Number: WG Welsh Government Consultation Document

Transcription

1 Number: WG Welsh Government Consultation Document November 2012 M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures (CEM) Strategic Habitats Regulations Assessment (SHRA) Statement to inform Appropriate Assessment

2 Welsh Government M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures Programme Strategic Habitat Regulations Assessment: Statement to Inform an Appropriate Assessment Contents Executive Summary 2 1 Introduction 4 Page 1.1 Context Report Structure M4 CEM Programme Habitats Regulation Assessment Consultation 11 2 Guidance and Evidence Base Guidance and Policy Evidence Base 12 3 Assessment Methodology and Assumptions Introduction Approach to the Appropriate Assessment 13 4 Results of Appropriate Assessment River Usk SAC Severn Estuary Ramsar, SAC and SPA 16 5 Conclusions 18 Issue 2 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX

3 Executive Summary Ove Arup and Partners Ltd were appointed by the Welsh Government to undertake a Strategic Habitats Regulations Assessment (SHRA) of the M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures (CEM) Programme. This report has been prepared in line with the requirements of Article 6.3 and 6.4 of the Habitats Directive and Part IVA of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (known as the Habitats Regulations). The Screening Report considers the potential for the measures contained within the M4 CEM Programme to significantly affect internationally important nature conservation sites (collectively known as European Sites) either alone, or in combination with other plans and projects The SHRA of the M4 CEM Programme is complementary to the M4 CEM Programme Strategic Environmental Assessment, Health Impact Assessment and the Equality Impact Assessment. The Programme has a regional focus which is reflected in the level of detail included in the SHRA. The assessments contained in this report have been based on the content of the M4 CEM Programme. It should be noted that further detailed assessments under the Habitats Regulations will be required at project level when the measures proposed in the M4 CEM Programme are taken forward for development. The SHRA Process The stages of the SHRA included an information gathering, interpretation and assessment exercise which led to a determination of whether implementation of the M4 CEM Programme would result in: Likely significant effects on any of the European sites involved (screening stage); and then Adverse effects on the integrity of any of the European sites involved (appropriate assessment stage). This report covers the Screening and Appropriate Assessment stages of the SHRA. Both the screening and appropriate assessment stages took into account the potential for in-combination effects with other plans and projects as well as considering a range of potential avoidance and mitigation measures. From the SHRA Screening stage, the measures within the M4 CEM Programme were identified as having a potential significant effect on the qualifying interest features of the following European Sites: River Usk SAC - M4 CEM Programme measures; Severn Estuary SAC- M4 CEM Programme measures; Severn Estuary SPA - M4 CEM Programme measures; AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 2

4 Severn Estuary Ramsar - M4 CEM Programme measures; The remaining M4 CEM Programme measures were assessed as unlikely to have significant effects on the other sites. The Appropriate Assessment found that: All six measures had potential adverse effects on the integrity of the four European sites involved. However, the information provided was such that there were significant gaps in the understanding of the proposals and the potential effects, which in turn has implications for the, and the assessment process for establishing effect on European site integrity; and The provision of more information on the points above, would bring more certainty to the appropriate assessment process, and allow the identification of an appropriate level mitigation to remove adverse effects caused by the six elements. However, this cannot be assumed to be the case at this moment in time. Conclusions The screening stage concluded that 24 measures (7 Public Transport Measures and 17 Common Measures) were unlikely to have significant effects on the European Sites. From the appropriate assessment process carried out for the four Sites brought forward from the screening stage, it cannot currently be ascertained that the M4 CEM Programme will not adversely affect the integrity of the European Sites. This is due to gaps in the information available on the six Programme measures, the European sites and their qualifying interests, and whether mitigation measures to remove those adverse effects will be successful. It is possible that with further information that the adverse effects would be removed. A commitment has been added to the M4 CEM Programme which ensures that relevant measures are subject to a Project based Habitats Regulations Assessment and can only proceed if the project undertakes such an assessment successfully. AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 3

5 1 Introduction 1.1 Context The Welsh Government is developing an M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures (CEM) Programme (hereafter referred to as the M4 CEM Programme) to make travel safer and easier on the M4 Corridor between Magor and Castleton, South Wales. The possible M4 CEM Programme will comprise a range of practical measures that will ease the traffic flows in the M4 Corridor. Prior to the adoption of the M4 CEMs Programme it is the responsibility of the Welsh Government to consider the potential effects of the Programme on European Sites. This process is referred to as a Strategic Habitats Regulations Assessment (SHRA) which is in line with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations This transposes the requirements of the Habitats Directive in to UK law. Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive require the assessment of plans and projects likely to have significant effects on European Sites. This Appropriate Assessment process is required to identify whether the implementation of the M4 CEM Programme would result in adverse effects on the integrity of any internationally important nature conservation sites (described in the Habitats Regulations as European sites and European offshore marine sites ) and if so, to assess the plan s implications for those sites, having regard to their conservation objectives. This Statement to Inform an Appropriate Assessment (SIAA) has been prepared to inform the Welsh Ministers ( the Competent Authority ), of the potential impacts of the M4 CEM Programme on European Sites. This information brings together the SHRA Screening and appropriate assessment processes as described in this report. As part of the assessment, effects upon Special Area of Conservations (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) must be considered. Additionally, and as a matter of policy, the Welsh Government (WG) should treat potential SPAs (pspa), candidate SACs (csac) and possible Ramsar sites (pramsar) as if they were fully designated.the process of the Appropriate Assessment consists of the following stages: Undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications of each affected site in the light of its conservation objectives; and Consider whether any possible adverse effects on integrity of any of the sites could be avoided by changes to the plan, such as alternative policy or proposal, or the amended of a measure, whilst still achieving the programme s aims and objectives. To meet these requirements, the Appropriate Assessment has included the following steps: A review of existing information on the measures, the sites and their qualifying interests brought forward from the screening stage; A review of relevant information on projects or plans which may act in combination, including new projects or plans identified; AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 4

6 Assessment of the measures effects on sites, in light of the relevant conservation objectives, including in combination effects. Identification of mitigation measures which were not included in the screening stage; Assessment of the measures effects on sites with the mitigation measures identified, including in combination effects; Consideration of whether any adverse effects on integrity are likely to occur, and if so whether these can be avoided by changes to the M4 CEMs Programme. Welsh Transport Planning and Appraisal Guidance (WelTAG) aims to demonstrate that the principles of planning and appraisal have been followed and provide an audit trail of decision making. The reports expected to be produced at each stage are: Planning Report; Stage 1 (Strategy) Appraisal Report including Health Impact Assessment and Equality Impact Assessment; Environmental Report (including SEA); Habitats Regulations Assessment; Participation Report; and Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. This document comprises the Statement to Inform an Appropriate Assessment as part of the Habitats Regulation Assessment, which fits within the wider suite of reports listed above. 1.2 Report Structure This report is structured as follows: Chapter 2: Guidance and evidence base; Chapter 3: Assessment methodology and assumptions; Chapter 4: Results of the appropriate assessment; and Chapter 5: Conclusions. It should be noted that M4 CEM Programme has a strategic nature which is reflected in the level of detail included in this SHRA. Further, more detailed assessments under the Habitats Regulations will be required at a project level as and when the elements proposed in the M4 CEM Programme are taken forward for development. A Habitats Regulation Assessment was undertaken for the National Transport Plan (NTP) in March In line with the requirement of a SHRA on the NTP, the M4 CEM SHRA acknowledges the requirement of a SHRA on the programme of measures. AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 5

7 1.3 M4 CEM Programme Background The M4 plays a key strategic role in connecting South Wales with the rest of Europe, providing links to Ireland via the ports in South West Wales and England and mainland Europe to the east. It is a key east-west route being the main gateway into South Wales and also one of the most heavily used roads in Wales. Providing a facility for transporting goods, linking people to jobs and employment sites as well as serving the Wales tourism industry, the M4 is critical to the local South Wales economy. The M4 Motorway between Magor and Castleton falls well short of modern motorway design standards. It is congested during weekday peak periods resulting in slow and unreliable journey times and stop-start conditions with frequent incidents causing delays. This together with increasing traffic is why problems with congestion and unreliable journey times have been an issue on the M4 corridor around Newport for many years. AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 6

8 Figure 1: The Location of the M4 To address these issues, the feasibility of developing the M4 Relief Road to motorway standard was studied in significant detail. In July 2009, the Welsh Government announced that the project had become unaffordable. However, the Welsh Government recognised that important improvements should be made to the existing transport network. The M4 Magor to Castleton, Corridor Enhancement Measures Programme (M4 CEM) was set up to explore ways of making such improvements Aims of the M4 CEM Programme The aims of the M4 CEM Programme are to: 1. Make it easier and safer for people to access their homes, workplaces and services by walking, cycling, public transport or road. 2. Deliver a more efficient and sustainable transport network supporting and encouraging long-term prosperity in the region, across Wales, and enabling access to international markets. 3. To produce positive effects overall on people and the environment, making a positive contribution to the overarching Welsh Government goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to making Wales more resilient to the effects of climate change Goals of the M4 CEM Programme The Welsh Government has identified the following goals, which the M4 CEM Programme should aim to achieve, in order to ease the flow in the M4 Corridor between Magor and Castleton: When the M4 CEM Programme is concluded we will benefit from: AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 7

9 4. Safer, easier and more reliable travel east-west in South Wales. 5. Improved transport connections within Wales and to England, the Republic of Ireland and the rest of Europe on all modes on the international transport network. 6. More effective and integrated use of alternatives to the M4, including other parts of the transport network and other modes of transport for local and strategic journeys around Newport. 7. Best possible use of the existing M4, local road network and other transport networks. 8. More reliable journey times along the M4 Corridor. 9. Increased level of choice for all people making journeys within the transport Corridor by all modes between Magor and Castleton, commensurate with demand for alternatives. 10. Improved safety on the M4 Corridor between Magor and Castleton. 11. Improved air quality in areas next to the M4 around Newport. 12. Reduced disturbance to people from high noise levels, from all transport modes and traffic within the M4 Corridor. 13. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions per vehicle and/or person kilometre. 14. Improved travel experience into South Wales along the M4 Corridor. 15. An M4 attractive for strategic journeys that discourages local traffic use. 16. Improved traffic management in and around Newport on the M4 Corridor. 17. Easier access to local key services and residential and commercial centres. 18. A cultural shift in travel behaviour towards more sustainable choices Developing an M4 CEM Programme Having established the problems and the need to tackle them, the Welsh Government has involved others in exploring a very wide range of possible ways of solving these problems and of delivering the goals of the M4 CEM Programme. A long list of possible solutions has been explored. No single solution delivers all the goals, but through this methodology, measures that contribute towards a combination of compatible optionshave been identified. The measures combine public transport and other travel solutions (common measures) with 4 alternative highway options (Option s A or B or C or D). The strategic approaches adopted by the Welsh Government to reduce congestion and to delivering the M4 CEM Goals all involve creating some new highway capacity on the M4, and /or elsewhere in the highway network between Magor and Castleton. However traffic congestion will not simply disappear as a result of capacity increase. This is because the development of new or up-graded, convenient and reliable roads tends to encourage more people on to them. This results in additional vehicles using additional road capacity (not a stable volume of vehicles using more/emptier roads). To enable the sustained productivity and competitiveness of Wales, and the South East Wales region in particular, highway infrastructure must also be developed; several alternative approaches are possible, each with particular advantages and AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 8

10 challenges. In addition, some other common measures can enhance the effectiveness of each of the possible strategies we are considering. The approach the Welsh Government may take is summarised below: Public S Transport Measures + Highway Infrastructure option A or or C or D Common Measures = M4 CEM Programme (Package of measures) As shown above, a possible programme will comprise a range of the following measures: Public transport measures: Investment in public transport measures which should encourage modal shift and reduce reliance on the private vehicle in the Newport area, by increasing choice. Highway infrastructure measures: o Highway Option A: additional high quality road to the south of Newport. o Highway Option B: at grade junction improvements to the A48 Newport Southern Distributor Road (SDR). o Highway Option C: grade separated junction improvements to the A48 SDR. o Highway Option D: online widening on the M4 between Junctions 24 and 29, including an additional tunnel at Brynglas. Common measures: These are additional measures being considered to support the strategic public transport and highway capacity measures in addressing travel related problems within the M4 Corridor between Magor and Castleton. They comprise a mix of highway infrastructure, demand management, alternative modes and smarter sustainable choices. They comprise a mix of highway infrastructure, demand management, alternative modes and smarter sustainable choices. The screening stage concluded that 21 measures (7 Public Transport Measures and 17 Common Measures) out of the 30 measures (7 Public Transport Measures, 19 Common Measures and 4 Highway Infrastructure Measures) were unlikely to have significant effects on the European Sites,. All four Highway Infrastructure measures (Option A D) and five Common measures (widening of west facing slip roads at J26, improve aesthetics along the M4 Corridor, Junction 23a improvements, Junction 27 improvements and Junction 28 improvements) are bought forward at this stage to assess the impact of the M4 CEM Programme on the integrity of the European Sites. Appendix B provides a figure showing where the M4 CEM measures are located. 1.4 Habitats Regulation Assessment All plans and projects should identify any possible impacts early in the planmaking process and then either alter the plan to avoid them or introduce mitigation measures to the point where no adverse impacts remain. The AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 9

11 competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project onlyy after having ascertained that it will not adverselyy affect the integrity off the site concerned and if appropriate having obtained the opinion of the general public. p For highways schemes this procedure is knownn as the Assessment of f Implications on European Sites (AIES), and the screening stage is one of a series of stages within this process. Thiss report provides the screening stage. Figure 1.2 below shows an overview of the AIES process as providedd within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Vol 11, Section 4 HD44/09: H Assessment of Implications (of Highways and/or Roads Projects) on European Sitess (including Appropriate Assessment). Figure 1.2 Flow diagram detailing the AIES process The screening stage of the AIES process has been undertaken and thee results of the screening process of the M4 CEM Programme are shown in Appendix C. This Statement to Inform an Appropriate e Assessment embarks on Stage 3 of the M4 CEM Programme SHRA. AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 10

12 1.5 Consultation The SHRA SIAA Report will be published for consultation on the website for the M4 CEM; and sent formally to the following organisations; Countryside Council for Wales (legal obligation) Natural England (legal obligation) Environment Agency (Wales) Wales Environment Link South Wales Trunk Road Agent Friends of the Earth (Cymru) Wildlife Trust Wales National Trust Sustrans Royal Society for the Protection of Birds The consultation will be included in the automatic consultation notification system of the Welsh Government. Consultation comments received on the SHRA SIAA Report will be given consideration in the finalisation of the HRA process prior to the adoption of the M4 CEM Programme. AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 11

13 2 Guidance and Evidence Base This section sets out the guidance and evidence base used within this SIAA for the M4 CEM Programme. 2.1 Guidance and Policy The Appropriate Assessment has been informed by a range of guidance and policy documents as well as other HRAs across Wales. The Assessment of Development Plans in Wales under the Provisions of the Habitat Regulations Technical Advice Note (TAN 5): Nature Conservation and Planning (September 2009) Annex 6 of TAN 5 provides guidance on the procedures required by Part IVA of the Habitats Regulations and on a methodology for undertaking the various steps in the HRA independent of the plan making process. Specific plan-making stages are sign-posted when relevant to one or more of the HRA steps or processes. Design Manual for Road and Bridges (DMRB) HD 44/09. Assessment of implications (of Highways and/or Roads Projects) on European Sites (including Appropriate Assessment) (February 2009) This Standard provides guidance on the assessment of highways and/or roads projects in accordance with the provisions of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations. It consolidates current best practice advice in this area. 2.2 Evidence Base In addition to the guidance noted above, the following websites were used to gather information on the European protected sites; Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC); and Countryside Council for Wales (CCW). Countryside Council for Wales Core Site Management Plans were also used to gather information on European protected sites. These documents provide the main elements of CCW s management plan for protected sites and sets out what needs to be achieved on the sites, the results of monitoring and advice on the actions required. The GIS datasets for European sites used in the SHRA were downloaded from the CCW and Natural England websites in October 2012 to ensure all relevant European sites and their updated boundaries were taken into consideration. AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 12

14 3 Assessment Methodology and Assumptions 3.1 Introduction This section provides the applicable methodologies and assumptions for the Appropriate Assessment of M4 CEM Programme SHRA. The approach to the screening exercise is shown in Appendix C. 3.2 Approach to the Appropriate Assessment Given that the M4 CEMs Programme contains proposals for specific transport interventions the approach drew upon guidance produced as part of the Design for Road and Bridges HD 44/09 Assessment of implications (of Highways and/or Roads Projects) on European Sites (including Appropriate Assessment) (February 2009). This guidance document was used in particular when considering how to undertake the assessment itself, and procedures for reporting the appropriate assessment process Review of measure descriptions Relevant information about the measures, which had been carried forward from screening stage, such as routes and designs was requested from the relevant element design teams. This information, if available, was then compared with the description provided in the screening worksheets (Appendix C) and if necessary a slightly more detailed description was then provided. An example of this would be additional information about the location of lengths which may be offline and online within a scheme Review of site based information The Core Management Plans for the sites carried forward from the Screening stage, already used in the screening process, were reviewed and additional information on the sites were provided Review of Baseline Information Relevant survey information relating to the individual qualifying features, if available in the public domain, was obtained from the relevant element design teams, to try and inform a better consideration of the potential impacts on the qualifying features of the sites. The survey information was reviewed and reported in outline in Row 17 of the appropriate assessment worksheets in Appendix A Review of potential impacts from screening The impacts identified in the screening stage were then reviewed against any additional information about the element and relevant survey information, to see if the impacts brought forward from the screening stage were still relevant. AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 13

15 3.2.5 Review of in combination projects or plans information CCW, Natural England and Environment Agency (England and Wales) published documents were reviewed to see if any further projects or plans information had been produced since the screening report had been prepared. In addition other emerging projects and plans were identified by the SHRA team. These documents were then analysed in the same way as the plans and projects had been for the screening stage, and where appropriate the information added to the analysis of in combination projects and plans from the screening report, provided in Row 19 of the worksheets, Appendix A Appropriate assessment findings for sites The above information was then used to consider whether there would be effects, which would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the sites. Effects on the sites would be those which were likely to affect the integrity, function and structure of the site, as expressed in the ability of the site to meet its conservation objectives for each feature Avoidance/mitigation measures Using all the above information, avoidance and mitigation measures were identified using professional judgement to identify any additional avoidance/mitigation measures which could be applied, if such measures were appropriate Appropriate assessment findings for sites after mitigation Finally, the assessment made without mitigation, was repeated and professional judgement used to assess whether there would be adverse effects on the integrity of the sites involved Consideration of whether any adverse effects can be avoided by changes to the M4 CEM Programme Consideration was given to whether, in the light of the information collected and the results of the assessment, there was sufficient information to allow a formal conclusion as to the whether the individual elements of the programme could be amended, or whether an alternative policy or proposal could be added to the programme which would achieve the required result that adverse effects on the integrity of the sites caused by the M4 CEM Programme in its entirety would be avoided, while achieving its aims and objectives The Use of Professional Judgement Professional judgement was used in the carrying out of this work where professional guidance was not available, and in the interpretation of results. Where there was not enough information about the risk of qualifying interest AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 14

16 being present, or of the risk of impacts, the assessment used the precautionary principle to inform the judgement. The precautionary principle has been applied to ensure that any assessment errs on the side of caution, without being overly cautious. This principle means that the conservation objectives should prevail where there is uncertainty or that harmful effects will be assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 15

17 4 Results of Appropriate Assessment This section provides the results of the Appropriate Assessment undertaken. 4.1 River Usk SAC The decision on whether Highway Infrastructure measures (Options A, B, C and D) and Common Measures (Widening of west facing slip roads at J26, Improve aesthetics along the M4 Corridor, Junction 23a improvements, Junction 27 safety improvements and Junction 28 improvements) proposed would have an adverse impact on the fish species and otters of the River Usk SAC, cannot be made until more detailed survey and project design information is available. However, appropriate mitigations been identified that should adequately remove/reduce these adverse impacts. Some examples of mitigation measures which would be provided to adequately remove/reduce the adverse impacts on the integrity of the River Usk SAC are the following: dust control measures could reduce the impact of air quality changes on fish species; method of construction and timing of works and barrier around important areas could reduce the effects of disturbance to fish species; monitoring water quality and flow control to Environment Agency standards could reduce the effects to water quality and flow changes on fish species; and provide fencing and underpasses to reduce the risk of vehicle collisions with otters; Therefore, the Appropriate Assessment concludes that the above mentioned M4 CEM measures should not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Usk SAC. In addition, implementation of any of these measurements provided the Programme did not have an adverse effect, would require a project based HRA. 4.2 Severn Estuary Ramsar, SAC and SPA The decision on whether Highway Infrastructure measures (Options A, B, C and D) and Common Measures (Widening of west facing slip roads at J26, improve aesthetics along the M4 Corridor, Junction 23a improvements, Junction 27 safety improvements and Junction 28 improvements) would have an adverse impact on the integrity of the Severn Estuary Ramsar, SAC and SPA, cannot be made until more detailed survey and project design information is available. However, appropriate mitigation has been appropriately identified that should adequately remove/reduce these adverse impacts. Some examples of mitigation measures which would be provided to adequately remove/reduce the adverse impacts on the integrity of the Severn Estuary SAC are the following: dust control measures could reduce the impact of air quality changes on fish species; and AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 16

18 monitoring water quality and flow control to Environment Agency standards could reduce the effects to water quality and flow changes on fish species and habitat changes to Estuaries, sandbanks and Atlantic salt meadows; Some examples of mitigation measures which would be provided to adequately remove/reduce the adverse impacts on the integrity of the Severn Estuary SPA are the following: Monitoring water quality and flow control to Environment Agency standards and construction mitigation measures to reduce the risk of reduction in habitat quality for bird species from pollution/sediment runoff and dust deposition during construction and operation. Some examples of mitigation measures which would be provided to adequately remove/reduce the adverse impacts on the integrity of the Severn Estuary Ramsar are the following: Monitoring water quality and flow control to Environment Agency standards and construction mitigation measures to reduce changes to water quality and flow on the water column of the estuary which could have potential effects on fish species and bird species. Therefore, the Appropriate Assessment concludes that the above mentioned M4 CEM measures should not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Severn Estuary Ramsar, SAC and SPA. In addition, implementation of any of these measurements provided the Programme did not have an adverse effect, would require a project based HRA. AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 17

19 5 Conclusions On behalf of Welsh Government, Ove Arup have undertaken an assessment of the M4 CEM Programme to examine the likely effects of the Project on European Sites. As part of the HRA screening procedure outlined in HD44/09 it is recommended s that the following questions are answered and should be made clear (based on the information presented) when concluding the SHRA Appropriate Assessment. These are addressed in turn here. a) Is the proposal directly connected with or necessary to site management for nature conservation? The M4 CEM Programme in question relates to road, public transport and associate infrastructure improvement. Therefore, the measures within the M4 CEM Programme are neither connected with nor necessary to the management of the European Sites for nature conservation. b) Is the proposal likely to have a significant effect on the features of the site of European Importance, alone or in combination with other plans and projects? Seven Public Transport measures and seventeen Common measures of the M4 CEM Programme were identified during the screening process as not likely to have significant effects on the European Sites. Four Highway Infrastructure measures and five Common measures of the M4 CEM Programme were identified as likely to have significant effects on three different European sites. The elements and significant effects are listed in Appendix A. Four Highway Infrastructure measures, five Common measures and four European protected sites were carried over to the Appropriate Assessment stage. The conclusion is that it is not possible to state that there will be no likely significant effects on the European Sites from the implementation of the M4 CEM Programme. c) What are the implications of the effects of the proposal on the site s conservation objectives and will it delay or interrupt progress towards achieving the objectives? It has been concluded that, assuming the implementation of the various mitigation measures, the proposals would not affect progress towards the achievement of any of the conservation objectives for the European protected sites. d) Can it be ascertained that the M4 CEM Programme will not adversely affect the integrity of the site beyond reasonable scientific doubt? From the Appropriate Assessment process carried out for the four Sites, it cannot be ascertained that the M4 CEM Programme will not adversely affect the integrity of the SACs. This is due to gaps in the information available on; the six M4 CEM AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 18

20 Programme elements; the four European sites and their qualifying interests; and because of the information gaps above whether mitigation measures will remove those adverse effects. It is possible that with further information on the above that the adverse effects would be removed. A commitment has been added to the M4 CEM Programme which specifically requires that any projects that come from the M4 CEM Programme are subject to a Habitats Regulations Assessment and can only proceed if the project undertakes such an Assessment successfully. With this additional commitment in the M4 CEM Programme it can be concluded that it could be implemented, without adverse effects on the integrity of the European Sites. AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 19

21 Appendix A SHRA Appropriate Assessment Results AIES Issue 02 November 2012 \\GLOBAL\EUROPE\CARDIFF\JOBS\117000\ \4 INT PROJ DATA\4-150 ENGAGEMENT WORKING GROUP\STAGE 4 - REPORTING\HRA\SIAA\FINAL SIAA REPORT.DOCX Page 20

22 SHRA Appropriate Assessment Results Special Areas of Conservation within 30km of M4 CEM measures Site Name: River Usk SAC Background information 1 European Site/Designation SAC 2 Qualifying features/interests Annex I habitats present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for selection of this site: Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation Annex II species that are a primary reason for selection of this site: Sea lamprey Brook lamprey River lamprey Twaite shad Atlantic salmon Bullhead Otter Annex II species present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for site selection: Allis shad 3 Conservation Objectives Conservation Objective for watercourse: 1.The capacity of the habitats in the SAC to support each feature at near-natural population levels, as determined by predominantly unmodified ecological and hydromorphological processes and characteristics, should be maintained as far as possible, or restored where necessary. 2.The ecological status of the water environment should be sufficient to maintain a stable or increasing population of each feature. This will include elements of water quantity and quality, physical habitat and community composition and structure. It is anticipated that these limits will concur with the relevant standards used by the 3 Flow regime, water quality and physical habitat should be maintained in, or restored as far as possible to, a near-natural state, in order to support the coherence of ecosystem structure and function across the whole area of the SAC. 4 All known breeding, spawning and nursery sites of species features should be maintained as suitable habitat as far as possible, except where natural processes cause them to change. 5 Flows, water quality, substrate quality and quantity at fish spawning sites and nursery areas will not be depleted by abstraction, discharges, engineering or gravel extraction activities or other impacts to the extent that these sites are damaged or

23 destroyed. 6 The river planform and profile should be predominantly unmodified. Physical modifications having an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC, including, but not limited to, revetments on active alluvial river banks using stone, concrete or waste materials, unsustainable extraction of gravel, addition or release of excessive quantities of fine sediment, will be avoided. 7 River habitat SSSI features should be in favourable condition. In the case of the Usk Tributaries SSSI, the SAC habitat is not underpinned by a river habitat SSSI feature. In this case, the target is to maintain the characteristic physical features of the river channel, banks and riparian zone. 8 Artificial factors impacting on the capability of each species feature to occupy the full extent of its natural range should be modified where necessary to allow passage, eg. weirs, bridge sills, acoustic barriers. 9 Natural factors such as waterfalls, which may limit the natural range of a species feature or dispersal between naturally isolated populations, should not be modified. 10 Flows during the normal migration periods of each migratory fish species feature will not be depleted by abstraction to the extent that passage upstream to spawning sites is hindered. 11 Flow objectives for assessment points in the Usk Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy will be agreed between EA and CCW as necessary. It is anticipated that these limits will concur with the standards used by the Review of 12 Levels of nutrients, in particular phosphate, will be agreed between EA and CCW for each Water Framework Directive water body in the Usk SAC, and measures taken to maintain nutrients below these levels. 13 Levels of water quality parameters that are known to affect the distribution and abundance of SAC features will be agreed between EA and CCW for each Water Framework Directive water body in the Usk SAC, and measures taken to maintain pollution below these levels. It is anticipated that these limits will concur with the standards used by the Review of Consents process given in Annex 3 of this document. 14 Potential sources of pollution not addressed in the Review of Consents, such as contaminated land, will be considered in assessing plans and projects.

24 15 Levels of suspended solids will be agreed between EA and CCW for each Water Framework Directive water body in the Usk SAC. Measures including, but not limited to, the control of suspended sediment generated by agriculture, forestry and engineering works, will be taken to maintain suspended solids below these levels. Conservation Objective for fish species: 1.The conservation objective for the water course as defined in 4.1 above must be met. 2.The population of the feature in the SAC is stable or increasing over a long term. 3. The natural range of the feature in the SAC is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future. The natural range is taken to mean those reaches where predominantly suitable habitat for each life stage exists over the long term. Suitable habitat is defined in terms of near-natural hydrological and geomorphological processes and forms eg. Suitable flows to allow upstream migration, depth of water and substrate type at spawning sites, and ecosystem structure and functions eg. Food supply. Suitable habitat need not be present throughout the SAC but where present must be secured for the foreseeable future. Natural factors such as waterfalls may limit the natural range of individual species. Existing artificial influences on natural range that cause an adverse effect on site integrity, such as physical barriers to migration, will be assessed in view of There is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain the feature s population in the SAC on a long-term basis. Conservation Objective for Otters: 1.The population of otters in the SAC is stable or increasing over the long term and reflects the natural carrying capacity of the habitat within the SAC, as determined by natural levels of prey abundance and associated territorial behaviour. 2. The natural range of otters in the SAC is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future. The natural range is taken to mean those reaches that are potentially suitable to form part of a breeding territory and/or provide routes between breeding territories. The whole area of the Usk SAC is considered to form potentially suitable breeding habitat for otters. The size of breeding territories may vary depending on prey abundance. The population size should not be limited by the availability of suitable undisturbed breeding sites. Where these are insufficient they should be created through habitat enhancement and where necessary the provision of artificial holts. No otter breeding site should be subject to a level of disturbance that could have an adverse effect on breeding success. Where necessary, potentially harmful levels of disturbance must be

25 managed. The safe movement and dispersal of individuals around the SAC is facilitated by the provision, where necessary, of suitable riparian habitat, and underpasses, ledges, fencing etc at road bridges and other artificial barriers. Conservation objective for Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion Vegetation: 1.The conservation objective for the water course as defined in 4.1 above must be met. 2. The natural range of the plant communities represented within this feature should be stable or increasing in the SAC. The natural range is taken to mean those reaches where predominantly suitable habitat exists over the long term. Suitable habitat and associated plant communities may vary from reach to reach. Suitable habitat is defined in terms of near-natural hydrological and geomorphological processes and forms eg. depth and stability of flow, stability of bed substrate, and ecosystem structure and functions eg. nutrient levels, shade (as described in section 2.4). Suitable habitat for the feature need not be present throughout the SAC but where present must be secured for the foreseeable future, except where natural processes cause it to decline in extent. 3. The area covered by the feature within its natural range in the SAC should be stable or increasing 4. The conservation status of the feature s typical species should be favourable. The typical species are defined with reference to the species composition of the appropriate JNCC river vegetation type for the particular river reach, unless differing from this type due to natural variability when other typical species may be defined as appropriate. 4 List of relevant M4 CEM elements Highway measures (Options A, B, C and D) Common measures Widening of west facing slip roads at J26 Improve aesthetics along the M4 Corridor Junction 23a improvements Junction 27 safety improvements Junction 28 improvements Assessment of effects of element(s) on site 5 List of potential effects of elements on site Sea lamprey, Brook lamprey, River Lamprey, Twaite shad, Atlantic salmon, Bullhead, European otter, Allis shad: -Habitat loss fragmentation -Loss of breeding areas, hibernacula etc. -Air quality changes

26 -Water quality and flow changes -Changes to habitat structure -Disturbance to species -Noise and vibration disturbance -Visual and lighting disturbance -Physical restrictions to species movement -Wildlife vehicle collisions No upstream effects on Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation 6 Likelihood of significant effects (from the M4 CEMs) on conservation objectives before mitigation Sea lamprey, Brook lamprey, River Lamprey, Twaite shad, Atlantic salmon, Bullhead, Allis shad: -Habitat loss fragmentation likely of significant effect during construction -Loss of breeding areas, hibernacula etc. likely of significant Significant effect during construction -Air quality changes dust likely of significant effect during construction -Water quality and flow changes likely of significant effect during construction and operation -Changes to habitat structure likely of significant effect during construction -Disturbance to species - likely of significant effect during construction -Noise and vibration disturbance likely of significant effect during construction -Visual and lighting disturbance likely of significant effect during construction and operation -Physical restrictions to species movement likely of significant effect during construction -Wildlife vehicle collisions - likely of significant effect during operation Otters: -Loss of breeding areas, hibernacula etc. may be significant during construction -Air quality changes may be significant during construction. No change during operation -Water quality and flow changes likely to be significant during construction and operation -Noise and vibration disturbance likely to be significant during construction -Visual and lighting disturbance likely to be significant during construction and operation. -Wildlife vehicle collisions likely to be significant during operation 7Avoidance and mitigation measures Fish Species: Habitat loss fragmentation avoid areas which are important to the species. If necessary use natural forces to move habitats. Loss of breeding areas, hibernacula etc. as Habitat loss above.

27 Air quality changes dust control measures Water quality and flow changes water quality and flow control and monitoring to EA standards Changes to habitat structure see habitat loss above. Disturbance to species method of construction and timing of works, barrier around important areas. Noise and vibration disturbance as disturbance above. Visual and lighting disturbance no night time working and location/design of lights Otters : Wildlife vehicle collisions fencing and underpasses Loss of breeding areas - avoid areas which are important to the species. If necessary use natural forces to move habitats 8 Likelihood of significant effects (from the M4 CEMs) on conservation objectives after mitigation There would be a likely impact on fish species and water courses of plain to plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation. There is a likelihood of significant effects. Carry forward to Appropriate Assessment Assessment of effects of element(s) on site in combination 9 List of effects noted in other plans and projects WSP, Powys LDP, Newport LDP, Monmouthshire LDP, considered as relevant for site Brecon Beacons NPMP and LDP, Central Wales RTP, SE 10 List of effects noted in other plans and projects considered as relevant for site 11 List of potential effects of element (s) in combination with other plans and projects Wales RTP The HRA of the Monmouthshire LDP has identified the plan could adversely affects this SAC through increased pressure on natural resources, particularly water, recreational resources, green space, and air quality. The HRA of the Caerphilly LDP recognised that the plan could have potential effects on this SAC as a result of policies that could lead to urbanisation impacts and recreation, land take, water resources and water quality and atmospheric pollution. The HRA of the Torfaen LDP identified potential for air pollution effects on this SAC from new developments. The HRA of the Brecon Beacons NPMP LDP recognised that this SAC could be affected by the housing and employment allocations proposed in the Park. Potential effects include recreational pressure on the land, atmospheric pollution, water quality and water resources. The SEA of the SE Wales RTP expects that the provisions outlined in the SE Wales RTP will support the improvement in air quality across aspects of the transport network in SE Wales. However, particular parts of the road network could suffer from deteriorating air quality should the expected increase in population across SE Wales precipitate an increase in car use in the near future. Water quality Air quality Habitat loss Disturbance