bailey.persona-pi.combailey.persona-pi.com/Public-Inquiries/M4-Newport/Thir… · Web viewIn the...

PUBLIC INQUIRYIN THE MATTER OF THE HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 AND THE ACQUISITION OF LAND ACT 1981AND IN THE MATTER OF:

THE M4 MOTORWAY (JUNCTION 23 (EAST OF MAGOR) TO WEST OF JUNCTION 29 (CASTLETON) AND CONNECTING ROADS) AND THE M48

MOTORWAY (JUNCTION 23 (EAST OF MAGOR) CONNECTING ROAD) AND THE LONDON TO FISHGUARD TRUNK ROAD (EAST OF MAGOR TO

CASTLETON)) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 201--and-

THE M4 MOTORWAY (JUNCTION 23 (EAST OF MAGOR) TO WEST OF JUNCTION 29 (CASTLETON) AND CONNECTING ROADS) AND THE M48 MOTORWAY (JUNCTION 23 (EAST OF MAGOR) CONNECTING ROAD)

SCHEME 201--and-

THE M4 MOTORWAY (WEST OF MAGOR TO EAST OF CASTLETON) AND THE A48(M) MOTORWAY (WEST OF CASTLETON TO ST MELLONS) (VARIATION

OF VARIOUS SCHEMES) SCHEME 201--and-

THE LONDON TO FISHGUARD TRUNK ROAD (EAST OF MAGOR TO CASTLETON) ORDER 201-

-and-THE M4 MOTORWAY (JUNCTION 23 (EAST OF MAGOR) TO WEST OF

JUNCTION 29 (CASTLETON) AND CONNECTING ROADS) AND THE M48 MOTORWAY (JUNCTION 23 (EAST OF MAGOR) CONNECTING ROAD) AND

THE LONDON TO FISHGUARD TRUNK ROAD (EAST OF MAGOR TO CASTLETON) (SIDE ROADS) ORDER 201-

PROOF OF EVIDENCE ON BATS

OF JEAN MATTHEWS

ON BEHALF OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES BODY FOR WALES

of 26Natural Resources Wales Proof of Evidence of Jean Matthews on Bats (Protected Species)

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Relevant Background

3. Site context

4. Issues

5. Alternatives

6. Conclusions

7. References


1. Introduction

1.1 I am Jean Elizabeth Matthews. I am the Mammal Ecologist (Bats and

Riparian Mammals) in the Evidence Analysis Group of the Natural

Resources Body for Wales (NRW). I am based at NRW’s office in Bangor. I

have held this position since April 2013. Prior to that, I was a Mammal

Ecologist for the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) since March 2004.

Prior to that I worked as Protected Species Advisor in North West Wales and

Protected Species Advisor North Wales Region, CCW, starting in 1990.

1.2 As Mammal Ecologist (Bats and Riparian Mammals) I undertake and

commission mammalian research and survey projects, provide scientific

advice and guidance within NRW and to external partners, and represent

NRW at relevant Welsh and UK fora. I am responsible for mammalian

conservation issues in Wales and represent Wales at UK mammalian fora

and the UK at European fora.

1.3 I provide specialist advice to NRW operational staff on bat conservation in

Wales. This includes advising on the impacts of development where bats are

present, commenting on and contributing to high profile casework that

affects bats, advising on licensing issues and developing survey and

mitigation guidelines. I provide NRW input to UK guidance on bats including

interpretation of legislation as it affects bats.

1.4 I represent NRW on the UK Bats Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Steering

Group. I am a member of the Editorial Board for the Bat Survey Guidelines. I

am the UK focal point for the Eurobats Advisory Committee and the

Convenor of the Intersessional Working Groups (IWGs) on the Impact on

Bats of Roads and Other Traffic Infrastructure. I was a member of the

Steering Group set up to oversee the Defra Research project to develop a


cost-effective method for monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation for bats

crossing linear transport infrastructure. I attended a workshop on Bats and

Road mitigation in February 2016 organised by the Conference of European

Directors of Roads (CEDR).

1.5 I have a BA honours degree in Social Studies from Liverpool Polytechnic, a

Certificate in Field Biology from the University of London (Birkbeck College)

and MPhil for research into the red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris on Anglesey

from the University of London (Queen Mary & Westfield College). I have

been involved in bat conservation since 1986 and have held a licence to

train volunteer bat workers since 1994.

1.6 This statement has been prepared on the basis of evidence as presented in

the Environmental Statement (ES) and additional information relating to bats

within Appendix SS10.5 ‘Draft Bat Mitigation Strategy' of the Second ES

Supplement (ESS), December 2016. The statement relates to the impacts

associated with severance caused by the scheme on bat fauna. I have had

the opportunity to consider the evidence in the Richard Green’s Proof of

evidence1 and where appropriate have provided NRW’s response.

1.7 The ES (Section 10.12.95 and 10.12.96) concludes that, ‘taking into account

the potential risk of vehicle collision for some species and the long term

disruption to the movement of all bat species in particular those bat species

unlikely to cross the new section of motorway’, ‘the magnitude of

construction and operation residual impacts on bats, with mitigation, is

assessed as moderate adverse and the significance of effects as moderate

and that in EIA terms this would be significant.’ The ESS (Section 4.6.58)

confirms that the assessment of significance of effects remains as set out in

the March 2016 ES.

1 Proof of Evidence Richard Green Ecology: Bats, WG Document Reference: WG 1.20.1 of 26

Natural Resources Wales Proof of Evidence of Jean Matthews on Bats (Protected Species)

1.8 It is NRW’s view that the evidence presented in ES does not demonstrate

that the above mentioned impacts will be mitigated. At present, NRW

considers that the ES and additional information does not adequately

demonstrate that the crossing point mitigation measures put forward are

likely to function effectively for the range of species present. Based on the

available information, NRW cannot conclude that the mitigation needed to

prevent detrimental impacts to bat populations (from fragmentation effects

and mortality impacts) can be delivered by the scheme proposals.

2. Relevant Background

2.1 Relevant legislation

2.1.1 All British bat species are European Protected Species under European

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the ‘Conservation of natural

habitats and of wild fauna and flora (as amended)’ (‘the Habitats Directive’).

The main aim of the Habitats Directive is to ‘promote the maintenance of

biodiversity’ and Member States are required to take measures ‘to ensure the

restoration or maintenance of natural habitats and species of Community

interest at a favourable conservation status’ (‘FCS’). Member States are also

required to introduce measures to ensure protection of those habitats and

species.

2.1.2 The Habitats Directive is transposed into UK law by the Conservation of

Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (‘the Habitats

Regulations’). Bats are European Protected Species by regulation 40 of and

Schedule 2 to the Habitats Regulations.

2.1.3 Regulation 41 of the Habitats Regulations states:


(1) A person who—

(a) deliberately captures, injures or kills any wild animal of a European protected species,

(b) deliberately disturbs wild animals of any such species,

(c) deliberately takes or destroys the eggs of such an animal, or

(d) damages or destroys a breeding site or resting place of such an animal,

is guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), disturbance of animals includes in particular any disturbance which is likely—

(a) to impair their ability—

(i) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young, or

(ii) in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or

(b) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong.

2.1.4 Under regulation 53 of the Habitats Regulations, a derogation from the above

provisions of regulation 41 (in the form of a licence) may be granted for

specific purposes and subject to criteria stated in regulation 53(9):

‘(9) The relevant licensing body must not grant a licence under this regulation unless they are satisfied—

(a) that there is no satisfactory alternative; and

(b) that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.’

2.1.5 Regulation 9 (1) of the Habitats Regulations states that the appropriate

authority must exercise its functions under the enactments relating to nature

conservation so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the

Habitats Directive.


2.1.6 Planning Policy Wales (PPW) (Nov 2016); gives the context for the

consideration of protected species in the planning system in Wales; Section

5.5.11 states ‘The presence of a species protected under European or UK

legislation is a material consideration when a local planning authority is

considering a development proposal which, if carried out, would be likely to

result in disturbance or harm to the species or its habitat’

2.1.7 Section 3 of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 (‘the

2015 Act’) creates a ‘well-being duty’ by which public bodies, including the

Welsh Ministers, ‘… must carry out sustainable development’.2 The 2015 Act

provides this must include setting and publishing “well-being objectives”

designed to maximise its contribution to achieving each of the well-being

goals and ‘taking all reasonable steps (in exercising its functions) to meet

those objectives’.3

2.1.8 In the 2015 Act, “sustainable development” means ‘the process of improving

the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales by

taking action, in accordance with the sustainable development principle […]

aimed at achieving the well-being goals’.4

2.1.9 Section 4 of the 2015 Act sets out “well-being goals” amongst which is ‘A

resilient Wales’, which is defined in the 2015 Act as:

‘A nation which maintains and enhances a biodiverse natural environment with healthy functioning ecosystems that support social, economic and ecological resilience and the capacity to adapt to change (for example climate change).’

2.1.10 Further, Section 6 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 (‘the 2016 Act’),

places a ‘biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems duty’ on public authorities

2 2015 Act, section 3(1)3 2015 Act, section 3(2)4 2015 Act, Section 2


exercising functions in Wales. Under Section 6 of the 2016 Act, a public

authority ‘must seek to maintain and enhance biodiversity in the exercise of

functions in relation to Wales, and in so doing promote the resilience of

ecosystems, so far as consistent with the proper exercise of those functions’.

2.1.11 In the 2016 Act, “biodiversity” is defined as ‘…the diversity of living

organisms, whether at the genetic, species or ecosystem level’.5 The 2016

Act specifies certain matters relating to the “resilience of ecosystems” which

public authorities must take into account in complying with its duty under

section 6:

‘… a public authority must take account of the resilience of ecosystems, in particular the following aspects—

(a) diversity between and within ecosystems;

(b) the connections between and within ecosystems;

(c) the scale of ecosystems;

(d) the condition of ecosystems (including their structure and functioning);

(e) the adaptability of ecosystems.’

2.1.12 In the exercise of their functions, the Welsh Ministers have a further, separate

duty, under Section 7 of the 2016 Act, to ‘take all reasonable steps to

maintain and enhance the living organisms and types of habitat included in

any list published under this section’.

2.1.13 Common pipistrelle bat, soprano pipistrelle bat, brown long eared bat,

noctule bat, greater horseshoe bat, lesser horseshoe bat and Bechstein’s

bat are included in the Section 7 list of priority species and habitats in the

Environment (Wales) Act 20166.

5 Section 266 http://www.biodiversitywales.org.uk/Environment-Wales-Bill


http://www.biodiversitywales.org.uk/Environment-Wales-Bill

2.2Introduction to bats and bat ecology

2.2.1 All British bat species are European Protected Species (EPS) (see 2.1

above), given protection following significant population declines from the mid-

20th century onwards, primarily due to loss of habitat, changes in food (prey)

availability and direct mortality (e.g. through the use of toxic insecticidal

products and direct persecution).

2.2.2 There are 17 species of bat known to breed in Great Britain.

2.2.3 Bats vary in their roosting requirements. Some species are reliant on man-

made structures (e.g. buildings, bridges); others are more reliant on trees.

Roost (a term used to cover bat breeding sites and resting places) types and

locations can vary seasonally across the year.

2.2.4 Females need roosting locations with warm, stable temperatures during May

to August to give birth to and to raise a single pup. The size of such maternity

colonies varies by species from tens of females up to several hundred. Some

remain in the same roost for weeks or months, whilst others (particularly tree

roosting species) may move roosts every 2 or 3 days. In winter, roosts with

cool stable temperatures are sought, but again the conditions required vary by

species.

2.2.5 Bats show fidelity to roosting sites returning to the same maternity roost or

hibernation site year after year. Should traditional and preferred roost sites not

be available, animals may be forced to use less suitable roost sites with

consequent impacts on breeding success.

2.2.6 All British bat species eat only insects, which are caught in flight or, for some

species, gleaned from leaves. Semi-natural habitats, particularly lowland


riparian and woodland areas support the greatest diversity and abundance of

both insect prey and bat species.

2.2.7 Bat species may be grouped together based on different characteristics

related to their flight patterns and their use of habitats (Table 3.4, Collins,

20167). Some species, including Myotis spp (such as daubenton’s bat or

natterers bat), Plecotus spp (long-eared bats), Rhinolophus spp (horseshoe

bats), and barbastelle bat tend to fly close to vegetation, avoid lit areas, avoid

crossing open areas, or do so at a low height and in low light levels. They

often follow linear features such as hedgerows and ditches when commuting

between roosting sites and foraging areas. Other species, such as Pipistrellus

spp (pipistrelle bats) use edge habitats but will also fly in the open (especially

P. nathusii). Other species, such as Nyctalus spp and Eptesicus forage out in

open habitats.

It is essential to consider these species specific characteristics when

considering the impact of road schemes on different bat species and the

suitability of measures to mitigate the impacts (Berthinussen and Altringham,

2015 Main Report and Appendix A)8

2.2.8 A wide range of suitable roosting locations, foraging sites and well-connected

habitat is needed to maintain the conservation status of bat species.

2.3 Bats in Wales

2.3.1 15 species of bat have been confirmed as present in Wales, 12 of those

species have been confirmed as breeding in Wales.

2.3.2 Species breeding are:

7 Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn.)8 Berthinussen and Altringham JD (2015) ‘Development of a cost-effective method for monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation for bats crossing linear transport infrastructure’


common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus,

soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus,

brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus,

noctule Nyctalus noctula

serotine Eptesicus serotinus,

Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii,

whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus,

Brandt’s bat Myotis brandtii,

natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri,

barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus

greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum,

lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros

2.3.3 The three other species that are present in Wales are recorded as breeding in

England, but their breeding status in Wales in uncertain:

leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri

bechstein’s bat Myotis bechsteinii

nathusius pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii.

2.3.4 NRW notes that the WG bat proof refers to 16 bat species in Wales. There is

limited evidence for the presence of grey long eared bat in Wales and as a

result we have omitted it from the above list.


2.3.5 Of the 15 bat species recorded in Wales, most have a widespread distribution,

though only the common and soprano pipistrelle are considered to be

common species. There is generally a greater diversity of bat species and

abundance of animals in the south of the country.

2.3.6 Some species have a restricted distribution (e.g. greater horseshoe bats,

serotine, barbastelle) with few known breeding roosts. Lesser horseshoe bats

are more numerous and more widely distributed than these though absent

from much of Wales. Populations of most bat species that are monitored in

the UK are now considered to be stable or increasing. However recent

increases should be seen in the context of large scale historic declines of the

20th century and bats remain vulnerable to continuing loss or degradation of

habitat and of roost sites.

2.3.7 Many species of bat are difficult to identify to species level using sound

analysis software. Thus the bat survey results in the ES are not always

identified to an individual species level. As a result, the term Myotis spp. Is

often used both in this statement and the ES to collectively refer to some of

the species listed separately in 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 above.

2.4 Bats and roads

2.4.1 Roads have been shown to have a negative impact on bat abundance and

diversity (Berthinussen and Altringham, 2015) with fewer bats of fewer

species up to 1.6km distance from the road.

2.4.2 The construction of new roads can affect bats through:

direct mortality as a result of collisions with road traffic

loss of roost sites and foraging habitat

a reduction in the quality of the remaining habitat and


barrier effects making some species reluctant to travel to previously used

roosts and foraging areas. (Fensome et al 2016).

2.4.3 Compared to other British mammals of their size, bats are unusual in several

respects. They are comparatively long lived, but have low reproductive rates

(typically one pup per year) which means that populations may recover

slowly, if at all, from losses. They have comparatively large home ranges

and undertake at least short distance migrations between summer and

winter roosts. Together these factors make bats more vulnerable to impacts

resulting from road construction schemes. Bat species with low numbers and

patchy distribution are considered to be susceptible to local extinctions

(Fensome et al 2016).

2.5 Best practice guidance for bats and roads

2.5.1 The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) (one of NRW’s predecessor

bodies) was involved in commissioning and managing a Defra research

project for the “Development of a cost effective method for monitoring the

effectiveness of mitigation for bats crossing linear transport infrastructure”.

This followed specific concerns by the Statutory Nature Conservation

Organisations and country highways agencies about a) the lack of evidence

as to which if any mitigation measures may reduce impact of roads on bats

and b) the need for standardised surveying, monitoring and reporting which

would allow the effectiveness of such measures to be properly assessed.

2.5.2 Section 7.2 of the resulting report (Berthinussen and Altringham, 2015)

provides a number of “Best practice principles for bat mitigation along linear

transport infrastructure”. These were derived from the research project. The

best practice principles include:


Crossing structures should be placed on the exact locations of existing bat

commuting routes

Crossing structures should not require bats to alter flight height or

direction

Crossing structures should maintain connectivity with existing bat

commuting routes

Over-the-road structures such as green bridges should be planted with

vegetation and should be of sufficient width (30m wide was found to be

effective)

Underpasses should be of sufficient height. The minimum requirements

for underpass height will be species-specific. Required heights will

generally be lower (3m) for woodland adapted species compared to the

generalist edge adapted species (~6m).

Crossing structures should be unlit

2.5.3 The findings of Berthinussen and Altringham, 2015 are consistent with those

reported across Europe as indicated in Elmeros et al, 20169 ‘Bat mitigation

measures on roads – a guideline’.

3 Site context

9 Elmeros M. et al ‘Bat mitigation measures on roads – a guideline’; CEDR Transnational Road

Research Programme Call 2013: Roads and Wildlife


3.1 A number of surveys of the M4CaN corridor have been undertaken by the

schemes ecologists for bats. Surveys have focussed on seeking to establish

bat roost sites likely to be impacted by the scheme, alongside a suite of

activity surveys seeking to establish wider bat use of the habitats in and

alongside the scheme corridor for foraging and commuting.

3.2 Static bat detectors were deployed by the schemes ecologists to establish

bat activity at a sample of locations across the scheme corridor. Bats were

recorded throughout the scheme area; activity was greatest at locations near

to the western end of the scheme and near to Tatton Farm and the diversity

of species was consistently highest at the eastern end of the scheme around

Llandevenny and Magor.

3.3 Of the 15 bat species known to occur in Wales, all except one (Bechstein’s

bat) were recorded on static bat detectors in bat surveys undertaken for the

road scheme (ES Section 10.4.257). The ES (Section 10.4.272) assesses

the route corridor to be of regional importance with regard to foraging and

commuting behaviour by bats.

3.4 Richard Green’s proof (Section 3.4.3) appears to seek to downplay the ES

assessment of the corridor as being of regional value, citing the effects of

species rarity on the evaluation. In our view, rarity is an important

consideration. Loss of foraging habitat through severance and loss of even

small numbers of rarer animals through mortality arising from vehicle

collision can potentially be significant for populations of rarer species.

3.5 Richard Green’s proof (Section 3.4.3) also suggests that habitats to the north

of the existing road are of greater value to most bat species. It suggests that

perhaps ‘the scheme corridor is of county value to bats given the availability

of better habitat in the region’. Whilst we would agree that there are

important habitats for bats in the wider landscape, we do not agree that their


presence should be used to downgrade the importance of the route corridor

for bats, which confirmed significant bat activity and 14 of our 15 bat species.

3.6 The ES (Section 10.12.95 and 10.12.96) concludes that taking into account

the ‘potential risk of vehicle collision for some species and the long term

disruption to the movement of all bat species in particular those bat species

unlikely to cross the new section of motorway’, ‘the magnitude of

construction and operation residual impacts with mitigation on bats is

assessed as moderate adverse and the significance of effects as moderate

and that in EIA terms this would be significant’. The ESS (Section 4.6.58)

confirms that the assessment of significance of effects remains as set out in

the March 2016 ES.

4 The Issues

4.1 NRW responded to the draft orders concerning the proposed M4 corridor

around Newport in a letter of 4 May 2016 and the Second Environmental

Supplement on 31 January, raising matters relating to the impacts on bats

associated with severance caused by the scheme.

4.2 The statement relates to the impacts on bat species associated with

severance of habitats and the barrier effects caused by the scheme.

4.3 Impacts on bat fauna associated with severance caused by the scheme

4.3.1 The mosaic of habitats along the scheme corridor including wetland habitats

such as that provided by the Gwent levels system are recognised as

important foraging areas for many bat species in providing an abundant

source of insect prey (Section 10.4.272) and this is reflected in the diversity

and abundance of species found to be present.


4.3.2 The ES acknowledges (Section 10.8.390) that the loss of habitat corridors

along the construction corridor, such as hedgerows would have an impact on

the movement of some bat species.

4.3.3 Furthermore, Appendix SS10.5 to the Second supplement ‘Draft Bat

Mitigation Strategy (MS)’ identifies that ‘Construction works would result in the

severance and loss of features of value to commuting (and foraging) bats

along the full length of the M4CaN corridor’ (Section C.1.3) and that ‘habitat

severance caused by the road increases the likelihood of mortality through

vehicle collision and can lead to severance and fragmentation of roosting and

foraging areas to species that are sensitive to gaps in habitat connectivity’.

(Section C.4.1 and C.4.2).

4.3.4 All bat species present in the study area are potentially at risk of mortality

through collision with traffic. Collation of data from across Europe shows that

all have been recorded as road casualties (Fensome et al 2016)10. However,

the species that prefer to avoid crossing open areas, such Myotis spp,

Plecotus spp, Rhinolophus spp, barbastelle, are at greatest risk.

4.3.5 Myotis spp were frequently detected across the scheme area. Lesser

horseshoe, Plecotus and Barbastelle were also recorded. Lesser horseshoe

bats and Barbastelle are amongst our rarest species. Lesser horseshoe were

recorded at 8 of 20 locations in 2014 and around Magor and LLandevenny in

2015. This species and Plecotus spp (long eared bats) are difficult to detect

unless close to bat detectors. Lower numbers of Barbastelle were recorded.

However, Barbastelle is very rare species with a restricted range and few

roosts known for species in Wales.

10 Fensome, AG and Mathews F, ‘Roads and bats: a meta‐analysis and review of the evidence on vehicle collisions and barrier effects’, Mammal Review (2016)


4.3.6 Richard Green’s proof (Section 3.1.5) suggests that in certain areas the

relatively high levels of Myotis spp is probably due to existing roadside and

railside woodland planting in those areas. NRW considers that there is no

evidence to support this conclusion. In our view, the presence of a mosaic of

habitats in these areas including the presence of watercourses providing rich

food source for bats is an alternative likely reason for the relatively high levels

of these species.

4.3.7 Bats were recorded by the schemes ecologists across the length of the

scheme. NRW considers that there is a need to ensure the new road corridor

is permeable to bats along its length and appropriate proposals for safe road

crossing provision delivered specific to the range of bat species present.

4.4 Assessment of measures proposed to minimise barrier effects of the road; structures such as culverts, mammal crossings, and overbridges as mitigation features

4.4.1 NRW is of the view that the severity of the severance impacts of the road on

bats will depend on the ability of any proposed mitigation measures to:

minimise the barrier effect of the scheme, which would otherwise restrict

bat access to roosting sites and foraging habitat, and

minimise mortality through collision with vehicles.

4.4.1 Bat species vary in the extent to which they cross open space and have

different responses to mitigation structures, depending on their flight

characteristics. Mitigation proposals therefore need to take account of this

variation and ensure that the needs of the range of species present at any

given scheme is adequately addressed.


4.4.2 The ES commits to providing road crossing points for bats. ES Section

10.7.241 stated ‘potential crossing points would be constructed which would

enable bats to gain access to habitat either side of the route’. Section

10.7.241 also states ‘The locations of culverts and mammal crossings have

been selected with the results of bat activity surveys in mind, in particular they

would be located as close as practicable to areas of high and very high bat

activity, as well as within areas less well-used by bats’.

4.4.3 The crossing points referred to in the ES are generally culverts required to

take watercourses under the road, overbridges intended for traffic and

underbridges generally intended for road or rail traffic. These are not specific

measures designed or located to mitigate the impacts on bats.

4.4.4 The proposals to minimise the impacts of the road on the movement of bats

as set out in the ES indicate that there is potential for some of the structures

and design to mitigate for the impacts of the scheme. However, NRW

consider that whether these function as effective crossing points depends

whether full account is taken of the principles of designing mitigation

measures specifically for the range of species which may use them. The ES

does not currently give sufficient assurance that this is the case (see 4.4.8

below).

4.4.5 In particular, identifying which species each structure is intended to benefit,

and tailoring the size and location placement of the structures and

management of habitat features at the location accordingly. Evidence

suggests that even when such features are provided, they fail to work unless

designed and located correctly (Berthinussen and Altringham, 2015).

4.4.6 ES Section 10.7.240 states that there is potential for some overbridges to act

as safe crossing points for bats. One example (Halcrow) is cited in support.

However, Berthinussen and Altringham (2015) consider that overbridges are


unlikely to be used by bats unless they are of sufficient width and are

vegetated. There are no proposals for vegetated structures in the ES. The

ESS Bat MS acknowledges that the use of bridges by bats is less likely than

the use of culverts and underpasses (Section D.3.31).

4.4.7 Underpasses have been found to be more successful in allowing bats to cross

safely, but with variable degrees of success, depending particularly on the

placement of the underpass in relation to the bats’ habitual flight route and the

dimensions of the underpass. Larger more open structures encourage use by

more bats and a wider range of species (Berthinussen and Altringham, 2015).

4.4.8 Specific mammal crossings are also proposed comprising 900mm pipes.

NRW considers that these are unlikely to be of sufficient size to function

effectively for most bat species.

4.4.9 Richard Green’s proof (Section 3.4.3) states that ‘a minimum 200 mm

freeboard (headroom) would be provided in all reen culverts’ but

acknowledges that ‘this is not considered adequate for bats to fly through’.

4.4.10 ES Table 10.18 “Crossing Points for Bats at Locations of High to Very High

Level Bat Activity and for Rarer Bat Species” identifies proposed features of

the road including overbridges, underpasses and culverts that could act as bat

crossing points. Table 10.18 also sets out the amount of bat activity during

surveys and an assessment of the value of individual locations to bat species

groups. However, the table is not collated to form conclusions about the

expected effectiveness of the crossing features as mitigation either in

preventing habitat fragmentation, or minimising the risk of mortality.

4.4.11 The sixth column of Table 10.18 (‘Description of crossing feature’) lists the bat

species that are ‘likely to’ use the mitigation crossing feature structure at each

crossing point. However, for the majority of the structures it suggests that


most species of bats are ‘less likely to’ use the feature as mitigation to cross

the road.

4.4.12 NRW considers therefore that the ES does not adequately demonstrate that

the crossing points listed will function effectively for the species concerned.

4.4.13 Furthermore, the ES does not distinguish between the likelihood of bat use

by individual bats and its likely effectiveness in mitigating impacts on

populations.

4.4.14 Text within the Bat MS in the ESS introduces the potential to increase the size

of culverts intended to function as bat crossing points, at various locations

across the Wentlooge and Caldicot Levels. Sections D.3.31 and D.3.32 state

that ‘there is availability to increase the height of culverts under the road’ and

that this would ‘provide additional headroom above summer penning (water)

levels’ and ‘make the road more permeable to bats’. It states that that this will

be ‘considered further at detailed design stage’.

4.4.15 Some clarity is now given in Table 5.3.1 of the Richard Green’s proof on bats

about ‘potential headroom’ at each location specified in D.3.31 and D.3.32

above. However, this is subject to review during detailed design and

‘available headroom will be dependent on topography (to be confirmed by

survey)’ (Section 5.3.5 Richard Green’s proof). The Proof states ‘A review

would be undertaken during detailed design, once detailed topographical

survey data is available, with a view to increasing culvert height and possibly

width if necessary, within other constraints to encourage bats to fly through

them, rather than crossing over the road.’

4.4.16 Larger culverts with increased headroom would be welcome. However,

considering this further at detailed design stage gives no certainty about what

can be delivered. Furthermore Table 10.18 of the ES has not been updated to


demonstrate the effect of the proposals or to demonstrate that they will

provide safe crossing points for the species concerned. Culverts form a key

part of the current proposals to mitigate severance and barrier effects of the

road on bats. Thus, NRW considers that clarity around what measures can be

achieved together with an assessment of their likely effectiveness is important

to demonstrate that solutions can be delivered which adequately mitigate the

severance impacts for the range of bat species present.

4.4.17 NRW consider that in terms of the culverts mentioned in the D.3.31 and

D.3.32 of the Bat MS and in Table 5.3.1 of the Richard Green’s bat proof, this

information should be used to update Table 10.18 to demonstrate the effect of

these above proposed changes.

4.4.18 We consider that the table should also state what additional measures will be

used to encourage bats to use the mitigation feature and discourage unsafe

crossing.

4.4.19 NRW also consider that Table 10.18 should be reviewed in the light of the

evidence and recommendations from Berthinussen & Altringham and in the

context of relevant species at each location, so that higher priority can be

given to additional measures (such as increasing the size of underpasses, or

planting overbridges) to increase the chances of mitigation being effective.

4.4.20 At present, NRW considers that the ES and additional information does not

adequately demonstrate that the crossing point mitigation measures put

forward are likely to function effectively for the range of species present.

Based on the available information, the identified impacts will not be mitigated

and there therefore remains a risk to bat populations.

4.5 Planting


4.5.1 Section 10.5.38 of the ES states ‘Where practicable the detailed design of

planting would take account of the need to guide bats into culverts, mammal

crossings underpasses and/or overbridges’. This introduces doubt as to what

can be achieved. NRW is seeking confirmation that where planting is required

to provide links to crossing provision, this will be delivered and timetabled as

early as possible in the construction period. In addition it should be designed

so as to have maximum benefit for safe road crossing, whilst discouraging

crossings in places where structures are not provided.

5 Alternatives

NRW has focused on assessing the impact of the proposal on the populations of

bats. NRW has not, within the constraints of time and resources available, been

able to undertake a comparable assessment for the blue route or any other

alternatives. Consequently NRW advances no view in relation to alternatives to

the proposed scheme.

6 Conclusions

6.1The Welsh Government’s ecological consultants have concluded that the

magnitude of residual impacts of construction and operation of the M4CaN on

bats, with mitigation, is assessed as moderate adverse and the significance of

effects as moderate and that in EIA terms this would be significant.

6.2NRW considers that the ES and additional information does not adequately

demonstrate that the mitigation measures put forward are likely to function

effectively for the range of species present. In the absence of a more detailed

and definitive strategy for mitigating the impacts and taking into account the

precautionary principle, NRW cannot conclude that the mitigation needed to

prevent detrimental impacts to bat populations (from fragmentation effects and

mortality impacts) will be delivered by the scheme proposals.


6.3The following issues in particular give rise to doubts as to whether the impacts

can be effectively mitigated:

o The design and placement of any mitigation structures to provide safe

crossing points for bats need to take full account of the requirements of

each species for which the measures are intended to benefit. Table

10.18 of the ES indicates that few of the proposed structures are likely

to be effective for the species affected.

o Underpass structures need to be of sufficient size and sited along

currently used flight paths.

o Overbridges are unlikely to be used by bats to travel at safe height over

the road unless they are of sufficient width and are vegetated.

6.4 It is therefore NRW’s view that insufficient evidence has been provided to support

the conclusion that there will be no detrimental impact to bats from the proposed

M4 CaN.

6.5Common pipistrelle bat, soprano pipistrelle bat, brown long eared bat, noctule

bat, greater horseshoe bat, lesser horseshoe bat and Bechstein’s bat are

included in the interim list of priority species (organisms) for the purposes of

section 7 of the 2016 Act. In NRW’s opinion, the evidence presented, including

the information provided in the ES, is not adequate to demonstrate that the

proposals for the M4 CaN scheme (including mitigation) would constitute

reasonable steps to ‘enhance and maintain’ bat populations affected by the

construction of the M4 Corridor around Newport scheme.

Declaration


I confirm that the facts and matters referred to in this proof of evidence are true to

the best of my knowledge and belief. The opinions I have expressed represent my

true and complete professional opinions on the matters to which they refer.

Signed:

Dated:


7 References

7.1 Berthinussen, A and Altringham, JD, ‘Development of a cost-effective method for monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation for bats crossing linear transport infrastructure’ (2015). [NRW 6.1]

Available (under ‘WC1060’) at http://randd.defra.gov.uk/

7.2 Collins, J. (ed.), ‘Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn.)’, The Bat Conservation Trust, London (2016) [NRW 6.2] http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/guidanceforprofessionals.html

7.3 Fensome, AG and Mathews F, ‘Roads and bats: a meta‐analysis and review of the evidence on vehicle collisions and barrier effects’, Mammal Review (2016) [NRW 6.3]

7.4 Elmeros M et al ‘Bat mitigation measures on roads – a guideline’; CEDR Transnational Road Research Programme Call 2013: Roads and Wildlife [NRW 6.4]

7.5 NRW letter to Welsh Government in response to publication of draft Orders, environmental statement and associated reporting, 4 May 2016 [NRW 2.7]

7.6 NRW letter to Welsh Government in response to publication of supplement to Environmental Statement, 18 October 2016 [NRW 2.8]

7.7 NRW letter to Welsh Government in response to publication of further supplement to Environmental Statement, 31 January 2017 [NRW 2.9]

7.8 Wales Biodiversity Partnership / Welsh Government, Interim section 7 list (Species) (Environment (Wales) Act 2016) [NRW 2.10]


http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/guidanceforprofessionals.html

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/

bailey.persona-pi.combailey.persona-pi.com/Public-Inquiries/M4-Newport/Thir… · Web viewIn the...

Documents

Transcript of bailey.persona-pi.combailey.persona-pi.com/Public-Inquiries/M4-Newport/Thir… · Web viewIn the...