The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2560400 - F.I. Received Doc. - Flood Risk Assessment Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan M02218-04_FR01 | August 2026 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 [PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan i August 2026 DOCUMENT CONTROL Document Filename M02218-04_FR01 CLONES WIND FARM_RFI_FRA REV 01 Document Reference M02218-04_FR01 Title Flood Risk Assessment Applicant Art Generation Ltd Project Manager Kyle Somerville Author(s) Lydia Johnston Branch DUBLIN Unit 12, The BEaT Centre, Stephenstown Industrial Estate, Balbriggan T: +353 (0)1 5138963 | W: www.mccloyconsulting.ie REVISION HISTORY Rev Date Prep Chk App Amendments Reason for Issue 00 03/04/2026 LJ DKS DKS Original For Information 01 12/08/2026 AS DKS DKS Layout Update For Information DISTRIBUTION Recipient Revision 00 01 02 03 04 05 FILE ✓ Mable ✓ RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan ii August 2026 DISCLAIMER This document has been prepared solely as a Flood Risk Assessment for Art Generation Ltd at the instruction of the party named in this document control sheet. McCloy Consulting Ireland Ltd accepts no responsibility or liability for any use that is made of this document other than for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared, including by any third party. The contents and format of this report are subject to copyright owned by McCloy Consulting Ireland Ltd save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by McCloy Consulting Ireland Ltd under licence. McCloy Consulting Ireland Ltd own the copyright in this report, and it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. SUSTAINABILITY As an environmental consultancy, McCloy Consulting Ireland Ltd takes its responsibility seriously to try to operate in a sustainable way. As part of this, we try to maintain a paperless office and will only provide printed copies of reports and drawings where specifically requested to do so. We encourage end users of this document to think twice before printing a hard copy – please consider whether a digital copy would suffice. If printing is unavoidable, please consider double-sided printing. This report (excluding appendices) contains 55 pages of text, which is equivalent to a carbon footprint of approximately 231 g CO2 when printed single-sided. MAPPING DISCLAIMER Maps and figures in this report include OpenStreetMap background mapping licensed under the Open Data Commons Open Database Licence (ODbL) by the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). ' OpenStreetMap contributors and ' 2023 Microsoft Bing Aerial Mapping. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan iii August 2026 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY ....................................................................................................... 1 1.3 PURPOSE .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.4 APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 1 1.4.1 Method of Assessment ................................................................................................... 1 1.4.2 Planning Guidelines ....................................................................................................... 2 2 SITE AND PROPOSAL DETAILS ............................................................................................................................4 2.1 SITE LOCATION ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 SITE AREA CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Topography .................................................................................................................. 4 2.2.3 Hydrology and Watercourses ......................................................................................... 5 2.2.4 Ground Conditions ........................................................................................................ 6 2.3 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ........................................................................................................ 8 2.4 VULNERABILITY CLASSIFICATION .................................................................................................. 8 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 10 3.1 STATUTORY BODY FLOOD MAPPING ........................................................................................... 10 3.2 INTERNET / MEDIA BACKGROUND SEARCH ................................................................................... 10 3.3 OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS ....................................................................................................... 10 3.3.1 Past Flood Events ......................................................................................................... 10 3.3.2 National Indicative Fluvial Mapping ............................................................................. 10 3.4 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF IRELAND .............................................................................................. 11 3.5 SITE VISIT ........................................................................................................................... 13 4 ASSESSMENT OF FLOOD MECHANISMS ......................................................................................................... 14 4.1 INITIAL ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................................. 14 4.2 FLUVIAL FLOODING ............................................................................................................... 15 4.2.1 Preamble .................................................................................................................... 15 4.2.2 Present Day Flood Zones .............................................................................................. 15 4.2.3 Effect of Climate Change ............................................................................................. 19 4.2.4 Effect of Development .................................................................................................. 21 4.2.5 Residual Risk of Culvert Blockage ................................................................................ 23 4.3 PLUVIAL FLOODING ............................................................................................................... 24 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 25 5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 25 5.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT - SEQUENTIAL APPROACH AND JUSTIFICATION TEST ..................................... 25 5.3 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................ 0 5.3.1 Access / Egress ............................................................................................................. 0 5.3.2 Design Levels ................................................................................................................ 0 5.3.3 Watercourse Crossings .................................................................................................. 1 5.3.4 Other Works .................................................................................................................. 1 5.3.5 Drainage Design ........................................................................................................... 1 5.4 MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................... 2 5.4.1 Drainage System Maintenance ....................................................................................... 2 5.4.2 Watercourse Maintenance.............................................................................................. 2 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan iv August 2026 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1: VULNERABILITY CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................................... 9 TABLE 4.1: INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF POSSIBLE FLOODING MECHANISMS ................................................................. 14 TABLE 5.3: DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT JUSTIFICATION TEST ............................................................................. 0 TABLE 5.1: RECOMMENDED MINIMUM DESIGN LEVELS ....................................................................................... 0 TABLE 5.2: WATERCOURSE CROSSING DESIGN CONSTRAINTS ............................................................................... 1 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2.1: SITE CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................ 4 FIGURE 2.2: STUDY AREA TOPOGRAPHY [25M DTM] ........................................................................................ 5 FIGURE 2.3: WATERCOURSES ...................................................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 2.4: GSI QUATERNARY SEDIMENTS ..................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 3.1: OPW PAST FLOOD EVENT MAPPING (FLOODINFO.IE) ........................................................................ 10 FIGURE 3.2: NIFM PRESENT DAY FLUVIAL FLOOD EXTENTS ............................................................................... 11 FIGURE 3.3: NIFM CLIMATE CHANGE (MRFS) FLUVIAL FLOOD EXTENTS ............................................................... 11 FIGURE 3.4: GSI WINTER 2015 / 2016 SURFACE WATER FLOOD EXTENTS ........................................................... 13 FIGURE 4.1: FLOOD ZONES ...................................................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 4.2: 1% AEP PD FLOOD LEVELS...................................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 4.3: 0.1% AEP PD FLOOD LEVELS ................................................................................................... 18 FIGURE 4.4: 1% AEP + CC MRFS FLOOD LEVELS .......................................................................................... 20 FIGURE 4.5: 0.1% AEP + CC HEFS FLOOD LEVELS ....................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 4.6: EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT ON 1% AEP + CC MRFS FLOODING .......................................................... 23 APPENDICES APPENDIX A SITE DRAWINGS APPENDIX B CORRESPONDENCE APPENDIX C HYDRAULIC MODELLING APPENDIX D HYDROLOGICAL CALCULATIONS APPENDIX E SITE-SPECIFIC FLOOD MAPPING RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 1 August 2026 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Terms of Reference This Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was commissioned by Art Generation Ltd to inform and support a planning application for the proposed development known as Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan located within the townlands of Carney’s Island, Altartate Glebe, Legarhill and Clonavilla, County Monaghan. This report addresses queries raised in a request for Information (FI) by Monaghan County Council (MCC) dated 01 December 2025 for planning application reference 25/60400. 1.2 Statement of Authority This report and assessment have been prepared and reviewed by qualified professionals with appropriate experience in the fields of flood risk, drainage, hydrology, and hydraulic modelling studies. The key staff members involved in this project are as follows: • Joanna Poprawa BEng (Hons) MSc – Consultant Flood Analyst with experience in strategic and site- specific flood risk assessment in Ireland. • Lydia Johnston BEng (Hons) MIEI – Senior Engineer specialising in the fields of flood risk assessment and hydraulic modelling in Ireland and Northern Ireland. • Kyle Somerville BEng (Hons) CEng MIEI – Director and Chartered Engineer specialising in the fields of flood risk assessment, flood modelling, drainage and surface water management design. 1.3 Purpose This report is a Stage 3 (i.e., detailed site-specific) FRA in response to FI Item 2 which notes that OPW flood maps indicate that part of the application side is vulnerable to fluvial flooding. The FI subsequently references Section 15.22.8 of the Monaghan Couty Development Plan (CDP) 2025-2013, requesting an FRA to confirm that the development: • Will not be at risk of flooding • Will not exacerbate flooding in the immediate vicinity or wider area • Will not obstruct or impeded important flow paths • Will no result in residual risks to the area and/or development that cannot be managed to an acceptable level; demonstrating proposed management of any residual risks. This FRA is therefore undertaken to address the above requirements of MCC. Where the proposed access is required to cross a watercourse, the FRA demonstrates that a culvert can be installed that will comply with OPW Section 50 design requirements. 1.4 Approach to the Assessment 1.4.1 Method of Assessment The method of assessment applied complies with the Source-Pathway-Receptor model and provides a spatial assessment of flood risk to people, property, and the environment. Consideration has been given to the source and extent of all potential flood mechanisms, with a focus on fluvial flooding. A walkover survey was conducted by McCloy Consulting to investigate potential sources of flooding and to examine local water features. The OPW’s National Indicative Fluvial Mapping (NIFM) dataset includes flood extents for some watercourses in the vicinity of the site. However, indicative NIFM mapping has been deemed not suitable to assess project-specific flood risk. Therefore, hydraulic modelling has been undertaken by McCloy Consulting to gain a better understanding of flood risk to the site, determine more accurate floodplains and levels at the site and to assess the effects of the proposal. Detailed modelling is intended to supersede the NIFM mapping. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 2 August 2026 An in-house model of the River Finn network was developed by McCloy for MCC to inform plans to the Ulster Canal Greenway (UCG), a project which is distinct from the present wind farm proposal. This River Finn model has been subject to review by MCC staff and was therefore utilised as the downstream condition for the site-specific modelling undertaken for the proposal. The proposal is in no way contingent upon the UCG. 1.4.2 Planning Guidelines 1.4.2.1 OPW and Industry Guidance The requirements for FRAs are generally as set out in the OPW’s The Planning System and Flood Risk Management – Guidelines for Planning Authorities published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in November 2009 (hereafter referred to as the ‘OPW Guidelines’). The OPW Guidelines are supplemented by Departmental Circular PL 2/2014 issued by the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government on 13th August 2014, which relates to the use of OPW flood mapping in the assessment of planning applications and provides clarifications of advice contained within the OPW Guidelines. Further guidance is also provided in the OPW’s Climate Change Sectoral Adaptation Plan published in September 2019 and CIRIA Research Project 624 Development and Flood Risk: Guidance for the Construction Industry. 1.4.2.2 County Development Plan Policy objectives applicable to the site are set out in the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 (CDP); those relevant to this assessment are as follows: • SSO 22 - To apply the precautionary principle in relation to development on lands identified as being at risk of flooding and to restrict development to uses that are compatible to the level of flood risk unless supported by a site-specific flood risk assessment and development management justification test • FRMO 1 - To fully implement and support, in conjunction with the Office of Public Works, the provisions of the EU Flood Risk Directive, The Flood Risk Regulations, The Planning System and Flood Risk Management - Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009) and any new or updated/subsequent versions issued during this plan period. • FRMO 3 – To have regard to the Strategic flood Risk Assessment for County Monaghan and any new or updated/subsequent versions during the lifetime of this plan. • FRMO 4 - To protect rivers, streams, riparian corridors, flood plains and wetlands from inappropriate development which will contribute to increased flood risk. • FRMP 2 - Where a Justification Test applies, it must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning authority that the flood risk can be adequately managed, and that the use and the development of the lands will not cause unacceptable impacts elsewhere. • FRMP 4 - Where only a small proportion of a site is at risk of flooding, the sequential approach shall be applied in site planning, in order to seek to ensure that no encroachment onto or loss of the flood plain occurs and/or that only water compatible development such as Open Space would be permitted for the lands which are identified as being at risk of flooding within that site. • FRP 1 - Proposals for developments shall comply with Section 15.22.8 of the CDP, which is summarised as follows: An SSFRA is required for development proposals in flood risk areas, as per OPW Planning Guidelines. The Monaghan SFRA provides design requirements. An SSFRA shall include mitigation measures to remove / minimise flood effects upon the proposed development and shall demonstrate that the proposed development will not exacerbate flood risk in the wider area. 1.4.2.3 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment The Monaghan Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) provides detailed requirements for SSFRAs (Stage 3) which are applicable to this assessment and are summarised as follows: • Hydrological and hydraulic model assessment (including climate change and culvert blockage. • Proposed mitigation measures. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 3 August 2026 • Application of the Sequential Approach and Justification Test where required for development in flood risk areas. The SFRA adopts the same ‘Flood Zone’ standard as OPW Guidance: • Flood Zone A – where the probability of flooding from rivers and the sea is highest (greater than 1% or 1 in 100 for river flooding or 0.5% or 1 in 200 for coastal flooding). • Flood Zone B – where the probability of flooding from rivers and the sea is moderate (between 0.1% or 1 in 1000 and 1% or 1 in 100 for river flooding and between 0.1% or 1 in 1000 year and 0.5% or 1 in 200 for coastal flooding). • Flood Zone C – where the probability of flooding from rivers and the sea is low (less than 0.1% or 1 in 1000 for both river and coastal flooding). The OPW Guidelines specify that Flood Zones should be derived from ‘present day’ hydrological estimates without taking account of flood defences, and that proposed developments should be designed to be resilient to the effects of climate change. Regarding flood risk mitigation, section 6.5 of the SFRA stipulates the following: • Climate change allowances of +20% and +30% for the Mid-Range Future Scenario (MRFS) and High- End Future Scenario (HEFS) respectively are to be adopted, assessing HEFS for highly vulnerable and MRFS for less vulnerable development. • Culvert blockages of a minimum of 50% should be assessed in proximity to the site. • Design levels are set out based on the following vulnerability classifications: Highly Vulnerable Greater of: • 0.1% AEP (present day / Flood Zone B) flood level + 500mm freeboard • 0.1% AEP HEFS CC flood level + 250mm freeboard Less Vulnerable Greater of: • 1% AEP (present day / Flood Zone A) flood level + 500mm freeboard • 1% AEP MRFS CC flood level + 250mm freeboard • Access should be within Flood Zone C where achievable. • Impacts of displaced flood waters elsewhere require flood compensatory storage. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 4 August 2026 2 SITE AND PROPOSAL DETAILS 2.1 Site Location The site located in a rural area to the east of Clones, Co. Monaghan as shown in Figure 2.1. The proposed wind turbine location is surrounded by undeveloped green areas and forestry. The N54 national road runs to the north of the site, at a distance of over 500 m from the site boundary. Access to the site is to be provided from the R183 regional road located to the south, where a new entrance and access lane is proposed. Figure 2.1: Site Context 2.2 Site Area Characteristics 2.2.1 Existing Land Use The site currently comprises undeveloped rural land. 2.2.2 Topography Error! Reference source not found. shows the topography of the site, where the main wind turbine development elements are to be located on higher ground, with the access entrance at the R183 Road located at lower elevations. Surrounding lands generally comprise undulating terrain, with low ground following the local watercourse corridors. Clones Project Boundary R183 Road RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 5 August 2026 Figure 2.2: Study Area Topography [25m DTM] 2.2.3 Hydrology and Watercourses In the vicinity of the site, Figure 2.3 includes watercourses identified according to EPA and OPW datasets. A northern tributary, the Legarhill Watercourse, traverses the site’s access route to the west of the proposed wind turbine location. Visit to the site confirmed that an existing culvert is in place along this tributary reach where it traverses the site’s access route. As such, no new culverting will be required for the proposal to cross the northern tributary leg of the Legarhill Watercourse. Close to the proposed site access entrance at the R138 Road, the access lane also traverses the Legarhill / Altartate Watercourse. The location of the proposed access crossing is at a point of existing open channel, requiring a new structure to facilitate the new access lane. This will be addressed in detail in the following sections of this report. Figure 2.3 includes a correction of watercourse route south of the main site where site observations and survey found a flow route different from the EPA dataset. Bishops Lough is located south of the site within the catchment of the Legarhill / Altartate Watercourse. The River Finn flows south of the site in a generally north eastern to south western direction. The watercourses and tributaries at the site discharge to the River Finn at the confluence south west of the site. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 6 August 2026 Figure 2.3: Watercourses 2.2.4 Ground Conditions Ground conditions relevant to assessment of flood risk and a drainage strategy have been established based on a combination of Geological Survey Ireland (GSI) and Teagasc national soils data, as well as site observations. River Finn Legarhill Altartate Legarhill Confluence with River Finn Bishop’s Lough RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 7 August 2026 shows an extract from the Geological Survey Ireland (GSI) Quaternary Sediments layer. As shown, the majority of the Project area is underlain by ‘Till derived from limestone’ (light blue) and ‘Cut over raised peat” (light brown) with relatively small areas of ‘Alluvium in the west A review of GSI data did not identify any karst features within the study area. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 8 August 2026 Figure 2.4: GSI Quaternary Sediments 2.3 Development Proposals This assessment pertains to the development described as follows: The development will consist of the construction of a Single Turbine Wind Farm development on a 7.64- hectare site consisting of:- a) A single 4.8-megawatt (MW) wind turbine with an overall tip height of 143.8 metres, comprising a rotor diameter of 133.2m and a hub height 78m;b) Wind turbine foundation, crane hardstanding and assembly area; c) Temporary Construction Compound; d) Upgrade of an existing field entrance to new wind farm site entrance; e) Upgrading and widening of existing access tracks; f)New access tracks; g) A new 10.5m clear span bridge crossing an existing stream; h) Demolition of the ruinous remains of two old stone buildings; i) An on-site 20kV electrical substation; j) Electrical and communication cabling within private lands; k) Underground 20kV grid connection within private lands and within the R183 public road connecting to the existing ESB Clones 38kV Substation; l) Tree felling, landscaping and reinstatement works; and m) All associated ancillary works. The operational lifespan of the development will be 35-years from the date of commissioning. This development is covered by the provisions of the Renewable Energy Directive III (Directive (EU) 2023/2413) and it is important to note that the planning application may be subject to section 34D of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. When a notice issues in accordance with section 34D(b), the provisions of article 26A of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 to 2025 shall apply at The site is located within the townlands of Carney’s Island, Altartate Glebe, Legarhill, and Clonavilla, County Monaghan. 2.4 Vulnerability Classification Table 2.1 shows the vulnerability classification for the Project, per the classification criteria set out in the OPW Guidelines. Till derived from the limestones Cut over raised peat Gravels derived from the limestones Alluvium Till derived from the Lower Paleozoic sandstones and shales RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 9 August 2026 Table 2.1: Vulnerability Classification Proposed Development Use Classification Substations, Wind Turbines Electricity Generation Highly Vulnerable Development Access Tracks Local Transport Infrastructure Less Vulnerable Development Grid Connection and Internal Cabling Below Ground Infrastructure N/A Not at risk of flooding RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 10 August 2026 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW 3.1 Statutory Body Flood Mapping Coverage of the CFRAM programme does not include detailed flood mapping for the study area. The flood mapping included within the Monaghan SFRA likewise does not provide detailed flood mapping for the site. 3.2 Internet / Media Background Search No evidence of past flooding at or in the vicinity of the site was found in a background search of online media, archived newspaper articles, etc. Local knowledge of the area including observations by 3rd parties to the planning application inform that the site’s access route crosses an area of known low lying land which is subject to flooding. 3.3 Office of Public Works 3.3.1 Past Flood Events OPW ‘Past Flood Event’ mapping indicates the approximate locations of past flood events and provides reports, photos, and press articles for recorded events. Local historic flood events are recorded in the vicinity of the site as shown in Figure 3.1. Flood records coincide with known flooding locations at low lying land at the site’s access entrance. Figure 3.1: OPW Past Flood Event Mapping (floodinfo.ie) 3.3.2 National Indicative Fluvial Mapping The OPW produced NIFM flood mapping for a range of present day and climate change scenarios for all catchments greater than 5 km2 that were not included in a CFRAM study. NIFM flood mapping was produced for water features in proximity to the site, indicating that parts of the site are affected by 1% AEP and 0.1% AEP fluvial flooding for both the present day and MRFS scenarios, as shown in Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.2: NIFM Present Day Fluvial Flood Extents FloodID 13366 Dated Flood at Clonavilla FloodID 3164 Altartate Glebe 2 Recurring RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 11 August 2026 respectively. Flood extents reach the site’s proposed access route adjacent to the R183 Road, the access lane north eastward of the entrance and the southern periphery of the main site footprint. Figure 3.2: NIFM Present Day Fluvial Flood Extents Figure 3.3: NIFM Climate Change (MRFS) Fluvial Flood Extents 3.4 Geological Survey of Ireland As shown in RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 12 August 2026 , GSI groundwater flood datasets indicate winter 2015 / 2016 surface water flooding in the vicinity of the site’s access entrance lane and adjacent to the southern edge of the main site footprint. These flood extents coincide with watercourse routes. Comparison of the below flood extents with those of the NIFM concludes that the GSI recorded surface water flood extent is more accurately assessed as fluvial from local watercourse features rather than surface water. GSI groundwater flooding probability mapping indicates no predicted or historic groundwater flood extents at the site. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 13 August 2026 Figure 3.4: GSI Winter 2015 / 2016 Surface Water Flood Extents 3.5 Site Visit A site was visited in March 2025 to examine local water features and to confirm the nature and locations of local structures. Details and measurements of the northern tributary leg of the Legarhill watercourse were taken where topographic survey was not available for this small feature which traverses the site’s access lane a short distance west from the main site footprint. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 14 August 2026 4 ASSESSMENT OF FLOOD MECHANISMS 4.1 Initial Assessment Table 4.1 presents an initial assessment of flooding mechanisms associated with the proposal that require further detailed assessment. It is based on the background information review presented in the previous section. Flooding mechanisms screened as being significant or potentially significant are assessed in detail in subsequent sections. Table 4.1: Initial Assessment of Possible Flooding Mechanisms Source / Pathway Significant? Reason Fluvial Flooding Yes OPW NIFM flood mapping indicates that the site is affected by fluvial flooding. Coastal Flooding No The site is not located in a coastal area. Urban Drainage Flooding No Given the rural location and topography of area, there is no indication of risk of urban drainage flooding / sewer incapacity. Pluvial / Surface Water Flooding No GSI surface water record is more accurately assessed as fluvial. Surface Water Discharge Yes Development proposal will introduce impermeable features and thereby increase the rate and volume of surface water runoff. Drainage Plan and discharge is addressed by others under separate cover. Groundwater Flooding No GSI groundwater flooding probability mapping indicates no predicted or historic groundwater flood extents at the site. Flooding from Artificial Sources No OSI mapping indicates that there are no impoundments, reservoirs, or canals in close proximity to, or which would drain towards the site. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 15 August 2026 4.2 Fluvial Flooding 4.2.1 Preamble The most significant flood risk to the site is fluvial flooding from the Legarhill watercourse which traverses the site’s access route, its tributaries as well as the downstream River Finn through backwater effects. The following assessment therefore seeks to consider fluvial flooding in detail in order to inform the development proposal in line with planning policy requirements. The OPW notes on use of the NIFM maps: “The maps only provide an indication of areas that may be prone to flooding. They are not necessarily locally accurate, and should not be used as the sole basis for defining the Flood Zones nor for making decisions on planning applications.” Therefore, a detailed site-specific hydraulic model was built using a linked 1D-2D approach in Innovyze InfoWorks ICM. The model is based on hydrology estimates from best available techniques, precautionary decision making and methodology consistent with and exceeding the detailed CFRAM model standards. In order to provide a more accurate assessment of flood risk, the modelling methodology utilises a detailed linked 1D-2D model based on site specific survey of watercourses and structures, site observation measurements and utilises best available DTM height data for the wider terrain and reaches. The modelling approach is summarised as follows: • The watercourses at the site have been modelled using a combination of detailed cross section survey data and site observation measurements. • Modelled reaches included: • The Legarhill watercourse which traverses the site’s access route close to the entrance at R183 Road. • The smaller tributary which traverses the site’s access route via an existing culvert west of the main site footprint. • Other tributaries to the River Finn to the west of the site, towards Clones. • The downstream River Finn was also included to ensure that back water effects to the site are accounted for. • The overland floodplain has been modelled as a 2D meshed ground model, to allow the accurate representation of out of bank flooding and the resulting overland flow routes. • Structures have been included in the model based on detailed survey information and site measurements. • Hydrological estimates were determined using best available Irish methodologies and precautionary decision making. Small catchment methods were adopted where appropriate for the smaller tributary subcatchments and the latest OPW FEMI spreadsheet was utilised for the development of growth curves and peak design flows and hydrographs for the large catchment of the River Finn. Details on the hydrology and hydraulic modelling are included at Appendix C. The model results summarised in this section are intended to supersede existing OPW NIFM flood mapping and are considered fit for the purpose of this site-specific assessment. 4.2.2 Present Day Flood Zones The main local flooding mechanism can be characterised as low velocity flooding spreading out at a generally static flood level across a wide area of low lying land to the north of the R183 Road. This results from a combination of flooding emanating from the Legarhill Watercourse, flowing from east to west in the vicinity of the site, with back water effects from the downstream River Finn (and other inflow tributaries) also impacting the area’s ability to drain down. Flood levels are primarily dictated by flood volumes of inflow hydrographs and the topography, rather than by structures or shallow overland flow routing. These modelling results are in keeping with local knowledge of flooding in the area, and with OPW’s historic flood record locations. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 16 August 2026 The modelled northern tributary was found to also produce an overland flooding mechanism, spreading out across low lying ground to the west of the main site. The cause was noted to be generally due to the inflow volume and local topography, with some contribution due to small dimension of the long piped section which traverses the site’s access route and the downstream Legarhill Watercourse flood levels. Figure 4.1 shows modelled flood extents overlaid with the proposed development layout linework. All highly vulnerable elements of the proposal, wind turbine and sub station etc., are located beyond the 1% AEP PD and 0.1% AEP PD floodplains, and is therefore satisfactorily located within Flood Zone C. The present day results shown below indicate that a portion of the site’s access route, adjacent to the R183 Road, is located within Flood Zones A and B. Figure 4.1: Flood Zones RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 17 August 2026 Flood depths and levels for the 1% AEP present-day scenario are presented on Figure 4.2. Predicted flood levels are summarised as follows: • 48.7m OD is the generally static flood level along the southern side of the site. • 53.15m OD is the flood level from the northern tributary which is applicable to the northern portion of the site. These flood levels will be applicable to the 500mm freeboard calculation for less vulnerable development, as will be discussed further in following sections of this report. Figure 4.2: 1% AEP PD Flood Levels RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 18 August 2026 Flood depths and levels for the 0.1% AEP present-day scenario are presented on Figure 4.3. Predicted flood levels are summarised as follows: • 48.80 – 48.81m OD is the generally static flood level along the southern side of the site. • 53.22m OD is the flood level applicable to flood risk from the northern side of the site. These flood levels will be applicable to the 500mm freeboard calculation for highly vulnerable development, again as will be discussed further in following sections of this report. Figure 4.3: 0.1% AEP PD Flood Levels RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 19 August 2026 4.2.3 Effect of Climate Change 4.2.3.1 Less Vulnerable Development Flood depths and levels for the 1% AEP + MRFS climate change scenario are presented on Figure 4.4. Flood extents for this Flood Zone A + climate change scenario do not reach the footprint of low vulnerability development, bar the proposed access crossing close to the R183 Road. Predicted flood levels are summarised as follows: • 48.77m OD is the generally static flood level along the southern side of the site. • 53.22m OD is the flood level applicable to flood risk from the northern side of the site. Given the limited effects of the MRFS scenario on 1% AEP flood levels, as per the Monaghan SFRA, the freeboard for less vulnerable development elements shall be 500mm from present day flood levels. Section 50 consent requirements stipulate that soffits for proposed watercourse crossings provide a 300mm freeboard to the flood level presented below. • 48.77m OD is the flood level at the location of the proposed access road crossing of the Legarhill Watercourse. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 20 August 2026 Figure 4.4: 1% AEP + CC MRFS Flood Levels RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 21 August 2026 4.2.3.2 Highly Vulnerable Development Flood depths and levels for the 0.1% AEP + HEFS climate change scenario are presented on Figure 4.5. Flood extents for this Flood Zone B + climate change scenario are observed to be minimal and do not reach the footprint of high vulnerability development elements of the wind turbine or substation. As per the Monaghan SFRA, given the limited effects of this high climate change scenario on 0.1% AEP flood levels, the freeboard for highly vulnerable development elements shall be 500mm from present day flood levels to produce precautionarily high minimum design levels. Figure 4.5: 0.1% AEP + CC HEFS Flood Levels 4.2.4 Effect of Development The majority of the proposed development, including all highly vulnerable elements is sited beyond Flood Zones A and B, within Flood Zone C, and will therefore have no impact of flood risk. Where the proposed access lane will cross the Legarhill Watercourse, and traverse Flood Zones A and B, consideration was given to design requirements for the access and its effects on local flood risk. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 22 August 2026 Plans submitted prior to preparation of this report indicate a clear span bridge at the location. The watercourse crossing when taking into account best practice guidance and hydraulic requirements will be a box-type structure with clear opening of minimum 3.9m wide and soffit level of min, 49.07m OD OD to meet OPW Section 50 requirements (+0.3m freeboard to upstream flood level 1% AEP MRFS 48.77 m). The finalised form of the opening (bridge with abutments and clear span deck, inverted U-shaped culvert or similar) does not affect the FRA outcome provided the minimum span and height criteria are met. In achieving ~0.7m+ structural cover to the proposed watercourse crossing (bridge or culvert) then proposed road levels will be raised out of the flood zone and will tie into existing higher ground levels beyond the floodplain, and will this ensure that the entire proposed access track is raised above the floodplain and dry access and egress will be provided for the proposal. 4.2.4.1 Proposed Scenario Modelling A proposed development model scenario was developed to represent introduction of the proposed watercourse crossing and elevated access lane through the floodplain, to verify that the development does not affect flooding at the site or elsewhere. Details are included at Appendix C. The proposed development scenario was tested for a range of hydrological scenarios, from the 1% AEP PD to 0.1% AEP + CC HEFS and results compared to the baseline results. Figure 4.6 shows results for the effect of development on the 1% AEP + CC MRFS scenario. There is no measurable effect on flood levels and no material change to flood extents predicted to result from the introduction of the proposed access through the floodplain. This was found to be the case for the full range of flood magnitudes and climate change allowances evaluated. Flooding characteristics, verified by flood modelling, is static flood storage. There is no significant conveyance mechanism under flood conditions. There is no technical justification for requirement of floodplain reprofiling requiring level for level floodplain compensation (which is typically a requirement where there is a stage-dependent conveyance effect). In relation to flood volume, the estimated volume of floodwater displaced by the raised access lane is less than 0.4% of the predicted volume of the well- defined floodplain cell adjacent to the development. The volume is negligible in the context of the floodplain adjacent to the site and there is no technical justification requiring volumetric floodplain reprofiling. Potential for an effect or a future cumulative effect caused by piecemeal encroachment of the floodplain is not significant given the rural nature of the site and lack of adjacent receptors. The Based on the above detailed examination, development of the proposed access will have no adverse effect on local flood risk at the site or elsewhere. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 23 August 2026 Figure 4.6: Effect of Development on 1% AEP + CC MRFS Flooding 4.2.5 Residual Risk of Culvert Blockage Given the proximity of local culvert structures along watercourses in the vicinity of the site, model scenarios were developed to assess the potential for increased flood risk in the event of blockages. This assessment was undertaken for the 1% AEP + CC MRFS scenario. Within the existing baseline model scenario, a blockage of 50% of the downstream R183 Road box profile culvert was modelled. This was found to produce only small peripheral changes to flood extents at the downstream side of the site, with no material change to flood risk at the proposed access crossing observed. A blockage of the northern tributary pipe which traverses the site was also assessed at 90% RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 24 August 2026 of the small pipe dimension. This was found to result in a slightly increased flood extent at the culvert’s inlet to the north of the site but did not result in inundation of the site’s boundary. For completeness, within the proposed model scenario, a 50% blockage was tested at the proposed access crossing. Results showed small peripheral increases to flood extents and water levels rises of up to 5mm within the overland floodplain immediately adjacent to the upstream face of the structure. No material changes to flood risk were observed in this instance. The lack of measurable changes resulting from culvert incapacity is consistent with the finding that flooding on and adjacent to the site is low velocity / static flood storage, rather than conveyance which would be dependent on structure capacity. Flood risk at the site is not sensitive to increased risk from potential culvert blockages and no further consideration of freeboards is required to address this residual risk. 4.3 Pluvial Flooding Mapped record by GSI of surface water flooding coincides with areas of fluvial flood risk and is therefore deemed more appropriately addressed by the above fluvial modelling and considerations. The proposed drainage plan has been undertaken by the project’s design team (Mable Consulting); drawings included at Appendix A. The proposed drainage strategy adopts a typical rural SuDS approach using cut-off drainage channels and buffered overland outfalls to ensure that existing overland pluvial paths will remain materially unchanged from the existing pre-development surface water runoff conditions. This is consistent with the SuDS aims of the Monaghan CDP to manage runoff close to source, protect water quality and avoid increased discharge to watercourses. Key SuDS measures include: • Use of permeable unbound gravel for track and cranepad makeup. The only impermeable areas will be the turbine base (likely mostly covered and reinstated over with gravel and topsoil), and the substation building / kiosk which is of small scale. • Clean and dirty water cut-off drains installed ahead of construction phase and remaining for the operational phase, intercepting hillside, track and hardstanding runoff, with check dams to lower velocities. • Silt ponds at downstream ends of cut-off drains providing storage and treatment of runoff for access track and substation, again for construction and operational phases. • Surface water collected via drains to be discharged via buffered outfalls and level spreader to diffuse pluvial water to sheet flow over vegetated ground, with no direct discharge to existing drains or streams. On this basis, pluvial flood risk arising from the development is effectively managed by the proposed SuDS elements incorporated into the drainage plan. No further surface water design or assessment is required. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 25 August 2026 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Summary of Findings This FRA has determined that fluvial flooding is the only potentially significant flood mechanism affecting the site. OPW NIFM flood data has been superseded by detailed hydraulic modelling undertaken by McCloy Consulting, indicating that the majority of the proposed development is within Flood Zone C. Low-lying areas in proximity to local watercourses are affected by Flood Zone A and Flood Zone B; a section of the site’s proposed access route adjacent to the R183 Road traverses the Legarhill Watercourse and its A and B Flood Zones. Detailed site-specific hydraulic modelling has demonstrated that the introduction of the proposed access route and watercourse structure within Flood Zones A and B will have no adverse effects on local flood risk. No other significant flood mechanisms are anticipated at the site. The below recommendations and planning considerations are undertaken in compliance with the Monaghan CDP relevant FRMO, FRMP and FRP policies and the Monaghan SFRA as referenced in Section 1.4.2. 5.2 Principle of Development - Sequential Approach and Justification Test All proposed highly vulnerable development (turbine and substation) are appropriately sited in Flood Zone C, in accordance with the OPW Guidelines and the Monaghan SFRA. Proposed access lanes are categorised as less vulnerable development. The proposed access necessarily traverses Flood Zones A and B where the entrance connects to the R183 Road. This element of less vulnerable development within Flood Zone A requires a Justification Test as follows overleaf: RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 0 August 2026 Table 5.1: Development Management Justification Test Part Item Response 1 The subject lands have been zoned or otherwise designated for the particular use or form of development in an operative plan, which has been adopted or varied taking account of these Guidelines. The proposal is located on rural lands beyond the settlement envelope of Clones town and therefore in an area beyond mapped zone designations of the Monaghan CDP 2025-20311. The Monaghan CDP does not include zoning for green infrastructure in rural areas but incorporates a clear strategic commitment to renewable energy and climate action in Chapter 8, including policy support for wind energy (8.2.6) and development-management standards for renewable energy development (15.17). Taken together with Draft Revised Wind Energy Development Guidelines (December 2019)2 (as referenced in the CDP) and climate policy, the CDP designates rural lands as suitable in principle for appropriately sited renewable energy infrastructure. In the absence of discrete zoning, the proposed single wind turbine on agricultural land is consistent with the operative development plan framework for renewable energy in rural areas. 2 The proposal has been subject to an FRA that demonstrates: The Project has been subject to a site-specific flood risk assessment (This report) 2 (i) The development proposed will not increase flood risk elsewhere, and, if practicable will reduce overall flood risk Through detailed site-specific hydraulic modelling, this FRA demonstrates that the proposal will not cause an increase in flood risk elsewhere. The estimated flood volume lost due to the proposed access lane is less than 0.4% of the predicted volume of the flood cell through which the proposed lane will traverse. This volume is considered to be hydrologically insignificant in the context of overall floodplain storage, conveyance and backwater effects from local downstream reaches. The modelling results confirmed that the very minimal loss of volume would result in no increase to local flood levels, no material change to flood extents and no alteration of existing flow routing mechanisms within and around the site. On this basis, the provision of compensatory flood storage would not deliver any tangible reduction in flood risk and is therefore not deemed necessary or proportionate in this instance. 1 https://monaghan.ie/planning/monaghan-county-development-plan-2025-2031-july25/ 2https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-housing-local-government-and-heritage/publications/wind-energy-development-guidelines-2006/ RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 1 August 2026 Part Item Response 2 (ii) The development proposal includes measures to minimise flood risk to people, property, the economy, and the environment as far as reasonably possible. All highly vulnerable / critical infrastructure is located in Flood Zone C (beyond Flood Zone B). The proposed access lane (less vulnerable) will likewise be sited at levels in Flood Zone C (beyond Flood Zone B). Design of the proposed access lane includes measures to ensure that the soffit of the watercourse crossing and the top surface of the access are resilient to predicted flood levels. As noted above, detailed modelling has demonstrated that are no adverse effects to local flood risk resulting from the proposal. The Drainage Plan (by others) shall ensure that surface water runoff will be attenuated to pre-development rate, thereby not increasing pluvial flood risk elsewhere. 2 (iii) The development proposed includes measures to ensure that residual risks to the area and / or development can be managed to an acceptable level as regards the adequacy of existing flood protection measures or the design, implementation and funding of any future flood risk management measures and provisions for emergency services access. All highly vulnerable / critical infrastructure is located outside the 0.1% AEP flood extents and incorporates suitable freeboards over and above the HEFS climate change horizon for the low probability flood event. Likewise, all low vulnerably development will be sited at design levels above the 1% AEP + MRFS CC scenario, the majority of which will also provide an additional freeboard to flood levels for this design flood event. Recommended design freeboards account for the minimal residual risks associated with the potential for blockages of local culverts. A Flood Management Plan (FMP) is not required as all built development levels shall be sited in Flood Zone C and dry access / egress will be available along the access lane to the R183 Road during flood events. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 2 August 2026 Part Item Response 2 (iv) The development proposed addresses the above in a manner that is also compatible with the achievement of wider planning objectives in relation to development of good urban design and vibrant active streetscapes. The proposed development is compatible with the achievement of wider planning objectives, particularly the transition to a low carbon, climate resilient rural economy. It aligns with the following: • The goal of Chapter 8 of the CDP to support renewable energy generation and diversification of the rural economy through provision of critical green infrastructure. • The CDP’s Renewable Energy Objectives (REO), particularly REO1, 3 and 4 which seek to facilitate appropriately sited renewable energy projects in order to secure renewable energy supplies. • The CDP’s goals for efficient use of rural land, promotion of farm diversification, delivery of socio - economic benefits and investment to rural areas, while maintaining the primary agricultural use of farm land. • Objectives of Monaghan’s Climate Action Plan 2024-2029 to transition to a climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by delivering renewable electricity generation. The design of the proposed wind farm development has been informed by principles of good environmental planning and aligns with the Monaghan CDP’s objectives to expand the county’s renewable energy capacity. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 0 August 2026 5.3 Design Requirements The following section details measures incorporated within the proposal submitted in support of the planning application, and to be further developed in any detailed design post-determination of the planning application. 5.3.1 Access / Egress OPW Guidelines recommend that access and egress for development should be sited in Flood Zone C (i.e., outside the 0.1% AEP fluvial floodplain / Flood Zone B). The following design constraints are applicable for the section of the proposed access which connects from the entrance at the R183 Road, traverses Flood Zones A and B and the Legarhill Watercourse and continues northward to higher ground: • Suitable freeboard for the soffit of the proposed access watercourse crossing. • Cover depth for the lane over the crossing structure (typical 0.8m minimum assumed). • Appropriate grading of the access from the entrance from the R183 Road to the watercourse crossing and continuing northward to higher ground beyond Flood Zones A and B. Therefore, the access route will necessarily be sited at levels above Flood Zone B and dry access / egress will be provided for the development that will be located at levels in Flood Zone C. 5.3.2 Design Levels Requirements for design levels for proposed development elements and consideration of residual risks are included on the below table. Table 5.2: Recommended Minimum Design Levels Proposed Development Flood Levels (m OD) and Scenario Freeboard (m) Min. Design Levels (m OD) Residual Risk Substations, Wind Turbines (Highly Vulnerable) 48.81 - southern 53.22 – northern (0.1% AEP PD) 0.5 49.31 – southern 53.72 - northern None. High vulnerable elements sited above recommend min. design level. Access Tracks (Less Vulnerable) 48.7 - southern 53.15 – northern (1% AEP PD) 0.5 49.2 – southern 53.65 – northern (above FZ B levels) Where portions of the proposed access lane are proposed at levels with less than 0.5m freeboard, residual risk is commercial and poses no risk to the general public. Watercourse Crossing 48.77 (1% AEP + CC MRFS) 0.3 (Section 50) 49.07 for soffit None. Soffit of crossing will provide required freeboard and typical road cover will site top surface levels at more than 0.5m freeboard to PD flood levels to satisfy above recommendations for less vulnerable access. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 1 August 2026 5.3.3 Watercourse Crossings The proposed access necessarily crosses the Legarhill Watercourse close to the entrance from the R183 Road. The crossing will be required to comply with OPW Section 50 guidelines, to provide free inlet conditions and freeboard to design flood levels and, as such, not be at risk of flooding and cause no increased flood risk elsewhere. The below table stipulates the minimum design level and dimension constraints for the proposed watercourse crossing to satisfy the requirements of planning and Section 50. The below constraints apply to a structure that could be provided by a box or clear span crossing. Table 5.3: Watercourse Crossing Design Constraints Bed IL (m OD) Min. Soffit for Freeboard (m OD) Min. Structure Opening Width (m) Min. Structure Opening Height (m) 46.67 49.07 3.9 2.4 The proposed watercourse crossing will be required to obtain OPW Section 50 consent, which is addressed by others. The proposed access track also traverses the northern tributary leg of the Legarhill Watercourse. Site visit confirmed that an existing culvert is in place where the proposed access crosses this reach of the watercourse (as shown at Figure 2.3). Therefore, no new culverting or watercourse modification is required to accommodate the proposal at the northern tributary Legarhill Watercourse. 5.3.4 Other Works While not considered above ground development, and therefore not subject to vulnerability classification constraints, underground cabling / grid connection does form part of the proposals. Once installed, the cables will be within underground impervious ducting and as such, protected from flood / water damage and not impacting any overland flow route or floodplain. However, to avoid flooding of electrical infrastructure installation and / or disturbance of existing floodplain and overland flow routes, phasing of underground cabling works should be cognisant of weather conditions and avoid work preceding and / or during a predicted flood event. 5.3.5 Drainage Design Surface water drainage design shall be in line with the requirements of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 and to the standards of Monaghan CC Water Services Department. The proposed drainage plan supplied by the project’s design team (included in Appendix A) incorporates SuDS elements to comply with the objectives of the Monaghan CDP, including water protection and surface water objectives WPO6 and SWDO1. As promoted by these objectives, suitable and proportionate SuDS elements for the rural proposal include cut-off drains with check dams, silt pods and buffered / level spreader overland outfalls. No discharge to streams or watercourses are proposed; surface water existing overland flow regimes are to be retained with diffused surface water discharges overland to vegetated ground, ensuring no material change from existing pre-development surface water runoff conditions. The approach of the proposed drainage plan is consistent with the SuDS aims of the Monaghan CDP to manage runoff close to source, protect water quality and avoid increased discharge to watercourses and is proportionate to the rural nature of the site. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 2 August 2026 5.4 Maintenance Requirements 5.4.1 Drainage System Maintenance The owner / occupier(s) of the development shall be responsible for maintenance of associated drainage networks and will ensure that maintenance of the drainage system is provided for. Detailed drainage layout is to ensure that key SuDS features requiring maintenance are located in accessible locations. Maintenance plans for drainage assets should include (where applicable): • Cyclical (min. annual) check of all surface water drainage features – in particular, clearing of debris. • Cyclical (min. annual) visual inspection of any surface or underground features – blockages and obstructions to be removed by jetting as required. 5.4.2 Watercourse Maintenance The owner / occupier(s) of the development shall be required to include general watercourse and culvert maintenance, which will reduce the risk of blockage at culverts / structures and maintain the capacity of the channels. The following measures are intended to inform any future maintenance programme for watercourses and culverts: • Maintenance should consist of removal of any items within the channel that can impede its flow including (small) trees, excess vegetation, etc. • Riverbanks should be due adequate attention which would normally consist of removal of brambles, bushes, and stiff vegetation; these reduce flow capacity and can encourage collection of debris increasing the risk of blockages. Grass and nettles do not always need removing as they will lay flat during high flows. • Weed growth should be removed from the centre of the channel as this will impede the flow and increase water levels up stream. Hand picking is best but cutting off under the water level is acceptable if it is done on an annual basis. • Build-up of silt in watercourse channels and at culvert inlets should be removed and disposed of appropriately. • Cyclical (minimum annual) visual inspection of culvert inlets and screens and removal of debris as required, ensuring debris removed is not deposited in an area likely to fall back into the channel. Where applicable, the owner / occupier(s) should allow appropriate access by the OPW for maintenance and Arterial Drainage works. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 3 August 2026 Appendix A Site Drawings RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 N NE E SE S SW W NW N LOCATION OF SITE NOTICE 01 COPYRIGHT AND OWNERSHIP OF THIS DRAWING IS VESTED IN MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS. NO PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR STORED IN ANY RETRIEVAL SYSTEM OF ANY NATURE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS AS COPYRIGHT HOLDER EXCEPT AS AGREED FOR USE ON THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THE DOCUMENT WAS ORIGINALLY ISSUED. © ALL RIGHT RESERVED BY THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT AND BY INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT CONVENTIONS ARE RESERVED TO MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS. © ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS REPRODUCED UNDER LICENCE No. CYAL50341056. © ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND / GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND. REV.DWG BY: APP/ CHK:DESCRIPTIONDATE:SCALE: JOB NO. DRAWN: DATE: DES. BY: CHK. BY: APP. BY: VC 08/01/24 BMG ER BMG DRG. NO. REV. 27790 100 P4 CLIENT: JOB TITLE: DRG. TITLE: Mable Consulting Engineers, 30 Drumcondra Road Upper, Drumcondra, Dublin 9 Tel: +353(01) 216 2956 Website: www.mable.ie Email: info@mable.ie PLANNING 1:2500 @ A0ART GENERATION LTD. CLONES WIND FARM Co. MONAGHAN SITE LOCATION MAP Ireland Northern Ireland Cork Dublin Dundalk Derry Belfast Waterford Wexford Galway Limerick Tralee Site Location LEGEND: SITE OUTLINED IN RED LAND IN APPLICANTS CONTROL OUTLINED IN BLUE NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METERS AND COORDINATES TO ITM GRID UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. ALL LEVELS ARE TO ORDINANCE SURVEY DATUM, MALIN HEAD, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 3. DRAWINGS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL RELEVANT PLANNING APPLICATION DOCUMENTS. 4. RED LINE BOUNDARY AREA: 7.64 Ha. MAP INFORMATION: 1. MAP SERIES: HISTORIC 6" LATEST EDITION MAP SHEETS: MN011, MN012, MN016, MN017 GROUND LEVEL AT STRUCTURES: RIGHT OF WAY / WAYLEAVE LOCATION OF SITE NOTICE 02 LOCATION OF SITE NOTICE 03 LOCATION OF SITE NOTICE 04 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 ANALORE ROAD Altartate Lough Táite na hAltórach Altartate Glebe Oileán Mhic Ceithearnaigh Carney's Island LEGARHILLANALORE ROAD ANALORE STREETANALORE ROAD 1002 2 1 5 1003 3 4 Altartate Lough ANALORE ROAD ANALORE ROAD NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METERS AND COORDINATES TO ITM GRID UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. ALL LEVELS ARE TO ORDINANCE SURVEY DATUM, MALIN HEAD, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 3. DRAWINGS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL RELEVANT PLANNING APPLICATION DOCUMENTS. 4. DRAINAGE ·ALL DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT MEASURES SHALL BE DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GREATER DUBLIN REGIONAL CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DRAINAGE WORKS INCORPORATING SUDS DESIGN PRINCIPLES. ·THERE WILL BE NO DIRECT DISCHARGE OF DEVELOPMENT SURFACE WATER TO EXISTING DRAINS AND STREAMS. ·CUT-OFF DRAINS ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN ADVANCE OF THE WORKS TO MANAGE SURFACE WATER RUN-OFF. ·CHECK DAMS ARE TO BE INSTALLED AT REGULAR INTERVALS IN CUT OFF DRAINS TO CONTROL FLOW VELOCITY. ·CONSTRUCTION PHASE RUNOFF FROM WORKS AREAS WILL BE DIRECTED CUT-OFF DRAINS, SILT PONDS AND BUFFERED OUTFALLS. ·SILT PONDS ARE TO BE USED TO INTERCEPT SURFACE WATER RUNOFF FROM WORKS AREAS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE AND WILL REMAIN IN PLACE TO HANDLE RUNOFF FROM ROAD AND SUBSTATION AREAS DURING THE OPERATIONAL PHASE. ·BUFFERED OUTFALLS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE OUTFALLS OF CUT OFF DRAINS AND SILT PONDS TO CONVERT CONCENTRATED FLOWS INTO DIFFUSE SHEET FLOW ON AREAS OF EXISTING VEGETATED GROUND. ·SILT FENCING WILL BE INSTALLED AROUND EXISTING DRAINAGE CHANNELS AND CONSTRUCTION STAGE CUT-OFF DRAINS. ·EXISTING DRAINAGE FLOW PATHS ARE NOT TO BE RE-ROUTED OR CHANGED. ·EXISTING OPEN DRAINS AND STREAMS ARE NOT TO BE ALTERED, DRAIN CROSSING PIPE DIAMETERS ARE TO BE TO LOCAL AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS. ·WATER QUALITY SAMPLING TO LOCAL AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS WILL BE CARRIED OUT DURING CONSTRUCTION WORKS. ·CROSSFALLS ON CONSTRUCTED ELEMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENT (TYPICALLY 1:25) TO AVOID PONDING OF SURFACE WATER. 5. LEVEL AT STRUCTURES: ·GROUND LEVEL AT TURBINE: 57m ·FINISHED FLOOR LEVEL OF SUBSTATION: 50m LEGEND: PROPOSED ACCESS TRACK AND HARDSTAND AREA XXm PROPOSED GROUND LEVEL EXISTING GROUND LEVEL EXISTING REGIONAL ROAD (R183) SITE OUTLINED IN RED TEMPORARY ACCESS TRACK FOR ABNORMAL LOADS XXm PROPOSED GRID ROUTE CLEAN WATER CUT OFF DRAIN DIRTY WATER CUT OFF DRAIN PROPOSED PIPED DRAIN (300mm Ø PIPE) PERMANENT DRAINAGE PROPOSED 900Ø DRAINAGE CROSSING PROPOSED HEDGEROW TEMPORARY STONED AREA EXISTING HEDGEROW INTERNAL CIRCUIT CABLE ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY ORANGE ROUTE OPTION ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY GREEN ROUTE OPTION ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY PURPLE ROUTE OPTION MAP INFORMATION: 1. MAP SERIES: 1:1000 1.1. MAP SHEETS: 1213-19 2. MAP SERIES: 1:2500 2.1. MAP SHEETS: 1213-D 3. MAP SERIES: 1:5000 3.1. MAP SHEETS: 1214 EXISTING WATERCOURSE EXISTING WATERCOURSE BUFFER TRACKSIDE DRAINAGE BERM SILT POND BUFFERED OUTFALL LEVEL SPREADER PERMANENT PIPED DRAIN 0.1% AEP (1 IN 1000 YEAR) FLUVIAL FLOOD EVENT NOTE: CALL-UPS OMITTED FOR CLARITY PURPOSES. N NE E SE S SW W NW N SITE LAYOUT MAP 'A' - DRAWING 102 SITE LAYOUT MAP 'B' - DRAWING 103 SITE LAYOUT MAP 'D' - DRAWING 105 SITE LAYOUT MAP 'C' - DRAWING 104 COPYRIGHT AND OWNERSHIP OF THIS DRAWING IS VESTED IN MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS. NO PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR STORED IN ANY RETRIEVAL SYSTEM OF ANY NATURE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS AS COPYRIGHT HOLDER EXCEPT AS AGREED FOR USE ON THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THE DOCUMENT WAS ORIGINALLY ISSUED. © ALL RIGHT RESERVED BY THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT AND BY INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT CONVENTIONS ARE RESERVED TO MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS. © ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS REPRODUCED UNDER LICENCE No. CYAL50341056. © ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND / GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND. REV.DWG BY: APP/ CHK:DESCRIPTIONDATE:SCALE: JOB NO. DRAWN: DATE: DES. BY: CHK. BY: APP. BY: VC 08/01/24 BMG ER BMG DRG. NO. REV. 27790 101 CLIENT: JOB TITLE: DRG. TITLE: Mable Consulting Engineers, 30 Drumcondra Road Upper, Drumcondra, Dublin 9 Tel: +353(01) 216 2956 Website: www.mable.ie Email: info@mable.ie PLANNING 1:2000 @ A0ART GENERATION LTD. CLONES WIND FARM Co. MONAGHAN SITE LAYOUT MAP - KEY PLAN P5 P5 MM ER FLOOD LINE UPDATED BASED ON FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT02/06/26 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 Oileán Mhic Ceithearnaigh Carney's Island 51.0m 52.0m52.0m 53.0m53.0m 5 4 . 0m 62.0m63.0m 55.0m60.0m 53.0m 54.0m56.0m 57.0m 58.0m 5 9 . 0m 61.0m 48.0m 48 . 0 m49.0m49.0m49.0m49.0m50.0m5 0 . 0m 50.0m51.0m52.0m53.0m53.0m54.0m54.0m55.0m 55.0m56.0m 56.0m57.0m 57.0m 58.0m 58.0m59.0m 59.0m60.0m 60.0m61.0m 61.0m62.0m 62.0m63.0m 63.0m64.0m 64.0m65.0m 65.0m66.0m 66.0m49.0m 50.0m 51.0m 52.0m 53.0m54.0m 54.0m 55.0m 56.0m 57.0m 58.0m 59.0m 60.0m826431652228 49.0m49.0m4 8 . 0 m 50.0m49.0m49.0 m 49.0m 49.0m49.0m49.0m 49.0m49.0m 49.0m48.0m4 8 . 0m 4 8 . 0m 4 8 . 0 m NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METERS AND COORDINATES TO ITM GRID UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. ALL LEVELS ARE TO ORDINANCE SURVEY DATUM, MALIN HEAD, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 3. DRAWINGS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL RELEVANT PLANNING APPLICATION DOCUMENTS. 4. DRAINAGE ·ALL DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT MEASURES SHALL BE DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GREATER DUBLIN REGIONAL CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DRAINAGE WORKS INCORPORATING SUDS DESIGN PRINCIPLES. ·THERE WILL BE NO DIRECT DISCHARGE OF DEVELOPMENT SURFACE WATER TO EXISTING DRAINS AND STREAMS. ·CUT-OFF DRAINS ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN ADVANCE OF THE WORKS TO MANAGE SURFACE WATER RUN-OFF. ·CHECK DAMS ARE TO BE INSTALLED AT REGULAR INTERVALS IN CUT OFF DRAINS TO CONTROL FLOW VELOCITY. ·CONSTRUCTION PHASE RUNOFF FROM WORKS AREAS WILL BE DIRECTED CUT-OFF DRAINS, SILT PONDS AND BUFFERED OUTFALLS. ·SILT PONDS ARE TO BE USED TO INTERCEPT SURFACE WATER RUNOFF FROM WORKS AREAS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE AND WILL REMAIN IN PLACE TO HANDLE RUNOFF FROM ROAD AND SUBSTATION AREAS DURING THE OPERATIONAL PHASE. ·BUFFERED OUTFALLS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE OUTFALLS OF CUT OFF DRAINS AND SILT PONDS TO CONVERT CONCENTRATED FLOWS INTO DIFFUSE SHEET FLOW ON AREAS OF EXISTING VEGETATED GROUND. ·SILT FENCING WILL BE INSTALLED AROUND EXISTING DRAINAGE CHANNELS AND CONSTRUCTION STAGE CUT-OFF DRAINS. ·EXISTING DRAINAGE FLOW PATHS ARE NOT TO BE RE-ROUTED OR CHANGED. ·EXISTING OPEN DRAINS AND STREAMS ARE NOT TO BE ALTERED, DRAIN CROSSING PIPE DIAMETERS ARE TO BE TO LOCAL AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS. ·WATER QUALITY SAMPLING TO LOCAL AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS WILL BE CARRIED OUT DURING CONSTRUCTION WORKS. ·CROSSFALLS ON CONSTRUCTED ELEMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENT (TYPICALLY 1:25) TO AVOID PONDING OF SURFACE WATER. 5. LEVEL AT STRUCTURES: ·GROUND LEVEL AT TURBINE: 57m ·FINISHED FLOOR LEVEL OF SUBSTATION: 50m LEGEND: PROPOSED ACCESS TRACK AND HARDSTAND AREA XXm PROPOSED GROUND LEVEL EXISTING GROUND LEVEL EXISTING REGIONAL ROAD (R183) SITE OUTLINED IN RED TEMPORARY ACCESS TRACK FOR ABNORMAL LOADS XXm UNDEGROUND 20KV GRID CONNECTION ROUTE CLEAN WATER CUT OFF DRAIN DIRTY WATER CUT OFF DRAIN SILT POND BUFFERED OUTFALL PROPOSED PIPED DRAIN (300mm Ø PIPE) PERMANENT DRAINAGE PROPOSED 900Ø DRAINAGE CROSSING PROPOSED HEDGEROW TEMPORARY STONED AREA LEVEL SPREADER EXISTING HEDGEROW INTERNAL CIRCUIT CABLE ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY ORANGE ROUTE OPTION ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY GREEN ROUTE OPTION ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY PURPLE ROUTE OPTION MAP INFORMATION: 1. MAP SERIES: 1:1000 1.1. MAP SHEETS: 1213-19 2. MAP SERIES: 1:2500 2.1. MAP SHEETS: 1213-D 3. MAP SERIES: 1:5000 3.1. MAP SHEETS: 1214 EXISTING WATERCOURSE EXISTING WATERCOURSE BUFFER TRACKSIDE DRAINAGE BERM PERMANENT PIPED DRAIN 0.1% AEP (1 IN 1000 YEAR) FLUVIAL FLOOD EVENT N NE E SE S SW W NW N TEMPORARY ACCESS TO BE REINSTATED AFTER DELIVERY OF TURBINE COMPONENTS 45m COPYRIGHT AND OWNERSHIP OF THIS DRAWING IS VESTED IN MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS. NO PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR STORED IN ANY RETRIEVAL SYSTEM OF ANY NATURE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS AS COPYRIGHT HOLDER EXCEPT AS AGREED FOR USE ON THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THE DOCUMENT WAS ORIGINALLY ISSUED. © ALL RIGHT RESERVED BY THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT AND BY INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT CONVENTIONS ARE RESERVED TO MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS. © ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS REPRODUCED UNDER LICENCE No. CYAL50341056. © ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND / GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND. REV.DWG BY: APP/ CHK:DESCRIPTIONDATE:SCALE: JOB NO. DRAWN: DATE: DES. BY: CHK. BY: APP. BY: VC 08/01/24 BMG ER BMG DRG. NO. 27790 102 P5 CLIENT: JOB TITLE: DRG. TITLE: Mable Consulting Engineers, 30 Drumcondra Road Upper, Drumcondra, Dublin 9 Tel: +353(01) 216 2956 Website: www.mable.ie Email: info@mable.ie PLANNING 1:500 @ A0ART GENERATION LTD. CLONES WIND FARM Co. MONAGHAN SITE LAYOUT MAP "A" PROPOSED WIND TURBINE TURBINE BLADE SWEPT PATH 66.5 m TEMPORARY TURBINE BLADE STORAGE AREA 12.5m TEMPORARY CRANE JIB ASSEMBLY AREA TEMPORARY CRANE JIB ASSEMBLY AREA PROPOSED TURBINE HARDSTAND 57m 57m 57m 58m 55m 53m 54m 50m 51m REV.8734 10 10 RUNE BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED 2724 579416 810510 PROPOSED 20kV SUBSTATION STOCK PROOF FENCE 54m BAT BUFFER ZONE TREES TO BE REMOVED IN THIS AREA RADIUS = 87m AREA = 8820m2 EPA REGISTERED STREAM CODE; IE_NW_36F010500 SEGMENT; 36_1273 NAME; LEGARHILL 30m45m5 10 ROUT E O F UL ST E R C A N AL 10 11258 2 NOTE: THERE WILL BE NO STORAGE OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL WITHIN THE FLOOD ZONE P5 MM ER FLOOD LINE UPDATED BASED ON FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT02/06/26 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 ANALORE ROADANALORE ROAD 49. 0 m 49.0m 49.0m 49.0m51 . 0 m 5 0 . 0m 49.0m 5 0 . 0m 52.0m50.0m 48. 0 m 49.0m 49.0m 50.0m 50.0m 50. 0 m 51.0m 50.0m 49.0m 51.0m 49.0m 48.0 m49.0m50.0m 51.0m48 . 0 m 48.0m 48.0m 49.0m49.0m49. 0 m 49.0m48.0m 52.0m 53.0m 54.0m 55.0m 56.0m 57.0m 58.0m 59.0m 60.0m 61.0m NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METERS AND COORDINATES TO ITM GRID UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. ALL LEVELS ARE TO ORDINANCE SURVEY DATUM, MALIN HEAD, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 3. DRAWINGS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL RELEVANT PLANNING APPLICATION DOCUMENTS. 4. DRAINAGE ·ALL DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT MEASURES SHALL BE DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GREATER DUBLIN REGIONAL CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DRAINAGE WORKS INCORPORATING SUDS DESIGN PRINCIPLES. ·THERE WILL BE NO DIRECT DISCHARGE OF DEVELOPMENT SURFACE WATER TO EXISTING DRAINS AND STREAMS. ·CUT-OFF DRAINS ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN ADVANCE OF THE WORKS TO MANAGE SURFACE WATER RUN-OFF. ·CHECK DAMS ARE TO BE INSTALLED AT REGULAR INTERVALS IN CUT OFF DRAINS TO CONTROL FLOW VELOCITY. ·CONSTRUCTION PHASE RUNOFF FROM WORKS AREAS WILL BE DIRECTED CUT-OFF DRAINS, SILT PONDS AND BUFFERED OUTFALLS. ·SILT PONDS ARE TO BE USED TO INTERCEPT SURFACE WATER RUNOFF FROM WORKS AREAS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE AND WILL REMAIN IN PLACE TO HANDLE RUNOFF FROM ROAD AND SUBSTATION AREAS DURING THE OPERATIONAL PHASE. ·BUFFERED OUTFALLS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE OUTFALLS OF CUT OFF DRAINS AND SILT PONDS TO CONVERT CONCENTRATED FLOWS INTO DIFFUSE SHEET FLOW ON AREAS OF EXISTING VEGETATED GROUND. ·SILT FENCING WILL BE INSTALLED AROUND EXISTING DRAINAGE CHANNELS AND CONSTRUCTION STAGE CUT-OFF DRAINS. ·EXISTING DRAINAGE FLOW PATHS ARE NOT TO BE RE-ROUTED OR CHANGED. ·EXISTING OPEN DRAINS AND STREAMS ARE NOT TO BE ALTERED, DRAIN CROSSING PIPE DIAMETERS ARE TO BE TO LOCAL AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS. ·WATER QUALITY SAMPLING TO LOCAL AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS WILL BE CARRIED OUT DURING CONSTRUCTION WORKS. ·CROSSFALLS ON CONSTRUCTED ELEMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENT (TYPICALLY 1:25) TO AVOID PONDING OF SURFACE WATER. 5. LEVEL AT STRUCTURES: ·GROUND LEVEL AT TURBINE: 57m ·FINISHED FLOOR LEVEL OF SUBSTATION: 50m LEGEND: PROPOSED ACCESS TRACK AND HARDSTAND AREA XXm PROPOSED GROUND LEVEL EXISTING GROUND LEVEL EXISTING REGIONAL ROAD (R183) SITE OUTLINED IN RED TEMPORARY ACCESS TRACK FOR ABNORMAL LOADS XXm UNDEGROUND 20KV GRID CONNECTION ROUTE CLEAN WATER CUT OFF DRAIN DIRTY WATER CUT OFF DRAIN SILT POND BUFFERED OUTFALL PROPOSED PIPED DRAIN (300mm Ø PIPE) PERMANENT DRAINAGE PROPOSED 900Ø DRAINAGE CROSSING PROPOSED HEDGEROW TEMPORARY STONED AREA LEVEL SPREADER EXISTING HEDGEROW INTERNAL CIRCUIT CABLE ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY ORANGE ROUTE OPTION ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY GREEN ROUTE OPTION ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY PURPLE ROUTE OPTION MAP INFORMATION: 1. MAP SERIES: 1:1000 1.1. MAP SHEETS: 1213-19 2. MAP SERIES: 1:2500 2.1. MAP SHEETS: 1213-D 3. MAP SERIES: 1:5000 3.1. MAP SHEETS: 1214 EXISTING WATERCOURSE EXISTING WATERCOURSE BUFFER TRACKSIDE DRAINAGE BERM PERMANENT PIPED DRAIN 0.1% AEP (1 IN 1000 YEAR) FLUVIAL FLOOD EVENT N NE E SE S SW W NW N TEMPORARY ACCESS TO BE REINSTATED AFTER DELIVERY OF TURBINE COMPONENTS 45 m COPYRIGHT AND OWNERSHIP OF THIS DRAWING IS VESTED IN MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS. NO PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR STORED IN ANY RETRIEVAL SYSTEM OF ANY NATURE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS AS COPYRIGHT HOLDER EXCEPT AS AGREED FOR USE ON THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THE DOCUMENT WAS ORIGINALLY ISSUED. © ALL RIGHT RESERVED BY THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT AND BY INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT CONVENTIONS ARE RESERVED TO MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS. © ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS REPRODUCED UNDER LICENCE No. CYAL50341056. © ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND / GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND. REV.DWG BY: APP/ CHK:DESCRIPTIONDATE:SCALE: JOB NO. DRAWN: DATE: DES. BY: CHK. BY: APP. BY: VC 08/01/24 BMG ER BMG DRG. NO. REV. 27790 103 P4 CLIENT: JOB TITLE: DRG. TITLE: Mable Consulting Engineers, 30 Drumcondra Road Upper, Drumcondra, Dublin 9 Tel: +353(01) 216 2956 Website: www.mable.ie Email: info@mable.ie PLANNING 1:500 @ A0ART GENERATION LTD. CLONES WIND FARM Co. MONAGHAN SITE LAYOUT MAP "B" TEMPORARY ACCESS TO BE REINSTATED AFTER DELIVERY OF TURBINE COMPONENTS FOR SITE ENTRANCE, SIGHTLINES, AND SITE ENTRANCE DRAINAGE - SEE DRAWING 110 12. 5 m OLD ACCESS ROAD (NO LONGER PRESENT) TO BE REINSTATED 144 5 m BRIDGE CROSSING - SEE DRAWING 154 STOCK PROOF FENCE 1010 107 10 10 5107 12101810 WHERE GREEN OPTION IS CHOSEN AS THE FINAL OPTION FOR THE ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY - EXISTING GATE IS TO BE LEFT IN SITU TO ACCOMMODATE THE GREENWAY.R12.5R1 2 . 5 WHERE ORANGE OPTION IS CHOSEN AS THE FINAL OPTION FOR THE ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY - TIMBER GATE (OR OTHERWISE AGREED WITH LOCAL AUTHORITY) TO BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE GREENWAY 49m 49m 49m 51m 52m 49m 50m LOCATION OF BUNDED REFUELING AREA TEMPORARY COMPOUND WHERE ORANGE OPTION IS CHOSEN AS THE FINAL OPTION FOR THE ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY - TIMBER GATE (OR OTHERWISE AGREED WITH LOCAL AUTHORITY) TO BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE GREENWAY WHERE ORANGE OPTION IS CHOSEN AS THE FINAL OPTION FOR THE ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY - PROPOSED HEDGEROW TO THE BOUNDARY TO BE PROVIDED - BOUNDARY CONDITIONS SUBJECT TO LOCAL AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS WHERE ORANGE OPTION IS CHOSEN AS THE FINAL OPTION FOR THE ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY - PROPOSED HEDGEROW TO RIVER BANK BOUNDARY TO BE PROVIDED - BOUNDARY CONDITIONS SUBJECT TO LOCAL AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS 13 465 5DIRECTIONAL DRILLING COMPOUND LOCATION OF WHEELWASH GRID CONNECTION ROUTE DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED UNDER STREAM CROSSING EPA REGISTERED STREAM CODE; IE_NW_36F010500 SEGMENT; 36_1470 NAME; GEAR EPA REGISTERED STREAM CODE; IE_NW_36F010500 SEGMENT; 36_436 NAME; LEGARHILL ROUTE OF ULSTE R CA NAL DIRECTIONAL DRILLING COMPOUND NOTE: THERE WILL BE NO STORAGE OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL WITHIN THE FLOOD ZONE P4 MM ER FLOOD LINE UPDATED BASED ON FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT02/06/26 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 ANALORE ROAD 48. 0 m 49.0m 50.0m 50.0m 50. 0 m 55.0m 56.0m51.0m 49.0m48.0m 49.0m48.0m 48.0m 49.0m 49.0m49.0m 49.0m 4 9 . 0m 50. 0 m 50.0m50.0m51.0m 51.0m 51.0m51.0m 51.0m 52.0m 52.0m52 . 0 m 53.0m53.0m 53.0m 54.0 m 55.0m 56.0 m 57. 0 m 58.0m NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METERS AND COORDINATES TO ITM GRID UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. ALL LEVELS ARE TO ORDINANCE SURVEY DATUM, MALIN HEAD, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 3. DRAWINGS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL RELEVANT PLANNING APPLICATION DOCUMENTS. 4. DRAINAGE ·ALL DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT MEASURES SHALL BE DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GREATER DUBLIN REGIONAL CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DRAINAGE WORKS INCORPORATING SUDS DESIGN PRINCIPLES. ·THERE WILL BE NO DIRECT DISCHARGE OF DEVELOPMENT SURFACE WATER TO EXISTING DRAINS AND STREAMS. ·CUT-OFF DRAINS ARE TO BE INSTALLED IN ADVANCE OF THE WORKS TO MANAGE SURFACE WATER RUN-OFF. ·CHECK DAMS ARE TO BE INSTALLED AT REGULAR INTERVALS IN CUT OFF DRAINS TO CONTROL FLOW VELOCITY. ·CONSTRUCTION PHASE RUNOFF FROM WORKS AREAS WILL BE DIRECTED CUT-OFF DRAINS, SILT PONDS AND BUFFERED OUTFALLS. ·SILT PONDS ARE TO BE USED TO INTERCEPT SURFACE WATER RUNOFF FROM WORKS AREAS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE AND WILL REMAIN IN PLACE TO HANDLE RUNOFF FROM ROAD AND SUBSTATION AREAS DURING THE OPERATIONAL PHASE. ·BUFFERED OUTFALLS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE OUTFALLS OF CUT OFF DRAINS AND SILT PONDS TO CONVERT CONCENTRATED FLOWS INTO DIFFUSE SHEET FLOW ON AREAS OF EXISTING VEGETATED GROUND. ·SILT FENCING WILL BE INSTALLED AROUND EXISTING DRAINAGE CHANNELS AND CONSTRUCTION STAGE CUT-OFF DRAINS. ·EXISTING DRAINAGE FLOW PATHS ARE NOT TO BE RE-ROUTED OR CHANGED. ·EXISTING OPEN DRAINS AND STREAMS ARE NOT TO BE ALTERED, DRAIN CROSSING PIPE DIAMETERS ARE TO BE TO LOCAL AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS. ·WATER QUALITY SAMPLING TO LOCAL AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS WILL BE CARRIED OUT DURING CONSTRUCTION WORKS. ·CROSSFALLS ON CONSTRUCTED ELEMENTS SHALL BE SUFFICIENT (TYPICALLY 1:25) TO AVOID PONDING OF SURFACE WATER. 5. LEVEL AT STRUCTURES: ·GROUND LEVEL AT TURBINE: 57m ·FINISHED FLOOR LEVEL OF SUBSTATION: 50m LEGEND: PROPOSED ACCESS TRACK AND HARDSTAND AREA XXm PROPOSED GROUND LEVEL EXISTING GROUND LEVEL EXISTING REGIONAL ROAD (R183) SITE OUTLINED IN RED TEMPORARY ACCESS TRACK FOR ABNORMAL LOADS XXm UNDEGROUND 20KV GRID CONNECTION ROUTE CLEAN WATER CUT OFF DRAIN DIRTY WATER CUT OFF DRAIN SILT POND BUFFERED OUTFALL PROPOSED PIPED DRAIN (300mm Ø PIPE) PERMANENT DRAINAGE PROPOSED 900Ø DRAINAGE CROSSING PROPOSED HEDGEROW TEMPORARY STONED AREA LEVEL SPREADER EXISTING HEDGEROW INTERNAL CIRCUIT CABLE ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY ORANGE ROUTE OPTION ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY GREEN ROUTE OPTION ULSTER CANAL GREENWAY PURPLE ROUTE OPTION MAP INFORMATION: 1. MAP SERIES: 1:1000 1.1. MAP SHEETS: 1213-19 2. MAP SERIES: 1:2500 2.1. MAP SHEETS: 1213-D 3. MAP SERIES: 1:5000 3.1. MAP SHEETS: 1214 EXISTING WATERCOURSE EXISTING WATERCOURSE BUFFER TRACKSIDE DRAINAGE BERM PERMANENT PIPED DRAIN 0.1% AEP (1 IN 1000 YEAR) FLUVIAL FLOOD EVENT N NE E SE S SW W NW N COPYRIGHT AND OWNERSHIP OF THIS DRAWING IS VESTED IN MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS. NO PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR STORED IN ANY RETRIEVAL SYSTEM OF ANY NATURE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS AS COPYRIGHT HOLDER EXCEPT AS AGREED FOR USE ON THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THE DOCUMENT WAS ORIGINALLY ISSUED. © ALL RIGHT RESERVED BY THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT AND BY INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT CONVENTIONS ARE RESERVED TO MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS. © ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS REPRODUCED UNDER LICENCE No. CYAL50341056. © ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND / GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND. REV.DWG BY: APP/ CHK:DESCRIPTIONDATE:SCALE: JOB NO. DRAWN: DATE: DES. BY: CHK. BY: APP. BY: VC 08/01/24 BMG ER BMG DRG. NO. REV. 27790 104 CLIENT: JOB TITLE: DRG. TITLE: Mable Consulting Engineers, 30 Drumcondra Road Upper, Drumcondra, Dublin 9 Tel: +353(01) 216 2956 Website: www.mable.ie Email: info@mable.ie PLANNING 1:500 @ A0ART GENERATION LTD. CLONES WIND FARM Co. MONAGHAN SITE LAYOUT MAP "C" PROPOSED GRID ROUTE INSTALLED IN ROAD 4P4 DIRECTIONAL DRILLING COMPOUND L62 4 0 L62 4 0 GRID CONNECTION ROUTE DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED UNDER STREAM CROSSING DIRECTIONAL DRILLING COMPOUND P4 MM ER FLOOD LINE UPDATED BASED ON FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT02/06/26 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 SCALE PROPOSED BRIDGE ELEVATION 1:50 01154 SCALE PROPOSED BRIDGE PLAN VIEW 1:50 02154 NNEESESSWWNWN150mm ACCESS TRACKCLAUSE 804 PROPOSED STONING PROPOSED BRIDGE ABUTMENT PROPOSED BRIDGE STRUCTURE PROPOSED ACCESS TRACK WATER LEVEL ARMCO BARRIERS ARMCO BARRIERS 40004900MIN 2m FROM TOP OF EMBANKMENT TO FACE OF ABUTMENT MIN 2m FROM TOP OF EMBANKMENT TO FACE OF ABUTMENT SUITABLE FILL MATERIAL PROPOSED BRIDGE ABUTMENT - SEE DETAIL D1 AND D2 CONCRETE TRENCH FILL TO FIRM FORMATION CLEAR SPAN 10.5m FILL MARTIAL 49m 49m 12.1m 48m 48m 49.57m49.57m 49m49m 49.57m 450mm CLASS 6F2 STONE CAPPING CLASS 6A/6C STONE FILL DEPTH SUBJECT TO DETAILED DESIGN PROPOSED LEVEL CIRCA 48.6m PROPOSED LEVEL CIRCA 49.57m 1200 1200 PROPOSED ACCESS TRACK UPSTAND TO PREVENT WATER DISCHARGING DIRECTLY TO WATERCOURSE PROPOSED LEVEL CIRCA 49.57m TRIPLE SILT FENCE AT TOP OF EMBANKMENT PROPOSED BRIDGE STRUCTURE UPSTAND TO PREVENT WATER DISCHARGING DIRECTLY TO WATERCOURSE PROPOSED DRAINAGE BERM DIRECTING FLOW OF WATER OUTSIDE OF WATERCOURSE BUFFER ZONE PROPOSED DRAINAGE BERM DIRECTING FLOW OF WATER OUTSIDE OF WATERCOURSE BUFFER ZONE PROPOSED DRAINAGE BERM DIRECTING FLOW OF WATER OUTSIDE OF WATERCOURSE BUFFER ZONE TRIPLE SILT FENCE AT TOP OF EMBANKMENT TOP OF RIVER EMBANKMENTSTREAMSTREAM46.67m 49.57m 2.4mSCALE DETAIL 1 - ABUTMENT DETAIL 1:50 D1154 300 23605321200 200 500575 SCALE SECTION A-A - PROPOSED BRIDGE CROSS-SECTION 1:50 A154 120031504000 UPSTAND TO PREVENT WATER DISCHARGING DIRECTLY TO WATERCOURSE SCALE DETAIL 2 - ABUTMENT PLAN 1:50 D2154 4000 1200800200200SCALE: JOB NO. DRAWN: DATE: DES. BY: CHK. BY: APP. BY: DRG. NO. REV. CLIENT: JOB TITLE: DRG. TITLE: Mable Consulting Engineers, 30 Drumcondra Road Upper, Drumcondra, Dublin 9 Tel: +353(01) 216 2956 Website: www.mable.ie Email: info@mable.ie COPYRIGHT AND OWNERSHIP OF THIS DRAWING IS VESTED IN MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS. NO PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR STORED IN ANY RETRIEVAL SYSTEM OF ANY NATURE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS AS COPYRIGHT HOLDER EXCEPT AS AGREED FOR USE ON THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THE DOCUMENT WAS ORIGINALLY ISSUED. © ALL RIGHT RESERVED BY THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT AND BY INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT CONVENTIONS ARE RESERVED TO MABLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS. © ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS REPRODUCED UNDER LICENCE No. CYAL50341056. © ORDNANCE SURVEY IRELAND / GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND. REV.DWG BY: APP/ CHK:DESCRIPTIONDATE:PLANNING VC 29/06/2025 ER BMG BMG 22790 154 P2 ART GENERATION LTD. CLONES WIND FARM Co. MONAGHAN PROPOSED BRIDGE DETAILS AS SHOWN @ A1 NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETRES AND LEVELS IN METRES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY. DO NOT SCALE. 3. DRAWINGS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL RELEVANT ENGINEER'S, ARCHITECT'S AND SERVICE ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 4. ALL WORKS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT BUILDING REGULATIONS. P2 EJ ER 29/06/26 BRIDGE ELEVATION UPDATED P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2P2 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 4 August 2026 Appendix B Correspondence RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 01/12/2025 Art Generation Limited C/O Barry McGinn 30 Drumcondra Road Upper Drumcondra Dublin 9 D09 FT7K Re: Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended). Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (as amended). 25/60400 - 10-Year planning permission for development. The development will consist of the construction of a Single Turbine Wind Farm development on a 7.64-hectare site consisting of:- a) A single 4.8-megawatt (MW) wind turbine with an overall tip height of 143.8 metres, comprising a rotor diameter of 133.2m and a hub height 78m;b) Wind turbine foundation, crane hardstanding and assembly area; c) Temporary Construction Compound; d) Upgrade of an existing field entrance to new wind farm site entrance; e) Upgrading and widening of existing access tracks; f)New access tracks; g) A new 10.5m clear span bridge crossing an existing stream; h) Demolition of the ruinous remains of two old stone buildings; i) An on-site 20kV electrical substation; j) Electrical and communication cabling within private lands; k) Underground 20kV grid connection within private lands and within the R183 public road connecting to the existing ESB Clones 38kV Substation; l) Tree felling, landscaping and reinstatement works; and m) All associated ancillary works. The operational lifespan of the development will be 35-years from the date of commissioning. This development is covered by the provisions of the Renewable Energy Directive III (Directive (EU) 2023/2413) and it is important to note that the planning application may be subject to section 34D of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. When a notice issues in accordance with section 34D(b), the provisions of article 26A of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 to 2025 shall apply at The site is located within the townlands of Carney’s Island, Altartate Glebe, Legarhill, and Clonavilla, County Monaghan.. _______________________________________________________ Dear Sir/Madam, With reference to the above application, I am to inform you that the information submitted is not adequate to enable a decision to be made. In accordance with the provisions of Article 33 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (as amended) you are hereby requested to submit further information as set out on the attached page. Article 33(3) states that “where a requirement under sub-article (1) or sub-article (2) (Clarification) is not complied with within the period of 6 months from the date of the requirement for further information, or such additional period, not exceeding 3 months, as may be agreed by the Planning Authority, the planning application shall be declared to be withdrawn”. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 It should be noted that you will be required to give notice in an approved newspaper under article 35(1)(a) and erect a site notice in accordance with Article 35 (1)(b) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (as amended) if the further information received is considered to contain significant additional data. Please Note: 4 copies of Additional Information to be submitted. In the case of Significantly Different Information, 6 copies of additional information to be submitted. Yours faithfully, __________________________ ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER pp RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 25/60400 Art Generation Limited The site is located within the townlands of Carney’s Island, Altartate Glebe,, Legarhill, and Clonavilla,, County Monaghan. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1. A submission has been received from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The applicant is requested to review this submission and provide further information on the potential for ornithological impacts arising from the proposed development and further details on the assessments conducted including observational data. 2. Section 15.22.8 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 states that development should be restricted and/or limited in areas which are at risk of flooding, unless it can be demonstrated that the proposed development has addressed the flooding concerns which exist. The Office of Public Works flood maps indicate that part of the application site is vulnerable to fluvial flooding. In this regard, the Applicant shall submit a Flood Risk Assessment for the proposed development, completed by a competent professional with hydrological experience, confirming that the development: • Will not be at risk of flooding • Will not exacerbate flooding in the immediate vicinity or wider area. • Will not obstruct or impede important flow paths • Will not result in residual risks to the area and/or development that cannot be managed to an acceptable level. The flood risk assessment shall also clearly demonstrate proposed management of any residual risks. 3. Submit a revised site layout plan indicating how a clear and unobstructed visibility splay of 120m in each direction onto the Regional Road (R-183-4)) can be achieved at the proposed entrance. The required visibility splays should be provided from a point in the centre of the entrance, 2.4 metres from the road edge at a height of 1.05 metre above ground level measured to the nearside road edge in both directions. The submitted revised site layout plan should demonstrate all necessary site work, including the extent of the front boundary hedge and trees which would be required to be removed/trimmed, re-grading of side banks etc to achieve these sight distances. The Area within the visibility slays shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250 mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway and shall be retained and kept clear thereafter. Any pole or column materially affecting visibility must also be removed. Where visibility splays cross over land not in the ownership of the applicant, legal agreements with adjoining landowner/s giving their consent for the removal, and or setting back of hedgerow/s, and or, maintenance of hedges to provide the required sight distance shall be submitted to the Planning Authority. 4. It is noted that a ten year planning permission is sought. No justification has been provided for this. In this regard, and in the context of RED III provisions, the applicant shall justify why it is considered a ten year permission is appropriate. 5. The Planning Authority has received a number of third-party submission in respect of the proposed development. The applicant is invited to review the content of same and provide a detailed response to the issues raised. The planner dealing with this application is Darragh McAdam RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 5 August 2026 Appendix C Hydraulic Modelling RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 6 August 2026 PREAMBLE The purpose of the model was to accurately determine flood extents at the site and design flood levels applicable to the proposed development. Model results are intended to supersede the OPW NIFM outputs. An in-house model of the River Finn network was developed for Monaghan Couty Council to inform plans for the Ulster Canal Greenway and as such, has been subject to review by council staff. The Finn model has been utilised as the downstream condition for the modelling presented in this report, and has been extended, refined and updated as required to be tailored for this site-specific assessment. Modelling was carried out via an InfoWorks ICM 1D-2D model in v2024.3 format allowing accurate determination of flood levels at the site to inform this assessment. MODEL OVERVIEW The following figures display key model elements for the site specific model, discussed in subsequent sections. Figure C-1: Site Specific Model – Overview RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 7 August 2026 Figure C-2: Site Specific Model – Site Context RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 8 August 2026 HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS HEPs and Catchment Extents Hydrological Estimation Points (HEPs) were taken from the FSU data sets at the downstream end of the River Finn extent of the model and at two points along the watercourse network in proximity to the site, as shown at Figure C-3 below, with their corresponding catchment areas. The wider catchment boundary of the downstream River Finn HEP was adopted with edit only at the south western boundary where catchment boundaries in proximity to the north western extents of the model are discussed in further detail below. Figure C-3: FSU HEPs and Catchments A GIS tool was utilised, in combination with manual edits, to determine more accurate catchment and sub-catchment extents for the smaller upper tributaries to the River Finn at the northern and north western portions of the model extent. Catchment delineations were made using available 25m DTM, with verification and refinement in areas of higher resolution terrain data in closer proximity to the site. The resulting sub catchments are shown at Figure C-4 relative to the wider FSU downstream River Finn catchment boundary. Detailed assessment of the north western periphery of the catchment of the River Finn and its tributaries in proximity to the site was found to be generally larger than the FSU catchment boundary in this area. In keeping with a precautionary approach, the overall larger western catchment periphery was adopted over the FSU periphery for the determination of site-specific sub-catchments. Where hydrological methods other than FSU were adopted for small catchments, the associated HEPs are discussed further in the following section. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 9 August 2026 Figure C-4: Sub-Catchment Boundaries Peak Flow Estimation, Hydrograph Development and Model Inflows The estimation of peak flow for the required design annual probability has been necessary to determine the peak inflows for input to the unsteady state hydraulic model. The derivation of the 1% and 0.1% AEP peak flows for the watercourses was assessed using the OPW Flood Estimation Methodologies for Ireland (FEMI) spreadsheet, as well as small catchment methods where applicable. Figure C-5 in combination with Table C-1 detail the sub-catchment HEPs and boundaries, location of corresponding model inflows, hydrological methods and peak design flows. A pooled FSU method, from the FEMI spreadsheet, was adopted for catchment, flow analysis and hydrograph development for the larger River Finn reach south of the site, as per FEMI report at Appendix D. Comparison of hydrological methods such as FEMI small catchment equations with IOH124 and comparison with FSR, FSSR and REFH, was undertaken for the small subcatchments of the tributary network to the River Finn. A suitably precautionary approach was adopted for the selection of Qmed / peak flow calculation methods for each of the subcatchments. The FEMI report for the northern tributary which traverses the site is included at Appendix D. Where required, growth curve from FEMI FSU catchment analysis was adopted and hydrograph shape for small catchments was informed using REFH analysis. Where appropriate, design flows were distributed between point and lateral inflows to the model. ID references on Table C-1 with the “.1” suffix denote lateral model flows. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 10 August 2026 Figure C-5: Sub-Catchment HEPs and Corresponding Model Inflows Table C-1: Design Peak Flow Summary Sub- Catchment / Inflow HEP Corresponding Catchment Area (km2) QMED / Peak Flow Calc Method Hydrograph Method 1% AEP (m‡/s) 0.1% AEP (m‡/s) R1_000 R1_000 0.05 IOH124 REFH donor 0.06 0.07 R1_003.1 R1_003 0.11 IOH124 REFH donor 0.13 0.16 R1_007.1 R1_007 0.02 IOH124 REFH donor 0.02 0.02 R1_009.1 R1_009 0.38 IOH124 REFH donor 0.46 0.55 R2_000 R2_000 0.11 IOH124 REFH donor 0.14 0.17 R3_000 R3_000 0.16 IOH124 REFH donor 0.19 0.23 R3_000.1 0.03 IOH124 REFH donor 0.03 0.04 R4_000 R4_000 1.31 IOH124 REFH donor 2.11 2.55 R4_004 R4_004 0.08 IOH124 REFH donor 0.12 0.15 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 11 August 2026 Sub- Catchment / Inflow HEP Corresponding Catchment Area (km2) QMED / Peak Flow Calc Method Hydrograph Method 1% AEP (m‡/s) 0.1% AEP (m‡/s) R4_004.1 FSU 36_436_2 1.05 FSU (given lough within catch) REFH donor 0.46 0.56 R4_012 R4_012 0.48 IOH124 REFH donor 0.58 0.70 R4_016 R4_016 0.28 IOH124 REFH donor 0.33 0.40 R4_017.1 R4_017 0.22 IOH124 REFH donor 0.26 0.32 R5_001 R5_001 0.10 IOH124 REFH donor 0.12 0.15 R101_1 FSU 36_1273_2 5.27 FSU small catch method REFH donor 2.32 2.81 FIN_001 FSU 36_1018_2 98.269 FEMI distributed FEMI 29.16 45.57 FIN_001.1 18.337 5.44 8.50 FIN_002.1 3.339 0.99 1.55 Figure C-6 provides a sample of 1% AEP PD inflow hydrographs applied for the upper limit of the River Finn and the tributary which traverses the site, illustrating that the hydrographs across the model were peak matched to ensure a precautionary approach to consideration of catchment behaviour and flood timing. Figure C-6: Sample Hydrographs RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 12 August 2026 As per the MCC SFRA, MRFS and HEFS allowances for climate change were reflected as increases of +20% and +30% respectively. HYDRAULIC MODEL BUILD Infoworks ICM V2024.3 is a fully integrated 1D-2D hydrodynamic model which uses a dynamic engine solving full St. Venant equations for both the 1D and 2D simulations. Simulations are conducted in an unsteady state with the numerical simulation applied on a non-structured mesh which makes the model fully flexible from the geometric point of view. Model elements are displayed in Figure C-1 and Figure C-2 in the preceding section. Each of these elements has been detailed further in the following table setting out the justification for changes, and parameters used. Table C-2 Model Elements Model Domain Component Parameter Value(s) / Discussion Hydrology / Inflows Fluvial inflows Inflow File New hydrology is calculated and distributed across the model using point and lateral inflows as detailed in the preceding section. 1D River Reach Sections Geometry Reach R101, the northern tributary which traverses the site was examined during visit to the site and measurements taken on site informed the construction of cross sections along this reach. Topographic survey data provided cross sections for watercourse reaches R1 to R4 as shown by naming on Figure C-5. Additional interpolated sections were added where required at the proposed access crossing location to assist comparability of pre- and post-development results. Cross sections along the reaches of the River Finn (FIN_001 and FIN_002) were extracted from DTM. Given the flooding mechanisms and distance from the target site, this method was deemed acceptable. Sections Roughness The roughness of the river reach is represented by applying Manning’s n roughness values to the river sections for floodplains and river channel. A roughness value of 0.04 was largely used for the main channel portions of cross sections, representing a natural channel winding with pools, shoals and some weeds and stones. Reach R101 at the northern tributary was noted be to have a more overgrown channel, hence a n value of 0.05 was adopted for the channel beds along this reach. End of sections, at rising banks of the channel profile, were given n values of 0.06. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 13 August 2026 Model Domain Component Parameter Value(s) / Discussion Bank Lines Geometry The river reach bank lines were developed using the trimmed river reach section ends and composite ground model with bank point connections at max. 10m intervals. Bank Lines Discharge Coeff / Modular Limits Values of 0.75 and 0.675 for discharge coefficient and modular limits were used respectively across the majority of the model. Along the reaches R101 and R4 in proximity to the site were noted to be significantly exceeded by modelled peak design flows and this produced some issues with model stability. Bank parameters for these reaches were reduced to 0.5 and 0.5 to correct stability issues. The adopted values are below defaults as were required to aid model stability. Sensitivity to bank parameters was not assessed further given the benefits of the stability improvement provided by the lowered parameters. Reach Boundary Condition Free outfall condition was applied to the DSL of the 1D model, at the DS extent of the River Finn south west of the site. The DS limit of the model is ~5km downstream from the site, with an elevation difference of ~2.5m. This is considered sufficiently robust to negate the need for further assessment of a boundary condition. 1D Culverts Inlets Losses Culvert inlet losses were represented with associated conduit links, with coefficients assigned according to each inlet configuration. Outlets Losses Culvert outlet losses were also represented with the outfalls of associated conduit links, with coefficients assigned as appropriate for each outlet. Conduits Roughness Conduit roughness values were assigned based on material type and condition observed from site survey photographic review and direct observations. Details of relevant structures are included on the subsequent Structures Register. Conduits Geometry Conduit geometry was defined using surveyed dimensions where available, supported by site observations and photographic records. Refer to Structures Register. Conduits Losses Conduit loss coefficients were applied based on observed inlet and outlet conditions; where inlet / outlet links were applied conduit loss was set to none to avoid double counting. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 14 August 2026 Model Domain Component Parameter Value(s) / Discussion 2D Mesh 2D Zone Ground Model Topographic survey of the R1-R5 river reaches and adjacent over bank lands was patched over best available DTM. Bluesky 5m DTM provided terrain levels for the site and area of reach R101. Wider topography for the River Finn overland areas was provided by best available DTM. Resolution of the composite ground model was 1m. 2D Zone Roughness 0.05 was adopted as the base 2D roughness representative of the generally rural nature of the area. 2D Zone Mesh Max 25m† / min 5m† / terrain sensitive meshing activated / maximum height variation 0.5m. 2D Zone Infiltration No infiltration has been included in the model in keeping industry typical approaches for a study of this type. The absence of infiltration in the model is likely to present conservative results. 2D Zone Boundary Condition Normal depth condition for the 2D zone polygon. A 2D boundary line enforcing a vertical wall was applied at the upstream limit of river reach R101 north of the site to ensure conservative results where flood waters would otherwise leave the model by back flow effects. Mesh Zones Mesh Parameters None applied. Roughness Zones Roughness None applied, as deemed suitable given local flooding mechanisms and extents. Mesh Level Zones Level control in 2D Where the proposed model scenario would introduce the proposed access road through the floodplain at raised levels using a MLZ, the MLZ polygon was added to the base model geometry to reverse engineer the base mesh, ensuring directly comparable pre-and post-development results. These MLZs within the base scenario were set to ground levels (no infill of floodplain.) An artefact of error in the ground model was identified along the northern bank of reach R4 to the east of the proposed access bridge location. This was corrected in the 2D mesh using a MLZ. Small MLZs were also used to ensure correct representation of geometry at some structures. Porous Polygons Porosity None applied. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 15 August 2026 Model Domain Component Parameter Value(s) / Discussion Inline Banks 1D/2D connection Inline banks were added at the upstream and / or downstream faces of some structures within the model where representation of 1D / 2D conveyance was deemed necessary. Initial Condition Zone Hydraulic 2D Bishop’s Lough and an adjacent small pond were represented via an IC 2D level of 46.70m OD. Structures Register Table B-4 provides specific details for the structures included in the model geometry in proximity to the site. Other structures along the tributaries of the wider were also included within the model geometry but are not detailed below given their distance and limited effects relative to the site. All structures included in the model were as per survey / site observation measurements. Table C-3 Structure Register Model Reference Shape Length (m) Width (mm) Height (mm) Bottom Roughness (n) Top Roughness (n) Comment R101_2.1 CIRC 245.2 300 300 0.012 0.012 N tributary pipe traversing proposed access lane R4_001.1 CIRC 6.9 300 300 0.02 0.013 Field access east US of site R4_003.1 RECT 8.3 486 555 0.025 0.02 Field access S of proposed turbine location R4_007.1 RECT 8.2 863 1590 0.022 0.018 DS R183 Road bridge R4_009.1 CIRC 3.5 1000 1000 0.015 0.013 ~40m south of R183 Road R4_011.1 CIRC 6.4 930 930 0.015 0.013 ~175m south of R183 Road R4_013.1 CIRC 36.2 1000 1000 0.015 0.013 ~375m south of R183 Road Assumptions and Limitations of Modelling The representation of any complex system by a model requires a number of assumptions to be made. In the case of the hydraulic model developed for the purposes of the study it is assumed that: • The terrain model (based on best available DTM, supplemented by ground-based topographic survey) accurately represents the surface topography and associated flow paths; • Structures and cross section survey data are an accurate representation of present-day geometry; • The calculated hydrology provide an accurate representation of flows and sub-catchment behaviours for the given return periods; and • Roughness does not vary with time. The primary limitations of the study are noted as follows: RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 16 August 2026 • The River Finn is represented by cross sections extracted from DTM data. This method likely underestimates the channel capacity for the reach. • The model does not represent any topographic features smaller than the minimum resolution of the underlying terrain model derived for the site. Baseline Model Sensitivity Analysis Analysis A model sensitivity analysis was carried out on the base model to assess the sensitivity of the simulation to changes in parameters within the model. The testing was undertaken using the 1% AEP + MRFS hydrology. Table C-4 Baseline Model Sensitivity Analysis Parameter Variation Result / Comment Roughness 2D Mannings +20% No increases at river cross sections and no change in 2D flood extent within the site. 1D Mannings +20% No increases at river cross sections and small peripheral increases in flood extent. No material changes. Bank Coefficients CD and ML During model development bank parameters were lowered from defaults to improve model stability. No further analysis deemed necessary given stability priority. Mesh Resolution Max. and Min. element sizes 10m2 and 3m2 for areas within study Mesh zones to refine 2D areas of overland flooding in proximity to the site’s RLB were added. This produced no material change in predicted flood extents and flood risk to the proposal remained unchanged. Flow Hydrographs Modelling was carried for design scenarios up to the 0.1% + HEFS. Given the observed incremental increases in results from lower AEP and CC scenarios, and given the vulnerability and S50 design requirement for the proposed access (1% + MRFS), no further sensitivity testing of flows was deemed proportionate. Boundary Downstream Boundary The downstream boundary of the R4 river reach at the site is the River Finn. Inclusion of the River Finn to ~5km downstream from the site was deemed to be adequate consideration and representation of downstream flooding mechanisms. No further sensitivity testing of the River Rinn boundary was deemed proportionate. Culvert Blockage 90% blockage of R101_2.1 300mm dia. pipe along N tributary which traverses site’s access lane. Small increase to flood extent at the inlet. No increased flooding to proposed site footprint. 50% blockage of R4_007.1 RECT at DS R183 Road bridge. Small peripheral increases to overland flooding at downstream side of site. No material change to flood risk to the proposed access. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 17 August 2026 Summary The sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the model is not overly sensitive to variations in the parameters analysed. The freeboard to development levels exceeds the effects of the model sensitivity analysis in all instances. PROPOSED MODEL SCENARIO Proposed Model Development The proposed development scenario included the introduction of an access route over the R4 river reach. Iterative testing was carried out to develop an appropriate design for the proposed structure to comply with Section 50 standards for a structure along a watercourse and the planning design requirement for dry access. The proposed access structure was introduced as a model scenario as shown on Figure C-7 and detailed on Table C-5 below. Figure C-7: Proposed Model Build Elements Table C-5 Model Elements Model Domain Component Parameter Value(s) / Discussion 1D Conduit R4_044_b.1 Dimension, Inlet and Roughness RECT 3900mm wide x 2700mm height IL 46.67m OD Conc. box head wall assumed Top / bottom n 0.015 / 0.04 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 18 August 2026 Model Domain Component Parameter Value(s) / Discussion 2D Mesh level zone Level control in 2D Vertices set to 50.13m OD adjacent to watercourse, ramping to EGL at the northern and southern limits of the access MLZs (at tie in with R183 Road and at tie in to existing high ground to the north of the watercourse. The raised level of the access over the conduit was selected to be representative of typical road cover over the structure design dimensions. Polygon Void Over the footprint of the proposed access conduit within the watercourse a void was added to the mesh to avoid double counting of 1D / 2D flow conveyance. Proposed Model Sensitivity Analysis Sensitivity analysis was carried out for the proposed model scenario, including assessment of blockage risk and the exceedance scenario of a turbine shutdown coinciding with a design flood event. The results are detailed on the below table. Differences were assessed relative to the adopted proposed scenario results. Table C-6 Proposed Model Sensitivity Analysis Parameter Variation Result / Comment Culvert Blockage 50% blockage to proposed access RECT conduit Small peripheral increases to flood extents, with increases in overland flood levels of up to 5mm in proximity to the upstream face of the structure. Effect is considered to be minimal and is contained within the design freeboards. RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 19 August 2026 Appendix D Hydrological Calculations RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 CLIENT:client name PROJECT:M02218-04 Clones Wind Farm FEMI Flood Estimation Report DOC. TITLE M02218-04 Finn_DS Hydrology FSU FEP REFERENCE:0 0 0 Checked: SUBJECT:CALCULATION OF QMED & PEAK DESIGN Approved:FLOWS IN UNGAUGED CATCH_FINN DS A Selection of the Subject Site A1 Ungauged Node ID 36_1018_2 A2 Ungauged Node Catchment Descriptors: Physical Catchment Descriptors AREA (km^2) 119.95 Node East 249507 BFIsoils (index) 0.586 Node North 323196 SAAR (mm) 1009.11 Centroid East 255910 FARL (index) 0.936 Centroid North 330580 DRAIND (km/km^2) 1.337 ALLUV 0.0400 S1085 (m/km) 2.266 ARTDRAIN 0.0010 ARTDRAIN2 (prop) 0.000 FOREST 0.0289 URBEXT (%)0.0057 B Module 1: Estimation of the Index Flood (QMED) B.1. Estimation of QMED without the use of a pivotal site 13.15 B.2. Estimation of QMED by using one pivotal site: 24005 15.06 B.3. Estimation of QMED using three pivotal sites: 24005, 26010, 25005 14.45 B.4.Final chosen QMED estimate: Using 3 Pivotal Sites 24005, 26010, 25005 14.45 C Module 2: Estimation of the flood growth factors and design flood magnitudes C.1. station no. Location similarity measure No. of Yrs of data t2 L-CV t3 L-Skewness t4 L-Kurtosis 24005 ATHLACCA 0.33 35 2.670 0.471 0.447 26010 RIVERSTOWN 0.33 53 0.107 0.186 0.143 23001 INCH BR. 0.50 51 0.176 0.106 0.171 7006 FYANSTOWN 0.61 37 0.125 0.050 0.118 Selection of Pooling Group for flood frequency analysis RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 26008 JOHNSTON'S BR. 0.68 68 0.111 0.162 0.150 11001 BOLEANY 0.68 51 0.150 0.185 0.240 25040 ROSCREA 0.83 37 0.154 0.120 0.081 36031 LISDARN 0.85 25 0.151 0.291 0.215 34024 KILTIMAGH 0.89 44 0.090 0.105 0.133 15001 ANNAMULT HSE 0.99 57 0.169 0.023 0.092 30021 CHRISTINA'S BR. 1.01 45 0.140 0.055 0.259 C.2. L-Moment Ratio Diagrams: Selection of the best fit flood frequency distribution to the pooled data GEV GLO LN3 LO LN2 EV1 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 -0.50 -0.45 -0.40 -0.35 -0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0 .00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50L-KurtosisL-Skewness Two and Three Parameter L-Moment Diagram EV1 LN2LO Pooled L-Moment Ratio 0.3 0.35 2- parameter L-Moment Ratio Diagram RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 Final Growth Factors and Design Flows: Return Period (T) Growth Factors Design Flows 1.3 0.640 9.252 2 1.000 14.452 5 1.502 21.702 10 1.846 26.683 20 2.203 31.831 25 2.322 33.560 30 2.422 35.006 35 2.508 36.252 50 2.714 39.228 100 3.143 45.428 200 3.616 52.252 500 4.316 62.379 1000 4.912 70.988 Custom Return Period 100 3.143 45.428 D Module 3: Generation of Design Hydrograph Shape Parameters D.1. Catchment Wetness Indicator (CWI)123 GLO Generation of Initial Design Hydrograph Shape Parameters EV1 EV1 LN2 LN2 LO LO -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3L-CVL-Skewness RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 Baseflow: 3.55 m3/s n Tr (hours) C (hours) 4.27 45.95 60.43 D.2. Station No. Dij similarity measure n Tr C 1st most similar 35005 0.526 5.553 36.568 187.871 2nd most similar 6013 0.652 5.189 45.544 101.756 3rd most similar 6025 0.774 1.800 17.000 70.000 D.2. Option 1: Adjusted parameters using most hydrologically similar catchment, 35005 n Tr C 4.649 24.009 138.048 D.2. Option 2: Adjusted Shape parameters using 3 no. Pivotal Sites, 35005, 6013, 6025 n Tr C 3.577 50.980 102.395 Chosen parameter selection method: Adjusted parameters using most hydrologically similar catchment, 35005 D.3. Final Hydrograph Parameters:n Tr C 4.649 24.009 138.048 Selection of most hydrologically similar catchments 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 Flow (m^3/s)All Design Hydrographs RP = 2 RP = 5 RP = 10 RP = 20 RP = 100 RP = 1000 RP = 100 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 Hydrograph Plot Data: Custom RP Time (Hours)RP = 2 RP = 5 RP = 10 RP = 20 RP = 100 RP = 1000 RP = 100 -24.009 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 -23.277 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 -22.546 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 0.00 10.00 20.00 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Time (hours) 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 -40.000 -20.000 0.000 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000 1 20.000 140.000Flow (m^3/s)Time (hours) RP = 100 RP = 100RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 -21.814 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 -21.083 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 -20.351 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 -19.620 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 -18.888 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 4.461 3.548 -18.156 3.548 3.548 3.548 3.548 4.158 6.497 4.158 -17.425 3.548 3.548 3.548 4.006 5.718 8.935 5.718 -16.693 3.548 3.590 4.414 5.265 7.514 11.743 7.514 -15.962 3.548 4.548 5.592 6.671 9.520 14.877 9.520 -15.230 3.723 5.590 6.873 8.199 11.702 18.286 11.702 -14.499 4.461 6.699 8.236 9.825 14.022 21.911 14.022 -13.767 5.231 7.855 9.658 11.521 16.442 25.693 16.442 -13.036 6.020 9.040 11.115 13.259 18.923 29.570 18.923 -12.304 6.817 10.237 12.586 15.014 21.428 33.485 21.428 -11.572 7.610 11.427 14.050 16.761 23.920 37.379 23.920 -10.841 8.388 12.596 15.487 18.475 26.367 41.202 26.367 -10.109 9.142 13.729 16.880 20.136 28.738 44.907 28.738 -9.378 9.864 14.813 18.212 21.726 31.006 48.452 31.006 -8.646 10.546 15.837 19.471 23.228 33.150 51.801 33.150 -7.915 11.182 16.792 20.646 24.629 35.149 54.926 35.149 -7.183 11.767 17.671 21.726 25.918 36.989 57.800 36.989 -6.452 12.298 18.467 22.706 27.086 38.657 60.407 38.657 -5.720 12.771 19.178 23.580 28.129 40.145 62.732 40.145 -4.988 13.186 19.801 24.345 29.042 41.447 64.768 41.447 -4.257 13.540 20.333 24.999 29.822 42.561 66.509 42.561 -3.525 13.835 20.775 25.543 30.471 43.487 67.955 43.487 -2.794 14.070 21.128 25.978 30.989 44.227 69.111 44.227 -2.062 14.247 21.395 26.305 31.380 44.784 69.982 44.784 -1.331 14.368 21.576 26.528 31.646 45.164 70.576 45.164 -0.599 14.435 21.677 26.653 31.794 45.376 70.906 45.376 0.132 14.451 21.701 26.682 31.829 45.426 70.984 45.426 0.864 14.419 21.652 26.622 31.758 45.323 70.825 45.323 1.596 14.341 21.536 26.478 31.586 45.079 70.443 45.079 2.327 14.221 21.356 26.257 31.322 44.702 69.854 44.702 3.059 14.063 21.118 25.964 30.973 44.204 69.076 44.204 3.790 13.869 20.827 25.607 30.547 43.595 68.124 43.595 4.522 13.643 20.488 25.190 30.050 42.886 67.016 42.886 5.253 13.389 20.106 24.721 29.490 42.087 65.768 42.087 5.985 13.110 19.687 24.205 28.875 41.209 64.396 41.209 6.716 12.809 19.234 23.649 28.211 40.262 62.916 40.262 7.448 12.488 18.753 23.058 27.506 39.255 61.343 39.255 8.180 12.152 18.249 22.437 26.765 38.198 59.691 38.198 8.911 11.803 17.724 21.792 25.996 37.100 57.974 37.100 9.643 11.443 17.183 21.127 25.202 35.968 56.206 35.968 10.374 11.074 16.630 20.447 24.391 34.811 54.397 34.811 11.106 10.700 16.068 19.756 23.568 33.635 52.560 33.635 11.837 10.323 15.501 19.059 22.736 32.447 50.704 32.447 12.569 9.943 14.931 18.358 21.900 31.254 48.839 31.254 12.569 9.943 14.931 18.358 21.900 31.254 48.839 31.254RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 13.666 9.864 14.813 18.213 21.726 31.007 48.453 31.007 14.764 9.786 14.696 18.068 21.554 30.761 48.069 30.761 15.861 9.709 14.579 17.925 21.384 30.518 47.689 30.518 16.958 9.632 14.464 17.783 21.214 30.276 47.311 30.276 18.056 9.556 14.349 17.643 21.046 30.036 46.936 30.036 19.153 9.480 14.236 17.503 20.880 29.799 46.565 29.799 20.250 9.405 14.123 17.364 20.714 29.563 46.196 29.563 21.348 9.330 14.011 17.227 20.550 29.329 45.830 29.329 22.445 9.256 13.900 17.090 20.388 29.096 45.468 29.096 23.542 9.183 13.790 16.955 20.226 28.866 45.108 28.866 24.640 9.110 13.681 16.821 20.066 28.637 44.750 28.637 25.737 9.038 13.573 16.688 19.907 28.411 44.396 28.411 26.834 8.967 13.465 16.556 19.750 28.186 44.045 28.186 27.932 8.896 13.359 16.425 19.593 27.963 43.696 27.963 29.029 8.825 13.253 16.295 19.438 27.741 43.350 27.741 30.126 8.756 13.148 16.166 19.284 27.522 43.007 27.522 31.224 8.686 13.044 16.038 19.131 27.304 42.666 27.304 32.321 8.617 12.941 15.911 18.980 27.088 42.328 27.088 33.418 8.549 12.838 15.785 18.830 26.873 41.993 26.873 34.516 8.481 12.736 15.660 18.681 26.660 41.661 26.660 35.613 8.414 12.636 15.536 18.533 26.449 41.331 26.449 36.710 8.348 12.536 15.413 18.386 26.240 41.004 26.240 37.808 8.282 12.436 15.291 18.240 26.032 40.679 26.032 38.905 8.216 12.338 15.170 18.096 25.826 40.357 25.826 40.002 8.151 12.240 15.049 17.953 25.621 40.037 25.621 41.100 8.086 12.143 14.930 17.811 25.419 39.720 25.419 42.197 8.022 12.047 14.812 17.670 25.217 39.406 25.217 43.294 7.959 11.952 14.695 17.530 25.018 39.094 25.018 44.392 7.896 11.857 14.578 17.391 24.820 38.784 24.820 45.489 7.833 11.763 14.463 17.253 24.623 38.477 24.623 46.586 7.771 11.670 14.349 17.117 24.428 38.173 24.428 47.684 7.710 11.578 14.235 16.981 24.235 37.871 24.235 48.781 7.649 11.486 14.122 16.847 24.043 37.571 24.043 49.878 7.588 11.395 14.010 16.713 23.853 37.273 23.853 50.976 7.528 11.305 13.899 16.581 23.664 36.978 23.664 52.073 7.469 11.215 13.789 16.450 23.476 36.685 23.476 53.170 7.409 11.127 13.680 16.319 23.290 36.395 23.290 54.268 7.351 11.038 13.572 16.190 23.106 36.107 23.106 55.365 7.293 10.951 13.464 16.062 22.923 35.821 22.923 56.462 7.235 10.864 13.358 15.935 22.742 35.537 22.742 57.560 7.178 10.778 13.252 15.809 22.562 35.256 22.562 58.657 7.121 10.693 13.147 15.684 22.383 34.977 22.383 59.754 7.064 10.608 13.043 15.559 22.206 34.700 22.206 60.852 7.008 10.524 12.940 15.436 22.030 34.425 22.030 61.949 6.953 10.441 12.837 15.314 21.856 34.153 21.856 63.046 6.898 10.358 12.736 15.193 21.682 33.882 21.682 64.144 6.843 10.276 12.635 15.072 21.511 33.614 21.511 65.241 6.789 10.195 12.535 14.953 21.340 33.348 21.340 66.338 6.735 10.114 12.436 14.835 21.172 33.084 21.172RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 67.436 6.682 10.034 12.337 14.717 21.004 32.822 21.004 68.533 6.629 9.955 12.239 14.601 20.838 32.562 20.838 69.630 6.577 9.876 12.143 14.485 20.673 32.304 20.673 70.728 6.525 9.798 12.046 14.370 20.509 32.048 20.509 71.825 6.473 9.720 11.951 14.257 20.347 31.795 20.347 72.922 6.422 9.643 11.856 14.144 20.185 31.543 20.185 74.020 6.371 9.567 11.763 14.032 20.026 31.293 20.026 75.117 6.320 9.491 11.669 13.921 19.867 31.045 19.867 76.214 6.270 9.416 11.577 13.811 19.710 30.800 19.710 77.312 6.221 9.341 11.485 13.701 19.554 30.556 19.554 78.409 6.171 9.267 11.394 13.593 19.399 30.314 19.399 79.506 6.123 9.194 11.304 13.485 19.245 30.074 19.245 80.604 6.074 9.121 11.215 13.378 19.093 29.836 19.093 81.701 6.026 9.049 11.126 13.272 18.942 29.600 18.942 82.798 5.978 8.977 11.038 13.167 18.792 29.365 18.792 83.896 5.931 8.906 10.950 13.063 18.643 29.133 18.643 84.993 5.884 8.836 10.864 12.960 18.495 28.902 18.495 86.090 5.837 8.766 10.778 12.857 18.349 28.673 18.349 87.188 5.791 8.696 10.692 12.755 18.204 28.446 18.204 88.285 5.745 8.628 10.608 12.654 18.060 28.221 18.060 89.382 5.700 8.559 10.524 12.554 17.917 27.997 17.917 90.480 5.655 8.492 10.440 12.455 17.775 27.776 17.775 91.577 5.610 8.424 10.358 12.356 17.634 27.556 17.634 92.674 5.566 8.358 10.276 12.258 17.494 27.338 17.494 93.772 5.521 8.291 10.194 12.161 17.356 27.121 17.356 94.869 5.478 8.226 10.114 12.065 17.219 26.907 17.219 95.966 5.434 8.161 10.034 11.969 17.082 26.694 17.082 97.064 5.391 8.096 9.954 11.875 16.947 26.482 16.947 98.161 5.349 8.032 9.875 11.781 16.813 26.273 16.813 99.258 5.306 7.968 9.797 11.687 16.680 26.065 16.680 100.356 5.264 7.905 9.720 11.595 16.548 25.858 16.548 101.453 5.223 7.843 9.643 11.503 16.417 25.653 16.417 102.550 5.181 7.781 9.566 11.412 16.287 25.450 16.287 103.648 5.140 7.719 9.491 11.322 16.158 25.249 16.158 104.745 5.100 7.658 9.415 11.232 16.030 25.049 16.030 105.842 5.059 7.597 9.341 11.143 15.903 24.851 15.903 106.940 5.019 7.537 9.267 11.055 15.777 24.654 15.777 108.037 4.979 7.477 9.194 10.967 15.652 24.459 15.652 109.134 4.940 7.418 9.121 10.880 15.528 24.265 15.528 110.232 4.901 7.359 9.049 10.794 15.405 24.073 15.405 111.329 4.862 7.301 8.977 10.709 15.283 23.882 15.283 112.426 4.824 7.243 8.906 10.624 15.162 23.693 15.162 113.524 4.785 7.186 8.835 10.540 15.042 23.506 15.042 114.621 4.747 7.129 8.765 10.456 14.923 23.320 14.923 115.718 4.710 7.073 8.696 10.374 14.805 23.135 14.805 116.816 4.673 7.017 8.627 10.292 14.688 22.952 14.688 117.913 4.636 6.961 8.559 10.210 14.571 22.770 14.571 119.010 4.599 6.906 8.491 10.129 14.456 22.590 14.456 120.108 4.563 6.851 8.424 10.049 14.342 22.411 14.342RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 121.205 4.526 6.797 8.357 9.969 14.228 22.233 14.228 122.302 4.491 6.743 8.291 9.891 14.115 22.057 14.115 122.302 4.491 6.743 8.291 9.891 14.115 22.057 14.115RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 CLIENT:client name PROJECT:M02218-04 Clones Wind Farm FEMI Flood Estimation Report DOC. TITLE M02218-04 N Trib_Hydrology REFERENCE:0 0 0 Checked: SUBJECT:CALCULATION OF QMED & PEAK DESIGN Approved:FLOWS IN UNGAUGED CATCH_N TRIB A Selection of the Subject Site A1 Ungauged Node ID 36_1273_2 A2 Ungauged Node Catchment Descriptors: Physical Catchment Descriptors AREA (km^2) 3.26 Node East 252314 BFIsoils (index) 0.561 Node North 325967 SAAR (mm) 959.83 Centroid East 251350 FARL (index) 1.000 Centroid North 327190 DRAIND (km/km^2) 0.181 ALLUV 0.0000 S1085 (m/km) 5.857 ARTDRAIN 0.0000 ARTDRAIN2 (prop) 0.000 FOREST 0.0000 URBEXT (%)0.0000 B Module 1: Estimation of the Index Flood (QMED) B.1. Estimation of QMED without the use of a pivotal site 0.22 B.2. Estimation of QMED by using one pivotal site: 25034 0.40 B.3. Estimation of QMED using three pivotal sites: 25034, 14104, 26022 0.37 B.4.Final chosen QMED estimate: Using the small catchment equation 1.14 C Module 2: Estimation of the flood growth factors and design flood magnitudes C.1. station no. Location similarity measure No. of Yrs of data t2 L-CV t3 L-Skewness t4 L-Kurtosis 25034 ROCHFORT 1.36 45 0.177 -0.016 0.184 14104 GREESEMOUNT 2.00 22 0.234 0.170 0.040 26022 KILMORE 2.66 51 0.167 0.149 0.095 14011 RATHANGAN 3.25 44 0.135 0.067 0.136 Selection of Pooling Group for flood frequency analysis RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 14007 DERRYBROCK 3.85 43 0.158 0.199 0.074 30002 OWER BR. 3.95 49 0.107 0.149 0.154 6011 MOYLES MILL 4.03 65 0.129 0.161 0.152 14009 CUSHINA 4.09 43 0.144 0.064 0.166 6012 CLAREBANE 4.16 66 0.170 0.150 0.100 14004 CLONBULLOGE 4.24 66 0.175 0.186 0.107 C.2. L-Moment Ratio Diagrams: Selection of the best fit flood frequency distribution to the pooled data GEV GLO LN3 LO LN2 EV1 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 -0.50 -0.45 -0.40 -0.35 -0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0 .00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50L-KurtosisL-Skewness Two and Three Parameter L-Moment Diagram EV1 LN2LO0.3 0.35 2- parameter L-Moment Ratio Diagram RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 Final Growth Factors and Design Flows: Return Period (T) Growth Factors Design Flows 1.3 0.815 0.931 2 1.000 1.142 5 1.264 1.443 10 1.428 1.631 20 1.579 1.803 25 1.626 1.856 30 1.663 1.899 35 1.694 1.935 50 1.765 2.015 100 1.898 2.166 200 2.024 2.311 500 2.183 2.492 1000 2.297 2.622 Custom Return Period 100 1.898 2.166 D Module 3: Generation of Design Hydrograph Shape Parameters D.1. Catchment Wetness Indicator (CWI)123 GEV Generation of Initial Design Hydrograph Shape Parameters EV1 EV1 LN2 LN2 LO LO Pooled L-Moment Ratio -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3L-CVL-Skewness RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 Baseflow: 0.09 m3/s n Tr (hours) C (hours) 1.88 57.61 40.44 D.2. Station No. Dij similarity measure n Tr C 1st most similar 26022 1.833 5.000 53.640 66.940 2nd most similar 14011 1.891 4.506 35.798 110.551 3rd most similar 27003 2.643 3.091 64.047 132.538 D.2. Option 1: Adjusted parameters using most hydrologically similar catchment, 26022 n Tr C 2.221 61.798 58.946 D.2. Option 2: Adjusted Shape parameters using 3 no. Pivotal Sites, 26022, 14011, 27003 n Tr C 1.987 24.000 68.262 Chosen parameter selection method: Adjusted Shape parameters using 3 no. Pivotal Sites, 26022, 14011, 27003 D.3. Final Hydrograph Parameters:n Tr C 1.987 24.000 68.262 Selection of most hydrologically similar catchments 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Flow (m^3/s)All Design Hydrographs RP = 2 RP = 5 RP = 10 RP = 20 RP = 100 RP = 1000 RP = 100 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 Hydrograph Plot Data: Custom RP Time (Hours)RP = 2 RP = 5 RP = 10 RP = 20 RP = 100 RP = 1000 RP = 100 -24.000 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 -23.037 0.123 0.156 0.176 0.195 0.234 0.283 0.234 -22.074 0.235 0.297 0.335 0.371 0.445 0.539 0.445 0.00 0.50 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Time (hours) 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 -50.000 0.000 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000Flow (m^3/s)Time (hours) RP = 100 RP = 100RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 -21.110 0.337 0.425 0.481 0.532 0.639 0.773 0.639 -20.147 0.430 0.543 0.614 0.679 0.816 0.987 0.816 -19.184 0.515 0.651 0.736 0.813 0.977 1.183 0.977 -18.221 0.593 0.749 0.846 0.936 1.124 1.361 1.124 -17.258 0.663 0.838 0.947 1.047 1.258 1.523 1.258 -16.295 0.727 0.919 1.039 1.148 1.380 1.670 1.380 -15.331 0.785 0.992 1.121 1.240 1.490 1.803 1.490 -14.368 0.837 1.058 1.196 1.322 1.589 1.923 1.589 -13.405 0.884 1.117 1.263 1.396 1.678 2.030 1.678 -12.442 0.926 1.170 1.323 1.462 1.757 2.127 1.757 -11.479 0.963 1.217 1.376 1.521 1.828 2.212 1.828 -10.516 0.996 1.259 1.423 1.573 1.890 2.287 1.890 -9.552 1.025 1.295 1.464 1.619 1.945 2.353 1.945 -8.589 1.050 1.327 1.499 1.658 1.992 2.411 1.992 -7.626 1.071 1.354 1.530 1.692 2.033 2.460 2.033 -6.663 1.089 1.377 1.556 1.721 2.067 2.502 2.067 -5.700 1.104 1.396 1.578 1.744 2.096 2.536 2.096 -4.737 1.117 1.411 1.595 1.764 2.119 2.565 2.119 -3.773 1.126 1.423 1.609 1.779 2.137 2.587 2.137 -2.810 1.133 1.432 1.619 1.790 2.151 2.603 2.151 -1.847 1.138 1.438 1.626 1.798 2.160 2.614 2.160 -0.884 1.141 1.442 1.630 1.802 2.165 2.620 2.165 0.079 1.142 1.443 1.631 1.803 2.166 2.622 2.166 1.042 1.141 1.441 1.629 1.802 2.165 2.620 2.165 2.006 1.138 1.438 1.626 1.797 2.159 2.614 2.159 2.969 1.134 1.433 1.619 1.791 2.151 2.604 2.151 3.932 1.128 1.426 1.611 1.782 2.141 2.591 2.141 4.895 1.121 1.417 1.602 1.771 2.128 2.575 2.128 5.858 1.113 1.407 1.590 1.758 2.112 2.556 2.112 6.821 1.104 1.395 1.577 1.744 2.095 2.535 2.095 7.785 1.094 1.382 1.562 1.728 2.076 2.512 2.076 8.748 1.083 1.368 1.547 1.710 2.055 2.487 2.055 9.711 1.071 1.353 1.530 1.691 2.032 2.460 2.032 10.674 1.058 1.337 1.512 1.672 2.008 2.431 2.008 11.637 1.045 1.321 1.493 1.651 1.983 2.400 1.983 12.600 1.031 1.303 1.473 1.629 1.957 2.369 1.957 13.564 1.017 1.285 1.453 1.606 1.930 2.336 1.930 14.527 1.002 1.267 1.432 1.583 1.902 2.302 1.902 15.490 0.987 1.247 1.410 1.559 1.873 2.267 1.873 16.453 0.972 1.228 1.388 1.535 1.844 2.231 1.844 17.416 0.956 1.208 1.365 1.510 1.814 2.195 1.814 18.379 0.940 1.188 1.342 1.484 1.783 2.158 1.783 19.343 0.924 1.167 1.319 1.459 1.753 2.121 1.753 20.306 0.907 1.146 1.296 1.433 1.721 2.083 1.721 21.269 0.891 1.125 1.272 1.407 1.690 2.045 1.690 22.232 0.874 1.104 1.248 1.380 1.659 2.007 1.659 23.195 0.857 1.083 1.225 1.354 1.627 1.969 1.627 24.158 0.841 1.062 1.201 1.328 1.595 1.931 1.595 24.158 0.841 1.062 1.201 1.328 1.595 1.931 1.595RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 25.603 0.823 1.040 1.176 1.300 1.562 1.890 1.562 27.048 0.806 1.018 1.151 1.273 1.529 1.851 1.529 28.493 0.789 0.997 1.127 1.246 1.497 1.812 1.497 29.937 0.772 0.976 1.103 1.220 1.466 1.774 1.466 31.382 0.756 0.956 1.080 1.194 1.435 1.737 1.435 32.827 0.740 0.936 1.058 1.169 1.405 1.700 1.405 34.272 0.725 0.916 1.035 1.145 1.376 1.665 1.376 35.716 0.710 0.897 1.014 1.121 1.347 1.630 1.347 37.161 0.695 0.878 0.993 1.097 1.319 1.596 1.319 38.606 0.680 0.860 0.972 1.074 1.291 1.562 1.291 40.051 0.666 0.842 0.951 1.052 1.264 1.530 1.264 41.495 0.652 0.824 0.931 1.030 1.237 1.498 1.237 42.940 0.638 0.807 0.912 1.008 1.211 1.466 1.211 44.385 0.625 0.790 0.893 0.987 1.186 1.436 1.186 45.830 0.612 0.773 0.874 0.967 1.161 1.405 1.161 47.274 0.599 0.757 0.856 0.946 1.137 1.376 1.137 48.719 0.587 0.741 0.838 0.927 1.113 1.347 1.113 50.164 0.574 0.726 0.820 0.907 1.090 1.319 1.090 51.609 0.562 0.711 0.803 0.888 1.067 1.291 1.067 53.053 0.551 0.696 0.786 0.870 1.045 1.264 1.045 54.498 0.539 0.681 0.770 0.851 1.023 1.238 1.023 55.943 0.528 0.667 0.754 0.833 1.001 1.212 1.001 57.388 0.517 0.653 0.738 0.816 0.980 1.187 0.980 58.832 0.506 0.639 0.723 0.799 0.960 1.162 0.960 60.277 0.495 0.626 0.707 0.782 0.940 1.137 0.940 61.722 0.485 0.613 0.693 0.766 0.920 1.114 0.920 63.167 0.475 0.600 0.678 0.750 0.901 1.090 0.901 64.611 0.465 0.587 0.664 0.734 0.882 1.067 0.882 66.056 0.455 0.575 0.650 0.719 0.863 1.045 0.863 67.501 0.446 0.563 0.636 0.704 0.845 1.023 0.845 68.946 0.436 0.551 0.623 0.689 0.828 1.002 0.828 70.390 0.427 0.540 0.610 0.674 0.810 0.981 0.810 71.835 0.418 0.528 0.597 0.660 0.793 0.960 0.793 73.280 0.409 0.517 0.585 0.647 0.777 0.940 0.777 74.725 0.401 0.506 0.572 0.633 0.761 0.920 0.761 76.169 0.392 0.496 0.560 0.620 0.745 0.901 0.745 77.614 0.384 0.485 0.549 0.607 0.729 0.882 0.729 79.059 0.376 0.475 0.537 0.594 0.714 0.864 0.714 80.504 0.368 0.465 0.526 0.582 0.699 0.846 0.699 81.948 0.361 0.456 0.515 0.569 0.684 0.828 0.684 83.393 0.353 0.446 0.504 0.558 0.670 0.811 0.670 84.838 0.346 0.437 0.494 0.546 0.656 0.794 0.656 86.283 0.338 0.428 0.483 0.534 0.642 0.777 0.642 87.727 0.331 0.419 0.473 0.523 0.629 0.761 0.629 89.172 0.324 0.410 0.463 0.512 0.615 0.745 0.615 90.617 0.318 0.401 0.454 0.502 0.603 0.729 0.603 92.062 0.311 0.393 0.444 0.491 0.590 0.714 0.590 93.507 0.304 0.385 0.435 0.481 0.578 0.699 0.578 94.951 0.298 0.377 0.426 0.471 0.565 0.684 0.565RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 96.396 0.292 0.369 0.417 0.461 0.554 0.670 0.554 97.841 0.286 0.361 0.408 0.451 0.542 0.656 0.542 99.286 0.280 0.353 0.399 0.442 0.531 0.642 0.531 100.730 0.274 0.346 0.391 0.432 0.520 0.629 0.520 102.175 0.268 0.339 0.383 0.423 0.509 0.616 0.509 103.620 0.262 0.332 0.375 0.415 0.498 0.603 0.498 105.065 0.257 0.325 0.367 0.406 0.488 0.590 0.488 106.509 0.252 0.318 0.359 0.397 0.477 0.578 0.477 107.954 0.246 0.311 0.352 0.389 0.467 0.566 0.467 109.399 0.241 0.305 0.344 0.381 0.458 0.554 0.458 110.844 0.236 0.298 0.337 0.373 0.448 0.542 0.448 112.288 0.231 0.292 0.330 0.365 0.439 0.531 0.439 113.733 0.226 0.286 0.323 0.357 0.429 0.520 0.429 115.178 0.222 0.280 0.317 0.350 0.420 0.509 0.420 116.623 0.217 0.274 0.310 0.343 0.412 0.498 0.412 118.067 0.212 0.268 0.303 0.335 0.403 0.488 0.403 119.512 0.208 0.263 0.297 0.328 0.395 0.478 0.395 120.957 0.204 0.257 0.291 0.322 0.386 0.468 0.386 122.402 0.199 0.252 0.285 0.315 0.378 0.458 0.378 123.846 0.195 0.247 0.279 0.308 0.370 0.448 0.370 125.291 0.191 0.241 0.273 0.302 0.363 0.439 0.363 126.736 0.187 0.236 0.267 0.295 0.355 0.430 0.355 128.181 0.183 0.231 0.262 0.289 0.348 0.421 0.348 129.625 0.179 0.227 0.256 0.283 0.340 0.412 0.340 131.070 0.176 0.222 0.251 0.277 0.333 0.403 0.333 132.515 0.172 0.217 0.246 0.271 0.326 0.395 0.326 133.960 0.168 0.213 0.240 0.266 0.319 0.386 0.319 135.404 0.165 0.208 0.235 0.260 0.313 0.378 0.313 136.849 0.161 0.204 0.230 0.255 0.306 0.370 0.306 138.294 0.158 0.200 0.226 0.249 0.300 0.363 0.300 139.739 0.155 0.195 0.221 0.244 0.293 0.355 0.293 141.183 0.151 0.191 0.216 0.239 0.287 0.348 0.287 142.628 0.148 0.187 0.212 0.234 0.281 0.340 0.281 144.073 0.145 0.183 0.207 0.229 0.275 0.333 0.275 145.518 0.142 0.180 0.203 0.224 0.270 0.326 0.270 146.962 0.139 0.176 0.199 0.220 0.264 0.319 0.264 148.407 0.136 0.172 0.195 0.215 0.258 0.313 0.258 149.852 0.133 0.168 0.190 0.211 0.253 0.306 0.253 151.297 0.131 0.165 0.186 0.206 0.248 0.300 0.248 152.741 0.128 0.162 0.183 0.202 0.243 0.294 0.243 154.186 0.125 0.158 0.179 0.198 0.237 0.287 0.237 155.631 0.123 0.155 0.175 0.193 0.232 0.281 0.232 157.076 0.120 0.152 0.171 0.189 0.228 0.275 0.228 158.520 0.117 0.148 0.168 0.185 0.223 0.270 0.223 159.965 0.115 0.145 0.164 0.182 0.218 0.264 0.218 161.410 0.113 0.142 0.161 0.178 0.214 0.259 0.214 162.855 0.110 0.139 0.157 0.174 0.209 0.253 0.209 164.299 0.108 0.136 0.154 0.170 0.205 0.248 0.205 165.744 0.106 0.133 0.151 0.167 0.200 0.243 0.200RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 167.189 0.103 0.131 0.148 0.163 0.196 0.238 0.196 168.634 0.101 0.128 0.145 0.160 0.192 0.233 0.192 168.634 0.101 0.128 0.145 0.160 0.192 0.233 0.192RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 M02218-04 Flood Risk Assessment Clones Wind Farm, Co. Monaghan 20 August 2026 Appendix E Site-Specific Flood Mapping RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026 RECEIVED: 04/09/2026