framework Matrix______66 Table 6.2: Terrestrial Ecological Impact Assessment ______78 Table 6.3: Comparative Crossing Option Appraisal______84 Table 6.4: Criteria for Rating Site Attributes – Soils and Geology ______89 Table 6.5: Criteria for Rating Site Attributes – Hydrogeology ______89 Table 6.6: Level of Impact Criteria______90 Table 6.7: Sources of Information – Soils and Geology ______91 Table 6.8: Environmental Framework Matrix______102 Table 6.9: Economic Assessment Framework Matrix ______110 Table 6.10: Preliminary Options Assessment Framework Matrix ______115 Table 6.11: Recommended route options to be carried forward ______120 Table 6.12: Combinations proceeding to Stage 2 (with Links detailed)______121 Table 7.2.1: Traffic Model Scenarios and Route Options______125 Table 7.3.1: Summary of AADT for Traffic Model Scenarios ______129 Table 7.3.2: Road Types based on data from TD9/10 & TD10/07 of the NRA DMRB ______130 Table 8.3.1: Option Comparison Estimate (Traffic Model Scenario 0.1)______137

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 8.3.2: Option Comparison Estimate (Traffic Model Scenario 0.2)______137 Table 8.3.3: Option Comparison Estimate (Traffic Model Scenario 2)4 ______137 Table 8.3.4: Option Comparison Estimate (Traffic Model Scenario 4)4 ______137 Table 8.3.5: Option Comparison Estimate (Traffic Model Scenario 4a) ______137 Table 8.3.6: Option Comparison Estimate (Traffic Model Scenario 5) ______138 Table 8.3.7: Option Comparison Estimate (Traffic Model Scenario 6) ______138 Table 8.3.8: CBA Route Options and Traffic Model Scenarios______139 Table 8.3.9: CBA Results______141 Table 8.3.10:Economy Preferences ______143 Table 8.4.1: Road Safety Audit Preferences ______147 Table 8.4.2: CoBA Accident Benefits ______148 Table 8.4.3: Safety Appraisal ______149 Table 8.5.1: Environmental Analysis ______153 Table 8.5.2: Impact Assessment of Route Options on Sensitive Ecosystems – Predicted NOx Concentrations in the Design Year (2033). ______156 Table 8.5.3: Summary of Index of Overall Change in Exposure for each Route Option______158 Table 8.5.4: Seeding of routes based on combined PIR and Lden rankings ______162

Table 8.5.5: Table of preference based on combined PIR and Lden rankings______162 Table 8.5.6 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Criteria Table ______165 Table 8.5.7 Landscape Character ______165 Table 8.5.8 Route Option Appraisal______168 Table 8.5.9 Route Option rankings ______177 Table 8.5.10: Ecological Evaluation Criteria ______181 Table 8.5.11: Slaney Catchments ______183 Table 8.5.12:Coastal Bishopswater Catchments______184 Table 8.5.13:Route Option Appraisal ______187 Table 8.5.14:Route Option Appraisal ______194 Table 8.5.15:Carbon Emissions ______197 Table 8.5.16:Route Option Appraisal ______198 Table 8.5.17:Route Option Appraisal ______201 Table 8.5.18: Sources of Data ______205 Table 8.5.19:Route Option Appraisal ______210 Table 8.5.20:Total Impacts per Route Option ______215 Table 8.5.21:Total Direct Impacts per Route Option ______218 Table 8.5.22:Route Option Ranks ______219 Table 8.5.23:Route Option Appraisal ______227 Table 8.5.24:Route Option Appraisal ______233 Table 8.5.25:Overall Environmental Route Option Appraisal ______236 Table 8.6.1: Appraisal Matrix for Accessibility & Social Inclusion______244 Table 8.7.1: Integration Matrix ______252 Table 8.8.1: Project Appraisal Matrix ______253 Table 9.1.1: Project Appraisal Balance Sheet ______260

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Part 2 – Appendices

Appendix A. Public Consultation______A-2 A.1. Route Selection Public Consultation Brochure______A-2 A.2. Route Selection Public Consultation Questionnaire ______A-8 A.3. Route Selection Public Consultation Comment Sheet ______A-12 A.4. Route Selection Public Consultation Detailed Map (Sample)______A-16 Appendix B. Route Option Combinations ______B-1 B.1. Example of approach used______B-1 B.2. Breakdown of Route Option Combinations______B-3 Appendix C. Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment ______C-1 C.1. Human Beings and Material Assets ______C-1 C.2. Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology ______C-11 C.3. Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology ______C-15 C.4. Air Quality______C-35 C.5. Noise and Vibration ______C-39 C.6. Agriculture ______C-43 C.7. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage______C-47 Appendix D. Stage 2 Project Appraisal of Route Options ______D-1 D.1. Noise & Vibration ______D-1 D.2. Landscape & Visual ______D-7 D.3. Flora and fauna ______D-23 D.4. Water Quality & Aquatic Ecology ______D-49 D.5. Climate ______D-63 D.6. Waste ______D-67 D.7. Archaeology & Cultural Heritage ______D-73 D.8. Human Beings and Material Assets ______D-91 D.9. Agriculture ______D-101 D.10. RAPID Programme for Wexford Town ______D-105 Appendix E. Ecology Reports ______E-1 E.1. Aquatic Ecology Report ______E-1 E.2. Birds Report ______E-3 E.3. Appropriate Assessment ______E-5 Appendix F. Road Safety Audit Stage F______F-1 F.1. Part 1 ______F-1 F.2. Part 2 ______F-3

Part 3 – Constraints Study

Part 4 - Figures

Figure 2.1: Scheme Location Map Figure 2.2: Accident Locations Figure 4.1: Study Area Map

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Figure 5.1.1: Primary Feasible Route Options A to H Figure 5.2.1: Route Option A Figure 5.2.2: Route Option B Figure 5.2.3: Route Option C Figure 5.2.4: Route Option D Figure 5.2.5: Route Option E Figure 5.2.6: Route Option F Figure 5.2.7: Route Option G Figure 5.2.8: Route Option H Figure 5.3.1: Public Consultation Pie Chart Summaries Figure 5.3.2: Public Consultation Pie Chart Summaries Figure 6.1: Scheme Map showing Link Numbers and Zones for all Route Options Figure 6.2: Route Option Combinations proceeding to Stage 2 Figure 8.2.1: Stage 2 Route Options (not including Route Options 200 & 201) Figure 8.2.2: Route Option 069 Figure 8.2.3: Route Option 089 Figure 8.2.4: Route Option 104 Figure 8.2.5: Route Option 106 Figure 8.2.6: Route Option 107 Figure 8.2.7: Route Option 108 Figure 8.2.8: Route Option 109 Figure 8.2.9: Route Option 113 Figure 8.2.10: Route Option 115 Figure 8.2.11: Route Option 116 Figure 8.2.12: Route Option 117 Figure 8.2.13: Route Option 118 Figure 8.2.14: Route Option 119 Figure 8.2.15: Route Option 120 Figure 8.2.16: Route Option 132 Figure 8.2.17: RO200 (Do-Minimum) Figure 8.2.18: RO201 (Management option) Figure 8.3.1 a to d: Traffic Model Scenarios Figure 8.5.0: Key Plan Figure 8.5.1 a to f: Human Sensitive Receptor Locations Figure 8.5.2 a to f: Designated Ecological Sites Figure 8.5.3 a to f: Landscape Assessment Figure 8.5.4 a to f: Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Figure 8.5.5 a to f: Surface Water Resources Figure 8.5.6 a to f: Flood Risk Assessment Figure 8.5.7 a to f: Soil Types & Mine Locations Figure 8.5.8 a to f: Hydrogeology Figure 8.5.9 a to f: Cultural Heritage Figure 8.9.1: Preferred Route Corridor

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

This page left intentionally blank for pagination.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

1. Introduction

The N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour Scheme entails a major improvement to both the N11 and N25 from the south end of the proposed M11 to Scheme to Rosslare Harbour. Improving road safety, journey times and access to are a priority for this scheme.

The proposed road scheme is in accordance with the Wexford County Development Plan 2007 – 2013 and Wexford Town & Environs Development Plan 2009 - 2015. Furthermore, it is in line the objectives of the National Development Plan 2007 – 2013 and the National Spatial Strategy 2002 - 2020 (NSS). The existing N11 alignment south of Oilgate and the associated south of Wexford Town towards Rosslare Harbour is in need of an upgrade to safely accommodate the current and future traffic requirements of this route.

Mott MacDonald was appointed to the N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour scheme in 2008 to progress the scheme through Phases 2 to 4 of the NRA Project Management Guidelines. A Constraints Study was carried out in 2009 under the (NRA) Project Management Guidelines (2000) and is summarised in Chapter 4. Following on from this Constraints Study the Route Selection Process commenced under the NRA Project Management Guidelines (2010) and in accordance with the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines (2008) and the NRA Cost Management Manual (2010).

The scheme, currently at Phase 2 Route Selection follows guidance given in the NRA Project Management Guidelines, shown in the extract below.

Source: Page 110 of NRA Project Management Guidelines

A suitable study area was identified and a Constraints Study was carried out to identify key constraints. Feasible route options were identified and were presented to the public at the Route Selection Public Consultation held at the Ferrycarrig Hotel, Wexford on June 14th and 15th 2010. This public consultation is detailed in Section 5.3.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 1 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Following guidance from the NRA Project Management Guidelines, the systematic assessment of route options consisted of the following stages:  Stage 1: Develop a number of feasible route options (typically 6 or more and including ‘Do-Nothing’ and ‘Do-Minimum’ alternatives) and carry out a Preliminary Options Assessment using a Framework Matrix (comprising the assessment criteria of Engineering, Environment and Economy). This will result in the number of route options being refined to a maximum of 3-5.  Stage 2: After Stage 1, carry out a Project Appraisal of these routes using the Project Appraisal Matrix (comprising the 5 Common Appraisal Criteria of Economy, Safety, Environment, Accessibility & Social Inclusion and Integration).  Stage 3: After Stage 2, select a Preferred Route Corridor for the Scheme. Following this, prepare a Project Appraisal Balance Sheet (PABS) for the Preferred Route as described in the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines.

Following the Stage 1 Preliminary Assessment of the feasible route options, the number of route options was refined. A Stage 2 Project Appraisal of the route options was then carried out on the refined route options from which a Preferred Route Corridor was selected.

This Route Selection Report presents in detail the different stages of the process which informed the selection of the Preferred Route Corridor.

1.1 Purpose of this Report

This report outlines the Preferred Route Corridor for the N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour Scheme and the process undertaken in selecting this Preferred Route Corridor.

In designing a major road scheme, consideration needs to be given to developing a scheme which achieves the required objectives in terms of improving traffic flow on the road network, improving overall safety for its users, and providing connectivity, while also minimising impacts to people and the receiving environment.

These factors may, at times, present conflicting requirements. Therefore, in order to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to all relevant factors as part of the selection of the Preferred Route Corridor, an integrated approach to this selection process is required. This process has been followed for the N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour Scheme and has involved a simultaneous examination of the

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 2 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

various issues that determine the selection of the Preferred Route Corridor.

There is a statutory requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for road and bridge schemes of certain characteristics. In a rural setting, these characteristics are as follows:  The construction of four or more lanes, or the realignment or widening of an existing road so as to provide four or more lanes, where such new, realigned or widened road would be eight kilometres or more in length,  The construction of a new bridge or tunnel, which would be 100 metres or more in length.

Should this scheme take on one or more of the above characteristics then an Environmental Impact Assessment will be required. Any EIS will be required to include:

“an outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects.”

S.I. No. 93 of 1989, Article 25.1 (d)

This Route Selection Report will address this requirement, if an EIS is carried out.

1.2 Structure of the report

Chapter 2 of this report introduces the need for the N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour Scheme.

Chapter 3 of this report outlines objectives of the scheme.

Chapter 4 gives an overview of the Constraints study undertaken prior to the route selection study.

Chapter 5 describes the Feasible Route Options that were developed and the Route Selection Public Consultation.

Chapter 6 describes the different assessments that were carried out on all feasible route options under the headings of Engineering, Environment and Economy as part of the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 3 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Chapter 7 describes the Traffic Assessment that was carried out. This includes data collection, building of the transport model and the model forecasting that was carried out.

Chapter 8 describes the detailed appraisal undertaken on the refined route options using the 5 common appraisal criteria of Economy, Safety, Environment, Accessibility & Social Inclusion and Integration as part of the Stage 2 Project Appraisal of Route Options.

Chapter 9 describes the Preferred Route Corridor and details the Project Appraisal Balance Sheet

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 4 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

2. Need for the Scheme

2.1 Introduction

This project entails an investigation into the improvement of the N11, southwards from the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy scheme, to Wexford Town and the N25 from west of to Rosslare Harbour.

The N11 route currently terminates at its junction with the N25 to the west of Wexford Town. The N25 continues from this point to Rosslare Harbour. The location and study area for the scheme is detailed in Part 4 - Figure 2.1.

This scheme is in accordance with the Wexford County Development Plan 2007 – 2013 and Wexford Town & Environs Development Plan 2009 - 2015. Furthermore, it is in compliance with the objectives of the National Development Plan 2007 – 2013 and the National Spatial Strategy 2002 - 2020 (NSS). The existing N11 alignment south of Oilgate and the associated N25 road south of Wexford Town towards Rosslare Harbour is in need of an to safely accommodate the current and future traffic requirements of this route. The need for the scheme is detailed under the following headings; National and Regional Policy, Safety, and Traffic.

2.2 National and Regional Policy

Relevant policy documents were analysed and assessed to determine the policies relevant to this scheme and to ascertain what the policy requirements are.

National Development Plan 2007 - 2013

The National Development Plan (NDP) 2007 - 2013 prioritises economic and social investment in order to support the continued development of Ireland with a “high commitment to international competitiveness, social justice and environmental sustainability”.

One of the high level objectives of the NDP is to provide “Balanced regional development with regions achieving their full potential”. In order to achieve the objectives of the NDP, a number of goals were outlined that are relevant to the development of infrastructure that allows regional development. These goals aim to:  decisively tackle the deficit of structural infrastructure that continues to impact on competitiveness,  improve regional development,

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 5 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

 improve general quality of life,  meet the demands of the increasing population,  integrate regional development within the National Spatial Strategy Framework of Gateway cities and Hub towns (of which Wexford is one) to achieve goals of economic growth in the regions, and  provide for major investment in the rural economy.

The NDP 2007-2013 outlines that €13.3 billion is to be invested in upgrading and building national roads with a further €480 million to upgrade port facilities over the lifetime of the plan. The NDP outlines significant investment for “key routes impacting on National Spatial Strategy Gateways, Hubs and County Towns”. Wexford Town is both a county town and a Hub town as designated under the National Spatial Strategy.

National Spatial Strategy 2002 - 2020

The National Spatial Strategy (NSS) was developed to promote more balanced regional development that acts as a counterbalance to the growth of the Greater Area (GDA).

Wexford Town was designated as a hub under the NSS. Towns were designated as hubs to support local, sub regional development and in the case of Wexford, to support the function of the nearby designated “Gateway” city of in terms of promoting regional development in the South East (along with Kilkenny). A report entitled National Spatial Strategy Hubs: Development Issues and Challenges (Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 2007) details the performance of designated hub towns across the country and specifies constraints being experienced, which are restricting the economic and population growth performance of the towns. In this document the NSS outlines the importance of improving regional connectivity through the provision of bypasses of towns on the national routes to nearby Gateways and other parts of Ireland. This would relieve congestion and result in improved environmental quality. This document identifies that the delivery of transport - related initiatives are essential in order to provide the necessary regional level support that can unlock development within hubs.

As part of the aforementioned report the local authority was asked to identify the key development issues relating to the hub in a regional or

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 6 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

sub - regional context. The following key development issues were identified for Wexford Town1:  upgrade road and rail links with Waterford,  access road links between Waterford and Wexford,  inter - links between Hubs (the link to Kilkenny is unsatisfactory),  motorway connecting the western and eastern sides of Ireland, and  completion of the Dublin - Rosslare motorway with bypasses at Gorey, Enniscorthy and .

The NSS identifies the “” as a viable alternative centre of growth to the GDA. Key to this growth is access to international markets. Seaports, such as Rosslare Europort, play an important role in this regard. The provision of a quality road network linking the Atlantic Corridor towns and cities to Rosslare Europort offers the opportunity for more balanced regional growth by allowing for more efficient road access to Rosslare Harbour from these towns and cities.

South East Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022

The South East Regional Development Authority is the authority responsible for implementing the NSS at a regional level. The South East Region covers , Kilkenny, South Tipperary, Waterford City, Waterford County and Wexford.

“PP0 5.11: The Regional The Regional Planning Guidelines have been adopted by the authority Authority will support, for the South East Region. Key issues affecting regional development facilitate and enable the are taken into account in the guidelines. These issues include: sustainable development  population and settlement, and improvements to the  economic and employment trends, National Road Network  industrial and commercial development, within the region, as guided  transportation, by the NRA’s National  water supply and waste water facilities, Roads Programme.”  energy and communications,  education, South East Regional Planning  healthcare, Guidelines 2010-2022  retail, and  environmental protection.

______

1 Appendix (I), page 87 of National Spatial Strategy Hubs – Development Issues and Challenges, (Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, June 2007).

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 7 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

The South East Regional Planning Guidelines refer to a number of proposals of the National Roads Authority and central government to improve and construct National Roads in the South-East Region within the lifetime of the Guidelines subject to finance being provided. The N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour scheme is one of the schemes included in this list of proposals. The section of road from Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour is one of the few sections of the Rosslare to Larne route (E01), which has not yet been upgraded to / motorway standard. The Regional Authority will support the development of the key economic corridors in the region, namely the Dublin–Waterford M9 route, the Dublin–Wexford N11/M11 route, the Waterford–Limerick N24 Corridor and the Rosslare–Cork N25 route.

Wexford County Development Plan 2007 - 2013

Section 3 Transportation of the current Wexford County Development “Objective T10: to facilitate Plan 2007 - 2013 outlines a number of objectives regarding roads. and enable the Objectives T10 and T11 are concerned with national roads. development of major Objective T10 supports the envisaged significant investment under the National Road proposals National Development Plan 2007 - 2013. This continues the emphasis, within the lifetime of the as per the previous plan, on the completion of the Trans European Plan” Network and major inter urban routes. The N25 Rosslare/Wexford scheme is listed in the County Development Plan as being one of the “Objective T11: to bring schemes under this objective. National Roads up to appropriate standards in Objective T11 applies to all national routes within the county which association with the includes both the N11 Dublin to Wexford route and the N25 Waterford National Roads Authority to Rosslare route. as resources become available” Conclusion

Wexford County Development In conclusion, policy at every level, from the Wexford County Plan 2007-2013 Development Plan 2007 - 2013 to the National Development Plan 2007 – 2013 and the National Spatial Strategy 2002 – 2020, supports the need for the N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour scheme.

2.3 Safety

There have been a total of 112 reported injury collisions between the period of 2002 to 2009 on the N11 and the N25 within the study area. Of this total, 15 were fatal collisions, 13 were serious injury collisions and 86 were minor injury collisions. Part 4 - Figure 2.2 Accident Locations provides details of these collisions, as it shows all collisions within the study area.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 8 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

The European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP) is a non-profit organisation that aims to provide independent, consistent safety ratings of roads across Europe. EuroRAP provides risk mapping showing the risk of death and serious injury that road-users face on different roads. The risk map for Ireland 2002-2006 published in 2008 by AA Ireland shows the N11 from Enniscorthy to its junction with the N25 as being a road of low-medium risk. The N25 from west of Larkin’s Cross to Rosslare Harbour has been classified as a medium risk road.

The Road Safety Authority (RSA) published its Road Safety Strategy 2007 – 2012, which outlines a number of priority actions, including engineering, and states that there are proven improvements in road safety when upgrading from single carriageway to dual carriageway/motorway standard.

In the case of the N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour scheme, an upgrade from a single carriageway to Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3 Dual carriageway would be expected to reduce the collision rate on this stretch of the .

2.4 Traffic

A desktop feasibility study was carried out by Wexford County Council in 2007 to determine any short, medium and long term remedial measures for the Wexford Town Bypass. This report examined the main reasons for congestion on this stretch of N25 and found that the existing at grade roundabouts were reaching capacity and this was having a knock on effect to the rest of the Bypass. Currently both local commuter traffic and the strategic traffic are using this bypass.

From the traffic data collected in 2007, the Feasibility Study concluded that the Wexford Bypass is currently operating at a level of service below the desirable minimum Level of Service D (LOS D). As stated in TD9/10 of the NRA Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Level of Service D corresponds to a level of service at which passing becomes extremely difficult, with ‘shock waves’ beginning to affect the overall flow. An extract from the N11/N25 Wexford Town Bypass Desktop Feasibility Study, Table 2.1 below, summarises the forecasted AADTs and the predicted Level of Service on the following segments of road:  Segment 1: between the N25/R730 Roundabout (Rosslare Road Roundabout) to the priority junction at Starvehall (Local Road to Bridgetown).  Segment 2: between the Starvehall priority junction to the N25/R733 Roundabout.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 9 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

 Segment 3: between the N25/R733 Roundabout to the N25/N11/R769 Roundabout (New Ross Road Roundabout).  Segment 4: between the New Ross Road Roundabout to the ghost island priority junction at Newtown (N11/R730 to Kiltealy).  Segment 5: between N11/R730 priority junction to the ghost island priority junction at the entrance of Ferrycarrig Hotel,  Segment 6 :between the entrance of Ferrycarrig Hotel to the priority junction at Kitestown  Segment 7: between Kitestown priority junction to Kyle Cross Roads

Figure 2.1: Feasibility Study Segments

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 10 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 2.1: Level of Service Summary Existing Bypass (NRA Forecasted Growth – Low Growth)2

Source: Table 6.3 of N11/N25 Wexford Town Bypass Desktop Feasibility Study (November 2007).

A traffic survey was also undertaken in June/July 2010 and Table 2.2 below summarises the observed AADT link volumes in vehicles with HGV% based on traffic counts. The AADT link volumes have been ______

2 LOS D describes unstable traffic flow. At LOS D, the ability to manoeuvre is severely restricted due to traffic congestion. Travel speed is reduced by the increasing volume. The two opposing traffic streams begin to operate separately at higher volume levels, as passing becomes extremely difficult. Passing demand is high, but passing capacity approaches zero. The proportion of no-passing zones along the roadway section usually has little influence on passing. Turning vehicles and roadside distractions cause major shock waves in the traffic stream. Motorists are delayed in platoons for nearly 80 percent of their travel time. LOS E represents operations at or near capacity, an unstable level. Vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow. Disruptions cannot be dissipated readily, often causing queues to form and service to deteriorate to LOS F represents heavily congested flow with traffic demand exceeding capacity. Volumes are lower than capacity and speeds are highly variable. Passing is virtually impossible at LOS E, and platooning becomes intense, as slower vehicles or other interruptions are encountered. LOS F represents forced or breakdown flow. It occurs either when vehicles arrive at a rate greater than the rate at which they are discharged or when the forecast demand exceeds the computed capacity of a planned facility. Although operations at these points—and on sections immediately downstream—appear to be at capacity, queues form behind these breakdowns. Operations within queues are highly unstable, with vehicles experiencing brief periods of movement followed by stoppages. Note that the term LOS F may be used to characterize both the point of the breakdown and the operating condition within the queue

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 11 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

calculated using the methodology identified in the An Foras Forbartha document, RT 201: Expansion Factors for Short Period Counts.

Table 2.2: Observed 2010 AADT flows Site Location Description 2010 Observed No. AADT AADT %HGV 1 N25 southeast of Ashfield Cross Roads 6,640 14% 2 R740 east of Ashfield Cross Roads 3,560 8% 3 N25 north of R739 13,970 11% 4 R730 north of N25 Roundabout at Sinnotstown 11,940 10% 5 Local road between Murntown Lower and R730 at 2,910 6% Starvehall 6 R733 east of N25 Roundabout at Clonard Great 13,830 7% 7 R733 west of N25 Roundabout at Clonard Great 7,980 7% 8 R769 east of N25 Roundabout at Ballindinas 10,460 8% 9 N25 west of N25 Roundabout at Ballindinas 12,880 13% 10 N25 350m east of Davidstown Cross 10,130 15% 11 R730 east of N11 Ferrycarrig Junction 3,630 6% 12 R741 east of Wexford Harbour Bridge 13,490 8% 13 N11 north of Ferrycarrig Bridge 12,980 14% 14 N11 south of Oilgate in townland of Whitefort 13,160 13% 15 N11 south of Enniscorthy Town near Salville 12,340 13% 16 N30 west of Enniscorthy near Jamestown 7,040 14% 17 R702 west of Milehouse 2,120 9% 18 N11 north of Enniscorthy Town near Moyne Lower 15,520 13% 19 R744 east of Clonhasten Cross Roads 3,250 11% 20 R741 north of Ballymartin Crossroads 5,440 17% 21 R741 south of the R741/R744 junction 4,440 13% 22 R741 immediately south of N11 8,050 9% 23 N25 east of 7,180 12% 24 N25 north of Rosemount 14,960 9%

It is noted that there has been a reduction in traffic since 2007 due to the economic downturn. This is especially apparent on the N11 between Ferrycarrig and Oilgate, where the 2007 traffic volumes reduced from an AADT of 17,486 (Segment 7 Table 2.1) to 12,980 (Site Nr 13 Table 2.2). It should also be noted however that in the same period the traffic on the N25, South of the N25/R730 roundabout (Rosslare Road Roundabout), has increased from an AADT of 11,643 (Segment 1 Table 2.1) to 14,960 (Site Nr 24 Table 2.2). In any event, the current traffic on the N11 North of Ferrycarrig and the N25 south of

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 12 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

the Rosslare Road Roundabout have an AADT of in excess of the recommended desirable minimum Level of Service D (AADT of 11,600) as per TD9/10 of NRA Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

It is therefore concluded that based on traffic, an upgrade from a single carriageway to a Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 Dual carriageway would increase the traffic capacity and should aid in achieving a LOS of at least LOS D on the stretch of the National Primary Roads (N11 & N25) between Oilgate and Rosslare Harbour. It should be noted that final carriageway type will be determined by an incremental analysis during the Design phase (Phase 3 of the NRA Project Management Guidelines).

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 13 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

This page left intentionally blank for pagination.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 14 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

3. Scheme Objectives

3.1 Scheme Objectives

The objectives of the scheme have been established in the context of the following criteria:  Economy,  Safety,  Environment,  Accessibility and Social Inclusion, and  Integration.

The objectives for the above criteria are discussed in detail below.

3.2 Economy

The 2011 Programme for Government has identified that Ireland’s economic recovery should be export led. The N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour scheme improves connectivity between Rosslare Harbour and both Waterford and Dublin. Rosslare Europort, located in Rosslare Harbour, was the largest port for ferry passengers by volume in Ireland in 2008 and was the second largest port for Roll-on Roll-off traffic by volume in Ireland in 2009, according to CSO statistics.

Currently, the N25 from Rosslare Harbour to New Ross is single carriageway, as is the N11 from Wexford to Enniscorthy. The N11 Ashford Bypass and the N11 Gorey Bypass are redesignated as motorway, and the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Bypass and the N11 Arklow to Rathnew Scheme have completed the Statutory Process and have been approved by An Bórd Pleanála. Following the implementation of these schemes there will be motorway from Ashford to Oilgate, south of Enniscorthy and this will lead to improved journey times and capacity between Dublin and Wexford.

The N25 New Ross Bypass has been approved by An Bórd Pleanála. This scheme provides a new crossing of the . It will reduce both journey time and journey length, on the N25 Waterford to Rosslare Harbour route, which links Rosslare Europort to the Atlantic Corridor.

The N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour scheme will complete the improvement of the route from Dublin to Rosslare Harbour and will further improve journey times and capacity. The scheme will also improve journey times between Waterford and Rosslare Harbour, which provides improved connectivity between Rosslare Harbour and the Atlantic Corridor.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 15 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

3.3 Safety

As previously outlined, there have been a total of 112 reported injury collisions between the period of 2002 to 2009 on the N11 and the N25 within the study area, of which 15 were fatal collisions, 13 were serious collisions and 86 were minor injury collisions. This leads to an average of 1.9 fatal collisions, 1.6 serious collisions and 10.5 minor injury collisions per year for the period 2002 to 2009.

The EuroRAP 2008 Risk rating of Ireland’s major roads lists fatal Table 3.1: Fatal Collision rates collision rates per billion vehicle km, as shown in Table 3.1. However, per billion vehicle km these rates have been derived from small samples and should be Road Type Ireland viewed only as indicative of average for these road types. Motorway 2.9 Dual Carriageway 4.9 The Road Safety Authority (RSA) has published the “Road Safety Strategy 2007-2012”, which aims to improve road safety in Ireland. To Single Carriageway 9.0 achieve this, the RSA have developed a strategy and one of the aims of Source: EuroRAP 2008: Irelands this strategy is: Results “A change in focus where the policy accepts that road users will make mistakes. It seeks to compensate for those mistakes by designing and building a more forgiving road network. (A forgiving road side is a road side which minimises the severity of the injury to a driver or passenger when the driver loses control and the vehicle leaves the road.).”

Section 4, Road Safety Strategy 2007-2012

It is an objective of this scheme to improve the safety of the N11 and N25 between Oilgate and Rosslare Harbour, in line with the RSA safety strategy 2007-2012. Improvements to the route need to achieve a ‘forgiving roadside’, which may be achieved by adopting some of the following measures:  Reducing or removing, where possible, residential and local accesses from the national route,  Provision of divided carriageways to reduce head-on collisions,  Improve safe overtaking opportunities,  Reduce roadside hazards,  Provision of hard shoulders,  Provision of right turn lanes, where necessary, and  Provision of free flow exit-slips, where appropriate.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 16 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

3.4 Environment

It is an objective of this scheme to avoid, insofar as it is feasible, significant impacts on the existing environment, in particular designated conservation sites. Where this is not achievable, then the scheme shall be designed so as to minimise such impacts, and mitigation measures shall be proposed at Phase 4 EIA/EAR and the Statutory Process of the NRA Project Management Guidelines.

In addition, all environmental assessments, during design and construction phases, will be in accordance with the NRA Environmental Assessment and Construction Guidelines.

3.5 Accessibility & Social Inclusion

Two Government programmes have been set up with the objective of reducing and ideally eliminating poverty and social exclusion, namely:  RAPID (Revitalising Areas by Planning Investment and Development), and  CLÁR (Ceantair Laga Árd-Riachtanais).

RAPID is a government initiative that targets disadvantaged urban areas, while CLÁR targets disadvantaged rural areas. The Department of Transport Guidelines on a Common Appraisal Framework for Transport Projects and Programmes and the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines specify that appraisal of Accessibility and Social Inclusion should be based on the RAPID and CLÁR programmes.

It is an objective of this scheme to comply and compliment any RAPID or CLÁR programmes operating within the study area.

3.6 Integration

Planning for transport infrastructure should take account of elements of transport infrastructure and services, such as the requirements of seaports, airports and railways. Transport policies should also compliment and reinforce Government policies, with particular regard to land use, balanced regional development, social inclusion and sustainable development.

This scheme is being developed in line with the following Government policies:  National Development Plan 2007-2013, and  National Spatial Strategy.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 17 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

It also takes cognisance of regional, county and local planning guidelines, including:  South-East Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022,  Wexford County Development Plan 2007-2013, and  Wexford Town and Environs Development Plan 2009-2015.

An objective of this scheme is to provide better access to Rosslare Europort and Wexford Town from both Dublin and Waterford and the Atlantic Corridor. By providing improved access to Rosslare Europort, the South and East of the country benefits from much improved accessibility to the UK and mainland Europe providing a vital alternative to , while avoiding congested corridors in midland UK.

This scheme will provide for a safe intersection of the N25 and the N11 at Wexford Town and link to Rosslare Europort. This will facilitate the integration of the port facilities and the National Primary network and in return should provide for more efficient access to the gateway cities and hub towns of the South and East. The proposed scheme also forms part of the E01 and the E30, providing cross border links to Northern Ireland (E01), and the UK mainland (E30). The proposed scheme also provides a direct cross border link to France.

Insofar as a Type 1 Dual Carriageway is intended for the proposed M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy scheme, the upgrade of the N11 and N25 between Oilgate and Rosslare Europort will consider route consistency throughout the Route Selection and Design phases, with an appropriate cross-section selected at Phase 3 Design.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 18 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

4. Constraints Study

4.1 Introduction

A constraints study was completed by Mott MacDonald in August 2009 with the purpose of identifying the nature and extent of significant constraints within the study area. The study area was defined in order to encompass all feasible route options and zones of influence, without covering an unnecessarily large area.

This chapter provides a synopsis of the findings of the constraints study. The constraints study report entitled N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour Road Improvement Scheme Constraints Study Report, August 2009 is included in Part 3 of this report.

The analysis of all constraints can be considered under one or more of the following headings:  Land Use and Human Settlement,  Infrastructure and Utilities,  Topography,  Air Quality,  Cultural Heritage,  Ecology,  Landscape and Visual,  Noise and Vibration,  Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology, and  Water Quality and Fisheries/ Flooding

4.2 Constraints Assessment

The potential constraints were considered within a defined study area, which is indicated on Part 3 – Constraints Study, Figure 3.1.1 and on Part 4 – Figure 4.1. The study area is entirely located within Co. Wexford and comprises an area of approximately 185 square kilometres. The study area extends from its most northerly point, just to the north of Oilgate village running south across the River Slaney and extending west almost as far as and to Cleristown in the southwest, as far as Rosslare Harbour at the south eastern extent of the study area. The eastern extent of the study area is constrained to the east by Wexford Town, which is outside the study area, Wexford Harbour and the Irish Sea.

The northern extent of the study area is dissected by the River Slaney, over which a crossing point on the River Slaney will be required as part of the proposed road scheme. The existing bridge crossing of the River Slaney by the N11 is at Ferrycarrig. In the centre of the study area,

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 19 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

south west of Wexford Town, the study area is constrained by Forth Mountain and its associated uplands.

4.2.1 Land Use and Human Settlement

The land use and human settlement section identifies potential constraints relating to human settlement and activity including agriculture. A desk based assessment was undertaken to determine the existing environment within the study area and to evaluate information regarding population, land use, zoning provisions, tourism, and community services. The primary constraints within the study area relating to land use and human settlement are outlined below.

The study area is predominantly rural in character with a network of small villages, one-off housing and ribbon development dispersed throughout. The dispersed nature of residential settlement throughout the study area will act as a significant constraint to any potential route options due to the difficulty of avoiding impact on dispersed residential properties and small settlements.

Another significant issue to be considered is the minimisation of severance of the relatively dispersed population from community, employment and commercial services. This will act as a considerable constraint considering the fact that residential development and community services are dispersed between thirteen villages/settlements within the study area.

Agricultural holdings within the study area are generally larger than the national average farm sizes. This may result in a reduced potential impact on agricultural land holdings due to the fact that potentially less land holdings will experience severance. In addition, the relatively large size of the land holdings will offer a potential for less severe impact arising from any severance that does occur.

The main area of land zoned for development in the study area is to the east of the existing N25 towards Wexford Town. Rosslare Harbour also has lands zoned for development within the study area. Wexford Town and Rosslare Harbour are the main urban areas in proximity to the study area and both act as a constraint to the development of a feasible route option.

The study area is rich with elements of archaeological and architectural constraints and specific constraints include Johnstown Castle Estate and Ferrycarrig, which are significant historical/amenity areas within the study area.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 20 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Significant areas of forestry are dispersed throughout the study area. Land owners have developed some areas of this forestry with the assistance of grant aid and/or annual premium payments paid by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In the event of forestry being removed due to the construction of a road and associated structures, any grants received will have to be paid back to the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food.

Tourism is a significant industry in . The provision of improved access to the area by way of the delivery of the improved road network will benefit tourism in the area. However, in order to ensure the tourism industry is not negatively impacted upon, it will be essential to ensure that the Preferred Route Corridor does not impact on significant tourism amenities within the study area or degrade the overall quality of the study area as a tourist attraction.

4.2.2 Infrastructure and Utilities

An assessment was undertaken to identify the locations of existing and proposed services and utilities within the study area. Information for the purposes of this assessment was determined through consultation with the following utility providers:  ESB,  Bord Gáis Éireann,  Eircom,  Wexford County Council,  Chorus/ NTL (UPC Ireland), and  BT Ireland.

On receipt of data supplied by the service providers, all known utility services within the study area were mapped.

The potential constraints resulting from the infrastructure and utilities network within the study area include the electricity transmission network (ESB), telecom infrastructure (Eircom and BT Ireland), water and sanitary services and railway lines within the study area (Iarnród Éireann). These constraints are shown on Part 3 – Constraints Study, Figures 7.2.1 to 7.2.3.

4.2.3 Topography

The topography of County Wexford is generally linked to the underlying bedrock geology, with sedimentary rocks occupying the lowlands and more resistant igneous and metamorphic rocks occupying the upland regions of Forth Mountain.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 21 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Within the study area, the existing N25 traverses a relatively low lying topography with frequent local undulations that contribute to the visually rolling terrain. The lowland areas that comprise the majority of the study area contain predominantly fertile lands with the slope and topography occurring in a shallow/gradual transition. Agricultural lands are generally characterised by extensive views across large fields.

The northern section of the study area, from Oilgate south towards Ferrycarrig, is characterised by low lying topography with locally undulating terrain, generally with the highest points located just to the west of the existing which slope down towards the Slaney river channel. The highest point recorded within this section of the study area is 66m above Ordnance Datum (AOD). Relatively steep slopes are present in places along the edge of river channels within this area, particularly around the Ferrycarrig bridge crossing. Further west there are relatively steep slopes associated with an unnamed tributary of the River Slaney in the vicinity of Ballyvalloge.

South of the current N11 bridge crossing at Ferrycarrig the topography is dominated by Forth Mountain which reaches a maximum height of 237m AOD in the centre of the study area. Further to the east the ground level slopes gently downwards towards Wexford Town and Wexford Harbour.

The east coast of County Wexford encroaches into the study area. This coast is characterised by long, relatively straight stretches of sand or shingle backed up by low cliffs.

Further south towards Rosslare Harbour the topography becomes flatter, dominated by low lying agricultural land and the Wexford slobs (at Drinagh Intake).

The alignment design of any potential route option should be sensitive to the topography and landform of the study area and should seek to minimise embankments and cuttings where possible, thereby reducing impacts upon the landscape.

4.2.4 Air Quality

An air quality assessment was undertaken for the purposes of the Constraints Study in line with the requirements of the Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality during the planning and construction of National Roads Schemes (NRA 2006).

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 22 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

4.2.4.1 Ambient Air Quality

A desk based assessment was undertaken of available ambient air quality data to determine the background air quality within the study area. The primary data sources were as follows:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air Quality in Ireland 2007; Key Indictors of Ambient Air Quality, 2008;  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Ambient Air Monitoring in Wexford; 10th March 2005 – 31st March 2006;

Data from the Air Quality in Ireland 2007 report (EPA 2008) presents air quality for Ireland on the basis of four air quality zones. Dublin is defined as Zone A; Cork is defined as Zone B; Zone C comprises 16 towns with a population of greater than 15,000 and includes Wexford Town. The remainder of the country consisting of smaller towns and rural area is represented by Zone D. The desk based assessment focussed on air quality parameters that are of concern in regard to road

traffic emissions such as Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Particulate Matter (PM10), Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Benzene and Carbon Monoxide (CO). Analysis of the data available from the above mentioned reports

identified that for NO2, PM10, SO2, Benzene and CO concentrations were all below limits set out in the Council Directive 1999/30/EC as transposed into Irish legislation by the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002 (SI No. 271 of 2002).

4.2.4.2 Sources of Air Pollution

The locations of existing industrial sites and high density residential areas that may act as a significant source of air quality pollution within or in close proximity to the study area were assessed and consideration was given to potential future sources of air pollution, which may result in air quality deterioration. Six Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) licensed facilities are located within 3km of the study area. In addition, a single facility operating under an Air Emission licence issued by Wexford County Council was identified within 1km of the study area. There are no SEVESO II sites (as designated under the SEVESO II Directive enacted into Irish law by the European Communities (Control of Major Accident hazards Involving Dangerous Substances Regulations 2006 (SI No. 74 of 2006)) identified within or in proximity to the study area.

Within the study area, the residential clusters with the greatest potential to cause air pollution include Oilgate, Ballyhoge, , Glynn, Barntown, Murntown, Piercetown, Cleristown, Killinick, Tagoat and . Just outside of the study area Wexford Town is the most

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 23 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

significant high density residential area with a population of 18,163 persons recorded (Census, 2006).

4.2.4.3 Sensitive Receptors

Sensitive receptors were identified within the study area (See Part 3 – Constraints Study, Figure 7.4.1). Such sensitive receptors include residential housing, schools, and hospitals, places of worship, sports centres and shopping areas in addition to designated habitats.

The majority of sensitive receptors within the study area consist of one and two storey private dwellings in the form of one-off rural housing or ribbon development along roads in proximity to towns and villages/settlements such as Oilgate, Ballyhoge, Cornwall, Glynn, Crossabeg, Barntown, Murntown, Piercetown, Cleristown, Killinick, Tagoat and Kilrane. In addition, there are large numbers of one-off housing located on the access roads to Wexford town. Other sensitive receptors include schools and churches, which are located throughout the study area. Wexford General Hospital is located in Wexford Town approximately 1.6km east of the study area.

Designated habitats are also potentially sensitive receptors, and there are three designated sites of ecological importance within the study area. These are Forth Mountain pNHA (Site Code 000761), the Slaney River Valley SAC (Site Code 000781) and Wexford Slobs and Harbour pNHA and SPA (Site Codes: 004076 & 000712). A further 11 designated sites were located outside of the study area, but within 10km. These are as follows:  Ballyroe Fen and Lake pNHA (Site Code: 000747),  Tacumshin Lake pNHA and SAC (Site Code: 000709) and SPA (Site Code: 004092),  Lady’s Island Lake NHA and SAC (Site Code: 000704),  St. Helen’s Burrow pNHA (Site Code: 000782),  Ballyteigue Burrow pNHA and SAC (Site Code: 000696) and SPA (Site Code: 004020),  Bay pNHA and SAC (Site Code: 000697),  Screen Hills pNHA and SAC (Site Code: 000708),  Carnsore Point SAC (Site Code: 002269),  Saltee Islands SAC (Site Code: 000707),  Long Bank SAC (Site Code: 002161), and  The Raven SPA (Site Code: 004019).

There are two nature reserves within a 10km radius of the study area; the Wexford Wildfowl Reserve and the Raven Nature Reserve.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 24 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

4.2.5 Cultural Heritage

A Cultural Heritage assessment was undertaken in order to identify all significant elements of archaeological and architectural heritage within the study area. The assessment was undertaken in line with the requirements of the NRA Guidelines for the Assessment of Archaeological Heritage Impacts of National Road Schemes and the NRA Guidelines for the Assessment of Architectural Heritage Impacts of National Road Schemes. The desk based assessment obtained data from numerous sources in order to identify significant constraints including the following:  Record of Monuments and Places (RMP),  The Register of Historic Monuments (RHM),  The List of Monuments in State Care,  List of Preservation Orders,  The Archaeological Inventory of County Wexford,  The Shipwreck Inventory of Ireland, and  The National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH).

In addition, the excavations bulletins were consulted in order to compile a list of all licensed archaeological investigations that have taken place in the study area and the Wexford County Development Plan 2007 - 2013 was consulted for the locations of Protected Structures (RPS).

4.2.5.1 Archaeological Heritage

In total, there are 348 sites designated under the Record of Monuments and Places (RMPs) in the study area. From a general inspection of the archaeology constraints, it is apparent that medieval and post medieval monuments dominate the south of County Wexford. Potential concentrations of Archaeological and Architectural Constraints are highlighted in Part 3 – Constraints Study, Figure 7.5.1.

High concentrations of archaeological constraints can be seen at numerous locations within the study area including Rathmacknee, where the entire village is an area of archaeological importance and the castle is designated as a National Monument. Archaeological constraints also occur at the river crossing at Ferrycarrig; around Tagoat in the southeast of the study area, 2 km northwest of Tagoat along the existing R740 and in the townland of Talbotstown in the south of the study area.

There is a high concentration of medieval sites including 2 castles, 2 tower houses, a moated site, font, graveyard, holy well, church and prehistoric barrow at Rathaspick and Johnstown. Ballykilliane townland

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 25 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

in the east of the study area has a high concentration of prehistoric sites. A high concentration of prehistoric sites is also located 2km south of Oilgate and there is another concentration in the west of the study area in the townland of Coolstuff.

Concentrations of medieval sites can be seen to the southwest of the River Slaney and to the south and west of Rosslare Harbour. There are a large number of ecclesiastical structures (and associated monuments such as holy wells, ecclesiastical enclosures, graveyards, fonts etc.) and castles of various types and these give the study area a rich medieval landscape.

The majority of ecclesiastical structures are parish churches, with one Priory (St. Mary’s in Horetown). Some of these may be on the site of early medieval places of worship and may also be at the centre of ecclesiastical enclosures that are currently unknown.

Of the 394 identified constraints (archaeological & Architectural), 77 can be tentatively dated to the pre-historic and early medieval periods. These include cairns, cist burials, urn burials, standing stones, ogham stones, promontory forts, enclosures, field systems, ringforts, ringditches, burnt spreads, earthworks, middens and fish weirs. The largest concentration of these features lies in the southeast of the study area, with a second smaller concentration 2 km to the south of Oilgate.

In general, unknown archaeological sites can be found anywhere although some types of monuments do seem to be concentrated around certain features. Burnt mounds are often found around low areas with a good supply of water and there are a number of streams throughout the study area. Currently only one burnt mound designated as a Recorded Monument is located in the study area. As these are the most common archaeological sites in the country it is likely that a large number currently remain undiscovered. Ringforts and Bronze Age hillforts are often found at the apex of hills and ridges, although ringforts are also common in low areas of good farmland. Ringforts are the second most common archaeological site found in Ireland. Areas of peatland can also yield high concentrations of archaeological sites with, sometimes extensive, timber trackways being constructed from prehistoric times onwards. Burnt mounds are also common in peatland areas. It is likely that the River Slaney and its many connecting tributaries have a high potential for unknown archaeological sites.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 26 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

4.2.5.2 Architectural Heritage

The National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) and Record of Protected Structures (RPS), contained in the Wexford County Development Plan (2007 – 2013), list 1 building of architectural heritage merit and 51 protected structures in the study area.

The architectural constraints within the study area can be seen to be grouped in certain areas. In general, these are located in and around existing settlements and along roadways, although the occasional thatched cottage or farmhouse can be found in a remote location, such as at Ballysheen (CH380). The main concentrations of Architectural Constraints can be seen in Carrigmannon in the northwest; in Oilgate; at the River Slaney crossing at Ferrycarrig; in Johnstown and Rathaspick, where there is also a high concentration of medieval Archaeological Constraints; and at Tagoat in the southeast of the study area.

At the time of the Constraints Study, the NIAH had not completed the study of County Wexford therefore; additional structures of architectural heritage may be identified in the future. It is likely that the majority of these will be located in the existing settlements within the study area, with a small number of additional rural sites, similar to the current Record of Protected Structures.

4.2.5.3 Underwater Archaeology

The Shipwreck Inventory of Ireland recorded 39 lost vessels in the harbours of Wexford and Rosslare outside of the study area. The nearest wreck is located 2 km to the east of the study area.

4.2.6 Ecology

An ecological assessment was undertaken with the objective of identifying features of ecological importance that occur within the study area with designated conservation sites (SACs, SPAs and NHAs) and protected flora and fauna, in particular, being considered. The assessment was undertaken in line with the requirements of the NRA Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes, 2006.

The database of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) was accessed to identify all designated conservation sites within the study area, as well as a 10 km radius of the study area. In

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 27 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

addition, records for protected flora and fauna in the study area were reviewed from the NPWS online mapping service and the Irish Red Data Book.

The Irish Wetland Bird Survey (I-WeBS) was also consulted. I-WeBS is maintained by Birdwatch Ireland and is the principal tool for monitoring wintering waterfowl populations and their wetlands in Ireland and is also used to highlight long-term trends. I-WeBS data from 2003 to 2008 for ten separate sites in Wexford Harbour and on the Slaney Estuary has been reviewed as a part of this desk based study.

Consultation with the following bodies was conducted:  Development Applications Unit, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government,  Local Conservation Officers from the National Parks and Wildlife Service,  Bat Conservation Ireland,  BirdWatch Ireland,  Badgerwatch Ireland,  Heritage Officer, Wexford County Council,  An Taisce,  Heritage Council,  The Irish Wildlife Trust,  Wexford Naturalists Field Club,  Bord Iascaigh Mhara,  Irish Peatland Conservation Council,  Marine Institute Headquarters,  Vincent Wildlife Trust,  Central Regional Fisheries Board, and  Eastern Regional Fisheries Board.

4.2.6.1 Designated Sites

The designated sites located within the study area are detailed in Table 4.1 and illustrated in Part 3 – Constraints Study, Figure 7.6.1.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 28 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 4.1: Designated Conservation Sites within Study Area SITE SITE STATUS FEATURES OF CONSERVATION NAME CODE INTEREST / DESIGNATION Forth 000761 pNHA Most south - easterly heathland in the Mountain country - wet heath and dry heath. Skylark, Meadow Pipit, Wheatear, Stonechat, Whitethroat and Linnet breed within the site. Common Lizard occurs widely within the site. The rare snail (Lymnaea glabra, Order Gastropoda) is present and not known from any other site. Butterflies: Small Heath, Grayling and Wall Brown occur, as well as and the migratory species Red Admiral and Painted Lady. Wexford 000712 pNHA Also an SPA and is described below. Slobs and Harbour Slaney 000781 SAC Annex I habitats listed in Habitats Directive: River Alluvial wet woodlands, floating river Valley vegetation, estuaries, tidal mudflats and old oak woodlands Annex II species listed in Habitats Directive - Sea Lamprey, River Lamprey, Brook Lamprey, Freshwater Pearl Mussel, Twaite Shad, Atlantic Salmon and Otter. Two rare aquatic species Short - leaved Water - starwort (Callitriche truncata) and Opposite - leaved Pondweed (Groenlandia densa). Red Data Book species: Yellow Archangel (Lamiastrum galeobdolon), Basil Thyme (Acinos arvensis), Blue Fleabane (Erigeron acer) and Small Cudweed (Filago minima). Nationally rare species Summer Snowflake (Leucojum aestivum) is also found within the site. Nationally important numbers of Black - tailed Godwit, Teal, Tufted Duck, Mute Swan, Little Grebe and Black - headed Gull. Wexford Harbour provides extensive feeding grounds for wading birds and Little Terns, bred here in the past. The Reed Warbler, which is a scarce breeding species in Ireland, is present and the Dipper also occurs on the river. Irish Red Data Book species: Common Frog, Pine Marten, Badger, Irish Hare and Daubenton’s Bat. Wexford 004076 SPA Wetlands form part of this site and the Harbour associated waterbirds are of special and conservation interest. It is one of the two

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 29 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

SITE SITE STATUS FEATURES OF CONSERVATION NAME CODE INTEREST / DESIGNATION Slobs most important sites in the world for Greenland White - fronted Goose. Internationally important populations of Mute Swan, Light - bellied Brent Goose, Bar - tailed Godwit and Black - tailed Godwit. The Slobs is the most important and indeed one of the few sites in the country which supports a regular flock of Bewick’s Swan. Regular location for scarce passage waders such as Ruff, Spotted Redshank and Green Sandpiper, as well as Curlew Sandpiper. The rare Wood Sandpiper is seen each year, mainly in autumn. Short - eared Owl and Hen Harrier occur in small numbers to the Slobs during winter. Of particular note is the presence of the Hen Harrier communal roost site. A nesting colony of Little Egret has recently become established within the site and birds are present in the area throughout the year. The site is important for Little Tern as it has can hold a nationally important breeding colony. The Slobs support a nesting colony of Tree Sparrow, a very localised species in Ireland that is listed in the Irish Red Data Book. Another very localised breeding species, Reed Warbler, is well established within the swamp vegetation along the River Slaney and on the South Slob. The site supports populations of Borrer’s Saltmarsh - grass (Puccinellia fasciculata) and Short - leaved Water - starwort (Callitriche truncata); both protected under Flora (Protection) Order and are Red Data Book species. The Slobs are well known for their population of Irish Hare.

In addition, there are a number of other designated sites within 10km of the study area including:  Bannow Bay SAC (Site Code 000781),  Screen Hills SAC (Site Code 000708),  Saltee Islands (Site Code 000707), and  Tacumshin Lake (Site Code 000709).

There are also two nature reserves within 10km of the study area and these are:  The Wexford Wildfowl Reserve, and  The Raven Nature Reserve.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 30 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

4.2.6.2 Protected Flora and Fauna

Flora

Flora protected in Ireland are listed in the Flora (Protection) Order 1999 and are given protection under the Wildlife Act (1976 - 2000). There are records for six species within the study area protected under the Flora (Protection) Order 1999:  Opposite Leaved Pondweed,  Short-leaved Water Starwort,  Betony,  Tufted Salt Marsh Grass,  Hairy Birdsfoot Trefoil, and  Round Prickly Headed Poppy.

The Irish Red Data Book (Curtis and McGough, 1988) lists Opposite Leaved Pondweed, Short - leaved Water Starwort, Hairy Birds Foot Trefoil and Tufted Salt Marsh Grass as ‘Rare’, Betony as ‘Vulnerable’ and Round Prickly Headed Poppy as ‘Endangered’. The Irish Red Data Book was recently revised and the draft version is open for public consultation. In the revised version (Draft, 2005) Opposite Leaved Pondweed is classified as ‘Endangered’; Short - leaved water starwort is classified as ‘Vulnerable’; Hairy Birds Foot Trefoil is classified as being of ‘Least Concern’; Tufted Salt Marsh Grass is classified as ‘Vulnerable’; Betony is classified as ‘Endangered’ and Round Prickly Headed Poppy is classified as ‘Critically Endangered’.

Fauna

The ecological assessment highlights the presence of the Common Pipistrelle bat which was recorded at three locations within the study area, namely; Rathaspick, Johnstown Castle and Kavanaghspark. The Brown long eared bat was recorded at Johnstown castle. Badgers occur within the study area and this may result in the need for either avoidance or introduction of appropriate mitigation.

Birds

There are resident populations of Barn Owl near the River Slaney at Macmine, Redmondstown, Jamestown and probably further south. Regular sightings of the Barn Owl have also been reported near Coolanick, Martingale and Coolamain.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 31 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

The presence of the Yellowhammer has also been identified within the study area by the Wexford Naturalist Field Club. This species is listed on the Red-List of Conservation Concern in Ireland.

The Irish Wetland Bird Survey (I-WeBS) database was consulted in order to identify overwintering populations of water bird populations within the vicinity of the study area. This consultation was undertaken due to the significance of Wexford Harbour and Slobs as a location for over 20,000 species of wintering water birds.

4.2.7 Landscape and Visual

The objective of the landscape assessment was to record and analyse the existing character, quality and sensitivity of the landscape and visual resources in the study area. Landscape and visual sensitivities considered as part of the landscape and visual assessment include statutory and non-statutory landscape designations, natural features, landscape character, areas of significant deciduous trees or woodland, amenities and historic landscapes.

4.2.7.1 Landscape Character Assessment

The Landscape Character Assessment for County Wexford identifies and describes the character of the landscapes of County Wexford and outlines policies for the protection and conservation of each character area. The study area has a varied landscape comprising the following landscape character areas:  Policy Area 1 – Uplands – South hills: characterised by low intensity agriculture and stock rearing, coniferous forestry plantations and areas of transitional vegetation. Ridgelines and peaks are prominent features of this landscape.  Policy Area 2 – Lowlands: contains predominantly fertile lands with relatively high levels of population and intensive agriculture. The slope and topography in lowland areas has a shallow/gradual pattern.  Policy Area 2 – Lowlands – Slaney Valley: The Slaney is a highly scenic area and is considered significant in terms of its extent, its centrality to the county and its unspoilt character.  Policy Area 3 – Coastal – East: The East Coast Character Area is characterised by long, relatively straight coasts of sand or shingle backed up by low cliffs.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 32 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

4.2.7.2 Built Heritage and Amenity Areas

Historic buildings and structures are representative of the social and cultural development of County Wexford. The County had a distinctive architectural and archaeological heritage and the study area is rich in features of archaeological and architectural importance.

Johnstown Castle and gardens are of high amenity value in addition to the amenity spaces of Redmond Square and Trespan Rock in Wexford Town.

Overall, the Slaney River Valley is identified as the primary constraint in relation to landscape and scenic value within the study area. Other constraints include areas that are noted for their built heritage or amenity value, such as Johnstown Castle.

4.2.8 Noise and Vibration

The noise and vibration assessment was undertaken in line with the requirements of NRA Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes, 2004.

The assessment identified noise sensitive receptors within the study area that have the potential to constrain the location of any potential route options, identified existing noise sources within the study area and discussed possible mitigation measures to minimise the potential noise impact of a potential route option.

The majority of noise-sensitive receptors in the study area are one and two-storey private dwellings. The majority of these dwellings are concentrated in clusters along roads in the vicinity of the towns and villages/settlements of Oilgate, Ballyhoge, Cornwall, Glynn, Crossabeg, Barntown, Murntown, Piercetown, Cleristown, Killinick, Tagoat and Kilrane. There are schools, churches and associated graveyards located in or near Oilgate, Ballyhoge, Crossabeg, Killurin, Glynn, Barntown, Murntown, Ballyshelin, Piercetown, Redmondstown, Cleristown, Killinick, Tagoat and Kilrane.

In general, the dominant contributor to the prevailing noise environment in the study area is road traffic noise from the existing national and regional roads (N11, N25, R736, R740, R739, R733, R738, R730, and R769). However, many of the identified noise-sensitive receptors are located some distance from these roads where the noise climate would be considered typical of a rural environment with birdsong, leaf rustle,

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 33 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

occasional local vehicle movements and occasional use of agricultural machinery prevailing.

Within the vicinity of the various towns and villages/settlements, the noise environment is typical of an urban or semi-urban environment with road traffic noise and some contribution from commercial premises.

Also located within the study area are the Rosslare to Dublin and Rosslare to Waterford railway lines. Whereas the Rosslare to Waterford railway line service has been suspended, the Rosslare to Dublin line is utilised, and will contribute to the prevailing noise environment for noise-sensitive locations in their vicinity.

Levels of noise generated by any potential route option will largely depend on the volume of traffic flow and the speed at which the traffic travels. Mitigation measures in respect of noise will be required when the proposed road scheme passes close to noise-sensitive receptors.

Mitigation measures will typically consist of one, or possibly a combination, of the following measures, where practicable:  consider locating the Preferred Route Corridor away from sensitive receptors in order to avoid the need for further mitigation measures,  contain the road in a cutting, where practicable, to provide acoustic and visual screening,  where acoustic screening is required, consideration should be given to the use of noise barriers.  the use of low - noise pavements should also be considered, where appropriate, as a viable mitigation option.

4.2.9 Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology

The soils, geology and hydrogeology assessment has been undertaken in line with the requirements of NRA Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes. For the purposes of this assessment, a desktop study of baseline geological and hydrogeological data within the study area was undertaken.

4.2.9.1 Topography

The study area mainly comprises lowlands, which are drained by the Slaney River Valley. Coastal marshes are present around Wexford Harbour, while uplands (e.g. Forth Mountain) are present in the centre of the study area. The topography of Wexford is generally linked to the

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 34 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

underlying bedrock geology, with sedimentary rocks occupying the lowlands and more resistant igneous and metamorphic rocks occupying the upland regions.

4.2.9.2 Quaternary Geology

The principal soil association within the study area is Association 40: Gleys 80% and Grey Brown Podzolics 20%. Gleys have poor drainage, heavy texture and weak structure, and tend to have a limited use range. Grey Brown Podzolic occurs throughout this association in small pockets on the slightly more elevated parts of the landscape and is usually well to excessively drained.

4.2.9.3 Bedrock Geology

The geology of County Wexford is a record of more than 400 million years of the Earth’s 4,600 million year history. Some of the oldest rocks in Ireland are found in the Rosslare Complex in the south east of the county (the Greenore Point and Groups are older than 620 million years). The majority of the geology of the county comprises Ordovician slates and volcanics dating back to a vanished ocean bed, which was approximately 450 million years old. Overlying the Ordovician there is a succession of Devonian sandstones passing up into Carboniferous Limestones and up into the Permo-Trias rocks.

4.2.9.4 Hydrogeology

The majority of the study area is classified as a poor aquifer with unproductive bedrock except for local zones. The majority of the study area is classified as having High–Low vulnerability. Discrete areas of extreme vulnerability are present throughout the study area, most notably in the area around Forth Mountain, which would be expected due to rock lying close to the surface.

4.2.9.5 Geological Heritage

Two sites of geological heritage were identified within the boundary of the study area and these are detailed in Table 4.2.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 35 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 4.2: Geological Heritage

Theme Site No. Site Name County Summary description Proposed Definite CGS NHA IGH7 Quaternary Forth Mountain Wexford Tors3.(rock outcrops) CGS IGH10 Devonian Milltown Wexford Duncormack Formation. pNHA Conglomerate outcrops around Wexford Town.

4.2.9.6 Economic Geology

While there are no active quarries within the study area (2001 data), a review of Wexford County Council’s planning database revealed that planning permission was granted for a quarry in Harristown Big, Forth Commons in 1995.

The Concrete Products Directory (2005) is a report prepared by the Irish Concrete Federation that lists the locations of concrete producers in Ireland and it identifies two companies located within the study area; Cemex Ireland which is located in Walshestown, Killinick and Boggan Quarry Products which is located in Drinagh.

There are no industries within the study area operating under a State Mining License or a State Mining Lease in accordance with the Minerals Developments Act 1940 – 1999. There are also no Mineral Prospecting Licences granted within the study area.

4.2.10 Water Quality, Fisheries & Flooding

A desk based assessment of the study area was undertaken to identify the existing freshwater and estuarine water quality, the fisheries value of surface waters and the potential for flooding within the study area. The assessment was undertaken taking account of the requirements of the NRA Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes. Relevant publications and websites regarding water quality and fisheries in the area were reviewed. The Office of Public Works’ (OPW) flood mapping tool (www.floodmaps.ie) was accessed to delineate areas within the study area that are susceptible to flooding. ______

3 “Tors” are masses of exposed bedrock, standing abruptly above their surroundings, and typically, but not exclusively developed on granitic rocks. It may be formed by selective subsurface weathering followed by the removal of the weathered debris, by differential frost-shattering, or as an end-product of an escarpment retreat under semi-arid conditions.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 36 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Consultation was carried out with the following:  South Eastern River Basin District Project Office,  Eastern Regional Fisheries Board (ERFB),  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and  Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (DCENR).

4.2.10.1 Water Resources

The River Slaney is the most significant waterbody in the study area. This is a major catchment rising in the Glen of Imaal near Lugnaquilla in and flowing south to where it flows into the Irish Sea at Wexford Harbour. The River Slaney within the study area consists of the Slaney Estuary and is tidal in nature.

There are numerous other streams and rivers within the study area including Clonmore River, Tinnokilla Stream, Ballyvoleen River, Mulmontry River, Cleristown Stream, Assaly River, Bridgetown River and Bishop’s Water. There are also numerous unnamed streams and rivers within the study area.

There are a small number of lakes present within the study area and are listed in Table 4.3 and a reservoir is located at Coolree. See Part 3 – Constraints Study, Figure 7.10.1 for details of all water resources.

Table 4.3: Lakes within the Study Area Lake Segment Area (m2) Townland Code 12_119 9125 Whitestown Lower or Hermitage 12_121 1112 Rathaspick 12_127 8392 Drinagh South 12_128 2435 Whitestown Upper 12_131 6495 Levitstown 12_132 8826 Johnstown 12_140 49227 Johnstown 12_141 20285 Johnstown 12_17 444 Whitefort 12_89 637 Ballyhoge 12_93 823 Ballyhoge 12_94 630 Ballyhoge 12_95 631 Coolnaboy 12_101 43370 Newbay 12_117 2406 Whitestown Upper

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 37 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Lake Segment Area (m2) Townland Code 12_118 3844 Whitestown Lower and Hermitage

4.2.10.2 Water Quality

Estuarine

The most recent classification of coastal and transitional waters is the Interim Classification of Irish Coastal and Transitional Waters for the purposes of the EU Water Framework Directive (2008), which was produced by the River Basin Districts and the EPA under the Water Framework Directive. Coastal and transitional waters are characterised based on their ecological status, general physico-chemical elements, biological quality elements, specific relevant pollutants elements and hydromorphological quality elements. The upper and lower Slaney estuaries are characterised as having a ‘moderate’ status.

Freshwater Resources

Water quality in the River Slaney, Tinnokilla Stream, Bridgetown River, Cleristown Stream and Mulmontry River is monitored by the EPA.

Presented in Table 4.4 below is data from the 2004–2006 surveys of the Slaney, Tinnokilla stream, Bridgetown, Cleristown and Mulmontry surface waters. The total length of channel surveyed is presented and the length of channel classified as A – Unpolluted; B – Slightly polluted / eutrophic; C – Moderately Polluted and D – Seriously Polluted.

Table 4.4: Classification of River Channels River Name Code Year A B C D Total km km km km km Slaney 12S02 2004 82.0 15.0 - - 97.0 Tinnokilla 12T02 2004 8.5 - - - 8.5 Stream Bridgetown 13B01 2004 5.0 2.5 - - 7.5 (Wexford) Cleristown 13C04 2004 3.5 - 1.0 - 4.5 Mulmontry 13M01 2004 14.0 1.5 - - 15.5

Fisheries

The most important river for fisheries within the study area is the River Slaney. The River Slaney was ranked 12th of the top salmon producing

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 38 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

rivers in Ireland in 2006. It is one of the best known spring salmon (multi - sea - winter) fisheries in Ireland. However, over the past twenty years the fishery has been in decline with poor returns to both the rod and the commercial fisheries.

There are numerous tributaries of the Slaney and independent systems within the study area that are important rivers / streams for salmonids. Following consultation with the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board, the primary streams / rivers within the study area that are important for salmonids include:  the Assaly River, which has a good run of sea trout,  the Clonmore River, which has excellent populations of all classes of juvenile salmonids,  the Ballyvoleen River;  the Bridgetown, which has runs of sea trout and good populations of brown trout;  the Cleristown Stream, and  the Mulmontry River, which is also a salmonid watercourse.

There are no designated shellfish waters within the study area. However, shellfish production does occur in Wexford Harbour. Inner and Outer Wexford Harbour have been proposed for designation.

Flooding

Within the study area, the National Flood Hazard Mapping available at www.floodmaps.ie indicates that areas of south east Wexford Town have experienced flooding. Most recorded flood events have been attributed to a combination of high tide and poor drainage.

The National Flood Hazard Mapping indicates that there are benefiting lands in the south east of the study area between Piercetown and Killinick. Benefiting lands are areas of land subject to flooding or poor drainage that might benefit from the implementation of Arterial (Major) Drainage Schemes (under the Arterial Drainage Act 1945).

4.3 Conclusion

The constraints within the study area offer significant obstacles to the identification of a preferred route option. The main constraints identified within the study area are detailed below.

The study area is primarily rural in nature, however the prevalence of significant levels of one–off rural housing and ribbon development dispersed throughout the study area will offer significant constraints to

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 39 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

the development of a preferred route option. The incidence of ribbon development along the main access routes to Wexford town, in particular, will require careful consideration at Route Selection stage to ensure a minimal impact on the local population.

Sites of Archaeological and Architectural significance are widespread throughout the study area (394 cultural heritage constraints identified). However, a number of locations within the study area can be considered to contain a higher than average density of Archaeological and Architectural constraints and during the Route Selection stage careful consideration will be given to these areas in order to minimise any potential impact on either identified or as yet unidentified sites of archaeological or architectural heritage. These locations are;  Ferrycarrig,  Johnstown,  Rathmacknee,  Tagoat,  Rathaspick,  Ballykilliane,  Coolstuff (Townland), and  c. 2km south of Oilgate.

The preferred route corridor should be sensitive to the topography and landform of the study area and seek to minimise embankments and cuttings where possible, thereby reducing impacts upon the landscape and visual amenity of the area. The main topographical feature that will act as a significant constraint within the study area is Forth Mountain, which is located in the centre of the study area.

Major constraints within the study area include areas of ecological conservation interest such as Forth Mountain pNHA, Slaney River Valley SAC and Wexford Slobs and Harbour SPA and pNHA. At the Route Selection stage careful consideration will be given to these areas in order to minimise any potential impact on the ecology of the area arising from the preferred route option. As a crossing of the River Slaney is a prerequisite to any route option, careful consideration will be required to ensure a crossing location is chosen that minimises the impact on the river and the qualifying criteria of the SAC during both the construction and operational phase of the scheme.

All river channels within the study area are considered to be constraints due to the requirement to cross the river channel by means of a bridge or culvert crossing. From both engineering and environmental considerations the preferred route option should minimise the number of river crossings where possible.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 40 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

5. Feasible Route Options

5.1 Introduction

Following the Constraints Study, as outlined in Chapter 4, multiple road alignment combinations were designed having regard to the constraints identified, topography, and appropriate design standards for the purpose of identification of feasible alternative route options to the existing road. These options generally require a second bridge crossing of the River Slaney, which may be required in consideration of the following constraints:  The existing road cross-section, alignment, and frequency of junctions and local accesses on the approaches to the existing bridge necessitate the imposition of the 60kph speed limit currently in place on the existing N11.  Utilising the existing Ferrycarrig bridge alone to cross the River Slaney would result in the continued use of this bridge crossing for local and national traffic together with pedestrians and cyclists which presents a significant continued risk of collisions involving all road users.  Topographic, environmental, and cultural constraints on both side of the existing bridge pose significant constraints if replacement or widening of existing bridge was to be considered.

Insofar as the current bridge comprises a single carriageway, consideration should be given to utilising the existing Ferrycarrig Bridge for local traffic use and a new crossing could be provided to cater for national traffic. The separation of national and local traffic is considered desirable on safety grounds insofar as separation would reduce the potential for collisions. It is noted that in period 2002 to 2009 two fatal collisions in the vicinity of Ferrycarrig Bridge have occurred.

Following the undertaking of a Lidar topographic survey, a digital terrain model (DTM) was produced and used to generate 1m contours of the study area. Preliminary road alignments were then designed to the appropriate design standards, taking account of identified constraints, and having regard to the location of landowner boundaries. Following review, eight primary feasible route options (Route Options A to H) emerged for assessment.

It is important to note that no level of importance or preference should be attributed to or assumed from the lettering of the eight primary feasible route options (Route Options A to H). The lettering was based on crossings of the River Slaney only, running east to west. The route options are briefly summarised below and are shown in Part 4 - Figure 5.1.1.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 41 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

5.2 Feasible Route Options

5.2.1 Route Option A

Route Option A begins at the southern end of the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme and passes east of Oilgate continuing east of the existing N11 crossing the River Slaney near the existing Ferrycarrig Bridge. From here, the route follows the existing N11 and the N25 passing southwest of the existing Rosslare Road Roundabout. It then passes Stephenstown running east of the existing N25 and continues east running north of Tagoat ending at Rosslare Harbour. See Figure Part 4 - 5.2.1.

5.2.2 Route Option B

Route Option B begins at the southern end of the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme, passes east of Oilgate before joining the existing N11 south of Oilgate, and follows the existing N11 before crossing the River Slaney near the existing Ferrycarrig Bridge. From here, the route follows the existing N11 and the N25 passing southwest of the existing Rosslare Road Roundabout. It then passes Stephenstown and continues east running north of Tagoat and ends at Rosslare Harbour. See Part 4 - Figure 5.2.2.

5.2.3 Route Option C

Route Option C begins at the southern end of the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme, passes east of Oilgate, and continues east of the existing N11 south of Kyle Cross Roads. It then crosses the River Slaney west of Ferrycarrig Bridge. The route continues south crossing the N25 east of Barntown and west of the existing N11/N25 roundabout. It runs west of Stephenstown, then passes south of Killinick and Tagoat, and ends at Rosslare Harbour. See Part 4 - Figure 5.2.3.

5.2.4 Route Option D

Route Option D begins at the southern end of the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme and passes east of Oilgate before crossing the existing N11 south of Oilgate. It continues to the west of the existing N11 crossing the River Slaney west of Ferrycarrig Bridge. From here, the route passes west of the N11 as far as the N11/N25 Roundabout and then follows the existing N25 passing southwest of the existing Rosslare Road Roundabout. It then passes Stephenstown running east

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 42 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

of the existing N25 and continues east running north of Tagoat ending at Rosslare Harbour. See Part 4 - Figure 5.2.4.

5.2.5 Route Option E

Route Option E begins at the southern end of the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme and passes east of Oilgate before crossing the existing N11 south of Oilgate. It continues to the west of the existing N11 crossing the River Slaney west of Ferrycarrig Bridge. The route continues south passing east of Barntown and west of the existing N25 and then west of Stephenstown, passing south of Killinick and Tagoat ending at Rosslare Harbour. See Part 4 - Figure 5.2.5.

5.2.6 Route Option F

Route Option F begins at the southern end of the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme, passes east of Oilgate, and continues east of the existing N11 before crossing west near Kyle Cross Roads. It crosses the River Slaney south of Deep’s Bridge. The route swings southeast then east, parallel to the River Slaney and continues south crossing the N25 to the east of Barntown and west of the N11/N25 roundabout. It continues west of the existing N25 and then west of Stephenstown passing south of Killinick and Tagoat ending at Rosslare Harbour. See Part 4 - Figure 5.2.6.

5.2.7 Route Option G

Route Option G begins at the southern end of the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme and passes west of Oilgate continuing west of the existing N11 before crossing the River Slaney south of Deep’s Bridge. The route continues southwest crossing the N25 west of Larkin’s Cross Roads. It continues south passing west of Forth Mountain and then continues in an easterly direction crossing the existing N25 north of Stephenstown. The route continues east, running north of Tagoat ending at Rosslare Harbour. See Part 4 - Figure 5.2.7.

5.2.8 Route Option H

Route Option H begins at the southern end of the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme and passes west of Oilgate and the existing N11 crossing the River Slaney to the south of King’s Island. It continues south passing west of the River Slaney and crossing the existing N25 west of Larkin’s Cross Roads. It continues south passing west of Forth Mountain, continues in an easterly direction passing south of Killinick and Tagoat, and ends at Rosslare Harbour. See Part 4 - Figure 5.2.8.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 43 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

5.2.9 Alternatives

Cross-over alternatives were considered at a number of locations thus providing a series of possible Route Options Combinations. Cross- overs are located at:  Kyle Cross Roads  South of Kyle Cross Roads  East of Barntown  2 nr cross-overs West of Stephenstown  2 nr cross-overs South of Ashfield Cross Roads.

5.3 Route Selection Public Consultation

The NRA Project Management Guidelines require that, once feasible route options have been identified, a Public Consultation should be held to inform members of the public and affected landowners of such route options.

The Route Selection Public Consultation was held on June 14th and 15th 2010 in the Ferrycarrig Hotel in Wexford.

Prior to the Public Consultation opening to the public, a presentation of the feasible route options was made to the elected officials of Wexford County Council, Wexford Borough Council, and the Transportation Strategic Policy Committee.

Over the two days of the consultation, staff members from Wexford County Council, Tramore House Regional Design Office (THRDO), and consultants Mott MacDonald were available to address queries raised by the Public. Individuals attending from the respective organisations included the Project Liaison Officer and Administrative Staff from Wexford County Council, the Project Manager from THRDO, and a Director, two Associates, a Principal Engineer, an Ecologist and a Project Engineer from Mott MacDonald.

5.3.1 Display Boards

Display boards showing the feasible route options together with the identified constraints were prepared and displayed. Each route option was displayed as a 300m wide corridor. A Constraints drawing was also displayed showing identified constraints within the study area.

In addition to the display boards that illustrated the feasible route options, large-scale A0 drawings showing the feasible route options overlaying OS mapping were available on tables and were used to

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 44 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

discuss details of the feasible route options with members of the public. These large-scale drawings helped the public to identify land in their ownership. Such drawings were a valuable resource during discussions with the public.

In the course of one to one discussions with members of the public, consultation staff recorded information and concerns received on pro forma comment sheets that included a small scale drawing of the proposed route options, space for comments, and an area to record names and addresses. A blank comment sheet is included in Part 2 - Appendix A.3.

5.3.2 Brochure & Questionnaire

A brochure and questionnaire were also prepared and distributed to members of the public during the public consultation. The brochure showed all the feasible route options as well as describing each route option. The brochure and questionnaire were available in both English and Irish language versions. The brochure also contained information about the background to the project and information on the subsequent phases of the project. The questionnaire invited the public to submit comments on the feasible route options. A copy of the brochure and questionnaire is included in Part 2 – Appendix A.1 & A.2 respectively.

5.3.3 Public Attendance

A large number of people attended the Public Consultation over the two days with 473 contact names recorded, where on occasion such contact names were representative of families or groups of people. Furthermore, in the course of the public consultation 171 comment sheets were completed.

Some members of the public requested extracts from the display maps, enlarged near their property. In order to respond to such requests and other similar future requests, ten maps of the study area were produced from display maps that showed the feasible route options together with OS mapping. Such maps included notes advising that “the width of the coloured Route Option lines should not be taken as representing the precise location or width of the final route layout” in that “the route may lie somewhere within the white shaded area” given on the maps. Copies of maps relevant to the areas requested by members of the public were sent by post during the weeks following the public consultation. Such mapping was also placed on the Wexford County Council website at www.wexford.ie/routeselection. A typical detailed map is included in Part 2 - Appendix A.4.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 45 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

5.3.4 Route Selection Public Consultation Responses

There was a large response by the public to the Public Consultation. The return date for the questionnaires and submissions was initially set for July 16th, 2010. However, following a request from the public this was extended by four weeks until August 12th, 2010. In fact, responses continued to be submitted to Wexford County Council after that date and up to the end of September 2010, and in total 2,076 responses were received. These generally consist of returned questionnaires, letters, and submissions. All of the correspondence was input into a custom-built database that facilitated their review by members of the design team.

Part 4 - Figures 5.3.1 & 5.3.2 show a summary of the main findings and statistics from the responses received.

Correspondence received has been reviewed by the design team and classified into different Engineering and Environmental criteria to aid in the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment.

A letter acknowledging receipt of Public Consultation correspondence was issued to those who returned responses and supplied contact details.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 46 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

6. Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment

6.1 Introduction

The NRA Project Management Guidelines (2010) outline that the Route Selection Process should be a 3-stage process and Stage 1 is outlined below.

Stage 1 of Route Selection Process

Source: NRA Project Management Guidelines (2010)

Following the development and display of the feasible route options, a Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment was carried out. As part of this, an assessment of the ‘Do-Nothing’, ‘Do-Minimum’, and ‘Management Option’ alternatives was carried out.

The ‘Management Option’ is detailed in the Common Appraisal Framework published by the Department of Transport in June 2009 and outlined below.

Source: Guidelines on a Common Appraisal Framework for Transport Projects and Programmes, June 2009

The ‘Do Nothing’ option is not considered to be feasible because;  several sections of the route are not in accordance with current design standards for national primary routes,  significant improvements in relation to junctions, accesses, alignments, signing, etc. are considered to be required.  The existing N11 carriageway is currently running at or over capacity in certain locations and therefore does not have the capacity for the predicted traffic.  The existing N11 carriageway in the vicinity of Ferrycarrig was required to have a 60kph speed limit imposed due to the frequency

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 47 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

of junctions/accesses, the horizontal alignment, and proximity of running traffic to uprotected bridge parapets.  The existing N25 carriageway is currently running at or over capacity in certain locations and therefore does not have the capacity for the predicted traffic.  The accident statistics along the existing N25 carriageway between the Rosslare Road Roundabout and Rosslare Harbour indicate that the majority of the accidents are associated with junctions and accesses and there is a high frequency of these junctions and accesses. It is not possible to limit these junctions and accesses without major engineering intervention.

The ‘Do-Minimum’ alternative is included in the Route Option B corridor, while the ‘Management Option’ is completely online. It was determined that the ‘Do-Minimum’ and ‘Management Option’ alternatives should be brought forward to Stage 2 Project Appraisal of Route Options as this would be the most appropriate stage at which to assess these alternatives.

6.2 Route Option Combinations

The eight feasible route options intersect at various locations and, as outlined previously, a number of crossover links were also identified which permitted one route option to divert onto a different route option along the way. This resulted in a much larger number of individual route options drawn from the eight basic route options but made up of combinations of different intersecting parts.

A simple example of this approach is illustrated in Part 2 - Appendix B1.

Applying the logic of the above example to the eight feasible route options identified for the scheme, the combinations of different route options available, by means of intersections of route options and of identified “cross-over links”, leads to a total of 187 separate “Route Option Combinations” for consideration. There were 10 zones and 54 links that make up the route option combinations.

Route options and cross-overs are illustrated in Part 4 - Figure 6.1, which also includes the zone and link structure. A breakdown of each route option combination is given in Part 2 - Appendix B2.

6.3 Methodology

The Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment comprises an evaluation of the various route options under the criteria of Environment,

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 48 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Engineering, and Economy. Each link that makes up the route options (and thus, the route option combinations) is evaluated under each of the criteria. The results of the link evaluations are then amalgamated for each route option combination, therefore the route option combination as a whole is evaluated for retention or otherwise in Stage 2 Project Appraisal of Route Options. This ensures that an overview of the entire route option is maintained, and avoids the recommendation of discrete/unjoined segments of route option. For example, if length were a criterion, the optimum recommendation within each zone would be for the shortest link, but those links may not necessarily connect.

Each section (Engineering, Environment, and Economy) below discusses the criteria in general, and how the evaluation was carried out. Each section looks at a number of sub-criteria to develop the rating for the main criterion. All evaluations are based on findings of “High Preference”, “Medium Preference”, or “Low Preference” and a matrix of all 187 route option combinations for each sub-criterion as well as the main criterion is shown in each section.

6.4 Engineering Assessment

6.4.1 Introduction

The Engineering Assessment of the route options has been undertaken in line with the following National Roads Authority (NRA) documents, which were current at the time of the assessment:  National Roads Authority Project Management Guidelines, (NRA PMG 2010),  National Roads Authority Project Appraisal Guidelines, (NRA PAG 2008), and  National Roads Authority Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, (NRA DMRB 2010).

The purpose of the Engineering Assessment is to collect, assess and evaluate information relating to the engineering elements of all route options.

The Engineering Assessment was carried out under the following headings:  Technical Standards,  Principal Junctions & Interchanges,  Structures,  Geology,  Groundwater,  Earthworks,

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 49 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

 Road Safety Impact Assessment,  Drainage,  Construction,  Service Conflicts and  Land & property.

The results of the Engineering Assessment are shown in the Engineering Framework Matrix in Section 6.4.13 and are discussed in sections 6.4.2 to 6.4.12.

6.4.2 Technical Standards

Indicative alignments were developed for each feasible route option by utilising the centreline of each feasible route option as the centreline of the respective alignment. NRA TD9/07 of the NRA DMRB was used in the development of these indicative alignments. The alignments were designed to a 120km/h design speed.

6.4.2.1 Horizontal and Vertical Alignment

All feasible route options and all associated route option combinations comply with the relevant standards for both horizontal and vertical alignments contained in NRA TD9/07 of the NRA DMRB.

Relaxations to the vertical gradient are required in two locations along parts of the existing N11 and N25. No further Departures or Relaxations from Standard were incorporated into the indicative alignment design.

The hilliness of each route option combination was also analysed and it was demonstrated that there were only minor differences in terms of hilliness between all route option combinations.

6.4.2.2 Conclusion

The majority of route option combinations are considered “High Preference” with a “Medium Preference” shown for the route option combinations incorporating relaxations. For detailed preferences for each route option combination, refer to the Engineering Framework Matrix in Section 6.4.13.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 50 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

6.4.3 Principal Junctions & Interchanges

6.4.3.1 Principal Junctions

Having regard to junction spacing and the need for connectivity, four locations for principal junctions were identified as follows:  Junction with M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme in the vicinity of Oilgate at the northern end of the scheme,  Junction between the N11 and the N25,  Junction in the vicinity of Stephenstown/Killinick, and  Junction at Rosslare Harbour at the southern end of the scheme.

The junctions at either end of the scheme are common to all route option combinations.

The location of the junction between the N11 and N25 will be dependent on where the Route Option intersects the N25. In this regard, Route Options A to F join to a link road that bypasses Barntown to the north and Route Options G & H connect directly to the N25 west of Larkin’s Crossroads. It is noted that a Barntown Link may or may not be included in the final solution.

In order to maintain access between the national road network and both the south of Wexford Town and , a principal junction is being considered near Stephenstown/Killinick between the existing national road and the proposed scheme.

Since the number of principal junctions is consistent for all route option combinations, it is considered that all route option combinations have an equal preference in terms of the Principal Junctions assessment.

6.4.3.2 Interaction with Existing Road Network

The interaction between the route option combinations and the existing road network was also assessed. This assessment examined the effect, and the number, of interactions with each of the following road types:  National Roads,  Regional Roads,  Local Roads, and  Access Roads.

The assessment demonstrated that the number of interactions per kilometre was generally quite low with the exception of a small number of route option combinations.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 51 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

6.4.3.3 Conclusion

Most route option combinations were assessed as “High Preference”, though in the few instances where the aggregate number of interactions was slightly higher, a “Medium Preference” resulted. For detailed preferences for each route option combination, refer to the Engineering Framework Matrix in Section 6.4.13.

6.4.4 Structures

6.4.4.1 River Slaney Crossing

As part of the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment of the route options, it was determined that the River Slaney Crossing would be a relatively large structure for all crossing locations. At this stage, it is necessary to consider the engineering aspects of each crossing to determine possible structural forms, span configurations, and possible constraints to each route option. This information allows a preliminary economic analysis to be undertaken and permits an informed environmental analysis to be carried out for each crossing location.

The preliminary design considered the option of widening the existing Ferrycarrig Bridge, located approximately 6.5km to the north-west of Wexford. The existing bridge, constructed in 1980, is an eight span low-level precast concrete composite bridge with an overall span of 125m. The overall width of the bridge is approximately 15.5m wide. It runs perpendicular to the river channel and both its northern and southern approaches are in areas of significant cut. The alignment passes through a narrow corridor between Annex 1 Woodland and Tower House on the north side of the river and adjacent Ferrycarrig Castle on the south side. It is considered that widening the existing bridge would create major traffic disruption to the existing N11 during the construction period. Furthermore, it could involve significant river works within the SAC to construct necessary additional pier extensions. Additionally, the cuttings on the approaches, which are particularly deep on the south side, would need to be widened and/or steepened substantially. Another consideration was road safety due to the high number of junctions/accesses in close proximity to each other on both sides of the bridge facilitating local traffic. Such a density on a national primary route creates additional safety hazards. A high-level alignment route option would reduce the number of junctions/accesses in line with current best practice and separates local from national traffic.

During the initial review of crossings, both bridges and tunnels were considered at a number of locations in order to assess their feasibility

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 52 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

for crossing the river. However, due to topographical constraints, the tunnel option was not deemed feasible for any crossing location. Therefore, only bridge options are being considered from here on.

A variety of bridge structures were considered at each location including Girder Bridge (steel or concrete), Cable Stay Bridge, Extrados Bridge, and Arch Bridge structures. Generally, bridge piers were kept out of the River Slaney, as far as practicable, to avoid the possible engineering and environmental difficulties associated with positioning supports in a river environment. A number of different types of structure were found to be generally feasible at each crossing location.

In some locations, the River Slaney is in close proximity to the existing Iarnród Éireann railway line from Dublin to Rosslare. As far as practicable, the options considered have attempted to separate the span over the railway from the span over the river to allow for easier compliance with Iarnród Éireann’s requirements.

The different crossing locations are briefly discussed below.

Route Option A Crossing & Route Option B Crossing

Route Options A & B cross the River Slaney at the same location, in very close proximity to the existing Ferrycarrig Bridge but at a higher level. This crossing is located at a narrowing in the River Slaney where the width of the river at Mean High Water Spring (MHWS) is approximately 110m. It is noted that a ‘Do Minimum’ or ‘Management Option’ Route Option B using the existing low-level bridge will be considered at Stage 2 Project Appraisal of Route Options

In relation to a high-level bridge option at this location, the following constraints also apply:  The existing Ferrycarrig Bridge carrying the N11; This impacts on where bridge piers can be located;  The alignment on the north side of the river needs to pass through a narrow corridor between the Annex 1 Woodland and Tower House. The existing N11 already runs between the woodland and Tower House in an area of significant cut on its north-eastern side. This pushes the vertical alignment of the new bridge over the existing N11 and impacts on the location of the bridge piers;  Ferrycarrig Castle on the south side of the river and the location of the existing N11 immediately east of the castle;  Further constraints to this crossing are provided by the R730 Regional Road from Wexford to Moneytucker and some Local Roads to the north and south of the crossing location.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 53 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

The combination of the above constraints together with:  the necessary maintaining of the existing road network and associated accesses;  the tying in of elevated bridge approaches to the existing alignment, coupled with;  the available bridge support locations on both sides of the river; suggests that a skewed crossing is the most favourable configuration for a high level bridge crossing at this location.

Nevertheless, this option has an advantage over other crossing options in that the Dublin to Rosslare railway line is located away from the river crossing location, thus it can be bridged with a separate and significantly smaller structure obviating the need for Iarnród Éireann’s Structures Approval for the bridge structure crossing the River Slaney.

The overall length of this crossing option would be in the order of 250m from abutment to abutment.

Route Option C Crossing & Route Option D Crossing

Route Options C & D cross the River Slaney at the same location, approximately 1km to the west of the existing Ferrycarrig Bridge. The width of the river at MHWS at this location is approximately 230m. This crossing is located at a relative narrow point in the River Slaney, with woodland to the northeast of the crossing location and a low-lying marsh to the south-west, which were taken into account in this assessment. Further constraints to this crossing are the R730 Regional Road from Wexford to Kiltealy and the Dublin to Rosslare railway line to the south of the river.

The overall length of this crossing option would be in the order of 650m from abutment to abutment.

Route Option E Crossing

Route Option E crosses the River Slaney approximately 1.5km to the west of the existing Ferrycarrig Bridge. The width of the river at MHWS at this location is approximately 170m. This crossing is constrained by woodland, both to the northeast and to the south of the crossing location, and a low-lying marsh to the south, which were taken into account in this assessment. Further constraints to this crossing are provided by the R730 Regional Road from Wexford to Kiltealy and the Dublin to Rosslare railway line to the south of the river.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 54 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

The overall length of this structure would be in the order of 510m from abutment to abutment.

Route Option F Crossing

Route Option F crosses the River Slaney to the northwest of Barntown, approximately 3.5km upstream of the existing Ferrycarrig Bridge. The width of the river at MHWS at this location is approximately 175m. This crossing is constrained by a low-lying marsh to the northeast, which was taken into account in this assessment. Woodland is also evident to the southwest. A further constraint to this crossing is presented by the Dublin to Rosslare railway line to the southwest of the river.

The total length of this crossing would be in the order of 520m from abutment to abutment.

Route Option G Crossing

Route Option G crosses the River Slaney at approximately the same location as Route Option F but with a different alignment. The width of the river at MHWS at this location is approximately 150m. This crossing is constrained by a low-lying marsh to the northeast, which was taken into account in this assessment. Woodland is also evident to the southwest. The Dublin to Rosslare railway line, southwest of the river, presents another constraint to this crossing.

The overall length would be in the order of 625m from abutment to abutment.

Route Option H Crossing

Route Option H crosses the River Slaney further upstream than the other route options. It is located west of Oilgate village. The width of the river at MHWS at this location is approximately 130m. This crossing is constrained by a low-lying marsh to the northeast that was taken into account in this assessment. An additional constraint to this crossing is provided by the Dublin to Rosslare railway line to the southwest of the river.

The total length of this structure would be in the order of 570m from abutment to abutment.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 55 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

6.4.4.2 Rail Bridges

Rail infrastructure in County Wexford consists of the Rosslare to Dublin line and the Rosslare to Waterford line, both of which traverse the study area and interact with all route option combinations. The Dublin to Rosslare line runs in a north-south direction, parallel to the River Slaney as it flows through the study area. The Rosslare to Waterford line runs in an east-west direction at the southern extent of the study area passing by the village of Killinick. While the Rosslare to Waterford line has closed, it would not be prudent to ignore it in assessments, as it has not been abandoned.

As previously mentioned, Route Options C to H inclusive will require a single structure to span both the River Slaney and the Dublin to Rosslare railway line. Conversely, Route Options A and B will require a separate structure to span the railway obviating the need for Iarnród Éireann’s Structures Approval for the bridge structure crossing the River Slaney.

The Rosslare to Waterford railway line crosses all route option combinations at the southern section of the scheme thus necessitating the construction of a railway structure on each route option combination.

6.4.4.3 Road Bridges and Culverts

An assessment of the interaction between the route option combinations and the existing road network was carried out to assess the impact that the route options would have, in relation to the number of overbridges and underbridges required, for each route option combination. The findings of the assessment demonstrate that the number of overbridges required for each route option combination would be greater than that of underbridges. It is considered that the number of overbridges required for each route option combination would be broadly similar for each route option combination; however, there would be a difference in the number of underbridges/underpasses required on each route option combination.

A further assessment was also carried out to determine the number of culverts required for each route option combination.

6.4.4.4 Conclusion

All route option combinations include a major crossing of the River Slaney, 2 railway bridges (either separate from the River Slaney

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 56 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

crossing or incorporated within it), between 18 and 25 overbridges, between 5 and 20 underbridges and between 12 and 25 culverts.

The costs of the structures are included in the Economy evaluation, Section 6.6, and each route option combination is neutral in terms of railway structures. No structure presents unmanageable difficulties and thus no route option combination has been assigned a “Low Preference” in terms of Structures. The rating of each route option combination under the structures sub-criterion is based on the approximate length of the main structure crossing the River Slaney together with the number of structures in each of the other categories under consideration. This is shown in the Engineering Framework matrix in Section 6.4.13.

6.4.5 Geology

6.4.5.1 Methodology

A geotechnical desk study was undertaken on all route option combinations in accordance with the criteria outlined in the aforementioned documents and the NRA’s Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes. All geotechnical and geological information available at the time was examined, including data from the Geological Society of Ireland (GSI) website and previous ground investigations within the Study Area.

6.4.5.2 Underlying ground conditions

It is expected that route option combinations are predominantly underlain by glacial till and, for the most part, no particular difficulties are anticipated with these deposits. They are expected to provide a suitable foundation for both road pavement and structures in the majority of locations.

The amount and type of excavation will depend on the topography and geology of the study area, as well as the design of the road alignment. It is anticipated that large excavations for cuttings will take place in a number of locations during construction of the road.

No significant problems are anticipated in relation to the removal of quaternary deposits across the site.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 57 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

The bedrock geology of the study area is very variable and the anticipated excavatability of the rock is thus difficult to quantify. However, all route option combinations encounter this variability.

6.4.5.3 Potential Geological Hazards

Dissolution Features (Karst)

While a desk study search revealed that there are no karst features recorded by the GSI within the study area, it is noted that a karstified aquifer is present and therefore karst features may be present. In addition, a number of public consultation responses have noted possible karst features in the vicinity of the Drinagh, Murntown, and Piercetown areas. These observations are consistent with the information discovered during the desk study, which revealed that areas are underlain by limestone rock and a karstified aquifer. Any detailed design will need to take account of the possible presence of karst features (particularly in relation to control of water discharge). The presence of karst features can only be determined by further site assessments, which will be carried out in line with the requirements of the NRA Project Management Guidelines. It is noted that the karst zone extends across all route option combinations affecting each one to a similar extent.

Landslides

According to the “Landslides in Ireland Report”, published by the GSI in association with the Irish Landslides Working Group in June 2006, County Wexford has no recorded landslide events.

Seismicity

The levels of seismic activity in Ireland are generally very low. A magnitude 2 event is typically recorded approximately once every decade. The risk to the scheme from seismicity is therefore considered low and is neutral across all route option combinations.

Poor ground conditions, including peat and made ground

Areas of wet ground and peat will be a constraint to the scheme construction and will add to the overall cost of the scheme. This is due largely to the requirement for more onerous foundations in these locations. Furthermore, there may be a requirement to remove areas of poor soil or to incorporate remediation measures, such as lime/cement stabilisation, in such areas to cater for road construction.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 58 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Areas of wet ground are likely to be present adjacent to the River Slaney and in the vicinity of the Slaney estuary, as well as along the margins of smaller watercourses throughout the study area.

A review of the public consultation responses and available OS Mapping, both current and historic, has highlighted a number of locations where soft ground is anticipated. The areas of soft ground identified affect all route option combinations equally in the southern portion of the scheme. However, north of the River Slaney, Route Options A, B, C, D, E, F, and G are affected by soft ground areas to a slightly greater extent than Route Option H.

Contaminated Land

From the desk study that has been undertaken at this stage, it is not anticipated that any major areas of contaminated land will be encountered along any route option.

6.4.5.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

From the above assessment, it can be seen that there is little variance between all route option combinations from an engineering geology viewpoint and consequently all route option combinations have been given the same rating. For detailed preferences for each route option combination, refer to the Engineering Framework Matrix in Section 6.4.13.

6.4.6 Groundwater

The GSI website provides mapping which classifies aquifers into three distinct categories namely:  Regionally Important,  Locally Important, and  Poor Aquifers.

A vulnerability rating has also been ascribed to each aquifer by GSI. Such a rating represents the intrinsic geological and hydrogeological characteristics that determine the ease with which groundwater may be contaminated by human activities. Aquifer vulnerability is determined by the GSI as either:  Extreme,  High,  Moderate, and  Low.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 59 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

The length of each route option combination that intersects each aquifer type was calculated. The assessment combined the scale of aquifer intersection with the importance and the vulnerability. It should be noted that the assessment under Groundwater in this section relates to the engineering aspects – the ratings for each route option combination are shown in the Engineering Framework Matrix in Section 6.4.13.

6.4.7 Earthworks

Based on indicative alignments, earthworks quantities were generated for each route option and thus each route option combination. As described earlier, the alignments and earthworks quantities for each route option combination are based on a ground model utilising 1m contours. The earthworks for the indicative alignments were used to compile the overall cut and fill volumes for each route option combination. From these quantities an earthworks balance was derived for each route option combination.

Route option combinations that follow the local topography and have much of their length at-grade have been assigned a higher preference. These route option combinations tend to contain more sections of existing road and are predominantly located on, or near, the existing N11 and N25. For detailed preferences for each route option combination, refer to the Engineering Framework Matrix in Section 6.4.13.

6.4.8 Road Safety Impact Assessment

A review of the available safety statistics and road safety information was undertaken. As part of this review, collision records, in conjunction with Road Safety Authority (RSA) and European Road Assessment Program (EuroRAP) publications were examined with particular reference to the N11 and N25.

EuroRAP has rated the N25 between Barntown and Rosslare Harbour as having a medium collision risk. Both EuroRAP and the RSA recommend that upgrading existing single carriageway roads to Type 2 or Type 1 dual carriageways would greatly improve the safety of such roads. On average, single carriageway have a collision rate of 9 fatal, or injury collisions for every billion vehicle kilometres, whereas dual carriageways have an average collision rate of 4.9 fatal, or injury collisions for every billion vehicle kilometres.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 60 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

The road safety objective of the scheme is to minimise the amount of collisions for all road users. Throughout the lifecycle of the project, various road safety assessments will be undertaken including:  A review of the existing road was carried out during the Constraints Study.  During the route selection phase, a Stage F Road Safety audit, complying with NRA HD 19/09 of the NRA DMRB, was undertaken. Safety statistics are also included in the cost/benefit analysis undertaken at this stage.  Following completion of the preliminary design, a Stage 1 road safety audit will take place.  A Stage 2 road safety audit will be carried out on completion of the detailed design, and a Stage 3 road safety audit will take place following construction and prior to road opening.

For Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment, a comparative road safety assessment was carried out on each route option combination. This assessment examined the length of, and the number of junctions on, each route option combination. A longer route will have a higher collision rate due to its length, while a route option combination with a greater number of junctions will also have a higher collision rate.

As each route option combination has the same number of junctions, the road safety impact assessment is based on the length of each route option combination. All route option combinations, which contain sections of Route Options G & H that pass west of Forth Mountain, are longer than the other route option combinations by over 15%, and are therefore considered “Low Preference”.

The majority of remaining route option combinations are within 10% of the shortest route, and therefore, it is considered that there is little difference between remaining route option combinations. These route option combinations are considered a higher preference. For detailed preferences for each route option combination, refer to the Engineering Framework Matrix in Section 6.4.13.

6.4.9 Drainage

A desktop review was undertaken of the engineering aspects of the drainage design along all route option combinations. Aspects that may be impacted upon include the following:  Drainage Network Length,  Outfall Requirements,  Impact of Outfalls on National Heritage Areas (NHAs),  Impact of Outfalls on Special Area of Conversation (SAC),

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 61 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

 Impact of Outfalls on Special Protection Areas (SPAs),  Public consultation responses,  Water quality,  Aquatic Ecology,  Flood Events within the Study Area,  Groundwater Vulnerability, and  Number of Watercourses Crossed.

The drainage assessment concludes that the engineering challenges are of a similar nature for all route option combinations. It is considered that the engineering constraints can be designed out during Phase 3 - Design. However, longer lengths of drainage network, combined with a greater number of outfalls, resulted in a few route option combinations being given a lower preference. The majority of route option combinations were assigned a “High Preference”. For detailed preferences for each route option combination, refer to the Engineering Framework Matrix in Section 6.4.13.

6.4.10 Construction

In order to assess the impacts arising from the construction of the route option combinations, an assessment of the following sub-criteria was undertaken:  Traffic Management,  Site Access/ Egress Points, and  Earthworks.

Traffic management will be required where construction utilises some, or all, of the existing road. Route option combinations with only minor construction utilising existing roads are considered to be of higher preference. Route option combinations, which entail substantial construction on existing roads, are considered to have a lower preference.

In general, it is preferable to locate access and egress points for construction sites directly onto national or regional road networks while restricting the use of local roads. In terms of construction access/egress, route option combinations that contain a greater number of interactions with national and regional roads are assigned a higher preference.

The comparative earthworks balance, for each route option combination, north, and south of the River Slaney is important, as the River Slaney is a major restriction to the haulage of earthworks material. Route option combinations, which will not require the haulage

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 62 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

of earthworks material across the River Slaney, and those that only require a minor amount to be hauled across the River Slaney have been assigned a higher preference. Route option combinations, which will require large amounts of earthworks to be hauled on the existing road network across the River Slaney, have been assigned a lower preference.

In conclusion, route option combinations that have good access/egress and contain minimal construction on existing roads in conjunction with a good earthworks balance across the River Slaney are considered “High Preference”. All other route option combinations are considered medium preference. For detailed preferences for each route option combination, refer to the Engineering Framework Matrix in Section 6.4.13.

6.4.11 Service Conflicts

Information was gathered from the following service providers regarding the services they may have within the study area:  ESB,  Eircom,  Wexford County Council,  NTL, and  Bord Gáis Éireann.

The identified services in the area comprise ESB, Eircom, Foul Sewer, and Watermains. ESB services include Low Voltage (LV), Medium Voltage (MV), 38kV and 110kV and Eircom services include overhead, underground and fibre optic services. It was established that both NTL and Bord Gáis Éireann do not have any known services within the study area. The locations of existing services were obtained from the relevant service providers and an assessment was carried out on the conflicts between each existing service and the route option combinations.

Services conflicting with the scheme may have the effect of either disrupting the provision of the service or impacting on the construction of the scheme. There are also safety concerns such as working near ESB lines or contamination to watermains. Services are generally located along or adjacent to existing roads or residential areas.

Route option combinations that include sections of the existing road corridor typically contain a slightly higher concentration of services and such route option combinations are considered a lower preference. Similarly, route option combinations that conflict with 110kV ESB lines

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 63 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

are considered a lower preference. It is noted however, that there are only minor variations in the number of conflicts across the various route option combinations. In conclusion, route option combinations that include sections of the existing road corridor or 110kV ESB lines are deemed either medium preference or low preference, while all other route option combinations are deemed high preference in terms of comparative service conflicts. For detailed preferences for each route option combination, refer to the Engineering Framework Matrix in Section 6.4.13.

6.4.12 Land & Property

A search of all landowners affected by the route option combinations was carried out by the Land Registry. Using indicative alignments, approximate landtake was calculated for each route option combination. A preliminary assessment of the number of houses to be acquired along each route option combination was also carried out. Based on the information obtained from the Land Registry, the number of properties directly affected was also assessed.

The area of landtake is derived from the footprint of the indicative alignments. Route option combinations containing sections of Route Options G & H that pass to the west of Forth Mountain have a greater landtake area due to their greater length. Also, route option combinations containing sections of route within the existing road corridor all have a similar landtake area but may contain areas of land zoned for development purposes. Such route option combinations are considered to have a lower preference.

Route option combinations that contain large sections of existing road or pass through areas of extensive development will typically require acquisition of a greater number of houses than the other route option combinations. Such route option combinations are considered to have a lower preference.

Route option combinations which contain sections of Route Options G & H, or which contain sections of the existing road, generally affect more properties due to the greater length or more dense population along route option combinations. These route option combinations are considered a lower preference. All other route option combinations are considered to have a higher preference.

Route option combinations that contain sections of Route Option G & H are deemed a lower preference; as such, sections typically have a greater landtake and affect a large number of properties. Route option

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 64 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

combinations containing sections of existing road have a greater number of house acquisitions and a lower landtake; however, a greater proportion of those lands would be zoned for development purposes of some kind.

The remaining route option combinations are considered to be broadly similar and to be high preference. For detailed preferences for each route option combination, refer to the Engineering Framework Matrix in Section 6.4.13.

6.4.13 Engineering Framework Matrix

As outlined above, all possible route option combinations have been assessed under the engineering headings and have been assigned a High Preference (H), a Medium Preference (M), or a Low Preference (L) for each heading. An overall engineering preference has been assigned to each route option combination. This overall preference is based on a collective qualitative assessment of the eleven engineering headings, culminating in the assignment of an overall High, Medium, or Low Preference to each route combination.

The findings of the Engineering Assessment have been summarised in Table 6.1.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 65 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 6.1: Engineering Framework Matrix y

t

r r n n n y g e s e l e o t s o o s t

i n k e i i s a y c e p l e i t a t t n r l f r g r e c n g o p c a i o o a a w e a r u c i e o r u i n t n O t l r d S e w n i P r e

v c i

h c t e o n n h b r e v d f a i u c t s n t e & u e r r r e a g O m e n u u t r o G S a d D o n T o J r o o S P E n R E C C G R a L

1 H H H H H H H H H H M H 2 H H H H H H H H H H M H 3 H H H H H H H H H M M H 4 H H H H H H H H H M M H 5 H H H H H H M H H H M H 6 H H H H H H M H H H M H 7 H H H H H H H H H H M H 8 H H H H H H H H H H M H 9 H H H H H L H H M H M L 10 H H H H H M H H M H M M 11 H H H H H M M H H H M M 12 H H H H H M H H H H M H 13 H H H H H H H H M H H H 14 H H H H H M H H M H M M 15 H H H H H M H H M M M L 16 H H H H H M H H M H M M 17 H H H H H M H H M H M M 18 M H H H H M H H M H M L 19 M H H H H M H H M H M L 20 M H H H H M H H M H M L 21 H H H H H L H H M H M L 22 H H H H H L H H M H H M 23 H H H H H M H H M H H H 24 H H H H H L H H M H M L 25 H H H H H H H H M M M M 26 H H H H H H H H H M M H 27 H H M H H H H H M M M L 28 H H H H H M H H M M M L 29 H H M H H H H H M M M L 30 H H H H H H H H M H M H 31 H H M H H H H H H M M M 32 M H M H H H H H M M M L

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 66 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour y

t

r r n n n y g e s e l e o t s o o s t

i n k e i i s a y c e p l e i t a t t n r l f r g r e c n g o p c a i o o a a w e a r u c i e o r u i n t n O t l r d S e w n i P r e

v c i

h c t e o n n h b r e v d f a i u c t s n t e & u e r r r e a g O m e n u u t r o G S a d D o n T o J r o o S P E n R E C C G R a L

33 H H H H H M H H H M H H 34 H H H H H M H H H M H H 35 H H M H H M H H M H H M 36 H H H H H M H H H H H H 37 H H M H H L H H M H H L 38 H H H H H L H H M H M L 39 H H M H H M H H M H M L 40 H H M H H L H H M H M L 41 H H H H H L H H M H M L 42 H H H H H L H H M H M L 43 H H M H H M H H M M M L 44 H H M H H L H H M M M L 45 H H H H H L M H M H M L 46 H H M H H L M H M H M L 47 H H M H H L M H M M M L 48 H H H H H L M H M H M L 49 H H M H H H H H M M H M 50 H H M H H M M H M H H L 51 H H M H H M M H M M H L 52 H H H H H M M H M H H M 53 H H M H M L M H M H M L 54 H H H H M M M H M H M L 55 H H M H M M M H M H M L 56 H H M H M L M M M H M L 57 H H H H H H H H H M H H 58 H H H H H H H H M M M M 59 H M H H H H H H M M M L 60 H M H H H H H H M L M L 61 H H H H H H M H M M M L 62 H H H H H H M H M H M M 63 H H H H H H H H M M M M 64 H H H H H H H H M M M M 65 H H H H H M H H M M H M 66 H H H H H H H H M M M M 67 H H H H H H H H M M M M

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 67 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour y

t

r r n n n y g e s e l e o t s o o s t

i n k e i i s a y c e p l e i t a t t n r l f r g r e c n g o p c a i o o a a w e a r u c i e o r u i n t n O t l r d S e w n i P r e

v c i

h c t e o n n h b r e v d f a i u c t s n t e & u e r r r e a g O m e n u u t r o G S a d D o n T o J r o o S P E n R E C C G R a L

68 H H H H H M H H M M M L 69 H H H H H H H H M H H H 70 H H H H H H H H H H H H 71 H H H H H H H H M M M M 72 H H H H H H H H M M M M 73 H H M H H H H H H M M M 74 H H H H H H H H M H H H 75 H H H H H H H H H M M H 76 M H H H H H H H M H M M 77 H H H H H H H H M H H H 78 H H H H H M H H M H H H 79 H H H H H H H H H H H H 80 H H H H H M H H H H M H 81 H H H H H H H H H M H H 82 H H H H H H H H H M H H 83 H H H H H H H H H L M M 84 H H H H H H H H H L M M 85 H H M H H H H H H M M M 86 H H H H H H H H H H M H 87 H H H H H H H H H M M H 88 H H H H H H H H H M M H 89 H H H H H H H H M M H H 90 H H H H H H H H H M H H 91 H H H H H H H H H M H H 92 H H M H H H H H H H H H 93 H H H H H M H H M M H M 94 H H H H H M H H M H H H 95 H H H H H M H H M M M L 96 H H H H H H H H M M M M 97 H H H H H H H H M M M M 98 H H H H H H H H M M M M 99 H M H H H H H H M L M L 100 H H H H H H H H M M M M 101 H H H H H H H H M M M M 102 H H H H H H H H M M M M

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 68 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour y

t

r r n n n y g e s e l e o t s o o s t

i n k e i i s a y c e p l e i t a t t n r l f r g r e c n g o p c a i o o a a w e a r u c i e o r u i n t n O t l r d S e w n i P r e

v c i

h c t e o n n h b r e v d f a i u c t s n t e & u e r r r e a g O m e n u u t r o G S a d D o n T o J r o o S P E n R E C C G R a L

103 H H H H H H H H M M M M 104 H H H H H H H H M M H H 105 H H H H H H H H M M M M 106 H H H H H H H H M H M H 107 H H H H H H H H M H M H 108 H H H H H H H H M H H H 109 H H H H H H H H M M H H 110 H H H H H H H H M M M M 111 H H H H H H H H M M M M 112 H H H H H M H H M M M L 113 H H H H H H H H M H M H 114 H H H H H H H H M M M M 115 H H H H H H H H M H M H 116 H H M H H H H H H H H H 117 H H H H H H H H M H H H 118 H H H H H H H H M H H H 119 H H M H H H H H M H H H 120 H H H H H H H H M H H H 121 H H H H H L H H M H M L 122 H H H H H H H H M M M M 123 H H H H H H H H M H M H 124 H H M H H L H H M H M L 125 H H H H H H H H M H M H 126 H H H H H M H H M H M M 127 H H H H H H H H M H M H 128 H H H H H M H H H H H H 129 H H H H H M H H H H H H 130 H H H H H M H H M H H H 131 H H H H H M H H H H H H 132 H H M H H H H H H H H H 133 H H H H H M H H H H M H 134 H H H H H M H H M H M M 135 H H M H H M H H H H M M 136 H H H H H M H H M H H H 137 H H H H H M H H M H M M

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 69 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour y

t

r r n n n y g e s e l e o t s o o s t

i n k e i i s a y c e p l e i t a t t n r l f r g r e c n g o p c a i o o a a w e a r u c i e o r u i n t n O t l r d S e w n i P r e

v c i

h c t e o n n h b r e v d f a i u c t s n t e & u e r r r e a g O m e n u u t r o G S a d D o n T o J r o o S P E n R E C C G R a L

138 H H H H H M H H M H M M 139 H H H H H M H H M M M L 140 H H M H H M M H M H M L 141 H H H H H M H H M H M M 142 H H M H H M H H M M M L 143 H H H H H M H H M H M M 144 H H H H H M H H M H H H 145 H H H H H M H H M H H H 146 H H M H H M H H M H H M 147 H H M H H M H H M H H M 148 H H M H M M M M M H M L 149 H H H H M M M M M H M L 150 H H M H M M M M M H M L 151 H H H H M M M M M H M L 152 H H H H H M H H M H M M 153 H H H H H M H H M H H H 154 H H H H H H H H M H M H 155 H H H H H M H H M H M M 156 H H H H H M H H M H M M 157 H H H H H M H H M H M M 158 H H H H H M H H M H M M 159 H H H H H M H H M H M M 160 H H H H H M H H M H H H 161 H H H H H M H H M H H H 162 H H H H H L H H M H M L 163 H H H H H M H H M H H H 164 H H H H H M H H M H H H 165 H H H H H M H H M H M M 166 H H H H H M H H M H M M 167 H H H H H M H H M H M M 168 H H H H H M H H M H M M 169 H H H H H M H H M H M M 170 H H H H H M H H L H M L 171 H H H H H M H H M H M M 172 H H H H H M H H M H M M

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 70 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour y

t

r r n n n y g e s e l e o t s o o s t

i n k e i i s a y c e p l e i t a t t n r l f r g r e c n g o p c a i o o a a w e a r u c i e o r u i n t n O t l r d S e w n i P r e

v c i

h c t e o n n h b r e v d f a i u c t s n t e & u e r r r e a g O m e n u u t r o G S a d D o n T o J r o o S P E n R E C C G R a L

173 H H H H H M H H M H M M 174 H H M H H M H H M H M L 175 H H H H H M H H M H M M 176 H H H H H M H H M H H H 177 H H H H H M H H M H M M 178 H H M H H L H H M H M L 179 H H H H H M H H M H M M 180 H H H H M M M H M H M L 181 H H H H M M M H M H M L 182 H H M H M M M H M H M L 183 H H H H M M M M M H M L 184 H H M H M M M H M H M L 185 H H H H M M M H M H M L 186 H H M H M M M M M H M L 187 H H H H M H M M M H L L

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 71 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

6.5 Environmental Assessment

The environmental assessment undertaken for the purposes of the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment was undertaken in line with the requirements of the NRA Project Management Guidelines 2010 with particular reference to the assessment requirements as detailed in Table A2.4 Checklist for Preliminary Options Assessment (Engineering and Environment) of the aforementioned document.

The purpose of this assessment is to complete a comparative analysis of the feasible route options in order to identify a short list of route options for further assessment as part of Stage 2 – Project Appraisal of Route Options.

The feasible route options were assessed under the following environmental headings:  Human Beings and Material Assets,  Flora and Fauna,  Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology,  Geology and Hydrogeology,  Air Quality,  Noise and Vibration,  Landscape and Visual,  Agriculture, and  Archaeology and Cultural Heritage.

For the purposes of the environmental evaluation zonal analysis was undertaken whereby the potential impacts of each of the eight feasible route options and cross-over links was considered within ten zones. This resulted in 187 possible route option combinations. Each route option and cross-over assessed and the zones utilised for zonal analysis are illustrated in Part 4 - Figure 6.1.

Each feasible route option was classified for each zone as either of “High Preference”, “Medium Preference”, or “Low Preference”. This data was then entered into an Environmental Matrix, resulting in a matrix of all 187 possible route option combinations under each environmental heading.

Further subject specific details of each assessment and the methodology undertaken are described under each of the relevant environmental headings in the following sections.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 72 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

6.5.1 Human Beings & Material Assets

A desk-based assessment was undertaken to determine the existing environment in relation to human beings. All available information was assessed and it comprised the following:  The Constraints Study Report, which identified the human environment constraints within the study area, was reviewed and updated,  A review of OSI mapping and aerial photography,  A review of all pending planning applications, i.e. applications not yet granted permission, and  Mapping of all material assets including infrastructure, public utilities, and quarries and mines.

The locations of sensitive receptors, determined by means of the desk- based assessment, were validated during a site visit consisting of a windscreen survey on July 15th and 16th 2010 and July 21st and 22nd 2010. It should be noted that for the purposes of the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment it was not possible to validate every single sensitive receptor on the ground, as some properties were not visible from public roads. However, for the purposes of the comparative preliminary options assessment this approach was considered sufficient.

The review of the effect of route option combinations on the human environment assessed the potential to impact on:  Residential Properties,  Pending Planning Applications,  Community Facilities,  Material Assets, and  Community Severance.

6.5.1.1 Residential Properties

Potential for direct significant impacts on residential properties was compared by assessing the number of properties within 25m of the centreline of each route option.

There are very limited potential direct impacts on residential sensitive receptors (residential house locations) along any route option combination. The potential for direct impacts on residential sensitive receptors are highest along online route option combinations. There are potential direct impacts on residential sensitive receptors resulting from all route option combinations due to the increased number of residential developments in and surrounding Rosslare Harbour.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 73 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

It is important to note that the above assessment gives an indication of the potential to impact directly on sensitive residential receptors as this is considered the most significant potential impact, but the assessment does not assess impacts on properties beyond the location of the residential house locations.

6.5.1.2 Pending Planning Applications

A review of all pending planning applications for dwelling houses was undertaken using GIS mapping supplied by Wexford County Council. Applications for permission for dwelling houses still being assessed by Wexford County Council were identified within 25m of the centreline of each route option.

Following a review of all pending planning applications for dwelling houses, i.e. applications not yet granted permission, it was determined that there are no pending planning applications for dwelling houses within 25m of the centreline of any route option combination.

6.5.1.3 Community Facilities

Potential for direct significant impacts on community facilities were compared by assessing the number of schools, churches, community centres, sports facilities, post offices, Garda stations and health centres within 25m of the centreline of each route option.

It is considered that a number of route option combinations would potentially directly impact on a single community (sports) facility. In addition, it should be noted that the property boundaries of one sports facility currently under construction may be traversed by a number of the route options.

6.5.1.4 Material Assets

Potential for direct significant impacts on material assets including public utilities and quarries and mines were compared by undertaking an assessment of these material assets within 25m of the centreline of each route option.

No route option combination would directly impact on any quarries or mines since none of these enterprises are located within 25m of the centreline of any route option.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 74 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Public utilities within the study area include electricity, telecommunications, and water and wastewater services. The number of following services was assessed for each route option:  water mains,  sewers,  Eircom overhead lines,  Eircom underground lines,  fibre optic cables,  ESB low voltage lines,  ESB medium voltage lines,  ESB 38kv lines, and  ESB 110kv lines.

All route option combinations have potential to impact on significant numbers of public utilities. It is not considered that there would be any significant potential impacts on the provision of the services offered by these public utilities during the operational phase of any route option. However, there is some potential for minor impact on the provision of services during the construction phase of the project to allow for re- routing of services etc.

Online route option combinations and route option combinations near urban areas have the highest potential to impact on public utilities. Route Option B has the greatest potential to impact on public utilities along its entire length. In addition, route option combinations along Route Option A have potential to impact on a higher number of public utilities.

6.5.1.5 Community Severance

Potential community severance is also discussed under Material Assets. Community severance has been determined by identifying the number of times that national roads, regional roads, local roads, access tracks, and railways are crossed by each route option. However, it should be noted that this impact assessment is purely indicative and that the level of severance that will occur will be significantly mitigated by the provision of underpasses and overpasses, link roads etc.

Community severance is defined as “the separation of residents from facilities and services they use within their community caused by new or improved roads or by changes in traffic flows” (UK DMRB, 1994). New roads can also reduce existing community severance by reducing traffic levels on existing roads and by improving the access to community facilities.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 75 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Online route option combinations and those route option combinations near towns and villages have the greatest potential to impact in terms of community severance. At detailed design stage, the provision of underbridges and overbridges will be detailed and these will significantly mitigate any degree of community severance caused by the preferred route option.

6.5.1.6 Conclusions

All route option combinations are ranked in terms of low, medium or high preference, based on the potential of the route options to impact on sensitive receptors (residential properties, recent planning applications and community facilities) and Material Assets (Public utilities and potential severance).

The findings of this assessment are included in the Environmental Framework Matrix in Section 6.5.10.

6.5.2 Flora & Fauna

The NRA Project Management Guidelines identify the requirement to undertake the following assessment for the purposes of the Stage 1 ““Comparative Impact on Preliminary Options Assessment. Designated Sites/Species and Other Areas of In terms of the Flora and Fauna assessment, consideration was given National, Regional or Local under the following headings:  Appropriate Assessment (Stage 1 Screening), Ecological Value”  Terrestrial Ecology Assessment, and Appendix A2.4, NRA PMG  Aquatic Ecology Assessment.

The aquatic ecology assessment was undertaken as part of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology Assessment and it is detailed in section 6.5.3 of this report.

One of the key considerations for the purposes of route selection is the results of a Stage 1 Screening Appropriate Assessment. This assessment (hereafter referred to as AA Screening) is required to be undertaken in order to ascertain if any route option has the potential to have a significant effect on Natura 2000 sites, referred to as ‘European designated sites’, including Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), candidate SAC (cSAC), and proposed SPAs. The AA screening assessment is required for this scheme as all potential route options cross two designated sites, namely:  Slaney River Valley SAC (Site Code 000781), and  Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA (Site Code 4076).

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 76 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

All route option combinations are required to cross the River Slaney and as a result will have potential to impact on the Slaney River Valley SAC and on the Wexford Harbour Slobs SPA at the crossing location. In addition, Route Options A, B and D have potential to impact on the Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA northwest of Rosslare Harbour.

Consultation was undertaken with the following organisations for the purposes of the flora and fauna assessment:  National Parks and Wildlife Service (Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government),  Inland Fisheries, Central Fisheries Board & Eastern Regional Fisheries Board,  Environmental Protection Agency, and  Wexford Co. Co. Environment Section.

Consultation with the aforementioned bodies was by way of a consultation letter issued on May 20th 2010. Consultation response letters were received from all of the above bodies. A consultation meeting was held with representatives of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) on March 20th, 2010, where the NPWS supplied specific details in terms of habitats and species present within the potential impact areas of the route options. In addition, NPWS identified third party sources of further information relating to the receiving environment.

The following details the methodology adopted and the assessment carried out for:  Stage 1 Terrestrial Ecology Assessment, and  Appropriate Assessment Screening.

6.5.2.1 Terrestrial Ecology

A desktop study comprised a review of all relevant literature and databases for information on species and habitats of conservation interest within the study area.

The following websites and information sources were reviewed:  National Parks and Wildlife Services (NPWS) website and database (www.npws.ie),  Bat Conservation Ireland mapping (www.batconservationireland.org),  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mapping (www.epa.ie),  Botanical Society of the British Isles,  The Irish Red Data Book (Curtis and McGough, 1988), and  Biodiversity Ireland mapping (www.biodiversityireland.ie).

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 77 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

A field survey of each route option was undertaken in September 2009. These surveys were supplemented by additional surveys undertaken in July 2010.

Each route option combination was evaluated with respect to the potential of each route option to impact on terrestrial ecology. Terrestrial ecological sites were mapped and the potential for route option combinations to impact on terrestrial ecology was then determined.

The evaluation of habitat sites was undertaken in accordance with the criteria outlined in the NRA’s Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes, as set out in Table 6.2 below.

Table 6.2: Terrestrial Ecological Impact Assessment

Ecological Valuation A Sites designated (or qualifying for designation) as an SAC or SPA under the EU Habitats or Internationally Important Birds Directives; Undesignated sites that fulfil criteria for designation as a European Site; Features essential to maintaining the coherence of the Natura 2000 network; Sites containing ‘best examples’ of the habitat types listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive; Resident or regularly occurring populations of birds listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive and species listed in Annex II and/or Annex IV of the Habitats Directive; Ramsar Site; World Heritage Site; Biosphere Reserve; Site hosting significant species populations under the Bonn Convention; Site hosting significant populations under the Berne Convention; Biogenetic Reserve; European Diploma Site; Salmonid water. B Sites or waters designated or proposed as an NHA; Nationally Important Statutory Nature Reserve; Refuge for fauna and flora protected under the Wildlife Acts; National Park; Undesignated sites fulfilling criteria for designation as a NHA; Statutory Nature Reserve; Refuge for Fauna and Flora protected under the Wildlife Act and/or a National Park; Resident or regularly occurring populations (assessed to be important at the national level) of species protected under the Wildlife Acts and/or species listed on the relevant Red Data list; Site containing viable areas of the habitat types listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive. C Areas of Special Amenity; County Importance Area subject to a Tree Preservation Order; Area of High Amenity, or equivalent, designated under the County Development Plan;

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 78 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Ecological Valuation Resident or regularly occurring populations (assessed to be important at the County level) of species of birds listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive, species listed in Annex II and/or IV of the Habitats Directive, species protected under the Wildlife Acts and/or species listed on the relevant Red Data list; Site containing area(s) of the habitat types listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive that do not fulfil criteria for valuation as of International or National Importance; County important populations of species, or viable area of semi-natural habitats or natural heritage features identified in the National of local BAP; Sites containing semi-natural habitat types with high biodiversity in a county context and a high degree of naturalness, or populations of species that are uncommon within the county; Sites containing habitats and species that are rare or are undergoing a decline in quality or extent at a national level. D Locally important populations of priority species or habitats or natural heritage features Local Importance (higher identified in the Local BAP; value) Resident or regularly occurring populations (assessed to be important at the Local level) of species of birds listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive, species listed in Annex II and/or IV of the Habitats Directive, species protected under the Wildlife Acts and/or species listed in the relevant Red Data list; Sites containing semi-natural habitat types with high biodiversity in a local context and a high degree of naturalness, or populations of species that are uncommon in the locality; Sites or features containing common or lower value habitats, including naturalised species that are nevertheless essential in maintaining links and ecological corridors between features of higher ecological value. E Sites containing small areas of semi-natural habitat that are of some local importance for Local Importance (lower wildlife; value) Sites of features containing non-native species that are of some importance in maintaining habitat links.

The potential for each route option combination to impact on the terrestrial ecology of the receiving environment was assessed by way of a count of the number of sites of ecological importance within 200m of each route option centreline. The value of each site as per the criteria outlined in Table 6.2 was also considered.

All route option combinations were ranked in terms of low, medium, or high preference, based on the potential to impact on terrestrial ecology, taking full cognisance of the ecological value of the habitats impacted.

The number of terrestrial ecological sites potentially impacted by each route option combination was considered for the purposes of this assessment. The ecological value of each site was also considered as follows:  International Importance: European Designated Natura 2000 Sites (Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) ),  National Importance: National Heritage Areas and Proposed National heritage Areas, and

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 79 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

 Local to County Importance: Other sites of ecological value.

The assessment identified that the number of designated sites of European Importance (SPAs & SACs) and of national importance were not significantly different across each route option combination. The differentiating factor in terms of terrestrial ecology was the number of sites of “Local to county Importance” which were potentially impacted by route option combinations. As a result, the outcomes of the terrestrial assessment should be considered separately to the results of the Appropriate Assessment Screening Assessment, which effectively consider the potential for impact on the Natura 2000 sites only.

6.5.2.2 Appropriate Assessment

A desktop study was undertaken to identify the extent and scope of the Slaney River Valley SAC and the Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA within the context of the study area. The desktop study also identified the species and habitats relevant to the designated sites with specific reference to priority habitats within the area.

The main element of desk based assessment considered the results of significant fieldwork undertaken for the purposes of this project. The reports utilised for this purpose are as follows:  ECOFACT (2010a) Route Selection Report: Aquatic Ecology and Fisheries. A Report Prepared on Behalf of Mott MacDonald Ireland (Part 2 - Appendix E.1), and  ECOFACT (2010b) Route Selection Report: Wintering Bird Survey Report. A Report Prepared on Behalf of Mott MacDonald Ireland (Part 2 - Appendix E.2).

It should also be noted that the findings of the terrestrial ecology fieldwork as detailed in this document were also assessed for the purposes of the Appropriate Assessment Screening.

Ecological field surveys have been carried out within the route options crossing the River Slaney main channel. Ecological surveys to date, which have informed the current Comparative Route Selection Appropriate Assessment Screening Report, include:  A wintering birds survey undertaken at each of the proposed crossing points on the River Slaney for the winter 2009-2010,  A summer breeding bird survey undertaken during the summer of 2010,  An assessment of the riparian and aquatic habitats within the route options at the proposed crossing points, undertaken during the period April to August 2010,

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 80 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

 An aquatic ecological survey to characterise the baseline aquatic ecological conditions within the study area, undertaken during the period April to August 2010, and  A terrestrial ecological survey, which identified the location of terrestrial elements of the qualifying criteria for the designated sites undertaken during the period May to August 2010.

In the preparation of the Appropriate Assessment Screening assessment, all relevant guidelines were consulted. Particular attention was paid to the NRA’s Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes (hereafter referred to as the NRA Guidelines). This document specifies the approach to be used in undertaking AA for national road schemes in Ireland. Figure 6.5.1 illustrates the process to be followed for AA during the Route Corridor Selection (RCS) assessment.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 81 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Figure 6.5.1: Process flow diagram of Route Selection Process in relation to Natura 2000 Sites and Appropriate Assessment

The Appropriate Assessment Screening assessment has identified that all route options traverse both the Slaney River SAC and the Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA. All route options will require a bridge crossing over the River Slaney and as such, the Appropriate Assessment Screening assessment identifies the potential for adverse impacts arising from the proposed N11 route crossings on the River Slaney within the River Slaney Valley SAC and Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA. The potential for significant effects, which could affect the

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 82 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

designated sites within the study area, have been identified as ‘certain’, ‘likely’ and ‘uncertain’.

From the results of the current assessment, following the Precautionary Principle, all proposed routes crossing the SAC and SPA fail the Screening Assessment and as such should proceed to the Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment. This is because irrespective of the scale of impacts identified, it is considered that all proposed crossing points for all route options have potential to significantly impact on the conservation objectives and key ecological receptors.

It has emerged that Route Options A/B with a river crossing at Ferrycarrig, at the downstream end of the scheme has been identified as having significant scope for mitigation of impacts. This is based on the presence of the existing N11 road bridge at this location, with the potential to limit land-take and impacts to the SAC and the SPA as a whole. However, it is noted that Annex 1 habitats occur at this crossing point including old oak woodlands (Annex 1) and intertidal mudflats, which may be subject to impact. As this crossing point is located at the existing crossing and as such, habitats in the area are already disturbed, it is considered that with appropriate design and mitigation this route option is a high preference option.

The Route Options C/D crossing north (upstream) of the Ferrycarrig Heritage Park have been identified as being a high preference option in terms of limiting the potential impacts to the key qualifying interests of the designated sites including priority habitats within SAC and SPA. This determination is based on the results of the field surveys and associated background reporting that were evaluated for this crossing. In addition, the River Slaney estuary narrows at this point, which may reduce the potential for impacts affecting the qualifying interests of the SAC and SPA at this crossing location. This assessment is based on the avoidance of impacts affecting the conservation interests of the SAC/SPA identified directly upstream and downstream of the footprint of the route option, within the study area.

The Route Option E crossing is also considered a high preference option as it allows the route option to avoid priority habitat. The value of habitat in the vicinity of the route option is limited. In addition, this route option has limited important wintering bird habitats in the vicinity.

It is considered that Route Option F/G and the crossing required for these route options would be considered as low preference due to the presence of extensive reed beds and inter-tidal mudflats, which are

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 83 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

important wintering bird habitats with populations of Curlew in the vicinity of the crossing location.

The crossing required for Route Option H is the least favoured of all the crossing locations due to the presence of extensive reedbeds, with some limited intertidal mudflats in the area, which are home to the greatest wintering bird species diversity of all route options.

The overall findings of this assessment are presented in Table 6.3 below.

Table 6.3: Comparative Crossing Option Appraisal Crossing Option Ranking Comments Primary Route High Presence of inter-tidal mudflats on the Option A Preference extremity of the area but at crossing location already disturbed by existing bridge crossing. Primary Route High Presence of inter-tidal mudflats on the Option B Preference extremity of the area but at crossing location already disturbed by existing bridge crossing Primary Route High Favoured route option due to the limited Option C Preference extent of wintering bird habitat and the limited extent of Annex 1 priority habitat Primary Route High Favoured route option due to the limited Option D Preference extent of wintering bird habitat and the limited extent of Annex 1 priority habitat Primary Route High Favoured route option due to the limited Option E Preference extent of wintering bird habitat and the ability to avoid nearby Annex 1 priority habitat Primary Route Low Not a favoured option due to the presence Option F Preference of extensive wintering bird habitat Primary Route Low Not a favoured option due to the presence Option G Preference of extensive wintering bird habitat Primary Route Low Least favoured option due to the presence Option H Preference of extensive wintering bird habitat

6.5.2.3 Conclusions

It is considered that due to the legal protection afforded to designated European sites under Article 6, paragraph (3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (commonly referred to as the Habitats Directive) the choice of high preference route options should avoid impacting on Annex 1 priority habitat and should have the least adverse affect on the integrity of the European site.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 84 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

As all route options have potential to impact on designated European sites due to the requirement to cross the Slaney River Valley SAC and the Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA, a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment will be required.

It is considered that the crossing options considered to be “High Preference” i.e. Route Options A,B,C,D,E could be considered for further analysis during the Stage 2 assessment of the Route Corridor Assessment.

The overall findings of the flora and fauna assessment are included in the Environmental Framework Matrix in Section 6.5.10.

6.5.3 Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology

The key items considered to be of importance in determining a short list of feasible route options for water quality and flooding are as follows:  Potential impact of the proposed route options on water quality,  Potential impact of the proposed route options on aquatic ecology, and  Flood risk.

The NRA Project Management Guidelines identify the requirement to “Comparative Impact on undertake the following assessment for the purposes of the Stage 1 watercourses, water Preliminary Options Assessment. supplies and aquatic ecology” The assessment approach undertaken for the purposes of the water Appendix A2.4, NRA PMG quality and flooding assessment was primarily a desk-based assessment supported by a detailed aquatic ecology survey. This desktop study was undertaken to identify the surface water features and to determine the incidence of flooding within the study area. The assessment for the purposes of the Stage 1 Preliminary Options assessment was not supported by fieldwork.

Consultation was undertaken with the following bodies with reference to water quality, aquatic ecology, and flooding:  Wexford County Council,  National Parks and Wildlife Service, and  Inland Fisheries Ireland.

6.5.3.1 Water Quality Assessment

A count was undertaken of the number of significant river and stream crossings required for the route option combinations (within each zone) in order to assess the potential for each route option combination to

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 85 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

impact on water quality and aquatic ecology. All route option combinations were ranked in terms of low, medium, or high preference, based on the potential of the route option combinations to impact on water resources (water quality and aquatic ecology).

The largest watercourse in the study area is the River Slaney. Other major catchments in the study area include the Corock River catchment, Bridgetown/ Coastal catchment, Bishops Water Coastal catchment and the Sow Catchment.

All route options require a crossing over the River Slaney. In addition, all route option combinations require a similar number of river and stream crossings within the study area. However, route options with the highest number of crossings in total are Route Options E, F, G, and H.

The main requirement for river and stream crossings occurs in Zones, 6, 7 and 9. Route options C, E, F, G, and H in Zone 7 all cross significantly more rivers/streams (11- 13 crossings) than route options A, B, and D

All route options in Zone 9 cross between 8 and 9 water bodies, indicating that there is an elevated risk to water quality in this area from all route option combinations.

The overall findings of the water quality assessment are included in the Environmental Framework Matrix in Section 6.5.10.

6.5.3.2 Flood Risk Assessment

A high level flood risk assessment has been undertaken to determine any high risk flooding zones that will be crossed by the route option combinations. The flood risk zones are defined in a set of Flood Risk Maps developed for Wexford County Council by JBA Consulting. These maps have been developed for Wexford County Council to meet the requirements of The Planning System and Flood Risk Management – Guidelines for Planning Authorities (DOEHLG, 2009). The mapping defines three flood risk zones as follows:  Zone A: High probability of flooding,  Zone B: Moderate Probability of flooding, and  Zone C: Low Probability of Flooding.

This assessment identified potential risk arising from the occurrence of flooding events in areas that may be exacerbated by the provision of a road in the area, or that could result in a significant constraint to the

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 86 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

development of a feasible route option. The flood risk assessment provides a comparative assessment of the potential impacts of the route options on flooding within the ten zones.

The approach taken for this assessment was to note each location where a route option combination begins to encroach on high flood risk Zone A or B land area (as determined by Wexford County Council’s Flood Risk Management Mapping), and to note the location again where the route option combination ceased to interfere with a flood plain. A route length estimate of the overlap between the route option combination and the flood plain was then calculated.

In addition, for the purposes of this assessment the requirement to bridge, or culvert stream or river crossings was considered, as these locations are often problematic in terms of experiencing an elevated flood risk.

For the purposes of the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment, all route option combinations were ranked in terms of low, medium, or high preference, based on the potential of the route option combinations to impact on moderate/high risk flood areas.

The comparison of length in metres of flood plain areas that are encroached upon by each route option combination are detailed in Part 2 - Appendix C.2. In addition, data utilised for the assessment detailing the number of required stream/river crossings are detailed in Part 2 - Appendix C.2.

All route option combinations require a crossing over the River Slaney and as such, there is an elevated flood risk at the crossing locations. Route Options A, B, and D traverse significant areas of moderate/high probability flooding areas in zones 7, 8 and 9. All route option combinations traverse areas of moderate/high probability flooding areas in zones 9 and 10.

It should be noted that this assessment for the purposes of the Stage 1 Preliminary Options assessment does not attempt to identify every incidence of localised flooding within proximity of each route option combination. The assessment attempts to identify indicative flood risk that may potentially impact each route option combination, based on a desk-based assessment.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 87 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

6.5.3.3 Conclusions

The potential impact that each route option combination may have on Water Quality has been assessed and is included in the Environmental Framework Matrix in section 6.5.10.

6.5.4 Soils, Geology & Hydrogeology

The aim of this chapter is to compare and contrast the route option combinations for their relative environmental impacts on soils, geological and hydrogeological attributes.

The approach undertaken for the purposes of the soils, geology and hydrogeology assessment was desk based and sought to ascertain from available information relevant constraints that would potentially be impacted by each route option combination, and to determine the preference of each route option combination in terms of soils, geology, and hydrogeology. The assessment was undertaken in accordance with the criteria outlined in the NRA’s Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes.

Consultations with statutory or non-statutory bodies were not required during this stage of the assessment.

For the purposes of the Preliminary Options Assessment, a field visit was not deemed necessary. A field visit was undertaken for the Stage 2 Appraisal of the route options.

In order to assess the relative merits of the route option combinations from a soils, geology and hydrogeology perspective, it was necessary to assess the likely impact on the respective soils, geological and hydrogeological attributes along each route option combination. In assessing the likely impacts, the data gathered was used to identify both the importance of the attributes and the predicted scale and duration of the likely impacts.

The estimation of the importance of the soils, geological and hydrogeological attributes was undertaken using the definitions in Table 6.4 & Table 6.5 below, taken from the “NRA Guideline Procedures for the Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes”.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 88 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 6.4: Criteria for Rating Site Attributes – Soils and Geology

Importance Criteria Typical Examples Attribute has a high quality or value on an international scale Geological feature rare on a regional or national scale Degree or extent of soil contamination is (NHA) Very High significant on a nationals or regional scale Large existing quarry or pit Volume of peat and/or soft organic soil Proven economically extractable mineral resource underlying route is significant on a national or regional scale Contaminated soil on site with previous heavy Attribute has a high quality, significance or value industrial on a regional or national scale Large recent landfill site for mixed wastes Degree or extent of soil contamination is High Geological feature of high value on a local scale significant on a local scale Well drained and/or high fertility soils Volume of peat and/or soft organic soil underlying route is significant on a local scale Moderately sized existing quarry or pit Marginally economic extractable mineral resource Attribute has a medium quality, significance or Contaminated soil on site with previous light industrial value on a local scale Small recent landfill site for mixed wastes Degree or extent of soil contamination is Medium Moderately drained and/or moderate fertility soils moderate on a local scale Small existing quarry or pit Volume of peat and/or soft organic soil underlying route is moderate on a local scale Sub-economic extractable mineral resource Large historical and/or recent site for construction and Attribute has a low quality, significance or value demolition waste on a local scale Small historical and/or recent landfill site for Degree or extent of soil contamination is minor Low construction and demolition waste on a local scale Poorly drained and/or low fertility soils Volume of peat and/or soft organic soil Uneconomically extractable mineral resource underlying route is small on a local scale

Table 6.5: Criteria for Rating Site Attributes – Hydrogeology

Importance Criteria Typical Examples Groundwater supports river, wetland or surface water body Attribute has a high quality or value Extremely High ecosystem protected by EU legislation e.g. SAC or SPA on an international scale status Regionally Important Aquifer with multiple well fields Groundwater supports river, wetland or surface water body Attribute has a high quality or value ecosystem protected by national legislation – NHA status Very High on a regional or national scale Regionally important potable water source supplying >2500 homes Inner source protection area for regionally important water source Regionally Important Aquifer Groundwater provides large proportion of base flow to local Attribute has a high quality or value rivers High on a local scale Locally important potable water source supplying >1000 homes Outer source protection area for regionally important water

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 89 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Importance Criteria Typical Examples source Inner source protection area for locally important water source Locally Important Aquifer Attribute has a medium quality or Potable water source supplying >50 homes Medium value on a local scale Outer source protection area for locally important water source Attribute has a low quality or value on Poor Bedrock Aquifer Low a local scale Potable water source supplying <50 homes

Taking into account the predicted scale and duration of the likely impacts as well as attribute importance, the rating of likely impacts at the route selection stage was undertaken using the definitions as provided in the NRA Guideline Procedures for the Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes. The scale and duration definitions, along with the explanation of the final ‘Level of Impact’ criteria are summarised in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6: Level of Impact Criteria

Attribute Importance Impact Extremely Very High High Medium Low High Any Permanent impact permanent on significant Profound impact on proportion of attribute attribute Temporary Permanent impact Permanent impact impact on on small on significant Significant significant proportion of proportion of proportion of attribute attribute attribute Temporary Temporary impact Permanent impact impact on Permanent impact on significant on significant Moderate small on small proportion proportion of proportion of proportion of of attribute attribute attribute attribute Permanent Temporary impact Temporary impact Permanent impact impact on on small on significant Slight on small proportion significant proportion of proportion of of attribute proportion of attribute attribute attribute Temporary impact Permanent Temporary impact on significant impact on small Imperceptible on small proportion proportion of proportion of of attribute attribute attribute

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 90 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Utilising the above criteria as a basis for the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment, all route option combinations were ranked in terms of low, medium, or high preference, based on the potential of the route option combinations to impact on soils, geology, and hydrogeology.

6.5.4.1 Soils and Geology

The assessment of each route option combination has been performed using information obtained from a desk-based study with information arising from a number of different sources including those listed in Table 6.7 below.

Table 6.7: Sources of Information – Soils and Geology Feature Source Bedrock geology Geological Survey of Ireland, 1:100 000 bedrock mapping Regional memoir Subsoils Geological Survey of Ireland Soils Environmental Protection Agency Ireland Geohazards Irish landslides working group Geological Survey of Ireland Karst features Geological Survey of Ireland karst database Economic geology Geographic Exploration and Mining Services Geological Survey of Ireland Wexford County Council Geological heritage Geological Survey of Ireland

There are no recorded areas of karst being impacted by the route option combinations; however, there are areas of limestone in zones 7, 8 and 9. As a result, it is considered that there is potential for areas of karst to impact on all route option combinations within these zones.

Potential for poor ground conditions to exist in the vicinity of the River Slaney Crossing has been identified in zones 4, 5 and 6 for Route Options A, B, C & D. This potential also exists for zones 4 and 5 for Route Options F and G and in zones 2 and 3 for Route Option H. This could result in difficulty in these areas associated with soils of low strength and poorly drained that may require excavation.

Potential for poor ground conditions exist in zone 9 for all route options and additionally in zone 8 for Route Options A, B, D and G. These conditions could result in difficulty arising from soils that are poorly drained and are of low strength, and as such may require excavation.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 91 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

6.5.4.2 Hydrogeology

The assessment of potential impacts of the route option combinations on hydrogeology has been performed using information obtained from the desk-based study. Sources of information consulted during preparation of this study include the following from the Geological Survey of Ireland:  Aquifer type,  Aquifer vulnerability,  Source protection areas, and  Wells & Springs.

The potential of route option combinations to impact on hydrogeology is a function of the underlying aquifer that is being crossed. Zones 7, 8 and 9 are particularly sensitive in terms of the potential of route option combinations to impact on the underlying aquifers. This is because this zone is characterised by underlying regionally important aquifers with areas of aquifers classified as being of “High to Extreme” vulnerability.

To date there has been no source protection areas defined for Co. Wexford by the GSI.

6.5.4.3 Conclusions

The potential impact that each route option combination may have on Geology & Hydrogeology has been assessed and is included in the Environmental Framework Matrix in section 6.5.10.

6.5.5 Air Quality

The key items considered to be of importance in selecting preferred route option combinations in relation to air quality are to identify those combinations with the lowest potential to impact on sensitive receptors by way of potential air quality deterioration.

The methodology employed for the Stage 1 assessment is to determine the quantity of sensitive receptors potentially impacted by each route option combination.

This assessment undertook a desktop study to identify the range of sensitive buildings within 50m of either side of the centre line of each route option combination. The count was undertaken using the centreline of each route option combination and offsetting distance bands of 50m either side of the centreline. The links were overlaid with OS mapping and sensitive buildings were identified using reference

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 92 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

drawings noted during field studies to conduct property counts along each route option.

Sensitive ecosystems were also taken into account when assessing each route option combination. Sensitive ecosystems (designated sites) within 200m of each route option combination were also considered.

The findings of the desk-based assessment detailed above were checked in the field by way of a windscreen survey to confirm the location, the type, and function of sensitive receptors locations.

Consultations with statutory or non-statutory bodies were not required during this stage of the assessment.

The impact assessment methodology for Stage 1 has been conducted with reference to Chapter 3 ‘Route Corridor Selection’ of the NRA’s document Guidelines for the treatment of air quality during the planning and construction of national road schemes.

For the Stage 1 assessment, it is considered reasonable to rank the route option combinations based on the number of sensitive receptors within 50m of each route option combination as well as taking into account the number of designated sites within 200m of each route option.

For the purposes of the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment, all route option combinations were ranked in terms of preference as low, medium, or high preference, based on the potential of the route option combinations to impact on air quality.

Route option combinations that are located within 200m of designated sites are considered low preference due to the potential to impact on sensitive ecological habitats. As a result, all route option combinations that traverse the River Slaney are considered low preference. In addition in zone 9, all route option combinations are considered to be of medium preference due to the potential impact on the NHA in that zone.

The potential to impact on sensitive receptors (properties) was also assessed for the purposes of the Stage 1 preliminary options assessment. Locations where there are an elevated number of properties within 50m of each route option combination are considered low preference. These are located along online route option combinations where there is a higher density of residential development.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 93 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

6.5.5.1 Conclusions and Recommendations

The potential impact that each route option combination may have on Air Quality has been assessed and is included in the Environmental Framework Matrix in section 6.5.10.

6.5.6 Noise & Vibration

The key items considered to be of importance in selecting route option combinations with the least impact with regard to Noise and Vibration are those that affect the least number of sensitive buildings in close proximity to route option combinations.

In this regard, the Stage 1 assessment for noise and vibration has prepared a property count of sensitive buildings within 50m of each side of the route option centrelines and applied a similar weighing to all identified sensitive buildings, noted to be residential dwellings, hospitals, schools, churches etc.

The methodology employed for the Stage 1 assessment is based on property counts undertaken using available mapping and aerial photography of the surrounding lands for each route option combination.

A desktop study was undertaken by AWN to identify the range of sensitive buildings within 50m of either side of the centre line of each route option. The count was undertaken using the centreline of each route option and offsetting distance bands of 50m either side of the centreline. The route option combinations were overlaid with OS mapping and with identified sensitive buildings noted during field studies.

The findings of the desk-based assessment, detailed above, were checked in the field by way of a windscreen survey to confirm the location, the type, and function of sensitive receptors locations.

Consultations with statutory or non-statutory bodies were not required during this stage of the assessment.

The Stage 1 assessment is a preliminary screening study, the key objective being to identify the route option combinations, which have the highest potential impact on sensitive receptors in terms of noise.

For the Stage 1 assessment, it is considered reasonable to rank the route option combinations based on the number of sensitive buildings

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 94 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

within 50m of each side of the centreline to eliminate those that will affect the most exposed buildings.

For the purposes of the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment, all route option combinations were ranked in terms of preference as low, medium, or high preference, based on the potential of the route option combinations to impact on noise.

The conclusions of this assessment established that locations, where there are an elevated number of properties within 50m of each route option combination, are considered to be of low preference.

6.5.6.1 Conclusions and Recommendations

The potential impact that each route option combination may have on Noise & Vibration has been assessed and is included in the Environmental Framework Matrix in section 6.5.10.

6.5.7 Landscape & Visual

The landscape character and visual impact assessment was made with regard to the sensitivity of the landscape and its vulnerability to change, taking consideration of the location of visual receptors relative to the route options.

The assessment involved reviewing the route option combinations utilising available Ordnance Survey mapping and aerial photography in order to identify the potential of each route option combination to impact on the landscape and visual amenity of the receiving environment. For the purposes of this assessment, the following sources of information were consulted:  Landscape Character Assessment – Map no. 7 from Wexford County Council Development Plan 2007-2013,  National Parks and Wildlife service website (www.npws.ie),  Ordnance Survey of Ireland Discovery Series 1:50,000 mapping,  National Roads Authority website (www.nra.ie),  National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (www.buildingsofireland.ie), and  Records of Monuments and Places (www.environ.ie).

For the purposes of the preliminary options assessment, a field visit was not deemed necessary and it was not deemed necessary to undertake consultation.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 95 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

The landscape and visual assessment utilised the following criteria to assess each route option combination in terms of the potential for an impact on the landscape and visual amenity of the area:  Overall route option combination length,  Potential impact of the route option combinations on the existing landscape character,  Sensitivity of views the route option combinations will affect,  Sensitivity of receptors impacted by each route option combination, and  Potential to impact historic landscapes by each route option combination.

For the purposes of the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment, all route option combinations were ranked in terms of preference as low, medium, or high preference, based on the potential of the route option combinations to impact on the landscape and visual amenity.

The most significant potential impact is on the landscape and visual amenity of the River Slaney, with particular reference to the scenic route, which is formed by the existing N11 roadway at this location. All potential route option combinations will be required to cross the River Slaney utilising a significant bridge structure, which will have a potentially significant impact on the landscape and visual amenity in the vicinity of the chosen river crossing. For this reason, all River Slaney river crossings are considered low preference.

Longer route option combinations have most potential to alter the landscape and visual amenity of receiving environment and as a result are considered of low preference overall. Examples of this are Route Options G and H when assessed in their entirety.

Route option combinations have potential to impact on the setting of historic houses, historic sites, or structures. Zones where route option combinations potentially impact on the settings of such houses, sites, and structures are considered medium preference. Examples include, zone 7, Route Options C, E and F potentially impact on the setting of Rathaspick House. Additionally, in zone seven Route Option G and H potentially impact on Aughwilliam Bridge (Scenic Route). Additionally, in zone 6, a number of route option combinations potentially impact on the setting of Barntown House.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 96 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

6.5.7.1 Conclusions and Recommendations

The potential impact that each route option combination may have on landscape character and visual impact has been assessed and is included in the Environmental Framework Matrix in section 6.5.10.

6.5.8 Agriculture

The key items considered to be of importance in selecting route option combinations are to identify those, which have least impacts in terms of agricultural severance, least impact on sensitive enterprises, least land take and lowest impacts on important agricultural research locations (Johnstown Castle). Based on previous project experience and in the absence of specific requirements, a 100m wide assessment corridor was deemed appropriate. This corridor allows for the assessment of a route option facilitating potential route location, cross-section and cut and fill scenarios in the alignment and at the same time generating meaningful assessment results in terms of potential land take, severance, and impact on agricultural enterprises.

The information sources utilised for the purposes of this assessment include the following:  Aerial photography: Aerial photography was used in conjunction with map notes from the windshield survey along each route corridor,  EPA soils data maps, and  Land registry mapping. Landowner boundaries were mapped based on land registry data.

A Windshield Survey was undertaken for the purposes of this assessment in August 2010.

For the purposes of the preliminary options assessment, submissions from the public to Wexford County Council following the Route Selection Public Consultation were reviewed. 160 submissions referred to specific impacts on farms.

In addition, a meeting was held with Teagasc staff at Johnstown Castle to discuss the relevance of the Cowlands agricultural research plots, which are potentially impacted by a number of the route option combinations.

A number of criteria were utilised in order to assess the potential impact on the agriculture arising from the route option combinations. These are as follows:  Land Quality,

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 97 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

 Land Take Impact,  Severance Impact,  Impact on dairy and/or equine farms, and  Length online.

In addition, consideration was given to the potential impact of the route option combinations on the Cowlands agricultural research plots at Johnstown Castle.

Land Quality

Referring to EPA soils maps and field notes from the windshield survey the soil quality along the route option combinations is measured in terms of the percentage mineral soils, alluvial soils and peaty type soils within a 100m wide corridor.

Land Take impact

Using mapping software the agricultural land take of each 100m wide corridor is calculated. Public roads, rivers and private and commercial non-agricultural properties are excluded from the land take.

Severance impact

When a route option corridor crosses a land parcel splitting itin two or more segments this land parcel is severed. For the purposes of this assessment a severance score and severance area along each route option combination is calculated.

Impact on dairy and or equine farms

Dairy and/or equine farms are generally more sensitive to the impacts from severance and land take than beef and tillage farms (including strawberries, potatoes, maize, and mischantus crops). This is because on dairy and or equine farms, livestock have to be moved on a daily basis and the financial output per hectare and value of livestock is generally higher. The area of equine and dairy farms along each route option combination has been compared to give an indication of impact on highly sensitive farms.

For the purposes of the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment, all route option combinations were ranked in terms of preference as low, medium, or high preference, based on the potential of route option combinations to impact on agriculture.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 98 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route option combinations that are online are the most favoured in terms of minimising the potential impact on agriculture. These online route option combinations have the least impact on agriculture in terms of land take and severance, e.g. in Zone 3, Route Option B, which is online, has the lowest land take impact score.

The longer route option combinations are the least favoured in terms of the potential to impact on agriculture. The longer route option combinations considered for the purpose of this scheme including Route Options G and H, in their entirety, are the least favoured due to their high impact in terms of severance and land take.

Route Option A through Zone 3 & 4, is considered low preference due to the high impacts on dairy and equine farms and a high severance impact.

6.5.8.1 Conclusions

The potential impact that each route option combination may have on Agriculture has been assessed and is included in the Environmental Framework Matrix in section 6.5.10.

6.5.9 Archaeology & Cultural Heritage

The key items considered to be of importance in selecting route option combinations are to identify those, which have least impacts on architectural or archaeological features, with particular reference to designated sites or structures i.e. Record of Protected Structures (RPS) or Record of Monuments and Places (RMP)

This analysis consists of the evaluation of each route option combination based on the assessment of the potential for impact on designated archaeological and architectural sites. The assessment was undertaken by way of a count of the number of known archaeological and architectural sites, as detailed in the Sites and Monuments Record (SMR), National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) survey information, and the protected structures listed in the Wexford County Development Plan, within 250m of the centreline of each route option combination.

The first step was to collate the information produced during the constraints study. Data produced during the constraints assessment was checked and modified, where required, by rechecking the locations of the RMP and NIAH sites within the study area. The relevant

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 99 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

information was downloaded from www.archaeology.ie and www.buildingsofireland.ie.

It should be noted that no specific location data was available for the RPS locations within the study area. In order to formulate location information, the RPS sites, as given in the 2007-2013 Wexford County Development Plan and the Constraints Study, were individually cross referenced with several sources; namely the previous Wexford Development Plan (2000-2006), the NIAH data, the archaeological survey data and with aerial photography and historical mapping of the area. Though all attempts have been made to ensure accuracy, it is important to note that the locations are not confirmed and are as such subject to change.

For the purposes of the preliminary options assessment, a field visit was not deemed necessary and it was not deemed necessary to undertake consultation.

As per the NRA guidelines for the assessment of archaeological heritage and architectural impacts on national road schemes, all sites within an overall corridor of 500m (250m either side of the centre line) of each route option combination were identified and counted. The assessment of the route option combinations is based on an analysis of the following:  Total number of known sites of features of architectural and archaeological merit (RPS, NIAH and RMP) potentially impacted i.e. within 250m,  Total number of designated sites (RMPS & RPSs) impacted, and  Number of sites potentially directly impacted i.e. within 25m of the route option centreline.

For the purposes of the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment, all route option combinations were ranked in terms of preference as low, medium, or high preference, based on the potential of the route option combinations to impact on elements of architectural and archaeological heritage.

The greatest concentration of sites of archaeological and architectural merit occurs in zone 9, where all route option combinations impact on at least 27 sites or structures. Additionally in this zone, all route option combinations potentially impact directly on two sites or structures. In zone 9, Route Options A, B, D, and G are slightly favoured over the remaining route options in order to reduce the possible impact.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 100 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

In zone 4 and 5, Route Option A and B impact significant numbers of sites and structures, with Route Option A in zone 4 impacting a total of 14 sites and structures and potentially directly impacting on 2 sites or structures.

In zone 7, Route Options C, E, and F have potential to impact a significant number of potential sites and structures (14).

6.5.9.1 Conclusions

The potential impact that each route option combination may have on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage has been assessed and is included in the Environmental Framework Matrix in section 6.5.10.

6.5.10 Environmental Framework Matrix

All possible route option combinations have been assessed under the environmental headings and have been assigned a High Preference (H), a Medium Preference (M), or a Low Preference (L) for each heading. An overall environmental preference has been assigned to each route option combination taking account of how it has scored under each environmental heading. This overall preference is based on a collective qualitative assessment of the environmental headings, culminating in the assignment of an overall High, Medium, or Low Preference to each route combination. However, route option combinations with a Low Preference under the “Appropriate Assessment” category were assigned an overall environmental preference of Low.

The findings of the Environmental Assessment have been summarised in Table 6.8.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 101 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 6.8: Environmental Framework Matrix

t l y n a

n e e g y u

s & o s g

y g y t o s

i t n m l n i g a t e e g y o g e e n t y o t n o l o t a V n i r s i t o o i i g c e i a r i t r c o l o l l t s i u l n e r n b e & t p r a c o a E o i i m a i l A

e B e p e u n l v H E s d O e u r u

V l i

a g o l s n o e c Q G p n a i c b Q e r i f i a i e o

r & o a E t a r r r t

r p t l s r r e s m c l i l u e r e a g e s u F i d l p m s t t o s t o A s e u P a y A o l u a A a i A d r r C R q u S H r o H n e M W A e C a v N T L O

1 M L M H M M L M M M L L H L 2 M M L H H M L M M M M L H M 3 L L M H M M L M M L L L H L 4 L M L H H M L M M L L L H L 5 M L L H H M L M M M M L M L 6 M M L H H M L M M M M L H M 7 L L L H H M L M M L L L M L 8 L M L H H M L M M L L L H L 9 M M L H M M M M L H M L H M 10 M M L H H M M M M H M L H H 11 M M L H H M M H M H M L M H 12 M M L H H M M H M H M L H H 13 M H M H H M L H M M M L H H 14 M H M H H M L H M M M L L H 15 M H M H H M L H M L M M H H 16 M H M H H M L H M L M L L M 17 M M M H H M L H H M M L L H 18 M H M H H M L H M M M L L H 19 M M M H H M L H H L M L L M 20 M H M H H M L H M L M L L M 21 M H M H M M M H M H M L L H 22 M H M H H M M H M H M L L H 23 M H M H H M M H M H M L L H 24 M H M H H M M H M H M L L H 25 M M M H H M L M M M M L L M 26 M M M H H M L M M M M L L M 27 M M M H H M L M M L L M L L 28 M M M H H M L M M L L L L L 29 M M M H H M L M H M M L L M 30 M M M H H M L M M M M L L M 31 M M M H H M L M H L M L L M

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 102 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

t l y n a

n e e g y u

s & o s g

y g y t o s

i t n m l n i g a t e e g y o g e e n t y o t n o l o t a V n i r s i t o o i i g c e i a r i t r c o l o l l t s i u l n e r n b e & t p r a c o a E o i i m a i l A

e B e p e u n l v H E s d O e u r u

V l i

a g o l s n o e c Q G p n a i c b Q e r i f i a i e o

r & o a E t a r r r t

r p t l s r r e s m c l i l u e r e a g e s u F i d l p m s t t o s t o A s e u P a y A o l u a A a i A d r r C R q u S H r o H n e M W A e C a v N T L O

32 M M M H H M L M M L L L L L 33 M H M H H M M M M H M L L H 34 M H M H H M M M M H M L L H 35 M H M H H M M H M H M L L H 36 M H M H H M M H M H M L L H 37 M H M H H M M M M H M M H H 38 M H M H H M M M M H M L L H 39 M M M H H M M H M H M L L H 40 M H M H H M M H M H M L L H 41 M M M L L M L M H M M M M L 42 M M M L L M L M H M M L L L 43 M M M L L M L M H L L H M L 44 M M M L L M L M H L L M L L 45 M L L L M M L M H M M L L L 46 M M M L L M L M H M M L L L 47 M L L L M M L M H L M M L L 48 M M M L L M L M H L L M L L 49 M M M L L M M H M H M M L L 50 M M M L L M M H M H M L L L 51 M M M L L M M H H H M L L L 52 M M M L L M M H M H M L L L 53 M M M L L M M H M H M M L L 54 M M M L L M M H M H M L L L 55 M M M L L M M H H H M L L L 56 M M M L L M M H M H M L L L 57 M L M H M M L M M M M L H M 58 M L M H H M L M M M M L H M 59 L L M H M M L M M L M L H L 60 L L M H H M L M M L M L H L 61 M L L H H M L M H M M L L L 62 M L M H H M L M M M M L H M 63 L L L H H M L M H L M L L L 64 L L M H H M L M M L M L H L 65 M L M H M M M M M H M L H H

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 103 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

t l y n a

n e e g y u

s & o s g

y g y t o s

i t n m l n i g a t e e g y o g e e n t y o t n o l o t a V n i r s i t o o i i g c e i a r i t r c o l o l l t s i u l n e r n b e & t p r a c o a E o i i m a i l A

e B e p e u n l v H E s d O e u r u

V l i

a g o l s n o e c Q G p n a i c b Q e r i f i a i e o

r & o a E t a r r r t

r p t l s r r e s m c l i l u e r e a g e s u F i d l p m s t t o s t o A s e u P a y A o l u a A a i A d r r C R q u S H r o H n e M W A e C a v N T L O

66 M L L H H M M M M H M L H H 67 M L L H H M M H M H H L L H 68 M M M H H M M H M H H L H H 69 M M M H H M L H H M M L H H 70 M M M H H M L H H M M L L H 71 M M M H H M L H H L M M H H 72 M M M H H M L H H L M L L M 73 M L M H H M L H H M M L L M 74 M M M H H M L H H M M L L H 75 M L M H H M L H H L M L L M 76 M M M H H M L H H L M L L M 77 M M M H M M M H M H M L L H 78 M M M H H M M H M H H L L H 79 M M M H H M M H H H H L L H 80 M H M H H M M H M H H L L H 81 M L M H H M L M H M M L L M 82 M M M H H M L M H M M L L M 83 M L M H H M L M H L M M L M 84 M M M H H M L M H L M L L M 85 M L M H H M L M H M M L L M 86 M M M H H M L M H M M L L M 87 M L M H H M L M H L M L L L 88 M M M H H M L M H L M L L M 89 M M M H H M M M M H M L L H 90 M M M H H M M M M H M L L H 91 M M M H H M M H H H H L L H 92 M M M H H M M H M H H L L H 93 M M M H H M M M M H M M H H 94 M M M H H M M M M H M L L H 95 M M M H H M M H H H M L L H 96 M L M H M M L M M L M M H M 97 M L M H H M L M M L M L H M 98 L L M H M M L M M L L H H L 99 L L M H H M L M M L M M H M

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 104 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

t l y n a

n e e g y u

s & o s g

y g y t o s

i t n m l n i g a t e e g y o g e e n t y o t n o l o t a V n i r s i t o o i i g c e i a r i t r c o l o l l t s i u l n e r n b e & t p r a c o a E o i i m a i l A

e B e p e u n l v H E s d O e u r u

V l i

a g o l s n o e c Q G p n a i c b Q e r i f i a i e o

r & o a E t a r r r t

r p t l s r r e s m c l i l u e r e a g e s u F i d l p m s t t o s t o A s e u P a y A o l u a A a i A d r r C R q u S H r o H n e M W A e C a v N T L O

100 M L L H H M L M H L M L H M 101 M L M H H M L M M L M L H M 102 L L L H H M L M H L M M H M 103 L L M H H M L M M L M M H M 104 M L M H M M M M M M M H H H 105 M L L H H M M M M M M M H H 106 M L L H H M M H M M H M H H 107 M M M H H M M H M M M M H H 108 M L M H H M L H M M M L H H 109 M M M H H M L H M M M L H H 110 M L M H H M L H M L M M H H 111 M M M H H M L H M L M L H H 112 M L M H H M L H H M M L L M 113 M M M H H M L H M M M L H H 114 M L M H H M L H H L M L L M 115 M M M H H M L H M L M L H H 116 M M M H H M M H M M M L H H 117 M M M H H M M H M M M L L H 118 M M M H H M M H M M H L L H 119 M M M H H M M H M M H L L H 120 M M M H H M L M M L M M H H 121 M M M H H M L M H L M L L M 122 M M M H H M L M M L M H H H 123 M M M H H M L M H L M M L M 124 M M M H H M L M H L M L L M 125 M M M H H M L M H L M L L M 126 M M M H H M L M H L M M L M 127 M M M H H M L M H L M M L M 128 M H M H L M M M M M M M L M 129 M H M H M M M M M M M L L M 130 M H M H H M M H M M H L L H 131 M H M H M M M H M M H L L H 132 M H M H M M M M M M M H H H 133 M H L H H M M M M M M M H H

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 105 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

t l y n a

n e e g y u

s & o s g

y g y t o s

i t n m l n i g a t e e g y o g e e n t y o t n o l o t a V n i r s i t o o i i g c e i a r i t r c o l o l l t s i u l n e r n b e & t p r a c o a E o i i m a i l A

e B e p e u n l v H E s d O e u r u

V l i

a g o l s n o e c Q G p n a i c b Q e r i f i a i e o

r & o a E t a r r r t

r p t l s r r e s m c l i l u e r e a g e s u F i d l p m s t t o s t o A s e u P a y A o l u a A a i A d r r C R q u S H r o H n e M W A e C a v N T L O

134 M M L H H M M H M M M M L H 135 M H M H H M M H M M M M H H 136 M M M L M M L M H L M M H L 137 M M M L H M L M H L M L H L 138 M M M L M M L M H L M H H L 139 M M M L H M L M H L M M H L 140 M L M L H M L M H L M L L L 141 M M M L H M L M H L M L H L 142 M L M L H M L M H L M M L L 143 M M M L H M L M H L M M H L 144 M M M L L M M H M M M M H L 145 M M M L L M M H H M M L L L 146 M M M L M M M H H M H L L L 147 M H M L L M M H H M H L L L 148 M M M L L M M H M M H M L L 149 M M M L M M M H H M H L L L 150 M M M L H M M H H M H L L L 151 M M M L M M M H H M H L L L 152 M H M L H M L M H L M M H L 153 M H M L H M L M H L M L H L 154 M H M L H M L M H L M H H L 155 M H M L H M L M H L M M H L 156 M H M L H M L M H L M L L L 157 M H M L H M L M H L M L H L 158 M H M L H M L M H L M M L L 159 M H M L H M L M H L M M H L 160 M H M L L M M M M M M M M L 161 M H M L M M M M M M H L L L 162 M H M L H M M H H M H L L L 163 M H M L M M M H M M H L L L 164 M H M L M M M M M M M H H L 165 M H M L H M M M M M M M H L 166 M H M L H M M H H M H M H L 167 M H M L H M M H M M H M H L

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 106 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

t l y n a

n e e g y u

s & o s g

y g y t o s

i t n m l n i g a t e e g y o g e e n t y o t n o l o t a V n i r s i t o o i i g c e i a r i t r c o l o l l t s i u l n e r n b e & t p r a c o a E o i i m a i l A

e B e p e u n l v H E s d O e u r u

V l i

a g o l s n o e c Q G p n a i c b Q e r i f i a i e o

r & o a E t a r r r t

r p t l s r r e s m c l i l u e r e a g e s u F i d l p m s t t o s t o A s e u P a y A o l u a A a i A d r r C R q u S H r o H n e M W A e C a v N T L O

168 M H M L M M L M H L M M H L 169 M H M L H M L M H L M L H L 170 M H M L M M L M H L M H H L 171 M H M L H M L M H L M M H L 172 M M M L H M L M H L M L H L 173 M H M L H M L M H L M L H L 174 M M M L H M L M H L M M H L 175 M H M L H M L M H L M M H L 176 M H M L L M M H H M M M H L 177 M H M L L M M H H M H L H L 178 M H M L M M M H H M H L L L 179 M H M L L M M H H M H L H L 180 M H H L L M M H H M H M M L 181 M H H L M M M H H M H L L L 182 M M M L H M M H H M H L L L 183 M H H L M M M H H M H L H L 184 M M H L H M L H L H M M M L 185 M M H L H M L H M H M L L L 186 M M H L H M L H M H M L L L 187 M M H L H M L H M H M L H L

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 107 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

6.6 Economic Assessment

This section of the Route Selection report provides an economic assessment of each route option combination assessed as part of the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment.

6.6.1 Cost Estimates

The Economy Assessment comprises a Level 2 Option Comparison Cost Estimate (OCE) prepared for each route option combination in accordance with the NRA Cost Management Manual March 2010. The total scheme cost estimates for all route option combinations are presented in the Economic Assessment Framework Matrix in Section 6.6.2 of this report.

The methodology involved in preparing the Option Comparison Cost Estimates (OCEs) was as follows:  Appendix C of the NRA Cost Management Manual (March 2010) was used as a template to compile a scheme cost estimate for each route option combination.  The estimates were arrived at by using a combination of both the Elemental and Unit Cost Estimating approaches.  Quantities were grouped according to the NRA Method of Measurement.  Results of these OCEs were used to compare all the route option combinations.

6.6.1.1 Main Construction Cost – Base Cost Estimate

The main construction costs assumed a Type 1 Dual Carriageway cross section. This cross section was used for preliminary cost estimation comparative purposes only and the actual cross section will be determined at the Design Phase (Phase 3) of the NRA Project Management Guidelines. Current NRA rates and construction costs were used, where relevant, in assessing the cost of each route option combination.

With reference to structure costs, the rates used are based on analysis of recent road schemes constructed in Ireland, with cross checking of rates from other projects currently under construction.

A 15% project risk allowance has been added to the construction costs to allow for potential risks and variations that cannot be accurately quantified at the route selection stage.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 108 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

6.6.1.2 Option Comparison Cost Estimates (OCEs)

The data compiled from the quantity assessment under the Main Construction Cost Estimate were summarised for each of the 54 links.

Other scheme costs including Land & Property, Planning & Design, Archaeology, Advance Works & Other Contracts, Main Contract Supervision and Residual Networks were added to the Main Construction Contract Cost in order to determine the total Level 2 Estimates for each route option combination.

It is noted that the rates and percentages for the above other scheme costs are unchanged from that presented in the Level 1 Cost Estimate included in the Feasibility Working Cost report for the N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour Scheme.

6.6.1.3 Conclusion and Recommendations

The Level 2 Estimate for the N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour Scheme is between €277.41 million and €356.77 million. This Level 2 Estimate is included in the Economic Assessment Framework Matrix in Section 6.6.2 of this report.

The findings of the Economic Assessment indicate that there is almost a 30% difference i.e. €79.35m between the lowest cost route option combination (Combination Nr 98) and highest cost route option combination (Combination Nr 150).

6.6.2 Economic Assessment Framework Matrix

All possible route option combinations have been assessed under Economy and have been assigned a High Preference (H), a Medium Preference (M) or a Low Preference (L) for each of the headings. An overall economic preference has been assigned to each route option combination.

The findings of the Economic Assessment have been summarised in the following Economic Assessment Framework Matrix, shown in Table 6.9.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 109 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 6.9: Economic Assessment Framework Matrix Combination Overall Route Option Length Comparison Economic Combination (Km) Estimate Preference

1 €298.69m 35.52 H 2 €305.89m 36.19 H 3 €297.34m 35.39 H 4 €304.54m 36.06 H 5 €313.03m 37.92 M 6 €309.49m 37.77 H 7 €309.25m 37.58 H 8 €305.71m 37.43 H 9 €306.96m 36.17 H 10 €314.16m 36.84 M 11 €316.36m 37.70 M 12 €312.82m 37.55 M 13 €317.26m 34.64 M 14 €324.46m 35.31 M 15 €315.91m 34.51 M 16 €323.11m 35.18 M 17 €331.60m 37.04 L 18 €328.06m 36.89 L 19 €327.82m 36.70 L 20 €324.28m 36.55 M 21 €323.05m 35.08 M 22 €330.25m 35.75 L 23 €332.45m 36.61 L 24 €328.91m 36.46 L 25 €316.20m 35.02 M 26 €323.40m 35.69 M 27 €314.85m 34.89 M 28 €322.05m 35.56 M 29 €330.54m 37.42 L 30 €327.00m 37.27 M 31 €326.76m 37.08 M 32 €323.22m 36.93 M 33 €321.99m 35.46 M 34 €329.19m 36.13 L 35 €331.39m 36.99 L 36 €327.85m 36.84 L 37 €316.77m 34.75 M

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 110 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Combination Overall Route Option Length Comparison Economic Combination (Km) Estimate Preference

38 €323.97m 35.42 M 39 €326.17m 36.28 M 40 €322.63m 36.13 M 41 €334.56m 36.21 L 42 €341.76m 36.88 L 43 €344.35m 37.81 L 44 €340.81m 37.66 L 45 €348.90m 38.61 L 46 €345.36m 38.46 L 47 €345.12m 38.27 L 48 €341.58m 38.12 L 49 €339.33m 36.98 L 50 €346.53m 37.65 L 51 €348.73m 38.51 L 52 €345.19m 38.36 L 53 €343.47m 40.48 L 54 €350.67m 41.15 L 55 €351.37m 41.51 L 56 €347.83m 41.36 L 57 €287.63m 35.38 H 58 €294.83m 36.05 H 59 €286.28m 35.25 H 60 €293.48m 35.92 H 61 €301.97m 37.78 H 62 €298.43m 37.63 H 63 €298.19m 37.44 H 64 €294.65m 37.29 H 65 €295.90m 36.03 H 66 €303.10m 36.70 H 67 €305.30m 37.56 H 68 €301.76m 37.41 H 69 €306.20m 34.50 H 70 €313.40m 35.17 M 71 €304.85m 34.37 H 72 €312.05m 35.04 M 73 €320.54m 36.90 M 74 €317.00m 36.75 M 75 €316.76m 36.56 M

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 111 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Combination Overall Route Option Length Comparison Economic Combination (Km) Estimate Preference

76 €313.22m 36.41 M 77 €311.99m 34.94 M 78 €319.19m 35.61 M 79 €321.39m 36.47 M 80 €317.85m 36.32 M 81 €305.14m 34.88 H 82 €312.34m 35.55 M 83 €303.79m 34.75 H 84 €310.99m 35.42 H 85 €319.48m 37.28 M 86 €315.94m 37.13 M 87 €315.70m 36.94 M 88 €312.16m 36.79 M 89 €310.93m 35.32 H 90 €318.13m 35.99 M 91 €320.33m 36.85 M 92 €316.79m 36.70 M 93 €305.71m 34.61 H 94 €312.91m 35.28 M 95 €315.11m 36.14 M 96 €278.76m 35.16 H 97 €285.96m 35.83 H 98 €277.41m 35.03 H 99 €284.61m 35.70 H 100 €293.10m 37.56 H 101 €289.56m 37.41 H 102 €289.32m 37.22 H 103 €285.78m 37.07 H 104 €287.03m 35.81 H 105 €294.23m 36.48 H 106 €296.43m 37.34 H 107 €292.89m 37.19 H 108 €293.38m 34.60 H 109 €300.58m 35.27 H 110 €292.03m 34.47 H 111 €299.23m 35.14 H 112 €307.72m 37.00 H 113 €304.18m 36.85 H

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 112 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Combination Overall Route Option Length Comparison Economic Combination (Km) Estimate Preference

114 €303.94m 36.66 H 115 €300.40m 36.51 H 116 €299.17m 35.04 H 117 €306.37m 35.71 H 118 €308.57m 36.57 H 119 €305.03m 36.42 H 120 €307.07m 34.78 H 121 €314.27m 35.45 M 122 €305.72m 34.65 H 123 €312.92m 35.32 M 124 €321.41m 37.18 M 125 €317.87m 37.03 M 126 €317.63m 36.84 M 127 €314.09m 36.69 M 128 €312.86m 35.22 M 129 €320.06m 35.89 M 130 €322.26m 36.75 M 131 €318.72m 36.60 M 132 €307.64m 34.51 H 133 €314.84m 35.18 M 134 €317.04m 36.04 M 135 €313.50m 35.89 M 136 €339.96m 35.29 L 137 €347.16m 35.96 L 138 €338.61m 35.16 L 139 €345.81m 35.83 L 140 €354.30m 37.69 L 141 €350.76m 37.54 L 142 €350.52m 37.35 L 143 €346.98m 37.20 L 144 €344.73m 36.06 L 145 €351.93m 36.73 L 146 €354.13m 37.59 L 147 €350.59m 37.44 L 148 €348.87m 39.56 L 149 €356.07m 40.23 L 150 €356.77m 40.59 L 151 €353.23m 40.44 L

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 113 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Combination Overall Route Option Length Comparison Economic Combination (Km) Estimate Preference

152 €303.47m 34.13 H 153 €310.67m 34.80 H 154 €302.12m 34.00 H 155 €309.32m 34.67 H 156 €317.81m 36.53 M 157 €314.27m 36.38 M 158 €314.03m 36.19 M 159 €310.49m 36.04 H 160 €309.26m 34.57 H 161 €316.46m 35.24 M 162 €318.66m 36.10 M 163 €315.12m 35.95 M 164 €304.04m 33.86 H 165 €311.24m 34.53 M 166 €313.44m 35.39 M 167 €309.90m 35.24 H 168 €336.36m 34.64 L 169 €343.56m 35.31 L 170 €335.01m 34.51 L 171 €342.21m 35.18 L 172 €350.70m 37.04 L 173 €347.16m 36.89 L 174 €346.92m 36.70 L 175 €343.38m 36.55 L 176 €341.13m 35.41 L 177 €348.33m 36.08 L 178 €350.53m 36.94 L 179 €346.99m 36.79 L 180 €345.27m 38.91 L 181 €352.47m 39.58 L 182 €353.17m 39.94 L 183 €349.63m 39.79 L 184 €338.45m 38.78 L 185 €345.65m 39.45 L 186 €346.35m 39.81 L 187 €342.81m 39.66 L

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 114 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

6.7 Preliminary Options Assessment Framework Matrix

The preference rating for each heading of engineering, environment and economy have been collated to form the Preliminary Options Assessment Framework Matrix. Each route option combination has been analysed to decide whether it should be brought forward to Stage 2 of the Route Selection Stage. All route option combinations that have scored a high preference (H) across all headings are being progressed to Stage 2 of the Route Selection Stage. The Preliminary Options Assessment Framework Matrix is shown in Table 6.10.

Table 6.10: Preliminary Options Assessment Framework Matrix

Route Option Proceed to Engineering Environment Economy Combination Stage 2?

1 H L H No 2 H M H No 3 H L H No 4 H L H No 5 H L M No 6 H M H No 7 H L H No 8 H L H No 9 L M H No 10 M H M No 11 M H M No 12 H H M No 13 H H M No 14 M H M No 15 L H M No 16 M M M No 17 M H L No 18 L H L No 19 L M L No 20 L M M No 21 L H M No 22 M H L No 23 H H L No 24 L H L No 25 M M M No 26 H M M No

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 115 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Proceed to Engineering Environment Economy Combination Stage 2?

27 L L M No 28 L L M No 29 L M L No 30 H M M No 31 M M M No 32 L L M No 33 H H M No 34 H H L No 35 M H L No 36 H H L No 37 L H M No 38 L H M No 39 L H M No 40 L H M No 41 L L L No 42 L L L No 43 L L L No 44 L L L No 45 L L L No 46 L L L No 47 L L L No 48 L L L No 49 M L L No 50 L L L No 51 L L L No 52 M L L No 53 L L L No 54 L L L No 55 L L L No 56 L L L No 57 H M H No 58 M M H No 59 L L H No 60 L L H No 61 L L H No 62 M M H No 63 M L H No 64 M L H No

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 116 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Proceed to Engineering Environment Economy Combination Stage 2?

65 M H H No 66 M H H No 67 M H H No 68 L H H No 69 H H H Yes 70 H H M No 71 M H H No 72 M M M No 73 M M M No 74 H H M No 75 H M M No 76 M M M No 77 H H M No 78 H H M No 79 H H M No 80 H H M No 81 H M H No 82 H M M No 83 M M H No 84 M M H No 85 M M M No 86 H M M No 87 H L M No 88 H M M No 89 H H H Yes 90 H H M No 91 H H M No 92 H H M No 93 M H H No 94 H H M No 95 L H M No 96 M M H No 97 M M H No 98 M L H No 99 L M H No 100 M M H No 101 M M H No 102 M M H No

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 117 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Proceed to Engineering Environment Economy Combination Stage 2?

103 M M H No 104 H H H Yes 105 M H H No 106 H H H Yes 107 H H H Yes 108 H H H Yes 109 H H H Yes 110 M H H No 111 M H H No 112 L M H No 113 H H H Yes 114 M M H No 115 H H H Yes 116 H H H Yes 117 H H H Yes 118 H H H Yes 119 H H H Yes 120 H H H Yes 121 L M M No 122 M H H No 123 H M M No 124 L M M No 125 H M M No 126 M M M No 127 H M M No 128 H M M No 129 H M M No 130 H H M No 131 H H M No 132 H H H Yes 133 H H M No 134 M H M No 135 M H M No 136 H L L No 137 M L L No 138 M L L No 139 L L L No 140 L L L No

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 118 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Proceed to Engineering Environment Economy Combination Stage 2?

141 M L L No 142 L L L No 143 M L L No 144 H L L No 145 H L L No 146 M L L No 147 M L L No 148 L L L No 149 L L L No 150 L L L No 151 L L L No 152 M L H No 153 H L H No 154 H L H No 155 M L H No 156 M L M No 157 M L M No 158 M L M No 159 M L H No 160 H L H No 161 H L M No 162 L L M No 163 H L M No 164 H L H No 165 M L M No 166 M L M No 167 M L H No 168 M L L No 169 M L L No 170 L L L No 171 M L L No 172 M L L No 173 M L L No 174 L L L No 175 M L L No 176 H L L No 177 M L L No 178 L L L No

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 119 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Proceed to Engineering Environment Economy Combination Stage 2?

179 M L L No 180 L L L No 181 L L L No 182 L L L No 183 L L L No 184 L L L No 185 L L L No 186 L L L No 187 L L L No

6.8 Recommended route options to be carried forward

Following the compilation of the Preliminary Options Assessment Framework Matrix, the following route option combinations are being brought forward to Stage 2 of the Route Selection Stage, along with the ‘Do-Minimum’ and ‘Management Option’ alternatives. These route option combinations and associated links are shown in Part 4 - Figure 6.2 and are detailed in Table 6.11 and Table 6.12.

Table 6.11: Recommended route options to be carried forward t

n g n o o y n t

i e ?

i

t n r 2 e m d a m

t e o o e i n e n u e t i e n g o o n p b c r i o a i R t o O c g m v r S n E o n P E C E

69 H H H Yes 89 H H H Yes 104 H H H Yes 106 H H H Yes 107 H H H Yes 108 H H H Yes 109 H H H Yes 113 H H H Yes 115 H H H Yes 116 H H H Yes 117 H H H Yes 118 H H H Yes 119 H H H Yes 120 H H H Yes 132 H H H Yes

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 120 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 6.12: Combinations proceeding to Stage 2 (with Links detailed) Combination Nr Part 4 - Figures Link Nr 69 Figure 8.2.2 11 22 33 42 52 63 71 81 91 100 89 Figure 8.2.3 11 22 33 43 53 64 72 83 91 100 104 Figure 8.2.4 11 22 34 44 51 62 72 83 91 100 106 Figure 8.2.5 11 22 34 44 51 62 72 84 92 100 107 Figure 8.2.6 11 22 34 44 51 62 72 84 94 100 108 Figure 8.2.7 11 22 34 45 52 63 71 81 91 100 109 Figure 8.2.8 11 22 34 45 52 63 71 81 93 100 113 Figure 8.2.9 11 22 34 45 52 63 71 87 94 100 115 Figure 8.2.10 11 22 34 45 52 63 71 88 94 100 116 Figure 8.2.11 11 22 34 45 52 64 72 83 91 100 117 Figure 8.2.12 11 22 34 45 52 64 72 83 93 100 118 Figure 8.2.13 11 22 34 45 52 64 72 84 92 100 119 Figure 8.2.14 11 22 34 45 52 64 72 84 94 100 120 Figure 8.2.15 11 22 35 46 53 63 71 81 91 100 132 Figure 8.2.16 11 22 35 46 54 66 72 83 91 100

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 121 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

This page left intentionally blank for pagination.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 122 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

7. Traffic Assessment & Route Cross- section

7.1 Introduction

Following the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment, a traffic assessment was undertaken on the route options carried forward from Stage 1 to assess how each route option performs within the road network and to input into the economic appraisal of each route option during Stage 2 Project Appraisal of Route options.

A number of traffic model scenarios were devised to represent the route options and to help in the assessment of route cross-section. These traffic model scenarios were assessed to establish a forecasted Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for each route option, which was utilised in the economic appraisal.

In developing the traffic model scenarios, the number of junctions and their locations were reviewed. The proposed junction at Stephenstown/Killinick from Stage 1 was replaced by two junctions, one near the existing Rosslare Road Roundabout and one near the existing Ashfield Crossroads. As part of the traffic model scenarios, a possible extra junction is being considered to maintain the connection between the R733 and the N25.

7.2 Traffic Models & Incremental Analysis

As the overall length, and in particular, the distances between junctions for each route option are similar it was determined that all route options could be represented by two traffic models, one representing route options online at the Wexford Bypass and one representing route options that run offline along this section.

To aid in the economic appraisal of the scheme, it was determined that an incremental analysis should be carried out. This incremental analysis consists of a gradual or phased build up of cross-section from single to dual carriageway, utilising Type 2 and Type 3 Dual carriageway, in different combinations that include Route Options 201 (Management option), and 200 (Do-Minimum), and the 15 route options. This resulted in the following traffic model scenarios undergoing appraisal, with traffic models and cost benefit analyses carried out for each traffic model scenario (the traffic model scenarios and route options are detailed in Table 7.2.1 and shown in Part 4 - Figure 8.3.1(a-d) and Part 4 – Figures 8.2.1 to 8.2.18):  Traffic Model Scenario 0 includes the existing road network and the proposed M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme and the Wexford Inner Relief Road improvements described as the Do-Nothing option in accordance with NRA PMG.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 123 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

 Traffic Model Scenario 0.1 includes a proposal for an online upgrade of the existing network from north of Oilgate Village to the Rosslare Road Roundabout at the southern end of the Wexford Bypass represented by Route Option 201 (Management option).  Traffic Model Scenario 0.2 includes a proposal for an online upgrade of the existing network in various forms, but bypassing the villages of Oilgate, Killinick and Tagoat, represented by Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) described as the Do-Minimum option in accordance with the NRA PMG.  Traffic Model Scenarios 1, 2, 4, 4a and 5 represent Route Options 069, 108, 109, 113, 115, & 120. Scenario 5 represents a dual carriageway scenario for each route option, while Scenarios 1 to 4a represent a phased or gradual build up of cross-section from single to dual carriageway as described in Table 7.2.1.  Traffic Model Scenario 6 represents Route Options 089, 104, 106, 107, 116, 117, 118, 119, & 132. Scenario 6 represents a dual carriageway scenario for each route option.

Traffic Model Scenarios 0.1, 0.2, 5 & 6 represent the route options carried forward from Stage 1. All other traffic model scenarios are increments building up to these route options.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 124 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 7.2.1: Traffic Model Scenarios and Route Options

Traffic Model Route Options Route Description Scenario Traffic Model This route option includes the existing road network and the proposed M11 Gorey to Do-Nothing Scenario 0 Enniscorthy Scheme and the Wexford Inner Relief Road improvements. This route option includes a Type 3 dual carriageway from the at-grade roundabout on the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy scheme to a roundabout north of Oilgate. It continues through Oilgate utilising the existing road to a roundabout south of Oilgate. The route RO201 option continues online, with a Type 3 dual carriageway, along the existing N11 to the Traffic Model (Management New Ross Roundabout, with roundabouts located at Kyle Crossroads and at Kitestown Scenario 0.1 Option) Crossroads. The route option also includes a new Type 2 dual carriageway along the existing N25 from the New Ross Roundabout to the Rosslare Road Roundabout. From the Rosslare Road Roundabout the route option utilises the existing road to Rosslare Harbour. This route option includes a bypass of Oilgate village with a Type 2 dual carriageway followed by an online Type 3 dual carriageway along the existing N11 to the New Ross Roundabout, with roundabouts located at Kyle Crossroads and Kitestown Crossroads. RO200 (Do- Traffic Model The route option also includes a new Type 2 dual carriageway along the existing N25 Minimum) Scenario 0.2 from the New Ross Roundabout to a new roundabout in the vicinity of the existing Rosslare Road Roundabout. From this new roundabout, the route option continues as a single carriageway offline to Rosslare Harbour maintaining a connection with the existing Ashfield Cross Roundabout. The route options within Traffic Model Scenario 1 consist of single carriageway from the RO069-S1 at-grade roundabout on the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme to New Ross RO108-S1 Roundabout. The route options also include a Type 2 dual carriageway online along RO109-S1 Traffic Model the existing N25 from the New Ross Roundabout to a new roundabout in the vicinity of RO113-S1 Scenario 1 the existing Rosslare Road Roundabout. From this new roundabout, a single RO115-S1 carriageway continues offline to Rosslare Harbour maintaining a connection with the RO120-S1 existing Ashfield Cross Roundabout. The route options within Traffic Model Scenario 2 consist of Type 2 dual carriageway RO069-S2 from the at-grade roundabout on the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme to New Ross RO108-S2 Roundabout. The Type 2 dual carriageway continues online along the existing N25 RO109-S2 Traffic Model from the New Ross Roundabout to a new roundabout in the vicinity of the existing RO113-S2 Scenario 2 Rosslare Road Roundabout. From this new roundabout, a single carriageway RO115-S2 continues offline to Rosslare Harbour maintaining a connection with the existing RO120-S2 Ashfield Cross Roundabout. The route options for Traffic Model Scenario 4 consist of Type 2 dual carriageway from RO069-S4 the at-grade roundabout on the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme to Rosslare RO108-S4 Harbour. The route options bypass the village of Oilgate on the existing N11 to RO109-S4 Traffic Model N11/N25 New Ross Roundabout. The Type 2 dual carriageway is online along the RO113-S4 Scenario 4 existing N25 from the New Ross Roundabout to a new roundabout in the vicinity of the RO115-S4 existing Rosslare Road Roundabout. From this new roundabout, the dual carriageway RO120-S4 continues offline to Rosslare Harbour maintaining a connection with the existing Ashfield Cross Roundabout.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 125 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Traffic Model Route Options Route Description Scenario The route options within Traffic Model Scenario 4a consist of Type 2 dual carriageway from the at-grade roundabout on the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme to Rosslare RO069-S4a Harbour. The route options bypass the villages of Oilgate on the existing N11 and RO108-S4a Barntown on the existing N25. To maintain connectivity with the existing N11/N25 New RO109-S4a Traffic Model Ross Roundabout a new at-grade roundabout is proposed offline with the Type 2 dual RO113-S4a Scenario 4a carriageway continuing online along the existing N25 from the New Ross Roundabout RO115-S4a to a new roundabout in the vicinity of the existing Rosslare Road Roundabout. From RO120-S4a this new roundabout, the dual carriageway continues offline to Rosslare Harbour maintaining a connection with the existing Ashfield Cross Roundabout. The route options within Traffic Model Scenario 5 consist primarily of an offline Type 2 RO069-S5 dual carriageway from the at-grade roundabout on the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy RO108-S5 Scheme to Rosslare Harbour. The route options bypass the villages of Oilgate on the RO109-S5 Traffic Model existing N11 and Barntown on the existing N25. To maintain connectivity with the RO113-S5 Scenario 5 existing network, three offline at-grade roundabouts are proposed with connections to RO115-S5 the existing New Ross Roundabout, the existing Rosslare Road Roundabout, and the RO120-S5 existing Ashfield Cross Roundabout. RO089-S6 RO104-S6 The route options within Traffic Model Scenario 6 consist primarily of an offline Type 2 RO106-S6 dual carriageway from the at-grade roundabout on the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy RO107-S6 Scheme to Rosslare Harbour. The route options bypass the villages of Oilgate on the Traffic Model RO116-S6 existing N11 and Barntown on the existing N25. To maintain connectivity with the Scenario 6 RO117-S6 existing network, three offline at-grade roundabouts are proposed with connections to RO118-S6 the existing New Ross Roundabout, the existing Rosslare Road Roundabout, and the RO119-S6 existing Ashfield Cross Roundabout. RO132-S6

7.3 Transport Modelling

7.3.1 Introduction

A transport model was built to test the performance of the different traffic model scenarios detailed in section 7.2. This transport model was developed in accordance with the National Roads Authority (NRA) Project Appraisal Guidelines (PAG) and the Project Management Guidelines (PMG). The model forecasted the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes for the opening year (2018) and design year (2033) of the scheme. These AADT volumes were used in the economic appraisal of the traffic model scenarios and route options.

It was required to validate and calibrate the AM peak, interpeak, and PM peak hour base models in order to develop the forecast transport models. These base models were built to reflect an accurate assessment of the existing (2010) transport conditions.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 126 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

7.3.2 Data Collection

Data collection was undertaken within the study area during July 2010. This data was necessary to develop an appropriate and detailed base model. The following surveys formed part of the data collection process:  5 Origin-Destination Roadside Interview surveys;  1 Car Park Origin-Destination Survey;  27 Automatic Traffic Counts;  16 Manual Classified Counts; and  5 Journey Time Surveys.

Following the surveys, the collected data was reviewed, and prepared for use within the base model.

Data collected in 2006 and 2007 for the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme model was also reviewed and used, where applicable, as well as data from three NRA automatic traffic counters. The counters provided an indication of historical growth and seasonal traffic adjustments within the study area. The following NRA automatic traffic counters were used:  Gorey South N11-10A – M11 between Clogh roundabout and Raheenagurren interchange;  Rosslare N25-1 – N25 immediately east of Kilrane; and  Carrigbyrne N25-10 – N25 east of Ballinaboola.

7.3.3 Base Model Development

Following the review of collected data, base models for the AM peak, interpeak and PM peak hours of July 2010 were developed using the strategic modelling software, Visum version 11.5, utilising a cordon of the NRA National Traffic Model (NTM).

The NTM provided a basis for the network coding and zone definitions. Where the NTM zone system did not provide enough detail for modelling purposes, the NTM zones were disaggregated. Within and surrounding Enniscorthy, the zone plan from the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme was used instead of the NTM zone system. All coding was reviewed, checked and if necessary, modified to ensure the baseline conditions were appropriately modelled.

A review was conducted to determine whether the model should be a fixed or variable demand model. Rail and services within the study area were reviewed as well as the effects trip cost would have on redistribution of trip origins or destinations. The scheme is also in a

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 127 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

predominantly rural area and thus it was determined that a fixed demand model is the most appropriate model to use for this scheme. Fixed demand matrices were developed using the collected data with separate matrices derived for light and heavy vehicles. As this is a fixed demand model, CoBA is the recommended software package to conduct economic appraisals.

Once model coding, network checking and matrix estimation were completed, trip assignment was undertaken. Following this, the base models were calibrated and validated. Independent automatic traffic counts and journey time surveys were used to validate the models. The validation process followed guidance detailed in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridge Volume 12 Section 2 Part 1 Chapter 4.

7.3.4 Model Forecasting

Future models were coded using the validated base models in order to test the different model scenarios. For each traffic model scenario, traffic conditions were forecast for the AM peak, Interpeak and PM peak hours for both the opening year (2018) and the design year (2033) of the scheme.

Forecast trip matrices for light and heavy vehicles were developed. These forecast matrices were created by applying traffic growth to the base model matrices on a zone-by-zone basis. The forecast traffic growth rates were extracted from the NRA NTM, which contained projected growth for each NTM zone. The NTM has low, medium and high growth scenarios and the medium growth scenario was selected for use for the route selection phase.

Traffic modelling involved nine traffic model scenarios, namely, a base future network and eight traffic model scenarios. The base future network, Scenario 0, includes the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme and Phase 2 of the Wexford Inner Relief Road. Both of these schemes should be in operation by the time the N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour scheme will be open and thus they were coded into the future networks. The eight traffic model scenarios are as follows:  Traffic Model Scenario 0.1;  Traffic Model Scenario 0.2;  Traffic Model Scenario 1,  Traffic Model Scenario 2;  Traffic Model Scenario 4;  Traffic Model Scenario 4a;  Traffic Model Scenario 5; and  Traffic Model Scenario 6.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 128 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Using Traffic Model Scenario 0 as a base future model, the eight traffic model scenarios were tested to examine the benefits of a range of incremental improvements to Traffic Model Scenario 0.

AADT volumes for 2018 and 2033 for input to CoBA were generated from the forecast models for the AM peak, Interpeak and PM peak periods. These AADT volumes were used in the CoBA models to aid in the economic appraisal and are shown in Table 7.3.1.

Table 7.3.1: Summary of AADT for Traffic Model Scenarios

Traffic Year M11 Gorey to N11/N25 Roundabout Rosslare Road Ashfield Model Enniscorthy to Rosslare Road Roundabout to Crossroads to Scenario Scheme to N11/N25 Roundabout Ashfield Rosslare Harbour Roundabout Crossroads 2018 15,100 - 17,900 14,000 – 22,900 12,500 – 17,200 7,900 – 8,100 Sc-0 2033 17,800 – 20,500 17,300 – 26,200 15,400 – 21,100 9,900 2018 15,400 – 18,100 14,900 – 23,300 12,500 – 17,300 7,900 – 8,100 Sc-0.1 2033 17,900 – 20,700 17,700 – 26,900 15,400 – 21,100 9,900 2018 15,100 – 17,800 14,800 – 23,200 12,400 7,300 Sc-0.2 2033 17,400 – 20,400 18,200 – 26,600 15,200 8,900 2018 14,200 14,800 – 24,600 12,400 7,300 Sc-1 2033 15,600 18,100 – 27,300 15,300 8,900 2018 15,100 14,800 – 24,600 12,400 7,300 Sc-2 2033 16,800 18,300 – 27,600 15,200 8,900 2018 15,100 14,900 – 24,600 13,100 7,300 Sc-4 2033 16,700 18,400 – 27,600 16,200 8,900 2018 13,900 15,000 – 24,000 13,100 7,300 Sc-4a 2033 15,400 18,300 – 27,200 16,200 8,900 2018 12,800 11,000 11,600 7,200 Sc-5 2033 14,500 13,700 14,300 8,900 2018 12,800 11,000 11,500 7,200 Sc-6 2033 14,500 13,600 14,200 8,900

7.3.5 Conclusion

Eight traffic model scenarios were brought forward for appraisal using CoBA as follows:  Traffic Model Scenario 0,  Traffic Model Scenario 0.1,  Traffic Model Scenario 0.2,  Traffic Model Scenario 2,  Traffic Model Scenario 4,  Traffic Model Scenario 4a,

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 129 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

 Traffic Model Scenario 5, and  Traffic Model Scenario 6.

Each traffic model scenario may have a number of actual route options associated with it as indicated in Table 7.2.1. A summary of the AADT for each traffic model scenario is included in Table 7.3.1.

Traffic Model Scenario 1 has a higher network travel time across all periods than Traffic Model Scenario 2 and is also similar to Traffic Model Scenario 2. Therefore, Traffic Model Scenario 1 was not brought forward for cost benefit analysis. It was determined that if Traffic Model Scenario 2 became a leading economic option, then Traffic Model Scenario 1 would undergo a cost benefit analysis.

Table 7.3.2 shows the road types and the AADT ranges recommended for those road types from TD9/10 and TD10/07 of the NRA DMRB. These ranges are based on providing at least a Level of Service (LOS) D for the particular road types. Whereas the AADT ranges are used as guidance, the final road cross section for the scheme will be determined at the Design Stage following an incremental analysis on the Preferred Route Corridor where Engineering, Safety and Economics will be further reviewed.

Table 7.3.2: Road Types based on data from TD9/10 & TD10/07 of the NRA DMRB Road Type AADT Range Road Details Type 2 Single 0 – 8,600 7.0m carriageway + 2 no. 0.5m Carriageway hardstrips Type 1 Single 8,600 – 11,600 7.3m carriageway + 2 no. 2.5m Carriageway hardshoulders Type 3 Dual* 11,600 – 14,000 1 no. 7.0m carriageway (2 no. Carriageway 3.5m lanes) & 1 no. 3.5m carriageway + 2 no. 0.5m hardstrips Type 2 Dual 14,000 – 20,000 2 no. 7.0m carriageways + 2 no. Carriageway 0.5m hardstrips Type 1 Dual 20,000 – 42,000 2 no. 7.0m carriageways + 2 no. Carriageway 2.5m hardshoulders *Generally applicable to retrofit schemes rather than Greenfield schemes.

On examination of Table 7.3.1 and comparison of the AADT for each scenario with Table 7.3.2, a number of observations can be made.

It is predicted that Traffic Model Scenario 0.1 (Route Option 201) will have a LOS E or LOS F, for the Type 3 Dual Carriageway, between the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme and the N11/N25 Roundabout, not

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 130 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

including Oilgate Village, as the AADT exceeds the ranges given in Table 7.3.2. Similarly, Traffic Model Scenario 0.2 (Route Option 200) is predicted to have a LOS E or LOS F for the Type 3 Dual Carriageway between the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme and the N11/N25 Roundabout, excluding the Type 2 Dual Carriageway bypass of Oilgate.

For Traffic Model Scenarios 0.1, 0.2, 1, 2, 4 & 4a between N11/N25 Roundabout and Rosslare Road Roundabout, the road type is proposed to be Type 2 Dual Carriageway and the AADT will exceed the capacity of 20,000 by 7,600 AADT. It is anticipated that LOS D could be maintained within this section for the Type 2 Dual Carriageway but the capacity will need to be assessed further during detail design stage. For the remaining sections of the scheme between the Rosslare Road Roundabout and Rosslare Harbour the AADT do not exceed the ranges in Table 7.3.2 and LOS D or better should be maintained.

A more detailed examination of Level of Service will be carried out during the Design Phase (Phase 3) of the NRA Project Management Guidelines as part of the incremental analysis on the Preferred Route Corridor prior to a final decision on road type.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 131 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

This page left intentionally blank for pagination.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 132 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8. Stage 2 Project Appraisal of Route Options

8.1 Introduction

The NRA Project Management Guidelines 2010 outline that the route selection process should be a three stage process. Stage 2 of this process is to carry out a further appraisal of the route options carried forward from Stage 1 of the Route Selection process, as shown below.

Stage 2 Project Appraisal

3 Dept of Transport Guidelines on a Common Appraisal Framework for Transports & Programmes Source: NRA 2010 Project Management Guidelines

The route options are appraised under the headings of Economy, Safety, Environment, Accessibility & Social Inclusion, and Integration. The results of this Appraisal are presented in this section.

8.2 Description of Route Options carried forward to Stage 2

8.2.1 Route Options

The Stage 1 assessment was based on eight feasible route options (Route Options A – H). It was determined at Stage 1 that the Do- Minimum route option and the Management Option should be carried forward to Stage 2 for detailed appraisal. The Stage 1 assessment involved 187 route option combinations and recommended that 15 of these presented high environmental, high engineering and high economic preferences and should proceed to Stage 2 Project Appraisal of Route Options. Details of these 15 route option combinations and associated links are described in Table 6.11 and Table 6.12 included in section 6.8, and are illustrated in Part 4 - Figure 6.2. With the inclusion of the Do-Minimum and Management Route Options, there are a total of seventeen route options to be appraised at Stage 2. The seventeen route options comprise RO69, RO89, RO104, RO106, RO107, RO108, RO109, RO113, RO115, RO116, RO 117, RO118, RO119, RO120 RO132, RO200 (Do-Minimum) and RO201 (Management option) and are illustrated in Part 4 - Figures 8.2.1 to 8.2.18.

These route options consist of a combination of six of the original Stage 1 feasible route options (Route Options A - F) and the crossover links together with the Do-Minimum and the Management options.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 133 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Options G and H, part of Route Option F, and a number of links from Route Option A and C were eliminated as a result of the Stage 1 assessment.

8.3 Economy Appraisal

8.3.1 Introduction

The NRA Project Management Guidelines in conjunction with the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines and the NRA Cost Management Manual provide guidance for the appraisal of the economic costs and benefits of the route options utilising the following:  Traffic Modelling,  Option Comparison Estimates (OCE), and  Cost Benefit Analysis.

Traffic Model Scenarios were developed to represent all route options being appraised. The Traffic Model Scenarios commence with a ‘Do- Nothing’ option (Scenario 0) and progress incrementally, with increasing cross sections, to an offline option (Scenario 6). The scenarios are detailed in Section 7.2.

The Traffic Modelling analysed each traffic model scenario and forecast AADT for the opening year (2018) and the design year (2033). The traffic modelling is detailed in Section 7 of this report.

Option Comparison Estimates (OCE) were prepared for each route option at Stage 1 in accordance with the NRA Cost Management Manual. These were reviewed for all route options appraised at Stage 2 and costs were prepared for each route option and traffic model scenario that was appraised.

A Cost Benefit Analysis provides an economic assessment of the route options and traffic model scenarios under appraisal. The AADT flows from the traffic modelling, in conjunction with the OCEs for each route option and traffic model scenario were evaluated using the cost benefit analysis computer program CoBA11 R13.

The definitions utilised in this report of Do-Nothing and Do-Minimum are those that are included in Section 2.6.1 of the NRA Project Management Guidelines 2010.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 134 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Definitions of ‘Do-Nothing’ & ‘Do-Minimum’

Source: NRA Project Management Guidelines 2010, page 115

8.3.2 Options Comparison Estimate (OCE)

8.3.2.1 Introduction

The Option Comparison Estimates (OCE), prepared for each option at Stage 1 in accordance with the Cost Management Manual, were revised to take into account the incremental analysis being carried out.

Cost estimates were prepared for Traffic Model Scenarios 0.1, 0.2, 2, 4, 4a, 5 & 6 and their respective route options to aid in the economic appraisal. This resulted in a total number of 35 route option variants being assessed.

8.3.2.2 Methodology

A Level 2 Option Comparison Cost Estimate (OCE) was prepared for each route option within each traffic model scenario in accordance with the NRA Cost Management Manual March 2010. The total scheme cost estimates (including Inflation Allowance and NRA Programme Risk) for the route options associated with each traffic model scenario assessed during the Stage 2 Process are presented in Table 8.3.1 to Table 8.3.7 of this report.

The cost estimates were compiled in accordance with the NRA Cost Management Manual utilising Appendix C as a template for reporting cost information for each route option. Estimates were calculated using a combination of Elemental and Unit cost estimates depending on the

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 135 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

detail available. The NRA Manual of Contract Documents Volume 3: Method of Measurement For Road Works was used to generate and group quantities.

As certain traffic model scenarios do not include a Barntown Link, lengths differ between various Route Options. Furthermore, certain route lengths have changed from Stage 1 following refinement of the design between Stage 1 and Stage 2.

8.3.2.3 Main Construction Cost – Base Cost Estimate

The main construction costs for each of the traffic model scenarios were based on the assumption that the routes would be constructed as described in Table 7.2.1 of this report.

Current NRA rates and construction costs (NRA database Spring 2010 medium rate) were used where relevant in assessing the cost of each of the route options within each of the traffic model scenarios.

The construction costs used are based on analysis of recent road schemes constructed in Ireland, with cross checking to rates from other projects recently constructed or currently under construction which were obtained from discussions with a Contractor in September 2010.

A 15% project risk allowance has been added to the construction costs to allow for potential risks and variations, which cannot be accurately quantified at the route selection stage.

8.3.2.4 Option Comparison Cost Estimates (OCEs)

The data compiled from the quantity assessment under the main contract construction cost estimate were summarised for each of the route options associated with Traffic Model Scenarios 0.1, 0.2, 2, 4, 4a, 5 & 6.

Costs associated with Land & Property, Planning & Design, Archaeology, Advance Works & Other Contracts, Main Contract Supervision, and Residual Networks were added to the Main Contract Construction Contract Cost in order to determine the total Stage 2 Level 2 Estimate for each of the route options associated with each traffic model scenario.

It should be noted that the percentages used to determine costs associated with Land & Property, Planning & Design, Archaeology, Advance Works & Other Contracts, Main Contract Supervision, and

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 136 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Residual Networks are unchanged from those presented in the Level 1 Cost Estimate included in the Feasibility Working Cost report and from the Stage 1 Level 2 Option Comparison Estimates (OCE) report.

Table 8.3.1: Option Comparison Estimate (Traffic Model Scenario 0.1)4 Route Option Nr Option Comparison Estimate Length (Km) RO201 (Management Option) €70,231,000 15.95

Table 8.3.2: Option Comparison Estimate (Traffic Model Scenario 0.2)4 Route Option Nr Option Comparison Estimate Length (Km) RO200 (Do- Minimum) €172,526,000 30.38

Table 8.3.3: Option Comparison Estimate (Traffic Model Scenario 2)4 Route Option Nr Option Comparison Estimate Length (Km) RO069 €245,352,000 30.50 RO108 €245,218,000 30.41 RO109 €251,258,000 31.07 RO113 €254,498,000 32.65 RO115 €253,068,000 32.30 RO120 €250,415,000 30.67

Table 8.3.4: Option Comparison Estimate (Traffic Model Scenario 4)4 Route Option Nr Option Comparison Estimate Length (Km) RO069 €254,367,000 30.50 RO108 €254,229,000 30.41 RO109 €261,366,000 31.07 RO113 €264,876,000 32.65 RO115 €262,635,000 32.30 RO120 €259,431,000 30.67

Table 8.3.5: Option Comparison Estimate (Traffic Model Scenario 4a) Route Option Nr Option Comparison Estimate Length (Km) RO069 €279,524,000 33.80 RO108 €279,391,000 33.71 RO109 €286,526,000 34.37 RO113 €290,037,000 35.95 ______

4 Excludes Barntown Link

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 137 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Nr Option Comparison Estimate Length (Km) RO115 €287,796,000 35.60 RO120 €284,589,000 33.97

Table 8.3.6: Option Comparison Estimate (Traffic Model Scenario 5) Route Option Nr Option Comparison Estimate Length (Km) RO069 €286,882,000 33.80 RO108 €286,746,000 33.71 RO109 €293,880,000 34.37 RO113 €297,393,000 35.95 RO115 €295,152,000 35.60 RO120 €291,945,000 33.97

Table 8.3.7: Option Comparison Estimate (Traffic Model Scenario 6) Route Option Nr Option Comparison Estimate Length (Km) RO089 €300,150,000 36.51 RO104 €280,300,000 36.95 RO106 €289,397,000 38.55 RO107 €285,474,000 38.41 RO116 €300,915,000 36.06 RO117 €308,049,000 36.72 RO118 €310,012,000 37.67 RO119 €306,086,000 37.53 RO132 €302,382,000 35.73

8.3.3 Cost Benefit Analysis

8.3.3.1 Introduction

A Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is required for the appraisal of route options in accordance with the NRA Project Management Guidelines 2010 (NRA PMG) and the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines 2008 (NRA PAG).

Cost Benefit Analysis provides a means of assessing value for money of the monetised costs and benefits of the different route options. Cost Benefit Analysis achieves this by comparing the Do-Nothing option, (i.e. existing travel routes with planned improvements and referred to as the Do-Minimum in the NRA PAG), with the Do-Something scenario, (i.e. a new or improved travel route). Cost Benefit Analysis determines whether benefits resulting from the provision of the scheme will outweigh the costs of construction and future maintenance.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 138 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.3.3.2 Software Specification

The software used for the Cost Benefit Analysis is CoBA 11, R13 (generation date 26 April 2011 – Irish Version). This was used in accordance with the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines (NRA PAG), March 2008 and having regard to the NRA PAG 2011. In general, the NRA National Parameters values etc, included by default in the CoBA software, were used.

The following documents in conjunction with the aforementioned software were used as guidance to produce the Cost Benefit Analysis for the scheme:  NRA Project Management Guidelines (NRA PMG), January 2010,  NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines (NRA PAG), March 2008,  NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines (NRA PAG), 2011, and  UK Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 13 – Economic Assessment of Road Schemes – The CoBA Manual: TSO 2002.

8.3.3.3 Methodology

The Cost Benefit Analysis was determined for the following route options and Traffic Model Scenarios.

Table 8.3.8: CBA Route Options and Traffic Model Scenarios Route Options Traffic Model Scenario Do-Nothing Traffic Model Scenario 0 RO201 (Management Option) Traffic Model Scenario 0.1 RO200 (Do-Minimum) Traffic Model Scenario 0.2 RO069-S2 RO108-S2 RO109-S2 Traffic Model Scenario 2 RO113-S2 RO115-S2 RO120-S2 RO069-S4 RO108-S4 RO109-S4 Traffic Model Scenario 4 RO113-S4 RO115-S4 RO120-S4 RO069-S4a RO108-S4a RO109-S4a Traffic Model Scenario 4a RO113-S4a RO115-S4a RO120-S4a

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 139 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Options Traffic Model Scenario RO069-S5 RO108-S5 RO109-S5 Traffic Model Scenario 5 RO113-S5 RO115-S5 RO120-S5 RO089-S6 RO104-S6 RO106-S6 RO107-S6 RO116-S6 Traffic Model Scenario 6 RO117-S6 RO118-S6 RO119-S6 RO132-S6

The CBA analysis is based on NRA national parameters, as detailed in the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines for the Route Selection Stage.

Output from the Visum Traffic Model was analysed for all route options and traffic model scenarios and the overall growth in network trips needed for the CoBA model was extracted. This overall growth in network trips between 2010 (base year) and 2018 and between 2018 and 2033 was used in the CoBA model for the relevant route option and traffic model scenarios.

The Present Value of Benefits (PVB) is the sum of all future monetised benefits discounted to the Present Value Year of 2009 using the discount rate of 4% as provided in the NRA National Parameter Values Sheet, 2008. The PVB includes all of the following benefits associated with construction of the scheme:  Changes in Travel Time;  Change in Operating Costs (for both the scheme and the users);  Change in Accident Costs;  Change in Greenhouse Gas Emissions; and  Residual Value of the Scheme.

The analysis assumed that the Present Value of Costs (PVC) is the sum of all costs associated with the scheme discounted to the Present Value Year of 2009. All prices were estimated using the NRA Roadworks Unit Rate Database Version 5 Base Date May 2010 and were discounted back using Central Statistics Office figures for Consumer Price Index (CPI) as follows:  CPI Index for May 2010 – 103.1,  CPI Index for 2009 – 102.2.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 140 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

The Benefit / Cost Ratio was derived from the ratio of the discounted sum of all future benefits (PVB) to the discounted sum of all costs (PVC), for all route option combinations, i.e.

Benefit / Cost Ratio = PVB / PVC.

Table 8.3.9 gives a summary of all route options tested and their Benefit to Cost Ratio for a user specified traffic growth rate. The traffic growth was derived from the traffic model using the increase in vehicle kilometres.

Table 8.3.9: CBA Results5 Route Option Present Present Net Benefit Preference Nr Value of Value of Present to Cost Benefits Costs Value Ratio S-5 505,266 236,513 268,753 2.136 S-4a 540,592 229,312 311,280 2.357 RO069 Preferred S-4 563,474 208,148 355,326 2.707 S-2 489,855 197,428 292,427 2.481 S-6 323,170 247,039 76,131 1.308 Least RO089 Preferred S-6 308,426 233,364 75,062 1.322 Least RO104 Preferred S-6 226,955 241,146 -14,191 0.941 Least RO106 Preferred S-6 229,923 238,162 -8,239 0.965 Least RO107 Preferred S-5 511,925 236,334 275,592 2.166 S-4a 547,937 229,135 318,802 2.391 RO108 Preferred S-4 565,135 207,969 357,167 2.717 S-2 491,522 197,251 294,271 2.492 S-5 482,253 242,060 240,194 1.992 S-4a 538,546 234,864 303,682 2.293 RO109 Preferred S-4 555,785 213,697 342,087 2.601 S-2 479,829 201,914 277,914 2.376 S-5 386,266 245,786 140,481 1.572 S-4a 404,858 238,578 166,280 1.697 RO113 Intermediate S-4 421,870 217,414 204,456 1.940 S-2 334,385 204,894 129,491 1.632 RO115 S-5 404,486 243,956 160,530 1.658 Intermediate

______

5 Costs in 2009 prices in multiples of a thousand euros.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 141 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Present Present Net Benefit Preference Nr Value of Value of Present to Cost Benefits Costs Value Ratio S-4a 426,827 236,750 190,077 1.803 S-4 443,873 215,584 228,288 2.059 S-2 358,071 203,743 154,328 1.757 S-6 366,658 247,149 119,509 1.484 Least RO116 Preferred S-6 336,848 252,869 83,979 1.332 Least RO117 Preferred S-6 284,078 254,931 29,147 1.114 Least RO118 Preferred S-6 287,235 251,945 35,290 1.140 Least RO119 Preferred S-5 487,307 240,809 246,498 2.024 S-4a 531,977 233,436 298,541 2.279 RO120 Preferred S-4 548,439 212,273 336,166 2.584 S-2 474,764 201,550 273,214 2.356 S-6 383,614 248,707 134,907 1.542 Least RO132 Preferred RO200 S-0.2 322,315 139,990 182,325 2.302 Preferred RO201 S-0.1 149,338 56,637 92,702 2.637 Preferred

8.3.4 Conclusion

The results of the CoBA analysis, shown in Table 8.3.9, show that Route Options 069, 108, 109 and 120 always achieve a better benefit to cost ratio compared to other route options across all traffic model scenarios and are considered Preferred. All route options associated with Traffic Model Scenario 6 (Route Options 089, 104, 106, 107, 116, 117, 118, 119, and 132) are considered Least Preferred as they achieve the lowest benefit to cost ratios. Route Options 113 and 115 are considered Intermediate.

Route Options 201 and 200 are also considered Preferred as they achieve benefit to cost ratios that are comparable with Route Options 069, 108, 109, and 120.

It is noted that for each of the preferred route options (excluding Route Options 200 and 201), Traffic Model Scenario 4 is the optimum traffic model scenario. Traffic Model Scenario 4 does not include a Barntown Link.

Furthermore, it is noted that many of the route options achieve a benefit to cost ratio in excess of 2.0, which indicates good value for money. It

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 142 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

is also noted that Route Options 200 and 201 have significantly lower costs for similar benefit to cost ratios, however the absolute value of the benefits for Route Options 200 and 201 are also significantly lower than the other route options.

The preference of the different route options in the economy appraisal is shown in Table 8.3.10 below.

Table 8.3.10: Economy Preferences Route Option Preference 069 Preferred 089 Least Preferred 104 Least Preferred 106 Least Preferred 107 Least Preferred 108 Preferred 109 Preferred 113 Intermediate 115 Intermediate 116 Least Preferred 117 Least Preferred 118 Least Preferred 119 Least Preferred 120 Preferred 132 Least Preferred 200 Preferred 201 Preferred

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 143 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.4 Safety Appraisal

8.4.1 Introduction

As part of the safety appraisal for the scheme, a Stage F Road Safety Audit (Part 1) was carried out by an independent audit team in accordance with NRA HD 19/09 of the NRA Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. The report is included in Part 2 – Appendix F.1. The accident benefits from CoBA and collision statistics from the Road Safety Authority for the period 2002-2009 have also been assessed as part of the appraisal.

8.4.2 Stage F Road Safety Audit (Part 1)

The Stage F Part 1 Road Safety Audit was carried out on Thursday, 24th March 2011. This section summarises the findings and recommendations of the audit.

The road safety audit considers each route option with regard to the following items:  The amount of route option that is offline,  The number of junctions on the route option,  Route option length, and  The impacts on pedestrians and cyclists.

Offline route options, particularly in the vicinity of Wexford Bypass, are considered preferable from a safety perspective as there is less interaction with existing roads and offline route options avoid more urban development. From a safety perspective, route options with the least number of junctions and the shortest length are most preferred.

8.4.2.1 Northern section of route options

The northern sections of all route options start on the N11 north of Oilgate and continue south, crossing the River Slaney, and tie in to the N25 just south of the river.

Route Options 120 and 132 cross the existing N11 south of Oilgate and remain offline from here. As these route options are the most offline in this section, they are considered “Preferred” for the northern section.

Route Options 069 and 089 have a straight section, parallel to the existing N11 that may pose risks to development and provision of collector roads. It could also pose road safety risks during construction.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 144 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Options 108, 109, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118 and 119 have sections running parallel to the existing N11 for longer lengths than Route Options 069 and 089 and will have the same risks as outlined for Route Options 069 and 089 . Route Options 069, 089, 108, 109, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, and 119 are considered “Intermediate” for the northern section.

Route Options 104, 106 and 107 run parallel to the existing N11 for most of the northern section. These route options will also have risks associated with their proximity to the existing N11 and are considered “Least Preferred” for the northern section.

Route Options 200 (Do-Minimum) and 201 (Management Option) would result in local traffic and national traffic, in addition to pedestrians and cyclists, using the same road but with reduced hardshoulders due to the provision of a Type 3 Dual Carriageway on the existing road and are less preferable from a safety point of view. Consequently, these route options are considered “Least Preferred” for the northern section.

8.4.2.2 Bridge Crossings

There are three possible crossing locations of the River Slaney. Route Options 069, 089, 108, 109, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 and 132 all have a new bridge to the west of the existing Ferrycarrig Bridge, and have no interaction with the existing road network at these crossings. These route options are considered “Preferred” in terms of bridge crossings.

Route Options 104, 106 and 107 will cross at the location of the existing bridge but by way of a new structure that will run over the existing bridge. Therefore, there will be no interaction between these route options and the existing road at this crossing location and these route options are considered “Intermediate” in terms of bridge crossings.

Route Options 200 (Do-Minimum) and 201 (Management option) both utilise the existing bridge to cross the River Slaney resulting in the existing bridge being used by local and national traffic and also by pedestrians and cyclists. This gives rise to an increased risk of collisions compared to those route options that utilise a new crossing. The crossing is also restricted by existing rock outcrops. These route options are considered “Least Preferred” in terms of bridge crossings.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 145 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.4.2.3 Wexford Bypass Section (Ferrycarrig to Kellystown)

Route Options 200 (Do-Minimum), 201 (Management option), 069, 108, 109, 113, 115 and 120 all use the existing Wexford Bypass. This means that these route options cross two regional roads and several local roads, as well as being in proximity to large areas of development. There is also the possibility of an extra junction on the Wexford Bypass for these route options. These route options are considered “Least Preferred” for the Wexford Bypass section.

Route Options 089, 104, 106, 107, 116, 117, 118, 119, and 132 are all offline and are considered “Preferred” for the Wexford Bypass section.

8.4.2.4 Kellystown to Rosslare Harbour

The shortest route from Kellystown to Rosslare Harbour can be considered safer.

Route Option 201 (Management option) finishes at Rosslare Road Roundabout at the end of the Wexford Bypass and includes no further improvement of the N25.

Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) would use a section of the existing N25, which has evidence of collision clusters. It would be preferable to allow local traffic to use the existing network and keep national traffic separate. Therefore, Route Option 201 (Management option) and Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) are considered “Least Preferred” for this section.

Route Options 069, 089, 104, 108, 116, 120 and 132 are the shortest route options through this section and are therefore considered “Preferred” for this section. All other route options are considered “Intermediate for this section.

8.4.2.5 Pedestrians and cyclists

Route options that are predominantly offline are considered safer as pedestrians and cyclists can continue to use the existing road network, while bypassing traffic uses the new road.

Route Options 200 (Do-Minimum) and 201 (Management option) both are predominantly or entirely online and therefore are considered the least preferred route options.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 146 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Options 069, 108, 109, 113, 115 & 120 also utilise considerable lengths of the existing N11 and N25 and are considered “Least Preferred” for pedestrians and cyclists.

Route Options 089 and 132, which have the largest proportion offline, are considered “Preferred” in terms of pedestrians and cyclists, while all other route options are considered “Intermediate”.

8.4.2.6 Safety Audit Conclusion

Route Options 132 and 089, which are predominantly offline and have the least number of junctions, are considered “Preferred”. Route Options 200 (Do-Minimum) and 201 (Management option), which utilise a considerable length of the existing road and have the greatest number of junctions, are considered “Least Preferred”. The preferences for each route option with regard to the Road Safety Audit appraisal are shown in Table 8.4.1.

Table 8.4.1: Road Safety Audit Preferences Route Option Safety Audit Safety Audit Score Preference 132 4 Preferred 089 10 Preferred 116 20 Intermediate 117 22 Intermediate 118 24 Intermediate 119 24 Intermediate 104 31 Intermediate 106 35 Intermediate 107 35 Intermediate 120 36 Intermediate 069 40 Intermediate 108 48 Intermediate 109 50 Intermediate 113 52 Intermediate 115 52 Intermediate RO200 (Do-Minimum) 82 Least Preferred 201 (Management 85 Least Preferred option)

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 147 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.4.3 CoBA Accident Benefits

As outlined in section 8.3.3, each route option was subjected to a cost benefit analysis, which analysis utilised route options and traffic model scenarios. Table 8.4.2 shows the accident benefits, in thousands of euro, for each route option, as determined by CoBA.

Table 8.4.2: CoBA Accident Benefits6 Route Accident Reduction compared to Accident Preference Option ‘Do-Nothing’ (No.) benefits Fatal Serious Slight 069 61.6 353.6 2001.2 110,995 Preferred 089 55.6 325.4 1765.1 100,267 Intermediate 104 55.3 324.2 1747.9 99,698 Intermediate 106 53.8 319.0 1667.8 97,132 Intermediate 107 53.9 319.1 1670.1 97,205 Intermediate 108 61.7 354.0 2006.4 111,163 Preferred 109 61.2 352.1 1978.1 110,255 Preferred 113 59.6 346.0 1884.9 107,268 Intermediate 115 59.9 347.2 1903.4 107,859 Intermediate 116 56.2 327.7 1800.4 101,413 Intermediate 117 55.7 325.9 1772.9 100,524 Intermediate 118 54.8 322.4 1720.3 98,847 Intermediate 119 54.8 322.6 1722.6 98,920 Intermediate 120 61.3 352.4 1981.9 110,372 Preferred 132 56.5 328.9 1819.2 102,016 Intermediate 200 (Do- 47.0 281.9 1316.8 84,684 Least Minimum) Preferred 201 37.4 211.3 692.4 62,703 Least (Management Preferred Option)

Route Option 108 has the greatest accident benefit and the greatest reduction in accidents compared to the ‘Do-Nothing’, while Route Option 201 (Management option) has the least accident benefits and least reduction in accidents. Any route option that has accident benefits exceeding 110,000 and a fatal accident reduction exceeding 60 no. fatal accidents is considered Preferred. Similarly, any route option with accident benefits between 95,000 and 110,000, with a fatal accident reduction between 50 and 60 no. fatal accidents, is considered ______

6 Accident Benefits costs, in 2009 prices, in multiples of a thousand euros.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 148 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Intermediate. Route options with accident benefits less than 95,000 and fatal accident reductions less than 50 no. fatal accidents are considered Least Preferred.

8.4.4 Road Safety Authority Collision Statistics

The Road Safety Authority maintains a database of all reported injury collisions on Irish roads. Such collisions are categorised into Fatal, Serious or Minor collisions. Part 4 – Figure 2.2 shows the collision information within the study area for the scheme in the period 2002- 2009.

There are a total of 15 fatal collisions on the N11 and N25 roads within the study area. Route Option 201 (Management option) does not include any improvement to the existing road from Rosslare Road Roundabout to Rosslare Harbour, and 6 of the 15 fatal collisions have occurred on this section of road in the period 2002-2009. Two of these fatal collisions involved pedestrians.

8.4.5 Safety Conclusion

A Stage F Road Safety Audit (Part 1) was carried out on all route options being appraised and all route options were examined for accident benefits and accident reductions, as determined by CoBA. The safety appraisal of route options takes both the safety audit and the CoBA accident benefits into account and is shown in Table 8.4.3.

Table 8.4.3: Safety Appraisal Route Safety Audit CoBA Accident Overall Option Benefits Preference 069 Intermediate Preferred Preferred 089 Preferred Intermediate Preferred 104 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate 106 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate 107 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate 108 Intermediate Preferred Preferred 109 Intermediate Preferred Preferred 113 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate 115 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate 116 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate 117 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate 118 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate 119 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 149 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Safety Audit CoBA Accident Overall Option Benefits Preference 120 Intermediate Preferred Preferred 132 Preferred Intermediate Preferred 200 (Do- Least Preferred Least Preferred Least Preferred Minimum) 201 Least Preferred Least Preferred Least Preferred (Management Option)

Any route option that is considered Preferred under either the Safety Audit heading or CoBA Accident Benefits heading is considered Preferred for the Safety Appraisal. These route options comprise Route Options 069, 089, 108, 109, 113, 115, 120, and 132.

As can be seen from Table 8.4.3 both Route Options 200 and 201 are Least Preferred for both the safety audit and for the CoBA accident benefits. All other route options are considered Intermediate.

Route options 200 and 201 entail the provision of a type 3 dual carriageway along the existing N11 single carriageway while maintaining the existing land boundaries. An implication of providing this type 3 dual carriageway along the existing N11 single carriageway is that the running lane encroaches on the existing hard thereby reducing it to a 0.5m hard strip. This will have serious implications for pedestrians and cyclists. It may be possible that a footpath/cycleway could be provided along the existing verge but this is not possible along certain sections of the existing N11.

The provision of the type 3 dual carriageway including the relocation of the running lane on to the existing hard shoulder will also affect existing accesses. These accesses will be restricted to left-in left-out turning movements, and the removal of the hard shoulder will make these movements more difficult and less safe compared to the existing situation.

It is noted that Route Option 201 does not include any improvement to the existing road from the Rosslare Road Roundabout to Rosslare Harbour. There have been six fatal collisions on this section of road in the period 2002-2009.

Route Options 200 and 201 perform particularly poorly in relation to the reduction in fatal collisions when compared with the most effective route options. Examination of predicted accident reductions derived by CoBA determined that Route Option 200 and 201 will result in 14 and 24

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 150 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

additional fatal collisions respectively over a 40 year assessment period, compared to the Route Options 069, 108, 109 and 120.

The existing (or ‘Do Nothing’ option) was not considered feasible on the following safety grounds:  several sections of the route are not in accordance with current design standards for national primary routes, and  significant improvements in relation to junctions, accesses, alignments, signing, etc. are considered to be required.

The European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP) has rated the N25 between Barntown and Rosslare Harbour as a medium collision risk road. However, EuroRAP and the Road Safety Authority have recommended that upgrading existing single carriageway roads to Type 2 or Type 1 dual carriageways would greatly improve the safety of the road.

It is further noted that thirteen fatal collisions occurred on the N11/N25 in the period 2002 to 2009 on the existing road between Oilgate and Rosslare Harbour. Two fatal collisions also occurred on the N25 between Larkin’s Cross and the New Ross Road Roundabout within the aforementioned period.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 151 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.5 Environmental Appraisal

8.5.1 Introduction

As part of the environmental appraisal, the following route options were assessed: Route Options 069, 089, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 132, 200 (Do-Minimum option) and 201 (Management Option). The National Roads Authority (NRA) Project Management Guidelines 2010 specify that the Environmental Appraisal of the Stage 2 Project Appraisal of Route Options shall have regard to the impact of each route option under the following principal environmental headings:  Air Quality,  Noise & Vibration,  Landscape,  Flora and Fauna,  Climate,  Waste,  Soils Geology & Hydrogeology,  Archaeology & Cultural Heritage,  Non Agricultural Properties, and  Agriculture.

To facilitate a full assessment for the purposes of the Stage 2 Project Appraisal of Route Options and in order to ensure consistency with the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment it was also considered appropriate to undertake an assessment of potential impacts on Surface Water Resources (Hydrology), including water quality, aquatic ecology, and flood risk.

In order to maintain consistency with the Stage 1 Assessment, it was also considered appropriate to assess ecology under two separate headings: terrestrial ecology and aquatic ecology.

Table 8.5.1 outlines the environmental assessment headings utilised and how the requirements of the NRA Project Management Guidelines 2010 are met. The environmental headings are consistent with those used in the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 152 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 8.5.1: Environmental Analysis NRA PMG 2010 Stage 2 Section Description of Assessment Title Air Quality Air Quality Comparative route option assessment of potential to impact on air quality. Noise & Vibration Noise & Vibration Comparative route option assessment of potential to impact in terms of the noise & vibration environment. Landscape Landscape & Comparative route option assessment of Visual potential to impact on the landscape & visual amenity. Flora & Fauna Flora & Fauna Comparative route option assessment of potential to impact on terrestrial ecology Flora & Fauna Water Quality & Comparative route option assessment of Aquatic Ecology potential to impact on surface water resources, including water quality, aquatic ecology, and flood risk. - Flood Risk Comparative route option assessment of potential to increase flood risk. Climate Climate Comparative route option assessment of potential to generate Greenhouse gases. Waste Waste Comparative route option assessment of potential to generate waste. Soils Geology & Geology & Comparative route option assessment of Hydrogeology Hydrogeology potential to impact on soils geology & hydrogeology. Archaeology & Archaeology & Comparative route option assessment of Cultural Heritage Cultural Heritage potential to impact on cultural heritage. Non-Agricultural Human Beings & Comparative route option assessment of Properties Material Assets potential to impact on non agricultural properties Agriculture Agriculture Comparative route option assessment of potential to impact on agricultural enterprises.

8.5.2 Air Quality

8.5.2.1 Methodology

The NRA 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 3 - Route Corridor Selection”.

The objective at this stage of the route selection process is to undertake a comparative analysis of the route options in order to identify the preferred route option based on estimated air quality impacts. The number of residential properties within 50m of the edge of the

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 153 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

preliminary alignment for each route option has been identified. A comparison of the route options has been carried out based on a

calculation of the Index of Overall Change in Exposure to NO2 and PM10 resulting from each route option. The impact of each route option on designated sites has also been assessed. A comparative assessment of the potential impacts of each route option was then undertaken.

8.5.2.2 Desk Study

A desk study was undertaken to ascertain the existing background air quality within the area potentially impacted by each route option. The following data sources were utilised for this purpose:  EPA (2010) Air Quality in Ireland 2009 - Key Indicators of Ambient Air Quality (& previous annual reports 1997-2008), and  EPA (2011) http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/monitoring/air.

8.5.2.3 Field Study

Field inspections by way of windscreen surveys were undertaken on 15th, 16th, 21st and 22nd July 2010 in order to confirm the locations and typology of the receptor locations used for the purpose of the air quality assessment.

8.5.2.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

The Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes require the Air Quality Specialist to liaise with an ecologist on schemes where there is a European protected site within 2km of the route. However, as the potential impact of a scheme is limited to local level, detailed consideration need only be given to roads where there is a significant change to traffic flows (>5%) and the designated site lies within 200m of the road centre line. Where these two requirements are fulfilled, the assessment at the route selection stage involves a calculation of

nitrogen oxides (NOx) concentrations using the NRA Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) screening method. EU Directive 3 2008/50/EC specifies an annual NOx limit value of 30 μg/m for the protection of vegetation.

The number of receptors sensitive to air quality within 50m of the edge of the preliminary alignment for each route option has been determined. Receptors for the purpose of this assessment are regarded as residential buildings, schools, hotels, health centres, and churches. At this stage of the assessment, no further distinction is made between

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 154 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

different types of property (see Part 4 - Figure 8.5.1 a to f Human Sensitive Receptor Locations). The results of this exercise were used in the calculation of the Index of Overall Change in Exposure.

The calculation of the Index of Overall Change in Exposure allows a comparison of the overall impact on people for each route option to be carried out. The Index is based on identifying the number of sensitive receptor locations (e.g. residential properties) within 50m of the edge of the preliminary alignment for each route option that would experience a significant change in traffic for each route option. The change in emissions is influenced by changes in traffic flow, composition, and speed. The analysis was carried out using the methodology outlined in the following documents:  NRA (2006) Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes, and  UK DEFRA (2007) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Vol 11 Chapter 3 (Document & Calculation Spreadsheet).

8.5.2.5 Assessments of Impacts

Impacts on Sensitive Ecosystems

The existing N11, Route Options 200 (Do-Minimum), 201 (Management option) and the remaining route options cross the Slaney River Valley SAC, Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA and Wexford Harbour and Slobs proposed NHA (pNHA) near Ferrycarrig (see Part 4 – Figure 8.5.2 a to f Designated Ecological Sites for the locations). The existing N25, Route Options 200 (Do-Minimum), 201 (Management option) and all route options except Route Options 106, 107, 118 and 119 cross the Wexford Harbour and Slobs pNHA again in the townland of Assaly Little. Route Options 106, 107, 118, and 119 come within 120m of the Wexford Harbour and Slobs proposed NHA at this point (see Part 4 - Figure 8.5.2 a to f Designated Ecological Sites for the locations). The UK DMRB air dispersion model was used to determine the impact of each

route option on ambient levels of NOx in each sensitive ecosystem at the locations described above. The results of the assessment are detailed in Table 8.5.2.

3 Predicted NOx concentrations are below the limit value (30 μg/m ) for the protection of ecosystems for all route options. Thus, ambient NOx concentrations resulting from all route options will not have a significant impact on the Slaney River Valley SAC, Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA and Wexford Harbour and Slobs proposed NHA.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 155 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 8.5.2: Impact Assessment of Route Options on Sensitive Ecosystems – Predicted NOx Concentrations in the Design Year (2033). 3 1 Route Options Townland Ecosystem NOx (μg/m ) Wexford Harbour & Slobs SPA & Do-Nothing Ferrycarrig 27.7 pNHA and Slaney River Valley SAC Wexford Harbour 200 (Do- & Slobs SPA & Ferrycarrig 27.8 Minimum) pNHA and Slaney River Valley SAC Wexford Harbour 201 & Slobs SPA& Ferrycarrig 24.4 (Management) pNHA and Slaney River Valley SAC Wexford Harbour 069, 108, 109, & Slobs SPA & Ferrycarrig 26.2 113, 115, 120 pNHA and Slaney River Valley SAC Wexford Harbour 089, 104, 106, & Slobs SPA & 107, 116, 117, Ferrycarrig 26.2 pNHA and Slaney 118, 119, 132 River Valley SAC Wexford Harbour Do-Nothing Assaly Little 29.4 & Slobs pNHA 200 (Do- Wexford Harbour Assaly Little 27.3 Minimum) & Slobs pNHA 201 Wexford Harbour Assaly Little 29.4 (Management) & Slobs pNHA 069, 108, 109, Wexford Harbour Assaly Little 26.4 113, 115, 120 & Slobs pNHA 089, 104, 116, Wexford Harbour Assaly Little 26.3 117, 132 & Slobs pNHA 106, 107, 118, Wexford Harbour Assaly Little 14 119 & Slobs pNHA Limit Value 30 2 1 3 Including a conservative background NOx concentration for 2033 of 13.2 μg/m 2EU Council Directive 2008/50/EC (as an annual average)

Calculation of the Index of Overall Change in Exposure

Pollution from traffic sources increases at low traffic speeds and during congested traffic conditions. An improvement in the road infrastructure is likely to result in a reduction in traffic levels and congestion when compared to the Do-Nothing option. The number of sensitive receptors directly impacted by each route option will be significantly less than the Do Nothing impact along the existing N11 and N25. All route options, with the exception of Route Option 201 (Management option), bypass Oilgate, Killinick and Tagoat, removing the majority of traffic and related

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 156 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

air emissions from these areas of higher population. Likewise, all route options with the exception of Route 0ptions 200 (Do-minimum) and 201 (Management option), bypass Barntown, removing the majority of traffic and related air emissions from the Barntown area, where there is a higher population density.

All route options are likely to result in lower exposure to NOx and PM10 than the Do-Nothing option, with the exception of Route Option 201 (Management option) which will result in traffic remaining on the current alignment for the entire route.

Route Options 089, 104, 106,107,116,117,118,119 and 132 will see the greatest reduction in the Index of Overall Exposure, when compared to other route options. The results of the Index of Overall Exposure for the route options are provided in Table 8.5.3.

8.5.2.6 Ranking of Route Corridor Options

The route options with the lowest exposure index are the preferred options from an air quality perspective, as it leads to the smallest increase or greatest decrease in air pollution. The results of the Index of Overall Change in Exposure have been used to rank route options in order of their potential impact on air quality as shown in Table 8.5.3.

All route options will result in an overall positive air quality impact when compared with the Do-Nothing option with the exception of Route Option 201 (Management option).

Route options 089, 104, 106, 107, 116, 117, 118, 119, and 132 would result in the greatest potential improvements in air quality, when compared to the Do-Nothing option and as a result, these options are considered “Preferred”.

The relative reduction in emission levels of PM10 is significantly lower for Route Option 201 (Management option) over the Do-Nothing scenario than the other route options and there is expected to be an

increase in NOx resulting from this route option compared to the Do- Nothing scenario. For these reasons, this route option is considered the “Least Preferred” route option.

All remaining route options (Route Options 069,108, 113, 109, 115, 120, & 200 (Do-Minimum)) are considered “Intermediate” in terms of preference.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 157 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 8.5.3: Summary of Index of Overall Change in Exposure for each Route Option NO Exposure PM Exposure Route Option 2 10 Preference Index Index 119 -510298 -19116 118 -507122 -19002 089 -505972 -18980 116 -499655 -18703 117 -498067 -18646 Preferred 107 -495486 -18472 132 -492561 -18887 106 -492310 -18357 104 -484844 -18058 120 -441169 -16748 69 -433138 -16417 108 -431728 -16353 113 -431728 -16353 Intermediate 109 -429456 -16263 115 -404087 -15135 200 (Do-Minimum) -397995 -14640 201 (Management option) 455 -21 Least Preferred

8.5.2.7 Conclusions and Recommendations

The route options with the greatest potential improvement in pollutant exposure and the lowest impact on designated sites are the preferred options from an air quality perspective and these are Route Options 089, 104, 106,107,116,117,118,119 and 132. The results of the Index of Overall Change in Exposure have been used to rank route options in order of their potential impact on air quality. The results show that all route options would have a positive impact on ambient air quality with the exception of Route Option 201 (Management option). The analysis undertaken has identified that no route option has a significant impact on sensitive ecosystems arising from air quality deterioration.

8.5.3 Noise and Vibration

8.5.3.1 Methodology

The noise assessment was undertaken in line with the requirements of the Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 158 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Road Schemes (NRA, 2004). The assessment entailed the following primary steps:  Calculation of the Potential Impact Rating (PIR) for each route option,

 Noise Predication Model to predict noise levels (Lden) for each route option, and  A comparative assessment of the potential impacts of each route option.

8.5.3.2 Desk Study

A desktop study was undertaken to identify the range of receptors (any dwelling house, hotel, health building, educational establishment, or place of worship) within 50m, 100m, 200m, and 300m of either side of the centreline of each route option. The count was undertaken using the horizontal alignment of each route option and offsetting distance bands either side of the centreline (see Part 4 - Figure 8.5.1 a to f Human Sensitive Receptor Locations). The route options were overlaid with OS mapping (Discovery series, 1:50,000) and aerial photography.

8.5.3.3 Field Study

Field inspection, by way of windscreen surveys, was undertaken on 15th, 16th, 21st and 22nd July 2010 in order to confirm the locations and typology of the receptor locations used for the purpose of the noise assessment.

8.5.3.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

Potential Impact Rating

The number of properties potentially sensitive to noise and/or vibration within 300m of each route option was identified for four bands either side of the centreline of each route option, as follows:  Band 1 – 0m to 50m,  Band 2 – 50m to 100m,  Band 3 – 100m to 200m, and  Band 4 – 200m to 300m.

The total number of receptors within each band is multiplied by a rating factor. The rating factors for Bands 1 to 4 are as follows:  4 (Band 1),  3 (Band 2),  2 (Band 3), and  1 (Band 4).

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 159 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

The resultant values are summed together to give the Potential Impact Rating (PIR) for each route option. The PIR is then used to assess the potential impact of each route option. The greater the PIR value, the greater the potential impact arising from that route option.

Noise Prediction Model

There is expected to be traffic flows of 100% or more introduced to certain locations where such traffic volumes do not currently exist for offline sections of certain route options. For this reason, noise predication calculations have been undertaken for the route options.

The noise emission predictions were conducted using proprietary noise calculation software. The selected software, Brüel & Kjær Type 7810 Predictor, calculates traffic noise levels in accordance with the following documents as required by the Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes (NRA 2004):  UK Department of Transport, Welsh Office, 1988, and  Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN), London: HMSO.

A noise model for the purposes of these calculations was prepared using preliminary road alignments within the corridor of each route option, Ordnance Survey mapping, and traffic flow and speed data. These calculations were conducted utilising traffic figures for the design year of the scheme (2033).

The noise predication model resulted in Indicative Lden results being generated for receptors in proximity to the route options. The NRA document Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes specifies that it is appropriate to set the design goal for Ireland as follows:

 day-evening-night 60dB Lden (free field)

The Lden noise levels at receptor locations were compared to the design goal above. The number of receptors where the design goal was exceeded was calculated for each route option.

Based on the PIR values and the Lden values calculated, a comparative assessment was undertaken between all route options.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 160 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.5.3.5 Assessment of Impacts

Assessment of Potential Impact Ratings

Based on the calculated PIR values, Route Options 119 and 116 are considered “Preferred”. There is only a slight difference in PIR between both route options therefore; each route option will have a similar impact. See Part 2 - Appendix D.1 Noise and Vibration for details of

PIR and Lden results for all route options.

Route Option 201 (Management option) is the least preferred route option; and Route Options 200 (Do-Minimum), 069, 089, 104,106,107,108, 109, 113,115, 117,118 and 132 have all been ranked as “Intermediate”.

Assessment of Noise Emissions

Route Options 119 and 118 are considered “Preferred” as there is only a very slight difference in the number of properties calculated to exceed

60dB Lden. Therefore, each route option will have a similar impact in terms of noise. For both of these route options, 36 and 39 properties

respectively will experience noise levels in excess of 60dB Lden in the absence of mitigation.

Route Option 201 (Management option) is considered “Least Preferred” as it has the highest number of properties (389) which exceeds the

60dB Lden design goal. It should be noted that all of these properties are online and so are exposed to the same elevated noise levels for the Do-Nothing option.

The remaining route options (Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) and Route Options 069, 089, 104,106, 107,108,109, 113, 115, 116, 120 and 132) are all ranked as “Intermediate” (Range 46 – 128).

8.5.3.6 Route Option Appraisal

All route options have been ranked based on PIR and Lden levels. Table 8.5.4 presents a combined seeding for the various route options

based on the PIR and Lden rankings combined.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 161 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 8.5.4: Seeding of routes based on combined PIR and Lden rankings PIR L Combined Route den Seeding Ranking Ranking Ranking 119 1 1 2 1 116 2 5 7 3 089 3 6 9 =4 118 4 2 6 2 132 5 4 9 =4 107 6 7 13 7 117 7 3 10 6 104 8 9 17 =8 106 9 8 17 =8 200 (Do-Minimum) 10 16 26 13 120 11 11 22 10 069 12 13 25 12 108 13 14 27 =14 113 14 10 24 11 109 15 12 27 =14 115 16 15 31 16 201 (Management 17 17 34 17 option)

8.5.3.7 Conclusions and Recommendations

Taking the above into consideration, the preferred route options have been ranked in terms of noise and vibration as detailed in Table 8.5.5.

Table 8.5.5: Table of preference based on combined PIR and Lden rankings Route Options Seeding Preference 119 1 Preferred 118 2 Intermediate 116 3 089 =4 132 =4 117 6 107 7 104 =8 106 =8 120 10 113 11 069 12 200 (Do Minimum) 13

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 162 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Options Seeding Preference 109 =14 108 =14 115 16 201 (Management Least Preferred 17 option)

The noise and vibration assessment highlights that Route Options 089, 104, 106, 107, 116, 117, 118, 119 and 132 which are located further west, removed from the existing N25 south of Wexford have a lesser noise impact than the more online route options at this location. However, it should be noted that although there are a higher number of

properties exceeding 60dB Lden for the more online route options, these options pass in closer proximity to higher density residential areas that are already exposed to road traffic noise levels from a well-trafficked national road. Therefore, for these route options there is likely to be a less significant relative increase in noise than is likely for route options that are more offline. Route Option 201 (Management option) is noted as having the greatest overall impact. This is due to the alignment, which follows the existing route and therefore passes in closer proximity to higher density residential areas than the other route options.

8.5.4 Landscape and Visual

8.5.4.1 Methodology

The landscape and visual assessment entailed a desk-based assessment supported by a field visit.

8.5.4.2 Desk Study

The landscape character and visual amenity near the route options has been characterised by a desk-based review of available mapping data, statutory plans, available documentation, and web-based data sources. Particular reference has been made to Wexford County Development Plan 2007 - 2013 Landscape Character Assessment.

8.5.4.3 Field Study

The study area was visited in early December 2010 and an appraisal of the area and its landscape and visual amenity was carried out. A photographic record was taken of the landscape in the vicinity of the route options.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 163 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.5.4.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

The impact assessment is based on the NRA PMG and the route options are classified as being “Preferred”, “Intermediate”, “Similar” or “Least Preferred” based on a comparative assessment of the following criteria to determine the potential landscape and visual impact;  Impact on landscape character,  Impact on historic landscapes,  Impact on residential properties,  Impact on rural character,  Impact on woodland cover and hedgerows,  Impact on recreational amenities,  Sensitivity of receptors,  Route alignment and overall length,  Cut and fill operations that will be required for route options, and  Location of junctions, bridges, and noise barriers.

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. Therefore, in this section the term ‘receptors’ means viewers within residential properties but will also include viewers within the general environment.

Landscape Character

Landscape character is derived from the appearance of the land, and takes account of natural and man made 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, where appropriate, are considered and assessed for impacts. Potential impacts on designated sites of cultural heritage value and ecological value are also considered. For example, historic demesne landscapes, defined by the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH), are considered in the assessment as well

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 164 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

as other informal demesnes identified during the field study and in consultation with the Architectural Heritage consultant.

Significance Assessment Criteria

The significance of impact criteria are detailed in Table 8.5.6 below.

Table 8.5.6 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Criteria Table Significance Criteria Level Profound An impact that obliterates sensitive characteristics. Significant An impact that, by its character, magnitude, duration, or intensity alters a sensitive aspect of the environment. Moderate An impact that alters the character of the environment in a manner that is consistent with existing and emerging trends. Slight An impact that causes noticeable changes in the character of the environment without affecting its sensitivities. Imperceptible An impact capable of measurement but without noticeable consequences.

Landscape Context and Character

The study area for the route options runs from the village of Oilgate, roughly parallel to the existing N11, crossing the River Slaney and to the west and south of Wexford town and on to Rosslare Harbour. The landscape character areas (LCAs) potentially impacted by the route options as detailed in the Wexford County Development Plan 2007- 2013 are detailed in Table 8.5.7.

Table 8.5.7 Landscape Character Name Description Sensitivity Ability to change Value Lowlands Fertile lands with Robust to Potential to absorb Moderate high levels of normal some change. population and intensive land management. Slaney River Slaney and Normal to Limited range to High Valley adjacent valley sensitive change. environment. Undulating terrain in many areas. South Forestry is likely to Robust to Potential to absorb Moderate Hills be dominant normal some change. landuse, agricultural practices are also present. East Long, relatively Vulnerable Pressure from Low

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 165 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Name Description Sensitivity Ability to change Value Coast straight coasts of tourism. Limited sand or shingle capacity to absorb backed up by low change, without cliffs. significant alterations of existing character.

8.5.4.5 Assessments of Impacts

The level of impact on the various landscape character areas through which the route options pass varies and similarly the visual impact on properties, amenities, and existing routes are impacted differently by each route option (see Part 2 – Appendix D.2 and Part 4 – Figures 8.5.3 a to f Landscape Assessment).

North of Slaney Crossing

North of Ferrycarrig, the landscape is generally rolling, undulating topography with existing woodland and watercourses, especially west of the existing N11, along the Slaney Valley. North of the River Slaney crossing the most favourable route option would follow the existing N11 alignment entirely (i.e. Route Option 201 (Management option)), and following this those that are east of the existing N11 and are partially online would be next favoured (Route Options 104,106,107 and 200 (Do-Minimum)). This landscape is characterised as robust to normal sensitivity and is more capable of absorbing the route options that pass through it. The route options in this area avoid impacting existing properties and avoid significant cut or fill operations within the undulating landscape to the west of the N11 within the Slaney Valley. Landscapes west of Oilgate, within the Slaney Valley, are characterised as normal to sensitive in terms of landscape sensitivity.

River Slaney Crossing

Crossing the River Slaney will result in significant landscape and visual impact within a sensitive landscape character area (LCA). The existing bridge at Ferrycarrig is a natural narrowing of the river and is of scenic and historic importance to the area. The bridge with the associated landscape features of the Passage Tower and site of the Castle ruins reinforces the antiquity of this crossing point. However, as the existing river crossing is at this location, it is preferable to utilise this existing crossing with no upgrade of the bridge (i.e. Route Option 201 (Management option) and 200 (Do-Minimum)) or, with consideration to

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 166 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

the surrounding environment a new or extended bridge structure (i.e. Route Options 104, 106 and 107).

The introduction of a new bridge crossing to the west of the existing crossing will give rise to significant landscape and visual impacts within the Slaney Valley, particularly on the south side of the river. Here, the route options will have to traverse elevated landscape (i.e. Route Options 108, 109, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, and 132). A new well-designed bridge may mitigate against some of the landscape and visual impacts by becoming an interesting focal point within the landscape. With a new bridge, there would be less traffic on the existing bridge. This could allow a greater sense of historic and amenity aspects to evolve at the existing crossing. Nonetheless, crossings over the River Slaney west of the existing bridge have the potential to impact on lands of historic properties and woodlands north and south of the river, as well as numerous residential properties. These properties would be significantly impacted upon if such a crossing were selected.

South of the River Slaney

South of the River Slaney, the route options traverse a largely agricultural landscape and this landscape has a number of historic houses, including Johnstown Castle Estate and numerous residential properties. The landscape character areas are defined as South Hills and East Coast, which are robust to normal and vulnerable in sensitivity, respectively. The topography begins to rise to the foot of Forth Mountain and should be avoided, if possible, to avoid significant cut and fill operations in the landscape and avoid the numerous residential properties in the area. The most favourable route option in this area is that which follows the existing N11 and N25 (i.e. Route Option 201 (Management option), 200 (Do-Minimum), and Route Options 069, 108, 109 and 120), minimising the impact on existing residential properties, historic properties and agricultural and wooded areas. On balance, route options that pass to the north of the villages of Killinick and Tagoat are considered more favourable than those that pass south of these villages. This is due to the fact that the northern route options are shorter in length and generally avoids residential and historic properties. The terrain is generally level as one approaches Rosslare Harbour, so all route options remain generally at grade.

Overall Assessment

Route Option 201 (Management option) is the preferred route option as there are few interventions to the landscape. This is followed by Route

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 167 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Option 200 (Do-Minimum). This latter option has the potential to impact on the Wexford Youth football grounds, which are a significant amenity feature in the landscape. However, it is considered that the route options along the existing N11 at this location can be appropriately mitigated to ensure that there is not a significant impact on the amenity value of the site.

North of the Slaney and at the Slaney crossing, Route Option 107 is preferred as it generally follows the existing N11, however south of the Slaney this route traverses largely agricultural landscape and is of intermediate preference for this landscape. Route Options 120 and 132 are “Least Preferred” as they traverse the sensitive Slaney River Valley landscape. The remainder of the route options are of intermediate preference.

South of the Slaney, Route Options 069, 108 and 120 are “Preferred” as they largely follow the existing N25 road alignment. The remainder of route options traverse a rural landscape with many residential properties as well as a number of historic properties and amenities and may lead to landscape and visual impacts on these receptors. Therefore, these route options are intermediate in preference.

8.5.4.6 Route Option Appraisal

The overall findings of the route option appraisal are presented in Table 8.5.8.

Table 8.5.8 Route Option Appraisal Route Option Notes Option Appraisal 201 Preferred Favoured route option as it follows existing road (Manageme corridor over its entire length. Also crosses a nt Option) favoured crossing location over Slaney LCA and No significant impacts on the landscape. 200 (Do- Preferred Favoured route option as it follows existing road Minimum) corridor over much of its length. Also crosses a favoured crossing location over Slaney LCA and has moderate negative impact on east coast LCA. Has an impact on some historic properties (Rowesmount House and Newtown House) in addition to residential properties at Newtown. Requires the removal of some woodland at Ballybrennan Big. Impacts Wexford Youths. 069 Intermediate Crosses Slaney LCA at least favoured location. Has moderate negative impact on South Hills and east coast LCAs. Impacts a number of historic houses (Sion Hse, Cullentra Hse, Barntown Hse, Rowestown Hse, and Grange Hse) and some residential properties at New Castle, Ballyhine and one-off rural

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 168 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal properties. Impacts Wexford Youths and impacts no. of woodlands at Ballybrennan Big and Keeloges. 089 Intermediate Crosses Slaney LCA at least favoured location. Has moderate negative impact on South Hills, lowlands and east coast LCAs. Impacts a number of historic houses including Johnstown Castle, Sion Hse, Killowen Hse, Newbay Hse, Cullentra Hse, Barntown Hse, and Rathaspick Hse. Also impacts some residential properties in Ballyhine, Stephenstown and one off rural housing. Impacts Wexford Youths and impacts no. of woodlands at Keeloges and west of Coolree reservoir 104 Intermediate Favoured route option north of Ferrycarrig as it avoids more sensitive landscape to the west of existing N11. Also crosses a favoured crossing location over Slaney LCA. Has moderate negative impact on South Hills, east coast, and lowlands LCAs. Impacts a number of historic houses including Johnstown Castle, Newbay Hse, Barntown Hse, Rathaspick Hse, and Hayestown Hse. Also impacts some residential properties at Ballyhine, Ferrycarrig and one-off rural housing. Impacts Wexford Youths and impacts no. of woodlands at Keeloges, west of Coolree reservoir and Ballybrennan big. 106 Intermediate Favoured route option north of Ferrycarrig as it avoids more sensitive landscape to the west of existing N11. Also crosses a favoured crossing location over Slaney LCA. Has moderate negative impact on South Hills, east coast, and lowlands LCAs. Impacts a number of historic houses including Johnstown Castle Newbay Hse, Rathaspick Hse, Ballyrane Castle, and Hayestown Hse. Also impacts some residential properties in Ballyhine, Ferrycarrig and one-off rural housing. Impacts Wexford Youths and impacts no. of woodlands at Keeloges, west of Coolree reservoir and Rathaspick House and Kellystown. 107 Intermediate Favoured route option north of Ferrycarrig as it avoids more sensitive landscape to the west of existing N11. Also crosses a favoured crossing location over Slaney LCA. Has moderate negative impact on South Hills, east coast, and lowlands LCAs. Impacts a number of historic houses including Johnstown Castle Newbay Hse, Rathaspick Hse, Hayestown Hse, and Ballyrane Castle. Also impacts some residential properties in Ballyhine, Ferrycarrig and one-off rural housing. Impacts Wexford Youths and impacts no. of woodlands at Keeloges, west of Coolree reservoir, Rathaspick House, Kellystown and Ballybrennan Big. 108 Intermediate Less favoured crossing location over Slaney LCA. Has moderate negative impact on South Hills and east coast LCAs. Impacts a number of historic houses such as Cullentra Hse, Barntown Hse, and Rowestown Hse. Also impacts some residential

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 169 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal properties at Ballyhine, Kavanaghspark and one-off rural housing. Impacts Wexford Youths and impacts no. of woodlands at Cullentra, Keeloges, and Ballybrennan Big. Favoured option south of the River Slaney due to significant length online. 109 Intermediate Less favoured crossing location over Slaney LCA. Has moderate negative impact on South Hills and east coast LCAs. Impacts a number of historic houses including Cullentra Hse, Barntown Hse, Rowestown Hse, and Grange Hse and some residential properties at Ballyhine Kavanaghspark and one-off rural housing. Impacts Wexford Youths and impacts no. of woodlands at Cullentra. 113 Intermediate Less favoured crossing location over Slaney. Has moderate negative impact on South Hills and east coast LCAs. Impacts a number of historic houses including Sion Hse, Cullentra Hse, Barntown Hse, Rowestown Hse, Grange Hse, and Ballyrane Castle. Also impacts some residential properties at Ballyhine, Newcastle and one-off rural housing. Impacts Wexford Youths and impacts no. of woodlands at Keeloges and Ballybrennan Big. 115 Intermediate Less favoured crossing location over Slaney LCA. Has moderate negative impact on South Hills and east coast LCAs. Impacts a number of historic houses including Cullentra Hse, Barntown Hse, and Ballyrane Castle. Potentially impacts some residential properties at Ballyhane, Kavanaghspark and one-off rural properties. Impacts Wexford Youths and woodlands at Keeloges and Ballybrennan Big. 116 Intermediate Less favoured crossing location over Slaney LCA. Has moderate negative impact on South Hills, lowlands and east coast LCAs. Impacts a number of historic houses including Johnstown Castle, Sion Hse, Hayestown Hse, Rathaspick Hse, Cullentra Hse, and Barntown Hse. Impacts some residential properties at Ballyhine and Kavanaghspark. Impacts Wexford Youths and impacts no. of woodlands at Rathaspick, Keeloges, and Coolree reservoir. 117 Intermediate Less favoured crossing location over Slaney LCA. Has moderate negative impact on South Hills, lowlands and east coast LCAs. Impacts a number of historic houses including Johnstown Castle, Sion Hse, Cullentra Hse, Barntown Hse, Newbay Hse, Rowestown Hse, Grange Hse, and Rathaspick Hse. Also has impact on some one-off rural housing. Impacts Wexford Youths and impacts no. of woodlands at Rathaspick and Kellystown. 118 Intermediate Less favoured crossing location over Slaney LCA. Has moderate negative impact on South Hills, lowlands and east coast LCAs. Impacts a number of historic houses including Johnstown Castle, Sion Hse, Cullentra Hse, Barntown Hse, Newbay Hse,

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 170 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal Hayestown Hse, and Rathaspick Hse. Also has impact on some residential properties at Ballyhine, Ferrycarrig and one-off rural housing. Impacts Wexford Youths and impacts no. of woodlands at Rathaspick and Kellystown. 119 Intermediate Less favoured crossing location over Slaney LCA. Has moderate negative impact on South Hills and east coast LCA. Impacts a number of historic houses including Johnstown Castle, Cullentra Hse, Barntown Hse, Hayestown Hse, Rathaspick Hse, and Ballyrane Hse. Also has impacts on some residential properties at Ballyhine, Ferrycarrig and one-off rural locations. Impacts Wexford Youths and impacts no. of woodlands at Rathaspick and Kellystown. 120 Intermediate Less favoured crossing location over Slaney LCA. Has moderate negative impact on South Hills and east coast LCAs. Impacts a number of historic houses such as Rowestown Hse and Grange Hse. Potentially impacts on some residential properties at Ballyhine, Kavanaghspark and one-off rural housing. Impacts no. of woodlands at Keeloges and Ballybrennan Big. 132 Least Least Preferred option because it crosses Slaney Preferred LCA at least favoured crossing location and has significant impacts on Slaney Valley LCA. Has moderate negative impact on South Hills, lowlands and east coast LCAs. Impacts a number of historic houses including Johnstown Castle, Rathaspick Hse, Hayestown Hse, Cullentra Hse, and Barntown Hse. Has some impact on some residential properties at Ballyhine and one off rural properties. Impacts no. of woodlands at Knockahone, College, and Ballybrennan Big.

8.5.4.7 Conclusions and Recommendations

The landscape and visual assessment for the purposes of the Stage 2 assessment has identified Route Option 201 (Management option) as the preferred route option followed by Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum). All other route options are considered as “Intermediate” with the exception of Route Option 132, which is considered as “Least Preferred” for the landscape and visual assessment.

8.5.5 Flora and Fauna

8.5.5.1 Methodology

The scope of this section is to assess the route options and classify them in terms of potential impacts on terrestrial ecology. The NRA

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 171 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes was followed for the purposes of this assessment.

8.5.5.2 Desk Study

A desk-based study was undertaken to review existing ecological data along the route options. The review comprised all relevant literature and databases of information on designated sites, protected or notable species, and habitats of conservation interest within the study area. Some of these data sources are listed as follows:  Ecofact Environmental Consultants (2010a) N11-N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Road Scheme – Wintering Bird Survey Report 2009-2010 (Part 2 – Appendix E.2),  Ecofact Environmental Consultants (2010b) N11-N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Road Scheme – Route Selection Report – Aquatics and Fisheries (Part 2 – Appendix E.1),  National Parks and Wildlife Services (NPWS) website and database (www.npws.ie),  Bat Conservation Ireland mapping (www.batconservationireland.org),  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mapping (www.epa.ie),  Botanical Society of the British Isles,  The Irish Red Data Book (Curtis and McGough, 1988), and  National Biodiversity Data Centre (www.biodiversityireland.ie).

Sites of possible ecological interest, which may be impacted by any route option, were identified up to 150 m either side of each route option using aerial photographs and desk-based information. These sites are hereafter referred to as ecological sites.

8.5.5.3 Field Study

Each ecological site identified in the desk-based assessment was visited and the habitats were mapped and classified according to Fossitt (2000).

An assessment of the habitat’s suitability for protected or notable plant species was also undertaken. The methodology for the assessment was based on the following:  Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes (NRA, 2006, 2009),  IEA Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment,  Ecological Surveying Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National Road Schemes (NRA, 2009),

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 172 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

 Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, 2006),  A Guide to Habitats in Ireland (Fossitt, 2000), and  Best Practice Guidance for Habitat Survey and Mapping (The Heritage Council, 2010).

8.5.5.4 Consultation

Consultation was undertaken with the following organisations for the purposes of the habitat, and flora and fauna assessment:  National Parks and Wildlife Service (Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government),  Inland Fisheries, Central Fisheries Board & Eastern Regional Fisheries Board),  Environmental Protection Agency, and  Wexford County Council Environment Section.

8.5.5.5 Site Evaluation and Impact Assessment Methodology

Following the field surveys, each ecological site was evaluated in terms of its ecological importance, in accordance with the criteria outlined in the NRA’s Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes.

Following this, the potential impacts of the route options on the ecological sites were assessed. The assessment consisted of a broad assessment of potential direct impacts and potential indirect impacts on habitats, considering the value of the ecological sites as  Internationally Important,  Nationally Important,  County Important,  Local Importance (Higher value), and  Local Importance (Lower value).

A comparative assessment was undertaken between each route option to identify the route options that have least potential impact on sites of ecological importance, with priority given to those habitats of highest value (see Part 4 – Figures 8.5.4 a to f Terrestrial Ecology Assessment).

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 173 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.5.5.6 Assessment of Impacts

Designated Sites

Each route option will potentially directly impact on two designated sites of international importance as each route option involves a crossing of the River Slaney. The River Slaney has two designations of International Importance which are the Slaney River Valley SAC (site code: 000781) and the Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA (site codes: 000712 and 004076). All route options cross the Wexford Harbour and Slobs pNHA, a designated site of national importance, as the River Slaney at the proposed crossing locations is designated as part of the pNHA. Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) and Route Options, 069, 089, 104, 108, 109, 116, 117, 119, 120, & 132 cross the pNHA again at the southern end of the scheme near Killinick. However, ecological surveys have identified the habitats at the proposed crossing location of this pNHA to be of local value, nonetheless for the purpose of the analysis, these areas were considered to be of national importance in line with the pNHA designation. See Part 4 - Figure 8.5.2 a to f Ecological Designated Sites for the locations of the designated ecological sites.

Due to the fact that all route options have the potential to impact on the Slaney River Valley Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) and the Wexford Harbour and Slobs Special Protection Area (SPA), an Appropriate Assessment is required under Article 6, paragraph (3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (commonly referred to as the Habitats Directive). The Appropriate Assessment is undertaken to ascertain if any of the route options have the potential to have a significant effect on the designated conservation sites, either individually or in combination with other developments.

For the purposes of this stage of the project (Stage 2 Route Selection, as defined by the NRA Project Management Guidelines, 2010) a Natura Impact Statement Stage 1 Screening Assessment was undertaken to ascertain if any route option has the potential to have a significant effect on the designated conservation sites (see Part 2 – Appendix E.3). All route options have potential to have a significant effect on the designated conservation site and, as such, Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment will be required at Phase 4 (EIA/EAR and Statutory Processes) of the NRA Project Management Guidelines.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 174 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Other Habitats

The receiving environment surrounding all route options is generally characterised by agricultural land, principally arable and dairy farms, with networks of fields largely surrounded by hedgerows. The habitat types recorded in the ecological sites are listed below and full descriptions are presented in Part 2 - Appendix D.3.  Improved agricultural grassland (GA1),  Arable crops (BC1),  Amenity grassland (GA2),  Wet grassland (GS4),  Dry meadows and grassy verges (GS2),  Freshwater pond (FL8),  Calcareous springs (FP1),  Drainage ditches (FW4),  Flowing streams (Watercourses FW),  Dry siliceous heath (HH1),  Oak-ash-holly woodland (WN1),  Oak-ash-hazel woodland (WN2),  Wet pedunculate oak-ash woodland (WN4),  Riparian woodland (WN5),  Wet willow-alder-ash woodland (WN6),  (Mixed) broadleaved woodland (WD1),  Mixed broadleaved / conifer woodland (WD2),  Conifer Plantation (WD4),  Scattered trees and parkland (WD5),  Scrub (WS1),  Immature woodland (WS2),  Hedgerows (WL1) and Treelines (WL2),  Spoil and bare ground (ED2),  Buildings and artificial surfaces (BL3), and  Private gardens.

Protected Flora

The NPWS database was searched for records of protected flora along or in proximity to each route option. There is a record for opposite- leaved pondweed (Groenlandia densa), around the Jamestown area. There is also a record for short-leaved water starwort (Callitriche truncata) at a location to the north of all route options, which is unlikely to be impacted. There are also records for round prickly-headed poppy (Papaver hybridum), tufted salt marsh grass (Puccinella fasciculata) and betony (Betonica officinalis syn. Stachys officinalis) to the south of Barntown and in the vicinity of the route options. Finally, there is a

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 175 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

record for hairy birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus subbiflorus) near Rosslare Harbour.

Protected or Notable Fauna

The following protected fauna are likely to be present along any of the route options:  badger,  bats,  deer,  red squirrel,  otter,  stoat,  pygmy shrew,  common frog,  common lizard, and  smooth newt.

For the purposes of the route selection study, all available current data, supported by field surveys, have been used to ensure that the best possible route option is selected to minimise the impacts on protected species.

Invasive plant species

There are areas of Japanese knotweed at two sites within the study area. Giant rhubarb was also found at one site. Under the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000, it is an offence to cause these species to spread in the wild.

8.5.5.7 Route Option Appraisal

Ranking of Route Options

Route Option 201 (Management option) is most preferred, followed by Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum). These route options are favoured because they use the existing bridge structure over the River Slaney SAC, which will minimise any potential impacts on the designated site that may result from the provision of a new bridge structure across the Lower Slaney SAC. In addition, these route options are largely online avoiding other areas of ecological value.

Following these are the other route options that use the existing crossing location over the River Slaney, but require a new bridge. These route options are Route Options 106 and 107 and they will have

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 176 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

a less significant impact on the SPA and SAC than creating a new bridge crossing further west. Route Option 104 also uses the existing Ferrycarrig river crossing but has been ranked as “Intermediate” overall as it has the highest number of local sites, which would be directly affected. Each of these route options avoids any direct impact on Annex 1 habitat types or qualifying criteria habitats for the designated sites at the River Slaney crossing.

The least preferred route options are Route Options 089, 109, 120 and 132 as these route options require a new crossing of the River Slaney, in addition to having a potential impact on a large woodland complex (sites 17, 18 and 19). These route options will also have direct impacts on a high number of other ecological sites, and will have a large direct impact on pNHAs (three sites), (See Part 4 - Figure 8.5.4 Terrestrial Ecology Assessment). However, each of these route options avoids any direct impact on Annex 1 habitat types or qualifying criteria habitats for the designated sites at the River Slaney crossing.

The rankings of each route option, with justifications, are shown in Table 8.5.9 below.

Table 8.5.9 Route Option rankings Route Option Notes Option Appraisal 201 Preferred Upgrade works will largely occur within the footprint (Management of the existing road and so direct impacts are option) restricted to any upgrade works on the existing Slaney River crossing on the SAC/SPA. No features of national value will be affected. Total number of sites affected is much lower than all other options. 200 (Do- Preferred Alignment largely along existing road reducing Minimum) impacts. Uses existing crossing over River Slaney so least impacts on SAC and SPA. Potential direct impacts on local sites much lower than all other route options. No impacts on heathland habitats. 069 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney – likely significant impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Directly affect large woodland complex of county importance. No impacts on heathland habitats. 089 Least Requires new crossing over Slaney – likely Preferred significant impacts on SPA and SAC, however at preferred crossing location over River Slaney, with no impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Directly affect large woodland complex of county importance. Overall highest number of receptors with impacts.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 177 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal 104 Intermediate Uses existing crossing by way of a new bridge over River Slaney so least impacts on SAC and SPA, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Directly affect large woodland complex of county importance. Highest number of direct impacts on local sites. 106 Preferred Uses existing crossing by way of a new bridge over River Slaney so least impacts on SAC and SPA, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Directly affect large woodland complex of county importance. 107 Preferred Uses existing crossing by way of a new bridge over River Slaney so least impacts on SAC and SPA. Directly affect large woodland complex of county importance. 108 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney – likely significant impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Directly affect large woodland complex of county importance. Low number of sites of county importance directly affected. No impacts on heathland habitat. 109 Least Requires new crossing over Slaney – likely preferred significant impacts on SPA and SAC, however at preferred crossing location over River Slaney, with no impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Directly affect large woodland complex of county importance. Highest number of county sites with possible direct impacts. Highest number of county sites with possible indirect impacts. No impacts on heathland habitat. 113 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney – likely significant impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Directly affect large woodland complex of county importance. No impacts on heathland habitat. 115 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney – likely significant impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Directly affect large woodland complex of county importance. No impacts on heathland habitat. 116 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney – likely significant impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Directly affect large woodland complex of county importance.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 178 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal 117 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney – likely significant impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Directly affect large woodland complex of county importance. Low number of sites of county importance directly affected. 118 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney – likely significant impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Directly affect large woodland complex of county importance. Low number of sites of county importance directly affected. 119 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney – likely significant impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Directly affect large woodland complex of county importance. Least direct impacts on county sites for all routes. No indirect impacts on national sites 120 Least Requires new crossing over Slaney – likely preferred significant impacts on SPA and SAC, however at preferred crossing location over River Slaney, with no impacts on Annex 1 habitats. Directly affect large woodland complex of county importance. Highest number of county sites with possible direct impacts. High number of sites with possible indirect impacts. No impacts on heathland habitat. Overall most number of receptors with impacts. 132 Least Requires new crossing over Slaney – likely Preferred significant impacts on SPA and SAC and potentially impacts on riparian woodland (WN5) and scrub (WS1) habitats. Directly affect large woodland complex of county importance. No indirect impacts on national sites. Only site to affect woodland of county importance also showing ancient woodland indicator species (site 20).

8.5.5.8 Conclusions and Recommendations

The terrestrial ecological assessment has identified Route Options 201 (Management option), 200 (Do-Minimum), 106 and 107 as the preferred route options. Route Option 201 (Management option) and 200 (Do- Minimum) are particularly favourable as they avoid the development of any new structures or bridge structures in the vicinity of the Lower Slaney SAC.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 179 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.5.6 Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology

8.5.6.1 Methodology

The assessment approach undertaken for the purposes of the Hydrology (Water Quality & Aquatic Ecology) assessment was primarily a desk-based assessment supported by a detailed aquatic ecology survey. The assessments take full cognisance of the requirements of the NRA Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes, which outline the requirement to assess the following:  Watercourses crossed by each route option and potential impact on water quality arising from re-alignment works and discharge of surface water run-off,  Aquatic ecological sites close to and downstream of water crossings,  Surface water abstraction close to and downstream of water crossings,  Established amenity value of surface waters traversed by each route option, and  Potential increase (or reduction) in flood risk to existing properties (See Section 8.5.7 Flood Risk Assessment).

8.5.6.2 Desk Study

A desktop study was undertaken to identify the surface water resources within proximity of the route options and to assess their water status, aquatic ecological, and fisheries value, in addition to details on the locations of public water abstractions, municipal wastewater discharges, and IPPC licensed discharges.

8.5.6.3 Field Study

An aquatic habitat assessment of potentially impacted watercourses was undertaken during April/May 2010.

8.5.6.4 Assessment Methodology

A detailed analysis was undertaken of surface water resources within the catchments potentially impacted by each route option. The comparative analysis utilised the following data in order to determine the route option preferences:  Water status (Interim) of all catchments, as defined by the South Eastern River Basin District, which are within 250m of the centreline of the route options,

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 180 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

 Public water abstractions, including Group Water Schemes that occur within 250m of the centreline of each route option,  Discharges from IPPC licensed facilities that occur within 250m of the centreline of each route option,  Discharges from Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants that occur within 250m of the centreline of each route option,  Aquatic ecological value of representative crossing locations over streams and rivers,  Aquatic ecological value of the crossing locations (rated as favoured, less favoured and least favoured) for the bridge crossing of the River Slaney, due to the significance of these crossing locations over a designated Special Area of Conservation, and  Count of the number of watercourses crossed in total by each route option.

The ecological value of waterbodies was assessed with regard to the following:  aquatic habitat quality,  water quality,  fishery value, and  presence or suitability for protected species.

The habitat value is classified in accordance with the requirements of the Guidelines for the Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes (NRA, 2009). See Table 8.5.10 for the criteria utilised.

Table 8.5.10: Ecological Evaluation Criteria Rating Description A Internationally Important B Nationally Important C High Value, Locally Important D Moderate Value, Locally Important E Low Value, Locally Important

8.5.6.5 Consultation

Consultation was undertaken with the following bodies with reference to water quality and aquatic ecology:  Wexford County Council,  National Parks and Wildlife Service, and  Inland Fisheries Ireland.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 181 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.5.6.6 Assessments of Impacts

A number of catchments are potentially impacted by the route options (see Part 2 – Appendix D.4). All route options potentially impact and traverse the following four river basins:  Slaney,  Corock,  Sow, and  Coastal Bishopswater.

Slaney

The River Slaney rises at Lugnaquilla Mountain in the Glen of Imaal, Co. Wicklow before flowing 117km to Wexford Harbour. In the vicinity of the route options, the River Slaney is estuarine. The River Slaney Estuary consists of two waterbodies, the upper River Slaney Estuary (WFD Code: SE_040-0300) from Enniscorthy Railway Bridge as far south as Macmine and the lower River Slaney Estuary (WFD Code: SE_040_0200) from Macmine as far as Wexford Harbour. The lower River Slaney Estuary is the area traversed by the route options. The South Eastern River Basin District classifies this waterbody as having an interim “Moderate” status. In addition, the Slaney Estuary at this location is a designated cSAC (River Slaney valley cSAC) based on a number of qualifying criteria including the presence of alluvial wet woodlands, which is a priority habitat on Annex 1 of the EU Habitats Directive. The area is also a designated Special Protection Area for Birds (Wexford Slobs and harbour SPA). A detailed description of the qualifying criteria of these locations is presented in the Natura Impact Statement Stage 1 & Stage 2 Screening Appropriate Assessment document.

In the vicinity of the route options, there are a number of feeder streams, mostly minor and of limited ecological value. However, there are a number of more significant catchments traversed by the route options. These include the Mountanna catchment, the Crossabeg catchment, and the Mullinree catchments. Table 8.5.11 contains details of the Interim Water Status as defined by the South Eastern River Basin District and the overall ecological evaluation as identified in the ecological habitat assessment undertaken for this project for these catchments. It should be noted that the Catchment Name refers to the name prescribed for each catchment by the South Eastern River Basin District, as indicated on Figure 8.5.5 a-f. The catchment names used in the attached drawing refer to a combination of the main catchment and subcatchment names, with names in brackets referring to stream/river names utilised for the purposes of the aquatic ecological survey.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 182 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 8.5.11: Slaney Catchments Catchment Name RBD Code RBD Water Overall Status Ecological Evaluation Lower River Slaney SE_040_0200 Moderate A Estuary Slaney Main - SE_12_801 Moderate D/E Mountanna (Kavanaghspark1) Slaney Main - SE_12-907 Moderate D Crossabeg (Garrycleary1) Slaney Main - SE_12_803 Moderate C Keeloges, Slaney Main SE_12-1305 - Ballygoman and Slaney Main - SE_12-2541 Ardcandrisk)

1 Catchment names generated for the purposes of the aquatic ecological survey, related to local towlands.

Corock (SE_13-504)

The Corock catchment is located to the south west of the Slaney River Valley. The Corock River flows in a southerly direction towards the sea for approximately 13km before reaching the coast at Bannow Bay on the south Wexford coast. The only subcatchment potentially impacted by the route options is the Corock- Mulmonty River, which is in close proximity to the termination point of the N25 Barntown link. This river is classified as having an Interim “Moderate” water status. The ecological evaluation classified the river (c. 2km downstream) as being of “Moderate value, locally important (D)”.

Sow (SE_12_178)

The River Sow drains a catchment of 88 km2. This river flows into Wexford Harbour, from the north, at , due north of Wexford town. All route options potentially impact on a portion of this catchment (Sow-Sow-mid) at a single location northwest of the catchment. The Martingale subcatchment is traversed by a section of all the route options at this location. The ecological survey of this stream at the crossing location identified it as being of “Low Value, local importance (E)”. The Sow catchment as a whole has an Interim water status of “Moderate”.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 183 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Costal Bishopswater (12-h2_12)

This river basin consists of a significant proportion of the area impacted by the route options. It covers all the river catchments that flow into Wexford Harbour from just south of the River Slaney Estuary as far south as Rosslare Harbour. The river catchments in this river basin generally drain in an easterly or northeasterly direction towards Wexford Harbour. The main catchments are the Assaly catchment, which flows into the Drinagh Intake, the Latimerstown stream, Kellystown Stream, Hayestown Stream, the Newbay Stream Coolree Stream, and the College Stream. It should be noted that the Coolree subcatchment contains the Coolree reservoir, which is the main drinking water source for Wexford Town.

Details of the Interim Water Status as defined by the South Eastern River Basin District and the overall ecological evaluation as identified in the ecological habitat assessment undertaken for this project are included in Table 8.5.12 for these catchments. The catchment name used refers to the name prescribed for each catchment by the South Eastern River Basin District, with names in brackets referring to stream/river names utilised for the purposes of the aquatic ecological survey.

Table 8.5.12: Coastal Bishopswater Catchments Catchment Name RBD Code RBD Water Overall Status Ecological Evaluation Piercetown-Bishopswater SE_12_2289 Moderate N/A Piercetown-Newtown SE_12_2334 Moderate E/C (Coolree Stream & College Stream1) Piercetown-Newbay SE_12_2376 Moderate C Piercetown-Ballymorris SE_12_766 Moderate E (Hayestown Stream1) Piercetown-Coolballow SE_12_766 Moderate D (Kellystown Stream1) Piercetown-Jackstown SE_12_2478 Moderate D/E (Assaly, Catchment, Piercetown Stream, Ballyfinoge Little Stream & Whitestown Stream) Piercetown-Piercetown SE_12_316 Moderate D (Ballyfinogue great Stream & Orristown Stream – Assaly Catchment Piercetown-Murntown SE_12_316 Poor E (Assaly Catchment: Murntown Stream)

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 184 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Catchment Name RBD Code RBD Water Overall Status Ecological Evaluation Piercetown-Ballydusker SE_12_149 Poor E (Assaly River – Ballydusker) Piercetown-Pollrankin SE_12_441 Moderate E (Assaly River, Ballrane Stream, Ballyminaun Stream, Ballycorboys Stream) Piercetown-Ford SE_12_440 Moderate E South Slob and Wexford SE_040_0000 Moderate N/A harbour South Western Irish Sea SE_010_0000 N/A N/A (Rosslare Harbour)

1 Catchment names generated for the purposes of the aquatic ecological survey, related to local towlands.

The majority of catchments listed in Table 8.5.12 are freshwater waterbodies with the exception of the South Slob and Wexford Harbour, which is a transitional waterbody, and the South Western Irish Sea, which is coastal water. It should be noted that there is no water status currently available for the South Western Irish Sea.

For the location of all catchments detailed above see Part 4 - Figure 8.5.5 a to f Surface Water Resources. The results of the comparative assessment of the route options to potentially impact on the above- mentioned catchments are detailed in Table 8.5.13.

Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) and Route Options 069, 089, 104, 108, 109, 116, 117, 119, 120 and 132 cross the Wexford Harbour and Slobs pNHA near Killinick, with the remaining route options crossing the Assaly river c. 130m upstream of the designated area (see Part 4 - Figure 8.5.2 a to f Designated Ecological Sites). Ecological assessments at a site (BWC1-1) within proximity to the crossing location of Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) and Route Options 069, 089, 104, 108, 109, 116, 117, 119, 120 and 132 has identified that the habitat at this location is of “Low Value Local Importance”.

Amenity value

The primary amenity resource associated with this area is the River Slaney. Rowing clubs are present along the river at Edermine, Killurin, and Ferrycarrig. Motorboating and similar pursuits also occur at Ferrycarrig. It is considered that no proposed new crossing location of the River Slaney has any distinct advantage over the others in terms of

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 185 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

potential impacts on boating activities occurring along the river in the long term. However, Route Option 201 (Management option) does have a distinct advantage over other route options because it would utilise the existing crossing over the River Slaney, and so will not result in any new bridge structure being introduced to this area.

Fishing offers a significant amenity value to a number of watercourses in the area, particularly the River Slaney, which is an important sea trout and Atlantic salmon fishery. The value of the watercourses within the study area in terms of their fisheries potential has been fully considered as part of the aquatic ecological assessment.

Discharges and Abstractions

The locations of the following were identified within a corridor 250m either side of the centreline of each route option:  public water abstractions,  municipal wastewater discharges, and  IPPC licensed discharges to watercourses.

This assessment has identified that there are no IPPC licensed discharges occurring to catchments in proximity to any route option. There is a municipal abstraction for drinking water at Coolree reservoir, which is within 250m of Route Options 089, 104, 106, 107, 116, 117, 118, 119, and 132. In addition, there are two wastewater discharges occurring within 250m of all route options at Rosslare Harbour (see Part 4 - Figure 8.5.5 a to f Surface Water Resources).

Shellfish Waters

Shellfish Waters in Ireland are classified by the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA). In 2009, Wexford Harbour was classified as C, Low Quality in the classification of Shellfish Protection Areas in Ireland (see Part 4 - Figure 8.5.5 a to f Surface Water Resources for the location of the Wexford Harbour Shellfish Protection Area). It is considered that due to the Shellfish waters being a significant distance downstream of the River Slaney crossing locations, there is no particular preference allotted to any crossing points with regard to potential impacts on shellfish waters.

8.5.6.7 Route Option Appraisal

Utilising the information presented above in section 8.5.6.6, a comparative analysis was undertaken to assess the potential impact of

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 186 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

each route option on water resources. The results of this assessment are presented in Table 8.5.13 below.

Table 8.5.13: Route Option Appraisal Route Option Notes Option Appraisal 069 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney at less favoured crossing with potential impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Impacts highest no. of catchments classified as "moderate" status. Has a high number of impacts on catchments of "moderate or high ecological value" with crossing of Slaney at less favoured option. However, this route option is balanced by the fact that the route option only requires 31 watercourses to be crossed. 089 Least Requires new crossing over Slaney at less Preferred favoured crossing with potential impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. High number of catchments impacted, in addition to one of the highest number of impacts on catchments of "Moderate or high ecological value with crossing of Slaney at less favoured option and high number of river crossings by alignment. 104 Least Favoured crossing location of the River Slaney Preferred Valley cSAC and Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA. However, this route option has the highest potential no. of impacts on catchments of “moderate or high" ecological value. In addition, this route option has the highest number of river and stream crossings and impacts on 18 catchments of moderate status and 1 of poor status. The route option is located just upstream of the Coolree reservoir. 106 Intermediate Location at favoured Slaney Valley cSAC and Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA crossing location, with a moderate number of crossing locations (for the alignment and the corridor). Impacts on a relatively high number of "moderate and high ecological value catchments. Impacts on two fewer catchments than the least favoured options. 107 Intermediate Location at favoured Slaney Valley cSAC and Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA crossing location, with a moderate number of crossing locations (for the alignment and the corridor). Impacts on a relatively high number of "moderate and high value" catchments. 108 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney at less favoured crossing with potential impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 187 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Highest number of catchments impacted with 18 catchments of moderate status impacted and a single catchment of poor status, in addition to the highest number of impacts on catchments of "Moderate or high ecological value. However, these potential impacts are mitigated by the fact that the route option has one of the lowest number of river and stream crossings and does not have potential to impact on the Coolree reservoir, as it is downstream of the reservoir. 109 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney at less favoured crossing with potential impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Has a relatively high number of impacts on other rivers of "moderate to high ecological value", but proposed alignment crosses one of the lowest number of streams and rivers and does not have potential to impact on the Coolree reservoir, as it is downstream of the reservoir. 113 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney at less favoured crossing with potential impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Has a relatively high number of impacts on other rivers of "moderate to high ecological value", but proposed alignment crosses one of the lowest number of streams and rivers and does not have potential to impact on the Coolree reservoir, as it is downstream of the reservoir. 115 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney at less favoured crossing with potential impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Has a relatively high number of impacts on other rivers of "moderate to high ecological value", but proposed alignment crosses one of the lowest number of streams and rivers and does not have potential to impact on the Coolree reservoir, as it is downstream of the reservoir. 116 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney at less favoured crossing with potential impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Has a relatively low number of impacts on other rivers of "moderate to high ecological value”, and proposed alignment crosses one of the lowest number of streams and rivers. 117 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney at less

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 188 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal favoured crossing with potential impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Has a relatively low number of impacts on other rivers of "moderate to high ecological value”, and proposed alignment crosses one of the lowest number of streams and rivers 118 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney at less favoured crossing with potential impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Has the lowest number of impacts on other rivers of "moderate to high ecological value”, and proposed alignment crosses one of the lowest number of streams and rivers. However is located just upstream of Coolree reservoir. 119 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney at less favoured crossing with potential impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Has a relatively low number of impacts on other rivers of "moderate to high ecological value”, and proposed alignment crosses one of the lowest number of streams and rivers. However is located just upstream of Coolree reservoir. 120 Intermediate Requires new crossing over Slaney at less favoured crossing with potential impacts on SPA and SAC, however no direct impacts on Annex 1 habitats or habitats which are qualifying criteria for Natura 2000 sites. Highest number of catchments impacted with 18 catchments of moderate status impacted and a single catchment of poor status, in addition to a number of potential impacts on catchments of "Moderate or High ecological value". However, these potential impacts are mitigated by the fact that the route option has one of the lowest number of river and stream crossings and does not have potential to impact on the Coolree, as it is downstream of the reservoir. 200 (Do- Preferred Favoured crossing of the River Slaney, with Minimum) lowest impacts on other rivers of " Moderate or high value”. In addition this route option impacts on a significantly lower number of catchments than other options, with the lowest number of stream/river crossings overall. 132 Least Least preferred route option as it crosses the Preferred River Slaney at the least favoured crossing location and potentially impacts on riparian woodland (WN5) and scrub (WS1) habitats. Has the highest number of impacts on other

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 189 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal "moderate and high value catchments. In addition, it impacts on a high number of catchments, impacting on 17 catchments of "moderate status" and two catchments of "poor status". This route option is located just upstream of Coolree reservoir. 201 Preferred This route option is considered the favoured route (Management option because there will be no new bridge or option) culvert structures introduced which would have potential to impact on water resources. However, this route option has a significant disadvantage over other route options in that the design standard of this existing roadway will not be to the standard as new route options in terms of the provision of silt traps/petrol interceptors. This will result in potential ongoing contamination of receiving waterbodies due to road runoff.

Route Option 201 (Management option) is “Preferred” due to the fact that this route option does not require the introduction of any new bridging structures across any rivers or streams and as a result the potential impacts on watercourses are minimised. In addition, the potential impact arising from this route option on the River Slaney Valley cSAC and Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA is minimised due to the fact that no new bridge structure is required. However, this route option has certain disadvantages over other route options in that the design standard of this existing roadway will not be to the standard of new route options in terms of the provision of silt traps/petrol interceptors. This will result in potential ongoing contamination of receiving waterbodies due to road runoff from this route option, for example at the existing Ferrycarrig Bridge, which crosses the River Slaney Valley cSAC.

Whilst Route Option 201 has some certain disadvantages as detailed above, it is still considered as “Preferred” as it does not entail the introduction of any new road length to new catchment areas. This means that, while there is potential for a continued degradation of watercourses already impacted by the road there is no potential for water quality impacts arising in catchments previously not impacted.

The next preferred route option is Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum). This route option crosses at the preferred crossing of the River Slaney Valley cSAC and Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA using the existing bridge and so does not require the introduction of a new bridge across this site of international ecological importance. In addition, this route option has the lowest impacts on other rivers of moderate or high ecological value. In addition, this route option impacts on a significantly

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 190 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

lower number of catchments than other route options, with the lowest number of stream/river crossings overall. In addition, it should be noted that this route option does not have potential to impact on the Coolree reservoir. The lower potential impacts associated with this route option are partially because the route option does not include the N25 Barntown Link, whilst all other route options do. However, this route option utilises substantial lengths of the existing N11/N25 and as a result has a significant disadvantage over other route options in that the design standard of this existing roadway will not be to the standard of new route options in terms of the provision of silt traps/petrol interceptors. This will result in potential ongoing contamination of receiving waterbodies due to road runoff from this route option, for example at the existing Ferrycarrig Bridge, which crosses the River Slaney Valley cSAC.

The least preferred route option is Route Option 132, as it traverses the Slaney River Valley cSAC and Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA at the crossing location that is least preferred. This route option has the highest number of impacts on sites of moderate or high ecological value. The route option also traverses two catchments that are classified as being of “poor status”. Catchments of “poor status” should be avoided where possible, as these catchments are required to attain “good status” at a minimum under the Water Framework Directive. Any potential developments that may preclude a catchment from attaining “good status” should be avoided.

Other route options considered “Least Preferred” are Route Options 089 and 104. These route options require the largest number of watercourse crossings and they cross the Slaney River Valley cSAC and Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA at a location that is considered Intermediate in preference. Both of these route options have some potential to impact on Coolree reservoir, because both of these route options traverse a feeder stream to the Coolree reservoir, c. 150m upstream of the reservoir.

The remaining route options are considered as “Intermediate” in terms of preference with potential for a level of impacts more than the “Preferred” route options but less than the “Least Preferred” options. Full details are presented in Table 8.5.13.

8.5.6.8 Conclusions and Recommendations

The preferred route option is Route Option 201 (Management option) as this route option has very little potential to impact on catchments not previously impacted.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 191 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) is also “Preferred” in terms of ensuring that there is a minimal impact on water quality and aquatic ecology.

Both Route Options 200 and 201 have a significant disadvantage over other route options in that the design standard of this existing roadway will not be to the standard as new route options in terms of the provision of silt traps/petrol interceptors. This will result in potential ongoing contamination of receiving waterbodies due to road runoff from this route option, for example at the existing Ferrycarrig Bridge, which crosses the River Slaney Valley cSAC.

The least preferred route options are Route Options 132, 089 and 104 and the remaining route options are considered as “Intermediate” in terms of preference with potential for impacts between the preferred and least preferred route options. It should be noted that the potential for water quality impacts from any route option may be mitigated during the construction and operational phase with appropriate measures.

8.5.7 Flood Risk Assessment

8.5.7.1 Methodology

The assessment approach undertaken for the purposes of the flood risk assessment was a desk-based assessment. The assessment takes full cognisance of the requirements of the NRA Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes which outlines the requirement to assess “the potential increase (or reduction) in flood risk to existing properties”.

8.5.7.2 Desk Study

A desktop assessment was undertaken to determine the occurrence of flooding and the flood risk currently in the vicinity of the route options. The following were the primary data sources referenced for the purpose of this assessment:  Wexford Flood Risk Management Mapping (http://www.wexford.ie/wex/Departments/Planning/Flood%20Manag ement/Title,17269,en.html),  Wexford County Council's website (www.wexfordcoco.ie),  NRA website (www.nra.ie),  EPA website (www.maps.epa.ie),  OPW Flood Mapping (www.floodmaps.ie), and  OSI Discovery Maps (www.osi.ie).

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 192 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

The Wexford Flood Risk Management Mapping, produced by JBA Consultants is the primary data source utilised for the purposes of this assessment. This mapping identifies the flood risk zones within the county.

8.5.7.3 Impact Assessment Methodology

The principal criteria for this assessment are the impact that each route option has on the floodplains. The assessment undertaken presents a comparative assessment of the interface each route option has with high flood risk zones (Flood Risk Zones A or B as defined in the Wexford Flood Risk Management Mapping).

Flood Zone A are areas at the highest risk of flooding and Flood Zone B are areas at a moderate risk of flooding. The greater length of roadway located in each of these flood zones, the greater the potential for displacement of flood plain storage. In addition, the introduction of roadways into these flood zones could also act as a barrier to flood water dispersal through the entire flood plain.

As a result, the route options that introduce the greatest new length of roadway into high flood risk zones are considered “Least Preferred”, whilst those that introduce the lowest length of new roadway into high flood risk zones are considered “Preferred”.

8.5.7.4 Assessment of Impacts

All route options have an impact on the same floodplains and primary watercourses, but to varying degrees depending on the extent of each route option within the high flood risk areas. The increase in flood risk arising from the route options is a function of the addition of new road length to high flood risk zones. The results of this assessment are detailed in Table 8.5.14 below (see also Part 4 – Figures 8.5.6 a to f Flood Risk Assessment).

8.5.7.5 Route Option Appraisal

The results of the flood risk assessment are detailed in Table 8.5.14 Route Option Appraisal.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 193 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 8.5.14: Route Option Appraisal Route Option Notes Option Appraisal 069 Intermediate 1763m of route option newly located within predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B (new road alignment). 089 Least 1877m of route option newly located within Preferred predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B (new road alignment). 104 Intermediate 1536m of route option newly located within predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B (new road alignment). 106 Preferred 740m of route option newly located within predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B (new road alignment). 107 Intermediate 1681m of route option newly located within predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B (new road alignment). 108 Intermediate 1763m of route option newly located within predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B (new road alignment). 109 Preferred 797m of route option newly located within predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B (new road alignment). 113 Least 1908m of route option newly located within Preferred predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B (new road alignment). 115 Least 2367m of route option newly located within Preferred predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B (new road alignment). 116 Least 1877m of route option newly located within Preferred predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B (new road alignment). 117 Preferred 911m of route option newly located within predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B (new road alignment). 118 Preferred 1081m of route option newly located within predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B (new road alignment). 119 Least 2022m of route option newly located within Preferred predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B (new road alignment). 120 Intermediate 1763m of route option newly located within predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B (new road alignment). 132 Least 1889m of route option newly located within Preferred predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B (new road alignment). 200 (Do- Intermediate 1427m of route option newly located within Minimum) predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B (new road alignment).

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 194 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal 201 Preferred No new route option newly located within (Management predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B. Option)

All route options cross, and have potential to impact on the same floodplains and primary watercourses, but to varying degrees. Each crossing (culvert or bridge) also has the potential to impact on the current hydrological regime of the river, stream or watercourse and its interaction with adjacent watercourses.

Most route options are estimated to require a similar number of crossings, and the preferred route option will be designed during the detailed design stage such that flood risk from diversions and crossings is minimised. Therefore, the assessment ranking criteria is based solely on the length of floodplains affected.

Route Option 201 (Management option) is the preferred route option, as it would not add any additional road area to flood risk zones A & B areas. This would mean that the development of this route option would mean that there would be no change in the flood risk resulting from the preferred route option.

Other preferred route options, deemed to have the least impact on increasing flood risk, are Route Options 106, 109, 117 and 118. These options all have a relatively small amount of interface with the floodplains.

8.5.7.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

Route Option 201 (Management option) is considered the preferred route option because it would not have any impact in terms of increasing flood risk within the study area.

Other preferred route options in terms of minimising potential increase in flood risk are Route Options 106, 109, 117 and 118. The least preferred route options are Route Options 089, 113, 115, 116, 119, 132.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 195 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.5.8 Climate

8.5.8.1 Desk Study

The impacts of the route options on climate have been assessed using results from the CoBA (Cost Benefit Analysis) model. The CoBA model

outputs CO2 emissions arising from each route option and for the Do- Nothing option for the proposed opening year of the scheme (2018) and for a period up to forty years from the opening of the road scheme.

The following documentation was also considered for the purposes of this assessment:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Ireland’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2009, October 2010; and  National Roads Authority (NRA), Statement of Strategy 2007 – 2010.

8.5.8.2 Impact Assessment Methodology

For this assessment, CO2 emissions, (in terms of tonnes of carbon) resulting from each route option and the Do-Nothing option for the proposed opening year of scheme (2018) were considered. The tonnes of carbon resulting from each route option, when compared to the Do-

Nothing option were used to estimate the increase or decrease in CO2 emissions resulting from the route option.

It should be noted that the CoBA model does not account for traffic congestion that is likely to occur on the existing network (Do-Nothing option) in the absence of an upgrade of the road network. The CoBA model outputs are therefore likely to overestimate the additional emissions resulting from the route options when compared to Route Options 200 and 201. For the purposes of the comparative assessment between the route options, the output from CoBA is considered appropriate.

The route options with the lowest increases or greatest decrease in CO2 emissions, when compared to the Do-Nothing option are considered the preferred route options in terms of climate.

This assessment examines the potential impact on climate associated with all the route options. The route options have been ranked as “Preferred”, “Intermediate”, or “Least Preferred” with respect to their impacts on climate as required by the NRA’s 2010 Project Management Guidelines.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 196 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.5.8.3 Assessment of Impacts

The importance of controlling CO2 emissions and that of other greenhouse gases has been well documented. The EPA has published greenhouse gas emission estimates for 2009 that are detailed in the report “Ireland’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2009”. These estimates specify that for 2009, total national greenhouse gas emissions were estimated to be 62.32 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt

CO2eq). Of this quantity, transport is the second largest contributor (after agriculture) to overall emissions, at 21.1% of the total in 2009,

highlighting the importance of controlling CO2 emissions from the transport sector.

Table 8.5.15 summarises the impact that the route options will have on carbon emissions (see also Part 2 – Appendix D.5). The calculation of carbon emissions for the Do–Nothing versus the Do–Something options for each route option enables a comparative assessment to be made of the overall change in carbon emissions for each route option.

Table 8.5.15: Carbon Emissions Additional Tonnes of % Increase over "Do Carbon in 2018 Nothing Scenario" Route Option 69 709 0.45% Route Option 89 2,878 1.52% Route Option 104 3,193 1.67% Route Option 106 4,386 2.29% Route Option 107 4,360 2.28% Route Option 108 643 0.41% Route Option 109 1,056 0.63% Route Option 113 2,435 1.34% Route Option 115 2,154 1.20% Route Option 116 2,410 1.28% Route Option 117 2,805 1.49% Route Option 118 3,590 1.90% Route Option 119 3,567 1.88% Route Option 120 1,024 0.61% Route Option 132 2,104 1.12% Route Option 200 (Do- -737 Minimum) -0.36% Route Option 201 316 (Management option) 0.16%

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 197 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.5.8.4 Ranking of Route Corridor Options

Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) is the preferred route option as it results in a net reduction in carbon emissions for the opening year of the scheme (2018) when compared with the ‘Do-Nothing’ scenario.

All other route options result in an increase in the carbon emissions for 2018.

Route Options 089, 104, 106, 107, 113, 117, 118, and 119 are all ranked as “Least Preferred” because they produce significantly more carbon emissions compared with other route options.

The remaining route options; Route Options 069, 108, 109, 115, 116, 120, 132 and 200 are ranked as “Intermediate” because they produce less carbon emissions when compared with other route options. The results of the comparative assessment are presented in Table 8.5.16.

Table 8.5.16: Route Option Appraisal Route Option Notes Option Appraisal 069 Intermediate This route option is ranked as “intermediate” because it produces less carbon emissions compared with other route options. 089 Least This route option is ranked as “least preferred” preferred because it produces significantly more carbon emissions compared with other route options. 104 Least This route option is ranked as “least preferred” preferred because it produces significantly more carbon emissions compared with other route options. 106 Least This route option is ranked as “least preferred” preferred because it produces the highest quantity of carbon emissions. 107 Least This route option is ranked as “least preferred” preferred because it produces the second highest quantity of carbon emissions. 108 Intermediate This route option is ranked as “intermediate” because it produces less carbon emissions compared with other route options. 109 Intermediate This route option is ranked as “intermediate” because it produces less carbon emissions compared with other route options. 113 Least This route option is ranked as “least preferred” preferred because it produces significantly more carbon emissions compared with other route options. 115 Intermediate This route option is ranked as “intermediate” because it produces less carbon emissions compared with other route options.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 198 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal 116 Intermediate This route option is ranked as “intermediate” because it produces less carbon emissions compared with other route options. 117 Least This route option is ranked as “least preferred” preferred because it produces significantly more carbon emissions compared with other route options 118 Least This route option is ranked as “least preferred” preferred because it produces significantly more carbon emissions compared with other route options. 119 Least This route option is ranked as “least preferred” preferred because it produces significantly more carbon emissions compared with other route options. 120 Intermediate This route option is ranked as “intermediate” because it produces less carbon emissions compared with other route options. 132 Intermediate This route option is ranked as “intermediate” because it produces less carbon emissions compared with other route options. 200 (Do- Preferred This route option is ranked as “preferred” Minimum) because it produces the least amount of carbon emissions. RO201 Intermediate This route option is ranked as “intermediate” (Management because it produces less carbon emissions option) compared with other route options.

8.5.8.5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) is the preferred route option as it results in a net reduction in carbon emissions for the opening year of the scheme (2018) when compared with the ‘Do-Nothing’ scenario.

8.5.9 Waste

8.5.9.1 Methodology

This assessment attempts to estimate the excess quantities of cut material that would be exported off-site for each route option.

In order to estimate other waste materials that could be produced by each route option during the construction phase, the length of each route option and the number of overbridges/ underbridges required were used as an indication of the comparative potential for waste generation.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 199 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.5.9.2 Desk Study

Utilising the preliminary horizontal and vertical alignments of the route options, an estimation was made of the earthworks surplus that was likely to be generated by each route option. An assessment was also made of the quantity of peat material likely to be generated, as this material has limited scope for reuse within a road scheme. As a worst- case scenario, this material was assumed waste.

In addition, the length of each route option and the number of structures required for each route option was tabulated (see Part 2 – Appendix D.6).

8.5.9.3 Impact Assessment Methodology

Earthwork Volumes

The route options that produce the least amount of earthworks material during construction are considered the preferred route options and the route options that would produce the highest amount of surplus earthworks material during construction are considered the least preferred route options.

Other Waste Material

Route options that are shorter in length and require a fewer number of structures such as overbridges and underbridges are “Preferred” as less waste material will be produced compared with longer route options with a higher number of structures.

8.5.9.4 Assessment of Impacts

Earthwork Material Volumes

It is estimated that the construction of Route Option 104, 106, 107 and the Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum), may not produce any surplus earthwork material.

Route Option 201 (Management option) would potentially generate a relatively small surplus of earthworks material (16,830m3) that will require movement off-site when compared to the remaining route options.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 200 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

It is estimated that the construction of Route Options 132, 109, 118, 120 and 113 would potentially produce the highest volume of surplus earthwork material.

Other Waste Material

Route Option 201 (Management option) requires the shortest length of road upgrade (c.16km). In addition, this route option does not require the construction of any additional overbridges or underbridges or other major structures, with the exception of the new at-grade roundabouts required.

Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) is the next shortest route option at 30.55 km. It also requires a relatively small number (eighteen) of overbridges and underbridges to be constructed. Therefore, it is considered a preferred route option, as it has the lowest potential to generate waste material.

The remaining route options all require a similar number of structures (overbridges and underbridges) to be constructed.

In terms of route option length, Route Option 106 is the longest route option and Route Options 107, 118 and 119 are longer compared with other route options.

8.5.9.5 Route Option Appraisal

Table 8.5.17: Route Option Appraisal Route Option Notes Option Appraisal 069 Intermediate The construction of this route would produce a lower surplus of earthworks when compared with other route options. This route is one of the shortest routes but it requires a higher number of structures compared with other route options. This route option is therefore ranked as “intermediate”. 089 Intermediate The construction of this route option would produce a lower earthworks surplus when compared with other route options. This route option requires a higher number of structures compared with other route options. This route option is therefore ranked as “intermediate”. 104 Intermediate The construction of this route option would not produce any surplus earthworks. This route option is of a similar length to other route options but requires a high number of structures. This route option is therefore

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 201 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal ranked as “intermediate”. 106 Intermediate The construction of this route option would not produce any surplus earthworks. This route is longest in length and requires a high number of structures. This route option is therefore ranked as “intermediate”. 107 Intermediate The construction of this route option would not produce any surplus earthworks. However, this route option is one of the longest in length. This route option is therefore ranked as “intermediate”. 108 Intermediate The construction of this route option would produce a lower quantity of surplus earthworks when compared with other route options. This route option is the shortest in length but it requires a higher number of structures compared with other route options. This route option is therefore ranked as “intermediate”. 109 Least The construction of this route option would Preferred produce a higher volume of surplus earthworks when compared with other route options. This route option also requires a high number of structures and is therefore ranked as “least preferred”. 113 Least The construction of this route option would Preferred produce a higher volume of surplus earthworks when compared with other route options. This route option also requires a high number of structures and is therefore ranked as “least preferred”. 115 Intermediate The construction of this route option could produce a lower quantity of surplus earthworks when compared with other route options. This route option is of a similar length to other route options but requires a high number of structures. This route option is therefore ranked as “intermediate”. 116 Intermediate The construction of this route option would produce a lower quantity of surplus earthworks when compared with other route options. This route option is of a similar length to other route options but requires a high number of structures. This route option is therefore ranked as “intermediate”. 117 Intermediate The construction of this route option would produce a lower quantity of surplus earthworks when compared with other route options. This route option is of a similar length to other route options but requires a high number of structures. This route option is therefore ranked as “intermediate”. 118 Least The construction of this route option would Preferred produce a higher volume of surplus earthworks

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 202 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal when compared with other route options. This route is one of the longest in length, requires a high number of structures, and is therefore ranked as “least preferred”. 119 Intermediate The construction of this route option would produce a lower quantity of surplus earthworks when compared with other route options. This route is one of the longest in length and requires a high number of structures. This route option is therefore ranked as “intermediate”. 120 Least The construction of this route option would Preferred produce a higher volume of surplus earthworks when compared with other route options. This route is one of the shortest in length but requires a high number of structures and is therefore ranked as “least preferred”. 132 Least The construction of this route option would Preferred produce the highest volume of surplus earthworks when compared with other route options. This route option is of a similar length to other route options but requires a high number of structures and is therefore ranked as “least preferred”. 200 (Do- Preferred The construction of this route option would not Minimum) produce any surplus earthworks. This route option is one of the shortest in length and requires one of the lowest number of structures. This route option is therefore ranked as “preferred”. 201 Preferred The construction of this route option would (Management produce a small surplus earthwork volume. option) This route option is the shortest in length and requires no new structures to be constructed. This route option is therefore ranked as “preferred”.

8.5.9.6 Ranking of Route Corridor Options

Route Option 201 (Management option) is considered the preferred route option in terms of minimising the quantity of waste material generated. This route option generates a relatively small surplus of earthwork material when compared to other route options where a surplus arises. In addition, the proposed road upgrade associated with this route option covers the shortest length of roadway and this route option will not result in any overbridges or underbridges being constructed.

Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) is also a preferred route option as the construction of this route option may not produce any surplus

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 203 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

earthworks and it is the shortest in length and it would require a low number of structures to be constructed.

It is also estimated that the online route options; Route Options 104, 106, and 107 may not produce any surplus earthworks but in terms of length they are longer when compared with other route options and they require the construction of a large number of structures.

The construction of Route Options 132, 109, 118, 120, and 113 have been ranked as “Least Preferred” because they would potentially produce the highest volume of surplus earthworks and they require a high number of structures to be constructed.

The remaining route options (Route Options 069, 089, 104, 106, 107, 108, 115, 116, 117, and 119) are all ranked as “Intermediate”.

8.5.9.7 Conclusions and Recommendations

Route Options 201 (Management option) and 200 (Do-Minimum) are considered the preferred route option in terms of waste generation as preliminary analysis has identified that these route options have the shortest route lengths and the lowest number of significant structures, with least potential to generate waste. In addition, Route Option 200 (Do-minimum) does not produce any surplus earthwork material, whilst Route Option 201 (Management option) potentially produces a very small quantity of surplus earthworks material.

8.5.10 Geology and Hydrogeology

8.5.10.1 Methodology

This assessment has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the National Roads Authority’s (NRA) Guidelines on Procedures for the Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology, and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes. Data collection and the methodology followed are summarised in the sections below.

8.5.10.2 Desk Study

The assessment of each route option has been carried out using information gathered at the Constraints Study Phase and data collected for the purposes of the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment. Details of the information used for the purposes of this assessment are presented in Table 8.5.18.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 204 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 8.5.18: Sources of Data Feature Source Geological Survey of Ireland, 1:100 000 bedrock mapping Bedrock geology Regional memoir Subsoils Geological Survey of Ireland, (www.gsi.ie) Soils Environmental Protection Agency, Mapping Website Irish Landslides Working Group Geohazards Geological Survey of Ireland Karst features Geological Survey of Ireland karst database Geographic Exploration and Mining Services Economic geology Geological Survey of Ireland (www.gsi.ie) Wexford County Council Geological heritage Geological Survey of Ireland Aquifer type Aquifer vulnerability Regional memoir Source Protection Areas Geological Survey of Ireland Wells and Springs Wexford County Council Drinking Water Sources

In addition, responses from public consultations have been used for the preparation of this chapter, where appropriate.

8.5.10.3 Consultation

The following organisations have been consulted for the preparation of this chapter:  Geological Survey of Ireland,  Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government,  Environment Protection Agency, and;  Wexford County Council.

8.5.10.4 Field Survey: Visual Inspection

A targeted drive-by (windshield) survey was completed on December 16th 2010.

8.5.10.5 Impact Assessment Methodology

The assessment of likely impacts resulting from each route option has been carried out using information obtained from desk-based studies and field surveys. The significant impacts affecting soils, geology and hydrogeology along each route option have been identified and assigned an impact rating. The impact rating assigned to each attribute

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 205 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

follows the guidelines outlined in the NRA Guidelines on Procedures for the assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology, and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes.

In order to assess the impact of each route option the following attributes have been assessed:  Geological heritage sites along each route option,  Landfills, backfilled quarries or former industrial sites along each route option and the potential risk of encountering contaminated land,  Karst features and geohazards present along each route option and the potential impacts to the road scheme,  The quality, drainage characteristics and range of agricultural uses of soil along each route option,  Historic and existing pits, quarries or mines in the vicinity of each route option, the potential (if any) of future extractable reserves, and  The extent of poor ground conditions in terms of peat and other soft compressible deposits along each route option and the potential requirement to excavate it and remove it from site as waste for disposal.

The assessment approach has been to identify and count the potential impacts arising from each route option within each of ten zones as indicated on Part 4 - Figure 8.5.7 a to f Soil Types and Mine Locations and Part 4 - Figure 8.5.8 a to f Hydrogeology.

8.5.10.6 Assessment of Impacts

Each route option has been appraised in terms of its potential impacts on geological, soils and hydrogeological attributes along each of its alignments in accordance with NRA guidelines.

Soils and Geology

Owing to their alignments, no route option was found to impact on the following soil and geological attributes:  Geological heritage sites,  Landfills, backfilled quarries or former landfills, and  Geohazards.

Soils

The principal soil association within the study area is Association 40: Gleys 80%, Grey Brown Podzolics 20%. The soil is fine grained and compact and therefore poor drainage is coupled with this association.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 206 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

In the south Wexford area, these soils are noted to have indurated and stony subsoil. Due to their poor drainage, fine grained and compact structure, the soils in the study area tend to have a limited range of uses and are mainly used for grassland-based agriculture but have also been used intensively for tillage, due to the favourable climatic conditions in this area. It is considered that the potential for impact on agricultural soils is equal for all route options with the exception of Route Option 201 (Management option) for which no significant impacts are predicted.

Karst

There are no recorded karst features within the study area. However, the geology to the northwest of Rosslare Harbour is seen to comprise fine-grained limestone. Within this area, it is considered that there is potential for karst features to be present. This consideration is supported by submissions received during the public consultation and confirmed by Wexford County Council. As all route options traverse the same area they have equal impacts on this attribute, with the exception of Route Option 201 which has the lowest risk of encountering karst features.

Poor Ground Conditions

Poor ground conditions are expected in the areas adjacent to the River Slaney, the Slaney Estuary and along the margins of smaller watercourses throughout the study area. This attribute covers the impact on peat and other soft compressible deposits as well as the potential requirement to excavate it and remove it from site. Route options which are aligned close to Forth Mountain were seen to have a higher impact on poor ground conditions. Glacial deposits, located throughout the study area, may be locally variable, with lenses or zones of soft clay. The nature of these soft deposits means that they are predisposed to potential excessive and differential settlement.

Sections of route options likely to encounter made ground are only likely to arise in areas that have been subjected to previous infrastructural development. Route Options 104, 106, 107 were found to have the highest number of impacts on this attribute. This is due to their alignments traversing at the existing N11 crossing of the River Slaney, an area identified as consisting of made ground.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 207 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Contaminated Land

From the desk study that has been undertaken at this stage, it is not anticipated that any areas of contaminated land will be encountered along any route option.

Economic Geology

There are no industries within the study area operating under a State Mining Licence or a State Mining Lease in accordance with the Minerals Developments Act 1940 – 1999. There are also no Mineral Prospecting Licences granted within the study area. However, GSI records indicate there to be two active mining locations, located at Pollsallagh and Ballygarvey.

Hydrogeology

Aquifer Characteristics

The study area is one of the driest parts of Ireland in terms of rainfall and potential recharge to the aquifers ranges from 400-600mm/yr. The rocks, which underlie the majority of the study area, are considered aquitards defined as an impermeable layer along an aquifer restricting the flow of groundwater from one aquifer to another.

Groundwater flow in these areas is normally restricted to the top 30m of rock, fault zones, and the overlying subsoil deposits. Well yields are generally only sufficient for domestic or farm supplies (25-50m3/day)

Due to the bedrock geology of the study area all route options transverse areas of regionally important (Rf and Rkd) and locally important (Li) aquifers. Route Options 104, 106, 107, and 200 (Do- Minimum) were seen to impact on a locally important aquifer (Lm) at Ferrycarrig, north of the existing N11 River Slaney crossing.

Aquifer Vulnerability

According to GSI records, the majority of the study area is classified as having a high to low vulnerability. Discrete areas of high to extreme vulnerability are present throughout, most notably in the area around Forth Mountain

Route Options 106, 107, 118, 119, 132, and 200 (Do-Minimum) recorded the highest number of impacts on underlying aquifers with ‘high to extreme’ vulnerability. This is due to their alignment around

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 208 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Forth Mountain, an area that has a high occurrence of ‘high to extreme’ vulnerable aquifers.

Water Supply

A search conducted on the GSI website and data supplied by Wexford County Council indicates that there are currently no Source Protection Areas (SPA) designated within proximity to any route option.

However, a number of springs, wells, and water supply schemes are situated in the study area. The locations of these features are indicated on Part 4 - Figure 8.5.8 a to f Hydrogeology.

Water supply, springs, and wells are seen to be impacted on by all route options, with the exception of Route Option 201 (Management option). Route Option 104 has the highest number of impacts with Route Options 109, 108, 107, 113 and 120 recording the lowest number of impacts. All other route options are predicted to have impacts on these features.

8.5.10.7 Route Option Appraisal

Comparison of each route option has been based on the results from the impact assessment (see Table 8.5.19). The route option with the lowest number of predicted impacts has been identified as the preferred route option. The route option with the greatest predicted impacts is “Least Preferred”.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 209 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 8.5.19:Route Option Appraisal ( M Route Option (No. of Impacts) a n M a 2 g i 0 n e 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i m m

0 1 6 0 1 2 8 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 0

Topic Attribute Attribute Impact Level ( 9 5 9 8 3 0 9 6 7 2 7 8 9 D 4 6 e u 2 n o m Importance 0 t - 1 ) )

Geological heritage sites High Moderate Negative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

y Landfills, backfilled quarries or former landfills Medium Moderate Negative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g o l Agricultural soils Medium Moderate Negative 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 o e

G Pits, quarries or mines Medium Moderate Negative 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 2 2 1 2

d

n Poor ground conditions Medium Moderate Negative 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 a

s l i Karst features Low Slight Negative 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 o S Geohazards Low Slight Negative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Areas of made ground Low Slight Negative 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 Underlying regionally important aquifer (Rf) Very High Profound Negative 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

y Underlying regionally important aquifer (Rkd) High Significant Negative 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 g o l Springs, wells and water supply schemes High Significant Negative 0 2 3 3 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 5 o e

g Underlying aquifer with 'High to Extreme' o

r High Significant Negative 4 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5

d vulnerability y H Underlying locally important aquifer (LI) Medium Moderate Negative 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Underlying locally important aquifer (Lm) Medium Moderate Negative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 Total No. of Impacts 13 29 32 32 32 32 32 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 37 38 39 Ranking 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th Least Preference Preferred Intermediate Preferred

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 210 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.5.10.8 Conclusions and Recommendations

The study area does not contain any zones of specific scientific or heritage importance that need to be avoided. Information obtained from GSI does not indicate the presence of karst features within any route option. However, some karst features may be present but not indicated on maps, especially in areas where the underlying bedrock geology is limestone. The removal of deposits during road construction in areas where the underlying geology is limestone could reveal unrecorded features or accelerate the karstification process.

In assessing the hydrogeological attributes, the most important impact was on areas of ‘high to extreme’ aquifer vulnerability. This is significant where route options are near Forth Mountain, an area classed as having ‘high to extreme’ aquifer vulnerability.

The assessment has identified, based on the potential impacts on soils, geology, and hydrogeology that Route Option 201 (Management option) is the most preferred route option. Other preferred route options include Route Options 109, 69, 108, 113, 115, and 120. Route Options 104 and 106 are considered to have the greatest adverse impact and are therefore “Least Preferred”.

8.5.11 Archaeology & Cultural Heritage

8.5.11.1 Desk Study

The first step of the assessment was to establish the number and location of designated sites of archaeological and architectural merit located within 250m of each route option, as required by the NRA Guidelines for the Assessment of Archaeological Heritage of National Road Schemes. It should be noted that the NRA Guidelines for the Assessment of Architectural Heritage of National Road Schemes suggest an overall assessment corridor of 200m (100m either side), however, to ensure consistency of approach with the archaeological assessment and in recognition of the overlap between archaeological and architectural heritage, the more conservative buffer of 500m (250m either side) was also used for the purposes of this assessment.

The sites assessed include the following:  Record of Monuments and Places (RMPs); a statutory list of protected sites under the National Monuments Act, 1930 – 2004,

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 211 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

 Sites and locations listed under the Record of Protected Structures (RPSs) as listed in Wexford County Development Plan 2007 – 2013 and protected under the Planning and Development Act 2000, and  Sites listed under the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) (these sites do not have any statutory protection unless the site is also listed as an RMP or RPS).

The relevant RMP and NIAH information was downloaded from www.archaeology.ie and www.buildingsofireland.ie. Locations of the RPS sites were determined through a review of Wexford County Development Plan 2007-2013 and previous County Development Plans. The heritage officer of Wexford County Council supplied additional information concerning the locations of RPSs. However, it should be noted that there is no official mapping available for the RPSs within County Wexford (see Part 4 – Figures 8.5.9 a to f Cultural Heritage).

The database of the summary accounts of archaeological investigations, accessed from www.excavations.ie, was also consulted.

The Topographical files of the National Museum of Ireland (NMI) provided additional information on the archaeological potential of the landscape traversed. The topographical files, housed within the National Museum – Archaeology, Dublin, are the national archive of all known antiquities recorded by the NMI. These primarily relate to stray artefacts, though references to monuments are also documented, and are provenanced to county and townland; in city areas the street is also given. The amount and detail of the information can vary considerably and it is often the case that exact location information is not known. The Topographic files for the townlands crossed by the route options were consulted and the information presented in Part 2 – Appendix D.7.

Additional information utilised in the assessment included the archaeological geophysics survey undertaken in the River Slaney at the proposed bridge crossing locations by the Archaeological Diving Company Ltd. The survey identified a number of target features but it was concluded that these were of low archaeological potential. It was recommended that a programme of archaeological dive inspection be conducted at the location of the selected river crossing and any proposed impact locations, prior to and during the construction phase. As such, the results of the assessment do not have an impact in the route selection analyses at the time of writing.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 212 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Further information was ascertained by way of a review of aerial photography, OS mapping, and historical mapping.

8.5.11.2 Field Study

Both a windshield survey and targeted site visits were carried out in January 2011. This fieldwork was undertaken in order to evaluate the terrain that the route options traverse and to verify the extent, and condition of a selection of archaeological and architectural sites of significance. This sample of sites was selected based on a number of criteria including:  the type of potential impact upon the site,  the archaeological potential of the area,  the quantity of impacts within a small area,  the number of route options impacting upon the site, and  the limitation of alternative route options.

The area assessed during the windshield survey identified that a large proportion of the area is intensively farmed, with no visible evidence of many archaeological sites that were identified in the desk study.

8.5.11.3 Impact Assessment Methodology

The impact assessment of the route options on elements of archaeological or architectural heritage is considered both quantitatively and qualitatively.

8.5.11.4 Quantitative Assessment

Quantitative assessment was undertaken whereby the number of designated sites (RMPs & RPSs) and NIAH sites within 250m of each route option were counted. Sites that may potentially be directly impacted (within 25m of the route option) were also counted for each route option. The result of all impacts, when totalled up, allow for the ranking of each route option.

Qualitative Assessment

In addition to the quantitative assessment, it was considered appropriate to undertake a qualitative, more subjective assessment. This was undertaken to identify areas of archaeological potential i.e. areas where there is potential for further sites or elements of archaeological merit, generally identified as areas where there is a cluster of designated archaeological sites, or a record of previous finds.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 213 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

The designated sites (RMPs, RPSs, and NIAHs) are generally represented by point locations on available mapping. However, on the ground, the extent of the sites may extend beyond the point location. As a result, utilising available information and observations made during the site visit, a more subjective assessment was made of the extent of some designated sites.

As identified during the windshield survey, the area that the route options traverse consists primarily of farmland within a lowland zone with a small number of localised areas of wet grasslands, peat and water bodies, as well as former wetland zones.

A number of these areas are detailed within the terrestrial ecology assessment. Only two notable large-scale wetland zones are seen within the study area, the River Slaney and the Drinagh/Rosslare Intake. Previous wetland areas may have been drained for the purposes of intensive farming activity. Wetland zones can be seen to have an increased archaeological potential, so these areas have been considered as part of the qualitative assessment.

Using both the qualitative and quantitative data, the combined results allow for a more accurate assessment of the potential impact of the route options.

For the purposes of the Stage 2 Assessment, all route options were ranked in terms of preference as “Preferred”, “Intermediate”, or “Least Preferred”.

8.5.11.5 Consultation

The Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government and the Wexford County Council Heritage Officer were consulted with regard to identifying RPS and NIAH locations.

Information supplied during the public consultation was assessed. The assessment undertaken considered designated sites and structures, and associated locations with high potential for further sites of cultural heritage merit. The majority of sites identified during the public consultation were known sites identified during the desk study. However, without detailed location information it was not possible to positively identify or locate every individual site.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 214 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.5.11.6 Assessments of Impacts

Quantitative Assessment

The first stage of the Route Option Appraisal is to conduct the quantitative analysis of the impacts; this is a total count of the number of potential impacts within 250m of the route option and the number of direct impacts (within 25m of the route option). Table 8.5.20 lists the route options and the number of impacts within 250m of each route option.

Table 8.5.20: Total Impacts per Route Option Route Options Total No. of Impacts Direct Impacts 201 (Management Option) 24 3 200 (Do-Minimum) 65 11 069 54 6 089 53 5 104 68 11 106 65 10 107 70 10 108 59 9 109 46 8 113 64 8 115 63 7 116 57 8 117 44 7 118 54 7 119 59 7 120 60 6 132 59 6

A review of the quantitative data presented in Table 8.5.20 identifies that Route Option 201 (Management Option) has the lowest number of potential impacts and direct potential impacts (within 25m). Other route options with low numbers of impacts include Route Option 117 and Route Options 069, 089 and 120 that have low numbers of impacts located within 25m of the route option, i.e. direct impacts.

Qualitative Assessment

In addition to the data presented in Table 8.5.20, above, the field study identified a further two sites that may potentially be impacted upon due to the extent of the sites and are as follows:

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 215 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

 Rathaspick House (15704221, WCC0706 WX042-008-) for which the gardens are included within the NIAH description, are partially located within the footprint of Route Options 089, 104, 106, 107, 116, 117, 118, 119 and 132.  WX048-114---- This is a large enclosure with a diameter of circa 130m and may extend within the footprint of Route Options 069, 089, 104, 108, 116, 120 and 132.

Additionally, the potential of previously unrecorded sites to be impacted upon is considered.

A number of localised areas of wet grasslands, peat and water bodies, as well as former wetland zones are traversed by the route options. Such areas can have an increased archaeological potential.

To the north of the River Slaney the route options can be seen to extend between two river valleys, that of the Slaney and the River Sow, a tributary of the Slaney. These river valleys have relatively steep slopes associated with the river channels in this area. This is particularly notable in the area of the Ferrycarrig Bridge where notable promontories can be seen.

All route options cross a number of minor and major watercourses. The two notable large-scale wetland zones seen within the study area are the River Slaney and the Drinagh/Rosslare Intake. It is likely that further wetland zones have been impacted upon by intensive farming activity. The Drinagh Intake is located to the north of the all route options. However, a number of route options cross streams, which flow towards the Drinagh Intake, within the townlands of Stephenstown and Assaly Great near the village of Killinick. The River Slaney, located to the north and northwest of Wexford town, is a large tidal river and is the main watercourse located within the study area. The resources available from these wetland zones, as well as the utilisation of these watercourses for transportation purposes would have attracted human activity and settlement historically. In addition, the well-drained loams and sandy soils may have been a productive and valuable landscape for early farmers.

Few prehistoric monuments survive extent within the study area, with later farming removing extent traces, which is matched by a relative paucity of prehistoric artefacts or sites exposed and/or excavated from the townlands the route options traverse. However, the predominately ritual nature of the finds and known prehistoric sites within the study area clearly confirms prehistoric occupation of the area. More domestic sites are evident from the excavation or discovery of fulachta fiadh

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 216 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

within the townlands of Ballyboggan, Ballygerry and Killiane. Further settlement activity has also been recorded within Kerlogue townland (located to the southeast of Wexford town and approximately 1km to the north of the nearest route option), where both Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery were recovered from excavations in which a Bronze Age structure was also recorded.

Later occupation is more clearly represented in the archaeological and historical record with numerous Early and Late Medieval sites evident. However, much of the later archaeological record has been impacted upon by farming with the result being that many sites do not have an above ground register. Though no notable stray finds have been recovered from these later periods, excavations, toponyms, and the extent remains clearly highlight the archaeological potential of several areas, for instance Ferrycarrig, Newtown, and Rathaspick.

Throughout the post-medieval period the study area remained primarily dominated by agricultural activities. Only three sites not listed as a site of archaeological or architectural heritage were noted to be directly impacted by the route options: two millraces, one within Kellystown and the other in Orristown, and the disused Fishguard to Rosslare railway line within Assaly Little.

The following nine areas of archaeological potential have been identified as, potentially, containing significant unrecorded archaeological features or deposits and these areas are located within the following townlands (see Part 4 - Figure 8.5.9 a to f Cultural Heritage):  Ferrycarrig,  Newtown,  Ballykilliane, Coolpeach, Levitstown, Rowestown & Sheepwalk,  Ringaheen,  Ballybrennan Big, Bush & Yoletown,  Ballycowan & Hillcastle,  Kilscoran,  Ballygerry, and  Rathaspick.

The Drinagh/Rosslare Intake is located between Wexford Town and Rosslare and is located to the north of the route options. Several areas of archaeological potential within this area have been identified; namely Areas 4-6 and 9.

Similarly, the River Slaney, located to the north and northwest of Wexford Town, has not been considered as an individual area of

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 217 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

archaeological potential. As this large tidal river is impacted upon by all route options, with the exception of Route Options 200 (Do-Minimum) and 201 (Management option), no route option can be seen as having a reduced impact on the potential archaeological landscape within this area. A review of excavations carried out within the townlands along the river does highlight the archaeological bearing potential with several fulacht fia/burnt mounds identified. It is important to note that the archaeological assessment of geophysical data along the three sections of the River Slaney did not reveal any potential archaeological features. Areas of Archaeological Heritage 1 and 2, located either side of the current Ferrycarrig bridge, have been considered as this area is considered as of significant archaeological potential.

Of the route options considered only Route Option 201 (Management option) can be considered as having a significantly lower potential to impact on unrecorded archaeological sites, due to the fact that the route option generally lies within the existing footprint of the N11 and N25 road.

Table 8.5.21 specifies the potential direct impacts on RMPs, RPSs, and NIAHs, also accounting for the potential impacts on Rathaspick House and site WX048-114, as per the qualitative assessment above. It should be noted that certain site locations in this table may have more than one designation i.e. the number of designations are listed here rather than the number of sites with some locations counted twice when they have two designations.

Table 8.5.21: Total Direct Impacts per Route Option Route Options Total RMP RPS NIAH Number 201 (Management 3 1 1 2 Option) 200 (Do-Minimum) 11 8 1 3 069 7 5 1 1 089 7 6 1 2 104 13 7 2 5 106 11 7 2 5 107 11 7 2 5 108 10 6 1 3 109 8 4 1 3 113 8 4 1 3 115 7 4 0 3 116 10 7 1 4 117 8 5 1 4

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 218 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Options Total RMP RPS NIAH Number 118 8 5 1 4 119 8 5 1 4 120 7 5 1 1 132 8 6 1 3

Route Option 201 (Management option) has the lowest number of potential direct impacts. Other route options with low numbers of possible direct impacts are Route Options 069, 115 and 120.

8.5.11.7 Route Option Appraisal

The preference rankings detailed in Table 8.5.22 are calculated using the results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis. It is important to note that during the evaluation of the results, greater significance was placed upon legally protected sites over non-protected sites, i.e. impacts on RMP and RPS sites were considered of greater significance than NIAH listed sites.

Table 8.5.22: Route Option Ranks Route Option Notes Option Appraisal 201 Preferred Has the lowest potential impacts as a whole (Management compared to other route options Option) 200 (Do- Least Has a high number of potential direct and Minimum) Preferred indirect impacts. 069 Preferred Has a low number of impacts particularly regarding total number of indirect and direct impacts. 089 Preferred Has a low number of impacts particularly regarding total number of indirect and direct impacts.. 104 Least Has a high number of impacts particularly Preferred regarding total number of indirect and direct impacts. 106 Least Has a high number of impacts within each Preferred category. 107 Least Has a high number of impacts particularly Preferred regarding total number of indirect and direct impacts. 108 Intermediate Has an intermediate amount of impacts within each category. 109 Preferred Has a low number of impacts particularly regarding total number of indirect and direct impacts.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 219 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal 113 Intermediate Has a high amount of indirect impacts but a low number of direct impacts. 115 Intermediate Has a high amount of indirect impacts but a low number of direct impacts. 116 Intermediate Has a high amount of direct impacts but has a reduced potential of impacting on unrecorded elements. 117 Preferred Similar to Route Option 109 it has a low number of impacts particularly regarding total number of indirect and direct impacts. 118 Intermediate Has an intermediate amount of impacts within each category. 119 Intermediate Has an intermediate amount of impacts within each category. 120 Intermediate Has a high number of direct impacts on RPS sites and indirect impacts on RMPS though has a reduced potential of impacting on unrecorded elements. 132 Intermediate Has a high amount of direct impacts but has a reduced potential of impacting on unrecorded elements.

The overall preferred route option, from a Cultural Heritage perspective, is Route Option 201 (Management option) with Route Options 069, 089, 109 and 117 also considered as preferred route options.

Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) and Route Options 104 and 106 are the least preferred route options due to their potential to impact most on designated sites. These route options have significant lengths online; however it should be noted that a precautionary principle was adopted for the purposes of this assessment whereby the route option plus 25m either side of the route option was considered for the purposes of defining “direct impacts. In effect, this means that the potential of these route options may actually be lower; however, it is clear that there are a greater number of designated sites and locations in proximity the online route options.

8.5.11.8 Conclusions and Recommendations

From the Stage 2 analysis of the route options, Route Option 201 (Management option) and Route Options 069, 089, 109 and 117 are the preferred route options in terms of archaeology and cultural heritage, as they have least potential to impact (both directly and indirectly) on designated sites.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 220 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.5.12 Human Beings and Material Assets

8.5.12.1 Desk Study

A desk-based assessment reviewed the following:  OSI mapping and aerial photography,  planning applications for new buildings (from 2005 to 2010),  Wexford County Council Online Mapping for details of public and community facilities, and  material assets including public utilities, quarries, and mines.

Based on this data, a comparative assessment of the route options was undertaken (see Part 2 – Appendix D.8).

8.5.12.2 Consultation

A public consultation was undertaken in June 2010 and all submissions received were reviewed and taken into consideration during this assessment.

Statutory bodies were consulted by way of a consultation letter issued on May 21st 2010 for the purposes of the route selection process.

8.5.12.3 Field Study

A windscreen survey was undertaken in July 2010 in order to identify the locations of potentially impacted properties for the purposes of the Stage 1 Preliminary Options Assessment.

For the purposes of the Stage 2 Project Appraisal of Route Options, a further windscreen survey was undertaken in November 2010 to assess in more detail the potential impact of all route options on properties.

8.5.12.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

The potential impacts arising from each route option were assessed for the following:  The impact on receptors including residential properties and commercial facilities,  The impact on community facilities,  The impact on pending planning applications,  The impact on material assets (including public utilities and quarries and mines),  Assessment of potential severance, and  Potential for disruption to traffic during construction phase.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 221 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

In order to assess the potential direct impacts on properties (residential, commercial or community), the width of each route option was adjusted to take into account the additional land-take of fence-line offset, accommodation roads and drainage works etc. This additional buffer was also considered in order to account for potential future alterations in alignments during the Phase 3 Design stage of the project

A corridor, 300m from the centreline of each route option, was also used in the assessment of each route option, in order to assess the potential nuisance impacts arising from each route option.

In addition, a judgement was made of the potential of the route options to impact on the local communities, residents and commercial activity due to potential inconveniences caused during the construction and operational phases.

For the purposes of this assessment, all route options are ranked in terms of preference as “Preferred”, “Intermediate”, or “Least Preferred”.

8.5.12.5 Assessment of Impacts on Human Beings

Direct Impacts on Residential Properties

Route Option 201 (Management option) does not have any direct impacts on residential properties and has a low number of impacts on gardens, boundaries, and access roads. While this route option is completely online and may be expected to impact a larger number of residential properties, it will entail relatively minor upgrade works almost entirely within the footprint of the existing road, and the potential for a direct impact on residential property is minimal.

However, it is important to note that while this route option does not have potential to impact directly on properties, it will have a significant negative impact on the residents along this route option. The impact will arise due to the fact that in comparison to all other route options, traffic will increase along the entire length of the existing N11 and N25 roadways.

This increased traffic will have significant potential to have a negative impact on the local population, as they will experience increased difficulties accessing the roadway to allow them to travel to other local destinations. In addition, it should be noted that the sections of the N11 and N25 to be upgraded under Route Options 200 and 201 would include a median barrier along the centreline of the route option. This

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 222 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

will further exacerbate access issues for the local population to the road network.

Route Options 118 and 119 are also preferred route options as they have the lowest overall direct impacts on residential properties compared to other route options.

Route Option 089 has a low number of direct impacts on residential properties but has a high number of direct impacts on gardens, boundaries, and access roads. The potential for direct impacts on residential properties are high along online route options, i.e. Route Options 104, 106, 107, and 200 (Do–Minimum).

Route Option 115 is the least preferred route option as it has the highest number of direct impacts on residential properties (see Part 4 - Figure 8.5.1 Human Sensitive Receptor Locations).

Direct Impacts on Commercial Properties

Route Options 089 and 201 (Management option) have the lowest number of impacts on commercial properties, potentially impacting on the boundary on a single property each, although Route Option 201 (Management option) is unlikely to have a significant impact. Route Options 132 and Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) impact directly on one commercial property each while Route Option 115 is the least preferred route option as it has the highest number of direct impacts on commercial properties (two) and the highest number of direct impacts on boundaries and access roads of commercial properties (four) (see Part 4 - Figure 8.5.1 Human Sensitive Receptor Locations).

It should be noted that while Route Option 201 is unlikely to impact directly on properties, it will have potential to have a significant negative impact on commercial properties along this route option. The impact will arise due to the fact that traffic will increase along the entire length of the existing N11 and N25 roadways. This increased traffic will have significant potential to have a negative impact on local commercial activities, particularly those along the N11 and N25 and in villages along the route such as Oilgate. It will be increasingly difficult for potential customers to access local commercial facilities along the roadway due to increased traffic. In addition, it should be noted that the sections of the N11 and N25 to be upgraded under Route Options 200 and 201 would include a median barrier along the centreline of the route. This will further exacerbate access issues for the local population.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 223 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Impacts on Community Facilities

The majority of route options (108,109,113,115,116,117,118,119,120, 132, 200 (Do-Minimum) and 201 (Management option) potentially impact directly on two community facilities while Route Options 069, 89, 104, 106, and 107 potentially impact on three community facilities. However, the fact that Route Option 201 (Management option) will entail relatively minor upgrade works almost entirely within the footprint of the existing road, the potential for a direct impact on community facilities is minimal. (see Part 4 - Figure 8.5.1 Human Sensitive Receptor Locations).

There is a significant potential for an indirect impact on community facilities arising from Route Option 201 (Management Option), particularly those facilities located within the villages of Oilgate (Health Centre, Church, Post Office and Garda Station), Tagoat (Community Centre, Churches, School and Post Office) and Kilrane where access to these villages by the local populations will be restricted due to increased traffic volumes.

Impacts on Pending Planning Applications

Route Option 201 (Management Option) has the lowest number of direct impacts on planning applications.

Route Options 116, 117, 118 and 119 impact on three planning applications. Route Options 069 and 132 have the highest number (five) of direct impacts on planning applications, while the remaining route options (Route Options 089, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 113, 115, 120 and 200 (Do Minimum)) impact on four planning applications.

Impacts within 300 metres

Potential for impacts on residential properties, commercial properties, and community facilities were also assessed by comparing the number of properties within 300 metres of the centreline of each route option. This assessment is an indication of indirect impacts arising from each of the proposed route options.

Route Option 201 (Management option) has the largest number of potential indirect impacts (1022) compared with the other route options. This relates to consideration of the potential indirect impacts on the existing populations along each of the route options, particularly those in Oilgate, Tagoat and Kilrane. The next highest number of sensitive receptors within 300m of a route option is for Route Option 115 (681).

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 224 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route options with the lowest number of sensitive receptors within 300m include Route Option 116 (576) and Route Option 089 (581).

Potential for disruption to traffic during construction phase

The potential for disruption to traffic during the construction phase of the project is considered highest for those route options that are mostly online i.e. Route Options 104, 106, 107, 200 (Do–Minimum) and 201 (Management option), as the construction programme of these route options will occur within or along the existing N11/N25 road. However, the implementation of traffic management programs will minimise any potential impact.

8.5.12.6 Assessment of impacts on Material Assets

Community Severance

Community severance is defined as the separation of residents from facilities and services they use within their community caused by new and improved roads (UK DMRB, 1994). New road schemes can also reduce existing community severance by reducing traffic levels on existing roads and by improving the access to community facilities. The provision of overbridges and underbridges will significantly mitigate any degree of community severance caused by the preferred route option.

An assessment was undertaken to determine the number of local roads and access roads that would potentially be severed by each route option.

Route Option 201 (Management option) will not sever any roads as it is anticipated that all works associated with Route Option 201 (Management option) will be within the footprint of the existing road. However, there will be a degree of severance because vehicles accessing the road via local roads and property access points will be required to turn left only with no access to the opposite side of the road. This will mean that vehicles will be required to travel to the nearest roundabout on the road to access the opposite lane of the route option. In addition, this route option will result in increased traffic along the existing N11 and N25 roadways, making access to the local road network difficult for the local population. It should be noted that the sections of the N11 and N25 to be upgraded under Route Option 201 would include a median barrier along the centreline of the route. This will further exacerbate access issues for the local population.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 225 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) impacts on 16 roads, which is significantly higher, compared with other route options. Route Options 089 and 132 impact on the least number of local and access roads. During detailed design, new connector roads will be provided, where possible, for severed roads, to mitigate any severance. It should be noted that the sections of the N11 and N25 to be upgraded under Route Option 200 would include a median barrier along the centreline of the route. This will further exacerbate access issues for the local population.

Quarries and Mines

No route option directly impacts on any quarries. There are numerous mineral locations within the study area and two have potential to be directly impacted on as follows:  Route Options 089, 104, 106, 107, 116, 117, 118, 119 and 132 directly impact on a mineral location at Pollsallagh, and  Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) and Route Options 069, 089, 104, 107, 108, 113, 115, 116, 119, 120, and 132 directly impact on a mineral location at Ballygarvey.

Public Utilities

Public utilities within the study area include:  electricity,  telecommunications,  water, and  wastewater services.

Public utilities were assessed as part of the Stage 1 Preliminary Options assessment. This assessment concluded that all route options have potential to impact on significant numbers of public utilities. However, it was not considered necessary to reassess the impact on public utilities for the Stage 2 Project Appraisal of Route Options, as it is not considered that the provision of services offered by public utilities within the study area will be significantly impacted during the operational phase of any route option. There is potential for minor disruption to services during the construction phase of the proposed road scheme but this negative impact will be short term in duration.

8.5.12.7 Route Option Appraisal

Table 8.5.23 ranks each route option as “Preferred”, “Intermediate” or “Least Preferred” based on the assessment of the relative potential

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 226 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

impacts on residential properties, commercial properties, planning applications, community facilities, and material assets.

Table 8.5.23:Route Option Appraisal

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal 069 Least This route option is ranked as least preferred because it has a high number of direct Preferred impacts on gardens, access roads, and boundaries. It directly impacts on Crossabeg Community Centre and Wexford Youths FC. It has a high potential impact on residential properties, commercial properties, and community facilities within 300 metres. It also has high potential impact on planning applications; and it impacts directly on one mineral location. 089 Intermediate This route option is ranked as intermediate because it has the lowest number of direct impacts on residential properties and it has low potential impact on residential properties, commercial properties, and community facilities within 300 metres. However, it directly impacts on community facilities such as Crossabeg Community Centre, Rathaspick Golf Course & Claytarget Sports. It also has high potential to impact on planning applications and it impacts directly on two mineral locations. 104 Least This route option is ranked as least preferred because it has a high number of direct Preferred impacts on residential properties and on gardens, access roads, and boundaries. It directly impacts on Rathaspick Golf Course and Irish National Heritage Park, and has high potential impact on planning applications. It impacts directly on two mineral locations. Greatest potential for impact on traffic during the construction phase. 106 Least This route option is ranked as least preferred because it has a high number of direct preferred impacts on residential properties and on gardens, access roads, and boundaries. It has a high potential impact on residential properties, commercial properties, and community facilities within 300 metres, and directly impacts on Rathaspick Golf Course and Irish National Heritage Park. It has high potential impact on planning applications and impacts directly on one mineral location. Greatest potential for impact on traffic during the construction phase. 107 Least This route option is ranked as least preferred because it has a high number of direct Preferred impacts on residential properties and on gardens, access roads, and boundaries. It directly impacts on Rathaspick Golf Course and Irish National Heritage Park, and has high potential impact on planning applications. It impacts directly on two mineral locations. Greatest potential for impact on traffic during the construction phase. 108 Intermediate This route option is ranked as intermediate because it has a low number of direct impacts on residential properties but has high potential impact gardens, boundaries, and access roads. It has high potential impact on residential properties, commercial properties, and community facilities within 300 metres and it directly impacts on Wexford Youths FC. It has high potential impact on planning applications; and it impacts directly on one mineral location. 109 Intermediate This route option is ranked as intermediate because, it has a low number of direct impacts on residential properties, but has high potential impact gardens, boundaries, and access roads. It has high potential impact on residential properties, commercial properties, and community facilities within 300 metres and directly impacts on Wexford Youths FC. It has high potential impact on planning applications. 113 Intermediate This route option is ranked as intermediate because it has a low number of direct impacts on residential properties, but it has high potential impact gardens, boundaries, and access roads. It has high potential impact on residential properties, commercial properties, and community facilities within 300 metres, and directly impacts on Wexford Youths FC. It has high potential impact on planning applications, and impacts directly on one mineral location. 115 Least This route option is ranked as least preferred because it has the highest number of direct

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 227 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal preferred impacts on residential properties and directly impacts on two community facilities (Wexford Youths and Health Centre facility). It directly impacts on two commercial facilities and has high potential impact on residential properties, commercial properties, and community facilities within 300 metres. It has high potential impact on planning applications and impacts directly on one mineral location. 116 Intermediate This route option is ranked as intermediate because it has a low number of direct impacts on residential properties and has one of the lowest number of sensitive receptors within 300m, but has a high potential impact on gardens, boundaries, and access roads. It directly impacts on Wexford Youths FC and Rathaspick Golf Course, and impacts directly on two mineral locations. 117 Preferred This route option is ranked as preferred because it has a low number of direct impacts on residential properties and gardens, boundaries and access roads, but it directly impacts on Wexford Youths FC and Rathaspick Golf Course, and impacts directly on one mineral location. 118 Preferred This route option is ranked as preferred because it has a low number of direct impacts on residential properties and gardens, boundaries and access roads, but it directly impacts on Wexford Youths FC and Rathaspick Golf Course, and it impacts directly on one mineral location. 119 Preferred This route option is ranked as preferred because it has a low number of direct impacts on residential properties and gardens, boundaries and access roads, but it directly impacts on Wexford Youths FC and Rathaspick Golf Course and it impacts directly on two mineral locations. 120 Intermediate This route option is ranked as intermediate because it has a low number of direct impacts on residential properties, but it has high potential impact on gardens, boundaries, and access roads. It has high potential impact on residential properties, commercial properties, and community facilities within 300 metres, and directly impacts on Claytarget sports. It has high potential impact on planning applications, and it impacts directly on one mineral location. 132 Least This route option is ranked as least preferred because it has a high number of direct Preferred impacts on residential properties, and has high potential impact on residential properties, commercial properties and community facilities within 300 metres. It impacts directly on Slaney Manor House, and it directly impacts on Rathaspick Golf course and Claytarget sports. It has high potential impact on planning applications, and it impacts directly on two mineral locations. 200 (Do- Least This route option is ranked as least preferred because it has a high number of direct Minimum) Preferred impacts on residential properties and gardens, boundaries and access roads. It has high potential impact on residential properties, commercial properties, and community facilities within 300 metres, and impacts directly on DMP Athletics and Kyle Garden Centre. It has high potential impact on planning applications as well as the highest impact on local and access roads, and it impacts directly on one mineral location. Greatest potential for impact on traffic during the construction phase. 201 Intermediate This route option is ranked as intermediate. This route option does not directly impact on (Management residential properties and has a low number of impacts on gardens/ boundaries and option) access roads, It has the lowest number of impacts on planning applications, and it has the lowest number of potential impacts on sensitive receptors within 300m. However the benefits of this route option are not sufficient to overcome the significant indirect impacts arising from the route option on residential receptors, on community facilities and on local towns due to impacts of increasing traffic volumes occurring over time, with significant severance resulting.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 228 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.5.12.8 Ranking of Route Options

The Route Option Appraisal detailed in Table 8.5.23 concludes that the preferred route options are Route Options 117,118 and 119, which have a relatively low overall potential for direct impact on residential properties.

Route Options 069, 104, 106, 107, 115, 132 and 200 (Do Minimum) are ranked as “Least Preferred” as they are considered to have the highest overall direct impacts on residential properties, commercial properties, planning applications, community facilities and material assets compared with the other route options. Route Options 089, 108, 109, 113, 116, 117,118, 119, 120, and 201 (Management option) are ranked as “Intermediate”.

8.5.12.9 Conclusions and Recommendations

Route Options 117,118, and 119 are ranked as “Preferred” and Route Options 069, 104, 106, 107, 115, 132, and 200 (Do Minimum) are ranked as “Least Preferred”. The remaining route options have been ranked as “Intermediate”.

8.5.13 Agriculture

8.5.13.1 Methodology

The agronomy assessment for Stage 2 was undertaken within a corridor that took into account the full width of the route options, including any cuttings and embankments, plus an additional 15m either side of the indicative alignment. This was to take into account the additional land-take of fence-line offset, accommodation roads, drainage works and possible re-alignment of the route option.

8.5.13.2 Desk Study

A desk-based assessment was undertaken using the following information sources:  Aerial photography,  Windshield assessment,  Public consultation submissions from the Route Selection Public Consultation,  EPA soils data maps, and  Land registry mapping.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 229 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Aerial photography as well as map notes from the windshield survey along each route option was used. The fields and farmyards where dairy cows, horses, non-dairy livestock or tillage were located were noted and recorded on maps. Similarly, landowner boundaries were mapped based on land registry data (see Part 2 – Appendix D.9).

8.5.13.3 Field Study

A Windshield survey was undertaken to ascertain the various agriculture types within the relevant areas. Notes were taken identifying the agriculture type throughout the area, with fields and farmyards analysed to assess the agriculture types.

8.5.13.4 Consultation

An examination of Public Consultation responses was undertaken for the purposes of this assessment. Consultation was also undertaken with Teagasc in relation to the potential impact of the proposed scheme on the Cowlands research site.

8.5.13.5 Impact Assessment Methodology

A comparison of route options is based firstly on an assessment of each route option using the following criteria:  Soil type/quality,  Land take impact,  Severance Impact,  Area of dairy and equine farms affected, and  Length online.

Subsequently, submissions from landowners and members of the public concerned with the potential impact on agriculture were also examined and assessed. Each route option was also assessed to determine if it impacts on the Cowlands site, which is based at the Teagasc Experimental Research Centre at Johnstown Castle. Due to the national importance of this site, a route option will be categorised as “Least Preferred” if it crosses this site.

For the purposes of the Stage 2 Assessment, all route options were ranked in terms of preference as “Preferred”, “Intermediate”, or “Least Preferred”.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 230 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.5.13.6 Assessments of Impacts

Soil Type / Quality

Utilising soil type mapping downloaded from the EPA mapping website and observations during the windshield survey, the soil quality along the route options was measured in terms of the percentage mineral soils, alluvial soils and peaty type soils within the route option. The analysis identified that over 89% of land along each route option is mineral type, and less than 1% is peaty type. Therefore, the land quality is very good along the length of each route option and the differences between each route option are not significant.

Land-take Impacts

Route Option 201 (Management option) has the lowest land-take and as such is the preferred route option in terms of minimising land take. Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) has the second lowest land-take resulting in an “Intermediate” preference for land take. Route Option 132 has the highest potential land take and all other route options having significantly higher land ownership than those for Route Options 200 (Do-Minimum) and 201 (Management option). As a result, all of these route options have land takes that are considered “Least Preferred”.

Severance Impacts

Route Option 201 (Management option) has the lowest severed area and as such is considered “Preferred” in terms of severance impacts. Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) has the next lowest severed area and as such is considered “Intermediate” in terms of severance impacts

Route Option 113 has a high severed area and is categorised as “Least Preferred”. All other route options are also considered least preferred in terms of “severance, as they all result in significantly higher levels of severance impacts than Route Options 201 (Management option) or 200 (Do-Minimum).

Impact on dairy and or equine farms

Route Option 201 (Management option) has the lowest affected dairy/equine area and is categorised as “Preferred”. Route Option 108, which has the next lowest affected dairy/equine area, is considered “Intermediate”. Route Options 104, 116, 120, 132, and 200 (Do- Minimum) have similarly low affected dairy/equine areas and are

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 231 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

considered as “Intermediate” in terms of their potential impact on dairy and equine farms. Route Options 089 and 106 have the highest potential impact on dairy/equine areas, whilst all other route options have a potentially intermediate impact on dairy and equine areas.

Impact on the Cowlands Experimental Site

This site is part of Johnstown Castle Estate Experimental Husbandry Farm. An experiment is ongoing here since 1970, which examines responses to chemical phosphorous applications at various stocking rates. This experiment has been operating for over 40 years and it is being used as a benchmark site for the Water Framework Directive. Therefore, it is identified as being an agricultural constraint that should be avoided. Route Options 089, 104, 106, 107, 116, 117, 118, 119, and 132 affect this site.

Length of Route Options Online

An assessment of the length of route options online was also considered as part of this assessment, as it is an indication of potential impact on agricultural properties, i.e. the higher the length of a route option online, the less the potential impact on agricultural holdings. The results of this assessment are as follows:  Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) has the most significant length online, with 15.3km of the route option online.  Route Option 201 (Management Option) also has a significant length online, with 14.8km of the route option online.  Route Options 108, 109, 113 and 115 all have significant lengths online with online lengths ranging between 10km and 13km.  Route Option 132 has the lowest online length with only 2.3km online. Route Option 089 also has a low length of route online with 4.2km, and  The remaining route options all have route lengths online of between 5km and 10km.

8.5.13.7 Route Option Appraisal

Route Options 089, 104, 106, 107, 116, 117, 118, 119, and 132 that affect the Cowlands site are considered “Least Preferred”. From an agricultural point of view, the majority of route options that impact on this site rank poorly for land-take, severance, and dairy/equine farm impacts.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 232 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option 201 (Management option) has the lowest land-take, severance and lowest dairy/equine farm impacts. It is the only 100% online option. This is the preferred route option overall.

Route Option 200 (Do Minimum) has the second lowest land-take, severance and third lowest dairy/equine farm impacts. It has the longest length online. This option has the second highest rank overall and is categorised as “Intermediate”.

Route option 108 has relatively low land-take and severance impacts compared to other off line options. It affects the second lowest area of dairy/equine farms. It has the fourth longest length online. This route option has the third highest rank overall and is categorised as “Intermediate” with a similar preference to Route Option 200 (Do Minimum).

Route Options 069, 109 and 120 have similar impacts in terms of land- take, severance and dairy/equine farm impacts. Of these three route options, Route Option 106 has the lowest land take impact, Route Option 109 has the longest length online, and Route Option 120 affects a lower area of dairy/equine farms. Therefore, these three route options have similar rankings – fourth highest rank.

Route Options 113 and 115 have similar land-take and severance impacts and affect a large area of dairy/equine farms. These route options have long lengths online and are fifth highest rank.

Table 8.5.24: Route Option Appraisal Route Option Notes Option Appraisal 069 Least Low land-take and severance impact. Preferred However, it affects a large area of dairy/equine farms and medium to high length online. It does not have an impact on the Cowlands site. 089 Least High land-take and severance impact. Affects a Preferred large area of dairy/equine farms. Very short length on–line. It has an impact on the Cowlands site. 104 Least High land-take impact and medium to high area Preferred of dairy/equine farms affected. High severance impact. Relatively long length on–line. It has an impact on the Cowlands site. 106 Least High land-take and severance impact. Affects a preferred large area of dairy/equine farms. Relatively long length on–line. It has an impact on the Cowlands site. 107 Least High land-take and severance impact. Affects a Preferred large area of dairy/equine farms. Relatively

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 233 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal long length on–line. It has an impact on the Cowlands site. 108 Intermediate Low land-take and severance impact. Affects the second lowest area of dairy/equine farms. Very long length on–line. It does not have an impact on the Cowlands site. 109 Least Low land-take impact and medium to high Preferred severance impact and affects a medium to high area of dairy/equine farms. Very long length on–line. It does not have an impact on the Cowlands site. 113 Least Medium to high impacts from land-take, Preferred severance and medium to high impact on dairy/equine farms. Long length on–line. It does not have an impact on the Cowlands site. 115 Least Medium land-take impacted. Medium to high Preferred severance impact and medium to high area of dairy/equine farms affected. Very long length on–line. It does not have an impact on the Cowlands site. 116 Least High land-take and severance impact. Affects a Preferred small area of dairy/equine farms. Relatively short length on–line. It has an impact on the Cowlands site. 117 Least High land-take and severance impact. Affects a Preferred large area of dairy/equine farms. Relatively short length on–line. It has an impact on the Cowlands site. 118 Least High land-take and severance impact. Affects a Preferred large area of dairy/equine farms. Relatively short length on–line. It has an impact on the Cowlands site. 119 Least High land-take and severance impact. Affects a Preferred small area of dairy/equine farms. Relatively short length on–line. It has an impact on the Cowlands site. 120 Least Medium to high land-take impact. Low Preferred severance impact and small area of dairy/equine farms affected. Relatively short length on–line. It does not have an impact on the Cowlands site. 132 Least Highest land-take impact and medium to high Preferred severance impact and medium to small area of dairy/equine farms affected. Shortest length on–line. It has an impact on the Cowlands site. 200 (Do- Intermediate Lowest land-take and severance impact. Small Minimum) area of dairy/equine farms affected. Longest length on–line. It does not have an impact on the Cowlands site. 201 Preferred Lowest land-take and severance impact. (Management Smallest area of dairy/equine farms affected. Option) Second longest length on – line but 100%

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 234 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Option Notes Option Appraisal online. It does not have an impact on the “Cowlands” site.

8.5.13.8 Conclusions and Recommendations

The preferred route option is Route Option 201 (Management option), followed by Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) and Route Option 108.

8.5.14 Environmental Conclusions

An analysis was undertaken comparing the preferences for each route option identified under each environmental heading. The results of all the environmental assessments were considered in determining a preferred route option. However, certain sites and locations are given legal protection under national or European legislation and due regard was given to these legal protected sites i.e. Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) as adapted in Ireland by the European Union (Natural Habitats) Regulations,1997

Table 8.5.25 outlines the preferences of each route option under each environmental heading.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 235 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 8.5.25:Overall Environmental Route Option Appraisal A V N V L F E A W F C W H G H C A & H A P O a l l i i c r i o q l y e u r u g e v o o a a b s r i M e c n o d r m i u o l m r e

t s u r o r s t f

Route Option i h Q i d l e a r r a a l t u e a c t a o d e a o a o a a a s r e t u r t t r u l . & g t n i i g g e l g e c a & R a Q e o c l l A y o

y e t n l a e l B

n F i u u i l s s p o c t & o a r e a y k s e e l e u g o i l e

n i & n y t g t g y s

a y

&

s 1

&

069 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Preferred Least Intermediate Preferred Preferred 089 Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Least Least Least Least Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Intermediate Least Least Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred 104 Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Least Intermediate Least Intermediate Least Least Least Least Least Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred 106 Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Intermediate Preferred Least Intermediate Least Least Least Least Intermediate Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred 107 Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Least Intermediate Intermediate Least Least Least Intermediate Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred 108 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Preferred

109 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Least Intermediate Preferred Intermediate Least Preferred Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Preferred 113 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Least Least Least Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Preferred Preferred 115 Intermediate Least Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Least Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Intermediate Least Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Preferred Preferred 116 Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Least Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Least Intermediate Preferred Preferred 117 Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Least Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Preferred Least Preferred Preferred Preferred 118 Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Least Least Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Least Intermediate Preferred Preferred Preferred 119 Preferred Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Least Least Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Least Intermediate Preferred Preferred Preferred 120 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Least Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Least Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Preferred 132 Preferred Intermediate Least Least Least Least Intermediate Least Intermediate Intermediate Least Least Least Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred 200 (Do-Minimum) Intermediate Intermediate Preferred Preferred Preferred Intermediate Preferred Preferred Intermediate Least Least Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred 201 (Management Least Least Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Intermediate Preferred Preferred option) Preferred Preferred

1Flora & fauna refers to terrestrial ecology. Aquatic Ecology is assessed under the separate heading Water Quality & Aquatic Ecology

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 236 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

From Table 8.5.25, Route Options 201 (Management Option), 200 (Do- Minimum) and Route Options 069, 108 and 117 are preferred route options. This is based on an analysis of the preferences for each route option under all environmental headings. In order to determine the overall preferred route option from an environmental perspective, further subjective analysis of the potential impacts of each of these short listed route options was undertaken as detailed below.

Route Option 201 (Management Option)

This route option is considered “Preferred” under most of the environmental headings namely, flora and fauna, water quality and aquatic ecology, flood risk, geology and hydrogeology, landscape and visual, waste and agriculture.

This route option will have significantly less potential impact on the receiving environment because there is no requirement for significant new structures. The route option will also traverse the River Slaney and the associated ecological designated sites (the Slaney River Valley SAC (site code: 000781) and the Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA (site codes: 000712 and 004076)) by way of the existing bridge, negating the requirement for a new bridge structure at this sensitive location. This fact has a positive effect in terms of the ranking under the flora and fauna, water quality and aquatic ecology, and the landscape and visual headings.

However, this route option has a significant disadvantage over other route options in that the design standard of this existing roadway will not be to the standard of new route options in terms of the provision of silt traps/petrol interceptors. This will result in potential ongoing contamination of receiving waterbodies due to road runoff from this route option, for example at the existing Ferrycarrig Bridge, which crosses the River Slaney Valley cSAC.

In addition, this route option will have no significant potential impact on agriculture, with no severance to agricultural enterprises resulting. The route option will not impact on the “Cowlands” site.

This route option is completely online, and does not bypass the villages of Oilgate, Tagoat, Killinick, Kilrane or Barntown. Therefore, this route option is in proximity to a large number of sensitive receptors. This route option is considered “Intermediate” in terms of the potential impacts on human beings and it is “Least Preferred” in terms of air quality and noise impacts. Due to the fact that this route option is

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 237 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

entirely online on the existing N11 and N25, there is significant potential for nuisance impacts on local residents as traffic levels increase over time. In addition, there are significant indirect impacts arising from the route option on residential receptors, on community facilities and on local towns due to impacts of increasing traffic volumes occurring over time, with significant severance resulting.

Route Option 200 (Do Minimum)

Route Option 200 (Do Minimum) is considered “Preferred” under the second largest number of environmental headings after Route Option 201 (Management option). This route option is considered “Preferred” in terms of flora and fauna, water quality and aquatic ecology, landscape & visual, agriculture, climate and waste. The high number of high preferences is related to the fact that this route option has the largest proportion of its length online on the existing road when compared to the remaining route options and that this route option does not require a new bridge crossing over the River Slaney. This results in a reduced potential impact on natural habitats, landscapes, and agriculture in particular. This route option will have no significant potential impact on agriculture, with no severance to agricultural enterprises resulting. In addition, the route option will not impact on the “Cowlands” site.

The route option will also traverse the River Slaney and the associated ecological designated sites (the Slaney River Valley SAC (site code: 000781) and the Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA (site codes: 000712 and 004076)) by way of the existing bridge, negating the requirement for a new bridge structure at this sensitive location. This fact has a positive effect in terms of the ranking under the flora and fauna, water quality and aquatic ecology, and the landscape and visual headings. However, this route option has a significant disadvantage over other route options in that the design standard of the existing sections roadway to be used will not be to the standard of new route options in terms of the provision of silt traps/petrol interceptors. This will result in potential ongoing contamination of receiving waterbodies due to road runoff from this route option, for example at the existing Ferrycarrig Bridge, which crosses the River Slaney Valley cSAC.

It should be noted that another reason for the high number of preferences under environmental headings is related to the fact that this route option does not include the N25 Barntown Link, which is a section of road included in other route options. This means that any potential impacts associated with the N25 Barntown Link are not applicable to Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) resulting in a reduced number of

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 238 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

potential impacts, particularly in terms of impacts on terrestrial ecology (significant woodland area near Barntown), water quality & aquatic ecology, and cultural heritage.

However, Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) is also “Least Preferred” under environmental headings such as human beings and material assets, and archaeology and cultural heritage. These preferences are also a function of the long length of the route option online. This route option impacts on a high number of designated RMPs/RPSs and areas of potential archaeological value. Locations of concern include Ferrycarrig, Levitstown, and Ballybrennan. The route option also impacts on a large number of residential sensitive receptors, both directly and indirectly, with the most significant potential for traffic disruption and other impacts during the construction phase.

Route Option 069

Route Option 069 is “Preferred” in terms of archaeology and cultural heritage, and soils geology and hydrogeology. The route option has a low number of impacts on designated sites of archaeological and architectural importance and has a lower number of potential impacts on locations of importance in terms of soils, geology, and hydrogeology. However, the route option is “Least Preferred” in terms of potential to impact on human beings and material assets. This route option has a high number of potential impacts on gardens, access roads, and boundaries of residential properties. It also has potential to impact Crossabeg Community Centre and Wexford Youths FC and a high potential to impact on properties within 300m of the road centreline.

Under all other environmental headings, the route option is considered “Intermediate”. The route option impacts the highest number of catchments classified as "moderate" status and has a high number of impacts on catchments of "moderate or high ecological value" with a crossing of the River Slaney at a less favoured crossing location. However, in terms of potential impact on water quality, these impacts are balanced by the fact that the route option only requires a relatively small number of watercourses to be crossed. In terms of agriculture, the route option has low land-take and severance impacts but has a high potential impact on sensitive agricultural enterprises including dairy and equine farms.

Route Option 108

Route Option 108 is the only route option that is not considered “Least Preferred” under any environmental heading. It is “Preferred” in terms

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 239 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

of agriculture and soils, geology and hydrogeology. This route option is “Preferred” in terms of agriculture as it does not have an impact on Cowlands agricultural research site, it results in low severance of agricultural properties, and results in a low land take.

Under all other environmental headings, this route option is considered “Intermediate”. The route option has a low number of direct impacts on residential properties, although it has potential to have some impact on properties i.e. boundary fences, gardens etc. In addition, this route option, in common with most other route options has potential to impact on the Wexford Youths facility. The route option is “Intermediate” in terms of the potential impact on sensitive receptors resulting from air quality and noise. This route option crosses the lowest number of streams in total, although it has potential to impact on a number of catchments of moderate to high ecological value. In terms of terrestrial ecology, this route option is considered “Intermediate”, due to the potential to impact on a large woodland area west of Barntown. However, this route option overall would have a low number of impacts on sites of county importance.

Route Option 117

Route Option 117 is another route option that is “Preferred” under a number of environmental headings. This route option is “Preferred” in terms of archaeology and cultural heritage, flood risk, human beings and material assets, and air quality. This route option has a low number of direct impacts on residential sensitive receptors, but it would potentially impact on the Wexford Youths facility and Rathaspick Golf Course. In terms of archaeology and cultural heritage, this route option has a low number of direct and indirect impacts on designated sites.

However, the route option is “Least Preferred” in terms of agriculture and climate. The route option has a significant impact on agriculture due to high levels of land take required in addition to a high severance on agricultural enterprises. In addition, the route option could potentially impact on the Cowlands agricultural research site, which is considered to be of national importance. A further potential negative impact of this route option is the potential impact on the Coolree reservoir due to the proximity of the route option to the reservoir.

8.5.14.1 Conclusions and Recommendations

Route Options 069, 108, 117, 200 (Do-Minimum) and 201 (Management option) are all considered “Preferred” from an environmental point of view. Although these route options have

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 240 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

potential to impact on the receiving environment, with suitable mitigation, these route options are considered appropriate from an environmental perspective.

Route Option 069 has potential significant impacts on residential properties and community facilities in addition to potential impacts on water quality and sensitive agricultural enterprises.

Route Option 108 is has predominantly “Intermediate” impacts under the majority of the environmental headings.

Route Option 117 has potentially significant impacts on agricultural enterprises.

Route Option 200 (Do-Minimum) offers significant environmental advantages, but it has potential to impact on elements of cultural heritage and may also significantly impact on local people.

Route Option 201 (Management option) has the lowest potential impact on the receiving environment. However, this route option also has significant disadvantages due to the potential of the route option to impact on human beings in terms of indirect impacts and community severance, and nuisance impacts arising from reduced air quality and noise environments.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 241 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.6 Accessibility and Social Inclusion Appraisal

8.6.1 Introduction

Government policy has the objective of reducing and ideally eliminating poverty and social exclusion particularly as it affects vulnerable groups. To this end, two programmes have been set up under the auspices of the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs, RAPID and CLÁR.

The RAPID programme (Revitalising Areas by Planning Investment and Development) is a government initiative, which targets 51 of the most disadvantaged areas in the country. The programme aims to ensure that priority attention is given to the 51 designated areas affected by focusing State resources available under the National Development Plan 2007-2013. The programme also requires the government departments and state agencies to bring about better co-ordination and closer integration in the delivery of services. Areas of Wexford Town are included in the 51 designated areas of the RAPID programme.

The CLÁR programme (Ceantair Laga Árd-Riachtanais), launched in October 2001, is a targeted investment programme in rural areas. The programme supports physical, economic, and social infrastructure in rural areas of special disadvantage across a variety of measures – such as electricity conversion, roads, water and sewerage, village, housing and schools enhancement, health, coastal and sports and community projects. CLÁR complements the RAPID programme. There are no areas in County Wexford included under the CLÁR programme.

The NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines and the Department of Transport Guidelines on a Common Appraisal Framework for Transport Projects and Programmes specify that the appraisal of Accessibility and Social Inclusion should be based on the RAPID and CLÁR programmes.

8.6.2 RAPID Programme

The following areas of Wexford Town are the focus of the RAPID programme:  Greater Clonard  Maudlintown/Faythe

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 242 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Figure 8.6.1: RAPID Areas in Wexford Town

The Wexford Area Implementation Team has prepared a strategy for implementing the RAPID programme in Wexford Town. This strategy encompasses a vision statement and National programme objectives as well as a mission statement and Local programme objectives and principles. These objectives and principles are detailed in Part 2 - Appendix D.10.

8.6.3 Conclusion

With regard to the route options being appraised at Stage 2, all are similar with regard to Accessibility and Social Inclusion. Each route option has a similar effect on the RAPID areas of Wexford Town. Table 8.6.1 details the preference rating of each route option.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 243 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 8.6.1: Appraisal Matrix for Accessibility & Social Inclusion Route Option RAPID 069 Similar 089 Similar 104 Similar 106 Similar 107 Similar 108 Similar 109 Similar 113 Similar 115 Similar 116 Similar 117 Similar 118 Similar 119 Similar 120 Similar 132 Similar 200 (Do-Minimum) Similar 201 (Management option) Similar

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 244 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.7 Integration Appraisal

8.7.1 Introduction

The appraisal of the route options in terms of integration was undertaken for the following headings:  Transportation Integration,  Land Use Integration,  Geographic Integration, and  Other Government Policy.

The above headings deal with the various policy and planning guidelines that are applicable to this study area.

8.7.2 Transportation Integration

The N11 from Oilgate to Wexford Town will be the last link of the N11 from Dublin to Wexford to be completed. Upgrading the N25 from Wexford Town to Rosslare Harbour will complete the route from Rosslare Harbour to Dublin and on to Belfast (E01). It will also improve connections to Waterford by way of the N25 and on to the Atlantic Corridor. Improvement of the N11 and N25 will also improve journey times for bus connections, both within Wexford, and on national and international routes through County Wexford.

Route Options 201 (Management option) and 200 (Do-Minimum) utilise the existing road, whereas all other route options are segregated from the existing road, by being offline, or through the provision of local distributor roads, where online. In terms of transportation integration Route Options 201 (Management option) and 200 (Do-Minimum) are least preferred as they preserve access for local roads and properties onto the N11/N25 route. This will not help to improve journey times on the N11/N25 route. In addition, these route options do not integrate with the already constructed or planned sections of the N11, in terms of consistency or continuity of carriageway. All other route options are preferred route options.

8.7.3 Land Use Integration

South-East Regional Planning Guidelines

The South East Regional Development Authority is the authority responsible for implementing the National Spatial Strategy (NSS) at a

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 245 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

regional level. The South East Region covers Carlow, Kilkenny, South Tipperary, Waterford City, Waterford County and Wexford.

“PP0 5.11: The Regional Authority will support, facilitate and enable the sustainable development and improvements to the National Road Network within the region, as guided by the NRA’s National Roads Programme.”

The Regional Planning Guidelines have been adopted by the authority for the South East Region. Key issues affecting regional development “PPO 5.11: The Regional are taken into account in the guidelines. These issues include: Authority will support,  population and settlement, facilitate and enable the  economic and employment trends, sustainable development  industrial and commercial development, and improvements to the  transportation, National Road Network  water supply and waste water facilities, within the region, as guided  energy and communications, by the NRA’s National Roads  education, Programme.”  healthcare,  retail, and South East Regional Planning  environmental protection. Guidelines 2010-2022 A transport strategy has been developed for the region that aims to:  pursue a strategy of improving public transport, which includes the provision of expanded urban, rural, and intra-urban bus services.  develop the internal road network between the Gateway (Waterford) and the hubs (of which Wexford Town is one).

The N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour scheme is one of the schemes included in this transport strategy. The section of road from Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour is one of the few sections of the Rosslare to Larne route (E01), which has not yet been upgraded to dual carriageway / motorway standard. The Regional Authority will support the development of the key economic corridors in the region, namely the Dublin–Waterford M9 route, the Dublin–Wexford N11/M11 route, the Waterford–Limerick N24 Corridor and the Rosslare–Cork N25 route.

All route options are similar with regard to the South East Regional Planning Guidelines.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 246 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Wexford County Development Plan “Objective T10: to facilitate Section 3 (Transportation) of the current Wexford County Development and enable the development Plan 2007 - 2013 outlines a number of objectives regarding roads. of major National Road Objectives T10 and T11 are concerned with national roads. proposals within the lifetime of the Plan” Objective T10 supports the envisaged significant investment under the National Development Plan 2007 - 2013. This continues the emphasis, “Objective T11: to bring as per the previous plan, on the completion of the Trans European National Roads up to Network and major inter urban routes. The N25 Rosslare/Wexford appropriate standards in scheme is listed in the County Development Plan as being one of the association with the National schemes under this objective. Roads Authority as resources become available” Objective T11 applies to all national routes within the county, which includes both the N11 Dublin to Wexford route and the N25 Cork to Wexford County Development Plan Rosslare route. 2007-2013 Section 2 (Settlement Strategy) of the current Wexford County Development Plan 2007 – 2013 outlines the settlement strategies in hierarchical order, as shown on Table 2.1 below.

“Policy SS3: The Council shall promote the necessary physical and social infrastructure in the Settlements identified in Table 2.1 and make them more attractive places to live.”

Wexford County Development Plan 2007-2013

Source: Section 2.3, Wexford County Development Plan 2007-2013

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 247 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

“Objective SG2: It is an objective of the County Council to prepare Village Design Statements in order Source: Section 2.3.5, Wexford County Development Plan to encourage sympathetic design of new buildings into Route Option 201 is considered “Least Preferred” in consideration of the Wexford County Development Plan 2007-2013 as it limits the existing villages for the growth of Oilgate, which has been identified under the Wexford County following areas: [Table 2.3]” Development Plan 2007 – 2013 as a Local Growth Area. All other route Wexford County Development options are considered “Preferred” for the Wexford County Plan 2007-2013 Development 2007-2013, as they are in agreement with the objectives of the development plan.

Wexford Town and Environs Development Plan

The Wexford Town and Environs Development Plan sets out a framework for the sustainable development of Wexford Town and the surrounding area.

“It is vital that links with One of the broad aims of the plan is to target, prioritise, and promote Dublin and Waterford and investment of inter-city and inter-county road and rail connections, as a surrounding areas are means of realising the potential of Wexford as an important economic maximised not only to attract centre in the South-East Region. business development into the Town but also to provide The Infrastructure chapter of the plan highlights certain objectives of for leisure and other trips to Wexford Town Council. In particular, its objective to “integrate land use and from the surrounding and transportation to ensure that, in the future, travel to and within Wexford is carried out using the most convenient and appropriate area.” modes of travel.”

Wexford Town and Environs The policy statements of the plan (Section 9.5 of Chapter 9) in relation Development Plan 2009-2015 to roads clearly illustrate the Council’s commitment to implementing these objectives. The Council plans to achieve this through reserving lands, limiting development in areas of possible road improvement and route corridors and ensuring safety of design of any major new accesses, roundabouts, and roads.

Route Options 201 (Management option), 200 (Do-Minimum), 069, 108, 109, 113, 115, and 120 are the preferred route options with regard to the Wexford Town Development Plan as they utilise a corridor that has been reserved for road improvements along the existing Wexford Bypass. All other route options do not utilise this reserved corridor and are therefore considered “Intermediate”.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 248 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Conclusion

Route Option 201 is considered “Least Preferred” for land use strategy as it limits the growth of Oilgate, which has been identified under the Wexford County Development Plan 2007 – 2013 as a Local Growth Area. Route Options 089, 104, 106, 107, 116, 117, 118, 119, and 132 are considered “Intermediate” as these route options do not utilise the corridor reserved under the Wexford Town Development Plan. RO 200 and Route Options 069, 108, 109, 113, 115, and 120 are considered “Preferred”.

8.7.4 Geographic Integration

National Spatial Strategy

Wexford Town was designated as a hub under the National Spatial Strategy (NSS). Towns were designated as hubs to support “local sub regional development” and in the case of Wexford, to support the function of the nearby designated “gateway” city of Waterford in terms of promoting regional development in the South East (along with Kilkenny). A report entitled National Spatial Strategy Hubs: Development Issues and Challenges (Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 2007) detailed the performance of designated hub towns across the country and specified constraints being experienced which were restricting the economic and population growth performance of the towns. In this document, the NSS outlines the importance of improving regional connectivity through the provision of bypasses of towns on the national routes to nearby Gateways and other parts of Ireland.

As part of the aforementioned report, the local authority was asked to identify the key development objectives/priorities relating to the Hub in a regional or sub-regional context. The following issues were identified7:  Upgrade road and rail links with Waterford.  Strategic road links between Waterford and Wexford.  Inter - regional road links between Hubs (the link to Kilkenny is unsatisfactory).  Motorway connecting the western and eastern sides of Ireland.  Completion of the Dublin - Rosslare motorway with bypasses at Gorey, Enniscorthy, and Wexford.

______

7 Appendix (I), page 87 of National Spatial Strategy Hubs – Development Issues and Challenges, (Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, June 2007).

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 249 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Route Options 201 (Management option) and 200 (Do-Minimum) are least preferred in terms of the NSS as they utilise the existing road network without providing any segregation between the local roads and the N11/N25 route. All other route options are preferred route options.

Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T)

The scheme will form part of the European Designated E01 Route from Larne to Rosslare Europort. This provides an alternative link to mainland Europe that avoids the more congested routes through central England.

While not on the current list of priority projects in the TEN-T scheme, the N11 and N25 form part of the TEN-T network. The TEN-T Executive Agency states that TEN-T projects aim to:  Establish and develop the key links and interconnections needed to eliminate existing bottlenecks to mobility,  Fill in missing sections and complete the main routes — especially their cross-border sections,  Cross natural barriers, and  Improve interoperability on major routes.

Improving access to Rosslare Europort will also provide better access for Ireland to the markets of Britain and mainland Europe. Upgrading connectivity to the Atlantic Corridor (N25 and onwards) and the Greater Dublin Area (N11) will provide alternatives to using Dublin Port.

Route Options 201 (Management option) and 200 (Do-Minimum) are least preferred as they utilise the existing road. All other route options are segregated from local traffic and are therefore considered preferred route options.

8.7.5 Other Government Policy Integration

National Development Plan 2007 - 2013

The National Development Plan (NDP) 2007 - 2013 was developed to prioritise economic and social investment in order to support the continued development of Ireland with a “high commitment to international competitiveness, social justice, and environmental sustainability”.

One of the “high level objectives” of the NDP was to provide “Balanced regional development with regions achieving their full potential”. In order to achieve the objectives of the NDP, a number of goals were

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 250 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

outlined that are relevant to the development of infrastructure that allows regional development. These goals aim to:  decisively tackle the deficit of structural infrastructure that continues to impact on competitiveness,  improve regional development,  improve general quality of life,  meet the demands of the increasing population,  integrate regional development within the National Spatial Strategy Framework of Gateway cities and Hub towns (of which Wexford is one) to achieve goals of economic growth in the regions, and  provide for major investment in the rural economy.

While €13.3 billion was to be invested in upgrading and building national roads with a further €480 million targeted to upgrade strategic port facilities, such as Rosslare Europort, over the lifetime of the current NDP, it is important to note that actual investment may not reach such targets owing to the current economic situation. The NDP outlines significant investment for “key routes impacting on NSS Gateways, Hubs, and County Towns”. Wexford Town is both a county town and a Hub town as designated under the National Spatial Strategy.

Route Options 201 (Management option) and 200 (Do-Minimum) are least preferred as they utilise the existing road. All other route options are considered preferred route options.

8.7.6 Conclusion

Route Options 201 (Management option) and 200 (Do-Minimum) are “Least Preferred” in terms of integration as they continue to utilise the existing road and do not segregate the bypassing traffic from the local traffic. Furthermore, Route Option 201 does not bypass Oilgate and will limit the future development of the village, which has been identified as a Local Growth Town in the Wexford County Development Plan 2007 – 2013.

Route Options 069, 108, 109, 113, 115, and 120 are considered “Preferred”. All other route options are considered “Intermediate” as they do not utilise the reserved corridor in the Wexford Town and Environs Development Plan.

With regard to the Integration appraisal, the rankings of all route options are outlined in Table 8.7.1 below.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 251 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 8.7.1: Integration Matrix

Route Transportation Land Use Geographic Other Government Overall Option Policy 069 Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred 089 Preferred Intermediate Preferred Preferred Intermediate 104 Preferred Intermediate Preferred Preferred Intermediate 106 Preferred Intermediate Preferred Preferred Intermediate 107 Preferred Intermediate Preferred Preferred Intermediate 108 Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred 109 Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred 113 Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred 115 Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred 116 Preferred Intermediate Preferred Preferred Intermediate 117 Preferred Intermediate Preferred Preferred Intermediate 118 Preferred Intermediate Preferred Preferred Intermediate 119 Preferred Intermediate Preferred Preferred Intermediate 120 Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred 132 Preferred Intermediate Preferred Preferred Intermediate 200 (Do- Least Preferred Preferred Least Preferred Least Preferred Least Preferred Minimum) 201 Least Preferred Least Preferred Least Preferred Least Preferred Least Preferred (Management option)

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 252 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.8 Project Appraisal Matrix

8.8.1 Introduction

Following the appraisal of the route options, the preference for each route option under the 5 appraisal headings is summarised in the Project Appraisal Matrix shown in Table 8.8.1.

Table 8.8.1: Project Appraisal Matrix

Route Economy Safety Environment Accessibility Integration Overall Option & Social Preference Inclusion

069 Preferred Preferred Preferred Similar Preferred Preferred 089 Least Preferred Preferred Least Preferred Similar Intermediate Least Preferred 104 Least Preferred Intermediate Least Preferred Similar Intermediate Least Preferred 106 Least Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Similar Intermediate Least Preferred 107 Least Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Similar Intermediate Least Preferred 108 Preferred Preferred Preferred Similar Preferred Preferred 109 Preferred Preferred Intermediate Similar Preferred Intermediate 113 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Similar Preferred Intermediate 115 Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Similar Preferred Intermediate 116 Least Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Similar Intermediate Least Preferred 117 Least Preferred Intermediate Preferred Similar Intermediate Least Preferred 118 Least Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Similar Intermediate Least Preferred 119 Least Preferred Intermediate Intermediate Similar Intermediate Least Preferred 120 Preferred Preferred Intermediate Similar Preferred Intermediate 132 Least Preferred Preferred Least Preferred Similar Intermediate Least Preferred 200 (Do- Preferred Least Preferred Preferred Similar Least Preferred Least Preferred Minimum) 201 Preferred Least Preferred Preferred Similar Least Preferred Least Preferred (Management option)

8.9 Recommendation on a Preferred Route Corridor

8.9.1 Shortlisting of Route Options

Table 8.8.1 presents the Project Appraisal Matrix for all route options, summarising the preferences for each route option under the appraisal headings of Economy, Safety, Environment, Accessibility and Social Inclusion, and Integration.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 253 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

From Table 8.8.1 it can be seen that all route options are “Similar” under Accessibility & Social Inclusion. Only Route Options 069 and 108 have preferences of either “Preferred” or “Similar” under the appraisal headings and therefore these route options have been identified as “Preferred” for the scheme.

In assessing the overall preference, any route option with a preference of “Least Preferred” under the headings Economy, Safety, Environment or Integration were given an overall preference of “Least Preferred”. This applied to Route Options 089, 104, 106, 107, 116, 117, 118, 119, 132, 200 & 201. Route Options 089, 104, 106, 107, 116, 117, 118, 119 and 132 are “Least Preferred” under the economy heading as these route options have the lowest benefit to cost ratios. Furthermore, Route Options 089, 104 and 132 are also “Least Preferred” for the environment appraisal. Route Options 200 and 201are considered “Least Preferred” on the safety and integration appraisal headings. Both route options utilise extensive sections of the existing road which will continue to encourage the mixing of local and national traffic together with pedestrians and cyclists which may lead to an increase in collision risk.

Any route options, other than those deemed “Least Preferred” described above, which have been assigned an “Intermediate” preference under any of the appraisal headings of Economy, Safety, Environment and Integration, were assigned an overall preference of “Intermediate”. This applies to Route Options 109, 113, 115 and 120.

8.9.2 Comparison of Route Options 069 & 108

It is noted that Route Options 108 and 069 are, in fact very similar, however, the difference is significant enough to matter in terms of selecting a preferred route.

The differences between each route option are examined below for each of the five appraisal headings.

Economy

Following the economy appraisal, Route Option 108 has a marginally higher benefit to cost ratio than Route Option 069 for each traffic model scenario considered. Therefore, Route Option 108 is preferred over Route Option 069 for the economy appraisal.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 254 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Safety

Route Options 069 and 108 are both considered Preferred under the safety appraisal. Route Options 069 and 108 are considered “Intermediate for the Stage F Safety Audit. With regard to the Accident Benefits from CoBA, Route Option 069 has a figure of 110,995, while Route Option 108 has a figure of 111,163. Therefore, both route options are considered similar for the safety appraisal.

Environment

For the environmental appraisal, both route options are considered Preferred. Route Option 069 is considered Least Preferred for human beings and material assets, while Route Option 108 is not considered Least Preferred for any environmental heading. Therefore, Route Option 108 is preferred over Route Option 069 for the environmental appraisal.

Accessibility & Social Inclusion

As all route options are considered similar for Accessibility & Social Inclusion, there is no difference between Route Options 069 and 108 for this appraisal heading.

Integration

Route Options 069 and 108 are both considered Preferred for the integration appraisal. Both route options also have the same preference for each heading considered as part of the appraisal and therefore there is no difference between both route options for the integration appraisal.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 255 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

8.9.3 Recommendation

Whereas Route Options 069 and 108 perform similarly in terms of safety, accessibility & social inclusion and integration, Route Option 108 performs better than Route Option 069 for both economy and environment. From the above examination, Route Option 108 is considered the Preferred Route Corridor.

While the Management Option (Route Option 201) was considered "Least Preferred" in Section 8.9.1 above, it is prudent to make a final comparison between Route Option 108 and Route Option 201 having regard to the significantly lower capital cost for Route Option 201. Furthermore, Route Option 108 includes an improvement of the N25 from Rosslare Harbour to Wexford, an objective of the Wexford County Development Plan 2007 - 2013, whereas RO 201 does not include any road improvements south of Wexford. The reasons for adhering to the recommendation for Route Option 108 include those summarised in the table below:

Appraisal Headings Route Option 201 Route Option 108 Preferred Economy Preferred Preferred = Safety Least Preferred Preferred RO 108 Environment Preferred Preferred = Accessibillity & Social Inclusion Preferred Preferred = Integration Least Preferred Preferred RO 108 Other Considerations Bypasses Oilgate No Yes RO 108 Bypasses Killinick No Yes RO 108 Bypasses Tagoat No Yes RO 108 Bypasses Kilrane No Yes RO 108 Parallel routes for cyclists and pedestrians No Yes RO 108 Improvement to community assessibility No Yes RO 108 Improvement of road from Wexford to Rosslare Harbour No Yes RO 108 High quality connection from Rosslare Europort to M11 Motorway No Yes RO 108 Length of improved National Primary Road Network 15.95km 30.41km RO 108 Future proofing road cross section needs if ‘High Growth’ prevails No Yes RO 108

From a further examination of the economy appraisal of Route Option 108, Traffic Model Scenario 4 has the highest benefit to cost ratio of the four traffic model scenarios considered. As outlined in section 7.2, Table 7.2.1 and as illustrated in Part 4 – Figure 8.3.1b, Traffic Model Scenario 4 comprises a Type 2 Dual Carriageway from the tie-in with the proposed M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme to Rosslare Harbour,

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 256 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

and does not include an N25 Barntown Link. It has junctions north of Oilgate, at the existing New Ross Road Roundabout, and at Rosslare Harbour. It remains online at the Wexford Bypass, maintaining connectivity between the R733 and the N25. It also includes junctions near the Rosslare Road Roundabout and Ashfield Crossroads. However, it should be noted that the number, location, and type of junctions and the road cross section will not be finalised until the Design Phase (Phase 3) of the NRA Project Management Guidelines.

Therefore, Route Option 108 with Traffic Model Scenario 4 is the Preferred Route Corridor for the N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour Scheme, and it is recommended that this route option should proceed to Stage 3 - Selection of Preferred Route Corridor, of Phase 2 Route Selection.

The precise cross-section and junction arrangement will be determined at the Design Phase (Phase 3) of the NRA Project Management Guidelines.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 257 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

This page left intentionally blank for pagination.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 258 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

9. Stage 3 Selection of Preferred Route Corridor

9.1 Project Appraisal Balance Sheet

The Project Appraisal Balance Sheet (PABS) has been compiled for the Preferred Route Corridor following guidance given in the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines, March 2008 and is consistent with the Common Appraisal Framework developed by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. The PABS assesses road project using the following criteria:  Environment,  Safety,  Economy,  Accessibility & Social Inclusion, and  Integration.

The PABS includes a qualitative statement, quantitative statement and a scaling statement for each element, where applicable. A qualitative statement summarises the impacts of the project in qualitative terms, while the quantitative sets out quantitative or monetised indicators where possible. Each element is ranked with a scaling statement which indicates whether the impact is:  Highly positive,  Moderately positive,  Slightly positive,  Neutral,  Slightly negative,  Moderately negative, or  Highly negative.

The Project Appraisal Balance Sheet for this scheme is shown below in Table 9.1.1.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 259 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

Table 9.1.1: Project Appraisal Balance Sheet

PROJECT APPRAISAL BALANCE SHEET: PREFERRED ROUTE OPTION 108 (SCENARIO 4) Scaling Criterion Element Qualitative Statement Quantitative Statement Statement

Environment Air Quality Predicted nitrogen oxides (NOx) concentrations are below the Predicted nitrogen oxides (NOx) concentrations in the Design limit value (30 μg/m3) for the protection of ecosystems. Thus, Year (2033) on Sensitive Ecosystem (Wexford Harbour & ambient NOx concentrations will not have a significant impact Slobs SPA & proposed NHA and Slaney River Valley SAC) = 3 on the Slaney River Valley SAC, Wexford Harbour and Slobs 27.4 NOx (μg/m ) SPA and Wexford Harbour and Slobs proposed NHA. Index of Overall Change in Exposure: The Preferred Route Corridor is likely to result in lower -419388 NO2 Exposure Index exposure to nitrogen oxides (NOx) and PM10 than the Do- -15492 PM10 Exposure Index Nothing option as measured by way of the Index of Overall Moderately Change in Exposure. Positive Pollution from traffic sources increases at low traffic speeds and during congested traffic conditions. The Preferred Route Corridor is likely to result in a reduction in traffic levels and congestion when compared to the Do-Nothing option. The number of sensitive receptors directly impacted by the Preferred Route Corridor will be significantly less than the Do Nothing impact along the existing N11 and N25 and will therefore result in a Moderately Positive impact on air quality. Environment Noise & Although the Preferred Route Corridor has a higher number of 575 no. of Sensitive Properties (any dwelling house, hotel, Vibration properties exceeding 60dB Lden than the more offline route health building, educational establishment, or place of options, this Preferred Route Corridor passes in closer worship) within 300m of the mainline. proximity to higher density residential areas that are already exposed to road traffic noise levels from a well-trafficked Potential Impact Rating (PIR) = 1065. Slightly Negative national road. Therefore, for this Preferred Route Corridor it is likely to be a less significant relative increase in noise than is Mitigation measures potentially required for 97 number likely for route options that are more offline. The provision of properties for which the 60dB Lden noise level may be this improved road will ensure that traffic congestion does not exceeded. occur and also the associated increase in noise levels.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 260 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

PROJECT APPRAISAL BALANCE SHEET: PREFERRED ROUTE OPTION 108 (SCENARIO 4) Scaling Criterion Element Qualitative Statement Quantitative Statement Statement Environment Landscape & The Preferred Route Corridor crosses over the River Slaney Significance categorization rating: Visual Quality at a less preferred location, however the route option mainly Landscape = Moderate Impact skirts along the edge of the Slaney Valley Landscape Visual = Moderate Impact Character Area (LCA) prior to moving south to the crossing over the River Slaney, minimising the potential impact on the LCA. The route option also has potential to have a moderate negative impact on South Hills LCA, which is classified as being of moderate value. However, this LCA has potential to accept some changes as specified in the Landscape Character Assessment. The proposed route option also has a potential moderate negative impact on east coast LCA and Slightly Negative although this LCA is considered to be vulnerable to change it is also considered to be of low value. This Preferred Route Corridor potentially impacts on the settings of a number of historic houses and it also impacts some residential properties at Kavanaghspark and one-off rural housing along its length. However, it is considered with the introduction of appropriate mitigation measures, these impacts can be ameliorated. The Preferred Route Corridor is the preferred route option south of the River Slaney due to significant length online, which minimises the potential impact on the landscape. Environment Biodiversity The Preferred Route Corridor requires a new crossing over Direct Impacts on ecological sites = 13, (Flora & Fauna the River Slaney Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and 9 no. of which are local (higher), and Habitats) Special Protection Area (SPA). However, an Appropriate 4 no. of which are county, Screening Assessment identified that the proposed route 1 no. of which are national, and option will have no significant impact on the qualifying criteria 2 no. of which are international. Moderately of the designated sites with the implementation of appropriate Negative mitigation measures. The Preferred Route Corridor will have a potential direct impact on a low number of sites assessed as being of county importance when compared to other route options. Environment Water Quality The Preferred Route Corridor has one of the lowest number Total number of catchments impacted = 27 and Aquatic of river and stream crossings and does not have potential to Number of catchments with "poor status" = 0 Ecology impact on the Coolree reservoir, as it is downstream of the Number of catchments with "moderate status" = 12 reservoir. Whilst the route option will impact on a relatively Slightly Negative high number of catchments of moderate status and Number of watercourses (streams/rivers) crossings = 44 catchments classified as being of "moderate" or "high" ecological value, there is limited variance between the route No potential impact on the Coolree reservoir. options under these assessment headings.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 261 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

PROJECT APPRAISAL BALANCE SHEET: PREFERRED ROUTE OPTION 108 (SCENARIO 4) Scaling Criterion Element Qualitative Statement Quantitative Statement Statement Environment Flood Risk This Preferred Route Corridor is considered "intermediate" in 1763m (new road alignment) of route option newly located Assessment terms of flood risk when compared with other route options, within predicted Flood Risk Zones A & B. (Flood Risk Zones A Slightly Negative due to the length of this Preferred Route Corridor that is or B as defined in the Wexford Flood Risk Management located within flood risk zones A & B Mapping). Environment Climate This Preferred Route Corridor results in a surplus of Carbon PVB = € 1.790m (Emissions Only) Emissions when compared with the Do nothing scenario, PVC = € 207.969m however this surplus is the second lowest surplus when BCR = (PVB/PVC) = 0.009 Neutral compared with the other route options. Net Benefit = -9,570 tonnes per year (Based on User Specified Traffic Growth in CoBA) Environment Waste The Preferred Route Corridor is one of the shortest route Number of Overbridges = 18 options, with a lower quantity of waste material generated Number of Underbridges = 3 than some longer route options, but it has a higher number of structures compared with other route options, resulting in an Total Cut Volume (m3) = 1,467,668 increased potential for waste generation in the construction of Total Fill Quantity (m3) = -913,203 those structures. This Preferred Route Corridor therefore Pavement Cut (m3) = 224,111 Neutral results in a neutral impact. Surplus/Deficit(m3) = 554,465 Surplus/Deficit incl pavement (m3) = 778,576 Total Cut Quantity that can be re-used = 778,576 Peaty type soils = 0% Total peat = 0 Surplus/Deficit including extra peat for export = 778,576

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 262 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

PROJECT APPRAISAL BALANCE SHEET: PREFERRED ROUTE OPTION 108 (SCENARIO 4) Scaling Criterion Element Qualitative Statement Quantitative Statement Statement Environment Geology and The Preferred Route Corridor is considered as a "preferred" Soil and Geology: Hydrogeology route option when compared with other route options Total length of fill = approx 145,90m. assessed. In terms of soils and geology the route option, in Total length of cut = approx 15,970m. common with all other route options (except Route Option Max. depth of cut = approx 15m. 201), has potential to impact on potential areas of karst north Max. height of embankment or fill = approx 15m. of Rosslare Harbour, and has potential to impact on soft ground in the vicinity of the river crossings. In terms of No. of zones in which impacts on geological heritage sites = 0 hydrogeology, there is potential to impact on aquifers No. of zones in which impacts on landfills, backfilled quarries classified as "high to extreme" vulnerability in common with all or former landfills = 0 route options. This route option has a low number of potential No. of zones in which impacts on pits, quarries or mines = 1 impacts on springs/wells. No. of zones in which impacts on poor ground conditions = 4 No. of zones in which impacts on karst features = 3 No. of zones in which impacts on geohazards = 0 Slightly Negative No. of zones in which impacts on underlying regionally important aquifer (Rf) may occur = 2 No. of zones in which impacts on underlying regionally important aquifer (Rkd) may occur = 2 No. of zones in which impacts on springs, wells and water supply schemes may occur = 2 No. of zones in which impacts on underlying aquifer with 'High to Extreme' vulnerability may occur = 5 No. of zones in which impacts on underlying locally important aquifer (LI) may occur = 1 No. of zones in which impacts on underlying locally important aquifer (Lm) may occur = 0 Environment Archaeology The Preferred Route Corridor has potential to impact directly Total count of the number of potential impacts within 250m of and Cultural and indirectly on a number of designated sites and the route option and the number of direct impacts (within 25m Heritage monuments. However, the potential to impact on designated of the route option). sites is lower compared to least preferred route options. Total No. of Impacts = 57 There are no potential areas of geological heritage impacted. Direct Impacts = 10 Moderately This route option also has a lower potential to impact on Negative undiscovered elements of archaeological hearitage as it Total potential direct impacts on RMPs, RPSs, & NIAHs = 10 avoids all but two of the areas of archaeological potential. Record of Monuments and Places (RMPs) = 6 Record of Protected Structures (RPSs) = 1 National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) = 3

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 263 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

PROJECT APPRAISAL BALANCE SHEET: PREFERRED ROUTE OPTION 108 (SCENARIO 4) Scaling Criterion Element Qualitative Statement Quantitative Statement Statement Environment Human Beings This Preferred Route Corridor is "intermediate" in terms of Potential Impacts on Sensitive Receptors: and Material Human Beings and Material Assets. It has low number of Residential: Assets potential direct impacts on residential properties and Direct Impact on 18 No. Properties. potenially will require only three local road closures. However, Direct Impact on 42 No. Garden/ Boundary/ Access Roads. the route option has high potential to impact on property Commercial: gardens, boundaries, and access roads. It also has high Direct Impact on 0 No. Properties. potential indirect nuisance impacts on residential properties, Direct Impact on 3 No. Boundary/ Access Roads. commercial properties, and community facilities within 300 Community: metres and it impacts directly on one mineral location. Direct Impact on 1 No. Property. However, overall impacts with this route option are less Planning: severe than others in terms of the potential for "direct Direct Impact on 4 No. Planning Applications. Moderately impacts" on residential properties. Negative Total Potential Impacts on Sensitive Receptors = 68

Potential Road Severance: No. of local roads severed = 3 No. of access roads severed = 7 No. of roads diverted = 0 Total potential road severance = 10

3 local roads will be severed and closed. 7 access roads will be severed, 1 will be closed and new connector roads will be provided for 4 of these roads. Environment Agriculture The Preferred Route Corridor is the third favoured route Soil quality: option overall in terms of minimising the potential to impact on Mineral soils = 93% agriculutre. The route option has relatively low land-take and Alluvial soils = 5% severance impacts compared to other more "offline" route Peaty type soils = 0% options. It affects the second lowest area of dairy/equine Other soil types = 2% farms. It has the fourth longest length online and it does not Slightly Negative have an impact on the Cowlands site. Landtake (ha) = 156.0 Severed Area (ha) = 250 Area of Dairy/Equine farms affected (ha) = 592.0 number farms affected = 157 Length online (km) = 11 No Impact on the Cowlands Site

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 264 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

PROJECT APPRAISAL BALANCE SHEET: PREFERRED ROUTE OPTION 108 (SCENARIO 4) Scaling Criterion Element Qualitative Statement Quantitative Statement Statement Safety Accident The improved standard of new road will lead to a reduction in Estimated reduction in collision rates from CoBA: Reduction the number and severity of collisions.EuroRAP assessment Fatal: 1.8 /year has rated the N25 between Barntown and Rosslare Harbour a Serious: 10.1/year medium collision risk road. However, EuroRAP and the RSA Slight: 56.2/year have recommend that upgrading existing single carriageway 9.1% reduction in all collisions roads to Type 2 or Type 1 dual carriageways would greatly 12.3% reduction in fatal collisions. Highly Positive improve the safety of the road.The Preferred Route Corridor CBA Output: has the second highest collision benefit to present value cost PVB = € 126.893m (Collisions Only) ratio. PVC = € 207.969m BCR = (PVB/PVC) = 0.610 (Based on User Specified Traffic Growth in CoBA) Safety Security The existing hard shoulders of the N11 are used by N/A (Note 1) pedestrians on exercise walks and cyclists. In addition signed cycle routes are present on the local road network running west from Wexford Town.

The Preferred Route Corridor is predominantly offline and considered safer as pedestrians and cyclists can continue to use the existing road network, while the main traffic uses the new bypass road. This will also result in safer access to Moderately sporting facilities. Where the Preferred Route Corridor utilises Positive lengths of the existing N11 and N25 online, a 2m wide non- motorised user facility will be provided in the verge on both sides of the road where an alternative cycle/pedestrian route is not available.

The re-classified section of the existing road network will enhance leisure activities for pedestrian and cyclists, with possibilities to develop cycle routes on the old network, especially with the reduction in motorised traffic. Economy Efficiency & The Preferred Route Corridor will decrease transit times, Reduction in travel times = approx. 3.85% (Calculated from Effectiveness reduce fuel operating costs and other operating costs. The CBA transit times) increase in safety and environmental benefits will also be Option Comparison Estimate (OCE) = €229.360 million. transferred to the economic benefit of the scheme. The Preferred Route Corridor has the lowest initial cost of any CBA Output: Highly Positive route option i.e. interims of the option comparison estimates PVB = € 436.452m (excluding Collisions and Emissions) (OCE). PVC = € 207.969m NPV = € 228.483m BCR = (PVB/PVC) = 2.098 (Based on User Specified Traffic Growth in CoBA)

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 265 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

PROJECT APPRAISAL BALANCE SHEET: PREFERRED ROUTE OPTION 108 (SCENARIO 4) Scaling Criterion Element Qualitative Statement Quantitative Statement Statement Economy Other Economic With the congestion relieved from Oilgate, there will be a N/A (Note 1) Impacts benefit to the tourism industry and the local economy. Oilgate will also benefit from regeneration with a reduction in traffic volume through the village. Moderately The new scheme will also provide more opportunities for the Positive agric-economic sector within the environs of Wexford, with the new road offering a better distribution system. This may also develop the opportunity for small agri-businesses to combine and agglomerate to provide required services and increase competitiveness, resulting in inward investment in the area. Economy Funding Impacts None None None Accessibility Impact on None None & Social vulnerable None Inclusion groups Accessibility Impact on Areas of Wexford Town are included in the 51 designated N/A (Note 1) & Social deprived areas of the RAPID Programme. Inclusion geographic areas Wexford Town is designated as a Strand 2 Area (Large Town) and the following areas of Wexford Town are the focus of the Moderately RAPID Programme: Positive i) Greater Clonard ii) Maudlintown/Faythe

There are no areas in County Wexford included under the CLÁR Programme. Integration Transport The N11 from Oilgate to Wexford Town will be the last link of N/A (Note 1) the N11 from Dublin to Wexford to be completed. Upgrading the N25 from Wexford Town to Rosslare Harbour will complete the route from Rosslare Harbour to Dublin and on to Belfast (E01). The Preferred Route Corridor will also improve connections to Waterford by way of the N25 and on to the Highly Positive Atlantic Corridor. Improvement of the N11 and N25 will also improve journey times for bus connections, both within Wexford, and on national and international routes through County Wexford. The Preferred Route Corridor provides improved access to and from the major ports and airports.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 266 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

PROJECT APPRAISAL BALANCE SHEET: PREFERRED ROUTE OPTION 108 (SCENARIO 4) Scaling Criterion Element Qualitative Statement Quantitative Statement Statement Integration Land Use The Preferred Route Corridor is compatible with regional, N/A (Note 1) county and local plans: Moderately i) South-East Regional Planning Guidelines. Positive ii) Wexford County Development Plan. iii) Wexford Town and Environs Development Plan. Integration Geographical National Spatial Strategy (NSS): N/A (Note 1) The Preferred Route Corridor is compatible with the National Spatial Strategy (NSS). Wexford Town was designated as a hub under the National Spatial Strategy. Towns were designated as hubs to support “local sub regional development” and in the case of Wexford, to support the function of the nearby designated “Gateway” city of Waterford in terms of promoting regional development in the South East (along with Kilkenny). The scheme will provide for safe intersection of the N25 and the N11 at Wexford Town and the link to Rosslare Europort. This will facilitate the integration of the port facilities and the national primary network and in return should provide for more efficient access to the gateway cities and hub towns of the South and East. Highly Positive Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T): The scheme will form part of the European Designated E01 Route from Larne to Rosslare Europort. This provides an alternative link to mainland Europe which avoids the more congested routes through the UK mainland. While not on the current list of priority projects in the TEN-T scheme, the N11 and N25 form part of the TEN-T network. Improving access to Rosslare Europort will also provide better access for Ireland to the markets of Britain and mainland Europe. Upgrading connectivity to the Atlantic Corridor (N25 and onwards) and the Greater Dublin Area (N11) will provide alternatives to using Dublin Port. Integration Integration with National Development Plan 2007 - 2013: N/A (Note 1) other The Scheme is consistent with the objectives of the current Highly Positive Government National Development Plan. Policies Note 1 In the case of some elements within each criterion the inclusion of a quantitative statement is not possible as only a qualitative assessment or

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 267 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

examination is required. Hence there are no quantitative amounts or values which can be included. This approach in the above PABS is consistent with the guidance and layout in the Project Appraisal Guidelines, dated March 2008. Note 2 Abbreviations: PVC: Present Value of Cost PVB: Present Value of Benefits NPV: Net Present Value BCR: Benefit to Cost Ratio OCE Option Comparison Estimate NOx Nitrogen Oxides NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide PM10 Particular Matter of 10 micrometers or less PIR Potential Impact Rating

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 268 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

9.2 Road Safety Audit Stage F (Part 2)

A Stage F Part 2 Road Safety Audit was carried out on the Preferred Route Corridor (Route Option 108, Scenario 4) in accordance with NRA HD 19/09 of the NRA Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. The audit was carried out on Friday, the 10th June 2011.

All items arising from the Road Safety Audit will be addressed during the Design Phase (Phase 3) of the NRA Project Management Guidelines.

The report is included in Part 2 – Appendix F.2

9.3 Recommendations

Following the discussion in section 8.9, it is recommended that Route Option 108 which utilises traffic model scenario 4 (i.e. without a Barntown Link), is the Preferred Route Corridor to be brought forward to the Design Phase (Phase 3) of the NRA Project Management Guidelines. Route Option 108 with traffic model scenario 4, has the highest benefit to cost ratio and the highest Net Present Value of all Route Options and the respective traffic model scenarios examined. Road cross-section and junction arrangements will be further assessed as part of an incremental analysis on the Preferred Route Corridor at the Design Phase.

The Preferred Route Corridor begins at the southern end of the proposed M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy Scheme, bypasses the villages of Oilgate, Killinick, Tagoat, and Kilrane, and finishes at junction immediately west of Rosslare Harbour. It utilises approximately 30% of the existing N11and N25 corridor including land reserved in the Wexford Town and Environs Development Plan to widen the existing Wexford Bypass. From Stephenstown to Ballygerry it also utilises the line of the “Orange Route” previously selected in 2002 as the Preferred Route Corridor for the N25 Rosslare Harbour Access Road Scheme. The provision of underbridges and overbridges at interfaces with regional and local roads will improve safety and accessibility including where communities are located either side of the existing national road. The Preferred Route Corridor also provides for a new river crossing of the Slaney, permitting existing roads in the vicinity of Ferrycarrig including the existing Ferrycarrig Bridge to be utilised for local traffic only, thus improving safety at junctions and accesses. Bypassing of villages, the separation of local and national traffic, the improvement in overtaking opportunities, the removal of right turn movements and

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 269 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc N11/N25 Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour

reduction of road side hazards will improve travel time and road safety on a route where thirteen fatal collision occurred in the period 2002 to 2009.

The nature of the Preferred Route Corridor, in particular the extent of the route that follows or is adjacent to the existing road corridor together with the resulting connectivity to the existing road network, means that the Preferred Route Corridor is amenable to phased construction. This provides an opportunity for the phases to be constructed in discrete sections, as and when funding becomes available. This approach is consistent with Objective T11 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2007-2013, which states:

“To bring National Roads up to appropriate standards in association with the National Roads Authority as resources become available”.

It is also recommended that a phasing study be carried out to optimise the order of implementation of the phases of the scheme having regard to economy, safety, environment, accessibility & social inclusion, and integration.

The Preferred Route Corridor is illustrated in Part 4 – Figure 8.9.1.

247517/IWE/CCT/09/C 06 September 2011 270 247517-09-C Route Selection Report Part 1 - Main Text.doc