Roughan & O’Donovan N14 / N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Chapter 7

The Natural Environment

Ref: 10.152 July 2011

Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Chapter 7 The Natural Environment

7.1 Introduction

The issues that are addressed in this chapter of the Environmental Impact Statement are as follows:

7.2 Ecology The terrestrial and aquatic ecology impact assessment was completed by EirEco Environmental Consultants. The bat surveys and assessment was completed by Faith Bailey Ecological Consultant on behalf of EirEco.

7.3 Noise & Vibration The assessment of the Noise and Vibration Impacts during the construction and operation of the N14/N15 to A5 Link was completed by AWN Consulting.

7.4 Air Quality and Climate The assessment of the Air Quality and Climate Impacts during the construction and operation of the N14/N15 to A5 Link was completed by AWN Consulting.

7.5 Hydrology and Hydrogeology The assessment of the impacts on Hydrology and Hydrogeology was undertaken by Hydro Environmental Limited with input from Mouchel and Roughan & O’Donovan.

7.6 Soils & Geology The assessment of the impacts on Soils and Geology was undertaken by Roughan & O’Donovan.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/1 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

7.2 Ecology

7.2.1 Introduction EirEco Environmental Consultants were commissioned by Roughan O’Donovan to undertake a terrestrial and aquatic ecological assessment for the EIS of the N14/N15 to A5 Link (Lifford Bridge) scheme. This section details their findings and provides an assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed scheme on the terrestrial and aquatic environment (i.e. flora, fauna and habitats) and the River Finn Special Area of Conservation (Site code 002301) and River Foyle and Tributaries SAC (Site code UK0030320).

7.2.2 Methodology Desk Review A review of the OSI mapping and aerial photographs was undertaken to determine the proximity of the proposed route relative to aquatic habitats in the general vicinity that may be subject to impacts through severance of connecting corridors, pollution run-off during construction, etc. A review was also undertaken of existing sources of information and records pertaining to the aquatic environment in the vicinity of the study area, including the Route Selection Report for the proposed scheme and the Environmental Assessment Report for the N14 Letterkenny to Lifford / Strabane scheme, the N15 Lifford to Stranorlar scheme and the A5 Western Transport Corridor.

A review of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) website database was undertaken to determine the boundaries of designated areas for conservation in the vicinity of the proposed route. Site synopses for designated sites were subsequently reviewed to identify qualifying interests relating to the aquatic environment and records of protected aquatic species. BirdWatch Ireland was consulted with regard to records of wintering waterfowl from the area.

Consultations Consultation letters were submitted to the Inland Fisheries Ireland and the Loughs Agency (Northern Ireland) requesting information on fish stocks and aquatic protected species within the River Finn in the vicinity of the proposed route. Comments were also sought in relation to watercourse crossing design and mitigation requirements. Consultation was also undertaken with both the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency with regard to the designated areas, their conservation objectives and records of rare or protected species.

Detailed responses were received by NIEA and the Loughs Agency in early November 2010. A response was received from the Development Applications Unit of NPWS on 8th November 2010 and from a data request on 18th November 2010. A draft set of Conservation Objectives for the River Finn SAC was also received from the NPWS on 24th November 2010. A meeting was held with NPWS regional staff and NIEA-Natural Heritage on 28th January 2011.

Surveys Field surveys were undertaken in October 2010 to map habitats and determine the presence or suitability for mammals, birds and other protected species of fauna. Surveys were undertaken in accordance with the NRA Ecological Surveying Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna (2009). Access to the land to the south of

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/2 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

the River Finn (County Tyrone) was not available and the observations within this report are based on visual assessment from across the river and the public road along the south of the river using binoculars and from ecological data received from the Mouchel ecology studies undertaken for the A5 Western Transport Corridor Environmental Impact Assessment.

The surveys aimed to determine evidence of otter activity (including spraints, holts, couches, lie-ups, twists and slides) and kingfisher nest sites with the main emphasis being placed on-line or within c100m of the proposed crossing point. Consideration was also given to the potential for the movement of otter between other sites.

The aquatic survey recorded a variety of physical parameters including depth, width, substrate, flow-regime and bankside profile. The survey also covered bankside and instream vegetation, presence or suitability for protected aquatic species fisheries habitats and a visual assessment of water quality. The assessment of the fisheries value of each watercourse was made on the basis of suitability for spawning, nursery and holding potential for salmon and other fish species. The stretch downstream of the proposed crossing point was surveyed in particular to assess spawning areas for salmonids and lamprey.

The bat detector surveys were conducted by both Faith Wilson and Dr Caroline Shiel (both independent ecological consultants and experienced bat workers). Initially, a review of known bat roosts and bat activity within 10km of the study area was conducted using the Bat Conservation Ireland database. Other bat specialists including members of Bat Conservation Ireland and the Northern Ireland Bat Group were contacted regarding any surveys or detector work that they had carried out in the area.

The four season survey began with the autumn survey in September 2010 and concluded in June 2011 with the summer survey.

Areas likely to be of interest for bats within close proximity to the proposed bridge crossing and in the wider landscape were assessed and identified. These included areas based on the habitats recorded within the baseline survey of the EIS, while other areas of habitat in the wider landscape of the route were selected using recent colour aerial photographs.

These areas were visited during the survey and bat activity was recorded using two types of bat detectors (Heterodyne Bat Detector: Pettersson D100; Frequency Division Bat Detector: Bat Box Duet). Areas of suitable habitat were walked on foot listening for bats with the detectors. Sections of local roads in the vicinity of the proposed bridge crossing were also driven slowly at night with the bat box mounted on the sun roof of the vehicle pointing upwards to record any bat passes. Bats were identified by their ultrasonic calls coupled with behavioural and flight observations.

The presence of bats in a roost is indicated principally by their signs, such as staining, feeding signs, or droppings - though direct observations are also made. There is an old corrugated iron agricultural shed located within the study area. This building was searched for evidence of bat usage during the spring and summer surveys.

Bridges within the general vicinity of the study area were visually examined for cracks/crevices in the stonework which could house roosting bats. Bridges with potential for roosting bats were checked during the winter hibernation survey to see if any bats were present.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/3 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

A survey of trees with potential for roosting bats within the study area was completed during the winter, spring and summer surveys.

Reporting The evaluation of the ecological environment and the criteria used to assess the significance of impacts are derived from the Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts on National Road Schemes (NRA, Rev. 2, 2009) and reviewed against UK DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 – Part 4. Reporting is in compliance with Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts on National Road Schemes (2009) and Environmental Impact Assessment of National Road Schemes – A Practical Guide (NRA, Rev1, 2008). Mitigation proposals are based on the relevant National Roads Authority construction guidance documents pertaining to the natural environment including: Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts on National Road Schemes (2009); Ecological Surveying Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna (2009); Guidelines for the Crossing of Watercourses During the Construction of National Road Schemes (2006); Best Practice Guidelines for the Conservation of Bats in the Planning of National Road Schemes (2006); Guidelines for the treatment of bats during construction on National Road Schemes (2006) ; A Guide to Landscape Treatments on National Road Schemes in Ireland (2006); Guidelines for the Treatment of Badgers during the Construction of National Road Schemes (2005); Guidelines for the Treatment of Otters prior to the Construction of National Road Schemes) (2007); Guidelines for the Management of Noxious Weeds and Non- Native Invasive Plant Species on National Roads (Rev 2010); Guidelines for the Protection and Preservation of Trees, Hedgerows and Scrub Prior to, during and Post Construction of National Road Schemes (NRA 2007).

7.2.3 Existing Environment Designated Areas and Protected Species The River Finn in the vicinity of the proposed crossing point is designated as a Special Area of Conservation on both sides of the border (Refer Figure 7.1, Volume 2). The River Finn and the floodplains within County Donegal are designated as the River Finn candidate Special Area of Conservation (Site code No. 002301) selected for active blanket bog, lowland oligotrophic lakes, wet heath and transition mires (all habitats listed on Annex I of the E.U. Habitats Directive). The site is also selected for salmon and otter, both listed on Annex II of the E.U. Habitats Directive.

In County Tyrone the River Finn is also designated and lies within the River Foyle and Tributaries Special Area of Conservation (Site code No. UK0030320). This site is designated for Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation, and for salmon (primary reason for selection) and otter (secondary reason for selection).

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/4 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

There are no habitats listed as qualifying interests for either SAC in the vicinity of the proposed crossing point or within the study area.

Salmon While there is no salmon spawning habitat in the vicinity of the crossing point or downstream, there is expected to be regular passage of adult fish moving upstream to spawn and smolts moving downstream to the sea. Salmon may use the area as a lie-up while waiting for increased flows before moving upstream. Migration of adult salmon upstream can occur at any time of the year. Spring fish (those that spend more than one year at sea and thus are typically larger) tend to move upstream in April and May while grilse (those that spend a single winter at sea) move upstream in the latter part of the summer and through autumn with spawning occurring in autumn or winter. Smolts migrate to sea mainly during April to June under cover of darkness. All movements are mainly undertaken during periods of high flow (Hendry & Cragg- Hine, 2003). Salmon are a qualifying interest for the River Finn/River Foyle and Tributaries SAC.

Otter Otter, a qualifying interest for the SAC, are present on the river in the vicinity of the proposed scheme as evidenced by spraints found during the field survey. There is no evidence of a holt in the vicinity of the proposed bridge along the northern bank of the river. The area of wet woodland to the east of the alignment provides potentially suitable conditions for a holt or couch, which also has been acknowledged in the EIS for the N15 Lifford to Stranorlar Scheme (Jacobs, 2009). There will be no impact on this area of wet woodland. Foraging by otter is likely within the drainage ditches within the wet grassland especially in early spring when animals are in search of frogs. Otter may also use areas of thick vegetation within the wet grassland as couches or temporary lie–ups.

Access was not available to the author (Project Ecologist) on the southern bank of the River Finn within the study area. The willow scrub vegetation along this bank does provide potential for an otter holt or couch to occur. However, the detailed otter survey undertaken for the A5 Western Transport Corridor ES (Vol. 3 Appendix 11A) did not record any evidence of otter holts or resting habitat within the immediate vicinity of the proposed crossing point. The A5 WTC ES identified the presence of cover further to the northeast as providing a potential resting site. The River Finn was identified as being of international importance for otter in that study.

Lamprey All three species of Lamprey (Sea Lamprey, River Lamprey and Brook Lamprey) are recorded as being present within the River Foyle and Tributaries SAC. There is no specific data available on the distribution of the various species within the River Finn. However, it is assumed that all three species are present as there is no significant impediment to the upstream movement of sea and river lamprey from the Foyle Estuary. The habitat in the vicinity of the proposed crossing does not support suitable spawning habitat for any of the lamprey species though soft sediments in the area may be used as ammocoete larvae beds.

Kingfisher Kingfisher (listed under Annex I of the EU Birds Directive) is expected to occur on the river within the study area although no suitable nesting habitat for the species is present in the vicinity of the proposed crossing point.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/5 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Habitats Refer to Figure 7.2, Volume 2 ‘Habitats’.

The habitats to the north of the River Finn within the study area include Improved Agricultural Grassland (GA1) which occurs on the higher fields to the north-west. The lower fields are within the SAC boundary and comprised of ungrazed Wet Grassland (GS4) dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria), creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera), tufted hair-grass (Deschampsia caespitosa), with horsetail (Equisetum spp.) and occasional isolated willow (Salix sp.). These fields are intersected with numerous Drainage Ditches (FW4) supporting standing water choked with reed canary grass and nettle (Urtica dioica). The grassland along the river edge is somewhat drier in nature as it is slightly elevated and better drained. This area is grazed and is slightly poached by cattle.

Photograph 7.2.1: View south (toward Tyrone) across wet grassland

A small block of wet woodland (WN6) occurs on the edge of the floodplain in the eastern part of the site at the junction of two hedgerows. A drain flows into the woodland increasing its wetness. The dominant canopy species is willow (Salix sp.) but includes ash and hazel. The understorey includes meadowsweet and reed canary-grass with sedges (Carex spp.) and abundant mosses. The woodland represents a good example of the habitat type with a characteristic suite of woody and herbaceous species.

Field boundaries in this area are primarily hedgerows (WL1) of hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and ash (Fraxinus excelsior), with blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), briar (Rubus fruticosus aggr.) and occasional elder (Sambucus niger). A Tree Line (WL2) of over-mature sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) occurs to the north-west of the proposed interchange. A double Tree Line occurs to the west running at tight angles from the existing N15 towards the river. This appears to be along a disused laneway and includes a number of mature and over-mature ash, with a mixture of mature hawthorn, hazel (Corylous avellana) and elm (Ulmus sp.) regeneration.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/6 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Photograph 7.2.2: Treeline of mature sycamore to northwest of proposed N15 roundabout

The stretch of river in the vicinity of the proposed crossing point has been previously drained and a spoil heap runs along the southern bank. The northern bank is fenced at the top of a moderately steeply sloping bank. The upper bank supports ruderals including nettle, thistle (Cirsium arvense), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) and a narrow fringe of Reed Swamp (FS1) along the river edge comprised of reed canary grass, starwort (Callitriche sp.), meadowsweet and water forget-me-not (Myosotis scorpiodes) with occasional scattered willow.

Photograph 7.2.3: View downstream along River Finn from northern bank

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/7 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

The southern river bank is tree-lined (WL2) with willow and alder (Alnus glutinosa) forming thickets at intervals. A spoil heap runs parallel to the river which is grassed over and beyond this is unmanaged grassland with abundant rushes (Juncus sp.) with extensive establishing Scrub (WS1) comprised of briar and gorse (Ulex europaeus). The land rises steeply approaching the existing minor road which is fringed by a Hedgerow (WL1) of low hawthorn. An area of mature Mixed Broad- leaved woodland (WD1) occurs to the south of this minor road, dominated by beech (Fagus sylvatica) with laurel (Prunus laurocerasus) abundant in the understorey.

Fauna Mammals Otter are dealt with under Designated Areas and Protected Species (Section 7.2.3) above. Evidence of mink (Mustela vison) was also recorded from the river bank during the survey.

There is some evidence of badger (Meles meles) activity from the northern part of the study area along the old laneway to the west of the improved pasture. Trails and diggings were recorded at this location. Badger activity was also noted at a hole on the bank of a drain close to the river. This appears to be an outlier sett and therefore would only be occupied intermittently.

Lack of access to the southern bank has prevented examination of this area, although the detailed badger surveys undertaken for the A5 Western Transport Corridor EIA did not record any badgers setts within the lands in County Tyrone. As badgers are mobile and move to new setts in their territory a pre-construction badger survey will be required.

Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) are abundant to the north of the River Finn and their presence is expected to attract predators including fox (Vulpes vulpes) and stoat (Mustela erminea). Pine marten (Martes martes) would also be expected in the area.

The wet grassland provides suitable habitat for frog (Rana temporaria) and the drainage network provides ideal breeding conditions.

Bats Previous records The study area is outside the known range of the Annex II listed lesser horseshoe bat – this species is restricted in it’s distribution to the west of Ireland and is found in Counties Mayo, Galway, Clare, Limerick, Kerry and Cork (Kelleher, 2004). There are no records of the rare Nathusius’ pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii) from either Co. Donegal or Co. Derry in the Bat Conservation Ireland database. However bat surveys conducted as part of the A5 Western Transport Corridor EIS (Mouchel, 2011) contains records of bat activity of Nathusius’s pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii) from the general area of Lifford but no further details were provided.

The Bat Conservation Ireland Database does not hold any records of any roosts in close proximity to the scheme.

The bat surveys conducted as part of the proposed A5 Western Transport Corridor EIS (Mouchel, 2011) have identified one roost in the Lifford area at the southern end of the study area. This is a tree roost of Leisler’s bat (Nyctalus leisleri) which is deemed as being of local importance.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/8 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

The bat surveys conducted by Hopkirk (2008) for the N14 Letterkenny to Lifford/Strabane EIS identified a Natterer’s bat roost within 1km of the study area.

The N15 Lifford to Stranorlar Road Scheme (Jacobs (2009)) recorded what was deemed to be potential roost of soprano pipistrelle at derelict agricultural buildings. This is c.800m west of the proposed crossing point.

Table 7.2.1 Previously known bat roosts within 1km of the study area

Grid Ref Name Source Species Comment Tree at Tree A5 Western Leisler’s bat Deemed to be of local H 33090 (300m NE of Transport Corridor importance. 97256 crossing EIS (Mouchel, (West of point) 2011) Strabane centre) H 323 981 Barn N14 Letterkenny Natterer’s bat Single bat emerged (1km north to of crossing Lifford/Strabane point) EIS (Hopkirk, (2008)) H 320 970 Derelict N15 Lifford to Soprano Considered likely to (estimate) agricultural Stranorlar Road pipistrelle be a roost buildings Scheme (Jacobs (800m west (2009)) of crossing point)

The BATLAS 2010 project has recorded unidentified Myotis spp., common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), Natterer’s bat (Myotis nattereri), Leisler’s bat (Nyctalus leisleri), brown long eared bat (Plecotus auritus) and Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii) from various locations within a 10km radius of the study area. These records are summarised in Table 7.2.2 below.

Table 7.2.2 Previous records of bat activity within 10km of the study area

Grid Ref Source Species H 30 90 N14, Lifford – Manorcunningham Nyctalus leisleri (including N14/15 to A5 link) Road Pipistrellus pipistrellus Scheme Pipistrellus pygmaeus Myotis nattereri H 30 95 N15 Lifford to Stranorlar Road Scheme Nyctalus leisleri

H 30 95 N15 Lifford to Stranorlar Road Scheme Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrellus pygmaeus Nyctalus leisleri H 30 96 N15 Lifford to Stranorlar Road Scheme Nyctalus leisleri

H 31 96 N15 Lifford to Stranorlar Road Scheme Pipistrellus pipistrellus

H 31 96 N15 Lifford to Stranorlar Road Scheme Pipistrellus pygmaeus Possible roost

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/9 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Grid Ref Source Species H 31 97 N15 Lifford to Stranorlar Road Scheme Pipistrellus pipistrellus

H 31 98 Bat Conservation Ireland Database – Myotis nattereri EIS Study Myotis sp Nyctalus leisleri Pipistrellus pipistrellus H 35761 83762 BATLAS 2010 Myotis nattereri Pipistrellus pygmaeus H 37663 84122 BATLAS 2010 Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrellus pygmaeus Plecotus auritus H 26303 94640 BATLAS 2010 Pipistrellus pygmaeus Myotis daubentonii H 20889 80640 BATLAS 2010 Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrellus pygmaeus Nyctalus leisleri H 34419 93258 BATLAS 2010 Myotis daubentonii Myotis nattereri Myotis spp. Nyctalus leisleri Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrellus pygmaeus H 39348 85186 BATLAS 2010 Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrellus pygmaeus Nyctalus leisleri H 26303 94640 BATLAS 2010 Myotis daubentonii

H 20889 80640 BATLAS 2010 Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrellus pygmaeus Myotis daubentonii H 244 997 BATLAS 2010 Myotis daubentonii Myotis spp. Nyctalus leisleri Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrellus pygmaeus H 26294 84374 BATLAS 2010 Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrellus pygmaeus Nyctalus leisleri H 32 97 and H A5 Western Transport Corridor EIS Pipistrellus pipistrellus 33 97 (Mouchel, 2011) Pipistrellus pygmaeus Nyctalus leisleri Pipistrellus nathusii

Inspection of bridges in close proximity to the study area The closest bridge with roosting potential for bats to the proposed scheme is located approximately 5.5km upstream at Clady at H 292 939. This is an old eight arch stone

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/10 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

bridge across the River Finn, two of the eight arches are dry. Due to the high water levels in the river it was not possible to directly examine this bridge so it was inspected using binoculars from the river banks. It would appear that most of the arches have been pressure grouted but some suitable crevices remain. It is likely that the Daubenton’s bats recorded at the proposed crossing point at Lifford are roosting here. The modern bridge at Lifford has limited potential for roosting bats.

Autumn survey The autumn bat detector survey ran from 30 minutes prior to sunset until approx midnight on the 4th September 2010 when heavy rain started and continued all night. Numerous Daubenton's bats (Myotis daubentonii) (7+) were recorded commuting downriver towards Lifford just after sunset and it is likely that the roost is located upstream of the proposed crossing point, and will not be affected by the proposed road scheme. Several of these bats foraged briefly under a row of mature willows on the southern bank. There was high levels of foraging activity of common pipistrelles (10+) (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) in the vicinity of the area of wet woodland/scrub on the River Finn SAC floodplain. This corresponded to the area where a large herd of cattle were resting for the night. There were masses of yellow dungfly and midges on the wing in the vicinity of the cattle. One soprano pipistrelle was recorded foraging over the River Finn at the site of the bridge crossing; two soprano pipistrelles and two Leisler’s bat were recorded foraging over the wet meadows of the River Finn SAC and two common pipistrelles were recorded on the N15 road.

Hibernation survey The eight arch stone bridge across the River Finn at Clady (H 292 939) is the most likely structure on the river within close proximity to the crossing point to support roosting bats during the winter months.

An additional old stone property with hibernation potential was identified along the existing N15 at H 297 594. This is a series of old stone buildings at Ballybogan, which were formerly used as a flax mill and the old mill race and water wheel are still clearly visible. This is approximately 3.3 km west of the proposed bridge at Lifford.

Tree survey Trees within (and in close proximity to) the CPO along the study area were visually inspected for their potential to support roosting bats. An initial survey conducted in the autumn identified several trees with high potential and an additional number of trees were then identified during the winter survey when the trees had lost their leaves. No roosts were confirmed in any of these trees during the current surveys but their potential to support roosting bats remains.

Spring Survey The spring bat detector survey ran from 30 minutes prior to sunset until approx midnight on the 4th April 2011. Weather conditions were suitable – it was overcast but breezy and dry with initial temperatures of 14°C. As in the previous survey a single Daubenton's bat (Myotis daubentonii) was recorded commuting downriver towards Lifford just after sunset. There was also foraging activity of soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) in the shelter of the treeline on the western site boundary. As in the autumn survey conducted in 2010 there was a large hatch of yellow dungfly and midges on from cow pats in the pasture field earlier in the day and it is likely that the soprano pipistrelle was feeding on these.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/11 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Summer Survey The summer bat detector survey began forty minutes prior to sunset on the 1st June 2011 until midnight and again prior to dawn on the 2nd June. Weather conditions at dusk were suitable – it was overcast but breezy and dry with initial temperatures of 17.5°C decreasing to 14°C. The survey recorded extensive activity of common (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and soprano pipistrelles (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) within the site. Over forty bats (both species were recorded) were recorded commuting east to west through the site principally along the treeline between the upper improved grassland and the lower wetter field in the site. Foraging activity was concentrated in this area and over the area of wet woodland in the site and along the River Finn where a single Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii) was recorded. Both common and soprano pipistrelles were also recorded foraging beneath the eastern and western treelines in the site and along the existing N15. Emergence from trees scheduled for removal to facilitate the proposed bridge were also monitored – no bats were recorded emerging from any of these trees or returning to them at dawn. It appears that the main roost from which these bats are emerging is located to the east of the proposed crossing point outside the study area.

Evaluation The four season surveys confirmed the presence of four species of bats using the area proposed for the bridge crossing. These are: Leisler’s (Nyctalus leisleri), common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) and Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii). No roosts were found during the surveys but some of the trees scheduled for removal do have roosting potential but are not currently used by bats.

The key locations of importance for bats for foraging and commuting within the study area are presented below in Table 7.2.3 and depicted on Figure 7.3, Volume 2 and include the River Finn, treelines, hedgerows, wet woodland, scrub and wet grassland.

The treelines within the site are of high importance for two species of bats (common and soprano pipistrelle) while the River Finn also forms an important corridor for foraging and commuting bats through the site and is used by both common and soprano pipistrelle and Daubenton’s bat.

Table 7.2.3 Areas of importance as commuting routes and feeding areas for bats within 1km of the study area

Bat species recorded in study Importance for bats area Pipistrellus pipistrellus Frequent foraging of Daubenton’s bat and Pipistrellus pygmaeus common and soprano pipistrelle along the River Finn. Myotis daubentonii Common pipistrelles (10+) over the large pasture Nyctalus leisleri field and the boundary of the SAC floodplain. Common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle along the existing N15 and treelines to the east and west of the proposed crossing point Soprano pipistrelles and Leisler’s bat foraging over wet meadows of River Finn SAC

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/12 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Bat species recorded in study Importance for bats area Common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle principally using the treeline between the improved agricultural field and the floodplain of the River Finn and below the treelines on the eastern and western sides of the site

Fish Salmon and Lamprey are dealt with under Designated Areas and Protected Species (Section 7.2.3.) above. The River Finn supports a significant spawning population of salmon, seatrout and brown trout and is an important angling river. The aquatic habitats in the vicinity of the proposed crossing are uniform deep glide unsuited to spawning by salmonids and there are no suitable riffles or spawning habitat downstream of the crossing point to the Foyle estuary. The stretch of river is however, likely to act as good holding habitat for salmon and sea-trout awaiting flood conditions prior to moving upstream to spawning areas in the upper reaches.

The river also supports populations of perch, roach, eel and presumably other minor species such as three-spined stickleback, minnow and stone loach.

Birds The lower Finn valley supports a wintering population of Whooper swan (protected under Annex I of the EU Birds Directive). A national swan census in 2000 coordinated by BirdWatch Ireland recorded 12 birds in the stretch from Castlefinn to Clady, while a total of 3 birds were recorded in the census of 2005 from Churchtown (BWI, pers. com). There are no records of birds from BirdWatch Ireland or other sources relating to the area in the vicinity of the proposed crossing.

Kingfisher, a species protected under Annex I of the EU Birds Directive, are likely to occur on the River Finn in the vicinity of the proposed crossing throughout the year. The bankside habitat in the area is unsuited to nesting for this species, which utilise steep exposed banks to excavate nesting tunnels. As such it is considered that there will be no impact on the species.

A variety of other breeding species associated with the range of habitats present (i.e. grasslands, hedgerows, treelines, scrub and riparian corridor) would be expected to occur including various tits, finches, thrushes and corvids. Raptors including sparrowhawk, kestrel and both long-eared and barn owl would also be expected to forage in the area and the mature trees in the tree lines offer potential nesting conditions for most of these species. Barn owl however, typically utilise old buildings as nest sites and no suitable structures exist within the study area. Ground nesting species such as skylark and meadow pipit would be expected to nest in the wet grassland areas.

Snipe and woodcock would be expected to utilise the wet grassland and riparian habitats respectively. Other wintering waders including lapwing and golden plover may periodically utilise areas of grassland in the study area for foraging.

Aquatic Habitats The flow regime in the vicinity of the proposed crossing point is of uniform gentle glide conditions. Both banks descend steeply from the adjacent land into water of approximately 2m to 3m in depth. A narrow fringe of Reed Swamp (FS1) runs along

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/13 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

the river edge. There is no apparent macrophyte growth within the river. The habitats in the vicinity of the proposed crossing are unsuited to spawning by salmonids or lamprey species. This stretch of the river is suitable for cyprinid fish and is likely to support spawning amongst the fringing vegetation.

Photograph 7.2.4: View of River Finn at crossing point

7.2.4 Evaluation Evaluation of the ecological environment has been made in accordance with the NRA Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes (Rev 2 2009), and reviewed against UK DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 – Part 4: Ecology and Nature Conservation. The principle feature of ecological value within the study area is the River Finn and associated habitats, which are within the River Finn and River Foyle and Tributaries SACs. The SACs are rated of international importance (A).

The stretch of river in the vicinity of the proposed crossing point does not support any of the habitats for which the SAC is designated. Both otter and salmon, principle qualifying interests for the site, utilise the river in the area. There is no salmon spawning habitat in the area or downstream of the proposed crossing point though adult fish returning to spawn would be expected to lie-up in the area awaiting increased flows before moving further upstream. The River Finn is a nationally important salmonid river and supports a large angling industry.

There is no evidence of an otter holt within the vicinity of the proposed crossing point along the northern part of the River Finn, though suitable conditions for a holt occur in wet woodland approximately 100m to the east of the alignment. Otter may also forage within the drainage ditches running through the wet grassland to the north of the river and may use the heavier vegetation to lie-up in. It has not been possible to survey the southern river bank due to access limitations, though earlier studies undertaken as part of the A5 Western Transport Corridor found no evidence of a holt

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/14 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

in the vicinity of the current scheme. The willow scrub fringing the river does however provide potentially suitable cover for otter to use as a lie-up or couch.

An outlier badger sett is located on the northern river bank adjacent to the outfall of a drainage ditch to the river. This sett appears to be occupied only intermittently.

The study area and in the surrounding area supports a minimum of four species of bat including Leisler’s, common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and Daubenton’s bat. Previous surveys in the area have also confirmed the presence of Nathusius’s pipistrelle in the Strabane area. Other species that have not yet been recorded but would be expected to occur are Natterer’s, Whiskered, and brown long eared bat. Some of the mature trees along field boundaries on the north of the site have been identified as potential roosting sites for bats. The treelines within the site are of high importance for two species of bats (common and soprano pipistrelle) while the River Finn also forms an important corridor for foraging and commuting bats through the site and is used by both common and soprano pipistrelle and Daubenton’s bat.

The wet grassland floodplain along the northern part of the study area is not a qualifying, selection feature habitat of the cSAC and does not conform to any annex listed habitat type. It represents a good example of wet grassland habitat and is moderately species rich. A portion of the grassland to the west of the study area appears to be ungrazed which has allowed the development of high sward.

The area of wet woodland to the west of the study area is within the SAC and although small in size, represents a good example of the habitat type with a characteristic suite of woody and herbaceous species. It also provides a potential location for an otter holt and so is of integral importance for this annex listed species.

The hedgerows within the study area are rated of Local Importance (higher value) as they are moderately species rich, structurally diverse and provide a linear corridor for animal movement including bats, other mammals and birds. The treelines to the north of the river which flank the study area to the east and west are rated of County Importance as they support a number of mature trees which provide significant ecological value due to their age and structure, for roosting bats and breeding birds.

The areas of scrub, improved grassland and low managed hedgerows within the study area are rated of Local Importance (Lower value) as they are habitats that are widespread and of limited value to flora or fauna.

7.2.5 Impacts The proposed cross border scheme will link County Donegal with County Tyrone across the River Finn at a point to the immediate south west of Lifford in the Republic of Ireland and Strabane in Northern Ireland (refer Figure 2.1, Volume 2 Scheme Location).

a) Impacts on Designated Areas and Protected Species The proposed development will result in a loss of the floodplain wet grassland habitat on the north bank of the river which is within the River Finn cSAC. The bridge piers will be located within the floodplain and as a consequence there will be a small permanent loss of this habitat within the cSAC (Refer to Figure 7.4, Volume 2). Furthermore, in order to construct the bridge a temporary floating road is required (refer to Chapter 11.0 and Figure 11.3, Volume 2). This will have a significant temporary impact on this wet grassland habitat. However wet grassland is not a qualifying interest or Annex listed habitat type.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/15 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Furthermore it is considered that following removal of the floating road the wet grassland habitat will recover. This construction method was agreed with National Parks and Wildlife Service and NI Environment Agency at a meeting held on 28th January.

The bridge design is for a clear span structure which will have no direct impact on the River Finn, retaining the riverbanks intact and having no requirement for in-stream works. The development will pose a risk of pollution associated with the construction and operational phases from site run-off and accidental spillage during construction, and from road drainage and accidental spillage during operation. Deterioration in water quality could impact on salmon and other fish species, with consequences for prey availability for otter and kingfisher. These risks have been minimised by the adoption and development of appropriate design measures to cater for drainage, risks of spillage and other potentially polluting sources during both the construction and operational phases (refer to Mitigation Measures detailed below at Section 7.2.6 and Chapter 13).

Construction activities will give rise to dust emissions and the potential for deposition on the adjacent vegetation and on the river surface. While construction dust tends to be deposited within 200m of a construction site, the majority of the deposition occurs within the first 50m. However, with the successful implementation of the dust minimisation measures specified in Section 7.4.17, fugitive emissions of dust from the site will be insignificant.

The impact of NOx (i.e. NO and NO2) emissions resulting from the proposed road at the River Finn SAC is assessed in Section 7.4. Dispersion modelling and prediction was carried out and ambient NOx concentrations predicted along a transect of up to 200m within the River Finn SAC (see Table 7.4.14). The predicted annual average NOx level at the River Finn SAC was found to be below the limit value of 30 μg/m3 for the “do minimum” scenario in 2015 and 2030. Levels with the proposed development in place are predicted to increase to 86% of the limit value for the “do something” scenario in 2015 and to 91% of the limit value in 2030. The impact of the proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link will 3 lead to an increase in NOx concentrations of >2 μg/m within the River Finn SAC at distances of up to 81 m from the proposed road scheme. However deposition rates fall away to 0.2 μg/m3 within 200m. The increased levels are therefore seen as being very localised. The effect on vegetation will be minimal and at most would result in a marginal increase in growth. Within the river any deposition is likely to be rapidly diluted and no perceptible affect is anticipated.

The willow thicket and dredge spoil heaps on the southern bank of the river provide potentially suitable habitat for an otter holt or couch. There is also potential for otter to utilise the wet grassland as a couch or lie-up on the northern side of the river. As the A5 Western Transport Corridor scheme will have been constructed prior to the commencement of the current scheme, the associated activity may have resulted in disturbance or temporary displacement of otter on the south bank in the vicinity of the crossing point. However, a pre-construction survey will be required to re-check for holts and couches prior to construction commencing. Should active holts or couches be found, derogation will be sought for their exclusion under licence from the NPWS and NIEA (depending on the relevant jurisdiction).

There is no spawning habitat for salmon in the vicinity of the proposed bridge and the clear-span structure will not interfere with the upstream or downstream

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/16 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

migration of this qualifying interest for the SAC. There are no habitats listed as qualifying interests for the SAC in the study area and no potential to impact on any such habitats.

All three lamprey species have the potential to occur in the River Finn. While there is no suitable spawning habitat for these fish in the vicinity of the proposed crossing, soft substrates along the river banks may support ammocoete larvae. As the proposed structure is clear span and there will be no instream works, there is no risk of direct impacts on ammocoetes. Mitigation to prevent any deterioration in water quality during construction and operation will ensure there are no indirect impacts (refer Section 7.5 and Chapter 13).

As the proposed bridge is a clear span structure and will not require any instream works, and in combination with the successful implementation of the detailed mitigation measures (refer Section 7.2.6, and Chapter 13) to avoid indirect impacts, there will be no significant effects on the qualifying interests or integrity of the River Finn and River Foyle and Tributaries SACs.

Habitats Directive Appropriate Assessment A Natura Impact Statement / Habitats Regulation Assessment has been completed for the project to assist the Competent Authority to undertake the required assessment in accordance with Article 6.3 of the EU Habitats Directive. This assessment has specifically assessed the effect of the proposed development on the qualifying interests and integrity of the River Finn and River Foyle and Tributaries SACs (refer to the Natura Impact Statement / Habitats Regulation Assessment which is included as an integral element of this submission).

The Natura Impact Statement / Habitats Regulations Assessment (NIS/HRA) is based on the findings of the ecological surveys undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment, with the potential impacts reviewed and assessed against the specific mitigation measures detailed here and repeated in the NIS/HRA. Table 7.2.4, below summarises the findings of this assessment which has returned a finding of no significant effect on any of the Qualifying Habitats or Species of either the River Finn candidate Special Area of Conservation or the River Foyle and Tributaries Special Area of Conservation. For further detailed information on how these conclusions are reached reference should be made to the NIS / HRA.

Table 7.2.4 Summary of Likely Significant Effects

SAC Qualifying Feature Potential Impact Likely Significant Effect Active Blanket Bog Habitat Loss No Lowland Oligotrophic Lake Habitat Loss No Northern Atlantic Wet Heath Habitat Loss No Transition Mires & Quaking Habitat Loss No Bogs Floating River Vegetation Habitat Loss No

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/17 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

SAC Qualifying Feature Potential Impact Likely Significant Effect Atlantic Salmon Habitat Loss No Habitat Fragmentation Disturbance Pollution and water quality deterioration Otter Habitat Loss No Habitat Fragmentation Disturbance Indirect impacts - water quality deterioration

b) Impacts on Habitats The main direct impact on habitats arising from the proposed development relates to disturbance to the wet grassland along the northern side of the River Finn (and within the SAC). This habitat forms a continuum along the river and the link road will result in a degree of habitat fragmentation. However, the multi- span structure will not result in any impacts on the hydraulic continuity of the floodplain and following construction the disturbed habitat will regenerate. The rate of regeneration of wet grassland habitat is reasonably rapid in situations where there is similar grassland habitat adjacent, and thus this is considered to be a temporary impact only.

There will be a loss of hedgerows, tree lines and willow scrub along the line of the proposed route. The treelines impacted by the scheme do not contain any significant mature trees that would be of value for roosting bats (see Impacts on Fauna below). These habitats are rated of Local Importance and their loss is considered to be of minor significance following landscaping of the route which will re-connect severed linear features.

Two minor field ditches (chainage 180 and 220) will be required to be diverted as they pass under the proposed bridge alignment. It is proposed that the ditches will be diverted parallel to the bridge alignment down to the existing ditch which currently receives the discharge from these ditches.

c) Impacts on Fauna Mammals Impacts on otter are dealt with under a) Impacts on Designated Areas and Protected Species above.

The proposed development will result in potential fragmentation of habitats on either side of the river and result in some restriction of movement by mammals by associated fencing and median barriers. Without mitigation this could give rise to a significant risk of mortality through traffic collision where mammals gain access to and attempt to cross the road, leading over time to a decline in population or even localized extinction of larger mammals such as badgers, hares and hedgehogs. As the bridge is a multi-span structure including the spanning of the river banks, there will be no permanent impediment to mammal movement within the SAC and the River Finn floodplain. A temporary restriction in movement across the site during the construction phase may occur but measures to accommodate continued movement can be provided for within the

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/18 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

site fencing. There may also be some level of disturbance during construction though the effect of this is considered to be temporary and localised.

The badger sett to the east of the road alignment will be afforded protection during the construction phase by fencing off at a minimum distance of 10m from the entrance. As this sett is an outlier and not permanently occupied no impact is expected on its future use.

There will be a minor reduction in the foraging area for various small mammals likely to occur along the line of the proposed road, though overall such loss is considered minor and will be offset by appropriate landscaping along the road.

Bats Bats are potentially impacted by road schemes through the direct loss of roosts, feeding and commuting routes. Road construction can have a negative impact on bats through the loss of feeding habitat, roost sites, and flight paths or commuting routes. Small areas of feeding habitat such as wet grassland and areas of willow along the banks of the River Finn, and other linear features such as drainage ditches, hedgerow and treeline will be lost as a result of the bridge construction. The removal of these linear features can also interfere with flight paths between foraging areas and roosting sites. Lighting associated with roads and bridge may also constitute a negative impact for some bat species. The main impacts will be in, or close to areas of suitable habitat, that was previously unlit such as the River Finn crossing.

Bats potentially use a variety of buildings, bridges and trees in the vicinity of the N14 / N15 to A5 link road as roost sites. No buildings will be demolished to facilitate the proposed link road and bridge. The majority of mature trees within the site will be retained intact. However, the removal of trees to facilitate the bridge crossing will impact on potential bat roost sites.

Felling during the breeding or hibernation season may result in direct mortality of bats as well as resulting in the loss of a roosting site.

Birds There is no evidence of regular occurrence of whooper swan or other wintering waterfowl of conservation concern in the vicinity of the proposed route. Some wintering activity by species such as snipe, golden plover and lapwing is expected in the area but these species are abundant and utilise a range of habitat types. The proposed scheme would result in a very localised level of disturbance during construction and operation which is not considered significant.

Assuming the proposed site clearance works associated with the development is undertaken outside of the breeding bird season from March 1st to August 31st (in accordance with the Wildlife (Amendment) Act (2000)), there are unlikely to be impacts associated with the proposed development on birds, as the habitats lost as a result of the development are common and widespread.

There are no kingfisher nests in the vicinity of the proposed crossing and no suitable bankside conditions were recorded. Kingfisher movement along the river will not be impacted by the bridge design due to the height of the structure over water level.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/19 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

7.2.6 Mitigation Measures a) Designated Areas – Mitigation by Avoidance The potential for direct impacts on the River Finn cSAC/River Foyle and Tributaries SAC during the construction of the bridge will be avoided, reduced and remedied by a suite of measures as detailed below.

Alignment and Bridge Design Given the nature of the project, consideration of the need to avoid and minimise the impact on the SAC has been a significant aspect of the development of the project design.

Selection of the Alignment: Three alignment options (refer to Chapter 4 and Figures 4.2 – 4.4, Volume 2) were developed and were subsequently assessed against a number of criteria including: Impact on the River Finn SAC; Impact on the flood plain; and Drainage and flooding issues.

A comparison matrix of the alignment options was developed and the Preferred Alignment was selected as: It minimizes impact on the flood plain; It minimizes impact on the cSAC; and It was less expensive than Option C.

Selection of the Bridge Option: Each of the bridge options were rated against a number of environmental criteria including ecology. This assessment covered the Natura 2000 network and qualifying interests of the River Finn and River Foyle and Tributaries SAC’s, habitats, flora and fauna (see Section 4.6.1).

Based on the results of this assessment, the bridge option with the least impact on the candidate Special Area of Conservation was selected as the favoured option from an ecological impact perspective (refer Figures 4.6 to 4.12, Volume 2). The selected bridge design provided a clear span of the River Finn and had the least physical impact on the floodplain.

Construction within the SAC Design and construction method statements will be submitted to the Loughs Agency, NIEA and NPWS for approval prior to commencement of construction. Where site investigation (including archaeological works) is required in the vicinity of or adjacent to the SAC, these works will be monitored by an appropriately qualified ecologist to ensure no accidental damage occurs.

The site boundary in the vicinity of the SAC will be defined at the outset of construction using rigid timber or equivalent robust fencing. Within the site boundary fence, earth bunds will be constructed to contain surface water run- off and channel it to a silt trap before discharge. This will entail a mechanism for containment of runoff in the event of accidental spillage to enable clean-up and appropriate disposal through licensed facilities.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/20 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Prior to construction commencing, a pre-construction otter survey will be undertaken to identify potential new otter holts or couches. Appropriate mitigation will be put in place under licence from the NPWS/NIEA should a holt or couch be encountered.

The construction of the bridge and approach road shall incorporate best environmental practice and design to control site run-off, accidental spillage and dust emissions. Site run-off during construction shall be contained by bunds and outfall through a petrol interceptor to a shallow ditch which will facilitate settlement and double as spill-containment facility prior to discharge to the river. Dust control shall be in accordance with measures specified under Section 7.4.

An emergency-operating plan shall be established to deal with incidents or accidents during construction that may give rise to pollution within the River Finn SAC. This will include means of containment in the event of accidental spillage of hydrocarbons or other pollutants (including oil booms and soakage pads).

The design of lighting for the bridge will take into consideration the requirement to avoid unnecessary light spill into the river and the adjacent river banks in order to minimize disturbance to fish, mammals and bats in the area (refer to Section 8.6.1 for light-fitting specification).

b) Habitats Mitigation measures to avoid and reduce impacts on habitats along the proposed route are presented below. These measures may relate also to mitigating against impacts for fauna in 7.2.6 c and vice versa.

Terrestrial habitats To minimise impacts on the floodplain wet grassland the construction area will be defined at the outset by robust fencing and confined to the minimum required for the task. Access onto the floodplain for construction purposes will be on temporary floating road which will be removed following completion (see Figure 11.3, Volume 2). The disturbed areas will be allowed to revegetate naturally.

The movement of construction plant will be confined to within the fenced area to ensure that there will be no disturbance outside the footprint of the works.

To avoid impacting on bird nesting sites, the vegetation within the defined working area will be cut back outside the peak bird nesting season of March to August inclusive prior to the onset of works.

The number of trees to be removed will be minimised and all trees to be retained will be afforded protection in accordance with the NRA Guidelines on the Protection of Trees on National Road Schemes (NRA 2006). The erection of all protective fencing will be undertaken prior to the commencement of any site works. The value of trees is also associated with their potential use by bats and birds for which mitigation is described below.

The location of the site compound will be outside of the SAC and selected to avoid any sensitive habitats including hedgerows and treelines. The boundary will be defined at the outset with robust fencing. Soil storage areas will be sited

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/21 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

away from drains and appropriate measures put in place to ensure siltation does not enter the drainage network.

The loss of linear habitats and fragmentation on the movement of fauna along the route will be mitigated for by the landscape design associated with the proposed scheme. This will include the re-establishment of a linear corridor of vegetation along the south bank of the river. Landscaping will use native species of local provenance and aim to recreate mixed species hedgerows and treelines to compensate for the loss of these habitat types in accordance with A Guide to Landscape Treatments on National Road Schemes (NRA 2006).

All soil imported for landscaping purposes will be screened and verified as free of noxious weeds and invasive non-native species such as Japanese Knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed. Due care will applied to ensure invasive alien species of plant and animal are not inadvertently spread during the landscaping works.

Aquatic Habitats Throughout all stages of the construction phase of the project the contractor shall ensure that good housekeeping is maintained at all times and that all site personnel are made aware of the importance of the freshwater environment and the requirement to avoid pollution of all types. The following measures will be employed along with additional measures as detailed in Section 7.5 Hydrology. All design, construction and operation shall be carried out in accordance with Guidelines for the Crossing of Watercourses During the Construction of National Road Schemes (NRA, 2006) and Control of water pollution from construction sites; Guidance for Consultants and Contractors (SP156) (CIRIA, 2002). The storage of oils, hydraulic fluids, etc will be undertaken in accordance with current best practice for oil storage (Enterprise Ireland, BPGCS005). The pouring of concrete, sealing of joints, application of water-proofing paint or protective systems, curing agents, etc will be completed in the dry to avoid pollution of the freshwater environment. No streams will be impacted by the construction of the mainline road drainage system and thus specific water pollution prevention measures are not required during the construction of the drainage system. Road runoff contains suspended solids, hydrocarbons and heavy metals which should be treated prior to discharge to the receiving environment. The following minimum level of treatment will be provided to the road runoff prior to discharge to watercourses: Where kerbed and gully arrangement is used, the gullies will contain silt traps to collect the sediment; Class 2 Bypass Petrol/Oil Interceptor to be provided at the outfall to the watercourse; Road runoff is to go through a stilling process to allow suspended solids to settle out (this may be in open ditches, wetlands etc). A minimum spill containment volume of 50m3 shall be provided upstream of the outfall and outside the flood plain. This spill containment will be provided in oversized pipes offline from the road drainage network.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/22 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Approximately 45m of 1200mm diameter pipe will be required to provide the spill containment volume. All pollution control facilities shall be fitted with a penstock or similar restriction at the outfall to the receiving channel to contain pollutants in the event of an accidental spillage. The risk of accidental transfer of the non-native invasive species will be avoided by adherence to current best practice protocol for avoiding the spread or transfer of all invasive animals and plants. These measures will be enforced during construction to ensure accidental spread does not occur on machinery or materials from / to the site. The developers will also adopt any modified or updated approaches to invasive alien species control (www.invasivespeciesireland.com). Throughout all stages of the construction phase of the project the contractor shall ensure that good housekeeping is maintained at all times and that all site personnel are made aware of the importance of the River Finn environment and the requirement to avoid pollution of all types. All machinery and plant used will be regularly maintained and serviced and will comply with appropriate standards to ensure that leakage of diesel, oil and lubricants is minimised. Such maintenance will be carried out in areas remote from watercourses.

c) Fauna Specific measures are proposed for dealing with mammals below that tie in with generic measures prescribed in Section 7.2.6 above.

Otter Mitigation for otter will require the provision of safe passage along the River Finn. This will be achieved by the clear span structure proposed in conjunction with mammal proof fencing along the road network to prevent animals from accessing the carriageway (refer Figure 7.2, Volume 2). The specification for otter passage and fencing design in County Donegal will be in accordance with the Guidelines for the Treatment of Otters Prior to the Construction of National Road Schemes (NRA, 2007). For the lands in County Tyrone, the proposed fencing will, where necessary, tie in to that proposed by the A5 WTC Environmental Statement and shall be in accordance with DMRB Volume 10, Section 4, Nature Conservation, Part 4 HA 81/99, Nature Conservation Advice in relation to Otters.

The potential for an otter holt or couch (above ground lie-up) on the southern bank of the river will be determined by a pre-construction survey. Should a holt or couch be found in the vicinity of the proposed crossing point, it will be excluded during the appropriate season under derogation licence from the NPWS and NIEA as required. Consultation with the NPWS and NIEA will be required to define the exclusion process.

Bats Mitigation measures to offset the loss of roosts are detailed below and follow the NRA Guidelines for the Treatment of Bats during the Construction of National Road Schemes and NRA Best Practice Guidelines for the Conservation of Bats in the Planning of National Road Schemes (National Roads Authority 2006).

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/23 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

The proposed bridge will result in the loss of several trees which have been identified as potential bat roosts. These include trees on the treeline between the improved pasture field and the lower floodplain of the river and some large ash and sycamore near the existing N15. These trees will be assessed prior to their felling by an experienced bat specialist to determine if any bats are present and will be subject to appropriate felling measures as detailed in NRA Guidelines for the Treatment of Bats during the Construction of National Road Schemes (NRA 2006) once the construction of the scheme commences.

Any tree identified as providing potential or actual bat roosts which are to be removed as part of the scheme will be felled (under supervision and NPWS / NIEA licence) during the autumn months of September or October to coincide with the least vulnerable parts of the bats’ lifecycle (winter hibernation and summer breeding) and avoid the bird breeding season.

Specific advice in relation to individual trees will be given on site by a bat specialist. Gradual dismantling of mature trees such as the ash and sycamore near the N15 may be necessary to ensure the safety of any bats which may be roosting within significant sized boughs or in the trunk.

Similarly all ivy covered trees should be felled and left intact for 24 hours so that any roosting bats that may be present may have a chance to awaken and escape.

Trees that are located close to the CPO such as at the junction with the N15 and on the edge of the proposed work compounds/CPO will be retained and afforded protective measures during the construction phase. Protective fencing will be erected outside the drip-line of the canopy of any retained trees in order to prevent damage by machinery, compaction of soil, etc. in accordance with BS 5837: 1991.

Prior to the removal of any trees that have potential to support roosting bats a bat box scheme will be erected in close proximity to those trees scheduled for removal. These works will be done a minimum of 6 months in advance of planned tree felling to allow bats to become accustomed to new roosting opportunities in the area. A variety of boxes will be provided and the types to be used and their locations for erection will be decided by a licensed bat specialist and erected under their supervision.

Severed linear features such as hedgerows and treelines will be reconnected using appropriate native species to reconnect bat commuting routes. This will compensate for the loss of those treelines and hedgerows which are used by bats as commuting routes. Where possible the route of the existing field boundaries will be reinstated.

Lighting creates a barrier to commuting bats and lighting along the bridge will be minimised by reducing the height of lamp standards and by using cowled lights to limit the light spread to the bridge deck (refer 8.6.1 for lighting specification).

Other mammals Other species of mammal will benefit from the mitigation provided for otter habitats above. A pre-construction badger survey will be undertaken to determine the presence of badgers at the sett identified within the study area

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/24 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

and to check for any other signs of activity. Mammal proof fencing will be provided along the road network to prevent animals from accessing the carriageway. The specification for fencing design will be in accordance with the Guidelines for the Treatment of Badgers Prior to the Construction of National Road Schemes (NRA, 2005).

Birds Clearance of vegetation along the proposed route will take place outside of the breeding bird season (1st March to 31 August) in accordance with the Wildlife (Amendment) Act (2000). To compensate for the loss of habitat for bird species, landscaping proposals will primarily entail the use of native trees and shrubs.

7.2.7 Residual Impacts Following the implementation of the specified mitigation measures detailed above, the residual impacts of the proposed scheme will be localised and primarily temporary in nature. The proposed scheme would not affect the conservation status of the various Annex listed species or the integrity of the River Finn and River Foyle and Tributaries SAC’s. There will be a temporary impact on the wet grassland habitat within the River Finn SAC which will be allowed to revegetate naturally on completion of the works. The fragmentation of linear features including hedgerows, treelines and linear scrub along the south bank of the river will be mitigated for by landscaping design and will be reconnected in a short to medium timescale.

The accommodation of mammal passage for otter and badger under the proposed multi-span bridge and associated mammal fencing will minimise the risks of mortality for these species. The measures employed to avoid any siltation or pollution of the River Finn during the construction and operation phases of the scheme will avoid any impacts on water quality and on all aquatic species.

7.2.8 References CIRIA, (2002). Control of water pollution from construction sites; Guidance for Consultants and Contractors (SP156).

Enterprise Ireland. Best Practice Guide (BPGCS005) Oil Storage Guidelines. www.envirocentre.ie

Environmental Protection Agency (2002). Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements. Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.

Fossitt, J.A. (2000). A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. Heritage Council, Kilkenny.

Hendry K & Cragg-Hine D (2003). Ecology of the Atlantic Salmon. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 7. English Nature, Peterborough. National Roads Authority, (2009). Ecological Surveying Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National Road Schemes.

National Roads Authority (Rev. 2, 2009). Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts on National Road Schemes.

National Roads Authority (Rev1, 2008). Environmental Impact Assessment of National Road Schemes – A Practical Guide.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/25 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

National Roads Authority (2006). Guidelines for the Crossing of Watercourses During the Construction of National Road Schemes.

National Roads Authority (2006). A Guide to Landscape Treatments on National Road Schemes in Ireland.

National Roads Authority (2005). Guidelines for the Treatment of Badgers during the Construction of National Road Schemes.

National Roads Authority (2006a). Best Practice Guidelines for the Conservation of Bats in the Planning of National Road Schemes.

National Roads Authority (2006b). Guidelines for the Treatment of Bats during the Construction of National Road Schemes.

National Roads Authority (2007). Guidelines for the Treatment of Otters prior to the Construction of National Road Schemes.

National Roads Authority (2007). Guidelines for the Protection and Preservation of Trees, Hedgerows and Scrub Prior to, during and Post Construction of National Road Schemes.

National Roads Authority (2010). Guidelines.

National Parks and Wildlife Service. National Parks and Wildlife Service Public Mapviewer.aspx.

Scannell, M. J. P. and Synnott, D. M. (1987). Census catalogue of the flora of Ireland (2nd edn). Stationery Office, Dublin.

The UK Highways Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 3, Part 4 - Ecology and Nature Conservation.

Webb, D.A., Parnell, J. and Doogue, D. (1996). An Irish flora (7th edn). Dundalgan Press, Dundalk.

Whilde, A (1993): Irish Red Data Book 2: Vertebrates. Belfast HMSO.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/26 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

7.3 Noise & Vibration

7.3.1 Introduction This chapter of the EIS assesses the impacts of noise and vibration associated with both the construction and operational phases of the proposed N14 / N15 to A5 Link Road scheme.

A separate assessment methodology for road noise is utilised in Northern Ireland. This aspect has been assessed within the EIS prepared for the A5 WTC scheme by others. Appropriate comment in relation to the impact of the proposed scheme of the A5 WTC is also presented in the relevant sections of this report. It should be noted that the proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link is expected to generate an 8% decrease in traffic volume along the A5 WTC immediately north of the Link; traffic volume decrease of this magnitude equate to an imperceptible decrease in noise level. Therefore the conclusions of the A5 WTC noise impact assessment that no mitigation measures are required in relation to properties in County Tyrone in the vicinity of the N14/N15 to A5 Link would stand (i.e. that no locations exceed the relevant A5 WTC noise criterion of 68dB LA10(18hour).).

7.3.2 Design Goal for Specifying Mitigation Measures For new roads in the Republic of Ireland, it is standard practice to adopt the traffic noise design goal contained within the National Roads Authority (NRA) document Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes 2004.

This document specifies that it is considered appropriate to set the design goal for Ireland as day-evening-night 60dB Lden (free field residential façade criterion).

Noise mitigation measures are deemed necessary whenever all of the following three conditions are satisfied: a) the combined expected maximum traffic noise level, i.e. the relevant noise level, from the proposed road scheme together with other traffic in the vicinity is greater than the design goal of 60dB Lden, and; b) the relevant noise level is at least 1dB more than the expected traffic noise level without the proposed road scheme in place, and; c) the contribution to the increase in the relevant noise level from the proposed road scheme is at least 1dB.

These conditions will ensure that mitigation measures arising out of this process are based upon the degree of impact of the scheme under consideration.

This Design Goal is applicable to new road schemes only. In EIS terms, this means that they are to be applied to existing receptors in respect of both the year of opening and the design year, typically 15 years after projected year of opening. In this case, the opening year of 2015 and a design year of 2030 have been assessed.

It is acknowledged that it may not always be sustainable to achieve this design goal. In such circumstances, nevertheless, a structured approach should be taken in order to ameliorate as far as practicable road traffic noise through the consideration of measures such as alignment changes, barrier type (e.g. earth mounds) or low noise road surfaces.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/27 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

7.3.3 Methodology for Noise Assessment In order to assess the noise impact of any proposed road scheme, the following methodology is normally adopted.

The first stage is to assess and quantify the existing noise environment in the vicinity of sensitive receptors that may be affected by the proposed development. In the case of a road scheme, the selected noise-sensitive locations are likely to be those in closest proximity to the proposed road. Both the construction and operational phases of the scheme should be reviewed when selecting appropriate measurement locations.

Where possible, the noise levels resulting from both the construction and operational phases are then calculated using established prediction techniques. Refer to Section 7.3.8 for further discussion of construction noise. The noise levels associated with the operational phase of the proposed development are predicted in accordance with guidance set out in Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN), giving results in the form of LA10(18hour) values. These are then converted to Lden values in accordance with the procedures detailed in the NRA guidance. The derived values for Lden should be rounded to the nearest whole number, with 0.5 being rounded up.

The predicted values are then assessed against the three conditions set out in Section 7.3.2 in order to assess the need for mitigation measures.

7.3.4 Description of Existing Conditions A series of environmental noise surveys were conducted at 6 locations within the area likely to be affected by the proposed road scheme as shown in Figure 7.5, Volume 2 and listed in Table 7.3.1. These locations have been chosen in order to quantify the existing noise environment in the vicinity of the noise-sensitive locations that may be affected by the proposed road development.

Table 7.3.1 Noise Survey Locations

Grid Reference Location Description of Survey Location E N North side of the N15, in the vicinity of a number of S01 232,283 397,312 residential dwellings Front garden of a residential dwelling along S02 232,434 397,469 Beechwood Grove In line with the façade of a residential dwelling along S03 232,613 397,586 the north side of the N15 Along the N15, opposite Finnside Close, in the vicinity S04 232,778 397,716 of a number of residential dwellings In Finnside Close, in the vicinity of a number of S05 232,893 397,653 residential dwellings S06 Roadside on the south side of the N15 232,614 397,545

Survey Periods Attended measurement survey period was as follows: S01 to S06 on 7 October 2010 between 10:00hrs to 16:00hrs.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/28 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Unattended 24-hour monitoring was conducted at the following location: S02 between 17:00hrs on 6 October to 17:00hrs on 7 October 2010.

Personnel and Instrumentation Louis Smith of AWN Consulting conducted the noise level measurements.

The shortened measurements were performed using a Brüel & Kjær Type 2260 Sound Level Meter. The continuous measurements were performed using Brüel & Kjær Type 3592 Environmental Kits with Brüel & Kjær Type 2238. Before and after the survey the measurement apparatus was check calibrated using a Brüel & Kjær Type 4231 Sound Level Calibrator.

Procedure Unattended Noise Measurements Unattended continuous measurements were performed over a 24-hour period at one location. Sample periods were 1-hour long and the results were saved to the instrument memory for later analysis. Lden values are derived directly from the measured data.

Attended Noise Measurements (Derived Value) Shortened measurements were conducted at survey locations on a cyclical basis. Sample periods were 15 minutes. The results were noted onto a Survey Record Sheet immediately following each sample, and were also saved to the instrument memory for later analysis where appropriate. Survey personnel noted all primary noise sources contributing to noise build-up. The survey work was conducted in accordance with the shortened measurement procedure as laid down in the NRA guidance document.

When surveying traffic noise, the acoustical parameters of interest are LA10 (1hour) and -5 LA10 (18hour), expressed in terms of decibels (dB) relative to 2 10 Pa. The value of LA10 (1hour) is the noise level exceeded for just 10% of the time over the period of one hour. LA10 (18hour) is the arithmetic average of the values of LA10 (1hour) for each of the one hour periods between 06:00 and 24:00hrs.

The shortened measurement procedure involves a method whereby LA10 (18hour) values are obtained through a combination of measurement and calculation as follows: noise level measurements are undertaken at the chosen location over three consecutive hours between 10:00 and 17:00hrs; the duration of the sample period during each hour is selected to encompass sufficient traffic flows to ensure reliable results;

the LA10 (18hour) for the location is derived by subtracting 1dB from the arithmetic average of the three hourly sample values.

i.e. LA10(18hour) = (( LA10(1hour)) 3) – 1 dB.

7.3.5 Results of Noise Surveys The survey results are presented in terms of the following three parameters.

LAeq is the A-weighted equivalent continuous steady sound level during the sample period and effectively represents an average value.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/29 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

LA90 is the A-weighted sound level that is exceeded for 90% of the sample period; generally used to quantify background noise.

LA10 is the A-weighted sound level that is exceeded for 10% of the sample period; this parameter gives an indication of the upper limit of fluctuating noise such as that from road traffic.

7.3.6 Assessment of Operational Noise Noise Model A computer-based prediction model has been prepared in order to quantify the traffic noise level associated with the operational phase of the proposed road scheme. This section discusses the methodology behind the noise modelling process and presents the results of the modelling exercise.

Brüel & Kjær Type 7810 Predictor Proprietary noise calculation software was used for the purposes of this impact assessment. The selected software, Brüel & Kjær Type 7810 Predictor, calculates traffic noise levels in accordance with CRTN and NRA guidance.

Brüel & Kjær Type 7810 Predictor is a proprietary noise calculation package for computing noise levels in the vicinity of noise sources. Predictor predicts noise levels in different ways depending on the selected prediction standard. In general, however, the resultant noise level is calculated taking into account a range of factors affecting the propagation of sound, including: the magnitude of the noise source in terms of sound power or traffic flow and average velocity; the distance between the source and receiver; the presence of obstacles such as screens or barriers in the propagation path; the presence of reflecting surfaces, and; the hardness of the ground between the source and receiver.

Prediction of traffic noise Noise emissions during the operational phase of the project have been modelled using Predictor in accordance with CRTN and with the application of the relevant conversion factors as detailed in the NRA Guidance. The CRTN method of predicting noise from a road scheme consists of the following five elements: divide the road scheme into segments so that the variation of noise within this segment is small; calculate the basic noise level at a reference distance of 10 metres from the nearside carriageway edge for each segment; assess for each segment the noise level at the reception point taking into account distance attenuation and screening of the source line; correct the noise level at the reception point to take account of site layout features including reflections from buildings and facades, and the size of source segment, and; combine the contributions from all segments to give the predicted noise level at the receiver location for the whole road scheme.

Note that all calculations are performed to one decimal place. For the purposes of comparison with the design goals of 60dB Lden, the relevant noise level is to be

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/30 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

rounded to the nearest whole number in accordance with guidance given in the NRA document.

Input to the Noise Model The noise model was prepared using the following data: road alignments, topographical data and Ordnance Survey mapping supplied by Roughan O’Donovan Consulting Engineers, and; traffic flow and speed data listed in Tables 11 and 12 of the N13/N14/N15 Traffic Model Study Future Year Scenario Report: N14 / N15 to A5 WTC Link Road; as supplied by Jacobs Engineering Ireland Limited (reproduced below for clarity).

Table 7.3.2 Do Minimum Traffic Volumes – High Growth Scenario

Opening Year 2015 Design Year 2030 Link Speed Speed AADT %HGV AADT %HGV (kph) (kph) N14 north of Lifford 13,800 15% 80 18,000 15% 80 Roundabout A38 / N14 Lifford to 19,500 15% 50 24,400 15% 50 Strabane N15 west of Lifford 11,400 15% 80 14,400 15% 80 Roundabout A5 WTC 16,800 11% 100 21,800 11% 100 N14 / N15 to A5 Link Road N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Table 7.3.3 Do Something Traffic Volumes – High Growth Scenario

Opening Year 2015 Design Year 2030 Link Speed Speed AADT %HGV AADT %HGV (kph) (kph) N14 north of Lifford 13,900 15% 80 18,100 15% 80 Roundabout A38 / N14 Lifford to 10,700 15% 50 12,900 15% 50 Strabane N15 west of Lifford 12,300 15% 80 16,000 15% 80 Roundabout A5 WTC 17,960 11% 100 23,300 11% 100 N14 / N15 to A5 Link Road 12,300 11% 50 16,400 11% 50

The traffic volume figures presented above are for the “High Growth Scenario”, these figures have been used in the noise assessment in order to present the worst case scenario and a robust assessment of the noise impact.

Hourly noise predictions were conducted based on these traffic figures in accordance with Method A of the NRA guidelines. The hourly predictions were carried out using the diurnal traffic profiles provided in Appendix 1 of the NRA guidelines.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/31 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

For illustrative purposes only, a portion of the noise model with the development in place is shown schematically in Plate 7.3.1. This figure is a 3-D representation of the developed model.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/32 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Plate 7.3.1 3-D Representation of the Developed Noise Model

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/33 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Output of the Noise Model Predictor calculates noise levels for a set of receiver locations specified by the user. The results include an overall level in dB Lden.

Calibration The purpose of noise model validation is to ensure that the software is correctly interpreting the input data and providing results that are valid for the scenario under consideration. It should be noted that the purpose of the model validation is not to validate the prediction methodology in use as the CRTN prediction methodology has itself been previously validated.

Given the nature of the scale of the scheme in question, it was decided that the most appropriate mechanism for calibration would be to compare the output of a Predictor model scenario, using the AADT traffic flows for the existing road network in 2010, with the measured Lden value at survey locations S01, S02 and S06 which were in the vicinity of the existing N15. The reason for choosing these survey locations for the purposes of calibration is to ensure that the noise environment was dominated by road traffic noise during the survey period.

Where the comparison between the predicted noise level and the measured noise level is no greater than ±3dB(A) at any of the assessment locations the model is deemed to be validated.

The results of the calibration are presented in Table 7.3.4. The differences between the measured and predicted results is of the order of 1 to 3 dB(A), which confirms that the model is correctly interpreting the input data.

Table 7.3.4 Noise Model Calibration

Location Measured Predicted Variation (dB) Reference Lden (dB) Lden (dB) S01 69* 71 +2 S02 63† 65 +2 S06 74* 74 0 Notes * These values were derived from the attended shortened measurements † This value was measured directly from the unattended measurement

Choice of Receiver Locations Free-field traffic noise levels have been predicted at 17 properties in the vicinity of proposed and existing roads. In total 19 receivers have been considered at these properties. The greater number of receivers compared with properties is due to the fact that some properties have more than one associated receiver, as different sides of the properties face different roads.

The coordinates of all locations are provided in Table 7.3.5. These receiver locations are detailed in Figure 7.6, Volume 2.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/34 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Table 7.3.5 Details of Receiver Locations

Height Above Grid Reference Ref Comment Ground (m) E N R01 Residential Property 3.8 231,965 397,090 R02 Residential Property 3.8 232,197 397,251 R03 Residential Property 3.8 232,276 397,321 R04 Residential Property 3.8 232,296 397,335 R05 Residential Property 3.8 232,326 397,366 R06 Residential Property 3.8 232,347 397,387 R07 Residential Property 3.8 232,377 397,428 R08 Residential Property 3.8 232,416 397,464 R09 Residential Property 3.8 232,437 397,475 R10 Residential Property 3.8 232,464 397,487 R11 Residential Property 3.8 232,495 397,511 R12a Residential Property 3.8 232,621 397,528 R12b Residential Property 3.8 232,624 397,538 R13 Residential Property 3.8 232,643 397,555 R14 Residential Property 3.8 232,622 397,596 R15 Residential Property 3.8 232,643 397,612 R16a Residential Property 3.8 232,664 397,632 R16b Residential Property 3.8 232,675 397,636 R17 Residential Property 3.8 232,715 397,670

Traffic Noise Predictions for 2015 and 2030 Four scenarios have been considered as follows: Year 2015 – Do Minimum (i.e. existing transport infrastructure plus the A5 WTC); Year 2015 – Do Something (i.e. Do Minimum as defined above plus the N14/N15 to A5 Link Road); Year 2030 – Do Minimum; Year 2030 – Do Something.

The results of the traffic noise predictions are presented in Table 7.3.6. Making reference to Section 7.3.2 of this document, the noise mitigation measures are only required whenever all three of the conditions specified by the NRA are satisfied.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/35 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Table 7.3.6 Predicted Noise Levels for Years 2015 and 2030 for “Do Minimum” and “Do Something” Scenarios

Opening Year 2015 Design Year 2030 NRA Condition for NRA Condition for Receiver Predicted Noise Level Predicted Noise Level Noise Mitigation Mitigation Noise Mitigation Mitigation Location Do Do Do Do Minimum Satisfied? Required? Satisfied? Required? Reference Something Minimum Something

Lden (dB) Lden (dB) (a) (b) (c) Lden (dB) Lden (dB) (a) (b) (c) R01 72 70 Y N N No 73 71 Y N N No R02 75 73 Y N Y No 76 74 Y N Y No R03 72 69 Y N Y No 73 69 Y N Y No R04 72 68 Y N Y No 73 69 Y N Y No R05 71 67 Y N Y No 72 68 Y N Y No R06 70 67 Y N Y No 71 68 Y N Y No R07 68 66 Y N Y No 68 67 Y N Y No R08 67 66 Y N Y No 68 67 Y N Y No R09 68 67 Y N Y No 68 67 Y N Y No R10 69 68 Y N Y No 70 69 Y N Y No R11 69 68 Y N Y No 70 69 Y N Y No R12a 70 68 Y N N No 71 69 Y N N No R12b 73 71 Y N N No 74 72 Y N N No R13 73 71 Y N N No 74 72 Y N N No R14 72 70 Y N N No 73 71 Y N N No R15 72 70 Y N N No 73 71 Y N N No R16a 70 69 Y N N No 71 69 Y N N No R16b 72 70 Y N N No 73 71 Y N N No R17 72 70 Y N N No 73 71 Y N N No

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/36 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Year 2015 The combined expected maximum traffic noise level from the proposed road scheme together with other traffic in the vicinity (i.e. Do Something scenario) is greater than 60dB Lden at all 19 locations assessed for the proposed scheme.

However, the predicted Do Something levels are less than or equal to the Do Minimum levels. Mitigation measures are therefore not required at these locations.

Year 2030 The combined expected maximum traffic noise level from the proposed road scheme together with other traffic in the vicinity (i.e. Do Something scenario) is greater than 60dB Lden at all 19 locations assessed for the proposed scheme.

However, the predicted Do Something levels are less than or equal to the Do Minimum levels. Mitigation measures are therefore not required at these locations. For both the opening and design year the development of the proposed link road results in a slight decrease, and slight positive impact, in traffic noise levels at the properties assessed in this instance.

Comment on A5 WTC In both the 2015 and the 2030 assessment years traffic volumes along the A5 are predicted to decrease by the order of 8%. This equates to a decrease in traffic noise at noise sensitive receptors that are dominated by traffic noise from this route. The level of change will typically be inaudible to the human ear. Therefore the conclusions of the A5 WTC noise impact assessment that no mitigation measures are required in relation to properties in County Tyrone in the vicinity of the N14/N15 to A5 Link would stand (i.e. that no locations exceed the relevant A5 WTC noise criterion of 68dB LA10(18hour).).

7.3.7 Proposed Noise Mitigation Measures – Operational Phase No mitigation measures are required in order to satisfy the NRA Guidance Document.

7.3.8 Construction Noise Impact Assessment As per NRA guidance noise levels associated with construction may be calculated in accordance with methodology set out in BS5228: Part 1. This standard sets out sound power levels for plant items normally encountered on construction sites, which in turn enables the prediction of noise levels at selected locations. However, it is often not possible to conduct detailed prediction calculations for the construction phase of a project in support of the EIS. This is due to the fact that the programme for construction works has not been established in detail. Under such circumstances, best practice involves the consideration of appropriate mitigation measures.

The NRA guidance document specifies noise levels that it typically deems acceptable in terms of construction noise. These limits are set out in Table 7.3.7. Note that these values are indicative only; it may be appropriate to apply more stringent limits in areas where pre-existing noise levels are low.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/37 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Table 7.3.7 Maximum Permissible Noise Levels at the Façade of Nearby Dwellings during Construction

Days & Times LAeq (1hr) dB LAmax dB(A) Monday to Friday 70 80 (07:00 to 19:00hrs) Monday to Friday 60 65 (19:00 to 22:00hrs) Saturday 65 75 (08:00 to 16:30hrs) Sundays and Bank Holidays 60 65 (08:00 to 16:30hrs)

A variety of items of plant will be in use, such as excavators, lifting equipment, dumper trucks, compressors and generators. It is also possible that rock breaking and piling operations may be required on occasions. There will be vehicular movements to and from the site that will make use of existing roads.

Due to the nature of the activities undertaken on a large construction site, there is potential for generation of significant levels of noise. The flow of vehicular traffic to and from a construction site is also a potential source of relatively high noise levels.

Due to the fact that the construction programme has been established in outline form only, it is not possible to calculate the actual magnitude of noise emissions to the local environment. However, the following paragraphs present calculations of indicative noise levels for typical noise sources associated with road construction.

BS5228:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites – Part 1 Noise sets out typical noise levels for items of construction plant. Table 7.3.8 and 7.3.9 lists the sound power levels of the plant used for calculation of the expected noise level at various distances from the roadway.

Table 7.3.8 Typical Construction Plant Noise Levels

Plant Item (BS5228 Ref.) Sound Power Level, dB(A) re 10-12 W Pneumatic breaker (C.8.12) 100 Wheeled loader (C.4.13)* 90 Tracked excavator (C.2.14)* 98 Dozer (C.2.10)* 99 Dump truck (C.2.30)* 98 Vibratory roller (C.5.20) 99 Asphalt Paver (C.5.31) 99 Hydraulic Piling Rig (C.3.1) 113 Wheeled Telescopic Crane (C.4.38) 102 Compressor (C.5.5) 89 Generator (C.4.84) 98 Road Roller (C.5.19) 104 HGV Movements (20 per hour) 77 Note* Assume noise control measures as outlined in Table B1 of BS 5228 – 1 (i.e. fit acoustic exhaust).

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/38 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Table 7.3.9 Indicative Noise Levels from Construction Plant Items at Various Distances from the Road

Distance from road, meters Plant Item 30m 50m 60m 100m Pneumatic breaker (C.8.12) 56 51 49 43 Wheeled loader (C.4.13)* 46 41 39 33 Tracked excavator (C.2.14)* 54 49 47 41 Dozer (C.2.10)* 55 50 48 42 Dump truck (C.2.30)* 54 49 47 41 Vibratory roller (C.5.20) 55 50 48 42 Asphalt Paver (C.5.31) 55 50 48 42 Hydraulic Piling Rig (C.3.1) 69 64 62 56 Wheeled Telescopic Crane (C.4.38) 58 53 51 45 Compressor (C.5.5) 45 40 38 32 Generator (C.4.84) 54 49 47 41 Road Roller (C.5.19) 60 55 53 47 HGV Movements (20 per hour) 57 53 52 49 Note* Assume noise control measures as outlined in Table B1 of BS 5228 – 1 (i.e. fit acoustic exhaust).

The noise levels presented are within the limit values shown in Table 7.3.8 for weekday daytime periods at distance of 30m or greater from the works. The minimum distance has been chosen based on the closest residential properties to the scheme.

Notwithstanding this, the following section describes typical mitigation measures which should further reduce the potential for noise disturbance to the surrounding area.

7.3.9 Construction Noise Mitigation Measures The contract documents will clearly specify that the Contractor undertaking the construction of the works will be obliged to take specific noise abatement measures and comply with the recommendations of BS 5228: Part 1, the European Communities (Noise Emission by Equipment for Use Outdoors) Regulations, 2001 and The Control of Noise (Codes of Practice for Construction and Open Sites) Order (Northern Ireland) 2002. These measures will ensure that: No plant used on site will be permitted to cause an ongoing public nuisance due to noise. The best means practicable, including proper maintenance of plant, will be employed to minimise the noise produced by on site operations. All vehicles and mechanical plant will be fitted with effective exhaust silencers and maintained in good working order for the duration of the contract. Compressors will be attenuated models fitted with properly lined and sealed acoustic covers which will be kept closed whenever the machines are in use and all ancillary pneumatic tools shall be fitted with suitable silencers. Machinery that is used intermittently will be shut down or throttled back to a minimum during periods when not in use.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/39 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Any plant, such as generators or pumps, which is required to operate before 07:00hrs or after 19:00hrs will be surrounded by an acoustic enclosure or portable screen. During the course of the construction programme, supervision of the works will include ensuring compliance with the limits detailed in Table 7.3.8 using methods outlined in BS5228:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites – Part 1 Noise.

7.3.10 Working Hours Normal working times will be 07:00 to 19:00hrs Monday to Saturday. Works other than the pumping out of excavations, security and emergency works will not be undertaken outside these working hours without the written permission of the Contracting Authority. This permission, if granted, can be withdrawn at any time should the working regulations be breached.

Works other than the pumping out of excavations, security and emergency works will not be undertaken at night and on Sundays without the written permission of the Contracting Authority. Night is defined as 19:00 to 07:00hrs.

When overtime and shift work is permitted, the hauling of spoil and delivery of materials outside normal working hours is prohibited and the noise limits outlined in Table 7.3.8 will apply.

Emergency Work The emergency work referred to above may include the replacement of warning lights, signs and other safety items on public roads, the repair of damaged fences, repair of water supplies and other services which have been interrupted, repair to any damaged temporary works and all repairs associated with working on public roads.

7.3.11 Residual Impacts for Noise Construction Phase Residual Noise Impact During the construction phase of the project there will be some minor impact on nearby residential properties due to noise emissions from site traffic and other activities. The application of noise limits and restricted hours of operation, along with implementation of appropriate noise control measures, will ensure that noise impact is kept to a minimum.

Operational Phase Residual Noise Impact There are no locations identified in the assessment where the proposed scheme meets all of the three conditions that must be satisfied before noise mitigation measures are deemed necessary.

7.3.12 Vibration This section deals with the potential for vibration during both construction and operational phases of the proposed development. The NRA Guidelines provide guidance in relation to vibration from the construction and operational phases of road schemes and this is referenced in this section.

Description of Existing Environment A survey of vibration along the proposed route corridor was not undertaken, as levels associated with existing roads would not be expected to be of a magnitude sufficient

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/40 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

to cause disturbance to people or structural damage to property. Furthermore, vibration was not perceptible at any of the noise survey locations.

Potential Impacts – Operational Phase As a vehicle travels along a road, vibration can be generated in the road and subsequently propagate towards nearby buildings. Such vibration is generated by the interaction of a vehicle’s wheels and the road surface and by direct transmission through the air of energy waves. Some of these waves arise as a function of the size, shape and speed of the vehicle, and others from pressure fluctuations due to engine, exhaust and other noises generated by the vehicle.

It has been found that ground vibrations produced by road traffic are unlikely to cause perceptible structural vibration in properties located near to well-maintained and smooth road surfaces. Problems attributable to road traffic vibration can therefore be largely avoided by maintenance of the road surface.

Potential Impacts – Construction Phase The potential for vibration at neighbouring sensitive locations during construction is typically limited to demolition, excavation works, rock-breaking & piling operations and lorry movements on uneven road surfaces. The most significant of these is the vibration from excavation, piling and rock-breaking operations; the method of which will be selected and controlled to ensure there is no likelihood of structural or even cosmetic damage to existing neighbouring dwellings.

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts The NRA Guidelines recommend that in order to ensure that there is no potential for vibration damage during construction, vibration from construction activities should be limited to the values set out in Table 7.3.11.

Table 7.3.10 Allowable Vibration Levels During Construction Phase

Allowable vibration velocity (Peak Particle Velocity) at the closest part of any sensitive property to the source of vibration, at a frequency of Less than 10Hz 10 to 50Hz 50 to 100Hz (and above) 8 mm/s 12.5 mm/s 20 mm/s

Measures shall be taken to minimize vibration due to plant and machinery on the site and no machine which uses the dropping of heavy weights for the purpose of demolition shall be permitted.

Ground vibration from additional traffic due to the development under consideration would be expected to be orders of magnitude less than that required to cause cosmetic or structural damage to buildings or lead to disturbance of occupiers, hence mitigation measures are not required in respect of the operational phase.

It may be concluded that the proposed road scheme is not expected to give rise to vibration that is either significantly intrusive or capable of giving rise to structural or even cosmetic damage.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/41 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

7.3.13 Conclusions for Noise and Vibration The noise environment in the vicinity of the proposed N14 / N15 to A5 WTC Link Road scheme has been characterised by a traffic noise survey. The existing noise levels are typical of a semi-rural area in the vicinity of a national road.

Noise levels with the scheme in place have been predicted not to satisfy all three of the conditions that must be met before mitigation works are deemed necessary; as set down in the NRA Guidelines.

Indicative noise levels during the construction phase of the scheme have been predicted. It has been shown that it is possible to comply with the construction noise limits in the Guidelines. Notwithstanding this a number of mitigation measures for the treatment of construction noise have been outlined.

The provision of the N14 / N15 to A5 WTC Link Road will lead to reduced traffic speeds in the vicinity of the new roundabout on the N15 and also moves the mainline of the N15 away from a number of residential dwellings; both of which will benefit residents through lower traffic noise and vibration in the vicinity of the existing route.

Traffic volumes along the A5 are predicted to decrease by the order of 8% for both assessment years. This equates to a decrease in traffic noise at noise sensitive receptors that are dominated by traffic noise from this route. This level of decrease will typically be inaudible to the human ear. Therefore the conclusions of the A5 WTC noise impact assessment that no mitigation measures are required in relation to properties in County Tyrone in the vicinity of the N14/N15 to A5 Link would stand (i.e. that no locations exceed the relevant A5 WTC noise criterion of 68dB LA10(18hour).).

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/42 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

7.4 Air Quality and Climate

7.4.1 Introduction and Methodology This chapter of the EIS assesses the impacts on air quality and climate associated with both the construction and operational phases of the proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link Road.

7.4.2 Ambient Air Quality Standards In order to reduce the risk to health from poor air quality, national and European statutory bodies have set limit values in ambient air for a range of air pollutants. These limit values or “Air Quality Standards” are health- or environmental-based levels for which additional factors may be considered. For example, natural background levels, environmental conditions and socio-economic factors may all play a part in the limit value which is set (see Tables 7.4.1-7.4.2 and Appendix 7.4.1).

Air quality significance criteria are assessed on the basis of compliance with the appropriate standards or limit values. The applicable standards in Ireland include the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002, which incorporate European Commission Directives 1999/30/EC and 2000/69/EC, which have set limit values for the pollutants SO2, NO2, PM10, benzene and CO (see Tables 7.4.1 – 7.4.2). The most recent European Commission Directive on ambient air quality was published on the 11/06/08. Council Directive 2008/50/EC combines the previous Air Quality Framework Directive (96/62/EC) and its subsequent daughter directives (including 1999/30/EC and 2000/69/EC). In April 2011, Council Directive 2008/50/EC was transposed into Irish Law as S.I. 180 of 2011. Provisions were also made for the inclusion of new ambient limit values relating to PM2.5 (see Appendix 7.4.1).

7.4.3 Climate Agreements Ireland ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in April 1994 and the Kyoto Protocol in principle in 1997 and formally in May 2002 (Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1999 and Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1997). For the purposes of the European Union burden sharing agreement under Article 4 of the Kyoto Protocol, in June 1998, Ireland agreed to limit the net growth of the six Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) under the Kyoto Protocol to 13% above the 1990 level over the period 2008 to 2012 (ERM, 1998). The UNFCCC is continuing detailed negotiations in relation to GHGs reductions and in relation to technical issues such as emissions trading and burden sharing.

7.4.4 Gothenburg Protocol In 1999, Ireland signed the Gothenburg Protocol to the 1979 UN Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. The objective of the Protocol is to control and reduce emissions of Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Ammonia (NH3). To achieve the targets Ireland will, by 2010, have to meet national emission ceilings of 42kt for SO2 (67% below 2001 levels), 65kt for NOX (52% reduction), 55kt for VOCs (37% reduction) and 116kt for NH3 (6% reduction). European Commission Directive 2001/81/EC, the National Emissions Ceiling Directive, prescribes the same emission limits. Emissions of SO2 and NH3 from the road traffic sector are insignificant accounting for less than 1.5% of total emissions in Ireland in 2001. Road traffic emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are important accounting for 37% and 38% respectively of total emissions of these pollutants in Ireland in 2001 (DoEHLG, 2003). A National Programme for the progressive reduction of emissions of the four

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/43 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

transboundary pollutants is in place since April 2005 (DoEHLG, 2004). A review of the National Programme in 2007 (DEHLG 2007a) showed that Ireland was on target to comply with the emissions ceilings for SO2, VOCs and NH3 by 2010, but that the ceiling for NOx presents a difficulty even with the implementation of additional measures.

Table 7.4.1 EU Air Quality Standards (based on European Commission Directive 2008/50/EC)

Pollutant Regulation Limit Type Margin of Tolerance Value Note1

3 Nitrogen 2008/50/EC Hourly limit for protection of 40% until 2003 200 μg/m NO2 Dioxide human health - not to be reducing linearly to exceeded more than 18 0% by 2010 times/year 3 Annual limit for protection 40% until 2003 40 μg/m NO2 of human health reducing linearly to 0% by 2010 Annual limit for protection None 30 μg/m3 NO + of vegetation NO2 Lead 2008/50/EC Annual limit for protection 100% 0.5 μg/m3 of human health Sulphur 2008/50/EC Hourly limit for protection of 150 μg/m3 350 μg/m3 dioxide human health - not to be exceeded more than 24 times/year Daily limit for protection of None 125 μg/m3 human health - not to be exceeded more than 3 times/year Annual & Winter limit for the None 20 μg/m3 protection of ecosystems 3 Particulat 2008/50/EC 24-hour limit for protection 50% 50 μg/m PM10 e Matter of human health - not to be

(as PM10) exceeded more than 35 times/year 3 Annual limit for protection 20% 40 μg/m PM10 of human health

3 PM2.5 2008/50/EC Annual limit for protection 20% from June 2008. 25 μg/m PM2.5 (Stage 1) of human health Decreasing linearly to 0% by 2015 3 PM2.5 - Annual limit for protection None 20 μg/m PM2.5 (Stage 2) of human health Note 2 Benzene 2008/50/EC Annual limit for protection 100% until 2006 5 μg/m3 of human health reducing linearly to 0% by 2010 Carbon 2008/50/EC 8-hour limit (on a rolling 60% 10 mg/m3 Monoxide basis) for protection of (8.6 ppm) human health Note 1 Directive 2008/50/EC – Clean Air For Europe (CAFÉ) Directive replaces the previous Air Framework Directive (1996/62/EC) and daughter directives 1999/30/EC, 2000/69/EC and 2002/3/EC Note 2 EU 2008/50/EC states - ‘Stage 2 — indicative limit value to be reviewed by the Commission in 2013 in the light of further information on health and environmental effects, technical feasibility and experience of the target value in Member States’.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/44 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Table 7.4.2 Previous European Union Air Standards

Pollutant Regulation Type Period Value Nitrogen Dioxide 85/203/EEC Limit Value 98th percentile of 200 µg/m3 yearly mean hourly Guide Value concentrations 135 µg/m3 Guide Value 50th percentile of 50 µg/m3 yearly mean hourly concentrations Lead 82/884/EEC Limit Value Annual mean 2 µg/m3 Sulphur dioxide 80/779/EEC Limit Value 98th percentile of 250-350Note 1 yearly mean hourly µg/m3 concentrations Limit Value Winter (medium of 130 or 180 daily values) Note 1 µg/m3 Limit Value One year (medium of 80 or 120Note 1 daily values) µg/m3 Guide Value 98th percentile of 135 µg/m3 yearly mean hourly concentrations Guide Value 50th percentile of 1- 50 µg/m3 hour means Smoke 80/779/EEC Limit Value One year (medium of 80 µg/m3 daily values) Limit Value Winter (medium of 130 µg/m3 daily values) Limit Value 98th percentile of 250 µg/m3 daily values Note 1 The lower daily values refer to the situation with corresponding high levels of black smoke.

7.4.5 Local Air Quality Assessment The air quality assessment has been carried out following procedures described in the publications by the EPA (EPA 2002, 2003) and using the methodology outlined in the guidance documents published by the UK DEFRA (UK DEFRA 2001, 2007, 2009a, 2009b; UK DETR 1998). The assessment of air quality was carried out using a phased approach as recommended by the UK DEFRA (UK DEFRA 2009a). The phased approach recommends that the complexity of an air quality assessment be consistent with the risk of failing to achieve the air quality standards. In the current assessment, an initial scoping of possible key pollutants was carried out and the likely location of air pollution “hot-spots” identified. An examination of recent EPA and Local Authority data in Ireland (EPA 2010, 2011), has indicated that SO2, smoke and CO are unlikely to be exceeded at locations such as the current one and thus these pollutants do not require detailed monitoring or assessment to be carried out. However, the analysis did indicate potential problems in regards to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and PM10 at busy junctions in urban centres (EPA 2010, 2011). Benzene, although previously reported at quite high levels in urban centres (EPA 2011), has recently been measured at several city centre locations to be well below the EU limit value (EPA 2010, 2011). Historically, CO levels in urban areas were a cause for concern. However, CO concentrations have decreased significantly over the past number of years and are now measured to be well below the limits even in urban centres (EPA 2010, 2011).

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/45 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

The current assessment thus focused firstly on identifying the existing baseline levels of NO2, PM10, PM2.5, benzene and CO and in the region of the Proposed Scheme, both currently (by carrying out a baseline survey and by analysis of suitable EPA monitoring data), and when the Proposed Scheme is opened (through modelling). Thereafter, the impact of the Proposed Scheme on air quality at the neighbouring sensitive receptors was determined relative to “Do nothing” levels for the opening and design years (2015 and 2030). The assessment methodology involved air dispersion modelling using the UK DMRB Screening Model (UK DEFRA 2007) (Version 1.03c,

July 2007), the NOx to NO2 Conversion Spreadsheet (UK DEFRA, 2010) (Version 2.1 (Released January 2010)) and following guidance issued by the NRA (NRA 2006), UK DEFRA (UK DEFRA 2007, 2009a) and the EPA (EPA 2002, 2003). The inputs to the air dispersion model consist of information on road layouts, receptor locations, annual average daily traffic movements (AADT), annual average traffic speeds and background concentrations. Using this input data the model predicts ambient ground level concentrations at the worst-case sensitive receptors using generic meteorological data. This worst-case concentration is then added to the existing background concentration to give the worst-case predicted ambient concentrations. The worst-case ambient concentration are then compared with the relevant ambient air quality standard to assess the compliance of the Proposed Scheme with these ambient air quality standards.

Although no relative impact, as a percentage of the limit value, is enshrined in EU or Irish Legislation, the NRA guidelines (NRA 2006) detail a methodology for determining air quality impact significance criteria for road schemes. The degree of impact is determined based on both the absolute and relative impact of the Proposed Scheme. The NRA significance criteria have been adopted for the Proposed Scheme and are detailed in Tables 7.4.3 – 7.4.4. The significance criteria are based on PM10 and NO2 as these pollutants are most likely to exceed the limit values. However the criteria have also been applied to the predicted 8-hour CO, annual benzene and annual PM2.5 concentrations for the purposes of this assessment.

Table 7.4.3 Definition of Impact Magnitude for Changes in Ambient Pollutant Concentrations

3 Magnitude of Annual Mean NO2 / PM10 Days PM10 > 50 µg/m Change Very Large Increase / decrease >25% Increase / decrease >25 days Large Increase / decrease 15-25% Increase / decrease 15-25 days Moderate Increase / decrease 10-15% Increase / decrease 10-15 days Small Increase / decrease 5-10% Increase / decrease 5-10 days Very Small Increase / decrease 1-5% Increase / decrease 1-5 days Extremely Increase / decrease <1% Increase / decrease <1 days Small Source: Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes - National Roads Authority (2006)

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/46 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Table 7.4.4 Air Quality Impact Significance Criteria

Absolute Change in Concentration Concentratio n in Relation Extremely to Standard Very Small Small Moderate Large Very Large Note 1 Small

Decrease with Scheme Above very very slight slight substantial substantial Standard with substantial substantial beneficial beneficial beneficial beneficial Scheme beneficial beneficial Above very very Standard in slight moderate substantial substantial substantial substantial Do-min, Below beneficial beneficial beneficial beneficial beneficial beneficial with Scheme Below Standard in slight slight moderate moderate substantial negligible Do-min, but beneficial beneficial beneficial beneficial beneficial not Well Below Well Below slight slight slight moderate Standard in negligible negligible beneficial beneficial beneficial beneficial Do-min Increase with Scheme Above very very slight slight substantial substantial Standard in substantial substantial adverse adverse adverse adverse Do-min adverse adverse Below very very Standard in slight moderate substantial substantial substantial substantial Do-min, Above adverse adverse adverse adverse adverse adverse with Scheme Below Standard with slight slight moderate moderate substantial negligible Scheme, but adverse adverse adverse adverse adverse not Well Below Well Below slight slight slight moderate Standard with negligible negligible adverse adverse adverse adverse Scheme Note 1 Well Below Standard = <75% of limit value. Source: Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes - National Roads Authority (2006)

7.4.6 Regional Impact Assessment Including Climate The impact of the Proposed Scheme at a national / international level has been determined using the procedures given by the NRA (NRA 2006) and the methodology provided in Annex 2 in the UK DMRB (UK DEFRA 2007). The assessment focused on determining the resulting change in emissions of CO, particulates (PM10), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2). The Annex provides a method for the prediction of the regional impact of emissions of these pollutants from road schemes. The inputs to the air dispersion model consist of information on road link lengths, AADT movements and annual average traffic speeds.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/47 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

7.4.7 Description of Existing Conditions Meteorological Data A key factor in assessing temporal and spatial variations in air quality is the prevailing meteorological conditions. Depending on wind speed and direction, individual receptors may experience very significant variations in pollutant levels under the same source strength (i.e. traffic levels) (WHO 2006). Wind is of key importance in dispersing air pollutants and for ground level sources, such as traffic emissions, pollutant concentrations are generally inversely related to wind speed. Thus, concentrations of pollutants derived from traffic sources will generally be greatest under very calm conditions and low wind speeds when the movement of air is restricted. In relation to PM10, the situation is more complex due to the range of sources of this pollutant. Smaller particles (less than PM2.5) from traffic sources will be dispersed more rapidly at higher wind speeds. However, fugitive emissions of coarse particles (PM2.5 - PM10) will actually increase at higher wind speeds. Thus, measured levels of PM10 will be a non-linear function of wind speed.

The nearest representative weather station collating detailed weather records is Clones meteorological station, which is located approximately 75km south of the proposed road. For data collated during five representative years (2002- 2006), the predominant wind ranges from south to southwest in direction, with an average wind speed of approximately 4-6 m/s.

Trends in Air Quality Air quality is variable and subject to both significant spatial and temporal variation. In relation to spatial variations in air quality, concentrations generally fall significantly with distance from major road sources (UK DEFRA 2007). Thus, residential exposure is determined by the location of sensitive receptors relative to major roads sources in the area. Temporally, air quality can vary significantly by orders of magnitude due to changes in traffic volumes, meteorological conditions and wind direction.

Baseline Air Quality A baseline monitoring study was carried out close to the alignment of the proposed road. The results of the survey allow an indicative comparison with the annual limit values for NO2. The results also provide information on the influence of road sources relative to the prevailing background level of these pollutants in the area. The monitoring methodology and results are described below.

NO2

NO2 was monitored, using nitrogen dioxide passive diffusion tubes, over a one month period at four locations. The monitoring locations were sited close to the route of the Proposed Scheme (see Table 7.4.5 and Figure 7.7, Volume 2). Passive sampling of NO2 involves the molecular diffusion of NO2 molecules through a polycarbonate tube and their subsequent adsorption onto a stainless steel gauze coated with triethanolamine. Following sampling, the tubes were analysed using Gas Chromatography, at a UKAS accredited laboratory (ESG Laboratories, Oxfordshire).

The locations were chosen in order to assess roadside and background levels of NO2. The results allow an indicative comparison with the annual average limit value and an assessment of the spatial variation of NO2 away from existing road sources. The spatial variation is particularly important for NO2, as a complex relationship exists between NO, NO2 and O3 leading to a non-linear variation of NO2 concentrations with distance.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/48 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Studies in the UK have shown that diffusion tube monitoring results generally have a positive or negative bias when compared to continuous analysers. This bias is laboratory specific and is dependent on the specific analysis procedures at each laboratory. A diffusion tube bias of 0.82 was obtained for the ESG Oxfordshire laboratory (which analysed the diffusion tubes) from the UK Air Quality Review and Assessment website (University of West England, 2007). This bias was applied to the diffusion tube monitoring results.

The passive diffusion tube survey was designed to assess background and roadside levels along the route of the Proposed Scheme (see Table 7.4.5). The average monitoring results for the monitoring period ranged from 7 - 33 μg/m3.

All NO2 concentrations measured over the period were below the European Union (EU) annual limit value with worst-case levels reaching 83% of the limit value at the location along the existing N15 (Castelfin Road).

Table 7.4.5 Results Of NO2 Diffusion Tube Monitoring Carried Out Near The Proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link (October to November 2010)

3 Note 1 Location Sampling Period NO2 Concentration (μg/m ) M1 – Castlefin Road 06/10/10 – 05/11/10 33 West

M2 – Castlefin Road 06/10/10 – 05/11/10 Note 2 East M3 – Finnside Close 06/10/10 – 05/11/10 12 M4 – Carrick Avenue 06/10/10 – 05/11/10 7 Limit Value 40Note 3 Note 1 Diffusion tube bias factor of 0.82 applied to laboratory results Note 2 Sampling tube removed during monitoring period Note 3 EU Council Directive 2008/50/EC (as an annual average)

Background Data Air quality monitoring programs have been undertaken in recent years by the EPA and Local Authorities. The most recent annual report on air quality “Air Quality Monitoring Annual Report 2009” (EPA 2010), details the range and scope of monitoring undertaken throughout Ireland.

As part of the implementation of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002 (S.I. No. 271 of 2002), four air quality zones have been defined in Ireland for air quality management and assessment purposes (EPA 2010, 2011). Dublin is defined as Zone A and Cork as Zone B. Zone C is composed of 21 towns with a population of greater than 15,000. The remainder of the country, which represents rural Ireland but also includes all towns with a population of less than 15,000, is defined as Zone D. In terms of air monitoring, the region of the Proposed Scheme is categorised as Zone D (EPA 2010, 2011).

Long-term NO2 monitoring is carried out at the two rural Zone D locations, Glashaboy and Kilkitt (EPA 2010, 2011). The NO2 annual average in 2009 for both sites was 11 3 and 3 μg/m respectively. NO2 monitoring carried out in the Zone D location of Castlebar in 2009 gave an annual average of 8 μg/m3. Hence long-term average concentrations measured at these locations were significantly lower than the annual average limit value of 40 µg/m3. Based on the above information and baseline

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/49 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

monitoring data, a conservative estimate of the 2011 background NO2 concentration, for the region of the Proposed Scheme is 12 µg/m3.

The results of CO monitoring carried out in Letterkenny and Cork Harbour in 2008 (Zone D) showed no exceedences of the 8-hour limit value (EPA 2010), with average annual mean levels of 0.4 mg/m3 in both locations. In addition, data for the Zone C stations of Newbridge and Letterkenny in 2009 indicated long-term averages of 0.4 mg/m3 and 0.2 mg/m3 respectively (EPA 2010). Based on the above information, a conservative estimate of the background CO concentration for the region of the Proposed Scheme in 2011 is 0.4 mg/m3 as an annual mean.

With regard to benzene, continuous monitoring was carried out at Newbridge and Letterkenny (Zone C) in 2009, with long-term averages of 1.4 µg/m3 and 1.0 µg/m3 respectively (EPA 2011). Based on the above information a conservative estimate of the background benzene concentration for the region of the Proposed Scheme in 2011 is 1.4 µg/m3.

Long-term PM10 monitoring is carried out at the rural Zone D location of Kilkitt (EPA 2010). The average concentration measured at Kilkitt in 2009 was 8 μg/m3. Long- term PM10 measurements carried out at the urban Zone D location in Castlebar in 2009 gave an average level of 13 μg/m3 (EPA 2010). Data from the Phoenix Park in Dublin also provides a good indication of urban background levels, with an annual average in 2009 of 10 μg/m3 (EPA 2010). Based on the above information a conservative estimate of the 2011 background PM10 concentration, for the region of the Proposed Scheme which is defined as Zone D is 14 µg/m3.

The results of PM2.5 monitoring at Station Road in Cork City in 2009 (EPA 2010) indicated an average PM2.5/PM10 ratio of 0.61. Based on this information, a conservative ratio of 0.65 was used to generate a rural background PM2.5 concentration in 2011 of 9.1 µg/m3.

Background concentrations for 2015 and 2030 were calculated from the 2011 background concentrations using the Netcen background calculator, which uses year on year reduction factors provided by UK DEFRA (UK DEFRA 2009a). A summary of the background concentrations used for the air dispersion model is detailed in Table 7.4.6.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/50 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Table 7.4.6 Summary of background concentrations used in the air dispersion model

3 Background Values Nitrogen Oxides Nitrogen Dioxide Benzene (µg/m ) Particulates (PM10) Particulates (PM2.5) Carbon Monoxide (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)Note 2 (mg/m3) Year 2011 15.3 12.0 1.40 14.0 9.1 0.40 Year 2015 Note 1 14.6 11.5 1.38 13.7 8.9 0.37 Year 2030Note 1 14.4 11.3 1.45 13.4 8.7 0.39

Note 1 Reduction in future years using the Netcen background calculator (November 2002). and Netcen background calculator 2.2a (January 2006). Note 2 A ratio of 0.65 has been used for the ratio of PM2.5 / PM10.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/51 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

7.4.8 Characteristics of the Proposed Scheme Road traffic is expected to be the dominant source of emissions resulting from the Proposed Scheme and thus is the focus of the current assessment. Road traffic would also be expected to be the dominant source of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the Proposed Scheme.

7.4.9 Predicted Impacts of the Proposed Scheme Construction Phase – Air Quality and Climate The greatest potential impact on air quality during the construction phase of the Proposed Scheme is from construction dust emissions and the potential for nuisance dust.

While construction dust tends to be deposited within 200m of a construction site, the majority of the deposition occurs within the first 50m. Most importantly, if the dust minimisation measures specified in Section 7.4.17 of this chapter are implemented, fugitive emissions of dust from the site will be insignificant and pose no nuisance at nearby receptors.

Due to the size and nature of the construction activities, CO2 and N2O emissions during construction will have a negligible impact on climate.

The Air Quality assessment for the A5 WTC Environmental Statement found that there would be no significant impact associated with construction traffic emissions from the A5 WTC. Specific dust minimisation measures outlined in Section 8.6.2 of the A5 WTC Environmental Statement will be implemented to minimise fugitive dust emissions.

Operational Phase – Local Air Quality Detailed traffic flow information for the Project was obtained from the traffic consultant in June 2011 and has been used to model pollutant levels under various traffic scenarios and under sufficient spatial resolution to assess whether any significant air quality impact on sensitive receptors may occur. The traffic data corresponded to the design years of 2015 and 2030. Traffic data for the “High Growth Scenario” was used so that the assessment is worst-case. The traffic data used represented capacity figures for the “Do nothing” (i.e. without the Proposed Scheme in place but with the Proposed A5 WTC in place) and “Do something” (i.e. with the Proposed Scheme and the Proposed A5 WTC in place) scenarios.

The results of the Air Quality Assessment for the A5 WTC show that implementing the A5 WTC Scheme would not result in any exceedances of the EU limit Values by traffic related pollutants. The proposed A5 WTC would result in an overall slight benefit in relation to NO2 and PM10 due to reductions in concentrations for the majority of receptors. It should be noted that proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link is expected to generate an 8% decrease in traffic volume along the A5; traffic volume variation of this magnitude equate to a negligible impact on air quality. Therefore the conclusions of the A5 WTC air quality assessment that no mitigation measures are required in relation to properties in County Tyrone in the vicinity of the N14/N15 to A5 Link would stand.

Cumulative effects have been assessed, as recommended in the EU Directive on EIA (Council Directive 97/11/EC) and using the methodology of the UK DEFRA (UK DEFRA 2009a, UK DETR 1998). Firstly, background concentrations (UK DEFRA 2009a) have been included in the modelling study, for both “Do nothing” and “Do

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/52 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

something” scenarios. These background concentrations are year-specific and account for non-localised sources of the pollutants of concern (UK DEFRA 2009a). Appropriate background levels were selected based on the available monitoring data provided by the EPA and Local Authorities (EPA 2010, 2011) (see section 7.4.7).

Once appropriate background concentrations were established, the existing situation, including background levels, was assessed in the absence of the Proposed Scheme for the opening and design years. The assessment methodology involved air dispersion modelling using the UK DMRB Screening Model (Version 1.03c) (UK

DEFRA 2007), the NOx to NO2 Conversion Spreadsheet (UK DEFRA, 2010) (Version 2.1 (Released January 2010)) and the following guidance issued by the UK DEFRA (UK DETR 1998; UK DEFRA 2007, 2009a, 2009b). Ambient concentrations of CO, benzene, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 for 2015 and 2030 were predicted at the nearest sensitive receptors to the Proposed Scheme. “Do nothing” and “Do something” modelling was carried out at the building façade of the worst-case receptors for both 2015 and 2030. This assessment allows the significance of the Proposed Scheme, with respect to both relative and absolute impact, to be determined both temporally and spatially.

Receptor Locations Ten locations were modelled close to the route of the Proposed Scheme. Receptor locations were selected based on their close proximity to the Proposed Scheme as well as the existing N14 and N15 Mainlines. Details of the assessment locations are provided in Table 7.4.7 and illustrated on Figure 7.8, EIS Volume 2.

Annual average traffic speeds are required as an input to the DMRB screening model (UK DEFRA 2007).

Table 7.4.7 DMRB Screening Air Quality Assessment, Proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link. Details of Assessment Locations

Receptor Location / Townland OS Co-ordinates 1 Portinure 231961 397097 2 Leggandoragh 232192 397248 3 Curraghalane 232272 397324 4 Belmount 1 232322 397374 5 Belmount 2 232373 397432 6 Belmount 3 232410 397466 7 Belmount 4 232459 397492 8 Coneyburrow 1 232788 397677 9 Coneyburrow 2 233054 397965 10 Lifford 232895 398846

Modelling Results and Impact Assessment CO and Benzene The results of the modelled impact of the Proposed Scheme for CO and benzene in the opening and design years are shown in Tables 7.4.8 – 7.4.9. Predicted pollutant concentrations in the region of the N14/N15 to A5 Link with the Proposed Scheme in place are below the ambient standards at all locations. Levels of both pollutants range from 19 - 29% of the respective limit values in 2015.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/53 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Future trends indicate similarly low levels of CO and benzene. Levels of both pollutants are below the relevant limit values, ranging from 21 - 30% of their respective limits in 2030.

The impact of the Proposed Scheme can be assessed relative to “Do nothing” levels in 2015 and 2030 (see Tables 7.4.8 – 7.4.9). Relative to baseline levels, some small increases and decreases in pollutant levels at the worst-case receptors are predicted as a result of the Proposed Scheme. With regard to impacts at individual receptors, none of the ten receptors assessed will experience an increase or decrease in concentrations of greater than 5% of the limit value in either 2015 or 2030 and the magnitude of the changes in air quality is extremely small at all receptors based on the criteria outlined in Table 7.4.3.

The greatest impact on CO and benzene concentrations in either 2015 or 2030 will be an increase of 0.2% of their respective limit values at Receptor 9. Furthermore, the greatest improvement in CO and benzene concentrations will be a decrease of 0.2% of their respective limit values at Receptor 4.

Thus, using the assessment criteria for NO2 and PM10 outlined in Tables 7.4.3 and 7.4.4, and applying these criteria to CO and benzene, the impact of the Proposed Scheme in terms of CO and benzene is negligible.

Table 7.4.8 DMRB Screening Air Quality Assessment, Proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link. Predicted Maximum 8-Hour CO Concentrations.

Maximum 8-Hour CO Concentrations (mg/m3) Receptor Location Do Nothing Do Something 2015 2030 2015 2030 1 Portinure 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.1 2 Leggandoragh 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.2 3 Curraghalane 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.1 4 Belmount 1 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.1 5 Belmount 2 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.1 6 Belmount 3 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.1 7 Belmount 4 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.1 8 Coneyburrow 1 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.2 9 Coneyburrow 2 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.3 10 Lifford 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.3 Ambient Limit ValueNote 1 10 mg/m3 10 mg/m3 10 mg/m3 10 mg/m3 Note 1 Maximum 8-hour CO Limit Value: S.I. No. 271 of 2002 & EU Directive 2008/50/EC

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/54 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Table 7.4.9 DMRB Screening Air Quality Assessment, Proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link. Predicted Annual Mean Benzene Concentrations.

Annual Mean Benzene Concentrati 3) Receptor Location Do Nothing Do Something 2015 2030 2015 2030 1 Portinure 1.40 1.48 1.40 1.48 2 Leggandoragh 1.41 1.49 1.42 1.50 3 Curraghalane 1.41 1.49 1.41 1.49 4 Belmount 1 1.40 1.48 1.40 1.48 5 Belmount 2 1.40 1.47 1.40 1.47 6 Belmount 3 1.39 1.47 1.40 1.47 7 Belmount 4 1.40 1.47 1.40 1.48 8 Coneyburrow 1 1.42 1.50 1.43 1.51 9 Coneyburrow 2 1.43 1.51 1.43 1.52 10 Lifford 1.44 1.52 1.44 1.52 Ambient Limit ValueNote 1 3 3 3 3 Note 1 Annual Average Benzene Limit Value: S.I. No. 271 of 2002 & EU Directive 2008/50/EC

PM10

The results of the modelled impact of the Proposed Scheme for PM10 in the opening and design years are shown in Table 7.4.10. Predicted annual average concentrations in the region of the N14/N15 to A5 Link are below the ambient standards at all worst-case receptors, ranging from 35 – 39% of the limit value in 2015. In addition, the 24-hour limit value will not be exceeded at any location in 2015.

Future trends with the Proposed Scheme in place indicate similarly low levels of PM10. Annual average PM10 concentrations range from 35 - 39% of the limit in 2030. Furthermore, the results show that the 24-hour limit value will not be exceeded at any locations in 2030.

The impact of the Proposed Scheme can be assessed relative to “Do nothing” levels in 2015 and 2030 (see Table 7.4.10). Relative to baseline levels, some small increases and decreases in PM10 levels at the worst-case receptors are predicted as a result of the Proposed Scheme. With regard to impacts at individual receptors, none of the ten receptors assessed will experience an increase or decrease in concentrations of over 5% of the limit value in 2015 and 2030. Thus the magnitude of the changes in air quality is extremely small at all receptors based on the criteria outlined in Table 7.4.3.

The greatest impact on PM10 concentrations in the region of the Proposed Scheme in either 2015 or 2030 will be an increase of 0.4% of the annual limit value at Receptor 2. Furthermore, the greatest improvement in PM10 concentrations will be a decrease of 0.3% of the annual limit value at Receptor 4.

Thus, using the assessment criteria outlined in Tables 7.4.3 and 7.4.4, the impact of the Proposed Scheme with regard to PM10 is negligible at all ten of the receptors assessed.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/55 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Table 7.4.10 DMRB Screening Air Quality Assessment, Proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link. Predicted Annual Mean PM10 Concentrations.

3 Annual Mean PM10 Concentrations ( ) Receptor Location Do Nothing Do Something 2015 2030 2015 2030 1 Portinure 14.8 14.7 14.9 14.8 2 Leggandoragh 15.4 15.5 15.5 15.6 3 Curraghalane 14.5 14.3 14.5 14.3 4 Belmount 1 14.4 14.2 14.3 14.1 5 Belmount 2 14.1 13.9 14.1 13.9 6 Belmount 3 14.1 13.8 14.1 13.9 7 Belmount 4 14.2 14.0 14.3 14.1 8 Coneyburrow 1 14.8 14.7 14.9 14.8 9 Coneyburrow 2 15.1 15.0 15.2 15.1 10 Lifford 15.2 15.0 15.2 15.0 Ambient Limit ValueNote 1 40 μg/m3 40 μg/m3 40 μg/m3 40 μg/m3 Note 1 Annual Average PM10 Limit Value: S.I. No. 271 of 2002 & EU Directive 2008/50/EC

PM2.5

The results of the modelled impact of the Proposed Scheme for PM2.5 in the opening and design years are shown in Table 7.4.11. Predicted annual average concentrations in the region of the N14/N15 to A5 Link are below the ambient standards at all worst-case receptors, ranging from 37 - 43% of the limit value in 2015.

Future trends with the Proposed Scheme in place indicate similarly low levels of PM2.5. Annual average PM2.5 concentrations range from 37 - 44% of the limit in 2030.

The impact of the Proposed Scheme can be assessed relative to “Do nothing” levels in 2015 and 2030 (see Table 7.4.11). Relative to baseline levels, some small increases and decreases in PM2.5 levels at the worst-case receptors are predicted as a result of the proposed road. With regard to impacts at individual receptors, none of the ten receptors assessed will experience an increase or decrease in concentrations of over 5% of the limit value in 2015 and 2030. Thus the magnitude of the changes in air quality is extremely small at all receptors based on the criteria outlined in Table 7.4.3.

The greatest impact on PM2.5 concentrations in the region of the Proposed Scheme in either 2015 or 2030 will be an increase of 2% of the annual limit value at Receptor 2. Furthermore, the greatest improvement in PM2.5 concentrations will be a decrease of 0.3% of the annual limit value at Receptor 4.

Thus, using the assessment criteria outlined in Tables 7.4.3 and 7.4.4, the impact of the Proposed Scheme with regard to PM2.5 is negligible at all ten of the receptors assessed.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/56 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Table 7.4.11 DMRB Screening Air Quality Assessment, Proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link. Predicted Annual Mean PM2.5 Concentrations.

3 Annual Mean PM2.5 Concentrations ( ) Receptor Location Do Nothing Do Something 2015 2030 2015 2030 1 Portinure 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.1 2 Leggandoragh 10.6 10.8 10.8 10.9 3 Curraghalane 9.7 9.6 9.7 9.6 4 Belmount 1 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 5 Belmount 2 9.3 9.2 9.3 9.2 6 Belmount 3 9.3 9.1 9.3 9.2 7 Belmount 4 9.4 9.3 9.5 9.4 8 Coneyburrow 1 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.1 9 Coneyburrow 2 10.3 10.3 10.4 10.4 10 Lifford 10.4 10.3 10.4 10.3 Ambient Limit ValueNote 1 25 μg/m3 25 μg/m3 25 μg/m3 25 μg/m3 Note 1 Annual Average PM2.5 Limit Value: EU Directive 2008/50/EC

NO2

The result of the assessment of the impact of the Proposed Scheme for NO2 in the opening and design years are shown in Tables 7.4.12 – 7.4.13. The annual average concentration is within the limit value at all worst-case receptors. Future trends, with the Proposed Scheme in place, indicate similarly low levels of NO2. Levels of NO2 range from 36 – 61% of the annual limit value in 2015 and 2030.

Maximum one-hour NO2 levels with the Proposed Scheme in place will be significantly below the limit value, with levels at the worst-case receptor reaching 58% of the limit value in 2015 and 61% of the limit in 2030.

The impact of the Proposed Scheme on maximum one-hour NO2 levels can be assessed relative to “Do nothing” levels in 2015 and 2030 (see Tables 7.4.12 – 7.4.13). Relative to baseline levels, some increases and decreases in pollutant levels are predicted as a result of the Proposed Scheme. For the opening and design years, of the ten worst-case receptors assessed, none of the receptors will experience an increase or decrease in concentrations of over 5% of the limit value.

The greatest impact on NO2 concentrations in the region of the Proposed Scheme in either 2015 or 2030 will be an increase of 2.1% of the annual or maximum 1-hour limit value at Receptor 2. Furthermore, the greatest improvement in NO2 concentrations will be a decrease of 2.9% of the annual or maximum 1-hour limit value at Receptor 4.

Thus, using the assessment criteria outlined in Tables 7.4.3 – 7.4.4, the impact of the Proposed Scheme in terms of NO2 is negligible at all ten of the receptors assessed.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/57 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Table 7.4.12 DMRB Screening Air Quality Assessment, Proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link. Predicted Annual Average NO2 Concentrations.

3 Annual Average NO2 Concentrations (μg/m ) Receptor Location Do Nothing Do Something 2015 2030 2015 2030 1 Portinure 18.4 19.2 18.9 19.8 2 Leggandoragh 22.3 23.7 23.1 24.5 3 Curraghalane 17.2 17.8 17.2 17.7 4 Belmount 1 16.4 16.9 15.4 15.7 5 Belmount 2 14.5 14.8 14.4 14.6 6 Belmount 3 14.2 14.4 14.6 14.8 7 Belmount 4 15.3 15.7 15.9 16.3 8 Coneyburrow 1 19.7 20.7 20.3 21.3 9 Coneyburrow 2 21.3 22.5 22.1 23.3 10 Lifford 22.2 22.7 22.3 22.7 Ambient Limit ValueNote 1 40 μg/m3 40 μg/m3 40 μg/m3 40 μg/m3 Note 1 Annual Average NO2 Limit Value: S.I. No. 271 of 2002 & EU Directive 2008/50/EC

Table 7.4.13 DMRB Screening Air Quality Assessment, Proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link. Details Predicted Maximum 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations.

3 Maximum 1-Hour NO2 Concentrations (μg/m ) Receptor Location Do Nothing Do Something 2015 2030 2015 2030 1 Portinure 91.9 96.1 94.5 98.8 2 Leggandoragh 111.3 118.5 115.4 122.6 3 Curraghalane 85.9 89.0 85.9 88.7 4 Belmount 1 81.9 84.5 77.0 78.6 5 Belmount 2 72.6 73.8 72.1 73.1 6 Belmount 3 71.0 71.9 73.0 74.1 7 Belmount 4 76.7 78.4 79.4 81.4 8 Coneyburrow 1 98.6 103.5 101.7 106.7 9 Coneyburrow 2 106.6 112.7 110.3 116.4 10 Lifford 111.1 113.4 111.4 113.6 Ambient Limit ValueNote 1 200 μg/m3 200 μg/m3 200 μg/m3 200 μg/m3 Note 1 Maximum 1-Hour NO2 Limit Value: S.I. No. 271 of 2002 & EU Directive 2008/50/EC (as a 99.8th%ile)

7.4.10 Air Quality Impacts on Sensitive Ecosystems The EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (the "Habitats Directive") requires an Appropriate Assessment to be carried out where there is likely to be a significant impact upon a European protected site. Such sites include Natural Heritage Areas (NHA), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA), National Parks, Nature

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/58 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Reserves, Refuges for Fauna, Refuges for Flora, Wildfowl Sanctuaries, Ramsar Sites, Biogenetic Reserves and UNESCO Biosphere Reserves.

The NRA guidelines (NRA 2006) state that as the potential impact of a scheme is limited to a 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.

The impact of NOx (i.e. NO and NO2) emissions resulting from the proposed road at the River Finn SAC was assessed. Dispersion modelling and prediction was carried out at typical traffic speeds. Ambient NOx concentrations predicted for the opening and design years along a transect of up to 200m within the River Finn SAC are given in Table 7.4.14. The road contribution to dry deposition along the transect is also given and was calculated using the methodology of the NRA (NRA 2006).

The predicted annual average NOx level at the River Finn SAC is below the limit value of 30 μg/m3 for the “do minimum” scenario in 2015 and 2030, reaching 50% of this limit. Levels with the proposed development in place are predicted to increase to 98% of the limit value for the “do something” scenario in 2015 and to 103% of the limit value in 2030.

The impact of the proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link leads to an increase in NOx concentrations of >2 μg/m3 within the River Finn SAC at distances of up to 91 m from the proposed road scheme. The NRA guidelines state in Appendix 5 that where the scheme 3 and the predicted concentrations (including background) are close to, or exceed the standard, then the sensitivity of the habitat to NOX should be assessed by the project ecologist.

The road contribution to the NO2 dry deposition rate along the 200m transect within the SAC is also detailed in Table 7.4.14. The maximum NO2 dry deposition rate reaches at most 0.91 Kg(N)/ha/yr in 2015 and 2030. This reaches only 18% of the critical load for inland and surface water habitats of 5-10 Kg(N)/ha/yr (NRA 2006).

See Section 7.2 for the Ecological Impact Assessment pertaining to predicted impacts on sensitive ecosystems (River Finn SAC).

The Environmental Statement prepared for the A5 WTC included an assessment by Mouchel of the impact of the proposed scheme on concentrations of NOx and nitrogen deposition rates within four sensitive ecosystems close to the proposed A5 WTC. The results demonstrated that NOx concentrations would be substantially below the EU Limit Value both with and without the proposed A5 WTC. The nitrogen deposition critical loads were exceeded at all four sites both with and without the proposed A5 WTC.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/59 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Table 7.4.14 Air Quality Assessment of Ecosystems, Proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link. Assessment of Impact Along a Transect From Proposed Road Through River Finn SAC

3 3 NO Dry Deposition Rate Impact NO Conc. (μg/m ) - 2015 NO Conc. (μg/m ) - 2030 2 x x (Kg(N) /ha/yr) Dist. To Road (m)Note 1 Do Do Do Something Impact Do Something Impact 2015 2030 Minimum Minimum 190Note 2 & 11 14.9 29.3 14.4 14.8 31.0 16.2 0.79 0.91 200 Note 2 & 21 14.9 25.8 10.9 14.7 27.0 12.3 0.60 0.69 31 14.6 23.0 8.4 14.4 23.8 9.4 0.46 0.53 41 14.6 21.1 6.5 14.4 21.7 7.3 0.36 0.42 51 14.6 19.7 5.1 14.4 20.2 5.8 0.29 0.33 61 14.6 18.6 4.0 14.4 18.9 4.5 0.23 0.26 71 14.6 17.8 3.2 14.4 18.0 3.6 0.18 0.21 81 14.6 17.1 2.5 14.4 17.2 2.8 0.14 0.16 91 14.6 16.6 2.0 14.4 16.6 2.2 0.11 0.13 101 14.6 16.1 1.5 14.4 16.1 1.7 0.09 0.10 111 14.6 15.8 1.2 14.4 15.7 1.3 0.07 0.08 121 14.6 15.5 0.9 14.4 15.4 1.0 0.05 0.06 131 14.6 15.3 0.7 14.4 15.2 0.8 0.04 0.05 141 14.6 15.2 0.6 14.4 15.1 0.7 0.03 0.04 151 14.6 15.1 0.5 14.4 15.0 0.6 0.03 0.03 161 14.6 15.1 0.5 14.4 14.9 0.5 0.03 0.03 171 14.6 15.0 0.4 14.4 14.9 0.5 0.02 0.03 181 14.6 15.0 0.4 14.4 14.8 0.4 0.02 0.02 191 14.6 14.9 0.3 14.4 14.7 0.3 0.02 0.02 200 14.6 14.8 0.2 14.4 14.7 0.3 0.01 0.01 Standards 30 μg/m3 30 μg/m3 - 30 μg/m3 30 μg/m3 - 5 - 10 Kg(N)/ha/yr Note 1 Distance between SAC and Proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link. Note 2 Distance between SAC and N15

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/60 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

7.4.11 Operation Phase - Regional Air Quality

The regional impact of the proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link on emissions of NOx and VOCs has been assessed using the procedures of the NRA (NRA 2006) and the UK DEFRA (UK DEFRA 2007). The results (see Table 7.4.15) indicate that the impact of the proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link on Ireland's obligations under the Gothenburg Protocol is negligible. For the assessment year of 2015, the predicted impact of the proposed road is to decrease NOx levels by 0.0003% of the NOx emissions ceiling and decrease VOC levels by 0.0001% of the VOC emissions ceiling to be complied with from 2010. For the assessment year of 2030, the proposed road will not increase NOx or VOC levels.

The regional impact of the proposed A5 WTC on emissions of carbon, hydrocarbons, particulate matter and nitrous oxides was assessed by Mouchel in the Air Quality Chapter of the A5 WTC Environmental Statement. The results showed that there are increased emissions with the proposed A5 WTC scheme in place compared to the “do minimum” scenario.

7.4.12 Operation Phase - Climate

The impact of the proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link on emissions of CO2 was also assessed (see Table 7.4.15). The results show that the impact of the Proposed Scheme will be to increase CO2 emissions by at most 0.0001% of Ireland's Kyoto target in 2015 and 2030. Thus, the impact of the Proposed Scheme on national greenhouse gas emissions will be negligible in terms of Ireland’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC 1997, DEHLG 2007b).

Table 7.4.15 Regional Air Quality Assessment. Proposed N14/N15 to A5 Link

VOC NO CO Year Scenario X 2 (kg/annum) (kg/annum) (tonnes/annum) Do Nothing 3,830 19,798 7,029 2015 Do Something 3,792 19,591 7,014 Do Nothing 4,803 22,352 8,726 2030 Do Something 4,811 22,379 8,798 Increment in 2015 -38 kg - 207 kg -15 tonnes Increment in 2030 8 kg 27 kg 72 tonnes Emission Ceiling 55 ktNote 1 65 ktNote 1 62,800 ktNote 2 Impact in 2015 -0.0001% -0.0003% 0.0000% Impact in 2030 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0001% Note 1 kt = kilo tonnes. National Emission Ceiling (EU Directive 2001/81/EC) Note 2 kt = kilo tonnes. Ireland's Target Under The Kyoto Protocol

7.4.13 “Do Nothing” Scenario – Local Air Quality CO and Benzene The results of the “Do nothing” modelling assessment for CO and benzene in the opening and design years are shown in Tables 7.4.8 – 7.4.9. Concentrations are well within the limit values at all worst-case receptors. Levels of both pollutants range from 19 - 30% of the respective limit values in 2015 and 2030.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/61 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

PM10

The results of the “Do nothing” modelling assessment for PM10 in the opening and design years are shown in Table 7.4.10. Predicted annual average concentrations are below the ambient standards at all worst-case receptors, ranging from 35 - 39% of the annual limit value in 2015 and 2030. In addition, the 24-hour PM10 concentration was not exceeded in 2015 and 2030.

PM2.5

The results of the “Do nothing” modelling assessment for PM2.5 in the opening and design years are shown in Tables 7.4.11. Predicted annual average concentrations are below the ambient standards at all worst-case receptors, ranging from 37 - 43% of the annual limit value in 2015 and 2030.

NO2 The results of the “Do nothing” assessment of annual average and maximum 1-hour NO2 concentrations in the opening and design years are shown in Tables 7.4.12 – 7.4.13. Predicted levels are within the limit values at all worst-case receptors, ranging from 35 - 59% of the annual limit value in 2015 and 2030.

7.4.14 “Do-Nothing” Scenario - Regional Air Quality

Predicted “Do nothing” emissions of NOx and VOCs are provided in Table 7.4.15. NOx and VOC emissions in the region of the Proposed Scheme represent at most 0.034% and 0.009% respectively of their national emissions ceilings in 2015 and 2030.

7.4.15 “Do-Nothing” Scenario - Climate

Predicted “Do nothing” emissions of CO2 in the region of the Proposed Scheme are provided in Table 7.4.15. CO2 emissions represent at most 0.014% of Ireland’s limits under the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC 1997, DEHLG 2007b).

7.4.16 Worst Case Scenario The worst-case scenario corresponds to the situation where the mitigation measures fail or are not implemented. Should dust mitigation measures not be implemented during the construction phase, significant dust nuisance is likely in areas close to the construction site. Furthermore, there is also the potential for exceedances of the PM10 and PM2.5 air quality standards during the construction period. The results of the air dispersion modelling assessment show that no mitigation measures are required during the operational phase and therefore the worst-case scenario is not applicable.

7.4.17 Remedial and Mitigation Measures Construction Phase The potential for dust to be emitted depends on the type of construction activity being carried out in conjunction with environmental factors including levels of rainfall, wind speeds and wind direction. The potential for impact from dust depends on the distance to potentially sensitive locations and whether the wind can carry the dust to these locations. The majority of any dust produced will be deposited close to the potential source and any impacts from dust deposition will typically be within two hundred metres of the construction activities.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/62 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

In order to minimise dust emissions during construction, a series of mitigation measures have been prepared and will be included in the EOP for implementation during the construction phase of the project. These measures are as follows: Site roads will be regularly cleaned and maintained as appropriate. Hard surface roads will be swept to remove mud and aggregate materials from their surface while any unsurfaced roads will be restricted to essential site traffic only. Any road that has the potential to give rise to fugitive dust will be regularly watered during dry and/or windy conditions. Vehicles using site roads will have their speeds restricted where there is a potential for dust nuisance at nearby properties. Where practicable, vehicles exiting the site shall make use of a wheel wash facility prior to entering onto public roads. This will ensure that mud and other wastes are not tracked onto public roads. Public roads outside the site will be regularly inspected for cleanliness, and cleaned as necessary. Before entrance onto public roads, trucks will be adequately inspected to ensure no potential for dust emissions. Material handling systems and site stockpiling of materials will be designed and laid out to minimise exposure to wind. Water misting or sprays will be used as required if particularly dusty activities are necessary during dry or windy periods. The dust minimisation procedures put in place will be monitored and assessed by the contractor. In the event of dust nuisance occurring outside the site boundary, the effectiveness of existing measures will be reviewed and further mitigation will be implemented to rectify the problem.

Provided the dust minimisation measures outlined above are adhered to, the air quality impacts during the construction phase will be not be significant.

Operational Phase - Air Quality Mitigation measures in relation to traffic-derived pollutants have focused generally on improvements in both engine technology and fuel quality. EU legislation, based on the EU sponsored Auto-Oil programmes, has imposed stringent emission standards for key pollutants (REGULATION (EC) No 715/2007) for passenger cars to be complied with in 2009 (Euro V) and 2014 (Euro VI). With regard to heavy duty vehicles, EU Directive 2005/78/EC defines the emission standard currently in force, Euro IV, as well as the next stage (Euro V) which has entered into force since October 2009. In addition, it defines a non-binding standard called Enhanced Environmentally-friendly Vehicle (EEV). In relation to fuel quality, SI No. 407 of 1999 and SI No. 72 of 2000 have introduced significant reductions in both sulphur and benzene content of fuels.

In relation to design and operational aspects of road schemes, emissions of pollutants from road traffic can be controlled most effectively by either diverting traffic away from heavily congested areas or ensuring free flowing traffic through good traffic management plans and the use of automatic traffic control systems (UK DEFRA 2009b).

Improvements in air quality are likely over the next few years as a result of the on- going comprehensive vehicle inspection and maintenance program, fiscal measures to encourage the use of alternatively fuelled vehicles and the introduction of cleaner fuels.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/63 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Operational Phase - Climate

CO2 emissions for the average new car fleet will be reduced to 120 g/km by 2012 through EU legislation on improvements in vehicle motor technology and by an increased use of biofuels. This measure will reduce CO2 emissions from new cars by an average of 25% in the period from 1995 to 2008/2009 whilst 15% of the necessary effort towards the overall climate change target of the EU will be met by this measure alone (DEHLG 2000).

Additional measures included in the National Climate Change Strategy (DEHLG 2006, 2007b) include: (1) VRT and Motor Tax rebalancing to favour the purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles with lower CO2 emissions; (2) continuing the Mineral Oils Tax Relief (MOTR) II Scheme and introduction of a biofuels obligation scheme; (3) implementation of a national efficient driving awareness campaign, to promote smooth and safe driving at lower engine revolutions; and (4) enhancing the existing mandatory vehicle labelling system to provide more information on CO2 emission levels and on fuel economy.

7.4.18 Residual Impacts of the Proposed Scheme The results of the air dispersion modelling study show that the residual impacts of the Proposed Scheme on air quality and climate will be insignificant.

7.4.19 Monitoring No monitoring is required.

7.4.20 References Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) (2003) Strategy to Reduce Emissions of Trans-boundary Pollution by 2010 to Comply with National Emission Ceilings - Discussion Document

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) (2000) National Climate Change Strategy

Department of the Environment Northern Ireland (2010) Part III of the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002: Local Air Quality Management Policy Guidance - LAQM. PGNI (09)

DEHLG (2004) National Programme for Ireland under Article 6 of Directive 2001/81/EC for the Progressive Reduction of National Emissions of Transboundary Pollutants by 2010

DEHLG (2006) Ireland’s Pathway to Kyoto Compliance - Review of the National Climate Change Strategy

DEHLG (2007a) Update and Revision of the National Programme for Ireland under Article 6 of Directive 2001/81/EC for the Progressive Reduction of National Emissions of Transboundary Pollutants by 2010

DEHLG (2007b) National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2002) Guidelines On Information To Be Contained in Environmental Impact Statements

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/64 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

EPA (2003) Advice Notes On Current Practice (In The Preparation Of Environmental Impact Statements)

EPA (2010) Air Quality Monitoring Report 2009 (& previous annual reports 1997- 2008)

EPA (2011) EPA Website: http://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/monitoring/air/

ERM (1998) Limitation and Reduction of CO2 and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Ireland

Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) (1997) Kyoto Protocol To The United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change

FCCC (1999) Ireland - Report on the in-depth review of the second national communication of Ireland

National Roads Authority (NRA) (2006) Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality During the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes

The UK Highways Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 Section 3 Part 1 HA207/07 Air Quality (Document & Calculation Spreadsheet)

UK DEFRA (2001) DMRB Model Validation for the Purposes of Review and Assessment

UK DEFRA (2005) Air Quality Expert Group - Particulate Matter in the United Kingdom

UK DEFRA (2010) NOx to NO2 Conversion Spreadsheet (Version 2.1)

UK DEFRA (2009a) Part IV of the Environment Act 1995: Local Air Quality Management, LAQM. TG(09)

UK DEFRA (2009b) Part IV of the Environment Act 1995: Local Air Quality Management, LAQM. PG(09)

UK Department of the Environment, Transport and Roads (UK DETR) (1998) Preparation of Environmental Statements for Planning Projects That Require Environmental Assessment - A Good Practice Guide, Appendix 8 - Air & Climate

University of West England (UWE) (2008) Review and Assessment Helpdesk Website (http://www.uwe.ac.uk/aqm/review)

Tod et al. (2002) PM10 Concentrations in the London Borough of Camden: Comparison of Sampling Techniques Clean Air, Volume 32, No. 1, 37-41.

World Health Organisation (WHO) (2006) Air Quality Guidelines - Global Update 2005 (and previous Air Quality Guideline Reports 1999 & 2000)

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/65 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

APPENDIX 7.4.1

Ambient Air Quality Standards National standards for ambient air pollutants in Ireland have generally ensued from Council Directives enacted in the EU (& previously the EC & EEC). The initial interest in ambient air pollution legislation in the EU dates from the early 1980s and was in response to the most serious pollutant problems at that time. In response to the problem of acid rain, sulphur dioxide, and later nitrogen dioxide, were both the focus of EU legislation. Linked to the acid rain problem was urban smog associated with fuel burning for space heating purposes. Also apparent at this time were the problems caused by leaded petrol and EU legislation was introduced to deal with this problem in the early 1980s.

In recent years the EU has focused on defining a basis strategy across the EU in relation to ambient air quality. In 1996, a Framework Directive, Council Directive 96/62/EC, on ambient air quality assessment and management was enacted. The aims of the Directive are fourfold. Firstly, the Directive’s aim is to establish objectives for ambient air quality designed to avoid harmful effects to health. Secondly, the Directive aims to assess ambient air quality on the basis of common methods and criteria throughout the EU. Additionally, it is aimed to make information on air quality available to the public via alert thresholds and fourthly, it aims to maintain air quality where it is good and improve it in other cases.

As part of these measures to improve air quality, the European Commission has adopted proposals for daughter legislation under Directive 96/62/EC. The first of these directives to be enacted, Council Directive 1999/30/EC, was passed into Irish Law as S.I. No 271 of 2002 (Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002) and implemented in Northern Ireland by S.R. 2002 No. 94 (The Air Quality Limit Values Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002), and has set limit values which came into operation on 17th June 2002. The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002 detail margins of tolerance, which are trigger levels for certain types of action in the period leading to the attainment date. The margin of tolerance varies from 60% for lead, to 30% for 24-hour limit value for PM10, 40% for the hourly and annual limit value for NO2 and 26% for hourly SO2 limit values. The margin of tolerance commenced from June 2002, and started to reduce from 1 January 2003 and does so every 12 months by equal annual percentages to reach 0% by the attainment date. A second daughter directive, EU Council Directive 2000/69/EC, details limit values for both carbon monoxide and benzene in ambient air. This has also been passed into Irish Law under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002.

The most recent EU Council Directive on ambient air quality was published on the 11/06/08. Council Directive 2008/50/EC combines the previous Air Quality Framework Directive and its subsequent daughter directives. This has also been passed into Irish Law under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2011 (S.I. 180 of 2011) and in Northern Ireland by The Air Quality Limit Values Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002. Provisions were also made for the inclusion of new ambient limit values relating to PM2.5. In regards to existing ambient air quality standards, it is not proposed to modify the standards but to strengthen existing provisions to ensure that non-compliances are removed. In addition, new ambient standards for PM2.5 are included in Directive 2008/50/EC. The approach for PM2.5 is to establish a target value of 25 µg/m3, as an annual average (to be attained everywhere by 2010) and a limit value of 25 µg/m3, as an annual average (to be attained everywhere by 2015), coupled with a target to reduce human exposure generally to PM2.5 between 2010 and 2020. This 3 exposure reduction target will range from 0% (for PM2.5 concentrations of less than 8.5 µg/m to 20% of the average exposure indicator (AEI) for concentrations of between 18 - 22 µg/m3. Where the AEI is currently greater than 22 µg/m3 all appropriate measures should be employed to reduce this level to 18 µg/m3 by 2020. The AEI is based on measurements taken in urban background locations averaged over a three year period from 2008-2010 and

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/66 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1 again from 2018-2020. Additionally, an exposure concentration obligation of 20 µg/m3 has been set to be complied with by 2015, again based on the AEI.

Although the EU Air Quality Limit Values are the basis of legislation, other thresholds outlined by the EU Directives are used which are triggers for particular actions. The Alert Threshold is defined in Council Directive 2008/50/EC as “a level beyond which there is a risk to human health from brief exposure and at which immediate steps shall be taken as laid down in Directive 2008/50/EC”. These steps include undertaking to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to inform the public (e.g. by means of radio, television and the press).

The Margin of Tolerance is defined in Council Directive 2008/50/EC as a concentration which is higher than the limit value when legislation comes into force. It decreases to meet the limit value by the attainment date. The Upper Assessment Threshold is defined in Council Directive 2008/50/EC as a concentration above which high quality measurement is mandatory. Data from measurement may be supplemented by information from other sources, including air quality modelling.

An annual average limit for both NOx (NO and NO2) is applicable for the protection of vegetation in highly rural areas away from major sources of NOx such as large conurbations, factories and high road vehicle activity such as a dual carriageway or motorway. Annex III of EU Directive 2008/50/EC identifies that monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the NOX limit for the protection of vegetation should be carried out distances greater than: 5 km from the nearest motorway or dual carriageway 5 km from the nearest major industrial installation 20 km from a major urban conurbation

As a guideline, a monitoring station should be indicative of approximately 1000 km2 of surrounding area.

Under the terms of EU Framework Directive on Ambient Air Quality (96/62/EC), geographical areas within member states have been classified in terms of zones. The zones have been defined in order to meet the criteria for air quality monitoring, assessment and management as described in the Framework Directive and Daughter Directives. Zone A is defined as Dublin and its environs, Zone B is defined as Cork City, Zone C is defined as 21 urban areas with a population greater than 15,000 and Zone D is defined as the remainder of the country. The Zones were defined based on among other things, population and existing ambient air quality.

EU Council Directive 96/62/EC on ambient air quality and assessment has been adopted into Irish Legislation (S.I. No. 33 of 1999) and implemented in Northern Ireland by S.R. 2002 No. 94 (The Air Quality Limit Values Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002). The act has designated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the competent authority responsible for the implementation of the Directive and for assessing ambient air quality in the State. Other commonly referenced ambient air quality standards include the World Health Organisation. The WHO guidelines differ from air quality standards in that they are primarily set to protect public health from the effects of air pollution. Air quality standards, however, are air quality guidelines recommended by governments, for which additional factors, such as socio-economic factors, may be considered.

Air Dispersion Modelling The inputs to the DMRB model consist of information on road layouts, receptor locations, annual average daily traffic movements, annual average traffic speeds and background

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/67 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1 concentrations(A1). Using this input data the model predicts ambient ground level concentrations at the worst-case sensitive receptor using generic meteorological data.

The DMRB underwent an extensive validation exercise(A2) as part of the UK’s Review and Assessment Process to designate areas as Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs). The validation exercise was carried out at 12 monitoring sites within the UK DEFRAs national air quality monitoring network. The validation exercise was carried out for NOx, NO2 and PM10, and included urban background and kerbside/roadside locations, “open” and “confined” settings and a variety of geographical locations(A2).

In relation to NO2, the model generally over-predicts concentrations, with a greater degree of over-prediction at “open” site locations. The performance of the model with respect to NO2 mirrors that of NOx showing that the over-prediction is due to NOx calculations rather than the NOx:NO2 conversion. Within most urban situations, the model overestimates annual mean NO2 concentrations by between 0 to 40% at confined locations and by 20 to 60% at open locations. The performance is considered comparable with that of sophisticated dispersion models when applied to situations where specific local validation corrections have not been carried out.

The model also tends to over-predict PM10. Within most urban situations, the model will over- estimate annual mean PM10 concentrations by between 20 to 40%. The performance is comparable to more sophisticated models, which, if not validated locally, can be expected to predict concentrations within the range of 50%.

Thus, the validation exercise has confirmed that the model is a useful screening tool for the Second Stage Review and Assessment, for which a conservative approach is applicable(A2).

References (A1) The UK Highways Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 Section 3 Part 1 HA207/07 Air Quality (Document & Calculation Spreadsheet)

(A2) UK DEFRA (2001) DMRB Model Validation for the Purposes of Review and Assessment

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/68 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

7.5 Hydrology and Hydrogeology

7.5.1 Introduction Work Brief Hydro Environmental Ltd was commissioned by Roughan & O‟Donovan on behalf of Donegal County Council to carry out a hydrological and hydrogeological assessment for the N14/N15 to A5 Link Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Statement, relating to the construction of a bridge over the River Finn involving 450m of Dual Carriageway, two roundabouts at either end of the bridge (N14/N15 junction (Co. Donegal) and A5 junction (Co. Tyrone)) and 0.6km of Single Carriageway (N14/N15) associated tie-in road works.

7.5.2 Methodology This section of the Environmental Impact Statement seeks to assess and evaluate the proposed River Finn Bridge, the approach embankments, roundabouts and tie in roads in relation to hydrology and hydrogeology. It is prepared having regard to the requirements of the 1993 Roads Act of Ireland, Section 50, sub-section 2 and 3. It has also been prepared having due regard to the following guidance documents: EPA Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements, March 2002; EPA Advice Notes on Current Practice in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements, September 2003; Surface water and drainage guidance in the National Roads Authority Design Manual for Roads and Bridges; NRA guidelines on Procedures for the Assessment and treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes, November 2008; NRA Environmental Impact Assessment of National Roads Schemes – A Practical Guidance, November 2008; DoEHLG (Nov 2009) Flood Risk Management and the Planning System Guidance document.

The Hydrological Impact Assessment Methodology is in general agreement with the guidance outlined in Section 5.6 of the NRA Guidelines pertaining to the treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology. The Impact category, duration and nature of impact have been taken into account in this assessment as per the guidelines. The range criteria for assessing the importance of hydrological features within the study area and the criteria for quantifying the magnitude of impacts follow the NRA guidelines (pp 102 to 106 of NRA document).

The hydrological assessment has been prepared by expanding the desk study work carried out for the Constraints Study and Route Corridor Selection Reports. It includes an assessment of published literature available from various sources including a web based search for relevant material. Site specific topographical, aerial photography has been reviewed to locate any potential features of hydrological interest, and these have been investigated on the ground by walkover surveys in order to assess the significance of any likely environmental impacts on them.

Data sources The following list of data sources were the main information sources reviewed as part of this Environmental Impact Assessment report section:

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/69 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Ordnance Survey Discovery Series Mapping (1:50,000); Six Inch Raster Maps (1:10,560); Six inch and 25nch OS Vector OS mapping; Orthographic Aerial Mapping.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Teagasc Sub Cover Classification Mapping; Teagasc Subsoil Classification Mapping; Water Quality Monitoring Database and Reports; Water Framework Directive Classification; EPA Hydrometric Data System.

Office of Public Works (OPW) Flood-maps Website; Flood Study Report Update (FSU) hydrological GIS data; OPW Hydro-data from the OPW website www.opw.ie/hydro.

Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) GSI Groundwater Mapping Website.

Donegal County Council Donegal County Development Plan 2006 – 2012; Donegal Heritage Plan 2007 – 2011; Planning Register; Water Services – Abstractions, Discharges & Supply Schemes.

National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) Designated Areas Mapping; Site Synopsis Reports.

Site Investigation Reports N15 Lifford Stranorlar Preliminary Ground Investigation Report, (Glovers SI Ltd. Aug 2008); N14/N13 (Manorcunningham) to Lifford / Strabane Scheme, Additional Ground Investigation Geotechnical Interpretative Report (Mott McDonald); A5 WTC SI (Northern Ireland) Geophysical Survey Report (Mouchel); N14 – N15 to A5 Link, Geophysical Report, (Apex Geoservices, Dec 2010).

Other sources Northwestern River Basin District - Draft River Basin Management Plan; Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Water Framework Directive River Basin Management Plans and Programmes of measures – North Western iRBD: Environmental Report 2008.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/70 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

The North South Shared Aquatic Resource (NS Share) Project is a cross border project that comprises of three River Basin Districts. The North Eastern RBD is located completely in Northern Ireland, while the Neagh Bann RBD and the North Western RBD; N14 Letterkenny to Lifford / Strabane Environmental Impact Statement (RPS, Mott McDonald); N15 Lifford to Stranorlar Environmental Impact Statement (Jacobs); N14/N15 to A5 Link Road Constraints Study, 2001 (Mott McDonald); N14/N15 to A5 Link Road Route Selection Report, 2006 (Mott MCDonald EPO Ltd.); UK Highways Agency‟s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges; River Finn and River Foyle, MIKE 2D river model (Mouchel); FSR Flood Studies Soil Runoff Mapping (NERC 1975).

Consultation with regulatory and other bodies Consultation was made with all relevant regulatory bodies including various departments of Donegal County Council, the OPW and Rivers Agency.

Field surveys Site walk over surveys were carried out to assess the hydrological aspects of the proposed road alignment and bridge crossing of the Finn main channel and floodplain area.

7.5.3 Scheme Description and Location It is proposed to construct a new road bridge across the River Finn flood plain as part of the N14 / N15 to A5 Road Link Scheme at Curraghalane (Co. Donegal) and Carricklee, Strabane (Co. Tyrone), 1.59km upstream of the existing Lifford Bridge over the River Foyle. The scheme will involve the construction of a roundabout and realignment of the existing N15 (0.6km single carriageway) at Curraghalane, the construction of a river bridge / causeway (0.45km dual carriageway) and a connection to the proposed A5 roundabout at Carricklee. Refer to Figure 3.1 and 3.2, Volume 2. A detailed description of the scheme is presented in Chapter 3.

The proposed bridge / causeway across River Finn flood plain consists of 178m of embankments / existing high ground on the river bank and 287m of a clear span bridge consisting of 7 No. piers (refer to Figures 3.5 – 3.7, Volume 2). The construction of the proposed A5 roundabout at the Strabane end will involve works within the flood plain area.

7.5.4 Existing Hydrological and Hydrogeological Environment Soil Geology The dominant soil types in the vicinity of the proposed bridge and road scheme are Alluviums and Deep Poorly Drained Mineral soil derived from non-calcareous parent material, surface water and ground water gleys and shallow, lithosolic-podzolic type soils potentially with peaty topsoil, Acid Brown Earths Brown Podzolics and Lithosols, Regosols. The plate below (taken from EPA ENVision Database) shows the soils types.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/71 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

14.3 CF

0+250

10 Kv Beechwood Park

0+200

BM 15.92

0+150

14.6

FF 0+100

Belmount

16.2 0+050 CF

0+000 Leggandorragh CF 18.41

0+267 0+250 CURRAGHALANE

0+200

0+465

0+150

0+450

0+100 CF

0+400

0+050

CD

0+000 0+350

Und

FF

0+300

Portinure UND

Und 19+150

0+250

FF

FF 19+200

Def N15 0+200

HWM 19+250

0+150 i n n

FF

FF

HWM MT 19+300

UND 0+100 FF v e r F 5.4 CR

N15 19+350

R i

0+050

Und 19+400

7.4

9.6

0+000

19+450

86 86 19+500

R O A D

12.6

88

U R N E Y 88 19+550

13.9 Und

Finn

River Refus e Tip

HWM MT 12.0 12.0 19+600

94 94 90 90

CARR ICK AVE

92 92

94 92 Refus e Tip

14.2

12.6 19+650

U R N E Y R O A D Plate 7.5.1: Soil Types from EPA

The dominant subsoil types in the vicinity of the proposed bridge and road scheme are Alluviums undifferentiated, Metamorphic Till with areas of bedrock at surface. The plate below (taken from EPA ENVision Database) shows the subsoils types. Quarry CF BM 9.56

0+340 14.0

0+300 Finn Side Close

14.3 CF

0+250

10Kv Beechwood Park

0+200

BM 15.92

0+150

HWM

14.6

FF 0+100

Belmount 18+700

16.2

0+050 CF 18+750

0+000

Leggandorragh 18+800

CF 18.41 0+267 River Finn

0+250 CURRAGHALANE 18+850

0+200 10 9 11

0+465 8

12 0+150 18+900 7 FINN VIEW 0+450

U R N E Y R O A D

0+100 18+950

CF 7.2

80 80

0+400

0+050

19+000 87 89 13 CD 11 91 8.8

0+000 93 AVEN

0+350 9 UE 19+050 95

Und 18

7 CARR ICKLYNN18

18 18

20 5 20

19+100 22

FF 7.4 22

0+300 16

AVENUE UND Portinure 1

Und

19+150

4 CKLYNN 4 RI

0+250 CAR

2 2

8

FF 8 19+200 O A D Def N15 0+200 HWM E Y R

U R N 19+250 5.6

i n n 0+150 FF

FF 19+300 HWM MT Sink s C A S T L E T O W N R O A D

CR UND 0+100

FF v e r F 5.4 CR N15 19+350

R i

0+050

Und 19+400

7.4 9.6

0+000 19+450

RH 19+500

R O A D

12.6

U R N E Y 19+550

13.9

Und

5 5 7 Finn 7

River

Refus e Tip 12.0 HWM MT 12.0 19+600

9

CARR ICK AVE

Refus e Tip

14.2 12.6 19+650

RH

U R N E Y R O A D

18.6

ESS Refus e Tip 19+700 1 CF 12 9 C A R R I C K A V E N U E 8 Tank (c ov d) 13

12.1 4

CF 5

16 29

M U R R A Y

E 23 19+750 L

T 22

Plate 7.5.11.8 2: Soil Types from EPA 27 17

C A S 18

BB

19 26 Pond

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/72 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

A geophysical survey and borehole investigation undertaken for the proposed bridge works and multiple pier locations confirmed: 10m from river edge (swampy marshland): soft to very soft organic slightly sandy clay / silt or loose organic sand to circa 28m below ground level (bgl) followed by very dense sand/gravel to circa 33m bgl. 200m from river edge: medium dense to very dense sand / gravel to 12m – 18m bgl.

The following diagram shows the findings of resistivity survey along the line of the proposed bridge on the Donegal side.

Plate 7.5.3 Resistivity Survey Findings

Site investigation works on the Tyrone side as part of the A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme (WTC) confirmed: Borehole depths of finished on presumed rock / boulders at -11 to -12mOD Overburden includes river alluvium / organic silt overlying glacio-fluvial sand and gravels

Bedrock Geology Bedrock geology is dominated by Precambrian Quartzites, Gneisses and Schists and comprises psammites / pebbly grit / quartzite/marble and schists of the claudy formation.

Structurally there is a major mapped fault (known as the Pettigoe Fault, 11F1-2) trending northeast – south west in the area, that is traversed by the proposed bridge alignment in Curraghalane at Chainage +350 which coincides closely with the left bank of the River Finn flood plain.

Hydrogeology / Groundwater Vulnerability A groundwater protection scheme with associated aquifer vulnerability classifications for County Donegal has been produced by the Geological Survey of Ireland. The guidelines given by this scheme can be combined with site investigation data (geological and hydrogeological characteristics) to obtain appropriate vulnerability ratings for the study area. Table 7.5.1 outlines these geological and hydrogeological characteristics, primarily dependant on the permeability and depth of the overburden.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/73 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Table 7.5.1 Groundwater Protection Scheme Vulnerability Classification

HYDROGEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS Subsoil Permeability (Type) and Thickness Unsaturated Karst Zone Features Vulnerability Rating High Moderate Low permeability (Sand/gravel (< 30m permeability permeability (e.g. Clayey aquifers only) radius) (sand/gravel) (e.g. Sandy subsoil, clay, subsoil) peat)) Extreme (E) 0 – 3.0m 0 – 3.0m 0 – 3.0m 0 – 3.0m n/a High (H) > 3.0m 3.0 – 10.0m 3.0 – 5.0m > 3.0m n/a Moderate (M) n/a > 10.0m 5.0 – 10.0m n/a n/a Low (L) n/a n/a > 10.0m n/a n/a Notes (1) n/a = not applicable. (2) Precise permeability values cannot be given at present. (3) Release point of contaminants is assumed to be 1-2m below ground surface.

Table 7.5.2 Vulnerability Rating

RESOURCE PROTECTION ZONES Regionally Vulnerability Locally Important Important Aquifers Poor Aquifers (P) Rating Aquifers (L) (R) Rk Rf/Rg Lm/Lg Ll Pl Pu Extreme (E) Rk/E Rf/E Lm/E Ll/E Pl/E Pu/E High (H) Rk/H Rf/H Lm/H Ll/H Pl/H Pu/H Moderate (M) Rk/M Rf/M Lm/M Ll/M Pl/M Pu/M Low (L) Rk/L Rf/L Lm/L Ll/L Pl/L Pu/L

The area is located within a Poorly Productive Aquifer and is not noted as being within or close to any groundwater source protection area. Information received from the GSI indicates no groundwater abstractions within 1km of the Proposed Scheme.

The Farm survey involving 3 land owners by Philip Farrelly and associates identified that no groundwater sources are being used wither for agricultural supply or for domestic house use, all being connected to the public supply.

The GSI website identifies the area (in Donegal) immediately adjacent to the River Finn as having a high interim vulnerability while the area closer to the floodplain edge (left bank) is identified as having an extreme interim vulnerability. By applying the classification system above to the site investigation information for the area in question, groundwater vulnerability mapping along the proposed bridge route indicates Low to moderate vulnerability.

Information from the Site investigation study carried out by Soil Mechanics showed the permanent water table within the Floodplain area to be relatively close to ground surface at between 0.5 to 2m below ground level observed from borehole drilling records. This finding is not unexpected as the groundwater table will be significantly influenced by water levels in the River Finn. The boreholes did not encounter any bedrock with a number of drill depths upto 43m deep.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/74 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

The EPA Hydrotool website database identifies that the site bedrock is poorly productive, has an EO score of 2b and has a Groundwater risk score which is strongly expected to achieve good status.

Hydrology The proposed scheme crosses the lower reaches of the River Finn and its floodplain approximately 1.59km upstream of Lifford Bridge where it joins with the River Mourne to form the River Foyle. The River Finn is located within Hydrometric Area (HA) -01 River Foyle River, the Irish Northwestern River Basin and the River Foyle and Faughan Estuaries River Sub-basins. The River Foyle is reported to be tidal up to the confluence of River Burn Dennet and River Foyle 8.7km downstream of the proposed scheme, while tide influence is seen to extend up to the confluence between River Finn and River Mourne at Lifford Bridge.

The River Foyle, whose catchment covers much of counties Donegal, Tyrone and Derry, flows through Derry City en route to its outfall into Lough Foyle and includes the Deele, Finn, Burn Dennett, Glenmornan, Mourne (Strule and Derg) river catchments.

The River Finn, the main study of this hydrological assessment, rises in Lough Finn, Aghla Mountain and the Blue Stack Mountains. The upper reaches of the river‟s catchment generally flows through mountainous terrain while the lower reaches are typical of a mature deep and slow flowing lowland river with a wide unconfined valley and flood plain. The main River Finn tributaries are the Reelan, Stranagoppoge, Cummirk, Elathagh, Glasagh, Corlacky Burn, Creggaun Burn and the Burn Daurnett. The catchment, in its upper reaches, includes a number of lakes including Lough Finn, Lough Muck (North), Lough Muck (South) and Trusk Lough. The river is estimated to have a main stream length of circa 61.5km to its confluence with the River Mourne and a catchment area of 499km2. The catchment elevation range from 674mOD (Blue Stacks) to circa 2mOD at Lifford Bridge.

The River Finn is a cSAC (Code 002301) The River Finn candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) comprises almost the entire freshwater element of the Finn and its tributaries. The site is a candidate SAC selected for active blanket bog, lowland oligotrophic lakes, wet heath and transition mires all habitats listed on Annex I of the E.U. Habitats Directive. The site is also selected for the following species listed on Annex II of the same directive – Atlantic Salmon and Otter. The Finn system is one of Ireland‟s premier salmon waters. The river channel and floodplain area at the proposed bridge crossing point is within the designated area.

At the proposed Road Crossing Site the cSAC boundary extends out across the floodplain on the northern bank and floodplain and is shown to finish at the River bank on the southern side and not to extend out across the floodplain area.

Catchment Characteristics and River Flow The following table defines the River Finn‟s principal catchment characteristics at its confluence with the River Mourne:

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/75 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Table 7.5.3 River Finn’s Catchment Characteristics

Name River Finn River Basin Irish Northwestern (River Foyle) Hydrometric Area, HA 01 Catchment Area, Km2 499 Main Stream Length, km 61.7 Average Main Channel Gradient m/km 3.02 Winter Rainfall Acceptance Potential 0.41 (pre-dominant soil types 2,3 &5) (WRAP) Soil Co-efficient Stream Frequency (Number of Stream 2.04 Junctions per Km2) Annual Average Rainfall (period 1971- 1770 (OPW Gauge Station 1042 at Dreenan, 2000), mm area = 349km2), Effective Lake Catchment Area, Km2 24.8

Flood Flow The River Finn‟s 1 in 100 year flood flow for this study has been estimated using the above catchment characteristics and the Flood Study Report (FSR) 6-variable equation for ungauged catchments (Irish). The following table summarises the calculated flows:

Table 7.5.4 River Finn’s 100 year event flood flows

Flood Event Flood Flow m3/s Qbar x 1% AEP Growth Factor = 100 year 357.3 100 year (including standard factorial error (F.E.) of 1.47) 525.3 100 year including climate change (C.C.) factor of 20% 428.8 100 year including F.E. and C.C. 630.3

Mean and Low Flow The low flow data reported for the River Finn (taken from the EPA Hydrometrics database) at the Dreenan (Stranorlar) OPW River Gauge (catchment area of 349km2 or 70% of overall catchment) is 6.1m3/s median flow, 0.33m3/s Dry Weather Flow (DWF) and 0.42m3/s 95 percentile (%ile) flow.

Gauged flow data is not available for the proposed bridge crossing site. The effective low flow at the proposed site would be expected to be influenced by the tide and cannot be directly calculated; however, using the Ballybofey and Dreenan flow mean to low flow statistics, the flow data for the River Finn at the subject site (499km2) can be estimated as being in the order of 0.45 m3/s and 0.35m3/s for the DWF and 95%ile flows respectively.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/76 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

GENERAL STATION DETAILS St Name: Ballybofey Station No: 01043 Watercourse: Finn NGR: H 134 946 Area (km2): 319 Catchment: Finn Gauge Type: AR Datum: Poolbeg

SUMMARY HYDROMETRIC STATISTICS Annual Average Rainfall (mm)1: 1748 Est'd Annual Losses (mm)1: 447 Mean Annual Flow (m3/s): 12.974 (Data derived for the period 1972 to 2005)

DURATION PERCENTILES Flows equalled or exceeded for the given percentage of time (m 3/s)

(Data derived for the period 1972 to 2005) 1% 5% 10% 50% 80% 90% 95% 99% 71.8 47.8 34.2 6.73 2.33 1.35 0.98 0.54 Levels equalled or exceeded for the given percentage of time (mAOD Poolbeg) (Data derived for the period 1972 to 2004) 1% 5% 10% 50% 80% 90% 95% 99% 18.95 18.15 17.86 17.14 16.55 16.33 16.22 16.13

GENERAL STATION DETAILS Station Name: Dreenan Station No: 01042 Watercourse: Finn NGR: H 152 945 Area (km2): 353 Catchment: Finn Gauge Type: L/AR Datum: Poolbeg

SUMMARY HYDROMETRIC STATISTICS Annual Average Rainfall (mm)1: 1713 Est'd Annual Losses (mm)1: 447 Mean Annual Flow (m3/s): 8.1755 (Data derived for the period 1972 to 2003)

DURATION PERCENTILES Flows equalled or exceeded for the given percentage of time (m 3/s) (Data derived for the period 1972 to 2003) 1% 5% 10% 50% 80% 90% 95% 99% 27.2 22.9 19.4 6.1 2.03 1.19 0.75 0.18 Levels equalled or exceeded for the given percentage of time (mAOD Poolbeg) (Data derived for the period 1972 to 2004) 1% 5% 10% 50% 80% 90% 95% 99% 16.88 15.63 15.26 14.72 14.53 14.48 14.44 14.36 Plate 7.5.3: OPW Hydrometric Web Site Information

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/77 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Water Quality Information The River water quality upstream of the proposed bridge at Castlefin Bridge (less than 4km u/s) has a reported Q-value of 3 – 4 or slightly polluted transitional effects and has a River risk score of “at risk of not achieving good status”. There is a UWWTP located circa 2km upstream of the proposed bridge site at Churchtown which may deteriorate the water quality further. The Lifford Wastewater Treatment Plant is located downstream of Lifford Bridge.

There is very little data available on the quality of groundwater within the Study area. Based on information from the Water Framework Directive the groundwater‟s chemical and quantitative status is classified as Good. However this classification is based on limited sampling data and the quality is likely to vary due to the localised nature of the groundwater sources.

Flood Levels at Proposed Crossing Point Mouchel–Ireland Water, as part of the A5 Western Transport Corridor (WTC) study, have produced river models for the River Finn / River Foyle estuary using Mike21 2D Hydraulic Software. Mouchel provided ROD with the predicted maximum water levels in the River Finn flood plain at the proposed bridge site under existing conditions for the following combined scenarios:

Table 7.5.5 Maximum Water levels at proposed bridge site – Mouchel- Ireland Water

Level, AOD Scenario – Existing channel no bridge crossing Malin 1 in 5 yr fluvial and 1 in 200 yr tidal (Foyle) 5.59 1 in 100 yr fluvial & 1 in 2yr tidal (Foyle) 6.61 1 in 100 yr including climate change allowance & 1 in 2yr tidal (Foyle) 7.03

Based on these flood levels ROD developed a localised model of the river channel in HEC-RAS in order to size the proposed bridge in accordance with the requirement of the OPW and NI Rivers Agency.

The River Finn main channel width at the bridge site is circa 50m, while the top water width across River Finn flood plain for the 1 in 100yr +CC is estimated at circa 400m, with a maximum depth of circa 6.6m in the main channel. The proposed bridge works will, in effect reduce the flood top water width to 275m. The results of a preliminary analysis undertaken by ROD/HydroEnvironmetal as part of this study on the affect of the proposed bridge works on the effective channel cross-section and average flow velocities and the outputs are presented below:

Table 7.5.6 Preliminary Analysis of Proposed Bridge Effective Flow Area

Pre-Bridge Works Post-Bridge Works Calculate Flood Calculated Flood Flood Flood %change d Average Headloss Xsect Average Headloss, Event Flow Xsect 2 2 in flow 3 2 Velocity 1v /2g, m Area Velocity 1v /2g, m m /s Area m 2 area # m/s m m/s 100 year 357.3 1222.3 0.292 0.004 1014.6 0.352 0.006 83% 100 year 525.3 1222.3 0.430 0.009 1014.6 0.518 0.014 83% +FE

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/78 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Pre-Bridge Works Post-Bridge Works Calculate Flood Calculated Flood Flood Flood %change d Average Headloss Xsect Average Headloss, Event Flow Xsect 2 2 in flow 3 2 Velocity 1v /2g, m Area Velocity 1v /2g, m m /s Area m 2 area # m/s m m/s 100year + 428.8 1375.5 0.312 0.005 1125.3 0.381 0.007 82% CC 100year 630.3 1375.5 0.458 0.011 1125.3 0.560 0.016 82% +CC+FE Note: # = relative to the pre-bridge works water levels

This analysis concludes that the apparent effect of the flood top flow width reduction is expected to be minimal and that the mean flood flow velocity at the proposed bridge cross-section is estimated to be 0.56m/s. However, the flow velocities would be expected to be higher during peak flood events at low tide when the potential hydraulic gradient would be at their maximum.

Given that the proposed link road crossing of the Finn is influenced by tide and fluvial events, a combined 200year event is generally adopted for the design and impact assessment of Bridge Structures. Mouchel Consulting Engineers who have developed a 2D dynamic model of the River Finn, Mourne and Foyle System have included the proposed bridge structure in the overall model. ROD requested that the model be run with a 200year fluvial Flood event in combination with a 3year return period tide curve (i.e. representing the 200year combined flood event). Preliminary results from the Mouchel model verified the results of the localised ROD model demonstrating that the impact of the proposed bridge is negligible in terms of increase flood levels and afflux associated with the bridge structure.

7.5.5 Impact Assessment General Road projects given their scale and nature have significant potential for causing impact to the hydrological environment both during their construction and on-going operation and consequently require careful planning and detailed assessment to ensure the best solution is attained.

Surface Hydrology Interference with river, streams and flood plains at road crossing points, requirement for correct sizing of bridges and culverts; Removal of flood storage as a result of the Roadway footprint; Diversion of water between drainage basins; Interference with local drainage, relocation, discontinuation and combination of existing land drains; Increase in runoff characteristics (due to impervious road pavement area and increased transmission time and point loading) resulting in a possible increase in the overall flood peak magnitude and flooding frequency in the receiving stream; Water quality impact on receiving streams from routine highway runoff (heavy metals, organics, nutrients, hydrocarbons, suspended solids, coliforms, etc) and from accidental spillages (agricultural, oil/chemical spillages, bulk liquid cement).

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/79 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Groundwater Hydrology Dewatering (Local drawdown) of the aquifer at road cutting sections giving rise to potential water supply implications for nearby groundwater supply sources; Interference with preferential subterranean flow paths in fissured bedrock aquifers, possible structural collapse of subterranean conduits and possible blockage/infill of subterranean drainage paths, springs or swallow holes; Local flooding implications at road drainage outfall points if discharging directly to groundwater via soakaways/infiltration fields; Impact on aquifer recharge areas due to the impervious pavement preventing infiltration; Water quality impact from road drainage waters, linear (along road side via swales or French drains) and point (at drainage outfalls, soakaways/infiltration fields). Impact from accidental spillages of hazardous materials (fuel oils, liquid cement, agricultural wastes, chemical spills).

Constructional Impacts Physical interference of streams at crossing points through the installation of temporary culverts and roadways; Water quality impacts on surface and groundwaters, from sediment-laden runoff during construction, runoff from spoil heaps and soil erosion of newly formed earthworks slopes. Accidental spillage of fuel oils.

The individual importance of these attributes has been then assessed with respect to their quality, extent / scale and rarity (Table 7.5.8).

Table 7.5.8 Criteria for rating site attributes

Importance Criteria Extremely High Attribute has a high quality or value on an international scale Very High Attribute has a high quality or value on a regional or national scale High Attribute has a high quality or value on a local scale Medium Attribute has a medium quality or value on a local scale Low Attribute has a low quality or value on a local scale

Impacts are categorised as one of 3 types: Direct Impact – where the existing hydrological environment along or in close proximity to the proposed road alignment is altered, in whole or in part, as a consequence of road construction and / or operation; Indirect Impact – where the hydrological environment beyond the proposed road corridor is altered by activities related to road construction and / or operation; No Predicted Impact – where the proposed road alignment has neither a negative nor a positive impact on the hydrological environment.

The EPA document „Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements)‟ further expands the type of the impact with respect to the following criteria: Cumulative Impact – where the combination of many minor impacts creates one, larger, more significant impact;

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/80 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Potential Impact – which is the impact of the proposed development before mitigation measures are fully established; Worst-case Impact – which is the impact of the proposed development should mitigation measures substantially fail to fulfil their intended function; Residual Impact – which is the final or designed impact which results after proposed mitigation measures have fully established.

An appraisal on the duration of the impact can be made over the construction and operation phases of the road scheme: Temporary – construction-related and lasting less than one year Short-term – lasting one to 7 years Medium-term – lasting between 7 to 15 years Long-term – lasting 15 to 60 years Permanent – lasting over 60 years

The NRA guidelines also define the impact significance level relative to the attribute importance (Table 7.5.9).

Table 7.5.9: Criteria for rating impact significance

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

The magnitude of impacts is defined in accordance with the criteria provided in the EPA publication „Guidelines on the Information to be Contained in Environmental Impact Statements‟ (Table 7.5.10).

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/81 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Table 7.5.10: Rating of significant environmental impacts

Importance Magnitude of Impact of Attribute Negligible Small Moderate Large Extremely Imperceptible Significant Profound Profound High Significant / Profound / Very High Imperceptible Profound Moderate Significant Significant / Severe High Imperceptible Moderate / Slight Moderate /Significant Medium Imperceptible Slight Moderate Significant Low Imperceptible Imperceptible Slight Slight / Moderate

The NRA criteria for rating impact significance have been used to assess actual and potential changes to hydrogeological criteria (Table 7.5.11).

Table 7.5.11: Estimation of magnitude of impact on hydrogeology attributes

Magnitude Criteria Typical Examples of Impact Large Results in loss of Removal of large proportion of aquifer Adverse attribute and / or Changes to aquifer or unsaturated zone resulting quality and integrity in extensive change to existing water supply of attribute springs and wells, river baseflow or ecosystems Potential high risk of pollution to groundwater from routine run-off1 Calculated risk of serious pollution incident >2% annually2 Moderate Results in impact on Removal of moderate proportion of aquifer Adverse integrity of attribute Changes to aquifer or unsaturated zone resulting or loss of part of in moderate change to existing water supply attribute springs and wells, river baseflow or ecosystems Potential medium risk of pollution to groundwater from routine run-off Calculated risk of serious pollution incident >1% annually Small Results in minor Removal of small proportion of aquifer Adverse impact on integrity of Changes to aquifer or unsaturated zone resulting attribute or loss of in minor change to water supply springs and small part of attribute wells, river baseflow or ecosystems Potential low risk of pollution to groundwater from routine run-off1 Calculated risk of serious pollution incident >0.5% annually2 Negligible Results in an impact Calculated risk of serious pollution incident <0.5% on attribute but of annually2 insufficient magnitude to affect either use or integrity

Notes: 1 Assessed using Method C Annex I of HA216/06 2 Assessed using Method D Annex I of HA216/06

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/82 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

N14/N15 to A5 Link - Operational Impacts This assessment of hydrological impacts for the proposed road and bridge scheme has been based on the analysis and interpretation of the data acquired during the Constraints Study and Route Corridor Selection phases, as well as site specific investigations undertaken as part of the EIA, including the ecological study, intrusive site investigation, agricultural survey, topographical survey and hydrological walkover and surveys. The procedure follows guidelines established by the NRA in its „Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes‟.

Key hydrological attributes have been identified along the proposed road and bridge alignment including: The proposed bridge is located within the River Finn Special Area of Conservation (SAC Ref 002301). The River Finn is a designated Salmonid river and is noted as one of Ireland‟s premier salmon waters; Ecologically sensitive surface water features and catchment systems, fishery streams either locally or downstream, as indicated in the ecological section of the report; The proposed road crossing of the River Finn traverses an active (i.e. conveying) floodplain area; There are no key hydrogeological features associated with the Study Area.

Impact of River Finn Bridge Crossing The proposed road bridge crossing of the River Finn channel and flood plain consists of 178m of embankments / existing high ground on the river bank and 287m of a clear span bridge consisting of 7 No. piers (refer Figure 3.5, Volume 2). Flood mapping indicates that the proposed A5 roundabout at the Strabane end will involve infill works within the River Finn flood plain area.

It is proposed to provide 7 no. intermediate supports; however, no supports will be situated within the channel of the River Finn. Due to the poor ground conditions expected within the floodplains, it is considered that the intermediate supports will be piled. It is proposed to support each pair of girders on a separate pier and therefore, 3 reinforced concrete piers will be provided at each intermediate support. The proposed crossing is aligned perpendicular to the floodplain representing the optimum and shortest distance of alignment.

The River Finn main channel width at the bridge site is circa 50m, while the top water width across River Finn flood plain for the 1 in 100yr +CC is estimated at circa 400m, with a maximum depth of circa 6.6m in the main channel. The proposed bridge works will, in effect, reduce the flood top water width to 275m representing a significant narrowing of the floodplain. A check on the potential narrowing of the floodplain has been undertaken by Mouchel using their 2-D MIKE21 Hydraulic model. Mouchel included the proposed bridge and undertook a model run under a 200yr combined flood event (i.e. the 200year fluvial Flood event with 3year return period tide curve). The Mouchel model demonstrated that the proposed bridge structure and approach embankments have an almost negligible impact on flood levels under the flow conditions analysed.

A preliminary assessment presented in Table 7.5.6 examining the reduction in floodplain cross-section area has shown that at the design flood condition the proposed road crossing with associated approach embankments, abutments and pier

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/83 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

centres reduces the available flow area by approximately 18%. The impact of an 18% reduction in cross section area on upstream afflux is small due to the relatively low flood velocities at the site (i.e. mean velocity < 0.5m/s) at c. 2cm assuming streamlined pier and aligned abutments.

Note: The Rivers Agency of Northern Ireland have stipulated that the proposed soffit of the bridge deck is set above a minimum of 7.56mOD. However the proposed Deck Level is c. 9.8m O.D. and thus ensuring a low flood risk with the bridge deck elevated by over 2m above the 100year flood level.

The proposed River Finn Crossing represents an encroachment in to the floodplain with a total reduction in 100year cross-sectional area of 18%.

The crossing represents a loss of floodplain area and storage. The Floodplain storage lost as a result of the cross is negligible in respect to the scale of flood flows in the River Finn.

Flood Risk The predicted designed flood level at the bridge crossing site is 6.73m O.D. Malin based on combined 100year fluvial and tide event and includes for climate change allowance. The Minimum Road level is 9.8m O.D. which is just over 3m above the flood level and thus considered to be have a good level of protection from flooding. The minimum bridge soffit level is set at least 1m above the design flood level and thus suitably designed to allow flood debris to pass under the structure.

Diversions of Existing Watercourses Given the existing topography along the route of the proposed road there is limited impact on existing watercourses. Two minor field ditches (chainage 180 and 220) will be required to be diverted as they pass under the proposed bridge alignment. It is proposed that the ditches will be diverted parallel to the bridge alignment down to the existing ditch which currently receives the discharge from these ditches.

Culverts Only one minor culvert is required to facilitate future access to the bridge.

Storm Water Disposal For the scheme, 2 outfalls have been identified: For the bridge deck, roundabout and Link road the runoff will outfall into the River Finn Floodplain system at Approximately Ch 310 (southern bank) (refer to Figure 3.8, Volume 2); For the 2 approach roads to the roundabout (realigned existing N15) the carriageway runoff will be similar to that of the existing road and will outfall into the existing drainage system along that road.

The principal pollutants of road runoff fall into one of the following categories: Sediments Hydrocarbons Metals

These pollutants are normally transported as fine sediments within the road runoff. Sediment acts as a coagulant or a transport medium for other pollutant materials such as heavy metals and hydrocarbons which attached onto the sediment surface.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/84 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Pollution control is to be provided at the proposed outfall through a combination of measures namely the use of flow attenuation in open ditches, petrol interceptors and Gully Traps. These arrangements will be designed to facilitate the sedimentation process so as to minimise the routine runoff pollution load to acceptable levels based on the 95-percentile low flow within the river.

The road drainage outfall, to be located near Ch 310, may have an impact in one of two ways, namely: In terms of quantity and the ability of the receiving water to accommodate this outflow without causing additional flooding. In terms of its quality and the effect this may have on the receiving water quality.

The Surface water drainage from the carriageway paved surface, grassed margins and embankment slopes could impact on the water quality and aquatic ecology of the receiving waters of the River Finn either as a result of ongoing routine runoff discharges or as a result of a serious spillage incident. Given the sensitive nature of the River Finn as a candidate SAC and designated Salmonid water such an Outfall in the unmitigated case, without the inclusion of water quality improvement measures, represents a potential moderate adverse impact to Water Quality.

Given the scale of the Flood Flows in the River Finn, its catchment area and floodplain extent, storm discharge from the Link Road will not have a perceptible impact of flood flows in the receiving water and thus will not require mitigation such as Stormwater attenuation.

Accidental Spillage The risk assessment for pollution impact arising from accidental spillages has been undertaken based on 10% HGV, 12000AADT and 0.6km of single carriageway, 0.5km of dual carriageway and 2 No. Roundabouts the estimated serious pollution risk is less than 1% and thus well within the 1 in 100 year target recommended in the DMRB.

Constructional Related Impacts Given the close proximity of the Construction works to the Finn River Channel and its floodplain system potential constructional impacts may arise relating to: Release of sediment into water course as a result of earthworks activities (topsoil stripping, embankment earthworks, etc.) Spillage of Fuels, lubricants and cement

Given the International importance of the River Finn System and its cSAC status any such impacts on water quality are considered to represent a temporary moderate adverse impact and therefore construction site water quality mitigation measures are recommended.

7.5.6 Mitigation Measures Operational Related Mitigation – Hydrology and Hydrogeology The proposed Bridge option is a viaduct carried on 7 piers and thus minimises the footprint within the floodplain and designated cSAC area. The design ensures no Pier support or abutments encroaching the Main Channel area with the centre span set at 63m.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/85 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

The predicted design Flood level (combined 200 year with Climate change) for the bridge crossing site is 6.73m O.D. Malin. The proposed minimum Bridge Soffit level is set above the 100year with climate change design flood level plus in excess of 1m freeboard clearance.

The minimum Deck surface level is set at 9.8m O.D> which is 3m above the Design Flood level and thus ensures that the risk of flooding is classified as Low probability.

The Flood impact of the proposed bridge viaduct option is found to be negligible and thus no additional Mitigation is proposed.

The alignment of the bridge and piers is perpendicular to the flow direction and therefore is aligned thus minimising potential for local scour of river bank and floodplain area.

At the various Pier Sites there is a potential for localised scour around the pier. This may require minor localised toe protection in the form of providing a sufficient depth of burial to the foundation head and the use of reno mattress.

Storm Outfall Discharge In order to minimise the potential water quality impact to the River Finn from storm water discharges the following is recommended: Closed drainage system used to control and direct all runoff through treatment area (i.e. petrol interceptor) prior to discharging to River Finn System. Outfall of discharge to Floodplain ditch or swale to avoid direct discharge to the River Finn and therefore avail of additional settlement within the floodplain prior to reaching the main channel. Provision of silt traps, oil/petrol interceptor and spillage facility upstream of the outfall are required and will be located above the Design Flood level. Further water quality treatment will be provided by discharging to lined open ditches or swales prior to outfalling to the main river channel. Provision of cut-off facility on outlet from settlement area so as to be able to contain runoff water in the event of a serious spillage. Provision of treatment facilities if located within the flood plain area may result in a loss of floodplain and flood storage and may have a residual flood risk.

Hydrogeology There are no significant hydrogeological impacts associated with the proposed Scheme and thus no specific mitigation measures are proposed.

Construction Phase Mitigation Careful site management of earthworks involving the use of silt fences and bunding adjacent to the Floodplain and within the floodplain at proposed pier locations. A double silt fence should shall be run along the River Bank at the proposed bridge crossing and extended downstream and upstream to avoid direct runoff of sediment. Careful management of concrete during piling pier construction works as per CIRIA C532 - Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites – Guidance for Consultants and Contractors.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/86 Roughan & O‟Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Site Compounds etc should be located out of the Floodplain area and above the 100year design flood level. No in channel works should be carried out within River Finn channel and mitigation measures relating to restrictions on working distances from the channel, the provision of temporary barriers to prevent direct migration of sediments and soils will ensure that any such impacts on surface water quality would be short term and either slight or Neutral in degree of impact.

Residual Impacts The proposed Bridge Crossing will result in encroachment into the Floodplain area based on the predicted combined 200 year Fluvial and tidal flood level and consequently will contract locally the floodplain flow so as to pass under the bridge via-duct structure and between the supporting bridge piers. The overall effect on flooding is minor to imperceptible.

The impact of the structure on scour velocities is very localised around the pier bases and has an overall imperceptible impact on the sediment regime in the Finn and downstream Foyle river system.

A Storm Outfall will discharge to the Finn Floodplain and thus represents a source of pollution risk to the Finn from accidental spillage on the link road. This risk has been minimised through provision of petrol interceptor and water quality detention in a wide collecting liner wetland ditch which will be fitted with a headwall and sluice valve to retain a spillage should the need arise .

There are no adverse Residual impacts to Hydrogeology identified from this scheme.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/87 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

7.6 Soils and Geology

7.6.1 Introduction This chapter outlines the soils and geology of the proposed route, depicting the existing ground conditions and the consequent impacts of the development, with appropriate mitigation measures recommended where necessary. This includes the bedrock and soil types and details of soft or unstable ground, which may affect the proposed structure and approach roads.

7.6.2 Methodology The assessment and interpretation of existing ground condition has been based on a desk study of available published information, site reconnaissance and a review of the field logs and reports from the preliminary site investigations.

Sources of Information The following available published information was reviewed: Geological Survey of Ireland, Bedrock Solid Geology Maps, 2010 Geological Survey of Ireland, Draft Aquifer Maps, 2010 Geological Survey of Ireland, Draft Vulnerability Maps, 2010 Geological Survey of Ireland, Karst Features Database, 2010 Geological Survey of Ireland, Draft Quaternary Maps, 2010 Geological Survey of Ireland, Groundwater Wells Database, 2010 EPA, Local Authority landfill sites in Ireland 1995-1997 Geological Survey of Ireland, Directory of active quarries, pits and mines in Ireland, 2001 Aerial photographs of the study area

The review of published information was supported by a review and interpretation of the following specific ground investigation reports: Final Geotechnical Interpretive Report for the N14 Manorcunningham to Lifford/Strabane Scheme written by Mott MacDonald Pettit Ltd. December 2008 Draft/Final Borehole and Trial Pit logs as part of the Preliminary Site Investigation performed by ESG/Soil Mechanics Ltd. during November 2010 and January 2011 Draft/Final Geophysical Survey as part of the Preliminary Site Investigation performed by Apex Geoservices Ltd. during November 2010 Draft/Final Borehole, Cone Penetrometer and Trial Pit logs as part of the Detailed Site Investigation performed by Glovers Site Investigations Ltd. during March and October 2010

The locations of the appropriate geophysical surveying, cable percussion and rotary open-hole boreholes, cone penetrometers, dynamic probes and trial pits are shown in Figure 7.9, Volume 2.

7.6.3 Existing Environment Regional Geomorphology The general geomorphology of the wider region is influenced by bedrock geology as the Rivers Finn, Deele, Mourne and consequently the Foyle follow several structural features caused by faulting, volcanic and later glacial activities.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/88 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

The study area itself includes various soils; glacial tills, glaciofluvial, alluvial and organic deposits associated with the River Finn.

Bedrock The area surrounding Lifford is founded on Ballymore and Croaghan limestone formations. The depth to bedrock, its quality and strength are important if it is to support a large bridge structure.

The majority of the study area itself is founded in the Lough Foyle Succession, primarily that of the Claudy formation which consists of psammites/pebbly grit/quartzite/marble/schist. There exists several fault lines around this that cross the study area in a south-west to north-east direction and converge close to Lifford. Therefore rock type and level in this region varies significantly.

Site investigation results for the location of the proposed link did not reach solid bedrock within the confines of the river and its flood plain. Based on the geophysical survey and the depths explored by drilling, it is at depths greater than 40m to 45m. This is beyond the capabilities of the standard drilling equipment used so far where sands and gravels are present. In very dense granular deposits it can be difficult to maintain sufficient pressure at the drilling head so blowing of sands leads to termination of drilling without proving rock.

Rhyolite, quartzite and phyllite of the Claudy Formation were drilled and tested during a previous investigation for the N14 Manorcunningham to Lifford/Strabane Scheme. Rock testing results on quartzite/phyllite and marble in the area showed that the majority has unconfined compressive strengths of 60MN/m2 or less, but occasional results of up to 300MN/m2 were encountered.

Highly weathered to medium strong psammite and pelite rocks were encountered at between 11m and 14m BGL further away from the river on the NI side on the far side of the roundabout.

A summary of the bedrock units along the proposed route starting at Chainage 000 is shown in Table 7.6.1.

Table 7.6.1: Geological Bedrock Formations Period Formation Rock Types Excavat- Cutting Aquifer Map ability Stability Potential Symbol (where used) Dalradian Argyll Lifford Volcaniclastic Generally Generally PI – Poor DGlv Group Volcanic green beds rippable stable Generally Member Unproductive Dalradian Claudy Psammite, Generally Generally PI – Poor CY Southern Formation pebbly grit, rippable stable Generally Highland Group quartzite, Unproductive marble

Bedrock Aquifers The hydrogeology of the bedrock aquifers is assessed in Chapter 7.5. In general the bedrock is poorly productive except for local zones.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/89 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Soils Information on the subsoil/quaternary geology of the study area has been obtained from the GSI and EPA websites and from site investigations.

The following overburden types have been identified within the flood plain or on its approaches: Made Ground Peat Alluvium (undifferentiated) Glaciofluvial Sands/Gravels Glaciofluvial Clays/Silts Glacial Til

A geologic profile depicting the depth and thickness of these deposits relative to existing ground level is shown in Figure 7.10, Volume 2. The soils, water strikes and the proposed construction levels are also indicated.

Glacial Deposits Glacial deposits range from typical till such as sandy gravelly clay to fluvioglacial sands and gravels. These deposits do not pose a problem for road construction and for engineering purposes these deposits can be divided into glacial till (fine grained) and glacial till (coarse grained).

Glacial Till (Fine Grained) Fine grained glacial tills dominate much of the near surface soils along the proposed route as it approaches the flood plain. The depth of the fine grained till is generally up to 1.0m to 3.2m.

The geotechnical properties of Irish glacial tills are well documented (Hanrahan, 1997). These soils are generally well graded, variable with gravel lenses, with an absence of clay minerals. The clay fraction (rock flour) typically amounts to about 15% and fines fraction (clay and silt) is about 30 to 40%. The glacial tills are generally over-consolidated and therefore possess low compressibility. These soils are usually firm to stiff, however due to their low plasticity, they are very susceptible to softening and deterioration in wet weather, especially if heavily trafficked. When the clayey tills are kept dry, they present relatively little difficulty to road construction.

Along the approach embankment, sampling and laboratory testing of this soil determined it to be firm or firm to stiff with natural moisture contents of between 7% and 16%, or slightly higher at the base of topsoil. Several samples were determined to be non-plastic.

Glacial Till (Coarse Grained) Gravel materials do not present problems for road construction, provided the alignment is kept above the water table. Generally, gravels provide good formation for pavement construction and are generally suitable for reuse. Water bearing sand and silt layers, where encountered, can be problematic. Where present under more recent soft or loose deposits, gravels can provide adequate resistance for pile foundation supports.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/90 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

The depth to this stratum is observed to vary highly across the site, from 27.5m to 29.0m BGL at BH6/BH3 (riverbank), 8.0m to 9.3m BGL in BH7/BH4 (floodplain) and between ground level and 3.2m BGL in BH5/BH8 (outside flood plain).

In-situ test readings of the SPT ‘N’-value reported glacial coarse grained soils to be medium dense to dense deposits of between N = 15 and N = 50 at depths ranging from 2m to 37m BGL.

Glacio-Fluvial Sediments Glacio-fluvial deposits are present throughout the majority of the soils underlying the flood plain, with sands and gravels to depths of greater than 43.0m in the midst of further alluvial soils. Where considerable thickness of these silts/clays is present, properties may be similar to fine grained alluvial deposits as discussed below, but with slight over consolidation.

Alluvial Deposits More recent deposits include sands and gravels similar to the glacio-fluvial deposits but also alluvial silts and clays, which may be organic or peaty in places, historically accumulating by deposition from the River Finn during flood events and evident as soft ground. Construction in soft ground may be difficult due to the presence of groundwater and the limited bearing capacity of these soils to accommodate surcharge loading. As the proposed structure spans the width of the river and its flood plain, the majority of the structure is underlain by these soils.

Coarse Grained Alluvium Coarse grained alluvial deposits typically consist of loose to medium dense sands and gravels. Gradings are normally tighter and with more rounded particles.

In-situ test readings of the SPT ‘N’-value reported alluvial coarse grained soils to be loose to medium dense deposits of between N = 5 and N = 16 at depths ranging from 4m to 27m BGL.

Fine Grained Alluvium These deposits are typically high plasticity silts and clays and may have an amount of organic content. They typically consist of normally or slightly over consolidated silt and clays. Casagrande classification of the A-line Atterberg limits indicate silty soils of high to extreme compressibility. Natural moisture contents are in the range of 30% to 200%. The majority of readings over 70% were from samples present in the top 5 metres.

Engineering design of road embankments and structures through soft ground, although not desirable, is generally feasible where soil thicknesses are modest. Without removal, any construction bearing directly onto the ground above the very soft/soft alluvium would experience significant settlements in both the short and long term. In this case, it is evident that piled load transfer platforms and piling to structures are required. There are implications on construction sequence, programme and cost to achieve this, as well as increased environmental impacts.

Peat These deposits are typically high plasticity organic silts and clays with very high moisture contents. They are normally consolidated and susceptible to very high deformation due to loading, as well as considerable secondary settlements.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/91 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Made Ground Made ground occurs frequently as a result of various human activities and patterns. Given the layout of the site it is apparent that the majority of made ground has been related to the profiling of the river banks, the opening of drains for agricultural access and the raising of ground levels associated with soil and general construction waste disposal from site development. This is most evident in locations on the site where construction will form part of the A5 project works, including the roundabout to which the viaduct and approach embankment are to tie-in.

Contaminated Lands No areas of contaminated land are currently known on the site. There is an area to the south of the site on the Co. Tyrone side where the Stabane Borough Recycling Centre operates. This is a regulated facility with skips and appropriate maintenance measures. This is referred to in the A5 WTC Environmental Statement, Chapter 12 ‘Geology and Soils’ as a potentially contaminated site (reference no. 11 ‘Area of Waste Deposition’). Neither the construction nor operation of the N14/N15 to A5 Link will have any impact on this site.

No licensed landfill sites are apparent in the EPA/DOENI mapping near the route or within the wider study area.

Unstable Ground The presence of unstable ground has not been identified in any of the natural or man-made soil slopes along the proposed route. This is more relevant to construction in soft ground against man-made slopes and may require compound slopes or extra measures to construct a compatible tie-in. It is sufficient to leave such issues until detailed design stage.

Economic Geology Economic geology does not seem to be frequent in the wider region, let alone in the study area. Two nearby locations at Edenmore on the northern side of Lifford contained deposits of brick-clay and it is possible that similar deposits could be present nearby. The impact of sterilising such deposits is negligible since permission to abstract quantities of materials from sensitive environments would be unlikely, if such deposits were present at all.

Geological Heritage Sites There are no County Geological Heritage Sites along the proposed route.

Summary of Existing Environment Made ground and soft ground cover a significant portion of the alignment. The full depth of soft or loose alluvial soils varies up to 29m at its deepest in the flood plain on the Donegal side. Dense granular soils are frequently present below this depth. Depth to rock has not been proven under the majority of the site.

7.6.4 Impacts of Development on Existing Environment The existing environment, as discovered during investigation of the above baseline information, indicates a route of natural amenity which has essentially remained unaffected by human developments due to the frequent flooding and soft ground conditions present.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/92 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

Alignment Profile and Embankment Construction Due to the existing topography of the river and its floodplain, the approaches to the structure result in an overall requirement for embankment construction.

Earthworks Balance and Import Requirements Construction of embankments throughout the majority of the route, aside from locations with limited excavation requirements, leads to an overall net deficit in materials for the project and an import requirement of 19,700m3 allowing for topsoil strip and including pavement construction materials.

The adverse environmental impacts of importing such volumes to the site will be small adverse depending on the distribution of locations suitable for sourcing general construction fill such as cohesive or granular soils.

The plant movements associated with these shall also cause significant temporary adverse impacts, creating noise and raising dust.

Excavation, Replacement and Disposal of Soft Soils Locations with soft soils may require isolated excavation and replacement with general fill or granular soils where excavation below the water table is required. In general this has been avoided by the provision of a viaduct structure to span the flood plain. Although this is designated as excavations for structures, minor volumes of soft soil may need to be excavated and replace, with a net increase in earthworks quantities of the order of 2,000 m3. Any excavated soils can be stored and reused on-site.

The overall impact of excavating these extra soils and transporting the replacement soil to site are negligible compared to the impact already stated above.

Construction Temporary Access Working Platforms & Piling The soft deposits over the flood plain are too soft for safe access from construction plant without provision of adequately designed access tracks with geotextile reinforcement and granular fill. These will be constructed on top of existing topsoil and minor vegetation. The maintenance of this load in place during construction would result in settlements of the order of up to 0.5m depending on the fill height. Given the nature of the ground and existence of drainage features in similar locations, the impacts of these platforms and their settlements are negligible and shall return to the previous condition shortly after construction.

These access working platforms shall be used for piling plant to drive supports for other construction plant including cranes into the ground. Due to the soil and groundwater conditions, driven displacement piles are the only pile type considered feasible. This may result in temporary negative impacts due to vibrations (refer Section 7.3).

Excavation, Replacement and Disposal or Remediation of Made Ground and Contaminated Soils Where made ground/contaminated soils are present and which require remediation or removal, construction will potentially have adverse effects on existing soils and groundwater unless appropriate measures and techniques are implemented. Where such measures are implemented properly, it will result in a slight to moderate net beneficial impact. The potential negative impacts of this are negligible by comparison

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/93 Roughan & O’Donovan N14/N15 to A5 Link Consulting Engineers Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1

with the volumes present in the A5 WTC construction project. Should this project proceed in advance, the impact shall be negligible.

7.6.5 Mitigation Measures Recommended to Protect Environment To mitigate the above environmental impacts the following measures can be implemented: The granular fill for temporary access platforms shall be compatible with the geochemistry of the alluvial soils, which are generally acidic. Calcareous rock fill or aggregates should not be employed. Granular fill may be left in-situ or removed following construction depending on settlements caused and any potential short term disturbance. Monitoring of groundwater installations to be undertaken at construction stage. A geotextile screen and boom with oil barrier will be required around works to prevent runoff, silt, oil or other deposits generated by such construction activities from polluting the river. Any remediation measures to be implemented on the made ground should be coordinated during the A5 construction project, if suitable.

7.6.6 Residual Impacts No significant residual impacts of soils or geology is anticipated as a result of the development.

Ref: 10.152 July 2011 Page 7/94