WRSE Regional Plan Environmental Assessment Methodology ... · Appendix A: Draft Natural Capital Guidance for Water Companies – Draft natural capital guidance - metrics (JBA Consulting)

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 .


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


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

https://waterrse.sharepoint.com/:x:/r/sites/WRSEProjectSuppliers/Shared%20Documents/4.3%20Environmental%20Appraisal/03%20Shared/Environmental%20Assessment%20Guidance/Policy%20and%20Legislation%20Database.xlsx?d=w3f48e63d42b34ca4804545da09e962d3&csf=1&web=1&e=AvYElb

https://waterrse.sharepoint.com/:f:/r/sites/WRSEProjectSuppliers/Shared%20Documents/4.3%20Environmental%20Appraisal/03%20Shared/Environmental%20Assessment%20Guidance/Environmental%20Database?csf=1&web=1&e=HjRdxk



https://waterrse.sharepoint.com/:x:/r/sites/WRSEProjectSuppliers/Shared%20Documents/4.3%20Environmental%20Appraisal/03%20Shared/Environmental%20Assessment%20Guidance/Monitoring%20Plan.xlsx?d=wb73a1c8cdb674bfa88588a519d084da4&csf=1&web=1&e=sSbTDi

https://waterrse.sharepoint.com/:x:/r/sites/WRSEProjectSuppliers/Shared%20Documents/4.3%20Environmental%20Appraisal/03%20Shared/Environmental%20Assessment%20Guidance/Monitoring%20Plan.xlsx?d=wb73a1c8cdb674bfa88588a519d084da4&csf=1&web=1&e=sSbTDi

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

https://waterrse.sharepoint.com/:x:/r/sites/WRSEProjectSuppliers/Shared%20Documents/4.3%20Environmental%20Appraisal/03%20Shared/Environmental%20Assessment%20Guidance/Policy%20and%20Legislation%20Database.xlsx?d=w3f48e63d42b34ca4804545da09e962d3&csf=1&web=1&e=udjzG9

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


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


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


significant effect).

Within 1000m of a

designated site (potential for


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


features.

Non statutory

designated sites

Not Applicable. Direct land take from


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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

https://waterrse.sharepoint.com/:x:/r/sites/WRSEProjectSuppliers/Shared%20Documents/4.3%20Environmental%20Appraisal/03%20Shared/Environmental%20Assessment%20Guidance/Monitoring%20Plan.xlsx?d=wb73a1c8cdb674bfa88588a519d084da4&csf=1&web=1&e=jFJaaF


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


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


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


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


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.


412624 | June 2020

Figure 8.1: Relationship between WRSE and WRMP environmental appraisal processes


412624 | June 2020

A. Environmental Datasets


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


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


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


Fauna

Biodiversity: Non-Statutory Designations 500m search area

Ancient Woodland Natural England Ancient Woodland

Local Wildlife Sites Local Authorities

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/networks/find-sites


412624 | June 2020

SEA Directive Topic


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


412624 | June 2020

SEA Directive Topic


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


412624 | June 2020

SEA Directive Topic


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


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 - 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


412624 | June 2020

SEA Directive Topic


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)


412624 | June 2020

SEA Directive Topic


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


412624 | June 2020

SEA Directive Topic


- 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

https://ukclimateprojections-ui.metoffice.gov.uk/products


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


designated sites,


features.

Within 100m to 2000m of

an AQMA (potential for






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,


features.


a SAC (potential for






Over 5000m from a SAC (low





Special

protection

area (SPA)

Less than 400m from

SPA (likely significant


adverse effects on

linkages to

designated sites,


features.


a SPA (potential for






Over 5000m from a SPA (low





RAMSAR Less than 400m from

RAMSAR (likely

significant effect)



designated sites,


features.


a RAMSAR (potential for






Over 5000m from a RAMSAR

(low potential for significant

effect). No adverse effects on


and/or their qualifying features.

Sites of

special

scientific

interest

(SSSI)

Less than 500m or

encroaching upon

from SSSI (likely

significant effect)



designated sites,

and/or thei qualifying

features.


a SSSI (potential for






Over 2000m from a SSSI (low






412624 | June 2020


Non

statutory

designated

sites

Ancient

Woodland

Less than 500m or

encroaching upon

Ancient Woodland

(likely significant


adverse effects on

linkages to

designated sites,


features.


a Ancient Woodland

(potential for significant

effect) and/or





Over 2000m from a Ancient

Woodland (low potential for

significant effect). No adverse

effects on linkages to designated


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


County

Wildlife Sites

(CWS)

Adjacent to or

encroaching upon

CWS (likely

significant effect)



designated sites,

and/or thei qualifying

features.

Less than 400m of a CWS

(potential for significant

effect) and/or





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


Historic

Environment

Statutory

designated

sites

Listed

buildings

Less than 500m

(likely significant


adverse effects on

linkages to

designated sites,


features.

Not Applicable Over 500m (low potential for




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)



designated sites,


features.

Not Applicable Not Applicable


412624 | June 2020


Geology

and soils

Agriculture

land

classification

Within Grade 1 or 2

land classification

(likely significant


adverse effects on

linkages to sites,


features

Within Grade 3 land

classification (potential for






Within other or unclassified land

(low potential for significant

effect). No adverse effects on


and/or their qualifying features.

Landfill sites TBC TBC TBC

SSSI

(geodiversity)

Less than 500m or

encroaching upon

(likely significant


adverse effects on

linkages to

designated sites,


features.


SSSI (potential for






Over 2000m from a SSSI (low





AONB less than 3000m

(likely significant


adverse effects on

linkages to

designated sites,


features.


Water Groundwater Groundwater

source

protection

zones

Within Zone 1 (likely

significant effect)



designated sites,


features.

Within Zone 2 (potential

for significant effect)

and/or moderate/minor

adverse effects on

linkages to designated

sites, and/or their


Within Zone 3 (low potential for




features.

Nitrate

Vulnerable

Zone

Within a Nitrate

Vulnerable Zone

(likely significant


adverse effects on

linkages to

designated sites,


features.

Not Applicable Outside a Nitrate Vulnerable

Zone (low potential for




features.

Surface

water

Flood risk

zones

Within Flood Risk

Zone 3 (likely

significant effect)



designated sites,


features.

Within Flood Risk Zone 2

or 2/3 (potential for






Within Flood Risk Zone 1 (low





Tourism and

recreation

Strategic

Tourist

routes

Direct intersect or

disruption from routes

(likely significant

effect).



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.


412624 | June 2020

SEA Objective Datasets/Key Themes Effect Description


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


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


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


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


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


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.



412624 | June 2020


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.


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.


412624 | June 2020


● 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


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


412624 | June 2020


-- 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


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


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


-

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.


412624 | June 2020


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.


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


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


--

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



412624 | June 2020


---

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



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;


412624 | June 2020


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.


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.


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.



412624 | June 2020


with a yield of <5 Ml/d.

+ Minor Positive


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


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