WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology ... · Appendix A: Draft Natural Capital...
Transcript of WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology ... · Appendix A: Draft Natural Capital...
WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
June 2020
Mott MacDonald 10 Temple Back Bristol BS1 6FL United Kingdom T +44 (0)117 906 9500 mottmac.com
Mott MacDonald Limited. Registered in England and Wales no. 1243967. Registered office: Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, United Kingdom
WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
June 2020
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
Issue and Revision Record
Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description
A 12/06/2020 N Levy
B O’Hickey
J Fookes
J Fookes S Watson First Issue
Document reference: 412624 |
Information class: Standard
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-
captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.
We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being
used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied
to us by other parties.
This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other
parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.
This r epo rt h as b een pre par ed s olely fo r us e by the par ty which co mmissio ned i t (t he ‘Clien t’) in conn ectio n with t he c aptio ned pr oject. I t sho uld not b e us ed f or a ny o the r pu rpos e. No pe rson oth er t han the Clie nt o r a ny pa rty w ho h as ex pres sly ag ree d te rms of r elianc e with us (t he ‘Re cipien t(s)’ ) m ay r ely on the cont ent, i nfo rma tion or a ny views exp resse d in t he rep ort. W e acc ept no d uty o f ca re, resp onsibili ty or lia bility to any oth er recipie nt of this docu men t. This r epo rt is c onfid ential and cont ains p rop riet ary in tellect ual p rop erty .
No re pres enta tion, w ar ranty or und ert aking, exp ress or i mplied, is m ade and no resp onsibility or li ability is accept ed by us to a ny p arty othe r th an t he Clie nt o r an y Recipi ent( s), as to the accu racy or co mpl eten ess of the info rma tion c ontai ned in this re port . For t he a voida nce of d oubt this repo rt d oes not i n any way p urp ort to incl ude any l egal, i nsu ranc e or fina ncial a dvice or o pinio n.
We disclaim all a nd a ny liability whet her arisi ng in tort or cont ract or othe rwise w hich it might oth erwise hav e to any par ty ot her tha n the Client or t he R ecipien t(s) , in resp ect of this rep ort, or any in for matio n at trib uted to it.
We acce pt no res ponsi bility fo r a ny er ro r or omissi on in the re port which is due to an e rro r o r o mission i n d ata, i nfor mati on o r sta tem ents suppli ed t o us by ot her pa rties in cludin g th e client (‘Dat a’). W e hav e n ot ind epe nde ntly ve rified such Data and hav e ass ume d i t t o be accu rat e, co mplet e, r eliable an d cu rre nt as of t he d ate of suc h inf orm ation .
For ecasts pre sent ed in this d ocu ment wer e p repa red usin g Dat a an d th e re po rt is d epe nde nt o r bas ed on Dat a. I nevita bly, so me of th e ass um ptions use d to devel op t he fo rec asts will n ot b e re alised and un anticip ated eve nts a nd cir cums tanc es m ay occ ur. C onse que ntly Mott MacDo nald doe s no t gu ara ntee or w ar rant the conclu sions c ont ained in th e r epo rt as the re are lik ely to be differ enc es be twee n the for ecast s an d th e act ual r esults and thos e diff ere nces may be mat erial. W hile we consid er t hat the i nfor mati on a nd opinio ns giv en in this r epo rt a re s o und all par ties must rely o n th eir own skill a nd ju dge me nt whe n m aking use of it.
Under no ci rcu mstan ces may t his re por t or any extr act o r su mm ary t he reof be used i n co nnecti on wit h any pu blic or priv ate s ecuriti es of ferin g incl uding any rela ted me mor and um or p rosp ectus for any secu rities offe ring or st ock ex chan ge listi ng o r a nno unce ment .
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
Contents
1 Guidance Introduction 1
2 Review of relevant literature and guidance 2
3 Review of WRMP 19 Objectives and Methods 3
3.1 SEA Review 3
3.1.1 Review of SEA Objectives 3
3.1.2 Review of Assessment Methods and Integration with decision-making 4
4 Environmental Appraisal Overview 6
4.1 Introduction 6
5 Stage 1: Scoping 9
5.1 Plans and programmes review 9
5.2 Baseline Information 9
5.2.1 Current Baseline 9
5.2.2 Future Baseline 10
5.3 Key issues and opportunities 10
5.4 Regional environmental ambition 10
5.5 SEA Framework – overarching objectives and sub-themes 11
5.6 Compatibility of Objectives 12
5.7 Defining assessment criteria 12
5.8 Scoping Report 15
6 Assessment 16
6.1 Options Assessment 16
6.1.1 High level screening assessment 16
6.1.2 Detailed assessment 16
6.2 Translating Assessment Findings into Metrics 21
6.2.1 Environmental Metrics 21
6.3 Programme Appraisal 22
6.4 Mitigation and Monitoring 23
7 Reporting and Consultation 24
7.1 Prepare Environmental Report 24
7.2 Consultation Plan 24
8 Relationship between WRSE Regional Plan and WRMP24 26
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
A. Environmental Datasets 28
B. Proposed RAG Criteria and definitions 36
C. Assessment Scoring Criteria 39
D. HRA Process and Interactions Diagram 48
E. WFD Assessment Process and Interactions Diagram 50
Tables
Table 3.1: WRMP19 SEA Objectives Review 4
Table 5.1: Proposed SEA Framework objectives and sub-themes 11
Table 5.2: Example topic datasets and RAG for the biodiversity topic 13
Table 5.3: Example SEA objective datasets and assessment criteria definitions for the
biodiversity topic 14
Table 6.1: Example Relationships between SEA topics and Ecosystem Services 19
Table 6.2: Example Open source National habitat and biodiversity datasets 20
Figures
Figure 4.1: Environmental Method Integration with Options Decision-Making and Plan
Development 7
Figure 4.2: Environmental Appraisal Guidance Diagram 8
Figure 5.1: Example ArcGIS Story map 15
Figure 6.1: Example Orval Output 20
Figure 6.2: Grading of effects 22
Figure 8.1: Relationship between WRSE and WRMP environmental appraisal processes 27
Mott MacDonald
1
1 Guidance Introduction
This guidance document has been developed to provide an integrated environmental appraisal process for
the WRSE Regional Plan development and to provide a consistent framework for environmental
assessments for WRMP24. The proposed method outlined in this document has been developed taking into
account the new guidance from the Environment Agency (See Section 2 for a list of the new guidance
documents) and uses an integrated approach covering:
● Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
● Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)
● Water Framework Directive (WFD) Assessment
● Natural Capital (NC) Assessment
● Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)
As part of the methodology development relevant guidance documents and the SEAs and HRAs for the six
Water Companies in the WRSE Region have been reviewed and a summary of the findings is included in
Section 3. The guidance document is structured as follows:
● Chapter 1 - Introduction
● Chapter 2 - Review of relevant literature and guidance
● Chapter 3 - Review of WRMP19 SEA objectives and methods
● Chapter 4 - Overview and flow chart of the environmental appraisal method
● Chapter 5 to Chapter 7 - Environmental appraisal method stages and tasks
● Chapter 8 - Relationship between WRSE and WRMP24 environmental appraisals
● Appendix A - Proposed environmental datasets
● Appendix B - RAG criteria and definitions
● Appendix C - Detailed assessment SEA scoring definitions
● Appendix D - HRA flow chart
● Appendix E - WFD assessment flow chart
Purpose of the Guidance Document
This guidance document sets out the environmental appraisal method for the Water Resource
South East (WRSE) Regional Plan and provides a framework for environmental assessment as
part of the WRMP24 development.
The guidance document is for use by Water Companies and their Consultants when
undertaking options assessment and programme appraisal for the Regional Plan and WRMP24
Mott MacDonald
2
2 Review of relevant literature and guidance
Current SEA guidance for water resource planning is the UKWIR 2012 guidance document ‘SEA and HRA –
Guidance for Water Resources Management Plans and Drought Plans’. It is understood that this guidance is
currently being reviewed and revised but a release date is not known and is unlikely to be available prior to
commencing work on the WRSE Regional Plan.
New planning guidance for water resources planning has been developed by the Environment Agency,
Natural Resources Wales and Ofwat, and is currently undergoing consultation. A review of the environmental
and natural capital elements of the new draft guidance and its alignment to the scope and proposed
approach to environmental assessment for the WRSE Regional Plan has been undertaken and is presented
in a separate Technical Note ‘Review of Draft WRPG – Environmental and Natural Capital Review’ (Mott
MacDonald, May 2020). The following documents were reviewed:
● Water Resources Planning Guideline (WRPG): Working version for WRMP24 (version 4.2) (Environment
Agency, Natural Resources Wales, Ofwat)
● Appendix A: Draft Natural Capital Guidance for Water Companies – Draft natural capital guidance -
metrics (JBA Consulting)
● Natural Capital and Decision-Making PowerPoint (Hallatt and Kilty)
● Confidential presentation
● A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment, DEFRA
Mott MacDonald
3
3 Review of WRMP 19 Objectives and Methods
3.1 SEA Review
The SEA Environmental Reports for the six water companies were reviewed in order to understand how
each company has approached the SEA for WRMP19 and what lessons could be learnt for development of
the SEA methodology for WRSE. The review considered how each water company had approached the
following (and whether the approaches were consistent):
● The SEA objective use
● The assessment method used and how the SEA results were used in options decision-making
The review highlighted that each water company had a slightly different approach, some with larger
variations than others, which are discussed in the sections below.
3.1.1 Review of SEA Objectives
All the water companies had objectives that covered the SEA Directive topics. There were some differences
in the focus of objectives which may reflect the specific issues for that water company. For example, SES
had an objective on fisheries which the others didn’t, and Southern Water and Thames Water had an
objective on spread of invasive species. There were several other minor differences between objectives
which are presented in Table 3.1.
Mott MacDonald
4
Table 3.1: WRMP19 SEA Objectives Review
Theme/Topic
Portsmouth Water
Affinity Water
SES Water Southern Water
South East Water
Thames Water
Biodiversity ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Natural Capital and ecosystem services for
soils/land use and water
quality
✓
Soils and geodiversity ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Groundwater quality ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Surface water quality ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Flood risk ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Climate change resilience ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Climate change Carbon and
GHG ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Wellbeing and community
health ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Landscape ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Historic environment ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Water supply ✓ ✓ ✓
Tourism and recreation national trails and public
access
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Resource use efficiency
water/ energy/waste ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Key infrastructure (Roads
etc) ✓ ✓ ✓
Air quality ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Noise ✓
Freshwater fisheries ✓
invasive species ✓ ✓
Review conclusion: Although the SEA objectives for each water company broadly cover the same topics
there are differences in focus relevant for each company. In order to provide consistency a set of overarching
SEA objectives could be developed for WRSE (and used for assessment of the regional plan). A set of sub-
themes could be provided under each overarching objective that the water companies could then choose to
develop into sub-objectives for WRMP24. This would allow the overarching SEA objectives to be consistent
across the water companies, but the sub-objectives would allow each water company to expand the
objectives and cover the issues relevant to them. To align with the new draft Environment Agency guidance
objectives such as invasive species, natural capital and biodiversity net gain will be critical components of
the assessment.
3.1.2 Review of Assessment Methods and Integration with decision-making
The assessment methods for the SEAs varied between water company. Two (Affinity Water and Thames
Water) translated their SEA results into numerical values that were used in the Economics of Balancing
Supply and Demand (EBSD) modelling, whilst the other four companies used qualitative assessment. In
general, a high-level screening exercise was undertaken on either the unconstrained or constrained lists
using SEA topics or environmental criteria, and a RAG method. Options could then be removed if there were
‘showstoppers’ or very high environmental risks and constraints.
Mott MacDonald
5
The four water companies using the qualitative approach then assessed the constrained/feasible/preferred
options using the SEA framework (SEA objectives and assessment criteria) using a colour coded + and –
scoring system. Options could then be removed or modified based on the findings. However, actual
integration with the EBSD modelling wasn’t possible. SES Water developed a solution to this where an
environmental scenario was developed which took into account SEA results and risk to WFD status. Options
were switched on or off based on the findings of the assessment e.g. all options with a risk to WFD status
could be excluded.
Thames Water used both a qualitative and numerical method, whereby a qualitative assessment of the
constrained options was undertaken using the SEA Framework. The results of the SEA, HRA and WFD were
then translated into two environmental metrics using a numerical grading system, one to reflect adverse
effects and one to reflect beneficial effects (to avoid mixing or trading of these effects). The metrics were
then used in the options modelling. Affinity Water used a numerical scoring system for assessing the
constrained options against the SEA objectives. A collated score from the significant effects was determined
and converted into an overall metric score which was then used in the EBSD model.
Review conclusion: SEA by its nature does not use numerical values to determine overall option scores, it
is based on qualitative scales using colour coding and +/- scoring. Although this process can highlight
environmental risks and opportunities that could lead to rejection of options or modification of options, it still
sits outside the core options decision-making tool. Therefore, to fully integrate SEA results into options
decision-making a numerical value or metric is needed for the optimisation model. To keep the essence of
SEA it would, therefore, seem sensible to use a qualitative scale for assessment of options against the SEA
objectives but then to translate this into an environmental metric(s) for use in the optimisation model.
Mott MacDonald
6
4 Environmental Appraisal Overview
4.1 Introduction
For WRSE in developing the regional plan for the WRMP24 there is a requirement to develop an innovative
and leading-edge environmental assessment approach given the significant water resources infrastructure
that will be required to address the supply demand deficit in the region. The approach will need to be applied
at a regional level but should also be flexible enough to be implemented at a sub-regional level, this will
involve providing a common source of readily accessible data that all water companies can use to support
their planning. The focus of the current phase of works is to develop a consistent approach for environmental
assessment incorporating the requirements of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), Natural Capital and ecosystem
services that can be used across WRSE companies so that environmental and social impacts can be
consistently accounted for across the regional options in determining a best value resilient regional plan. In
addition, it will incorporate climate change resilience through modelling of options.
We propose the development of a series of GIS tools to support WRSE in the environmental and ecosystem
services assessments of the regional plan. These tools will enable a more consistent and complex
assessment of the individual options, improve the consistency between environmental assessment methods
used by individual companies and provide a strong platform for WRSE to build on in the future. We will
design the proposed GIS system around existing ESRI applications and software such as ARCGIS
dashboard and ARC online. This software provides flexibility to ensure we are able to meet WRSE’s needs
and add value from our previous experience. The GIS system development will focus on three specific areas:
1. Enabling the environmental assessment and associated valuation of a large number of options quickly and
accurately to meet the programme requirement. This will also reduce the work needed by the individual
water companies when producing their plan assessments.
2. The visualisation and analysis of individual option environmental impacts and the combined impact of the
overall regional plan with the incorporation of climate change scenarios. This information will also inform the
cumulative assessments of the individual plan assessments.
3. Improved consistency across the individual assessment workstreams and between the water companies’
environmental assessment techniques and provide environmental values that can be used when undertaking
options appraisal. Thereby integrating the two processes.
We are proposing a working data platform that can host and process large data sets and be continuously
updated to provide a mechanism for ongoing assessment. Flexible and user friendly the database will be
multi-functional ensuring easy stakeholder consultation as well as hosting the evidence base that will support
the regional plan at Examination in Public.
The approach to the environmental appraisal is presented in Figure 4.1 and is aligned to the new draft
guidance from the Environment Agency. The figure shows the key interactions between the environmental
appraisal and the options decision-making and plan development as part of an integrated and iterative
process. Figure 4.2 sets out an enviornmental appraisal guidance diagram showing the key stages and tasks
and providing links to resources developed to aid the process. Chapters 5 to 7 in this report set out the
environmental appraisal methodology in detail and are structured around the following stages:
● Scoping
● Assessment
● Reporting and Consultation
Mott MacDonald
7
Figure 4.1: Environmental Method Integration with Options Decision-Making and Plan Development
Scoping
Baseline
SEA Objectives
Assessment
High level
Screening
Detailed
Assessment
Programme
Appraisal
Preferred Best
Value Plan
SEA, HRA, WFD
Datasets
Regional priorities &
Environmental
ambition
Environmental
topic RAG
screening
SEA, HRA, WFD,
NC, BNG
Assessments
Red scoring options:
rejection or flagged for
mitigation
SEA Metric
BNG Metric
NC Metric
ESRI ArcGIS Database
Cumulative effects
assessment
SEA maximised programme
BNG maximised programme
NC maximised programme Multi-criteria optimisation
Assessment results &
mitigation
Options development
Unconstrained list screening by
individual Water Companies.
Constrained list uploaded to WRSE options database
Mott MacDonald
8
Figure 4.2: Environmental Appraisal Guidance Diagram
P&P Database
ESRI ArcGIS
Environmental
Database
SEA Objectives
Assessment criteria
Story Map Scoping
Report Template
RAG screening
criteria
Assessment
scoring definitions
ESRI ArcGIS Tool
Monitoring Plan
Database
Stage 1:
Scoping
Stage 2:
Assessment
Stage 3:
Reporting
and
Consultation
Chapter 5
• Plans and Programmes Review
• Baseline Information: o Current Baseline o Future Baseline
• Key Issues and Opportunities
• SEA Framework
• Defining Assessment Criteria
• Scoping Report
This diagram provides a summary overview of the environmental appraisal
methodology. Hyperlinks to the method stage chapters in this guidance document and
resources needed are provided.
Resources Key
Link to other resources
developed for the method
Link to Chapter detailing
full method
• High Level RAG Screening of Options
• Detailed Assessment of Options including mitigation identification: o Strategic Environmental Assessment o Habitats Regulations Assessment o WFD Compliance Assessment o Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment o Natural Capital Assessment
• Translating Assessment Results into Environmental Metrics: o SEA Metric o BNG Metric o NC Metric
• Programme Appraisal including cumulative effects
• Best Value Plan Assessment
• Monitoring Plan
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
• Overarching SEA Environmental Report
• HRA, WFD, BNG, NC Technical Appendices
• Digital ESRI reporting and dashboards
• Consultation Plan
ESRI Digital
Reporting Platform
Consultation Plan
Mott MacDonald
9
5 Stage 1: Scoping
5.1 Plans and programmes review
The key relevant International, European, national, regional and local policy on the environment and
sustainable development will be reviewed. The purpose of this task is to ensure the WRSE environmental
assessment supports wider environmental policy and objectives and legislation. A database of reviewed
plans and legislation will be kept divided into policy level (e.g. International, national, local) and
environmental topic (e.g. biodiversity, human health). It is recognised that some plans will be cross-cutting
(such as Local Development Plans) and therefore, a cross-cutting category will also be included. The
database will hold the name of the plan, a link to the source document, and a summary of the key policy
objectives and themes, and any relevant specific targets. The database would also demonstrate how the
WRSE SEA Framework aligns with relevant policy.
The database will be used primarily for WRSE however, it is anticipated that it could also be used by
individual water companies for their WRMP24 SEA to streamline the plans and programme review process.
The database will need to be regularly reviewed and updated by individual companies or WRSE as plans are
superseded and new policy is adopted, to ensure it is up to date for WRMP24.
Link to Plans and Programmes Database
5.2 Baseline Information
5.2.1 Current Baseline
The majority of the environmental data for the assessments will be held in an ESRI ArcGIS Environmental
Database. The Environmental Database will include data required for the SEA, HRA and WFD assessment
and any other data files required for other aspects of the assessment. For example, as well as showing all
the European designated sites, it will also allow the user to click on a site and its name and a link to the site
citation will be provided so that the designated features and conservation objectives for the site can be easily
accessed. The Environmental Database will also hold historic data where possible to allow trends to be
identified such as WFD status.
The datasets for the SEA are shown in Appendix B arranged under the relevant SEA Directive topic.
Although the Environmental Database will hold most of the information required for the assessments, some
information is non-spatial and therefore cannot be held in this format. It is proposed that the Appendix B
spreadsheet will be a data source tool, that as well as listing the datasets in the Environmental Database will
also include external links to non-spatial information. The Environmental Database is being developed for
Plans & Programmes
Review
Current & Future
Baseline
Key Issues & Opportunities
SEA Framework
Defining Assessment
Criteria
Scoping Report
Aim of the Scoping Stage
To set the context, scope and methodology for the assessment
Mott MacDonald
10
WRSE for the Regional Plan, however, it is anticipated that the individual water companies will be able to
use the database for their WRMP24 assessments and add additional local level data if required.
The baseline information will be presented in the Scoping Report under each SEA Directive topic and will
include a narrative description of the information and maps from the Environmental Database together with
the non-spatial information. Where possible data trends will be identified to help set the context and potential
issues to consider.
Link to ESRI ArcGIS Environmental Database
5.2.2 Future Baseline
The future baseline is important to consider as it demonstrates the likely evolution of the baseline without the
implementation of the Regional Plan (required by the SEA Directive and Regulations) and due to the long
timescale of the Regional Plan period the baseline conditions are likely to change, therefore, the future
effects of the Plan may change as well. It is proposed that one or two future time slices are considered to
cover the length of the Plan period. These time slices will be agreed with WRSE. Information such as climate
projections and growth forecasts can be included to look at effects on the baseline.
To inform the future baseline, environmental datasets and applicable future policy should be reviewed and
compiled, this is likely to be none spatial data so should be stored in suitable database. This database of
future baseline information will be compiled during the SEA scoping phase and will be appropriate to the
regional plan and it is envisaged this can be taken and built upon by the companies at the WRMP stage. The
appropriate data should include but not be limited to:
● UKCP Climate data
● Local development plans
● Regional economic strategy
● Mineral and waste site allocations
● Large scale infrastructure
● Longer term environmental water needs
The assessments (Section 6.2) will be undertaken using the current baseline. However, as part of the high-
level screening the future baseline will be considered, and options will be flagged if future conditions could
significantly change the potential effects of the option. The detailed assessment for those flagged options will
then take into account the future baseline.
5.3 Key issues and opportunities
The plans and programme review and baseline information will be used to identify key issues and
opportunities for the Regional Plan. Scoping of the environmental topics to be included in the environmental
assessment will be undertaken to scope topics in or out. This helps ensure the assessment is focussed on
those topics that are relevant and significant for the Regional Plan. Due to the overarching nature of the
Regional Plan it is anticipated that all the SEA topics will be scoped into the assessment to provide a
complete framework for WRMP24. At WRMP24 water companies may decide that certain topics and issues
are not relevant to them in which case they can scope them out.
5.4 Regional environmental ambition
The environmental ambition for the regional plan will help define the SEA objectives and the scope of the
metrics assessed. This environmental ambition will need to be developed prior to the finalisation of the
regional SEA objectives and future baseline scenarios to ensure the full scope of the ambition is addressed.
Mott MacDonald
11
The ambition can be initially defined by WRSE but will need to engage with and incorporate feedback from
sector views, Stakeholder and customer feedback.
5.5 SEA Framework – overarching objectives and sub-themes
As discussed in Section 3.1.1, it is proposed that an overarching set of SEA objectives are developed for
WRSE. These will be linked to the SEA Directive topics and key priorities for WRSE and informed by the
review of the six water companies SEA objectives. These overarching objectives would be used to assess
the WRSE regional plan using the environmental datasets proposed in Appendix A. The overarching
objectives could then be used as a framework for WRMP24 with sub-objectives chosen by each water
company to reflect the issues and priorities in their areas. This would allow for a consistent approach tailored
to individual water companies. The proposed overarching SEA objectives for WRSE are presented in Table
5.1, along with a list of sub-themes which water companies could use to develop relevant sub-objectives for
WRMP24.
Link to Environmental Datasets List (Appendix A)
Table 5.1: Proposed SEA Framework objectives and sub-themes
SEA Directive Topic Overarching SEA Objectives Examples Sub-Themes
Biodiversity, Flora,
Fauna
To be defined following workshop however a net gain
must be included
● Designated and priority habitats and species
● Freshwater fisheries
● Invasive non-native species
● Natural capital and ecosystem services
Soil No loss of Grade 1 listed soils ● Efficient use of land
● Geodiversity
● Soil quality
● Mineral sterilisation
● Soil erosion
Water WFD objectives
Water availability
Flood risk mitigation
● Flooding Resilience
● Surface water and groundwater quality
● Water resources
● Surface water and groundwater levels and flows
● Water efficiency
● Chalk rivers
● Drought Resilience
Air Overall improvement in air quality ● Air quality
● Pollutant emissions
Climatic Factors Achieve net zero emissions by 2030
Resilience
● Greenhouse gas emissions
● Energy use and renewables
● Carbon footprint
● Adaptation and resilience
Landscape Improvements to visual amenity (linked to BNG) ● Landscape character and quality
● Visual amenity
● Townscape
● Access to countryside
Informal consultation to agree the SEA objectives with stakeholders. See Consultation Plan
section 7.2.
Mott MacDonald
12
SEA Directive Topic Overarching SEA Objectives Examples Sub-Themes
Historic Environment1
(including architectural
and archaeological)
Preservation where appropriate of non -designated
historic assets
● Historic environment
● Heritage assets and their setting
● Archaeology and heritage sites
Population, Human
Health
Increased public amenity
Shared social values
Promotion of health and well-being through recreation
● Health and well-being
● Economy
● Tourism and recreation
● Community impacts
● Freshwater fisheries (recreational)
Material Assets Carbon assessment
Recycled materials
● Resource use
● Waste
● Materials
● Transport
Inter-relationship ● Catchment wide management
5.6 Compatibility of Objectives
As part of the SEA process the SEA objectives are reviewed for compatibility with the Plan
objectives and with each other. The SEA objectives will be reviewed against the Regional Plan
objectives and environmental ambition to ensure they support each other and are aligned. Since
the SEA objectives will be developed through consultation taking into account the wider
ambitions of the Plan and stakeholders it is not anticipated that there will be any significant
compatibility issues. The SEA objectives will also be reviewed against each other to identify any
issues, for example objectives on economic growth could conflict with objectives on biodiversity
or carbon. The compatibility reviews will be undertaken using a simple matrix and colour coding
system as shown below.
Compatibility Scoring
Objectives support one another
Potential for conflict between objectives
Objectives are not relevant to each other
5.7 Defining assessment criteria
In section 6.2 a two-staged options assessment process is set out including a high-level
screening assessment and a detailed assessment. The environmental datasets and
assessment criteria have been defined as part of the methodology development but can be
reviewed as part of the scoping stage and additional datasets included.
High level screening definition
The high-level screening will be undertaken using a RAG approach against the SEA topics to
flag high environmental risk options. RAG criteria for HRA and WFD is included under the
biodiversity topic and water topic respectively. The datasets included under each topic and the
RAG criteria for each dataset is presented in Appendix B An example is provided in Table 5.2
for the biodiversity topic. The high-level screening only includes key datasets such as those
covered by legislation or that are nationally important. Other datasets will be included in the
detailed assessment which will also include looking at wider effects such as pathways.
1 This topic is called cultural heritage in the SEA Directive but best practice from Historic England is to call it historic environment
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
13
Link to RAG criteria (Appendix B)
Table 5.2: Example topic datasets and RAG for the biodiversity topic
Topic Dataset RAG criteria
Red Amber Green
Biodiversity European
designated sites
Direct land take from
designated site (likely
significant effect) and/or
major adverse effects on
linkages to designated sites,
and/or their qualifying
features.
Within 2000m of a
designated site (potential for
significant effect) and/or
moderate/minor adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites, and/or
their qualifying features.
Over 2000m from a
designated site (low
potential for significant
effect). No adverse effects
on linkages to designated
sites, and/or their qualifying
features.
Nationally
designated sites
Direct land take from
designated site (likely
significant effect).
Within 1000m of a
designated site (potential for
significant effect) and/or
adverse effects on linkages
to designated sites, and/or
their protected features.
Over 1000m from a
designated site (low
potential for significant
effect). No adverse effects
on linkages to designated
sites, and/or their qualifying
features.
Non statutory
designated sites
Not Applicable. Direct land take from
designated site (likely
significant effect).
Within 500m of a designated
site (potential for significant
effect).
Detailed assessment definition
The environmental datasets and assessment criteria and definitions for the detailed assessment
are included in Appendix C. Each SEA objective has a set of defined datasets and a defined
scoring system using a qualitative scale of minor, moderate, major positive and minor,
moderate, major negative, and neutral. The effects of each option will be assessed using this
scale and a narrative justification. An example is provided in Table 5.3 for the biodiversity topic.
The HRA and WFD assessments will follow legislative guidance regarding assessment criteria.
Full details of the SEA, HRA, WFD, BNG and natural capital assessment processes are
presented in Section 6.
Link to assessment criteria and definitions (Appendix C)
Informal consultation to agree topic datasets and assessment criteria with stakeholders. See
Consultation Plan section 7.2.
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
14
Table 5.3: Example SEA objective datasets and assessment criteria definitions for the biodiversity topic
SEA Objective Datasets/Key Themes Effect Description Illustrative Guidance
Biodiversity
(Currently under
development)
● SPA
● SAC
● Ramsar sites
● SSSIs
● MPA
● NNR
● LNR
● Priority habitats and
species
● Non-designated sites
● Terrestrial, aquatic and marine habitats, species
and protected sites
● Green networks and corridors (e.g. foraging areas and commuting routes, migration routes,
hibernation areas etc. at
all scales)
+++ Major Positive The option would result in a major enhancement on the quality of designated habitats due to changes in flow or groundwater
levels, water quality or habitat quality and availability.
The option would result in a major increase in the population of a priority species.
Effects could be caused by beneficial changes in water flows/water quality, or large amounts of creation or enhancement of
habitat, promoting a major increase in ecosystem structure and function.
++ Moderate
Positive
The option would result in a moderate enhancement on the quality of designated and/or non-designated habitats due to
changes in flow or groundwater levels, water quality or habitat creation and enhancement measures.
The option would result in a moderate increase in the population of a priority species.
Effects could be caused by beneficial changes in water flows/water quality, or moderate amounts of creation or enhancement
of habitat, promoting a moderate increase in ecosystem structure and function.
+ Minor Positive The option would result in a minor enhancement of the quality of designated and/or non-designated habitats due to changes
in flow or groundwater levels, water quality or habitat creation and enhancement measures.
The option would result in a minor increase in the population of a priority species.
Effects could be caused by beneficial changes in water flows/water quality, or small amounts of creation or enhancement of
habitat, promoting a minor increase in ecosystem structure and function.
0 Neutral The option would not result in any effects on designated or non-designated habitats and/or species).
- Minor
Negative
The option would result in a minor negative effect on the quality of designated and/or non-designated habitats due to
changes in flow or groundwater levels, water quality or habitat loss or degradation.
The option would result in a minor decrease in the population of a priority species.
Effects could be caused by detrimental changes in flows/water quality, or small losses or degradation of habitat leading to a
minor loss of ecosystem structure and function.
-- Moderate
Negative
The option would result in a moderate negative effect on the quality of designated and/or non-designated habitats due to
changes in flow or groundwater levels, water quality or habitat loss or degradation.
The option would result in a moderate decrease in the population of a priority species.
Effects could be caused by detrimental changes in flows/water quality, or moderate loss or degradation of habitat leading to a
moderate loss of ecosystem structure and function.
--- Major
Negative
The option would result in a major negative effect on the quality of designated and/or non-designated habitats due to
changes in flow or groundwater levels, water quality or habitat loss or degradation.
The option would result in a major decrease in the population of a priority species.
Effects could be caused by detrimental changes in flows/water quality, or large losses or degradation of habitat leading to a
major loss of ecosystem structure and function.
? Uncertain From the level of information available the effect that the option would have on this objective is uncertain
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
5.8 Scoping Report
The results of the scoping stage will be presented in a Scoping Report. This can be formally
issued to consultees and stakeholders for sign-off (see section 7.2 on consultation). However,
informal consultation will take place throughout scoping at the following phases:
● The SEA Framework development to agree SEA objectives
● The baseline datasets to agree datasets to be used, any gaps, and additional information
available from stakeholders
● The assessment criteria definition to agree the framework for the assessments
The non-prescriptive requirements for the format of the SEA scoping report under the regional
plan presents the opportunity to investigate the potential for a digital delivery of the SEA scoping
report. This could take the format of an ESRI Storymap that would allow for the presentation of
text, illustration and spatial data to be represented within a single website accessible to
stakeholders. An example is shown below in Figure 5.1, this feature could be developed to
include the possibility for stakeholders to provide feedback within the storymap website.
Figure 5.1: Example ArcGIS Story map
Link to ArcGIS Story Map Scoping Report Template
Formal consultation with stakeholders to sign-off the Scoping Report and provide an additional
feedback. See Consultation Plan section 7.2.
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
6 Assessment
6.1 Options Assessment
We propose to undertake a two-stage options assessment including:
● A high-level environmental screening assessment
● Detailed assessment (including SEA, HRA, WFD, NC, BNG)
6.1.1 High level screening assessment
The high-level screening will be undertaken on the constrained list of options provided by the
water companies. The purpose of the screening will be to act as a validation for the
unconstrained list screening that water companies have undertaken to ensure environmentally
damaging options are not considered further and to flag options with high environmental risk,
that can still be considered, but where mitigation will be needed.
As discussed in Section 5.5, the high-level screening will be undertaken using a RAG approach
against the SEA topics. The datasets to be included under each topic and the RAG criteria for
each dataset is explained in Appendix B and C. The ArcGIS tool will be used to automate the
data gathering part of the assessment. The RAG criteria will be programmed as parameters into
the tool to identify constraints within a given buffer of an option location, and the results
outputted as a constraints table. Professional judgement will then be used to confirm the RAG
scoring or amend it and provide justification. At this stage options can be identified for rejection
based on environmental grounds or flagged for mitigation requirements.
As discussed in Section 5.2.2, the high-level screening will also consider the future baseline.
Options will be flagged if future conditions could significantly change the potential effects of the
option. The detailed assessment for those flagged options will then take into account the future
baseline.
It is proposed that for the demand management options, the option type is assessed rather than
individual options due to the Plan wide nature of these options, e.g. water metering.
6.1.2 Detailed assessment
The detailed assessment will include the SEA, HRA, WFD, NC and BNG assessments. The
SEA objectives on biodiversity, flora and fauna, and on water will be informed by the results of
the HRA and WFD assessments, and an environmental metric covering all three will be
developed to feed into options decision-making (see section 6.3). To avoid double counting and
following the new Environment Agency guidance the NC and BNG assessments will result in
High Level Screening
Detailed Assessment
Environmental Metrics
Programme Appraisal
Best Value Plan Assessment
Aim of the Assessment Stage
To assess the environmental effects of the options and alternative programmes to aid
decision-making
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
their own environmental metrics. Further details on how each of the individual assessments will
be undertaken and will feed into each other is provided below.
6.1.2.1 SEA
As defined in Section 5.5 each SEA objective will have datasets and assessments criteria
defined. Each option will be assessed using the SEA Framework to identify the potential effects
of the options. The ESRI ArcGIS tool will be used to identify the key constraints and
opportunities for each option and then professional judgement will be applied to score the option
using the scoring method in Table 5.3. The results of the HRA and WFD assessments will help
inform the assessment under the SEA objectives on biodiversity and water quality.
The assessment will be split into construction effects and operational effects as these may be
quite different and would not provide an accurate picture if they were combined. An option may
have both positive and negative effects under a SEA objective. Rather than trading these
effects to cancel each other out both positive and negative scoring will be used to show there
are potential mixed effects. The SEA Directive and Regulations require that effects should
include secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium and long-term, permanent and
temporary, and positive and negative effects. Cumulative effects are covered in Section 6.4 and
the other requirements will be included as part of the SEA detailed assessment through the
effects’ narrative and/or check box columns. There is potential for transboundary effects, for
example, from transfer of water outside the Regional Plan area or from options close to the Plan
boundary with potential pathways affecting receptors outside the Plan area. The baseline GIS
database will include a buffer around the Regional Plan area so that additional receptors (such
as designated sites) are captured and can be included in the assessment.
The assessment will also identify those options where mitigation is required or where there are
additional opportunities to maximise environmental benefits. These mitigation and enhancement
measures will be fed into the options development as part of an iterative process. The
assessment will include the pre-mitigation effects and the residual post-mitigation effects.
6.1.2.2 HRA
The HRA should be undertaken in accordance with available guidance for England and will be
based on a precautionary approach as required under the Habitats Regulations.
Prior to the HRA assessment being undertaken it is proposed that the SEA objective for
biodiversity is aligned with the latest HRA assessment and guidance.
A HRA screening will be applied at the detailed assessment stage to the options that make it
through the initial RAG assessment and will include in-combination assessment with other
programmes, plans and projects. The results of the screening will feed into the biodiversity SEA
objective and will be translated into the overall SEA metric using the methodology and scoring
as proposed for the SEA. Where necessary, an Appropriate Assessment will be carried out for
options and/or programmes where the HRA screening was unable to rule out likely significant
effects on a European site.
Link to HRA process and interactions diagram (Appendix D)
6.1.2.3 WFD
The WFD compliance assessment should be undertaken on the constrained list options and a
range of alternative programmes, as well as the overall preferred programme. The assessment
involves the consideration of the likely impacts of both construction and operation of each option
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
element on WFD requirements, in particular consideration of whether there is a risk of
deterioration of water body status between status class of any WFD element. The results of the
WFD assessment will feed into the water SEA objective and will be translated into the overall
SEA metric using the methodology and scoring as proposed for the SEA.
Link to WFD assessment process and interactions diagram (Appendix E)
6.1.2.4 Natural Capital
In line with the Environment Agency draft guidance on decision making in the WRMP process
companies should take a proportionate approach to undertaking a natural capital approach.
Companies are expected to undertake an assessment on a minimum of five Natural Capital
metrics (which can be quantified as ecosystem services) and should consider a wider range as
well. The five ecosystem services which should be assessed (according to the draft TAG
guidance) as a minimum are:
● Biodiversity and Habitat
● Climate Regulation (carbon storage)
● Natural Hazard (flood and drought) regulation
● Water Purification
● Water Regulation
Biodiversity will be considered within BNG and reported separately as described below in
6.2.2.5.
In order to enable the required natural capital assessment of the regional plan it is proposed
that a Natural Capital Baseline is developed for the zone of influence in line with the Enabling a
Natural Capital Approach (ENCA) and the National Natural Capital Atlas using open datasets. It
is proposed that the WRSE Natural Capital register follows the UKNEA (2011), (UKNEA follow -
on work), Natural Capital Atlas and ENCA and focused on the Broad Habitat categories used to
classify the UK's natural environment. These are:
● Urban natural capital
● Enclosed farmland
● Mountain
● Moor and heathland
● Freshwater
● Woodland
● Coastal margins
● Marine environment
● Semi-natural grassland
The quantity of natural capital stocks with the zone of influence will be determined using the
quantity indicators described within the ENCA and changes in stocks will be assessed
according to the proposed impact of each option. This quantitative change in Natural Capital
stocks will be reported allowing for natural account for the plan to be developed.
Ecosystem Services or Natural Capital metrics (as they are referred to in the Environment
Agency guidance) will be assessed both qualitatively and quantitatively so that they can be
considered within option assessments if confidence in monetisation is not appropriate or
reliable. It is proposed the non-monetised ecosystem service metrics are integrated into the
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
relevant SEA objectives to account for this. An Example of provisioning ecosystem services and
SEA topics are shown in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Example Relationships between SEA topics and Ecosystem Services
Provisioning
Ecosystem Category SEA Topic Relationship
Food Soil Strong
Freshwater Water Strong
Fibre and fuel Biodiversity Weak
Biochemicals, natural medicines and
pharmaceuticals Biodiversity Weak
Genetic resources Biodiversity Strong
Ornamental resources Material Assets Weak
Energy harvesting Material Assets Weak
Where possible monetisation of the natural capital metrics should occur and be incorporated
into the cost benefit ratio as a discreet input. Monetised values for the key ecosystem services
are provided within ENCA and supplementary valuation databases that would provide a suitable
source for the information required. It is proposed that the database of suitable values for the
provision of each service is developed during SEA Scoping phase and presented for
stakeholders to consult on.
Where possible it is proposed to incorporate existing tools such as the outdoor recreation
valuation tool which can be used to predict the monetary value of greenspace and amenity land
(Figure 6.1). This tool could be used simply and effectively to develop a baseline for the welfare
value within the WRSE region and measure the positive & negative impacts of the proposed
programme.
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
Figure 6.1: Example Orval Output
6.1.2.5 Biodiversity Net Gain
Biodiversity net gain or net loss must be considered at both the option and programme level and
a biodiversity optimised programme suggested. Each option should look to maximise
biodiversity net gain and any required mitigation should be included in the option cost. The draft
Environment Agency guidance suggests that if there would be a significant additional cost for an
option to get significant extra benefit, this could be included as a separate option for
consideration.
A biodiversity baseline will be developed from spatial data sets of habitats inventories (Table
6.2) and assessed in line with the DEFRA BNG metric 2.0 which can be used to calculate BNG
change through land use of each option. The Priority Habitat Inventory and sites with SSSI and
Ramsar designations can be used to identify areas with high biodiversity importance. Units will
be assigned to the pre-construction land use according to the habitats present in the project
boundary. The post construction land use including agreed mitigation will be used to calculate
the post construction biodiversity score.
Table 6.2: Example Open source National habitat and biodiversity datasets
Name Content Detail Source
Habitat Network
Mapping
18 priority habitats based primarily, but not
exclusively, on the priority habitat inventory
Natural England Open Data
Priority Habitats Habitats of principal importance under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural
Communities Act (2006)
Natural England Open Data
Sites of Special
Scientific Interest
Contains data on site boundaries and condition of
sites Natural England Open Data
RAMSAR sites Site boundary information Natural England Open Data
This is recommended as a suitable methodology for the scale of the regional plan and will allow
for the individual companies to utilise this work within their own WRMPs and supplement the
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
open source habitat data with local datasets or Phase 1 site data to increase the accuracy of
calculation for each option.
6.2 Translating Assessment Findings into Metrics
The multi-criteria optimisation approach set out in the new Environment Agency guidance
reflects the proposed approach for WRSE, where the outcomes of the environmental
assessments are translated into metrics to feed into the multi-criteria optimisation for options
selection and the programme appraisal.
The results of the assessments described in Section 6.2.2 will be translated into the following
metrics in line with the new Environment Agency guidance:
● SEA Metric
● BNG Metric
● Natural Capital Metric
There will also be a need to include latest EA guidance on chalk rivers and invasive species.
6.2.1 Environmental Metrics
By its nature SEA does not include numerical values for scoring effects. However, in order to
incorporate environmental considerations directly into the programme appraisal optimisation
model, a SEA metric will be developed to summarise the environmental performance of each
option in numerical form. The SEA metric will be developed from the results of the SEA, HRA
and WFD assessment processes, and will also include non-monetised natural capital. However,
the metric itself will be generated solely for the programme appraisal modelling and will not be
used in the SEA process for the options assessment.
There is no current guidance on how this should be done, therefore, three possible approaches
were review and presented for discussion with WRSE. It was concluded that Approach 3
alleviated most of the issues that arise with Approaches 1 and 2 (however these have been
included for reference here to show the evolution of thinking about the final Approach). The
metric will be based on the pre-mitigation results and include construction and operation effects
combined.
Approach 1 – This would involve a simple summing up of scores. The major, moderate, minor
SEA scoring system would be given numerical values, e.g. major positive = +3, moderate
positive = +2, minor positive = +1, neutral = 0 (and -1 to -3 for the corresponding negative
effects). The sum of the scores across the SEA objectives would then be added up to give an
overall option score. The advantages of this approach are that it is simple and easy to
understand. The disadvantages are that simply summing up scores may hide significant
negative effects in one particular area if everything else is positive, and positive and negative
effects could cancel each other out.
Approach 2 – This would involve developing two metrics for the SEA metric, one for positive
effects and one for negative effects, using a grading system according to the significance of
effects. This could be done in a number of ways, two of which are outlined below.
2a) A grading system similar to that presented in Figure 6.1 could be used. This is similar to the
approach undertaken by Thames Water for WRMP19. The advantages of this approach are that
positive and negative effects are separated to avoid trading and cancelling out of effects. The
disadvantages are that major effects could still be hidden in the metric e.g. an option could have
major negative effects for one SEA objective but minor or neutral effects for all the other SEA
objectives, thereby scoring predominately minor-neutral.
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
2b) The number of significant effects (i.e. major or moderate positive or negative) could be
counted. This is similar to the approach undertaken by Affinity Water for WRMP19. The
advantages of this approach are that positive and negative effects are separated to avoid
trading and cancelling out of effects and only significant effects are included. The disadvantages
are that options with minor effects across SEA objectives would end up with a score of 0 when
cumulatively they could be significant.
Figure 6.2: Grading of effects
Source: Adapted from Thames Water WRMP19 SEA Environmental Report
Approach 3 – This approach is a combination of approaches 1 and 2 above. The SEA scoring
system is given numerical values as in approach 1 but these are more pronounced, e.g. major
positive = +8, moderate positive = +4, minor positive = +1, neutral = 0 (and -1 to -8 for
corresponding negative effects), to counteract hidden effects. Two metrics are developed as in
approach 2, one for positive effects and one for negative effects. The positive results are
summed and the negative results are summed to give the two metrics. The advantages of this
approach are as with approach 1 it is straightforward and easy to understand and as with
approach 2 it avoids the trading and cancelling out of effects. It also has the additional
advantage of alleviating some of the issues of hidden significant effects and cumulative minor
effects.
6.3 Programme Appraisal
The inclusion of the environmental metrics into the multi-criteria optimisation will enable a range
of different option combinations (programmes) to be outputted. In line with the new draft
Environment Agency guidance this will include the following programmes (as well as the least
cost plan):
● SEA objective maximised programme
● BNG maximised programme
● Natural capital maximised programme
The cumulative effects of the programmes will be assessed, and mitigation requirements will be
identified. This will include undertaking a HRA Task 2 Appropriate Assessment if required. The
results of the programme appraisals will then inform the best value plan.
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
+10
+9
+8
+7
+6
+5
+4
+3
+2
+1
0
Predominantly major
negative effects
Predominantly moderate
negative effects
Predominantly minor
negative effects
Predominantly neutral or
negligible effects
Predominantly major
positive effects
Predominantly moderate
positive effects
Predominantly minor
positive effects
Predominantly neutral or
negligible effects
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
6.4 Mitigation and Monitoring
Mitigation and enhancement measures will be identified at various points in the assessment
process (as outlined in the assessment method above) including:
● High level assessment (section 6.1.1) – although specific mitigation measures won’t be
identified, options with environmental risks that require mitigation will be flagged.
● Detailed assessment (section 6.1.2) – mainly through the SEA but also through the other
assessment processes mitigation and enhancement measures will be identified and fed into
the options development as part of an iterative process. If options development is not at a
sufficient level of detail for specific mitigation, then mitigation requirements will be flagged for
individual water companies to take forward in their WRMP24.
● Programme appraisal (section 6.3) – preferred options and programme level mitigation and
enhancement measures will be considered in more detail.
Monitoring the potential negative effects of implementing the Regional Plan is an essential on-
going element of the SEA process. Monitoring helps ensure that the identified SEA objectives
are being achieved and allows for early identification of unforeseen adverse effects and thus
appropriate remedial action can be taken. The Department for Communities and Local
Government (DCLG) guidance2 states that it is inappropriate to monitor everything, and
monitoring proposals should be focused on the following areas:
● Identify potential breaches of international, national, or local legislation, recognised
guidelines, or standards
● Actions which may give rise to irreversible damage, with a view to identifying trends before
such damage occurs
● Where there was any uncertainty in the SEA and where monitoring would enable prevention
or mitigation measures to be taken
A monitoring programme will be developed for the Regional Plan based on the results of the
environmental appraisal process. Those effects identified as negative or uncertain will be the
focus for monitoring and indicators based on the environmental datasets will be developed. It is
proposed that the monitoring programme is a centralised database that is easy to use and input
data. This centralised system could be expanded for WRMP24 so that water companies can
feed into monitoring.
Link to Monitoring Plan Database
2 DCLG Guidance (2005) A Practical Guide to the SEA Directive
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
7 Reporting and Consultation
7.1 Prepare Environmental Report
As discussed in section 5.6 a Scoping Report will be produced presenting the scoping stage for
the Regional Plan and could take the format of an ESRI story map that would allow for the
presentation of text, illustration and spatial data to be represented within a single website
accessible to stakeholders.
The overarching regional SEA Environmental Report will be produced with the other supporting
assessments included as Technical Appendices.
However, it is proposed that a digital platform would be an ideal format for reporting the
assessment itself especially as the regional plan does not have to be confined by the
regulations with regard to the environmental report. It would be in the form of a navigable GIS
database including story maps and dash boards. This innovative format would immeasurably
aid consultation during scoping and be an accessible way of providing complex information at
the end of the process.
7.2 Consultation Plan
It is proposed that both informal and formal consultation is undertaken throughout the Regional
Plan development for the environmental appraisal. A draft consultation plan for discussion is
provided in Table 7.1. We propose working with the ECB WRSE group set of stakeholders /
consultees to identify primary and secondary groups of consultees.
Environmental
Appraisal
Stage
Proposed
Dates
Consultation Description Consultation
Type
Stakeholders
to be
consulted
Scoping 07/20 Engagement with stakeholders on the SEA
objectives and assessment approach (including
datasets, scoring criteria and definitions)
Informal To be confirmed
Scoping 07/20 Formal sign-off from stakeholders on the Scoping
Report (including the proposed approach for the
assessment stage)
Formal To be confirmed
Assessment 09/20 -12/20 Engagement with stakeholders on the options
assessment and potential mitigation and
enhancement measures
Informal To be confirmed
Assessment 09/20-12/20 BNG, NC and HRA specific consultation Informal Natural England
Aim of the Reporting and Consultation Stage
To present the process and results of the environmental appraisal upon which consultation
can be undertake alongside the draft Plan
Prepare Environmental
Report
Undertake consultation alongside draft Plan
Review feedback & appraisal changes
Finalise Environmental
Report
Prepare Post-Adoption
Statement
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
Environmental
Appraisal
Stage
Proposed
Dates
Consultation Description Consultation
Type
Stakeholders
to be
consulted
Assessment 09/20-12/20 WFD specific consultation Informal Environment
Agency
Assessment 09/20-12/20 Engagement with stakeholders on the programme
appraisals and development of the best value plan
Informal To be confirmed
Reporting and
Consultation
12/20 Consultation of the SEA Environmental Report and
Technical Appendices (containing the other
assessments) alongside consultation of the draft
Regional Plan
Formal To be confirmed
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
8 Relationship between WRSE Regional
Plan and WRMP24
It is anticipated that the environmental appraisal methodology presented in this guidance
document will be used as framework for water companies when undertaking their WRMP24
statutory environmental appraisals.
A large amount of the supporting information required for WRMP24 will be produced as part of
the regional plan environmental assessments which will be available for use by the individual
water companies. Figure 8.1 shows the interactions and information that will be available from
the regional plan environmental appraisal to support the water company WRMP24 development
process. The approach aims to reduce the amount of work individual water companies need to
undertake during WRMP24, streamline the environmental assessment process, and ensure
consistency across water company environmental assessments. Some of the key interactions
highlighted in Figure 8.1 include:
● Water companies will have access to the WRSE plans and programmes database which will
hold links to the relevant plans for the plans and programme review.
● Water companies will have access to the WRSE ESRI ArcGIS environmental database
which holds the environmental baseline information for each environmental dataset defined
under the SEA topics. For WRMP24, water companies may wish to include additional local
level datasets to support their baseline and assessments.
● The SEA framework will be defined by WRSE in the form of overarching SEA objectives with
sub-themes that water companies can then tailor to reflect their local issues.
● A template digital Story Map scoping report will be available for use by Water Companies.
● Options submitted by the Water Companies to the WRSE options database will undergo
environmental RAG screening and detailed assessment as part of the regional plan SEA,
HRA, WFD, BNG and natural capital assessments. The assessment results will be available
for use by the Water Companies and it is envisaged that options would only need to be re-
assessed by Water Companies if the option elements change from those assessed as part
of the regional plan, an unconstrained option was brought forward that wasn’t on the regional
plan constrained list, or additional local level baseline was included (this would only require
re-assessment of the relevant SEA objective).
● The WRSE assessment will identify high-level mitigation will which be fed back to the water
companies to further develop and incorporate into their option design.
● The methodology for translating environmental assessment results into metrics for use in
EBSD modelling will be defined by the WRSE methodology. Options assessed for the
regional plan will have a SEA metric, BNG metric and natural capital metric which will be
shared with the Water Companies.
● The Programme appraisal will need to be undertaken by the individual water companies and
this assessment will be water company specific. However, the WRSE methodology can be
followed for developing a SEA objective maximised programme, a BNG maximised
programme, and Natural capital maximised programme (as well as the least cost
programme).
● A monitoring plan template has been developed and will be completed with KPIs and
baseline data for WRSE. This will be shared with the water companies to form a central
monitoring database.
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
Figure 8.1: Relationship between WRSE and WRMP environmental appraisal processes
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
A. Environmental Datasets
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
Table A.1: Proposed Environmental Datasets
SEA Directive Topic
Aspect assessed Data Source
Air
Air Quality and Noise - Nearest feature / all within 500m
Air Quality Management Area(s) (direct impact) DEFRA - Air Quality Management Areas
Noise action important areas DEFRA - Noise Action Planning Important Areas Round 2 England
Air Quality monitoring points and data https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/networks/find-sites
Biodiversity, Flora,
Fauna
Biodiversity: Statutory Designations - Direct Impact
Local Nature Reserves (LNR) Natural England Local Nature Reserves
National Nature Reserves (NNR) Natural England National Nature Reserves
Ramsar Sites Natural England Ramsar
SACs/candidate SACs (cSAC) and SCIs (direct impact) Natural England SACs
SPAs / potential SPAs (pSPA) (direct impact) Natural England SPAs
Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Natural England SSSI
Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSIs) risk zones Natural England SSSI
Marine Protection Areas/Marine Conservation Areas (for desalination
schemes)
JNCC Marine protected areas data set
Biodiversity, Flora,
Fauna
Biodiversity: Statutory Designations - 500.0m and 2000.0m Searches
Local Nature Reserves (LNR) (within 500.0m)* Natural England Local Nature Reserves
National Nature Reserves (NNR) (Within 500.0m)* Natural England National Nature Reserves
Ramsar Sites (within 2000.0m)* Natural England Ramsar
SACs/candidate SACs (cSAC) and SCIs (within 2000.0m)* Natural England SACs
SPAs / potential SPAs (pSPA) (within 2000.0m)* Natural England SPAs
Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (within 500.0m)* Natural England SSSI
Biodiversity, Flora,
Fauna
Biodiversity: Non-Statutory Designations 500m search area
Ancient Woodland Natural England Ancient Woodland
Local Wildlife Sites Local Authorities
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
SEA Directive Topic
Aspect assessed Data Source
Priority Habitat Natural England Priority Habitat Inventory
Human health
Community Features direct impact
Allotments or Community Growing Spaces OS Greenspace dataset
Borough OS Greenspace dataset
Bowling Green OS Greenspace dataset
Cemetery OS Greenspace dataset
Country Parks Natural England - Country Parks
Golf Course OS Greenspace dataset
Medical facilities OS Greenspace dataset
National Parks OS Greenspace dataset
National Trails OS Greenspace dataset
Material assets
Open access areas OS Greenspace dataset
Other Sports Facility OS Greenspace dataset
Play Space OS Greenspace dataset
Playing Field OS Greenspace dataset
Public Park Or Garden CRoW S4 Conclusive Registered Common Land
Registered common land OS Greenspace dataset
Religious Buildings OS Greenspace dataset
Religious Grounds OS Greenspace dataset
Schools OS Greenspace dataset
Tennis Courts OS Greenspace dataset
Transport Route Major roads, O S Open Roads
Railway tracks OS Vector Map
National designated cycle routes Sustrans
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
SEA Directive Topic
Aspect assessed Data Source
Human health
Community Features 500.0m Searches
Allotments or Community Growing Spaces within 500.0m OS Greenspace dataset
Bowling Green within 500.0m OS Greenspace dataset
Cemetery within 500.0m OS Greenspace dataset
Country Parks within 500.0m Natural England - Country Parks
Golf Course within 500.0m OS Greenspace dataset
Medical facilities 500.0m OS Greenspace dataset
National Parks within 500.0m OS Greenspace dataset
National Trails within 500.0m OS Greenspace dataset
Open access areas within 500.0m OS Greenspace dataset
Material assets
Other Sports Facility within 500.0m OS Greenspace dataset
Play Space within 500.0m OS Greenspace dataset
Playing Field within 500.0m OS Greenspace dataset
Public Park Or Garden within 500.0m CRoW S4 Conclusive Registered Common Land
Registered common land within 500.0m OS Greenspace dataset
Religious Buildings 500.0m OS Greenspace dataset
Religious Grounds 500.0m OS Greenspace dataset
Schools 500.0m OS Greenspace dataset
Tennis Courts within 500.0m OS Greenspace dataset
Population, human
health
Indices of Multiple Deprivation direct impact
20% most deprived areas for the index of multiple deprivation Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015
20% most deprived areas for income deprivation Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015
20% most deprived areas for employment deprivation Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015
20% most deprived areas for education, skills and training deprivation Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015
20% most deprived areas for healthcare Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
SEA Directive Topic
Aspect assessed Data Source
20% most deprived areas for crime deprivation Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015
20% most deprived areas for barriers to housing and services Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2015
Historic Environment
Historic Environment
Grade I listed structures Historic England Listed Buildings
Grade II* listed structures Historic England Listed Buildings
Grade II listed structures Historic England Listed Buildings
Grade I Registered Parks and Gardens Historic England Registered Parks and Gardens
Grade II* Registered Parks and Gardens Historic England Registered Parks and Gardens
Grade II Registered Parks and Gardens Historic England Registered Parks and Gardens
Protected Wreck Historic England Protected Wrecks
Registered Battlefields Historic England Registered Battlefields
Scheduled Monuments Historic England Scheduled Monuments
Conservation Areas Historic England Conservation Areas
World Heritage Sites Historic England World Heritage Sites
Historic Environment
Historic Environment - 500.0m Searches
Grade I listed structures within 500.0m Historic England Listed Buildings
Grade II* listed structures within 500.0m Historic England Listed Buildings
Grade II listed structures within 500.0m Historic England Listed Buildings
Grade I Registered Parks and Gardens within 500.0m Historic England Registered Parks and Gardens
Grade II* Registered Parks and Gardens within 500.0m Historic England Registered Parks and Gardens
Grade II Registered Parks and Gardens within 500.0m Historic England Registered Parks and Gardens
Protected Wreck within 500.0m Historic England Protected Wrecks
Registered Battlefields within 500.0m Historic England Registered Battlefields
Scheduled Monuments within 500.0m Historic England Scheduled Monuments
World Heritage Sites within 500.0m Historic England World Heritage Sites
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
SEA Directive Topic
Aspect assessed Data Source
Material assets
Land Quality direct impact
Authorised landfill sites EA authorised landfill
Historic landfill sites EA historic landfill
Material assets
Land Quality - 500m Searches
Authorised landfill sites within 500.0m EA authorised landfill
Historic landfill sites within 500.0m EA historic landfill
Landscape
Landscape direct impacts
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Natural England
Strategically designated views (London only data) LVMF protected vistas
National landscape Character Areas Natural England
Woodlands (General assessment of total area of woodland) Priority habitat map layers
Soil
Land Use direct impacts
Grade 1 agricultural land Natural England Agricultural Land Classification
Grade 2 agricultural land Natural England Agricultural Land Classification
Landscape
Urban grade of agricultural land Natural England Agricultural Land Classification
Green Belt land Department for Communities and Local Government - Green Belt
Water
Water: Ground
Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 1 EA source protection zones
SPZ1c EA source protection zones
SPZ2 EA source protection zones
SPZ2c EA source protection zones
Major Aquifer High EA Groundwater Vulnerability Zones maps (requires contract with EA - not open
data)
Major Aquifer Intermediate EA Groundwater Vulnerability Zones maps (requires contract with EA - not open
data)
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
SEA Directive Topic
Aspect assessed Data Source
Major Aquifer Low EA Groundwater Vulnerability Zones maps (requires contract with EA - not open
data)
Minor Aquifer High EA Groundwater Vulnerability Zones maps (requires contract with EA - not open
data)
Minor Aquifer Intermediate EA Groundwater Vulnerability Zones maps (requires contract with EA - not open
data)
Minor Aquifer Low EA Groundwater Vulnerability Zones maps (requires contract with EA - not open
data)
WFD groundwater status WFD Groundwater Bodies
Incursion into aquifers of 'good yield' and 'good quality' under the WFD
(Principle aquifer / secondary aquifer) WFD Groundwater Bodies
Water
& WFD assessment
Water: Surface
Environment Agency Flood Defences EA flood defences
Environment Agency Main Rivers EA main rivers
Flood Zone 3 (1 in 100 year) EA Flood Zone 3
Flood Zone 2 (1 in 1000 year) EA Flood Zone 2
Surface Water Features OS surface water dataset (OS open rivers)
Flood Zone 3 (1 in 100 year) within 250.0m EA Flood Zone 3
Flood Zone 2 (1 in 1000 year) within 250.0m EA Flood Zone 2
Surface Water Features within 250.0m OS surface water dataset (OS open rivers)
Bathing Waters (for desal options) Environment agency Bathing waters
Shellfish Waters (desal options) Shellfish directive waters
WFD surface water body classifications EA WFD Catchment data explorer
WFD Ground water classifications EA WFD Catchment data explorer
WFD catchments EA WFD Catchment data explorer
WFD river basins
Climatic Factors Climate
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
SEA Directive Topic
Aspect assessed Data Source
- Carbon data will come from the Options database so doesn't need to be included. - Flood data already included - Current climate data can be obtained separately from UKCP18 (unless
this is available in map form?) - Climate projections data can be obtained separately from UKCP18
(unless this is available in map form?)
https://ukclimateprojections-ui.metoffice.gov.uk/products
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
B. Proposed RAG Criteria and definitions
Topic Dataset Features RAG criteria
Red Amber Green
Air Quality
and Noise
Air quality
management
areas
(AQMAs)
Less than 100m from
an AQMA (likely
significant effect)
and/or major adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites,
and/or their qualifying
features.
Within 100m to 2000m of
an AQMA (potential for
significant effect) and/or
moderate/minor adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites, and/or
their qualifying features.
Over 2000m from an AQMA (low
potential for significant effect).
No adverse effects on linkages
to designated sites, and/or their
qualifying features.
Biodiversity,
Flora and
Fauna
Statutory
designated
sites
Special
areas of
conservation
(SAC)
Less 400m from SAC
(likely significant
effect) and/or major
adverse effects on
linkages to
designated sites,
and/or their qualifying
features.
Within 400m to 5000m of
a SAC (potential for
significant effect) and/or
moderate/minor adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites, and/or
their qualifying features.
Over 5000m from a SAC (low
potential for significant effect).
No adverse effects on linkages
to designated sites, and/or their
qualifying features.
Special
protection
area (SPA)
Less than 400m from
SPA (likely significant
effect) and/or major
adverse effects on
linkages to
designated sites,
and/or their qualifying
features.
Within 400m to 5000m of
a SPA (potential for
significant effect) and/or
moderate/minor adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites, and/or
their qualifying features.
Over 5000m from a SPA (low
potential for significant effect).
No adverse effects on linkages
to designated sites, and/or their
qualifying features.
RAMSAR Less than 400m from
RAMSAR (likely
significant effect)
and/or major adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites,
and/or their qualifying
features.
Within 400m to 5000m of
a RAMSAR (potential for
significant effect) and/or
moderate/minor adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites, and/or
their qualifying features.
Over 5000m from a RAMSAR
(low potential for significant
effect). No adverse effects on
linkages to designated sites,
and/or their qualifying features.
Sites of
special
scientific
interest
(SSSI)
Less than 500m or
encroaching upon
from SSSI (likely
significant effect)
and/or major adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites,
and/or thei qualifying
features.
Within 500m to 2000m of
a SSSI (potential for
significant effect) and/or
moderate/minor adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites, and/or
their qualifying features.
Over 2000m from a SSSI (low
potential for significant effect).
No adverse effects on linkages
to designated sites, and/or their
qualifying features.
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
Topic Dataset Features RAG criteria
Non
statutory
designated
sites
Ancient
Woodland
Less than 500m or
encroaching upon
Ancient Woodland
(likely significant
effect) and/or major
adverse effects on
linkages to
designated sites,
and/or their qualifying
features.
Within 500m to 2000m of
a Ancient Woodland
(potential for significant
effect) and/or
moderate/minor adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites, and/or
their qualifying features.
Over 2000m from a Ancient
Woodland (low potential for
significant effect). No adverse
effects on linkages to designated
sites, and/or their qualifying
features.
National
Nature
Reserves
Not Applicable Not Applicable Within 2000m from a National
Nature Reserve (low potential
for significant effect). No
adverse effects on linkages to
designated sites, and/or their
qualifying features.
County
Wildlife Sites
(CWS)
Adjacent to or
encroaching upon
CWS (likely
significant effect)
and/or major adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites,
and/or thei qualifying
features.
Less than 400m of a CWS
(potential for significant
effect) and/or
moderate/minor adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites, and/or
their qualifying features.
Not Applicable
Local Nature
Reserves
Not Applicable Not Applicable Within 1000m from a Local
Nature Reserves (low potential
for significant effect). No
adverse effects on linkages to
designated sites, and/or their
qualifying features.
Historic
Environment
Statutory
designated
sites
Listed
buildings
Less than 500m
(likely significant
effect) and/or major
adverse effects on
linkages to
designated sites,
and/or their qualifying
features.
Not Applicable Over 500m (low potential for
significant effect). No adverse
effects on linkages to designated
sites, and/or their qualifying
features. Scheduled
monuments
Conservation
Area
Non
statutory
designated
sites
Registered
Parks and
Gardens and
Battlefields
Landscape Statutory
Designations
Areas of
outstanding
natural
beauty
(AONB)
Within 3000m from
AONB (likely
significant effect)
and/or major adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites,
and/or their qualifying
features.
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
Topic Dataset Features RAG criteria
Geology
and soils
Agriculture
land
classification
Within Grade 1 or 2
land classification
(likely significant
effect) and/or major
adverse effects on
linkages to sites,
and/or their qualifying
features
Within Grade 3 land
classification (potential for
significant effect) and/or
moderate/minor adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites, and/or
their qualifying features.
Within other or unclassified land
(low potential for significant
effect). No adverse effects on
linkages to designated sites,
and/or their qualifying features.
Landfill sites TBC TBC TBC
SSSI
(geodiversity)
Less than 500m or
encroaching upon
(likely significant
effect) and/or major
adverse effects on
linkages to
designated sites,
and/or their qualifying
features.
Within 500m to 2000m of
SSSI (potential for
significant effect) and/or
moderate/minor adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites, and/or
their qualifying features.
Over 2000m from a SSSI (low
potential for significant effect).
No adverse effects on linkages
to designated sites, and/or their
qualifying features.
AONB less than 3000m
(likely significant
effect) and/or major
adverse effects on
linkages to
designated sites,
and/or their qualifying
features.
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Water Groundwater Groundwater
source
protection
zones
Within Zone 1 (likely
significant effect)
and/or major adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites,
and/or their qualifying
features.
Within Zone 2 (potential
for significant effect)
and/or moderate/minor
adverse effects on
linkages to designated
sites, and/or their
qualifying features.
Within Zone 3 (low potential for
significant effect). No adverse
effects on linkages to designated
sites, and/or their qualifying
features.
Nitrate
Vulnerable
Zone
Within a Nitrate
Vulnerable Zone
(likely significant
effect) and/or major
adverse effects on
linkages to
designated sites,
and/or their qualifying
features.
Not Applicable Outside a Nitrate Vulnerable
Zone (low potential for
significant effect). No adverse
effects on linkages to designated
sites, and/or their qualifying
features.
Surface
water
Flood risk
zones
Within Flood Risk
Zone 3 (likely
significant effect)
and/or major adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites,
and/or their qualifying
features.
Within Flood Risk Zone 2
or 2/3 (potential for
significant effect) and/or
moderate/minor adverse
effects on linkages to
designated sites, and/or
their qualifying features.
Within Flood Risk Zone 1 (low
potential for significant effect).
No adverse effects on linkages
to designated sites, and/or their
qualifying features.
Tourism and
recreation
Strategic
Tourist
routes
Direct intersect or
disruption from routes
(likely significant
effect).
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
C. Assessment Scoring Criteria
This final assessment criteria should be completed during SEA scoping phase following a
detailed assessment workshop to agree scoring definitions for each topic with all internal
stakeholders. It is proposed that this workshop will be held during the initial phases of the SEA
Scoping phase.
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
SEA Objective Datasets/Key Themes Effect Description
Biodiversity, Flora,
Fauna
● SPA
● SAC
● Ramsar site
● SSSIs
● MPA
● NNR
● LNR
● Priority habitats and
species
● Non-designated sites
● Terrestrial, aquatic and marine habitats, species
and protected sites
● Green networks and corridors (e.g. foraging
areas and commuting routes, migration routes, hibernation areas etc. at
all scales)
+++
Major Positive
The option would result in a major enhancement on the quality of designated habitats due to changes in flow or
groundwater levels, water quality or habitat quality and availability.
The option would result in a major increase in the population of a priority species.
Effects could be caused by beneficial changes in water flows/water quality, or large amounts of creation or enhancement
of habitat, promoting a major increase in ecosystem structure and function.
++
Moderate
Positive
The option would result in a moderate enhancement on the quality of designated and/or non-designated habitats due to
changes in flow or groundwater levels, water quality or habitat creation and enhancement measures.
The option would result in a moderate increase in the population of a priority species.
Effects could be caused by beneficial changes in water flows/water quality, or moderate amounts of creation or
enhancement of habitat, promoting a moderate increase in ecosystem structure and function.
+
Minor Positive
The option would result in a minor enhancement of the quality of designated and/or non-designated habitats due to
changes in flow or groundwater levels, water quality or habitat creation and enhancement measures.
The option would result in a minor increase in the population of a priority species.
Effects could be caused by beneficial changes in water flows/water quality, or small amounts of creation or enhancement
of habitat, promoting a minor increase in ecosystem structure and function.
0 Neutral The option would not result in any effects on designated or non-designated habitats and/or species).
-
Minor
Negative
The option would result in a minor negative effect on the quality of designated and/or non-designated habitats due to
changes in flow or groundwater levels, water quality or habitat loss or degradation.
The option would result in a minor decrease in the population of a priority species.
Effects could be caused by detrimental changes in flows/water quality, or small losses or degradation of habitat leading to
a minor loss of ecosystem structure and function.
--
Moderate
Negative
The option would result in a moderate negative effect on the quality of designated and/or non-designated habitats due to
changes in flow or groundwater levels, water quality or habitat loss or degradation.
The option would result in a moderate decrease in the population of a priority species.
Effects could be caused by detrimental changes in flows/water quality, or moderate loss or degradation of habitat leading
to a moderate loss of ecosystem structure and function.
---
Major
Negative
The option would result in a major negative effect on the quality of designated and/or non-designated habitats due to
changes in flow or groundwater levels, water quality or habitat loss or degradation.
The option would result in a major decrease in the population of a priority species.
Effects could be caused by detrimental changes in flows/water quality, or large losses or degradation of habitat leading to
a major loss of ecosystem structure and function.
? Uncertain From the level of information available the effect that the option would have on this objective is uncertain
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
SEA Objective Datasets/Key Themes Effect Description
Soil ● Agricultural Land
Classification
● Landfill sites
+++ Major Positive
The option would result in a major enhancement on the quality of soils as a result of remediation.
++ Moderate
Positive
The option would result in a moderate enhancement on the quality of soils as a result of remediation.
+ Minor Positive
The option is located on a brownfield site and has no effect on soils or existing land use.
The option results in the remediation of contaminated land.
0 Neutral The option would not result in any effects on soils or land use.
- Minor
Negative
The option is not located on a brownfield site and/or results in a minor loss of best and most
versatile agricultural land, or is in conflict with existing land use.
The option results in land contamination.
-- Moderate
Negative
The option will result in a moderate loss of best and most versatile agricultural land or is in substantial conflict with existing
land use.
--- Major
Negative
The option will result in a major loss of best and most versatile agricultural land or is in substantial conflict with existing
land use.
The option results in land contamination.
? Uncertain From the level of information available the effect that the option would have on this objective is uncertain
Water ● Environment Agency
Flood Defences
● Environment Agency Main
Rivers
● Flood Zone (1 in 100
year)
● Surface Water Features
● Flood Zone (1 in 1000
year)
● Surface Water Features
● WFD River Waterbody
Catchments
+++
Major Positive
The option results in addressing failure of WFD Good Ecological Status / Good Ecological
Potential.
++
Moderate
Positive
The option achieves savings through demand management and does not require abstraction to
achieve yield.
The option contributes to addressing failure of WFD Good Ecological Status / Good Ecological
Potential.
+ Minor Positive
The option achieves savings through demand management and does not require abstraction to
achieve yield.
0 Neutral
The option would have no discernible effect on river flows or surface/coastal water quality or on groundwater quality or
levels.
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
SEA Objective Datasets/Key Themes Effect Description
● WFD River Waterbodies
Cycle 2
● Bathing Waters (for desal
options)
● Shellfish Waters (desal
options)
-
Minor
Negative
The option would result in minor decreases in river flows. River and/or coastal water quality may
be affected and lead to short term or intermittent effects on receptors (e.g. designated habitats,
protected species or recreational users of rivers and the coastline) that could not be avoided but
could be mitigated.
The option would result in minor decreases in groundwater quality or levels.
--
Moderate
Negative
The option would result in moderate decreases in river flows. River and/or coastal water quality may
be affected and lead to long term or continuous effects on receptors (e.g. designated habitats,
protected species or recreational users of rivers and the coastline) that could not reasonably be
mitigated.
The option results in the likely deterioration of WFD classification.
The option would result in moderate decreases in groundwater quality or levels
---
Major
Negative
The option would result in major decreases in river flows. River and/or coastal water quality may
be affected and lead to long term or continuous effects on receptors (e.g. designated habitats,
protected species or recreational users of rivers and the coastline) that could not reasonably be
mitigated.
The option results in the deterioration of WFD classification.
The option would result in major decreases in groundwater quality or levels
? Uncertain From the level of information available the effect that the option would have on this objective is uncertain
Air ● Air Quality Management
Zones
+++ Major Positive The option would result in a major enhancement of the air quality within one or more AQMAs
++ Moderate
Positive
The option would result in a moderate enhancement of the air quality within one or more AQMAs
+ Minor Positive The option would result in an enhancement of the air quality within an AQMAs
0 Neutral The option would not result in any effects on Air Quality and AQMAs.
- Minor
Negative
The option would result in a decrease of the air quality within an AQMA
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
SEA Objective Datasets/Key Themes Effect Description
-- Moderate
Negative
The option would result in a decrease of the air quality within one or more AQMAs
--- Major
Negative
The option would result in a major decrease in the air quality within one or more AQMAs
? Uncertain From the level of information available the effect that the option would have on this objective is uncertain
Climate Factors Option Carbon data
UKCP18 climate data
+++
Major Positive
The option will reduce operational carbon emissions by more than 1,000 tonnes CO2e/year
++
Moderate
Positive
The option will result in a sustained decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and will increase
resilience/decrease vulnerability to climate change effects.
The option will reduce operational carbon emissions by between 100 and 1,000 tonnes CO2e/year
+
Minor Positive
The option will result in a sustained decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and will increase
resilience/decrease vulnerability to climate change effects.
The option will reduce operational carbon emissions by up to 100 CO2e/year
0 Neutral
The option would have no discernible effect on greenhouse gas emissions, nor would the option increase
resilience/decrease vulnerability to climate change effects.
-
Minor
Negative
The option will have a minor impact on resilience/decrease vulnerability to climate change
effects.
The option will generate carbon emissions of between 100 and 500 tonnes CO2e during
construction.
The option will generate operational carbon emissions of between 100 and 500 tonnes
CO2e/year.
--
Moderate
Negative
The option will have a moderate impact on resilience/significantly decrease vulnerability to climate
change effects.
The option will generate carbon emissions of greater than of between 500 and 1000 tonnes CO2e during
construction.
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
SEA Objective Datasets/Key Themes Effect Description
The option will generate operational carbon emissions of between 500 and 1000 CO2e/year.
---
Major
Negative
The option will have a major impact on resilience/significantly decrease vulnerability to climate
change effects.
The option will generate carbon emissions of greater than 1,000 tonnes CO2e during
construction.
The option will generate operational carbon emissions of more than 1,000 tonnes CO2e/year.
? Uncertain From the level of information available the effect that the option would have on this objective is uncertain
Landscape ● Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty
● National Character Areas
+++
Major Positive
The option results in new, above ground infrastructure that significantly enhances the local
landscape, townscape or seascape.
++
Moderate
Positive
The option results in new, above ground infrastructure that has a moderate positive effect on the
local landscape, townscape or seascape.
+
Minor Positive
The option results in new, above ground infrastructure that has a minor positive effect on the
local landscape, townscape or seascape.
0 Neutral The option would not result in any effects on the local landscape, townscape or seascape
- Minor
Negative
The option results in new, above ground infrastructure that has a minor negative effect on the
local landscape, townscape or seascape.
--
Moderate
Negative
The option would have a moderate negative effect on a designated landscape or feature (i.e. significant
visually intrusive infrastructure) whose effects could not be reasonably mitigated.
The option results in new, above ground infrastructure that has a moderate negative effect on the
local landscape, townscape or seascape.
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
SEA Objective Datasets/Key Themes Effect Description
---
Major
Negative
The option would have a negative effect on a designated landscape or feature (i.e. significant
visually intrusive infrastructure) whose effects could not be reasonably mitigated.
The option results in new, above ground infrastructure that has a major negative effect on the
local landscape, townscape or seascape.
? Uncertain From the level of information available the effect that the option would have on this objective is uncertain
Historic
Environment
● Grade I listed structures
● Grade II* listed structures
● Grade II listed structures
● Grade I Registered Parks
and Gardens
● Grade II* Registered
Parks and Gardens
● Grade II Registered Parks
and Gardens
● Protected Wreck
● Registered Battlefields
● Scheduled Monuments
● Conservation Areas
World Heritage Sites
+++
Major Positive
The option will result in enhancements to designated heritage assets and/or their setting, fully realising the significance
and value of the asset, such as:
Securing repairs or improvements to heritage assets, especially those identified in the Historic England
Buildings/Monuments at Risk Register;
Improving interpretation and public access to important heritage assets.
++
Moderate
Positive
The option will result in enhancements to designated heritage assets and/or their setting.
Improving interpretation and public access to important heritage assets.
+
Minor Positive
The option will result in enhancements to non-designated heritage assets and/or their setting.
.
0 Neutral The option will have no effect on cultural heritage assets or archaeology.
-
Minor
Negative
The option will result in the loss of significance of undesignated heritage assets and/or their
setting, notwithstanding remedial recording of any elements affected.
There will be limited damage to known, undesignated archaeology important sites with a
consequent loss of significance only partly mitigated by archaeological investigation.
--
Moderate
Negative
The option will result in the loss of significance of undesignated heritage assets and/or their
setting, notwithstanding remedial recording of any elements affected.
The option will diminish of significance of designated heritage assets and/or their setting, notwithstanding remedial
recording of any elements affected.
---
Major
Negative
The option will diminish the significance of designated heritage assets and/or their setting such
as:
● Demolition or further deterioration in the condition of designated heritage assets especially those identified in the
Historic England Buildings/Monuments at Risk Register;
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
SEA Objective Datasets/Key Themes Effect Description
Loss of public access to important heritage assets and lack of appropriate interpretation.
There will be major damage to known, designated archaeology important sites with a
consequent loss of significance only partly mitigated by archaeological investigation.
? Uncertain From the level of information available the effect that the option would have on this objective is uncertain
Population,
Human Health
● Indices of Multiple
Deprivation 2015
● OS Greenspace dataset
● Natural England - Country
Parks
● CRoW S4 Conclusive
Registered Common Land
+++
Major Positive
The option leads to major positive effect on the health of local communities and will ensure that surface water and bathing
water quality is maintained within statutory limits.
The option creates new, and significantly enhances existing, recreational facilities within the
operational area.
++ Moderate
Positive
The option leads to positive effect on the health of local communities and will ensure that surface water and bathing
water quality is maintained within statutory limits.
The option enhances existing, recreational facilities within the operational area
+ Minor Positive
The option has a temporary positive effect on the health of local communities and will ensure that surface water and
bathing water quality is maintained within statutory limits
0 Neutral The option would not result in any effects on human health and existing recreational facilities.
- Minor
Negative
The option has a temporary effect on human health (e.g. noise or air quality). The option reduces the availability and
quality of existing recreational facilities within the operational area.
-- Moderate
Negative
The option results in the permanent removal of existing recreational facilities within the operational area
--- Major
Negative
The option has a significant long term effect on human health (e.g. noise or air quality).
The option results in the removal of existing recreational facilities within the operational area.
? Uncertain From the level of information available the effect that the option would have on this objective is uncertain
Material Assets ● Option information from
option database
+++
Major Positive
The option involves reducing leakage from the supply network or is a water efficiency option
with a yield of >5 Ml/d.
++
Moderate
Positive
The option will re-use or recycle substantial quantities of waste materials and any new
infrastructure will incorporate substantial sustainable design measures and materials. There will
be no increase in energy consumption.
The option involves reducing leakage from the supply network or is a water efficiency option
Mott MacDonald | WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology Guidance
412624 | June 2020
SEA Objective Datasets/Key Themes Effect Description
with a yield of <5 Ml/d.
+ Minor Positive
The option involves reducing leakage from the supply network or is a water efficiency option
with a yield of <5 Ml/d.
0 Neutral The option would not result in any effects on material assets.
-
Minor
Negative
The option will require new infrastructure with only limited opportunities for the re-use or
recycling of waste materials. There are limited opportunities for sustainable design or the use of
sustainable materials.
The option results in a minor increase in energy consumption.
-- Moderate
Negative
The option will require new infrastructure with only limited opportunities for the re-use or
recycling of waste materials.
The option results in a moderate increase in energy consumption.
---
Major
Negative
The option will require significant new infrastructure that cannot be provided through the re-use
or recycling of waste materials. There are no opportunities for sustainable design or the use of
sustainable materials.
The option results in a major increase in energy consumption
? Uncertain From the level of information available the effect that the option would have on this objective is uncertain
412624 | June 2020
D. HRA Process and Interactions Diagram
412624 | June 2020
Figure D.1: HRA Process and Interactions Diagram
If Screening concludes ‘No likely significant effects’ the HRA process for that options
ends here. The option can be taken forward into the multi-criteria optimisation and
programme appraisal
HRA Stage 1 Screening feeds into
detailed assessments
Designated sites
criteria included in RAG screening. Options with direct
landtake from designated site flagged red
If Screening concludes ‘Potential
for likely significant effects’ either alone or in combination, or effects are uncertain, and the
option is selected within the Programme Appraisal, HRA Stage 2 AA is required
ESRI ArcGIS used to
identify designated sites
Stage 1: Test of Likely
Significance (Screening)
Define zone of influence and option type buffers
Identify European Designated sites
Review qualifying features
Identify potential impacts
Screening Matrix
Scoping
Baseline
SEA Objectives
Assessment
High level
Screening
Detailed
Assessments
Programme
Appraisal
European designated sites included in SEA
objectives
Consultation
with Natural
England
Stage 2: Appropriate
Assessment
Scoping the Appropriate Assessment
Review European designated site conservation objectives
Mitigation measures
Integrity Test
Monitoring
Consultation
with Natural
England
Best Value
Plan
Multi-criteria optimisation
Stage 3:
Assessment of
Alternatives
Stage 4:
Assessment of
IROPI
Consider alternative solutions
Justification for IROPI – social,
economic, human health, public
safety, environmental
benefits
In-combination effects of Programmes
If AA concludes effects on site
integrity, HRA Stage 3 is
required
If there are no alternatives
and the option is strategically
important, HRA Stage 4 is required
Options design
development
412624 | June 2020
E. WFD Assessment Process and
Interactions Diagram
412624 | June 2020
Figure E.2: WFD Assessment Process and Interactions Diagram
If no risks are identified through screening the option
is compliant with WFD. The option can be taken
forward into the multi-criteria optimisation and
programme appraisal
WFD criteria included in RAG
screening.
ESRI ArcGIS used to
identify water body status
WFD includes in SEA objectives
No
Programme Appraisal - in-
combination effects assessment
Yes
Stage 3: WFD Article 4.7
3.1 Apply Article 4.7 – Can the option meet the criteria specified
in WFD Article 4.7?
Stage 2: WFD Further Assessment
2.1 Further assessment of impacts to physical habitat
2.2. Further assessment of impacts to water quality
2.3 Impacts to biology
2.4 Will the option cause deterioration in WFD status or potential
2.5 Will the option prevent achievement of good status or potential in the water body
Stage 1: WFD Risk Screening
1.1 Collate data about the activity, WFD water bodies
1.2 Screening for high status
1.3 Screening for risk of WFD deterioration and risk to water body status/potential objective
Scoping
Baseline
SEA Objectives
Consultation
with
Environment
Agency
Assessment
High level
Screening
Detailed
Assessments
Programme
Appraisal
Consultation
with
Environment
Agency
Best Value
Plan
Multi-criteria optimisation
Yes
No
No
Not compliant with WFD – option cannot proceed
Yes
If Screening identifies risks, can mitigation be incorporated to minimise impacts and meet legal requirements
Options design
development
412624 | June 2020
mottmac.com