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

Transcription

1 PUBLIC INQUIRY IN THE MATTER OF THE HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 AND THE ACQUISITION OF LAND ACT 1981 AND IN THE MATTER OF: THE M4 MOTORWAY (JUNCTION 23 (EAST OF MAGOR) TO WEST OF JUNCTION 29 (CASTLETON) AND CONNECTING ROADS) AND THE M48 MOTORWAY (JUNCTION 23 (EAST OF MAGOR) CONNECTING ROAD) AND THE LONDON TO FISHGUARD TRUNK ROAD (EAST OF MAGOR TO CASTLETON)) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER and- THE M4 MOTORWAY (JUNCTION 23 (EAST OF MAGOR) TO WEST OF JUNCTION 29 (CASTLETON) AND CONNECTING ROADS) AND THE M48 MOTORWAY (JUNCTION 23 (EAST OF MAGOR) CONNECTING ROAD) SCHEME and- THE M4 MOTORWAY (WEST OF MAGOR TO EAST OF CASTLETON) AND THE A48(M) MOTORWAY (WEST OF CASTLETON TO ST MELLONS) (VARIATION OF VARIOUS SCHEMES) SCHEME and- THE LONDON TO FISHGUARD TRUNK ROAD (EAST OF MAGOR TO CASTLETON) ORDER and- THE M4 MOTORWAY (JUNCTION 23 (EAST OF MAGOR) TO WEST OF JUNCTION 29 (CASTLETON) AND CONNECTING ROADS) AND THE M48 MOTORWAY (JUNCTION 23 (EAST OF MAGOR) CONNECTING ROAD) AND THE LONDON TO FISHGUARD TRUNK ROAD (EAST OF MAGOR TO CASTLETON) (SIDE ROADS) ORDER 201- PROOF OF EVIDENCE ON BATS OF JEAN MATTHEWS ON BEHALF OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES BODY FOR WALES Page 1 of 26

2 Contents 1. Introduction 2. Relevant Background 3. Site context 4. Issues 5. Alternatives 6. Conclusions 7. References Page 2 of 26

3 1. Introduction 1.1 I am Jean Elizabeth Matthews. I am the Mammal Ecologist (Bats and Riparian Mammals) in the Evidence Analysis Group of the Natural Resources Body for Wales (NRW). I am based at NRW s office in Bangor. I have held this position since April Prior to that, I was a Mammal Ecologist for the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) since March Prior to that I worked as Protected Species Advisor in North West Wales and Protected Species Advisor North Wales Region, CCW, starting in As Mammal Ecologist (Bats and Riparian Mammals) I undertake and commission mammalian research and survey projects, provide scientific advice and guidance within NRW and to external partners, and represent NRW at relevant Welsh and UK fora. I am responsible for mammalian conservation issues in Wales and represent Wales at UK mammalian fora and the UK at European fora. 1.3 I provide specialist advice to NRW operational staff on bat conservation in Wales. This includes advising on the impacts of development where bats are present, commenting on and contributing to high profile casework that affects bats, advising on licensing issues and developing survey and mitigation guidelines. I provide NRW input to UK guidance on bats including interpretation of legislation as it affects bats. 1.4 I represent NRW on the UK Bats Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Steering Group. I am a member of the Editorial Board for the Bat Survey Guidelines. I am the UK focal point for the Eurobats Advisory Committee and the Convenor of the Intersessional Working Groups (IWGs) on the Impact on Bats of Roads and Other Traffic Infrastructure. I was a member of the Steering Group set up to oversee the Defra Research project to develop a cost-effective method for monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation for bats crossing linear transport Page 3 of 26

4 infrastructure. I attended a workshop on Bats and Road mitigation in February 2016 organised by the Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR). 1.5 I have a BA honours degree in Social Studies from Liverpool Polytechnic, a Certificate in Field Biology from the University of London (Birkbeck College) and MPhil for research into the red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris on Anglesey from the University of London (Queen Mary & Westfield College). I have been involved in bat conservation since 1986 and have held a licence to train volunteer bat workers since This statement has been prepared on the basis of evidence as presented in the Environmental Statement (ES) and additional information relating to bats within Appendix SS10.5 Draft Bat Mitigation Strategy' of the Second ES Supplement (ESS), December The statement relates to the impacts associated with severance caused by the scheme on bat fauna. I have had the opportunity to consider the evidence in the Richard Green s Proof of evidence 1 and where appropriate have provided NRW s response. 1.7 The ES (Section and ) concludes that, taking into account the potential risk of vehicle collision for some species and the long term disruption to the movement of all bat species in particular those bat species unlikely to cross the new section of motorway, the magnitude of construction and operation residual impacts on bats, with mitigation, is assessed as moderate adverse and the significance of effects as moderate and that in EIA terms this would be significant. The ESS (Section ) confirms that the assessment of significance of effects remains as set out in the March 2016 ES. 1 Proof of Evidence Richard Green Ecology: Bats, WG Document Reference: WG Page 4 of 26

5 1.8 It is NRW s view that the evidence presented in ES does not demonstrate that the above mentioned impacts will be mitigated. At present, NRW considers that the ES and additional information does not adequately demonstrate that the crossing point mitigation measures put forward are likely to function effectively for the range of species present. Based on the available information, NRW cannot conclude that the mitigation needed to prevent detrimental impacts to bat populations (from fragmentation effects and mortality impacts) can be delivered by the scheme proposals. 2. Relevant Background 2.1 Relevant legislation All British bat species are European Protected Species under European Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (as amended) ( the Habitats Directive ). The main aim of the Habitats Directive is to promote the maintenance of biodiversity and Member States are required to take measures to ensure the restoration or maintenance of natural habitats and species of Community interest at a favourable conservation status ( FCS ). Member States are also required to introduce measures to ensure protection of those habitats and species The Habitats Directive is transposed into UK law by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) ( the Habitats Regulations ). Bats are European Protected Species by regulation 40 of and Schedule 2 to the Habitats Regulations Regulation 41 of the Habitats Regulations states: Page 5 of 26

6 (1) A person who (a) deliberately captures, injures or kills any wild animal of a European protected species, (b) deliberately disturbs wild animals of any such species, (c) deliberately takes or destroys the eggs of such an animal, or (d) damages or destroys a breeding site or resting place of such an animal, is guilty of an offence. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), disturbance of animals includes in particular any disturbance which is likely (a) to impair their ability (i) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young, or (ii) in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or (b) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong Under regulation 53 of the Habitats Regulations, a derogation from the above provisions of regulation 41 (in the form of a licence) may be granted for specific purposes and subject to criteria stated in regulation 53(9): (9) The relevant licensing body must not grant a licence under this regulation unless they are satisfied (a) that there is no satisfactory alternative; and (b) that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range Regulation 9 (1) of the Habitats Regulations states that the appropriate authority must exercise its functions under the enactments relating to nature conservation so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the Habitats Directive. Page 6 of 26

7 2.1.6 Planning Policy Wales (PPW) (Nov 2016); gives the context for the consideration of protected species in the planning system in Wales; Section states The presence of a species protected under European or UK legislation is a material consideration when a local planning authority is considering a development proposal which, if carried out, would be likely to result in disturbance or harm to the species or its habitat Section 3 of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 ( the 2015 Act ) creates a well-being duty by which public bodies, including the Welsh Ministers, must carry out sustainable development. 2 The 2015 Act provides this must include setting and publishing well-being objectives designed to maximise its contribution to achieving each of the well-being goals and taking all reasonable steps (in exercising its functions) to meet those objectives In the 2015 Act, sustainable development means the process of improving the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales by taking action, in accordance with the sustainable development principle [ ] aimed at achieving the well-being goals Section 4 of the 2015 Act sets out well-being goals amongst which is A resilient Wales, which is defined in the 2015 Act as: A nation which maintains and enhances a biodiverse natural environment with healthy functioning ecosystems that support social, economic and ecological resilience and the capacity to adapt to change (for example climate change) Further, Section 6 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 ( the 2016 Act ), places a biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems duty on public authorities Act, section 3(1) Act, section 3(2) Act, Section 2 Page 7 of 26

8 exercising functions in Wales. Under Section 6 of the 2016 Act, a public authority must seek to maintain and enhance biodiversity in the exercise of functions in relation to Wales, and in so doing promote the resilience of ecosystems, so far as consistent with the proper exercise of those functions In the 2016 Act, biodiversity is defined as the diversity of living organisms, whether at the genetic, species or ecosystem level. 5 The 2016 Act specifies certain matters relating to the resilience of ecosystems which public authorities must take into account in complying with its duty under section 6: a public authority must take account of the resilience of ecosystems, in particular the following aspects (a) (b) (c) diversity between and within ecosystems; the connections between and within ecosystems; the scale of ecosystems; (d) the condition of ecosystems (including their structure and functioning); (e) the adaptability of ecosystems In the exercise of their functions, the Welsh Ministers have a further, separate duty, under Section 7 of the 2016 Act, to take all reasonable steps to maintain and enhance the living organisms and types of habitat included in any list published under this section Common pipistrelle bat, soprano pipistrelle bat, brown long eared bat, noctule bat, greater horseshoe bat, lesser horseshoe bat and Bechstein s bat are included in the Section 7 list of priority species and habitats in the Environment (Wales) Act Section Page 8 of 26

9 2.2 Introduction to bats and bat ecology All British bat species are European Protected Species (EPS) (see 2.1 above), given protection following significant population declines from the mid-20th century onwards, primarily due to loss of habitat, changes in food (prey) availability and direct mortality (e.g. through the use of toxic insecticidal products and direct persecution) There are 17 species of bat known to breed in Great Britain Bats vary in their roosting requirements. Some species are reliant on manmade structures (e.g. buildings, bridges); others are more reliant on trees. Roost (a term used to cover bat breeding sites and resting places) types and locations can vary seasonally across the year Females need roosting locations with warm, stable temperatures during May to August to give birth to and to raise a single pup. The size of such maternity colonies varies by species from tens of females up to several hundred. Some remain in the same roost for weeks or months, whilst others (particularly tree roosting species) may move roosts every 2 or 3 days. In winter, roosts with cool stable temperatures are sought, but again the conditions required vary by species Bats show fidelity to roosting sites returning to the same maternity roost or hibernation site year after year. Should traditional and preferred roost sites not be available, animals may be forced to use less suitable roost sites with consequent impacts on breeding success All British bat species eat only insects, which are caught in flight or, for some species, gleaned from leaves. Semi-natural habitats, particularly lowland Page 9 of 26

10 riparian and woodland areas support the greatest diversity and abundance of both insect prey and bat species Bat species may be grouped together based on different characteristics related to their flight patterns and their use of habitats (Table 3.4, Collins, ). Some species, including Myotis spp (such as daubenton s bat or natterers bat), Plecotus spp (long-eared bats), Rhinolophus spp (horseshoe bats), and barbastelle bat tend to fly close to vegetation, avoid lit areas, avoid crossing open areas, or do so at a low height and in low light levels. They often follow linear features such as hedgerows and ditches when commuting between roosting sites and foraging areas. Other species, such as Pipistrellus spp (pipistrelle bats) use edge habitats but will also fly in the open (especially P. nathusii). Other species, such as Nyctalus spp and Eptesicus forage out in open habitats. It is essential to consider these species specific characteristics when considering the impact of road schemes on different bat species and the suitability of measures to mitigate the impacts (Berthinussen and Altringham, 2015 Main Report and Appendix A) A wide range of suitable roosting locations, foraging sites and well-connected habitat is needed to maintain the conservation status of bat species. 2.3 Bats in Wales species of bat have been confirmed as present in Wales, 12 of those species have been confirmed as breeding in Wales. 7 Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn.) 8 Berthinussen and Altringham JD (2015) Development of a cost-effective method for monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation for bats crossing linear transport infrastructure Page 10 of 26

11 2.3.2 Species breeding are: common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus, noctule Nyctalus noctula serotine Eptesicus serotinus, Daubenton s bat Myotis daubentonii, whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus, Brandt s bat Myotis brandtii, natterer s bat Myotis nattereri, barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros The three other species that are present in Wales are recorded as breeding in England, but their breeding status in Wales in uncertain: leisler s bat Nyctalus leisleri bechstein s bat Myotis bechsteinii nathusius pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii. Page 11 of 26

12 2.3.4 NRW notes that the WG bat proof refers to 16 bat species in Wales. There is limited evidence for the presence of grey long eared bat in Wales and as a result we have omitted it from the above list Of the 15 bat species recorded in Wales, most have a widespread distribution, though only the common and soprano pipistrelle are considered to be common species. There is generally a greater diversity of bat species and abundance of animals in the south of the country Some species have a restricted distribution (e.g. greater horseshoe bats, serotine, barbastelle) with few known breeding roosts. Lesser horseshoe bats are more numerous and more widely distributed than these though absent from much of Wales. Populations of most bat species that are monitored in the UK are now considered to be stable or increasing. However recent increases should be seen in the context of large scale historic declines of the 20 th century and bats remain vulnerable to continuing loss or degradation of habitat and of roost sites Many species of bat are difficult to identify to species level using sound analysis software. Thus the bat survey results in the ES are not always identified to an individual species level. As a result, the term Myotis spp. Is often used both in this statement and the ES to collectively refer to some of the species listed separately in and above. 2.4 Bats and roads Roads have been shown to have a negative impact on bat abundance and diversity (Berthinussen and Altringham, 2015) with fewer bats of fewer species up to 1.6km distance from the road The construction of new roads can affect bats through: Page 12 of 26

13 direct mortality as a result of collisions with road traffic loss of roost sites and foraging habitat a reduction in the quality of the remaining habitat and barrier effects making some species reluctant to travel to previously used roosts and foraging areas. (Fensome et al 2016) Compared to other British mammals of their size, bats are unusual in several respects. They are comparatively long lived, but have low reproductive rates (typically one pup per year) which means that populations may recover slowly, if at all, from losses. They have comparatively large home ranges and undertake at least short distance migrations between summer and winter roosts. Together these factors make bats more vulnerable to impacts resulting from road construction schemes. Bat species with low numbers and patchy distribution are considered to be susceptible to local extinctions (Fensome et al 2016). 2.5 Best practice guidance for bats and roads The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) (one of NRW s predecessor bodies) was involved in commissioning and managing a Defra research project for the Development of a cost effective method for monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation for bats crossing linear transport infrastructure. This followed specific concerns by the Statutory Nature Conservation Organisations and country highways agencies about a) the lack of evidence as to which if any mitigation measures may reduce impact of roads on bats and b) the need for standardised surveying, monitoring and reporting which would allow the effectiveness of such measures to be properly assessed Section 7.2 of the resulting report (Berthinussen and Altringham, 2015) provides a number of Best practice principles for bat mitigation along linear Page 13 of 26

14 transport infrastructure. These were derived from the research project. The best practice principles include: Crossing structures should be placed on the exact locations of existing bat commuting routes Crossing structures should not require bats to alter flight height or direction Crossing structures should maintain connectivity with existing bat commuting routes Over-the-road structures such as green bridges should be planted with vegetation and should be of sufficient width (30m wide was found to be effective) Underpasses should be of sufficient height. The minimum requirements for underpass height will be species-specific. Required heights will generally be lower (3m) for woodland adapted species compared to the generalist edge adapted species (~6m). Crossing structures should be unlit The findings of Berthinussen and Altringham, 2015 are consistent with those reported across Europe as indicated in Elmeros et al, Bat mitigation measures on roads a guideline. 1 9 Elmeros M. et al Bat mitigation measures on roads a guideline ; CEDR Transnational Road Research Programme Call 2013: Roads and Wildlife Page 14 of 26

15 3 Site context 3.1 A number of surveys of the M4CaN corridor have been undertaken by the schemes ecologists for bats. Surveys have focussed on seeking to establish bat roost sites likely to be impacted by the scheme, alongside a suite of activity surveys seeking to establish wider bat use of the habitats in and alongside the scheme corridor for foraging and commuting. 3.2 Static bat detectors were deployed by the schemes ecologists to establish bat activity at a sample of locations across the scheme corridor. Bats were recorded throughout the scheme area; activity was greatest at locations near to the western end of the scheme and near to Tatton Farm and the diversity of species was consistently highest at the eastern end of the scheme around Llandevenny and Magor. 3.3 Of the 15 bat species known to occur in Wales, all except one (Bechstein s bat) were recorded on static bat detectors in bat surveys undertaken for the road scheme (ES Section ). The ES (Section ) assesses the route corridor to be of regional importance with regard to foraging and commuting behaviour by bats. 3.4 Richard Green s proof (Section 3.4.3) appears to seek to downplay the ES assessment of the corridor as being of regional value, citing the effects of species rarity on the evaluation. In our view, rarity is an important consideration. Loss of foraging habitat through severance and loss of even small numbers of rarer animals through mortality arising from vehicle collision can potentially be significant for populations of rarer species. 3.5 Richard Green s proof (Section 3.4.3) also suggests that habitats to the north of the existing road are of greater value to most bat species. It suggests that perhaps the scheme corridor is of county value to bats given the availability Page 15 of 26

16 of better habitat in the region. Whilst we would agree that there are important habitats for bats in the wider landscape, we do not agree that their presence should be used to downgrade the importance of the route corridor for bats, which confirmed significant bat activity and 14 of our 15 bat species. 3.6 The ES (Section and ) concludes that taking into account the potential risk of vehicle collision for some species and the long term disruption to the movement of all bat species in particular those bat species unlikely to cross the new section of motorway, the magnitude of construction and operation residual impacts with mitigation on bats is assessed as moderate adverse and the significance of effects as moderate and that in EIA terms this would be significant. The ESS (Section ) confirms that the assessment of significance of effects remains as set out in the March 2016 ES. 4 The Issues 4.1 NRW responded to the draft orders concerning the proposed M4 corridor around Newport in a letter of 4 May 2016 and the Second Environmental Supplement on 31 January, raising matters relating to the impacts on bats associated with severance caused by the scheme. 4.2 The statement relates to the impacts on bat species associated with severance of habitats and the barrier effects caused by the scheme. 4.3 Impacts on bat fauna associated with severance caused by the scheme The mosaic of habitats along the scheme corridor including wetland habitats such as that provided by the Gwent levels system are recognised as important foraging areas for many bat species in providing an abundant source of insect Page 16 of 26

17 prey (Section ) and this is reflected in the diversity and abundance of species found to be present The ES acknowledges (Section ) that the loss of habitat corridors along the construction corridor, such as hedgerows would have an impact on the movement of some bat species Furthermore, Appendix SS10.5 to the Second supplement Draft Bat Mitigation Strategy (MS) identifies that Construction works would result in the severance and loss of features of value to commuting (and foraging) bats along the full length of the M4CaN corridor (Section C.1.3) and that habitat severance caused by the road increases the likelihood of mortality through vehicle collision and can lead to severance and fragmentation of roosting and foraging areas to species that are sensitive to gaps in habitat connectivity. (Section C.4.1 and C.4.2) All bat species present in the study area are potentially at risk of mortality through collision with traffic. Collation of data from across Europe shows that all have been recorded as road casualties (Fensome et al 2016) 10. However, the species that prefer to avoid crossing open areas, such Myotis spp, Plecotus spp, Rhinolophus spp, barbastelle, are at greatest risk Myotis spp were frequently detected across the scheme area. Lesser horseshoe, Plecotus and Barbastelle were also recorded. Lesser horseshoe bats and Barbastelle are amongst our rarest species. Lesser horseshoe were recorded at 8 of 20 locations in 2014 and around Magor and LLandevenny in 10 Fensome, AG and Mathews F, Roads and bats: a meta analysis and review of the evidence on vehicle collisions and barrier effects, Mammal Review (2016) Page 17 of 26

18 2015. This species and Plecotus spp (long eared bats) are difficult to detect unless close to bat detectors. Lower numbers of Barbastelle were recorded. However, Barbastelle is very rare species with a restricted range and few roosts known for species in Wales Richard Green s proof (Section 3.1.5) suggests that in certain areas the relatively high levels of Myotis spp is probably due to existing roadside and railside woodland planting in those areas. NRW considers that there is no evidence to support this conclusion. In our view, the presence of a mosaic of habitats in these areas including the presence of watercourses providing rich food source for bats is an alternative likely reason for the relatively high levels of these species Bats were recorded by the schemes ecologists across the length of the scheme. NRW considers that there is a need to ensure the new road corridor is permeable to bats along its length and appropriate proposals for safe road crossing provision delivered specific to the range of bat species present. 4.4 Assessment of measures proposed to minimise barrier effects of the road; structures such as culverts, mammal crossings, and overbridges as mitigation features NRW is of the view that the severity of the severance impacts of the road on bats will depend on the ability of any proposed mitigation measures to: minimise the barrier effect of the scheme, which would otherwise restrict bat access to roosting sites and foraging habitat, and minimise mortality through collision with vehicles. Page 18 of 26

19 4.4.1 Bat species vary in the extent to which they cross open space and have different responses to mitigation structures, depending on their flight characteristics. Mitigation proposals therefore need to take account of this variation and ensure that the needs of the range of species present at any given scheme is adequately addressed The ES commits to providing road crossing points for bats. ES Section stated potential crossing points would be constructed which would enable bats to gain access to habitat either side of the route. Section also states The locations of culverts and mammal crossings have been selected with the results of bat activity surveys in mind, in particular they would be located as close as practicable to areas of high and very high bat activity, as well as within areas less well-used by bats The crossing points referred to in the ES are generally culverts required to take watercourses under the road, overbridges intended for traffic and underbridges generally intended for road or rail traffic. These are not specific measures designed or located to mitigate the impacts on bats The proposals to minimise the impacts of the road on the movement of bats as set out in the ES indicate that there is potential for some of the structures and design to mitigate for the impacts of the scheme. However, NRW consider that whether these function as effective crossing points depends whether full account is taken of the principles of designing mitigation measures specifically for the range of species which may use them. The ES does not currently give sufficient assurance that this is the case (see below) In particular, identifying which species each structure is intended to benefit, and tailoring the size and location placement of the structures and management of habitat features at the location accordingly. Evidence suggests that even when Page 19 of 26

20 such features are provided, they fail to work unless designed and located correctly (Berthinussen and Altringham, 2015) ES Section states that there is potential for some overbridges to act as safe crossing points for bats. One example (Halcrow) is cited in support. However, Berthinussen and Altringham (2015) consider that overbridges are unlikely to be used by bats unless they are of sufficient width and are vegetated. There are no proposals for vegetated structures in the ES. The ESS Bat MS acknowledges that the use of bridges by bats is less likely than the use of culverts and underpasses (Section D.3.31) Underpasses have been found to be more successful in allowing bats to cross safely, but with variable degrees of success, depending particularly on the placement of the underpass in relation to the bats habitual flight route and the dimensions of the underpass. Larger more open structures encourage use by more bats and a wider range of species (Berthinussen and Altringham, 2015) Specific mammal crossings are also proposed comprising 900mm pipes. NRW considers that these are unlikely to be of sufficient size to function effectively for most bat species Richard Green s proof (Section 3.4.3) states that a minimum 200 mm freeboard (headroom) would be provided in all reen culverts but acknowledges that this is not considered adequate for bats to fly through ES Table Crossing Points for Bats at Locations of High to Very High Level Bat Activity and for Rarer Bat Species identifies proposed features of the road including overbridges, underpasses and culverts that could act as bat crossing points. Table also sets out the amount of bat activity during surveys and an assessment of the value of individual locations to bat species groups. However, the table is not collated to form conclusions about the Page 20 of 26

21 expected effectiveness of the crossing features as mitigation either in preventing habitat fragmentation, or minimising the risk of mortality The sixth column of Table ( Description of crossing feature ) lists the bat species that are likely to use the mitigation crossing feature structure at each crossing point. However, for the majority of the structures it suggests that most species of bats are less likely to use the feature as mitigation to cross the road NRW considers therefore that the ES does not adequately demonstrate that the crossing points listed will function effectively for the species concerned Furthermore, the ES does not distinguish between the likelihood of bat use by individual bats and its likely effectiveness in mitigating impacts on populations Text within the Bat MS in the ESS introduces the potential to increase the size of culverts intended to function as bat crossing points, at various locations across the Wentlooge and Caldicot Levels. Sections D.3.31 and D.3.32 state that there is availability to increase the height of culverts under the road and that this would provide additional headroom above summer penning (water) levels and make the road more permeable to bats. It states that that this will be considered further at detailed design stage Some clarity is now given in Table of the Richard Green s proof on bats about potential headroom at each location specified in D.3.31 and D.3.32 above. However, this is subject to review during detailed design and available headroom will be dependent on topography (to be confirmed by survey) (Section Richard Green s proof). The Proof states A review would be undertaken during detailed design, once detailed topographical survey data is available, with a view to increasing culvert height and possibly width if necessary, within other constraints to encourage bats to fly through them, rather than crossing over the road. Page 21 of 26

22 Larger culverts with increased headroom would be welcome. However, considering this further at detailed design stage gives no certainty about what can be delivered. Furthermore Table of the ES has not been updated to demonstrate the effect of the proposals or to demonstrate that they will provide safe crossing points for the species concerned. Culverts form a key part of the current proposals to mitigate severance and barrier effects of the road on bats. Thus, NRW considers that clarity around what measures can be achieved together with an assessment of their likely effectiveness is important to demonstrate that solutions can be delivered which adequately mitigate the severance impacts for the range of bat species present NRW consider that in terms of the culverts mentioned in the D.3.31 and D.3.32 of the Bat MS and in Table of the Richard Green s bat proof, this information should be used to update Table to demonstrate the effect of these above proposed changes We consider that the table should also state what additional measures will be used to encourage bats to use the mitigation feature and discourage unsafe crossing NRW also consider that Table should be reviewed in the light of the evidence and recommendations from Berthinussen & Altringham and in the context of relevant species at each location, so that higher priority can be given to additional measures (such as increasing the size of underpasses, or planting overbridges) to increase the chances of mitigation being effective At present, NRW considers that the ES and additional information does not adequately demonstrate that the crossing point mitigation measures put forward are likely to function effectively for the range of species present. Based on the available information, the identified impacts will not be mitigated and there therefore remains a risk to bat populations. Page 22 of 26

23 4.5 Planting Section of the ES states Where practicable the detailed design of planting would take account of the need to guide bats into culverts, mammal crossings underpasses and/or overbridges. This introduces doubt as to what can be achieved. NRW is seeking confirmation that where planting is required to provide links to crossing provision, this will be delivered and timetabled as early as possible in the construction period. In addition it should be designed so as to have maximum benefit for safe road crossing, whilst discouraging crossings in places where structures are not provided. 5 Alternatives NRW has focused on assessing the impact of the proposal on the populations of bats. NRW has not, within the constraints of time and resources available, been able to undertake a comparable assessment for the blue route or any other alternatives. Consequently NRW advances no view in relation to alternatives to the proposed scheme. 6 Conclusions 6.1 The Welsh Government s ecological consultants have concluded that the magnitude of residual impacts of construction and operation of the M4CaN on bats, with mitigation, is assessed as moderate adverse and the significance of effects as moderate and that in EIA terms this would be significant. 6.2 NRW considers that the ES and additional information does not adequately demonstrate that the mitigation measures put forward are likely to function effectively for the range of species present. In the absence of a more detailed and definitive strategy for mitigating the impacts and taking into account the precautionary principle, NRW cannot conclude that the mitigation needed to Page 23 of 26

24 prevent detrimental impacts to bat populations (from fragmentation effects and mortality impacts) will be delivered by the scheme proposals. 6.3 The following issues in particular give rise to doubts as to whether the impacts can be effectively mitigated: o The design and placement of any mitigation structures to provide safe crossing points for bats need to take full account of the requirements of each species for which the measures are intended to benefit. Table of the ES indicates that few of the proposed structures are likely to be effective for the species affected. o Underpass structures need to be of sufficient size and sited along currently used flight paths. o Overbridges are unlikely to be used by bats to travel at safe height over the road unless they are of sufficient width and are vegetated. 6.4 It is therefore NRW s view that insufficient evidence has been provided to support the conclusion that there will be no detrimental impact to bats from the proposed M4 CaN. 6.5 Common pipistrelle bat, soprano pipistrelle bat, brown long eared bat, noctule bat, greater horseshoe bat, lesser horseshoe bat and Bechstein s bat are included in the interim list of priority species (organisms) for the purposes of section 7 of the 2016 Act. In NRW s opinion, the evidence presented, including the information provided in the ES, is not adequate to demonstrate that the proposals for the M4 CaN scheme (including mitigation) would constitute reasonable steps to enhance and maintain bat populations affected by the construction of the M4 Corridor around Newport scheme. Page 24 of 26

25 Declaration I confirm that the facts and matters referred to in this proof of evidence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. The opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinions on the matters to which they refer. Signed: Dated: Page 25 of 26

26 7 References 7.1 Berthinussen, A and Altringham, JD, Development of a cost-effective method for monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation for bats crossing linear transport infrastructure (2015). [NRW 6.1] Available (under WC1060 ) at Collins, J. (ed.), Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn.), The Bat Conservation Trust, London (2016) [NRW 6.2] Fensome, AG and Mathews F, Roads and bats: a meta analysis and review of the evidence on vehicle collisions and barrier effects, Mammal Review (2016) [NRW 6.3] 7.4 Elmeros M et al Bat mitigation measures on roads a guideline ; CEDR Transnational Road Research Programme Call 2013: Roads and Wildlife [NRW 6.4] 7.5 NRW letter to Welsh Government in response to publication of draft Orders, environmental statement and associated reporting, 4 May 2016 [NRW 2.7] 7.6 NRW letter to Welsh Government in response to publication of supplement to Environmental Statement, 18 October 2016 [NRW 2.8] 7.7 NRW letter to Welsh Government in response to publication of further supplement to Environmental Statement, 31 January 2017 [NRW 2.9] 7.8 Wales Biodiversity Partnership / Welsh Government, Interim section 7 list (Species) (Environment (Wales) Act 2016) [NRW 2.10] Page 26 of 26