TAG Unit 2.11: Strategic Environmental Assessment for Transport Plans and Programmes

December 2004

Return to: Index page

Appendices

Appendix 1: Glossary
Appendix 2: The application of SEA to LTPs
Appendix 3: Avoiding duplication in SEA "tiering"
Appendix 4: Environmental baseline
Appendix 5: Cumulative effects assessment
Appendix 6: Dealing with uncertainty
Appendix 7: Quality assurance
Appendix 8: Monitoring

These have also been made available in Adobe Acrobat format for downloading:

• Appendices (Adobe Acrobat - 394kb)

Appendix 1: Glossary

Alternatives: These are different ways of achieving the objectives. Alternatives are also referred to as options. "Alternative" is the term used in this guidance.

Consultation Bodies: Organisations with a particular status for involvement in the SEA under the Regulations. In England these are the Countryside Agency, English Heritage, English Nature, and the Environment Agency.

Cumulative effects: The effects that result from changes caused by a project, plan, programme or policy in association with other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future plans and actions. Cumulative effects are specifically noted in the SEA Directive in order to emphasize the need for broad and comprehensive information regarding the effects.

Environmental appraisal: A form of environmental analysis used in the UK (primarily for development plans but also some Local Transport Plans) since the early 1990s; more recently superseded by sustainability appraisal. Some aspects of environmental appraisal foreshadow the requirements of the SEA Directive.

Environmental assessment: A tool for integrating environmental considerations into decision-making by assessing the significant environmental effects. In the SEA Directive, an environmental assessment means "the preparation of an Environmental Report, the carrying out of consultations, the taking into account of the Environmental Report and the results of the consultations in decision-making and the provision of information on the decision", in accordance with the Directive's requirements.

Environmental Report: Document required by the SEA Directive as part of an environmental assessment, which identifies, describes and evaluates the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing a plan or programme.

Indicator: A means by which change in a system or to an objective can be measured.

Local Transport Plan: Local Transport Plans (LTPs) provide 5-year integrated transport strategies, devised at local level in partnership with the community.

Measure: An individual action to deliver the objectives of the plan. The term measure is used in this guidance to encompass a wide range of actions including projects, schemes, demand management, traffic management and policy proposals.

Mitigation: Used in this guidance to refer to measures to avoid, reduce or offset significant adverse effects on the environment.

Monitoring: Activities undertaken after the decision is made to adopt the plan or programme to examine its implementation. For example, monitoring to examine whether the significant environmental effects occur as predicted or to establish whether mitigation measures are implemented.

New Approach to Appraisal (NATA): see Box 2.1.

Objective: A statement of what is intended, specifying the desired direction of change.

Options: See alternatives.

Project: An measure involving development such as new infrastructure. Some transport projects require an Environmental Impact Assessment in accordance with Directive 85/337/EC (as amended). Also known as a scheme.

Regional Transport Strategy: The Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) is prepared as part of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (previously Regional Planning Guidance). The RTS provides a regional and sub-regional context for the preparation of Local Transport Plans.

Responsible Authority: Under the SEA Regulations, the authority by which or on whose behalf the plan is prepared, or its successor.

Scheme: See project.

Scoping: The process of deciding the scope and level of detail of the SEA. This also includes defining the environmental effects and alternatives that need to be considered, the assessment methods to be used, the structure and contents of the Environmental Report.

Screening: The process of deciding whether a plan or programme requires SEA: see Figure 1.1.

Secondary effects: Effects which are attributable to the plan but which may not be obvious or direct. Secondary effects are specifically noted in the SEA Directive in order to emphasize the need for broad and comprehensive information regarding the effects.

Synergistic effects: A type of cumulative effect where two or more impacts combine to produce a complex interaction where the effect may be larger or smaller that component impacts. Synergistic effects are specifically noted in the SEA Directive in order to emphasize the need for broad and comprehensive information regarding the effects.

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA): A term used internationally to describe environmental assessment as applied to policies, plans and programmes. In this guidance, "SEA" is used to refer to the type of environmental assessment required under the SEA Directive.

SEA Regulations: The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (Statutory Instrument 2004 no.1633).

SEA Directive: Directive 2001/42/EC "on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment".

Sustainability appraisal: A form of assessment used in the UK (primarily for Regional Planning Guidance and development plans) since the late 1990s. Sustainability appraisal considers social and economic effects as well as environmental effects. Sustainability appraisal has tended to be less detailed and more qualitative than many forms of environmental assessment.

Target: A specified desired end, stated usually within a specified time-scale.

Tiering: The linking of assessments for policies, plans, programmes and projects to achieve a logical hierarchy and avoid unnecessary duplication of assessment work.

Appendix 2: The application of SEA to LTPs

SEA of LTPs - Background

This appendix provides supplementary advice for applying this SEA guidance to a specific type of transport plan/programme - the Local Transport Plan (LTP). The appendix should be read alongside the other parts of this SEA guidance document as well as Full Guidance on Local Transport Plans - Second Edition (DfT, 2004).

LTPs provide a 5 year integrated transport strategy and include:

• local objectives consistent with government's overarching objectives for transport;
• an analysis of problems and opportunities;
• a coherent, integrated strategy to tackle the problems and deliver the LTP objectives;
• a 5-year implementation programme of schemes and policy measures;
• targets, performance indicators and other outputs which can be used to assess whether the plan is delivering its objectives.

As a result of consultation on the LTP guidance complete new LTPs are required by 31 March 2006 rather than the end of July 2005. Draft plans will be submitted in July 2005 but the DfT will regard these as provisional. Authorities will then have the opportunity to produce revised and finalised LTPs for submission by the end of March 2006. The first round LTPs will remain in force until March 31 2006.

The DfT believes that in most cases an SEA statement, signalling completion of stages A-D of the SEA, will only be required for the final LTP in March 2006. Authorities may exercise some flexibility in when and how they carry out the SEA leading up to March 2006. However, to be effective the SEA process should be undertaken throughout the LTP2 planning process. The DfT is unable to offer legal advice to individual authorities on the application of the SEA Directive to their LTP development programme, or any potential legal risks, and recommends strongly that authorities take their own advice on these matters. Authorities will need to satisfy themselves that they have met the requirements of the SEA Directive.

The generic stages of transport planning, NATA and SEA outlined in Figure 2.1 of this guidance document are applicable to LTPs. The actual activities undertaken to develop an LTP will vary between authorities and in practice they will be carried out in an iterative rather than linear way.

The Local Transport Plan system aims to encourage high quality planning and effective delivery of local transport, and aims to provide a basis for tracking performance locally. In preparing LTPs, local authorities are to concentrate on four key themes:

• setting transport in a wider context;
• locally relevant targets;
• identifying the best value for money solutions;
• indicators and trajectories.

SEA can help to support other priorities and activities associated with a good LTP. Table A2.1 illustrates how this can be achieved.

Table A2.1: SEA's contribution to other elements of a good LTP

SEA of LTPs - specific advice for stage A: context, objectives and baseline

For a LTP, the selection of objectives and indicators will need to support:

• The objectives of the applicable Regional Transport Strategy;
• The Council's "sustainability appraisal" framework used for the SEA/sustainability appraisal of other plans such as the Local Development Framework;
• The shared priorities agreed between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Local Government Association in 2001. Assessment of councils' performance against these shared priorities will be a key part of the new Comprehensive Performance Assessment from 2005. Part of this framework will be used to assess how councils deal with the externalities of transport (including the effects of transport on pollution and the local environment). Therefore, it is important the SEA demonstrates the council's commitment to reducing the environmental impacts of transport; and
• Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets and core national indicators for transport.

This stage of the SEA of an LTP presents another opportunity regarding the "sharing" of baseline data collation and possibly other SEA activities with other plans and programmes within the authority's control. For these efficiencies to be realised, collaboration with other departments within the authority (e.g. land use planning, minerals planning, waste planning) is essential.

SEA of LTPs - specific advice for Stage B: scope and alternatives

The LTP preparation process places considerable emphasis on the identification and testing of alternatives. Good reporting of these alternatives and the reasons for their selection/rejection will be required as part of the SEA.

SEA of LTPs - specific advice for stage C: assessment and mitigation

As stated in Section 5.1 of this guidance "The final iteration should be at the level of the deliverable plan strategies and specific measures". Recognising an LTP's dual role as a strategic plan as well as a "bidding document", the prediction and assessment of significant effects should ultimately focus upon two components of the plan: the LTP strategies and costed 5 year programme of measures.

The prediction and assessment may be best conducted on a "bottom up" basis, concentrating on understanding the effects of the programme of measures in the first instance. These effects can then be set in the context of any wider effects of the long term strategies. It is recommended that the SEA prediction and assessment activities are conducted on two versions of the LTP - with and without the major schemes.

SEA of LTPs - specific advice for Stage D: consultation and reporting

LTPs will need to be subject to public consultation before they are submitted to DfT. A draft LTP must be accompanied by the full results of the Strategic Environmental Assessment, published in the form of an Environmental Report.

DfT will not prescribe when or how this consultation should be carried out. However, the public and statutory environmental bodies (the Environment Agency, English Nature, English Heritage and the Countryside Agency) will need to be given an early and effective opportunity to give comments on the LTP and Environmental Report before the LTP's submission. Feedback on how environmental considerations have been integrated into the LTP will also need to be provided to consultees in the form of a statement to accompany the final version of the Plan.

To satisfy the Directive, once the LTP has been finalised, authorities should prepare a statement explaining how they have taken the findings of the SEA into account. It is expected that authorities will publish the SEA statement at the time of submitting the full LTP by the end of March 2006.

These consultation requirements will be a key trigger for authorities to organise their plan-making timetable accordingly.

SEA of LTPs - specific advice for stage E: monitoring

Monitoring to meet the requirements of the SEA Directive should be linked to other LTP implementation and review activities. In particular, integration with the LTP Annual Progress Report process will provide an effective approach.

Appendix 3: Avoiding duplication in SEA "tiering"

The SEA Directive recognises that plans and programmes form part of a hierarchy and that care is needed to avoid duplication in conducting SEAs. Responding to this issue is also known as "tiering" of assessments.

In the case of transport planning in England, the hierarchy comprises:

• National transport policy;
• Regional Transport Strategies (developed within Regional Spatial Strategies);
• Local Transport Plans and mode-specific plans (e.g. by the Highways Agency);
• Individual transport projects (also referred to as schemes), some of which are accompanied by Environmental Impact Assessment under the provisions of Directive 85/337EC (as amended).

In addition to this hierarchy, at each tier there may be a range of component/feeder activities and interim steps. For example, Multi-Modal Studies and their accompanying appraisals may feed into some Regional Transport Strategies. In that case, some parts of the SEA process may need to be initiated for the Multi-Modal Study (e.g. consultation on alternatives) and then carried forward into the Regional Transport Strategy/ Regional Spatial Strategy SEA is finally brought together, possibly a considerable time later. Similarly, there may be a range of local studies initiated to support Local Transport Plans. This requires careful consideration on a case by case basis (see Chapter 3 of this guidance). Understanding tiering may also be assisted by following the principles in Table A3.1 below.

Table A3.1: Advice on avoiding duplication in applying SEA to transport plans

Appendix 4: Environmental baseline

The environmental baseline can be described in a variety of ways including:

• text (e.g. Box A4.1)
• matrices (e.g. Table A4.1)
• maps, for instance of the location of designated sites, landscape areas, floodplains, tranquil areas.

Table A4.2 lists some possible data sources of baseline data for SEA. The first table lists sources that cover multiple topics. The second table lists sources that focus on specific NATA/SEA topics. The tables do not claim to be comprehensive and further information is available from studies such as that carried out for South West Regional Assembly, 2002. Regional and county level monitoring sites are very useful sources of additional data. Authorities should also always assess the value of any data in relation to its needs.

A data set may not be appropriate for an authority's purpose; it may be unavailable at the right scale, out of date, unreliable, partial or biased. Where data are problematic, choices will need to be made on whether to avoid using it, make use of it with an explanation of its limitations, or collect further data to remove uncertainty. Data collection should focus on issues and scales relevant to the plan in question, to avoid the preparation of a generalised "State of the Environment" report.

Box A4.1 Example of text describing the environmental baseline

Table A4.1 Example of table summarising the environmental baseline

Table A4.2 Possible data sources (based on ODPM, 2003)

* Smallest scale of data available: National, Regional, Local.

Appendix 5: Cumulative effects assessment

The SEA Directive requires an analysis of "the likely significant effects on the environment... These effects should include secondary, cumulative, synergistic... effects" (Annex I). The aim of cumulative effects assessment is to identify, describe and evaluate cumulative (including synergistic) effects, and enable them to be avoided, minimised or enhanced as appropriate. This appendix explains what cumulative effects are, how they occur, and how they can be identified, assessed and mitigated.

Background

Cumulative effects are the total effects of multiple actions on a receptor, as shown in the example of Figure A5.1. A receptor could be a geographical area, ecosystem, species, or section of the population. An action could be the activities resulting from a plan or programme, or individual people's activities. It can have occurred in the past, or could occur in the future. Adverse cumulative effects generally arise when effects occur too often or too hard to allow the receptor to recover, for instance where badger populations die faster than they replace themselves.

Examples of past transport-related cumulative effects are habitat fragmentation and community severance. Cumulative effects can also be positive, for instance improved access to rural services. Table A5.1 shows examples of cumulative effects linked to the topics listed in the SEA Directive. Multiple types of effect can also affect the same receptor: for instance a community can be affected by noise and air pollution and severance from transport developments.

Cumulative effects can be:

• Additive: the simple sum of all the effects (e.g. new jobs in an area of high unemployment);
• Neutralising, where effects counteract each other to reduce the overall effect (e.g. a new road on the left bank or a river encroaches on the floodplain, but equivalent flood storage capacity is provided by another project on the right bank);
• Synergistic, where effects interact to produce a total effect greater than the sum of the individual effects (e.g. a new footpath that links two existing footpaths, allowing more recreational opportunities than those provided by three separate footpaths). Negative synergistic effects often happen as habitats and resources get close to capacity: for instance a wildlife habitat can become progressively fragmented with limited effects on a particular species until the last fragmentation makes the areas too small to support the species at all.

Figure A5.1. Example of how a cumulative effect is caused

Table A5.1. Examples of national level cumulative effects linked to SEA Directive topics

Cumulative effects are difficult to deal with on a project-by-project basis through environmental impact assessment. It is at the SEA level, and using a multi-agency approach, that they are most effectively addressed.

The focus of cumulative effects assessment is on receptors. Cumulative effects assessment asks whether the total effects on a given receptor of all actions, no matter who carries them out, form a significant impact. The test of significance of a cumulative effect is "can the receptor accommodate additional effects?". An understanding of the thresholds/capacities of the receptors to deal with effects is thus needed. For instance thresholds for assimilating greenhouse gas emissions are already being exceeded, whilst some landscapes might be able to accept considerable development without a degradation in their character.

Cumulative effects should be considered throughout the plan-making and SEA process, not at one stage. Cumulative effects on a given receptor are rarely aligned with political or administrative boundaries. Cumulative effects assessment must use the relevant receptor boundaries: ecological boundaries for natural systems, socio-cultural boundaries for human communities.

Carrying out cumulative effects assessment

Figure A5.2 shows how cumulative effects assessment can be integrated with SEA and transport plan making. Stages A to C are best carried out as part of the SEA scoping discussions early in plan-making, and concurrently so that they inform each other. All stages are best carried out in discussions with the other key organisations that contribute to the effect^[10].

A. Identify cumulative problems and opportunities. As part of the SEA's identification of environmental or sustainability problems, cumulative effects and/or receptors that are in decline and near their threshold should be identified. Thresholds are the level of stress below which populations, ecosystem functions or quality of life can be sustained. Thresholds may be identified based on existing guidance (e.g. PPSs on flooding and nature conservation); existing targets such as Biodiversity Action Plan targets; and capacity studies. In cases of high uncertainty, more rigorous targets should be applied until it has been proven that they can be relaxed.

Footnote:
10. Carrying out multi-organisation meetings would obviate the need for each organisation to consult all of the other organisations on each effect.

Figure A5.2. Links between cumulative effects assessment, SEA and decision-making
Letters in bold refer to subsequent text which focuses on key cumulative effects assessment stages.

The list of effects from Table A5.1 can be supplemented with an analysis of regional and local level cumulative problems and opportunities, including:

• sections of population (e.g. groups particularly affected by accidents, or with poor access to services)
• geographical areas (e.g. non-tranquil areas, areas of community severance)
• resources (e.g. air quality management areas, areas of soil contamination)
• ecosystems and species (e.g. heathland, stone curlews)

Many potential cumulative effects may be identified. Agreement between the main parties involved in the cumulative effects assessment will be needed about key effects to focus on. The results of Stages B and C should assist in this.

B. Establish baseline and trends for receptors. An understanding of the trends and current status of the receptors without the proposed transport plan is vital to predicting what their quality will be after the proposed plan is implemented. If a receptor is already degraded or recovering from a previous impact, then the effects of new plans may be more serious. The time period and area over which different receptors/effects are analysed will vary from receptor to receptor. For instance climate change issues will be international and span decades, whilst community severance is more local and potentially short term. Table A5.2 gives an example of how the baseline could be documented. The focus of the baseline should be on outcomes (how the receptor will be affected) rather than inputs (what is affecting them or how the effects are already being mitigated).

Table A5.2. Possible way of organising and presenting baseline data (example)

C. Identify other actions affecting receptors. For each effect/receptors identified in A., the role of other actions in leading to or solving the problem should be identified and described. This could include a discussion of how the cumulative effect has arisen over time. Techniques for doing this include:

• Causal network analysis (e.g. Figure A5.1);
• The last column of Table A5.3 can help to brainstorm plans that affect each receptor;
• Trend analysis or other predictions (e.g. about future traffic levels).

The analysis should consider the likelihood and timing/phasing of future actions: for instance whether one action depends on another one being completed first. Some actions may be more influential than others: this should be noted.

Table A5.3. Possible way of describing actions affecting receptors

D. Identify, assess and mitigate significant adverse cumulative effects. The cumulative effect on each receptor of other actions with and without the transport plan should then be predicted and assessed. During the prediction stage - which identifies the magnitude of the effect, i.e. the difference between the with- and without-transport plan scenarios - the following points should be kept in mind:

• The type of plan and receptor will determine whether the prediction should be qualitative (e.g. "better/worse") or quantitative. Table A5.4 lists some techniques for identifying and forecasting cumulative effects.
• The forecasts should indicate the level of, and reasons for, any uncertainties. Uncertainty increases at the higher planning levels because scales are broader and issues are larger. The magnitude of cumulative effects may depend on how the plan is implemented, e.g. whether new transport infrastructure is located on a site of high or low biodiversity. This should be documented, and measures to ensure that implementation minimises any negative effects should be identified.

Table A5.4. Techniques for identifying and predicting cumulative effects

The evaluation stage - which determines the significance of the cumulative effect - should focus on testing the forecasted effects against the threshold/capacity of the receptor where this exists (see Stage A). Where no targets exist, one can ask "can the population, ecosystem function, person's quality of life etc. be maintained indefinitely under this plan?". This is different from the main SEA process, which generally tests against environmental or sustainability objectives.

Significant cumulative effects should be used to screen out unacceptable plan alternatives and trigger the consideration of mitigation measures in Stage E.

Table A5.5. Cumulative effects of plan sub-components on receptors
(cumulative effects are read "down" as shown by the arrow)

Action	Effects / receptors
	Fragmentation of low-land heath in area Y	Climate change		Access to open space in area X
Improved rural bus services	0	0		++
Park & Ride at X	- on site of high biodiversity in area Y	? reduces city centre traffic but could increase traffic to P&R		0
Cycle network	0	+ helps switch away from car use		+
Cumulative effects: 1+2+3	-	+		+

Where appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive is required, additional requirements apply: these are discussed in English Nature et al. (2004) SEA and Biodiversity: Guidance for Practitioners.

E. Propose mitigation measures. Mitigation measures should aim to first avoid loss or damage to the receptor and enhance it where possible; and then compensate for any unavoidable damage. For most cumulative effects, it will be impossible to precisely allocate responsibility among plan-makers regarding either the effects they "cause", appropriate mitigation measures, or reasonable mitigation costs. Generally mitigation within the authority's (not just the transport plan's) remit should be carried out where possible. This could include measures to achieve Biodiversity Action Plan targets; planning obligations regarding e.g. provision of open space or rural services; and establishment of a "mitigation bank" which requires developers to compensate for loss or damage to a habitat by providing equivalent replacement habitat. If the plan is likely to adversely affect the integrity of a Natura 2000 site, additional requirements apply: these are again discussed in the English Nature et al. (2004) guidance.

Some mitigation measures may only be capable of being delivered by parties other than the transport planning authority. Where mitigation cannot be carried out within the authority, then suitable mitigation should be discussed with those organisations that have the remit to do so, possibly in multi-agency meetings. Any remaining significant effects should be communicated to the relevant regional authority.

Appendix 6: Dealing with uncertainty

Appendix 6 has been made available in Adobe Acrobat format for downloading:

• Appendix 6 (Adobe Acrobat - 194kb)

Appendix 7: Quality Assurance

Managing SEA Quality - Key Issues

The quality of the SEA process should be assured through a range of management actions. These include the choice of a good SEA team, the collection of appropriate data, the use of effective prediction techniques, consultation, and integration of the SEA findings into the wider NATA appraisal and the plan itself. Key issues which have a particular bearing on the quality of SEA of transport plans include:

1. Problem definition and the involvement of wide stakeholder interests: The NATA and SEA processes both place emphasis on the consideration of "problems" including transport and environmental problems. This involves appropriate effort in the early stage of plan formulation, through the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders. Undertaken effectively, this process can pay dividends in terms of the ultimate value of the SEA and wider appraisal of the plan.

2. Input data quality: Prediction and assessment methods used within SEA will often be reliant upon data from transport models and other planning and appraisal tools. Such input data will always have limitations and there may be inappropriate as well as appropriate uses of it in relation to conducting environmental assessments at the plan level.

3. Assessing and managing uncertainty: At the plan level, predictions and assessments will necessarily be uncertain due to a range of factors associated with the "without the plan" scenario as well as the nature and effects of the plan strategy and measures. A good quality SEA will embrace uncertainty - demonstrating a transparent approach to identifying it and a practical approach to managing it. Appendix 6 discusses how uncertainty can be dealt with in SEA.

SEA Quality Assurance Checklist

The remainder of this Appendix provides an indicative quality assurance checklist (Table A6.1). The checklist is intended to help test whether the requirements of the SEA Directive are met, identify any problems in the Environmental Report, and show how effectively the SEA has integrated environmental considerations into the NATA appraisal and plan-making process.

The checklist is designed to be used by anyone involved in an SEA in any capacity: authorities who carry out SEAs, the organisations which they consult, inspectors, auditors, independent experts, and any interested or affected members of the public. It covers both the technical elements of the SEA and the procedural steps of the SEA process under the Directive and. It can be applied at any stage of the SEA to check the quality of work carried out up to that point.

Table A7.1: Quality assurance checklist for transport plan SEA

Appendix 8: Monitoring

The purpose of monitoring

Monitoring can be described as the systematic measurement of a parameter in terms of magnitude, time and space. Monitoring is not limited to quantitative or technological measurements, and may include qualitative issues such as severance or landscape quality.

Monitoring needs to have a pre-defined purpose. There is little value in measuring environmental parameters just for the sake of it. There also needs to be a framework or mechanism that enables monitoring to instigate amendments or remedial action as required.

The purpose of monitoring is to measure the environmental outcome of a plan (e.g. improvements in accessibility), the performance of a plan against pre-defined environmental objectives or targets, or input (e.g. improved public transport facilities).

Monitoring can be used to answer questions such as:

• Is the plan contributing to the desired environmental objectives and targets?
• Is the plan performing as well as expected?
• Are (mitigating) measures performing as well as expected?
• Are there any undesirable environmental effects? Are these within acceptable limits, or is remedial action required?
• Are the environmental impact predictions of the assessment accurate?

Effective monitoring can contribute to:

1. Managing uncertainty

• Checking and adjusting plan implementation.
• Identifying and managing unanticipated impacts.
• Testing the accuracy of environmental impact predictions.

2. Improving knowledge

• Improving impact prediction methods and the quality of future Environmental Reports.
• Updating or filling gaps in existing environmental baseline information.
• Keeping track of changes in the environment.

3. Enhancing transparency and accountability

• Assisting in strengthening public involvement.
• Verifying information in the Environmental Report.

4. Managing environmental information

• Structuring information from various monitoring and evaluation activities.
• Presenting monitoring information in a format appropriate for its purpose.

Proposed monitoring framework

The SEA Directive does not specify that monitoring of significant environmental effects has to be done for each plan or programme individually. Monitoring may cover several plans or programmes as long as sufficient information about environmental effects is provided for the individual plans or programmes. There is in other words scope for e.g. authority-wide monitoring, providing this can be done in such a way that the requirements of the Directive are met.

The appropriate level at which to monitor depends on the type and scale of the transport plan or programme to be monitored. For example, monitoring the environmental impacts of a local transport plan for a small rural authority may be largely focussed on the localised effects of individual strategies or groups of projects, whereas the monitoring of a regional transport strategy or a large metropolitan LTP may be focussed more at the level of the whole transport plan or programme area.

A step-by-step guide for how to develop a monitoring system for transport plans and programmes is provided in stages 1 to 6 below.

1. What needs to be monitored?

The first issue to consider is exactly what needs to be monitored. Monitoring measures should be clear, practicable, and cost-effective. They must be clearly linked to the SEA process, for example:

• The objectives, targets and indicators that were developed for the SEA (see Section 3.3 of this guidance).
• Features of environmental baseline that will indicate the effects of the plan (see Section 3.4 of this guidance).
• The likely significant effects that were identified during the effects assessment (Section 5.3. of this guidance).
• The mitigation measures that were proposed to offset or reduce significant adverse effects (see Section 5.5 of this guidance).

Monitoring needs to be organised to focus on the entire transport plan/programme, where effects relate to the strategic objectives of the plan as a whole, including synergistic effects over and above the individual measures and over the lifespan of the plan.

It is not necessary to monitor everything or monitor an impact forever. Instead monitoring should focus upon:

• The significant environmental impacts that give rise to irreversible impacts upon environmental attributes of recognised value where monitoring seeks to identify trends in advance of such irreversible damage being caused.
• Significant impacts where considerable uncertainty has been evident in the SEA and where monitoring would enable preventative or mitigation measures to be taken.
• Impacts where a lack of information could constrain the decision making processes associated with the delivery of transport projects for example gathering of date over an extended timescale that would not be possible during an EIA.

2. What sort of information is required?

The type (e.g. quantitative or qualitative) and the level of detail of environmental monitoring information required will depend on the characteristics and level of detail of the plan and its forecast environmental effects.

• Wherever possible, it is preferable to measure outcome indicators (i.e. direct environmental effects).
• Any performance monitoring must be focussed on the environmental objectives, targets and indicators of the plan.
• In cases where it is difficult to establish the links between plan implementation and changes in the environment (i.e. cause and effect), it might be necessary to collect information on indirect factors such as implementation (e.g. progress of implementing a traffic reduction measure) or pressure factors/ input (e.g. emission levels). It might also be appropriate to undertake more 'general' monitoring of environmental change, which may involve measuring environmental effects or aspects of the environment that were not identified in the environmental assessment, or identifying changes in the environmental baseline. However, it is important to consider that the Directive requires the monitoring of significant environmental impacts, and that general monitoring (e.g. state-of-the environment reporting) might not be sufficient.

The monitoring of outcome indicators is however, fraught with technical difficulties in establishing causal links between the transport plan and the environmental conditions as many other factors may have a bearing upon the environmental conditions. Where outcomes are being monitored then the monitoring framework should be established in a way that seeks to take account of external factors and focus upon the links between the plan and the outcome.

Where the causal links between the plan output and the outcome are complex it may well be necessary to focus upon intermediate events, possibly to the extent that monitoring focuses upon outputs instead of outcomes. For example, it may be appropriate to ensure that the project delivery processes encapsulate the environmental issues identified in the SEA, leaving monitoring to ensure that the projects adopt satisfactory avoidance, mitigation, compensation or enhancement measures for that issue. The Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, Response (DPSIR) framework might be a useful way of identifying elements that can be monitored.

It should be recognised that some significant impacts that are being monitored may only become evident after extended timescales. Consequently, in some cases monitoring may extend over long periods while for other impacts a single observation may well be adequate.

3. What are the existing sources of monitoring information?

Many authorities undertake some form of environmental monitoring for transport plans. The monitoring is typically focussed on transport and traffic, and issues such as traffic flows, modal share, or public transport patronage. Some of these may have indirect impacts on the environment. However, the environmental monitoring that is undertaken for transport plans tends generally to be determined by what is required by regulations and legislation (e.g. the statutory requirement for assessment and review of local air quality under the Environment Act 1995), rather than being specifically linked to significant environmental effects as required by the SEA Directive.

In the case of LTPs, for instance, the performance of the plan is monitored against pre-defined targets and indicators and reported to the DfT in the form of an annual progress report (APR). The monitoring undertaken for the APRs does not necessarily include environmental effects, unless the authority has developed for instance targets for local air quality, environmental performance indicators, or environmental best value indicators.

Wherever possible, use existing monitoring arrangements to obtain the required information identified in stage 2. Some of the existing information will be of direct relevance and use, such as local air quality data for a plan where air quality impacts are predicted to be significant. Other monitoring activities may provide data which require some degree of analysis or manipulation. Consider issues such as:

• What are the existing monitoring arrangements for the transport plan, and does this provide any of required information?
• What are the existing monitoring arrangements for other transportation policies/ plans/programmes/projects within the authority, and is there scope for disaggregating/aggregating data to obtain any of the required information?
• What are the existing monitoring arrangements within the authority for non-transport issues, and do they provide any of the required information (e.g. monitoring according to the provisions of other UK and EU legislation)?
• Is any of the required information available from other sources, e.g. neighbouring authorities or data sources used for establishing the environmental baseline?
• Does there information exist that might help to identify environmental change and/ or trends?
• What organisational structures are needed to deliver the monitoring, and what institutional responses are required to manage adverse trends and outcomes?

4. Are there any gaps in the existing information, and how can these be filled?

Extensive primary data collection is neither feasible nor appropriate for this level of monitoring. There are other ways in which the required information can be obtained in a cost-effective and efficient way. For example:

• Develop environmental performance indicators for transport plans in order to incorporate environmental monitoring into existing performance monitoring programmes.
• Expand existing monitoring systems to include additional attributes.
• Where applicable, enter into agreements with neighbouring authorities to standardise monitoring methods and share information.

5. When would remedial action be required and what are the potential remedial actions?

The SEA Directive states that monitoring must enable appropriate remedial action to be taken. In order for this to be achieved, there must be a mechanism or framework in place to trigger remedial action to be taken if and when required.

• Determine criteria or thresholds for when remedial action is required (i.e. what are the conditions that would be regarded environmentally undesirable/ unacceptable).
• Identify potential remedial actions that could be taken if a significant environmental impact was identified (e.g. review aspects of the plan that are failing and make amendments, develop avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures, make amendments to plan implementation).

6. Who is responsible for the various monitoring activities, when should these be carried out, and what is the appropriate format for presenting the monitoring results?

• Determine time, frequency and geographical extent of monitoring (e.g. for performance monitoring this could develop out of the causal chain - e.g. be linked to timeframe for targets; and for effects monitoring whether the impact is short, medium or long-term).
• Determine how much the monitoring will cost and where to get the financial resources.
• Determine who is responsible for the different monitoring tasks, including the collection, processing and evaluation of environmental information.
• Establish the most appropriate format to present the monitoring information with regard to its purpose and the expertise of those who will have to act upon the information (e.g. information may have to be presented in a form accessible to non-environmental specialists).

The tables below are suggested formats for how to manage the monitoring process and document the monitoring data in a systematic and transparent manner.

Return to: Index page