Highways Agency

• 1. introduction
• 2. scheme proposals
• 3. engineering assessment
• 4. environmental assessment
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 5. traffic and economic assessment

4. environmental assessment (continued)

4. Environmental Assessment (continued)

4.6 Ecology and Nature Conservation

4.6.1 Introduction

This addendum describes the important ecological features as they relate to the Alternative Scheme (hereafter known as the Alternative Proposal). It identifies key issues associated with this option and describes the potential requirement for mitigation measures that should be included within the design proposals. Mitigation is taken into account in the assessment of the overall (residual) impact of each of this scheme option.

The assessment has been undertaken according to Stage 2 DMRB, using the TAG appraisal methodology. TAG provides specific advice on evaluating features of nature conservation interest, assessing the magnitude and significance of impacts and assigning an overall assessment score for an option.

This section provides a description of the method of assessment. The following sections provide:

• A description of the existing conditions;
• An evaluation of the known ecological features within the study area in terms of their nature conservation value;
• An identification of key ecological issues;
• Proposed mitigation measures in respect of adverse impacts;
• An assessment of the potential ecological impacts of the proposal, including habitat loss and fragmentation, disturbance and potential off-site impacts; and
• Identification of residual impacts taking account of proposed mitigation measures.

In the first instance, an information gathering exercise was undertaken with the following organisations:

• Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire & Peterborough Wildlife Trust;
• Cambridgeshire Badger & Otter Group;
• Cambridgeshire Bat Group;
• Cambridge Bird Club;
• Cambridgeshire Mammal Group;
• Centre for Ecology & Hydrology;
• English Nature (Bedfordshire & Cambridgeshire Team);
• English Nature Headquarters (Tony-Mitchell Jones, Mammals);
• Environment Agency; Grafham Water Wildlife Trust Reserve;
• Hawk & Owl Trust;
• Invertebrate Recorders for Cambridgeshire, where known (recorders for the following groups were contacted: Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Odonata, Lepidoptera, Diptera and Arachnida); and Local Farmers provided some information on badgers.

These consultees provided information on statutory and non-statutory designated sites and records of legally legally protected species within a corridor of 1 km either side of the proposed A14 route options.

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and was consulted in respect of species of national biodiversity concern. The Cambridgeshire Biodiversity Action Plan was consulted in respect of locally notable species and habitats.

A walk-over survey of the area was undertaken (August-October 2003), as far as permissions allowed, to allow the major land uses to be identified and to identify where further survey would be required.

The surveys broadly followed the 'Extended Phase 1' methodology as set out in Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment (Institute of Environmental Assessment 1995). The extended Phase 1 habitat survey provides information on the habitats in the survey area and assesses the potential for notable fauna to occur in or adjacent to the site. Plant names follow New Flora of the British Isles (2nd edition, Stace 1997). The habitats described below are illustrated (see Figures 11.1 to 11.6 in Volume 3 for the Phase 1 Habitat Survey) and refer to numbered Target Notes (Appendix 11-A, Volume 2). The survey corridor extended to 500m either side of the route options, except in the case of breeding birds, where survey effort was focussed within a 500m corridor of the offline section of the proposed route options.

Following the Phase 1 Habitat Survey, more detailed ecological surveys targeting specific species were conducted between March-July 2004, to assist in the elaboration of route options.

LEGALLY PROTECTED SPECIES

Refer to EAR.

4.6.2 Impact Terminolgy

The specialist reports on species (Appendices 11-C to 11-K in Volume 2) use an in-house impact methodology for assessing the significance of impacts. The significance of the predicted impacts in the main report, the TAG Worksheets and ASTs has been standardised using the TAG methodology with the terminology of the overall assessment score modified following the 'Bridging Document' Applying the Multi-modal New Approach to Appraisal to Highway Schemes (April 2001).

4.6.3 Existing Conditions

GENERAL BACKGROUND, DESIGNATED SITES AND HABITATS

Refer to EAR.

KEY SURVEY RESULTS

Refer to EAR.

4.6.4 Assessment of Alternative Proposal

The following section describes the Alternative Proposal and the existing ecological conditions as currently known.

The following section describes the Alternative Proposal and the existing ecological conditions as currently known.

Ellington to Godmanchester

Sub-section A - Ellington to A1 Brampton Interchange

This alignment curves south from the existing A14 at Ellington, passing through arable land close to the Brampton Hut services but follows the A1 corridor south of the existing road.

Some widening of the existing A1 would be required to overcome weaving and this would result in the loss of existing roadside vegetation.

Designated Sites and Notable Habitats

There are two nationally designated sites within 1 km of this section of the proposed route - Brampton Meadow SSSI and Brampton Wood SSSI.

There are no County Wildlife Sites (CWS) within 1 km of the boundary of this section of the proposed route.

This alignment has the advantage of utilising the existing A1 corridor and being located away from Brampton Wood SSSI (c. 1km distance). The Alternative Proposal largely involves arable land take with some loss of hedgerow and does not directly impact upon Lenton Fishing Lakes and their associated vegetation.

Legally Protected and Notable Species

Within this section of the route there is the following legally protected species interest:

Amphibians and Great Crested Newts: Common frog and common toad potentially present anywhere in suitable habitat (e.g. watercourses, field margins, hedge bottoms and gardens). There are 13 water bodies present within 500m of the route within this section. None of these waterbodies will be directly impacted by this route option. The desk study indicates that Great Crested Newts are recorded from two of these waterbodies. Seven of these waterbodies are recommended for Great Crested Newt presence/absence survey as part of the Stage 3 assessment (see Appendix 11-I, Volume 2 and Figures 11.12 to 11.16, Volume 3).

Badgers: Four active badger setts are located along this section of the route corridor (two within Brampton Wood). No direct impact upon any setts. The closest sett is within c.200m of proposed route. Based on observer experience, it is recommended that setts lying within 350m of the proposed route option are recommended for further survey work (see Appendix 11-C, Volume 2 and Figures 11.22 to 11.26, Volume 3).

Bats: The bridleway at approximately NGR 189,707 is c. 5m wide, grassed and bordered by dense hedgerows containing regularly spaced standards of semi-mature to mature ash and oak. Although the trees have low potential as roosts, the bridleway offers good commuting and foraging habitat. Two pipistrelle roosts are known from the western end of Brampton village (see Appendix 11-D, Volume 2 and Figures 11.17 to 11 21, Volume 3).

Birds: A total of 87 bird species were recorded within the route corridor (e.g within 500m of the proposed route options along proposed 'off-line section'). Within this section of the route, five red list species were considered probable breeders - skylark, linnet, house sparrow, reed bunting and yellowhammer. There were no Schedule 1 species recorded from this section (see Appendix 11-L, Volume 2 and Figures 11.27 to 11.31, Volume 3).

Common Otter: There are no otter records from this section of the route and with no major watercourses affected, it is unlikely there would be an impact on otters (see Appendix 11-G, Volume 2 and Figures 11.7 to 11.11, Volume 3).

Hazel Dormouse: Re-introduced population occurs within Brampton Wood. Population may utilise adjacent hedgerows for dispersal (see Appendix 11-H, Volume 2 and Figures 11.7 to 11.11, Volume 3).

Invertebrates: the proposed route passes within c. 1km of Brampton Wood SSSI. Large populations of the BAP butterfly species, black hairstreak, also listed on Schedule 5 of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act (for sale only) occur in Brampton Wood, as do several red data book species and the wood is one of the only sites in Britain for the micro-moth Ectoedemia amani. Brampton Wood is also of considerable importance for its beetle fauna, both locally and regionally, with 550 species of coleoptera recorded in the wood, of which five are Red Data Book species and a further 36 are classified as nationally notable. However, it is considered highly unlikely that there will be any indirect impacts on this site for invertebrates The Regionally Very Notable water beetle Anacaena bipustulata has been recorded from Ellington Brook at TL 194721 (see Appendix 11-J, Volume 2).

Reptiles: No reptiles were recorded, neither was there any desk study data. As landscape is predominantly arable, there is limited scope for reptiles, although the presence of hedgerows, scrub and ditches does offer habitat corridors (see Appendix 11-K, Volume 2).

Water Voles: There are no records of water voles or any predicted impacts upon water vole habitat in this section of the route (see Appendix 11-F, Volume 2).

White-clawed Crayfish: There are currently no known White-clawed crayfish within the study area, although a number of water bodies are potentially suitable for the species, with the only known existing population of White-clawed Crayfish in Cambridgeshire present in a farm reservoir in the Wendy area (Mungovan, in press) c. 20 km away from the potential A14 route corridor (see Appendix 11-E, Volume 2).

Sub-section B - A1 Brampton Interchange to Godmanchester

The Alternative Proposal option crosses the A1 and passes south of the Buckden South landfill site at approximately the same height as the adjacent landfill.

This alignment then crosses the floodplain, River Great Ouse and the East Coast Mainline Railway on a continuous viaduct structure about 1.2 km long, and 13m above the river at its highest point. The viaduct crosses over the Brampton Meadows County Wildlife Site on the west bank of the river.

The alignment then continues eastwards to join the A1198 south of the Beaconsfield Equestrian Centre at the proposed Godmanchester junction.

Some existing vegetation would be lost to the scheme, including vegetation legally protected by a Tree Preservation Order on Brampton Road, riverside trees and mature tree belts and hedgerows on the A1198.

Designated Sites and Notable Habitats

There are no internationally/ nationally designated site within 1 km of this section of the proposed route.

There are 4 County Wildlife Sites (CWS) within 1 km of the boundary of this section of the proposed route - Brampton Flood Meadows, Buckden Gravel Pits, River Great Ouse and the Settling Bed east of Silver Street.

This alignment involves the take of arable land and hedgerows, and crosses the Great Ouse Valley, with is major watercourse, and the associated flood meadows at Brampton Meadows.

Legally Protected and Notable Species

Within this section of the route there is the following legally protected species interest:

Amphibians and Great Crested Newts: Common frog and common toad potentially present anywhere in suitable habitat (e.g. watercourses, field margins, hedge bottoms and gardens). There are 20 water bodies present within 500m of the route within this section. None of these waterbodies will be directly impacted by this route option. There are three desk study records of Great Crested Newt from between the northern edge of the route corridor and Godmanchester, but no records from the waterbodies themselves. Fifteen of these waterbodies are recommended for Great Crested Newt presence/absence survey as part of the Stage 3 assessment (see Appendix 11-I, Volume 2 and Figures 11.12 to 11.16, Volume 3).

Badgers: Five active badger setts are located along this section of the route corridor. One of these setts has been present since the 1950s. One sett will potentially be directly impacted by this route option, lying 5m from the route. Based on observer experience, it is recommended that setts lying within 350m of the proposed route option are recommended for further survey work (see Appendix 11-C, Volume 2 and Figures 11.22 to 11.26, Volume 3).

Bats: Potential commuting, foraging and roosting habitats present:

• lagoons along Van Diemen's Lane adjacent to the Ouse Valley Way and the River Great Ouse offer good foraging habitat;
• along River Great Ouse (excellent commuting/foraging corridor);
• hedgerow adjacent to river has occasional mature willows with medium potential for roosting bats;
• railway line on east side of the river is bordered by mature trees (willows, ash and oaks) with medium bat roosting potential; and
• mature vegetation along with the cattle grazed pasture (flood meadows)the edge of the railway line (good commuting/foraging habitat)

Two pipistrelle roosts are known from the eastern end of Brampton village and a noctule roost close to existing A14 at Godmanchester (see Appendix 11-D, Volume 2 and Figures 11.17 to 11.21, Volume 3).

Birds: Buckden Gravel Pits, a County Wildlife Site was formerly of considerable ornithological importance, but collation of current data is required to determine the current level of interest. A total of 87 bird species were recorded within the route corridor (e.g within 500m of the proposed route options along proposed 'off-line section'). Within this section of the route, eight red list species were considered probable breeders - skylark, linnet, starling, house sparrow, song thrush, turtle dove, corn bunting, reed bunting and yellowhammer. There were two Schedule 1 species (barn owl and kingfisher) recorded from this section (see Appendix 11-L, Volume 2 and Figures 11.27 to 11.31, Volume 3).

Birds: Buckden Gravel Pits, a County Wildlife Site was formerly of considerable ornithological importance, but collation of current data is required to determine the current level of interest. A total of 87 bird species were recorded within the route corridor (e.g within 500m of the proposed route options along proposed 'off-line section'). Within this section of the route, eight red list species were considered probable breeders - skylark, linnet, starling, house sparrow, song thrush, turtle dove, corn bunting, reed bunting and yellowhammer. There were two Schedule 1 species (barn owl and kingfisher) recorded from this section (see Appendix 11-L, Volume 2 and Figures 11.27 to 11.31, Volume 3).

Hazel Dormouse: No records from this area and no suitable habitat likely to be impacted (see Appendix 11-H, Volume 2 and Figures 11.7 to 11.11, Volume 3).

Invertebrates: This proposed route option crosses the River Great Ouse and important for the nationally scarce dragonfly Libellula fulva (see Appendix 11-J, Volume 2).

Reptiles: No reptiles were recorded, neither was there any desk study data. This route cuts across the Great Ouse valley and the northern edge of Buckden Gravel Pits County Wildlife Site. The presence of more varied habitat along the Ouse Valley (e.g. floodplain meadows, mature hedges and ditches) offers better scope for reptiles (see Appendix 11-K, Volume 2).

Water Voles: There are two desk study water vole records to the north of the route corridor envelope, from a ditch at the southern edge of Brampton village (see Appendix 11-F, Volume 2 and Figures 11.7 to 11.11, Volume 3).

White-clawed Crayfish: There are currently no known White-clawed crayfish within the study area, although a number of water bodies are potentially suitable for the species, with the only known existing population of White-clawed Crayfish in Cambridgeshire present in a farm reservoir in the Wendy area (Mungovan, in press) c. 20 km away from the potential A14 route corridor (see Appendix 11-E, Volume 2).

Section 2 Godmanchester - Fen Drayton

From the A1198 Godmanchester junction the alignment crosses open arable farmland in deep cutting to Mere Way where it converts to low 2m embankment and continues eastwards to join the existing A14 at Trinity Foot.

This section of this route would mainly cut across arable land, but would involve the removal of sections of hedgerow along the route.

Designated Sites and Notable Habitats

There is no internationally/nationally designated site within 1 km of this section of the proposed route.

There is 1 County Wildlife Sites (CWS) within 1 km of the boundary of this section of the proposed route - Fenstanton Pits (West End Pits).

The key habitats affected by this section of the route option will be arable fields and associated hedgerows, and minor watercourses.

Legally Protected and Notable Species

Within this section of the route there is the following legally protected species interest:

Amphibians and Great Crested Newts: Common frog and common toad potentially present anywhere in suitable habitat (e.g. watercourses, field margins, hedge bottoms and gardens). There are 31 water bodies present within 500m of the route within this section. There are desk study records of Great Crested Newt from south of Fenstanton at TL 311 679 and from Conington village at TL 321 662. Twenty-five of these water bodies are recommended for survey as part of the Stage 3 assessment. One of these water bodies are not recommended for survey as part of the Stage 3 assessment. Five of these water bodies were not accessed (see Appendix 11-I, Volume 2 and Figures 11.12 to 11.16, Volume 3).

Badgers: Six active badger setts are located along this section of the route corridor, along with three outlier setts. Desk study setts were recorded from one location. Two badger road casualties (from the northern edge of the existing A14) were recorded during the period July 2003-July 2004. The closest sett to this route is an outlier, lying at 50m distant from the current A14. Based on observer experience, it is recommended that setts lying within 350m of the proposed route option are recommended for further survey work (see Appendix 11-C, Volume 2 and Figures 11.22 to 11.26, Volume 3).

Bats: Commuting corridors/foraging habitat and potential roosting sites present at:

• some of the semi-mature trees adjacent to Wood Green Animal Shelter have medium potential for roosting bats (TL 264 680);
• culverted brook under Mere Way has mature ash and oak with some dead limbs and medium potential for roosting bats; also potential commuting corridors here (TL 284 677);
• the old buildings at Linton Farm are the only buildings scheduled to be demolished on any of the route options (TL 290 677). These buildings are all large storage 'sheds' constructed mainly of corrugated metal with wooden support beams. The roofs are open in some sections creating a draught through the buildings. No evidence of bats was observed and the buildings are considered to be unsuitable for roosting bats. No further surveys are considered necessary; and
• line of ash trees with ivy along the B1040 close to where the route crosses, which have low-medium potential for bat roosting (TL 295 675).

Birds: A total of 87 bird species were recorded within the route corridor (e.g within 500m of the proposed route options along proposed 'off-line section'). Within this section of the route, eight red list species were considered probable breeders - skylark, linnet, house sparrow, song thrush, turtle dove, bullfinch, reed bunting and yellowhammer. There was one Schedule 1 species (kingfisher) recorded from this section (see Appendix 11-L, Volume 2 and Figures 11.27 to 11.31, Volume 3).

Birds: A total of 87 bird species were recorded within the route corridor (e.g within 500m of the proposed route options along proposed 'off-line section'). Within this section of the route, eight red list species were considered probable breeders - skylark, linnet, house sparrow, song thrush, turtle dove, bullfinch, reed bunting and yellowhammer. There was one Schedule 1 species (kingfisher) recorded from this section (see Appendix 11-L, Volume 2 and Figures 11.27 to 11.31, Volume 3).

Common Otter: There are no desk study or survey records of otter from this section of the proposed route, although the West Brook, Swavesey Brook and Fenstanton Gravel Pits have potential for otters.

Hazel Dormouse: No records from this area and no suitable habitat likely to be impacted.

Invertebrates: This section of the Alternative Proposal does not impact upon any noteworthy sites of invertebrate interest.

Reptiles: No reptiles were recorded, neither was there any desk study data. As landscape is predominantly arable, there is limited scope for reptiles, although the presence of hedgerows, scrub and ditches, including the West Brook does offer habitat corridors (see Appendix 11-K, Volume 2).

Water Vole: No water voles were recorded during the surveys, but West Brook, the large ditch running from New Barns Farm, Conington to the existing A14 and Fenstanton Gravel Pits were identified as having good potential for water voles.

Water Vole: No water voles were recorded during the surveys, but West Brook, the large ditch running from New Barns Farm, Conington to the existing A14 and Fenstanton Gravel Pits were identified as having good potential for water voles.

4.6.5 Biodiversity

Refer to EAR.

4.6.6 Nature Conservation Evaluation

The evaluation of the nature conservation sites outlined above was undertaken according to TAG, with the scores recorded in a TAG biodiversity worksheet (Appendix 11-B, Volume 2). These scores relate to the value of a habitat in terms of its importance in an international, national, regional/county, local (parish) or sub-local (ie negligible) context.

The presence of species can also be evaluated using TAG, although due to the level of information available at this stage of the assessment, it is not appropriate to evaluate populations to this degree. However, the presence of legally protected species is likely to be evaluated as being of somewhere between county and international importance, depending on the regularity of its occurrence and the population size.

4.6.7 Key Issues

There are a number of key potential ecological impacts associated with road building and widening schemes, namely:

• Direct loss of sites and/or habitats of national or county value;
• Disturbance to sites and/or habitats of national or county value, resulting in a reduction in quality or an increase in the vulnerability of that habitat;
• Adverse impacts on legally protected species and notable species;
• Reduction in water quality of watercourses crossed by the scheme;
• Severance and fragmentation of habitats

4.6.8 Mitigation

There are a range of mitigation measures that can be used that are appropriate to both the ecological value of the features present and the extent and magnitude of any impacts associated with the proposals.

DIRECT LOSS OF SITES AND/OR HABITATS OF NATIONAL OR COUNTY VALUE

Refer to EAR.

DISTURBANCE TO SITES AND/OR HABITATS OF NATIONAL OR COUNTY VALUE

Refer to EAR.

IMPACTS ON LEGALLY PROTECTED SPECIES AND NOTABLE SPECIES

Refer to EAR.

4.6.9 Overall Assessment of Alternative Proposal

The magnitude and significance of impacts of the Alternative Proposal on the known ecological features were assessed in accordance with TAG and recorded in the TAG biodiversity worksheets. Ease of mitigation is taken into account in the magnitude of impact score

The result of the assessment is an overall assessment score for each option. This section summarises, and attempts to provide a rationale for, the results of the assessment for each option.

The following points should be noted in relation to the ecological assessment:

• No account has been taken of lighting as there is no indication of the extent of lighting, or whether there would be any differences between the options;
• Account is taken of the ease of mitigation, but detailed mitigation measures are not known at this stage;
• Good construction practice is assumed, for example as described above in terms of generic ecological mitigation;
>
• The assessment score may change to a higher adverse impact when fuller information is available on the activity and distribution of legally protected species;
• The assessment score may change either way when precise information is available on the quality of habitats and species that would be affected at designated sites.

In relation to determining the overall assessment score, TAG guidance states that, usually, the option should be scored in the most negative category of the sites scored. The guidance note then goes on to say, however, that some judgement may be required to derive an overall score that fairly represents the effects of the scheme as a whole.

For this scheme, the overall assessment score has been arrived at by taking into account the most negative category, the number of sites that would be affected to that extent and the total number of sites that would experience adverse impacts.

For this scheme, the overall assessment score has been arrived at by taking into account the most negative category, the number of sites that would be affected to that extent and the total number of sites that would experience adverse impacts.

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL

It is predicted that there would be (a large adverse impact on one feature (Arthur's Meadow SSSI) - potentially deleted as accommodation works amended), a moderate adverse impact on one feature (Buckden Gravel Pits CWS), slight adverse impacts on nine features, 11 neutral impacts and three unknown impacts (see TAG worksheets). The section of this route between Godmanchester and the existing A14 would mainly cut across arable land, but would involve the removal of sections of hedgerow along the route, and there is a County Wildlife Site (CWS) within 1 km of this section of the route - Fenstanton Pits (West End Pits). (There is currently a proposed shared accommodation track associated with the Alternative Proposal passing through the northern part of Arthur's Wood SSSI - again potentially delete).

It is predicted that there would be (a large adverse impact on one feature (Arthur's Meadow SSSI) - potentially deleted as accommodation works amended), a moderate adverse impact on one feature (Buckden Gravel Pits CWS), slight adverse impacts on nine features, 11 neutral impacts and three unknown impacts (see TAG worksheets). The section of this route between Godmanchester and the existing A14 would mainly cut across arable land, but would involve the removal of sections of hedgerow along the route, and there is a County Wildlife Site (CWS) within 1 km of this section of the route - Fenstanton Pits (West End Pits). (There is currently a proposed shared accommodation track associated with the Alternative Proposal passing through the northern part of Arthur's Wood SSSI - again potentially delete).

4.6.10 CHUMMS Strategy versus Alternative Proposal

The main differences in impact between the CHUMMS Strategy and the Alternative Proposal are assessed below.

The Alternative Proposal requires a number of access tracks and accommodation works tracks along the existing A14. Outline proposals have been produced to date, however they will be subject to further design development.

It is not considered that the provision of the access tracks will have additional negative impacts on biodiversity. (Text to be added if impacts on Arthur's Wood SSSI) The majority of these new accommodation routes impact upon agricultural land and, in a number of cases, located close to the existing A14 route. One site (check with Tony Stones - is this Arthur's Wood?) of nature conservation interest will be directly impacted, and neither known badger setts nor ponds with the potential for supporting great crested newts will be directly impacted. There will be some loss of hedgerows associated with the development of these options.

The CHUMMS Strategy involves the reconfiguration of the existing A14 in the location of the existing Huntingdon viaduct. There is additional land take associated with this option, as opposed to the Alternative Proposal which sees like-for-like replacement of the viaduct. This additional land take involves the take of part of a car park and part of Mill Common to the south of the existing A14, and some loss of brownfield land and the realignment into Views Common to the north of the existing A14. On the basis of existing information, it is not considered that there will be significant additional loss of biodiversity as a result of this re-configuration.

The CHUMMS Strategy and Alternative Proposal shows the following variations from previous schemes (between Ellington and Fen Drayton):

• On both the CHUMMS Strategy and the Alternative Proposal, the introduction of a free flow interchange at Fen Drayton will result in additional land take, including the loss of parts of two hedgerows, and the loss of a small field of semi-improved grassland; the remainder of the land impacted would be arable land. The impact upon biodiversity as a result of this free flow interchange is therefore more adverse;
• Removal of the Trinity Foot junction and replacement by local access road junction - this change does not materially alter the overall adverse biodiversity impacts of the junction; and
• An additional local access road west of Trinity Foot on the south side of the existing A14 would result in the loss of additional existing vegetation.

The CHUMMS Strategy will result in one moderate adverse impact on one feature, slight adverse impacts on 9 features, 15 neutral impacts and 3 unknown impacts.

4.6.11 Conclusions

The overall assessment of the predicted adverse impacts on biodiversity indicates that both the Alternative Proposal and the CHUMMS Strategy will have Moderate Adverse impacts on biodiversity (additional text to be added and category changed if Arthur's Wood impacted). The impacts include the direct loss of habitat, habitat severance and fragmentation, changes in water quality in watercourses, and disturbance from traffic noise and enhanced lighting to animal species.

Both the Alternative Proposal and the CHUMMs Strategy directly affect a County Wildlife Site - Buckden Gravel Pits CWS.

However, it is not considered that the overall impacts of the Alternative Proposal will be more adverse than the impacts from the CHUMMS Strategy.

Mitigation of adverse impacts on biodiversity during construction and operation is possible by careful planning and design and by the imposition of stringent environmental conditions during construction.

Compensation of the residual impacts that cannot be mitigated (such as loss of habitat, severance and habitat fragmentation) must be taken into account for any option. Off-site habitat creation and habitat translocation is strongly recommended in conjunction with long-term habitat management and enhancement either as part of the Highways Agency soft estate or through financial agreements with landowners and occupiers.

4.6.12 Recommendations for Further Work

Refer to EAR.