D4 Highway, Ivanka North - Záhorská Bystrica Final Opinion ......1 D4 Highway, Ivanka North - Záhorská Bystrica Final Opinion: (Number: 292/2011-7.3/ml) issued by the Ministry

1

D4 Highway, Ivanka North - Záhorská Bystrica

Final Opinion:

(Number: 292/2011-7.3/ml)

issued by the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic under Act No. 24/2006 Coll. on

the Environmental Impact Assessment amending and supplementing other acts as amended

I. BASIC INFORMATION ON CLAIMANT

1. Name

Národná diaľničná spoločnosť, a.s.

2. Identification No.

35919 001

3. Registered office

Mlynské Nivy 45, 821 09 Bratislava

II. Basic Data on the Intention

1. Name

D4 Highway, Ivanka North - Záhorská Bystrica

2. Purpose

The highway D4 represents a traffic link of the existing D1 and D2 highways in the southern,

eastern and northern part of Bratislava, the capital of the Slovak Republic, while the affected

area is extremely complicated also in terms of transport relations and linkages within the region

of the "Great Bratislava" due to the rapid development of the subregion and constantly changing

activities and functions in this extremely attractive area, where it is crucial to determine transport

requirements and connections to the existing road system. In addition to the D2 and D1 highway

connection, D4 will be a major international interconnection between Slovakia and Austria with

transport links to Hungary and the Czech Republic.

The highway D4 is currently in operation starting from the border between Austria and Slovakia

up to the interchange of D4 and D2 Jarovce, covering 2.7 km. Also in operation at 1/2 of the

profile is the highway D4 Záhorská Bystrica - Devínska Nová Ves (interchange Stupava South),

which is 3.2 km long.

According to the technical documentation (Feasibility and Suitability Study for Route of

Highway D4, Dopravoprojekt 2009), the highway D4 in the section Ivanka South - Záhorská

Bystrica is the section II of the highway D4, which is currently being prepared, while all the

route of D4 is divided according to the mentioned documentation as follows:

I. D4 Highway section Jarovce – Ivanka North

II. D4 Highway section Ivanka North - Záhorská Bystrica

III. D4 Highway section Záhorská Bystrica - Devínska Nová Ves

2

IV. D4 Highway section Devínska Nová Ves - border Slovakia/Austria in operation in 1/2 of

the profile from August, 1, 2011.

In the context of the mentioned facts, the purpose of the proposed action, in addition to

improving conditions for international and domestic transit traffic, shall also be to increase the

flow, speed and safety of all road users, with simultaneous reduction of the negative impact of

the existing road transport on the environment, particularly in relation to the considerable

environmental impact of the urban agglomeration and the region of "Great Bratislava." The

proposed action will also help the traffic operation of the affected area as well as partially relieve

the central part of Bratislava from transit traffic.

3. User

The structure will be used by vehicle users.

4. Location (Cadastral Territory):

Region: Bratislava

District: Bratislava III, Bratislava IV, Malacky, Senec,

Pezinok

Municipality: Lozorno, Pezinok, Viničné, Slovenský Grob, Chorvátsky

Grob, Bernolákovo, Stupava, Municipal District of

Bratislava - Záhorská Bystrica, Marianka, Borinka,

Municipal District of Bratislava - Rača, Municipal District

of Bratislava - Vajnory, Svätý Jur, Ivanka pri Dunaji

Cadastral territory: Mást I, Záhorská Bystrica I, Bystrická hora, Mást II,

Marianka, Borinka, Rača, Vajnory, Svätý Jur, Ivanka pri

Dunaji Lozorno, Neštich, Svätý Jur, Grinava, Pezinok,

Viničné, Slovenský Grob, Chorvátsky Grob, Bernolákovo

5. Term of Activity Commencement

Expected construction commencement date: year 2014

Expected construction works completion: year 2018

Estimated year of putting into service: year 2018

Estimated year of operation termination: not specified

6. Brief Description of the Technical and Technological Solution

The highway D4 section of Ivanka North -Záhorská Bystrica begins by a connection to the

preceding section D4 Jarovce - Ivanka North at the interchange D4 - D1, ending at the

interchange D4 - I/2 Záhorská Bystrica, which is already in operation within the completed and

operating section D4 Záhorská Bystrica - Devínska Nová Ves in 1/2 of the profile.

This section of the highway D4 is designed in following variants:

variant 7 a - with elevated routing of the highway

b - with subgrade highway routing

c - with subgrade highway routing

- variant 2 a - with elevated highway routing

b - with subgrade highway routing - variant SPL - new corridor lead more northwards, compared to the proposed variants in the

intention on the route Senec, Pezinok, Lozorno.

3

Brief technical and technological description of the construction - variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b, 7c

The Feasibility Study considered building a multi-level crossing of the highways D4 and D1 under the existing embankment body of the highway D1, including a partial embedding of the highway D4 under the

ground level, thus complying with the standard passage height. In this way, it is necessary to build the

highway D4 in a sealed bathtub in the length of about 600 m because of the high ground water

level. Such solution is related to the crossing of D4 and the relocation of the road I/61, which

was designed above the D4 highway. Before the completion of works on the documentation of

the zoning and planning decision (DZP), the Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional

Development of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter referred to as the MDVRR SR) changed the

location of the I/61 road routing which remained on the ground level, while the highway D4 was

supposed to be lead above the road I/61. The optional solution of the routing of the highway D4

at the interchange Ivanka North consists in a modification of the elevated routing of the highway

D4, that is above the highway D1 (in order for the D4 to conveniently cross the road I/61 as well

as the highway D1). Therefore, a modification of the vertical alignment from the 21.250 km up

to 22.801 km of the section Jarovce - Ivanka North and from 0.000 km to 0.575 km of the

section Ivanka North - Záhorská Bystrica (in variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b, 7c). The vertical alignment

is designed routing by a bridge structure over the highway D1, in order to prevent the sealing

bath construction under the ground water level, which would require demanding construction

technology and disturb the flow and quality of the groundwater during the construction.

Moreover, such a solution allows the highway D1 traffic to continue during the highway D4

construction, despite restrictions. In case of the highway D4 is going to be built under the D1

highway, the D1 would have to be completely closed. According to the source technical

documentation (feasibility and effectiveness study), both variants of the elevated crossing of the

highways D1 and D4 are designed so that the vertical alignment of the highway D4 remains

without changes from 0.575 km on westwards.

At this point, the variants 2 and 7, as well as their modifications, at the assessed highway D4

section begin. Such a solution provides variability of the vertical alignment of the D4 routing in

both directions. At this point, the highway D4 may be routed in direction east to an underpass

under the highway D1, or even to an overpass above the D1 and in direction west by surface

routing (variants 2a, 7a, 7c), or by subgrade routing into the Vajnory tunnel (variant 2b, 7b).

Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the beginning of the assessed section is located behind

the Ivanka North interchange at 0.575 km.

All the variants are designed with the intent to comply with the assessment scope requirements

as much as possible (elevated and subgrade routing of the highway in the section around the

Vajnory municipality and from the west portal up to the FOI Záhorská Bystrica). In case they

locally fail to satisfy such a condition, it is due to the connection to the related section of the

highway D4 Záhorská Bystrica - Devínska Nová Ves, which has already been in operation at

half profile.

The width arrangement of the highway D4 is designed in the category D 26.5/120, and 2T 8.0/80

in the Karpaty and Katušiná tunnels.

Variant 2a – elevated routing of highway in the section around the Vajnory municipality

and between Marianka and the Záhorská Bystrica municipality with the length of 16.840 km.

The variant 2a begins at 0.575 km, where the vertical alignments of both variants of the Ivanka

North interchange meet at the approx. 6 m high embankment. The highway route continues

westwards on the embankment for a short distance, concurrent with the Šúrsky kanál at the

distance of approx. 300 m from the north-east edge of the built-up area of the Vajnory

municipality.

The flyover interchange (FOI) Čierna voda is located at 1.263 km. At this point the highway

crosses the road III/5021 (D4 over III/5021) by a bridge structure and an 8 m high embankment.

4

The highway continues concurrently with the Šúrsky kanál on a descending embankment further

towards the eastern slopes of the Little Carpathians. At point 2.524 km the highway crosses

Račiansky potok (Rača creek) by a bridge structure. At point 3.250 km the highway runs closely

above the terrain level and continues on the embankment reaching the height of 5 m before the

FOI Rača.

At the FOI Rača, at point 4.124 km the highway crosses the railroad No.120 Bratislava - Žilina

by a bridge, along with the road II/502 (D4 runs over the railway as well as the road II/502).

In the section between the FOI Ivanka North and FOI Čierna voda, there are designed one-way

two-lane collectors (concurrent roads) of category C 9.5/8 on both sides of the highway D4, to

which the local roads will be connected. In the section between FOI Čierna voda and FOI Rača

the one-way collector is proposed only for the southern part of D4 highway, through which the

adjacent territory west of the Vajnory municipality can be connected (CEPIT premises).

The highway route continues south-west over the FOI Rača passing through vineyards and on a 3

m high embankment, then in a moderate cut, and later again on a 5 m high embankment,

ascending up to the east portal of the Karpaty tunnel. At the section between the FOI Rača and

the tunnel portal, there are four bridge structures over the local roads and terrain depressions.

At 6.213 km the Karpaty tunnel begins by its east portal, by which the highway crosses the Little

Carpathians. The total length of the tunnel is 8.062 km. The west portal is situated at the border

of PLA Little Carpathians, at 14.275 km of the highway D4. The tunnel is equipped with a

ventilation shaft at approx. 10.050 km of the highway D4. The access road to the above-ground

part of the ventilation shaft runs from the Bratislava municipality of Rača along a forest road

around Pieskový potok (Sand creek) under the Biely kríž hill, then by Štefánikova magistrála

road south-west for approx. 2 km, and then in direction west by an unpaved forest road up to the

shaft itself.

Behind the tunnel the routing of the west portal is in a cut of 22 m depth (territory noise impact

minimization) and 1.1 km length. It continues by an embankment reaching the maximum height

of 6 m and a moderate cut over the slope foot of the Mariánske vinohrady site, north of the

municipality of Marianka. At 15.843 km the highway crosses the relocated field road by a

bridge structure.

The variant 2a terminates at the interchange of the highway D4 and the road I/2 FOI Záhorská

Bystrica (D4 over the I/2). At the interchange the highway crosses the road I/2 by a double-arch

bridge.

Proposed interchanges:

- the highway FOI Ivanka North, 0.000 km of the highway D4, designed as a clover leaf

shaped interchange of the highway D1 (6 lane with concurrent roads at both sides, the so

called collectors) and the highway D4 (4 lane with concurrent roads at both sides),

- FOI Čierna voda, 1.263 km of the highway D4, designed as folded diamond/delta shaped

interchange with two roundabouts on the road III/5021, which are left on the ground along

with the road, the roundabouts are connected to collectors, thus joining the highway D4.

- highway FOI Rača designed as a complex double-level shaped interchange at 4.142 km of

the highway D4,

- highway FOI Záhorská Bystrica, at 16.649 km of the highway D4, delta shaped interchange

situated on a local elevation between Stupava and Záhorská Bystrica at 16.649 km of the

highway D4.

Proposed bridges:

Outline of the bridges of the variant 2a:

Bridges over D4 - 3 (length of the bridges - 108 m, 136 m, 76 m)

Bridges over D4 - 6 (length of the bridges - 23.5 m, 10 m, 21 m, 21 m, 10 m, 51 m)

Bridges on a collector - 2 (length of the bridges - 23.5 m, 23.5 m)

5

Bridges on an interchange branch - 1 (length of the bridge - 63 m)

Bridges together: - 12 (total length - 565.5 m)

Proposed tunnels:

In the variant 2a, the Karpaty tunnel of 8.062 km is proposed. Its further specifications follow.

Highway sewerage system: The variant 2a is subdivided into 15 drained sections (excluding the tunnel). There will be 7 pumping stations. Recipients are the creeks Strúha, Šúrsky kanál, Račiansky potok, Podhájsky potok, Mariánsky

potok. After purification in the oil substance separators (ORL), the water from the five drained

sections will be freely absorbed into the soil.

Sewerage sections and their mouths in variant 2a are described in the following table: Drained section (km) Mouths (recipient)

0.000 – 0.500 up to the highway D4 section of Jarovce – Ivanka North

0.500 – 1.200 thou. (left) through ORL and RT into the Strúha creek

0.500 – 1.200 thou. (right) through ORL and RT into the Šúrsky kanál


1.200 – 1.500 (right) through ORL and RT into the Šúrsky kanál

1.500 – 2.500 through ORL and RT into the Račiansky creek

2.500 – 4.300 through ORL and RT into the Šúrsky kanál

4.300 – 4.800 through ORL soil absorption





15.100 – 15.600 through ORL and RT into the Podhájsky creek

15.600 – 16.600 through ORL and RT into the Mariansky creek

16.600 – 16.840 up to the Highway D4 section of Záhorská Bystrica – Devínska Nová

Ves

Proposed relocations and road changes:

- Relocation of the field road at 3.366 km (over the highway D4), category P 6/40, total length

of 430 m

- The road II/502 modification at the FOI Rača is an enlargement of the existing four-lane,

directionally divided road by adding joining and turning additional lanes of the intersection.

The length of the modification is 1.9 km.

- Relocation of the field road (at the crossing of FOI Rača), category P 6/40, estimated

relocation length is 1.200 km

- Relocation of the field road at 14.500 km of D4 on the right, category P 6/40, 707 m long

- Relocation of the field road (by a bridge over D4 at 15.247 km), category P 6/40, 270 m

long

- Relocation of the field road (under D4 at 15.843 km), category P 6/40, overall length of 270

m

- Walking and cycling path (at 16.559 km of the highway D4) at the intersection of the FOI

Záhorská Bystrica, 5 m wide and 253 m long

Access roads and construction yards:

During the D4 construction, the construction mechanisms will be provided access to the

constructions site, mainly to the large objects construction sites (Karpaty tunnel, bridges and

interchanges). In principle, it is expected that all public roads will be used as main access routes

to get the direct access to the construction site, while prospective suppliers of works will keep on

moving along the D4 route, along the surfaces of the permanent land use of the structure.

The relocation of the1.075km long field road in the vineyards in FOI Rača will be used to access

the east portal of the Karpaty tunnel and it will be connected to the existing field road in the

vineyards, concurrent with the II/502 road. The relocation of the field road at km 14.500 of the

6

D4 highway, which is 707m long, together with the highway route D4 will be used to access the

west portal of the Karpaty tunnel. The access road to the above-ground part of the ventilation

shaft runs from the Bratislava municipality of Rača along a forest road around Pieskový creek,

under the Biely kríž hill, then by Štefánikova magistrála road south-west for approx. 2 km, and

then in direction west by an unpaved forest road up to the shaft itself.

Construction yards at the FOI Čierna voda, FOI Rača and FOI Záhorská Bystrica premises, also

at both portals of the Karpaty tunnel.

Variant 2b – subgrade routing of highway in section around the Vajnory municipality

and between Marianka and the Záhorská Bystrica municipality with length of 16.840 km.

Variant 2b commences at point 0.575 km, where the vertical alignments of both variants of the

Ivanka North interchange meet on the embankment at height of approx. 6m. The route of the

highway continues for a short distance on the embankment westwards concurrently with Šúrsky

kanál. In the section running in the vicinity of the built up area of the Vajnory municipality (at

distance of approx. 300 m from the north-eastern edge), the vertical alignment of the highway

continues from point 0.900 km under the level of the terrain up to 1.600 km. It concerns a soil

covered (subgrade) section of the highway named Vajnory tunnel.

At point 1.263 km the flyover interchange (FOI) Čierna voda is located, where the highway D4

crosses the road III/5021 (D4 runs below III/5021).

Behind the tunnel the highway continues concurrently with Šúrsky kanál on the up to 5 m high

embankment towards the eastern slopes of the Little Carpathians. At point 2.524 km the highway

crosses Račiansky potok (Rača creek) by a bridge structure. At point 3.250 km the highway runs

closely above the terrain level and continues on the embankment reaching the height of 5 m

before FOI Rača.

In FOI Rača, at point 4.124 km the highway crosses the railroad No.120 Bratislava - Žilina by a

bridge, along with the road II/502 (D4 runs over the railway as well as the road II/502).

In the section between the FOI Ivanka North and FOI Čierna voda, the one-way two-lane

collectors (concurrent roads) of category C 9,5/80 are designed on both sides of highway D4, to

which the local roads will be connected. In the section between FOI Čierna voda and FOI Rača a

one-way collector is proposed only for the southern part of D4 highway, through which the

adjacent territory west of the Vajnory municipality can be connected (CEPIT premises).

The highway route continues south-west over the FOI Rača passing through vineyards and on a 3

m high embankment, then in a moderate cut, and later again on a 5 m high embankment,

ascending up to the east portal of the Karpaty tunnel. At the section between the FOI Rača and

the tunnel portal, there are four bridge structures over the local roads and terrain depressions.

At 6.213 km the Karpaty tunnel begins by its east portal, by which the highway crosses the Little

Carpathians. Compared to the variant 2a, the tunnel is prolonged at the west portal, reaching the

total length of 9.055km, up until the west edge of the built-up area of the Marianka municipality.

The tunnel is equipped with a ventilation shaft at approx. 10.050 km of the highway D4. The

access road to the above-ground part of the ventilation shaft runs from the Bratislava

municipality of Rača along a forest road around Pieskový creek, under the Biely kríž hill, then

by Štefánikova magistrála road south-west for approx. 2 km, and then in direction west by an

unpaved forest road up to the shaft itself. After the exit from the Little Carpathians (at 15.268 km), the highway D4 runs in a deep cut (subgrade routing), in the form of a soil covered tunnel, while the entire Karpaty tunnel is prolonged by approx. 0.600 km. Behind the tunnel the route continues by an embankment of the maximum height of 9 m at the foot of

the slopes of the municipal district of Mariánske vinohrady north from the Marianka municipality. The

embankment route is due to the necessity of drainage of the highway and gradual connection to

the FOI Záhorská Bystrica, which is already being built. At 15.843 km the highway crosses the

relocated field road by a bridge structure.

The section terminates at the interchange of the highway D4 and the road I/2 FOI Záhorská

7

Bystrica (D4 over the I/2). At the interchange the highway crosses the road I/2 by a double-arch

bridge.





- FOI Čierna voda, 1.263 km of the highway D4, designed as delta shaped interchange with

two roundabouts on the road III/5021, which are left on the ground and connected by a

bridge structure over the highway D4 (in the tunnel), the roundabouts are connected to the

collectors, thus joining the highway D4,


the highway D4,

- highway FOI Záhorská Bystrica, a delta shaped interchange situated on a local elevation

between Stupava and Záhorská Bystrica at 16.649 km of the highway D4.

Proposed bridges:

Outline of the variant 2b bridges:

Bridges over D4 - 2 (length of the bridges - 108 m, 108 m)





Proposed tunnels:

In the variant 2B the proposed Karpaty tunnel is 9.055 km long, while the soil covered Vajnory

tunnel is 0.700 m long. Their further specification follow.

Highway sewerage system:

The variant 2a is subdivided into 10 drained sections (excluding the tunnel). There will be 6

pumping stations. Recipients are the creeks Strúha, Šúrsky kanál, Račiansky potok, Podhájsky

potok, Mariánsky potok. After purification in the oil substance separators (ORL), the water from

the three drained sections will be freely absorbed into the soil.

Sewerage sections and their mouths in variant 2a are described in the following table: Drained section (km) Mouths (recipient)

0.000 – 0.600 up to the Highway D4 section of Jarovce – Ivanka North

0.600 - 2.200 thou. (left) through ORL and RT into the Strúha creek

0.600 - 2.200 (right) through ORL and RT into the Šúrsky kanál








Ves


- Relocation of the road III/5021 (over the highway D4 at 1.262 km), category C 7.5/50, 305

m long. Two roundabouts are part of the adjustment.

- Bypass on the road III/5021 (temporary bypass at 1.262 km), category C 7.5/50, of the

length of 550 m.

- Relocation of the field road (over D4 at 3.366 km), category P 6/40, overall length of 430 m

8


directionally divided road by adding joining and turning lanes to the intersection. The length

is 1.900 km.




- Relocation of the field road (over the west portal of the Karpaty tunnel at 15.247 km of the

D4 highway), category P 6/40, 270 m long

- Relocation of the field road (under D4 at 15.843 km), category P 6/40, overall length of 270

m

- Construction of a walking and cycling path (at 16.559 km of D4 highway) at the crossing of

Záhorská Bystrica, 5 m wide and 253 m long





to get direct access to the construction site, while prospective suppliers of works will keep on


The relocation of the1.075km long field road in the vineyards in FOI Rača will be used to access

the east portal of the Karpaty tunnel and it will be connected to the existing field road in the

vineyards, concurrent with the II/502 road. The relocation of the field road at km 14.500 of the

D4 highway, which is 707m long, together with the highway route D4 will be used to access the

west portal of the Karpaty tunnel. The access road to the above-ground part of the ventilation

shaft runs from the Bratislava municipality of Rača along a forest road around Pieskový creek,

under the Biely kríž hill, then by Štefánikova magistrála road south-west for approx. 2 km, and

then in direction west by an unpaved forest road up to the exhaust itself.



Variant 7a – elevated routing of highway in section around the Vajnory municipality

and between Marianka and the Záhorská Bystrica municipality with the length of 16.722

km.

The variant 7a begins at 0.575 km, where the vertical alignments of both variants of the Ivanka


westwards on the embankment, concurrent with the Šúrsky kanál at the distance of approx. 300

m from the north-east edge of the built-up area of the Vajnory municipality.

FOI Čierna voda is situated at 1.263 km, where the highway crosses the road III/5021 (D4 over

III/5021) by a bridge structure and an 8 m high embankment.

The highway continues to run concurrently with the Šúrsky kanál on the descending

embankment towards the eastern slopes of the Little Carpathians. At point 2.524 km the highway

crosses Račiansky potok (Rača creek) by a bridge structure. At point 3.250 km the highway runs

closely above the terrain level and continues on the embankment, whose height is 8 m before

FOI Rača.

In the section between FOI Ivanka North and FOI Čierna voda, the one way two-lane collectors

(concurrent roads) of category C 9,5/80 are designed on both sides of highway D4, to which the

local roads will be connected. In the section between FOI Čierna voda and FOI Rača a one-way

collector is proposed only for the southern part of D4 highway, through which the adjacent

territory west of the Vajnory municipality can be connected (CEPIT premises).

When compared to variants 2a, 2b, the FOI Rača is shifted more northwards, while the highway

D4 crosses the railway No. 120 Bratislava - Žilina and road II/502 (D4 runs over both the

railway and road II/502). At point 3.765 km ahead of the interchange it crosses the relocated

9

field road by a bridge. Behind the short, approx. 250 m long, embankment up to 11 m high there

is a bridge over the interchange branch and other two bridge structures of the interchange.

Behind the interchange the vertical alignment reaches the terrain level and it is transformed into

a 300 m long cut.

The east portal of the Karpaty tunnel is located at 4.7 km. The total length of the tunnel is 9.950

km. The west portal is situated behind the forest edge north of the Marianka municipality at

14.650 km. The tunnel is equipped with a ventilation shaft at approx. 10.050 km of the highway

D4. The access road to the above-ground part of the ventilation shaft runs from the Bratislava

municipality of Rača along a forest road around Pieskový creek, under the Biely kríž hill, and

then in direction west by an unpaved forest road for approx. 2 km up to the exhaust itself.

Behind the tunnel the routing from the west portal runs in a cut of 11 m depth (minimization of

the territory noise impact). Then, up to the FOI Záhorská Bystrica the vertical alignment of the

highway runs over the ground. The maximum height of the embankment reaches 6 m in this

section. At 15.775 km the highway D4 crosses a relocation of a field road by a bridge. The

variant 7a terminates at the FOI Záhorská Bystrica (D4 over I/2) with a bridge construction.






interchange with two roundabouts on the road III/5021, which are left on the ground along

with the road, the roundabouts are connected to collectors, thus joining the highway D4.


the highway D4,

- highway FOI Záhorská Bystrica, a delta shaped interchange situated on the road I/2 on a

local elevation between Stupava and Záhorská Bystrica at 16.581 km of the highway D4.

Proposed bridges:

Outline of the variant 7a bridges:


Bridges over D4 - 7 (length of the bridges - 23.5 m, 10 m, 21 m, 21 m, 7 m, 10 m, 51 m)




Proposed tunnels:

In the variant 7a, the Karpaty tunnel is proposed in the length of 9.950 km. Its further

specifications follow.


The variant 7a is subdivided into 12 drained sections (excluding the tunnel). There will be 7


potok, Mariánsky potok. After the purification at ORL, the water coming from the two drained

sections is meant to be absorbed.

Sewerage sections and their mouths in variant 7a are outlined in the following table: Drained section (km) Mouths (recipient)









10





Ves


- Relocation of the field road (under D4 at 3.765km), category P 6/40, overall length of 680 m



is 1.998 km.




- Relocation of the field road (over the D4 highway at 15.179 km), category P 6/40, 270 m

long

- Relocation of the field road (under D4 at 15.775km), category P 6/40, overall length of 270

m

- Construction of a walking and cycling path (at 16.559km of D4 highway) at the crossing of

FOI Záhorská Bystrica, 5 m wide and 253 m long

Access roads and construction sites:

During the D4 construction, the construction mechanisms will have access to the construction

sites, mainly to the large objects construction (the Karpaty tunnel, bridges and interchanges). In

principle, it is expected that all public roads will be used as main access routes to get direct

access to the construction site, while prospective suppliers of works will keep on moving along

the D4 route, along the surfaces of the permanent land use of the structure.

The relocation of the1.2 km long field road will be used to access the east portal of the Karpaty

tunnel and it will be connected to the existing field road in the vineyards, concurrent with the

II/502 road. The relocation of the field road at km 14.500 of the D4 highway, which is 707m

long, and the highway D4 route will be used to access the west portal of the Karpaty tunnel.

The access road to the above-ground part of the ventilation shaft runs from the Bratislava



unpaved forest road up to the shaft itself.



Variant 7c – subgrade routing of highway in section around the Vajnory municipality

and between Marianka and the Záhorská Bystrica municipality with length of 16.772 km.

The variant 7c begins at 0.575 km, where the vertical alignments of both variants of the Ivanka


westwards on the embankment for a short distance, concurrent with the Šúrsky kanál. In the

section running in the vicinity of the built-up area of the Vajnory municipality (at the distance of

approx. 300 m from the north-eastern edge), the vertical alignment of the highway continues

from point 0.900 km under the level of the terrain up to 1.600 km. It concerns a soil covered

(subgrade) section of the highway named Vajnory tunnel.

At point 1.263 km the flyover interchange (FOI) Čierna voda is located, where the highway D4

crosses the road III/5021 (D4 runs below III/5021).

Behind the tunnel the highway continues concurrently with the Šúrsky kanál on the 5 m high

embankment towards the eastern slopes of the Little Carpathians.

At point 2.524 km the highway crosses Račiansky potok (Rača creek) by a bridge structure. At

point 3.250 km the highway runs closely above the terrain level and continues on the

11

embankment, whose height is 8 m before FOI Rača.






When compared to variants 2a, 2b, FOI Rača is shifted more northwards, while highway D4

crosses railway No. 120 Bratislava - Žilina and road II/502 (D4 runs over both the railway and

road II/502). At point 3.765 km ahead of the interchange, it crosses the relocated field road by a

bridge. Behind the short, approx. 250 m long, embankment reaching the height of 11 m, there is

a bridge over the interchange branch and other two bridge structures of the interchange. Behind

the interchange the vertical alignment reaches the terrain level and it is transformed into a 300 m

long cut.

At 4.700 km, there is the east portal of the Karpaty tunnel, with the depth of the cut reaching 15

m before the tunnel. The total tunnel length in this variant is 10.5 km. The west portal is located

at the west end of the built-up area of the Marianka municipality at 15.2 km. The tunnel is

equipped with a ventilation shaft at approx. 10.050 km of the highway D4. The access road to

the above-ground part of the ventilation shaft runs from the Bratislava municipality of Rača

along a forest road around Pieskový creek, under the Biely kríž hill, and then in direction west by

an unpaved forest road up to the shaft itself.

After exiting the Little Carpathias, the highway D4 runs in a deep cut (subgrade routing) in the

form of a soil covered tunnel, while the length of the Karpaty tunnel results to be prolonged by

approx. 600m. Behind the tunnel the highway D4 runs on in a cut (subgrade) up to approx. 15.7

km. Up until the FOI Záhorská Bystrica the vertical alignment of the highway D4 runs slightly

over the ground. The maximum height of the embankment reaches 6 m in this section. The

embankment route choice is caused by the necessity of the highway D4 drainage and

uninterrupted connection to the FOI Záhorská Bystrica, which is already being built. At point

15.775 km the D4 highway runs above a relocated field road. The variant 7b terminates in FOI

(D4 over I/2) with a bridge construction.






interchange with two roundabouts on the road III/5021, which are left on the ground and

connected by a bridge structure over the highway D4 (in the tunnel), the roundabouts are

connected to the collectors, thus joining the highway D4,


the highway D4,



highway D4.

Proposed bridges:

Outline of the variant 7b bridges:






12

Proposed tunnels:

In the variant 7b the proposed Karpaty tunnel is 10.5 km long, while the soil covered Vajnory

tunnel is 0.700 m long. Their further specification follow.


The variant 7b is subdivided into 8 drained sections (excluding the tunnel). There will be 6



the drained section will be freely absorbed into the soil.

Sewerage sections and their mouths in variant 7b are described in the following table: Drained section (km) Mouths (recipient)


0.600 - 2.200 thou. (left) through ORL and RT into the Strúha creek

0.600 - 2.200 (right) through ORL and RT into the Šúrsky kanál





16.500 – 16.770 up to the Highway D4 section of Záhorská Bystrica – Devínska

Nová Ves


- Relocation of the road III/5021 (over the highway D4 at 1.262 km), category C 7.5/50, 305

m long. Two roundabouts are part of the adjustment.

- Bypass on the road III/5021 (temporary bypass at 1.262 km), category C 7.5/50, of the

length of 550 m.

- Relocation of the field road (under the D4 highway at 3.765 km), category P 6/40, 680 m

long



is 1.998 km.

- Relocation of the field road (at the crossing of FOI Rača), categ. P 6/40, estimated relocation

length is 1.200 km

- Relocation of the field road at 14.500 km of D4 on the right, categ. P 6/40, 707 m long


D4 highway), categ. P 6/40, 270 m long

- Relocation of the field road (under D4 at 15.775km), categ. P 6/40, overall length of 270m


Záhorská Bystrica, 5m wide and 253m long







The relocation of the1.2km long field road will be used to access the east portal of the Karpaty








13



Variant 7c – elevated routing of highway around the Vajnory municipality and subgrade

routing of highway in section between Marianka and the Záhorská Bystrica municipality

with length of 16.772 km.

The variant 7c begins at 0.575 km, where the vertical alignments of both variants of the Ivanka


westwards on the embankment for a short distance, concurrent with the Šúrsky kanál at the

distance of approx. 300 m from the north-east edge of the built-up area of the Vajnory

municipality.

FOI Čierna voda is situated at 1.263 km, where the highway crosses the road III/5021 (D4 over

III/5021) by a bridge structure and an 8 m high embankment.

The highway continues concurrently with Šúrsky kanál on the decreasing embankment towards

the eastern slopes of the Little Carpathians. At point 2.524 km the highway crosses Račiansky

potok (Rača creek) by a bridge structure. At point 3.250 km the highway runs closely above the

terrain level and continues on the embankment, whose height is 8 m before FOI Rača.






When compared to variants 2a, 2b, the FOI Rača is shifted more northwards, while the highway

D4 crosses the railway No. 120 Bratislava - Žilina and the road II/502 (D4 runs over both the

railway and road II/502). Compared to the variants 7a and 7b, the shape of the FOI Rača is

different in variant 7c, even while maintaining identical direction route. All the interchange

ramps are located west from the road II/502. In this solution of the interchange, the highway D4

runs only through one bridge over the railway and the road II/502. Before the interchange at

3.765 km, the highway crosses a relocated field road by a bridge.

The highway, after the interchange, runs on an embankment reaching 9 m of height and

gradually passes into a cut up to the east portal of the Karpaty tunnel at 4.7 km, where the cut is

approximately 15 m deep.

According to this variant, the total length of the tunnel is 10.5 m (the same as in the variant 7b).

The west portal is located over the west end of the built-up area of the Marianka municipality at

15.2 km of the highway D4. The tunnel is equipped with a ventilation shaft at approx. 10.050 km

of the highway D4. The access road to the above-ground part of the ventilation shaft runs from

the Bratislava municipality of Rača along a forest road around Pieskový creek, under the Biely

kríž hill, and then in direction west by an unpaved forest road up to the shaft itself.

After exiting the Little Carpathias, the highway D4 runs in a deep cut (subgrade routing) in the

form of a soil covered tunnel, while the length of the Karpaty tunnel results to be prolonged by

approx. 600m. Behind the tunnel the highway D4 runs on in a cut (subgrade) up to approx. 15.7

km. Up until the FOI Záhorská Bystrica the vertical alignment of the highway D4 runs slightly

over the ground. The maximum height of the embankment reaches 6 m in this section. The

embankment route choice is caused by the necessity of the highway D4 drainage and

uninterrupted connection to the FOI Záhorská Bystrica, which is already being built. At point

15.775 km the D4 highway runs above the relocated field road. The variant 7c terminates in the

FOI Záhorská Bystrica (D4 over I/2) with a bridge construction.





14

- FOI Čierna voda, 1.263 km of the highway D4, designed as a delta shaped interchange with

two roundabouts on the road III/5021, which are left on the ground along with the road, the

roundabouts are connected to collectors, thus joining the highway D4.


the highway D4,



highway D4.

Proposed bridges:

Outline of the variant 7c bridges:


Bridges over D4 - 8 (length of the bridges - 23.5 m, 10 m, 21 m, 21 m, 7 m, 115 m,

10 m, 51 m)

Bridges on a collector - 3 (length of the bridges - 23.5 m, 23.5 m, 115 m)

Bridges on an interchange branch - 4 (length of the bridges - 63 m, 70 m, 70 m, 70 m)


Proposed tunnels:

In the variant 7c, the Karpaty tunnel is proposed in the length of 10.5 km. Its further

specifications follow.


The variant 7c is subdivided into 11 drained sections (excluding the tunnel). There will be 7



the drained section will be freely absorbed into the soil.

Sewerage sections and their mouths in variant 7c are described in the following table: Drained section (km) Mouths (recipient)











16.500 – 16.770 up to the Highway D4 section of Záhorská Bystrica – Devínska

Nová Ves


- Relocation of the field road (under D4 at 3.765km), category P 6/40, overall length of the

relocation is approx. 680 m



is 1.477 km.

- Relocation of the field road (at the crossing of FOI Rača), categ. P 6/40, estimated relocation

length is 1.200 km

- Relocation of the field road at 14.500 km of D4 on the right, categ. P 6/40, 707 m long


D4 highway), categ. P 6/40, 270 m long

- Relocation of the field road (under D4 at 15.775km), categ. P 6/40, overall length of 270m

15


Záhorská Bystrica, 5m wide and 253m long







The relocation of the1.2km long field road will be used to access the east portal of the Karpaty










Karpaty tunnel - variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b, 7c

The tunnel, formed by two tubes, south and north, will be operated in a one-way basic mode.

Both tunnel tubes are divided into sections built by tunnel boring and the bored sections built in

open construction pit at both portals, which will subsequently be buried.

The lengths of the sections and the total lengths of the tunnel tubes are shown in the table below.

Tunnel section Variant 2a Variant 2b Variant 7a

Variants 7b and

7c

Excavated tunnel at the west portal 50 993 50 550

Bored tunnel 7,992 8,042 9,850 9,900

Excavated tunnel at the east portal 20 20 50 50

TOTAL 8,062 9,055 9,950 10,500

Based on the total length of 8 to 10.5 km (according to the specific variant) the tunnel is

classified as long (length > 3,000 m) under STN 73 7507, by which several aspects of its

technical solution are determined.

The vertical conduct of both tunnel tubes of the Karpaty tunnel is mostly defined by the

longitudinal gradient in the amount of 0.60 % in the ascent in direction of the west portal. In

proximity of the west portal, there is a vertical break and the route descends towards to portal in

a 3.0% slope. The height arc at the west portal has a radius of 20 km.

Technical solution of tunnel structures

Excavated tunnels at the east portal

Excavated tunnels will be built in an open building pit, using shotcrete and bolts. The

construction of the tunnel tubes shall be made of reinforced concrete, designed with membrane

waterproofing. After the construction of the tunnel tubes and the front portal wall, the space of

the pit will be filled with the material excavated from the tunnel up the original ground level.

Excavated tunnels at the west portal - variants 2a, 7a

16

The excavated tunnels, 50 m long, shall be built in an open building pit, using shotcrete and

bolts.

The construction of the tunnel tubes shall be made of reinforced concrete, using the designed

waterproofing membrane. After the construction of the tunnel tubes and the front portal wall, the

space of the pit will be filled with the material excavated from the tunnel up the original ground

level.

Excavated tunnels at the west portal - variants 2b, 7b - prolonged

The excavated tunnels 550 m long (700 m), shall be built in an open building pit, using shotcrete

and bolts. The construction of the tunnel tubes shall be made of reinforced concrete, designed

with membrane waterproofing. After the construction of the tunnel tubes, the space of the pit will

be filled with the material excavated from the tunnel up the original ground level. Model cross-

section of the excavated tunnel is included in the Feasibility and Effectiveness Study.

Bored Karpaty tunnel - tunnel construction and cross profile

The cross-section of bored tunnels is circular, depending on the proposed construction

technology of boring using the full-profile boring machinery TBM. The vertical axis of the road

is equal to the tunnel profile axis. The cross-section is designed so that it complies with the

current regulations, mainly STN 73 7507. The resulting designed internal cross-section of the

construction of the bored tunnel consist of a circumference with a semi-diameter of 5.35 m at the

intrados of the tunnel lining. With the expected tunnel lining composition, it represents a

diameter of TBM 11.7 m. Model cross-sections of the tunnel are included in the Feasibility and

Effectiveness Study. Ventilation

The tunnel will be ventilated by a forced-air ventilation system (cross ventilation). The exhausts

shall be located both at the portals and the ventilation shafts. The variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b, and 7c

use one ventilation shaft.

The solution of the tunnel ventilation in individual variants:

Variant 2a - the section spanning from the tunnel beginning at 6.213 km up to 8.137 km shall be

ventilated by the portal exhaust, the section between 8.137 km and 12.168 km shall be ventilated

by the central exhaust located at approx. 10.060 km, the section between 12.168 km and the end

of the tunnel at 14.275 km shall be ventilated by the second portal exhaust.

Variant 2b - the section spanning from the tunnel beginning at 6.213 km up to 8.137 km shall be




Variant 7a - the section spanning from the tunnel beginning at 4.7 km up to 7.640 km shall be




Variant 7b, 7c - the section starting at the beginning of the tunnel at 4.7 km up to 7.640 km shall

be ventilated by the portal exhaust, the section between 7.640 km and 12.890 km shall be

ventilated by the central exhaust located at approx. 10.580 km, the section between 12.890 km

and the end of the tunnel at 15.200 km shall be ventilated by the second portal exhaust. In

variants 7b and 7c the tunnels are identical, so are the ventilation sections.

Tunnel construction procedure

In the first stage of the tunnel tubes boring, a parallel construction of both portal building pits is

expected, both east and west, including their clearance and static securing. In front of the

excavated areas at both the east and west portals, there shall be zones reserved for the building

sites related to the tunnel tubes construction.

The tunnel tubes of the Karpaty tunnel will be bored by two TBMs from the side of one of the

17

portals. The other portal boring will be conventional (NATM). Escape routes shall be bored after

the tunnel tubes are built. Shafts and ventilation connections shall be bored along with the tunnel

construction.

Vajnory tunnel - variants 2b, 7b

The tunnel coverage, 700 m long, consists of two partly separated tunnel tubes in the section

from 0.9 km to 1.6 km of the D4, which shall be in operation in a one-way basic mode. Based on

the total length of 700 m, the tunnel is classified as medium (length < 3,000 m) under STN 73

7507, from which several aspects of its technical solution will derive.

Vertical conduct of both tunnel tubes is defined by a longitudinal gradient in the amount of 0.91

% in the descent from the east portal and a gradient in the amount of 1.29% in the ascent towards

the west portal. The vertical curve in the centre of the tunnel reaches a radius of 20 km. The

tunnel is lead in a directional circular curve with a 1.570 km semi-diameter and partly also in the

transition curve.

The construction of the tunnel coverage is composed of the lower part, the reinforced concrete

pit forming the base construction and of the upper part - the coverage itself. The upper part of

the construction lining is formed by bearing ribs of reinforced concrete and pillars of the central

section. The space between the ribs is filled by transparent materials allowing natural light in.

Over the central section, there are openings allowing natural ventilation of the transport space of

the coverage.

The construction technology supposes building a underlying construction - a reinforced concrete

pit, under the protection of the bracing and insulating constructions. Then, the vertical and

horizontal bearing constructions of the coverage will be built.

Technological equipment of the tunnel provides its operational and security functions.

Considering that the tunnel coverage is not a tunnel as defined by STN 73 7507 and

in TP04/2006 ("hanging wall" over the tunnel is interrupted by ventilation openings), its

equipment is appropriately modified, compared to the tunnel of the same length category.

Brief technical and technological description of the construction - variant Senec - Pezinok -

Lozorno (SPL)

The highway D4 route begins with the FOI Chorvátsky Grob on the highway D1, almost in the

middle between the existing FOI Senec and the planned FOI Triblavina. It runs on in direction

Pezinok on a low embankment, reaching maximum height of 5 m, or in a 2 m deep cut. At 2.615

km the highway is crossed by a bridge on a field road relocation. At 5.450 km the highway

crossed the relocation of the road III/5023 by an underpass (the bridge on the road relocation).

In the section between Slovenský Grob and Viničné, the highway turning left becomes

concurrent with the planned relocation of the road II/502, which is connected to the FOI Pezinok.

At this interchange, the highway crosses by a bridge the Viničiansky creek twice and the

Mahulianka kanál once.

At 8.233 km, it crosses the Stará Blatiná kanál by a bridge. Starting from the 8.5 km, the vertical

alignment of the highway keeps rising up to a 12 m height embankment, at 9.732 km it crosses

the road II/502 relocation by a bridge at the height of 12 m above the ground level.

The highway D4 route runs on west on the same embankment, at 10.321 km it crosses both the

railway No. 120 Bratislava – Žilina and the existing road II/502 by a bridge . Over the bridge, it

continues on the embankment reaching 6 m. Before the east portal of the Karpaty tunnel at 10.7

km, the highway passes into a 9 m deep cut.

The total length of the Karpaty tunnel is 12.4 km, according to this variant. The tunnel is

equipped with 2 ventilation shafts. The shaft is located at 14.313 km. The exhaust is accessible

by a paved forest road coming from the town of Svätý Jur, approx 2.5 km west from the built-up

area edge. The shaft is located at 19.094 km. Its exhaust is also accessible by a paved forest road,

connecting Lozorno, Borinka and the adjoining cottage area.

18

At 23.450 km, in the section between the west portal of the Karpaty tunnel (at 23.1 km) and the

east portal of the Karpaty tunnel (at 23.6 km), the highway D4 crosses a valley with a small

water stream by a bridge.

The total length of the Katušiná tunnel is 1.850 km. Its west portal is located at 25.450 km. From

the wast portal of the Katušiná tunnel on, the highway D4 route continues slightly above the

existing terrain (an embankment of maximum height of 5 m), and runs directly to the existing

interchange of the FOI Lozorno (D4 over D2), behind which this variant ends. At 27.068 km, the

highway underpasses the bridge on the relocation of the road II/501 by a new route.

The total length of this variant is 28.065 km, the width arrangement of the highway D4 is

designed in the category D 26.5/120 and 2T 8.0/80 in the Karpaty and Katušiná tunnels

respectively.


- highway FOI Chorvátsky Grob, interchange of tubular shape at 0.000 km of the highway

D4, including also an adjustment of the highway D1,

- highway FOI Pezinok, tubular interchange with a feeder into the relocation of the road

II/502 at 6.853 km of the highway D4,

- highway FOI Lozorno, clover leaf shaped interchange at 27.691 km of the highway D4,

including also an adjustment of the existing highway D2 at the interchange branches

Proposed bridges:

Outline of the variant SPL bridges:

Bridges over D4 - 6 (length of the bridges - 59 m, 59 m, 95 m, 59 m, 310 m, 71 m)

Bridges over D4 - 5 (length of the bridges - 71 m, 23 m, 92 m, 45 m, 71 m)


Bridges on the road I/2 - 1 (length of the bridge - 71 m)

Bridges over railway - 1 (length of the bridge - 71 m)

Bridges together: - 13 (total length - 1,073 m)

Proposed tunnels:

In the variant SPL the proposed Karpaty tunnel is 12.4 km long, while the Katušiná tunnel is

1.850 km long. Their further specification follow.

Highway sewerage system: The Feasibility Study did not include a sewerage solution for this variant, therefore, in view of the accessible documentation and field survey, as recommended recipients shall be used the Rakytov creek and Matejkov kanál at the Lozorno interchange, alternatively a part of the sewerage system shall be

mouthed into the highawy D2 sewerage system. A left-sided nameless tributary of the Suchý potok

shall be used as a recipient in the section between the portals. It is possible to drain the east

section into the kanáls of Šúr, Viničniansky, Stará Blatiná, Mlynský potok and a nameless kanál

at the FOI Chorvátsky Grob. Considering the capacity of the mentioned watercourses and the

nature of the terrain, it is probable that the construction of retention basins shall be necessary.


- Relocation of the road III/5023 (over the highway D4 at 5.450 km), category C7.5/60,

length of relocation approx. 737 m

- Relocation of the road III/5022 (over the highway D4 at 8.513 km), category C7.5/60,

length of relocation approx. 425 m

- Relocation of the road II/501 (over the highway D4 at 27.068 km), category C9.5/70, length

of relocation approx. 993 m

- Relocation of the road I/2 (to the left part of the highway D4 at 27.700 km), which crosses

the road III/0237 at a circular intersection at 2.015 km, category C 9.5/70, the relocation

length is approx. 2.771 km

19

- Relocation of the road III/0237 (continuation of the variant D4 at km 28.065), with

arrangement changes from D 26.5 to C9.5/80 up to the circular intersection with the road I/2

and continues in category C 7.5/60, total relocation length is estimated to 1.072 km

- Feeder of the relocation II/502 at the interchange FOI Pezinok (right from the highway D4 at

6.853 km), category C11.5/80, total length of the feeder is 1.545 km

- Relocation of the field road (over the D4 highway at 2.615 km), category P 4/30, approx.

425 m long


Within the construction of the D4 highway it will be necessary to provide access of construction

machinery to the construction sites, especially to construction sites related to large objects, such

as bridges, intersections, etc.. In principle, it is expected that all public roads will be used as

main access routes to get the direct access to the construction site, while prospective suppliers of

works will keep on moving along the route, along the surfaces of the permanent land use of the

structure. In some parts, the site will be divided by means of obstacles surmountable with

difficulty or at high cost.

Some tertiary roads belonging to different entities can be used as access routes to the

construction site. The condition of these roads typically requires treatment (repairs of the road

cover, construction of a new road, extending the road, etc.).

Indicative plan of temporary tertiary roads construction:

- access road to the D4 building site - access from the road III/5022 continuing along a field

road to the highway, length of the adjustment of approx. 530 m,

- access road to the D4 building site - access from the road III/5023 continuing along a field

road to the highway, length of the adjustment of approx. 2300 m,

- access road to the D4 building site - access from the road II/501 in the urban area of the

Lozorno municipality, continuing along a field road to the highway. The length of the

adjustment of approx. 1200 m.

The envisaged access road treatments are indicative, further processing of the documentation

will provide further analyses of the issue and it will especially be negotiated with the relevant

processedities and organizations.

Construction yards are probably going to be located at the tunnel portals and in the area of the

FOI Chorvátsky Grob, FOI Pezinok, and FOI Lozorno.

Karpaty tunnel and Katušiná tunnel - variant SPL

The Karpaty tunnel in SPL variant is formed by two tubes, south and north, which will be

operated in a one-way basic mode. Both tunnel tubes are divided into sections built by tunnel

boring and excavated sections built in open building pits at both portals, which will subsequently

be buried.

The lengths of the sections and total lengths of the tunnel tubes are shown in the table below. (in

metres) Tunnel section North tunnel tube South tunnel tube

Excavated tunnel at the west portal 40 60

Bored tunnel 12,300 12,300

Excavated tunnel at the east portal 60 40

TOTAL 12,400 12,400

Based on the total length of 12,400 m, the tunnel under STN 73 7507 is classified as long (length > 3,000 m), from which several aspects of its technical solution will derive. The Katušiná tunnel is also formed by two tubes, south and north, which will be operated in a

one-way basic mode. Both tunnel tubes are divided into sections built by tunnel boring and

excavated sections built in open building pits at both portals.

The lengths of the sections and total lengths of the tunnel tubes are shown in the table below. (in

metres) Tunnel section North tunnel tube South tunnel tube

20

Excavated tunnel at the west portal 50 50

Bored tunnel 1,700 1,700

Excavated tunnel at the east portal 100 100

TOTAL 1,850 1,850

Based on the total length of 1850 m, the tunnel under STN 73 7507 is classified as medium (length < 3,000 m), from which several aspects of its technical solution willderive. Vertical conduct of both tunnel tubes of the Karpaty tunnel is defined by the longitudinal

gradient in the amount of 0.87 % in the ascent in direction of the west portal. The height arc at

the west portal has a radius of 10 km.

Vertical conduct of the Katušiná tunnel is almost entirely in vertical curve. The tunnel descent

amounts to 3.15% at the west portal.

According to STN 73 7507 the passage cross-section is designed for the width category 2T8.0.

Technical solution of tunnel structures

Excavated tunnels at the west and east portals - the Karpaty tunnel and Katušiná tunnel

Excavated tunnels will be built in an open building pit, using shotcrete and bolts for bracing. The

construction of the excavated tunnel tubes shall be consist of reinforced concrete, using the

designed waterproofing membrane. After the construction of the excavated tunnel tubes and the

front portal wall, the space of the pit will be filled up the original ground level with the material

excavated from the tunnel. The model cross-profile of the excavated tunnel is the same as in

variants 2 and 7.

Bored Karpaty tunnel - tunnel construction and cross profile

The cross-section of bored tunnels is circular, depending on the proposed construction

technology of boring using the full-profile boring machinery TBM. The vertical axes of the road

is equal to the tunnel profile axis. The cross-section is designed so that it complies with the

applicable regulations, mainly STN 73 7507. The resulting designed internal cross-section of the

construction of the bored tunnels consists of a circumference with a semi-diameter of 5.35 m at

the intrados of the tunnel lining. Considering the expected composition of the lining, it represents

a diameter of TBM 11.7 m.

Bored Katušiná tunnel - tunnel construction and cross profile

Given the length of the Katušiná tunnel, the conventional boring using NATM is taken into

consideration. The boring shall begin from one of the portals. Due to the proposed construction

technology, the cross-section of the bored tunnel is not circular. The vertical axes of the road is

equal to the tunnel profile axis. The cross-section is designed so that it complies with the

applicable regulations, mainly STN 73 7507.

Model cross-sections of the excavated tunnel are included in the Feasibility and Effectiveness

Study.

Ventilation

The Karpaty tunnel will be ventilated by a forced-air ventilation system (transverse ventilation).

Exhausts shall be located both at the portals and the ventilation shafts. Two ventilation shafts are

being considered. The proposed design includes 2 portal and 2 central exhausts in the tunnel. The

section spanning from the tunnel beginning at 10.7 km up to 12.507 km shall be ventilated by the

portal exhaust, the section between 12.507 km and 16.705 km shall be ventilated by the central

exhaust located at 14.313 km, the section between 16.705 km and 21.099 km shall be ventilated

by the second central exhaust located at 19.094 km, and the section between 21.099 km and the

end of the tunnel at 23.1 km shall be ventilated by the second portal exhaust.

The Katušiná tunnel shall have a longitudinal ventilation system, in view of the length of the

tunnel < 3000 m and the one-way traffic in both tubes.

Tunnel Karpaty construction procedure

For the beginning phase of the tunnel tubes boring, a parallel construction of both portal

construction pits is supposed, at both east and west, including clearance and static securing. In

front of the excavated areas at both east and west portals, there shall be zones reserved for the

21

construction sites.

The tunnel tubes of the Karpaty tunnel will be bored by two TBMs from the side of one of the

portals. The other portal boring will be conventional (NATM). Escape routes shall be bored after

the tunnel tubes are built. Shafts and ventilation connections shall be bored along with the tunnel

construction.

Tunnel Katušiná construction procedure

In the first stage of the tunnel tubes boring, a parallel construction of building pits at both, east

and west, portals is expected, including their clearance and static securing. In front of the

excavated areas at both east and west portals, there shall be zones reserved for the construction

sites.

The tunnel tubes will be bored conventionally (NATM) from both portals. Escape routes shall be

bored after the tunnel tubes are built.

Overview of the tunnel lengths in all the proposed variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b, 7c, SPL: Excavated and bored sections together

Variant

2a

Variant

2b

Variant

7a

Variants

7b and 7c

SPL variant.

Tunnels

together

TOTAL (m) 8,062 9,055 9,950 10,500 14,250

7. Total costs

Total indicative costs of the proposed variants according to the Feasibility Study (year 2010):

Variant 2a 851 444 126 € (VAT not included)

Variant 2b 952 709 422 € (VAT not included)

Variant 7a 1 004 361 894 € (VAT not included)

Variant 7b 1 076 909 590 € (VAT not included)

Variant 7c 1 000 498 635 € (VAT not included)

Variant SPL (Senec - Pezinok - Lozorno) 1 248 576 345 € (VAT not included)

III. Description of the assessment procedure

1. Elaboration of the Assessment Report

Assessment Report on the impact of " Diaľnica D4 Ivanka north - Záhorská Bystrica“ (Highway

D4 Ivanka North - Záhorská Bystrica) (hereinafter referred to only as Assessment Report) was

elaborated in view of the evaluation scope and the annex No. 11 of the Act No. 26/2006 Coll. on

the Environmental Impact Assessment amending and supplementing other acts as amended

(hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Assessment Report was elaborated by the HBH projekt

ltd., in December 2010, and the team leader was Mgr. Tomáš Šikula.

The Assessment Report was preceded by the evaluation of the Proposal „Diaľnica D4 Bratislava,

križovatka Ivanka north - Stupava“ (Highway D4 Bratislava - interchange Ivanka North -

Stupava) and the issue of the scope of assessment. The scope of assessment of the activity was

issued by the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic, pursuant to the Article 30, under

the Act, on July 18, 2008, with the file number 7155/08-3.4/ml.

2. Distribution and Publishing of the Assessment Report

The Claimant submitted the Assessment Report according to Article 31 (4) of the Act, to the

Ministry on ................ According to the Article 33 (1) of the Act, after checking the necessary

requisites, the Ministry distributed the Assessment Report to

to all subjects involved

to general public involved. The Assessment Report was published pursuant to the Article 34 of the Act in a usual way at the relevant municipal offices, the Bratislava municipal office, and the internet page of the Bratislava municipality as

well as of the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic (www.enviroportal.sk).

http://www.enviroportal.sk/

22

3. Discussions on the Assessment Report with Public

Pursuant to the Article 34 (2 and 3) of the Act, in collaboration with the Bratislava municipality,

the Claimant organised the discussion of the Assessment Report with the general public of the

city of Bratislava, in collaboration with the municipality of Svätý Jur a joint discussion on the

Assessment Report for the general public of the municipalities of Bernolákovo, Chorvátsky

Grob, Slovenský Grob, Viničné, Pezinok and Svätý Jur, and in collaboration of the municipality

of Lozorno a joint discussion of the Assessment Report for the general public of the

municipalities of Marianka, Lozorno, and Stupava. Considering the interest of the residents, the

municipality of Marianka requested by a letter from May 10, 2011 an independent public

discussion of the Assessment Report in the very municipality of Marianka.

Record of public discussion of the assessment report

Record of public discussion of the assessment report held on May 10, 2011 in the Hall of Mirrors

of the Primate’s Palace of the Capital Bratislava

Agenda of the public discussion

1. Introduction + opening words to the participants in the public discussion on behalf of the

Capital Bratislava and the submitting party - NDS, a.s. Bratislava – Ing. Stanislav Tokoš

2. Summary of previous steps in the process of assessment of impacts on the environment from

the point of view of the municipality and the proponent – Ing. S.Tokoš

3. Presentation of the assessment report by the assessment report submitting party– NDS, a.s. –

Ing. Daniela Okuliarová

4. Presentation of the report by the report processing party – HBH Projekt spol. s r.o. – Mgr.

Tomáš Šikula

5. Discussion

6. Conclusion

Introduction: Ing. Stanislav Tokoš (from the RE OÚP of the Municipal Authority) representing

the municipality involved welcomed the participants in the public discussion and introduced his

colleagues Mgr. Blažena Kožárová, Ing. Vladimír Mikuš – head of the ODP, Ing. Michal Halomi

from the Municipal Authority and the representatives of:

the proponent: Ing. Daniela Okuliarová and Ing. Alena Kušnierová, Ing. Mikuláš

Jurkovič (Dopravoprojekt Bratislava – which processed the Feasibility Study of Highway

D4, 2009)

the report elaborated – Mgr. Tomáš Šikula and his colleagues

Municipality Vajnory – mayor Ing. Ján Mrva.

► He stated that public discussion was part of the process under Act No. 24/2006 Coll. on the

assessment of impacts on the environment. A written record would be prepared of the discussion

and a voice record of the entire public discussion of the assessment report would be enclosed on

CD to the written record. Citizens may submit comments on the report by May 20, 2011 and

send their comments to the address of the Ministry.

► He stated that the purpose of the assessment report was to assess the construction of highway

D4 bypassing the capital and described the assessed variants and municipalities involved.

► As a representative of the capital he pointed out that the statement of the capital concerning

the assessment report had not been prepared yet since there was one week time left for the

submission of statements. He parallelly concluded that the transportation planning departments

and technical infrastructure section had already provided their statements on the basis of which

the town planners and environmental department would issue a statement on the assessment

23

report soon.

► He notified of the possibility to submit an additional statement on the material deposited in

New Town Hall, in the information center of the Municipal Authority/front office. The

government department was informed about the statements submission deadline being May 20,

2011.

He summarized the previous steps on the part of the Municipal Processedity of the Capital

Bratislava and the proponent - Ing. Tokoš (with the approval of participants in the public

discussion, a detailed overview of individual steps in the assessment process would be provided):

a/ Intention (no. 33-08) – received on 22.5.2008 with the statement deadline being June 12,

2008; the statement of the Municipal Processedity was issued on July 1, 2008 and signed by the

Bratislava mayor on August 11, 2008.

b/ Announcement – the public was notified of the intention on June 3, 2008 – with the possibility

to examine the intention from June 3, 2008 to June 24, 2008 (with the possibility to take notes,

make copies, etc.) in the information center of the Municipal Processedity/front office and the

possibility to send their statement to the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic by June

24, 2008.

c/ Discussion on the scope (held on July 15, 2008, nobody participated on behalf of the Capital

Bratislava). Subsequently, negotiations at the Ministry took place on June 18, 2008 (without

a representative of the Capital Bratislava).

e/ Scope of assessment, August 20, 2008.

The variant passing through Borinka is excluded from further assessment.

The following conclusion was reached: in the AS, 41 specific requirements were laid down,

however, they would not be read out loud and would be commented on within the commentary

of Mgr. Šikula (i.e. how they were included in the assessment report).

f/ Information to the public on the assessment scope – on August 21, 2008 with the possibility to

access it in the information center of the Municipal Processedity/front office from August 21 to

September 2, 2008.

g/ HBH Projekt spol s r.o. convened, on March 11, 2010 at 10:00 o’clock, in the meeting room

of COOP Jednota Slovensko, SD (Bajkalská 25, Bratislava), a meeting concerning the

assessment report with the following agenda (attendees: Tokoš, Kožárová):

- introduction of the processing team (HBH Projekt spol. s r.o.)

- brief description of the assessed intention

- assessment contents and scope

- works time schedule

h/ HBH Projekt spol s r.o., convened, on November 30, 2010 at 13:00 o’clock, in the meeting

room of COOP Jednota Slovensko, SD (Bajkalská 25, Bratislava) a meeting concerning the

assessment report with the following agenda:

- presentation of results

- time schedule of further steps

- discussion

i/ Assessment report no. 12-11 (received with a letter of the Ministry of Environment of the

Slovak Republic dated April 11, 2011 (delivered on April 13, 2011 – we received it on April 18,

2011). The deadline for statements is May 12, 2011.

h/ Information to the public dated April 20, 2011 – on the assessment report received, on the

public discussion on May 10, 2011 at 16:30 o’clock in the in the Hall of Mirrors of the Primate’s

Palace and opportunity to comment on the report by May 20, 2011 (the date and place of the

public discussion were operatively arranged by Ing. Tokoš and Ing. D. Okuliarová).

j/ Invitations to the public discussion (dated April 20) – were distributed by the secretariat of the

OÚP of the Municipal Processedity on April 21, 2011.

After the presentation of the assessment report, discussion was opened.

24

Discussion: – Ing. Tokoš – opened the discussion and asked the speakers to introduce

themselves each time since voice recording was being done and a written record would be

prepared.

Question 1 – Ing. Ján Mrva (the mayor of Municipality Vajnory) stated that Municipality

Vajnory (hereinafter Municipality Vajnory) asked for some time and that he would issue

a statement after this public discussion.

The first question concerned longitudinal profiles, profile of interchange Ivanka north - D1

and D4 and profile of the designed tunnel along Vajnory, which should function as a noise

barrier. He parallelly notified of the abandonment, in the issued statements of Municipality

Vajnory on the intention, feasibility study and partial assessment report, of the embedded variant

D4 which would have an impact on the underground water, and of the proposal of slightly

embedded solution and/or laid on the terrain with a covered tunnel. The question posed was

targeting the technical clarification of the solution so that they could speak on behalf of

Municipality Vajnory regarding what variant would be suitable for them.

Response – Mgr. Šikula – a longitudinal profile of interchange of motorways D1 and D4 is part

of the assessment report for the first section of D4, processed by company Geoconsult, spol.

s r.o. (hereinafter “Geoconsult“, represented by RNDr. Ivan Jakubis), since the interchange

section and solution thereof, i.e. whether highway D4 overpasses or underpasses highway D1,

was the subject of assessment within assessment report “Jarovce - Ivanka north“. To clarify he

stated that RNDr. Jakubis was present at the meeting and he would approve the information

concerning the location of longitudinal sections of the interchange in the assessment report

processed by them, that’s why longitudinal sections are missing in the given assessment report of

the discussed section. He then asked Ing. Jurkovič (Dopravoprojekt) to provide information

about the second part of the question (longitudinal profile of tunnel bypassing Vajnory). He

parallelly notified that longitudinal profile of the embedded section near Vajnory was provided

on the CD enclosed to the assessment report, part graphic annexes.

Response – Ing. Jurkovič – he shortly described passing of the highway D4 section near Vajnory

and said that with variant 7b, the underground water level is high, i.e. embedding is lower and

a majority of the profile is above the terrain level with a tunnel bridge and waterproofing tanks

would be necessary. As to the noise, variant 7c, which passes on the terrain level, in the place of

the future Čierna Voda interchange, the traffic from Čierna Voda is redirected so that it does not

pass through Municipality Vajnory. The interchange is designed as follows: level crossing is on

the terrain level (roundabouts) and in that section, highway D4 is elevated approximately 8 m

above the terrain level. Soundwalls will be built along the interchange. However, he pointed out

that the entire passing of highway D4 would pass through cadastral area Svätý Jur and only in

certain points the highway would be, in the eastern part of the built-up area of Vajnory, 293 m

far from family houses and in combination with soundwalls all criteria provided by legal

regulations would be met. As to the interchange, he stated that in the following phase of the

project documentation soundwalls would not be necessary due to the elevated axis of the

highway – 8 m – and low-storey family houses and subsequent installation of concrete

guardrails, therefore no soundwalls would be necessary from the point of view of noise

parameters. The tunnel was designed in variants approximately for 700 m (Ing. Mrva intervened

in the discussion and asked for more clarification of the given tunnel bridge variant and road

from Čierna Voda – it is located above highway D4). The tunnel cannot be prolonged since

longitudinal profile has certain parameters and there are elevation restrictions (Račiansky Creek

crossing, connection to other junctions, etc.) where the highway axis must be up and not down.

Technically, embedding would be possible with certain restrictions and negatives (high

underground water level).

Counterresponse - Ing. Mrva to Ing. Jurkovič - the variant recommended by him concerning the

highway near Vajnory is on a fill, D4 above the road from Čierna Voda (variant 7c). He further

25

stated that the noise barrier in the area was insufficient and expressed a request to build

a soundwall from the D1/D4 interchange until km 2.250 km with regard to the estimated

development of the municipality which was already in the zone planning documentation and

planned intentions, along the highway and up to CEPIT. He then posed a question concerning the

depth of partial embedment and whether it was technically possible to execute embedment on the

terrain and there was a tunnel on the terrain which did not function only as a sound barrier

around Municipality Vajnory only but had also a visual function enabling the inhabitants to pass

behind the highway to the nature – to Šúrsky Kanál and Šúrsky Forrest.

Response – Ing. Jurkovič concluded that the said argument was also provided in the preceding

statement, he said that variant 7c fully granted access and respected the present roads and paths

leading to national natural reserve Šúr.

Sub-question - Ing. Mrva – how will the inhabitants get to the national natural reserve Šúr?

Response - Ing. Jurkovič – by the today’s road to Čierna Voda (which will be maintained)

through the underpass and of course through other places in the premises of CEPIT, actually

through tunnels and bridge across Šúrsky Kanál (the so-called Jurská road).

Response - Ing. Mrva stated that they as a municipality would prefer the partially embedded

variant 7b with a tunnel bridge.

Response - Ing. Jurkovič concluded that they could insist on the variant but having adequate

reasons and justification.

Question 2 – Ing. Ján Mrva – a question regarding the visualization of interchange Ivanka north

and clarification of motorways D1/D4 leveling? He also pointed out that the solution they

preferred was the variant of D4 underpassing D1. He said that also the variant they preferred was

technically possible to be built. He parallelly asked for a statement on that standpoint.

Response – Mgr. Šikula – both solutions can be technically built, we have not excluded that. The

impacts of that solution call for waterproofing tanks since highway D4 must be significantly

lowered due to underpass clearance and in deep cuts and impacts on geology, hydrogeology and

surrounding ecosystems, in particular lake na Lysom will be significant. The second thing is the

context of the surrounding structures which should be respected. Crossing of the road to Senec

from above is in preparation (i.e. D4 above the road to Senec no. I/61). As to the impact on the

environment, Geoconsult described it in the documentation and the variant of D4 passing above

highway D1 is better.

Response and addition to the answer of Mgr. Šikula – Ing. Okuliarová – after negotiations with

the Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic

and the Slovak Road Administration which is in charge of adding capacity to road I/61 in

relation to interchange Ivanka north, the position of the highway has been changed. The first

technical study took into consideration the solution of highway D4 on the terrain and road no.

I/61 (Senecká) overpassing D4. It has been decided, due to related circumstances and other

elevation parameters (railroad, etc.), that road I/61 will stay on the terrain and D4 will pass above

it, thereby a different situation for the D1/D4 solution has been created. In relation to the

indicated, interchange Ivanka north has been redesigned and D4 will pass above D1. That

solution will not lead to traffic restrictions and closures on highway D1 during construction. The

newest design – D4 overpassing Senecká (no. I/61) and the railroad, direction Nové Zámky

(Komárno), as well as overpassing D1.

Counterresponse Ing. Mrva – a question about visualization and practical explanation – where

the waterproofing tank should be built? He also stated that highway D4 would overpass Senecká

road, railroad and slowly decline to the terrain level.

Response – Ing. Jurkovič – exactly where you were pointing, there the waterproofing tank is

necessary, NDS a.s. already requested measurements of that area and it is necessary to dig

deeper. The underground water level in Vajnory is high, that’s why it is necessary to build them

also slightly below the terrain level.

26

Counterresponse Ing. Mrva – a question about visualization of D4 overpassing D1, the one that

is preferred?

Response – Mgr. Šikula - we have not presented that variant and we have not put visualization in

our documentation. The visualized variant depicts the starting basic solution and we based

ourselves on that when we received the order. In the meantime, the overpassing variant was

preferred – Geoconsult included it in its EIA documentation and has a proof of it, that’s why we

have not ordered visualization of the second solution we have not assessed in our documentation,

it belongs in the preceding section.

Counterresponse Ing. Mrva – explains the concern that in the event D1 will not be overpassing

and we will not reach implementation of our requests, it is written here that 15 m pillars would

be used and we are afraid that noise would propagate to Ivanka as well as to Vajnory. You

propose to build a soundwall from the lake na Lysom to I don’t know which km but we propose

a soundwall already from here (showing on the map). In the event of extension of D1 to 6 lanes,

we propose from here to Vajnory lakes, this is our proposal concerning the matter as it is

promoted.

Response – Mgr. Šikula – asks Mgr. Hujo for comments (Enviconsult Žilina – elaborated of the

noise study) and clarifies that the noise study includes also the model of impact of highway D1;

in the study, noise propagation Ing. Mrva is afraid of was treated.

Comment – Mgr. Hujo – when preparing the noise study, we took into consideration also

highway D1. It is necessary to realize that in model calculations, a certain time horizon of traffic

intensity is taken for the basis. In the study, we discussed both variants – overpassing and

underpassing highway D1. In this case it is a very complicated area around Vajnory. Vajnory are

among 3 key corridors (highway D1, railroad and highway D4 in preparation). From the point of

view of traffic intensity, highway D1 is dominant, traffic intensity is 3.5 fold higher than on

highway D4 in preparation. The argument mentioned that because soundwalls were designed

from the place where the impact of highway D4 is clearly provable, i.e. from km 0.600. From

this point of view, it is necessary to handle the entire area. If soundwalls were extended to the

interchange with highway D1, noise may echo from D1. That can be eliminated by highly

absorbent curtains. The railroad itself is another problem. At present, we see that soundwalls

from highway D4 are efficient from km 2.600. However, we are in the EIA stage, in the next

project stage, the selected technical solution and the noise study will be updated and made more

accurate.

Counterresponse Ing. Mrva – he asks whether it can be handled for the entire section since it is a

highway complex.

Response Ing. Mrva – requests handling of a noise study jointly for D1 and D4. He asks for the

mentioned profiles on CD.

Question 3 – Ing. Peter Pokrivčák (resident of Vajnory) states that it is a pity that highway D4

has been divided into several sections. Two sections are currently duplicate (in interchanges). He

asks for a longitudinal section from interchange Ivanka north to tunnel Karpaty.

Response – Mgr. Šikula reminded of the information presented in the beginning of the

presentation and that the assessed section of variants starts in km 0.575, i.e. after the Ivanka

north interchange, i.e. in a place from which one can continue on highway D4 below and above

highway D1 and subsequently take any variant 2 or 7 westwards. He clarified that the situational

depiction contains a solution when highway D4 underpasses highway D1.

Response – Ing. Pokrivčák – location of interchange has an impact on both areas. He directs the

question towards clarification of the variants and longitudinal sections - 7b and 7c.

Response – Mgr. Šikula – presents a longitudinal section in the requested section (variant 7b)

and says that his colleague will show also a longitudinal section for variant 7c.

Response – Ing. Pokrivčák – states that practically, if it overpasses highway D1, the route will

get to a breakpoint. He parallelly asks for information about a highway on a bridge to the Čierna

27

Voda interchange. He parallelly asks whether highway passes above the terrain above the road to

Čierna Voda.

Response – Ing. Jurkovič – added that a breakpoint is approximately on the level of Čierna Voda

interchange. Highway D4 will pass on a bridge from the highway D1 interchange, from that

place it will be declining slightly to the position he shows on the map. He clarified that it would

not be after the Čierna Voda interchange since highway D1 underpasses the interchange. The

road to Čierna Voda would underpass highway D4.

Counterresponse Ing. Pokrivčák – he states that if the highway passes all the time above the

terrain level almost on a bridge and if the anti-noise measures are well implemented, it will be

the best variant for all environmental aspects. He parallelly asks about collectors and roads that

should be connected to the highway, and about the connection points. He parallelly recommends

and supports the variant of tunnel in the Little Carpathians mountain range in order to drain

water from the tunnel to both sides (i.e. a breakpoint somewhere on the ridge level of the Little

Carpathians).

Response – Ing. Jurkovič – as to collectors – we were handling the traffic problem of Vajnory

and designed a Čierna Voda interchange and since the Ivanka north interchange is near, we have

done so using collectors (parallel roads to the highway in a distance of ÷ 10m, two lanes in each

direction). Collectors are proposed as a solution from the Čierna Voda interchange to

interchange Ivanka west (junction with road I/61). In that section, there are 3 junctions next to

each other (with highway D1, Čierna Voda and with road I/61), therefore we proposed the

collectors solution. Cars that want to connect to the highway will first connect to the collector

and then safely to highway D4. In the section from Rača interchange to interchange Čierna

Voda, we have designed, from the western side (from Vajnory westwards), a collector strip (for

the connection of CEPIT). If requested and if certain principles are met, collectors on the side of

CEPIT may be connected also to further developing areas. Collector = 9.5 m (two lanes with

maximum speed 80 km/hour).

Question 4 – Ing. Mrva asks if it means collectors on both sides from interchange Ivanka north to

Čierna Voda and in section from the Čierna Voda interchange to interchange Rača the collector

will be only on one side and one-directional but what direction?

Reply Ing. Jurkovič – yes, from Čierna Voda they will connect to the highway and get to all

directions.

Additional question Ing. Mrva – in the municipality we plan further construction in the area of

family houses and we have the zoning plan ready. He asks how to get to highway D4 and

collectors. He states that they cannot connect to the westward direction since the collector is only

one-sided.

Response – Ing. Jurkovič – Ing. Mrva is talking about an eastern bypass of Vajnory and says that

if a highway is built so with collectors, the bypass is useless since all the traffic will be retained

on the highway.

Response - Ing. Mrva – they will submit a comment on behalf of Municipality Vajnory to

handle the collectors bi-directionally to connect the entire area.

Question 5 – Mr. Andrej Kovárik (BROZ) – asked about the area around Šúr referring to the

regional system of ecological stability (hereinafter RÚSES) in force and about the connection of

the regional biocorridor (hereinafter RBK) Šúr and connection thereof to Little Carpathians in

relation to migration of animals. His further question: How is the migration of animals handled

in general and in the event of the fill variant in particular? A question concerning ecoducts

building – he notifies that none has been designed. He points out that on the other side of the

Little Carpathians the documentation does not handle the Vrchná hora complex (in the locality

above Marianka) – cottage colony – the area is destined for being declared a protected complex.

He points out that during the presentation of the SPL variant, intervention to ecotone populations

in the border of Little Carpathians was discussed but that intervention was not discussed in

28

relation to portals in other variants!

Response – Mgr. Šikula – I will answer one by one, first I will answer in relation to ÚSES and

subsequently the migration related question. Before providing a specific answer he summarized

the experience from the Czech Republic concerning the perception of ÚSES, saying that where

ÚSES and/or RÚSES is delimited, it does not necessarily mean that it is a migration corridor of

animals. He pointed out that migration corridors and ÚSES segments are not necessarily the

same. In particular in the area in question, in a transit zone of intensively urbanized county of the

capital with passage to open nature, we have assessed the entire area from the point of view

migration and the results show that important migration corridors are used in the Little

Carpathians but many big carnivores (bear and wolf) do not come closer to the periphery of the

Bratislava agglomeration. The Little Carpathians are certainly used for recreation and big

carnivores have been spotted here since long ago and the employees of the landscape park

(CHKO) confirmed that. Migration is concentrated in the mountain range of the Little

Carpathians and then we have migration mainly of game (deer, mouflon...) and non-endemic

species such as fallow deer to the surrounding county and/or rather following the periphery line

of the intensively urbanized county than heading towards the city of Bratislava. In relation to

that, the system of local ÚSES delimited for Račiansky Creek and local creeks subsequently

continues and connects to the regional biocorridor along Šúrsky Kanál and then on the periphery

of the Little Carpathians it is delimited in the area in direction to Little Danube and on. Those

biocorridors do not have, in the maps, connections towards the city to the urbanized area and

they fade away in the ring... Highway D4 copies the ring and despite that, in the cases where it

crosses the local biocorridors, bridges are designed on the highway. The bridges are suitable

although on the edge of functional parameters of local biocorridors. For the next stage, it is

planned that those bridges be modified to create a dry area below them for migration of small

vertebrates, amphibians and other groups. As to deer and fallow deer migration, it has been

proved happening only in the area of the Šúr natural reserve. If local and regional corridors were

found in the zoning plans of the town, we were dealing with them. If during the design of

highway D4 local biocorridors were encountered, we endeavored to handle them in that stage.

Highway D4 does not cross a regional biocorridor. If we encountered ÚSES during the report

processing in binding and applicable documents, they were projected in graphic annexes and we

were dealing with them. He stated that in the past year, they were monitoring the biota from

February to November so they had records also from a winter period and detailed knowledge of

migration in the area. According to the assessment of migration in the area, there is no need to

build ecoducts!

As to protected complex Vrchná hora in cadastral area Marianka – cottage colony – we know

that declaration of a protected complex is being prepared but highway D4 will not have a direct

impact, the impact will be mainly indirect and can be dealt with and the preliminary steps to

eliminate the impact are provided in the report. He replied the ecotone question saying that the

portals were located in ecotone populations not only for the SPL variants but also for the other

variants, and that he had spoken about that during his presentation.

Question 6 – Mr. Andrej Kovárik - he stated that the NRBc Šúr will be cut off from both the

biota and the people and thereby the territory will be less permeable.

Response – Mgr. Šikula – using the map of the ÚSES – in relation to highway D4, we were

dealing with the matter of migration. He agrees that in general, there are other approaches that

are more suitable from the point of view migration handling but especially in the territory in

southwards from Šúr towards Vajnory and farther towards the city of Bratislava, it is inadequate

to adopt non-standard measures concerning migration, from the point of view quantity as well as

composition of migrating game. The corridors along Račiansky Creek and other mentioned

corridors are maintained to the extent of their functionality for small vertebrates, amphibians and

suina coming to graze there, westwards from Vajnory. It is not a standard solution from the point

29

of view migration, e.g. of came, since the plan is to build up the remaining area.

Question 7 – Mr. Lapšanský (ARCH-I-BALD) – poses a question – section interchange Čierna

Voda interchange Rača – how one can get to Šúrsky Forrest? Which of the three possible

alternatives will be maintained? Today, one can get to Šúrsky Forrest by foot or bicycle using the

bridge across Šúrsky Kanál, how will that be affected by the designed collectors? Were the

collectors part of the assessment, too?

Response – Mgr. Šikula – explained the technical solution – all 3 present passageways across

Šúrsky Kanál are maintained in a manner ensuring the present permeability, in this case by

bridges. The collectors were part of the assessment also in relation to noise.

Response – Ing. Okuliarová – she added that collectors are part of highway D4.

Response – Ing. Jurkovič – he provided additional explanation about the access to Šúrsky Kanál

using a picture with a connection for pedestrians. He explained relocations of the existing paths.

Question 8 – Ing. Mrva – matter of cycle paths – in the Bratislava Self-governing Region we

work on a system of cycle paths together. An international cycle path passes on the edge of

Šúrsky Kanál. You do not respect that possibility! We speak about a fill, would it be possible to

build a bridge that would be more acceptable for the people?

Response – Ing. Jurkovič – a possibility how to handle cycle paths is to make a passageway in

the fill similarly to the passageway and/or frame passageway to be built for the game. However,

that is to be determined and pinpointed by professionals. For now, it is handled by bridges. In the

beginning across creek Pstruha, across Račiansky Creek and then across another place (shown on

the map). In the same time, it is necessary to observe the technical conditions and restrictions. If

a cycle path is built earlier than highway D4, it will be relocated.

Response and question for Ing. Mrva – Ing. Okuliarová – are cycle paths included in the zoning

plan?

Counterresponse Ing. Mrva – cycle paths belong also to the agenda of the capital and the

Bratislava Self-governing Region, they have been worked on for 5 years.

Response – Mgr. Šikula – the comment of interconnection of cycle paths should be included in

the planned statement. He parallelly points out that the solution is a standard one and that it is

important that cycle paths remain interconnected although with a moderate detour. He adds that

the technical solution of the highway will be modified although not dramatically. Modification

of the elevation will occur, permeability of the territory will be maintained and the matters of

cycle paths designed in the area will be taken into consideration.

Question 9 – Ing. Peter Pokrivčák – addresses Ing. Tokoš from the Municipal Authority, points

to the connection and division of all sections of highway D4, emphasizes reconsideration of the

division of sections up to Ivanka north and parallelly states that it would be more natural to

handle the southern section up to interchange Rača where the difficult tunnel section begins. The

construction process should commence with the southern section – prolongation up to

interchange Rača and he believes that construction should start from that section since it is the

least demanding section.

Response Ing. Tokoš – he says that in this stage he cannot influence and change the division of

sections of D4.

Response – Ing. Okuliarová – she replies that there are impulses to solve those sections first up

to interchange Rača, however, she also points out that the re-division process cannot start before

final statements are issued. She admits that in the planning permit documentation, the sections

will be divided as suggested by Ing. Pokrivčák, i.e. from interchange Rača – to interchange

Jarovce.

Response - Ing. Mrva – he also states that the logical sequence of steps must be maintained and

that they have sent their proposal on behalf of Municipality Vajnory to the Ministry of

Environment of the Slovak Republic which was similar as to re-division of highway D4 as

suggested by Ing. Pokrivčák.

30

Question 10 – RNDr. Anna Zemanová (resident of Vajnory, deputy of the Bratislava Self-

governing Region) – she has several comments and questions but she will present only those that

should be recorded:

Material question – why is this material (presentation flier) called “Highway D4, Ivanka north –

Záhorská Bystrica“ if the official name of the designed activity is Interchange Ivanka - Stupava?

Response – Ing. Alena Kušnierová – at them when highway D4 was divided to sections, they

were divided up to highway D2, that’s why Stupava is mentioned. Changes occurred over time

and during preparation of the intention and feasibility study. Section D4 from road I/2 to road

II/505 with work name “Interchange Stupava South“ started to be built (with half profile) with

work name “Interchange Stupava South“, therefore it would be confusing to name the end of the

section Stupava south and in the same time the interchange on road I/2 is named Záhorská

Bystrica. The D4 section Ivanka north ends in Záhorská Bystrica – Stupava (Záhorská Bystrica)

and the name was carried on.

In the assessment scope (hereinafter AS), assessment of the SPL variant was ordered, in my

opinion this third variant is variant Chorvátsky Grob – Svätý Jur – Lozorno and under no

circumstances the northern variant required in AS. Such is my opinion.

Another specific requirement from AS – to exactly assess the purpose of the designed activity of

the section by traffic analyses etc., from my standpoint, costs exceeding EUR 1 billion per 20000

vehicles in 2040 with a tunnel is not purposeful investment of public funds. The purpose

provided in the entire report is confusing. On the one hand, the report speaks about the highway

purpose – transit transfer between motorways D1 – D2 – but the matters of urban transportation

of the capital and other towns should be addressed as well. From the point of view of impacts on

the inhabitants, the variant is assessed and described as one of the best variants – I dare to say

that it has not been fulfilled according to AS, it should have been projected in the zone planning

documentation and it wasn‘t, the mayor of Municipality Vajnory himself pointed to the fact that

in the approved zone planning documentation, building-up of developing areas such as CEPIT,

Nemecká dolina, Chorvátsky Grob and others is designed. Had the projection been made in

a wider area, the traffic analyses would have shown that traffic directing Vajnory has not been

planned even for the future and Chorvátsky Grob and surroundings have a planned exit to

highway D1 in Triblavina. Those circumstances were not part of the analyses, Recreation

and cycle paths, there was a request, in one of the articles of AS concerning Vajnory, for cycle

paths handling. She stated that she was surprised that the report elaborated asked the mayor of

Municipality Vajnory whether it was a new thing knowing that cycle paths were funded from

the EU funds.

Counterresponse – Mgr. Šikula – I did not ask that question, the proponent did.

Continuation – RNDr. Zemanová

You did not deal with the matter of cycle paths since there is no mention of cycle paths in the

eastern side of the Carpathians. It is necessary to mention not only the interconnection to

Malokarpatská and Šúrska cycle paths along the dam but also the route along the big interchange

Rača and interconnection of cycle paths between Svätý Jur and Rača. That is not mentioned in

the report and it means that the AS requirement has not been met. As to the assessment of impact

on the health of inhabitants – she does not understand how come the impact on the inhabitants is

positive. She finds it interesting that the impact assessment results were negative and in the end

the impact on the inhabitants is positive. She points out that the mental welfare was left out.

Residents of Municipality Vajnory and of Bratislava use the area for relaxation. The highway

will rupture that importance – the matters of mental welfare – and it was admitted during the

presentation that we would be encircled by two motorways and a railroad and that would place

us on an artificial island and the inhabitants of Vajnory would feel like “on an island“ –

encircled. That answer was not included in the report. As to noise – it was presented that noise

would not have an impact on the inhabitants. Such a result was obtained because no projection in

31

the zone planning documentation was made, if it was made, then in locality “Koncové“ noise

would be felt and the value of the people’s property would significantly decrease. The building-

up has been planned in the zone planning documentation of the capital Bratislava since 1993 as

a forecast and the highway was planned later.

Matters concerning nature and county protection – Mr. Kovárik mentioned important protected

areas and Šúr, however, it is necessary to mention the areas of NATURA 2000. In the beginning

of the document, protected areas through which the highway passes and on which it will have an

impact are provided. I would like to draw your attention to the wording of the EU directives

NATURA and RAMSAR, which say that investment activities may be permitted only in

exceptional cases and provided that nationwide important investments are going to be made. She

complains that such assessment has not been made and the variant selection means that no

attention has been paid to that. No projection of ÚSESs has been made (the city and surrounding

ÚSES) in a manner including the biocorridor projection.

Response – Mgr. Šikula – he apologized for the intervention during the speech and said he would

be happy if she could finalize her comments. He posed a question, since from his point of view,

many incorrect statements unrelated to expertise were heard, whether she read the entire report

or only the promotion flier. If she had read the entire documentation, she would have known that

at least 90% of what she had said was untrue and exactly the opposite. He said that if she was to

continue doing that, it would be necessary to write that in a letter and send it to the Ministry of

Environment of the Slovak Republic, the Ministry would handle the comments and we would

provide our standpoint with a reference to the report.

Counterresponse RNDr. Zemanová – she stated that if AS was observed thoroughly, one would

not be able to reach a conclusion that it was not adhered to. AS contained also a requirement for

visualization presented during the meeting with the public, the requirement was not met since the

mayor of Municipality Vajnory requested a visualization of highway D4 above D1 and it was not

ready as well as other requested visualizations.

Comment – Ing. Okuliarová – visualizations of the interchange belong in the southern section.

Continuation – RNDr. Zemanová – we are discussing the D4 interchange with the public.

Further provisions of AS have not been met, i.e. the matter of detailed hydrogeological and

geological survey, however, the report says that the survey will be done in the following stage of

the project documentation. If it was done, we would obtain totally different costs of the entire

structure. The requirement of the assessment of impact on the underground water has not been

met either, as well as the impact of the designed activities on Vajnory and other buildings, dry

polders have not been presented and depicted in a drawing. They should retain excess water from

the tunnel since Šúrsky Kanál does not have more draining capacity, you have not handled the

matter of stability of Šúrsky Kanál, that requirement is provided in AS, even the impact of

vibrations. Šúrsky Kanál was built in 1941 as a ground structure and certainly not in a quality to

be able to retain water in a dry polder, it is necessary to conduct a hydrogeological and

geological study and to deal in detail with tectonics and seismicity which are not included in the

report. Vajnory is located in an area of high Rn risk which points to a possibility of seismic

effect in the locality. These are things that may have an impact on the tunnel construction,

construction cost and other technical solutions.

Response – Ing. Tokoš – intervened in the speech of RNDr. Zemanová and drew her attention to

the fact that she was speaking about the environment, however, he challenged her statements in

that highway D4 (previously the so-called zero bypass) had been in the zoning plan of the capital

for tens of years (I have been working in the field for 30 years and it has been there ever since –

he added). He pointed out that the Rn risk survey used to be done within building permit

proceedings not within the EIA. He could not assess seismicity. He asked her personally to write

a list of comments and request an opinion.

Counterresponse RNDr. Zemanová – she said that it was a public meeting with room for

32

discussion. She emphasized that it was not the elaborated’s task to assess which specific

conditions provided in AS by a decision of the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic

to choose and accept since all the provisions of AS must be accepted. She ended her comments.

From the point of view of compensation measures, in relation to recreation, threat to

underground water, nature protection, migration and habitats through which the highway passes,

no compensation measures are provided in the report. She concluded that unfortunately the

section concerning Vajnory was being discussed at the Municipal Authority and not in Vajnory

(while the southern section was discussed in Vajnory).

Response – Ing. Tokoš – he asked RNDr. Zemanová to write down her comments and send it as

a letter to the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic as previously recommended by

Mgr. Šikula.

Response – Mgr. Šikula – he added and emphasized that RNDr. Zemanová presented certain

things untruly. He mentioned certain compensation and/or elimination measures provided in the

report concerning the biota – a condition to implement a substitute measure near Račiansky

Creek and Šúrsky Kanál in the form of creation of a wetland habitat to compensate the

intervention in the small lake. He stated that he was sorry that she provided several untrue

statements to which they would have to respond in detail and explain them.

Response – Ing. Okuliarová – she stated that we were in the stage of technical study and EIA

process, surveys would be done in the upcoming stages since we were with the variants. She said

that she could not imagine, from the financial point of view, conducting of a detailed

hydrogeological survey for at least three variants given the actual length. She points out that we

should mind the current stage.

Question 11 – RNDr. Vladimír Kočvara (resident) – he stated that as a resident of the western

part of Bratislava he perceived the matters of traffic in a broader context and concluded that the

report mentioned, as the main purpose from the point of view of traffic, “unburdening of transit

traffic, unburdening of road/traffic network and other arguments“, his question was directed

towards the main investment purpose according to the traffic-engineering materials and

information provided, mainly by the media; the zero bypass would not help Bratislava

significantly. He provides data of traffic intensity from bridges in Bratislava (Prístavný Bridge,

Bridge Lafranconi); he concludes that after the construction completion and in 2020, highway

D4 will take approx. 8000 vehicles. He asks about further investments of the city related to

unburdening, connection among the city center and other western municipalities which would

resolve the traffic issues in the capital from a long-term perspective.

Response – Ing. V. Mikuš – he commented on the importance of D4 for Bratislava and

confirmed that the western part of the city is sensitive; the decisive importance of highway D4

for Bratislava according to him included: transit, transportation outside the city borders (regional

relationships handling) and interconnection among the peripheral city parts. He supported the

indicated importance of highway D4 by specific data on traffic relationships in Bratislava at

present and near future, explained the transit values in individual city entry points (the biggest

transit is from the western part of the city), i.e. highway D4 would be most unburdening on the

west and in the corridor of highway D2 (highway from Malacky), thereby creating

a precondition for development of the city in its western part. He perceives the bypassing half-

ring – city ring (Galvaniho – Lamač) and the resolution thereof as being in a distance with regard

to financial problems.

He supports the variants that will resolve the today’s problems of the city. He also explained the

connection of highway D4 to Austria (in the north through road S8, in the south through road

A6). He explained the transit consequences – the transit consists mainly in trucks moving

through the city – he said that a moving truck takes a place of 10 passenger cars. He additionally

explained that e.g. in 2004, the y/y intensity increase on Lamačská road was 87% (after Slovakia

joined the EU).

33

Question 12 – Nataša Káčerová (resident of Vajnory) – she posed questions concerning transit

and construction phases. She prefers construction of tunnel through the Little Carpathians (transit

handling), she requests that the Bratislava traffic be handled comprehensively. She says that

Bratislava Self-governing Region will process a master traffic project (remark of Tokoš – also

the capital will be processed by GD). She poses a question to Mgr. Šikula concerning lake na

Lysom in Vajnory, which she considers to be an important natural locality – the question

concerns specific impacts on the lake and compensation to be made to preserve the locality. It is

a relaxation area for the inhabitants of Vajnory. She says that Vajnory will bear an “above-

standard“ load in relation to the construction of highway D4 with regard to the existing traffic

corridors. She also asked about the impact – visual impact – county barrier of designed variant

7c - on 8 m fill which would itself be a barrier and after the soundwalls addition, it would be

a significant visual barrier for the inhabitants. The matter of mental welfare is related to that

from the point of view relaxation and nature and it is not acceptable for her.

Response – Mgr. Šikula – we have treated the impact on lake na Lysom in the report. The south-

west bank of the lake will suffer a direct impact, the plants on the lake bank will be liquidated

and the water will suffer a direct impact, too. That impact has been assessed as a significant

impact on the habitat – one of the measures is to distance, after exact measurements, the route of

highway D4 from the lake (even 10 or 20 m would help). The second condition was a technical

solution of the highway route if highway D4 is built as designed – on a bridge, the technical

solution of the highway route on a bridge may be prolonged and such a solution would have

a lesser impact on the territory. Draining of highway D4 is designed without a direct discharge to

the lake (due to salinity, pollution, etc.).

As to the technical solution – projection of visualization of visual impact (realistic from a human

perspective) – view from the current built-up areas of Municipality Vajnory (from the bus

terminus) towards interchange Čierna Voda – the solution includes a soundwall and greenery

(standard solution) growing on the soundwall; the visual change in the area will not be drastic

since long-distance views are limited and trees of the Šúrska national natural reserve can be seen

above them. The highway fill is declining from highway D1 from 8m to almost the terrain level.

Conclusion - Ing. Tokoš – he thanked everybody for active participation in the public

discussion, he thanked also the persons presenting the report and reminded the public of the

possibility to submit comments on the report by May 20, 2011.

Record of joint public discussion of the assessment report held on May 11, 2011 in the

facility of the Local Authority of Svätý Jur

A representative of NDS Ing. Daniela Okuliarová opened the public discussion and welcomed

everyone. She said that the meeting was convened after an agreement with the affected

municipalities under Art. 34 of Act No. 24/2006 Coll., for municipalities: Bernolákovo,

Chorvátsky Grob, Slovenský Grob, Viničné, Pezinok and Svätý Jur.

She presented the meeting agenda:

1. Presentation of the assessment report

2. Discussion

She informed that minutes of the meeting would be prepared and distributed to the

representatives of the municipalities. When verified, the minutes will be sent to the Ministry of

Environment of the Slovak Republic. She introduced the representatives of the submitting party

and contractor and gave the floor to the creator of the assessment report.

After the presentation of the assessment report, a discussion started.

Discussion

Mr. Marynčák, mayor of Chorvátsky Grob

34

According to him, variant 7b was the best, i.e. embedded in Vajnory. Noise is heard also from

highway D1 and highway D4 would be even closer, so the impact of noise in the municipality

would be greater and further development in the municipality was planned.

Question: Why is variant 7c cheaper than variant 7b?

Reply Mgr. Šikula, Mgr. Hujo: the price difference between variants 7b and 7c is in the shape of

interchange Rača, which is different in each variant. The noise from highway D4 will be

eliminated by soundwalls so that the permitted limit is not exceeded. In the overall assessment of

impacts, variant 7c seems the most favorable. With variant 7b, high underground water level

poses a big problem - the highway would have to be placed below the terrain level in

a waterproof concrete tank and might constitute an obstruction to the flow of underground water.

Mr. Jančová, Viničné

What are the steps of the construction process?

Reply Ing. Okuliarová: on D4, 3 sections are in preparation and the construction horizons are the

following:

D4 Jarovce – Ivanka north 2014 – 2018

D4 Ivanka north – Záhorská Bystrica 2013 – 2018

D4 Devínska Nová Ves – state border of the Slovak Republic/Austrian Republic 2014 – 2016

The road from Rača to the center is the most overloaded. Will the traffic jam be distributed

among Rača, D1 and D4? In my opinion, a tunnel is useless and the most logical variant is the

SPL variant. Traffic to Petržalka uses the Prístavný Bridge and not many cars drive through

Einsteinova Street. We cannot look only at Bratislava but farther because the largest number of

cars moves from the south westwards. Who designed the SPL variant?

Reply Mgr. Šikula: There were comments with questions. Feasibility and purposefulness study

served as a technical basis for the preparation of the assessment report, within that study, a traffic

study for all the variants and therefore also for the SPL variant was prepared. In the assessment

report, the assessment was extended compared to the intention by variant SPL. All activities

around Bratislava that will lead to increase of traffic as well as traffic development in the future

were taken into consideration in the assessment report and it has been proved that interchange

Rača and interchange Ivanka north will unburden Rybničná Street and roads in Vajnory. It is

a phenomenon of bypasses building, in which transit and urban traffic is combined and

distributed through interchanges to individual roads peripheral. Two functions are thus ensured –

both the transit and urban traffic will be carried forward which is particularly important in this

case since Bratislava is the capital of the Slovak Republic.

The best situation will be when the entire D4 is built with a connection to Austria because it will

unburden highway D2 and Bridge Lafranconi which will be overloaded in the near future.

The purpose of the assessment report is not to assess whether variant SPL is designed correctly

but to select, out of the assessed variants, the one that is most suitable from the point of view of

environmental impact.

Mr. Benčík, Bernolákovo

Will the other variants be left off after the selection of the final variant?

Reply Ing. Jurkovič: The highway will be further prepared for the variant recommended in the

final report. The other variants, e.g. if it is variant SPL, can used as interconnection of roads

which can interconnect highway D2 and highway D1 in the future. For big cities where traffic

load is heavy, several bypasses may be built.

Mrs. Jančová, Viničné

When highway S 8 will be built in in Austria?

Reply Ing. Okuliarová: Works on the preparation of both roads (S8 and D4) are coordinated and

the execution will be synchronized so that they are built in the same time horizon.

What about the cycle path?

Reply Mgr. Šikula: Under the law, all roads interrupted by a highway construction should be

35

made usable. The same applies to cycle paths – all cycle paths will be usable the same as before

the highway construction although they will be slightly shifted in certain places.

Mrs. Metkeová, Svätý Jur

What are the further steps in relation to works and when will the final statement be issued?

Reply Ing. Okuliarová: Comments may be submitted by May 20, 2011, within 7 days – a record,

opinion within 60 days + 30 days (within an appropriate time). Approximately by October we

will have a decision on the final recommended variant.

Town Svätý Jur prepares changes in the zoning plan in Q3 and Q4 – due to relocation of road 3

II/502. By the construction of D4, traffic in Svätý Jur will not be less.

Mr. Popluhárová, Pezinok

They prepare a zoning plan and they would like to have highway D4 in it. They will be happy

with any variant because there is a risk of landslip on the road passing through Pezinská Baba,

which is in catastrophic condition today.

Who will be the construction authority for the highway? Among the affected bodies, the Ministry

of Interior is not mentioned, only its bodies (fire brigade...).

Who is in charge of land expropriation? The Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional

Development of the Slovak Republic?

Reply:

The construction authority for the highway is the Ministry of Transport, Construction and

Regional Development of the Slovak Republic. The expropriation is done by the Regional Office

upon request of NDS.

Record of joint public discussion of the assessment report held on May 12, 2011 in Lozorno

Mayor Húbek opened the public discussion and welcomed everyone. Then he gave the floor to

a representative of NDS Ing. Daniela Okuliarová. She said that the meeting was convened after

an agreement with the affected municipalities under Art. 34 of Act No. 24/2006 Coll., for

municipalities:

She presented the meeting agenda:


2. Discussion

She informed that minutes of the meeting would be prepared and distributed to the

representatives of the municipalities. When verified, the minutes will be sent to the Ministry of

Environment of the Slovak Republic. She introduced the representatives of the submitting party

and contractor and gave the floor to the creator of the assessment report.

After the presentation of the assessment report, a discussion started.

Mr. Groščák, Marianka

Why was the highway excluded from Lamač?

Reply Ing. Jurkovič: Connection of the urban half-ring to the Lamač junction on highway D2 has

never been planned, requested or prepared as a highway. It is a ring that has other function than

the function of the former zero urban ring which is at present designed with highway parameters.

Nobody has cancelled the urban half-ring with the connection to the Lamač junction on highway

D2, it is an investment of the city and it is still present in the Bratislava zoning plan as an urban

road.

The zero bypass was designed as a highway but due to y/y traffic increase, it is today in

preparation as highway D4. It will unburden the city from transiting traffic and in particular

trucks, and it will serve also the urban traffic.

36

Mr. Minarovič, Marianka

How did you get 22 000 vehicles? Do you know how much is the transit?

Reply Ing. Okuliarová:

Traffic for the entire D4 was handled in the feasibility and purposefulness study as a separate

part thereof, which served as a basis for the assessment report. The assessment report took the

results of the feasibility and purposefulness study. The traffic prognosis calculation in the

upcoming years is calculated on the basis of an analyses of the current situation, urbanism

properties of the area and the following assumptions: development scenarios and plans, activities

in the area, development of communication network in the broader area and impact of broader

traffic relations. The traffic prognosis takes into consideration also estimated development

scenarios and plans related to planned investment activities in the area. It is impossible to “get“

the number of vehicles within a future, the number must be calculated based on the mentioned

assumptions. According to the calculation, in 2040 in section D4 Ivanka north – Záhorská

Bystrica, approx. 29,300 vehicles will pass in 24 hours, of which approx. 4300 will be trucks. To

assess negative impacts on the environment in the assessment report, it is more important to

know the ratio of trucks and passenger cars in the overall number of vehicles in the profile than

to know the ratio of transiting and urban traffic.

To know the transiting traffic, it is necessary to conduct a directional traffic survey at entry

points and exit points of the entire city, using a method allowing for the establishment of

destination and sources of individual vehicles, e.g. according to license plate numbers to be able

to divide all passing vehicles to transiting and source vehicles and/or destination vehicles, which

means stopping of all passing vehicles in both directions and asking the drivers from where and

where they go. Assessment of such a survey will answer the question of ratio of source,

destination and transiting traffic. According to results in other sections, we are able to make an

estimate of the ratio of transiting traffic in the overall traffic on D4 – approx. 25 – 30% of the

overall traffic.

Ing. arch. Statelov, Marianka

We requested NDS by an e-mail sent to the address of Ing. Pyszková to have the public

discussion in Marianka but there was no reply.

Response Ing. Okuliarová:

Unfortunately, we have not received any e-mail from you or Municipality Marianka. Ing.

Pyszková retired two year age and she is no longer working with us. I am sorry but in the

assessment report distributed to all the municipalities, my name is provided on behalf of the

submitting party. Had you addressed that e-mail to me, it would have been absolutely all right

and we could have met today in Marianka.

a) It is necessary to divide the traffic to transiting traffic and other traffic.

Reply Mgr. Šikula:

The purpose of the assessment report is to assess the capacity of the environment and not to

handle the traffic. For the assessment (of noise and pollutants), division of traffic to passenger

cars and trucks is important. Handling the roads load belongs in the responsibilities of the region,

town, municipality. We have taken the traffic data and all development related activities from the

feasibility and purposefulness study but in the assessment report, we have updated all new

activities in the area.

b) Variant 7C is not the most suitable for the environment, a family house is located 105 m from

the highway, the highway is on a fill. The reason for that is interchange Záhorská Bystrica which

is on the terrain and the highway overpasses it. Marianka will not agree to that because they were

not invited to attend the discussion about interchange Záhorská Bystrica and road I/2. We will

request that the highway be embedded below the terrain– interchange Záhorská Bystrica is in

the highest point of the terrain.

37

Reply Ing. Jurkovič:

It is not true that Marianka wasn’t invited within the planning permit proceedings. At least the

mayor of Marianka was invited to join the discussion – there are records of that. It is impossible

to obtain a building permit, especially not for a highway, without discussing the matter with all

affected municipalities. Marianka was invited within the planning permit proceedings and

submitted a statement on interchange Záhorská Bystrica.

The route of the zero bypass in the corridor of which highway D4 is designed, has been in the

zoning plan of the municipality for a long time (15 to 20 years) and houses located 105 m from

the highway are not even 10 years old, so it can be assumed that you knew, before the

construction of the family house, that a high-capacity road will pass nearby somewhere in the

future.

You are not right in your statement about the highway being built on a fill. When the highway

exits the tunnel, it will pass 4 m below the terrain level and then 2 m below the terrain level and

the fill will be only 150 m long when bridging a field road to maintain the permeability of the

area, from there it rises towards interchange Záhorská Bystrica. And there is a terrain elevation

between the highway and the municipality, so the highway is actually in direction from

the municipality behind it.

I would also like to remind that the intention contained a variant in which the highway would be

built on a fill of 4 to 12 m, with the length of 900 m. It was Municipality Marianka which had

comments on it and requested that the highway was embedded under the ground and that was

technically resolved in the feasibility and purposefulness study. The original variant has been

abandoned. My colleague today presents you the embedded variant requested by you within the

submission of comments on the intention, so I am not sure whether we speak about the same

variant.

c) Municipality Marianka is the most affected by highway D4, they will request that it be

embedded below the terrain, the highway is in the highest point.

Reply, Mgr. Šikula:

After the terrain measurement, corrections to the route will be made, taking into account the

justified requests. We have the public discussion today for the same purpose, i.e. to include your

justified requests in the planning permit documentation, which also be publicly discussed.

d) Is it technically possible to “switch“ between the positions of highway D4 and road I/2 so that

D4 passes on the terrain and road I/2 over it?


Technically, everything is possible, it depends on the funds necessary for each solution. For now,

in interchange Záhorská Bystrica the highway D4 overpasses road I/2.

To change the levels in interchange Záhorská Bystrica to lay highway D4 on the terrain and road

I/2 overpassing it, we would have to demolish everything that has been built previously – the

new most on road I/2 across Mariansky Creek, intersection branches, etc. and entire road I/2 up

to the filling station in Záhorská Bystrica and elevate its axis above D4 and in the same length

demolish road I/2, direction Bratislava.

Mr. Troščák, Marianka

Today, houses are built also in other places. What was the cost of interchange Záhorská

Bystrica?


The position of the highway is the same as the former zero bypass. The existing and new

structures will be protected from noise from the highway. We do not have information about the

cost of interchange Záhorská Bystrica.

Mr. Kováč, Marianka

Why variant 7c is the best one?

Reply Mgr. Šikula:

38

Variant 7c is the best of the variants assessed in the assessment report. The assessment result

applies to the entire variant from Vajnory to interchange Záhorská Bystrica and not for Marianka

only. Your anger is unjustified. We have not designed it, we have not added the zero bypass in

the zoning plan, we have only assessed the designed variants and the impacts thereof on the

environment. Today we are presenting the assessment report. From our standpoint we cannot do

anything because the limits in force applying to noise will not be exceeded. Of course, above-

standard solutions are possible if they are reasonable and justified. I assume that the

embedded variant has never been in the zoning plan of Marianka. Although you will hear the

highway, it does not mean that it cannot be changed by anti-noise measures. In each following

stage of project documentation (planning permit documentation, building permit documentation),

the noise study will be updated and measures will be designed accordingly.

Ing. arch. Statelov, Marianka

a) It is not a problem to meet the standards which are standard also in the EU, in Austria, they

also have norms and do not have a problem to embed roads below the terrain level. Why cannot

we do the same? It is about the culture.


We are not here to assess the statutory limits. It is necessary to submit comments and write them

in the record, or eventually submit them directly to the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak

Republic, to handle them in the following stage of project documentation.

The assessment process means assessment of technically designed variants bearable in the area.

If you request that the entire highway be in a tunnel, an authorzed road engineering designer

must design it first, only then it can be assessed. And today, the assessment process is almost at

the end and the following, much more detailed highway project will be planning permit

documentation. You can submit all your requests in writing, they will be assessed and treated in

the following stages.

b) Is the below-the-terrain solution possible?

c) Where the fill ends?

Reply, Ing. Jurkovič:

Technically, everything is possible, the tunnel is covered, before the portal, up to km 15.2.

Technically, it is not a problem to cover the highway in a fill.

Mr. Jasený, Marianka

Do you take into consideration the perspectives of service in the area? When it is built, people

will be attacked by pollutants. Whole Europe knows Marianka as a pilgrimage place.

If they start to carry soil from the tunnel to the quarry, the road in Marianka will be destroyed.

How about compensation measures? There will be some substitute accommodation. I am some

300 – 350 m far from the highway but it will be an extreme intervention in the environment and

long-term burden. We have received a perfect genetic base which is deteriorating because the

environment is bad. I think that to invest some extra funds in the protection of environment for

people is not a problem and it is nothing compared to the consequences of pollutants and noise

from the highway.

What is better in variant 7a, 7b, 7c and is it possible to design also variant 7d as they want it, i.e.

put the highway bellow the terrain? Maybe it would be enough to prolong the tunnel by 400 m

but we need to look for a solution and not shout at each other and insult each other. It is for our

children who will live here.


The service in area will be the same as today. All roads interrupted by the highway will be

restored. The study handled also the maximum load scenario.

Soil from the tunnel will not be transported through the municipality. I don’t know from where

that information came – we have never contemplated such a scenario. In the remaining route,

there is a lack of soli which can be taken from the tunnel directly to the highway. You can

39

submit a request that the municipality disagrees to the construction vehicles passing through the

municipality and you can eventually notify of a suitable place for carrying unnecessary soil from

the tunnel. It will be written in the record.

Variant 7c is better in the assessment in the entire length but in Marianka, variants 7c and 7b are

identical. The difference between them is only in the eastern part, in the area around Vajnory.

Variant 7d that will have more favorable impact on the environment may arise from our

comments.

In addition to your present comments, you can submit comments also during the discussion of

planning permit documentation.

Addition to the question Mr. Jasený

Is it possible to convene a meeting also for variant 7d?

Reply Mgr. Šikula

If variant 7d is not technically designed, it would be only a hypothetical discussion but it could

be technically treated in the planning permit documentation.

Mr. Troščák, Marianka

Would it be possible to redesign interchange Záhorská Bystrica so that highway D4 be on the

terrain and road I/2 would overpass it?

I would like to know the solution, what people are supposed to look at, at a concrete soundwall?

Reply, Mgr. Šikula, Mgr. Hujo:

It would mean a complete redesign of the junction of road I/2 and highway D4, i.e. a redesign of

the highway with a different elevation and proposal of measures. We would have to demolish

everything that has been previously built, as mentioned by Ing. Jurkovič.

As to the protection of the Marianka inhabitants, anti-noise measures have been designed. By the

tunnel prolongation, people’s requests have been partially met, for the rest of the route,

soundwalls are designed. According to today’s knowledge, the soundwalls are 3 meters high.

Soundwalls may be absorbing, echoing (in direction from the municipality), esthetically covered

with greenery. They will not be made of concrete with regard of the character of the territory

through which the highway passes. Concrete soundwalls today are not built of concrete if they

are close to residential areas.

Mr. Minarovič, Marianka

Noise is a problem, how about pollutants? Will the area be contaminated? Mr. the

environmentalist, would you like to live there?

I have studied it and I know that there will be exhausts from the tunnel – three of them. Two on

portals and the third one in the middle. Does the map depict also the western exhaust from the

tunnel? And where exactly will the exhaust be?


Pollutants have been assessed in the pollutant study, all components are far below the admissible

limit. You can submit comments.

Certainly not. When I was arranging a place to live, I inspected the zoning plan to make sure that

no highway or highway will be built and I will live the farthest possible from them.

Yes, the tunnel exhaust has been taken into consideration and the only exhaust will be located in

the middle of the tunnel in the Little Carpathians. In portals, exhausts from the tunnel will be

located and they have been taken into consideration in the pollutant study. However, it is

a modeled value for the most unfavorable situation and it has been averaged. The pollutant study

has been prepared in line with the standard methodology and if you doubt the results, you can

challenge them. In the following stages of project documentation, a pollutant study is a standard

annex and it will be prepared for the highway using a detailed scale and again you will have the

possibility to comment on it. You also have the right to order preparation of an opposing

statement.

There will be one ventilation shaft in the middle of the tunnel, in the Carpathians.

40

Ing. Kamenický, Marianka, I have several comments and questions:

a) Traffic – the annex mentions the numbers of vehicles but it is unclear where they come from,

Not the analysis but growth coefficients – where did you take them from?

Reply, Ing. Okuliarová:

The traffic analysis and prognosis were done within the feasibility and purposefulness study of

the entire D4 as a separate part thereof. The said study, including the traffic data, served as

a basis for the assessment report. If you want to see it, we have it. In the assessment report, only

the results have been used. It is possible that more of the traffic data have been taken to make it

clearer.

b) Noise study – it has been prepared only for the day and night assessment, evening is missing.

It is a significant deficiency because it has not been prepared in terms of Act No. 355/2007 Coll.

and regulation of the Ministry of Health No. 549/2007 Coll. The entire study is bad and

contradicts the said Act, it has not been verified, and it is not provided how the model and

methodology has been used for a long time. The Act speaks about 3 time period – day, evening

and night and you have assessed only day and night. I am surprised that you were able to submit

it to the investor. I know what I am talking about, I have been assessing noise for 30 years. It is

a significant deficiency in the study. The methodology is as it is, no verification is provided and

you have not proved that it works and the values are reliable, no wind increases are taken into

account. Czech methodology has been used and the inputs are not provided – inputs used to

calculate the values of pollutants and the overall surface load. The entire study does not

correspond to standard procedures.


I have 5-year experience in Slovakia and Enviconsult Žilina – the elaborated of noise and

pollutant study is sufficiently experienced but you are right that verification is needed but not in

this stage of assessment. Verification makes sense within the planning permit documentation.

The models correspond to measurements + - 1 – 2 dB. After the soundwalls design, we stay

within the limits – I mean many dB, not 1 or 2. We are certainly not on the edge. It is true that

evening is not included in the noise study but soundwalls are designed for the night hours and

noise level limits are stricter for the night hours and night is included in the noise study. The

models correspond to the reality, we have discussed that with the Public Health Authority of the

Slovak Republic.

The limits of division to 3 time periods apply mainly to specific noise measurements when

measurement is made by certified measurement devices directly on the spot. That however is not

strictly stipulated for noise modeling as it was done in the assessment report. As a standard,

noise is modeled for day and night and when anti-noise measures are designed, night noise load

is taken for the basis because strictest limits apply to night hours. For those data, measures have

to be overdimensioned. The methodology is standard and it has not been doubted by the hygiene

stations or health institute. If the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic had certain

doubts, they would return us the report for certain for revision and amendment. In the following

stages, an processedized person will prepare an opinion. That processedized person will also give

an opinion about this methodology, so another person will check it. Of course, the methodology

is not strictly stipulated, for sure a different methodology may be used.

c) You haven’t done according to the law and you refer to the law.


I don’t say that it is marginal but the law does not say that in must be assessed for 3 time periods

in the assessment report. If it was so, I don’t know if it would contribute to something more

qualitative. The law stipulates the limits but does not say we should do it so in the assessment

report.

Addition of Mgr. Hujo:

I admit that you are number one in Slovakia in this field. On the other hand, I insist on the

41

numbers because the method can be compared with other papers. I am sure you can imagine

a more scientifically prepared noise study but the assessment report is a material destined for the

public, for laymen who must understand it although I believe that professionals can imagine

it differently. You may perceive it as insufficient but I insist on the inputs. It has been prepared

objectively. I am sure that if you were to prepare it using another method, the difference in the

result would be insignificant.

d) You should have stated that you have done it so, that the model works because professionals

read it, too. I am not against it, I work also in the Czech Republic, however, no inhabitant

analysis is provided, only the surface load.


The assessment report says that we would have to select the inhabitants in their tens of thousands

and/or hundreds of thousands because the highway has an impact on whole Bratislava. We have

taken into consideration the affected buildings.

e) We can conclude it saying that this discussion was mutually useful.

Mrs. Kminiaková, Marianka

Underground and surface water, the chapters describe advantages and disadvantages. As to air

I have uncovered that in Marianka, concentration of pollutants will increase twofold to tenfold.

On page 141 is a table with the assessment of variants and variant SPL is marked with a minus

sign because it will not unburden Bratislava. I don’t find it correct because it is necessary to take

into consideration also the adjacent quarters. It should have been divided into sections, the table

shows the most pluses = the best variant but we in Marianka will experience deterioration.

Geology was assessed only based on the existing data and in AS (section 19), a detailed

geological and hydrogeological survey was provided and that requirement was not met. It is

daring and reality may be totally different. Seismicity is missing, too.

You need to understand Municipality Marianka, they don’t want to look like they don’t want the

highway but when on a fill and the soundwall is a giant, it is impossible to agree to that.

We request that these comments be provided in the record and we will incorporate them also in

our statement.


Pollutants: when modeling, not only D4 but also D1 in the eastern part of the section and road I/2

that is not in Marianka were taken into consideration and no effect would be found in the model

due to small intensity.

The effect in variants 2 and 7 +1 and in SPL -1 is because for the areas at the beginning of the

section (Rača...) if the highway is built will be greater from the traffic perspective in variants 2

and 7 than SPL. The effect of traffic intensity and noise +1.

It is not true that geology was assessed only based on the existing data. Within the assessment

report, a geological study was prepared and we can give it to you. A detailed geological survey is

part of planning permit documentation as a standard, which is usually prepared for the final

variant recommended in the final decision of the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak

Republic.

The highway in Marianka is not in a fill. Variant 7c (and 7b) in Marianka is designed in

a groove, i.e. below the terrain level – to be specific, in the exit point of the highway from the

tunnel it is 4 m below the terrain level and then 2 m below the terrain level. The fill will be

only 150 m long when bridging a field road. A soundwall does not have to be disturbing for the

surroundings, it may be built to fit in the surroundings, e.g. with the aid of overgrowing

greenery.

Marianka resident

What about the tunnel draining? You said at the Municipal Authority that draining will be solved

also in Marianka. Where in Marianka? How? This is our last resort to raise our hands, after that

nobody will care. You will pass it and we will only a posteriori learn about your decision.

42

Marianka is an important municipality and it is necessary to see like that.


We assessed and took into consideration also the geological study prepared by Geofos. We

propose to change the tunnel axis also in the Marianka direction so that a majority of water

drained from the highway to Marianka and Záhorská Bystrica, which have better conditions for

water draining than Vajnory. It is certainly not your last resort. You will be able to submit your

comments as a municipality in planning permit proceedings upon the issue of planning permit

for the highway.

We also perceive Marianka as an important municipality and we accept your comments, it is

necessary to pay attention to them and we are happy that you have raised them and we can

further handle them.

Marianka resident

Is it possible to cover the highway – not a tunnel but a cover to carry emissions and noise behind

interchange Záhorská Bystrica? What is the perspective of the highway construction?


Technically, it is possible to cover the highway. Today also the cars are usually equipped with

catalytic converters in the majority of cases and in 20 years, cars will use new energy resources,

e.g. electric cars and certainly something new will be developed so we can estimate that cars will

not be such an air pollutant in the future. The results of pollutant study estimate minimum air

pollution – far below the permitted limit.

Execution according to recent plans is estimated between 2013 – 2018.

1

Minutes of a public hearing on the assessment report held on 15 June 2011 in Marianka

The mayor opened the public hearing and welcomed the guests. NDS (Národná diaľničná

spoločnosť, a.s.) representative, Ing. Daniela Okuliarová stated that the public hearing on the

assessment report (Správa o hodnotení) pursuant to Act No. 24/2006 Coll. had been held on 12

May 2011 in Lozorno for the towns of Lozorno, Stupava and Marianka. Today’s negotiation was

convened upon agreement with the mayor at the initiative of Marianka citizens, who wanted to

discuss the assessment report in Marianka as well. Opinions of the municipality and citizens

addressed to the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic (MŽP SR) can be sent until 25

June 2011.

Agenda of today’s negotiation:


2. Discussion

Furthermore, she announced that a record of today’s negotiation will be made and provided to

representatives of individual municipalities and following their verification it will be sent to

MŽP SR. She introduced the authors of the Feasibility and Appropriateness Study (ŠRaÚ),

assessment report, representatives of the Town Council and a proposer and gave floor to the

elaborator of the assessment report.

After the presentation of the assessment report a discussion was opened.

Mayor of Marianka, Mr. Jurika

The municipality promoted variant 7c, because it had the longest tunnel, but they consider it

insufficient. They demand the tunnel to be lengthened up to the end of the cadastral area

Marianka.

Response by Mgr. Šikula: We took over the technical solution from Dopravoprojekt as is stated

in ŠRaÚ. The study was prepared based on map documentation without measuring the area and

in the next phase of a project documentation (documentation for zoning decision, DÚR) the area

43

will be measured, the demand to lengthen the tunnel will be examined and if possible, the tunnel

will be lengthened. They can check this within the negotiation of DÚR and DSP (documentation

for building permit) with the municipality.

The request from comments to the intention to lengthen the tunnel was considered and

incorporated in ŠRaÚ and actually due to their incorporation subvariants 7b and 7c were created.

Ing. Jurkovič added: The request to lengthen the tunnel to road I/2 was not possible because the

limit was elevated junction (MÚK) in Záhorská Bystrica (D4, I/2) constructed in such a way that

a highway is at the top level. I have already explained this to Ing. arch. Statel during the public

hearing in Lozorno; he wanted to solve MÚK reversely – D4 down and road I/2 on the upper

level. It also is a matter of a longitudinal gradient in the tunnel which is ideally below 2%

(presently at 1.72%). With steeper gradient it is necessary to build an additional lane for slower

vehicles, which means that emissions will be higher in such solution. Location of a highway is

equal to the route of zero circuit that is in the zoning plan of Marianka and highway runs behind

the hill separating the town from the highway.

Ing. Okuliarová added: In case of worries about exceeding the noise, the noise study will be

updated in each further stage of the project documentation and based on its outcome noise

barriers (PHS) will be proposed.

We request an extension of the tunnel until 16.6 km that means until the end of cadastral area

Marianka.

Mrs. Augustínová, Marianka

Our health is the most precious, we are here to give a proposal and we support it, which means

lengthening the tunnel, as mayor said.

Mr. Jackamin, Marianka

Branisko was built with just one hole. Will we have one or two holes?

Ing. Okuliarová’s reaction: Two tunnel pipes will be built at once.

Mr. Gašparovič , Marianka

How will NDS guarantee PHS, when the town of Jarovce has no PHS? Will PHS be part of D4

highway? We demand lengthening the tunnel as well as increasing PHS by more than 2 meters.

Response by Ing. Okuliarová: As for the D2 highway and Jarovce, when the D2 highway was

put into operation, the traffic intensity was such that it was not necessary to build PHS, as also

the town of Jarovce was considerably further from the D2 highway. The enormous increase in

traffic after Slovakia joined the European Union and new construction in Jarovce towards the

highway have nowadays made the need to build PHS justified. As D4 highway is being prepared,

which also passes near Jarovce, the noise issue will be addressed comprehensively for both

highways.

PHS will be part of the highway, as PHS are designed already at this stage of the project and will

be implemented simultaneously with construction of the highway.

Mr. Hargoš, Marianka

The noise study meets standards – I do not know what noise is allowed by standards, but even at

Račianske Mýto they also are met. We had silence here and now we are going to have noise such

as is at Račianske Mýto.

Regarding the slope ratios, Vajnory also insists on the tunnel, it would also suit here, I

understand that it would be necessary to adjust slope ratios, but it can be addressed and noise

would be addressed as well. So, why the tunnel cannot stretch as far as junction Záhorská

Bystrica?

Response by Mgr. Šikula:

Everything can be technically addressed, but we need to know your reasonable and relevant

demands. Noise limits are set by law, or by a governmental directive and limits are different for

old buildings, where the noise intensifies on the existing road, from those for new buildings. I

agree that now you are used to silence and although the background noise from highway traffic

44

will be partially heard, it certainly will not be noise which currently is at Račianske Mýto.

Limits in the EU and in the Czech Republic (and until last year also in Slovakia) are 50dB/night

and 60dB/day. We have had lower, stricter and more people-friendly limits: 45dB/night

and 50dB/day.

Ing. Tokoš added: I would like to add to what was said about Račianske mýto. I have been

working in town for 35 years and the European directive regarding the issue of increasing noise

in cities ordered in the first stage to provide noise maps that were provided by the Town Council

2006. This map demonstrated exceeding of noise at Račianske mýto by 5 to 20 dB. In the second

stage, according to the mentioned European directive, it is necessary to develop an action plan

under which the measures to reduce noise will be taken, but not by using noise barriers, but

otherwise, for instance by measures on facades of houses etc. There are associated problems with

it – for example; who will bear the costs for it etc. I would also like to comment on the history of

zero circuit; the first proposals for road circuit of Bratislava started 35 years ago, in 1977 -78.

They were specified in more detail in 1984, when 7 alternatives were proposed and one of them

also passed through near Senec. The Senec District’s opinion was like that they did not need

such road and that Bratislava should address it within its cadastral area. For this reason the zero

circuit has been since 1992 proposed and designed for the first time at the border of cadastral

area Bratislava.

It is good that citizens can express and present their demands regarding the noise situation since

the beginning of project, because it is your right, but also an obligation towards future

generations.

Mr. Makovický, Marianka

I request my comments to be recorded in the minutes. The official negotiation was held in

Lozorno and this one is just for information?

Response: No, this is a proper negotiation on the assessment report as well.

All right. You are forwarding our demands to further stages of the project documentation and we

would like to address it now in the assessment report. I am also speaking on behalf of citizens of

Marianka, Záhorská Bystrica and Civil Association, we demand you to cope with our requests

now in the assessment report or in the final opinion.

Ing. Okuliarová’s response: The assessment process under the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. deals with

assessment of technically proposed variants (in this case in ŠRaÚ) and the capacity for them in

the area. Technical changes that you demand – an extension of tunnel can only be addressed in

technical documentation which will follow the completion of assessment process. The

assessment process of a highway for environmental impact will be completed by issuance of

Final Opinion by the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic. It will include all relevant

requests for the next stage of project documentation, which means for DÚR. Without meeting

these requirements the zoning permission for highway will not be issued.

Mr. Kováč, Marianka

What is a life span of the tunnel? Why is the growth in traffic only projected until 2040?

All of a sudden the Záhorská Bystrica junction was built, why the junction first? Other things

should have gone and only afterwards the junction. The Záhorská Bystrica junction was built and

now what? That technical solution will be preferred? But such construction must be prepared in

accordance with standards and it is necessary for investor to build what can be justified.

Marianka is an above standard town and it is bothered by noise from the highway. Everything

should be done immediately and not just to promise that it will be done later. You are an expert

and you say what you want so that we do not understand.

There are rumours that waste from the tunnel will be carried through Marianka to stone quarry, it

will be in remarks. I also had been working in projecting and everything should be done

according to the latest knowledge.

45


Life span of the tunnel is more than 100 years.

All highway buildings are prepared, not only in Slovakia, but also in other EU states for design

period of 20 years + reserve. For assessment reports it is also 20 or 30 years. Nowhere in the

world are highways built immediately with 6 or 8 lanes (not even in Austria or Germany),

because in unknown number of years the traffic will be such for it to be needed. It is always built

for some real period, because over the course of years anything can happen, such as our

accession to the EU and then it is addressed for instance by upgrading the capacity of the road,

searching for new corridors etc. to provide relief to the traffic. The same applies to environment

– you certainly have Internet and you read that hydrogen-powered vehicles are no longer any

surprise, because nowadays they are being produced and introduced into mass production, but it

would be utopic to address now something that will be in emissions in 100 years. Therefore, it is

designed for 20 years and noise and emission studies work with existing vehicle fleet and it

calculates with the maximum projected traffic load.

All constructions are prepared and built not only based on remarks of concerned municipalities,

but of course also in accordance with legislation in force and investor only builds what he can

justify. For example a highway does comply with standards and limits, but people might not be

satisfied with noise. It is possible to build an above standard solution, but in a justified way. As

state funds are engaged, their use is under scrutiny not only by investor, but also by other

citizens, who may oppose their inefficient spending. Certainly, there are also above standard

solutions built, which had to be justified as well, while Marianka is an above standard town and

above standard solution may be considered.

At the negotiation in Lozorno, we were informed that waste from the tunnel should be

transported through the town to the stone quarry. We do not know where this information came

from, because investor did not consider it at all. But it is inspiring information and one of your

remarks may be clear that you do not agree with transportation of waste from the tunnel through

the town.

If everything should be built immediately, then there would be no remarks of concerned subjects

during its preparation that can be incorporated into the following documentations, which are

more detailed and reflect justified remarks before the construction itself.

Ing. Jurkovič added: the Záhorská Bystrica junction was not built illegally! It was built within

the construction of D4 Záhorská Bystrica – junction Devínska Nová Ves (working title junction

Stupava south) exactly according to the project of former zero circuit which is in town’s zoning

plan. This construction was not projected without following previous construction Ivanka north –

Záhorská Bystrica and consequent construction Devínska Nová Ves – state border Slovak

Republic/Austria. On the contrary, the junction at the beginning of one construction is at the

same time a junction at the end of previous construction. It would not be possible to technically

address constructions, which are connected, without these assumptions. Prior to the start of this

construction, the documentations (DÚR, DSP) were discussed with municipalities and all bodies

and organizations concerned. Also in Marianka the zoning decision and building permit were

discussed. Highway route is exactly the same as designed in zero circuit. It was addressed in

relation to other D4 constructions. This route is precisely what you have in zoning plan and it is

not possible that mayor does not know what he has in the zoning plan. How could have building

permits been issued for houses being so close to the highway as 138 meters without any warning

that once a high capacity highway will be there and today the proximity of highway near new

houses embarrasses citizens. From the technical viewpoint – regarding the lowering the

longitudinal profile, I consider it to be more a technical issue, but there is a possibility of

implementing above standard PHS, even if it does not result from noise study, ok, if that can be

justified, it is not a problem.

With regard to elevating the longitudinal profile in such a way that the base line would be under

46

the ground level, this will be probably problematic. For larger longitudinal slope it would be

according to the standard necessary to build another lane for slower vehicles. Another serious

issue would be that when changing levels in the Záhorská Bystrica junction, it would be

necessary to demolish all that was now built – a new bridge on road I/2 through stream

Mariánsky potok, to demolish the entire road I/2 and lift the base line up until fuel station

in Záhorská Bystrica and reversely the same in Bratislava direction. Therefore, I would rather

recommend an above standard solution of noise barriers (PHS).

Mr. Olexa, Marianka

You must understand our concerns. We know, how highways were built illegally, supposedly

archaeologic survey and it was not so long ago.

I believe that our remarks will be incorporated in further preparation of a highway, but will the

tunnel be extended if there is no money for it? If there is no money for tunnel extension, how

high will PHS be? How high will the bank behind Marianka be, 2m, 4m?

How much will it cost? Do you have money for it?

Response by Ing. Okuliarová, Mgr. Šikula:

We are not aware of any highway that was built illegally; that would not be actually possible.

Your remarks will certainly be recorded in record and thereby, also into the final opinion.

Feasibility of the tunnel extension as you demand it, is not as much a question of funding as it is

of a technical solution, which can be verified in DÚR. Technical parameters of highway will

need to be taken into consideration (its directional and vertical line), connected to the following

section that will already be in service at the time.

If the tunnel extension is technically possible, this will be reflected in costs on highway

construction and it will be considered in the construction budget. Investor now has not certain

amount of funds, because we are presently in the pre-project preparation of assessment of the

impact on the technical solution. If the final opinion states that it is necessary to extend the

tunnel in variant 7c in Marianka, it will be included in budget and investor will allocate funds for

construction accordingly. If the tunnel extension is not technically possible, then the tunnel will

be extended by 500m after exiting the massif of Small Carpathian Mountains, then it will

continue in the cut and at intersection with a country road will rise to 6m embankment and a 3m

high PHS is designed there – if it proves, it will be 4m or more. Noise study will be updated

within DÚR.

Mrs. Zálišová, Marianka

We care about quiet Marianka in clean environment and therefore, we want the highway to be as

far from our homes as possible. You keep telling us that we have to manage it, but we, citizens

of Marianka want to tell that this opinion is important to us and serious and we will provide it to

the mayor. We do not need to manage anything, because our opinion is substantial and serious.

What will the legal settlement regarding the rights of property be like? Will you invite people or

what?

Response by Mgr. Šikula, Ing. Okuliarová:

It would be the best if we can agree now and keep it as it is. But the legal situation is that we

citizens have to manage it, because everything that will be further prepared will also be

published. If you have trust in your mayor, at least he will manage it for you. It is right that

citizens want to be interested in how their remarks will be considered. It does not work in a way

that we agree upon something here and then do not care. Such approach is also in other projects,

e.g. zoning plan of the town, so that they know e.g. what development plans the town has.

Purchase of lands will be executed within DÚR, following measurement of area the land owners

will be identified, they will be asked to sign contracts and lands will be purchased as building

plots estimated by an authorized expert at prices that are standard in the location.

Mr. Brestovanský, Marianka

Is this road conditioned by the EU or do we have to suffer for somebody else? You said that D4

47

will relieve the Czech Republic, Austria and Hungary, but how will it relieve? And why does it

lead this way and not through Lozorno? Under socialism we suffered as a discharge town and

now we should be world class? Is D4 highway being prepared in accordance with S8 highway in

Austria? Why should we conform to some other country? For many years we have subordinated

to other country, so why should we subordinate now as well?

Ing. Okuliarová’ reaction:

Both roads – S8 highway and D4 highway are prepared from the beginning in cooperation of

both investors as a connection between Bratislava and Vienna. The zero circuit was designed in

this way even before Slovakia joined the EU, so nowadays we are not conditioned by anyone

else and we are not subordinating to anyone else. For both roads D4 and S8 an interstate

agreement is concluded, on basis of which we will proceed until having completed both roads.

Perhaps it is also necessary to say that the D4 highway is divided into 5 constructions: Kittsee –

junction Jarovce is already in operation, Jarovce – Ivanka north, the assessment process is

coming to an end, Ivanka north - Záhorská Bystrica that is what we are discussing here today,

Záhorská Bystrica – Devínska Nová Ves is built in half profile before putting into operation and

the last construction is Devínska Nová Ves – state border Slovak Republic/Austria connecting to

S8 highway, where the assessment process is also coming to an end.

The Záhorská Bystrica junction is a part of the Stupava south construction (Záh. Bystrica

junction – Devínska Nová Ves junction), which is a separate operable construction of D4

highway, presently being built in half profile. It will be connected to the construction Ivanka

north – Záhorská Bystrica from the east and Devínska Nová Ves construction – state border

Slovak Republic/Austria from the west. Neither of D4 constructions is prioritized, all are

connected through common junctions. It is not possible to build the entire 50km long D4

highway route, because firstly there is not enough funding at once and secondly it is always built

this way (also for D1, D2 the procedures were the same) that the entire route is divided into

operable constructions, which means from junction to junction in such a way that the previous

and following construction could connect to it in the junction. The entire designed and prepared

route is built in this manner.

As regards the relief from traffic, the D4 highway will relieve Bratislava, because it will be used

by not only transit traffic, but also the source and target traffic of Bratislava – e.g. from Rača

and Vajnory to Devínska Nová Ves, or even towards Jarovce, Austria or Hungary. At the same

time the transit traffic will be connected from D1 highway by junction Ivanka north to highway

D2 (Záhorská Bystrica junction), or reversely to Jarovce junction on D2.

Regarding the proposed variants, all variants 2, 7 and SPL are equivalent and the final variant for

further preparation will be recommended to MŽP SR in the final opinion.

Mrs. Ďurišová, Marianka

I am disappointed by this project. Marianka is beautiful, what are you putting a highway here

for? You build a highway in a place like this, where a huge number of people are coming not

only from Bratislava, but also from abroad. Mass events have been organized here, what will

remain of this beauty? If you do this, you will seriously harm this area.

Mr. Piršel, Marianka

I will continue in relation to the previous remark. If you considered variant 7c that it will have

minimal impact, but 6m high bank and 4m high PHS is terrible interference with nature and the

tunnel extension is a logical proposal also for noise reduction. If there was some spiteful man

who would want to spread noise and mess to all three towns – Stupava, Mást and Marianka, it is

enough to put junction to the highest point – who even did afford to put it there like this? I do not

know, what slope will the highway have, but I tell you that if you put this you will harm the

beautiful area of Marianka very much.

Response by Mgr. Šikula,

I will comment on these two remarks. I do not know if we understand each other well and if you

48

have understood correctly, where the highway should be led. We were doing a year-round

monitoring of biota and we have been through this area in detail and 7c variant is led through

area, where nowadays are just dumps with debris, there are many illegal dumps, many not

properly kept garden plots, there is a lot of ruderal plants and garbage. It is the least beautiful

part of Marianka, which is otherwise really beautiful, no question about it. And following the

construction this area will be re-cultivated and replacement plantations will be planted there and

this area will look by at least 50% better.

I think it is quite unfair to tell us that we will destroy everything, that it is an insensitive

intervention and likewise. I have to reject such statements. According to a depiction developed

within the assessment report the highway does not create with PHS any unfavourable views in

this area. Although it is a new construction, new element, but its location is in the position that

does not interfere with area’s scenery.

Yes, Marianka really is beautiful and is visited by people also from abroad, but the route of 7c

variant according to depictions developed within the assessment report, the highway does not

create any substantial and negative scenes in the area, neither with PHS.

Ing. Jurkovič added:

I would like to comment on sir, who probably talked about a different variant. There was a

variant, where the highway was led in bank of 4 to 12 m and on length of about 900m, but this

was dropped because of remarks. And I do not know if we are talking about the same variant,

because today the route is led in such way that it is sunk below ground. I can read for you in

what altitudes compared to ground the highway goes: at outlet from the gate minus 4 m below

ground, subsequently minus 2 m under surface and those plus 6 m that you are talking about is

only at the length of about 150m, near bridging of a country road and in further continuation it is

plus 2m, not 6 m like you are talking here about all the time. And I would also like to say that

highway route from the tunnel leads behind a terrain elevation diverted from the town, so also

this hill separates the highway from Marianka.

Mrs. Augustínová, Marianka

It was disrespectful towards citizens of Marianka. Those dumps are there because it is a

consequence of the fact that it is a place for highway.

Is our request to extend the tunnel executable? The junction Záhorská Bystrica is already there, it

is a part of 7c variant and we could not comment on it. You will separate us with the highway,

we are connected to Stupava also family-wise and what about the European cycle route? You did

not tell us this for example.

I read on the Internet that stones will be transported through Marianka. We want a binding

statement that it is technically possible to lengthen the tunnel, whether the cycling routes are

going to be functional and that stones will not be transported through Marianka, because there is

only one road here, which is not decent itself, so we demand not to transport through Marianka

what will be mined from the tunnel.

Ing. Jurkovič’s reaction:

Nobody wants to offend citizens of Marianka, but the area, where this highway will lead really is

such and exactly because, as you said, it is reserved for a highway. Thus, citizens know that

space for zero circuit/highway is reserved here for a long time. You keep talking about 6m high

bank and 4m high walls, but as I already said, the highway is behind terrain elevation and under

the ground level.

Yes, a request to extend the tunnel is technically executable, but the question is, whether it also

is necessary. I already said it in Lozorno that it is not necessary to modify a base line, but the

tunnel may also be spilled, but for this solution there must be an agreement of competent

authorities.

Transportation of materials from tunnel to the stone quarry is complete news to us. I saw in

Lozorno that Mr. Statelov was distributing some papers, but I think it is a complete nonsense.

49

Material from tunnel will be used in the highway construction, because there will be a lack of it.

I do not understand why we should transport it to stone quarry. And finally, you have the mayor

and every step somebody would imagine to do in town, must be approved by the town.

Ing. Okuliarová added:

All roads connecting the towns nowadays, or country roads and equally cycling roads if they are

be interrupted by a highway, will be replaced and equally functional, maybe not in the same

routes, but slightly shifted, also after completion of a highway. It is obligation under the law.

All roads that will be used for construction transportation will be repaired to their original

condition after completion of construction.

Mr. Vališ, Marianka

Is 130 m from houses sufficient distance to lead a highway according to you? Let’s look at it,

because I think it is being designed from behind the table! People are sceptic about it, that they

will have a highway right in front of their houses. How would you react to such a situation? So

let’s address it somehow.


Before I answer, I would like to ask you, you say let’s find a solution, what is a solution in your

opinion?

Mrs. Svarovská, Marianka

The solution that keeps being repeated here – to sink it into the ground as soon as possible before

the town that it goes below ground and comes out in Rača, so that the family relations between

citizens of Stupava, Borinka and Bystrica are not transected, because the highway will transect

family relations and migration hauls of animals. All that people want is to sink the thing into the

ground.

Mgr. Šikula’s answer:

I am sorry that you are all putting it like we were your enemies, like we wanted to force you into

something here. Try to understand us so that we can achieve some goal, we have to understand

each other. I would like to comment on Mr. Vališ. I understand him 100% and I get it, but I will

try it from the other point of view. When I have to assess something and I go into the area, where

the road is planned, or a highway in 10 or 20 years, then citizens, or mayors tell to themselves,

who knows when and if at all will the road be there and they start to build houses nearer and

nearer to this road. And when they make inquiries at the construction authority they will say, do

not worry, they will build PHS there or will put it into the tunnel at worst. And I can already

imagine dozens of citizens attacking me and asking for understanding that we are constructing a

highway 100 meters from houses and that it is a tragedy. Indeed, it is a tragedy, but the mistake

happened sometime in the past, when somebody had prepared a zoning plan, but gave a

permission to build houses. When I purchase a land in order to build a house on it, then I will

look at the zoning plan, whether there are plans for any highway or road nearby and I will not

build a house there. But, if I stay there, then I sadly must count with all the inconvenience that it

entails. Today nobody will admit that he had built a house towards a highway. If I build a house

this way, it is terrible, but according to our models and also in reality, when there are PHS, then

it turns out well. Allowed noise limits will be adhered to and behind PHS there really is

relatively quiet, standards are met and investor may construct it. I am not saying that it will be

good. We really are not defending here something nor are we devil’s advocates. We had received

an intention, we assessed it, whether it meets the prescribed limits or not and we informed you

about the assessment outcome. Assessment report contains a lot of details, which we addressed

and which I probably did not talk about, e.g. we addressed cycling routes, wild animals’

migration; we performed a year-round monitoring of biota. I think we are not here to persuade

each other, but to explain to you, what we assessed and what we concluded. I am not saying that

the highway will be joy for you, but it is bearable for the territory. We are glad to know your

comments on what bothers you, what does not, what you want and it will be taken into account

50

and worked on in further stages. And this is what we have been saying from the beginning. That

is all in relation to the comment by Mr. Vališ.

Several people without introducing themselves:

How would you react to it?

People have been living for 100 years, perhaps 150 years in Marianka, family lines have been

living there, it is an old village with history.

When was variant 7c approved?

Nobody is against the highway here, it has been here for years, but everybody is asking, why you

not sink it below ground at the beginning of land area, sir architect responds because it is

expensive. And that it is not technically possible. Tell us, will it be more expensive if it goes

under the ground? Marianka is a historical, cultural and sacral monument, it is a very distinctive

town that cannot be found anywhere else in Slovakia, so tell me what the difference is, how

much more expensive will it be? Or is what you proposed more expensive? Can you tell me at

least in general what the financial difference is? Answer me!


I already said it, that when I went to secure my housing, I looked into the zoning plan of the

town, and county as well and I orientated myself accordingly. Simply said, I did not purchase a

property where the road was planned. Of course, people have been living here for very long, but

houses on that hill nearest to the highway are not even 10 years old.

Ing. Okuliarová, Ing. Jurkovič added:

No variant is approved yet, all are equivalent, but the route of a zero circuit which you have in

the zoning plan and where variant 7c is addressed, was approved in 1998.

It would be unfair to estimate costs on the tunnel extension. It does not work this way. We will

know when it is projected. And the tunnel will certainly be more expensive. We have already

said it here.

Your request will be in the minutes, probably also in the town’s opinion and it will be taken into

account. And a qualified person, who will prepare an expert’s opinion, will appropriately handle

your request. We will forward your request further. We cannot guarantee you anything, but we

will forward it further.

As regards the technical matters, only the next stage of project documentation can verify these

matters. We are not resisting it, it will be a condition and it will be considered in the next stage

of the documentation. Regarding the funding, this will also be calculated in the next stage of

project documentation, we cannot tell you this here from behind the table, but certainly

something can be done about it.

Ing. Jurkovič added:

And I did not say that it cannot be done, the tunnel can be done also in the bank – it will simply

be spilled. And do not say that the pilgrimage will be devastated by a highway, that it will lose

its character. This is not true.

Mrs. Šenkejová, Marianka

What time period do you anticipate for the highway construction?

Ing. Okuliarová’s reaction:

According to the latest investment plan the years of construction are: 2013 – 2018

Until the realization starts it is necessary to prepare the documentation for zoning decision

(DÚR) in a public tender, obtain the zoning decision (one year), legal settlement related to the

property, to prepare the documentation for a building permit, obtain the building permit (one

year), to develop the execution documentation (one year), to find a contractor for the

construction in a tender and only then the construction itself can start.

Mrs. Brestovanská, Marianka

I want to tell, why people react in this way. The highway will not be for Marianka. We are

oriented otherwise. A high gas pipe was built in Marianka, it ruined our lands, you built the

51

bypass or what it is in Mást, you raised our costs, because we cannot get to Stupava right at the

chapel anymore, we have to go to Záhorská Bystrica; that is why people do not trust you

anymore, they fooled us with gas, they betrayed us with connections, they keep deceiving us all

the time. Do something so that you do not deceive us as well.

Response by Ing. Jurkovič:

I do not know why you could not turn to Stupava. Do you not welcome a possibility to connect

directly to D2 highway?

Mr. Šoltéz, Marianka

I am a technician, we have variants 2a, 2b, 2c, 7a, 7b, 7c, can we have in the assessment process

also variant 7d that is sunk in the entire cadastral area Marianky?

I am familiar with the assessment process and there is also a zero variant + other variants. A zero

variant was not on the table. I did not see economic assessment of variants anywhere in the

process.

Can we demand variant 7d now in the assessment report, will you consider it?

Response by Mgr. Šikula, Ing. Okuliarová:

That is unfortunately a fundamental lack of understanding of the assessment process. The

assessment process is not about choosing a variant; it is about finding out, whether the proposed

route is bearable in the territory. It is perfect, when the variants are proposed, to compare them

and recommend the best one. But the primary purpose of the assessment process is to assess a

proposed variant and its sustainability in the area. Variants are submitted by investor, they are

not created by a reviewer. But it is not possible to add a new variant within the comment

procedure of assessment process. There was the first stage, where were variants, those were

assessed, the scope of assessment was issued, where much more variants arose and now we are

at the end of the assessment process. I am not saying that variant 7d cannot be projected and

assessed, but not now in this assessment process. Investor would have to technically develop a

new variant a then we could consider it.

The law on assessment in the Slovak Republic requires considering investment costs, there is one

chapter for it from the feasibility perspective. There are costs stated in the assessment report, but

they are taken from feasibility study (ŠRaÚ). And I have said already that we do not look at

economics when assessing, we just state the costs to see transparently, which variant is how

much expensive, but certainly it was not a parameter for assessment of variants.

And the zero variant was not stated in the table because I would then compare zero values in all

items in the table with current variants.

A variant proposed by you will lower the noise and this demand can be considered within DÚR.

Mr. Mojzeš, chairman of a garden settlement in Stupava:

They are demanding to sink a highway into the ground, because the territory will not be as it is

now and the garden settlement will cease to exist as well. If it remains this way, the area will lose

its importance for us citizens of Bratislava and it will not be suitable for recreation. There are

1000 people taking recreation.

Dr. Jánošík, spokesperson of NDS:

I would like to inform you about similar meetings we are organizing within the entire country. I

would like to say that you react in the same way as all other citizens. That means nothing

extraordinary to us. We would like to define from our position what we want to address. It is not

our task to argue with you here at all. You are entitled to an adrenaline-driven expression,

because nobody of those solving it is talking to you and when a negotiation like this is convened,

passions are surfacing. On one hand it is necessary to understand that this process lasts for years

and the outcome is that in areas, where a construction closing should have been, there are

properties built by people. We are here not those, who should say you built your houses here,

bad luck for you. And this also applies to a designer – not every time the reasoning that I heard is

the correct one. Your task as a town is to unify the views, to define what you need and what your

52

substantial comments are. One aspect is that it will be reflected in an opinion in the minutes that

will be included to many minutes and which will be further negotiated. You know, the process is

on one hand a democratic one, but on the other hand a problematic one. We as an investor

luckily do not decide. There is a system created so that it is democratic. We have MŽP SR,

which will collect those arguments and consider them in some way and will issue a final opinion

that this variant was assessed to be the best in terms of the environment and will forward it to the

Ministry of Transport. Ministry of Transport is a political and professional institution that should

say yes, this is the one. By this is NDS not setting apart from the assessment process, I am just

defining that on one hand it is democratic that us the investor we are not a roller, but it is secured

by many other brains which should accommodate citizens. We also have an experience that

citizens persuaded the government to act according to their wishes. And it is only up to you. I

will be specific a year ago were somewhere above Kraľovany, I do not remember the name of

the town. When I went there, it was a valley where nothing is really going on and when I was

leaving, it was all about us cutting it apart with a highway. Exactly the same, the highway will

not serve us, there will be a scaffold bridge and we have nothing from it. An advice for you:

define substantial requests the town has, what you agree with and what you do not. Another

advice, it is necessary to unite with other towns having the same problem on this route. A matter

of funding will be addressed only later, because as you have heard here, it will be built

significantly later, because it is not planned in this electoral term, it should be in years 2013-

2018 by a so-called PPP project, these are present analyses. We cannot tell you now, how it will

be executed, because we are not an organization that secures funding. Simply put, we continue

somehow with the preparation. And once more, so that we do not have to argue here, we need an

opinion from you. The best it is when it is addressed by a town, in all aspects: professional,

political, aspect of a self-governing region. This is the only way to succeed with your demands,

so that somebody in the government would address it. And a final matter, we can sink the route

of course, put it into the tunnel, it will cost some money of course, we NDS do not have to

basically address it, because when one says that the government sets money aside for it, then

they will be set aside, there only must be a will and that will needs to be justified somehow. The

second matter is a technical solution, which can be adjusted, but some parameters must be taken

into consideration. Austria was preparing a tunnel on highway S8 towards Vienna from

Marchegg, on D4 under Morava and as far as I know, it turned out to be pretty much unbearable

and Austrians rejected the tunnel variant. Among reasons were not only the degrees of high

ground water, they were ultimately economic reasons. The same is being solved by the Slovak

part. It means that the government has a problem to fund it, it is a reality. On the other hand here

are you towns, with reasoning behind your demands. I would only like to say, for you to

understand that we are not here to ask you to accept everything. Once again, it is necessary to

define what you demand, so that it could be reflected somewhere and somebody in the

government could address it.

Mr. Záviš, Marianka

One can hardly speak about highways, who built them and when and when they were searching

for road, they discovered that we didn’t have here anything, neither water, nor gas, nothing, so

somebody decided to put here a highway and walls and said we would handle this. I wish you as

much health as to be able to listen to those who live here. I would give all of you, who want this

highway, some lands to live on with your families.

Mr. Varga, Marianka

Mrs. Okuliarová, I have heard many times, even Mr. Jánošík gave us a training that you can’t

give us any guarantees, but within democracy and stuff. We, people of Pezinok, we all know it,

they praise democracy and somehow it ended up in Slovak mafia, so I don’t want to get there,

however to summarize the whole thing. You keep on speaking everything else but the main issue

and that is the tunnel. Mrs. Augustínová put a philosophical question – what is greater value, life.

53

My question is however, whether you build highways for people or against them. I have gained

an impression that you build them against citizens. The only thing we require is to prolong the

tunnel up to Stupava. The price for demolition of this absurd junction is way much less than the

value of life.

Mrs. Lysická, Marianka

I am a technician and I can interpret what you say into figures. It’s so easy to promise, we will

build a tunnel; we will build a pipe, because this is just said in figures. The main issue is always

just one thing and that is money. I just want to ask you, if you are able to promise that it will be

built, filled, noise barriers will be increased and everything as you have said today. The Záhorská

Bystrica junction is limiting. The highway will be driven back from it. Therefore, I want to ask

you, as you have made all kinds of analyses, to compare what is more convenient for the

government; whether to dig in this absurd highway, which makes no sense and reject the

highway through Lozorno, where the industrial park is located. You have mentioned 15 analyses

you did, but haven’t heard from you what the traffic in the future in all those variants will be.

The industrial park in Lozorno is going to expand, so it is probable that there should also be

heavier traffic. I am against the highway. I don’t want to dig it and I don’t want any increased

PHS either, what I do want, is a common sense to be used. Let us build a highway on a place

where it is the most convenient, where it would be used the best. Let’s do it in a logical way.

I require an analysis of what is the most convenient to be performed.

Response by Ing. Okuliarová:

All variants: 2, 7 and Senec-Pezinok-Lozorno were assessed in the Feasibility and

Appropriateness Study from the traffic point of view. All variants together with traffic analysis

from this study have been included in the report for environmental assessment. The result of the

traffic analysis from the Feasibility and Appropriateness Study was that SPL variant is

inconvenient for the highway from the traffic point of view, because it will take over only 50%

of traffic compared to variants 2 und 7. Variant 2 or 7 are better for the transit transport as well.

It has no influence on relief for Bratislava and is not connected to already fixed corridor of

highway S8 in Austria. The location of SPL variant is in the corridor of the Bratislava Self-

Governing Region and could be used for regional road of lower category in the future.

Mgr. Šikula added:

I am only disappointed about this confrontation mood. Mrs. Okuliarová presented what we have

in the analyses. Prominent authorzed traffic engineers were comparing D4 highway in the sense

that how beneficial it should be; they did not compare burdens only on the highway itself, but

also for instance in comparison to Prístavný most and Lafranconi Bridge and of course, with

other important veins in Bratislava too; they also analysed what the highway would bring in the

SPL corridor. So based on this study and analyses we had at our disposal, it was proved that the

further north SPL variant is not as effective as the one monitored on the long-term basis zero

circuit, currently 2 and 7 variants. To understand the reason for that, we would need another

separate seminar where our colleagues, traffic engineers, would explain this for another few

hours. These are not traffic relations just from Vajnory to Stupava, traffic relief in Bratislava,

relief for D2 highway, it’s a solution for traffic relations in all Slovakia, as well as international

traffic connections. We received the results of traffic analyses and have no reason to doubt them

and up to this day nobody has questioned them. From the other point of view, it may seem to you

impossible to understand and absurd, but if we have a look at the map, D4 is an enclosed

semicircle in Slovakia, while SPL variant is offset, has no connection into the valley that it

passes through and even if the distance is only 17 km, it is essential for transit.

Mr. Krúpa, Mayor of Záhorská Bystrica

Most people here are the inhabitants of Marianka, however we, Bystrica people as their

neighbours are aware of this issue, even though it does not affect as much as them. We belong to

the town, which provided official standpoint on our behalf. Our standpoint was just a kind of

54

sub-standpoint, but on behalf of people I would like to say that we agree with all logical

comments. I could name them all, but I guess this would evoke a plenty of emotions. What Mr.

Jánošík said is true, however political lobbying is also behind it, even the variants are political–

professional lobbying in fact. In my opinion, it is not possible to do anything with the variant

now because this was a game that had been decided on other place and in other time, but it is

definitely possible to do something about the fact that there have been some comments today and

to settle the issue in such a way that let’s say at least bicycle path or noise barriers are really

done for people. I am not talking about you now, I mean those who will build the highway. So

that when the tape is cut and they leave, something good for the people living here remains in the

end. May the highway not be a thorn in our side, so that citizens are satisfied and are proud of

the highway as a nice architectural piece of work, may it form a harmony, not only for the traffic

purposes, but for people as well.

Mr. Romančík, Marianka

I have one technical question. Firstly, I’ll try to summarize what you have just said, whether

I understood it correctly. The highway between Stupava junction and the tunnel cannot be in the

cut because the highway goes upwards to Marianka gate located higher than Stupava junction.

And my question is this: is the gate in Rača situated higher than the one in Marianka? Is the

tunnel from Rača in decline to us? Is the entrance to gate in Rača three-stage? Are the inhabitants

of Vajnory against that? What is it that prevents the whole tunnel profile to be 10 m lower?

No approach to the highway in Vajnory and the cut is in Marianka, as if nothing happened.

Response by Mgr. Šikula: I would like to oppose. My colleague is definitely going to say

something regarding the technical solution in Marianka, but people in Vajnory are absolutely not

against this, however, they comment on Rača gate and this is quite important misinformation, we

have to refuse this. Inhabitants of Vajnory are commenting on the highway direction in the area

of Vajnory and they do not deal with location of the gate in Rača, which is also based on some

kind of terrain and this is also related to complicated elevated junction in (MÚK) Rača, where

we have a crossing with four-lane road II/502, railway and other limits in this areas. And

regarding your question about Marianka, we are always repeating it here; there are possibilities

and I, myself have already said more than once that it is not the question of absolute longitudinal

profiles, we speak here about terrain configuration directly in the area; the highway heads after

the terminal from the gate in the cut, whereby the tunnel may be prolonged by another 500 m and

then it continues further in the cut and to the bank only in the distance of 150 m in the place

where it crosses a country lane to keep the capacity of the countryside and it rises to the junction

Záhorská Bystrica from there.

Another question by Mr. Romančík: is the highway declining from the overpass in Stupava to

the gate of the tunnel? If it was declining, we neither need the tunnel to be prolonged, nor maybe

noise barrier.

Response by Mgr. Šikula: no, it is not; it rises moderately due to drainage of the road. And we

have already said that when the area is measured with all the connections, further work will be

possible. Whether it was possible even if the highway was declining from Záhorská Bystrica

MÚK, has to be assessed by my colleague due to highway drainage.

Ing. Jurkovič added: I have already spoken about longitudinal arrangement in the tunnel and

I have also talked about the limitations in longitudinal profile. As long as we increase

longitudinal disposition there, we will have three, not two lanes in the tunnel in direction to

Rača. I have already mentioned that the track in Marianka is in the cut, except for the 150 m

already on the edge where the crossing is and this can be somehow solved. That is why noise

conditions are the way they are. I know you repeat it all the time, but it is not necessary to put the

highway into the tunnel at any costs, there are also other solutions such as noise barriers.

Dr. Jánošík added: I guess there is no understanding, you said that the whole track from

55

Marianka to Vajnory should go lower, correct? However, before the highway entrance into the

tunnel in Rača you need to overcome a four-lane road and a railway, as it has already been

mentioned here. That would be problematic. Of course, one can have a closer look at it, but

please not now. We can discover how many meters or degrees, but please not now. The problem

is also in the direction of the tunnel in the massif of the Carpathians. The situation is settled for

now, as it is oriented to Vajnory. An engineer will also need to take its breakage in the middle

into consideration, as there is a hydrological issue as well. There are more issues in fact, when

you try to find a solution, you only deal with single part, but in such constructions it is necessary

to deal with the complexity of a technical solution. Your questions are right, but we are not able

to answer you correctly on just one issue, because this is connected to another one, to make

things clear.

Mr. Romančík added: it was no goal, just a requirement to check this possibility.

A citizen who did not introduce himself:

Excuse me, Mr. spokesperson, let me make use of the fact that you joined this discussion - to

me, it looks like a school leaving examination reversed. We are proposing dozens of proposals

here and you are telling us that it does not work because you are the experts; and you start raising

your voices and I don’t know what else. We cannot assess it. At the beginning of this discussion,

your colleague said he was from a company from Moravia and I do not know to what he

represents the investor. Anyway, he speaks nice and said that there would be only minimum

intervention to Marianka. We are not convinced of that. Why don’t you try to persuade us or

build the work in such way so that we, in Marianka, would not notice anything. I know it is a

government investment and you are looking for the cheapest solution; but will there be any

benefit of it for Marianka? No. Záhorská? No. The ones who will win are the government and

the city of Bratislava. So let the two invest the benefits by reducing the volume of traffic in the

city and thus emission and that the cargo traffic will not cross Bratislava but Marianka. Why

don’t they invest in such measures so that people in Rača and Marianka will not even notice that

the highway is crossing them.

Response of Dr. Jánošík: you are right but we are not the ones who decide about money.

A citizen who did not introduce himself (the same gentleman):

You are not competent to decide, you were authorsed to come here and defend this solution but,

in the finale, I can see scornful smiles of all state authorities’ officials in your faces – we have

heard the nation, we meet all legally set standards, nothing more ... they send it to the mayor and

he will not be able to do anything about it. So I consider this discussion a bit useless unless it is

managed in opposite direction – it is not us who are taking the test, you are being tested by us.

Build the works so that is does not hinder us, does not bother us with noise, bad smell so that we

could sleep equally well.

Response of Dr. Jánošík: let me say – I do not have grey hair and I do not want to put myself to

the position of a person who knows everything and that I have seen everything, in no case. All of

us are equally citizens here, just like you, and I don’t know why you feel the need to put us to the

position of some state officials or what who have come here to do bad to citizens, smile, listen to

them and do whatever we want in our offices. If you let us, not that. Check, what the government

has done and what was the result of routing the speedway near Nitra. Near Nitra, the route of

existing PPP projects, which is not being built by NDS but by a private investor. Due to the fact

that it was insisted that it was necessary to keep the took NATURA 2000 protected area and

people told themselves, will you accommodate the needs of birds or of people? And was it fixed

to the benefit of even despite the fact that we, as a state investor, had to guarantee protection of

the area because in this case, it was ordered by the European Commission. I use this example in

order to show you that it is possible. And I have been trying to indicate that it is up to you. We

are not here to be tested. We have a project here and you exactly defined its sequence how we, as

56

the state, are to proceed.

A citizen who did not introduce himself (the same gentleman):

Maybe I presented it incorrectly,; I did not mean you but the ones who will decide. The

discussion is correctly held on your part. Anyway, the answer I received is to the contrary. We

are here to determine technical parameters 100 m, 50 m, we do not know. Make the works in

such way so it will be as quiet here as it is today.

Dr. Jánošík: We, as the investor and the government, must assess it in its complexity. Not only

from one viewpoint but from all viewpoints and we, as the government entity, prefer the variant

that is the most suitable for all. Primarily, and finally, it is about the money. Of course, it is not

possible to recommend the most expensive variant. That would not work. But, there is a

spectrum of variants that are available there. As long as you, as citizens of this territory disagree

with them or if you comment on them and put down for us what should change. We, as the

investor do not expect you to propose technical solutions, there is someone else for that. But, you

can write that you do not want the highway to run across territory of two municipalities in such

manner that we will not get to the neighbouring village, so that ... so that ... .

A citizen who did not introduce himself (the same gentleman)

We are still talking about the same thing. You can build it even 1m away from the house, 20 m

deep so that one could not hear it. Build it in such manner so that all affected municipalities,

besides the benefit for someone else, did not even know that there is a highway running close to

them.

Dr. Jánošík: What you are saying means building the entire body of the highway underground.

Sorry, it does not work that way. So, is the requirement of this territory to put the highway under

the ground as much as possible?

A citizen who did not introduce himself (the same gentleman)

Propose such solution so that the impact of it on the surroundings would be zero, if I am realistic,

a minimum one. I know that the government does not have the money because it has been spent

but that is a different topic. So, what I request, and, I believe the others too, you to propose such

solution, do not expect us to propose one, we do not know if 100 m or 6m – we do not know

which one will be more expensive, you ask for the money from those for whom it will bring the

benefits – the city of Bratislava, the government, EU; we will help you in that, to pay extra to

sick people, because that is the maximum what we have.

Dr. Jánošík: Let me respond to your proposal to address the city of Bratislava to give us the

money for the highway because it will bring benefits to it – this is not how it works.

Ms. Lisická, Marianka

After those promises that you gave, do you still believe that the variant will be more favourable

than the one across Lozorno? If that is the case in traffic, then I see no problem with it.

Response, Mgr. Šikula: Certainly yes. In the table I showed, it was clear that the SPL variant is

substantially more expensive. The SPL variant is the longest one, it has 2 tunnels, one of which

is 12 km long, the other is shorter and the least favourable from the environmental and geologic

viewpoint. Let me tell you more about it. So let’s say that an extension of the tunnel by 700 more

meters in Marianka will cost around € 300 million. However, the SPL variant is around 10 times

more expensive. So, it is absolutely impossible to compare, only the estimated costs. Thus, even

improvement of the variant in Marianka will be much cheaper than the variant across Lozorno.

Another important factor is that roads are going to be built for expected traffic load. According

to standards, the highway is not going to be built for the traffic load of 12 000 vehicles per day, a

two-lane road is enough for such traffic. The traffic load does not substantiate the build-up of the

highway is that corridor.

Ing. Tokoš added: I am not a traffic engineer but I can see this dimension. I believe that the

placement of the zero bypass, as it has been proposed, is suitable for already existing radial roads

in the city. There is a large number of vehicles driving on the radials roads, whether we look at

57

the direction towards the east, west and the city does not even have its internal bypass finished,

not even the central semi-circle. There are points of connection to Austria agreed long time ago.

I find this solution more suitable. We must also take into consideration the fact that the transit

traffic goes not only to the city but also out of the city. I know that one moving truck takes as

much space as 10 passenger cars. So, the city needs a solution as soon as possible in order to

relieve that suffering.

I prefer a more sensitive solution. You have the right and the obligation to request for a solution

that will be the most acceptable for you.

Mr.Troščák, Marianka

Now, you are saying that it will be for the city traffic and, in Lozorno, you said it was for the

transit. So, how is it actually? Can you provide any supporting figures? If it is for the city traffic,

why is it not going to go to Lamač?

Response of Ing. Okuliarová: the highway, in this position (var. 2 and 7) has the advantage that it

will be used by the transit traffic, for which it has been designed, but it can also serve for the

inner city traffic, thanks to intersections of D4 highway with radial roads to and from the city.

The traffic will distribute there and will make it possible to connect southern and northern (or

eastern and western) parts of Bratislava by means of D4 highway. So, in fact the highway will

serve for the transit as well as for the inner city traffic. The share of cargo traffic in the traffic

flow is significant. Details of the transport – engineering solution are in the Transport Part that

has been designed by the ŠRaÚ and was adopted to the assessment report from the study.

Ing. Tokoš added: There is another lane from Galvaniho street (outer semi-circle of Bratislava),

which runs to Pekná cesta and to Lamač. In the future, Bratislava will need both roads – D4

(zero bypass) as well as city semi-circle, which runs to Lamač. The problem is that the money is

missing.

Ms. Augustínová, Marianka

D4 highway is also connected to D1 and Volkswagen gave the money for the Stupava south

intersection. I bought a garden in Marianka 20 years ago because I learnt that Marianka lies

in Devínska brána, which means that there are fresh winds blowing there. There should be some

kind of sanatorium for children built there, I have a sick daughter. You should come here in the

autumn, when the heating season starts and you will see what smog is here because Marianka is

in a valley. We do not want embankments here that will prevent from winds, put it to the ground.

Mr. Kortys, Marianka

Is it possible for a tunnel to run under the Záhorská Bystrica intersection and leave the portal

behind it?

Response of Ing. Jurkovič :

I am already repeating what I have said. The baseline in the intersection is 179.89 m, level lines

in front of Marianka are 185 m, so it is no higher, the intersection is 5 m lower than the terrain at

the beginning of Marianka. I am only a designer and I do not find it realistic. Then, the bridge

across the Mariansky potok would have to be pulled down, there would be impacts on road I/2,

starting at the fuel station, it would have to run over D4 highway and the same in the direction

tot eh city. Then, it would have to be necessary to pull down everything that has been built so far

and has not even been put into operation. If you mind the noise, it can be solved without elevated

base line by non-standard measures and they are possible. We will make embankments along the

highway, plant grass and that is what you want – to not hear, see and breathe the highway. Let

me notify you of the fact that it would be more favourable to request such solution than request a

change of the base line. That is my opinion. Of course, it is technically feasible to cover the

highway up to the Záh. Bystrica intersection. But that is outside you cadastral area and there is

no build-up planned in the zone plan of Bratislava or Stupava. If there are no buildings, how

could the noise study result in the need to build a tunnel? In Marianka, emission and noise limits

will be kept for existing as well as planned build-up because the highway will run in a trench,

58

behind the embankment from the village and, where it was necessary, there are PHS proposed

there.

Mr. Brestovanský, Marianka

What will you do if someone decides to not sell their land?

This variant has been approved and, as far as I can comment on it, it is the cheapest one. Why

could it not run across Lozorno even if the tunnel was longer? The quality is better there. We

were abroad, there are even 20 km long tunnels and they are nice. All of you only see the money

but you do not care if citizen are deprived of.

Response of Ing. Okuliarová :

We certainly do care. If anyone decides to not sell their property and refuses to sign the purchase

contract, we will negotiate with them. According to the construction act, the land will be bought

at the price determined by the expert evaluator – as a construction lot in the amount of the price

of construction lots in the usual place.

Neither of the variants has been decided. All three variants – 2, 7 a SPL are equal.

Mr. Nagy, Záhorská Bystrica

I received land plots from my sister-in-law and I still have not received any money. I have some

land plots but I will not sell. I do not need money – I will make the obstacle. KDH should

understand that there is holy water here, even people from abroad come here. I do not know what

would happen if they did it in Lourdes. You have no geology, no surveys.


You are fully authorised to do so. A similar solution – based on lot numbers, will be fixed in the

DÚR. Geological and other surveys will be done only for the final variant of the highway.

Mayor of Marianka

Marianka provided its opinion on the noise measurement. The methodology was not the same as

it was referred to. I want to ask directly. Should, according to Act No. 355/2007 Coll. and

Decree of the MH No. 549/2007 Coll., the noise measurement be made in three sections – day,

evening and night? The report talks about the assessment, the methodology did not keep the time

sections and it was only roughly assessed in two time periods. I need an answer to it because it

only causes a suspicion in me and distrust and the request why to put the highway underground.

It was not made consistently, it was not made in all aspects. I am a layman in this field but there

are opinions of sworn experts made in such matters of the government in order to make the

methodology undoubted and to have the figures arising from it really objective. Here, I have

doubts and I ask you for your opinion.

Question of Mgr. Šikula :

Let me ask you, Mr. mayor, is it a problem that we only have one noise study or that we do not

have the expert opinion, how am I supposed to understand it?

Mayor:

It was made according to Lyberko 2/2005 methodology and no other methodology was used and

the time sections referred to in the Slovak methodology were not respected – it is more stringent

– where the noise is measured and assessed in several time sections. The result of such

assessment in more detailed.

Response of Mgr. Šikula :

Let me answer on behalf of colleagues from Enviconsult Žilina, who prepared the emission and

noise study and we discussed the situation with them even after the negotiations in Lozorno once

again and it is necessary to add there that yes, that regulations of the government contains noise

limits divided into day, evening and night and such limits apply to general assessment of noise,

in particular, for measurement of noise made by authorised measurement devices directly in the

field. However, it is not strictly imposed from modelling of noise as it was done in the

assessment report. In other words, the regulation of the government reads that, in the process of

assessment, it is necessary to model the noise for day, evening and night and the usual practice is

59

that noise is modelled for day and night, where the noise load in the night is taken into

consideration for designing noise reduction barriers, when the limits are the most stringent and

the measures must be proportionally designed accordingly. When you look at the noise study in

the assessment report, the limits for the day and the evening are the same and they are more

stringent for the night. Someone could ask, why it is divided into day, evening and night, when

the day and the evening have the same limits. It is because the divisions is used directly for

measurement of noise in the field. The methodology is a standard one and has not been doubted

by hygiene stations or health institute. For your information, is the MoH had any doubts, it

would certainly have returned the report to us for completion; but, despite that, the expert

opinion will be prepared by an authorised person. It will also comment on the methodology, so it

will be checked by someone else, too. Of course, not even that methodology is strictly

prescribed, it can certainly be done using a different methodology, too. That’s for the

explanation.

Mr. Ulrik , Marianka

You mentioned the years of construction 2013 – 2018. How did you arrive at that? 10 km tunnel

will be built for 6 years and the build-up of two-kilometre Sitiny tunnel took 4 years. It is a

nonsense.


The duration of the construction of particular objects in years is estimated by the designer. The

duration of the tunnel construction will also depend on the technology used as well as of the

method of construction. For example, it is possible to drill the tunnel from both sides. All that is

up to the construction company.

The mayor ended the public negotiation and thanked the attendees for their active discussion. He

announced that any communication with the NDS, as well as the minutes would be published on

the municipality website and communication with the NDS in the later stages of preparation of

the highway will be published so that citizens were informed about the preparation of the

highway.

4. Statements, comments and expert assessments submitted to the assessment report

Within the period stated by law, in accordance with § 35 of the Act, the following statements

were submitted:

Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development SR, Section for Road

Traffic, Roads and Investment Projects (letter of 11 May 2011, Ref. No. 01839/2011-

SCDPKaIP/z. 20039)

Based on a comparison of the variants for the proposed activities, the Section recommends

variant 7c which adequately resolves the traffic problems in the area, represents the least

intervention in terms of the occupation of land, the least intervention into valuable and protected

countryside and is not the most financially demanding.

Ing. Milín Kaňuščák – General Director of the Section

Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development SR, Section for Road

Traffic, Roads and Investment Projects of 14 June 2011, Ref. No. 15151/2011-

SCDPKaIP/z.31171

Supplementary statement to the assessment report

On 24 May 2011, a meeting took place in the presence of the Mayor of Bratislava Vajnory

regarding the traffic solution of selected variants, arising from the assessment report on Highway

D4 Ivanka north - Záhorská Bystrica (a record forms an appendix to the letter - available from

the Ministry of Environment SR), the results of which state that the MTCRD SR requires the

following for further project preparation:

verify the technical solution of a D4 flyover,

60

verify from a hydrogeological viewpoint the option of a partially sub-surface variant with a

covered tunnel,

complete a noise study in the documentation for land planning decisions and propose

sufficient anti-noise measures for the selected variant in relation to housing development

areas on both sides of the highway,

respect the international cycle route in the Jur - Rača - Vajnory section,

retain the migration corridors and connections to Jurský Šúr,

address the ecoducts to facilitate crossing of the highway.

Ing. Milín Kaňuščák – General Director of the Section

Public Health Authority SR (letter of 15 April 2011, Ref. No. OHŽP-3191/11)

Since the activity in question does not exceed the border of the territorial district of the Regional

Public Health Authority, we are forwarding the application by the Ministry of Environment SR

to the Bratislava Regional Public Health Authority.

Bratislava Regional Public Health Authority (letter of 22 March 2011, Ref No. HŽP/

06192/2011)

The Regional Public Health Authority - Bratislava capital, situated in Bratislava, issues this

binding statement:

In terms of the protection of health, they agree with the assessment report. They give preference

to variant 7b as the most beneficial in terms of protecting the residential and recreational

environment.

The works will be assessed in the implemented variant within land planning proceedings by the

Public Health Authority in accordance with Act No. 355/2007 coll. and executive regulations. In

this phase, proof of the effectiveness of the proposed anti-noise barriers will be required via a

detailed noise study.

Ministry of Defence SR, Property and Infrastructure Section (letter of 14 June 2011, Ref.

No. SEMaI-34-208/2011)

After evaluating the submitted documentation and in compliance with the statements of the

affected ministerial departments, variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b and 7c are acceptable to the Ministry of

Defence SR. In the SPL variant, there would be contact with underground telecommunications

cables of the military administration in the area between the villages of Slovenský Grob and

Viničné, where military objects are located. For this reason, the SPL is unacceptable to the

Ministry of Defence SR.

At the same time, I require the submission of the next level of project documentation for

evaluation.

Ministry of Interior SR, Economic Section (letter of 14 June 2011, Ref No. SE-OSNMI-

2011/000583-030)

The MI SR has no comments and leans towards the implementation of variant 7c in compliance

with the results of the assessment report published on Page No. 200 of the mentioned report as

the most suitable variant in relation to the impact upon the population, protected areas and

habitats, the Little Carpathian rock massif, ground water as well as the financial implications.

At the same time, I require that project documentation on land planning proceedings is submitted

the Section for Informatics, Telecommunications and Security of the MI SR for assessment.

Ministry of Environment SR, Section of Geology and Natural Resources (letter of 4 May

2011, Ref No. 27858/2011)

We the issue the following statement to the submitted assessment report:

1. The State Geological Administration Department, from the viewpoint of the overall concept,

does not have any objections to the submitted material. The content and structure of the

61

assessment report corresponds to Appendix No. 11 of the Act.

2. The report does not include the source of the data used for evaluating the hydrogeological and

engineering/geological conditions of the area. The authors refer to a geological study but its

identification data is not stated. In the preparation phase of the selected variant, we require the

implementation of an engineering/geological and hydrogeological survey of the highway route,

assessing the impact of the proposed activities upon the flow of ground water, mainly in the

tunnel sections and in the Vajnory section. The creation and operation of a monitoring system is

recommended for accurate evaluation of the impact of the tunnel works upon the surroundings of

the rock massif.

3. According to the report from the State Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr, as a nominated

ministerial organisation, and according to the enclosure using a ratio of 1 : 100,000, the affected

area of the designed works contains:

- documented landfills,

- registered old mining works,

- the particular survey area "Bažantnica - oil and flammable natural gas" for Nafta a.s. Bratislava

(50 %), OMV (Slovakia) Exploration GmbH, Gänserndorf, Austria (50 %), valid until 14 May

2020.

Ministry of Environment SR, Department for Execution of State Administration (letter of

11 May 2011, Ref. No. 29337/2011)

We required the State Nature Conservancy SR (SNC SR) Banská Bystrica to make a statement to

the report. The statement of SNC SR is under reference number 1627/2011 of 9 May 2011.

In terms of the powers of the affected state authority, the Department for the Execution of State

Administration issues the following statement to the submitted assessment report:

The evaluated area contains several protected areas as well as areas of European importance.

More detailed information on the presence of protected areas is given in the SNC SR statement.

In variants 2 and 7, we consider the proposed solution for the highway section next to the Šúrsky

kanál as problematic since there is contact with the protected area of the National Nature Reserve

(NNR) Šúr.

Due to the fact that the protection of this location requires an above standard technical solution

for the works and we do not consider the proposed anti-noise to be sufficient to eliminate the

negative impact upon the subject of protection in the nature reserve, we require the section of

highway along the protected zone of NNR Šúr to be constructed in the way stated in the SNC SR

statement, i.e. by partially embedding the highway below the level of the terrain in order to

minimise the impact upon NNR Šúr.

In relation to this, we also require reasoning concerning why, in some variants, the altitude of the

proposed highway has been lowered to below the level of the terrain only in a 0.90 - 1.60km

section along the built-up area of Vajnory and not along the protected zone of NNR Šúr.

From the submitted variants, variant 7c is a solution which the least impact upon protecting

nature and the countryside, and accepting the abovementioned requirement will even minimise

this impact. This statement does not replace statements, permits, consents and other decisions in

accordance with Act No. 543/2002 coll. on the nature and landscape protection and in

accordance with other generally binding legal regulations.

Regional Environmental Office Bratislava, Department for Nature and Landscape

Protection (letter of 17 May 2011, Ref. No. ZPO/1081/2011)

Issued the following statement:

All variants are routed through a protected with the second special grade for the protection of

nature and the landscape in the protected landscape area category and the NATURA 2000

system.

62

The SPL variant is not economically or optimally evaluated as the solution for the capital city

bypass, but it is necessary to admit that it would be more complex and more necessary than the

blue and yellow variants for haulage transport coming from D1 as well as from Hungary to

highway D2 to the Czech Republic. This would lessen traffic through Pezinská Baba, which is

very complicated, and would also lessen traffic through Svätý Jur. In terms of personal vehicles,

it would be beneficial for the surrounding villages from Senec and Pezinok districts to have

another highway access road to the capital other than D1.

Residents of the capital city who use the vicinity of Austria, as well as haulage transporters, will

appreciate the bypass being closer to Stupava, but they have the option to connect to Austria

through Jarovce. The SPL option is probably late since the building of a Stupava intersection has

already commenced.

In the complex evaluation, the assessment report documentation recommended variant 7c - blue

as the optimum variant which, in our opinion, can also be recommended for implementation, but

in terms of functionality and the actual status of the roads in the Pezinok district, it seems less

complex.

Regional Land Office Bratislava (letter of 3 May 2011, Ref No. 554/93/2011)

The RLO states that the report on assessing the impact also evaluates land conditions focusing

upon the protection of agricultural land in compliance with the provisions of Act No. 220/2004

coll. on the protection and use of agricultural land. The future possible non-agricultural use of

agricultural land for the aim in question is addressed in variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b and 7c. In terms of

protecting the best quality agricultural land and the final scope of the intended expropriation of

land, variant 7c is the most suitable. The Regional Land Office in Bratislava has no objections or

further comments to the assessment report.

Regional Forest Office, Bratislava (letter of 13 May 2011, Ref. No. 107/2/2011)

In terms of protecting forest land, the estimated occupation of forest land and therefore the effect

upon forest management, the Regional Forest Office in Bratislava recommends the proposed use

of variant 2b or 7c.

Regional Monuments Board, Bratislava (letter of 11 May 2011, Ref. No. BA/11/0678-

2/2359/PRA)

In compliance with provision § 30 para. 4 of the Act on the protection of monuments, the

Regional Monuments Board in Bratislava agrees with the content of the submitted assessment

report regarding the area in question, which does not affect any national cultural monuments

listed in the General List of Monuments SR and does not overlap any historic sites, without

expressing preference to any of the proposed variants.

In terms of landscaping, the RMB BA prefers the protection of the characteristic panoramic

views of the affected locations and the original dominant features, also preferring the retention of

the typical silhouette and panorama of the countryside and possibly other cultural and natural

treasures in the given area.

The method of protecting potential archaeological findings and sites in the given area will be

determined by the RMB BA within territorial and building proceedings based on evaluating

individual levels of project documentation, following the provisions of the Act on the protection

of monuments and the Building Act.

This binding statement becomes ineffective three years after its issue unless used for the

purposes for which it was issued.

Regional Directorate of the Fire and Rescue Service, Bratislava, (letter of 26 April 2011,

Ref. No. KRHZ-BA-OPP-598/2011-001)

In terms of fire safety, the Regional Directorate of the Fire and Rescue Service in Bratislava has

no comments to the assessment report.

District Environmental Office, Bratislava (letter of 13 May 2011, Ref. No. ZPO/2011/03144-

9/ANJ/BAIII,IV)

63

The District Environmental Office in Bratislava, on behalf of the affected state authorities, issues

the following statements:

Waste Management Authority

No comments to the submitted assessment report.

Air Protection Authority

During the implementation of the works, the proposed works may act as a specific widespread

source of pollution to the ground layer of the atmosphere (dust, exhausts gases from heavy

building machinery) in the vicinity of building sites, or in places with a higher concentration of

building works (around construction objects). Another source of emissions in the construction

phase could be ground works which will form a major part of the volume of all building works

during the construction of the highway. The stated effects will be local, limited to the area of the

building site and limited to the period of construction, whilst actual meteorological conditions

will also be important. During its operation, highway D4 will have the nature of a line source of

air pollution (mobile sources).

Due to the fact that the building of a highway section does not include the construction of a

source of air pollution, we do not have any comments to the submitted assessment report in

terms of air protection.

Department for Cross-Sectional Environmental Activities

In terms of the prevention of major industrial accidents, the Department agrees without

comments.

Water Management Authority

From the viewpoint of National Water Administration, they have no comments if the following

conditions are met:

Meet all the measures for the prevention and elimination of the impact of the proposed activities

upon the environment stated in the assessment report, mainly:

ensure drainage of highway D4 using oil separators, retention tanks and pumping stations

to prevent the contamination of the recipient

when tunnelling, it is necessary to sufficiently size the structure to bear the pressure of

ground water and, during the works, restrict the flow of ground water into the building

excavation

in the next level of PD, it is necessary to verify the impact upon the stability of the dams

on the Šurský canal in the section along the highway

passage of the highway through the valuable location of the Na Lysom lake should be via

a bridge or check the possibility to distance the highway from the mentioned location

in the next level of PD, in cooperation with the administration of Šúr canal, prepare a

more detailed design of the dry polder between the Šúr canal and highway D4, the need

for which is reasoned in the part "Impact upon the Vajnory flood protection".

Based on the discovered facts, in terms of the impact upon water conditions, variants 2b and SPL

can be evaluated as the worst, and variant 7a as that with the relatively least impact.

Protection of Nature and the Landscape Authority

In relation to the protection of nature and the landscape, the assessment report states the

following facts:

1. In all the assessed variants, the route of highway D4 passes through the Protected Bird Area of

the Little Carpathians, declared for the purposes of preserving the habitats of bird species of

European importance and the habitats of migrating bird species (in the location of portals they

are just marginal, the tunnel only underpasses the PBA and the exhaust chimneys directly affect

it).

2. Variants 7a, 7b and 7c with a tunnel section (circa 1 km) pass under the Homolské Karpaty

area of European importance, declared for the purposes of protection habitats of European

64

importance and fauna of European importance, grade 2 level of protection.

3. Vydrica, an area of European importance, is situated south of tunnel variants 2a and 2b at a

sufficient distance (circa 6.5 km), but in the vicinity of the upper section of Vydrica stream (a

circa 10km section of highway) which is part of the Vydrica regional bio-corridor with inlets,

there is a proposed chimney exhaust for ventilating the tunnel section.

4. All the evaluated variants marginally touch the Little Carpathians Protected Landscape Area

in the location of tunnel portals, for which a grade 2 level of protection applies. Exhaust

chimneys open into the surface of this area and the tunnel section passes below.

5. All the assessed variants pass through or touch several components of TSES (Territorial

system of ecological stability) (for the area of Bratislava):

- regional bio-corridor of the Strúha stream - variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b, 7c (necessary to divert a

380m length of the stream)

- regional bio-corridor of the Račiansky stream with inlets - variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b, 7c - estuary

into Šúrsky canal, which also borders the Šúr multi-regional bio-centre,

- multi-regional bio-corridor - SE slopes of the Little Carpathians - variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b, 7c

- provincial bio-corridor of the Little Carpathians - all variants

- regional bio-centre of Vajnorská Valley - variants 7a, 7b, 7c (tunnel underpass)

- regional bio-corridor of Vydrica with inlets - variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b, 7c (tunnel underpass), in

the vicinity there are exhaust chimneys 2a, 2b

- multi-regional bio-corridor NW slopes of the Little Carpathians

- regional bio-corridor of Stará Mláka with inlets - variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b, 7c (intersection of

MÚK Záhorská Bystrica)

6. The location "Lk V", of biotic value - is situated on the intersection of vineyards and a forest

stand north of Rača and the eastern portal of the tunnel in variants 2a and 2b is proposed in its

location. This is an important ecotone which serves as a nutritional habitat for birds nesting in

the surrounding forests. Although it is not a protected area, the presence of protected species of

birds and insects was monitored here.

7. Several habitats of national and European importance are situated in the corridors of the

assessed variants. From them, the most valuable are Ls1 - flooded forest, Ls2 - beech-hornbeam

forest and Ls5 - beech and mixed beech forest.

8. On land with parcel number 2124/1 in the Vajnory cadastral area, circa 200m from the

planned routes in variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b and 7c, the presence of protected species of national

importance were discovered - Ranunculus lateriflorus DC, which is a protected plant in

accordance with § 33 and 34 of Act No. 543/2002 coll. on the protection of nature and landscape

as amended.

Assessment of Expected Impact of the D4 Highway Variants From the Perspective of Nature and

Landscape Preservation:

1. In variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b and 7c, protected areas and their protection zones (protected

landscape areas, special protection areas, sites of Community importance, national nature

reserves) are traversed only marginally, the highway route runs mostly along or under their area

through a tunnel. The location of a chimney opening approximately at the centre of the tunnel

route will have a direct impact on protected areas. Based on variants 2a and 2b, the chimney

opening will be located just a few metres away from the Vydrica stream bed, whose downstream

part is situated in a site of Community importance due to occurrence of a protected animal

species of Community importance – stone crayfish. The best of all the assessed variants seem to

be variants 7b and 7c (the longest tunnel zone). SPL variant will have the worst impact, as the

highway traverses a protected area even above ground (ca. 500 m in the protected landscape area

65

of the Little Carpathians).

2. In case variants 7a, 7b, 7c are chosen, it is necessary to adjust both the Strúha stream and the

Javorník stream in the interchange crossroads Rača (420 m). With variant 7c, due to a different

shape of the crossroads, adjustment of a nameless water stream in the northern part of the

interchange crossroads Rača will be necessary. The crossing of the Šúrsky kanál, the Rača

stream and the Strúha stream concerns all five variants and with current impact on the Šúr bio

centre (marginal impact), they have comparable influence on the elements of the regional

ecological stability system. The SPL variant has comparable influence on the elements of the

regional ecological stability system as well.

3. Apart from having impact on the water regime and the quality of surface waters, all assessed

variants exert significant influence on the hydrological regime of the Little Carpathians massif

during the tunnelling of the Karpaty tunnel, as well as on the hydrological regime of

underground waters near excavated areas of tunnels. Therefore, variant 2b will have the worst

impact on water conditions, while variant 7a will have the relatively smallest impact.

4. From the perspective of the assessed variants influence on fauna and flora in the area

concerned and the size of the area concerned, 7b or 7c seem to be the most suitable variants.

Overall, the SPL variant will have the worst impact on the biota.

5. Only two variants do not interfere with woodlands: 2b and 7c. Agricultural land fund is more

or less traversed in all assessed variants, the smallest interference being in the 7c variant.

6. The felling of non-forest ligneous vegetation will occur in all suggested variants, to the largest

extent in variants 2a, 2b, to a smaller extent in variants 7a, 7b, 7c, to the smallest extent in the

SPL variant.

7. In corridors of all these variants, habitats of national importance will be affected: Ls2-Oak and

hornbeam forests, Lk10- tall sedges vegetation, with variants 2a and 2b also Tr6-thermophilic

edges. The following are especially affected habitats of Community importance: Ls1-riparian

forests, Ls5-beech and mixed beech forests, Vo2-natural eutrophic and mesotrophic stagnant

waters with vegetation of floating and/or immersed vascular plants of Magnopotamion or

Hydrocharition type and Br4-mountain water currents and their ligneous vegetation with

rosemary willow. Influences on all habitats were assessed as acceptable, none of the variants

results in elimination of the entire habitat. Suitable vegetation adjustment may bring

improvement of certain habitats. From the perspective of impact, variants 7a, 7b and 7c are the

least negative ones.

We request to include the following conditions into the final opinion in order to permit the

activity:

a. Before the start of the construction and if protected species are found during construction

works, it is necessary to contact an office of the National Nature Preservation of the Slovak

Republic (NNP SR), or the Regional Administration of Nature and Landscape Preservation

(RANLP) in Bratislava.

b. If necessary, trapping and transport of protected species from the affected area will be carried

out, outside the period from April to July, in cooperation with NNP SR. Replacement habitat will

be found for captured animals.

c. Barrier effect and negative impact on animal migration routes will be reduced by proper

adjustment of bridges and other objects in order to enable migration of selected groups of

animals, or by building special migration objects – underpasses (for frogs, otters, etc.).

d. If variants 2a, 2b are chosen, the location of the tunnel exhaust will be reassessed, as the

exhaust is located near the Vydrica stream, whose downstream part is a site of Community

importance (the site of Community importance Vydrica). Any interventions into its stream bed

or into its tributaries that may result in a change of water condition in this current will be

avoided.

e. Noise-related measures (noise barriers) in the vicinity of all protected areas, protection zones

66

and valuable habitats, especially near Šúr (3rd

, 4th

and 5th

level of protection) and the Little

Carpathians (2nd

level of protection) along the entire continuous section of the highway,

especially the interchange crossroads Ivanka north up to the east portal of the tunnel, and not

only in small fragmented sections of the highway (see Chapter C.IV.2, tables of noise barriers).

It is necessary to maintain beneficial conditions of food habitats (including fields and water areas

near the highway route) for animals living in the vicinity.

f. The extent of adjustments made to stream beds of intersecting water currents will be

minimized. Disrupted hydrological conditions will be fixed by retention reservoirs with

sufficient capacity to decrease the impact on water current levels.

g. Before implementation of a selected variant, monitoring of underground waters flow will be

carried out, impact on hydrogeological situation in relation to water-based habitats will be

assessed, and based on the opinion of NNP SR, measures minimizing potential negative impact

will be adopted.

h. During land rehabilitation and planting, native trees and bushes will be planted. Replacement

vegetation will be planted for felled trees outside communications. Bank vegetation of affected

water currents will be replanted.

i. Measures will be designed and consulted with NNP SR and RANLP in Bratislava with the aim

to protect the habitat of the protected species of national importance – bulbuous buttercup,

growing near the highway route as designed in variants 2a, 2b, 7a 7b, 7c, approximately on 3.7

km of the route.

j. Ventilation shafts with noiseless technology will be used and equipped with barriers to avoid

animals draw-in.

k. In protected areas, vehicles used for transporting material will not require significant extension

or fortification of existing forest roads.

l. Permanent and temporary disposal of vegetation will be minimized in the protected landscape

area of the Little Carpathians, as well as other protected areas along the entire suggested

highway route and in other areas with the first level of protection.

m. In places where collisions with birds may occur (e.g. near portals), ornithological monitoring

will be designed and, if necessary, construction measures avoiding increased mortality will be

built.

Based on the landscape and ecological analysis of assessed variants of the D4 highway, the

presented Assessment Report perceives variant 7c as the most acceptable one. This variant is

also recommended by the nature preservation authority from the perspective of nature and

landscape preservation interests. The implementation of variants 7b and 7a would be

comparable, provided that the conditions presented in the Assessment Report are met.

This partial opinion is issued for the area managed by the District Environmental Office in

Bratislava, i.e. for cadastre areas of Vajnory, Rača and Záhorská Bystrica located on the territory

of the capital city of the Slovak Republic, Bratislava.

Final Summary

From the perspective of environmental protection interests falling under the scope of District

Environmental Office in Bratislava, there are no significant comments on the Assessment Report

of "The D4 Highway, Ivanka north – Záhorská Bystrica“. The nature preservation authority

recommends variant 7c as the most environmentally friendly one, while the choice of variants 7b

and 7a would be comparable, provided that the conditions presented in the Assessment Report

are met. The national water management authority perceives variants 2b and SPL as having the

relatively most harmful impact on water conditions, while variant 7a has relatively the smallest

impact. Comments of the nature preservation authority and the national water management

authority are to be taken into consideration in the preparation of the final opinion and in

determination of conditions under which the activity is recommended to be realized.

District Environmental Office Senec (letter of 6 May 2011, no. ŽP/EIA/811/11-Vi)

67

The District Environmental Office in Senec, in the name of relevant public administration bodies

falling under its area of competence, issues the following opinions:

Department of Public Water Management

The Department of Public Water Management does not have any comments on the Assessment

Report related to water management, providing that provisions of Act No. 364/2004 Coll. on

waters and on the amendment of Act No. 372/1990 Coll. on criminal offences, as amended (the

Water Act) are complied with, and providing that the opinion of the water current administrator

– SVP, š.p. OZ Bratislava and the opinion of underground irrigation water system administrator

– Hydromeliorácie, š.p., Vrakúnska 29, 825 63 Bratislava are respected.

Department of Nature and Landscape Preservation

From the point of view of interests protected by Act No. 543/2002 Coll. on nature and landscape

preservation, variant 7c is recommended.

Department of Public Administration of Air Protection

According to Act No. 137/2011, car traffic is classified as mobile source of air pollution and

objects of the Karpaty tunnel – exhausts in portals and air shafts – are classified as stationary

sources of air pollution. A dispersion study has shown that maximum permitted concentration

levels of pollutants in the residential area will not be exceeded even under the most adverse

dispersion conditions.

The District Environmental Office in Senec, Department of Air Protection, has no comments on

the presented Assessment Report. According to Act No. 137/2011 Coll. on air and according to

Act No. 401/1998 Coll. on air pollution fees, as amended. All suggested variants are feasible,

variant 2b is recommended as the best one.

Department of Waste Management

No comments on the construction in question.

Final Summary The District Environmental Office in Senec has no significant comments on the presented

Assessment Report from the point of view of impact on the environment, air protection, nature

and landscape preservation, water management and waste management. Variant 7c is

recommended.

District Environmental Office Malacky (letter of 10 May 2011, no. OÚŽP-

2011/00795/63/HOL)

The following opinion is presented:

1. The Department of Public Administration of Nature and Landscape Preservation

The proposed activity is located mostly on the territory of the first level of land protection, as

stipulated by Act No. 543/2002 Coll. on nature and landscape preservation, as amended

(hereinafter referred to as „the Act“.) In the location of proposed activity, protected areas

(protected landscape area Little Carpathians, National Nature Reserve Šúr, Nature Reserve

Jurské jazero, Nature Reserve Pod Pajštúnom, Nature Reserve Strmina, Nature Reserve Zlatá

studnička, Protected Area Svätojurské hradisko, Agricultural Area Limbašská vyvieračka) and

the areas of NATURA 2000 (SKCHVU014 The Little Carpathians, SKEUV0104 Homoľské

Karpaty, SKUEV0279 Šúr, SKUEV0388 Vydrica, SKUEV0089 Martinský les) are located or

marginally traversed. The implementation of the proposed activity will result in permanent loss

of agricultural and forestry land fund. Felling trees is proposed, especially Acer campestre, Acer

platanoides, Acer pseudoplatanus, Alnus glutinosa, Armeniaca vulgaris, Betnla pendula. In

variant 2a and 2b, approx. 4,300 trees and bushes are concerned on the area of 33,000 m2 (public

amenity value of approx. 1,750,0006), in variants 7a, 7b and 7c, ca. 4,000 trees and bushes on

the area of 20,500 m2 (public amenity value of 1,470,0006) and in SPL variant ca. 5000 trees

and bushes on the area of 14,200 m (public amenity value of ca. 370,000€). We ask that felling is

carried out especially in the period of vegetation rest and to maintain all trees that do not impede

the realization of the proposed activity. We remind that according to Section 47, paragraph 1 of

68

the Act, it is forbidden to damage and destroy ligneous plants.

2. Department of Public Administration of Air Protection:

During the construction, zones located in close vicinity will be polluted by exhaust fumes

emissions from construction machines and lorries. After the construction is finished, the main

source of air polluting emissions will be motor vehicles, i.e. mobile sources. According to a

dispersion study, residents in areas neighbouring the D4 highway will not be influenced by

excessive traffic emissions and maximum permitted air pollutants concentration levels in the

residential area will not be exceeded even under the most adverse dispersion conditions. The

Department of Public Administration of Air Protection has no comments on the presented

Assessment Report.

3. Department of Public Administration of Waste Management:

From the point of view of waste management, there are no comments on the Assessment Report.

During the construction, the Department asks to ensure compliance with legislation related to

waste management.

4. Department of Public Administration of Water Protection:

The proposed construction affects cadastre areas of municipalities falling under the scope of the

District Environmental Office in Malacky – Stupava Mást I, II, Marianka, Borinka, Lozorno. In

the individual variants (2a, 2b, 7a, 7b, 7c), the highway crosses currents of local importance. The

highway does not traverse water resources protection zones – the Mariánsky stream and the

Mástsky stream. In SPL variant, the highway traverses the cadastre area of Lozorno

municipality. In this area, the highway crosses melioration kanáls, local and forest currents – the

Suchý stream. The highway traverses a water resources hygienic protection zone – Pajštúnska

vyvieračka and water resources in Košariská. The Department of Public Administration of Water

Protection does not have any comments on the presented Assessment Report.

After having examined the presented Assessment Report, the District Environmental Office in

Malacky approves the realization of the proposed activity, provided that the above-mentioned

conditions are met, as well as measures reducing adverse impact on the environment as described

in the Assessment Report.

District Road Traffic and Communications Office, Bratislava (letter of 12 May 2011, no.

B/2011/04070/LBO)

No additional requirements to the presented Assessment Report.

District Road Traffic and Communications Office, Malacky (letter of 29 April 2011, no.

2011/573-2)

No comments on the presented Assessment Report.

District Road Traffic and Communications Office, Pezinok (letter of 9 May 2011, no.

2011/776)

Inclined to variant 7c, where the D4 highway runs from the crossroads with the D1 highway up

to the east portal of the Karpaty tunnel above the terrain level, and from the west portal of the

Karpaty tunnel, the D4 highway runs in a groove, continuing slightly uphill to the crossroads

with I/2 road.

District Mining Office Bratislava (letter of 1 April 2011, no. 323-738/2011)

No comments on the Assessment Report.

District Office Pezinok, Department of Civil Protection and Crisis Management (letter of 19

April 2011, no. ObU-PK-CO/2011/1034-2)

No comments on the presented Assessment Report.

District Office Malacky, Department of Civil Protection and Crisis Management (letter of

13 May 2011, no. ObU-MA-CO-A-2011/02374)

The construction in question does not have negative impact on tasks related to civil protection.

From the point of view of civil protection, there are no comments on the presented report.

District Forestry Office Malacky (letter of 5 May 2011, no. 138/2011)

69

There are no comments on the presented report. Variant 7c, as recommended for construction in

the report, is considered the most acceptable one based on pursued interests (including the zero

variant).

Bratislava Self-Governing Region, Department of Transport (letter of 30 February 2011, no.

100065/11-PK/79)

Department of Landscape Planning and Regional Studies has assessed the suggested variants of

the D4 highway construction from the point of view of land-planning activities in relation to

Land Plan of the larger land unit of the Bratislava region. Based on the assessment, it can be said

that variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b, 7c are in line with the route of the D4 highway corridor in the Land

Plan of the larger land unit and the selection of the optimum route of the D4 highway is subject

to a detailed assessment of variants and discussions with relevant subjects. The new variant

"Senec-Pezinok-Lozorno" is not in line with the D4 highway corridor in the Land Plan of the

self-governing region.

After having assessed the presented variants, the Department of Transport believes that from the

perspective of transport, variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b, 7c are all equally acceptable, whereas the new

variant of "Senec-Pezinok-Lozorno" does not meet the expectations of reducing the transit and

traffic load in the city of Bratislava. In the design of routes and crossroads in the scale of 1:30

000, the solution of Rača crossroads is not entirely clear in variant 7c.

Slovak State Nature Protection (letter dated 9.5.2011, No. SR SNP/1627/2011)

Evaluation of area in terms of nature protection

In the affected area there is the first five full protection levels and the partial (in the CHKO Little

Carpathians) second level of protection under Act No. 543/2002 Coll. on nature and landscape

protection, as amended. In Options 2 and 7 the proposed highway at the Šúr Kanál is in contact

with a protected area of international importance - NPR Šúr and its protected area, which in this

part is also of European importance. The NPR Šúr area includes its protected zone, up to the so-

called Šúr Kanál, wetlands of international importance - the Ramsar site, in NPR worth the fifth,

highest protection, the third and fourth protection level applying to it. The Carpathian tunnel

(Options 2, 7 and SPL) and the valley between the Carpathian tunnel and Katušiná belong to the

CHKO Little Carpathians and is part of the Protected Bird Area of the Little Carpathians. The

tunnels are partly proposed in the Homolský Carpathian (SKUEV104) area of European

importance.

The option that to various extent affects habitats of European importance: Ls1 riparian

woodland, Ls5 beech and mixed beech forests, Vo2 natural eutrophic and mesotrophic standing

waters with floating vegetation or submerged vascular plants of the Magnopotamion or

Hydrocharition type and Br4 Alpine rivers and their ligneous vegetation with gray willow, Lk1

lowland and foothill hay meadows; habitats of national importance Ls2 oak-hornbeam forests,

LK10 high edge vegetation, Tr6 thermophilic borders, Ls6 xerophilic pine and mixed pine

forests, Kr9 willow scrub on flooded river banks.

From the proposed ÚSES elements the proposed highway route is near the local Mariánsky

wildlife corridor, the Stupavský Stream, Vydrica with a tributary, the Viničianska Kanál and

Mahuliena, the regional wildlife corridors of the Strúha Stream, Račiansky, Stará Mláka, the Šúr

Kanál and the ecotone wildlife corridor and the local Háj wildlife centre. The mouth of the

tunnel air shaft in the central part of the Little Carpathians in the SPL option (19.00 km) touches

the western edge of the supra-regional NRBk Nová hora - Ostrý vrch wildlife corridor and in

Option 2 (10.06 km) it is in contact with the local Vydrica with the tributaries wildlife corridor.

For the Carpathian tunnel there are several wildlife centres and wildlife corridors in the wider

area of the highway at a local level.

In the territorial scope of CHKO Záhorie, in addition to ÚSES elements, there is also the

70

important Vrchná hora site, where partially abandoned vineyards have been transformed into

xerotherm shrub- grasslands with many rare, protected plant and animal species, also an

important site for the Záhorie orchid.

The end of the highway route will cause fragmentation of the foot of the Little Carpathians and

will have a relative significant impact on the diversion of the birds’ migration from the so-called

Greater Bratislava settlement units. This impact will amplify the planned completion of the

entire zero highway circuit. The Bratislava isolation is extended to a larger area than before.

Assessment report on nature protection

The assessment report contains all the required parts and chapters on nature protection. The

expert ELABORATED level, concerning nature protection, has no serious substantive and

procedural shortcomings.

AR are referred to and in the map demonstrating the habitat extending into the highway

construction in smaller sections next to the highway. It is not clear what criteria were chosen for

the selection of these sites. It is believed that the sections properly represent the habitats

occurring in the affected area. Since the habitats were not mapped throughout the affected area, it

is not possible to verify whether the proposed highway will not in fact have a negative effect. In

the text of Appendix 5, Impact on the Favourable Habitat Status, there are not recorded other

plants in the proposed dry polders.

The assessment report mentions the monitoring of biota (e.g. pg. 201) conducted in 2010, but

does not provide specific data and monitoring methods. The monitoring report is not included

among the attachments.

Solution proposal and justification

In terms of nature and landscape protection it is generally the most appropriate zero option to

preserve the integrity of the territory. From the submitted alternatives for the construction of the

Bratislava D4 highway, Ivanka crossroads north - Záhorská Bystrica, we consider the 7c Option

as the most acceptable. It has the least impact on the landscape, biota, protected bird areas, sites

of European importance and the occupation of land. The protection of the Ramsar sites, the areas

of European importance and NPR Šúr requires a high-standard technical solution for the

construction, which will reduce the emission load of the sites and the barrier impact for building

at an ecologically acceptable level. For this reason we repeatedly require the partial recess of the

D4 highway below ground level, e.g. constructing it in the sealing baths (overlapped tunnel)

along the NPR Šúr protected zone following the proposed depressions (underfloor) of the section

along the built-up area of the Municipality of Vajnory.

We agree with the proposed mitigation measures, the proposed monitoring and the post-project

analysis, set out in the AR.

State Nature Protection, RCOP Modra, CHKO Záhorie report (letter dated 5.5.2011, No.

CHKO/ZA/256/2011)

Evaluation of area in terms of nature and landscape protection

Throughout the area there are included all seven options (Graphic Appendix 1), coming under

the CHKO Záhorie Report, there applying the first level of environmental protection. Here there

are no small protected areas or important European sites.

Under the current territorial system of ecological stability in the wider surroundings of the

highway there occur some elements of wildlife centres and wildlife corridors at the local level.

In the area covered by CHKO Záhorie, in addition to ÚSES elements there is also the very

important Vrchná hora site. This area comprises part of the abandoned vineyard changed into

xerotherm shrub-grasslands with many rare and protected species of flora and fauna. It is also an

important site for orchids in Záhorie.

The assessment report presents a PPF and LPF shot for the entire length of the highway section,

71

from which there cannot be derived a surface image only for part of the tunnel’s western portal.

In regards to the Záhorska area design of the construction in all options, the following habitats

were identified in the assessment report:

Habitats of European importance:

Ls5 - Beech and mixed beech forests

Ls5.1 Beech and fir-beech forests (*BEV)

Ls5.4 Limestone beech forests (*BEV)

Lk1 - Lowland and foothill hay meadows (*BEV)

Habitats of national importance:

Ls2 - Oak and hornbeam forests

Ls2.1 Carpathian oak-hornbeam forests (BNV)

Ls6 - Natural dry pine and pine mixed forests

Ls6.1 - Heathers pine and oak - pine forests (BNV)

Habitats of no particular importance:

Kr7 - Blackthorn and hazel scrub

X3 - Nitrophilous ruderal vegetation outside settlements

X5 - Unused land and extensively cultivated fields, intensively cultivated meadows

X8 - stands of invasive neophytes

X9 - Non-native (introduced) plants

X10 - Ruderal muddy banks

Assessment report on the evaluation of nature protection

The appointment of specially protected natural parts occurring in the assessed area is sufficient.

In the report there was identified and in the map background there were plotted the habitats

extending into highway construction to smaller sections beside the highway or intersecting it. It

is not clear what criteria were chosen for the selection of the sites. It is assumed that the section

sufficiently represents the habitats occurring in the affected area. As a habitat mapping of the

entire section of the construction line was not performed, it is not possible to verify whether the

construction subject actually will or will not have a negative effect on these habitats.

The report also mentions the monitoring of biota (e.g. pg. 201) conducted in 2010. However, the

text does not give any specific information on the exact sites, nor is it clear who was monitoring

and what method was used. Neither is the report on the monitoring of biota mentioned as an

appendix.

Assessment of compliance with the specific requirements of the assessment scope

The scope of the MoE evaluation is on page 152. It can be stated that the fulfilment of the

specific conditions have been complied with.

Proposal and justification solution

In regards to the final summary of the report on the impact assessment the most suitable

designated option was 7c (blue) and the 7a option is ranked second. The zero option (non-

realization of highway construction) was rated as the fifth in order of suitability.

In regards to nature protection the zero option is the most appropriate solution in terms of

maintaining the integrity of the area through which the construction is planned. The construction

will present a fragmentation of the area at the foot of the Little Carpathians and a relatively

significant impact on the diversion of birds’ migration from the settlement units of so-called

Greater Bratislava. This impact will amplify the planned completion of the entire zero highway

circuit. The Bratislava isolation is extended to a larger area than before.

Slovenský vodohospodársky podnik, š.p., OZ Bratislava (letter dated 16.5.2011, No.

6283/220-Gra/2011)

Having noted the impact of the proposed activity on surface and groundwater or with measures

for their elimination, we have no comments on the submitted document with the perspective of

assessing the impacts of the proposed activity on the environment.

72

We urge the acceptance of bank land for the management of waterways in the area of the D4

highway construction, which according to Act No. 364/2004 Coll. (Water Act), Paragraph 49,

Sec. 2 set for the water management of important waterways within a distance of 10 meters from

the bank line current, at dikes to 10 m from the air and upstream heel dikes (Šúr Kanál, Suchý

Stream, Viničnianska Kanál) and at a small waterway within a distance of 5 meters from the

bank line currents (other currents).

In the restricted area of the land it is not possible to place equipment and maintain technical

infrastructure, construction of a permanent character, continuous increasing greenery or

otherwise agriculturally employ it. Bank sites must be accessible (without permanent fencing)

for the mechanization of the administrator flow - SVP, š.p., OZ Bratislava, Managing of Internal

Waters for Šamorín and the Morava River Basin Management due to the implementation of

activities (obligations) under the Water Act (Paragraph 48).

The intersecting of water currents with the proposed D4 highway must be designed according to

STN 73 6822 "Intersecting and electric lines and roads connecting to waterways", so as to not

adversely affect its flow-through profile. In regards the details of the project documentation we

request a submission for consideration.

SR capital city of Bratislava (letter dated 20.05.2011, No. MAGS OUP-43533/11-257671)

The SR capital city of Bratislava provides the following position on the documentation subject

1) In terms of urban planning:

Assessment in relation to the ÚPN SR capital city of Bratislava, 2007:

- ÚPN SR capital city of Bratislava, 2007, approved by MsZ uzn. No. 123/2007 of 31.5.2007 as

subsequently amended (hereinafter ÚPN)

The ÚPN set out in the binding part C.7.1. the Principles and Directions for the

Placement of Public Transport Equipment - automobile transport and road networks, the

reservation of corridors for the construction of a primary road system; zero traffic circles

along the route: Jarovce (D2xD4 intersection) - a new bridge over the Danube -

Podunajské Biskupice - Bridge near Bratislava - Ivanka pri Dunaji - Vajnory - a tunnel

under the Carpathians - Marianka - Devinska Nova Ves - a bridge across the Morava

(direction of Marchegg);

In ZaD 02 ÚPN 02 SR capital city of Bratislava, in the relevant section of the D4

highway there is a proposed change for the functional class of the road speed f. tr. A2 for

the D4 highway in the Ivanka north - Záhorská Bystrica section.

According to the submitted report on the traffic-capacity assessment results, the need for the

completion of the D4 has been confirmed for the zero option. The recommended alternative for

the construction of Option 7c, representing the smallest land occupation, the smallest

interference with the valuable and protected natural areas, is not among the most difficult

financially, acceptable in terms of its impact on the directly-affected population.

Comments in terms of area use, spatial planning and construction regulations:

The route of the D4 highway, in terms of area use in the 2a, 2b option, is partly consistent

with the zero circuit route according to the ÚPN, and in the 7a, 7b, 7c and S-P-L routing not

in accordance with the ÚPN of the capital city of Bratislava;

Please note that in the option solution for the D4 highway it is necessary to evaluate the

routing of the D4 highway in relation to the TR 400/110/22W area in cadastral area Vajnory,

including connecting 400 and 110 kV lines and their protective zones according to the ÚPN

of the city;

in terms of spatial planning we support Option 7c, which represents the smallest land

73

occupation, the smallest interference with valuable and protected natural areas, not among the

most financially demanding and its impact on the immediately affected area being acceptable;

At the same time please note the fact that different solutions for the highway route and its

crossing from the solution in the current land-use planning documentation is subject to

approval by the amendments of the ÚPN of the capital city of Bratislava.

In terms of transport planning

1 - Assertions

Part of the assessment report is also the Traffic Engineering documents appendix, which helps

to analyze and forecast traffic in the affected area for the time horizon of 2015, 2020, 2030

and 2040. In the final assessment, in terms of transport relations, the proposed construction of

the D4 offers clear improvement in the transport and traffic infrastructure in the affected area,

in terms of traffic congestion also the development of transport relations. The results of the

traffic-capacity assessment for the zero option confirm the need for building the D4.

According to the submitted report we recommend the 7c construction option, which amply

solves the traffic problems in the area, represents the smallest land occupation, the smallest

interference with valuable and protected natural areas and not being among the most

financially demanding, the immediate impact on the population concerned being acceptable.

2 - Position:

The D4 highway In the 2a, 2b option the D4 highway route is partly consistent with the zero

circuit route in the city plan, in the remaining 7a, 7b, 7c and S-P-L Options the route differs,

not being in accordance with the ÚPN.

There are also differences in the shape of the elevated crossings, their location and in the

proposed highway category:

in connection with the solution of the MÚK Rača crossing the routing of Road II/502

differs in relation to the ÚPN, there also being a difference in the position of the said

crossing;

the location of the proposed MÚK Ivanka north, MÚK Čierna voda and MÚK Záhorská

Bystrica are in accordance with the ÚPN;

the shape of the MÚK Ivanka - north, MÚK Čierna voda and MÚK Rača crossings differ

when compared to the ones approved by the ÚPN. The Záhorská Bystrica crossing is in

accordance with the ÚPN;

the proposed option solution for the layout of the D4 highway in the MÚK Ivanka north

section due to unfavourable hydrological conditions, consist in the vertical layout

modifications of the D4 highway and over the Dl highway (so that the D4 smoothly

passes over the 1/61 Road and the D1 highway) is not in line with valid ÚPN;

in Options 7a and 7c in the section between MÚK Ivanka north and MÚK Čierna Voda

there are proposed on both sides of the D4 highway one-way, two-lane collectors

(simultaneous communication) in the C 9.5/80 category, which will be connected to local

roads. In the section between MÚK Čierna Voda and MÚK Rača it is only on the south

side of the D4 highway that there is proposed a one-way collector, through which it will

be possible to connect to the adjacent area west towards MČ Vajnory (CEPIT area) - the

ÚPN does not consider this a valid solution;

the 7b option contemplated in the section around the built-up area of MČ Vajnory (a

74

distance of about 300 m from the north-eastern edge) with the highway layout below

ground level up to 1600 km. These are depressions (underfloor) of the highway section,

named as the Vajnory Tunnel, whose proposal has no basis in valid ÚPN;

The Bratislava zero circuit, in the solution of the section, is in the city plan defined as

road function A2 route, MR 22.5 category, while the National Highway Company

comments on the Proposals for Amendments to the 02 Spatial Plan of the SR capital city

of Bratislava, in respect of the D4 highway in the relevant section (i.e. change in the

functional class for the A2 road highway on the D4 highway in the Ivanka north -

Záhorská Bystrica section), were accepted and incorporated into the revised proposal ZaS

02, which has not yet been approved by the City Council.

However, based on the current version of Appendix No. 2 of the Road Act, with o.i. also

defining the functional class of zero circuit as a highway (so-called f.r. A1), we assess this non-

compliance as their lack of ÚPN rather than a conflict with it.

3 - Conclusion:

Taking into account the significant contribution of motorways for the solution of the

traffic problems associated with transit traffic (currently the aggravating roads in the

city), we agree in terms of transport planning with the submission of option solutions of

the D4 highway routing. We support the selection and finalization of the option, whose

preparation and subsequent implementation will be more efficient and faster.

However, it is necessary to warn investors of the fact that the solution to the highway

route and its crossings, different from the solution in the current land-use planning

documentation, is subject to the approval of the amendments of the ÚPN. In terms of

time and the urgency of tackling the solutions to traffic problems, the most advantageous

solution is full compliance with the ÚPN. In case of necessity the process of approving

amendments by the ÚPN their acceleration can be achieved by minimizing the induced

amendments.

In terms of technical infrastructure systems:

There is correlation with the selection and processing of the option, which respects the

solution of the crossing with state road II/502, so that there was taken into account the

reserve for TR 400/110/22 kV Vajnory, including connecting lines 400 and 110 kV as

well as their protective zones, in routes and sites agreed upon in the ÚPN of the city. This

concept for the development of the ZVN and VVN electric grids has long been applied in

the development documents of above-urban and citywide importance and existing

solutions were coordinated - the zero transport circuit and energy interests - and their

relative position at this site.

There is a highlighting of the fact that none of the options of a collision with the electric

station and its connection ZVN and WN line are addressed, although in the current

Bratislava spatial plan the original transport solution for the crossing is coordinated with

the energy-related equipment in the affected area.

2) In terms of the selected components of the environment and specific factors

Air:

In the short term there will mainly occur air pollution in the form of microsilica dust

particles in the affected area and its surroundings during construction and earthworks.

There is a request to eliminate the formation and dispersion of the particles into the

environment in accordance with Point 1 of Appendix No. 3 to Decree No. 356/2010

Coll., implementing certain provisions of the Clean Air Act.

75

According to the results of the diffusion study (in the AR appendix) there shall not be a

crossing of the limit values according to Decree No. 356/2010 Coll., which implements

certain provisions of Act No. 137/2010 Coll., on Clean Air.

Water:

Construction of the highway will affect the mode of the surface and groundwater. It is

necessary to seek the consent of the state water authority pursuant to Paragraph 27, Sec 1,

Letter b) of Act No. 364/2004 Coll., on Water.

In the winter maintenance of the road it is necessary to use materials that pose a minimal

risk of groundwater contamination.

Soil:

In regards to the ÚPN 2007 proposal, KPÚ Bratislava, as the relevant AL protection

authority, gave approval for the non-agricultural use of AL under Paragraph 13 of Act

No. 220/2004 Coll. on the protection and use of agricultural land. This approval does not

include the land in question.

For the subsequent withdrawal of agricultural land (AL) under Paragraph 17 of Act No.

220/2004 Coll. on the protection and use of agricultural land, as amended, there shall be

required from the relevant AL protection authority a decision on the withdrawal of

agricultural land.

For the exclusion or limitation on the use of forest land (FL), for the fulfilment of forest

functions there must be requested from the relevant protection authority approval

pursuant to Paragraph 7, Sec. 2 of Decree No. 12/2009 Coll., on FL protection in spatial

planning activities as well as in their removal and limitations on the fulfilment of forest

functions.

In SubCh.: B.1.1. Soil chap.: B.I. Entry requirements (pp. 24-25) and also in other parts

of the documentation there are listed the abbreviations of the agricultural land fund

(ALF) and forest land fund (FLF). According to current legislation their abbreviations

should be replaced with agricultural land (AL) and forest land (FL).

Noise - besides the proposed noise protection measures in relation to the existing noise-sensitive

built-up area it is recommended to take into account in the subsequent stages of documentation

also suggested noise-sensitive functions within reach of limiting noise levels and agree on a

common practice for the elimination of excessive noise levels; a noise study itself is not part of

the submitted documentation; the position of the public health authority is necessary for the

submitted documentation - the Regional Public Health Authority in Bratislava; in addition to the

proposed mitigation measures it is recommended to use other possibilities to decrease highway

emissions in critical sections such as a quiet road surface.

Nature protection, ÚSES, greenery, landscaping:

In terms of assessing and evaluating the impact of variations in the fauna, flora, habitats,

protected areas, as well as the migration of fauna, the best options are 7b and 7c.

Meanwhile the non-tunnel options limit the migration of animals. The tunnel option

largely eliminates interference in the CHKO Little Carpathians, as well as other protected

areas and non-restricted migration corridors.

Any intervention in the protected area as well as measures for the revitalization of the

area needs to be consulted with the management of the CHKO Little Carpathians and the

ŠOP SR.

Due to the intervention in the NATURA 2000 sites and other protected areas, it is

advisable to take further steps in the documentation as well as in the actual

implementation of the measures proposed in Chap. C.IV. measures designed to prevent,

76

eliminate, minimize and offset the impacts of a proposed activity on the environment and

health (p. 186 AR).

In terms of greenery and landscaping we support the tunnel option. In the implementation

of anti-noise measures we request the usage of biological components, to mitigate the

negative effects in the country.

It is required as much as possible to minimize cutting and to leave all the green of value

in the area, or the route of the executed option.

This position does not replace the Binding Opinion of the capital city of Bratislava on investing

activities, which will be issued under the laws of general application of legal regulations on the

basis of the expert assessment documentation for a territorial decision.

Town of Pezinok (letter dated 13.5.2011, No. 5/44/3333-2011/16152)

Based on the assessment of individual options, which are contained in the assessment activities

report, 7c or 7b are recommended.

Town of Svätý Jur (letter dated 7.6.2011, No. 3254/797/2011)

The town of Svätý Jur announces that the assessment report was posted at the official board of

the town in the period from 15.4.2011 – 7.6.2011. At that time there were no objections and

suggestions.

Municipality of Bernolákovo (letter dated 2.6.2011, No. 775/11-Be)

After being made aware of the assessment report the Municipality of Bernolákovo has no

objections to the report.

Municipality of Viničné (letter dated 16.5.2011, No. 422/2011)

The municipality of Viničné, through the mayor Ing. Štefen Lenghardt, does not have any

comments and objections to the "D4 highway, Ivanka north-Záhorská Bystrica".

Municipality of Borinka (letter dated 19.5.2011)

The following comments and requests are presented in regards to the submitted material:

There is strong disagreement with the No. 7 option solution and routing option, in which the 10.5

km (Bystrická site) of the proposed section for the mountain massif near the CO warehouse

regarding the location of the highway air shaft. All emissions and odours driven from the tunnel

would fall to the valley and be close to our municipality. It would mean a negative impact on the

health of the residents and tourists in the area as well as the nearby vegetation.

With the dispersion study (text of Appendix No. 3) we do not know what you are submitting

with the term rural transportation mode (p. 10) and how this differs from another mode (town?).

Also regarding the cumulative impact of other major traffic roads there was probably omitted

some road between Bratislava and Stupava. In the case that it is not found in the assessment,

there is a request to add it to the study, as it can significantly affect the data. Already at the very

end the situation in Stupava was identified as unfavourable.

Air shafts are seen as a stationary source of air pollution. On the basis of the parameters in Table

5, Chapter 2, the dispersion study prepared by Enviconsultom moves the values from the air

shafts in larger quantities than the portal (e.g. VP 58 <ventilation shaft 123> ZP 64). What is it

caused by and what changes some measures? Is it possible to compare the result in the table with

the overall limit in the area? What represents the mass flow of the pollutants nitrogen oxides,

carbon monoxide, particulate matter and hydrocarbons (benzene conversion) kg/day from the

vents? The next question is, what is the difference between Option 2a (eg. 123.3 NOx) and 2b

(eg. 138.8 NOx) regarding shafts, because the 2b Option reports higher values (138.8).

Several studies show a correlation between the reduced level of N02 and the prevalence of

asthma and influenza-like illness in children. Air pollution poses a risk to the elderly, for those

who already suffer from diseases, then pregnant women and their future children. Also, the level

77

of particulate matter in the air (TČ in the report as PM) poses a serious risk to human health. The

World Health Organization has not set a threshold for TČ because it is assumed that the

minimum levels of TČ in the air cause health damage. Although the EU (and SR) set such a limit

at 50m g/m 3 as a 24-hourly average concentration of microparticles (particle size less than 10

microns - PM10), according to a study by the American Lung Association very small particulate

concentrations in the air results in damaging health. On the basis of an observation in Seattle it

was demonstrated that one in eight asthma attacks is caused by exposure to airborne particles.

This relationship was confirmed even at concentrations of particles at 30 mg/m3, while under US

law the limit is at a level about 5 times higher.

There are requests to also supplement the report with specifications for ozone, lead and sulphur

oxides.

In Borinka there are many senior citizens as well as a large increase in children. There is also the

Gerion facility for the permanent care of old disabled pensioners. Figures 13-16 relate to Tab. 25

in the sixth chapter. The above statistics, the table for pollutants and images of the scattering of

NO2 from the air shaft does not take into account the cumulative impact. The local road on the

way to Košariská is also a source of pollution. Households themselves also contribute to

pollution in Borinka. The temperature inversion in the winter months keeps the warmer exhaust

air by the ground. During that period, the concentrations of pollutants in the air can reach up to

10 times the normal levels and cause serious health problems. We are asking to assess this

impact for Borinka, taking into account the several mentioned aspects. We are asking to add

Borinka in Chapter 5.2 together with a table, as in other municipalities, because of the air shaft

and the cumulative impact of existing traffic. Moreover, as we noted, there exist value limits laid

down by law and also a little pollution can impact the respiratory system and other organs, if

those values arise in the air. Also, there is taken into account the differing limits for a

recreational area and an urban environment. Since we do not know the real situation in Borinka

due to the absence of data, we request that the air shafts be fitted with effective filters/pollutant

separators that would help minimize the environmental impact on the surrounding ecosystems,

the impact on human health and the development of recreation in a pure preserved environment

(also contrary to our understanding of the "the green lungs of BA"). Without the required

indicator, we cannot know if the situation in Borinka will not be similar to the Marianka -

Stupava section, where the NOx value has almost reached the upper limits (Tab. 17).

In the case of the No. 2 option solution and routing there is a request for an air shaft, which is

now proposed in the 10.0 km (Nad Bystrica site), designed for the mountain top to prevent the

falling of fumes into Borinka, i.e. between the municipality/valley and the air shaft preventing

the scattering even in the hills with forests, which could at least partially capture the possibly

blown emissions and odours into the valley, since according to the wind rose (Stupava), it seems

that the north-south winds prevail.

As for Chapter No. 6, it is not clear to us where the data is used, whether for modelling included

in the general options or separate outputs not included as exhaust. If included in the options, the

situation for Borinka is thus distorted upon calculating the entire routing options. We are

interested in the particular situation occurring in Borinka, also the missing table for Borinka to

compare concentrations. We are requesting this data, as we have also noted above, accordingly.

Also in terms of shocks during the excavation of the tunnel and the possible disruption of water-

bearing geological strata we support more routing No. 2, the farthest from the municipality, in

case the D4 runs. The report is missing data from a hydrogeological survey, which we hereby

accordingly request. We mentioned this requirement in previous positions.

It was postulated in the report that there could be a change to the gradient groundwater in the

78

area of Svätého Vrchu, which is above Borinka. The Stupavský Stream is also powered by a

small tributary from the left side. Whether there is a reduction in the supply of groundwater or

the opposite happens, the question arises how it can affect Borinka. On the one hand, a flood

wave from the Stupavský Stream arises in Borinka, on the other hand, particularly in summer,

there is a drinking water shortage in Borinka, also happening to stopping of water in the

municipality. On this basis, there should be noted the results of the hydrogeological analyzes on

changes in groundwater flow.

Abroad, the progressive trend is to take into account the "nice views", i.e. the analysis of the

situation also from the outlook points and the assessment of the disruption to the landscape

image. We are requesting the finalization of a visualization perspective (panorama) from Pajštún

to the highway in the chapter on the landscape impact, since the documentation does not contain

something similar, as the most visited landmarks of the region and the ensuring of the proposer

in regards to the body of the highway, that the view from Pajštún be disrupted as little as possible

in this aspect of the environment - embedded into the ground, making a planting etc., in the case

that this will occur. Borinka was not invited as a concerned municipality in regards to the other

sections (Volkswagen - Záhorská Bystrica/Marianka section, a link for Austria through

Moravia).

When the route was proposed in the past, housing and a strong need for the rest of urban citizens

was not indicated. In addition, the situation is not addressed by any forward-looking strategy.

After notifying that such material was absent, the D4 zero circuit was incorporated in the

Program for the Preparation and Construction of Motorways and Expressways for the years 2007

to 2010 in 2007.

Today, however, especially over the weekend, as part of so-called one-day tourism there is just

Borinka, Marianka and surroundings towards Moravia as the most visited. There is currently

being considered a circling highway route and connections to Austria on the S8.

The circling traffic on the D4 highway and the argument about the interdependence of sections

do not have traffic engineering justification, failing to convince us along with the arguments set

out in the assessment report, the statistics in the transport and engineering evidence

demonstrating the opposite.

The assessment report is unclear regarding the conflicting defined purpose of the construction.

The report mentions the relief of Bratislava from freight transport; the north-western part of

Bratislava, however, will see an increase in transport (bringing traffic also from Austria). Transit

traffic on the Lafranconi Bridge according to the presented data: 69,631 cars/24 hrs., 12.3%

freight (2008). In the traffic-engineering documentation (p. 22) it states that in 2020, after

executing the construction, there will be 64,589 cars/24 hrs., of which 16.26% are other vehicles,

which also includes freight. In the transport survey there is a report of overloading the

Lafranconi Bridge already in 2015 without a building investment. But also with its building there

will be overloading to about seven years after its completion according to the presented data. The

delay in city passenger transport will therefore continue after the completion of the D4 highway

leads to collapse on Lafranconi Bridge, including freight. Similarly, and so on for the other

sections in the north-western part of Bratislava. There is more support for routing Záhorie (the

approaching proposed SPL option), or adding the Lamač - Rača tunnel option. We also asked for

the inclusion of this option (transport semi-circle) in the process of assessing the environmental

impact in a letter dated 24.5.2007, addressed to NDS, a.s. The comments stand.

There was a request to supplement Point C.IV subchapter with compensatory measures in case of

executing the D4 in Options 2 and 7 in the affected area. The report, from our perspective, is

missing compensatory measures for the local inhabitants of the region and the animals. In

79

addition to efforts to resolve the traffic situation, the environmental situation will deteriorate

compared to the zero option. On the one hand, there will be an increase in emissions, noise, land

occupation, fragmentation of habitats, isolating populations and other aspects described in the

report. On the other hand, the highway routing will worsen conditions and reduce the appeal of

living and the possibility of developing recreation, which right in close proximity to Bratislava,

the need for relaxation and the development of rural housing is quite surprising.

Although Borinka is not directly concerned with any affecting noise, there has been a request for

a proposing higher noise walls behind the portal on both sides of the highway enclosure from the

massif and in the non-tunnel section, and to cover longer highway sections, longer than 15,268

kilometres as in Option 2b, as well as other possible available means for other impacts described

in the report. According to the noise study and graphic appendix of the report (longitudinal

section of the highway) it is believed that the construction’s covering can be done in spite of

quaternary rocks, which have different parameters than crystalline. It is believed that the

selection of the optimal option and preventing the further advancement of Záhorie’s

environmental degradation and minimizing further intervention is a matter of social

responsibility, i.e. the kind of country our descendants will inherit after us for living. This is also

the section from the other side of the Carpathians at NPR Šúr, which is unique of its kind in

Europe and is among internationally important areas. So all possible means to maintain or

improve the status of the environment should be included regardless of the amount of finance.

The elaborated also dealt with our comments on the "Green Lungs of Bratislava" project (on p.

176). On the basis of documents drawn up initially by a team of experts on nature protection,

there was, however, in addition to conservation, the effective protection of natural valuable areas

and the creation of new ÚSES elements, maximum superstructure, meant to preserve natural

ecosystems, but also the rural nature of the housing efforts of municipalities to conserve and

supplement/create greenery, completing ÚSES elements and the building of relaxation areas for

tourists and cyclists without overrunning the carrying capacity of the natural area (soft tourism)

— and thus preserve the key BFP functions (Bratislava Forest Park), which extend even to the

Municipality of Borinka. The idea of the highway’s construction is at odds with this concept and

does not meet the target.

As a compensatory measure it was sought to build a paved Borinka - Stupava local/regional

cycling route (possibly with links to Marianka) and resting facilities for hikers/bikers on this

route. Part of the excavated soil could be appropriately used for this purpose. The estimated costs

integrate into the calculations and table the estimated cost for the highway construction (Chapter

C.V).

Also from this perspective there is missing from the report the proposal, supplementing and

creation of several new ÚSES elements (C.IV) intended for all sections of the D4 and processing

their financial estimate in the table (there will be an effect on the NATURA 2000 site, the

internationally important NPR Šúr and Niva Moravy wetlands and other protected areas). In

addition, not all ÚSES elements are listed in the graphic appendix.

In our earlier position (delivered HBH, NDS and SR Ministry of Environment letters) we

required the circling of the D4 along the whole route, since only individual sections were

considered (in which we are not involved as a concerned municipality), building in the lowland

part of the highway route (i.e. The fragmented non-tunnel part, as called by the elaborated, p. 73)

a passage for migrating animals – game deer, protected animals. We do not mean only the

connection pipe under the highway and even the dry paths proposed in the report, which should

serve for amphibians and small mammals. In terms of preserving the migratory paths of animals

we request the building of 1-2 vegetation culverts ("green bridges") for the migration of large

mammals with a width of about 80 m and their proper localization along the proposed D4 route,

80

both close to the Danube floodplains, Šúr, the Morava River or somewhere in between. They

will also serve as a natural passage for people. Experience with the construction of passages for

migrating animals exists in Germany, the Netherlands, and also in nearby Czech Republic and

Austria. This would thus impede the transmission of genetic information by new individuals

from the surroundings, the fragmentation of ecosystems, also hunting grounds, the isolation and

extinction of the populations, the already mentioned fragmentation of their habitats and fencing

of the highway bodies, as the elaborated eventually also mentioned in the report in several

chapters (C.III10., on pp. 179-181 et al.). For all option solutions where roads do not go through

a tunnel, it is necessary to include this fact as well as the estimated costs to integrate into the

calculations and tables the estimated cost for the highway construction (Chapter C.V.). The

additional construction of ecoducts, according to experience, is ten times more expensive than

the concurrent. We did not notice and neither did the report mention Borinka and the

surrounding hunting ground. Not just fencing and collision avoidance with wildlife, but a

solution to facilitate the exchange of genetic information is important for Borinka.

On the basis of the studied material and proposed option solutions the zero option seems to us

the most suitable one, then the SPL and finally the 2b (covering in the recesses and underground

ducting on both sides of the tunnel’s exit), while also being necessary to supplement this option

with other measures to reduce the impact. The other options do not comply with social and

environmental requirements in terms of our municipality. They ignore only the impact on the

population, and also the development of recreation and preserved nature, as indicated by the

presence of protected species, habitats and declared protected areas of national and European

importance (NATURA 2000).

Extract from the resolution of the municipal council in Borinka, dated 20.06.2011.

The municipal council of Borinka:

A. Approved by:

The municipal council in Borinka approves of the drawing up of an additional position on the

final report of the assessment of activities for the D4 Highway construction, Ivanka north -

Záhorská Bystrica, opposing the implementation of recommended Option 7c, since the

ventilation shaft is located near the municipality of Borinka, in close proximity to land that

the municipality has the intention of using in the future for sports - recreational purposes in

the Bratislava region. In the recommended 7c Option the ventilation shafts would disturb the

view of the already existing recreational areas of the "the Dragon's Castle" and the castle ruins

of "Pajštún"

The Municipality of Borinka (letter dated 22.6.2011)

We are sending you a supplement of our position of 19.05.2011 to the assessment report, sent as

an appendix to your Letter No. 292/2011-3.4/ml of 11.04.2011 and following a public hearing

organized by the Municipality of Marianka on 15.06.2011.

On 20.06.2011 the municipal council in Borinka was familiar with the current state of the

environmental impact assessment process, with possible influences on the Cadastre of Borinka as

well as its surroundings. Comments made in the municipality were discussed and new ones were

also laid out.

In addition to the request for comments, with which the council was fully involved, we are

sending further comments in addition to our original position, which remains constant.

Thanks to the active work of the local civil society (OZ Pajštún) we received evidence to support

our argument regarding the detriments of routing No. 7, which we mentioned in our original

position, we sending these documents to you as appendices to this supplementation. They relate

to the greater visibility of the ventilation structure under Option 7 (opposite of Option 2) from

different locations frequented by tourists.

81

We also express our support to the efforts of Marianka to preserve its historical character, as well

as preserving the environment for residents in the region. Many families from Borinka have

family in Máste and even in Marianka itself. Many go to work in Bratislava and they are not

indifferent as to how our surroundings on the western side of the Carpathians will look. The

investment also reduces the recreational potential and attractiveness of the whole region as a

consequence of noise, increased emissions and the visual design of the highway. We therefore

requested that the section after coming out of the bedrock at Marianka be covered with soil and

planted with vegetation. It is also suitable to delve, even if somehow embedded into the ground

beneath its level up to the crossing.

At the same time we reiterate our fundamental opposition to the option solutions in the corridor,

routing No. 7, which is near land the municipality wants to make strategic use of for sports and

recreational purposes beyond the duration of the lease contract. Regarding the facts the

municipal council holds the position, based on the conclusions in the appendix of our

supplementation to our position on 19.05.2011, please also find enclosed an extract from the

resolution of 20.06.2011. From this point of view the outlet of the air shaft in corridor routing

No. 2 is a little more acceptable solution.

As a compensatory measure for the surrounding region, the so-called Marianka - Stupava –

Borinka, for environmental degradation and reducing the recreational potential, we are

requesting the building of a local cycling route, which goes beyond the existing regional road,

which is dangerous for cyclists because there could be a collision with cars.

The Municipality of Marianka 12.5.2011

In 2008 the municipality of Marianka sent to the SR MoE a position to Plan + Addendum No. 1,

so we are wondering how our serious comments and request on how the municipality will be

directly affected were taken.

Regarding the objections in the l.a. point of the assessment report, the authors mostly dealt with

them only partially.

The objections of the municipality to Points II.a, III.b are also only answered partially in the

submitted assessment report. The objection to II.c was accepted.

Also we were surprised that NDS, a.s. did not answer in the matter of organizing a public

hearing in Marianka directly.

Comments and requirements in terms of Marianka’s inhabitants.

We appreciate the efforts of extending the underfloor lines in Option 7c. Unfortunately the

location of the portal at 15.2 km still does not address the significant negative impact of noise on

a large part of the municipality. The existing and proposed development (according to the current

ÚPN of the municipality of Marianka) it is approx 100 m from the route of the proposed D4

highway.

A)

We require:

1 - the extending of the underfloor running of the highway running Option 7c) at the point of

16,000 kilometres and reducing the entire route of the highway by 5 m.

According to our estimates, it is even possible in the elevated highway running, at the crossing

with the I/2 road at the Stupava to reduce the highway route by about a minimum of 5 m. Since

the municipality of Marianka was not invited to meetings on the location of the crossing, as the

municipality concerned, the responsibility for the current inadequate solution is borne by the

municipality of Marianka. From the perspective of the EIA, as well as from the perspective of

the Building Act, it was necessary for the parties to invite all the municipalities that may be

affected by the construction. As shown in this EIA, there is technical follow-up to the individual

82

D4 sections. Not inviting the municipality of Marianka to the negotiations has been a significant

breach of the law. The current solution crossing at the highest point on the ground and in

addition to the dominant running of the highway it is the worst possible solution in terms of

Marianka. Closer to Stupava the terrain is lower, moreover, the entire highway route would be

over the hill, which would naturally protect against noise pollution. Also, there is less impact on

the landscape scenery (attached Fig. 1), otherwise we cannot agree with any of the options

presented.

The underfloor running of the highway is a very important element, not only in terms of

protecting the population against noise, basic emissions, but also for preserving the recreational

nature of the area – intensive use by the inhabitants of Bratislava and also the wider area.

Marianka is the oldest pilgrimage site in Slovakia, with high traffic, with frequent biking paths,

hiking trails and the like.

In the case of the elevated running, especially in contact with the municipality of Marianka, it

significantly worsens the quality of life and significantly limits the recreational function of the

area. The mentioned effects will have a very negative impact on the further development of the

municipality, to which in recent years have moved hundreds of citizens with the prospect of

quiet rural living.

B)

We require shifting the highway route further from the municipality of Marianka towards

Stupava. Currently, the highway route runs in part to the top and partly sideways of the hill

before Mariánka. Before the portal in Option 7c in the section from 15.0 kilometres to 15.3

kilometres it crosses the whole massif of the hill. A few meters away from the proposed route it

runs along the length of the valley, without obstacles to overcome. All Marianka residents

logically expected the highway's route at the lowest point of the valley - as it was also shown in

the video presentation of the route from 2007. By shifting the route, costs on earth works would

be saved, among other things, since the route in Option 7c) passes at 15.0 km to 15.3 km through

the hill massif, where the load will need to be released.

C)

In any event the municipality of Marianka does not agree with the imposition of strip-mined

material in the former quarry, since this area according to the ÚPN municipality is designed for

the function of sports and recreation, while the area is accessible only by local roads, which are

only designed for passenger transport and the necessary servicing of residential areas. The quarry

is now a protected deposit area.

D)

To add the missing geological and hydrological surveys as requested by the MoE SR within the

scope of the assessment whether the sources of the Holy Well would be destroyed, the

conservation of which, residents of Marianka have been fighting for years. We are requesting the

execution of a detailed survey in view of the possible threats to the water resources of the holy

wells.

E)

On the basis of the following facts we require the redrafting of the impact assessment of the

construction on the noise exposure in the affected area as required by current legislation in the

Slovak Republic and in accordance with procedures as well as in a manner used in Slovakia and

abroad, for similar environmental impact assessment.

From the material before it is not clear how, on what methodology or basis was determined the

83

intensity in regards to individual roads and the assessment of the D4 highway.

e1) The assessed noise pollution caused by the D4 highway has not been performed as required

by Act 355/2007 on the protection, support and development of public health and amending

certain laws (as amended) and implementing rules regarding the assessment of environmental

noise pollution Slovak Ministry of Environment Decree No. 549/2007 Coll., on the permissible

values of noise, infrasound and vibration as well as the requirements for the objectification of

noise, infrasound and vibration (as amended). Under that legislation falls environmental noise

from all sources, the values for the periods of the day (6:00 am to 6:00 pm), evening (6:00 pm –

10:00 pm) and night (10:00 pm to 6:00 am). In the entire Report, including appendices, noise

pollution is considered for time periods of the day and night fundamentally contrary to the

requirements of that legislation. The tables of predicted values for the local calculation points for

each option solution is given in brackets for information in regards to the referenced time

interval for day and night. The calculated value of the equivalent value of A level noise is always

mentioned but only one for each point, the reference year and option solutions, suggesting that

the elaborated assumes that the value of the A level is the same for the time period for day and

night. That does not reflect reality. During the presentation of surface noise stress (Graphic

Appendix) the calculation and display of noise pollution for the evening is absent altogether.

This fact is a fundamental failure in satisfying the requirements set out in Act. 355/2007 Coll.

and related legislation for the assessment of environmental noise, which is caused by road

transport. In doing so, the elaborated of the work refers to the fact that the assessment is made in

accordance with legislation.

e2) - The assessment of noise pollution is made by means of mathematical modelling using the

“New Methodology for the Calculation of Noise from Road Traffic”, by Liberko, M., published

in the magazine edition of Planet 2/2005, issued by the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech

Republic. According to this methodology, the process for calculating the noise expansion and

determination of surfacing noise pollution from road transport for the needs of assessing the

impact of traffic noise on health, it has not been officially approved in the Slovak Republic. The

mentioned process was not officially verified in the Slovak Republic and the values obtained

through this process have not been formally validated for any model situations. When using this

procedure, it is necessary for the calculation of noise pollution to use several non-acoustic data

and parameters from which the emission value of noise sources - road traffic is calculated. When

incorrectly applied, misused and wrong input data are selected, and the obtained values of noise

pollution may significantly distort the resulting data. Therefore, the proper use of the input

parameters and data for the calculation is a crucial step towards obtaining reliable data. In

particular, if the used procedure in the calculation is not verified for a model situation through

the verification measurement missing from the whole presented work (modelling and assessment

of the “zero option” without realizing an intent, with consideration only the existing roads

allowing such verification with a minimal costs). The used input data for calculations are not

specified by the elaborated in this work. Even one clear input parameter based on which it is

possible to verify the accuracy of the results is not mentioned in this work, and to confirm the

correctness of the procedure and methodology dealing with the determination of noise pollution

in the vicinity of the assessed road. There are 24 hourly traffic intensities and the proportion of

freight transport stated in this work, but not the 24 hour traffic distribution profile (at least for the

legislatively specified segments of the day), which is necessary for the calculation and

determination of the noise pollution of road transport for individual segments of the day

according to the legislation to which the elaborated refers in the whole work. It is not mentioned

in this work which surfaces of abrasive layers are being considered in the calculations. The

incorrect setting of this parameter can cause a variance in the calculation of 6 or more decibels.

The work also does not specify how changing weather conditions (wind direction) may affect the

84

predicted results. In the presented report, the elaborated did not deal with the influence of

meteorological conditions on the predicted results of noise pollution. Wind direction and speed

at a given location thus can affect the value of a noise pollution assessment by more than 3

decibels (considering the wind conditions that occur mainly in Marianka - Stupava). There is not

stated in this work which surface is taken into consideration in the vicinity of the evaluated road

and therefore it is not clear what are the surrounding attenuation parameters and its impact on the

obtained data in the affected area.

e3) The work declares that the model of the affected area is created based on elevation with an

accuracy of 1 meter, which is for the assessment of a building with such significance and in

terrain with such varying morphology not insufficient (even considering embedding the

evaluated road into the terrain). The process of data authorisation is also not clear from this

work, from which was created a three-dimensional model used with predicting noise levels and

making the results “reliable”.

e4) For each solution options there is not stated at least an approximate estimation in the number

of the population in the affected area in the assessment report, for whom, by implementing such

a construction, the living conditions deteriorate or possibly improve due to changes in the noise

levels (e.g. comparing to the “zero option”). In assessing the environmental impact such

information would have substantially clarified the suitability or unsuitability of the proposed

solution for the area, and the suitability or unsuitability of the proposed provisions for reducing

adverse environmental conditions in the affected surroundings.

e5) - Based on the abovementioned facts it can be concluded that the presented “Noise Study”

dealing with the impact assessment of the proposed D4 highway Bratislava Ivanka north -

Záhorská Bystrica, is not developed in accordance with the requirements set by valid legislation

in the Slovak Republic (during the period for processing and suggesting documentation for

further approval). The chosen approach and methodology for determining the predicted noise

pollution from the evaluated road used in the work is not in accordance with the standard

procedures adopted for the purpose of assessing environmental impact in Slovakia and abroad.

Neither used input data for the calculation, nor a validation of predicted (predicted) data are

declared, as well as the method of model creation used for the calculation.

Note 1: Several herein deficiencies were stated in a letter dated 04.08.2008, Subject: Appendix

No.1 opinion of the municipality (Marianka) to EIA “Highway D4 Bratislava, crossing Ivanka

north – Stupava”.

Note 2: In the Slovak Republic there is an approved method of predicting noise pollution for

road communication using prediction with the use of the mathematical modelling method

described in “OŽPaZ/5459/2005, Expert Directives of the Public Health Authority of the Slovak

Republic regulating the procedure for elaborating strategic noise maps as required by Act No.

2/2005 Coll. as amended. Herein the stated procedure was verified by many verification

measurements for different situations of solutions for roads, for different surfaces, intensities and

location of the various roads....

F)

In the case of the solution of anti-noise measures in the form of anti-noise walls from the side of

the Marianka cadastral municipality, we request that the investor, in tendering, or when entering

works into project documentation, to consult architectonic solution of the noise walls with the

Marianka municipality.

At the same time we are demanding that the proposed noise wall must comply with the following

technical parameters:

85

Sound absorption 18dB, Category A4

Sound insulation 26 dB, Category B3

PH wall height 4 - 6 m. (a height will be derived in the next PD stage from a particular

technical solution)

G)

We request the creation of a visualization of a final technical solution and compensatory

measures in terms of residential areas in Marianka, from Karpatská Street, from Vinohrady, from

the highest point of Ovsisko Hill and from the third class access roads to Marianka.

H)

During the construction phase, the deterioration in air quality due to increased dust and air

pollution from combustion engines construction machinery is expected. As the built-up area of

the municipality is located near the western tunnel portal, where the establishment of building

yards for the tunnel construction from the west is being considered, the Marianka municipality

requires the maximum possible elimination of negative impacts mainly during construction,

especially of secondary dust (sprinkling ...) and noise from the site by using temporary noise

walls at the construction site of the portal. We require construction machinery and trucks

involved in the construction to not enter the Marianka urban zone and the strict observance of the

work schedule on weekdays from 8:00 to 8:00 pm, excluding work during public holidays

Conclusion:

From the submitted options we consider the most suitable 7c, since the portal has the lowest, but

we require its modification according to the abovementioned comments.

The village of Marianka (letter of 9 July 2011)

In addition to our opinion on the submitted assessment report, we hereby provide the following

amendment. As an affected village, we request:

1. Given the fact that the quality of the submitted assessment report does not correspond

with the extent of the greatest investment of its kind in the given region, in terms of the

importance of the impact of the construction on the environment and the population, and

does not reflect the comments on this construction raised by the village of Marianka in

the long run, we request that the submitted assessment report is revised.

2. Taking into account the comments of the village of Marianka on the plan in 2008, and the

opinions of municipalities of Marianka and Borinka in 2007.

3. The inclusion of the D4 Lamač-Vajnory alternative route, proposed by us in the

comments on the plan from 2008 (point II.b), and also the Lamač-Krasňany route in the

urban semi-circle in the assessment of alternatives as well as the interconnection of D4

Lamač-Vajnory route with the Lamač-Krasňany urban semicircle route.

4. A clear reasoning of the purpose and justification of the construction from a transport

point of view. Indication of the proportion of urban and transit traffic, and the proportion

of freight and passenger traffic, also by using the data from the toll system. Commented

in the opinion on the plan in 2008 (point ll.a): D4 on the Austrian side joins the S8

expressway and not the highway network.

5. Marianka categorically rejects the alternatives of elevated routing of the highway placed

on an embankment! That request was raised in the opinion of the municipalities of

86

Marianka and Borinka on 24 May 2007 and in the opinion of the village of Marianka on

the plan in 2008 (point II.b).

6. Displacement of exhaust outlets towards the intersection with state road I/2.

7. In order to protect people and nature during the construction, we request priority

construction of the section from the portal up to a minimum of 16.7km, or up to the

intersection with state road I/2 (the recessed area with the west portal) so as to restore the

migratory routes as quickly as possible and to achieve protection of the population

against the noise, dust and emissions during construction of the tunnel. This corridor will

serve for the traffic during construction of the tunnel while not burdening the public

access roads to the village of Marianka and the village itself.

8. We do not agree with deferring the incorporation of our comments in the next stages of

documentation! We demand that all comments are incorporated at this stage within

revision of the assessment report.

Factual comments on the assessment report:

Based on the expert opinion of Mgr. Katarína Kminiaková, PhD., as a professionally qualified

person to assess the impact of activities on the environment, registered under No. 407/2006-

OPV, we hereby raise the following comments with regard to the individual points of the

submitted assessment report:

The assessment report lacks surveys clearly defined in the scope of the assessment, without

which it is impossible to assess specific impacts on geological environment, the impact on the

stability of the rock mass and soil and the impact on groundwater, karst and hydrological

regime, and therefore it is also impossible to provide their accurate and objective numeric

quantification ...

The report does not contain specific compensatory measures and the evaluation of their

impact on improving the situation (e.g. in the area of noise protection while not providing

their visualisation from several residential areas of the village of Marianka). Instead, the

assessment report refers to other additional work at a later stage, which is, however, not

closely determined from the time point of view. Their results, however, can greatly influence

the technical and economic solution throughout the construction, which also play an

important role in the selection of the optimal solution.

At that stage of the assessment, it is necessary to provide specific evaluation of individual

impacts on selected components of the environment and the population groups in individual

affected villages. The assessment report does not cover this sufficiently.

Summary assessment of impacts of the selected alternative 7c) on the environment and the

population in comparison with the zero status (without a highway construction) seems to be

purpose-made and in several evaluated criteria unsubstantiated by facto-graphic data.

Numerical summary of multi-criteria analysis is prepared on the basis of partial evaluations

and conclusions for each area assessed. The resulting comparison is hidden behind the seven-

number scale the criteria of which in the individual impacts are not closely clarified.

Chapter C.V, which provides the global assessment and the basis for selection of the optimal

alternative, lacks the distribution of impacts for the construction stage and separately for the

operating stage, which are in the given methodology used by default. For this reason,

therefore, we request that the assessment of all impacts is supplemented separately for the

stage of construction and operation.

87

As regards the noise assessment, we request that the impacts of individual alternatives are

added in comparison with the zero status. We request that the impact of noise on the

population is added based on a new noise study under current legislation, particularly at the

stage of construction and operation.

The graphic annex 9 - Visualisation of Individual Alternatives lacks the most needed views of

the highway body from the closest residential houses in Marianka. Similarly, the selected

alternative 7c in a detailed situation is not shown in case of Marianka. The detailed situation

in Figure 17 only shows alternative 7a. Therefore we request that detailed visualisation

(together with the proposed compensatory measures -noise barriers) is finalised, namely:

- from the level of the current ground and the height of 9m and 20m from the nearest

residential buildings (specifically, from Karpatská street, from the cooperative, from the

Vineyards, from the highest point of the Ovsisko hill and from the access road to Marianka so

that the inhabitants of residential areas were informed on the altitude tracing of the highway

and the landscape embodiment with the surrounding nature

- Visualisation from the east-west direction (from the Carpathians, from the western portal to

the Stupava-South intersection)

- Visualisation from the Stupava - Marianka country road, which is used for recreational

purposes

With regard to the points of the assessment concerning the geological and hydrogeological

conditions, impact on groundwater and surface water, the method of drainage of the road and

tunnel body, based on the expert opinion of RNDr. Katarína Kminiaková, PhD, we state the

following:

For the purpose of the report, only a geological and hydrogeological study has been prepared,

which does not replace the required detailed geological and hydrological surveys. The results

of a detailed survey in the given geological environment can significantly influence the actual

route location, technical solution and thus the financial cost of the proposed route.

Geological and hydrogeological characteristics is only made on the basis of describing the

geological and hydrogeological units in very general terms. The general characteristics given

does not specify the particular conditions of the route, which may be due to the heterogeneity

of the geological environment diverse and different from the characteristics given. This fact is

very important from the point of view that the route crosses a variety of geological and

hydrogeological environment (Crystalline, Mesozoic, Neogene, Quaternary ...). In the case of

line structures, detailed characteristics of environment in individual kilometer intervals is

required or even more detailed in the case of greater geological changes - not only at the level

of indicating general hydrogeological units. For this reason, we request that a geological and

hydrogeological survey (which has already been requested, inter alia, within the Scope of the

Assessment, issued by the Ministry of Environment in 2008 - point 19 (No. 7155/08 - 3.4/ml)

is carried out at the point of the planned route.

The resulting comparison of the impacts of individual alternatives on the rock environment

and groundwater and surface water is very general and opaque, hiding behind a scale the

criteria and limit values of which are again not clarified in more detail.

We request submission of a geological survey (Geofos, 2010), which is mentioned in the

report, but not enclosed in its annexes. We further request that the route - in the longitudinal

profile is plotted in the geological map (map at a scale of 1:10 000).

88

From the hydrogeological point of view, we also demand close assessment of the

vulnerability of rock environment (in terms of stability and quality), as well as ground and

surface water in terms of quality and quantity, which is lacking in the report. Without this

knowledge it is not possible to assess and select the optimum alternative. Without assessing

the quality of groundwater and surface water, which will be the final recipients for the waste

water, it is not possible to objectively assess the proposed method of road body drainage,

including the tunnel.

We further request the finalisation of the analysis of changes in ground water levels in the

urban area of Marianka as a result of the proposed activity.

In terms of discharge of waste water into ground and surface waters we request the

specification of local hydraulic characteristics of the environment in the assessment of the

possibility of seepage points, as well as specific rates of flow in surface streams.

In the case of tunnelling it is also necessary to consider potential inflow of groundwater for

which the tunnel will create a drain. The impact on the groundwater regime will also be

important.

Specific impact on groundwater and surface water will subsequently condition demands on

the monitoring system of groundwater and surface water during construction and after

construction of the route.

Based on the results of geological and hydrogeological survey works at the location of the

planned route, we request adding the impact on the hydrological regime of springs and karst

water (impact on the spring of the Vydrica stream, impact on the spring of the holy well in the

village of Marianka..., further the impact of construction on the flow and quality of the

Mariansky stream, which is considered as the final recipient in the discharge of waste water.

Similarly, the quality and hydraulic parameters of the bedrock are not closely evaluated in the

considered stretches of direct soaks into the soil.

At the public hearing held on 12 May 2011 in Lozorno, the elaborated of the report further

confirmed that Marianka is considered as the total effluent destination of waste water from the

tunnel. This fact has not been specifically mentioned in the report, nor assessed. We request

that the information is more closely technically specified.

Apart from the above surveys required at the point and along the highway route (geological

and hydrogeological), we require the implementation of a geophysical survey - assessment of

seismic and tectonic hazards.

According to the results of these surveys, we require that compensatory measures are

proposed and implemented.

Furthermore, we require detailed assessment of the impact of construction on the Upper

Mountain protected area, added with an inventory of flora as there are some rare species of

plants.

The assessment report states that all of the existing public roads will be used during the

construction. The report is also considering depositing surplus excavation material alternatively

to the existing old quarries in the wider surroundings (particularly to the quarry in Marianka - p.

27, Chapter B.I.3, for which the only possible access road in Marianka could be used (Karpatská

Street). However, the impact of this activity on the population has not been not further assessed,

but it can be assumed that the impact on the infrastructure in the village, as well as on the

population would be disastrous. In the case of using Karpatská street during construction, we

request adding the impact on the population (in terms of emissions/ air pollution and noise).

89

The village Marianka does not agree with the storage of excavation material in the quarry located

in the cadastral territory of Marianka due to increased traffic of trucks through the village.

Comments on the dispersion study:

At the public hearing in Lozorno, representatives of Marianka residents expressed serious

objections to the location of air vents in the place of the western portal. It is highly

inappropriate that this significant source of air pollutants is planned at the point where the

highway is the closest to the family houses of Marianka residents. At the same time,

according to the HBH representative at the public hearing in Lozorno, traffic from Karpatská

street - the main access route to Marianka - has not at all been taken into account. We request

that in case of implementation, the air vent is shifted in the alternative of tunnel extension to

the junction or towards the east, as far away from dwellings as possible. We request further

clarification of the methodology used for the dispersion study, as it is not evident from the

presented graphical outputs of pollution isolines whether the prevailing directions in the area

under consideration (NW-SE to N-S) have been taken into account. We request that the

specific sources taken into account by the study (the highway itself with static and mobile

sources in the area).are indicated. Furthermore, we request that all 3 outlets of the VAC

system (2 portal and 1 central) are included in the study within the assessment of the highway.

We request that the dispersion and noise studies also include all of the existing sources of

noise and emissions, i.e. all traffic elements of the road network, for example, the evidently

missing transport from the main access road to Marianka, and that the assessment is carried

out in the area with the existing as well as planned function of housing, which is included in

the current zoning plan.

When processing the dispersion study (as well as the noise study) under the current

legislation, we request for the above reason that the projection of residential buildings in the

current period is updated, as well as the projection of the residential buildings considered

under the zoning plan of Marianka, in connection to the highway plan, in the scale 1: 5000.

Comments on the noise study:

1. The assessment of noise burden in the affected area of the proposed highway has not been

carried out for the present and no comparison has been made with the noise situation after the

construction of the highway. Changes in the noise situation compared to the present (at the time

the assessment) have not been assessed. The ”zero alternative” (non-implementation of the

highway) for the assessment year 2040 has not been carried out for the affected section of the

area, cadastral territory of Marianka. Therefore, a comparison of changes in the predicted noise

situation in this area has not been made when considering the construction of the highway and

without its construction. How could the authors made the overall assessment of the impact of the

construction and operation of the highway on the environment in the affected area, when they

were lacking the above data?

Overall assessment of the impact on the environmental in terms of noise:

The final assessment of the elaborated of the report states that the recommended alternative of

solution will adversely affect the least number of people. None of the expert opinions (nor the

"noise study") states, for any alternatives of the solution, the estimate of the population in the

affected area, whose living conditions could worsen or improve due to the construction. In

assessing environmental impact, such information could have substantially clarified the

suitability or unsuitability of the proposed solution for the area and the suitability or

unsuitability of the proposed measures to reduce adverse impacts on the living conditions in

the affected area.

90

Based on the above it can be concluded that the presented "Noise Study", which deals with

the impact assessment of the proposed highway D4 Bratislava Ivanka north - Záhorská

Bystrica, is not prepared in accordance with the requirements set by the valid legislation in the

Slovak Republic (at the time of development and submission of documentation for further

procedure). The selected procedure and methodology for determining the predicted noise load

on the assessed road used in the study is not in compliance with the current procedures used

for the purposes of assessing environmental impact in the Slovak Republic and abroad. The

study does not specify the input data used for calculating, the validation of the predicted data

is not declared and no method is indicated used to create the model for the calculation.

Based on the above we require that the assessment of the impact of the construction on the

noise burden in the affected area is redeveloped under the requirements of the current

legislation in the Slovak Republic and in accordance with the procedures and in a manner

which is used in Slovakia for similar environmental impact assessments.

The village of Marianka (letter of 30 August 2011)

The village Marianka as well as its residents are addressing you with a request for verification of

facts which give rise to reasonable fear of unlawfulness of the procedure and progress of the

competent public authority in the assessment of environmental impact in the matter of the

planned "Highway D4, Ivanka north - Záhorská Bystrica".

The village of Marianka has been from the beginning an active participant in the EIA process,

constructively utilising all stages of the commenting procedure in the present case. Please find

attached the opinion of the village of Marianka of 2011. One of the fundamental constantly

repeated comments raised by the village of Marianka is the objection regarding insufficient

assessment of the routing alternatives of the highway from the transport point of view with

regard to the economic usefulness and efficiency of such a complex project of the tunnel section

of the highway through the Small Carpathians. The fact that there is no relevant study so far to

assess the possible expediency of routing the highway closer to Bratislava, and the fact that our

comments in this regard were left without any response raises justified concerns of ignorance

and lawlessness - breach of fundamental legal principles of decision making.

The currently promoted alternatives leading through the cadastre of the Marianka village do not

take into account the terrain profile of the area. Despite claims by the NMC(the National

Highway Company) that the critical stretch of the highway will be routed into the recess behind

the hill, the inspection of the site shows without doubt that for the most part this critical segment

is traced right on the highest point in the area, on the crest of the Mástsky hill. Marianka is the

oldest pilgrimage site in Slovakia, so not only its residents but also residents of the whole of

Slovakia are very sensitive to any negative interference in this place of spiritual peace.

Following the conclusions of the work meeting at the Ministry of Transport with Mr. Kovalčík

and the minister advisor Mr. Arvay, we would like to take this opportunity to invite you to a

meeting in Marianka in order to become familiar with the actual facts of the case on the face of

the place. We would like to propose the date of the work meeting for the week from the 19th to

23rd of September, or the 26th to 30th of September.

City District of Bratislava - Rača (letter of 23 May 2011, Ref. No. 2173/5600/2011/ŽP)

Alternatives 2a and 2b pass through the cadastre of Rača in the tunnel with the east portal of the

tunnel in the cadastre of Rača. Alternatives 7a; 7b; 7c pass across the cadastre of Rača in the

tunnel. The SPL alternative does not pass through the cadastre of Rača.

The city district of Bratislava-Rača prefers the construction to follow alternative 7c, which is

routed in the tunnel at a distance of 460m from the edge of populated areas of the city district.

Occupation of agricultural land is only intended for the purpose of technical support facilities

and represents the lowest burden in terms of hygiene conditions of residential areas.

The negative impact will mainly show on the hydrological regime and groundwater flow and

91

drainage of surface water, including drainage capacity. According to the assessment report, the

tunnelling itself should not have a significant impact on groundwater.

The construction of the highway and its subsequent operation, we request to solve the drainage

of the collected water into a suitable recipient so as not to endanger the flood situation in the

district of Bratislava-Rača and not to increase the level of groundwater.

City District of Bratislava - Vajnory (letter dated 19 May 2011, Ref. No. OS-UP-

87/2501/2011/JŠ)

Bratislava-Vajnory is obliged by Sec. 34 (3) of the Act to inform the public about the intention in

the usual way and in accordance with Sec. 35 (1) of the Act to issue an opinion on the submitted

report regarding the assessment below:

The city district disagrees with the other highway route in Option 7b with a recessed or

overlapping (underpass) tunnel at Vajnory and comments to be mentioned later. Other

alternatives are unacceptable from the point of view of Bratislava - Vajnory and so no comments

for improvement are being expressed by us in regard to them as unrealistic. Option 7c

recommended by the Elaborated, running a length of 15 m over the terrain above D1 and then

continuing 8 metres on the embankment along Šúr Canal (Šúrský kanál), is not acceptable to

Bratislava - Vajnory with respect to changing the landscape and environmental impact.

Bratislava -Vajnory agrees to the D4 passing under the D1 at the Ivanka North

interchange.Routing the D4 over the D1 is unacceptable to Bratislava - Vajnory.

Comments by BA- Vajnory:

In terms of urban planning:

In terms of land use planning, we point out that Option 7b, approved by all of us, entails a

change in the 2007 Bratislava Zoning Plan, as amended (hereinafter the Zoning Plan). We are

asking to extend the "Vajnory overlapping tunnel" up to 2.3 km with respect to the planned

construction of residential units at Nemecká dolina, which is indicated in the current Zoning Plan

and Bratislava - Vajnory wishes to change in the Zoning Plan at Pod Hájom - south of CEPIT -

from “arable land” to “small-area residential neighbourhoods”.

From an environmental perspective:

The only (underpass) tunnel in Option 7b has the least environmental impact even in respect to

the psychological health of residents and impact on animals (emissions, noise).

Water management:

Option 7b’s impact on groundwater and surface water is not well-documented in the report.

There was a request for detailed documentation and action to be taken on the impact of the

watertight boxes in Option 7 on groundwater. We require a report to supplement the

hydrogeological study in this proposed part of the route (0.575 km over 2.3 km).

The next step required a study to be prepared of the entire area to resolve offtake and retention of

rainwater. The proposed dry polders were agreed only after a positive statement on the Danube

basin. Action needs to be taken along the D4 to situate a new surface kanál in order to divert

water from Vajnory and the highway up to the Little Danube.

Nature and landscape protection;

Setting up an assessment and incorporating it into the local environment found in the rural

habitation at Vajnory and surrounding natural structures changes the landscape. The next step

requires action to be taken to allow animals and plants to migrate in the area. Implementing

Option 7B will have the least visual impact on the landscape.

Noise burden:

During construction the impact of using the appropriate technology and construction techniques

has to be minimised. See above to take action:

We require the report to be supplemented and the noise load on residents to be assessed

according to current land-use planning documentation in the 2007 Bratislava Zoning Plan, since

it does not take into account the section after km 2.5 from the Ivanka North interchange past the

92

Čierna voda interchange. Furthermore, a judgement on noise and suggestions to eliminate

impacts during the night needs to be added in view of transit on the D4 highway besides by

capital city residents.

Clean air:

It is recommended for work to be performed during construction using all available means and

technology to prevent any increase in secondary dust at the contact area with the cadastral

district of Vajnory. As a measure against emissions, we require covering the “Vajnory Tunnel”

with construction that allows planting of greenery and shrubs.

In terms of traffic and cycling routes:

In the next design stage, we will require a concept for proposed local, urban and regional bike

routes to be incorporated (at the district, city and Bratislava region levels). To think about using

gangways along Highway D4 to bridge collectors at the section near the Lisý pool along

Račianský potok (stream) and under the highway to the bridge over the Šúr at Svätý Júr. We

require a cycle trail on the bridge spanning the railway line and Route II/502 to be taken into

account when the Rača interchange is designed.

We require the D4 to be diverted 10-20 metres from the bank of the Lisý pond and to situate it

away from the D1-D4 interchange along terrain, so rainwater from the highway will not flow

into Lisý, but instead along the left side of the highway toward the Little Carpathians into a new

drainage kanál along the highway and on to the Little Danube. The report does not mention the

number of cars at various time points time points throughout the day. The estimated number of

cars which will be using the D4 from the Ivanka North interchange through Záhorská Bystrica is

insufficiently identified and in our opinion is undersized.

Conclusion:

The city district disagrees with the other highway route in Option 7b with a recessed or

overlapping (underpass) tunnel at Vajnory. Other alternatives also preferred by you such as

Option 7C are unacceptable and will have an extremely adverse effect on appearance , i.e. the

landscape, and will irremediably alter its character. Structural elements of the 15-metre bridge

above the D1 and then the steep gradient to the 8 m high embankment, to be constant along the

entire Vajnory district, is unacceptable to Bratislava-Vajnory.

Bratislava - Vajnory agrees with Option 7b or a modified version of it from recessed to level

with the terrain (if a hydrogeological study demonstrates inadequate sheltering with regard to

groundwater) with the covered overlapping tunnel from km 0.9 to 2.3.

We request our comments to be accepted in the decision-making of the Environment Ministry in

Bratislava and require the investor to be bound and address them in its project documentation for

the planning procedure.

The Commission for Construction, Land-use Planning, Environment and Transportation

recommended at its 18 May 2011 meeting to issue an opinion on the aforesaid comments to the

mayor of Bratislava - Vajnory.

City District of Bratislava - Vajnory (letter dated 28 March 2011, Ref. No. OS-UP-

87/2134/2011/JŠ)

The district seeks to have the Ivanka North interchange integrated in the section past Rača to the

D4 highway section (Jarovce – Ivanka North) when tender documents to select a elaborated of

project documentation for the planning procedure are elaborated.

City District of Bratislava - Záhorská Bystrica (letter dated 27 April 2011, Ref. No.

2011/690/Ro)

Bratislava-Záhorská Bystrica issued a favourable opinion of the assessment report.

City District of Bratislava - Záhorská Bystrica, amended (letter dated 17 May 2011)

These are comments especially on the following documents, which were drafted in connection

with an assessment of the impact of proposed activities: Applicant’s Intention of Proposed

Activities, Scope of Assessment of Proposed Activities, Report on Assessment of Proposed

93

Activities and other related documents (hereinafter collectively referred to as “EIA”.(“D4

Jarovce -Ivanka North", whose construction is the subject of proposed activities is hereinafter

referred to as the “Highway”).

A. Comments and requirements in connection with the highway route:

I. We request the Option 7c extension of the subgrade route for the D4 Highway after km 16.000

and a 5.0 metre reduction across the entire highway route past the interchange with Route I/2.

II. Comments regarding assessment of noise caused by the proposed activities and highway:

We request an evaluation of the impact of proposed activities and the highway for noise load in

the affected area, in accordance with requirements of current legislation in the Slovak Republic,

by means of and in compliance with procedures that are used in both the Slovak Republic and

abroad for similar environment impact assessments. The presented material does not make clear

about the means, methodology and basis for establishing intensities on different roads and the

highway.

1) Load noise to be caused by the evaluated D4 highway was not assessed as required by Act

355/2007 Coll. on protection, support and development of public health, amending certain laws

(as currently amended) and its implementing regulation - Ministry of Environment Decree No.

549/2007 Coll. on permissible values for noise, infrasound and vibrations and on the

requirements for the objectification of noise, infrasound and vibration (as amended). This

legislation mandates the measurement of environmental noise from all sources for the day (6:00

AM - 6:00 PM), evening (6:00 PM - 10:00 PM) and night (10:00 PM - 6:00 AM). In the entire

assessment report, including attachments, noise load is assessed only for the day and night,

which fundamentally contravenes requirements in the legislation. Tables of predicted values for

local calculation points covering the different options displays day and evening in brackets for

information about reference time intervals. However, there is only one calculated value of the

equivalent Level A noise always shown for each point, the assessed year and the option,

implying that the elaborated assumes the value of the equivalent Level A noise is the same for

both day and night. That does not reflect reality. In presenting surface noise load (graphic

attachment) the noise load calculated and displayed for the evening is completely absent. This

fundamentally fails to satisfy requirements provided in Act 355/2007 Coll. and related legislation

for the assessment of environmental noise caused by road traffic, while the elaborated of the

work references the fact that the assessment was made in accordance with that legislation.

2) Noise load is assessed with the aid of mathematical modelling using a “new methodology for

calculating noise from road transport" written by M. Liberko, as shown in the February 2005

edition of Planet Magazine which was issued by the Ministry of Environment of the Czech

Republic. The procedure followed in this methodology has not been officially approved in the

Slovak Republic to calculate sound propagation and the determination of surface noise load from

road transport in order to assess the impact of road traffic noise on health. When these are

applied and used incorrectly and in selecting entry data, noise load values are obtained that may

significantly distort the resulting data. Therefore, the proper use of input parameters and

calculation data is a crucial step towards obtaining reliable data. Also, the work hardly shows

what input data the elaborated used in the calculation. The work displays hardly any one clear

input parameter, based on which the accuracy of the calculation can be verified and the precision

of the procedure used for establishing noise load can be confirmed in the vicinity of the assessed

road. This work shows 24 hourly intensities of traffic and proportion of freight transport, but no

24-hour profile of traffic distribution (minimally for legislatively established times of day),

which is necessary for calculating and establishing road traffic noise load for individual times of

day under the legislation to which the elaborated refers in the entire work.

94

The work nowhere considers the surfaces of abrasive layers when the calculations are made.

Incorrect determination of the parameters may cause a variance in the calculation of 6 or more

decibels. The work also does not show how a change in meteorological conditions (wind

direction) can affect the predicted results. Nowhere in the submitted report does the elaborated

address the effect of weather conditions on predicted noise load results. The work does not show

which surfaces were considered in the vicinity of the evaluated road and so does not make clear

what the attenuation parameters are for the vicinity and their effect on the data obtained in the

affected area.

3) The assessment report states that the model of the affected area is created on a 1-metre precise

contour line, deemed to be insufficient for considering the structure of such significance and in

terrain with such a variable morphology (even when considering earth sheltering of the assessed

road). Not even clear is the authority of the data from which the three-dimensional model was

created and used to predict noise, where such authorisation would make the presented outputs

relevant.

4) The assessment does not display for each option at least an approximate estimate of the

number of residents in the affected area to be made worse off due to the highway, or whose

living conditions would improve due to the impact of the changed noise situation (e.g. compared

to the “baseline option”). In assessing environmental impact, such information could have

substantially clarified the suitability or unsuitability of the proposed solution for the area and the

suitability or unsuitability of proposed measures to reduce adverse environmental conditions in

the affected area.

5) Based on the above facts, it is possible to state that the submitted “Noise Study”, considering

the impact of the proposed D4 Bratislava Ivanka North - Záhorská Bystrica highway, was not

drafted in accordance with conditions legislated in the Slovak Republic and in force when the

report was drafted and the documentation was submitted for further approval. The selected

procedure and methodology for determining the predicted noise load from the assessed road used

in the work is not in compliance with current procedures used for the purposes of assessing

environmental impact in the Slovak Republic and abroad. The work does not use input data for

calculating, the validation of predicted data is not declared and no method is displayed for how

the model used in the calculation was created.

III. Requirements in terms of eliminating noise impact and effects:

We request anti-noise measures to prevent the impact of noise on built-up area of Záhorská

Bystrica and ask for it to be addressed in the form of noise barriers on the side of the cadastral

district of Bratislava - Záhorská Bystrica so that they would comply with Category A4 acoustic

absorption of 18 dB, category B3 acoustic insulation of 26 dB and be 4-6 m high.

We ask for a visually final technical solution as well with compensatory measures in terms of

residential units located in Záhorská Bystrica.

Conclusion:

We consider Option 7C to be the most appropriate from among the submitted options because it

has the lowest portal and is the most acceptable solution in terms of environmental impact, while

requesting it to be modified to comply with our requirements.

PAJŠTÚN CA (letter dated 25 June 2011)

As a general public stakeholder, we would like to forward our comments, which are as follows:

1) In the assessment report on “Highway D4, interchange DNV 11/505 - Slovakia/Austria

Border”, there is an indication based on characteristics that it would carry many thousands of

cars from Austria across the Morava (March) River to Slovakia, contributing to a rise in traffic

within the region. The evaluated purpose of construction and the necessity of connecting the

95

Slovak and Austrian sides of the highway are not relevant. It lacks a strategic assessment of

transport solutions in the region in relation to rail transport. There is a highway connection

through Kittsee which should be exploited. The final summary also mentions the shortest road

link between Bratislava and Vienna as the purpose of construction, while the highway should

especially address the shift in freight transport based on other descriptions in the documentation,

although this is not sufficiently articulated. Statistics listed in attachments to the report suggest

Bratislava would not avoid collapse even after construction of the D4.

For example, transit traffic intensity is reported on the Lafranconi Bridge to total 69,631 vehicles

per day in 2008, of which only 12.3% (8,565) of them were transporting freight (p. 9, Tab. 5).

The table indicated the percentage of other transport (freight transport, buses) had been declining

since 2005 (9,232). Table 9 on page 22 (Traffic Engineering Documents) states in 2020, after

construction is completed, there would be 64,589 vehicles per day, of which only 16.26%

(10,502) would be other vehicles including lorries. The baseline option (Table 8a, page 16)

figures traffic would rise on Lafranconi Bridge to 84,179 vehicles (actual vehicles over 24 hours

in both directions), while other vehicles (including freight transport) would increase slightly

(13,486) in contrast to individual transport (70,693). To choose further examples, data on other

vehicles can be picked from Tables 5a-5c, 8a-8c, 9a-9c with even less differences when the

section is not completed, for example D2 Stupava South, Lamač (13,422 baseline and 13,165

after completion!), D2 Lamač - Polianky (14,763 baseline and 15,658 after completion!), at

minimum no changes are seen in I/2 Lozorno - Stupava (baseline - all vehicles 8,993/other

vehicles 878; completion 8993/878) and 1/2 Stupava - Záhorská Bystrica (baseline - all vehicles

23,868 vehicles/other vehicles 2337; completion - 23,868/2,344).

For the above reasons, we disagree with building the ring road because it fails to address freight

transit traffic, but it will mean that other individual cars will be coming to Bratislava and adjacent

areas and the traffic situation will not be solved, indeed in many sections it will get worse. In the

event that construction of a zero bypass addresses Bratislava’s situation and inter-connectivity, it

seems to make more sense to have a semicircle highway (Lamač - Krasňany). This option was

what we requested to include in the evaluation and in the assessment we insisted on having. In

the case of freight transit traffic, the SPL option makes more sense so lorries are not drawn into

the city, or a tunnel near Bratislava although continuing in the direction of it. According to

information filed by Mr. Tokoš in Marianka, the corridor was established about 35 years ago to

the border of the Bratislava cadastral district. However, the condition of the environment,

development in the area, evolution of housing and the region’s priority has already in that time

moved a lot in a different direction. Traffic situation needs to be comprehensively addressed

(encouraging public transport, rail, bicycle routes, diverting transit lorries away from village

neighbourhoods and the like), especially when Bratislava Region is preparing a transport master

plan.

2) As the 3D suggested options have not been received either from the elaborated or from the

proposer, we have had an informative analysis prepared of exhaust vent visibility at Points 2 and

7 (Hlavatá, Eurosense) with the dimensions mentioned in the report, which were calculated using

the digital relief model (Eurosense). Given exhaust vent visibility results from the field, Option 2

is less exposed and so we are more included toward it. Of course, if the tunnel is routed to exit at

Marianka. Situating it at a slight depression is welcome, which makes it impossible to see from

Borinka. Option 7 is unacceptable because clearance of the forest will make construction visible

in the wider vicinity, even from the Pajštún National Cultural Monument! In this regard, the

more ideal location would be Option 2a and b, as the terrain is moderately indented. So with

Route No. 7 we strongly disagree. Please consider this comment to be essential. The above

claims of differences in exhaust vent locations for route options 2 and 7 can be compared from

the annexes which we have attached to our option where the designated areas represent places

from where ducts 15 metres high in the exposed terrain can be seen. We are seeking to classify

96

conditions for subsequent land-use planning and development so nearby vegetation would be

recategorised and not allowed to be cut down, meaning the area to be surrounded by exhaust

from the ventilation shafts would be permanently forested. If the exhaust vent is shifted, we

would require a visibility analysis of the proposed tunnel to exclude the probability of it being

seen from Borinka, Pajštún and the remaining visited parts of the surroundings.

3) Emissions will be dispersed as documented through the central and portal exhaust vents.

Portal vents are designed as rectangular 2 x 4 cross section chimneys with an area of 8 square

metres and height of 8 square metres.

Considering the length of the Carpathians Tunnel, central ventilation shafts are proposed in

different options, ending with a ventilation opening that reaches an area of approximately 18

square metres. This would create above the village a new stationary source of pollution. The

village has neither any industry nor similar activity that would pollute the greater air outside of

households themselves and cars which cross it in the direction of Košariská. There are no

statistics in the documentation for Borinka regarding air quality, so no cumulative impact of

pollution can be expressed following construction of the exhaust vent. Calculation of emissions

to be diverted by the exhaust were only discovered by us in data mentioned in Chapter 2, Tab. 5

and 6, and Tab. 25. The worst with regard to release of emissions comes in Options 1) 7b, 7c; 2)

7a; 3) 2b and the best as 4) 2a. In options 7b and 7c, it is up to 160.5 kilogrammes of NOx per

day.

NO2 distribution in the area surrounding these exhaust vents is illustrated in the attached

dispersion study, Image 13- Chapter l6vl0 (1-hour NO2 concentration in 2030, average annual

NO2 concentration in 2030), where it is clear that the concentration will also be dispersed in the

direction of Borinka (although the data indicates it would be under the limit). The village is

trying to keep the cadastral district and the surrounding forest as a “green lung” for vacationers

from Bratislava”. Options 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b and 7c propose only one shaft to flow into an 8-metre

wide exhaust vent 15 metres high located in a Little Carpathians massif above properties which

contain civil defence warehouses serving Borinka. Looking forward, the village wants these

properties to be used for sports and recreation. The localising of the exhaust vent is contrary to

the village’s intention to keep this area’s air as clean as possible and to have an aesthetic

environment for residents, cyclists and vacationers from Bratislava, Záhorie and Austria. We

welcome the fact that the highway tunnel is being routed to minimise the impact on the most

precious areas, but to keep emissions from entering the valley where the village is located, we

ask for the exhaust vent to be moved to the southeast, away from the village and places where

cyclists ride and tourists stay (Dračí hrádok, the meadow by the stream between Borinka and

Medené Hámre located on the hiking trail). The compass rose (page 9, Tab. 7 Diffusion Study)

indicates prevailing north-south winds, so it would be best if the tunnel were placed leeward

away from the village, tourist attractions and natural values beyond the massif ridge, although

we recognise the functionality of the tunnel was probably designed for the best dispersal of

emissions in the area. However, the Borinka Valley does not need minimal intervention. We

attach a copy of the resolution passed by the municipal council on 20 June 2011, which concurs

with our reasoning. The comment is crucial.

4) We strongly disagree with the corridor route mentioned in Option 7, which has a greater

impact on forest biota around Borinka (important natural habitats in forest, water and cave

ecosystems), protected animals (insects, amphibians, bats, birds and so on) and protected areas

(Strmina Nature Reserve, Homolský Karpaty SCI, Malé Karpaty (Little Carpathians) Landscape

Park and Malé Karpaty SPA) in our region due to the inappropriate location of the highway

exhaust vent, raising the amount of emissions near them. The argument that the values are below

the limit will not stand because these limits are not determined for valuable areas and for any

increase in air pollution. Rather they are calculated for more burdened “urban” environments and

human health. Options affecting protected areas were also identified in documentation: changes

97

in air quality characteristics in the area, images of habitats, changes in the hydrological regime of

the area for Homolský Karpaty SCI, while for Malé Karpaty SPA it concerns a set of appropriate

habitats, noise and light interference, clashes with vehicles, the aquatic environment becoming

contaminated by water seeping from the road into bodies of water (p. 21 Impact Assessment of

Sites Community Importance and Special Protection Areas. Species sensitive to pollution and

deteriorating conditions can react immediately to their absence, even though the documentation

states that the impact is negligible. Beech vegetation growing in the area can accordingly be

disturbed (by acidification, eutrophication), in addition to the food chain, insects, pollinators,

bats, birds and others. A serious risk to human health is likewise the level of NOx, CO and also

solid particulate matter (PM), hydrocarbons along with other pollutants contained in the air

which were not mentioned in the documentation. It is expected for some substances that

minimum levels in the air will cause health annoyances despite limits having been set in the laws

of different countries. Very small particulate concentrations in air that is breathed have resulted

in health damage, and we ask for appropriate protective means to be employed at airways to

minimise the discharge of flue gases into the atmosphere (with scrubbers or active filters) and to

add this condition to project documentation (and to measures in the drawing - Fig. 2 Diffusion

Study and the like.). Likewise, guard tunnel ventilation shafts so as, .to prevent animals from

becoming injured as a consequence of being sucked into the ventilator (especially birds and

bats). Ventilation shafts should be constructed to reduce noise load in the area surrounding them

to the minimum level. These requirements are essential.

5) Air pollution tables relating to Borinka are missing from the dispersion study. We request

addition of conditions before (baseline option) and as the situation changes (variants).

6) Fig. 33 and 34 of Graphic Attachment No. 8 is an illustrative photo of Branisko which

displays an exhaust vent with access road. No map was found in the report documentation where

the access road to the exhaust vent will be from Highway D4 and what the road’s nature is. The

road from Rača to Biely kríž and to Červený kríž are mentioned. Where exactly will the access

road be situated? There is an existing "forest" road with a paved surface, or will it be reinforced

with asphalt for this purpose? We seek clarification.

7) For the sake of environmental protection and regional development, we are requesting an

overlapping highway in the entire sections along the built up area of Vajnory, along the Šúr NPR

protected area, under the interchange before Stupava and also extension of the overlapping

highway past the interchange. We are asking for a covered highway (at least partially) at

Marianka and at Ramsar locations to allow for a natural transition and for the lives of inhabitants

and animals, while minimising the adverse impact on nature and the landscape at longer sections,

such as is proposed in the report, meaning Option 2b, which is traversable for us, for 15

kilometres. We ask for noise barriers to be designed with portals on both sides of the D4 from

the massif and in parts not tunnelled.

8) The assessment report does not discuss the impact of light pollution from the central exhaust

vent on the mountain ridge (including the area surrounding access roads to the exhaust vent), and

neither does it do so for the highway itself outside the tunnel. It mentions light interference in

Chapter 11.3.4. of the attached Impact Assessment on the Site of Community Importance and

Special Protection Area.

Physicians worldwide are seriously concerned about the increased risk of cancer from night

light, and it can be quite significant. Cells are protected from tumours by melatonin - the most

effective antioxidant and one the body creates only in the dark. Sleep is a basis for good health,

and in the case of high intensity external lighting caused by light pollution melatonin formation

disorders occur that result in insomnia and other related health problems. It is shown that rare

and endangered species have disappeared from nature in cities as well as more common species

which are dependent on natural night darkness (or the frequency of such species have greatly

diminished). This is especially true for reptiles, amphibians and insects. Some zoologists believe

98

that light traps significantly contribute to the impoverishment of species diversity in insects. The

loss of insects is so far a burning concern only of enthusiastic entomologists, but there has been a

greater response to the mass death of birds. Light sources directed at the sky especially disorient

those species that migrate at night, with fewer and fewer of them completing their journeys. A

Canadian expert on this issue, M. Mesure, estimates the number of birds that fly into lighted

buildings to be a hundred million a year. Inappropriate night lighting so disrupts night

ecosystems and confuses migrating birds, something currently not desirable in Borinka and

vicinity where there are birds, insects, bats and other animals living in declared protected areas

(SPA, SCI and national categories). We present a simple solution which we ask be incorporated

in the documentation for establishing conditions when the highway is constructed. The solution

is to install lamps with flat bottom covers so they sign under each other.

9) At a session of the Slovak Government, material not included was found by us, namely

Progress on connecting the Druzhba Pipeline with Schwechat Refinery (BSP Pipeline) and

fulfilment of the Memorandum of Understanding and Cooperation in Energy between the

Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic and the Ministry of Economy and Labour of

Austria, where a drawing mentions the probable tunnel as one possible option for routing the

pipeline. Building the D4 Highway D4 in a tunnel may pave the way for such similar proposals,

which would use the prepared corridor for other purposes, too, which is not desirable for

sensitive areas of the Carpathians. Also for this reason we believe that the impact on the cave

system and the impact on groundwater and the change in how it flows in the rock subsoil have

not been adequately evaluated in our view. Linked to it is the possible impact on the hydric

nature of the area (and just in the area north in the ridge) as also presented in page 35 of the

attached Impact Assessment on the Site of Community Importance and Special Protection Area.

Relevant analysis is missing which we seek to have added. In our opinion, the scope of the

assessment is not complete with regard to hydrogeological characteristics and surveys which

need to be completed and assessed. The area surrounding Borinka is known to specialists and the

general public for its vast cave system. It is possible that anthropogenic impact (vibrations from

excavation, traffic, the route itself on the rock subsoil, activities of groups of people in the last

decade against which security measures have been taken) and the earth’s natural activity

(earthquakes, landslides, tectonic faults, washouts) near Borinka are disturbing the rock

environment, hydrology and water saturation of the strata. The documentation (e.g. on p. 18 of

Impact Assessment on the Site of Community Importance and Special Protection Area.)

mentions a more marked impact and risks from tunnelling in fault zones, and in the crystalline or

Mesozoic strata and in the thrust zone of crystalline strata, due to the drainage of groundwater

linked to collectors of opened fault zones. The documentation does not sufficiently describe how

this element is going to be addressed. And what is proposed after the end of the structure’s useful

life, which is 30 years? We seek clarification. The Borinka cadastral district (massif on the side

of the mountain opposite where the tunnel is proposed) contains significant sources of drinking

water, which supplies not only the village of Borinka. Sources of drinking water will remain in

future a very important factor in decision-making with the general lack of this natural resource.

10) Do we believe, based on the points earlier mentioned in our opinion, that there has been

fulfilment of certain specific conditions defined in the scope of assessment (Conditions 2, 3

about the purpose; Point 5 - no compensatory measures have been proposed for either the

population or the biota; Point 6 - no visibility analysis has been prepared and no underlying

documentation has been provided for us to create it ourselves; Point 8 - measures have been

insufficiently proposed to eliminate the impact and an “umbrella“ measure is missing which we

have sought together with the village of Borinka to have included in the study phase in the

follow-up to different reports on the assessment and parcelling of the entire circuit, and “green

passageways for large animals” along the route of the entire D4; Point 9 - otherwise

incomprehensible; Point 10 - to propose measures to minimise; Point 14, 20 and 24 about

99

changes in hydrological ratios and the cave systems - poorly executed; Points 15 and 25 -

Borinka is missing; Points 18 and 26 - comments are above, compensatory measures missing;

Point 19 - where are the data mentioned in the aforesaid study? And there are still more). Not all

substantiated comments to the study are arranged in the relevant chapters of the assessment

report. The mentioned comments we seek to develop and have included in the next process of

assessing environmental impact . Especially, the chapter discussing compensatory measures has

to be included. This might for organisms be the creation of a certain element in the Territorial

System of Ecological Stability (ÚSES) or revitalisation of disturbed habitat, and for the region’s

population it might be, for example, the construction of bicycle trails, creation of a small park or

rest facilities for tourists, modifying open space, and the like. We ask for proposal of such or

similar measures.

Based on the above, we prefer the baseline option.

In the case of completing the D4 , we believe the SPL option should be considered and there is a

need also to assess the Lamač - Krasňany option. If a tunnel is going to be driven and completed

between Borinka and Marianka, we are inclined toward Option 2b with modifications to improve

it. The other options in our view are entirely unacceptable and we disagree with their

implementation.

We continue to be committed to participating in the environmental impact assessment process

related to the Highway D4 ring road.

Malé Karpaty CA (letter from 20 May 2011) The Malé Karpaty civic association was registered at the MI SR on 8 October 2010 as a non-profit organization

bringing together people who strive to realize the objectives of the association referred to in the articles of the

association. One of the aims of the association is to protect the environment in connection with the planned

implementation of the D4 highway section through the Little Carpathians, an assessed activity under Act No.

24/2006 Coll. on Environmental Impact Assessment and its subsequent regulations. In accordance with the Act on

Environmental Impact Assessment, we hereby submit an application for inclusion of the Malé Karpaty C.A. among

stakeholders interested in the environmental decision-making procedures and inclusion among the parties in the

proceedings.

The position of the civic association was also supported by 362 citizens with their signatures. Signature sheets are

attached to this statement.

For clarity, our statement is divided into the following parts:

General society-wide comments

Specific comments from the perspective of the Marianka and Vajnory residents

Comments on the report in terms of processing the requirements specified in the scope of assessment number:

7155/08 - 3.4/ml dated 18 July 2008

A) General society-wide comments

The scope of the assessment addressed specific requirements for the administration range, as well as the assessment

of the new option solution. The assessment report did not meet the scope of the assessment specified under No.

7155/08 - 3.4/ml dated 18 July 2008 in several points, and the assessment of expected impacts is not full and

comprehensive in accordance with Par. 3 of the NC SR No. 24/2006 Coll. In our opinion, the processing quality of

the submitted EIA does not correspond to the range of the largest investment of its kind in the region, and the

importance of the impact of construction on the environment.

For a greater overview and clarity of our statement and our objections to the report, we have chosen the form of

comments written individually for specific points of the scope of assessment.

Objections to the preparation process of the proposed D4 highway:

According to Paragraph 6 of NC SR Act No.24/2006 Coll., if several proposed activities are in the operational or

spatial context, their common assessment can be performed. The D4 highway in the section from Jarovce to the

section in Devínska Nová Ves was divided into four separate sections that have been taken out of context and

examined separately since 2001. The assessment process of the adjacent sections did not involve all affected

municipalities, which influenced the route and caused non-compliance with the requirements of residents on

health and quality environment in their place of residence. The right to a healthy environment is enshrined in the

Constitution of the Slovak Republic. The routing in the Stupava south intersection over the I/2 road also affected

the route of the following section in the cadastral area of the Marianka municipality, which was assessed

separately and where the residents demanded undersurface routing (in the sense under the current ground). The

same happened also on the east side, where the elevated crossing of the D4 with the D1 made it impossible to

100

address the request of the Bratislava-Vajnory city district regarding the recessed D4 option near the Šúrsky

Kanál. The first section on the entire route of the D4 highway to be assessed was the DNV U/505 intersection of

the D4 - the Stupava south intersection, which in turn lead the predestined routing to the west and the east

without directly contacting the affected municipalities in these follow-up sections.

The construction purpose defined in the assessment report is unclear and contradictory. The purpose of the

construction in Chapter A/ll/2 mentions the relief of Bratislava from freight transport. When defining the criteria

for the selection of options in Chapter C.V., in particular, the impossibility of further urbanization in the area is

stated and stressed. We consider these contradictions as extremely important, because they do not only call into

question the very purpose of the construction, because the criteria due to which the construction is planned are

not clear, but also the criteria for the selection of the option.

The assessed SPL option has a planned traffic volume of about 12,500 vehicles, and in Options 2 and 7

Marianka-Vajnory, it is 25,000 vehicles. As confirmed by Ing. Jurkovic from Dopravoprojekt, a.s., at the public

hearing in Lozorno on 12 May 2011, the difference in the intensity of transport is due to the increase in urban

transport in Options 2 and 7 (Marianka-Vajnory), which are closer to Bratislava. This means that a share of over

50% on the total estimated traffic volume will consist of urban and not primarily transit traffic, which is the main

declared purpose. In Appendix 1, the Traffic Analysis, the distribution of urban and transit transport is

completely absent. The representative of the designer Ing. Jurkovič was not able to provide evidence of the share

of urban and transit traffic either at the public hearing of the Town Council of the Capital City on 10 May 2011,

or in Lozorno on 12 May 2011.

One of the arguments for the selection of the option was also the rounding of the transport by the D4 highway.

Such an argument regarding the interdependence of the sections has no traffic-engineering justification. The

transport semi-circle running in the zoning plan of Bratislava, with an outlet in Lamač, and on the other side in

the wider city centre, addresses the servicing of urban midtown areas more effectively within passenger

transport, while the D4 mainly addresses freight transport and its diversion outside the city, as stated in the

construction purpose. As demonstrated below, the diversion of freight transport is not efficient enough either,

and after launching the investment it will not relieve the northwest of freight. The transport corridors linking the

D1 and D2 motorways through the Krasňany - Lamač tunnel were not included in the assessment of the options

without justification either. This section is included in the current land-use planning documentations and the

Marianka municipality demanded its assessment still at the stage of intention. Given that this is an investment

financed from public finances, we request the finalization of the environmental impact assessment for this route

as well before the issue of the final opinion. This is to ensure optimal and economically the most promising

solution for the upcoming road.

Currently, the Regional Transport General of the Bratislava Self-Governing Region, which will comprehensively

evaluate the traffic in this region, is being procured. The EIA process for road construction should logically

follow after the processing of the general plan and analyzing the traffic needs and priorities of the region.

The negotiation and processing of the connection of towns and municipalities in the Bratislava region to the D1

through collectors (at the DUR stage) is currently taking place. Specifically, the D1-Bratislava-Trnava section,

six lane + collectors, is currently being addressed. The justification of the D4 is also questionable due to the

realization of these objectives.

The selection of the zero circuit corridor for the city of Bratislava was determined under different socio-

economic conditions - as prospective, still in the old land-use plan, valid with changes from 1976 to 2007. Its

location does not respect the intensive development of towns and municipalities near Bratislava in recent years,

or the new general social situation created by the opening of borders and accession of Slovakia to the Schengen

space. The route was originally proposed as an expressway, not as a highway. The original proposal of the city

on the development concept of the Slovak highway network was translated into the MTCRD SR's strategic

documents without sufficient analysis.

B) Specific comments from the perspective of the Marianka Vajnory residents

From the perspective of the Marianka residents:

The recommended undersurface routing option (Option 7c, whereby the location of the portal is at 15.5 km) does not

address the significant negative impact of noise on a large part of the Marianka municipality. The main road is only

300 m away from the highway route (in some cases - at the cooperative, it is approaching up to a distance of about

100 m). For this reason, we require the following when implementing the assessed intent:

1) shifting the route of the proposed highway away from Marianka, towards Stupava.

The highway route runs partly on the surface, and partly the body of the highway leans against a hill. Before the

portal in Option 7c) in the section from 15.0 km to 15.3 km, it crosses the whole hill massif. A few dozen meters

further, it runs through the entire length of the valley, without obstacles to overcome. All Marianka residents

logically expected the highway's route at the lowest point of the valley - as it was also shown in the video

presentation of the route from 2007. By shifting the route, costs on earth works would be saved, among other things,

since the route in Option 7c) passes at 15.0 km to 15.3 km through the hill massif, where the load will need to be

101

released.

2) In case of failure in implementing Point 1, we require an undersurface route of the highway underneath the

intersection before Stupava, and reduce the entire highway route by 11 m, i.e. undersurface running in the entire

section - on the west side of the portal.

If the design of the intersection before Stupava does not enable this, we require re-assessing this intersection so that

the D4 highway is running below the intersection, not over it. According to our estimates, it is possible to lower the

highway route by 5 m even in the case of the elevated highway (part of the highway route in the section from 16.6

km to 15.8 km with opposite inclination). Underfloor highway running would reduce the highway route by about 11

m and enable the undersurface highway running throughout the required section.

We have no information that Marianka was invited to meetings on the location of the intersection as an affected

municipality. Responsibility for the current inadequate technical solution is therefore not borne by the Marianka

municipality. In terms of the EIA and in terms of the building act, it was necessary to invite all the municipalities

that may be affected by the construction as the parties, which resulted from connection of the individual D4 sections.

The law has been significantly breached by not inviting the Marianka municipality to the negotiations. The current

solution of the intersection at the highest point of the terrain and, moreover, with the above-surface routing of the

highway, is the worst possible solution from Marianka's perspective. The terrain is lower closer to Stupava, plus the

entire highway route would be behind the hill, which would naturally protect it against noise pollution. Also, there

would be less impact on the landscape scenery. See Appendix - Fig. 1.

3) In the event that the structure's altimetry is not adjusted according to the preceding Point 2, we require an

extension of the "undersurface" highway routing under Option 7c) to 16,500 km. The undersurface highway routing

is a very important element, not only in terms of protecting the population against noise and grime, but also in terms

of maintaining the recreational nature of the area - intensively used by people of Bratislava, but also the wider area.

Otherwise, the inhabitants of the Marianka municipality cannot agree with any of the assessed options. Marianka is

the most famous pilgrimage site in Slovakia, with a high visitation rate, with frequent biking trails, hiking trails and

the like. In the event of an elevated routing, the quality of life will significantly worsen and the recreational function

of the area will be significantly restricted. The mentioned impacts will have a very negative effect on the further

development of the municipality to which hundreds of families have moved in recent years with the prospect of

quiet, rural housing, and in many cases invested their life savings, or went into debt. Environmental degradation will

also reduce the property values in the area.

4) We request the execution of the final technical solution's visualization, including compensatory measures in terms

of urban settlements in Marianka - specifically from Karpatska Street, from the co-operative, from Vineyards, from

the highest point of Ovsisko Hill and the access road to Marianka.

5) We request that the construction in the D4 Ivanka-north - Stupava section starts only after the completion of the

connection of D4 to D1 on the east side. In order to protect people and nature during construction, we request

priority construction of the section from kilometre 15 to 16.7 (the recessed area behind the western portal) in order

to restore migration paths as quickly as possible and achieve protection from the noise, dust and emissions already

in the tunnel construction phase. This corridor would also serve for transport during the construction of the tunnel

and it would not bring public access roads to the municipality and inside Marianka itself. We request limiting the

completion time of this section to a minimum rate, up to a maximum of 1 year.

6) We disagree with the use of the quarry in Marianka as the repository of excavated rock from the construction.

The quarry is now a protected deposit area. Many bird species are nesting in the older quarries. Traffic volume for

the purpose of the earth exports would be unbearable for the transport network in Marianka.

7) We require that the highway surface be made of asphalt, maximally reducing the noise from rolling vehicles. This

was not considered in the EIA.

From the perspective of the Vajnory residents:

1) The recommended Option 7c) the design of an earth wall at a height of 11 - 8- 3 m creates a barrier for the

movement of people into the Šúr Natural Reserve, prevents migration and the interconnection of biocentres. Option

7 c) fails to sufficiently address the impact of noise and emissions on the environment, does not address the impact

on the recreational environment, cycling routes, and so on. In the event that the investment plan is implemented in

route 7 c) despite all the objections, we request anti-noise walls throughout the route, building an interconnection for

cyclists and pedestrians to the Šúr NR and to the vineyards. We also ask to examine the flyover option of this route

at this stage.

2) We request to start building part of assessed section II: Ivanka north - Stupava, from the Ivanka north intersection

to the Rača intersection after the construction of the Karpaty tunnel.

C) Comments on the report in terms of processing the requirements specified in the scope of assessment number:

7155/08 - 3.4/ml dated 18 July 2008

A number of specific requirements were determined in the scope of the assessment, including the assessment of the

new option solution on the Senec- Pezinok- Lozorno route.

The requirement to an option solution: For a further, more detailed assessment of the impact of the proposed activity

"the D4 Bratislava Highway, Ivanka north - Stupava intersection", a new corridor leading more north from the

102

options on the Pezinok, Senec, Lozorno route, proposed in the intent, was also designed.

The condition was not met, the report assessing another route: Chorvátsky Grob, Svätý Jur, Lozorno. The route

selection of the assessed option was not justified in any way and its position in the region does not nearly come

close to the Senec-Pezinok-Lozorno route in the report referred to as the SPL option. The connection of section II of

the D4 behind VAJNORY, right after in Bratislava, will be an additional burden on the already overloaded D1

highway section between Bratislava and Trnava. With an interconnection further north we can expect to relieve

traffic on the D1 before entering Bratislava, because there would be the natural rerouting of, in particular, lorries

between the logistics transit centres of Trnava, Senec, Lozorno, and Malacky.

Comments on Point 2 in the scope: Give reasons for the purpose of construction from the social-wide view in detail,

its justification, and attach traffic forecasts for the given corridor.

Regarding Point 3 in the scope: Determine how large a territory the highway should serve, and complement the

detailed long-term transport studies of highway traffic in the SR, the linking of the SR regions, connections to routes

abroad and connections of Bratislava.

The reason for the purpose of the construction is incomplete and unsubstantiated by traffic surveys. The

assessment report defines the purpose of the construction as follows: "The construction of the D4 highway, whose

integral part is the Section II assessed by us (in six options) around the capital city of Bratislava, will significantly

help to solve the problem of transit traffic, as well as the problem of the insufficient road network capacity of the

capital. The benefit is primarily the diversion of transit traffic bound for the Czech Republic, Austria and Hungary.

It will greatly facilitate the transport operators of the affected area and relieve the neighbouring municipalities

from transit traffic, which should primarily be served by the highway network." However, when assessing and

selecting the option, the elaborated did not substantiate the society-wide significance of the D4 Ivanka-Stupava

section, because even in the transport development calculations for 2040, the assumptions come out to about

20,000 vehicles that would use the route per day, but not those currently in transit through Bratislava, as evidenced

by the transit traffic prognosis on the Lafranconi bridge.

Transit traffic on the Lafranconi Bridge, according to the elaborated's data, reached 69,631 vehicles/24 hrs in

2008, of which 12.3% was the proportion of freight transport. On p. 22 of the Transport-Engineering Documents,

it is stated that in 2020, after implementing the construction, transit traffic will represent 64,589 vehicles/24 hrs, of

which 16.26% will be other vehicles, including trucks. This means that the delay passage of passenger and freight

transport will lead to a collapse on the Lafranconi Bridge after the completion of the D4 highway. Section II of the

D4 highway should mainly address transit freight and its diversion outside of Bratislava. According to the traffic

analysis, the highest calculations regarding the utilization of the northern section of the D4 are projected to 756

lorries a day, increased further by 368 lorries per day currently using the Pezinská Baba mountain pass.

Contrary to the primary purpose of the construction, the report itself states the unfavourable regional traffic

situation as the main and only argument, the option did not follow the primary purpose that the highway network

should serve for.

The regional transport general of the Bratislava Self-Governing Region, which is to comprehensively assess the

traffic in this region, is currently being procured. The report's elaborated did not have sufficient evidence to choose

the optimal path for solving regional transport, and therefore the claim that the D4 will help the transport operators

in the affected area is not founded at all. We required supplementing the report with conclusions arising from the

transport of the BSGR Transport General.

Due to the fact that the projection of applicable land use plans of municipalities and towns in the affected area was

not made, the report incompletely defines the existing territory. The elaborated did not incorporate the transport

corridors planned in these land-use planning documents into their analysis either. For example, a connection on the

D1 at the upcoming Triblavina intersection is planned in the local land use plans of the Chorvátsky Grob

municipality. Furthermore, we highlight the already above-mentioned connection of towns and municipalities in

the Bratislava region via collectors, whose implementation puts the justification of D4 into question.

Comments on Point 4 in the scope: Quantify the analyzed environmental impacts of each option via a multi-criteria

evaluation.

The summary evaluation of the effects of the selected Option 7c) on the environment and population in

comparison with the 0-th state (without a highway construction) seems to be targeted and unsubstantiated by

factual data in several evaluated criteria.

The numerical summary of multi-criteria analysis is prepared based on partial assessments and conclusions for

each assessed area. The resulting comparison is behind the seven-digit scale whose criteria are not clarified in the

103

individual impacts. Moreover, we do not consider the used data interpretation correct in certain cases. Specifically,

for example, regarding the effects on the population (p. 133, chapter C.III.1 states that "the implementation of

options....will reduce the negative impacts on residents, not only in the directly affected area, where the options are

routed so as to avoid settlements, but most especially in the surroundings, where the intention will contribute to a

significant improvement in the traffic situation in the entire city of Bratislava and the improvement of living

conditions for the inhabitants"... As a standard, the impact on the population is assessed according to the exposure

to noise, emissions/pollutants and dust during construction with regard to the population right around the

considered line structures, and not just in terms of traffic conditions for Bratislava and its wider surroundings...

The traffic situation is evaluated separately in the Transport System/Transport Benefits section (tab. C.V.2).

The developed complementary studies have unequivocally shown:

- in the case of noise, the necessity of the construction of noise barriers within the realization of the project both in

the Vajnory and Marianka areas, as the noise load will increase over the allowable concentration limits in the

external environment under the current legislation

- in the case of air pollution, the increase in concentrations of pollutants in a residential area compared to the 0-th

option, in the areas of:

Marianka and Vajnory-east in all monitored pollutants (i.e. CO, N02 (1 hr. and year)

in the areas of Stupava and Záhorská Bystrica and Čierna Voda in indicators CO (8-hr.), N02 (1hr.)... etc. (listed in

tab. 27 in dispersion study).

- the reduction of pollutant concentrations has been significantly demonstrated (in all monitored indicators) only in

the Rača and Svätý Jur-south locations.

It is therefore unclear how the "Report" elaborated came to the use of numerical quantification -5 for the impact on

the population in the 0-th option (i.e. substantially negative impact) and a neutral impact (0) for the selected option

7c??...

At the given stage of the EIA, a specific assessment of individual impacts on the selected components of the

environment and the population groups in the individual affected villages is needed. The presented EIA does not

adequately contain this. The impact on air is assessed globally for each option without division into sections, or

municipalities, in which the impacts are different (in positive and negative meaning) as provided by a separate

appendix (dispersion study). Therefore, the comparison of options is not objective, as described on p. 141. We

cannot therefore agree either with the quantification for the air area (-3at 0-th state, i.e. negative impact and a

slightly positive impact (+1) for the selected option 7c, which practically applies only to the Rača and Svätý Jur-

south areas).

The EIA even lacks surveys clearly defined in the scope of assessment, without which it is impossible to assess

specific impacts on geological environment, the impact on the stability of the rock mass and soil, the impact on

groundwater, karst, hydrological regime, and therefore it is also impossible to properly and objectively quantify

them numerically...

It does not contain specific compensatory measures assessing their impact on improving the situation (e.g. in the

area of noise protection, and it does not provide their visualization from several residential areas of the Marianka

and Vajnory municipalities). Instead, the EIA refers to other additional work at a later stage, but it is not specified

in detail within the aspect of time. Their results, however, can greatly influence the technical and economic

solution of the entire construction, which also plays an important role in the selection of an optimal solution.

A serious shortcoming within the evaluation is the lack of noise impact of individual options compared to the 0-th

status. We require supplementing the impact of noise on the population based on a new noise study under current

legislation, separately in the phases of construction and operation.

In the case of impacts on the country, we disagree with the assessment of the impact as "of little importance" - (p.

184- chapter C.III.18, or -1, a slightly negative impact (Tab. C.V.2) for the given technical solution - in Marianka

the highway is contemplated on an embankment with a height of 6m in the vicinity of residential areas; in

Vajnory, an embankment with a height of 3-11 meters. With the estimated noise barriers with a height of about 2-3

m it will be a new component in the country scenery with an overall height of 9-14 m.

This chapter, which is a summary assessment and at the same time the basis for the selection of the optimal option,

lacks the division of impacts for the construction phase and separately for the operating stage, which are

standardly used in the methodology - we therefore request adding an assessment of all impacts separately for the

field of construction and operation.

104

For these reasons, we believe that the processing quality of the submitted EIA does not correspond with the scope

of the largest investment of its kind in the region and the importance of the construction's impact on the

environment and population.

Comments on Point 1 in the scope: In the assessment report, ensure a high level of environmental protection and

contribute to the integration of environmental aspects into the preparation of the options with a view to promoting

sustainable development in line with the European Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) and NATURA

2000.

Regarding Point 5 in the scope: Assess which of the proposed options best reflect the principles of sustainable

development, with the lowest direct or indirect impact on the environment, including impacts on health, flora, fauna,

the reduction of biodiversity, soil, climate, air, water, landscape, natural sites, material assets, cultural heritage and

the interaction of these factors, and propose compensatory measures to reduce negative impacts.

Regarding Point 6 in the scope: Evaluate the impact of the proposed activity on the character of the landscape,

scenery, preserved natural territory on the west side and Carpathian vineyard landscape on the east side, with a

proposal of compensatory measures to eliminate or significantly reduce the negative impacts. Draw up

visualizations of individual options from the points defined by the affected municipalities, or other parties. Draw up

a visibility analysis (graphically and in writing) and supplement a situational sketch with a scale or describing the

distances of the nearest residential areas from the highway. Complement the visualization of the tunnel air outlet,

portals, construction yards and construction traffic routes.

We consider the report to be incomplete in addressing the requirements defined in related Points 1, 5, 6. In the

Vajnory site it does not deal with the impairment of property of inhabitants in the Nemecká dolina-Koncové area

and the "under the cooperative" area in the Marianka municipality. The impact assessment of construction on the

residents of Vajnory and Marianka, on their health and welfare, and the added stress of an enclosed space which

the territory is getting into by being surrounded by major transportation projects is also omitted, in the case of

Vajnory by the loss of the Šúr NR recreational facility and part of the vineyards. The highway is located on the

route of the supra-regional wildlife corridor connecting the Little Carpathians with the flow of the Little Danube. It

undermines the integrity of the system of the protected areas, interferes with the internationally protected habitats

and in combination with other investment plans in the region (Cepit technology park in Vajnory, the construction

in Chorvátsky Grob and Svätý Jur) it seriously endangers the sustainability of these areas. In such a case, the work

may be allowed only be based on imperative reasons of overriding public interest relating to public health, public

safety, or the beneficial consequences of fundamental importance for the environment, or if it relates to other

imperative reasons of overriding public interest based on the statement of the European Commission. Given the

above, we require supplementing the assessment of other options before the issue of an expert opinion regarding

the Assessment Report (the Krasňany - Lamač tunnel, northern connection of D1 and D2), and demonstrating the

urgency of the reason for overriding public interest.

Marianka is the oldest pilgrimage site in Slovakia and the first Marian pilgrimage place in the entire Kingdom of

Hungary. The construction will cause the liquidation of the chapel from 1608, which is registered in the list of

monuments of the Marianka municipality. In addition, it is typical for a high visitation rate of tourists, frequent

biking trails, hiking trails and beautiful nature. The report did not adequately deal with the impact of construction

on the Vrchná hora area, which is being prepared for a declaration as a protected area. It is also missing in the

inventory of flora in this area.

In the Graphic Appendix 9 - visualization of individual options, the most needed views of the highway from the

closest residential houses in Marianka and in Vajnory are absent. Similarly, the selected Option 7c is not shown in

a close situation in the case of Marianka. Only Option 7a is shown in a detailed situation in Figure 17. Therefore,

we require finalizing the following detailed visualizations (even with the proposed compensatory measures-noise

barriers), namely:

- from the level of the current terrain from the nearest residential buildings (specifically, Karpatská Street from the

co-operative, from the Vineyards, from the highest point of Ovsisko Hill and from the access road to Marianka, so

that the residents of residential areas are informed on the altitude routing of the highway and its landscape

embodiment with the surrounding nature

- visualizations from the E-W view (from the Carpathian massif, from the western portal to the Stupava-south

intersection)

- visualizations from the Stupava - Marianka field road, which is used for recreational purposes

- likewise we require finalizing this visualization for residential areas in Vajnory

• Further we request supplementing the visualizations of air shafts from the tunnel and the portals, and further

specifying the position of building yards and traffic routes.

105

The comments to the point 9 of the scope: To analyse the impact of the proposed activity on other planned use of the

territory. To assess the impact of the individual variants on the social and economical development of the concerned

villages, in particular the restriction of the recreational utilisation of the concerned territory for winter and summer

tourism and sports (jogging, running, cross-country skiing, cycling, trekking, etc.) and the prepared project "The

Green Lungs of Bratislava" and the development of Vajnory, with the proposal of the compensatory measures. To

the point 11 of the scope: To assess the impact of the barrier effect of the proposed activity on the possibility of

passages for agricultural machinery, passengers and cyclists in the concerned territory. To assess the impact of the

proposed activity on the existing and planned cycloroutes.

The requirement is insufficiently assessed and elaborated. The proposed compensatory measures are rather of a

symbolic character. No ecoducts and alternate logic interconnection with the NPR Šúr is designed. The report

states less significant impact on fauna, flora and habitats, the landscape, climate, CHKO, which does not

correspond with the fact the highway route is located in the route of the supra-regional corridor of the Lesser

Carpathians - the Little Danube River NRBK 23 leading in parallel with the water courses of the Little Danube

River and Šúr kanál.

The elaborated did not deal with the prepared Lesser Carpathian and Šúr cycling cross road interconnecting

Vajnory and Šúr kanál dam, that continues to the city of Svätý Jur and the village of Ivanka pri Dunaji. On the

place of the planned GSI Rača, it passes above the railway to the vineyards and from that place to Bratislava.

The section between the Ivanka North - Rača intersections is used for jogging, skating, tourism and daily type of

recreation. We required to add the report by the analysis of the activities in the territory and the subsequent

serious proposal of the compensatory measures.

Also in the Western part, the construction of the highway would lead to the impairment of the recreational zone

between Stupava and Marianka, nowadays used as cycloroute.

The comments to the point 10 of the scope: To assess the barrier effect of the individual variants for the restriction

of the movement of migrating animal species, with the analysis of the impact of the restriction of the migration on

the reduction of the number of individuals in the individual populations (state the counts of the individuals of the

populations of individual migrating species) and the potential reduction of biodiversity and to propose the measures

for the minimisation of the impact.

The construction of D4 in the proposed variants creates another important barrier for animal migration that is

nowadays rather fragmented in population by the highway D2 as well as the much-frequented state roads. Even

now it often comes to the killing of game on the main road between Záhorská Bystrica and Lamač, in the way of

the natural bio-corridor. The sunken design would eliminate this undesirable phenomenon. The highway route

shall create another barrier on the Western side (Marianka) in the new West-East direction, as an addition to

already existing barrier in the North-South direction (the route I/2 Záhorská Bystrica - Stupava), namely at the

forest boundary, where the migration of animals is the most intense.

The comments to the point 13 of the scope: to assess the impacts on environment during the construction while

stating the duration of construction, with an informative specification of transport routes for construction and the

working regime. The transport routes for the construction should not load the contemporary transport

communications.

We consider the requirement to be insufficiently met, since the report states they would use all the existing

public communication during the construction. The report considers the storage of surplus excavation material

also alternatively in the existing old quarries in the wider proximity (in particular, they state the quarry in

Marianka - p.m27, Chapter B.I.3, just one possible access road in Marianka would be used for that purpose

(Karpatská street). However, the impact of the activity on the inhabitants was not assessed in details, yet we

may suppose that the impact on the given infrastructure and the inhabitants would be catastrophic.

The comments to the point 15 of the scope: To earmark the concerned territory from the point of view of the impacts

and the effects on inhabitants.

The insufficient meeting of the requirements of the assessment scope. The person elaborating the report mentions

the need of further additional studies in the case of noise, he/she plans to propose the particular compensatory

measures only on the basis of them. However, they must be presented within the given EIA stage already. In

addition, we require to up-date the projection of the built-up area of the residential zone in present time, as well as

the projection of the intended built-up area pursuant to the planning scheme of the villages (Marianka, Vajnory) for

the considered intention in details, using the scale of 1:5 000.

The comments to the point 16 of the scope: State the informative areas, where they plan to establish the construction

106

yards, dump sites and through what places the access roads should lead to them. State, where construction yards

may not be established.

To the point 17 of the scope: Describe in detail the disposal of excavated soil. State the variants of transportation

and the specification of the location where the excavated soil from the tunnel would be stored.

With regards to the mentioned alternative of storing the earth and rock material in the quarry near Marianka (p.

27) we warn that:

- a quarry is the protected deposit territory,

- reclamation is possible only after the approval of the project by all involved authorities

- reclamation must be the subject of expression of all citizens

- reclamation does not automatically mean to cover it with dead rock

- many bird species nest in older quarries

- the inhabitants of Marianka do not agree with the sheet coverage of the quarry and concentrated traffic of lorries

through the village.

The comments to the point 18 of the scope: To elaborate the noise study and dissipation study for the period during

the construction and during the operation, for day-time and night hours, to compare the obtained data with "zero"

condition and to propose the compensatory measures on this basis. To the point 26 of the scope: To state the

production of exhalates from the tunnel duct located in the mountain range and the impact of exhalates on the

surrounding nature and vineyards. To propose the compensatory measures. To the point 27 of the scope: To assess

the noise load of nature by central tunnel duct.

The comments to the noise study:

It is not clear from the presented material, what way, method was user or on the basis of what they determined the

intensities on the individual roads and the assessed highway D4.

We require to re-process the given assessment of the impact of the construction on noise load in the concerned

surroundings according to the requirements of the legislation in force in the Slovak Republic, as well as in

accordance with the procedures and method used in both the Slovak Republic and abroad for similar assessments

of impacts on environment.

a) The assessment of noise load caused by the assessed section of D4 is not carried out according to the

requirements of the Act No. 355/2007 Coll. on the protection, support and development of public health and on the

amendment and supplementation of some acts (as amended) and its implementing regulation regarding the

assessment of noise in external environment of the Regulation of the Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic No.

549/2007 Coll. on allowable values of noise, infra-noise and vibrations and on the requirements for the

objectivisation of noise, infra-noise and vibrations (as amended). According to the mentioned legal regulations,

noise in external environment is assessed for all sources for time sections of day (6.00 a.m. - 6.00 p.m.), evening

6.00 p.m. - 10.00 p.m.) and night (10.00 p.m. - 06.00 a.m.) pursuant to the given legal regulations . In the entire

work, including annexes, the noise load is assessed just for the time sections of day and night, which is in a

fundamental disaccord with the requirements of the given law. In the tables of predicted values for local calculation

points, both day and evening are stated in brackets after the information of reference time interval for the individual

variants of design. The calculated value of the equivalent value of sound level A is however always stated just one

for every point, the assessed year and variant of design, which implies the elaborated supposes the value of

equivalent sound level A is identical for time interval of day and night. However, this does not correspond to the

reality. When presenting the area noise load (the Graphic Annexes), the calculation and the display of noise load for

evening are absolutely absent. The given fact is the principal breach of the requirements stipulated in the Act No.

355/2007 Coll. and the related law for the assessment of noise caused by road transport in external environment.

Withal the elaborated refers to the fact the assessment is made in accordance with the given law.

2) The assessment of noise load is made using a mathematical modelling while using the procedure "The

Amendment in the Methodology for Calculation of Noise from Road Transport" from the elaborated Liberko, M.,

published in journal edícia Planéta 2/2005, published by the Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic.

Following the methodology is nt officially approved in the Slovak Republic for the calculation of noise spreading

out and the determination of area noise load from road traffic for the needs of the assessment of impact of noise

from road transport on health. The given procedure was not officially verified in the Slovak Republic and the values

obtained using the given procedure were not officially validated for any model situations. When using the given

procedure, it is necessary to use several non-.acoustic data and parameters when calculating noise load, the emission

value of the source of noise - road transport shall be calculated from them. In the case of their incorrect application,

misuse and incorrect selection of input data we would obtain the values of noise load that may significantly distort

the resulting data. Therefore the correct use of input parameters and data for the calculation is the decisive step for

the obtaining of reliable data. In particular when the used calculation procedure is not verified for the given model

situation by verification measurements, what is absolutely absent in the given work (the modelling and assessment

of "zero variant" without the implementation of the intention while considering just the existing roads enables such

107

verification at minimum costs). The work also does not state what input data were used by the elaborated for

calculation. The work does not state any unambiguous input parameter on the basis of which it would be possible to

verify the correctness of calculation, to confirm the correctness of the applied procedure and methodology of

solution when determining the noise load in the surroundings of a road communication. The work states 24-hour

intensities of traffic and the share of cargo transport, but it does not state the 24-hour profile of transport distribution

(at least for statutory determined day sections) that is necessary for the calculation and determination of noise load

from road transport for the individual day sections pursuant to the law referred to by elaborated in the entire work.

The work does not state what wear course were considered in the calculations. The incorrect specification of the

parameter may cause the variance in calculation of 6 and more decibels. The work also does not state how the

change in the meteorological conditions (wind direction) may affect pre predicted results. The elaborated does not

deal with the impact of meteorological conditions on the predicted results of noise load in the presented report at all

. . Withal the direction and speed of wind may affect the value of noise lad by more than 3 decibels on the particular

place of assessment (as long as we consider the wind conditions in the area of Marianka - Stupava, as well as in the

surroundings of Vajnory). The work does not state what surface was considered in the proximity of the assessed

road and thus it is not clear what are the suppression parameters of the surroundings and the impact on the obtained

data in the concerned surroundings.

3) The work does not declare the model of the concerned territory is made on the basis of altimetry with accuracy of

1 meter, which is insufficient for the assessment of the construction of such importance and in the terrain with such

variable morphology, even when considering the embedding of the assessed road communication into the terrain) ..

The work does not clearly imply the authorisation of data out of which they created the three-dimensional model

used or the prediction of noise situation that would make the results "more reliable".

4) There is not stated at least approximate estimate of the number of inhabitants in the concerned surroundings in the

report for the individual variants of design, for whom the conditions for living would be deteriorated or improved

due to the construction of the given structure for the impact of an amended noise situation (e.g. versus the "zero

variant"). When assessing the impacts on environment, such information would fundamentally clarify the suitability

or unsuitability of the proposed design for the particular territory and the suitability or unsuitability of the proposed

measures for the reduction of the unfavourable impacts on environment in the concerned surroundings. No

projection of the valid planning scheme was made in Vajnory and even in the village of Marianka., where the

residential functionality approaches the highway as close as 100 m. The impact of noise was not assessed for the

locations at all.

5) On the basis of the given facts we may state that the presented "Noise Study" that deals with the assessment of

impact of the proposed highway D4 Bratislava Ivanka North -Stupava, is not elaborated in accordance with the

requirements stipulated by the law in force in the Slovak Republic (at the time of documentation elaboration and its

submission for further approvals). The selected procedure and methodology of the determination of supposed noise

load from the assessed road communication used in the work is not in accord with the common procedures applied

for the purposes of the assessment of impacts on environment in the Slovak Republic and abroad. The work does not

state the used input data for calculation, validation of the foreseen (predicted) data is not declared and the method

used for the creation of the model used for calculation is not specified.

Several defects mentioned here were commented in the construction intention stage already. It is the waste of

public means that the person elaborating the report used the methodology invalid in the Slovak Republic also for the

report stage.

Note: In the Slovak Republic, they approved the procedure for the prediction of noise load from roads using the

prediction with the application of mathematical modelling using the procedure described in the „OŽPaZ/5459/2005,

The Special Guide of the Public Health Service Authority of the Slovak Republic, amending the procedure for the

elaboration of strategic noise maps pursuant to the requirements of the Act No .2/2005 ll. as amended. The

procedure was verified by a quantity of verification measurements for various situations of the design of roads,

various surfaces, intensities and for various locations of roads.

6) The required assessment of impact of noise on nature by the central tunnel duct was not elaborated. We require to

complete it in the next stage.

7) We require to expand the noise monitoring spots in Vajnory to the location of Nemecká dolina Valley - Koncové.

The conditions for the dispersion study:

We present the principal objection to the location of the ventilation duct on the place of the Western portal..

According to the dispersion study, the duct with 8-metre chimney should serve for the diversion of products

from both tubes of the Western part of the tunnel. This regards approximately 2.5km section of a tunnel (the

remaining exhalates shall be diverted by the central and Eastern chimney). It is very inappropriate that this

significant source of immissions is planned on the location where the highway approaches the family houses of

the inhabitants of Marianka the most. At the same time, according to the statement of the representative of HBH,

they did not considered transport from Karpatská street - the main access communication from Marianka - at all.

(This shall similarly apply also to the side of Vajnory, where they state just the highway D1 in addition to the

existing sources). Therefore we ask to shift the duct in the alternative of the prolongation of the tunnel towards

108

the intersection or in the Eastern direction, as far from the dwellings as possible, at least to the place where the

tunnel comes out from the mountain range to the surface. The location of the duct as far from the residential

zones as possible is required also for Vajnory.

We require to clarify in details the methodology of dissipation study since the consideration of prevailing wind

directions in the assessed territories (NW-SE to N-S) is not clear from the presented graphic outputs of

contaminant isolines. State what particular sources were taken into account by the study (the highway itself + the

static and mobile sources in the surroundings.) We require the study would comprise all 3 outlets from air

conditioning system (2 portal ones and a central one) in the given study within the highway assessment.

The report did not deal with the required impact of the imissions from portal duct at the East side towards the

vineyards and the contamination of grapes.

In the case of the assessment of the impact of emissions/imissions on inhabitants, we have several objections to

the used methodology of assessment, in particular within their overall quantification for the individual variants.

They are described in details in the comments in point 4.

We require to include all existing sources of noise and emissions in the dispersion and noise study, i.e. all

transport elements of road and railway network, there is also an airport in the surroundings of Vajnory... e.g. the

traffic from the main access road to Marianka and Vajnory is apparently missing. We also require to make the

assessment also on the territory with the planned and existing functionality of residential zone, incorporated in

the valid planning scheme.

The comments to the point 14 of the scope: To assess the impact of digging out the tunnel on water sources and

karst caves and to recommend the technologies for digging out that would minimise the negative impacts. To the

point 19 of the scope: To elaborate the detailed geological and hydrogeological survey with the assessment of the

impact of the proposed activity on surface water regime and ground water flow, in particular in the tunnel sections

and in Vajnory section.

To the point 20 of the scope: State the results of hydrogeological analyses of the changes in ground water flow due

to the implementation of the proposed activity.

To the point 21 of the scope: To state the analysis of the change in the height of ground water in the built-up

territory of Vajnory due to the proposed activity.

To the point 22 of the scope: To assess the functionality of the anti-flood protection of Vajnory in the case of the

implementation of the proposed activity.

To the point 23 of the scope: To assess the impact of vibrations from the proposed activity on the stability of the Šúr

kanál dam.

To the point 24 of the scope: To describe in detail the impact of the proposed activity on the rock environment and

the possible risk when digging out the tunnel on the basis of information from the IGHP.

The specific requirements of the Assessment Scope specified under numbers 14, 19-23 mutually regard the

geological and hydrogeological conditions, the impact on ground, surface waters, the method of taking away water

from road body and tunnel and indirectly thus also on the property of the inhabitants of Vajnory and Marianka, etc.

For this reason, we express ourselves to them in block.

Just geological and hydrogeological study was elaborated for the purposes of administration, it does not replace

the required detailed geological and hydrogeological survey. The requirement was not met to the required

extent. The results of detailed survey in the given geological environment may significantly affect the routing

itself , the technical design and thus also the financial costs of the proposed route.

The geological and hydrogeological characteristics are made very cursorily on the basis of the description of the

geological and hydrogeological units. The geological and hydrogeological characteristics should be assessed in

details in the given stage with regards to the complex natural conditions in the proximity of the projected

sections. The presented general characteristics does not specify the particular conditions on the route that may be

various with regards to the heterogeneity of geological environment and they may differ from the specified

characteristics. This fact has a great importance from the point of view that the route intersects various

geological and hydrogeological environments (Crystalline rock, Mesozoic, Neogene, Quaternary..,) In the case

of line structures, a detailed characteristics of environment in the individual km intervals is required, or in the

case of larger geological changes also with greater details - not only at the level of the statement of the general

hydrogeological units.

The person elaborating the report refers to the geological opinion (Geofos, 2010), however it is not the part of

the annexes to the Assessment Report. In addition, the drawing of the route - in longitudinal profile in the

geological map is absent here. We require to complement the given materials (map in the scale of 1:10 000).

The presented report does not include the quotation in the part on geological and hydrogeological conditions,

what significantly reduces its credibility.

From hydrogeological point of view it is important to assess also the vulnerability of rock environment (from

the point of view of stability and quality) as well as of ground and surface water from the point of view of

quality and quantity, which is absent in the report. Without this knowledge it is not possible to assess and select

109

the optimum variant. Without the assessment of quality of ground and surface waters that shall be the final

recipient for waste water, it is not possible to objectively assess even the proposed method of sewerage system

of the road body, including the tunnel.

At Vajnory side, the report considers the cumulation of storm water from the highway D4 running to the

existing recipients, the Lysé Lake that is the regional bio-centre and to so called dry retention reservoir that shall

be created between the body of the highway D4 (from km 2.524 as far as km 3.600) and the right-bank dam of

Šúr kanál that would be able to accumulate ca 30,000 m3 of water. The person who elaborated the report stated

smaller terrain modifications and the installation of water facilities for pumping water shall suffice. The

proposals are not assessed from the point of view of economic ad operation costs and from the point of view of

the stability of Šúr kanál dam, which was constructed in 1941-1943 as an earth dam. We require to add the

economic costs of pumping of water and the stability of Šúr kanál dam. We require to complete the analysis of

the changes in the level of ground water in the built-up territory of Vajnory and Marianka due to the proposed

activity and to thoroughly assess the functionality of the anti-flood protection of Vajnory in the case of the

implementation of the proposed activity.

From the point of view of release of waste water to ground and surface waters, it shall be necessary to assess the

particular local hydraulic properties of environment within the assessment of the possibility of intended

infiltration, as well as the concrete flow-rate conditions in surface water courses in addition to the assessment of

quality. For example,in the section on water disposal from the road- p. 35, Chapter B. 11.2 they consider the

infiltration to subsoil and in the sections around Vajnory and Svätý Jur {the section of km 4.5-6.0), located in the

environment of proluvial and deluvial sediments (that have mainly the character of little permeable cohesive

sediments - clays, gravel clays in the surface levels to 3.0 m, in greater depths of 3.0-5.0 m also the character of

gravels, however rather loamy ones). Furthermore, the level of ground water is rather shallowly under the

surface, ca 2.0-3.0 m under the terrain which considerably restricts or even excludes the possibility of considered

infiltration...

The insufficient notion of the geological and hydrogeological conditions and the missing information on the

particular technical design (as from the road body itself, the tunnel and sewerage system) lead to the non-

objective assessment of the individual variants.

In the case of digging out the tunnel, it shall be necessary to consider also the potential tributary of ground

The particular impact on ground and surface waters shall subsequently condition also the demands for

monitoring system of ground and surface waters during and after the construction of the route.

The resulting comparison of the impacts of the individual variants on rock environment and ground and surface

water is very general and not well arranged, it is hiding behind a scape, the criteria and limit values of which are

not explained in details again.

We have not got and answer to the impact on hydrological regime of springs and karst waters. They did not

assess the impact on the spring of Vydrica Brook and the impact on the spring of the Saint Well in the village of

Marianka. Furthermore, the impact of the construction on the flow rate and the quality of the Rakový potok

Brook, the Fandlovský potok Brook and the Fofovský potok Brook that supply the NPR Šúr with water inflow,

furthermore the impact of the construction of the flow rate and quality of the Mariánsky potok Brook, the

Račiansky potok Brook, the Podhájsky potok Brook, the Strúha Brook and Šúr kanál that are considered to be

the final recipient when discharging waste water. Similarly, quality and hydraulic parameters of rock subsoil in

the considered sections of direct infiltration into the subsoil are not assessed in details. We require to supplement

the given information on the basis of results of geological survey works.

The report does not deal with the assessment of seismic and tectonic risks. The person elaborating the report

confirmed during the public discussion on12.5.2011 in Lozorno that they consider the overall ending of waste

water from the tunnel in Marianka. a The fact was not especially mentioned and assessed in the report . We

require to technically specify the given information in detail.

In addition to the above required surveys in the highway route (the geological and hydrogeological survey), we

recommend also the execution of geophysical survey - the assessment of seismic and tectonic risks.

According to the achieved results of the given surveys, it shall be necessary to propose and implement the

compensatory measures.

The comments to the points 29 of the scope: To introduce the map of ÚSES into the graphic annexes with the

location of regional and supra-regional bio-corridors.

To the point 30 of the scope: To introduce the projection of valid planning schemes of Bratislava, the municipal

parts of Bratislava and the affected villages into the graphic annexes.

The report does not comprises the individual annex of the elements of USES, what was indirectly proved also by

the person drawing up the report at the public discussion in Bratislava. The graphic annex 3 is not complete, it

lacks all the important elements of USES - in particular the supra-regional bio-corridor of NRBK 23 leading in

parallel with water courses of the Little Danube River and Šúr kanál, in the route of which the proposed highway

is located. We require to complete the assessment of the impact on the Territorial System of. Ecological Stability

110

as the consequence of the restriction of the parameters of supra-regional bio-corridor due to the impact of highway

and to complete the map of´USES pursuant to the methodology valid in the Slovak Republic. The requirement in

point 29 was not thus met.

The requirement in point 30 was not met. The graphic annex 6 does not comprise the projection of valid planning

schemes of the city of Bratislava and its municipal parts, the city of Svätý Jur and the villages of Chorvátsky Grob

and Marianka. I consider this to be a principal defect. This implies also the incorrect conclusions of the report as

for the impact on health of the affected villages, the impact of noise on the development territory, the devaluation

of the property of citizens, etc. The report even does not deal with the planned transport routes of regional

importance, which distorts the conclusions of the zero design as well as the directional traffic load, for example

from Chorvátsky Grob through Vajnory to the city. Civil protection of the inhabitants of Vajnory is not completed

, nowadays the exit route towards the NPR Šúr is intended for them.

We require the projection of the built-up area of residential zone in the present time as well as the projection of the

considered built-up area pursuant to the planning scheme of the concerned villages (Marianka. Vajnory) to be

completed for the considered intention in details, using the scale of 1:5 000, as it was already mentioned in the

comments to point 15.

The comments to the point 36 of the scope: To assess the impacts of the highway on hunting regions in the

concerned territory.

The assessment of the impact on hunting regions states in Chapter C.III.16: "its significant division and

impairment of continuity", while the multi-criteria assessment state on contrary to the statement that the impact

on fauna, flora and habitats is without a significant intervention, which is a direct conflict.

The comments to the point 40 of the scope: To assess the impact of the highway on the Vrchná hora and Vajnorská

hora locations.

The person elaborating the report omitted the fact of the planned declaration of the protected area of Vrchná hora

and he/she did not assess the impact of the structure on the protected territory in detail, also the inventory of flora

is missing - there are rare plant species there.

Conclusion:

According to us, the presented report does not meet the whole range of statutory conditions. It does not justify the

already mentioned purpose of the construction itself, namely the diversion of transit transportation. It does not have

the sufficient conclusive and informative ability for the objective comparison of the assessed variants. It assessed the

impacts on environment and the inhabitants themselves in insufficient way. The part of the carried out assessment of

impact on inhabitants (the noise study) is not elaborated in accordance with the valid legislation, which is the

principal breach of the requirements stipulated in the Act No. 355/2007 and the related law for the assessment of

noise in external environment and thus it reduces its informative value.

It does not provide responses to many specific requirements stated in the assessment scope. Instead of this, the EIA

replaces the obligatory parts by expressions that the individual and particular impacts shall be finally dealt with in

the next stage by additional studies (e.g. the detailed geological and hydrogeological survey, the specification of

particular anti-noise measures). However, the achieved results in the given environment (the variability of

geological and hydrogeological conditions) shall affect the technical, time demandingness and thus directly also the

financial valuation of the given structure(the mining and excavation works, the taking away of waste water, potential

tributaries of ground, karst water, etc.)

The ambiguity of the particular geological and hydrogeological conditions and thus also the ambiguity of the impact

of the proposed technical solution on the selected components of environment (the rock environment, ground and

surface water from the point of view of quantity and quality) thus even does not allow the acceptance of the

presented economic costs of investments that may significantly differ from the given estimates.

The principal problem of the presented report is the insufficient description of the purpose of the structure and its

thorough traffic justification. Despite that the statement the tunnel should deal with the transit transportation (the

report states the transport should be routed to the Czech Republic and Hungary), they rather significantly argue by

the relief of a traffic situation in Bratislava, which is not supported by objective traffic analyses in the report. As

long as the objective of the investment is also the relief of traffic in Bratislava, it shall be necessary to equivalently

assess also the variant of Krasňany-Lamač route more to the South. The argument the variant represents the route of

a city communication shall not hold water. The route of Marianka - Vajnory variant is also the re-classified original

route of the city zero circuit to the highway one, approximately 6 years ago.

Annexes:

Fig. 1 - The possibility of the lowering of the highway route for Marianka

The paper with the signatures of citizens who agree with the standpoint of the civil association.

Dušan Statelov – Director of the Civil Association

Civic Association (further refered to as „OZ“) Malé Karpaty (letter dated 15.7.2011, supplement)

We supplement the following points to our statement on the submitted EIA. In case of contradiction, the supplement

replaces the statement.

111

We request:

1) Return of EIA to the submitter for rewriting, or change of the elaborated (due to violation of the applicable laws).

2) Given the fact that the quality of the submitted EIA does not respond to the scale of the largest investment in the

region in terms of importance of the construction impact on the environment and population and does not take into

account comments raised in the long term by parties involved in the proceedings to this construction, we require

rewriting of the submitted EIA.

3) Taking into account comments from Marianka community to the EIA intention from 2008, as well as statements

from communities of Marianka and Borinka from 2007.

4) Inclusion of the option D4 Lamač – Vajnory route, proposed in comments to the EIA intention from 2008 (point

II.b), and also the Lamač – Vajnory route in the city semicircle route to the assessed options, as well as D4 Lamač –

Vajnory route interconnection with city semicircle Lamač – Krasňany route.

5) Clear justification of the purpose and the justness of the construction from the transport point of view. Indication

of the city and transit traffic proportion and freight and passenger transport proportion with using of toll system data.

Commented in the statement to the EIA Intention in 2008 (point II.a). D4 on the Austrian side joins the expressway

S8 and not the highway network.

6) In options of the route leading through Marianka, we require level arrangement change of D4 intersection with

the state road I /2 so that the highway D4 will be conducted bellow state road I/2 and not above as it is at present.

This will reduce the highway route by 11metres and enable under level conduction of the whole D4 highway section

in Marianka to the intersection. Section embedding was already required by Marianka community in 2008 in the

process of EIA Intention.

7) We reject options with the above level conduction of the highway on the mound! The given request was

mentioned in the statement of Marianka and Borinka communities as of 24.07.2007 as well as in the statement of

Marianka community to the EIA intention in 2008 (point II.b). Therefore, the argument of the project

documentation elaborated that it is currently not possible to change the project as the feeder and associated junction

construction is being completed, is unjustified. The project designer and investor had almost 4 years to finalize the

documentation for the given construction, in order to fulfil the request for “embedding of the highway in the

affected residential zone area” bellow the existing terrain.

8) Displacement of air pollutant exhausts to the state road I/2 intersection.

9) We require, for the section II. so-called D4 Ivanka-North – Stupava, to begin building solely after the completion of D4 to D1

connection on the east side.

10) In order to protect the population and the nature during the construction, we require preferential building of the section from

the portal to the min. 16,7 km, or to the intersection with the state road I/2 (embedded part beyond the west portal) in order to

restore the migratory routes and to obtain protection of the population from the noise, dust and emissions during the tunnel

building, as soon as possible. This corridor will serve the traffic during the tunnel building and will not burden public access

roads to the community and in the Marianka community itself. We require keeping the time for completion of this section to the

minimal extent and at maximum of 1 year.

11) We do not agree with postponing of our comments incorporation to the following stages of documentation. We require

incorporating all comments at this stage of EIA revision, not in the subsequent documentation stages, such as planning

permission, building permission.

Dušan Statelov – Civic Association Chairman.

NDS a.s., statement to the above mentioned OZ Malé Karpaty requirements (letter dated 16.8.2011)

OZ Malé Karpaty request:

1. Return of EIA to the submitter for redrafting, or change of the elaborated (due to violation of the

applicable laws)

NDS statement:

1. No applicable laws have been violated during the EIA process. Preparation and the assessment of the proposed

options of highway D4 Ivanka north – Záhorská Bystrica was guided by the current legislation, as it is in case of

other highway constructions. According to the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. of Laws on the assessment of the

environmental impact, the EIA Intention has been drawn, comments on it were – after a technical follow up on the

feasibility and effectiveness study – taken, assessed, evaluated in the EIA Report. If OZ Malé Karpaty has any

knowledge of law violation by the contractor, it should be stated. Change of the elaborated is unjustified. OZ Malé

Karpaty certainly observes the legislative framework for procurement under the Act No. 25/2006 Coll. of Laws on

public procurement. The successful tenderer is professionally qualified company as are its employees, who prepared

the Report on assessing the impacts on the environment.

2. Given the fact that the quality of the submitted EIA does not respond to the scale of the largest investment

in the region in terms of importance of the construction impact on the environment and population and does

not take into account comments raised in the long term by parties involved in the proceedings to this

112

construction, we require redrafting of the submitted EIA

2. Quality of the submitted EIA report definitely corresponds to the quality of the largest road investment in the

region. If it was not so, the EIA Report would be returned to the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak republic

(further referred to as “MŽP SR”) for redrafting or completion within the statutory period, § 31, sec.3 of Act No.

24/2006 Coll. of Laws on the assessment of the environmental impact (not later than 7 days) since receiving of the

Report to MŽP SR. The Report was delivered to MŽP SR on 09.03.2011. The significance of the impact of

construction on the environment and the population was in detail assessed and evaluated in the EIA Report. Given

these (long term) comments on the EIA Intention, as indicated in the scope of assessment (furthermore referred to as

“RH”) – assessment of conducting of highway embedded under the terrain (Vajnory, Marianka), assessment

requirement of new option, etc. – it was not possible, following the Intention preparation to ensure the EIA Report,

since the EIA process (Intention and Report) addresses the impacts of future building on the environment and

assesses the sustainability of the technically designed work (in this case technically resolved options of the highway)

in the region.

Technical solutions are designed by project designers, technical experts, transport engineers, economists, etc., who

possess education and professional competence for this kind of work. The process of environmental impact

assessment is also evaluated by experts on the environment, the fauna and flora, etc. who also have education and

professional competence required for this kind of activity. As the comments set out in the scope of evaluation were

of technical nature, it was necessary to ensure and to technically resolve required height changes for conducting the

highway at Vajnory and in Marianka and also to technically design – NEW route through Carpathians in direction

Senec – Pezinok – Lozorno (SPL,. requested in RH.

All these technical “completions” were ensured by NDS according to Act no. 25/2006 Coll. of Laws on public

procurement, by invitation to tender for development of technical background – Study of the feasibility and

effectiveness of the D4 highway, in which reasonable requirements from the RH will be addressed. Company

Dopravoprojekt, a.s. Bratislava, which became the winner of the tender for the development of the Study of the

feasibility and effectiveness of the D4 highway, carried out the study in 2009.

Designed technical solution was the basis for EIA Report. In this specific section, it was for example solution for

highway embedding under the terrain in Marianka and in Vajnory – options 2b, 7b a 7c, tunnel extension in

Marianka, proposal of new route of passage of D4 through Carpathians (SPL option).

When the summary is done: EIA Report assessed ALL REASONABLE requirements raised by the participants of

the proceeding in the course of throughout preparation of D4 highway Ivanka north – Záhorská Bystrica and also

requirements set out in RH.

3. Taking into account comments from Marianka community to the EIA intention from 2008, as well as

statements from communities of Marianka and Borinka from 2007

3. Comment from Marianka community to the EIA Intention from 2008 was, extending of tunnel by portal overlay

in Marianka and of highway route at the mouth of the tunnel. The following conditions are fulfilled:

In option 2b, 7b and 7c is tunnel extension in Marianka by about 600 meters (to 15,200 km).

Highway route after the exit from the Carpathians tunnel is in the following continuation led in the kerf, i.e. 4 meters

UNDER terrain, in another continuation 2metres UNDER the terrain (in total length by about 380 meters). Western

portal of the tunnel is extended and the highway route IS at the mouth of the tunnel embedded under the terrain.

All these options were in the EIA report assessed and evaluated.

Borinka community has not agreed with the option 3, which was omitted from further consideration, therefore it was

not assessed in the EIA Report.

4. Inclusion of the option D4 Lamač – Vajnory route, proposed in comments to the EIA intention from 2008

(point II.b), and also the Lamač – Vajnory route in the city semicircle route to the assessed options, as well as

D4 Lamač – Vajnory route interconnection with city semicircle Lamač – Krasňany route.

4. Since 2008, it was explained at all meetings that the D4 highway is being solved in route of the zero circuit and

the city semi-circle with outlet in Lamač is building in the competence of the Magistrate of Capital City of Slovakia

– Bratislava and IS NOT subject to D4 highway solutions. The same applies to Lamač – Krasňany interconnection.

Each of the routes (D4 highway and the city semi-circle) is planned and prepared for different kind of transport. The

city semi-circle is the Magistrate of Capital City of Slovakia – Bratislava investment.

This requirement is not justified.

5. Clear justification of the purpose and the justness of the construction from the transport point of view.

Indication of the city and transit traffic proportion and freight and passenger transport proportion with

using of toll system data. Commented in the statement to the EIA Intention in 2008 (point II.a). D4 on the

Austrian side joins the expressway S8 and not the highway network.

5. Transport was drafted in detail in the Study of the feasibility and effectiveness as a separate part with regard to all

113

activities in the region. Since this study was the technical basis for the EIA Report, the transport part was taken from

it.

The need for Bratislava bypass was considered as transport-justified construction.

The road network of the capital city of Bratislava is due to its location, expanse and development characterized by

high increase of traffic congestion. It is a fact that Bratislava is crossed by three multi-modal transport corridors

(corridor no. IV., V., VI.) and the Danube shipping corridor, which are source of the transit traffic.

Bratislava as the capital is the source as well as destination for car traffic. High congestion at the entries to the city is

also caused by extensive sub region called “Great Bratislava” from which high number of residents commutes to the

city for work, education and other activities. The resettlement trend of urban population to the countryside increases

this effect. Congestion across the city network to which transit traffic is often carried over is not conductive to the

continuous transport operation in the region.

D4 highway around the city will significantly help to solve the current transport problems. The contribution will be

mainly in diverting of the transit traffic in direction to Austria, Hungary and Czech Republic. It will also

significantly contribute to the operation of the affected area and unload the surrounding communities from the

transit traffic.

D4 highway will accumulate all kinds of transport i.e. transit, source, destination as well as inner city transport,

because it is conducted in the position of the cadastral boundary of the capital city Bratislava. The subsequent stages

of the project preparation (DÚR, DSP) will also include transport section, which will always update transport

information. Data in DÚR will be based on the 2010 census as well as the latest outcomes from the toll system.

While preparing the documentation for planning permission, building permit, the transport section will be updated

with regard to the results of the national traffic census in 2010, also taking into account other traffic data, for

example toll system.

Yes, the D4 highway on the Austrian side joins the expressway S8, which is part of the outer road ring around

Vienna. From the wider transport relations viewpoint, D4 highway connects Slovakia with highway networks and

expressways in Austria. With category arrangement of the Austrian expressway S8 is the same as our D4 highway

and that is category 26,5 / 120.

6. In options of the route leading through Marianka, we require level arrangement change of D4 intersection

with the state road I /2 so that the highway D4 will be conducted bellow state road I/2 and not above as it is at

present. This will reduce the highway route by 11metres and enable under level conduction of the whole D4

highway section in Marianka to the intersection. Section embedding was already required by Marianka

community in 2008 in the process of EIA Intention.

6. Height conducting of D4 highway at the Záhorská Bystrica intersection (D4 above the I/2 road) is given due to

the terrain conditions in the area since the beginning of the preparation of the entire D4 highway route. This height

conducting connects not only to the D4 Ivanka North – Záhorská Bystrica section, but also to the D4 Devínska Nová

Ves – state border Slovak Republic/ Austrian Republic section. D4 highway in Záhorská Bystrica – Devínska Nová

Ves section (known under the working title as Stupava South intersection) was handed over in half profile to the use

to motoring public on 01.08.2011.

While preparing the mentioned construction, which was handed over into operation, during the preparation the

concerned state and local authorities expressed their concerns to the height conduction of the highway above the

crossing road I/2, no comments were raised from the concerned subjects.

It is necessary to contact the Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic

(further referred to as „MDVRR SR”) with the request for change of D4 highway and I/2 road at the Záhorská

Bystrica intersection.

Its demolition and building of the new one in required height configuration could be from our point of view

considered as sabotage or obstruction of the financial funds from the state budget.

The requested change cannot be justified even by that this build up work is new solution that NDS “invented”

because as it is build it is in the urban plan of the Marianka community, the Magistrate of Capital City of Slovakia –

Bratislava and also higher territorial unit (further referred to as “VÚC) of Bratislava for at least 25 years.

Embedding of the highway route as requested by the Marianka community in 2008 to the EIA Intention is

incorporated in the EIA Report: at the exit of the highway from the tunnel portal in cadastral area of Marianka, the

D4 highway is in the 6 meters depth and in the further continuation the highway is in the 2 meters depth under the

terrain. On the terrain – on the mound it ascends only for the length of 150 meters, in order to cross the lane which is

in the ravine, without collision.

7. We reject options with the above level conduction of the highway on the mound! The given request was

mentioned in the statement of Marianka and Borinka communities as of 24.07.2007 as well as in the

statement of Marianka community to the EIA intention in 2008 (point II.b). Therefore, the argument of the

project documentation elaborated that it is currently not possible to change the project as the feeder and

associated junction construction is being completed, is unjustified. The project designer and investor had

almost 4 years to finalize the documentation for the given construction, in order to fulfil the request for

114

“embedding of the highway in the affected residential zone area” bellow the existing terrain.

7. The EIA process requires assessing option solutions. It is the right of every concerned subject to incline towards

solution that suits them. By assessing of the options of the viability in the area from all points of view, the

elaborated suggests option which is best for the population and the environment. Requirements of the Marianka and

Borinka communities dated 24.5. 2007 were summarized into 8 points: NDS has responded to this letter on

4.6.2007. These were the main comments: Lamač-Rača tunnel requirement we explained in our answer, highway

omitting in Borinka area was fulfilled by RH issuance. Option 3, which crossed the Borinka cadastral area was not

in the assessment scope (issued by MŽP SR) required for further assessment, therefore in the EIA Report it was not

assessed. Tunnel portal extension by about 600 meters and its reduction under the terrain was fulfilled in the Study

of the feasibility and effectiveness and subsequently assessed in the EIA Report. In the statement, reduction by

2metres under the terrain is required and in the Report the highway options 7b and 7c are reduced at the tunnel exit

by 4 meters under the terrain. Passage for migratory animals is dealt with in the EIA Report (we attach copy of the

letter as of 24.05. 2007 and the NDS answer).

In the statement of the Marianka community from 2008, to the EIA Intention, point II.b), I quote: to add new option

resulting from option 7 on the east side, with under level conducting towards intersection with state road in Stupava.

In case D4 will not be conducted under level we will not agree with route location.

This requirement is considered in the Study of the feasibility and effectiveness by proposal and in the report about

assessing of embedded options (7b, 7c). We attach statement to the Intention from 2008.

Technical documentation designer did not say that change of the project at present is not possible. The designer said

that if sub amendment in the highway route conducting is made (for example little deeper embedding of the highway

under the terrain or highway sift) it is possible, but after documentation elaboration for planning permit, if it is

included in the conditions from the Concluding statement. He also said that when requiring change of Záhorská

Bystrica intersection level solutions (road I/2 above terrain and highway D4 on the terrain) it would be necessary to

demolish the whole Záhorská Bystrica intersection and to “lift” the I/2 road above the terrain and it would be

necessary to begin at Záhorská Bystrica petrol station and on the same length in direction to Bratislava. This

solution would have to be subsequently technically verified and approved by MDVRR SR Marianka community did

not have any comments to the territorial proceedings of this highway building (Stupava south intersection)in

individual preparation stages (granting planning permission and building permit) and to height solution , which is

today build up (road I /2 on the terrain and D4 highway above the terrain).

Construction of D4 highway Ivanka North - Záhorská Bystrica, and also D4 Záhorská Bystrica – Devínska Nová

Ves is PART of the whole D4 highway route, where individual buildings are connected with common intersections.

In this case Záhorská Bystrica intersection is common connection of Ivanka North – Záhorská Bystrica and

Záhorská Bystrica – Devínska Nová Ves.

Preparation of highway construction D4 Záhorská Bystrica – Devínska Nová Ves was prepared in advance, that is

why it is handed over to operation in half profile.

After elaboration of Intention of D4 highway Ivanka North – Záhorská Bystrica (Stupava) technical solution was

necessary for highway embedding under the terrain – according to Marianka community requirements. This was

solved in the Study of the feasibility and effectiveness, as already mentioned above. Therefore we have worked on it

for 4 years. To put the whole highway under the terrain (into tunnel) was requested at public discussion of EIA

Report.

8. Displacement of air pollutant exhausts to the state road I/2 intersection

8. I tis possible to put as comment for solution in documentation for urban planning

9. We require, for the section II. so-called D4 Ivanka-north – Stupava, to begin building solely after the completion of D4 to

D1 connection on the east side.

9. Construction of D4 highway Jarovce – Ivanka North connects to construction D4 highway Ivanka North – Záhorska Bystrica

in interception Ivanka North, which is interception for two motorways – D4 and D1.

Considering the traffic congestion caused by vehicle passing from the east direction right through Vajnory, town district Vajnory

requires to extend the construction of D4 highway Jarovce – Ivanka North to the „Rača“ intersection (crossing of the D4

highway with II/502 road).

According to the current plan of the investment preparation, the first construction to be realized will be D4 Jarovce – Ivanka

North (resp. Rača) and subsequently construction of Ivanka North (resp. Rača) – Záhorská Bystrica, after connection of D4 and

D1 motorways will already be done.

10. In order to protect the population and the nature during the construction, we require preferential building of the section

from the portal to the min. 16,7 km, or to the intersection with the state road I/2 (embedded part beyond the west portal) in

115

order to restore the migratory routes and to obtain protection of the population from the noise, dust and emissions during the

tunnel building, as soon as possible. This corridor will serve the traffic during the tunnel building and will not burden public

access roads to the community and in the Marianka community itself. We require keeping the time for completion of this

section to the minimal extent and at maximum of 1 year.

10. Construction of the highway will be done with respect to the close proximity to the built up areas and maximum protection of

the population from the adverse impacts of the construction.

What section, from which side will be done first, will result from the construction organization plan (further referred as „POV“)

of the whole construction. Construction time (required max 1 year) will depend on the terrain complexity, construction

technology and other factors affecting the construction length.

11. We do not agree with postponing of our comments incorporation to the following stages of documentation. We require

incorporating all comments at this stage of EIA revision, not in the subsequent documentation stages, such a s planning

permission, building permission.

11. Comments raised at public discussions are of technical nature and due to project preparation it is possible to verify and

incorporate them in documentation for planning permit. It is not possible for the environmental experts – EIA Report elaborated,

to begin the highway projecting. It should be designed by technicians that have the required education and professional ability.

NDS has never, without any reason, postponed comments incorporation to „some” later stages of project documentation, but the

process for the motorways preparation, and not only for motorways is according to the current legislation ALWAYS the same.

To incorporate comments in the EIA process is unjustified requirement.

Conclusion: We require EIA redrafting according to above mentioned comments

Conclusion:

Rewriting or completion of the EIA Report, required by MŽP SR, that can do so within the statutory period, pursuant to § 31 sec.

3 of the Act. No. 24/2006 Coll. Of Laws on the assessment of the environmental impact (not later than 7 days) since receiving of

the Report by MŽP SR. The Report was received by MŽP SR on 9.3.2011. MŽP SR did not do so. MŽP SR circulated the Report

for statements, comments, as basis for public discussion with concerned state authorities and local governments and the public.

It is not possible to rewrite the EIA Report according to the above mentioned comments that are of technical nature. Technical

solutions would have to be designed by the EIA Report authors, who are not project designers, but knowledgeable

environmentalists.

The further stage of technical documentation is preparation of documentation for planning permission. In this documentation,

justified requirements and comments noted in the EIA process, can be considered, which will be stated in the concluding

statement.

OZ Malé Karpaty statement in the letter conclusion is unprofessional, incompetent and unrealistic.

Ing. Victoria Chomová – Investment Director, Member of the Board of Directors.

OZ Morava River in danger (letter dated 17.5.2011)

Let me respond in the reaction to subject matter about assessment, that our civic association does not agree with this report and

submits these comments:

Assessment report in number of points does not fulfil the scope of assessment under no. 7155/08 – 3.4/ml as

of 18. 7. 2008 and evaluation of the expected impacts is according to § 3 NR SR law Act. No. 24/2006 Coll.

of Laws, not complete and comprehensive. For example geological and hydrogeological surveys are

missing, required in point 19. In point 20, it was required to state the results of the hydrogeological

analysis of underground water flow changes.

According to § 6 of the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. Of Laws, if several proposed activities in the operational or

spatial context, their common assessment is possible. D4 highway from Jarovce section to Devínska Nová

Ves section was divided into four separate sections that were separately taken out of the context, assessed

already since 2011. Not all concerned communities were involved in assessment of the neighboring

sections that affected the route conduction and caused unfulfillment of citizen requirements for healthy

environment in their residential area. The right for healthy environment is included in the Constitution of

the Slovak Republic. Route conduction in Stupava South intersection above the I/2 road, affected route

conduction also for conjoining section in the cadastral area of Marianka Community that was assessed

independently and where citizens required route conduction in the kerf. Un-involvement of concerned

communities in the assessment of all sections is contrary to the Act. No. 24/2006 Coll. Of Laws.

First section of D4 highway to be assessed was section of D4 highway intersection DNV II/505-intresection

Stupava South, which subsequently predetermined route conducting to the west as well as east, without

directly addressing of the concerned communities in these conjoining sections.

In the evaluation report the purpose of the construction is defined unclearly and contradictorily. The

purpose of the construction in chapter A / ll / 2 the relief of Bratislava from freight transport is mentioned.

In defining the criteria for the selection of options in chapter C / V. it is stated and emphasized in

particular the impossibility of further urbanization of the area. We consider this fact as extremely

important that not only calls into question the very purpose of the construction, but also the option choice,

as there are no clear criteria according to which the construction is planned. Currently the regional

transport generel of the Bratislava Self-Governing Region is being acquired, which is to comprehensively

116

evaluate the traffic in region territory. We believe that the EIA process for transport constructions should

follow after processing of the generel and analysing of transport needs and priorities of the region, it

highlights the non-conceptual NDS, a.s. approach

Transit traffic on the Lafranconi Bridge according to the elaborated’s data 69,631 car. / 24 hrs. 12.3% of

freight (2008). On page 22 Traffic-engineering documents it is stated in 2020 after building construction

64,589 vehicles / 24 hr., of which 16.26% for other vehicles, which also includes trucks. In the transport

survey statement of overload of Lafranconi Bridge already in 2015 without investment building. However

even if it is build, according to the available data, the overload will appear in about seven years since its

completion. Delay through city caused by passenger transport will therefore continue after the completion

of the D4 highway and lead to collapse on the Lafranconi Bridge also caused by the freight!!! Other

sections in the northwestern part of Bratislava appear to be similar.

It is necessary to solve transportation within Bratislava environmentally - support railways, public

transport (further referred to as “MHD”) and integrated public transport (further referred to as “IMHD”)

and other transport measures such as construction of inner city roads (inner city semicircle Lamač -

Galvani extension). We disagree with the building of the D4 highway without further measures, without

which in the northwestern part of Bratislava increase in transport (bringing traffic also from Austria) will

appear without systemic solutions. We require to take these binding measures and to declare together with

the provision of financial resources before building the D4 highway.

Circling of the traffic on the D4 highway and argument about sections interdependence has no traffic-

engineering justification. The semi-circle conducted in the capital city Bratislava territorial plan, with an

outlet in Lamač and on the other side, in the wider city centre solves serving of city with wider city centre

areas more effectively for passenger transport, while D4 address mainly freight transport and its diversion

out of town as indicated the purpose of the construction. As indicated above not even diversion of freight

transport is not efficient enough, and after launching the investment it will not relieve northwest from

freight.

Not all ÚSES elements are graphically represented. The regional bio-corridor led through Šursky kanál is

missing.

Mgr. Róbert Bardač – Executive Director

Basic organization SZZ 6-62 Stupava-Zlatá Hora (letter dated 19.5.2011)

We found out with regret that when assessing the impact of the D4 highway bypass on the environment we have not

been addressed. Our garden settlements are located in the cadaster Stupava-Mást in direct contact with the highway

bypass (which is situated east of the garden settlement).

Our principal requirements:

1 / We require the maximum possible embedding of the highway under the surface to minimize noise directly to our

garden settlements.

2 / We require unconditionally to ensure access to our garden settlement from Marianka community side (we

assume tunnelling solution - one tube).

3 / We require safe access to our garden settlements during the construction time and after the construction is

finished to restore quality road connectivity of the garden settlement from the Marianka community side (turning of

the Karpatska street at the bus stop in direction to Stupava).

Mgr. Nicholas Mojzeš – Chairman of the Basic organization

NDS, a.s. statement to the above mentioned requirements ZO SZZ 6-62 Stupava-Zlatá Hora

(letter dated 30.5.2011) To your letter dated 19. 05. 2011, by which you notified us that you were not addressed when assessing D4 highway, Ivanka

North-Záhorská Bystrica we announce:

When organizing public discussion, according to the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. of Laws on the environmental impact assessment we

have addressed all the affected communities. As you write, your gardening settlement is located in the cadastral territory Stupava

– Mást and Municipal Authority in Stupava knew that the public discussion of the Report on the assessment of the suburban

highway on the environment will be held in Lozorno for the Marianka,Stupava and Lozorno communities. All civil or local

authorities should communicate this fact to all concerned subjects in its cadaster.

To your principal requirements:

1. The highway was partially embedded below the terrain to protect residents from noise. On the basis of the same requirements

of Marianka citizens, in the next stage of the project documentation – in documentation for territorial decision the possibility of

conducting the highway in such a way so that traffic noise will bother the population in its vicinity in the least possible way, will

be studied.

2. By law all access roads that are interrupted by construction of the highway must be enabled in such way as they were before

the construction of the highway. If you have an access road to a garden settlement from the Marianka community, you will also

117

have the access after the highway construction.

3. During the construction the access to the garden settlement will be granted.

We have sent copy of your letter to the MŽP SR, where it was necessary to send your comments and requests, and we also sent it

to the to Stupava civil authority.

Finally, we would like to remind you that the upcoming D4 highway is conducted in the corridor of the former Bratislava zero

circuit, which is in the Bratislava territorial plan as well as territorial plans of communities known to be affected for at least 25

years. Also all of you who established the garden settlement in Stupava cadaster - Mást surely knew that in this location there

would eventually be built higher category road. Prime circuit should have been high-speed communications, today it is a

highway.

Ing. Victoria Chomová - Investment Director, Member of the Board of Directors

Dušan Statelov, Bratislava (letter dated 05.20.2011)

Statement is identical with the statement of OZ Malé Karpaty dated 20.5.2011.

Dušan Statelov, Bratislava, e-mail (letter dated 08.21.2011).

Re-application for sending of audio recordings of public discussion and providing of Study of effectiveness and feasibility.

Mgr. Milan Hudeček, PhD., Marianka (letter dated 05.12.2011)

In particular, we appreciate that based on the assessment recommendation of option with extended tunnel and conduction

through the kerf and not on the mound, is recommended. However we solidly support the Senec - Pezinok – Lozorno option, or

other option solutions. Options 2a and 7a (with the highway conducted on the mound) are absolutely unacceptable for us and we

demand their exclusion from further consideration. We have no objections to 7c option in that we consider the sound insulation

as insufficient and there is no protection against emissions. Therefore we require finalization of option with overlay and

coverage with soil to the Záhorská Bystrica intersection.

At the same time we express our most definitive protest against formulation of chapter Brief description of impacts, according to

which "... ... variant 7c... its impact on the population directly affected is acceptable." Allow me little analysis of this situation

and of this statement. In the overwhelming majority here (in the area mostly affected by the highway) live people who put all

their means to the housing and will pay their mortgages for a long time to come. We moved here from Bratislava noise because

of quiet and healthy environment. When you build motorways under our windows that will roar at "only" 45 dB we are finding

ourselves in the environment from which we fled here. Even less savvy person will realize that our properties will become

unmarketable (anyone is lacking any motive to move here), or it will only be possible to sell, well below the price. Net result -

highway will deprive them directly of their money, quiet and environment, because of which they have invested their life savings

or it will deprive them of their money in selling their real estate below the price. If this is "acceptable impact on the population

directly affected", then it will certainly also be acceptable to pay us acceptable compensation. And I assure you that in that case

we will definitely seek compensation through the courts.

Mgr. Katarína Tupá, Bratislava (letter dated 10.5.2011)

I submit this statement to the MŽP SR as one of the many citizens who while realizing of their lifetime investment

and ensuring better quality housing and living conditions, not only for the present time, but especially for the future,

chose the Marianka community.

Not only for this group of citizens the implementation of the above mentioned project represents, as I was

acquainted with it recently, a huge impact to their rights and to peaceful enjoyment of their property while their

health is being threatened as well, in particular the underlying deterioration of the environment (already during the

construction ) and property (in particular any possible land shocks and landslides), in the manner and to the extent

that this project did not take into account at all, or did not consider in sufficient extent, same as it did not, or only

inadequately sorted out with the justification and assessment of the recommended option.

In this regard I dispute the following facts:

The submitted report about assessment is insufficient in terms of the content; the quality does not match the extent

of the expected investment and does not include a thorough assessment of the project's impact on the environment.

I consider the evaluation of the effects of the selected option on the environment, which is evaluated as "slightly

positive" to "strongly negative" for the prime option, which has no impact on the environment, as unjustified and

purposeful.

It seems to me that at given EIA stage specific evaluation is necessary for individual impacts on the environment

and specific population groups. The assessment report does not include such an evaluation at all.

I am pointing out that the assessment report lacks some surveys clearly defined in the scope of the assessment. It

does not contain specific compensatory measures with an assessment of their actual effects on the improvement of

the situation. These mandatory parts are compensated in the assessment report by statements that it "can be solved",

which is at this stage of the assessment inadmissible and, in my view, also contrary to the law.

The fundamental problem of the submitted assessment report is insufficient description of the purpose of the

construction and the absence of a thorough transport justification.

Despite the declared fact that the tunnel is to address the transit traffic (even provides transport to the Czech

Republic and Hungary), one of the most important arguments of the project is to address the traffic situation in

Bratislava, which lacks an objective analysis.

Required southerly option with the portal in Lamač, which the MŽP SR without giving a good reason did not

include in the scope of assessment in materials is missing despite the fact that after the analysis it could be

demonstrated that with this option, impacts on the environment are the lower, traffic usage is the highest and

118

financial costs are lowest (this is clearly the shortest route).

Without any justification, at the western mouth of the highway, the desired subgrade variant is missing - none of the

options qualifies as under level conduction in the longest technically possible section to the intersection in front of

Stupava.

I consider that the failure to present the material of such radical nature, that this cannot be the subject of a proper

and objective assessment and evaluation, and also it is not in accordance with the law.

I propose to remove the above prime shortcomings to enable to detect from the submitted materials all the impacts

of the project on the environment and to allow these to be objectively assessed and evaluated.

Ing. Rastislav Galát, Bratislava (letter dated 10.5.2011)

Statement is identical with statement of Mgr. Tupá

RNDr. Katarína Kminiaková, Marianka (letter dated 20.5.2011)

After studying the submitted report on the assessment of environmental impacts of the proposed activity " D4

highway Bratislava, intersection Ivanka North - Stupava" , I as a party to proceedings announce that with my

signature I support OZ Malé Karpaty on the assessment report of the environmental impact of the proposed activity

"D4 highway Bratislava, Ivanka intersection north - Stupava". I agree with comments and requirements in the

statement, please register them within the process of comments evaluation, as my own.

RNDr. Anna Zemanová, Bratislava (letter dated 20.5.2011)

Statement is identical with statement of RNDr. Kminiaková

Nataša Káčerová, Bratislava (letter dated 15.5.2011)

After studying the report on the assessment gives the following statement:

During the EIA assessment process it is not possible to change the name of the intention „D4 highway, Ivanka North

- Stupava" to "D4motorway, Ivanka North - Záhorská Bystrica". It confuses the citizens and interested public.

Throughout the evaluation report the purpose of this intention is not precisely defined. On the one hand, it refers to

the need to address transit between D2 - Czech Republic direction, Austria and D1, and subsequently the solution is

important for Bratislava. There is a clear need for a relevant document - a regional transport generel region, which

has only one shows the need for reasonable placement of D4.

In case of the need to demonstrate implementation of option 7C, there is a clear need for the first stage to build

tunnel through Carpathians and subsequently "Intersection D1-D4-intersection D4- tunnel portal" because without

the tunnel the purpose of transit traffic diversion will not be met.

EIA elaborated prepared solution and subsequently the report very irresponsibly to an existing nature reservations,

his recommended option 7c having a pan-European importance (NATURA 2000). For such important protected

sites, it is according to the European directive possible to build such structures only in the case of society-wide

importance. This is not proven in the assessment report.

I am outraged about the way the elaborated assessed pond Lysy which is considered as the most precious natural site

and in the report he notes the negative impact on it. At the public hearing I learned that the banks will be destroyed

and that this "natural treasure" will be sacrificed by retention tank replacement for water from the highway: this

means pollution by automotive transport and chemical substances. This recommendation for destruction is

unacceptable!!!

The report ignored many comments from the assessment scope and did not incorporate them. The visualizations of

junctions and tracing of individual options in the vicinity of Vajnory is not fulfilled, there is lack of professional

surveys of dams from 1941 at Moravod, detailed geological survey - these very important input information may

induce inadequate financial increase in future construction, possible suspension of construction due to the

unfeasibility.

The report states that during the construction, existing communication will be used; within the scope there was

requirement not to use these communications.

Due to surrounding by traffic monsters: D1, D4, railways of Trnava and Nové Zámky, there will be a negative

impact on mental health of Vajnory residents. As a result absolute isolation of the village from natural sites and thus

the visual barrier will be created. The entire required northerly route Senec-Pezinok-Lozorno was arbitrarily

transformed to the route-Chorvátsky Grob - Svätý Jur-Lozorno. With this I consider the request to find the optimal

north route and its equivalent assessment as unfulfilled.

It is striking that recommended "option 7c" is conducted in the immediate vicinity of built-up sites of the city of

Bratislava - Vajnory, directly adjacent to the highly protected natural sites, destroys natural pond Lysy and Vajnory

vineyards, ignores planned Malokarpatsko-Šúrska Cycling route, exceeds the limits of noise, emissions, destroys

recreational environment for of existing residents, overprices construction due to the mound which is to be up to 8m

high, is according to the EIA elaborated clearly preferable in all respects, as opposed to the required variant SPL

119

(prepared as CHG-SJ-L), which is conducted out of the populated sites, so there will be no impact on the population,

it does not pass by the highly protected natural sites, so that there is no devastation, does not cross any cycling route,

is projected on the surface, so that it is more economical and is not conducted in the area with high level of

underground water.

EIA preparation for the intention should have objectively assess the impact on the population, natural sites, the

fauna, the current recreation environment and subsequently identify and locate the most acceptable tracing. The

resulting assessment report does not meet the requirements of such an assessment, manipulatively recommends

option with the greatest negative impact on the population, the natural protected areas, permits destruction of natural

sites. The report is strongly influenced by already decided location at any price and for any losses to the affected

communities. Such a biased report should not be a reason for the MŽP SR for disposal of natural and life values.

It agitates me, as the assessment report puts on one level of the affected areas: Bratislava, Vajnory and CEPIT. I do

not see how a one private equity interest may affect the location of such important, expensive transport investment

D4, which should address the regional transport and not transport of some investment "bubble." The interest for

maintaining the quality of life, preservation of natural sites, preserving recreational opportunities for residents of

affected communities is at the same level as some "made up centre"? This is the service and health protection for

citizens from the relevant authorities? Is the responsibility of the MŽP SR primarily environment?

I am a citizen of the Bratislava - Vajnory and the assessment report has not convinced me of the reasons for this

option 7c routing. Objective and defensible arguments for this routing are not mentioned. I think that the option 7c is

only a predetermined outcome to which the elaborated worked his way to.

Nataša Káčerová, Bratislava (letter dated 19.5.2011)

In my statement for the assessment report dated 15.5.2011, I commented on the usefulness and merits of the

recommended routing of a section in option 7c. This comment applies to all evaluated options except the Senec-

Pezinok-Lozorno (SPL) option.

On 19.5.2011 I attended the public hearing of D1 intention – six-lane highway and collectors on the route

Bratislava - Trnava. The entire future rebuilding of the D1 highway to six-lanes with collectors and with the planned

intersections alterations was presented. In the section Vajnory - Chorvátsky Grob itself there are scheduled three

new connections to the highway D1.

At kilometre 3 collector intersections is scheduled, which will be newly built at the intersection spot of designated

routes from Čierna Voda on the road no. 61 - Senecká cesta. This will only be collector intersection, but during rush

hour traffic it will divert the traffic to the collector in Bratislava direction from Čierna Voda.

At kilometer 4.6, completely new highway intersection "Triblavina" is designed. This should serve as a future

connection of roads I / 61 and II / 502. This will be a full-fledged highway intersection with connecting to D1.

Furthermore, at kilometer 7, the proposed new collector intersection "Grob", which will again solve the collector

connection to the road II / 502. From the mentioned planned intersection it is clear that to recommend D4 as a way

of diverting traffic from Čierna Voda from Vajnory (presented at public hearing at the Magistrate of Capital City of

Slovakia – Bratislava) is a nonsense and its recommendations in the option 7c comes as purposeful, without any

professional transport support.

Our proposed SPL variant (intentionally poorly designed?) and, intra- city circuit Galvaniho Krasňany-Lamač

(purposely ignored?) is in the light of these facts reasonable and truly address the transit traffic. Indeed, only when

connecting these three new intersections it will overload D1 just before Bratislava. SPL option would divert the

traffic in D2 direction, and in this section it would unload the traffic. These are the real reasons for the transport

review of "D4 Ivanka north - Záhorská Bystrica" routing. It should be noted that it is a big investment and therefore

public money should be used to really solve the traffic and not to satisfy the interest of investment groups.

It would be sufficient if the competent authorities acted correctly, based on objective professional transport analysis

– transport generel, based on their own investment planning based on real needs of citizens and the affected area.

Zita Búšová, Bratislava (letter dated 10.5.2011)

I protests against the construction of the D4, as its construction is determined along Šúrsky kanál near Moravod.

This option destroys the entire ecosystem in this area.

Why do we have environmental experts, when their recommendations are not respected? Who it actually is, what

department, which goes against logical thinking, it going to build 8-lanes D4? For what, when it will only be for

transit. Or does someone think that so many cars - trucks passes D4 daily? I think it's because of CEPIT.

And again I ask why is the more expensive option chosen, something similar has already been condemned under the

former government, do we have a surplus of money? I protest!

You, who approve destruction of nature, decide on D4 without considering how it will help citizens of Bratislava.

Wake up because when you create something like this mindlessly, it will not be possible to demolish.

Think of the citizens of Bratislava, we urgently need to tackle traffic in the city and not transit! It seems that you

120

think more about CEPIT! But the territory is ours, belonging to Vajnory, our vineyards, our Šurský kanál, our pond!

How one does even dares against the expert assessment to build according to their wishes in spite of all the buildings

that we do not need and do not address the real problems of citizens Bratislava.

I protest, my mother, daughter and neighbours. Please, whoever can, stop them!!!

Mgr. Ing. Ivana Číková, Bratislava (letter of 16.5.2011) After getting familiar with the given material, I came to the following opinion:

1. The given material comprises some sections on negative impacts of the highway D4, that are incorrect or

intentionally altered in favour of the construction of the highway D4, or some negative impacts of the highway D4

specified in the given material are underestimated and some negative impacts of the highway D4 were not assessed

at all.

The noise study, being the text annex 2 to the given material comprises the incorrect application of the legal

regulation, namely the application that can be considered to be intentional in favour of the construction of the

highway D4.

The given material does not comprise the assessment of the impacts of the highway D4 on fauna present on the

NATURA 2000 territory of SKUEV 0279 Šúr, despite that there are the species protected for example by the

Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds /the Birds Directive/ on the

territory. The Birds Directive is one of the directives regulating the subject of protection of the territories included to

NATURA 2000 system.

The given material does not comprise the assessment of the impacts of the highway D4 on the fauna species for

which the NATURA 2000 territory of SKUEV 0279 Šúr was declared for the purpose of their protection.

It comes to the dismembering of the intention of the highway D4 Ivanka North - Záhorská Bystrica and thereby also

to the dismembering of the assessment of the negative impacts of the highway on environment and the protected

natural territories included to the NATURA 2000 system especially.. Such dismembering does not allow the

complex assessment of the impacts of construction and the operation of the given highway. The given material deals

with the highway D4 to the extent of 4 lanes, ET they suppose the construction of the highway to the extent of 6

lanes right now. The proposed category of the highway D4 - D33.5/120 - see p. 10 of the given material

The fact the highway D4 is planned to the extent of 6 lanes is confirmed also by the information from the material

called Assessment Report - the Complementation of Highway D4 Jarovce - Ivanka North. In the material - the

Complementation of D4 Jarovce - Ivanka North, they state on p. 10 and 12 something like that - the other sections

outside the tunnel are designed in the category D 33.5/120. The 33.5 category with 4-lane width arrangement of

roadway, i.e. with wider separating belt so that its problem-free broadening to 6-lane towards the highway axis

would be possible in future.

-The given material does not comprise the assessment of negative impacts on aquatic animals that shall be

negatively affected for example by draining the highway while moving water to Šúr kanál, the Strúha brook, the

Lysý pond or infiltration area, whereby the contamination from D4 shall get also to the ground water in the

concerned territory.

I remind the water courses and a pond, to which they plan to lead water from the highway D4, are the aquatic

habitats of animals and they also serve as the source of drinking water for animals.

The given material does not comprise the cumulative assessment of negative impacts of the planned construction

and operation of the highway D4 on the concerned territory and especially on the protected natural territories. The

given material analyses individually, for example, some substances polluting air, but it does not deal with their

cumulative assessment and in addition also the quantities of these individual pollutants are under-assessed and the

similar non-cumulative approach is applied in the given material also for other negative impacts. Pollutants

/emissions/ noise, light smog, air overheating /change in micro-climate/, soil and water pollution would act in the

case of the construction of the highway D4 individually, but cumulatively, they would act concurrently and for a

long time or permanently and this represent substantially higher load for fauna and flora and for the entire concerned

territory than it is stated in the given material.

Not all the points of the Assessment Scope No. 7155/08-3.4/ml of 18.7.2008 /hereinafter referred to as the AS/ were

met.

The given material does not comprise the complex finding, description and assessment of the supposed negative

impacts of the proposed activity on environment.

It is given in details below.

2. The Noise Study /NS/, attached to the given material /text Annex 2/, on the basis of which some parts of the

given material are elaborated, was drawn up on the basis of the under-assessed intensity of transport on the planned

highway D4 - see Table 3 of the NS

-The prospective distribution of traffic - vehicles/24 hours - variant 2a,2ab,7a,7b,7c year 2040

D4 Ivanka West - Ivanka North in total 47,709 cars

Collectors 8,158 cars

121

D4 Ivanka North - Čierna voda 36,526 cars

Collectors 27,250 cars

D4 Čierna voda - Rača 30,820 cars

Collectors unidirectionally 2,373 cars

It is apparent that in the case they would really expect such traffic intensities on the highway D4 as are stated in the

given material, they would not consider the construction of highway D4 as 6-lane road. And they consider the

construction of 6-lane road.

Even nowadays for example the section of the expressway Trnava - Sereď has an annual average daily intensity of

43,316 cars, the sections of the highway Dl Senec -Trnava 50,432 cars, Piešťany - Nové Mesto n. V. 31,026 cars

and the new section of Bytča 23,674 cars. It is clear that on the highway D4, with regards to its planned location in

Bratislava and the intended connection of the other intentions to the highway D4, we must take into account even

greater traffic intensity than that one being base for the given noise study. The highway D4 is planned as the

connection line of the highways of D1 and D2. Nowadays, the annual average daily intensity expressed as the count

of cars on the highway D1, the section of Senec-Bratislava ranges from ca 70,000 to ca 100,000 cars and on the

section of Prístavný Bridge in Bratislava it equals to ca 100,000 cars. Noise produced by just a single passenger car

during the drive is around 73 dB/A/. In addition, they planned also the connection of automotive transport to the

highway D4 e.g..:

- From Chorvátsky Grob, where they planned the residential development for ca 40,000 people

- From the former airport in the municipal part of Bratislava - Vajnory, where they planned the residential

development for ca 22,000 people

- From CEPIT in the municipal part of Vajnory, where they plan warehouse areas and the residential construction

for ca 20-30 thousand people,

- They plan the connection of automotive transit almost from the entire Slovakia to the highway D4 in the direction

to the Czech Republic, Austria and Hungary,

- According to the published information, they plan the connection of the European transit of automotive transport to

the highway D4, the bilateral interconnection of the North and the South of Europe /in the direction from

Scandinavia to the Black sea/.

With regards to the contemporary traffic on the highway D1 and the planned intention that should be connected to

the highway D4, I consider the traffic intensity on the planned highway D4; they came from in the given material, to

be undervalued. With regards to the above stated, I consider the noise load from the planned highway D4 stated in

the given material to be undervalued.

The noise study comprises the incorrect application of the legal regulation. This regards the application of clause

1.6. of the Annex to the Regulation No. 549/2007.

I can note this clause 1.6. does not relate to the noise from the planned road communication, but it relates to the

existing noise. That means the clause 1.6 is pointless from the point of view of the planned road communication and

it may not be applied due to the noise from the planned highway D4.

3. The Dissipation Study /DS/, attached to the given material /text Annex 2/, on the basis of which some parts of the

given material are elaborated, was drawn up on the basis of the under-assessed intensity of transport on the planned

highway D4. According to Table 2 of the DS - The traffic prognosis for the situation with the construction of the

highway D4 in variant 2a,2b,7a,7b,7c year 2030

- D4 Ivanka West - Ivanka North section totally 41,437 cars

- D4 Ivanka North - Čierna voda totally 31,498 cars

- D4 Čierna voda-Rača totally 26,578 cars

- D4 Rača-Záhorská Bystrica totally 25,244 cars.

The calculation of the imissions from traffic is based on the traffic intensity and emission factors of motor vehicles -

see p. 2 of the DS.

As for the contemporary traffic intensity on the highway D1 and the expected traffic intensity on the highway D4,

similar shall apply for the DS as is stated above in clause 2 hereof. I further comment the DS on the immissions

from transport, that came from the undervalued traffic intensity projected for 2030 on the highway D4 and from the

alleged emission factors for 2030, they were compared with the contemporary limits, and in addition, the limits were

contemporary short-term limits despite that the effect of immission load from the planned highway D4 would be

long-term or permanent. From this point of view, we can consider also the annual limit to be short-term. The

planned commencement of the traffic on the highway D4 is in 2015. For the objective assessment of the immission

lad from the planned highway D4, we cannot come from the alleged emission factors for 2030 that are substantially

lower than the contemporary emission factors and the alleged emission factors for 2030 are apparently lower than

the emission factors for 2015 and the nearest subsequent years. We may justifiably reckon that in the case they

would come from the emission factors for 2015 in the calculation of the immissions of pollutants from the highway

D4, the results would be substantially worse and their negative impacts on specially protected natural territories and

the health of people in the concerned territory would be substantially more serious than it is stated in the given

material based on the undervalued input data - i.e. from the undervalued traffic intensity and the undervalued

122

emission factors. And substantially more serious negative impacts on environment than those ones specified in the

DS and the given material may be justifiably expected in the concerned territory in the case of the construction of

the highway D4.

Since they came from the undervalued emission factors and the undervalued traffic intensity on the highway D4

when calculating imissions from the highway D4, it came to the undervaluation of the emissions from operation and

thus also to the undervaluation of immission load from the planned highway D4. Similar statement applies also to

the calculation of immissions from the highway D1 with regards to the used emission factors. And this implies also

the existing immission load from the highway D1 was undervalued. The cumulative effect of the existing highway

D1 and the planned highway D4 was undervalued in the given material as well.

Should they came from the objective and not undervalued input data in the calculations, when assessing the impacts

of the highway D4 it would be revealed that the construction and operation of the highway would have a serious

negative impact on human health and the specially protected natural territories located in its concerned territory. The

procedure applied in the DS and in the given material is considered by me to be the intentional modification of the

assessment of the impacts of the highway D4 on environment in favour of the construction of the highway.

The negative influence of emissions from automotive transport on environment and human health is stated in details

in the standpoint of 11 June 2008 to the material named "The Intention of the Highway D4 Bratislava, the

intersection of Ivanka North - Stupava, that was delivered to the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic on

16 June 2008.

4. The given material does not comprise the assessment of the impact of carbon dioxide /C02/. By burning one litre

of fuel, approximately 2.5 kg of C02 is produced. C02 is heavier than air and at the concentration of around 3% it is

harmful for organisms.

The given material does not comprise the assessment of the impact of ozone. The negative influence of ozone on

fauna and flora in the concerned territory is stated in details in the standpoint of 11 June 2008 to the material named

"The Intention of the Highway D4 Bratislava, the intersection of Ivanka North - Stupava that was delivered to the

Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic on 16 June 2008.

The given material does not comprise the cumulative assessment of the negative impacts of air pollutants from the

traffic on the highway D4 in the considered territory. Air pollutants would not act individually in the case of the

construction of the highway D4, but they would act concurrently, together and for a long time.

The given material does not comprise the assessment of the impact of vibrations during the construction and

operation of the highway D4 for example on the stability of the dams on Šúr kanál, which is in disaccord with the

Clause 23 of the AS.

The given material does not comprise noise and dissipation study for the period during the construction of the

highway D4 and this is in disaccord with the Clause 18 of the AS

The highway D4 - variants 2a,2b,7a,7b,7c are planned almost at the boundary of the protected zone of the National

Natural Reserve /NPR/ Šúr, considered for the purposes of the assessment of the impacts to be the protected

territory pursuant to Article 103 Para 5 of the Act No. 543/2002 Coll. Pursuant to Article 103 Para 5 of the Act No.

543/2002 Coll. on the protection of nature and landscape for the purposes of the assessment of impacts on

environment, the protected zone of the protected territory is considered to be the protected territory pursuant to the special regulation. The given material does not comprise the assessment of the impacts as it is stipulated by Article 103 Para 5 of the

Act No. 543/2002 Coll.

The highway D4 is planned almost at the boundary of the NPR Šúr, alongside the entire Western boundary of the

reservation at the lengt of ca 4.5 km. The highway D4 is distant just ca 50 m from the territory of the NPR Šúr in a

certain spot.

There is not information in the given material the NPR Šúr, including this protected zone, is the Ramsar location, i.e.

the wetland of the international importance protected by the Agreement on wetlands having the international

importance, in particular as the habitats of aquatic birds /the Ramsar Agreement/. In addition, there are the species

protected:

- By the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals /the Bonn Convention/,

- By the Convention on the Conservation of Bats in Europe,

- By the convention on the Conservation of Afro-Asian Species of Aquatic Migratory Birds, - By the Convention on

the Conservation of European of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats / the Bern Convention/

-By the Council Directive No. 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds /the Birds Directive/

on the territory of the reserve the NPR Šúr is the territory that is unique within Central Europe. The NPR Šúr is the

last territory of the type in Central Europe. It is the last specimen of how the region would have looked like 10,000

years ago.

There is NATURA 2000 territory of SKUEV 0279 Šúr in the NPR Šúr, with the presence of priority habitats and

priority species.

This is the natural heritage of the European Union and the Slovak Republic. The following is stated on p. 84 of the

given material - I quote: " The significant eco-stabilisation element with large or even extraordinary large

123

importance in the assessed territory is the wetland region of the National Natural Reserve Šúr spreading out on the

area of 370 ha that contributes to the overall stability of the territory and improves the resistance of the landscape

towards changes in the proximity of the location. This notable eco-stabilisation area is followed by an artificial

drainage Šúr kanál that is gradually changing to semi-natural, nature-close element with medium importance for

ecological stability of the territory"... The end of the quote. It is stated on p. 164 that it would not come to more

significant negative impact on the protected territory and its protected zone. I consider this statement of p. 164 of the

given material to be false.

In fact, the construction and operation of the highway D4 would have a serious negative impact on the Ramsar

location of the NPR Šúr and the territory of SKUEV 0279 Šúr In the case of the construction of the highway D4, it

would come to:

- The isolation of the NPR Šúr, its segregation from the surrounding territory, alongside the entire Western part of

the NPR Šúr at the length of ca 4.5 km.

The negative impacts of the highway D4 would cumulate on the territory of the reservation, namely:

- Noise,

- Air pollution,

- Water and soil pollution,

- Ozone,

- Light smog,

- The change in climatic conditions /territory overheating/,

- The fragmentation of the habitats of animals living on the territory of the reserve, including the species protected

by international agreements binding the Slovak Republic. Some species from the specially protected natural

territories would be separated by a permanent line obstruction from their feeding habitats, - The introduction of

invasive species to the specially protected natural territories, - The killing of animals from specially protected

natural territories, including the specially protected species on the highway D4.

- The reduction of biodiversity, the reduction of the number of species and abundance of species,

-Anti-noise shields and fencing alongside the highway would act as an animal trap, e.g. for ornithofauna and also for

the other species. And also for example at the exit fro the tunnels, they act as barriers and traps for animals.

- The disturbance of animals,

- The stressing of animals,

- A permanent line obstruction would be created preventing the migration of animals, in particular ornithofauna,

including the specially protected species.

The above stated negative impacts deteriorate the quality of habitats. Black Stork occur in the NPR Šúr and it was

observed also on the territory in the proximity of Šúr kanál. I state to this the following from the given material:

Some pollutants and their quantities getting to water and soil from the highway are given in the Table on p. 64 of

text Annex 4 to the given material. This is for example lead, cadmium, nickel, mercury, chromium, copper, zinc,

chlorine, carbon 10-40, polyaromatic carbohydrates /PAC/. While it is stated on p. 64 next to the given Table the

results stated in the Table come from the measures on the highways and expressways that are more frequently used

than the SPL variant of D4, the assessment of which used the above mentioned Table of p. 64. I note to this that the

traffic intensities they came from in the given material are undervalued. Details on traffic intensity are given above.

The given water course affected by the SPL variant probably serves as the food base for nesting Black Storks - see

p. 63 of the text Annex 4 to the given material.

I quote the comments t the above Table on p. 64 from the given material: ..."With regards to low aquosity of the

recipient, the given concentrations shall be diluted only to a limited extent and thus we may suppose the quantity

and quality of aquatic zoocoenoses might be reduced, and it may come to the cumulation of selected elements and

compounds in them. With regards to the fact the Stork may be considered to be the peak predator in the concerned

section of the CHVÚ in this connection, accumulation may be demonstrated in more significant way in it. This may

then have the negative impact for example on reproduction ability or mortality of young animals". The end of a

quote.

I note that the given material impresses me as being compiled with the aim to induce a deprecatory attitude of the

reader of the material to the variant labelled as SPL on one hand and the given material plays down or undervalue

the negative impacts of the variants of the highway D4 planned almost at the Western boundary of the NPR Šúr on

the other hand.

The impact of the planned highway D4 on the quality of ground water was not assessed. "The quality of ground

water is significantly affected by rock environment and also the quality of surface water greatly contributing to the

replenishment of ground water supplies. The source of water pollution is also transport, since it comes to the

washing out of contaminated water from the communications to surface waters or infiltration to ground waters.." ..."

Last but not least, the source of water pollution is also the polluted rain water." The end of quotes from p. 118 of the

given material. All forms of water pollution mentioned in the above quotes would take place in the concerned

territory in a direct causal relation to the construction and operation of the highway D4. The contamination of

ground water could take place due to the accident when digging out Vajnory tunnel, when establishing the bridge

124

pillars and in particular due to the use of chemicals and injection when digging out the tunnel.

The given material does not comprise the results of hydrological analyses of the changes in flow of ground water

due to the implementation of the proposed activity, which regards the NPR Šúr. It is stated on p. 164 of the given

material that the influence of aquatic regime in the location of the NPR Šúr was not supposed. I do not consider such

affirmation to be the result of hydrological analyses. Pursuant to the clause 20 of the AS, the Assessment Report

should include the results of hydrological analyses of the changes in flow of ground water due to the implementation

of the proposed activity.

It is stated on p. 66 of the given material that ground water in the municipal part of Vajnory lows from the Lesser

Carpathians towards the SE, in parallel with Šúr kanál. I quote from p. 43 of the given material: ..." The alternative

of the construction of the highway D4 in the section with Vajnory tunnel / the section of Western edges of fluvial

complexes between Ivanka North intersection - Rača intersection/ shall have a significant impact on ground water,

since the natural level in fluvial sediments has a significant seasonal fluctuation, with a short-term period up to the

terrain level." The end of the quote. It is stated on p. 10 of the given material something in the sense that the variants

of the highway D4 not considering the construction of Vajnory tunnel thus exclude the construction of sealing tank

under the level of ground water, during the construction of which it would be necessary to use more demanding

construction technologies and to impair the regime and quality of ground water during the construction. ..." When

constructing the dug out tunnel named Vajnory, the construction works and the object of the dug out tunnel shall be

significantly affected by the collector of ground waters - gravel and sand sediments." -The quote from p. 133 of the

given material.

I note that with regards to the fact the given material deals with the highway D4 within the range of 4 lanes, but the

highway is planned in the range of 6 lanes, we may consider also the quantities of rain water running from the

surface of the planned highway D4 /for example the Table on p- 34 of the given material/ and the resulting negative

impacts in the given materials to be undervalued.

I note that they assessed the variant of Bernolákovo - Svätý Jur - Lozorno in the given material. Such variant is not

mentioned in the AS. The variant of Bernolákovo - Svätý Jur - Lozorno is incorrectly designated as variant of Senec

- Pezinok - Lozorno in the given material.

The impacts of possible fires in the tunnels, e.g. in Karpaty tunnel and Vajnory tunnel, planned in the proximity of

the residential zone, and their effects on the close specially protected natural territories and residential zone are not

assessed in the given material . The planned Vajnory tunnel was not assessed as the stationary source of air

pollution during the operation of the highway D4.

The given material does not comprise the assessment of noise load from the planned highway D4 on the NATURA

2000 territory of SKUEV 0279 Šúr.

I quote from p. 118 of the given material: ..." From the point of view of the noise load, the assessed territory belongs

to the most loaded ones in Slovakia. The source of noise is mainly automotive transport, air transport and railway

transport. The sources of noise from road transport in the assessed territory is in particular the corridor of the

highway D1, road II/502, I/2 and the network of road communications of lower categories.

The source of noise from air transport is the airport of M.R. Štefánik. The noise from airport operation affect the

most the municipal parts of Vajnory and Rača.

The source of excessive noise from railway transport in the assessed territory is the busy railway routes No. 120

Bratislava - Žilina and No. 130 Štúrovo - Bratislava" The end of the quote.

With regards to the clause 1. of the AS I note that the planned highway D4 is in disaccord with sustainable

development and its construction would mean the unbearable load on the concerned territory. According to the

relevant regulations, the territory may not be loaded by a human activity above the level of the tolerable load.

It is stated in details in the standpoint of 11 June 2008 to the material named "The Intention of Highway D4 Ivanka

North - Stupava intersection that was delivered to the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic by me on 16

June 2008. I quote from p. 120 of the given material: ..."According to the environmental regionalisation of Slovakia

from 2008, the greater portion of the assessed territory is classified as heavily impaired, the smaller North part of the

assessed territory is classified as the impaired environment. Bratislava is earmarked in the assessment as unhealthy

/endangered area together with the other 8 areas within the entire republic." ... "The South part of the assessed

territory regards the dense construction in the municipal parts of the capital city of Bratislava, the density of

settlements as well as of inhabitants reduces towards the North" The end of the quotes. I quote from p. 136 of the

given material: "The impact of the highway D4 would be most sensitively perceived in radiant weather due to the

bad dissipation of air pollutants and the subsequent smell produced by traffic in the proximity of the structure body

itself. From this point of view, the most critical situation shall be at tunnel ducts, where the contaminated air from

the tunnel shall be concentrated. In advection /windy/ weather, the construction of the highway shall contribute to

the increased coarseness of the active surface, which shall mean the increase in the presence of viruses in the

ground layer of atmosphere and the transfer of air pollutants to the higher layers of atmosphere"..." They suppose

the impacts on the local climate and micro-climate in the proximity of newly constructed highway D4." The end of

the quotes. I can note down to this that "While 60-70% of the falling solar radiation is transformed to

evapotranspiration on the area with an abundant vegetation in a hot sunny day and just 5-10%shall be transformed to

125

the perceived heat, it shall be vice versa on the drained area . Thermal energy produced this way on a hot summer

day in the central zone represents 4-5kWh per m2. This is the energy corresponding to the energy contents of 1 kg

of coal. The energy comparable with the energy released due to the perfect combustion of 750 - 1000 ton of coal

shall be released on the drained area of 100 ha within a single sunny day. - The quote from www.ludiaavoda.sk. I

can add to this that the further thermal energy is generated during the operation of the cars and it is also released to

the surrounding environment and the third factor is air polluted with emissions, that is overheated more than the air

polluted with emissions from automotive transport. Territory overheating damages also the habitats. Overheating is

harmful for almost all living organisms.

I state to this that according to the given material, they consider the land seizer of from ca 63 hectares t ca 92

hectares of land for the individual variants of the highway D4 planned alongside the Šúr kanál, while the seizures

probably do not count in the seizures for the construction of collectors.

I state to the point 2 of the DS that the traffic prognoses for the highway D4 were undervalued in the given material.

It is given in details above.

The purpose of the construction is in the given material inter alias justified by the planned implementation of

developers intentions in Vajnory - CEPIT and the construction on the former airport in Vajnory. These are the plans

focused on profit for the groups of people promoting the intentions. Both the intentions are unsuitable for Vajnory.

The development is just better sounding label for fiddling with real estates.

Another justification of the highway D4 stated in the given material is the diversion of transit transport leading from

Chorvátsky Grob through Vajnory. I note to this that it is possible to construct a branch to the existing highway D1

for Chorvátsky Grob and thus the transit would be diverted outside the local communications in Vajnory. The

highway D4 would have even more negative impact on Vajnory than the contemporary transit from Chorvátsky

Grob.

CEPIT, the planned construction works on the airport in Vajnory and the highway D4 are not the development.

Their impact on the concerned territory in the case of their implementation would be devastating and degrading. The

intentions are in a direct conflict with the definition of the territorial development pursuant to Article 139a Para 7 of

the Construction Act. Details on transport are given in the standpoint of 11 June 2008 I delivered to the Ministry of

Environment of the Slovak Republic on 16 June 2008.

The given material does not deal with the fact the highway D4 would cause the reduction in the value of real estates

intended for living and gardens near the houses in the concerned territory.

The negative impact of the highway D4 on the appearance of the concerned territory was undervalued in the given

material. I quote from p. 162 of the given material: ..."since the highway shall be shifted before Šúr kanál that forms

a visual barrier in the territory and the perception of a new element in the landscape would not be produced."

It is clear that on contrary to the body of the planned highway D4, the dam of Šúr kanál they do not affect the

appearance of the concerned territory in interfering way. The highway D4 would degrade the appearance of the

entire territory from the GSI Ivanka North as far as the entry to the Karpaty tunnel. This would regard the highway

body itself on several-meter filling with installed anti-noise screens having various heights. The concrete curbs with

the height of ca 1.2 m would be located at the circumference of the highway, the highway would be fenced, the

concerned territory would be segmented by several bridges and three grade separated intersections. The collectors at

the sides of the highway D4 should be added to this and someone dares to assess this highway from appearance

point of view as approximately equivalent with the look of Šúr kanál?

5. The given material inter alia provides the information on the approval of the route of the highway D4.

I note to this as follows:

The route of the highway D4 was approved by the government of the Slovak Republic within the strategic document

named "The Program of Preparation and Construction of Highways and Expressways for 2007 - 2010". They

adopted the Resolution of the Government of the Slovak Republic No. 1084/2007 in the matter of this strategic

document. The relevant legal regulations were breached in this approval process. The details on the breach are

below. The European Commission /EC/sent a call to the Slovak Republic regarding the Program of Preparation and

Construction of Highways and Expressways for 2007-2010 /hereinafter referred to as the PPVDRC/.

I quote to the question from the letter of the Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development of the

Slovak Republic No. 07138/2011/OW-6 of 19 January 2011: ..."The EC in its call expressed the opinion that the

Slovak Republic did not applied the conditions resulting from the Articles 3-10 of the Directive No. 2001/42/EC /the

SEA Directive/ on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment on the "

Program of Preparation and Construction of Highways and Expressways for 2007 - 2010" adopted by the Resolution

of the government of the Slovak Republic No. 1084/2007. The government of the Slovak Republic was called to

submit its comments to the EC within two months as of the date of the delivery of the letter, i.e. before 25 January

2011. On the basis of the formal notice of the EC, the standpoint of the Slovak Republic shall be elaborated and it

shall be submitted to the EC through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic. The analysis of the

contents of the formal notice implied the sections stated in the Operation Program of Transport /the sections were

assessed pursuant to the SEA Directive in 2006-2007/ are identical with the sections stated in the document "The

Program of Preparation and Construction of Highways and Expressways for 2007 - 2010" save the section of the

126

highway D4 the implementation of which was not considered in the given period.

However, this section is a subject to the SEA assessment, that is contemporary carried out for the planning scheme

of the region of Bratislava Self-government Region /ÚP VÚC Bratislava/. However, it shall be necessary to note

that despite that the SEA assessment for the highway D4 is just in progress, the individual sections of zero bypass of

p Bratislava, /the highway D4/ have EIA assessments that are more detailed than the SEA assessment of the impacts

on environment."... The end of the quote.

I comment on the quoted statement of the Ministry of Transport that the PPVDRC is a strategic document of a

national importance that may not be approved without the assessment of its impacts on environment. That means the

new definition of highways comprised in the clause 2.2.1 of the PPVDRC including the highway D4 may not be

approved without the assessment of impacts on environment. Such impact assessment did not take place. That

means the approval of the route of the highway D4 took place in disaccord with the relevant legal regulations. And

the breach on the legal regulations may not be remedied by assessing the D4 within the planning scheme of the

Upper-tier Territorial Unit. The powers of the Upper-tier Territorial Unit do not include the designation and

approval of highway routes. Just such highway route could be taken over to the planning scheme of the Upper-tier

Territorial Unit that was lawfully approved by the relevant authority and in accordance with the relevant legal

regulations. And this did not took place in the case of the highway D4 and this lawless condition would not be

changed even by the fact the EIA assessment of the individual sections of the highway D4 take place.

The resolution of the government of the Slovak Republic No. 1084/2007 was adopted in the matter of the strategic

document named "The Program of Preparation and Construction of Highways and Expressways for 2007-2010".

This is the material of the department of the Ministry of Transport, Posts and Telecommunications of the Slovak

Republic /the MDPT SR/, No. 1140/M-2007/ and the presenter is the Minister of Transport, Posts and

Telecommunications of the Slovak Republic. The material was presented to the session of the government of the

Slovak Republic No. 73/2007 on 19 December 2007, agenda point 7. I can say to the materials of the Resolution of

the government of the Slovak Republic N. 1084/2006 the following:

1. / It is incorrectly stated in the part of the material - the Assessment of the Consultation Proceeding within the

evaluation of the comment of the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic /MŽP SR/ that, I quote: "The

Program absolutely takes over the Operation Program Transport for 2007-2013, for which they issued the standpoint

of the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic No. MŽP SR č. 7721/2006 3.5. /ml pursuant to the Act No.

24/2006 Coll. of 28.2.2007."...

In fact, the highway D4 is included in the Operation programme Transport 2007-2013 with the length of 2 or 3 /say

two or three/ kilometres, while this is the route of the highway D4 from the state border of Austria/Slovakia as far as

the intersection of the highway D4 with the highway D2 in Jarovce and thus it is not true at all that the PPVDRC

shall not completely take over the Operation Program Transport for 2007-2013since the highway D4 is elongated

from the original length of 2 km to the length of 49 km in the PPVDRC.

I quote from the Operation Program of Transport 2007-2é13, p. 20, paragraph 3.3.2 - ..."The scope of the highway

network and the expressway network in the Slovak Republic is defined by the highway routes of D1, D2, D3 and D4

with the overall length of 659 km. The Table N. 14 on p. 21 of the OPT states the planned length of the highways in

kilometres - the highway D2 - 80 km, D1 - 517 km and D3 - 59 km. This means total 656 km plus 3 km- D4, thus

659 km in total.

In the PPVDRC, clause 2.2.1. The new definition of the highway network is stated - I quote: "The most significant

changes in the definition of the highway network are on the route of the highway D4, so called zero circuit of

Bratislava." "The proposal: to include in the highway D4 route the entire proposed so called zero circuit of

Bratislava /the intersection with D2 Jarovce - the intersection with D1 Ivanka pri Dunaji - the intersection with the

road II/502 - the intersection with the road I/2 - the intersection with D2 Stupava South - state border of the Slovak

Republic/Austria/ whereby the highway D4 shall be prolonged from the original length of 2 km to the length of 49

km with the supposition the circuit shall be dealt with using a double-tunnel and two portals /one behind Rača and

the other one behind Marianka/ under the Lesser Carpathians, without the external impact in natural and recreational

zone of Bratislava, the outskirts parts and surrounding villages /Svätý Jur, Borinka, Stupava/. The overall length of

the highway network versus the New Project of the Constriction of Highway and Expressways shall be amended

from 659 to 704 km. The difference in the overall length of the highway network versus the New Project of the

Construction of Highways and Expressways is implied by the clarification of the overall length of highways

pursuant to the project documentation and the individual structures and the elongation of the highway D4.".., The

end of the quote.

This implies the highway D4, the given section of the highway D4 included in the material named "The Program of

Preparation and Construction of Highways and Expressways for 2007-2010, to which they adopted the Resolution

of the government of the Slovak Republic No. 1084/2007 of 19.12.2007, is not included in the Operation Program

Transport 2007-2013, approved by the Resolution of the government of the Slovak Republic No. 1007 of 6.12.2006

and thus it is not true that the Program of Preparation and Construction of Highways and Expressways for 2007-

2010 shall be completely taken over by the Operation Program Transport 2007-2013.

The Program of Preparation and Construction of Highways and Expressways for 2007-2010 approved by the

127

Resolution of the government of the Slovak Republic No. 1084/2007 on 19.12.2007 comprises the definition of the

highway network and the new definition of the expressway network. The highway D4 State border of Austria/the

Slovak Republic - Bratislava - the D2 Jarovce intersection - the Rovinka intersection - the intersection with D1

Ivanka pri Dunaji-North - the intersection with the road II/502 - the intersection with the road I/2 - the intersection

with D2 Stupava South - state border of the Slovak Republic/Austria is stated in Annex to the Act No. 669/2007

Coll. 2/ The Operation Program Transport 2007-2013- the version that was approved by the Resolution of the

government of the Slovak Republic No. 1007 of 6 December 2006, was the subject matter of the proceeding on the

assessment of impacts on environment regulated by the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. and the Ministry of Environment of

the Slovak Republic issued the standpoint to the impact assessment OPT No.. 7721/2006-3.5/ml o f 28.2.2007.

The Act No. 24/2006 Coll. on the assessment of impacts on environment and on the amendment and

supplementation of some acts entered into force on 1 February 2006.

The highway D4, the given section of the highway D4, stated in the PPVDRC, was not assessed pursuant to the Act

No. 24/2006 Coll. within the strategic document Operation Program Transport for 2007-2013.

And the Program of Preparation and Construction of Highways and Expressways for 2007-2010 was not the subject

of the assessment of impacts on environment pursuant to the Act No. 24/2006 Coll, despite that this is a strategic

document subject to the mandatory assessment of impacts on environment pursuant to the Act No. 24/2006 Coll.

The Program of Preparation and Construction of Highways and Expressways for 2007-2010 approved by the

Resolution of the government of the Slovak Republic No. 1084/2007 is, in particular with regards to the facts stated

in this letter, illegal, lawless. And in addition, also in the case of the Operation Program Transport 2007-2010, they

proceeded in illegal, lawless way, inter alia they proceeded on contrary to what is stipulated by the Act No. 24/2006

Coll. /e.g. Article 15 of the Act No. 24/2006 Coll./ Since the OPT was at first approved by the government of the

Slovak Republic on 6 December 2006 and only afterwards the standpoint of the Ministry of Environment of the

Slovak Republic No. 7721/2006-3.5/ml. of 28.2.2007 was issued. In addition, the strategic document Operation

Program Transport for 2007-2013 presented to the government of the Slovak Republic and approved by the

Resolution of the government of the Slovak Republic No. 1007/2006 probably did not passed the entire proceeding

of the assessment of impacts on environment, but it was just the subject of a part of proceeding - the assessment of

the impacts on environment regulated by the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. - the Operation Program Transport for 2007-

2é13 was elaborated at least in two versions. The versions differ from each other for example by some planned

sections of highways and expressways.

The assessment of impacts on environment was commenced probably with first version of the Operation Program

Transport 2007-2013 and it was probably completed with second version of the operation program, in disaccord

with the relevant legal regulations and in disaccord with the relevant legal regulations also since the assessment of

impacts was completed only after the approval of the OPT by the government of the Slovak Republic. Inter alia,

such a procedure is able to breach the rights of citizens and to prevent some villages, some subjects concerned for

example due to the amendment in the route of the prepared highways and expressways to participate in the

proceeding on the assessment of the impacts of the strategic document on environment, in particular by the fact they

became the concerned subjects only upon the amendment in the route r the amendment in the range of the route of

the prepared highways and expressways in later phase of the proceeding on the assessment of the impacts of the

strategic document on environment and therefore they were unable to submit their standpoints, comments, they were

unable to enforce their rights in full pursuant to the Act No. 24/2006 Coll.

It is also necessary to state that the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. regulating the proceeding on the assessment of the impact

of strategic documents on environment does not stipulate or regulate the possibility of the change of the strategic

document during the procedure on the assessment of the impacts of the strategic document on environment.

The Ministry of Transport, Posts and Telecommunications of the Slovak Republic, being the procurer of the OPT

submitted the strategic document, the Operation Program Transport for 2007-2013, to the Ministry of Environment

of the Slovak Republic for the procedure of the assessment of the impacts of the strategic document on environment,

is the central state administration body. Pursuant to Article 2 Para 2 of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, the

state authorities may act only on the basis of the constitution, within its limits and to the extent and using the way

specified by the law. The Ministry of Transport, Posts and Telecommunications of the Slovak Republic went beyond

its powers determined by the law.

The Act No. 24/2006 Coll. obliges to have the strategic document subjected t the environment impact assessment at

first and only afterwards the strategic document may be approved and when approving it, they must consider the

existence and the contents of the final standpoint from the assessment of the strategic document. Such procedure is

warned also by the standpoint of the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic stated in the Assessment of

the Comments to anther strategic document, the Program of Preparation and Construction of the Network of the

network of roads of class I for 20072010 /hereinafter referred to as the PPVSC/.

I read from the standpoint of the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic to the PPVSC ... "The given

program is subject to the process of the environment impact assessment pursuant to the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. on

the assessment of the impacts on environment and on the amendment and supplementation of some acts /hereinafter

refereed to as the "Act" /, the process must be carried out before the approval of the given strategic document with

128

the national reach. The results of the process of the assessment of impacts of the program on environment and the

consideration of the assessment of the presented standpoints together with their elaboration must be submitted by the

presenting party /the Ministry of Transport, Posts and Telecommunications of the Slovak Republic/ in the clause

on environmental impact.. The contents of the clause on environmental impact that should be the part of the material

presented for approval to the government of the SR is in Annex 2 to the Act.

"As long as this is the question of the reasonable assessment pursuant to Article 6 Para 3 of the Habitat Directive, it

is necessary to point out to the fact this stipulation does not define any particular method for the execution of such

assessment. Despite that, in accordance with the wording of this stipulation, the due assessment of the consequences

of the plan or project fr the relevant location must precede its approval and it must consider all the cumulative

effects resulting from the combination of the plan or project with the other plans or projects with regards to the

objectives of the location protection."... The quote from the precedence law of the European Court of Justice C-

127/02 - „Waddenvereniging a Vogelbeschermingsvereniging"

Pursuant to Article 15 Para 2 of the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. the approving body may not approve the strategic

document that is the subject of the assessment without the final stipulation from the assessment of the strategic

document or without the clause on the impact on environment. The Operation Program Transport for 2007-2013,

approved the Resolution of the government of the Slovak Republic No. 1007/ 2006 Coll. is lawless in particular

with regards to the above mentioned facts. The strategic document of the Operation Program Transport for 2007-

2013, i.e. the highways and expressways based on the OPT, or their parts, are not able to be transferred to the

legislative tests of the act drafts for the reason if its illegality, lawless character and thus the highways and

expressways or their parts based on the OPT may not be stated in the act draft and the Act amending the Act No.

669/2007 Coll. thus they may not be stated in the Act No. 669/2007 Coll. as amended either. Some of the highways

and expressways, or they parts, based on the OPT, are projected in the Act No. 669/2007 Coll. despite that the above

mentioned facts. 3/ The Program of Preparation and Construction of Highways and Expressways for 2007-2010, for

which they adopted the Resolution of the government of the Slovak Republic No. 1084/2007 of 19 December 2007,

being the strategic document including also the given section of the highway D4 was not the subject of the

assessment of the impact on environment, in particular in disaccord with the stipulations of the Act No. 24/2006

Coll.

Since the PPVDRC as the strategic document was not the subject of the assessment of the impacts on environment,

the rights of the citizens affected by the given section of the highway D4 were breached too. For example, the

citizens, affected by the given section of the highway D4 could not submit their standpoints, comments within the

individual stages of the procedure - assessment of the impacts of the strategic document PPVDRC on environment,

as it is regulated for example in the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. and in addition, even the concerned villages had no

chance to express themselves, to deliver their opinions, to present their comments to the strategic document or the

scope of its assessment since such a procedure on the impact assessment did not take place.

The strategic document named "The Program of Preparation and Construction of Highways and Expressways for

2007-2013, or highways, roads, or their parts based on the strategic document may not be transformed to the lawful

texts of the drafts of the acts due to the illegality, lawless character of the strategic document and therefore the

highways, roads or their parts based on the strategic document may not be specified in the Act draft and the act

amending the Act No. 669/2007 Coll. and thus they may not evens stated in the Act No. 669í2007 Coll. and thus

they may not be stated also in the Act No.669/2007 Coll. as amended, despite that the above mentioned, the

highway D4 is projected in the Act No. 669/2007 Coll.

Furthermore, I quote from the comments part to the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic with regards to

the Program of Preparation and Construction of Highway and Expressways for 2007-2010." ... I warn the person

presenting the material /MDPaT SR/ that the "Programs of Preparation and Construction of Highways and

Expressways for 2007-2010" is the strategic document with the national reach, and this it is the subject of

assessment pursuant to Article 17 of the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. on the assessment of the impacts on environment.

The assessment pursuant to the Act is important in particular in the case the funds from the structural funds of the

EU shall be requested for the funding of the construction of the projects stated in he presented material."... In the

case the strategic document comprising the given section of the highway D4 was subjected to the complex

assessment of impacts on environment pursuant to the Act No. 24/2006 Coll., such impact assessment would prove

the negative impact of the strategic document on the system of protected territories with the presence of priority

habitats and therefore the preparation of the given section of the highway D4 would have been terminated in that

stage, in particular with regards to the stipulation of Article 15 Para 5 of the Act No. 24/2006 Coll

In accordance with Article 15 Para 5 of the Act No. 24/2006 Coll., in the case the strategic document has a

negative impact on the system of protected territories with the presence of priority habitats or the habitats of priority

species, it might be approved only for the reasons regarding human health, public order, the security of the Slovak

Republic, the significant impact on the improvement of environment or when it relates to other urgent reasons

pursuant to the standpoint of the European Commissions with regards to the public interests under the condition of

the implementation of compensatory measures inevitable for the provision of protection and integrity of the

continuous system of protected territories .

129

The strategic document, named the Program of Preparation and Construction of Highways and Expressways for

2007 - 2010, that comprises the given section of the highway D4 may not be approved for the reason of a negative

impact of the strategic document on the system of protected territories with the occurrence of priority habitats. And

the strategic document, named the Program of Preparation and Construction of Highways and Expressways for 2007

- 2010, comprising also the given section of the highway D4 does not meet any single enumerative condition

specified in Article 15 Para 5 of the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. for approval, as for the given section of the highway D4.

According to Article 103r of the Treaty on the European Communities, the protection and improvement of quality of

environment, including the protection of habitats, wild animals and wild plants, are the primary objective of the

general interest followed by the European Communities.

The public interest, the supreme public interest in the territory affected by the section of the highway D4, specified

in the PPVRC, is the protection of environment, the protection of human health, the protection of environmentally

sensitive and specially protected natural territories. PPVDRC, the section of the highway D4 stated in the PPVDRC

is inter alia in disaccord also with this public interest. The highway D4 may be lead on another route, different from

the route stated in the PPVDRC and such a different route should be used that would not be in disaccord with the

public interest.

The Resolution of the government of the Slovak Republic is not generally binding legal regulation. It is and

organisational act. The Resolutions of the government of the Slovak Republic No. 1007/2006 and 1084/2007 are

also the approving documents. This regards the sections of the Resolutions of the government of the Slovak

Republic designated as "government approves“by which the government of the Slovak Republic approved the

Operation Program of Transport and the PPVDRC. As long as they approved the lawless, illegal basic material, the

approving document shall be also lawless and illegal.

a/ The Resolution of the government of the Slovak Republic No. 1007/2006, approving the Operation Program

Transport 2007-2013 is illegal, lawless in particular with regards to the fact the procedure of the approval of the

OPT and the procedure of the assessment of impacts of the Operation Program Transport 2007-2013 on

environment i illegal and lawless.

b/ The Resolution of the government of the Slovak Republic No. 1084/2007, approving the Program of Preparation

and Construction of the Highways and Expressways for 2007-2010 is illegal and lawless in particular with regards

to;

- that the assessment of the impacts of strategic document named The Program of Preparation and Construction of

Highways and Expressways for 2007-2010 on environment did not take place pursuant to the Act No. 24/2006 Coll.

The strategic document PPVDRC was not subjected to the assessment of its impacts on environment prescribed y

the Act No. 24/2006 Coll.

The complex assessment of the impacts of strategic document named "The Program of Preparation and Construction

of Highways and Expressways for 2007-2010" comprising the given section of the highway D4 on environment

would show the strategic document has a negative impact on the protected territory system, with the presence of

priority habitats and the strategic document may not beapproved e.g. even pursuant to Article 15 Para 5 of the Act

No. 24/2006 Coll. since the strategic document, as for the given section of the highway D4, does not meet any of

the enumerative conditions specified in Article 15 Para 5 of the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. necessary for the approval of

the strategic document . It is given in details above.

6. The results of the assessment of the impacts of the highway D4 Ivanka North - Záhorská Bystrica shown they

preliminary foresee a significantly negative impact of variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b and 7c of the highway D4 during both

the construction and operation on the hydric regime of NATURA 2000 territory of SKUEV 0388 Vydrica with the

presence of priority habitats and priority species - see Table IV. 3 of the text Annex 4 to the given material.

7. The results of the assessment of the impacts of the highway D4 Ivanka North - Záhorská Bystrica proved the

negative impact of the variants 2a,2b,7a,7b,7c, SPL of the highway D4 during the construction and operation as for

the direct interference with the habitats, noise and light disturbance, collisions with vehicles, i.e. the killing of

animals on the NATURA 2000 territory of SKCHVU 014 Malé Karpaty (the Lesser Carpathians) - see Table IV.3.

of the text Annex 4 to the given material, while it is necessary to note the individual negative impacts assessed in

the Table would affect the given territory in a cumulative way, whereby it would come to higher degree of

significance of the overall negative impact of the highway D4 on this specially protected natural territory. While

also valuable habitats would be affected. In the case of its construction, the highway D4 would have the negative

impact on the integrity of the territory SKCHVÚ 014 Malé Karpaty (the Lesser Carpathians).

8. I consider the results of the assessment of the impacts of the highway D4 Ivanka North- Záhorská Bystrica,

variants 2a,2b,7a,7b,7c of the highway D4 on the NATURA 2000 territory of SKUEV 0279 Šúr given in the Table

IV.3 of the Annex 4 to the given material to be undervalued.

When comparing for example the assessment of the impacts of the highway D4 /variants 2a,2b,7a,7b,7c/ in the field

of "the change in immission characteristics", the Table IV.3 reads, as for the territory of SKUEV Šúr and SKUEV

Vydrica identically during the construction on both territories, namely "no impact" and the assessment during the

operation is almost identical, namely "the moderate negative impact" for Šúr and "very moderate negative impact"

for Vydrica, despite that the SKUEV Vydrica is located ca 3 kilometres to the SW from the central duct of the

130

variants 2a,2b,7a,7b,7c and SKUEV Šúr is located ca 500 metres from the body of the highway D /variants

2a,2b,7a,7b,7c/, from the Vajnory tunnel, from the GSI Čierna voda and in the proximity of the GSI Ivanka north,

the GSI Rača and the portal of the Karpaty tunnel. In addition, the route of the highway D4 /variants 2a,2b,7a,7b,7c/

runs at the length of ca 2.5 kilometres almost in parallel with the Western boundary of the SKUEV Šúr and the

similar shall apply also to the collectors planed alongside the highway.. The following shall apply to the variants 2a,2b,7a,7b,7c of the highway D4.

From the point of view of the protection of ecosystems, the most significant ones are the emissions of NOx under

standard operation conditions and the Regulation No. 360/2010 Coll. on the quality of air as amended specified the

immission limit of 30µg/rn3/year for them. The given limit is directly specified for the protection of ecosystems -

see p. 11 - text Annex 5. 4 to the given material. Pursuant to Table C.III.3 on p. 139 of the given material - the

maximum concentration of NO2 - the calender year in the immediate proximity of the highway D4/i.e. to the

distance of 350 - 400 m/ under unfavourable dispersion conditions for the variants 2a,2b,7a,7b,7c is ca

23.4µg/m3/year for 2030. The value of 23.4µg/m3/year approaches the above stated limit value, while as it is stated

above, they come from the underestimated traffic and the underestimated emission factors in the calculation of

immission load. And thus also the immission load stated in the Table on p. 139 of the given material is

underestimated as for the highway D4, but despite that it approaches the limit value. In addition to N02 or NOxm

the territory of the SKUEV Šúr would be affected by the emissions of CO, C02, ozone, airborne dust PM10 and the

other pollutants coming from the traffic on the highway D4.

The noise from the highway D4 was not assessed for the territory of SKUEV Šúr in the given material, but on the

basis of the noise load stated in the given material at certain distances from the highway D4, the SKUEV Šúr would

be affected by disturbing and animal-stressing level of noise from the highway D4, during both the construction and

operation. In addition, the noise load in the given material is undervalued. It is given in details above. It is known

that hearing of some animals is more sensitive than hearing of people. And many animals avoid the noisy places. "In

general, we may state noise hamper the mutual communication, mating and hunting of animals". The end of the

quote - from the material named the Assessment Report - the Complementation for the Highway D4 Jarovce -

Ivanka North.

The impact of light smog on SKUEV Šúr was not assessed. It is clear that also the negative impact of the highway

D4 would interfere with SKUEV Šúr, in particular during the operation of the highway D4. This regards mainly the

lighting of bridges, GSI Čierna voda, GSI Rača and the Karpaty tunnel portal. The illumination would attract also

butterflies, beetles, insects that would be subsequently killed on the highway. The light smog has an unfavourable

impact for example on the migration and hunts of animals, e.g. ornithofauna. It would come to the fragmentation of

the habitats of animals, including specially protected species from SKUEV Šúr.

According to Table IV.3 of the text Annex 4 to the given material, they expect the moderate negative impact of the

construction and operation of the highway D4 on SKUEV Šúr as for the change in the hydric regime. The territory

of SKUEV Šúr would be attacked also by the introduction of invasive species from the vehicles driving on the

highway D4 planned alongside the SKUEV Šúr. In direct causal relation to the highway D4, it would come to the

deterioration of the condition of habitats in the SKUEV Šúr and the impairment of the functions of ecosystems. The

highway D4 would then act as a line obstruction, a barrier, namely in the period of its construction and operation.

The animals from the SKUEV Šúr would be killed on the highway in the case of the construction of the highway

D4.

The stipulations of the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 3 April 1979 on the protection of wild birds /the Birds

Directive/ were not considered in the given material. This is one of the directives regulating the protection of species

on the territories of NATURA 2000. Pursuant to Article 1 Para 1 of the Birds Directive, the species mentioned in

Annex 1 shall be the subject to the special measures regarding the conservation of their habitats in order to assure

their survival and reproduction in the area of their distribution. Pursuant to Article 4 Para 2 of the Birds Directive,

while considering the need of the protection of species named in the Annex 1 and for this purpose the member

countries shall devote a special attention to the conservation of wetlands, in particular the wetlands of international

importance. The given implies the subject of protection are also the bird species named in Annex 1 to the Birds

Directive. And some bird species named in Annex 1 are located also on the territory of SKEV 0279 Šúr and they are

thus the subject of protection on the territory and the deterioration or condition or damage of their habitats by above

mentioned negative impacts of the highway D4 /variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b and 7c/ has a negative impact on the integrity

of the territory of SKUEV 0279 Šúr with the presence of priority habitats and priority species.

The above mentioned negative impacts of the highway D4 /variants 2a,2b,7a,7b,7c / would act during the

construction and operation concurrently, cumulatively and for a long time or permanently and they would induce the

reduction in biodiversity, i.e. the decrease in the count of species and the abundance of the species on the NATURA

2000 territory of SKUEV 0279 Šúr with the presence of priority habitats and priority species. 9. Pursuant to Article

38 Para 4, second sentence of the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. on the assessment of impacts on environment and on the

amendment and supplementation of some acts as amended, the construction of the highway D4 in variant 2a, 2b, 7a,

7b and 7c may not be approved. The compensation of negative impacts of the highway D4 with regards to the

stipulation of Article 38 Para 4 second sentence of the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. may not be considered since the

131

negative impacts may not be admitted, i.e. the construction of the highway D4 may not be approved. The

stipulations of Article 6 of the Act No. 543/2002 Coll. on the protection of nature and landscape as amended do not

relate to the case dealing with the negative impact of the proposed activity on the integrity of NATURA 2000

territory with the presence of priority habitats or priority species. It is not possible to proceed pursuant to the

stipulations of Article 6 of the Act No. 543/2002 Coll. in the case of the highway D4 Ivanka North - Záhorská

Bystrica for the reason of it negative impact on the integrity of NATURAL 2000 territory with the presence of

priority habitats and priority species, since there is a special legal stipulation regulating especially the conservation

of priority habitats and priority species, and the stipulation is Article 38 Para 4 second sentence of the Act No.

24/2006 Coll. The priority habitats are a special group of habitats of European importance that are subject to the

special protection pursuant to Article 38 Para 4 second sentence of the Act No.24/2006 Coll. and pursuant to Article

6 Para 4 third sentence of the Council Directive No. 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the protection of habitats, wild

animals and wild plants / the Habitat Directive/. Pursuant t Article 38 Para 4 of the Act No. 24/2006 Coll., as long as

on the basis of the result of the assessment of the impacts the negative impact of the proposed activity on the

integrity of the territory of the system of protected territories is revealed from the point of view of the objectives of

its conservation and should there are no alternative solutions free from negative impact or as log as there are no such

solutions with smaller negative impact, the proposed activity may be permitted only for urgent reasons of higher

public interest and under the condition of compensatory measures imposed pursuant to a special regulation.

When priority habitats or priority species occur on the relevant territory, the proposed activity may be approved only

for such pressing reasons of higher public interest that regard the public health, public safety or the favourable

consequences of the principal interest for environment or as along as it relates to other urgent reasons of higher

public interest pursuant to the standpoint of the European Commission. The highway D4 is not any of the

enumerative reasons of the public interests stated in Article 38 Para 4 second sentence of the Act No. 24/2006 Coll.

According to Article 103 of the Treaty on the European Communities, the protection and improvement of quality of

environment, including the protection of habitats, wild animals and wild plants, are the primary objective of the

general interest followed by the European Communities. The public interest, the supreme public interest, is in this

case the protection of natural territories with the presence of priority habitats and priority species and the protection

of human health. The route of the highway D4 may be lead through another territory, different from the territory

intended in the material named "The Report on the Assessment of the Highway D4 Ivanka North - Záhorská

Bystrica", namely the route of the highway D4 may be lead in such a way the negative impacts of the highway

would not interfere with the residential zones and the specially protected natural territories.

With regards to the above, I suggest the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic not to recommend any of

the variants of the highway D4 /2a,2b,7a,7b,7c,SPL/ in the given territory or to recommend the zero variant.

Ing. Peter Pokrivčák, Bratislava (letter of 25.5.2011)

Let me send the following comments to the public discussion on the report of the assessment of

the impact of the structure on environment held on 10 May 2011 at the Magistrate of the Capital

City of Bratislava.

1. The vertical adjustment of all presented variants considered the routing if the highway D4

under D1 in Ivanka North intersection. This intersection is the part of the assessment of the

highway section of D4 Jarovce - Ivanka North. In the case of the selection of such designed

intersection, I recommend to route the section of Ivanka North - Záhorská Bystrica pursuant to

variant 7b. The routing in this variant, as well as the intersection of highway D4 under D1 shall

have the least negative impact on environment, in particular in the cadastre of the village of

Vajnory.

2. In the case of the selection of variant with the intersection of the highway D4 above D1, I

recommend variant 7c in the section of Ivanka North - Záhorská Bystrica with the following

amendments in the next stages of project documentation:

Route the highway D4 from the intersection with D1 (above) as far as Čierna voda

intersection including on the flyover bridge. This solution shall have the least impact on

the protected territory around the Lisy Lake of all variants.

Change the vertical alignment in the Karpaty tunnel so that as little section as possible

would be drained to the Eastern portal. We warn that Šúr kanál has bad run-off conditions

even nowadays and in the case of the supply of a large amount of water from the tunnel,

in particular when digging it out, shall probably require the modification of the kanál or

the building of another one and the diversion of water to the Little Danube.

132

Consider the possibility of bidirectional operation on the Western collector alongside the

highway in the section from Rača intersection as far as Ivanka North intersection.

In the next stages of the project documentation, it is necessary to respect the international

cycling route and its intersection with the proposed highway.

When designing the anti-noise measures on the highway D4, it shall be necessary to

respect the planned construction of CEPIT and individual residential buildings in

Nemecká dolina Valley.

3. The technical and economically demanding section with a long tunnel starts behind the Rača

intersection in the entire section of the proposed highway. Therefore I suggest to divide the

entire construction in further project preparation to Jarovce-Rača section and Rača-Záhorská

Bystrica section and to adapt the schedule of preparation and construction to the division.

Ing. Daniela Pyszková, Bratislava (letter of 20.5.2011) According to me, the presented Report on the Assessment of Impacts on Environment (the EIA Report)

for the given section of the highway D4 is, including all the annexes, made in an absolute concordance

with the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. as amended. Many its parts, e.g. noise study, dissipation study, have

above-standard level, the authors used also the results of foreign studies to the particular topic (the

relation between the air cleanliness and noise on public health, the impact of the operation of the

highways on environment pollution, etc.

The quality of the report was certainly affected also by the the fact that in addition to the own sources, the

person drawing up the report used the Feasibility and Expediency Study for the route of D4 Bratislava

Jarovce - Ivanka North - Stupava South - state border was used. SR/RR (provided for by the investor

NDS), in which all the requirements from the Assessment Scope were technically dealt with while

observing the basic environmental conditions, all the proposed highway locations were assessed in

particular from traffic and economics point of view. The study (Feasibility Study) is one of the basic

required materials in the EU countries when arranging the funding of construction from the EU funds and

the banking sector. The report is written comprehensibly, the graphic annexes are well arranged and

informative. I would like to clarify it a bit - pursuant to the Construction Act (Article 117 b), the planning

office for the issuance of the zoning and planning decision for highways and expressways is the Regional

Planning Office. In addition to the length of Karpaty tunnel, the assessed variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b and 7c

differ in the alternative designs of Ivanka North intersection (the highway D4 lead above or under the

highway D1 with the continuation in the dug out Vajnory tunnel), Rača intersection and the ending of the

Karpaty tunnel near Marianka. I positively assess that the "collectors" are designed bilaterally alongside

the highway, i.e. the unidirectional 2-lane roads connected to the highway through intersections to which

the existing and also newly built areas fro the proximity of the highway would connect, whereby all the

requirements for connection to highway would be met.

I agree with the results of the report, the variant 7c is the most suitable in all aspects:

- the crossing of D4 with D1 is more suitable since the routing of D4 in the notch and further in the dug

out Vajnory tunnel would represent the risk for a complex hydric regime in the given flatland territory,

the report proposes all the measures on the highway D4 for the protection of ground water, in relation to

the project of anti-flood protection of the entire territory that was elaborated within the residential area

construction in Čierna Voda,

- Karpaty tunnel was prolonged near Marianka by ca 550 m (dug out part), whereby the request of some

inhabitants of the village was fully met (Sitina tunnel is designed in a similar way on D2 in Bratislava,

where the excavated shifter part near SAV has the length of ca 100m.)

- It represents the least risks and the impact on rock environment when digging out the tunnel,

- it was proven that it was the most suitable also from the point of view of transport, interventions in the

protected territories, urbanisation and impacts on inhabitants, it belongs also to he least financially

demanding (despite that all of them are expensive) and economically efficient. The corridor of the

variants of D4 is stated in all villages affected by variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b and 7c, save Borinka. In addition,

the location of the highway has been in the planning scheme of Bratislava defined as the "zero circuit of

capacity road“for ca 20 years. From this aspect, the requirements of various groups of interest for the

change in the highway route seem to be unjustified. This regards mainly the owners of houses and other

structures in the proximity of the route of D4, the construction of which intensively took place recently

133

and still continues, regardless the planning schemes and their binding sections.

The highway D4 is the structure in a public interest, with a significant positive impact on urban, regional

and international transport and for Bratislava probably the most important and long awaited road structure

ever. The part is in use - in Petržalka, the section of Záhorská Bystrica-Devínska Nová Ves is before

operation permit granting. That means the beginning and end of the assessed section of D4 are fixed and

they may not be changed.

For the given reasons, the variant of Senec - Pezinok - Lozorno is not and may not be the variant of the

highway D4. The requirement in the assessment scope to assess it as the equivalent route of D4 was non-

professional, unjustified and it uselessly increased the costs of the elaboration of technical and

environmental documentation. Finally, it is assessed as the worst one in the EIA report too. However, the

technical design and environmental assessment of the route could be used for the preparation of the

prospective interconnection of D1 Chorvátsky Grob and the road II/502 Pezinok having a regional

importance, in the investment activities of the Bratislava Self-government Region.

The report lucidly describes the fulfilment of specific conditions specified in the Assessment Scope, with

the reference to the relevant chapters and annexes with their detailed design.

I have a comment to the condition No. 19 "To elaborate detailed geological and hydrogeological survey

of the impact of the proposed activity on the regime of surface waters and the ground water flow rate in

particular in the tunnel sections and the section of the municipal part of Vajnory. The contractor correctly

state a separate geological and hydrogeological study was elaborated; the detailed survey shall follow in

the next stage of project preparation. There are experiences from the other highway sections, that such a

condition of the Assessment Scope is considered to be breached by various civil associations, since no

survey (bores) were done in the field. The NDS always explained that when the EIA report assesses

several routes it would not be possible to carry out the geological, financially very demanding, survey (in

particular in the mountainous terrain), but the base documents from Geofond, where the rock environment

of the entire Slovak Republic is mapped rather in details shall be used. The data are sufficient for the

selection of variants. The detailed geological and hydrogeological survey is carried out just for a single

resulting highway route, the directional and vertical adjustment is clarified on the basis of the detailed

terrain survey and all necessary surveys. The contractor of the GHP closely cooperates with the highway

designer who corrects the route if necessary pursuant to the partial results of the GHP. All this is the part

of the zoning and planning decision documentation, not the technical study, in which the variants are

proposed and assessed. The results of the terrain GHP are used in particular for the proposals of the

particular technical designs - the establishment of bridges, the method of tunnel construction, slope

stabilisation, draining, etc.

The ideal condition, common for example in Austria, England, Germany is that the EIA report assessed

just a single resulting location of the route and thus the EIA report is made in parallel with the zoning and

planning decision documentation under the close cooperation of all designers and survey makers, thus the

assessment and the proposal of the measures for the reduction of negative impacts may be more concrete

and detailed.

In the Slovak Republic, they followed this way on some sections of D1 - in Bratislava it was the structure

of Viedenská - Prístavný most bridge, the structures between Trenčín and Považská Bystrica, the sections

in the Liptov region. The resulting position of the highway was determined on the basis of the 1st stage of

the EIA.

I note it down for explanation since I suppose there can be similar opinions of the lay public or people

working in the other fields than the investment activity. The proposed measures are, according to me,

sufficient, yet I recommend small additions:

- The shape of Rača intersection in the resulting variant 7c is probably the most suitable in the given

rather built-up territory, but after the survey of the terrain, surveys, new discussions with the ŽSR, the

owners of buried services, etc. in the next stage of the project documentation it would be possible to

modify it.

- The anti-noise walls are designed at the height of 2-4 m. This may be modified on the basis of more

detailed noise study made within the zoning and planning decision documentation. However, in general

and based on the experience from the other highway sections, it is suitable to build them with a certain

reserve, thus higher, as long as it is bearable from statics point of view.

Note: the report states the increase in noise near Vajnory is caused by the traffic on the highway D1. This

134

shall be dealt with by anti-noise walls within the regular extension of D1 of Bratislava - Trnava.

The highway D4 passes through rather complicated territory from the point of view of terrain, settlement

and many production and other areas, many engineering and transport networks, natural environment, etc.

Many opposing interests meet there, however its construction is inevitable from the traffic point of view,

as soon as possible. Therefore it is very important to smoothly continue with the preparation of particular

route that should be decided for within a short time on the basis of expert documentations and

standpoints. The justified comments and requirements of public, that should be taken into account

pursuant to the Act No. 24/2006 Coll. as amended, may be dealt with in the next stage of project

preparation. In no case, the polemics on the amendment or supplementation of the highway routes could

be admitted, according to me. I do not classify my standpoint as the expert one, but with regards to the

fact I carried out and managed the assessment process for highways and some expressways in the Slovak

Republic for the NDS (formerly the SSC and RD), I do not consider it to be layman’s standpoint.

Juraj Minarovič, Marianka (letter of 18.5.2011)

The standpoint to the Karpaty tunnel:

I. The recommended variant 7c reckons with the completion of the Karpaty tunnel at m 15.2. I

consider the place to be extremely unsuitable, despite that the NDS and EIA overstate the tunnel

runs on the surface for last 200 m and it would be covered. Unfortunately, from the point of view

of the inhabitants of the village, the most problematic section of the route starts exactly on km

15.2, where the highway should continue outside the tunnel. It approaches the residential zone

the most there. Therefore I suggest shifting the portal at least by 600-800 m to the West in order

to minimise the negative impacts on the lives of people.

II. At the same time, I draw an attention to and submit the principal objection to the location of

venting duct on the place of the Western portal. According to the dispersion study, the duct with

8-metre chimney should serve for the diversion of air pollutants from both tubes of the Western

part of the tunnel. This is the question of products from approximately 2.5 km section of the

tunnel! (The rest of air pollutants are taken away y central and Eastern chimney). It is a real

tragedy that this significant stationary source of imissions is planned to be placed at the

Western portal, again on the place where the highway approaches the family houses of the

inhabitants of Marianka the most..

Therefore I ask the NDS to shift the duct in the case of the non.-modified variant 7c to the East,

as far from the dwellings as possible, at least to the place where the tunnel comes out from the

mountain range to the surface.

After studying the dissipation study, I get the impression the material is elaborated tendentiously.

It intentionally suppresses and disparages the effect of venting chimney at the Western portal.

This can be seen in particular on Fig. 6 of the Annex t the dissipation study named

V7bc_section2_2030_NO2-1h, p. 34, showing the level of imissions in the proximity of the

Western portal. We can see here the distribution of pollution alongside the uncovered highway

section that is diluted in natural way.

However, it is not shown here and we cannot find the trustworthy explanation in any place of the

material, how the chimney would influence the quality of air, when it concentrates air pollutants

from 2.5 km highway section on one place and subsequently blows them to the air on that place.

The statement the air pollutants are ejected with the speed of 16 m/s and therefore their

concentration in the air may not be measured is unacceptable with regards to the height of the

chimney of just 8 m and to the quantity of harmful substances.

I state the daily volumes of exhaled products according to the dissipation study just for

illustration for Western portal, variant 7c: the compounds of NO - 70.6 kg/day, the compounds

of CO - 49.2 kg/day, etc. When taking into account the prevailing direction of wind fro Stupava,

the pollutants shall be directed towards the dwellings of Marianka inhabitants and the noise load

by the facility would not be negligible as well.

135

On the basis of the given suspicions, I ask the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic

to appoint the trustworthy and independent subject to make the alternative dissipation study or at

least to get verified the veracity of data in the presented material by such a subject, including the

observation and correctness of the methodological procedures used when compiling the

dissipation study.

Silvia Jančová, Viničné (letter of 18.5.2011)

I really like the system of the public discussion of large structures. At least a common man has

the possibility to get more information directly from the source. I got the impression at the public

discussion that no one needs this, no one wants this and there is no money for this. Of course, I

do not understand everything and certainly the given structure has any strategic importance.

Therefore I would like to ask, if it would be constructed by chance, to consistently deal with all

intersections with cycloroutes in the project already (e.g.: Rača - Pezinok) so that the cycling

routes would not be uselessly prolonged. I rather like the design of the underpass on

Dolnozemská street in Petržalka, not far from the horse racing track or the flyover above

Einsteinova street near Incheba.

However, it would be suitable to note the primary feature of well-functioning city is a pedestrian

movement and thus related mass transport. Therefore the further support of individual

automotive transport would be disserviceable for Bratislava. It may happen that the cars would

stop further development of our cities and country.

The principal sense of transport structures is shortening of distances. However, it is necessary to

realize they are also a great barrier causing slowing down. Individual transport is the biggest

problem of the cities. The greater space is earmarked for cars, the farther it is necessary to build

houses from communications and the longer are the distances for which the communications are

constructed. The longer distances, the strongest argumentation for further construction of faster

communications. The idea of absolute freedom of movement in a car around the city was

brought to its perfection in America, where 50% of the area of the city belongs to transport in

some towns and cities and they do not have pathways there.

The document mentioned the displacement of people to the countryside. I am of the opinion that

in this case this is the sub-urbanisation phase of the growth of Bratislava agglomeration. The

proof of this is also the urban way of the parcelling out the new development areas in the villages

near Bratislava and the travels of the inhabitants of the villages to work to Bratislava. Bratislava

slowly gets to its intensification phase of growth and it should deal with an efficient way of mass

transport within 10 years, since strong population years shall be at the age of secondary school

attendants and they would not be able to travel everywhere by car. But when clearing the roads

off the cars, we can find out that what we call transit today, is supplying in fact.

In general, they prefer the idiom - Europe without borders and thus we should not think of

Bratislava within the cadastre boundary. Bratislava today reaches as far as Trnava. So why not

making the bypass somewhere behind Trnava? Then the tunnel under the Carpathians needs not

to be so long. Thus the development in Trnava would be supported and the car flows would be

reversed.

Michal Radošinský, Bratislava (letter of 10.4.2011)

Being empowered by the co-owners of plots of land with No. 2176/5, 2176/7, 2190/9, 2192/10,

2824/9 and 2824/10 on the Deed of Ownership No. 2176 for district of Bratislava III, village of

BA - municipal part of Vajnory, in the cadastral territory of Vajnory, in the Land Registry at the

Cadastral Office, the Administration of Cadastre of the Capital City of the Slovak Republic,

Bratislava, I express the disagreement with the location of the structure - the bypass of the city of

Bratislava preliminary named D4, the part of the construction of which is planned on our plot of

land.

We energetically require to carry out the construction of the bypass and related structures outside

our plot of land, or provide us with an equivalent replacement plot of land!

136

After bad experience from the period of socialism, when they erected the newly built road No.

502 on a part of our plot of land without our consent and without any compensation instead of

making it on the place of the old road and when hydromelioration kanál and retaining reservoir

was built on the other part, we express this our disapproval. During the construction of the

bypass of the city of Bratislava, preliminary named D4, according to the contemporary projects it

would come to the interventions in the hydromelioration kanál and the retaining reservoir.

We encounter similar behaviour even now, when the illegal procedures of the Magistrate of the

City of Bratislava is just the continuation in the socialist intents, when it lawlessly exploits our

property without a legal title. They do not even pay the rent for the exploitation of our property

despite that we have repeatedly asked for it and they even did not provide us with a replacement

plot of land, despite that we have repeatedly asked them to do so.

We are aware the city owns the plots of land in various locations, that should rather be used for

the remedy of legal injury of past and not to be sold. They should not misuse its position of the

strong one versus the weak one - "the common" people"

The city of Bratislava owns various equivalent plots of land that could be used for the exchange

for our plot of land used by the city, yet not it its possession. The city would not thus uselessly

incur secondary costs of rent! However, we can guess that when selling the plots of land

belonging to the city, the city quickly receives greater amount of money, while spending the

majority of them in non-efficient way on return, yet blinding many citizens this way.

The plot of land was inherited by us after our parents, was purchased by them for borrowed

money after the World War II so that we would not hunger, while we had to work hard with our

parents as labourers so that the loan could to be repaid since we were poor and they wanted us to

get better just a little bit.

Ing. Miroslav Majdlen, Levoča, E-mail of 10.5.2011

From amongst the presented variants, variant 7b is the most suitable with regards to the

respecting of repeated requirements, how the D4 should look like from the side of the

neighbouring villages (Vajnory, Chorvátsky Grob, Rača) and respecting the conditions of nature

conservation. However, as long as it would be possible to maximally enlarge the distance of the

course of the highway from Chorvátske rameno branch (Šúr) in this stage and to place the GSI

Rača at least 100 m more to the left, closer to Lagermax.

The next assessed variant that could be recommended is variant 7a with a possible shift towards

Lagermax as the previous variant 7b.

Thanks a lot for possible consideration of my comments.

Zdenka Augustínová, E-mail of 24.6.2011

Let me express also the individual opinion of the alternative route of D4 that should lead through

Marianka.

Marianka is a picturesque village being surrounded by forest to a large extent. The front part of

Marianka is open and thus when winds blow from this side, it is aerated. Just for the freshness of

the winds, they planned to build a sanatorium in Marianka for the treatment of respiratory

diseases of children from Bratislava. When they found out radon leaking from soil, the people

building in Marianka were recommended to insulate well their structures and to vent them well.

Yes, vent them well. Please, look at the proposed alternative closely - the section of the highway

on the territory of Marianka in minimally 6 m filling plus 3 m noise barrier. The filling with the

height of minimally 9 m in the area from where the active winds blow to Marianka is rather

insensitive approach of people drawing the highway plans showing no interest in the health of

people who should live in the close proximity of the highway they drawn. Thus, when I come

from the information presented at the meeting of citizens in Marianka, I come out with the result

the barrier would get Marianka to spatial isolation to a great extent, many houses will be in the

shadow of the barrier and Marianka has its problems even now, either with the leaking radon or

the overall venting capacity of the area of Marianka valley, that is developed more and more and

137

people still burn solid fuels there. We really have enough our air pollutants. Just come and

measure them in right time.

I shall not write a lot, I just would like to support the official standpoint of the village of

Marianka and the civil association Malé Karpaty proposing that if there is no other possibility

and the highway should be routed by the village of Marianka, I am for the prolongation of the

tunnel as close as possible to already built intersection that was constructed without the

consulting the village of Marianka.

I would really like to appeal to the good sense of people having the destiny of the inhabitants of

Marianka in their hands to have elaborated serious studies on the wide impact on history - the

city of pilgrimage, nature - the breaking of the paths used by forest game, recreation - the

cycloroute of the European importance, the health of people - radon, air pollutants, noise and last

but not least the reduced comfort of living - 9 m barrier, let’s call it anti-wind anyway at the

distance of ca 400 m around the village.

The highway should serve in particular for the relief of transit transport, not the urban one, as it

was said by someone here. The international interconnection certainly plays a major role here

(the EU ma help with the funds), let Volkswagen contribute to it, its interest is to transport cargo

from their plant in Martin faster and cheaper.

Finally, I would like to stress out that when the highway would be constructed as it is requested

by citizens, so small Slovakia may be proud on the world that we got among the most developed

countries of the world with a highway built in a tunnel with the contribution of an open dialogue

with people.

Petitions

Petition for leading circular road D4 in variant 7b through the covered tunnel alongside

Vajnory

On 6 September 2011, the citizens of Vajnory submitted a petition to the Ministry of

Environment SR for leading highway D4 in variant 7b (a tunnel). The petition was submitted by

the Mayor of Vajnory, Bratislava, and a representative of the petition committee, Ján Mrva,

directly to the Minister, József Nagy. The full wording of the petition is as follows:

"The citizens of Bratislava - Vajnory categorically disagree with a solution to leading the circular

road D4 other than variant 7b, with a sub-surface - covered - tunnel next to Vajnory. Other

variants, including variant 7c preferred by the Národná Diaľničná (National Highway Company)

are unacceptable and will have an exceptionally negative impact upon the appearance - scenery -

of the countryside and will irreversibly alter its nature. The surface variant on an embankment

will have a negative impact upon the mental health of the inhabitants and upon the already poor

standard of housing. The structural components of the new D4 with a bridge over D1 at a height

of 15m and then a steep incline down to an 8m embankment which should be constant along the

whole area of Vajnory is not acceptable to the inhabitants of Bratislava - Vajnory. The

inhabitants of Bratislava - Vajnory only agree with variant 7b, or with a modified version from a

sub-surface tunnel to one laid on the terrain (if the hydrological study shows embedding to be an

unsuitable solution due to the flow of ground water), with a covered tunnel from 0.9 to 2.3 km.

We require our petition to be accepted during the decision-making of the Ministry of

Environment SR in Bratislava and we require the investor - National Highway Company - to

include it in the project documentation for area management."

The petition was signed by 870 citizens

Petition for changing the route of highway D4

The petition for changing the route of highway D4 was submitted by a representative from the

138

petition committee and the Member of Bratislava Region Parliament, Anna Zemanová, to the

Chairman of the Bratislava Region, Pavol Frešo. We could not obtain further information about

the petition.

The "Let's Save Marianka and its surroundings" petition

The public initiative, "Let's Save Marianka", is organising a petition against the building of the

Mariánsky tunnel. The petition is unfinished and its full wording is as follows:

We, undersigned citizens of the Slovak Republic, are aware that the construction of the highway

section "Highway D4, Ivanka section, north - Záhorská Bystrica", further also the "Mariánsky

tunnel"

shall permanently and irreversibly devalue the picturesque valley between Záhorská

Bystrica, Marianka and Stupava where, until now, the three mentioned villages have

lived in peace;

shall permanently halt development and the unique atmosphere of Marianka - the oldest

pilgrimage place in Slovakia - wall suffer;

the democratically elected government wishes to do what the Communists failed to do in

40 years of totalitarian regime - to destroy the character, attractiveness and future of

Marianka;

the entire area of Marianka and Záhorská Bystrica will be contaminated by noise,

emissions and vibrations spreading from the Mariánsky tunnel, needlessly and

senselessly located in the close vicinity of people's dwellings;

the flora and fauna of the Little Carpathians Protected Landscape Area, ground water as

well as the legendary, the holy Mariánsky spring and the whole ecosystem will suffer;

the panorama of the Marianka and Záhorská Bystrica valley with Pajštún Castle and the

horizon of the Little Carpathians will be destroyed by the Mariánsky tunnel, insensitively

and arrogantly situated high above the terrain, therefore losing its natural magic and

recreation potential for inhabitants, cyclists, tourists, pilgrims and gardeners;

does not resolve the significant traffic problem in Bratislava and its surroundings;

although highway bypass D4 is very important in terms of traffic, there is no persuasive

specialist reasoning for building the Mariánsky tunnel as part of highway bypass D4;

will crown the unprecedented, unprofessional and illegal procedure in the preparation of

the Mariánsky tunnel; during its preparation, Slovak and international standards and

agreements were seriously breached;

we require

Iveta Radičová, Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic

Richard Sulík, Chairman of the National Council of the Slovak Republic

Ján Fígeľ, Minister for Transport, Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak

Republic

József Nagy, Minister of Environment of the Slovak Republic

a) to immediately halt preparation works on the Mariánsky tunnel (highway section: "Highway

D4, Ivanka section, north – Záhorská Bystrica“);

b) to investigate and prove the priority, justification, feasibility and public interest in

implementing the Mariánsky tunnel (highway section: "Highway D4, Ivanka section, north –

Záhorská Bystrica“) using a renowned, independent international institution;

c) to proceed in planning the development of motorways and the road network, their preparation

and implementation in compliance with the laws of the Slovak Republic and international

legislation related to this issue, as well as in compliance with the justifiable interests of the

139

citizens of the Slovak Republic and in compliance with the protection of nature and the

countryside;

since, in relation to the Mariánsky tunnel

a) the legal process for evaluating the predicted impact upon the environment was not

implemented and adhered to in the strategic document "Programme of the preparation and

construction of motorways and highways for 2007 - 2010" in compliance with Act No. 24/2006

coll. on assessing environmental impacts, which is in contradiction with the abovementioned

Act, with the Council Directive 85/337/EC of 27 June 1985 on assessing the environment impact

of some public and private projects as well as in contradiction with the Aahus Convention which

guarantees the public access to information about the environment, participation in the decision-

making process and access to justice in environmental issues;

b) there is no relevant document proving the execution of research and development for the road

infrastructure including proven justification for the construction and future use, nor objectively

obtained results of such research and development for the road infrastructure, and such a

procedure in the matter of designing roads without the stated documentation and research is a

violation of Act No. 135/1961 coll. on roads (the Road Act) as amended;

c) for the reasons stated in points a) and b), there is reasonable concern that the Constitutional

Act No. 357/2004 coll. on the Protection of Public Interest in the Performance of Offices by

Public Officials as amended was violated;

d) for the reasons stated in points a), b) and c), there is reasonable concern that non-compliance

with legal procedures is an act in strict contradiction to Act No. 523/2004 coll. on the Budget

Rules of the Public Service as amended.

The petition was prepared and submitted by a petition committee consisting of the following

persons:

1. Juraj Turčáni, Krasinského 5, 821 04 Bratislava

2. Dušan Statelov, Na Ovsisku 1, 900 33 Marianka

3. RNDr. Katarína Kminiaková, Bystrická 74, 900 21 Marianka

Nominated as the contact person to communicate with public authorities, in compliance with § 3

Para. 4 of Act No. 85/1990 coll. on the rights of petition, was: Juraj Turčáni, Krasinského 5, 821

04 Bratislava

Little Carpathian Civic Association - motion questioning the legality of the process of

preparing and assessing the proposed activity "Highway D4, Ivanka section, north –

Záhorská Bystrica" On 3 November 2011, the MTCRD SR and Ministry of Environment SR were delivered the

letter of the General Prosecutor of the Slovak Republic No. VI/1 Gd 544/11-5 of 31 October

2011 with a request for a statement on the motion by the Little Carpathian Civic Association

(hereinafter "motion" and "applicant") questioning the legality of the process of preparing and

assessing the proposed activity "Highway D4, Ivanka section, north – Záhorská Bystrica"

(hereinafter "motion").

The motion contained seven points which pinpointed the non-assessment of strategic material

which would strategically assess the location of D4 and that the public should have the

opportunity to comment.

Both Ministries responded to the motion within the deadline. At the time of issue of the final

statement, the result of the motion was unknown.

5. Preparation of an expert assessment in accordance with § 36 of the Act

An assessment was prepared by Geoconsult, s.r.o., Bratislava. The persons responsible were

140

RNDr. Ivan Jakubis, Ing. Eva Volleková, Ing. Juraj Fürst, in November 2011.

Those who prepared the expert assessment recommend the following solution:

Divide the assessed highway D4 Ivanka north - Záhorská Bystrica into two sections, i.e. the

1st section from MÚK Ivanka north to MÚK Rača, and the 2nd section from MÚK Rača to

MÚK Záhorská Bystrica.

The mentioned sections can be implemented separately and they will be operational without

major technical modifications (modification of MÚK Rača in accordance with variant 7c).

Implement the 1st section in the corridor of variant 7 following on from the previous

section, D4 Jarovce - Ivanka north; however, it is necessary to verify its altitude

(submerging below the terrain - a covered tunnel) along the route near Vajnory if permitted

by the engineering/geological and hydrogeological conditions in the given area.

Implement the 2nd section along the route of variant 7c, but further surveys and studies are

necessary in order to optimise or modify the route of the tunnel in terms of its environmental

impact.

IV. COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED

ACTIVITIES UPON THE ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDING HEALTH

As seen from the evaluation process, the proposed activities will have several impacts upon the

environment, as follows:

Zero status

Currently, road traffic is led through Bratislava along highway D1 through Einstein Street and

Lafranconi Bridge, the Sitina tunnel on D2. The route of proposed variants 2 and 7 and their

modification does not include a circular road. There is no road tunnel in the Little Carpathian

mountain range in the affected area. The countryside at the start of this section around Vajnory is

agricultural and gradually leads into vineyards. The Little Carpathian massif starts after the

vineyards and, on the other side around Marianka, it turns into agricultural countryside with

meadow habitats. There is currently a free area along the planned route, but is attacked by the

urbanisation of Marianka, with further building predicted coming closer to the highway.

In terms of the environment, these are currently quiet areas without traffic and its impact. The

appearance of the land is undisturbed by buildings. Around Vajnory, there is Šúr National Nature

Reserve and on the route there are habitats with varying levels of protection.

The impact of the proposed activities

Impact upon the population

Impact during construction

The construction period is linked to a temporary adverse effect upon the comfort and quality of

life in the affected residential areas related to construction noise and traffic restrictions. The

impact of the construction of the highway upon the population is expressed in increased noise

and vibration as a result of the passage of haulage vehicles and building machinery, and the

creation of emissions (mainly dust). This impact can be partially minimised by the appropriate

organisation of building activities and mitigation measures. The passage of haulage vehicles

through the villages is considered to be a significant negative impact.

An advantage of the construction is that it will mainly be implemented outside urban areas.

However, a particular drawback is access to the building site which cannot be provided without

the use of existing roads. The existing road network and local roads will be used as access roads

to the building site. All access roads will have to be discussed with the appropriate bodies and

villages during the further stages of project preparation and before commencing the works.

141

When planning the organisation of the works, in the interests of minimising the impact of the

works upon the affected population, it will be necessary to carry out the construction works in

such a way that the areas of the future highway will be used as soon as possible for transporting

building machinery and materials.

In terms of the impact upon the population during the building of the highway, assessed variants

2 and 7 can be considered equal due to practically similar routes the methods of connecting

access roads. Certain differences exist in relation to the position of the variants in the Rača

cadastral area, where the impact of the works is more intensively expressed in variants 2a and

2b.

Due to its position, the SPL variant has a markedly different solution to access and the building

site itself compared to variants 2 and 7.

The villages affected during the works will be Bratislava - Vajnory, Bratislava - Rača

and Marianka in variants 2 and 7, and Viničné, Slovenský Grob and Lozorno in the SPL variant.

Lessening the negative environmental impact of the highway works shall mainly be achieved by

adhering to the required technological discipline during individual building works, maintaining

machinery, adhering to the boundaries of permanent and temporary occupation of the works, the

implementation of temporary fencing in selected sections of the building site, timely and

sensitive transfer of materials (without unnecessary mid-storage), the organisation of traffic to

minimise passage through the affected villages, cleaning machinery prior to leaving the building

site for the adjacent roads, and continuous maintenance of the used roads (cleaning or possibly

spraying the roads to prevent dust). During the works, close cooperation between all participants

(client, contractor, building supervisor and designer) and representatives from the affected towns

and villages will be necessary in order to minimise the negative impact upon the population. It

will be necessary to ensure the settlement of property rights in the whole area of the works in

advance.

In the case of constructing and operating highway D4, which is of multi-regional importance, it

is difficult to quantify the number of affected inhabitants since the evaluated activity also affects

inhabitants outside the directly affected area. The estimated number of directly affected

inhabitants in the affected villages is clear from demographic data and these are mainly the

inhabitants of Bratislava - Vajnory, Bratislava - Rača and the village of Marianka in variants 2

and 7. In the case of the SPL variant, immediately affected inhabitants could be regarded as

those in the villages of Viničné, Slovenský Grob and Lozorno.

Impact during operation

The impact of a highway during operation mainly affects the population in its immediate vicinity

via the following adverse factors:

noise,

air pollution,

the landscape, barrier effect

quality of life,

the socio-economic environment.

The significance of the mentioned impacts is related to the route of the highway, the technical

solution and traffic intensity. It is natural that a route close to an urban area induces a much

greater impact upon the population than locating a route at a sufficient distance from a built-up

area.

The assessed variants do not directly cross a residential area but in some sections, they are

getting close to a populated area. The following locations can be said to be potentially affected:

Variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b and 7c

Vajnory – eastern edge – a distance of circa 300 m from the highway

Rača – north eastern edge – a distance of circa 460 m from the highway

142

Marianka village – north western edge – a distance of circa 200 m from the highway

Variant SPL

Viničné village – southern edge – a distance of circa 420 m from the highway

Slovenský Grob village - north western edge – a distance of circa 430 m from the

highway

Lozorno village – southern edge – southern edge circa 560 m from the highway

The assessment of the impact upon the health of the population was based on noise and

dispersion studies which form part of the report.

Noise

Noise is one of the typical and severe factors harming the environment. The disturbing effect of

noise supposedly acts differently during the day to during the night.

The route of highway D4 avoids the concentrated built-up area of the affected territory, apart

from entering and leaving the Karpaty tunnel, where it touches the recreational areas of

vineyards the cadastral areas of Rača and Marianka, as well as part of the urban area of Marianka

village. Based on model calculations, hygienic noise limits will be exceeded in this area. The rest

of the area is outside the immediate impact zone of the proposed route of highway D4, and the

effect of acoustic buffering increases with distance.

The results of the noise study show that, in terms of the noise burden, the dominant sources in

the given area are highway D1 with extremely high traffic intensity, road I/2 and road II/502

which pass directly through the urban area. The most complicated situation was identified at the

southern edge of Vajnory, but it is not due to the impact of the proposed highway D4 which is at

a sufficient distance from this district, but is due to the operation of highway D1. In terms of the

acoustic burden, the report assessed variant 7b as the most suitable with its Vajnory sub-surface

tunnel and the extended Karpaty tunnel which decreases the need for acoustic protection for

Marianka. In terms of the noise burden, the highway route is unacceptable to the inhabitants of

Marianka and is only acceptable to the inhabitants of Vajnory in the case of the sub-surface

tunnel in variant 7b.

Air pollution

During its operation, highway D4 will have the nature of a line source of air pollution. In

accordance with Act No. 137/2010 coll. on Air, road transport is classified as a mobile source.

Highway D4 is designed as a category D26.5, 4-lane road with a proposed speed of 120km/hr.

Tunnels are proposed on the route of all variants for negotiating the Little Carpathian mountains.

Tunnel equipment - exhausts on portals and ventilation shafts - are classified as stationary

sources of air pollution.

In all the evaluated variants, the route of highway D4 crosses the area of the Little Carpathians

Protected Landscape Area, declared for the purposes of preserving the habitats of bird species of

European importance and habitats of migrating species (where the portals are located, they are

just marginal, they only pass under the LCPLA but the exhaust chimneys directly impact this

area). The tunnel sections of variants 7a, 7b and 7c (circa 1km) pass under the Homolské

Karpaty area of European importance, declared for the purposes of protecting habitats and fauna

of European importance, with Grade 2 protection.

Due to the density of the road network in the area of interest, the cumulative status was also

assessed, i.e. apart from highway D4, the effect of other critical road traffic in the area -

motorways D1 and D2 and roads I/61, II/502 and I/2. In the case of the SPL variant, this

cumulative assessment also considered the relocation of road II/502 as a Pezinok bypass.

A dispersion study was prepared in order to evaluate the impact of operating the highway D4

Bratislava, Ivanka north - Stupava section upon air quality in the vicinity of the traffic route. The

143

cumulative impact of highway D4 and other main roads in the affected area were assessed. The

aim of the assessment was to compare the calculated concentrations of pollutants with hygiene

limits and to compare the highway D4 variants, including the zero variant.

The following main conclusions were drawn from the assessment:

inhabitants in the vicinity of route of highway D4 will not be affected by excessive

emissions from traffic in any of the evaluated variants,

the permitted concentrations of air pollutants in the residential zone are not exceeded,

even under unfavourable dispersion conditions,

the results of the study show that in terms of the emissions burden in the given area, the

dominant sources are motorways D1 and D2 and road I/2,

the most unfavourable situation was identified on the southern edge of Vajnory which,

however, is not due to highway D4 itself which is at a sufficient distance from the

settlement, but due to highway D1,

an unfavourable situation was also identified in Stupava and Lozorno which, however, is

due to road I/2 which passes directly through these settlements,

the differences between individual variants are only expressed in the village of Marianka

where the most favourable variant in terms of the emissions burden is variant 2b or 7b, 7c

and the least favourable assessed is variant 2a.

It can therefore be stated that the contribution of highway D4 will add to the current level of

emissions.

Vibration

According to experience from the operation of roads and motorways, vibration does not

represent an important factor in terms of a health risk. In this statement, we draw from the results

of monitoring vibration carried out on some sections of motorways crossing through the

residential zones in Bratislava. In terms of the distance of the route from the residential zone, this

impact is negligible.

Traffic accident rate

The aims of building the highway must also include an improvement in the traffic safety

situation which, in the given case, is related to diverting part of the traffic outside the built-up

areas of settlements, where there is a higher risk of traffic accidents due to the presence of

pedestrians and cyclists. When evaluating the operation of a new road in terms of the accident

rate, we assume that the diversion of traffic from the roads in the built-up areas to a new route is

a positive factor. In a simplified approach, it is possible to expect that a decrease in the intensity

of road traffic in the built-up area of villages will create conditions for safer road transport. From

this viewpoint, the decisive factor is the lower proportion of residual traffic on the original roads.

The impact upon the quality and comfort of life

Under the disturbance of the quality and comfort of life, we mainly understand the negative

impact upon the basic factors of the environment surrounding the inhabitants of villages (quality

of housing, quality of basic environmental components - mainly air, water and hygiene,

subjective factors of how the surroundings are perceived and the use of the land). It is clear that

during direct building works on the highway, the way of life before the works and the quality of

the environment will change, and these changes may be of a negative nature but are only

temporary. After completion of the highway, some negative impacts will remain (changes in the

visual appearance, barrier effects, increased noise and illumination of the countryside at night).

Factors influencing the comfort and quality of life can be regarded as the direct and indirect

144

result of constructing the highway and its subsequent operation (apart from the abovementioned),

for example:

disturbance of the long term perception of the countryside (new technical elements in the

countryside),

the barrier effect of the highway upon the movement of the population, mainly to

locations for active recreation,

temporary restrictions on existing hiking and cycle routes,

temporary restrictions on access to vineyards and allotments.

Socio-economic impact

The negative impact upon socio-economic factors will mainly be the loss of value of intangible

assets (building land, houses, etc.) belonging to the affected inhabitants due to the decreased

quality of living in the closest vicinity of the highway.

Positive effects may be expected in terms of the motoring public, where the effects of the

assessed activities will be expressed in traffic parameters by distributing the traffic once the

highway is operating and due to increased transportation speed and safety.

The impact upon the rock environment, mineral resources, geodynamic events and

geomorphological conditions.

The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed activities upon the rock environment and the

relief within the proposed variants may include:

intervention into the rock environment and relief by the body of the highway as a direct

impact

possible pollution of the rock environment as an indirect impact

Direct interventions into the rock environment and relief, mainly by deep kanálling, tunnel

portals, the tunnels themselves (excavated, bored), as well as high embankments and bridges,

may be characterised as a permanent, irreversible and long term impact. The mentioned impacts

can be assessed as significant in all the assessed variants.

Tunnelling can be considered as the most significant impact upon the rock environment and the

most critical section will be the passage of a tunnel through fault lines and water-bearing zones,

or through the complex of carbonates (SPL variant), where it is possible to expect karstification

of rock and the occurrence of underground spaces (caves) tied to the system of the Borinský

Karst. This represents a risk not only in terms of the rock environment, but also a geotechnical

risk in terms of the stability of the works.

Another possible hazardous section are excavated sections of tunnels, mainly the excavated

tunnel at Vajnory (variants 2b, 7b), where there is a fairly major intervention into the water-

bearing, gravel horizon expected, with demanding technical securing of construction

excavations.

The presence of water-bearing, fault-line zones and karstified, cavernous and strongly permeable

carbonate rocks or permeable soil in the surface positions (gravel sediments in the Vajnory-Rača

section) indirectly conditions the possible contamination of the rock environment during the

highway construction and also during its operation in case of collisions involving vehicles

transporting hazardous substances. The leakage of hazardous substances into the rock

environment would cause a permanent, irreversible state inducing further costs for reinstatement

since possible contamination in a permeable rock environment can spread out of control and the

carrier of the contamination is usually flowing ground water.

It is necessary to mention that old mining works may be found along the route of the SPL

variant.

145

The impact upon climatic conditions

The implementation of the works will not induce changes to the local climate, or changes

induced by the implementation were not proven. Changes to the microclimate, which will be

more pronounced (due to terrain modifications, etc.), will more affect the works itself or

activities connected with its operation. We classify the mentioned adverse impacts as

insignificant and the nature of the local climate will only change in the close vicinity of the line

of the highway by an average of 1 to 3%. The estimated impact upon the local climate can be

evaluated as minimal for the assessed variants.

Impact upon the atmosphere

During the building stage

an increased amount of air pollutants and dust in the air is expected, mainly from haulage

transport and heavy building machinery. This impact is temporary and restricted to the building

period. According to calculations from the dispersion study, in the operational stage the

pollutants produced by the estimated traffic on highway D4 in 2030 should not exceed limit

values. The highest concentrations of CO and NO2 will not exceed limit values even under the

most unfavourable dispersion and operational conditions.

However, when evaluating the cumulative impact, where the main source of air pollution from

road traffic in the monitored area is the existing road network, NO2 limit values are exceeded in

the immediate vicinity under unfavourable dispersion conditions.

The results of the dispersion study show that the decisive source of air pollution from road traffic

on the Ivanka north intersection (variants 2a, 7) is, and will be, highway D1. Under the

unfavourable dispersion conditions for which the calculation was prepared, the NO2 limit value

in the immediate surroundings of highway D1 is exceeded circa 3-times. A short term emissions

limit of 200 µg/m3 is exceeded at a distance of 350 – 400 m from highway D1.

The Záhorská Bystrica intersection (variants 2 and 7) will be affected by air pollution from two

sources - highway D4 and road I/2. The limit values in this area are not exceeded, even in

unfavourable dispersion conditions. The concentration of NO2 comes closest to the limit values.

In the SPL variant, the dominant source of emissions at the Chorvátsky Grob intersection is

highway D1 and in the Lozorno intersection it is highway D2. Under unfavourable dispersion

conditions, the limit concentrations of NO2 in the vicinity of these roads are exceeded 1.5- to 2-

times. The influence of highway D4 itself is relatively low and concentrations of NO2 from its

operation reach a maximum of 20% of the limit. Other pollutants do not reach the limits.

In other sections, the route of the assessed variants for highway D4 leads through well-ventilated

countryside and outside built-up areas. The amount of produced emissions in the assessed

variants represents values below the limit values for air pollution and, therefore, the impact

during operation can be considered as minimal.

If the highway is sub-surface (a tunnel), there is no direct air pollution in the vicinity of the

highway, but pollutants accumulated in the tunnel, in increased concentrations, leak to the

surroundings of the tunnel portals via exhausts or via the exhausts of ventilation shafts.

According to the results of the dispersion study, we can state that after deployment of the works,

the maximum permitted concentration of pollutants in the locations of portals and exhausts will

not be exceeded even under the most unfavourable conditions.

Impacts on water environment

Impacts on surface water

Impacts on surface waters during the construction are represented by a threat to the quality of

surface water in particular, due to the intersection of the routes of the proposed highway variants

with surface streams where construction is to take place (construction of bridges, modification

and relocation of streams), whereas some of these are important streams in water management

146

(Suchý potok, Šúrsky kanál, Viničiansky kanál). Apart from surface streams, the quality of water

in Jazero na Lysom lake (variants 2 and 7) may also be compromised, as the lake is directly

affected by the construction.

During the operation, we do not expect the quality of surface waters to be impaired, except for

critical situations. Surface waters running down from the road will be caught by the road

drainage system and they will be purified in oil substances separators before ending up in the

reservoir.

With respect to impacts on the surface water regime we expect significant impacts not only

during the operation but also during the construction.

Taking into account the expected amount of water drained during the digging of tunnels

(considerable amount of bedrock water expected especially in eastern portals), a temporary

increase of flow rate in the affected streams can occur during the construction. This, especially

combined with (extreme) precipitation, could affect flood stages, in particular in the cadastral

area of Vajnory. There will also be temporarily large amounts of water from the draining of

foundation pits, which could significantly impair flood stages (Vajnory tunnel), also in the

cadastral area of Vajnory.Significant problems are to be expected if a cumulation of all

unfavourable conditions occurs (variants 2 and 7), and precipitation and sewage waters from the

proposed zones (CEPIT, Vajnory-airport, Vajnory – Nemecká dolina) are drained into reservoirs

as well.

Similar flood-related problems may occur during the operation, in particular in case of variants 2

and 7, when the most important source of water drained from the highway will be the road

drainage system and bedrock water from the tunnels in combination with all cumulative

situations described above.

Apart from the above mentioned flood protection issues, there is the possibility that surface

stream regime might be indirectly affected where tunnels cross fracture zones. A decrease of

flow rates can occur, or even extinction of streams whose source areas are dependent on

groundwater springs in these zones. If they are tapped and drained, the underground stream

regime can change completely (e.g. Višnové exploratory drift). The most endangered is the

Vydrica river in case of variant 2.

From the perspective of quality, indirect impacts on surface waters (supposed sources of

contamination) could include the contamination of water during the construction – wastewater

leaks from servicing equipment and machinery maintenance, contaminated precipitation water

washed away from the access roads to the construction site, sewage water from facilities on the

construction site and construction yards, etc.

Impacts on groundwater

Groundwater quality can be compromised during the construction in case of breach to the aquifer

collector where groundwater is accumulated. The most critical section in the proposed variants is

Vajnory - Rača (variants 2b and 7b) where a direct breach of the groundwater collector (gravel

horizons) is expected with the construction of Vajnory tunnel. Construction activity related to

bridge foundations can pose a certain threat to the groundwater quality due to the fact that, taking

into account groundwater levels, foundation constructions will have to be below the surface

(mainly the Vajnory-Rača section in variants 2 and 7). The greatest risk is the leak of polluting

substances, which in a highly permeable and bare environment spread with considerable speed.

Apart from impacts on water regime and surface water quality, all the assessed variants entail

significant impacts on hydrologic regime of the Little Carpathians' massif during the digging of

the Karpaty tunnel, as well as hydrologic regime of groundwater where parts of tunnels are

excavated. Variant 2b entails the most adverse impact on water environment, while variant 7a is

the least adverse.

In tunnel sections, the greatest impacts on groundwater quality in case of all variants can be

147

expected where dug sections of tunnels cross fracture and aquifer zones, or Mesozoic carbonate

rocks, in the event of a leak of polluting substances. This concerns the following sections:

– eastern part of the Little Carpathians slopes (lightweight zone of the massif with more open

system of fissures and fractures),

– sections with continuous NW-SE fracture systems and accompanying fissure systems,

– contact zone where bedrock meets the cover layer (a layer of quartzites and sandstones), due

to significant damage and cracking,

– limestone massif, impact on karst groundwater system especially in case of the SPL variant

(tunnel crossing the Borinka karst).

With regard to impacts on groundwater regime during the construction, both temporary and

permanent changes in the groundwater streams can be expected.

Temporary changes can occur during the necessary draining of groundwater from foundation

pits.

Permanent changes to the groundwater regime are to be expected in particular in cases of

variants 2b and 7b (surface raise due to barrier effect of sealing elements during the

establishment of the Vajnory tunnel), and in locations where dug tunnels cross aquifers (all

variants). The most critical is the crossing of the Borinka karst in the SPL variant, with direct

threat (decrease of groundwater levels) to the aquifer collector to which karst groundwater

springs are linked (Limbašská vyvieračka, Medené Hámre, etc.)

Concerning the issue of compromising the quality and quantity of groundwater during the

construction in dug sections of tunnels, it is necessary to mention the direct link between the

existing springs and source areas and the affected groundwater collectors, which could be

permanently damaged if their current regime is disrupted - some of them are used as water

sources (the area of Medené Hámre, Svätý prameň spring in Marianka).

In portals and cuts of excavated tunnel sections, a permanent decrease of groundwater level is to

be expected.

During the operation, groundwater contamination will only be possible in case of incorrect

operation or critical conditions. Surface waters from the road, which are meant to be drained by

absorption, will be purified in oil substances separators before they end up in the reservoir. We

do not expect a direct threat to the groundwater quality (save for critical conditions).

In case of the abovementioned expected permanent changes to the groundwater regime we can

assume that these impacts will last also during the operation of the highway.

From the perspective of quality, indirect impacts on groundwater (supposed sources of

contamination) could include the contamination of water during the construction – wastewater

leaks from servicing equipment and machinery maintenance, contaminated precipitation water

washed away from the access roads to the construction site, sewage water from facilities on the

construction site and construction yards, etc.

The implication of the above stated is that the planned construction will require above-

standard solutions of water protection because negative impacts of the construction and

operation are impossible to mitigate with common technical procedures.

Impacts on the soil

The most significant impact the construction and operation of the proposed variants will have on

the soil consists of the location of the construction and the resulting temporary and permanent

occupation of farmland and forest soil, and therefore loss of productivity in a part of the land

resources. Other presumable impacts of the construction of the assessed road on the land

resources include:

148

impacts on the soil stability – degradation of physical and mechanical soil properties,

combined with corresponding relief and climatic conditions, could result in the

occurrence of unfavourable processes, mainly soil erosion

impacts on the soil quality – depending on changes in the productivity of the land and

possible contamination of soil around the proposed routes.

These impacts are linked mostly to the construction stage and present mainly the risk of erosion

and runoff due to:

logging of forest cover and manipulations with wood

construction of new access roads

movement of the construction machinery

Movement of the construction machinery implies also mechanical damage to the land. However,

if erosion and ablation are triggered during the construction works, in extreme case the effects

might be irreversible. Impacts on the soil during the construction will also present a temporary

occupation of land in construction yards (area of the construction site facilities).

If all standard safety measures are complied with, it will be possible to completely minimize the

risk of soil contamination during the construction and due to critical conditions.

The operation of the highway should have no significant impact on the soil quality; indirect

pollution is caused by emissions damaging the soil with toxic effects or alteration of the soil

reaction.

All the proposed variants entail the occupation of farmland in a significant scope. The critical

impact consists of the overall occupation of soil according to its quality, i.e. occupation of high-

quality soil, medium-quality soil, and the least adverse impact consists of occupation of low-

quality soil. Taking into account the highway tunnel solutions, we do not expect any

considerable occupation of forest soil.

When comparing the occupation of soil in the assessed variants, the SPL variant has greatest

scope of occupation, while variant 7c the lowest.

Impact on fauna, flora and their habitats

After a complex analysis of variants, impacts on fauna and flora can be identified as follows:

Variants 2a, 2b

With respect to impacts of these variants on the quantitative and qualitative composition of fauna

in the assessed area, we can expect, at most, a decrease of specimens in the affected populations;

in many cases only a temporary decrease in numbers will occur. We do not anticipate extinction

of any species because no unique habitat with dependent endemics will be destroyed or

damaged, and the affected species of fauna have enough alternative habitats available in the area.

Regarding the impact on flora, individual variants represent mostly an intervention into common

ruderal populations, with a marginal intervention into valuable habitats (botanically diverse

habitats of terraced vineyards). The year-long monitoring proves that no affected locality shows

signs of botanically special or more valuable area. We therefore expect no considerable negative

impacts on the plant populations.

Variants 7a, 7b, 7c

With respect to impacts of these variants on the quantitative and qualitative composition of fauna

in the assessed area, we can expect, at most, a decrease of specimens in the affected populations;

in many cases only a temporary decrease in numbers will occur. We do not anticipate extinction

of any species. It is necessary to mention that in case of these variants, expected impacts on

individual species and their habitats are lower (in terms of numbers of affected specimens and

scope of influence) than in variants 2a and 2b.

Impacts on the botanical part of the biotic element is comparable to variants 2a and 2b. The only

difference is with regard to eastern slopes of the Little Carpathians, where variants 7a, 7b and 7c

149

affect a significantly smaller part of botanically diverse habitats of terrace vineyards.

SPL variant

With respect to impacts of this variant on the quantitative and qualitative composition of fauna in

the assessed area, we can expect, at most, a decrease of specimens in the affected populations; in

many cases only a temporary decrease in numbers will occur. We do not anticipate extinction of

any species.

One of the more significant botanical localities in the route of this variant is Šalaperska hora. The

value of this locality lies especially in its diverse habitat composition and potential of becoming

a quality habitat in the future to serve as a refugium for many organisms. Currently it is a young

habitat developing in abandoned orchards, vineyards and fallows. Leading the highway through

this locality of potential importance would mean its partitioning, and extinction of a part of the

locality. It should be mentioned that the locality is not unique in this area but still very valuable

for the landscape matrix structure.

Botanically valuable is the locality of inter-portal section of the Karpaty and Katušiná tunnels,

not so much from the perspective of species composition but rather from the perspective of the

habitat as a whole. The construction of the highway will not lead to a great decrease of the

habitat area but it will disrupt the compactness of the forest cover in its larger vicinity and

decrease the botanical value of the locality.

The impact of the SPL variant on flora is comparable to other variants. It consists mostly of

intervention into ruderal populations of plants; localities with valuable habitats are affected only

marginally. We therefore do not expect any significant negative impact on the plant populations

affected by this variant.

According to the year-long monitoring of the biota, impacts on ecologically most important

localities can be assessed as follows:

Šalapérska hora – Lk I – the construction of the D4 highway in the SPL variant will divide the

locality into two parts, decreasing the heterogeneity of the area and therefore limiting the

conditions for sustaining the current biodiversity. Decreasing the diversity of plant

populations will automatically lead to a decrease in the diversity of dependent animal species.

However, with appropriate measures it will be possible to partially substitute the area taken

up by the highway.

The inter-portal area in case of the SPL variant – Lk II – is a valuable locality that will be

significantly disrupted with the construction. The integrity of the surrounding forest complex

would be affected and many disturbing phenomena related to the highway construction and

operation (noise, emissions, invasive plants, highway maintenance) would increase in volume.

Moreover, the locality is a part of the Little Carpathians landscape park, as well as special

protection area Little Carpathians. The construction and operation would have unfavourable

impacts also on the subject of protection of these protected areas.

The ecotone locality in case of the SPL variant, south of the Lozorno village – Lk III – will be

fragmented by the construction and its current use will be considerably affected. Traffic on

the newly built highway will lead to increased disturbing noise and spread of other invasive

plant species. The high potential of increasing the ecological significance of the locality

would be eliminated because it would cease to be attractive for birds and other animal species.

The impact on the locality of Jazero na Lysom lake – Lk IV – due to construction of the D4

highway in variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b and 7c will be considerable. Intervention into its southern

part would cause the decrease of the body of water and destruction of a part of the lakeside

vegetation. Direct destruction of haunts of several plants and animals will take place, and the

importance of the locality as the refugium and eco-stabilizing element in the area will

decrease.

150

The impact on the ecotone locality at the boundary of the forest and vineyards – Lk V – in

cases of variants 2a and 2b will be quite significant. A wide area of valuable habitats with

insect species of European significance will be taken up and the overall habitat diversity will

decrease (forest habitats, garden habitats, vineyards, vineyard paths, groves, watercourse,

riverside vegetation and others). As a result, the construction of the highway will mean a

decrease in biodiversity of the locality and retreat of individual species to similar nearby

localities.

Apart from common ruderal habitats (X), respective variants will affect also valuable habitats or

national and European significance.

In the corridor of variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b, 7c

Habitats of national significance Ls2-Oak and hornbeam forests, Lk10-Vegetation of tall sedges

will be affected; in case of variants 2a and 2b also Tr6-Thermophile fringes. Out of habitats of

European significance, all of the following will be affected: Ls1-Bottomland forests, Ls5-Beech

forests and mixed beech forests, Vo2-Natural eutrophic still waters with a vegetation of floating

or submerged Magnopotamion- or Hydrocharition-type vascular plants, and Br4-Mountain

streams and their woody vegetation with Salix eleagnos.

Impacts on all habitats will be acceptable and in no case a destruction of the entire habitat will

occur. Vegetation modifications can improve the conditions in some of the affected habitats.

In the corridor of the SPL variant

The following valuable habitats of national significance will be affected: Ls2-Oak and hornbeam

forests, Ls6-Xerophytic pine forests and mixed pine forests, Kr9-Willow bushes on frequently

flooded riversides. Out of habitats of European significance: Ls5-Beech forests and mixed beech

forests and Lk1-Lowland and submontane hayfields.

On the land with parcel number 2124/1 in the cadastral area of Vajnory, about 200 m from the

planned route of variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b, 7c, the presence of a protected species of national

significance was detected - Ranunculus lateriflorus DC, a plant protected under Sections 33 and

34 of the Act No. 543/2002 Coll. on Nature and Landscape Protection as amended.

Impacts on the majority of habitats are acceptable. In no case a destruction of the entire habitat

will occur but it will not always be possible to mitigate the negative impacts with appropriate

vegetation modifications, especially in the inter-portal section of the Karpaty and Katušiná

tunnels.

The construction will mean a fragmentation of the submontane part of the Little Carpathians, and

will considerably influence the diversion of wildlife migration away from populated areas of the

so called “big Bratislava”. This influence will intensify with the planned completion of the entire

zeroth highway circuit. Bratislava’s isolation will spread to a larger area compared to the present

day.

Considering the identified impacts on the migration, we can state the following:

The corridor of variants 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b, 7c (outside tunnel sections, which are problem-free from

the perspective migration) leads closer to the urbanized land, the disruption of migration routes is

not significant; it will mostly affect local migration to find food depending on the season and

land conditions (e.g. type of cultivated agricultural crop). Local animal populations are adjusted

to life near humans, they are able to quickly adjust to new conditions in the area and change their

current migration habits.

The corridor of the SPL variant leads more northward of Bratislava through a less disrupted area;

negative impacts on animal migration and further fragmentation of the area will therefore be

higher. Eastern non-tunnel part will cause a complete spatial isolation between the D1 highway,

151

continuous built-up area of Bratislava, and the almost continuous built-up area along II/502 road

Rača – Pezinok. Western non-tunnel part of the variant will disrupt wildlife migration routes

between the forest and semicultural area where animals migrate to find food.

Based on the above mentioned identified impacts it is possible to evaluate the SPL variant as

having the greatest impact on flora, fauna, habitats and migration, affecting the most valuable

part of the area in question.

Impacts on the landscape – structure and use of the landscape, landscape image

The impact on the current structure and use is proved in particular by the occupation of a

territory that is currently used mostly for agricultural purposes, while a new line element will be

added to the landscape, by which the overall landscape image of the currently perceived

environment will change.

By the construction of the highway, affecting of the landscape scenery will occur, in particular in

the case of the building of dominant bodies of junctions and bridges, high embankments, portal

cut-ins of tunnels and noise barriers. The minimisation of the negative impact of the effect of the

highway’s routing is solved by options of its vertical alignment, in particular nearby settlements

and protected areas (below-the-surface routing).

From the intersection of the D4 highway with the D1 highway, the route is led through a flat area

nearby the urbanised area of the city quarter of Vajnory through agriculturally intensively farmed

field areas. The routing of the D4 highway is orientated practically in concurrence with the

Šúrsky canal. From the views from the city quarter of Vajnory, the highway is situated in front of

it, which will visually limit the visibility of the current landscape, in particular in options 2a, 7a

and 7c, which represent a grade-separated solution to the routing of the highway. By cutting the

route of the highway in concurrence with Vajnory in options 2b and 7b, that negative factor of

the perception of the landscape is partially eliminated and the scenery of the landscape, with

suitable vegetation adaptations, may be acceptable for the inhabitants of Vajnory.

The highway will show more strongly in views from the slopes of the vineyards above Rača,

from a higher positioned post; below the forest boundary it will be possible to perceive the

concurrence of the line corridors. In options 2a and 2b, the long-distance views will be affected,

since vineyards will be removed from the bottoms of the slopes in a wider corridor of the

highway’s routing and the preserved vine growing character of the landscape will be disrupted.

Those options will act on the lansdcape with a strong impact and they will affect the typical

characteristics of the landscape. Options 7a, 7b and 7c, which are shorter in the territory of the

city quarter of Rača, with direct entry into the massif of the Little Carpathians, will have the

smallest impact on the landscape and minimal affecting of the vineyard vegetation.

In the cadastral territory of Marianka, options 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b and 7c of the highway are routed out

of the Karpaty tunnel on the western slope of the Little Carpathians, east of Záhorská Bystrica.

In terms of the impacts on the perception of the landscape, option 2a will mean significant

affecting of the landscape at the outlet of the western portal due to the disruption of the forest

vegetation cover and the most extensive affecting of the forest vegetation and direct surface

routing. Options 2b, 7b and 7c, which are cut in and covered in a section of about 1 km from the

western portal, mean the smallest impact from the perspective of the assessment of the

countryside. In close views, the option will show negatively only from an immediate distance.

In the case of option SPL, the impacts are the most pronounced, specifically do to the reasons –

the longest designed option of the D4 highway, the largest occupation of agricultural land, with

the disruption of the concept of intensively farmed areas in the territory east of the Little

Carpathians, outlets of the tunnel portals in the section between the Karpaty and Katušiná tunnels

in the forest vegetation and thus the disruption of the homogeneity of the forest unit, disruption

of the landscape structure in the cadastral territory of Lozorno, where the portal is outlet at the

bottom of the massif of the Little Carpathians.

152

A significant element with the subsequent impacting of views in the countryside will be the

portals of the tunnels, while it will be necessary to thoroughly architecturally incorporate them as

a new landscaping element into the natural environment so that negative impacts of the

perception of the new technical element in the natural structure of the area are minimised. In

contrast with that, the tunnel itself has just a minimal impact on the structure of the landscape.

The incorporation of the main route of the highway, as well as other objects, into the landscape is

in particular in the realization of vegetation adaptations, which will fulfil the role of suppressing

noise, capturing emissions, anti-erosion protection of slopes of the ground body and the

mitigation of the negative impacts of transport on the natural and living environments. On

embankment and cut-in slopes, in the areas of junction branches, dense shrub planting and group

planting of various species of trees will be done, so that a continual compact mass of green with

diverse height and colour structure is created. Also in the places of the proposed crossings,

allowing the migration of wild animals, along the highway fences there will also be suitable

shrub planting to direct the wild animals towards those crossings.

Impacts on protected areas and their protection zones

National protected areas of nature and landscape

Protected landscape area (PLA) Malé Karpaty

All assessed options, to various degrees, will affect the PLA Malé Karpaty. Their main collision

with that protected area is, however, resolved by the routing of the highway through a tunnel, by

which the negative impact of the assessed activity on that area has practically been eliminated

(except option SPL). That the case of options 2a, 2b, 7a, 7b and 7c it is the case of one long

tunnel through the whole territory of the PLA, with the impact only on the marginal boundary

zones of the protected area (eastern and western portals).

In the case of options 2 and 7, the building of a single tunnel ventilation shaft is considered; in

the case of option SPL with as many as two, which will be outlet in the central part of the PLA.

The expect the impact of the construction and operation of the ventilation shafts, while it will

have just a minimal impact on the surrounding fauna and flora, it does not affect any precious

habitats and it will not have any impact on the object of the protection by the PLA.

In the case of option SPL, construction of two tunnels (Karpaty and Katušiná) under the territory

of the PLA is proposed, but their inter-tunnel section, ca. 600 m long, passes along a surface

route directly through the territory of the PLA, which, in the eventual consequence, means the

disruption of the PLA, direct occupation of part of its land, deforestation, adaptation of a water

stream and adaptation of forest roads in the area. The western outlet of the Katušiná tunnel

passes through a margin of the PLA, which, however, will have a similar effect to that of the

western outlet of the Karpaty tunnel in options 2 and 7.

National Natural Reserve Šur

Options 2a,2b,7a,7b and 7c would have a marginal impact of the NNR Šúr or its protection zone,

specifically at the junction Ivanka north (a small section along the western boundary of the D1

highway, north of the junction). Neither in the collision nor in the routing of the main route of

the D4 highway along the NNR Šúr towards the grade-separated junction Rača a direct impact or

more significant negative impacting of that protected territory or its protecting zone would occur

since the contact with that territory is just a marginal one, the route is routed mostly through

agriculturally used territory and the boundary of the NNR leads into the Šúrsky canal from the

opposite side. Precious central parts of the reserve will not be impacted and no occupation of

habitats of precious marshland communities would occur. The impacting of the water regime of

that location is not expected. The impacts of the stress factors (noise, glaring, air pollution)

coming from the construction and operation will be minimised by technical measures.

Small protected areas

Small protected areas located in the assessed territory, specifically the Jurské jazero natural

153

reserve, Pod Pajštúnom natural reserve, Strmina natural reserve, Zlatá studnička natural reserve,

Svätojurské hradisko protected area and Limbašská vyvieračka natural monument, will not be

affected by any direct (cutting woods or occupation of territory, etc.) or indirect impacts of any

of the assessed options, nor their protection zones will be affected.

NATURA 2000 protected areas

In the assessed territory, in NATURA 2000 protected areas, there are SPA Malé Karpaty, SAC

Homoľské Karpaty and SPA Šúr. The most serious collision of the assessed options with those

protected areas is again resolved by an underground routing through a tunnel and also by a

sufficient distance of the routes of individual options from those areas.

Due to the fact that the NATURA 2000 areas are parts of the Protected Landscape Area Malé

Karpaty and of the National Natural Reserve Šúr, the identified impacts for the protected areas of

national significance are identical also for NATURA 2000 areas.

The results of the assessment of the impacts of the D4 highway Ivanka north – Záhorská Bystrica

have proved that significant negative impact of options 2a,2b,7a,7b and 7c of the D4 highway

during its construction and also during its operation on the changes in the hydric regime of the

area of NATURA 2000 SKUEV 0388 Vydrica, in which priority habitats and a priority species

occur (see Table IV. 3. in the text part of Annex 4 of the respective material).

The results of the assessment have also proved the negative impact of options 2a,2b,7a,7b,7c and

SPL of the D4 highway during its construction as well as during its operation, as far as direct

affecting habitats, noise and light disturbance, collisions with vehicles, i.e. killing of animals in

the territory of NATURA 2000 SKCHVU 014 Malé Karpaty – see table IV.3. of the text

appendix No. 4 of the respective material, while it is necessary to note that individual negative

impacts assessed in the table would affect the territory cumulatively, by which a higher degree of

seriousness of the overall negative impacting of the D4 highway of that specially protected

natural territory occurs, while also precious habitats would be impacted. The D4 highway would,

in the case of its realization, have a negative impact on the integrity of the SKCHVÚ 014 Malé

Karpaty area.

The impact on the integrity of NATURA 2000 areas is understood as the disruption of the

quality of a location from the perspective of the fulfilment of their ecological functions in

relation with the object of protection – i.e. it is not possible to assess the impacts on objects of

protection without taking into consideration the integrity and vice versa. In the dynamic

understanding it is therefore the ability of ecosystems to keep functioning in a way that is

favourable for the objects of protection from the perspective of preserving and possibly

improving their current condition. That term should also be understood in a wider sense, not just

topographically or geographically, but also in terms of time, population, etc. The disruption of

integrity thus can also be reduction in the diversity of species of individual habitats, cutting

natural communication kanáls, migration routes, or, e.g. a change in the ecosystems caused by

the introduction of new species.

On the basis of the currently available support materials, however, it is not possible to assess

more precisely the impact of a change in hydric characteristics on the affected territory. It was

only possible to determine the degree of impacting in an extremely unfavourable situation, under

the condition of maximum drainage of waters caused by the construction of the Karpaty and

Katušiná tunnels – option SPL, which may be quite a fundamental factor, affecting the integrity

of the SAC Homoľské Karpaty (options 7a, 7b, 7c and SPL) and the SAC Vydrica (options 2a,

2b, 7a, 7b, 7c). This factor can also partially disrupt the integrity of the SPA Malé Karpaty, but

not to that extent that a more substantial affecting of the objects of protection would occur.

Impacts on the protection of water resources

Option SPL, at km 16.600 through km 19.400 passes through a strip of level II hygienic

protection of ground water (not differentiated), which, in the case of the realization of that

154

option, means direct endangering of ground water reserves by the impact of the construction of

the tunnel.

Impacts on the territorial system of ecological stability

The D4 highway, in all assessed options, represents a new line element in the territory, which

gets into conflict with a large number of elements of the territorial system of ecological stability

(TSES). The tunnel routing through the massif of the Little Carpathians, however, in all assessed

options, eliminates the impacts on a large number of contacts with TSES elements.

In options 2a and 2b and the building of a grade-separated junction Ivanka north, the

supraregional biocentre Šúr will be affected only marginally, the impacting by the body of the

highway, however, does not endanger its functionality or integrity. The collisions with the local

biocentre Háj can, perhaps, be considered to be most significant; in the case of the construction

of the D4 highway in those options, direct affecting of the biocentre will occur and revitalization

for the restoration of its current function will be necessary. The bio-corridor of the Struha stream

(Vajnorský Stream) will be affected significantly; it will be crossed once and, in a section of

about 380 m, its relocation will be necessary, which will limit its functionality as a regional

corridor for a long time (in particular during the construction of the highway). The crossing with

the bio-corridor of the Račiansky Stream will mean temporary limitation of the functionality

during the construction and permanent limitation of the passability for deers due to the

insufficient vertical clearance below the body of the bridge above the stream.

The ventilation outlet on the Karpaty tunnel is located on the route of supraregional bio-corridor

passing along the ridge of the Little Carpathians. Due to the width of the biocorridor and

character of the vegetation in the surrounding area, the impact of the tunnel ventilation outlet on

the functionality of the bio-corridor will be minimal.

In options 7a, 7b and 7c, the impact on TSES elements, with small deviations, will practically be

identical with the identified impacts of options 2a and 2b, described in the previous paragraph,

but except the impact of the ventilation outlet of the Karpaty tunnel, which, in those options,

does not affect the supraregional bio-corridor.

The impact of option SPL on TSES elements can be characterized by a lower number of

collisions, but with more significant consequences in the case of the construction of the D4

highway along this route. Near the grade-separated junction Pezinok, multiple crossing of the

local bio-corridor of Viničniansky canal and permanent limitation of its functionality due to the

small vertical clearance below bridge bodies. By the construction of that junction, permanent

disfunctionality of the local biocorridor of the Mahulianka canal will probably occur. The local

biocorridor 3 in the cadastre of the village of Lozorno, which links the local gene pool location

with a forest unit at the Raktov stream, will equally be limited. The tunnel ventilation outlet at

km 19.0 affects the western boundary of the supraregional biocorridor Nová hora – Ostrý vrch.

Other contacts with TSES elements by option SPL will be of little significance, with marginal

impacts.

Impacts on the urban complex and land use

The construction of the D4 highway will not change the current use of the land in its corridor.

The prevailing part of the territory along the routes of individual options is used for agriculture,

vine growing and forest management.

Options 2 and 7, from the perspective of their impact on urbanism and land use, have a very

similar character. The mentioned options are developed in line with land use plans and will not

require demolitions of permanently settled or industrial buildings.

The mentioned options, in the section between the grade-separated junction Ivanka north and the

grade-separated junction Rača is mostly an agriculturally used territory. By the construction of

the D4 highway, permanent occupation of land and thus reduction in the area of the

155

agriculturally used land will occur in that section. Thus a reduction in agricultural production and

temporary hindering of the accessibility of the surrounding fields, in particular in the period of

the construction, will occur.

At km 0.500, the route of the D4 highway collides with the area of a pond (Na Lysom), which

will cause partial reduction of its area, and thus it will limit its breeding capacity and capability

to accumulate flash flood waters. At the location of the grade-separated junction Rača, the

occupation of a large area of vineyards, and thus the limitation of vine production, will occur.

In the case of options 2a and 2b, the occupation of vineyards will be the largest and equally the

production of vine in that territory will be reduced. The construction of options 7a, 7b and 7c

will, however, also require the liquidation of vineyards, but in a smaller area than in options 2.

The eastern portal of the Karpaty tunnel, in options 2a and 2b, is located in a garden colony and

its construction will require demolition of almost 25 garden cottages and will divide the garden

colony in two parts, which would apparently change the use of that leisure and recreational

location. In option 7, demolition of just one recreational cottage will occur.

Behind the western portal of the Karpaty tunnel, in the realization of option 2a, permanent

occupation of forest lands, agriculturally used lands, as well as the occupation of a part of an old

orchard, will occur. Thus a reduction in the production of agricultural produce and the limitation

of the access to agriculturally used areas, in particular during the construction of the highway,

will occur. The option will require demolition of about 10 garden cottages in the garden area

north of the village of Marianka. By the impact of the construction and subsequent operation of

the D4 highway, limitation of the agricultural and partly also recreational use of the location

from the western portal of the Karpaty tunnel to the grade-separated junction Záhorská Bystrica

will occur. In the realization of option 2b, the level of impact during the operation is minimised

(lengthening of the cut-and-cover part of the Karpaty tunnel). The cut-and-cover tunnel will be

covered by earth and further use of that territory up to km 15.268 will be possible. As a result of

the covering of the cut-and-cover part of the tunnel and its remediation, permanent impacts on

that territory from the perspective of the possibility to use that location will be mitigated.

Option 7a will not require intervention in forest lands or a part of the garden colony near the

western portal, by which the extent of the impact on the use of the surroundings of the D4

highway (agricultural and recreational purposes) behind the western portal of the Karpaty tunnel

compared to the realization of option 2a.

Options 7b and 7c with a prolonged tunnel up to km 15.200 will have the smallest impact on the

use of land and urbanism of that location, since 550 m of the tunnel will be designed as a cut-

and-cover tunnel, with the possibility of further use of the covered part, and thus the

minimisation of the impact on the agricultural activity in the surrounding area and recreation.

Option SPL, practically from the start at the grade-separated junction Chorvátsky Grob, passes

only through agriculturally used landscape, up to ca. km 10.3. The impact of the construction and

operation of the D4 highway is thus possible to expect in the reduction of agricultural production

in the territory and in a change in the accessibility of individual fields. Between the Šur kanál

and the railway line, a changed in the use of lands intended for gardening will occur to a

necessary extent (after the construction of a bridge). Between road II/502 and the eastern portal

of the Karpaty tunnel, the route of the D4 highway passes through vineyards, by the occupation

of which the production of vine in that location will be decreased. Between the portals of the

Karpaty and Katušiná tunnels, occupation of forest lands and change in their use will occur.

Behind the western portal of the Katušiná tunnel, the highway passes only through agriculturally

used landscape, i.e. the limitations or changes in the use of the territory will only concern

agricultural production.

The relocation of road I/2 in the case of the realization of option SPL will affect the industrial

zone southwest of the grade-separated junction Lozorno (it passes through a newly built hall), so

it will be necessary to propose new routing or demolition of several newly built industrial

156

buildings. By keeping the current routing of the relocation of road I/2, the division of the

industrial zone into two parts would occur.

Since option SPL is not recorded in any land use plan, in its further project preparation and

inclusion into land use plans, in the land-use-plan, it would occupy lands currently intended for

agricultural activity, orchards and vineyards.

The options of the highway are situated outside of the current inner areas of the affected villages,

while, however, they will be colliding with existing roads, water streams, utility networks, land

drains, etc., while those are resolved in the form of relocations and modifications. It is also

necessary to respect the planned investments (technical reserve 400/110/22 kV Vajnory).

In the case of the routing of the highway near protective embankments of the Šúrsky canal, it is

possible to expect an impact on its stability, in particular in relation with the proposed polder to

protect flash flood waters.

Impact on cultural and historical monuments

The construction of the D4 highway in options 2 and 7 will require the relocation or demolition

of two stone crosses and of one chapel near the village of Marianka; the eastern portal of the

Karpaty tunnel, in the assessed options, will require intervention in the stone embankments, so-

called runas, which were made for hundreds of years on the eastern slopes of the Little

Carpathians during the building of terrace vineyards. They, however, are not included on the

central list of cultural monuments. No other impacts on the cultural or historical monuments in

the building of any of the assessed options are expected.

Impacts on archaeological sites

On the basis of support materials from the archaeological survey, along the routes of options 2

and 7, contact with 17 registered archaeological locations is expected. 7 of them are directly on

the routs of the mentioned options, 8 locations are near the body of the D4 highway itself and it

is probable they will be affected by the construction of the highway; two locations are located

above the drilled the Karpaty tunnel, but their devaluation by the construction and operation of

the D4 highway itself is not expected. In the case of the realization of option SPL, 6 known

archaeological locations will be affected. 5 archaeological locations of them are located directly

on the route of option SPL and one location is located above the drilled the Karpaty tunnel and

its devaluation is not expected.

Impacts on the paleontological findings and significant geological locations

Since all paleontological and significant geological locations in the assessed territory are located

away from the routes of individual assessed options, their devaluation or their ceasing of

existence caused by the construction and operation of the D4 highway can be practically

excluded. The impact of the D4 highway on such locations is not expected.

Impact on cultural values of intangible character

In the monitored region, the tradition of Marian pilgrimages in the village of Marianka, as well

as traditions linked with the growing of vine in the whole Small-Carpathian region, can be

defined as cultural values of intangible character.

Other impacts

Impacts on the transport system and transport infrastructure

Impacts during construction

The highway in the proposed options is situated in a new position. During the construction, the

construction site will be divided into a number of sections due to the overall length of the section

and the multitude of obstacles. The construction site will be accessible along the existing road

157

network and along the local, field and forest access roads, and along temporary access roads built

as part of the construction.

The crossroads, however, will be realized in collision with the traffic on the motorways D1, D2,

road I/2 and road II/502, which are already now substantially loaded, while substantial limitation

of public transport will occur and works will be possible to realize in stages, with the limitation

of transport, which, in particular during peak hours, can cause a traffic jam.

Impacts during the operation

The building of the highway will have a positive impact on the transport in the whole concerned

region. The designed section of the D4 highway is of a great transport significance also in terms

of the concept of the development of the basic and higher-level road network and, in the

complexity of the whole D4 route, in also has an impact on international transport links, since it

will fulfil a significant transport function in international transport relations in the economically

strong region.

Impact on the existing and planned cycling routes

The D4 highway crosses both existing and planned cycling routes. Those collisions are respected

in the technical design of the highway and their functionality will be preserved.

Impact o the project “The Green Lungs of Bratislava”

From the complex perspective, in the assessment of impacts of building the D4 highway on the

project “The Green Lungs of Bratislava” and in the proposal of elimination measures, it is

possible to state a minimal up to mild impact on the goals and objectives of the project. In terms

of land use planning, the possibilities of the development of further activities will not be

disrupted in the project, since the overall passability of the territory will be secured. With

respecting the main activities of the programme, it is possible, as necessary, in line with the

proposed elimination measures, to propose new areas close to the D4 highway with an eco-

stabilising functionality in the territory.

Impact on the locations of Vrchná hora and Vajnorská hora

“Vajnorská hora” is the local name for a location in the SPA Malé Karpaty; the impact on that

protected area of the NATURA 2000 network is described in the respective part of the report.

“Vrchná hora” represents the location of the planned declaration of a protected area, currently

a cottage recreational area, which spreads around the hill of the same name, north of the village

of Marianka. The recreational area is situated between the southwest-orientated slopes of old

vineyards and a forest complex of Malé Karpaty. The D4 highway does not directly affect the

location and passes the assessed options 2 and 7 at the distance of ca. 300 – 500 m from it, the

impact on the environment of the location is not expected. The impact of the D4 highway on the

use of the territory from the perspective of recreation can be expected by increased noise. No

negative above-the-limit impact of noise from transport on that location has been proved by a

noise study. Only a mildly negative impact on that recreational area can therefore be stated.

Impact on hunting grounds

The routing of the highway through the central part of a hunting ground is considered to be

a direct negative impact, which will cause its division and disturbance of its continuity. The

routing of the highway along the boundary or near the hunting ground is assessed as an indirect

impact. The directly or indirectly affected grounds are mostly of the field type, only

exceptionally of the forest type.

High-voltage power line routing

None of the options deals with the collision with the electric station and its connection very high

voltage and high voltage lines, although, in the valid land use plan of Bratislava, the original

transport design of crossroad Vajnory is co-ordinated with energy equipment in the affected area.

Operational risks and their possible impact on the territory

158

The operational risks during the construction may be identified as follows:

Geotechnical risks;

Risks of the occurrence of underground spaces and caves along the route of the tunnel;

Technological risks of the construction, with the emphasis on the tunnel;

Pollution of habitats, surface and ground waters and of the rock environment in the even of

a leak of oil products from construction machines;

Accidents and fires;

Floods;

Collisions with migrating wild animals;

Failure of the human factor, terrorism.

The following can be identified during the operation:

Major transport accidents;

Failure of the operation technology in the tunnels and a fire;

Extreme climatic conditions;

Floods;

Energy source cuts;

Failure of the human factor, terrorism.

It can be stated that in the assessed area there are not any sources with an unacceptable risk for

the society, if measures for the prevention, elimination and minimisation of impacts on the

environment are strictly observed and all operation and emergency plans are observed.

V. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY

ON THE PROPOSED SPECIAL PROTECTED AREAS, SPECIAL AREAS OF

CONSERVATION AND THE NATURA 2000 NETWORK

The European network of protected areas is defined in Art. 28 of Act 543/2002 Coll. on nature

and landscape conservation in the valid wording. Its objective is to preserve the favourable state

of habitats of European significance and the favourable state of species of European significance.

The NATURA 2000 network consists of Special Protected Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of

Conservation (SACs).

Along the routings of the proposed options, the following NATURA 2000 areas are located:

SKCHVÚ014 Malé Karpaty – established by the Slovak MoE decree No. 216/2005 Coll.,

effective as of 1.6.2005, while all assessed options in the locations of the portals of the Karpaty

tunnel (options 2 and 7), and of the eastern portal of the Karpaty tunnel and the western portal of

tunnel Katušiná (option SPL) marginally concern that protected area. Directly in the territory of

the SPA, there is the western portal of the Karpaty tunnel and the eastern portal of tunnel

Katušiná, including the inter-portal section of the highway, as well as places of the ventilation

shafts of the tunnels in the assessed options are located in the SPA.

The identified impacts of the proposed options on the SPA are as follows:

Option 2a:

Direct occupation (construction and operation);

Stress impacts – noise and light disturbance (construction and operation);

Collision with passing vehicles (construction and operation);

Indirect impact – a change in the hydric situation in the territory affected by the

construction of the tunnel;

Option 2b:

159

Direct occupation (construction, lower impact during operation than in Option 2a due to

the realization of a cut-and-cover tunnel on the western side and the shifting of the portal

outside the SPA);

Stress impacts – noise and light disturbance (construction, operation ditto as the

occupation);

Collision with passing vehicles (construction, operation ditto as the occupation);



Option 7a:

Direct occupation (construction and operation);

Stress impacts – noise and light disturbance (construction and operation);

Collision with passing vehicles(construction and operation);



Options 7b, 7c:

Direct occupation (construction, lower impact during operation than Option 2a due to the

realization of a cut-and-cover tunnel on the western side and the shifting of the portal

outside the SPA);

Stress impacts - noise and light disturbance(construction, operation ditto as the

occupation),

Collision with passing vehicles(construction, operation ditto as the occupation),

Indirect impact - a change in the hydric situation in the territory affected by the


Option SPL:

direct occupation (construction and operation);

Stress impacts - noise and light disturbance (construction and operation);

Collision with passing vehicles (construction and operation);

Indirect impact - a change in the hydric situation in the territory affected by the

construction of the tunnel and the pollution of the water environment during the

construction and operation (a nameless forest stream in the area between the Karpaty and

Katušiná tunnel, which probably serves as a food base of nesting black storks, while that

stream will probably be used as one of the receivers of the water drained from the

highway);

SKÚEV0104 Homoľské Karpaty – established by the Slovak MoE decree No. 3/2004-5.1 of 14.

7. 2004, while option 7 runs under the SAC through the Karpaty tunnel, like the Karpaty tunnel

in Option SPL. Option 2 is taken by a tunnel outside the concerned territory. Directly in the

territory of the SAC there are places of ventilation shafts of the Karpaty tunnel in Option SPL.

The identified impacts of the proposed options to the SPA are as follows:

Option SPL:

Direct occupation (construction and operation - ventilation shafts, access roads);

Stress impacts - noise and light disturbance (construction and operation - ventilation

shafts, access roads);

Collision with passing vehicles (construction and operation - ventilation shafts, access

roads);

Options 2 and 7:

Direct occupation (construction and operation - access roads to ventilation shafts);

Stress impacts - noise and light disturbance (construction and operation - access roads to

ventilation shafts);

160

Collision with passing vehicles (construction and operation - access roads to ventilation

shafts);

SKÚEV0279 Šúr - established by the Slovak MoE decree No. 3/2004-5.1 of 14 July 2004; the

routing of the highway runs outside that territory, the boundary of the SAC is located ca. 500 m

north of Options 7a, 7b, 7c, and 2a, 2b, between km 1.500 and 3.500.

Options 2 and 7:

Indirect impact with low probability – noise and light disturbance, a change in the hydric

regime (construction and operation);

Option SPL:

Without an impact;

SKÚEV0388 Vydrica - established by the Slovak MoE decree No. 3/2004-5.1 of 14 July 2004;

the boundary of the area of conservation is located ca. 6.500 km south of the tunnel routing of

Options 2a, 2b.

Option 2:

Indirect impact - a change in the hydric regime, pollution of the water environment

(construction and operation);

Option 7:

Indirect impact of low probability - a change in the hydric regime, pollution of the water

environment (construction and operation);

Option SPL:

Without an impact.

SKÚEV0089 Martinský les - established by the Slovak MoE decree No. 3/2004-5.1 of 14 July

2004; the boundary of the area of conservation is located ca. 2.200 km north of Option SPL.

All options:

Without an impact.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

Final statement on designed activities

According to the results of the assessment carried out under the law, during which the following

has been assessed: the situation of use of the territory and bearableness for the natural

environment, importance of anticipated impacts of designed activities (including cumulated

impact) on the environment and health of the inhabitants, with regard to probability, scope,

duration, nature and place of designed activities implementation, statements of the bodies and

organizations competent for the designed activities and affected by the designed activities as

well as statements of the inhabitants living in the given area and other representatives of the

public, taking into consideration the present knowledge,

it is recommended that

designed activities “highway D4 Ivanka north – Záhorská Bystrica“ be implemented provided

that the terms and conditions and measures provided in section VI/3 hereof be met and adopted.

Ambiguities that have arisen in the assessment process should be resolved in the following

stages of the construction design preparation.

2. Recommended variant

The Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic recommends, on the basis of the course

of the entire assessment process of designed activities (technical documentation, intention,

assessment report, statements, records of public discussions, expert opinion), that the following

161

procedure be used for further preparation of designed activities: divide the assessed section of

the highway, from the point of view of design as well as construction, into two parts:

o Ivanka north – interchange Rača

o interchange Rača - Záhorská Bystrica (tunnel Karpaty)

Section Ivanka north – interchange Rača

is recommended to be built in a corridor of variant 7b or a modified version thereof, from

partially embedded to laid on the terrain level (if the engineering-geological and hydrogeological

surveys prove that embedding is unsuitable with regard to unfavourable geotechnical and

hydrogeological situation) with a covered tunnel bridge, under the following conditions:

check the engineering-geological and hydrogeological conditions of the entire section

route and optimize, according to the survey results, the direction and elevation of the

highway with the emphasis put on the section near Vajnory – embedding of the highway

below the terrain level,

handle interchange Rača to the extent necessary for making that section operable,

synchronize preparation and construction of section Ivanka north – interchange Rača with

preparation and construction of preceding section Jarovce - Ivanka north,

adhere to further proposed measures provided in the recommendations for the

construction phase and operation.

Section interchange Rača - Záhorská Bystrica

Having the present knowledge, due to the complexity and demanding nature of the tunnel

passage through the mountain range of Little Carpathians, due to obvious ambiguities following

from knowledge of the affected area on the level of technical study and due to disagreement of

the inhabitants and non-governmental organizations to the present design of the highway, we

recommend that the designed activities in section interchange Rača – Záhorská Bystrica be

suspended. It is necessary to closely examine variant 7 in a wider corridor, within a new process

of environmental impacts assessment of section interchange Rača – Záhorská Bystrica.

The basic technical material for further assessment should be another technical study handling

the highway in a wider corridor of variant 7, concentrating on:

the optimal direction and elevation of the highway route, optimum embedding of the

highway below the terrain level according to the results of informatory engineering-

geological and hydrogeological surveys, assessment of geotechnical risks and other

necessary surveys and studies of basic materials (e.g. visualizations for work with the

public),

optimization of environmental – technical design of the Karpaty tunnel.

3. Recommended conditions for the construction phase and operation

Apart from the conditions above, we provide further conditions of preparation and construction

of highway D4 Ivanka north - Záhorská Bystrica according to the technical design,

environmental assessment thereof in the report, comments and statements of bodies,

organizations, higher regional units, towns and municipalities, the public and the public involved

and opinions presented in public discussions as well as according to the recommendations of the

expert opinion.

162

a /Measures in the following stage of design preparation for recommended variant – section 1

- Ivanka north - Rača

Conduct engineering-geological and hydrogeological surveys and on the basis of the

results thereof update the environmental – technical construction design with the

emphasis put on the possibility to embed the highway below the terrain level (bridge

tunnel) in proximity to Vajnory, respecting the existing and developing construction in

the area (Nemecká dolina),

on the basis of the results of the engineering-geological and hydrogeological surveys,

verify the possibilities of the design absorption of water from the highway surface after

being cleaned in the ORL, optimize the technical solution and location of the dry polder

and assess the impact of construction and operation of the highway on the stability of the

Šúrsky kanál dam, optimize laying of the highway and bridges,

modify the direction, as far as technically possible, in the section where the highway

collides with lake Lysom so that the highway does not interfere with the lake water and

plants on its bank and/or bridge the entire section by prolongation of the bridge

overpassing creek Strúha (Vajnorský Creek),

make modification to the direction (distance) and elevation (lower the axis) of the

highway in km 2.5-3.5 where the highway route passes closest to national nature

reservation Šúr, as far as technically possible (in this section, it is currently necessary to

relocate creek Strúha which is in the same time a biocorridor, i.e. by making the highway

more distant, no other impact identified in the assessment documentation will occur,

parallelly, there is a contact with the border of the planned construction of CEPIT in this

section),

in the technical solution, respect the protection zone of the affected infrastructure

(protection zones of road, railroads, product ducts, airport, energy distributors, sewage

and drainage pipelines, water and environment, etc.), conditions of administrator upon

modification or relocation thereof, respect also the planned infrastructure development

(e.g. relocation of road II/502, technical reserve 400/110/22 kV Vajnory etc.),

in the technical solution, propose measures to minimize the use of territory, design the fill

declines and grooves based on the stability calculation, if necessary, take smaller territory

and design the relevant technical solution,

design composition of the ground part of the highway, in particular of fills, using

excavated soil from the own construction to the maximum extent possible (with regard to

the postponement of construction of the tunnel, it will be impossible to rely on exploited

raw ore), in the event of lack of soil for the highway fill, use the local soil resources (do

not open a new borrow pit),

update the traffic-engineering materials (including collectors) with regard to the local and

regional traffic relations in the affected areas of Bratislava and higher regional units of

Bratislava Region and planned development of the area,

according to the results of the traffic-engineering materials and optimization of the

highway route, update the noise and noise propagation study separately for the highway

and collectors and the cumulative condition thereof according to the legislation in force in

relation to the existing and planned development (Nemecká dolina) in cadastral area

Vajnory but also to protected areas (national nature reservation Šúr) and elements of the

Regional System of Ecological Stability (hereinafter ÚSES) (MBc Háj),

163

in the noise and noise propagation study, take into account the z cumulative condition

(D1, II/502, railroad),

according to the results of the noise study, update the designed location and technical

solution of soundwalls that should be handled comprehensively with regard to the

affected area,

design soundwalls material minimizing collisions with birds (non-transparent soundwalls,

etc.),

propose measures according to the results of the noise propagation study (vegetation

modifications),

set exact hydrological data of affected water flows with the emphasis put on the

assessment of their capacity to drain water from highway and potential impact on the

quality of underground water due to regime change (take into consideration also draining

of tunnel Karpaty),

optimize water draining from the highway with regard to limited capacity of the

recipients, design oil products separators with water treatment according to the

requirements of the water management body, retention tanks, etc., comply with the

request of municipality Rača for a final technical solution of water draining and discharge

during the highway construction and subsequent operation into a suitable recipient so that

the water does not constitute a threat of flooding in cadastral area Rača and does not

increase the level of underground water,

in cooperation with SVP, š.p., technically redesign the designed dry polder between

Šúrsky kanál and highway D4, reasons for the necessity of which are provided in section

“Impact on the anti-flood protection of municipality Vajnory“,

respect the statement of SVP, š.p. OZ Bratislava concerning the width of handling strips

around river flows and protective dams (for water flows important from the point of view

of water management 10 m from the shoreline and/or from the aerial and upstream toe of

the dam - Šúrsky kanál, for minor water flows, 5m from the shoreline – other water

flows), upon cross-section of water flows, it is necessary to maintain the flow rate profile,

respect the requirements of water flow administrators upon modifications and relocation

of water flow,

within hydrogeological survey, it is necessary to assess the impact on the regime, flow

and quality of underground water in particular in the section of estimated tunnel Vajnory,

prepare a hydraulic model of the affected area with regard to estimated impacts on

underground water (include also places and estimated absorption amounts of water from

the highway in the marginal conditions),

verify the impacts on stability of Šúrsky kanál dams in the section parallel with

the highway,

conduct a pedological survey,

handle the passage of highway through the locality of lake Lysom by a bridge or

eventually verify the possibility of the highway passing farther from that locality,

use the taken soil and subsoil exclusively to recultivate the grooves and fills of the

highway and to recultivate temporary territory taking by the construction according to a

decision of the relevant authority,

164

maintain all access ways to the area and to plots used to service and manage them,

maintain access ways to the recreational areas and cottage colonies,

it is necessary to respect all the existing and designed cycle paths, or relocate them if

necessary,

respect all overpasses across Šúrsky kanál or replace them with new ones,

conduct a dendrological survey and make stock taking of trees growing outside the

forest,

propose vegetation modification in places of interference with biocorridors in order to

restore vegetation condition as fast as possible, using suitable trees, i.e. use primarily

original tree types (exclude planting of invasive species),

propose anti-erosion protection of the highway surroundings and plant bushes and similar

greenery on the highway embankment,

conduct an archeological survey,

conduct an anti-corrosion and geoelectrical survey,

design and establish construction yards in environmentally suitable localities,

clarify the location of construction material storage and manner of secondary dust

production prevention in relation to said material,

design off-site material transportation routes so that the impacts on inhabitants are

minimized, i.e. localize them outside built-up areas to the maximum extent possible, if

local roads in developed areas are to be used, propose measures to minimize negative

impacts, e.g. lower speed limit, road modifications, barriers (speed bumps),

prepare a project of monitoring of individual environmental components (inputs for a

project analysis),

prepare a plan of the construction process and organization (POV),

before launching the highway to operation, prepare the related documentation (operating

plans, emergency plans, maintenance plans, waste handling plans, etc.).

b /Measures in further preparation – section 2 - Rača - Záhorská Bystrica

The submitting party should technically study and assess, in a new assessment process of

impacts on the environment, the newly designed solution of highway D4 Rača – Záhorská

Bystrica passing in the corridor - variant 7.

c/ Further measures of nature and county protection

1. Continue in the monitoring of the biota of selected localities according to the results of

the yearly monitoring for the selected variant,

2. ensure thorough protection of trees located in the vicinity of the construction site

(temporary fence, etc.) including measures to protect the roots system (exclude dangerous

substances handling, do not store excavated soil and construction material, etc.),

3. it is necessary to prevent collisions with migrating animals by fence along the entire

highway section,

165

4. in the place of biocorridors, it is necessary to leave out relevant room in the highway

fence and plant navigating vegetation,

5. minimize the interference with non-forest trees in the county, line road vegetation,

vegetation on the border of cultivated fields, vegetation related to Šúrsky kanál, scattered

vegetation in orchards of vineyards constituting an important natural element in an urban

county,

6. before the construction commencement and in the event of protected species on place

during construction works, it is necessary to contact the relevant department of the State

Nature Protection of the Slovak Republic,

7. arrange capturing and transport of protected species if necessary with the aid of the State

Nature Protection of the Slovak Republic from the affected area outside the period from

April to July and ensure a substitute habitat to release the captured animals,

8. mitigate the barrier effect and negative impacts on the migration routes of animals by

suitable modification of bridges and other structures so that they allow for the migration

of selected animal groups and/or by construction of special migration structures –

underpasses, overpasses (passages for frogs, otters, game, etc.),

9. minimize the scope of modifications of kanáls of crossed water flows, handle impacted

hydrologic conditions by retention tanks with sufficient capacity to decrease the impact

on the surface of water flows,

10. before the implementation of the selected variant, ensure monitoring of underground

water flow, assess the impact on hydrogeological conditions also with regard to water and

related habitats and with the aid of a statement of the State Nature Protection of the

Slovak Republic, ensure adoption of measures to minimize eventual negative impacts,

11. design anti-noise measures (soundwalls) around all protected areas, protected zones and

habitats, in particular near Šúrsky kanál (3rd, 4th and 5th degree of protection). It is

necessary to maintain favourable conditions of food habitats (which include also fields

and water areas around the highway route) for the animals living nearby,

12. minimize the scope of modifications of kanáls of crossed water flows, handle impacted

hydrologic conditions by retention tanks with sufficient capacity to decrease the impact

on the surface of water flows,

13. before the implementation of the selected variant, ensure monitoring of underground

water flow, assess the impact on hydrogeological conditions also with regard to water and

related habitats and with the aid of a statement of the State Nature Protection of the

Slovak Republic, ensure adoption of measures to minimize eventual negative impacts,

14. upon recultivation and planting, it is necessary to plant original tree and bush types.

Design substitute vegetation planting outside the highway to substitute for the cut trees

and bushes. Substitute the shoreline plants of affected water flow,

15. design and discuss with the State Nature Protection of the Slovak Republic, RCOP in

Bratislava, the measures of protection of habitat of national importance - ranunculus

lateriflorus, growing near the highway route, approximately around km 3.7 of the route,

16. in protected areas, select such means of transport of e.g. materials which will not require a

significant extension or hardening of the existing forest roads.

d/ Zone planning measures

166

1. In the zoning plans of the capital and self-governing region, the corridor of highway D4

in the assessed section is stabilized (with minor inaccuracies) in the form of variant 2. It

is necessary to fully synchronize, with the aid of amendments to the zoning plans, the

route of future highway D4 in section Ivanka north - Rača. Upon development of

municipalities, respect that corridor including its protection zone and zone of impact, in

particular the noise impact.

e/ Ownership relationships

1. Sufficiently in advance provide for the settlement of titles to affected property on the

route of design highway in line with the legislation in force.

f/ Measures during the highway construction

Take measures to prevent a leak of harmful substances to the soil and rock,

in important localities, exclude (apart from permanent and temporary taking of a road)

construction interventions and/or protect such localities with a fence,

within POV, take measures to prevent the effects of noise, dust and emissions in

developed areas,

handle capturing and treatment of waste water from construction yards and of water upon

decrease of underground water level from construction pits before discharging it to water

flows,

on temporarily occupied land, carry out biological recultivation after the construction

completion and restore the previous purpose thereof,

from the point of view of the quality of water, it is important to adhere to the

technological discipline to prevent direct leaks of contaminating agents, in particular fuel

and lubricants, to surface and underground water,

cut trees and bushes outside the nesting and vegetation season if possible, and only to the

extent necessary,

comply with the measures preventing secondary dust production when transporting

powdery materials,

prepare a plan of waste liquidation, handle waste in line with the regulation in force on

waste management,

arrange technical supervision during construction and environmental supervision,

provide for cleaning of public roads used for construction transportation,

protect temporary storages of soil from damage, prevent spreading of ruderal species of

plants and contamination of soil with their seeds,

after the completion of construction works, begin the revitalization works without undue

delay,

ensure monitoring of selected components of the environment in line with the

monitoring project.

g/ Measures during the highway operation

1. Ensure continuation of monitoring of selected components of the environment according

to the recommendations of the post-project monitoring analysis,

167

2. adopted measures during operation provided in the preceding section,

3. handle waste in line with the legal regulations in force.

h/ Acceptability of activities for the affected municipalities

Cooperation of the construction contractors with the affected municipalities upon

determination of transportation route, schedule of mechanisms passing in the area,

manner of maintenance of local roads, traffic signs and traffic management during

construction,

i/ Other measures

1. If negative impacts are proved, eliminate them operatively with the aid of monitoring

using suitable technical and organizational measures,

2. in the event of archeological findings during construction works, inform the relevant

professional institution (Archeological Institute of Slovak Academy of Sciences in Nitra).

4. Reasoning for the final statement including assessment of acceptance or dismissal of

submitted written statements on the assessment report

The final opinion has been prepared under Art. 37 of the Act in cooperation with NDS a.s. on the

basis of all documents available, results of assessment of designed activities elaborated in the

assessment documentation and further related surveys a studies, statements of bodies,

organizations, higher regional units, towns and municipalities, the public and the public involved

and opinions presented in public discussions as well as according to the recommendations of the

expert opinion. The Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic has carefully taken into

consideration every comment and statements of affected entities, experts and the public. The

Ministry discussed all material statements with the submitting party, elaborated of the

assessment report and elaborated of the expert opinion and material comments are projected in

the final statement on measures.

The final statement has been prepared on the basis of the following underlying materials:

Scope of assessment of assessment report of “highway D4 Bratislava, interchange Ivanka

north - Stupava“, issued by the Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic on July

18, 2008 under file no. 7155/08-3.4/ml

Feasibility and purposefulness study for D4 Bratislava Jarovce – Ivanka north – Stupava

south – state border of the Slovak Republic/Austrian Republic, Dopravoprojekt

Bratislava, September 2009

Report on the assessment of impacts “highway D4 Ivanka north - Záhorská Bystrica“,

HBH project, spol. s r.o. Brno, December 2010

Statements on the assessment report

Records of public discussions of the assessment report

Expert opinion about assessment report

When assessing the materials and preparing the final statement, we proceeded in line with the

provision of Act No. 24/2006 Coll.

Reasoning of the option selected

Authors of the Assessment Report

Authors of the Assessment report based on the scope of assessment of 18 July 2008 issued by the

Ministry of the Environment pursuant to § 30 of Act no. 24/2006 Coll. considered, except for the

168

zero option (situation that would arise if the proposed activity is not carried out), the following

options:

- option 7 a - with elevated highway road

b - with highway underpass

c - with highway underpass

- option 2 a - with elevated highway road

b - with highway underpass

- option SPL - a new corridor led northwards from the proposed options in the plan of the

route Senec Pezinok, Lozorno.

Authors of the assessment report recommended by means of multi-criteria assessment option 7c

for further preparation for the D4 highway Ivanka north - Záhorská Bystrica, while defining the

following groups of criteria:

Environmental criteria

Technical and economic criteria

Traffic criteria

Based on a comparison of assessed options under the mentioned criteria, the authors of the

assessment report identified the following sequence of options according to their suitability:

1. option 7c

2. option 7a

3. option 7b

4. option 2a

5. option 0

6. option 2b

7. SPL option

On the basis of opinions received, the statements of authorities, organizations, HTUs, towns and

municipalities on the proposed activity can be summarized in the following table: Authority,

organization, municipality, public

Favourable opinion

Favourable opinion with conditions

Favourable opinion with option preference

Zero Option Other

MDVRR SR (7c)

MDVRR SR - complement

MoD SR

MV SR (7c)

MoE SR, Section of Geology and Natural

Resources

MoE SR, Department of state

administration

REO Bratislava (7c)

Regional Land Office in Bratislava

(7c)

Regional Forest Office in Bratislava

Regional Monuments Office in Bratislava

KRHZZ Bratislava

OÚŽP Bratislava

OÚŽP Senec (7c)

OÚŽP Malacky

169

OÚCDPK Bratislava

OÚCDPK Malacky

OÚCDPK Pezinok (7c)

District Mining Office in Bratislava

DO Pezinok, section CD and KD

DO Pezinok, section CD a KD

District Forest Office Malacky

(7c)

Slovak Public Health Authority

RÚVZ Bratislava (7b)

BSK (7c)

Bratislava

Svätý Jur

Pezinok (7c)

Bernolákovo

Viničné

Borinka

Marianka

Marianka - complement

CD BA Rača (7c)

CD BA Záhorská Bystrica

CD BA Vajnory

SNC SR

SNC SR, RCOP Modra

SVP OZ Bratislava

Departmental authority MTCRD SR recommends option 7c in its opinion for further project

preparation, however, for the complement it requires in the next stage of the project

documentation (DZP) to verify the technical solution of D4 on the elevated road at Ivanka north

interchange, to consider the possibility of partially flush option of filled tunnel from the

hydrogeological point of view, to finalize the noise study and propose adequate noise control

measures in relation to the development of housing on both sides of the highway in Vajnory, to

respect international cycle trail in the section Jur-Rača-Vajnory, to preserve migration corridors

and links to Jurský Šúr and design ecoducts to facilitate the migration of fauna through the

highway.

Opinion of Vajnory was definitely in favour of option 7b - embedded tunnel. The petition clearly

defined requirement for highway routing around Vajnory (completely taken over to the final

opinion).

The opinions of the public and interested public were dominated by comments on the submitted

assessment documentation, indicating its deficiencies and the requirements for its completion,

respectively remake. Some opinions were unfavourable to the implementation of the proposed

activity without further measures, respectively opinions with a preference for the zero option.

Some opinions were supportive and, if measures are followed, favourable to implementation of

the recommended option.

170

At the public hearing there was a discussion on the part of affected population mainly focused on

the explanation and clarification of the route of the proposed highway in options and its technical

solution to issues on the procedure of environmental impacts assessment, the construction

schedule. Some comments pointed out the shortcomings in the evaluation documentation,

inadequately proposed measures or disagreed with the proposed activity and required verification

of other solution. Most comments were made by the people from CD Vajnory and Marianka,

which will be most affected by the assessed options 2 and the 7.

Public opinion on the proposed activity was presented at the public hearing as petitions, while

the petition of Vajnory residents for the D4 highway routing near the city district solely in option

7b was signed by 870 citizens. The petition was sent to the MoE directly into the hands of the

Minister.

Another petition entitled "Save Marianka and its surroundings" was organized by civic initiative

Save Marianka. The petition had about 5,000 signatures. The petition calls on Heads of State to

verify merits of the proposed highway and the legal procedure for the assessment process.

Authors expert opinion recommended:

The D4 highway Ivanka north - Záhorská Bystrica to be divided into two partial sections,

the first section from Ivanka north EI until Rača EI, the second section from Rača EI until

Záhorská Bystrica EI.

Those sections can be done alone, and will be capable of operating without major

technical changes (GSI Rača modification by option 7c).

1st section to be carried out in the corridor of option 7 in response to the previous section

D4 Jarovce - Ivanka north, it is necessary to examine the vertical alignment (embed under

the ground - poured tunnel) in the route near Vajnory if it is allowed by engineering

geological and hydrogeological conditions in the present area.

2nd section to be carried out in the route of option 7c, but it is necessary to carry out

further surveys and studies to optimize respectively modify the tunnel routing in terms of

environmental impact.

Overall, the opinions of authorities, organizations and the public consisted mainly of these

fundamental objections and comments:

in order to minimize impacts on SNR Jurský Šúr, set the highway along the protection zone

below the ground level.

Comment: impacts on SNR Šúr were professionally and adequately assessed in the Assessment

Report (chap. C.III.9), while these are only indirect impacts with a small probability. Setting the

highway below the ground level in this section could cause a change of hydrogeological

conditions, which could have a significant negative impact on the hydrological (drainage)

conditions around the affected area, including SNR. It seems more favourable to ensure

adequate measures on the surface by means of e.g. multifunctional barriers (noise, light) and so

on, which should be designed following detailed surveys and studies in the next stage of the

project documentation.

none of the proposed options deals with the conflict with infrastructure development - land

reserve for TR 400/110/22 kV including connecting cables and their protection zones (in the

zero traffic circle in valid LUD Bratislava, the interests of energy and the proposed Rača

interchange have been mutually coordinated)

171

Comment: in the Feasibility and effectiveness study of D4 highway (hereinafter FES), the

vertical alignment of the highway is designed to respect land reserve for overhead lines and their

protection zones. AR took over this solution. Rača interchange was in a different position in

LUD Bratislava. After the precise measurement of the area the technical solution of the highway

will be elaborated at a more detailed scale in the next stage of project documentation, thus

potential collision with those developing energy-related equipment as well as other existing and

prospective infrastructure will be refined and technically resolved.

Dispersion study is not elaborated to the extent necessary, not taking account of the impact of

outlet tunnel options on the air in Borinka and cumulative impacts with existing traffic on the

existing road network

Comment: dispersion study (text Annex 3 AR) has been prepared on the basis of technical

documentation (SRU) in accordance with applicable legislation in sufficient extent to require

assessment of environmental impacts and the proposed measures. For detailed assessment of air

pollution due to dispersion of pollutants in the tunnel air outlet, as required by the observations

of Borinka, it would be necessary to carry out direct measurements of the content of individual

air pollutants at different dispersion conditions before putting the highway into operation and

during operation under which it would be possible to verify the dispersion modelling and

concentration of air pollutants in the air around the tunnel air outlet and within the boundaries

of the municipality. However, in view of the modelling outcome of the dispersion study included

in the AR the pollution of the air outlet tunnel is negligible and reaches only fractions in percent

of the limit values (see table 25 in the dispersion study). The placement of air outlet will be in the

next stage of project documentation addressed in more details including dispersion study

updates. Considered options, however, do not pass through cadastral area of Borinka and air

pollution will be monitored in terms of post-project analysis.

the data from the hydrogeological survey are absent in AR, while tunnel boring may disturb

watered layers

Comment: a geological study has been elaborated within AR (not annexed to AR, but is available

by the claimant) with details of the hydrogeological conditions along the tunnel route and the

risks that can be expected during tunnel boring. The geological study while assessing impacts on

the environment describes enough the geological and hydrogeological conditions in the territory

concerned and, furthermore, it will be necessary to carry out engineering geological and

hydrogeological survey in accordance with applicable legislation and regulations which will

verify the geotechnical conditions for construction of the tunnel section, including draft technical

measures.

AR does not contain a visualization of views from Pajštún

Comment: visualization of views from Pajštún is not considered essential for the assessment, the

highway is in the views from this point mainly routed in tunnel and only a part between the west

portal and the road I/2 will be probably visible, with respect, however, to the other southwest

landmarks (VW industrial area) the route is meaningless for the view from Pajštún.

there is a request to add a Lamač-Rača tunnel option (transport semi-circle) in the

environmental impact assessment process

Comment: the scope of assessment clearly defines options to be considered in the AR, Lamač -

Rača tunnel option is not included in requests for options considered.

Highway implementation is contrary to the concept of preservation of the main functions of

the Bratislava Forest Park (BFP) - rest facilities for tourists and cyclists not exceeding

carrying capacity of the natural environment (the Bratislava Green Lungs Programme)

Comment: AR involves a detailed and separate assessment of the impact on the Bratislava Green

Lungs Programme (chap. C.III.16), while the identified effects are minimum in view of the

highway routing (in the section of BFP via tunnel) and objectives of the programme are without

collision with the proposed highway routing.

172

the extension of underground highway routing in option 7c until 16.000 km

Comment: the evaluated options 2a, 2b, 7a and 7c of tunnel section are not recommended in this

Final opinion (FO), in other options of the tunnel section of Rača - Záhorská Bystrica, which are

undertaken by the claimant to be technically re-designed, it will consider the possibility of

extension of highway routing under the ground level in Marianka.

shifting the highway route away from Marianka towards Stupava

Comment: the same as previously stated.

opposition to the storage of excavated material in the former Marianka quarry

Comment: the excavated material can not be stored in close proximity to settlements,

respectively within their boundaries and therefore AR does not consider establishment of the

storage in Marianka quarry. The AR considered only the adjustment of a former quarry, not

storing cut material from the tunnel. The claimant shall deal with storage of excavated material

in environmentally appropriate locations acceptable for the affected municipalities and process

study for the economical use of extracted minerals.

complete a missing hydrogeological survey and assess the impact on the springs in Holy well

in Marianka

Comment: the expected impact on hydrogeological conditions and groundwater has been

considered in a geological study AR, relevant impact on the springs of the Holy Well may be

verified in the hydrogeological survey. The claimant in due time before the construction shall

carry out monitoring wells to assess the impact of underground work on the hydrogeological

conditions in the affected area, including the processing of technical measures.

reprocessing impact assessment of the structure on noise exposure in the affected area as

required by current legislation in Slovakia

Comment: to assess the impact of the structure on noise exposure a noise study has been

elaborated within AR, which assessed the day and night, excluding the evening. Given that the

strictest noise limits are for the night and these are considered in the noise study, and whereas

limit values for day and evening are the same according to the law, it may be admitted that for

the assessment of environmental impacts pursuant to Act no. 24/2006 Coll. such simplification is

possible and elaborated noise study can be considered sufficient for the purposes intended. The

noise situation will be assessed in further preparation by updating the study under current

legislation, which will require the claimant to provide detailed assessment of noise exposure of

the affected area, including the verification of the model by direct measurements. Draft noise

control measures will be based on the updated noise study adjusted with respect to the

modification of horizontal and vertical highway routing.

comments on the plan of Marianka of 2008 as well as Marianka and Borinka of 2008 were not

reflected in the report

Comment: substantiated comments are defined in the specific requirements of the scope of

assessment and these were subsequently elaborated and considered in the SRU of the entire D4

highway route. SRU has been the basis for AR, and other requirements listed in opinions on the

Plan are incorporated in AR including a review of compliance with the specific requirements

listed in the scope of assessment (Ch. C.X). The quality and content of AR was assessed in the

EIA process in expertise, which states that the documentation is elaborated according to Act no.

24/2006 Coll. and meets the criteria at a given level of knowledge under which it is possible to

recommend an option.

insufficient processing visual views in the contact of highway with buildings in Marianka

Comment: in addition to visualizations submitted under AR, other visual views have been

elaborated by the elaborated of AR under the requirements OZ Malé Karpaty, which have been

provided to the public by OZ representatives in illegally modified form without prior

consultation with the claimant.

173

disagreement with deferring incorporation of comments on the assessment report to next

stages of documentation, all comments to be incorporated within the revised report

Comment: the vast majority of substantiated comments on the AR is repeated with comments on

the plan. These were incorporated in the evaluation documents (AR) by meeting specific

requirements of the scope of assessment (Ch. C.X). Other comments require details which can be

defined only in further preparation and result from detailed researches and studies, of the

precise area measuring and so on.

a request for solution of draining the collected water into a water body so as not to endanger

the flood situation in CD Rača not even by increasing groundwater levels

Comment: concrete measures to technical water drainage will be technically designed after

conducting detailed surveys and studies in the next stage of the project documentation.

a requirement to deal with noise control measures for the residential area of Záhorská Bystrica

Comment: noise control measures were designed based on a noise study, which is sufficient for

the needs of AR. In the next preparation, the noise control measures will be elaborated in details

by updating the noise study.

a requirement to visualize the final technical design together with compensatory measures in

terms of CD Záhorská Bystrica

Comment: the final design will be drawn up in the next stage of project documentation, which

will include recommended measures to minimize and eliminate the environmental impacts in

terms of the FO for the option selected. For this reason, it is not possible to process the desired

visualization in the EIA stage where the measures are only recommended on the basis of an

impact assessment.

a request to extend the overlapped tunnel in option 7b near Vajnory until 2.3 km with respect

to the planned residential area in Nemecká dolina

Comment: a request for tunnel extension to 2.3 km needs to be better examined, as the

residential construction is currently planned, so the investor is also obliged to respect the

territorial development and situate residential buildings so that their users are affected as little

as possible by the negative impacts of the highway. Extension of the tunnel will be limited in

terms of expected unfavourable hydrogeological conditions (high water table), measures to

protect the territory of the planned construction against the negative impacts of noise is

especially designed by noise barriers whose design is given in the noise study.

impacts on surface and groundwater in option 7b are not well documented

Comment: the impacts on surface and groundwater are elaborated in AR to a sufficient extent.

The geological study, which is available at the claimant, has documented hydrogeological

conditions in the affected area and assessed the impacts on groundwater. In further preparation,

if necessary, a hydrogeological survey of the affected area is to be conducted, including an

assessment of impacts on groundwater.

The opinions of the public and interested public were dominated by comments on the submitted

assessment documentation (AR), indicating its deficiencies and the requirements for its

completion, respectively remake.

Comment: expert opinion authors at a given level of knowledge do not share this view.

Some opinions were unfavourable to the implementation of the proposed activity without further

measures, respectively opinions with a preference for the zero option.

Comment: the proposed activity can not be achieved without (additional) measures introduced in

this final opinion.

Some opinions were supportive and, if measures are followed, favourable to implementation of

the recommended option.

The opinions of the public concerned have given the following fundamental objections and

comments some of which are already commented in the previous:

174

based on the transport analyses we do not agree that the highway is to be built, since it does

not deal with the transit traffic, but will make a further increase in passenger traffic and

transport situation will deteriorate, the connection of Bratislava with Lamač - Krasňany

semicircle is more meaningful

Comment: D4 highway does not address only the Bratislava circle, which is being planned for a

long time in terms of transport (about 30 years) and its building does not stop construction of

superior transport infrastructure (highways, expressways) in Bratislava and HTU, D4 highway

will be part of the road network which, in addition that it connects D1 and D2 with A6, S8, will

cross the R7 expressway and another prospective expressway in the direction to Vlčkovce (in an

area of Most pri Bratislave), with the roads I/2, I/63 and I/61, thus D4 highway is not an end in

itself. The superior road network is design by professionals for transport to the prospective

period of 30-50 years. All relevant traffic data inputs have been elaborated in traffic engineering

documents, which are listed in a separate annex of AR In the next stage, they will be updated

according to the latest data of the road network database and the automatic traffic counters and

the results of the national traffic census. Optional linking of Lamač - Krasňany was not

introduced in the scope of the assessment. This linking is part of ZAKOS of Bratislava as an

outer semi-circle with the City Hall competence. Comprehensive transport infrastructure in the

affected area needs to be addressed in the transport plans of Bratislava and HTU, which,

however, count with the D4 highway in the position of the original zero circuit of Bratislava as a

superior road network of regional, subregional and international importance.

AR does not state compensatory measures, e.g. revitalization of disrupted habitat, building of

cycle path, rest and green areas, adjustment of public space

Comment: measures fall under the Act No. 543/2002 Coll. on nature and county protection and

it is only possible to execute them within the frame of legislation in force, other mentioned, so

called compensatory measures may be understood only as an ordinary proposal, particular

compensatory measures may only be solved after the agreement with respective municipality and

on its land only, what is in this preparation phase of the highway construction not realistic.

Absent is the execution of geological a hydrogeological survey needed within the frame of

assessment and the outcomes of hydrogeological analysis of groundwater flow changes

Comment: in specific requirements in the point 19 of the assessment scope was required an

execution of thorough geological and hydrogeological survey. Within the frame of AR

a geological study was elaborated which may be regarded as sufficient for impact assessment

and it is available at the proponent. Execution of the detailed geological survey in this stage of

the construction preparation would require significant funding in which case it would be

necessary to execute the survey for all proposed options. It is reasonable and economical to

execute a difficult geological survey which requires a tunnel passing through the massif in Malé

Karpaty because of the recommended solution in terms of the legislation in force and regulations

(graded survey). Hydrogeological analyses were elaborated in appropriate scope in AR (chapter

C.III.5), similarly as mentioned in aforementioned, detailed assessment of hydrogeological

analyses it is reasonable to process as to recommended solution by execution of hydrogeological

survey.

not integrating the affected municipalities to the assessment of all partitions of D4 highway is

in contradiction with Act No. 24/2006 Coll.

Comment: Act No. 24/2006 Coll. exactly defines the affected municipality. Municipality which is

not defined by Act as affected, might be in a process of assessment, it means so far at

commenting on the purpose and by setting up the scope of assessment it might request that it

wants to take part in the procedure. This option was not utilized by any municipality in the

process of influence assessment of individual sectors of D4.

AR unclearly defines the purpose of the structure.

175

Comment: the purpose of the construction is sufficiently documented in the analysis of traffic

data which were thoroughly elaborated in the text enclosure of AR (traffic engineering

documents) and on which basis the development of traffic was anticipated in affected area. As

long as the generels of traffic in Bratislava and VÚC (higher regional unit) will be elaborated in

relevant time, this data will be incorporated to the current traffic engineering documents of the

next phase of the D4 highway project, although, traffic data within the assessment of impacts are

analysed in sufficient scope for defining the purpose of the construction. Highway ring around

Bratislava will be the part of highway networks and motorways of SR a its route is in compliance

with land use plan of the capital city of Bratislava and with the land use plan of VÚC (higher

regional unit). It is obvious that the main purpose of the construction is to build a capacity road,

which converts traffic relations towards Bratislava to more transitive, optimally distributes the

relations of external source and destination traffic to respective radials and will comfort

tangencial traffic relations in marginal parts of the city. This will significantly contribute to

increase of road safety on communication network of the capital and to the improvement of

environment in the city. From the location and the connection of the highway crossroads on the

existing road network it is possible to assume that many citizens from the affected municipalities

will make use of the new capacity road for safe and fast automobile transportation practically

every day.

route of the variant Senec-Pezinok-Lozorno (hereinafter reffered to as SPL) does not

correspond to the request of scope assessment which is to consider the new variant in

the route SPL

Comment: variant SPL required in the assessment scope as the new variant which is necessary

to assess in AR, was designed technically and economically redesigned in ŠRU

and environmentally essessed in AR, whereas according to all criteria it is at the most

inconvenient. From the technical as well as the environmental documentation it is clear that

variant SPL will be in any placement between Senec-Pezinok-Lozorno in comparison with

variants 2 and 7 more favourable in all aspects.

comments on non-execution of specific requirements of the assessment scope

Comment: overview of specific conditions completion defined by the scope of assessment is

stated in assessment report (chapter C.X.). It may be stated that on the level of contemporary

knowledge of affected area and technical documentation elaborated on map records in scale

1:10 000 (without area localization), were specific requirements of the assessment scope carried

out by the proponent to the extent possible. Upon commenting on the next phase of construction

preparation which is documentation for planning permit, standpoints of the bodies and

organizations within planning permit proceedings will be requested again in terms of the

legislation in force, however, with regard to knowledge of the area where the particular variant

will be routed, the details will be diametrically different from the technical study in which case

all measures for minimization and elimination of negative impacts on the environment contained

in this ZS will be taken into account and updated in necessary detail in documentation.

comments of the civil association Malé Karpaty stated in amendment nr. 1 standpoints

Comment:the proponent responded on comments by individual letter in which he pertinently

answers each of the comments in which case after the revision of aforesaid particular comments

to the assessment report it is possible to agree with the proponent´s answer.

disagreement of co-owners of land with leading the highway through their property

Comment: property rights settlement of real estates (landed properties) which are going to be

permanently taken by the construction of the highway will be carried out in terms of legislation

in force and within other phases of project documentation.

requirement on compensation for damage to property value (family houses, building lands)

which are going to be near the highway and which are going to lose atractivity of the close

natural environment (silence, healthy environment)

176

Comment: route highway D4 (zero circuit) is specified in land use plan of Bratislava city, VÚC

(higher regional unit)as well as in affected municipalities on a long-term basis. The citizen who

invested to the land or built a family house close to the proposed route of the highway could

have turned to the competent office and check these facts in the land use plan. Judicial recovery

of the compensations will be for this reason presumably unfounded. On the other hand, it is

obvious that the attractiveness of the dwelling due to the proximity of natural environment will

decrease by the construction of the highway, however, all precautions that have to protect

affected inhabitants from negative influences of the highway are stated in this ZS and which must

be respected by the proponent in the following preparation.

requirement on thorough solution of crossing of D4 with cycle paths

Comment: in ŠRU as well as in AR were respected all crossings with existent cycle paths. In the

next preparation of the project will be the areal conditions updated by accurate localization of

affected area in which case all existent as well as projected cycle paths will be in a technical

solution of the highway, taken into account in that way for them to be preserved. In case of need

will be all affected cycle paths adapted, however, this will be ensured by proponent as

necessitated investments. Within the frame of measures of this ZS are stated requirements on

solutions of all crossings of highway with the cycle paths.

intensity of the traffic is undervalued which influences the outcomes of noise and dispersion

study as well

Comment: in traffic engineering data (see text enclosure AR) all development activities were

taken into account in affected area (construction in Chorvátský Grob, Vajnory, Cepit) which will

influence the intensity of traffic on highway D4 in the monitored period. In noise and dispersion

study are used these data which are recounted in the future on the basis of growth factors. Due

to the fact that these data are expected in future periods, monitoring is proposed in burdened

areas. In the next phase of preparation works of the construction will be traffic engineering data

including noise and dispersion study updated into more detailed extent including the detailed

monitoring project of environment.

Incorrect may be considered the statement that identified influences on NPR Šúr will not be

significantly negative.

Comment: negative influences on NPR Šúr were considered by specialists of proponent of AR

including draft measures on their elimination and minimalization (chapter C.III.9 and chapter

C.IV.).

influence of highway on quality of underground water was not assessed

Comment: influences on surface and groundwater are described in chapter C.III.5 AR. Due to

the construction of highway canalization which ensures the restraint and defecation of the water

from the highway road, this is not considered an influence on underground water quality in the

common operation.

amounts of precipitation water flowing from the surface of the road are wrong, highway is

executed as 4-line road, however, it is designed as 6-line road

Comment: the highway is executed and designed as 4-line road (width arrangement 26,5/120) in

the whole lenght except for tunnel in Karpaty (chapter A.II.8).

tunnel Vajnory was not assessed as a stationary source of air pollution during operation

Comment: In the terms of dispersion study (enclosure AR) southern and eastern edge of Vajnory

was assessed. Results show that even in the future period emission of air pollutants will not

exceed the limit values in residental areas. Due to the small lenght of the tunnel and the one-way

traffic in each tunnel tube it will not have an influence as the stationary source of pollution.

noise load was not assessed in the area Natura 2000 Šúr

Comment: There are no defined limits for the noise impact assessment in the legislation of SR for

protected areas, impact assessment is assessed in cooperation with the specialist on biota. For

the protection of Šúr are in AR proposed noise barriers as preventive measures. (chapter

177

C.IV.2.).

no strategical environmental assessment (SEA) was developed for the route of the highway

Comment: according to the information from the Ministry of Transport, Construction, and

Regional Development of Slovak republic (MDVRR SR) was the entire route of the highway

D4 considered as a strategic document at that time. (New project of construction of highways

and motorways - amendment nr. 3).

Submitted opinions above can be divided as follows:

favourable opinions without objections,

favourable opinions supporting conducting of proposed activity,

favourable opinions, the comments of which have already been accepted within the

commenting on the draft intention and have been implemented within the evaluation process

and evaluated in the report, or reminded in the comments,

favourable opinions with comments, the objective of which is to positively contribute to

proposed solutions; they are feasible and will be incorporated into the measures for

removing, compensation, elimination or minimisation of environmental impacts of the

construction and operation of the proposed activity in the final opinion and in other stages of

project preparation,

opinions, in which favourable opinion is conditioned by meeting concrete requirements,

opinions preferring one of the options assessed, including conditions,

opinions, requiring completion of the report with regard to its incompleteness in some points

of the assessment scope,

unfavourable opinions preferring zero alternative,

opinions of general nature.

The vast majority of raised comments in the delivered favourable opinions was justified, is

feasible and has contributed to the implementation of measures for elimination or minimisation

of environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the road and they are incorporated

into the draft measures. Favourable opinions mostly preferred alternative 7c, which was also

recommended by the assessment report.

It can be stated that the municipalities involved expressed mostly consent in their opinions with

the conducting of the proposed activity or consent upon meeting listed conditions. Unfavourable

opinion to the recommended alternative 7c was expressed by the municipality Borinka (it prefers

zero alternative, or the alternative SPL, 2b with conditions) and the city district Bratislava

Vajnory (it requires alternative 7b with conditions).

Relevant public required in their unfavourable opinions either to complete the evaluation report

or to prefer the zero alternative. Favourable opinions preferred alternatives 7c, 7b and 2b with

conditions, or the option SPL.

Within the public hearing, inhabitants of the municipalities concerned objected, besides subject

matter issues or comments on the prepared investment and requirements for minimisation and

elimination of adverse impacts, also the highway construction, mainly during the public hearing

conducted in Lozorno (for affected municipalities Marianka, Stupava, Lozorno). With regard to

the general dissent and objections of affected inhabitants of the municipality Marianka who were

present at the public hearing in Lozorno, the municipality Marianka subsequently requested

separate public hearing directly in the municipality, where the inhabitants expressed their

comments on the routing of the highway or a strong opposition to the construction of the

highway within the land registry district of the municipality.

Subsequently the public expressed their opinion in petitions, the wording of which is given

above.

178

After the evaluation of the whole process of the assessment of the impacts of the proposed

activity ‘Highway D4, Ivanka north - Záhorská Bystrica’ it has been recommended to divide the

whole route into two construction parts as follows:

1. section Ivanka north - Rača, which has been recommended for implementation in the

corridor of the alternative 7b.

2. section Rača - Záhorská Bystrica (tunnel Karpaty), which with regard to the current

knowledge and for the opposition of the public has not been recommended for

implementation.

The recommended alternative must in further technology solution take into account all measures

for prevention, elimination and minimisation of environmental impacts in line with the Final

opinion and legislation valid in the Slovak Republic. 2. section shall be technically resolved in

more detail in a broader corridor of the alternative 7 before further preparation of the highway, in

the district Marianka the possibility of embedding the highway below the ground shall be

examined, or propose a solution which shall be more acceptable for the municipality Marianka.

Routing of the tunnel Karpaty shall also be examined with regard to the complexity and

difficulty of the solution consisting in the tunnel’s passage through the Small Carpathian

Mountains. The proposed solution, despite demonstrating carrying capacity of the highway in the

territory by the results of the assessment within the assessment process and maximum effort of

the author and proposer of the AR aiming to identify all environmental impacts, is not

recommended for a significant part of the public and affected public does not associate itself

with leading the highway D4 near the municipality Marianka.

The selected routing alternative is a compromise between the current knowledge of the status,

uncertainties and real financial capacity of the State.

Under the assumption of accepting and implementation of the proposed measures for prevention,

elimination, minimisation and compensation of adverse environmental impacts of the

construction and upon a thorough project analysis, it is possible to minimise a major part of

foreseeable and really existing negative impacts during the construction and operation of the

proposed activity and ensure thus a predominance of positive impacts.

4.1 The validity of this final opinion is 7 years.

5. Required scope of post-project analysis

The programme of monitoring before the start of construction, during the construction and

during the operation of the activity

The subject of monitoring in the concerned highway section shall be elaborated within the

zoning permit documentation or the construction permit documentation in the annex ‘Project of

monitoring of selected environmental components‘ and according to TP 6/2008 ‘Guideline for

monitoring of environmental impact of roads’ valid since 15 August 2008 for a definitive

alternative. It shall focus primarily on monitoring of impacts of the activity in all stages of

preparation, construction and operation on selected environmental components in selected –

affected locations, whereas the role of the post-project analysis is to analyse and evaluate

impacts of the activity found within the monitoring with subsequent drawing of consequences

and adopting measures for elimination of the impacts which would be more adverse than was

assumed in the Evaluation report.

Monitoring in the concerned territory of the proposed activity shall focus mainly on monitoring

179

of the following:

1. air, noise and vibrations before/ during the construction and during the operation in

selected locations with regard to the position of the selected route in relation to built-up

area, recreational zones and protected areas (selection of the monitoring locations shall be

proposed based on the updated noise and scattering study in further stage of project

documentation for the recommended option),

2. wastewater during the construction of the tunnel and during operation of the highway

sewerage from outlet to water recipients,

3. monitoring of regime and quality of groundwater before/ during construction and during

operation to the extent of recommendations of the hydrogeological survey (construction

of system of monitoring drill holes),

4. monitoring of the impact on geological environment as recommended by the engineering-

geological survey,

5. biota in defined locations, contact protected territories, territories NATURA 2000 and

concerned habitats, before/ during construction and during operation according to the

results of the biota monitoring, which shall be updated during the further preparation of

the highway in the recommended option,

6. migration routes of wild animals in relation to the barrier effect, before/during

construction and effectiveness of measures proposed for providing migration corridors

for the wild animals during the operation,

7. geotechnical monitoring during and after the construction of the tunnel,

8. monitoring of waterways and water sources according to recommendations of

hydrogeological survey.

Defining the exact scope of monitoring (location and parameters) will be possible based on the

conducted surveys, expert studies and expert opinions for the recommended option in further

stage of project documentation.

The scope and period for the monitoring and evaluation shall be set according to Section 39, par.

2 of the Act by an authorising body, if it concerns authorising of proposed activity under special

regulations taking into account this final opinion.

The control of meeting environmental measures of the final opinion on the assessment process

shall be conducted by environmental inspection according to the Act No 543/2002 Coll. on

nature and landscape protection.

Based on operational evaluation of the results of monitoring by the proponent in line with

Section 39, par. 3 of the Act, in case it turns out that the real impact of the proposed activity

assessed according to the Act was worse than was assumed in the Evaluation report, the executor

shall be obliged to undertake measures in order to bring the real impact in compliance with the

impact given in the Evaluation report, in line with the conditions stipulated in the decision on

authorising the proposed activity according to special regulations.

6. Information for authorising body on the public concerned

The public concerned, according to Section 24 of the Act is the public who is interested or might

be interested in environmental decision-making procedures. The public concerned includes

mainly natural persons according to Section 24a of the Act, legal person according to Section

24b or Section 27 of the Act, civic initiative according to Section 25 of the Act and civic

association supporting environmental conservation according to Section 26 of the Act. In the

180

process of assessment of impacts of proposed activity the public concerned has been identified.

Based on the record from the public hearing, citizens raised questions on the proposed activity.

The public concerned shall be entitled, based on Section 27a of the Act, to actively participate in

preparation and authorisation of proposed activity, namely during the whole procedure of the

assessment of impacts up to the issuing of a decision authorising the proposed activity.

VII. CONFIRMATION OF DATA ACCURACY

1. Final opinion elaborators

Ministry of Environment of the SR

Environmental Assessment Department

Ing. Milan Luciak

In collaboration with

Regional Public Health Authority, Bratislava

2. Confirmation of data accuracy by an authorised representative of relevant body, stamp

Ministry of Environment of the SR

RNDr. Gabriel Niznansky

Director of the Environmental Assessment Department

3. Location and date of issue of final opinion

Bratislava 7. 2. 2012

Disclaimer

This is an English translation of a document that was originally produced in the Slovak

language. While we have exercised utmost care to make this translation accurate, it may

contain typing or translation errors. Therefore, always consult the Slovak original before making

decisions on the basis of this translation.

The name of this document in Slovak is Záverečné stanovisko. The file name has not been

changed.

We hereby confirm that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development shall have no

responsibility for the translated content.

Project Implementation Services, spol. s r. o.

Consultant under Consultancy Contract C31934